'Beside Still Waters' :: Undercurrents -- And Letting Go

There are many things that one must learn to let go of in life. It's like comfy old clothes, you have to know when it's time to toss that much-loved, tattered T-shirt or pair of jeans.

The same can be said of certain relationships. There comes a time when going back to something once comfortable and familiar, reveals itself to be just another process of letting go.

We all have stories about the things and people we have had to shed. Few of us, however, use that understanding to create a way for the world to share the experience. Chris Lowell has done just that with his new film, "Beside Still Waters." He and his writing partner, Mohit Narang, imagined a story that reflected what losing something familiar would feel like and put it to paper. Little did Lowell realize that what they were imagining and writing about would eventually come to pass.

Here's the story behind the story.

I enjoyed "Beside Still Waters" very much; there was something very familiar about it. Where was the film shot?

It was in Petoskey, Michigan, which is up north, on the lower peninsula of the state.

I knew it... I grew up in Northern Wisconsin. I thought I recognized the landscape.

Are you kidding me? You know what, you're not the first person to say that. I actually had somebody else recently come up to me and ask me if it was shot in Michigan. I can't believe it!

It's an interesting choice, because the landscape there is so unique and yet the film in so many ways seemed familiar.

You know, it's kind of funny, when we were trying to find the location to shoot, a big part of it for me, was wanting it to feel kind of like it could be anywhere in America, which I think it does. The northeast area and the architecture there, kind of feels very much like other parts of the country. It also reminded me the most of our home in Georgia. It was very quickly evident that it was just the right place to shoot the movie.

By pure coincidence, directly next door to where we were shooting, was the Ernest Hemingway estate; it was where he wrote all of the Nick Adams stories [a volume of short stories composed by Hemingway and published posthumously in
1972]. Actually, the old country store in which we have a scene from the film, is the actual store that he references in his stories.

Hemingway's early history in that area is pretty amazing. I understand the film is based on experiences you had where you grew up, is that correct?

That is right... it was inspired by the house in which I grew up, in Georgia. Ironically, we wrote the film before we lost the house. The idea, was sort of a "What would be a really terrible thing to happen for this story?" It was the idea that we couldn't go there anymore. A year later my parents called and told me "We sold the house!"

I, of course, had a complete emotional breakdown and moved back into the house for the 31 days of escrow, which is where and when I did my huge, photo portrait series. It was also where we ended up doing the first table read for the movie script. It was very... let's just put it this way, there was a lot of catharsis in doing it there.

What an amazing way to be able to say goodbye to an aspect of your childhood and the memory of the property.

Between that and all of the portraits I took, I just don't know what was left for me to do in order to say goodbye. Except, maybe, to light it on fire (laughs). I mean, it was like I really couldn't do anything else (laughs).

You co-wrote the script with Mohit Narang. I am curious to know how much his experiences came into play?

He certainly contributed as much to the story and the history of the place, the sort of ethos of the place, as I did because of the length of time he's been a part of it. Mo had been coming to the house for years, it was the place that we continually came back to throughout college and even after college.

That relationship definitely comes across in the film - the familiarity of it is expressed in the writing and in the way the characters interact.

Thank you for that. One of the biggest challenges was trying to get people to believe that it wasn't just another example of "the same eight friends getting together in a house movie," that has been done a million times already. Part of the way he and I were able to achieve that, I think, was that we weren't trying to make "The Big Chill" for millennials. I think that when people do these films, they try to include the things that are topical - that people our age are going through - sort of the buzz-worthy moments. For Mo and I, it was more about just telling our story, focused on the things that we know and the circumstances that we've actually experienced, to make it as specific and personal as possible.

Comparisons to other films like "The Big Chill" are inevitable. The difference, and I think a wise choice, was regarding the actors and the fact that they aren't necessarily "big names."

That is a great observation. When Mo and I were first thinking about casting, we watched every single frickin' reunion film out there, all the good ones and the many, many more bad ones. One of the things that we noticed with the films that didn't work, was that they were stacked with celebrities.

I wanted to work with actors, who when on screen, would really be believable and that they could have a real relationship together. Part of the process, was that all of the actors had to commit to chemistry reads and rehearsals and to the run of the picture. We all arrived at Petoskey a week early and the actors actually spent the whole time in the house. They cooked together, they drank and actu- ally played drinking games together and they went skinny-dipping. By the time principle photography had begun, they already had a shared history.

I enjoyed the way you handled the gay relationship in the film. It really just felt like another piece of the story rather than set apart because of it. What made you choose that particular course?

I get very frustrated at how LGBTs are portrayed in movies and on television. Often times, they're just broad, foppish, loud caricatures. I wanted to have a character in the film that went against those tropes. On top of that, I didn't feel it necessary to explain why he "has to be gay," which is something, for some stupid reason, that film and television seems to think they need an explanation for.

The movie is all about relationships, people who know each other very well.

They have to... for a film like this to work. You have to really believe that these characters have a relationship and history together that is real and isn't totally fabricated. It's funny, one of the questions I get asked a lot is, whether or not I knew the actors before. The answer to that is, "No." The only one that I knew was Beck [Bennett]; he was my roommate, freshman year at college (he plays Tom in the film). The first time that I met everybody else, for the most part, was when they auditioned for the film.

The icing on the cake is that they are all now some of my best friends. I'm totally obsessed with these freaking people (laughs). They're all friends with each other too, it's a good, solid group of people. I guess we did something right!

There's a great movement with many young filmmakers, who are "doing it differently" and building a wonderful cadre of films, not dependent on the studio system. Is that why you chose an independent film modality?

That's right, I feel like it's the new face of auteurs and filmmaking. They have to do it on their own, because the studio system has become so formulaic. It's very hard to even be given the opportunity to break the mold within it. PT Anderson ["Boogie Nights," "PunchDrunkLove," "There Will Be Blood"] is allowed to do it, because at this point in his career, anyone will let him do what ever he wants (laughs). Or, Scorsese or Tarantino, who are all profound, cinematic geniuses. For the rest of us, it necessitates making films outside of the studio system in order to tell the story your way - to break the mold whenever you can.

Thank the gods for Kickstarter!

Tell me about it. It's so funny how much that has done to change things, it's crazy.

It is my favorite thing about creative souls; they always find a way to invent a solution.

That's the nature of independent filmmaking. You have to think outside the box all the time. I think that was the biggest learning curve for Mo and I. I have worked as an actor for a long time now, so I know how a set is supposed to be run and all of that. I, of course, stupidly thought, "Not me, I know it all!" (Laughs) Though my delusion was supported by the pre-production of the film, which for the most part went so smoothly.

What I was in no way ready for, since I had never experienced it as an actor, was the slog that is getting a film to the finish line of distribution. That's where creativ- ity has to play a big part, you have to think outside of the box. You hit so many brick walls and so many dead ends during the process of getting the project to the light of day, that a lot of directors and producers just give up. They just can't see any way around it. People who get their films made, are the ones who see a problem and somehow just find a solution.

Well, congratulations on finding a solution for this one, I think the film is going to do well.

Thank you so much Joel, I really appreciate that.

"Beside Still Waters" is in theatres now and also available on iTunes, for more information on the film go to besidestillwatersfilm.com. For more information about Chris Lowell and his beautiful photography, go to chrislowellphotography.com