Pitchers & Catchers

All producers, writers, and directors have to know how to sell – or pitch – their ideas well. Otherwise, you’re just a researcher. And every industry organization knows this. Hence, no matter what confab you go to, there will inevitably be the dreaded “Art of the Pitch” workshop. Amazingly enough, no matter how much the venues charge for these workshops, they’re always SRO! And you can be sure that there are multiple ‘repeat offenders’ in the audience.

Unfortunately, there are a LOT of wannabe filmmakers out there wasting an awful lot of precious time and resources on these things. Is the industry being served by these pitch seminars? Or are they merely soft-core gimmicks designed to separate desperate dreamers from their hard earned $$$? I’m inclined to go with the latter. There’s more catching going on here than pitching.

Early on in my career, I attended quite a few conferences for my employers, and one or two for myself. From coast to coast, they all had the same workshops. Different industry ‘experts’ sat up front, but more or less the same content was bandied about. It seemed everyone would have an opinion, but they all appeared to be stock responses taken off the supermarket shelf.

After awhile I stopped sitting in on the workshops and just walked the convention center floors in search of new and improved gadgets. If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. But why do people insist on going back time and time again? Is it insecurity? Procrastination? The need to know that others are as miserable as they are? All of the above?

Please, STOP THE INSANITY! If an industry group can’t come up with something different from what all the others are providing, then please refrain from littering the landscape with yet another event that will only prolong a dreamer’s delusion and put him or her that much closer to the poor house.

Who's Write?

When the WGA announced it was entering the 'unscripted' world of reality TV last year, many of my colleagues cheered. "It's about time!” they said. And I wholeheartedly agreed.

Last September, I had the pleasure of meeting with NBC's new NY Development Exec Katie O'Connell (now in LA) to introduce her to the PGA East. During our conversation Ms. O'Connell stated flat out:

"Producers come in with ideas all the time and I've seen them all in some shape or form, but unless a writer puts a script together there is nothing to produce."

On the dramatic side of things, O'Connell is pretty accurate. That's why producers hire screenwriters to put ideas on paper before going into production on a $100 million film. But documentary and factual programming is entirely different. On this side of the aisle, producers come up with the ideas, do the research, outline what the story is, go out and shoot it, and then write/edit the program. Here, the idea drives the production, not the script.

And this is where 'reality' producers are getting run over by the networks.

As a member of the Producers Guild of America, I know that we do not have the power of collective bargaining that the WGA and DGA have. This is due to the layered membership of the PGA, which includes members at the very top of the studio and network echelons. To put it simply, the PGA can't represent members on both sides of the table. For now, the PGA can only suggest ideas to the WGA while reality producers who want a fair deal must work with the Writers Guild as their only hope.

In the year or so since the WGAW announced its foray into the 'real world’ they have filed lawsuit after lawsuit against networks and prodcos on behalf of whom they call "producer-writers" on reality programs.

Nothing has come from the PGA camp.

Now "America's Next Top Model" faces a walkout by staff producer-writers looking to bring in WGA representation. I can't wait to see what happens on this front. It would be nice to reverse the downward spiral in staff salaries and working conditions. For an industry that claims that programming costs keep rising (just ask any network exec), it amazes me that networks continue to pay less for staff costs which have been flat - or worse - for the last 5 years!

I hope the PGA steps up to the plate to join the WGA in this battle. After all, every primetime dramatic series is run by 'producers' who are really writers. In fact, being a writer is the only way you can sell a dramatic show to the networks.

Steven Bochco, David E. Kelley, Aaron Sorkin, Michael Crichton...all writers.

Their screen credit: PRODUCER!

The WGAW is right on target opening the reality front. If WGA writers are the producers and showrunners on the dramatic side, then producers who put together factual programming should enjoy the benefits of WGA membership and representation too!

The PGA must step up to help its lower level members earn a living wage in the 'real world'. This does not mean that these producers cannot also be members of the PGA. If you look at the PGA's biggest names, you'll see that many are also WGA and DGA members. Why should factual program producers be any different?

Production Funds...Out of the Ether

This week marks the launch of my internet fundraising push for Wings Across the Sahara. The goal is to replicate Robert Greenwald's spectacular success with his latest feature doc. According to RealScreen magazine, Greenwald's company Brave New Films needed $300,000 to produce Iraq For Sale, so he turned to the internet. After cutting a preview trailer, they started a site for online donation. Within 3 weeks, Iraq For Sale garnered more than $350,000 over the ether!

I'm curious. If Robert Greenwald did it, can anyone else? I doubt it, but I've gotta try. After five years of hearing "bring us a roughcut and then we'll talk funding", it's worth a shot. So the trailer is now up and viewable at www.jfsfilms.com/prodSahara.htm and donations can now be accepted on the website with the help of PayPal.

Some of you may have already received the e-mail blast announcing this fundraising effort. In fact, within a half hour of hitting the 'send' button, I received an in-kind offer for 1 day of services and equipment from a top-tier Frontline cameraman/DP. That offer alone is worth about $1,500!

That's a pretty good start in my book. I'll keep you posted over the next couple of weeks.

Stay tuned!

Where's the Drama?

That's what our EP said to us as we sat there going over the script for the umpteenth time. At which point my correspondent and I just looked at each other in utter frustration. 'Drama' he asks. What drama? It was a weekly magazine show on religion & ethics and nothing we'd ever seen on the program contained anything remotely resembling 'drama'. Good grief!

The rough-cut flowed well and addressed some difficult questions. What was he looking for? We went back and re-wrote the piece, but this time we went for the 'drama'. Only problem was, it ended up portraying one character unfairly. In the end, we scrapped the segment as we felt it was unethical to misrepresent someone just to make a more 'dramatic' story. It was a piece on ethics after all.

But what of our EP's question: 'Where's the drama?' Looking back, he probably should have said 'It needs more conflict?' News and other non-fiction pieces should be 'dramatic' just by the content shown. Our story was, but looking back I realize we should have added another character to build conflict as the piece progressed. It's a lesson every non-fiction producer must learn or risk losing their audience halfway through the story.

Later, after shopping some of my doc ideas around, I found quite a few readers telling me the same thing: "This would make a great movie." They meant a fictionalized movie, but I wanted no part of fiction. Too many 'based on' movies turned reality into something not quite true – all for the sake of ‘drama’. Besides, I had no experience putting words in characters' mouths. So I kept knocking on doors shopping my docs to potential funders near and far.

Then I hit a wall. The frustrations we all face when our stories fail to attract backers finally caught up to me. Maybe I should try something completely different. So I did. I took my favorite projects and outlined script ideas for fictionalized films. I figured the chances of selling a theatrical script might actually be better than selling a doc – if it was done right. But I needed to learn how to do it right, so I researched screenwriting: read movie scripts, logged on to screenwriting forums online, and read quite a few books. In particular, Syd Field's seminal work on the subject, Screenplay.

It was refreshing. It was FUN. Stepping into this new world of creativity got my 'juices' flowing. I bought a new laptop, Final Draft® screenwriting software, and began writing.

I was possessed.

Within a couple of months I had finished my first draft. According to my new friends online (one reads for a studio), it was a good work. The dialogue needed some work – no surprise here – and they didn't like the ending. It wasn't the Hollywood 'happily ever after' ending, but that wasn't the story. My doc-world background would not let go! I had several suggestions to tweak it, so I put it down for a while to let them simmer.

That's when I looked back at a few of my doc projects and was overcome with ideas for making them better. The exercise in dramatic writing had actually made me see the stories clearer. How to build better conflict. How to make the story turn at certain points so the viewer will be drawn in further. And not at the expense of changing the character's real story for dramatic effect.

What a revelation.

After years of working in the doc biz, studying fiction screenwriting turned out to be the best thing that happened to me. I don't know of too many non-fiction film programs that teach dramatic screenwriting as part of its curriculum, but I highly recommend it.

As Robert McKee, Hollywood's screenwriting guru, says – STORY is everything. I couldn't agree more, especially in the non-fiction world where characters are everyday people. This is where we really need to hone our skills and what better way to do it than crafting a fictitious script? Learning the ins and outs of story and conflict with imaginary characters is the perfect way to prepare the non-fiction 'screenwriter' for the more difficult world of documentary film.

What the ---- ?

Brooks Boliek reports in today's HOLLYWOOD REPORTER that the FCC is continuing its crackdown on broadcast profanity. This time it's against live sports.

In its continuing crackdown on on-air profanity, the FCC has requested numerous tapes from broadcasters that might include vulgar remarks from unruly spectators, coaches and athletes at live sporting events, industry sources said. Tapes requested by the commission include live broadcasts of football games and NASCAR races where the participants or the crowds let loose with an expletive. While commission officials refused to talk about its requests, one broadcast company executive said the commission had asked for 30 tapes of live sports and news programs. "It looks like they want to end live broadcast TV," said one executive, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. "We already know that they aren't afraid to go after news."

Let's take a closer look at this one, shall we? We're no longer talking about cleaning up those 'godless liberals' writing for fictional characters on primetime television, we're talking about altering life as it happens. Whoa! Don't you think that's a bit extreme?

Does everyone in the FCC's world speak in flowery prose? Maybe. But our current Vice President told a Senator to "Fuck off!" at the Senate's annual photo session in 2004. Guess his FCC-issued speech censoring device wasn't working that day. Or maybe his V-chip was turned off.

Since I was a kid, there has always been the chance 'foul' remark by a ball player or coach that snuck through the airwaves. We always laughed it off. It wasn't just part of the game, or part of a 'broadcast', it was PART OF LIFE!

Why in God's name does language offend these people? I can just imagine the Veep's hunting partners saying,"Gee whiz, sir, you seemed to have misfired!"

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not one for filling the airwaves with blatant vulgarities just for the fun of it or to prove a point, but when it comes to the realities of life as it happens - live and in person - so be it. I am afraid Orwell's Ministry of Truth is taking over.

I just hope they don't start censoring serious stuff, like footage of dead and maimed US soldiers coming home from Iraq. Or putting reporters in jail for thinking about writing a story against the administration.

Wait a minute. That's already been done...

Archive Houses Have 'Eyes On The Prize'

I remember reading an article last fall on the classic Blackside, Inc. masterpiece EYES ON THE PRIZE. The sad fact of the matter was that the vaunted PBS mini-series on civil rights was being held hostage by copyright law. It was actually illegal to re-broadcast the series anywhere or release it on DVD because many of the original rights clearances had expired. I couldn't help but think what a crime this was against American history and culture.

If corporate archivists hold the rights to key componenets to films that explain who we are, where we come from, and where we are headed, how are we docmakers supposed to keep history alive and well on the airwaves? Recreations? For events that were never captured on film or tape, recreations are not bad for giving the illusion of 'being there', but I don't think we need to recreate history that already exists on film or video. I want to see these events for REAL, not some low rent actors making it look good.

I got my first real taste of the arhive footage nightmare while working on Discovery Health's BEATING THE ODDS. This mini-series looked at people from all walks of life who overcame enormous obstacles and got on with their lives. The non-celeb types were no problem to work with and we actually had some fun doing a few small recreations to put viewers at the 'scene' of the incident. But then came the celebrities. On a personal level, they were all a pleasure to work with. But when it came time to show clips of their works from an earlier point in their careers, the numbers were unreal. $5 - $10K per minute of usage EXCLUDING any royalties due the actors, directors, writers, musicians, personal trainers, yada, yada, yada. Well, that just wasn't going to fit into our miniscule stock footage budget line. In the end, we panned across some publicity photos and called it a day. What a way to cheapen a good film.

Nowadays I'm working on my indie doc WINGS ACROSS THE SAHARA. The project has gotten lots of good revues on the treatment and trailer, but funding is slow to come aboard. In the meantime, I'm researching footage the film absolutely needs to show what actually happened 65 years ago. I came across some vintage footage only to find that the stock house is representing a private owner and wants to charge $25,000 or more for about 5-8 minutes of usage. We're talking standard cable rights, int'l release and home video. And the private owner is not even the filmmaker!

This is where things have gotten out of hand. I can understand filmmakers wanting to charge a nominal fee for using something they acquired in the field with their own sweat and tears. Heck, we don't make money on these films to begin with (see July 3 post). But a private 'collector'? That's just plain wrong. Here is some historuc film of American history that is rarely, if ever, seen and some individual gets to hold it as an investment? This stuff should be in the National Archives. But it's not, so my film gets to be held hostage like so many others unable to pay the ever increasing corporate ransom. It should be public domain footage - at least it would have been under the old copyright rules. But it's not, so this huge canyon of unraised cash is staring up at me just waiting to be filled in by as much cash as it can eat.

There appears to be hope on the horizon. A recently published statement on Fair Use from American University's Center for Social Media (www.centerforsocialmedia.org) is an attempt to bring some sanity back into filmmaking. Hopefully, the statement will catch on in the legal system since it is currently a guideline only and has no legal standing whatsoever. Until that day arrives, it looks like the hottest commodity market won't be on Wall Street...it's on Sixth Avenue.

The Myth of Cheap Documentaries

Ever since those small, agile, and inexpensive 3-chip DV - and now HDV - cameras came on the market, production execs across the broadcast spectrum think producing quality documentary films has somehow become a significantly cheaper venture.

NOT!

Don't get me wrong, these have been empowering tools for docmakers regardless of experience level. And low-priced editing platforms like Final Cut Pro, AVID Express DV, and Adobe Premiere Pro have brought ideas to videotape that would never have seen the light of day just 10 years ago. But that's not what I'm getting at here. These tools are perfect to complete ultra-low-budget projects, but what about stories that require serious research, travel, an experienced writer and an experienced editor? Better yet, how about the staff being able to make a living? We're not in this to get rich, but can we at least afford to pay the mortgage and feed the kids? There are very few doc producers out there that are independently wealthy, but these days it's almost a requirement to stay in the game.

Rule of thumb has it that your above-the-line staff should be no more than 30% of the total production budget. OK. So when a cable network commissions a doc for $150,000, how do you pay yourself, an AP and PA? If you figure a modest 16-week production cycle where you, the AP and PA pull down around $4K/week in total, you're already in the hole. Is it really asking too much for the Producer/Director/Writer to earn at LEAST $2K/week for doing 3 job functions? I'd like to hear the DGA and WGA answer that question!

Then there's your camera crew. Yes, an actual camera crew. Let's face it, not everyone can frame a shot, light, and make those quirky little cameras put a pristine picture on the screen. And just because the DV/HDV camera is smaller and cheaper doesn't mean the lighting equipment and sound gear is. So you save a couple of hundred bucks a day for camera rental, but what does that do to the entire bottom line? If you shoot 15 days and save $200/day you'll reap a whopping $3K to the bottom line. BIG DEAL! If the camera crew is making $1,500 a DAY (and that's not even the top end crews), why is the rest of the creative staff asked to split 2 to 3 crew days worth of salary for a WEEK of work? And there are a LOT of 6 day weeks in that schedule. You know. You've all done them.

OK. Now you offline on FCP or its competitors, you're now paying about $1K to $1,500 per week for the room. But an editor worth her salt will cost you at least $2K per week. That's pretty much the same rates you were paying in a Media Composer room years ago. No savings there.

The Online is where the arguments start. Some argue that you can finish and deliver out of FCP, but some nets (like Nat Geo) still require uncompressed video throughout the program. If you use ANYTHING besides DV/HDV in your film, you'll need to bump up to whatever format is highest quality. I've seen programs that were shot on DV - but had HD, DigiBeta, and Beta SP elements - end up in a high-end AVID Nitris DS room for online and final output. Where's your savings now?

All else remains the same: travel (it still costs $1,200 for a non-stop flight from NY to Austin, and you're going to stay at that Comfort Inn, right?), music and graphics, recreations and archival footage (I'll talk about these down the road), office space, insurance and accounting. Let me know what I missed. You get the picture.

It seems to me that the inexpensive cameras and post platforms aren't where the big savings are coming from these days - it's the workforce.