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?

"And Now It's Time For a Breakdown."

Allow me to suck any hint of glamour out of independent filmmaking.

My main task these days is a preliminary script breakdown of Women's Studies. Less a director's task than a producer's, breaking down the script entails taking each individual scene (All 143 of them) and dividing each into categories based on elements within the scene. This breakdown will be used to decide everything from shot composition to design, continuity to scheduling. While vitally important to have done, breaking a script down has it's tedious aspects.

How does it work?

Let's look at an individual scene from the script:

32. EXT. IRIS'S PARENT'S HOUSE - DAY

Iris, carrying an unwieldy bag, meets Mary halfway up the walk. They hug, happy to see each other.

IRIS
Hi, Mary.

MARY
It's good to see you. You look great.

IRIS
Thanks. You too.

MARY
I was going to say "hi" to your folks if that's okay.

IRIS
They're real busy. Let's just go.

Iris hurries past Mary to the car where Beth and Zack wait.

MARY
It'll only take a minute.

IRIS
Some other time maybe. We should leave.
(beat)
Please?

Mary looks at the house, shrugs, then walks with Iris back to the car.

CUT TO:

Looks simple, right? But once we start to get into individual elements, we see there's a lot going into this simple scene.

First, I'll start with location: EXT. IRIS'S PARENT'S HOUSE - DAY. "EXT." denotes an exterior, or outdoor, scene. "Iris's Parent's House" is the setting of the scene (Different from a location, which I'll get into in a minute.). DAY is the time of day of the scene. Most scripts only differentiate between "day" and "night." I've always be a "morning," "afternoon," "evening," and "night" guy, though for the breakdown, I only use "morning" and "evening" (or dawn and dusk) if it's very specific to the scene.

One of the reasons I picked this scene to use as an example is that it's a location we already have. "The Lake House" is my location tag for the "Iris's Parent's House" setting. There are other scenes that take place in this setting.

Another example of why the setting/location distinction is important, the campus exteriors and interiors are likely to be shot at two completely different locations. So, while there are two settings both labeled "Dormitory," they'll be shot at two separate locations. As you can see, later when I'm creating a schedule, this distinction becomes important.

Secondly, there are two cast members with dialogue in this scene, Mary and Iris. However, in a previous scene, we've established that Beth and Zack are waiting in the car, so they'll need to be on location as well. Technically, they're extras in the scene. However, since they're main characters, I categorize them as cast members rather than categorize them as extras. Again, when I start scheduling, this will become important as Zack and Beth are characters who will need to be on location multiple days.

Also, though it hasn't been decided at this point, costumes, hair, and make-up necessities will eventually be noted on the breakdown sheet as well. Having the cast members labeled let's us know that we'll have wardrobe and make-up for four cast members.

Next we note props. In the above scene, there are only two: Iris's unwieldy bag and Mary's car. Ah, but Mary's car isn't to be categorized as a prop. Rather, it's categorized as a vehicle. This is important since a car isn't something you can just shove in somebody's trunk. (Actually, for Women's Studies, the vehicle designation is more important in scenes which take place in a car. It lets us know that we'll need a trailer and a car rig for the camera.)

Thankfully, there are no special FX, stunts, weapons, or special equipment for this scene. Once Cinematographer Aaron Shirley and I decide how the shot is going to be composed, the camera equipment and crew needed for the scene will also be noted on the breakdown sheet. Then we'll take Aaron's storyboards and this breakdown sheet and create a daily schedule and call sheet for this scene. Since it's a one-day shoot, there will only be one call sheet and one breakdown sheet. If a scene spreads over two days (as many will), there would then be two separate breakdown sheets and eventually two separate call sheets.

On set, we'll have a line producer and/or Assistant Director (AD) who will be using these sheets to tell me and everybody else what we're working on that day and what to prepare for the next day. However, by preparing the breakdown myself, I'll hopefully have a good idea what's happening even before the AD tells me which will keep things moving. Remember this is independent film, and every second counts.

Dreaming in Digital

(Part 3 of my "Horror 101" series, "Werewolves and Vampires and Zombies, Oh My!," has been reposted. Go, Speed, Go!)

# # #

The future of filmmaking is digital. Anyone who says otherwise has A LOT of money sunk into film gear.

For the indy filmmaker, this is nothing but good news. Digital equipment is more readily available, less expensive, and requires less resources and personnel to use. The home video arena, the most likely avenue for independent film distribution, has already embraced films shot on digital video rather than film.

Yet even movie theaters are slowly but surely moving towards digital projection as more studio films are being shot on high-definition video rather than film. Both Episode II and III of the Star Wars prequel trilogy were shot on HD video, as was Sin City. Most recently, for 2006's Superman Returns, director Bryan Singer elected to shoot not on a traditional 35mm film camera, but Panavision's Genesis digital camera system (co-designed by Sony.)

I'm not a techno-geek. A lot of filmmakers get their rocks off talking about the gear, specifically the camera. They'll go on about aspect ratios, codecs, imaging chips, and a morass of jargon that honestly makes my head spin. To me, the camera is a creative tool, same as the lights, make-up, and sound gear. As director, I won't be directly working with these tools, but instead working with skilled technicians who will employ these tools to help me tell a story. And from my experience, most cinematographers, sound engineers, and editors like working with a non-technical director like me because I just tell them what I want, not how they should go about giving it to me.

Still, choosing the right tool is an important part of any job. An inferior tool can create an inferior final product. Though both Women's Studies Director of Photography, Aaron Shirley and I felt a cinematic 16mm or 35mm film "look" would benefit Women's Studies most, our budget dictated we shoot digitally. Per my directing style, I told him what I needed from a camera and left it to Aaron to decide which camera would best suit those needs. Fortunately, he knew there were a great deal of tools at our disposal.

And my needs were ridiculously simple. I asked for a camera whose footage would have film characteristics such as running at 24 frames-per-second (FPS), a 16x9 aspect ratio, and the ability to create a shallow depth-of-field. (In layman's terms, "shallow depth-of-field" allows a camera to focus crisply on one item in the frame while leaving other items out of focus.) I also wanted it to have the ability to adjust the exposure levels for different visual effects, and variable frame rates in case we wanted to shoot slow or fast motion.

Any bells and whistles were Aaron's call. After a long period of research and debate, much of it with himself, Aaron decided on the Panasonic HVX200 with a Redrock M2 35mm Adapter.



Like I said before, I'm not much of a techno-geek. However, I realize a lot of folks are interested in the tech specifics. So without further ado, I give you the high priest of the HD, Women's Studies DP Aaron Shirley:

"Even though I went to a video based film school, and I make a living in video production, I've always had an aversion to story telling in video. There are several aspects of film that just draws one into the story. Even though the average viewer can't quantify what it is about film, the brain sees the rhythmic 24 frames per second with no jaggy lines (24P), the accurate detail that can only be achieved by an imaging surface with higher resolution than what is being seen (1080), and the gradual rounding of shadows into black as well as the gradual rounding of highlights into white (Cinema Matrix), and the brain starts expecting a story.

"I did what I could with video on other people's projects, but when it came to my own, I've relied on film. But the price of using film is high, and not just monetarily. In the past ten years I've completed one music video, one short and two-thirds of a movie on film. Film is difficult to use, and very difficult to use inexpensively. And you can take how hard and expensive film is in production and multiply that by ten for post-production.

"When Panasonic came out with their 24P miniDV camera (DVX100) several years ago, I dismissed it without really giving it a chance. It was video, and so what if it's 24P, that's only a third of what makes film look like film. It wasn't until I went to a seminar on high-end post production that I finally saw some professionally shot footage from it. It was footage for a Christian Children's Fund commercial where they used a million dollar color correction machine (that was really made for digitally enhancing 35mm film), to make the village look drab and scary. Everyone in the audience (including myself) thought it was film footage even before any correction had been done to it. Almost at the end, someone asked what the footage had been shot with, and when the shooter said, 'the DVX100,' everyone gasped. It's Cinema Matrix was that good.

"Since then, I've shot a short with the DVX100, taught a class on how to use it, directed a short with the HVX200, and shot a full length concert with the HVX200. The High Definition (1080) is the icing on the cake that the HVX200 adds to what the DVX100 could do (as well as better rendering of colors and tones). I spent a lot of time trying out the other High Definition cameras in the indie film price range, and they were all very close, but none of them were perfect, and the HVX200's imperfections, I decided were the least problematic of them all.

"As for the 35mm adapter, 'selective focus' is a commonly used technique in film to guide the viewer's eyes to the important areas of the picture. Your eye tends to look at what is in focus and ignore what is not. It is seldom used in video because of optic constraints of the cameras (shooting from a long distance with several settings at their maximums is the only way even some video cameras can achieve it). I looked at a lot of footage shot with different adapters and I chose the Redrock M2 because it had the best clarity and engineering of all the adapters available in it's price range."

Gettin' Ink Done

Art Direction is often forgotten in independent film. The myth is that most low-budget filmmakers don't have the funds or resources to use anything but the exact location they find and clothes the actors own. I couldn't disagree more. Sure, a low-budget film might be ill-advised to attempt a sci-fi period piece (though even then, it's possible), but you'd be surprised what you can accomplish with the right talent and a little imagination.

Our Art Director, Stephanie Petagno, is overflowing with both. I'll eventually get an interview with her up here, but she tends to stay a little busy with things, like working on designs for Women's Studies. What's great about her is she has enough talent, drive, and imagination to allow me to just point her in the right direction and let her go. Which isn't to say that I'm totally hands off on the Art Direction. On the contrary, it's one of the things I love to deal with most. However, with a thousand other things to deal with as director (and co-producer), it's nice to have full creative confidence in someone who is going to be helping us make vitally important decisions about the final look of the film.

We'll go deeper into the philosophy behind the Women's Studies "look" in a future blog, hopefully in the Stephanie Petagno interview. For now, we'll just talk a little about one specific piece of finished design work; "the academy girl tattoo."

In the script, the "academy girls" wear a tattoo to symbolize their allegiance to the Ross-Prentiss cause. It's also a way of letting the audience know who's with them or against them, which as the story unfolds, becomes important.

The problem with using a tattoo in such a "Mark of Cain" manner becomes one of subtlety. Now, you may argue that the use of a tattoo, period, just isn't very subtle, but it's all in the execution. Showing a woman walking down the street then cutting to close-up of the tattoo on her body while effective, comes on a little hard and fast. However, when establishing a motif like the tattoo, I believe this kind of "in your face" composition works best. One of the first shots of Women's Studies will be a close-up of the tattoo. Then the camera will pull back to reveal who's wearing it. Not too subtle, but again, in that moment we're simply setting up the visual cue.

The idea is that in most subsequent appearances, we won't have to take the time to blatantly point out the tattoo. It'll be just "part of the scenery," so to speak. By simply appearing, the tattoo becomes a subtle reminder to the audience, "That's a Ross-Prentiss girl."

To this end, I gave Stephanie two instructions about the tattoo. First, that the design should NOT be the circle and cross female symbol that we use in the Women's Studies logo. We talked a little bit about the "pagan" aspects of the story, but honestly not much. The second was that whatever the design would be, it should be "stylized" with sharp lines in order to contrast with the skin of the person wearing it. That way we won't have to constantly use close-ups to point it out.

"Give me something to yea or nay," was how I put it.

Stephanie gave me lots of somethings, and ultimately, the design we decided on was this:



Basically, the design is a modified heraldic dagger, or pointed cross, which is often used in typography to denote someone's death date. More fitting I thought were two botanical meanings of the symbol which Stephanie pointed out: "Poisonous" or "A plant once cultivated that now grows wild."

In theory, each character's tattoo will have it's own variations in color and size. As mentioned before, there are a couple of key tattoo "reveals" essential to the plot. However, the basic design will remain the same with each character.

Looking Back, Moving Forward

Really quick: The webzine, Great Society, continues it's reposting of my four-part "Horror 101" series. Part 2, "The Moral Majority Massacre," is now live. It's a brief look at slasher films. Check it out.

# # #

Yesterday was a good day for Women's Studies, which means I'm taking this week off from movie work. Okay. Actually, I probably won't, though between holiday parties, last minute X-Mas shopping, and a couple side jobs I've taken, when exactly I'll be giving the film attention between now and Christmas Day is something of a mystery.

It's funny, Women's Studies is still in a weird in-between phase that's half development and half pre-production. There's a cottage industry that publishes books about "How to Make Your Independent Film." And I'd be lying if I said I didn't own a handful of them. Really though, no matter what book, or even person for that matter, tells you "This is what it's like," each film is it's own beast.

At the beginning of 2006, Women's Studies was little more than an idea, just Cindy and I saying, "Hey. Let's do this." At years end, not only have we incorporated our production company, but we've taken some fairly large steps forward to getting this film ready to shoot. While a lot of this past year has been (and still is) about raising money, we've done a pretty good deal of "pre"-pre-production work. A marketing plan is in place. Some cast has been chosen. Design work is being drawn up. Equipment is being tested and selected. Recently, location scouting has begun.

I know I can be "Mr. Cliché" sometimes, but slow and steady wins the race. We live in a world of instant gratification, but the things worth doing take time, resolve, and patience . . . so much patience. While there have been moments where I've been immensely frustrated this year, in the end, barreling through and persevering has been worth it. Taking a rest at this point in time, I can look forward and see that I've still got quite a climb ahead of me. Yet I can also look back and marvel at how far I've climbed.

I haven't done this alone either. There's a wonderful support group of family, friends, cast, and crew that believe in this project as much as I do. It's nice to know that in my weaker moments, I have people that will harness me up and keep pulling me up the mountain. Cindy, who you'll remember is not only acting in but co-producing Women's Studies, especially deserves kudos. She does a lot of work that no one ever sees. Lots of people do, and we're moving towards a place where soon we'll be able to shine some light on them.

2007 is the year of production. The goal everyone is working towards is the day when we get Women's Studies up in front of the camera. Right now, we're continuing to break down the script which we hope to have completed soon. The next few months will see the productions staff finalizing designs, locking in schedules and locations, shooting test footage, and bringing on additional cast and crew.

It's going to be a wild ride and the pace will start to get faster and faster. Stay tuned. The best is yet to come.

# # #

You won't want to miss next week's blog as for a little X-Mas present, we'll be publicly unveiling the first design work from Women's Studies; the "academy girl tattoo," created by our Art Director, Stephanie Petagno.

Right Place, Right Time

A couple of quick items before I get into the meat of this week's blog:

First, back in the September 19, 2006 blog entry (Death and the Horror Film) I posted an excerpt from "Horror Movies 101," a four part essay originally published on the webzine, Great Society. During a big technical mix up they had last year, those articles along with others were accidentally removed. However, the Great Society management has been kind of enough to offer to republish the "Horror Movies 101" piece, and will do so over the next couple of weeks. The first part is already live. Click here to read "Horror Movies 101: Intro and Evolution (Part 1 of 4).

Secondly, I realized this week that I had about a dozen un-moderated comments from the past two months of blogs that I hadn't dealt with. So, if you were wondering why I was being such a jerk and not posting your comments, the truth is that I'm not that snooty. Flaky maybe, but not snooty. Anyway, all those backlogged comments are now live. I'll be sure to keep up with the comments now, so by all means, keep them coming.

Thank you for your attention. We now continue with your regularly scheduled blog.

# # #

"Shh. Be Vewy Quiet, I'm Hunting Wocations."

To me, location is where the real process of filmmaking begins. Once you know where you're going to shoot, things like scheduling, shot composition, and technical requirements can start to be looked at. For my first film when I couldn't find the space I wanted, I literally had a set built in the basement of my house. How's that for obsessive?

From a location point of view, Women's Studies is challenging in that the script requires multiple locations, 56 to be precise. That's a lot for any film, but with a low budget one like ours, multiple locations can be a real headache. We don't have the funds to pay large location fees. Plus, searching for and securing locations takes time. It's not dissimilar from fundraising in that it requires lots of phone calls, follow-ups, and patience. Also like fundraising, despite all your efforts and hard work, you have no guarantee that anything is going to come through.

The good news is that over half of the Women's Studies locations are within the boundaries of the fictional "Ross-Prentiss Women's Academy." Therefore, my attitude has been to try and find a location that can serve the multiple functions of a campus. While finding these locations has been easy, getting permission to film on them has been something else entirely.

When discussing this problem, a few of my friends have been like, "Dude, just sneak in somewhere and do it. Who's going to know? Guerilla filmmaking! Yeah! Down with the oppressive corporate octopus!"

Yes, yes. Damn the octopus. Here's the problem with guerilla shooting:

First, I don't know where you live, but in my country, trespassing is illegal. As much I want to get this movie made, I'd rather not to go jail to do it. (Though think of the publicity.) And as grand poobah of this crazy, little tribe, it'd be my neck in the hangman's noose. Even assuming I'm a total ninja and we don't get caught shooting the film, not having the permission could kill any distribution deal Women's Studies may or may not get offered.

One of our selling points to distributors is that fact that Ningen Manga Productions is taking care of all clearance issues on Women's Studies ahead of time. The short and skinny of this is that a distributor won't have to shell out the cash and manpower to make sure everything in the film is allowed to be there. They don't want anybody coming out of the woodwork saying, "Hey, they shot on my farm/used my music/featured my logo on that guy's T-Shirt without my permission! Give me some money!" Clearance issues can be deal-breakers especially with the more established distributors. Smaller guys often don't care, but again, if the film starts to get some success, people may come around looking for lawsuit dollars.

Is it an unlikely scenario? Sure, but what harm is there in insuring that it's an impossible scenario? I'd like to be able to tell a potential distributor, "Everything is in order. All you have to do is review the documents."

The last problem with just showing up and shooting is that a location has to be more than just where the action takes place. I'm a big believer that environment is a character in the show. I want to be able to tap into every resource a location has to offer, so I can make the best film possible. This isn't done by sneaking around, but by working with the people who live in and use the location. They can point out nuances that I may miss.

The ideal "Ross-Prentiss" location will be one that's isolated, foreboding, yet beautiful. It'll have a sense of being old and mystical, almost as if the place itself is alive somehow. I know it's out there, and it can't wait for us to get there. Finding it is just a matter of time.

"The Horror, The Horror"

In light of some recent production hiccups, specifically trouble finding suitable locations willing to let us film portions of Women's Studies, a friend of mine chastised me for promoting the film as a straight horror movie. His argument is that by doing so, I sell the film, and by proxy myself, short by pigeonholing it. As the writer and director (a biased source if ever there was one), I concede his point. To me, Women's Studies spans over many genres. It's a character drama, a coming of age story, and a tragic romance. It's got action and laughs as well as scares and blood.

However, the overriding emotion (if I do my job as a director right) should be one of unease and discomfort. One of my most primary goals with Women's Studies is to simply scare the audience. That's really where I can make no concession because I AM setting out to make a horror film. Anyone who reads the Women's Studies script without being told what genre the film is will realize pretty quickly what they're in for. While not strictly a blood and guts type of horror film, the Karo will definitely flow heavily in the finished film.

The strange problem I've run into is despite all the talk of "mainstream" or Hollywood" horror, the genre is still a fringe genre, an acquired taste, and let's face it, the red-headed stepchild of the movie industry. Film studios, notably the big ones, don't really like making horror films. Most critics don't like them, and they don't win any awards that matter to the big dogs. Plus, though the horror move protests of the early 80s are ancient history, you still have media pundits like Bill O'Reilly spouting off about how these films represent "the degradation of the morals of America." And while I believe that kind of thinking is obnoxious and misses the point, I'm certainly not going to argue for the socially redeeming values of Saw III.

Ah, but since I brought it up, let's take a closer look at Saw III, the subject of O'Reilly's recent tirade, a film that was critically derided, and one unlikely to get nominated for an Oscar or a Golden Globe. However, there is one more notable aspect about the film that explains the reason why the movie industry continues it's loveless affair with the horror movie: It made a killing of money at the box office, $33 million in the first weekend alone.

Let's do the math: Saw III was budgeted at $10 million. In it's first week of release it made it's producer, Lions Gate Films, a 300% profit. Currently, it's earned a worldwide gross of around $130 million. ($80 million domesticly and $50 million worldwide, if you want to get specific.) That's a $120 million profit which isn't taking into consideration DVD sales and rentals which make up the majority (75%) of a major studios profits. Even if you assume that the $10 million budget doubles with DVD marketing and distribution costs, that's still a film which sits firmly in the black.

(For the record, I've seen none of the Saw movies. Laugh if you want, but I'm very squeamish, and torture movies make me want to pass out.)

So, why do big studios keep making horror movies? Simple: They even out their bottom line. As far as Lion's Gate is concerned, Saw III's success makes up for the fact that Employee of the Month and Crank only made (ONLY!!!) $28 million. Actually, both films were budgeted at $12 million each and, hence, made money. Still, that's a $32 million profit from both movies combined compared to Saw III's $120 million profit.

I'll quit beating you over the head with it. The point is that "moral degradation" or not, there's a huge audience for horror. As long as that audience is willing to keep ponying up the cash to see these movies, big studios and major filmmakers will keep making them. The producers behind the Saw movies said before it's release that Saw III was likely to be the last one. Keep in mind that the fourth movie in the Friday the 13th series was subtitled, "The Final Chapter." The upcoming Friday "re-imagining" (Don't even get me started there.) will be the twelfth film of the franchise.

But let's forget about the big studios for a minute. Women's Studies is not being produced by a big studio. And frankly, when it comes to actually producing good horror films, big studios really aren't where the action is. Most horror films that are "studio releases" are actually produced by smaller independent film companies. (In industry terms, it's called "negative pick-up.") Recent examples include: Hard Candy, Wolf Creek, and what a lot of horror fans are calling the best fright flick in years, The Descent. (Which I still haven't seen because the sad joke is that when you're trying to make a movie you don't really have time to watch them.)

Forget those even. Let's take a look at what are considered the classic horror films:

Psycho: Independently produced by Hitchcock who went outside the studio system to get it made. Paramount originally distributed it in 1960, and Universal bought up the rights for a successful late sixties re-release.

Night of the Living Dead: Independently produced by George A. Romero's Image Ten. The original distributor let the copyright expire somehow and the film entered the public domain. This also happened with The Wizard of Oz and It's a Wonderful Life. However, Romero claims the original distributor "ripped him off" when they didn't put a copyright notice on any prints of the film that went out. This seems sketchy to me, but copyright law was much different in 1968 than it is now. Back then, copyrights expired after 50 years instead of 95. The math doesn't quite work out though, so your guess is as good as mine. I do know that Romero only has received residuals from the 1998 Elite Media release of NOTLD. The other estimated $50 million the film has grossed since 1968 has all been pocketed by other distributors. Seriously, if you want to make some money, burn off a bunch of copies of NOTLD and sell them. It's perfectly legal. Fucked up, but true.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original 1974 version, not the remake): Independently produced by some mysterious outfit called "Vortex" which I can only assume was director Tobe Hooper's production company. It was picked up by New Line Cinema, which at the time, was a tiny distributor out of New York. The story is that the film played in limited release in San Francisco and Warren Beatty went apeshit over the brutal realism giving the film huge buzz.

Halloween: Independently produced by Trancas International who I also believe handled the original theatrical distribution. It was one of those cases where a distributor decided they wanted to go into the business of production as well. The late Moustapha Akkad was spending $300,000 a day on a big, desert war epic that ultimately tanked. When told Halloween's entire budget would cost $300,000, he said, "What the hell?"

Friday the 13th: Independently produced by Georgetown Pictures, picked up and distributed by Paramount. Technically though, I suppose it was "studio financed." Director, Sean Cunningham, who had produced Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes with Wes Craven, took out an ad in Variety for a film called Friday the 13th and billed it as "the most horrifying film ever made." The funny part is that he had no script, not even a story idea except that he wanted to rip off the success of Halloween. Georgetown called him up the next day and offered to finance the picture.

Evil Dead: Sam Raimi himself raised the money by hitting up dentists which has since become a common low budget fundraising method. New line, which was apparently the Lion's Gate of the late 70s and early 80s, picked it up after Raimi got a glowing review by none other than Stephen King. Like Trancas, they soon turned around and moved into actual film production by making:

A Nightmare on Elm Street: I include it as independently produced because long before Lord of the Rings, New Line didn't have a pot to piss in when they went into production on Elm Street. They're still referred to as "The house that Freddy Krueger built."

Not one of the films I mentioned above was financed or made by a major studio, yet they're some of the most well known, and most financially successful horror films in film history. (However, it may be worth noting that the most financially, and some would argue critically, successful horror film of all time, The Exorcist, was financed, produced and released by a major film studio, Warner Bros.)

My final point is this: Most of the successes in the horror genre have come from independent film producers like me. The reason is that we're not doing it to pump up our bottom line. We're doing it because we love the genre and we believe that these stories, as "morally degrading" as they may be, are worth telling, and more importantly worth being heard. By billing Women's Studies as a horror film, I'm hoping to find individuals to help me get it made that are like minded, that truly support what we're trying to do. It's not necessarily an easy sell, but it's the right one.

Junkie

My father hounded me all through college to get a degree in business. He was a big believer in the idea that education brings financial success. As screwed up as it sounds, he wanted me to be a desk jockey. I could understand his reasoning, having spent most of his life busting ass twelve hours a day as a pipe-fitter. He thought he was doing me a favor, my dad; providing money so I could have the things I needed and wanted. He was getting money so I could go to college. The sad humor is that on the day I left for college my father and I looked at each other and realized we had no idea who the other was.

I left college in 1998 needing twelve credits to get my degree in theatre arts with a minor in communications. I "walked " with my class. It was time for me to go though. I had already been there five years, and even just one more semester seemed unbearable. Besides, since then I've gone back and finished up the twelve lousy credits and from a career standpoint, actually having the piece of paper in my possession has changed absolutely dick.

Anyway, I got a job with a temp agency, and they landed me a long term gig with an up and coming software company. I was a go getter. I've kind of always been a go getter, which tends to impress those with authority over me. The kicker is I've always hated authority. I'm an idealist sure, but with the heart of an anarchist. Still, I'm a hard worker. That's one of the things my dad did teach me.

So, when the term of the temp job was up, the guys at this software company liked me so much they offered me a regular position. It was a salaried job with great benefits: health, dental, 401k, the works. All I could do was go up. My dad was ecstatic. I took the job.

After six pretty miserable weeks, I quit. I went into my boss's office, and told him exactly how I felt; that while I appreciated the opportunity he was giving me, it wasn't for me. I had other things I needed to be doing, other paths I needed to walk. "I'm not a business guy," I said. Anti-authoritarian to the bone, I think I expected him to chew me out and be shocked that I was turning my back on what was really a pretty damned good job. He didn't though. In fact, he told me how much he respected me for following my heart.

My dad said nothing when I told him, just kind of shook his head.

The ultimate irony is that the past year I've spent putting together Women's Studies has been more about business than any sort of creative expression. Forget the business degree, I think I've learned what I would have been taught simply by trying to make a go of this thing.

Rather than even doing basic production work like scheduling and loaction scouting, my time has been spent writing business plans, researching the DVD market, setting up corporations, drafting contracts, working with a lawyer to make sure all my state and federal paperwork is correct, weighing the ton of risks against the ounce of hope, and about a thousand other minute detailed things that have nothing to with telling a story. Unfortunately, they have everything to do with making a marketable film. My life is a world of crunching numbers, begging for money, wheeling and dealing, trying to turn "no" into "yes." Hell, even "maybe" would do.

And you know what?

I fucking hate it.

The last six months of my life have been the most soul sucking, humiliating, ego-crushing time I've ever endeavored. I wake up every day and my first registered emotion is uncertainty. My first conscious thought is, "Why am I doing this?" Half the time I feel physically ill. The other half I think I'm losing my mind. A day doesn't go by that I don't want to quit. Nor does a day go by when I know I can't.

I can't. I mean, I physically can't stop myself from trying to move forward. If I walk away, even take a vacation, I somehow find myself turning the film over in my head: "What if I change this line? What if I shot it this way? Maybe Mary should wear yellow in that scene. Music like this would go well in this sequence."

Making movies is all I want to do. It's all I've ever wanted to do, since I was old enough to want anything. If there was a company that hired for "professional dreamer," I 'd be perfect. Experience? I've been doing it all my life. But if you won't hire me to do it, I'll do it anyway. That the sickness of it I think. Even when everyone is telling me the odds are impossible, I still do it. Even when it seems like trying to scale Everest in shorts and flip-flops, I still keep climbing.

A guy I've been hounding to invest in Women's Studies recently said to me, "If persistence leads to success, you're going to be successful." A compliment sure, but I don't think he understand the scary truth beneath it, the reason why I'm so persistent.

I'm a junkie, man.

Creative expression is an addiction. Filmmaking is my drug. I'm just trying to get another hit. Addicts do whatever it takes to get their high. They beg, steal, and sell themselves. Telling a real estate agent how much Dark Harvest made in it's first month on the Blockbuster shelves? That's just me sucking dick in the alleyway for a ten spot. See, a ten spot brings me closer to getting the junk. I'm an addict, remember? Only the camera's my needle, the boom mike my spoon, and the tungsten lights my flame.

Ask any addict busted for stealing, and he'll tell you he didn't do it for the money. The money is just a means to an end. The money just gets him to the high. "I can't help myself," he'll say.

"I just don't know how to quit."

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.

Plague/Cold of Death

My wife has given me her plague/cold of death. I take this as proof of a feminist plot to murder me. Anyway, it's hard to write about filmmaking when your only two thoughts are "tissues" and "sleep," so forgive this week's short blog.

There's a lot of things in action behind the scenes on Women's Studies right now that I'll hopefully be able to talk about in upcoming blogs, such as:

--Our Art Director, Stephanie Petagno has shown me some preliminary designs for the "cult tattoo" that all the academy girls sport.

--We're in talks about our main campus location. I'm really excited about this because the location is in many ways a character in the film.

--I'm almost done with my "director's script," which has a boatload of notes for all my department heads, mainly the camera, lighting, sound, and art departments.

--You're probably already aware, but the new Women's Studies website is live at www.womensstudiesmovie.com or www.ross-prentiss.org. Keep your eye out for "easter eggs."

I also want to take the time to give a big shout out to Gary Ugarek and his zombie film, Deadlands: The Rising. Gary helped Cindy and I out on our short film, Under the Bed, and has been a major cheerleader for Women's Studies from the beginning. Cindy and I both returned the favor by appearing in and helping out behind the scenes on Deadlands. In about a month, we'll again lend the assist on some pick-up shots he's working on. I'm also going to be contributing to the sequel, Deadlands: The New World. I won't say exactly how yet, since Gary may want to tell folks that himself.

Anyway, Gary's a great guy who knows his zombie films. As a filmmaker, he's not only aware of his strengths, but also his weaknesses, which makes me have a lot of respect for him. A little bird told me that a lot of folks are going to get the chance to see Deadlands here in the next six months, and I encourage you to check it out if you get the chance. Zombie fans will not be disappointed. More info about Deadlands: The Rising can be found at The Official Deadlands: The Rising website.

Next week will kick off a series of five blogs spotlighting the cast and characters of Women's Studies. I tried to figure out the best way to approach it, and just decided to go alphabetically by character. Therefore in the next blog, we'll introduce you to Beth, Mary's quick-witted, "take-no-bullshit" best friend.

Pro-Choice

Because of it's subject matter, namely homicidal feminists trying to take over the world, Women's Studies isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea. "You can't please everyone," is an adage of the theatre. It's true too. You can't. All you can do is tell the story the best and as honestly as you can, and hope for the best.

Back in March of '06, I sent out the first initial casting notices for Women's Studies, which got picked up by the Independent Women's Forum who wrote a blog about it.

In turn, a blog called Pandagon picked up on the IWF story and wrote a response to it. My thoughts are at the end.

As you can see, the negative reaction kind of rattled me the first time. Then I got my head out of the clouds and reminded myself of that old theatre adage. Now when it happens, and I'm sure it will keep happening, while I listen politely to what detractors have to say, I certainly don't try to change their opinion of the film. Just as I hope no one thinks I'm going to change my mind about making it.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I have no intention of playing politics here. My goal is to make a scary movie, not save the world or destroy it. Cults are scary. Feminism is interesting. A film about a feminist cult seems like it would be scary and interesting. The argument of Women's Studies is not, "Feminism is good/bad." Both the protagonist and antagonist are almost mirror opposites in their feminist beliefs. The difference is that one is willing to kill for their beliefs and the other wants change to come about peacefully. That's the ideological debate I'm interested in. Feminism becomes almost incidental, a "MacGuffin" as Master Hitchcock might have said. My intentions, though I'm admittedly an agent of chaos, are good. Yet, we all know what the road to hell is paved with, don't we?

Here's the bottom line for those people who find the concept of Women's Studies (or any other book, TV show, movie or art work) offensive, sad, outrageous, misogynistic, politically incorrect, or intellectually pornographic:

You ready?

It's kind of a crazy idea.

Choose not to watch it.

I'm certainly not going to come into your home and force you to watch my film. I also sincerely doubt congress is going to pass a law making Women's Studies required viewing for all Americans. Your local church group isn't going to ostracize you if you don't see this film. So, the choice whether to see it is entirely in your hands. Should I inadvertently contact you or a group you're involved with because I think you might be interested in the film and it turns out you're not, by all means politely tell me so. I won't bother you again.

Don't get me wrong. I want you to come see the film. I'd like for you to come with an open mind and put any pre-conceived notions aside and see what we have to say about cults, feminism, and the fine art of sharp, shiny knives. However, I also understand and respect that Women's Studies may simply not be your cup of tea, and as that old theatre adage goes . . .

I'll leave you with this thought to ponder: To me, anyone who thinks this film (which isn't intended to be an anti-feminist film) has the power to ruin the women's rights movement doesn't seem to have much faith in that movement's power. Also, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't womankind have bigger problems to worry about than a horror film about killer strippers?

Poster Notes

When we all went to see The Blair Witch Project seven years ago (Seven years?!? I'm getting old.), what were we really paying for? The movie or the advertising?

(NOTE: I understand I'm breaking every rule of independent film marketing by mentioning The Blair Witch Project. Bear with me because I do have a point.)

I, like so many others, lined up around the block to see Blair Witch as soon as possible. I did it because the trailer was the most frightening thing I'd ever seen in my life. For those of you who don't remember, you got some ominous Phillip Glass-esque percussion and the following words on screen:

"In October of 1994, three student filmmakers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland while shooting a documentary.

A year later their footage was found . . ."

Then you got the "I am so scared" eye shot and if you were me, proceeded to simultaneously piss your pants and cry for your mommy.

Later, when I saw what an utter dogturd the movie actually was, I learned a very important lesson about the film industry: When we pony up our nine bucks, we're not paying for a movie. We're paying for a marketing campaign.

Before I get too much further, let me make one thing clear: No matter how good the marketing is, there is no excuse for making a crappy movie, especially if it's made by an independent filmmaker. (Big studios are selling widgets, and even Scorsese has trouble getting good shit made, so there's some excuse in that case. Still, it seems that these Hollywood executives should realize there's a direct correlation between the quality of Beerfest and it's dismal box office.) You don't throw story and characters overboard, just because you have a good hook. My first priority is to make Women's Studies the best film I can.

That said, how a film is marketed is pretty important, so from the get-go, it's something Cindy and I have thought about with Women's Studies. Though she didn't major specifically in it, Cindy studied marketing quite extensively in college, so the marketing campaign started just about as soon as we decided we were going to do the film.

Marketing plans are pretty boring to just about anyone who isn't into advertising and marketing. So, just to give you a glimpse of how the process works, I'm going to break down how the Women's Studies teaser poster came to be.

The concept of the female symbol forming the "o" and "t" of "Women's Studies" is almost as old as the story idea itself. I'm not sure where it came from, but I'm fairly sure it was an accident. From the get-go, Cindy and I knew we wanted to incorporate it into the logo design, so we started there.

Enter Tyson Tate, a graphic artist who I became associated with through my work on the Great Society webzine. I ran the idea by Tyson and he worked out six basic designs for the logo which can be seen here. From there, Cindy and I picked #1, which we felt captured the elements we wanted. There were some tweaks of course. We asked that the female symbol be made larger and more pronounced, and played with the shape and "curve" of the other letters until we finally agreed on this:



My original concept was to have the logo printed in blood upon the ample cleavage of a woman a'la Sleepaway Camp III. (I know. I have exquisite taste in bad movies.)



However, my good friend Jim McGivney suggested that the well-endowed lady should be clutching a book with the Women's Studies logo printed on the cover. We thought the idea was brilliant and jumped on it. I guess technically, we had Tyson jump on it, which he did with aplomb. Tyson, being the visionary he is, understood the concept so well, he got it on the first shot.



So, we had the logo, and we had the book, now we just needed a model to pose for the poster. I was all prepared to put out a notice for a model when Cindy spoke up. "Why can't I do it?"

Being a man, I just blurted out, "I'm not sure you have the tits to pull it off."

A week later Cindy still wasn't speaking to me . . .

I'm kidding. Though we did have an honest (yet civil) discussion about whether or not Cindy should be the model. We had both agreed that the breasts should be part of the poster. I hear you ask, "Why is that, Mr. 'I'm making a movie about feminism?'" Because sex sells, that's why. Love it or hate it, breasts grab the attention of our young, male target audience. I know I like boobs.

Anyway, Cindy was offended that I thought her chest wasn't up for the job, so she bra-shopped. Victoria's Secret, Frederick's of Hollywood, the bargain bin at the cheap-o "Body Works" in the mall; Cindy was on a mission . . . a mission to find the perfect push-up bra. I came home one day to discover she had found it. After I wiped up all the drool, I agreed that she should be the model for the Women's Studies poster.

We hooked up with a photographer, Jessica Notargiacomo, and had a very fun night shooting the poster image in my basement. A few bits of trivia about the poster:

--That's a wig Cindy is wearing. She had just cut her hair short before the photo shoot. I wanted the figure to have long hair. Thankfully, Cindy had a wig left over from a show that worked perfectly.

--The original concept was to have Cindy holding the knife, but it looked really awkward. I think it was Jessica, the photographer, who came up with the idea to use the knife as the bookmark.

--In order to "expose" Cindy's chest enough, we used medium sized document clips to pin the shirt tight against her body.



Once the poster was done, we had to come up with a tagline. This seemed to be the most important part, and we engaged many a friend to help us out.

Some taglines that didn't make the cut:

"Class begins soon"
"Get ready to learn a thing or two"
"Prepare to be schooled"
"Cut to the head of the class"
"Anything boys can do . . ."
"History. Anatomy. Dissection."
"Equality cuts to the bone"
"Taking the kindness out of womankind"

Finally, the one that I loved, but knew couldn't be used: "And you thought differential equations was scary"

Credit goes to a cool cat by the name of Ryan Sparks who came up with the tagline that we eventually tweaked to be: "Open your mind before it gets opened for you." It seemed to capture all the elements we were exploring in Women's Studies pretty well.

And that's that. Simple, right?

Death and the Horror Film

My apologies for a late blog this week. I have a good excuse though. Cindy was informed of a death in the family and we had to leave town for the funeral.

In light of that, I guess this is as good a time as any to talk about my feelings on death and horror movies. However, having dealt with death on a very real, emotional level for the past two days, forgive me for not sitting down and working through something new on the subject. While I'd like to, my heart's just not up for it.

Instead, I thought I'd post an excerpt from "Horror Movies 101," a four part essay I wrote a couple of years ago for the webzine, Great Society.

If that feels like a cop-out, I apologize. I hope telling you that next week's blog will be a nice, long, NEW one about the origins of the logo and poster for Women's Studies will be something of a consolation.

Oh, and if enough people want to read the rest of the "Horror Movies 101" essays, I'll post the four parts here on the blog. I wrote them, so I'm biased, but I think they're a pretty good read, especially with Halloween right around the bend.

# # #

One man’s art is of course another man’s shit pot . . . Someone opposed to (horror) films could say, “Why would someone want to watch such things? And don’t give me all your over-intellectualized, thematic gobblty-gook about final girls, sexual undertones or inside evil. I’m not buying it.”

Perhaps all the psychological and literary analysis is just a bunch of horseshit. Maybe I’m just searching for a way to defend my own sadomasochistic fetish for watching films that glorify death. In the end, maybe the horror film is proof that in a society where beheadings in the name of religious fanaticism, ethnic cleansing, and “shock and awe” are acceptable behavior, art is truly imitating life. Maybe humanity is afflicted with some sort of terminal social disease, and the horror film is just a reflection of that. Yet, since death is all around us, why make movies about it?

Most of us seem to be hardwired to try to see the bright side and avoid the darkness. Perhaps it’s connected somehow to our survival instinct. Trying to see the light is our mind’s way of keeping us alive. No one wants to die, even as release from pain and suffering. The idea of death especially in western culture is not a very happy one. There are entire realms of business and commerce capitalizing on the fear of death. There lies the paradox and the problem of modern horror movies, which in many ways are a very American genre; Americans as a whole seem to have big problems with death, a subject inherent to the horror film’s very nature.

Death of course, is the only certainty you really have in life. You can’t stop it. You can’t change it. You can try to put it off, but even that can blow up in your face. Everybody dies: you, me, even the guy down the street with the Lexus, the big house, and the hot wife. Death is the one thing we all have in common. It figures people should find that reassuring, yet few do. Why? Because death is the big unknown, and most people, Americans in particular, hate not knowing what’s coming next. It destroys the perfectly crafted illusion of control we’ve built around ourselves.

To sit in a theatre and watch a horror movie demonstrates a willingness to surrender control, if only for a little while. A loss of control is a loss of power, and powerlessness makes us children again, lacking the logic to rationalize away our fears or the strength to fight them off. Yet what children lack in logic and strength, they make up for in the resilience of curiosity and imagination. The horror movie allows us a safe environment (or excuse) to indulge a childlike curiosity, to take a look at the fearful unknown, and to ask “What if?” What if the shadows on the wall are more than just shadows? What if the boogeyman is real and awake and waiting? What if grandma isn’t sleeping restfully in her grave? What if death isn’t an end but a horrifying new beginning?

Still, that hasn’t answered the question: Why do so many people like horror movies?

After the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks of 2001, American culture braced for sweeping changes that never came. Terror had become the norm. Irony and violence in the media were figured to be the casualties to the discovery that we weren’t invincible to the horrors of the world. As a horror fan, I feared the genre would die a quick homogenized death. After all, in a world of real horrors, who would want to watch fake ones? Strangely enough, quite a few people do. Horror movies have consistently enjoyed success since September of 2001. As Hollywood continues to make them, people continue to flock to them despite nightly newscasts of terror, carnage and death. Now, how do you explain that?

The fears of the “post 9/11 world” are irrational, uncontrollable fears. The Boogeyman, long thought dead, has been brought back to life as a face-wrapped madman who may steal our life away with a homemade bomb, a poison chemical, or a viral strain. He wants to kill us for no reason except that we’re there and he hates us. Only this isn’t just a movie. It seems a real possibility.

So, maybe by watching a horror film, we can be afraid of something that isn’t quite as real. Slashers, zombies and a little ghost in a well seem a lot less frightening than a fifteen year old Muslim girl with a box of nails and broken glass mixed with C-4 strapped to her chest. Movie monsters are a fear that only grips us for a couple hours. After the credits roll, we can leave those Boogeymen behind. Just as someday, the Boogeyman of the Islamic extremist will also be left behind as the communist and Nazi ones were before him.

Yet again, that hasn’t exactly answered our question: Why do so many people like horror movies?

“Curiosity killed the cat,” the old saying goes, but it’s been known to mess up the human pretty bad too. Besides a strong dislike of losing control, Americans also hate to be left in the dark. We want to know what, how, and why. We want to know what’s behind the locked door, under the bed, and in the dungeon, even if we’ve been warned not to look. A horrible mix of arrogance and curiosity usually compels us do so no matter the warning. Yet we get horribily offended when we don’t like what we see.

The Ring, the popular American remake of the Japanese horror film, is about a VHS tape that will kill you seven days after you watch it. In the beginning of the film, a young girl brags to her friend about having watched the film a week before. It’s not too hard to guess what happens to her shortly afterwards. Her death sparks off a journalist’s interest in finding the tape. She does and as she pops it in the VCR, the audience is screaming at her not to do it.

Yet, put in the same position, who wouldn’t watch the tape? I don’t know if anybody else remembers playing “Bloody Mary” when you were a kid. Supposedly, if you went to a mirror, turned out the lights, and then said Bloody Mary three times, the ghost of “Bloody Mary” would show up and kill you. What usually happened was your friend would tell you to go do this. After ten minutes worth of peer pressure, you’d finally relent and on the third “Bloody Mary,” your “friend” would open the bathroom door and scare the shit out of you.
They even made a movie about it called Candyman. Only instead of saying “Bloody Mary” three times, you had to say “Candyman” five times. Once you did, the ghost of a slave (played by the always excellent Tony Todd) who was lynched for loving a white woman came and killed you with his hook hand. At age sixteen, nothing scared me more than Candyman. Besides utilizing the “Bloody Mary” legend, it illustrates how over time, even the simplest horrors can evolve into myth. It also utilizes our knowledge and belief of urban legends in much the same way as The Ring.

The Ring scared the hell out of me in a way that no movie had in years. And it wasn’t the damn little girl or the story that did it, though both are creepy. No, what freaked me out for days afterwards was the dead girl in the closet. We don’t see what happens to her, but while her mother is describing how she found her body, we get a flash of her corpse huddled in the corner of the closet with this look on her face. I’m getting the shivers just writing about it now.

However the girl was killed, she looked like she was caught in the grip of a terror that would have driven me insane. The way her body is posed, you can almost imagine that the poor girl died of fright. I could spend all night describing it, and I couldn’t get across to you how horrible it is. Ultimately, we find out how she died and what killed her and though it’s pretty bad, I was almost relieved to see it because it wasn’t near as bad as my mind tried to imagine. Still, I was days getting over that girl in the closet.

People like horror movies for the same reason they like roller coasters, mountain climbing, swimming with sharks, or base jumping. They do it because that fear of death is in each and every one of us, and deep down we all know it. Horror movies allow us a chance to beat the reaper, even if only vicariously, to take the craziest risks in the world without really risking anything, to ask “What if?” and know that no matter the consequences on screen, we’ll be okay. We do it because though our minds resist it, our hearts always want to know what the girl in the closet sees right before she dies.