September 24, 2022 • 60 mins
Thinking that there isn't an interesting enough story in your life worth telling? This episode will help you discover what you can share with the world. In this episode, Kent and Anna discuss how to make a story personal, how to use your resources, and share some of their own personal perspectives on the subject.
Free "Make Your Feature Film" Checklist
Schedule my Greenlight Call
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kent (00:28):
Hi, welcome to this podcast episode, and we're so
glad that you are here.
And today we want to talk alittle 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 twothings, making movies.
In general.
That are.
(00:50):
Both personal and relatable andauthentic.
But I think it's also applies tomaking first features.
because we really believe inmaking films that are very
producible and.
And that can be difficultbecause sometimes, sometimes I
think when we want to makefilms, it's hard for me
sometimes when I sit down.
The best ideas feel veryexpensive sometimes.
(01:11):
And, that can be kind offrustrating.
And there's the old adage writewhat you know, and that can also
be frustrating sometimes.
sometimes it feels a littlemaybe on the nose or.
Familiar.
You know, like I've, there'snothing interesting about my
life or about my story.
Or about whatever.
so we want to have a discussionabout that this evening.
(01:35):
I'm going to, we're going tomaybe do this a little bit more
of a casual back and forth.
And so I'll ask Anna somequestions and she might ask me
some questions if, if she thinksof any.
but we want to kind of.
Take this in almost an interviewfashion.
And I'm going to interviewanimals about the films that she
has worked on so far, especiallythe first feature that she
directed.
And, scripts that she's writing.
(01:56):
Now, we won't get into superspecifics about those movies,
but just about her experienceand
Anna (02:01):
yes.
This episode is directed byKent.
Kent (02:03):
Okay.
So the, the first question Ihave Ana.
You know, there's this dichotomyof like, I guess fantasy that
feels like detached, like almostlike a story that feels detached
or impersonal.
And then there's likeautobiography, I guess, on the,
Far extreme, other side of that.
I feel like you and I havealways made films that are close
enough, that we worry thatpeople will think that they're
(02:24):
autobiography.
our first short that weco-directed and the feature that
you directed.
even films that you're writingright now, I think sometimes we
worry, like how much of thiswill be inspired.
By reality.
In fact, am I putting too muchreality in there that people are
going to assume that these otherthings that maybe aren't
reality?
I guess my question is.
(02:44):
Do you approach that consciouslyto 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 aconscious tactic?
Like.
I'm going to mind my ownpersonal.
Brain or history.
How do you approach that?
Or do you even think about it?
Anna (03:04):
Yeah, I think it's really essential to me to make whatever
I'm making as personal as it canpossibly And almost any story.
I can do that with, if I haveenough creative freedom, you
know, there might be certainstories where there just isn't
enough freedom available for meto make it personal the way I
would want to.
(03:24):
And I might say no to a projectlike that.
If I don't feel like I can.
Take it that direction, but Ithink.
There's stories about all kindsof things and all kinds of
genres that are personal to me.
and really it's just a thematicthing.
I think it has less to do with.
The circumstances of the film,although, because we started out
(03:45):
with resource filmmaking, thecircumstances tend to be.
Very similar to our own becausewe're using our own house, our
own children, like.
Kent (03:53):
It adds to the autobiographical
Anna (03:55):
feel Naturally leads to people saying, oh, is this about
you?
Is this.
A personal story and I can seewhy 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 kindof a philosophical.
Exploration for me personally,where I'm, I want a character to
(04:19):
represent maybe one side of anargument and another other
characters perhaps to representanother side.
And explore how those twointeract, how they clash, how
they sometimes want the samething.
and a story is a really greatplace to.
Explore that debate betweenthings and find sort of a
synthesis or a conclusion or.
(04:42):
play it, just let it play it,play out all the way and see
what happens.
Kent (04:46):
Yeah.
That's interesting.
It does seem like it's like ifwe put these two characters into
our lives, And it sounds likeyou kind of were like insert
these people that aren't us intoour lives.
I just see what they do and playit out to the end.
That's
Anna (05:00):
sometimes.
Yeah.
I don't know if it's always intoour lives.
It's
Kent (05:03):
just, I never thought of it that way, but it's like kind
of
Anna (05:05):
with our first few films.
Kent (05:07):
Our house
Anna (05:07):
with our kids.
Because that's, we're using our
Kent (05:10):
resources.
And with the short ready or not,we, we also, there was a baby
that was belonged to us.
That was featured in thatparticular film.
And, it was our friend's house.
Not ours.
But regardless, there was someissues there that were
interesting, but they, and yetthose characters were like
extremely different than us.
They were just, they didn'trepresent us.
(05:31):
No.
that's interesting.
and so.
I feel like.
I think about the films that welove, and I guess there are some
that you particularly reallylove and there's some that I
really love.
And they're not always the ButI'll think of a few of your
favorites.
Like for example, Lala land hasmade by shizzle, Damien.
who.
I mean, he's known for makingpretty personal films.
(05:53):
And yet I think whiplash isprobably his most personal.
Anna (05:56):
It might be as most autobiographical, but I do feel
like his films actually.
Tend to explore similar themesand themes that I'm interested
in, which tend to do with.
People who are trying toaccomplish something.
That's a huge goal.
Like they have goals that theywant that are big going to the
moon.
Yeah, and they're trying to doit.
(06:17):
And it's always this questionof, is it worth the sacrifice?
Is it worth the sacrifices?
And I mean, in his films, theyalways choose to do it.
Despite everything they lose.
And I think that there's somerealism to that and that you
can't have all the things youwant necessarily in life that
would be sort of a fantasy or anunrealistic story.
(06:41):
At the same time, it issomething that I'm constantly.
Thinking about because.
I don't want to sacrifice myrelationships for But I do want
to make a difference and I wantto make films that I care about.
And so.
There is sort of that questionin my own mind of, you know, at
(07:01):
what point is it too much andhow much success can you have
without sacrificing thosethings?
So it's a slightly differentquestion.
But I think what he's exploringis what does it take to have
that level of success to be thebest at something?
What does it cost or to be thefirst on the moon or to be, you
know, to have that dream, youhave.
(07:22):
Wanted since you were a childcome true.
And, and then ultimately is itworth it?
And sometimes I think he's evenleaving it up to the audience to
decide.
Was it worth What do you think?
he doesn't always.
Answer it super
Kent (07:38):
clearly.
So, Based on interviews andstuff.
I think we can know that.
whiplash came from a verypersonal place, even Lala land.
There was some personal stuff.
I think he was kind of puttinginto that film and he's even
said in interviews like.
When I feel scared, like I can'twrite this or all my friends
will just say, oh, Damian, youjust make movies about yourself.
(07:58):
He's like, that's what I know.
I should write it.
You know, I don't know if that'smaintained, like as much truth
as he's made like first man andhe's made more stuff.
but like, shifting directions,like I think of a film that you
love, like Anna Karenina, forexample, Joe, right.
he loves literature apparentlyand whatnot.
But he really didn't come upwith the idea.
He's not a writer director,even.
(08:19):
He didn't even write the script.
It's an adaptation of the LeoTolstoy novel.
Leo Tolstoy.
It was a male writing a storyabout a female experiencing the
social repercussions ofadultery.
It's an interesting story,right?
Like why.
You know, that film feels veryauthentic to me, it feels very
(08:39):
honest.
It's powerful.
Just the it's source materialis, is remarkable and has had
ripples through culture, So, Iguess my question is.
Is it the only way, maybe it's abad example because obviously
it's not a resource filmmakingkind of film ma in some ways it
is, but for the sake of featurefilmmaker academy, it is not, it
does not fit the definition ofresource Yeah.
(09:00):
It's a$30 million movie with alist 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 theprinciples that must be
followed, you know, like in yourmind, How do you balance that?
I guess.
the existence, I suppose, offilms that are not necessarily
(09:23):
autobiographical or even.
Very personal, unless LeoTolstoy experienced.
Some side of something likethat, which I know nothing about
Leo Tolstoy is life, but let'sjust assume he And I think that
that's just an okay assumptionto make, because we know that
there are people Have madeincredible films that.
Maybe aren't like mining.
(09:44):
Like, you know, they're not veryclose to that autobiographical
side of, of that spectrum, Iguess, how did What's your
perspective
Anna (09:54):
I don't know, I guess I think of.
Anna Karenina is somethingthat's almost.
A universal experience.
It's hard for me to imagine himnot being able to relate to.
Obviously, I mean, not all of ushave had affairs, but, this
interplay or this comparison oflove versus lust, or like how to
love and lust.
(10:15):
Interact.
Or do they.
you have a relationship that.
Is.
A marriage of convenience ofmarriage, of class, where
there's.
Some degree of love.
But not And no less.
And then you have thisrelationship that is built on
the foundation of lust anddeception.
(10:37):
Contrasted with anotherrelationship that is built on a
foundation of love andcommitment and sacrifice.
And I just think.
I don't know to me, that's likea theme that I am really
interested Is.
Like.
True love and.
What that looks And theconsequences of.
(10:59):
Lest.
Hmm.
And what the differences.
Kent (11:02):
It's interesting that you're like almost working
backwards, like trying to use astory to.
Break apart.
thesis into its component parts,you know, as if it was the
synthesis.
And you're trying to find athesis and antithesis out of
that, What is love?
What is lust?
And I say you because you'redescribing Tolstoy in that way,
(11:23):
but I also know that you explorefilms this way, like you just
described you're trying todefine 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 Constantinelook, you know, how do, Ana and.
What's his name?
Brunswick, Bronzeville, whateverI'm stroking my mustache.
(11:47):
And so.
It's That's an interesting ideathat, you know, and it is like a
very theoretical way, but youdon't, watch the story and go,
there's a bunch of theories inthis movie.
You're like there's characters,right?
They feel fleshed out and veryreal.
And that brings me to this ideaof like, misappropriation, which
is a topic and storytelling,which we're all very worried
about.
(12:07):
Like, you can only tell likeautobiographical stories,
otherwise you're being likesexist or racist or stepping out
of bounds in some way.
And I'm wondering what yourfeelings are there because we
have professors, I think, We hadprofessors on like opposite
sides of that and friends aswell, who have.
S some writer, friends in,particularly who have kind of
bounced around on differentcamps Like we need more female
(12:28):
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 yetthat's almost turned into,
therefore you can't tell thatstory.
Otherwise it's misappropriation.
And so I guess for you, like,what is misappropriation?
Is it real.
(12:50):
And If, so what, what doesn'tcount is misappropriation, I
guess like for you.
Do you even think about
Anna (12:57):
that or?
No, I think that's a goodquestion.
I don't really believe intelling people that they can't
tell any story that they feellike 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 itdoesn't mean that no one relates
to them.
Maybe some people But a lot oftimes I watch them and feel like
(13:20):
I don't.
I think that this person eitherknows what it's like to be a
mother or has had the sameexperience with parenthood as
I've had.
If any experience withparenthood.
and so I think it can be verypowerful.
Two.
If you're telling a story,that's thematically related to a
specific.
(13:41):
Experience that you understanddeeply.
That can be really powerful totell that story and to introduce
people into that world in a waythat maybe.
They have never experienced,
Kent (13:52):
That's really interesting.
We have a dear mentor andprofessor.
Who lost his wife?
And I think it's reallyinteresting because he.
he could pick out.
Disingenuous stuff.
Anything relating to that sortof an experience.
A deep, personal human loss ofany kind.
Usually a death.
(14:15):
I remember there was something,there was a S a student piece
that I made that related to aman losing his wife.
And that moment of discovery.
And I remember that that was oneof the things that he was like,
his behavior in that, thatmoment, that shot right there,
he goes.
That's not.
How he would have behaved.
And I think he came from it.
(14:35):
With some authority and youmight think, well, maybe a
different person other than youwould 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 thatmaybe like another character
could, but like this character.
I think this professorunderstood this character better
(14:56):
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 implausibilityerror, the specific way that he
responded versus the realisticways that someone would respond
in that scenario, getting thatnews.
You know, on that day, you know,it's like, and it made sense to
(15:17):
me.
And he also said this about themovie of monster calls, which,
it's not a big bash.
It's actually reallyinteresting.
He said.
I watched that film.
This is I'm speaking, I guess,on behalf of him.
He was basically saying thathe'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 boywho's experiencing the slow.
(15:38):
Decline and death of his motherfrom, I think cancer.
And he said it was very evidentto me that the director had not
experienced And just, justwatching the movie, he could And
then he said the later helistened to interviews from the
director And the book really didseem to take this angle of like
a loss of faith.
And the boy and this sort oflike difficult cynicism that was
(16:00):
brewing in him because of thisloss.
And yet the movie touched on it,but it just didn't seem to
quite.
Capture it.
And then he said that thedirector says in an interview,
basically that this film wasn'ta film about loss.
It was a coming of That's how hetook the film.
That's how he directed it,right?
Yeah.
And he was like, oh, okay.
(16:20):
So that's what it wasinteresting to him about this
story.
Like it was, it wasn't even afilm 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 itdifferently, but it's true that
like we, as human beings comewith our own affordances and
limitations because of our ownlife perspectives.
(16:41):
I bring that up because a tallstory, right?
He's a man, but he's runningabout a woman having an affair
in this society.
That's going to be verydifficult
Anna (16:47):
And I actually think it's so.
Good and healthy for us to try.
To make films and try tounderstand people who are
different than us.
And we might, and we have toaccept that we might be wrong.
We might not portray itperfectly.
We might have errors or peoplemight not relate to it, but I
think that.
(17:08):
We learn, we learn about otherpeople.
And we even where we fall short,we start to see and understand
the people around us, whichultimately is a good result.
You know, that is Discussion tobe able to have, or result to be
able to obtain throughfilmmaking.
I think filmmaking can be verycharitable and acting and, you
know, whatever.
(17:29):
Whey you're involved infilmmaking being able to.
Try to put yourself in someoneelse's shoes and relate to that
person and understand them, evenif you don't agree with them.
taking Anna Karenina again, asan example.
Anna is a character that I canrelate to, to some degree.
Although, I wouldn't make thechoices that she had And I see
(17:52):
the consequences of thosechoices and I don't.
Envy her, but.
At the same time.
I think it's good for me to beable to understand someone who
might make that mistake and.
Experiences those difficultiesand it's a cautionary tale to a
degree.
at least that's my reading ofit.
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 thatyou're with.
No, I don't think it's trying todo that.
I mean, there might even besituations where someone might
be able to tell that, but I justdon't know how you can read that
out of Anna Corona.
Anna (18:35):
Yeah.
And there's been many versionsof that story.
So maybe other versions oftrailer
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 evertold.
Marketing.
Yeah.
Anna (18:49):
Yeah, I think misappropriation.
In my mind is when you're notcoming from that place of trying
to understand.
Somebody.
But you are trying to portraythem.
Like if you're not doing itcharitably, if you're not taking
the time to do your research, toreally try to understand a
person or you're trying to do anexpos a or you have some sort of
(19:10):
the research, isn't just likethis.
It's
Kent (19:11):
a box to check.
The research is like, Because ofgenuine 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 agreewith what they It just doesn't
do them justice to try to telltheir story from a place of
seeing them.
As evil and ill intended.
And that's a kind of filmmakingthat 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 thelead writers on the office and
he was creative parks and recand the good place.
And we met him and he, at onepoint he I'm at a writer's
conference at BYU.
And he said he quoted someone, Ibelieve.
I don't think this was himspeaking for himself.
As I'm saying, if you don't loveyour characters, you have no
(20:00):
business writing them.
Yeah.
Or maybe that was the directorof a parks and rec not parks and
rec.
Sorry.
I just said that.
Of a Portlandia.
He might've been the one to saythat, but, but that was like a
theme of that conference.
Many of the, of the guests inthat conference, including.
Mike.
We're talking about that.
Absolute necessity that like, ifyou don't have like a loving.
Disposition towards thesecharacters.
(20:23):
Like, they're not even going tobe 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 comingfrom 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 inthe first place.
Anna (20:42):
Yeah.
Being able to relate.
So that to me is whatmisappropriation is.
I could tell a story male who'sin a totally different situation
than I am totally different racethan I am, whatever.
And it could be deeply personalto me and I can relate to that
person's experience or their wayof viewing the world.
(21:03):
And I think.
You know, I might mess up alittle, I might not be perfect,
but I would definitely try tounderstand.
Those parts of that person'sheritage or history or
circumstances that I don'tnecessarily know.
Yeah.
I have some examples of films inmy mind, that stories that I
feel like I want to tell that Iknow I would need to do research
(21:24):
on because yeah, there arepeople 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 afilm that I've wanted to tell
about, Like.
Early.
Colonization of Hawaii.
And about Hawaiian.
Culture and early Hawaiianmartial law called kupu.
And I remember that one, I, Ihad some people like.
(21:51):
Sort of college students kind ofwarned me like, oh, that might
be misappropriation.
And I even had a professor thatwas like, just tell the dang
story.
And it's not like a.
Just tell it lazy.
I mean, this professor is awriter and he would want nothing
short of like extremeauthenticity, like dig deep and
research the jeepers, not justresearch, but like develop.
(22:16):
The characters to the enthdegree, right?
Like, don't settle for anythingless 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 andI, and you wouldn't be able to
make the film without support.
From.
The people that you wereportraying.
You know, and then they wouldbecome the filmmakers
themselves.
And so it's like, we act likethe director or the writer, like
(22:38):
the authors and in a lot ofways, they are very principle
authors of a film and they'reimportant authors of a film.
And yet Ron Howard just made afilm about, people in Taiwan.
And called 13 lives, remarkablefilm that portrays Europeans.
They are Anglo-Saxon whitemales, but they're not Americans
like Ron Howard is.
And, and yet the movie wasproduced by time by Thai people.
(23:02):
And it's majority cast is Thai.
And almost none of the cast.
Or even the characters areAmerican.
Like, and so there's a huge mix,but the story is kind of a mixed
story, but it portrays all thesethings.
So charitably and respectfully,it's a deeply respectful film
and you can feel that on everylevel, like it has this respect
(23:23):
for humanity, for human life,for all the different countries.
And cultures.
There were involved all thedifferent professions of the,
agricultural, farmer.
Rescue team Navy seal militaryYou know, government.
Yeah, it just didn't look downon and he wasn't, no one was the
bad guy in that film.
(23:44):
It was just.
It was just Incredible moviethat I think.
Really disproves, maybe.
A blanketed view ofmisappropriation.
So, I guess that's hopefully nota tangent, but for me, it's
just, it's this permission totell stories that feel resonant
on a thematic level.
Like you said it doesn't matterwhat the subject matter is.
(24:06):
if it's about.
A group of people that maybe youdon't fit into in some way,
which I think almost every storyin some way, detaches itself
from you at some point.
At least the characters.
We'll unless it's literallyautobiographical.
then pull in people who aremaybe closer to that.
And pull them into the movie,you know, whether it's the
actors or producers or, orwhoever.
(24:27):
And I think of cocoa, right.
It's made by an Americancompany.
And yet it was the highestgrossing film.
Of all time.
In Mexico.
Because I think the Mexicansfelt 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 alot of Mexican friends and I
have.
Deep love for that culture.
(24:49):
But I haven't even been toMexico.
No, but you know, very much inmy life.
And yet.
That's one of the mostemotionally impactful films I've
ever seen.
I I'm just gonna say thatwithout any shame.
They're like a Pixar moviethat's aimed at ten-year-olds or
even younger.
Is one of my favorite films.
Because it relates to me in waysthat the filmmakers have no
(25:11):
idea.
Could relate to me.
Yeah.
It relates to me on atheological level, as a member
of the church of Jesus Christ oflatter day saints.
about families, you know,eternal families and those you
eternity or the eternalrelationship.
or the eternal nature of thoserelationships.
I mean, And I think it actuallyexpresses a better than any film
I've ever seen ever.
(25:32):
It's including all films made bypeople of my faith, right?
Like, I don't, I don't thinkwe'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 calla pagan holiday?
And so I just think that'sreally actually.
I think that's really cool.
I think it's exciting.
And I think it's charitable andthere were a ton of Mexican and
(25:56):
otherwise Latin American orHispanic.
Members of that team that madethe film.
But, A lot of the lead playerswere probably white.
Men and women like not evennecessarily fluent Spanish.
Anna (26:10):
So yeah, I think there are many examples of this where.
Often even someone from anoutside perspective can tell the
story even better and appreciateit even more than someone who's
inside of it.
I think of, A few examples cometo mind.
I think, well, one is Fordversus Ferrari, which I think is
people who don't love cars.
and it's a movie about cars.
(26:31):
And the director was not someonewho was super into car races.
Kent (26:35):
He didn't like NASCAR culture in general.
He's like, I just don't likeNASCAR that I frankly
interesting.
I frankly, don't even like,Forties that I would buy a
Ferrari before I'd buy, likethe, the GT that they drive in
the movie.
Anna (26:48):
But I think he did a great job.
Making that story personal andinteresting.
And.
the other one that comes to mindis pursuit of happiness.
Which is a beautiful film aboutthe American And yet it was made
by someone who was not anAmerican.
I'm not able to speak English.
Directed directed.
Yeah.
And yet I think he captured.
(27:10):
The American dream and he spokeEnglish.
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 todo that better because he was
not an American because he couldsee that from an outside
perspective.
That appreciates it more thanmost of us do, who grow up
Kent (27:33):
in it.
And what's interesting is we'renot 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 27year old named Steven Spielberg.
there's a great little line inthere where they're talking
about island life.
And they're like, I think I'velived here for like 10 years and
I'm like, aren't high a logo andthey're like, no, you're not a
local as you were born here.
It's just I remember, like it'slike a background conversation.
(27:55):
Like some extras are having orsomething.
but it was intentional.
You were meant to hear theconversation, but I just.
That, that idea of like this.
Tight sort of community that'slike really special and everyone
wants to feel like.
They're indigenous somehow, youknow, of that cool little beach
town, but you know, very few ofthem actually are.
(28:15):
And so there's this kind ofpride that exists.
And I feel like.
We live in a place kind of likethat, like Peachtree city has
got this pride and most of usare transplants almost.
None of us really grew up here.
Although a lot of people.
Here.
Did grow up here and a lot ofpeople stay or come back after,
you know, college education,they raise their families here
because it's such a familyplace.
(28:36):
So we were hired to make acommercial for Peachtree city
and we took it in a verynarrative route.
And I just think about how youmentioned earlier, like even
projects that come to you, youjudge it based on, can I bring.
A personal point of view to thisin a way that I feel like.
I am.
Injecting.
Myself into it.
There's like me.
(28:57):
That can breathe life into thisthing, And, and so when I got
that, I was like, well, this isa place that I really love and
I'm coming from it from animmigrant perspective, so to
speak, you know, like I'm I'venever lived in Georgia at all
the state in my life.
I hadn't even visited Georgia.
You know, I'd probably driventhrough it is all.
When I was like tiny.
And so you, you, you bring adifferent perspective there and
(29:19):
that's not necessarily.
Not necessarily a bad thing.
I guess what you're saying isthat 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 arestarting to grow up here and
just think, oh, all cities arethis way they take for granted
what makes this city special?
Because it's just all they'veever known.
It's like Woody,
Kent (29:39):
Allen's midnight in Paris, right?
It's his love letter to a placethat he loves, that he is no way
a citizen Actually William mighthave dual citizenship for all I
know, but, but he's notindigenous.
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.
(30:00):
Love movies that talk about howgreat Frances, right?
Like, especially if they're madefrom an outside perspective,
don't we all prefer conversionstories.
Like.
Christians love stories aboutpeople who were like way on like
the fringes of the most notChristian And they become
Christian.
And you can say that about anyreligion, any country.
We just love the stories of thepeople Come here.
(30:22):
And, you know, and in a lot ofways, America is a story of
immigration and we love storiesabout.
That perspective of like peoplefalling in love with yeah.
Making this their home or, yeah.
Yeah.
And so in some ways I think thatthat, that love thing comes
back.
It's not even just love foryour.
Characters that have flesh andblood, but like your.
(30:44):
Either literally or proverbiallyfor proverbially.
but also your, Subject matter onany level, like if your subject
manner is a country or a placeor a religion or, whatever it,
you can make films that try andtear things down or, or.
Appreciate the value and thegoodness in.
Whatever that thing is like evennative religions that most of us
(31:07):
as Western people would considerto be superstitious.
Ron Howard depicts them.
Very charitably in the movie, 13lives and to the point where
some Christians had issue withit, because they were like, it
shows idol worship or whatever.
And it's like, It wasrespectfully showing.
Some of the driving faith ofpeople that have a different
religion.
Than most.
(31:27):
Western civilizations.
Right.
And.
I just, I thought it was, it wasrespectful.
I don't think it was trying toconvert us to those
Anna (31:36):
religions.
No, it didn't have an agenda todo anything, but it was loving
and trying to understand andappreciate.
Something that was differentthan Ron Howard Convictions or
whatever
Kent (31:46):
those are.
I don't really know.
Isn't that interesting thatlike, I think that sometimes
because.
Like we're people of faith.
And I think that often peoplewill face in any degree.
or people have strongconvictions who aren't even
people of faith, whether thoseconvictions are political or
religious or, or just personalin some way.
(32:06):
the, when those convictionsbecome an agenda in our film, it
really ruins the film.
It ruins the tone and theperspective or point of view of
it.
It ruins the authenticity of theentire experience.
In my opinion, I think.
When conversion is the goal.
You really do sacrificeauthenticity.
And I think that's why people offaith often struggle and make
authentic films.
And I don't, I'm not saying thatto be critical.
(32:27):
I'm just saying it is like a,something I'm learning from what
you said, Ana, that.
We often fear to tell storiesabout things that we don't
believe in or that we don't evenagree with in a.
Respectful or accepting lightbecause we think that that will
then become the agenda.
Like that will become theperspective of the film.
But once again, like you canshare to leave portray a
(32:49):
different religion or adifferent Paul political
standpoint or a different.
Person, you know, whatever inwhatever way that difference
manifests itself.
With deep respect and love.
And you're not like.
Advocating that person'slifestyle or religion or, or I
don't know, country ofcitizenship Great
Anna (33:09):
example, cause some of the best Christian films are made by
people who are not of the samereligion as the ones portrayed
in the film.
If they're made with that intentof being charitable and
understanding and appreciatingwhat this person believed and
what they were trying to do.
Now there are other films thatare.
Intentionally made to try todissuade or present an agenda or
(33:33):
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 peoplecriticize.
Bad political or religiousfilmmaking.
On one side of the aisle, butI'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 authenticitybecause they lose sight of like,
The charity for the charactersand for the.
(34:00):
Perspectives of those charactersand, we, we kind of.
We turn.
our friend who we just had onthe podcast, bird Berg, and I
pitched the story to him and hesaid, I told them these
characters and this and that andwhatever.
And he said those aren'tcharacters we, you just
described are ideologies.
And.
It like hit me like a ton ofbricks.
I was like, he's totally right.
(34:22):
You're totally right.
I had not really created acharacter that had like a life
and a desire.
I created a character that had apoint And they basically just
lived verbally based on thatpoint of view, I could have made
Black white male, female.
American European Asian.
It just, it wouldn't They wouldhave the same ideology and they
(34:44):
would have said the same words.
In other words, there was noflesh.
There was just no reality orlike circumstantiality or.
Context to this character, theyjust were.
My words.
Of that perspective.
Which is that's kind ofmisappropriation, right?
It's like, well, if I had thatincorrect perspective, I would
say You know, it's like, it'slike, it's not really a
(35:07):
character.
Well,
Anna (35:08):
and it depends on what you're making.
I think if you're in a fantasyrealm, like you have a little
more freedom to explore thosekinds of things, where a
character could wreck represent.
An idea or an archetype orsomething, but.
When it's I think, especially ifyou're representing.
Depicting actual events, actualpeople, actual religions or
(35:29):
cultures.
That's when you have to be.
Really
Kent (35:32):
careful.
Well, but I mean, I'll even flipthat.
I think that the burden isalmost higher when you're making
fantasy, because you look atTolkien and he wrote very few
stories in comparison to a lotof novelists.
I mean, you're like GaryPaulson, Gary Paulson wrote
stories that he knew he was verymuch into the wilderness.
He was into survival.
He was into.
Coming of age, about 14 year oldboys, because he ran away from
(35:53):
home at 14 and went to live withus in a circus and they all sort
of stuff.
He put himself into thosestories and he wrote over a
hundred novels.
Tolkien wrote like very fewmiddle earth pretty much was the
main thing that he wrote ever.
He didn't write that many booksto be Frank compared to most
writers.
And yet.
I think that's because theburden on him was not just
(36:14):
research.
It was creation and he had tocreate so much context to the
world.
He couldn't just go read a bookabout it.
He had to write a book about itand then write That takes place
inside the context of the bookthat he just wrote, you know,
like he had to create what is ahabit.
And, and then flush out whatthat means.
And then the, all the context ofHobbiton culturally and
(36:37):
spiritually and mystically andmythologically, you had to
create the history and theeverything.
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 fleshedout 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 makesthem so powerful.
Yeah, that's amazing, but it'skind of a pushback from what you
said, like.
As if there's an archetype andthen there's like a real listic
character and I'm like, well, Ithink 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 problemto start there.
As long as you are willing toput 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 Iwant to bring it back to this
topic, because I think it'svaluable for our listeners, but
I also think it's valuable forus.
To discuss is just.
We're talking about.
Films that can be produced withwhatever resources we have now.
Whether those resourcesOurselves or people we know with
(37:41):
significant amounts of money orjust things.
We have access to person,people, places, whatever.
How.
I guess I want to boil down someprinciples.
Maybe each of us could take aturn.
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 muchwhat we've just done this whole
episode.
Summarize.
Well from this discussion.
And also just from your ex yourexperience as a filmmaker, as a
person, who's written a fewscripts and made a few movies
(38:34):
and is currently writing a fewscripts, you know, Like.
What are some principles forapproaching?
Putting yourself.
Into a project or into a film orinto 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 storiescould be personal to me?
I think.
There are times in my life whereI thought, oh, I could never
make a Marvel movie.
I could never make like, there'scertain kinds of movies that I
would never make.
I would never make a horror,thriller movies, stuff like And
(39:10):
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 filmsThan I.
Would initially expect.
And so.
I've read a lot of scripts fromfriends who write different
(39:32):
kinds of stories than I do.
And as I talked to them aboutthe themes and what they're
expressing, or even people inthe feature filmmaker academy, a
lot of people in that academyare making films that are.
Not films I would have ever.
Chosen to make.
And yet.
As we.
Mentor them through theirprocess of developing the film.
(39:55):
I come to see why it's personalto them and what their.
Doing with these characters inthese stories.
And that's been a reallyenjoyable experience.
I think.
Yeah.
So I think, yeah, I've becomemore open-minded to.
Consider what I could makepersonal.
Kent (40:13):
That's really cool.
I've noticed that in you aswell.
I think that at first, when wewere.
In school.
I feel like your, your generalfeeling was like that you'd have
to write all the movies youdirected.
Because.
I seem to remember this beingyour general feeling, or
leaning, I should say.
and then I started to see thatand I've always kind of had the
(40:34):
opposite feeling, which isSpielberg didn't write hardly
any of the movies.
He.
Directed, you know, and I'd behappy if like people, if people
brought my goal is to be able tomake anything that someone
brings to me personal.
And yet you've actually.
Had more written.
And given to you, you know, likeI wrote the first draft of the
(40:55):
love and loss.
And I wrote the first draft ofready or not.
And there were other projectsthat we've some haven't
materialized, but they werecompletely written by someone
else and they were deeplypersonal to you.
And so I think it's interestingthat you've been able to extend
that.
And I've pretty much written Ifeel like I haven't really had
anyone like Henry script thatI'm like, oh yeah, great.
I'd love to still do that, but,you know, Something that comes
(41:17):
to my mind is Paul Schradertalks about, How to make a
spark.
You know, out of a positive andnegative charge, you have two
wires.
And, he said, You have ametaphor.
And there's the reality or likethe literal, which is like,
Basically autobiography, right?
It's like, it's you.
It's your life.
It's your personality.
(41:38):
And then there's like themetaphor, which is basically the
movie you're making.
And.
The story that you'refabricating 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.
(41:58):
They're like the same thing.
At that point, you were justcompletely making autobiography.
He said at that point, It's veryhard to be completely honest and
authentic because.
We don't really want to be thatauthentic and honest, usually.
And once again, this is hisapproach for himself.
He's like, I can't.
Just tell the truth about myselfin every single regard and
(42:20):
explore the themes and thecharacters and everything
freely.
But if it's too far apart, youknow, if it's super far
separated, There's no metaphor,right?
It's like, Yeah, or there's noauthenticity at all, because
it's so far removed from thestory that you're telling you,
you are so detached from the Hesaid when, when the, when the
distance is just right.
(42:40):
It's just make believe enough.
That you can freely explore itand be honest about, well, this
is what the character would do,and this is what would happen.
This is how he just let thestory tell itself.
But there's enough of you in itthat it's like, and I can speak
from some position ofunderstanding, you know, and.
Boy, this last script that I'vebeen working on, that I've got
about 20 pages into.
(43:02):
I can't even tell you how muchjust con conceptual development.
Had to go into.
Starting to be able to evenwrite Before I felt like that
distance, the spark hit, youknow, I'd put just enough of
myself and not just myself, myown theological beliefs, which
was a big part of thisparticular story.
(43:22):
Into it, but then I, I justcouldn't tell if it was truly
exactly the theological.
Like, if I was like, I'm justgoing to go straight up, you
know?
Pull it out of the scriptureskind of thing, you know?
And I just, because I just, Idon't know why I couldn't do it.
It.
The story just didn't goanywhere.
It just couldn't breathe.
And then I separated it enoughthat it was basically a fantasy
(43:46):
film.
It wasn't really a religiousfilm of any existence, religion.
and yet if you watched it andyou were like, if you shared my
religious convictions, you'dwatch it and probably go, well,
this was obviously made by.
Person, who's a member of thechurch of Jesus Christ of latter
day You know what I mean?
And they'd see it, but mostpeople would watch and just go,
this is really interestingfantasy film.
(44:07):
And I, and it's not like.
Battlestar Galactica or anythingwhere they're like, there's like
a council of the 12 or anythingthat like really on the nose.
It's like, hopefully not.
but it's like, It justmetaphorically kind of works in
the same way, but yet it'sdetached enough that it's like,
None of us would be like, ohyeah, I believe all those
things.
No, it's make believe.
That's just fake.
It's But just the same as likeJr.
(44:29):
Tolkien was Catholic.
He wasn't.
He didn't believe in elves, It'slike, and, and it, like, it
opened it up enough for me thatI felt like.
I could be.
Authentic.
But I could also.
You know, I could step out of itenough that I could feel like I
could lead it.
You know, it wasn't just likeme.
And myself,
Anna (44:49):
and I think sometimes it's easier to be real and authentic
when the story is removed fromyourself.
Because
Kent (44:56):
I think about that.
That's the French man and makingthe pursuit of happiness.
That's the, The the Americanmaking.
Midnight in Paris.
Right?
Anna (45:05):
It's.
We're coming back around to thatagain.
And I think it's also just.
You don't have to be.
So self-conscious when it's notabout you.
So it lets you be honest.
It's like when you're acting, Iremember doing acting classes
and we'd do a neutral maskexercise where everyone puts on
this mask.
That's just like a neutral face.
And.
It's so much easier to be honestand like, Expressive when.
(45:31):
No one can see your face becauseyou can't really be
self-conscious you feel.
Like there's this freedom.
To express and not, and you'renot yourself.
No, one's.
It's really hard to explain ifyou haven't tried it, but it's
this idea that when you'rehiding yourself, You can be more
honest.
Do you feel like when you're ina story, that's clearly not.
(45:54):
You, you know, it's so separatedfrom.
Yourself.
That there you can reallyhonestly explore something and
not have to be self-consciousthat.
Oh, everyone's, what's everyonegoing to think about my face or
about my religion or aboutwhatever I'm telling this story
about.
Kent (46:10):
Ryan Gosling talked about the power of costume in that
same way, where he talked aboutlike watching his uncle bedazzle
a suit, he was like an Elvisimpersonator.
And like, when he put that on,it almost gave him this, like
this power or this like releaseI'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 andeveryone was wearing sixties
clothing and it was HalloweenYeah, 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 ofclothing.
It was amazing how.
Easily.
I felt like I was a differentcharacter and I.
Felt myself.
Acting kind of differentlybecause I was dressed
differently.
It's strange, but.
Yeah.
I think with storytelling.
(47:15):
You want to make somethingpersonal?
But it's okay if it's removedfrom your own personal life and
in a way that can really helpyou explore and understand other
people.
be really honest and sincere.
And still not.
Have it be too close to home ina way that's, doesn't let you be
(47:36):
honest because you're It's hardto explain, but well,
Kent (47:39):
and everyone's gonna be a little different, cause I've
seen some people make stuff thatis 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, youknow?
Then for me.
And for others, it's like evenbigger.
You know, it's like, I'm notwriting a high fantasy, like
Tolkien.
Like I have not done as muchworld-building as he has, like
(48:01):
not even close and.
And for him at that hugedistance, 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, ohyeah.
That's clearly like theautobiographical portion, It's
we, we all see.
(48:22):
Little things where like, oh,there's maybe like a little bit
of Catholicness Oh, yeah, wesink like, oh, there's maybe a
little bit of Catholicness ormaybe there's a little bit of
like, is world war one andexperience or whatever, but none
of us are like, Oh, it's it'sBilbo.
It's definitely him.
Like he is talking.
It's like, you know what I mean?
But yeah.
And yet with a lot offilmmakers, Even with Schrader.
(48:44):
He's like taxi driver was like,what if I put myself.
I basically was like as a 20year old.
If I were to put myself in ataxi.
And, and just kind of go downthis road that I was going down
in my life and I could just seelike all the destruction.
That I could experience.
Going down that road withoutactually going down that road.
(49:07):
And so he writes it all into thescript, And, And so for him, it
was almost this like, I'm anexplore 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 italmost, you know, it's like for
(49:28):
him, so.
For him, maybe there was alittle bit more of a
personification.
That was like, or maybe evenlike a clone or like a.
Surrogate.
Yeah, for himself in that story,that was more direct.
And so I guess for me, Theseprinciples.
There's no like strict, you mustdo it one way or the other.
(49:48):
Especially with resourcefilmmaking.
Some people don't have theresource of, they can set up
green screens and they are supergood at Rotoscoping and chroma
key and they could tell a scifimovie on like no money.
And I dare people out there.
It's like, they just take theirtime and they shoot it all in
their basement.
And even Jackson said, PeterJackson said, people are gonna
(50:09):
make movies like this in 20years out of their basements.
And.
there are people making filmsthat have as good a VFX in some
aspects as Lord of the rings hadin the year, 2001.
In their basements and, and someof us don't have those skills.
So maybe our skills aredifferent or our resources are
different.
So I guess my point is like,there's no genre.
(50:31):
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 makingstop motion movies out of their
basements.
For a long time,
Anna (50:41):
Your skills are a resource to, with.
With resource filmmakingresource filmmaking does not You
have to be telling anautobiographical film.
Yeah.
But some people can and do verywell.
Like you said, I just think it'sharder.
I think it's, I almost wonder ifit's related to.
How it's harder to loveourselves than to love other
(51:02):
people.
You know, I think.
It would be easier for me tomake a film about a Catholic
than a film, about a member ofmy own church.
Because.
Or a film about someone elsethan a film about myself,
because it's easier for me tolove.
People with all their flaws.
When they aren't me.
And sometimes when it's me, it'slike, I don't forgive myself as
Kent (51:22):
easily or even I can't show myself charitably or it
feels indulgent or people Wherepeople think of vein.
Yeah, exactly.
And yet, like, I don't thinkthat'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.
(51:43):
Self-deprecation.
It's true confidence, which is asynthesis, right?
It's neither of the two thingsit's actually higher than either
In this case, they're both kindof negatives, right?
And sometimes we think theself-deprecation.
Is humility.
Which it's not.
And sometimes we think that.
Arrogance is confidence, whichit's not humility is.
(52:05):
Transcendent of both of thoseand confidence, I think is
transcendent of both of those.
So in some ways, our virtues ordeveloping virtues or developing
our characters.
It behooves us.
To be charitable with ourselvesand develop those attributes.
Because it helps us to be ableto tell great stories that makes
me think of the summer wemarathon Miyazaki films.
(52:27):
And I remember watching thoseand thinking.
It finally hit This concept,that Dean Dunkin, one of my
professors said about charitablefilmmaking.
It hit me one day.
I was like, oh, Miyazaki makescharitable films.
Meaning.
Films that have this perspectiveof love in general, they're just
lovingly.
(52:48):
Made, but they also have thisperspective of love toward their
characters almost across theboard.
And their subject matter aswell.
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, howdoes he do it?
What is the craft?
What is the, what are thebuttons?
I have to push to get charityinto I mean, it sounds silly,
right?
And I watched those and I waslike, Miyazaki makes charitable
films because he's a charitableperson.
I realized that because he was.
Giving an interview talkingabout your hero.
(53:19):
The protagonist of spiritedaway.
And he said, I wanted to make afilm about one of those kind of
noxious ten-year-olds becausethose are my favorite kind of
ten-year-olds.
And I thought they're not myfavorite kind of 10-year olds.
In fact, I dislike them greatly.
And, he thought they wereobnoxious, but that made them
endearing.
And that, that means he lovedthem more.
(53:40):
And.
so he could tell that storyabout you hero because he loved
her and he loved watching her beobnoxious and complain and, and
then grow and then becomegreater.
But that gratefulness didn'tmean that she wasn't as complete
as she was at the beginning ofthe movie.
And she was a complete person atthe beginning of the movie.
Even though she changed andgrew.
(54:00):
Into a more sort of joyous andwhole person at the end.
And I feel like, or maybe noteven just complete, but like
worthy, you know, And so I justfeel like.
He can put himself into everyfilm because his perspective is
himself.
And if we can't.
Love our characters and love oursubject material, or even grow
and develop these.
(54:22):
These characteristics we'recutting out.
The stories that we from ourhearts and our minds.
It reminds me of like thescripture, the light comprehend
is the darkness.
But the light shines in darknessand the darkness comprehends it,
not, you know, it's like, Wecan't actually be honest about
all the human characters and allof the expressions of humanity.
(54:43):
If we're not charitable people.
And that's why we get thesemovies where we hate certain
characters or we're where we'resupposed to.
Think poorly of, or.
You root for the destruction ofspecific characters.
And.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I think that for the most part,that doesn't really work.
(55:03):
I do believe in showing evil oreven bad guys or villains that
that can be.
Great and have a time and aplace.
But, and there can be somemarketable reasons for that that
are.
Liturgically sound, in myopinion, But.
The expos, a approach tofilmmaking of like, I'm going to
expose these bad guys, or I'mjust going to show everyone how
bad this person is or whatever,or this perspective or these
(55:27):
people or whatever.
It falls flat and age is poorlybecause 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 expoday that
Kent (55:37):
works.
Well, On some degree.
But, I mean, this is just anopinion thing that we're going
to get into.
Anna (55:46):
what's his name?
Tom Hanks.
Well, Tom Hanks plays thecharacter.
Colonel Parker.
Parker is like a bad guy, butyou also kinda like him and you
understand his reasons.
And there's times where youwork.
Kent (55:59):
In that movie.
Played by Tom Hanks.
And you're kind of like, he'sgot this kind of funny accent
and he kind of does a few funnythings every now and then, but
for the most part, I feel likehe'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 thatthat's the director's
perspective.
We think no
Anna (56:23):
less of Elvis for.
Having a friendship with him ina relationship with And I think
Kent (56:29):
toxic one.
Yeah.
But he's kind of tricked almostor.
You know, Beguiled
Anna (56:36):
He's a complex enough character.
I think that.
He doesn't just feel likestraight up bad guy.
It's like, yeah, this is a guywho like, has vision.
He has charisma.
He has ideas that will work.
But he also has addictions thathe's feeding and he's using, and
Kent (56:52):
he has ideas of.
Do no work and he's And tryingto cover Oh, very.
Flawed.
Ethical.
Face.
Anna (57:02):
Anyway, sorry, this is a tangent.
We should really wrap up thisepisode because it's pretty
long, but well, Tell us what thetitle 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, Youknow, pour yourself into
something and channel yourselfinto something or go deep and
explore yourself and learn aboutyourself.
And I think that, there's tonsof stories.
(57:30):
Within you.
Either because of the booksyou've read or the life you've
lived or the perspectives youhave, or the people, you know, I
guess all of that is part ofyou.
And so.
I for me, the title is just.
It's about, Even if it'ssomething like a script that's
handed to you or someone thatsomeone wrote a script, or you
(57:50):
co-wrote it with someone.
I still think, even if you'reacting in a film, you know,
you're, you have to bring apersonal.
Risk to the table where you haveto show some of yourself.
In the process of creativity inany.
Position.
On a film or in any art form ingeneral.
Or in any relationship in thiscase between a filmmaker and
(58:12):
their audience, but even in ourrelationships, right?
There's always this, like I haveto show my true self.
And really that's.
I think the trick of life is, istrying to get better at showing
our true selves.
And.
However we want to do that.
We've talked about lots of waysto do that.
I think the point is, is that wefeel 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 storiesand film ideas.
I kind of saw it as like twoseparate things that you were
going to talk about, like miningyour life.
And digging up.
I imagined films that alreadyexisted, like oh, interesting.
And pulling from them.
They understand How those areconnected.
(58:55):
Yeah, I love that.
Kent (58:56):
That, with that on the nose ending where.
we've hopefully over explainedall the poetry out of our
perspectives.
We will leave you.
And thank you for joining us onthis exploratory.
Conversation.
Anna (59:10):
Until next time.
Bye.
Hi, welcome to this podcast episode, and we're so
glad that you are here.
And today we want to talk alittle 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 twothings, making movies.
In general.
That are.
(00:50):
Both personal and relatable andauthentic.
But I think it's also applies tomaking first features.
because we really believe inmaking films that are very
producible and.
And that can be difficultbecause sometimes, sometimes I
think when we want to makefilms, it's hard for me
sometimes when I sit down.
The best ideas feel veryexpensive sometimes.
(01:11):
And, that can be kind offrustrating.
And there's the old adage writewhat you know, and that can also
be frustrating sometimes.
sometimes it feels a littlemaybe on the nose or.
Familiar.
You know, like I've, there'snothing interesting about my
life or about my story.
Or about whatever.
so we want to have a discussionabout that this evening.
(01:35):
I'm going to, we're going tomaybe do this a little bit more
of a casual back and forth.
And so I'll ask Anna somequestions and she might ask me
some questions if, if she thinksof any.
but we want to kind of.
Take this in almost an interviewfashion.
And I'm going to interviewanimals about the films that she
has worked on so far, especiallythe first feature that she
directed.
And, scripts that she's writing.
(01:56):
Now, we won't get into superspecifics about those movies,
but just about her experienceand
Anna (02:01):
yes.
This episode is directed byKent.
Kent (02:03):
Okay.
So the, the first question Ihave Ana.
You know, there's this dichotomyof like, I guess fantasy that
feels like detached, like almostlike a story that feels detached
or impersonal.
And then there's likeautobiography, I guess, on the,
Far extreme, other side of that.
I feel like you and I havealways made films that are close
enough, that we worry thatpeople will think that they're
(02:24):
autobiography.
our first short that weco-directed and the feature that
you directed.
even films that you're writingright now, I think sometimes we
worry, like how much of thiswill be inspired.
By reality.
In fact, am I putting too muchreality in there that people are
going to assume that these otherthings that maybe aren't
reality?
I guess my question is.
(02:44):
Do you approach that consciouslyto 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 aconscious tactic?
Like.
I'm going to mind my ownpersonal.
Brain or history.
How do you approach that?
Or do you even think about it?
Anna (03:04):
Yeah, I think it's really essential to me to make whatever
I'm making as personal as it canpossibly And almost any story.
I can do that with, if I haveenough creative freedom, you
know, there might be certainstories where there just isn't
enough freedom available for meto make it personal the way I
would want to.
(03:24):
And I might say no to a projectlike that.
If I don't feel like I can.
Take it that direction, but Ithink.
There's stories about all kindsof things and all kinds of
genres that are personal to me.
and really it's just a thematicthing.
I think it has less to do with.
The circumstances of the film,although, because we started out
(03:45):
with resource filmmaking, thecircumstances tend to be.
Very similar to our own becausewe're using our own house, our
own children, like.
Kent (03:53):
It adds to the autobiographical
Anna (03:55):
feel Naturally leads to people saying, oh, is this about
you?
Is this.
A personal story and I can seewhy 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 kindof a philosophical.
Exploration for me personally,where I'm, I want a character to
(04:19):
represent maybe one side of anargument and another other
characters perhaps to representanother side.
And explore how those twointeract, how they clash, how
they sometimes want the samething.
and a story is a really greatplace to.
Explore that debate betweenthings and find sort of a
synthesis or a conclusion or.
(04:42):
play it, just let it play it,play out all the way and see
what happens.
Kent (04:46):
Yeah.
That's interesting.
It does seem like it's like ifwe put these two characters into
our lives, And it sounds likeyou kind of were like insert
these people that aren't us intoour lives.
I just see what they do and playit out to the end.
That's
Anna (05:00):
sometimes.
Yeah.
I don't know if it's always intoour lives.
It's
Kent (05:03):
just, I never thought of it that way, but it's like kind
of
Anna (05:05):
with our first few films.
Kent (05:07):
Our house
Anna (05:07):
with our kids.
Because that's, we're using our
Kent (05:10):
resources.
And with the short ready or not,we, we also, there was a baby
that was belonged to us.
That was featured in thatparticular film.
And, it was our friend's house.
Not ours.
But regardless, there was someissues there that were
interesting, but they, and yetthose characters were like
extremely different than us.
They were just, they didn'trepresent us.
(05:31):
No.
that's interesting.
and so.
I feel like.
I think about the films that welove, and I guess there are some
that you particularly reallylove and there's some that I
really love.
And they're not always the ButI'll think of a few of your
favorites.
Like for example, Lala land hasmade by shizzle, Damien.
who.
I mean, he's known for makingpretty personal films.
(05:53):
And yet I think whiplash isprobably his most personal.
Anna (05:56):
It might be as most autobiographical, but I do feel
like his films actually.
Tend to explore similar themesand themes that I'm interested
in, which tend to do with.
People who are trying toaccomplish something.
That's a huge goal.
Like they have goals that theywant that are big going to the
moon.
Yeah, and they're trying to doit.
(06:17):
And it's always this questionof, is it worth the sacrifice?
Is it worth the sacrifices?
And I mean, in his films, theyalways choose to do it.
Despite everything they lose.
And I think that there's somerealism to that and that you
can't have all the things youwant necessarily in life that
would be sort of a fantasy or anunrealistic story.
(06:41):
At the same time, it issomething that I'm constantly.
Thinking about because.
I don't want to sacrifice myrelationships for But I do want
to make a difference and I wantto make films that I care about.
And so.
There is sort of that questionin my own mind of, you know, at
(07:01):
what point is it too much andhow much success can you have
without sacrificing thosethings?
So it's a slightly differentquestion.
But I think what he's exploringis what does it take to have
that level of success to be thebest at something?
What does it cost or to be thefirst on the moon or to be, you
know, to have that dream, youhave.
(07:22):
Wanted since you were a childcome true.
And, and then ultimately is itworth it?
And sometimes I think he's evenleaving it up to the audience to
decide.
Was it worth What do you think?
he doesn't always.
Answer it super
Kent (07:38):
clearly.
So, Based on interviews andstuff.
I think we can know that.
whiplash came from a verypersonal place, even Lala land.
There was some personal stuff.
I think he was kind of puttinginto that film and he's even
said in interviews like.
When I feel scared, like I can'twrite this or all my friends
will just say, oh, Damian, youjust make movies about yourself.
(07:58):
He's like, that's what I know.
I should write it.
You know, I don't know if that'smaintained, like as much truth
as he's made like first man andhe's made more stuff.
but like, shifting directions,like I think of a film that you
love, like Anna Karenina, forexample, Joe, right.
he loves literature apparentlyand whatnot.
But he really didn't come upwith the idea.
He's not a writer director,even.
(08:19):
He didn't even write the script.
It's an adaptation of the LeoTolstoy novel.
Leo Tolstoy.
It was a male writing a storyabout a female experiencing the
social repercussions ofadultery.
It's an interesting story,right?
Like why.
You know, that film feels veryauthentic to me, it feels very
(08:39):
honest.
It's powerful.
Just the it's source materialis, is remarkable and has had
ripples through culture, So, Iguess my question is.
Is it the only way, maybe it's abad example because obviously
it's not a resource filmmakingkind of film ma in some ways it
is, but for the sake of featurefilmmaker academy, it is not, it
does not fit the definition ofresource Yeah.
(09:00):
It's a$30 million movie with alist 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 theprinciples that must be
followed, you know, like in yourmind, How do you balance that?
I guess.
the existence, I suppose, offilms that are not necessarily
(09:23):
autobiographical or even.
Very personal, unless LeoTolstoy experienced.
Some side of something likethat, which I know nothing about
Leo Tolstoy is life, but let'sjust assume he And I think that
that's just an okay assumptionto make, because we know that
there are people Have madeincredible films that.
Maybe aren't like mining.
(09:44):
Like, you know, they're not veryclose to that autobiographical
side of, of that spectrum, Iguess, how did What's your
perspective
Anna (09:54):
I don't know, I guess I think of.
Anna Karenina is somethingthat's almost.
A universal experience.
It's hard for me to imagine himnot being able to relate to.
Obviously, I mean, not all of ushave had affairs, but, this
interplay or this comparison oflove versus lust, or like how to
love and lust.
(10:15):
Interact.
Or do they.
you have a relationship that.
Is.
A marriage of convenience ofmarriage, of class, where
there's.
Some degree of love.
But not And no less.
And then you have thisrelationship that is built on
the foundation of lust anddeception.
(10:37):
Contrasted with anotherrelationship that is built on a
foundation of love andcommitment and sacrifice.
And I just think.
I don't know to me, that's likea theme that I am really
interested Is.
Like.
True love and.
What that looks And theconsequences of.
(10:59):
Lest.
Hmm.
And what the differences.
Kent (11:02):
It's interesting that you're like almost working
backwards, like trying to use astory to.
Break apart.
thesis into its component parts,you know, as if it was the
synthesis.
And you're trying to find athesis and antithesis out of
that, What is love?
What is lust?
And I say you because you'redescribing Tolstoy in that way,
(11:23):
but I also know that you explorefilms this way, like you just
described you're trying todefine 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 Constantinelook, you know, how do, Ana and.
What's his name?
Brunswick, Bronzeville, whateverI'm stroking my mustache.
(11:47):
And so.
It's That's an interesting ideathat, you know, and it is like a
very theoretical way, but youdon't, watch the story and go,
there's a bunch of theories inthis movie.
You're like there's characters,right?
They feel fleshed out and veryreal.
And that brings me to this ideaof like, misappropriation, which
is a topic and storytelling,which we're all very worried
about.
(12:07):
Like, you can only tell likeautobiographical stories,
otherwise you're being likesexist or racist or stepping out
of bounds in some way.
And I'm wondering what yourfeelings are there because we
have professors, I think, We hadprofessors on like opposite
sides of that and friends aswell, who have.
S some writer, friends in,particularly who have kind of
bounced around on differentcamps Like we need more female
(12:28):
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 yetthat's almost turned into,
therefore you can't tell thatstory.
Otherwise it's misappropriation.
And so I guess for you, like,what is misappropriation?
Is it real.
(12:50):
And If, so what, what doesn'tcount is misappropriation, I
guess like for you.
Do you even think about
Anna (12:57):
that or?
No, I think that's a goodquestion.
I don't really believe intelling people that they can't
tell any story that they feellike 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 itdoesn't mean that no one relates
to them.
Maybe some people But a lot oftimes I watch them and feel like
(13:20):
I don't.
I think that this person eitherknows what it's like to be a
mother or has had the sameexperience with parenthood as
I've had.
If any experience withparenthood.
and so I think it can be verypowerful.
Two.
If you're telling a story,that's thematically related to a
specific.
(13:41):
Experience that you understanddeeply.
That can be really powerful totell that story and to introduce
people into that world in a waythat maybe.
They have never experienced,
Kent (13:52):
That's really interesting.
We have a dear mentor andprofessor.
Who lost his wife?
And I think it's reallyinteresting because he.
he could pick out.
Disingenuous stuff.
Anything relating to that sortof an experience.
A deep, personal human loss ofany kind.
Usually a death.
(14:15):
I remember there was something,there was a S a student piece
that I made that related to aman losing his wife.
And that moment of discovery.
And I remember that that was oneof the things that he was like,
his behavior in that, thatmoment, that shot right there,
he goes.
That's not.
How he would have behaved.
And I think he came from it.
(14:35):
With some authority and youmight think, well, maybe a
different person other than youwould 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 thatmaybe like another character
could, but like this character.
I think this professorunderstood this character better
(14:56):
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 implausibilityerror, the specific way that he
responded versus the realisticways that someone would respond
in that scenario, getting thatnews.
You know, on that day, you know,it's like, and it made sense to
(15:17):
me.
And he also said this about themovie of monster calls, which,
it's not a big bash.
It's actually reallyinteresting.
He said.
I watched that film.
This is I'm speaking, I guess,on behalf of him.
He was basically saying thathe'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 boywho's experiencing the slow.
(15:38):
Decline and death of his motherfrom, I think cancer.
And he said it was very evidentto me that the director had not
experienced And just, justwatching the movie, he could And
then he said the later helistened to interviews from the
director And the book really didseem to take this angle of like
a loss of faith.
And the boy and this sort oflike difficult cynicism that was
(16:00):
brewing in him because of thisloss.
And yet the movie touched on it,but it just didn't seem to
quite.
Capture it.
And then he said that thedirector says in an interview,
basically that this film wasn'ta film about loss.
It was a coming of That's how hetook the film.
That's how he directed it,right?
Yeah.
And he was like, oh, okay.
(16:20):
So that's what it wasinteresting to him about this
story.
Like it was, it wasn't even afilm 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 itdifferently, but it's true that
like we, as human beings comewith our own affordances and
limitations because of our ownlife perspectives.
(16:41):
I bring that up because a tallstory, right?
He's a man, but he's runningabout a woman having an affair
in this society.
That's going to be verydifficult
Anna (16:47):
And I actually think it's so.
Good and healthy for us to try.
To make films and try tounderstand people who are
different than us.
And we might, and we have toaccept that we might be wrong.
We might not portray itperfectly.
We might have errors or peoplemight not relate to it, but I
think that.
(17:08):
We learn, we learn about otherpeople.
And we even where we fall short,we start to see and understand
the people around us, whichultimately is a good result.
You know, that is Discussion tobe able to have, or result to be
able to obtain throughfilmmaking.
I think filmmaking can be verycharitable and acting and, you
know, whatever.
(17:29):
Whey you're involved infilmmaking being able to.
Try to put yourself in someoneelse's shoes and relate to that
person and understand them, evenif you don't agree with them.
taking Anna Karenina again, asan example.
Anna is a character that I canrelate to, to some degree.
Although, I wouldn't make thechoices that she had And I see
(17:52):
the consequences of thosechoices and I don't.
Envy her, but.
At the same time.
I think it's good for me to beable to understand someone who
might make that mistake and.
Experiences those difficultiesand it's a cautionary tale to a
degree.
at least that's my reading ofit.
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 thatyou're with.
No, I don't think it's trying todo that.
I mean, there might even besituations where someone might
be able to tell that, but I justdon't know how you can read that
out of Anna Corona.
Anna (18:35):
Yeah.
And there's been many versionsof that story.
So maybe other versions oftrailer
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 evertold.
Marketing.
Yeah.
Anna (18:49):
Yeah, I think misappropriation.
In my mind is when you're notcoming from that place of trying
to understand.
Somebody.
But you are trying to portraythem.
Like if you're not doing itcharitably, if you're not taking
the time to do your research, toreally try to understand a
person or you're trying to do anexpos a or you have some sort of
(19:10):
the research, isn't just likethis.
It's
Kent (19:11):
a box to check.
The research is like, Because ofgenuine 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 agreewith what they It just doesn't
do them justice to try to telltheir story from a place of
seeing them.
As evil and ill intended.
And that's a kind of filmmakingthat 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 thelead writers on the office and
he was creative parks and recand the good place.
And we met him and he, at onepoint he I'm at a writer's
conference at BYU.
And he said he quoted someone, Ibelieve.
I don't think this was himspeaking for himself.
As I'm saying, if you don't loveyour characters, you have no
(20:00):
business writing them.
Yeah.
Or maybe that was the directorof a parks and rec not parks and
rec.
Sorry.
I just said that.
Of a Portlandia.
He might've been the one to saythat, but, but that was like a
theme of that conference.
Many of the, of the guests inthat conference, including.
Mike.
We're talking about that.
Absolute necessity that like, ifyou don't have like a loving.
Disposition towards thesecharacters.
(20:23):
Like, they're not even going tobe 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 comingfrom 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 inthe first place.
Anna (20:42):
Yeah.
Being able to relate.
So that to me is whatmisappropriation is.
I could tell a story male who'sin a totally different situation
than I am totally different racethan I am, whatever.
And it could be deeply personalto me and I can relate to that
person's experience or their wayof viewing the world.
(21:03):
And I think.
You know, I might mess up alittle, I might not be perfect,
but I would definitely try tounderstand.
Those parts of that person'sheritage or history or
circumstances that I don'tnecessarily know.
Yeah.
I have some examples of films inmy mind, that stories that I
feel like I want to tell that Iknow I would need to do research
(21:24):
on because yeah, there arepeople 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 afilm that I've wanted to tell
about, Like.
Early.
Colonization of Hawaii.
And about Hawaiian.
Culture and early Hawaiianmartial law called kupu.
And I remember that one, I, Ihad some people like.
(21:51):
Sort of college students kind ofwarned me like, oh, that might
be misappropriation.
And I even had a professor thatwas like, just tell the dang
story.
And it's not like a.
Just tell it lazy.
I mean, this professor is awriter and he would want nothing
short of like extremeauthenticity, like dig deep and
research the jeepers, not justresearch, but like develop.
(22:16):
The characters to the enthdegree, right?
Like, don't settle for anythingless 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 andI, and you wouldn't be able to
make the film without support.
From.
The people that you wereportraying.
You know, and then they wouldbecome the filmmakers
themselves.
And so it's like, we act likethe director or the writer, like
(22:38):
the authors and in a lot ofways, they are very principle
authors of a film and they'reimportant authors of a film.
And yet Ron Howard just made afilm about, people in Taiwan.
And called 13 lives, remarkablefilm that portrays Europeans.
They are Anglo-Saxon whitemales, but they're not Americans
like Ron Howard is.
And, and yet the movie wasproduced by time by Thai people.
(23:02):
And it's majority cast is Thai.
And almost none of the cast.
Or even the characters areAmerican.
Like, and so there's a huge mix,but the story is kind of a mixed
story, but it portrays all thesethings.
So charitably and respectfully,it's a deeply respectful film
and you can feel that on everylevel, like it has this respect
(23:23):
for humanity, for human life,for all the different countries.
And cultures.
There were involved all thedifferent professions of the,
agricultural, farmer.
Rescue team Navy seal militaryYou know, government.
Yeah, it just didn't look downon and he wasn't, no one was the
bad guy in that film.
(23:44):
It was just.
It was just Incredible moviethat I think.
Really disproves, maybe.
A blanketed view ofmisappropriation.
So, I guess that's hopefully nota tangent, but for me, it's
just, it's this permission totell stories that feel resonant
on a thematic level.
Like you said it doesn't matterwhat the subject matter is.
(24:06):
if it's about.
A group of people that maybe youdon't fit into in some way,
which I think almost every storyin some way, detaches itself
from you at some point.
At least the characters.
We'll unless it's literallyautobiographical.
then pull in people who aremaybe closer to that.
And pull them into the movie,you know, whether it's the
actors or producers or, orwhoever.
(24:27):
And I think of cocoa, right.
It's made by an Americancompany.
And yet it was the highestgrossing film.
Of all time.
In Mexico.
Because I think the Mexicansfelt 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 alot of Mexican friends and I
have.
Deep love for that culture.
(24:49):
But I haven't even been toMexico.
No, but you know, very much inmy life.
And yet.
That's one of the mostemotionally impactful films I've
ever seen.
I I'm just gonna say thatwithout any shame.
They're like a Pixar moviethat's aimed at ten-year-olds or
even younger.
Is one of my favorite films.
Because it relates to me in waysthat the filmmakers have no
(25:11):
idea.
Could relate to me.
Yeah.
It relates to me on atheological level, as a member
of the church of Jesus Christ oflatter day saints.
about families, you know,eternal families and those you
eternity or the eternalrelationship.
or the eternal nature of thoserelationships.
I mean, And I think it actuallyexpresses a better than any film
I've ever seen ever.
(25:32):
It's including all films made bypeople of my faith, right?
Like, I don't, I don't thinkwe'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 calla pagan holiday?
And so I just think that'sreally actually.
I think that's really cool.
I think it's exciting.
And I think it's charitable andthere were a ton of Mexican and
(25:56):
otherwise Latin American orHispanic.
Members of that team that madethe film.
But, A lot of the lead playerswere probably white.
Men and women like not evennecessarily fluent Spanish.
Anna (26:10):
So yeah, I think there are many examples of this where.
Often even someone from anoutside perspective can tell the
story even better and appreciateit even more than someone who's
inside of it.
I think of, A few examples cometo mind.
I think, well, one is Fordversus Ferrari, which I think is
people who don't love cars.
and it's a movie about cars.
(26:31):
And the director was not someonewho was super into car races.
Kent (26:35):
He didn't like NASCAR culture in general.
He's like, I just don't likeNASCAR that I frankly
interesting.
I frankly, don't even like,Forties that I would buy a
Ferrari before I'd buy, likethe, the GT that they drive in
the movie.
Anna (26:48):
But I think he did a great job.
Making that story personal andinteresting.
And.
the other one that comes to mindis pursuit of happiness.
Which is a beautiful film aboutthe American And yet it was made
by someone who was not anAmerican.
I'm not able to speak English.
Directed directed.
Yeah.
And yet I think he captured.
(27:10):
The American dream and he spokeEnglish.
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 todo that better because he was
not an American because he couldsee that from an outside
perspective.
That appreciates it more thanmost of us do, who grow up
Kent (27:33):
in it.
And what's interesting is we'renot 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 27year old named Steven Spielberg.
there's a great little line inthere where they're talking
about island life.
And they're like, I think I'velived here for like 10 years and
I'm like, aren't high a logo andthey're like, no, you're not a
local as you were born here.
It's just I remember, like it'slike a background conversation.
(27:55):
Like some extras are having orsomething.
but it was intentional.
You were meant to hear theconversation, but I just.
That, that idea of like this.
Tight sort of community that'slike really special and everyone
wants to feel like.
They're indigenous somehow, youknow, of that cool little beach
town, but you know, very few ofthem actually are.
(28:15):
And so there's this kind ofpride that exists.
And I feel like.
We live in a place kind of likethat, like Peachtree city has
got this pride and most of usare transplants almost.
None of us really grew up here.
Although a lot of people.
Here.
Did grow up here and a lot ofpeople stay or come back after,
you know, college education,they raise their families here
because it's such a familyplace.
(28:36):
So we were hired to make acommercial for Peachtree city
and we took it in a verynarrative route.
And I just think about how youmentioned earlier, like even
projects that come to you, youjudge it based on, can I bring.
A personal point of view to thisin a way that I feel like.
I am.
Injecting.
Myself into it.
There's like me.
(28:57):
That can breathe life into thisthing, And, and so when I got
that, I was like, well, this isa place that I really love and
I'm coming from it from animmigrant perspective, so to
speak, you know, like I'm I'venever lived in Georgia at all
the state in my life.
I hadn't even visited Georgia.
You know, I'd probably driventhrough it is all.
When I was like tiny.
And so you, you, you bring adifferent perspective there and
(29:19):
that's not necessarily.
Not necessarily a bad thing.
I guess what you're saying isthat 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 arestarting to grow up here and
just think, oh, all cities arethis way they take for granted
what makes this city special?
Because it's just all they'veever known.
It's like Woody,
Kent (29:39):
Allen's midnight in Paris, right?
It's his love letter to a placethat he loves, that he is no way
a citizen Actually William mighthave dual citizenship for all I
know, but, but he's notindigenous.
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.
(30:00):
Love movies that talk about howgreat Frances, right?
Like, especially if they're madefrom an outside perspective,
don't we all prefer conversionstories.
Like.
Christians love stories aboutpeople who were like way on like
the fringes of the most notChristian And they become
Christian.
And you can say that about anyreligion, any country.
We just love the stories of thepeople Come here.
(30:22):
And, you know, and in a lot ofways, America is a story of
immigration and we love storiesabout.
That perspective of like peoplefalling in love with yeah.
Making this their home or, yeah.
Yeah.
And so in some ways I think thatthat, that love thing comes
back.
It's not even just love foryour.
Characters that have flesh andblood, but like your.
(30:44):
Either literally or proverbiallyfor proverbially.
but also your, Subject matter onany level, like if your subject
manner is a country or a placeor a religion or, whatever it,
you can make films that try andtear things down or, or.
Appreciate the value and thegoodness in.
Whatever that thing is like evennative religions that most of us
(31:07):
as Western people would considerto be superstitious.
Ron Howard depicts them.
Very charitably in the movie, 13lives and to the point where
some Christians had issue withit, because they were like, it
shows idol worship or whatever.
And it's like, It wasrespectfully showing.
Some of the driving faith ofpeople that have a different
religion.
Than most.
(31:27):
Western civilizations.
Right.
And.
I just, I thought it was, it wasrespectful.
I don't think it was trying toconvert us to those
Anna (31:36):
religions.
No, it didn't have an agenda todo anything, but it was loving
and trying to understand andappreciate.
Something that was differentthan Ron Howard Convictions or
whatever
Kent (31:46):
those are.
I don't really know.
Isn't that interesting thatlike, I think that sometimes
because.
Like we're people of faith.
And I think that often peoplewill face in any degree.
or people have strongconvictions who aren't even
people of faith, whether thoseconvictions are political or
religious or, or just personalin some way.
(32:06):
the, when those convictionsbecome an agenda in our film, it
really ruins the film.
It ruins the tone and theperspective or point of view of
it.
It ruins the authenticity of theentire experience.
In my opinion, I think.
When conversion is the goal.
You really do sacrificeauthenticity.
And I think that's why people offaith often struggle and make
authentic films.
And I don't, I'm not saying thatto be critical.
(32:27):
I'm just saying it is like a,something I'm learning from what
you said, Ana, that.
We often fear to tell storiesabout things that we don't
believe in or that we don't evenagree with in a.
Respectful or accepting lightbecause we think that that will
then become the agenda.
Like that will become theperspective of the film.
But once again, like you canshare to leave portray a
(32:49):
different religion or adifferent Paul political
standpoint or a different.
Person, you know, whatever inwhatever way that difference
manifests itself.
With deep respect and love.
And you're not like.
Advocating that person'slifestyle or religion or, or I
don't know, country ofcitizenship Great
Anna (33:09):
example, cause some of the best Christian films are made by
people who are not of the samereligion as the ones portrayed
in the film.
If they're made with that intentof being charitable and
understanding and appreciatingwhat this person believed and
what they were trying to do.
Now there are other films thatare.
Intentionally made to try todissuade or present an agenda or
(33:33):
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 peoplecriticize.
Bad political or religiousfilmmaking.
On one side of the aisle, butI'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 authenticitybecause they lose sight of like,
The charity for the charactersand for the.
(34:00):
Perspectives of those charactersand, we, we kind of.
We turn.
our friend who we just had onthe podcast, bird Berg, and I
pitched the story to him and hesaid, I told them these
characters and this and that andwhatever.
And he said those aren'tcharacters we, you just
described are ideologies.
And.
It like hit me like a ton ofbricks.
I was like, he's totally right.
(34:22):
You're totally right.
I had not really created acharacter that had like a life
and a desire.
I created a character that had apoint And they basically just
lived verbally based on thatpoint of view, I could have made
Black white male, female.
American European Asian.
It just, it wouldn't They wouldhave the same ideology and they
(34:44):
would have said the same words.
In other words, there was noflesh.
There was just no reality orlike circumstantiality or.
Context to this character, theyjust were.
My words.
Of that perspective.
Which is that's kind ofmisappropriation, right?
It's like, well, if I had thatincorrect perspective, I would
say You know, it's like, it'slike, it's not really a
(35:07):
character.
Well,
Anna (35:08):
and it depends on what you're making.
I think if you're in a fantasyrealm, like you have a little
more freedom to explore thosekinds of things, where a
character could wreck represent.
An idea or an archetype orsomething, but.
When it's I think, especially ifyou're representing.
Depicting actual events, actualpeople, actual religions or
(35:29):
cultures.
That's when you have to be.
Really
Kent (35:32):
careful.
Well, but I mean, I'll even flipthat.
I think that the burden isalmost higher when you're making
fantasy, because you look atTolkien and he wrote very few
stories in comparison to a lotof novelists.
I mean, you're like GaryPaulson, Gary Paulson wrote
stories that he knew he was verymuch into the wilderness.
He was into survival.
He was into.
Coming of age, about 14 year oldboys, because he ran away from
(35:53):
home at 14 and went to live withus in a circus and they all sort
of stuff.
He put himself into thosestories and he wrote over a
hundred novels.
Tolkien wrote like very fewmiddle earth pretty much was the
main thing that he wrote ever.
He didn't write that many booksto be Frank compared to most
writers.
And yet.
I think that's because theburden on him was not just
(36:14):
research.
It was creation and he had tocreate so much context to the
world.
He couldn't just go read a bookabout it.
He had to write a book about itand then write That takes place
inside the context of the bookthat he just wrote, you know,
like he had to create what is ahabit.
And, and then flush out whatthat means.
And then the, all the context ofHobbiton culturally and
(36:37):
spiritually and mystically andmythologically, you had to
create the history and theeverything.
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 fleshedout 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 makesthem so powerful.
Yeah, that's amazing, but it'skind of a pushback from what you
said, like.
As if there's an archetype andthen there's like a real listic
character and I'm like, well, Ithink 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 problemto start there.
As long as you are willing toput 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 Iwant to bring it back to this
topic, because I think it'svaluable for our listeners, but
I also think it's valuable forus.
To discuss is just.
We're talking about.
Films that can be produced withwhatever resources we have now.
Whether those resourcesOurselves or people we know with
(37:41):
significant amounts of money orjust things.
We have access to person,people, places, whatever.
How.
I guess I want to boil down someprinciples.
Maybe each of us could take aturn.
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 muchwhat we've just done this whole
episode.
Summarize.
Well from this discussion.
And also just from your ex yourexperience as a filmmaker, as a
person, who's written a fewscripts and made a few movies
(38:34):
and is currently writing a fewscripts, you know, Like.
What are some principles forapproaching?
Putting yourself.
Into a project or into a film orinto 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 storiescould be personal to me?
I think.
There are times in my life whereI thought, oh, I could never
make a Marvel movie.
I could never make like, there'scertain kinds of movies that I
would never make.
I would never make a horror,thriller movies, stuff like And
(39:10):
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 filmsThan I.
Would initially expect.
And so.
I've read a lot of scripts fromfriends who write different
(39:32):
kinds of stories than I do.
And as I talked to them aboutthe themes and what they're
expressing, or even people inthe feature filmmaker academy, a
lot of people in that academyare making films that are.
Not films I would have ever.
Chosen to make.
And yet.
As we.
Mentor them through theirprocess of developing the film.
(39:55):
I come to see why it's personalto them and what their.
Doing with these characters inthese stories.
And that's been a reallyenjoyable experience.
I think.
Yeah.
So I think, yeah, I've becomemore open-minded to.
Consider what I could makepersonal.
Kent (40:13):
That's really cool.
I've noticed that in you aswell.
I think that at first, when wewere.
In school.
I feel like your, your generalfeeling was like that you'd have
to write all the movies youdirected.
Because.
I seem to remember this beingyour general feeling, or
leaning, I should say.
and then I started to see thatand I've always kind of had the
(40:34):
opposite feeling, which isSpielberg didn't write hardly
any of the movies.
He.
Directed, you know, and I'd behappy if like people, if people
brought my goal is to be able tomake anything that someone
brings to me personal.
And yet you've actually.
Had more written.
And given to you, you know, likeI wrote the first draft of the
(40:55):
love and loss.
And I wrote the first draft ofready or not.
And there were other projectsthat we've some haven't
materialized, but they werecompletely written by someone
else and they were deeplypersonal to you.
And so I think it's interestingthat you've been able to extend
that.
And I've pretty much written Ifeel like I haven't really had
anyone like Henry script thatI'm like, oh yeah, great.
I'd love to still do that, but,you know, Something that comes
(41:17):
to my mind is Paul Schradertalks about, How to make a
spark.
You know, out of a positive andnegative charge, you have two
wires.
And, he said, You have ametaphor.
And there's the reality or likethe literal, which is like,
Basically autobiography, right?
It's like, it's you.
It's your life.
It's your personality.
(41:38):
And then there's like themetaphor, which is basically the
movie you're making.
And.
The story that you'refabricating 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.
(41:58):
They're like the same thing.
At that point, you were justcompletely making autobiography.
He said at that point, It's veryhard to be completely honest and
authentic because.
We don't really want to be thatauthentic and honest, usually.
And once again, this is hisapproach for himself.
He's like, I can't.
Just tell the truth about myselfin every single regard and
(42:20):
explore the themes and thecharacters and everything
freely.
But if it's too far apart, youknow, if it's super far
separated, There's no metaphor,right?
It's like, Yeah, or there's noauthenticity at all, because
it's so far removed from thestory that you're telling you,
you are so detached from the Hesaid when, when the, when the
distance is just right.
(42:40):
It's just make believe enough.
That you can freely explore itand be honest about, well, this
is what the character would do,and this is what would happen.
This is how he just let thestory tell itself.
But there's enough of you in itthat it's like, and I can speak
from some position ofunderstanding, you know, and.
Boy, this last script that I'vebeen working on, that I've got
about 20 pages into.
(43:02):
I can't even tell you how muchjust con conceptual development.
Had to go into.
Starting to be able to evenwrite Before I felt like that
distance, the spark hit, youknow, I'd put just enough of
myself and not just myself, myown theological beliefs, which
was a big part of thisparticular story.
(43:22):
Into it, but then I, I justcouldn't tell if it was truly
exactly the theological.
Like, if I was like, I'm justgoing to go straight up, you
know?
Pull it out of the scriptureskind of thing, you know?
And I just, because I just, Idon't know why I couldn't do it.
It.
The story just didn't goanywhere.
It just couldn't breathe.
And then I separated it enoughthat it was basically a fantasy
(43:46):
film.
It wasn't really a religiousfilm of any existence, religion.
and yet if you watched it andyou were like, if you shared my
religious convictions, you'dwatch it and probably go, well,
this was obviously made by.
Person, who's a member of thechurch of Jesus Christ of latter
day You know what I mean?
And they'd see it, but mostpeople would watch and just go,
this is really interestingfantasy film.
(44:07):
And I, and it's not like.
Battlestar Galactica or anythingwhere they're like, there's like
a council of the 12 or anythingthat like really on the nose.
It's like, hopefully not.
but it's like, It justmetaphorically kind of works in
the same way, but yet it'sdetached enough that it's like,
None of us would be like, ohyeah, I believe all those
things.
No, it's make believe.
That's just fake.
It's But just the same as likeJr.
(44:29):
Tolkien was Catholic.
He wasn't.
He didn't believe in elves, It'slike, and, and it, like, it
opened it up enough for me thatI felt like.
I could be.
Authentic.
But I could also.
You know, I could step out of itenough that I could feel like I
could lead it.
You know, it wasn't just likeme.
And myself,
Anna (44:49):
and I think sometimes it's easier to be real and authentic
when the story is removed fromyourself.
Because
Kent (44:56):
I think about that.
That's the French man and makingthe pursuit of happiness.
That's the, The the Americanmaking.
Midnight in Paris.
Right?
Anna (45:05):
It's.
We're coming back around to thatagain.
And I think it's also just.
You don't have to be.
So self-conscious when it's notabout you.
So it lets you be honest.
It's like when you're acting, Iremember doing acting classes
and we'd do a neutral maskexercise where everyone puts on
this mask.
That's just like a neutral face.
And.
It's so much easier to be honestand like, Expressive when.
(45:31):
No one can see your face becauseyou can't really be
self-conscious you feel.
Like there's this freedom.
To express and not, and you'renot yourself.
No, one's.
It's really hard to explain ifyou haven't tried it, but it's
this idea that when you'rehiding yourself, You can be more
honest.
Do you feel like when you're ina story, that's clearly not.
(45:54):
You, you know, it's so separatedfrom.
Yourself.
That there you can reallyhonestly explore something and
not have to be self-consciousthat.
Oh, everyone's, what's everyonegoing to think about my face or
about my religion or aboutwhatever I'm telling this story
about.
Kent (46:10):
Ryan Gosling talked about the power of costume in that
same way, where he talked aboutlike watching his uncle bedazzle
a suit, he was like an Elvisimpersonator.
And like, when he put that on,it almost gave him this, like
this power or this like releaseI'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 andeveryone was wearing sixties
clothing and it was HalloweenYeah, 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 ofclothing.
It was amazing how.
Easily.
I felt like I was a differentcharacter and I.
Felt myself.
Acting kind of differentlybecause I was dressed
differently.
It's strange, but.
Yeah.
I think with storytelling.
(47:15):
You want to make somethingpersonal?
But it's okay if it's removedfrom your own personal life and
in a way that can really helpyou explore and understand other
people.
be really honest and sincere.
And still not.
Have it be too close to home ina way that's, doesn't let you be
(47:36):
honest because you're It's hardto explain, but well,
Kent (47:39):
and everyone's gonna be a little different, cause I've
seen some people make stuff thatis 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, youknow?
Then for me.
And for others, it's like evenbigger.
You know, it's like, I'm notwriting a high fantasy, like
Tolkien.
Like I have not done as muchworld-building as he has, like
(48:01):
not even close and.
And for him at that hugedistance, 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, ohyeah.
That's clearly like theautobiographical portion, It's
we, we all see.
(48:22):
Little things where like, oh,there's maybe like a little bit
of Catholicness Oh, yeah, wesink like, oh, there's maybe a
little bit of Catholicness ormaybe there's a little bit of
like, is world war one andexperience or whatever, but none
of us are like, Oh, it's it'sBilbo.
It's definitely him.
Like he is talking.
It's like, you know what I mean?
But yeah.
And yet with a lot offilmmakers, Even with Schrader.
(48:44):
He's like taxi driver was like,what if I put myself.
I basically was like as a 20year old.
If I were to put myself in ataxi.
And, and just kind of go downthis road that I was going down
in my life and I could just seelike all the destruction.
That I could experience.
Going down that road withoutactually going down that road.
(49:07):
And so he writes it all into thescript, And, And so for him, it
was almost this like, I'm anexplore 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 italmost, you know, it's like for
(49:28):
him, so.
For him, maybe there was alittle bit more of a
personification.
That was like, or maybe evenlike a clone or like a.
Surrogate.
Yeah, for himself in that story,that was more direct.
And so I guess for me, Theseprinciples.
There's no like strict, you mustdo it one way or the other.
(49:48):
Especially with resourcefilmmaking.
Some people don't have theresource of, they can set up
green screens and they are supergood at Rotoscoping and chroma
key and they could tell a scifimovie on like no money.
And I dare people out there.
It's like, they just take theirtime and they shoot it all in
their basement.
And even Jackson said, PeterJackson said, people are gonna
(50:09):
make movies like this in 20years out of their basements.
And.
there are people making filmsthat have as good a VFX in some
aspects as Lord of the rings hadin the year, 2001.
In their basements and, and someof us don't have those skills.
So maybe our skills aredifferent or our resources are
different.
So I guess my point is like,there's no genre.
(50:31):
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 makingstop motion movies out of their
basements.
For a long time,
Anna (50:41):
Your skills are a resource to, with.
With resource filmmakingresource filmmaking does not You
have to be telling anautobiographical film.
Yeah.
But some people can and do verywell.
Like you said, I just think it'sharder.
I think it's, I almost wonder ifit's related to.
How it's harder to loveourselves than to love other
(51:02):
people.
You know, I think.
It would be easier for me tomake a film about a Catholic
than a film, about a member ofmy own church.
Because.
Or a film about someone elsethan a film about myself,
because it's easier for me tolove.
People with all their flaws.
When they aren't me.
And sometimes when it's me, it'slike, I don't forgive myself as
Kent (51:22):
easily or even I can't show myself charitably or it
feels indulgent or people Wherepeople think of vein.
Yeah, exactly.
And yet, like, I don't thinkthat'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.
(51:43):
Self-deprecation.
It's true confidence, which is asynthesis, right?
It's neither of the two thingsit's actually higher than either
In this case, they're both kindof negatives, right?
And sometimes we think theself-deprecation.
Is humility.
Which it's not.
And sometimes we think that.
Arrogance is confidence, whichit's not humility is.
(52:05):
Transcendent of both of thoseand confidence, I think is
transcendent of both of those.
So in some ways, our virtues ordeveloping virtues or developing
our characters.
It behooves us.
To be charitable with ourselvesand develop those attributes.
Because it helps us to be ableto tell great stories that makes
me think of the summer wemarathon Miyazaki films.
(52:27):
And I remember watching thoseand thinking.
It finally hit This concept,that Dean Dunkin, one of my
professors said about charitablefilmmaking.
It hit me one day.
I was like, oh, Miyazaki makescharitable films.
Meaning.
Films that have this perspectiveof love in general, they're just
lovingly.
(52:48):
Made, but they also have thisperspective of love toward their
characters almost across theboard.
And their subject matter aswell.
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, howdoes he do it?
What is the craft?
What is the, what are thebuttons?
I have to push to get charityinto I mean, it sounds silly,
right?
And I watched those and I waslike, Miyazaki makes charitable
films because he's a charitableperson.
I realized that because he was.
Giving an interview talkingabout your hero.
(53:19):
The protagonist of spiritedaway.
And he said, I wanted to make afilm about one of those kind of
noxious ten-year-olds becausethose are my favorite kind of
ten-year-olds.
And I thought they're not myfavorite kind of 10-year olds.
In fact, I dislike them greatly.
And, he thought they wereobnoxious, but that made them
endearing.
And that, that means he lovedthem more.
(53:40):
And.
so he could tell that storyabout you hero because he loved
her and he loved watching her beobnoxious and complain and, and
then grow and then becomegreater.
But that gratefulness didn'tmean that she wasn't as complete
as she was at the beginning ofthe movie.
And she was a complete person atthe beginning of the movie.
Even though she changed andgrew.
(54:00):
Into a more sort of joyous andwhole person at the end.
And I feel like, or maybe noteven just complete, but like
worthy, you know, And so I justfeel like.
He can put himself into everyfilm because his perspective is
himself.
And if we can't.
Love our characters and love oursubject material, or even grow
and develop these.
(54:22):
These characteristics we'recutting out.
The stories that we from ourhearts and our minds.
It reminds me of like thescripture, the light comprehend
is the darkness.
But the light shines in darknessand the darkness comprehends it,
not, you know, it's like, Wecan't actually be honest about
all the human characters and allof the expressions of humanity.
(54:43):
If we're not charitable people.
And that's why we get thesemovies where we hate certain
characters or we're where we'resupposed to.
Think poorly of, or.
You root for the destruction ofspecific characters.
And.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I think that for the most part,that doesn't really work.
(55:03):
I do believe in showing evil oreven bad guys or villains that
that can be.
Great and have a time and aplace.
But, and there can be somemarketable reasons for that that
are.
Liturgically sound, in myopinion, But.
The expos, a approach tofilmmaking of like, I'm going to
expose these bad guys, or I'mjust going to show everyone how
bad this person is or whatever,or this perspective or these
(55:27):
people or whatever.
It falls flat and age is poorlybecause 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 expoday that
Kent (55:37):
works.
Well, On some degree.
But, I mean, this is just anopinion thing that we're going
to get into.
Anna (55:46):
what's his name?
Tom Hanks.
Well, Tom Hanks plays thecharacter.
Colonel Parker.
Parker is like a bad guy, butyou also kinda like him and you
understand his reasons.
And there's times where youwork.
Kent (55:59):
In that movie.
Played by Tom Hanks.
And you're kind of like, he'sgot this kind of funny accent
and he kind of does a few funnythings every now and then, but
for the most part, I feel likehe'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 thatthat's the director's
perspective.
We think no
Anna (56:23):
less of Elvis for.
Having a friendship with him ina relationship with And I think
Kent (56:29):
toxic one.
Yeah.
But he's kind of tricked almostor.
You know, Beguiled
Anna (56:36):
He's a complex enough character.
I think that.
He doesn't just feel likestraight up bad guy.
It's like, yeah, this is a guywho like, has vision.
He has charisma.
He has ideas that will work.
But he also has addictions thathe's feeding and he's using, and
Kent (56:52):
he has ideas of.
Do no work and he's And tryingto cover Oh, very.
Flawed.
Ethical.
Face.
Anna (57:02):
Anyway, sorry, this is a tangent.
We should really wrap up thisepisode because it's pretty
long, but well, Tell us what thetitle 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, Youknow, pour yourself into
something and channel yourselfinto something or go deep and
explore yourself and learn aboutyourself.
And I think that, there's tonsof stories.
(57:30):
Within you.
Either because of the booksyou've read or the life you've
lived or the perspectives youhave, or the people, you know, I
guess all of that is part ofyou.
And so.
I for me, the title is just.
It's about, Even if it'ssomething like a script that's
handed to you or someone thatsomeone wrote a script, or you
(57:50):
co-wrote it with someone.
I still think, even if you'reacting in a film, you know,
you're, you have to bring apersonal.
Risk to the table where you haveto show some of yourself.
In the process of creativity inany.
Position.
On a film or in any art form ingeneral.
Or in any relationship in thiscase between a filmmaker and
(58:12):
their audience, but even in ourrelationships, right?
There's always this, like I haveto show my true self.
And really that's.
I think the trick of life is, istrying to get better at showing
our true selves.
And.
However we want to do that.
We've talked about lots of waysto do that.
I think the point is, is that wefeel 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 storiesand film ideas.
I kind of saw it as like twoseparate things that you were
going to talk about, like miningyour life.
And digging up.
I imagined films that alreadyexisted, like oh, interesting.
And pulling from them.
They understand How those areconnected.
(58:55):
Yeah, I love that.
Kent (58:56):
That, with that on the nose ending where.
we've hopefully over explainedall the poetry out of our
perspectives.
We will leave you.
And thank you for joining us onthis exploratory.
Conversation.
Anna (59:10):
Until next time.
Bye.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.