Interview (Part 3): Andrew Friedhof (2015 Nicholl Winner)

Andy Friedhof wrote the original screenplay “Great Falls” which won a 2015 Nicholl Fellowship in Screenwriting. Recently I had the opportunity to chat with Andy about his background as a writer and his award-winning screenplay.

Today in Part 3, Andy talks about researching “Great Falls” and three major characters in the story:

Scott: What if you basically could shrink the distance between the people dispensing the means of capital punishment from some sequestered chamber somewhere in a prison, pull that into our normal experience, bring it closer to home.

Andy: Exactly. I think just because something is legal doesn’t make it moral. I think often that justification is used as a fig leaf.

Like I said, I think that applies to things like refugee policy and policing, as well. People can sometimes become ambivalent about these issues because they say, “Well, it’s just the law,” They can dismiss it. When that structure is removed and you’re faced with actually having to do it yourself, it’s a question of whether you can actually follow through with that conviction.

One of the most important things I learned while doing my Masters, was that action is character. It’s easy for a character to say, “Yes, I’m pro death penalty,” but when you test that principle against reality, the idea that they might have to actually do it themselves, what’s the value of those words at the end of the day.

Scott: It’s like that moment in The Dark Knight, remember, where they’ve got the two boats, regular citizens in one, prisoners in the other, and the ‘good’ guys can pull the switch and take out the prisoners?

Andy: Yeah, right.

Scott: I want to get into the details of the story, but before we get there, I’d like to talk about your writing process for “Great Falls”. You go on this road trip to the United States. Now you’re in Australia. You’ve got this ‘what if’ story concept and start developing these characters. But the story is set in Montana, 10,000 miles away or more.

When you read the script and it feels like, “Yeah, this guy grew up in Montana.” What resources did you use to achieve that sense of authenticity?

Andy: I heard that quite a few times while I was over there which was very flattering. I think the Internet is an incredible resource now in terms of the amount of research you can do. Even something as small as visiting locations in Google Street View, in terms of immersing yourself in the environment you’re writing about. So much of the detail in the script came out of the research.

In terms of why I chose to focus on Montana, obviously, I needed a state that still had the death penalty. It’s actually kind of incredible how much information the state government has on websites about the death penalty process.

For example, there’s a publically available document called “Montana Execution Protocol.” That basically describes step by step how a prisoner is supposed to be executed, right down to whether they can be sedated, and how many sedatives they are allowed to have before they’re executed, when their last meal will be served, the person who will be doing that.

There’s a huge amount of data out there, but it’s also quite horrifying when you think about what those documents are actually describing. It’s a government document describing the killing of a human being in this very bureaucratic language. Another really helpful resource was the Montana Abolition Coalition. They had a huge amount of research on their website.

As I said, many of the details of the script came out, even decisions around which characters to focus on. For example, early drafts of the script didn’t have the family of the victims in it.

One of the things I read about was how, and I never even considered it before, but often families are torn apart about the decision to execute. Some members of the victim’s family wholly support the decision to kill the inmate, while others are extremely opposed for a variety of reasons

Families that should be united and supporting each other through their greatest period of grief are often arguing about this issue or the schisms caused by this issue. That was something I wanted to explore, as well. That was the reason those characters were introduced.

Scott: This is Liza and Josh?

Andy: Exactly. That came out of the research. There are a lot of myths around the death penalty I think that people aren’t aware of. A lot of people say, “It’s cheaper to execute people,” but it’s actually not.

It’s far more expensive because there’s a long series of appeals and court hearings, and then the actual process itself is extremely expensive. The security involved, the procurement of the drugs, the training of the personnel.

I read somewhere that California has spent $4 billion since 1978 to carry out 13 executions. That’s over $300 million per execution. It costs close to $180 million a year just to keep the death penalty system active in that state.

There are some misconceptions out there. I think some people rely on those misconceptions to justify their ambivalence or support for the death penalty.

A scene from “Great Falls” as read by Jimmy Smits, Freida Pinto, Kathy Baker, and O’Shea Jackson Jr.

Scott: Let’s jump into some of the characters here. I’m going to get your impression of these key figures.

The first one is Sergeant Stan Gittany. This is how you describe him when you introduce him, “Sergeant Stan Gittany, 50s, smiling at the waitress. He wears a tan Cascade County Sheriff Department uniform. Everything about Stan is thick, his eyebrows, his neck, his accent, his wit.” Where did he come from in your story crafting process?

Andy: For me the main character is Josie. She is the person that changes in the story. In the United States and Australia there’s still a majority support for the death penalty. I think if you asked people how strongly held their view on that is, they’re probably not dyed-in-the-wool supporters of those policies. They’re more blasé about it.

Josie’s role was to represent that majority experience. Stan’s role is the hardline response to crime and support for the death penalty. He was the cypher for that attitude. That was where that character initially came from. He’s very firm and confident in his black and white worldview.

Scott: You’ve got Josie, who’s a deputy. You describe her, “Early 30s, sitting opposite, same uniform, staring at Stan’s eggs. Doesn’t smile much. Not much gives her cause to.” She goes through a transformation. Starting off she’s got a drug addiction which she’s hiding and fractured life.

What I hear you saying is that you’ve got her, where she comes down eventually on the side of not in support of the “death penalty” that emerges for Bernie, this ad hoc thing, versus Stan. Bernie is the murderer who is condemned. Stan’s attitude, I think he even says, “You’re in a cage, you’re basically an animal.” That’s where he’s starting off at, right, Stan?

Andy: Yep.

Scott: That’s one of the interesting things. Bernie, here’s how you describe him when he’s introduced in the script. “Bernie, 40s, the condemned, sits in the backseat behind a steel cage. Chippewa Indian, graying, patchy beard, skin of waxy pallor, like coffee with a little too much cream in it.”

He’s the condemned murderer, and yet, in some respects, over the course of the story is it fair to say that he’s almost one of the more humane or humanized figures in the script?”

Andy: Yeah, I was concerned about making him too morally pure, given he does have this violent history, but I am a firm believer that most people can change. He has spent, obviously, an extensive period in jail by this time. He’s found religion.

I feel like if you didn’t believe people have a possibility to change, then what’s the point in even having a correctional system? If you feel someone’s evil and will be for life, and it’s only about punishment then that attitude is not currently reflected in the wider justice system.

Bernie’s someone who was obviously affected by drugs badly, and made a horrible decision as a very young man, and carried out this terrible act, but I’ve also seen people come back from the brink of that sort of nihilism.

One very important aspect of Josie’s character is that her own family has a history of dealing with the opposite side of the law. She’s someone who initially believes that immorality is merely a personal decision, rather than something that can be influenced by circumstances and context.

She holds her brother to that sort of standard, in terms of lending him money to start his business because she believes that he simply needs to make the decision to get right with the world. The reason her father, for example, ends up having a brush with the law is he lost his job and, out of desperation, tried to rob this bank.

I think that’s Josie’s learning process over the course of the script. She starts off thinking that Bernie just made a horrible decision and therefore is somewhat supportive of the idea that he needs to die. But as she gets to know him and sees that he has clearly changed, to some extent that plants the seed of doubt in her mind.

Scott: Because she could draw a parallel between her father and him?

Andy: Exactly, she discounted the desperate circumstances of her father and thought he just made a bad choice. She gets to know Bernie, she starts to understand her father and her family’s history.

Tomorrow in Part 4, we continue our exploration of Andy’s script “Great Falls”.

For Part 1 of my interview with Andy, go here.

Part 2, here.

Andy is repped by ESA and Circle of Confusion.

Twitter: @andrewfriedhof.