Thirty years ago, writer and director Edward Burns‘ “The Brothers McMullen” was one of several films — alongside Cameron Crowe‘s “Singles,” Ben Stiller’s “Reality Bites,” and Nicole Holofcener‘s “Walking and Talking,” among many others — that spoke directly to the emotional issues and social anxieties of Generation X. After Burns, now in his fifties, became an empty nester and started to think about how that changed his identity and his marriage — and those of his friends in the same age group — he realized there was fertile ground for a new drama that would address this new stage of life for Generation X-ers the way that “McMullen” had represented the 1990s.
“There were a lot of conversations in my group of friends asking, ‘What does tomorrow look like now that you don’t define yourself as a parent and you’re not actively parenting anymore?,” Burns told IndieWire. “How do you define the marriage?” As Burns and his friends talked about their experiences the filmmaker realized there was a wealth of material in these topics, as well as the regrets and resentments some parents had over their partners getting to pursue their careers while they stayed home with the kids — not to mention the question of whether or not there comes a time when an artist can become creatively tapped out, with nothing left to say.
The result of Burns’ probing was “Millers in Marriage,” a funny and insightful ensemble piece that ranks among the director’s best work. The movie follows three middle-aged couples (Campbell Scott & Julianna Margulies, Gretchen Mol & Patrick Wilson, and Burns & Minnie Driver) as they navigate a number of professional and personal issues ranging from writer’s block to extramarital affairs and the pleasures and challenges of starting up a new romance at 50. The economy of Burns’ writing enables him to jam his two-hour running time with a novel’s worth of provocative ideas and powerful emotional effects, as he explores a broad and deep assortment of themes with both compassion and a sly sense of satire.
For cinephiles of a certain age, the movie has additional resonance thanks to the subtext that runs underneath the various plot lines related to artists whose relationship to their art has changed. That subtext is the unspoken but clear premise that the whole movie is, in a way, a metaphor for the world of independent filmmaking — for the promise and excitement it had in its youth and the questions about how it has changed and what it all means. The parallels were obvious to Burns and his cast even while shooting.
“It’s funny, [the actors] and I all had a kind of coming out moment in the ’90s,” Burns said. “The whole cast is obviously still working 30 years later, but that was another thing worth exploring — trying to grind out a career if you don’t stay at the tippy-top. If you still have the fire and something to say, can you reach an audience? Does the audience care?” For Burns, the changing realities of the film business — a business that saw movies like “McMullen” and its ilk get major theatrical releases 30 years ago — have meant lowering his overhead and managing expectations so that he can simply get his films made and released without worrying about attracting a mass audience.
”About 10 years ago, we had a film called ‘Fitzgerald Family Christmas,’” Burns said. “We premiered at the Toronto Film Festival and got great reviews, but the next day when we got on the plane back to New York, nothing had changed. It was basically a small movie that would reach a small audience, and that would be its life. From that point my producing partner Aaron Rubin and I made a commitment to reimagine how to define success moving forward.” Viewing the film festival circuit as his theatrical release and letting his films build their audiences on streaming and cable has worked for Burns, slowly but surely.
“These films find audiences eventually,” Burns said, adding that he makes his films for low enough budgets to make sure they will always at least break even. “In this day and age, if you can get a movie made, that’s a success. It you can get final cut, that’s another success. If we have a good time making the movie and we get to travel around the world to film festivals and see the movie play in some of the best theaters in every country, that’s a success.”
While Burns may keep his budgets low and his schedules tight (“Millers in Marriage” was shot in a brisk 20 days) he knows how to maximize his resources by focusing on the things that don’t necessarily cost money — not just solid writing and acting, but a precise visual language that allows him to realize the fullest expressive potential in each frame. Throughout “Millers” Burns subtly reinforces and deepens the relationships through blocking, editing, and camera movements that are most likely imperceptible to the audience on a conscious level but add force and depth to the emotional content of each scene.
“We wanted to show the disconnect between Patrick Wilson and Gretchen Mol,” Burns said, “so if you look at the film closely, they’re never in the same frame together. With Julianna Margulies and Campbell Scott, we played with the idea that Campbell was always in the background of her shots, sometimes in soft focus or with his head cut off to put him in a secondary position when she’s in the foreground. We also played with the color red with Gretchen; both her and Patrick are wearing black and white for the whole film, but she’ll have these shocks of red to indicate the passion and volatility underneath.”
What makes “Millers in Marriage” particularly impressive is its ability to honor all of its characters’ perspectives, even though their points of view are often at odds. The editing is key, as Burns and longtime editor Janet Gaynor skillfully choose when to reveal each piece of information so that it shifts the audience’s perception in productive ways; this is especially important in terms of the placement of the film’s many flashbacks, which Burns says inspired a fair amount of experimentation on his and Gaynor’s part.
“There was one we wrestled with for a long time,” Burns said of a flashback revealing that his character’s soon to be ex-wife wanted kids and he didn’t. Up to the point when the audience sees that flashback the ex comes across fairly unsympathetically, which made the choice of when to reveal her desire to have children extremely important — and extremely challenging. “We established that she’s 42, so there’s still time to have a kid, and if he doesn’t want a kid then doesn’t she have every right to say, ‘I want out of this marriage?’ In each dynamic we tried to have scenes where the other partner had a winning argument.”
Now that “Millers in Marriage” is finished and opening worldwide, Burns is on to the next project — “The Family McMullen,” the sequel to his breakthrough debut. “It’s me and Connie Britton and Mike McGlone,” Burns said. “It’s the two brothers and the sister-in-law. I had to figure out a way to give Connie a primary role, and sadly for Jack Mulcahy the easiest way was to kill his character off. We start shooting April 1 in Brooklyn and New Jersey. It’s exciting.”
“Millers in Marriage” opens in select theaters and is available digitally on Friday, February 21.
Source link
