Andrew Rowe is a filmmaker whose latest film ‘Crown and Anchor’ is releasing on DVD and Digital July 2. We caught with him to talk about the movie and a is career. Here’s what he had to say.
Most independent filmmakers, I’ve discovered, tend to make movies in which the main subject or storyline is of personal interest to them. Is that the case here?
Andrew Rowe: Yes. In my opinion, I don’t think anyone can muster the necessary passion to make a film unless they are somehow personally connected to some aspect of it. Whether that is a theme, or a specific character, or whatever else, there has to be some point of connection with the material. For me, on this film the biggest connection point was the setting. It takes place in my hometown of St. John’s, Newfoundland and it had long been a personal goal of mine to make a film that actively railed against all the clichés of other movies/television that have been made there. So everything about the film, its music, its look, its feel, had to be completely unlike anything I’d seen made there. In terms of the characters and the story, that all comes out of something I’m extremely personally interested in and that’s the question of what makes people who they are. Why do we do the things we do? I don’t think I can answer that but I’d like to explore it forever.
Did you toy with different incarnations of the story or plot before squaring it down to the one now on our screens?
AR: This was a unique writing experience because I was essentially given several key ingredients that had to be present and then I had to deliver a script very quickly so that we could film before winter. Matt Wells, who produced and acted in the film, had worked on a script inspired by aspects of his family history for some time and he had gotten some funding in place but didn’t have a director. I was brought in to direct and Matt graciously allowed me to completely start over with the script as long as it stayed true to the themes he wanted to explore. So I wrote a draft in four weeks in March 2016 and we were filming 6 months later. The story never changed, the script just got tightened and certain aspects of the characters that seemed most interesting got brought more to the forefront.
And was there any research involved before putting pen to paper?
AR: The only research was long conversations with Matt to help me understand exactly what he wanted to examine from his family history. In speaking at length with him it gave me great insight into living in an environment dominated by an abusive alcoholic patriarch.
How many drafts of the script did you go through? And what did you find you were chopping mostly?
AR: I would say 5-7 drafts. The first draft was just too long, so each draft was an attempt to tighten and make the script actually filmable in fifteen days, which was our production schedule. I found I was mostly chopping anything that wasn’t vital, and anything that was unnecessarily repetitive. I would think I’m like most writers in that I over-write at first to make sure everything I want to say is there. Then it becomes about chipping away until you feel like you can’t lose anything else.
How do you know if your story or script is working? Do you test it on family members?
AR: I don’t truly know if it’s working until someone else reads it and gets it. I can feel like it’s working but there’s always the possibility that I’m drunk on creative enthusiasm and what I’m writing is garbage. So there are several people I trust to give it to me straight about whether my writing is any good at all. One of the key signals it’s at least pretty good is how quick they get back to me with notes. If they read it start to finish in one sitting and then call me, then all signs point to it at least being engaging and generating some excitement.
Did you write the film with any actors in mind or did that come later?
AR: I wrote the film knowing that the two leads would be played by Michael Rowe and Matt Wells. I didn’t have anyone else in mind but I’m sure I was picturing certain actors, I always do. Sometimes I’ll even picture an actor who isn’t alive because they jump to mind as being so perfect for what I’m writing.
Is there anything you had to lose, when the shoot kicked in, because of budgetary issues or another concern?
AR: No, we were very good about knowing what was realistic to achieve before starting so the script was in a good place for shooting. There were some things we had to lose after we shot them due to issues, such as a scene that featured a certain song that we just couldn’t get the rights to. But that was about it.
Does the film you set out to make on day one still resemble the film that’s about to be released?
AR: I think the film that is about to be released is a better version of what I set out to make. We had a very collaborative set and I stayed open to going with new ideas if they were better. The same was true during editing. I tried to let the film show me what it needed to be, I didn’t try to force my ideas onto it if they felt forced. So certain little changes added up to make the finished film a sharper, deeper, purer version of my original intent.
What does the title refer to?
AR: It actually refers to a game of chance but I didn’t realize that ’til we were about to begin filming. Matt had come up with that title for his original script. I liked it because to me it represented diametrically opposed forces as well as father/son dynamics while also suiting a coastal town. It just seemed to work so I didn’t change it.
Can you sit and enjoy it, yourself? Or are you too close to it?
AR: I can enjoy scenes. Watching the whole thing is too much; I focus on what I wish I’d done differently or better. Some day with enough distance maybe that won’t be the case. But right now I can only watch the scenes where everything came together, then for a moment I forget I made it and I’m just enjoying the movie.
How is it working with a family member? Do you find it easier than working with someone you’re not as familiar with?
AR: It’s easier in terms of having shorthand communication, and a solid foundation of trust. And the comfort level to call each other up with ideas the moment they occur, no matter what time it is. It can only sometimes be worse if there is disagreement because then it feels so much more personal for some reason. But that’s rare and the good far outweighs the bad.
And how different is Michael in this one from his role on ‘Arrow’?
AR: To me there are zero similarities. On ‘Arrow’ Michael is a calm and cool, wisecracking super-villain in a comic book universe. In this film he is playing a bottled up, traumatized mess of a human being who exists in a very real world.