CITY OF ANGELS: An interview with Random Shooting In L.A. director Jeffrey Delman. By Warren Curry 10/04/02 Part 2 of 2

Another striking aspect of the film was the exploration of the different faces of Los Angeles. Often times this city just serves as a generic, faceless setting and isn't used in the way that many filmmakers use a city like New York -- almost as if the city is another character. Was it a goal to show the many facets of L.A.?

Yes, and if we could have gotten into more parts of the city, we would have. The city has so many sides and has different cultures superimposed on each other. It's like there's no depth of focus in L.A. -- you can focus on one group, but then you'll miss another group. You can drive around and see people at bus stops, who are virtually invisible if you're in a car. If you're not in a car then you see other things. I know some people who lived in an apartment complex that had mostly Central Americans living in it, and I was astounded to see that these complexes were almost like small villages. There's something so amazing about the depth of the human experience in L.A., and it's all filtered through the different cultures of the people expressing them. I think that's what makes L.A. amazing.

You had an obvious dilemma in terms of your visual approach to the film. It had to appear like it was shot by non-professionals, but not to the extreme where it looks sloppy or horribly amateurish. How were you able to find a happy medium?

It took some work. We went in trying to create the look of a home movie without it actually looking like a home movie. We wanted it to look like what people will think it will look like when they are shooting a home movie. There were quite a few occasions when I'd say, "Let's do this." Matt would then say, "Jeff, you can direct the hell out of your next movie but not this one." He kept me pure. I think there are quite a few neat little cinematic tricks going on in terms of the way that we have shots that seem to go on for 10 minutes or 5 minutes and, in fact, on every camera movement we're cutting, so we're able to break things up. For instance, the scene with Raymond and his father: that's 7 or 8 shots, but it looks like one extended shot. The shot with Silyotka and Steve in her apartment: that's a seven minute take but there were no cut points, so we shot it over and over again, getting different versions and finally picking the one that seemed to be lightning in a bottle.

Were there moments when you had to especially justify the validity of having the camera taping certain actions? For example, it strikes me as odd that a group of people would videotape themselves assaulting another person.

Yes, of course. They could end up going to jail and they would be stupid for doing it. What we're trying to set up is that these guys were so arrogant that it didn't occur to them, but, yes, it was completely ridiculous for them to be doing that. But -- it's a movie! (laughs) We tried really hard to have everything be credible. Hopefully, not too many people were pulled out of the movie. It's what Hitchcock always called "the ham sandwich moment." After you see a movie, you go home and make a sandwich and then say, "Hey, wait a minute -- why did they do that?" If in the sway of the story it's working, then we've done our job.

Broad question time -- is there any statement you're trying to make about the human condition in this film?

I think the statement the movie ended up saying was different from the statement I went in to say, and a lot of that came from the process. The original final scene of Silyotka was going to be much more violent. We actually shot something and it just didn't fit with what had led up to it. After being depressed that a whole night's shoot didn't work, we made a list of things that could happen in that moment. One of the things is that she decides that she doesn't want to sleep with Steve. Initially, we went into it where he does, then he taunts her, it turns into a rape and then she ends up overpowering him, which was the first idea that Catherine had going into it; this image of her covered in blood, having found a weapon and just able to get the better hand over him. It didn't really fit where the story had been because it had changed so much in workshopping. We didn't workshop that final scene because we wanted to keep it fresh and visceral. So, we just started with a blank page and came up with this idea of her just saying no. It didn't sound like an exciting idea -- this prostitute just says no -- but in fact some of (Silyotka's) purity that had been long buried had been claimed. It turned out to be such a powerful concept. We wrote a little scene, workshopped it and came up with what we ended up shooting. By being willing to let go of the old stuff that didn't work, we were able to find great new levels of expression. Much like what happens to Silyotka. She's able to let go of her old wounds that happened to her when she was a child in Russia and is able to find a new expression of who she is. I think what the story does is it sets up different versions of the same situation -- about characters having this idea about themselves that is destructive. The final story takes elements of all the previous ones, addresses them in one story and then reveals the ending.

How have audiences responded to this film so far?

It's funny -- people usually respond to the film in two ways: they either love it or they just don't get it. In fact, many people are really turned off by the Raymond beating scene. I was surprised at Dances With Films that nobody got up during that moment. At other screenings we've had, people have walked out and came back when that scene was finished. I think because it's so rough looking, you either like this movie or you don't. I think since Blair Witch, people have become more accepting of this type of film.

What are your feelings about the independent film community that exists right now?

I think that there are a lot of really talented people out there. Some of them are being seen and some of them aren't. One thing I've learned about the business is that you need talent, but you also need access to the right people and good networking skills. I'm kind of an iconoclast because I'm not a big networking, party guy. I have a few projects now that it's too soon to talk about, but just in the people I know, the connections I've made and the relationships I've developed, I think that I'll be able to make the kinds of movies that I want to make. Maybe because the technology is so readily available, there has been a democratization of filmmaking. I think there is an indie community, but I don't think the market is strong right now. Now you have major studios with boutique arms and that's where independent film seems to be going. I think because there is technology readily available, you're not only going to have filmmakers, but you'll have more filmmakers. Of course, that means now there are a lot more bad movies being made on mini DV, for obvious reasons, than when we were stuck with 35mm and 16mm.

Home

Reviews

More Articles

IndieSpeak