Why "Pan" Didn't Fly

I am continuously baffled by Hollywood's insistence upon turning children's stories into "action" films that repel their target audiences. The recently released "Pan" is no exemption.

"Peter Pan" is a classic children's character. His dedicated audience tends to run under 10 years old. Maybe 11 at best. The movie was advertised before summer Disney flicks and animated features aimed at the grade school set. Yet Sony thought it sane to deliver a dark, semi-violent film that was anything but the happy fairy tale "Peter Pan" has long been to readers and film audiences both young and old.

Aside from being yet another incomprehensibly non-kid-friendly origination tale, the story itself inexplicably twisted the mythology and character relationships until it was almost unrecognizable. Sure, the Lost Boys being orphans kidnapped by pirates almost makes sense, but pretty much nothing else did after that. Here's the short list of questionable choices the "Pan" team tossed into this visually stunning train-wreck of a kid film that isn't okay for kids:

1. Blackbeard mining pixie dust to maintain his youth. This doesn't jive with Barrie's story at all. If Jason Fuchs needed to give the pirates a reason for their bad behavior, he should've taken note of the midi-chlorian debacle in the second round of "Star Wars" films. Pixie dust is magical enough without making pirates instantly young while sniffing it like hard-core cocaine addicts. MYTHOLOGY FAIL
2. Tiger Lily: They blew it on every level with how Tiger Lily was treated. In the original tale, she is roughly Peter's age and a member of the native American tribe that inhabits Neverland. I'm still completely confused about how Tiger Lily is suddenly a full-grown adult white woman with green eyes and a crush on Captain Hook. Does she age backwards after this origination story? Was her dad also dabbling in dating the Londoners who seem to visit on occasion? INEXPLICABLE CHARACTER CHANGE
3. Cowboy Captain Hook - a good guy? Really? Why? He speaks with the worst Southern accent I've heard in years and shows no signs of becoming Peter's mortal enemy. If there was a sequel being set-up to explain the turn in their relationship, there's no inkling of it in this film. Sure, TV's "Once Upon a Time" has done an excellent job of taking Hook and turning him into an almost good bad-boy, but it doesn't fit this version of Peter Pan's tale whatsoever. Again: INEXPLICABLE CHARACTER CHANGE
4. The tribe of natives looks more like the U.N. than a tribe. The chief seems to be the only discernible "native" in the group. The current "Pan Warrior" is clearly from Asia (and Cirque du Soleil), while the rest are a hodgepodge of every race and color on the planet. Yeah, that makes perfect sense on an isolated island where the only imports are orphaned boys stolen by pirates to work mines until they die of injury or old age. ILLOGICAL CASTING
5. Peter's ability to fly is due to his being half fairy. Okay, so let's completely toss the pixie dust mythology created by J.M. Barrie out the window. So how do the new kids learn to fly, then, if it isn't pixie dust and happy thoughts? MYTHOLOGY FAIL
6. Why do we end up with a small family of Lost Boys rather than the hundreds Peter inevitably freed from the mines after defeating Blackbeard? What happens to all those boys in the mines? MYTHOLOGY FAIL
7. Smee: Again, nothing works here. The new Smee is a British-accented man clearly of Middle Eastern descent. (Sure, Adeel Akhtar is a funny, talented actor, but Smee? Why?) Oh, wait, he's not "Smee" but now Smiegel. Yes, pronounced just like the Hobbit better known as Gollum in "Lord of the Rings." Intentional? Accidental? Hard to tell since this Smiegel also seems to change loyalties every time the wind blows. He betrays Hook in this version of the Peter Pan story, so it's again difficult to understand how he later becomes Hook's first mate. You guessed it, we're tagging this one another INEXPLICABLE CHARACTER CHANGE
8. Mermaid triplets. Yes, ALL of the mermaids are played by the gorgeous Cara Delevingne. I'm not even going to try to guess at the logic behind this INEXPLICABLE CHARACTER CHANGE

The list could go on but none of us really have all day. The lesson here is, when creating an origins story about one of the world's most beloved fairy tale characters, it helps to know the original story and the characters. If you plan to take creative license, you either need to stay within a logical distance of what is familiar or jump completely off the cliff. "Pan" failed because the filmmakers couldn't decide if they were making a fairy tale origin story for kids or a completely-off-the-cliff action movie for adults, leaving little for either audience. Lesson #2: if you plan to market a film to kids, it should neither be dark no violent, and "Pan" is both. Sure, it's not Tarantino-violent, but it's still too violent for kids under 12, and too fairytale for kids over 13. The film itself is beautiful with gorgeous effects, but that's just not enough to hold the attention of even very young audiences today.

Biting the Hand

Ah, film students. Like any college kid - ahem - "young adult," they know it all. They've spent a semester or two under the skillful tutelage of a sage-but-untenured professor and now are ready to show the world they're in charge.
     Snark is often the first skill we'll see leveraged by these lovely young up-and-coming film moguls. First, they will troll social media and fire off shots at everyone who expresses anything to which they do not agree with sniper-like accuracy. Seriously, didn't you know that those 524 Twitter followers, 387 of which are spam accounts, and that project film they shot in six weeks qualify them as experts? Second, they will blog, expounding at length why the producer with thirty years of experience working with big Hollywood studios is completely clueless when it comes to modern filmmaking. Oh, and those well-known but sketchily documented industry standards mean nothing since our young upstart has plans to prove them irrelevant.
     Tsk-tsk, sweet babies, did no one tell you in your six months of collegiate enlightenment that the use of snark is a privilege earned through vast experience and a proven track record of success? Unless you need only be mentioned by one name for the A-listers to jump onto your latest project, you should probably leave the snark buried in the bottom of your sock drawer.
     I'll probably never fully understand why the current generation thinks being cocky and obnoxious will get them anywhere. Although I guess one could say they're right: it will get you to the exit door faster than a pair of well-greased roller skates and a turbo jet strapped to your butt. Somewhere along the line most of the people currently under the age of thirty got brainwashed into thinking that being disrespectful will gain them respect. (I suspect this has a lot to do with the continued over-indulgence and current cultural wave of demanding everyone bend to children's every whim, but who am I to say?) Here's a fine example for you:
     I recently forwarded a tweet recommending an article describing how one well-experienced filmmaker applied the first 10-minute rule to his own personal viewing of films released in the past year. (If you're not familiar, this rule is commonly applied by readers in evaluating new screenplays, but is also commonly used in evaluating film festival submissions as well.) "Get an attention span," another user replied, as if this 10-minute thing was my idea. (Should I have been flattered that he thought it was?) He doesn't know me. He obviously doesn't know the industry well enough to realize that understanding this little rule will be critical to his future success. I hovered over his name to find the title "Film Student." Ah. I was no longer surprised. Film school may teach you processes and technique but only experience or a really well-aged mentor will enlighten you to the realities of the film industry. This young man probably thought that his snarky response would catch my attention and convince me to change my stance.
     Sadly, what really ends up happening in these situations is that those of us who have tread the long hard road before the cocky film student (or recent grad) smile quietly and nod our heads while the youngster in front of us lambasts everything we learned and accomplished before him. We listen politely as he insults the rules we all must play by and the methodology we all know works, having already tried and proven lacking many other ways of getting things done. If he shows promise, we MIGHT feel compelled to take him aside and guide him to try a different approach when speaking to people he may not know well but who likely can make or break his film career before it has even started. Given the number of hateful know-it-all twenty-somethings out there today, that's rarely going to happen. Instead, the group of older, more experienced filmmakers will shake their heads after he walks away and make a mental note to avoid hiring his obnoxious ass in the future.
     So, listen up film school kid! If you want to make it in film, the first thing you need to accept is that you don't know jack, and won't for many more years. Whether you like it or not, there are people out there who have forgotten more about making films than you will ever learn, no matter how pioneering your professors proclaim you to be. Your best bet is to learn to replace that cocky attitude with a whole lot of humility, a healthy dose of respect and just the right amount of confidence. You will get much further by listening and asking questions than by flatly rejecting the advice of your predecessors. Watch what you post, tweet, pin or whatever. When your name appears on a producer's desk for a critical position on a project, rest assured that producer will search the Twitter-verse and all related digital entities before he or she waists their limited budget on you. That blogger you slammed on Facebook just might turn out to be the producer's favorite niece.
     Now, zip it and go share this advice with your friends before they accidentally bite the hands that may soon be feeding them, too.

Talent Agent or Scam?

The digital world has been a powerful enabler for everyone who ever dreamed of a career in film. Would be film makers and future stars are no longer beholden to the behemoth studios that seem to own Hollywood. Thanks to the power of the internet, anyone with an idea and a great camera phone can produce a film and get it seen by thousands, even millions of viewers. Use the right streaming service and you might even make a buck or two in the process.
     But thanks to the complete lack of regulation and the truly global nature of the internet, for every positive there are negatives. These normally take the form of charlatans and scammers who prey on the gullibility of those who dream of a career in film but have no idea how to start. Today, let's focus purely on the so-called "Talent Agents" out there who fall into this category. Whip out that notepad and pencil - here's how you can tell the real agents from the fake.

1. Money: The most common scam out there is designed to part you from your hard-earned cash with little to no service provided in return. You'll see this in the form of talent "sites" that promise you access to acting/modeling/voice over opportunities in exchange for an up-front or monthly fee. Real talent agents work for a portion of your earnings, not for excessive up-front fees.
2. Advertising: Incredibly, the scam artists and sham talent agencies do the most advertising. Your radio and TV blare out opportunities to work with top studios and even throw out a few star's names to add to their credibility. Usually they have nothing to do with any of the shows, people or studios they talk about. Most real talent agents do little more than maintain a small web presence and an ad in the trades. They almost never offer to take the inexperienced and turn them into an overnight star.
3. Headshots: Scam artists will charge you hundreds for mandatory photography fees and even offer comp cards as part of this bargain basement package. Show up at a real talent agency without your own headshots and you're not likely to make it past the receptionist.
4. Audition Listings: Real talent agencies don't charge you for access to a list of available auditions. A quality agent knows their talent pool and matches you with viable auditions rather than expecting you to figure it out on your own. Why? Remember, they only get paid if you do. Casting directors will also stop calling them if they don't produce viable candidates for auditions, which means they're going to pre-screen both you and the listings to ensure they keep credibility with the C.D.s out there.
5. SAG/AFTRA Affiliation: Union affiliation isn't easy to obtain. If the agency isn't listed on the SAG website, they're probably not worth your time. There are some exceptions as independent filmmakers have begun to rely upon some trusted talent listings online, but these are few and far between. If you want to get paid for your acting, SAG/AFTRA franchises are a no-brainer.
6. "No Experience Necessary:" Ha ha ha ha ha! Okay, if you're under 10 years old this might be true. Otherwise, no self-respecting agency is going to talk to you if you have zero experience. What you WILL find with these "no experience needed" agencies is the opportunity to drop 4-figures on mandatory training before they'll represent you. Now, there are a handful of well-known, semi-respectable agencies that offer training courses to youngsters. Just beware and do your research. If you get invited to a large group "audition" where everyone there gets an offer to attend class, it's safe to assume the agency is more interested in milking you for cash than helping you get started.
7. No Audition: Real talent agents will require a portfolio for models and/or an audition "reel" for actors. REAL talent agents do not create these for you but instead require you provide said portfolio or reel before they will agree to meet you in person for an interview/audition. They may assist you in producing higher quality audition screening materials, but only AFTER you've provided your own and they've decided to represent you. If you get invited to meet without providing your headshot, resume, portfolio and/or reel first, respectfully decline.
8. Cattle Calls: Open auditions are commonly held for extras near the location of the expected opportunity. (I.e. The C.D.'s for "Any Given Sunday" held an open call for football player extras near the stadium where the scenes were to be shot.) These open calls are almost never for a principal/lead role and inevitably require you show up prepared to work within a day or two of being accepted. (Sometimes on the spot.) A common scam is to hold "open auditions" for "new talent." You will spend hours sitting in a waiting room, may even get interviewed and asked to do a cold read. You are then offered positive feedback and invited to attend some very expensive industry event. This will get you nowhere 99.9% of the time except less rich.

If you REALLY want to become a paid actor or model, you need to first learn the trade and second get some experience. If you've never acted before or never done so on camera, attend a workshop or two. Plenty are generally offered by local colleges and industry professionals. You'll probably have to do some work for free before an agent will show any interest in representing you, so connect with your local independent film community and audition, audition, audition. Working for nothing more than SAG and IMDB credit is the most common way to get started.
     Attend local film festivals, media (headshot, resume or business card) in hand. Rub elbows with filmmakers and casting directors so you can get your name out there. Once you've built a little bit of credibility into your resume, start sending requests to talent agencies, but keep working for free in the indie world until you find representation. There is no EASY way into a film career, and you certainly can't buy your way in with a low monthly fee. It won't likely happen overnight, but if you're serious about your career, talented and persistent, odds are good you'll at least work enough to feed the need.

Casting in Color

The way things are today, you can't be too careful when it comes to racial sensitivity and attention to diversity. There are no rules, per se, yet everyone seems to be breaking them on a daily basis. In this overly PC, continuously offended world, how do you make the right decisions when it comes to casting roles? Do you cast based on audience draw or lean toward inclusion regardless of the story you plan to tell? Is there something in between? Will making the wrong choices hurt your film or does it even matter?

The answer to all of the above is YES.

There is a lot of noise out there about making movies to attract multi-racial audiences, and there certainly is some logic to that theory. If I'm a casting director working on a big Hollywood studio project, I'm naturally going to be sensitive to two huge facts: 1) more than 70% of Americans identify as Caucasian and 2) 18 of the top 20 grossing films in 2015 featured Caucasian leads. While item one is indisputable, it's easy to say fact #2 could be driven by the plethora of films featuring purely Caucasian casts or at least white leads.

That aside, several of the top 20 films this year have shattered traditional blockbuster casting molds. Okay, let's face it: Will Smith shattered those molds years ago. But is that repeatable? The jury is still out.

The truth is, when you're casting a film that includes time-tested characters, your first loyalty needs to be to your existing fan base. Does it make sense to cast Idris Elba as James Bond? No, it doesn't. Why? Because there is no way to "explain" the change to loyal audiences, no matter how awesome Idris Elba may be. (And we all know he is.) Every Bond in the history of Bond has been similar in look and feel. It makes no more sense to cast a black man as James Bond than it does to cast Tom Cruise as Wonder Woman. Iconic characters generally need to be left alone. Consistently we have seen "progressive" filmmakers attempt to recolor classic, well-known characters only to fail miserably. (Anyone see "Fantastic Four" lately? Yeah, I didn't think so.)

From a psychological perspective, audiences develop an "image" of a character based upon how they're used to seeing that character. Cinderella will always be a pretty blond white girl, assuming Disney wants to keep making hundreds of millions at the box office on Cinderella-based fare. Seeing a major change in a beloved character causes watchers to experience a kind of psychological dissonance that simply makes them uncomfortable. They may go see the movie, but those first viewers won't feel good about it, won't know why, but will tell their friends to stay away. Even a brilliant movie may bomb because of this.

Your second loyalty in casting needs to be to your story. If your film is a coming of age story about a boy growing up in China and dealing with the conflict between tradition and modern life, casting a person of any other race isn't going to make sense. Audiences will get stuck on that rather than seeing what an awesome story you have to tell. The recent backlash over the casting of Mara Rooney as Tiger Lily in "Pan" is a great example. Ms. Rooney did an amazing job from an acting point of view, but it was completely overshadowed by the fact that she just didn't fit the character. Her father was clearly Native American. She clearly is not. Even children pick up on these things. (My child is no Tiger Lily loyal but quickly realized that she and the band of natives didn't look like a tribe.) Casting choices should fit the story at all times, regardless of how badly you want to be inclusive. Now, that DOESN'T mean you cast to stereotype. There is a major difference between stereotype and character, and all good filmmakers can sense the difference.

Finally, you need to be aware of the character. Suppose my story is about a Southern girl who wants to be the belle of her high society ball in Redneckville, USA because it's a long-standing family tradition. I HAVE to cast that girl and her friends as Caucasians. Now, suppose my Southern girl wants to BREAK tradition and become the belle of the ball? Now, I can cast any race I like in that role and may even lean toward African American because of the natural conflict that will arise from that choice. If my character wants to play basketball professionally but must overcome the fact that he's short, again, race won't matter. I can cast black, white, whatever, and be successful. I might even cast the character as Asian to make the character stand out even more than his height alone. Before I cast the role, I need to understand the character: history, motivation, and how s/he fits into my story.

Let's face it: Hollywood's practice of casting white actors in non-white roles is a long-standing and irritatingly senseless tradition. However, audiences are more outspoken and sensitive to Hollywood's attempts to dupe them. So, if you want diversity vs. travesty, make sure you first tell a story where diversity makes sense, then cast based on the characters and the stories they have to tell, not upon whether or not it will make you appear to be politically correct in your choices. It's always PC to stay true to your story and character and audiences will appreciate your choices.

FYI - SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS COMPLAIN. There is nothing you can do about that, so just accept it and move on.

In the end, a typical cast in a modern American field shouldn't be monochromatic, but your casting choices should always serve the story and the characters foremost. No actor should ever be placed in the cast to serve as a racial token, nor to fulfill a stereotype. If the character is race-less as written, then cast the person who does the best job auditioning for the role, regardless of color. Audiences appreciate a film that feels true, not just politically correct.

The Big Studio Casting Catch

Recently headlines have told the sad story of the on-going culture of discrimination in Hollywood. Idris Elba is too "street" to play Bond. Maggie Gyllenhaal, at 37, is too old to play the love interest of a man old enough to have fathered her. Anne Hathaway at 32 is losing roles for characters written as older than her to women in their twenties. The still insanely gorgeous Salma Hayek feels she has been written off by Hollywood because she's nearing 50. Melissa McCarthy faces constant criticism over her weight.
     While there is little doubt these stars have experienced the negative side of a middle-aged-white-male-friendly fickle Hollywood machine, let's check the stats for the most visible studio films of 2015 to see just how pervasive the problem is today (with love interests highlighted in multi-lead casts):

• Jurassic World: Chris Pratt (36), Bryce Dallas Howard (34)
• Avengers, Age of Ultron: Robert Downey, Jr. (50), Chris Hemsworth (32), Mark Ruffalo (48), Chris Evans (34), Scarlett Johansson (31), Jeremy Renner (44), Linda Cardellini (40)
• Straight Outta Compton: O'Shea Jackson, Jr. (24)
• Furious 7: Vin Diesel (48), Paul Walker (41), ...Michelle Rodriguez (37)
• Kingsman, The Secret Service: Colin Firth (55), Taron Egerton (26)
• Mad Max, Fury Road: Charlize Theron (40), Tom Hardy (38)
• Ant-Man: Paul Rudd (46), Evangeline Lilly (36)
• Cinderella: Lily James (26), Richard Madden (29)
• Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation: Tom Cruise (53)
• Trainwreck: Amy Schumer (34), Bill Hader (37)
• Spy: Melissa McCarthy (45), Jude Law (43), Jason Statham (48)
• The Man from U.N.C.L.E.: Henry Cavill (32), Armie Hammer (29), Alicia Vikander (27), Elizabeth Debicki (25)
• Pitch Perfect 2: Anna Kendrick (30), Rebel Wilson (35)
• Fifty Shades of Grey: Dakota Johnson (25), Jamie Dornan (32)
• Terminator Genisys: Emilia Clark (29), Jai Courtney (29), Arnold Schwarzenegger (68)
• McFarland, USA: Kevin Costner (65), Maria Bello (48)
• Magic Mike XXL: Channing Tatum (35)
• The Longest Ride: Scott Eastwood (34), Britt Robertson (25)
• Insurgent: Shailene Woodley (24), Ansel Elgort (21), Theo James (31)
• Ricki and the Flash: Meryl Streep (66), Kevin Kline (68)
• Fantastic Four: Miles Teller (28), Michael B Jordan (28), Kate Mara (32), Jamie Bell (34)
• Hitman, Agent 47: Rupert Friend (34), Hannah Ware (32)
• No Escape: Lake Bell (36), Owen Wilson (47), Pierce Brosnan (62)

 

     This chart shows that, although there does appear to be some opportunity for women over 32, the big studios still generally cast older male leads with younger females, shying away from similarly-aged female leads or love interests. If you're an actress who's hit her 35th birthday, the outlook isn't so great when it comes to the big-budget Hollywood movie machines.

     Oddly enough, recent studies showed that women in the 30-45 age range have more disposable income and are more likely to head to the theaters if there's something there to draw their attention. Just look at the box office success of female-friendly films like "Cinderella" ($201.1M), "Pitch Perfect 2" ($183.8M), "Fifty Shades of Grey" ($166.1M), "Spy!" ($110.4M), and "Trainwreck" ($105.7M), all currently in the top 20 gross list for 2015. As early as 2011, movie ticket sales were split 50/50 between male and female buyers, with a trend toward females purchasing more often than males. More recent numbers show a trend toward 55% of ticket buyers being female, and the this chart proves that movies featuring female leads are pulling those audiences in where they're available. (Note the slightly higher per/screen average for movies with female leads than those with males.)

     Logic would dictate that the big studios should be scrambling to produce fare that appeals to the increasing 30-45 female movie consumer base. Instead, more than half of the major studio releases in 2015 have been action films, though they have clearly attempted to win female viewers by casting stronger female lead roles and expanding female roles overall. On the flip side, most of the ensemble casts in the big studio films were still mainly male, typically out-numbering female lead roles 2 to 1.

    So what to do about the lack of quality roles for all of the outstanding actresses out there over 32? The fix lies in the hands of low budget studios and independent filmmakers. Releases like 2014's "Cake" (starring Jennifer Aniston) and "Still Alice" (Julianne Moore) fared well with female audiences. "Alice" raked in $18.6M on a budget of $4.1M and both films earning a bevy of nominations and awards, including a Best Actress Oscar for Julianne Moore.
     Now, what about the whole Idris Elba/Bond fiasco? Can black leads pull the box office draw their white peers do? Hmmm...I think the $141M over 3 weeks speaks volumes. Smart filmmakers should pay attention, even if the big studios decide to cling to their 1950's-era casting practices. 

Deadlines Matter, Even for Indies

For me, one of the toughest things about independent film is the complete lack of studio-imposed deadlines. I know, you're thinking I'm completely nuts and you're just about to click that little "x" to close the window. Before you do, consider this:

1. Projects that take years to complete suffer issues of relevancy once they finally wrap. I had a friend who started a wonderful story about the Cold War in the 1980's. I heard from her recently: it was finally finished, could I read it? Sure! The writing was brilliant, for 1985. It now needs a complete rewrite because younger audiences won't connect and it's no longer relevant to those who lived through that era. While it could have a cool retro feel as a film today, the story has to include more exposition than it did when the writer started it because of the loss of relevancy.
2. Casting can become a major issue. A filmmaker friend obtained the film rights to a book and went to work writing his screenplay. He was able to find the perfect lead, a local unknown, to star in his project, and shot a few scenes to garner interest in funding the project. However, he kept putting the finished screenplay on the backburner as he worked on other projects. By the time he was ready to start filming, that perfect actor had been cast in a TV series and was no longer available. He's now having to start over with casting and still, more than a year later, doesn't have a completed screenplay ready to shoot.
3. Actors' appearances change over time. The headlining film at our local festival a couple of years ago took several years to complete. This might have been okay except that two of the main characters were young girls when the project started, teens when it finished. The story itself covered less than a year of elapsed time, so the change in the younger actors' appearances was jarring and left audiences confused.

     These are just a few real-world examples where the lack of a hard deadline undermined what might have been successful projects otherwise.
     As an independent filmmaker or screenwriter, it's important to set deadlines for yourself to ensure your project remains relevant, you keep funding you've secured and you don't lose resources attached to the project. Make sure the deadlines you set are reasonable - you don't want to rush the project and produce something crappy, but you also don't want to take so long to get it done that six other people beat you to the punch.
     If you're not sure what makes a reasonable deadline, I recommend choosing a film festival or contest to which you'd like to submit your work. (Don't pick one that closes entries next month.) Alternatively, figure out the pace at which you best work and approximately how long it would take to finish your project at that pace. (Tip: it shouldn't be more than a year out.) For example: if you're a writer, setting a goal of 10 to 20 pages per day would set the goal of first draft for you in approximately 1.5 to 2 weeks out. Factor in time for your detailed proof-read and three or four review passes, and 2 months may be a reasonable deadline for you to have a copy ready to pass around to others to read before your final copy is complete.
     All in all, a deadline should give you a reasonable goal to work toward and put just enough pressure on you to get the work done before completing the project becomes impossible or pointless. It will also show others you want to bring into the project that you are serious about getting it done and that you are a true professional, improving the odds that they will commit the time and effort you need from them to produce quality work.
     So, get to it! Whip out that smartphone and add an appointment, as well as a few reminders, to get that project done. As we all know, once it's in the smartphone calendar, it's real.

Review: The End of the Tour

I am only slightly embarrassed to admit that I was expecting a comedy when I first walked into the theater, bucket of M&Ms and popcorn in one hand and a giant soda in the other. I like to avoid any pre-conceived notions regarding movies I plan to review, to ensure perfect candor, so I'd only read a three-line synopsis that basically told me it was about the road trip Rolling Stone journalist David Lipsky (played by Jesse Eisenberg) took with professor/author David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel) at the end of his Infinite Jest book tour. Given Joan Cusack's appearance in the cast list, "comedy" was a natural assumption.

It wasn't long into the film that I realized it was pretty much a drama about two guys sitting around talking to each other. Sometimes they walked around and talked to each other. Briefly, they talked to other people or Wallace's two adorably overweight Labradors. By most measures, the movie should've been incredibly boring.

It was not.

Before we'd even gone in, my friend and I had vowed to sit on the end of the row and quietly depart if the film turned out to be below our expectations. Instead of sneaking out, we forgot to eat our popcorn, even with the unhealthy dose of chocolate we'd dumped inside. My soda remained nearly full. Not only was this little film about two guys talking to each other vastly interesting, it was entertaining and moving. I forgot to eat.

As expected where Segel and Eisenberg are present, there were moments of humor and awkwardness. Eisenberg's delivery was his typical tic-laden quirky nerd. No real surprises there. Segel, on the other hand, disappeared and was replaced by someone who easily could've been mistaken for the 90's era Wallace. (Okay, his hair wasn't quite as awesome, but we can overlook that.) Segel's performance was not only believable, but nearly invisible, and that is the perfection every real actor should strive to achieve. Thanks to that perfection, it was easy to understand how people could form the type of bond toward Wallace that his "DFW" fanatical followers seem to possess. (Many have vowed to skip the movie because they believe DFW would never have sanctioned such a narcissistic endeavor. Wait, didn't he agree to the original interview, book tours, speaking engagements...? Never mind. I don't want to stir up trouble.)

In the end, this film WILL tug at your heart strings, if they are there to be tugged. It will appeal to those who want to get insight into Wallace through Lipsky's eyes without taking the time to read the book (Although of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself). It will appeal to indie film lovers, bio and book lovers, and anyone who simply enjoys a good drama. It won't make tons of money, but the best films rarely do. If you're not one of those previously listed folks, go see it for the outstanding cameo performances by the inimitable Joan Cusack and Mamie Gummer, looking more like mama Meryl Streep than ever before.

If you're over 18 and have half a brain, seek this film out. Order a small popcorn and soda, sit down and watch it with a pal, then feel smarter and a little more human when you walk out. For you DFW fans who refuse to see this film because you don't believe it can possibly do him justice or may conflict with his wishes, get over it. Unless you knew him personally, you really have no more right to claim knowledge of what he would've wanted than the filmmakers, who, by the way, honor his memory very well while helping us understand why he both savored and avoided the spotlight. (He might have even been ashamed of your arrogance and uninformed pre-judgment, being such a fan of moving pictures and overall open-mindedness himself.)

During his life, Wallace may have avoided the camera because he struggled with the trappings of fame and the dangers of inadvertently branding himself, but this film absolutely does everything possible to paint him as human as he'd want to be, and as brilliant and wonderful as he was. It treats his foibles and wishes with every bit of the deference he would've wanted and deserved. It also serves to introduce a whole new generation to him, drawing them toward his amazing work. If anything, DFW fans should be happy he is finally getting the type of widespread respectful treatment he never allowed himself to receive. So what if it's only a snippet of his life? It's a work of art and rare insight into a brilliant but (mostly) reclusive artist.

The End of the Tour opens in Houston on August 13, limited release.

"Home" = The Perfect Screenplay

While many screenwriting gurus vary greatly in the advice they give, there is one thing they agree on consistently for a feature-length screenplay: plot structure. If you're a budding writer, hopefully you've seen this basic rule:

It's simple, tried and true...and often ignored by screenwriters and filmmakers, especially in the independent side of the industry. (Hey, sometimes this works, sometimes it leaves audiences scratching their heads.)

For a new screenwriter, sometimes it's difficult to see this structure in modern films. (Try watching action films - they usually throw it in your face.) Since I'm a mom, though, I was compelled to see "Home" with my daughter, who absolutely LOVED that movie. I will be the first to admit, I did, too. So we watched it again and to my everlasting surprise, I realized why: that writer was a genius when it came to adherence to classic plot structure. Okay, and the film was a lot of fun to watch in general.

Not only was the overall story an excellent blend of fun, silliness and heart-string tugging, but the plot was easy for both me and the 10-year-old I brought with me to follow. Our well-trained movie-loving brains subconsciously responded positively to the near perfect adherence to classic plot structure without the slightest thought the story might be formulaic in design.

Whether you're a new screenwriter or an experienced pro, try drawing up your chart (based on the above), pop "Home" into your DVD, and see if you can attach the scenes in this perfectly-designed kids' movie onto the right points in the chart. How does the timing align? (Tip #1: times in the chart are approximate but should divide your movie into thirds at each of the turning points.) Does the setup establish the rules of the world it creates? Does the story stay within those rules (to maintain believability)? Does the action build from each point to the next? Where does the action peak? (Tip #2: It happens twice, as formula demands.) Does the resolution actually resolve every open thread? Evaluate other screenwriting elements "Home" executes well: Does each character have a unique voice? Do we care about what happens to the primary characters? Can you identify the primary antagonist(s)? Does each primary character have a friend/advisor? If you don't find the answer to each question, I have a now 11-year-old who will be happy to help you. :)

If you're not a screenwriter but a burgeoning filmmaker, I encourage you to view this as a guide to identifying excellent screenplays. In the end, they should follow the formula without appearing formulaic. That, my friend, (along with a killer cast and toe-tapping soundtrack), is how you pull in a $54 million weekend box office with a kid-friendly film that doesn't feature a princess or well-known toy anywhere in the story.

4 Ways Social Media is Changing Independent Filmmaking

About two years ago there was a rush by independent filmmakers to jump on the social media bandwagon for low cost film promotion. (Just search "social media independent film" for a rash of blogs, how-to's, etc., generally circa 2013.) Today, it's almost impossible to get your film seen without "posting" incessantly about it across a range of social media outlets, and it works.


There are more ways to leverage the power of social media to improve your success as an independent filmmaker than simply promoting your finished product. Here are some of the coolest/most creative uses of our social world I've seen recently (in no particular order):

1. Group story-building: As modern creative geniuses like Joseph Gordon-Levitt have proven, your followers on social media are a great source of creative, collaborative story-building. Check out his #MonthlyScriptWorkshop on Twitter. From developing an idea to finalizing a screenplay, there are hundreds of talented writers out there willing to contribute their time and energy if you just ask.
2. Fund your project: Crowd-funding is definitely the word of the day not only for independent filmmakers, but for many industries. Sites like Indiegogo and Kickstarter are excellent sources of funds for those with a project that's ready to go but needs a little extra kick to get started. (Most crowd-funding sites have rules around setting and making goals, so plan your campaign carefully.)
3. Meet your cast & crew: Creative independent filmmakers are expanding their reach to find locals who are willing to help make their dream a reality. I'm personally part of two Meet-up groups specifically targeting the local film community - one a general film-making group, the other targeting actors to cast current and future projects. (Make your group successful by including an educational element for newbies and networking with agencies, studios, etc.) The usual "casting" methods can be pretty difficult to navigate, and even harder to leverage effectively, when the pay for your stars is publicity (maybe) and peanuts. The promise of residuals will draw un-carded, experienced help, but we all know that's more a hope than a guarantee with most indies.
4. Test screening safely: With the increased focus on privacy, security and data protection, filmmakers now have several options to share their projects without losing their rights to them in the process. (Beware of user-agreements that hand your film over to the host. The most popular video-sharing service, to remain unnamed, is of particular concern if not used properly.) I personally like services like SmugMug and OneDrive to set up private shares that prevent download and duplication while providing support for comments and that social media feel. Instead of waiting to test the whole finished project, take advantage of social media and your circle of trusted friends to test specific scenes, different endings, even costumes, make-up, effects...you get the idea.

The digital age is a great thing for independent filmmakers. Take advantage of it!

10 Tips for Film Fest Success

I help out with a local film festival and every year I'm sad to see new, brilliant film-makers hobbled by the same mistakes. Here are 10 things I wish every film-maker/screenwriter would consider BEFORE they submit their entries.

1. The first 30 seconds are critical. Your film may be brilliant, but with thousands of submissions, if the first 30 seconds are hard to see, suffer sound problems, are unoriginal or just plain dull, screeners won't go any further. Your masterpiece will more than likely end up in the reject pile. (Tip, most festivals use a panel of pre-screeners before your entry ever sees a judge.)
2. Win in the first 10. That's right, whether it's a film or screenplay or anything in between, the first ten pages/minutes matter most. Again, most screeners/readers will bail out if that first 10 doesn't win them. Hook us, then worry about explaining who your characters are. We won't care about exposition if we're already interested in finding out what happens next. If your short film is only ten minutes long, make sure that first minute is brilliant.
3. Plan for the big screen. One of my (current) all-time favorite film festival entries (Republic of Rick) could've been a box office success if only it had been shot in the right format. 24 frames per second is a bare minimum (48-60 preferred), as is making sure you've selected the correct widescreen format and are ready to package to DCP. Once upon a time, you needed a bevy of $100,000 cameras to get there. Today, I can get pretty close with my $850 Canon Rebel Digital SLR and a stack of top-notch SD cards. In other words, budget isn't an excuse. Between the low cost of storage, (check out services like Microsoft's Azure, which actually hosted the data for Avatar during production), and the ease of converting your film onto Blu-Ray from almost any PC, there's no reason your film fest entry shouldn't be ready to hit theaters should it catch the attention of distributors.
4. Pay attention to light and sound consistency. As an independent film maker, keeping conditions the same over a period of time can be pretty tough on a shoe-string budget. However, post-production software is fairly low cost and can be used to level out both audio and light differentiations. Consistency in general can also be a real killer in an otherwise good film. I remember one film last year that was pretty decent overall, but suffered terrible consistency issues that left audience members shaking their heads. (I.e. a car driving through the rain but being completely dry when shot from the exterior, female actor's hair colors changing drastically between scenes, you get the picture.)
5. Skip the effects. Unless your digital effects are outstanding quality, they can really detract from an otherwise excellent film. Of course, student film categories are far more forgiving than the other categories at most festivals. If you can't afford the time, effort and/or talent to produce at least mediocre quality effects, skip them. We may not really need to see that space ship to know it's there, and might actually even be more intrigued by a film that cleverly avoids showing it to us.
6. Follow submission guidelines. Enter your submission in the right category and make sure it's complete and ready to go. If the film festival requires "premier" or "first run" in a particular category - don't submit a film that's already been shown at other festivals. (Usually there are categories for both types of film.) Submit in the right format, too. This varies by film festival. Some require printed screenplays, others PDF, others Word. For films, most prefer DVDs or Blu-Rays these days. Some may require you upload directly to a streaming service they use. Make sure your entry doesn't violate any intellectual property laws, either. Plagiarism may only get you kicked out if you do it in school, but it can result in a law suit when it comes to your film festival submission.
7. Stock footage should be unfamiliar or used in new, creative ways. Everyone has seen MLK's "I have a dream" speech over and over, along with "One small step for man..." Find other ways to get your point across if at all possible.
8. Skip the corny, tired dialog. Every time I hear a character utter the words "He is the BEST <insert description> I've ever known," (or any variation thereof), I dismiss the film right away. (Yes, big budget films make the same dumb mistakes, but they have 7-figure ad budgets and 8-figure stars to help them overcome bad dialog.) The key to a great screenplay or film is a modicum of originality. I don't need you to tell me he's the best cop ever. I figured that out the minute Will Smith's "Jay" ran down the insane alien in the early minutes of "MIB." Not once did you hear Tommy Lee Jones' "Agent K" tell us he was the best ever, even if he does reference the successful chase. Watch a few popular films in your category. If you hear similar lines, avoid them like the plague.
9. Submit early. While you may make the deadline with a last-minute entry, there's a good chance judges will have already formed an attachment to early favorites.
10. If you get accepted, show up to the festival and "sell" your film. Festivals are not only attended by the other entrants, but other industry insiders. I've often attended viewings of films I hadn't intended to see simply because the film maker was at the opening party and sold me on his or her film. If you're an artist in the industry, whether it's an actor, writer, sound mixer, effects artist, producer, whatever - show up and do some hand shaking. You just might actually find your next great collaborator or even a paid gig on an upcoming project.

I hope you find this information useful. Best of luck with your next festival entry!

Indie Life: Spark Session

I recently decided to leap back into acting/filmmaking after a VERY long hiatus. Thanks to the magic of the internet, it's been pretty easy to connect to others in the industry locally, and that's a wonderful thing.

Just this week I got to spend a few hours with a group of filmmakers and actors, some experienced, some aspiring, to discuss a joint project. Nothing big, just a little music video, but what joy the whole creative process brings! Unlike a typical corporate sales planning session, we were all naturally marching in the direction of the same goal. No idea was ignored. Everyone was positive and supportive, and within 2 hours we had a solid, scriptable outline of our video on paper and next steps to keep the project moving. We were all there for the love of the art form. That's how great art is born.

Granted, no funding was involved. No one to demand we earn back our production costs within xx weeks of release. And that is exactly why working in the indie world is such a gift. Sometimes money can really get in the way of the creative process. But not today. Not in Houston, TX where most films are made by non-union-members and nameless independent "studios."

Now, to find a sound stage, 3d animator and some decent lights on a $0 budget...

The Real Reasons "Pixels" Underperformed

It seems like every 30 minutes Variety or some other "V" named media outlet is publishing another editorial about how "Pixels" $24 million opening weekend proves Adam Sandler is no longer relevant. Most of these opinions run the range from accusations of dated, sexist humor to his failure to create variety in his film plotlines.

Frankly, most of these editorials are just some individual writer's attempts to push their own agenda onto a film that failed to earn back it's production budget on the first weekend. Most of the opinions are, frankly, ill-conceived and bordering on ridiculous.

The truth is, the movie is the kind of funny that causes audience members to blow soda out of their noses on several occasions. Sure, it's primary subject is a washed up 80's gaming star, (played by an almost washed up 90's movie star), finding love and fame when an alien invader brings back 80's gaming technology - greatly enhanced - to kick our butts in a "to the death" real-life video game match. A bit of a stretch, yes, but then so is a superhero with a suit that makes him ant-sized.

So why would such a funny movie go largely unnoticed by a culture that worships video games and summer-time explosions?

The primary reasons I see are timing and audience. First of all, Adam Sandler as a leading man is mainly going to appeal to the same people who loved him and his man-child, SNL-born sense of humor in "Happy Gilmore." That means the bulk of his fans today are adults in their forties, maybe early fifties. Most of this audience has matured, as have their tastes. Matured, but not died. We still love Adam and a good laugh. But now we're dragging kids behind us like magnetic mines most weekends. Our kids are typically pre-teens to young twenty-somethings at this point. (Mostly pre-teens since us early GenX'ers had a tendency to wait until we hit 30 to procreate.)

Which leads us to a conflict between audience and content. Sure, we loved his politically incorrect, disgusting sexual referencing jokes when we were in our twenties and it was still okay to make a joke that involved a junior high view of sex or the opposite gender. Unfortunately for "Pixels", we sure as hell don't want our sixth grade kids asking us what a Martha-Serena sandwich means. However, the presence of Pac Man and Qbert in the trailer is highly attractive to our 8 to 12 year-old kids who have grown to love the modern versions of these classic games thanks to their mobile apps. For older kids, these same apps are too childish and too easy to play to draw their attention, automatically alienating the 13 to 18 crowd who would never admit to their zombie-killing friends that they love Pac Man. Nope, better go see "Ant Man" again instead because, let's face it, you're not a cool teen if you don't catch the latest Marvel flick. You're even more uncool if you admit you like those "baby" games based on 80's titles.

Which again brings us to timing. "Pixels" would've done much better in the fall, when younger fare is scarce as Oscars season leads to a rush of more adult-focused fare. (Not to be confused with "adult films.") Why on earth they timed the release against guaranteed blockbusters like the latest Marvel superhero release is beyond me. No one else was dumb enough to take on the Disney juggernaut - not even Illumination Entertainment and their guaranteed-success "Minions." (Note they released the week before.)

If only Adam Sandler had cut most of the unnecessary and stomach-turning Fire Blaster sex jokes and released it around late August/early September, he would've drawn in a much larger pre-teen/tween audience with parental blessing. That would've likely turned this mediocre disappointment into an unexpected hit. Sigh.