Why ‘Piece by Piece’ Director Morgan Neville Vows to Abandon AI in Filmmaking

Morgan Neville understands that not every detail we discuss will be included in this narrative. Having created numerous documentaries, he recognizes that for a story to be told effectively, certain elements must be omitted.

This is certainly the case with Piece by Piece, his latest “creative nonfiction” film centered on Pharrell Williams. Utilizing audio interviews with collaborators such as Kendrick Lamar and Missy Elliott—many conducted remotely during the Covid-19 lockdowns—it presents a biopic of Williams’ life entirely brought to life with Lego. With Williams’ impressive career spanning over three decades, and considering the high cost of animation, Neville realized he had to make some choices about what to leave out.

“People often say, ‘Oh, the interviews are so wonderful.’ And I think, ‘Yes, I included the best ones,’” he remarks, seated in a restaurant near Central Park, just days ahead of Piece by Piece’s premiere in New York. “They have no idea about the interviews I chose not to use or the segments I left out. That aspect is significant too.”

So what stories remain untold? One anecdote involves Williams receiving a call from Michael Jackson, while another recounts Justin Timberlake’s visit to the Neptunes’ studio in Virginia Beach. The film actually concludes just as Williams begins to share deeper insights. But that’s the nature of movies: they can only convey so much.

Similarly, during our conversation with Neville, we explored various topics, including his upcoming film focused on Paul McCartney’s life after the Beatles and how his experiences utilizing artificial intelligence for the Anthony Bourdain documentary led him to completely abandon the technology.

Angela Watercutter: What prompted your choice to feature Pharrell Williams? You have created numerous music documentaries; what set him apart from other potential subjects?

Morgan Neville: He reached out to me.

Oh, that certainly makes it easier.

I never imagined making a documentary about Pharrell, especially since I felt a bit fatigued from creating music docs in the past. It seemed like I had explored that territory thoroughly.

What was it about Pharrell that inspired you to revisit the music documentary genre?

I’ve always found myself more fascinated by producers than by artists because artists usually share a similar narrative and often exist within their own confines. Producers, on the other hand, have to traverse various environments. That’s why I tend to focus on them. Additionally, during our initial meeting, Pharrell mentioned, “I want you to attempt to make a documentary about me, and once that’s complete, I’d like you to recreate it in Lego.”

So, the Lego concept originated from him.

Honestly at that moment, that’s what hooked me.

How difficult was it to get Lego involved? Did you have to travel to Denmark?

No. Actually, Lego’s film office is located in LA. Jill Wilfert has been managing it for over a decade. I pitched her the concept, and within five minutes, she responded with, “I kind of love this idea.” Thank goodness, because if she hadn’t, the film would have lost its momentum then. There wasn’t an alternative version that made sense.

On the topic of Lego as a creative medium, while watching the movie, I was fascinated by how it connected to Pharrell’s synesthesia. He strives to narrate the journey of his music, but experiences it through colors and shapes.

I mean, he never articulated it in precisely those terms, but I’m certain it’s tied to his thought process.

For each beat and each song, I would ask, what color represents this song? Even with Kendrick’s track, “Alright,” I posed the question, “What color is that song?” He responded, “It’s like this flowing blue and gray.” This led us to animate the entire spectrum that Kendrick emerges from in the film. That’s a reflection of everything he envisions.

Did you really not inform any of the interview subjects that they would be transformed into Lego minifigures?

We kept that under wraps from everyone.

Did you receive any reactions once they learned the news? Perhaps Jay-Z reached out and said, “I didn’t see that coming.”

We embarked on our interview journey nearly five years ago. We aimed to keep things under wraps, as we didn’t want the public to know about the Lego movie we were working on. My intention was for them not to focus on the fact that they would be depicted in Lego form; rather, I wanted them to engage with me openly. I explained that the project would be animated.

So, it’s not entirely untrue …

A select few major artists insisted on seeing their character representations before giving their approval. Therefore, we shared a small 3D model of their character with Jay or Snoop, and the response was overwhelmingly positive.

Did they ask for minifigs of themselves?

I believe everyone has a desire for a minifig that resembles themselves and those around them.

Take Daft Punk, for example; they are quite meticulous about their representation. When they reviewed an initial version of the characters, they wanted to ensure every detail, especially the angles and their iconic helmets, was accurately depicted.

It’s amusing, considering this duo already wears helmets that resemble Lego helmets.

The creative director visited our office, and I shared my vision with him. He responded enthusiastically, saying, “Whatever you want, we’ll do it.” His excitement was infectious. Who wouldn’t want to be involved with Lego in such a meaningful way?

In the film, the interviews appear to take place in people’s homes, but you conducted many of them via Zoom during the pandemic, correct?

Indeed, most of the interviews happened right from my couch at home, either through Zoom or on the phone. It turned out to be the perfect project for the pandemic era.

Did you encounter any technical issues?

I always ensured we were getting quality audio. I would send a sound technician to assist them or they would have their own home studio. I recall interviewing Missy Elliott early in the pandemic when I couldn’t send a sound person to her residence. Instead, I mailed her a small digital recorder and guided her through the setup process.

For artists like her, Jay-Z, or Snoop, do you think they might be more willing to share since the focus isn’t solely on their personal experiences, which they may prefer to avoid discussing right now?

I don’t want to delve too deep into it, but it seems to me there is a more superficial type of interview that many are accustomed to. For instance, “Pharrell is a fantastic artist, and so on.” I remember conducting an interview with Jon Platt, CEO of Sony Publishing and mentor to Pharrell, who is featured in the film. Early in our conversation, I began to probe him about some of Pharrell’s less successful endeavors, and he responded, “Oh, you want to go there?”

I replied, “Yes, I genuinely want to go there.”

Many individuals hold a protective stance towards Pharrell, as he has traditionally maintained a private life. In fact, I found myself interviewing his wife, parents, and other close ones for the very first time.

There seems to be a general reluctance to embarrass someone they genuinely care for. However, throughout my years working with high-profile individuals, I’ve come to realize that the real embarrassment lies in avoiding deeper conversations. The truly awkward aspect is producing a superficial piece filled with fluff.

Were there any insights that didn’t make the cut, which you would have included in a three-hour version of the film?

Honestly, not really. It’s interesting how many people discuss director’s cuts of films. Personally, I believe if I were to create a director’s cut, it would likely end up being shorter.

I mean, there are other stories. Like, Gwen [Stefani]’s story and Justin [Timberlake]’s story. We had a significant scene featuring Justin, but they were somewhat parallel narratives, revolving around [Williams] beginning his collaboration with pop artists around 2002. I had to cut something out.

I feel like there’s a bit more focus on Gwen in the film than on Justin.

There was an excellent story about Justin traveling to Virginia Beach and working with [the Neptunes] and how run-down their studio was. Yet, a key aspect was that Gwen contributed this female energy to the film.

There are a lot of guys involved.

It seems that part of the challenge was simply needing a new vibe.

There were moments in the film where I realized my understanding of the story wasn’t as deep as I thought. For instance, I learned about Pharrell’s contribution to Wreckx-n-Effect’s “Rump Shaker,” and discovered more about Justified, which has gained a reputation for featuring beats that the Neptunes originally created for Michael Jackson.

In fact, many of Pharrell’s creations were intended for other artists. Take “Frontin’,” for example; he initially wrote it for Prince, as mentioned in the film. Then there’s “Happy,” which was originally meant for CeeLo Green. A significant portion of what he crafted for Justified was intended for Michael, who ultimately didn’t take them.

There was also a different anecdote we had included in the film at one point, about a time when Michael reached out to Pharrell. Initially, Pharrell thought it was a prank and doubted it was really Michael Jackson. But once Michael began to sing songs from Justified, Pharrell realized it was indeed him. Michael later recognized that those were exceptional tracks.

Would including that aspect have led to more complications? It’s hard to overlook Michael Jackson.

Everyone from Beyoncé to Kanye West has had some connection to him, and even though he’s collaborated with numerous artists, just scratching the surface doesn’t do justice. It can feel unfulfilling and only raises further questions like, “What about that? Let’s dive deeper into that story.” I always view these situations as narrative traps.

Was that a decision you had to make?

I knew from the beginning that interviewing Kanye was not in the cards for me.

It wasn’t as though Kanye had any close ties—or Puff, another figure of controversy—Pharrell never really developed a deep connection with either of them.

It’s remarkable that this film is being released at a moment when many individuals involved are part of an industry experiencing significant upheaval.

The kind of reckoning taking place in the hip-hop community has been a long time coming.

Pharrell, on the other hand, appears to be the complete opposite. He has been with the same woman for two decades and has never touched drugs. He abstains from alcohol and truly embodies a health-conscious lifestyle.

To me, it felt more like a hidden gem. Instead, it turned into a trap.

This isn’t the typical content found in music documentaries.

It’s more about identifying the conflicts in his life.

In this sense, compared to the classic rock-and-roll narrative, it’s not that kind of tale. He doesn’t possess that sort of narrative.

How can you navigate around that? Stories must have tension, something that needs to be faced, some profound, hidden truth.

While tension is essential, I perceive that there is a significant dramatic tension surrounding creativity, which I believe is genuine.

My mentor, Peter Guralnick, an exceptional writer, once shared that the most unremarkable aspects of musicians’ stories tend to be sex, drugs, and getting swindled by their record label, as these experiences are universally shared. So, what becomes captivating after these elements?

When you examine any film I’ve created, you’ll notice it consistently revolves around aspects that extend beyond these themes. My recent documentary on Steve Martin follows this idea closely. It’s not focused on fame or substance abuse or similar topics. Steve’s image is pristine. Instead, it delves into how one grapples with their own voice and maintains their inspiration.

Well, you mentioned a second ago that you felt like you might be done with music documentaries, but your next one is about Paul McCartney. How did you put yourself on that path?

I couldn’t say no. I’ve been a Beatles fanatic my whole life.

But this is a movie about the period after they broke up, right?

It’s this specific story that is actually to me, kind of the undertold story, which is everybody knows the Beatles story and after Get Back.

Indeed, you’re continuing from where Peter Jackson nearly left off.

This movie explores the question: What happens the day after? What does it feel like to wake up having been a Beatle since age 17 and suddenly needing to discover your own identity? It’s fundamentally about the formation of Wings, spanning from the breakup of The Beatles right up to the day John Lennon passes away.

That’s still a significant period.

Many people forget that Wings was among the top two or three bands during the ’70s. They often get overlooked in discussions about that era’s music, mostly due to the overshadowing legacy of The Beatles. When you think of giants from that decade, you might recall Elton John, the Eagles, and Wings, perhaps even Led Zeppelin. This film provides a unique perspective on that narrative.

This might not be directly related, but I’ve been reflecting on the use of AI by McCartney to preserve that classic Beatles track, as well as your use of AI to replicate Anthony Bourdain’s voice in Roadrunner. Did the response surprise you?

I was indeed taken aback. For me, it was intended more as a hidden gem, yet it turned into a significant issue. I generally feel a connection with my subjects, almost like a method director. Similar to the Mr. Rogers film, where the essence embodies Fred Rogers, while Piece by Piece reflects Pharrell’s spirit. Bourdain was rebellious—his mantra seemed to be, break all the rules, who cares? I came across his annotations on No Reservations, and they boldly stated, “just tear down the walls.” I wanted to maintain his essence in the film, and thought, “It could be interesting to include this, and we can discuss it later.” I was transparent about it.

Exactly. It adds a compelling story for promotional activities.

Then everything exploded. In today’s climate surrounding AI, it seems rather nostalgic.

Do you feel like you were the canary in the coal mine?

Absolutely. Numerous individuals informed me that other documentary projects were addressing the same issues, and they either altered their direction or placed large disclaimers over their content. It had widespread consequences.

How do you see it now?

Well, people often manipulate statements to create misleading narratives. This technique, often referred to as “Franken-biting,” is prevalent. In our case, I genuinely felt that we remained truer to Tony’s message.

The unfortunate aspect is the immense effort and affection that went into creating that film. All of us contributed to it, analyzing every word that Tony ever said and wrote with great care. There was an abundance of respect and concern for him. However, the public perception turned into, “Oh, they just made things up.” That’s not at all what occurred. In fact, we were doing the complete opposite. But this seems to be how social media operates today.

I became quite curious about your thoughts on this, especially considering the recent strikes concerning AI, which has become a significant topic of discussion. In hindsight, what are your reflections on the situation, given that you found yourself in the midst of it?

I haven’t incorporated any AI into my projects since then.

I was also interested in that aspect.

Carl Sagan in Piece by Piece mentions, “Pharrell,” and I made it very clear to everyone that we had received permission from his widow to have him say “Pharrell” without employing AI technology. We truly conducted experiments to piece together the word from the syllables that he had actually spoken.

Since then, I have been very careful to refrain from using it, as I fully understand the concerns surrounding this issue.

Indeed.

Misinformation is a subject that matters greatly to me.

It’s becoming clear in this election how these tools can be misused.

Indeed.

However, the other side of the coin reveals a rigid framework of storytelling that can often feel constraining.

Filmmakers have historically embraced new tools to craft more compelling narratives. While there are valid concerns, it’s essential to recognize the potential benefits that generative AI and other emerging technologies can bring to storytelling.

Right.

The interesting thing is, I often consider myself somewhat of a Luddite. Technology isn’t really my forte. I tend to favor traditional approaches in many aspects of life.

I sense that more people are beginning to share this perspective.

Technology has advanced to a point that feels increasingly daunting. I understand the concerns surrounding this. I must admit, I am not the one leading the charge in continuously pushing boundaries in generative AI. However, I do believe that exploring new storytelling methods is a positive development.

Your approach was similar with Piece by Piece.

Piece by Piece tends to stir debate, as individuals frequently try to categorize it or define its boundaries.

Is it due to the Lego component?

Its controversial nature raises the question: is it a documentary? If so, it would need to adhere to certain conventions. Personally, I prefer to describe it as creative nonfiction.

During the Covid pandemic, the traditional avenues for making things became limited.

I had completely forgotten about this until someone mentioned it recently. We actually included a disclaimer at the end of the film, which someone found and printed. Essentially, it indicates that not all the information in this film is totally accurate. One example being, Pharrell never traveled to space.

Total
0
Shares
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Article

Protecting Your Privacy: How to Stop Your Data From Being Used in AI Training

Next Article

Get Ready for Xbox Partner Showcase on October 17: World Premieres and Live Viewing Guide!

Related Posts