This review is no longer available online.
GREGORY HATANAKA: TAKING NIGHT INTO DAY
by Phil Hall (2004-02-11)
|
|
| "Though there are and continue to be the many, many failures in the independent film scene, there are still enough commercial successes for the audiences, studios and networks to take..." |
During the past 13 years, Gregory Hatanaka has overseen the distribution of close to 250 films in the U.S. marketplace, including works by the likes of Satyajit Ray, Andre Techine, John Woo and even Edward D. Wood, Jr. Today, Hatanaka is focusing his attentions on a new director: himself!
Hatanaka has written and directed "Until the Night," an emotionally complex drama parallelling relationships that are fraying to disaster. In one couple, a struggling writer obsesses with various vices to escape the burden of his self-destructive relationship with a jealous and troubled woman. In the second union, a successful young career woman lives the perfect public image as her marriage to a failed actor grows increasingly oppressive.
"Until the Night" culminates Hatanaka's remarkable career. At the age of 17, while struggling to get his directing career off the ground with a now-aborted romantic drama entitled "Women," he got his first job working for Headliner Productions, a company which had produced exploitation films in the 1950s. Hatanaka oversaw the distribution of such films as Ed Wood's rediscovered cult classic "The Sinister Urge" and "God Is My Witness," the first Bollywood epic to be screened in American art houses. During this period, Hatanaka also theatrically booked films for Circle Releasing - under the guidance of George Pelecanos (now an acclaimed crime noir novelist) - a production and distribution company known most for producing the Coen Brothers' "Blood Simple," "Miller's Crossing" and "Barton Fink." Among the films Hatanaka worked on was John Woo's "The Killer," which he successful re-released in a series of successful midnight runs on the arthouse circuit. During a brief stint at Filmopolis Pictures, he oversaw the release of Andre Techine's "My Favorite Season" and the final films of Satyajit Ray.
In 1996, Hatanaka formed distribution company Phaedra Cinema, which specialized in bringing the works of indie directors to the screen. Over its five-year period, the company distributed close to 100 films in the U.S. marketplace. Highlights include the Indian film The Terrorist, the acclaimed French films "La Separation" and "L'Ennui" and U.S. indies including Sudden Manhattan and Men Cry Bullets. Currently, Hatanaka oversees acquisitions and distribution for Pathfinder Pictures, a distribution and production company. Recent highlights include a series of classic films from Claude Chabrol, the theatrically-restored cult hit "Master of the Flying Guillotine", Abel Ferrara's R'Xmas, the documentary Schlock! The Secret History of American Movies, an upcoming series of films from Japanese cult director Takashi Miike (Audition) and a collection of films from Bollywood. He also Executive Produced the films "Double Deception" and "Shadow Fury," recently released by Lions Gate Films.
Film Threat caught up with Gregory Hatanaka at his Los Angeles office to discuss his distinct directing debut and his extraordinary work in film distribution.
|
|
| "Phaedra Cinema, the distribution company I was running, took off in a very positive way. But unfortunately, this meant I couldn't give focus to my film..." |
What was the genesis of "Until the Night"? Is this the first feature film that you directed?
The genesis of the film goes back to 1997 when after six years working in the industry, I realized that I had never attempted to direct a film before, which was the reason why I chose to go into the industry in the first place. So I started writing the script loosely based on my brief experience in therapy. I wrote the lead character as a therapist, who involves himself in co-dependent relationships with his patients until he gets beaten up by the husband of one of them. Not knowing much about the psychotherapy field, I quickly scrapped the idea but kept the situations and changed the characters to people/types that I was familiar with. So Robert (the lead character) now became a struggling screenwriter who tries desperately to make some form of emotional connection with those around him, who, unfortunately all turn out to be jaded actors and other artists.
It was during this period that Phaedra Cinema, the distribution company I was running, took off in a very positive way. But unfortunately, this meant I couldn't give focus to my film. I would cast the film based on an unfinished script, practice shooting scenes here and there on weekends and would find myself generally unhappy with the result. I think I must have had at least three different casts lined up as the film/script evolved during this period, when in 2000, very demoralized, I decided to give up on the project. At that time, I had cast myself as the lead in the film, an obvious terrible choice, having had no experience in acting whatsoever. And for that reason alone, I am glad that I never proceeded with the making of the film at that time.
Though Phaedra was very active as a company, releasing a number of films into the marketplace, the whole distribution climate became depressing as companies went under and into bankruptcy after encountering sudden and great financial problems as a result of the dropping revenues for indie films. Theatrical releases became incredibly expensive and risky to launch. I just found myself so focused on the business side of things that I lost any creative impulses I might have had. This all culminated in August 2001, when I too, was forced to close Phaedra down. I fell into a depression and then 9/11 occurred, leading to further reclusion for me. When I emerged from the rubble, I realized that I had lost touch with everything I ever believed in and made a vow that I would change all that. So I completely re-wrote the script, getting rid of all the pretentiousness and ended up with something that I think was much more honest than it ever was before.
During this time, I became Head of Distribution & Acquisitions for Pathfinder Pictures and I was able to get them to commit to produce the film on a very tiny budget. I won't say exactly how much but far, far, far under $1 million. I sent the script over to Elise Konialian and Beth-Holden Garland who run Untitled Entertainment, the talent management company, who handle among others, Naomi Watts and Ashton Kutcher. They liked the script so much that they agreed to help package the film with their clients. I am forever grateful to them for putting together such a wonderful cast on my directing debut: Norman Reedus, Kathleen Robertson, Missy Crider, Sarah Lassez, Michael T. Weiss, Sean Young and Matthew Settle.
Your leading man is Norman Reedus, who is a fine actor that seems strangely underappreciated by the industry and the moviegoing public. Did you conceive this role specifically for him? And what was it like working with him on this project?
Well, apart from the faux pas of originally casting myself in the lead some years before, I hadn't had any strong idea of who would be appropriate for the role. When Elise at Untitled responded well to the script, she suggested that she send it to Norman for his consideration. I would have never expected that he would have done a film on so low of a budget, but he liked the character and I feel like he brought a lot to the film. Norman's played these young, misunderstood drifter-type roles in the past ("Six Ways To Sunday", "Floating") and I think this is quite a different role for him. It's a very mature, adult role, which to me, is what Norman is really like in person. He has this real Alain Delon-like presence about him, very assured.
Sean Young is also in the film. She has a reputation, for better or worse, as being something of a character. What was it like working with her on this film?
Sean shot for one day on the film and she plays this Heidi Fleiss-like madam. She was fun to work with and it was great to have her years of experience with me on the set that day.
How did your background as a distributor serve the conception of "Until the Night"? Were you writing and directing and casting in a way that would specifically aid in the film's commercial viability?
Well it helped and mostly didn't help. I had past experience in putting together a project, so I knew how to structure the production deals with the talent and so forth. I also knew what types of indie films were selling well on DVD and to television. But I never wrote the script with any sort of market in mind. The film is an intense drama with no real commercial elements such as sex or violence. Sort of a modern take on "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" and "Days of Wine and Roses." And so going into production, I would be fighting with myself constantly on many of these issues. If I add some nudity, I might be able to sell it to TV, if I get so-and-so actor, they'll buy it in Germany, if I put more action in, etc. But in the end I disregarded all this and set out to make the most honest and truthful film I could, with the best people. I think the performances are excellent in this film and I hope that people will relate to these characters and their struggles.
Will you be directing more films in the near future?
I have a couple of scripts I'm working on. And like every filmmaker out there, I'm waiting. I'm waiting for the phone calls from the festivals saying if I'm in or out. I'm waiting to hear back from the distributors of their interest. Day to day I keep busy with distribution activities at Pathfinder or else I'd go crazy, I really don't know how full-time filmmakers deal with the anticipation and the rejection. It's very devastating because every film to its filmmaker is personal on some level. But somehow, you pick up, and keep moving on.
|
| "...the whole distribution climate became depressing as companies went under and into bankruptcy after encountering sudden and great financial problems as a result of the dropping revenues for indie films..." |
|
|
| "During Phaedra's peak, roughly 1999/2000, it was still a very tiny operation and we were able to take chances on theatrically releasing these challenging and financial risky titles, without having to suffer the wrath or backlash from a more corporate environment..." |
The late-great Phaedra Cinema presented many edgy, bizarre and eccentric titles. What is it about films like these that piqued your interest and propelled you to bring them to theaters?
I'm a rabid fan of anything film, which means that I love all types of films running the gamut from typical arthouse fare to the more experimental and cultish. I think that the films I distributed at Phaedra were a reflection of this taste. I think that a "Phaedra" film could not be immediately identifiable or categorized because you (the audience) never knew what to expect be it, the intense French drama "La Separation" (which starred Isabelle Huppert and Daniel Auteuil), the very commercial comedy Just A Little Harmless Sex, the offensive Underground Comedy Movie or the classy but shockingly revolting Japanese film "Wife To Be Sacrificed."
During Phaedra's peak, roughly 1999/2000, it was still a very tiny operation and we were able to take chances on theatrically releasing these challenging and financial risky titles, without having to suffer the wrath or backlash from a more corporate environment. It was a real sense of freedom to be able to acquire the films, market and sell them myself, put the advertising charges on my credit cards, count the heads in the theaters and collect the box office receipts (or lack thereof). Of course, it was also disheartening to live through the failures, of which there were many.
Phaedra Cinema was among the few distributors which would take a chance on films from the likes of Men Cry Bullets or The Underground Comedy Movie or even a $980 film like "Cupid's Mistake." Why do you feel that other distributors were less enthusiastic about pursuing and releasing these kinds of films?
Well for one thing, these films were hardly commercial in any sense and if you refer to their theatrical reviews you will see that none had any sort of critical support either. But for every film that I distributed through Phaedra, there was something of each that intrigued me whether it be the subtle Cassavetes'-like quality of "Cupid's Mistake," the intensity of Zack Winstine's States of Control, the glossiness of "Ratchet," the over-the-top excitement of Gonin, the complete incomprehensibility of Soft Toilet Seats, the Frankenheimer feel of "The Taxman" or the simple romance told in "Love Etc."
From the start, I had modeled Phaedra Cinema after World Northal Films, an independent distributor from the 1970s known for distributing martial arts classics from the Shaw Bros. but who also made a name for releasing such arthouse hits as Peter Weir's "The Last Wave," "Quadrophenia" and Nicolas Roeg's "Bad Timing."
But getting back to the question: I think that the other distributors simply weren't interested in the challenging films we released. They had to be financially responsible to their corporate parents and simply could not take these sort of risks. Remember, this was all before the DVD boom, the cable market was relatively static, but the theatrical market was, as it still is, non-existent for marginal fare.
Some of the edgier, underground-variety indie films released by Phaedra were roasted by the critics. Do you think that the critics tend to be more hostile to smaller films versus the blunders that come out of Hollywood?
By and large, the critical press have their own select brand of taste. To be a critic is to be one of the most overworked people in the world -- you screen six-to-ten films a week in very desolate screening rooms - you're always in the dark - pressured by editorial deadlines to deliver reviews. You lose the fun of moviegoing, I would think. Given these circumstances, it's very hard to be objective when you're under these sort of pressures and I think the smaller films fall through the cracks when it comes to getting press. Ironically, it's these films that need the press the most given they've no real advertising budget to speak of, no star actors, etc.
I would think though that the studios do impose some kind of pressure on critics to give their films major coverage. Studios such as Miramax, and the majors (i.e. Sony, Paramount, etc.) will routinely fly in critics to luxurious press junkets and parties for their latest releases. It's hard to be objective when all that is lavished on you.
Do you recommend self-distribution for filmmakers who cannot get their films picked up?
No. Simply because self-distributing your film means that you'll be living with your film for another one-to-two years in addition to the two years it took to write and produce it, which means a delay in making your next film and losing your creative momentum. On top of that, there's also the major issue of being able to collect from exhibitors when they know you have nothing to follow it up with.
Where do you see indie theatrical distribution heading in the near future?
Onwards and upwards, I hope. Though there are and continue to be the many, many failures in the independent film scene, there are still enough commercial successes for the audiences, studios and networks to take notice. Having hits like Lost in Translation and American Splendor means that more theater chains will be open to showing indie films and it also further builds up the audience for indie cinema. Yes, the studios continue to dominate the art houses, but the DVD market is still a market where a small indie can survive and television is getting rosier.
Check out "Until the Night" at the film's official website.
|
|
| "From the start, I had modeled Phaedra Cinema after World Northal Films, an independent distributor from the 1970s known for distributing martial arts classics from the Shaw Bros..." |
Copyright © 1985 - 2003
Gore Group Publications
|