We’re speaking today with Paul Schwartz, the writer, director and producer of the documentary-style film, A New York Story, that follows four individuals in New York City who are all connected by the pandemic and the protests over the murder of George Floyd.
Through the film, we see four different perspectives on a divided nation. This is a touching and thought-provoking film. Thank you for taking the time for our questions.
UniversalCinema Magazine (UM): First off, this was, of course, shot during the pandemic. Could you tell us about how the pandemic shaped how you shot film?
Schwartz (PS): There are two answers to that question: one creative, and one practical.
I spent the first few months after New York was, to all intents and purposes, locked down last March, trying to figure out how to address creatively what we were going through. I had a look at Daniel Defoe’s Journal of a Plague Year, Camus’s La Peste… just to try to get some perspective on how other story-tellers had dealt with the issue, but none of that resonated much with me in terms of this pandemic. Then when the awful death of George Floyd occurred, and the protests began to erupt all across the country, something came into focus: that the pandemic was just one part of a more generally inflected national moment, and even though they were two completely separate events, they would be forever linked in history. That led to the practical consideration: how could I make a film about these events in a way that was: A) safe for everyone involved, B) true to the history we were living through, and C) achievable… which led me to the structure of four monologues that could each be filmed as a stand-alone session, minimizing contact between the cast and crew (just me), and yet presenting a panoply of points of view from within the experience of the pandemic and the state of the nation.
(UM): All four actors here are superb. The film relies both on great writing, but also great deliveries. Can you tell us about the casting process? Was it done in person or online?
(PS): I am a member of the Actors Studio Playwrights and Directors Unit here in New York. For those of us lucky enough to gain membership, the Unit has weekly readings of complete plays (when not under Covid), and also gives us access to some of the finest actors in the world. Prior to making this film, I had worked on other projects at the Studio with all but one of the actors, and that actor, Ivy Omere, came unequivocally recommended by the Studio’s director. It’s a small community, but an immensely talented one. I wrote the scenes with each of these particular actors very much at the forefront of my mind.
(UM): Adam is a highly sympathetic character. But he also strikes us as a bit dim-witted. He says that he kept his mask on most of the time at the protest, unless he had to shout at someone because of the noise and then he pulled his mask off. This kind of behaviour has serious consequences. What were you trying to say with this detail? That a lot of the transmission of virus stems from ignorance?
(PS): It’ s interesting that you picked up on that. Yes, Adam is a young ambitious man, but perhaps not the most careful when it comes to things like masks, and that carelessness has consequences. But that’s Adam, not a general political statement. In fact I tried very hard in this film not to pound home any political point of view. Adam is sympathetic to the protestors. His father is sympathetic to the police. The idea was to present a microcosm of where we are as a country.
(UM): The father-son relationship was very powerful. Do you think the father blames Adam for what happened?
(PS): I hope that I conveyed that Nathan, the father, loves his son Adam with tough love. I don’t think there’s any blame there. Nathan, despite his gruff demeanor, is a doting Dad.
(UM): The doctor’s entanglement with Homeland Security is pretty surprising. Was this based on real stories you’ve heard?
(PS): Last May I read an article in the Washington Post about a Canadian doctor who was being kicked out the country on short notice due to some kind of visa snafu. I did follow the story, and I believe that her case was ultimately resolved months later, but still: it stuck in
my mind as an example of governmental bureaucracy run amok. Turning away well qualified doctors during a rampant pandemic? And yet it happened.
(UM): Adam puts a novel in his bag: Devil on the Cross by Ngugi wa Thiongo. Is there some significance there?
(PS): That was the choice of Mike Keller, the actor who plays Adam. The character does talk about how he wants to impress a beautiful young black woman he’s met at one of the protests, and Mike thought that including the book as a detail would reinforce the idea that Adam wanted to put forward a particular image of himself. Each of these characters has their own agenda. Some of them align with particular political viewpoints, but that’s never the most important thing for any of them. Ultimately their motivations are driven by
considerations that are personal rather than political. I think, in reality, most people are like that, and in each of the four character’s scenes, there are what could be perhaps categorized as “political” moments, but always and only in the service of their personal stories.
(UM): Nathan’s character owns an insurance company and seems always to be thinking about risk. Could you tell us why you decided to put him in that industry?
(PS): The word “risk” appears in several places in the script, out of the mouths of different characters. I liked the idea of having one character whose job it is to mitigate risk in a story where everyone is at risk. The whole “point” of a pandemic is avoiding the risk.
(UM): The pandemic and the murder of George Floyd seem to have shown even more clearly how divided the United States is today. Do you have hope for some sort of reunification?
(PS): Oh wow. That’s huge. I go from day to day, almost moment to moment, having different feelings. There’s no question that the USA is at some kind of turning point, not entirely unlike the mid to late 60s. The righteous indignation surrounding the Floyd killing and every other similar event is simultaneously being met with Trumpism and an
unconcealed overt white supremacist energy in other quarters. Too overt for my comfort.
But: my belief is that demographics are the future, and the demographics are shifting. It may take some time: two or three or even four more presidential cycles, but the nation has slowly been evolving for the last sixty years, and doing so in a way that inevitably trends towards more inclusivity. To put that in perspective: imagine a young gay woman in 1961, trying to build an independent life and career. Now imagine that same woman in 2021. Different world. We’re not there yet on all fronts, and we’re going to have to keep fighting, but the tide is turning.
by: Darida Rose
© 2021. UniversalCinema Mag.