A Well Intentioned Street Preacher’s Premonition of Ruin Ultimately Comes to Pass in Lucas Vilicich’s ‘Luddite’

Frustrated by his own reliance on his device and only able to see a downward spiral in our dependence on technology, writer/director Lucas Vilicich took himself down a historical wormhole and brought to life his own parable of doomsday in his comedy short Luddite. The film’s release feels perfectly timed with a world teeming with fear of AI and its apparent daily progression and permeation throughout our lives. Often cited incorrectly, the titular group of cotton weavers from 1800s England found their livelihoods threatened by new technology and Vilicich couldn’t help but see the all too obvious connection of the Luddites’ all too accurate fears echoing those reverberating through society now. His sharply witty and accurately tragic short Luddite, obviously shot by analogue means with a fitting guerilla run and gun approach to production, not only assuaged his own fears, but he hopes will make others think twice when they automatically reach for their rectangular slab of technology. As part of Luddite’s DN premiere, we spoke to Vilicich about finding a natural comedic crux on which the film is centred, giving his short a look between documentary and movie and how a real street preacher had unknowingly stolen their chosen location during the exact time of the shoot.

It was only last year I learnt the true origins of the Luddites and I love your take on our modern-day obsession with technology.

First off, I’m glad to hear that the lore of the Luddites has made its way to you this past year! An ambition for the film that revealed itself to me during the making of it was that I want more people to know about this movement that I find so fascinating and prevalent. Last year, I found myself at a tipping point with my frustration towards my reliance/addiction to technology and wanted it to stop. The habitual urge to pick up my smartphone had gone too far and I went down a rabbit hole, searching for the perfect ‘dumb phone’ as I didn’t feel capable of curbing my own reliance on it. During this spiralling I recognized how much frustration, anger, and passion I had for the subject and knew I had to do something with it.

This became the crux of the story and where I found a natural comedic contrast.

The writing process for Luddite was very natural, as I was simply putting my unfiltered feelings into the script. I wanted to scream and shout at the world in hopes it would change, but I also realized that that is no way to inspire real change. This became the crux of the story and where I found a natural comedic contrast. A deep desire to make the world a better place but a misguided character who thinks he may be the second coming and is trying to rescue us from the technological armageddon by yelling at people to “Wake up”. Once I had this contrast, it was off to the races.

Was there a lot of research involved as I know the term ‘Luddite’ is so often used in the wrong context?

While writing, I became infatuated and endeared to the Luddite movement and found myself reading books and articles about the original Luddites and current day Neo Luddites I realized I myself was becoming a Luddite and began to think of my character as a modern day ‘Ned Ludd’ who is the famed/mythologized leader of the Luddite movement. The Luddites have been so misunderstood by pop culture, it is tragically comedic. Their only goal was to protect their community from technologies that would hurt the common good, and yet they have been defined as the crazed extreme, believing all technology is evil. They merely tried to save us from overindulging in technology and yet here we are, deeply caught in its web.

Once you hit on that crux and comedic contrast, how did the compression of your narrative affect the pacing and intensity of the final product, and do you feel the brevity ultimately strengthened your initial intentions?

The initial script ended up being a lot longer than the final film (I had a lot I wanted to get off my chest), but as I moved into trying to produce it, it became clear it was too ambitious on a self-funded/no budget project. What you see as the final film was intended to be the finale of the original script, but I realized it said everything I wanted to say already, and I only needed to tweak it slightly to make it a complete idea on its own. In the end, I feel like the film is stronger because of these cuts. And as much as I yearn for a future with less technology, it feels like our fate has been sealed and I had no choice but to end the story in tragedy. Like in the days of the original Luddites, it seems the world still isn’t ready for a revolution.

I realized that I would be doing the character a disservice shooting this project digitally and felt it had to be done analog.

After I had the script done, it was a very organic pre-production process. Phillip Arliss came on board as our Luddite and seamlessly disappeared into the character making my job way easier. And Chris Pickering came on board as DP making the shooting process a breeze. I realized that I would be doing the character a disservice shooting this project digitally, and felt it had to be done analog. We ended up shooting two rolls of 16mm Kodak 250D with an Arri SR3 and as this was my first project on film, having Chris on board freed me from having to worry about any potential technical hiccups. The dynamic range and way that film renders natural light lent itself perfectly to creating the final look of the film, which would not have felt the same had we done it digitally.

Ultimately, I do think the brevity strengthened my intention and the impact of the film. There were some moments I would have loved to film from the longer version, but as far as servicing the film, they didn’t build or develop the story or theme further. What is left is the true core of my idea and a lot less exposition, and I hope this leaves more room for the audience to form their own thoughts and ideas around the theme. I think the shortened runtime gives the story a bit more ‘punch’ and hopefully, for the audience, a more lasting impact.

What is left is the true core of my idea and a lot less exposition, and I hope this leaves more room for the audience to form their own thoughts and ideas around the theme.

Nobody likes a soap-box warrior (what we call them in the UK) but I always find myself stopping to at least get a grasp of what they are preaching and I would have most certainly stopped for Phillip. How did you guys work on his character, he verges on weird but isn’t too bizarre.

That’s a great term! I think we all have a soap-box warrior inside of us for something we care about, and the goal with this character was to let that little guy out! Phil and I worked to find the truth and vulnerability in the character and let that lead the performance. It was simply a guy saying what he believed in and I think the grounded performance helps him avoid falling into that bizarre and perhaps caricature realm. Phil had a certain glint in his eyes that felt so human and innocent to me, which makes us feel for the character and perhaps root for him, rather than detest him or dismiss him as crazy.

I love the fantastical fall of phones around him as he sits like an oracle, where did you get all these glorious old models and why did that scene feel necessary?

Nobody around me still had their old phones in the closet, so I turned to eBay where broken flip phones sell for what seems like exorbitant prices. I bought a lot of about 15 old, screen cracked, non-functioning flip phones for $50! (I assume the metal or chips in them must still hold value or something?) It felt a bit ridiculous to buy things that don’t work for that much money, but the happy ending was that I was able to resell them into the broken phone market a week after the shoot for the same price I bought them for!

I don’t really remember how this image came to me, but when it did, it just felt right to me and I followed that. The moment is like a flash into the character’s mind, this is how he sees himself. He is a savior of the world and we are lucky to have his presence. What I love so much about the character is his noble intention (in his eyes) but his complete and utter disconnect for how the world actually sees him. This shot solidifies that disconnect for me.

The grit of 16mm matched this character’s place in the world, and the beautiful rendering of natural light film has, gave it this slightly heightened but still grounded feel.

I know the texture and depth shooting on film offers but were there any other specific visual qualities you were able to achieve that would have been lost with digital?

I think digital is great, and there are so many possibilities with it in post-production, however I deeply believe in shooting a project as close to the final vision as you can and aiming for minimal post-processing. Things can get lost in post because of that endless toolbox. Shooting on film baked the look into the project from the start. The grit of 16mm matched this character’s place in the world, and the beautiful rendering of natural light film has, gave it this slightly heightened but still grounded feel. I was looking to achieve something in between documentary and movie. Another factor was the fact of only having two rolls of film made each moment more important. The intentionality that film brings to the process of shooting brought a lovely workflow to the shoot that I think led us to more meaningful and intentional shot design.

Were there certain locations you knew you wanted (I particularly appreciated the cement truck) and certain details that could be planned or did sheer film luck play more of a role?

We shot Luddite over a weekend at various locations across Los Angeles with a small and nimble crew. Everyone was absolutely amazing, making what could be a stressful run and gun shoot a smooth and fun experience bouncing around from location to location. During the writing of the script I would drive around LA in my day-to-day life and unintentionally scout out the shoot. I pretty quickly found the square we shot the speech in, and while I had a few back ups planned in case we got kicked out, I knew it had to be this one. The fact that there was so much construction was pure serendipity, and perfectly captured this noisy world that didn’t have time to listen to this guy’s rant. Since the shoot, I’ve driven by this location frequently where the construction in the background is now completed, and I think about how lucky we were and how different it would have felt with fancy new apartments behind him.

There are also some great moments of passersby either looking at Phil or ignoring him that add so much to the texture of the world but were not things we could have planned.

Another beat of serendipity (but a scare at first) was the morning of the shoot we arrived at the location and there was already a street preacher there with a large speaker reading bible verses. It was a nice affirmation that we chose the right location for the speech to take place, but we also weren’t going to be able to shoot as long as she was there…luckily in the hour we took to set up, she finished and we were able to take her spot. There are also some great moments of passersby either looking at Phil or ignoring him that add so much to the texture of the world but were not things we could have planned. There is a montage shot of Phil reading a pamphlet that says ‘death’ on the front, which was something handed to us by a woman while we were filming his speech on the street corner.

There is a halting but perfectly apt flow to the order of your montages – did you find those beats in post production?

Post prod was a process of putting together cuts and showing it to close friends in person to get their reactions. From there, I tweaked and tweaked to find the ordering of the montage to have the strongest impact for the viewer. I talked with my composer, Liam Priestnall, about creating a score that was intense and dramatic. The goal was to evoke the music that is playing in the character’s head as he gives the speech. It reflects the impact he feels his words are having and is in stark contrast with the way the world is receiving him. I got a really good note from a friend late in the process that I had overlooked, which was taking the beat where he tries to steal the phone from being the first montage shot to appearing later where the physical intensity better matched the emotional intensity.

The ending made me gasp then go back and check that I had seen correctly – was this always in your mind from the offset?

As the shape of the character and story came to me, the ending was quick to follow. Once he officially became a Luddite, his fate was sealed.* To me the story of the Luddites is a tragedy. They had a just cause but failed to find a way to express it to the majority and find success. His death is the metaphorical death of the Luddite movement. There is a sad but poetic justice to him being killed by the technology he was trying to save us all from. The technology bested him as it did in the 1800s.

*I will say that it does seem that the tides are changing, and it does feel like a rebirth or evolution of the movement is burgeoning today. So there is hope yet, just sadly not for this Luddite.