Director’s Statement

“The Great New Wonderful” was borne from my desire to make a film based in NYC which was independent, intimate and visceral. Sam Catlin (writer), Matt Tauber (producer) and I began developing the script in the spring of 2002. At that particular moment in time, the specter of 9/11 was inescapable. At times it was daunting, feeling like too much of a sacred cow for us to address. But it was unavoidable, and ultimately, it was galvanizing.
All of Sam’s plays and characters, some of which inspired this script, have an underlying sense of
angst, unease, and agitation. Feelings of shock, dislocation and loss were palpable and became the tenets of the script. Given our moment in history, these themes felt inexorably connected to 9/11 and to New Yorkers, and informed the making of the film.

I feel blessed to have worked with an amazing cast and crew who elevated this film in every way.
Given the relatively low budget of the movie, their commitment and involvement is a testament to the
power of the script and the desire of these talented artists to work with unique, compelling material.
For me, it was a dream come true to work with such amazingly gifted actors, each of whom gave piece
of themselves to the film with their brave and indelible performances.
I hope the film succeeds in provoking thought and in tapping into a common emotional thread when
dealing with loss and tragedy, both of a personal nature and on a larger scale.
- Danny Leiner

Some Questions for Danny Leiner

Q: You have directed perhaps the ultimate stoner movies of our era: “Dude, Where’s My Car” and “Harold and Kumar go to White Castle.” How did you come to make such a massively different kind of film?
After directing Dude, I received a lot of scripts in that same vein. At the time, doing another broad comedy held little interest for me and I decided to create and develop material that I found compelling and was more passionate about. So, I started Sly Dog Films with my producing partner, Matt Tauber, with the mandate of creating and collaborating on quality material, whether of an indie spirit or more
mainstream in scope.
We started working with a few playwrights whose work we had seen performed locally in L.A., most of whom were New Yorkers now living here. One was Sam Catlin, a bitingly sharp writer with a singular voice. As we explored themes, characters, and stories with Sam in the spring of 02’ the specter of 9/11 was inescapable. The core of much of Sam’s writing dealt with themes of denial, paranoia and anxiety. All of these seemed inexorably connected to the collective psyche after the attack.
So with some understandable trepidation we embarked on the project using two of Sam’s playlets as a starting point. Through the development process it evolved into five stories which all dealt with lifechanging events, shock, denial and catharsis.

Q: There are parts of THE GREAT NEW WONDERFUL that are funny, but you use humor
in the new film very sparingly and only in the service of revealing a larger truth. Was it hard for you to avoid falling into the comic idiom?
The script dictates the tone and approach I bring to any project I work on and in this case broad comedy was not suited to the material, nor was I inclined or tempted to go in that direction.
While there are comedic elements in TGNW it is used often as a counterpoint and is more wry, ironic
and commenting. I also find in this film, different moments tend to play either sad or comedic,
depending on the viewer, and it is quite subjective in that respect. I believe part of the dynamic tension
of the film lies in the delicate balance of drama and humor.

Q: Though you’re dealing with pretty heavy subject matter, you also avoid trafficking in
sentimentality. Was that a conscious choice?
All of these lead characters are emotionally cut off to various degrees, and the tone of the film mirrors that. I was not really interested in making a sentimental film on this subject and found this perspective
much more complex and compelling. 9/11 hovers around the film like a fog, so in that sense a
sentimental approach would be inappropriate. The film is structured as something of a slow burn,
building I hope towards a significant emotional impact by it’s end. I like to think the ultimate impact owes something to the restrained approach.

Q: You’ve said this film came from your desire “to make a film based in NYC which was independent, intimate and visceral.” You are a native of Brooklyn. Please expand.
Well, I grew up in Brooklyn and started working in the independent NY film community after graduating SUNY Purchase. I collaborated with a number of filmmakers and actors during that time, many of whom were graduates of SUNY Purchase and affiliated with The Shooting Gallery in NYC. I loved the energy, creativity and sheer will needed to make films in that world. At that time I wrote and directed a short film, “Time Expired,” and my first feature film, “Layin’ Low.” Both these films were shot in Brooklyn and were both great and intense experiences.
After spending a few years working in the studio system in LA in both film and T.V., I had a hankering to return to NY and work in a more intimate environment. I was also just excited to shoot
something in NY again. I missed the energy and adrenaline of the city and really felt the urge to tap
back into it.

Q: This is not usually a question one would ask a relative stranger, but did the attacks of 9/11 affect you personally? Did you go through the same kind of emotions or processes as the characters in the film?
While my personal reaction to 9/11 had elements of the characters’ response, it was not as acute. I was
in LA when it happened and was fortunate not to have any people close to me who were directly
touched by it. On top of the initial shock and disbelief, I felt a profound sense of dislocation and isolation. I felt like I should have been there with my family and friends and in some way forever less of a New Yorker for not.

Q: You describe this as a relatively low-budget film. How hard or easy was it to shoot this film in New York City?
Both monumentally hard and at the same time in many ways very similar to my last couple of films. I
guess you can say making any film is incredibly hard and each presents its own unique challenges. The
low budget aspect of this film created its own obstacles, most based on logistics, mode of production and working with a much more limited support system. In this case we shot on Hi-Def and with a great lean and young crew. While I had some concern this would be almost impossible to pull off given the small budget and the kind of production value and look I wanted for the film, it really ended up feeling in league with all the others I had done. I feel the cast and crew who came aboard were so invested in the script and the production it somehow outweighed some of the impossible demands I had for the film. And for me during production it eventually became like all other projects: you have a certain
amount of hours in a day to shoot a certain amount of material and you have to figure out just how the
hell you’re gonna do it.

Q: Your film features the ordinary lives of working Manhattan professionals, people who may seem as if they are too busy to deal with the larger implications of the world around them.
Can you talk about that?
I think the film holds truths for of a lot of people wrapped up in the rat race of life and about people
losing perspective and their priorities. It’s also about people who are doing everything in their power
not to deal with the world around them, to avoid acknowledging and confronting feelings of sadness,
pain and loss.

Q: Also, your characters are not necessarily the most likeable people. One could say that Maggie Gyllenhaal’s character, for example, is competitive and self-absorbed, yet we found we have gained a profound sense of empathy towards her by the end of the film. What are you saying about us New Yorkers?
Maggie’s character, Emme, is intense, competitive and striving to be the best, definitely characteristics
shared by many New Yorkers. She also starts off as the film’s most obviously distant and cut off
character. Her journey in some ways is the smallest of the film, but clearly has a huge impact on her,
and in turn how we as an audience feel about her. Seeing that first little break in her armor is heart
wrenching. This of course is in no small part due to Maggie’s beautiful and layered performance.

Q: The give and take between Tony Shalhoub’s therapist and Jim Gaffigan’s mild-mannered office worker seems to be at the thematic core of the film. By starting and ending your movie with a therapy session and its fallout, could or should audiences think of THE GREAT NEW WONDERFUL as the therapy of cinema?
The scenes certainly are the therapy of the film and embody the spirit and core of the movie. Dr.
Trabulous’ guiding of Sandie to self-discovery, awareness and grief reflects and mirrors the core
journey of all the other characters journeys. The scenes also serve as a grounding signpost, as we keep going back to that same room and see the progression of Sandie and in turn the progression of the movie.

Q: Our heart goes out to the young couple played by Judy Greer and Tom McCarthy. Tom is, of course, also a filmmaker. Can you talk about the chemistry between them and how you went about casting them?
I think Tom and Judy are fantastic together. I’ve been big fan of Judy Greer’s from her work in everything I’ve seen her in and thought from the beginning she would make a great Alison. Whether the script calls for comedy or drama, she brings a window of truth that is compelling and touching. Daniel Swee, our casting director, thought Tom would be great for David from the start. He came in to audition and I was blown away by his take. He immediately tapped into this lost dad with this inexplicably troubled and difficult child. Together, they feel like this well-oiled dysfunctional unit, united and co-dependant in their denial.
Also crucial to the mix was the superb acting and performance of Billy Donner, as Charlie. I think he
gave a great performance, which was all the more impressive given his lack of experience. I believe
this was his first film role and one of his first acting experiences.
I think this story above all the others has elements that were really tough to play and lead to the most
ambivalent and wrenching ending. Both Tom and Judy had to ride a line of being both vulnerable and
caring yet also self-involved and oblivious. A little bit too much in either direction and the story becomes much less compelling.

Q: Nasseeruddin Shah and Sharat Saxena play a pair of security men guarding an East Asian diplomat, a figure New Yorkers in 2002 and even today might regard with some suspicion. Can you talk about that dynamic, and the inner life of the guards we see
through the film?

The intention was to portray working class immigrants who were part of the fabric and melting pot of NYC. While the film doesn’t touch directly on racism and guilt by association in the context of 9/11 their story does keep the thread of 9/11 present by their nationality and their job. The issue of intolerance is really more explored through Satish’s world view, which we see on display with his prejudice and anger. This is in contrast with his best friend Avi, who embraces U.S. pop culture and his joie de vivre. I see the two of them as parts of a whole: by the end each moves a little in the other’s direction.

Q: So what’s next for you? Another stoner movie or something closer to THE GREAT NEW
WONDERFUL?
I’m always looking for anything great, new, and wonderful; indie, studio, comedy, drama, anything
that would somehow make me want to get up at 5:00 am for a three of months in a row and then lock
myself in a dark edit room for another 6 months. Matt Tauber and I are developing a number of projects that run the gamut. One I’m very excited about is another collaboration with Sam Catlin that he is just commencing writing. We are also gearing up for pre-production on Matt Tauber’s first feature, “All Fall Down,” which was developed with the Sundance Institute and is being financed by HD Net Films.