Interview with The Spine Director Chris Landreth
Oscar-Winning Animator Directs Film For NFB, CORE, Copperheart
Jun 23, 2009
In 2005, Chris Landreth’s “Ryan” won the Oscar for Best Animated Short Film. A haunting interview with troubled animator Ryan Larkin, it won acclaim for its surreal style and blunt depiction of a shattered genius battling alcohol addiction and creative drought.
With "Ryan," the director also ripped the scabs from his own psyche, exposing his own insecurities verbally and visually, showing the characters’ mental states in their artistic depiction.
Now Landreth has returned with the equally harrowing “The Spine.” A depiction of destructive codependency, it features veteran actor Gordon Pinsent voicing a man who is losing both his spine and his marriage. It’s a dark vision that owes as much to surrealist painter Francis Bacon as it does to Norman McLaren.
In this exclusive interview, Suite 101 chatted with Chris Landreth about “The Spine” and why he hopes audiences will be exasperated by the film.
S101: How have you been doing?
Chris: “I’ve been doing great. June’s been crazy: I’m taking off tomorrow for the Melbourne International Animation Festival, and I just got back from showing “The Spine” at the Annecy Film Festival.”
How did it go over?
“(laughs) It was funny because there are 2 sides of Annecy. There’s the competition, and then there’s Panorama, where they put all the films that they don’t know what to do with. And “The Spine” was one they did not know what to do with.”
You could take that as a compliment.
“In some ways, yeah. There’s a lot that I know about this film that I’m happy to tell you about.”
Where did the idea for “The Spine” come from and how did it come together?
“Over most of my adult life, I’ve had this annoying habit of trying to guess people’s back-stories. And one thing that confused and exasperated me were people who were in long-term, dysfunctional relationships. What kind of co-dependency, what unsaid pacts or sacrifices, was been the glue that held these relationships together?
“In the case of Dan and Mary, I’ve patched together these stories, some of which are from people I’ve known, others I’ve made up, that explain this relationship. The things that keep them together are quite universal.”
You explain why Mary is the way she is, but what about Dan?
“What happens between Dan and Mary is something that happens very slowly. They’ve been married for 26 years. In the case of this twisted relationship, Dan – as I say towards the end of the film – shrivels into something small that she can hold and cradle and scold. He has, in effect, become a surrogate child, and it throws their relationship into a lopsided arrangement.
“Mary’s story is something that happens on her own: she’s infertile, she goes through this treatment that ruins her body. I know women to whom that has happened: a friend of mine has had an extreme case, similar to what Mary went through. Certainly, there's a tragedy involved, and it’s Dan who perversely changes who he is to accommodate that relationship.
“In your review, you used the word ‘martyr.’ I don’t consider Dan to be a martyr, it’s not something that he’s knowingly or willingly sacrificed to be a part of this relationship.”
I used that term because, in the course of the film, Mary leaves him and he evolves into this creative, interesting individual. But when she returns, he willingly plummets back into what he was. Was that a deliberate decision on Dan’s part?
“The way that I presented it was that he does make that choice, when they get back together again. It’s never that simple: I am simplifying it for the film, but hopefully leaving it open-ended as to whether that was a deliberate choice or not. I would say that, in the way I was trying to construct the story, I was taking a gamble with it in the way the story would resonate with people.
“Your review was a pretty common reaction. When many people first see the film, they're exasperated that Dan would return to Mary. She’s this bullying, self-absorbed person throughout the film, but her reasons aren’t justified, but explained, by her history. But his going back to her is not explained by that history. And I did not want to explain it.
“I was going for two simultaneous tones. The first one is the most obvious: Dan is doomed, this is a tragedy, why the hell did he go back to this woman?
“But what I hope happens when you see the film again, is that you realize what Dan has done is noble and sweet, and there is beauty to it.”
What Dan did may have been noble, but was it really the best thing he could have done for Mary and himself?
“That's something that I do not try to judge. What I think gives this story hope, gives it integrity, is that it does reflect what a lot of us do in relationships. I know that I have done that in relationships before: I’ve had relationships where there’s been that codependency.
“It’s not something that we reflect on, and we are infuriated when we see that in others: ‘Why is this person enabling this other person?’ So I do want that exasperation to be there in the audience, but I also want them to identify with it as well.”
I think a lot of that exasperation comes from people who have been in that situation, and they say, ‘That’s what I used to be. Don’t make my mistakes!’
“To me, I hope that’s a good thing, that people relate it to their own lives.”
(In Part #2 of this interview, Chris Landreth delves deeper into the creative process, and discusses his artistic influences)
 |
