| Matt Salzberg: Fame and "Fortunes" |
| Interview by R.J. Carter Published: December 16, 2005 |
| This review originally appeared on "The Trades" website. |
| Back to the Press Room. |
|
Hooray for Hollywood
That screwy, bally-hooey Hollywood!
Where any office boy or young mechanic
Can be a panic
With just a good-looking pan.
That may have been the case in Johnny Mercer's times, but these days, rest assured -- there's a broken light for every heart in New Babylon, and not everyone who wants to act or direct or produce even gets a shot to take a second order at the same restaurant. The competition is fierce, and even the cabbies have a portfolio.
So when, nearly out of nowhere, a new young producer comes on the scene, it's a cause celebre, particularly when the person's output is of anything close to decent caliber.
Such is the case with Matt Salzberg, whose new film, "Fortunes", is currently in limited release and debuts on DVD within days. We were fortunate to capture a moment of Salzberg's time to get a close-up view of what a producer's career is like right at the start of the rise.
"Fortunes" is your first film. How do you convince experienced actors to come on board and do a film when you have no established track record?
I think if you asked the actors they'd tell you that they responded to the script. Really, that's all I had. Tony Hale, who hadn't yet hit with Arrested Development, went to school with Parker Cross, the director. Other than that, I think it was a case of being able to put together a good script and take advantage of the fact that there are so many terrific actors who just want to work.
On a budget vs. box office comparison, did "Fortunes" turn a profit, or is it more important at this stage of the game that it form a resume anchor?
What's a profit? No. "Fortunes" has not turned a profit. I'm still so far in a hole that there is no light peeking through. I always hope for the best, but really, just getting "Fortunes" distributed is gratifying. The budget, despite the fact that we shot on 35 mm, was very very low. But there is still a lot of money to be paid. For instance, going back to the actors: I worked with SAG under their old "Limited Exhibition" agreement, which I don't believe exists anymore (though I could be wrong.) These actors worked for much less than normal SAG rates, but now that the film is being distributed beyond the parameters of those set in the agreement (festivals, free tv, etc.) I owe the actors the upgraded rate. That's a lot of money. I'm glad they're getting paid, but it's just another huge expense that will make a profit (or even "breaking even") on this piece much more unlikely. We'll have to sell a hell of a lot of DVDs... But that's okay. There are thousands of movies that don't get distributed at all, and we've got a good little movie here that will finally be able to reach the audience that I believe it deserves. That's a good feeling. And yeah, I just want to keep writing and producing movies and I hope that "Fortunes" helps that cause. It better!
Producing something you've written gives you a lot more control over making changes during the filming process, I would imagine. Were there many instances where, when seeing the words become flesh, you decided that what worked on the page wasn't necessarily what worked on the screen and thus had to be changed?
There weren't a whole lot of changes on set. Parker added a few nice things before we shot and there were some good ad-libs on-set that we kept, but it all kept pretty close to the script. Making a movie is (or, I feel, should be) such a collaborative process that I feel one would be missing out on chances to make a film much better if one were not open to all that stuff. But really, you do make a film three times -- in script, in production, and while editing. In that final stage there were a whole lot of changes. A whole lot. See, for example, the deleted scenes on the DVD. But that's just what happens... it's not always easy but sometimes it can be such a relief to lose a scene or a line and see how well the film works without it.
What would you most want viewers of "Fortunes" to come away with as far as themes, emotions, and impressions go?
While I think there are a lot of levels to "Fortunes", and that they succeed to varying degrees, I really always wanted to make a movie that was just plain old good and enjoyable. I want it to make people laugh and think and be able to relate to the characters and their predicaments. I think there are some timeless aspects to the questions and issues in this movie. Is fate real? Can we change it? Does what we do matter in the grand scheme -- if there is one? Are the Redskins going to suck again this weekend or will they actually be good and turn this thing around? I have been able to relate to all three main characters (or four, really if you include Karen) at various, relatively recent, times in my life, and I believe most people can relate to at least one. So hopefully they will and they can be entertained while watching the movie, yet wonder over their decaf frappucino how they might react if they found themselves in a similar situation. And then I'd want them to buy a copy of the DVD for every single person they know.
Much of what Phil and Lewis go through after having their fortune told seems to become self-fulfilling prophecy, and a goodly portion of the film focuses on Phil's developing neurosis surrounding his role as a father. James, however, did not get his fortune told. What is his role in the trio of friends, and what do the scenes in his life have to do with fleshing out the story as a whole when contrasted to Phil and Lewis?
In an original version of the script James also had his fortune told and he was told that he didn't have to worry about anything -- so then he just went out and did all sorts of crazy silly shit, but it backfired on him. Then I thought that it would work better if James were the "control group" in this experiment. This guy doesn't worry about anything anyway, but if you look at all the shit that happens to him -- starting with getting bit by the cat, he loses his girl, he doesn't get the promotion, he gets his ass kicked, etc. -- none of it changes who he is. He just rolls with the punches. If that type of stuff, or some semblence thereof, had actually happened to those other guys, then they probably would have blamed it on fate -- or their perceived knowledge of it. James sees what these guys are going through (Phil and Lewis don't have any interaction with each other alone) and I just think it gives this moron the type of insight and sensitivity to others that he's never had before. He is changed by this whole experience arguably more than the other guys.
