AN INTERVIEW WITH BOB HAWK

BY CHRIS GRAVES

Chris Graves: For those who do not know, what is your background and how were you introduced to the world of View Askew and Kevin Smith?

Bob Hawk: Background: Acted as a kid in community theater because I had a speech impediment and discovered that it disappeared when I got on stage (I knew my lines!). Decided early on (by college) that I didn’t want to pursue acting as a career but began working in professional theater in New York in the ’60s, first as a techie Off Broadway, then as a stage manager. Learned a lot about script development and taking good notes in maintaining the quality of a show (both useful skills when I got into film). Evolved into indieland in the early ’80s. First, by working as a researcher on the Oscar-winning doc, THE TIMES OF HARVEY MILK. Then I joined the staff at the non-profit Film Arts Foundation in San Francisco, which included conceiving and directing the Film Arts Festival for its first eight years. Since 1993 I’ve free-lanced as a consultant (on scripts and cuts of film, plus festival strategy) with my one-man company, ICI (Independent Consultation for Independents). Producer credits include CHASING AMY, TRICK, THE SLAUGHTER RULE, BALLETS RUSSES, FULL GROWN MEN and the upcoming PRODIGAL SONS (More info at www.filmhawk.com)

The full story of how I “discovered” CLERKS (which is how I was “introduced to the world of View Askew and Kevin Smith”) can be found in the documentary accompanying the 10th Anniversary DVD of CLERKS, plus mentions in John Pierson’s book SPIKE, MIKE, SLACKERS AND DYKES and the writings of Mr. Smith himself.

Briefly, it seems that I was the only industry person who attended the first ever screening of CLERKS at the IFFM (Independent Feature Film Market), now known as the IFP Market. It was the last day of the Market, a Sunday, and a lot of people had already left. I think the other people at the screening were all cast and crew, except for one out-of-work actress looking for work. Kevin and Scott Mosier were not too impressed by my presence because my badge just said “ICI.” They did not know my asssociation with Sundance — or that I knew a lot of other people too, but I spread the word far and wide. They soon found out, and eventually I was able to articulate just why I loved CLERKS so much by writing the official program note for the Sundance catalog. ‘Nuf said — except that I’ve happily been involved in some way with every one of Kevin’s films since then, including just having consulted on an early draft of his upcoming RED STATE.

CG: How did you become a part of The Sundance Film Festival? What made you decide to create the Film Arts Festival in San Francisco?

BH: In 1987 I was asked by Sundance to be on the newly created Advisory Selection Committee. Redford had taken it over only two years before, and they were still scrambling to find enough decent films to show, so they formed a varied group of us who were “out in the field.” Needless to say, things changed a lot after SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE (1989), but our committee continued long past the need and was finally dissolved in 1998 (although a number of us still flag films on a more informal basis). I’ve made many friends there, and this coming January I will have attended the festival for 21 years (and it’s still exciting for me).

I created the Film Arts Festival because in the mid-’80s the Bay Area was a hotbed of filmmaking activity (particularly docs, experimental film, animation and shorts of all genres). But the exhibition of this work was spotty and sparse, so I thought up a festival that would exclusively showcase the work of Northern California independent film and video makers. I also used the festival program as an outreach tool — mailing it to film organizations and festivals all over the world, as well as personally distributing it at places like the IFFM and the Berlin Film Festival. It helped a lot of filmmakers get exposure beyond their own region. The festival lasted for 21 years but is no longer.

CG: What does independent film mean to you and how were you introduced to it?

BH: There are many definitions of independent film, and the term has become so misused and abused at times that it could almost be considered meaningless by now. But I do believe that truly independent film still exists. For me the definition is primarily about authorship, owning the film, having final cut. (And I do realize that a handful of very big studio directors have final cut as well.) The modern indie movement begins for me with John Cassavetes’ SHADOWS in 1959. But I think that there is also an independent “spirit” that existed as far back as D.W. Griffith and Charlie Chaplin, and that managed to exist in the studio system through filmmakers from Preston Sturges to Robert Altman. Todd Haynes continues to blow my mind with his eclectic independence. There’ll never be a definitive, absolute answer — but when you smells it you knows it.

CG: Can you describe your reaction to the success of Clerks? How would you describe your relationship with Kevin Smith and View Askew over the years?

BH: Well, refer back to the end of my answer to #1 above for some of the picture. I feel like I’m part of the extended family, and I consider Kevin and Scott dear friends as well as continuing colleagues. And there’s a lot of affection to spread around amongst other “family” members as well.

I’d just like to add that, of course, I’m thrilled at the success of CLERKS (and was moved by how warmly CLERKS 2 rounded out the circle). And CLERKS lives on through each generation. My niece teaches 10th grade English and she says that every year there is a sub-group within her class who are CLERKS fans (some of whom have memorized a lot of the dialogue — especially Randal ordering the video titles on the phone). They think she’s real cool ’cause she not only knows CLERKS but loves it herself. (And she gets extra Brownie points for having an uncle who helped it along the way.)

CG: Have you ever thought about writing and directing a film?

BH: Not writing. Anything I’ve written (including the CLERKS blurb for Sundance, other program notes, scattered articles) has been arrived at through great pain, because I’m so hard on myself that I can’t step aside long enough to let inspiration flow, except in very short bursts. But that very fact is what makes me a good script consultant. I just seem to have the knack (and objectivity) to help other writers.

As a stage manager I did get to do some directing (brush-up rehearsals, preparing understudies and replacements) and I know I am a good communicator with actors, have good instincts and would be able to create the appropriate climate on a set to allow people to do their work. But I’ve long ago accepted what I think is my “calling.” Remember, a film can easily take up to two or three (or more) years of your life. In that same period of time — doing what I do — I can help many filmmakers. That’s my role. And let’s face it, there are more than enough filmmakers today, and not enough good consultants (insert smiley face).

CG: The world of independent film is not what it was in the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s. What is your opinion of the scene in today’s digital world and where do you see it going?

BH: The new technology affords a lot more people the opportunity to make a lot more films. And I consider TARNATION a prime example of how great that can be. But for every TARNATION (or, going back, EL MARIACHI and BLOOD, GUTS, BULLETS AND OCTANE) there are a lot of really awful, worthless films cluttering up the scene, which means that the gatekeepers have a lot more to schlog through.

But I’m glad the new technologies, and modes of exhibition, exist and provide access for just about everything and everybody. It’s becoming a true democracy, and I say stream away. I think that anyone, whether they’ve made a gem or a piece of crap, deserves to be seen by anyone who cares to watch.

As for me, and the future, I just want to be sure that, no matter how portable and tiny viewing gizmos can get, the opportunity of gathering together and watching something on a big screen nevers dies out. I spend too many hours as it is staring at my computer screen or watching endless cuts of film on an Avid, and anyone who has watched the same footage small, over and over again, knows how revelatory it is to see that same stuff big for the first time. You see detail and nuance — especially in people’s faces — that you never knew were there (unless you see projected rushes, which is not all that common on indie films).

As a side note, I’ll never understand how Academy voters (and others who vote in various award competitions) can fairly judge performances, cinematography, sound or special effects from a DVD screener — no matter how grand their home entertainment center might be. I think only writing, directing and editing can be evaluated thusly. Oh well, you know THAT’S not gonna change.

CG: What were your experiences like appearing in the films Mallrats, Chasing Amy, and Vulgar? Any amusing anecdotes from the sets of these films?

BH: MALLRATS: My simplest appearance (going down an escalator while Shannen and Ben were going up). It was weirdly fun hanging out all night in a half deserted mall, observing Shannen’s bodyguard staying as close as possible to her at all times, flirting with the boom operator, hanging out with the great crew people who have been there on so many of Kevin’s film’s from then on (there’s a lot of loyalty at View Askew, which says a lot about the general vibe).

CHASING AMY: Oh, that was tons of fun. Giggling up a storm while Hooper is on the phone. Kevin encouraged me not to hold back — and I don’t need much encouragement to go completely nutso. We did four or five takes, and I know that some of the folk on set had a hard time holding it in until they heard “Cut!” Of course, it was so over the top that it had to be cut back and shortened because it threw off the rythym of the scene. (Amusing side note: in the cast list on IMDB I’m listed as “Hooper’s lover.” Who knew?)

VULGAR: Now that was a workout (but, again, a wonderful crew made it so much easier). Although not much of my footage survived, I had eight different camera set-ups and it took a good part of a day to do all of my stuff. I sure loved my costume: my saggy, not-so-whitey briefs and a ratty old robe, with belly bulging and hair askew. It was a skanky location: a boarded up little house that must have been condemned and was probably torn down soon thereafter. It was very hot, what with all the heavy lights and hardly any air moving. Pretty damn foul (and thus very appropriate for VULGAR).

CG: Can you tell me about your company I.C.I.? How can up and coming filmmakers obtain your services, be it eligibility and cost?

BH: As I said above, I mainly consult on scripts and cuts of film and strategize festivals. Anyone’s “eligible” and I work with a lot of first timers (and veterans as well). I’m thorough and honest, I hope in a constructive way, and I don’t blow smoke up anybody’s ass. My rates are reasonable and I charge a flat fee, not by the hour. Anyone who’s interested should check my website — www.filmhawk.com — then e-mail or call me and we’ll work it out.

CG: Out of all the films you’ve consulted on, which ones have lived up to your over all expectations? Any stand out that didn’t quite live up to their full potential?

BH: This is a hard one to answer — impossible, actually. For the first question, I’d hate to have anyone feel left out, and I couldn’t possibly list all of the films that I feel HAVE lived up to their potential — or exceeded expectations. As for the second part, not in a million years would I mention specific films that did NOT realize their potential. I have a strong sense of loyalty to my clients as far as a code of professional ethics and confidentiality. Like Vegas, what happens here stays here (or something like that).

CG: Do you have any new projects or events coming up?

BH: I always have something coming up. Next is a personal documentary called PRODIGAL SONS (in final edit as of October ‘07). It’s about three brothers from Montana. One is a transexual (the New York-based filmmaker, Kimberly Reed), once a quarterback on the football team, going back for HER 20th high school reunion. Her younger blood brother is just your average normal gay guy living in San Diego. The THIRD brother, adopted at birth, turns out to be the illegitimate grandson (and the only grandchild) of Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth. There’s lotsa drama, a few laughs and some tears. It’s already been pre-sold to the Sundance Channel and the BBC. Look for it in ‘08.

I’m also developing a script, THE END OF GRACE, on which I would be one of the producers. Written — and to be directed — by a very smart young filmmaker, Nick Katsepetses, it’s a wickedly black comedy. (To be reductive, it’s kind of like ICE STORM meets AMERICAN BEAUTY, but I’m sure it will have it’s own unique stamp. After all, it will be truly independent.)

CG: What is your favorite View Askew/Kevin Smith flick (Clerks/Chasing Amy excluded)?

BH: Another tough one, but I have to go with DOGMA (certainly Kevin’s most ambitious film so far, and I think he really pulled it off). I’d also like to add a warm hug for CLERKS 2. And I hope whenever the Director’s Cut of JERSEY GIRL comes out (you will have to wait for awhile because Mr. Smith does these in order) that the world will finally see some of the great stuff that was test-screened to oblivion (but still exists, somewhere…)

CG: And finally, what are your thoughts on Mr. Smith’s new direction in the genre of horror, with the upcoming Red State? And what do you think the future holds in store for him?

BH: Well, as I said before, CLERKS 2 rounds out a circle — the first circle. RED STATE, I believe, begins a second circle. I hope that Kevin has three or four circles in his lifetime. He’s certainly fertile, and a deep thinker, although his persona is unpretentious (thank god). I think there’s much still to come, and that he will continue to surprise us. I predict that RED STATE will be awesome — and you won’t get another word out of me on that one! Thanks for having me.