Five years and no pay day

The writer of my short film has just had his first feature made. He almost got screwed out of a credit and had to take the directors to arbitration, twice, but at least he got shared credit. It went to Sundance and got rave reviews and now is being released on a thousand screens in August. The trailer is really good and you can watch it here and read a bit about the film. I read this script a couple of times and made suggestions to develop the characters and story, so I was a big fan. The directors, of course, took out the good stuff and made it Hollywood bland but they got the job because they were able to cast name actors like Alan Rickman and Bill Pullman.

See, the studios still control distribution and still rely on theatrical to develop a buzz. They figure it takes $20 million to market a movie and that is the sole determinant for whether to distribute one. Is it worth $20 million? If there are no name actors, the answer is no. If the actors are recognizable but not bankable, like a movie my friend Steve is in called Plumm Summer with William Baldwin and Henry Winkler, the answer is still no. Sure, people know who they are but they won't go to the theaters to see them. It's to the point where no matter what the film or the budget, you better have at least one bankable name in the film or no one wants it, not even for cable.

What happens, then, is independent filmmakers can't make a film without a star in it, shunning their friends - fantastic actors who may have even originated the role - and other talent struggling for exposure. To attract top talent, it can't just be a fun romp, the script has to be really good or different or the characters have to be really interesting; requirements that no Hollywood film has to fulfill. And, the journey is a grueling five years for a movie made with independent financing; Little Miss Sunshine being the pinnacle of success.

Over the fourth, I met a couple - an actress/producer and a writer - who just finished making an independent film. They both spent five years on it and were involved in every detail of production and independent distribution. In the end, it sold and the investors almost broke even but they got no major distribution and didn't make a dime on it. It got rave reviews at festivals and in the press but it doesn't have any bankable talent in it. Now they're talking contingency plans and day jobs and these are two people that, to most of the struggling talent in Hollywood, are "making it." Stories like these make it very difficult to motivate oneself to make a feature.

We've all seen what's happened to film since the acceleration of visual effects. Basically it's all that films are about these days. People going to the theater expect to see something pretty spectacular. You can watch a good story on TV or get a laugh on YouTube but the cinema experience has to be eye-popping and better have one or more big stars. I expected that with On Demand and digital distribution, the field would have expanded. Instead it has contracted. Because all the Hollywood movies are soulless, empty effects extravaganzas, the name talent are starving for more substantive roles. They take the indie parts and push lesser known talent out of the running but still don't guarantee success of the film or the filmmaker. Filmmakers and investors are so worried about making their money back that they don't take risks that might make a better movie.

I know there's a huge demand for independent film. My mom will buy or rent a film from Blockbuster because she likes the cover and the title, even if she's never heard of or recognizes any of the actors. Some of them, she really likes. I read an article recently about how the record industry was digging out all these out-of-print recordings to distribute on iTunes. It said that the low cost of digitizing music made it possible to sell music that is obscure or rare and might have a small audience but they are sales they wouldn't otherwise be making. I was really excited by that; it sounded like the entertainment executives were finally realizing that there is big money in niche audiences. Just like Chris Anderson says that the way to make money on the Internet is to target a meganiche, because point one percent of Internet users is still a million, I think there is money to be made in film from the meganiche audience. So far, though, no one has tapped that potential because the greed and ego in the business has everyone stalking big game instead of catching the thousands of smaller animals running around. Too much work they say.

Imagine something like a game console with a sophisticated interface designed just for this: an On Demand platform just for independent film. Not the Sundance variety of stars in "small" 15-25 million dollar films, but real independent films. We could program our interests, rate films, browse titles, watch trailers, read synopses and get recommendations: It's like Xbox and Tivo met Netflix and Apple Trailers for a cocktail and they got crazy. These films could be $.99 instead of $3.99 On Demand charges for the Hollywood titles. If you don't like it, you could just turn it off. It's only ninety-nine cents! Or if you liked a film by a certain director, you could easily find more. The database would match talent too. If you enjoyed the guy in one film, you could watch everything he's in and rate him.

People think that the reason we don't already have this is because of some technical limitation. It's not true. 2 million people all over the world are playing massive multiplayer online roleplaying games, together, on XBox Live. On Demand is already bringing instant titles to people's TVs and Netflix to their computers. You can only watch one film at a time, so the selection does not slow down the system. The selection is limited because it is controlled by the studios. They don't want you to have more choices, they want you watch their third-rate film that bombed in the theater and they honestly don't care what you want.

If filmmakers could make movies without worrying about name talent and studio distribution, there would be many more stories to watch. They could make movies that some people will love without trying to please everyone. As it is, we're all watching the films that make the biggest box office, movies made for the slow moving masses. I hear people sigh and say that the entertainment industry is a business and that's just the way it is (and that I should stop complaining). But this business, like every other business in this country, is actually operating as a monopoly; the big guys work together to squeeze the little guys out by making it impossible for them to make a living doing it and then force feed us their mediocre product. In some countries, film is considered vital to freedom of expression and subsidized by the government. In this country, we shrug our shoulders and shell out $13 to see the latest superhero movie.

Making a difference

I went to a screening last night at the Cartoon Art Museum for a documentary directed by a friend up from L.A. The Indepdents promised to be about the creative process, told from the perspective of comic book artists. I was afraid that it was going to be a painfully geeky foray into a world I know little about and was not particularly intrigued by. I took the bus up from San Jose, walked to the BART station and took the train two stops, rushing to make it by 7pm and skipping dinner. Three attempts to get a date had failed so I had plenty of opportunities to decide not to go, but I persisted.

I’m glad I did because several times during the film I found myself smiling and thinking “Right on!” First of all, these people are much more than illustrators; they’re storytellers in the purest sense. They sit down to a blank page with a pen and create a world, inhabit it with characters, give them dialogue and take us through an exciting narrative with amazing efficiency. Wendy Pini, an artist in the film, was there for a Q&A and described her 30-year old 'Elfquest' as the never ending battle between knowledge and ignorance. “I’m not interested in good and evil,” she said, “I’m much more interested in how people can understand each other through communication. “Elfquest” is very idealistic; it’s all about how people should treat each other.” I was surprised that many of them, like Wendy, knew they had a story to tell and chose comics as the medium because they could be producer, director, writer, actor and the studio – with the power to green light their own projects.

A few historical points were touched on and I learned that at the height of comic books' popularity with young adults, the industry was attacked for “eroding the minds of youth,” much the way rock and roll, rap music and video games have been. Comics began to be regulated and some were censored, many went out of business. The most palatable ideas, the superhero genre we’re so familiar with, were rewarded with unprecedented success and the marketing shifted to children, further marginalizing other comic styles.

I could relate with many of the artists in the film who took a long time to accept themselves as artists. Certainly it’s not easy to be an artist but my attempts to work a corporate job and be a weekend warrior have made me miserable. To my surprise, while I was frustrated as a poor cocktail waitress with roommates, I feel that those days were some of my happiest. I had the freedom to do what I wanted, including exercise, had abundant creativity and discipline to write, and felt that I was genuinely pursuing something important to me.

There was one guy in the film, Craig Thompson (“Blankets”), who really struck a chord with me. He constantly wonders if he should be doing something more humanitarian. He feels guilty being a comic book artist when he could be doing more to help his fellow man. I honestly have never heard anyone express that, even though I think it is exactly what plagues me. Back in college, I started wrestling with that issue, taking Women’s Studies, working for the College Democrats and dreaming of a career in politics. All the while, I was auditioning for films on campus and performing improve in the summers. I pursued acting despite my upbringing and internal messages telling me that it was frivolous, indulgent, a bad choice for a career, had a huge chance of failure, etc. Unfortunately for me, the desire to do something to make a difference hasn’t propelled me into great humanitarian work (although I do my fair share of volunteering), it has only kept me from truly being an artist. I deal with overwhelming feelings of guilt in wanting to be a filmmaker when there are issues I feel so strongly about and the obvious “answer” of making a documentary about those issues is wholly unappealing to me.

As I have sat at the crossroads of choosing a new path or recommitting myself to filmmaking, those feelings have become more pronounced. “I have to believe that comics are doing some good for people too,” Thompson concludes. Certainly Wendy Pini found a way to tell her story, be an artist and communicate a higher ideal that is meaningful to her. The answer, for me then, is to do what I love and believe I will make the difference I am meant to make.

Letter to Radiohead

Dear Mr. Yorke,

I've been reading the articles about you and your band in Wired and am really excited about the changes in the music industry, especially as they put the music directly into the hands of the fans. I've never had such a varied music collection as I do now. At the moment, I can't stop listening to your solo album (thank you!) which I bought on an old-fashioned CD.

So I read your interview in Wired this month with great interest, especially your dilemma over making most of your money touring but not being a fan of the ecological impact. I'm a fan, a filmmaker and a marketer and I have an idea to address this issue.

First I considered why people go to a live show:
- To be close to the band
- To enjoy the music with other fans
- To be part of a once-in-lifetime event
- For an experience beyond the album
- For a great show!

But there are certain limitations to concerts:
- You're never close enough to the band
- They’re expensive, making them inaccessible to many people
- They have limited dates and times, again making them inaccessible
- Late hours and long distances keep people from going more than once
- Big venues, unruly crowds and traffic jams can make the show impersonal and unsatisfying

A couple of years ago, I saw a screening of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars at the Henry Fonda Amphitheater in Hollywood. It was part of the LA Film Festival so the price of admission was the same as a movie, about $10. It was a summer night and the amphitheater was packed with people of all ages. The film was beautifully shot and the projection and sound were amazing. People sang along, clapped and shouted as if they were at a live performance. The film brought us so close to Bowie, we were practically onstage with him. I honestly felt like it was 1973 and I was watching the one and only Ziggy Stardust. Truly a beautiful experience!

Then this New Year’s Eve, a friend of mine sent me a video of a “silent disco” she went to in London. Hundreds of people wearing headphones danced in virtual silence as they tuned their headphones to one of two DJs and listened at whatever volume they liked. They were having no less fun than if they were all listening to the same live music. The virtual experience is rapidly catching up to and in some cases surpassing the real thing.

So here’s the idea: You shoot a concert series with one or several filmmakers that screens in small venues all over the world for the price of a movie. The series runs as long as people attend, like a film, and you own the rights, you don’t have to travel, your concert is ten times more accessible and it’s available forever!

Here’s how it could work:
- A small audience of diehard fans, or a random audience via a sweepstakes on your website, is selected to be your live audience
- You shoot a number of concerts with your selected audience in beautiful, historic or otherwise significant locations, each show is a little different so people will want to experience all of them
- Because there are several different films, multiple venues in the same city can competitively screen the series at the same time
- Radiohead sells the DVD through the website
- Venues can use the headphone idea to create a more personalized experience

I see you've already booked your tour dates for 2008 but maybe you could consider this idea for the next go around. Or maybe you love the idea of making your own Pennebaker classic and will contact this eager young filmmaker for more great ideas.

I look forward to hearing from you,
Cheers!

Getting screwed in Hollywood (it's true!)

About a week ago I got an email from the writer of a short film I produced and directed. His first feature had been accepted into Sundance and he was so excited. I’d heard about this project since the inception, it was something he would have loved for me to direct but it would have been a difficult sell: a novice director managing a 5-10 million dollar movie written by a first-time writer. (When a writer’s first feature is produced, she/he is called a “first-time” writer because it’s their first time being produced - not writing as the term implies).

In hindsight, had I been more aggressive, I could have probably secured a meeting with the producers and they may even have liked me. I helped the writer with a couple drafts of the script and I had a certain passion and vision for it. Ultimately, though, the job of directing went to a husband-wife team that had the connections to cast the film with people you’ve heard of and in Hollywood, casting is everything. I got frequent updates from Ross. He had a feeling from the beginning that he was going to get screwed in some way. The dynamic duo fancied themselves writers and took turns ruining his script. They turned a totally interesting character, for example, a Mexican-American descended from migrant workers who secretly produces a great wine while working for another vintner, into a petty thief. The stories made me ill but all along, his feeling was give a little, get a lot. His first feature was being produced after all and he was thrilled!

A few days after the email about Sundance, I was on the phone with him and found out that the Writer’s Guild had just arbitrated against him and he’d lost writing credit on his own script! He was absolutely outraged. Years of work, completely erased. His friend who produced the project sided with the directors because he was afraid of retribution even though all along, his script was preferred by the producers but they apparently felt powerless against the people with the connections. His producers were independent money folks and not seasoned industry producers but my friend is an attorney and comes from an industry family! His father is the creator of several classic sitcoms and the writer of hundreds of TV shows.

How is it possible for a guy with that kind of background to get screwed? I think it’s because he was willing to be screwed a little. You give an inch and they’ll take a mile. He didn’t fight because he wanted his movie made, and his instincts were right. It’s not easy to get a movie made and not uncommon for writers to be taken advantage of, but at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the credit. Credits lead to bigger and better projects. Without a writing credit, it’s like it never happened. If you get another chance, you’ll still be a “first-time” writer. This is why you hear stories of people suing a studio, becoming a drug addict or going into hiding after an experience in Hollywood. Let's hope he sticks it out, live and learn my friend!

The Bourne Identity meets Catch Me If You Can

It's times like this when I wish I ran a production company. After three days of neglecting my blog because I was so busy working - and came to Los Angeles for business meetings and hustling to wrap up some moving things while I was here - I had nothing to write about. Frankly, my life isn't very exciting and I much prefer talking about the big wide world outside of my tiny existence. I had only to listen on NPR and browse the New York Times on a relaxing Saturday morning (my first in weeks) to hear about several extremely interesting things.

The first is an upcoming book release from a British author who wrote a book about a man who was a British double-agent during World War Two. It sounds unbelievable, a natural to be made into a film with an already juicy title: Zigzag: The Incredible Wartime Exploits of Double Agent Eddie Chapman. Basically the guy was a wild man, the kind that usually has to be invented. John Nash invented a hilariously fun and care-free best friend in A Beautiful Mind, and the Leonardo DiCaprio character in Catch Me If You Can was a total fabrication, reinvented every few years for maximum appeal to women and adventure.

But this is a true story of a controversial figure whose loyalty was questioned by everyone. A "rogue and a patriot," he was considered a prime candidate as a double-agent because of his apparent lack of scruples. Spending most of the war partying and womanizing he still managed to complete his assignments, won the Iron Cross from Germany for his (unknown to be traitorous) activities and even volunteered to assassinate Adolf Hitler. The files on Eddie Chapman were declassified a few years ago and nothing's been written on him since the fifties. The author of the first book written with access to those files (another author is releasing a book later this year), describes on NPR this highly unpredictable character who spent 18 months in the bosom of the enemy, at a fabulous Chateau in occupied France.


I couldn't find any reference that this story is being made into a film or even that the film rights have been purchased. Is it possible that Hollywood is so drunk on the profits of the blockbuster (this summer topped $4 billion making it the biggest summer ever with most of the money coming from sequels) that they are overlooking gems like this? In 2001-2002 there were a slew of World War II movies excavating every possible story that hadn't yet been told - The Pianist, Enigma, Charlotte Gray, Windtalkers, U-571, Pearl Harbor, Enemy at the Gates, Hart's War, Focus - and I decided I couldn't watch another WWII movie. But I have to say, this sounds like a fun story about an agent with the wiles of Jason Bourne, the charm and good looks of James Bond and the fantasy life of Frank Abagnale Jr. Unfortunately, I won't make the bucks of Spiderman 3 and might not get made unless Steven Spielberg gets behind it.

Mrs. Anything Can Happen

I am such a bundle of emotions these days, it's hard to even pinpoint what I'm feeling. Friday was my last day at the old job, after two days in meetings for the new job. Everyone was very sad to hear that I was leaving and I felt like someone who'd won the lottery and wasn't going to share with anyone. The absolute joy I'd felt for the past two days really hadn't changed my view of this current job. It's a fine job, it's just not one that I want. But it's become very clear that I was the best project manager they've had on the job yet and in a short three weeks, I'd already made an impact.

The account manager hired on contract for this job was out of town to a wedding and even thought it was impossible to get anything done, I felt obligated to accomplish something for her to come back to. We bonded and had become instant friends when we realized that we shared a philosophy on how to get work done. It's called creative project management. While most companies expect project managers to create and follow process, spending all day drafting status reports and updating project plans, the best ones are those who can creatively problem solve. Projects don't just hum along a set plan, there are always problems and difficulties and solving them, for me, is the best part of the job. Cracking the human code to discover how to make everyone happy is the only satisfying part of project management.

One moment, my head is swimming with the amazing ideas I get to work on and execute in the coming months in the new job, the next I'm overwhelmed with sadness over what I'm leaving. Good friends, a beautiful apartment by the beach, the pursuit of acting (for sure now) and the ability (that I was only just coming in to) to shoot a movie at a moment's notice. The irony, of course, is that this new job has just skyrocketed me to the top in terms of opportunity and connections. My chances of actually directing a feature film have just increased by a thousand. The catch is that I really have to do the work now, of writing and making films to prove that I have something to say. I think I've been lazy about it the past because I could see that no matter what a talented person creates in this town, if they don't have the right connections, success can and will probably still elude them.

This job is like marrying a dishy guy with money, connections and a name that opens doors who says "honey, do whatever you want, I support you completely." I just married opportunity so I better get busy doing what I want!

Violence is so not cool anymore

I had a weird day in Santa Monica yesterday. There seemed to be more violence around than usual. I went out to buy a ticket for the 7:30 movie, it was still sunny and I was going to the bookstore first, then the movie. On the way, I was confronted by a large and frightening woman with no shoes who yelled at me "if I wasn't something something, I'd fuck you up!" She was literally foaming at the mouth. She continued down the street screaming and cussing and on the other side, people stopped what they were doing to see who was making all that racket.

Then when I found out the movie was sold out, I bought a ticket for the later show and headed home. I walked by an ATM where a young woman was trying to get money and was being harassed by a guy who could have been homeless, it's hard to tell. She was explaining "actually, I'm late for a play and just trying to get some money." I don't know what she was apologizing for but he continued to talk at her anyway.

When I got home, there were some kids on the stoop across the street practicing their rhymes. They were rapping at the top of the lungs the same two lines over and over again. I could hear windows and doors closing, the sound traveled for a whole block in each direction I'm sure, of all the nearby apartments. Only one woman yelled "shut up!" but it didn't do any good.

A few hours later, I headed out again to see the movie and I passed two women walking. They were talking but it quickly escalated to yelling and the younger one tried to grab the bag of the older woman as she shouted "will you just stop drinking already?!" They went on down the street like that, the younger one yelling and trying to grab the bag and the older one shushing her as other people walked by. I passed a couple on my side of the street, clearly in a fight, as the guy said something mean to his girlfriend.

Before the film, there were several trailers. I'm always tuned in to how people react to trailers. Whether they laugh, or talk the whole time or are engaged. During two for movies about random violence, the kind that doesn't make sense and makes us into crazy people, the feeling from the audience was not good. It felt angry. When the Bourne Ultimatum came on though, even though there's violence, the feeling is uplifting. He's fighting for all of us, and the people who get hurt are generally bad guys. People laughed and cheered and went along with it in a way that they absolutely were not going to for those two other films.

I'll venture a guess that random acts of violence are sliding down the backside of cool.

Previously covert activities

I just saw the Bourne Ultimatum and I thought it was fantastic. I'm a huge fan of the first two and now, of the series in general. The theme song qualifies to join the ranks of Mission Impossible, James Bond and The Pink Panther. Some lame review criticized the performances as wooden, giving no credence to the fact that people who work in these kinds of positions are not exactly the emotional and heartwarming types found in romantic comedies. She clearly thinks the movie isn't very good but still praises it for "non-stop action, unbelievable car chases, exotic locales, and cool shoot-'em-ups." Yeah, isn't that the point? Hitchcock was also criticized for wooden performances and was notorious for his low opinion of actors (unless they were attractive blondes), yet his movies transcended performance with suspense and intrigue.


I only read reviews after I see a movie and just thought hers was kind of hilariously bad. Especially where she goes out on a limb to say that she thinks there will be another one. Despite the fact that it was written as a trilogy, I think we can count on Hollywood to continue raping this series as long as possible. This is what irritated me the most though: She says she still can't buy Matt Damon as a tough guy. On what basis? He's got the same build as Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis and a host of other previous tough guys with smarts. What about the other assassins in the movie? They're all different, that's the beauty of it. A person can be trained - look at soldiers in the military - they don't have to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. What about La Femme Nikita, could she not buy a woman as a killer? I can't believe I'm arguing against something so stupid.

But I find it interesting, that these movies are so popular. BU grossed $70 mil in it's first weekend, an incredible turnout for a non tent-pole movie like Spider-man. I tried to go at 7:30 and it was sold out, and at 10:20 on a Sunday night, the theater was packed. The story is about a guy who worked for the government but then discovers that he's a bad guy and wants to be a good guy. But the government, the CIA, keeps trying to kill him and kills everyone around him. It's a great story because it's about redemption and trying to be a better person, but the overarching theme is that the government has gone too far. They're drunk with power and want less and less intervention from people who don't "understand."

Isn't it ironic that the weekend this movie opens President Bush signs a law that basically legalizes the NSA's previously covert activities, by making wiretapping for any reason, legal? The telecommunications companies have been in bed with the government for a while now but started to get nervous about lawsuits because they were voluntarily giving the information over. So they started pressuring the administration and they responded by passing a law that makes handing over the information mandatory. Oops! But don't worry, they're targeting foreign nationals so they're only using American citizens to get to the ones overseas. Can you believe we can pass a law here that makes it legal to infringe on the rights of citizens in other countries?

With the new iPhone and all the other impending technology, more communication is going to be done over the phone and now, it's all up for grabs. Consider yourself warned.

Heinz 57, the user-generated way

Asking consumers to make their own commercials for a product has been a cool, new idea for so long, it's no longer new and I'm not sure how cool it ever was. People like user-generated content, for sure. They like to see other people acting stupid, looking stupid and and doing stupid things. That's funny, but it doesn't sell product and it generally doesn't make for very good commercials. People also like more professionally produced online content, if it's a good concept. But most people don't know what makes a good concept and if you've ever watched and voted for one of these contests you know what I'm talking about. Which is why I'm so bummed I don't have an entry for the $57,000 prize offered by Heinz 57 ketchup.

I had every intention of producing several commercials for Heinz 57's Top This contest. I came up with ideas but many things colluded to keep me from having the time, energy or organizational head space and I never got to them. They're due in a week and I'm having a hard time letting them go. I still wish I could shoot them but starting the new job, and getting into an accident (on the way home from San Francisco - another good reason for the High Speed Rail!) - I'm just too overwhelmed.

So I thought at least I could tell you what my ideas are/were:

1) The BBQ - A guy is out on the street, he gets a text message on his phone. He looks at it and in reads "From Jeremy: BBQ at my house, tomorrow 2pm, we'll have grillin's, bring your favorite topping." The guy reacts, "Sweet!" Cut to the guy walking with a bottle of Heinz into the BBQ, he stops when he sees another guy giving a bottle of Heinz to the hostess. A look of concern on his face. The host approaches with a burger on a plate and gives it to him, the hostess approaches and puts Heinz on his burger. Then she takes his bottle. "Thanks for the Heinz, we were just about to run out." She sets the bottle down on a table of food and about 15 empty Heinz bottles. Back to our guy's reaction, "Sweet!" He takes a bite. Voiceover: Everyone's favorite, Heinz 57.

2) International grocery - Establishing shot of a woman pushing a cart down an aisle with a little girl in it. She stops at the ketchup and looks up to the row of Heinz. As she takes a bottle, we look at her from the POV of the Heinz and the little girl says "hot dogs!" Cut to a series of different people from the same POV, all taking a bottle of ketchup. A German guy, "Bratwurst!"; A Mexican lady, "Huevos Rancheros!"; A Jewish woman, "Corned Beef Hash"; A British guy, "Bacon and Sausage"; and finally, a Belgian woman who makes sure no one is listening before she says "Les Frites." (Subtitles read "French Fries"). Voiceover: Heinz 57, spoken worldwide.

3) James Bond - Closeup of a guy's feet in dress shoes and slacks, walking. Swanky music plays. Pan up to reveal a guy in a tux shirt and tie. The entire spot is in extreme closeup. He spots a woman about to eat a French fry without ketchup. He pulls out a bottle of Heinz and saves her. She eats the fry with ketchup and smiles. He straightens his bow tie and spots another woman who's trying to feed her little boy a hot dog. He rushes over, puts Heinz on the hot dog and the boy eats it happily. The mother smiles. He adjusts his cuff links and sees yet another woman with eggs and toast trying to get ketchup out of an empty bottle. He swoops in and squirts ketchup on her plate. We now zoom out to reveal that the man is actually a waiter in a cafe. He takes his job very seriously and the ladies appreciate it. He spins the bottle like a gun and puts it in his apron. Voiceover: Heinz 57, it's THAT good.

4) ESL class - In an ESL class, students of all nationalities are huddled around their teacher naming things they like to eat with Heinz. A bottle sits next to the teacher on the desk and the class eats French fries. They have trouble saying the words but are really happy when they get them out. "Omelet, potatoes, meatballs..." One student says "cold noodles," and they look at him funny. He shrugs like, it's true. An Asian student struggles to say "French fries." The class is intently watching, she gets a real "R" sound out for the first time and is elated. The class cheers. Voiceover: Heinz 57, it's universal.

Life seems to be a never-ending stream of missed opportunities but there will be more contests and more ideas, so until then!

Stop in for a Squishee at the Kwik-E-Mart!

I was driving down Venice Boulevard, on the way back from a friend's house, when I noticed a bunch of people taking pictures of a 7-11 while I was waiting at a red light. Some were standing next to some Simpsons characters and getting their photo snapped. I noticed there were more characters on the roof.

"Ha, cool," I thought, "they've got The Simpsons..." But HOLD THE PHONE, it's not a 7-11, it's a KWIK-E-MART! The whole building was made to look like it was from the cartoon. Some bike riders came by and couldn't peel their eyes off of it even though they clearly needed their eyes on the road. I didn't have my camera and didn't even think to stop and go inside but the entire experience has been faithfully documented on Flickr.

There are only about a dozen stores throughout the country so many cities don't have one, DOH!, but check out the list to see if you're on it. The movie better be good, I'm getting tired of promotions that are better than what they're promoting.

The fellowship of the scar

The fifth Harry Potter movie comes out next Friday and I can't wait! I don't have high hopes for most movies these days but I really love this story. The third movie, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, is head and shoulders above the rest although I've heard that the third book is also the strongest. It was the first time we got sweeping views of the hills, lakes and valleys that surround the Hogwarts School. It reminded me of Lord of the Rings and was the first time I noticed the series similarities to Tolkien's gift to Britain - a mythology. Lost during the centuries of Roman invasion and occupation, Tolkien used real language and mythology to construct a speculative lore of his region.

Being British and also fantasy, it would make sense that the Harry Potter world would at least pay homage to Middle Earth. J.K. Rowling spent seven years writing the first book in what had to have been a labor of love. Creating a new world, rich characters and a dense history, she received a mere $4,000 advance on the second book. She has since become the first person to make a billion dollars on books. A billion dollars! Her story is always an inspiring one to remember. She didn't set out to make a billion dollars, instead she spent many years working on something than most would have given up on but a love for it drove her to finish.

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort builds up an army and Harry Potter fights for his right to fight - much like the Hobbits in the last Lord of the Rings.

Here are how the characters correspond to each other:
Harry Potter is Frodo - an innocent who bears a burden and is always the target of evil.
Lord Voldemort is Lord Sauron - pure evil, defeated once and gaining the power to reincarnate.
The scar is the ring - the burden becomes more painful as evil is near.
Dumbledore is Gandalf - the wise leader.
Sirius Black is Aragon - the outsider who helps our innocent.
The Deatheaters are Saruman - respected and powerful, they've defected to the dark side.
Malfoy is Gollum - unusually corrupted, he wants what the innocent has.
Wormtail is Grima Wormtongue - witless servant to the dark lord.
The Dementors are The Nazgul - faceless and cloaked in black, they are terrifying creatures.

I know that these parallels are also found in Star Wars and any great epic or adventures with classic heroes and villains from mythology. I still look forward to seeing what's to be found in the fifth Harry Potter.

Come and see the real thing

A few years ago, I was babysitting for a friend's niece while her sister was visiting. They went out for a night on the town and I stayed at the hotel with Sophie, a precocious and adorable 2-year old with a penchant for telling people what to do. We had a rocky start. I had not yet proven my worth and she had to put me through the tests. Would I scold her if she misbehaved? Would I obey her if she gave me a command? Would I entertain her if she was bored?

When I got there, she was watching The Incredibles. I hadn't seen it since its release and had forgotten how much I liked it, and what a genius Brad Bird is as Edna Mode (and for writing and directing it). When it was over, Sophie wanted me to scroll through the menu to find another movie. I must have been reading the titles because she's only two, and yet I can't think why I would have read Shrek out loud because she pointed her little finger at the screen and commanded, "Shrek!" I wanted to make her happy, I wanted to pass the tests but there was no way I was to sit through that Dreamworks crap. Ugly animation, obvious storylines, fart jokes? No. I turned to her and enthusiastically suggested "Let's watch The Incredibles again!" I don't know what thoughts went through that mind of hers, insubordination, troublemaker, but after a long pause she finally squealed, "okay!"

We watched The Incredibles two more times before I was able to put her to bed. I passed all the tests and the next day, I was her new best friend. But I was still wondering, how many movies are enjoyable three times in a row? I could have watched it again. There's something magical about Pixar. They're everything that Dreamworks isn't: beautiful, intelligent, clever, real, unexpected.

I saw Ratatouille last night and was blown away. I haven't disliked a Pixar film but some are definitely stronger than others; Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Monsters Inc. being among my favorites. Ratatouille might be the best of all. Pixar movies take me back to my childhood, watching the old Disney animated films. By picking up where Walt Disney left off, Pixar has saved Disney from being a meaningless media conglomerate, a relic of the past.


Unapologetically smart, richly layered, stunningly beautiful and with heart, Ratatouille is the real thing. Ocean's 13 may as well be George and Brad having a conversation about what big box office draws they are, it's that boring and pretentious. Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is like one of those building facades. It looks like a movie, it has all the characteristics, and yet it isn't. It's hollow and meaningless and there's nothing there. As soon you stop looking at it, it evaporates.

The Pixar films take years to make and it shows. They are a labor of love. How often do you we get to witness the product of so much talent, creativity, passion and joy? It made me laugh and cry and at times I wanted to cheer at the audacity of Pixar to make something so AUTHENTIC. There are six major characters with arcs and conflict and related storylines. It has a fantastic message and is worth seeing just for the a monologue delivered by Peter O'Toole at the end. It boldly challenges our perceptions and throughout the film, you feel them falling away, making room for something new. It's the best movie I've seen in a year, maybe two.

Driving home after watching it, I distinctly remember feeling different. I FELT happier, more grateful, more human. I thought, god, life is wonderful. A movie made me feel that, which is the reason I got into this business in the first place. If you don't see this movie in the theater, you'll be depriving yourself of, in my opinion, the joy for living. (Hey, look! I didn't give the whole movie away.)

Experience is more important than information

Last week I was invited by a friend (thank you!) to a sneak preview screening of A Mighty Heart with Angelina Jolie, about the kidnapping and execution of Daniel Pearl. I don’t usually bother with film critiques but this movie had huge gaping holes where moments should have been and it made me think of a parallel to marketing. A marketing piece, like a film, has three distinct parts: a hook, the message and a call-to-action. The film equivalent would be the premise, the journey and the resolution. The effectiveness of these parts relies on moments – what screenwriters call turning points. My argument is that ultimately, these moments and the effect they have on the audience are more important than the context.

The trap that filmmakers fall into is the same problem that marketers fall into. They worry more about the details than the experience. The content is almost meaningless. It doesn’t matter if he’s been missing for 17 or 70 hours. It doesn’t matter if your product is $5 or $50 off. What matters is how the audience experiences the information. It’s not information that motivates them to buy or tell their friends to see the film.

What’s more enjoyable? Walking out of a movie that moved you, that made you feel something but not knowing exactly what happened and having to sort it out later, or walking out knowing exactly what happened but not feeling anything? You feel even more cheated, you have all the information and yet, you still don’t care. Clarity is meaningless if your audience is not moved.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD
What I wanted to see was a story about a woman dealing with her helplessness and inevitable tragedy. I never felt like we got to share her pain. We never even saw the world. There was one instance in which the news erroneously reported that his body had been found but we never saw let’s say, the people of the United States watching it! What about when Mariane is on the phone with Daniel’s mother and she says, “You know it’s not true right?” Is she consoling her? What’s happening on the other end? We don’t know. How powerful would it have been to see Daniel’s mother having a breakdown and Mariane having to be the strong one, consoling her from Karachi? The ironic cruelty of that would have been too painful to watch.

Here are three missed moments and how I would have created them.

1) This movie was like CSI: Karachi. The whole focus was on the chase, the investigation and not on Mariane and her journey. We never see the moment in which Mariane realizes for the first time that Danny might never be found. This is a huge moment, possibly the most important moment of the movie. Where was it? She’s stoic the whole time – and maybe that’s how she really was – but as an audience we need to know why. Is she inside thinking about what it’s going to be like to raise a child without his father but stuffing her grief? Putting on a good face? Or is she in total denial and believes 100% until the end that he’s coming back? We’re not sure.

This should potentially be the most memorable moment of the movie. We already know what’s going to happen, we know how it ends but Mariane doesn’t. The moment should have been when she realizes that the kidnapping was planned and not spontaneous. She gets it, intellectually. She's the one that tells us but did she feel it? She should have changed from that moment on – from matter-of-fact dealing with a situation to suddenly feeling very small or angry, or whatever. The shift should have been dramatic.

2) The film begins with Mariane Pearl’s voiceover from after the event is over. She drives through the city and the camera pans out to show her amidst the chaos and immensity of Karachi and she says something like “How can you find one man in all of this.” Now, that moment is completely wasted. They just gave away the second turning point!

It should start in the details of her life with Daniel. Their work, the pregnancy, the home. We don’t need to know why they were there or for how long or even when. It’s not relevant. What we need is to feel his absence from her life and then see events unfold in a landscape so large and so chaotic that we feel her helplessness.

Thelma & Louise starts small, in the mundane details of our characters’ lives. Geena Davis puts the Snickers bar in the freezer over and over, only to keep taking it out for another bite. Susan Sarandon washes the dishes with inordinate care and attention. As we go on their journey, our perspective gets wider and we are able to see them in context of the world. We gradually come to realize that they are powerless against the big wide world. It ends with a magnificent shot of the women driving off a cliff over the Grand Canyon as a tiny Harvey Keitel runs after them. One man, all that space.

What I would have liked to see is the Karachi scene later in the film. It should be the first time the audience fully realizes what she’s up against and the utter futility of the search. Maybe Mariane spends the night driving around the city in a taxi looking for him. It’s a ridiculous, desperate move but now that we understand the situation, we can be floored by her strength and the fact that she doesn’t give up.

3) When the group confronts Mariane to tell her that Daniel is gone she says, “How do you know?” and someone replies, “There was a video tape.” I feel like I’m watching a movie made for idiots! We know there was a tape. We saw the tape. WE know, see? It’s not the character’s movie, it’s our movie, it’s my movie and what I want is for Mariane to SEE the tape. I want no one to speak but instead someone just hands her the tape. She looks down and realizes that her husband, the last moments of his life, all that is left of him, is her hands.

As an actress, Angelina Jolie should have thought of this and asked for it. All good performers think about their props and how they can physicalize their action, and a director should always be thinking how they can show instead of tell. Mariane takes the tape and goes into the room with it. She can still scream or cry but now she has the tape to react to. She can throw it or talk to it, cradle it in her arms or destroy it. Seeing a woman fall apart over a piece of plastic? That would have moved me.

After the film my friend asked if I would tell people they had to see this movie and I replied no. I thought it was okay. It was well shot, well acted and was reasonably interesting but there was no call-to-action, no takeaway. What was the point? I wasn’t left with an experience. How would I pitch it to my friends? And that’s what I think about in marketing. How will the consumer tell their friends about this? I start with the answer to that question and work backwards to make it happen.

I just read an article in which Asra Nomani, the good friend of the Pearl's whose house they stayed at in Karachi, criticizes the movie. Her critique is different than mine and probably more valid. Mine is that the movie failed at what I think it was trying to do - show Mariane's story. Hers is that the movie failed to do what it should have done - tell us who Daniel Pearl was. I couldn't agree more, it was a film that never found its purpose.

Accidental pregnancy is hilarious

I went to see Knocked Up last night with a guy I've been seeing. A couple of weeks ago when he first mentioned it, I had it confused with an ad I'd seen for an awful concept movie about a guy getting pregnant. When I saw the trailer and realized it was not that movie, I found a new reason to be irritated. Are we supposed to believe that an attractive woman with a lot going for her would a) sleep with this guy b) decide to have his baby and c) actually raise it with him? What a load of horse shit!

The night before, I'd seen Waitress with a friend. Another comedy about accidental pregnancy but from a distinctly female (and more realistic) point of view. She doesn't tell the father (even though it's her jerk husband), she doesn't try to make it work "for the baby" (and instead has a delicious affair) and in the end it's she who matures into a person who can now do what's best.


I remembered an hour into Knocked Up that I'd heard it wasn't a date movie. I felt a little sick watching men act like misbehaved little boys. My date, twice as old as the main character, was laughing his ass off at their inane antics. The kind of stuff that makes women roll their eyes and wonder why we've ever had sex with a man. I found myself swearing I'd never do it again.

In the film, the guys totally stick up for each other despite their obvious shortcomings or perhaps because of them. My date, defending the main character from my pre-movie critique felt compelled to say after each scene "I like him! He's sweet." I remarked, maturely, "well maybe YOU should marry him." I started to notice that the whole movie had this male love thing going on and my date was joyfully participating. I was kind of touched but also felt compelled not to hold his hand anymore.

But then the sick feeling suddenly dissipated. The story had slipped into a mature and insightful observation of the relationships between men and women and what it means to be an adult. I was hooked. It was intense - there really isn't anything funny about accidentally getting pregnant - and yet it was still silly and funny. I started marveling at how a man could take such a complex approach to gender relations. Judd Apatow remarkably did the same thing with 40-Year Old Virgin. Took a totally implausible premise and made it work in a real, not insulting, stupid fairy-tale way.

I was reminded of something a male friend of mine always says, that geeks are the best lovers. They have to be, he says, because they can't rely on their good looks or cool factor to get them laid. They actually have to work at it. Get to know women and what makes them tick. I started to think, that must explain how Apatow can so accurately represent his own gender in relation to women.

He sets us up thinking he's going to defend this stupid behavior but he's really allowing our characters to be vulnerable in front of us so he can turn them on their heads and say, if you want more, if you want a woman, a family, a life, you might have to work at it. My date loved the movie and I had to admit, it worked. Even though I felt like someone had snuck up behind me and whacked me over the head, it did make me laugh.

While I thought the main character's arc was completely flat - who was she? what did she want? and what was her conflict? - the storyline of the sister's family (brilliantly played by Apatow's real life wife and kids) was wonderfully satisfying. It's no 40-Year Old Virgin but it's still pioneering a better kind of comedy.

Spider-Man or 20 interesting films?

During the Monday morning meeting this week, the talk was about how bad Spider-Man 3 is. "Do NOT go see Spider-Man" one co-worker warned. "It's the worst movie EVER" another chimed in. They were mad at one guy who said he thought it was good but the smirk on his face suggested he liked it BECAUSE it was so bad.

As we left the meeting, my cube-mate said "I don't know why they're so surprised. The third movie is always bad." She went on to name a series of franchises in which the third was bad. I wasn't really listening as I don't usually see franchises at all and I didn't think the first Spider-Man was all that great (aside from the special effects).

Of the big Hollywood films that I like, the third has been actually been good: Lord of The Rings and Harry Potter. "Well, Lord of The Rings is different," she murmurs, "that was one story that they made into three movies." Okay, and she hasn't seen any Harry Potter films.
Where I thought she was going was "Why are they surprised? Almost everything that comes out of a major studio these days is crap." Spider-Man 3, despite getting terrible reviews and (apparently) actually BEING terrible, it's well on it's way to grossing more than the previous two.

On NPR the other day, an industry expert was talking about why record sales are plunging. One of the biggest reasons he gave is that the artists the major labels are signing aren't putting out enough music. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that they sign lame no-talent teenagers that are manufactured and overproduced? I can't keep up with all the great music being released by real artists. The second biggest reason (curiously similar to the first) is that the major labels can't seem to find the hits. Where oh where ARE those hits?

Here's where the music industry is as lazy and greedy as the film industry. They really aren't interested in producing quality entertainment and they aren't as concerned about profitability as they are with big bucks, the jackpot! They're in the business of gambling and they have secured their fortunes through control of the distribution. They are basically like the mob except they don't have to break our knuckles to purchase their crap, we do it willingly!

In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell explains the ridiculous process the record industry uses to "test a hit" and why it doesn't work. People don't know what they want and when they like something, they can't explain why. We're also enormously influenced by the context in which we experience something. It's not insignificant that $150 million was spent marketing Spider-Man 3. It's not that people just can't wait to see it, we're bombarded with advertising that has us following the flock to movie theaters.

These industries are still trying to hump the "mainstream market" despite the lack of evidence that such a thing ever existed. It's not like The Beatles sat around trying to figure out how to sell records; they developed their talents, took incredible chances and sold records because people liked their music. Not EVERYONE, just a good chunk of loyal listeners.

Little Miss Sunshine, according to The Numbers, was made for $8 million (plus probably $20 mil for marketing) and grossed $97 mil. That's a 350% profit margin! The 40-Year Old Virgin was made for $26 mil (plus $27 mil for marketing) and grossed $177 mil! Even the British indies have fared well. The Queen, made for $15 mil grossed $113 mil worldwide and Bend It Like Beckham, made for only $5 mil grossed $76 mil.


So why aren't the studios making every $10-30 million movie they can find? They could make twenty indie films with Spider-Man 3's $450 mil. With an average profit margin of 300%, even if half of them fail, they'd still make out with $711 million and we'd have at least ten good films to watch! Problem is, Spider-Man 3 is on track to gross about $900 million and they want the easy money. It's too much work for the big studios to find quality scripts and develop them.

This is why, one of these days, the big guys will get swallowed up by a swarm of little guys delivering better music and better movies to exactly the right people - meganiches of a million or more folks each. Meganiches unite!

The power of images

I've been reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. I loved The Tipping Point, a great marketing book, and a friend said I should read Blink. In it, he talks about how powerful words and images are, even in small doses on a short term basis. Someone reading angry words will become angry, a person seeing images of a minority group committing crimes will become disposed to distrusting that minority group, etc.

I live in Los Angeles and while I've often known that the entertainment industry is by far the most sexist industry in the country - only 7% of working directors are women (for reference, approximately 16% of federally elected seats are held by women - not exactly a bragging point to begin with).

Even so, I'm constantly amazed by the movie posters that I'm subjected to on my way to work. I won't even get into the "Black Snake Moan" poster that is just beyond bizarre, or the "Captivity" poster that basically showed Elisha Cuthbert being MURDERED (it was taken off of buses after protest).

I'll just mention the three movies being advertised now on every billboard and bus stop on my eight mile commute. See if you can spot the theme:

"Perfect Stranger" - Halle Berry looks terrified at a menacing Bruce Willis.

"Disturbia" - The tagline is "Every killer lives next door to someone" while a terrified female is both menaced by the shadow of a man AND watched by another man through binoculars.

"Fracture" - Anthony Hopkins looks menacing and the headline is "I shot my wife."

I know. It's not something we normally think about but what do you think the unconscious reaction to this kind of messaging is?

Horrific horrifying horror

I was at the video store with my dad, looking for a film to rent. Every third film, it seemed, was a horror flick. And I don't have to tell you that most of them are about pretty young women being victimized. I picked up one called Rest Stop and made the mistake of reading the back. It's, as I guessed, about a woman tortured by a sicko after stopping at a rest stop...something about a box of tools and a saw (!)

I guess what makes it so SCARY and, I shudder to say, APPEALING, is that it actually happens and women are really afraid of that. Hmmm, I wonder how often it happens. Or are women disproportionately afraid because of movies like this? Why is a woman's fear so appealing?

A few minutes later, my dad picks up the movie The Virgins of Juarez. "This is a good movie," he says, "YOU should see this." I figure that he's making reference to the fact that I'm a feminist, something he hasn't always been too supportive of. He explains that it's a true story of women (young, I imagine, since they're VIRGINS) who are abducted in Juarez, Mexico, raped repeatedly and then KILLED. Disposable sex toys?! I feel myself getting physical ill in the video store as he goes on. "Minnie Driver plays a reporter who goes down there to get the story and this girl," he says, pointing to someone on the cover, "was buried alive but manages to escape."

I'm so horrified, I don't even know what to say. Why should I see this movie? God, how sick. How awful! My brain is spinning. Who are these people? WHO abducts little girls and rapes and kills them? WHO?! Normal men just walking around decide to do this? How can a society have such a low value on the life of a woman? How can a society care so little about women living in fear?

My mom had mentioned an article in the paper that morning (it was a weekend with the parents) about a 15 year old girl who met a guy online. She agreed to meet him somewhere and was kidnapped. He and HIS FATHER kept her in their apartment for a week and raped her. FOR A WEEK! She managed to escape, apparently, and they got caught.

That night, I had a nightmare about a serial killer, a duffel bag full of warm bloody body parts in Ziploc bags, and a series of films the killer had made while killing each victim. This was a nightmare because I was in charge of solving these crimes and had to watch the movies. I couldn't sleep for two nights afterwards.

So, the other day I was at the beach, on the walking path. Every time I heard someone behind me I jumped a little, startled. I notice that other women do it too, when they're approached. I saw a couple of guys laughing at a woman who was startled by them. Does a man even know what it's like to feel like a potential victim walking around? Sure, sure, it's a state of mind. BULLSHIT. With so much real violence against women, why do we need fictional violence?

Let me ask a question. Why is it that fictional terror is entertainment while the real terror is a challenging think piece? For example, Blood Diamond featured little boys getting body parts hacked off. COOL! Last King of Scotland is about a dictator who was a mass murderer...way better than Zodiac. That guy wasn't even REALLY a serial killer. Or what about The Virgins of Juarez? I mean, isn't that right up horror alley? Can someone explain this to me?