A Conversation with Chris Schulz

I've known Chris Schulz for about seven years. We met on the other side of the country, through a mutual friend. Even before I saw him act, I was already impressed by his intelligence and dedication to the craft. This is a guy with talent to burn, and I'm proud to say that he's become a trusted collaborator and a dear friend.

Now that Down and Yonder is essentially done (except for the release and all that hoopla), I wanted to take some of this (relative) down-time to talk with some other artists a little bit about their craft. As always, I've found Chris's answers to be thought-provoking.

Flippo: Tell us a little bit about how you first developed an interest for the performing arts. Where did the initial spark come from?

Schulz: I did my first play in 8th grade, where I was the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz for the spring musical. I signed up because I thought it would be fun (and it was). The main reason I thought acting would be fun is the movie Ocean's 11. I watched that and saw a bunch of actors having a blast making a really fun story, and I wanted to try my hand. I wish I had a nobler, more artistic origin story, but nope. Ocean's 11.

Flippo: You come from a theater background. What's the main difference between acting for the screen versus acting for the stage?

Schulz: I had a teacher in college who, despite my overall mixed feelings about him, was eminently quotable. He said in class once that "theatre acting is about how you respond to something, and film acting is about how you react to it." That's pretty apt -- the camera catches those little micro-expressions that are impulsive and sometimes unconscious, which the theatre audience can't see because of the distance between them and the actor. On stage, I try to use the unseeable, natural emotions to inform the verbal or physical response, but that response ultimately is a choice. The camera wants to see things that aren't choices. It requires much more preparation and a total knowledge of the character, so complete that the actor is able to forget the preparation and just experience.

Flippo: Circling back to our film, Down and Yonder. Tell us a little bit about your character, Wally. What was the hard part about getting inside his head? The easy part?

Schulz: I think Wally tends toward melancholy and introspection, which is where I as an actor live because it's where I as a person live. That aspect, his perennial ability to see the difficulties and feel that existential trap of never being sure that any action will provide any relief, comes very naturally to me. Which presents a challenge, because there's a thin line to toe not to make Wally so melancholy as to be depressive, which I think he's not. He has an intermittent lightness and charm to him. That charm was the hard part, because I am not especially charming. Though I grew up mostly in the South, I'm at my core a Midwesterner, so my default setting is to be reserved and stoic. Wally says he's good at bullshit; in the South, there's a difference between bullshit and deception. In the Midwest, there's not. It was difficult to find the charm in what my Hoosier soul tells me is just a pack of lies.

Flippo: You've recently started the transition from acting to directing, making your debut with the play, Boom. Could you tell us a bit about what it was like switching roles?

Schulz: I've never attempted to direct a film, which is good, because I have no idea what it entails. In directing theatre, I try to approach my actors as I'd like to be approached. I direct by asking questions that hopefully help the actors clarify their choices and expressions: Why are you saying that? Is there any note of sadness in there? Is that true? That helps make the process more collaborative -- I believe the creation of the character is ultimately the actor's job, and it's dictatorial of the director and reductive of the actor's art to hand the actor his or her choices. From a stylistic standpoint, I try to guide the production toward minimalism and spontaneity, which are what I like seeing on stage. The more complex the visual and sound design, I think, the less focus there is on the text, action, and story. (The worst thing you can say about a play is "The set/lights/costumes/etc were beautiful!" because it means the story was entirely overlooked.) I also tend not to direct specific blocking or choices, because I want to leave those to the actor's impulses. If you feel like moving, move! If you feel like yelling one night and not the next, do it! Those impulsive choices and natural and fascinating, and they cause the other actors to have to react anew, and there is nothing more exciting on stage than the unexpected.

Flippo: Let's pretend that budgets, scheduling, and other limitations are not an issue. What is your dream project?

Schulz: Oh man, dream project. I have three. The first is a production of The Last Days of Judas Iscariot by Stephen Adly Guirgis. It needs a cast of like 12. (Actually, I need two productions; one where I can play Judas, who's a top-three bucket list part. But also I want to direct a production, because I've seen it a few times and no one has done it right yet.) The second a Coin-Flip Play. I'm initially thinking Julius Caesar by Shakespeare, but Sam Shepard's True West might also work. Two actors each learn two parts (Cassius and Brutus or Lee and Austin, respectively), then flip a coin on stage in front of the audience to see who's playing which that night. Lastly is One Day Shakespeare. This was conceived with my friend Katie Maguire. Actors from across the country would be given a cue script with just their lines and the sentence immediately preceding it. They'd learn their parts independently, then come together to perform the play with no rehearsals, just a stage manager saying, "You! Enter stage right now!" They'd have to really listen to the other actors, their responses would be totally spontaneous and impulsive, and it'd be terribly difficult and exciting.

Flippo: And, finally, let's switch it up a bit and shift from filmmakers to just film fans. What movies are out there right now that you would you recommend? Is there a film out there that ought to be getting more attention?

Schulz: I actually don't get out to the cinemas much. The last thing I saw was Get Out, which is excellent. I don't know what's not getting attention, but I will say that Oscar-winner Manchester by the Sea was super boring. (You can't have a protagonist whose primary reaction to everything is "I don't want to talk about that" and expect it to be compelling.) I did just watch a British television show called Broadchurch that is one of the best shows I've ever seen. The acting, writing, filming, everything is top-notch and makes for an engrossing watch.