Sincere Intentions Gave Shape to ‘Shaking the Tree’

In reading Peter Rainer’s review of my debut film, “Shaking the Tree,” (Calendar, Jan. 24), I was reminded of the conventional wisdom that says nothing is derided more by the critical Establishment than movies about middle-class life. Moreover, nothing seems to pique their cynical world-weary wrath more than pictures that dare to be heartfelt.

While I respect Rainer’s right not to like “Shaking the Tree,” I do take great exception to his outright dismissal of the film.

OK, I admit it: “Shaking the Tree” may not sweep the 1992 Oscars. But when I see the kind of violent, mean-spirited, humanly degrading films that routinely receive critical praise, I cannot believe Rainer couldn’t find one redeeming aspect of “Shaking the Tree,” a small film of sincere and modest intentions.

Allow me to address four of Rainer’s specific criticisms:

* He refers to “Shaking the Tree” as “scrap from the table of ‘Diner,’ ” a “sub-’Diner’ confab,” and “another ‘Diner’ wanna-be.” Understand that “Diner” was a seminal work in what has become a new genre: the ensemble character film.

So does that mean that because I wanted to make a movie that happened to involve a group of guys who are trying to make sense of their lives instead of shooting at each other or flying jets, I’m immediately a “ ‘Diner’ wanna-be”? Was “The Godfather” a “Public Enemy” wanna-be?

* Rainer claims that the “staging and composition all have a TV movie sameness.” Our severely limited shooting schedule and budget notwithstanding, “Shaking the Tree” is an actor’s film. I assure you, I can indulge in self-conscious, film-school camera angles right up there with the best of ‘em. But that type of style-over-substance couldn’t have been more obtrusively inappropriate for a film whose rightful focus remained on character and performance.

* Rainer derides a Comiskey Park sequence as “buddy-buddy padding.” Nothing irks me more than the “MTV filmmaking” presumption that valuable character development takes place during a zippy, music-backed montage.

Perhaps Rainer missed the point, but “Shaking the Tree” is about the maturation of four friends away from their irresponsible youth.

The Comiskey Park montage is a thematic cornerstone that represents exactly the type of carefree moment these friends will never be able to do again.

* Last, Rainer characterizes the emotional content of “Shaking the Tree” as “prefab and processed.” This callous comment implies a conniving, exploitative motive behind the making of the film. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“Shaking the Tree” was a labor of love. Its very nature (small budget, deferred salaries, no big stars, no violence, no nudity) stands as empirical evidence that nobody was out to make a fortune doing this.

Everyone involved was passionate in believing that “Shaking the Tree” was an honest portrayal of the late-20s transition from the remnants of adolescence to the pressures of adulthood.

I am aware that our characters’ relative youth might make their problems seem trite to Rainer. But many other older audience members have found resonance in the themes of “Shaking the Tree.” And I assure you that the problems our characters face are very real to those of us in and near the “twentysomething” generation.