In this vHopeful Conversation, filmmaker Vanessa Hope sits down with multi‑hyphenate indie director Pete Ohs to unpack his Warsaw‑set “volcanic experiment” Erupcja, a Charli xcx–starring anti‑romantic comedy in which a stranded vacation and a rekindled relationship with a Polish florist explode Bethany’s sense of who she is and who she wants to love. Ohs traces his journey from an exhausting seven‑year, $200,000 “traditional” first feature to a radically lean, joy‑forward process—tiny crews, half‑outlines, writing scenes over breakfast, shooting in story order, and treating each film like a table made of bubbles that can’t bear the weight of industry expectations. Together they dig into how low‑budget tools, liberating constraints, and a “movies as vacation” mindset let him collaborate with performers like Charli xcx, Lena Góra, Will Madden, and Jeremy O. Harris while encouraging filmmakers everywhere to ditch perfectionism, question what they’re told they “need,” and just go make movies with their friends.
Transcript lightly edited. podcast available on Dream of a Better World, and Apple or wherever you listen
Vanessa Hope: I’m very excited to be joined by Pete Ohs, who is an American multi‑hyphenate filmmaker in the truest sense: a writer, director, producer, cinematographer, editor. He’s known for his inventive, low‑budget, genre‑bending features that have become fixtures on the U.S. indie festival circuit, including the hybrid documentary I Send You This Place, the desert sci‑fi fable Everything Beautiful Is Far Away, the horror satire Jethica, his recent workplace comedy‑drama Love and Work, and the new film, which I’ve just learned how to pronounce with a Polish accent, Erupcja, which we were mispronouncing “Erupcia” in case that’s what people read when they see it. It’s playing at New Directors/New Films, (ND/NF) in New York City, April 11th and 12th. Then coming out in theaters starting April 17th. Thank you so much for being here, Pete.
Pete Ohs: Happy to be here.
Vanessa: Ted and I, who you just met, and it was so fun to talk to you before this interview—we’re both filmmakers, and we often talk filmmaking at breakfast. Well, pretty much all day long into the night, as well as questions of how to have a creative life in this chaotic and ever‑changing world. So we look for new models for work and life and study and examine prior movements. And your way of working is particularly exciting to us.
If you could take us through your path to this new film, Erupcja—no, no, that wasn’t the right pronunciation; how do I say it again?
Pete: Erupcja.
Vanessa: Erupcja. All the films that came before, and how this became your method, which feels like a really amazing articulation of long‑live cinema (!) in the purest form. You’ve said that your way of working now is partly a rejection of, or reaction to, this not‑fun first feature film experience, which had a bigger budget. How did you arrive at this new moment?
Pete: Yeah, so I’m a kid from Ohio. I didn’t have parents in the creative fields. I have creative parents, but not in the creative fields. And I really was just a kid with a video camera, borrowing his parents’ video camera or friends’ parents’ video camera, making videos with friends as a hobby.
This was in the 90s. This was before there was YouTube. If there was YouTube, probably we would have been uploading them, but at the time, all we were doing was making the videos and then going down to the basement to watch them together again. This was like my favorite thing to do, favorite hobby.
But I didn’t go to film school. I was never really aspiring to be a director, actually. I wasn’t some little Spielberg kid. I was just making videos with my friends. And I ended up going to a liberal arts college, studying computer science, still doing videos as a work‑study job and as my hobby, but still not fully recognizing that that could be a career path.
My senior year, that clicked, thanks to a mentor—one of our advisors in the video program pointed out that, oh, I could have a job as an editor, as a videographer at a production company. So that’s what I then did. I did not use my computer science degree. I went straight into a small television production company in Cincinnati, Ohio.
I was doing that for a few years, making music videos, and eventually just naturally worked my way up, within myself, to the point where, oh, I want to try to make a feature film now. It just felt like a gradual progression, but I was still very much outside the system, didn’t know what I was doing.
I sort of manifested this feature hybrid documentary that got into one cool film festival, Full Frame. Each little increment was just enough to keep me going, along with the fact that this is what I was enjoying doing.
The next progression, just based on what I was observing from the world, was to write a narrative feature script and try to get that made. And as I’m trying to get it made, I’m also learning what that even means—to “get it made.”
We miraculously get cool cast attached. We don’t really even know what that means, to be attached. Each thing we thought, “Oh, I guess we make a movie now,” and then months later, the movie has not happened yet. And then you get producers, and you’re like, “Okay, so now we make the movie,” and then all that stuff, until like a year and a half later you’re finally shooting the movie.
Again, this is new to me. I know this is not new to other people who have done that, but this is my first time doing it. And then you shoot that movie. It’s almost a $200,000 budget. That’s a lot of money to me. I keep being told that’s not a lot of money for a movie. We make this feature film with a 20‑ish person crew, a 20‑ish day shoot—big and small, you know, it’s in that in‑between zone.
I’m really proud of that movie. It stars a pre‑Ozark Julia Garner. All these magical things were there. And I was certainly dreaming in my mind, or imagining in my mind, that I was going to live the dream. I was going to premiere at Sundance, my life was going to change, the golden gates to heaven were going to open and I was going to get to walk through, and happily ever after.
And then you don’t get into Sundance, and you don’t get into those big festivals. That film ended up premiering at the Los Angeles Film Festival—which no longer exists but was a good film festival—but still isn’t… not exactly Sundance. Great festival, great programmers, connected to film, and all these really good things, but you’re having to recalibrate the dream.
You have that and you’re like, “Okay, so I didn’t get launched from that project. What does that mean now? What does that mean about what I’ve done?” And for me, that film, that first feature, took like seven years from just having the idea to then making it. And then it didn’t really instantly, light‑switch change my life. And it made me question: okay, seven years—that was a long time for what came of it, which was not a lot of joy, really.
Vanessa: Yeah.
Pete: For seven years. Certainly some bits and pieces, but I was like, I don’t know if that was an adequate return on investment of my time in my life.
Vanessa: It’s so much waiting. I mean, so much of it when you speak of attachments with cast, or waiting on producers, or waiting on your financing, and you’ve already got the script and the idea and you’re ready to go seven years ago. It’s a frustrating process.
Pete: It can be. It can be really frustrating. As I would vent, complain, share about this experience to other people—other filmmakers—the thing I would hear, or I remember hearing, although this was years ago now, was that the reason it wasn’t as enjoyable is because you only had $200,000 and you needed $2 million.
And I, as this kid from Ohio, I’m like, I don’t even know really how we got $200,000. I don’t have another person waiting to give me that money. How am I going to get $2 million? Still, this is what people are sort of telling me to do. So then I write another script, I make another pitch deck, I start sending emails, I try to get meetings with production companies and producers.
I’m having those meetings and they’re sort of into the script, but sort of not. And I’m leaving those meetings thinking, “They didn’t like it.” And then I’m like, “But they weren’t even cool. Why do I care what these people are saying?” But I have to care because I need this thing from them. And it just wasn’t fun.
I felt myself going down the same path I had already gone down, that I know I didn’t really enjoy. And so I stopped. I remember I was walking on Sunset Boulevard back from a coffee shop—another day of “working,” where you’re sending emails and revising things, lookbooks or whatever—and I was like, why am I doing this? Why am I actually doing this?
For me, the reason I was doing it was because I loved making videos with my friends when I was 15. And I thought, why can’t I do that now, even though I’m a 30‑something professional filmmaker? Can we make a film like I would have when I was 15? And I recognized that nobody—only I—would stop myself from doing that.
So that’s where this new process came from, this new way of making movies, which is: make every decision the way you would have made it if you were 15. And so all this stuff is like: would I have a budget if I was 15? No. Would I have producers? No. Would I have permits? No. Would I have a script? No. I would have a camera and some friends and we would just go have fun. We’d make stuff up, we’d try to make each other laugh, and we would do it until it was time to eat pizza.
Vanessa: Amazing.
Pete: So that was the experiment I wanted to try. As I was even moving towards that film, which is this movie called Youngstown, it was just made by me. The main shoot was just me and two actors, two friends—everything as small as it could be, all trying to just be for fun.
And even as I was moving towards going to shoot it, like a month out, I still felt bad. I still felt like, “This is stupid. This is a waste of my time. This is going to be terrible.” And that’s where this metaphor came from that I have been saying a lot, which is “a table of bubbles.”
It was like: this film, this experience is a table made of bubbles. It cannot support anything. Do not put anything on it. Do not put a plate on it; it will just fall through. That’s not what it’s for. So don’t put your hopes, your dreams, your budgets, your expectations on this thing—just appreciate it for the magical object that it is.
That is all centered around the belief and experience that pressure does not help creativity. It doesn’t help enjoyment. So essentially, let go. It becomes almost very Buddhist in a way. These things are a table of bubbles. Keep that in your mind as you’re moving through every aspect of making the movie. Try to remember that this is supposed to be for fun. This is just supposed to be enjoyed. If it’s too hard—not that I don’t like working hard—but if it feels like you’re having to force it, it’s not worth it. Protect the bubbles, you know?
Vanessa: I love it. And you’ve repeated this method a few times now, to where we’re talking about this amazing new film we just watched.
Pete: Yeah.
Vanessa: Right?
Pete: Right. Well, so after that first movie—even as we were leaving the Airbnb where we stayed—before I’d even edited the footage together, I was like, that was too much fun to not do every year. Even if it didn’t result in a movie, I don’t care. Just that two‑week vacation of play with these friends is such a rewarding, fulfilling experience. I’m going to do this again no matter what.
Next year was 2020, so the pandemic got in the way. But then 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, I’ve just done another one and another one. I like to challenge myself. I like to try new things. I like to make sure there’s some sort of progression, whether internally or externally, in my life and my projects. And so they each have nicely progressed in some way.
Such that now, I have made a movie the exact same way as I made that first movie, but it just happens to star Charli xcx, it happens to have been filmed in Poland, and it happens to be having its New York premiere at New Directors/New Films at MoMA and Lincoln Center.
Vanessa: That’s so great! That’s so exciting! So let’s talk about this film with Charli xcx that’s premiering at New Directors/New Films at MoMA. It’s been called—you’ve called it—like a “volcanic experiment in Warsaw.” You made it with a tiny crew over two weeks. And it’s like an anti‑romantic comedy, would you say? It also feels like a story about artists and risk and blowing up your life. Where was the spark of that story for you?
Pete: The way all these movies get made is that it does start with a location. If you’ve made things, made films, you can skip ahead of so many logistical problems just by starting with locations that you actually have access to and that ideally you are also inspired by.
I was just living in Warsaw at the time. I had been living there for almost a year and wanted to make a movie in this place that I lived.
Vanessa: “Why Poland?” I know you lived there for a year, but I don’t know why you chose it. I went for the first time with my doc to the Millennium Docs Against Gravity Film Festival in Warsaw and loved it! They truly understand emerging from an authoritarian past and embracing democracy.
Pete: The fact that I was living there at the time is the most crucial.
I got connected to Poland through American Film Festival in Wroclaw. They have a great lab-like program called “US in Progress” for American indies with films in post to connect with international sales agents and Polish post-houses. In 2021, I was at the festival screening Youngstown and also with Jethica in the US in Progress program. That year I had my own “Before Sunrise” type adventure where I met a woman, extended my trip, took a train to Warsaw, fell in love and started a relationship that would eventually lead me to moving to Warsaw.
I also saw this cool opportunity to make a foreign film. I always like to do some sort of genre experiment, and I was like, “Oh my gosh, I can make a movie that gets to have subtitles. That’s exciting and fun.”
So much of the way that I make these things is about using a resource—using your resources, putting yourself in a sandbox and only playing with the sand that is in that box. Warsaw is that. And then my collaborators have become that as well.
So Jeremy O. Harris—I had just made a feature with him the previous year. Will Madden is an actor who had been in two of my films before. I always like to bring back people who already know the process because it is quite new and different, and that can be disorienting for people.
Then Lena Góra was this cool actress I had met who is from Poland, but also has this really nice Poland–America existence, where a big chunk of her formative years were in the United States. She had made a movie in English in America so she and I had met when it screened at a film festival in Poland. It’s all these nice serendipitous things around.
And then, like three months before—I had already decided I was going to make a movie in August in Warsaw, not knowing what it was going to be—and then I met Charli just randomly at a bar in New York when I was hanging out with Jeremy. I described this process that I just described to you, and that was really exciting to her.
We didn’t really know it—I didn’t know it—not only that Brat was about to happen, because it was pre‑Brat, but also that she was interested in acting and wanting to expand this area of her creative career, her expression in the world of film. So it was just a project that aligned so nicely for all of us.
That’s a thing I really like: when you’re not forcing things, you’re just open to the offerings of the universe, and you’re ready for them, and you move towards them with intention as they present themselves. That can create a really exciting, thrilling, and kind of natural, organic way to create and to experience.
It lets you not feel precious about things, because it’s not that you spent years on this script. It’s not that you spent all this money and time. These are resources that make it harder to let go of something when it’s not working. So by keeping things light, it allows you to be literally nimble and also creatively nimble. And that is the strength of making these movies in a small way.
You can’t make every movie this way—every movie requires its own approach, essentially. If a movie is going to have a bunch of dangerous stunts and explosions, then you’d better make sure that’s safe. But if your big risk is creative, then the safety is a different kind of safety. It needs to be that there’s not a lot at stake. That’s how you can then allow yourself and your collaborators to feel empowered to take those risks, to make those leaps—by literally telling them, “It’s okay if we don’t make a movie.”
So little is being spent. If we just have a really meaningful two‑week adventure together, then that’s fine. That’s our baseline. If a movie is on top of that, the movie is actually the icing.
Vanessa: Wow, that is incredible. That’s such a smart, fun way to look at it. Such a brilliant way to look at the creative process and what you can do. I also heard that in that infamous bar meeting, Jeremy O. Harris was talking you up. So you had worked together, he loved your work, and he talked you up to Charli xcx. So cool.
You were saying you don’t go in with a fully preconceived or written script, and you’re building it with your collaborators. How did that look on this new film?
Pete: It looked, as you describe, the same as on all the other movies. With each film—and it’s funny—as the films have kind of gotten bigger, with more eyes on them, I’ve also sort of challenged myself to have less and less preparation.
You would think, “Okay, you should be more prepared,” but with each film I’m kind of like, “How little can I get away with?” That’s also one of the theories I like to test. So in the first movie, there was a full outline. Then the next one it’s like, there’s an outline and a half. At this point, it’s like: at least half of an outline—but that’s all the outline.
It’s as simple as: “They arrive at the Airbnb.” That’s one scene. And then: “She goes on a walk.” Scene two. It’s that basic. And there are lots of reasons—there are lots of reasons for basically everything I do. I try to have everything be wearing multiple hats—not just me, but my collaborators and the decisions being made.
Vanessa: Just in that simple description of the first two scenes, I already know, having seen your incredible film, how much is actually going on in those scenes. Whether you’re talking about Charli and her boyfriend—it’s Will Madden, did you say is his name?
Pete: Yeah.
Vanessa: And their interaction, which—the way it played for me, and how I read them as a couple—absolutely played out. It was hinted perfectly. If you had written it in the script, you couldn’t have written it better for the way the story unfolds and their relationship plays out. Because it felt just a little cringe, like there was more love coming from him than her, and she needed to get away and take that walk.
She knew more about Warsaw, and then we later understand she chose it. And that walk is very meaningful, and you shoot it in really interesting ways. So I wonder, again, in your process—as you’ve said, you’re wearing so many hats, you’re really the only person shooting it, and you’re thinking about it from all of these different angles at once.
Pete: I mean, I’m shooting it. I’m eventually the editor. I’ve shot lots of things—not just my own things—but when I first moved to L.A., one of my ways of paying rent was doing behind‑the‑scenes videos of music videos and commercials. And I just got more and more efficient at the shots I would get, knowing what angles are good, what communicates what.
And I am always in dialogue with myself as the editor, where I try, as the cameraman, not to shoot shots that my editor doesn’t want. It makes my life easier when I’m eventually editing the film. So that rinse‑and‑repeat makes me more and more efficient at these things.
Vanessa: Yeah.
Pete: Yeah, it’s practice—it’s practice and love. And then knowing the different aspects of the art form, basically. By doing it a bunch, by practicing, you learn the tricks. You learn what works, you learn what doesn’t, just by doing it a bunch of times.
The journey from the Airbnb to the flower shop, I just did that in real life one day and just paid attention to what things I responded to. Then when we were there, we just did it again. But now we have Charli. Now I have Charli with me. I’m like, “Stand here, walk past this, see this cool blue glass thing—there’s a thing we can do with that.”
Vanessa: So you walk through as an actor, too. You’re in their shoes all the time too.
Pete: Right. I’m trying to have everything be kind of method. That’s also one of the cool things that comes from shooting the story in order: you really get to just experience the story in real time and the movie in real time. So you physically can respond to the kinds of shots we’ve been doing.
“We’ve been doing a lot of close‑ups, we want to feel something else. It’s been too many close‑ups for too long. We haven’t done this kind of move in a while, we haven’t done that kind of move in a while.” You just know that naturally. You don’t actually have to plan for it; you just have to stay present and you will continuously feel it.
The reason I don’t write scripts is not that I’m anti‑script; it’s that I’m trying to be really, really efficient. Who needs the script? You write a script—who actually needs the script? My collaborators don’t; they are down to not have it. I don’t need it. We don’t need to present it to financiers—who, often, that’s who you really need to provide it to, because they’re like, “What am I putting this money towards?” We don’t have those. And so, let’s not do it.
That can be scary, and it can be like, “What happens if you don’t?” And it’s like, let’s find out. The stakes are low enough that it’s okay. There’s also a very long creative process to filmmaking that is not just the shoot. The storytelling continues in the edit and in the sound design. There are a million tricks that can keep happening. It’s not like “fixing it in post,” it’s just “keep making the movie in post.”
Many of the things that don’t make sense on the day, or that you didn’t properly connect, you will have ways later to connect them. It’ll make it seem like you knew what you were doing the whole time. But you don’t need to. And the idea that other people do, on these big movies that have scripts, is a lie. They don’t either. And if they go through the process as if they do, I think that’s what results in the movies that I don’t even like—because they stop engaging through every step of the process and bringing more and more ideas.
Vanessa: Yeah. Your metaphor was so evocative—I kind of want to go back to the table made of bubbles. And I don’t mean to overload it, but I wonder whether you think about the different bubbles also including the contributions of your collaborators. Because I’m curious: how do they have these negotiations or conversations with you each day about what their character is going to do and say, and where they’re going to walk, and how?
Give me an example of one of your collaborators contributing to all of that—your actors.
Pete: It all is happening simultaneously. Even the outline—that outline came to exist via conversations with them. The idea for the whole movie came from conversations with them. It’s all happening together so that they are on board; they are already having input for everything. They are naming their characters. They are coming to understand who their character is at the same time I am—ultimately at the same time the audience is, too.
Vanessa: You realize, by the way, every single actor in Los Angeles and New York—wherever they are, actually—is listening to you say this, and they’re like, “How can I meet Pete Ohs? How can I become one of his collaborators? How can I make a movie with him?”
Pete: I know.
Vanessa: It’s the best way.
Pete: So the literal way it looks is: we shoot three scenes a day. We know what the first half of the movie is roughly going to be. It always changes by day three in meaningful but medium‑sized ways—often not huge ways where the whole movie has changed; you can’t go that far. But there will be changes.
The things we’re engaging with are just dialogue, which you do the night before or the morning of. I do a first draft of it—I’m just typing that into the Notes app on my phone. You can text that to the group text, and then everyone has that note on their phone. It’s collaborative, so as I update it, it updates. If they want to add to it, they can too.
So it just becomes this breakfast‑meeting writers’ room, where we’re both eating breakfast, we’re writing the script, we’re also rehearsing it because this is them going through the lines as well, having their input. Such that by the time we finish breakfast, we have our shooting script, and they already have an intimate understanding of the motivations for why their characters would say these things.
Often we’re also writing—and this is the best thing that can happen—you’re writing and conceiving of those scenes basically in the locations where you’re going to shoot. So there’s already an understanding of roughly what the blocking is going to be. We’re already starting so much further down the line of creative decisions that need to get figured out. That just makes the shooting that much more fluid and that much more natural.
Vanessa: And I noticed in the credits of your film, all of these actors—don’t they also have producing credits? They are your producers, they’re producing with you, or they have more than one credit, I would say, almost all of them.
Pete: I mean, they all have more than one credit. They’re also writers. Jeremy’s a producer as well; he produced the previous movie as well. And then Charli’s a producer as well. A big part of Charli being a producer is: she’s a massive star. So she has that kind of value to bring to it.
The thing I also think about, as far as the table of bubbles and what we’re doing, is trying to be aware of what I’m asking from different people. That’s also the reason why the shoots are only two weeks long—because it’s enough time to make a short‑but‑feature film, and a short enough time that basically anyone could fit it into their life.
Even if they are an international pop star, they can slot in two weeks. If they are a caterer in L.A., they also can get time off and not lose their job for two weeks. That again makes it not putting too much pressure on their real lives. Not too much is at stake just to go have this experiment, to go and play, and to go do something that might not result in anything, but also might result in something really cool and life‑changing.
Vanessa: I actually—this just popped into my head—but now that you’ve had this successful rhythm of one of these movies a year, are you being approached by investors who are like, “Oh, let me get involved with your process”? And are you rejecting financial offers? Will you? How do you handle that?
Pete: We have rejected some financial offers, because part of it is: more money, more problems. Help doesn’t always help. Don’t be greedy. Try to be lean.
Vanessa: So how are you making a living? This isn’t how you’re making a living?
Pete: No, not at all. I’m a freelance editor. I live very frugally. I don’t take vacations. The filmmaking is the vacation. And then if you do a good job of it, you get to go to film festivals, and that becomes a vacation too.
Vanessa: Totally how we look at it, too. That’s our life too. Okay, so where can we add to all that you’re sharing? Honestly, it is so inspiring hearing you speak and knowing that you’re having so much joy in the process, and you’re so creative and so collaborative and so productive. And by taking the weight and the pressure off, you enable better work.
If you were going to advise young filmmakers—or any filmmakers of any age, really—who are watching this and stuck, and feeling like they want to make movies in that “regular” way too, what would you advise them?
Pete: It’s not the first time I’ve had this question. I think often we all are asking each other these types of questions—just like, what advice, what are you learning, what useful thing have you brought back to the village for us to make our lives better?
One of the things that I’ve thought about a lot, as I’ve gone down this one‑man‑band approach, is the awareness that this is what all this tech has been for. That’s why we can edit on a laptop. That’s why these cameras shoot like they do. The camera I’m shooting on is from 2012. Cameras have been good enough for a long time.
The accessibility of that means something different: it means that movies shouldn’t be made the way they were before. It maybe means that filmmaking can be more like a hobby, in a way that can be good—in a way that I think more people should make movies.
We don’t all need to see everyone’s movies. Everyone doesn’t need to see my movie. But the good that can come for humanity from more people getting together without ego, but with creativity and empathy, to explore stories and learn things and maybe stumble across something that should be shared with more people—but maybe it should just be shared amongst your household, your small group.
So many good things come from it that I often just want to be encouraging: go make a movie that you don’t even need to post. Just go have fun doing it. Don’t think it’s going to pay your bills or change your life, but you still will be happy that you did it.
And don’t do it thinking, “I should max out my credit card.” We don’t live in that world anymore. That’s what’s cool about the technology. You can make a good‑looking movie—not through AI, but through actually engaging with the real world and with real people—and make something that feels fun and cool and is a cool experience for you.
And then for the people who are imagining and dreaming about it being a career, a life pursuit in that way, and are at those earlier stages—or at any stage, really—where they’re once again feeling these blocks or challenges or the uphill battle. It’s not that the uphill battle is going to go away. It’s always climbing a mountain to make a movie. People climb mountains for fun. People go climb Mount Everest for no reason except just to enjoy doing it.
But the thing I like about how I make movies, and with so little, is that it sort of proves all these things that you don’t actually need. I don’t need a script. I don’t need a sound guy with a boom pole. I don’t need a first AD. I don’t need a schedule. I don’t need to storyboard. I don’t need hair and makeup. I don’t need an art department.
It doesn’t mean that we don’t value those people when they’re needed. But you don’t need them just to make a movie. So as you’re conceiving your film, and if you’re feeling frustrated that you can’t just go make something, I want you to question all the stuff that you’re told you need just to make it—because you very much might not.
Try doing it without it, and then finding out that you actually do need it. That’s why it’s like, keep the stakes low so it’s okay that you fail. But if you test this theory—“What if I don’t? What happens if I don’t have that stuff?”—and it still works, then you’re a superhero. Because you can do this thing without all this. You can jump out of a plane without a parachute. How freeing is that? How liberating?
Vanessa: Those are brilliant last words for this. And we did hit the 32‑minute mark, except I feel like I just want to hear what you shot on, what you edit with, and how you do your score. Because if you don’t have money but you’ve got this excellent sound design and score, how did you pull that off?
Pete: I very much believe everyone is creative, and if you simplify things, you can become like a razor—you can become like a slicing razor. It doesn’t need to be a big thing ever.
So I’m shooting—I’m using basically nothing. I’m shooting on a hacked Canon 5D Mark III. This is just the camera I’ve owned since 2012. It shoots 1080 only. The hack allows it to shoot RAW, which means more color depth for the color grade. But it’s not necessary. Love and Work we shot on the same camera and we didn’t use the hack; it was just normal 5D. Again, that’s good enough. And “good enough” is still good.
For sound, they’re just wearing Sennheiser G3 lavs running into a Zoom H4n that I’ve owned since 2012—just the original one, the crappy one we all bought for like $350 in 2011. I just monitor it with earbuds. You don’t have to ride levels; you just have to make sure it’s not peaking.
I’m editing in Premiere Pro on a MacBook Pro. The way I do music is—when I started my career, my journey, I was doing a lot of music stuff. I loved music. Music was my identity: going to shows. I had a band in high school, I had a band in college, I had a music blog in the early aughts.
Vanessa: You’re totally confirming my theory that good directors have good musical taste and are musical. I think they’re very connected, the two art forms.
Pete: And so I have all these friends, these musician friends that I have collaborated with, made music videos with. It’s really fun to get to do that step of the process with them. But the first feature we made, we just did the score ourselves—me and my co‑director Andrea Sisson. She is very creative; she’s not necessarily a trained musician. I’m also not a trained musician. But if you just simplify: a score can just be the sound of, like, you know…(Taps a mug) If you actually committed to that, and you did your whole score as tapping on a coffee mug—that actually would be completely sick.
As opposed to, it doesn’t need to be orchestral. It doesn’t need to be any of those things. Nothing needs to be anything. You just need to be creative, engage, think about what it means. What does it mean for the score to be tapping on a coffee mug? Hopefully, there’s some connection to the movie. Hopefully it’s about an office worker who’s addicted to caffeine or whatever. And then it’s like, okay, that’s an amazing idea. But also it could be something equally simple.
So yes, music and sound are one of the tools in your toolkit to tell a story, but it doesn’t need to be John Williams. Often when it’s trying to be, it sucks. When you’re trying to do something you’re not, it feels bad. You don’t really reach that. But if you just not even tried it and had gone your own direction, it becomes something way more interesting and exciting—to me, anyway, and I think to a lot of other people as well.
Vanessa: Yeah, I love this. Incredible. And let’s remind people: they can see your new film—Erupcja—in theaters starting this Friday, April 17. How else—how can people follow you, find you, see your movies?
Pete: So it’s screening at New Directors/New Films April 11th and 12th in New York. It’s also going to start coming out in theaters the following week. It’ll be in L.A. and New York that weekend, and will be in Chicago on April 24th. That’s certainly the biggest release rollout of any of my films so far, which is very exciting.
I was just looking at the website where it starts to list the theaters it’s going to. It’s coming to Columbus, Ohio. It’s coming to Oklahoma City and Tulsa and Minneapolis and all these places. Somehow it got into a bunch of AMC theaters, which is cool.
So I was just considering it’s like, yes, it has Charli in it, but it’s also a movie shot on a hacked 5D Mark III. Something about that is really funny to me, but also cool and exciting.
Vanessa: Excellent and cool and exciting. Thank you so much. And we all can’t wait for this movie to come out and share it with everyone. Thanks for talking.
PETE OHS | DIRECTOR, WRITER, PRODUCER
Hailed by Indiewire as “a rising filmmaker well worth the attention,” Pete works as a director, producer, writer, editor and cinematographer. He has produced and directed five feature films in the past five years. In 2025, he was at Sundance with OBEX, a fantasy adventure feature he produced, cowrote and shot. This was followed by THE TRUE BEAUTY OF BEING BITTEN BY A TICK, a genre-bending horror satire he directed, co-wrote and shot premiering at SXSW.
A Film By Pete Ohs
Starring Charli xcx, Lena Góra, Will Madden and Jeremy O. Harris
Opens in New York and Los Angeles on April 17th
Get full access to Dream of a Better World at vanessahope.substack.com/subscribe