Editor’s Note: Read our review of Joshua Overbay’s first feature, “As It Is in Heaven,” here.
I recently had the opportunity to speak with Joshua Overbay, the director of “As It Is in Heaven,” a cult-themed drama about a group of believers who anxiously await the Rapture after the sudden death of their leader, who prophesied that the end of days would come in one month’s time. In our conversation, Joshua and I had a chance to talk about his own religious upbringing, the inspiration for the film, and why many Hollywood productions depict religious sects as radical, dangerous pockets of American culture.
Josef Rodriguez: Firstly, I just wanna congratulate you for getting your film done on such a minuscule budget. The sound design, the lighting, the score. It’s all characteristic of a much more expensive film.
Joshua Overbay: Thank you. A lot of people volunteered their time and effort.
JR: How did you go about casting the film?
JO: Luke Beavers, the guy who played Eamon, was the casting director. We cast a wide regional net, focusing on Lexington, Cincinnati, and Louisville. Chris Nelson, who plays David, is a personal friend from grad school. He was signed on separately.
JR: That’s really great that you had all that support. Wherever you found Chris, keep him. Forever. His performance in this film was revelatory. This is credited as his first film on IMDb. Is that true?
JO: I know. He’s amazing and I’m so glad you appreciated that. He teaches acting full-time and devotes himself mostly to stage work. I know he’s done a few shorts from film school, but he could have a career in film acting if he wanted it. And he’s incredibly generous. Other actors love working with him because of that.
JR: I really loved the progression of the story because it seems like you weren’t too concerned with shocking the audience with twists and turns, but just telling this really intimate, unique story.
JO: A lot of that has to do with our strengths and weaknesses as writers. We’re good at character studies, but twists/turns/reversals just aren’t in our wheelhouse. Nor does it really interest me as a filmmaker.
JR: Yeah, definitely, and I think you succeeded in creating a film that has two major interpretations that could convince believers and non-believers.
JO: Thank you. That’s what we were aiming for.
JR: You seemed to make a conscious effort to not demonize the members of the cult, which made the ending all the more tragic.
JO: I come from a very conservative religious background with Pentecostal tendencies. One of my pet peeves is how zealous religious individuals are portrayed as “crazy” or as “the other.” So, it was key to view their experience through a sympathetic and human lens. To reframe the perspective from “crazy” to “desperate.” Consider the circumstances: they’ve invested too much to simply turn around and admit defeat. Despite multiple deaths, they have to believe it’s true; otherwise, all their personal sacrifices were for nothing.
JR: Exactly. And you convey that really well. There were times where I really didn’t consider them to be a cult, and the situation almost, in my mind, became about a family and their struggle to stick together through this adversity.
JO: Thank you. I never thought “cult.” I only tried to reproduce the religious experiences from my childhood and college years. I wasn’t a part of a cult, but I was very committed to my churches. It’s a more socially acceptable form of fanaticism .
JR: With all that in mind, are you comfortable with the marketing strategies used for the film? The #jointhecult hashtag on Twitter and things like that?
JO: Good question. I’m not uncomfortable with them. Given our lack of budget, we’re trying to find anything that will stick.
JR: I understand. It just seems like that kind of stuff sets up a false expectation, unfortunately. I know from my experience watching it that the film was nothing like I expected.
JO: Really? How so?
JR: Well, the plot synopsis on is a little unclear, and the #jointhecult hashtag had me thinking I was going to see a much more conventional film about the dangers of cults and how evil they are, more along the lines of Red State. And the film is definitely not that.
JO: That’s interesting. Yeah. It’s NOT Red State. In my mind, it had more to do with the power of belief and the dangers of unquestioned faith.
JR: It’s more along the lines of this really great indie I saw called Sound of My Voice.
JO: Yeah. Our original script was very “Sound of My Voice.” Then, we saw it and we were like, “shit.” But it forced us to do something different and ultimately more truthful to our experience.
JR: Do you think AIIIH will have a similar fate?
JO: I hope so! I honestly have no idea what’s going to happen with it’s OnDemand and DVD release. It depends a lot on how well it performs in the few theaters we have it in. The good reviews have helped. I was more influenced by Bergman and Tarkovsky. Bergman’s Winter Light was in my head as I made the film.
JR: Winter Light is a great film to be thinking of! Really, anything Bergman is a great inspiration. The cinematography reminded me of the color palette of There Will Be Blood and the movement of The Tree of Life.
JO: Yeah. It was Winter Light, Apocalypse Now, There Will be Blood, and Tree of Life. Isaac (DP/Producer) and I constantly referenced those films.
JR: There’s a striking resemblance, but it’s not to a point where you don’t establish your own identity. Also, I’m assuming you used a steadicam right?
JO: We did. The school I was teaching at had a rig, which is how were able to get so much of the equipment with no money. That’s one of the perks of teaching at a film school: free access to equipment.
JR: The steadicam work in this film is just phenomenal. I wanted you to know that. It’s one of the strongest aspects of the film, and it really helped establish this dreamlike tone that just worked.
JO: Thanks so much. It was actually a student who did all the steadicam work. He graduated a month before we started principal photography.
JR: What kind of camera did you shoot the film on?
JO: The Canon C300.
JR: And how did that affect the filming? There’s a lot of beautiful night scenes and not all cameras shoot well at night.
JO: It was the perfect camera: light, incredible sensitivity in low-light, and very easy to use. We had such little lighting equipment and the camera performed incredibly well in the low-light.
JR: Did your job as a film professor inform your decisions about cutting corners to save money, what equipment to use, and things of that nature?
JO: Sure. I think you have to always work within your limitations as a filmmaker and you have to be very aware of what your limitations are. I never felt like I didn’t have what I needed to make the movie though. Having a steadicam was the big thing. Without it, it would have been impossible to make this film. It saved us time and gave us the aesthetic we wanted. Plus, our operator was incredible and was able to transcend our expectations.
JR: Yeah I get the impression that you’re a visual filmmaker and, from watching the film, it seemed like aesthetics were very important to you.
JO: Yes. The camera is the narrator. It’s the eye of the viewer. Plus, I’m sort of obsessed with the relationship between camera movement and the emotional experience of the viewer.
JR: It definitely shows. If anything, the camera almost becomes the divine eye that watches over the group throughout the film. The way it flows in and out of rooms, fields, and conversations. There’s something omniscient about it all.
Some of the most telling scenes in the film were the ones without dialogue. I loved how you appreciated the value of silence. It really worked in the context of the story.
JO: Yeah. I really like silence, sometimes too much so. And sometimes I think it makes it a bit easier with less experienced actors. On the other hand, dialogue can sometimes provide something for actors to hide behind. Silence can be scary, because it requires extreme commitment and vulnerability.
JR: I agree with that, but I think in this film it’s not used to an aggravating effect. There’s the right amount of wondering and waiting and thinking to pique an interest in the audience. Especially when the audience is watching David.
JO: That’s encouraging. Thank you. I wanted to push the silence to the maximum effect. But, especially when under the microscope of a close-up, performances have to hold up.
JR: What was it like producing a script with your wife? Did you find yourself having to be more delicate about things you enjoyed and didn’t enjoy because of who she was to you?
JO: Not at all. Working with Ginny is amazing. We’re very honest with each other and tend to be more receptive to one another’s criticism than to others. Most writers struggle to work with me, because I’m so perfectionistic and impatient. But that’s part of my artistic process. I question everything. My wife understands that and doesn’t judge me for it. Plus, she’s incredible with dialogue and characterization. We come up with the story, plot, beats, and scenes together. Then, she writes it. So, I’m able to be involved in the storytelling and structuring. But I’m not a skilled dialogue artist, like my wife. Plus, she brings brilliant ideas to the table and always directs the storytelling in a realistic manner. For her, it has to be grounded in reality. And she hates plot holes. Every action has to make sense.
JR: It seemed like the scenes involving David’s dreams reflected his true intentions of really wanting to save his people and bring them to salvation. The film depicts him as being a very different leader than Edward, one that was much harsher about adhering to the word of God, while his dreams reveal a more sensitive, worried side of him. How important was it to include these dream scenes and how did you and your wife come up with the ideas for them?
JO: The dreams were essential. Without them, we felt as though there would be no audience sympathy. I wanted to force the viewer to feel for him, or at least understand him. I knew we wanted nightmares and I knew we wanted them to demonstrate David’s growing burden, fear of Eamon, and sense of paranoia. Ginny physicalized those ideas and wrote some seriously disturbing images. I remember reading them thinking, “This is awesome, but how am I going to shoot this?”
JR: Would you consider yourself to be a faith-based filmmaker? This film, as well as your upcoming feature Hope Bridge, deals heavily with faith in a balanced way that is mostly foreign to a majority of Hollywood productions that deal with religion.
JO: No. I would not consider myself faith-based. I’m fascinated by faith and how it impacts us and reveals our humanity, but I’m definitely not “faith-based.” That term communicates something I’m not interested in. Film cannot operate as a sermon. When it does, it becomes propagandistic. It’s the opposite of what cinema should be.
JR: So you’re opposed to obviously faith-based films like “God’s Not Dead” and “Heaven is For Real”?
JO: Yes. I’m not ambivalent. I think they’re inappropriate and propagandistic. Granted, I haven’t seen either of those films, but I’ve seen many, many “faith-based” movies. In fact, I just finished an essay about this subject. I’m trying to get Christianity Today to publish it.
JR: I hope they decide to publish it.
JO: Me too.
JR: Do you think you’ve got a chance?
JO: Yes. I do.
JR: Well, the best of luck to you. I think more films that deal with faith should approach it with the same neutrality that you did in As It Is in Heaven. It’s definitely a film that will appeal to both sides of the debate. Thanks again for talking with me.
JO: Awesome. Thanks so much, Josef. I’m very grateful for your interest.
Continue Reading Issue #11
