One of my earliest memories is the day I first discovered Jim Henson’s “Labyrinth” on VHS. I was no more than 5 or 6. It was the first film I fell in love with. I must’ve watched it nearly every day after school for months.
Not long after, I was introduced to films like: “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory,” “The Never Ending Story,” “The Goonies,” “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure,” etc. Within the following 5 or 6 years, my love for movies grew stronger and matured with such defining films as: “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Pulp Fiction” (which I’m proud to admit I snuck into when I was 11), “Schindler’s List,” and “Forrest Gump.”
Storytelling, creative writing, and concocting elaborate skits using friends as actors were vital hobbies of mine long before I hit puberty. I knew I wanted to be a filmmaker before I was 12 (the age I began writing screenplays).
To answer the question, I am a filmmaker to inspire and entertain others.
Were there particular films or directors or screenwriters who influenced you?
In addition to the films above, as far as filmmakers go: Kubrick, Paul Thomas Anderson, Spielberg, Truffaut, and Alexander Payne…
How did the idea for this story begin?
NOTE: I can’t fully answer this question without giving away spoilers.
However, I will admit that I was diagnosed with ADD at a young age, and in order to be properly treated for such a condition I had to visit handfuls of diverse psychiatrists and psychologists for a large part of my life. The concept of a family journeying to see a shrink on a Saturday to mend their own issues has always been a topic I wanted to explore cinematically. I believe every human being can relate on some level.
You gave some very challenging roles to young actors — how did you work with them so that they did not indicate or give away too much too soon?
My New York-based casting director, Judy Henderson, has had a lot of luck casting children in the past. I sought her out based on her past work on such indie films as “L.I.E.” and “Twelve and Holding.” Judy came through again, finding incredible newcomers for “Lifelines.”
Each actor, Robbie Sublett (Michael Bernstein), Dreama Walker (Meghan Bernstein), and Jacob Kogan (Spencer Bernstein), understood the dynamics of their character from their first audition. I truly lucked out. We really didn’t even rehearse that much! When they had questions, we discussed the answers. When they weren’t in character or did something that needed improved (which was infrequent), I let them know and the problem was solved almost instantly. All three of them are already extremely successful, and deservingly so. Again, I truly lucked out.
Jane Adams is one of my favorite actresses. How did you come to work with her and what was it about this role that attracted her?
Jane was my first choice for Nancy Bernstein – I’ve always been a fan of hers as well. My Los Angeles-based casting director, Lindsay Chag, agreed that Jane was perfect for the role. Intuitively, I knew she would connect with the character. And she did. You would have to ask her what attracted her to the role for an authentic answer…
What do you most want people to take from this movie?
Nobody is perfect. And if anybody thinks they are, they’re most imperfect. I’d love people to watch this movie and subliminally start accepting their own family members and friends for precisely who they are, putting all inherent shortcomings aside. But ultimately, I made this movie for people to know they aren’t alone in the world. If you have an open mind, somebody will always be there to hear you out in times of need.
What are you doing next?
A feel-great father/son comedy titled: “In the Meantime.” It puts an insightful new spin on the coming age subgenre as well as road trips, and the definition of love & lust… We will be filming sometime this summer. Currently we’re making offers, getting close to attaching a star for the lead role. The rest of the principal cast is pretty much set. A bunch of the actors are already listed on IMDB and the rest will be added within the upcoming months.
Fireproof,” from Samuel Goldwyn Films and Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, has won the $100,000 Epiphany Prize for “Most Inspiring Movie of 2008,” sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, a philanthropic organization dedicated to exploring life’s biggest questions.
The $100,000 Epiphany Prize for “Most Inspiring TV Program of 2008” was presented to “The Christmas Choir,” telecast by The Hallmark Channel.
Baehr also presented his prestigious “Crystal Teddy Award” for the “Best Movie for Families to “WALL-E,” from Pixar/Walt Disney Pictures. “The Best Movie for Mature Audiences” was given to “Ironman,” from Paramount Pictures
The “Grace Award for Most Inspiring Performance in Movies or TV in 2008” was given to Adriana Barraza for “Henry Poole is Here.”
The “Faith and Freedom Award for Promoting Positive American Values in Motion Pictures” was awarded to “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” from Rocky Mountain Pictures. The winner for TV was a tie between “John Adams,” from HBO, and “The Medal: Celebrating our Nation’s Highest Honor,” from 45 North Communications.
The $50,000 “Kairos Prizes” for “Spiritually Uplifting Screenplays by Beginning Screenwriters,” also sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, were awarded to:
· “A Matter of Time” by Christina D. Denton of Martinsville, Va. — $25,000
· “Touched” by Rusty Whitener of Pulaski, Va. — $15,000
· “Moody Field” by Darcy Faylor of Greenville, S.C. — $10,000
A Valentine for my readers — this YouTube compilation of 10 great first kisses from recent television series, including “The O.C,” “One Tree Hill,” “Veronica Mars,” and “Gilmore Girls.”
I received warring press releases this week from both sides in the controversy over a film called Silencing Christians, each accusing the other side of intolerance and censorship. Each side believes that the other is infringing on its right to live within its beliefs.
“Silencing Christians” argues that the “homosexual agenda” interferes with their freedom of religion. It was produced by the American Family Association and scheduled to run on a Michigan television station as a paid broadcast (like an infomercial). But the Human Rights Campaignorganized a protest and the station canceled the broadcast. The HRC, in requesting that the broadcast be canceled, did not ask for a one-sided portrayal of the issues but proposed that the station “air a fair discussion or debate on both the issues and pending legislation.”
Words like “propaganda” and “censorship” get tossed around in situations like this one, and they usually and understandably throw as much suspicion on the people using the terms as on those they are describing. Freedom of speech and equality are the foundation of the United States. They underlie every aspect of our politics and culture. When they clash, as they do here, we end up with both sides feeling that their rights have been trampled. The AFA wants the freedom to describe homosexuals in ways that affront the notions of equality of many people, including heterosexuals and others who are members of Christian or other faith communities. When does “speech” become “hate speech?” When is one side’s version of the truth so biased that it should not even be permitted to be said?
It is hard to make much of a case for censorship here, despite the television station’s decision (which was made not on the basis of the merits of the argument but on the equally valid basis that they did not want to be in the middle of the fight). Silencing Christians is available online. Even a few minutes’ viewing will raise some questions for anyone not already convinced. The use of terms like “agenda” should always be a red flag; for some reason everyone wants to accuse the other side of having an “agenda” but you never hear them acknowledging their own.
As a lawyer with a strong commitment to freedom of speech, my inclination is to let all sides be heard. The bigots, the ignorant, and the liars will betray their biases and hypocrisy with their own words. They get more attention by protesting “censorship” than they do promoting their views. Better to let them say what they have to say and provide a rebuttal. It only adds to the credibility of those who tell the truth to recognize that nothing anyone can say will mislead those who make their judgments based on facts, logic, and a commitment to fairness and integrity. “Silencing Christians” is itself the best proof of the spiritual and intellectual vacuum of its arguments.
