A Podcaster lands the interview of a lifetime.

Prick, directed by the talented filmmaker behind Staging Anna and Bevoldi, is a taut and compelling short that deftly navigates the fine line between performance and authenticity. Set within the familiar intimacy of a podcast interview, the film captures a clash of wits and ideologies that feels both timeless and freshly relevant. As the conversation spirals from polite banter to a high-stakes intellectual battle, the film exposes the complex, often contradictory dance between perception and reality in today’s media landscape.

What sets Prick apart is its ability to transform a minimalist setting—a single room, a simple podcast backdrop—into a stage for profound conflict and revelation. With finely tuned performances and an atmosphere that grows more charged with every passing second, the film invites us to consider the ways in which we mask our intentions and the unspoken truths that lie beneath our most practiced personas. In doing so, it captures something essential about our current political and cultural climate, leaving viewers both entertained and deeply reflective.

Prick starts off with a seemingly normal podcast setup and gradually unfolds into something much more layered—what inspired the concept behind this story?

Before the election I was thinking a lot about podcasts as the political medium of the future, but every time I saw a politician on a podcast it was always with someone who aligned politically, the questions are easy and direct to help the politician look good. The thought of a podcaster setting a trap intrigued me. Pretending to be aligned only to pull the rug out once the camera starts rolling. So naturally, if that happened it would become a deep ideological and intellectual battle so I had to write for both sides and it kept getting deeper the further I wrote.

The dynamic between the podcaster and the President is unexpectedly intimate and tense—how did you develop that interaction?

Continuing on the journey of writing this piece, it all developed organically, the two characters had to be similar forces on opposite sides of a wall. The intimacy comes from their recognition of their own reflection in the other, the tension comes from them both digging their heels down in the dirt in order to win a debate against an alternate version of themselves.

The film touches on current political tensions, especially those relevant to younger generations, like TikTok bans and media freedom. How intentional was that connection to real-world issues?

Very intentional, I wanted the film to be as current as possible. As real as possible. To get the audience to pick a side and really feel a part of the conversation.

While not overtly satirical, the film has subtle moments of humor. How did you find the balance between grounded drama and comedic relief?

I think the balance comes from using body language as a way of communicating, I could write very pointed dialogue but when two people are sitting three feet apart, everything begins to matter, the way they move and what they do has great significance, and most of the time that movement is funny…at least to me. So I made them own their body language and take on some micro-aggressive actions to help guide the humor.

What was the process like casting the President character and crafting a version that feels both familiar and fictional?

I had worked with Paul on my previous film and his mannerisms and voice reminded me of Obama which is why I think he feels familiar in the role, but giving him an infamous reputation made the math change a bit. We’re not used to seeing Obama disliked by the majority, so it felt like an alternate universe, or a new candidate that had the same playbook but different gameplan.

How did you approach the production design and sound to reflect the atmosphere of a real podcast while keeping cinematic tension?

We wanted to keep everything clean and neutral. The location was grey, the lights were sourced from the large windows, very classy as you would expect from a presidential interview, and I think that allowed us to settle into a very regal tone. Then when you add the tension of the Podcaster’s motive into that space, it suddenly adds a level of insanity to such a controlled environment. Every sound and movement becomes elevated. What was once perceived as formal and traditional is now unpredictable and deceptive.

You’ve had past films featured on Film Shortage like Staging Anna and Bevoldi. How does Prick differ in terms of your creative evolution?

I think Prick offers a different style to my filmmaking while still holding familiar themes. Each of the three films deals with different art mediums, fine art, theater, podcasts/new-media, and each of these worlds hold their own hypocrisies and hidden truths. The challenge that arose while making all three was building new worlds to live in. I had the same DP Michael Mastroserio, Colorist Alex Durie, and Production Designer Suzanne Agbayani on all three, so it was great fun to build styles showcasing the different shades of New York through three separate industries. My evolution is in working with the same approach and collaborators to each of these three projects, and still getting three unique outcomes.

Was there a particular scene or moment in the film that proved most challenging to shoot or get right?

The entire film was shot in one day. So the whole film was a challenge to do. Getting the tone perfect with limited time is truly a credit to the entire team and the actors. Nicole Balsam (The Podcaster) and Paul Calderon (The President) carried the whole team through with their ability to do a ten page dialogue scene nearly twenty times in a row without losing any energy. Everyone involved was so skilled and it allowed us to make our day.

What conversations or reflections are you hoping Prick sparks for audiences—particularly younger viewers navigating today’s political and digital landscape?

I hope the film promotes communication and conversation between people with opposing views, finding middle grounds, and realizing that maybe we are not all as different as we think we are. There is a growing trend in political ideology, “kill or be killed.” It’s these extreme stances and actions that don’t help us learn more about one another, all they do is further our divide. A lot of today’s political conversations take place in echo chambers, I think the art of healthy debate and compromise has been lost. I hope people think to ask a few more questions to their enemies before they take action against them.