Ep. 86 - Mining Your Life, Digging up Films

Kent: 0:28

Hi, welcome to this podcast episode, and we're so glad that you are here. And today we want to talk a little bit about, something that's been on my mind, sort of, and we just want to have a discussion about it. I think it's important because. it's key in my mind to two things, making movies. In general. That are. Both personal and relatable and authentic. But I think it's also applies to making first features. because we really believe in making films that are very producible and. And that can be difficult because sometimes, sometimes I think when we want to make films, it's hard for me sometimes when I sit down. The best ideas feel very expensive sometimes. And, that can be kind of frustrating. And there's the old adage write what you know, and that can also be frustrating sometimes. sometimes it feels a little maybe on the nose or. Familiar. You know, like I've, there's nothing interesting about my life or about my story. Or about whatever. so we want to have a discussion about that this evening. I'm going to, we're going to maybe do this a little bit more of a casual back and forth. And so I'll ask Anna some questions and she might ask me some questions if, if she thinks of any. but we want to kind of. Take this in almost an interview fashion. And I'm going to interview animals about the films that she has worked on so far, especially the first feature that she directed. And, scripts that she's writing. Now, we won't get into super specifics about those movies, but just about her experience and

Anna: 2:01

yes. This episode is directed by Kent.

Kent: 2:03

Okay. So the, the first question I have Ana. You know, there's this dichotomy of like, I guess fantasy that feels like detached, like almost like a story that feels detached or impersonal. And then there's like autobiography, I guess, on the, Far extreme, other side of that. I feel like you and I have always made films that are close enough, that we worry that people will think that they're autobiography. our first short that we co-directed and the feature that you directed. even films that you're writing right now, I think sometimes we worry, like how much of this will be inspired. By reality. In fact, am I putting too much reality in there that people are going to assume that these other things that maybe aren't reality? I guess my question is. Do you approach that consciously to these ideas? That maybe are more personal, just come to you as like, oh, it's a good idea. I want to explore it. Or, is it like a, like a conscious tactic? Like. I'm going to mind my own personal. Brain or history. How do you approach that? Or do you even think about it?

Anna: 3:04

Yeah, I think it's really essential to me to make whatever I'm making as personal as it can possibly And almost any story. I can do that with, if I have enough creative freedom, you know, there might be certain stories where there just isn't enough freedom available for me to make it personal the way I would want to. And I might say no to a project like that. If I don't feel like I can. Take it that direction, but I think. There's stories about all kinds of things and all kinds of genres that are personal to me. and really it's just a thematic thing. I think it has less to do with. The circumstances of the film, although, because we started out with resource filmmaking, the circumstances tend to be. Very similar to our own because we're using our own house, our own children, like.

Kent: 3:53

It adds to the autobiographical

Anna: 3:55

feel Naturally leads to people saying, oh, is this about you? Is this. A personal story and I can see why they would ask that. And it is. I do try to make it personal. But not about me. In fact, I think it's often kind of a philosophical. Exploration for me personally, where I'm, I want a character to represent maybe one side of an argument and another other characters perhaps to represent another side. And explore how those two interact, how they clash, how they sometimes want the same thing. and a story is a really great place to. Explore that debate between things and find sort of a synthesis or a conclusion or. play it, just let it play it, play out all the way and see what happens.

Kent: 4:46

Yeah. That's interesting. It does seem like it's like if we put these two characters into our lives, And it sounds like you kind of were like insert these people that aren't us into our lives. I just see what they do and play it out to the end. That's

Anna: 5:00

sometimes. Yeah. I don't know if it's always into our lives. It's

Kent: 5:03

just, I never thought of it that way, but it's like kind of

Anna: 5:05

with our first few films.

Kent: 5:07

Our house

Anna: 5:07

with our kids. Because that's, we're using our

Kent: 5:10

resources. And with the short ready or not, we, we also, there was a baby that was belonged to us. That was featured in that particular film. And, it was our friend's house. Not ours. But regardless, there was some issues there that were interesting, but they, and yet those characters were like extremely different than us. They were just, they didn't represent us. No. that's interesting. and so. I feel like. I think about the films that we love, and I guess there are some that you particularly really love and there's some that I really love. And they're not always the But I'll think of a few of your favorites. Like for example, Lala land has made by shizzle, Damien. who. I mean, he's known for making pretty personal films. And yet I think whiplash is probably his most personal.

Anna: 5:56

It might be as most autobiographical, but I do feel like his films actually. Tend to explore similar themes and themes that I'm interested in, which tend to do with. People who are trying to accomplish something. That's a huge goal. Like they have goals that they want that are big going to the moon. Yeah, and they're trying to do it. And it's always this question of, is it worth the sacrifice? Is it worth the sacrifices? And I mean, in his films, they always choose to do it. Despite everything they lose. And I think that there's some realism to that and that you can't have all the things you want necessarily in life that would be sort of a fantasy or an unrealistic story. At the same time, it is something that I'm constantly. Thinking about because. I don't want to sacrifice my relationships for But I do want to make a difference and I want to make films that I care about. And so. There is sort of that question in my own mind of, you know, at what point is it too much and how much success can you have without sacrificing those things? So it's a slightly different question. But I think what he's exploring is what does it take to have that level of success to be the best at something? What does it cost or to be the first on the moon or to be, you know, to have that dream, you have. Wanted since you were a child come true. And, and then ultimately is it worth it? And sometimes I think he's even leaving it up to the audience to decide. Was it worth What do you think? he doesn't always. Answer it super

Kent: 7:38

clearly. So, Based on interviews and stuff. I think we can know that. whiplash came from a very personal place, even Lala land. There was some personal stuff. I think he was kind of putting into that film and he's even said in interviews like. When I feel scared, like I can't write this or all my friends will just say, oh, Damian, you just make movies about yourself. He's like, that's what I know. I should write it. You know, I don't know if that's maintained, like as much truth as he's made like first man and he's made more stuff. but like, shifting directions, like I think of a film that you love, like Anna Karenina, for example, Joe, right. he loves literature apparently and whatnot. But he really didn't come up with the idea. He's not a writer director, even. He didn't even write the script. It's an adaptation of the Leo Tolstoy novel. Leo Tolstoy. It was a male writing a story about a female experiencing the social repercussions of adultery. It's an interesting story, right? Like why. You know, that film feels very authentic to me, it feels very honest. It's powerful. Just the it's source material is, is remarkable and has had ripples through culture, So, I guess my question is. Is it the only way, maybe it's a bad example because obviously it's not a resource filmmaking kind of film ma in some ways it is, but for the sake of feature filmmaker academy, it is not, it does not fit the definition of resource Yeah. It's a$30 million movie with a list actors and incredible art design cinematography. It's it's w it's out there. It's next level. it's beautiful. So, I guess my question is like, What are the rules that can be broken and what are the principles that must be followed, you know, like in your mind, How do you balance that? I guess. the existence, I suppose, of films that are not necessarily autobiographical or even. Very personal, unless Leo Tolstoy experienced. Some side of something like that, which I know nothing about Leo Tolstoy is life, but let's just assume he And I think that that's just an okay assumption to make, because we know that there are people Have made incredible films that. Maybe aren't like mining. Like, you know, they're not very close to that autobiographical side of, of that spectrum, I guess, how did What's your perspective

Anna: 9:54

I don't know, I guess I think of. Anna Karenina is something that's almost. A universal experience. It's hard for me to imagine him not being able to relate to. Obviously, I mean, not all of us have had affairs, but, this interplay or this comparison of love versus lust, or like how to love and lust. Interact. Or do they. you have a relationship that. Is. A marriage of convenience of marriage, of class, where there's. Some degree of love. But not And no less. And then you have this relationship that is built on the foundation of lust and deception. Contrasted with another relationship that is built on a foundation of love and commitment and sacrifice. And I just think. I don't know to me, that's like a theme that I am really interested Is. Like. True love and. What that looks And the consequences of. Lest. Hmm. And what the differences.

Kent: 11:02

It's interesting that you're like almost working backwards, like trying to use a story to. Break apart. thesis into its component parts, you know, as if it was the synthesis. And you're trying to find a thesis and antithesis out of that, What is love? What is lust? And I say you because you're describing Tolstoy in that way, but I also know that you explore films this way, like you just described you're trying to define those things by throwing them into scenarios, you know, and seeing like, how does love behave? How does Les behave? And. How does kitty and Constantine look, you know, how do, Ana and. What's his name? Brunswick, Bronzeville, whatever I'm stroking my mustache. And so. It's That's an interesting idea that, you know, and it is like a very theoretical way, but you don't, watch the story and go, there's a bunch of theories in this movie. You're like there's characters, right? They feel fleshed out and very real. And that brings me to this idea of like, misappropriation, which is a topic and storytelling, which we're all very worried about. Like, you can only tell like autobiographical stories, otherwise you're being like sexist or racist or stepping out of bounds in some way. And I'm wondering what your feelings are there because we have professors, I think, We had professors on like opposite sides of that and friends as well, who have. S some writer, friends in, particularly who have kind of bounced around on different camps Like we need more female directors or we need more. Directors in these minority, Like who can speak from the perspective of the minority. On a personal level. As opposed to like, And yet that's almost turned into, therefore you can't tell that story. Otherwise it's misappropriation. And so I guess for you, like, what is misappropriation? Is it real. And If, so what, what doesn't count is misappropriation, I guess like for you. Do you even think about

Anna: 12:57

that or? No, I think that's a good question. I don't really believe in telling people that they can't tell any story that they feel like they can tell. But I might not relate You know, I see lots of films with portrayals of mothers. That I don't relate And it doesn't mean that no one relates to them. Maybe some people But a lot of times I watch them and feel like I don't. I think that this person either knows what it's like to be a mother or has had the same experience with parenthood as I've had. If any experience with parenthood. and so I think it can be very powerful. Two. If you're telling a story, that's thematically related to a specific. Experience that you understand deeply. That can be really powerful to tell that story and to introduce people into that world in a way that maybe. They have never experienced,

Kent: 13:52

That's really interesting. We have a dear mentor and professor. Who lost his wife? And I think it's really interesting because he. he could pick out. Disingenuous stuff. Anything relating to that sort of an experience. A deep, personal human loss of any kind. Usually a death. I remember there was something, there was a S a student piece that I made that related to a man losing his wife. And that moment of discovery. And I remember that that was one of the things that he was like, his behavior in that, that moment, that shot right there, he goes. That's not. How he would have behaved. And I think he came from it. With some authority and you might think, well, maybe a different person other than you would have behaved differently. but it's, he was right. To be Frank. Watching it on screen and going. Okay. Yeah. I mean, you could argue that maybe like another character could, but like this character. I think this professor understood this character better than I did. Right. And I could see it. I could see what he was saying. It wasn't, it wasn't just a. That's what he would've done. It's a. It's almost an implausibility error, the specific way that he responded versus the realistic ways that someone would respond in that scenario, getting that news. You know, on that day, you know, it's like, and it made sense to me. And he also said this about the movie of monster calls, which, it's not a big bash. It's actually really interesting. He said. I watched that film. This is I'm speaking, I guess, on behalf of him. He was basically saying that he'd watched the film and he expressed his feelings that, oh, this director clearly has never experienced a loss like this. That's a film about a young boy who's experiencing the slow. Decline and death of his mother from, I think cancer. And he said it was very evident to me that the director had not experienced And just, just watching the movie, he could And then he said the later he listened to interviews from the director And the book really did seem to take this angle of like a loss of faith. And the boy and this sort of like difficult cynicism that was brewing in him because of this loss. And yet the movie touched on it, but it just didn't seem to quite. Capture it. And then he said that the director says in an interview, basically that this film wasn't a film about loss. It was a coming of That's how he took the film. That's how he directed it, right? Yeah. And he was like, oh, okay. So that's what it was interesting to him about this story. Like it was, it wasn't even a film about loss for him, and yet it was a story. Literally about loss, right? so is that misappropriation? Well, not really. It's just like approaching it differently, but it's true that like we, as human beings come with our own affordances and limitations because of our own life perspectives. I bring that up because a tall story, right? He's a man, but he's running about a woman having an affair in this society. That's going to be very difficult

Anna: 16:47

And I actually think it's so. Good and healthy for us to try. To make films and try to understand people who are different than us. And we might, and we have to accept that we might be wrong. We might not portray it perfectly. We might have errors or people might not relate to it, but I think that. We learn, we learn about other people. And we even where we fall short, we start to see and understand the people around us, which ultimately is a good result. You know, that is Discussion to be able to have, or result to be able to obtain through filmmaking. I think filmmaking can be very charitable and acting and, you know, whatever. Whey you're involved in filmmaking being able to. Try to put yourself in someone else's shoes and relate to that person and understand them, even if you don't agree with them. taking Anna Karenina again, as an example. Anna is a character that I can relate to, to some degree. Although, I wouldn't make the choices that she had And I see the consequences of those choices and I don't. Envy her, but. At the same time. I think it's good for me to be able to understand someone who might make that mistake and. Experiences those difficulties and it's a cautionary tale to a degree. at least that's my reading of it. so I, I just think, I think miss

Kent: 18:14

appropriately, Anyone who could read it? And be like this, this, this is, this is a story. This is a bird. Just about how great. Clearly it is. All your heart. And leave that terrible man that you're with. No, I don't think it's trying to do that. I mean, there might even be situations where someone might be able to tell that, but I just don't know how you can read that out of Anna Corona.

Anna: 18:35

Yeah. And there's been many versions of that story. So maybe other versions of trailer

Kent: 18:40

of the Joe Wright We'll be sure is that version that you're talking about it like. The greatest love story ever told. Marketing. Yeah.

Anna: 18:49

Yeah, I think misappropriation. In my mind is when you're not coming from that place of trying to understand. Somebody. But you are trying to portray them. Like if you're not doing it charitably, if you're not taking the time to do your research, to really try to understand a person or you're trying to do an expos a or you have some sort of the research, isn't just like this. It's

Kent: 19:11

a box to check. The research is like, Because of genuine curiosity or even love for your subject material, right? Like it's

Anna: 19:19

like, you have to love your character. Like, even if you don't agree with what they It just doesn't do them justice to try to tell their story from a place of seeing them. As evil and ill intended. And that's a kind of filmmaking that I. Don't love. I think Mike

Kent: 19:37

sure. Quoted someone. I can't remember who he quoted. But he's the creator of the off? Well he's, he was one of the lead writers on the office and he was creative parks and rec and the good place. And we met him and he, at one point he I'm at a writer's conference at BYU. And he said he quoted someone, I believe. I don't think this was him speaking for himself. As I'm saying, if you don't love your characters, you have no business writing them. Yeah. Or maybe that was the director of a parks and rec not parks and rec. Sorry. I just said that. Of a Portlandia. He might've been the one to say that, but, but that was like a theme of that conference. Many of the, of the guests in that conference, including. Mike. We're talking about that. Absolute necessity that like, if you don't have like a loving. Disposition towards these characters. Like, they're not even going to be good characters. You know, it's like, there's, there's really nothing there for you to do. With

Anna: 20:30

them well, and it's usually, I think when you don't love the characters, it's coming from a, you're making this film with an agenda

Kent: 20:37

of some sort, which kind of strips it of authenticity that we were talking about in the first place.

Anna: 20:42

Yeah. Being able to relate. So that to me is what misappropriation is. I could tell a story male who's in a totally different situation than I am totally different race than I am, whatever. And it could be deeply personal to me and I can relate to that person's experience or their way of viewing the world. And I think. You know, I might mess up a little, I might not be perfect, but I would definitely try to understand. Those parts of that person's heritage or history or circumstances that I don't necessarily know. Yeah. I have some examples of films in my mind, that stories that I feel like I want to tell that I know I would need to do research on because yeah, there are people who are different than me, different cultures, different upbringing, different religion, whatever. But, but

Kent: 21:30

to me that's like a portal. That's an exciting one. This idea of like, like I have a film that I've wanted to tell about, Like. Early. Colonization of Hawaii. And about Hawaiian. Culture and early Hawaiian martial law called kupu. And I remember that one, I, I had some people like. Sort of college students kind of warned me like, oh, that might be misappropriation. And I even had a professor that was like, just tell the dang story. And it's not like a. Just tell it lazy. I mean, this professor is a writer and he would want nothing short of like extreme authenticity, like dig deep and research the jeepers, not just research, but like develop. The characters to the enth degree, right? Like, don't settle for anything less than like immersive immersion, you know? And it's not just for your set, your S. Your sake or the movie sake. but it is for the movie sake and I, and you wouldn't be able to make the film without support. From. The people that you were portraying. You know, and then they would become the filmmakers themselves. And so it's like, we act like the director or the writer, like the authors and in a lot of ways, they are very principle authors of a film and they're important authors of a film. And yet Ron Howard just made a film about, people in Taiwan. And called 13 lives, remarkable film that portrays Europeans. They are Anglo-Saxon white males, but they're not Americans like Ron Howard is. And, and yet the movie was produced by time by Thai people. And it's majority cast is Thai. And almost none of the cast. Or even the characters are American. Like, and so there's a huge mix, but the story is kind of a mixed story, but it portrays all these things. So charitably and respectfully, it's a deeply respectful film and you can feel that on every level, like it has this respect for humanity, for human life, for all the different countries. And cultures. There were involved all the different professions of the, agricultural, farmer. Rescue team Navy seal military You know, government. Yeah, it just didn't look down on and he wasn't, no one was the bad guy in that film. It was just. It was just Incredible movie that I think. Really disproves, maybe. A blanketed view of misappropriation. So, I guess that's hopefully not a tangent, but for me, it's just, it's this permission to tell stories that feel resonant on a thematic level. Like you said it doesn't matter what the subject matter is. if it's about. A group of people that maybe you don't fit into in some way, which I think almost every story in some way, detaches itself from you at some point. At least the characters. We'll unless it's literally autobiographical. then pull in people who are maybe closer to that. And pull them into the movie, you know, whether it's the actors or producers or, or whoever. And I think of cocoa, right. It's made by an American company. And yet it was the highest grossing film. Of all time. In Mexico. Because I think the Mexicans felt like the film did it. Respectfully and it was done, right. It was done deeply charitably. And yet I am not Mexican. I do know Spanish and I have a lot of Mexican friends and I have. Deep love for that culture. But I haven't even been to Mexico. No, but you know, very much in my life. And yet. That's one of the most emotionally impactful films I've ever seen. I I'm just gonna say that without any shame. They're like a Pixar movie that's aimed at ten-year-olds or even younger. Is one of my favorite films. Because it relates to me in ways that the filmmakers have no idea. Could relate to me. Yeah. It relates to me on a theological level, as a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. about families, you know, eternal families and those you eternity or the eternal relationship. or the eternal nature of those relationships. I mean, And I think it actually expresses a better than any film I've ever seen ever. It's including all films made by people of my faith, right? Like, I don't, I don't think we've ever been able to express. Emotionally and narratively. The importance. and depth of that relationship, as well as that film, which is about. what many Christians would call a pagan holiday? And so I just think that's really actually. I think that's really cool. I think it's exciting. And I think it's charitable and there were a ton of Mexican and otherwise Latin American or Hispanic. Members of that team that made the film. But, A lot of the lead players were probably white. Men and women like not even necessarily fluent Spanish.

Anna: 26:10

So yeah, I think there are many examples of this where. Often even someone from an outside perspective can tell the story even better and appreciate it even more than someone who's inside of it. I think of, A few examples come to mind. I think, well, one is Ford versus Ferrari, which I think is people who don't love cars. and it's a movie about cars. And the director was not someone who was super into car races.

Kent: 26:35

He didn't like NASCAR culture in general. He's like, I just don't like NASCAR that I frankly interesting. I frankly, don't even like, Forties that I would buy a Ferrari before I'd buy, like the, the GT that they drive in the movie.

Anna: 26:48

But I think he did a great job. Making that story personal and interesting. And. the other one that comes to mind is pursuit of happiness. Which is a beautiful film about the American And yet it was made by someone who was not an American. I'm not able to speak English. Directed directed. Yeah. And yet I think he captured. The American dream and he spoke English.

Kent: 27:14

But not as his native language to mean. I was like, I'm pretty sure. And he's pumped

Anna: 27:20

and I just think. I actually think he was able to do that better because he was not an American because he could see that from an outside perspective. That appreciates it more than most of us do, who grow up

Kent: 27:33

in it. And what's interesting is we're not Peachtree city, locals, but we live in Peachtree city, Georgia, which is like, do you guys ever see the movie jaws? it's a little film made by a 27 year old named Steven Spielberg. there's a great little line in there where they're talking about island life. And they're like, I think I've lived here for like 10 years and I'm like, aren't high a logo and they're like, no, you're not a local as you were born here. It's just I remember, like it's like a background conversation. Like some extras are having or something. but it was intentional. You were meant to hear the conversation, but I just. That, that idea of like this. Tight sort of community that's like really special and everyone wants to feel like. They're indigenous somehow, you know, of that cool little beach town, but you know, very few of them actually are. And so there's this kind of pride that exists. And I feel like. We live in a place kind of like that, like Peachtree city has got this pride and most of us are transplants almost. None of us really grew up here. Although a lot of people. Here. Did grow up here and a lot of people stay or come back after, you know, college education, they raise their families here because it's such a family place. So we were hired to make a commercial for Peachtree city and we took it in a very narrative route. And I just think about how you mentioned earlier, like even projects that come to you, you judge it based on, can I bring. A personal point of view to this in a way that I feel like. I am. Injecting. Myself into it. There's like me. That can breathe life into this thing, And, and so when I got that, I was like, well, this is a place that I really love and I'm coming from it from an immigrant perspective, so to speak, you know, like I'm I've never lived in Georgia at all the state in my life. I hadn't even visited Georgia. You know, I'd probably driven through it is all. When I was like tiny. And so you, you, you bring a different perspective there and that's not necessarily. Not necessarily a bad thing. I guess what you're saying is that not even comes with some strengths

Anna: 29:26

in advantage. So you look at young people, who've grown up here. Even our own children are starting to grow up here and just think, oh, all cities are this way they take for granted what makes this city special? Because it's just all they've ever known. It's like Woody,

Kent: 29:39

Allen's midnight in Paris, right? It's his love letter to a place that he loves, that he is no way a citizen Actually William might have dual citizenship for all I know, but, but he's not indigenous. Leave French. Right? He's just not, he's not French. He's American. And no matter what he wishes. That's just the fact. And yet French people. Love movies that talk about how great Frances, right? Like, especially if they're made from an outside perspective, don't we all prefer conversion stories. Like. Christians love stories about people who were like way on like the fringes of the most not Christian And they become Christian. And you can say that about any religion, any country. We just love the stories of the people Come here. And, you know, and in a lot of ways, America is a story of immigration and we love stories about. That perspective of like people falling in love with yeah. Making this their home or, yeah. Yeah. And so in some ways I think that that, that love thing comes back. It's not even just love for your. Characters that have flesh and blood, but like your. Either literally or proverbially for proverbially. but also your, Subject matter on any level, like if your subject manner is a country or a place or a religion or, whatever it, you can make films that try and tear things down or, or. Appreciate the value and the goodness in. Whatever that thing is like even native religions that most of us as Western people would consider to be superstitious. Ron Howard depicts them. Very charitably in the movie, 13 lives and to the point where some Christians had issue with it, because they were like, it shows idol worship or whatever. And it's like, It was respectfully showing. Some of the driving faith of people that have a different religion. Than most. Western civilizations. Right. And. I just, I thought it was, it was respectful. I don't think it was trying to convert us to those

Anna: 31:36

religions. No, it didn't have an agenda to do anything, but it was loving and trying to understand and appreciate. Something that was different than Ron Howard Convictions or whatever

Kent: 31:46

those are. I don't really know. Isn't that interesting that like, I think that sometimes because. Like we're people of faith. And I think that often people will face in any degree. or people have strong convictions who aren't even people of faith, whether those convictions are political or religious or, or just personal in some way. the, when those convictions become an agenda in our film, it really ruins the film. It ruins the tone and the perspective or point of view of it. It ruins the authenticity of the entire experience. In my opinion, I think. When conversion is the goal. You really do sacrifice authenticity. And I think that's why people of faith often struggle and make authentic films. And I don't, I'm not saying that to be critical. I'm just saying it is like a, something I'm learning from what you said, Ana, that. We often fear to tell stories about things that we don't believe in or that we don't even agree with in a. Respectful or accepting light because we think that that will then become the agenda. Like that will become the perspective of the film. But once again, like you can share to leave portray a different religion or a different Paul political standpoint or a different. Person, you know, whatever in whatever way that difference manifests itself. With deep respect and love. And you're not like. Advocating that person's lifestyle or religion or, or I don't know, country of citizenship Great

Anna: 33:09

example, cause some of the best Christian films are made by people who are not of the same religion as the ones portrayed in the film. If they're made with that intent of being charitable and understanding and appreciating what this person believed and what they were trying to do. Now there are other films that are. Intentionally made to try to dissuade or present an agenda or a bias or. A picture of evil or whatever, Our offensive,

Kent: 33:38

but sacrifice authenticity too. I feel like. And I think that some people criticize. Bad political or religious filmmaking. On one side of the aisle, but I've also seen it on, I've seen it on both. I've seen. Yeah, I've seen kind of. Heavy handed message films. That lose a lot of authenticity because they lose sight of like, The charity for the characters and for the. Perspectives of those characters and, we, we kind of. We turn. our friend who we just had on the podcast, bird Berg, and I pitched the story to him and he said, I told them these characters and this and that and whatever. And he said those aren't characters we, you just described are ideologies. And. It like hit me like a ton of bricks. I was like, he's totally right. You're totally right. I had not really created a character that had like a life and a desire. I created a character that had a point And they basically just lived verbally based on that point of view, I could have made Black white male, female. American European Asian. It just, it wouldn't They would have the same ideology and they would have said the same words. In other words, there was no flesh. There was just no reality or like circumstantiality or. Context to this character, they just were. My words. Of that perspective. Which is that's kind of misappropriation, right? It's like, well, if I had that incorrect perspective, I would say You know, it's like, it's like, it's not really a character. Well,

Anna: 35:08

and it depends on what you're making. I think if you're in a fantasy realm, like you have a little more freedom to explore those kinds of things, where a character could wreck represent. An idea or an archetype or something, but. When it's I think, especially if you're representing. Depicting actual events, actual people, actual religions or cultures. That's when you have to be. Really

Kent: 35:32

careful. Well, but I mean, I'll even flip that. I think that the burden is almost higher when you're making fantasy, because you look at Tolkien and he wrote very few stories in comparison to a lot of novelists. I mean, you're like Gary Paulson, Gary Paulson wrote stories that he knew he was very much into the wilderness. He was into survival. He was into. Coming of age, about 14 year old boys, because he ran away from home at 14 and went to live with us in a circus and they all sort of stuff. He put himself into those stories and he wrote over a hundred novels. Tolkien wrote like very few middle earth pretty much was the main thing that he wrote ever. He didn't write that many books to be Frank compared to most writers. And yet. I think that's because the burden on him was not just research. It was creation and he had to create so much context to the world. He couldn't just go read a book about it. He had to write a book about it and then write That takes place inside the context of the book that he just wrote, you know, like he had to create what is a habit. And, and then flush out what that means. And then the, all the context of Hobbiton culturally and spiritually and mystically and mythologically, you had to create the history and the everything.

Anna: 36:44

I mean it's freedom, but it's, it's also more work. What

Kent: 36:47

are those not archetypes, but are they not flesh and blood characters? I mean, they're totally fleshed out some of the best character writing.

Anna: 36:54

Some of the best archetypal representations ever,

Kent: 36:56

in your opinion, they're both, they're almost the extremes of both, which makes them so powerful. Yeah, that's amazing, but it's kind of a pushback from what you said, like. As if there's an archetype and then there's like a real listic character and I'm like, well, I think those are both.

Anna: 37:10

I think you can achieve a realistic character from an archetype. You could start there. I don't think that's a problem to start there. As long as you are willing to put in the work in time to develop it.

Kent: 37:19

Absolutely. Yeah. It's really fascinating. well to bring it all back. So we started off and I think I want to bring it back to this topic, because I think it's valuable for our listeners, but I also think it's valuable for us. To discuss is just. We're talking about. Films that can be produced with whatever resources we have now. Whether those resources Ourselves or people we know with significant amounts of money or just things. We have access to person, people, places, whatever. How. I guess I want to boil down some principles. Maybe each of us could take a turn. Of. Bringing ourselves. Into something.

Anna: 37:59

and also when you do it, Would you explain to us the title of this podcast? What that means? Cause I'm just curious. What is mining your life? Don't do that now. Just when you okay. Take your turn

Kent: 38:13

at some point. So I guess you go first. Oh, What do you feel like. You've learned. So far about. And maybe that's pretty much what we've just done this whole episode. Summarize. Well from this discussion. And also just from your ex your experience as a filmmaker, as a person, who's written a few scripts and made a few movies and is currently writing a few scripts, you know, Like. What are some principles for approaching? Putting yourself. Into a project or into a film or into a store story. Really? Isn't a story. Or new character or whatever.

Anna: 38:48

I think I've mostly just learned to be more open-minded. About what kinds of stories could be personal to me? I think. There are times in my life where I thought, oh, I could never make a Marvel movie. I could never make like, there's certain kinds of movies that I would never make. I would never make a horror, thriller movies, stuff like And I think I've become more. Open-minded. To say, maybe I could maybe, maybe I could make it personal. you know, maybe there is. Something personal. I can pull from a lot more films Than I. Would initially expect. And so. I've read a lot of scripts from friends who write different kinds of stories than I do. And as I talked to them about the themes and what they're expressing, or even people in the feature filmmaker academy, a lot of people in that academy are making films that are. Not films I would have ever. Chosen to make. And yet. As we. Mentor them through their process of developing the film. I come to see why it's personal to them and what their. Doing with these characters in these stories. And that's been a really enjoyable experience. I think. Yeah. So I think, yeah, I've become more open-minded to. Consider what I could make personal.

Kent: 40:13

That's really cool. I've noticed that in you as well. I think that at first, when we were. In school. I feel like your, your general feeling was like that you'd have to write all the movies you directed. Because. I seem to remember this being your general feeling, or leaning, I should say. and then I started to see that and I've always kind of had the opposite feeling, which is Spielberg didn't write hardly any of the movies. He. Directed, you know, and I'd be happy if like people, if people brought my goal is to be able to make anything that someone brings to me personal. And yet you've actually. Had more written. And given to you, you know, like I wrote the first draft of the love and loss. And I wrote the first draft of ready or not. And there were other projects that we've some haven't materialized, but they were completely written by someone else and they were deeply personal to you. And so I think it's interesting that you've been able to extend that. And I've pretty much written I feel like I haven't really had anyone like Henry script that I'm like, oh yeah, great. I'd love to still do that, but, you know, Something that comes to my mind is Paul Schrader talks about, How to make a spark. You know, out of a positive and negative charge, you have two wires. And, he said, You have a metaphor. And there's the reality or like the literal, which is like, Basically autobiography, right? It's like, it's you. It's your life. It's your personality. And then there's like the metaphor, which is basically the movie you're making. And. The story that you're fabricating the made up make believe stuff. And he said they have to be. And this is his approach. Close enough. That there's a spark. If they're touching. In other words, they intersect. They're like the same thing. At that point, you were just completely making autobiography. He said at that point, It's very hard to be completely honest and authentic because. We don't really want to be that authentic and honest, usually. And once again, this is his approach for himself. He's like, I can't. Just tell the truth about myself in every single regard and explore the themes and the characters and everything freely. But if it's too far apart, you know, if it's super far separated, There's no metaphor, right? It's like, Yeah, or there's no authenticity at all, because it's so far removed from the story that you're telling you, you are so detached from the He said when, when the, when the distance is just right. It's just make believe enough. That you can freely explore it and be honest about, well, this is what the character would do, and this is what would happen. This is how he just let the story tell itself. But there's enough of you in it that it's like, and I can speak from some position of understanding, you know, and. Boy, this last script that I've been working on, that I've got about 20 pages into. I can't even tell you how much just con conceptual development. Had to go into. Starting to be able to even write Before I felt like that distance, the spark hit, you know, I'd put just enough of myself and not just myself, my own theological beliefs, which was a big part of this particular story. Into it, but then I, I just couldn't tell if it was truly exactly the theological. Like, if I was like, I'm just going to go straight up, you know? Pull it out of the scriptures kind of thing, you know? And I just, because I just, I don't know why I couldn't do it. It. The story just didn't go anywhere. It just couldn't breathe. And then I separated it enough that it was basically a fantasy film. It wasn't really a religious film of any existence, religion. and yet if you watched it and you were like, if you shared my religious convictions, you'd watch it and probably go, well, this was obviously made by. Person, who's a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day You know what I mean? And they'd see it, but most people would watch and just go, this is really interesting fantasy film. And I, and it's not like. Battlestar Galactica or anything where they're like, there's like a council of the 12 or anything that like really on the nose. It's like, hopefully not. but it's like, It just metaphorically kind of works in the same way, but yet it's detached enough that it's like, None of us would be like, oh yeah, I believe all those things. No, it's make believe. That's just fake. It's But just the same as like Jr. Tolkien was Catholic. He wasn't. He didn't believe in elves, It's like, and, and it, like, it opened it up enough for me that I felt like. I could be. Authentic. But I could also. You know, I could step out of it enough that I could feel like I could lead it. You know, it wasn't just like me. And myself,

Anna: 44:49

and I think sometimes it's easier to be real and authentic when the story is removed from yourself. Because

Kent: 44:56

I think about that. That's the French man and making the pursuit of happiness. That's the, The the American making. Midnight in Paris. Right?

Anna: 45:05

It's. We're coming back around to that again. And I think it's also just. You don't have to be. So self-conscious when it's not about you. So it lets you be honest. It's like when you're acting, I remember doing acting classes and we'd do a neutral mask exercise where everyone puts on this mask. That's just like a neutral face. And. It's so much easier to be honest and like, Expressive when. No one can see your face because you can't really be self-conscious you feel. Like there's this freedom. To express and not, and you're not yourself. No, one's. It's really hard to explain if you haven't tried it, but it's this idea that when you're hiding yourself, You can be more honest. Do you feel like when you're in a story, that's clearly not. You, you know, it's so separated from. Yourself. That there you can really honestly explore something and not have to be self-conscious that. Oh, everyone's, what's everyone going to think about my face or about my religion or about whatever I'm telling this story about.

Kent: 46:10

Ryan Gosling talked about the power of costume in that same way, where he talked about like watching his uncle bedazzle a suit, he was like an Elvis impersonator. And like, when he put that on, it almost gave him this, like this power or this like release I'm now portraying an idea, you know, like this sort of,

Anna: 46:28

yeah. Characterization range pelvis. It's so powerful. I was just on a set. There was a sixties film and everyone was wearing sixties clothing and it was Halloween Yeah, well, but it was incredible. It wasn't, I

Kent: 46:41

mean, know what I mean? Like it has the same effect. It was like a Halloween costume. No,

Anna: 46:45

I've never felt that with a Halloween costume, but I haven't, I'm not really a big. Halloween person, but

Kent: 46:50

you haven't truly experienced.

Anna: 46:54

But wearing this sixties outfit with a bunch of other people wearing the same kind of clothing. It was amazing how. Easily. I felt like I was a different character and I. Felt myself. Acting kind of differently because I was dressed differently. It's strange, but. Yeah. I think with storytelling. You want to make something personal? But it's okay if it's removed from your own personal life and in a way that can really help you explore and understand other people. be really honest and sincere. And still not. Have it be too close to home in a way that's, doesn't let you be honest because you're It's hard to explain, but well,

Kent: 47:39

and everyone's gonna be a little different, cause I've seen some people make stuff that is really deeply personal and they're really good at it. Like it's a lot closer. Like for them to spark is. A much shorter distance, you know? Then for me. And for others, it's like even bigger. You know, it's like, I'm not writing a high fantasy, like Tolkien. Like I have not done as much world-building as he has, like not even close and. And for him at that huge distance, like, I don't think anyone. Who in the Lord of the rings? Is Jay are talking. Like who represents him? It's like, there's no like, oh yeah. That's clearly like the autobiographical portion, It's we, we all see. Little things where like, oh, there's maybe like a little bit of Catholicness Oh, yeah, we sink like, oh, there's maybe a little bit of Catholicness or maybe there's a little bit of like, is world war one and experience or whatever, but none of us are like, Oh, it's it's Bilbo. It's definitely him. Like he is talking. It's like, you know what I mean? But yeah. And yet with a lot of filmmakers, Even with Schrader. He's like taxi driver was like, what if I put myself. I basically was like as a 20 year old. If I were to put myself in a taxi. And, and just kind of go down this road that I was going down in my life and I could just see like all the destruction. That I could experience. Going down that road without actually going down that road. And so he writes it all into the script, And, And so for him, it was almost this like, I'm an explore my future in like this. Unleashed sort of way. And. Metaphorically. He could do all of that. Live that life through the film. And then like walk away from it almost, you know, it's like for him, so. For him, maybe there was a little bit more of a personification. That was like, or maybe even like a clone or like a. Surrogate. Yeah, for himself in that story, that was more direct. And so I guess for me, These principles. There's no like strict, you must do it one way or the other. Especially with resource filmmaking. Some people don't have the resource of, they can set up green screens and they are super good at Rotoscoping and chroma key and they could tell a scifi movie on like no money. And I dare people out there. It's like, they just take their time and they shoot it all in their basement. And even Jackson said, Peter Jackson said, people are gonna make movies like this in 20 years out of their basements. And. there are people making films that have as good a VFX in some aspects as Lord of the rings had in the year, 2001. In their basements and, and some of us don't have those skills. So maybe our skills are different or our resources are different. So I guess my point is like, there's no genre. I might read a script and go, that's not producible. And someone could say, oh yeah, And they'd go make it, you know, and, I mean, heck people making stop motion movies out of their basements. For a long time,

Anna: 50:41

Your skills are a resource to, with. With resource filmmaking resource filmmaking does not You have to be telling an autobiographical film. Yeah. But some people can and do very well. Like you said, I just think it's harder. I think it's, I almost wonder if it's related to. How it's harder to love ourselves than to love other people. You know, I think. It would be easier for me to make a film about a Catholic than a film, about a member of my own church. Because. Or a film about someone else than a film about myself, because it's easier for me to love. People with all their flaws. When they aren't me. And sometimes when it's me, it's like, I don't forgive myself as

Kent: 51:22

easily or even I can't show myself charitably or it feels indulgent or people Where people think of vein. Yeah, exactly. And yet, like, I don't think that's actually true. That's a tricky I think that. It's the elusive. Quality of true. Self-confidence. Which isn't arrogance. But it's not. Self-deprecation. It's true confidence, which is a synthesis, right? It's neither of the two things it's actually higher than either In this case, they're both kind of negatives, right? And sometimes we think the self-deprecation. Is humility. Which it's not. And sometimes we think that. Arrogance is confidence, which it's not humility is. Transcendent of both of those and confidence, I think is transcendent of both of those. So in some ways, our virtues or developing virtues or developing our characters. It behooves us. To be charitable with ourselves and develop those attributes. Because it helps us to be able to tell great stories that makes me think of the summer we marathon Miyazaki films. And I remember watching those and thinking. It finally hit This concept, that Dean Dunkin, one of my professors said about charitable filmmaking. It hit me one day. I was like, oh, Miyazaki makes charitable films. Meaning. Films that have this perspective of love in general, they're just lovingly. Made, but they also have this perspective of love toward their characters almost across the board. And their subject matter as well.

Anna: 52:55

And it doesn't mean he doesn't show their

Kent: 52:56

flaws. Yeah. He's really good at it. And I, and I wonder, like, how does he do it? What is the craft? What is the, what are the buttons? I have to push to get charity into I mean, it sounds silly, right? And I watched those and I was like, Miyazaki makes charitable films because he's a charitable person. I realized that because he was. Giving an interview talking about your hero. The protagonist of spirited away. And he said, I wanted to make a film about one of those kind of noxious ten-year-olds because those are my favorite kind of ten-year-olds. And I thought they're not my favorite kind of 10-year olds. In fact, I dislike them greatly. And, he thought they were obnoxious, but that made them endearing. And that, that means he loved them more. And. so he could tell that story about you hero because he loved her and he loved watching her be obnoxious and complain and, and then grow and then become greater. But that gratefulness didn't mean that she wasn't as complete as she was at the beginning of the movie. And she was a complete person at the beginning of the movie. Even though she changed and grew. Into a more sort of joyous and whole person at the end. And I feel like, or maybe not even just complete, but like worthy, you know, And so I just feel like. He can put himself into every film because his perspective is himself. And if we can't. Love our characters and love our subject material, or even grow and develop these. These characteristics we're cutting out. The stories that we from our hearts and our minds. It reminds me of like the scripture, the light comprehend is the darkness. But the light shines in darkness and the darkness comprehends it, not, you know, it's like, We can't actually be honest about all the human characters and all of the expressions of humanity. If we're not charitable people. And that's why we get these movies where we hate certain characters or we're where we're supposed to. Think poorly of, or. You root for the destruction of specific characters. And. I don't know. I don't know. I think that for the most part, that doesn't really work. I do believe in showing evil or even bad guys or villains that that can be. Great and have a time and a place. But, and there can be some marketable reasons for that that are. Liturgically sound, in my opinion, But. The expos, a approach to filmmaking of like, I'm going to expose these bad guys, or I'm just going to show everyone how bad this person is or whatever, or this perspective or these people or whatever. It falls flat and age is poorly because it's just not true. And so it really. But

Anna: 55:33

it's, I mean, I think about the Elvis movie that just came out, that's kind of an expo day that

Kent: 55:37

works. Well, On some degree. But, I mean, this is just an opinion thing that we're going to get into.

Anna: 55:46

what's his name? Tom Hanks. Well, Tom Hanks plays the character. Colonel Parker. Parker is like a bad guy, but you also kinda like him and you understand his reasons. And there's times where you work.

Kent: 55:59

In that movie. Played by Tom Hanks. And you're kind of like, he's got this kind of funny accent and he kind of does a few funny things every now and then, but for the most part, I feel like he's just despicable. He's like the devil. In that movie.

Anna: 56:15

Like, he's a pretty evil character,

Kent: 56:17

but. I say that, that I think that that's the director's perspective. We think no

Anna: 56:23

less of Elvis for. Having a friendship with him in a relationship with And I think

Kent: 56:29

toxic one. Yeah. But he's kind of tricked almost or. You know, Beguiled

Anna: 56:36

He's a complex enough character. I think that. He doesn't just feel like straight up bad guy. It's like, yeah, this is a guy who like, has vision. He has charisma. He has ideas that will work. But he also has addictions that he's feeding and he's using, and

Kent: 56:52

he has ideas of. Do no work and he's And trying to cover Oh, very. Flawed. Ethical. Face.

Anna: 57:02

Anyway, sorry, this is a tangent. We should really wrap up this episode because it's pretty long, but well, Tell us what the title means.

Kent: 57:09

Oh, so mining your life. Yeah, mine, your life digging, dig up films or mining your life. Digging up films. mine your life to get films. It's this idea that like, You know, pour yourself into something and channel yourself into something or go deep and explore yourself and learn about yourself. And I think that, there's tons of stories. Within you. Either because of the books you've read or the life you've lived or the perspectives you have, or the people, you know, I guess all of that is part of you. And so. I for me, the title is just. It's about, Even if it's something like a script that's handed to you or someone that someone wrote a script, or you co-wrote it with someone. I still think, even if you're acting in a film, you know, you're, you have to bring a personal. Risk to the table where you have to show some of yourself. In the process of creativity in any. Position. On a film or in any art form in general. Or in any relationship in this case between a filmmaker and their audience, but even in our relationships, right? There's always this, like I have to show my true self. And really that's. I think the trick of life is, is trying to get better at showing our true selves. And. However we want to do that. We've talked about lots of ways to do that. I think the point is, is that we feel very personal as we're making. I'm telling these stories.

Anna: 58:33

Yeah, I love So it's kind of an if then if you mind your life, you dig up great stories and film ideas. I kind of saw it as like two separate things that you were going to talk about, like mining your life. And digging up. I imagined films that already existed, like oh, interesting. And pulling from them. They understand How those are connected. Yeah, I love that.

Kent: 58:56

That, with that on the nose ending where. we've hopefully over explained all the poetry out of our perspectives. We will leave you. And thank you for joining us on this exploratory. Conversation.

Anna: 59:10

Until next time. Bye.