Keith Gordon in Conversation with Jake Horsley
© August 2006

Keith Gordon began his career as an actor in Brian De Palma’s Dressed to Kill and Home Movies (both 1980), and in 1983 as the lead in John Carpenter’s Christine. By Gordon’s own account, it was De Palma’s and Carpenter’s tutelage that Gordon first inspired him to pursue a career as a filmmaker. In 1985, he co-wrote Static, directed by Mark Romanek, and in 1987, he made his first feature, The Chocolate War. Since then, he has completed four features, A Midnight Clear, Mother Night, Waking the Dead, and The Singing Detective, all (save Detective) adapted from novels. Despite favorable notices, none of Gordon’s films have been big commercial successes, however, and he has had a consistently difficult time getting projects financed. In his own words, “I’m now a full time fundraiser. That’s the great reality of independent filmmaking in America—my job is raising money, and I direct as a hobby.” Gordon insists filmmaking be “less about how much money can I make and more about . . . how much creative freedom can I get. . . . I’d much rather lose a zero off of my salary and have more control of the film than make a film for a studio [and] have somebody else reedit it.” The result is one of the least known yet most consistent and steadfast careers of any American filmmaker in recent years. 

 

My experience of European festivals is limited. I’ve been with films in the London Film Festival (A Midnight Clear), Taormina, Italy (The Chocolate War), Antwerp (Static) and Madrid (Static), where I won best actor. The Spanish were amazingly warm to both me and the film. I wasn’t sure how it would go over in a heavily Catholic country, but that seemed to help, not hurt. Film festivals in the US and abroad seem much more similar than different. Really, the difference seems to be between big and small much more than US or non-US. The smaller festivals, whether Antwerp or Aspen (not surprisingly) are more intimate, more friendly. There’s more direct interaction with the audience, less with press or people “in the business.” The smaller festivals probably help the film less in terms of audience recognition or sales or press, but you get to be part of the festival itself more. The bigger festivals tend to feel more like extended press junkets. Great help for the film (if it goes well), but not as personally rewarding and immersive.

JH: Any tips or advice for a first-time filmmaker trying to get his work on to the film festival circuit?

I’m no big expert, but I’d say one common mistake is only aiming at the “big” festivals.  Different festivals have very different personalities in terms of what films they take.  And that often changes year to year.  So rejection may have less to do with the quality of your film than whether its subject or tone or style fit what that festival is looking for that year. If you can submit your film on the early side, that’s probably a good idea.  As deadline nears, programmers are often more and more slammed with material, half-watching films through bleary eyes. It’s worth looking at a festivals recent track record. What kinds of films did they have last year and the year before?  What kinds of films won awards (if they have them).  For example, for the last few years, the Hamptons festival has seemed to go out of its way to take more off-beat and smaller films.  Films without stars, made on video, work by first time directors, etc.  Now that can always change, but it can give you a sense of whether that festival might fit what you have to offer. Also, regional festivals always like to showcase work by local directors.  Wherever you’re from, I’d take a good look at whatever festivals are close by. What they are looking for varies from festival to festival.  Some are looking at commercial potential.  Some are looking for work that’s unique and different, even if it’s rough edged.  Some focus more on finding new filmmakers, others on established artists.  Some seem to respond to superficial slickness even at the expense of content.  It’s really the personality of the festival, and of the five or six people who make those decisions, and (to an extent) the patrons that finance them (and thus can have a subtle influence).

JH: In what ways do you think film festivals (as you’ve experienced them) could be improved?

That’s also very different from festival to festival.  I’d like to see the bigger festivals, the ones that also function as markets, do more to reach out to the local, non-industry audiences.  On the other side of the coin, some of the smaller festivals could do more to reach out to the business and the press to help bring in a wider range of films and build their audience base. I love the Montreal festival, because it puts a big premium on  bringing films from all over the world.  Toronto does too, to a certain extent. Some festivals have also gotten very expensive for their patrons. I’d like to see more tickets set aside for students or low income people.

JH: How well can you gauge a film’s success based on audience reaction at festivals? Is there a marked difference, in your opinion, between festival audiences and regular ones?

Not only might a festival audience’s reaction be different from a “regular” audience, but I’ve gotten wildly different reactions from audiences at different festivals.  Sometimes even at the same festival, depending on the nature of the screening.  At Sundance, I find the audiences at the “big event” screenings are often quite cool, since so many in the audience are industry folk looking at the film’s commercial potential, or sizing up the competition, or answering their cell phones during the movie.  But the audiences at the smaller screenings, or those down in Salt Lake City (instead of up at Park City where the premieres are held) are much, much warmer and more open. So, basically, you can’t really tell much from any one audience reaction.  Yes, if two thirds of the audience walks out, that’s a bad sign. (I’ve almost never been to a festival film where at least a few people don’t walk out. Whenever you’ve got people blindly going into a film based on a couple of sentences in a booklet, that film is not going to be right for everyone that shows up). But so many films that are the most popular at a festival never find their audience in the “real world.” Whereas films that get overlooked at one festival may well get discovered somewhere else. Most years, a lot of the films that are “hottest,” and get bought for the most money, don’t do much when they go into commercial release.

JH: You mentioned Static, an example of a fine first-time movie that has since disappeared. How might it have fared better than it did, then or later?

KG: Static might well have done better today. We made it before “indie” films were really established as a category. There were very few distributors handling odd little movies without big stars. And there was usually very little interest in the press about those movies. But there were also tactical errors made. When we showed the film at the US Film Festival (now Sundance) the audience reaction was good, and we got a great mention in the LA Times from then head critic Sheila Benson. Out of that there was real interest from one of the only successful US “indie” distributors of the time. But the money folk wanted to hold out for a better deal, more cash upfront, etc, and that was a big mistake. Whatever heat we had quickly faded, and the film ended up barely being released at all in the US, by a much smaller company. (It did do very well in the UK, on the other hand, playing several months.) The big reason Static has since disappeared is that it was completely disowned by its director, Mark Romanek. In fact, he always refers to One Hour Photo as his first feature.  I’m not sure why Mark so dislikes the film.  It got a lot of good reviews, and has quite a few passionate fans scattered about. I still really like it. I’ve been approached about having it run on cable, or re-released on video, and Mark has always said no. It makes me sad, because I don’t think he realizes that, rough edges and all, he made a rather special little film that raises some important questions about the nature of faith and belief.

JH: Why do you think your most recent film, The Singing Detective, was so little appreciated? Were your aspirations for it frustrated by audience/critic response, and would you do anything  differently in retrospect?

Singing Detective didn’t do well with the key critics or on the money level. I think there are some specific reasons, but I also think film distribution is about as logical (and controllable) as playing the roulette wheel in Vegas. Terrific films often die quick deaths, terrible films often do great. That said, there was a tremendous amount of hostility towards the film before it was ever seen.  A lot of critics and film journalists were dismissive (indeed angry) that the supposedly untouchable original (which I do think is a masterpiece, by the way) was being remade. The fact that it was Dennis Potter’s wish it be remade as a feature, that the script was scrawled by his poor clawed hands soon before his death, that every change from the original was his change, not mine, seemed to make little difference. In spite of the fact that we tried to highlight those facts in all the press material, a lot of the most negative press and reviews attacked me for daring to re-write Potter, or (for example) said how Potter would never have picked the songs that were used (which were, in fact, all in the script). I knew we were in trouble by how many articles that came out months before the film was done had a “how dare they” tone.  (I remember seeing things like “the film is rumored to be a mess” before anyone in the world had seen a frame of it). Without critical support, there was no chance for such an oddball piece of material.  Even with it, selling the concept would have been hard, but without it, we were dead.
We did get some good, even glowing, reviews, but they either came too late (Roger Ebert’s positive review didn’t even run until the film was already out of theaters in New York and LA), or weren't from powerful sources (The Denver Post, Public Radio). I’ve learned you’re always going to get a mix of good and bad and reviews, no matter what film you make.  But what matters are only the small handful that control public perception.  I got some awful reviews on A Midnight Clear, but because Time, Newsweek,  and the NY and LA Times all really liked it, the perception was that everyone liked it. Singing Detective was just the opposite. There were also tactical mistakes made with the release in this case too. I felt we should put the film out in spring or summer, as counter-programming for adults. But Mel Gibson (who paid for the film) wanted to release in late fall, so Robert would have a chance in the awards season. The problem with that is, in awards season you’re opening along with every other intelligent film made that year, many of which have (quite literally) 100 times the marketing budget.  And you’re all competing for that same limited grown up audience.  For a small, challenging film at that time of year, unless you hit the jackpot and get some of the best reviews of the year, you’re dead. Also, Mel had promised that he would personally go out and promote the film, to make up for the lack of cash in the ad budget, and to balance the tough choice of release time.  But then the whole Passion dust-up happened and he decided to not do any press.
Certainly the “failure” was disappointing and painful. I still really like the film, and was glad to have made it.  And I expected it to be polarizing (it’s not Dennis Potter if it’s not pissing people off).  But I was hurt and sad that it was simply dismissed. That very few critics looked at the reasons the film was different from the original, and why Potter might have made those changes.  And that the critics that weren’t obsessed with the original simply missed much of the point entirely (why lip syncing?!? The musical numbers aren’t even big or splashy!! Is it funny or serious?!?) But, as Potter’s long time agent pointed out, some of the very same critics that attacked the film for daring to touch the perfect original, had been negative about that original when it first came out all those years before.  So it goes.

JH: You mention “untainted” audiences. To what degree do you think mass audiences today are having their expectations and responses shaped by “the hype”?  Is it getting harder to get more experimental work (such as Detective) across, as a result of the homogenization of product?

Well, hype has always been a part of Hollywood and films. And experimental work has always has to struggle around the fringes, with rare exceptions, or for rare moments in film history. Sometimes hype helps a challenging piece of work (e.g. Blue Velvet, Monster’s Ball, Crying Game, didn’t do well just because they were good, but because they got “controversy hype”). What has hurt is that marketing a film has become so expensive that companies are ever more shy of work that might or might not catch that wave, and attract an audience in spite of (or because of) not playing by the rules. No one would dare spend the money to make Taxi Driver today, because the economics just don’t make sense. Even the “indie” world is ever more star driven, ever more pushed towards audience-friendly films, since no one wants to lose their job by spending $4 million marketing a film (so it will have to gross twice that) which is a long shot to succeed. On a personal level, I put quality of response way ahead of quantity. I’d much rather have 1,000 people be deeply affected by something I do, than 1,000,000 see it, walk out and say “Eh, it was OK, where do you want to have dinner?” But that certainly doesn’t make it easier to get the next film made. For that reason alone, I’d love to have my Lone Star - a film that for whatever zeitgeist reason breaks out and makes 20 times what my previous films have grossed.  But I’m certainly not going to worry about it too much, because I can’t affect it in the end.  If I get to the point where it gets too hard to make the next one, I’ll teach, or direct a play, or write a book, or make something on video for $50,000.

JH: If up and coming filmmakers are progressively more “sold” on the idea of the Big Hollywood Deal, does this make them less driven by artistic goals? Is this a natural process of big business, etc? If so, do you consider the digital revolution, Internet and the possibility of independent distribution, to be the best future for experimental filmmakers?

Again, I think this tear between artistic filmmakers and commercial filmmakers has existed throughout film history. It’s an expensive medium, so it will always be an unholy alliance of business and art. We all got a little spoiled by the 70s, when the inmates ran the asylum for a brief moment… But I do think digital filmmaking is opening the door for a huge number of people to make movies. Mostly junk, but some of it is amazing.  And that’s a great thing. What hasn’t been solved is how to distribute those movies. The old theatrical model is just too expensive.  Maybe Youtube is the beginning of where independent/brave filmmaking will go. Maybe it will become the film equivalent of small clubs for young musicians - a place to experiment, find your audience, maybe get discovered for “the big time.” And, of course, just like in music, get artistically corrupted and destroyed in the process.