Making a caper flick for a wide audience on a small budget while being forced to work with telenovela actors?  Doesn’t exactly sound like a director’s dream.  Throw in the fact that the project is designed to be a recognizable U.S. genre film yet is entirely in Spanish, and you’ve got possible marketing challenges as well.  Find out how Joe Menendez used resourcefulness and a solid instinct for entertainment to rise above such obstacles and craft an unexpected hit.

Menendez’s Ladrón Que Roba A Ladrón (To Rob a Thief) is a collection-of-oddballs comedic crime thriller in the classic mold:  think The Hot Rock (1972) or Topkapi (1964).  Old-fashioned?  Maybe, but so is most escapist entertainment that’s worth its salt.  And if you think Menendez is hesitant to have his work classified this way, think again.  In fact, if you’ve ever seen Sullivan’s Travels (1941), probably my favorite comedy, you’ll know where he’s coming from.  Talking to him is like a breath of fresh air.

Firefox News:  One of the strongest aspects of Ladrón Que Roba A Ladrón is your development of the theme of the “invisible” members of society—in fact, it kind of reminded me of a comedic version of Dirty Pretty Things (2002).  So do filmmakers take a big chance when they insert more serious messages into genre movies?  I guess I should ask, did you ever feel you were running that risk—that perhaps such themes would be viewed as distractions by those who just wanted a popcorn flick and yet at the same time ignored by “serious critics” who might not even pick up on them?

Joe Menendez:  It’s interesting that you ask that because a side of me did end up worrying somewhat about the critical response.  Thankfully, most of the reviews were really good—which nobody expected, including me.  I think I worried about the critics, because I’m so not an artsy-guy.  I mean, I wouldn’t know what a critic likes or dislikes.  I’m the first audience for my film, as any director should be.  All I know is what I like.  So while directing anything, film or TV, I don’t really preoccupy myself too much with the thematic elements.  For me, it’s about telling a story first.  Themes always spring up naturally.  All I do is embrace themes when they inevitably do.  Once the writer Jojo Henrickson told me the idea for Ladrón, I responded immediately to its underdog aspect.  That’s what I got excited about initially.  I mean, we all feel, or have felt, like underdogs at some point, so that’s what hooked me. Then, during the writing process, once the “invisible-immigrant-theme” became more evident, I encouraged Jojo to write to that.  Because it felt real and even helped the story along.  So no, I don’t think it’s distracting to explore thematic elements, IF they move the story forward, even in a Hollywood-type movie like Ladrón, which was indeed made for audiences first.  If later on, you get the critics too, then awesome! But that’s gravy.  Ultimately though, I’m not a message-movie-maker.  Samuel Goldwyn once said: “Pictures are for entertainment, messages should be delivered by Western Union.”  I think he was right.

Along similar lines, I’ve read what I think are some misguided reviews that cite the presence of telenovela vets as a sign that the acting is not up to par.  First, I’m wondering if those making such comments actually watched the performances.  I was actually amazed at how much the actors underplay, how much subtle stuff is going on, especially given that this is a comedy.  My theory is that just like when typecast “nice guys” finally get to play villains and their performances are so rich, here were TV actors who relished the chance to do a solidly-scripted real film like this without any soapy exaggeration.  Any thoughts?

I was actually up for a movie recently where the producer, a really well-known producer who should’ve known better, was unjustly concerned about my having cast telenovela actors in Ladrón.  He assumed that I’d want to do the same thing on his movie, that casting telenovela actors was my thing!  The irony is, it wasn’t my idea to use the telenovela actors. It was Jim McNamara’s, head of Panamax Films. I actually fought the idea initially.  I wanted to go with non-telenovela actors, frankly.  But then I understood the need to have some recognizable faces in the film and in the Spanish-speaking world, this cast is absolutely tops.  And then, as you said, they turned out to be really great.  The telenovela actors in Ladrón silenced a lot of critics, by showing how immensely talented and versatile they were.  But I also made it a point to find the very best actors working in telenovelas.  I looked for actors that I felt were film actors trapped in telenovelas.  I looked for nuances and subtleties in their telenovela work that would shine on the big screen.  That said, there was one actor, whom I won’t name, that I did have to rein in and continually remind that this wasn’t a telenovela.  He ended up falling back on the soapy exaggeration-thing a lot.  Some bad habits die hard I suppose, but in the end, part of my job as director is to protect my actors, even sometimes from themselves.

A thief confronts a bigger, badder thief:  Miguel Varoni (left) takes on evil infomercial king Saul Lisazo in Lionsgate Home Entertainment's Ladron Que Roba a Ladron.

Okay, now for a geeky, cinephile question.  I love the many long takes in the film, those sequence shots that usually feature the whole crew interacting.  From listening to your commentary recently, I learned that you like the immediacy and the energy that this approach brought to scenes.  But I also saw them as versions of the caper/heist itself in microcosm, in which everything must be meticulously choreographed and blocked, with one misstep ruining it for everyone.  So is this parallel totally unintentional or brilliant filmmaking… or both?

Wow, that’s a really cool observation.  I should probably try and be a hipster director here and say: “Yeah, that’s what I was doing, man, thanks for catching it!” but… I can’t say that.  I’m afraid the way I stage a scene is completely instinctive and gut-level.  I tend to not intellectualize it too much.  I don’t say:  “Oh, I need to convey power in this character, so let me shoot him in a low-angle.”  I simply see pictures when I first read a script, then I spend the rest of the time articulating those pictures to others.  But I don’t approach the craft intellectually.  Long takes are fun to do and to me, it’s where a director earns his or her money.  The good ones, without exception, all do it great.  That said, I also believe STRONGLY in film grammar; a cut should be motivated, a camera move should be motivated, etc.  I hate seeing arbitrary cuts and camera moves in movies or TV.  It just irks me.  So even though I personally like staging oners, I only do so when it’s appropriate to the scene.  Because sometimes, a scene needs to be a collection of shots, cut together in just the right way to convey an emotion, sometimes a scene needs very few cuts or maybe a scene needs to just play as a oner.  But the script always dictates, to me anyway, how a scene should be covered.

  I don’t have any criteria as to how I decide either.  I don’t say:  “If a scene has X, Y and Z, then I’m shooting it as a oner.”  I read the scene, I immediately jot down how I see it in my head and then one day, I go shoot that scene.  But you have to always respect film grammar.

I’ve also heard you talk about growing up a big fan of Spielberg and Zemeckis, popular directors who are also critically respected.  I suspect that your favorite genres are comedy and maybe action movies.  Can you please name some of your all-time favorite films and filmmakers, maybe specifying which ones are influences on you?  Part of the reason I want to point this out is so that our U.S. readers unfamiliar with Ladrón Que Roba A Ladrón will lose the impression that it’s a “foreign film.”

Even though the blood in my veins is Cuban, and even though I speak Spanish fluently, I was born and raised in the U.S.  As an American.  My all-time favorite film ever is Raiders of the Lost Ark (yes, I totally geeked out with the new trailer!) followed by Die Hard and then E.T.   Star Wars incidentally is what got me interested in movies at a young age.  And I also loved the Back to the Future movies too.  Look, as a student of all movies, I studied and continue to study the masters, including the foreign ones.  I’ve seen all the great foreign films from Fellini to Bergman to Truffaut to Kurosawa.  I appreciate wholeheartedly what’s made a lot of their movies masterpieces.  But their films always felt… well, foreign to me. So, I’ve preferred old films from directors like Michael Curtiz, who wasn’t American-born but made some of the best American movies in history.  The same goes for directors like Hitchcock and Billy Wilder.  I guess they’re my idea of “foreign” filmmakers.  So for me, it’s a combination of personal preference and having been raised on a steady diet of Spielberg and Lucas.  That’s where I get my inspiration and it’s totally evident in Ladrón.  I can’t help it, I just happen to respond personally to mainstream Hollywood movies.  Both seeing them and now making them.  Which I suppose is why so many people have commented that even though Ladrón is in Spanish, it feels very American.

Do you think the success of Ladrón will pave the way for similar Spanish-language films?  Or do studios need to see not theatrical grosses of four million but rather forty million before they start viewing the market differently?  I get depressed when I read reports of English-language versions of The Orphanage in development, as it still implies a basic aversion to reading subtitles by U.S. audiences—and that the Latino audience support is not yet strong enough to justify putting Spanish-language titles in multiplexes.

In the end, as you know, this is a business and the box-office is the ultimate indicator of what gets made by a studio or not, regardless of language.  A movie isn’t only an experience, an event, that stays with us forever.  A movie is also a commodity that is sold and resold all over the world.  So, 4 million at the box office certainly makes you sit up and say:  “Hey, maybe there is an audience for Spanish-language movies,” especially when you consider it wasn’t made for much.  But it’s a tough market to crack, simply because of this:

Core Spanish speakers in the U.S., either those that have recently arrived from other countries or those that have been here a very short time, typically don’t have a moviegoing habit the way a Latino that was born here or has been here their entire lives.  So now, you’re trying to tap into an audience that doesn’t really go to the movies.  It’s an audience that would rather stay home, instead of paying 9 dollars to see a movie in English they can’t understand.  Or if it is in Spanish, it’s dark and bleak or violent or sexual—not something they can bring the family to see.  The rationale for them is:  why bother going to the movies, they aren’t being made for me?  So when a movie like Ladrón comes out, in their language and made for the whole family (again, something that just isn’t ever done in Spanish), then you have to work doubly hard in marketing it to break their aversion to going to the movies by explaining that this movie is for them.

Interestingly, a lot of the Spanish-speakers that did come out to see Ladrón (and thankfully a lot did) approached me and admitted what we already knew, that they don’t go to the movies normally, but specifically came out to see Ladrón.  They thanked me and told me that, finally, someone had made a movie FOR THEM.  A movie that they could bring the entire family to see.  Those were amongst my proudest moments.

That’s great, but I’m wondering if there’s a potential downside, too.  Are you ever concerned about Ladrón’s success pigeon-holing you in terms of your career?  That is, will producers at the major Hollywood studios fail to realize that here’s a talented director who just happens to be bilingual?  In a sad way, I could see a scenario in which you make a blockbuster and then the perception is, “Who’s Joe Menendez?  Is he one of those great Mexican directors such as Alfonso Cuarón who’s come to the U.S. to make films?”

I’m not concerned about being pigeonholed.  I like making the kinds of movies I make and if I get associated with that, then great.  Listen, I’d rather a studio go into a project with me, reassured as to what kind of movie they’re getting from me.  Look at it from their perspective:  they’re spending a lot of money and putting reputations on the line.  So they want to know, they need to know, what kind of movie any given director will deliver.  In fact, it’s a blessing when a studio says: “Oh Joe Menendez… he’s good with comedy and action.”  Because that means you’ve done good work, which allows people to trust you.  And with each successful movie, that trust grows, which then allows you some day to have the equity to move into different genres and tell different stories.  Until then, if you have a studio pigeon-holing you, by all means, accept it and go with it! It just means you’re doing something right.  And that’s a great position to be in!

Looking ahead, then, please tell us what’s next for you, what long-term goals you may have in the industry.  (And would they ever include making infomercials?—sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

I actually have done infomercials, believe it or not!  It was a long time ago!  As for what’s next, I’ve got a few things brewing, but the WGA strike really slowed things down.  Now that it’s over, the town is just getting back up to speed.

I’d love to make another movie with Lionsgate and we’re talking about that.  Hopefully we can make that happen soon.  Long term, I hope to make more movies like the kind I grew up on.  Pure escapist fun.  In this day and age, we need these type of movies more than ever. And I love making them.  It’s the greatest job in the world to make something that someone goes to see and then for two hours, forgets about their lives and enjoys themselves, laughing a little, crying a little and when the lights comes up, they walk out of the theater refreshed.  To me, that’s what movies are all about.  That’s the magic.

Thanks very much for your time.  I look forward to catching many more fun movies from you in the years to come.

Thank you, Peter, for your interest!  Really appreciate it.