Movieline

Zach Braff on His Gritty New Film and the Directing Project That Got Away

Zach Braff returns to the big screen this week -- sort of -- in the new drama The High Cost of Living. Technically it's a VOD release (premiering this week via Tribeca Film) that will make its way to select theaters next month, but that's all the better for audiences, really -- any opportunity to check out its dark, romantic, gritty charm is one worth taking advantage of.

High Cost features the ex-Scrubs star as Henry, an expat New Yorker-turned-drug dealer with a thriving business in Montreal. On his hyped-up rounds one winter night, he makes a wrong turn -- a really wrong turn, as it were -- colliding with the very pregnant, very panicky Nathalie (Isabelle Blais) as she waits for a cab to take her to the hospital. Fleeing the scene, Henry leaves behind a woman forced to to carry her dead child until she can withstand the surgery to remove it, as well a trail of guilt and deceit that finally bring him to Nathalie's door.

I know it's an awkward set-up on paper; even Braff wouldn't disagree. But writer-director Deborah Chow frames the ensuing relationship with such dignity, subtlety and genre-bending defiance that it's tough not to be invested. Braff and Blais deliver in front of the camera as well, developing a tender bond more fragile than either of them can anticipate. Movieline caught up with Braff to discuss his return to film, the long shadow of the TV comedy that made him famous, and what exactly is up with his dormant directing career since his Garden State triumph in 2004.

How did you get involved with The High Cost of Living?

I let my manager know I wanted to do something really different when Scrubs ended -- something that was dramatic and would challenge me and would show that I could do something else besides broad comedy. Even in the movies I'd done, they had dramatic elements, but they were funny. So I wanted to take on something really different. This arrived on her desk, and I thought it was exactly what I was looking for.

Why? What about Henry appealed to you?

It was really well-written and super-smart. I like movies where the lies aren't so clear or clean as to who's good and who's bad. Especially with such a flawed protagonist. I thought it was really impressive the way she wrote this character who could do something so horrible, but if you pulled it off, by the end of the movie, the audience would root for him. I just thought it was smart. It really respected the audience. It was challenging, and it was different.

His back story is alluded to in the film, but I'm curious about the specific things that got Henry to this point. What did you need to know or learn about Henry as you built this character?

We talked about why he's in Canada and stuff like that, but in terms of stuff that would make a difference and show up on screen, it was that he wasn't a bad person. He's not evil; he's not malicious. He's just tangled and trapped in the way his life's unraveled. I know people like this in real life: They're not bad people, they just can't get out of the rut they're in. It's like quicksand; the more action they take to get out of it, the deeper they go. That's kind of how he's fallen into drug dealing and being in Canada and taking the pills himself. The audience doesn't need to know how he got there, but what we do need to convey during the course of the movie is that you can be a person who's done some really horrible things in your life and not be a horrible person.

At heart he seems like a helper, for better or worse: He helps Nathalie out with food and shelter, but he also helps strung-out people get high. How does he reconciles the two?

I love to help people get high. No, I don't know. The challenge was for the audience not to just write him off. A female reporter said to me the other day, "I couldn't believe I was rooting for you guys to be together when in the first quarter of the movie I fucking hated you." And I said that's a testament to Deborah -- to her writing and directing -- that she pulled that off. So I don't know. I was just intrigued by a movie where the characters are so multidimensional. It's not like, "OK, for these two hours, I'm the good guy, you're the bad guy. We're gonna battle it out, and I'm gonna win in the end." Most movies can be reduced to that.

One of the things I most appreciated about this film was it's very subtle use of genre -- the psychological horror of carrying a dead child inside you, for example, or its mystery elements. It's even got kind of a sci-fi feel -- Montreal depicted as this cold, dark, alien culture with multiple foreign populations.

It's true. I hadn't heard that before.

Did that complexity appeal to you as well?

It did. I think the world is so surreal: Montreal in the winter. People are speaking French -- he doesn't know French. It is a little bit like he's on another planet. The way it's shot; most of it takes place at night. It's cold and isolated and lonely. I've never heard of it like that, but it is like this sci-fi setting.

He's got his car, which kind of looks like a low-flying spaceship.

He's like Kirk, who's lost on some weird island.

Exactly! What would that make Nathalie in this equation?

One of those blue aliens that Kirk always kisses. I don't know. Anyway. I digress.

The Slayer shirt that Henry loans to Nathalie was a deeply perverse touch.

I don't think that anyone intended it to have a double meaning, believe it or not. I think the idea was, "Wouldn't it be funny if it was a heavy metal shirt? Which ones can we clear?" Actually it says "Zlayer," because at the last second they couldn't clear "Slayer." But if you're implying there's a double meaning there, I'm pretty sure there wasn't.

[MILD SPOILERS FOLLOW]

Without giving too much away about the ending, what do you think happens to Henry and Nathalie?

Part of the fun -- if you can call it fun -- or maybe part of the entertainment of the movie is filling in your own ending. And some movies do that at a point where it cuts off, and you're like, "Oh, fuck you! Why did you do that? Give us more!" I think this really does it in an elegant way. I think it depends what your particular viewpoint is on love and how cynical you are. I think he'll do a little time, but because she's not going to press charges, he probably won't do much. He'll probably do some because he's illegal in the country. But maybe there's some way for them to have a relationship. I'm not sure if it's romantic, or maybe it's a friendship, but I definitely see them in each others' lives.

[END SPOILERS]

To the extent you create a back story for some characters, do you ever create a front story afterward? Do you wonder where certain folks might be months or years after you've wrapped?

Well, sure. You always get asked about it. For Garden State, which a lot of people had a great response to, I was always asked, "All right: What happens to them?" But I'm a romantic. I like love working out in the movies. It so rarely works out in real life. I feel like we go to the movies for escapism. I'm very drawn to "true love saves all" as a logline, which is sort of what happens in the movie. Maybe not love, but companionship . What they find in each other is something that neither has. Whether it's love or not is up to you, but at the very least it's companionship. Like-mindedness -- a friend in a very desolate world.

Do you think VOD is an appropriate or legitimate platform to release this film? Can it find the audience it deserves?

If not VOD, what? It goes to the Angelica for a week? I think VOD's amazing for a movie like this. If people want to have the debate about whether it's right for studio movies with big releases or at what point it should go from the theater to VOD -- I hear that's a current debate -- then that's a totally different argument. A movie of this scale? It's going to be San Francisco, here, L.A. Maybe Chicago, right? For a two-week run. VOD's amazing! It's going to bring this movie into so many homes that don't have access to it. And they're legitimately promoting it; if you go on the VOD channel, we did VOD promos. So hopefully we'll draw more in who don't usually get to see more... It's cheesy to call them "art" movies, but challenging indie movies that more people would probably like if got exposure to it. You know a couple break out every year, and then they get the crazy promotion, and people see them! A movie that doesn't have the crazy promotion or isn't necessarily commercial enough to have the big breakout but is going to be in millions and millions of homes tomorrow? That's amazing.

Does it encourage you as a filmmaker? Or do you still feel like you need to get that work out into theaters?

It depends, again, on the scale of the film. If you're making a million-dollar art movie that's a third in French, then you have to be realistic about the audience. I love these movies. You love these movies, I'm sure. People who go to festivals and people who are cinephiles love these movies. But in terms of the bulk of the country, it depends on the individual project. If I made a movie that we put $20 million into and worked our asses off on and it was a larger-scale film that was trying to appeal to a massive audience, then yeah: I'd be really disappointed if I didn't get a theatrical release. But once it came time for DVD, Id be aware that VOD is the future.

Why haven't you directed since Garden State?

That's the question every reporter's asking me.

Sorry.

No, it's a good question. If I was a reporter, I would ask the exact same question. It makes sense. I tried, several times. I wrote Garden State before Scrubs, so when Scrubs started, I had that ready to go. And it was all set. I couldn't really write during eight and a half years of doing broad comedy. I didn't have the focus to do it. I tried a couple time to get a movie going -- I had my dream cast and all that -- but actors fell out or money fell apart. It's kind of like playing poker, and my first hand was a fucking flush. Is that a good hand?

It's pretty damn good.

So I've had a couple shitty hands. But I'm really dying to. I love directing. I want to direct more. I just don't want to put out crap. I could have directed a big, stupid romantic comedy five times over. I just don't want to do that. So I'm waiting to find the right thing. I thought I had it a couple times, and it didn't come together. I wrote a play, and that's being produced off-Broadway this summer. I'm really excited about that.

What's the play?

It's called All New People. It's going to be produced at Second Stage this summer.

Congratulations!

Thank you! It's been a dream of mine my whole life. So that's it. I'm trying. I'd love to direct a movie more than anything, but I don't want to turn out something I don't believe in. So that's why it takes time. It takes a lot of things lining up -- most importantly, big-enough stars to justify the budget.

So with all this in mind, how would you describe your relationship with the legacy of Scrubs? How has it helped and/or compromised your ambitions?

I don't think it's compromised me at all.

But you weren't able to write.

I hear what you're saying. [Pause] I would never, ever criticize anything about Scrubs. It was the best gig an actor could ever hope for. It brought me this fan base. It allowed me to make Garden State, really, because it got me exposure and got me in the public eye so I could get my movie made. It was so fun. I laughed my ass off with friends for eight and a half years. I don't begrudge it anything. I think the onus is on me to prove that I have more tricks in my bag.

What happened to Open Hearts?

Open Hearts came together at Paramount. It was all going. We had Sean Penn, who was going to star in it. It fell apart at the last second. We actually had a production office open at Paramount and everything. It fell apart at the last second due to scheduling and budget, as so many movies do. I've personally paid the option on it every year, like rent. I'd love to make it. I have a beautiful adaptation of it -- oddly, coincidentally, it also involves the fallout after a car accident. But that's OK. People will think that's my specialty.

Everyone needs a niche.

I wouldn't be in it. I'd just direct it. I'd love to make it one day. I have it on my shelf.

Could [the original Danish film's director] Susanne Bier's recent Oscar win help mobilize or stimulate interest in that project in any way?

You know, it's a real character piece, and it needs an actor like a Sean Penn or a Ralph Fiennes. Someone who has enough notoriety to get the budget going, but also someone who wants to take on something dark and gritty like that. I haven't been able to find someone on that level of both acting and box-office potential to get it going. I've had some of the most amazing, wonderfully written pass letters from some of the biggest stars in the business saying, "Love it. It's really well-written. But it's not something I want to do."

Well, shit.

Sean Penn would be perfect. I hope one day maybe he'll think about it again, because it'd kind of be almost perfect for him. You know who else? Ralph Fiennes would be great. He's someone I love. Clive Owen would be great. You'd need someone like that.

Random curiosity: Have you talked to Natalie Portman since she won her Oscar? Did you send her a note or anything?

No, I haven't. My father would have been proud of me if I had done something as eloquent as writing a nice note. I e-mailed her congratulations and everything, but nothing as classy as a handwritten note. But I stood up and cheered like a proud friend.

Back when you were making Garden State, did you recognize an actress who had something like Black Swan in her?

I saw it in Beautiful Girls, man! Or like a lot of people, when I saw The Professional I said, "Oh my God. That's a star." And that's fun -- it's fun to spot early. But I saw it in Beautiful Girls, and that's why I wanted her in Garden State. I've always known she's as talented as she is.

Got it. Switching back, what is next for you?

Well, the play is this summer. Then I'm supposed to act in a movie called The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, with Chloe Moretz and Jessica Biel, in the fall. That's a really, really well-written script by a guy named Bill Purple. And I have an adaptation I'm doing of my play. One idea is to forgo the whole system -- to kind of go the Tyler Perry route and make a really small-scale movie like [Hard Cost of Living]. And Gary Gilbert, who financed Garden State has already said he'd finance it. So if the things that are on my burners that require more of a substantial budget don't come together, I think what we're going to do in maybe the fall or winter is that I'm going to direct and Gary's going to produce a movie on this scale so we can just make something.

What are your options?

It'll either be something that I'm writing now or an adaptation of the play I'm working on this summer. It might be kind of cool to go right into it after essentially working on it all summer. We'll see.

[Top photo: FilmMagic]