Page 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 - Next

AE: Do you find it’s all tied up in ego? I found that I had to lose my ego to get my film made. To be willing to talk to anyone and ask anything of anybody to get it done. Has that been your experience, too?
EG: Yeah. I actually don’t feel bad about asking people for favors, as long as I can make it worth their while. I never have trouble asking for help. I have trouble when I’m editing --the “oh my god, I hate myself” part when the weight of everyone that believed in it is crushing. But I love the set-up. ‘Cause I direct a lot, and I don’t feel like a director. I just feel like the one point everyone knows.

AE: Which is what a director, is, does.
EG: True, but I think there’s a misperception that directors have these massive egos and that’s how they pull it off. Not necessarily; sometimes the director has to let go completely to allow all these people to work independently.

I studied screenwriting at Tisch School of the Arts (NYU), I fell into editing documentaries when I got out of school. Then I floated into narrative because I started running footage, and learning coverage through watching produced video. And more and more I started understanding a lot of different parts on set. I think that’s very important. I like that I know that much. It A) helps you trust that everyone is going to do their job and it B) helps you be autonomous. At least I can gain the trust of the light guy or at least be able to finish the shoot if something goes wrong.

Sometimes it’s a hindrance. Rose Troché wrote a really good thing in her Go Fish book. She said that a lot of new filmmakers take on everything and, as you get better, you have to learn to let everything go. So, I love that I know a lot, but I also love that I can get to a place where I can start spreadin’ the work out. When I was 22 I remember going to a shoot: literally, I was the boom person and the cameraperson and the director and my boom was on a mop. Like, I unscrewed the head of a mop--

AE: --and put a microphone in?
EG: Yeah.

AE: Clever.
EG: Yeah, it’s inspiring, (laughs) but after a while it’s unnecessary. It’s good foundation building for understanding how to work, but after a while you’re going to burn yourself out if you keep being the martyr director. You know? I’m not a fan of being a martyr director anymore. As long as trucks of people are going to do their jobs, then let people have fun and do the best they do.

AE: How do you feel about digital filmmaking?
EG: Unfortunately, you’ll find no bigger advocate of digital filmmaking than I.

AE: Why’s that unfortunate?
EG: I mean I love it, I love it, I love it. ‘Cause I respect the tradition of film. There’s a kind of a sanctity around film. I think there’s a lot of distrust of digital filmmakers because they assume it’s all about the quick and easy path to making a movie. But to me, it’s good that it’s a quick and easy path to making the movie, ‘cause it’s so hard to get the money. And so, as long as you have training in storytelling, training in production, training in editing, why not be able to hack through the huge wall of finances, and get where you have to go - which is tell a story? Since the aesthetic is becoming accepted, it’s ready to go.

AE: How do you think it’s enabled LGBT cinema? Do you think it’s allowed what’s already essentially an Indie aesthetic to grow? Or do you think it’s hindered us because the market’s been flooded?
EG: A little bit of both. I remember when Go Fish and Clerks came out. It was such an exciting year. I and soon after The English Patient, which was an independent, won the Oscar. And then Frances McDormand won for Fargo. I kept thinking “This is IT. This is IT.” And a year later it was “So, you made a movie, AND?” Before it used to be impressive that you could finish a movie.

AE: It IS impressive to finish a movie.
EG: But then it became impressive that you could finish a movie and do it on the cheap and win something. Now it’s bottomed-out and circled-in on itself. Where it’s like: “Who’s your star?” So, in a way, the playing field got leveled, but then it got completely gobbled-up to the point now, that you have to work twice as hard because it’s that much more competitive. But I also think: “Fine.” It’s always going to be competitive. I teach at NYU and I tell my students: The good thing is, the playing field is leveled. The bad news is that twice as many people are involved and the good news, again, is that half those people are going to drop out when they realize it’s not glamorous and fun. It always bottoms out, and you have to fight to find a new way to be independent, to become new, beyond the medium that presents these financial obstacles.

Page 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 - Next