John August

Psych 101

What do you do when the buzz fades?

Film Industry, Indie, Psych 101, QandA, Sundance

questionmarkI’m in a new situation that I’m trying to navigate, and I was hoping you could help for my benefit and the benefit of those who read your column and blog and might find themselves in a similar situation.

I recently wrote and directed a low-budget feature that played at a film festival in Los Angeles. A producer was at the screening, loved the movie, and subsequently got me in touch with several large distributors and top-five agencies who then proceeded to blow my phone up for the next couple of days. She suggested I send out screeners to them, which I did. I even dropped off a screener to an agency I was set to have a meeting with, only to have them cancel the next morning “unexpectedly.” Then I started getting passes, which has snowballed.

It has been a couple of weeks now and it doesn’t look like I was able to strike while the iron was hot. I feel like I’m back to square one. My goals for this movie are to get a small distribution deal with DVD and maybe VOD with a mid-size company that knows how to deal with low-budget movies. My goals for my career are to write and direct my own projects, while supplementing that work with rewrite and punch-up jobs.

Based on the information I gave you, can you tell me: a) what I did wrong so that, should I be in this situation again, I can do better next time, and b) what I should do now to accomplish those goals?

— James
writer/diector, [Eastern College](http://www.candycanesammy.com/easterncollege)

You really didn’t do anything wrong, other than let your expectations get built up too high by one guy. Believe me, I understand how it happens: it’s great when people like your work. It’s exciting when they describe a possible future with meetings and projects and enough money to stop living like a college student.

Enthusiasm is a sugar rush. You really feel it when it’s over.

My friend Aaron Lindenthaler [had a film](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0844346/) at the same festival ([Dances with Films](http://www.danceswithfilms.com/)), and while I haven’t gotten the full post-mortem on his experience, I suspect he found a lot of the same reactions. A good response at a festival is gratifying, but it doesn’t translate particularly well to the larger business.

Looking at your [trailer](http://www.candycanesammy.com/easterncollege/trailers.html), the movie feels like a scrappy college comedy, not unlike [Box Elder](http://boxeldermovie.com/), the film Todd Sklar [wrote about](http://johnaugust.com/2008/self-distributing-an-indie-feature) a couple of weeks ago. It’s absolutely valid terrain for a movie, and no one’s allowed to say that there are too many of them. But there are enough scrappy indie college movies that it’s hard to stand out from the pack, and harder still to convince an agency or distributor that you’re worth the investment.

I don’t know how many meetings you had, or how they went, but you were probably meeting with people in their 30’s or 40’s, whereas you’re likely early 20’s, still fresh from the college experience. Your peers are working in agency mailrooms. And they’re who you really want to see your film, because in two years they’ll be junior agents, and you’ll be one of their clients. So if you have any more meetings, try to talk with the guys getting you your Diet Coke. They’re as hungry to make it as you are.

In terms of distribution, I don’t know how realistic it is to be making money off of it. Don’t let that stop you from going after distributors who specialize in indie DVDs and/or VOD — but don’t pin all your hopes on it.

The better goal is to get it in front of as many eyes as possible in your target audience. Todd Sklar and crew are traveling around the country like an indie band, which sounds exhausting. But maybe you can piggyback on someone else’s travel. Does the music in your movie come from a popular local band? Then give away DVDs at their shows. And I wouldn’t panic about it leaking online. Much worse things could happen. In fact, at a certain point you might just want to keep a link to the torrent on your film’s site. ((Another option: I’d be tempted to find some prolific and well-regarded torrenter and anonymously tip him to where he could find a Quicktime file sitting unguarded on a server. You’ll get better exposure if it comes from someone with pirate cred.))

Based on its current trajectory, your movie probably won’t end up in Blockbuster. That’s okay. You can likely get it [carried by Netflix](http://www.netflix.com/SubmitFilm?lnkctr=cu_tr&role=1), which is better in the long tail world.

And beyond that, focus on what’s next. Don’t dwell on what-mighta-beens. The iron was never that hot, and while you’re at square one, you didn’t get sent any further back. You made a movie. Get the most you can out of it, then get cracking on doing the next project.

Aquaman is a Pescepublican

Dead Projects, Projects, Psych 101

Recent articles about the [political leanings](http://tor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=blog&id=578) of popular comic book characters got me thinking about the uncanny valley between fictional and real-world ideologies. We’re happy to have characters speak in broad terms — “With great power comes great responsibility” — but the minute they start referring to specific issues, we become very uncomfortable.

How does The Flash feel about immigration? Is Wolverine pro-choice? Does Black Canary support the First Amendment rights of hate groups? We don’t know, and really don’t want to know.

To be certain, comics sometimes do have their characters take specific, controversial political stands. Famously, Frank Miller’s Superman in The Dark Knight Returns is literally working for Reagan. But more often, we get placeholders and parallels to soften the blow.

Wonder Woman’s homeland of Themiscyra is isolationist, as the U.S has been at times. The Green Lanterns police the universe, like U.N. peacekeepers writ large. And X-Men are mutants who fight prejudice, discrimination and mutant-phobia.

Sometimes the analogies are transparent. Black Adam rules Kahndaq with an iron fist — he’s literally a weapon of mass destruction, and a danger to the free world. But the facile Iraq/Al-Qaeda parallels only go so far. Yes, he’s a tyrant, but there’s no religion or oil at stake, no greater cause beyond his own ego. If Black Adam were to get sucked into a magic scarab, or sent to the farthest reaches of the universe, there would be no more “Kahndaq crisis.” ((As recent history has shown, simply getting rid of the leader achieves less than you’d think in the real world.))

And this is probably a good thing. I’d argue that the thematic success of comic book characters, and comic book storylines, comes from how closely they can approach the line separating Real from Too Real, without crossing it.

For example, this summer’s The Dark Knight is set in the most realistic Gotham City yet, but its characters still speak in broad philosophical proclamations. Just listen to Batman:

> Sometimes, truth isn’t good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.

Sometimes, dialogue should only be spoken while wearing a mask. His statement makes sense in abstract, but you wouldn’t want it applied to, say, the invasion of a sovereign nation based on false evidence. Even Commissioner Gordon seems to understand that Batman is better suited to villain-thumping than leadership. His improbable answer to his young son’s question about why Batman is running:

> Because he’s the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now…and so we’ll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he’s not a hero. He’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector…a dark knight.

(MUSIC RISES.)

Efforts to place TDK’s Batman on a real-world political spectrum are doomed. Sure, he’s tough on crime, but he’s also anti-gun. He holds himself outside the law, but destroys his own phone-tapping technology. Is he a [Conservative](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121694247343482821.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)? A [Liberal](http://thatsrightnate.com/2008/07/20/dark-knight-liberal-propaganda-is-a-joke/)? ((Note: Dry humor at link. You have to read a few entries to get the gist of it.)) A [Libertarian](http://blog.mises.org/archives/008317.asp)?

Nope, he’s just Batman. And as a comic book character, he’s allowed to hold simultaneous incompatible philosophies.

I think fans are responding to this latest wave of superhero movies not because they’re more realistic, but because they safely insulate us from reality, letting us address epic themes without uncomfortable details. Law versus Chaos is entertaining in TDK, but messy when you look at Iraq. The military-industrial complex is, well, less complex when Tony Stark can simply stop making weapons. And become a weapon. Or something. (The important thing is, he beat up Jeff Bridges, who was visibly evil and bald.)

The episode of Heroes: Origins I was set to write and direct last year deliberately crossed that line between “somewhat believable” and “far too realistic.” It was structured as an installment of A&E’s great documentary series [Intervention](http://www.aetv.com/intervention/), and followed two addicts with superpowers. We never shot it — [the whole series got shelved](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/no-heroes) — but I’m not sure it would have worked. And the producers were certainly nervous. In Iron Man, Tony Stark’s alcoholism is fundamental but non-threatening; real addiction is too real, too uncomfortable.

On some level, we want to keep our heroes just pure enough to fight the bad guys without encumbrance.

Making unnecessary and possibly horrible changes

Film Industry, Producers, Psych 101, QandA, Writing Process

questionmarkI’m a struggling screenwriter in Brazil. About one and a half years ago, I had my first screenplay produced, a drama/thriller that had mixed reviews. The large part of the negative reviews pointed to aspects of the screenplay that I was forced to modify in the course of the production. In all, I like the result, but I think it would be better if my fourth draft (not my fifth) would had been the basis for the movie.

Now, I am having similar problems with my new screenplay in pre-production. This time, it is a child adventure that is very close to my heart, a story about ghosts and divided families. I have a very tight screenplay that is focused in the protagonists. It’s a story about a family of ghosts that is trapped in a house, each member enclosed in a separate room. Three young heroes tries to broke the curse that binds them there. Because of this, the plot is mainly focused inside the house, with a little touch of claustrophobia. Now I have the studio which is banking the project demanding the adding of new subplots. But I fear that the added subplots will loosen the narrative.

My question is: What you do when you truly think that your story don’t need to have new plots, but you have to add them anyway? How can I cut to external situations without weakening my main story?

— Sylvio Gonçalves
Brazil

You’re facing exactly the situation Hollywood writers find themselves in on almost every job. You have the draft you think is ready to shoot, but other powerful forces are pushing for more changes. Sometimes the changes come out of necessity — they simply can’t afford to shoot that sequence. But more often, the changes feel arbitrary. “We need more monkey jokes. Everyone loves monkeys.” ((This is true, up to a certain threshold. More than three monkeys, and I start to get nervous. You’re getting into monkey gang territory, and working together, they could probably take down a grown man.))

So what should you do?

Lick you finger and see which way the wind is blowing. If there seems to be a consensus that more monkey jokes are needed, then add them. And don’t add half-assed monkey jokes in the hopes that they’ll fail and get cut later, because screenwriter karma dictates that the worst things you write will always get prominently featured in the trailer. So make them good monkey jokes.

Am I seriously advocating selling out?

Yes, for you Sylvio, because with one produced credit you don’t have a lot of hand to be saying, “Absolutamente não.” If making the changes will completely undermine the movie, your job is to get the other decision-makers (director, producers) to realize this. The best way to do it is to write the changes as well as you can, and present them with your reservations, explaining in advance how hard you tried, what works and what doesn’t.

There is a small but real danger that they will disagree and shoot your revisions. But your version is no doubt better than what the director or another writer would have come up with.

Coincidentally, I’m going through the same thing right now on a project I’m writing. I’ll be spending three days doing revisions I’m pretty sure won’t work, but that’s the best way to demonstrate to everyone why they won’t work. The silver lining is that the process of doing these failed revisions may inadvertently create some good material that will be helpful in other parts of the script.

In your specific case, I’d make sure that whenever you’re cutting to external situations, you’re using the cuts to increase the overall energy. Make sure you’re leaving the house with a question unanswered, and returning to the house with something changed. ((Consider how Lost uses its flashbacks/flashforwards. They’re interrupting the flow, but they’re goosing the overall energy.)) You’re probably using claustrophobia to create tension, but there are many other tools in a writer’s arsenal. (Also, we’ll notice the enclosed spaces more if we’ve had some contrast.)

Good luck.

Short questions, short answers

Big Fish, Projects, Psych 101, QandA

questionmarkIn the [Big Fish Sequence Outline](http://johnaugust.com/downloads_ripley/bf-outline.pdf) posted in the [Library](http://johnaugust.com/library), you have boxes around certain sequences (i.e. sequences 3,5,8 etc.), but not around others. What do these boxes reference?

— Gerald
Mississippi

The boxes indicate which sections of the movie are Edward’s stories. I wanted to show the balance between real-world stuff and fable.

—

Why did Edward Bloom leave Ashland?

— Anonymous

Because it’s too small for a man of his ambition. That’s what Edward says to Karl the Giant before they head off on their adventure.

—

Beginner’s luck? Is that supposed to happen?

— Mark

It’s a fallacy. We expect someone trying something for the first time to fail, so when they succeed, we call it “beginner’s luck” to discount it. But depending on the nature of the task, it’s actually just skill or garden-variety luck.

A person who succeeds early and later fails may likewise try to diminish the first success by declaring it “beginner’s luck.” But it’s almost worth looking at the situation in which they were first successful, and what’s changed. Likely the “beginning” was an arbitrary point decided after the fact, and the subsequent efforts are being scored by different and perhaps unrealistic criteria.