
Advertisement
VICE: Why did you decide to make a documentary about Zachary?
Adam: I liked Zachary's web presence a lot. I thought he seemed extremely smart and funny and sort of cruel in a way I found enormously compelling. I think he had a sort of iconoclastic quality, which was pretty impressive to me, as he was really, really young. We became good friends around the time he was releasing his book, so I had "access" as they say.The idea for the film came from Z's radio show. I was really interested in the people who were calling in, and the way Zachary was managing (and sort of destroying) his relationship with the people who were his "audience."Also, Z seemed like a character unlike any I have seen in other docs. I guess I didn't know what would happen with him, but I was interested enough to follow along. Can a documentary film be made about a writer? A writer with only one book? A writer so young? Who is obviously an extremely difficult person to deal with and is already so hyper-self-aware of his own representation?Usually in “character driven” films the protagonist has some identifiable goal, a social cause, something emotional and life affirming. Making a film about someone like Z seemed like the opposite of that. Would it work? I thought about all of this stuff a lot.

My initial strategy was to—and this sounds kind of violent and ugly, but it was exactly the word that kept going through my head—"trap" Zachary's character by showing what he was giving to his audience through that radio show. I wanted to produce a rare creature, a totally unique film.
Advertisement
Advertisement
This question gets at what I view as the true impetus behind my endeavor, and it is a very hard question to answer.For Zachary the space between performance and not performance is very murky and unknowable, and that is the ground I was hoping to locate—to sort of test. Looking back, this seems misguided.Zachary is both 100 percent real and 100 percent full of shit, always. In real life and online; in social situations and on camera. His most enduring and consistent trait is continual revolt: revolt against art, revolt against literature, revolt against his representation in the film, revolt against all expectations of him, revolt against himself.

We didn't really clash in specific ways during the making of the film. Whenever I was coming to shoot something we had usually pre-arranged it. Abstractly, in some sense, I was trying to make some narrative or story from his life—I was treating him like a character, a subject, and not an autonomous human. I had some pre-existing idea about what the film would be and mean. I wanted to make a really good film, tell a story. He was just living his life. I guess there was a conflict between my ambition to have his story mean something, to resonate with people, and him half wanting to be left alone. I handled this by backing off.
Advertisement
Editing was hard and took a long time. Sometimes I thought the whole film was totally hilarious one day and then utterly bleak the next.I still feel like that. I like the way some scenes work together in sequence, and I do think there is an arc. It is subtle, but it is there.Anything else?
I think it would be cool to make another film like this in a few years. That is a very interesting idea to me, like the 7 Up films, except with just one person. I think the filmmaking part would be a lot easier the next time around, should I choose to do that.Previously by Blake Butler - The Dark Logic of Clarice Lispector@blakebutler
