Eric Chamberlain Gyrus Interview
Gyrus has a basic three-act structure and a plot, but not a typical story with good guys and bad guys or an ending wrapped up nicely with a bow. What was your goal?
My intent was to create an impression of an event, rather than just a story with pictures. Almost like a milieu rather than an accounting of events. At the same time I felt I had to give the audience just enough information so they could hang on for the ride. Originally I had planned on the film having exposition, having things explained, things like infraviolet radiation, new kinds of evolution and so on, things that are described on www.vyrys.com, the web site of the corporation in the film. Ultimately I chose to avoid explaining anything, so that the audience could have a more immersive experience and be able to draw their own conclusions.
Gyrus seems like it could only be edited one way, that all the shots were designed as if you could see the film in your head. There is virtually no coverage. How did this come about?
I originally wanted the film to play as a series of moving master shots, each conveying layers of information as efficiently as possible. I wanted people to feel like they were immersed in the world of the film and not just watching something happening. The goal was to achieve this by avoiding any explanation of anything happening. I tried to give the audience just barely enough information to hang on for the ride, and no more. The rest is up to to their interpretation.
You made the completely on your own, which is mind-bending. Why did you do this?
Originally I was going to work with actors who would also act as crew. One person, a friend, was unable to do it, which meant that I would need to find two new actors for the roles. At that time, there were some health issues in the family that precluded new people, who weren't friends of the family, from being around the house. At a crossroads, I decided the film had to be made and so I wrote myself into both parts and accommodated the story for that. The interesting thing is that the film is more creative than if I had been able to use the more conventional approach.
How hard was it to do on your own?
It's less about ease or difficulty and more about persistence, problem-solving and having the courage to make a decision and move on to the next thing. It's basically less about arbitrary creativity and more about solving one problem after another. In fact, every time something failed or went wrong, it turned out t be an opportunity to find a solution that was superior to what I wanted to do in the first place, which is exactly what happened. Also, there were numerous examples of serendipity and what seemed like divine providence helping the film along, especially in production and post. It was an amazing experience.
There were some difficulties. I faced several health issues during production and post-production. I had two ambulance rides to the ER, one after collapsing at a Costco from overexertion. The second time, a similar situation, I had to get a CAT scan in addition to everything else. I hurt my knee while filming a shot on the side of a cliff that didn't even make it into the film. I had multiple doctor visits for shoulder and back injuries, and I finished the film wearing a heart monitor. I also found out that a homeless person was beheaded in the arroyo where I was shooting the beginning of the second and third acts. The person was so brutalized the authorities had to do DNA tests to find out whether it was male or female. Up in the open space, where the second act was shot, we have bears, mountain lions, rattlesnakes, everything you can imagine. I was out in these places with my gear, alone. If I had fallen and gotten hurt it would not have been easy to find me. For all the difficulties, I still consider myself fortunate.
Were there any downsides?
The main downside was that I didn't have other people to offer ideas based on their roles. Also, I was drilled into either the creative, technical or logistical aspects, respectively, at any given time, on top of preparing to act. I was always worried that I would miss something by doing everything. Fortunately serendipity just seemed to fall into my lap every time. Had I shot the film conventionally, I think it would've been less interesting, because I had to come up with innovative ways to get shots while being simultaneously in front of and behind the camera. I never would've been forced to think outside the tesseract and in doing so, I learned and invented more than I otherwise would. This is how obstacles can actually be a blessing in disguise. It's funny, though, doing it myself. People keep telling me I can't do what I keep doing. I don't know if it's me or them, but somebody's confused.
Why did you become a filmmaker?
I became a filmmaker to save my own life. I had to. It is the only way to truly live up to my potential. Before this I was self-destructive. It took me nearly half a century to realize that I had improperly governed creative energy. I also realized that it was my responsibility to use this creativity to position myself to help others, some who might not otherwise get a chance to work in these areas. Actually cinema is so resource-intensive that the only way can justify doing it is by being able to help others in some way, show them what I know, help them reach the next plateau. We live in a world wear people wear uniforms and get shot at and here I am doing make-believe. There has to be a way to justify it.
Did you go to film school?
I did, but I dropped out. I finished my degree doing independent studies that were part of the development of Gyrus. I did far more work than if I had stayed in the program. The professors and instructors were great, and I didn't leave because I thought I knew everything. It was a pivotal moment in which I had to choose between carving my own path through life or waiting to be told what to do. I love the irony of dropping out of film school to be a filmmaker, but the way the dots connect makes perfect sense. I used my leftover grants and loans to produce Gyrus.
Who are some of your favorite filmmakers?
It's hard to narrow it down because the way I think has changed. Whenever I see something new I think less about whether or not I like it and more about what I can learn from it and its motivations. So many different directors are good for different reasons. Carl Dreyer, David Lynch, Yasujiro Ozu, Kubrick, Bresson, Bergman ... the list goes on. I'm fond of Orson Welles and Roberto Rosselinin, as well. I look for people who understand that cinema is not a hodgepodge of existing art forms and their conventions, and is its own thing.
What is that, specifically?
To me, cinema is not a visual medium, which I know sounds crazy. It's a motion, change and juxtaposition medium. It could be visual, aural, aesthetic, emotional, psychological, anything that changes from one state to another can be compelling. I treat it not as a human invention, but as a human discovery. A film is a journey of discovery for both the director and the audience, equally . It's like trying to discover the form of a an invisible serpent of divine energy, always changing shape but always the same creature. Or it's like exploring a heretofore unknown geographic space. It should also be musical in nature, Not the genre, musical, although I like those, but the flow of information, how the stimuli is ingested, what it means psychologically, should be fluid in nature. Musical. It's a an amazing art form with limitless potential.
Explain Gyrus.
Generally I try to avoid explaining things. Watching a film is a collision between the art form of cinema and the life form, the audience. This means that what the audience brings is just as important as what I design. It also means, as I said, that the more I explain things, be it through exposition, dialog or in an interview, the more I am ripping off the audience by diluting their own psychological immersion.
And how do you create this in the first place?
I study how humans interpret stimuli. I think it's strange that the art form that offers the most potential for changing stimuli would be made by people who do not study how stimuli is interpreted. One thing I tried to do in Gyrus is blur or erase the line between diegetic and nondiegetic sound. So, for example, the :music" is actually made of the sounds of the world of the film. In fact, music is, to me, simply the aural form of cinema, rather than a distinct art form. If you consider what I said about motion, change and juxtaposition, then apply it to what we call music, it really is just a form of cinema. To me it is, anyway.
Was that difficult?
In order for everything to come together the right way, I had to design the aural part of the film backwards. The sounds that come together for the music had to be design and the music had to be composed so it sounded right first, then I took those individual pieces and applied them individually to the sounds of the world of the film.
How did you go about figuring out to define the music and sound?
I was going for a timeless feel so I avoided any kind of contemporary styles or trends. I had two basic approaches. One was to use old-sounding instrumentation with newer signal processing. I used some old Mellotron, Chamberlin and Orchestron instruments, which sound amazing to me. I also used recognizable elements, like choirs and organs, but I changed their characteristics to be surreal, yet recognizable.
I had a similar approach with the sound. I think it's crazy that we can hear at all, that we are aware of soundwaves. I am so grateful that I can hear. In a sense, sound is the most important part of film, because it is the plasma that binds the world of the film, making it real. You can do so much with just sound, you can make entire worlds only with sounds. I think it's important becasue it's the most primal of all sense, it allows you to be aware of things in real time, if when you can't see them. It's a very primal sense connected to survival, and so powerful in cinema. I wanted to create something otherworldly yet somehow recognizable, so all the sounds in the film are made from sounds sourced in the real world. Birds became angelspeak, water heaters became the sound of the Eden at the beginning of time, etc. There is also this notion of creating cinematic immersion by using sounds of real events for rhythms. It may not be obvious but the collective subconscious will make a mental connection to these sounds.
I was wondering about that. Do you think people would be put off or even offended by this?
The motivation for a thing is just as important as the thing, itself. Something properly motivated may offend some people, or be controversial, and still be acceptable. The same thing with an impure, subversive motivation would not be OK, at least not to me. That's where I draw the line. So, someone may be offended by something I do but that's on them, that's a choice, and it's understandable. But I'm not being subversive because I don't believe in using creative energy that way. I also avoid overt politics. Art has been associated with poltics since the dawn of time but I have to ask myself if it's wise to pollute this divine creative energy with the mudslinging sewage of tribal politics. For me, the answer is "No." I don't like it when filmmakers lecture me so I don't want to do that to others.
There some pretty heavy themes and imagery in the film, though.
Yes. I had this idea that the rapture is not a single event that is predicted, but rather an event that is always, eternally happening, based on our choices, or thoughts, actions and words. It's not a religious film, either, but I needed that angle as a doorway to the beyond. You don't grasp the gates of heaven by arguing about ice cream flavors. The religious imagery is a bit challenging, especially that sculpture at the Vatican. People ask what is this evil thing in your film and I say, "You tell me." Gyrus is a mirror. The only real antagonist, if there is one, is the audience. The world that you see, that is causing the phenomena in the film, is created by the audience, and in real life. What you feel about the characters, at least at first, is a reflection of yourself. You are projecting yourself onto these characters, and then they turn out to be different than you thought. The thing you thought they were is you. A great example of this is The Big City by Satyajit Ray.
What's next for director Eric Chamberlain?
I have a few possible films to develop and produce, based on different audiences and what other interested parties might be seeking. It also depends on potential distribution deals, so there are a variety of possibilities. Hopefully with success I will be able to help more people, so that working with me is not just a paycheck but a stepping stone.
What is the future of cinema?
All the work done by others have gotten us this far, and we an take the next steps together. To me, the future is not only about telling a story with pictures, but about creating a fluid, musical form of cinematic impressionism. This used to be cost prohibitive but no longer. There is a sense of discovery, both for the audience as well as the filmmaker. I like to say we are trying to discover the form of an invisible serpent made of divine energy, always changing shape but always one creature. We must all relearn to respect ourselves, the audience and the art form, so that we get the most of it. We should stop treating film as a disposable product, but rather art that exists in perpetuity, and has indexicality so that we can learn from it over time. Lastly I see cinema not as a human invention but rather as a human discovery of a heretofore unknown geographic space, one that we may all explore together.
