Best of Texas Movies

Don Graham's book about Texas Movies

Here's a fun article from Texas Monthly on making movies in Texas that I just stumbled across.  A "panel of experts" (WTF that means, I'm not sure) decides the Top Ten Movies ever Made in Texas.  I'm not big on "top 10" lists about pop culture, but the article is interesting more for the details you learn about the particular films, and of course, the predispositions about the people naming them, which may serve some of you aspiring filmmakers well, especially those in our Texas Film Scene community.

While the article is from June 2011, the content is evergreen, and I think you'll get a kick out of it.  Enjoy!

Tweeting during auditions

I'm not sure if this is bad form or not.

Daryl Eisenberg of DE Casting in New York, NY, has been using the popular insta-blog service Twitter during her casting sessions, though not during the actual auditions, she claims. As an actor, I feel empathy for the people who feel slighted by her actions, and am maybe a bit icnredulous that she was not doing it during actual auditions, though I give her the benefit of the doubt, since I wasn't there.

However, it's instructive to read what she was actually tweeting. The feedback is honest and blunt, which is what most actors need. I don't think reading the tea leaves of a casting director's musings will make us better actors per se, but it can certainly help identify and eliminate behaviors these CDs feel is "unprofessional" or even just plain old annoying.

Different CDs have different likes and disklikes, and being able to listen in on their thoughts, especially during a live casting session, seems to me like invaluable acting intelligence.

What do you think?

Indie Film Fissure Starts its Texas Screening Tour

A shameless plug for my fellow Texas filmmaker Russ Pond.

The Award-Winning, Indie Film Fissure Starts its Texas Screening Tour

Indigenous Film Works and Top Pup Media invite you and your guests to a free preview screening of FISSURE in Dallas on July 21st, Houston on July 22nd and Austin on July 23rd. Showtime is 7:30 PM. Doors open at 6:30pm. The screening is free, so seating is first come, first serve.

Fissure star James Macdonald and producer/director Russ Pond will be attending all three screenings. Please join us for a night of mystery and indie filmmaking.

Details about the screenings can be found here: http://fissure.tv/screenings

You can register for the Facebook events at the following links:

Dallas Screening - Tuesday, July 21: http://bit.ly/fissure-dallas
Houston Screening - Wednesday, July 22: http://bit.ly/fissure-houston
Austin Screening - Thursday, July 23: http://bit.ly/fissure-austin

Synopsis: Detective Paul Grunning is trying to piece together his fractured life. When a routine disturbance at the Ulster House turns into an unexplainable death, all he has worked for will be tested. James McDonald is Grunning, an ailing, addicted cop, haunted by his own bad choices. He investigates the mysterious house, only to find shifting testimonies and perplexing new clues in every room. Sifting through the erratic claims of Emma, the victim’s wife, Rachel, the seductive grad student, and Andrew, a bitterly resentful son, Grunning uncovers motives, but no real answers. Ultimately, Grunning must navigate a fractured reality and his own insecurities to find what's real.

Fissure Trailer: http://www.fissure.tv/fissure-trailer

$4.5 million gross profit on indie feature

Yeah, that got my attention, too.

My friend Joe McReynolds hipped me to Lance Weiler's feature film site. I had heard of Lance's Workbook Project, but hadn't put his face to the films. Weiler claims to have made $4.5 million from self-distribution of his first feature, The Last Broadcast. His Workbook Project is wildly popular, and has returned him more money than a book advance he turned down to start it.

DIY DAYS LA - When the Audience Takes Control - panel

How not to use the internet to find investors for your film or theatre project

Shara Nickell brought my attention (via Angela Lee's Film Austin Yahoo Group) to this excellent article from L.A. entertainment attorney Gordon Firemark, and he graciously allowed me to republish it here. Good stuff. I've been working with L.A.-based producers for over 10 years raising money for films, only modestly successfully. It's complicated and expensive. Before you stake your hopes on "InstantProducer.tv" or similar sites, read this article.

-------------------------------------------------------

How not to use the internet to find investors for your film or theatre project.

By Gordon Firemark | May 13, 2009

In recent weeks, I’ve begun to see more and more independent filmmakers and theatre producers using forums, chat rooms, and other internet-services to seek out investors for their projects. In most cases, these inquiries are couched in plain language: “Seeking investors for independent film” or similar.

Unfortunately for these producers, their use of the internet as a tool in identifying and securing the financing for their projects may actually serve as an impediment to their efforts, making the sometimes improbable chances of raising funds virtually impossible.

Projects financed through the use of funds contributed by investors must comply with myriad laws and regulations governing the manner in which the investment opportunity is communicated and the transaction completed. First among these laws is the 1934 Securities Act, which established the Securities Exchange Commission, and gave that agency authority to regulate the offer and sale of securities.

What is a “security”?

Generally speaking, any sale of an investment in a venture where the investor’s role is “passive”, in that he or she does not share meaningfully in the right to control the day-to-day operations of the venture, and/or does not share the risk of loss with those in control, is likely to be considered a security, subject to the rules and regulations of the SEC.

The Registration Requirement

The general rule is that every offering or sale of securities must be registered with the SEC unless there is an available exemption on which the issuer relies. Registration of securities is a time-consuming and often cost-prohibitive option for low-budget filmmakers and producers of theatrical plays and musicals.

Exemptions from Registration: Advertising not permitted.

Although there are several exemptions from registration available, those that are most commonly available to producers of entertainment arise under SEC Regulation D. Unfortunately, these exemptions are intended for private, limited offerings, rather than offers made to the general public. As such, the regulations prohibit the use of advertising in the offer and sale of the securities.

Internet postings seeking investors ARE advertisements.

Lawyers are in agreement that any communication put on the internet for the purpose of raising money via sales of securities WILL be considered an advertisement, and thus, renders the Regulation D exemptions inapplicable. Therefore, by posting in an internet forum, chat room or social networking site, producers often make things much harder for themselves.

Solutions

So, how can a producer effectively use the internet in her efforts to finance her project?

One possible solution is to work outside the securities realm. By this I don’t mean to skirt the law, but rather to ensure that the offering being made does not involve securities, but instead, an opportunity to become an “active” investor and participant in the production. Typically, this is done by posting or offering prospects the chance to review the business plan for the project, and the chance to join as a partner, co-venturer or founder of an initial incorporation for the purpose of producing the project.

This drastically limits the universe of likely financing partners, since by being “active”, the partner shares in the downside (liability) as well as the possible upside from the profitable project.

Another viable approach (if executed carefully), is to use the internet as a tool for developing and building relationships with people whom you may later approach on a personal, private basis with the investment opportunity. Care should be taken, however, that this relationship building is in fact more than merely window-dressing. The common interests of those involved must go beyond the project being financed. The internet in such situation isn’t involved in making the offer, but merely in networking with like-minded individuals.

Finally, there ARE some internet based organizations that focus on attracting “accredited” investors and building a pool or network of people interested in investing in entertainment projects. By engaging the services of such an organization, (which has a pre-existing relationship with pre-qualified investors), some producers have succeeded in securing financing.

Ultimately, however, the internet should be thought of as simply another medium for communication. It cannot be used in ways that older, more traditional communication methods would be prohibited. Before starting any campaign to raise funding for a film or theatre project, producers should consult with a qualified and experienced entertainment lawyer (like the author), as the pitfalls for noncompliance with securities regulations are onerous.

NOTE: This article addresses U.S. Law only. Securities laws vary from one country to the next, and from state-to-state within the U.S. This article is not a substitute for legal advice obtained from an experienced entertainment attorney you’ve hired to counsel and represent you.

Take me to your NEW podcast, Earthling!

Latest Texas Film Scene podcast is up. Interview with Clay Liford, writer/director/producer of the new indie sci-fi film Earthling. Bonus interview with Austin actress Amelia Turner, and Clay's dogs. Lots of fun, this one.

Clay's got two entries in SXSW, so check out the podcast, then check out his films.

Breaking news

TV news report about The Vern.

;-)

Coen Brothers do it again, dammit

I just watched No Country for Old Men, and was absolutely knocked out... for the first 118 minutes. The last four, as with other Coen Brothers movies, just made me wonder, "Um, what was the point, here?" But then, maybe that was the point.

It's de rigeur to cheer on the Coens as they "buck the Hollywood traditions" (like good storytelling). But my initial reaction was that the movie left the audience hanging in the last scene. I have not read the novel yet, but perhaps there was additional thematic insight to be gleaned there. Perhaps I am old school, or just plain old, but I was really hoping for a theme that was not so cleverly disguised that it cannot even be recognized by NYT book critics.

Don't get me wrong- I do not want a movie to hit me over the head with allegory or jingoism. But I would like to be able to suss out a theme from a story, any story, no matter in what medium it is told.

I watched Rashomon last night, the 1950 Kurosawa gem. The acting was over the top, the score was cartoonish, the subtitle translations were blunt, (though the direction and cinematography hold up very well), and yet, the movie's theme was clear enough to provoke discussion and thought. Rashomon left me feeling satisfied, like the story circle had been completed. Earlier Coen Brothers films also feel this way, like Raising Arizona and O Brother. It's not like they don't know how to deliver a theme; they just sometimes choose not to.

Am I just a slave to the Hollywood formula? Aristotle doesn't think so:

[Writers should create a] character between these two extremes - that of a man who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty. [W]hile reproducing the distinctive form of the original, make a likeness which is true to life and yet more beautiful.

I loved, loved, loved the cinematography, dialog, and acting in No Country. What I didn't like was that (a) I didn't know whose story it was; which is to say, that it suffered from a point-of-view problem, and (b) the story's theme was obscured. Why is (b) important? Well, without a theme, then I'm just watching plot elements- character studies, pithy dialog, pretty shots, random acts of violence. Hell, I can do that by turning on the evening news (in HD, no less). I want a story, dammit, and a good one.

I decided to reach back to the source, poet William Butler Yeats, for some help.

That is no country for old men. The young
In one another's arms, birds in the trees
- Those dying generations - at their song,
The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unaging intellect.

[...]

Once out of nature I shall never take

My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

Yeats' theme is clear, yet subtle, and not bludgeoning:

People, particularly elders, are not as revered by the young as the things they make; so, then, how do we best leave our legacy?

As an artist, I fully appreciate Yeats' sentiment. As for the Coen Brothers' movie, they succeeded in getting me to talk about it. So maybe that is their point.

What makes a good movie?

This week, I actually watched a few movies.  Mary and I haven't had the chance to do that in quite a while (like, two years), thanks to the combination of Baby Girl and the loft-like, no-bedroom layout of my Fortress of Solitude (now under contract, thank you).  I also met up with my buddies Joe and Javier, to discuss a joint project.  There were several good ideas floated, but I only wanted to commit to making something that was going to be really good, which begs the question:  what makes a good movie?

The variety of stuff we saw ranged from edgy drama to farce, black comedy to uh, regular comedy, short videos to children's movies.  The things that did not make a movie good included:

• big name actors
  
• big name directors
  
• big name writers
  
• big budget
  
• explosions and car crashes
  
• potty humor
  
• gratuitous sex and violence.
  

Some of the things I enjoyed most about the good movies included:

• big name actors
  
• big name directors
  
• big name writers
  
• big name editors (oxymoron?)
• big budget
  
• explosions and car crashes
  
• potty humor
  
• gratuitous sex and violence.
  

Hmm.  Seems like William Goldman was right:  nobody knows anything.  But is that really all we can say about what makes a movie good?

When I watch a film, I watch it as an audience member, but also as an actor/writer/director/editor.  I tend to study the movie, as well as let it wash over me.   Sometimes I need to watch a movie more than once, just to be able to fully enjoy it without being too analytical.

With my auteur hat on, I realize that what I love most about good movies is how the entire package fits together.  A great story premise without great dialog writing will fall flat.  A great script without clear, visionary direction will fall flat.  A great vision without great acting will fall flat.  Same is true for audio, editing, lighting, cinematography, and many other of the dozens of aspects of filmmaking.  Filmmaking is collaborative storytelling.  It is all too easy to forget the collaborative aspect of the process, and only focus on one area. [Even marketing is a collaborative aspect of the film's success, but it is not, strictly speaking, what makes a good movie.]

Big name actors often, but certainly not always, bring good acting.  Big name writers and directors often, but not always, bring good writing and directing.  Not all of these elements need to be great in order for a film to shine, but most of them need to be great.  It's like a balance scale:  if enough of the components are good, it tips the scales in favor of "good movie".  If all of them are good, the scale thumps to one side, like weighing a feather versus a boulder: Oscar-caliber good.  Vice-versa, and you've got a universal stinker.

In most of the bad or mediorce films I saw, not enough of the elements were good to make the film a "good movie."   The only one I saw that was a slam-dunk was Notes on a Scandal, with Dame Judi Dench, among several other excellent actors.

What do you think makes a good movie?

Ben Taylor on latest Texas Film Scene podcast

Just posted a fresh episode of my Texas Film Scene podcast. This week, I interview produced writer/producer/actor/director/teacher Ben Taylor. I've known Ben for about four years, taken his classes, and only just this weekend learned about his storied and accomplished career. Good stories and good advice from a Hollywood veteran.

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, or directly from Libsyn.

My new podcast is up!

Yea!! My new Texas Film Scene podcast is up on iTunes, though it might not be searchable via the iTunes store until January 17, 2009. 

In the meantime, if you have iTunes, you can get to it directly from this URL.  If you don't have iTunes, you can find it here.

Please download it and review it on iTunes.  Got suggestions for someone you would like interviewed?  Let me know.  I would love to hear your feedback!

Shooting the Ninja

Photo by David Overturf

This is me running full-speed through a gaggle of school children on the set of Kat Candler's "Ninja James and the Beastman". I was so nervous that somebody would get knocked down! Short steps, quick-moving feet is the key.

Kat runs a smooth set. This was the first time I have worked with Kat in any significant role, and I was very impressed. She is relaxed, laid back, and perpetually sunny, much like my friend director Jon Keeyes. That attitude pervades the set. We got lots of coverage, and still finished early both days. Now that is cool.

Kat is one of the select Austin filmmakers that Get Things Done. She gets films written, made, distributed, and promoted. And that's why I wanted to work with her.

It's been fun so far, and I look forward to the next two weekends.

Nobody knows anything

Why is it that nobody knows anything?  William Goldman couldn't have been more correct when he said it, but why was he so right?

I am a business and marketing information addcit.  Been doing it since I was 13 years old.  Read Positioning when I was 15 years old.  I have been marketing myself and other businesses, large and small, on three continents for years.  I have even assembled business and marketing plans for movies and production studios.  Many others, way smarter and more experienced than I, have been doing it even longer.  So how come nobody knows anything yet?

Because: Art is not repeatable.  That's why.

Oh, a nicely-assembled marketing binder will give you the impression that it is, but don't be fooled.  They'll say this new movie has all the same winning elements as the latest Oscar-winner, or mega-blockbuster, and therefore, is guaranteed (pretty much) to be a success.  

Past performance is no indication of future results.

Science is, by definition, repeatable.  Everything else is a guess.  Wall Street types call it speculation.  In Vegas, baby, they call it gambling.  But every piece of art is unique in some way.  Any movie (whether or not you consider it art) is different from any other movie:  the director, stars, writer, producers, crew, budget, effects, storyline, locations, marketing, timeline, release date, and process of making the movie may all be different.  Sometimes only one or two elements seem different.  But there are always differences, and they are not easily isolated, or repeatable differences.

Movies are not creations that you can assemble or dissect on a lab counter and run through a spectragraph, even though there are many books, workshops, and studio executives who believe that you can. Movies are unknown, risky ventures.  There is absolutely no way that you can know in advance if your movie will succeed; you can only speculate- take the risk.

The very best thing you can do is to make what you believe in your heart and soul to be a good movie, and do your best to get it seen by as many people, as quickly as possible, so that it builds a rolling buzz, which hopefully snowballs into a "sleeper", which snowballs into a cult hit, which snowballs into a must-see, which snowballs into critical darling, which snowballs into a commercials success, which hopefully rolls the last mile into an Oscar winner.

Many people will tell you what is a good movie, and why yours is not.  Absorb what is useful, but trust your instincts, stick to your guns.  

After all, nobody knows anything.

Starz exec Rob Markovich reception

The Austin Screenwriters Group held a pretty swanky reception tonight for Rob Markovich, Director of Original Programming for the Starz movie channel network. Rob has been the driving force behind such Starz series as Crash, Head Case, and Hollywood Residential.

At the ASG meeting, he talked about where his network, and the industry in general are heading (episodic TV, not movies), and how aspiring writers could get their scripts read. He was a great guest, very informative and gracious with his time, and I really appreciate him speaking to ASG.

I pitched Rob some of my own TV and film ideas, and he liked them. Hopefully we can discuss them more when I'm in L.A. In the meantime, I'm going to try and connect him with my friend Mike Alvarez, who might have an animation co-production deal that Rob would like.

And the other shoe drops...

It's official: movies are free.

Napster ruined the Big Corporate Music Model by setting the expectation among fans that music can and should be free to acquire. Many musicians disagreed, but many accepted the new order, and found other ways to make money in the music biz.

Bittorrent technology did for movie piracy what Napster did for music piracy, making it easier to download huge files over the Internet.

I have long contended that the same thing is happening with the movie industry, and eventually, even big filmmakers will give over to the "free" model, just the way big musicians like Trent Reznor, Radiohead, and others, have.

Now it has happened. Michael Moore will release his latest movie (I keep wanting to call them "films", kind of like I keep referring to "albums") for FREE. Like Radiohead, he is only releasing it for a limited time as a free download, and fans can buy the value-added DVD if they want.

This, combined with the legal Web distribution of movies, TV shows, and Web-based content, means that the film business is following exactly the same path, albeit slower, as the music business. What does this mean for actors?

It means that it will probably be harder to earn a living. Why? Because free or cheap Web-based distribution opens the floodgates to amateur filmmakers who compete with big studios, and because there are no existing mechanisms for making big money from Web video... yet. This means that studios will want to drive down their costs as much as possible, as they throw a bunch of spaghetti at the wall, and see what sticks.

Now, I do not pretend to know this for sure; it's just my guess, based on experience in the music industry and as a small business owner. The analog to live music is live theater, not film. You can't pirate a live theater show experience. So, as musicians now give away music and sell concert tickets, so, too, must actors- particularly film and television actors- find other ways of capitalizing on the shows they create.

Shows which are now free.