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.)

Sex is Violence

***BEWARE! SPOILERS AHEAD!***

Towards the end of Women's Studies, Mary (Cindy Marie Martin) becomes aware of the deadly agenda of Ross-Prentiss Women's Academy. Soon, she realizes escape is only possible if she makes a stand and fights against the Academy Girls including Diane (Kelley Slagle) and Judith (Tara Garwood).

The "Duel of the Goddesses" as I've come to call it is the climax of Women's Studies on most levels. For Mary, it's the time where she finds her own inner strength, her resolution, and her will to truly stand on her own.

Yet it's also the physical culmination of Mary's relationship with Judith. Throughout the film, their friendship has undertones of something much deeper, and despite that fact that fate has turned them into rivals, that emotional and sexual energy finds an outlet in their physical confrontation. The idea I've always reiterated was while it looks like a fight scene, the Duel of the Goddesses is really a sex scene.

Cindy Marie Martin and Tara Garwood rehearsed for weeks under the tutelage of Fight Choreographer Shanna Beauchamp to perfect the elegant yet brutal fight moves for the scene. Once at the location, they endured unforgiving mountain terrain including sharp rocks and embedded roots. Despite those obstacles they, along with Kelley Slagle, gave nothing less than their all.

The Ningen Manga gremlins have finally started to give up and production ran the smoothest it has yet. Our biggest issue was being about thirty miles from an airport and having to wait for planes to pass so they wouldn't interfere with sound. Being a weekend, planes would come by at five and sometimes even two minute intervals. Our windows were short, but we managed.

Stephanie Petagno's costume and make-up designs were also on full display during this shoot. Though I think the actors did part of her job for her with the various cuts, scrapes and bruises they got while shooting. The combination of real and fake injuries is going to make this scene something really special.

Since we shot for three days, I've including sixteen pics taken over the course of the weekend. Enjoy.



Director Lonnie Martin, Fight Choreographer Shanna Beauchamp, and Sound Engineer Sean Russell survey the location.




Camera Operator Thomas Fant stalks Kelley Slagle (Diane) as she touches up her make-up.




Boom Operator Kevin Nowak sets up.




Joey Cabrera applies FX make-up to Kelley Slagle (Diane) while Shanna Beauchamp looks on.




Lonnie Martin and Art Director Stephanie Petagno discuss the look of the scene.




Stephanie Petagno's make-up arsenal.




DP Aaron Shirley and Thomas Fant work out how to shoot Cindy Marie Martin (Mary) with Lonnie Martin.




Sean Russell listens as another plane flies through.




Breaking for Lunch.




Shanna Beauchamp, Stephanie Petagno, and Tara Garwood (Judith) share a joke in between shots.




Weapons of choice?




Lonnie Martin and Aaron Shirley work with Cindy Marie Martin and Tara Garwood on a zip-line shot.




Cast and Crew watch a shot on playback.




Tara Garwood and Shanna Beauchamp talk over choreography.




Getting ready to shoot a scene.




Cindy Marie Martin, Shanna Beauchamp, and Tara Garwood celebrate the payoff for weeks of hard work.

Graveyard of the Goddess

On Saturday, we shot one of my favorite scenes in Women's Studies, the "Graveyard of the Goddess" scene.

It's an intimate scene in which Judith (Tara Garwood) introduces Mary (Cindy Marie Martin) to a sacred place on the campus of Ross-Prentiss Women's Academy, a stone circle where centuries before women were burned as witches. To Judith, it's a place to seek guidance, something she senses Mary could use. Once there, Judith explains her theory of why the sexes will never be equal and Mary opens up about her troubles with her boyfriend Zack (James A. Radack).

It was a good day. For the first time, I got to see Art Director Stephanie Petagno's Academy Girl uniform in action. Plus, after threatening to dump rain on us all week, we were gifted with "just right" temperatures and sunshine. We got some great footage, and Cindy and Tara did a couple of "one-take wonders" which was awesome to behold.

Some of the Ningen Manga technical gremlins still plagued us, but these particular problems helped us figure out solutions for some long standing bugs we hope to implement on this Friday's shoot. So I guess everything happens for a reason.

Below are some pics from the shoot. Enjoy



First AC Jim Housell and Camera Operator Thomas Fant prep the jib for the day's first shot.




Director Lonnie Martin gives some final direction before a shot rolls.




Adam Schreck gets ready to slate as Boom Operator Kevin Nowak and Actors Cindy Marie Martin (Mary) and Tara Garwood (Judith) look on.




Lonnie Martin consults with Sound Engineer Sean Russell.




Kurt Gustafson keeps everyone on schedule.




Cindy Marie Martin (Mary) and Tara Garwood (Judith) take direction for the scene.




Lonnie Martin and DP Aaron Shirley make sure the shot is right before rolling.




Shooting a scene from Women's Studies.

First Session

Today we kicked off the first day of production on Women's Studies, which if I may be allowed a brief moment of self-congratulation was a great success.

Don't get me wrong, conditions were less than optimal. The Ningen Manga gremlins indeed showed their ugly faces. We were shorthanded on crew. Lighting conditions weren't the most ideal. (Director of Photography Aaron Shirley commented that he felt like he was shooting underwater.) Yet none of that is what defined the day. In fact, the day was defined by how we overcame the obstacles put in front of us.

Plus, it was just a blast to be shooting on location. This is what all the lead up has been for . . . to get out there and create something.

I'm going to go ahead and let some of the pictures we took speak for the day, but a big shout out to the cast, crew, and extras who showed up and gave 110% today.

Here's to the beginning . . .



DP Aaron Shirley and Camera Operator Thomas Fant set up the jib for "Mary's Reveal."




Sound crew Sean Russell and Kevin Nowak always get the best spots to hang out in.




Director Lonnie Martin and DP Aaron Shirley review a shot on playback.




Adam Schreck slates a shot.




Cindy Marie Martin (Mary) prepares for the scene.




Director Lonnie Martin works with actors Cindy Marie Martin, Danielle Dike, and Sami Bashore.




Shooting a scene from Women's Studies.

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.

Casting & Rehearsals

Did some additional casting this week as well as started rehearsals. First day of shooting is only TWO WEEKS away.

More to come.

48 Hours of Madness

This past weekend, Ningen Manga Productions participated in the Washington DC 48 Hour Film Project, a competition where filmmaking teams are given a genre, prop, character, and line of dialogue and have to make a film containing those elements in a 48 hour period. Sounds like madness? It is.

Because of Women's Studies, I hadn't intended on NMP doing the 48HFP this year. However, Cindy convinced me that a) It would be a good chance to field test the Women's Studies gear and crew in a time sensitive situation and b) that it would be a good creative outlet that would be a hell of a lot of fun, and notch up our enthusiasm for Women's Studies. I'm happy to report she was correct on both counts.



I have to say, it really is a fantastic crew of creative individuals Cindy and I have assembled. This weekend wasn't easy by any means, but it was never problematic. The personalities mix well and any obstacle was met head on and dealt with quickly and smoothly. We all seem to communicate well and are on the way to building the kind of trust that's integral to a project the size of Women's Studies.



Anyway, the 48 Hour Film Project . . . So our genre was drama, which is good because it's really open ended, but also bad because, well, it's really open ended. The night before when brainstorming more difficult genres like sci-fi, I had come up with this idea about a guy who buys a robot and wants it to love him. I told Cindy about it and she really liked it. The next night after we drew drama, she was like, "We should do that robot thing."

So, I did. Friday night, I wrote a thirteen page script which was great, the problem being, your 48HFP film can be no longer than seven minutes long. Following the "one page of script = one minute of film" rule, we were six minutes over. So, we chopped. A group of mass murderers (Aaron Shirley, Kurt Gustafson, Jim Housell, and my own wife) proceeded to kill my darlings and got the script down to a leaner eight-and-a-half pages.

Deadline was 7:30pm, Sunday evening. The clock was ticking. We slept for about four hours. The next morning, we got up bright and early, caffeinated heavily, and drove to our first location, an office building.

A quick word about the the Ningen Manga gremlins. They like to make their presence felt. It's not a Ningen Manga Production unless there's some weird unexplainable technical snafu during the first set-up. This time, it was a weird audio issue with the DV Rack monitoring system we were using. We worked it out, but I'm getting gremlin repellent before the first Women's Studies shoot.



After we finished the office shoot, we headed back to our second location, the basement of my house, shoveled down some pizza, and began to shoot the core of the movie. Around this time, we hit a strange sort of serenity that was magical. For whatever reason, any pressure from the time crunch I felt disappeared and we started moving at a steady pace yet still had time to explore the ideas we wanted as well as get the shots and sound right. It was pretty cool.

Around 1:00am we wrapped inside and headed outside to shoot our big emotional climax. It was chilly, even with the lights, but we got the best shots we could considering how dog tired we were. At 4:00am, we headed over to my brother-in-law's house, woke him up. (He had no idea we were coming.), and shot our final scene.

If you think we then started editing, you're crazy. We had BEEN editing since we started shooting. Aaron Shirley had been working in tandem with us. We'd shoot some footage, dump it to him to edit, and then shoot some more. The rough cut of the film was finished about thirty minutes after we shot the last scene.



Aaron and I spent the next four hours tweaking and shaving, as well as finding the right rhythms and tone. It was a lot of ideas we were trying to shove into a short film, maybe too much, but it was too late for such considerations now. We were less than twelve hours away from the deadline.

Around 11:00am, we got the final picture lock FTPed to the sound and music guys. (Our Composer, Ryan Sayward Whittier, had been working on music since Friday.) They scrambled to match up the recorded sound, put in sound FX, sweeten the mix, and set it all down.

At 5:00pm, we left with the sound mix, raced back to the editor and slapped it together. There was a moment of panic when we had trouble burning out the whole thing to DVD. It worked out, finally, and Cindy drove us into DC at a speed of roughly a trillion miles per hour.

Thankfully we got our film in on time, with eighteen minutes to spare.

The film is called Posi+ive. It takes place in a not-so-distant future where a ban on sex and marriage is placed on HIV positive individuals. In response, a biotech industry selling life-like robot "Companions" has arisen. The story follows Ian, a positive, who purchases a Companion and tries to love her, hoping she will have the capability to love him back. We'll have it online to view after the official screenings.



It was a fun weekend. I'm still recovering from the effects of sleep deprivation, but I wouldn't think of taking it back for a second. Otherwise, I wouldn't have this picture of Women Studies's own "Judith," Tara Garwood, pinching the mystical nipple of Venus.



(A big thanks to Kirk Lambert for not only being part of our 48HFP team this year, but taking all the great pictures you see in this blog.)

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.)

A Day in the Life

"I read the news today, Oh Boy . . ."

(What Beatles album is that from? Oh my God/dess, I'm only 31 and going senile! Is it Sgt. Peppers? It is, right?)

Saturday marks the first big "all hands" meeting for the Women's Studies cast and crew, and Cindy and I are scrambling to get as much done as we can.

Things are going quite well. So well, in fact, that I wish Cindy and I could hire a third co-producer to take some of the workload off our shoulders. For the record, we don't have the funds, so unless you're willing to do a lot of unceremonious grunt work for free, don't even bother sending a resume. Besides, we have a pretty good system in place. Lots of work, but we're getting things done.

It's late and if I don't hurry this up, Tuesday will be over and it'll be the Wednesday blog which would make me sad since I've prided myself on not missing one so far. To that end, I'm simply listing off my to-do list for tomorrow which in a verite, "slice of life" manner, might be sort of interesting to the layman (or woman).

Then again, maybe I'm making excuses for not having much of a blog this week. The fact is simply that everything is pretty "nuts and bolts" right now, and not the glamorous filmmaking life that everybody keeps telling me independent filmmaking is. And really, by writing a blog about the things I have to do tomorrow, I'm killing two birds with one stone.

In the morning I have six phone calls to make: Four to potential locations, one to a potential script supervisor, the last to the insurance company who's covering the Women's Studies production. Depending on how these phone calls go could define the rest of my day, but let's assume that nothing from them needs any immediate action.

Afterwards, it's off to two locations we've already secured; one for the "initiation scene," the other a very cool field of flowers for a Melissa/Iris scene. Once there, I'll take pictures for our location photo log. On the way back, I'll check the company mailbox to see if the editing software and/or hardware pieces we ordered last week have arrived.

The afternoon will get me back to "the office" where I'll answer email and dig into various items of busywork including dealing with anything from the morning's phone calls. I'm also in the midst of prepping invites and schedule for a day player audition being held in two weeks. After I've had enough of that for awhile, I'll call Aaron the DP and we'll hopefully come to a consensus on a lighting kit we're wanting to order.

By that point, it'll be the evening and I'll take a bit of a break before coming back to "the office" before bed to maybe play around with storyboards or character notes for Saturday's meeting. Or maybe I'll just watch the new Harry Potter trailer over and over until I pass out from excitement.

If I actually get all that done, it'll be a good day. Hell, if I get half of it done, it'll be all right. Rereading it all just makes me want to go to bed, which I'm going to go do now.

Sound Garden

I learned the hard way that sound can make or break a film. On my first short film, First Session, my original sound guy kind of flaked out on me, and I was left with a fast approaching deadline and virtually no soundtrack.

Thankfully, I got introduced to Sean Russell who's not only an expert at putting out audio fires, but a creative mind and sincere professional who has been a blessing to work with. He's the sound master of Women's Studies, and understands the importance of audio to the cinematic experience. Not only that, his post-audio skills are, to coin a phrase, mad.

On a production full of PC/Avid technicians, Sean is also our lone Mac operator, for which he catches a lot of good natured flak, though sometimes I think he often gets the last laugh.

As the Women's Studies shoot dates roll closer, Sean has been busy prepping his sound recording gear as well as preparing for the eventual post process. I took some time recently and talked with him about his gear, work methods, and philosophy.

# # #

Lonnie:
Sean, what drew you to sound work?

Sean Russell:
I first got into sound at a young age visiting my uncle Steve's studio at the age of eleven. I was into playing drums, and he recorded a small solo to tape for me and right there I was hooked. Some Years Later, I was playing in bands and handing tapes to sound guys every night asking them to tape our show from the board feed. Usually, those tapes sounded horrible, and I thought I could make a better sounding recording. That's how I slowly moved from making music to recording music, and later, my passion for post developed. And here I am.

Lonnie:
A lot of independent filmmakers make the mistake of shortchanging their sound in both recording and post, why do you suppose that is?

Sean:
I've always been taught that video with poor audio might as well be surveillance!

I guess mostly because the conscious focus of any film is the visual. I think most people always think of movies that way - the visual judgment of how they looked may have been more immediate then how they sounded. I would also suppose that with days, weeks, months of shooting a project (and trying to make it look as good as possible) you end up with no time (and budget) to get the film properly posted to a standard we're all used to. Most gear budgets are a lot like casting budgets - you spend the big money on the biggest feature. In gear terms, that might mean a really cool camera. With casting, it might mean spending a chunk of the budget to get a big celebrity. After you've spent a good amount of budget on the camera and associated peripherals, the sound department gets 'what's left over,' meaning, usually the location audio suffers, both in equipment and quality.

In big productions, the location audio recorded isn't as big a deal, with 90% of most audio being replaced after principal photography is over. In post, the usual culprit is the timeline - too many projects hit post past deadline, need the audio yesterday, and don't have time to take time! I've been in this position many times - perhaps more times than not. Proper audio is the difference between a well-shot film with a good plot going over well, or just being well-shot with a good plot. So much of the audio for film is subconscious, and it's amazing what the human ear can perceive as being 'false' or 'fake' if the audio isn't up to par. It's my job to make it seem like there almost wasn't a 'sound guy' or 'post tech' tweaking stuff, as most people are pretty fuzzy about the process anyway.

Lonnie:
A lot of films which could have failed, succeed because of fantastic audio. Lucas's THX-1138 is one that comes to mind.

Sean:
Yes, films which 'could have failed' ...hmmm, there are so many that come to mind... anyone remember Armageddon? Man that was a bad movie, but the soundtrack - whew! The audio in general was top-notch. It's amazing sometimes what the Re-Recording mixers on a movie can do. You mentioned THX-1138 - I would even go so far as the first Star Wars movie. Have you seen cuts without audio? Complete Velveeta. Even the people making the movie thought it would tank - but then they saw it with all of Ben's audio behind it, John's music on it, and - WOW! What a great film! It's the subconscious element of sound to work almost behind the scenes on our senses while our eyes process the film itself. I think good sound makes the film believable - and allows the suspension of disbelief we all must experience to walk out of the film saying to each other 'that was a good movie.'

Lonnie:
I agree wholeheartedly. The aural experience enhances the visual one, and is just as important in making the audience lose themselves in the movie. What are some of the things you like to do to heighten that experience?

Sean:
Secret tips, eh? OK, well, there are general rules, 'see a sound, hear a sound,' that kind of thing. A lot of sounds that we typically hear on movies aren't actually realistic - but most of the time, our brain agrees with the delivery and there's no argument that would give pause. The easiest example in modern cinema is probably gun effects. On TV, when the bad guy cocks his 9-mil, you're usually hearing a 12-gauge shotgun sample. There might be other samples layered with that, but you almost never actually hear the 9-mil itself, it's just not believable. The same can be said for the firings of the guns - many guns in real life make more of a 'pop' sound then a 'boom' sound - but you rarely hear that, because it doesn't build the same way. It's not what we're 'used' to hearing on a movie.

I think it's mostly trying to make sure that the layers that make up an effect or sequence don't stick out independently enough to defeat the stack. It's also about the timing of the sequence, and build up musically coming in or going out.

Lonnie:
Give the gear heads a little taste of what your rig is like, for both production and post.

Sean:
Production audio is mostly Sennheiser shotgun mics feeding Lunatecs recorded 24-bit / 48 kHz to Compact Flash. It's usually a simple chain to get the clearest idea of dialog, location room tones/background loops, and general other sound gathering techniques that might comprise of 15%-20% of the actual audio in the movie.

When you get to Post, everything moves into ProTools and you begin 're-cutting' the film from the ground up - before music and final dialog mixing. Once you get the main beds down, you begin all the obvious effects, and things like the SPL transient designer are a must for making things 'bigger.' Much of the actual effects and editing is handled strictly in the DAW now, with the integration of ProTools and Avid.

Lonnie:
Last question: What does your world sound like?

Sean:
Good question. That's a question I've always wanted to ask those that came before me. I've always been fascinated with the human perception of sound and how people hear differently. I suppose my world sounds not unlike everyone else's. I am forever trying to be more conscientious about what I am perceiving, and how much I'm hearing something as opposed to how much I'm feeling it - or perceiving that I'm feeling it.

Connecting to the undercurrent of emotion that a piece is portraying and supporting that feeling is my main goal. It's my connection with that feeling that allows direction to the technical aspect of my job to come up with something that will enhance rather than distract the point of the story, whether it be in song or film.

Script Doctor

The "how, when, who, what, and where" of the Women's Studies production is really coming together nicely. We've got a lot of elements in place and have started to bang out something that resembles a shooting schedule. This weekend will be the big design meeting with Art Director Stephanie Petagno to finalize some costume designs and the like. At the end of the month I'll kick off the first rehearsal with the actors, a true milestone.

To that end, I spent part of the weekend working on what will be my final revision of the Women's Studies script, the "blue" script. (Once we started production, the script went from being the fourth draft to the "white" script. Since this is a production draft, it's gotten upgraded to "blue.") There will be other minor rewrites as location needs or storyboards require changes to be made. Still, from a certain point of view this is my last chance as a writer to craft the story before I hand it off for the actors and allow them to turn my words into their words.

I like to think I'm not one of "those" writer/directors. You know, the type that has to micro-manage every line delivery because the actor "just isn't capturing the vibe I intended." To me, a script is a blueprint. The actors, camera and sound crew, and art director are like the carpenters, electricians and pipe-fitters. The director is the foreman, and in this case, the foreman just happens to also be the guy who drew up the floor plans. But the foreman doesn't tell the carpenters every detail of how to put up the walls. He lets them use their own method and is just there to make sure evrything comes together as intended.

I come from an acting background, so my attitude towards actors is to give them enough space to discover their own countries, yet give them enough guidence so they don't get lost. I want them to find aspects of the script to claim for themsleves. If they need to take the words I've written and alter them slightly to make them their own, I'm down with that.

I like working with actors. A lot of directors have troubles with actors because their main tool is emotion, and to really get down and dig deep with them requires everyone to look inside their hearts and reveal truths they might not ordinarily want to share. It takes a lot of trust between actors and a director to really make the emotional discoveries, and trust just can't be given. It has to be earned.

Writing is like that too. I have respect for anyone who writes something and puts it out there for others to see. It takes a great deal of courage to expose your inner thoughts in that way, be it a poem, a novel, or a script. What if people don't like it? Or even worse, don't get it? That's the biggest fear I have, I think; a fear that people will read or see what I've written and just look at me in that queer way that says, "I don't understand what you're trying to say?" And yet there are times when I'm in the midst of creation that I myself don't quite understand what I'm trying to say. I only know I have to say it.

Another part of me feels a bit of loss at letting the Women's Studies script go into the arms of others because I've spent the better part of the last two years with it, constantly turning it over in my head. I still will of course, though once we start shooting, I'll lose the option to change anything. Film is immortal. Once an image is captured, it's always captured. You can only have so many takes before you simply have to choose one and live with it.

The consolation to it all is that I really like this script, and can't wait to share it. As great a blueprint I think it is, I think it's going to make an even better movie. And it'll do so not because of my singular voice, but the varied tones and tambours of the cast and crew's voices, singing together in harmony.

"You Don't Want No Drama"

I was sent this video of Alanis Morrisette singing "My Humps" and I'm totally obsessed with her version of the song.

And it's crazily apt because that fickle mistress Women's Studies, she's got me spending all my money on her, and spending time on her. (She's make making me work. Making me work, work. Making me work.)

A few points of interest:

--Crew: We hired our editor, Jim McGivney, who will be in charge of piecing together this crazy vision of mine. In addition to cutting together Ningen Manga Productions' short films First Session and Under the Bed, Jim's a filmmaker in his own right. More on his sweet Irish arse can be found at his MySpace page. (He's the one who sent me the above video. Damn him.) In addition, we've been interviewing other crew members and trying to work it all out.

--Gear, gear, and more gear . . . We're talking through and purchasing the various HD systems that will be working on the Women's Studies set, which I hope to keep as paperless as possible. Tapeless too, since the camera we're shooting with uses P2 capture technology. Therefore ours will be a set full of laptops. One for capturing, one for tweaking scopes, exposure, time-code, and monitoring, and one for all our production documentation. That doesn't include Sound Master Sean Russell's audio rig which is a totally different, yet awesome, beast. (More on Sean and sound will be featured in a blog later this month.) In the middle of the month we're having a big, long studio test of the production gear to work out any bugs.

--Locations: We've got a few locked in, are in talks for others, and the search goes on for others still. The progress here has been amazing, especially after I put out a semi-public call for some of our harder to find locales. The lesson? Never try to do it all yourself.

--Casting: We've had some private auditions for the remaining roles of "Zack" and "Sharon." (Not "private" like that. Get your head out the gutter.) We're having more in the next couple weeks. May will see our last big audition to fill out supporting and day player roles.

Some small "second-unit" shooting will begin in June and we're currently on target for principal photography to start in July.

Well, as long as I stop babbling and get back to work.

San Francisco Values

No blog this week.

I just got back from a five day vacation in San Francisco, California, which is likely to be the last I'll have in quite a while. Fear not. Good times were had, and I'm refreshed and renewed. We'll return to your regularly scheduleed blog next week.

Carry on as you were.

"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.

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.

Greenlight!

No real blog this week because so much is happening all at once right now.

Women's Studies has the official greenlight to begin principal photography in July of 2007. We at Ningen Manga Productions are extremely excited to be able to make this announcement. Productions details as well as casting and location news will be eeking out over the next few weeks and months, some here in the blog, some over at our webiste, www.WomensStudiesMovie.com. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with a picture of me and "Jason" himself, Kane Hodder, that was taken this past weekend at the Horrorfind Covention in Baltimore, Maryland. Some of you may find the fact that the Friday the 13th movies are such a huge influence on me kind of scary and sad, but I wear my love of those films as a badge of honor. Still, meeting the guy who scared the hell out of me when I was a kid was a wild experience. I almost wet myself. In fact, I think I did a little.

Budgeting for Booze

Slowly and surely, the engine of Women's Studies is starting to burn faster and cleaner. Full-fledged pre-production is starting to rev up. If all stays on course, we should be making some major announcements soon.

There's been a shifting of focus here at Ningen Manga HQ from the business/legal aspects of production to more practical filmmaking concerns. I for one am happy that we're finding the ability to move into this direction. To me, the place where business and actual production start to marry is in the budget.

In independent film, the usual response when asked about budget is "What budget?" Trust me, I understand that sentiment. I've worked on and produced my fair share of "no-budget" films. However, with a feature, a budget starts to become a necessary evil. Really, there's nothing evil about it. It's just that most filmmakers hate dealing with budgets, present company included. Still, though it's usually a producer's job to keep track of the budget, the director is almost universally the one to get blamed if a film goes over budget. Therefore, it's a good idea for a director to know how to deal with them.

It could be said that film is recorded theatre. At it's most basic level, theatre is composed of four elements, actors, ideas, a place to perform, and audience. If you have these things, you can create theatre. Film can be similarly broken down, and when you're looking at budget it's good to consider four basic groups: personnel, equipment, locations, and script. Basically, to create a budget, you split these four groups down into smaller and smaller sub groups, all along the way figuring out a) what things are going to cost and b) how long you're going to need to use it.

I'll run through a quick, vague example.

Since I wrote the script, that one's pretty easy. Cost of script: $0. Wow, isn't making a budget easy?

Equipment. Let's see. I'll need a camera to shoot it on. And I'll need some stuff to record sound on. You know, microphones, maybe a mixer, definitely a boom pole. Editing equipment! I need that too.

Wait, let's just focus on one thing. How about that camera? We'll need lenses. And a tri-pod. Ooo, and I want a crane shot so we'll need a crane. Oh my god, I almost forgot media to record to! Does this camera use tapes or some weird new digital capture thingy? How much are those again? Hey, we're going to need cables and stuff to plug all this shit in. Wait, there's outdoor shots so we're going to need batteries, maybe even a generator. Oh shit, we'll need lights so we can see what we're shooting. And a gel kit for the lights to add color, also a dimmer board so we can control the lights. Gaffer tape! I always forget gaffer tape

Does anybody know how much all this stuff costs? What? I have to look it up myself? Shit. Well, I better get this list organized then.

CAMERA DEPT.
Camera
Lens kit
Tri-Pod
Crane
Media (tapes or digital capture)
*Incidentals

LIGHTING
Basic lighting kit
Specialty lights
Gel Kit
Dimmer Board
*Incidentals

ELECTRIC
Cables
Generator
Batteries
Gaffer tape
*Incidentals

(*Always have a little extra money ready for shit you've forgotten about. Trust me. You've forgotten something.)

Now, I took equipment and broke it down into three basic categories: Camera, Sound, and Editing. Then I broke Camera Dept. down into three more categories: Camera, Lighting, and Electric. From there, I listed things that would be needed that will probably cost money. Each of those items could be broken down even further if I wanted. For example, I could list off each cable type and how many I'll need. Does that seem anal retentive? Take a look at a budget for a big Hollywood film. (Actually don't, there's probably some pretty interesting bookkeeping going on with some of these films, though I'm sure very penny spent on every cable is accounted for somewhere.)

To figure out what things cost, you have to do the research. You're either going to rent or buy. If you're buying, you budget in only the purchase cost. If you're renting, you need to know the rental cost (either per day or per hour) and how long you're going to need it for?

How do figure out how long you'll need it for? Funny you should ask since that's just the cluster-fuckery of shite I'm currently buried in.

It's in that script. You know, the only thing that costs $0. First you have to break it down. (See this blog.)

Once the script is broken down, you and your DP decide exactly what the specific needs for an individual scene may be. For example, you may decide that you need to shoot three days in one location, but only need the crane for one. However, you need the tri-pod for two and the dolly for two, but on two different days. Wait though, that's scheduling, not budgeting . . . though it is sort of is budgeting too. Isn't it?

Booze. We budgeted for booze, right?

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?

Herr Direcktor

It's funny. The whole filmmaking blog thing is an experiment that I kind of just started on a whim. There's never really been much rhyme or reason to it. Rather, whatever I happen to be feeling on a particular week gets spewed up onto Al Gore's interweb.

While I feel it's been successful so far, I'm always just the tiniest bit nervous about it. I'm not sure what people do and don't want to know about this project. Thankfully I have a good friend, Andrew Gifford, who I can bounce ideas off of. Like me, he's in charge of his own company which deals with the arts. In his case, he publishes long fiction. (You can get information about his company, The Santa Fe Writer's Project, at www.sfwp.com. ) So, because I trust Andrew, I asked him, "What are things you're interested in knowing about through the blog?"

He said, "You. Your inspirations, your personal journey. How you got to Women's Studies?"

While it wasn't exactly the answer I was looking for, I realized that I never really took the time to properly introduce myself, though anyone can go to www.lonniemartin.com and read my bio. I get a little weird talking about myself because I'm deathly afraid of coming off like a pretentious prick, or worse, a complete idiot.

Anytime I try to tackle the idea on my own, I end up starting my friggin' memoirs, Therefore, I enlisted the help of Women's Studies co-producer and star, Cindy Marie Martin to ask the questions and keep me in check. She was a broadcast journalism major, so I expect I'll get the full Barbara Walters treatment.

# # #

CINDY:
So, Lonnie, what is a little thing in life that makes you happy?

LONNIE:
Little things are just about all that make me happy: a warm cat in my lap. Seeing an old couple holding hands . . . that kind of thing. While Big things can create strong emotions, pure happiness usually isn't one of them.

CINDY:
What about creatively? Where do you see yourself in five years that would make you happy, artistically?

LONNIE:
Am I still interviewing for the director job? Ultimately, I'd like to be in a place where I can keep making films and exploring the ideas I've brushed the surface of with First Session, Under the Bed, and now Women's Studies. That doesn't mean "rich and famous" in the least. But to be able to make these smaller films, yet keep evolving as a writer and filmmaker, AND have it pay my bills would be nice.

CINDY:
What ideas, specifically, are you itching to explore further? First Session touched on betrayal and murder, Under the Bed, rape and betrayal, and Women's Studies runs the gamut from terrorism to feminism! All related and if I may say, you deal more with the human journey involved in a situation than the situation itself. Are the journeys shown in these three projects connected in any way with one project flowing into the other or are they all their own beast?

LONNIE:
I think the three movies are three different plays on the same theme: the relationship between love and fear, emotional concepts which manifest themselves physically as sex and death. I'm interested in the grey areas where love and fear, sex and death meet. In First Session, I dealt with some very dark consequences of infidelity. Under the Bed was more about how somebody deals psychologically with sexual trauma, or any sexual experience really. Both of those ideas work their way into Women's Studies, which illustrates in a lot of different ways how love can be used against someone to create fear. That's kind of vague, but I don't want to give anything away.

CINDY:
Why the fascination with sex and death? Traumatic childhood? Spurned lover? You seem so well adjusted. And does that mean you yourself have a jaded view of love?

LONNIE:
You mean sit on your couch, doctor, and show you on the My Little Pony where Uncle Charlie touched me when I was seven? Honestly, I have no idea where my fascination comes from. It's just how my mind works. I believe all emotions we feel stem from one of two places, a place of love or a place of fear. Hope, joy, goodwill, optimism; these all come from love. Hate, racism, rage, pain; these are created from fear, usually a fear borne of ignorance. We fear what we don't understand. As I said before, the physical manifestation of fear is death. We fear death because we don't know what comes after. Zen Buddhists believe all we do in this life prepares us for the next one. It's a philosophy built upon preparing to die. So, I guess my obsession with death is borne from a desire to understand it . . . and I believe love is a key to getting to the next life instead of coming back to live out this one.

CINDY:
Sounds remarkably well adjusted actually. Now, there's obviously an underlying vibe of horror to all of your recent work. Why attack these socially relevant and universal themes within the context of the horror genre? (And can we ever expect a nice romantic comedy?)

LONNIE:
Well, horror is good for allegory, because once you've screamed, laughed, thrown your popcorn, and made out with your best girl, you can lean back and ask yourself, "What was I really scared of?" At the same time, you can't get too caught up in your "big ideas." The main point of making a horror film is the great pleasure I take in scaring the hell out of people. As far as a romantic comedy goes, I actually have a soft spot for a good love story. I loved The Notebook. While I'll probably never go the Diane Keaton, Richard Gere, Nora Ephron rom-com route, I'd like to do a love story someday. Hell, Women's Studies in it's own way is a sort of non-traditional, tragic love story.

CINDY:
So, you love to scare people! You're a great host and entertainer: anyone who knows you can attest to that. "Lonnie, the life of the party." So, does the reason you love to scare others have anything to do with the joy you take in being scared yourself? "Entertain others with what best entertains you," if you will? (As your wife, I can vouch that I've seen more horror films since meeting you than in all the 23 years prior.)

LONNIE:
Probably. To me, the joy of being scared by a horror movie is the relief and affirmation of life I experience when the credits roll. It's like, "That was pretty bad, but at least it's make believe. I'm still here." People shouldn't be afraid to embrace the darkness. There's a lot to be learned by trying to see what's hidden in the shadows.

CINDY:
Do you ever just set back and relax? This all sounds so serious and intellectual.

LONNIE:
I'm mister mellow. Just because my mind is always working doesn't mean I'm stressing about the world. I've tried to master the art of letting go, and I think for the most part, I do pretty good.

CINDY:
What's your favorite thing to do to unwind?

LONNIE:
Heh. Watch horror movies.

CINDY:
Well that says it all, doesn't it?

Business Time

So, I almost forgot abut the blog this week. I know. I know. You feel betrayed and neglected. How could I disregard your feelings in such a manner? I guess I'm simply an insufferable prick.

I want to take the time and squelch two rumors. The first is that I never had sex with a transvestite named Simone in Bali. We just had a few drinks, he/she and I shared a laugh, and maybe made out a little bit. Money might have been exchanged too, but I was too drunk to remember.

The second is the notion that Women's Studies is on it's death bed. In fact, it's still very much alive and well, and the project is slowly but surely moving forward. Between the lack of hard news and my announcement that I was writing the Deadlands 2 screenplay a couple weeks ago, more than one person asked me if the project was a no-go. "Posh," I say. "Pish-posh-pa-doo!"

I know I say, "Things are moving behind the scenes," quite a bit. Those privy to Hollywood-speak may choose to interpret this to be producer bullshit along the lines of "I've a variety of projects in development" or "I'll call you and we'll get things rolling." However, it should be taken into account that I'm a terrible liar. Really, I'm honest to a fault. It's actually cost me friendships. While it's been said that honesty is the best policy, I think Forrest Gump's mama was probably right when she told him that a little white lie wouldn't hurt anybody.

"Things are moving behind the scenes" is me-speak for, "There are various negotiations going on that would be unethical of me to talk about in public," which means they involve money and/or people's reputations or involvement in the project.

Now, I'm not trying to build up any big, sexy secrets here. I'm just saying that there are aspects of the production that I don't talk about publicly because it would be unprofessional to do so. At the stage of development Women's Studies is in right now, we're simply doing a lot of "wheeling and dealing."

For example, while I do a lot of "Filmmaking 101" type articles in this blog, one thing I don't talk about is how I've gone about raising money for the project. I have this policy to protect both our investor's privacy and the integrity of Lady Killers, LLC, the business entity financing the project. (I also have the policy for a shitload of legal reasons.)

Again, there's no dark secret here. Our method of raising funds is no ancient, black, Masonic ritual in the least. It's just our business and no one else's. I would tell anyone interested in learning how feature films can be financed to pick up John W. Cones aptly titled book, 43 Ways to Finance Your Feature Film.

Also, it would be imprudent and unprofessional of me to announce any cast members or locations that we're in talks with before a deal is made. First, the deal could fall through and then I look like an idiot. Secondly, acting like a pretentious dick and telling everyone that "OMG, Britney Spears is going to be in our movie," before Britney has actually agreed to be in our movie could cause Britney to question the professionalism of the people she's considering working with.

(For the record, we HAVE NOT and WILL NOT be talking to Britney Spears about appearing in Women's Studies. It was an outrageous example used in a desperate attempt to be funny.)

If all of this sounds unsexy, welcome to show business. Yeah, I know. I thought it was going to be all cocaine and hookers too, but that's just Hollywood-Speak.

Are You In Good Hands?

Note: Great Society has posted the final part of my "Horror 101" essay. Can you pass the quiz at the end?

# # #

Cindy Marie Martin injured her shoulder and I have this weird throat thing going on so I guess now is a good time to talk about insurance.

I want to start out by saying that no one should trust ONLY my insurance advice. I worked with a qualified lawyer to help decide the types of insurance Women's Studies would require and why. Any would-be filmmaker would be advised to do the same.

The concept of insurance tends to freak out some filmmakers, but it's pretty easy to deal with. Film insurance works just like car, life, or home insurance. If your car is insured and you get in a car wreck, the insurance company will pay for most of the damage to your or another car. If you're not insured, the money comes out of your pocket. So, if there's some cataclysmic screw-up on your film that requires damages to be paid, you're personally responsible for them unless your film is insured.

On the low-budget level, there are basically two types of insurance to be worried about:

Production Liability Insurance - This covers things like injuries on set or damage to a location or property being used for a film. A lot of locations won't even consider letting you shoot there if you don't have production insurance. Same with that guy whose vintage 1956 Chevy Bel Air you want to use in your movie. He'll sleep a little bit better knowing that if something happens to it, it'll be paid for. (You will too.) Rates for liability insurance vary depending on the script and budget. If you have lots of stunts in your film, you'll probably have to pay a higher premium.

Errors & Omissions Insurance - E&O insurance is necessary for a lot of reasons, but the main one is to cover legal fees and damages if any lawsuit is brought forth against the production concerning libel, slander, and/or clearance issues. For example, say you accidentally get a Marlboro logo in your film, and the film gets successful. Well, Marlboro will come at you with a lawsuit saying that you didn't pay them a licensing fee to use their logo. E&O Insurance would keep those damages from coming directly out of your pocket.

Or maybe one of your characters has a line of dialogue that says, "You drive as badly as Paris Hilton sucks dick." Well, if your film is successful, Paris and her little dog might not be too happy about what you said. And trust me, she's got the money to sue you for it. Having a lawyer go over your script and your final print to catch these types of things can help you avoid these lawsuits, but you'll still require E&O Insurance. Most distributors won't even begin to negotiate a deal without it.

Filmmakers freak out and say, "I can't afford insurance!" Trust me, you can afford it a lot more than you can afford to go up against Paris Hilton's legal team. Conventional wisdom states that whatever your budget is, 3% of it will go towards liability and E&O insurance, and the quotes I've gotten have reflected that.

Unless you live in New York or L.A., finding a company who handles production insurance can be tricky. However, just call up your local home or life insurance broker. They should be able to refer you to someone who does. Keep in mind that insurance requirements can also vary from state to state.

Get insurance. Otherwise your chances of getting of your film out there are about as good as the way Paris Hilton sucks dick.

Write of the Living Dead

Short blog this week, and probably next week as well because of travel and general "busy as hell" mode within Ningen Manga Productions right now. February will hopefully bring some cool stuff.

# # #

I announced yesterday that I'll be penning the screenplay for the zombie sequel, Deadlands 2: The New World, to be produced later this year by WetNWildRadio Films and director Gary Ugarek. While I've known I've had the gig for awhile, Gary and I held off on any formal announcement until some things evened themselves out.

I'm honored and excited to be a part of this project since a) I respect Gary, and b) I love zombie films. Though I have to admit, I'm a little daunted by the prospect of working in this particular sub-genre. I hope what I'm doing innovates rather than imitates.

Just a quick note about back-scratching in independent film. It's integral to the success of the low-budget filmmaker. The concept is pretty simple: ""Since you helped me with my film, I'll help you with yours." Gary Ugarek was an integral part of out short film, Under the Bed, and has also been a huge supporter of our efforts on Women's Studies. When someone who has been a patron to my work comes to me and asks the same favor, it's only right I do so.

Plus, it's writing which I absolutely love. I have to admit that after fifteen months of business work, having the creative outlet has been enormously therapeutic. It's renewed my resolve and love for Women's Studies, and reminded me why I do all the hard, non artistic work: To get to the good stuff.

The original film, Deadlands: The Rising will be released by Tempe Video on April 17, 2007, and features Cindy Marie Martin and I in supporting "zombie" roles. More can be found at the Deadlands website.

WANTED: Lazy Unambitious Daydreamer

A sort of off-topic blog this week as I'm finishing the script breakdown, working on securing locations, and getting stuff for and from my Art Director and Director of Photography. Rest assured that plenty of work is being done on Women's Studies. It's just kind of boring to talk about.

# # #

I belong to roughly twelve million filmmaking list-servs, online groups, and message boards. I find them useful for trading tips, networking, and most importantly, learning from the experience of others. Recently, I've run across a lot of postings from independent filmmakers in which the lack of common sense blows my mind. These kind of clueless posts have always been there, but they seem to be in an abundance of late. Below is a recreation that incorporates ideas from many of them.

"Hey, I just finished my first full-length script and it's awesome! I just know it'll be a huge hit and is totally worth investing in. I think I know the answer to this already, but are there any organizations or groups that finance independent filmmakers, or do you have to go through private investors? Anyway, if there's anybody out there who wants to invest in a low budget film, hit me up with an email.

"Also, though I know a lot about how to cast, shoot, and edit a film, I know nothing about PRODUCING a film! Really, I know how to do all the fun shit in the filmmaking process. Yet when it comes to the tedious, frustrating, nuts and bolts production work necessary to actually get a film production off the ground, I just don't know how to do it. So, I'm looking for an experienced producer to help get the project up and running."

Now, I don't want to sound like an elitist here (though I'm probably going to), but unless the author of this kind of post is fifteen years old, they need to be taken out to a vacant lot and beaten severely. Actually, even if they're fifteen, they still need a good swift kick in the ass. Maybe my strong reaction is because I'm smack-dab in the middle of the real production work that goes into making a film happen. However, the lack of patience, knowledge of the industry, and work ethic being exuded by these would-be filmmakers makes me want to reach through my computer screen and throttle them.

I certainly don't think I'm any sort of filmmaking genius or guru. Far from it. I've only produced two short films and worked on a half dozen others in various capacities. At the same time, I've learned to cultivate the three traits which I believe are necessary in order to produce and complete a feature film. Notice I don't say "secure distribution" or "garner accolades and awards." That's because work as hard as I do, shit like that is out of my hands.

1) Patience . . . In my experience, nothing great happens overnight. I've been writing scripts for twelve years. (Twelve years!?! Damn, I'm getting old!) While I'm no William Goldman, I'm confident enough in my knowledge of story values and character building and my ability to translate that to the page to know whether on not what I've written is at least decent. I'm not saying Johnny Filmmaker's first script is horrifyingly bad. However, he should go through a solid revision and drafting process as well as take some time to step away from it to know for sure.

Now, should he do like I did and wait ten years to try and make his first film? Of course not. While I spent much of that time writing scripts, working on theatre and film projects, and learning more about the craft of making movies, there was also just a lot of getting wasted and saying, "Man, someday, I'm going to make a fucking movie and it'll RAWK!" There's a fine line between taking the time to do it right and simply fucking off. The key is knowing (or finding) where that line is.

Also, take the time to learn the ins and outs of filmmaking and the industry built up around it. Which leads me to:

2) Knowledge of the Film Industry . . . There actually are organizations and institutions, including the federal government that give grants and funding for filmmakers to make certain types of films. However, there are a lot of rules to receiving these grants and the type of film Johnny Filmmaker is making may or may not fit their criteria. What Johnny needs to do is take the time to research these grants and see if his super-awesome action script is eligible for any of them. If not, then he needs to turn his attention to the commercial film market and research the various ways these films can be funded, produced, and made. He should research the distribution system and decide what form of distribution suits the type of film he's making, it's budget, and it's target audience. Then he should research companies that fund, produce, and distribute these types of film. OR he can decide to do it all independently, and should then research the various methods in which this can be done. Did I mention there are about a thousand other things Johnny should try to learn about?

Learn about the movie business. I know I said I've learned patience, but when it comes to wannabe filmmakers who haven't taken the time to learn about the industry, I simply have none. There's absolutely no excuse, especially if the sentence "All I want to do is make movies" ever comes out of their mouth. There's literally hundreds of books written on the subject. The internet is strewn with articles and websites devoted to independent filmmaking. Work on other filmmaker's films. Hands on experience is ten times better than any book. Also, go to film screenings and network with other filmmakers. Ask questions. Trade war stories. NEVER think you know it all. You don't. There's always more to learn. Be the eternal student, never content with your current level of knowledge.

3) Work Ethic . . . So, let me get this straight, Johnny Filmmaker. You've learned how to shoot, direct, and edit a film, and in all that experience, you didn't learn anything about producing a film? I find that a little hard to believe you self-centered, unmotivated, lazy shitheel. It seems that you want all the fun and glory and none of the hard labor. Now, while I think I'm a semi-talented guy who has had a few lucky breaks, I've also simply worked my ass off to accomplish what I have so far.

I know that studio films employ a variety of producers who do all the work in the trenches necessary to getting a film made; negotiating contracts, fielding resumes, hiring crew and cast, location hunting, budgeting, script analysis, storyboarding. However, they have the money to pay those people to do it. In the independent world, all that production work falls on the filmmaker.

I myself can't understand how anybody would want to do all the production work themselves and then let somebody else direct the film. To me, that's like spending money on an expensive date, taking the time to dance and romance her, then taking her back to your place and letting your roommate fuck her. If your roommate isn't willing to do the hard work, he doesn't deserve to get laid.

Also, when you do the production work yourself, you learn. I've had people approach me and ask, "Hey, can I use your business plan/budget/script breakdown as a template?" Yet, if I let you just copy what I've done are you really going to understand what it means? Things in my plans may not work for your film. Research itself is time-consuming and can be hard work, but ultimately it'll make you a better filmmaker. You may not think it when you're in the thick of a morass of jargon you don't understand, but trust me. The work is worth it.

I've been working on Women's Studies for fifteen months now. If I wanted to, I could ditch the project and simply make half-a-dozen short films without breaking a sweat, and when the going is tough (as it is now) it's tempting. But there's a fourth trait that I believe is key to making a successful filmmaker, and that's perseverance. Besides, if it's worth doing, it shouldn't be easy.

You hearing me, Johnny?