Listen to Scot's radio interviews at Indie 103.1 (Los Angeles) & KNDD 107.7 The End (Seattle)

 

 

Question: What was your approach in making your film "Malfunkshun"?

Scot: Initially, it was almost like the way Andy Wood approached his music. He just dreamed it up and did it. I did the same thing. I didn’t really think, ‘oh, this is going to be hard,’ or ‘I’m not sure if I can do this." It never crossed my mind. This coming from a guy who thought the movie was going to cost $5,000 and take one year to complete! There’s a lot of similarities with Andy and me that I discovered in making the film. I just went with it, a lot like he did.

Andre DeCastilho (DP) and Scot

Stylistically, I wanted the movie to have an organic feel, if that makes sense. I shot all of the interviews in 16mm with different film stocks and lighting conditions. The reason was actually two-fold. It was because I knew I would have a lot of different types of archive footage, you know, VHS, Super 8, 3/4, beta, and still photos of various resolutions. I wanted what I shot to kinda match that. In a way I looked at it like a quilt of different patterns, you know. I had also uncovered the same type pattern in Andy’s music--not Mother Love Bone--but mainly Malfunkshun and his solo stuff, which is a lot of different influences and styles, all put together, in a very impulsive way. Somehow, it worked. I wanted the film to feel like that, like Andy’s music, so I intentionally shot everyone differently.

Question: The piece with Xana (Andy Wood’s fiancee) was shot beautifully.

Xana LaFuente

Scot: Yeah, thanks. I basically set the look for each person based on how I wanted them to feel. You know, I shot a few of the others--like Marcus, Brian and Kevin--more or less gritty in their own ways. I used pretty harsh stocks. For Xana, I wanted to make her beautiful, in the way Andy might have seen her. I had my cinematographer use some gels---not a lot---and a pro mist to make her glow, to make her feel ethereal, in a way.

Question: I can’t quite put my finger on it, but the style in which you told the story isn’t quite like the conventional doc.

Scot: Yeah, I don’t think I have seen one quite like it, and I have seen a lot of ‘em! Don’t really know if that is good or bad, though (laughs). The approach to the whole thing was that I wanted to make it feel as much like Andy as possible. Not just in the storytelling, but also in how the film was structured, so that there was his sense of humor in it, his perspective on people, his almost unedited hit or miss style. I hope the feeling you get after the film is the one you might have if you actually met him in person. Hopefully, you have met him after seeing this movie. But yeah, I guess it goes against a lot of conventions. It’s an art film more than anything else, really. It is what it is.

Question: You’ve mentioned in your biography that your mom brought you up on a diet of the impressionists, art history and ancient civilizations. How much have those experiences influenced your directing style in Malfunkshun?

Scot: I would say heavily. I grew up a big fan of the impressionists (as well as other artists) and I admired their work a great deal. One of my biggest attractions to them in particular, was that they all hung out together. I mean, how amazing would it be to sit in a Parisian café with Cezanne, Sisley, Pizarro, Monet, Cassat and others to argue about aesthetics! To me it would be the greatest thing. It’s really the reason why I direct, or work in film at all, because I get a real high working with other artists, and in film you get to work with the greatest diversity. With Malfunkshun, I kind of looked at the Seattle group of musicians that started the "grunge scene" as an impressionist kind of group, in the sense that they were a bunch of amazing artists all hanging out together trading ideas and through healthy competition, were raising the bar of their art. I just made a connection between the two on that level, and so I decided to take an impressionistic approach to the making of this film, particularly in the editing style---like it was a painting of sorts, a work of art, rather than a strictly informational piece.

Question: How did you prepare the interviews?

Scot: Everybody played a role in Andy’s life and that’s how I approached it. I saw each person more or less as a character rather than a subject. Andy was the subject, and they defined him. In a weird way I thought of the movie Taps, and how the Sean Penn and Tom Cruise characters define Timothy Hutton’s on some levels. I also thought of Crumb, and how Robert’s brothers revealed more about who he was than even he could, at times.

Chris Cornell and Scot


I also didn’t want to be too prepared ahead of time. I wanted the interviews to be conversational. I really wanted to see what the characters wanted to say first, and sort of allow myself a process by which I could discover them conversationally; and from what they wanted to say, lead to questions that fit the moods of their answers, more or less. I really didn’t discuss any questions ahead of time with them. Although I had a list, I wanted it to be very impromptu, but not at all antagonistic. They all knew that, and just went with it.

Kim Thayil interview

Question: Speaking of conversational, I’m curious about your choice not to use narration in the movie.

Scot: Oh, that question! (Laughs.) For the record, I’m not totally against narration, because you know, I had been desensitized to docs at an early age by watching Carl Sagan’s Cosmos a lot of times, and I loved it. I watched Joseph Campbell too. Both Carl Sagan and Joseph Campbell were great storytellers, so I learned to like those types of narration. But then there is the other side, in other types of documentary films, where I really feel strongly that narration hurts. To me, it can take away the ability for the viewer to discover. And if you haven’t noticed yet, discovery is a big thing to me as an artist and a human. You also can’t be conversational with narration, I mean, have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone while another person is piping in on an earpiece the whole time?

Scot, Stephanie Vukovich, Ian Choplick, Andre DeCastilho

 

I really have the same attitude toward too much dialogue in a narrative. I feel like, you know, let me discover something in this film! Again, I’m a big fan of Crumb, and there’s no narration in it. I think it’s the coolest. I mean, from the opening sequence it really lets you discover, and imparts a multitude of information about this character that is essentially formulated in your own head; and viewers being subjective are therefore allowed to relate on their own levels. It’s just brilliant to me; it’s like a painting. I wanted to make a movie where the audience could discover things. One that they could watch again and discover more. I would certainly say it’s more challenging not to use narration.

Question: The movie has some really cool, beautiful photos.

Scot: Yeah, everyone involved was really nice and gracious to me. I was able to use a lot of Lance Mercer and Charles Peterson photos. Those guys chronicled the whole Seattle music movement and were there from the beginning, taking pictures. They both really did (and still do) some very amazing work. Lance has so many pictures! He was a big help to the film. They both were. There are also a great deal of family pictures that I was able to use. You know, since my subject was about a person who passed a while back, and yet, the interviews I shot were in the present, I really found the photographs in the film to be a useful bridge between the two. I mean that’s what photos do, right? Bridge the past and the present.

Question: You also have some cool, whacked-out animation.

Bob Beebe's animation

Scot: Yeah, like I say, I wanted the film to "feel" like Andy in a way. So I wanted these over-the-top animated elements throughout the movie. Andy was definitely over-the-top, and he would certainly enjoy it: very flamboyant, "slices of regalia" you might say (smile). There’s two types of animation in the film: photo animation and graphic animation. For the photos, it all begins with Ken Burns, right? I also looked at the movie, The Kid Stays in the Picture. What a beautiful looking movie! They did some great stuff with photos. I wanted to do something similar with photos, but effects that felt closer to Andy’s era, the late 80’s, early 90’s. I did almost all of the photo work myself. I enjoy doing it. I also have a graphic effects guy named Bob Beebe who’s doing some of the more "Terry Gilliam" type things, like the opening sequence. He’s amazing--Bob Beebe--and so is Terry Gilliam, I am a huge fan of all of his work, really.

Question: I’d like to talk about how you made the film technically.

Scot: Wow, that was a journey on a lot of levels. Basically, because I couldn’t afford much, I made sure that I was very near the equipment that I needed. I took a job as an Avid (non-linear editing) technician just to learn the machines, and I practiced editing at night. I rode the technology wave as I was making the movie. It wasn’t long before I was teaching editing during the day, on weekends and at night. I still really couldn’t afford the equipment I needed so I had to edit in the very few spare moments that I had when the machines were not being used. But then Final Cut Pro came out, and it changed everything. I started teaching classes on how to use it in Hollywood and was able to edit at home. I cut my entire film with it. Essentially, I needed technologies and they just kinda popped up along the way. Like everything else with this film, it was just synchronicity.

Q: Why did you do the editing yourself?

Scot: Well, I never really thought about letting someone else edit it. I mean, that was just a natural part of process that I had signed up for, you know? With a documentary, you never really finish your directing job until you have finished the edit. Also, my goal has always been to direct narrative films, really, and I knew that editing could really help you as a narrative director. It can really teach you how to tell stories, and what actually works for the camera. I think you end up making fewer mistakes in Production if you come from editing. That is really the main reason I taught editing for so long, and why I ever edited anything other than this film, to learn my craft as a director.

Question: When you tell your story with the film, do you think of the Mother Love Bone fans?

Scot with Mother Love Bone poster at EMP, Seattle.

Scot: Yeah, I do. Well, I did. There’s a mystique about Andy and Mother Love Bone that I thought I had to recognize, and maintain its integrity. Everybody that’s ever known Mother Love Bone lights up when they hear the name. I felt responsible to hold on to that in some way. The hardest part for me was not really thinking about the fans, but when I had to start considering people who might not know who Andrew Wood was at all. It was tough, suddenly in post-production, after a few good versions of the film made, really, for fans, I had to start thinking about other people, and how I would gain their interest with the film. Ultimately I think it works well for both now.

Question: How do you maintain the integrity of the "Seattle spirit" and still please possible distributors who see the movie for a much larger audience?

Scot: Yeah, that whole punk-rock mentality, you mean? That is what I was really dealing with myself too. It was a struggle. I didn’t really want to commercialize it too much, you know? That is why the film has stayed so quiet so long. And it’s just not your average documentary--it wasn’t ever intended to be. I wanted to do something that was a tribute in a way, kinda like the Temple of the Dog album was for Andy. I mean, that album is really what started it all for me. So I kinda wanted to "start it all" for other people with this film, rather than "put it all to rest" like most documentaries do in a way. Does that make sense? (laughs). That’s a tough one; I honestly really only considered what I wanted to do for Andy when making this film.

Scot Barbour & Vince Duque scouting Seattle locations from the Space Needle

 

Question: The version you’re showing at Slamdance is a "Work-in-Progress." What can we expect for the "World Premiere?"

Scot at Slamdance Film Festival

Scot: Well, a lot. For starters, everything is in low or Standard Definition resolution. The film was transferred to HD, and I will be finishing in 1080/24p. I’ll replace a lot of the photos with ones scanned at a higher resolution. Everything is at a 4x3 aspect ratio currently, but the final will be 16x9. The audio is only a temp mix right now, so it will be mixed to clean up the dialogue and really bring out the music. All the animation will be upgraded. The titles and the text will be much more dynamic. There is still some work to do. (Laughs.) Expect some great music for Andy, in the name of LoveRock.

Question: Last thoughts?

Scot: Well, basically for me the film was a process. One that changed me, really; it helped me to evolve as an artist. To me, the film, the story, my making it, was all like a river already flowing. I found myself in it, and I was never really certain what I was going to encounter, but I was along for the ride. I don’t even know what people are going to think about the film really. I just never realistically considered it. I mean, if you’re on a inner-tube floating down a beautiful stream, do you ever really stop to think about, "hey, I wonder if there are any people watching me float here… I wonder what they think of it?" You just don’t do that in that sort of process, you know? You just float, you look at nature and let it engulf you for the brief time you have alone together. Well, at least I do. (Laughs) So with this film, I’m just going with the flow like I have been. There were a lot of obstacles along the way, a lot of moments of pure faith. For an example, for a long time I didn’t know if any footage of Andy even existed anymore, or where it could be found, if it did. It’d be pretty hard to really introduce Andy to anyone without seeing him. Kelly Curtis (manager of Mother Love Bone/Pearl Jam) gave me most of the footage I have now, but that was already years into the process. In a way, I just assumed that it existed, and that I would find it. It all just worked out for me. I couldn’t have made this film any other way, and I can never make one just like it again, you know. That process is over; that part of me is gone now. It is time to move on to the next one. It took a lot out of me, and yet it put a lot back in. I’m ready to do a narrative film now.

Jessy & Scot Barbour in NYC