Interview Part 5: Jane Therese
My interview with the 2020 Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting winner.
My interview with the 2020 Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting winner.
Jane Therese wrote the original screenplay “Sins of My Father” which won a 2020 Nicholl Fellowship in Screenwriting. Recently, I had the opportunity to chat with Jane about her creative background, her award-winning script, the craft of screenwriting, and what winning the Nicholl Award has meant to her.
Today in Part 5 of a 6 part series to run each day through Saturday, Jane Jane describes what it was like to win the Nicholl fellowship.
Scott: There is this kind of almost like a race. You have this two-part court case. First of all, was that always in mind instructionally like you’re going to build toward that?
Jane: Yeah, there is a judge, and I was impressed by his behavior. There were things going on in his life where he was diagnosed with a terminal illness. He made this judgment in a court case that shocked the country.
There was anger and hatred and just spewing of vulgarities. Rightly so, nobody understood it so I needed to understand why this judge, after all of these years, after being so dedicated to the law and so dedicated to these people, why he would hurt this person the way he did?
Come to find out, he had a terminal illness, so I was able to draw a conclusion where I feel satisfied that possibly this could have happened, where he realized that in Ireland or anywhere else in this country and this world ‑‑ and it’s really not Ireland ‑‑ we really need to take a look at the way that we treat our children and how we raise them because we will not have a healthy society if it doesn’t belong with raising, educating, critically thinking while we have these children formed as adults.
I really believe it was his last ditch effort to say, “You know, there’s an epidemic. We have an epidemic. There’s an epidemic.” If nobody’s listening to me, then forget it. Just forget it.
On the other hand, even though he was struggling with his decision, I didn’t expect the outcry as almost as if he felt that the sentences that he was handing down earlier were not making any dents. In fact, they were making progress. He just was not able to see that.
Scott: Yeah. I think it’s a fair to say that Imogen was looking to this legal case to provide a kind of black and white clarity in a complex world, and what the judge does is essentially create yet another layer of complexity.
Jane: Right. Then, we begin to look at the legal system. The story couldn’t really have been told from a legal point of view. I find those really boring. I find the psychology of the person going through these moments more interesting.
Even though the judge did what he did and she was thrown for a loop because she expected a different outcome, I think it was her ego that really wanted the outcome, because at the end, she gets an outcome that she’s “satisfied” with, but she’s really not satisfied.
If the judge hadn’t done what he did, she just would have walked away and said, “OK, that’s fine. You know, I got what I wanted,” but she’s still broken. This way, she was able to realize her support system. She really had a support system like the judge who felt that his decision was not having any effect, like Imogen who felt that her case was not going to have a big effect.
She was being ostracized from everybody, but during this point of the way the judge handled it, she was able to see that she’s not going at this alone. She doesn’t have to be alone.
Scott: So there is this bittersweet ending that there is some justice, she does connect with her family or people in a deeper way. Yet, on the other hand, it’s not the justice this guy deserves.
Jane: She needed closure is what she needed. There was not going to be any closure until she was able to legally be able to close the lid on this. It says if you know you need to do something for whatever reason, you’re being compelled to do it. In your heart, you feel it, “Yes, I have to do this,” but you don’t want to do it.
It’s a process. She’s just getting up and putting literally one foot in front of the other to make sure that she completes this process, but there’s so much more than the process. It’s just the processes of surface level.
Scott: I was struck by that ending title sequence that you have which reminded me of the movie Spotlight that long scroll that they had at the end…
Jane: Oh, that’s so heartbreaking.
Scott: In some respects, it’s almost the most gut‑wrenching part of the movie. What you did…it could have been so easy to drift into melodrama, but you kept leaning into scene, after scene, after scene the complexity of it all. With that, it’s just not as simple as you think it may be. I thought that was commendable, because it really is quite compelling in that sense.
Jane: Oh, thank you. I was going through some stuff, and it was a process. It was a very long heart‑wrenching process. I had a friend at the time who was no longer friend, but when I saw her, she was like, “You’re not done with this,” and I’m thinking, “Oh, my Lord, God. Do I have a timeframe?”
It’s almost like when you mourn something, and you’re still mourning it, and people are like, “Oh, you’re still mourning? You’re still going through this? Abuse?” It’s so hard to define because it’s…Yes, you get smacked around or yes your sexually abused or whatever the case it is or psychologically abused.
There’s so much whittling down at the psyche for the woman and for the man, for the human that is receiving this. It’s so much more unless there’s the support team and a serious education, that’s where the support is.
Starting from beginning how we teach our children to interact with each other, how we teach our boys, “No means no,” or how we gently communicate our needs and wants and feelings to another person.
This is all going to stem from the way we raise our children in the future, because we can’t expect the same thing over and over again if we’re not giving them the skills in order to grow into a healthy person.
Scott: At the end of this process ‑‑ well, not end but a chapter, I guess you could say ‑‑ you discover you win the Nicholl. That must have been quite an experience for you.
Jane: Yeah. I am happy to say it’s been optioned. I am happy to say that it’s in the hands of people…I can’t say a whole lot about it, but I can say it’s in the hands of people who I completely trust and their sensitivity towards the storyline. I just feel that the attention that hopefully it gets also people here, the judges’ response to this.
It was this last‑ditch effort to say there is an epidemic, I want to be able to say that again. “There is an epidemic. We need to do something.” The recognition that “Sins of My Father” has received, I do want to reach out even though this judge has passed and in my heart say, “Thank you very much, I am trying to send your voice out there.”
On December 3, 2020 the Nicholl ceremony included a table read featuring excerpts from each of the five winning scripts. The actors: Stephanie Beatriz (“Brooklyn Nine- Nine”), Michael Peña (“End of Watch”), Lou Diamond Phillips, (“The 33”), and Taylor Russell (“Waves”). The ceremony was hosted by Aldis Hodge (“Hidden Figures”) and directed by 2011 Nicholl fellows Burlee and Abel Vang. Here is a video of the table reads:
Tomorrow in Part 6, Jane answers some craft questions and provides advice on writing a Nicholl worthy script.
For Part 1, go here.
For Part 2, go here.
For Part 3, go here.
For Part 4, go here.
For my interviews with every Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting winner since 2012, go here.
For my interviews with Black List writers, go here.