After their script for Better Living Through Chemistry wound up on the 2010 Black List, writers Geoff Moore and David Posamentier began assembling the pieces of what would eventually become their debut as feature-length directors. Despite a number of roadblocks, including being forced to recast the leading roles, the film is finally making its way to theaters this month, and I recently had an opportunity to communicate (via email) with Moore and Posamentier about the film’s journey from script to screen. _____________________________________________________________________________________
The film struck me as sort of American Beauty meets Novocaine. Were you influenced by either of those films? What other influences would you cite for this film? We knew comparisons would be made to American Beauty due to the suburban setting and tone, but it wasn’t a direct influence. We just started with Doug’s character, a put-upon pharmacist who’s living a life of quiet desperation, and built a world around him. And while we can’t point to Novocaine directly, we certainly count Steve Martin as an influence, amongst such greats as Sidney Lumet, the Coen Brothers, Harold Ramis, and Alexander Payne.
The script wound up on the 2010 Black List, and from what I understand, was universally well-received. Was there interest from other studios or directors, or did you always intend to direct the film yourselves?
Once we finished the script, we made the decision to direct it ourselves. We’ve been writing together for ten years, successfully, in the studio system, which is a phenomenal experience but can occasionally leave you feeling a little powerless. We knew that Better Living was a contained, character-driven story with no explosions or CGI, which gave us a chance to stick to our guns and maintain creative control. From that point it became about convincing people that we could direct. We started out by hiring a line producer out of our pocket to do a budget and schedule. That allowed us to go into rooms with agents, producers, and financiers with not only a plan of attack but also proof that we were dead serious about this and needed partners who would be just as gung-ho.
Jeremy Renner and Jennifer Garner were originally attached to the leading roles, before being replaced by Sam Rockwell and Olivia Wilde. Do you think the tone or chemistry would have been different if the film had been completed with them?
Jeremy and Jen are both tremendous actors as well as kind, generous people. The version with them would almost by definition have been a different one, but it would have been entertaining as hell. However, we can’t imagine anyone other than Sam and Olivia (and Michelle [Monaghan], who stayed with us through all the ups and downs of the process) in the finished product, and we couldn’t be more proud of their work.
Sam Rockwell is well-known for his ability to invest himself in a role and make it his own. Is there anything he brought to the character of Douglas that wasn’t originally in the script?
We obviously knew going in that Sam is as good as it gets. But he exceeded even our heightened expectations. He brought so much into our collaboration, and it would be impossible to enumerate the nuances he brought to the character. Ultimately what he does is humanize Doug in a way that’s impossible to fully capture on the page. By the midpoint of the film he’s doing a lot of not-awesome things, and yet you still need to be rooting for him. If that doesn’t happen, the movie would collapse. And Sam just pulls it off brilliantly.
Early drafts of the screenplay had Judi Dench as the narrator, a role which ultimately went to Jane Fonda. Was Judi Dench approached at any point, or was the decision to cast Jane Fonda made based on other factors? And what prompted the inclusion of a celebrity narrator?
Two traditional “rules” of screenwriting are 1) Don’t use an omniscient narrator and 2) Don’t write a role for one specific person. We broke both those rules in writing our narrator specifically for Dame Judi Dench. We wanted a “judgmental Mother Goose” who was telling a kind of fable, while editorializing with a potty mouth. She seemed ideal. And, in an amazing series of connections, Dame Judi read the script and signed on. However, shortly before filming she had some scheduling issues and politely bowed out. And you gotta admit, Jane Fonda is a pretty outstanding replacement. If we had Dames over here, she’d be one for sure. Overall, how was the experience of working on your first feature with such a talented cast? We quite literally told ourselves at the beginning of shooting that we were setting the bar for ourselves pretty darn high, because how could you get a better ensemble? From our three leads and Jane, to Broadway genius Norbert Leo Butz, Ben Schwartz, Ray Liotta, Ken Howard, Peter Jacobson, Jenn Harris (from whom we expect big things)… we’re pretty sure our cast has a collective EGOT, maybe two or three times over. It was humbling in many ways, but it also made our jobs a little bit easier. And finally, with the imminent release of the film, have you started looking ahead to other projects? If nothing else, this business is a game of ‘keep as many irons in the fire as you can.’ We have a half-hour comedy pilot called Moguls at USA–about the motley crew that works at a mid-level Colorado ski resort–and we’re waiting for the go-ahead on that. We’re also reading a lot of scripts to potentially direct. And of course the nice thing about being writer-directors is that you can generate your own material, so we’re working on a couple of new scripts as well. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Better Living Through Chemistry hits theaters and VOD on March 14.