This is a continuation of a three part series about Charlie Chaplin. For Part 1, visit Charlie Chaplin: The Man and the Genius.

To cineastes, Chaplin is more than the man who created the iconic Little Tramp, but one of the greatest filmmakers of all-time. Legendary film critic and father of American auteurism, Andrew Sarris, places Chaplin in his pantheon of the 14 most influential American film directors in his still ground breaking book, The American Cinema: Directors and Directions 1929–1968,’ which changed the course of film criticism. As head of his own studio, Chaplin had a unique approach in translating his ideas into visual form, virtually never shooting from a working script. Often times he would simply sit on the set, surrounding by his cast, waiting for an idea to come. Occasionally the idea would not come, and he would dismiss the cast for the day, still with full payment. This resulted in long periods of absence on the silver screen. In his autobiography, the only mention of his shooting style was long-shot for comedy, close-up for tragedy, in which he embraced both in his stylistic signature; the essence of the duality of the Little Tramps films.

(Read more about auteurism, and Richard Brody’s stunning memorial to Andrew Sarris.)

In June 1917, Chaplin signed up with First National Studios, and then built Chaplin Studios in Hollywood.  He formed United Artists in  1919 along with the world’s first movie star, Mary Pickford (often times simply referred to as “Little Mary,” or ‘’America’s Sweetheart”), popular Hollywood swashbuckling actor Douglas Fairbanks (who was married to Pickford), and film director, D.W. Griffith (who created the very visual language of film used today). They were the leading filmmakers of their day and wanted complete freedom in producing and distributing their films. Chaplin worshipped Griffith, later commenting, ‘We owe our very existence to him. ’

(Read more about D.W. Griffith’s innovations here.)

Chaplin’s Films

Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot.
– Charles Chaplin

Features

1921 The Kid (Feature): The Little Tramp cares for an abandoned child, but events put that relationship in jeopardy. Chaplin’s first feature at 60 minutes in length, with regular Chaplin player Edna Purviance, star of many of his shorts, and a young, endearing Jackie Coogan, who would grow up to be Uncle Festus in the Adam’s Family TV series. Coogan was discovered in 1919 by Chaplin, and soon after the release of The Kid, Coogan-mania was in full force, spawning a wave of Jackie merchandising. It wasn’t until his 21st birthday, after his father’s death, he found he was virtually broke, with no money left from his work as a child actor. Under California law at the time, the earnings of the minor belonged solely to the parent. Coogan sued his mother and former manager, and, in 1939, the Coogan Law was established to protect future young actors from the same terrible situation.  By modern day stands, the The Kid borders on the maudlin, pulling on all heart strings, but the overall result is remarkably emotionally effecting.

1923 A Woman of Paris: A Drama of Fate (Feature): A kept woman runs into her former fiancé and finds herself torn between love and comfort. After seventy films in which he had appeared in every scene, Chaplin is unbilled and unrecognizable as a porter at a railroad station. His first break from comedy, the film is a valentine to Edna Purviance, to whom he promised that one day he would make a feature film with her in the lead role. Still ahead of its time, the dark drama with its stark, groundbreaking sexual overtones, flopped with the general audience. It was, however, highly influential for film directors; in particular, the German-Hollywood director, Ernst Lubitsch.  The film initially feels like conventional melodramatic, but with a closer look you see how Chaplin has overturned all the stereotypes of the time. The heroine is a courtesan. The hero is a mother-dominated weakling. And the seductive bad guy is charming, considerate and amusing. After Purviance’s retirement, Chaplin continued paying her salary until her death. Chaplin, at 86, worked on the film again, composing a new musical score. Some critics felt it was a kind of reconciliation with a film which the public had rejected, though he himself remained intensely proud of it.

1925 The Gold Rush (Feature): The Little Tramp is a lonely prospector who ventures to the Klondike looking for gold. He gets mixed up with some burly characters and falls in love with the beautiful Georgia Hale, playing a rather hardened, dance-hall girl. He tries to win her heart with his kindness, but with no success. According to David Robinson, the idea came to him when viewing stereoscope pictures of the 1896 Klondike gold rush, and was struck by the image of an endless line of prospectors snaking up the 2300 feet Chilkoot Pass, the gateway to the gold fields. For two weeks Chaplin and his unit worked on location in the snow country of California’s Sierra Nevada, recreating the historic image of the prospectors struggling up the pass through mountain snow. Six hundred extras were used, with many vagrants and derelicts from Sacramento. The film was an important box office success after A Woman of Paris had bombed with audiences. In a revised version in 1942, Chaplin composed an orchestral score, edited the film a bit and replaced the title cards with a commentary which he spoke himself. In this clip, The Little Tramp has fallen asleep while waiting for the dance-hall girl and her lady friends to arrive for a New Year dinner in his little cabin. The ladies had forgotten about the party and never arrive. The Little Tramp dreams about how the party could have been, and does perhaps his most famous bit: ‘the dance of the rolls,’ with just forks and rolls. Audiences were so thrilled by the scene that often times they demanded theatres to stop the film, roll it back and perform an encore:

1928 The Circus (Feature):  The Little Tramp finds work and the girl of his dreams at a circus. When speaking with Chaplin’s son, the most gracious Eugene Chaplin, I asked him what was his father’s favorite of all his films. Eugene replied, he never really said, but it wouldn’t be The Circus for it’s his only feature that he doesn’t mention in his autobiography. I put on a brave face, as The Circus is one of my favorites of his films. Perhaps sandwiched between the enduring masterpieces, The Gold Rush and 1931’s City Lights, it felt light upon comparison. Nevertheless, it too is a masterpiece which Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, acted in and edited. Later he composed the musical soundtrack, along with an opening song, “Swing little girl” where he actually sings.

The film subsides with the Little Tramp’s trademark closing:

1931 City Lights (Feature): The Little Tramp falls in love with a sightless flower girl and desperately accumulates money to help her medically regain here sight. In the middle of City Lights’ production, the advent of sound recording blew through Hollywood like a storm. Initially this induced a disturbing stylistic turn-around in the medium. The silent film was at its zenith; German director F.W. Murnau, famous for his fluid (‘unchained camera’), had already made The Last Laugh in 1924, a film so visually expressive that there was not one single title card used throughout the entire movie. The new sound equipment was primitive, where the camera was placed by a clunky recording apparatus, leading to many static shots. Broadway actors and stage directors poured into Hollywood for the new opportunity. For many of the silent era stars, though, this proved to be tragic, in particular for foreign language speakers unable to continue with their careers in English.  Plus, the quality of the sound recording was so substandard that the voices of major stars, such as heartthrob John Gilbert, produced laughter from the audience. Gilbert already had a high-pitched voice, in contrast to his leading man image, and the primitive sound recording made his voice seem even higher. Chapin faced a dilemma, should he shut down City Lights’ production or continue making it a silent film? Lucky for us, he chose to march on with the silent film revision. City Lights was a stunning success with both critics and the movie going audience. The flower girl is played by Virginia Cherrill, a Chaplin discovery, who semi-retired from acting when she married Cary Grant; a union that would last for barely a year. The ending close-up, along with the final close-up in Ingmar Bergman’s Wild Strawberries, is among the cinema’s most moving endings:

1936 Modern Times (Feature) The Little Tramp struggles to live in a modern industrial society with the help of a young homeless woman. Chaplin’s last ‘silent’ film, filled with sound effects, an orchestral music score, and the milestone of the Little Tramp speaking for the first time (actually singing), was made when everyone else was making talkies. The Little Tramp turns against modern society, the machine age and progress. He first appears on the screen, frantically trying to keep up with a production line. He is selected for an experiment with an automatic feeding machine, but various mishaps leads his boss to believe he has gone mad, and Charlie is sent to a mental hospital. When he gets out, he is mistaken for a communist, sent to jail a second time, but foils a jailbreak, and is let out again. Chaplin co-stars with Paulette Goddard, with whom he later secretly married. Controversy struck when Films Sonores Tobis accused Chaplin of stealing the factory scene from French director René Clair‘s À Nous la Liberté, and filed a plagiarism lawsuit. Clair was  against the lawsuit, and mainstream audiences didn’t notice or seem to mind:

Audiences hear Chaplin speak, or sing rather, for the first time in this bit:

The film ends with Chaplin’s classic ending, but with a twist due to being with Goddard:

https://youtu.be/J3aQkfIvx6k

1940 The Great Dictator (Feature) Dictator Adenoid Hynkel tries to expand his empire while a poor Jewish barber tries to avoid persecution from Hynkel’s regime. Chaplin’s first full “talkie” stirred controversy where he plays a humorous caricature of Adolf Hitler, with many thinking that it was in bad taste. Truth be told, the release of the film was held back by long delays in production (primarily due to building innovative miniature sets), and by completion, Hitler was no longer considered a joking matter. Chaplin played two roles, Hinkel, a parody of Hitler, and the Little Tramp as a Jewish barber. Paulette Goddard is cast again as his co-star, and the underrated Jack Oakie, in a supporting role as Napaloni (a parody of Mussolini). The film was a smash hit. It has been said that Chaplin’s character was ballet, while Buster Keaton’s acrobatic. I regard them equally as the greatest comic silent film directors. In this clip Chaplin’s character performs balletic magic:

1947 Monsieur Verdoux (Feature) A suave Bluebird-like man supports his family by marrying and murdering rich women for their money, but has some occupational hazards when he seduces comedic legend, Martha Raye.  Verdoux  goes to the gallows with a supreme contempt for the laws and norms of the society which he blames drove him to such desperate extremes. Monsieur Verdoux bombed with audiences. According to Richard Brody, ‘Chaplin had lost his popularity, quickly, between 1940, when the “The Great Dictator” was released and ranked among the highest-grossing films ever, and 1947, with the release Monsieur Verdoux.  What had changed were Chaplin and the United States.’ Further controversy was fueled when Chaplin bought the premise of Monsieur Verdoux from Orson Welles.  (The film’s credits list ‘original story written by Charles Chaplin, ‘based on an idea by Orson Welles.’)  Welles was incensed that he did not receive a more prominent credit, and that Chaplin froze him out of the creative process. Sadly, Monsieur Verdoux flopped with the audience, nearly sinking United Artists. Today the film is considered a towering masterpiece.

1952 Limelight (Feature; UK) A fading comedian and a suicidal ballet dancer look to each other to find purpose and hope in their lives. Chaplin cast the unknown Claire Bloom as his leading lady, which propelled her to stardom. He aimed for a more serious tone, regularly using the word “melancholy” when speaking about the film. Stylistically, the final product felt a little dated with facile physiological depth, but today the sentimental drama is considered a major Chaplin film and a great pleasure to watch. Limelight featured a short appearance by Buster Keaton, whom Chaplin cast as his stage partner in the famous dressing room scene. This marked the only time the comedians worked together. Keaton called Chaplin “the greatest silent comedian of all time.” Orson Welles, no stranger to big personalities, commented that for Chaplin to imagine his own death on stage was a supreme act of egotism. Limelight was heavily autobiographical, alluding to Chaplin’s childhood, but also to his loss of popularity in the U.S. It was a family affair which included in the cast his five oldest children and his half-brother, Wheeler Dryden:

1957 A King in New York (Feature; UK) A recently-deposed European monarch seeks shelter in New York City, where he becomes an accidental television celebrity and is later wrongly accused of being a Communist. By this time Chaplin was disappearing from the public eye and A King in New York was not even released in the United States at that time. Those who did eventually see it, dismissed the narrative as preachy and self serving. It’s a movie still worth a look, and a real treat for auteurists.

1959 A Countess from Hong Kong (Feature; UK):  A Russian countess illegally climbs aboard a luxury liner to reach America for a better life. She hides in the cab of a diplomat billionaire. Perhaps the most bizarre threesome to ever work on the same film together: Chaplin, the iron clad director, Marlon Brando,  the temperamental method actor who could improvise on the spot, and Sophia Loren, the world-famous actress, who did not get along with Brando, especially when doing a love scene and commented, “Did you know you have black hairs up your nostrils?” Chaplin’s style was to act out each of the different roles, and then instruct the players with “OK, do this.” Brando bristled and threatened to quit. But he found in the 76 year old Chaplin a man whose ego was actually greater than his own, and eventually succumbed to his will.  “I agreed to be a marionette in his hands. I figured he must know something I didn’t.” Chaplin had written part of the script 34 years earlier, and composed the theme song, ‘This is My Song.” Audiences were disappointed to find that Chaplin only played a cameo role as the ship’s steward. In many respects the buildup to the release of the film was more exciting than the movie itself. See the trailer here.

It was his first and only foray in shooting in color and widescreen. It was also his final film. The reviews ranged from dismissive to savage. Chaplin was happy to return to the harmony of family life in Corsier-sur-Vevey.

Shorts

1921 The Idle Class (Short): Chaplin plays two roles, the little Little Tramp and an upper-class, unrepentant drunk.  In this clip the upper-class drunk forgets to wear his pants and tries not to be seen by any one:

https://youtu.be/zxavuHxun0s

Later, he learns his wife is leaving him due to his drinking; where shot from behind he appears to be sobbing:

1917 The Immigrant (Short): The Little Tramp is an immigrant who endures a challenging voyage and gets into trouble as soon as he arrives in America. Chaplin used the similar shot from the ‘behind gag’ in The Idle Class; this time appearing to be vomiting over the side of the vessel:

Special thanks to Chaplin’s World for their assistance in this article, and to My Switzerland for making my journey to Vevey possible.

Stay tuned for Part 3 where Ed Boitano addresses Chaplin’s private life.

The post In Search of Charlie Chaplin: The Man and His Movies, Part 2 appeared first on Traveling Archive.

How did you prepare to shoot Truth and Justice?

Tanel:  Before shooting the film, I came to America for three months to take workshops as a teacher trainee at Ivana Chubbuck Studio. Her method is called the Chubbuck Technique and is loosely based on the Stanislavsky method. I learned a lot from her, ranging from casting in film, to auditioning, and how to prep for that. Her book, “The Power of the Actor,” goes deeply into acting.  Some directors say that taking acting classes helps you understand how to play a character objective and makes you a better director with actors.

The sub-text, especially in the characterization of Andres, is subtly apparent which gives us a glimpse into his motivations. Did you study psychology?

Tanel:  I’ve always said that I think the work of a psychologist is very close to the work of a director because the director has to understand the psychology of the character.  Then, you have to help the actor get to certain points of the character’s emotional state.  I haven’t studied psychology, but I’ve studied acting and have directed a lot of actors.  The first time I came here was in 2007 for a workshop with Judith Weston who wrote the book “Directing Actors.” The workshop concentrated on directing actors and acting for directors.  To experience acting for myself, I also took workshops in London so that I could really understand what I’m asking from an actor.

Why is it so important to understand how to work with actors?

Tanel:  Being a director, you have to be interested in human beings. For me, I want to fall in love with my actors.  I need to trust them and they need to trust me as well.  So, it’s very important to spend as much time with them before the shoot so that we bond with each other.  My job is to make them shine and if they are not good on the screen, then it is my fault.  Being an actor is a very fragile occupation and I really appreciate what they are doing.

The actors in “Truth and Justice” each have a strong sub-text, which you don’t always see in other characterizations.  What are your thoughts?

Tanel:  The text is the least important – it’s what’s behind it that tells you what is actually going on in a scene.  What’s underneath or what the character is doing while delivering the text – that’s where the real meaning comes out.  If the actors are not good or the acting doesn’t work, then nothing works.

Did making short films early in your career inform the narrative feature film?

Tanel:  I used short films to prepare me for full-length films. The reason it’s taken a while for me to make my first narrative film, is because I was very careful in choosing my first project.

What are some of the films and/or directors you admired growing up?

Tanel: Because I was so young, I don’t remember the names of the directors. I do remember the “Tarzan” television series and “King Kong.” The reception was really bad, so my sister and I had to take turns holding the antenna.  When it was her turn to hold the antenna, I would describe what was happening on the screen. I also loved everything where there were sharks, like “Jaws.” Just give me a movie where there’s a shark, and I will love it.  (Laughter) I also liked watching horror films like “Friday The 13^th.” I loved watching movies because in my childhood there wasn’t the Internet. It was like some magic elves from America were doing those things that we saw on the screen, but I couldn’t imagine that some day I would be doing the same thing.

Was anyone in your family in the creative arts?

Tanel: The answer is no. My dad is a captain on a cargo ship and my mom is a cook – nothing to do with film or culture. When I was younger, I liked to draw and I drew comic strips.  I loved telling stories, so I was already telling stories with images. In class, we had to perform a play and I was always the one who wrote the play because I knew how it had to be done. I didn’t know that it was something like directing.

Would you say you had a happy childhood – enough money?

Tanel:  In the Soviet Union there’s never enough money for everything, but I’m very blessed to have such great parents. Although my parents were not in the creative arts, but thanks to them, I was brave enough to study something that I really felt that I could love. My mom is a very good cook and she really loves cooking. My dad really loves the sea and he’s a very good captain. Eighteen or nineteen are a very fragile ages when, after graduating high school, you are choosing what you are going to do next. Very often you are not listening to your heart, but thinking too much with your head, like what would be useful, what will bring money, or satisfaction. Researchers say that 80% of people work at something they don’t love or enjoy. I’m really happy and thankful that I found something that I genuinely love. Some people are even paying money for me to do this job. (Laughs)

Are you working on a project now?

Tanel: It’s a sci-fi thriller, which is now in pre-production. It’s completely different from Truth and Justice. It has four characters and takes place in a post apocalyptic world in the middle of an ocean in a rusty tower.

I look forward to what I know will be another excellent piece of work.

Tanel: Thank you so much. I really enjoyed this.

TRUTH AND JUSTICE
An ALLFILM Production
Director/Writer:  Tanel Toom
Producer:  Ivo Felt
Cinematographer: Rein Kotov
Editor: Tambet Tsuja
Production Designer:  Jaagup Roomet
Sound Designer:  Matis Rei
Composer: Mihkel Zilmer
Genre:  Drama
Language:  Estonian with sub-titles
Running Time:  149 minutes

The post Up Close and Personal With Estonian Director Tanel Toom appeared first on Traveling Archive.

Documentary filmmaker Maggie Betts has written and directed her first narrative feature, “Novitiate,” a riveting, captivating, look at the life of a young girl who becomes intoxicated with Catholicism and decides to devote her life to God.  Under Betts’ sharp direction, Margaret Qualley gives an outstanding performance as the young postulant in training to become a nun at the Order of the Sisters of Blessed Rose.  The convent is run with an iron hand by the Reverend Mother, played chillingly by Melissa Leo, who tries to defy the radical changes in the religion as put forth by Vatican II, lifting many of the rules that guided nuns through the ages.  Without taking an editorial position, Betts skillfully unveils the harsh, often inhumane realities of devoting one’s life to God, and at the same time illuminates the young postulant’s human desires of sexuality and physical contact. 

For the roles of the nuns, Betts assembled an incredible cast of mostly unknown actors, each of whom gives a stirring performance.  They include:  Lisa Stewart Seals, Alyssa Brindley, Chelsea Lopez, Liana Liberato, Morgan Saylor, Eline Powell, Rebecca Dayan, Hannah Renee Jackson, Angela Fox, Neva Howell, Ashley Bell, Dianna Agron, Maddie Hasson, and Marshall Chapman.  The rest of the excellent supporting cast is comprised of Eliza Mason as 7-year-old Cathleen, Sasha Mason as 12-year old Cathleen, and Peggy Walton-Walker as the nuns’ teacher.  Rounding out the cast is Julianne Nicholson as Cathleen’s mother who gives an outstanding, heartfelt performance of a mother struggling to understand her daughter’s chosen life’s trajectory.  Special kudos to Director of Photography Kat Westergaard, who is responsible for the intimate, gorgeous look of the film.

Maggie Betts and Margaret Qualley recently sat down with your journalist for an exclusive interview, which has been edited for content and continuity for print purposes.

What was it about the book on Mother Teresa that motivated you to write and direct “Novitiate?”

 Betts:  I thought the book would be a biography – kind of an overview of Mother Teresa’s accomplishments.  It was actually a collection of letters that she had written over the course of her life to friends, confidantes, and family members.  They were super painfully intimate letters that were consumed with her love relationship with her “husband,” which was God. That was way more interesting to her than anything else in her life.  It was torturous, filled with highs and lows and very intense and was way more interesting to her than anything else in her life.  For example, she would write a paragraph about this orphanage we’re doing in Calcutta and then spend another paragraph about how I’m feeling lonely because God isn’t talking to me today and I’m really sad.  I love him so much.   She focused on love as that apparently was the most important thing to her.  I only read this one book so I don’t want to appear as an expert.  But, it seemed to me that love consumed all her energy and was the thrust of her life.  It mirrored my most intense romantic relationships and I was mesmerized that the woman could have a non-physical relationship like that with God.

Do you have any thoughts on the fact that all these nuns are “married” in a non-physical relationship with God?

Betts:  But it’s literal. It’s literal like taking the body of Christ is literal. It’s their literal husband.

Do you think it’s more of a symbolic husband than literal because literal would mean reality vs. fantasy?

Betts: It’s not symbolic.  It’s difficult for us to understand and I don’t understand it entirely, but I feel like I got closer to it.  How could it be literal?  I’m not saying that I think God is in a relationship with the nuns and he exists in their day-to-day lives.  But one of the tenets of Catholicism is that there is this lateralization of certain things. For the nuns, it’s suppose to be taken as reality and that’s the context that I’m using.  Margaret beautifully depicts that aspect of her character as she is in a constant conversation with this entity, or this boyfriend, or this lover, day in and day out.

Did you ever love someone like these women love God?

Betts: I was so in love with my first boy friend and was completely obsessed with him.  I projected a lonely, sad, desperately needing love young girl and everything revolved around him. This guy had to fill all of that for me.  After the relationship was over, in looking back years later, I realized the guy had none of the qualities I projected onto him.  He was actually a loser but was like God to me because I put everything into him and it was literal.

How long did it take you to write the script?

Betts: Writing the script did not take long.  The first draft, which is always total crap, was not good.  But it had pages 1 to 50 and it took about four to six months, but the research took five to six years.  I wrote a 40-page research document for myself that had everything that was interesting to me.  By the time I got to writing the script, I knew there would be certain scenes including the wedding scene.  I knew exactly what was going to happen in that scene.  I knew it was to start with Cathleen as a young child in school, so I followed that arc.  Ultimately, it wasn’t hard to write the script because I saturated myself with the research.

Did you have an easy time getting financing for the film?

Betts:  No.  Not an easy time.  No.  It went up and down.  You think you’re going to get money and then you’re not.  I think making an independent film is like a marathon endurance test.  You have to be able to pace yourself through endless let downs and disappointments and just stay determined to get your film made.  You have to just keep going or it won’t get done.

Did you get any opposition or assistance from the Church and you did have any advisers on set?

Betts:  We didn’t get any resistance from the Church, but we did have a priest and a former nun on set that served as tech advisers.

How did you find the very talented Margaret Qualley to play the central role of Sister Cathleen?

Betts:  It was like finding a needle in a haystack.  I had contacted different agencies and told them we were looking to cast a new face – someone who is comparatively unknown and somebody who has to possess special qualities because the role is that of a nun in the 1960s.  The agencies were very excited about the project and did everything to facilitate us finding that individual.  But, a lot of girls in the character’s age group were in their teens and not getting heavy dramatic roles.  The agencies were very helpful, almost overwhelmingly so as there was a period of months where I was skyping or meeting with another young actress each day.  I met with so many incredible young women, but I hadn’t found exactly what I was looking for.  It was a Wednesday and I had already talked to six girls that week and was not in the mood for one more audition.  I had watched a little bit of Margaret’s reel on “Leftovers,” which was good and it was clear that she was very talented.  But that character was very angsty and kind of like a sarcastic, angry teen and as far away from the character of Sister Cathleen that I was looking for.  That character is completely un-ironic, has no sarcasm, is pure, and is totally idealistic.  So I didn’t want to do this Skype with Margaret, but felt it was unprofessional to cancel.  We got on Skype together and it was like oh my God this is the girl.

What did you that set her apart from all the other actresses?

Betts: People have asked me that question many times.  Margaret is incredibly beautiful.  Margaret is incredibly intelligent.  Margaret has a natural magnetism that will even jump through a Skype screen.  That said, I can’t identify one particular quality that made her stand out.  But, she knocked me over and I knew she was who I was looking for.  When I got off the phone, I started pacing down streets in New York.  I couldn’t believe she had dark hair because I always pictured the character as blonde.  Not that I have any preference between blond or brunettes but I had spent years and years with this image of this character in my head and I thought, “Ain’t that something;” she has dark hair.  When I was done pacing the streets for a half hour, I then called my casting directors and told them I found the girl.

 That haunting love scene between the two novices clearly depicted ( postulant)  Cathleen’s need to be touched which overrode momentarily her devotion to  God/husband.  Was that one of the most intense scenes for you?

Qualley:  The scene where the young novitiates confess their flaws was actually more intense because we shot for three days on our knees and listened to confessions.  The whipping scene was also intense.  Over my director’s objections, I used a real whip because I wanted to experience what it felt like.  My back was covered with welts and bruises.

After all those years of Sister Cathleen being devoted to Catholicism and determined to become a nun, beginning as a young child, why did you choose that ending?)

Betts: In the script, it was resolved and you knew what happened to her.  It was Margaret’s idea to push for that ending in the film and she was 100% right.

What would you like the audience to take away from this film?

Qualley:  There are a lot of things you can take away from the film.  One of the things that hit home for me is the overwhelming desire to be perfect.  All these young girls are trying desperately to be perfect and are very hard on themselves.  I’m not religious at all, but one of the things that was exciting about this film was to have a love story with Jesus, which sounds insane.  I think it’s a testament to how much you can project onto somebody and how much we live in our imaginations and then at a certain point, that is not enough.

Well done.  I wish you a strong box office success.

Betts & Qualley:  Thank you.

The post Up Close & Personal With “Novitiate” Writer/Director Maggie Betts appeared first on Traveling Archive.