DUST OFF

The saying "If you love something, set it free. If it comes back to you, it was meant to be" is also true of certain film and television projects. TV, in particular, tends to see this more often as changes in leadership at the networks seem to occur almost every other year. This, in turn, leads to fresh eyes on projects that might have been turned down by the person who cleaned his or her office just last week.

Unfortunately, this works in reverse as well. A colleague of mine recently lost out on at least two projects because of a change at the top of a major cable net. Now he's scaratching and clawing just to stay on the 'go to' list.

This same person is in charge of decision-making for several cable nets owned by the group, so a series we tried to sell just a couple of years ago now has a good chance of getting some traction. It helps that the series subject matter is evergreen. Now it's just a quick re-cut of the pilot footage to present a fresh reel.








Now this is the kind of 'dusting' I actually like!

'Corporate' Has No Influence Over News?

Yeah, right.

If you saw today's cover of the NY Post, there's no way anyone can say that with a straight face. The morning after a major story breaks about Fox News trying to buy the silence of OJ Simpson's in-laws, News Corp's sister company Post runs the headline "JEETED" - Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter did not win the Most Valuable Player award. The NY Daily News ran with "Fox Tried To Buy My Silence".

Apparently, the editors at the Post naturally thought the public was better served learning that a baseball player lost out on an award rather than finding out how corporate American was trying to influencing a news story with a big stack of cash.

Hmm, I guess that would make two stories of corporate America influencing what news the public gets to see based on the bottom line. And that would be the same news organization on both counts. I'm sure the Post editors weren't influenced by Fox corporate at all. That would never happen. They're the "fair and balanced" bunch.

If they "report" and "you decide", what are you supposed to decide if corporate money keeps the story from you? I'm sure New Corp isn't the only guilty party out there. There have been documented stories of similar situations at GE-owned, 'liberal media' giant NBC.

The catch here is media cross-ownership. The corporations want to own all the news outlets and say it won't be harmful to the public. If a Fox News (News Corp) story about OJ Simpson warrants a spike at the Post (News Corp), what about more important stories that get killed. Maybe ones on government corruption?

This is just one example, but it should SCREAM for attention as a cautionary tale of what our news media has become. The FCC should roll back liberal media ownership rules it allowed earlier, not loosen them even more!

Write Place, Right Time

My schedule happened to open up enough to allow me to attend a pre-screening of The Weinstein Company's new picture BOBBY. The film was followed by a Q&A session with writer/director Emilio Estevez and several actors (including Christian Slater, Freddy Rodriguez, and Sharon Stone). All in all, the film was pretty good. It brought up a lot of issues that parallel today's political and social landscape in America. It also had far too many characters - including his own.

The best part of the evening was listening to Estevez and the actors discuss how the film came together and how they reacted to the content. Estevez, in particular, was captivating. I've never heard him speak for longer than a soundbite before. His discussion of the events of 1968 were well thought out and quite intelligent. It was refreshing to hear a smart H'wood voice at one of these things.

What stood out for me was Estevez's backstory on this project. Here's a story that deeply effected him from a young age and was burning to come out as a film. For years he had researched the project, characters, themes, and finally went to work on the screenplay. After writing just 30 pages, he was frozen for about a year with no direction.

Boy, did that sound familiar.

Then his brother Charlie read what he had written and intervened (yes, Charlie Sheen doing an intervention!) . "You have to finish this script. It could be the most important thing you do in your life. Get out of town and finish this!" He listened to Charlie's advice (something he rarely does) and packed all his research, writing, and computer into his truck and headed north.

After 150 miles or so, he pulled into a motel that advertised: Vacancy, No TV, No Telephone. The woman at the desk recognized him and asked what he was doing at the run down lodge. He told her about his BOBBY project. Turns out, she was there at the Ambassador Hotel the night Kennedy was shot. This serendipitous meeting unleashed the story within and allowed Estevez to complete the screenplay. (Her story became the basis of Lindsay Lohan's character.)

So now he has his script in hand to shop around. The initial funding fell through, so he continued to pitch it. Three years went by before he could raise enough funds and attach enough stars to make it happen.

THREE YEARS!

I don't know if I should be happy or depressed about this. On the one hand, here's a name star having the same problems as me trying to sell a project. I'm not the only one in this boat. On the other hand, with his H'wood lineage and a story about a Kennedy, you'd think this would have gotten funding in a NY minute. The fact that this kind of clout still took years to fund scares the daylights out of me.

Is Estevez's backstory one of hope or doom? Depends on which day it is.

One thing is certain, though, when it came to finishing the screenplay, he was in the 'write' place at the right time!

Will Work For Food...


...shouldn't have to be the life of the non-fiction filmmaker. With the non-fiction genre the hottest it's ever been, why is it still trying to squeeze water from the rock that is the non-fiction production staff? Don't blame it all on the producers.

No, not when the networks were gobbled up by corporate conglomerates, making 20%+ profits more important than taking care of the workers. Suddenly, 'staff' became a dirty word and farming the work out became the only way to do business. This model served to lower payrolls and save on benefits. It also served as a buffer to allow salaries and working conditions to plummet while deferring blame away from the corporate network.

In fact, most producers would rather hire more experienced workers than entry level camera operators and second year 'producers'. The standard business model used to be 'pay once, get it done on time'. Now, it seems, 'pay less and deliver late' has become the new business model.

Producers, generally, would love to hire more experienced staffers, but the nets won't allow higher rates to appear on the budgets. They'd rather see a longer timeline with lower wages. It seems an underhanded way to run a business.

When will the nets learn that it is LESS EXPENSIVE to hire higher salaried workers who can get things done quickly than to pay neophites less money and have them do the work twice in order to fix novice mistakes?

Can the American indie production community reverse this trend? We must try. Heck, the Brits did it and now they own the American production market space. We MUST beat them at their own game and fix the business model here at home. Otherwise, the MTV model of 'over-30 and you're out' will become the industry standard.

Not an way to make a living if you plan on working past your 30th birthday.