It's never too late to be what you might have been

I just finished reading Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell's latest book, and like his previous books, The Tipping Point and Blink, it's a fascinating look into why things are the way they are (one of my favorite subjects!) In Outliers, Gladwell debunks the myth that people are successful because of their "individual merit." Using established research and case studies, he shows that culture, family, luck and timing are powerful factors in whether a person is successful. It's very interesting and it made me think quite a bit about my own culture, family, luck and timing. It's not a self-help book so there isn't a chapter on "What to do if you didn't get the right combination of the four factors" but he does demonstrate that knowledge is power and if you understand who you are and how you came to be that way, the more you can change the outcome.

Here's an example from the book, very briefly encapsulated. In the nineties, Korean Air had three times the number of fatal accidents of any other airline and was on the brink of being shut down. It was discovered that because of the culture and the language, the co-pilots were not able to directly tell the captain when there was a problem. Here was an issue that would seem to stem from mechanical or technical problems but was actually a cultural problem. It was solved in two ways. One, the roles were switched so that the captain was in the co-pilot's seat and the junior pilot would fly the plane. That way if there was a problem, social protocol did not prohibit frankness. Two, the language of flying became officially English. Without the social stratification built into the language, it was easier for everyone to speak plainly without fear of offending.

As you might expect, people who are nurtured in their talent and interests while young, tend to be successful in those areas especially if culture, timing and luck were also on their side. It can be difficult, if not impossible, as an adult to put yourself in a situation where you can get the practice and confidence necessary to be good at something new. If that pursuit goes against how you've been raised or your culture, it is also more difficult. Or if you're born in a time when that field is extremely competitive, it will take more luck to get in. Luck is what you call all of those times when you were given access to equipment, training, contacts, information, money, a mentor or some other leg up that other people didn't get.

It's probably not a coincidence that I started this blog at around the time that I stopped acting and went back to work in marketing. I knew that I wasn't yet on the right path and must have known that the blog would help me focus on that quest. In another stop on the journey of self-discovery, I've just this week turned down what is basically the best job offer I've ever had. The non-profit that I had been working for pro-bono asked me to be their Director of Marketing and Communications, a brand new position. I had presented a plan for how to strengthen the brand, establish processes for the company and develop a strategy to grow the business over the next couple of years. I would have worked with some of the brightest and nicest people I've ever met and been able to make a tangible difference in education.

The problem is that marketing is not the path I'm supposed to be on. It's something that I'm naturally good at but no matter how much I accomplish, I never get any satisfaction from it. At the same time my inner critic keeps wondering why, if I was meant for something else, I'm not already doing it. Why is it so hard for me to know what I really want? I found the answer in Outliers. People who are successful are assisted by external forces in such a way that they don't have to wonder what they are supposed do with their lives. Mozart, Bill Gates, Michael Phelps and almost every movie star there is, were doing what they do when they were children. They had discovered their talent -- or it had been discovered for them -- and the four factors colluded to put them on a path to success before they were even old enough to ask what they wanted to do. In reviewing my life, I realize I've been all over the map, and back again.

Here's a synopsis:
Child: Wanted to be a teacher, Shirley Temple or the President of the United States; my mother wanted to take me to auditions but my dad said no.
Jr. High/High School: Wanted to take drama but was not allowed.
Jr. College: Took engineering classes because my dad made me; thought I might want to be an attorney (to blend my love of issues and performing) and got a job at a law office; considered acting school but believed I should be properly educated; started taking improv and acting classes on my own.
College: Dropped engineering for Women's Studies (which cost me the financial support of my dad); thought I might want to be a politician but continued to act; considered getting a masters in education; got feedback from professors that whatever I did should involve writing.
Post-college: Worked at creative agencies as a project manager (and although good at it, I was miserable); enrolled in acting classes and started performing in plays and short films.
Late 20s: Quit my job to be an actress, moved to Los Angeles and planned to give it five years before re-evaluating.
Early 30s: Worked in marketing and got laid off twice and felt like every interview and offer was a death sentence; continued to write scripts and make short films.

Obviously, I have three strong interests: Politics, education and filmmaking. Politics is too nasty for me and frankly I'm not very good at saying the right thing at the right time. I'm also quite happy expressing that part of me on the blog. I decided long ago that I didn't want to be a teacher but the job I'm turning down would have allowed me to make a difference in education with my marketing skills. That made the decision very difficult because unlike other jobs in marketing, this one might have actually fulfilled me.

Filmmaking, though, has definitely persisted as the strongest interest. I remember seeing Goodfellas and Thelma and Louise in the early nineties (Jr. College era) and saying to myself "I'd do anything to make movies like that!" The reason I didn't plunge into it then or at every other opportunity is because of my upbringing, which is a very valuable thing to know. I also noticed something else in my list. All of the careers I've been interested in utilize the skills of communication, performance and persuasion; Teachers, politicians and attorneys all need these skills in abundance. Despite his misguided advice, my dad has told me he recognized these things in me at a very young age.

Of course, even a person who already knows what their talent is and has been put on the path to success could mess it up. What I think is the biggest obstacle to success, however, is fear. I can't imagine what fears might have sabotaged the success of Mozart or Gates or Phelps but I know that I am a long-time victim of fear. Fear is what has kept me in marketing and away from what I really love! I've been hiding in jobs instead of taking the plunge into the unknown, where the things I know are scarier than the things I don't know. The two layoffs might, in retrospect, be seen as the luck and timing I needed because they've made it more difficult for me to hide.

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.