Shawn Andrews: Big Heart City

Actor Shawn Andrews (Dazed and Confused, Fix) discusses his role in the intimate, independent drama Big Heart City

By Todd Konrad

BHC_2 When people talk about independent film and its history, one name that is constantly thrown out into the mix is John Cassavetes and for good reason. Essentially the godfather of the American independent film movement, Cassavetes was an actor and director who put his money and reputation on the line constantly to tell intimate character studies of people trying to either find or make sense of love in their lives. More often than not, they were troubled people who despite bravura simply were looking to love and be loved by someone. Big Heart City, directed by Ben Rodkin and starring Cassavetes stalwart Seymour Cassel and independent leading man Shawn Andrews, perfectly captures the sense of spiritual disconnection and longing for intimacy that charges Cassavetes’ best work with power.

After playing the festival circuit, the film received its formal US release this year via Vanguard Cinema and is now available on DVD. In it, Andrews plays a troubled young man who, after being released from jail, sets out to rebuild his life and track down his girlfriend only to find her missing and his former friends weary of his constant lying and manipulation. His only genuine friend comes in the form of an old warehouse guard, played by Cassel, who sees through this man’s lies but values his warm heart and sees a kindred spirit. Andrews’s character, Frank, in return slowly then comes to grips with what he has done in his life to end up in this place and finally unravel the mystery of his girlfriend’s disappearance. I was able to speak with Andrews earlier this year about this raw film and here is our conversation.

Vegas Outsider: How did you first get involved with this production & what made you want to do it?

Shawn Andrews: Ok that’s a really good question; I got involved with it first because Matthew Harrison, the executive producer, called me up and said that he had this really cool, character-driven script that he thought I would be perfect for and I’d known Matthew for quite some time and really respect him. I don’t know how much you may or may not know about him, but he did a film that won the Jury Prize at Sundance called Rhythm Thief which is one of my favorite films as well as a film called Kicked in the Head, which Martin Scorsese executive produced.

To me, Matt’s just one of those New York filmmakers, so when he called me and said I have something for you that would be a perfect fit I had to listen. And when I read the script I was really taken back by how realistic and character-driven it was and it was about human behavior which, as an actor, is the most exciting stuff to do. It definitely reminded me of John Cassavetes’ films, which were all character-driven. So I was really excited to sit down with the director, Ben Rodkin, and when we sat down he started telling me his concept of the film. I got really excited and thought this could be a great opportunity.

VO: I'm curious to know how the actual shoot itself was, given that visually the film has a very, gritty intimate look which lends itself perfectly to the kind of character study the film is centered around.

SA: The actual shoot, we were so well-prepared in that we did a lot of rehearsals for the film. Ben and I went to a lot of the locations and rehearsed as well as at both his place and my own so by the time we got to the set there wasn’t a lot of stress about it, but we didn’t have a lot of time. Not that we really needed a lot of time though because again we were so well-prepared. So it was a quick shoot, where we’d get to set early in the morning and wrap up by either late afternoon or early evening. Pretty consistently that was the shooting schedule, but it seemed to me it was so ready to go that we were really able to honor the project. It didn’t feel like anything was rushed.

It felt instead like we were able to say what we wanted to say and we were so connected to the material and prepared that we were able to honor it, which was good. I should also mention the cinematographer on the film, Peter Scalettar, he is extremely talented. And it was definitely an honor, if you look at those 1970’s John Cassavetes films with the natural lighting, where you’re a fly on the wall watching human behavior but it’s not forced upon you.

VO: One of the key relationships in the film is between your character Frank and Seymour Cassel's character, what are your thoughts on their particular relationship within the story & outside of that what was your working partnership with Seymour like?

SA: I loved Seymour to death, we had such a good time shooting that and it sort of bled into the relationship onscreen as well. He’s just so larger than life and fun and always willing to play and it’s infectious. We could throw him another curve ball and have fun with it. He’s just so free; I think that’s the best word you could use to describe Seymour Cassel, he’s just a free actor. I just clicked with him; he’s one of those guys who’s unforgettable and legendary while also being an amazing person.

I think that the relationship is about accepting one another without judgment; here’s a place where Frank can go and spew as much bullshit as possible and even though Seymour’s character could see right through it, he didn’t call him out on it. He accepted it. And when it came to some of the bullshit that Seymour’s character threw out there to my character Frank, I accepted it as well so I think that was the bridge between them, this sort of unconditional friendship between the two without judgment even though they both like to spin pretty big yarns. BHC_1

VO: In general, how much leeway was granted in terms of performance, was there a lot of improvisation on set or was everything tightly scripted and blocked out? Because there are instances between you and Seymour where I thought either this is totally improvised or scripted down to the last single word and detail. For instance, the scene where you two are kicking a can around and trying to block each other as well as the scene in the bathroom where Seymour is trying to piss and you’re aggravating him.

SA: You know what, the bathroom scene was improvised but there was a blueprint structure for it. We had finished shooting early and the director had a concept of wanting Frank to talk about getting Jane a piano. So we went into the bathroom and I remember we ran through it a couple of times and it was improvised. Then that one take when you see it, it was like fucking magic with the chemistry and the whole energy behind it. It was pretty awesome and probably one of my favorite scenes as well. I think kicking the can was written but Seymour and I came up with the concept of doing something physical as we were doing the dialogue, which would then really make the dialogue come to life.

VO: Another moment that really spoke to me is the scene in which Frank looks through the office window where Seymour is playing with this kitten and the warmth of it really seems to speak to that man’s being, in my opinion, more than a one or two page monologue. I feel like more and more little details like that ultimately are more important and expressive than just dialogue alone, no matter how well-written.

SA: Oh hell yeah, I agree with you. There’s nothing more exciting than human behavior in the quietest moments. How does someone behave when there’s no one around. That to me is the most exciting thing too. I have to give Ben Rodkin a lot of credit, he definitely set the play up that way and came up with the kick as I remember it and it was his concept for the bathroom as well. Even though the script was in really, really good shape, he was mentored by Gill Dennis who wrote Walk The Line, Ben had brought the script to him a number of times and Gill made of a number of suggestions and helped guide him with the script. But on set, he understood to keep a certain amount of structure but also a certain amount of looseness so a lot of happy accidents could happen, which are all the best moments in a film.

VO: Over the course of the story, we're trying to figure out what happened with Frank's girl Jane as he continues to create this fantasy world for himself, does he really believe what he says deep down or do you think he suspects the truth the entire time and is just trying to work his way to accepting it?

SA: Wow that’s a fucking great question. I think in the beginning he’s aware of some of the bullshit he says to people, how he communicates and how he charms. Frank’s the kind of guy who’s gotten away with a lot of charm throughout his whole life and a lot of bullshit. I think as life has caught up to him and as some of his choices have led him to a pretty isolated and lonely place he begins to cling onto those lies for survival for his own identity and survival in how he functions in the world. And I think as it becomes really clear that he’s not going to be able to come out of prison and get right back into his relationship and has to be with himself, he clings onto those lies. They become like oxygen, what he needs to get through the day. And I think at first it’s hopeful believing but then he really commits to it.

VO: It seems as though Frank really has two levels of engaging with this fantasy world in which on top, when he’s dealing with strangers or other friends besides Seymour, he is able to essentially sling what he’s saying to people and wants to make everything sound good. Whereas when he finally is alone with Seymour, he seems to and wants to believe what he is saying because Seymour is allowing him to accept it as truth rather than call him out and both somehow are implicitly aware of this dynamic.

SA: You absolutely get it. That’s the dynamic of the relationship, I think that’s Seymour’s grace. He loves the kid enough to allow him his lies because he understands that he needs that for survival. Only somebody that’s been to the sorts of places that Seymour’s character has been to would be able to accept that without confrontation because I’m sure Seymour’s character has told himself all kinds of lies himself to get through things. So that’s where their love for one another really comes out, that acceptance. Because Seymour probably believes that the only way Frank is going to come to the truth is on his own, it’s not about confronting him. That’s something he’s got to work out on his own so I’m going to accept him and love him regardless because I understand what it’s like to be there.

VO: Where do you think Frank goes after the end of the film itself? It's left fairly open-ended.

SA: I think Frank is the kind of guy who is a survivor; ultimately he’s going to get that new TV to Seymour and build that bridge, that friendship back. He’s the kind of guy that probably does a million do overs, I don’t think he’ll ever give up whether it’s in love or in life. I think that’s really his grace card but I’m not saying he’s going to get it right. He might have to fuck up a million more times but he’s never going to give up. That’s what’s awesome about him he won’t. That’s his spirit, the sort of beautiful loser spirit like Cool Hand Luke where you know that this guy is just never going to give up. And that’s sort of what a beautiful loser is, what’s beautiful in them is the fight to the last breath but you know they’re destined to lose. But I think as long as you choose to keep fighting, you never lose. Will there be another Jane in his life? Another obsession? Of course. All kinds of other fucking lies? Of course. But the great thing is he’s going to pick up that mess, try to deal with it, and keep going.

To learn more about the film, go to www.bigheartcity.com