Spirituality and Fathers and Sons: “The Answer Man” Director John Hindman

What prompted the idea for “The Answer Man” and how did it evolve?

“Arlen Faber” started as a way for me to address my relationship with my father. The movie deals with so many issues regarding love between fathers and sons. Missing fathers, surrogate fathers, fathers who have died. And, in a roundabout way I tried to tackle the idea of a Heavenly Father. To be clear, I have no answers on that subject nor does the movie. In my opinion whoever or whatever God is it’s pretty obvious that He works through other people. So at its core the movie is a romantic comedy about three people who find the answers not in a book or the clouds but in each other.

Who or what has influenced you?

I would say my primary influences would be Woody Allen, James L. Brooks, and Sydney Pollack. I admire the unobtrusiveness of their direction coupled with smart characters in a state of moral crisis. I love Mr. Allen’s simple approach. Simple but not easy. It takes a lot of confidence and vision to lock off the camera and block the action around it. What that gives me though is a sense of participating in the scene with the characters. Being in it with them. That in tandem with smart sarcastic dialogue is an unbeatable combo for me. James L. Brooks is a master at walking the line. It is difficult to have sentiment without sentimentality. Morality without moralizing. Illuminating the foibles of the human condition while somehow simultaneously celebrating the condition itself. And Sydney Pollack is someone who has been so creatively successful in so many different genres all while maintaining the sure hand and lightness of spirit that I aspire to.

What were some of the biggest challenges you faced in developing the project?

The biggest challenge I faced in making the film was getting people to sign off on letting me direct it. One of my goals was to write something that people would want and then hold it over their head until they let me do it. Again, Mr. Stallone was my inspiration here. Somehow, it worked. By the way, it was not lost on me that I shot my first movie in Philadelphia.

Please elaborate a bit on your approach to making the film…

My approach in making the film was to remember that nothing about making the movie was more important than what was going on in the lives of my characters that day. I mean honestly, compared to a guy who is trying to win back the love of his life how important is a blown light or a barking dog? The other thing I would say is that I really tried to tell it as simply as possible. To stay out of the way of the story. For me that meant working with the actors to navigate it to it’s simplest elements. In my life I have a tendency to go too far, too fast, and too often. I believe that comedy and romance demand a lighter touch than that. From the screenplay through post my goal was always to simplify. I think the most important things in our lives are neither over nor understated. They are merely stated. I was shooting for that in this movie. The bigger the emotion or idea the simpler it needs to be presented.

How do you define success as a filmmaker, and what are your personal goals as a filmmaker?

For me success would be people seeing my movie and then talking about it all the way to their car. I mean really, how often does that happen. My goal is to continue to direct the movies I write. My next project is “Christmas in New York” which is a large ensemble dramatic comedy. In that screenplay there are six stories that all drive toward Christmas. The idea is that during that time of the year if you want to take a shot at being a better person there is really only a couple of days a year when the world’s not out to get you. I hope to do that in New York next winter.