I recently had the chance to sit down and talk to Lynn Shelton (pictured above), writer and director of "Humpday," a comedy starring Mark Duplass, Joshua Leonard and Alycia Delmore. Here is the film's synopsis:

It's been a decade since Ben (Duplass) and Andrew (Leonard) were the bad boys of their college campus. Ben has settled down and found a job, wife, and home. Andrew took the alternate route as a vagabond artist, skipping the globe from Chiapas to Cambodia. When Andrew shows up unannounced on Ben's doorstep, they easily fall back into their old dynamic of macho one-upmanship.

Late into the night at a wild party, the two find themselves locked in a mutual dare: to enter an amateur porn contest together. But what kind of boundary-breaking, envelope pushing porn can two straight dudes make? After the booze and "big talk" run out, only one idea remains—they will have sex together...on camera. It's not gay; it's beyond gay. It's not porn; it's art. But how exactly will it work? And more importantly, who will tell Anna (Delmore), Ben's wife?

"Humpday" opened this weekend. Here's what Lynn Shelton had to say about her start in filmmaking, coming up with her own way of generating movies, what she will be working on next, and what young filmmakers should do to get into the film biz. Enjoy:

Q: For the readers and cinemagoers who don’t yet know Lynn Shelton, could you briefly introduce yourself and tell me how you got into filmmaking?

A: It was a long route to get to feature filmmaking. I started as an actor in the theater and I’ve got a BA in that, and then I ended up getting an MFA in photography and related media. While I was in grad school I started working with film and video, and I started making experimental films, so for a good 10 years I made experimental documentaries, straight documentaries and experimental films. I was editing other people’s films. First it was a big combo pack of commercials and corporate stuff, but then eventually, I started specializing in editing narrative work.

So I edited two features by other people, lots of shorts by other people, and finally in 2005, I was approached and had an extraordinary opportunity to write and direct a feature film for this non-profit film studio that appeared in Seattle where I live. It was great because I’d really been desiring to make a feature but really I didn’t have any idea how to go about it. I had not gone to film school so I didn’t know the first thing about pulling together the resources and so on. So I was blessed with that, and that film was called “We Go Way Back,” and it was made in a very traditional way. It was my film school in a way, you know, because I was on that set, and I was like ‘Oh that’s what a gaffer does, and a first A.D. or whatever.’ It was amazing fun, and it really caused me to fall in love with collaboration, because my experimental work had really been kind of solo shows. I’ve done everything myself, and both because I didn’t want to give up control because I’m a control freak but also just because I did not know how to collaborate with other people. But I never want to work alone again. I just love collaboration, it’s wonderful.

I did find the traditional methodology to be really frustrating, and we had a full crew contingent, lots of lighting equipment, a 35 mm film camera but very little time because we had a very small budget. What ended up happening was 75 – 85 percent of the time of the production day was spent on lighting, and the hustle and bustle of the film set - people running around, working so hard and getting it to look so beautiful – within that environment it was very difficult to maintain this emotionally safe bubble in which the actors could really do their work, and they’d have like five minutes to nail a scene before we had to go. We didn’t have enough footage for them to do more than a single take or two. It was just crazy and I found it very frustrating. Having had a background in acting, in particular, I just knew what they needed in order to give a naturalistic performance, and this environment was not providing that.

Q: What is your own technique in structuring a feature and how did “Humpday” eventually come into being?

A: For my second feature, I just threw everything out that I just learned, and I was like, ‘Okay I know what the rules are now, and now I’m just going to see if I can come up with a model of filmmaking that’s totally actor-centered/performance-centered.’ So instead of writing a script I started with a person that I wanted to work with, who I thought would be compelling on screen, and then I custom designed a character just for them, and the whole movie kind of spiraled out from that. I cast around them, and as I got to know the characters I then could figure out what the plot was going to be, and that’s how “Humpday” was made. I started with Mark Duplass because I really wanted to work with him and I thought he’d be great to direct. I invited him in when I thought of this one-line, two-line premise, and he introduced me to Josh [Joshua Leonard] and thought they’d really be a good match; which they were. I eventually invited Alycia [Delmore] and it all spiraled out. I invited them early on in the process, sort of like Mike Leigh does, because that way they can be a big part of their own development of their own characters. So, as I get to know who the characters are, then I can start to figure out how they’re going to interact, what they’re going to do and how they’re going to behave. It’s all kind of a little upside down. Instead of figuring all that out first and then cast, I cast first and then kind of figure that out.

Q: How would you sell “Humpday” to someone who read the synopsis but isn’t quite sure what to expect? Can you comment on what you want to show or tell cinemagoers with it?

A: The sexy hook or the high concept of the film, the one-line pitch of two straight guys attempting to make a gay porn together, is really a kind of a McGuffin. It’s almost a red herring, a way to get people into the theater, but the film ends up being about so many things you don’t expect it to be about. I mean, first of all, it’s I hope a believable treatment of that very implausible-sounding premise. I think that a lot of folks hear the premise and they think, ‘Oh, this is going to be a very crass, profane, raunchy, broad comedy’ or sort of a farce, but it was exactly the polar opposite of the kind of film we wanted to make, and none of us were interested in making a film like that. So, from the very beginning, we were on high alert for false notes, and we were all dead-focused on trying to make a believable film; a film you would walk out of and think, ‘Oh my god, I can’t believe I’m saying this but I could totally see that happening in real life.’ That’s the thing that’s surprising about the film, and it’s genuinely funny too, but the humor comes from a very recognizable place that people see themselves reflected in these characters or people that they know.

Q: Mark and Joshua really shine in their scenes together. How was it like working with these guys, and how much did they themselves contribute to the dialogue and the development of their characters?

A: I arrive on set not with a traditional script. Instead I’ve got every component of the script except for the dialogue. So, 100 percent of the dialogue you hear is improvised. The thing is, I really love a high level of naturalism, and I wanted it to feel almost like a documentary, like it’s just unfolding; the events and the words are all just unfolding in front of your eyes in real life. At the same time I wanted this film to be a tight film with a strong narrative drive. The improvisations are very structured, and we know exactly the emotional map of every scene before we head out. Every character has a clear action and motivation based on what I want. It’s very focused.

The other thing is, I don’t think I could work this way and make this film if I wasn’t a strong editor. I worked with a wonderful editor in the edit room, but on set, it’s my editing skills that really come into play because I’m turning two cameras on, and we talk and talk and talk and make sure we’re all on the same page. With two cameras, they can overwrite and they can do whatever it takes to get them to where they need to be. I know I’m going to be able to cut it down later, so they’ll go for 20, 30 and sometimes 40 minutes. We were shooting digitally so the takes could be as long as they needed, and then I’m watching just to make sure that the ingredients I want are in there somewhere, and then I’m able to carve it out. We’ll do as many takes as we want and I’ll make a little adjustment and we’ll go again and again. As much credit as I give the actors for giving me this incredible material to work with, I have to give credit to the editing process and to that whole part of the puzzle because that’s where the final draft of the script gets written. We take these long takes that sometimes feel very messy and in the edit room, we carve it down to a three, or four or five minute scene and just sharpen it, sharpen it, sharpen it. It’s almost like setting up a false documentary situation; the way a documentary can be a script-less documentary where you follow the story and then carve it out in the edit room. The film could have easily been very terrible if they were no good editors.

Q: You took “Humpday” to Sundance, Cannes and even before its release, it’s gotten plenty of excellent reviews, and the film is currently up more than 1,000 percent in popularity this week on IMDb. What impact does this early ‘success’ have on you personally?

A: Oh, yeah, this year has been a total life changer for me. I mean, my first feature came out in 2006, and it’s been this wonderful, gentle ride. I’ve gone on the film festival circuits for two films and met all of these wonderful filmmakers from around the country and the world, and I built relationships with programmers, festivals and audiences in other cities, and I feel like there’s been this really nice trajectory. If my first film had gotten into Sundance, I just wouldn’t have appreciated it as much and I also wouldn’t have been ready for it. I wouldn’t have understood the impact or how I needed to be prepared. I’ve built enough relationships that I really felt ready. I knew who to go to for support, I knew the pieces to have in place and I felt I was really well prepare when I went. Also, I was just so humbled. I hungered for it for so long that I was very grateful to be there and I wasn’t taking anything for granted. One month after Sundance I won this Independent Spirit Award, and that blew me away more than the Sundance thing. I got an award for that that included cash, and that’s what I’m living on right now. It’s enabled me to really turn my attention very seriously and kind of single-mindedly to my career as a filmmaker. It also enabled me to lighten my load as a teacher, because this is the first quarter I have off in 10 years, and I have an agent and I have a manager now, which I never had before. It’s just been a total life changer. All I can say is I’m consistently worried I’m not going to be grateful enough, because I feel so humbled. I’m having a really good time.

Q: Would you now go back and change anything in “Humpday”? Something you’re not happy with, maybe?

A: I really don’t think I would. Even the couple of shots out of focus work for me. There is a sort of immediacy to them that makes it feel like a documentary which was what I was going for. I have to say I’m really pleased with the film. I’m very pleased with our process to stay very authentic and honest to the characters. I’m not missing any scenes, even those we ended up cutting. I’m very please with it.

Q: What will you be working on next?

A: I’ve got a couple of interesting prospects, but nothing is firm yet. I have a very “Humpday” sort of style project coming up. It’s structured similarly to “My Dinner with Andre,” which is just two men talking in a restaurant, and I’ve got it cast, and it’s probably going to be a week or less of shooting. I can use a very small crew. I am hoping to shoot that by the end of the year, but right now I’m about to dive into production of a Web series I have been developing on that will be seen on MTV.com. It’s called “$5 Cover Seattle,” and the Memphis version is online now, and it’s the brainchild of Craig Brewer, another independent filmmaker who made a movie called “Hustle & Flow” a few years ago. It’s a really great fit for me because it’s been giving me a lot of creative freedom, and I very carefully assembled this group of 13 bands from the indie music scene in Seattle, and I’ve gotten to know them and I’ve written narrative story lines. I’m very excited about it and that will be online by the end of the year. They want us to deliver it December 1, and that’s what I’m about to dive into.

Q: As someone who’s just about to start film school, I’m interested to know: what major advice or tips would you give young filmmakers who don’t have a solid budget but have an idea for one or more film projects and would like to dive deeper into this field?

A: If you really want to make a film, you just need to go make it. Look at the resources you have at your disposal, because they’re different for everybody. Some people are going to have resources that other people don’t have, but look at what you have. Write for that, and write smartly. Get really creative about how to raise the cash you actually need, but there is a lot of things you can get that don’t require cash. You can barter, and you can work on other people’s films if they work on yours. You can do all kinds of things like that, and especially with technology the way it is right now. The cameras I used on this film were not expensive, and it looks pretty damn good. It looks like it was shot on 16. But don’t blow all your resources right away. It’s your first film, and it’s not perfect. Nobody’s first film is perfect. It’s better to go small and then you can take risks. And you can fall on your face. We could’ve never made this movie if we had to convince investors to make it. You can take the biggest risks when you’re working small and your stakes are low.

But the other thing I would say to young filmmakers is, get yourself onto someone else’s set, even as you’re making your own shorts. Watch as many movies as you can, and take a scene and deconstruct it. Look at it again and again, and take notes, count shots. Become a serious student of film, but the best is to get yourself on the set, even if you’re the craft services person. Whatever you do, it’s the easiest thing to do. It’s the hardest way to stay in the industry but the easiest way to get into it. You have to be willing to be abused for no pay, but it’s such a great way to learn. I mean, I met Mark Duplass because I volunteered to be a still photographer one somebody else’s set. It’s because I want to experience someone else’s set and see what it’s like and how people are working.