An Interview with Actor
Rhes Low

How did you get involved with the film?

Rhes Low: David saw a staged reading I was doing of "the rehearsal," and asked me if I'd like to take a look at a script he had going into production in a few months. I read the script and what essentially drew me to the role was probably what would turn most people off. It was the anger of Bartleby, it was a real anger. A lot of times we say this or that character is too angry but I've observed and talked to many people whose anger is who they are. And yes, there are moments of joy, I know, but what I was interested in exploring was why Bartleby was so angry and the energy it took to sustain that anger. So, essentially I saw Bartleby as a challenge.

What in your character's role do you identify with most strongly? Why?

Well, at first, I didn't think I identified with anything, except maybe that he was from the south. But as I started delving into his this man, I decided that a part of his anger was his insecurity with his place in life, which I had, had before. I come from a upper middle class, very well respected family, in the South and here I was in California completely broke, at the bottom of the totem pole, and I was very insecure about that. I was angry and defensive and started to think I was better than everyone else in order to cover the insecurity of my place in life. So, I gave that to Bartleby and it opened up a lot of doors to his present and past. Also, his need for open space, having lived in L.A. for 3 years, at the time, I longed for open space. I'm feeling claustrophobic right now, as I write this, in my little one bedroom apartment and hear the traffic outside.

What was the hardest scene for you to perform?

Easy. Having to run into the Pacific in 50 degree weather. It is freakin’ freezing and I did it over and over again. My -- let's say --, tallywhacker shriveled up to the size of a damn pea. It took about 3 days to get over the shock.

How did you prepare for the role?

Besides all the book work and history stuff, there are three things that led to fulfilling Bartleby. The first was hanging out on the street, in dirty clothes, for a day and night. I was leery because I didn't know if I could sufficiently allow myself to let go and just be there; plus I didn't look at Bartleby and Jack as homeless, I thought they were more drifters. (There is a freedom to drifting, for me, that homelessness did not have) But then I decided screw it, just do it and see what you get. So, I did it. I spent the day and night under a freeway bridge near my house and that's all I needed, believe me. Under the bridge, I found loneliness, separation, anger and most importantly, a con-artist. I don't think Bartleby begged for money all the time,(he stole a lot), but when he did, I found he put on this wounded sad act, hence the limp in the begging scene. Which is funny because later in the movie he screws up the same leg for real..

The second thing was, I came across a man over on Hollywood and Cahuenga who, at least outwardly, epitomized Bartleby for me. He looked very angry and exuded it in his walk, so I stole his walk. I watched him about 4 days in a row and stole his mannerisms, body type, facial hair, every outer feature.

Thirdly about a week before the shoot and during the shoot, I never opened the blinds in my apt. I wanted to have the weight and black hole I felt Bartleby had. This probably wasn't such a good idea because I got extremely angry and depressed outside of the set and a few weeks after.

In your mind what background did you imagine for your character other than what's written in the script?

The first thing that pops into my head is the social class Bartleby comes from. I decided that he was originally from a very wealthy family in Dallas, Texas and through a series of unfortunate circumstances, he ended up working class, living with his mother in El Paso, during his teenage years. Also, his dad is a very successful playwright /screenwriter and this is the reason Bartleby is in California. He has not seen his father since he left his mother high and dry in Dallas, Bartleby never says anything about it, but I believe it has a lot to do with his drifting.

An Interview with Director
David Voda

What were you trying to accomplish in THE GOOD FIGHT?

The film is meant to explore the limits of compassion. Are there people who don’t really want to be “helped”? And what would really “help” someone whose whole identity is invested in conning the compassionate?

Herman Melville dealt with some of these same issues in “Bartleby the Scriviner” and so I named my lead “Bartleby” to invoke the parallels. Bartleby is a character who would simple “prefer not to” take life on life’s terms.

Isn’t the ending totally over-the-top?

If you think of the film as a conventional Hollywood story, perhaps. Hollywood creates myths – it reconciles complex ideas to make them simple and easy to swallow. That’s the very definition of Hollywood garbage.

But THE GOOD FIGHT is structured not as a myth but as a parable. It’s designed to un-reconcile ideas, to pit “brother against brother “ as a popular sage suggests. A parable is the opposite of a myth.

When the curtain falls on THE GOOD FIGHT, contradictory ideas should be at war in the viewer’s head. Was Judy incredibly naïve? Or too conventional to go far enough? Was Bartleby insane? Or clinging fearlessly to his innate human freedom? Why do people like Jack change while people like Bartleby steel their resolve? Or did Jack simply give up and decide to conform?

Bartleby is a con man. Do you think street people are fakes?

Not at all. Some are down on their luck, others are mentally ill or substance abusers. But, yes – some are fakes and that’s what the film’s about. In New York, I once literally gave the shirt off my back to a half-naked guy begging in a freezing subway car. Afterwards, the conductor told me that the half-naked stuff was just a shtick. The guy would hide his clothes between the cars and beg shirtless to elicit pity.

Is your film political?

There’s a political dimension to THE GOOD FIGHT akin, say, to the political sub-plot of a Shakespeare play. Many American cities have people sleeping in doorways and how to help them is obviously a social policy issue. But, frankly, in the film the whole homeless “debate” – like the racial politics -- is something of a tease. It’s a red herring designed to ensnare the viewer who can only look at the underlying issues through the lens of politics or race.

Why did you depict that debate as so vitriolic?

In modern America, social deliberation has deteriorated to a vicious game of party loyalty and name calling. In the early 90s, and again recently, there was a huge uproar in Santa Monica, California, about what to do with its street people. Believe it or not, much of the dialog between the city council members in the film was pulled directly from Santa Monica newspaper accounts -- even the line calling an anti-encampment ordinance “genocide.”

With Hollywood’s dominance of the worldwide film marketplace so great, what place do you see for the independent filmmaker in the 21st century?

All I know is I make movies that I’d want to go see – a mix of drama and ideas and images and performances that hopefully engage people in their gut for 90 minutes in the dark. I don’t want to check my brain at the door, neither do I want to mentally masturbate for 3 hours. On the other hand, give me real emotion, don’t give me Titantic.

An indie filmmaker is and always will be nothing more than a fly on Hollywood’s behind. A good indie filmmaker will at least be a tsetse fly.