Someone left a comment on a recent blog asking 1) Has Women's Studies been released. 2) Where is it going to show? 3) Any festivals that you can list yet?
The answers to those questions are 1) No, but it's finished. 2) Still unknown. 3) Not yet.
It seems strange to have put so much work and effort into Women's Studies for the past couple years, yet now have all this "down time" while waiting to hear from festivals. Should we be being more pro-active? Well, we are being pro-active in some arenas. However, our festival strategy requires we use a little bit of patience before more actively seeking distribution.
Do festivals work? Since this is my first feature, I have no idea. I do know that the number of festivals that actual distribution deals come out of is small. The point is more to get exposure, generate interest, and make the project more marketable to therefore (hopefully) make a better deal. Remember, we have a responsibility to investors to keep.
The wait sucks a bit, because otherwise I'd be on the phone hassling every industry contact I have about getting WS in front of a distributor. I've actually been contacted by a few sales agents, some recently, who are interested in helping Cindy and I sell the film. Right now, I'm keeping communication and my options open. Again though, we'll see what happens with festivals.
I am excited about getting Women's Studies in front of audiences. And as soon as I have information to pass on, I will.
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Uncle Harlan is a God Among Men
In light of recent events and my first real exposure to creative decision making on large(r) budget films over the past few weeks, I'll let the great Harlan Ellison do my blog for me.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades
As you've likely noticed, the past few blogs have been done on a bi-weekly basis.
The reason for this is that we here at Women's Studies HQ are basically in a "sit and wait" period until we hear back from all the various festivals and press outlets we've sent copies of the film to. In all likelihood, it'll be August before most of these folks even think about getting back to us. My WS workload has decreased dramatically, and it's actually been quite nice not to have to deal with it on a daily basis.
I haven't done any kind of "retrospective" blog because I'd rather look forward than backwards, and I don't want to throw off my chi.
What I have done is look towards the future beyond Women's Studies and done work on some possible future projects. I know, I know. The running joke has been that asking me what I'm doing next could get you killed. The problem is that I'm something of a workaholic. With Women's Studies done and six weeks of lag time before I have to get out and heavily promote it, I'm itchy to work on something. Plus, if opportunity should knock I want to be ready to open the door.
First I brushed off a screenplay I wrote ten years ago called Strangling Desdemona. It's about a hit man who wants out of the business and his corporate boss who gets him in WAY deeper. If you're a long time Ningen Manga-loid, you'll know that I self-published the first pages of the script as a comic book at the end of the millennium. (Buy a copy! Only one dollar! It actually costs more for me to send it to you than it does for you to purchase it.)
The Strangling Desdemona script is for sale, by they way. Hey, and the first few pages are already storyboarded! Amazingly enough, it's in pretty good shape after ten years. I just had to do a touch up here and a clean-up there. Then it was ready to send out to whoever might want to see it. (Agents? Studios? Investors? Send me an email.)
For the past couple of months, I've stewed on both a brand new idea and revisiting another old script that I really like a lot, but could use a serious rewrite. As time went by, I decided the new idea was good enough that it would keep and that my heart was really into the old script. (Which by the way, was the full length horror script I wrote right before the original Women's Studies script. . . the one I told you about in the last blog.) It's about a possibly cursed corn farm, the family who owns it, and the town surrounding it. Earlier this week I started working on a rewrite. What I want to do with it is such an overhaul, that it's almost like working on a brand new script. Or maybe it just feels that good to be writing again. And while I'm not settling on anything for my "next project" right now, this feels pretty right.
But who knows? Creatively speaking I have a lot of open space in front of me at this point in time. I want to explore it up and down before I really settle into anything. Besides, I have a feeling that come August, Women's Studies, fickle needy mistress that she is will once again show up on my doorstep with some crazy demand. Frankly, I'll be really happy to see her.
# # #
No blog next week, as I'm going to stay on the bi-weekly schedule for just a wee bit longer. Look for the next one on Tuesday, July 22.
The reason for this is that we here at Women's Studies HQ are basically in a "sit and wait" period until we hear back from all the various festivals and press outlets we've sent copies of the film to. In all likelihood, it'll be August before most of these folks even think about getting back to us. My WS workload has decreased dramatically, and it's actually been quite nice not to have to deal with it on a daily basis.
I haven't done any kind of "retrospective" blog because I'd rather look forward than backwards, and I don't want to throw off my chi.
What I have done is look towards the future beyond Women's Studies and done work on some possible future projects. I know, I know. The running joke has been that asking me what I'm doing next could get you killed. The problem is that I'm something of a workaholic. With Women's Studies done and six weeks of lag time before I have to get out and heavily promote it, I'm itchy to work on something. Plus, if opportunity should knock I want to be ready to open the door.
First I brushed off a screenplay I wrote ten years ago called Strangling Desdemona. It's about a hit man who wants out of the business and his corporate boss who gets him in WAY deeper. If you're a long time Ningen Manga-loid, you'll know that I self-published the first pages of the script as a comic book at the end of the millennium. (Buy a copy! Only one dollar! It actually costs more for me to send it to you than it does for you to purchase it.)
The Strangling Desdemona script is for sale, by they way. Hey, and the first few pages are already storyboarded! Amazingly enough, it's in pretty good shape after ten years. I just had to do a touch up here and a clean-up there. Then it was ready to send out to whoever might want to see it. (Agents? Studios? Investors? Send me an email.)
For the past couple of months, I've stewed on both a brand new idea and revisiting another old script that I really like a lot, but could use a serious rewrite. As time went by, I decided the new idea was good enough that it would keep and that my heart was really into the old script. (Which by the way, was the full length horror script I wrote right before the original Women's Studies script. . . the one I told you about in the last blog.) It's about a possibly cursed corn farm, the family who owns it, and the town surrounding it. Earlier this week I started working on a rewrite. What I want to do with it is such an overhaul, that it's almost like working on a brand new script. Or maybe it just feels that good to be writing again. And while I'm not settling on anything for my "next project" right now, this feels pretty right.
But who knows? Creatively speaking I have a lot of open space in front of me at this point in time. I want to explore it up and down before I really settle into anything. Besides, I have a feeling that come August, Women's Studies, fickle needy mistress that she is will once again show up on my doorstep with some crazy demand. Frankly, I'll be really happy to see her.
# # #
No blog next week, as I'm going to stay on the bi-weekly schedule for just a wee bit longer. Look for the next one on Tuesday, July 22.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The Void
I didn't do a blog last week because I honestly had nothing to say. Lately, I've just been laying low, kind of enjoying not having to do much.
Women's Studies is in a bit of a holding pattern until Cindy and I hear back from festivals, press, and a few other key folks who are getting copies of the finished film for one reason or another. It's been kind of nice to experience this strange thing which has been eluding me for the past two years. I think it's called "free time."
Yet there's also "The Void" to deal with. "What's that?" you ask. Allow me to explain . . .
I've been writing "seriously" for about twelve years now. In that time, I've written eight full length screenplays and more short scripts than I can even count. After the first draft of each full length, I've always experienced what I call "The Void." It's the space in my conscious (and subconscious) mind that was once filled with the energy devoted to whatever project I've been working on. The idea is that I put so much thought, emotion, and work into a story (or in this case, a movie) that when I stop working on it, the lack of energy and forward motion is slient, a little cold, and empty. I call that empty space "The Void."
Eventually, The Void gets filled up with everyday life; work, friends, hobbies, etc.
A lot of the time, I'll take the space left by a big project and fill it with a different smaller project. It's like there's so much energy left that even when the brunt of it leaves, there's still a little bit of power bouncing around. A lot of short scripts have been written in the wake of the big ones. Women's Studies was actually conceived in one of those Voids. I had written a different full length horror script and had some energy left over. The right combination of influences came together and the original short script for Women's Studies came to be.
The Void has it's dark side too. It's kind of like a break up after a long term relationship. There's a certain level of depression that comes with it. You've put all this effort, work, and love, so much love into this one thing that it's hard to believe it's over. But you can't hang on. That's an exercise in denial and stepping backwards. Once it's over, it's over. You can't go back. You can fix that which can't be fixed. You can't unlearn.
Mostly though, The Void is a great teacher of self. My self-image is always clearer after a big project. It's as if I've spent so much time in an imaginary world, my appreciation for the real world is heightened dramatically. I find myself looking in the mirror a lot . . . trying to see if the deep places I've been are visible on the surface.
Since Women's Studies is hands down the biggest, most ambitious thing I've ever done in my life, The Void is pretty huge on it. What's been good is that there's a a lot of left over energy that I've focused on things like exercise, diet, and remembering that Cindy was my wife long before she was my co-producer.
I thought this Void might be really tough, but it's actually been pretty easy. Maybe some things are so big that the energy never leaves you. It just changes into something else, something new. All I know is I feel like I 'm ready for anything.
# # #
My dear Lady Killers: I can't wait to show you what we did together.
Women's Studies is in a bit of a holding pattern until Cindy and I hear back from festivals, press, and a few other key folks who are getting copies of the finished film for one reason or another. It's been kind of nice to experience this strange thing which has been eluding me for the past two years. I think it's called "free time."
Yet there's also "The Void" to deal with. "What's that?" you ask. Allow me to explain . . .
I've been writing "seriously" for about twelve years now. In that time, I've written eight full length screenplays and more short scripts than I can even count. After the first draft of each full length, I've always experienced what I call "The Void." It's the space in my conscious (and subconscious) mind that was once filled with the energy devoted to whatever project I've been working on. The idea is that I put so much thought, emotion, and work into a story (or in this case, a movie) that when I stop working on it, the lack of energy and forward motion is slient, a little cold, and empty. I call that empty space "The Void."
Eventually, The Void gets filled up with everyday life; work, friends, hobbies, etc.
A lot of the time, I'll take the space left by a big project and fill it with a different smaller project. It's like there's so much energy left that even when the brunt of it leaves, there's still a little bit of power bouncing around. A lot of short scripts have been written in the wake of the big ones. Women's Studies was actually conceived in one of those Voids. I had written a different full length horror script and had some energy left over. The right combination of influences came together and the original short script for Women's Studies came to be.
The Void has it's dark side too. It's kind of like a break up after a long term relationship. There's a certain level of depression that comes with it. You've put all this effort, work, and love, so much love into this one thing that it's hard to believe it's over. But you can't hang on. That's an exercise in denial and stepping backwards. Once it's over, it's over. You can't go back. You can fix that which can't be fixed. You can't unlearn.
Mostly though, The Void is a great teacher of self. My self-image is always clearer after a big project. It's as if I've spent so much time in an imaginary world, my appreciation for the real world is heightened dramatically. I find myself looking in the mirror a lot . . . trying to see if the deep places I've been are visible on the surface.
Since Women's Studies is hands down the biggest, most ambitious thing I've ever done in my life, The Void is pretty huge on it. What's been good is that there's a a lot of left over energy that I've focused on things like exercise, diet, and remembering that Cindy was my wife long before she was my co-producer.
I thought this Void might be really tough, but it's actually been pretty easy. Maybe some things are so big that the energy never leaves you. It just changes into something else, something new. All I know is I feel like I 'm ready for anything.
# # #
My dear Lady Killers: I can't wait to show you what we did together.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
ADR Scripts + Melisa Breiner-Sanders = Hell
If there's a hell, it's an eternity of writing ADR (Automated Dialogue Replacement) scripts while Melisa Breiner-Sanders stands next to me yelling in a shrill voice, "Where's the blog? Where's the blog? Where's the blog? Where's the blog? Where's the blog?"
Why does Melisa get mentioned so much on the blog? Because she hounds me like she's Ahab and I'm a big white whale. Seriously. She makes Dave Letterman's stalker look as normal as Donna Reed. I'd have her IP address banned from my email, but I'm afraid she'll show up at my house.
(And really, all my mentioning her does is feed the fire of her (self)obsession. I keep telling her that my beastly sexual prowess she finds so irresistible is merely a freak genetic accident and she's going to have to learn to resist it. But you know, she's totally fucking psycho.)
Anyway . . . what is an ADR script, you ask? Well, it looks like this:
(Click to enlarge.)
Basically, the actor uses this script to loop lines that had something goofy in the production audio like airplanes or air conditioners. Or maybe the dialogue didn't come through loud enough because the sound guy was forced to put his mic a hundred yards away to keep it out of the shot. Or maybe I just want to alter the delivery because on set the actor was too busy trying to sleep with everyone regardless of gender instead of focusing on their performance, though I won't mention names. *coughMelisacough*
ADR scripts are pretty tedious to write, especially at this point in production when I've literally seen Women's Studies almost a hundred times. I hope I don't sound like I'm bitching. (Though I'm sure I do.) I actually like posting sound quite a bit. Writing ADR scripts is just more busy work than creative expression.
They're vitally important though. Having scripts with proper time code and scenes makes the process go so much quicker. We don't have to waste time figuring out where the right cue we need is. We can instead focus on picking a drunk Melisa up off the floor and trying to get her to say, "You can't make men into the enemy," without slurring.
# # #
A quick side note:
I read a great piece recently by Lexi Alexander, director of the upcoming Punisher 2 in which she talks about how all her blogs have to go through studio approval. Basically, she doesn't post them very often because she "writes like shit when [she's] being censored."
While I'm sure any studio that might think about hiring me will look at this blog and run in the other direction, I'd like to make two points.
First, I would never publicly talk shit about anybody I worked with unless I was joking. I'm not that stupid, and I wouldn't want six ugly cheerleaders to kidnap and beat the shit out of me. (Melisa of course is the exception. I'm deadly serious that she's crazy and she scares me. I can't prove it, but when I'm dead you'll know I was right.)
Secondly, People don't just want a rosy view of filmmaking or the world for that matter. I went through a brief period when I tried to make everything on the blog happy and wonderful. But you know, sometimes life isn't that way. Sometimes, you're stuck doing tedious work that you don't really enjoy. Sometimes, you even get confused and forget why you're doing something and think you want to quit.
It doesn't mean you don't love what you do OR believe in the project you're working on. I refer you back to my mantra: Nothing worth doing is easy. I think it's the hard stuff people want to hear about. It reminds them that there are other people out there who deal with life's little hiccups.
And crazy stalker actresses.
Why does Melisa get mentioned so much on the blog? Because she hounds me like she's Ahab and I'm a big white whale. Seriously. She makes Dave Letterman's stalker look as normal as Donna Reed. I'd have her IP address banned from my email, but I'm afraid she'll show up at my house.
(And really, all my mentioning her does is feed the fire of her (self)obsession. I keep telling her that my beastly sexual prowess she finds so irresistible is merely a freak genetic accident and she's going to have to learn to resist it. But you know, she's totally fucking psycho.)
Anyway . . . what is an ADR script, you ask? Well, it looks like this:
(Click to enlarge.)
Basically, the actor uses this script to loop lines that had something goofy in the production audio like airplanes or air conditioners. Or maybe the dialogue didn't come through loud enough because the sound guy was forced to put his mic a hundred yards away to keep it out of the shot. Or maybe I just want to alter the delivery because on set the actor was too busy trying to sleep with everyone regardless of gender instead of focusing on their performance, though I won't mention names. *coughMelisacough*
ADR scripts are pretty tedious to write, especially at this point in production when I've literally seen Women's Studies almost a hundred times. I hope I don't sound like I'm bitching. (Though I'm sure I do.) I actually like posting sound quite a bit. Writing ADR scripts is just more busy work than creative expression.
They're vitally important though. Having scripts with proper time code and scenes makes the process go so much quicker. We don't have to waste time figuring out where the right cue we need is. We can instead focus on picking a drunk Melisa up off the floor and trying to get her to say, "You can't make men into the enemy," without slurring.
# # #
A quick side note:
I read a great piece recently by Lexi Alexander, director of the upcoming Punisher 2 in which she talks about how all her blogs have to go through studio approval. Basically, she doesn't post them very often because she "writes like shit when [she's] being censored."
While I'm sure any studio that might think about hiring me will look at this blog and run in the other direction, I'd like to make two points.
First, I would never publicly talk shit about anybody I worked with unless I was joking. I'm not that stupid, and I wouldn't want six ugly cheerleaders to kidnap and beat the shit out of me. (Melisa of course is the exception. I'm deadly serious that she's crazy and she scares me. I can't prove it, but when I'm dead you'll know I was right.)
Secondly, People don't just want a rosy view of filmmaking or the world for that matter. I went through a brief period when I tried to make everything on the blog happy and wonderful. But you know, sometimes life isn't that way. Sometimes, you're stuck doing tedious work that you don't really enjoy. Sometimes, you even get confused and forget why you're doing something and think you want to quit.
It doesn't mean you don't love what you do OR believe in the project you're working on. I refer you back to my mantra: Nothing worth doing is easy. I think it's the hard stuff people want to hear about. It reminds them that there are other people out there who deal with life's little hiccups.
And crazy stalker actresses.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Persistence of Vision
Wow.
The past week has been a level of intensity I can't even begin to describe. I had always said that the recent Horrorfind Weekend would be the coming out party for Women's Studies. However, I had no idea that things would rev up as they had.
It's good though. The light at the end of the tunnel, once just a faint glimmer, gets brighter and brighter with each passing day. Well, that might be an overstatement, but at least I can see the end ahead of me.
First off, the big news: As of earlier today, Women's Studies is picture-locked, which means the video is as it will always be. Hats off to Editor Jim McGivney who has spent the past four months (Nine if you count the "rushes" he edited while we were shooting) putting this thing together for me. He's worked his ass off and I'm damn proud of him. Special mention goes to Cindy Marie Martin who was really a driving force behind the last few editing sessions.
The specs? Women's Studies clocks in at almost exactly 100 minutes, not counting the end credits. (Those will probably add about two minutes to the running time.) That was our target length all along and while Jim and I had to cut a couple of my favorite scenes to get there, I think the right choices were made. The eventual DVD will have eleven deleted scenes ranging from ten seconds to three minutes.
Next up is sound editing and music. I'm not going to spend any time talking about it right now. (Trust me. You'll hear more about it than you ever dreamed over the next seven weeks.)
We've basically got 53 days from the time of this writing to finish the film. That's a ridiculously short amount of time to color-correct and post sound for a feature length film. Should be fun, right? Right?!?
You've seen the new trailer for Women's Studies, haven't you?
We premiered it at Horrorfind Weekend last weekend to a pretty enthusiastic crowd. At least they seemed to ask all the right questions, so I got the impression they were interested. The response to the online trailer has been pretty positive. We even got a couple film festival invites out of it. (No, I'm not saying where. More on festivals come June.) I have high hopes this film will find it's audience.
Once we get it finished, of course. Let's not put the cart before the horse.
# # #
Just about everybody who knows me knows that George A. Romero is pretty much my filmmaking hero. I'm not exactly sure when it happened. I rediscovered his zombie "trilogy" about ten years ago. (That's back when it was still a trilogy.) That was right around the same time that my mind really started to shift from just writing scripts to actually making movies.
The admirable thing about Romero that has always struck me is his fierce individuality and independence. He makes the movies he wants to make. Yet, it's not out of stubbornness, but rather a persistence of vision which is awe-inspiring. He gets what he's doing, and I think a lot of filmmakers don't. They just feel their way through the process hoping to make the "big time," whatever the hell that is. Hell, I might even be one of them as much as I like to think otherwise.
Romero's persistence of vision and ability to be present is what I aspire to. His indefinable type of filmmaker is the kind I want to be.
Anyway, I got to meet Romero in the flesh during Horrorfind Weekend. We didn't talk long, only about five minutes, but he was present the entire time. We talked about his Season of the Witch a film I think is highly underrated and one he would like to remake. We talked about Women's Studies and working with Judith O'Dea. We even for the briefest of moments talked about our worldviews which was pretty cool. The whole time, he was present. He was talking not just to me but with me.
It was a pretty huge moment for me, one that's going to see me through to the end of the Women's Studies process. Hell, I might even find me some big assed trademark glasses to wear when it's all said and done.
The past week has been a level of intensity I can't even begin to describe. I had always said that the recent Horrorfind Weekend would be the coming out party for Women's Studies. However, I had no idea that things would rev up as they had.
It's good though. The light at the end of the tunnel, once just a faint glimmer, gets brighter and brighter with each passing day. Well, that might be an overstatement, but at least I can see the end ahead of me.
First off, the big news: As of earlier today, Women's Studies is picture-locked, which means the video is as it will always be. Hats off to Editor Jim McGivney who has spent the past four months (Nine if you count the "rushes" he edited while we were shooting) putting this thing together for me. He's worked his ass off and I'm damn proud of him. Special mention goes to Cindy Marie Martin who was really a driving force behind the last few editing sessions.
The specs? Women's Studies clocks in at almost exactly 100 minutes, not counting the end credits. (Those will probably add about two minutes to the running time.) That was our target length all along and while Jim and I had to cut a couple of my favorite scenes to get there, I think the right choices were made. The eventual DVD will have eleven deleted scenes ranging from ten seconds to three minutes.
Next up is sound editing and music. I'm not going to spend any time talking about it right now. (Trust me. You'll hear more about it than you ever dreamed over the next seven weeks.)
We've basically got 53 days from the time of this writing to finish the film. That's a ridiculously short amount of time to color-correct and post sound for a feature length film. Should be fun, right? Right?!?
You've seen the new trailer for Women's Studies, haven't you?
We premiered it at Horrorfind Weekend last weekend to a pretty enthusiastic crowd. At least they seemed to ask all the right questions, so I got the impression they were interested. The response to the online trailer has been pretty positive. We even got a couple film festival invites out of it. (No, I'm not saying where. More on festivals come June.) I have high hopes this film will find it's audience.
Once we get it finished, of course. Let's not put the cart before the horse.
# # #
Just about everybody who knows me knows that George A. Romero is pretty much my filmmaking hero. I'm not exactly sure when it happened. I rediscovered his zombie "trilogy" about ten years ago. (That's back when it was still a trilogy.) That was right around the same time that my mind really started to shift from just writing scripts to actually making movies.
The admirable thing about Romero that has always struck me is his fierce individuality and independence. He makes the movies he wants to make. Yet, it's not out of stubbornness, but rather a persistence of vision which is awe-inspiring. He gets what he's doing, and I think a lot of filmmakers don't. They just feel their way through the process hoping to make the "big time," whatever the hell that is. Hell, I might even be one of them as much as I like to think otherwise.
Romero's persistence of vision and ability to be present is what I aspire to. His indefinable type of filmmaker is the kind I want to be.
Anyway, I got to meet Romero in the flesh during Horrorfind Weekend. We didn't talk long, only about five minutes, but he was present the entire time. We talked about his Season of the Witch a film I think is highly underrated and one he would like to remake. We talked about Women's Studies and working with Judith O'Dea. We even for the briefest of moments talked about our worldviews which was pretty cool. The whole time, he was present. He was talking not just to me but with me.
It was a pretty huge moment for me, one that's going to see me through to the end of the Women's Studies process. Hell, I might even find me some big assed trademark glasses to wear when it's all said and done.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Staying Upright
Sorry there was no blog last week. There likely won't be one next week either. Criminal, I know.
Women's Studies has really become a full time job again over the past couple of weeks. I feel a little like I'm skiing ahead of an avalanche. No thoughts of fancy tricks or reaching the end of the slope. All energy is focused on simply staying upright.
There's not a whole lot I really feel like talking about. It's all minutia, technical hiccups, and trying to stay on deadlines that seem to be constantly shifting. Things I thought were figured out aren't. Things I though were set in stone turn fluid in an instant.
A movie is a fickle thing. You think you have it and then you step away and all of sudden, it's not right. Then you think you get it right again and send out for someone else to work on, and that someone else goes, "Are you sure?" Then you remind yourself, "Doubt is the enemy." But so is over-confidence. It's a high wire act on a very thin line.
I feel a little too close to the movie these days, but I don't really feel like I have the time or luxury to step away. Of course, next week I'm being forced to step away. I'm leaving to bike a hundred miles down Key West come Saturday. Plans for the trip were made months ago, but I feel like the timing is just awful. My baby needs me, and I'm basically going on vacation.
Right now, I'm trying to get everything to a point where I can leave and the project won't implode, or worse, stop.
No fancy tricks. Don't even think about the end. Just stay upright.
Women's Studies has really become a full time job again over the past couple of weeks. I feel a little like I'm skiing ahead of an avalanche. No thoughts of fancy tricks or reaching the end of the slope. All energy is focused on simply staying upright.
There's not a whole lot I really feel like talking about. It's all minutia, technical hiccups, and trying to stay on deadlines that seem to be constantly shifting. Things I thought were figured out aren't. Things I though were set in stone turn fluid in an instant.
A movie is a fickle thing. You think you have it and then you step away and all of sudden, it's not right. Then you think you get it right again and send out for someone else to work on, and that someone else goes, "Are you sure?" Then you remind yourself, "Doubt is the enemy." But so is over-confidence. It's a high wire act on a very thin line.
I feel a little too close to the movie these days, but I don't really feel like I have the time or luxury to step away. Of course, next week I'm being forced to step away. I'm leaving to bike a hundred miles down Key West come Saturday. Plans for the trip were made months ago, but I feel like the timing is just awful. My baby needs me, and I'm basically going on vacation.
Right now, I'm trying to get everything to a point where I can leave and the project won't implode, or worse, stop.
No fancy tricks. Don't even think about the end. Just stay upright.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Out With the Old, In With The New
Happy New Year!
While I'd rather look forward to the year ahead than the one that was, I've thought a lot recently about 2007. It's been a life-altering year. This time last year, I was wondering if Women's Studies was even going to be able to happen. A year later, the film is in the can being edited. It's crazy. Deacades from now, when I look back on 2007, it will ALWAYS be the year I made "that crazy horror movie." And I'll look back on it with fondness, laughter, and a great sense of accomplishment.
I have a lot of good memories of the production, the people, and the even the problems. In recent weeks, I've found myself laughing at situations and events that at the time they were occurring, I never dreamed I would EVER find funny. "Distance lends perspective," the prolific but mysterious "they" say. It gives you the ability to see the whys and wherefores of the chaos.
While 2007 was the year cast and crew shot Women's Studies, 2008 is the year we'll finish and release the movie. I'm very excited about the opportunity to show people what we've done. There's still a great amount of work to be completed in order to get there, but this will be the year it happens. There's a real joy to that thought, that after what will be almost two years of work, we'll finally be able to show people what we've done.
2008 is here! The year of Women's Studies! May it bring happiness, success, and growth to everyone.
While I'd rather look forward to the year ahead than the one that was, I've thought a lot recently about 2007. It's been a life-altering year. This time last year, I was wondering if Women's Studies was even going to be able to happen. A year later, the film is in the can being edited. It's crazy. Deacades from now, when I look back on 2007, it will ALWAYS be the year I made "that crazy horror movie." And I'll look back on it with fondness, laughter, and a great sense of accomplishment.
I have a lot of good memories of the production, the people, and the even the problems. In recent weeks, I've found myself laughing at situations and events that at the time they were occurring, I never dreamed I would EVER find funny. "Distance lends perspective," the prolific but mysterious "they" say. It gives you the ability to see the whys and wherefores of the chaos.
While 2007 was the year cast and crew shot Women's Studies, 2008 is the year we'll finish and release the movie. I'm very excited about the opportunity to show people what we've done. There's still a great amount of work to be completed in order to get there, but this will be the year it happens. There's a real joy to that thought, that after what will be almost two years of work, we'll finally be able to show people what we've done.
2008 is here! The year of Women's Studies! May it bring happiness, success, and growth to everyone.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
The Running (Time) Man
As the director of Women's Studies, my dilemma during post-production is this: I have to be both the film's worst critic and biggest fan. Trust me. I'm going to be as harsh on the film, if not more so, than any audience member who sees it. At the same time, I'm going to love it more than anyone else ever could.
The key to making Women's Studies a good film is finding the very fine line between unwarranted discrimination and blind devotion. I have to see all the faults of the film in order for them to be fixed. (If indeed they can be fixed.) Yet I can't be so focused on what's wrong, that I forget about what's good about it.
So how do I approach the editing process and not goof myself up? Easy. I work from the big picture down to the little details.
Right now, that entails simply making sure all the elements are there so the story being told makes sense. That doesn't necessarily mean it's being told in the quickest or most efficient way. In fact, right now Women's Studies is a really long story. The first cut clocks in at over two hours.
"What's wrong with that?" I hear you ask. "Lots of movies are over two hours. Lots of good movies. Jaws? 125 minutes. Citizen Kane? 119 minutes. Friggin' Star Wars? 121 minutes. Hell, those Lord of the Rings movies are three hours long. Each!"
Oh yeah? You want to play that game? Try this: Psycho, 105 minutes. Night of the Living Dead, 96 minutes. Carpenter's Halloween, 91 minutes. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), 80 minutes.
What? You don't like old horror films? Fine. Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake, 100 minutes. The Ring, 105 minutes. Hostel, 95 minutes. Saw, 102 minutes.
You see a trend here? When it comes to horror films, right around the hundred minute mark is where these pictures tend to max out. Sure, 28 Days Later (113 minutes) and Alien (117 minutes) walk pretty close to the two hour mark and Romero's Dawn of the Dead (125 minutes) as well as The Exorcist (122 minutes) go over it, but those are exceptions made by brilliant directors that prove the rule. For us mere mortals, short and sweet really seems the better bet.
Why? Well first off, horror movies require a bit of suspension of disbelief in order to to their job. Some poor souls can't even heft up enough of it to allow themselves to watch a horror film. While the rest of us can, we can only hold it up so high for so long. If a fright flick draws out too long we start to see through the plot holes, and try to figure out how all the magic tricks are done.
Secondly, it's a horror movie! The whole point of the film is to scare and/or disturb the audience. I don't care if you're the Marquis de Sade. After about ninety minutes of watching people in nightmare situations, you're ready to come back to the real world. Not only that, but fear is an emotion we're hardwired to conquer. Too much distress for too long and the brain starts to shut it out. The audience numbs to the situation, and stops caring. They just want it to end.
Finally, as a filmmaker, isn't the whole point to leave the audience wanting more? Especially in this age of DVD extras, deleted scenes and director's cuts (and sequels) are there for the people who truly do wish the movie was over two hours long.
And hey, I'm one of those people. What I'm likely to do is pretty up a Director's cut first. Then from that I'll decide which scenes are a lean beef that must be served, and which ones are gravy that while tasty, isn't to everybody's taste. If enough folks want to see the "Extended Director's Cut," I'll happily get that version out there.
In writing (and editing), the motto is "Kill your darlings." Invariably, it'll be the scenes I like best that will end up on the cutting room floor. A sad truth in storytelling. There's only so much time to follow the lives of these characters. And while I'd like to think that Women's Studies is one of those brilliant movies in a class with Alien, Dawn of the Dead, and The Exorcist, ultimately it's not for me to decide.
That's your job.
The key to making Women's Studies a good film is finding the very fine line between unwarranted discrimination and blind devotion. I have to see all the faults of the film in order for them to be fixed. (If indeed they can be fixed.) Yet I can't be so focused on what's wrong, that I forget about what's good about it.
So how do I approach the editing process and not goof myself up? Easy. I work from the big picture down to the little details.
Right now, that entails simply making sure all the elements are there so the story being told makes sense. That doesn't necessarily mean it's being told in the quickest or most efficient way. In fact, right now Women's Studies is a really long story. The first cut clocks in at over two hours.
"What's wrong with that?" I hear you ask. "Lots of movies are over two hours. Lots of good movies. Jaws? 125 minutes. Citizen Kane? 119 minutes. Friggin' Star Wars? 121 minutes. Hell, those Lord of the Rings movies are three hours long. Each!"
Oh yeah? You want to play that game? Try this: Psycho, 105 minutes. Night of the Living Dead, 96 minutes. Carpenter's Halloween, 91 minutes. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), 80 minutes.
What? You don't like old horror films? Fine. Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake, 100 minutes. The Ring, 105 minutes. Hostel, 95 minutes. Saw, 102 minutes.
You see a trend here? When it comes to horror films, right around the hundred minute mark is where these pictures tend to max out. Sure, 28 Days Later (113 minutes) and Alien (117 minutes) walk pretty close to the two hour mark and Romero's Dawn of the Dead (125 minutes) as well as The Exorcist (122 minutes) go over it, but those are exceptions made by brilliant directors that prove the rule. For us mere mortals, short and sweet really seems the better bet.
Why? Well first off, horror movies require a bit of suspension of disbelief in order to to their job. Some poor souls can't even heft up enough of it to allow themselves to watch a horror film. While the rest of us can, we can only hold it up so high for so long. If a fright flick draws out too long we start to see through the plot holes, and try to figure out how all the magic tricks are done.
Secondly, it's a horror movie! The whole point of the film is to scare and/or disturb the audience. I don't care if you're the Marquis de Sade. After about ninety minutes of watching people in nightmare situations, you're ready to come back to the real world. Not only that, but fear is an emotion we're hardwired to conquer. Too much distress for too long and the brain starts to shut it out. The audience numbs to the situation, and stops caring. They just want it to end.
Finally, as a filmmaker, isn't the whole point to leave the audience wanting more? Especially in this age of DVD extras, deleted scenes and director's cuts (and sequels) are there for the people who truly do wish the movie was over two hours long.
And hey, I'm one of those people. What I'm likely to do is pretty up a Director's cut first. Then from that I'll decide which scenes are a lean beef that must be served, and which ones are gravy that while tasty, isn't to everybody's taste. If enough folks want to see the "Extended Director's Cut," I'll happily get that version out there.
In writing (and editing), the motto is "Kill your darlings." Invariably, it'll be the scenes I like best that will end up on the cutting room floor. A sad truth in storytelling. There's only so much time to follow the lives of these characters. And while I'd like to think that Women's Studies is one of those brilliant movies in a class with Alien, Dawn of the Dead, and The Exorcist, ultimately it's not for me to decide.
That's your job.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
"Smokin' Hot"
Since the blog is late for no good reason this week, I'm going to try and make up for it by posting a bunch of pictures of "smokin' hot," half-dressed women.
The pictures below are all from the "Strip Club scenes." You might find it ironic that a film dealing with feminism has scenes that take place in a strip club. My defense is that it's not stripping but burlesque dancing these ladies are doing. Closed-minded people might scoff at that but believe me my friends, there is a difference. In fact, I'm about as proud of these scenes as I am of any in the movie.
Besides, a little over a year ago, Arrow in the Head did a short piece on Women's Studies in which the author referred to our cast as "smokin' hot." During the shoot, the Lady Killers wore that label like a badge of honor. We even put the quote in our press kit it became such a motif. Now, I don't want to sound superficial, but he had a point. If Women's Studies offers nothing else, it easily has one of the most attractive casts of any independent film out there.
My co-producer, Cindy Marie Martin, doesn't like it when I boil the concept of Women's Studies down to "hot chicks with knives," but I don't mean it in any sexist way. This film is about sex and death, and both are presented in ways that are thoughtful and intelligent if that's what you're after. However, if you just want to look at pretty girls do ultra-violent things to dudes (and other ladies) with sharp objects, this movie will work for you too.
I guess that sounds kind of base, but in many ways isn't that the whole point of a horror film? To appeal to the baser instincts? Throughout a lot of this production, various people involved (myself included) have done a lot to try and convince themselves they're working on some socially important critique on extremism and modern society. On one level it is. It has to be, because I'm not sure it's in me to make somethng that doesn't work on multiple levels. That said, let's be honest: Many people probably aren't going to want to see this film on a purely intellectual level. So lets call it what on another level it is: Exploitation.
"There, I said it! I said the dreaded "E" word! Fuck art! Fuck meaning! Hot chicks with knives! What's Women's Studies about? It's a comic book movie about hot chicks with knives."
And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. I've spent a great deal of time feeling ashamed of myself for making this movie. I've listened to people tell me about how I need to "be careful what I put out into the world." "You've got to be careful of offending this group or that group or this other group." Because I've heard these things, I've worked very hard to try and make sure people understand the film isn't anti-feminist, anti-woman, or anti-pagan. (Another irony, if the film is anything? It's anti-violence. Sure, it's from the Natural Born Killers school of anti-violence film, but that shouldn't matter. Should it?)
In the end though, it doesn't matter what I tell people because they're going to draw their own conclusions anyway.
You want to know the truth? The secret truth folks? If when this film is done, somebody comes up to me and says, "You're the dude who made that movie about the smokin' hot chicks with knives." As long as they're not pissed off with me, I'm just fine with that. Even if they are pissed off at me, there's probably not a whole lot I can do about it, so I guess I'm fine with that too.
# # #
Fight Choreographer Shanna Beauchamp (Black Widow Waitress) and Stef Williams (Black Widow Burlesque Dancer) take a rest between shots.
Stef Williams (Black Widow Burlesque Dancer) strikes an "Oh! how did this happen?" pose.
Amber Connors (Black Widow Bartender/Dancer) looks on as Tara Garwood (Judith) works out her dance with Stef Williams (Black Widow Burlesque Dancer).
Director Lonnie Martin talks over an intimate scene with Taisha Cameron (Amy) and Kevin Finklestein (Keith).
"Lonnie, do these scratches make my box look fat?"
This picture pretty much sums up the Women's Studies experience for Co-Producers Cindy Marie Martin (Mary) and Lonnie Martin.
Ryan Mulkay (Cop #1) really doesn't seem as concerned as he should about Amber Connors (Black Widow Bartender/Dancer) and the knife she's holding.
Shanna Beauchamp (Black Widow Waitress) is ready to @#$% you up!
"It's okay. You can trust me."
Ryan Mulkay (Cop #1) in a scene from Women's Studies.
Cindy Marie Martin (Mary) and Tara Garwood (Judith) in a scene from Women's Studies.
And finally, four "smokin' hot" portraits or four "smokin' hot" ladies:
Stef Williams as the Black Widow Burlesque Dancer.
Amber Connors as the Black Widow Bartender/Dancer.
Cindy Marie Martin as Mary.
Tara Garwood as Judith.
The pictures below are all from the "Strip Club scenes." You might find it ironic that a film dealing with feminism has scenes that take place in a strip club. My defense is that it's not stripping but burlesque dancing these ladies are doing. Closed-minded people might scoff at that but believe me my friends, there is a difference. In fact, I'm about as proud of these scenes as I am of any in the movie.
Besides, a little over a year ago, Arrow in the Head did a short piece on Women's Studies in which the author referred to our cast as "smokin' hot." During the shoot, the Lady Killers wore that label like a badge of honor. We even put the quote in our press kit it became such a motif. Now, I don't want to sound superficial, but he had a point. If Women's Studies offers nothing else, it easily has one of the most attractive casts of any independent film out there.
My co-producer, Cindy Marie Martin, doesn't like it when I boil the concept of Women's Studies down to "hot chicks with knives," but I don't mean it in any sexist way. This film is about sex and death, and both are presented in ways that are thoughtful and intelligent if that's what you're after. However, if you just want to look at pretty girls do ultra-violent things to dudes (and other ladies) with sharp objects, this movie will work for you too.
I guess that sounds kind of base, but in many ways isn't that the whole point of a horror film? To appeal to the baser instincts? Throughout a lot of this production, various people involved (myself included) have done a lot to try and convince themselves they're working on some socially important critique on extremism and modern society. On one level it is. It has to be, because I'm not sure it's in me to make somethng that doesn't work on multiple levels. That said, let's be honest: Many people probably aren't going to want to see this film on a purely intellectual level. So lets call it what on another level it is: Exploitation.
"There, I said it! I said the dreaded "E" word! Fuck art! Fuck meaning! Hot chicks with knives! What's Women's Studies about? It's a comic book movie about hot chicks with knives."
And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. I've spent a great deal of time feeling ashamed of myself for making this movie. I've listened to people tell me about how I need to "be careful what I put out into the world." "You've got to be careful of offending this group or that group or this other group." Because I've heard these things, I've worked very hard to try and make sure people understand the film isn't anti-feminist, anti-woman, or anti-pagan. (Another irony, if the film is anything? It's anti-violence. Sure, it's from the Natural Born Killers school of anti-violence film, but that shouldn't matter. Should it?)
In the end though, it doesn't matter what I tell people because they're going to draw their own conclusions anyway.
You want to know the truth? The secret truth folks? If when this film is done, somebody comes up to me and says, "You're the dude who made that movie about the smokin' hot chicks with knives." As long as they're not pissed off with me, I'm just fine with that. Even if they are pissed off at me, there's probably not a whole lot I can do about it, so I guess I'm fine with that too.
# # #
Fight Choreographer Shanna Beauchamp (Black Widow Waitress) and Stef Williams (Black Widow Burlesque Dancer) take a rest between shots.
Stef Williams (Black Widow Burlesque Dancer) strikes an "Oh! how did this happen?" pose.
Amber Connors (Black Widow Bartender/Dancer) looks on as Tara Garwood (Judith) works out her dance with Stef Williams (Black Widow Burlesque Dancer).
Director Lonnie Martin talks over an intimate scene with Taisha Cameron (Amy) and Kevin Finklestein (Keith).
"Lonnie, do these scratches make my box look fat?"
This picture pretty much sums up the Women's Studies experience for Co-Producers Cindy Marie Martin (Mary) and Lonnie Martin.
Ryan Mulkay (Cop #1) really doesn't seem as concerned as he should about Amber Connors (Black Widow Bartender/Dancer) and the knife she's holding.
Shanna Beauchamp (Black Widow Waitress) is ready to @#$% you up!
"It's okay. You can trust me."
Ryan Mulkay (Cop #1) in a scene from Women's Studies.
Cindy Marie Martin (Mary) and Tara Garwood (Judith) in a scene from Women's Studies.
And finally, four "smokin' hot" portraits or four "smokin' hot" ladies:
Stef Williams as the Black Widow Burlesque Dancer.
Amber Connors as the Black Widow Bartender/Dancer.
Cindy Marie Martin as Mary.
Tara Garwood as Judith.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Stasis
I always thought when I got to this stage of the Women's Studies game that I would just have tons to blog about. However, that doesn't really seem to be the case. There's very little to report or pontificate on, though there's a lot of important (yet dreadfully boring) work being done. In a weird way, it's like it was back in the earliest days of pre-production: all paper work, phone calls, and planning for things to come.
Part of the strange stasis is the holidays, I think. Don't get me wrong. I actually like the holidays, but it seems there's an awful lot of impending travel, parties, and events to attend. My calendar is filed with places I have to be, but it seems very few of them have to do with the movie. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it makes it hard to get motivated sometimes. I do my best when I get my work engine cranked up for a long stretch. When every few days I have to stall and hitch and switch gears to something else, I feel like I have to get warmed up all over again. Right now, I'm simply trying to get as much of my life on auto-pilot as possible, simply so I can leave it behind for a few days.
Also, there's a lot of "catch-up" to do as far as the "business" side of show business is concerned. My co-producer, Cindy Marie Martin, has spent a goodly portion of the past few weeks paying invoices and trying to balance the books. (I want to help. Really I do. However, I've realized that the best way to help is to simply stay out of her way unless she asks otherwise.) That need to catch-up also reaches into our personal lives. Things like my environment, my pets, and my personal relationships have suffered a bit during the past few months of struggling to get everything shot. Taking the time to give those aspects attention has been important.
Another larger part of it is waiting for the first rough cut which is scheduled to be delivered in my hot little hands five days from the time of this writing. There's not much I can do until I can see the footage all slammed together as something that resembles a movie. It's going to be extremely exciting to see it for the first time, and I'm sure next week's blog with be filled with all my positive energy over what the movie can be. But right now, it's kind of like a long Christmas Eve. In the back of my head is the constant mantra of "Going to see the rough cut. Going to see the rough cut." It makes it kind of hard to focus on anything else.
And let's face it, part of it is pure simple "burn out." That's not to say I'm sick of Women's Studies, but after the past six months of near constant work, worry, and will, it's nice to have nothing immediate to worry about. Frankly, I need to recharge my batteries a little bit. Cindy and I will get a very long overdue vacation here in a few weeks where I plan to do just that.
Stasis is a nice change though. There's a feeling of accomplishment that's been nice to ride out. Hard roads are ahead, make no mistake, but that's for the future. For this brief moment, everything is as it should be.
Part of the strange stasis is the holidays, I think. Don't get me wrong. I actually like the holidays, but it seems there's an awful lot of impending travel, parties, and events to attend. My calendar is filed with places I have to be, but it seems very few of them have to do with the movie. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it makes it hard to get motivated sometimes. I do my best when I get my work engine cranked up for a long stretch. When every few days I have to stall and hitch and switch gears to something else, I feel like I have to get warmed up all over again. Right now, I'm simply trying to get as much of my life on auto-pilot as possible, simply so I can leave it behind for a few days.
Also, there's a lot of "catch-up" to do as far as the "business" side of show business is concerned. My co-producer, Cindy Marie Martin, has spent a goodly portion of the past few weeks paying invoices and trying to balance the books. (I want to help. Really I do. However, I've realized that the best way to help is to simply stay out of her way unless she asks otherwise.) That need to catch-up also reaches into our personal lives. Things like my environment, my pets, and my personal relationships have suffered a bit during the past few months of struggling to get everything shot. Taking the time to give those aspects attention has been important.
Another larger part of it is waiting for the first rough cut which is scheduled to be delivered in my hot little hands five days from the time of this writing. There's not much I can do until I can see the footage all slammed together as something that resembles a movie. It's going to be extremely exciting to see it for the first time, and I'm sure next week's blog with be filled with all my positive energy over what the movie can be. But right now, it's kind of like a long Christmas Eve. In the back of my head is the constant mantra of "Going to see the rough cut. Going to see the rough cut." It makes it kind of hard to focus on anything else.
And let's face it, part of it is pure simple "burn out." That's not to say I'm sick of Women's Studies, but after the past six months of near constant work, worry, and will, it's nice to have nothing immediate to worry about. Frankly, I need to recharge my batteries a little bit. Cindy and I will get a very long overdue vacation here in a few weeks where I plan to do just that.
Stasis is a nice change though. There's a feeling of accomplishment that's been nice to ride out. Hard roads are ahead, make no mistake, but that's for the future. For this brief moment, everything is as it should be.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Short & Late
I must be giving everyone the impression that the Zack blog is some sort of Magnum Opus the way it keeps getting delayed. The simple truth is that I haven't had the time this week to give it the care I feel it deserves. It'll be here eventually . . . just not this week.
Last night was Women's Studies Shoot Day #48. Despite some unforeseen set dressing delays, it was quite an enjoyable evening. We have two more days of shooting scheduled. Plus there's one reshoot, so I guess that's three days. So close to the end . . .
It's funny. I've always wanted to be a filmmaker. I've dreamed for years about making a movie. Now that I'm almost done shooting one, I just want to be a regular dude for a little while. I've spent the past couple weeks dreaming about nothing more than sitting by some water for a spell. No computer, no cell phone, no TV, maybe a book that I pick up in between naps.
I love my Lady Killers, make no mistake. They're funny, sexy, and always entertaining. However, they're also very high maintenance ladies. Distance lends perspective, they say. A little time off from each other is going to do us wonders when I finally get a break.
And after? Oh, the things we'll do together.
Last night was Women's Studies Shoot Day #48. Despite some unforeseen set dressing delays, it was quite an enjoyable evening. We have two more days of shooting scheduled. Plus there's one reshoot, so I guess that's three days. So close to the end . . .
It's funny. I've always wanted to be a filmmaker. I've dreamed for years about making a movie. Now that I'm almost done shooting one, I just want to be a regular dude for a little while. I've spent the past couple weeks dreaming about nothing more than sitting by some water for a spell. No computer, no cell phone, no TV, maybe a book that I pick up in between naps.
I love my Lady Killers, make no mistake. They're funny, sexy, and always entertaining. However, they're also very high maintenance ladies. Distance lends perspective, they say. A little time off from each other is going to do us wonders when I finally get a break.
And after? Oh, the things we'll do together.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Changing Leaves
***Remember in last week's blog when I promised there would be pictures from the "strip club" shoots in this week's blog? Well, I'm a big fat liar. I forgot to get the pictures off Gaffer Jim Housell's camera which has since gone back to New Jersey with him. And you can't get mad at Jim because he tried (twice) to make me get him a flash drive so he could turn over the pics. So, no strip club pictures. You're just going to have wait for the movie to see just how ridiculously hot all those scantily clad ladies were. Alas and alack. Somehow, we're just all going to have to move on.***
# # #
Autumn is my favorite time of year. The weather creates its own contradiction, cool enough to sleep with the windows open yet also have to throw an extra blanket on the bed to stay warm. Colors change and the world seems to slow down just a bit. It's a good time for reflection.
As of this writing, we've shot all but approximately eight pages of the Women's Studies script. Four of those eight pages will get knocked out this Sunday. Excepting one scene which may have to be reshot, Judith O'Dea (Hamlin), Melisa Breiner Sanders (Beth), Mundy Spears (Sharon), James A. Radack (Zack), and Kelley Slagle (Diane) have all been wrapped.
As the production cast and crew wind down and begin to move on, the post crew is just starting to ramp up. Jim McGivney has roughly half of the movie edited as "rush cuts." Sean Russell is organizing his sound clips and pre-planning the sound design. Ryan Sayward Whittier is waiting for me to call him back so he can try out some incidental music on me.
Me? I'm in this weird place were I'm still planning shoots, but pulling together schedules and attack plans for post. It's strange and almost sad not to be running around like a chicken with its head cut off. I tried to take this whole past weekend off and really didn't know what to do with myself. I spent most of Sunday going through footage and typing up shot lists so the post guys can organize their video and sound files. I thought a weekend away from the movie would be awesome, but it was just kind of depressing.
Melisa Breiner Sanders called me yesterday as she was waiting for a rehearsal to start, just to say "hi." We talked, caught up, told inside set jokes, and laughed. It was good. I got off the phone missing not only her, but the magic that comes with all of us on set and doing what we love. I knew that's why she had called. Not to check in on the movie, but just to feel a bit of that old on set magic. (That, and I'm totally friggin' hot and she needed to hear the sexy tambour of my voice to calm the itch in her loins. Yeah! No fake bitches here!)
In one of the older blogs, I equated filmmaking to a disease or an addiction, and it is, but not in the bad, sick way we think of diseases. It just fills you up,like a drug or food does. The people, the shared ideas, the laughter, the hardships, the difficult act of creating, of doing it together . . . All these things fill you up and as you slowly start to withdraw those elements, there's an empty space. It'll fill up with something else eventually. I know this. All things must pass.
But as the leaves change, they pass more slowly. Things are less busy. I have time on my hands to reflect and remember. In the autumn, letting go is somehow that much harder.
# # #
Autumn is my favorite time of year. The weather creates its own contradiction, cool enough to sleep with the windows open yet also have to throw an extra blanket on the bed to stay warm. Colors change and the world seems to slow down just a bit. It's a good time for reflection.
As of this writing, we've shot all but approximately eight pages of the Women's Studies script. Four of those eight pages will get knocked out this Sunday. Excepting one scene which may have to be reshot, Judith O'Dea (Hamlin), Melisa Breiner Sanders (Beth), Mundy Spears (Sharon), James A. Radack (Zack), and Kelley Slagle (Diane) have all been wrapped.
As the production cast and crew wind down and begin to move on, the post crew is just starting to ramp up. Jim McGivney has roughly half of the movie edited as "rush cuts." Sean Russell is organizing his sound clips and pre-planning the sound design. Ryan Sayward Whittier is waiting for me to call him back so he can try out some incidental music on me.
Me? I'm in this weird place were I'm still planning shoots, but pulling together schedules and attack plans for post. It's strange and almost sad not to be running around like a chicken with its head cut off. I tried to take this whole past weekend off and really didn't know what to do with myself. I spent most of Sunday going through footage and typing up shot lists so the post guys can organize their video and sound files. I thought a weekend away from the movie would be awesome, but it was just kind of depressing.
Melisa Breiner Sanders called me yesterday as she was waiting for a rehearsal to start, just to say "hi." We talked, caught up, told inside set jokes, and laughed. It was good. I got off the phone missing not only her, but the magic that comes with all of us on set and doing what we love. I knew that's why she had called. Not to check in on the movie, but just to feel a bit of that old on set magic. (That, and I'm totally friggin' hot and she needed to hear the sexy tambour of my voice to calm the itch in her loins. Yeah! No fake bitches here!)
In one of the older blogs, I equated filmmaking to a disease or an addiction, and it is, but not in the bad, sick way we think of diseases. It just fills you up,like a drug or food does. The people, the shared ideas, the laughter, the hardships, the difficult act of creating, of doing it together . . . All these things fill you up and as you slowly start to withdraw those elements, there's an empty space. It'll fill up with something else eventually. I know this. All things must pass.
But as the leaves change, they pass more slowly. Things are less busy. I have time on my hands to reflect and remember. In the autumn, letting go is somehow that much harder.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Hostel Territory
(***Women's Studies update: Last weekend and this weekend are B-Roll shoots. Our next big scene will be shot on June 30/July 1.***)
Hostel II tanked and everybody keeps asking me what I think about it. Since I haven't seen the movie, I'm not sure why my opinion matters. Rest assured that I want to see it and probably will see it. Anyway, here goes:
Director Eli Roth posted this blog in response to Hostel II's poor box office showing.
Hey Everyone,
I'm in Paris, doing press for the French release of Hostel Part II, and tonight I'm off to Rome for the last leg of the press tour. After that I'm going to take a long overdue break, since I've gone from one film to the next without stopping, just to recharge my brain a bit.
I want to thank all of you for your kind e-mails and incredible support for the film. However, piracy has become worse than ever now, and a stolen workprint (with uninished music, no sound effects, and no VFX) leaked out on line before the release, and is really hurting us, especially internationally. Piracy will be the death of the film industry, as it killed the music industry, and while it makes a smaller dent in huge movies like Spider Man 3, it really hurts films like mine, which have far less of an advertising and production budget. Not only that, critics have actually been REVIEWING the film based off the pirated copy, which is inexcusable. Some of these critics I have actually known for a few years, and while I wouldn't dignify them by mentioning them by name, I know who they are, as do the studios, and other filmmakers, and they will no longer have any access to any of my films.
What I'm saying is, this is your last chance to see one of my films for a while. If you haven't seen it, go now, because after next weekend the film will be gone from theaters. There are too many other summer movies coming in, so basically we get two weeks in cinemas, and then the film will live on DVD. I am not directing CELL any time soon, and I most likely will take the rest of the year to write my other projects. Which means I wouldn't shoot until the spring, and you wouldn't see a film directed by me in the cinemas until at least next fall. If everyone on my friends list went to see the film this weekend and brought a friend, it would make a huge difference. Bring a non-horror fan - try to convert them. It's the only way these films will live. But right now the R rated horror film is in serious jeopardy. Studios feel the public doesn't want them any more, and so they are only putting PG-13 films into production. The only way to counter this perception is to get out there and support R rated horror. It's the only message they'll hear. People love the movie, and even though it only cost $10 million dollars (as opposed to the other summer tentpoles which cost $300 million), and has already earned its money back, if it's not a massive money earner then they'll just continue to make the same PG-13 films everyone complained about a few years ago.
To counter piracy, fans can flood file sharing services with fake Hostel II downloads just so no one can ever actually get the movie, but the only thing that really makes a difference is supporting the movie in the theaters. Also - the theater OWNERS know this as well. If horror movies aren't bringing in customers, they're not going to program them. If we are going to send them a message, we have to do it with our wallets, and we have to do it now. I've done all I can to make a great film for the fans, as violent and bloody and fun as possible. The rest is up to you guys...
Thanks again for all your support,
Eli
I undertand your disappointment, Mr. Roth. We all hope our film will be huge. However, may I put this in perspective for you?
First off, Hostel II tanking supports my argument that horror, true horror, is still a fringe genre that only a small percentage of the population seek out. People try to argue me on this all the time with shit like, "But The Ring . . ." "But The Exorcist . . . "But Scream . . ." Yes, all three of those are both good horror films and made oodles of money. That said, it's a big jump away from watching Heather Matarazzo get strung up and gutted while some other chick masturbates in her blood . . . which I hear happens in Hostel II.
For months, Eli Roth has been out and about touting how Hostel II would be one of the most disturbing, goriest movies ever made, and why not? The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre made a small fortune on such a reputation. The problem is that your average moviegoer who likes horror probably doesn't shine to all that. They like to get sacred, and a little blood and a little horror, but not the gobs of it that the old 80s low-budget films offered. They want (and I hate to use this term) "Horror Lite," those PG-13 horror movies that Hollywood is so in love with right now. (It allows them to advertise to a wider audience.)
Are there exceptions? Sure there are. The original Friday the 13th made it's money because of the gore effects, but that was 1980 and no one had really seen effects like this before. Make no mistake. The star of that film was Tom Savini's make-up, not Adrienne King as Alice.
When you look at the horror movies that make big money, they do so on concept not gross-outs.
This is why the original Hostel and the Saw movies were such big successes. They came out when the nightly news was filled with stories about Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and "Holy Shit, are we torturing people?" Torture was "in the ether" so to speak, and people used those movies to work out their discomfort with the fact that torture was something very real in the world. (It still is, but for better or for worse, it shocks us less than it did two years ago.)
Finally, and most importantly, let's take a look at the numbers. The original Hostel was made for $4.5 million. It pulled in about $20 million on it's opening weekend in the U.S. and levelled off theatrically with a total of around $50 million. Throw in another $30 million for DVD rentals and sales and you're looking at $80 million .
Not bad, right? In fact, pretty damned good especially when this isn't accounting for overseas theatre and DVD business. Certainly enough to warrant production of a sequel.
Lion's Gate gives Roth $10.2 million to make a sequel. But after two weeks in the theatre, Hostel II has brought in $14 million WORLDWIDE. It's a drop off to be sure and definitely one the producers can't have anticipated. Even with the traditional 50% box office drop off sequels often get, they had to be expecting around $40 million in gross receipts. But then again, if you go back and look at those original numbers, you see that while for it's budget the original Hostel was a hit, it was only gathering up a small percentage of the movie going audience.
No one could have anticipated Hostel II tanking especially after Saw III made more money than each of the two previous installments last fall. That said, there was no reason to expect a huge hit either, especially after Grindhouse had also tanked with marquee directors Rodriguez and Tarantino attached. Both Hostel II and Grindhouse will make their money back over the long haul on DVD because that's how horror movies make their money. They get a following, friends tell friends. Tobe Hooper is still collecting royalty checks for the original Chainsaw.
Piracy shot down Hostel II? Bullshit. Spider-Man 3 and Pirates 3 made a shitload and they were pirated to hell and back. The fact remains that the gory type of horror film Roth makes (And makes well, I might add. I loved the first Hostel.) appeals to a niche audience. Horror may seem mainstream, but it isn't.
KA-THUMP*
(*Sound of me hopping off my soapbox.)
Hostel II tanked and everybody keeps asking me what I think about it. Since I haven't seen the movie, I'm not sure why my opinion matters. Rest assured that I want to see it and probably will see it. Anyway, here goes:
Director Eli Roth posted this blog in response to Hostel II's poor box office showing.
Hey Everyone,
I'm in Paris, doing press for the French release of Hostel Part II, and tonight I'm off to Rome for the last leg of the press tour. After that I'm going to take a long overdue break, since I've gone from one film to the next without stopping, just to recharge my brain a bit.
I want to thank all of you for your kind e-mails and incredible support for the film. However, piracy has become worse than ever now, and a stolen workprint (with uninished music, no sound effects, and no VFX) leaked out on line before the release, and is really hurting us, especially internationally. Piracy will be the death of the film industry, as it killed the music industry, and while it makes a smaller dent in huge movies like Spider Man 3, it really hurts films like mine, which have far less of an advertising and production budget. Not only that, critics have actually been REVIEWING the film based off the pirated copy, which is inexcusable. Some of these critics I have actually known for a few years, and while I wouldn't dignify them by mentioning them by name, I know who they are, as do the studios, and other filmmakers, and they will no longer have any access to any of my films.
What I'm saying is, this is your last chance to see one of my films for a while. If you haven't seen it, go now, because after next weekend the film will be gone from theaters. There are too many other summer movies coming in, so basically we get two weeks in cinemas, and then the film will live on DVD. I am not directing CELL any time soon, and I most likely will take the rest of the year to write my other projects. Which means I wouldn't shoot until the spring, and you wouldn't see a film directed by me in the cinemas until at least next fall. If everyone on my friends list went to see the film this weekend and brought a friend, it would make a huge difference. Bring a non-horror fan - try to convert them. It's the only way these films will live. But right now the R rated horror film is in serious jeopardy. Studios feel the public doesn't want them any more, and so they are only putting PG-13 films into production. The only way to counter this perception is to get out there and support R rated horror. It's the only message they'll hear. People love the movie, and even though it only cost $10 million dollars (as opposed to the other summer tentpoles which cost $300 million), and has already earned its money back, if it's not a massive money earner then they'll just continue to make the same PG-13 films everyone complained about a few years ago.
To counter piracy, fans can flood file sharing services with fake Hostel II downloads just so no one can ever actually get the movie, but the only thing that really makes a difference is supporting the movie in the theaters. Also - the theater OWNERS know this as well. If horror movies aren't bringing in customers, they're not going to program them. If we are going to send them a message, we have to do it with our wallets, and we have to do it now. I've done all I can to make a great film for the fans, as violent and bloody and fun as possible. The rest is up to you guys...
Thanks again for all your support,
Eli
I undertand your disappointment, Mr. Roth. We all hope our film will be huge. However, may I put this in perspective for you?
First off, Hostel II tanking supports my argument that horror, true horror, is still a fringe genre that only a small percentage of the population seek out. People try to argue me on this all the time with shit like, "But The Ring . . ." "But The Exorcist . . . "But Scream . . ." Yes, all three of those are both good horror films and made oodles of money. That said, it's a big jump away from watching Heather Matarazzo get strung up and gutted while some other chick masturbates in her blood . . . which I hear happens in Hostel II.
For months, Eli Roth has been out and about touting how Hostel II would be one of the most disturbing, goriest movies ever made, and why not? The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre made a small fortune on such a reputation. The problem is that your average moviegoer who likes horror probably doesn't shine to all that. They like to get sacred, and a little blood and a little horror, but not the gobs of it that the old 80s low-budget films offered. They want (and I hate to use this term) "Horror Lite," those PG-13 horror movies that Hollywood is so in love with right now. (It allows them to advertise to a wider audience.)
Are there exceptions? Sure there are. The original Friday the 13th made it's money because of the gore effects, but that was 1980 and no one had really seen effects like this before. Make no mistake. The star of that film was Tom Savini's make-up, not Adrienne King as Alice.
When you look at the horror movies that make big money, they do so on concept not gross-outs.
This is why the original Hostel and the Saw movies were such big successes. They came out when the nightly news was filled with stories about Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and "Holy Shit, are we torturing people?" Torture was "in the ether" so to speak, and people used those movies to work out their discomfort with the fact that torture was something very real in the world. (It still is, but for better or for worse, it shocks us less than it did two years ago.)
Finally, and most importantly, let's take a look at the numbers. The original Hostel was made for $4.5 million. It pulled in about $20 million on it's opening weekend in the U.S. and levelled off theatrically with a total of around $50 million. Throw in another $30 million for DVD rentals and sales and you're looking at $80 million .
Not bad, right? In fact, pretty damned good especially when this isn't accounting for overseas theatre and DVD business. Certainly enough to warrant production of a sequel.
Lion's Gate gives Roth $10.2 million to make a sequel. But after two weeks in the theatre, Hostel II has brought in $14 million WORLDWIDE. It's a drop off to be sure and definitely one the producers can't have anticipated. Even with the traditional 50% box office drop off sequels often get, they had to be expecting around $40 million in gross receipts. But then again, if you go back and look at those original numbers, you see that while for it's budget the original Hostel was a hit, it was only gathering up a small percentage of the movie going audience.
No one could have anticipated Hostel II tanking especially after Saw III made more money than each of the two previous installments last fall. That said, there was no reason to expect a huge hit either, especially after Grindhouse had also tanked with marquee directors Rodriguez and Tarantino attached. Both Hostel II and Grindhouse will make their money back over the long haul on DVD because that's how horror movies make their money. They get a following, friends tell friends. Tobe Hooper is still collecting royalty checks for the original Chainsaw.
Piracy shot down Hostel II? Bullshit. Spider-Man 3 and Pirates 3 made a shitload and they were pirated to hell and back. The fact remains that the gory type of horror film Roth makes (And makes well, I might add. I loved the first Hostel.) appeals to a niche audience. Horror may seem mainstream, but it isn't.
KA-THUMP*
(*Sound of me hopping off my soapbox.)
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Penultimate
Exactly one week from today is the first shooting day of Women's Studies.
An endorphin rush raced up my spine writing that.
Most of June will be spent shooting what I've been referring to as "second unit footage" though it will be done by the "first unit" crew. (There is no second unit crew on Women's Studies. It's all of us doing everything.) Many of the shoots will be to get one or two shots which are either transitional footage, MOS ("without sound" for the layman), or simply short, quarter or half page scenes that don't involve a whole lot of crazy camera moves, special effects, or long set-up time. The logic was to try and get some of this "smaller" stuff taken care of at the beginning of the shoot while everyone is still fresh.
That said, there are two MAJOR scenes being shot in June. One is a scene involving our heroine, Mary, near the end of the film. The other . . . Well, lets' just say I'm hoping it's going to "kick ass" in more ways than one.
While the past few weeks have been hectic with tons of choices needing to be made, there's also been a slow excitement building as well. Every cast and crew member I talk to seems to have an electricity running through them. All conversations have the subtext of "This is going to be so COOL!" It a pretty great feeling.
I'm a little nervous, but it's a good nervous; the nervous I'd get before opening night of a show back in my theater days. Everything seems louder, brighter, and alive as if everything is happening all at once. Yet my mind is more focused, less scattered, even though one minute I'm thinking about light equipment and the next about what color bloomers the academy girls should be wearing.
In last week's blog that wasn't, (Hey, I didn't miss one . . . technically.) I mentioned that we'd begun having rehearsals, and in a lot of ways I think that's what has made things click into place. There's something about exploring the realm of ideas and working with actors to figure out to bring those ideas to life that's totally invigorating.
I keep coming to back to imagery involving making something live, and that's what it feels like . . . that something well-rested is waking up and ready to take on the world.
Summer is here, my friends. Let's make a movie.
An endorphin rush raced up my spine writing that.
Most of June will be spent shooting what I've been referring to as "second unit footage" though it will be done by the "first unit" crew. (There is no second unit crew on Women's Studies. It's all of us doing everything.) Many of the shoots will be to get one or two shots which are either transitional footage, MOS ("without sound" for the layman), or simply short, quarter or half page scenes that don't involve a whole lot of crazy camera moves, special effects, or long set-up time. The logic was to try and get some of this "smaller" stuff taken care of at the beginning of the shoot while everyone is still fresh.
That said, there are two MAJOR scenes being shot in June. One is a scene involving our heroine, Mary, near the end of the film. The other . . . Well, lets' just say I'm hoping it's going to "kick ass" in more ways than one.
While the past few weeks have been hectic with tons of choices needing to be made, there's also been a slow excitement building as well. Every cast and crew member I talk to seems to have an electricity running through them. All conversations have the subtext of "This is going to be so COOL!" It a pretty great feeling.
I'm a little nervous, but it's a good nervous; the nervous I'd get before opening night of a show back in my theater days. Everything seems louder, brighter, and alive as if everything is happening all at once. Yet my mind is more focused, less scattered, even though one minute I'm thinking about light equipment and the next about what color bloomers the academy girls should be wearing.
In last week's blog that wasn't, (Hey, I didn't miss one . . . technically.) I mentioned that we'd begun having rehearsals, and in a lot of ways I think that's what has made things click into place. There's something about exploring the realm of ideas and working with actors to figure out to bring those ideas to life that's totally invigorating.
I keep coming to back to imagery involving making something live, and that's what it feels like . . . that something well-rested is waking up and ready to take on the world.
Summer is here, my friends. Let's make a movie.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
"Let's All Go to the Lobby"
There's so many different things going on this week, I don't even know what to write a blog about, so I'm going to write about two awesome movies I've seen.
Things are moving well with Women's Studies. Some may say the good vibes are due to the official greenlight and the big casting announcement we made last week. Me? I think it's because I've gotten back to the movie theatre. I've seen two movies in the theatre in as many weeks.
There was time in my life when I hit the movie theatre every weekend. It didn't matter what was playing, I went to see something. Double features were more the norm than not. A Saturday triple feature while it didn't happen often, happened quite a lot. Then a couple years ago, something changed. I stopped going to the cinema. You could chalk it up to getting married or turning thirty. I think part of it was that I started making movies myself which is a pretty time consuming process.
Another part of it was the movies. Where I live, the multiplex is all I really got. If I want to get to the art theatres showing the groovy independent and foreign stuff, I have to drive thirty miles. So, if I want the theatre experience, I have to take what the studios give me, and for a couple of years there, the studio offerings got to be pretty bad. Last fall, they started to get better and I found myself wishing I had a little more time to get to the theatre. (I'm trying to catch up with stuff on DVD. Hollywoodland, The Prestige, and The Departed are all currently on my short list.)
Anyway, the last two movies I've seen in the theater have been absolutely fantastic, and it's making want to pick back up my old movie theatre habit. Those films were 300 and Behind the Mask, The Rise of Leslie Vernon.
300, in case you've been off the planet, is the tale of three hundred Spartans who hold off what seems to be millions of of Persian soldiers. It's supposedly based off a real event, but forget about historical accuracy. This film is pure fantasy, and to me, it's the best part of it. It's a ride form beginning to end, visually stunning, action packed, and totally viscerally engaging. I think some critics were put off by the fact that the filmmakers made it look a lot like the Frank Miler graphic novel it's based on, but I think that was the point. All I know is that I had an absolute blast. I walked away from that movie wanting to learn to swordfight and do three trillion crunches.
The other movie I saw was Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, and maybe I only loved it because in my youth, I was obsessed with 80s slasher films. Long story short, a documentary filmmaker follows a killer in the mold of Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers as he prepares for his slaughter. It's hilarious as the killer talks about his exercise program, his methodology, and basically deconstructs the elements of the slasher film. Then in the film's final third as the killer's rampage begins, the filmmakers become characters in the film. At that point, the film switches visual formats and becomes a true slasher film. I might add it's a damned scary one at that. Somebody called the Behind the Mask "a gift to horror fans" and it is. Boy is it.
Okay, that's all. Back to work.
Things are moving well with Women's Studies. Some may say the good vibes are due to the official greenlight and the big casting announcement we made last week. Me? I think it's because I've gotten back to the movie theatre. I've seen two movies in the theatre in as many weeks.
There was time in my life when I hit the movie theatre every weekend. It didn't matter what was playing, I went to see something. Double features were more the norm than not. A Saturday triple feature while it didn't happen often, happened quite a lot. Then a couple years ago, something changed. I stopped going to the cinema. You could chalk it up to getting married or turning thirty. I think part of it was that I started making movies myself which is a pretty time consuming process.
Another part of it was the movies. Where I live, the multiplex is all I really got. If I want to get to the art theatres showing the groovy independent and foreign stuff, I have to drive thirty miles. So, if I want the theatre experience, I have to take what the studios give me, and for a couple of years there, the studio offerings got to be pretty bad. Last fall, they started to get better and I found myself wishing I had a little more time to get to the theatre. (I'm trying to catch up with stuff on DVD. Hollywoodland, The Prestige, and The Departed are all currently on my short list.)
Anyway, the last two movies I've seen in the theater have been absolutely fantastic, and it's making want to pick back up my old movie theatre habit. Those films were 300 and Behind the Mask, The Rise of Leslie Vernon.
300, in case you've been off the planet, is the tale of three hundred Spartans who hold off what seems to be millions of of Persian soldiers. It's supposedly based off a real event, but forget about historical accuracy. This film is pure fantasy, and to me, it's the best part of it. It's a ride form beginning to end, visually stunning, action packed, and totally viscerally engaging. I think some critics were put off by the fact that the filmmakers made it look a lot like the Frank Miler graphic novel it's based on, but I think that was the point. All I know is that I had an absolute blast. I walked away from that movie wanting to learn to swordfight and do three trillion crunches.
The other movie I saw was Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, and maybe I only loved it because in my youth, I was obsessed with 80s slasher films. Long story short, a documentary filmmaker follows a killer in the mold of Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers as he prepares for his slaughter. It's hilarious as the killer talks about his exercise program, his methodology, and basically deconstructs the elements of the slasher film. Then in the film's final third as the killer's rampage begins, the filmmakers become characters in the film. At that point, the film switches visual formats and becomes a true slasher film. I might add it's a damned scary one at that. Somebody called the Behind the Mask "a gift to horror fans" and it is. Boy is it.
Okay, that's all. Back to work.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Live Nude Girls!
This past weekend, I was talking to some friends about Women's Studies. One of them who, yes, was male asked, "Is there going to be any T&A in this movie?" (In case you were raised on an asteroid, T&A is an acronym for "tits and ass.")
It's not the first time I've been asked the question. Far from it. In fact as soon as I tell most males I'm making a film about killer feminists, the nudity question is usually the first one out of their mouths. How's that for thousands of years of evolution, ladies? The mere mention of "hot chicks with knives" sends us into a tizzy of ecstasy.
The issue of nudity in horror films is one that's been debated by fans and critics alike for years. The general consensus is that there's too much gratuitous nudity in horror. Even fans of the genre admit it's so. The problem is that for horror's target audience (18 to 35-year-old males), sometimes the fact that there's a bit of T&A is the only consolation for sitting through a particularly bad and not very scary movie. The attitude is often "Well, the effects were childish, the acting horrendous, and the story non-existent, but at least I got to see a few nice racks."
Again ladies: How far we've come.
Remember though, horror is more popular now than it ever has been. In past years, the selling point for these films were that they crossed the taboo lines set by "normal" social values. People went to see the things that they didn't see in everyday life, sex and death being the two biggest draws throughout history. Also, horror films were (and still are) targeted at teenagers, who while pretty much thinking about sex all the time, are dissuaded by just about everyone around them from doing it.
(And despite sexuality being a much larger part of mainstream American culture today than in the 1960s and 1970s, stats will support my saying that most American teenagers aren't engaging in actual sexual intercourse until the age of seventeen or beyond.)
Women's Studies deals with sexuality on a lot of different levels, from infidelity to the personal ethics of abortion to not so vague hints of lesbianism between various characters. In fact, I'd even go as far to say that sex is always just below the surface in the story. There's sex a plenty in Women's Studies, though how titillating it all may be will be up for debate. Among cast and crew the big nudity debate has revolved around the opening scene where three guys visit a strip club and get a little bit more than they bargained for.
First, a point I think is relevant: I'm making this film in America where the views on sex are much more conservative than in many other parts of the world. (Remember, we're a country founded by Puritans.) If this film was being made in Europe, where attitudes toward sex are far more liberal, there would be in all likelihood no discussion about nudity. However, many American audiences and actors aren't as comfortable with it.
Personally, I'm not prudish at all when it comes to sex and nudity on film. My philosophy towards it is that if graphic sexuality is necessary to the integrity of the scene and/or film, then it's imperative that it's there. On the flip side, where both sex and violence are concerned, in many cases I'm from the "less is more" school of thought. Sometimes, what you don't see is made sexier or more horrifying by the imagination.
The question then becomes one of when is nudity and sex is necessary and when it's simply gratuitous. In all likelihood, the answer is one dependant upon personal taste, but let's look at a few examples that illustrate different degrees anyway.
I could pick any number of films to show nudity being used gratuitously , but let's look at a scene from Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning since most Friday fans feel the entire movie is gratuitous. (I actually think there are a few admirable aspects to the film, though I'm very aware that I'm in the minority among horror fans.) In this scene, a woman is in a diner bathroom getting ready for a date. For no discernable reason, she turns to the mirror, exposes her breasts to herself and yells, "It's Showtime." While she has a fine pair of breasts, her exposing them does nothing to tell us anything deeper about her character. (At this point, we've already seen enough to tell us she's a self-centered airhead.) Nor does it move the story forward in any way. The breast flash is only there for pure titillation.
Here's one open for interpretation: In the film version of Cold Mountain, the two main characters, played by Jude Law and Nicole Kidman, have been pining for each other while Law has been off fighting in the Civil War. When they're finally reunited, director Anthony Minghella decided to give us a fairly long, explicit scene of the two making love. While I thought the sex scene was hot as hell, I also felt it was gratuitous and ill-conceived. I feel this way because throughout the film, Law and Kidman have spoken of of a deep, resounding love for each other and the emphasis on the sex seems to strip that love of some of it's power by reducing their desire to one more lustful than truly intimate. Secondly, what does Law's hand shoved up Kidman's pussy tell me about their relationship that I didn't know before?
I'm sorry, was that language a little too gratuitous?
Now, I don't think the explicit love scene between Rene Russo and Pierce Brosnan in the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair is gratuitous at all. It illustrates that these two people are thrilled by the prospect of danger and control. (He's an art stealing billionaire. She's the investigator hired to figure out who's stealing priceless works of art. Oh, and they just met.) Also, it's brief and shot in a manner that makes your mind do much of the sexual heavy lifting. (Russo stands in the foreground as her dress drops to the floor with Brosnan looking on in the background. Their sex on a staircase is shown from an overhead wide shot.) One could try to argue that the scene isn't needed to tell the story. However, I feel the scene is important to the character's relationship as the story unfolds. The fact that they've slept together is what complicates their motives later in the film. (He wants to steal more art. She's supposed to stop him.)
Have I dodged the question of whether or not there will be nudity in Women's Studies? I haven't meant to. However, I will say that since the film is dealing with sexual politics, I'm vary aware of the ways I will or will not use nudity. So, rather than answer, I'll leave you with a related question to ponder:
Does it truly matter whether or not there is nudity in Women's Studies?
It's not the first time I've been asked the question. Far from it. In fact as soon as I tell most males I'm making a film about killer feminists, the nudity question is usually the first one out of their mouths. How's that for thousands of years of evolution, ladies? The mere mention of "hot chicks with knives" sends us into a tizzy of ecstasy.
The issue of nudity in horror films is one that's been debated by fans and critics alike for years. The general consensus is that there's too much gratuitous nudity in horror. Even fans of the genre admit it's so. The problem is that for horror's target audience (18 to 35-year-old males), sometimes the fact that there's a bit of T&A is the only consolation for sitting through a particularly bad and not very scary movie. The attitude is often "Well, the effects were childish, the acting horrendous, and the story non-existent, but at least I got to see a few nice racks."
Again ladies: How far we've come.
Remember though, horror is more popular now than it ever has been. In past years, the selling point for these films were that they crossed the taboo lines set by "normal" social values. People went to see the things that they didn't see in everyday life, sex and death being the two biggest draws throughout history. Also, horror films were (and still are) targeted at teenagers, who while pretty much thinking about sex all the time, are dissuaded by just about everyone around them from doing it.
(And despite sexuality being a much larger part of mainstream American culture today than in the 1960s and 1970s, stats will support my saying that most American teenagers aren't engaging in actual sexual intercourse until the age of seventeen or beyond.)
Women's Studies deals with sexuality on a lot of different levels, from infidelity to the personal ethics of abortion to not so vague hints of lesbianism between various characters. In fact, I'd even go as far to say that sex is always just below the surface in the story. There's sex a plenty in Women's Studies, though how titillating it all may be will be up for debate. Among cast and crew the big nudity debate has revolved around the opening scene where three guys visit a strip club and get a little bit more than they bargained for.
First, a point I think is relevant: I'm making this film in America where the views on sex are much more conservative than in many other parts of the world. (Remember, we're a country founded by Puritans.) If this film was being made in Europe, where attitudes toward sex are far more liberal, there would be in all likelihood no discussion about nudity. However, many American audiences and actors aren't as comfortable with it.
Personally, I'm not prudish at all when it comes to sex and nudity on film. My philosophy towards it is that if graphic sexuality is necessary to the integrity of the scene and/or film, then it's imperative that it's there. On the flip side, where both sex and violence are concerned, in many cases I'm from the "less is more" school of thought. Sometimes, what you don't see is made sexier or more horrifying by the imagination.
The question then becomes one of when is nudity and sex is necessary and when it's simply gratuitous. In all likelihood, the answer is one dependant upon personal taste, but let's look at a few examples that illustrate different degrees anyway.
I could pick any number of films to show nudity being used gratuitously , but let's look at a scene from Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning since most Friday fans feel the entire movie is gratuitous. (I actually think there are a few admirable aspects to the film, though I'm very aware that I'm in the minority among horror fans.) In this scene, a woman is in a diner bathroom getting ready for a date. For no discernable reason, she turns to the mirror, exposes her breasts to herself and yells, "It's Showtime." While she has a fine pair of breasts, her exposing them does nothing to tell us anything deeper about her character. (At this point, we've already seen enough to tell us she's a self-centered airhead.) Nor does it move the story forward in any way. The breast flash is only there for pure titillation.
Here's one open for interpretation: In the film version of Cold Mountain, the two main characters, played by Jude Law and Nicole Kidman, have been pining for each other while Law has been off fighting in the Civil War. When they're finally reunited, director Anthony Minghella decided to give us a fairly long, explicit scene of the two making love. While I thought the sex scene was hot as hell, I also felt it was gratuitous and ill-conceived. I feel this way because throughout the film, Law and Kidman have spoken of of a deep, resounding love for each other and the emphasis on the sex seems to strip that love of some of it's power by reducing their desire to one more lustful than truly intimate. Secondly, what does Law's hand shoved up Kidman's pussy tell me about their relationship that I didn't know before?
I'm sorry, was that language a little too gratuitous?
Now, I don't think the explicit love scene between Rene Russo and Pierce Brosnan in the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair is gratuitous at all. It illustrates that these two people are thrilled by the prospect of danger and control. (He's an art stealing billionaire. She's the investigator hired to figure out who's stealing priceless works of art. Oh, and they just met.) Also, it's brief and shot in a manner that makes your mind do much of the sexual heavy lifting. (Russo stands in the foreground as her dress drops to the floor with Brosnan looking on in the background. Their sex on a staircase is shown from an overhead wide shot.) One could try to argue that the scene isn't needed to tell the story. However, I feel the scene is important to the character's relationship as the story unfolds. The fact that they've slept together is what complicates their motives later in the film. (He wants to steal more art. She's supposed to stop him.)
Have I dodged the question of whether or not there will be nudity in Women's Studies? I haven't meant to. However, I will say that since the film is dealing with sexual politics, I'm vary aware of the ways I will or will not use nudity. So, rather than answer, I'll leave you with a related question to ponder:
Does it truly matter whether or not there is nudity in Women's Studies?
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
"The Horror, The Horror"
In light of some recent production hiccups, specifically trouble finding suitable locations willing to let us film portions of Women's Studies, a friend of mine chastised me for promoting the film as a straight horror movie. His argument is that by doing so, I sell the film, and by proxy myself, short by pigeonholing it. As the writer and director (a biased source if ever there was one), I concede his point. To me, Women's Studies spans over many genres. It's a character drama, a coming of age story, and a tragic romance. It's got action and laughs as well as scares and blood.
However, the overriding emotion (if I do my job as a director right) should be one of unease and discomfort. One of my most primary goals with Women's Studies is to simply scare the audience. That's really where I can make no concession because I AM setting out to make a horror film. Anyone who reads the Women's Studies script without being told what genre the film is will realize pretty quickly what they're in for. While not strictly a blood and guts type of horror film, the Karo will definitely flow heavily in the finished film.
The strange problem I've run into is despite all the talk of "mainstream" or Hollywood" horror, the genre is still a fringe genre, an acquired taste, and let's face it, the red-headed stepchild of the movie industry. Film studios, notably the big ones, don't really like making horror films. Most critics don't like them, and they don't win any awards that matter to the big dogs. Plus, though the horror move protests of the early 80s are ancient history, you still have media pundits like Bill O'Reilly spouting off about how these films represent "the degradation of the morals of America." And while I believe that kind of thinking is obnoxious and misses the point, I'm certainly not going to argue for the socially redeeming values of Saw III.
Ah, but since I brought it up, let's take a closer look at Saw III, the subject of O'Reilly's recent tirade, a film that was critically derided, and one unlikely to get nominated for an Oscar or a Golden Globe. However, there is one more notable aspect about the film that explains the reason why the movie industry continues it's loveless affair with the horror movie: It made a killing of money at the box office, $33 million in the first weekend alone.
Let's do the math: Saw III was budgeted at $10 million. In it's first week of release it made it's producer, Lions Gate Films, a 300% profit. Currently, it's earned a worldwide gross of around $130 million. ($80 million domesticly and $50 million worldwide, if you want to get specific.) That's a $120 million profit which isn't taking into consideration DVD sales and rentals which make up the majority (75%) of a major studios profits. Even if you assume that the $10 million budget doubles with DVD marketing and distribution costs, that's still a film which sits firmly in the black.
(For the record, I've seen none of the Saw movies. Laugh if you want, but I'm very squeamish, and torture movies make me want to pass out.)
So, why do big studios keep making horror movies? Simple: They even out their bottom line. As far as Lion's Gate is concerned, Saw III's success makes up for the fact that Employee of the Month and Crank only made (ONLY!!!) $28 million. Actually, both films were budgeted at $12 million each and, hence, made money. Still, that's a $32 million profit from both movies combined compared to Saw III's $120 million profit.
I'll quit beating you over the head with it. The point is that "moral degradation" or not, there's a huge audience for horror. As long as that audience is willing to keep ponying up the cash to see these movies, big studios and major filmmakers will keep making them. The producers behind the Saw movies said before it's release that Saw III was likely to be the last one. Keep in mind that the fourth movie in the Friday the 13th series was subtitled, "The Final Chapter." The upcoming Friday "re-imagining" (Don't even get me started there.) will be the twelfth film of the franchise.
But let's forget about the big studios for a minute. Women's Studies is not being produced by a big studio. And frankly, when it comes to actually producing good horror films, big studios really aren't where the action is. Most horror films that are "studio releases" are actually produced by smaller independent film companies. (In industry terms, it's called "negative pick-up.") Recent examples include: Hard Candy, Wolf Creek, and what a lot of horror fans are calling the best fright flick in years, The Descent. (Which I still haven't seen because the sad joke is that when you're trying to make a movie you don't really have time to watch them.)
Forget those even. Let's take a look at what are considered the classic horror films:
Psycho: Independently produced by Hitchcock who went outside the studio system to get it made. Paramount originally distributed it in 1960, and Universal bought up the rights for a successful late sixties re-release.
Night of the Living Dead: Independently produced by George A. Romero's Image Ten. The original distributor let the copyright expire somehow and the film entered the public domain. This also happened with The Wizard of Oz and It's a Wonderful Life. However, Romero claims the original distributor "ripped him off" when they didn't put a copyright notice on any prints of the film that went out. This seems sketchy to me, but copyright law was much different in 1968 than it is now. Back then, copyrights expired after 50 years instead of 95. The math doesn't quite work out though, so your guess is as good as mine. I do know that Romero only has received residuals from the 1998 Elite Media release of NOTLD. The other estimated $50 million the film has grossed since 1968 has all been pocketed by other distributors. Seriously, if you want to make some money, burn off a bunch of copies of NOTLD and sell them. It's perfectly legal. Fucked up, but true.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original 1974 version, not the remake): Independently produced by some mysterious outfit called "Vortex" which I can only assume was director Tobe Hooper's production company. It was picked up by New Line Cinema, which at the time, was a tiny distributor out of New York. The story is that the film played in limited release in San Francisco and Warren Beatty went apeshit over the brutal realism giving the film huge buzz.
Halloween: Independently produced by Trancas International who I also believe handled the original theatrical distribution. It was one of those cases where a distributor decided they wanted to go into the business of production as well. The late Moustapha Akkad was spending $300,000 a day on a big, desert war epic that ultimately tanked. When told Halloween's entire budget would cost $300,000, he said, "What the hell?"
Friday the 13th: Independently produced by Georgetown Pictures, picked up and distributed by Paramount. Technically though, I suppose it was "studio financed." Director, Sean Cunningham, who had produced Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes with Wes Craven, took out an ad in Variety for a film called Friday the 13th and billed it as "the most horrifying film ever made." The funny part is that he had no script, not even a story idea except that he wanted to rip off the success of Halloween. Georgetown called him up the next day and offered to finance the picture.
Evil Dead: Sam Raimi himself raised the money by hitting up dentists which has since become a common low budget fundraising method. New line, which was apparently the Lion's Gate of the late 70s and early 80s, picked it up after Raimi got a glowing review by none other than Stephen King. Like Trancas, they soon turned around and moved into actual film production by making:
A Nightmare on Elm Street: I include it as independently produced because long before Lord of the Rings, New Line didn't have a pot to piss in when they went into production on Elm Street. They're still referred to as "The house that Freddy Krueger built."
Not one of the films I mentioned above was financed or made by a major studio, yet they're some of the most well known, and most financially successful horror films in film history. (However, it may be worth noting that the most financially, and some would argue critically, successful horror film of all time, The Exorcist, was financed, produced and released by a major film studio, Warner Bros.)
My final point is this: Most of the successes in the horror genre have come from independent film producers like me. The reason is that we're not doing it to pump up our bottom line. We're doing it because we love the genre and we believe that these stories, as "morally degrading" as they may be, are worth telling, and more importantly worth being heard. By billing Women's Studies as a horror film, I'm hoping to find individuals to help me get it made that are like minded, that truly support what we're trying to do. It's not necessarily an easy sell, but it's the right one.
However, the overriding emotion (if I do my job as a director right) should be one of unease and discomfort. One of my most primary goals with Women's Studies is to simply scare the audience. That's really where I can make no concession because I AM setting out to make a horror film. Anyone who reads the Women's Studies script without being told what genre the film is will realize pretty quickly what they're in for. While not strictly a blood and guts type of horror film, the Karo will definitely flow heavily in the finished film.
The strange problem I've run into is despite all the talk of "mainstream" or Hollywood" horror, the genre is still a fringe genre, an acquired taste, and let's face it, the red-headed stepchild of the movie industry. Film studios, notably the big ones, don't really like making horror films. Most critics don't like them, and they don't win any awards that matter to the big dogs. Plus, though the horror move protests of the early 80s are ancient history, you still have media pundits like Bill O'Reilly spouting off about how these films represent "the degradation of the morals of America." And while I believe that kind of thinking is obnoxious and misses the point, I'm certainly not going to argue for the socially redeeming values of Saw III.
Ah, but since I brought it up, let's take a closer look at Saw III, the subject of O'Reilly's recent tirade, a film that was critically derided, and one unlikely to get nominated for an Oscar or a Golden Globe. However, there is one more notable aspect about the film that explains the reason why the movie industry continues it's loveless affair with the horror movie: It made a killing of money at the box office, $33 million in the first weekend alone.
Let's do the math: Saw III was budgeted at $10 million. In it's first week of release it made it's producer, Lions Gate Films, a 300% profit. Currently, it's earned a worldwide gross of around $130 million. ($80 million domesticly and $50 million worldwide, if you want to get specific.) That's a $120 million profit which isn't taking into consideration DVD sales and rentals which make up the majority (75%) of a major studios profits. Even if you assume that the $10 million budget doubles with DVD marketing and distribution costs, that's still a film which sits firmly in the black.
(For the record, I've seen none of the Saw movies. Laugh if you want, but I'm very squeamish, and torture movies make me want to pass out.)
So, why do big studios keep making horror movies? Simple: They even out their bottom line. As far as Lion's Gate is concerned, Saw III's success makes up for the fact that Employee of the Month and Crank only made (ONLY!!!) $28 million. Actually, both films were budgeted at $12 million each and, hence, made money. Still, that's a $32 million profit from both movies combined compared to Saw III's $120 million profit.
I'll quit beating you over the head with it. The point is that "moral degradation" or not, there's a huge audience for horror. As long as that audience is willing to keep ponying up the cash to see these movies, big studios and major filmmakers will keep making them. The producers behind the Saw movies said before it's release that Saw III was likely to be the last one. Keep in mind that the fourth movie in the Friday the 13th series was subtitled, "The Final Chapter." The upcoming Friday "re-imagining" (Don't even get me started there.) will be the twelfth film of the franchise.
But let's forget about the big studios for a minute. Women's Studies is not being produced by a big studio. And frankly, when it comes to actually producing good horror films, big studios really aren't where the action is. Most horror films that are "studio releases" are actually produced by smaller independent film companies. (In industry terms, it's called "negative pick-up.") Recent examples include: Hard Candy, Wolf Creek, and what a lot of horror fans are calling the best fright flick in years, The Descent. (Which I still haven't seen because the sad joke is that when you're trying to make a movie you don't really have time to watch them.)
Forget those even. Let's take a look at what are considered the classic horror films:
Psycho: Independently produced by Hitchcock who went outside the studio system to get it made. Paramount originally distributed it in 1960, and Universal bought up the rights for a successful late sixties re-release.
Night of the Living Dead: Independently produced by George A. Romero's Image Ten. The original distributor let the copyright expire somehow and the film entered the public domain. This also happened with The Wizard of Oz and It's a Wonderful Life. However, Romero claims the original distributor "ripped him off" when they didn't put a copyright notice on any prints of the film that went out. This seems sketchy to me, but copyright law was much different in 1968 than it is now. Back then, copyrights expired after 50 years instead of 95. The math doesn't quite work out though, so your guess is as good as mine. I do know that Romero only has received residuals from the 1998 Elite Media release of NOTLD. The other estimated $50 million the film has grossed since 1968 has all been pocketed by other distributors. Seriously, if you want to make some money, burn off a bunch of copies of NOTLD and sell them. It's perfectly legal. Fucked up, but true.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original 1974 version, not the remake): Independently produced by some mysterious outfit called "Vortex" which I can only assume was director Tobe Hooper's production company. It was picked up by New Line Cinema, which at the time, was a tiny distributor out of New York. The story is that the film played in limited release in San Francisco and Warren Beatty went apeshit over the brutal realism giving the film huge buzz.
Halloween: Independently produced by Trancas International who I also believe handled the original theatrical distribution. It was one of those cases where a distributor decided they wanted to go into the business of production as well. The late Moustapha Akkad was spending $300,000 a day on a big, desert war epic that ultimately tanked. When told Halloween's entire budget would cost $300,000, he said, "What the hell?"
Friday the 13th: Independently produced by Georgetown Pictures, picked up and distributed by Paramount. Technically though, I suppose it was "studio financed." Director, Sean Cunningham, who had produced Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes with Wes Craven, took out an ad in Variety for a film called Friday the 13th and billed it as "the most horrifying film ever made." The funny part is that he had no script, not even a story idea except that he wanted to rip off the success of Halloween. Georgetown called him up the next day and offered to finance the picture.
Evil Dead: Sam Raimi himself raised the money by hitting up dentists which has since become a common low budget fundraising method. New line, which was apparently the Lion's Gate of the late 70s and early 80s, picked it up after Raimi got a glowing review by none other than Stephen King. Like Trancas, they soon turned around and moved into actual film production by making:
A Nightmare on Elm Street: I include it as independently produced because long before Lord of the Rings, New Line didn't have a pot to piss in when they went into production on Elm Street. They're still referred to as "The house that Freddy Krueger built."
Not one of the films I mentioned above was financed or made by a major studio, yet they're some of the most well known, and most financially successful horror films in film history. (However, it may be worth noting that the most financially, and some would argue critically, successful horror film of all time, The Exorcist, was financed, produced and released by a major film studio, Warner Bros.)
My final point is this: Most of the successes in the horror genre have come from independent film producers like me. The reason is that we're not doing it to pump up our bottom line. We're doing it because we love the genre and we believe that these stories, as "morally degrading" as they may be, are worth telling, and more importantly worth being heard. By billing Women's Studies as a horror film, I'm hoping to find individuals to help me get it made that are like minded, that truly support what we're trying to do. It's not necessarily an easy sell, but it's the right one.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Junkie
My father hounded me all through college to get a degree in business. He was a big believer in the idea that education brings financial success. As screwed up as it sounds, he wanted me to be a desk jockey. I could understand his reasoning, having spent most of his life busting ass twelve hours a day as a pipe-fitter. He thought he was doing me a favor, my dad; providing money so I could have the things I needed and wanted. He was getting money so I could go to college. The sad humor is that on the day I left for college my father and I looked at each other and realized we had no idea who the other was.
I left college in 1998 needing twelve credits to get my degree in theatre arts with a minor in communications. I "walked " with my class. It was time for me to go though. I had already been there five years, and even just one more semester seemed unbearable. Besides, since then I've gone back and finished up the twelve lousy credits and from a career standpoint, actually having the piece of paper in my possession has changed absolutely dick.
Anyway, I got a job with a temp agency, and they landed me a long term gig with an up and coming software company. I was a go getter. I've kind of always been a go getter, which tends to impress those with authority over me. The kicker is I've always hated authority. I'm an idealist sure, but with the heart of an anarchist. Still, I'm a hard worker. That's one of the things my dad did teach me.
So, when the term of the temp job was up, the guys at this software company liked me so much they offered me a regular position. It was a salaried job with great benefits: health, dental, 401k, the works. All I could do was go up. My dad was ecstatic. I took the job.
After six pretty miserable weeks, I quit. I went into my boss's office, and told him exactly how I felt; that while I appreciated the opportunity he was giving me, it wasn't for me. I had other things I needed to be doing, other paths I needed to walk. "I'm not a business guy," I said. Anti-authoritarian to the bone, I think I expected him to chew me out and be shocked that I was turning my back on what was really a pretty damned good job. He didn't though. In fact, he told me how much he respected me for following my heart.
My dad said nothing when I told him, just kind of shook his head.
The ultimate irony is that the past year I've spent putting together Women's Studies has been more about business than any sort of creative expression. Forget the business degree, I think I've learned what I would have been taught simply by trying to make a go of this thing.
Rather than even doing basic production work like scheduling and loaction scouting, my time has been spent writing business plans, researching the DVD market, setting up corporations, drafting contracts, working with a lawyer to make sure all my state and federal paperwork is correct, weighing the ton of risks against the ounce of hope, and about a thousand other minute detailed things that have nothing to with telling a story. Unfortunately, they have everything to do with making a marketable film. My life is a world of crunching numbers, begging for money, wheeling and dealing, trying to turn "no" into "yes." Hell, even "maybe" would do.
And you know what?
I fucking hate it.
The last six months of my life have been the most soul sucking, humiliating, ego-crushing time I've ever endeavored. I wake up every day and my first registered emotion is uncertainty. My first conscious thought is, "Why am I doing this?" Half the time I feel physically ill. The other half I think I'm losing my mind. A day doesn't go by that I don't want to quit. Nor does a day go by when I know I can't.
I can't. I mean, I physically can't stop myself from trying to move forward. If I walk away, even take a vacation, I somehow find myself turning the film over in my head: "What if I change this line? What if I shot it this way? Maybe Mary should wear yellow in that scene. Music like this would go well in this sequence."
Making movies is all I want to do. It's all I've ever wanted to do, since I was old enough to want anything. If there was a company that hired for "professional dreamer," I 'd be perfect. Experience? I've been doing it all my life. But if you won't hire me to do it, I'll do it anyway. That the sickness of it I think. Even when everyone is telling me the odds are impossible, I still do it. Even when it seems like trying to scale Everest in shorts and flip-flops, I still keep climbing.
A guy I've been hounding to invest in Women's Studies recently said to me, "If persistence leads to success, you're going to be successful." A compliment sure, but I don't think he understand the scary truth beneath it, the reason why I'm so persistent.
I'm a junkie, man.
Creative expression is an addiction. Filmmaking is my drug. I'm just trying to get another hit. Addicts do whatever it takes to get their high. They beg, steal, and sell themselves. Telling a real estate agent how much Dark Harvest made in it's first month on the Blockbuster shelves? That's just me sucking dick in the alleyway for a ten spot. See, a ten spot brings me closer to getting the junk. I'm an addict, remember? Only the camera's my needle, the boom mike my spoon, and the tungsten lights my flame.
Ask any addict busted for stealing, and he'll tell you he didn't do it for the money. The money is just a means to an end. The money just gets him to the high. "I can't help myself," he'll say.
"I just don't know how to quit."
I left college in 1998 needing twelve credits to get my degree in theatre arts with a minor in communications. I "walked " with my class. It was time for me to go though. I had already been there five years, and even just one more semester seemed unbearable. Besides, since then I've gone back and finished up the twelve lousy credits and from a career standpoint, actually having the piece of paper in my possession has changed absolutely dick.
Anyway, I got a job with a temp agency, and they landed me a long term gig with an up and coming software company. I was a go getter. I've kind of always been a go getter, which tends to impress those with authority over me. The kicker is I've always hated authority. I'm an idealist sure, but with the heart of an anarchist. Still, I'm a hard worker. That's one of the things my dad did teach me.
So, when the term of the temp job was up, the guys at this software company liked me so much they offered me a regular position. It was a salaried job with great benefits: health, dental, 401k, the works. All I could do was go up. My dad was ecstatic. I took the job.
After six pretty miserable weeks, I quit. I went into my boss's office, and told him exactly how I felt; that while I appreciated the opportunity he was giving me, it wasn't for me. I had other things I needed to be doing, other paths I needed to walk. "I'm not a business guy," I said. Anti-authoritarian to the bone, I think I expected him to chew me out and be shocked that I was turning my back on what was really a pretty damned good job. He didn't though. In fact, he told me how much he respected me for following my heart.
My dad said nothing when I told him, just kind of shook his head.
The ultimate irony is that the past year I've spent putting together Women's Studies has been more about business than any sort of creative expression. Forget the business degree, I think I've learned what I would have been taught simply by trying to make a go of this thing.
Rather than even doing basic production work like scheduling and loaction scouting, my time has been spent writing business plans, researching the DVD market, setting up corporations, drafting contracts, working with a lawyer to make sure all my state and federal paperwork is correct, weighing the ton of risks against the ounce of hope, and about a thousand other minute detailed things that have nothing to with telling a story. Unfortunately, they have everything to do with making a marketable film. My life is a world of crunching numbers, begging for money, wheeling and dealing, trying to turn "no" into "yes." Hell, even "maybe" would do.
And you know what?
I fucking hate it.
The last six months of my life have been the most soul sucking, humiliating, ego-crushing time I've ever endeavored. I wake up every day and my first registered emotion is uncertainty. My first conscious thought is, "Why am I doing this?" Half the time I feel physically ill. The other half I think I'm losing my mind. A day doesn't go by that I don't want to quit. Nor does a day go by when I know I can't.
I can't. I mean, I physically can't stop myself from trying to move forward. If I walk away, even take a vacation, I somehow find myself turning the film over in my head: "What if I change this line? What if I shot it this way? Maybe Mary should wear yellow in that scene. Music like this would go well in this sequence."
Making movies is all I want to do. It's all I've ever wanted to do, since I was old enough to want anything. If there was a company that hired for "professional dreamer," I 'd be perfect. Experience? I've been doing it all my life. But if you won't hire me to do it, I'll do it anyway. That the sickness of it I think. Even when everyone is telling me the odds are impossible, I still do it. Even when it seems like trying to scale Everest in shorts and flip-flops, I still keep climbing.
A guy I've been hounding to invest in Women's Studies recently said to me, "If persistence leads to success, you're going to be successful." A compliment sure, but I don't think he understand the scary truth beneath it, the reason why I'm so persistent.
I'm a junkie, man.
Creative expression is an addiction. Filmmaking is my drug. I'm just trying to get another hit. Addicts do whatever it takes to get their high. They beg, steal, and sell themselves. Telling a real estate agent how much Dark Harvest made in it's first month on the Blockbuster shelves? That's just me sucking dick in the alleyway for a ten spot. See, a ten spot brings me closer to getting the junk. I'm an addict, remember? Only the camera's my needle, the boom mike my spoon, and the tungsten lights my flame.
Ask any addict busted for stealing, and he'll tell you he didn't do it for the money. The money is just a means to an end. The money just gets him to the high. "I can't help myself," he'll say.
"I just don't know how to quit."
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Pro-Choice
Because of it's subject matter, namely homicidal feminists trying to take over the world, Women's Studies isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea. "You can't please everyone," is an adage of the theatre. It's true too. You can't. All you can do is tell the story the best and as honestly as you can, and hope for the best.
Back in March of '06, I sent out the first initial casting notices for Women's Studies, which got picked up by the Independent Women's Forum who wrote a blog about it.
In turn, a blog called Pandagon picked up on the IWF story and wrote a response to it. My thoughts are at the end.
As you can see, the negative reaction kind of rattled me the first time. Then I got my head out of the clouds and reminded myself of that old theatre adage. Now when it happens, and I'm sure it will keep happening, while I listen politely to what detractors have to say, I certainly don't try to change their opinion of the film. Just as I hope no one thinks I'm going to change my mind about making it.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I have no intention of playing politics here. My goal is to make a scary movie, not save the world or destroy it. Cults are scary. Feminism is interesting. A film about a feminist cult seems like it would be scary and interesting. The argument of Women's Studies is not, "Feminism is good/bad." Both the protagonist and antagonist are almost mirror opposites in their feminist beliefs. The difference is that one is willing to kill for their beliefs and the other wants change to come about peacefully. That's the ideological debate I'm interested in. Feminism becomes almost incidental, a "MacGuffin" as Master Hitchcock might have said. My intentions, though I'm admittedly an agent of chaos, are good. Yet, we all know what the road to hell is paved with, don't we?
Here's the bottom line for those people who find the concept of Women's Studies (or any other book, TV show, movie or art work) offensive, sad, outrageous, misogynistic, politically incorrect, or intellectually pornographic:
You ready?
It's kind of a crazy idea.
Choose not to watch it.
I'm certainly not going to come into your home and force you to watch my film. I also sincerely doubt congress is going to pass a law making Women's Studies required viewing for all Americans. Your local church group isn't going to ostracize you if you don't see this film. So, the choice whether to see it is entirely in your hands. Should I inadvertently contact you or a group you're involved with because I think you might be interested in the film and it turns out you're not, by all means politely tell me so. I won't bother you again.
Don't get me wrong. I want you to come see the film. I'd like for you to come with an open mind and put any pre-conceived notions aside and see what we have to say about cults, feminism, and the fine art of sharp, shiny knives. However, I also understand and respect that Women's Studies may simply not be your cup of tea, and as that old theatre adage goes . . .
I'll leave you with this thought to ponder: To me, anyone who thinks this film (which isn't intended to be an anti-feminist film) has the power to ruin the women's rights movement doesn't seem to have much faith in that movement's power. Also, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't womankind have bigger problems to worry about than a horror film about killer strippers?
Back in March of '06, I sent out the first initial casting notices for Women's Studies, which got picked up by the Independent Women's Forum who wrote a blog about it.
In turn, a blog called Pandagon picked up on the IWF story and wrote a response to it. My thoughts are at the end.
As you can see, the negative reaction kind of rattled me the first time. Then I got my head out of the clouds and reminded myself of that old theatre adage. Now when it happens, and I'm sure it will keep happening, while I listen politely to what detractors have to say, I certainly don't try to change their opinion of the film. Just as I hope no one thinks I'm going to change my mind about making it.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I have no intention of playing politics here. My goal is to make a scary movie, not save the world or destroy it. Cults are scary. Feminism is interesting. A film about a feminist cult seems like it would be scary and interesting. The argument of Women's Studies is not, "Feminism is good/bad." Both the protagonist and antagonist are almost mirror opposites in their feminist beliefs. The difference is that one is willing to kill for their beliefs and the other wants change to come about peacefully. That's the ideological debate I'm interested in. Feminism becomes almost incidental, a "MacGuffin" as Master Hitchcock might have said. My intentions, though I'm admittedly an agent of chaos, are good. Yet, we all know what the road to hell is paved with, don't we?
Here's the bottom line for those people who find the concept of Women's Studies (or any other book, TV show, movie or art work) offensive, sad, outrageous, misogynistic, politically incorrect, or intellectually pornographic:
You ready?
It's kind of a crazy idea.
Choose not to watch it.
I'm certainly not going to come into your home and force you to watch my film. I also sincerely doubt congress is going to pass a law making Women's Studies required viewing for all Americans. Your local church group isn't going to ostracize you if you don't see this film. So, the choice whether to see it is entirely in your hands. Should I inadvertently contact you or a group you're involved with because I think you might be interested in the film and it turns out you're not, by all means politely tell me so. I won't bother you again.
Don't get me wrong. I want you to come see the film. I'd like for you to come with an open mind and put any pre-conceived notions aside and see what we have to say about cults, feminism, and the fine art of sharp, shiny knives. However, I also understand and respect that Women's Studies may simply not be your cup of tea, and as that old theatre adage goes . . .
I'll leave you with this thought to ponder: To me, anyone who thinks this film (which isn't intended to be an anti-feminist film) has the power to ruin the women's rights movement doesn't seem to have much faith in that movement's power. Also, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't womankind have bigger problems to worry about than a horror film about killer strippers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
