San Francisco Values

No blog this week.

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

Carry on as you were.

"Let's All Go to the Lobby"

There's so many different things going on this week, I don't even know what to write a blog about, so I'm going to write about two awesome movies I've seen.

Things are moving well with Women's Studies. Some may say the good vibes are due to the official greenlight and the big casting announcement we made last week. Me? I think it's because I've gotten back to the movie theatre. I've seen two movies in the theatre in as many weeks.

There was time in my life when I hit the movie theatre every weekend. It didn't matter what was playing, I went to see something. Double features were more the norm than not. A Saturday triple feature while it didn't happen often, happened quite a lot. Then a couple years ago, something changed. I stopped going to the cinema. You could chalk it up to getting married or turning thirty. I think part of it was that I started making movies myself which is a pretty time consuming process.

Another part of it was the movies. Where I live, the multiplex is all I really got. If I want to get to the art theatres showing the groovy independent and foreign stuff, I have to drive thirty miles. So, if I want the theatre experience, I have to take what the studios give me, and for a couple of years there, the studio offerings got to be pretty bad. Last fall, they started to get better and I found myself wishing I had a little more time to get to the theatre. (I'm trying to catch up with stuff on DVD. Hollywoodland, The Prestige, and The Departed are all currently on my short list.)

Anyway, the last two movies I've seen in the theater have been absolutely fantastic, and it's making want to pick back up my old movie theatre habit. Those films were 300 and Behind the Mask, The Rise of Leslie Vernon.

300, in case you've been off the planet, is the tale of three hundred Spartans who hold off what seems to be millions of of Persian soldiers. It's supposedly based off a real event, but forget about historical accuracy. This film is pure fantasy, and to me, it's the best part of it. It's a ride form beginning to end, visually stunning, action packed, and totally viscerally engaging. I think some critics were put off by the fact that the filmmakers made it look a lot like the Frank Miler graphic novel it's based on, but I think that was the point. All I know is that I had an absolute blast. I walked away from that movie wanting to learn to swordfight and do three trillion crunches.

The other movie I saw was Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, and maybe I only loved it because in my youth, I was obsessed with 80s slasher films. Long story short, a documentary filmmaker follows a killer in the mold of Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers as he prepares for his slaughter. It's hilarious as the killer talks about his exercise program, his methodology, and basically deconstructs the elements of the slasher film. Then in the film's final third as the killer's rampage begins, the filmmakers become characters in the film. At that point, the film switches visual formats and becomes a true slasher film. I might add it's a damned scary one at that. Somebody called the Behind the Mask "a gift to horror fans" and it is. Boy is it.

Okay, that's all. Back to work.

Senatorial Debate

First, the big news:

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

Allow me to take a moment and totally geek out.

. . .

There. Much better.

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

"Kind of like Hillary, right?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenlight!

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

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

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

Budgeting for Booze

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

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

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

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

I'll run through a quick, vague example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ELECTRIC
Cables
Generator
Batteries
Gaffer tape
*Incidentals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Booze. We budgeted for booze, right?

Live Nude Girls!

This past weekend, I was talking to some friends about Women's Studies. One of them who, yes, was male asked, "Is there going to be any T&A in this movie?" (In case you were raised on an asteroid, T&A is an acronym for "tits and ass.")

It's not the first time I've been asked the question. Far from it. In fact as soon as I tell most males I'm making a film about killer feminists, the nudity question is usually the first one out of their mouths. How's that for thousands of years of evolution, ladies? The mere mention of "hot chicks with knives" sends us into a tizzy of ecstasy.

The issue of nudity in horror films is one that's been debated by fans and critics alike for years. The general consensus is that there's too much gratuitous nudity in horror. Even fans of the genre admit it's so. The problem is that for horror's target audience (18 to 35-year-old males), sometimes the fact that there's a bit of T&A is the only consolation for sitting through a particularly bad and not very scary movie. The attitude is often "Well, the effects were childish, the acting horrendous, and the story non-existent, but at least I got to see a few nice racks."

Again ladies: How far we've come.

Remember though, horror is more popular now than it ever has been. In past years, the selling point for these films were that they crossed the taboo lines set by "normal" social values. People went to see the things that they didn't see in everyday life, sex and death being the two biggest draws throughout history. Also, horror films were (and still are) targeted at teenagers, who while pretty much thinking about sex all the time, are dissuaded by just about everyone around them from doing it.

(And despite sexuality being a much larger part of mainstream American culture today than in the 1960s and 1970s, stats will support my saying that most American teenagers aren't engaging in actual sexual intercourse until the age of seventeen or beyond.)

Women's Studies deals with sexuality on a lot of different levels, from infidelity to the personal ethics of abortion to not so vague hints of lesbianism between various characters. In fact, I'd even go as far to say that sex is always just below the surface in the story. There's sex a plenty in Women's Studies, though how titillating it all may be will be up for debate. Among cast and crew the big nudity debate has revolved around the opening scene where three guys visit a strip club and get a little bit more than they bargained for.

First, a point I think is relevant: I'm making this film in America where the views on sex are much more conservative than in many other parts of the world. (Remember, we're a country founded by Puritans.) If this film was being made in Europe, where attitudes toward sex are far more liberal, there would be in all likelihood no discussion about nudity. However, many American audiences and actors aren't as comfortable with it.

Personally, I'm not prudish at all when it comes to sex and nudity on film. My philosophy towards it is that if graphic sexuality is necessary to the integrity of the scene and/or film, then it's imperative that it's there. On the flip side, where both sex and violence are concerned, in many cases I'm from the "less is more" school of thought. Sometimes, what you don't see is made sexier or more horrifying by the imagination.

The question then becomes one of when is nudity and sex is necessary and when it's simply gratuitous. In all likelihood, the answer is one dependant upon personal taste, but let's look at a few examples that illustrate different degrees anyway.

I could pick any number of films to show nudity being used gratuitously , but let's look at a scene from Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning since most Friday fans feel the entire movie is gratuitous. (I actually think there are a few admirable aspects to the film, though I'm very aware that I'm in the minority among horror fans.) In this scene, a woman is in a diner bathroom getting ready for a date. For no discernable reason, she turns to the mirror, exposes her breasts to herself and yells, "It's Showtime." While she has a fine pair of breasts, her exposing them does nothing to tell us anything deeper about her character. (At this point, we've already seen enough to tell us she's a self-centered airhead.) Nor does it move the story forward in any way. The breast flash is only there for pure titillation.

Here's one open for interpretation: In the film version of Cold Mountain, the two main characters, played by Jude Law and Nicole Kidman, have been pining for each other while Law has been off fighting in the Civil War. When they're finally reunited, director Anthony Minghella decided to give us a fairly long, explicit scene of the two making love. While I thought the sex scene was hot as hell, I also felt it was gratuitous and ill-conceived. I feel this way because throughout the film, Law and Kidman have spoken of of a deep, resounding love for each other and the emphasis on the sex seems to strip that love of some of it's power by reducing their desire to one more lustful than truly intimate. Secondly, what does Law's hand shoved up Kidman's pussy tell me about their relationship that I didn't know before?

I'm sorry, was that language a little too gratuitous?

Now, I don't think the explicit love scene between Rene Russo and Pierce Brosnan in the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair is gratuitous at all. It illustrates that these two people are thrilled by the prospect of danger and control. (He's an art stealing billionaire. She's the investigator hired to figure out who's stealing priceless works of art. Oh, and they just met.) Also, it's brief and shot in a manner that makes your mind do much of the sexual heavy lifting. (Russo stands in the foreground as her dress drops to the floor with Brosnan looking on in the background. Their sex on a staircase is shown from an overhead wide shot.) One could try to argue that the scene isn't needed to tell the story. However, I feel the scene is important to the character's relationship as the story unfolds. The fact that they've slept together is what complicates their motives later in the film. (He wants to steal more art. She's supposed to stop him.)

Have I dodged the question of whether or not there will be nudity in Women's Studies? I haven't meant to. However, I will say that since the film is dealing with sexual politics, I'm vary aware of the ways I will or will not use nudity. So, rather than answer, I'll leave you with a related question to ponder:

Does it truly matter whether or not there is nudity in Women's Studies?

Herr Direcktor

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LONNIE:
Heh. Watch horror movies.

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

Business Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are You In Good Hands?

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

# # #

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Write of the Living Dead

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

# # #

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

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

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

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

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

WANTED: Lazy Unambitious Daydreamer

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

# # #

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You hearing me, Johnny?

"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.