Read the related review — “PROBLEM OF THE HERO Film Review— Soul Stirring”
A recent Blue Sky poll, a post asked all to nominate the most important films of our time. Though there were many of the usual suspects rising to the top of the list, it struck as an opportunity to nominate The Problem of the Hero to mingle with the most treasured cinematic jewels. Why? If you too believe that both conversations about race and self-examination within cannot and should not end —and especially when racism in the USA is the grease lubricating an emerging fascist machine, The Problem of the Hero film carries a sense of urgency.
We learn from the conversation with the film’s co-producer and one if its stars who plays the role of playwright Paul Green, David zum Brunnen, that a sense of urgency during the last election was very much front-of-mind.
Here, PictureThisPost (PTP) speaks with David zum Brunnen (DzB) about the film, the first of three interviews about the film.
(PTP) Why does the subject matter of the film especially resonate with you?
(DZB) This is a film adapted from two stage plays, both of which are plays about adapting the novel, Native Son, for the Broadway stage (one play has had a performance tour, and the other remains unpublished….
(DZB)
I’ve been with this project since the start, which was nearly thirteen years ago. We were initially approached to explore the life and work of Paul Green and to possibly generate a theatrical telling of where it led us. (I say, ‘we,’ I mean to say, Serena Ebhardt and myself, who are the lead creative partners with EbzB Productions & WhyNot Theatricals, and in generating this film).It led us to originally commission and produce Ian Finley’s stage play, Native, which explores the true-to-life collaboration between Richard Wright and Paul Green when they partnered to adapt Richard’s groundbreaking novel, Native Son, for the Broadway stage. Serena directed the eventual tour of the production (after it was workshopped at Paul Frellick’s Deep Dish Theatre in Chapel Hill, NC).
Each conversation this project inspires - and it always does - discovering something new about the topic, the historical moment in which it takes place, the moment in which we live, the two men and their life experiences, and about myself - and a great deal more.
Along this journey, like other projects we’ve taken on, this experience has been another reminder of how much I don’t know. I hope that’s a good thing.
(PTP) When did you first read Native Son and how did your reaction to the novel change as you worked on this project?
(DZB)I wasn’t really exposed to the novel until college. For one reason or another it just wasn’t included in our American Lit studies at our high school, in a town and county in central North Carolina in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Like many who read it, it was a jolt for me. It still is. But I didn’t re-read anything in preparation for this project, except for clarifications and reference when memory failed me. I WAS inspired to read much more of the work by and about both Wright and Green, whether it be the piercing novels and stories of Wright, or to read and listen to interviews with Green in UNC’s Southern Collection.
(PTP) When did you first hear of Paul Green?
(DZB) I’ve known about him since I was child. It’s hard for people of my generation or older who grew up in North Carolina NOT to know who Paul Green is, much less to have at least heard of his name. I grew up in a household that encouraged exploring history and reading. We had tons of books around, along with encyclopedias, maps, you name it. My father was always reading and I picked up the clue that there was something to it. Paul Green was in that reading mix.
Small confession - I’ve never seen The Lost Colony - the outdoor drama for which most North Carolina natives know of Green. (Green wrote it, conceived it, and it still runs at an outdoor amphitheatre on the NC coast.) I’ve been to the actual venue, though, and it’s been a big tourist draw for decades. But I’ve read about him extensively, seen many of his plays, admired his social justice advocacy. For all the comments I occasionally hear about him being a man of his time, I keep coming ‘round to the realization that …. well, yes, he was. But he was also a man way ahead of his time, too, and his impact on the history of this state - in particular culturally and politically - is to be heralded. And there are those who would like to reverse some of the progress he helped achieve in North Carolina. It’s clear to me that he sought to use his art to effect change. No matter his faults — and we all have them — I continue to admire how he lived his life, his work, and I’ve often aspired to much of what he did in life, how he lived it.
(PTP) How do you feel this story benefits from a film treatment, as opposed to a stage presentation?
(DZB) We’ve often been encouraged to develop or adapt our stage productions into broadcast or film projects - and occasionally find ourselves doing so. (I say, ‘we.’ Again, I mean, Serena Ebhardt and myself) - whether it’s been with War Bonds: The Songs & Letters of World War II, or The Night Before Christmas Carol, or something like this.
I think we all find ourselves now in a world where there seems to be value held in either reaching one another digitally - or virtually- or actually gathering in-person for engagement. It could be for entertainment, religious observance, cultural or political discourse, you name it. Where the fulcrum in that balance ultimate leads us is something I don’t think we know. But Serena and I as a team will continue to explore as many different ways to tell stories that we believe need to be told, through whatever medium we find ourselves in at a given moment—with the caveat that AI and its potential to stifle the human-generated creative impulse really spooks me.
(PTP)How has working on this film changed your feelings about racism, cultural appropriation and other issues touched upon in The Problem of the Hero?
(DZB) …I believe we’re still processing the impact of this film on us, the creative team, individually and collectively— about what it says about the role that race, socio-economic condition, personal identity, gender, cultural origin (and more) occupies in our lives; how it might define us and placed against the backdrop of the cultural wars & political rhetoric of our time.
Every day on the set, there were constant conversations and questions that were stirred by a particular scene or scripted exchange that day. The discussions post-screening at the film festivals mirrored those same conversations on set. They (the conversations) were ongoing , and they still are. As for Green & Wright and the context of their friendship and their work together - and ultimately their creative conflict. I think co-screenwriter and playwright Ian Finley says it best when he wisely notes that they’re both right, in their own way; whether it be the notion that creativity can only be rooted in what is personally experienced or whether the broad realm of the collective and individual imagination can’t possibly be limited to mere personal experience. I believe it’s a bit of a trap and quite convenient to take just one side of this engagement between the two. Just my humble opinion. I also remember one of our dearest friends who has studied personal, cultural and sexual identity extensively who reminded me years ago that one’s identity is determined by individual themselves.
I’ve learned through this project that there’s a lot to gain from listening to others and their thoughts on their own self-identity , instead of passing judgement. Even amidst their own activism, I think both men sought to do exactly that in their lives - to listen, to empathize — to varying degrees of success, of course.
(PTP) How do you imagine audiences experience the film today— a time when autocracy is rapidly replacing democracy?
(DZB) From our initial staging and tour of Ian’s play, Native, to the film’s recent release (in March of 2025), it continues to surprise me how it (the film) resonates even more by the day - by the hour! - to the times in which we live, and the relevance of Ian’s and James Hodges’ words gain even deeper nuance.
During the film festival circuit screenings which started in 2023, I kept waiting for audience walk-outs, but only a few left at screenings here and there. Sometimes I would stand at the back of the theatre and would listen to the gasps or the verbal, visceral reaction to something Wright or Green would say. Those still happen. I think (check that….. I KNOW) it’s because of what’s happening in our country and in our world today. I laugh about this plenty, but several of the core creative team could tell you that I always personally felt urgency, felt pressed, during location challenges or post delays to get this film out to the world asap, and they always had to remind me that this project’s relevance wasn’t going away. For good or ill, they were right. ….. what has been pleasing to see is that audiences and critics alike are recognizing this project’s authenticity, it’s genuine spirit and intentional approach. One critic said there’s nothing contrived in this film and every word is vital. The film itself is an immersion. An immersion of ‘what’ is in the eyes of the viewer. But we’re asking viewers and audiences to embrace the discomfort of the topics at hand. I say that, because, you know, the more I keep hearing or seeing resistance to racial literacy courses, or disparagement toward the concepts of diversity, inclusion and equity training, and the like, the more I come to the belief that we as a society need it more than ever.
Color me skeptical (in whatever color you like) when I see current government policy, corporate decision-making and business structures, even in our broad-range of media choices, seemingly bending their intentions to fads, and what eerily resemble that snarky dismissive phrase of ‘move along, nothing to see here.’ It’s a way of operating that hides the truths of issues and challenges we still need to work out together. I find it disingenuous at best not to recognize that we have had, still have, and WILL have for unseen generations ahead, underserved groups and minorities, at-risk individuals and populations, harmful ideological and discriminatory practices—some blatant and others entrenched. Some viewers of this film respond with the pain that we’re still wrestling with similar issues now that were faced in 1941 (when this film takes place)—issues that we’ve always faced. Some feel pessimistic about that. What’s pessimistic to me is when governments, corporations or media, or other pillars in our society, decide to ignore this reality. This film is unapologetically genuine and authentic in facing such questions - and in that vein, I think t’s actually quite optimistic for that very reason. Or perhaps I should say that the fact such a creative approach exists is reason for optimism.
(PTP) What do you hope audiences take away from the film?
(DZB) Well first and foremost, I hope they’ll go and find out more about Richard Wright and Paul Green. I guess we shouldn’t have been surprised that so many people would not know who both of these literary greats were, but we were - at least a bit, more surprised in the case of Richard Wright. I hope they’ll search out how important these two were to shaping our lives. And I hope instead of being merely troubled when they finish seeing the film — and being troubled is not a bad thing, by the way — I hope they’ll take the time to reflect that it’s okay not to have all the right answers immediately at your disposal. Again, we’re asking our audience to embrace the discomfort of what they’ve experienced. It’s okay to ruminate, let the words and the story percolate for a bit. Watch it again - as many viewers do a LOT, apparently. lol.
That’s another reason this story — be it via the stage play or the film — leaves room for optimism. It encourages such reflection, which frequently leads to moral and ethically- reasoned action. At least I hope it does. There’s always more room for that in our world.
Next, Picture This Post (PTP) speaks with J. Mardrice Henderson(JMH), the actor playing novelist Richard Wright.
(PTP)Please share with Picture This Post readers the story of how you got involved in this film and how subject matter especially resonates with you?
(JMH) I began this journey with EbzB Productions in 2017 after auditioning for the role with a Langston Hughes poem. At the time, I hadn’t heard of Richard Wright and the literary path he trailed.
As actors, our strongest desire is to book the job. However, after the first reading the script, I knew that Mr. Wright is someone that I’m glad to have been introduced to. Ian Finley’s play script—along with Mr. Wright’s stories and creative works—were individually groundbreaking and collectively intense. The arguments made from both perspectives are arguments that have—and continue to— resonate with me as well as in our society.
I first read Native Son after being cast in the play. I’m sure I had a similar reaction to the story as most people did. However, having read it in the 21st century, I can only imagine what such a story did to disrupt the norm for the time in which it was written. Native Son is brutally honest, unashamedly violent, and unapologetically provocative. For Mr. Wright to have published such a tale in the 1940s was a feat of pure will and fearlessness.
I had fresh eyes in regards to interpretation of the book, having just read the story for the stage work. When it came to the film, I revisited the story and saw just how meticulous the story had been constructed by Mr. Wright. I also read Mr. Wrights’s Black Boy, his semi-autobiographical work that is referenced in both the play and the film.
There was a burning inside this author. Burning was displayed in Native Son—both literally and figuratively—and that burning had to be reflected in its onstage adaptation. In my performance, I wanted to convey that slow burning fire inside of Mr. Wright.
(PTP) When did you first hear of Paul Green and how has playing Richard Wright changed your perception Paul Green?
(JMH) I am graduate of a UNC university and a resident of Durham, North Carolina. UNC-Chapel Hill, the Paul Green Theatre, and the Lost Colony are all terms of which I was familiar. However, I did not know the depths and lengths to which Mr. Green had gone in his social justice advocacy. Learning more of his exploits--throughout this theatrical (and now, cinematic) journey—has placed an important mark on me as a creative and a storyteller. I respect Mr. Green’s efforts and his support for others, even in threats of backlash and turmoil. He was a brave soul and a compassionate raconteur in his own right.
(PTP) How does your work on this film inform your opinion of racial literacy training?
(JMH) I’ve not taken any racial courses or training in particular. It is something I have been interested in, especially now that such courses are endangered of being redacted. As a minority person of color, I see the value of everyone being literate of other races and ethnicities. I was educated in the American public school system which mandate I learn about contributions and histories of hundreds of people who don’t necessarily look like me. At the time I didn’t realize the effect that had on me—to have such a diluted sense of Black American contribution. Much of what I have learned of such contributions was learned outside of the classroom and within communities… I feel as if all contributions to our current way of life are important as they each have left an indelible mark on society. Learning is a privilege for all who are open to it and shouldn’t be dictated by means of authoritarianism.
(PTP) How has working on this film changed your feelings about cultural appropriation?
(JMH) The term ally comes to mind when posed with such questions. Allies are important in aiding the fight for inclusion and cultural importance. However, they must also be cognizant of the invisible (yet, indelible) line of cultural demarcation. As Wright expresses to Green, “you’ve not, nor have you ever been a Black man”. The voice of the ally is needed but cannot ultimately be the sole voice. Doing so is likening to be a form of discrimination to those for which they ally.
(PTP) How do you imagine audiences experience the film today— a time when autocracy is rapidly replacing democracy— as opposed to a few years ago when the film was first released and this was not the dominant story in America?I
(JMH) I’m sure David zum Brunnen (Paul Green)] will have expressed his anxiousness for wanting to release the film sooner as he felt the time of relevance would end. That time has yet to come. Principal photography for the film, The Problem of the Hero, was filmed before the assassination of George Floyd. It then made waves on the film festival market just months after the current president announced his run for re-election; two pivotal times in our nation’s history. Audiences are aware of the current turmoil and strife in our current political and socioeconomical climate. The divide is clear. The divide is a direct result of lack of communication and empathy in our political structure. The noise overshadows the necessity of finding common ground.
(PTP) What do you hope audiences take away from the film?
(JMH)At the core of this film is a story of friendship and collaboration. I hope audiences see the beauty of such a relationship and the rollercoaster ride it can be. I also hope that audiences take away the fact that it is okay to disagree and not have it be the catalyst for hatred. In this social media age in which we live, it’s become second nature to be labeled a hater for simply disagreeing. I feel that having differing points of view and/or opinion establishes our individuality and the freedom of expression for which our nation was erected. Being able to have discussions where differing opinions, and having those opinions considered, is a beautiful thing.
Finally, Picture This Post (PTP) speaks with the film’s director, Shaun Dozier (SD) whose technical prowess in cinematic arts is constantly at work to make the multi-level screenplay come to life.
(PTP) Please share with Picture This Post readers the story of how you got involved in this film and why the subject matter of the film especially resonates with you?
(SD) David reached out to a filmmaker friend at Duke, who referred him to another filmmaker (our cinematographer Steve Milligan), who referred him to me. We got coffee one day over the summer before the shoot, and we hit it off. After that we went about reworking the script with the screenwriters from a two-man play set in a hotel room to a full ensemble set in the theater during rehearsal. We shot about six months later.
The story resonated with me especially because of my theater background. I appreciate good arguments with strongly written dialogue and we certainly had that from both our main characters. These are two intelligent men with conflicting viewpoints who simultaneously hold immense respect for one another. In today’s polarized climate, it was refreshing to portray a civil but passionate debate where both parties were still able to listen to each other. I also relished the opportunity to expand the world of the film by using theater conventions to segue between flashbacks in the Chapel Hill office, Bigger’s jail cell, Wright’s train trip, and the hotel lobby.
(PTP) Do you remember when you first read Native Son and what your reaction was to it at the time and later when preparing to direct the film?
(SD) I hadn’t actually read the book before I read the original script. Back in 11th grade English class in the suburbs of North Carolina, I had the choice between Native Son and Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury. I chose The Sound and the Fury, so reading Native Son was research along with Wright’s Black Boy and countless interviews from Paul Green, all from which much of the script relies. All of this added richness to my understanding of the characters and the context in which the story takes place.
(PTP) As you came of age in NC, had you heard of Paul Green?
(SD) Much like I missed Richard Wright in my education, I also completely missed out on Paul Green. At the heart of our story is the question who has the right to tell a story and what are the obligations in the telling? As filmmakers, we were all keenly aware of this question as we prepared and made the film, always trying to steer as closely as possible to the truth as we understood it while still producing a dramatically engaging film that portrayed the views of our two main characters. As such, the filmmaking process was heavily collaborative. All were encouraged to express their thoughts and opinions, even when the conversation might be uncomfortable.
At the core of Wright and Green’s disagreement were also conflicting fundamental beliefs and assumptions about America and the best way to incitenchange. My hope is that viewers would recognize the questions asked by these men are still questions we are grappling with today. Given the variety of responses we’ve had, I think it is evident there is no clear answer. It is a conversation.
(PTP) What were the challenges and also new opportunities afforded by converting a theater script to film presentation?
(SD) Shooting on location in 1940s New York would have been a tall order, so in an attempt to break out the story from the confines of a single hotel room, I studied Danny Boyles’ Steve Jobs, which takes place backstage in real time during the lead up to a stage performance. I broke down each of the three main scenes for structure and also camera setups. For inspiration on filming cinematic conversations, we looked at the likes of Hunger and Frost/Nixon, amongst others. While never leaving the theater, we knew we needed to transition between past and present as well as attempt to express the arguments of Wright and Green in a more visual way. For this, we looked at Dogville, Lonestar, and the French Canadian film Lilies.
We use the language of theater, conjuring the spaces of Green’s Chapel Hill office, Bigger’s jail cell, Wright’s train, and the hotel lobby, all on the stage, transitioning from one space to another as seamlessly as possible, between cuts, or drifting between pools of light. We also shot outside the real Raleigh prison to give the story a little breadth, as well as locations for Wright’s childhood home, Green’s office, and the field in which Green stood guard.
(PTP) How has making the film affected your racial awareness?
(SD) I experienced a level of awaking racial awareness in college just as a result of talking and studying with a much more diverse student body than I had ever been a part of before. I also had the opportunity to take a Black cinema course which culminated in a short film shoot (where I met our cinematographer Steve Milligan). I moved to NY right after college and ultimately ended up working at a school in Queens, NY, one of the most diverse areas in the entire world.
I believe greater understanding of and sympathy for the human condition comes from being exposed to so many different kinds of people and cultures. I believe any artist must be able to imagine what it must be like to be someone wholly different than yourself. Though I can’t be sure, I believe we honestly represented the voices of Green and Wright. At least we tried, and I believe the collaborative nature of our filmmaking process lends credence to this.
I had my first (and only) explicit diversity training during COVID. The school where I work brought in an outside organization to lead the training. The majority of the training was as one collective group, albeit on Zoom, but they did offer affinity breakout rooms to have more private conversations amongst members of your self-identified race. As a part of this, there was also a room for mixed-race conversations. I believe racial literacy training probably does need to have a space for unmixed conversations, probably for potentially offensive or vulnerable questions, but I imagine any real progress requires a more diverse conversation.
(PTP) How has working on this film changed your feelings about cultural appropriation?
(SD) I do not believe art must be autobiographical. As I said above, I believe any artist should be able to imagine what it might be like to be someone else, even from a different culture. I would hope that most people would have a basic level of sympathy or even empathy for someone different than themselves. But as a member of the most powerful hegemonic group (white, straight, abled, male, American) it may not be my right to tell someone else’s story, at least without a whole lot of collaboration with members of the appropriate groups. For example, I am currently writing a coming of age story for an asexual teenage girl. My cowriter has been an asexual teenage girl, whereas I have not, and she asked me to help her write the screenplay. But I am fully aware my strength in the collaboration is the writing aspect (story structure, dialogue, etc), where hers, first and foremost, is the story and characterization. We trust each other and talk extensively, and I believe our conversations are a safe space for such a collaboration.
(PTP) How do you imagine audiences experience the film today— a time when autocracy is rapidly replacing democracy— as opposed to a few years ago when the film was first released and this was not the dominant story in America?
(SD) I imagine most of the people who decide to watch our film, when it was released as well as today, do so with an open mind, or at minimum, a level of curiosity. Our goal is to begin, or renew, a conversation about race. Native Son has been continuously performed and adapted since it first premiered. Brandon Haynes who played Bigger Thomas in our production had recently wrapped Nambi E.Kelley’s adaptation at Playmakers Repertory Company in Chapel Hill.
The conversation has developed over the past 80 years, but it is still immediate and relevant. I believe most of our audience members would be encouraged to have this conversation. At the same time, I believe many people these days aren’t willing to start the conversation, so audiences watching our film may be disheartened in the current political climate. But then I would say that films like ours are even more important. As Wright said, “Let them be offended.” At least they are a part of the conversation now. As Wright also noted, "Enough people say the same nonsense, that it might as well be the truth.” Our film may then be a reminder of the need, particularly in our age of social media where untruths and misleading opinions are so quickly disseminated and taken as fact, to encourage (and teach, as I am an educator) fact checking, questioning, and evaluating sources of information.
(PTP)What do you hope audiences take away from the film?
(SD)I hope that all of our audience members leave our film more thoughtful than when they came in, that they have at least one belief or opinion to question. Both Green and Wright in our film model how to clearly state their positions and listen (extensively) to the other’s. I believe neither changed their opinion, but both left questioning themselves. I imagine most people will probably align themselves to one or the other character over the course of the film, but because our film does not declare a winner, much like Green and Wright, it should leave the audience questioning. And maybe they’ll want to talk about it too.
