Dramatis Personae

We're smack dab in the middle of a big shoot, so I only have time to offer one little goodie today: a full cast portrait of the main players of Women's Studies. (Click the picture for a larger verison.)

# # #


Left to Right: Melisa Breiner Sanders (Beth), Tara Garwood (Judith), Cindy Marie Martin (Mary), James A.Radack (Zack), Judith O'Dea (Senator Hamlin), Kelley Slagle (Diane), Mundy Spears (Sharon), Tiffany James (Melissa), Laura Bloechl (Iris)

# # #

You won't want to miss next week's blog, as you'll get first look at actual footage from the film when we feature our brand new teaser trailer which is making it's debut at this coming weekend's Horrorfind Weekend 8 in Baltimore MD.

Lastly, this blog celebrates one year of the Tuesday Women's Studies production blog. I was only late once. Not bad, eh?

Maternal Evolution

*WARNING: Minor spoilers ahead.*

Though I'm making a film called Women's Studies, the issue of motherhood is one I've sort of avoided. There's "sisters" and "daughters" aplenty, but the mothers get a bit of the short shrift.

I'm not in any way implying that motherhood and womanhood have anything to do with each other, but from a purely Darwinian, biological point of view, giving birth is what a woman's body is designed to do. Before any ladies out there get offended, keep in mind that from a physical standpoint, the importance of males drops far more considerably. At least women are biological incubators with intricate layers of child-bearing hardware. Dudes are the evolutionary equivalent of a garden hose.

The human infant isn't well designed for survival on it's own. Spiders are all but abandoned by their mother days after they're born. Snakes hatch from eggs and never meet Mom. Even kittens and horses are pretty much ready to do what they need to survive after a few weeks. Yet even a year after it's born, a human child can't do more than walk around (poorly) and shit itself. (I'll admit they do that pretty well.)

To increase the chances of survival, humans have evolved in a behavioral sense to be able to rear and care for human children. You see this in the higher primates as well as elephants and other large mammals as well. The babies are reared for a considerable period of time by at least one individual or animal, but often two parents or even in a group situation before going off by themselves to make more babies.

Evolutionary Psychology (EP) is a discipline which theorizes that much of our behavior is hardwired into us instinctually. For example, one theory states that for partners, women tend to seek out men who are attractive and intelligent because on a sub-conscious, instinctual level, they want the highest genetic material to pass on to offspring. The same theory states that men are attracted to women with larger breasts and wider hips because those are physical attributes that lead to successful bearing of a healthy child. Other evolutionary theories attempt to explain why men are more prone to infidelity than women, (Males are physically designed to disseminate their genetic material as widely as possible. Think of cats.) as well as why women tend to initiate most divorces. (If a male can't adequately provide food and protection, what good is he? Think of a pride of lions.)

Evolutionary psychologists theorize that early civilization's social structures evolved from these instinctual needs. Men and women chose each other on the merits that would allow the fragile human infant the chance to survive long enough where it could continue the genetic line. Leagues of royal families continued the same blood lines for centuries to a similar end. Was it due to ego or instinct?

(What does all this blather have to do with the weird feminist horror film I'm making? Hang on, I'm getting there.)

Gender roles and social structure also evolved this way, according to EP. Early civilizations worshipped female deities for woman's "magical" ability to create life. Males quickly realized that due to the biological requirements to bear children, women were physically weaker. Males also realized that while a male counterpoint was often better to assist the women in directing the child's life, it wasn't necessary for the woman. Remember, males are hardwired to keep their blood line going, not only in the physcial sense, but in the social sense.

Therefore, they invented male gods and myths to relegate woman to a subservient "mother" role for thousands of years in order to control the fates of their children. Yet even when these later civilizations banished woman's role in matters of politics and religion, she was still revered for her role as a child-bearer. In fact, for centuries that was considered her only role. After all, he didn't want her to use her evolutionary instinct for sniffing out a man who has outlived his usefulness.

The thing about evolution is it always continues. Here in the twenty-first century, strength is measured in different ways, and that whole idea of the "delicate child-bearer" who needs to be protected by her male companion is about current as hoop skirts. (Though sadly, there's still a great deal of that cro-magnon mentality swirling around in the ether.) The idea of the strong, independent mother has gained a lot of currency in the past few decades, mostly because a lot of males are too deadbeat to take responsibility for the kid they helped create. The term "Single Mom" used to be a mark of shame. Now it's a badge of honor.

Which brings us back around to Women's Studies and the character of Sharon, a Ross-Prentiss academy girl who is nine-months pregnant with a male baby. But as I said, "pregnant" doesn't equal "delicate." Sharon is tough and street smart. She could take care of this kid by herself without any problem, if only her "peers" would let her. Remember, Women's Studies is all about sisters, daughters, and even mothers. Sons however . . . Well, let's just say that the concept of "late term abortion" isn't one these ladies shy away from.

Sharon's plight mirrors Mary's. Both are pregnant with a child that they don't particularly want though each have different reasons for not doing do. Sharon's, we find out, are far more dire than Mary's. Sharon is afraid of going through what she has to alone. However, it's not someone else Sharon needs to find, but rather the strength in herself, which somehow the academy girls of Ross-Prentiss have managed to suck out of her, the same way they're trying to do to Mary.

Mundy Spears, the actor playing Sharon, has electric eyes that can convey the strength, fear, and confusion Sharon is supposed to be feeling. She comes off tough and resolute even when weeping with despair. It'll be a challenging role for her, so thank god/dess she has years of evolution on her side.

(If you're interested in reading more about Evolutionary Psychology, I highly recommend Robert Wright's The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology.)

Senatorial Debate

First, the big news:

Judith O’Dea, who played the iconic role of “Barbara” in George A. Romero’s 1968 horror classic, Night of the Living Dead, has signed on to play Senator Gayle Hamlin in Women’s Studies.

Allow me to take a moment and totally geek out.

. . .

There. Much better.

O'Dea's character, Gayle Hamlin, is A U.S. senator whose party affiliation has conveniently been made ambiguous. (Who wrote this movie?) She's strong willed, a fighter who's passionate and believes that the world can be made a better place.

"Kind of like Hillary, right?"

Well, not exactly, though that's the comparison everybody wants to make. I don't want to get too political here. I like Hillary a lot. I think she exhibited class, dignity, and poise during Bill's embarrassing "interlude." I also think she has the ideas, drive, and thick skin it takes to lead this crazy, beautiful nation I call home. Plus, I'm of the mind that some positive feminine energy in our leadership is exactly what the world needs. However, there's something mildly androgynous and a little fake about Hillary that rubs me the wrong the way. Like she's a Stepford Wife programmed in 1994, except instead of being the perfect housewife, she's the perfect mouthpiece for her (male) political and (male) corporate overlords. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am. Only time will tell though, right?

I liken the character of Hamlin more to someone like Ralph Nader, who's been down in the trenches trying to clean the system up. Politically, Hamlin is championing causes that a lot of her fellow politicians simply could care less about. In Hamlin's case, they are issues of women's rights. Also, Hamlin has been diagnosed with breast cancer and a lot of her colleagues think she's washed up politically.

Additionally, Hamlin is also mentor to the heroine of Women’s Studies, Mary (Cindy Marie Martin). Mary has been interning under Hamlin while getting her Masters degree and is prepped to join her staff full time. However, though Mary believes in Hamlin's ideals, she has some fear that her alignment with Hamlin may jeopardize her own burgeoning political career.

You'll remember from previous blogs that at the beginning of the film, Mary is caught between wanting to continue her political work for Hamlin and acquiescing to the desire of her boyfriend, Zack, to settle down and start a family. Hamlin is one of Mary's possible futures, and the first one the audience is exposed to in the film. She's everything Mary wants to be and is afraid of being.

It's a vital role in that Hamlin's presence is felt even when she's not on screen. So it seemed appropriate that we cast someone with a commanding presence. Judith O'Dea fits the role perfectly.

I could rattle on about Night of the Living Dead, Barbara, and the influence that character has on not just the women of Women's Studies but ALL horror movie heroines, but I think it's simply an understood part of the equation at this point. That we still talk about it today is all the proof you need that O'Dea's performance in that film was of the highest caliber.

O'Dea is still an amazing actress. If you don't believe me, pick up a copy of Jason Paul Collum's October Moon in which O'Dea plays the conservative matriarch of a married man who suddenly realizes he's gay. She only has a few scenes but they're gripping, with all the intensity, vigor and passion she had in her twenties, perhaps even more so because those traits are tempered with experience and wisdom.

"They're coming to get you, Barbara?" I think these days Barbara is ready.

Mary's Confession

I've talked briefly about Mary in a previous blog entry, Married to "Mary." However, now that we've had a little analysis of the supporting characters, I wouldn't mind taking a deeper look at her. After all, Women's Studies, if nothing else, is the story of Mary and the physical, spiritual, and emotional journey she takes through some very strange countryside.

I believe that story should trump all other aspects of a film, be it theme, style, symbolism, etc. The most important thing I need to convey is "What is this about?" I was taught that story, more than being a series of interconnected events, is a chunk of the main character's life. In this case, we're following along with part of Mary's life. The particular chunk of her life I'm focusing on is that weird time she got trapped at a school run by a cult of homicidal feminists.

There comes a point where "who a character is" has to be decided more by the actor than the writer or director. Certain elements already exist in the script, and the director is there to help guide the character through the world he/she is trying to create. However, I think it's more important for the actor to in many cases decide things like motivation and emotion. After all, having to inhabit these characters, the actors are the ones who know these people best.

That said, Cindy Marie Martin and I have had a few chances to talk about who Mary is and why she makes some of her choices. I thought rather than have me talk about who Mary is, it might be more informative to have Cindy do it.

There's probably a couple of spoilers in here, but I think they're vague and minor.

Lonnie:
What would you say is Mary's overriding character trait?

Cindy:
"Nie-iv-a-tay." She believes so strongly in her convictions that she can't understand why other people aren't as passionate as she is. Mary is an optimistic person with a really good heart, and she sees other people through her "humanity is good" glasses. In doing so, she blinds herself to people's faults.

Lonnie:
Sounds kind of "goody-two shoes."

Cindy:
Ew. "Goody-two shoes" is such a stereotype. Mary is a rounded character, a person. That's what I love about her. Everyone knows a Mary. She has a good heart, loads of determination, believes the best in people no matter what they throw at her, and thinks that she can make a difference. (Insert cheesy music here.) But, (dun, dun, dunnnnn) she is also jealous of her best friend's relationship with her own boyfriend which indicates some insecurity beneath her happy little exterior. She chooses to side with strangers instead of listening to her best friend when she tries to talk to her about the weirdness of the situation they're in. She's managed to get herself into a pregnancy that she doesn't want. Finally, (Spoiler Alert) though she loves Zack, she's not real sure that he's "the one" and has no earthly clue how to straighten out her confusion, being too chicken to approach him with her fears and concerns and talk it through like mature adults. She has complex emotions and dirty little secrets just like everyone else in this film. Just like life.

Lonnie:
Interesting. When I was writing Mary, I envisioned her as a sort of "Everyman." You think people will respond to her as such?

Cindy:
Yes, I do. She's a good person who has her faults with hard choices in a really sucky situation. One thing that makes the film so attractive to the actresses involved (excuse me while I speak for us all for a moment) is the fact that it has so many well rounded female roles. But, let's be honest. The bad aspects of the Academy Girls are exaggerated. Mary is closest to a person you'd meet on the street. She's not overly evil. She's not completely perfect. She's just a person thrown into hell who has to react.

Lonnie:
Talk a bit about where Mary is at the beginning of the film.

Cindy:
She's just found out that she's pregnant. She's confused. She wants a career in Washington and her boss, Senator Hamlin, has told her that she has one if she wants it. But, a baby doesn't fit in with a high powered career forcing change for women. She's not sure she wants to stay with her boyfriend, Zack, and has no idea how to end it. Further confusion. Zack doesn't truly respect her desire for a career. He wants kids and a wife at home. In his own way of only hearing what he wants to hear, (similar to Mary's condition), he doesn't listen to her when she repeatedly tells him that's not what she wants. She's craving a solution to her problems. And she finds it. In Judith, et al.

Lonnie:
But what Judith and Ross-Prentiss offer Mary isn't a real solution, at least not the right one.

Cindy:
The solution they offer her isn't the dogma they preach. It's the friendship. Mary is confused and feels not listened to. Judith and her clan are more than attentive. They listen to Mary's views. They even "gasp" agree with them. Judith shows undivided best-friend-like attention to Mary without any ugly past connections to her boyfriend. Unlike Beth. It's a solution to her insecurity problem. She fits in. She's valued. The Academy Girls keep Zack away from her so she doesn't even have to focus on that mess. She doesn't realize the extent of their "solution" until she's really trapped. When her eyes are opened, she doesn't just sign right up for their army. She fights.

Lonnie:
There seems to be a strange attraction between Mary and Judith. Explain it from Mary's point of view.

Cindy:
I think Mary is captivated by Judith's authority. She commands the respect of all these powerful, (she thinks) tuned in women, and yet has a warmth to her that appeals to Mary's "humanity is good" side. Remember, that at the beginning, Judith isn't showing Mary her killer side. She's wooing her. Mary is falling in love with her in a platonic way. Judith is taking over Beth's role in her life. Judith does have some romantic infatuation with Mary, but I don't think Mary sees it until Judith makes it obvious. (Again, naive.) Then, at that point, I think Mary is so confused over Zack and her love life that she's willing to give anything a try. I haven't worked with Tara yet, so I don't know exactly how things between Mary and Judith are going to shape up.

Lonnie:
Any final thoughts?

Cindy:
Mary is a facinating young woman. She lives her life making herself an element of constructive, peaceful change. Then, she's thrown into this bizarro world of feminism led by Judith whose ideals and desires mirror Mary's in almost every way- except for the method of implimentation. Suddenly, harmony and integration are no longer valued. Judith leads a cult of otherwise intelligent women forcing change through violence while preaching about the Goddess. Anyone smell the stench of irony? What factor pushed the Academy Girls over the edge into terrorism and will Mary fall victim in order to save herself and her convictions?...(Insert techno fight music here.) That and honestly... I just can't wait to start shooting. I want to get on set with the other actors and discover who this woman really is. For Womens Studies to succeed in playing the extreme, man-hating, homicidal feminist and show how outrageous that is, Mary has to be a grounded, believable person the audience identifies with. No pressure, right?

A Spiritual Definition

(*Since there's no qualms about it on this one, here's your big, fat SPOILER WARNING: If you don't want to know a major plot point about Women's Studies, do not read this blog.*)

A supporting character like Melissa inherently creates problems. If you write "by the book," which none of the best writers ever do, the job of supporting characters is to inform us about the main character; what my communications professor defined as "symbolic interactionism." In other words, the similarities or differences Melissa has to the main character, Mary, are what defines her. (Mary, not Melissa. Do you hate me yet? It gets worse.)

Melissa, however, has very little direct interaction with Mary. In fact, Melissa spends most of her screen time, when she's not killing people, with Iris. If you'll allow me to invent a literary term out of thin air, Melissa is what I would call a "Tercerary Character." It breaks down like this: Mary is the "Primary Character." Iris, is the "Secondary Character" who informs the audience about Mary. Melissa is the "Tercerary Character" who informs us about Iris, who in turn is informing us about Mary. So, Melissa's effect on our view of Iris in turn effects our view of Mary.

What exactly am I trying to say here? Isn't it clear?

Of all the characters in Women's Studies, Melissa has changed the most from her original inception. In the original draft, she was purely and simply dumb; not just run of the mill dumb either. We're talking dumber than a bag of rocks. There's no nice way to say it. She said dumb things. She did dumb things. I'd like to tell you that her antics were comedy gold of the highest karat. I'd also like to tell you that a little green fairy will come to you in the night and bring you candy and flowers.

Melissa's original role was little more than padding out the academy girls' numbers and comic relief, if you're the type of person who finds dumb, blonde jokes funny. Later, when I introduced Iris into the story, Melissa stayed dumb, except it didn't quite work anymore. Why? Well, if Melissa is dumb and Iris is naive, isn't that kind of like the blond leading the blind? ("Bum-Dum-Chh!" Thank you, I'll be here all night.)

So, Melissa had to evolve, and I wasn't exactly sure what she should evolve into. My first idea (or second idea, depending on your point of view.) was to have her be exceptionally, unbelievably heartless. Perhaps, of all the academy girls, Melissa was the only one who was truly evil. If Diane was in it for the cause and Judith was in it for the passion, Melissa was in it for the kicks. She doesn't care about liberating womankind or finding herself. She just wants to create chaos. In a way, she was the "anti-frat boy:" "Let's get drunk and kill some fuckers!" Ultimately, I decided that since Melissa's primary goal was to convert Iris to the cause, this interp wasn't the best, since Iris would probably be more frightened than seduced by someone so blatantly cruel.

My next idea was to make Melissa very trendy, immature, and obsessed with beauty, the kind of girl who was afraid of stabbing too hard for fear of breaking a nail. The problem was, this just didn't seem to fit into the world I created. If she was that vain and shallow, would Melissa really give a shit about any kind of social revolution?

For auditions, I tried Melissa as stoner though that just seemed to be doing "dumb" from a different angle. I got a lot of Keanu Reeves impressions, and while it was entertaining, most of the girls exaggerated it horribly. During one woman's audition (who ironically enough didn't end up getting the role) I got a "new age" spiritual vibe I hadn't seen before. Suddenly, the picture of who Melissa was began to fall into shape.

If Iris comes from a strict Christian background, it stands to serve that it would be spiritual ideas that would pull her away from that. Melissa sees the Ross-Prentiss dogma as a spiritual path encompassing all the universe and it's energy, the future matriarchy as the patriarchy's bad karma coming back around, and the killing as a present physical sacrifice being made for the greater good of a balanced spiritual future. Of all the academy girls, I think Melissa is the happiest and most comfortable with the heinous acts she performs because she understands that without the knowledge of darkness, we could never understand or even recognize the light.

To say that Tiffany James, who's playing Melissa, has her hands full is something of an understatement. The character, while now on more solid footing than before, still has some evolution to endure. However, I think it needs an actor more than a writer to feed it. I also think Tiffany understands the balance between light and dark, and the importance of walking both paths because she seems to have done so. There's some elusive quality in her that's wild yet also wise. It's going to be interesting to see how those qualities show themselves in Melissa.

Queen of the Damned

(*NOTE: More than any other character, Judith is tough to talk about without giving away certain story elements. Though I've couched spoilers in the vaguest terms, if you're avoiding them, you may want to skip this one.*)

"Once upon a time, Mary, the Good Witch, and her companions were traveling through a dark and enchanted forest. There she met Judith, the Dark Enchantress, and her coven of wicked witches who with the promise of freedom and love, lured Mary and her friends back to their lair . . ."

While I like to try to boil Women's Studies down to the above fairy tale essence, it's really not that black and white. Sure there's purity and light, represented by Mary. There's also violence and darkness which as the script nears its climax becomes represented by Judith. However, there's a lot of grey area as well, places where the difference between light and dark, right and wrong is not so clear cut. You see, both Mary and Judith are fallen angels. They both have secrets; Mary's which causes her fall, and Judith's which shows how she fell.

With the character of Judith, I fully acknowledge the archetype (stereotype?) of the "Bad Witch," a woman of power who due to some negative emotion, uses her powers for ill instead of good. The Evil Queen in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and the Evil Fairy in Sleeping Beauty, both consumed by jealousy, come to mind. (Also, Rapunzel, Cinderella, and a list of any other Grimm's fairy tale which describes a cruel matriarch.) The ultimate expression of the "Bad Witch" (Which, lets be honest, created the modern stereotype) is the Wicked Witch of the West from the film version of The Wizard of Oz who, after the accidental death of her sister, promises a swift and cruel revenge on Dorothy of Kansas. (And her little dog too!)

Thankfully, Judith is not so over the top as Margaret Hamilton cackling "I'll get you my pretty," in her cronish, green make-up. (However, do not interpret "over the top" as "ineffectual.") Still, the basic elements of the "Bad Witch" are alive and well in her. It's negative emotions, vengeance, jealousy, pride, and above all, loneliness that drive Judith to commit her wicked deeds. Also, as often happens with the "Bad Witch," she takes on a different form to seduce the naive heroine. Judith's transformation isn't physical, but it's there all the same. (I cast Judith as a redhead, because in medieval times, red hair was a sure sign a woman was in league with the devil . . . just in case no one had a duck handy.)

Lastly, though nothing overtly supernatural occurs in Women's Studies, I imply on more than one occasion that Judith has somehow survived her own death. But as we all know, there's always a price for such a feat. Judith you see, is like Medusa, the Gorgon, once beautiful and loved, now a monster and alone. We can't see the monster, but we know it's there. SHE knows it's there, and she thinks that with Mary's help, she can defeat this monster and restore the real Judith. The problem is that the real Judith is already dead. The damned can't get out of their deal with the devil.

From this standpoint, Women's Studies becomes a tragic love story between Mary and Judith. They both think that each other's redemption, forgiveness for their dark secrets, lies within the other, but Mary soon finds that to not be the case. Only then does their relationship become black and white, for if Mary won't walk Judith's path, Judith cannot allow her to walk any other. They become each other's nemesis; light and dark, Athena and Medusa, the Goddess of Light and the Queen of the Damned.

When I first conceived of Judith, I envisioned her as a "femme fatale," dark, sexy, and deadly serious. She was originally written as your stereotypical, dark haired, pouty lipped villainess. I realized quickly that she was neither scary nor funny, but just kind of there, a villain whose only purpose was to serve the plot because every story of this sort needs a bad guy, or in this case, bad girl.

When Tara Garwood read for Judith, I realized how humorless I had conceived the character. It's okay though, because Tara knew that Judith, though scary, is also a little bit funny; a ball of contradictions, intertwined in a bundle of nervous, expressive, yet frightening energy; like the love child of a tryst between Squeaky Fromme and Freddy Krueger. Kind of a funny image, no?

Then again, I wouldn't want their kid sitting next to mine in kindergarten.

More on Tara at www.taragarwood.com

Razor Blade Butterfly

On February 4, 1974, Patty Hearst, granddaughter of newspaper czar, William Randolph Hearst, was kidnapped and held for ransom by the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), a radical group who claimed to be a huge army dedicated to fighting "fascist Amerika" but was in reality a handful of "guerillas" led by one Donald DeFreeze, an escaped felon. Two months later on April 15, Hearst was photographed wielding a fully automatic M1 Carbine while helping Defreeze and company hold up a bank in San Francisco.

If you're unfamiliar with the case, the question on the tip of your tongue has to be, "What the hell happened in between February and April?"

According to Hearst in her horribly written biography, Every Secret Thing, she was cocooned in a closet for six weeks where she was sexually assaulted and brainwashed into thinking the SLA really stood for something more than DeFreeze trying to get some more of his prison buddies out of the joint. Other folks claim she suffered from "Stockholm Syndrome" where an individual in a hostage situation begins to sympathize with their captors. (Named after a bank robbery gone wrong in Stockholm, Sweden where just that happened.)

After a shootout which killed most of the SLA (including DeFreeze) and another bank robbery, Patty Hearst was captured by police, tried and convicted of armed robbery and served three years in prison before Jimmy Carter commuted her sentence. (She was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton.) The general consensus seems to be that Hearst was brainwashed by the SLA, and couldn't be held completely responsible for her actions. Today, when not acting in films by John Waters, Patty Hearst lives in Connecticut with her family. I suspect the truth of what happened in the two months between her kidnapping and the bank robbery in San Francisco is lost even to her.

My fascination with Patty Hearst, cults, and brainwashing pops up in Women's Studies through the character of Iris, who at the beginning of the story is an unhappy, insecure girl whose conservative, religious father treats her and her mother like pets. Though still working out Iris's visual look, it will definitely communicate that the girl is lonely, beaten down, and friendless. Her self-esteem is so low as to be almost non-existent. The root cause of her esteem issues is a fear of being forever misunderstood that borders on total despair.

I think one fear that is universal is the fear of being alone, not just physically alone, but feeling that no one else understands, relates, or cares. After all, when we lay down at night and close our eyes, the truly solitary nature of human existence becomes apparent. Even if a person is in the bed beside you, it's still just you in your head with all those dreams, wants and fears... especially the fears. In my more pessimistic moments, I've let myself believe that any sense of community, togetherness, or connectedness is just an illusion, a mental construct to keep individual humans from destroying themselves or each other.

When fear and confusion is all encompassing, it's easy to follow instead of lead, to find someone to guide us and show us what to do, even who to be. This is where we find Iris, searching for an identity, for someone to be. Anyone but who she thinks she is will do. She sees a leader in Mary, who taught her in an Intro to Women's Studies class. She's attracted to Mary's strength and beauty, but I believe that's secondary to the fact that Mary is kind to her, unlike her father or any of her peers. Iris is like a hungry caterpillar, and Mary feeds her a steady diet of confidence. However, Mary is older and consumed with her own issues. Besides, the unpopular kid in school is only friends with the teacher because the "cool kids" his own age want nothing to do with him.

Once at Ross-Prentiss, the "cool kids," in particular Melissa, come to Iris with acceptance. They begin to feed this hungry caterpillar with revolutionary ideas about self worth, and power, and a society that has created her insecurities. They offer a new world, a solution to her problems, and even vengeance on those who have slighted her. Scary maybe, but who cares? They make Iris feel pretty, important, and loved. That love above all things is key, because it blinds Iris into thinking the cocoon she's wrapped herself in is full of life, but it's not. It's putrid and rotten. Despite this, the pupa still lives, and the creature that eventually emerges from it, though beautiful, is deadly and destructive: a butterfly with razor blade wings.

A little bit Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris with some Manson girl and of course, Patty Hearst, thrown in for good measure, finding an actor to portray Iris's transformation was something of a challenge. Still, we think Laura Bloechl (pronounced "BLAY-KEL") is up for the job. Mostly soft spoken and fun loving, she's also capable of going to Iris's darker and more extreme places, which if I can say so, kind of freaks me out a little.

I hope it does you too.

Artemic Bomb

In Women's Studies, the character of Diane spends much of the film silent. However, there's a scene where she's about to do something rather nasty to another character. This individual asks Diane about her lack of verbosity, to which she responds with the following line of telling dialogue:

"I just choose not to most of the time. There's an awful lot of talking that goes on. Most of it isn't worth a damn. Besides, I like action more than words."

Diane is perhaps the scariest character in Women's Studies. First off, she's physically imposing. (Kelley Slagle, the actor playing Diane, clocks in at around six feet.) In many scenes, her main purpose is to use her size to intimidate others. In earlier drafts, that's all she did. Well, that and kill people. However creepy, it makes for a pretty one-dimensional character.

Contemplating Diane eventually helped me organize how the leadership hierarchy of the Ross-Prentiss cult is structured. While Judith is nominally regarded as the "ringleader" of the academy girls, it's Diane who actually holds the real power within the political and spiritual structure of the cult. Though the religion the women practice is a paganism of my own invention, it's structured not too differently from Catholicism. (And it really has more in common with the more war obsessed patriarchal religions than any religions which worship the feminine divine.) Diane is like a low-level priestess, and about to cross over to a life and "mission" outside the school. At one point, some of this was articulated in the script, but it convoluted things, so I jettisoned it.

To me, Diane is just as scary for what she represents as she is her physical presence, perhaps even more so. She is zealotry personified, a living embodiment of the cause she believes in, and code she lives by. To her, the goal of a total fascist matriarchy isn't just a mad vision. It's destiny, the only future possibility that exists. And if murder on a massive level is the only way to make that future, so be it. There is no debating with her. There is no reasoning with her. She is unswayable and merciless. Like the suicide bombers boldly running into nightclubs and blowing themselves up for some cause or another, her allegiance to her dogma is total.

The character was named Diane after Wonder Woman's alter ego. However, "Diane" is also the Roman name for the Greek Goddess Artemis, who is often regarded as the protector of those more vulnerable than she. (Also, Artemis is known as the "feminist" goddess.) The Diane of Women's Studies fulfils that role, keeping a close eye on Zack, the male interloper who finds himself at Ross-Prentiss. Funny enough, Artemis is also goddess of the hunt.

I've had the chance recently to spend some time with actor Kelley Slagle while in a stage production of Night of the Living Dead. In many ways she's nothing like Diane, but I've seen Diane's most frightening trait, the pleasure she takes in freaking you out, show it's face. Backstage, we're supposed to constantly make "zombie" noises in order to keep up the illusion that the stage is surrounded by zombies. During the show, Kelley stands beside me, hooks her hand into a claw, and scrapes her fingernails across a wall, creating a high pitched, "nails on a chalkboard" sound. I put my hands to my ears when she does this, to which Kelley always smiles manically and proceeds to pull her nails across the wood again.

Kind of scary, eh?

More on Kelley at www.cavegirl.com.

"Beth" in Show

(NOTE: I'm trying to be very cautious of "spoilers" in my blog entries. However, I think I really toe the line on this one, so if you're keeping yourself in the dark on story elements of Women's Studies, you may want to skip it. You've been warned.)

"Beth, I hear you callin'
But I can't come home right now.
Me and the 'girls' are playin'
And we just can't find the sound."
--"Beth," KISS

I had to alter the KISS lyrics a bit. Gene Simmons, I beg your forgiveness, though to be honest, "Beth" is a bit dated. The whole glam ballad deal sounds pretty sub-par to these 21st century ears. Maybe Paris Hilton should do a remake. (I don't think my inbox is prepared for the leagues of hate mail I could receive from the "KISS Army" for that last comment.)

But I digress.

In the original forty-page draft of Women's Studies, there were only two interlopers: Mary (originally named Amy) and her boyfriend, Zack. Mary, instead of being intrigued and enamored by the women of the Ross-Prentiss Women's Academy, was acutely aware that something is rotten in Denmark at this particular college. As Mary's journey shifted into one that's more emotional and philosophical, I realized I still needed a character to act as a foil to the academy girls and Mary's fascination with them.

Enter Beth: "the best friend," stage right.

Perhaps "foil" is the wrong term unless we're talking about Beth's relationship with Iris, Mary's insecure student who also becomes seduced by the world of Ross-Prentiss. (Iris or Mary; whatever the case, this ain't Shakespeare.) However, Beth provides balance. If Mary is caught in her confusion of whether or not to join the Academy girls, Iris and Beth are the opposite terminals of that confusion. At Ross-Prentiss, Iris thinks she's found something which has been missing in her life. Beth, of course, falls squarely on the side of, "This school ain't cool."

Beth shoots from the hip and calls it as she sees it. To me, that confident, "Take no bullshit" attitude is her overriding character trait. Her sarcasm provides much of the humor in the script. In the earlier feature drafts, Beth's role was smaller, but I realized that much of the humor kind of slipped away when she wasn't around.

Plus, Beth is supposed to be Mary's best friend, right? If your best friend tells you that she thinks the school you're at is filled with homicidal cultists, you're going to at least hear her out. Unless maybe that friendship sits on some shaky fault lines. What if the uncomfortable tension between Zack and Mary, is countered by tension that's a bit more comfortable between Zack and Beth? I created a back story in which Beth and Mary had both dated Zack, but he eventually chose to be with Mary. Now, as Mary's emotional compass shifts towards Judith, will Zack's shift towards Beth?

"Like sand through the hourglass . . ."

I could go on, but I don't want Melisa Breiner-Sanders, the actor playing Beth, to go too far with all this before we've sat down with the script and done some proper table work. That's "MAY-LEE-SA," by the way. "Melissa" is bound to give you a sarcastic eyebrow raise that explains exactly why she got the role. More on Melisa can be found at www.MelisaBS.com.

Married to "Mary"

As well as being the writer and director of Women's Studies, I'm also one of two co-producers. The other co-producer is Cindy Marie Martin, who not only is playing the lead role of "Mary," but is also my wife.

I know what you're going to ask. "Did she get the role by sleeping with the director?" I'll get to that shortly. (heh-heh)

Say "husband/wife producing team" to a group of people and you're likely to get a bunch of different reactions. Surprisingly enough, a lot of big film studios and distributors see it as a selling point for an indie with no big names attached. Before I was married, I found the idea a little too cutesy. There was something just uncool about it. Mom and Pop convenience store? Sounds awesome. Mom and Pop film company? Thanks, but I'll pass.

It works though. At least for us it does. We've co-produced two short films together, and both were pretty successful as far as the production itself went. More importantly, we came away from both experiences still liking each other. I won't dare to speak for her, but I like her even more now than I did before we did the films. Why does the Lonnie & Cindy Marie Martin producer team work? A few reasons I think.

First, we both come from theatre backgrounds. We met as actors at a Shakespeare festival, and a rule we both have followed from the day we met is, "Keep your personal life out of the theater." Cindy and I try very hard to keep the filmmaking out of the relationship and the relationship out of the filmmaking. Does the line blur every once in a while? Very rarely, and even then, only when we're alone. That's pretty much inevitable because part of indie filmmaking is not having any set hours, but kind of working on it all the time.

Hey, there's the second reason we work as a producer team. We know (mostly) when to put the movie biz away. If we go on vacation, so does the movie. Being a filmmaker is awesome, but sometimes you just have to be a person too. If you had ice cream all the time, it wouldn't be as sweet would it? Besides, distance lends perspective. Can I pull any other clichés out of my ass? You just watch me.

The biggest reason it works is communication, and knowing who's doing what. For example, Cindy handles the marketing side of things, and while she certainly welcomes my input, she makes most of the big decisions. I handle a lot of the business and legal research, and while she has a definite voice, she never tells me how to do it. We talk out the pros and cons of different production aspects and make the decision that best suits the film. If we can't agree on something, we try to find a way to meet in the middle. If we reach a stalemate, that whole "distance lends perspective" deal usually puts things right.

Now that I think about it, film production and marriage aren't too different. Both take hard work, diplomacy, communication, compromise, and sex. Okay, you don't always have sex in movies. Come to think of it, marriage can be like that too.

Which leads us back to the question: Did Cindy get the lead role in Women's Studies just because she was my wife?

The answer of course is, "No," but don't think for a second I didn't try to pull that whole "casting couch romance" thing.

As we considered our first feature project, Cindy more than I thought Women's Studies was the most marketable of all the concepts I had in my repertoire. She wanted to play Mary, and after having sat in the backseat on other projects, as least acting wise, felt she'd earned it . I did too. However, when I first wrote the script, I had a very different idea of who Mary should be. The character was more hard edged, cynical, and distrustful, more like what now is the character of "Beth" in the script, all the things Cindy is not. I know, it's called "acting," but I had a hard time putting Cindy in a role so out of character.

Then as I begin to let the personality traits, her sweetness, sensitivity, stubborn resolve, and understated darkness, start to inform Mary. I realized what the Women's Studies story was missing as a whole was a heart and soul. There was nothing to care about. All of a sudden, not only Mary, but the entire script began to take new shape. Soon, I realized nobody but Cindy could play the role, because in essence, she was Mary.

Besides, she's hot, looks good with a tennis racket, and can shriek louder than a banshee. All horror movies need that.

More on Cindy at http://www.cindymariemartin.com/ .