By GustavoLeao / 05:04, 25 August 2010 / General Genre/SciFi

• Share on Facebook
• Beam story to friend
• Syndicate news
• Shore Leave forum

TrekWeb talks to director James Kerwin about his award-winning sci-fi noir movie Yesterday Was a Lie and much more. Interview : Gustavo Leao

1- James, first tell us about your background in stage and film.

Thanks, Gustavo. Although my degree is in film -- and I'd worked primarily in that industry before I moved to L.A. -- once I got here, I started getting asked to direct theatre.  My experience helming plays was non-existent, so I was hesitant.  But I found that I enjoyed it; it allowed me to try things that one might not be able to try in a movie, where thousand-of-dollars-a-minute are at stake.  I loved the rehearsal process, and really getting to the heart of the material with the actors. 

At the same time, I feel somewhat constricted when directing theatre; there are filmic tools that I wish I had access to when directing a play.  They're very different mediums in a lot of ways.  I think theatre is much more of an actor's environment, whereas film is a director's environment.  That's a gross oversimplification, yet in a way, it's true.  But moving from film to theatre and then back to film has taught me the importance of dedicating time to characterization and motive and dramatic tug with your actors, which is critical.

2- Tell us about the genesis of the "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE" script.

In late 2003 or early 2004, I decided it was time to get behind the camera again.  A producer/writer partner of mine, Andrew Deutsch, started developing a couple of projects with me; a couple story ideas.  Where the noir aspect of "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE" came from, I'm not entirely certain.  I hadn't been a noir aficionado by any stretch, but I had this idea of Bacall playing Bogart's role; a female detective alone, wandering the streets at night, literally "searching for answers" to questions that are far more fundamental than those posed in traditional noir films.  I'd just gone through a series of painful romantic breakups, and I found myself asking why one's universe seems "broken" and "off" when this happens -- both on a psychological level, and on a perhaps more fundamental level of consciousness.  The black-and-white noir world, where characters use computers and cellphones but often dress and speak and drive cars from the 1940s, is a reflection of this "brokenness" of time... of people figuratively -- or maybe literally -- being "stuck in the past."

3- How did the script change and evolve before filming?

It took me about a year to write the first full draft of the script, but it went through many, many drafts after that.  The story is written with no first act -- it's a two-hour film with the first 30 minutes removed.  I wanted the audience to find themselves immediately engaged in the story because they feel like they missed something... the way you pay extra careful attention to a movie if you walk in late, trying to piece together what happened before.  In a way, it simulates the disjoined reality that Hoyle's experiencing.  So the audience isn't only trying to glean the answers to her questions; the audience is trying to discern what the questions ARE.  And, of course, that's the ultimate puzzle:  Do the individual questions even matter in the end?

So needless to say, it was a challenge retaining some semblance of narrative structure in a film that's effectively non-linear.  Not non-linear in the sense that the scenes are simply "out of chronological order," but non-linear in the sense that, try as you might, you can't possibly put them together into a specific sequence.  Because as the film progresses [SPOILER ALERT] you realize you're viewing episodes from different POTENTIAL realities -- in addition to forgotten memories, dreams, and maybe even fantasies.  The entire movie is subjunctive.  And none of it is random -- everything's there for a purpose, and has a deeper meaning.  So that required many revisions.

The script was also honed in the prep phase, after the film had been cast.  We had months of story meetings with the actors, and their questions and ideas helped shape the dialog as well.

4- Was there any pressure on you from the producers because this was your first movie?

It was my first commercial feature, but I'd directed enough before -- a short, a music video, a student feature, and of course theatre -- that it wasn't an issue.  Most of the producers on this film were people with whom I'd worked prior to "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE."  Everyone was free to make suggestions, some of which were implemented and some of which weren't, but ultimately they trusted my vision. 

"YESTERDAY WAS A LIE" was made independently; the studio that released it, E1, bought it after the fact.  One of the advantages of doing it that way is you don't have anyone looking over your shoulder, telling you what HAS to be done.  Films made by committee often don't turn out very well, in my opinion.  The disadvantage, of course, is that 99.9% of genuinely independent films never get bought and commercially released, so it's a risk!

5- Are you a fan of science fiction and what are your favorite sci-fi stories within the genre?

I studied astrophysics in college -- I initially started double-majoring, but wound up deciding to focus on film -- and I attend conferences and try to read up on the latest.  I've always found myself subconsciously drawn to science fiction as a genre, because it's unique in its ability to posit situations that ask transcendent, metaphysical questions about the nature of our world.  I wouldn't call myself a science fiction "fan" necessarily, because I actually don't like the majority of SF out there.  But the intelligent SF movies -- films like "2001," "Solaris," "Primer," "Pi," "Moon," "Blade Runner" -- I can't get enough of those.  Those, I think, are not only the greatest science fiction films; they're the greatest films period, because of their incredible intellectual depth and (often very subtle) emotional richness.

As for television, I'd say the new "BSG" and "Lost"; and, going back a little, Whedon's shows and "X-Files."  Of the Treks, "DS9" was my favorite, probably for the same reasons.  Remember the pilot, where Sisko meets these "Bajoran Prophet" aliens who exist outside of time?  And he spends the episode trying to explain to them how we experience time LINEARLY.  Of course at the end they say, "Well no, you really DON'T, do you?  You seem to be stuck in your memories, in moments you've experienced in your past that you won't let go."  "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE," in fact, touches on something similar.  Where else but science fiction could you create such a wonderful analogy for a singular human truth like that?

As for novels, I have to admit that I'm not an avid reader of fiction.  It takes me months or years to get through a single book, because I stop and contemplate every page!  But I've recently discovered the works of Robert J. Sawyer, author of "FlashForward," whom I actually met when he came to a screening of "YESTERDAY" at a film festival/convention a couple years ago.  I'm starting to delve into his body of work, because it's right up my alley.  The intersection of science and spirituality -- and the psychological resistance to this among some -- is a favorite topic of mine; and although he has different views on the matter than I do in some ways, I like to tackle similar themes.

So there's an example of something that science fiction can uniquely address.  Campbell warned that this artificial "clash" between reason and spirituality would be the next great challenge to our society.  It's a topic that's touchy; primarily now, I think, because of lobbying that's done by professional secularists -- some of whom refer to themselves as "skeptics" to gain credibility among intellectuals, but who really have little to do with authentic skeptical philosophy.  I'm definitely a skeptic myself, in the genuine sense of the word -- but not in the sense it's been misappropriated by certain individuals, some of whom use it as a license to shut down inquiry and reason backwards from conclusions.  It all started when somebody planted an idea in the zeitgeist -- and somehow, it took root -- that science is about "proving" things.  And if science can't "prove" something, we must deny it.  Which is rather amusing, I'm sorry, because science is about nothing of the sort!  The great quantum physicists of the 20th century demonstrated that science can't "prove" anything; it can propose MODELS of reality that are the most statistically likely.  We believe in all sorts of things that we can't prove -- gravity's a perfect example.  We have no idea how or why it works, but it does.  We can see its effects, but those effects COULD hypothetically be attributed to something else.  So by the standard of "proof" that the professional secularists have created, gravity therefore does not exist!  Which is patently ridiculous, of course.

Now don't kid yourself -- some of these guys have a personal stake and a financial interest in promoting the "scientific materialist" worldview.  It sells a lot of books to a segment of the population that wants to rebel against certain religious institutions and quaint prejudices.  I understand that bitterness; but as Einstein was fond of pointing out, many people take it too far and throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Fortunately, within the scientific community, the tide is at least starting to turn the other way, with the work being done by prominent physicists and biologists like Davies, Schroeder, Dyson, Polkinghorne, Penrose and Hameroff, Collins, and even guys like Radin.  But even they are kind of marginalized at times, particularly when their work produces results that embarrass their rivals.

So here's this dicey subject -- a topic that people have difficulty discussing without getting nasty and bigoted, and that goes for both sides.  And here's science fiction and science fantasy -- so-called "speculative fiction" -- that can deal with the matter, using metaphorical allusions, in a way that other genres can't.  That's brilliant.  I talk about this on the "YESTERDAY" commentary track.  It's a struggle that Hoyle goes through in the film, as she's faced with the Singer on one side and the Dead Man on the other, representing different Jungian aspects of her psyche.  "Lost" is another example; and I'm thrilled that Lindelof is involved in actually writing the next Trek movie.  Except for "DS9," these themes have generally been avoided in that universe.  Which is unfortunate, because spirituality -- all forms of belief, positive or negative -- plays an integral role in the human adventure.  In a way, the greatest SF stories are literally the Campbellian hero myths of our age.

And that was a long answer, wasn't it?

6- How did pre-production of the movie go?

There's a saying: "You can do it quickly, cheaply, or properly.  Pick two of the three."  To make a low-budget film, and do it well, requires a LOT of time and dedication.  I can't tell you how many people said they wanted to come on board this project... but then, when push came to shove, they disappeared.  In some cases there were genuine professional availability issues, but for many people it was just cold feet.  My friend and fellow filmmaker Phil Leirness put it very well: "People like to TALK about making films."  It's a trap that so many fall into.  It's fun to have meetings, discuss ideas, and talk about what you're GOING to do.  But when the time comes to do it, many people drop out, because it's quite a chore.  I call it "the meetings trap."  If you find yourself perennially "having meetings" about making a film, then that's a very good sign that you're not really making a film!

Once we assembled a dedicated team, we had to push principal photography two or three times because of location availability, trying to raise more financing, and a variety of other reasons -- including me being hospitalized briefly with an ulcer.  So "stressful" is an understatement.  But the extra time gave us the opportunity to plan even more carefully than we had before -- and for me to storyboard EVERY shot -- which is invaluable once you get on set.  We had something like 55 scripted locations to shoot in 25 days -- no exaggeration -- and that kind of turnaround is theoretically impossible.  So maximum preparation is key.

7- Lets talk about the casting. How you did come up with actress Kipleigh Brown ("Star Trek: Enterprise") for the starring role of Hoyle?

Hoyle was the hardest role to cast, obviously, because she's in every scene and the whole story is literally HER inner story.  Hoyle is a combination of femininity and masculinity; and she has to be relatively comfortable with these different aspects of her persona, because she grills people in different ways.  She has to throw back shots of bourbon, bust down doors, and blast away with her Smith and Wesson in a trench coat and tie; but she also has to look like a knockout in a slinky dress, and know when to cross her legs at JUST the right time to make a geeky college kid sing like a canary.  And she has to make it look effortless and casual.

Plus, everything's slightly exaggerated in the film -- the way you might remember something, as opposed to how it really looked.  So when the architecture or technology is forties, it's FORTIES.  When it's not, it's DECIDEDLY not.  The lighting is noir, but better than noir -- the way we idealize noir, not necessarily the way it looked back then.  And that extends to the actors as well.  Hoyle's line readings have to be slightly blunted, slightly flat without going too far.  Some of the costumes aren't very functional if you think about it; their hair's a touch too perfect.  A few reviews we've gotten have said that the film looks like "an atmospheric shampoo commercial" -- and they say that as a criticism, so they clearly missed the point.

So we needed an actress who could pull that off.  For a lot of the supporting roles, I skipped the audition process and cast people I'd worked with before, because I know what I'm getting that way.  But for Hoyle, we read dozens of actresses -- including names, which probably wouldn't have worked as well because the audience should go into the film with a "tabula rasa" when it comes to that character.  Kipleigh and I had known each other years earlier, before she did Trek, but had fallen out of touch.  For "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE," we did a general casting call, and her agency just submitted her for the role.  My initial reaction was not to consider her, to avoid the appearance of favoritism, but the producers and I decided that wouldn't be fair.  She wasn't EXACTLY what I had envisioned for the part, but she nailed her auditions.  I think subconsciously I tried very hard not to cast her, actually, for fear of perceived nepotism.  We kept doing more rounds of auditions, and it felt like we read half the city!  But ultimately, the majority of producers and I agreed that she was perfect for the part. 

Afterwards, I learned just how "synchronous" her casting was.  When she was preparing to audition, apparently she listened to "Harlem Nocturne" as she studied lines to get into character.  When she showed up at the final callback, there was a band in the studio next door playing -- you guessed it -- "Harlem Nocturne."  Plus, Kipleigh's done a lot of sketch comedy in Chicago and Hollywood -- and unbeknownst to me, she had created a female noir detective character that she'd been performing!  Little chance things like that.

8- And then there was the pivotal role of the Singer. How did you choose actress Chase Masterson ("Deep Space Nine") for the role?

Actually -- and I feel bad for saying this -- Chase was not my first choice for the role.  That was due to unfair prejudices.  There's a bizarre idea in Hollywood that if you're a "Star Trek" actor -- unless you're a captain -- you can only play a "Star Trek" role.  So you get typecast.  It's preposterous, because Trek has had phenomenal actors.  Chase, for example, is this classically trained artist with a degree in theatre, but the role she's best known for was, frankly, fan service.  Don't get me wrong -- she was great as Leeta, and played the role exactly how it should've been played.  But Leeta wasn't exactly a three-dimensional character -- except physically, of course, which (let's face it) is the reason she was there.  So when Chase's name came up for "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE," I initially balked, which would have been a huge mistake.

We were close to entering formal pre-production, and we couldn't get a solid commitment for the Singer role.  So we were getting nervous... and then our co-executive producer, Sarah Nean Bruce, ran into Chase in the bathroom at a Hollywood party.  Sarah wound up mentioning the project to her, before she even knew that Chase was also a professional torch singer!  So that was serendipitous.

Sarah called me the next day and asked if I'd be interested in meeting Chase to discuss the possibility of her playing Singer.  I had no idea of her tremendous depth as an actor; I really couldn't have, judging from her past roles, which in a way did her a disservice.  So when we met her, I was shocked at her range and her insight as an artist.  Also, Singer had been written for a very different physical type than Chase.  In the original script, she was a very young girl -- a pale, waifish teenager, cute but asexual, who unexpectedly drops these pearls of knowledge when she talks.  Like the empress in "NeverEnding Story."  So I had trouble wrapping my mind around Chase in that part.  I have to give credit to Kipleigh for convincing me.  It required me to alter my vision for the character to match Chase's appearance, which is obviously more overtly sexy. 

So Singer became this glamorous Bond girl -- with the decolletage and the diamonds and the dangerously high-slit dress -- who speaks with the wisdom of the ages, as if she's some type of Zen master!  It actually wasn't that much of a departure from the script after all -- we maintained the "appearances can be deceiving" theme -- and I'm glad we went that way, because it works so much better.  It's a once-in-a-lifetime thing to find an actress who looks like Chase, yet simultaneously has the level of profundity and subtlety that she does.  So she and Kip wound up bringing a necessary sexuality to the film that wasn't there on the page, both individually and in their characters' relationship to each other, and the movie would've been too sterile without it.  

9- And Chase Masterson did also ended up as the producer of the movie. Tell us about that.

As I mentioned before, we had a series of different producers and line producers who had SAID they were doing the film -- yet, when it came time, inevitably committed to something else.  Some did us the courtesy of formally notifying us; others not so much.  But time and time again, I heard that it was "impossible to do this film for this budget." 

After Chase came on board as an actress, she participated in a lot of the meetings in which we interviewed potential new producers and/or line producers.  Thirty-seven, to be precise.  And after exhausting all our options, she finally just said, "What the hell, I'll do it."  She'd never really produced a film before, but she rose to the challenge.  And we did wind up finding a new line producer and UPM -- Robb Thomas and Tommy Rasera -- and they all pulled it off.  Don't ask me how, because it really was an impossible task.  But we did it.

10- "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE" went on to win several awards, too many to name here. Are you proud of what the movie has achieved ? Are you proud of the final product?

Yes, the film did very well on the festival circuit, where it played for a year.  It earned a bunch of awards and solid reviews... and, based in part on the critical response, it was picked up by E1.  Having a festival run prior to the film's theatrical release gave me the opportunity to recut the movie a couple times, based on audience reaction and on some of the insights I garnered watching it over and over again.  We learned which audience demographics it plays well to, and which it doesn't.  We also lost the license to one of the songs Chase's character sings, so it had to be replaced.  The film that screened on the festival circuit was very much a rough cut compared to the final product that opened in December 2009.

11- Now the movie is finding a new audience on DVD. What are your ambitions for its DVD release?

E1 released the DVD this past April, and they brought Kipleigh, Chase, and me in to record the commentary track.  The DVD's got some other special features as well; and if you haven't seen the film yet (or even if you have), I strongly encourage people to check those out -- particularly the commentary.  Watching the movie streamed, for example, just doesn't do it justice unless you have the very fastest setup -- and even then, you miss those other features.

With festival play and an arthouse theatrical run, you're playing to a small, specific audience.  DVD is a different story, because now it's everywhere.  Although having the movie available to such a wide audience -- especially via Netflix streaming -- also has a downside.  Impulse viewers -- in this case, people who otherwise wouldn't seek out intellectual science fiction -- CAN be good for a film, but not always. 

I'll try to put this diplomatically.  "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE" was never intended to be a film for a mass audience.  Bill Cosby said, "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody."  That's how I approached making this movie.  There'll be people who just don't get it.  80% of the reviews have been positive, but you always wind up getting some rotten ones.  We've had very, very few in between.  I've found that, because the film is so esoteric, people get surprisingly hostile if it doesn't speak to them -- and they go out of their way to let you know.  I have no problem with a respectable reviewer making some well-phrased points about what he or she didn't care for in the film.  As a director, I can learn a lot from that.  But we've been pretty shocked at some of the more rancorous comments.  People say "Don't take it personally," but they don't understand that you HAVE to take it personally if you're an artist -- thick skins and callouses don't make for good art. 

Now, there's a difference between taking it personally and taking it seriously; and I certainly don't take that kind of stuff seriously.  Snark has become fashionable -- especially on the Internet -- and some non-professional reviewers try to "make their mark" by being as outrageous and exaggerated as possible.  So if some college student has nothing better to do with his time than spend hours writing a rant online about how he wants to kill himself because he just watched "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE" and it's the worst film in history... well, I can't really give that any artistic credence, can I.  Still, bad reviews definitely do hurt your psyche -- any filmmaker will tell you that.  We're lucky, in that the vast majority of them have been overwhelmingly good.

One of the highest compliments I've received about "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE," in fact, was a review in PopMatters -- which was written by one of their literature critics, rather than a film critic.  She said that the film is "the perfect antidote to today's neverending slew of Hollywood romantic comedies." I thought that was a very appropriate descriptor, especially coming from a lit reviewer.  When this film is appreciated by people like that -- sharp, incisive people -- then I've done what I set out to do.

12- Finally, James, what lies ahead? What are your future projects?

Well, the international distribution rights to "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE" haven't been sold yet.  Because of the nature of the film, we believe it'll play quite well outside North America.  So we're entertaining offers for that.

Otherwise, I have about three stories I'd love to tackle.  One is fun science fiction, another fantasy, and another -- well, I'm not sure what to call it.  I've been pretty busy promoting "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE" for the last several months, so I'm looking forward to sitting down and delving into something again.

The film's also been adapted into a graphic novel by artist James Hill.  I think the story is well-suited for that type of treatment, because Hoyle's basically a tortured superheroine: a blonde with a gun and an impractical costume who wanders the streets of a dieselpunk city where it's always night!  How could that NOT be a comic?!  It hasn't been published yet, so look for that coming up. 

And finally, Andrew Deutsch and I are in the middle of shooting a series of "YESTERDAY WAS A LIE" webisodes, starring Nathan Mobley and Amara Cash, who played smaller roles in the film.  I don't want to give too much away, but they're designed to enhance the film by providing extra little bits of information... information that's not essential to understanding the movie, but that takes you a little deeper down the rabbit hole.  We had to respect the world we created in the film -- a world where no one seems to exist independently of their interaction with Hoyle -- while also figuring out how to focus on these two characters.  We're going to be rolling out the episodes in a fun, back-alley sort of way.  So keep your ears to the ground.

Thank you, James !

The trailer to Yesterday Was a Lie can be found at Apple.

The offficial website to the movie is at YesterdayWasaLie.com

Photos :

Photo by Anne Cusack

Photo by Geno Nicholas, copyright 2009 Helicon Arts Cooperative

Photo by Josh Blakeslee, copyright 2009 Helicon Arts Cooperative

Photo by Albert L. Ortega