You are listening to the we need to Talk About Oscar podcast.

And this is our conversation with Lowell Holder, writer, director of Love Enderman.

If it is about anything, it's about taffeta.

I kind of joke, you come for Lincoln, you stay for taffeta.

So in this particular case, I was so intimately connected from sort of the jump of the story's genesis that while the story is very much Roger's, I kind of feel like I have been able to be the midwife in terms of helping the baby be born and now kind of send it off to school and into the world.

First of all, thank you so, so much for your time.

Oh, my gosh, of course.

No, it's a pleasure.

Thank you.

Lavender man is releasing May 2, and the book of Luke is now available for pre order.

What's it like having your second feature and debut novel become available to the world so close to one another the same year?

I mean, you are doing the Lord's work to even mention both projects.

So thank you so much.

It's funny.

It's definitely surreal.

It's also, I can't lie, from a selfish standpoint, I'm also like, well, it's good that the timing is there because I'm able to promote both simultaneously.

So that's wonderful.

But it also has definitely made me sort of reflect on just how different both mediums are, because film, you know, it's such a collaborative process, which is wonderful.

But I was chatting with a friend the other day and like, well, you don't have to do all the press for the book.

And I was like, who else is going to do it?

There is just me.

Like, there is only one person to represent the book.

Whereas the beautiful thing about repping a film is, like, Roger and I get to do interviews together, I get to do something with Pete or Alex.

So it's definitely two different exercises, but I'm grateful they're happening simultaneously because I do think it allows me to savor the beautiful parts of both because something else is scratching the other itch whenever I might get stressed out about one or the other.

But thank you so much for asking about both.

It's also interesting because it's making me think about the common sort of unintentionally common subject matters between the two, and that both the novel and Lavender Men kind of interface with American political life a little bit.

Like, obviously at very different points in the Nation's history between 2015 with Book of Luke and 1860s with Lavender Men.

But.

But, yeah, ultimately it's very rewarding.

And I feel very grateful and I'm just thankful that people are interested in talking about either project, let alone both.

Yeah.

And if these two projects weren't different enough, then there's another twist, which is the fact that Lavenderman is an adaptation of Roger's play.

Yes.

So.

And the age old question when it comes to adapting a book, a play, any sort of source material, which is also the case here, is how much of your own DNA you can inject into that.

So what was the case here?

Well, you know, I was very lucky because I kind of almost feel like the godfather of this particular story because Roger and I have known each other for almost 20 years now.

We met at college my freshman year, Roger's sophomore year.

And so we've collaborated so many times.

And Roger shared a very early draft of the play with me in probably 2018, 2019.

And in that original draft, like Taffeta, the character Roger would eventually play, only appears as bookends to Abe and Elmer's story.

Like they came and gave a monologue at the top and then they kind of gave a summary at the end, but they were nowhere else in the Abe and Elmer scenes.

It was otherwise just a two hander.

And I remember saying to Roger, just because those taffeta monologues felt so deeply personal to them, brought in so much of Roger's very unique and singular point of view in the world as a queer, transgender, non conforming person of color, that I said, we need more taffeta.

How do we get more taffeta in here?

And so we then started working together, drawing from other pieces Roger had written or other experiences.

Roger had to sort of craft this narrative that then became a three hander play and then eventually became this film that I would argue now at this point, if it is about anything, it's about taffeta.

I kind of joke, you come for Lincoln, you stay for taffeta.

So in this particular case, I was so intimately connected from sort of the jump of the story's genesis that while the story is very much Roger's, I kind of feel like I have been able to be the midwife in terms of helping the baby be born and now kind of send it off to school and into the world.

As far as research goes.

Did you have the chance to, on the historical side of things, deepen it or what was the focus in that department?

Yeah, I can speak to both Roger's experience and mine because I think Roger just on a fundamental level.

They started developing the play when they were living in Illinois.

In Chicago, so they were able to go and see Springfield.

I was not able to visit Springfield until, ironically enough, I was on the way to a festival to support the movie.

But the level of research that Roger did was invaluable to the storytelling.

And it was kind of.

As we were shaping it and we realized it was much more of a Taffeta story than an Abe and Elmer's story, per se.

I kind of took the stance that everything was being generated from Taffeta.

This was Taffeta's Abe, this was Taffeta's Elmer.

That it was kind of less crucial to honor.

This historian in 1862 noted that Lincoln was at this place at this time, and to kind of not feel like we had to honor history, but honor Taffeta's fantasia.

And so even in crafting Abe and Elmer with Pete Plazak and Alex is sola, our two brilliant actors.

I said, no, just play the truth at the moment.

Like, don't feel you have to go read 10 Lincoln biographies or, like, try to go track down Elmer's letters that are probably stored somewhere in Washington, dc.

I could just play it as these two co workers who eventually realize they have more of a connection, because that's the story that Taffeta is trying to tell.

And as you're mentioning Taffeta, they appeared as the titular character in one of your previous short films before taking on this way more than narrator role in Lavenderman.

What evolution did you witness, or dare I say, have you witnessed in this character between projects and further and further exploring them through this specific lens, as in here in Lavender Man.

Yeah.

No, Aaron, I've got to tell you, I feel like you've done even more research for this interview than I probably did for directing the movie.

I'm so impressed.

Yeah, no.

With Taffeta, the short film.

So that, ironically enough, originated during COVID because the original production of the play was supposed to go up April of 2020.

That obviously did not happen.

And it was later in 2020 that a producer in New York, as we were kind of biding our time, waiting to see will we ever be able to put this play up?

Because ironically enough, I had once said on the record in 2019, that my favorite thing about the play was that it defied adaptation.

It could never be any a play.

This producer in New York said, well, hey, maybe because you both have these film backgrounds, maybe just shoot like a promo reel while you've got some free time that we can use to, like, drum up interest in the play here in New York.

So Roger and I kind of decided, okay.

We sort of, like, shaped together like a little, like, teaser script.

And as we started working on it, I'll never forget we were with Matt Plaxko, who actually was our DP for Lavender Men, the film as well.

And we had our first setup, and we were doing our second take, and I was looking at monitor, and I, like, called over Roger and I was like, roger, come here.

And Roger looked at the monitor and was like, oh.

Cause it was just.

The shot was so fantastic.

And I turned to them and I said, I think we have more than a promo here.

And Roger said, yeah, let's make the most of the next 24 hours.

And we shot all the footage and pieced it together into the short film.

And, like, had no intention of treating it like a short film, but we were like, okay, it kind of feels like we can gamble a little bit with house money here.

Let's just send it out and see what the reception is.

And we were really just blown away that, like, BFI flair really connected to it.

Holly Shorts Outfest Scad Savannah.

Like, what had never even been intended to be a short film suddenly had this incredibly positive response.

And we saw then sort of like the test case that, like, oh, no, taffeta can live outside of a theater.

Taffeta.

And Roger's just ability as an on camera actor.

Cause Roger had had no on camera training prior to doing that short film.

And they just have such an innate natural gift.

They're so radically present as a performer that we kind of started thinking about, like, as the play then started taking shape and we got new dates of when we would be able to do it were we not to continue the metaphor, leaving money on the table, not to then say, well, what would the feature version look like?

If the film world is telling us they want to see more taffeta, do we not owe it to the character and to ourselves to see what that story looks like?

And I mean, to get back to the second part of your question of how has taffeta evolved?

I think so much of taffeta's evolution is directly proportional to Roger's evolution as a person.

I think taffeta.

It's funny, I was thinking of a quote earlier today that the novelist Ann Patchett said about a novel she had written.

What her mother said in response to reading it, because it was very personal and her mother had said none of it happened and all of it was true.

And I think so much of taffeta and what taffeta goes through in the film, the things they allude to, the world in which they move is.

Is so true to Roger's personal experience.

And I think the deepening and the vulnerability is proportionate to Roger becoming more comfortable as an artist and sharing their stories and their experience of the world.

And so because in the original short, pretty much the entire thing is in voiceover, except for one phone call that Taffeta has, sort of similar to the phone call that she has with the guy on the dating app in Lavender Men.

Otherwise it's all internal.

Whereas, like, the beauty of the feature is we actually get Taffeta bursting out of their shell, even if it's in their own mind, but bursting out of their shell in a way that the short just was a different exercise.

So the promo actually did work.

But first and foremost, and mostly for the two of you.

You know, Aaron, I never thought of it that way, but my God, you were right.

It did.

It did exactly its job, 100%.

I'm going to tell Roger that later.

Like, we didn't know what we were promoting, but it did the job.

Exactly.

We just wouldn't be here talking about lavender.

We absolutely would not.

I mean, God only knows where we would be.

But something you just mentioned about the short and it garnering positive feedbacks from the likes of festivals like BFI Flare.

Of course we know that there are typical, not even type movies, but typical details in movies that are, for example, very welcomed by the likes of a Khan or on the other hand, a Venice or a Berlinale.

But of course, even with the short film, you can't aim for such specific festivals and such specific goals.

So what I'd like to ask you about is what was it like finding these different types of homes for such not even a film, but a story?

No, I think that's such a great question because it's.

It's also funny because I think I was chatting with a friend who's a festival programmer, and one of the things she'd always said about the film was, was it's such a strong flavor.

And she was like, and that should make everyone want to program it.

And you would think so.

But the reality of being a strong flavor is that it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is going to get it.

And that is okay.

I would much rather have a strong flavor than something that people walk out of and go, yeah, it was fine.

Like, I would rather have something that allows people to have a very definitive opinion.

And I do think.

I do think we've captured something here where we all 100% can stand behind the work that we did.

We understand the choices that we made.

And also, if the choice was between shooting the movie in the time that we had for the sake of this story, getting out there to people who need it, as opposed to, oh, well, no, we don't want to do it unless we have a solid two months and there's no way to make that exist.

Well, then you don't choose that path.

You choose the version that gets it to the people who need it.

And I think it just makes me grateful for.

Because I feel like the advocates that we've had have been so passionate about the film that when you find those people, it's great to see, like, the family is there and, and it's.

And it's never entirely.

I.

I've been so surprised about, like, how diverse the group of people is who have rallied behind this movie because you could argue, because it comes from such a sort of unique, specific perspective that only somebody who would be exactly of Roger's background would be drawn in.

But ironically enough, I think from that specificity comes universality.

Because just through the festival tour that we've had so many, like gay men over 60 like coming up and saying, oh, this is the first time I've seen that loneliness depicted in a way that I understand.

Or I was speaking with a lesbian college student at one festival.

She was like, no, I feel like I haven't seen a queer person of color in this way.

And I really connect to that.

Or I mean, most telling was there is an older woman at a festival who came up to me and like, told me a little bit about herself and just said, like, you know, I.

This wasn't what I expected, but I never thought about some of these issues or someone like this, their perspective.

And I just really want to thank you for bringing this here because it really changed what I thought about a certain issue.

And I looked her up a little bit later based off of some of the details she'd given me.

And she was on the Republican steering committee for the state, for like the whole state Republican Party.

And I was like, okay, if I got that woman to see transgender, non conforming issues even just a slightly bit differently, then you know what?

We all already did our jobs.

It does not matter, like, what the money is, what this is, like, someone was affected and they will take this movie with them.

That's the ultimate prize and compliment.

And that's something that you can never plan for, but you also can't fake when it happens.

Totally.

And on that note, there is always that tension when retelling history.

Historical purists might object while others celebrate reimagining these figures, which of course means there is pretty much.

In any case, there is no chance of avoiding offending a great number of people.

But of course, you gotta say, fuck you.

This is me telling the story.

There is no one stopping you from doing the same in your way.

Yeah, I would even say in this case, it's no fuck you, it's taffeta telling the story like it's them telling the story to you.

Exactly.

There is no avoiding offending people.

But who is it that you actually don't want to offend with this one?

Oh, gosh.

I mean, if I'm being truly honest that the person who I primarily would never want to have offended with this film was Roger.

Just because it's such a deeply personal story, like, I wanted.

My ultimate goal was knowing, just given that everything Roger was putting on the line for this project, that Roger felt full ownership of it at the end, which, unless they've done a very good job of tricking me, I think they think they do feel that.

But I would also say, too, in terms of the level of offense I.

I've really been blown away that at least, knock on wood, most of the people who I've interfaced with, both when I tell them about the project or when I hear feedback from it, it's largely just curiosity.

Like, I think it makes people lean forward because.

So I personally haven't directly interfaced with anyone who really got their knickers in a twist over the alleged querying of Abe Lincoln.

Because it's like, at this point, it's like, well, if you're gonna come for me, then you also have to come for the entire team behind O'Mary.

You also have to come for those people who did the documentary Lover of Men.

You also have to come for, like, any historian.

You have to go all the way back to Carl Sandberg and swing by his grave and give him a piece of your mind, too.

I feel like it's enough of a conversation point right now.

Which.

Which when it wasn't.

When we started, like, originally developing the play in 2019 and then premiered the play in 2022, like, we were kind of on the front of that wave, but I think now, as the wave is crashing and we.

The film is joining in, that crashing.

It's.

I think it's indicative of the fact that it's a conversation people are interested in and want to have.

But I would say, overall, I think the movie has been met with a lot of open mindedness and I feel like the audiences who have approached it that way feel like they have been rewarded by that and like, have had, they haven't regretted sitting in the seat.

This film confronts a profound question that emerges, I'd say, exactly at that intersection where past and present meet.

And I'd say to some point, we all find ourselves in situations like this and it's a question that we all ask ourselves is what do we owe to those who came before us?

Or do we even owe them anything at all?

And it's gonna be a huge question I'm going to ask.

And it's, did you feel ready to ask yourself this question or have you grown ready to ask this question?

Oh, that's so.

I mean, that's a beautiful question.

I think it was funny because I alluded to earlier whenever I was driving through Springfield, Illinois on the way to this film festival, Hell's Half Mile in Michigan, to support the screening of the film.

And I wasn't even planning to go through Springfield.

I was completely caught off guard where all of a sudden I saw the sign Springfield 25 miles.

And I was like, well, I have to pull over.

I.

I have to, I have to get off the road.

I felt this kind of profound obligation.

And so I went to Lincoln's grave.

And it's.

If you, if you've never been, it's.

It's kind of a.

A bit of a submerged monument in Springfield with a big obelisk on top.

And when you go inside, Abe is buried there, but so is Mary Todd Lincoln, as are all of their children.

They're all there together.

And I was completely alone in this room with Lincoln's tomb and Mary Todd Lincoln right behind me.

And I was really kind of blown away by what the feeling that actually came from me was.

An immense sense of gratitude where like I audibly said to both of them, like, thank you, thank you for lending us this story.

Cause like, regardless of whatever the truths of the matter were, like, obviously so much of the story we're telling in Lavenderman is speculative.

But these were still people who lived lives, lived painful lives.

Like, even just from the sheer fact of like being President of the United States during a Civil war and being married to that person, one can only imagine a challenging experience.

And so I, I really felt compelled to sort of just say, like, I hope you feel we did right by you.

Thank you for the honor of inhabiting this story in some form.

And I'm really grateful for that moment, as weird as it is to say, when I walked out of that monument, I kind of was like, I feel like Abe Lincoln and I are good.

I feel like we're okay.

I feel like somewhere cosmically, the blessing has been given that whatever version of this story, wherever it goes, the Lincoln family is cool with it.

Which is probably all in my head.

But to the question of, like, what do we owe the people who came before?

I think it's.

I do think we owe them some grace.

And just also acknowledging that the language we have now might not be the language that they had then.

Like, I mean, even to the point where I had.

A journalist asked me a while back, like, well, how would you label Abe and Elmer's sexuality?

And I'm like, well, again, these are Abe and Elmer through the lens of taffeta.

But for these characters in the 1860s, if I had to ascribe a contemporary label to them, I guess I would go with Q for questioning, because I don't even know that these characters themselves would identify as gay if they have, like, attraction to men beyond each other.

We don't see that.

All we know within the context of lavender men is they are very much aligned together.

And so I think it's also a matter of just like, trying to grade people on the tests that they had available to them at the time and not trying to project too much onto them that they would have had no control over 150 years later.

There is no topping that.

Sorry, it was a rambling answer.

I apologize.

No, no, I absolutely loved it.

And love, once again, thank you so, so much for your time.

This was such a pleasure.

Aaron, thank you so much for such smart questions and like, you were just immaculately prepared.

And thank you for the interest in the book.

And no, you were such a delight to finally speak with you in person.

You've been such a wonderful supporter of indie cinema.

So it's great, great to finally be in touch directly.

Thank you so much and hope to talk to you again as soon as possible.

Yes, very much.

Thank you so much.