"Don't Go In The Woods" if you are planning to make a bad horror movie.

I have been doing so much thinking about film in the past few weeks --- what makes a film, how to make a film, what to do with a film once it's made etc.

A lot of things are changing.

I just had to review this film by actor Vince D'Onofrio, best known for Law & Order but also "Full Metal Jacket" and "Mystic Pizza" etc.

It was really bad, like he wasn't even trying to make a good film. It's a horror musical and while the acting is terrible but the music is pretty good.

So, after I watched the film, I read up about it and even found an interview with him where he said that the plan was to "make a bad horror movie" where they intentionally cast unknown people who had music and singing experience whether or not they had acting experience. He cast a band that his nephew was friends with, he cast some girls who worked at the coffee shop around the corner from him and he cast a couple of girls who had been extras on Law & Order and they shot in 12 days on his property in upstate New York for $100,000 --- but I have no idea what they spent the money on.
Here is the review that I wrote:

“Don’t Go In The Woods”
by
David J. Greenberg

Sometimes, not often, there is a film that blurs the lines between being “bad” and being “intentionally bad.” So, out of respect to the esteemed actor Vincent D’Onofrio who is making his feature debut with the horror-musical “Don’t Go In The Woods”, the question is more pronounced. Given his resume that includes his iconic turn in “Full Metal Jacket” as well as critically acclaimed work in “The Whole Wide World” and ten years of “Law & Order” D’Onofrio the actor clearly knows his way around a quality project so it seems odd that he should choose, for his feature debut, to work from a screenplay that is so fundamentally flawed.

The film is about a scruffy New York indie folk-rock band that, on the insistence of the driven, intense leader, Nick, drives out to the woods where he vacationed as a child. The plan is that they will seclude themselves in nature for the weekend, find the inspiration to write a new batch of songs without the distractions of cell phones, drugs, alcohol or girls ---- a method that, historically, is employed for boxers more often than musicians.

Despite some great moments where they really gel as a band, hit their stride and truly play in concert with one another, it is clear that some of them take the situation far more seriously than others. As is so often the case in a band dynamic, the plan inevitably disintegrates but not before every member of the cast gets to sing their heart out in one or more of the numerous musical numbers. The presence of a sledgehammer wielding psychopath in the same woods only complicates matters.

One of the great mysteries of D’Onofrio’s film is that when he could have taken the same actors and made a great slice of New York City life story about a young band struggling to make it, for some reason, he chose to make a slasher film. Move the location to a seedy rehearsal space, lose the crazed killer element make it a story about art, hopes, dreams and the interpersonal dynamics of the band and there is more than enough for a solid film with ample room for his actor-musicians to shine. It is really hard to not think about “Once” when thinking about this film. Heck, it is really, really hard to not think about Tom Hanks directorial debut “That Thing You Do” which also covered a similar struggling band scenario.

The whole piece smacks of artistic experimentation, like D’Onofrio was making a test film and challenging his own notions of what acting is. The clue to this theory is that the film really only ever comes alive during the musical numbers. In general, the songs (written by co-screenwriter Sam Bisbee) are actually pretty catchy, decent takes on the acoustic indie-rock singer-songwriter vibe that would be right at home playing in the background of a scruffy little coffeehouse. That the cast, made up of enthusiastic, fresh faced but character-appropriate-grungy twenty-somethings, is clearly better at performing the music than they are at delivering lines seems to suggest D’Onofrio picked people with some musical skills who might or might not be able to act rather casting actors who have some musical skills. The difference might seem subtle on paper but, in action, it jumps out.

So, it seems like D’Onofrio is going for a degree of Neo-realism here ala Vittorio De Sica, Gus Van Sant’s “Elephant” and “Paranoid Park” and last years “Putty Hill.”

In that regard, the experiment pays off to a degree in that, overall, the attractive cast does have an appeal, they really do feel like a social circle plucked off the streets of NYC by someone who wanted to make a film about who they are - fresh, raw and palpably full of spirit, no baggage, giving it their all and probably not for the promise of what, presumably, was not a huge payday. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they are all especially talented actors.

Sometimes it seems like certain filmmakers are trying to make a point about bad films by going out and making a bad film, almost a sly send up of bad films. So what is this film, a drama with bad acting, a musical without a good story or a horror film without any scares? The whole thing feels as if it is really about D’Onofrio and some friends getting their feet wet, experimenting with film-making in anticipation of more ambitious projects to come. Does that legitimize releasing this film to the public?

I have seen a handful of films over the years where I have asked myself, "What would be more interesting, the film I just watched or a behind-the-scenes "making of" film about the film that I just watched?" Because, since watching "Don't Go In The Woods", I have now seen a number of interviews, behind-the-scenes, live concert footage etc. that was produced in connection with the film, I can easily say that the answer to my question would be the latter.

The whole experience of reviewing this film was so frustrating because, with some work on the script (or a whole new script) it could have easily been a half decent movie. I have written two horror screenplays about kids going out into the woods and both are ten times better than this film.

No, this movie is not getting a huge release, it's playing in one theater in L.A., one theater in NYC and going straight to VOD. Very interesting.

So what does all of this mean for me? Can I, a nobody, throw together a cast/crew of nobodies, run around, shoot a film and throw it up on the internet? Sure, I guess I can. Will anyone see it? I doubt it. Do I know that I have screenplays sitting around that were designed to be shot for little to no money? Sure do! If I go out and make one, will anyone see it? Who knows? Who really knows? A lot of things are changing.

100/5000

This week, Indiewire.com published its list of the Best Undistributed Films in their year end critics poll. More than 160 critics voted. Altogether, around 275 films made the list. Granted, some of these films have gotten distribution deals that have not yet been announced but, according to the site, the top five films, those that were mentioned the most, do not, at this time, have deals for theatrical distribution.

During the spring, summer and fall of 1988, I worked on two feature films, a low-budget indie (around 1.5 million dollars) and a moderately budgeted (around 20 million dollars) studio film. Both films were released in theaters, have played on TV and gotten home video releases.

Maybe it really was a simpler time or maybe I am just naive but today, even with all the avenues for film distribution -- VOD, online, theatrical, cable and on and on -- it seems like it’s harder to get a film out there. Maybe the movies are just not that good.

Everywhere I turn, I hear about an actress or actor friend shooting this film or that film and everyone seems to be a director or a producer promoting their new film as they are shooting it --- sometimes even long before they start shooting. I understand that marketing buzz, building brand awareness and consumer interest is the name of the game but it sometimes seem like that is the only thing happening. I hear about all these films in the pre-production, then production stage and then what, they’re gone.

So many of these film just seem to disappear without getting much, if any kind of “proper” release -- much less a theatrical run.

Maybe I am old school in thinking that having a movie shown in a movie theater is the ultimate goal. However, film is a public art, it succeeds when people see it and I am not just talking about having a screening at a bar for friends and family. Now, much as I love to see a movie on the big screen, I have to admit that I don’t go to movie theaters as much --- honestly, the picture and sound quality on my TV or computer is better.

Still, for me, a theatrical screening -- even if it is just at a film festival or two -- is the gold standard. Maybe I am small minded in thinking like this but, if I bust my butt and break the bank to make a film, it means more to me to have people make an effort to go see it in a theater than it does to know that they are clicking a button on their computer and watching it while they are checking their e-mail.

For some people, having a screening of their film -maybe renting out a screen at the local art house theater - for friends and family is as good as it will ever get. For some people, the gold standard is breaking even, maybe even having something to hand over to their investors.

If you really want to know what my feelings on the matter, I want to make a film that does “well enough” critically and/or commercially to inspire someone to back me on another film and the film after that one and the film after that one and so on.

I have never been a big fan of writer-director Edward Burns’ work but I have always been interested in his career --- from the legendary “pay the rent or enter ‘Brothers McMullen’ in Sundance?” story to his more recent forays into micro-filmmaking (his new film "Newlyweds" was shot for $9000.00) and promoting VOD as the saving grace for indie filmmakers.

I have been watching the business of indie films and how they get to their audience almost as long as I have been watching indie films. In the “anyone can make a film” era, saying that you are making a film does not carry much weight with me. Telling me that your film screened at a reputable festival, got picked up by distributor with muscle or even, yes, that it’s been downloaded/whatevered 500 times is going to impress me.

So, whether or not my thinking is stuck in the past is less of an issue for me. The Hollywood Economist Blogspot estimates that, worldwide, there are 4000 - 5000 independent features made each year and, of that number, only 2% will be purchased for distribution. Making a film is half of the battle, maybe not even half. Getting people to see your film is the real trick.

Of course, I will still look through the behind-the-scenes photos that you post on facebook and wish you the best.

A Tale Of Three Indies

It might sound as if I have this indie bias, this Hollywood = Bad, Independent Film = Good. I get that and I realize that there are just as many, if not far more, really, really bad independent films out there.

Orson Welles once said that the difference between filmmakers and all other artists is that, for the most part, other artists can afford to make their art.

With today's technology, however, anyone can make a movie and, from my perspective, far too many people are making movies and, not that I am a math whiz by any stretch or into odds and probabilities, it just seems that, the more movies that are out there, the more chances for more of these movies to be bad increases. Some people see the glass half full, I see a little crack in the glass where stuff is slowly leaking out.

I recently saw the 2011 Sundance hit “Bellflower,” which I had been eagerly looking forward to seeing. I can’t even remember what, exactly, I had heard about it beforehand but it had been long on my radar and I thought it looked cool.

Remember, movies are about creating images, making people think that they are seeing something that they are not really seeing. When we see rockets whooshing across space, we are not seeing rockets, we are seeing something that is supposed to make us think that we are seeing a rocket. And so it goes for movie marketing, very often for indie movie marketing. It is all about getting people to see a movie that appears to be about one thing when, at least some of the time, it is about something else.

“Bellflower” is about two scruffy 20-something guys who drink straight from the bottle, smoke a lot and, apparently, do not value clean laundry. They are obsessed with “Mad Max”, building flamethrowers and fixing up an muscle car so that it, too, shoots flames --- in the event of an apocalypse. For some reason, I was under the impression that “Bellflower” was some kind of post-apocalyptic zombie movie. Maybe I really am an idiot, maybe I was duped by the marketing campaign.

If you do not want to know what “Bellflower” is really about, skip the next paragraph and continue reading after it, skip ahead.

“Bellflower” is about two scruffy 20-something guys who drink straight from the bottle, smoke a lot and, apparently, do not value clean laundry. They are obsessed with “Mad Max”, building flamethrowers and fixing up an muscle car so that it, too, shoots flames. One of the guys meets a really cute but also sort of scruffy girl who can smoke and drink like the best of them. Of course, they fall madly in love, have a sort of “let’s hit the road in my vintage automobile and have a distinctly American 20-something experience” road trip. Once back home, things settle down, he catches her cheating on him, loses it and has all kinds bloody, fire-y, depression, drug and alcohol fueled visions that blur reality (for the audience) --- what is really happening and what is not happening. Boy meets girl, girl cheats on boy, boy loses it for awhile but, in the end, he still has his best friend --- that’s what “Bellflower” is about.

You can start reading here.

“Bellflower” was made by two scruffy 20-something guys who look like they drink straight from the bottle, smoke a lot and, apparently, do not value clean laundry. They are obsessed with “Mad Max”, building flamethrowers and fixing up an muscle car so that it, too, shoots flames. They have a handful of similar friends and they all got together to make this film for about $17,000. I liked the look of the film. It looks like it was shot on one of those Hipstamatic cameras that were all the rage for about five minutes. These guys build their own cameras. I found the whole thing tedious, pretentious and empty. Maybe if I had not seen the marketing campaign or if I was still a hip urbane, scruffy 20-something (okay, I never was but I sort of wanted to be) experiencing first love, it would have resonated with me. “Bellflower” got mostly good reviews but, I am happy to say, there are others out there like me who, well, you get the idea.

That said, I do think that the female lead, Jessie Wiseman, really has star potential.

After watching “Bellflower” over the weekend, I showed the 2002 Sundance hit “Pieces Of April” to my students. I quite like this film and I always show it to classes right before Thanksgiving because that is what, among other things, the film is about. It is my favorite Thanksgiving film. “Pieces Of April” is a low-budget indie-style film. I say “indie-style” because, even though it is, technically, an independent film, it is deliberately, maybe even self-consciously lo-fi, shot on really bad digital video with marginal production values. It does, however, boast a great (well-known) cast -- Patricia Clarkson (in an Oscar-nominated performance), Oliver Platt and Katie Holmes (in her bid for artistic credibility by playing against type) and Derek Luke -- at the top of their game and, most importantly, it well-written and directed by Peter Hedges. I show it to illustrate the point that, if there is a good screenplay in place, it almost doesn’t matter how the film is shot. So many people throw so much time and money up on the screen without truly understanding and respecting the importance of having a good screenplay.

Later that week, I got another indie that I had been eager to see, “Putty Hill.”

I first heard about the film when IndieWire reported that there was an issue surrounding the distribution of the film because they had used a song by the Rolling Stones without clearing the rights. I thought to myself, “What kind of idiots take a copyrighted song by a well-known band, put it in their film without paying for the rights and expect to get it distributed?”

On day one or two of my screenwriting classes, I always tell my students to never specify copyrighted music in their screenplays but, the vast bulk of the time, doing so will add thousands dollars to the budget of the film --- and make the screenwriter look like an idiot.

So, I had to find out what this “Putty Hill” film was and what kind of losers would be so careless about the music. The film, it turns out, is a micro-budget indie about young people dealing with the aftermath of a tragic event. The film was shot on lower-end video in just a few days and largely improvised with a cast of non-professional actors.

Hmmm, sounds familiar. Anyone who knows me and what I have been up to for the past few years, knows about my long, sort-of-in-the-works project “Aftermath” --- which is about young people dealing with the aftermath of a tragic event and which was designed to be shot in a few days, without name talent for no money.

This, I had to see, a film that raised so many red flags for me. How could it be any good?

I really liked it.

“Putty Hill” is shot on slightly lower-end cameras. It does not have a slick, pristine look technically but there are some really well-composed shots and the final image has stayed with me. The story and execution are simple; the style, mood and atmosphere are rich, I could go on and on but, the bottom-line, the takeaway, is that, financial or technical short-comings do not have to be a handicap. Filmmakers need to know what they have to work with and focus on crafting strong, cinematic narratives first and practical, technical execution that will serve the story shortly thereafter.

Know what you want to do. Know what you are able to do.

Something To Be Thankful For

Last week I was asked to speak at my old high school. Their scheduled speaker canceled at the last minute so they got in touch with me and asked if I could come in. I had less than 24 hours to organize my thoughts, come up with something to say and slap together a power-point presentation. If all of that sounds like a lot to ask of person, it’s not, if that person is me and the people asking are hoping that I can say something about movies.

I had a blast and I have a feeling that I might be going back to my old school on a regular basis, maybe as a film teacher.

The opportunity to come in and discuss what I have been doing gave me a chance to sit down and access the past year. I prepared my discussion, tallied up my gigs for the year and found that I have written seven feature film screenplays, written two documentaries, shot and/or edited three short documentary/promo films about with children with special needs, wrote a pilot for an animated Japanese sitcom, presented two workshops on screenwriting and I had two acting small gigs -- the first acting I have done in years. I also made a short film --- producing, shooting, directing and editing for the first time in years.

Of all things, I went to bed the night before the presentation with a sense of pride and accomplishment. No, as anyone who has read my blog or taken a class with me knows, I make very, very little -if any- money as a screenwriter but money, while certainly important, is not everything.

Yes, sometimes I want to give up and get a real job. Sometimes I think I am fooling myself by thinking that I am any good at writing. Sometimes I think I will be exposed as a fraud. Maybe that comes with the territory.

I woke up the next morning and remembered that I had forgotten about another screenplay that I wrote this year.

I have actually written eight feature length screenplays this year.

This week, two people have asked me if I am available to write screenplays for them.

So, I don’t get paid much to write screenplays at this point.

I like to think that people want me to write for them because they like my work, not because it’s a bargain.

I like to think that I have something to offer the world; it’s one of the things that keeps me going and, for that, for my family, for my health, for having a roof over my head and for sometimes feeling that I am good at something, I am thankful.

"Blog? I ain't got time to blog" -- Predator (paraphrased)

Okay, it's been six or seven weeks since I last blogged. Sue me. If I was Catholic, I would probably be confessing. If I was Catholic, I probably would have gone out with a Catholic school girl once or twice.

Why haven't I written? Because, um, I have been writing! On Saturday, I finally finished the comedy mentioned in my 8/21 post, turned it into the director, who was meeting with a producer that day and.... haven't heard a word about it since. Prior to finishing the comedy, I finished a steamy political thriller ("Three Days of the Condor" meets "Blue Valentine") for a producer who asked me start a new screenplay even before I finished the one that I was working on.

On top of that, I am back to school, teaching two sections of my course on Writing The Short Film and scheduled to give two workshops in October --- one on shorts, one on pitching.

AND I still need to find a job that supplements the nickles and dimes that I make from teaching and freelancing. Indeed, it IS "a hard-knock life." Here I was thinking "It IS a small world, after all."

So, I about to start writing a micro-budget thriller, "The Apparitions", which, I hear, is already scheduled to start shooting in November. Let's hope I finish the screenplay by then. I have been doctoring an action film for a California producer and director/star and, several drafts later, the distributor continues to say that it still needs work ---- and it really does!

Yesterday, as if I wasn't stretched to the limit as it was, I went out and actually got messy and dirty by directing and shooting a short screenplay of mine, "Love, Park." As I write this, my footage in rendering or something and I need to have a cut ready to for a 5:oo Friday festival submission deadline.

I'm probably leaving something out. And you wonder why I haven't been blogging.

A Tangible Goal

I am struggling with a screenplay.

It's an interesting situation. I was originally asked to write a short screenplay but it wound up being forty pages long --- too long for a short and too short for a feature. The director-producer and I were really happy with it and, after letting it stew for a few months, we decided to expand it into a feature.

Easy, right? Wrong. I was once in contact with a director whose film I had just given a bad review. I worked up my nerve and told him that it seemed like he had taken a five minute short and tried to expand it into a feature. He told me that he had taken a five minute short and tried to expand it into a feature.

Short films can play by their own rules and, among those rules is not necessarily adhering to the rules of structure that most feature length films tend to follow.

So, it's been a challenge to take this screenplay that was structured one way and rewrite it so that it is structured another way --- without changing the story.

I e-mailed the director last night:
I am really throwing up bricks when it comes to fixing the story. If you have any ideas, feel free to run them by me.

Here are some issues to consider---

_____ needs some flaws, a shortcoming that we recognize when we see him for the first time.

The end of the film should reflect the beginning of the film ie. in the beginning of "The King's Speech" he second in line to the throne, not expected to ever be kind and is afraid to give a speech because of his stuttering. At the end of the film he has become king, overcome his stutter and now has the confidence to give a speech to his subjects.

Brian has to have a tangible goal, something that he is trying to achieve --- not just the respect of his parents. He might or might not get that goal and get something more important in the end but there has to be this thing that he is chasing --- ie. Peter Parker in "Spiderman." He's chasing after Mary-Jane and, in the end, realizes that his destiny as a hero is more important than his personal life.

He got back to me:
I actually think we already have his tangible goal. I think his tangible goal is respect....

Sure, we all want respect but, in terms of plot points, act breaks and character arc it still wasn't working for me so I put the question to my screenwriter's group on Facebook:

QUESTION: is respect a valid goal for the protagonist? My director says "yes" but I think the character needs a more tangible goal. Think "Rocky" in which the protagonist wants respect but he has the title bout to shoot for, the thing that will earn him respect. Any thoughts?

And I got some responses:

Yes, David. You need to make this goal more tangible, respect has to be symbolized by something specific, otherwise, how do we know that it is achieved?

and also:

Yes, you're right. Rocky had an inner goal and an outer goal. Outer goal was to win the title, the inner goal was to gain respect. What is the outer goal your protagonist is after? In Tootsie, Dustin Hoffman's outer need is to become a working actor so he can earn enough money to direct his friends play . His inner need is to become less selfish and in so doing, become a better man.

I shared those responses with the director and he responded:

I agree with both responses, but I feel like we already have that in the script and they are both the same thing. His inner goal is to be taken seriously, his outer goal is to ____ that doesn’t require him to ____, to be appreciated for his ability and not _____.

To me those goal are pretty clear. As the writer, I wouldn’t focus on changing those goal, I’d focus on making more a distinction about those goal.

Once again, I am reminded of the loneliness of the writer, how it really is all on me but I am encouraged to know that I can always reach out and get help when I need it.

The goal: finish the screenplay.
The obstacle: the plot doesn't fit into the structure.
The solution: realize that even, though I am the only writer on this project, I don't have to do it alone.

So, I finished a screenplay today, turned it and, tomorrow, I get back to work on the second draft of the screenplay mentioned above.

I think I can do it.

The Hollywood Creative Directory

A former student of mine messaged me the other day and wanted to know if I think that the Hollywood Creative Directory is a scam.

No, it's not a scam, it's pretty legit and I think I even bought the hard copy way back in the day. What it is, however, is just a list of people and places you can contact with no guarantee of ever getting a response. I have heard stories (legends?) of writers getting their script to the "right person" via the HCD but they are far and few between.

While on the subject of "back in the day", back during the indie film boom of the late 80's-early 90's, I really studied the "path to success" that many films/filmmakers had taken -- Spike Lee (won the student Academy Award with his grad. school thesis film, opened some doors, not many but he raised the $175,000 to make "She's Gotta..."), Steven Soderbergh (nominated for a Grammy for a music video, which opened the doors that led to "Sex, Lies & Videotape") and so on, many stories like that, filmmakers who seem to come out of nowhere but really do have some industry credibility behind them. Of course, things are a lot different today.

The (rocky, hard to follow) path that I have been taking has been something like "put yourself 'out there' as a screenwriter, write anything for anyone for anything, even nothing, hope that it gets made, distributed, successful and brings you some industry attention."

So, I have a couple of original screenplays sitting around and I scour the classified ads (craigslist Philly, NYC and L.A.; mandy.com) to see if anyone is looking for anything resembling something that I have. Just last week, I answered an ad and they got back to me, interested in an almost 20 year old screenplay.

I think I have given up on sending things out to companies unless I know that they are looking for something --- that what I have is what they are looking for. Also, most of my work these days is "for hire", someone asking me to write a screenplay about XYZ for them. I haven't written an original feature length screenplay based on my own idea since 2005 -- not that I haven't wanted to.

That's not to say that I do not contribute to the story on most of the screenplays that I get asked to write. Much of the time, a producer and/or director will give me a shopping list of elements that they want to see in their film ---
"it has to have a sequence in China, organized crime and a chase with a helicopter."
"it's an Indian guy and an American woman, they're both living lies, caught up in intrigue, on the run from people but the emphasis is on the relationship, not the specifics of what they are on the run from -- an action film with only a little action."
"it takes place in Austin, Texas in 1987"

--- and then, I take it from there.

I know that I'm not in Hollywood but maybe I should be in the Hollywood Creative Directory.