Monthly Archives: April 2012

Interview: Carlos Pedraza talks indie film fundraising, indie film distribution, indie film success

30 Monday Apr 2012

Posted by in Interviews

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the benefits of getting into film festivals is meeting other indie filmmakers that inspire you as you slog from program to program, with a few well-earned pit stops at local bars and coffee shops. Carlos Pedraza and I met in just such a fashion at Philly QFest 2011, then again at San Diego FilmOut 2011 and once more at Chicago Reeling 2011. His friendship proved one of the most valuable rewards of the film festival experience.

Carlos wrote and produced “Judas Kiss,” one of the most popular films on the circuit last year, which earned much success for Carlos and its director J.T. Tepnapa. That’s no surprise, seeing as how Carlos is a thoughtful writer and methodical producer. He’s been generous enough to share some of his producing tips with me privately and, now, is elaborating on his experiences for our blog readers.

Hunter:  You’ve been through the process of producing a feature film – “Judas Kiss.” Whew. What an accomplishment! What is something about producing the film that was way harder than anticipated and something that was way easier than anticipated?

Carlos: Producing a feature film is the hardest work I’ve ever done, and I’ve had some challenging projects in my past careers. It’s an order of magnitude more complicated than the short films and web series I’d worked on before. A feature film has a lot of moving parts, in all phases of the project from development and pre-production, through principal photography and to post-production and marketing. Keeping all these gears moving in the right direction and speed — it’s mind-numbing work. I physically trained in the months before to build up my stamina because I knew production would be physically exhausting.

The unexpectedly easier part? How much easier my job is when you hire very competent crew and trust them to do their jobs. If I’d micro-managed this film, it would’ve been terrible.

Hunter: I’ve found that most all up-and-coming filmmakers want to know – how do I score investors? Do you have any tips on this front?

Carlos: Plenty of tips — but no panacea. Finding investors will always be difficult, even when you know people with money, because you’re not really trying to raise money — you’re trying to create faith in you. The investment is a result of their faith in you. Many filmmakers are trying to sell their story to investors when they should be more concerned with selling themselves. That means you have to work on building confidence in your abilities not only as a filmmaker but as a businessperson.

So here are the tips: Put up a website. Early. Get content on it. Often. Give people something to care about. Don’t ask for money until the time comes. If you’ve done your job, people will want to invest in you.

Work social media. When we started “Judas Kiss” there was no Facebook. Today, you absolutely need a Facebook page for your movie. But you can’t just have a page. You need to provide content — often — and opportunities for interacting with your fans. If you don’t keep this up, people will get bored. The last thing you want is people to associate boredom with your movie.

Take your time building fans. Start early. Don’t expect to announce your project in one day, start a Kickstarter campaign and raise all the money you need in one fell swoop. The people who’ve done that are exceptions. You are more likely to be the rule.

Build a fan base. If you’ve worked on other film projects, post about your new project on their website and Facebook pages. Communicate with them. Use Twitter. A lot. But don’t just be spammy. Give people interesting news. For “Judas Kiss,” we did podcasts for two years before we started raising money. We put up hot photos of our stars as we began casting.

Use video wherever you can — Twitter, Facebook, your own website. People respond to videos more than any other kind of post. Have a business plan. And not just inside your head. We did a fancy-schmancy published investment prospectus that laid out the project — cast, crew, story, and how we planned to make money. People don’t just fund ideas; investors want to know how you plan to earn back their investment.

Network like crazy. Talk about your project. Inspire people with money. If you do your job right, they’ll come to you and hint about their interest. Be prepared to follow up immediately. That’s why you need that published prospectus. And website. And Facebook page. Etc.

Hunter: I thought your plan to do festivals and then go straight-to-DVD/VOD was brilliant. Are more filmmakers forgoing a traditional theatrical run? Do you have any regrets about this distribution strategy? How did it all work out?

Carlos:  Understand one basic truth about independent films and theatrical releases. YOU WILL NEVER MAKE MONEY FROM A THEATRICAL RELEASE. Releasing theatrically is a marketing cost designed to get review and generate interest for people to actually buy the film when it goes to DVD, iTunes or other digital formats. We used our film festival run as a theatrical release. We got reviewed and we got buzz. When the time came to release the film for sale, we were going at full thrusters. Other filmmakers may choose to fund theatrical releases in New York and Los Angeles. There are some awards you can only qualify for if you have a seven-day run in one or both those cities. Some industry newspapers will only review you if you release in L.A. and/or NYC. If your film needs that juice, go for it, but expect to pay dearly. Promoting a film at theaters costs a lot of money. For Judas Kiss, I don’t believe a theatrical release would’ve resulted in significantly more sales than we’ve been fortunate to have. Filmmakers have to have a distribution strategy in mind way back when they’re doing their business plan. If you’re lucky enough to find distribution, be careful about signing away your worldwide rights. Try to keep it on a country-by-country basis. You’d be better off finding a reputable sales and distribution agent to get you distribution deals than you would be seeking theatrical release.

Hunter: In addition to producing “Judas Kiss,” you also wrote it. How did you handle the tension between those two very different jobs. Did the producer in you ever want to cut a scene for logistical reasons that the writer in you really wanted to keep? How did you manage all that?

Carlos: I was trained as a journalist to be able to separate your feelings from your work. I brought that same sensibility to my work as a writer and producer. We spent three years developing the script but when it was done, my work as a writer was done. I shut down that part of my brain. Then I had to worry about how to actually make this movie. That is an exercise in compromise more than creation. There were several scenes we cut when it became untenable to keep them in the film. Sometimes you have to sacrifice part of your vision in service of the grander them you’re working to impart to an audience.

Hunter: I absolutely loved your lead actor Richard Harmon. He’s so striking on screen and his performance really conveyed the soul torture of a young artist facing life-altering moral questions. Where did you find him?

Carlos:  Richard came to us, thanks to his very dedicated agent, who is a real go-getter. She made sure his audition tape got into our hands no matter what. Once we saw that, we knew we had the actor we wanted. At that time, he was also prominently featured in the “Battlestar Galactica” spinoff – “Caprica” – on the Syfy network. So we got to see his work on TV, too. Casting Richard was a no-brainer.

Hunter: After all you went through with “Judas Kiss,” will there be another one? When? Where?

Carlos:  After seven months of post-production and a very successful year promoting the film at film festivals, followed by a strong first quarter of sales, we are ready to make another film. Another two, actually. Our production company, Blue Seraph Productions has raised development funding for “Something Like Summer,” an adaptation of the acclaimed love story by Jay Bell, named by Amazon as one of its Best Books of 2011, and nominated for a Lambda Literary Award this year. I am writing the screenplay, and we are co-producing it with Jade Knight Productions from Seattle.

Also in development is “The Dark Place,” a mystery-thriller set in wine country. That script is by our Judas Kiss co-producer Jody Wheeler, and will star Timo Descamps and Sean Paul Lockhart, both starring in “Judas Kiss.”

You can learn more about the two new films at the Blue Seraph website or on the Facebook pages for “Something Like Summer” and “The Dark Place.”

Hunter Lee Hughes is a filmmaker and actor living and working in Los Angeles and the founder of Fatelink. His current feature film Guys Reading Poems is touring film festivals and this blog is dedicated to the process of making his second feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” If you enjoy the blog, please support our team by following us on Facebook, Twitter (@Fatelink) or Instagram (@Fatelink).

Advertisements

Developing your Micro-budget Film Business Plan (note: it’s hard work, Elizabeth Banks)

26 Thursday Apr 2012

Posted by in Development

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Thanks to all of you for supporting this blog so far! I’m thrilled that the last two postings charting my stupidity/smarts with previous projects have both cracked 100 readers! This is quite a step up from the first few postings, which were viewed by maybe four or five people each. Wow. Just like an indie film, a blog gets built little-by-little.

Today, I’m sweating it a little bit because I’ve scheduled my first meeting with a potential investor for ‘Inside-Out, Outside-In.’ And, truth be told, I’m still working on developing the business plan to give him tomorrow. Sometimes life unfolds at a slightly faster pace than you anticipate. Many elements still need to come together and – most especially – the sales projections for my film (will be headed down to the Margaret Herrick Library in a bit to do some research on foreign sales numbers for movies in my category). So for all those who think making indie films is a walk in the park (take note Elizabeth Banks), it all starts with boring business plans and trips to the library.

I would love to report a positive development after tomorrow’s meeting. Until then, since this is a blog about us learning together about indie films, I thought I’d include the tentative list of topics I plan to include in the business plan.  They are:

1. Introduction

2. Synopsis (one page)

3. Filmmaker Biography

4. Target Audience Report

5. Budget Synopsis

6. Financing Plan

7. Distribution Plan

8. Marketing Plan

9. Sales Projections

10. Call to Action

11. One Sheet mock-up

12. Statement of Risk

I’ve made the decision to include only a one-page synopsis and a one-page budget summary because – from what I understand – investors are busy people and only have a very limited amount of time to consider your proposal.  I will also pull together a packet of supporting material available to email the investor – if interested – that will include the five-page treatment, the full budget and more information/documentation about the performance of my past projects.

Oh and on behalf of my hard-working independent film friends, I’d like to go ahead and note the douchebag-of-the-week: Elizabeth Banks. In a really classless move, she criticized Kevin DiNovis, the first filmmaker to give her a lead role in his indie film ‘Surrender Dorothy’ (which by the way won Slamdance and the NY Underground Film Festival and won praise from Roger Ebert). In an April 19th interview with Slate.com, not only did she describe the film as her worst career mistake, she went on to say she wasn’t even sure of the title of her first feature film.  Elizabeth: “Really early on, I did this one film – I think it’s called ‘Surrender, Dorothy,’ I’m not even sure anymore….” Now Elizabeth, you don’t remember the name of your first film??? Really, now.  Can we say ‘Passive-aggressive?’ She goes on to insult the director who gave her a big break even further by saying of her experience on the film, “I thought, ‘I’d better go to drama school and learn how to never have this job again.'” Wow.

You heard it here first.  Elizabeth Banks sure comes across as an ungrateful 1%’er with little to no respect for the incredible hard work involved in indie filmmaking. If this was some student film that truly was awful, maybe I’d understand. But to trash your debut film that went on to win Slamdance? Out-of-touch Hollywood elite all the way.  Boo!!!!  Have some class and apologize to Kevin and indie film, Elizabeth…don’t worry, we’re a forgiving bunch.

For those of us who still have to work in the real world, business plans are very important (even if they come together at the last minute). Will keep you all posted. See you at the library!

Hunter Lee Hughes is a filmmaker and actor living and working in Los Angeles and the founder of Fatelink. His current feature film Guys Reading Poems is touring film festivals and this blog is dedicated to the process of making his second feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” If you enjoy the blog, please support our team by following us on Facebook, Twitter (@Fatelink) or Instagram (@Fatelink).

Top Five Stupid and Smart Things I Did Producing my First Play

23 Monday Apr 2012

Posted by in Development

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Ramping up for the biggest project I’ve ever undertaken has inspired me to look back at the beginning of my career to really assess what I’ve learned along the way.  I often find the difference between marginally successful people and extremely successful people is an ability to really integrate their life lessons to avoid mistakes they’ve already made and build on successes they already understand.  You may ask, ‘What does producing a play have to do with producing a feature film?’ Although the tasks seem very different, some important similarities stand out.  They are both long-form creative projects with a beginning, middle and an end that require a team of storytellers and crew to pull off.

I wrote “Fate of the Monarchs” as a 24-year old battling severe depression after a romantic let-down. I basically didn’t leave my studio apartment in Koreatown for about a month. After a couple days straight of watching ants take over my kitchen, I decided – for almost no discernible reason – to head to my local library branch. A striking image of a monarch butterfly wing on the book cover of “Four Wings and a Prayer” by Sue Halpern grabbed my attention. Within a few hours, the depression had started to shift as I learned that creatures with a one-inch body and three-inch wingspan traverse literally thousands of miles for reasons even scientists do not fully understand. The monarch migration served as the symbolic landscape of the journey of five interconnected men in search of spiritual meaning in my very first original play. I’m still extremely proud of the writing and what our team pulled off.

That said, I did some stupid stuff.  And some smart stuff.  Let’s start with the stupid.

Five Stupid Things I Did Producing my First Play:

1.  Not Giving My Director Enough Credit – Back then, my manager-at-the-time Al Trombetta referred me to Cody Bayne when I started looking for a director for the piece. Cody started a theatre collective in his home state of Tennessee and still creates amazing themed events for different bars around town in addition to working as a painter, writer and film producer. He came onboard the project and had a brilliant idea to include a multi-media element into the piece (more on this in the smart section).  Anyway, let’s cut to when the show came out. Cody – very reasonably – asked me to make it explicit in the press release that he came up with the idea for the multi-media aspect. I drug my feet on it out of pretty much sheer ego. Then a brilliant review came out which basically gave me credit not only for great writing and acting, but also for the multi-media aspect of the show. I immediately felt so much shame. Later that day, I changed the press release per Cody’s request and apologized to him. Luckily, Cody’s an amazing man and forgave me and we went on to share a great friendship as well as working relationship. Even in doing a spiritual piece, I’m not excluded from a rush of ego wanting more, more, more. All artists should be aware of this. It is a dark aspect of being an artist that most of us need credit and validation, especially because our job is so difficult and – very often – so underpaid. But making sure other collaborators get their due is part of being a responsible artist. This is one lesson I learned the hard way by messing up and overreaching.

2.  Not seeing enough other one-man shows/alternative theatre – “Fate of the Monarchs” was one of the biggest career successes I’d had.  Yet because I framed it as an artistic venture, I wasn’t prepared for how to capitalize on it and grow my career. I had seen very few other one-person shows before mine premiered and I didn’t have very strong ties to the alternative theatre community in Los Angeles and beyond. If I had to do it again, I would stop in and watch an alternative theatre piece in each town I visited to meet more artistic directors. I would’ve patronized more shows by other artists to be part of a community so that when my show was well-received, I would have more knowledgeable peers to support any potential expansion.

3.  Not getting clarity from a co-production deal up front – The show was produced a total of six times and I had a great experience with all the co-production deals we struck, especially with Highways Performance Space and the Ragged Blade theater group in St. Louis. However, one time, I did have to scramble for a solution based on a misunderstanding. I believed the theatre was supplying the space for free in exchange for a split in ticket sales. Turns out, they expected me to pay a (somewhat reduced) rental fee, although they did provide production support, a press agent and a producer to help out. It was still a great deal and I would’ve gone forward no matter what. But not being clear that I was going to need to pay for rental space sent me scrambling to my checkbook and living on the edge financially for a few months. Had I been more clear up-front, I could’ve handled that money situation better. Even when you have a verbal offer with a promise of a contract, you might want to shoot an email with the main points of the contract to make sure you understand. But don’t be overbearing about it!

4. Not keeping up with those “close calls.” – After our initial run, I sent a 10-page dialogue sample to the Public Theater and – to my astonishment – they wrote back and requested the full manuscript. Sundance also ran a competition for plays and I received a handwritten note from the programmer saying he enjoyed the piece but had to pass for now. Sadly, the Public Theater also ultimately ended up rejecting my work, but listed some contact information and asked me to send more writing in the future. Stupidly, I never have. If I could do it again, I would send Sundance and the Public Theater project updates for all the productions of ‘Fate of the Monarchs’ and should have kept applying with new, original pieces. After all, it’s a huge risk for these places to support an unpublished author so it makes sense that it’s an uphill climb to get in on the first shot. But my mistake was not building on the close calls from the past as my career progressed. Now, it’s been a number of years since I applied to the theater circuit and many of the names in the game have changed, so the potency of re-introducing myself is probably not as strong.

5. Over-marketing to friends – Most beginning artists feel like their immediate family and friends are a natural first audience to build a solid base of support for our creative work. And, indeed, there’s some truth in that (who else is gonna see your band’s first gig at a coffee shop?). But I overdid it a little with “Fate of the Monarchs.”  On the one hand, I was pleased with how many people turned out for the show. On the other hand, I sent out an email, a follow-up email and a reminder email to practically all my friends…and acquaintances…and people I’d met once a few years back. I got one email response whose subject was, “Email Etiquette.” Ouch. While I commend the younger me’s go-get-’em spirit, I do now feel that it’s better to build your audience based on mutual taste/experiences rather that first degree friendships. That’s not to say I would never send out a mass email ever again. But I probably won’t. And if I do, it would be once during the entire life of the project. So don’t Spam Folder, me…please… 🙂

Okay, so I’m totally glowing red from revealing how stupid I was in many ways, but younger Hunter was pretty smart about some stuff, too.

Top Five Smart Things I Did Producing my First Play:

1. Signing off on multi-media element and limiting the budget.  Aside from the mini-drama of credit over the multi-media idea, it was a good idea for me to say, “Yes” to Cody’s flash of inspiration to create a video element of the show. Also, I was smart to give him a fixed amount of money – $300 in cash – and let him know that was all I could afford. I made the decision to trust him with this element and not micromanage. I didn’t even show up when they shot it or sit in on editing sessions. By being hands off, Cody felt secure that I believed in him as a director and invested in the project in a deeper way. And I got to spend more time developing the acting and writing.

2. Hiring Patrick Kennelly as our videographer/editor. Cody did need a collaborator to help pull off the video element of the show and I facilitated hiring Patrick Kennelly, at the time a 20-year old wonder kid of sorts who interned at Highways Performance Space (he’s now co-artistic director there). At the time, artistic director Leo Garcia highly recommend Patrick, an extremely talented youngster without a huge track record (largely because he was, like, 20). It was a win-win-win-win situation for everybody involved. Patrick served Cody’s vision on the video elements, but he also helped our artistic director become even more excited by the piece. And the show was a boon to Patrick too because he got some hands-on experience creating a video installation-type element without being 100% responsible for the piece as a whole (Patrick has gone on to create very unique installation pieces and theater experiences, such as the upcoming religious rival PATTY). Patrick’s work shooting the video and then editing it was incredibly time-intensive and crucial to the success of the piece as a whole. So bringing him on-board was a smart move all around.

3.  Creating a piece that required little outside help.  Despite the crucial efforts of Cody and Patrick, “Fate of the Monarchs” didn’t have a whole lot of moving parts. It was a one-man show, so there were no other actors to coordinate. The crew was extremely limited. This worked out terrifically well because I was able to focus on developing the writing and acting, while keeping the logistical challenges to a minimum. Once you add even a couple more actors and a couple more crew people, things get complicated quickly. Someone cancels for a key rehearsal. Someone else quits. Someone shows up drunk and takes off all their clothes (just kidding on that one…sort of). For a first effort, it was actually super-smart to choose a one-man show, not only to expunge any demons in a raw and personal way, but also to keep the producing task to a manageable level.

4. Taking advantage of co-production deals. I’ll always be grateful to Leo Garcia at Highways Performance Space for allowing us two runs of ‘Fate of the Monarchs.’ The piece simply wouldn’t have been accepted at the same level without patronage from Highways’ built-in audience and support from Leo and his staff. I went on to strike several more co-production deals with highly positive results (the blip described above about one incident notwithstanding). My advice to up-and-coming theatre artists is to get connected to spaces in their area that might curate or support new work…and patronize them. If you’re at all into the LGBT theatre scene and live in the Southern California area, that means supporting Highways, who’ve broken more than a few new artists, thankfully!

5. Producing something out of urgency rather than intellectual curiosity or people-pleasing or the pursuit of money/power/prestige. I find that today’s young artists obsess far too early on about whether or not their work will be accepted by the “right people” (who exactly are they anyway?). So, sometimes, they create their first works from the ethos of “trying to look super smart” or “giving the art world something completely new and original” or “creating a hit in the marketplace.” Of course, the specifics of the material applied to those mindsets vary, depending on whether the work is intended to gain favor in the indie filmmaking community or the alternative theater community or the fine arts community or even the traditional Hollywood community. But a result-driven point of view can be very damaging to artists especially if it hardens into the bad habit of valuing external approval over personal authenticity. ‘Fate of the Monarchs’ came from my urgent personal need to explore the spiritual meaning of a so-called “alternative” sexuality and its particular slings and arrows as applied to romantic love. Indeed, getting out of that severe depression depended on it. By nurturing the paradoxical image of fragility and endurance inherent in migrating monarchs synchronistically given to me, I started my journey as a content creator connected to my own core questions and concerns about the human experience. It’s only from there that real growth as an artist is possible – at least that’s what I believe.

Okay, so that’s it for the stupid/smart things I did with regards to my first play. Next time, I’ll share whether or not I learned anything by the time the second play came into existence (you might be surprised). Thanks for reading and sharing! 🙂

—

Hunter Lee Hughes is a filmmaker living and working in Los Angeles and the founder of Fatelink. His current feature film Guys Reading Poems is touring film festivals and this blog is dedicated to the process of making his second feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” If you enjoy the blog, please support our team by following us on Facebook, Twitter (@Fatelink) or Instagram (@Fatelink).

Top Five Smart and Stupid Things I did Producing my Short Film

17 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by in Development

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As I continue to develop my feature film script and prepare for the craziness of development/pre-production/production etc., it’s sometimes helpful to look back and remember the lessons of the past.  After all, that’s why I learned them, right? And perhaps no other project taught me more than ‘Winner Takes All,’ for which I juggled duties as writer, producer and lead actor (power to the hyphenates!!!).

‘Winner Takes All‘ was shot in December, 2009, took a year and a half to edit (eventually clocking in at 17 minutes) and premiered at the Atlanta Film Festival in April, 2011.  It went on to gain acceptance into ten international film festivals and secured distribution through Guest House Films’ dark-themed collection called, ‘Black Briefs.’  Ever the perfectionist, at one point, I wanted the film to get into Sundance, 50+ film festivals, win an Oscar, take over the world and make me a mega filmmaker/actor hyphenate.  However, once reality set in and my ego faced the stark truth that there are thousands of shorts made every year (and hundreds and hundreds of really good ones….), I became satisfied with what we accomplished. But more than the outer accomplishments were the valuable lessons learned about what we did both right and wrong.  I’ll start with the stupid side.

Five Stupid Things I Did Producing ‘Winner Takes All’

1.  Underestimating the importance of the ‘smaller’ departments.  One horrendous day on the set, we went into overtime.  This is pretty much death for an indie short because we had to shell out extra money for our cast and crew and order a second meal. Although we had to do it, the overtime was completely avoidable….had we only paid more attention to two departments – costumes and make-up.  Why did we go into overtime? One of our lead actors could not find the suede pants established as so critical for his character and we did not have anyone from the costume department on hand to organize the clothes and make sure the actors had all their outfits as needed.  We figured, ‘Hey we only have four actors and each actor only has one outfit.  We don’t need a wardrobe department on set.’  The costume (which was eventually found tucked away in a second bathroom no one knew was there) took three hours to find. By that time, the camera crew had to change the lighting set-up they had planned, re-light and flip around to get another character’s coverage. (Another lesson – if you think actors will be responsible for their own costumes, you are wrong). Making matters worse, this was also the day our make-up artist arrived two-and-a-half hours late.  We didn’t have a rolodex of other make-up artists available and because she was the ONLY one in her department, we simply had to wait.  We spent SO much time organizing the camera crew, the equipment, the insurance, the permit, the meals that we neglected to remember just how important these ‘small’ departments are on a film set.  And boy did it cost us overtime dollars.  On a film set, there are no ‘small’ departments.

2.  Not investing in a cash box.  We ended up having more than $300 stolen from a rehearsal and later had to work double-time to track down all the receipts from people in all different departments, from craft services to production design.  I truly believe the theft and the receipt hassle would’ve been solved had we invested from the beginning in a small cash box with a sign-in/sign-out sheet for all the petty cash.  When you give people cash, they tend to just think of it as money in their pocket.  When they are forced to sign-out for the cash they receive and know they’ll have to sign-in once more with receipts to accompany the change, they take it seriously.  A fifteen dollar cash box would’ve saved time and money on our production.

3.  Applying to film festivals with a rough cut.  Sometimes you are told that film festivals are used to rough cuts, that they can see past any audio/color correction problems. Maybe if you’re Woody Allen or Terrence Malick.  If you’re newer to the festival circuit, I would never, ever apply with any sort of rough cut.  Why? With ‘Winner Takes All,’ we applied to a big festival that was sort of “shooting for the stars” with a rough cut and didn’t get in.  Later on, once we had a finished version, we applied to another festival that I thought was the PERFECT fit for our film.  Guess what?  We still didn’t get in. Of course, there could be a million reasons why but I couldn’t help but notice that the main programmer of the “shooting for the stars” festival was the SAME PERSON that later declined our finished version for the “Perfect Fit” festival.  I truly believe the person may’ve thought they saw the film once in a rough cut form and didn’t need to see it again, robbing us of a chance to make a great first impression with the finished piece. Remember, these festival programmers don’t just work for one festival.  They work for several and once they see your film, they’ve seen it.  So make sure they don’t first see it as a rough cut.

4.  Not Having a Plan to Manage Stress.  As a filmmaking hyphenate, you will face an extraordinary amount of stress and unexpected stress should be factored into a plan to take care of yourself emotionally, physically and spiritually during the process.  Three days before production started, my wallet was stolen, which included the company credit card to which all our equipment, insurance and expenses were charged. My identification was gone. Everything. On top of learning lines, organizing equipment and dealing with all sorts of new people and personalities, this sent me over the top with stress and some of it was avoidable. If I could do it again, I would pre-plan a massage just before production. By the time I shot my webseries, I knew that I would take the first twenty minutes of every lunch break to meditate and take quiet time no matter how many of the cast and crew members wanted to talk.  Have some fun distractions like an iPhone game or app that helps you unwind and make a plan to play it, even if you don’t feel like it in the moment.  Or if you have a romantic partner, let them know you might need some mindless nookie one night of the production just to have some stress release.  And let any romantic interest know up front that for the length of the shoot, you won’t be available to emotionally caretake or solve anything sticky in your relationship.  It’s just too much to ask of yourself.  In indie filmmaking, stress always takes a toll and it’s part of the beast you must face, but manageable stress feels a lot different to the body than unmanageable stress.

5.  Not understanding the difference between an editor and a post-production supervisor. Our first editor was a close friend of mine who had won an Emmy for her editing on a reality television show. She was highly qualified to edit the film based not only on her television work, but on her narrative work in the past.  However, she was not used to dealing with workflow issues.  In her office, the footage just appeared in her editing suite and she went to work and did a fantastic job. We were basically expecting her to serve not only as an editor, but also as a post-production supervisor.  This was especially unreasonable since we were dealing with Red footage, which at that time was considered a super-beast to deal with in Post. She eventually left the project because of other family and career obligations, but we got the message and hired a post-production supervisor (who ironically enough, ended up being our editor). But still, we should’ve had a post-production supervisor from day one to help establish the post workflow, especially knowing the difficulty of dealing with Red footage. It would have saved us heartache and made for a happier editor.  So be aware of who your editor is and if you’re going to expect them to function as a post-production supervisor, that should be clear with them and – unless they’re you’re bestie or doing a huge favor – they should be compensated and credited extra for performing more than one function.

Okay, so there are the stupid things I did. Here are the smart ones:

1. Hiring a director that shared my values about acting and the creative process. I desperately wanted to learn how to direct, but I intuitively knew that writing, producing and acting was more than enough to handle on my first outing of this scale. We had a number of choices in terms of who to choose as director, but we went with Camille Carida, a smart decision. She shared the most important values you can share as creative collaborators – a similar emphasis on what is important about the lives of human beings and how they are to be explored in an artistic venture.

2. Hiring with balance in terms of other key collaborators.  As a producer, I wanted Camille to feel comfortable with her d.p., but I also wanted to highlight choices that balanced out her strengths and weaknesses.  She was strong in creating performances and understanding and executing the theatricality of the piece.  The eventual d.p. John Matysiak has an uber-cool, perfectionist approach to the visuals which balanced out Camille being newer to shotmaking.  We tried to echo this balance throughout our hiring process.  We are excited to take chances with newer people in some departments, but would not take newer people for EVERY department.

3. Investing in High Production Value.  I saw ‘Winner Takes All’ as my own version of film school and spent quite a bit of money doing it.  Because there are so many shorts being produced and so many shorts competing for slots in festivals, I mitigated my risk in terms of inexperience with spending money for high production value.  I don’t recommend this strategy for every new producer.  And in truth, I had produced two uber-low-budget shorts that I didn’t feel comfortable submitting to festivals. But I don’t regret spending the money on high production value for ‘Winner Takes All.’  It helped give us an edge in competing for those slots – our high production value is still noted by almost everyone who sees the film. And it helps the film stand out as an enduring calling card. Since I learned so much on ‘Winner Takes All,’ I didn’t feel the need to invest in high production value as much the next time around but for this first big effort, it was crucial.

4. Selecting a film with one location. Our film took place entirely in a theater, which gave some much needed stability to our shoot. My producing partner Elizabeth Gordon and I considered producing a different short film, but we decided that the film with only one location would be a good hedge against our relative inexperience as film producers.  Turns out, we were right.  Between the wallet being stolen and all the other problems that came up, we desperately needed something steady and secure. The fact that everyone could show up to the same location, park in the same lot and keep the equipment in the same place was a very needed boost of stability. Plus, we got a number of different looks within the theatre — on stage, in the audience, in the light booth – so we still managed to do pretty well in terms of visual variety.

5. Going for it with Alec Mapa.  We really wanted someone amazing to play Simon. After a bit of a process bouncing ideas with Camille, Elizabeth and our casting director David S. Zimmerman, we felt strongly that Alec Mapa would be an amazing choice for the piece (and he was). In the LGBT world, Alec is definitely a celebrity and not someone that I knew personally. However, David did have friends from his time living in San Francisco that knew Alec. David arranged for them to approach Alec, who gave the go-ahead for us to call his agent. Then, we simply offered him the part. I wasn’t even sure of the protocol for doing something like that, but just got through it, with a little help. It worked. Within a day, Alec’s agent requested the script. Within two days, we made a deal and he came onboard the project. Alec’s terrific performance brought a lot of value to our film to the degree that other filmmakers approached me and asked me how we landed him. The answer was really surprisingly simple – we asked.

Okay, so those were some smart and stupid things I did producing ‘Winner Takes All.’  In the next week, I’ll take you even further back to show you some stupid/smart things I learned producing two plays and also investigate some stupid/smart things I did directing my first project.

—

Hunter Lee Hughes is a filmmaker living and working in Los Angeles and the founder of Fatelink. His current feature film Guys Reading Poems is touring film festivals and this blog is dedicated to the process of making his second feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” If you enjoy the blog, please support our team by following us on Facebook, Twitter (@Fatelink) or Instagram (@Fatelink).

Choreography, Part 2: Ashley Osler pinch hits on movement…and so much more.

11 Wednesday Apr 2012

Posted by in Interviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Once Jamie Benson left for NYC and Nameless Actor dropped out, I was temporarily without a choreographer AND a lead actor to workshop the climatic scene from ‘Inside-Out, Outside-In.’ Things quickly changed when charming Greek actor Christos Vass stepped in to play the lead role and choreographer/coach Ashley Osler answered her phone and promptly said, “Of course I’ll help you with that!” Ashley, an alum of Larry Moss and frequent previous collaborator (she did the choreography for The Sermons of John Bradley and helped me develop a striptease-type movement for Fate of the Monarchs), is an unheralded gem in terms of understanding how the expression of the body relates to the needs, desires and psychology of a character. We chatted a bit about what it’s like to choreograph movement and help in the development of a project from the ground up.

Hunter: By the time we linked up on this project, Jamie (our original choreographer) had moved to NYC and the first actor had dropped out of the workshopping of the climatic scene, leaving us in a position to bring on a new actor without the benefit of a choreographer.  So that’s where you came in!  After Ivana put Christos and I together on the scene, I originally brought you in to consult on the movement that we were doing, but it sort of organically grew into more than that.  After that first rehearsal, what did you feel about the piece and its potential?  And how did that relate to the movement aspect of things?

Ashley: I got so excited about the scene and the characters’ needs. It was so compelling to see it on its feet. I was trying to understand what you had written by exploring some different ways of moving to express the subtext. I left feeling that there was more to find but that a few layers had been peeled by infusing the movement with deeper script analysis. Because the movement/physicality can be so telling….letting the audience know maybe more than the characters do at that point, I felt there was potential for a very dynamic scene.

As we spoke about the scene in the days following I realized that the physical connection had to be so intense…electric…..and that was one of he conflicts both characters. Then on top of it they have to rehearse a hot dance number while trying to be nonchalant because they both needed something so badly. Good scene!!!

Hunter: Sometimes I feel a little nuts workshopping individual scenes from a screenplay – it’s not necessarily the traditional approach for sure.  Do you think there’s value in these type of workshops?  What can be gained from workshopping scenes?  What, if anything, did you think we learned during this experience?

Ashley: I didn’t get to see the scene workshopped yet but wish I could have! All together I think workshoppig is very important for perspective….getting it into your body  with the juice of an audience is an important part of the process of understanding what you have written. Even though it’s on the page already it’s still writing itself in this part of the process.

Hunter: The story deals, in part, with characters facing tough decisions about how to navigate the “Hollywood” and “independent film” environments here in Los Angeles.  I love the story you told about not feeling right about going to commercial auditions, if you feel like telling that one! 🙂 But seriously, have you seen any friends lose themselves in a struggle to manifest their creative work here?  How do you stay true to yourself as an artist while pursuing filmmaking or acting?

Ashley: Oh my goodness I’m having a brain fart…probably an audition where it was like a conceptual art exhibit – one side of the room all blonds and the other all brunette clearly divided and I was lost in the sea of blonds and said, “Yuck!” I just figured I’d rather take the time it took to run to those auditions to read plays or prepare a scene for class….I was lucky to be in a great scene study class back then and I knew that teacher wouldn’t be there forever so that’s were I put my energy. You can die with some money in the bank from an Arby’s commercial, which is selling poison to people…or you can feed your soul with literature and take it with you……easier to audition in NYC. All the driving in LA is monstrous and made it even more absurd. Commercials – Humf!

Anyway auditions can eat you alive unless you make them auditions for life experience. It’s not about getting chosen and you can’t wait to get chosen. When I first started going out I was not prepared at all for the language of the casting process – it was so foreign to the creative process of acting. I learned we can’t audition without being crystal clear on script analysis so the choices are supported and powerful and you can feel your teeth in it.

Stella Adler said something like you have to have the soul of a rose and the hide of an rhinoceros to be in the buisness…well I didn’t know how tough the skin of a rhino was and I just went out with my fragrant rose and got a big surprise.

Hunter: Another big part of the story is reincarnation and karma.  Do you believe in reincarnation yourself?  One of my struggles is how to delve into a subject like reincarnation without staying on the surface or relying on cliches.  Any advice?

Ashley: Yes I do. I have done some past life regression sessions which were amazing. Also had some interesting experiences living on Kauai which took me to a past life there. Karma is created in every thought we have. Most think that it’s only our actions. We are more powerful than we know. Each and every thought is creating Karma. It is great you are writing on this subject. We are very immature in the West about this. I believe until we can teach death as beautiful part of life there will be no peace. I say keep experinecing and studying….read more plays and stories about death to feel the emotions…..check out, “Tibetan Book of the Dead.” (Author’s note:  Actually I did – it’s on my reading list here).

Hunter:  So for our readers out there who don’t know Christos or myself, how would you describe us as actors or as people?  Did you feel there was an interesting dynamic there?  Why or why not?

Ashley: Well, you both are so smart and willing and courageous. I would love to spend hours with you two playing. I think you are fine actors!!!  Yes, I do think there is a very interesting dynamic……What translates from you both being open and curious and wanting to know could be naturally adopted into your characters. Watching you two as actors was just as interesting as watching the characters.

Hunter: You are big on textual analysis and allowing that to impact the movement.  Can you tell me a little about your process here?

Ashley:  Oops didn’t know you were going to ask this…well I kind of hit that above. One thing I would add is that for you as the writer/actor it’s a trip because you have to live this parallel universe sort of existence…writing it…thinking you know what it is and then growing in it as the actor writer and watching it change and grow…..what a special experience.

Hunter:  Finally, you’ve gotten out of town recently (I have this effect on choreographers….) and moved to Ojai.  How’s it going up there and what’s it like?

Ashley: That is so funny. Well at least the first guy is in NYC waiting to embarce you and show you around when you get there!! Not much happening in Ojai as a career move for you as an actor. As a writer, it’s just what I wanted. I really had a hard time focusing in the city. I am sensitive to all that energy. I can write in NYC but not so much in LA. Up here the land feels supportive and we’re in a quiet part of town  Private so I can go into my imagination and feel I won’t be disturbed by black hawk hellicopters or the children thay have as slaves nowadays ringing doorbells with magazie subsrcitions etc etc bless their little souls…God and those lousy leaf-blowers…Don’t get me started…needless to say I think Ojai is going to be “berry berry good for me,” as Garrett Morse used to say on SNL.

To contact choreographer and acting coach Ashley Osler, you can reach her at aosler7@gmail.com.

—

Hunter Lee Hughes is a filmmaker living and working in Los Angeles and the founder of Fatelink. His current feature film Guys Reading Poems is touring film festivals and this blog is dedicated to the process of making his second feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” If you enjoy the blog, please support our team by following us on Facebook, Twitter (@Fatelink) or Instagram (@Fatelink).

Choreography, Part 1: Jamie Benson on bringing the dance to the movies

09 Monday Apr 2012

Posted by in Interviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’ve known Jamie for about four years.  Formerly the membership director of Highways Performance Space, Jamie helped support our run of ‘The Sermons of John Bradley‘ at the space.  After our show – which included a five-minute segment of choreography with no dialogue – Jamie commented that he liked the intensity and even brutality of the movement between the characters.  I felt so grateful that someone noticed the quality we worked so hard to infuse into the piece.  After that, I began supporting Jamie’s work in independent theatre when I could and noticed that his original choreography in “Mass Transit” focused more on the unique humanity of each of his dancers rather than a perfectionist aesthetic ideal.  And yet, when required, Jamie could choreograph intricately beautiful moments.  This was precisely the quality that made me feel he might be the right man to bring the moves to “Inside-Out, Outside-In.”  So I brought him on to choreograph the initial workshop performance of the climatic scene of ‘Inside-Out, Outside-In.’  And he did an amazing job. Now, I’m just suffering a bit of Jamie-withdrawl since he’s moved to NYC to pursue his fortunes there, but check out our talk about dance and the movies.

Hunter: OK so not only is “Inside-Out, Outside-In” my first feature as a writer-director, it’s the first time I’m incorporating movement/dance choreography into a filmed piece.  Any advice for the newbie?

Jamie: Make sure that you really allow the movement some time in full frame. It seems fast cuts are real popular in the flashy world of feature filmmaking and sometimes the dancing is lost. That and after seeing the Wim Wenders film “Pina,”  it’s only a matter of time before we all should be presenting dance in 3D. Just sayin’.

Hunter:  Well not sure our microbudget will stretch to 3D just yet.  You mentioned that you love seeing people talk and dance on screen, that it’s satisfying to see people work something out through movement.  Tell me about that.  What are some of your favorite movies with choreography?

Jamie: Dance is designed to reveal simple truths. But if you’re able to add words and a linear scenario or context, you have so much more texture to experience as a viewer. If a couple is fighting while dancing a romantic waltz, there is so much more wit and intrigue to the juxtaposition, for example.

Hunter:  I like that.  What drew you to help out with ‘Inside-Out, Outside-In?’ Was there anything in the story there for you or did you just basically get roped in because we’re friends?

Jamie: Ha! A little of both – life is layered or something. I was curious as to whether or not I could deal with the challenge of a limited time-frame AND inform the meaning of the script within the script through simple gestures and movements. A bit of a puzzler but that was part of the fun.

Hunter: We had an issue where a straight actor became uncomfortable with dance with another man while workshopping this piece.  It brought up a lot of feelings of anger and inadequacy in me because I felt I tried so hard to make him comfortable.  Is this a common problem in the dance world?  What is your suggestion for working with actors in the future on this?  On the one hand, the character himself is straight and unsure about his feelings towards this other male so a little discomfort is interesting, but when does fear of intimacy or even homophobia damage a piece or prevent its full realization?  Your thoughts?

Jamie: Most dancers, whether straight or not, are a.) around a lot of gay people because, let’s face it, we’re talking about dance. Cliches, just like a good joke, have some truth to them. b.) Dancers are notoriously underpaid and will usually do just about anything to continue “working” whether that means sidling up to another guy or not. I’ve had to grab a straight guy’s ass in performances before. Honestly I think it was a great chance for the guy to enjoy the flirtation without being totally accountable for it. A sort of, “well that’s what the director wanted” sort of thing. I’ve helped produce a gay-centric play before and the straight guys we’re totally cool about it. There should be some awareness going into it for them and if there isn’t, how can you really combat an actor’s denial during the courting process? They probably want to do what they can to get the part at that point. I wouldn’t worry too much. It’s given you a fire to push forward with the work and material to blog about the movie-making process. Hell, there’s a few press releases there. That’s valuable. In our quick digestion of drama, turmoil can be an asset. Its part of the story and intrigue of the film you’re making.

Hunter: The piece has an element of life-imitating-art-imitating-life.  When you choreograph, how do you draw from your own experiences while still staying true to the situation at hand for the characters?  In other words, when does your personal expression need to be channeled into something more-or-less objective versus when it is okay to allow your personal story/demons to be expressed in a very raw, direct way?

Jamie: Making whatever story arc I’m presenting complete is of top priority. This is not unlike making a film. Sometimes the best lines or scenes must be sacrificed for the greater good of the storytelling. I fear that being an “artist” has an inherent “self-indulgent” quality to it anyway so I have no intention of running away with the fact. I have to constantly ask myself if each moment serves the whole of the story. “Why would she do that here?” or “Who is this character like and what is my experience with that type of person?” “What do I believe is the truth of the scenario I’m creating?” The scenarios I’m compelled to create are somehow personally satisfying for me to present. It’s satisfying to include personal observations I have into the work but it all has to inform the story somehow. I hate going to shows where there is no sense of editing. I’m sensitive to that.

Hunter: You and I have talked a bit about valuing the exploration of the humanity of – for lack of a better word – “the little guy.”  I’m thinking of your piece “Mass Transit” and also the webseries “Dumbass Filmmakers!” on which we collaborated.  Tell me about “the little guy” in your own work and how it might apply to ‘I-O, O-I.’

Jamie:  I am the little guy – at this juncture – so that P.O.V. surfaces in the work at times. I also find a certain innate hypocrisy in the entertainment world and strive to demystify things because of it. Ballerinas are flawless porcelain dolls, or rappers are so so cool or models so sexy yet at the end of the day, they still have body odor, cry themselves to sleep sometimes, or get insecure. That is humanity and our culture seems to deny or exaggerate/exploit it. My work is often aimed at the reveal of these truths under the illusion of the day-to-day performance we are all a part of. Usually, it’s done in a humorous way to help from being preachy.

Hunter: Now, you moved to NYC!  And so…..we’ve had to pick up the pieces without you.  😦  How’s it going out there?

Jamie: Hectic! But good! Internship in the marketing department of the Paul Taylor Dance Company, performance of my satirical ballet “Bowel Movement” in a couple of weeks, just won a Martha Graham video contest and more to come. I’m really enjoying my time here. We shall see. Thanks for your time here!

To learn more about Jamie and his dancing and choreography, please visit www.jamiebenson.com. His latest piece – “Bowel Movement” – runs April 12th and 13th at the Triskelion Arts Aldous Theater in Brooklyn.  Take a look at the trailer here.

—

Hunter Lee Hughes is a filmmaker living and working in Los Angeles and the founder of Fatelink. His current feature film Guys Reading Poems is touring film festivals and this blog is dedicated to the process of making his second feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” If you enjoy the blog, please support our team by following us on Facebook, Twitter (@Fatelink) or Instagram (@Fatelink).

Christos speaks! How did the workshop go?

05 Thursday Apr 2012

Posted by in Interviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

So after all the drama of finding the right actor to workshop ‘Inside-Out, Outside-In,’ how did the actual workshop go?

We ended up performing the scene for both Ivana Chubbuck and acclaimed actor-director Eriq La Salle, who substitutes for Ivana when she’s out of town.  I’ll give my own experiences of the workshop, but for now, take a look at what my fellow thespian Christos G. Vass had to say about the workshop! 🙂

—

Hunter Lee Hughes is a filmmaker living and working in Los Angeles and the founder of Fatelink. His current feature film Guys Reading Poems is touring film festivals and this blog is dedicated to the process of making his second feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” If you enjoy the blog, please support our team by following us on Facebook, Twitter (@Fatelink) or Instagram (@Fatelink).

Hunter vs. Homophobia: Launching the first workshop of ‘Inside-Out, Outside-In’

04 Wednesday Apr 2012

Posted by in Development

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Just last night, I witnessed a well-done bedroom scene between a man and woman that included the man sheepishly commandeering a pillow to cover his character’s…well… excitement.  The audience appreciated the chemistry between the two attractive actors and heartily applauded at the scene’s end…and rightfully so.  Yet, hard-won experience over the years has shown me that had the scene been between two men rather than a man and a woman, the audience’s reaction might not have been so fully and completely generous.  (If it had been between two women….well…the audience may have been even more generous, but that’s another story).

That’s why I was slightly anxious when I first approached a Nameless Actor to workshop a scene with me from ‘Inside-Out, Outside-In.’ He looked like the part and had just completed a commendable performance in a scene with a mutual friend.  But that scene and my project were quite different.

The climatic scene in ‘Inside-Out, Outside-In’ includes some homoerotic friction expressed through choreography being acted out between a gay director and his straight male leading man. There was no kissing or removal of shirts or underwear or bedroom antics (no pillow, certainly), but still, the piece did include some choreography between the characters that you might see on ‘Dancing with the Stars.’  If it were a scene between a man and a woman, I’m sure it wouldn’t be considered very racy compared to some of the barely-clothed encounters I’ve seen at the studio over the years.  But – for some reason – I didn’t feel like I was approaching Nameless Actor with an exciting opportunity so much as a challenge.  I grumbled internally that someone as “evolved” as me still had remnants of internal homophobia and yet, approach him I did.

I explained to Nameless Actor right away that I was returning to the studio with the purpose of workshopping my feature script and described its homoerotic content.  Better to be upfront, I thought. So I detailed the set-up of the scene and went over the general nature of the choreography.  I offered to send the script for him to consider, but he insisted that it wasn’t necessary.  He still remembered the last scene I’d workshopped in the studio and liked my writing a lot.  He viewed the scene as a challenge and accepted on the spot.  Grateful for his support, I explained that my choreographer Jamie Jeppe Benson was moving to New York City in several weeks, so it would be great to rehearse at least once before he left town. We exchanged information.  Mission accomplished…or so I thought.

Within a week, I emailed the script.  Then, the holidays hit.  First Christmas, then New Year’s.  I called Nameless Actor soon after the new year to make sure he was still down for the scene and its content after more time to reflect.  He reassured me that he was  very grateful for the opportunity and excited to get to work.  I asked if we could get together within a week – to learn the choreography if nothing else.  Jamie was packing and preparing to move any day now and it would be a lot harder to rehearse the choreography without him.

The first warning sign came at our initial rehearsal.  More than three weeks after I’d sent the script, Nameless Actor still hadn’t read it at all.  So I took about ten minutes and rehashed the plot and the climatic scene’s placement within it.  We read through the scene a few times then Jamie – ever the professional and under a time crunch – suggested we start learning the choreography.  To him, two males interacting in this way seemed straightforward and commonplace.  To my surprise, we picked up the choreography pretty fast.  Jamie gave us some tweaks and was exceedingly happy with what we’d pulled off, especially since neither Nameless Actor nor myself are trained dancers.  I really thought that the scene would be easy sailing from there.  After all, we’d managed to get through the toughest, most intimate aspect of the scene right in the beginning.  I was wrong.

Nameless Actor didn’t call me back for a week.  Then, a few hours before our class the next week, he left a voicemail that he was uncomfortable with the scene and would be backing out.  I was furious.  Adding to my anger was the fact that I’d gone out of my way multiple times to explain the content upfront and give him a chance to say “no” to the piece several different times.  By the point when he backed out, Nameless Actor had possession of the entire script more than a month.  And by now, Jamie had moved to New York City, making the choreography that much more difficult to teach to a new actor. I’d acted professionally throughout – explaining the requirements of the scene honestly, despite any awkwardness involved in my approach or follow-up.  I couldn’t imagine that Nameless Actor would ever have backed out in a similar fashion had the scene been between a man and a woman.  I was convinced that the only explanation for his drop-out was a combination of unprofessionalism and homophobia and I told him so in my voicemail response to him.  In Hollywood in 2012 with the gay mafia supposedly on the rise, it was a little shocking to be treated this way, but I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

My anger didn’t stop there.  I kept thinking about the dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of erotic scenes I’d witnessed between men and women at the studio over the years.  And yes, even erotic scenes between two women were not totally unusual.  But was homoerotic content between male characters so rare that the studio couldn’t accommodate my script?  Should I even remain in the studio?  On a break from class, I confronted my teacher about just that.  She noted that I was so angry I was shaking.  “There’s not much I can say to you now.  I know my husband when he gets like this. I just have to stay out of his way,” she wryly noted then gave me a hug.  Then she said, “Don’t make the whole studio homophobic because of one person.  Let me find someone for you.  Let me choose.  We’re still doing the scene.”

My anger slightly appeased and I could tell that she, too, felt a twinge of urgency in solving the problem. The very next break, she re-introduced me to Christos, a Greek actor known in the Studio for his good looks, daring personality and charm.  But would the married-to-a-woman Christos be down for ‘Inside-Out, Outside-In’?

“I hear we are going to do some dancing,” Christos said to me, striking his best imitation of Fred Astaire/Zorba the Greek. I could tell he wanted to cheer me up.  I almost cried.  “He’s Greek – he’ll do anything,” our teacher added, smiling.  So we exchanged information.  And the wheel of fortune turns.

What did the whole episode teach me?  Sure, there are homophobic actors out there, even in this day and age.  And others just don’t see the value in stretching past their comfort zones.  But if you stay open and fight for your project, you might just end up with creative collaborators even better than the ones you had in mind.  And it’s through difficult experiences that our teachers and friends get to know and respect us better…and that’s a good thing.

If the beginning of this workshop experience is a metaphor for what creating the film promises to be, I know that we’ll confront a lot more homophobia and resistance along the way, but ultimately will succeed.  And from now on, I will not apologize for my material at all when I approach actors or anyone, for that matter. The homoerotic content of the piece is beautiful and well-done and any actor who has a problem with the piece is not worth my very valuable time.  Turns out I faced down homophobic attitudes – inside and out – and came out on the other side.  And for that, I’m grateful.

Next time, see a video interview of Christos in the flesh and learn how our workshop of the scene ended up going.  You just might be surprised.  In the meantime, check out the reel of our initial choreographer Jamie Jeppe Benson.  What would happen with the choreography now that Jamie lives in NYC?  Next time, next time….

—

Hunter Lee Hughes is a filmmaker living and working in Los Angeles and the founder of Fatelink. His current feature film Guys Reading Poems is touring film festivals and this blog is dedicated to the process of making his second feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” If you enjoy the blog, please support our team by following us on Facebook, Twitter (@Fatelink) or Instagram (@Fatelink).