Ed Burns’ new movie, Nice Guy Johnny, can be seen starting this Friday, April 23, on Tribeca Film Festival Virtual and you can pick up your Premium Pass at www.TribecaFilm.com/virtual/.

Cinema Verdict was lucky enough to be on a Q&A conference call with him, and is excited to share it with you.

Q: What inspired you to write this film, Nice Guy Johnny?

A: A couple of things, but primarily I would say about a year and a half ago I had meeting with my new agent, and I would say every couple of years I had a meeting that was similar to this where my team would encourage me to stop making small, personal films and put myself up for what they call open directing assignments at the studios.

Given, I guess, what I do they thought I could very easily land a studio romantic comedy directing job. I never had any interest in that, not that I think they’re bad films necessarily, but I only aspired to be a writer/director. My heroes were Cassavetes and Woody Allen and Truffaut, and that’s all that I ever wanted to do.

However, two years ago with a couple of kids and a couple of mortgages I thought maybe it might be a smart financial move to at least entertain the thought

So I read a bunch of the scripts; I took a bunch of the meetings. I have to admit it was a very tough decision because there is potentially a lot more money to make doing that than doing what I do. At the end of the day that’s not why I got into the business. I had to sort of stick with what my original purpose was and what my original dream was.

I left that final meeting after passing on this particular project. Me and my producing partner were talking about it and what are we going to do now? We said “You know what, let’s write a script about what we just went through. Let’s think about what kind of character is faced with that kind of decision when you have to stick with your dream when everyone is telling you, whether it’s your parents or your friends. Or, do you take the more fiscally responsible job with benefits? Most of my friends are in the arts and all of them wrestle with this very thing, especially as we get older and are starting families

That’s how kind of Nice Guy Johnny came about. He’s a 24-year-old sports talk radio host who dreams of one day getting a big broadcasting job. He’s not making any money; he’s about to get married and his fiancée has suggested he come home to New York to take a job that will triple his salary and give him benefits. It’s the story of how this kid makes that decision.

Q: I wondered if any of the characters were based on real people.

A: Maybe my character is loosely based on a couple of guys that I grew up with and even know today. Uncle Terry is an aging womanizer who is hell bent against his nephew getting married, especially at the tender age of 24.

I definitely still know guys who are deep into their 40s who are holding on to bachelorhood with everything they’ve got. I didn’t want to judge it at all, but we kind of took a look at sort of the funny side of it and then maybe a little bit of the pathetic side of it.

Q: Your character is Uncle Terry, do you see him as the antagonist of the film or do you see him as someone who is helping Johnny reach his goals?

A: He’s sort of like – he’s a mentor of sorts, but it’s almost like the devil on one shoulder and the woman he meets on this journey, played by Kerry Bishé, as sort of maybe the angel on the shoulder.

The interesting thing is like I think my character is a mentor that is always – he’s sort of the dumbest guy in the room. He’s always giving this kid terrible advice, but only at the end of the journey when he comes through and you see these decisions he’s made you realize like, oh, maybe the idiot knew something after all, if that makes any sense.

Q: You wear many different hats in this film, you’re an actor, a director; you’re a writer. How did you manage to balance all those different aspects?

A: You know when I made my first films 15 years ago I was barely out of film school, no money, and trying to make a movie for $25,000 so I knew that it was my script obviously, I was going to direct it. I did not know any film producers and couldn’t have afforded one anyhow, so I had to produce it on my own. Then the acting was just a case of, when you’re not paying actors it’s very hard to get them – it’s very hard to get a guarantee that they’ll actually show up. I had done some acting in my student films so I put myself in the first film and have just kind of kept with it now, nine films later.

Q: Of the things that you’ve done, the acting, the screenwriting, the directing; if you could only concentrate on one for the rest of your career, if you had no choice about this, which one would you choose and why?

A: Hands down, it wouldn’t even need to make a decision, it would be writing. I started as a writer; it’s what I love; it’s what I do every day, so that’s a no-brainer.

Q: Since Nice Guy Johnny is about people pursuing their dreams at a cost, what did it cost you to get into acting in the first place?

A: You know, acting—I guess it forces you to thicken your skin. Definitely while it can be great for your ego, there are certainly a handful of films I have and the reviews that have followed that are pretty bruising to your ego. There is that. But as far as like what it cost me? I don’t know that it has. I was very lucky when I made my first film; I was 26 years old and it got picked up for distribution. Fifteen years later I’m still making my little personal films so I’m, I think, one of the lucky ones.

I know a lot of indie filmmakers out there – it’s kind of like bands, you know, you struggle and you fight and you get that first film made and you get some attention with it. Then you make the next one and then that’s it. To still be doing it after 15 years I’m definitely a lucky guy.

Q: This film is fundamentally, of course, about the cost of pursuing your dream at all costs and subsequently being asked to give up on said very same dream. In reflection, at any point in your life, have you yourself ever been asked to give up on a dream of any kind, at any age?

A: I am 26 years old, I’ve already shot and cut Brothers McMullen, I’ve submitted it to a number of festivals, producers, agents, distribution companies, and I have a stack of rejection letters to show for it. I’m $25,000 in debt.

My mother comes to me one day and says, “If you’re willing to get a haircut, I will buy you a suit and then you can go get a real job.” Thank God, I did not take her up on that deal because six months later the film got into Sundance and all that. That conversation with my mother definitely was at the forefront of my mind as I was writing this film.

Q: Did you find yourself at such a low point ever that that idea of getting out of the business really became a serious consideration? And what was it – was it something or someone that inspired you to continue to living your dream and continue to go for it and not to conform to what everybody else was saying?

A: The low point probably was before we got accepted into Sundance I remember I had printed up my first resume since I had gotten out of college and gotten my first production assistant job. I had been a PA for four years at this same television show but, if you’re a PA for four years you’ve been a PA for three years too long probably.

I had put together a resume; I had taken a couple of scenes from my short films and from Brothers McMullen and kind of put together a reel and I was about to apply for a job at Comedy Central directing these things called bumpers, which is little things in between shows. That was probably the low point where I was like all right, this movie didn’t work. I’m out of money and I can’t – I’ve got to get a real job now, I’m 26 years old.

There was that. I always said to myself even if McMullen didn’t work the best bit of advice that I got was from my dad one day. I was pissing and moaning and complaining about all of the rejection letters and he said, “What’s the problem?” I said, “Well, nobody likes the movie. Nobody wants to buy it.” He goes, “You told me the 12 days that it took to shoot the film were the 12 best days of your life.” I said, “Yeah.” He goes, “Well, do it again. Just figure out a way to do it again.”

That was a real eye-opener for me. If anything sort of kept the dream alive it was that. I kind of said to myself I will keep trying to make these little $20,000 to $25,000 movies every three or four years until I’m 35. I figured I could make like three more of them. If one of them doesn’t work by the time I’m 35 then I will give up the dream. Fortunately we sold Brothers McMullen and here we are today.

Q: Do you think if you had made The Brothers McMullen today it would find the same success that it did at Sundance or do you think that the independent film market and audience has changed too drastically?

A: There is no shot we would be as successful today. I can’t speak to whether or not it would play at Sundance. When we submitted it to Sundance 16 years ago it had gotten rejected from every other film festival as not being edgy enough. We just kind of got lucky by the time it got around to Sundance because we were sort of coming out of the post Reservoir Dogs as the major sort of indie film influence. There was this glut of like Tarantino rip-off films and the kind of pendulum had just swung back the other way that the timing was kind of right for Brothers McMullen. I definitely benefited from that.

As far as, let’s say we were lucky enough, we get into Sundance, it gets picked up for distribution, it’s interesting. I don’t even know that we would get picked up for distribution. I can’t remember the last film that I saw – an indie film that got picked up and was given a real theatrical release that had a completely unknown cast.

Back then you had Slacker and then after Slacker you had Metropolitan and then you had Clerks and then you had McMullen but after that you don’t see too many of those. I definitely have not seen any in the last couple of years. I’d say, maybe Primer.

Q: Talking about Brothers McMullen 15 years ago, and 15 years of movies in between, the camera work, the directing that you do, how has it changed from that very first time behind the camera to now?

A: The camera work in McMullen was as basic as it gets. Again, we had a three man crew, no dolly, no steady cam and it was just about trying to get that story captured on film. We weren’t thinking about moving in the camera, we weren’t thinking about shots because I knew going in there is no way I can compete with Hollywood on that level.

If I try and do a more complicated shot or spend a lot of time trying to light something in a very specific way, it’s going to look like what it would be the poor man’s version of it. What we did on that film was just, all right, let’s focus on these characters and the acting and try and make this as honest a representation of the world that I had come from.

However, since then, with some increasing budgets, again I still haven’t made a movie for more than $5 million, but I have at least gotten some dolly track and a couple of steady cam shots and fortunate enough to work with a great DP.

I think the two films that I’m probably most proud of with the overall look is a film I did called Purple Violets, where we do these gorgeous like what we call moving masters. It’s sort of one long take that covers a three page scene and Woody Allen is the master of those. We kind of adopted that style on that film and I think we really did a great job executing it.

Then Nice Guy Johnny, it’s the first film I shot using the RED camera and it gave us a different type of mobility and there are some images in this film that are just breathtaking.

I think the RED camera is going to be a game changer for indie cinema. You can – they’re small; they’re not terribly expensive compared to a film camera. You can go out with almost no lights and make a pretty great looking film. We’ll see if I’m right about that.

Q: If you were to compare Nice Guy Johnny to your previous works, what are some of the elements that stand out that really speak to how much you’ve grown as an actor, writer, director, and producer?

A: Acting-wise I’d say it’s my best performance in one of my films and I say this kind of there are three reasons for that. One is I kind of wrote it toward my strengths I think as an actor and kind of wrote a part for a part of my personality that maybe I haven’t explored in my films before for me to play.

The second reason is I’ve just been doing it longer so kind of like any muscle the more you work it I think the more command you have over it. Primarily the biggest reason is in the film it’s about a bunch of 24-year-old kids and we wanted to find unknown actors. I kind of wanted to go back to whatever the magic was I was able to create with my cast in Brothers McMullen.

There was an enthusiasm on that film that I never sort of captured again or never felt on set again. With this film we went and we found Matt Bush, this actress Kerry Bishé and Anna Wood, and then even some of the supporting players who really had very little experience in front of the camera.

They’d all gone to acting school and stuff like that but what I found, for me as an actor was their enthusiasm and their love and appreciation for getting to act, to be in a movie, to be on set, it was infectious for me as an actor. Every scene I have I’m opposite this kid Matt Bush and he’s coming at you with everything he’s got and with such enthusiasm and love for it that there was no way – he was pulling like the best stuff out of me. I would credit him with that.

Writing, I think it’s my – say my most honest and personal film since The Brothers McMullen. I just kind of wanted to go back to like not really trying to be funny, sort of writing about people that I really knew intimately. Then as a filmmaker, again, it’s almost like the acting the more you do it the more confidence you have, the more you know what you need and what you don’t need. I think I’ve been working now with my DP Will Rexer, this is our fourth film together.

He and I really, I think, have grown together and I have a lot more faith and trust in him than I’ve had with any other DP. I kind of allow him to sort of push me now in a way that maybe I wouldn’t or didn’t in the past.

Q: You have an extensive body of work as an actor in general, and you’ve worked with a lot of living legends like Steven Spielberg, Sir Ben Kingsley, Robert De Niro. From all those experiences in your acting, how can you say that might have translated into your being a better director?

A: Probably if you’re smart and you check your ego at the door when you work with one of those legends you use it as an opportunity to go to school. I think I’ve done that every time when I’ve gotten lucky enough to work with one of these guys. Spielberg, hands-down the most influential experience I’ve had to date. Watching not only his decision-making process but also how he communicates with his crew, but mostly how he communicated with the cast.

The one thing I took from him that changed how I deal with actors is we’re like two weeks into the shoot and he’s giving us two and three takes to do a scene and giving us no comments or notes after any of them. He was just like, “Okay, great, moving on.” Finally, after two weeks he finally after a third take asked us to do something different, after a fourth take, fifth take, sixth take. Finally at lunch we asked him like why today? How come you were sort of directing us today? He goes, “Well, today you didn’t know what the hell you were doing.”

He explained to us that especially given an ensemble he hires people that he knows what they do and expects them to do what they do on the day. He will give any actor three takes to figure it out. Some guys nail it on the first, some guys nail it on the second; most people find it by the third. If by the third you haven’t given him something that he likes then he’ll step in and sort of steer you back on course.

I know for me when I was making my first couple of films, I thought the director needed to direct so after every take I was giving the actor any kind of note or any kind of encouragement. Only since that experience did I realize, you know what, let them do their thing, they will figure it out. That is usually the case, I’ve found.

Working with De Niro or Hoffman, you just pick up little things like how they respond to a director and how they like to be spoken to, and the best way that they might receive a bit of criticism or when someone suggests just change. That was pretty informative to just kind of watch, Ah! I am not going to do it that way when I have to deal with an actor I’m maybe going to do it this way, the way that guy did it. So you learn those kind of things as well.

Q: What movies have had the greatest influence on you and your work?

A: I mean by far Woody Allen, the major influence, and primarily his films that deal with just that. A film like Hannah and Her Sisters; Crimes and Misdemeanors, Husbands and Wives; when he’s dealing with people and how we deal with one another.

A big film for me when I was in film school was Marty based on the Paddy Chayefsky play. The Last Picture Show, that Peter Bogdanovich film. Truffaut was a big influence on me; Louis Malle. Those filmmakers that dealt with real people in a pretty honest way. That’s what I’ve been trying to do and I think even when I look at my films, when I get away from that is when the films don’t work.

Q: Considering the kind of films that you make now, do you ever see yourself maybe 10 or 15 years down the road actually making a film with a $250 million budget and all these whiz bang special effects?

A: You know, I really don’t. I have one script that we tried to get made a couple of years ago that was a sort of big period film set in turn-of-the century New York City. That’s something where I would have needed a lot of CGI but not the kind of effects that you would need if you’re going to be making an Ironman per se. I love those movies; I go to see a fair amount of them, but it was never – some guys write symphonies, some guys write folk songs. I think I write folk songs.

Q: The Tribeca Film Festival is really doing something groundbreaking going virtual, how much more it will drive people, particularly film students into wanting to participate and understanding the need for small films?

A: I only hope. It’s funny, you know, when I was in film school that’s what we loved, whether it was Jim Jarmisch and Hal Hartley, or looking further back Truffaut and Louis Malle, or De Sica. We wanted to tell small personal stories. I think now the – at least it appears to me the kids that are really into film are into sort of maybe more like genre films whether it’s comic book stories or horror.

I don’t really know. Maybe all these things are cyclical and maybe it’ll just be a matter of time before young film students fall back in love with the small personal film. I don’t really know, but I hope so because that’s all I really enjoy watching.

Maybe what’s going to happen is given studios are focused on the giant tent-pole movies and that’s kind of all that they seem to be doing right now, and they will dominate the multiplexes with those, and I think deservedly so. You go to see Avatar and that is a pretty incredible experience in the theater.

Maybe now people are going to be watching movies on their iPads and their iPhones and a lot of people have flat screen TVs, or you can watch it on your laptop. You know, maybe the only place for those small personal films will be kind of this kind of virtual thing or home viewing or via the Web, which will force people to – if you’re not going to be financed by the studio you’re going to have to make a very low budget film. The genre that works best when you have no money are small talky films, so who knows, maybe this will start a little, a mini movement.

Q: With Nice Guy Johnny kicking off the Tribeca Film Festival Virtual, what do you think of these new distribution methods, including iTunes as a way to reach more people?

A: I love them. I think anyone who is still interested in making small films has to fall out of love with theatrical distribution. When I was in my 20s, me and my friends, and if you were into indie film, you went down to the art house theater or the specialized movie theater and you made sure that you saw that film its opening week.

Today I think it’s a little different and you can watch a film on your phone, on your computer, even now you can get them on You Tube, so I don’t think the theatrical component is as important as it used to be. If you allow yourself to fall out of love with that I think you can reach the people that will love your film.

I mean, I think the tricky thing that everybody is trying to figure out now is how do we monetize that? I think if you keep your budgets really low, I think we’re going to find a place where you can make low-budget personal films and at least break even or make enough that you can go make the next one. I think that’s where we’re going to be in a couple of years.

Q: You must be excited about the film festival going virtual so more people will be able to see your film.

A: You know, for me, I have always tried to embrace how indie films, or how indie cinema is going to make use of the Internet. We saw maybe like in ’06 indie films sort of stopped finding the same sized audience for the ten years prior to that. You saw a lot of companies like Paramount Vantage closed, Warner Brother Independent closed; Miramax just recently went under. We knew that the audience still liked the films they just weren’t going to see them theatrically.

A couple of years ago I tried it with this film Purple Violets. We released it onto iTunes and we got a great response from the people that like my movies.

I tried a Web series last year as a way; again to how do we find the people that like this? How do we get this material or these stories to them in a different way. When Tribeca brought this up we immediately said, “Absolutely.”

As a kid who got his start as a film festival and now is someone who loves film festivals, it’s great that now a kid in Kansas City can attend the Tribeca Film Festival, at least in some fashion and see those movies that he might be reading about on sites like yours or other film sites.

Q: Since your film is being featured in the Tribeca Festival, both the virtual and being screened as part of it, it seemed only fitting that the city of New York play a role in your film as this one it does. What was the best and worst part of filming there?

A: You know – I think I’ve shot – yes, I guess I have; every film I’ve made I’ve shot at least a handful of scenes in New York. There really isn’t a bad side to shooting in the city. You have just great crews available to you. I’ve always said the best co-star any actor can have is New York City. There is nothing but great locations. Every street has another story to tell. For me, the number one thing that you get in New York City is this enormously deep pool of actors.

With this film, given that the story revolves around a bunch of kids in their early 20s, we wanted to find those New York actors that were just on the cusp of breaking out. I told my casting director, “Who are the kids that keep coming in and keep losing out on that great part because they’re not a name yet?” Then we kind of set that as our goal, like let’s find those kids that are going to be household names one day, they just don’t have the body of work yet to get the big part. That’s who we found.

The two leads, Kerry Bishé and Matt Bush are incredible and Kerry, I don’t – maybe she had done one small film before. This other young woman, Anna Wood, was another great find, who I don’t think had ever been in front of a camera before. For me that’s what New York gives you which is why I stay here.

Ali Larter visited WonderCon 2010 in San Francisco last weekend to promote her upcoming action flick “Resident Evil: Afterlife,” and here’s a brief video interview I shot before the film’s panel.

“Resident Evil: Afterlife” was shot using the Fusion Camera System, so I had to ask Ali how challenging it was to shoot this thing. I also wanted to know what fans can expect from her character, and what it is like for her to work with Paul W.S. Anderson.

“Afterlife” opens in theaters Sept. 10, 2010.

Actress Milla Jovovich visited the 2010 edition of WonderCon in San Francisco this weekend to promote “Resident Evil: Afterlife,” and here’s a brief video interview I shot right before the film’s panel.

“Resident Evil: Afterlife” was shot using the Fusion Camera System, so I had to ask Milla how challenging it was to shoot this thing. I also wanted to know what fans can expect from her character, and what WonderCon was like for her.

“Afterlife” opens in theaters Sept. 10, 2010.

Director Paul W.S. Anderson visited the 2010 edition of WonderCon in San Francisco this weekend to promote “Resident Evil: Afterlife,” and here’s a brief video interview I shot right before the film’s panel, at which he showed the first trailer again in 2D. The 3D version premiered Friday night.

“Resident Evil: Afterlife” was shot using the Fusion Camera System James Cameron used for “Avatar,” so I had to ask him what the process of shooting a movie like this is like. I also wanted to know what fans can expect from this fourth film, and I asked him to share his feelings about it with the fans.

“Afterlife” opens in theaters Sept. 10, 2010.

The 2010 edition of WonderCon stormed San Francisco Friday, and one of the main events was the premiere screening of the new trailer for Paul W.S. Anderson’s new film Resident Evil: Afterlife, which will hit theaters in RealD 3D Sept. 10, 2010. Anderson, Ali Larter and Milla Jovovich stopped by the AMC Metreon to introduce the preview and answer some questions, and here is what they had to say. The trailer, by the way, will be online very soon.

Question: When did you know this was going to be a 3D film?

Paul W.S. Anderson: Almost a year ago, today actually, James Cameron was very kind enough to screen a large chunk of Avatar for us, and it was still a work in progress, but two things were very clear at that time. One is, Avatar was obviously going to be an awesome movie, and the other was that the camera system Cameron and Vincent Pace built to shoot that movie was absolutely remarkable. It was providing 3D imagery that was so much more sophisticated and of a higher quality that anything I’ve ever seen before in the world of 3D. Really at that point I decided our movie had to be in 3D, and we had to use that camera system to shoot it.

Question: When you made that decision, did you have to go back and say we shoot it completely different if we want to take advantage of the 3D effect?

Paul W.S. Anderson: I had to go back to the studio and ask them for more money, because obviously, especially if you shoot a 3D movie, it’s a lot more expensive. The camera system is more expensive, it’s slower when you shoot; it’s a more painstaking process shooting a 3D movie, so I had a big fight with them and they gave me more money. Obviously not as much as I wanted, but they gave me the extra money to shoot in 3D.

Question: Milla, why do you keep taking this role?

Milla Jovovich: Resident Evil, man. It’s my brother’s favorite video game. Please, and besides the fact that at this point, it’s like, you just have this world you live in. And you know, what is more appropriate than those movies? I’ve spent the last 10 years of my life doing them, so why not. It’s so fun and I get to kick butt. Look, the fact is, what I’ve always said is it’s amazing to do like, really serious movies, but what’s amazing about Resident Evil is that you get a chance to do a really great fun story. It’s like going to Disneyland. You get to make a movie where you’re flying and kicking butt and you’re training and doing so much stuff you would never do in real life, and I love that… just living in this sort of different world.

Question: Ali, clearly there’s a lot of camaraderie here [between you and Milla]?

Ali Larter: Oh, we have so much fun, I mean, it was one of the greatest things. I was so excited to come back and, you know, to see Milla. I mean, she brings so much to these movies and they’re a collaboration. I was there every day watching them. She brings so much style and so much class to them and so much fun to watch, and she kicks ass like no other. And it’s fine. because girls aren’t always cool, you know, and I come in there, and we just have a lot of fun together, and I hope you see that on the screen. We’re laughing and we both love figuring out our stunts and really getting dirty in there.

Question: What made this series so successful?

Paul W.S. Anderson: I think Milla touched on it. It’s hot girls with big guns. What’s not to like about that? You know, the movie is made by fans of the video game to start with. We’re all very passionate about the source material, and the movies are made with a lot of passion and energy, and also it’s financed by a studio that’s very behind the franchise. For this movie, they said yes, go make it in 3D, and I said, I want this movie to be more epic than the other Resident Evil movies, so they said yes, go trek around the world to shoot it. It’s the fourth film in a franchise and at a point where a lot of other studios would try to kind of cheap out and do it a little cheaper, Sony spent more money than ever before on the film. They allowed me to go and shoot in Tokyo, in Los Angeles. We shot in Canada and we even shot in the snow and ice in Alaska. They allowed me to make a globetrotting movie, and having that kind of support is very very important to a franchise like this.

Milla Jovovich: It is true. From the first film, when it was me and Michelle, I mean, it started out and all the actors just love the game. It’s really one of those things where you come from a fan kind of place where you’re like, aw Resident Evil, awesome, I want to do this, I love that game so much, and, you know, I think that passion really shows on screen, I guess. You guys know it better than we do, but it’s No. 4, so, something worked. We’re so lucky to Ali back on this one.

Ali Larter: Also, this one is almost closest to the video game. You brought in so many cool direct shots and different things. I mean, real fans of Resident Evil are going to be so excited when they see this movie.

Question: Really quick, talk about all the conversions to 3D that are going on right now, and people rushing to films that have not necessarily been shot in 3D, but films that have been converted to 3D.

Paul W.S. Anderson: There’s no doubt if you look at movies that converted and you look at movies that are actually originated in 3D, the quality is a lot better of a movie that’s actually shot in 3D.

Click here for info on the trailer

Warning: spoilers ahead

DM: I really enjoyed New York City Serenade. I understand you wrote it in the mid ’90s?
FW: That’s when I started writing it, yeah. I did the first draft in the mid ’90s then I stopped, came back to it probably six or seven years later. About 2000.

DM: And what prompted you to revisit it?
FW: Well, I never really forgot about it, and I really wanted to make a story about New York, because it had such a great influence on me at that time. I wanted to have New York as a separate theme or character, and it’s really important in this story because these two guys are in and out of each others’ lives, and that’s something that really exemplifies living in New York, especially when you’re young. At least that was my experience. You can get kind of caught up in life and turn around and those people you were so close with are gone, it’s kind of transient in that way. That’s the abstract idea that I had, to make a simple story with that as the basis.

DM: Was there an autobiographical element to some of the things that happened in the movie, or were you just trying to talk about growing older?
FW: It’s a little bit of both. The movie is very situational, it’s a bunch of short stories about these two guys. There’s the party, and then the funeral sequence, then they go off and leave town for a little while, and then things fall apart. All of those moments, those sequences, are somewhat autobiographical in that they happened to me, or people involved in them were people that I knew. And on the other hand, it is a story about, maybe not specifically about growing old, but about moving forward in your life. The basic idea is that these two guys are very close and sort of dependent on each other, and that is something that has to end for the good of both of them. That was the point of the post-script, in that Freddie Prinze’s character sort of breaks up with Chris, but can’t break free of him in the end, and goes back looking for him. And it’s Ray who says, “Don’t look back, keep moving forward.” So, yes, to answer your question, it is autobiographical in some ways, and the bottom line is that sometimes it’s better to move on.

DM: The relationship between the two leads felt very authentic, in that they weren’t very good for each other, but still wanted to be around each other in almost a self-destructive way.
FW: They’re comfortable. I think very few times we’ve seen realistic portrayals of male bonding or friendship, more and more these movies are slapstick or broad comedy, Pineapple Express or that sort of thing. What I’m striving for here is authenticity and realism, and that’s what I try to do in all my movies. What I hope I did was a truly honest portrayal of friendship between two men. They’re too old for this type of behavior that they’re exhibiting, and neither one of them are going anywhere in their lives. And they’re both drunks, both drinking too much. People in their thirties should be looking forward, and not be stuck in the mud, stagnant, and I think both of them are. Owen is showing a little a bit of potential, he finangled his way into making this short film and getting it exhibited in this film festival, while the other one is not doing anything. But yeah, I’m glad you thought the relationship was authentic. I tried to keep the realism involved, and tried to allow the humor and comedy to seep through rather than make it broad.

DM: I thought it was interesting when Owen gets to LA, he’s not very aggressive in pursuing his dream, even when it’s right there laid out for him, instead making Ray go talk to Wallace Shawn, and leaving the movie theatre when his film is about to start.
FW: He’s a bit hapless, you’re right. That’s his flaw, he doesn’t have that killer instinct, while the other guy does – but he doesn’t have any talent, or he hasn’t found it. The problem with Owen’s life is that he’s not able to take charge of it. That’s why he fools around with the girl at the party, destroying his relationship with a person who loves him and perhaps is good for him. And even when it counts, he doesn’t go after something that could possibly change his career or life: he puts his unqualified friend in that position. And that’s why in the post-script he comes back looking for his friend, and his friend gives him the best advice he can saying, “Leave, go, do it. Make it happen.”

DM: Ray seems like the more mature one in a way.
FW: I think he is, I think Owen did him a lot of favors by saying, you know, “It’s over. I don’t want to see you anymore, I don’t want you in my life.” There was a wake-up call when he opened his eyes and went off and got sober, he took control of the relationship with his daughter, took responsibility, got a real job and cleaned up, and we find him sitting happily and easily in the park. The hope would be he is going to continue on being a productive person in life. And what I tried to do in the story at the end was at least give an inkling of hope for Freddie too when he walks away. Ray tells him “It’s gonna be okay, everything’s gonna be okay.” And I think those words are kind of dear to him, and he’ll go back to California (even though) it might be a hard place for him. California can be a tough place for a guy like him, you can get steamrolled out there, but hopefully he’ll go back and pursue it.

DM: Were there any touchstone films for you when you were making this movie?
FW: Every time I make a movie, I kind of base it, so to speak, or I am strongly influenced by one film in particular. For my first film, it was The 400 Blows, I was a student of that film and of the work of Francois Truffaut, so that film (Joe the King) was strongly, strongly influenced by that film, almost to the point of almost remaking it in my own mind, but I don’t think audiences would see that as much as I would. And then my second film, The Jimmy Show, which was about a failed comedian, (was influenced by) one of my favorite films of Martin Scorsese’s The King of Comedy. I adapted that movie from a one act play that I had acted in by Jonathan Marc Sherman, and I was strongly influenced by that. For this one, it was the film Withnail & I, written and directed by Bruce Robinson, which shares very similar themes in terms of friendship and human relationships overall. It’s about two friends, both of them actors, both of them are hopelessly lost and drunk in their lives and seemingly moving nowhere until one of them receives a lucky break and moves on. It’s kind of a tragedy in the end. I love that movie and had been seeing it a lot. So that would be the one.

DM: What about casting Chris Klein and Freddie Prinze Jr? I think they do some of their best work in this movie.
FW: I agree with you . Freddie, early on in his acting career did some really interesting work. The movie that I remember him from the most, the title escapes me, it was with Parker Posey, a small independent film I saw at the Sundance Film Festival a long time ago. Then he kind of got caught up in a whole bunch of romantic comedies and stuff like that, and got sort of typecast and began to repeat the same thing and was really, I think, overexposed in movies like Scooby-Doo. And like a lot of actors who are impressionable, he took the wrong course. So I think he does have some untapped talent, but there’s this perception of him that you don’t necessarily think of as legit or serious. And that’s too bad. With Chris, I think it’s sort of the same thing. He started out strong in roles, and then got strung along by other influences, perhaps, made some choices that weren’t so good or didn’t have opportunities. So I think this was an opportunity for both these guys to come back and do something really interesting and subtle, and I think they both acknowledge that. With Chris it came naturally, he embraced the language of the characters, while with Freddie I had to work with a little bit more because he was used to some, kind of, stock reliances, something we had to strip away to get right to the realism and simplicity of the thing. In terms of the casting of the both of them, the way to get a movie made – the only way to get a movie like this made, these days – is to have somebody with a recognizable name for the video box, and for overseas, that’s what they look for. They rarely read the script, they just want to know who’s in the movie, the investors. Were these two guys my first choice? Absolutely not, I had other guys in mind. But either they wanted money that we didn’t have or they weren’t available, or stuff like that. So it’s pretty random how movies are cast. Basically it came down to Freddie, I send his manager the script, he read it, he loved it. He and I sat down for a cup a coffee and were trying to figure out who could play Ray. I wrote the parts originally for Ethan Hawke and myself, Ethan Hawke to play Owen and myself to play Ray, but by the time it came down to making the film both of us were maybe a little bit too old for those roles, especially me. So Freddie, while we were having coffee, suggested, “How about Chris Klein?” because they had just worked together on stage in London in a play called This is Our Youth. So they had a real camaraderie, and he thought Chris would be good. Chris was for me, really, against type. I always think of Chris as a really good actor, but more as sort of a surfer, Malibu kind of guy, and these are New Yorkers through and through. But I met him and he really loved it, and understood the basic themes and ideas of what I was trying to do. And they met the qualifications for the investors, which is the most important thing for getting a movie made.

DM: They off pulled these characters that were so different from anything we’ve seen them do.
FW: I think so, yeah. It’s like good music, a good song, it all starts with the melody. With a script, it all starts with what the characters are and what they say. My strong suit is dialogue and character, and I think these guys read it and saw something they could sink their teeth into, and took it very seriously. Like I said, Freddie, at first, began to fall into some of the same sort of stock routines that he’s used in a lot of movies, for formulaic romantic comedies, but he soon learned that where the truth lies is somewhere deeper. And the truth can only be portrayed onscreen, I feel, through honest realism. And so the more simply and honestly anything can be played, the better.

DM: Do you have a favorite scene in the movie?
FW: I was really proud I was able to pull off — and I think they’re good, some might disagree — but my favorite scenes were the way the film ends, with two really, really long scenes of dialogue, and very little or no movement. I think of (the first) as the break up scene in the motel, where they’re sitting across from each other on the beds, and the camera didn’t really move and the actors didn’t really move. It was essentially just the two of them and their dynamic. And I think it’s really great. There’s very little cutting, which I think is nice as well. Then the scene where they come back together, after a couple of years at the end, it’s the same thing, they’re just standing across from each other. At one point we see the distance between the two of them.

DM: With the hedge in between them…
FW: Yeah, that’s kind of, in some ways, metaphoric for the distance that’s grown between them. So for me, it’s those two. If only because of the challenges I faced because they were ten page scenes, it was really up to the actors and myself to find where tension of the scenes was. Another was a scene in the movie where Chris’ wife, played by Heather Bucha, comes out screaming and yelling at him out of frustration and anger and heartbreak, and the camera pushes in on her, and she sheds a tear. Which was unexpected, and one of those moments that happens, and I always loved that.

DM: It was interesting how you had the scene of them arguing in the hotel room, and then go to black, then there’s the scene in the park two years later — a whole movie could’ve taken place between those scenes.
FW: I agree. I never really planned, or realized this, but it goes from a flat motel room to very bright, sunny, lovely Madison Square Park, and I love the way it happens. And I really hand it to those two guys, they really showed up that day, that morning to do that scene, and they knew the scene, they had worked on it, thought about it, and it wasn’t easy but we did it.

DM: Do you see yourself directing more in the future, or do you like this balance of acting a lot and directing every few years?
FW: I would prefer to be able to make a living, make my life, directing. That’s what I love to do and that’s what I prefer to do. I’m just lucky to be making a living doing either these days, I have two children to support and a family. So, anything that comes along, whether it’s acting or directing, I kind of have to grab it, whether it’s a guest spot on a television show, a television series, or a role in a film if I get lucky. But my passion, my soul, is in writing and directing. I have another film that I’ve written that I’m trying to get financing for, and the types of films that I make, if I’m lucky they’re critically received, but they’re usually not very financially viable, so I’m not the kind of guy being bugged by the studio to make a movie. Every time I’m trying to dig another hole and get a movie made. But I have to do it, I want to tell my stories.

DM: Would you ever consider directing something you didn’t write, or writing something and not directing it?
FW: I’ve done some rewriting. I’ve been approached to doctor scripts in the past, and that’s strictly just to pay my bills. I actually just finished something that I was asked to rewrite. But I don’t really like to do it because it’s a lot of work and you’re kind of giving your ideas – ideas are like gold, and you don’t really want to give them away. There are some people who do that, and there’s a formula they have to write scripts in Hollywood. And I don’t abide by it, I kind of do my own thing. So I find myself hard pressed to rewrite somebody else’s, like, action thriller, because it always ends up turning into something completely different. It’s funny because I was paid to rewrite a kind of hackneyed action movie, a thriller, and I realized right away that there were no characters at all in the movie. There were just sort of ideas, stock. So I went back and spent a lot of time doing it and the notes came back like, ‘It’s too dark, you can’t do that.’ I guess what I’m trying to say is they don’t want it to be the best, they want it to be what it is.

DM: When you’re writing, are you very disciplined as far as outlining, or do you just go with it as it comes?
FW: Yeah, that’s what I do. My new original script that I’ve written, and it’s the same with all the stuff that I’ve written, it really begins with an idea, and always ultimately ends on a whole different idea. And so what’s fun and exciting for me about writing is that I’ll have a basic idea in my mind as far as where the story is going, and who the characters are first and foremost, and as I begin to write, maybe three weeks into it, I stop, and I just start to think about it. Whether it’s when I’m walking down the street, or taking the kids to school, or running on the treadmill, I’ll try to figure out what they do next. I’ll start, in my mind, speaking with the characters, perhaps and it always changes, from where it started, where it’s going. My last script, I did write a kind of outline as to where it would go, and the finished script has very little relationship to it, it’s completely different. So I tend to learn as I write.

DM: About how long does it usually take you to finish a script?
FW: I would say, if I condensed all the time – because a lot of times I’ll put it down and come back to it sometime later – but if I put all the time of actual writing together, maybe three months? For me it’s easier to start than it is to wrap it up. That’s why my first draft is always over two-hundred pages long, it’s almost novel-like. Everything but the kitchen sink is in there, all kinds of backstory. The last script that I wrote, the first draft I gave to my wife, she’s always the first person I want to read it, it was like three-hundred pages. She’s a writer herself, so we call it the red pen draft, she gets out the red pen and Xs out things. She’s an editor, that’s part of the process as well.

DM: So that’s the next thing you’ve got coming up, the film you’re getting off the ground?
FW: I hope so. I hope to have it together and in production by late spring or early summer. It’s called Like Sunday, Like Rain. And the movie I was inspired by was Harold and Maude. This movie’s about a very intelligent young boy, and he’s thrown together with a kind of temporary nanny who comes out to care for him over a summer. It’s a simple idea, a simple story, about these two different people from completely different places in the world, and their interactions.

DM: You’re casting now, getting finances together?
FW: Those two things usually happen simultaneously, you know, same old story. But for this one the lead is this 22, 23-year-old female, and I’m not sure there’s really a name actress out there that would really fit the role, so I’m trying to convince someone to finance it on a really low budget so I can go out and find the right person for that part. I’ve sent it around to a couple of people who like it, but they want some name actress who maybe can do it but is not what I want. One thing I’ve learned is, casting is everything. You’ve got to have the right person.

DM: Well, good luck with it, I look forward to seeing it. And I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me.
FW: Thank you. It’s been really great talking to you.

Q: What did the role of directing animator on WALL-E involve?

AM: The Directing Animator’s job is to help the other animators keep their animation on model, so that the acting and movement are consistent for each of the characters over the entire film. They work to be both a surrogate voice of the Director when he/she is available, and also offer acting and performance suggestions. Directing Animators also help to define the motion and character of the main characters in the film. The Directing Animator reports directly to the Supervising Animators. On WALL-E, as well as The Incredibles, I worked under the Supervision Animators Alan Barillaro and Steven Hunter. They interface more with the production staff about the direction and management of the WALL-E animation department. They also serve as both a surrogate voice of the Director and also offer acting and performance suggestions as well. Time permitting, Supervising Animators will also help to define the motion and character of the main characters in the film.


Q: The WALL-E acronym stood for “Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-class.” What is BURN-E short for?

AM: BURN-E stands for “Basic Utility Repair Nano Engineer.” I have since heard from some people that it should actually be BURN-A because the “E” in WALL-E stands for “Earth-Class” and the “A” would be the appropriate “Axiom-Class.” Now I could argue that BURN-E was a robot on Earth that was installed on the Axiom, but a) I would be lying, and b) What’s the point? If that’s the biggest problem you have with the film, then I have done my job. Now put yourself in my shoes. You have to name this robot. BURN-E is funny and breaks the continuity of the film. BURN-A is more accurate to the feature and is not funny at all. Which would you choose? I thought so. I do love that geeks pick up on this and I am happy to be creating this controversy. I’d probably do the same thing, were I not involved. Jim Reardon, head of story on WALL-E, thought of the name. Derek Thompson and fellow story artist Ted Mathot came up with the acronym.

Q: Brad Bird created the similarly fun companion short Jack-Jack Attack for The Incredibles. What are your thoughts on side-stories like these?

AM: I am a big fan of side stories. Coincidentally, I had a side story pitch for The Incredibles that Brad was excited about, but budget constraints kept us from doing it. I think it’s important that the side story not belittle or betray the main story. If the main story is about the existence of the Easter Bunny, the side story can’t say there is no Easter Bunny or it messes with the feature.

Q: What made you choose BURN-E as the main subject?

AM: I was drawn to BURN-E because his story was not fully explored in the feature. I like M-O, but he is in the feature a lot already, so I did not feel like his story needed to be told as urgently. Also I liked the idea of having a short that took place outside the central story arc of WALL-E.


Q: How did BURN-E’s story originate?

AM: As a filmgoer, I wanted to know what happened to BURN-E. I had a few ideas of places we could cut back to BURN-E in the feature, but it slowed the pace of the film down. Once Andrew encouraged me to take these ideas and develop them into a short, I needed to find a unifying story arc. I came up with this idea of him having a job and that job would be repairing this light. Then I thought, it would be funny to have WALL-E inadvertently cause this meteor to hit the light on the ship. This led to the central idea of the short. In the feature, WALL-E has a positive effect on everyone he meets. So I thought, what if there is someone for whom WALL-E ‘s arrival on the Axiom isn’t a good thing. WALL-E is never purposefully mean to BURN-E, it’s just bad luck. Once I had that central idea I looked for key moments in the film to cut back to BURN-E to see what he was doing at that particular time.

Q: How hard was it to get the just right type of emotion out of a robot?

AM: It is always our goal as animators to make our work clearly communicate the thought process of the characters to the audience. It was particularly challenging for us on BURN-E as well as WALL-E because of the limited nature of the designs and the lack of dialogue. Both characters limited designs are appealing, but more work must be done in the story process to communicate his intentions. With BURN-E and with WALL-E, if the audience can’t tell what the character is thinking or what is going on, then they lose interest very quickly.

Q: Did you work on BURN-E during or after the production of WALL-E?

AM: Both. I started boarding BURN-E on the evenings and lunches when we were in the heat of animation production on WALL-E. Once the animation was wrapping up on the feature, production started on BURN-E. It dovetailed nicely, but I did have to put off a May vacation till August.

Q: How long did it take you to produce BURN-E?

AM: I first pitched the storyboard to Andrew Stanton in November 2007 and we finished production in late June 2008.


Q: BURN-E is your first film as a director. Do you see this film as a steppingstone towards directing features?

AM: BURN-E was a tremendous opportunity for me. The shorts program at Pixar is designed to be a training ground for potential future directors and new department heads. Sometimes that translates into directing features or heading departments on features and sometimes not. I have stories that I’d like to tell, so we’ll see what happens.

Q: How much freedom do you have at Pixar as a director on a little film like this?

AM: I pitched the film to Andrew and John Lasseter. Once they bought off on the concept, I was free to pretty much do as I wished. There were budget considerations, but there weren’t any compromises that hurt the film. I checked in with Andrew periodically and if there was anything that wasn’t reading or could be improved he would make notes. I would say that 95% of his notes made the film better. Mostly, he had notes on pacing. BURN-E, by nature, is fairly episodic. He had a lot of notes that kept the pace from slowing to a crawl. Freedom as a director is also the freedom to make a bad movie. I had the support of an extremely talented crew so anything that was bad they did there best to fix.

Q: John has previously said that Pixar’s shorts provide animators with the opportunity to experiment with new challenges outside the confines and limitations of a feature. Were there any particular technical or story challenges you set out to accomplish with BURN-E?

AM: The biggest challenge was how to make a 7+ minute film on a budget. I was allowed to make a film that long if it came in on budget. To be honest, I think the budget constraint helped. I wanted the film to look like a ’70s-’80s Sci-Fi films. On those films, they built awesome sets on limited budget. We used a lot of the same principles of repeated forms for BURN-E. As an homage, the floor grating in BURN-E is based on floor grating in featured in the movies Outland, Alien, and Aliens.

Q: What was the most challenging aspect of BURN-E?

AM: There were a lot of difficult shots to pull off in this film. From a technical perspective, the shot with WALL-E touching Saturn’s rings that transitions into the pebble meteor was the hardest to pull off. The Effects Supervisor, Bill Watral did a fabulous job stitching the shot from the film and a bunch of new elements that were on a literally planetary scale. On the performance side, the shot where SUPPLY-R drops the light on the ground was the trickiest to get right. There was something in the boards that was really funny that was extremely difficult to capture.

Q: Could you give a piece of advice to all those who start in this of the animation and dream of working in Pixar or on a project like this someday?

AM: Surround yourself with people whose work you admire and whose opinions you trust. In school, I worked really hard and sought out others who did the same. In your work, make sure that you are making something that you believe in. In BURN-E, I tried to have at least one thing in each shot that was true, real, or relatable. Make the world of your film believable and relatable and the audience will follow.

Q: You’ve worked in many unforgettable movies. Which is your favorite?

Burny: I have a very strong feeling for The Great Mouse Detective, beyond that Beauty and the Beast was one of my favorites to work on. Lady and the Tramp was my first film with the studio, and, of course, Sleeping Beauty has a very soft spot in my heart.

Q: When you were working on the film, did you have any sort of idea it would remain so popular 50 years later?

Burny: No! We were pleasantly surprised when everybody saw the final print and I think we all felt we made something classic. But at the time, we didn’t realize this would become such a beloved classic. We were too close to the working problems of it, just getting the work done. But then, when it was all together and we saw it for the first time, we realized we had something!

Q: What sort of problems did you encounter along the way?

Burny: There were problems all the time through the picture. Namely, it was a very slow process because we were trying to make it such a classic and we were using more abstract design elements which created a lot of problems. The very fact that we had to animate every frame instead of shooting each frame twice. If we didn’t the animation would strobe against Eyvind Earle’s backgrounds. We were working on three field paper and when you’re doing inbetweens on every drawing, you’re flipping back and forth with very wide paper which slowed the process down dramatically.

Q: What’s the one sequence in Sleeping Beauty you personally are the most proud of?

Burny: The first scene in Sequence 8 which was in the forest where Aurora was beginning to sing to the birds as she was picking the berries. That was actually the first scene that was animated in the film and I had to do it over four times. Once with her, once with the birds, and then we had to clean it up twice. Marc gave me a cake that said “Happy 31″ (which was the number of the scene) to celebrate that it finally went to color and Walt bought off on it!

Q: What’s your advice to a someone who dreams of becoming an animator?

Burny: Do lots of quick sketching. Watch people in restaurants or wherever, and just do quick drawings of their poses. Make them very expressive. I didn’t go to art school. I came to Disney with desire to draw. I drew all my life and, when I came to the studio, I was lucky enough to work with Marc Davis. He taught me so much, but I would encourage anyone to focus on getting as much art education as you possibly can get.

Q: When you create a character, there are a number of preliminary designs from which to choose. Can you tell us about the “elimination” process? How do you pick the final design and who has the final say?

Burny: In this case, Walt had the last word on the design. As it passed between different designers and Marc Davis, it afforded them a chance to take a little bit of everybody’s design and mix it together. But Walt made the last decision on each character and every aspect of the picture. He wouldn’t let anything go unless he saw it and that’s why it took so long to make this picture, especially since he was so involved with Disneyland at the time.

Q: How much of Maleficent’s onscreen personality comes from Eleanor Audley’s rich vocal performance and how much is classic Marc Davis?

Burny: I’d say 60% of it was Eleanor’s and Marc followed up with the rest of it! He was highly influenced by her. She set the tone for how the character should act.

Q: What design features make Maleficient a great villain?

Burny: The head-dress certainly made a strong statement; her height overpowering the frame, and her bombastic acting where she would keep everything controlled and then suddenly explode. That created a strong character.

Q: What was the deciding factor for the final look of her character?

Burny: Marc made a variety of designs to show Walt and he made the choice going with the horns and so forth. Marc spent a lot of time with his designs and with Eyvind, which is why he made her such an elongated figure, to work with Eyvind’s horizontal and vertical backgrounds.

Q: What made Maleficient so different from previous Disney villains?

Burny: One thing that got me was her reaction at not being invited to the party. It was a bit over the top, which is pretty darn cruel for no reason.

Q: Can you see any elements of Maleficent in subsequent Disney villains?

Burny: Cruella was also designed by Marc Davis and the voice was Betty Lou Gerson. She was a classic radio actress and had the same things that Eleanor had in her voice. Marc really had a lot of fun with that character. She was bombastic all the time. Every animator loves to have a character move; not be very stilted. Again, Marc wanted a more controlled character in Maleficent with very little movement. He wanted to save her movement for shock value when she suddenly explodes.

Q: Sleeping Beauty is one of the only Disney animated films where the hero takes out the villain himself, while most other Disney villains meet their end indirectly. Did you have to fight at all to use that ending?

Burny: No, I don’t believe we did. We needed to resolve Maleficent in some manner. Certainly she imprisoned Phillip and caused Sleeping Beauty to go to sleep. The only one that could undo it was the Prince. There was no one else except the faeries and they couldn’t use their magic against her. That was a strong story decision.

Q: Maleficent metamorphosing into the dragon was one of the earliest sequences to use the Xerography process. What was your experience of the change in animation?

Burny: Woolie Reitherman directed the dragon fight sequence and he did use the Xerox process for the first time on the dragon. I think they went back over the Xerox line with ink & paint, but he did use the process as an experiment for enlarging and reducing her in the frame. That was actually the start of Disney using Xerox in animation. It was a very crude process. We used an omega 8×10 enlarger as our camera and had these old aluminum inking boards coated with the Xerox material. It was very crude, but by the next picture, 101 Dalmatians, we had a first class Xerography operation.

Q: How many animated features did Walt have in development at any given time? Were there any that didn’t get made you would have loved to be a part of?

Burny: About 1940, Walt was starting to do four features at one time (Pinocchio, Bambi, Fantasia, and Dumbo) and they were all in work status. At the same time, he had stories that were in development like Cinderella and Peter Pan which hit a wall because of the War, so they were put on the shelf and revisited later. Walt was so disappointed in Pinocchio and Fantasia not doing as well as they should — because the overseas market disappeared during World War II — that he was going to go on a long vacation. Someone sent a little series of pictures of an elephant character and he gave it to Joe Grant and said “See what you can do with it.” So, Joe and Dick Humor developed the story of Dumbo while Walt was away, which was done very fast because it was so simple and it turned out to be very successful.

Q: What is your favorite Disney feature you didn’t work on?

Burny: Pinocchio. I wasn’t able to work on it since I was just a little kid, but it had the biggest impact on me, because it’s why I wanted to work here at Disney.

Q: Is there a story or a fairy tale you would really love to adapt or see adapted as an animated feature?

Burny: Paul Gallico’s The Abandoned. In fact, the studio owns the book and many of Walt’s Nine Old Men went to him and said this is a story they really wanted to do. This was the one picture that got away from them.

Q: How has animation at Disney changed since Sleeping Beauty?

Burny: When we first worked on Sleeping Beauty, we were trying to do a more classic approach to our animation; to be more exacting in the design. We were learning to use our “straights” against “curves,” to fit within Eyvind Earle’s stylized backgrounds. This was a slow process. Later on, we went to a looser approach on 101 Dalmatians, where we could speed up the process but were also trying to get back into the classic style of animation. Even today, we still try to keep a classic approach. Perhaps not as designed as on Sleeping Beauty, but still classic in our approach to contemporary titles.

Q: What’s the one thing you think nobody notices in Sleeping Beauty that they should pay attention to?

Burny: Watch the beautiful backgrounds. The animation is so well done, especially the faeries when they’re miniature. The restored aspect ratio now includes so much more imagery than has ever been seen before and the forest sequences are fantastic in Blu-ray.

Q: The Blu-ray presentation of Sleeping Beauty is marvelous. Is high definition worrisome to animators, since now even the smallest design flaws may become much more apparent?

Burny: No, I think quite the contrary. We want to see the image as beautiful as it was originally intended to be. Blu-ray — I love it!

Lalo Schifrin: Oh, it is a pleasure.

CD: Let’s begin with your new autobiography. It’s a very enjoyable read, filled with fascinating stories and memories. Have you been collecting these and writing them down over the years, or did you decide to put together this book somewhat recently?

LS: No, I collected them in my mind, but didn’t put them down in paper until I started to write the book.

CD: It’s a really fascinating collection of anecdotes. How did you go about deciding how you wanted to put this book together?

LS: Well, I didn’t want to do it in biographical order. Sometimes, the chronological order can be boring. I’ve been involved, and I am still involved in films, television, jazz, classical, and all the celebrities I’ve met you can see in the book there. Many pictures, many photographs with many celebrities, all these you will see. Also, there’s a CD, a compilation of some of my music from the three fields. That made it easier, I didn’t have to tell a normal story. I just went by reminiscing, anecdotes… there are some funny anecdotes, and also some very serious stories… what I had to go through in my younger years before I left Argentina. There was a totalitarian government, Peron. All these stories, I thought they made interesting reading… drama on one hand, comedy on the other hand, and musical reminiscences.

CD: That’s one of the things that made it such an compelling reading experience for me. As you said, many biographies are written in a very linear fashion, and you almost know what to expect next if you know much about their life. In your book, there was something new, something fresh, or something surprising around every corner, and that really made it an interesting read.

LS: Thank you.

CD: You were born and raised in Argentina, and I understand that music was a pretty big part of your life from the very beginning. What was the experience of growing up in a musical family like?

LS: Well, you know, I didn’t even know there was anything else. My father, my uncles, my aunts, from my father’s side and my mother’s side… they were all professional musicians. My father was a concert master, he took me to a lot of rehearsals, concerts, performances, opera, ballet. For me, that was life.

CD: How old were you when you first began to appreciate the joys of music?

LS: Oh, I was very young, maybe five. The opera was very… I was attracted to opera to the point that I think it’s the reason I started to write music for films. I never studied. There are film and music school that teach you how to write music. I never studied that. But the influence of opera, which is a combination of storyline, visuals, staging, plus music… that was perhaps the best school I could have had. That’s what gave me the idea of coming to Hollywood to write music for films.

CD: Now before that, you met Dizzy Gillespie, who you talk about a good deal in your book. Can you tell us about how you originally met him, and what sort of impact he had on your musical career?

LS: Well, I was all ready familiar with him. When I became a teenager, I embraced jazz, heard records of jazz. I heard the music of Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker (who wrote more than jazz), it was very complex. I was very attracted to it, since I was also studying harmony, composition, counterpoint… there was something about that music that I was attracted to. In fact, I did get a scholarship to study composition at the Paris Conservatory. I went to the Paris Conservatory to study at night, and the scholarship didn’t offer to much money, I still needed to make a living. So, I went to play jazz with some of the best European musicians in Paris, and even American musicians living in Paris. That was very good schooling for me in jazz. After Peron was overthrown, I wanted to go to Argentina to see my family. So I was going to go there for a few months. I missed my sister, my mother, my father, my friends, everybody. I was given an offer to have my own band, playing on my own television show and my own radio show. I was very young, just 24 years old, and it was a big temptation. Although I had my own apartment in Paris and I was very organized, working as an arranger and pianist… the temptation of having my own band… well, I wrote my arrangements immediately and all my charts and put together the best Argentinean jazz musicians. After a few months of performing there and being very successful with the Argentinean public, Dizzy Gillespie came with his state department band. It was a kind of musical ambassador from the United States. They went all over; to Asia, Europe, South America, and one of the points was Argentina. So, one night while they were there, I was asked to perform for them with my band. I did; I was conducting from the piano, Dizzy had me playing the piano. When we were finished, Dizzy asked me, “Did you write all those charts? Would you like to come to the United States?” I thought I was dreaming. So, it happened, that’s why I’m here in the United States.

CD: Wow. So, it was just a few years later when film and television music entered your life?

LS: Yes.

CD: Let’s talk for a moment about what is perhaps your most well-known composition, the theme for Mission: Impossible. In your book, you tell the story of the entertaining answer you gave when someone asked you why you wrote that theme in 5/4 time, so I won’t ask you that. But I would like to ask you… when you initially created the theme, did you have any sense that it would become as popular as it did?

LS: No, no. You know, there are no formulas for popularity. If I had the formula, everything I have ever written would be popular. (laughs). No, it was luck.

CD: That theme has really become a part of our pop culture, you hear it all over the place now. Did it have that kind of impact immediately, or is it something that seems to have grown over the years?

LS: It had an impact almost immediately. The problem was not the theme, the problem was the show. I did the pilot, and the pilot has to be sold to the network. It was sold, but the first year, it didn’t have big success. In fact, it was a danger that it might be dropped. The second year, the music was released on record. The show became very popular, and the music became very popular.

CD: In recent years, there have been three popular Mission: Impossible films, featuring new takes on your material by Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer, and Michael Giacchino. What are your feelings on how your material was treated in those three scores?

LS: Very good. I was very pleased.

CD: Do you have a favorite among the three?

LS: Oh, the third one, by Michael Giacchino. It was… well, I liked all of them.

CD: Now, you also wrote another popular television theme for a show called Mannix.

LS: Yes, the same producer, Bruce Gellar.

CD: In your book, you talked about how you were working on a similar television show at the same time called Braddock. In fact, some of your music for Braddock was just released on a CD. What was it like working on those two very similar things at the same time.

LS: It was difficult. Braddock and Mannix… they were written in the same place, and they were picked by the networks because the computer appeared for the first time back in those years. They wanted detectives who worked with computers, Mannix and Braddock. They were very similar stories. I didn’t realize until I accepted Braddock that they were so similar. I had signed a contract before I saw the show; so I had to be sure that I wrote music absolutely different for each one. I don’t remember too much about the music I wrote for Braddock, but I remember that Bruce Gellar asked me to humanize Mannix. For the first two or three years, Mannix worked with computers, but then he became just a private eye. To humanize it, I wrote a kind of jazz waltz.

CD: Particularly back in the 1960s, you worked a lot in both film and television. Was one harder than they other, or did each have it’s own challenges and benefits.

LS: Oh, they both had their own challenges.

CD: The world of film music has changed a good deal over the years, and you’ve been writing over the past five decades. Do you find the experience of writing a film score to be more complicated and challenging than it was when you began or career, or is it the other way around?

LS: Well, the technology has changed, but the basic idea of making a contribution to a film musically is still the same.

CD: Hmm. It seems that orchestral music is slowly becoming less common in modern film scores, as a lot of movies are now employing a lot of electronic sound design. As someone who has been working on films for such a long time, what are your feelings on the current state of film music?

LS: Oh, you cannot say it like that. It’s not a current state. Scores are like fingerprints. Each film has it’s own music. Some are completely electronic, some are what I call electroacoustic, and some are symphonic. We cannot make a generalization of that.

CD: That brings up something I’ve been wanting to ask you about. Throughout your career, there seems to have been a fascination with fusing unusual musical elements together. This can perhaps be most explicitly heard in your collection of Jazz Meets the Symphony recordings, in which you blend notable classical works with jazz compositions. When did you develop a taste for that sort of musical experimentation?

LS: Oh, always! In fact, one of the reasons I came to Hollywood was that I could develop the idea of jazz meets the symphony. In Bullitt, Dirty Harry, all these scores that I wrote for films in which I could combine elements. In Cool Hand Luke it was bluegrass instead of jazz, but always with the symphony around. Even in Mission: Impossible and in Mannix, I had a symphony orchestra surround a smaller group. This was something that always attracted me. Finally, I decided to do a series of recordings. I did six recordings of Jazz Meets the Symphony, and I’m working on a seventh.

CD: Wonderful! Of course, those are pretty critically acclaimed works now. Were there ever points in your career when you tried some of this experimental stuff that wasn’t as well-received, when someone was telling you, “No, you shouldn’t mix these two things”?

LS: Well, I’d like to answer your question… actually, it’s two questions. First of all, I do not experiment. I don’t want to sound too arrogant… but they once asked Picasso, the great painter, “What are you looking for?” Picasso said, “I’m not looking for something, I found it.” I understand that because the same thing happens to me. I was born in classical music, assimilated jazz, and never understood why there had to be differences between the two. Both are good music. At the beginning, well, it was difficult. But the musicians in the symphony orchestra, they love it. The jazz musicians also love it because they feel great inspiration from that. The public took a little longer, because it was too new, but it’s being accepted now. I’m about to go to Paris to do Jazz Meets the Symphony, and I did one recently in London.

CD: Great. Over the course of your career, you’ve written music for a lot of different films and television shows. Is there one experience that stands out as being the most satisfying to you personally?

LS: Perhaps Cool Hand Luke. I liked the story, I liked the director… and also Dirty Harry. Different films altogether, but I like both very much.

CD: It’s interesting that you point out those two. I think both Dirty Harry and Cool Hand Luke… arguably two of the definitive iconic films of Paul Newman and Clint Eastwood; two roles that a lot of people really remember them for. Also, Steve McQueen in Bullitt and The Cincinatti Kid.

LS: Yes, The Cincinatti Kid. The title song was sung by Ray Charles, so yeah, I worked with Ray Charles. It was very nice, all of these experiences were very nice.

CD: You’ve worked on a couple of film franchises in your career… in the 1970s and 1980s, you wrote music for four of the five Dirty Harry films, and in recent years you’ve scored all three Rush Hour films. How do you feel about scoring sequels… is your approach considerably different when you’re working with familiar material rather than creating something entirely new?

LS: Well, the advantage is that the themes are all ready written. The challenge is that you have to adapt those themes for new situations. That’s a challenge, but I welcome challenges.

CD: Looking ahead to the rest of your career… is there still anything you haven’t tried yet that you would really love to do; a dream project of yours?

LS: My wife says, “Be careful what you dream, or it’s going to happen.” Right now I’m in the jazz music symphony. You know, a house is built brick by brick. So I don’t even know where this is taking me, but it’s always a journey. If you can see the line in my book from my life in Argentina to Paris, coming back, Dizzy Gillespie, coming to New York, working for a record company that was a subsidiary of MGM Records, and MGM was part of MGM, Inc., which was then the biggest film studio in the world. Because of the success I had with the subsidiary company, Verve, they invited me to come to Hollywood, and I started my career there. You can see the whole thing is a line. In retrospect, I didn’t plan it that way. You known, there was an Argentinean poet who said, “Fate and luck are synonymous.” I’ve been lucky, and that determined my fate, my destiny… so far.

CD: Well, Mr. Schifrin, you’ve certainly given us a great deal of wonderful music over the years, and I certainly look forward to anything you do as you head into the future. I also want to thank you for taking the time to join us today and share your thoughts with us.

LS: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate your invitation. For you, I would like to take the opportunity to say hello to all of your listeners and send my best wishes to everybody, you included.

For More Information:

Visit Mr. Schifrin’s official site ( schifrin.com )

Listen to Clark’s musical tribute to Lalo ( The Sounds and Sights of Cinema (09/02/08) )

Read Lalo’s autobiography Mission Impossible: My Life in Music (amazon.com)

Hear Lalo’s Jazz Meets the Symphony CD collection (amazon.com)

Q: Could you give us a little background on the story of Scorpion King 2 and what your roles are?

Karen David: Sure. This is a prequel to a sequel and it will hopefully answer a lot of questions for Scorpion King and Mummy fans about the journey of Mathayus (Michael Copon), how and why he became the Scorpion King, and his relationship with his childhood sweetheart Layla (Karen David). Together they embark on this perilous journey to avenge Mathayus’ father’s death against the evil King Sargon played by Randy Couture.

Michael Copon: It’s a lot about this warrior’s journey and how his compassion and emotion drive him to be so courageous, strong, and powerful. He’s a young kid, a young Scorpion King, and he’s learning he can’t do anything on his own and he needs the friendships that he has to help conquer any journey that he’s on. Of course, the biggest thing is that he wants to avenge his father’s death, and that’s something I can relate to. I’ve had a couple fathers pass away, so I understand if someone were to murder my father, I would go across the world to get my revenge.

(They both laugh)

KD: It’s a feel good film with a bit of something for everyone — adventure, romance, comedy, lots of action, and great fight sequences. I think everyone is going to be really happy with it.

Q: The trailer shows quite a bit of effects involved. How much green screen work did you do, as compared with set and location shooting?

KD: You know, not that much.

MC: We really didn’t do much green screen work. I think the trailer showed a lot of what we did, but I’d say about what 30 percent?

KD: Yeah…

MC: Maybe 25 percent of the film might have been green screen…

KD: The sets that they built were just unbelievable. They were so beautiful. And when you’re filming in Cape Town, South Africa, you try to make as many sets as you can against the weather and the backdrop over there. You want to make maximum use of the beauty of Cape Town.

MC: Yeah, they built a lot of those sets up and made them look so beautiful. It’s just amazing to be a part of that set because we felt like we were actually living there.

Q: How long were you guys in Cape Town?

KD: What… six, seven weeks?

MC: Yeah, about seven weeks or so. No, maybe eight weeks.

KD: About two months. Because we had to do prepping and training, before we actually starting shooting. And it was full on. Once we got shooting it was long hours and long days, but it was worth it!

Q: Was there a lot of fight choreography involved in pre-production?

MC: Yeah, probably about two weeks of hard core training in the choreography field. I mean, I brought everything I could to the table. I have a Kapuara background, a martial arts background, and I used to be a Power Ranger a long time ago. So just learning the fight choreography from that TV show and adding it to something so completely different from that realm… and I’m playing this Scorpion King warrior hero, an Acadian, and adding this whole new Acadian martial arts… it was fun coming up with and creating this new idea for filling The Rock’s shoes and making a younger, more agile version of him.

Q: Did Russell have you go back and study Dwayne’s mannerisms?

KD: Michael was actually at natural at that!

(Everybody laughs)

KD: Let me tell you, there were moments… I kid you not… there were moments when I thought “Am I looking at Dwayne?” Some of the facial expressions Michael nailed to a T. It was quite scary. I thought The Rock was right in front of me. It was quite funny.

MC: I kind of always imitated him growing up. (Karen laughs) I met him at Casa Vega four years ago and said I was gonna play his son one day, and now I’m playing him. I wanted to be a wrestler growing up. I was gonna be called “The Supreme Filipine”…

(Everybody laughs)

MC: I had my own move and everything. The Rock was one of my favorite wrestlers, so to actually play him was really cool for me.

KD: You know I’m gonna to tease you about that now. I’m gonna call you “The Supreme Filipine” now…

(Everybody laughs)

MC: And I had leopard pants. I was designing my own outfits…

KD: Well look, you graduated from leopard pants to leather pants.

MC: Leather pants…

KD: The ladies are gonna be very happy when they see Michael in leather pants.

(Everybody laughs)

MC: Definitely.

Q: Randy’s a pretty intimidating guy to begin with, but in person he’s very intelligent and down to earth.

KD: Oh, he is.

Q: When the cameras were rolling, was he able to dive right into the bad guy role?

MC: Yeah, I think he did a great job. He didn’t really have to do much.

KD: His physicality just speaks for itself.

MC: Just looking at him is scary. The thing I’ve learned about myself from his character is “less is more.” It actually shows how insecure you are, if you try to overact how tough you are. If you just kinda let it be and stare at someone, speak slowly, and look into their eyes, it’s very scary. Like Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. He was so creepy because he stayed so still. He’s probably the nicest guy in the world, but he also appeared to be the creepiest. So with Randy, the less he did the better he was doing, because he’s already so scary looking.

KD: Yeah, but he’s such a gentleman and such a sweetheart, isn’t he?

MC: Oh yeah.

KD: We were all touching his ears. We had this fascination with his ears.

Q: What?!

KD: (She laughs) From his fighting, they’re like cabbage leaves, aren’t they?

MC: Like cauliflower leaves. And he was with us with a broken arm and a broken nose…

KD: …and he just writes is off as “Ah, it’s nothing.”

MC: I was always afraid I was gonna hit his broken arm and he’d just start whacking the crap outta me.

(Everybody laughs)

MC: So I’d stay away from the left side of his body, because that’s the arm that was broken, and always stay on his right.

(Laughter)

Q: Russell is quite the renaissance director, having done film, television, and music videos. How was he to work with on this project?

MC: Oh, he was great! He was very compassionate towards the actors and that’s one thing that Russell has always been. He’s been great with Karen and myself, spent time with us, making sure we were always comfortable. And not to mention he’s done sooo many things. He has an eye. I always say if you give him $400 million he can create a whole new world in a movie, like a whole new Earth, somehow without CGI. I don’t know, he has a way of creating things that no one else has ever seen.

KD: His enthusiasm is contagious, for what he does as a director. When he’s describing to both Michael and I the scene and what’s going to be happening, or ideas that come off the top of his head — because he’s just a man full of ideas; not just any ideas, but great ideas — and you just get so excited because you know it’s gonna look great. I mean, just from seeing the dailies at the end of each day, and that’s when it’s not even edited or picture graded or anything, you just look at it and think “Wow, this is going to be pretty special, if it looks this good now.”

MC: He made the film look like it had $100 million more involved than it did. If someone can do that, that just impresses me so much.

Q: Any bizarre experiences happen on set?

MC: Everything. From the first day being there, I was in a cab and got hit by another car because the cab pulled out in front of it. I almost flew out the window, when my head shattered the glass. (Laughter) I sprained my ankle, the first week of training, so I was in the next day on one crutch learning a sword fight. I fell off a horse and onto my face. Karen had a lot…

KD: I passed out in a ditch (she laughs)…

MC: Yeah, she passed out. Overheated…

KD: I was on a camel practicing for 20 minutes, whilst Michael was doing his scenes. It was so unbearably hot, and we were drinking loads of water and taking lots of sugar and glucose, but I passed out as soon as I got off the camel. There was a stomach bug that went around for a while that Russell got and I got. It was lethal!

MC: People were getting anxiety attacks. I got a couple anxiety attacks. Lack of sleep I think too. I only slept three hours a night.

KD: But you forget about things, when the adrenaline kicks in, because you’re just having so much fun. We’re like “Yeah, yeah, it’s fine.” And it’s just so funny because everyone thinks “Oh, it must be so glam,” and we’re all just laughing because…

MC: It’s not.

KD: It’s fun, but it’s hard work!

Q: What are you guys working on right now?

MC: I’m doing a film called We Got the Beat. I’m co-producing and starring as this kid Brad Roberts who quit the football team to start the first ever boy band in 1982. It’s starring Rob Hoffman from Step Up 2, Ryan Pinkston from Punk’d, Ryan Hansen from the new Friday the 13th, and a lot of other great young stars. It’s comedy and hopefully the next Full Monty / Napoleon Dynamite. I’m also doing a remake of Night of the Demons a 1988 film in New Orleans, which starts filming September 15, starring Diora Baird from Texas Chainsaw, Shannon Elizabeth from Dancing with the Stars, and the kid from Terminator 2, I forget his name. And I’m hosting the new Dance or Drop show that’s gonna be on MTV. It’s like the Corny Collins Show from Hairspray or like the modern day version of Soul Train and American Bandstand. We’re shooting in Times Square and it’s taking over as the new TRL.

KD: I’ve got a movie coming out next year called The Colour of Magic, which is based on the Terry Pratchett novel, with Sean Astin, Jeremy Irons, and Tim Curry. And like Michael — Michael forgot to mention about his album — I’m on an album deadline right now to get that finished. Somewhere in between writing new songs and recording, I’ve been reading new scripts and a there’s a few things that have come up, so watch this space because I’ll be making some announcements shortly.

View the Trailer:

For More Information:

Read Judge David Johnson’s review of The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior

Red Judge Clark Douglas’ review of The Scorpion King (Blu-ray)

Visit the official site for Michael’s next film We Got the Beat

Visit the official site for Karen’s next film The Colour of Magic