Rogue Cinema - An Interview with Jonathan Grant

An Interview with Jonathan Grant - By Duane L. Martin
Posted on Friday, August 01 @ Mountain Daylight Time by Duane

Last month, I had a chance to review a seriously fun mockumentary called No Burgers for Bigfoot. Once I saw it, I just knew I had to hit its director and lead actor, Jonathan Grant up for an interview. Little did I know at the time how in depth that interview would be! Jonathan went above and beyond the call on this one. So read on to find out all about Jonathan Grant, the making of No Burgers for Bigfoot, and a whole lot of other stuff as well!

* * *

DM - So first off let's have you introduce yourself tell everyone a little about your background.

JG - Lovely to meet you all. Jonathan Grant is my name, and I'm an actor/writer/filmmaker. I absolutely love to make people laugh, and I feel most at home on stage performing. Improvisation is either something you love or you absolutely fear to your very core, and I definitely belong to that first category. But there's a very dramatic side to me as well, that I love to explore.

Ricky Gervais is my hero. When I first saw The Office right after the first series came out on DVD, it was like a light came on! Even a lot of his personality rang a bell with me, and I knew that if he weren’t famous, people would think he was a lunatic!

He did something completely original in comedy with the original The Office. I hate to compare myself to Ricky, because he’s a comedy genius (a term I rarely use). But for my whole life I had found amazing comedy in everyday situations with people and their insecurities when it seemed like no one else saw what I saw, and thus I kept it to myself. Then when I saw that first series, I realized there was someone else who not only SAW that comedy, but was able to recreate it in a way that other people could enjoy. That gave me the confidence to share that part of myself with others.

DM - Besides Ricky Gervais, who would you compare yourself to?

First off, I hope it's clear that just because I compare myself to someone, it doesn't mean I see myself as being in their league - just that there's something in their makeup that I can relate to. Case in point, there was a guy I went to college with who looked just like Tom Cruise...except he was ugly as sin! Seriously, I don’t know how, but he was!

My whole life I've been compared to Jim Carrey, especially growing up. I don't have his energy, and I lean more toward the subtle, but apparently there is a part of my physical comedy that is reminiscent of his work. I loved his comedy as a kid, and was a big fan. I even did a re-creation of his famous SNL skit "Lifeguard On Duty" many years ago that I put up on YouTube. A few years ago I got word from Jim Carrey's godson that Jim watched it and loved it. That was a highlight for me!

I take comedy very seriously, which sounds ridiculous, but its true. All the greats in comedy take it seriously and that's something that most people don't seem to understand. I'll admit it does seem ridiculous when huge arguments erupt and relationships are severed over a disagreement on which way a wiener should be flopping. You forget it's funny a lot of the time, and are just dealing with the serious aspects of its execution. But sometimes you do “wake up” and all of a sudden realize how ridiculous it all is and just have to laugh.

Even though I am very serious about comedy, I do have a side that’s like a kid and doesn't care what people think, and is free to do weird and crazy things. In that way, I really relate to Ricky Gervais and Conan O'Brien. If they weren't famous, people would think they were nut-jobs! But for comedy you need that side that never grows up and can just have fun in even the most boring of situations. Through that ridiculousness, inspiration comes.

DM - Let's start with your background before we get to the questions about the movie. What experiences in your life led up to you making this film?

JG - My whole life I've been saturated with insecure people and the many ways that insecurity manifests itself. Men crack me up! They have a need to be respected and looked up to, a need to be an authority, but rarely lack any kind of ability to back that up. So, anytime there's something they know about, they light up and will talk your leg off. Ever been in a situation where an older woman was struggling to get a VCR to work? Eighteen guys will jump up to "take a look at it.” It's hilarious! People take themselves waaay too seriously.

It's even funnier when guys like that get exposed as being wrong. You just sit back, get some popcorn, and enjoy the show! With my friends, I would make fun of guys like that all the time. When it came time to create a character for the film, I went through a bunch of different ideas, but in the end decided to take that impression I did with friends and develop it. Whenever I had to get into character I would just do that impression and the rest followed.

There's a part in the film where my character, Michael Justice, is explaining to the camera what ADR is, and that short bit is a great example of that impression.

A significant amount of the film is based on real life experiences. In your review you mentioned the racial tensions with Monica, the black character in the film, as your favorite parts. Most of those scenes came from reality. I met Monica (that's also her real name, as she basically played herself) on the set of a feature film we were both acting in. We really clicked immediately. She is an amazing person! When people find out that you know her they light up and start talking about how much they love her and how amazing she is. She's extremely funny as well.

Anyway, we joked around a lot on that set and really understood each other - just one of those natural connections, you know? But, she was the only person of color in the whole movie, and everyone kind of tip-toed around her. She's so funny, though, and she'd really play it up - making it as uncomfortable as possible just for her own amusement (and mine). There was one instance where we were on the set and I was joking around talking about what all the colors on the set meant, and when I mentioned that "black represents evil" she loudly asked "how come black has to represent evil?" The whole cast and crew just stopped and froze. You could hear a pin drop. She milked that discomfort as long as possible because she knew she had me and there was nothing I could say. Finally, she broke character and admitted she was just kidding. I thought it was brilliant!

When we were in pre-production for our film I went to her and said that we had to put that stuff in the movie. We only got her for a few days, though, as she is really busy. I wish she could have been in more of the movie. I'll admit, I had a bit of a crush on her during the filming. Don't tell her I said that, though.

DM - At what point did you finally decide to just go for it and get it made?

JG - I'm always wanting to just take an idea and do what it takes to get it done. I'm an initiator, but I'm also a finisher. I didn't used to be a finisher, that's something that I had to learn. So, from the very beginning of the idea I was ready to go for it and get it done. But, it wasn't until a friend of mine, who co-created the basic concept, was ready that we went for it. I couldn't have done it without him. The movie was originally about two guys making a short film and so the two of us were co-leads.

He helped brainstorm a lot of the ideas, but we came to a disagreement on how to execute the movie. I thought it had the potential to be a feature film and could actually be something great, but he didn't have the time to do that. So, he dropped out and I took over. There's a part in the movie where I get a call from a guy named "Tweed" who says the "Siberian tiger" fell through. That's a reference to his character.

DM - You mentioned learning how to “finish,” what exactly did you learn?

JG - I go through stages. At first I have a lot of energy and motivation and I try to get as much done during those early stages as possible, while making sure I don't burn out. I make sure I have at least one day a week that I force myself not to think about it. I'll never make myself do anything I don't really want to do during this stage. If I'm not motivated to do something, I won't do it. And I'll skip around doing different stuff, whatever I want to do. Even if I'm not through with what I was working on the day before, I'll set that aside and follow whatever I feel passionate about at that moment. To be able to do this I make sure and start incredibly early so there's no pressure of a time crunch. You can never start too early.

And as soon as the fun starts to wear down a bit - and through experience I've learned exactly when this point is - I start pacing myself. I'll commit to doing just one thing a day. Even if it's something really small, that's fine. No pressure to do any more. Usually, once I start, the motivation will carry me to accomplish quite a bit. But, on the days it doesn't, it's fine. I still enjoy having accomplished my goal of doing one thing that day.

The next stage is when it gets incredibly hard. The motivation is gone and you want to move on to other projects that excite you. If you do it right through the first two stages and keep from burning out, you can limit this stage to as short a time as possible, but you'll never avoid it altogether. This is where you have to push through the pain and trust that on the other end it is going to be worth it. I don't give myself an option. To make sure I don't get overwhelmed, I just take it one little thing at a time. What used to excite you will now scare you, so I try not to think about the whole picture. I just focus on the one thing I'm doing and look forward to finishing it.

Like the other two stages, I make sure I set aside one day a week to get away from it and recharge. It's really important, I think, to enjoy and celebrate the small victories. I break everything up into small manageable pieces and every time I finish one I relax and celebrate. I'll take a break and go outside, or go in another room and watch TV (I try not to stay in the same room). Even if I just can't get myself to work on anything, I'll force myself to do something really small and easy. It doesn't matter what it is, just as long as it's something. Afterwards I'll relax, celebrate, and enjoy having accomplished something for the day. I never let myself feel bad for not doing more. Sometimes the smallest things are some of the greatest victories because of how hard it was to motivate myself on those tough days.

It really helps that I know this stage is coming so I'll be prepared for it. If you aren't and it catches you off-guard, you will start second-guessing yourself and want to quit. It also helps to show some of the things you've finished to others, because their excitement will energize you. It becomes fresh again!

Whenever I get close enough to see the light at the end of the tunnel, I'll enter the final stage where I start getting excited again and the closer to the end I get, the more energy I receive. Knowing this stage is coming helps a lot because during the previous stage I don't have to wait till the end, I just have to make it to this final stage. Once I get there, I'm home free!

DM - The film is a mockumentary, and generally in that style of film there would tend to just be a general outline of a script, leaving much of the dialogue up to the actors to ad-lib. Is that how it was in No Burgers for Bigfoot as well? How much of the dialogue was actually scripted?

JG - It was about half improvised and half written. There's just no substitute for the freshness of that first time.

Many scenes in No Burgers For Bigfoot benefited from that freshness of the improvisation and the natural comedic timing of the actors. A few of the actors can come up with stuff on the fly that is brilliant and perfectly executed, but are unable to ever do it that same way ever again. So if you don't catch it the first time, it's gone forever. Most stuff you improvise doesn't make it in. Even in post-production when you have to overdub lines, it's never the same. We went to great pains to make sure we only had to do a tiny bit of ADR. Trust me, ADR is never funny. (Well, unless you are making fun of ADR, which we do in the last act of the film) But, If you have to loop something, you have to resign yourself to the realization that it will never be funny. We ended up just re-shooting the few scenes that had bad audio.

In contrast to those freely improvised scenes, there were scenes that had to be nit-picked down to every last gesture and syllable to get the timing and execution right. For example, there's a scene in the last act where two of the main characters lip-sync to a song. That took forever to shoot as it had to be done perfectly. We did a million takes trying to get the mouth open just right, the guitar playing just right, the facial expressions, the timing, etc. Another example would be Patti's audition scene. Because of the way it was written, the lines had to be said verbatim and the rhythm going back-and-forth between characters had to be just right or it wouldn't work.

I truly believe that the best parts of any film are not written in the final script. I think the best you can ever hope for in a final script is a "good" film. If you do it exactly as the script says, you'll never have a "great" film (with only a few extremely rare exceptions). But, there are always these moments in the making of a film where the transition to a "great" film is possible. In my experience these come in three types of situations:

1) An actor improvises something in a scene on the spur of the moment that you could never write because no-one else could have made that line work (many times it's not what you say, but how you say it). There's something magical about those moments, and if your actors are not totally free to let those things come out, you'll never have them in your film. Very often, those are the moments that define a film and those lines become classics that last the test of time. (Robert DeNiro’s “you lookin’ at me?” for instance)

2) No matter how well you prepare, there are going to be problems. Nothing ever works exactly as you want it to, and it can cause an immense amount of stress. I've learned that it is through these problems that some of the best moments are born. I remember the first album I ever recorded as a "band." Because of the cheap recording software I used there were all sorts of errors and mistakes, and I had to come up with some pretty creative things to fix them. Ironically, it was those things I came up with to cover the mistakes that became some of the best stuff on the album and made those songs much better than they would have been originally. Why? Because it forced me to go a creative path I wouldn't have gone otherwise. As an artist, if you have complete freedom to do whatever you want, you get stuck in a rut. Limitations and boundaries force our creativity and make us "rise above our abilities" (like an athlete in sports).

Likewise, there were many moments in No Burgers For Bigfoot where problems would arise and we'd have to do some major changes at the last minute. For example, one of the actors couldn't make one of the shooting days (for one of the last scenes in the movie) and we had to shoot that scene on that day. I was forced to come up with a creative solution. I wrote the situation into the film and had another actress come in to play her "replacement." There was so much freshness and comedic potential there that it really elevated the entire scene! It added so much to the dynamic of the characters and their relationships with each other and it even exposed just how close the characters had become over the course of the first two acts by showing how alienated a newcomer was.

So when those problems happen and tragedy strikes you can look at it as something that will ruin your movie, or you can see it as an opportunity to make your film great. I promise there's a solution, there always is! Be flexible. "Blessed are the flexible, for they shall not be broken."

3) The third type of moment is when cast and crew come up with ideas and suggestions. Most of the time, unless they know you personally, cast/crew are too intimidated to communicate ideas to the director. Sadly, in most cases the director probably would get upset at them for sharing them. Admittedly, the vast majority of suggestions you will get are garbage. Even if they are brilliant, they don't know what's in your head, they can't see the overall picture, and they haven't been in all the pre-production meetings so most of their ideas will probably conflict with the direction of the film. But does that mean that none of their ideas are good?

Always listen, respect, and think through every suggestion/idea that's made. Paula Abdul tells a great story about how she was getting all the biggest names in the music world to write songs for her trying to get a hit. When her mother said this to a family friend, a son of the friend (I think) asked if he could write a song for her. She said yes and eventually he wrote and recorded a song on a cassette tape and gave it to Paula's mother. She listened to it and it was awful! The piano was out of tune, he obviously didn't know how to play, and he couldn't sing. She was so embarrassed. She played it for Paula and they both laughed and laughed at it. She threw it in the trash and explained to Paula that she was going to be asked by him what she thought of it and was dreading having to come up with something to tell him. Paula picked it out of the trash and said "I don't know, there might be something to this." That song was Straight Up.

All the best song writers in the music industry trying to write her a hit song, and her biggest hit came from a nobody. Even the weirdest, most off-the-wall people can come up with the brilliant idea that takes your film to the next level. They could give you the worst suggestions in the world, and then all of a sudden come up with something that at first seems stupid but once you really think through it turns out wonderful. Always be aware that the suggestion you are getting could be the one that makes your film great.

It's hard though, because we are so narrowly focused that an idea that seems so different than the direction we have become comfortable traveling makes us cringe. It's a very uncomfortable thought allowing something to go in a direction we never would have thought of. But what makes it hard also makes it great. If everything written comes from a single source it is limited to that person's abilities and thought processes. Other people can take things in a completely different direction than you could ever have thought of!

So when you get a suggestion, honestly consider it. Ask yourself if there is even a kernel of a good idea in there. Many times the suggestion as it's given is unusable, but it could get you thinking in another direction that becomes the genesis of a brilliant idea. Of course, none of this matters if the cast/crew doesn't feel free to share their suggestions with you. Make sure they know that you welcome their thoughts. They should also know that they shouldn't be hurt if you don't use it, as most of their ideas just won't fit, and to not let it scare them away from sharing ideas in the future.

All the way up until the final cut is made, be open and responsive to these three types of moments that can make your film great. Otherwise, you'll be stuck with just a "good" film (at best).

DM - I personally thought the entire cast did a brilliant job in their roles.

JG - Thank you! When I cast the film I didn't go for actors, because actors have a tendency to act. Bad acting is a hallmark of independent films, which I'm sure you are all too aware of. I'll let you in on a little secret. Normal people do a great job once you get them to quit acting. People have little experience acting, but they have a lifetime experience just "being." All they have to do is be themselves and do things as they normally would.

It's extremely hard to get actors to quit acting, but normal people don't have too much trouble with it. So instead of actors, I went for people who were naturally funny, and who had a great sense of comedic timing. Having backgrounds in improvisation didn't hurt either . I didn't hold casting calls for the main parts or anything, I knew who I wanted and knew who would be perfect for this kind of film. I know a bunch of very talented people, and to be honest I know of about 6 or 7 more people who are at that same level as the people in the film.

One problem I see writer/directors have is that they are too impressed with their own material. Look at M. Knight Shaymalkenialnefin for example. His dialogue sounds so ridiculously forced it's a joke! No one talks like that. If he would be open enough to admit that he might not have written it perfectly and the actors might have a more natural way of saying it, that would have made a big difference.

The key is knowing what parts of your writing have to be said, what parts have to be verbatim, and what parts really don't matter in the grand scheme of things.
That way when you prep for a scene you can tell the actors what they are feeling, what they are trying to do, where they need to end up, what they have to say, and what they have to say verbatim. They know their character better than you do, so it's much more natural for them to formulate the words. After a few rehearsals, they'll have down what they are going to say and you can block and set up shots accordingly. Sure, it might not have the brilliant Shakespearean quality you want in your dialogue, but the bottom line is that if a line is written in a way their character wouldn't talk, unless they are a world-class actor it is going to sound forced and unbelievable.

If you do this, though, you have to be able to spot all the things about their performance that need polishing. Just like the rewriting process, you have to take what they come up with and trim it down, offer suggestions, give direction, etc. until you get it perfect. The wonderful thing about the mockumentary format is that we could allow them to be less polished.

It's funny that we try so hard to scrape off all the "imperfections" about a performance, but then try to add stuff in to make it seem more realistic. Why not let those beautiful imperfections show? If a character slightly stutters or scratches his/her ear, those subtle moments of realism are beautiful. Obviously, you have to be able to distinguish the natural imperfections from nervous tics, trying to remember a line, etc. And you have to know when an imperfection gets in the way, impedes flow, breaks rhythm, etc. But many times it can add so much to a performance and the actors have to be prepped to enter a state of "being" where those things can naturally come out. Actors normally try so hard, subconsciously, to prevent them from coming out because they feel the need to be perfect. That holding back really keeps them out of the character.

DM - How closely did they match up to what you had envisioned when you came up with this story, and who in the cast brought out nuances in their characters that you hadn't expected?

JG - Thankfully, they didn't match up very closely at all to what I had envisioned. I worked with all of them in creating a character that was perfect for them but that also served the story and worked well with the other characters. I had some very basic templates that they could choose from, but I encouraged them to take it and make it theirs. If there was something that didn't work or needed tweaking I would let them know and give direction, but the bulk of it was their creation.
The main point I made was that I wanted them to think about their character as them in an alternate universe. I asked them to think about what situations, family life, etc. would have to happen to make them grow up to be this character. If they couldn't do that, their characters were too unrealistic and wouldn't connect to them. They all did a brilliant job of that! Their characters took on traits of themselves and became almost an outlet of sorts for the kind of person they could have become. It's like taking your own weaknesses and predispositions that you've worked so hard to squelch and explore what it would be like if you just "let go" and let them consume you.
All the characters originate from insecurity. They all deal with it in a different way. "Patti Swanson", for instance, suffers from what could best be described as Histrionic Disorder (a.k.a. a drama queen). My character, "Michael Justice," also covers over his insecurity through narcissism. In contrast, Lucas Ross's brilliant character, "Rory," doesn't cover over his vulnerability, but instead allows himself to be extremely vulnerable, much like a child. The vulnerability was not something I really expected out of his character, at least not to that degree. That ended up being a vital part of the film's chemistry. It desperately needed that element.

DM - There are a lot of subtle jokes in this film. How surprised have you been at people ability, or lack thereof to spot some of the more subtle humor? Do you feel cheated when someone misses something that you know is there that was supposed to be funny?

JG - I never wanted to underestimate or talk down to the audience. If they don't get a joke, they don't get it. Just like real life, the characters aren't aware of the jokes, the jokes just "are." You don't say to the audience "Hey, look at this! This is supposed to be funny!" If you do, it stops being funny.

There is something subtly funny about every clip in the film (at least it's intended to be funny.) I never expect anyone to catch everything, it's impossible. Hopefully everyone can catch enough throughout the course of the film to be laughing constantly. But not everyone gets subtle humor, so some people just don't think there's anything funny going on. Those are the people we are making fun of in the film. If they got it they'd probably be offended!

I love making comedy that's very deep in its humor. I'm not talking about deep as in profound, but deep as in how layered the comedy is. I've never seen a reaction to a movie like ours had. It quite took me by surprise. From the very beginning the audience became conditioned to pay close attention to every little aspect of the film because every time they did they were rewarded with a laugh. Consequently, even 80 minutes into the film they were still hanging on every word that was being said. Contrast that to most movie-watching experiences where you very casually take it in and often miss even obvious nuances until repeat viewings.

I've been very surprised by how many of the very subtle things people catch. But there's still always more things to catch upon repeat viewings. Some people have even said it's funnier the second time. Interestingly, I've heard many people say that they would talk about the film for hours after watching it, and even as they discussed it would catch jokes after the fact because they started putting the pieces together. I've never heard of a film getting new laughs hours after it was over. That was a strange, but welcome, realization. I think it says less about my ability and more about the intelligence of the audiences.

I do want to point out, though, that I have a rule about only having one joke at a time. A lot of times I see people in the writing stage (or even in the filming stage) become desensitized to the jokes and start adding in other stuff that's funny. Well, that works for them, but an audience hasn't seen the first joke before. So, the two jokes cancel each other out and neither of them work. Executing a joke is very complicated when you break it down. The set-up is so fragile and any little distraction or dissonance will ruin it. Now if you can have a joke that works on multiple levels and is funny for several reasons all at the same time, that's wonderful! But a second joke will ruin the first.

Well there is an exception to this, and it is a technique I like to employ. Sometimes there will be a hidden joke/laugh that you can't catch until you become familiar enough with the first joke. Laughter many times will cover it up, and sometimes just the reaction of the brain to the punch line will prevent comprehension of the second setup. So the film is made to be watched multiple times. And if you time the execution of the jokes perfectly, it will be funny every time you watch it. If you don't, then after the first or second time you see it you can't understand why you used to think it was funny.

DM - Some of the best humor for me revolved around the PA Monica and how everyone would freak out around her at the slightest hint of anything that could be construed as racist. Those scenes were way uncomfortable and absolutely hilarious. How hard was it to get that uncomfortable feeling just right? Did you have to do a bunch of takes to really nail it?

JG - First off, thank you so much for your kind words! Honestly, it was really simple because of the talent involved. Some of them were nailed in one take. Monica really is amazing. The only really tricky part was in editing it. The timing has to be just right (well, that's true of the whole thing). Adding in cuts to reaction shots was difficult. Getting the right reactions for the reaction shots was also a bit tricky and took multiples takes.

But as for the main interaction in those scenes, it's just something that comes naturally. It's an inner sense of timing and rhythm that you just have to feel. As for my part, I've been studying people and those wonderful socially awkward moments for a long time, there's just a wonderful humor there.

DM - Did you find it difficult to be both lead actor and director on this film? How hard was it to juggle your duties both in front of and behind the camera?

JG - It was very difficult. I wouldn't have been able to do it if I didn't have people around me that I could trust. The camera operator, Josh McKamie is a friend of mine who is a director in his own right. He really was almost a co-director of sorts. I had to trust him both when he said we needed to do more takes and when he said that we got what we needed. I can't see what he's capturing so a perfect take could be ruined by a mistake in camera movement. It's scary not knowing for sure if you got everything you needed. But, turns out he was always right!

I let Josh take care of all the camera shots and I focused on the scene and the acting. I would tell him the basic layout of the scene and any specific shots we needed and then he'd just stay quietly in the background doing his thing. We treated it as much like a documentary as possible. Documentarians stay in the background and try to get the subjects to forget there's a camera around. I think that helped in the performances.

DM - What were some of the more difficult technical aspects of making this film, and how did you work through them?

JG - Editing was the most difficult, as it's the most important part. And because it was shot like a documentary, traditional editing doesn't work. The entire film is a montage. To make a montage not look or feel like a montage, but like a narrative feature is extremely difficult.

A joke is made in its execution and timing. You can write a funny joke for a comedian, but it all comes down to how he tells it. Conversely, a good comedian can make stuff that isn't funny, funny, just by the way he says it. The same is true in editing. You have to time it just right. If you don't do it just right, the joke doesn't work. And the difference between being right and being wrong often times is a single frame.

In the same way, you can also edit something that wasn't funny to make it funny. Several jokes were created in the editing room out of stuff that wasn't even supposed to be funny. In Patti's interview, for example, she talks about her dad (who is obviously gay, but she never lets on) but then transitions to both parents, and then starts talking about her memories of what you think is her mom doing all these really feminine things but then she says "those are really fond memories of me with my dad." I edited those things together to create that joke because it needed one there. By carefully choosing what parts of each clip to use, and combining completely separate parts of the interview together, pretending they are of the same thought, I was able to set up that punch line.

Sometimes you can use a carefully placed cut to create a punch line. If you cut someone off at just the right time, the cut itself serves as a punch line. Christopher Guest uses this technique quite a bit. The audience has to have a time to laugh, and by placing a cut there you give them a cue to laugh. Doing that, we got some big laughs from audiences on parts that were never funny before.

Most people just have no idea how tough editing this kind of film is! You have to be really resourceful, creative, and sneaky. Most of the time you are making things that never happened, creating things that never existed.

Outside of the editing, the toughest part technically was the outside stuff. Sometimes the wind just wouldn't cooperate and that drove the mics crazy. And the light was so bright at times and washed out at others that it became very difficult to shoot. When you are improvising and/or shooting documentary style the changing light can become a much bigger problem than if you are shooting one shot at a time. Luckily, real documentaries have this problem so it just makes it look realistic.

Sound wouldn't have been too much of a problem except we had some problems with the settings and a lot of the film was shot with low levels of audio. Those either had to be re-shot, looped (in only a few cases), or cut out altogether. That's my biggest regret. The indoor lighting wasn't a problem except I think many industry people don't realize that the lighting is Michael Justice's lighting for his film, which is obviously poor. We tried to strike a balance between looking acceptable while still being realistic for him lighting his movie.

DM - What were some of the biggest lessons you learned as a film maker in making this film that will be valuable to you as you work on future projects?

JG - Way too many to name. Mostly about the business of film. And a lot about frame rates and the technical side of things that we learned the hard way.

I would be ill-equipped to explain it here. I highly recommend Phil Hall's book Independent Film Distribution and Mark Bosko's book The Complete Independent Movie Marketing Handbook. If you don't read them you will almost be guaranteed failure! Read them before you even start writing your next film!

DM - If you could go back and change one thing about the film or the production process, what would it be?

JG - Mostly technical stuff. I would have saved all that footage we messed up by fixing the wrong audio settings. I wouldn't have stabbed that one kid. I wouldn't have gotten all the actresses pregnant. And I definitely wouldn't have agreed to use that real Bigfoot; those things are so unpredictable!

DM - The film's been shown to test audiences and at some festivals. What's the overall reaction been, and have you been surprised by any of it?

JG - Like I said, the audience reaction has been very unique and it has been a big surprise to me. The test audience was of 150 people and scored an unbelievable 94% in the top two boxes, which is incredible! People absolutely love it and some of the things that have been said are just awesome. Obviously, not everyone gets it. But that's okay. We never set out to make a film that everyone would like. We wanted to make a film that people like us would like and wouldn't feel talked down to.

I feel insulted when I see a film that underestimates me, and I think many people out there feel the same way. When a film comes along that treats them with respect, I think they have a special fondness for it. At least I do.

We were a bit worried about how some people would take the racial stuff. I wasn't so much worried about black audiences, but more about white audiences being offended "on behalf" of other minorities. There have been a few people who didn't get it and were offended, but it hasn't been much of a problem at all. It's different down in Oklahoma where racial tension is much stronger than up north. White people don't know whether it's okay to laugh or not.

But black audiences love the film! They aren't stupid, they know it's making fun of racism and not the race itself. I think some people have underestimated black audiences, which ironically is much more racist than anything in our film. It's those very hang-ups and racial tensions we tried to expose.

DM - Any plans for a sequel? I personally think it'd be awesome to see this cast working together again in another film, so I had to ask.

JG - Well, I'd love to work with them again. The co-producer I mentioned earlier that ended up leaving the project has written a hilarious script that we are hoping to shoot this fall. He's directing it, I'm just the lead actor. I feel I owe it to him! It's about a church basketball team that takes itself way too seriously. We came up with both that idea and the idea for No Burgers For Bigfoot at the same time and went back and forth about which idea to pursue. It's not a mockumentary and it's scripted, but there'll be room for improvisation I'm sure.
It has a lot of the same cast from our film and we play similar characters, but there are differences. I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully it will all come together.

DM - Do you have NBFB entered in any upcoming festivals, or are there any screenings coming up that you'd like to mention?

JG - We don't really plan on doing any film festivals, but we might do some comedy film festivals. The problem is that the comedy film festivals keep getting cancelled. Apparently there isn't much support for them. We'll be distributing it theatrically to select cities starting sometime this fall and then again in the spring.
If you would like more information, just email us at noburgersforbigfoot@gmail.com and we'll keep you updated on how you can see it.

DM - What's next for you?

JG - I'm helping distribute the film and doing a lot of the marketing for it, so that's going to tie me up for another year. It will be a while before I produce or direct. I have tons of ideas, and one in particular that I believe is going to be my next big project. It's completely different than this and is a romance/comedy, but very dramatic. I'm very excited about it, but it's going to be very difficult to write. I'll be going for a large budget on this one and I think it will knock people's socks off!

DM - Is there anything else you'd like to mention before we wrap this up?

JG - * To all filmmakers out there: sound is possibly the most important part of a film. Trust me! You can have a radio show with no picture and people will be engrossed in it, but have a picture with no sound and no one will care. The number one problem with independent films (other than acting) is bad sound. Make it a top priority. Make sure you have a silent set, I mean DEAD silent! Use a boom mic and get it as close as humanly possible with nothing between the mic and the actors' mouths.

Learn what reverb is, what it sounds like, and avoid it like the plague! Reverb will KILL comedy. It sounds absurd, but it's true. Keep the mic away from any hard surfaces, make sure the sound source is at least twice as close to the mic as any other flat surface. Nothing is funny with bad sound. And avoid ADR at all costs. Some of it will be unavoidable, but anything you loop will be lesser quality than the rest of the film.

People don't consciously notice sound, but they sub-consciously notice it. And that's what makes it so incredibly powerful. They may not know why your movie stinks, but they'll know it stinks!

* If you want to buy an amazing costume for a stage production, Halloween, theme party, or anything else, I would highly recommend going to www.costumesandstuff.com . Check it out!

* And, of course, our movie website, noburgersforbigfoot.com.

* I love acting, if you would like to contact me for an acting job, workshop, or anything else you can reach me at thinkofacard@gmail.com

* * *

Thanks Jonathan! If you would like to be kept updated on the current screenings of No Burgers for Bigfoot, you can send an email to noburgersforbigfoot@gmail.com to get on the NBFB announcement list.