interview with Ben Coccio I had
on Sunday, i DM'ed ben coccio saying "hello mr. coccio! i have a couple question i was wondering about a couple Zero Day questions I was wondering if you could answer!"
he responded on wednesday telling me to proceed with my questions
same day, i replied with "Alright, thanks!
- How would you describe Andre and Cal's relationship/bond (e.g. Some people think they're secretly more then friends, what's your take on that)?
- Who would you say is the real leader or is the most 'in power' in the Army of Two?
- This one kind of ties in with the last question, within the little zero day fanbase, some people think cal manipulates the context to make andre seem like the one in power, the violent one per say. basically saying that cal is a wolf in sheep's clothing. What is your opinion on this theory?
-What do you think Andre and Cal are like off camera, when they're not on any of their missions?
-What do you think their lives would've been like if they hadn't done Zero Day?
-Last question, how does it feel to have an entire group over 10k+ people fawning over a project you made 20+ years ago?
That's it, thank you so much!! I apologize for the long list, I'm a huge Zero Day fan, I've probably seen this movie around 20 times lol! Enjoy your day!"
today, Ben Coccio responded saying (buckle in gang) "What I think I was mainly doing when I made the movie was I was using my art medium as a way to process Columbine. But I was also kind of running a cinematic experiment that came into my mind as s reaction to the way the culture was talking about Columbine. So as a teenager, I was the kind of kid - and basically all my friends - who would be looked at suspiciously in the wake of a shooting. And ever after, in some ways. I hated how stupid that suspicion was. It also annoyed me that people so quickly attached themselves to believing such shallow reasons for something like Columbine. So I had this idea that if I depicted something like columbine in a movie where the intimacy granted to the audience *still made it confounding as to why two kids did this, it would be like my contribution to what I saw as a conversation crowded with shallow, dumb, and dangerous voices. So I kind of wanted to make a movie where the characters felt real, but were still open to interpretation. So which one is in charge? What is the true nature of their relationship? The experience of watching the movie is one of having as much info as you’re going to get, and trying to make the best sense of it all. Which is the experience I had processing columbine. Also - I always felt that it was wrong to not look at the two shooters as victims of their own massacre. End of the day: they were kids."
