I didn’t get a chance to screen Joel Miller’s The Sill Life before he answered some of my questions, but the filmmaker already has great coverage appearing in other Internet news sources and magazines. In fact, there was too much information when I was prepping for this interview. That could just mean Miller is doing a great job promoting his project. But it could also mean, and I'm inclined to believe this, his film The Still Life has spoken to people across the country. The drama will make its impact on Erieites during the Great Lakes Film Festival, September 20-24, where Best of the Fest looks like more than a possibility. Talking about the inspiration for his film, the business of art and the influence of his father is Joel Miller in this months special GLFF Indie Interview.

The Film Chair: In the statement on your Web site you say, "The idea of destructionism comes from a personal bout of trying to find success and be creative at the same time," destructionism being the art that Julian Lamont creates in your film. How has that sentiment in your case and in the case of watching other artists work in more detail affected the final product The Still Life?
Joel Miller: The concept of destructionism actually came from a number of things that were going on in my life and have happened in my past. I have always been bothered that artists never really achieve financial success during their lives. I think most of us hope that at some point in our lives we will find "happiness." How could a person destroy what gives them the most fulfillment in their lives? And the truth is it isn't the fulfillment they "get" but the fulfillment artists find that they "need." Destructionism is a horrible idea. I also wanted to poke at art critics. Destructionism could have really been a movement! It is very plausible that if a real artist created the movement big art collectors would have started collecting. As a kid I was in a museum with my father. My dad was looking at a painting and said to me, "You know Joel people will remember the man who painted this hundreds of years after his death if not longer." My response was, "Who cares if you are dead?" Not the nicest response but it did make me think and it still does make me think.

FC: From what I've read, it's obvious that the musicians you have toured with played a role the development of this film. You even say Lamont is based on one of those musicians. How in your experience on tours and in making this film has commerce, the business part of the art world, played a role in what we see here or in any art?
JM: Julian was not based on any particular musician. I am not sure where you read that. Julian is mostly based on me. All of the characters were developed out of fears of what I hope not to become but they are also all part of who I already am. Outside influences for the character were a little vaguer than a singular individual but some individuals definitely had some influence. I worked on a film called All the Rage (IMDB.com). Watching Giovanni Ribisi in that movie helped me develop the rage and inner turmoil in Julian. Giovanni is an awesome actor. There is no one rock star that Julian was modeled after. There is a real, out of sorts feeling you get when you've been on the road for a while and then come home. You just want to go on the road again. You realize that you have no real home and you want to get back to the road. As crazy as that world is, it becomes you and you become it. Well if my home is not the place I want to be that throws another problem in the mix doesn't it? Ok now the business part of the question. Big art can be BIG business!

Indie Interviews #11: Joel Miller...continues here