Where did the concept for The New Science come from? And how much of it is truly autobiographical?

When I made The New Science, I had just gotten done working on a project that very much became a project "by-committee." So when I started to work on The New Science it was important to me that I allow myself a great deal of freedom to work in a really open and creative manner. Not worrying too much about how the film was going to be perceived and really foregrounding that which engaged me about the process of filmmaking. So the concept for the film really came out of an attempt to explore what I love about filmmaking and about the particular modes of storytelling possible in filmmaking. Film's narrative possibilites are, I believe anyway, quite a bit broader than they are evidenced to be in the majority of films I see. I wanted to have fun with those narrative possibilities.

I'm not totally sure how to answer the question of how autobiographical the film is. Suffice it to say, though, that I'm a big proponent of the notion that the more uniquely personal and particular a story is, the more universal it can become. So autobiography is always at the heart of my writing inasmuch as I'm quite taken with the idea of rooting my writing in what I experience as truth in my life. (I hope that sounds as pompous to you as it does to me.)

You have a unique way of telling a story. Who has most influenced your approach to filmmaking?

Thanks. Hal Hartley has definitely been one of the greatest influences upon me as a filmmaker. There is something about his use of meter/cadence in speech and choreography in both camera movement as well as blocking that really resonates with me on a very fundamental level. Watching Trust for the first time... that was the first time that I saw on screen a portrait of life that looked astonishingly real to me. What cinema verite is to some people, so are Hal Hartley's films to me. They just look and sound like life to me.

I've also been heavily influenced by Errol Morris. Watching Gates of Heaven really helped me become aware of the way that people betray themselves in how they comport themselves. Something about the speech patterns and the seemingly arbitrary streams of thoughts again really seemed like it was being lifted directly out of how I perceive the world.

On The New Science in particular, I was also really thinking about the unbelievably seamless fusion of visual style and narrative lucidity found in some of Oliver Stone's films, Natural Born Killers, JFK. Those movies absolutely astonish me. They are veritable encyclopedias of filmmaking technique. Yet they are simultaneously completely visceral and emotional narratives. My experience of watching and re-watching those films is completely unlike any other film viewing experience I've ever had.

I'm also greatly influenced by Woody Allen. Harmony Korine. Coen Brothers. Folks of that ilk.

So why begin with Chapter 6? Will we ever see 1 through 5?

I hope so. At the time I made The New Science I was toying with and thinking about the idea of autobiography. And the idea that a person's life unfolds itself in a temporal succession of events that is even remotely as complete as film narratives always are is just kind of silly to me. On a different level, I understand that people are reacting to conventional narratives on a more metaphorical or perhaps archetypal or at least non-literal manner. But I like the idea that Chapter 6 would evidence itself to a person telling the story of his own life before Chapter 1 or 2 would. And I like the idea that a person might only be able to discover the meaning and sense of Chapter 3 after having processed and synthesized the significance of his own Chapter 6. So I do want to continue making chapters. But they wouldn't all necessarily be short films. And they could come in any order.

A few years before I made The New Science, I made a short film called Love, Part One. Then I wrote a short called Love, Part Four. And then I wrote a feature called Love, Part Two and Three. Same sort of idea, I guess.

You posted your film on YouTube just recently. Is this the first film you've posted online? Why do it? What do you hope to achieve?

Well, I probably missed being right in the thick of cyberspace as a defining component of filmmaking exhibition and marketing by about 3 or 4 years. So I'm starting to look into what it's all about. The internet is clearly an undeniable tool for film marketing and exhibition at present and will be even more so moving forward. My feature film, entitled This is a Business (indiepixfilms.com/thisisabusiness), was distributed recently by IndiepixFilms on DVD and VOD through their website. When I started to see the ease people had accessing information on my feature it started me thinking about all of this. The New Science was also being hosted by Microcinema International's Independent Exposure on their site last year while the film was touring in their traveling microcinema (independentexposure.com). Once it came off their site, I decided to put it up on Youtube. I am curious to see what kind of traffic the short sees. I'm also curious to see how I take to the idea that the short is just floating out there on the internet.

Which websites do you frequent for inspiration or entertainment?

I'm a big fan of the Wholphin DVD and website (wholphindvd.com). I've grown great affection for more than just a few things I 've seen on that site and on the DVDs. I first found Derek & Simon at Wholphin and then I followed all those shorts on Super Deluxe. I was also a big fan of the Clark And Michael series. I keep an eye on Joe Swanberg's web series as well (the new one on Spout.com (Butterknife) and the first one on Nerve.com (Young American Bodies)).

Overall, I'm really taken with the idea of a web series. There seem to be such broader possibilities for character and narrative in the shortened form of a web series. They allow for more style and attitude than you can get away with in more conventional and expensive modes of storytelling. I recently shot the pilot episodes of an original web series that I'm currently working on partnering with some websites for hosting and financing. It's called Julius And Claude In 3D.

I dig the accessiblity of the medium as well. You can just go check out an episode or two whenever.

I also check in on funnyordie.com every once in a while. The other day I watched Zach Galifianakis in The Snuggler and it made me laugh. Just the way he runs in that.

Finally, what was your favorite part in the creation process of The New Science? My bet is on selecting the fight scene costumes.

Actually, the superhero costumes were a pain in my ass. Far harder to find a non-descript male unitard than you might imagine. And capes, too, are not easy to come by. I'm always dumb like that. I always think that certain seemingly obvious things would be easy to find. When I made my feature, we needed a plain red ball. Nothing on it. No writing. No patterns. Just a solid red ball. And we wound up having to paint a grey ball red. You would think, though, that such things would not be hard to find. Then again, this is coming from a man who can't fathom why it is so difficult to find a simple pair of khaki pants. No pleats. No elastic waist. No wild, innovative seams and stitches. Not rife with pockets all over the place. Not made from sandpaper's first cousin. Just a simple pair of well-fitting khaki pants.

My favorite part of the creative process for The New Science was probably the planning and then the post. These are always my favorite parts. These are the parts where I feel like I'm most focused on crafting and refining the story itself. I have space and time to work with the materials and to think and explore.