Philip Thompson
Photo: Oliver Covrett
Over the past year, I’ve volunteered as a film festival screener. I’ve learned a ton about submitting to film festivals that way. For every good film that gets programmed, there’s at least thirty films you don’t see, some of which are downright awful, that come into contact with a festival’s first line of defense: screeners. You have people who love movies but who normally have a day job, and who are often from all walks of life and working unpaid, watching every single film that comes in and writing (what should be brief) reviews to help advise programmers in the selection process. If a film festival gets thousands of submissions a year, this is no small task.
Also, regarding the stats I mentioned about mediocre films outnumbering the good ones, sometimes you end up watching a bunch of bad films in a row, and you end up with your stomach hurting and your eyes on fire from having to experience what feels like a dull blade slowly penetrating deeper into your chest from the cinematic boredom (sometimes outrage at the sexist or degrading things you see), so when a good film comes along, especially a great film, one that heralds an indisputable talent on the scene, you just want to shut up and shout, “Eureka!” The watch almost singlehandedly restores your faith in movies as a medium of empathy and entertainment, and possibly humanity as a whole (only half-joking).
When I saw Philip Thompson’s “Living Reality” as a screener (submitted just before the final deadline!), I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. In everything from the DV format to the casting to the production design, Thompson had somehow taken the feeling of a sitcom, and warped it into something bigger, something that seemed meaningful, profound, and sad. The sitcom in this movie seems like it would have actually been part of a network’s programming thirty years ago; the stale jokes and the laugh track make this portion of the film seem even more reminiscent of that period of television. “Living Reality” somehow honors and subverts a certain television genre and piece of shared media history. The fact that Thompson got me to feel like I was watching something from my childhood, when he made it on a budget in 2024 and had far less resources than actual sitcom production teams, is no small feat. Not only that, but his film moved me in ways that sitcoms never did, and got me to think about what sitcoms were trying to achieve and actually succeeded in doing through their “slice of life” portrayals or “very special moments”. Did these sitcoms succeed in portraying any kind of reality or authenticity on a regular basis?
I’ve written about Thompson’s work before; his short film “I’m at Home” had represented my experience with creativity and burnout in a way that felt humorous, true, and striking through its beautiful representation of a 90’s children’s educational television show (I wanted to shout “Where’s Pablo?” to random strangers for days after watching this). Like with “Living Reality”, this movie somehow manages to both honor and subvert its references, and manages to instill feelings of nostalgia for and strangeness toward a piece of media, and the personal and social history surrounding it you thought you knew. Anyone who can make you question your own experiences with media, culture, and memory through film is a singular talent. And apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks of Philip this way, as Sundance recently named him as a member of the 2024 Ignite cohort.
I feel honored that Mr. Thompson took the time to talk to me about his work so far, and his point of view on filmmaking. “Living Reality” is currently on the festival circuit. My interview with him is below, and his website is here.
Q: Your Filmmaker's Note for the Brooklyn Film Festival, where Living Reality premiered in New York, says this: "In my work, I like to subvert familiar tropes and cliches to explore darker themes that are rarely expressed in media. This film was made to give viewers the opportunity to question why they watch television, and to explore the deeper purpose that television serves in their lives." What is it about exploring darker themes in media that interests you, and why do you think questioning why you watch something is important?
A: I think we all have pretty dark minds with dark thoughts, but just due to the obvious nature and implications of living in a society we can’t really act or speak about a lot of them. This reflects in our popular media. We can handle a little edge, but it can never go too far. I think a lot of the TV shows I watched growing up were representations of what people wanted society to be, rather than how it actually is. I only make art to express myself and my internal feelings (you gotta let it out somehow), so if I’m feeling sad or depressed, I have to put it in my work. I have no other choice. Otherwise I’m doing the same thing as the people who are making our popular media.
I think questioning why we watch something is important too because then we get to unlock our psychological impulses of why these specific mediums exist. I think we like movies for two reasons: Firstly, because they are reflections of ourselves mirrored back onto us, and they allow us as human beings to understand ourselves a bit better. When we watch a rom com, they make us think about how we would act in these specific scenarios, or our current relationships. But also secondly, because they’re entertainment. Back when movies first started, books, painting, and theater were the closest thing we had to immersive entertainment. But when movies came around, they ate up all the cultural real estate from those other mediums, because they make two hours feel like you just had a great dream, as opposed to feeling every minute of two hours went by (good movies I’m referring to in this instance). It’s a pastime that works so well that created a multi-billion dollar industry.
So at least for me as a filmmaker, it gives me a greater understanding of what audiences are looking for in their on-screen media, which really helps me when I create something. But overall, I think it helps to be a little more self aware, otherwise you’re just a pleasure-seeking mammal who just indulges because they feel like it (which we all still are, don’t worry). I’m addicted to movies so I think after a certain amount of time in my addiction I needed to break down why I liked them so much, and I think that’s just a particular thing I’m really interested in.
Q: You co-founded the Ithaca Experimental Film Festival. Can you tell us more about the founding of this festival, what led you to form it with your co-founders, and its mission?
At the point when we started the festival, me and my close collaborator and friend Aidan Cronin had been to a few different festivals, and quickly learned how important they can be to foster community and artistic growth, particularly for those who aren’t exposed to that many films. We both went to Ithaca College in Ithaca NY, and while there are a couple film festivals up there, none of them felt that accessible to us as students (in terms of the programming). We wanted to create a film festival specifically for films that are more unique, subversive, DIY, and personal. So we had our other close friend and collaborator Desirée Tolchin come on board, and we started the festival. Our overall goal was to make something that we would’ve really wanted and been excited for when we were in film school. The only way you can learn how to be a filmmaker is by watching the people that came before you and seeing how they navigated their own artistic paths, so you know what to do and what not to do. I truthfully believe that.
I also just like watching movies so programming is really fun!
Q: Your trailer for “Living Reality” is excellent, and reminiscent of commercials for the sitcoms your film subverts. In the making of this trailer, you seem to think about the media beyond the media, how not only the audience engages with the movie (for example), but how the movie engages with the real world. Can you talk more about that?
Dang you’re about to make me sound really pretentious. Bear with me on this one. I guess my answer to that would be that I’m not interested in making “movies” like the way we’re used to them. In the way of, like a movie would start and the camera is pointing at a character and then another character comes in and they start talking and now we’re in a scene. Like movies. I’m more interested in constructing a reality. So like in this instance, it’s fully committing to the idea that Living Reality is a real sitcom. The film starts and ends like a real sitcom. Some weird stuff happens in the middle that changes your perception of the reality you’re used to, but overall I want it to feel like a piece of lost media that you’re just discovering for the first time So using the guise of a sitcom, or a kids show, or found footage, or whatever it is, makes the audience engage with it on a different plane than just it being a “movie”. We like movies, we’re used to watching movies, but I feel like we’re getting to a place with Twitch Streamers and Tik Tokkers becoming our entertainers that there needs to be an element of reality baked into our entertainment to make it especially believable for audiences. I’m obsessed with the notion that people thought Blair Witch Project was real when it came out in 1999, and that’s what ultimately made it really scary for people. I think I’m always just chasing that. I think that’s also the reason why docufiction and autofiction are really on the rise as well, it’s cooler when it’s real! We know movies are fake at this point, (but sometimes it’s still really fun to buy into them).
The Interview
Image from “Living Reality” (courtesy Brooklyn Film Festival)
Image from “Living Reality” (courtesy Brooklyn Film Festival)
Q: You went to Ithaca College for film school. How did going to Ithaca College help to refine and shape your point of view and skills as a filmmaker?
A: When I first was applying for colleges, I had this romantic idea of going to film school in New York. I ended up applying to a bunch of schools there, and Ithaca gave me the most money. So I went there. When I first arrived, I obviously realized how far away it was from New York City, which crushed my romantic idea of what I wanted college to be. But it ended up being a tremendous blessing. Being completely isolated from what was going on in the major cities made me completely focus on nothing but my own work. All we had was free time, and I spent that time trying to soak in as much film theory as I could, and watch as much as I could, and I think that really helped me develop my own artistic voice by the time I was a senior. The cool thing about Ithaca is you can make a film every year (sometimes multiple a year) if you want, and not every film school allows you to do that. Which is kinda crazy to me. I think one of the only ways you get good at anything is by failure. So you are given the complete freedom to fail multiple times every year in your classes, so by the time you enter your senior year you already have more experience than some NYU kid whos’ senior thesis is the first time they touched a camera. I don’t understand that.
PS: I had this one professor Joshua Bonnetta who just changed the way I saw the medium of film. I ended up taking a lot of his experimental classes, basically anything he taught. Sound art, film as material class, you name it. I wouldn’t be on this path if it weren’t for him. College is what you make of it and it’s important to pick your professors well if you’re able to.Q: I've always wondered this: what happens to the host at the end of "I'm at Home"? Does he continue to "create, create, create, create" or do something else entirely?
To be honest I have no idea. It just felt like the right way to end the film, and you can make what you want of it. I feel like he goes back to creating but maybe it’s something a little different. I’m not sure. It’s really not up to me, what do you think he does? I think my most recent theory on it is that Phil “finds” the camera, and it gives him a reason to want to create again, since now he’s not stuck in this isolated headspace anymore. But maybe that’s a bad take. I don’t know.
Q: What movies, television shows, and other media are you inspired by right now?
I just watched The Curse a couple months ago and I’m so obsessed with that show. It makes you think about the people who make the things we watch, which is always something important we should be thinking about. It takes a specific kind of person to want to make TV and movies I think- and they explore that concept so well. Love Fielder and the Safdies, and was great to see their styles and ideas fuse so beautifully with someone that pursues artistic vision like Emma Stone.
I just saw I Saw The TV Glow — need I say more? Jane Schoenbrun is the filmmaker of my wildest dreams right now.
Also really getting into Todd Haynes creative process right now, especially his earlier work like Superstar: A Karen Carpenter Story and Poison.
In terms of musicians, I wouldn’t be anywhere without Tyler the Creator, JPEGMAFIA, or MIKE’s music. They keep me on a great artistic path. I edited most of Living Reality listening to “Scaring the Hoes” last summer and if it weren’t for that album this film might still be in post right now.
Check out Personal Documentary by Jinho Myung on NoBudge if you miss 2010s mumblecore (like i do), it's an awesome film. Jack Dunphy’s animated/doc short films are amazing as well, all on NoBudge. I also just saw a short film at NFFTY called “Tuesday Film” by Kailynn Duffy that I seriously think is one of my favorite short films of all time. Not a day goes by where I don’t think about it and it’s influencing the way I think about everything filmmaking going forward. Keep on the lookout for that.