A national publicity film recently contacted Past the Popcorn about Self-Medicated, the feature film debut from writer, director, and star Monty Lapica. It’s a quasi-autobiographical depiction of a Las Vegas teen whose life is headed way down the wrong track—and whose mother hires an interventional clinic to get the young man, Andrew, clean. Andrew, of course, has other ideas. The film evokes memories of the better films of this type—Girl, Interrupted and Lost Angels, even aspects of Gridiron Gang—as well as Nick Cassavetes’ somewhat grittier Alpha Dog.

A film school graduate, Lapica bird-dogged the project from day one and got the film made his way—which means it is also unlike any prior film in its genre. Since its film-festival debut, it has won award after award, and makes its theatrical release on August 31. Greg Wright had the opportunity to talk with Andrew’s real-life alter ego, Monty Lapica.

Well, first off, just to give you feedback on the film—I watched it last night with my wife. Very impressive. Very impressive feature debut.

Monty Lapica: Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to watch it. I appreciate it.

Oh, my pleasure. A lot of times, I couldn’t say that, but—

ML: Yeah, I can imagine.

The first thing I’d like to ask you about is the extent to which the plot of the film differs from your actual life story. Obviously, there’s fictionalization there—but in what major ways does your story differ from Andrew’s?

ML: Most of the characters inside the institution are fictional. A lot of the character traits that I assigned to Andrew are made up and exaggerated—for instance, the intelligence factor is completely exaggerated, and created just for the purpose of hopefully making the character more sympathetic and giving people a reason to root for him, a reason to care for him. In real life, I did escape from the institution both in Utah and in Hawaii; but there was no character “Dan,” who Andrew goes head-to-head with.

No primary antagonist.

ML: Right, exactly. That was a dramatic device.

Sure.

ML: But the story certainly stems from a very real place, which is my father’s death—which occurred when I was 14. And I wanted to write a very personal story addressing that. And also, I thought that the topic of teen rehabilitation centers was fresh, and I hadn’t seen a story that centered on that before, so I—and I thought it had a lot of inherent drama, and it was original—so I thought it would make for a good first movie.

Very much so. Now, the encounter with “Gabe” that happens toward the climax of the picture—is that reflective of a personal experience that you had, or is that also a device of narrative tension?

ML: Yes, that’s a narrative device. Exactly. Because Andrew needs to grow quite a bit in a short amount of time.

Yeah.

ML: And I needed something that would enable him to do that within the context of the story. I needed some sort of life-changing event.

And yet it was nice, in that it didn’t just solve all of his problems immediately. There were other steps yet to be taken.

ML: Sure.

So that it served as a catalyst, maybe, but not as a silver bullet.

ML: Exactly. The real change occurs after the story ends—in my view. But you’re right—we needed something to serve, as you say, as the catalyst to spur the change.

Where did the idea for that particular device come from?

ML: I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s been quite a while since I wrote the story, so I don’t know.

Certainly, I think there are people who will connect to it on a personal level—who have had similar encounters, unexplainable encounters. Have you talked to other people who have had that kind of experience?

ML: In the sense that an individual can come into somebody’s life and leave a profound impression? Sure. But not necessarily a homeless man off the street. That was just something that I thought would be interesting, dramatically, because that character and Andrew’s character are polar opposites who come from two different worlds. And yet they were able to connect, on an emotional level.

And did you choose the name “Gabe” symbolically?

ML: Yeah, I did. I did.

One could guess, yeah.

ML: Right.

Now, another surprising aspect of the film—particularly since this is being distributed by Thinkfilm, which is, you know, pretty much your typical independent distributor—is the extent to which faith is integrated into the story.

ML: Sure.

Is that also reflective of your personal experience? Or is that also something that you just wrote in as a character thing?

ML: Oh, no. That’s very much reflective of my personal experience. Whatever troubles I had growing up and through my adolescence, the only reason I was ever able to overcome those was through the help of God, and my personal faith.

Well, I really liked the way that it was integrated into the story, because in films you tend to see either one of two approaches. One is what you might call the Quentin Tarantino approach, in which everything appears very profane, and very little is sacred. And then the Christian cottage-industry approach is to make everything have the appearance of being sacred, and nothing can be profane.

ML: Sure.

And yet here was an R-rated movie that was clearly steeped in its profanity—not in a vulgar sense, but clearly there is a profane world view there, a secular world in which Andrew is immersed, and portrayed completely honestly. And yet there is a dimension to both Louise’s life and Andrew’s life that is profoundly sacred and spiritual.

ML: Thanks for that. Yeah, I agree with you. And in fact, because it was sort of straddling the middle ground there, it left us in a little difficult situation for a bit because distributors weren’t sure how to market the film. There were some suggestions from certain distributors that we should eliminate the spiritual overtones—

Because that would make it easier to market, from one perspective.

ML: Exactly. And on the other hand, there are concerns that it might be a little too profane for certain Christian audiences.

Yep. Yep. And you will get complaints about that from certain elements of the Christian press, no doubt. In fact, I’m sure that some of our readers will complain about the fact that we will be recommending the film, because it isn’t purely saintly. But that’s the market, and those are the market pressures you deal with.

ML: Yeah.

So I was actually very impressed at Thinkfilm’s willingness to take it on and distribute it as is, without demanding any of those cuts. Because I think it reflects real life.

ML: Yes, exactly. A realistic depiction, in my view, is what’s important; and that’s how you’re going to reach out to—especially—the younger audience, who is going to be immediately alienated or turned off by anything that feels too “safe,” that doesn’t feel like the real world they see every day when they go to school and when they’re out with their peers. It’s got to be grounded in reality.

Yeah. Did you see Alpha Dog?

ML: No, I haven’t. I haven’t seen that one yet.

Your film would make a very interesting companion piece to Alpha Dog, because both films do a lot of the same things in terms of depicting aimless, disgruntled, too-smart-for-their-own-good youth, and the subculture that goes along with that. And yet Alpha Dog never presents any real answer to the problem—or rather, any hope. It’s a very bleak depiction. And Self-medicated, I think, as a companion to that, seems to say, Now here’s an example of someone who found a way out.

ML: That’s interesting. I’ll have to check that one out.

I can’t remember for sure—but I don’t think any of the characters in Alpha Dog find any way out. It’s just incredibly bleak, a real classic tragedy.

ML: Sure.

But also based in real life—and that’s another characteristic of reality for some people. They don’t always find a way out, and it is nothing but bleakness.

ML: Yeah, unfortunately. That’s true.

Now, another objective of yours, as I saw in the film’s production notes, is that you wanted to accurately portray what it’s like growing up as a teenager in the Las Vegas area.

ML: Sure. I just wanted to give a different perspective of Vegas apart from what you normally see in movies: the suburban people that live there and work there and grow up there—an aspect that is not normally depicted in a film that takes place in Vegas.

I’ve visited Vegas several times, and though I’ve never lived there, the environment does seem to be a very odd place to bring up kids because of, first, the artificiality of much of it; second, the consumptiveness of it; and third, of course, the whole gambling industry. Were you actually born there?

ML: Yeah, I was born and raised. I grew up about five minutes from the strip.

So when you talk to other people your age who were not raised in Vegas, what do you find to be the differences in perception of reality, in world view, as a consequence of being raised there?

ML: You know, I think it’s really the same everywhere. I think in Vegas you just grow up a little quicker. The temptations and the distractions are just so boldly and prominently advertised. Essentially, they are what the whole town is about. So it’s kind of as if there is nothing else in Vegas. Of course, now it’s become much more of a complete culture than it was when I was growing up. It’s got an arts community and a lot of other things going on apart from the Strip and the casinos. But early on, it was very much just the Strip—and that’s it. The casinos—and that’s it. So when you’re a teen growing up in Vegas, you try to figure out a way to get involved in that. Most of my friends and I had fake IDs by the time we were 14 and 15, and we would go out to the Strip very early in our adolescence, and just tried to do what the tourists do—to have fun and entertain ourselves.

So in a way, it sounds almost like growing up in a Vegas suburb is like growing up in the middle of Manhattan.

ML: Yeah, in way—in that you can’t really avoid or separate yourself from “where you are.”

Right. Most parents view suburban living as the “safe” environment, where you can keep your kids protected from all that stuff. Sounds like maybe there isn’t any such thing as “safe” in Vegas.

ML: No, I don’t think there is. If I had a choice, I wouldn’t raise my kids in Vegas.

Now, has your mom seen the film, presumably?

ML: Yeah. Yeah, she’s a big fan.

She really likes it?

ML: Yeah. She really loves the film.

And what does she think of Diane Venora’s performance as—

ML: Oh, she’s such a fan. And she actually became good friends with Diane. So that was very cool for her to meet an actress that was playing her, and she had a lot of fun with it. I kept it as a surprise for her until the movie was completed.

That’s great. Well, I was very impressed. You did a very good job of recruiting very top-notch people for your technical crew. The cinematography is just fantastic—and I know, from the production notes, that a lot of that is due to your design for the picture, behind it. But a really fine job of hiring excellent people for the visual and musical components of the film.

ML: Oh, thank you for that. Yeah. I couldn’t be happier with what those guys contributed. They are just first-class professionals.

I also agree with your decision to shoot it on Super 35mm instead of HDV. I think it lends a lustre to a lot of the opening sequences that you wouldn’t have been able to capture otherwise.

ML: Yeah, certainly. When we see film, it’s something that’s embedded in our consciousness these days—where, I guess, film is what we expect to see movies look like. We haven’t yet quite become accustomed to the video feel, for the cinematic experience at least. And I’m sure that we will shortly. But at least up until now, when we go to see movies we expect to see film; that’s the look we’ve come to associate movies with.

Yeah, there is definitely a different aesthetic feel to it.

ML: Absolutely.

So… Last question before I let you go. What’s next for you?

ML: I have a script that I wrote called Methodical, and it’s sort of an anti-revenge film. It’s about ordinary characters who—through some circumstance, whether it be loss, tragedy, betrayal or loneliness—are forced to change very radically and metamorphosize into something more machine-like and methodical, where they are pursuing a single purpose and become lost in that pursuit.

That’s a very interesting concept.

ML: Thanks.

Well, thank you for your time, and good luck with the release of the film. A pleasure talking to you.

ML: Absolutely. Thank you for your time, and your interest in the film. I really appreciate it.