I'm going to make a disclaimer first: I'm not a zombie flick fan. That said, I wanted to give a review on the pilot episode of Season 1 of The Walking Dead.
First, I missed The Walking Dead when it first aired. I also missed the marathon that AMC had about a week ago. But my composer friend, Hans Karl, mentioned that I should check out the show because he saw some similarities between it and AWAKENING. (No there's no zombies in AWAKENING, all my dead people stay dead). But there are a few similiarities.
The pilot episode titled, "Days Gone By" clocks at about 1hr 7 mins. Compare that to the pilot episode of LOST that was 42 mins for Part I and 42 mins for Part II. The opening of both LOST and The Walking Dead pilot episodes both start off with the great concept of throwing the audience and main character into the middle of a big concept by having them wake up. With The Walking Dead he doesn't wake up on the first shot, but eventually that's what happens.
The Good. One of the things that drew me to see the pilot episode of The Walking Dead was the epic scale of this concept. Like LOST, the pilot teasers and screen shots didn't look like the "traditional" TV show but more like an large scale movie-like TV show. I liked this as a concept. This was the high point of the TV show... But....
The bad part of the pilot was the fact that even though there is this large scale epic feel to the TV show, we don't get to Atlanta until the end. The beginning started pretty big with the character waking up in the hospital and discovering that he woke up to something unbelievable. But that middle section is where things drag. This is also the part that makes the pilot go from the 42 minute long episode length that it should have had to the 107 minutes that it is. I feel that they could have kept the dad and son that find the main character to just simply characters that push the story plot forward. My thought as a storyteller was, "get the main character to Atlanta ASAP!". Give me the big stuff. The reason I'm watching is to see where he's suppose to be going.
They could have really developed the entering of Atlanta. That shot of him on the highway going into Atlanta was cool. I wanted to see that. But it was basically just a couple shots. They didn't really develop that part. There wasn't really much of a development of the urgency to warn him not to enter from the group outside that heard him on the CB.
My favorite part was the when he entered the city. The ending was great. It was intense. I wondered if he was going to surivive, even though I knew that he would. The whole thing with the tank was a great and even the last piece with the voice.
But my concern goes back to the length of the middle section between when he woke up and getting to Atlanta. There was also the opening scene with the child zombie that I debated whether that was necessary either. I wonder if the producers were concerned that it would be compared too much to a LOST opening if they started right off with him waking up. But my feeling was that the child zombie scene was either in the wrong spot or was unnecessary. I know the it would have been seen as a "shocker moment" for television. But the problem was that by the time I saw the pilot episode that specific scene had been shown so much on youtube by fans that it lost it's shocker effect on me.
The Ugly. My serious gripe is not with the show. I thought over all the shown was spectacular. I would never had watched a zombie TV show if they hadn't done something unique with this story. But it's what they did with the show after it aired that bothers me. The producers of LOST and ABC did an brilliant move with their episodes. Right after airing they would be available online, for FREE, with limited commercial interuptions. This service is provided by Move Networks. By doing this LOST continued to build a larger and larger fan base online for each season. Even now people in other parts of the world are finding episodes and watching them.
But AMC made a serious mistake. If you want to watch any of Season 1's episodes you have to go to Amazon or itunes or Cinmea Now's site. It cost about 1.99 per episode. First I tried Cinema Now, I paid the 1.99 download fee. Then went through the pain-in-the-butt process of trying to watch the thing. At the end I got frustrated and sent them an email about my frustation. Then I went to Amazon and finally watched on their streaming service.
Here's my beef with this process. First, by creating a pay wall you seperate an potential fan of season 2 from getting addicted to the show. Second, I already get cable. I'm paying about $25 for my cable, which includes AMC. Why do I have to pay another 1.99 per episode, to download, so I can see what I missed? Why can't they offer a streaming service option like ABC does by working with Move Networks. I'm pretty sure Move Networks advertising would equal the 1.99 per episode fee that I had to pay to Amazon or the other options. I didn't want to own a copy, I just wanted to see if the show was worth all the hype. AMC should have made a sizeable profit of the advertising from the original airing that any money after that is just extra. Wouldn't it be of greater value to the show to multiply their fan base by offering a FREE, with limited commerical interuption, option, then "nickle-and-dime'ing" customers over a 1.99 per episode charge? I would think fans for the next season were of a greater value. Maybe I'm wrong.
This is my review of the pilot to The Walking Dead., Season 1.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
My Film Production Announcement A.K.A. “When Things Get Tough, Push Harder”
Originally I was going to back off a bit after releasing AWAKENING. But I started to get excited about one of the projects I had pushed aside. I saw some of the actors in AWAKENING and thought, “what better talent pool of actors to work with than the ones right here.”
As I was set to release AWAKENING on Feb. 28th, I made sure to try to dodge as many important events as possible. I didn’t want to release in January because of Sundance. Everything seemed perfect. Then Gov. Rick Snyder (Michigan ) made his big proposal. In it he was basically is killing the Michigan Film Tax Incentive and many, many other serious cuts to other programs. Even though I didn't benefit from the Film Tax Incentive, a thought came to me, “If you’re going to make something happen, make it happen NOW!”
So… Here it goes:
UTOPILAND: It was the first micro-pilot I was planning on making It has a AVATAR-sized feel to it (not blue people, I mean the scale of the story). Utopiland is the story of a world that lives in skyscrappers. The rich living on top, the poor on the bottom. It starts with a body that falls from the top of Utopiland. Who this person is and what happens to him will change his world forever.
Because of the scale of UTOPILAND, after many discussions with some CG artists, it just seemed like something way too big to tackle without a sizeable amount of money. If it was made it would probably redefine what Indie filmmakers could do, but it was just so big. Finally, after seeing MODERN TIMES, I was inspired. I figured out how to pull off this micro-pilot and make it look epic without making the work itself epic. To pull this off I am going to take another shot at the crowd funding world, but do everything different. I’m not going to just have a crowd funding campaign, but make it into something that is a real social experience where the supporters become part of the movie. Sound different? If you like this idea, let me know.
The House: This is the feature film I had struggled to make since Fall 2008. First I tried the traditional investor route, then I met a great actress/friend named Christy. We were going to have Christy play the leading lady part of Anne Peterson. But the investor money just wasn’t coming. Then I came to simple conclusion. There are tons of talented actors right here in Michigan. I had some incredible talent on AWAKENING, and that was just a small amount of the talent that is here. So, even though it would have been great to work with Christy, I finally came to a conclusion, for the sake of economics, I wouldn’t be able to work with her on this project. I would use all local actors. I am going to shoot the vast majority of the film in Michigan and make it look like Maine. Then I will shoot select scenes that have to be shot in Maine, in Greenville, Maine. I'm not well connected or rich but, like many other Indie filmmakers I know, I get really creative in what it takes to make a film look great.
If there is anything I have learned growing up it’s simply:“When things get tough, push harder”.
Below is AWAKENING for everyone who wanted to see it:
Friday, December 3, 2010
Words to Remember.
Words to Remember(This blog post is for you Phil!!!)
A year ago from this month (December) a friend of mine named Phil Cronin died. I had met him while touring with Amnesia. He heard about the film in the summer of 2008 from a newspaper. When the tour ended, he contacted me and watched the film. He was impressed with the film and was inspired to help me find the funding to shoot my next project The House. We pursued every idea we could come up with, but to this date we couldn't make things work out with that project.
I kept pushing to get Amnesia out there so that people would notice what I had done. I wanted people see the work I, and others, had put into the project. I worked every marketing idea I could come up with. Wore myself out ragged. I had turned my focus from the reason I had started this crazy thing called filmmaking. I remember one day having a very long conversation with Phil about pursuing the funding for The House, where he kept saying, "don't forget the story".
On the internet the one thing filmmakers keep talking about is marketing and distribution. Usually it is in a negative light. I know things became very rough for filmmakers in 2008. I know that the Indie Filmmakers got a bad deal in the mess related to the fact that few people got any good distribution deals. But in the middle of the pursuit for the best marketing and distribution plan on the planet is there a possibility that the filmmakers "forgot the story".
You can make a pile of money, receive dozens of awards, but if we "forget the story" we still fail as filmmakers.
I want to go back to my first filmmaking love. If I'm going to be pouring hours of my time into this thing called filmmaking than I want to make sure it's about the story.
Many people will ask "what movie inspired you to get into this business?". My answer is simple: none. I got into film because the stories that came to me since I was seven. I didn't know it at the time, when I was a kid, but what I was seeing in my mind were scene segments. It wasn't until I was twelve that I tackled my first screenplay. This was why I got into filmmaking... the stories.
Looking into next year I want to spend my time focusing on storytelling. If I end up in conversations with people on the internet about the film business I want to spend most of my time talking about story telling and telling the best story possible. If filmmaking isn't about storytelling... then why even do it?
Thank you Phil for your many words of wisdom. And reminding me, even a year later, to not "forget the story".
Monday, November 29, 2010
Forget Osama... It's Pirated Movies That We Should Fear!!!
Yesterday, I woke up and checked out my Facebook account to see something odd and distrubing. Someone had posted a link to an article about the Department of Homeland Security shutting down 77 sites. At first I thought, "wow, they found 77 sites involved in terrorism and they shut them down". Then I read the article. The Department of Homeland Security shut down, not terrorist sites, but sites that allowed the file sharing of copyrighted material. http://mashable.com/2010/11/27/homeland-security-website-seized/ Now I understand the concern over pirated movies is seriously impacting the major studios and independent filmmakers... but we need to seriously take a step back an examine what happened. The Department of Homeland Security, set up by former president George W. Bush, to protect America from terrorists, takes time away from focusing on people who could hurt and kill Americans, to instead track down sites that people use to share copyrighted material. This would be like the IRS deciding to put federal taxes off their prioritiy list and instead chase down people with speeding violations. Yes, the IRS has authority... with taxes! In the same way, the Department of Homeland Security has authority when it comes to terror attacks and concerns about the implimentation of those evil plans.... not pirated movies!
Now with that crazy paragraph out of the way, let's take a realistic view of pirating and the unrealistic realities that the big studios don't want to come to terms with. Back in 2004 (I think that was the year) I happened to stumble upon a NPR broadcast about the music and movie industry. The only person I remember in particular that spoke at this broadcast was Justin Timberlake. Not sure why I can't remember any other names. It was a discussion on how the music, movie and print industries need to adapt to the changing world. One of the speakers pointed out to an interesting story about the executives at Disney when the first VCR was introduced to them.
The representative for the company that made the VCR prototype came in, plugged it into a TV and popped in a VCR tape of a film. The executive responded with, "but how do we control how many people get to see it at a time?"
And that statement "how do we control how many people get to see it at a time?" is exactly what is wrong with the mentality of the film industry. That word "control" is a very scarry word.... Stalin used that word. Hitler did to. So did the robber barons of the end of the 19th going into the 20th century. We need to use caution when using that word.
The problem isn't with the pirates. They're are thieves in every industry. Just because someone steals gas at the pump doesn't mean that the entire oil industry is going to collapse. You use some restraining power to keep the amount of thieving down, but if you hopped in your car and went chasing them down like some enraged vigilante, then all you'd end up with is someone in a car accident over a few bucks of gas.
My point is this: If the film industry, especially the major studios in Hollywood, spend all their time chasing the "bad guys" then they'll take their focus off doing their real job which is making "great" movies. The reason why they are loosing money is that their budgets are over budget while their actual stories are second rate to what they use to be a decade or so ago.
When my wife and I go out on a date, we first go by the local cinema to see what is playing. In the last few years we've found ourselves looking at all the posters on the cinema wall, outside the building, and then saying, "well... not much of a choice to pick from". And then we drive over to a local restaurant and eat out instead of watching a film.
The other major mistake in the film industry is that we haven't applied the simple concept of supply and demand to our films. Why should anyone want to watch my movie when it is done if no one even knew I was making it?
The major studios put all this money out on their films, keep a tight lid on what is going on during production to "keep the magic in the film making" as they say it. Then when the film is ready for release they create a trailer that basically show a bunch of flashy shots that fit that genre without really giving us a good reason to even watch the film.
Great example: The Hurt Locker. The film industry was enraged when the Oscar award winning film ended up being pirated to death after it came out on DVD. But the problem wasn't the pirates. It was the marketing. You didn't give me (the audience) a good enough reason to get up off my butt to see that particular film.
Another major issue is the price of tickets vs. the average yearly wage of most Americans. Back in the Great Depression, people went to the movie theaters because they weren't expensive. The cost of living wasn't blown out of proportion. Yes, people we struggling worse than we are now, but the cost of a movie ticket wasn't outrageous. If the movie industry gave deals on tickets, more people would show up, which means more money for the film studios.
To recap, the film industry needs to take a hard look at what it's doing before becoming the police of the world but utilizing the Department of Homeland Security which should be focusing its attention of the real evils of the world.
Now with that crazy paragraph out of the way, let's take a realistic view of pirating and the unrealistic realities that the big studios don't want to come to terms with. Back in 2004 (I think that was the year) I happened to stumble upon a NPR broadcast about the music and movie industry. The only person I remember in particular that spoke at this broadcast was Justin Timberlake. Not sure why I can't remember any other names. It was a discussion on how the music, movie and print industries need to adapt to the changing world. One of the speakers pointed out to an interesting story about the executives at Disney when the first VCR was introduced to them.
The representative for the company that made the VCR prototype came in, plugged it into a TV and popped in a VCR tape of a film. The executive responded with, "but how do we control how many people get to see it at a time?"
And that statement "how do we control how many people get to see it at a time?" is exactly what is wrong with the mentality of the film industry. That word "control" is a very scarry word.... Stalin used that word. Hitler did to. So did the robber barons of the end of the 19th going into the 20th century. We need to use caution when using that word.
The problem isn't with the pirates. They're are thieves in every industry. Just because someone steals gas at the pump doesn't mean that the entire oil industry is going to collapse. You use some restraining power to keep the amount of thieving down, but if you hopped in your car and went chasing them down like some enraged vigilante, then all you'd end up with is someone in a car accident over a few bucks of gas.
My point is this: If the film industry, especially the major studios in Hollywood, spend all their time chasing the "bad guys" then they'll take their focus off doing their real job which is making "great" movies. The reason why they are loosing money is that their budgets are over budget while their actual stories are second rate to what they use to be a decade or so ago.
When my wife and I go out on a date, we first go by the local cinema to see what is playing. In the last few years we've found ourselves looking at all the posters on the cinema wall, outside the building, and then saying, "well... not much of a choice to pick from". And then we drive over to a local restaurant and eat out instead of watching a film.
The other major mistake in the film industry is that we haven't applied the simple concept of supply and demand to our films. Why should anyone want to watch my movie when it is done if no one even knew I was making it?
The major studios put all this money out on their films, keep a tight lid on what is going on during production to "keep the magic in the film making" as they say it. Then when the film is ready for release they create a trailer that basically show a bunch of flashy shots that fit that genre without really giving us a good reason to even watch the film.
Great example: The Hurt Locker. The film industry was enraged when the Oscar award winning film ended up being pirated to death after it came out on DVD. But the problem wasn't the pirates. It was the marketing. You didn't give me (the audience) a good enough reason to get up off my butt to see that particular film.
Another major issue is the price of tickets vs. the average yearly wage of most Americans. Back in the Great Depression, people went to the movie theaters because they weren't expensive. The cost of living wasn't blown out of proportion. Yes, people we struggling worse than we are now, but the cost of a movie ticket wasn't outrageous. If the movie industry gave deals on tickets, more people would show up, which means more money for the film studios.
To recap, the film industry needs to take a hard look at what it's doing before becoming the police of the world but utilizing the Department of Homeland Security which should be focusing its attention of the real evils of the world.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Michigan Tax Incentive "gimmick"? Really?
I usually hold off on voicing my political thoughts on issues on the internet. But recent news articles and reponses people have been making on the Michigan Film Tax Incentives have finally pushed me to speak my mind.
Anyone who knew me several years back, knows that I didn't support the tax incentives. Recently, in the last few months I have changed my mind. I was wrong. Rick Snyder is too.
Rick Snyder, who's running for Michigan Governor, made a very blunt and aragant statement of calling the tax incentives "dumb" and a "gimmick". That statement is itself a gimmick.
First, to make that statement is to insinuate that all the Democrats and Republicans who voted for it (which was everyone in the state senate, except some woman from Novi) are dumb. Nice going there Rick. Just tell your fellow Republicans they're dumb.... especially Rep. Huizenga.
Second, anyone who understands politics of the last couple decades figures out that what candidates do is create easily quotable "sound bytes". That statement is a sound byte. And an extremely opinionated one designed to stir up his supporters (A.K.A. - The Teaparty). It's no different than John Kerry dropping the "F-word" dozens of times. No real substance, just a lot of hype and reaction.
For me, as an independent voter, when I see someone dropping blatantly arrogant and opinionated sound bytes like this what they're dong is a slight-of-hand. They are distracting you from the main focus by making you pay attention to something else. Truth is, he doesn't have a plan on how to replace what the tax incentive was creating. $300-$500 million dollars was spent in the private sector per year in the two years that it has existed. (The reason I know he doesn't have a plan is, that if he did, he'd be focusing on that, not saying it's "dumb".)
Michigan citizens had been complaining to the present governor that she needed to create jobs and diversifying the economy. Manufacturing is going the way of the Dodo Bird in this country. Why? Because the Asian countries have cheaper labor. There will always be cheaper labor some where else. Give all the tax incentives you want, the manufacturing companies won't be running our way. There might be a few hundred jobs added, but not a huge amount.
Plus, not everyone wants to work in an assembly line. Many of us want to use our talents and brains to do something creative with ourselves.
The entertainment business, specially film, is the number one export out of America... besides jobs. Avatar made $1 billion in the box office, Inception made $800 million. No matter how hard the film business was hit by the recession they are doing much better than most industries around the world. They are adjusting and adapting to the new economy... and one of those ways is to pursue states that offer tax incentives.
A young lady by the name of Evangeline Lilly, started out as a extra in British Columbia. Then she was noticed by an agent and eventually auditioned for a role in a new show that was named LOST... remember the character "Kate"?
Remember, she was in British Columbia... not L.A. Why would she have gotten discovered there? Because British Columbia had a tax incentive that drew in studios from L.A. After a while they built sound stages and other facilities there related to the film business. Then B.C. lowered the amount of the incentive but continued to draw in film business because of the original tax incentives and facilities.
My major issue is the private sector. The number #1 thing on voters minds is simply 3 things: jobs, jobs, jobs. Michigan has the highest unemployment numbers in the country. People wanted results. A tax incentive for film production gets money into the private sector the fastest.
Now people can debate whether seeing $300-$500 in the private sector is worth rebating 42% back from the state budget, but they shouldn't debate there are jobs. (Honestly, if the 42% was there the politicans would just spend it anyways). There are tons of Republicans that claim that "no one is getting hired, it's all out-of-staters". Then, as I saw in a freep.com article, someone commented that they made $50,000 working on Red Dawn as a crew person from within Michigan...
You know what response that commenter got? Republicans telling him, "nice you got a job, but I don't want to have to subsidize your income". Wait a second, so it would be better if this person was on extended unemployment.... or even better, if they ended up getting assistance from the state? You forget, he was working his tale off on a film production, building his resume, and pursuing a career! A career, may I point out, where you can be in a crew union and make around $27 per hour. Yes, $27, per hour, with time and a half and double time as standard operating procedures. They pay better in the film unions that the UAW does right now.
First they said that it's not creating real jobs, then when people come forward and state they made a great income on it, then the same people say, "I don't care". It's like you can't win with those people.
My point is this: GM and Chrysler both laid of a ton of people over the decade. Many other major corporations did the same thing in Michigan. So when $300-$500 million was spent in the private sector in the last year, and the vendors paid more tax money at the end of the year, the Michigan government had more tax money. There's a very good chance that the money paid in taxes by individuals and corporations involved in the film business help to make up for what was lacking from GM and Chrysler. I wonder what the state budget would lack if the incentives are pulled? What would Snyder do to make up for the people who won't be working? Does he have a plan for that?
What the tax incentives creates is opportunities and hope.
Making arrogant statements like "dumb" and "gimmick" is insulting to all of us in the film business, the people at the film office, and all the people in the State Senate that voted for it.
I'm not supporting one candidate or another, I'm simply stating my position on the tax incentives. The film tax incentives was the best thing that has happened to Michigan since the Big 3 Auto companies started decades ago. To change it would be the worst mistake in decades! Diversify or die... that's the choice the Michigan economy can't risk.
Anyone who knew me several years back, knows that I didn't support the tax incentives. Recently, in the last few months I have changed my mind. I was wrong. Rick Snyder is too.
Rick Snyder, who's running for Michigan Governor, made a very blunt and aragant statement of calling the tax incentives "dumb" and a "gimmick". That statement is itself a gimmick.
First, to make that statement is to insinuate that all the Democrats and Republicans who voted for it (which was everyone in the state senate, except some woman from Novi) are dumb. Nice going there Rick. Just tell your fellow Republicans they're dumb.... especially Rep. Huizenga.
Second, anyone who understands politics of the last couple decades figures out that what candidates do is create easily quotable "sound bytes". That statement is a sound byte. And an extremely opinionated one designed to stir up his supporters (A.K.A. - The Teaparty). It's no different than John Kerry dropping the "F-word" dozens of times. No real substance, just a lot of hype and reaction.
For me, as an independent voter, when I see someone dropping blatantly arrogant and opinionated sound bytes like this what they're dong is a slight-of-hand. They are distracting you from the main focus by making you pay attention to something else. Truth is, he doesn't have a plan on how to replace what the tax incentive was creating. $300-$500 million dollars was spent in the private sector per year in the two years that it has existed. (The reason I know he doesn't have a plan is, that if he did, he'd be focusing on that, not saying it's "dumb".)
Michigan citizens had been complaining to the present governor that she needed to create jobs and diversifying the economy. Manufacturing is going the way of the Dodo Bird in this country. Why? Because the Asian countries have cheaper labor. There will always be cheaper labor some where else. Give all the tax incentives you want, the manufacturing companies won't be running our way. There might be a few hundred jobs added, but not a huge amount.
Plus, not everyone wants to work in an assembly line. Many of us want to use our talents and brains to do something creative with ourselves.
The entertainment business, specially film, is the number one export out of America... besides jobs. Avatar made $1 billion in the box office, Inception made $800 million. No matter how hard the film business was hit by the recession they are doing much better than most industries around the world. They are adjusting and adapting to the new economy... and one of those ways is to pursue states that offer tax incentives.
A young lady by the name of Evangeline Lilly, started out as a extra in British Columbia. Then she was noticed by an agent and eventually auditioned for a role in a new show that was named LOST... remember the character "Kate"?
Remember, she was in British Columbia... not L.A. Why would she have gotten discovered there? Because British Columbia had a tax incentive that drew in studios from L.A. After a while they built sound stages and other facilities there related to the film business. Then B.C. lowered the amount of the incentive but continued to draw in film business because of the original tax incentives and facilities.
My major issue is the private sector. The number #1 thing on voters minds is simply 3 things: jobs, jobs, jobs. Michigan has the highest unemployment numbers in the country. People wanted results. A tax incentive for film production gets money into the private sector the fastest.
Now people can debate whether seeing $300-$500 in the private sector is worth rebating 42% back from the state budget, but they shouldn't debate there are jobs. (Honestly, if the 42% was there the politicans would just spend it anyways). There are tons of Republicans that claim that "no one is getting hired, it's all out-of-staters". Then, as I saw in a freep.com article, someone commented that they made $50,000 working on Red Dawn as a crew person from within Michigan...
You know what response that commenter got? Republicans telling him, "nice you got a job, but I don't want to have to subsidize your income". Wait a second, so it would be better if this person was on extended unemployment.... or even better, if they ended up getting assistance from the state? You forget, he was working his tale off on a film production, building his resume, and pursuing a career! A career, may I point out, where you can be in a crew union and make around $27 per hour. Yes, $27, per hour, with time and a half and double time as standard operating procedures. They pay better in the film unions that the UAW does right now.
First they said that it's not creating real jobs, then when people come forward and state they made a great income on it, then the same people say, "I don't care". It's like you can't win with those people.
My point is this: GM and Chrysler both laid of a ton of people over the decade. Many other major corporations did the same thing in Michigan. So when $300-$500 million was spent in the private sector in the last year, and the vendors paid more tax money at the end of the year, the Michigan government had more tax money. There's a very good chance that the money paid in taxes by individuals and corporations involved in the film business help to make up for what was lacking from GM and Chrysler. I wonder what the state budget would lack if the incentives are pulled? What would Snyder do to make up for the people who won't be working? Does he have a plan for that?
What the tax incentives creates is opportunities and hope.
Making arrogant statements like "dumb" and "gimmick" is insulting to all of us in the film business, the people at the film office, and all the people in the State Senate that voted for it.
I'm not supporting one candidate or another, I'm simply stating my position on the tax incentives. The film tax incentives was the best thing that has happened to Michigan since the Big 3 Auto companies started decades ago. To change it would be the worst mistake in decades! Diversify or die... that's the choice the Michigan economy can't risk.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Audtions for Actors... and Why I Don't Think They Are Effective
Whenever you hear an interview from an actor or a casting director describing the audition process for a film you usually hear, "so and so did a read". You'll hear about cold readings of a "side" (segment of a script). Typically that's it. I have a problem with this.
What does someone dramatically reading lines tell a director or anyone for that matter? That the person is a good orator. For that fact, I think lawyers and many politicians, including President Obama, should give acting a try. If we're going to grade someone on a their expressive diction, correct annunciation of their words, etc than we are limiting both the performer and the potential of the film as a whole.
I remember once reading that many of Hollywood's A-list actors deal with stuttering problems. And yet they perform such great performances?... How can that be? Because a performance is about more than verbal words but the raw, believable performance of an actor "becoming the character".
Many times, some of the "so-called great reads" appear more like performances of a soap opera (apology to all those who like watching soap operas, I had to relate it to performances in which actors are forced into creating some sort of believability out of something written and performed in haste). What happens, in my opinion, is that two, maybe three or more actors read a scene together (sometimes it's also just a monologue) and the actors are trying to make the conversation sound "real". What you get are performers trying to quickly "conjure up" emotions on the fly, that may or may not fit the character or circumstance at all. But they try to appear professional and not stumble over the words.
Why do this? Because it's the way it's always been done.
So, what do I do differently. I try to find ways of seeing both how the actor speaks and how they react in the circumstance. For instance, in Awakening, I asked all the actors to act out four different scenarios in front of a camera and send me the audition tape via an online site like yousendit.com or upload it to youtube and send me the link. I gave each performer breathing room to bring the character to life in each circumstance. I also had them audition for things that we're in contrast with each other.
For The House, I had a few actresses I was interested in. I requested that all of them audition for each part. So they did do a reading. But added to that I wanted them to speak certain one liners with different emotions and also had them write and perform a monologue of that character. Forcing the actresses to speak for parts that they didn't even want helped me to see a different part of them that I wouldn't have seen otherwise.
In the past, when I did theater, I would do auditions like I was taught by a teacher in Pueblo, Colorado. One of the things she would do would be something called, "in scene, out of scene". Basically, she has you turn your back to her (or camera). Then the actor would turn around, in character, of whatever they were told to be. And they had to do this without any speaking or noises. She wanted to see you facial expressions. Your way of creatively showing your character without using your mouth as a crutch.
With the camera your eyes, the subtities of facial expressions can and usually are the most powerful tools an actor has. Yet, auditions rely too much on your ability to read out loud. Imagine the difficulty that someone with dyslexia would have doing an audition the "usual way". Yet, there are problem some A-listers out there with dyslexia, amazing the audience with their performance.
What are your thoughts?
(At left is the obvious picture of Charlie Chaplin, the best actor of the silent era. His ability to convey emotions with no words is a testament to the potential of human expression)
What does someone dramatically reading lines tell a director or anyone for that matter? That the person is a good orator. For that fact, I think lawyers and many politicians, including President Obama, should give acting a try. If we're going to grade someone on a their expressive diction, correct annunciation of their words, etc than we are limiting both the performer and the potential of the film as a whole.
I remember once reading that many of Hollywood's A-list actors deal with stuttering problems. And yet they perform such great performances?... How can that be? Because a performance is about more than verbal words but the raw, believable performance of an actor "becoming the character".
Many times, some of the "so-called great reads" appear more like performances of a soap opera (apology to all those who like watching soap operas, I had to relate it to performances in which actors are forced into creating some sort of believability out of something written and performed in haste). What happens, in my opinion, is that two, maybe three or more actors read a scene together (sometimes it's also just a monologue) and the actors are trying to make the conversation sound "real". What you get are performers trying to quickly "conjure up" emotions on the fly, that may or may not fit the character or circumstance at all. But they try to appear professional and not stumble over the words.
Why do this? Because it's the way it's always been done.
So, what do I do differently. I try to find ways of seeing both how the actor speaks and how they react in the circumstance. For instance, in Awakening, I asked all the actors to act out four different scenarios in front of a camera and send me the audition tape via an online site like yousendit.com or upload it to youtube and send me the link. I gave each performer breathing room to bring the character to life in each circumstance. I also had them audition for things that we're in contrast with each other.
For The House, I had a few actresses I was interested in. I requested that all of them audition for each part. So they did do a reading. But added to that I wanted them to speak certain one liners with different emotions and also had them write and perform a monologue of that character. Forcing the actresses to speak for parts that they didn't even want helped me to see a different part of them that I wouldn't have seen otherwise.
In the past, when I did theater, I would do auditions like I was taught by a teacher in Pueblo, Colorado. One of the things she would do would be something called, "in scene, out of scene". Basically, she has you turn your back to her (or camera). Then the actor would turn around, in character, of whatever they were told to be. And they had to do this without any speaking or noises. She wanted to see you facial expressions. Your way of creatively showing your character without using your mouth as a crutch.
With the camera your eyes, the subtities of facial expressions can and usually are the most powerful tools an actor has. Yet, auditions rely too much on your ability to read out loud. Imagine the difficulty that someone with dyslexia would have doing an audition the "usual way". Yet, there are problem some A-listers out there with dyslexia, amazing the audience with their performance.What are your thoughts?
(At left is the obvious picture of Charlie Chaplin, the best actor of the silent era. His ability to convey emotions with no words is a testament to the potential of human expression)
Friday, September 10, 2010
The Film Business Makes No Business Sense
Some people blame the recession, but that seems like an easy excuse to toss out there (I thought the film business was suppose to be recession proof?). Some people blame too many platforms that don't pay enough for content (others say so many platforms are the actual answer). The problem with the film business is that it was always based on sensationalism and assumptions.
The film business started out with people from vaudeville adopting the new camera as a way to entertain. Vaudeville in many ways is a lot like the old concept of the circus. "Come see the bearded lady!" or "watch alligator-boy swim" or some other shocker to draw in a crowd. Then as films grew from short films to feature lengths they adapted the format.
In the early years of the film business the film studios owned the theaters. This way they controled what the audience would see. If every film shown in a cinema is owned by the same studio then it doesn't matter which one you want to watch because they make the money anyways. But then the anti-trust laws were applied in the '50's which meant the studios couldn't own the cinemas. TV also started to come into exisestence which now competed with what the cinema's charged. Why go to the theater if you can watch something for free at home? Then VHS came into existence and then DVD's, Bluray, and a ton of other platforms. More and more content was being made. And that is when the flaw caught up to the business.
Every business is based on the simple concept of supply and demand.... except the film business. When a business, like the big three American(?) auto companies fail to follow this principle, then it pushes the businesses to bankruptcy (or asking for a bailout). Making more of something with no proven demand for the rise in numbers is like gambling. Either adapt to what the demand is and make more of that or cut back on what you are making if the demand is less.
The film business is not based on supply and demand it's based on assumption. A-list actor + script that fits a selling genre + previously successful director = financial success. A good example are all the superhero movies that came out. Since Spiderman did so well in the early part of the decade than the studios should all make more. Who cares who the superhero is, just make it into a movie. Or convert a popular TV show, like Transformers, into a movie and then make tons of sequels. 3D is another great one. Since Avatar did so well and it had 3D lets make every movie with action into a 3D spectacle and we'll be a success... Remember Clash of the Titans?
The problem isn't with these movies it's the business model they're based on: assumption. We all know what happens when we assume...
People say there is no way you can apply the business concept of supply and demand to the entertainment business. Oh really? They do it in television and music all the time. In music it is called a "single" and in the television world it's called a "pilot". With a single being played on a radio station they are able to create the demand for the entire album. I would argue that they should just make the single before the money is spent on making the entire album and then releasing it on youtube and the radio stations. This way they can gage if there is a demand for the entire album. This risk prevention idea would save record companies millions of dollars each year and build a bigger following for their artists.
My first film, AMNESIA, I made the mistake of doing what everyone else was doing. I learned the hard way that making a film on the assumption that others would want to watch my film is the most ridiculous business model. Obviously I was not alone, it's how everyone in the business does it too. I needed to run my film productions on the principle of supply and demand. Nobody cares about your movie! (unless you give them a reason too!).
I've spent that last 2 years studying how to apply the principle of supply and demand and how to utilize it according to the changes in how the audience hears about and views their content. This is why I have not gone into production on any feature films yet.
(My next post I will talk about Awakening and why it might be one of the most important things I ever make)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)