THE LAST RECKONING, 102min., Canada
Directed by Garnet Campbell
A prestigious attorney colludes with his impulsive brother to hide a manslaughter, but when an innocent is charged, their plans spiral out of control, leading to moral reckoning and inevitable judgment.
https://www.instagram.com/grant.gladish/
Interview with Filmmakers Garnet Campbell & Grant Gladish
1. What motivated you to make this film?
GRANT: In the 90s, Garnet and I worked on a lot of short movies together. We had always aspired to make features. After 1998, I turned my back on the dream because it wasn’t the level-playing field that is now. I worked in various non-film fields, but Garnet pursued education, filmmaking education. I did, however, keep writing screenplays. I had written six feature films by January, 2024. Garnet had co-produced and co-directed a feature film (for which I’d provided a rewrite). Then in February, 2024, I learned that my two younger kids were going to Japan for six weeks (without me) and that I’d be home alone. I had no FT work at the time and yet, after a few calls, suspected that I might get access to some limited funds. So… I called up Garnet and said: “Let’s make a movie!” Then we rushed to get ready to shoot and be done before my kids returned in April from their extended Spring Break trip. I knew that I wasn’t going to rush one of my other five, previous feature screenplays, so I started searching public domain theatre plays for quick and easy, already proven, source material. I found two short-plays, THE FIRST & THE LAST, 1919, by John Galsworthy, and THE RECKONING, 1922, by Percival Wilde. Either was too short for a feature, but I liked them both so I dove-tailed them into one story and then added cinematic filler and some contemporizing. That is also how we derived our title, from both those originals: “The Last” + “Reckoning” to honour both public domain works.
GARNET: I was motivated by a desire to help Grant. He had a need (to fill roles) and I wanted to be there as his right-hand man and take on the duties necessary, whatever those might be. It just ended up being “director.”
2. From the idea to the finished product, how long did it take for you to make this film?
GRANT: It took one week to find the public domain materials (January, 2024); it took three weeks to come up with a rough draft of our screenplay; it took two more weeks to get that script to final draft by the end of February. It took two more weeks to get it to a shooting script in March, 2024. Preproduction simultaneously started in late February, including casting and calls to find a producer and director. Casting slowly moved forward but no director or producer could be found. Garnet and I then determined to produce and direct the film ourselves. Lead and supporting actors were cast and first table-read-through was 15 March, 2024. Scripts were issued and memorization assigned. Rehearsals began. Crew assembled and smaller roles filled. Production design started late and our amazing Production Designer, Irene Korzh, pulled many rabbits out of her hat. Grant helped a lot with set decoration. By 03 April, 2024 we were ready. That first day we did a “dress rehearsal” with actors and crew running through the whole screenplay in the day, and we shot 5-hours at night. (1st day was only a ½ day of shooting). The next day we did a complex set-up day at a future location. Preparing an abandoned house with a day of lighting and set dec preparation. After THAT day, we did seven (7) days of consecutive shooting. We wrapped on April 11th. We shot two days in Graham’s house location, two days in John Grace’s barber location, two days in Katarina’s house location, and one day doing small scenes and pick ups around the city of Vancouver. In those 8½ days, we did 7½ of shooting in Steveston and Vancouver.
So we shot the film in 7½ days, had 5-weeks of pre-production and 5-weeks of development. From “Let’s make a movie,” to the movie is “in the can,” it was twelve (12) weeks.
3. How would you describe your film in two words!?
GRANT: Romantic thriller OR slow-burning.
GARNET: visceral, introspective
4. What was the biggest obstacle you faced in completing this film?0
GRANT: The feeling of isolation and the feeling that we were in over our heads. This was my first feature film and I’d stepped away from making short movies for 25-years; I was WAY out of practice and a lot had changed with casting procedures, equipment, contracts, best practice policies and procedures… ahh… the internet! Almost everything was different from what I’d done in the mid-90s. So a steep and intimidating learning curve was ahead of me and Garnet was very busy running a film school Spring Break camp so by about 1-month from shooting I had a strong sense that I’d “bitten off more than I could chew.” I felt as if there was no one that I could really lean on. I did a lot of praying in those days! LOL Literally, it was a miracle that this film was ever started, let alone finished.
GARNET: Keeping the team unified, keeping a cohesive vision. Shot lists, and other things only take filmmakers so far. But you really have to understand people. So know your team. Avoid surprises, when you’re moving fast. Focus on building trust based on more explicit agreements of terms, expectations and definitions.
5. What were your initial reactions when watching the audience talking about your film in the feedback video?
GRANT: It’s not our first round of feedback; we had really fantastic feedback from a live audience in Tbilisi, Georgia, where our film was screened and where we’d won “Best Feature Film.” In both cases, my thoughts were: “Wow! They really got the film.” I know that THE LAST RECKONING is not JURASSIC PARK or JAWS or THE BOURNE IDENTITY; it is a very niche picture. I knew what going into this. I know it’s not for everyone. However, when you find and hear from people who watched it and get it and find the symbolism, the irony, the themes and found satisfaction in the pay-off and surprises, then … that’s a very rewarding outcome.
GARNET: I loved it. We want more of those recorded reactions. We know that it resonates with a certain kind of people, and just finding more of those people and hearing from more of them.
6. When did you realize that you wanted to make films?
GRANT: August, 1991. I was lying awake on my bed at sunset and was listening to the whole A side of a music album. As I lay there, I envisioned a story. I saw it unfold like a film. After the first half of the record album played, I flipped it and listened to the B side. The rest of the movie-in-my-head played out before my imagination. I even saw the poster, the marketing, the line ups. I saw the selling ‘angle’ of the film, and what we would pitch to audiences to encourage them to see the film. I saw the controversy and the debate of talk show folk interviewing and discussing the themes of the film. And all that film lined up so perfectly with the lyrics and mood of the music album, that I saw it being like a script, almost like a sober, seriously toned musical movie script. And then I sat up: “What is this? Why did I see all of this?” I couldn’t sleep right away after that summer night and reconciled with it that this is what I was supposed to do. I testified of this to a few other close fiends and family. Then… before I knew it, I was quitting my part time jobs, applying to universities and focusing on how the vision of making movies would be achieved. I flew out West and embarked upon my dream in Fall of 1991. (But I had largely quit on the dream and turned my back on it in 1998). It sat dormant until December, 2023, when I stood in for a student project that Garnet was producing; I stood in front of a green screen and riffed on an idea (and improvisational performance in an empty room with Garnet on camera). This was made and THIS “primed the well” of the passion and the lost dream, to pick up where I’d left off and start working on the actor craft again, to start thinking about a seventh screenplay too.
GARNET: When I was 16-years old; I used my dad’s 8mm film camera to make a comedy with my friend, Robert, who was dressed up in a toga; it was called THE HISTORY OF THE OLYMPICS.
7. What film have you seen the most in your life?
GRANT: Some of my favourites, I’ve rewatched many times: KAFKA, 1991 (Soderbergh); FALLING DOWN, 1993 (Schumacher); L’AVVENTURA, 1960 (Antonioni); UCHÔTEN HOTERU, 2006 (Mitani San); NOBODY KNOWS, 2004 (Koreeda San); LATE SPRING, 1949 (Ozu San); NOT ONE LESS, 1999 (Zhang); FRANTIC, 1988 (Polanski); CHINATOWN, 1974 (Polanski); THE INSIDER, 1999 (Mann); SCHINDLER’S LIST, 1993 (Spielberg); BOURNE IDENTITY, 2002 (Liman); THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, 2011 (Fincher); and ISLE OF DOGS, 2018 (Anderson).
GARNET: THE MATRIX, 1999 (Wachowski + Wachoswksi); ROCKY, 1976 (Avildsen); GLADIATOR, 2000 (Scott); and BRAVEHEART, 1995 (Gibson).
8. What other elements of the festival experience can we and other festivals implement to satisfy you and help you further your filmmaking career?
GRANT: After a year of submitting to festivals, and experiencing the gambit of all the little quirks of each, I’d say, here are my suggestions, even if they are not realistic…
a./ Adopt some form of standardization to create a meaningful set of definitions, practices, and expectations. (For example, some stress the quarter-final, semi-final, finalist approach and some the selection, nomination approach and there seems to be much inconsistency about what they mean from festival to festival. FilmFreeway, the hub for all festivals, should defined and almost police those progressive level toward awards so that they mean the same to everyone no matter where they are);
b./ Have FilmFreeway insist or necessitate that what a festival states on their “About” page is what they deliver. Some say Festival and some say On-Line. Those are really two different things. Specifically define them and don’t permit a festival to call themselves a festival and then they only release one’s selected film online. And if they advertise festival and then, after you pay and register, switch to “Sorry, online only this year,” then an automatic refund should be offered and that festival should be called out for deceptive practices. Don’t advertise what you don’t do. Nobody likes to be strung along.
c./ Encourage festivals to offer audience feedback. I’d say, that bonafide, spontaneous, spur of the moment audience feedback is just as valuable (if not more) than receiving laurels. But don’t offer audience feedback as a ‘cash-cow,’ meaning merely as a means for generating more cash capital for the festival. Make it legitimate. Have BTS camera operators at the doors of festivals recording audience reactions as they exit and have the audience member authorize the filmmakers to use that recording for future publicity and PR.
d./ FilmFreeway needs to police how wins and nominations are publicly recorded. It is nice to get a “Congratulations!” email and a laurel from the festival but filmmakers need more if it’s an IMDb reporting festival. Filmmakers need public proof. Back in the day, it was an article or a bi-line in a trade journal. Nowadays, it’s a website with a publication. This is proof, and it’s often the kind of proof that a filmmaker needs to creditably certify to IMDb that the nomination or win is legitimate. We went through a lot of trouble with one festival that was remiss in reporting a nomination; it is not their practice. But why? IMDb allows films to show nominations. Don’t advertise that you’re an IMDb festival when only Winners are given the time of day.
e./ A nice show of legitimacy is to have winners films and names printed in a trade journal, something neutral and universal, that can be accessed even as an archive. Don’t just put it on your website, but put it in a trade journal, like VARIETY of HOLLYWOOD REPORTER. FilmFreeway could work with those trade journals to have a section, even if just like classifieds in the old newspapers, that shows Winners in festivals.
9. You submitted to the festival via FilmFreeway. How has your experiences been working on the festival platform site?
GRANT: A lot of what I think about this is already in question 8, as I see the correlation between festivals and how you come to relate to them via FilmFreeway. But… I’d really like to see FilmFreeway partition their festivals more deliberately between bonafide festivals, that exhibit film by projecting it into a physically shared room for an emotionally shared experience — versus online “festivals” that really just stream your film to an unknown number of viewers who typically watch your picture alone at home. Those just are not equal in value. Don’t treat them like they are. They each have their own merit and their own drawbacks. Just treat them separately. And FilmFreeway, have festivals clearly show which ones project in stereo and which ones project in 5.1 surround audio. The specifications for projection should be told right out of the gate, as they say. Not after your film is selected.
10. What is your favourite meal?
GRANT: 1ST: Authentic Indian Curry (chicken or chickpea). 2ND. Authentic Ramen and nigiri sushi; 3RD: steak and potatoes with steamed veggies.
GARNET: 1ST: Steak and potatoes. 2ND: Authentic Indian Curry; 3RD: Mexican
11. What is next for you? A new film?
GRANT: I am writing a graphic novel for e-publishing that will have an artist hand-paint over eighty (80) illustrations for the book. This is a foundational IP launch before trying to raise money for the motion picture. But before that picture gets made, I’m writing a thriller, that is more action based. I want to make that in Vancouver and British Columbia too. I have a script needing a rewrite and I’d like to shoot that in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. Whichever gets the funding first. Eventually, I’d like to do a co-production with a Japanese filmmaking team. I don’t, however, disclose IP prematurely.
GARNET: I don’t know. I am interested in exploring the AI workflow.
