Ronald Mangravite

RULES FOR REALISTS: Rule #3

2011-12-24T08:04:00.000-08:00

Rules for Realists #3: The World is Unevenly Distributed

The Pareto Principle, also known as the 80/20 Rule, states that, despite appearances, all things are not equal and that a general rule of imbalance can be statistically proven.

In other words, a constant minority of some aspect of life will have the majority of that aspect's effect. This majority/minority distribution works out (over the long run) to 80%/20%.

For example, 80% of a given city's traffic jams occur will occur on 20% of its streets and highways. 80% of those traffic jams will occur during 20% of a 24 hour day. 80% of crime will be committed by 20% of the population. 80% of crime will be committed by 20% of the age spectrum of a population. 80% of a company's workforce benefit will come from 20% of that workforce.

These ideas are not new but they tend to be forgotten especially in today's world where modern technology gives the illusion that everything is modular and precisely duplicated.

Realists can use Rule #3 to many ways. One popular practice is to use this principle to weed one's investments: 20% of your holdings produce 80% of benefit, while 80% produce only 20% of reward. By identifying and dumping the 80%, one's return can be (temporarily) enhanced. Then again, 20% of one's investments hold 80% of the risks.

This procedure can also apply to friendships. If 20% of one's acquaintances produce 80% of benefit, would it not be wise to identify those who really do enhance your life and then nuture those relationships? Are all those Facebook "friends" of equal value to you?

RULES FOR REALISTS: Rule #2

2011-12-12T16:26:00.000-08:00

RULE #2: NOT ALL PROBLEMS HAVE SOLUTIONS

We have this conundrum, you and I. We live in a world of fascinating, oftentimes incredible technological progress. New inventions, new discoveries march us down a road towards more efficiencies, greater mastery of knowledge and communications systems. Products are sleeker, more reliable, more energy efficient. Obstacles that have flummoxed people for centuries are now falling away with digital, nano and biotechnologies. It's quite clear to most everyone that all problems will fall if we set our minds to them.

Except not.

While technology continues to may huge leaps almost daily, we are foolish to assume that such progress applies equally to all areas of life. Just as World War I, the War To End All Wars, didn't stop war in the slightest, so the latest phone app, vaccine or genetic crop variant will not prevent human misery, environmental degradation or hatred or greed.

One modern myth is if we organize and work hard, we can accomplish anything. Realists know this is an illusion. Corporate rapacity will not go away because Occupy Wall Street demands it. Laws might help for a time, until money's power returns to tip the scales of justice.

We can't save the whales, stop world hunger, create world peace, or end bigotry because we decide to do it. If we do decide to go against these foes, we must be realistic and understand that such efforts may be noble and important and perhaps absolutely essential, but they are not going to end in success.

Instead, realistics break off their Big Quests into smaller chunks: focusing on one small piece of a Big Injustice and overcome that. Then another little piece, then another. Such an approach isn't dramatic or romantic. But winning small battles usually makes more sense than losing a great big one.

Equally, some personal problems never get resolved nor some relationships, despite all good intentions. In these cases, there are only two solutions: learn to live with the problem or move on.

Rules For Realists

2011-10-18T06:18:00.000-07:00

I have been on this planet for a while, and I have learned a few lessons about how things work here. This knowledge isn't laudatory; experience and mistakes have been my main courses of instruction.

Over time I have boiled down what I know into a short list. I call it Mangravite's Rules For Realists.

RULE #1: THE WORLD IS NOT PERFECT AND NEVER WILL BE.

This is the first Rule For Realists because the modern world keeps telling us otherwise, relentlessly and to our continued frustration. Technological innovation, mass production and relentless efficiencies give us the illusion that the world is, can be and/or will be perfect, flawless and dependable. It isn't. It never was. It never will be.

We live in a broken world. It's beautiful but it's not quite right. Things go wrong. People did ridiculous things, even the wisest, mistakes are made. Meanwhile, the world can kill you, random tragedy strikes. We can't legislate away this disruption, we can't fix it and we can't expect someone else to fix it.

We can try though. And we can help those whose efforts make the world a better place. And support ideas which over the long run help transform human society and how we all deal with our condition. But that condition at basis is not going to change very much - at least permanently.

The best that realists can hope for is some temporary periods of happiness, however happiness may be defined. The pursuit of happiness may be a constant in human nature; attaining it and maintaining are other matters altogether.

Conservatives are usually comfortable with Rule #1. They know that the world is fundamentally flawed. But that knowledge is not excuse to do nothing in the face of our problems.

Progressives tend to resist Rule #1, that's part of their nature as visionaries and rebels. Their problem is that resistence can turn into narcissistic denial.

I have ten Rules For Realists. Rule #2 next time...

One or two things I have learned about politics

2011-10-08T14:56:00.000-07:00

For those of you who have dropped by this blog before, the title of this entry may come as something of a surprise. The majority of previous posts have been about media and culture; these are areas in which I have worked for a long time. I have degrees in these subjects and I have taught many courses about them.

Meanwhile, though, I have lived my life in areas beyond these subjects, met many good people from many backgrounds (and a few truly evil ones). I have had a go at many projects, built a few businesses, encountered a few bitter failures and some success. All in all, I have been on this planet for quite a while now, long enough to have learned a few things about how this crazy world works. I don't have degrees in most of what I know, but you learn as you go.

This is some of what I have learned about politics...

...that the clanging and clamoring of public life will never cease and that clever demagogues can spin any aggregate of random facts into personal gain.

...that much of what passes for deeply felt political beliefs are motivated by deeply buried personal conflicts.

...and that while many of us can clearly and forcefully articulate their political points, we often can't express or even identify what really motivates them.

...that a good majority of today's political argument is really a dispute between well intentioned people who happen to have opposing means while seeking the same end.

...while the remaining minority is not only diametrically opposed in the ends they seek, they are in agreement that keeping up the endless argument keeps them in the fighting business.

...and many a good and well intentioned idea can turn very bad very quickly.

Take for example corn...

I like corn. I like to eat it. I like to grow it. I like to do both at the same time. I like to stand in my garden at night and hear it grow, pick an ear, shuck it and eat it raw. Especially in full moonlight. Lovely.

But corn is a problem in our culture. It's everywhere in our food - as high fructose sweetener - a major culprit in the fattening of America. It's also a political football in the form of ethanol. Way back in the gas crises of the 1970s, the cry went up to free the US from the grip of the avaricious oil producers. The solution would be fuel from renewable plant energy. Why not? We have good soil, lots of sun and water - let's grow our fuel! We can save energy! The air will be cleaner! We will be free from the political controls of oil producers!

So we did this wonderful new thing. A lot of farmers balked at first but the Federal government subsidized the effort to produce corn as fuel - ethanol - in a big way. Not so long after, farmers started to get used to these subsidies and tax breaks. Now a whole lot of acreage is going to fuel not food. Results? Higher food prices and a comfortable relationship between Big Oil and Big Food. And...we discovered that ethanol does not substantively reduce air pollution and the net result of ethanol production and consumption is more energy use not less. We also learned that the ethanol campaign effectively gave the energy industry a great opportunity to influence votes in the farm states which suddenly found themselves profiting mightily from the fossil fuel industry. Net result: the effort to develop electric cars and alternative energy now get intense pushback from farm states as well as oil companies. And farm states often are key to national elections and...well, you see where this is going.

This is an example of one of what I call Rules for Realists - Rule #4, also known as (Edmund) Burke's Law aka the Law of Unintended Consequences:
what began as a well intended push for alternative energies, cleaner environment and energy savings ended up as a major force against the development of those very virtues.

I will post all my Rules for Realists soon...

Coral Gate Media has its own blog

2011-10-08T14:03:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned some months ago, my media content company Coral Gate Media LLC has now departed from this blog and started up its own: please visit http://coralgatemedia.blogspot.com

This blog remains as my personal soapbox for ideas and commentary.

Stay with me - I have a couple of thoughts to share in the days ahead.

On Space and Use: the Forthcoming Marriage of Stage and Screen

2011-03-06T19:26:00.000-08:00

For most of its history, cinema has been at best a casual acquaintance of live theatre. The former is focused on technological innovation and up to the minute adaptation while the latter proceeds traditionally, with techniques, terms and practices that are hundreds of years old.

Now though, fundamental changes in both arenas suggest the real possibility of a brand new relationship between the two. I see some truly exciting potential here and it all centers around the use of space.

To begin, let's look at some basic problems that the stage and cinema face.

Theatre's biggest problem is financial. Costs keep rising but there is a real limit to revenue. The past several decades have seen theatre producers attempt to resolve this problem by cutting wages (relative to other costs and inflation). As a result many actors, even on union contracts, are essentially working for free, once taxes, dues, and transportation costs are deducted. Ticket prices have also risen significantly. But meanwhile the price of materials and equipment, plus the added costs of insurance, new building and safety codes, etc keep piling up.

Theatre's other financial problem is recoupment. Plays take a lot of money to put up (the "nut" or capitalization) and to run (the "weekly" costs) but the window to recoup (the length of the run) is usually short. Once a show closes, there are few options for recoupment beyond a tour or selling off the production elements.

Another huge issue is theatrical real estate. Theatre takes place, as Peter Brook once said, and that place is the physical theatre, the acquisition and operation of which is usually a stage company's biggest cost. (I will allow the occasional great deal such as Joe Papp's historic one dollar a year rental agreement from the Cty of New York for the Public Theatre downtown. Such deals are the Holy Grail of theatre companies).

Yet, despite the costs involved, theatre spaces are seriously underexploted. Shows only run a dozen performances or less per week. The audience seats sit empty for most of the time. All that real estate going to waste...

Cinema meanwhile has its own headaches. On-location production is becoming increasing problematic in our ever more complicated modern world. Finding locations with adequate height (to light), seclusion (to sound record), parking and loading and security is increasingly difficult.

Similarly the pace of film production is changing the production landscape. Every filmmaker knows that production sound is the culprit in most location slowdowns. Camera may need a retake or two or three to work out a focus pull or a dolly move, but sound often requires many more retakes for its own issues. But when a crew has to double its daily page count make their day, production sound quality is dispensed with - has to be - to which is added the lame excuse that "we will fix it in post".

The problem with that scheme is two fold. First you need a decent post production sound studio and there just are not that many, especially outside of the major film centers. Second, you have the issue of bringing your actors back for post dubbing and ADR. Unless the film is cast locally, this can be very costly and sometimes impossible - actors often move on to other gigs far far away.

Due to technological innovations, plenty of independent film productions are turning (back) to shooting in studios using standing sets, green screens and post production digital imaging. This relieves a crew of the huge hassle of location shoots and all of the attendant problems. It also offers a controlled sound recording environment; in a studio production sound needs far less post production dubbing and ADR. But renting studio space can be a crushing cost and again, there are very few adequate facilities outside of the major centers.

But sweet are the uses of adversity! When I put the problems of cinema and stage together, I see a dandy potential solution.

Theatre spaces should be designed for flexible use - for performance and for cinema production. When a show is produced, audience facilities (seats) are put into place. When the theatre is "dark" (no show), the space is used as a sound stage, either by the resident company or rented out to external film projects, thereby providing rental income to the host company.

This facility would offer multiple use equipment - the light grid, a scene shop, dressing rooms, a costume and prop storage area, loading dock - that could service shows and shoots alike.

The facility should include an adequate post production sound studio - for dubbing and ADR. It also needs a proper theatrical light/sound booth. Both needs might be satisfied with a single combined use facility.

A flexible show/shoot facility would allow a theatre company to produce plays, then move on to shoot the project as a film, thereby exploiting assets- the actors are already rehearsed and costumed and propped - and extending the potential to recoup production costs through dvd and direct download sales and rentals. For such a shoot, the theatre space shifts into a sound stage. Production sound is better managed in such a controlled environment. What post sound dubbing and ADR that is needed could be handled on site, either during the production schedule itself or immediately following.

If the theatre company chooses not to shoot its projects, it has the option to rent out the facility to outside film projects, another source of revenue. A film company with such a facility could maximize its use by renting out its space to theatre projects with limited runs.

The flexible seating in such a facility would actually enhance the theatrical experience as directors and designers would have more freedom to reinvent the performance/audience spatial relationship to enhance each particular production.

The audience for the stage production would be a built-in primary market for any based-on film project (not likely a significant one in size but one that could be enthusiastic, driving social media attention). Costs for both theatrical and film projects could be signficantly lowered and these mini production centers could provide new job opportunities in all sorts of smaller communities. Even the business models for these bear some exploration - I do not see why a not for profit film production company couldn't work in association with a stage company - with film rental and sales revenues helping to subsidize the theatrical operation.

I am excited by these prospects! If you have any thoughts, please send them on for posting here. Perhaps we can generate a discussion that might advance this notion.

The Return of the Studio System

2011-01-12T05:53:00.000-08:00

As regular readers of this blog know, I am sanguine about the state of feature film production. The studios produce less and less product while more and more independent projects never see the light of distribution day. Television also looks increasingly bleak.

These thoughts were on my mind when I took a quick trip to Los Angeles in December. The ostensible reason was to direct a couple of episodes for a cooking show web series; they are now in post, I'll talk about that exprience another time.

A trip to LA for me is always a trip "back" to LA: I was born there, my parents were in the movie business there and I spent quite a few years working in the industry myself. As a result, my LA trips always involve comparisons with the pasts, both recent and distant.

Times are very tough for most of my friends in the business. Feature film production has permanently fled, television series work has shrivelled, television movies and miniseries have gone extinct. They don't need many writers or story editors or costume designers for reality tv and they don't need actors at all.

But show folk are resourceful and persistent. As a result, new models of production are cropping up. Writers and producers are creating their own web series, shooting them without needing network permissions and without network advance money, then posting them on YouTube to generate audience support. These projects range from the well funded to the shoestring, with a few talented friends shooting projects in someone's garage.

Guess what? This is the return of the studio system.

I don't mean we will see the Warner's lot returning to its heyday. Centralized, unionized studio hierarchies are as passe as Stalinist government (and from the same era). But we are seeing the birth of the mini studio system, where projects are developed, written, shot, posted and released by a close knit team of collaborators, working at a central location, usually with few location shoots or outside assistance.

This trend foresakes the recent "pitch and deal" system, wherein a producer or a writer had to convince other producers and financiers and directors and stars and studios to come in on a project. Pitch and Deal was a cumbersome glacial process, itself a serindipidous system that emerged when the Old Studio system collapsed in the 1960s. Pitch and Deal favored agents and wheeler-dealers. The new mini studio movement favors producers and production.

Mini studio models are also showing up on the big studio lots themselves. While in LA, I engaged in more than a few discussions about this trend, as studios invite production companies to make a series of projects using studio facilities and resources, in effect creating studios within studios.

What this trend means for the industry is yet unclear. Certainly production costs will plummet for lower end features and television of all kinds. To me, the singular prospect is the likely demise of the Freelancer, the for-hire independent contractor who works on one big project after another. If mini-studios take hold, workers will return to the old studio model, working straight weeks for one company that assigns them to whatever project needs support. Wages won't be very good, I reckon, but they will be steady. The good old bad old days when a spec script could generate a bidding war and a $1.5 million price tag are also likely gone. Workaday Hollywood may find itself back to the days of 40 weeks and modest careers. The flash and glitter will likely dim but that kind of normalcy might actually be welcomed by many.

I have one more thought about this subject but it's somewhat involved so I'll save it for a stand alone post. As a teaser, let me just say that the mini studio movement might develop some unintended consequences, one of which could possibly reinvigorate the live theatre scene and herald a new burst of creativity in the arts. Really. I will discuss this in a new post.

The Don Meredith Principle

2010-12-07T08:44:00.000-08:00

Just heard that Don Meredith has died age 72. Many of you probably do not know that he was the quarterback of the NFL Dallas Cowboys football team and later one of the ABC commentators on "Monday Night Football". He also was a natural philosopher and I take him as one of my mentors. Seriously. Here's why...

Sometime a long while back, I was watching MNF. I can't remember what teams were playing or when and it doesn't matter. What I do remember is that it was very late in the game, with maybe ten seconds left. The team with the ball was down by five points. They had time for only one more play in order to score and win. They couldn't just kick a field goal for three points, they needed a touchdown. But they were fifty yards away from the goal line. So that meant they had to pass all the way down the field. The other team knew that. Everyone in the stadium knew that and several million tv viewers knew that.

So the ball is snapped. The quarterback steps into the pocket and hurls the ball way down field. The wide receiver is streaking underneath, leaps up and nabs it barely, with the pads of his fingertips. He hauls it in, it looks like a score! But the defensive back slams into him, knocking him end over end and the ball bounces on the turf. Incomplete. Game over.

So Howard Cosell, the main announcer, goes on and on about how this was a clutch play and this is professional football and the receiver is paid to come through on big plays like this and he blew it and blah blah blah. On and on Cosell drones, but then in the background you can hear Don Meredith say:

"You go down in there and do it, Howard"

I never forgot that. I try to live by that. It's easy in this world to criticize and complain and hold people up for their honest failures. But I don't listen much to those who know everything and have attempted nothing. Everyone is an expert but few have the courage to actually take the risk and try to achieve something difficult. I try to listen to experience not know nothing jerks.

"You go down in there and do it, Howard".

Thanks, Don. Rest in peace.

Paradigm Shifts (and Blog Shifts Too)

2010-09-15T12:50:00.000-07:00

Well, it's becoming clear: the big economc downturn we have been experiencing has not gone away and there seems to be every expectation that it won't go away soon. With it, we are looking at a major reassessment of societal prospects or, as Hollywood has long been fond of saying - a paradigm shift.

We aren't just talking economic survival. This is more an attitudinal and identity change. The Great Depression of the 1930s marked its survivors for life. This will too, whatever its final name will be. It's far too early to tell how all this will work out but we are far enough along for me to make a few comments...

First, what's most striking to me about this downturn is what isn't there, namely some clear characterization or narrative from the creative community. The Great Depression spawned countless stories, paintings, photo essays, movies, plays and the like and numerous stereotypes and archetypes sprung up: the Wall Street trader turned apple vendor, the Okie family migrating to California, the corrupt power broker and the Capraesque straight shooter, the orphan gamine, the weary single mother - these and many other types found their permanent place in American culture.

Where are today's archetypes? Where indeed are the narratives from our current disaster? It's been two years and counting and not much cohesive storytelling to show for it.

Come to think of it, where's the great novel - or film - that takes up the horror of September 11, 2001? Is ANY major aspect of modern life showing up in modern fiction? I don't see it. I can't think of a single major work that even attempts, let alone succeeds, in giving voice and vision to our times (note: the few possible exceptions are so new their impact yet be assessed). Dickens took on his world, Tolstoy took on his, so did Dostoievsky. Scott Fitzgerald certainly did and Hemingway did. Filmmakers did as well - Coppola and Stone, Kurosawa, Kazan and many others. But lately? You can't count George Clooney's several pictures- however smart and timely, they just don't have major societal impact. Same with the art house films that you finally get around to seeing on Netflix. No resonance, however thought provoking.

So what's going on? Paradigm shift. We are not - as a society - in agreement of what is happening, who we are and where we are going. And the storytellers and creators - always the early warning system of societal change - have not heard the Next Call. It's a muddle still and may well be for some time to come.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some clarity is coming to my muddle: my company Coral Gate Media LLC is experiencing a lot of activity (TBAs soon). There's a clear need to separate out this professional activity from my personal thoughts and essays. Consequently, a new Coral Gate Media Blog will make its debut within the month. Its focus will be news about the company, links to other professional media connections and the like. This blog will remain as my personal portal and sounding board. Comments are always welcome.

What's Next, Part 2

2010-04-03T16:20:00.000-07:00

In my previous post, I argue that New Cinema can and does operate by connecting directly to a pre existing audience community. This community is already predisposed to either the concept or the content of the film project, self promotes the film to friends and often uses the film as a community building tool. Some savants like Peter Broderick have demonstrated how such communities can piggy back fundraising using the film as a centerpiece.

But this New Cinema is not necessarily completely separate from the Old Cinema of Hollywood style distribution, marketing and exhibition. Old Cinema and Old Media are very very interested when a new project arises outside of traditional purviews. This leads to an interesting premise that may in time be viewed as a law: that independent projects must first demonstrate viability through the New Cinema (or New Media) before the Old system will pick them up.

This goes back at least to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT which demonstrated (and in some ways manipulatd) audiences numbers in advance of even festival screenings using Internet and (then rudimentary) social media. The snowball was already rolling downhill which prompted a big Old Cinema payout to buy that snowball.

Cinema - What's Next

2010-04-03T16:05:00.000-07:00

Folks, I meant to post this LAST month but got carried away by other matters. Here's the belated post...

This is THE season for the movies. The Independent Spirit Awards 2010 version have just been announced and now THE HURT LOCKER has won out ver AVATAR at the Academy Awards. But readers of this blog know that my contention is that despite all this annual hoopla, cinema as we have known it is a basket case. Meanwhile, it's clear to me that there is a new form of film that is arising. If you haven't noticed this, it could be because a whole lot of people don't want to you to notice.

To begin, let's define the terms of this argument. Cinema - as we have known it - is mass art, created and marketed to a wide audience of consumers. This is the 20th century model that I hold is expiring for three main reasons. First, the mass audience demographic base for this model has splintered, as the corporate marketers target an increasingly narrow market of teens and early 20s. This is because of a variety of factors - shrinking leisure time, availability of product consumed at home, etc. Second, the business model for independent films, or even anything but huge studio projects has broken down, again because of a variety of factors. Third, the cultural impact of cinema has been severely weakened by the proliferation of other media.

I would also point out that so-called "independent cinema" as the term is used is largely a misnomer. The "independent" part applies at best to financing and production. Otherwise, "indies" such as were celebrated this week, cleave closely to the Hollywood model, with publicity, pr, marketing, distribution and exhibit mimicking studio pictures. This "indie" scene is merely a feeder system for the studio system: if you track the careers of successful indie filmmakers, it's difficult to find many who remain within that realm. Most everyone seems ready and eager to dive deep into Hollywoodland.

This false Hollywood/indie dichotomy is aggressively promoted by an array of voices all of which have fundamental interests in keeping this myth going. Studios love this indie fantasy as they can push off a lot of development costs and financial risk to private financiers; the media loves these faux indies which, by following the Hollywood mass market concept, desperately need the hype that the media provides. The film guilds and unions now embrace the indies, offering ultra cheap contracts for their members (while requiring the same steep dues costs), thus papering over the reality that fewer and fewer union/guild members are making a decent living despite "all the work" that indies provide.

Meanwhile there really is a new cinema that as emerged. It isn't a far off vision, it's right here and hiding in plain sight. It is profitable but it has developed outside the matrix of corporate control, media marketing and mass audiences.

What are the characteristics of this New Cinema?

As a rule, New Cinema does not get on the mass market radar,; if it does, it is only after some huge financial success atracts media attention.

New Cinema usually do not win film festivals or even screen there. Its rate of theatrical exhibition is usually very sporadic, usually only specific individual theatres for specific reasons.

Marketing for these films is not "push marketing", the standard forms of ads, trailers, talk shows and clebrity hype. Instead, New Cinema uses "pull marketing" as inspired audiences talk to their friends who become new audiences.

New Cinema speaks to exisiting communities rather than to anonymous consumers. The subjects of these films address issues that already have the attention of these communities. The films are not "consumed" as mere entertainment but serve as platforms for discussion, debate and even political action.

There are many films that fall into this category. The early films of Tyler Perry fit the bill. These films were marketed to the black middle class audiences that already attended plays (with most of the films adapted from those plays); SPITFIRE GRILL and FIRE PROOF, two Christian based stories, addressed concerns that caught the word of mouth support of many congregations. The latter is even used in Christian marital counselling and has developed an entire website based counselling system.

Even certain star driven media magnets like AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH and THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST might be included in this list. The audiences for these films were specific and already self aware as communities and the films served as the bases for futher discussion and group action. These are extreme exceptions; the real heart of New Cinema is the production of small, intensely received projects created for a particular community.

This model utterly opposed by the studio/media hegemony. Such narrow audience targeting means big distributors can't make money; nor can film critics have much impact- the audience is already connected to the film subject abnd does not need intervening vetting to become aware of its existence (or value). Now, given this new reality, do you really think that the existing distribution and media systems will give it any credence or even acknowledge its existence? Not a chance.

New Cinema is a threat to Old Cinema and the very careers of those involved with the traditional formats. New Cinema does not need traditional distributors to disseminate the product, traditional exhibitors to screen it traditional marketers to generate interest, or traditional critics to bestow credibility. The AUDIENCE COMMUNITY provides the pull instead PROVIDED the film's concept/content speaks to that community.

This is pretty simple and like many simple things, very very difficult.

Chinese Medicine

2010-03-03T05:53:00.000-08:00

A long time friend of mine is a rather well known actor who lives in Edinburgh. During the long cold winter months in Scotland, he's working hard writing a screenplay. He checked in recently to discuss his struggle to find a suitable ending for his story. I suggested that if his ending is not working, he might go back and re-think his beginning. Usually problems with the former are due to problems with the latter.

Storytelling is downright holistic. The narrative spiral is a continuum that must be in balance for it to work well. I say "spiral" rather than "circle" because while good stories bring a completion and a sort of return, it is a return at a higher level- something is gained or learned, however bitter that lesson might be.

As a result of this, story structure is something resembling Chinese medicine. If you hurt over here, it's likely the cause is over there. While we usually go to the doctor to fix the hurt, it may be that the hurt is heralding some other hidden problem. In other words, the pain is an ally to more important discoveries.

I will run through some of the these basic "pain points" in a later post.

Speaking of movies, why is it...?

2010-02-01T11:35:00.000-08:00

... that news items about new films center on box office numbers and/or awards, not content?

...that such items are placed in the "Entertainment" section not the "Business" section?

...that as the U.S. trade deficit continues to soar, the breakdown of the American film industry, once one of the country's top 3 exports, receives scant attention?

...that there is no room for cinema in the "Arts" section anymore?

...that any serious discussion about film art comes from email exchanges or certain chat rooms?

There is something here that's creepily similar to what's going on in the nation as a whole; a blithe indifference to the hollowing out of what once was a dynamic, essential enterprise. While media mavens busy themselves with endless reports on star events, celebrity misfortunes and misbehavior, box office numbers and awards ceremonies, the entire film industry is gradually but relentlessly pulling apart, like a slow motion galactic big bang.

The numbers from domestic production are dire; state and city film commissions are packing up shop as studio projects have moved out of LA to other parts of California, then out of California to other states, then out of the US to Canada and Mexico. Now, we find more and more major films not only shot in faraway countries, but posted abroad as well.

Good, say some. More global participation, more chances for non American talent and crews. Yes, but... the universe of films released is not expanding - as global corporate control of local film communities continues apace. Yes, huge deals are being struck in India and China. But what happened to Ireland's film renaissance? Or Argentina's? Or Israel's? Or Iran's? Or West Africa's? Will Bollywood's international deals help true Indian indies like THE TERRORIST? I doubt it, I don't see that.

I mentioned in a previous post that I do hold out hope for an alternative cinema arising. I have neglected to follow through with that theme and I promise to do so in subsequent posts.

Indie Distribution Subject of NY Times Article

2010-01-19T09:08:00.000-08:00

Check out this piece in the TIMES. Peter Broderick is featured front and center and the woes of indie distribution are spelled out clearly.

http://nytimes.come/2010/01/17/movies/17dargis.html

Readers Comments Stir the Pot

2010-01-10T06:13:00.000-08:00

Hmmm- comments are coming in responding to Is Cinema Dead? (Parts 1 & 2). Interestingly, none were posted on this blog - all were sent directly to coralgatemedia@gmail.com

Here's the gist of the points:

"How can cinema be dead when this is a record breaking year".
Let's put aside the usual barking about box office returns in constant dollars and the jump in per ticket prices and the fact that big grosses do not always translate into increased attendance. Let's just give the devil his due - this was a very good year for film revenue. But this entire subject is in itself a point of discussion. The public focus - one might say obsession - with b.o. grosses is a phenomenom that arose in the 1980s (I think the Michael Keaton BATMAN started this cult). It has been a major subject of discussion ever since. But industry numbers are not on my radar, at least in this conversation (I am of course VERY interested in box office returns when it's one of my projects we talking about).

Box office grosses merely re-emphasize the acceptance of cinema as a commodity rather than a cultural force. If we begin to analyze this "great year", we see a continued downturn of film jobs (in the aggregate), outsourcing of work to far flung subcontractors and - what really gets my attention - an ever reduced impact on the overall culture.

"There are some really good movies out there- AVATAR and THE HURT LOCKER" (or fill in your favorites here)

Thankfully, yes, there are some really good movies still made every year. But pointing out individual victories does not reverse the overall trend.

The overall culture of moviemaking is not healthy. Fewer and fewer blockbuster crowd out the variety of middle range films (middle range budgets and the variety of subjects and sudiences they used to target). At the small end of the spectrum, indie cinema is barely breathing. More and more people are making films, fewer and fewer are making a living.

What I am focused on are: the cultural impact of cinema (rapidly weakening) and the cultural health of the filmmaking community (similar diagnosis). Take AVATAR - an accomplished film, some say a great film. Yet its lingering impact, I suspect, will be negligible. First, it's not exactly an exceptional story concept - white male hero saves the day for beautiful indigenous people. Second, its media buzz is largely more about its numbers than about its meaning.

"What about PARANORMAL ACTIVITY?"

This $15K project has grossed over $100K by closely tracking BLAIR WITCH PROJECT's model. Good for both of them. But my points about cultural impact and fthe filmmaking commnity still apply. The jury is still out about PA but BYP's impact was nil, except as a marketing wonder. I happened to have been at Sundance when BWP premiered in a midnight show. I really appreciated it just because it was brash and different from all the slick studio mwannabes that screened that year but I can tell you there was zero buzz about this film - as a film - at breakfast the next day. Ten years later, neither the film nor its filmmakers appear to have any enduring impact.

If I were critiquing my own position here, I would go afield and cite films like BLINDSIDE or Tyler Perry, especially his early, pre-Hollywood films. When filmmakers know their core audience, speak to them, for them and with them - the communities sometimes respond by supporting that filmmaker and help create the possibility of an enduring career.

All of this aside, it's impossible to deny the grim facts of cinema's long decline as a culural force. I wish I thought differently and I truly hope I am wrong about this. But I know I don't and I fear I am not.

Is Cinema Dead? (Part Two)

2009-12-09T10:42:00.000-08:00

Is cinema dead?

Many signs point that way. As a cultural force, cinema has been marginalized by television, Internet and social media. Technology has made screen watching a regular non event. An onslaught of film content has diluted the impact of new releases. As the Guardian recently reported, the decline of star driven films is marked:"In 2009, the biggest grossing films in America were: TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (robots); HARRY POTTER... (wizards); UP, a computer animated film...; THE HANGOVER (starring who?)...The interesting factor they share is they either have no recognisable stars, or the stars who do appear are not the major selling point...This year Johnny Depp's PUBLIC ENEMIES failed to whip the cartoon people. John Travolta's THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 sank...Julia Roberts bombed with DUPLICITY."

During the heyday of the studios, the cult of celebrity was refined much in the way that totalitarian dictators shaped their public personae. Hollywood stars were faultless demi-gods as studio hacks covered up their transgressions, even to rape and homicide. Later on, the faultless angle didn't sell so Hollywood stars were followed because of their transgressions, their sick relationships and their substance abuse problems. Trouble is - from the stars' standpoint - ordinary Americans have even sicker private lives and thus now we have celebrities who arise without any connection to movies. We follow the furtive antics of Tiger Woods and sad boring Paris Hilton and women who birth octuplets for fun. The celebrity pschosis rolls on but without the film industry.

Hollywood might be excused for overrating its self created celebrity power and the fall of the star system can't explain the decline and fall of cinema. The real death knell came with the Triumph of the Bean Counters who pushed out the storytellers and turned cinema into "the entertainment industry". The MBAed suits who ruled the boardrooms mistook the need for storytelling. People crave meaning from movies not merely entertainment. But corporate Hollywood obsessed on spectacle not point. And now, there are myriad ways to waste time; movies can't compete with games, social networking and talk shows.

Let's cut to the chase: cinema, as we have known it in the late, bad 20th century is indeed dead. Its bloated corpse is still warm and the usual hyenas, buzzards, and maggots still feed off of it. But every day, the traditional "business" is fading away.

And yet...

And yet, people still crave stories. One might argue that sanity depends on a coherent personal narrative. Human beings seem hard wired to view themselves, their values, their lives and their world in terms of story. We are born into a broken world with no warranty and few instructions. We must deal with the ghosts of the past and the dark tangle of an unknown future. How do we proceed in such a fix? We turn to stories - both fictional and non - for guidance, comfort or just comedic relief.

Movies can still speak to that deep, basic need. But it will have to be a New Cinema not the Old. What that New Cinema will be remains to be discovered. I will share my thoughts on that subject in a later post.

Is Cinema Dead? (Part One)

2009-10-28T09:54:00.001-07:00

Among other thoughts boiling around in my nutshell of a brain, I have been considering the health of the film world as we now find it. In the hundred odd years of its existence, that health - and the nature of that world - have changed many times.

On the bright side, those of us who are film lovers and filmmakers must admit that at this moment we are blessed. We have the entire library of cinema at our fingertips- on dvds, online, in libraries and at art house retrospectives. Nothing is too obscure; everything can be accessed. As filmmakers, the prohibitions of costs have nearly disappeared. Digital cameras and sound recorders, portable lighting equipment, laptop editing systems and post production graphics are all available and an aspiring filmmaker can make a credible feature for a tenth of what it would cost twenty years ago - maybe even ten years ago.

And yet, yoked with these blessings are curses, not loud but deep. The dilemma of distribution – of getting one’s work seen by large groups of people – and of recouping productions costs, let alone going into profit – is ever present. This dilemma is twofold: first, as is generally acknowledged, the “system” for acquiring and distributing independent film is broken. Second, the amounts of upfront cash for distribution deals have plummeted (like all media, film has not been immune from the massive devaluation of intellectual content).

The “indie system” worked for 40 odd years, at least as far back as the “modern classic” era of the French Nouvelle Vague, the Italian Neo-Realists and then into the American indie era of the 70s and onwards. The system, as we learned it in film school was: first make a deal for theatrical domestic distribution. With this as a seal of approval, sell off foreign territories piece by piece, make other deals for television and video. This happy plan was never easy – most films were straight to video and thus never got decent foreign sales – but it worked for many projects. This system was based on several assumptions – that there was an endless appetite for new films; that foreign markets were especially interested in American films and culture; and that upfront payments on contracts were hefty enough to cover productions expenses.

Nowadays, filmmakers are faced with slim pickings. Distributors are looking for narrower and narrower ranges of content, and cash offers for internet distribution - even theatrical distribution - are often miniscule. Worse, the very blessings of contemporary filmmaking – the removal of the twin barriers of costs and equipment access – have created another curse – an endless supply of new product, most of which is dreadful. A filmmaker with a good product is faced with trying to get attention amidst a tsunami of new releases. While the Long Tail theory of endless but low level demand for a film product holds out the hope for recoupment over a long time frame, it does not really answer the question of how the filmmaker can survive without profit over that long time frame.

But these woes pale in the face of the biggest, most dire threat to filmmaking today: the ugly truth that the public appreciation for and interest in movies has receded and continues to recede. Movies just don’t much matter to popular culture anymore. Film is just one more trivial diversion amidst the onslaught of trivial diversions – celebrity misbehavior – ghastly crimes – political scandals – and the latest supermarket romantic intrigue. Filmmakers themselves get attention largely because of their behavior not their work, which makes the headlines for a week at most then drop from view.

This is a far cry from the days when a film by Fellini or Godard or Coppola or Spike Lee or Woody Allen was released – and changed the culture, changed the way we see our world, or each other. The latter three carry on but their newer films drop from sight as quickly as films from lesser known- and less skilled – peers. When real film fans talk about movies, they tend to reach back across the decades; when was the last new film that really rocked your world?

The problems with film are not systemic or financial merely. The problems may be far deeper. Modern reality itself has become cinematic and the central place film has held for so long not so much been eclipsed as it has simply disintegrated into the culture at large.

Is cinema dead?

(to be continued....)

The Writer-Producer Dance

2009-08-04T07:03:00.000-07:00

Does this sound familiar? A producer has a blindingly brilliant idea for a project - a film, a series, a play, a book, doesn't matter. She/he is determined to make it happen and has the sense to bring in a professional writer to make it happen. The writer is hired, writes a draft or two and then - the producer hates it. The writer is let go and the producer starts over again with a new writer who writes a draft or two and then - the producer hates it. This goes on until the producer runs out of money or time or patience. The end.

Here's why this happens.

1.: The producer does not realize that having the initial idea makes her/him the original writer not the producer. (The role of the producer is to: identify the project, bring talent and resources to the project and organize and support that talent to form a cohesive team and maximize success). But if the producer originates the idea, she/he is functioning as the original writer and should carry the ball alone as far as possible, at the least through a one page treatment and preferably a complete outline. The more is put down on paper at the idea stage the more on target the final result will be. "Two guys sneak into Saudi Arabia and disguise themselves as women" could go in a billion directions.

2. When hiring the writer, the producer is thinking about the end product and not about the professional relationship. The writer is hired for the wrong reasons - economics (cheap), experience (credits), familiarity (pals) or convenience (first available). Instead the producer needs to match him/her self with the writer - do they click as a team? Do they compliment each other with different talents or do they replicate one another? Are their work ethics, habits compatible?

3. Not enough communication. The producer does not fully explain her/his project vision and the real world financial/production limitations to the writer. Or the writer does not confide in the producer about how the writer is working with that vision and those parameters, what new ideas crop up. One or the other or both do not express themselves fully. Or they don't listen.

4. Failure to accept change. Producer gets sidetracked by rating the developing script according to whether it fulfills his/her original vision. This is practically impossible. Writing is an act of transformation - of the story and of the storytellers. Writers, good ones anyway, understand this. Producers often do not. Once a producer hands off a story to a writer, that story is going to change. If the producer wrote it her/himself, the story would change anyway. That's the nature of narrative.

5. Failure to exploit change. Producer refuses or is unable to re-envison the project based on the writer's work. Oftentimes, the writer will come up with something very different from the producer's original idea BUT BETTER. But just as often, the producer's ego won't accept the prospect of adapting the original idea. Result - writer is fired, new one brought in , and the result usually the same.

Your Personal Heart of Darkness

2009-06-01T15:05:00.000-07:00

Many screenwriters understand the concept of the Act II Spin. This is a critical event (the critical event for the protagonist's character arc) which happens at the end of Act II and precipitates Act III, the final showdown.

The Act II spin has several consistent characteristics (let's not call them rules). 1. The Protagonist is central to the event.
2. A major external action precipitates the event, prompts the Protagonist to act.
3. The Protagonist abandons the False Value and accepts the True Value, the value she/he has been avoiding for the entire story.
4. The Protagonist begins to act, for the first time in a new way consistent with the True Value
5. This decision makes things worse, re-raises the Dramatic Question and sets in motion the headlong rush towards the final showdown.

This is a tall order but pretty well accepted as necessary. A common danger though is HOW Numbers 3 and 4 happen. If they happen out of the blue, these can appear just too darn convenient - the audience may not buy them.

Therefore, I advocate an EARLIER CHARACTER POINT (I don't call it a Plot Point because there is no decision and hence no true dramatic action), prior to the Act II Spin. This Character point I call the "Whoa! It's Me?" moment. It lives somewhere in IIB, between the horrendous Midpoint and the Act II spin. I used to call this the Page 75 Moment but really it can occur anywhere in Act II-B, sometimes just before the Act II spin, sometimes earlier. This is a moment when the Protagonist begins to acknowledge responsbility for the fix she/he is in. It mirrors a moment in IIA which I call the "Woe is Me" moment.

In "Woe is me", the Protagonist is trying - and repeatedly failing - to solve the dramatic problem while behaving in her/his old way. She's in Oz but behaves like she's still in Kansas. And nothing is working. Woe is Me (as in "everything is against me").

Whoa! It's Me? is the first point when the Protagonist begins to realize that she/he has to change before the external problems can be fixed. It is prior to the Act II Spin. It sets the Protagonist's inner wheels in motion, but before an active solution arises. In other words, the Protagonist begins to accept her/his own flaws but has zero clue what to do about it. Only at the Act II spin, does she/he begin to act on these new thoughts.

This one-two punch makes this sudden change more plausible. It also makes the entire movie more unpredictable and absorbing: First there's the recognition moment. But then- what? How do you fix what's not working or broken? This tiny bridge - between the Whoa! It's Me? and the Act II Spin is the heart of your story:

1.: It reveals your Protagonist to her/his core
2. It is totaly unpredicatble
3.: It embodies your theme
4: It is utterly yours. Give me seven writers writing the same story from the same outline - this sequence will have seven deeply different handlings.
5: The discovery of this sequence IS your movie. You can now rewrite at will, working up to and away from this section. If you don't discover and nail this sequence, all rewrites will be in vain.
6. No teacher, no critic, no guru can guide you through this heart of darkness. This is your own journey. I don't even know how it works with me. I just know you have to find the right way in your own heart. And you will know it when you find it.

Character and Structure

2009-05-30T06:28:00.000-07:00

In the course of my work I sometimes come across scripts that are really appealling but unproducable. As it happened, I recently found two such. Both were intelligent, vivid and well researched. The characters are detailed, the dialogue bright and witty. Both in my view fail as screenplays.

There is, sadly nothing unusual in such situations. Writers with talent, writers with an ear for dialogue and character are uncommon and always welcome. But their scripts do not get made if they don't master structure. I am not referring to generic plot structure. Rather, the integration of character and structure.

At basis, characters need conflict to be interesting. External conflict - plot and internal conflict - values (aka theme). You can't just slap these two together , they reflect one another. They aren't different or separate, they are in harmony. No harmony, no meaning.

Character is central to structure. The value war of the main character (inner conflict) is both the deterrant (holds her/him back) and the key (provides the solution) to the character's external problem. (Note: this is not my theory. This is storytelling, older than written language). The value war is between what the character wants or is addicted to and what she/he really needs but is avoiding. The antagonist embodies the former and the Agent of Change (the character who enters the protagonist's world and challenges her/him) embodies the latter.

As we have discussed in our workshop sessions, these relatonships work their way through the act structure of the script. Usually, the main relationship is between the protagonist and the Agent of Change (who figures critically at the Act II spin)
while the Antagonist (who may or my ot have prominence in many scenes) actually only meets the Protagonist a few times (often three).

Many books discuss act structure and plot points. Many talk about character. Listen to the ones that talk about structuring character relationships. Because not only is this fundamental to effective storytelling, it supports everything else: you can fix weak dialogue and lame scene writing. You can't fix weak structure. You will end up having to break down the entire script and start over.

Rummaging around my Tool Box...

2009-05-16T17:00:00.000-07:00

As noted earlier, the next few weeks of blogging will be targeted towards the Miami Filmmakers Project...

I've been in the story repair business now for nearly twenty years. People come with their scripts and film projects, I run them up on the hydraulic lift and try to figure out how to fix what ails them.

Over the years, I have put useful tools in my Repair Kit....

TOOL 1: I use an Efficiency Tool called the Pareto Principle, also known as the 80/20 Rule. This theorem posits that life is unevenly distributed, at roughly 4 to 1. For example, 20% of roads have 80% of accidents. 20% of the citizenry commit 80% of crimes. 20% of cars suffer 80% of mechanical problems. 80% of benefit is derived from 20% of effort. Conversely, only 20% of benefit derives from the other 80% of effort. (This also applies, sadly, to romantic relationships).

The 80/20 rule can be readily applied to script and project development. Focus on quick, simple but decisively effective actions to SIGNIFICANTLY improve your material BUT DO NOT sweat the little stuff. You do not have world enough and time to have a perfect script or project. The point to is get your material improved with efficiency and cost control. Some "experts" will tell you that you must make every line of dialogue sizzle and every scene must be deeply moving. Not so. SOME of the dialogue and SOME of your scenes MUST ROCK but the rest need not.
The trick is how to identify the 20% that gives you the 80% of benefit.

This principle also applies to personnel: 80% of benefit comes from 20% of staff and 80% of problems come from 20% of staff. But that's the subject for some other post...

TOOL 2: The Trailer Scenes: what are the 5-7 memorable visuals you are going to put in your trailer for your film? Not 5-7 great dialogue exchanges, 5-7 striking visuals. Don't have 5-7? Time to write some. (note: 5-7 important scenes is roughly 20% of your script)

TOOL 3: Entrances and Exits: how do your main characters come into the story? Make these memorable. Rick Blaine playing solitaire chess in his nightclub. Evelyn Mulwray cooly regal in grey between white suited Jake Gittes and her black garbed lawyer. Exits also, same movies as examples. This isn't just for script purposes. Actors want great entrances and exits. Give them those (actors start by reading the beginnings and ends of scripts anyway)and they will want to work on the project.

TOOL 4: Targeting: This is really should be Tool #1. What is your target audience for your project? If you have a limited, select audience (no dishonor there) you will need to keep your project in a small enough scale to make any market sense. I doubt we will see a Jean Luc Godard pirate epic in the near future.

The opposite also applies. If your story is so gosh darned popular that broad audiences can enjoy it coast to coast, you better write it and shop it as a studio picture. It is not true that all subjects work as no budget indies. Non studio projects (meaning - those without huge marketing support) require a specialized, motivated audience and story aspects that have built in appeal to limited market segments. (quick: what is the most successful non English language in top grossing films in the US? Answer: Hindi. There aren't many screens that show Indian language films in the US - but their audiences are highly motivated to find and patronize these pictures)

TOOL 5: Laundry Lists. Plenty of script advisors offer check lists of dos and donts against which you can compare your project. Again 80/20. A quick rundown of a list may not catch all your problems but it will likely i.d. most of them.

My current favorite is William Akers' witty YOUR SCREENPLAY SUCKS which gets down to the nitty gritty in a most entertaining way. You can purchase Will's book at the major book sites and stores but I suggest you visit www.yourscreenplaysucks.com and buy directly from him.

All right, these tools are useful but they are pretty much just hand tools. In the next post, we bring out the power equipment - Character and Structure. Happy hammering!

Film Talk and Some New Followers

2009-05-14T13:43:00.000-07:00

This week marked the onset of the Miami Filmmaker Project, a new offering from the Entertainment Industry Incubator of Miami. The first phase, the Screenwriters Lab tapped five screenwriters or writer/directors chosen from a strong pool of applicants to attend a free series of weekly developmental sessions in May, followed by an intensive Mentor Weekend in June.

EII's Susan Schein asked me to lead the development sessions. We met in South Beach for our first encounter earlier this week. (One of the five is LA based - he'll be in Miami for the Mentor weekend only; we will work out some teleconferencing for the lead-up to that). I was very pleased to meet a focused, positive, pragmatic group of emerging filmmakers. Their scripts show craft and their personalities show balance - no poseurs, no emotional desperados.

As I explained to this crew, my goals for this part of the workshop are to help focus their visions for their projects (widely diverse in story, style and genres)and to offer some practical techniques to markedly improve their projects' appeal for production. Every project has its upsides and its down ones; their first task was to self identify both, articulate their primary markets (who will want to come the film's first week in release?) and secondary markets (who would come if reviews or word of mouth is good).

As you probably surmise, I am not planning a screenwriting course per se. Such efforts are focused on making scripts "better" in some aesthetic but arbitrary sense. Instead, this workshop aims to zero in on key aspects which will enhance the script's "value" in three key areas: Set-up, Shoot and Sale.

Set-Up: what script changes will help get this script "set-up" - talent, financing, director?
Shoot: what changes will improve, enhance or reduce the cost of the actual production?
Sale: what changes will improve the project's box office potential?

For the next few weeks, this blog will be centered on such subjects as this group of writers work on their projects. All readers and visitors are very welcome to tag along - and send your comments - as we proceed.

Don't Mind Me, I'm Just Prescient

2009-05-13T14:33:00.000-07:00

Personal blogs are supposed to be somewhat loopy, aren't they? Eccentric, off beat, chronically marginal. And Wrong, because Not Popular. Oh no, we all protest - we are not blinded by Popularity. We are Discerning. We can find the hidden gold wherever it may be. Sure.

Anyway, today's news features movie/music mogul David Geffen's plan to help move the New York Times, in deep financial trouble due to falling ad and subscription revenue, to becoming a non-profit entity. Similar plans are afoot elsewhere. Let's see, didn't I discuss this concept back in February? Well, since most folks pay little attention to what I say or write, you probably didn't read it here first.
Truth be told, there is nothing really new about this. Here in Florida, the St. Petersburg Times has been operating quite nicely as a non profit entity for a good while, thank you very much.

Since when must newspapers be profit engines? Or feature film companies? Why can't non profit film production units, dedicated to intelligent, thoughtful, literate motion pictures be viable?

One big reason we don't hear or discuss such things is that we - the creative community- allow self interested people to set the agenda. Go to any film conference: who are the guest speakers and panelists? Invariably people with a deep personal interest in certain profit models. They are called "experts". You will not hear distribution executives discuss their own irrelevence. Instead, they will discuss "how the business is changing". This is code for, "we are in trouble and have no idea how to adapt but we aren't going to admit this. Instead we are going to continue to speak with the pretense of authority, so that all filmmakers will continue feel compelled to work with us, thereby allowing us to continue to make money even when they do not".

Eccentric rant? Maybe. But when I go to certain de rigeur film conferences, I am finding that the panelists know less about what's going on than the audiences do. Sample question from the floor at the IFP Market a few years ago: what's your opinion of Neoflix? Response from the panel: what is Neoflix? A full quarter of the audience began to offer the answer. Those same panelists were back panelling at that same table in the same room the next year - and recommending Neoflix as a possible distribution tool.

But I digress - back to the search for alternatives to profit driven business that no longer serve the communities on which they feed. Must all agriculture be a cash cow? How about supermarket chains? For that matter, why are hospitals, doctors and dentists profit driven? This could go on, and I will. How about non for profit insurance entities? How about non profit trucking lines, distributing goods at cost to like organized non profits? Call me Ishmael but we don't blink at non profit libraries - both private and public - whereas none such existed in prior eras I (again, see my February blog).

I am not touting Big Government socialist nirvana as the solution to corporate rapacity. I am arguing for economic diversity. And local autonomy. And jobs that don't suddenly disappear because mega million dollar salaried managers seek to satisfy Wall Street expectations. Let's be clear - certain aspects of our economic system are not functioning. For profit Big Pharma is killing us. So is for profit Big Ag, and for profit Big Energy. Chavez/Castro socialism is a grim alternative and inhibitive of innovation. But non profit entities (using bonus incentives for innovations) might be a third way. But hey, don't take my word for it. If David Geffen thinks so, it must be so.

Late Night Thoughts

2009-05-12T13:17:00.000-07:00

The other evening, I dropped by a home in Little Haiti here in Miami for a gab session with a couple of other filmmakers. If you know Miami, you know that neighborhood is not where you'd expect to find filmmaker types. Little Haiti is close by the famous fabulous Miami Design District. As I drove to my darkened destination, I passed blocks blazing with light, full of the Ultra Cool spilling out onto the sidewalks by the galleries and clubs, sipping colorful cocktails and Being Seen.

Further on though is this battered community of lower income residents, mostly Haitians, with few or no street lights, run down houses and renegade foliage that's sultry enough and luxurious enough that you can almost forget that there's carnage on the streets here on a regular basis. It's Detroit with palm trees, an entire parallel universe to the upscale Bohemians parading four blocks away. That's one reason I like it. Maybe it reminds me a little of Montana, where I used to live. Not physically, psychically. The potential danger of the place. In Montana, the threat comes from the weather and the land: black ice, white outs, trees that fall on you when you're cutting timber, tractors that roll back on you when you're trying to fix them (all of which resulted in the deaths of friends of mine). In Little Haiti, the potential threat is from other people. On your block. In both places, the locals seem to have a certain familiarity with Fate. Stuff happens, you deal.

This contrast nicely set up our conversation which centered, as do most filmmaker talks, around how to get our projects made. Susan Braun, who hosted the event, plans to make her second feature using her house as the main set and her street as the main location. Her issue was the script and it was clear she was struggling with it. But Juan Carlos Zaldivar suggested that perhaps she should start towards production and let the script evolve as she went. Since Juan Carlos comes from a documentary/personal essay background (I have long admired his 90 MILES), his point comes from experience. The conversation wended its way through some paella and wine before we parted ways, vowing to make such get-togethers a regular practice. Sure.

Passing back through the hip district, I thought about our talk and the assumptions we make about creativity. Our antennae are always up for new content and new ways to express that content but the actual process of creating content often gets overlooked, or simply assumed. The process of filmmaking is particularly fetishized. Moviemaking is the only artistic activity I can think of that began as an industrial enterprise. There were no cave movies (Plato aside) and shamans didn't work with cameras. Before Hollywood there were a few experiments but mostly businesses trying to make a buck. It is very hard (for me at least) to imagine cinema outside of or beyond this industrial model: concept, funding, script, pre production, production, post, distribution, marketing, exhibition (or some small variation of this sequence). That has always been the paradigm (exceptions proving the rule), that is how it is learned in practice and taught in film schools.

And yet....we see this model disintegrating in several, perhaps all areas. Distribution and exhibition are changing rapidly. Same with production and post. The Hollywood model was deveoped for efficiency - to minimize shooting days, shooting film stock, building sets. But what if we use available locations, digital image capturing, shooting over years not weeks, shooting once and a while not in sequence? What if we shoot with cameras we own or borrow, not rent? Does name talent matter anymore at the indie level?

The one area that appears constant is story. The underlying laws of narrative haven't changed since Gilgamesh. But while story remains constant, does the process of screenwriting? Screenwriting was an industrial task in the studio system, with writers on salary cranking out material ordered from above. Then the studio system collapsed and writers began writing on spec and producers used the scripts as producing tools -to raise money, attract talent, package and pre-sell.

But...must we do it this way? Should we? Self financed features can be made for under five figures and some deferrals, even less. Actors might get involved after the basic story phase but before scripting and get involved with writing dialogue. In certain situations, the script might get entirely re-written during production or post as the project requires. These thoughts are not original. I recall reading Peter Broderick's blogs on this subject a number of years ago (see www.peterbroderick.com). Moreover, all of the above was successfully applied on my latest project, ALL FOR LIBERTY (see www.allforliberty.com).

Meanwhile, though, the general practice of learning and teaching screenwriting has not moved from the old model: cranking out a commodity to market, THEN attempting to get financing and personnel THEN identifying a possible audience/community to support the film project. Not working. Something's amiss. And it circles me back, in some subrational way to Little Haiti versus the Design District, from the organic and chaotic opposed to High Concept Styling. I am guessing that artist meetings in shadowy neighborhoods could evolve into something - something like attempting to express and connect to the broken reality of the real world and finding new paths forward. Meanwhile, the party rocks on close by - celebrity, pretense, bohemianism without creative light or heat. Isn't that merely the dying embers of the studio system - manufactured fame (star system) and propaganda/hype? Ancien regime, imho.

Film Awards keepin' me busy

2009-04-30T16:55:00.000-07:00

My feature film project ALL FOR LIBERTY has been picking up a number of awards at film festivals lately and all of that is keeping me hopping. For details, please go to: http://allforliberty.blogspot.com and the film's website, www.allforliberty.com.

Adventures in Asia

2009-03-27T11:26:00.000-07:00

Best laid plans...my intention to blog and travel turned into just travel, then blog. I am back from my trip with this report...

China is, well, very big. Startling, confusing. To begin, it took a loooong time to fly there. From Miami, it took days. The Miami to New York plane never got off the runway. By the time a replacement plane was brought up, the connecting flight from JFK to Beijing was long gone. This meant the airline had to accomodate us overnight in New York, sending my wife and I to perhaps the greasiest hotel ever devised, the kind that makes you want to have your socks on at all times. I would not be surprised if they hosed it down nightly with canola oil. I had to hold myself back from renting a carpet cleaning machine. There was no way we would sit on anything in that hotel, let alone lie on anything.

Since Beijing is exactly half way round the world (twelve hours time difference), the only strategy was to stay up all night, resulting in an all nighter at the Washington Square Coffee Shop in Greenwich Village. As it happened to be Saint Patrick's Day, this afforded quite a lot of entertainment; the coffee shop was jammed right on through the night with late night partiers moving directly from booze to breakfast.

By the time we got to Beijing we were pretty woozy (19 hours, with a change in Tokyo). But the Beijing airport woke us right up - the largest airport in the world, the thing is stupifying, a gigantic tortoise sloped ceiling stretches out in all directions - how did they construct it? Reminded me of THE TRUMAN SHOW- a vast faux sky and a totally controlled world beneath.

Beiing itself was even more boggling - a city of 26 million with monstrous office and hotel buildings looming everywhere. These futuristic sculptures co-exist with the ancient past. You can walk down the main shopping street - all Prada, Gucci and the like - turn a corner and - boom! you're in a hutong, a centuries old neighborhood of narrow alleys, tiny shops and tenements where people dine on the street and laborers wheel past on rusty bicycles circa 1949.

Everyone in Beijing seems to be on the hustle. Everybody's got a sales pitch and everything is negotiable - even the hotel rates. However cheaply you buy something, you're still getting stiffed by the most skilled negotiators you'll ever meet, and you will meet them, in Beijing, at every turn. On night one we stayed in a hutong at a four hundred year old hotel - well, the bulding was that old - then realized the rate we thought was downright economical was a soak-the-foreigner special. We opted to move on the next morning to a modern hotel a few blocks away at half the price.

China is so old - the only contemporary culture that stretches back to the dawn of civilization - and so new - that the idea of time as a linear progression just does not work there. Foreign presence in China is a mere blip - Europeans and Arabs showed up in numbers during the T'ang dynasty - and the upheavals of the 20th century might seem relatively minor disruptions in the 4000 years of Chinese culture. But for all the history, I get the distinct sense that China's at the forefront of history. Beijing is filled with visionaries, voyageurs, prospectors - Chinese and non-Chinese - pitching their claims to a stake in this enormous rapidly evolving economy.

One week plus a few days hardly does such a culture justice, but between the screenings with the film festival - well attended and really heart warming (see allforliberty.blogspot.com for that report) - we managed to cover a lot of ground. On Day #3 we hopped a domestic flight to Xi'an, the ancient imperial capital (200 BC or so to Kublai Khan) where the startling terra cotta warriors have been unearthed- a few thousand life size pottery soldiers, while thousands more remain underground. The warriors, each with individual faces, were originally painted in vivid colors but once unearthed, the colors vanished within two days, leaving only traces - a bit of red on a collar, some yellow on a tunic. Archaeologists have not figured out how to prevent this rapid loss and so, most of the warriors remain hidden below ground until a process can be devised to retain their colors.

Back in Beijing we caught a taxi to Mutianyu, one of the places near the city where the Great Wall passes along the northern mountains like a great winding serpent. The same emperor, Chin, who decreed the terra cotta warriors, also ordered the Wall to be built; to be started, really, as it was still under construction 1400 years later. (Chin by the way is considered China's first emperor - it's from him that we get the term China). The day was chilly and looming as we walked along the parapets with other foreigners and Chinese alike. As China prospers, millions have been added to the middle class and are only now able to visit such sites and discover their own cultural heritage.

Finally, on our last full day, we toured the Forbidden City. This home of 28 Ming and Ching emperors has innumerable stories - lust, betrayal and honor - every courtyard seems to have its own story. The complex sports a huge Imperial theatre - reminsicent of Shakespeare's Globe - but the best drama at court must surely have been off stage. The Forbidden City - with dozens of palaces and centuries of history - is so vast we only saw perhaps a fourth of it.

All of this enormity isn't easy to handle and I am sure that's the point- the individual is not so important in China and all that bigness keeps reminding you of that. It was quite a relief to get to rainy Tokyo, which, after Beijing, seemed like a pleasant mid sized city. That relief was mitigated by financial pain; Tokyo is expensive by American standards. I had become very accustomed to Chinese prices, where a seventy five minutes taxi ride to the airport ran under $12. Not so in Tokyo.

Still, I am very fond of (most) things Japanese, an echo I am sure of my Japanese American godparents, now dimly remembered, who got my mother hooked on Japanese art, food and cinema. Just as the US seems familiar to many people around the world because of American movies, much of Tokyo felt familiar to me courtesy of Ozu, Mizoguchi and Kurosawa (I half expected the place to be in black & white). The city is ordered, the subway feels like the London Tube. Applying our blitzkreig tourist mode we used in China, we did a whirlwind tour of Tokyo. After checking into a Ryokan (traditional Japanese inn with tatami and futons),we knocked around the nearby shops and cafes of Uedo, the old quarter of Tokyo; one charming street played Bach cantatas from speakers on the light poles. The wind picked up as darkness dropped on us. We ducked into a tiny restaurant where an elderly couple served us big bowls of soup and warm sake to cut the chill.

The next day we took in some Kabuki at the great old Kabuki-za theatre which is presenting the entire Cushingura epic (we caught one hour long act) before the old place is closed for lengthy renovations. We also admired Japanese ladies in traditional kimono at the Tokyo International Center (never did figure out why they were all decked out that day) then zipped up to Asakusa, the other old quarter where hundreds of great shops fan out from the large Buddhist temple and gardens. We ended the day with excellent sushi and a stroll in a refreshing rain.

The comparisons between Japanese and Chinese culture could not be more evident. Beijing is loud, raucous, and dirty. Tokyo is quiet, contained, and very clean. Chinese merchandise and restaurants range widely in quality and are wonderfully affordable. Japanese counterparts are of the highest quality and price. Chinese merchants literally grab you by the arm and pull you into their stalls. Japanese merchants bow and approach only when called on to help.

I came back thinking that the world is not "flat", regardless what Thomas Friedman says. The NY Times bloviator's obsession with technological "progress" utterly disregards the rugged, sometimes impassable psychic terrains, the deep cravasses of history, culture and linguistics where people really dwell. The fatuous Pangloss must not speak Mandarin. Or Lakota. People engage the world through language; there are no pronouns in Chinese, no verb tenses. In Lakota as in Japanese, pronouns are situational, defined by the social relationship between the speaker and the person addressed. The world, I have found, is definitely not flat. And it is not to be found on any map. True places never are.

I'll be blogging from Asia...

2009-03-09T16:05:00.000-07:00

This week is all about preparations - press kits, posters, Chinese subtitles and packing: ALL FOR LIBERTY makes its world premiere at the New Beijing International Movie Week (http://www.beijingfilmfest.org/) on March 20 followed by a filmmaker/audience discussion. A second screening will be held the following evening, March 21 in another part of the city. My wife and I are travelling to the events. We will be stopping over in Tokyo for two days where I plan to meet up with Japanese filmmakers before we push on to Beijing.

I will blog en route to report our adventure. If anyone has restaurant or sightseeing suggestions, by all means, let me hear from you!

Accolade Awards interview

2009-02-27T08:49:00.000-08:00

A moving portrait of Revolutionary War heroes
by Alex A. Kecskes

Ron Mangravite's latest film All for Liberty has won three awards from the 2008 Accolade Competition. These include Awards of Excellence for Leading Actor (Clarence Felder) and Feature-Tenure Track (Ron Mangravite, Producer), while an Award of Merit (runner-up category) went to Jeffrey Stern for Sound Design. Director Chris Weatherhead and Ron Mangravite have created a personal, emotionally charged portrait of America torn by violent civil conflict.

The film stars Clarence Felder, an established film and stage actor and direct descendent of Captain Henry Felder. Based on a true story, All for Liberty chronicles the heroic stand of Captain Felder and his militia in the backcountry of South Carolina from 1776-1780. Their courage was instrumental in diverting British troops and energies while George Washington's army lay nearly defeated far to the north. All for Liberty was shot on location in South Carolina and Georgia, using the actual historical sites wherever possible. The film will premiere at the 2009 Beijing International Film Festival.

Mangravite's background is long and varied. He teaches in the University of Miami Motion Pictures program and taught at the American Film Institute, the Juilliard School, Carnegie Mellon University and UC Berkeley. He also worked in Hollywood as a script doctor (independent features), story analyst (NBC, Disney, CBS, HBO) and screenwriter. He has written eight stage plays, all produced professionally, and he directed or produced over forty professional stage productions in New York and in regional theatres nationwide. Mangravite's current creative projects include a feature film to be shot in Miami and a Spanish language children's television project in Colombia. His award winning short films include My Father's Hopes (writer/producer/director) and The Queen of the Sea (writer/director).

Asked if he always wanted to be a filmmaker, Mangravite replied, "My parents, my aunt and uncle were all involved in the movie business before I was born. But filmmaking really wasn't on my mind until high school when I made this gargantuan bootleg film version of Arlo Guthrie's song 'Alice's Restaurant' as a student project. I didn't know about permissions or copyrights or even basic professional courtesy. I just went ahead and made it with one camera and one actor, ended up with four camera units and 1,100 extras. From there, I produced or directed several documentaries and short films. But I didn't trust the business aspect of filmmaking and I got into acting and directing theatre instead. I discovered, theatre could be just as shady, except the budget numbers have fewer zeros. So I circled back to filmmaking in my late thirties."

Asked what drew him to producing a historically themed film, Mangravite explained, "I wanted to help our director, Chris Weatherhead, who is the true visionary. I had directed, produced and performed in several theatre projects set in the 18th century so this era felt very familiar-the history, the technology, the clothing, the weapons."How did he settle on the specific topics and subjects for his films? "Someone recently described my films and scripts as centering on how the past haunts the present," said Mangravite. "That's very true in All for Liberty. These people suffered and did so much, yet they have pretty much disappeared from national memory. We walk the ground they did (or park on it) but rarely connect with what happened on that ground. What most people don't realize about American history is that, number one, it wasn't that long ago; and number two, it was real people taking huge risks in their lives. The American Revolution was actually more of a civil war that the Civil War. It was neighbor against neighbor and it got pretty ugly, some of which was portrayed in All for Liberty. "

What challenges did he face filming a movie set in another age? "Authenticity was a big issue, of course," noted Mangravite. "But Chris did a lot of research and had excellent historical advisors. The big production issue was sound. Modern America is noisy. Cars and airplanes are everywhere. We had to replace much of the production dialogue in post-which was very time consuming."

What about casting and funding, how did this film get made? "Our production model, in a sense, replicates Felder's fight," explained Mangravite. "It was sort of a guerilla, volunteer, living-off-the-land kind of effort. We didn't have the money or the power of a big studio behind us. Everyone pitched in for the love of getting this story told."

What was it like working with accomplished professionals like Clarence Felder who happens to be a direct descendent of Captain Henry Felder, the most important character in this story? "I've known Clarence for years," noted Mangravite. "We used to perform Shakespeare together as Hal and Falstaff, Clarence is a 'one-take' pro. He nails his scenes with no muss, no fuss. Yes, he is a ninth-generation descendent of Captain Felder. It was this family connection that got this all started. He conducted some family research, then wrote a play "Captain Felder's Cannon," which was the basis for the film."

What most surprised him about the historical period of this film? "The "cultural diversity" of early America," said Mangravite. "We tend to think of that era as being just WASPs and black slaves and natives. But there were all sorts of different immigrant groups in South Carolina at the time. Felder was Swiss, there was a Jewish community in Charleston, as well as French, Italians and Dutch. There were also free American and Caribbean blacks owning businesses and sometimes owning slaves."

An original score was commission for this film. How expensive was that? "Like everything else on this project, we had very little funds to work with," noted Mangravite. "But I knew we could get great music working with Tony De Ritis, our composer and conductor. He and I clicked working on a theatre production in Berkeley. I knew he was very creative, and exceptionally resourceful. He's the chair of the music department at Northeastern University and used his personal contacts to pull together an orchestra in Boston to create this great, haunting score.

Will the Accolade award help in promoting the film and his career? "It's too soon to tell about the effect on my career," said Mangravite. "But I know for sure it's helped promote the film! Because, it's an international competition and not limited to the particular mindset of a festival. Also, because it's a competition, not a festival, an Accolade win does not disqualify us from entering festivals that require premiere status."

Advice from successful filmmakers is always welcome. Any tips for up-and-comers? "First, know that you can make your movie one way or other," advised Mangravite. "You don't need permission from 'the industry.' Second, plan, plan, plan ahead. Third, accept that everything you do will take five times longer than you figured. Fourth, realize that traditional movie distribution has broken down and prospects for 1990s style big payoffs to filmmakers are just about nil. You'll most likely have to recoup your cost by selling your picture DVD by DVD. If your costs are low, if your story interests a dedicated niche audience and if you have determination, you will succeed."

Asked about his next project, Mangravite offered several interesting hints, "I'm planning to shoot a modern day drama set in Miami. No armies, no cannons, no crowds. But after that, I'd like to make a picture about what happens when the Founding Fathers suddenly find themselves in modern America. It's based on a play I wrote some time ago, about Lewis and Clark, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton all just somehow ending up in present day America."

Rethinking the newspaper and beyond

2009-02-26T14:27:00.000-08:00

Denver's Rocky Mountain News announced today that it was shutting down after nearly 150 years. The San Francisco Chronicle and Seattle's Post-Intelligencer may well be dead by the time you read this. The comments section of news reports are filled with lamentation and warnings of the consequences to the Republic.

Let's calm down. This is not necessarily the death of the modern newspaper; it's the death of a business model that's past its time.

Things change. Those with some sense of American cultural history might reflect that libraries used to be commerical ventures, as were all live theatre companies. What happened, of course, was that the for-profit model ceased to work for these enterprises. We still have libraries and theatres, fortunately, though most are now non-profits.

Newspapers can and should be re-organized as not-for-profit entities, and perhaps as net loss entities, like a ballet company. Journalism serves a vital civic purpose, several in fact: as a check to government excess; as a investigator of malfeisance and corruption; as a platform for ideas and the exchange of opinions; as a force for social cohesion. Must these be driven by the profit motive? I'd suggest quite the opposite, that the current dying model of advertising-supported journalism is an inherent conflict of interest to journalism's proper civic role. Anyone with any experience at a newspaper has plenty of stories about the struggles between the editorial side and the commerical/publishing side of the business.

Newspapers (some of them) has enduring civic and cultural value. Can you envision our culture without the New York Times? I can't, even if their smug, fatuous columnists drive me up the wall. I am all for free enterprise but if that model doesn't work in a particular instance, that's no reason to let enduring traditions die off. The not for profit model might also be applied to independent cinema, the kind that used to schedule foreign and independent films and now are largely extinct in the face of the multiplex, VOD and dvd rentals. Could not, should not communities support non profit cinemas to show worthy classic and new films, working outside the for-profit Hollywood system? For that matter, what about not for profit movie production companies? If non profit theatres can create new plays (they provide the majority of new work in American theatre), why can't similar film entities do the same?

It's even possible to apply the model to other forms of civic life. I want to see non profit traditional dance halls, to revive the formerly profit driven benefits of social dancing and great songs and big bands. When last in England, I heard some scary statistics about the rate of decline of the traditional pub, more than one a day. This trend, courtesy of cheap retail beer (thanks a lot Tesco), spells the likely demise of social life and decent conversation across wide swaths of the British Isles: could not UK communities organise pubs as not-for-profit cultural entities? For that matter, they ought to consider certain breweries and dairies; the number of farms that still produce proper Stilton cheese is in the single digits.

I am not proposing replacing private enterprise with more government. But everything good in life need not be driven by profit mechanisms. In the Internet Age, there is much to re-think....

Tips for Producers

2009-02-17T08:00:00.000-08:00

...that I have learned along along my way...

PROJECT
Choose your project very carefully:
This one decision will affect your success more than any other
Don’t take on the easiest project or the quickest
or the one most like a recent success
Take on the one that fits you as you are now:
your interests, your skills, your vision
But also know that your vision, however clear,
must reach a particular audience,
a community of like minded people.
Do you know that community?
Does your project really speak to it?

PASSION
You must have passion for your project
You have to NEED to make this project
or it won’t happen
You can’t find passion;
if it’s not there from the start,
it won’t turn up later
Passion is infectious; your fire will spark others
Passion will carry you past the difficult times
and difficult people
But passion cannot be manufactured
and you can’t fake it
Worse, a lack of passion has a deadening effect
on everyone else

PLANNING
Passion alone won’t get you far;
Planning must follow passion
Planning is not predicting or guessing;
it is strategic thinking
Planning is not written in stone;
it changes as conditions change
Planning is never complete and never completed

PEOPLE
Choose your people as carefully as your project
Interview yourself first:
Be wise enough to know
what are your true assets
and your true weaknesses
Then choose people with real skills,
who provide what you lack
But equal to this
Choose people who can adapt, connect, collaborate
Be aware that:
Friendship is not in itself a basis for staffing
People will reveal their basic dysfunction right away
People do not fundamentally change their behavior
People need to be treated well before they will respond well
People will not respect you if you do not respect them
No one will work as hard as you

PERSISTENCE
Realize that:
Everything takes three times as much effort
and five times as much time than you first thought
Failure only happens when an intended result
does not happen within an intended time frame
If something is not working,
something has to change
It ain’t over until it’s over
Everything has a cost
and even in victory, there is loss
and even in loss, there is victory

-- Ron Mangravite, Producer, Coral Gate Media