I first met our friend and one-time collaborator, Nathan Marshall, at an independent TV conference when web video was really just budding.  Fast forward 4 or so years, and Nathan has co-written and directed an ambitious TV 1/2 hour pilot, “about a couple in LA who are so underwater on their mortgage that they can’t afford to break up.”

The teaser is funny, and looks nothing short of broadcast quality (though they’re seeking finishing funds on their kickstarter, where you can gain more info.)  The cast is impressive, (includes Rachel Nichols (Criminal Minds, GI Joe), Brooke Nevin (Breakout Kings, The 4400) and Barry Bostwick (Spin City, Cougartown). We can’t wait to see a full series, fingers crossed, and definitely check out their KS page.

We sat with Nathan to ask a few questions as they relate to his self-produced pilot and the broader world of video.

UC: Producing your own pilot is a bold, ambitious, and really gangster move… Have their been any past examples of people funding and shooting their own pilot, and it resulting in being picked up, produced, financed? What prompted this?

NM:  That’s me—totally gangster! No, you know, it was a choice that came out of my background as a commercial director and before that as a film student. In both cases, I’ve learned how to make sure that dollars spent show up on screen. With a great script and great actors we’re in a time now when professional quality TV production is truly within reach at a lower cost than it’s ever been before… My writing partner Michael Traynor and I came up with an idea that felt doable—and with the right cast we knew we could create a competitive show. They’re still the exception, but indy pilots have been shot and sold and aired before, including Party Down, Louie, Partners, Greg & Donny and the kid’s show Imagination Movers. There’s also a rich history of spec pilots being sold then re-shot, such as It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia—and of course South Park.

UC: Understand if you can’t speak to this, but you have some big name working actors featured… are they contractually attached to the show should it get picked up?

NM: Michael and I spent a lot of time crafting roles that we thought actors would enjoy playing. Every character has laugh lines and story arcs… Every character spends a fair amount of time on screen. Just to be blunt about it—we knew the only way we were gonna get the show made was to first attach actors who would mean something to investors. We essentially adapted the indy film model to a TV pilot, then went out to our dream cast and managed to attach almost all of them, including Rachel Nichols, Brooke Nevin, Barry Bostwick, Jude Angelini, Chris Wylde and Jacory Gums. Everyone essentially donated their time because they loved the writing—but no, we were not able to contractually attach them to the series should it be picked up. Everyone’s behind the show, though, and knows we’d be producing it at a lower-than-average budget. If we can’t work out terms with these folks, I suppose their character might experience an untimely death?! In seriousness, that’s a hurdle yet to cross—but this cast will get our pilot seen by everyone in town and we’ve all talked about taking this group with us into series.

UC: What cameras did you shoot on?

NM: Canon 5Ds with spectacular lenses… Except for our underwater title sequence which we shot on a GoPro.

UC: Do you think you’ve proven that network television should and could be produced for a fraction of the cost (save for talent fees of course)?

Yes and no. Most of the cost of network shows (beyond talent fees) come with the speed of their production… We definitely could not have written, shot, edited, scored and screened Underwater in a few weeks or even a couple months on this budget—which is the normal schedule for most network and cable shows. I do think, however, that in the hands of a good director and producer, talking-heavy shows like comedies can be made for much, much less than they are now. And that wave is coming…

UC: What has been your biggest learning thus far on Underwater?

NM: A TV pilot is not a movie! That sounds obvious, but particularly in editing, there’s a whole extra batch of choices to be made about tone, character backgrounds and story reveals that you don’t have to consider in a film. You’re not only creatingthis episode—you’re setting up a potential season of episodes, and the choices you make now are things you could still be dealing with narratively a year from now. The tone is particularly important in a pilot. In our show, we’ve had to be very specific in choosing the right balance between comedy and drama.

UC: What are your thoughts on the YouTube Premium Channel strategy?

NM:  I love it. More channels producing more high-end programming mean more opportunities for show creators. We’d be proud to have Underwater picked up by a premium internet channel. The bottom line is getting to make the show we want to make… The internet is obviously the future of TV. The fact that we look on one LCD screen for one service and a second LCD screen for another service already seems antiquated.

UC: Do you think the scripted webisode world will continue to grow? Any thoughts on the landscape there?

NM:  I think people’s attention spans are growing shorter, and that creates opportunity for well-made webisodes. I think serialized webisodes will almost certainly vanish, while the demand for funny, compelling 1-5 minute stand-alone content will probably go way up. Movies will continue to decline, however.

UC: What’s next on your plate?

NM: First up is finishing Underwater! Another miracle of the modern age is Kickstarter, and it’s allowed us to go directly to sponsors and fans as we try to close out our finishing costs for the show. We’ve got some great rewards—including scripts, posters, dinner parties and baby name giveways—so hopefully people will click through our project page and help support the show. After that, I’m directing three comedy webisodes in March, then shooting a smaller-scale film this summer. I’m really looking forward to what’s coming next for Underwater, however—and am thrilled to get a chance to share it with Urgensia!

FrICTION – trailer

UC: Can you give us a little background on your new film?

CH: In the summer of 07′, I made an agreement with a private high school wherein I would teach film a couple hours a day if they would let me spend the rest of the time working on my own projects with my writing partner Jerome Schwartz. The arts program was struggling from a small number of students and a lack of structure. I had also noticed that the couple ‘running’ the program had a seemingly tenuous relationship; and both hadn’t grown out of the fame-craving phase. There were all of these resources available– food, lodging, transport, and a well of filmmaking equipment. So while driving in a short bus to pick up Jerome from the airport, I was struck with a crazy idea. We would write parts for the real couple, using their real names, real goals, real motivations, but with a dark imaginary twist (a love triangle with a student). We would simultaneously document the effects of the filmmaking process on the actors.

When Jerome arrived I pitched him the crazy-arse idea of making a feature film in the next 17 days; from conception to completion. We had $100 budget, meaning we shot on used tapes, and fueled our 20-hour days with cafeteria coffee.

UC: The back-story to this film seems as important as the film itself. Why was that important to you and how are you using it to promote the film?

CH: Given the insanely compressed timeline, the lack of budget, and the fact that almost everyone had no acting experience, I knew this movie couldn’t look or feel like a Hollywood film.  That list of shortcomings totally informed what the project would be, and became the backstory… ie. don’t hide the weaknesses, show them.  And that’s where the idea of having people play versions of themselves came from, which then evolved into including additional meta layers (fake reality, and reality).  So there’s actually three layers that all intersect; scripted, fourthwall (fake reality), and real.  Given the glut of films out there right now, making a movie that feels totally different where we apply this “fourthwall” technique hopefully helps it stand out.  Plus, what happened to everyone involved in the project because of the fourthwall technique is probably the key selling point of the film.

UC: Is your goal to seek traditional distribution for the film or are you going to go an equally non traditional route?

CH: There have been companies that have created film line-ups and toured before.  They were almost like mini traveling festivals.  This film has already been an experiment in so many ways, we figured, why not try a new method of presenting the film?  My hope is that the interactive experience of being able to both ask questions about the film and then connect with other audience members over drinks…will be an exciting and engaging experience. And like with the ever-evolving production process of FrICTION, I expect that both the tour and ways in which we connect with movie-goers will shift and re-form based on feedback.

UC: What are you working on next?

CH: While I’ve enjoyed the independent film world, the market has shifted.  I’m also interested in connecting with a broader audience.  So I’ve begun talks, and I’m at work on the script for next film. Without giving the plot away, it definitely won’t cost under $100, but the style will be similar.  Perhaps a little more refined and a bit more exciting (with some familiar faces).  I can’t wait to get started.