Interview with Oscar Nominated Screenwriter/Director Oren Moverman

Ben Foster, Oren Moverman, Woody Harrelson (left to right)


Screenwriter Oren Moverman made his directorial debut with THE MESSENGER (2009), a film about an injured Iraq War veteran who returns home to find he has been assigned to the dreaded casualty notification duty.

THE MESSENGER was distributed by Beastie Boy Adam “M.C.A” Yauch’s company, Oscilloscope Laboratories, which distributes 12-15 quality movies a year. Though a small film not widely seen in theaters, THE MESSENGER was nominated for two Academy awards: Best Supporting Actor—Woody Harrelson and Best Screenplay—Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman.

Moverman, who moved to the U.S. after four years of military service in his native Israel, began his film career as a screenwriter, co-writing acclaimed films such as JESUS’ SON (adapted from Denis Johnson’s book of short stories by the same title), MARRIED LIFE, and the Bob Dylan biopic, I’M NOT THERE.

Moverman is currently attached as a writer/director to the UNTITLED KURT COBAIN PROJECT, as well as James Ellroy’s cop thriller RAMPART (starring Woody Harrelson, Ben Foster, and Ice Cube). 

ML: I read an interview you did with Ira Sachs in which you said that you had never met a creative person before you moved to the U.S. What made you decide that you wanted to direct films, and what gave you the encouragement and confidence to get rolling in that direction?

OM: Confidence I’m not sure I have yet. But it wasn’t a very thoughtful process. It was really falling in love with movies, and being scared by movies. Not necessarily by scary movies, but by the whole experience of going to the movie theater and sitting there in the dark, which was terrifying to me; and I was drawn to it and I didn’t know much about it. I didn’t know what it even means to be involved in film; I just knew that I was drawn to that world and that somehow–I can say it now as if it was guaranteed, it just worked out that way–that somehow, I would end up doing something in film.

And then I moved to the States and I went to college. I studied film–film studies and production–and I always kept in mind that I wanted to be a director. But I didn’t know what a director is, to tell you the truth, I just had a vague idea. And I read about it, I read a lot about the film process and all of that, so I sort of knew in theory, the way I think film critics know about film, but that doesn’t mean I knew about the day to day of it. And I found my way through it.

ML: You started out as a screenwriter and then you directed your first film THE MESSENGER, which was nominated for two Oscars, one for Best Screenplay for the script you co-wrote with Alessandro Camon. I know that when Alessandro found out about the nomination, he called his dad in Italy to tell him and his dad said that he already knew because the mayor of his little town in Italy had called to give him the news. And I was wondering if you would talk a little bit about what having such a huge and instant and public success was like for you?

OM: It really never felt that way, to tell you the truth. Definitely my thoughts were always on the film, and this may sound disingenuous, but it really was true. My thoughts were always on the film. And I think there is a certain kind of randomness in the whole Awards thing. And obviously the thing that amazed me was the fact that we were such a small film, with not a lot of money for publicity, and that slowly but surely people were hearing about us.

So when I heard about the nomination, my first reaction, the thing that really kept me excited about it was really, ‘This is really good for the film. This is really going to get the exposure we couldn’t afford to get if we had paid for it.’ It really kept me amazed and excited. It wasn’t really anything personal for me, because I do feel that it was almost a fluke. It was such a small film, which ultimately not a lot of people saw in the theater– I mean I think a lot of people are seeing it now on DVD–but at the time we didn’t have a lot of people seeing it in the theater and to get a little bit of a nod from people in the Academy who said, ‘We paid attention to this movie when it came our way,’ was very exciting.

And it really translated to more attention for the film, which I think was ultimately what we were going for from the beginning, because it is the sort of film where you feel a little humbled by it, you feel that what it’s about is almost more important than anything personal that you can get out of it.

82nd Annual Academy Awards. Suzanne Warren, Alessandro Camon, Adam "MCA" Yauch, Yael Moverman, Oren Moverman


ML: Sean Penn hosted a screening of THE MESSENGER to help ensure that certain members of the Academy saw the film. And Stanley Tucci was plugging the film from the Red Carpet on Oscar night. Why do you think these actors who weren’t involved in the making of the film at all were so invested in promoting it?

OM: I think we had a few angels who basically took it upon themselves to promote the film. And I think it really came from a genuine place. The world of Hollywood and the world of filmmaking is really a community, or it’s actually a collection of a few communities, and just like in any other profession, these guys–actors, directors and whatnot–are always looking out to what’s out there, what’s interesting what’s new, what’s the thing that not everyone’s seeing but we should pay attention to.

We had some very smart people on our distributions side, Oscilloscope Laboratories, and they sort of knew how to approach these people and send them DVDs. But you know some of it also happens in a much more sort of organic way. I’ll give you an example of something that I don’t think was written up anywhere else.

We showed the film at a lot of festivals because that’s one way to not spend a lot of money but still get some exposure and get people talking about the movie. And we showed the film at the Nantucket Film Festival. And Ben Stiller was in the audience, came to see the movie, I knew him from a long time ago. But I hadn’t seen him in a long time. He came to see the movie and he loved it. He was really, really excited about it and excited about reconnecting after all these years and all that. He was really, I think, impressed with the movie.

And then on the other side of the country there was a screening and Woody [Harrelson] invited his friends from L.A. and I invited some friends and one of the people there was Owen Wilson. And Owen saw the film and was really impressed with it as well. So somebody came up with the idea of Owen and Ben Stiller hosting a screening in Los Angeles for some of their friends. And that’s actually where Sean Penn came to see it.

And so it was kind of like, ‘You tell that person, and then you tell that person and then we’ll hold some screenings and get them to see it.’ And obviously no one ever forced people to talk about the film or asked them to do anything. If they liked the film, they spoke about it. There are other actors who never spoke about it if they didn’t like the film.


(L-R) Screenwriter Alessandro Camon, musician/producer Adam "MCA" Yauch, writer-director Oren Moverman and producer Lawrence Inglee. Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty.


ML: Oscilloscope Laboratories is Adam Yauch’s distribution company (Adam “MCA” Yauch of the Beastie Boys). It sounds like they are filling a specific and much needed niche in the distribution realm. Will you talk a little bit about how you got involved with Yauch?

OM: I would say again that it seemed that everything that happened with this movie was a combination of coincidence and random good intentions that led to something like this.

I actually met Adam at a party when we were negotiating with another distributor to distribute the film. We still didn’t really have a good deal in place at the time and Adam, I was introduced to him, and he said he’d seen THE MESSENGER and how much he liked it. And he said something along the lines of ‘One day I wish we could distribute a film like that.’ And I said, ‘Why not now?’ And he basically said, ‘Well I’m sure you guys got a distributor. I mean I saw people after the screening that were huddling, that were talking about it. There was a lot of excitement about it.’ I said, ‘Yes, but there’s no done deal. And actually I would be very excited if you guys got into this and were interested in distributing it because I really think that, as you said, there’s a very special need for a distributor.’ So I gave him the number for the producer and he called the next day and put a bid in and that’s how they got the film.

ML: Had you been familiar with Adam Yauch’s work as a musician?

OM: Obviously I knew the Beastie Boys and I knew their music and all that kind of stuff, but more specifically for this, I knew that Adam got into distribution because I became aware of them [Oscilloscope Laboratories] when they picked up Kelly Reichhardt’s film, WENDY AND LUCY, and it was quite an exception to what was going on in the distribution world back then because I never really read articles saying ‘Hey there’s this guy who’s a musician who has an idea and now he’s thinking about distributing movies.’ You sort of come to that initially with a little bit of suspicion of ‘What is this about?’

So I looked him up and read about him and realized that this is the real deal, that he only has the best intention as an artist, and actually a real clear agenda to promote certain kinds of quality movies and thank God for him.

ML: To go back a little bit to the topics and the themes of THE MESSENGER: I read that you are friends with Tony Swafford. In his memoir, JARHEAD, Swafford writes about how anti-war movies, when shown to young warriors, are seen as pro-war. He writes that, “Filmic images of death and carnage are pornography to the military man.” I wonder if that idea affected your decision to write a film about a soldier who has already come back from the war to the homefront?

OM: I think it’s a very complicated thing in terms of the relationships between images and political agenda. I think that, as a whole, in my opinion, all films about war are anti-war, because, to be pro-war, they have to be propaganda films. I think that those films, especially the big budget films, are done in a way where they bring in a certain kind of excitement, a certain kind of adrenaline that can be really riveting and kind of a turn on, especially for young boys and young men.

We were very aware that we were not going to make a political film in terms of polemics, in terms of left wing/right wing, because that’s a death trap for a movie. But all movies are in a way political and our agenda was to put together a film—if we were so lucky, and we were—that would tell the story of the homefront without saying ‘This particular war was wrong for these reasons,’ or ‘That particular war was wrong for those reasons,’ and just basically show that people have to live with the consequences of the decision to go to war. And based on that, you draw your own conclusions.

I think from the very simplistic point of view that people want to take sometimes, clearly the movie is not saying, ‘War is a good thing.’ It’s basically saying ‘War effects people in a way some people don’t even think about and here’s what it looks like in its fictional rendering. It’s not a documentary; it’s our creation.’ So that’s really where we were coming from with this movie.

It’s basically an idea of ‘What does the homefront look like? What are the soldiers dealing with when they are coming back? And really it’s so much the tip of the iceberg. It’s almost a little embarrassing to say the movie is representative of that. I think it’s representative of a very tiny part of the story. Not only is it the story of thousands of dead in the two wars, but the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the way lives have been torn apart as a result of this war and keep being torn apart. It’s such a devastating thing we are going to be living with for such a long time. We haven’t even started to deal with it on a national level.

Oren Moverman (

ML: Now this is a bit of a more personal question about language. I’ve read that you first wrote in Hebrew and Alessandro (Camon) first wrote in Italian. What was your experience with thinking and writing in Hebrew versus in English and how does that affect your subject matter and your language?

OM: I think it makes me more insecure about language when I have to write in English. And it makes me feel like I never know enough, therefore I have to know more. Which actually is not a bad thing. Mostly I think it serves you as a writer when you feel you have to go an extra mile to get the language right. I think that Alessandro is really an exceptional guy. He has a heavy Italian accent and even if you don’t speak Italian you know he’s quite an intellectual in Italian. And I think his mastery of English for any guy, is amazing, for an American it would be amazing. But also when you consider that he came to the States knowing very few words [of English], it’s really kind of shocking and inspiring.

For me, I’ve always dealt with English on a certain level. Obviously when I came here–which was, by the way, 23 years ago today—I started the process of becoming more and more comfortable with English. I think at first there was definitely the  ‘I think in Hebrew before I speak in English’ kind of a process. But I would say that a few years into living here in New York, I started thinking in English and finding it more natural and kind of free flowing to go between thinking in English and speaking English. I find that once in a while a Hebrew word creeps into my head and then I start kind of stuttering trying to figure out what that word is in English.

But although I am quite comfortable with it, there’s always going to be this nagging insecurity that ‘I should check up on that line, because I’m not really sure that’s the best way of saying it.’ And that ultimately might have helped me work better. But also, as an outsider, and somebody who is not a native English speaker, you end up stealing from people all the time. I mean, you listen to the way people talk and it’s always about taking the phrase or line, so that you make it work for the character.

Oren Moverman, 2009 Sundance

ML: You’ve told me before you’re glad you don’t live in L.A. Does living in New York, or the quality of life you have in New York, affect your writing?

OM: I love living in New York. I mean L.A. has its good sides. But New York is a place where I can walk around, and that’s a big deal for me. There’s an energy here that comes from interacting with people on a massive scale that I find really kind of exciting and inspiring. It’s where I’ve been all this time and there’s always so much going on here and so many people from, not only all over the world, but also from so many different disciplines and professions and occupations, that it is very dynamic. L.A. is ultimately where the film industry is and I think that—while it’s very good for people who work in the industry—has its limitations. Everything there revolves around film. It’s always been a comfortable fit for me here [in New York] and having kids now, and a family here, I can’t think of living anywhere else.

ML: Currently you are attached to RAMPART as a writer and director. And you’ll be working with Woody Harrelson and Ben Foster again on that project. Would you talk a little bit about your decision to do that film? And did you have to lobby to be able to work again with those two actors?

OM: RAMPART is based on a James Ellroy script and I was hired to rewrite that script and when I finished it I think we were already done with THE MESSENGER; and one of the producers who worked on THE MESSENGER, Lawrence Inglee, who also was the producer of RAMPART, basically said, ‘Well why don’t you direct this?’ And I thought about it and I thought it would be kind of exciting if we could get the team back together—the core team, which is Ben, Woody, and Lawrence as well—and do this, which appealed to me and I liked the opportunity to go into another movie right away, (well, relatively right away–in movie terms).

In many ways, it’s not that far from THE MESSENGER, in terms of, we’re gonna have a guy in uniform, but it is very far from it in terms of what the story is and what the tone is. And it’s a somewhat bigger film, more challenging in many ways. And I also started a production company with Ben Foster and Ben is coming into this movie as a producer, representing our company. So there’s the feeling that the family is working together. It’s a great kind of crazy trip that came out of the mind of James Ellroy and that’s an interesting thing to explore any day.

ML: You co-wrote the Bob Dylan biopic I’M NOT THERE and it’s been rumored you might direct the Kurt Cobain biopic. And whenever Denis (Johnson, author of JESUS’ SON) talks about you he always mentions you used to send him mixed cassette tapes that you made him. So I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about your interest in music and musicians and how that affects the work you do in film.

OM: Music is everything. It’s impossible to breath without music. Growing up, I didn’t really have access to movies, we didn’t have much of that. But music was always on. We all had radios. And music became necessary for me. And also there’s obviously a fantasy element for the world of musicians. So it’s in my work; I was very lucky to work with Todd Haynes (director) on I’M NOT THERE and you know, you get to work with, not only one of the great singer/songwriters, but also one of the great poets of our time, Bob Dylan, so that was a special privilege.

You know, I’ve always been interested in biopics in general and unusual biopics and then when I was approached to do the Cobain thing I was very excited about it. You know I’m writing it right now and I am attached to direct it.

ML: You are?

OM: Yeah, yeah, it’s not a rumor. It’s true. But you know also, I can tell you now as I write it, there’s something so complicated about the interplay—-a movie that wants to tell a life story and then is also based in the creativity that is part of that in the world of the tour musicians that is so specific sometimes. To me, it’s absolutely intriguing and it also takes me back to the first question that you asked me; the world of creative people is absolutely mysterious and attractive to me. 

That’s a different kind of creativity. Writing music, writing lyrics, performing is the biggest turn on there is. I know plenty of very, very, very famous actors who will tell you absolutely, in no uncertain terms, that their biggest fantasy is to be a rock star. You know, it’s like you think, ‘Oh, you’re a famous movie star.’ But the actor’s like, ‘Nah, I’m close, but look at this guy, he’s a rock star.’

It’s that world of rock n’ roll, it’s keeping us all alive, or it’s kept us alive and going. To me it’s just something that’s always intrigued me. That thing with Denis [Johnson] for example, it’s also a way of communicating with people. It’s like, ‘Hey, I like you. Could you listen to this? How ‘bout this?’ I spent a lot of hours, or wasted a lot of hours—spent or wasted, I’m not sure—just playing music for people and talking about it and trying to figure out who’s in that band and who’s in that band and how they connect and what does this song mean and all that kind of stuff. It’s being a perpetual teenager, I guess.

ML: So you mentioned Denis (Johnson). You co-wrote the film adaptation of his book of short stories, JESUS’ SON. I consider that to be one of the best film adaptations of a book—certainly of a book of short stories—that I’ve ever seen. I was wondering how you got involved in that project and what the experience of adapting that book was like for you?

OM: I got involved through a company called Evenstar. I was lucky enough to know Elizabeth Cuthrell, who started the company and David Urrutia who was working with her—they were both producers on JESUS’ SON—and we were just talking about plans. They had some development money and Elizabeth was a big fan of Denis Johnson’s and they were trying to figure out a way to get the rights to that book. And I think then we sort of looked at each other and said ‘There are three of us. We are three writers, three producers. We can do it together.’

And then we started kind of dividing up the work and it took almost a year of a lot of work of getting the script into shape and then involving the director early on in Alison MacClean, and then involving Denis [Johnson] early on, who I think was a little suspicious of these guys in New York. But then he came on board and got really involved in so many levels in the film. It was just a very long and very fulfilling process.

And ultimately what I would say is we didn’t know a lot coming in about how to make a movie. It was a burst of experience for most of us. And we got some very good professionals to work on the film. And I think that some of the freedom that we had as a truly independent film that was funded completely independently, some of the freedom that was there really instructed the script in the sense that we didn’t feel restricted by a studio telling us, ‘You can do this, but you can’t do that.”

And we read the book, and talked about it; one of the things that I noticed that I thought was exciting was that when you tried to translate the book into film there’s actually a whole language at your disposal that you can use because you have an unreliable narrator. You have a way of getting into tangents in terms of filmmaking, and then coming back to the story, but you’re never really sure what the true story is. And then the main character is always trying to figure out what exactly happened; and he doesn’t really remember; he did a lot of drugs and was drinking. So for us that meant that we could use split screens and freeze frames and go on tangents in terms of narrative, and kind of not be linear, but ultimately drive the story forward and have tiny animated moments. And it was a complete toolbox that existed; and we were just paying careful attention to what the words in this great collection [of short stories] were telling us and then what is the kind of cinematic equivalent of those words and we tried to push that through with the film.

I mean the best example for me is in the story called WORK where Fuckhead (Billy Crudup) and Wayne (Denis Leary)–they go and they do some work, and then they get the copper wires out of the walls of the house, and then they sell it. And in the book it says, ‘We split the money down the middle and bought heroin with it.’ And that to me says, ‘Oh, okay, that’s a split screen. You know, just follow them,’ because they go their separate ways, and they both shoot up. Fuckhead has somebody to save him in Michelle (Samantha Morton) and he survives, and the other guy dies. And you can show that at the same time if you just split the screen and follow both stories. So it was just that kind of paying attention to what the brilliant author was telling us and trying to find a way to do it.

ML: And that cast was just phenomenal. Dennis Hopper with the bullet holes in his face just brought it to life.

OM: That story was just word for word from the book. Really we just had to write directions and all that kind of stuff, but in terms of dialogue I think it was word for word from the book—it works so perfectly.


RIP Dennis Hopper

Dennis Hopper had a small part in Jesus’ Son, a deft film adaptation of Denis Johnson’s acclaimed book of short stories about a heroin addict.

In the film Hopper plays Bill, a man who had once been shot in the face. The bullet entered one cheek and exited the other, leaving a round scar on each. When the character FH (Billy Crudup) talks to Bill, Bill responds by saying, “Talk to the bullet hole.”

Even the trailer for Jesus’ Son is high art. Check it out. And enjoy the flash of Hopper.