|
He's
been called the Iranian Woody Allen by those speaking Hollywoodese.
In fact, there is something reminiscent of the New York neurosis-meister
in the way Los Angeles filmmaker Caveh Zahedi takes us on a cinematic
tour of his own psychological bends in I Don't Hate Las Vegas Anymore.
And, as with Allen, questions of faith and God and sex figure prominently
in the maker's mind. The comparison, however, stops there. Zahedi's
ultra low-budget, reflexive, vérité second feature
shares little in the way of narrative strategies or production values
with the Woodman's classic comedies. Zahedi, who clearly relishes
being in front of the cameras, is our personal guide on an entirely
contigent journey with his father and younger half-brother (plus
a very forebearing three-person crew) to Las Vegas where he tries
to achieve familial closeness by convincing his father and brother
to take the drug Ecstasy with him. He also tries to keep convincing
us—and himself—that a movie is actually taking place,
even when someone fails to turn the camera on. Judging by audience
reaction at the San Francisco International Film Fest, where Las
Vegas had its North American premiere, Zahedi has, at least, half-succeeded.
Many found the movie very funny and refreshing; others found it
a humorless exercise in high-concept self-indulgence. Indeed, Zahedi
is by turns a charming and irritating filmic guide. Amid mock-serious
self-revelations and pop-funny social observations—he has
a great sense of comic timing—Zahedi also reveals himself
to be a somewhat calculating, even cold-heated filmmaker who can
switch in a heartbeat from comforting a broken-hearted crew member
to asking if that scene of comfort got on film. Zahedi leaves us
questioning his sincerity perhaps more than he wanted, but to his
credit he leaves such uncomplimentary bits in the film. Zahedi (whose
first feature was A Little Stiff) was in town for the SFIFF shows
and we asked Lisanne Skyler to talk with him for RP —Ed.
LS:
In what ways did your budget for I Don't Hate Las Vegas Anymore
restrict or enhance your filmmaking?
CZ:
My budget defined the film. it was made because I had $20,000, and
I had to think of a $20,000 film.
If
you had had $40,000?
About
the same. Now, if I'd had $300,000, I would have shot the script
I wrote.
What
was the original script?
It
was a John Cassavetes homage. I have this friend who is a poet,
and he imitates other people. He says that you think you're imitating
someone's style and you're really not. It's different and that difference
is your style. So I thought it would be interesting to make films
like other people's. [My films] are all homages to somebody. Well,
I mean you think it's an homage to somebody and then it really isn't.
But when I wrote it, it was an homage to Cassavetes. And Godard.
So
you had the script and it was an homage to Cassavetes and Godard
and you couldn't get the funding for it?
Right.
You see, I've been making films for a long time. I've done all kinds
of styles. At some point [earlier on], I was trying to make narrative
films. You know, mainstream films. And I just couldn't really. It
didn't feel right. I'd been writing a script about vivisection...
you know, experimenting on animals, and I'm against that. I think
life is sacred. So I was writing a script about it, but I didn't
know anything really. I know people go out and research stuff and
get to know a subject. It's a temperament thing, I guess, but I
just didn't like doing that. [So] I was trying to write about something
I knew nothing about, and as much as I could try to research it,
I never really would feel confident that I knew what I was talking
about. So...I know the person who met Jean-Luc Godard. He asked
him his advice to young filmmakers. Godard said, "Get a video
camera and make films about your parents."
Did
Godard do that?
No,
he never did. But I attribute that to mean, don't worry about budget,
don't worry about that kind of stuff, just make films about what
you know, and that you have feelings about. I think that's really
why I made [Las Vegas]. Before this I made a film called A Little
Stiff. I was writing the vivisection script and I took acid one
day and was laying on my back and I saw a plane writing in the sky.
I forget what it was saying, but it was something strange that on
acid just seemed written for me. And I had this vision of Buddha
holding a flower in his hand. I felt what that meant was beauty
or reality or truth or whatever is given, it's waiting here to be
taken. You don't have to work for it. It's just there. And the clouds
were so beautiful, it was like, why make a film about vivisection
when everything around me is so beautiful? It's a question of being
able to see it. It seemed after that that I really wanted to make
films about ordinary things and show them in such a way that people
could appreciate them. I guess what I don't like about Hollywood
is that it invalidates your life, you know, the whole star system
and beauty system...invalidates the lives that we actually experience.
So I felt it was important to validate the things we all feel and
experience. A Little Stiff was an attempt to do that. I wanted to
take the most ordinary thing that I knew something about, and it
had to be my life. I took my most recent crush on a girlfriend.
It seemed everyone could relate to that, a crush, it was simple
and I could, you know, control the locations. Just my apartment,
her apartment. I made that film against the whole Hollywood narrative
thing. Actually, I saw a John Ford film at the same time called
Fort Apache. I'm not a big Ford fan, but there was a moment in the
film where they're drinking alcohol on this cliff and they're deciding
what they're going to do to kill the Indians or something. And one
of the guys takes a bottle and throws it off the cliff. There's
this three-second moment when—it's a wide-angle shot, a real
long shot—we're just waiting for the bottle to hit. It's this
beautiful moment that had nothing to do with the narrative, the
experience of throwing a bottle off a cliff and waiting to see how
long it's going to take before it hits. To me that was exciting,
an extra-narrative moment that was so beautiful. So the whole film
was kind of trying to stay on that line between narrative and non-narrative
and never go so far out that you lose the story and get bored. But
the narrative was not central. It was really just trying to find
all those moments and string them together. I'm getting side-tracked...
We're
talking about the original script for Las Vegas.
Right,
so after I made [A Little Stiff], I heard the thing about Godard
and I said I'd make a film about my parents [but] my mother would
never consent, so I'll do my father. I wondered how could I make
a film about my parents since all they ever do is go to Las Vegas
every weekend. So I thought, well, why don't I go with them? At
this time I was into recording everything and I hadn't really written
a screenplay. I had blocks about it, writer's block. So I thought,
why not just tape record our conversations. I knew that would be
more interesting than anything I could think of. It'll take me three
days. Worse that happens is it's terrible, but it's just a three-day
investment, $50 in tapes. So I did it. I had a Walkman and just
recorded and I thought, "God, was pretty interesting."
All the little epiphanic moments. I actually asked a bunch of people
what film I should make after A Little Stiff. I had more commercial
ideas and everybody said they liked the Las Vegas idea, which surprised
me. It was my favorite too, because it was the most personal. Also,
American Playhouse was saying they were interested in films about
Arabs because the Gulf War had just happened.
How
did you feel about being put into a category like that?
Oh,
I was happy.
Really?
Why?
Because
it was money. I mean anything they wanted, any way they would give
me money was fine with me. But they ended up not liking the script.
Good Machine was going to produce it and they couldn't raise the
money. Jim Stark was involved for a while and they went to all these
people and everybody said, "No, it's not commercial enough,
it's not narrative enough." They thought it was too weird.
But it was a good script and people liked it, but we didn't have
a three-act structure and the arc. It was very Cassavetes-like,
all these moments that led to a very subtle epiphany. But, you know,
to shoot it, I would have needed permits and would have had to shoot
underwater. We budgeted it and it was $300,000. I didn't get the
money and two years went by. Finally, I got a grant for $20,000.
And I had no money at all. I couldn't pay my rent. In the meantime,
I'd also written another script called I Am a Sex Addict, and I
wanted to that film more because it was newer. I didn't know if
I should take the money and make [Sex Addict], just say I changed
[projects], sorry guys. But I thought that would be dishonest. So
I told the [grant administrator] American Film Institute my predicament
and they said as long as I kept the same title and the same basic
premise, I could change it a little bit, but if it was a whole different
thing, I had to get the NEA to approve it. I thought the NEA would
never approve [Sex Addict] because it was very hard core and not
very PC. So I said, "O.K., I'll make [Las Vegas] first."
I knew it would make no money.
You
really got it done for $20,000?
No.
I got two more grants. One was $6,000 from the city of L.A. An Iranian
grant. They give money to minority groups in the city. So I said,
"I'm Iranian. It's about Iranians."
Are
you happy with Las Vegas?
Oh,
yeah, I love it. I keep changing it. Right now, there's one scene
I'm not happy with. I might want to cut it down a bit.
Did
you watch it on Sunday [at the San Francisco International Film
Festival]? What was the response?
It's
always astonishingly positive. I mean, there are people who hate
it passionately, people who walk out, people who think it's incredibly
self-indulgent and egomaniacal, and that hurts, it always hurts.
That
hurts you?
Oh,
yeah. Sure. I'm getting better at it, I guess. One is supposed to
get tougher. I mean, I don't even know what that means, self-indulgent.
What's not self-indulgent? It's just a catagory, not a category
that I embrace. I can understand ego--that's a category--and somebody
is ego-less or full of ego, but self-indulgent? My concept of the
self is that it's transpersonal, and that by going towards the truest,
deepest self, one attains the most universal, communal self. You
reach others through the self and you reach the self through others.
It's one of those things that at one extreme becomes the other thing.
To say something is self-indulgent is not to see how the extremes
merge. I think that art is self-indulgent in the sense that it's
going within as in any spiritual quest. You go within to emerge
on the other side. So the self-indulgent argument bugs me because
it's such a different model of the self than the one I have. It
implies that if you go in toward the self you cut yourself off from
other people and that's bad.
Have
people been critical of you specifically about the Ecstacy in terms
of your dad's health?
Some
people. I guess that's the main problem people have with it. They
feel that it is immoral, that what I do is immoral.
And
you do you feel about it?
There
are so many levels. I don't believe anything is immoral. That's
another category I don't really understand. I think there was definitely
an unconscious paracidal impulse, part of me that wants him dead,
unconsciously. That was one element of the film that I think I tried
to be honest about. On another level, part of me was trying to prove
something about God. It was like a gamble and people think it's
irresponsible to gamble with someone else's life. I can see that,
but I mean I gamble with my life and I gamble with other lives too.
It's a weird thing. I guess it wasn't totally benevolent what I
was doing, but I just used my intuition. I just thought that it's
going to be a good thing if he takes this. True, he could die, it
could be bad, but you know I didn't think it was going to be and
then...it was a leap of faith.
Are
you still going to try and produce I Am A Sex Addict?
I'm
still trying, but actually I shot another film a few days ago.
What's
that about?
It's
called I Was Possessed by God. I've been experimenting with mushrooms
for a few years. A year ago on Valentine's Day, I'd been taking
large doses...I've been reading Terence McKenna's books, he to take
heroic doses. I've done that. On this day I had an extraordinary
experience and...I was possessed by a being which I don't know how
to describe except as an angel or the holy spirit. This being knew
everything and spoke in a voice that was not my voice and gave me
information that I couldn't possibly know. It was the strangest
thing, complete ecstasy and very spiritual--a sacred, holy, spiritual,
religious kind of thing. I thought I must have attained a new spiritual
plateau, that I'm accessing this spirit, these angelic forces. I
took it again a month later to try to go there again, and I had
a bad trip. I thought I was dying for six hours. I did it again
and had an interesting experience and I had a vision of God, but
it wasn't the possession spirit....I didn't do it again till January
1st of this year. My girlfriend....was there but she didn't want
to take it, because she is afraid of drugs. I took three grams on
January 1 and I had that possession again. This voice spoke through
me and I was doing somersaults and flips in the air that I've never
been able to do. I was being hurled around the room. I was like
a thousand trillion watts of energy and my girlfriend was there,
writing down what I was saying. At one point the voice said, and
he talked like this, "THIS! IS! THE! VOICE! OF! THE! SIBYL!"
It was very scary for her.
I
can imagine.
It
wasn't angry. It sounded angry but it was just this incredible energy
that was going through me and it came out as incredible volume.
It said that it was an oracle and the voice of the Sibyl and to
ask it questions. [My girlfriend] asked all these questions and
it answered. The first question was, "What should I do about
my writer's block?" I don't know how but I knew how to let
it speak. I could go back and forth between me and it. I could comment
on it in my voice and we'd argue. I'd say something and it would
yell at me and I would say something and it would say something
back. My eyes would kind of go up in my head and I'd wait for maybe
three seconds for the answer. And it said, "YOU! DON'T! HAVE!
WRITER'S! BLOCK! THERE! IS! NO! SUCH! THING!" I felt like the
voice, the being, wanted me to...record this. Well this was pretty
trippy and it goes against people's ideas about God and humans,
but at one point, it kept saying something about a lie. It kept
saying, "LIE!" It was really stern, and it wasn't at all
my vision of God which is very gentle and Jesus-like. This was an
Old Testament kind of thing. My girlfriend asked, "What lie
does Caveh do?" And the voice goes, "MY! NAME! IS! GOD!"
Then I was thrown to the ground and put my forehead right on the
ground. I felt that was a way of God telling me not to interpret
this in an ego way. It's a very humble thing to be--God. It was,
you know, trippy. And I thought, "O.K., I'm suppossed to make
a film about this." So I got a camera and was going to wait
until I had enought money to do it right. I was going to grow mushrooms
and show that and do it a bunch of times. I thought if God exists
and I'm supposed to so this, then God will deal with the money.
Did
he?
Well,
yeah, he did. He never dealt with it as well as I would've liked.
I was going to start shooting on my birthday, last Friday, April
29, and I had no money at all. I said, "Well, the money will
come," and it came in little dribbles. Jay Rosenblatt sent
me $100 and some other friends sent me $300. Somebody sent me some
short ends. I rented a camera for $275, got a deal, had these short
ends and shot it for $400. I had a camerman and a sound person.
Suzanne [my girlfriend] did sound, and we filmed it, and it happened.
The God thing came, and for a half hour I was struggling with it
and I didn't know if it was going to happen or not, and it occured
to me that it was a choice. I think everything is a choice on a
very deep level. I'd had this weird illness and I believe that illness
is psychological and spiritual. So Suzanne asked it why I was ill.
It gave this answer which was shocking to me, and at one point it
said I would be healed. I went [clap sound]...and it was going.
So that's what my next film is. I'm still trying to raise money
for Sex Addict.
What's
it like directing and acting? How do you orchestrate these roles?
It's
nice. I mean, it's harder. I just have to give up more control during
the shooting. I have to trust everybody else. I don't at all think
about the camera. I don't think about aesthetic things. I just say,
"You guys use your own judgement." [With Las Vegas], I
never looked behind the camera. In [I Was Possessed by God], I was
on drugs, so I didn't even think about it. My films aren't controlled
in that way. That's not what I do. I mean, there are so many great
directors who are able to control the image. We talked about making
your flaws your assets. I don't think I'm the greatest filmmaker.
I don't know much about cinematography or storyboarding. The one
thing I have which I think is special is I think I'm brave. Maybe
it's a kind of narcissism or exhibitionism or confessionalism. I
don't know what psychological quirk makes me this way, but I'm willing
to be honest and upfront about things in a way that most people
aren't...and that's what I try to maximize.
It's
an interesting point. Often the director has to put on a facade
of being in control.
I
think it's oppressive. Because it's not real. Nobody knows all the
answers, and nobody is in control. It's just a lie. One of my gripes
in filmmaking is the absurd hierarchizaton of things. My way is
to try and work with friends who respect me, so if I don't know
what to do and I'm freaking out, they're not going to go, "Oh,
he's not as intelligent as we thought." When you have crews
and you don't know them and they're techies who have this ego thing
about being professional...I've been in that situation and it was
murder. Everybody is judging you while you are trying to be creative.
So I say never again am I going to have anyone on the set who I
don't know already.
How
did you approach editing Las Vegas?
First,
I panicked because I felt it was terrible..., that no one would
find this funny or interesting and I had made a big mistake and
my career was over. I come out of an experimental film background,
so I decided I was going to cut the film to very tight segments,
just because I didn't trust the material. Also my last film was
minimalist and subtle and very simple and I went to these festivals
and I could tell people weren't appreciating the film. I would see
other films that I thought were not as good as mine that would get
much more acclaim.... I felt that in my next film I wanted to be
noticed. Because A Little Stiff was subtle, I thought people would
see it was sweet, but it went right by them, whereas Poison [by
Todd Haynes, also at Sundance '91] had intense scenes with people
spitting at each other, really transgressive stuff. I felt that
I could out-transgress everybody if that's the game.
Do
you think that's what it's about?
On
some level. On the marketing level, I Am a Sex Addict is an attempt
to address that. It was, "O.K., I'll show you transgression."
It was an ego thing. I wanted to be noticed. I wanted to be recognized
and respected. I felt that I hadn't been sufficiently. Um, what
was the question? Editing [Las Vegas]...oh yeah. So I started making
an arty, pretentious film. I think I was trying to impress everybody--I
was doing this quick cutting and the weird stuff and had all these
intertitles that I thought were strange. Rick Linklater [who directed
Slacker, also at Sundance '91] let me use his non-linear editing
system for free, so I went out there [to Austin] for about a month
and tried to cut on that. Because it was so flexible, I was able
to do really quick cuts very easily. I showed it to someone. They
said, "Caveh, you're out of your mind." So we put everything
back and made scenes longer and re-established it.
Are
you optimistic about getting funding for your next projects?
I
am but because I believe in God not because I believe in the fairness
of the world. I believe everything is a choice and I choose to make
film. A realization I had a couple months ago was [that] I Am a
Sex Addict has a million dollar budget...and I've never done anything
with that kind of budget before and I don't really have the credentials
to get the money. It's not commonsensical to give money to me, but
I just feel if I want it more than anything I will find a way.
Have
you talked to any distributors about Las Vegas?
No.
Nobody has said anything. It actually won a critic's prize at Rotterdam.
The critics loved it and picked it as one of their favorite films,
but it's just too weird. I think we'll be lucky if we just make
a TV sale and recoup some of our money. We broke even with A Little
Stiff. I made a German TV sale which paid for the film. But it didn't
pay for living. So I'm not very optimistic about distribution for
Vegas. I haven't teally started the process of trying to find a
distributor yet. This is the first showing in America, then I'm
going to show it in L.A. in June...
At
the AFI Festival?
No,
they rejected it. Almost everyone has rejected it. Berlin, Sundance,
New Directors, AFI...
I
heard that Sundance didn't know what category to put it in.
No,
they just hated it.
Oh,
I should ask you what I ask everyone I interview. If you were interviewing
a filmmaker, say it was Tarkovsky...
I
would want to know what his favorite films are. I always want to
know. I know what his favorite films are.
What
Tarkovsky's favorite films are?
He
likes Diary of a Country Priest by Bresson and Virgin Spirng by
Bergman, and he likes Buñuel. He really likes Paradjanov.
It's in his book. I think I would also ask him for advice.
What
would your advice be?
Trust
yourself. Have faith. Believe that whatever you feel or think or
know is worth expressing.
Release
Print © 1994
|