Back to results Interview : Charting his course Writer-director-editor Harold Brodie talks about making his second feature film, The Map Reader, which opened nationwide on 5 February. What inspired you to take up filmmaking? I decided to be a filmmaker in my late 20s after seeing Pather Panchali, directed by Satyajit Ray. That movie was my bolt of lightning. I felt so much for the characters in that movie. I felt like the movie had given me a gift and that, if I could make movies, I could give people a gift, too. I feel that stories are sacred things. So how did you go about becoming a filmmaker – formal education, a self-taught DIY approach, a combination of the two…? At the time I decided to be a filmmaker, I had recently completed a BA in Creative Writing, so writing screenplays came easy to me, and it was the first thing I did. Later I became interested in editing, because I saw that as similar to writing, just using different building blocks to tell stories. Pictures and sound, instead of words. I did a course in editing, which led to me working as an editor. This experience has proved very valuable in making my own films. I learned the grammar of film, the musicality of film. I made a few no-budget DIY projects back in the day. I even did one more recently. If you want to make films, you find a way. They always teach you something. What were the main lessons you took from making your first feature, Orphans and Angels? Firstly I knew I needed to spend more time developing the script, because Map needed to feel more real. And while I always liked the story for Orphans, if I had to do it today I think it would be very different. To improve as a director I knew I needed to shoot more takes and encourage more variety in the performances, to give myself more choices in editing. I also knew I wanted to move the camera more, to be more fluid. There were fewer set-ups in Orphans. With Map I knew I wanted more coverage. But the biggest lesson I think, though it may sound simple, was to consider the audience more. I wanted Map to communicate more directly with more people. So many decisions were based on that simple idea. What was the inspiration for The Map Reader? Given it’s a coming of age story it’s tempting to assume there’s at least an element of autobiography involved… The Map Reader began as a matter of practicality in that I wanted a New Zealand story that I could submit for funding. I thought about what made New Zealand unique, and my first answer was simply geography, how New Zealand’s unique physical place in the world has always helped shape the country’s identity. I also had a love for maps. Since I was very young, they always fascinated me. Reading maps was a daydream of some place far away and magical. Perhaps then it’s no surprise that I ended up living here for so long – I was born in Ohio, grew up in Washington DC, met a Kiwi girl in Dallas, got married in San Francisco, had a child in Auckland, and have lived here for 17 years. From your initial inspiration to when you began looking for finance for the project, how long did the scripting of The Map Reader take? The Map Reader was the third script I ever wrote. The very first draft was written in 1995, but I didn’t start looking for finance until 2002, as I was pursuing other projects, since I thought at the time that Map would require a larger scale budget, which was correct but not on the scale that I thought! From 2002 to shooting in 2007 the script went through a huge amount of rewrites and development, to the point where it was almost a completely different script from the original. Do you have a particular approach to writing that you favour? I always work from an outline that has the story laid out in full. I like to know where I’m going, then I flesh it out as I go. This can lead to new ideas and interesting tangents (and often rewrites). But I need the security of the script’s structure laid out for me, to know that, in 10 pages, I should have the characters and story at a certain place. How did you finance The Map Reader, and how did its budget compare to that of Orphans? Quite simply the film was financed by Arkles Entertainment, with the NZFC offering up initial development funds, and also some post-production funds at the very end. With respect to John [Davies] at Arkles I won’t divulge exact numbers other to say that we got very high production values for a very small amount of money. Orphans was done for about a quarter of the Map budget. I assume casting the key roles of Michael and Alison was a real challenge, given their youth. How did you go about this process and how long did it take? Were you seeking a happy medium between youth and experience? You are absolutely correct, it was a challenge, and we knew that getting the casting right would basically dictate if the film would succeed or not. I suppose this is true of most films but it seemed absolutely crucial to this one. So with that in mind I contacted every college and high school in New Zealand, basically opened the doors to anyone. Because of the youth factor, we knew it was likely we would end up “discovering” new talent, someone with not a lot of experience, someone who might be a natural in their role. So we set up auditions in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin, and saw hundreds of kids. Some travelled quite far to come to the auditions. We kept a completely open mind with them. I was actually learning from the process, seeing aspects of the roles changing with each new audition. We found some really great kids. There were some difficult decisions. We ended up having to delay production of the film a couple times, so in total we took a year to cast. Rebecca Gibney came over and read through with the eight finalists for the roles (four each for Michael and Alison), a couple months before shooting, trying out all combinations, etc. Even then the kids all approached the roles quite differently. It was a tough choice. Casting Rebecca Gibney as the lead character’s mother was presumably important in terms of getting the film up. How did she come to be on board? Was it gratifying to get the endorsement of such an established actor? (Of course, you’ve got Michael Hurst in a small key role too ...) Casting Rebecca Gibney was 100% the work of our producer John Davies. He had a relationship with her agent, I believe, and was able to get the script to her. Rebecca actually read it within a couple days, then phoned me. So in the space of 72 hours the movie leapt to life. Years and years of development, of begging and groveling, then in a few days it’s all go. Very gratifying to say the least. Michael Hurst I knew previously, I had edited one of the Treasure Island Kids movies that he directed. He is truly a saint of the local film industry, a guy with seemingly endless energy, optimism and professionalism. You were also blessed with some very experienced crew members – how were they enticed on board, given I presume the budget didn’t stretch to paying the fees they might normally command? Both the DOP, Renaud Maire, and the production designer, Shayne Radford, were alumni of the Daybreak features I worked on ( first as an editing assistant, then as an editor). So there were relationships there, amongst everyone, and this helped a lot. And once Rebecca Gibney was onboard, everyone’s ears perked up. You’re absolutely right about the budget, that was the next hurdle. I remember driving to Shayne’s house just a month before production, repeating a mantra to myself, “I will get Shayne Radford, I will get Shayne Radford...”. So begging and prayer were key. And they responded to the material, much like Rebecca. Sometimes it’s not about the money. But I wouldn’t want to do it again at that budget level. They deserve their fees many times over; they are among the best in New Zealand at what they do. How much pre-production did you have? I purposefully moved into my mother’s house three months before production to live rent-free and devote all my time to the movie. At times I felt like a one-person pre-production machine. I was very focused. Did you get the chance to rehearse with your cast at all before the shoot began? My feelings about rehearsals changed during the making of this film. I used to think that rehearsals were always going to happen, and that they were always beneficial. But I guess at some point during auditions I changed my mind. Instead of rehearsing with the cast, we’d just hang out. We’d talk about the material, we’d talk about other things. We’d get to know each other a little. With Bonnie Soper (who played Mary, a blind woman), we’d get to know each other a little while training with a guide dog. All this time was very valuable. Our energies became focused in the same direction, and we developed a mutual trust. Also I knew that I didn’t want to be in a rehearsal and wish I had the camera rolling. I wanted to give the cast the opportunity to play the material fresh to the camera for the first time. I trusted them to do that. I also told them not to worry, that I would make sure they would get the opportunity to try different approaches within each scene. So they trusted me to do that. What did the shoot involve? It was a 24-day shoot, four six-day weeks, 10-hour days. We spent the first week in Helensville, shooting exteriors around town and at Kaipara College. Michael’s house was in Avondale, and we shot some exteriors around there as well. We also shot at Takapuna Grammar, and at Muriwai Beach and Muriwai Valley Road. Alison’s house was in Titirangi. We shot in Auckland City at Santos Cafe on Quay Street. The kite scene near the end was at Shakespear Park in Whangaparoa. Mary’s house was in Eden Terrace. We shot at Auckland airport, and also in a large plane at the Hobsonville military base. I’m not sure about the minutes, each day was different. We ended up shooting about a 20 to 1 ratio. I was the editor, I wanted a lot of footage. We saved a little time and bother by not slating. Set-ups and takes would of course vary but it all worked very organically around the actors. We were there to serve them, I felt. We would block, light, and shoot. Renaud and I had already spent a solid week together in pre going to each location, so we knew how we wanted it to go. I can’t remember exactly how many set-ups per day we did, but I remember our first AD Jeremy Anderson being very impressed! Renaud is both a superb artist and very quick. He was invaluable to the film. Number of takes would vary, usually between four and 10. What were the biggest challenges of the shoot? For me personally it was not having a nervous breakdown! It’s such a strange thing, making a film. It’s something you have lived with for so long, so there’s all this anticipation built up. Then you put in the many weeks of pre, so then there’s more anticipation. Then the actual production hits like a bomb, happens so fast, you’re going so hard, getting hardly any sleep because you’re up late trying to figure out how to do it better... I was told that our production actually went quite smoothly. I suppose it did. The greatest pleasures? The greatest pleasure by far was being in the presence of such a wonderful and talented group of people. To experience this assemblage of such gifted artists and technicians was a rare privilege. I hope I get the chance to do it again some day. How long did the edit take? Did you give yourself some time between finishing the shoot and starting the edit, in order to approach the footage with a certain amount of freshness? I’m under the impression that the loss of any kind of objectivity, due to being over-familiar with the material and the circumstances in which it was created, is something of a danger? As I mentioned before editing is my day job, so I knew I had access to facilities, and freedom to edit in my spare time. But it’s difficult to work full-time as an editor and then edit a feature on top of that. So it took some time, about a year to get it right. It could have been done in a few months, but I was working alone, trying to find the time, and this was often difficult. I cut on an Avid Xpress Pro. I took a month off from the movie after shooting – I had to jump straight back into full-time work anyway and, as you say, the distance and freshness was a positive thing. You’re also quite correct about being over-familiar, and while I feel I’m strong as an editor, there’s the danger of being cooped up in your own bubble. To combat this I would simply show cuts to people, I would invite them to my house and get their reactions and we would talk about it. I would do this repeatedly with friends, family, fellow editors, and obviously the producer. You keep plugging away. Then one day a film festival accepts the film, and it’s time to stop! So how much does the finished film cleave to your script and how you’d originally visualised it, and how much has it changed – subtly or otherwise – thanks to the input of others, circumstances of the production etc? The first draft was in 1995, and it has changed a lot since then. I wrote the first draft before I had made any films, so when I re-visited the script many years later, after having made films, I made changes based upon my filmmaking experiences. Going through the process of seeing your words translated onto film teaches you a lot about how screenplays work, in terms of dialogue, pacing, structure, and getting across ideas visually and musically. The core character of Michael has remained fairly constant. Traditional screenwriting wisdom favours the active protagonist rather than passive, so Michael gradually became more active, although I knew I didn’t want Michael to become a traditional movie hero. But I did have some early script notes that urged this. Complete scenes and characters were abandoned from earlier versions. The Alison/Michael relationship gradually became the focus of the story. I learned to allow the characters to lead me, rather than the other way around. That may sound strange, but when I think that way, the characters end up becoming more real, when I respect them more. I should mention Pat Cox at this stage, he was the film’s first producer and we had many meetings over the course of a couple years, developing the material, so his input was substantial. Once the movie was in pre, there were changes made to accommodate the lower budget. For a long time I had quite a grandiose and expensive effects sequence at the end of the film, in the kite-flying scene. Let’s just say that I was persuaded by minds wiser than mine to do otherwise! What’s your pitch to the potential audience for the film as to why they should come see it? It’s an accessible film, and this was always what we had intended, a movie with strong performances in a universal story, executed with a visual grace, with a great soundtrack, thanks to Paul Ubana Jones, who definitely deserves a mention. What have you been working on recently? At the moment I am editing motorsport! It’s kinda fun, pays the bills and doesn’t seem to be affected too much by economics, at least my end of it. Regards other projects, I always have more feature scripts and treatments in the wings, that’s what happens when you have spent many years working to get to this point. It’s important to me to keep refining my scripts and ideas, to have them ready to follow up on any success from The Map Reader. I’d rather not yet divulge the content of these, it’s early days yet on the always-frustrating money-raising side of things. But you never know – as I’ve learned recently, in this business projects can lay long dormant, then suddenly spring to life. • See www.Flicks.co.nz for screening details and www.onfilm.co.nz for more Brodie, including his approach to directing his cast. © Copyright Onfilm magazine February 2009 All material appearing is copyright and cannot be reproduced without prior permission of the publisher. Please contact the copyright officer: Ph 0-9-845 5114, Email copyright@mediaweb.co.nz.	Username Password Keep me logged in on this computer Forgotten your password? Enter your email address and we will email your password to you:

Interview : Charting his course

Writer-director-editor Harold Brodie talks about making his second feature film, The Map Reader, which opened nationwide on 5 February.

What inspired you to take up filmmaking?
I decided to be a filmmaker in my late 20s after seeing Pather Panchali, directed by Satyajit Ray. That movie was my bolt of lightning. I felt so much for the characters in that movie. I felt like the movie had given me a gift and that, if I could make movies, I could give people a gift, too. I feel that stories are sacred things.

So how did you go about becoming a filmmaker – formal education, a self-taught DIY approach, a combination of the two…?
At the time I decided to be a filmmaker, I had recently completed a BA in Creative Writing, so writing screenplays came easy to me, and it was the first thing I did. Later I became interested in editing, because I saw that as similar to writing, just using different building blocks to tell stories. Pictures and sound, instead of words. I did a course in editing, which led to me working as an editor. This experience has proved very valuable in making my own films. I learned the grammar of film, the musicality of film.
I made a few no-budget DIY projects back in the day. I even did one more recently. If you want to make films, you find a way. They always teach you something.

What were the main lessons you took from making your first feature, Orphans and Angels?
Firstly I knew I needed to spend more time developing the script, because Map needed to feel more real. And while I always liked the story for Orphans, if I had to do it today I think it would be very different.
To improve as a director I knew I needed to shoot more takes and encourage more variety in the performances, to give myself more choices in editing. I also knew I wanted to move the camera more, to be more fluid. There were fewer set-ups in Orphans. With Map I knew I wanted more coverage.
But the biggest lesson I think, though it may sound simple, was to consider the audience more. I wanted Map to communicate more directly with more people. So many decisions were based on that simple idea.

What was the inspiration for The Map Reader? Given it’s a coming of age story it’s tempting to assume there’s at least an element of autobiography involved…
The Map Reader began as a matter of practicality in that I wanted a New Zealand story that I could submit for funding. I thought about what made New Zealand unique, and my first answer was simply geography, how New Zealand’s unique physical place in the world has always helped shape the country’s identity.
I also had a love for maps. Since I was very young, they always fascinated me. Reading maps was a daydream of some place far away and magical. Perhaps then it’s no surprise that I ended up living here for so long – I was born in Ohio, grew up in Washington DC, met a Kiwi girl in Dallas, got married in San Francisco, had a child in Auckland, and have lived here for 17 years.

From your initial inspiration to when you began looking for finance for the project, how long did the scripting of The Map Reader take?
The Map Reader was the third script I ever wrote. The very first draft was written in 1995, but I didn’t start looking for finance until 2002, as I was pursuing other projects, since I thought at the time that Map would require a larger scale budget, which was correct but not on the scale that I thought!
From 2002 to shooting in 2007 the script went through a huge amount of rewrites and development, to the point where it was almost a completely different script from the original.

Do you have a particular approach to writing that you favour?
I always work from an outline that has the story laid out in full. I like to know where I’m going, then I flesh it out as I go. This can lead to new ideas and interesting tangents (and often rewrites). But I need the security of the script’s structure laid out for me, to know that, in 10 pages, I should have the characters and story at a certain place.

How did you finance The Map Reader, and how did its budget compare to that of Orphans?
Quite simply the film was financed by Arkles Entertainment, with the NZFC offering up initial development funds, and also some post-production funds at the very end. With respect to John [Davies] at Arkles I won’t divulge exact numbers other to say that we got very high production values for a very small amount of money. Orphans was done for about a quarter of the Map budget.

I assume casting the key roles of Michael and Alison was a real challenge, given their youth. How did you go about this process and how long did it take? Were you seeking a happy medium between youth and experience?
You are absolutely correct, it was a challenge, and we knew that getting the casting right would basically dictate if the film would succeed or not. I suppose this is true of most films but it seemed absolutely crucial to this one. So with that in mind I contacted every college and high school in New Zealand, basically opened the doors to anyone.
Because of the youth factor, we knew it was likely we would end up “discovering” new talent, someone with not a lot of experience, someone who might be a natural in their role. So we set up auditions in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin, and saw hundreds of kids. Some travelled quite far to come to the auditions. We kept a completely open mind with them. I was actually learning from the process, seeing aspects of the roles changing with each new audition. We found some really great kids. There were some difficult decisions.
We ended up having to delay production of the film a couple times, so in total we took a year to cast. Rebecca Gibney came over and read through with the eight finalists for the roles (four each for Michael and Alison), a couple months before shooting, trying out all combinations, etc. Even then the kids all approached the roles quite differently. It was a tough choice.

Casting Rebecca Gibney as the lead character’s mother was presumably important in terms of getting the film up. How did she come to be on board? Was it gratifying to get the endorsement of such an established actor? (Of course, you’ve got Michael Hurst in a small key role too ...)
Casting Rebecca Gibney was 100% the work of our producer John Davies. He had a relationship with her agent, I believe, and was able to get the script to her. Rebecca actually read it within a couple days, then phoned me. So in the space of 72 hours the movie leapt to life. Years and years of development, of begging and groveling, then in a few days it’s all go. Very gratifying to say the least.
Michael Hurst I knew previously, I had edited one of the Treasure Island Kids movies that he directed. He is truly a saint of the local film industry, a guy with seemingly endless energy, optimism and professionalism.

You were also blessed with some very experienced crew members – how were they enticed on board, given I presume the budget didn’t stretch to paying the fees they might normally command?
Both the DOP, Renaud Maire, and the production designer, Shayne Radford, were alumni of the Daybreak features I worked on ( first as an editing assistant, then as an editor). So there were relationships there, amongst everyone, and this helped a lot. And once Rebecca Gibney was onboard, everyone’s ears perked up.
You’re absolutely right about the budget, that was the next hurdle. I remember driving to Shayne’s house just a month before production, repeating a mantra to myself, “I will get Shayne Radford, I will get Shayne Radford...”. So begging and prayer were key. And they responded to the material, much like Rebecca. Sometimes it’s not about the money. But I wouldn’t want to do it again at that budget level. They deserve their fees many times over; they are among the best in New Zealand at what they do.

How much pre-production did you have?
I purposefully moved into my mother’s house three months before production to live rent-free and devote all my time to the movie. At times I felt like a one-person pre-production machine. I was very focused.

Did you get the chance to rehearse with your cast at all before the shoot began?
My feelings about rehearsals changed during the making of this film. I used to think that rehearsals were always going to happen, and that they were always beneficial. But I guess at some point during auditions I changed my mind. Instead of rehearsing with the cast, we’d just hang out. We’d talk about the material, we’d talk about other things. We’d get to know each other a little. With Bonnie Soper (who played Mary, a blind woman), we’d get to know each other a little while training with a guide dog.
All this time was very valuable. Our energies became focused in the same direction, and we developed a mutual trust. Also I knew that I didn’t want to be in a rehearsal and wish I had the camera rolling. I wanted to give the cast the opportunity to play the material fresh to the camera for the first time. I trusted them to do that. I also told them not to worry, that I would make sure they would get the opportunity to try different approaches within each scene. So they trusted me to do that.

What did the shoot involve?
It was a 24-day shoot, four six-day weeks, 10-hour days. We spent the first week in Helensville, shooting exteriors around town and at Kaipara College. Michael’s house was in Avondale, and we shot some exteriors around there as well. We also shot at Takapuna Grammar, and at Muriwai Beach and Muriwai Valley Road. Alison’s house was in Titirangi. We shot in Auckland City at Santos Cafe on Quay Street. The kite scene near the end was at Shakespear Park in Whangaparoa. Mary’s house was in Eden Terrace. We shot at Auckland airport, and also in a large plane at the Hobsonville military base.
I’m not sure about the minutes, each day was different. We ended up shooting about a 20 to 1 ratio. I was the editor, I wanted a lot of footage.
We saved a little time and bother by not slating. Set-ups and takes would of course vary but it all worked very organically around the actors. We were there to serve them, I felt. We would block, light, and shoot. Renaud and I had already spent a solid week together in pre going to each location, so we knew how we wanted it to go.
I can’t remember exactly how many set-ups per day we did, but I remember our first AD Jeremy Anderson being very impressed! Renaud is both a superb artist and very quick. He was invaluable to the film.
Number of takes would vary, usually between four and 10.

What were the biggest challenges of the shoot?
For me personally it was not having a nervous breakdown! It’s such a strange thing, making a film. It’s something you have lived with for so long, so there’s all this anticipation built up. Then you put in the many weeks of pre, so then there’s more anticipation. Then the actual production hits like a bomb, happens so fast, you’re going so hard, getting hardly any sleep because you’re up late trying to figure out how to do it better... I was told that our production actually went quite smoothly. I suppose it did.

The greatest pleasures?
The greatest pleasure by far was being in the presence of such a wonderful and talented group of people. To experience this assemblage of such gifted artists and technicians was a rare privilege. I hope I get the chance to do it again some day.

How long did the edit take? Did you give yourself some time between finishing the shoot and starting the edit, in order to approach the footage with a certain amount of freshness? I’m under the impression that the loss of any kind of objectivity, due to being over-familiar with the material and the circumstances in which it was created, is something of a danger?
As I mentioned before editing is my day job, so I knew I had access to facilities, and freedom to edit in my spare time. But it’s difficult to work full-time as an editor and then edit a feature on top of that. So it took some time, about a year to get it right. It could have been done in a few months, but I was working alone, trying to find the time, and this was often difficult.
I cut on an Avid Xpress Pro. I took a month off from the movie after shooting – I had to jump straight back into full-time work anyway and, as you say, the distance and freshness was a positive thing. You’re also quite correct about being over-familiar, and while I feel I’m strong as an editor, there’s the danger of being cooped up in your own bubble. To combat this I would simply show cuts to people, I would invite them to my house and get their reactions and we would talk about it. I would do this repeatedly with friends, family, fellow editors, and obviously the producer. You keep plugging away. Then one day a film festival accepts the film, and it’s time to stop!

So how much does the finished film cleave to your script and how you’d originally visualised it, and how much has it changed – subtly or otherwise – thanks to the input of others, circumstances of the production etc?
The first draft was in 1995, and it has changed a lot since then. I wrote the first draft before I had made any films, so when I re-visited the script many years later, after having made films, I made changes based upon my filmmaking experiences. Going through the process of seeing your words translated onto film teaches you a lot about how screenplays work, in terms of dialogue, pacing, structure, and getting across ideas visually and musically.
The core character of Michael has remained fairly constant. Traditional screenwriting wisdom favours the active protagonist rather than passive, so Michael gradually became more active, although I knew I didn’t want Michael to become a traditional movie hero. But I did have some early script notes that urged this.
Complete scenes and characters were abandoned from earlier versions. The Alison/Michael relationship gradually became the focus of the story. I learned to allow the characters to lead me, rather than the other way around. That may sound strange, but when I think that way, the characters end up becoming more real, when I respect them more.
I should mention Pat Cox at this stage, he was the film’s first producer and we had many meetings over the course of a couple years, developing the material, so his input was substantial.
Once the movie was in pre, there were changes made to accommodate the lower budget. For a long time I had quite a grandiose and expensive effects sequence at the end of the film, in the kite-flying scene. Let’s just say that I was persuaded by minds wiser than mine to do otherwise!

What’s your pitch to the potential audience for the film as to why they should come see it?
It’s an accessible film, and this was always what we had intended, a movie with strong performances in a universal story, executed with a visual grace, with a great soundtrack, thanks to Paul Ubana Jones, who definitely deserves a mention.

What have you been working on recently?
At the moment I am editing motorsport! It’s kinda fun, pays the bills and doesn’t seem to be affected too much by economics, at least my end of it.
Regards other projects, I always have more feature scripts and treatments in the wings, that’s what happens when you have spent many years working to get to this point. It’s important to me to keep refining my scripts and ideas, to have them ready to follow up on any success from The Map Reader.
I’d rather not yet divulge the content of these, it’s early days yet on the always-frustrating money-raising side of things. But you never know – as I’ve learned recently, in this business projects can lay long dormant, then suddenly spring to life.

• See www.Flicks.co.nz for screening details and www.onfilm.co.nz for more Brodie, including his approach to directing his cast.

© Copyright Onfilm magazine February 2009

All material appearing is copyright and cannot be reproduced without prior permission of the publisher.

Please contact the copyright officer: Ph 0-9-845 5114, Email copyright@mediaweb.co.nz.

Search text

Results per page

Order by

Publications to search

Fields to search

Date range

Interview : Charting his course

Writer-director-editor Harold Brodie talks about making his second feature film, The Map Reader, which opened nationwide on 5 February.