Copyright Deadline
With Roofman, Paramount’s true-crime dramedy starring Channing Tatum, producers Lynette Howell Taylor, Jamie Patricof, and Alex Orlovsky departed from their usual territory mined alongside Oscar-nominated filmmaker Derek Cianfrance. Previously, they’d collaborated on a pair of richly directed and performed, and very serious dramas — Blue Valentine and The Place Beyond the Pines. Both starred Ryan Gosling, who led their first film as a producing trio, in 2006’s Half Nelson. Whereas Blue Valentine looked at a crumbling marriage, Pines meditated on two intertwined, tragic tales of fatherhood. And Cianfrance’s I Know This Much Is True — a Mark Ruffalo HBO miniseries backed by Taylor and Patricof — was similarly weighty. The producing trio knew, after these experiences, that Cianfrance contained multitudes not represented in his earlier works, and that he also was ready for a change of pace. And when they approached him with Roofman, a stranger-than-fiction true story of an Army reservist turned gentleman robber, played by Tatum, he was immediately sold. Roofman‘s protagonist, Jeffrey Manchester, rose to infamy with a series of clever (and polite) McDonalds robberies where he’d drill through the roof to break in and place employees in the restaurant freezer while doing his work — always making sure that they had a coat while they were in there, and that they’d get help quickly upon his exit. When was caught in 2000 and sentenced to 45 years in prison, he faced the devastation of his wife and children cutting ties with him. At one point he managed to escape and hide out for some time in a makeshift space he carved out within a Charlotte, North Carolina Toys “R” Us. And in his desperate need for human connection, he’d sneak out intermittently to connect with local churchgoers, despite the fact that police were eager to place him back behind bars. To the producers of the film, which launched out of TIFF, this story represents more than just the sort of quality adult storytelling that isn’t made enough these days. It’s also emblematic of the kind of “responsible, smart, dedicated filmmaking” that’s needed now as filmmakers attempt to navigate truly turbulent and unpredictable times of contraction. In the following conversation, current AMPAS President Taylor joins Patricof and Orlovsky to discuss how you “can still make cool sh*t that stands the test of time,” in a time like none the industry has weathered before, while looking back at the indie drama that launched an enduring partnership. DEADLINE: I’m always amazed by the tenacity of producers — the ability to sustain a vision and a passion for a project over a long period of time. Roofman, in particular, took five or six years to come to fruition, and obviously, you all came to the project via a long-term relationship with Derek Cianfrance, someone you’d probably follow anywhere. That being said, what was it about this story that resonated with you, to the extent that it was worth the journey? JAMIE PATRICOF: As you said, we’ve been working with Derek for over 20 years now, collectively. And when this story was brought to me with the idea of bringing it to him, it just felt like a no-brainer for where we knew he was at, creatively. I think he gets pigeonholed as this dark, dramatic director, but ultimately he’s a really fun guy. He loves horror; he loves all these different genres, and the previous projects have sort of been where he’s been at in his career. A story with a true story with a guy like Jeff [Manchester], who’s so complicated, and is funny, but at the same time is a real family guy, who’s really just trying to do his best, was going to be perfect for Derek. And when I told him the top line, it instantly grabbed his attention. And we were off to the races almost five years ago. For us, five years is like a drop in the bucket. DEADLINE: Two things struck me about this film. It’s refreshing in its effort to humanize — to sit with the complexities and contradictions of a flawed human being. And secondly, it’s comforting in its nostalgia for what seemed to be far simple and more kind times — an era when the likes of Toys”R”Us and Blockbuster still loomed large… LYNETTE HOWELL TAYLOR: I think one of the things that the movie does is, it allows its lead character to be human in the way that we all are, which is that we are all many things. There’s been so much extremism in the last five to eight years across the board, and people have been earmarked as being one thing or another. And the truth is that none of us are one thing or another. We are all complicated, where some of our decisions and the way that we walk through the world has so much to do with outside influence and choices that we have access to or don’t have access to. One of the things that we all love the most about this movie and about this character is that Jeff is just inherently human. He really is the guy that gives employees his coat before he puts them in the freezer, and then really does call and make sure that they get out safely. Because he cares. And he’s also somebody that is robbing with a dangerous weapon. Those two things really are both true…and I think we need more understanding [of] the complexity of ourselves, being accepting that we can have wildly different opinions, but there’s always stuff that unites us. Grace is something that I think we need to give a little more, being open to listening and hearing other people, and so I feel like for us, that’s the reason why the movie is resonating with people, in addition to it just being a really dynamic and “What the f*ck?” kind of story. And Derek is such a talented director. He knows how to find the humanity in every character. That’s what he does so well. DEADLINE: This film seems to occupy that grey area between indie and studio picture. Paramount and Miramax were involved from early on, via a distribution deal, but the film was produced independently. Is that right? TAYLOR: Were all raised on independent filmmaking. We’ve made studio movies. This was one of the more unique setups. Initially, Jamie and Derek called me; Jamie and Derek had been developing this. I’ve made everything of Derek’s except for Light Between Oceans — we’ve made Pines together, and Blue Valentine. Jamie and I did his TV show, so we’ve all collaborated with him over the years. So he had called and asked me to come on board, and at that moment in time, we went out to the marketplace and there were distributors that wanted to make it, but we had a really short window of time. Miramax and Paramount stepped up and wanted to finance it, the domestic piece. We had a foreign sales agent in FilmNation, and we had the tax credit piece, but there was not enough time for our window to get all the paperwork done, essentially. And so what we really needed was then a real equity partner that we could come on board with. So then that’s when Jamie sent the script to Alex. ALEX ORLOVSKY: My first producing credit was with Jamie in 2003, and then Lynette, Jamie and I met in 2005 on Half Nelson. And we did Pines and Blue Valentine together. But four or five years ago, I started a producing and financing company called High Frequency with two childhood friends of mine from Texas. So I [now] live in between being a creative producer and a financier. I think I got a call from Jamie last summer, and it was really about the financing side, because there was this very complicated structure. And as Lynette said, there was a ticking clock. And there’s just this big challenge of pulling all these pieces together. FilmNation had done foreign sales; we had this offer from Miramax, from John Glickman, for the other English-language territories. There was a moment when we were thinking about just doing that as equity and taking it to a festival and selling it there, but ultimately decided that what John was offering was what was best for the film. So we inherited all those pieces, and until the bond closed, it was a true independent film that High Frequency was kind of on the hook for. And I want to say a week and a half before principal, everything locked into place. The Miramax funding hit, and then we sort of became a studio film. But it’s a license deal: In the same way that Sinners is sort of a Warner Bros. movie, but it’s not, this is something that also is that. But John and Paramount have been amazing partners. I’m always happy to go to a film festival with distribution in place. DEADLINE: Obviously, it’s a challenging marketplace these days for adult dramas — even for those with high-profile creative attachments and solid reviews, like Roofman. What kind of mentality and business plan do you need to have in place, when approaching a project of this sort these days? PATRICOF: It’s really important to us to always value the project that we’re making. We know we’re always trying to get the most money we can for the project, but at the same time, budgets that make sense for a film, and this one was no different. Nothing’s easy to get financed these days, no matter what it is, and for us, it was important to make sure that the movie we were making was the best version, but also the most commercial. And Derek understands that, as well. So even from a casting standpoint, we had Channing Tatum, and that was amazing. And then we had Kirsten Dunst, and that was amazing. And then Peter Dinklage and Uzo Aduba and Ben Mendelsohn and Jimmy O. Yang and Juno Temple. Derek always was casting the best person for the role; he’s never going to just say, “Who’s the most famous person I can get?” But all those things are a part of, how do we help tell this story the best way possible and make it the most accessible to the widest audience possible? That’s everything we’ve used on every movie we’ve all made, collectively and individually, and this was no different. TAYLOR: There’s been a lot of editorial narrative about the cost of these kinds of movies, and we’re way down there on the scale, you know what I mean? We made the commercial studio film for $19 million; we’re not making it for 50, 70, 150. I think that we were really aware of the marketplace and the budget that we needed to be in, and we had a director who worked really hard to stay within the bounds of that budget. Whereas I’m not sure all filmmakers are able to do that. And we brought in a great crew, people that we know. I think that’s the place that we’re at, which is that you just have to be responsible while also doing everything you can to give the movie the resources that it needs and deserves. And we still managed to build a Toys”R”Us from the ground up. PATRICOF: We made this movie for $19 million. If you had given us $50 million, we wouldn’t have spent more. Like, this is the movie we made; it was the right budget for it. The film has already surpassed that in domestic box office, which is almost unheard of these days, and we’ll double that in worldwide box office, combined. And this film has barely begun its life cycle, right? I mean, it’s a Christmas movie. And we’re really proud of that fact. And that’s important to Derek, too. This movie isn’t a success if it’s just critically acclaimed and it does some business at the box office, but it winds up being a big money loser for people. We need to continue this ecosystem. So if we ultimately aren’t making movies responsibly, for the right number… and you never know what that number totally is. It’s all a little bit of a guess. But for us, the number is simple: What is the minimum number we need to make the best version of the movie? That’s the only defining characteristic and nothing more. ORLOVSKY: I think sustainability is such a big keyword these days and such an important concept. And I think you just have to be responsible and understand what the reality is that we’re all living in, what the market’s like, what you can expect from box office, and just make movies for smart numbers, responsibly. And if you do that, then that’s sustainable. I think also for us, it’s just supporting auteur filmmakers, getting them to make movies that are uniquely theirs. This is a Derek Cianfrance movie. It might be his version of a Capra movie, or his rom-com, or whatever people say on Letterboxd. But still, you can tell it’s a Derek movie. And I think that for me, and I think for all of us, just to be able to help auteur filmmakers make movies that stay true to their voice and vision and will stand the test of time is the most gratifying thing possible. And if you can [do that] for a responsible number, even better. PATRICOF: Yeah. I want to add though, this takes buy-in from every single person working on this movie. That goes to the interns, to the producers, to the cast members, and you have to just make a decision like, “That’s important to me.” Being responsible every step of the way is critically important to us, and sometimes that’s making the absolute worst financial choice you can possibly make, right? Like, we made the movie in Charlotte. We shot on film. We rebuilt a Toys”R”Us from scratch. We didn’t need to do any of those things; there’s another version of this movie that you shoot in South Africa, and it probably could be a good movie, but not the best version of the movie. That takes producers, and there’s three of us — Alex’s partner, Duncan [Montgomery], is [a fourth]. There was at least two of us on set every day. Now, that’s not cheap. We all shared an apartment because that was the easiest, most cost-effective thing to do. There’s just things that you need to do to be responsible in filmmaking, and that takes Channing Tatum buying in and deciding, “Hey, I’m going to take significantly less than I could ever make and commit six months of my life, from prep to shooting, to then another six months of promoting the film, because I love the film. I think it’s important this type of film gets made and gets seen. And I know if I commit that, that everybody else will commit that.” And all the way down the line, that took every single person committing — everybody just buying into this type of responsible, smart, and dedicated filmmaking. DEADLINE: Do you think you’d be able to get your earlier films with Derek made in today’s climate? And would the process be different now if you tried? Blue Valentine was particularly ambitious, with a weeks-long gap built into the middle of the shoot for the sake of actors trying to get into the headspace of a couple in a crumbling marriage, portrayed across multiple timelines. ORLOVSKY: I mean, I think that it hasn’t gotten less expensive or easier. But I think it’s also because people need to make a living wage. People need to have health care protections. There are all these very valid concerns and issues that come with making movies responsibly in the U.S. And in the 15 or 16 years since we made Blue Valentine, a lot has changed. Even when we were prepping Roofman, we went back and looked at the budget for Pines. Because Pines, we shot for 48 days, and that budget was half of what this one is. And this one, we started out with a 36-day schedule and Derek’s like, “I need 40 days,” and we got to 40 days by the end of it. But it was a battle. It was not easy to do that. And when you looked at those two budgets side by side, you realized how much really has changed. That’s also why those [earlier] movies are so special, but there are still great independent films being made now. So as much as you say that’s not possible, there’s films like Sorry, Baby or Lurker, which we did, which do show that it’s possible. I think as long as you believe, and have people who pursue vision with artistic integrity and their feet on the ground, you can still make cool sh*t that stands the test of time. DEADLINE: As you said, your first film as a trio was Half Nelson, a film coming up on it 20th anniversary which brought Ryan Gosling his first Oscar nomination for his performance as an inner-city middle-school teacher with a drug habit. What memories stick with you from the shoot? What did you learn? TAYLOR: We were so inexperienced. It’s funny because when I talk to a lot of up-and-coming producers, the thing that I say is, work with people that are at a similar level to you and then rise with them. And that’s really what that movie was for all of us. It was so many of our first films, or our crew early on in their career. And I think for all of us, we all had our own background. But I was 26 when we made that movie. We were really young. There’s a lot that’s changed, and also, we work very similarly together. Now, we’re just a little wiser and more experienced, but we have always been very collaborative with each other. There’s a real ease in how we hand off tasks, and the creative collaboration just kind of flows between us. There is no, “Who does what?” We go wherever any of us is needed, and sometimes we’re all there together, and sometimes one of us can step in. I think that back then, we weren’t all quite as confident with our expertise. And we’ve worked together many times over the years. So it’s been real growth. But the difference now is that there’s so much trust built up. We didn’t know if we could trust each other on that first movie, but we just kind of did, inherently. These two gentlemen are amazing human beings, and there’s a warmth we’ve always had which really helps, especially when you’re working in a tough business and you have to develop stuff for long periods of time and sustain that kind of energy and passion. When people are good human beings, it makes it a lot easier to do that. PATRICOF: There’s an amazing thing when you are new at something and have a group of inexperienced people who don’t believe things should just be done a certain way, just because they’re done a certain way. Fortunately, on Half Nelson, we had [executive producer] Paul Mezey working with us, who to this day is one of the greatest producers — one of the most talented, smartest, most trustworthy, experienced. He was a critical part of the Half Nelson ingredient. But he also had a whole group of inexperienced people telling him how to do things radically different. And he was like, “OK.” He just sort of gave us a little bit of structure to what we were doing, and I think 20 years later, that’s the thing that’s changed a bit with us, sadly, is although we still have that indie spirit, now, we’re a little bit of the more senior people who are like, “Well, I’m not exactly sure you can do it that way, but we’ll try.” We still want to break the mold and find unique ways of doing things. [But] if someone tells us something has to be done a certain way, they have to prove to us why it has to be done that sort of way. I catch myself and I’m mad when someone wants to do something in some way that’s just kind of crazy and it’s going to save money in a certain way, and you’re just like, “No!” And you realize 20 years ago, that was you saying that. But we all still work with first-time filmmakers and younger filmmakers, and I think for me, but I think I can speak for these guys after 20 years, that’s part of it. Because we’re learning and we’re being inspired. That’s why I go to Sundance every year and see as many films as I can. Because it’s inspiring, and that makes us better at our jobs. Seeing what Sean Baker has been able to do on his films with no money, you’re like, “Whoa, if Sean can do it, we can do it!” So, that film was very special. That time was very special. I mean, everybody who’s worked on that film has gone on to do exceptional things in this business. DEADLINE: Roofman somehow manages to leave you feeling good and hopeful despite the fact that it’s ultimately a pretty sad story. What keeps you in a positive mindset about the industry when things get hard, as they’ve been lately? ORLOVSKY: I think loving what we do helps. I genuinely love producing movies, and also working with people who I respect and care for, like Jamie and Lynette. I think it’s like any art form: If you care about it and believe in it, you’re going to create things that are worthy and capture the public’s attention. But we all have to acknowledge, also, it’s like that bullseye gets smaller all the time. It does feel harder, but for me personally, I don’t care. I’m still going to keep doing it as long as I can find stories that excite me and people whose work I want to support. TAYLOR: For me, it’s people. I have a lot of faith in people, I have faith in in the power of community. I’ve seen community rally around really difficult moments in time, and I just genuinely believe that people are inherently creative. They want thought-provoking entertainment, as well as just sheer entertainment, and there’s always something that feels like the next challenge. And it’s always a challenge. [But] I feel like at the end of the day, it’s people and our collective want for that communal experience, and I’ll always go back to that. PATRICOF: Contrary to popular belief, I think I’m really optimistic about what is ahead for the film business. But I think it starts with the film business taking responsibility for what it’s putting out and the budgets that those films are being made for, making sure that we give audiences something that they have to come see. Sometimes in the theater, sometimes not. But it’s not fair to put out a movie and just expect people to come, and it’s not fair to make a movie that’s budget is astronomical and have a bunch of people lose a lot of money. It’s on us to be responsible in the films we make; it’s on us to be responsible for how we put them together. And I think it’s on us to be okay with a film that returns a single or a double and not only be playing for grand slams. I think that business doesn’t work. The business that works is films made responsibly that…are great experiences, so when people come for their night out, when they’re paying for their babysitter or just choosing between their different options, their money is well spent. We shouldn’t be releasing films that are anything less than great. They need to be entertaining, they need to be inspiring, they need to be thought provoking, and that’s on us to do that. We feel like we delivered that with Roofman and we’re really proud of it, and I think movies like Roofman are going to have a place going forward. There’s so many other movies that have that same type of place. But I think it starts with us being responsible, and responsible filmmaking.
