Interview
SLIFF Interview: Director Ken Kwapis – Master Class Class Subject November 14th
Interview conducted by Gabe Sheets
Master Class: Directing with Ken Kwapis is part of this year’s St. Louis International Film Festival. This Master Class presentation will be Saturday Nov 14th at 1:00pm. Register and Watch for free by clicking HERE
Ken Kwapis, who grew up in Belleville, Ill., and attended Saint Louis University High, is a former Cinema St. Louis Award winner. This master class on directing will draw on material from his terrific new book, “But What I Really Want to Do Is Direct: Lessons from a Life Behind the Camera.” The Library Journal hails it as “an enjoyable memoir that offers lessons of filmmaking, what counts as success in Hollywood, and the magic of film.” Kwapis is an award-winning director who has moved easily between the worlds of feature filmmaking and television directing. He made his feature debut with “Sesame Street Presents: Follow That Bird,” and his 11 films include “A Walk in the Woods,” with Robert Redford and Nick Nolte; “License to Wed,” with Robin Williams and John Krasinski; “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants” and “He’s Just Not That Into You,” two highly successful adaptations of best-selling books; “Sexual Life,” which he also wrote; and “He Said, She Said,” co-directed with his wife, Marisa Silver. For television, Kwapis helped launch nine series. He directed the pilot of the Emmy Award-winning series “The Office,” receiving a 2007 Emmy nomination for directing the episode “Gay Witch Hunt.” Kwapis also earned an Emmy nomination for his work as a producer-director of “Malcolm in the Middle.” He directed the pilots for the groundbreaking “The Larry Sanders Show” and the Emmy Award-winning “The Bernie Mac Show.” His other TV work includes multiple episodes of “The Santa Clarita Diet,” “Happyish,” “One Mississippi,” and “Freaks and Geeks.”
Director Ken Kwapis on why he decided to write about the directing process, film school, and why he thinks it’s important for directors to get out of video village.
At 63 years old, director Ken Kwapis has clearly entered a more reflective period of his life. His enduring career in the film industry has created quite the resume; some highlights being He’s Just Not That into You, A Walk in the Woods, Big Miracle, and of course helping to launch the critically acclaimed and culturally revered NBC remake of The Office. In October of this year, Kwapis published his very first book. But What I Really Want to Do Is Direct is Kwapis’ entry into the now-ubiquitous genre of tell-all guides to the filmmaking universe. In the vein of Rebel Without a Crew, Adventures in the Screen Trade, Save the Cat, and In the Blink of an Eye, Kwapis’ new book provides a unique window into the vast Hollywood film and television machine. The book is chock full of one-of-a-kind insights and thoughtful pieces of advice.
With the release of his book, and in the lead up to a virtual Masterclass that he is offering at the St. Louis International Film Festival on November 14th, I had the opportunity to interview Kwapis last week. In our nearly hour-long discussion, we conversed over the intentions behind his book, discussed the future of film school, and briefly talked in-depth about a later chapter in his book about the contrivance of video village.
Q: Obviously, there are already a lot of books that exist that cover and try to explain the filmmaking process. What were you hoping to bring to the table when you set out to write your own book on the process?
I’ve been a director for 37 years. For the past five to ten years, I’ve had the pleasure of mentoring a lot of up-and-coming directors. I’ve worked as an advisor at the Sundance Director’s Lab and a lot of the discussions I have with young filmmakers have to do with the craft of directing. You know, how to previsualize a scene, how to talk to actors, how to communicate with your composer. [But], I’ve also found that a lot of the things that people wanted to talk about were not craft related, but fell more into the category of how to comport yourself as a director, how to oversee a set in a way that people feel acknowledged and safe and respected, ow to assert authority over a group of people without becoming authoritarian, etc. And then there’s been questions about how to survive in this very unpredictable business; how to develop the tenacity to hang in there year after year, trying to get a project off the ground, or how to develop the resilience to bounce back after innumerable setbacks. So, these are things I felt like I had not learned in film school; these are things that are not taught in film school. I started writing about those kinds of issues and then it started to just snowball into a grander book, both a memoir and a kind of general tutorial about the directing process. But again, what started me off was feeling like there were things that were not discussed when I was at film school that I wish I had known about.
Q: Did you always intend for it to be a book? I know you mentioned memoir, and I think that’s a really interesting way to frame it, in addition to the book being instructional. The idea that you’re sort of reflecting, not only as a director, but as having a life in the film industry.
You know, I’ve never written a book before. But to keep me focused along the way, next to my laptop I just kept a little Post It note with three words on it. It said, Keep It Personal. That was my mantra with this. Keep It Personal. So, I don’t make any great claims about my work, although I’m very proud of it. Mostly, I just wanted to share the experiences I’ve had, the highs but also the lows. But again, first and last is can I keep it personal; can I keep it candid? You know, when I talk to young filmmakers, they are relieved to hear, for instance, that when I go up for a meeting for a job that I’m still nervous. That I still have anxiety about certain aspects.
Q: I understand you’re going to be doing a masterclass at the St. Louis International Film Festival this Saturday. As it relates to the book and what you’ve written, what are you hoping to teach in the masterclass? What insights are you hoping to give?
The masterclass is going to be based in part on the fifth chapter of the book, which is devoted to how to prepare to shoot a scene. The presentation will be focused on the directorial process, specifically the challenges of preparing a scene. What I’ll do is talk about various things that I try to keep in mind when I am prepping a scene. Whether it’s how to use color and light to help tell the story. Whether it’s making sure that I have good playable notes for the actors. There are just several tips and reminders for when you’re getting ready to shoot a scene. And along the way I’m going to show some clips from various films and shows to illustrate some of those concepts. But then what I want to do is share with the class a scene I directed from the film The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. I chose the scene very deliberately and it’s something I talk about in the book, because on the surface it’s a very mundane scene. It’s just people talking on the telephone. [But] it’s very emotional. It’s certainly a high energy scene in that sense. But what I wanted to show was how you can make different craft choices that can take something that seems on the surface very uncinematic and make it quite cinematic.
Q: I understand that you attended film school when you were first getting started. I’m curious if your perspective on film school has changed over the years. Especially now with the internet and the prevalence of books like yours and online masterclasses, do you think your decision to go to film school would be different if you had grown up in the 21st Century?
I think film school was incredibly valuable to me for a number of reasons. One is that it really introduced me to the history of film in a way that I would not have had access to otherwise. Now obviously today, any film is at your fingertips. You can go to Netflix or Amazon or go to The Criterion Channel and see such a wide variety of films. But for me, to be in a class that focused on certain aspects of film history whether it was, for instance, the history of the documentary, the history of German film in the 20s and 30s, I just loved immersing myself in film culture. So, I really appreciated that. And I think it’s really fed into my own directing. But also, I feel like at both Northwestern (undergrad) and at USC (graduate student), I made friends with a lot of people who have since gone on to work in the film industry. So, I also feel like it was a great way to find a community of people. I mention this in the book, but I would also mention that the one deficit for me was that neither Northwestern’s film department nor USC’s cinema school required me or anyone to take an acting class. And I feel like learning about the acting process and how to talk to actors and how to elicit good performances out of actors was something I had to learn on my own. And I’ve made plenty of missteps along the way. I don’t know what [film school] is like now. My hunch is it’s probably not too different. But I feel like that was a big aspect of the directing process that film school kind of neglected.
Q: But would you reconsider film school now given all of the other content young filmmakers have available to them? Especially considering the considerable cost and time commitment.
I haven’t thought about that. Let me think about that for a little bit. I mean, the cost of any college education can be quite prohibitive. I would say that if you are passionate about film and television, you’re going to somehow do it whether you go to school or not. If you have that passion, you’ll figure out a way to do it. Again, I feel like there are certainly advantages that come with taking classes at a film school, but is it the be all and end all? Obviously not. There are many people who are working as writers and directors who did not come out of a film school. There are plenty of actors who did not study theatre in college. The best answer is that if you’re passionate about it, it’s not like you need it. But I’m always very appreciative of people who have a grasp of film history and again, I have benefited from that and I think it’s made my filmmaking a little richer to have had that background. Do you need to go to a university to get that? No, not at all.
Q: Well, part of the reason I ask is because my own perspective on film school has kind of evolved as I’ve gotten older. When I was first getting started, I got the sense, especially from a lot of younger filmmakers who were making it in the business, that film school was antiquated, that it was a waste of time and money. But as I’ve gotten older, and as I’ve started to take classes at community college, I’ve been really surprised by how much I just loved the classroom environment. So, while earlier I was really wanting to avoid film school, I’ve been much more interested in applying as of late. And so, I was just curious to see where you were coming from as someone who has attended film school.
Yeah, I think that as with any school situation, you may end up in a class and find that your classmates are maybe not as supportive as you’d like or a teacher who is a bit of a slavedriver. But just as often you’ll have a class where a teacher really fires your imagination. I can just think back to some teachers I’ve had who illuminated something about a film or a story or some aspect of the directing process. And so, I feel like again, I just would never discourage anyone from it. But if you go into it with a good attitude… Boy, it can really get you inspired and excited.
I would also say that at both of the schools I went to a lot of the most important discussions were the things that happened outside of the classroom with my fellow film students. Going to a movie together and just discussing a short in a movie for like hours. That’s the kind of thing that you can do without film school. But you may make some very important friends and meet some people who are equally passionate, or maybe passionate about the same kinds of things that you are. And it also may open you up to things, creative muscles that you may not realize you have until you’re in a situation where someone pushes you a little bit to exercise certain muscles.
Maybe having to get out of your comfort zone and be someone’s cinematographer or talk to actors suddenly kind of shifts up how you see the medium.
Q: I wonder… and this is segueing a little bit… how much of a director’s style or a director’s personal approach is baked in. You know, the age-old question of nature versus nurture. You mentioned that there are some directors who would be forced out of their comfort zone by being behind a camera, and there are other directors who may be forced out of their comfort zone by engaging with actors in a different way. And I’m curious if you think that’s something that is based on personality or if it’s acquired through experience?
I mean, it’s a great question. You can certainly look at the careers of a lot of different directors who simply evolved over time and changed so that they didn’t find a certain way of looking at things and stick with it their entire careers. But, at the same time, you can find people who almost are quickly locked into a way of looking at things and they are either too happy with that to change or just find material that reinforces the way they look at the world. Kubrick began as a still photographer before he became a filmmaker, and there’s no question that he brings a still photographer’s eye to how he shoots his scenes. But you could also argue that Kubrick, over time, began sort of playing a character of Stanley Kubrick. And he ended up, as a director, playing a character who only did certain kinds of things.
But there are also a lot of good directors for whom it’s not one thing or the other. For instance, if you look at somebody like Kurosawa, for example. I’ve been watching a lot of Kurosawa lately. Technically, he’s off the charts.
His handling of the camera, his handling of camera movement, his sense of position, but never at the expense of the human component of the story. And so, I think in a lot his films it’s astonishing to me the ability to block for the camera is so technically virtuosic, and at the same time it never gets in the way of the human aspect of the story. You know, Welles is like that in many ways.
But you know, there are a lot of directors like Wes Anderson, who are very popular for doing a very particular thing. And sometimes I wonder whether or not he’s a little bit locked into a certain way of looking at things and I’m not sure that it always serves the material. I mean, it serves the material sometimes better than others. But he seems to have a very particular way of framing and shooting and is someone who I certainly think by and large treats actors as pictorial elements as opposed to flesh and blood people. Granted, actors seem to really love working with him.
I think that’s an interesting point, especially when you mention Kubrick sort of becoming a character of himself. Because I think very much, at least from what I have learned, is that for a lot of directing you are fulfilling a role. I mean there are certain instances where I think you have to project confidence when you don’t have a lot of confidence, or you have to be assertive in moments when you don’t want to be assertive…
I mean, there are plenty of directors who are extroverted and there are plenty of directors who are introverted. You know, some people love conflict and feel like their stories benefit from creating an energy on the set that is garrulous, and there are some people who are very quiet on the set.
And yet it doesn’t mean that their films are any less passionate. So, I think that the great thing about telling a story in a series form, as opposed to a feature film, is that there’s such a wide variety of personalities that have managed to express themselves. It’s amazing.
Q: I’m wondering how much you think that fulfilling a role effects the process and in what ways?
I think that everyone develops a working style. Another way to put it is that everyone has a certain kind of leadership style on the set. But that’s different than playing a role. I mean I have a very particular way of overseeing the set. But I don’t think that I’m playing a character so much. When I was mentioning that about Kubrick, I just sometimes feel like there are certain choices he makes that are so expected after a while. Now, his films are wonderful. So, it’s not even a put down. But there’s a difference between how someone oversees a set and what their brand is as a filmmaker. But just as often, there are wonderful directors who do wildly different things that kind of defy your ability to brand them.
Q: I get the sense that you are the type of director who doesn’t necessarily want to be associated with a brand. And you sort of like to adapt to whatever story comes your way that resonates. Do you think that’s accurate?
Yeah, absolutely. Let me think of some directors who I admire for that very thing.
To me, Rob Reiner comes to mind.
Rob Reiner’s a great example of that. One director I really like is Stephen Frears. Stephen Frears is somebody who’s done a very wide variety of different things and again, one of the things that I think makes him valuable is that he brings his personality to everything, but he’s not a brand.
Q: I think this discussion kind of ties in really well with a chapter of your book that really caught my attention, which was Escape from Video Village. As you discuss in the chapter, we used to look through the eyepiece and have that blind faith with our camera operators and our DPs to execute the shot. And nowadays you have the video assist and digital cameras that allow you to play back stuff whenever you want. There are two different directors who I think perfectly illustrate the two starkly different approaches to this new technology. You have David Fincher, who has embraced the technological advancements and who seems to really like staying behind a monitor and analyzing the composition. Whereas somebody like Christopher Nolan has a monitor he wears around his neck and who is always right next to the camera. I’m curious how you think these different approaches impact the set and the momentum of the set.
Well, I would say that if you are actually stopping to play back takes over and over again, you have a kind of herky jerky rhythm during your shooting day. And obviously a lot of people do that. And it’s not simply people who are into the composition. I mean there are a lot of performer-directors who feel like they need to see themselves and see what the performance looks like before they can go on. But I feel like it makes it hard to build momentum if you’re constantly stopping to review the footage. A lot of what I think is important is for the crew and cast to have faith in the director rather than gathering around a monitor to decide whether it’s worth continuing with a scene or to move on.
Q: In the chapter you also talk about regardless of whether you’re reviewing footage, just the energy it creates to be a mile away from your actors…
And I would say that for any kind of technically complicated shot, you want to make sure it’s working. So you’re either going to watch it [on a monitor] during rehearsal or you’re going to watch a take or two [after you cut]. But if the scene is such that it’s between two or three characters and there’s not a lot of choreography but there’s a lot of important story going on, you have a choice. You can watch the actors, or you can watch an image of the actors. And I feel like the actor will benefit if you’re actually watching them. They will get your energy in a way that they wouldn’t if you’re off looking at a monitor.
Q: That makes sense. But the image is what the audience will be seeing. And I think part of the trouble is that you’re taking three-dimensional space… the blocking, the camera, the actors… and you’re translating that into two-dimensional space for the audience. And I’m wondering if you have any lessons or advice for being able to look at a scene two-dimensionally without being at a monitor?
I feel like to be able to inspire your actors to bring something to life and to be able to inspire your crew and cinematographer to capture it in a way that’s dynamic are two different conversations that you need to be equally versed in having. For me, I always call the shots. And sometimes the actors have particular needs that require me to make an adjustment. It’s just that I don’t feel that I need to monitor it, take to take. Once it’s set, and once the camera crew knows how to execute it, I feel like I can resume my focus on the cast. But it’s a dance. You’re constantly dancing.
Q: That last point you made is really interesting to me. And I think that is a commonality with a lot of different directors to be able to just stand by the camera, to look at the cast, and to understand how that’s going to translate. As a director, I have a hard time with that. I often get overwhelmed if I’m looking at all the moving parts. And I find that having a monitor really helps me to focus on what’s in the frame.
No, it totally makes sense. My hunch is that over time you will feel more or less secure about not being locked into the monitor. But I would only add that there are certain advantages that being near the camera gives you. And it may be seeing one of the actors off camera who’s doing something interesting that you might want to use, that you wouldn’t have seen if you were only at the monitor. And the ideal thing is that I’ll have a monitor, like Christopher Nolan does around his neck, or on the camera, that I can peek at even as I’m mostly focused on the cast. But what inspired me to write that chapter had as much to do with the negative aspects of being in this conglomeration of people.
…Well, you do talk about the whole “director by committee” thing in the chapter. You mention it in a way that I thought was very poignant…
By the way, that is a common problem. I mean, we would all love to be the Finchers and the Chris Nolans of the world where no one is going to bother them. They are unique. By and large you will be answerable to people. You talked about getting overwhelmed by all the moving pieces. What I encourage directors to guard against is getting overwhelmed by all the opinions.
Q: One of the most stressful situations I have faced as a director is when I don’t know what notes I want to give. Sometimes the scene just isn’t working, and I can’t put my finger on why. And other times I have so many notes that I find it hard to keep track. Have you ever had this experience? How do you handle situations like this?
Oh, yeah. I mean, sometimes you’re in the middle of the take and you’re having to remind yourself what the note your about to give is. I think part of it is that when you have several notes, you kind of have to prioritize them so that you’re not overloading everyone with too many things to try. Look, I remember shooting a scene once where the screenwriter came up to me after I called cut and said, “Ken that was a great take. I just have five notes.” (laughs)
It’s also possible that, if you have four notes to give, two of the four may sort themselves out as you shoot. So, you might not need to manage each individual thing. I mean, look, Stanley Kubrick will do forty takes of somebody doing something insignificant like crossing the street. And I think what is the method involved with that? Well, I think the method is that at a certain point you do something over and over again so many times that you’re in such a weird autopilot mode that maybe some quality comes out in how you do it that is unconscious or something. But frankly, most people don’t get the luxury of doing forty takes of someone crossing a street.
Q: That is something I wanted to mention. I’m curious what your philosophy is for the pace of production? I think you mention in the chapter that you like to give notes to actors in a staggered way. And that there are certain notes that you want to wait and give after the actors “find the scene” …
Yeah, my feeling is that if you don’t let the actors explore a little bit, it ultimately will slow you down. Because everyone is just going to be tripping all over themselves trying to pick up the pace when they don’t even understand what they’re doing yet…
…Well, I think especially in the independent filmmaking world, there’s this pressure to move as fast as possible, to get as much shot as possible, and to get people in and out. And I’ve just always resisted that philosophy. When we get on set, I want to get exactly what we set out to get. And I want to create an environment where we can push ourselves to keep doing better. And a lot of the time I think this is undermined by the rushed pace that’s instilled. I’m wondering how you set the pace during pre-production and on set?
I would just say that, for me, I always try to schedule the day so that I jump into the deep end of the pool first. It’s not about racing. It’s about not being afraid to jump into the meatiest scene. Jump into the tough stuff right away. As opposed to the stuff that you know that you can kind of coast a little bit with. Save that stuff for when you need to pick up the pace at the end of the day. But if you can organize your day so that right up front, you’re dealing with the meatier material; it will allow you to gauge how to pace the rest of your day. Otherwise, if you’re starting with your smaller scenes, your eight-page scenes, your quarter-page scenes and you have this behemoth staring at you down the road, then that’s the thing that’s going to dictate how fast or slow your day is going to go, not the smaller things. So, this is a very strategic thing. I’ve had like ten-page days where there’s a four-page scene. And if I can put that scene upfront, if I can front load the day with the tougher scene, I can manage the time better than if we were waiting to do it after lunch.
You’re always going to be cutting corners at some point. But you don’t want to be cutting corners on something that’s emotionally complicated. And I don’t necessarily feel that people do their best work if you’re constantly telling them to go faster. I think all it does is make people a little hectic. It’s not a recipe for more creativity, that’s for sure.
Q: The last thing I wanted to ask you about has to do with working with actors. I’m assuming there was improvisation on The Office. How much do trust your actors to improvise without it getting away from the intention of the scene?
The thing to know about The Office is that there was very little improvisation. The Office was a fairly tightly scripted series. And it was scripted to sound improvised. And so, I don’t have a lot to say about improvisation. When I’m given a piece of comedic material, whether it’s The Office or Malcom in the Middle, I look for ways to ground it in reality. And then if I have a piece of dramatic material, I often try to hunt for the humor that’s hiding in the drama. So I don’t think of myself as a comedy director. I don’t think of myself as a dramatic director. I think of myself as a director of human stories. And I try, by and large, when working on something that’s quote, “a comedy,” to not think of it that way at all. If something is truthful, it will probably be funny to the audience. If it’s not truthful, but it’s witty, it may get a chuckle, but it’s not going to be very impactful. So… first and last… Is what’s going on in front of the camera relatable and human? If it is, I have a hunch that an audience will find it funny when they need to.
Ken Kwapis’ book, But What I Really Want to Do Is Direct, is available now on Amazon.
0 comments