In our annual Sedona International Film Festival preview, the stars dish on screenwriting, directing, acting and even songwriting.
By Erika Ayn Finch
More than 145 films will be screened at the 18th annual Sedona International Film Festival, Feb. 18-26. Expect celebrity appearances, parties and workshops. Turner Classic Movies host Robert Osborne returns this year as part of the Classic Series, screening films All About Eve, HUD and Summertime. Other series include Sedona Green, Documentaries That Make a Difference, Family Fun, World Cinema and Tribute. But it’s the festival’s additional venue that seems to be generating the most buzz. While the majority of the films will be shown at familiar venues across Sedona, the festival will debuted the Mary D. Fisher Theater of the Sedona International Film Festival (2030 W. SR89A) next door to its headquarters. The 135-seat theater includes a concession stand that will sell beer and wine along with the usual theater fare; it will host movies and workshops during the festival. As for the rest of the year, the theater will screen indie films twice a night, three to four nights a week.
Festival passes are on sale now, and movie choices can be made starting in February. For all things film festival, visit www.sedonafilm.org or call 928-282-1177.
DON BLACK
 Lyricist Don Black has written the words for some of the best-known theme songs for films such as True Grit (1969), The Italian Job (1969) and Ben (1972). All totaled, he’s written more than 100 songs for film – including five James Bond movies – and dozens of songs for theater. He has received two Tony Awards and an Academy Award for Born Free, and he is a Songwriters Hall of Fame inductee. Don will be honored at SIFF with the screening of three of his films: Diamonds are Forever, Born Free and To Sir, With Love. In between rehearsals for his latest Broadway musical, Bonnie & Clyde, Don spoke to Sedona Monthly about standup comedy, working with Michael Jackson and the difference between writing songs for movies and theater.
SEDONA MONTHLY: You started out as a standup comedian. How did you become interested in songwriting?
DON BLACK: My family were always very show business minded, though we came from the east end of London. We loved music and the movies. We came from a very poor part of town, so the idea of going to the cinema and watching a movie was quite an amazing thing. I remember as a young boy hearing ‘nothing could be finer than to be in Carolina in the morning’ or ‘California here I come,’ and wondering, ‘where are these places?’ My brother was a comedian impressionist. We always loved comedy, so I did have a go at it. But my first job was writing for the New Musical Express, which is a newspaper. I started out as an office boy and worked my way up. The offices were located in an area known as Tin Pan Alley, which had all the offices of all the songwriters of the day. So I was surrounded by writers all long. I loved talking to songwriters. It seemed like they never grew old. They always had a twinkle about them, even when they were in their 80s. I had tea with them every day – it was a lovely life. One of them told me he had to go to the park. I asked him why, and he said he had to write a song. I thought, what a wonderful job! And I’ve always loved words. I have a thing about the words in a song. I thought I’d have a go at being a standup comedian, which is the hardest thing in the world to do. I did it for a couple of years. Comedy was in my blood – it’s a shame it wasn’t in my act. But there is a connection between comedy and lyric writing. Great comedians, no matter who they are, never waste a syllable. You can ruin a joke by adding a word or syllable. Lyric writing is also about compression and economy.
Your first film work was the lyrics for the theme of the James Bond film Thunderball. Tell us how you became involved in that.
I got to know John Barry, the composer who, unfortunately, died earlier this year. I wrote a song called Walk Away, which was sung by a British singer named Matt Monro. It was my first hit in England. It was an adult song in a time when pop was getting louder. This song was about a man that falls in love with a younger girl. John Barry, who liked young girls incidentally, loved that song. He asked me if I fancied a go at a movie called Thunderball, and that really got me started. We wrote together for 40 or 50 years.
The Sedona International Film Festival will screen three of your movies: Diamonds are Forever (title song, 1971), To Sir, With Love (title song, 1967) and Born Free (title song, 1966). Talk about your work on those projects.
Diamonds are Forever was one of my favorite Bond projects. When the producer, Harry Saltzman, heard it for the first time, he didn’t like it. He thought it was too ‘filthy’ as he put it. I’ve always thought Bond songs should be seductive and have a whiff of the boudoir. The other producers loved it, but there were moments when it was in the film then out of the film… It’s one of those songs that keeps coming back in various guises. Kanye West sampled it a few years ago. To Sir With Love is unusual because it was the first song where I’d written the lyric without music. James Clavell was the director for that film, and he said the lyric was so important that I shouldn’t worry about the music but just write it like a poet. He loved it. We sent it out to about 10 people to write the music for my lyric, which is a very unusual thing to have happen. With Born Free, again, it was another situation where Carl Foreman, the presenter, wasn’t enamored with the song at all. He thought it was a social comment, and he wanted it to be about the jungle and cages and animals. I didn’t agree with that, and neither did John Barry. There’s a nice ending to that story. When I got the Oscar, Carl Foreman came up to me and said, ‘Well, [the song] grows on you.’
You also wrote the title song for 1972’s Ben, which was a hit for Michael Jackson. Did you work with Michael directly?
Yeah, I got to know Michael very well during that period of time. He was lovely, and he loved that song. He said so in his biography. I was living in Los Angeles at the time, and he would come to my house and play with my sons. He was a lovely, innocent child of 14. I got a call from his father one day saying if I wanted to speak to Michael, I had to go through him. He made it very difficult because here we were just having a game of pool with my kids. The father was very dominant and protective. So I didn’t speak to him for probably 15 or 20 years. Then I went to see him again, and we hugged each other. I wrote a bunch of songs for him that never came out. I don’t know if he recorded them or not.
You’ve also done theater work with luminaries such as Andrew Lloyd Webber. Can you compare and contrast writing songs for theater and films? Do you have a preference?
Unfortunately in today’s world, in movies, the kind of songs that I wrote don’t exist. When is the last time you heard a beautiful song in a film? You hear songs at the end of films, but you don’t hear The Way We Were. Those days are gone where the title song sums up the movie. I like both because I like writing – it’s just one of those things. In a way, theater is somehow so satisfying because you’re illuminating the character. You can be funny, you can be sad, you can be anything. I’m doing Bonnie and Clyde on Broadway right now – we’re in previews. You’re dealing with so many emotions from killing to heartbreak. You’ve got a wider wordscape to play with. And you can make changes with each show. There’s always little things you want to change – bits and pieces.
You have won numerous awards, including an Academy Award for Born Free. Which accolade fills you with the most pride?
The one I received two years ago, being inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame. As a kid, my heroes were people like Cole Porter and Rodgers and Hammerstein. They are incredibly talented, brilliant people. You listen to those songs, and you still get goose bumps. To be in the same club as them is an amazing thing. You don’t expect it. It’s such an elite arena. Without a doubt, to be on a list with those people is amazing.
What is your opinion of the use of music and theme songs in today’s blockbuster films?
One’s always hesitant about criticizing these things because they make so much money. There are some wonderful soundtracks, but they aren’t the melodies or the song that make you say, what a beautiful film. And those kinds of films aren’t being made. I saw a beautiful film last night called Like Crazy, and it’s a love story. But there’s no song in it. If this was 20 years ago, there would have been a wonderful Henry Mancini melody.
When did that start to shift?
I think it started to shift when people went to the artist to get a hit in the film – they go to Lady Gaga or Madonna. It’s not about how wonderful the song is, it’s about how big the singer is.
Do you like talking about your music?
It’s very, very hard to articulate about how you write songs. People want anecdotes, and there aren’t many. I think of Paul McCartney. People ask how he wrote Yesterday, and he says it was a good day in the office. I think that’s it. It’s what you do.
Have you ever been to Sedona?
No, I haven’t. It’s a great name for a song.
EMILIO ESTEVEZ
 Emilio Estevez’s first role was in 1979’s Apocalypse Now, which starred his father Martin Sheen. Though his part was cut from the final film, Emilio went on to star in ’80s cult classics such as The Outsiders, The Breakfast Club, St. Elmo’s Fire and Young Guns. Emilio made his screenwriting debut in 1985, but it wasn’t until 2006 that he really gained acclaim as a filmmaker with Bobby, which won numerous awards. Most recently, Emilio wrote, directed and starred in The Way, which co-stars his father. Emilio spoke to us about his new attention-grabbing film and his former status as president of the Brat Pack.
SEDONA MONTHLY: You wrote, directed, produced and acted in The Way. Tell us how the story came about.
EMILIO ESTEVEZ: This began in 2003 when my father went to Spain during his hiatus of seasons three and four of The West Wing. My son went with him. Off they went, and they arrived in a town call Burgos. They stayed at a bed-and-breakfast, and they sat down that evening to the pilgrim’s supper. In walks a beautiful girl who took a look at my son. He took a look at her, and they’ve been looking at each other ever since. They got married in 2009, but he’s been there for the last eight years. When my dad came home, he told me my son had something he wanted to tell me, and that was that he was moving to Spain. It knocked me back on my heels. In order to spend more time with my boy, I needed to figure out how to work there. I had a series of conversations with my father about what a film would look like. My dad liked the idea of a story about he and my son on the Camino, and my son falling in love. But I thought the core of the story – the hook – is that it’s a father-son story. If we were going to do a film, I wanted the father in the center, not the boy. It’s about losing a son on the Camino because didn’t that kind of happen to me? So I began to write and create this doctor who isn’t a citizen of the world. Using the template of the Wizard of Oz, I create this emotional tornado in his life with the death of his son. It picks him up from his comfortable lifestyle and deposits him in Spain where he is forced to be a citizen of the world. He meets the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man and the Scarecrow, and our Emerald City is Santiago de Compostela.
How did author Jack Hitt become involved?
I had my own bout of writer’s block in summer 2008. I took a road trip to get out of my comfort zone. I was in New Mexico, and I bumped into Jack’s book. I didn’t want to read other books about the Camino – all I was interested in were guidebooks. I didn’t want any influence by anyone else’s Camino experience. I begrudgingly grabbed Jack’s book because it didn’t look like it was trying to sell me anything. I began to read it, and I didn’t have my Scarecrow yet. Jack’s book was hysterical, and I imagined him bumping into the characters I’d already created while he was in the middle of writing his book and dealing with the writer’s block that I was dealing with. I told Jack about the idea, and he said let’s do it.
You directed your father in Bobby prior to The Way – is it difficult to direct him?
It’s not so much that it’s difficult to direct Martin. He’s such a terrific actor. My mother was on set with us during production, and about halfway through she said she had never seen my father work so hard. She said he hadn’t worked so hard since he was a young struggling actor in New York City in the early 1960s. She said, ‘He wants to get this right for you.’ And I said, ‘Mom, I just want to get this right for him.’ I wrote this role for him. I wanted to remind the world what an extraordinary actor he is. In many instances, he hasn’t had the opportunity to play great roles. I didn’t particularly want to see him get thrown off the building in The Departed – he was part of a great ensemble, but that’s not how I want to see my old man be treated in a film. I was inspired to write a role that was as close to who he is as an actor and a man than anyone has been given a glimpse of in quite a while. I honestly believe it’s his best performance since Apocalypse Now.
This had to have been an emotional experience for the two of you, portraying a father and his departed son.
We are called upon as actors to do things we wouldn’t do in real life. When I played Billy the Kid, I was blowing people away left and right, and that’s not who I am [laughs]. And in Apocalypse Now, Martin is this military assassin killing guys, and that’s not who he is. I think we as actors have to get to that place emotionally where we have to imagine it or we have to dig in. We all have those emotional wells that we go to. In the scene where my father has to identify the body, it was written in the press notes that I was actually in the body bag, but that would have been impossible because I wouldn’t have been able to direct the scene. So I put my son in the bag – he was working with us as an associate producer and as our interpreter.
The movie is filmed along the Camino de Santiago in France and Spain in sequence. How difficult was it to shoot on location?
We had a very small crew and a cast of under 50. We didn’t have big trucks or port-a-potties or chairs for the actors. We had catering because the Spanish take their food very seriously – we had a 100 percent Spanish crew. We traveled lightly. The soundman figured out a way to put his entire rig in a backpack. We shot in super 16-mm instead of 35. We shot a lot with hand-held cameras, cinéma-vérité-style not because it was a stylistic choice but because it was the only way we could shoot the film and get it done in the time we had. We had a 40-day schedule. We never went back to the same location, which was probably the most challenging thing. You had to make sure you got everything you needed in that location because you weren’t coming back.
How much of the Camino have you walked? Have you ever considered making the journey?
The producer, myself and my son spent two months on the Camino prior to shooting, and when we filmed it, we shot in sequence. We reckon we walked about half of it – about 400 kilometers – as a group. I have considered making the journey – it’s something I would love to do sooner rather than later. Maybe it’s something I can talk my son into.
The film is dedicated to the memory of your grandfather, Francisco Estevez. Tell us about that.
My grandfather is from the north of Spain. He left Spain when he was a boy and sailed for Cuba. There was a quota on how many Spaniards could come into the states because at that time we were at war with Spain. So he came to the states as a Cubano. I wanted to dedicate the film to him. He and my son were the reason we were all there. It’s a movie inspired by a son and dedicated to a grandfather. We just wanted to honor our roots. I owe a debt of gratitude to Francisco, and I wanted to go on record.
The final destination in the movie winds up being a place in nature rather than a church, which is the final destination along the trail. Tell me about that.
I think that we find peace in nature and we find it in our faith and our community and our family. The film is structured to celebrate that. It’s structured to celebrate what Hollywood in many ways has stopped making films about. For me, it was important to go from this manmade holy place to an environmental place – a place that’s natural but no less dramatic or impactful on the lives of these individuals.
The message in the film seems to be one of accepting yourself. Do you agree?
It’s about being okay in your own skin. We’re in this culture where we are told to take this pill to be happy and this pill to sleep. We’re told to go on this diet and lose weight and whiten your teeth and people will love you more. What about this idea that you are a wonderfully gorgeous, imperfect being? How about being okay with that?
Finally, I have to ask you about your legendary Brat Pack status. When you look back on those films, what are your thoughts? Do you have fond memories of those days?
Sure, they were great years. We worked a lot, and we were blessed to have the jobs. What’s interesting is that when people ask about the films, they ask if I had any idea they would be so popular. The short answer is: no. When you’re a young, struggling actor, you’re just happy to get the job. The week I auditioned for The Breakfast Club, I auditioned for a Burger King commercials and the TV show CHiPs. I got a call back for The Breakfast Club, and I got the job, but at the time, it was just a job. I didn’t think of it in any other terms. The fact that these films have transcended generations and are still around, I think that’s a great thing. To have a couple of movies on your resume that people continue to talk about is not something every actor has the luxury of.
Do you cringe when you hear the term ‘Brat Pack?’
Of course. It was coined by this journalist, and that’s what he’s known for. I got another 40 years of movies in me.
KATHLEEN GLYNN
 Back in 2010, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore generated a lot of buzz when he attended the Sedona International Film Festival to present three of his films. What people may not realize is that his wife, Kathleen Glynn, has produced all of his films as well as his mid-1990s television series, TV Nation, for which she won an Emmy award. This will be the third year Kathleen has attended the Sedona film festival, and she now sits on the festival’s board of directors. Kathleen will introduce and moderate four workshops.
SEDONA MONTHLY: How did you become involved with SIFF’s board of directors?
KATHLEEN GLYNN: I’m involved with the Traverse City Film Festival, and it just kind of naturally came to be. Sedona would ask us how we did certain things, and we’d offer suggestions or make phone calls. When it came time for [Sedona] to build its theater, we stepped in because we rebuilt a theater in Michigan, which is the State Theater. I passed along information. It’s all stored in my brain, and when you turn on the faucet, it all comes out. When they wanted to diversify their board, it was natural.
You and your husband have a very successful film festival in Traverse City. Can you compare and contrast SIFF with your event?
Our event is in the middle of summer, and summer is celebrated in Michigan because we have winter [laughs]. Traverse City is situated on two bays that are part of Lake Michigan. Our festivals aren’t dissimilar. Ours is bigger. Our tagline is “just great movies,” so we show a wide range of cinema – it doesn’t matter if it’s a blockbuster type of thing. We’re not interested in that. Smaller, personal films fit our festival. This year we showed some experimental films in our 45-seat theater. We aren’t in a multiplex – we take places around town like the opera house and an elementary school auditorium and a theater playhouse.
Your tagline at Traverse City is “just great movies.” Do you feel like film festivals have become more about the celebrities than the films?
I do think that our festival is a big city festival in a very small town. We have a downtown, and that’s where the festival is. Everything is within walking distance. There isn’t any posturing about going to movies starring specific actors. That’s not the spirit of our festival. People are willing to give things a try. That’s what got us excited. To have people walk out and be awed by the film and want to talk about it, or to go to a restaurant and hear people talking about a film rather than talking about how great George Clooney looks is nice. At our festival, they are talking about themes and social issues and cinematography and music and costumes. And everyone talks about how many movies they are seeing – that’s a badge of honor. We treat the people we bring in very well, but it’s a small Midwestern town so we can treat them well with a big smile and charm [laughs].
Let’s talk about the workshops you’ll be introducing and moderating at SIFF. The subjects include screenwriting, production design, music and female documentary makers. In your role as producer for documentaries and TV series, how much involvement do you have with the screenwriters, designers and choice of music?
With the films I’ve made, sometimes I’ll be called a creative producer. A producer looks for a script and they want to attach a director that will make it attractive to an actor or actress to sign on. The producer sets a budget, works with the studio, etc. I have done those things, but because documentaries can be a one-man band, I have been completely involved in the entire creative process of filmmaking. I’ve gone out and shot things with a crew. I have sat in on music and acquired music from record companies. I will look at an edit and advise the director. I’ve taken our films through the release, the DVD process and marketing and publicity.
How did you get into producing?
Michael was – is – a journalist, and I was a graphic designer. We worked together on his newspaper called The Flint Voice in our hometown of Flint. Fast forward to the advent of the home video camera. We started to fool around with it – we both loved the movies. At a certain point, he said he wanted to make a movie, but you don’t really process that. Also at that time, we were seeing films that excited us. Sherman’s March. She’s Gotta Have It. During the year Roger and Me was released, Sex, Lies and Videotape came out. There was a surge of independent films, and I think it was because there was a familiarity with the video camera. But we didn’t know how to make a movie, and I was just doing what you do without knowing I was producing. There was no real definition of roles. After Roger and Me, I segued into working in costume design, which was a lifelong dream. It was like a production job. And when we started our TV show, TV Nation, Michael said he thought I should produce it. I was really distressed. I pretty much fell apart. There was no way I could produce a television show – it was an insane idea. But a friend of ours also thought it was a good idea. So I did it and won the Emmy award. I think I just took all the skills that I had – that a lot of women have – and I was able to pull it off.
The topic of female documentary filmmakers is interesting. It seems like it has been a male dominated field for years, but the tides are turning. Is that correct? Do you notice women gravitating toward documentaries with specific themes?
There are three women I worked with at the beginning of TV Nation who have gone on to make phenomenal films. Those are just women who I have known. The themes are all across the board, just like it is for men. But they are a conduit for the voice of women – they might explain war or Hurricane Katrina from a woman’s perspective. It’s refreshing.
You sit on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences committee for documentaries. In large part because of you and Michaels’ films, documentaries have become more mainstream in the last 20 years. Would you agree? What is causing that shift?
People talk about journalism being objective, but it isn’t. Everybody has their own point of view that they bring to the story. It’s about storytelling. I think documentaries have blossomed because there is an allowable point of view, a storytelling perspective that has been welcomed. It doesn’t matter who’s making it, but there is a perspective that it comes from. That’s taken the academic lens off and made documentaries more palatable. If you have an opinion, especially in our films, that’s represented. But you might get three-quarters of the way into our films, and realize what you thought was the answer isn’t. We don’t go down one clear path. We’re on a mission, and you have to be because you don’t know what you’re going to get.
Are you excited by the documentaries being made today?
Yes. Documentaries don’t get talked about as they are being made. They kind of just emerge without a lot of lead time. You go to a film festival, read the program and in one paragraph, you decide to see a documentary. That one little paragraph sells that documentary. Ultimately, it’s up to word of mouth.
What are you currently working on?
We are not making a film right now. Our last film was Capitalism: A Love Story. The conclusion of that film was that Michael couldn’t keep making the films – he needed the movie going public’s help. Interestingly enough, at this moment, we are experiencing a real life version of what Capitalism is about, which is the Occupy movement. Right now, like the rest of America, we are happy, curious and excited about the possibility of change. We are observing real life rather than making a film about it. But there’s more to come.
BOBBY MORESCO
 Bobby Moresco has done it all when it comes to Hollywood: He’s acted, directed, produced and written scripts for the big screen, television and the stage. He’s best known for co-writing and producing the film Crash back in 2004, which garnered Bobby and co-writer Paul Haggis the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. SIFF will screen Crash, and Bobby will be on hand to discuss the film – it will be his first visit to Sedona. Bobby spoke to us about Crash and about being a jack-of-all-trades in the moviemaking business.
SEDONA MONTHLY: You produced and co-wrote Crash, which will be screened at the Sedona International Film Festival. What was it like assuming both roles?
BOBBY MORESCO: When Paul [Haggis] and I decided we wanted to write that movie, we weren’t sure that we wanted it to be a movie. We thought we might want to do a television show, and we explored that. Then we realized it would be best as a movie. We did a lot of research. We wrote the screenplay in a very short time, but we researched for months on end. We felt that, by the time we started writing, we had the specific points of view from all the different characters we were trying to explore. We wrote the first draft in two weeks, but it was a tremendous exploration. Paul is Canadian, and I’m from New York – neither of us grew up in Los Angeles, but we felt Los Angeles was the right place for the movie. As producer, I helped put the movie together in terms of finances, casting – Paul and I worked together very closely in pre-production, production and post-production.
What did it mean to you to win the Oscar for Crash?
The first thing it means is validation. Your peers think you did what you were supposed to do, which was put forth a good piece of work. The validation that it all wasn’t for naught is a wonderful thing. After that, business wise, it makes a difference in your career, and that’s satisfying and gratifying.
In 2008, you produced and directed episodes for the TV series Crash. Talk to us about transitioning and continuing such an award-winning script from the big screen to television.
It’s interesting. Paul and I both have a history with television and film – and myself with the stage also – but when they asked us if we were interested in making it a television series, Paul and I both declined. We felt like we had said what we wanted to say. Then we were asked to consult, and we thought we could do that. Glen Mazzara came aboard as executive producer and created the characters and story lines using the movie as a template. It was fun. It was fun to go out to New Mexico and shoot. It was fun to work with Dennis Hopper, who I’d directed in a movie before. But it wasn’t the same thing – it was like working on a totally different project. It was fun, but I can’t say it compared to the experience of working on the movie.
You have experience with many aspects of filmmaking: producing, writing, directing and even acting. Do you think it makes you a better filmmaker to have done it all?
There’s no doubt. My work as an actor totally and completely influences my work as a writer. It allows me to write from the inside out, especially when you write dialogue. It doesn’t help structurally, but when you start writing dialogue and try to get inside the character’s head, your training as an actor is immensely helpful. You push production out of your head when you’re writing the first and second draft, but then when you start refining the movie – cutting and sculpting it – you don’t want to shoot any scenes you’re not going to use because you don’t have the money, and you don’t have the time. Your producing helps when you’re rewriting and getting down to your production draft. When you’re on the set, it all comes together. There’s almost nothing you’re unfamiliar with, so you can move through it comfortably.
Is your vast experience rare in Hollywood?
I don’t know anyone else personally who has done what I do. Maybe Sydney Pollack, but I don’t know how much writing he would do. I don’t know anyone else who’s done it all like that – 12 years acting, years writing and directing and producing. I’ve directed on and off Broadway. I guess it’s rare. I didn’t set out to do it. The only reason I started writing was because I couldn’t make a living as an actor. I wasn’t working enough, so I needed to create my own work. That led to directing on the stage, which led to television and movies.
Do you prefer one role more than the others?
Directing is the most enjoyable, even though physically it’s the most demanding. You’re out there on the set with the actors who are smart and funny, you’re with the crew. But in terms of what I want to do with my life, it’s about writing. You’re starting from scratch with something that wasn’t there before. It’s the most satisfying but also the most difficult. It’s like banging your head against the wall. I don’t know anybody who says they enjoy writing.
It’s interesting to hear you say that directing is physically exhausting. I would assume acting would be more tiring.
Oh, no. I love actors, but they wake up in the morning and someone picks them up and brings them food and then they dress you and then they give you things to say. Everyone treats you like the greatest thing on the face of the earth, and then you have to do this incredibly difficult thing, which is bare your soul in front of the camera. At that point, it becomes difficult because not a lot of people can do it. Acting is one of the hardest things on the face of the earth, so the people who do it well are treated immensely well. It’s a tremendously difficult craft to excel at, but once you learn to excel at it, once you become a crafted actor, I don’t think it’s that difficult. But I wasn’t the best actor in the world, so maybe I’m not the best guy to ask.
From the standpoint of someone who has done so much TV and film, talk to us about the sudden competition between cable television series and Hollywood films.
I hope that it tells filmmakers they need to start choosing a broader variety of scripts that have stories to follow. Stop making the same movie over and over again. People are getting tired of it. For those of us who love this business, it’s been disenchanting. We want to keep finding new ways to tell stories; we want new stories and new twists on old stories. [What’s going on with Hollywood today] is heartbreaking, which is why I’ve spent most of my career on independent films.
What are you working on right now?
Well, I just finished writing a movie for Universal that Todd Field is set to direct. I’ve just finished writing a new television series for NBC that I’m really excited about. [Paul] Haggis is the executive producer and I’m writing and directing it. It’s a really cool character piece. I’m writing and directing a film noir piece set in Boston. I’m busy. I’m set to rewrite a 1953 noir-ish piece set in Japan. And I’m developing a new play.
What are your thoughts on film festivals?
They are tremendously necessary and important to the community of filmmaking. My first movie, which ultimately ended badly so I won’t talk about it, had the film festival run, and I was filled with gratitude that my movie got an audience. When a distributor got a hold of it, we had big problems because they changed the movie on me. The only good remembrance I have of my first movie was film festivals.
MARTIN SHEEN
 Martin Sheen, born Ramon Estevez, might be one of the most prolific actors of his generation. He gained critical acclaim for his role in Badlands (1973), but he’s arguably best-known for playing Capt. Willard in Francis Ford Coppola’s masterpiece, Apocalypse Now (1979). He won numerous awards for his role as President Jed Bartlet on The West Wing (1999-2006). Martin stars in The Way alongside his son, Emilio Estevez, who also wrote and directed the film. He spoke to Sedona Monthly from LA about why he’s so passionate about the film.
SEDONA MONTHLY: Your son, Emilio Estevez, wrote and directed Bobby in which you had a role in an assemble cast, but The Way was obviously a much more intimate experience. What is it like being in a film written and directed by your son?
MARTIN SHEEN: The genesis goes back to Emilio’s son and our journey together in 2003. I was doing The West Wing at the time, and I had a couple of seasons left. Emilio had work left on Bobby, so we were both finished in 2006, and we decided to look into the possibility. He hit on the idea of a father-son thing, and it parallels The Wizard of Oz. Emilio lives down the street, so I see him quite often, and I would follow the progress. I’d make suggestions here and there – most of them he rejected, thank heavens. I’m just delighted that we were able to work side by side. He fashioned the character for me personally, and I was deeply moved by his tribute, if you will, and that he trusted me with the film. I haven’t carried a film for quite a while, and I haven’t played a character that had much to do with me for quite a while. I was deeply moved and grateful. The only anxiety I had was wondering if I could pull it off emotionally and spiritually. He assured me that together we could. It wasn’t difficult being directed by him. I had anxiety about playing up to the level that was necessary for the part. I didn’t want to disappoint him or force him into compromise.
Emilio says your performance in The Way is your best since Apocalypse Now. What are your thoughts on that?
I have to agree. Apocalypse Now was 30 years ago – actually longer – and I haven’t really carried a first-class movie since then. This was the task. I really had to be physically and emotionally ready for this and stay very, very focused, which I did. In low-budget, independent films, there’s so much compromise because there’s so little money. You have to settle for what you get – weather, financial conditions, difficulty on location. All those play a significant part in being able to pull it off, and [Emilio] made it look like it was a $50 million movie.
Because your real-life son plays the role of Daniel, your son in the movie, was Tom a more emotional character to portray?
Yes, very much so. In fact, he had to rein me in from the first movement. It starts with an emotional wallop. Yet [Tom] is someone who doesn’t show emotion. He’s not open to expressing how he feels. Emilio scored it so that I wouldn’t reach the apex in the first movement. He assured me there were valleys and highs, and the emotion had to be spread out over the two hours of the film. You couldn’t reach the climax in the first movement. I had to trust his instinct in that.
Was the film physically demanding?
I have to admit, for me it was because I’m not a kid anymore. Most young people can walk the whole Camino, which is about 500 miles, and some of it is pretty difficult terrain. For a guy my age who’s not used to trekking, it was demanding. I had to pace myself. I didn’t want to train for it per se. I do yoga every day, so I’m in relatively good shape. I don’t smoke or drink anymore, and I eat pretty consciously thanks to my wife, but I’m still not a kid. But we walked at least half of it.
I had actually never heard of Camino de Santiago before I saw the film. Do you hear that frequently?
Very few Americans know about it. It is quite a wonderful trek, and the Spanish have gone out of their way to accommodate the pilgrims, no matter how many hundreds of thousands come.
You and Emilio have been doing a lot to get the word out about this film. Why do you feel so strongly about it?
It’s a deeply personal, family project. It’s said it was a film inspired by a grandson and dedicated to a grandfather. My father grew up about 80 kilometers from Santiago de Compostela, so I was familiar with it growing up. I always had this romantic image that one day I’d suss it out, which I didn’t do for quite a few years [laughs]. The film is embedded with many of the values we share as a family and as artists. We have hate radio and there’s so much cynicism and anger and resentment in our culture right now – so much fear and insecurity. People go to movies and they see such horrific images. We wanted to do something that was uplifting and inspiring. We wanted to make people feel good about being a human being again. It’s okay to struggle and have difficulties; that’s part of the journey of our existence. And we have to create community to come to know ourselves. All of these values are embedded in the film. But we didn’t want to hit anybody over the head with it.
So far, what role would you most like to be remembered for?
[Laughs] I’d like to think I haven’t played it yet.
You have had such an amazing career in film, and you don’t seem to be slowing down. What continues to drive you forward?
I’ve been very lucky to have made my living doing the thing I love the most. I’ve always been an actor, even before I knew that was what you called it. I just had this knowingness about myself. I think most children do. For me, it was clarified when I started going to the movies around 5 or 6, and gradually I began to realize that I was like one of those guys. The mystery was solved. Even as a child, I knew I was going to pursue it. And I knew if I didn’t pursue it, I risked my happiness. Sometimes that knowing gets beat out of kids – you have to fight for it. It’s like anything in life. If it’s worthwhile, you have to fight for it. It’s going cost you something, otherwise you have to question its value.
Do you look back on Apocalypse Now as being the profound film that history and critics have claimed it to be?
The movie is. Francis Ford Coppola is, I think, the best filmmaker in America. I think Godfather I and II are some of the best filmmaking ever done anywhere. It’s a magnificent masterpiece. I don’t know if Apocalypse Now is as good a film, but it’s equally as powerful. There was such a battle to get every inch of that film. None of it was easy, and we paid dearly for it. I’m glad that [Coppola] was rewarded for it. For my own part, I felt it was more about him than me. I remember having difficulty interpreting [Capt. Willard] and [Coppola] said, ‘He’s you, Martin. Whoever you are and whatever scene you’re playing – you don’t have to go outside yourself, you have to go deeper within yourself.’ And that was an incredibly important lesson for me. It’s about behavior, not acting. It’s about transcendence. The performance was made more in his editing than my intention. That’s as honest an answer as I can give. I didn’t realize the film’s power until I saw it. I felt like I was part of it, but I wasn’t the ‘it.’ I think anybody playing that part would agree. It was [Coppola’s] vision and journey, and I was along for the ride. If someone told me about all the things that were going to happen when I played the part, I would have said ‘no thanks.’ But that’s hindsight. As it is, I don’t have the slightest regret. I’m grateful I was part of it – I learned so much about myself. But if I had to do it again, ‘no thanks – I pass.’ You know the saying, ‘You have to accept the cup as offered, not altered?’ I would have liked to alter that cup.
Have you ever been to Sedona?
Yes. I was up in Arizona doing a film with [my son] Charlie, and there was a guy who had a center in Sedona who invited Charlie to come up and do a retreat. That was the first I had heard of it. [My wife] and I went up recently when we were in Phoenix. I found it absolutely breathtaking, but it was so hot. It was in the summer, and it was unbearably hot. I love the desert. One of my favorite places in tall the world is Death Valley, but I’d never go there in the summer.
LEA THOMPSON
 Since her big-screen debut in 1983, Lea Thompson has appeared in scores of films, television movies and series, and theatrical performances. She’s probably best known for playing Lorraine McFly in the Back to the Future trilogy and the title character in the NBC-TV series Caroline in the City. The Minnesota-native and former ballet dancer plays Emily in The Trouble with the Truth, written and directed by Jim Hemphill. The movie tells the story of an ex-husband and ex-wife who sit down for dinner one evening. The conversation that ensues will definitely leave couples talking. Lea spoke to us about this current film, and her vast repertoire.
SEDONA MONTHLY: How did you become involved in The Trouble with the Truth and why did you accept the role?
LEA THOMPSON: I was offered the movie, and I was impressed with the writing. Frankly, it kind of scared me. It’s just two people talking about their lives and their relationship – it seemed like a fun thing to try. It was an exciting idea, and I’m really happy I did it.
How long did it take to film the movie and where was it filmed?
It took about 13 days. We filmed it in downtown L.A. in a warehouse. Part was filmed at an actual restaurant, but the rest was inside a studio.
Less than two weeks – that’s very fast. Did that include rehearsal time?
We didn’t have any time for rehearsal because John Shea had a tight schedule. We rehearsed before we shot. It was pretty much shot in sequence, and that helped a lot. It was beautifully done because the close-ups were shot at the same time. Even though it wasn’t improv, it gave it an improv quality because we could talk over each other and do different things with every take.
This film could easily be on stage, and you have plenty of experience doing theater. Has that ever been discussed?
No, we just want people to see the movie! When you see it on a big screen, it feels worthy of a big screen. I think that’s because the themes are so deep. It works on a big screen.
The movie is definitely character driven, and those types of films seem to be in decline in today’s CG world. What are your thoughts on that?
It’s a miracle that a movie like this can get made, but once it’s made it can find its audience. I was reading an article today about how kids aren’t going to the movie theaters, so they are going to start having to make movies for 30- and 40-somethings because they have the income and want to go out. It’s driven by the marketplace, and I think there’s a place for this kind of movie. Interestingly, it’s much easier to make a good-looking, low-budget film than it used to be because of the cameras. You don’t need as many lights and sound equipment and money to develop the film.
You have made plenty of films with special effects, most notably SpaceCamp and the Back to the Future trilogy. Can you compare those types of films with something like The Trouble with Truth?
They both have their place – different people like to see different kinds of stories. But there’s no replacement for really great writing, and sometimes I think that’s the problem with big-budget movies. There are so many writers trying to please so many people that the writing is boring. They are trying to district you with a lot of car chases, and I just get exhausted by it. It just loses all reality.
The Trouble with the Truth is quite unusual and awesome because it’s really one person’s vision. It’s Jimmy Hemphill’s vision. He got to do what he wanted, and that’s very rare. It’s also really precious. He had a vision of what he wanted to say – it’s very personal. That’s art, as far as I’m concerned. Back to the Future was a great movie. It was a great example of a big movie done well. It was a big movie that was original and true to the vision of the creators, Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale. They were protected by Steven Spielberg who was so powerful. They got to make the movie they wanted to make.
It takes a lot of concentration to keep a character for six months. It’s much more fun to get into it for a few weeks or a month in a small budget movie. It’s easier to take chances and get away with it. But I like both. I really enjoy all the opportunities I’ve had in my career to try all different styles and shapes and budgets and genres. I’ve been really lucky that way.
You have quite a repertoire. What character was the most fun to play? What film are you most proud of?
I’ve had four great roles as far as I’m concerned, and I would consider The Trouble with the Truth to be one of them. Lorraine McFly in Back to the Future and then Amy Hightower in The Substitute Wife, a TV movie with Farrah Fawcett – a great role and a great movie. And then I did Sally Bowles on Broadway in Cabaret. I consider myself lucky to have had these great parts along with a lot of other really good parts, too. I’ve survived 30 years in this business, artistically and financially. That’s a lucky gift that I have.
In the movie, Emily wanted to be a writer when she was growing up. You wanted to be a ballerina. Tell us about that.
I really was a ballet dancer. I made my living that way from the time I was 15 until I was 21 when I first started acting. I was very serious, and I really loved it, but I just did not have the body for it. I wasn’t as flexible as I needed to be, and my back was injured. It became apparent I would never get to do the kind of parts I wanted to do. I quit when I was in New York, and I started acting, which was fortuitous.
You landed some major roles right off the bat.
Yeah, I did. My first movie was Jaws 3-D, which was a big Universal movie, even though it was terrible and silly. Then I did All the Right Moves with Tom Cruise, which most people consider to be good acting. That helped me. I did a lot of movies very quickly. But after I had my second child, it just stopped. I did a sitcom, and then I didn’t do a major feature until this part in J. Edgar. Sixteen years…it’s kind of weird.
Is that typical for actresses after they start a family?
I think it’s a combination of that and doing a sitcom. It sullies you for the feature business, or it did at that time. I still find it kind of surprising. But TV has been really good to me. Classically, TV is much better to women after they turn 30.
What is the trouble with the truth?
It always opens up a can of worms that you kind of have to resolve. This movie is very interesting for people to see together – it really makes people think and examine their own relationships and motivations. There are so many questions that it brings up. I saw it with a couple’s therapist, and she said she wished her couples would see it before they start therapy because it would open them up to different ideas. I myself had a really great conversation with my husband after we saw it – a really moving forward kind of conversation. We’ve been married for 155 years [laughs], and I really think there’s something special about this movie.
What are you working on now?
I’m shooting the next 22 episodes of my [ABC Family] show Switched at Birth, which is really a nice job. I’m really proud of the show. One of my daughters on the show is deaf, so we’re all learning sign language. The deaf community has really embraced our show. Young girls and their mothers are our target audience, and I feel like it’s really important to have a positive show for that age group. I live with teenagers, and I know that age of 12 to 14 is really treacherous. It’s hard on them. Society is so difficult on them that I’m happy to be a sounding board for mothers and daughters and now the deaf community, which generally doesn’t have a voice on TV. I also have a movie called Thin Ice coming out with Greg Kinnear, Alan Arkin and Billy Crudup. It comes out [this] year.
Have you seen any movies recently that excite you?
I really liked 50/50, and I really, really liked Bridesmaids. I liked this female comedy that really felt female. It was about a great female friendship, and it was exceptional. I was really inspired by it.
Have you ever been to Sedona?
I love Sedona, and I’m really honored to be in the Sedona Film Festival. I’ve always wanted to be in it, and I’m really excited to come there. I just love it, and I don’t get to go to the high desert very often. It sings to my spirit. I feel a longing for it, and I’m really excited. I think The Trouble With Truth will be great for your audience.
THE WHALE FILMMAKERS SUZANNE CHISHOLM AND MICHAEL PARFIT
 The Whale tells the story of a two-year-old orca nicknamed Luna who becomes separated from his family and winds up in a place called Nootka Sound on the coast of British Columbia. The documentary was written and directed by Suzanne Chisholm and Michael Parfit and executive produced by Ryan Reynolds (who also narrates) and Scarlett Johansson. We aren’t going to give away the details of this touching film, but we guarantee it’s one of the movies everyone will be talking about. Suzanne and Michael spoke to us about a film that has been in the works since 2004.
SEDONA MONTHLY: Starting the film with the analogy of a child lost in a supermarket draws the viewer in instantly because it’s something we can all relate to. You have quite a few relatable analogies in the film – extraterrestrials, kids on the playground, etc. Can you talk about that?
MICHAEL PARFIT: I make those comparisons in my own mind just to understand the things I go through. This is such a stirring sequence of events to go through personally that I made those analogies in notes and diaries while it was happening. When it came time to try to have the story make sense for other people, I used what helped it make sense for me.
SUZANNE CHISHOLM: Luna’s story is universal, and people around the world relate to the idea of getting lost and the need for other beings.
How did Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson become involved?
PARFIT: We showed an early version of the film to a guy named Eric Desatnik. He showed it to Ryan. Ryan loved it. He grew up in Vancouver, so it was really in his backyard. He had seen orcas when he was a child. He showed it to Scarlett Johansson, and she loved it, so they came on board as executive producers, and Ryan did the narration.
Can you talk to us about the timeframe of the film? You mention dates, but never years. How long were you actually covering the story in Canada?
PARFIT: The story runs from 2001 to 2006. We don’t include the dates because we hope people are going to be watching the movie for years. We got involved right at the beginning of 2004. We’ve been almost working on this film full time every since. We didn’t know we were making a film until almost a year and a half into the whole process.
How did you become involved?
PARFIT: I’ve done a lot of writing for National Geographic and the Smithsonian magazine. We were living not far from Luna, and the Smithsonian asked what was interesting in our part of the world. We told them about the little whale. We hadn’t met him yet, but it was an interesting story, so the Smithsonian sent us to cover it for a short magazine article. We thought we would spend three weeks or a month, and we wound up spending years. We were about a five-hour drive from home.
CHISHOLM: Michael and I had worked together for a long time, and we had done documentary films for the National Geographic Channel. We had a background in filmmaking. It’s the kind of story that when you describe it verbally or even in the written word, it doesn’t have the same impact as it does visually. It’s such a visual story.
How have your careers changed since you made the film?
CHISHOLM: We never expected to have a documentary on the big screen in the U.S. and Canada. It’s been very exciting. We joke that we’ve been getting a Ph.D. in filmmaking because we’ve learned so much.
PARFIT: It’s about as expensive as getting a Ph.D. [laughs]. It’s more than just changed our career. Getting to meet and know Luna really changed our lives. The way we look at life in general has changed in ways we don’t really understand yet. It’s been a universal change across everything we do and think about.
Have you made any films since The Whale?
PARFIT: We’ve been working on this the entire time. We’ve taken advantage of the technology to rework the film and make it different and respond to people’s comments. There was an earlier version called Saving Luna, but it’s a very different film now, in part because Ryan Reynolds was involved. That changed the entire structure of the film to some degree. Our perceptions of the story itself have evolved since we’ve searched for the meaning of the story.
When was the film first screened?
PARFIT: The Whale premiered on the big screen [last] August. We showed it for the first time in the Faroe Islands, which is a whaling nation. We were invited by people who believe the Faroe’s should move on from killing whales. It was very well-received there. It’s the last place you’d think of to take a movie for a premier, but it was very rewarding. People who have been killing whales for years are rethinking what they’ve been doing, and the film contributed to that. The old version was in film festivals in 2007 and 2008.
CHISHOLM: We opened theatrically in New York and L.A. [last September]. Saving Luna won 25 awards from film festivals around the world.
When you look back on the experience, does the solution to Luna’s predicament seem obvious?
PARFIT: We turned 180 degrees in getting to know Luna and the situation. We didn’t feel the same way in the beginning.
Luna’s situation also seems like a metaphor for other things going on in the world.
PARFIT: I think that’s what the film does to some degree. It allows us to think about other issues we’re facing. These relationships we have with each other and with other lives and cultures and species – the links we forge are not just warm and fuzzy things. These links between individuals came to us through evolution, which means they are absolutely necessary to our survival. Our society seems to be more focused on the disconnect rather than the connections. While getting to know Luna, every day it was startling to see a whale with the need for connection similar to human beings.
After making this film, what are your feelings toward the Canadian government?
CHISHOLM: It’s interesting. I’m Canadian, and to be honest, we were appalled at the time with the decisions made. Having said that, we met a lot of really good, kind, smart people in the government. I don’t have negative personal feelings toward any of them. The structure of our government is that they have to look at the rule books, and Luna fell way outside anything they were prepared for. They didn’t have the institutional mechanisms to deal with a case like Luna.
PARFIT: As a result of Luna’s experience and the experience of other solitary whales and dolphins, there are some scientists who are looking at establishing a system for meeting with these animals when they do get separated and start to interact with people and trying to give them what they need without harm. That’s a very positive development that will be reflected in government policy. |
