Racing across town in a cab, behind schedule and hitting every red light, I nervously observe the abnormally warm April temperature - a sticky 87 degrees - unheard of even by erratic Chicago norms. The sidewalk features the absurd contrast of overdressed pedestrians shedding winter parkas and impatiently stripped down rollerbladers prematurely heading toward summer's first warming waves. No doubt we'll see snow next week.

Today's premature heat is seems appropriate. I feel as if I've just stepped into the steamy New York summer of Raising Victor Vargas, one of the best movies about young people, love and family to hit the screens in recent years. In a matter of minutes, I'll be meeting with the film's two lead actors and its director for a short group Q&A. If I get lucky, I'll get to the bottom of how they created those priceless moments of acting naturalism that you just don't find in many movies today.

I arrive thinking I'm joining a table discussion of critics and the filmmakers, but I'm caught a little off guard - happily - to learn I'd be taking on the trio solo. I'd prepared a few solid questions to carry me through a group roundtable. But handling them alone with my pared-down agenda could prove daunting. Will they be conversational? Will we have enough to say? How do I juggle them all on the same agenda? What if we just don't click?

The first thing I notice as they get out of the elevator is how young they actually are. Peter Sollett, Victor Rasuk and Judy Marte all look as if they could still be in high school, and suddenly I feel - old - at the ripe age of 34. But their youthful visage is a ruse - there's something very wise and warm about actors Rasuk and Marte, and writer/director Sollett, a tad older than his young stars, infuses their relaxed dynamic with a low-key aura of natural leadership.

I'm immediately put at ease by their gracious ability to bring the mood down to a comfortably casual level. But that's really no surprise, after watching them perform with the same virtues in their film. Discarding my plans for a straightforward interview, I decide to just talk.

LS: I'll tell you the reason why I feel that way. Of all the independent films out there, festival wise or otherwise, so much has happened with the way independent movies are geared toward studio concerns, do you know what I mean?

LS: There are very fewer and fewer of them that are personal stories with strong characters in them, and this one to me really hits that mark, as a personal story with rich young characters that we don't see in the movies that often, like with the Larry Clark films, and if we look at other New York teen movies like Tadpole, or Igby Goes Down, it's always a rather cynical take on the surface of things.

That's what I appreciate about the movie, is that it strays away from the American Pie zone, and it's an honest story about growing up and family. And I wonder if you could talk about this being a kind of counter teen movie, because it's a really genuine story, and your concerns with making a film like this, and I guess talk about the writing and directing side of it.

PS: Yeah, it was actually a non-issue, because our frame of reference for this movie is our lives, and the way that we see things. And when you go to the movies you experience a film, to a certain degree, in the shadow of things that you may have seen….

PS: No. There's no fight. Because the starting point is yourself. The starting point isn't the box office top ten. So it's sort of a non-issue for me. And I think that can work out just fine as long as your expectations are in line. You can't sit at home and say, "Let's write about Victor Vargas, and then make a hundred million dollars." But if you say, "I'm going to write exactly what I think about this story, as I think it should be written, maybe it'll find an audience of people that will look at it the same way that we do," then you'll be okay.

LS: So obviously you guys were a lot younger at that time. So has the story changed as the ages changed at all? How different was it, and what were the concerns as they sort of grew up?

PS: Well, they're completely different stories. Five Feet High and Rising is a first kiss story with Victor and Judy playing the central characters. Its most significant connections to Victor Vargas are its settings, some of its themes and Victor and Judy and I. But we certainly didn't take that film and spread it out to two hours or anything like that. They're stand-alone.

PS: The characters are related in terms of their values and things, but they're not as fleshed out in Five Feet High and Rising, and it's a much younger scenario you're talking about there.

LS: Which leads me to the next thing. I know there's a lot of talk about the improvisation aspect of this film, and the way the whole thing worked. What actually was the story, and was there actual dialogue in the script or just situations? How did that work?

JM: Right, and they were very intense. Yeah, we would improvise and he would pick the good parts, and he would mold it into his vision or whatever worked. So we already had like a theme structured…

PS: Only on video. The script was there, and they felt like they were improvising, but what I was doing was backing them into the scenes that I had written. So if you read the script and you looked at the movie, they're very similar. You could follow it page by page. It's just that I didn't give it to them to memorize. They never had it on paper.

LS: When you watch the film you get the real sense that they're in the scene, moment to moment, there's a real lack of, and I'm saying this as a high compliment, actorly technique in the way the scenes are performed.

LS: It's very natural, and you don't see it a lot, especially with kids, younger kids. Not that I mean you guys are kids. (laughter) And I found that between the two of you guys, over and over again, that there's a real, I guess a lack of inhibition and feeling of comfortability there that feels almost so real that's it's a documentary, sort of… And I definitely felt that it wasn't programmed in your responses to each other and your communication. And I guess I'd like to ask you guys about that, and how you worked together, and found a common ground…

JM: Since the short Five Feet High and Rising, we kind of stayed in contact with each other, so there was this relationship and so that definitely helped with the communication, and I think the main thing that made this work so well was that we trust each other. And he wouldn't let us do anything that was extremely uncomfortable for us. Because of course we want what works. And we trust each other and I knew that he wasn't going to make me look bad in anything that I do.

LS: That's the one thing about it that you find so often in movies about teenagers that there's a cynicism and a calculation in the way they relate to each other, and everything sort of feels surface, and it seems to be dictated by some sort of pre-programmed marketing agenda that is completely absent from this movie. And it almost is so, and again I'm saying this from the best place, that the movie feels like a throwback to a more sort of simple and lyrical time. Because what's going on in the story is a very simple right of passage, really. So to me I really felt that.

PS: (joking) We cut the cheerleading scene out. (laughter) The reason Judy is so angry in the movie is because she tried out as a cheerleader, and she didn't make it. That was going to be first scene. And then that would explain why she was so pissed off. But we cut that out.

JM: I think that in the beginning, going through the whole interview process, I would say "Oh, we're totally different." But now I'm beginning to realize I'm very similar to Judy in the film, and I find little things that I do that are the same things as Judy would do, or the role itself, I like boys - I don't hate them. So that right there, for starters, is not me. But her personality I think I can definitely relate to.

VR: Yeah, actually in the beginning of the film, I would say that we would be total opposites. But I think where he's kind of discovering himself and becoming a new person, there's a part where I can relate to him a lot. And my brother is in the film too, so I really related to him.

LS: There's a great scene near the end of the film, and I believe it directly follows the argument that happens at the dinner table. And then you follow her out on the street. And I think if I'm not mistaken, you guys actually spend the night together, although it's very innocent.

LS: But the scene preceding that, there's some communication between the two of you that's very deep. And it feels so- I thought it was moving and real. And I wonder what was going on between the two of you at the time, during that scene. Do you remember that?

PS: So we tried to tarp the area so that you wouldn't be able to see it. And then the sound of the water hitting the tarp was making the sound bad. So we took that down, we all got wet, and we ran into the holding area. And it was f------ pouring, like flood conditions! And then all of a sudden it just stopped, and the sun came out. But it was wet, and everything was dripping…

PS: …and you were going to see that in the shot. So we waited until it was dried out, and then we started to shoot again, and it started to rain again. And every time started to shoot we had a couple lines, and a couple lines, and a couple lines. And then we shot that partly in the rain, and what we got is what we got. And I knew that we were going to have to reshoot that scene, and I was very upset and we left, believe me, man, it was a wash, no pun intended. That's how I remember that.

PS: Thank God it worked. It was one of those things where you're looking at the shooting conditions and going, "This is a f------ disaster. We're going to need to reshoot this, guaranteed!"

Victor, I want to talk to you a little bit about the level of confidence you have in the role. Because it's unusual that you find a young actor, especially someone you haven't seen in a movie before, walk through a movie the way that you do, in the sense that whenever you're entering a scene, you're confident and in control of what you're doing, what you're looking for, the way you're communicating with whomever you're with in a scene. I feel no sense of youthfulness or insecurity in your performance that I think a lot of young actors seem to have who haven't quite found their center in a film. And I think you establish that right away in the film, and I saw you just drive through the film like that. And I want you to talk a little bit about that, about your approach, and what that is. Is that you, personality wise?

VR: Thank you for everything that you said. I just want to say that most of all, Peter helped me out a lot in that. You know, those takes are probably not the first takes either. I don't want to sit here and say that I did some kind of technique stuff, or whatever, but it took a great deal of concentration, and I knew that throughout the whole film, I was going be there through most of the shooting with Pete guiding me and telling me exactly what was going on the scene, and be objective and all that. And that's what really helped me.

LS: (to Sollett) And also, it's kind of interesting- your ethnic background is obviously not Latin. Chicago has a large Latino population, and I have good friends who are Latino, and I get a sense from them and their family members of the culture and so forth. And it felt very accurate from what I've experienced in their homes and their families, and the multi-generational stuff. So how much of that is you (to Rasuk) in terms of the language, the reacting, the knowing, the feeling and knowledge that comes out of your upbringing, versus you, (to Sollett) when you said that you sort of navigated those sort of things? I know the material in the movie is universal and probably I would find those things in my past, as you would have in your experience. But the cultural thing is interesting, and I was wondering if you guys could talk about that and how that worked.

VR: Well, we all have siblings, and we're real frustrated at one point with our family, as everybody is. I just used that. I get frustrated with my brother and my sister and my mom. I used that for the family scenes.

PS: This wasn't me figuring out, you know, what ethnic background is the cast of this movie going to be? I wrote and cast Five Feet High and Rising, and the best actors that we could find for the jobs were these two actors. And these two actors are Latino. Then you have a question, do you surround them with a cast that is probably the kind of people that they would be surrounded by as they are thirteen-years-old, in this neighborhood. Or do you just do what? It's a non-starter, the other option. You have to follow what works. These actors are here. They're great. This is what works. We have to create the neighborhood they live in around them. So it was about finding the best actors for the job. It wasn't really a conscious choice to say, "Okay, we're going to make a Latino-themed film about, you know, da-da-da."

In terms of the writing, the goal was that it could take place anywhere. And I think we did that. And if the film is playing to everyone, and everybody is getting it, then it's sort of achieving on that level, it's working on that level. But the details? I don't know. What are the details? I could speak to specific details, but like what would they be? What is Latino?

LS: I'm thinking more that the feeling feels very real to me, the authentic feeling of the family, the multigenerational family together, the way you guys talk to each other, the language that you use with your brother - it feels very culturally organic. That's what I was responding to.

PS: A lot of it was grandma. Grandma has a very national identity and cultural identity. I don't know. I left it up to these guys. I mean these are their characters, this is their fictional family, and how they wanted to shape it, as long as I could help them do something that was going to support the narrative.

LS: Obviously you guys are teenagers going to the movies as moviegoers as well as working actors. Are there any teen stories out there that you feel right now really speak to you and your experience, and who you are. Because I find, when I was in high school, we had the whole John Hughes factory, Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club and that whole thing. Now today there are so many of them and most are forgettable. For you guys, going to the movie today, what appeals to you, and says, "This is real for me"? What do you look for? Obviously there's not a lot on the screen today like what you guys have done.

JM: Oh, well, I don't think right now there aren't any. But I love The Basketball Diaries. But yeah, it's true. I don't see that kind of stuff anymore. And I want to grow up and tell my kids, "Well, in my generation, I saw this movie," but there aren't any.

LS: Right. What about you Peter? Can you tell me about your influences? If you were to look back at two or three of your favorite movies, or movies that you sat in the theater and said, "I want to do that," what would they be?

PS: Well, by then I wanted to be a filmmaker, and I was looking at those films, and it was things like ah, you know, stuff like 8 1/2, Faces, Husbands, Bergman films and Neo-realist films and stuff like that.

LS: What directors today do you look at and think of as someone who has got a singular sort of vision, or someone who is saying something interesting, and not necessarily in the independent realm, but…

PS: You know, my favorite American films of the last few years have been studio films. You know, it's the directors that are managing to write and direct films that are distinctive, whom I think are the most inspiring, your Alexander Paynes, and your Paul Thomas Andersons, and I thought Adaptation was great. I don't know. It's becoming very murky with the independent film.

LS: You've been at Sundance, and you obviously know how it works with agents swooping down looking for products, and how that has changed, I guess even the grand prize winners. Ten years ago, I'm sure you've seen Ruby in Paradise…

LS: …by Victor Nunez, with Ashley Judd, who was essentially an unknown at that time. It was the story of a young girl, she fled from her life in Tennessee, with everything she owned in her car, and ended up in Panama City Beach, Florida. And just started a life working in a tourist shop. And that's about the extent of the story, but it's really a microscopic examination of this young girl coming out of the nest so to speak, and starting her own life, finding out what is important to her and what isn't, and trying this and trying that. It's simply about the day to dayness of her life. And living. And it's a real movie. It's what I would call a pure independent movie. But those are so few today, would you agree?

PS: Yeah. There aren't a great many of those things, but I think the way to judge a film is based on a personal evaluation of what the intentions of the filmmakers were, you know? So I wouldn't criticize Joe Carnahan for making Narc, because it is an independent film and it's not a small, microscopic tale of…

LS: …but Narc does have a good, strong sense of character to it, and from a stylistic point of view, much like the films of a director like Darren Arronofsky, you get the sense that the film has the stamp of a real filmmaker. Narc is an interesting example, because it's kind of like, have you seen Better Luck Tomorrow?

LS: It's a great movie. It's by Justin Lin, a director who is able to- it's very canny in the sense that commercially packageable movies like Narc, with its undercover agents, drugs, cops, corruption. But underneath, like Peter said, there's a filmmaker who is saying something else other than that he's a director for hire. Better Luck Tomorrow is saying something more. It's a crime story about teenagers who get in trouble and end up in a life of crime. They start very small and it escalates. It's also a racial story about why it happens, and they're under the thumb of the white kids and everybody else. And so the germ of it actually starts there. And you know the director is exploring those issues in an intelligent way. But it's a crime movie and will sell for those reasons.

PS: But there are great studio directors for hire. Like Soderbergh. I mean, he's a director for hire. Instead of developing the films, other people are writing them, but he's having meetings about the development of every single…

LS: …film at that time. And I'm not sure anymore that there's a real stamp on his movies really, because the style is always different, the content is different every time out, though he's usually at the same quality level…

PS: No, no, no. I wouldn't. But technically, he is. He's getting aboard materials that are being occasionally developed elsewhere, and developing on top of them to direct. I also think he's one of the most important directors working right now.

LS: I think that's another good example of what we're talking about, is if you saw Solaris, which was despised by audiences and got a lukewarm critical reception. It's really a very personal character story, which was unable to be marketed correctly as a science fiction piece, but he still went out on a limb with it…

PS: Yeah, it's very mucky, you know? Coppolla was a director for hire on The Godfather. I mean, there are countless examples of that. Hal Ashby never wrote anything, and now he's in the pantheon of brilliant 70s directors, and that's right, he should be. So there's no real way to like- it's difficult to do that. I think you have to deal with every film and every filmmaker on an individual basis.

LS: I guess circling back to your film, and just closing here, what do you guys see next? What do you hope for this film? Is it getting a wide distribution? The word of mouth has been very good. Press has been great. What happens next?

PS: Well, it's going to open in ten cities and then more to come next week. We've got more cities to go to. I think it will take time for this movie to catch on, because I don't think it's the kind of movie that you pump twenty million dollars worth of advertising into. But we'll see. It's starting to get to the point where we've sort of done what can be done. There's very little left.