6: Forever East

This story is the 6th part of the Griffin filmmaker series. It follows Revolution/Illusion.

The format of this story is taken from Lydia Davis's short story, "Jury Duty," appearing in her collection, Samuel Johnson Is Indignant, and subsequently in The Collected Stories of Lydia Davis.

Q:
A: The pleasure’s mine.

Q:
A: You know, it thrills me to no end. We’ve been married six years, my son Richard is four and he’s already his own little person saying he wants to make movies like dad, and, well, life is good. I’m doing what I want making films and I got all that and life is good. Helena, I say she’s an angel to me and that’s no lie. There can’t be many women who could put up with being married to me.

Q:
A: Sure. Forever East follows the world of a fictional cult leader, from his point of view. The place is a compound on the eastern coast of Australia, the world headquarters for this fictional cult, and we follow the life of the cult leader in pseudo-documentary style, using handheld cameras and grainy film shots when we’re alone with him, and using more standard methods when there are others in the scene, to pull the viewer back into a standard film narrative.

Q:
A: Generally, so far, through six films now, we’ve been able to send only what we have to for filming. We sent a crew of about nine to eastern Australia to film scenery. We did pretty much the same thing with the previous film, sending a crew to the tropics. With the magic of film, the digital technology we have at hand, we can have actors film their scenes here at the studio downtown and effortlessly put them into the scene. Fifteen years ago, such a thing would’ve been looked down, not considered “art.” Now it makes the most sense. I can’t afford to send 75 people across the world for six weeks.

Q:
A: Cheating? No, hardly. I’m making use of modern film techniques to produce what I hope is considered art. I’m not going for mindless thrills, big box office turnouts. The latter, if it coincided with what I was doing—well, how could I complain?

Q:
A I love this city. I could be based somewhere else, or have no place to call home, but I’m here and I’m proud. It’s been good to me and my family and I’m eager to give back where I can. For me, this is my paradise.

Q:
A: I can’t control what the awards people do. I do what I do and if they want to acknowledge me, that’s fantastic. If not, well, I’ll be working on another film. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. I think it would be nice if some of my crew got some recognition. They work hard. They have the eye for bringing these things to life.

Q:
A: I can only hope I’m influential in a good way. We all run the risk of some kook taking what we’re doing too far. Look at Salinger and Kubrick. Do I think I’ll be a target? I can’t answer that. My best reply is, I won’t be so important.

Q:
A: No, I don’t view my films as political, but represent human issues, things people have struggled with, are doing so now, and will struggle with in the future. Fifty years ago, ideas of oppression, fighting the system, the pain we inflict on others wouldn’t have been considered “political.” Being oppressed has been an issue for thousands of years. How is that political? I’ll reiterate what I always say: I’m not political.

Q:
A: Well, people who criticize me in that fashion are just out to score points, make a name for themselves, get people worked up to get themselves money or political power. I’ll admit, filmmaker is an easy target for such a thing. I’ve heard Griffin and pretentious in the same sentence before. Part of the territory.

Q:
A: I’ll admit I’m not familiar with that criticism or that person. I guess I should be flattered. If someone’s that adamantly against me, I must be doing something right. Beats apathy.

Q:
A: Okay, perhaps I should be familiar with that person and what he’s espousing. I have to say, it’s a bit of blindside to throw that out, the film not even released a week, saying it supports cults and their leaders. Look, this fictional cult leader, like the rest of us, is a flawed human. He has good characteristics and downright bad ones. I thought we were going to talk more about content, more about process? Didn’t realize I’d be playing defense.

Q:
A: I’m not answering that question. It’s ridiculous, an invasion of privacy, Just a minute ago, you were pondering my agenda; well, I ask, what’s yours?

Q:
A: Look, I apologize if I came off as abrasive.  Helena says I have a tendency--

Q:
A: No one said anything about wanting softball questions, about this being easy. Challenge me. Just don’t throw garbage at me. I don’t want to be part of some political scrum.

Q:
A: Sorry. We’re done. Goodbye.