• About
  • Contact Us…

Inside-Out, Outside-In

~ Every journey worth taking…starts on the inside.

Inside-Out, Outside-In

Monthly Archives: October 2012

Mutual Self-Interest vs. Love (and why Dr. Phil and Oprah have it wrong…)

30 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by hunterlh in Development, The Script

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

cupid and psyche, dr. phil, he's not that into you, hunter lee hughes, love as a kidnapping, mutual self-interest vs love, oprah, oprah winfrey, petrarch, petrarch and laura, plutarch and laura, self-esteem and love, she's not that into you, the difference between love and mutual self-interest, what is love?, William-Adolphe Bouguereau

This is the second post in a series on the themes of “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” The first in the series, “Is Cool cool? Reflections on the new Religion” is available to read here.

For years, “Cupid and Psyche” by William-Adolphe Bouguereau hung in between two lonely windows of my studio apartment in Koreatown, somewhat inappropriately overlooking a bus stop, a Korean evangelical church and gang activity which eventually claimed a coin collection inside my apartment. The print made the move with me to the Valley and then to West Hollywood but was eventually (appropriately) stolen (or liberated?) from my parking spot storage area. I hardly blame the thieves on that one.

Cupid abducts Psyche.

After all, romantic love deserves better placement than a makeshift, open air garage. Despite my carelessness with the iconic image, I do consider myself a bit of a romantic…and boy are we in need of some warriors of love to defend against the onslaught of modern-day rational prophets that no longer trumpet love…but rather a concept I call “mutual self-interest” masking as love.

The worst offenders of this aggressively self-interested philosophy are Oprah and Dr. Phil, although I’ll focus on Dr. Phil since he’s the one still in major syndication. One can only imagine what would transpire should Petrarch, resurrected from the Beyond, end up appearing on “Dr. Phil” to talk about his beloved Laura. No doubt, Dr. Phil would set Petrarch straight right away, “She’s not that into you! Get over it!” might be his candid advice and undoubtedly he would follow it up with the penetrating psychological question, “What makes you so drawn to unavailable women?” If Dr. Phil succeeded in getting Petrarch to “see the light” we might miss out on some of the most heartbreaking, clear-sighted poems chronicling the human capacity for connection, ecstasy and pathos. So, with any luck, Petrarch, no doubt a more interesting, thoughtful man of gravitas than Dr. Phil, would simply reply, “You’re wrong. I love her.”

And we might add that Petrarch’s love for Laura, despite her inability to return his love at the same level, gave his life meaning…and ours. Petrarch’s steady, inspiring dedication to Laura seems crazy because we no longer value love for love’s sake. We seek to build romantic relationships based on mutual self-interest. And if a dash of feeling and hormones are thrown into the equation, all the better. But a divorce, decay or the like is sure to follow with these unsteady arrangements as soon as the other person starts behaving in a way that contradicts their partner’s self-interest. Then, man, that other person has to start behaving differently…right away…or they have to go. After all, my self-esteem isn’t gonna take this bullshit! (Here, Petrarch would smile wistfully and say, “Go home and think it over, boy.”). In short, we only want to let out a bit of “love” when we know it’s completely “safe” within the construct of a mutually self-interested relationship.

Let’s define terms a little better. What is a relationship of mutual self-interest? It looks something like this. Man, I’m so attracted to that person! They turn me on. And they’re an up-and-comer in this career field I admire. Wow. That’d be cool to be a team with a person like that. We’d look hot together at a company party and bring in two incomes – so helpful in the big city! The sex is good. I’m getting off and so is the other person. Plus, the person gets along with my family, which is cool. That’ll make things easier when we bring up kids. And we have a pretty good personality match. The other person doesn’t annoy me too much and vice versa. And the person gets along with my friends, so I don’t have to worry about huge drama on that front. Hey! Damn! I’m checking off so many boxes of my “Requirements for a Relationship List” with this person. I’m in!

Is it really so bad to build a relationship based on mutual self-interest? I think so, but others could argue that it’s practical. Your mutual self-interest relationship can help you advance in the world. Your mutual self-interest relationship can facilitate the building of a home and nest egg. Your mutual self-interest relationship protects you from feeling “less than” or “insecure” because you’ve both agreed equally to this mutual self-interest relationship. And your mutual self-interest relationship protects you from feeling the full onslaught of loving feelings for another human being without a sense (however false) of security.

Real love has nothing to do with security. It is a kidnapping in the night. It requires ascension to the heights of Heaven with an unknown creature followed by a descent into the depths with little chance of survival. It is a story of togetherness and loss and togetherness again. At the moment you really see the true soul of your beloved, the risk of sabotage is almost cruelly high (as happens to Psyche when she realizes she’s been kidnapped by an immortal beauty rather than the monster she feared). But the fulfilling moments of love are so awe-inspiring and real that they merit Psyche’s trip to the depths of Hades, where Cupid’s subtle guidance leads her back into his embracing arms. Real love is rocky, almost certainly untenable…almost. It is for the brave. It is for the stupid. It is for the exceptional…and theirs alone to claim when won. But even when the love is lost, as happened to Petrarch, yours is the victory of a life made meaningful and clear despite suffering. You are enriched by the acrobatics of the soul, juggling to stretch and grow enough to pass the rigorous test that love throws down.

Build a mundane relationship based on mutual self-interest if you like. I’m sure Dr. Phil and Oprah would applaud. It certainly makes sense to do so. A relationship based on mutual self-interest certainly creates a bond of materialists that helps you to face the world…for a time.

But only love, that old thief of all things rational, creates your character and unleashes your soul…to your beloved and to everyone that matters. Go for love – I dare you.

—

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).

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Accepting your personal Steppenwolf

27 Saturday Oct 2012

Posted by hunterlh in Development, The Script

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bourgeoisie, existentialism, finding yourself in your characters, herman hesse, hunter lee hughes, revising a script, soulsearching, steppenwolf, writing as a hobby, your writing as your soul, zsa zsa gershick

In reading an excerpt of Herman Hesse’s “Steppenwolf” for my audio c.d. Existentialism course, I’m struck by how much of the creative process is accepting your own inner beast with all its variety. Hesse describes a man-beast, who despises the bourgeoisie life of reporting to an office and refuses comfort from the salient symbols that satisfy the more childlike and demure personalities of a culture. And yet, the man-beast is never satisfied because when he unleashes the primal raw energy of his fury and sexuality, the man side of him disapproves of his cruelty, his animalistic crudeness and his lack of faith in the goodness of others. But when the man side takes over, the wolf within mocks the man’s hypocritical, clumsy attempts at goodness which are rarely more than masked self-interest. And so the Steppenwolf wanders – outside of society, at war with himself, at risk of self-destruction.

Certainly, I relate to the struggle of the Steppenwolf. I never trust artists who report to a nine-to-five and find they are rarely more than hobbyists hoping for a promotion that will never materialize. To live the life of an artist, you have to risk something. You have to step into an unsafe wildnerness all alone. You have to reject something that makes sense to almost everyone else. And you have to live with the suffering that, indeed, you may fail. That is the greater likliehood. You must endure watching others make steady progress in the world while you scavenge for hidden beauty that others won’t see. They probably won’t see it even after you’ve found it against all odds and hold it up to their face. They will say you are holding thin air. But if you are a Steppenwolf, what choice do you have?

But Hesse isn’t so cruel as to provide a penetrating observation without a solution…or at least some hope. For him, the Steppenwolf’s salvation comes when he realizes that he is not just man and beast, but (to paraphrase) man, beast, butterfly, flower, stream, brick castle, poverty-stricken child and bourgeoisie banker all rolled into one. The mistake of the Steppenwolf is in seeing himself as divided in two. Actually, he is divided into infinite.

And so, reading Hesse, I have realized something about “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” A few days ago, playwright Zsa Zsa Gershick implored me to search for myself in all the characters. I took the advice to heart and have been mindmapping to better understand the humans that populate the story. Hesse and the Steppenwolf admonishes me to go one step further and see the script as a reflection of the fragments of my soul that come together as one complete universe in the script itself. The longing for unity that drives men to destroy themselves can only be satiated when these variegated parts come together in a satisfying arrangement, for which there is no math to determine. Simply accepting the infinite aspects of my own psyche and allowing them to orchestrate themselves will be enough. The script is not so much a war between various sides of myself, but a chance for them all to show up and dance together. It only looks like a battle because, well, for most of us, we lose touch with the reality of the Steppenwolf so quickly and so often that inevitable inconsistencies and paradox always look like war.

—

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).

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Interpreting Dreams – an artist’s shortcut to the unconscious

25 Thursday Oct 2012

Posted by hunterlh in Development, The Script

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

blue horses, creative writing, developing characters through dreams, how to interpret dreams, interpreating dreams to help with your creativity, interpreting dreams, jungian approach to dreams, revising your screenplay, river of fire, robert a johnson, Screenwriting, symbolism

Few books have changed my life as much as Robert A. Johnson’s Inner Work. In it, Johnson describes a systematic approach to understand the unconscious forces bubbling in our psyches and a way to access them. For an artist, nothing is more important. As I revise the script, I’m seeking to understand the main characters more deeply and since all the characters are a reflection of my own psyche, the key to that process is understanding and communicating with elements of my unconscious that currently remain unseen to my waking self.

Johnson’s system is relatively simple, but profound when applied rightly. First, write down your dream in great detail. Then, identify all the different important symbols of that dream and circle or underline them. Then, create a sort of mindmap for each individual symbol with all the associations that come to mind with regards to that symbol. Next, using your intuition, feel out which interpretation of each individual symbol “feels right” to you, and using those interpretations, write out an analysis of the dream. At the end of the process, you should be startled, shocked or taken aback because the dream should be bringing you information about yourself that you DO NOT ALREADY KNOW. And remember, that when you see yourself in the dream, your own image represents your EGO while the other symbols and people in your dream represent aspects of your psyche that your ego doesn’t want to see.

So, here is a dream I had back in 2006 that was profound for me and important to analyze.

In the dream, I was the adolescent eldest brother in a rural village from long ago. The land was suffering because of a cruel curse. The ravines, which once held rivers that nourished our town and many others, had been replaced by rivers of fire that never burned out. There was a legend that told of a prescription for the current suffering of the people. If a blue horse were to willingly sacrifice itself and walk into the ravine of fires, they would transform once more into flourishing rivers and the townspeople could resume a normal life. However, the people had become so desperate, anxious and terrified of the rivers of fire that they begin to use blue spray paint to coat normal horses, which are then torturously dragged into the rivers of fire, neighing and screaming as they die. Having seen one too many horses die unnaturally, I realize that I am the only one who can find the real blue horse. I say goodbye to my worried family and set out to find it.

In Johnson’s system, I have already performed steps one and two. Step one came with my detailed writing of the dream. Step two came with the bolding of the key symbols and characters in the dream. Step three would involve me listing each of these symbols on a separate piece of paper and brainstorming as to what I associate with each of the bolded symbols. Then, I would “feel out” which association seems correct to this dream and pull together an interpretation. At the end, I should have valuable insight into a new direction for my life or learn something about myself that I didn’t know. If the dream only feels like a confirmation of a value I’m already holding, then I haven’t gone deep enough.

Obviously, this process takes hours for a dream that seemingly touched the psyche for but a moment. But insights from dreams are gold to every artist. Everything we write is some clumsy attempt to synthesize the psyche and create a wholeness out of it. So the deeper we go with our dreams, the deeper and more interesting our screenplay characters.

—

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).

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Deepening the Characters – Mindmapping

24 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by hunterlh in Development, The Script

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

character biographies, creating character biographies, creating characters, developing characters, developing your characters, how do i develop my characters for a screenplay, mindmap, Mindmapping, mindmapping for screenwriters, writing characters

Recently, I was advised to write a biography for all the characters in “Inside-Out, Outside-In” after our read-through provoked some questions about their backgrounds and desires. Of course, I already feel like I know my characters pretty well, but committing ideas in a written form does solidify and clarify things. My preferred method for tackling this is mindmapping (as I mentioned earlier).

The skeletal mindmap I’ve developed includes a number of qualities of the character, including their personal history in terms of their family, career, education and romantic relationships as well as ideas about their principles, personality types and sexuality (including some hidden desires). For good measure, I also include relevant images, colors and locations associated with the character to help you as you prepare to direct a film.  You’ll want the visuals associated with that person to provide a shortcut to the psyche of whoever you’re depicting. You have to give the inner life of each character in a matter of minutes, so there is no room to be lazy about anything in the frame with them.

Here’s my mindmap sample. It’s by no means the only option, but it’s a start. Let me know if it helps you develop your characters!

Sample of a character mindmap

 

—

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).

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

From the mouths of actors….the first reading.

23 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by hunterlh in Development, The Script

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

alessandro piersimoni, bohemian lifestyle, developing your screenplay, hunter lee hughes, inside-out-outside-in, justin schwan, rex lee, screenplay readings, shon perun, should i do a reading of my screenplay, themes in screenwriting, thy will be done prayer, zsa zsa gershick

“Help us to see what we need to see, hear what we need to hear. Thy Will, not ours, be done,” is my best paraphrase of the prayer spoken by accomplished playwright and filmmaker Zsa Zsa Gershick to kick off the first reading of “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” (more on the title later).

I’ve written four feature length screenplays before. None of them have been produced. This time, I wasn’t taking any chances and wanted from the start to invoke a higher purpose for the material, especially since the tension between ego-driven and authentic, soul-driven choices provides the core conflict of the movie.

The reading took place at the 5th floor screening room at my communal office. Television’s Rex Lee quickly voiced the question on many minds, “Is this going to be the temperature setting for the whole night?” I looked anxiously at the locked thermostat. I knew a key card wasn’t going to cut it with that thing. What we wouldn’t be hearing was the whirring of an AC at work. Justin Schwan, reading a lead role, shed a modern-day, professorial grey button-down sweater, preferring a white tank top, but Zsa Zsa (in a tailored suit) and Ashley Osler (in a cream, fluffy turtleneck sweater) weren’t so lucky. It was hot.

But whatever discomfort the heat provided did not arrest our progress through the script. I felt torn between the focus on my own role and marveling that living human beings were embodying characters that began as notions, developed into imaginary conversationalists and, now, met with flesh and blood.

Readings help to reveal how the structure of a piece is working and, on that score, I’m beyond pleased. They also spark challenges to identify the really important aspects of a character – whether you’ve pegged the guy at the right age, the right sexuality, the right archetype. Here, some adjustments will occur. They also start to indicate the range of reactions from an audience. I learned long ago not to attempt to please all segments of the audience and sucking up to the mainstream is anathema to my quirky humor and homoerotic sensibilities. But still, it’s helpful to know which characters they wanted to know better, who makes a shift in behavior that takes them by surprise and assess the universality of the piece. I consider my niche to be creating a surprising universality through characters usually overlooked or stereotyped and feel this script is in alignment with my own authenticity. So I felt grateful that many of my friends voiced support for the script as a success or on the road there.

“I don’t like the title,” said one of the most interesting guys I know in Los Angeles. Alessandro Piersimoni gave up a lucrative career in advertising to pursue filmmaking in Los Angeles and so far has found some success as an actor, appearing in David Fincher’s “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” His eye for aesthetics surpasses my own, although my innate if somewhat downplayed competitive spirit challenges me to catch up.

“The title doesn’t do anything for me. Maybe shorten it to ‘Inside-Out’ or change it to something else. Other than that, you’re 99.9% done. Just take it to the literary agent and say, ‘Here.'” He mentioned two or three other problem areas and encouraged me to just get on with it. Compliments from those with developed sensibilities really mean something and I relished Alessandro’s words as something hard-earned and real.

Once the reading broke up, some of the guys, including Justin, the talented and underused Shon Perun and Alessandro enjoyed a beer. Like Christmas coming early, Justin couldn’t believe a professional office would feature frosted mugs in the freezer and beer on tap, but the quirky Tracey Verhoeven was a little late to the party and had to settle for a plastic cup.

Zsa Zsa and her erudite wife Elissa closed it down, talking to me another half hour about the script, its theme and their own experience casting and refining the scripts for Zsa Zsa’s projects. Zsa Zsa generously tried to sum up her playwriting degree in a few minutes and boiled it down to, “Know the theme. Make sure everything supports that. Write your character bios and find yourself in ALL of them.” Elissa, like a big sister, asked if I parked close or if they should wait and walk me to the car.

Soon after, Rex and Richie, an adorable 26-year old techie hipster-who-denies-he’s-a-hipster, texted me. They ordered me to drive to Bossa Nova on Sunset, where they’d ordered me a steak that was on its way. I showed up as the waiter brought my food to the table and noticed the guys had already eaten and their plates had been cleared. Ah, friends. A lovely discussion ensued.

Tracey emailed me at 12:40 a.m. with a concern about the reading. I called her back at 12:41 a.m. and we talked it out, but her note so provoked me that I called Rex at 1:20 a.m. and then Richie at 1:45 a.m. before finally heading to bed around 2:45 a.m. I slept til Richie’s phone call at 11:40 a.m. this morning (save for a catatonic walk with my pug) and felt oh-so-Bohemian for sleeping in on a Tuesday.

The next day, I’m full of enthusiasm and optimism. Seeing and hearing these fifteen beautiful souls – each so unique – pull together for the night to give voice to something new made me truly grateful for this Bohemian life I’m proud to live. As an unconventional artist, you never know if you’re gonna end up reciting poetry under a bridge with some donated whiskey, but this morning, after my City Harvest Black Vanilla tea (you read that correctly), I feel curious for a continuation and evaluation of the story of the life of my movie…and its gallery of characters – past, present and future.

For the record, here was the cast of the first reading of “Inside-Out, Outside-In” in alphabetical order:

Camille Carida, Marilyn Chase, Zsa Zsa Gershick, James Lee Hernandez, Hunter Lee Hughes, Rex Lee, Thyme Lewis, Marlyse Londe, Ashley Osler, Shon Perun, Alessandro Piersimoni, Ann Russo, Justin Schwan, Erwin Stone and Tracey Verhoeven. Guests included Ms. Elissa Barret and Mr. Richard Scharfenberg. The reading took place at WeWork Hollywood, 7083 Hollywood Boulevard, 5th Floor Screening Room.

—

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).

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Breaking through the Rewrite Resistance

04 Thursday Oct 2012

Posted by hunterlh in The Script

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

how to rewrite your indie film, rewriting, screenwriter, Screenwriting

The mundane details of life sometimes conspire against your creative process. And, if you’re anything like me, sometimes you conspire with them. These last few months I’ve felt awash in little stuff that’s mildly creative but mostly TCB, as the great Aretha Franklin might say. I’ve relaunched our Fatelink site, long due for an upgrade. I’ve attended Social Media Week, Los Angeles, to attempt to understand how to connect with my fellow indie filmmaker brethren. I’ve written and distributed loads of press releases to support Dumbass Filmmakers! and submitted our show for consideration by the IAWTV. I’ve submitted my taxes to my accountant and written my quarterly report for the LLC. But, until now, I haven’t made much progress on the rewrite of this script.

Today, I cracked open my new Mac Book Pro and started reading the script. And quickly, that developed into eliminating a lot of dialogue. A lot. Which is what always happens with a feature rewrite. And I’m pleased to report that I’m happy with the structure of the script and more dialogue will be coming out tomorrow. Stay tuned…..

—

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).

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is “Cool” cool? Reflections on the New Religion

03 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by hunterlh in Development

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

alan miller, boulevard of broken dreams, how do i become more cool, huffington post, is cool cool?, james dean, james dean gay, james dean homosexuality, james dean sex with men, major religions, religion vs gays, spiritual but not religious, what does it mean to be cool

The past few months have been a time of reflection for me (and so far, with no posts to show for it!). I almost never write with “theme” in mind. I’ve always adhered to the philosophy that you stick with the narrative and that’s it. And yet, I’ve been seized by the spiritual and moral questions provoked by the rewrite of “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” So in the next few weeks, I’ll write about those questions. Here’s the first piece, called, “Is ‘Cool’ cool? Reflections on the New Religion.”

—

“I’m spiritual, not religious,” so say a great swath of Hollywood Types and their well-meaning emulators. In theory, this accommodating declaration indicates an evolved consciousness free of the troubled history, strident dogma and lingering prejudice of the world’s major religions. Alan Miller of “The Huffington Post” recently wrote an opinion piece declaring that the “spiritual but not religious” attitude developed out of a lazy moral convenience for its loose band of followers and should be rejected (read it here, I agree with some, but not all of it). Miller resists the reality that people have become disenchanted with major religions for good reasons. All too often, the major religions have been taken over by power-hungry extroverts seeking to exert control over their fellow man through self-serving rules and condescending, didactic attitudes. So, unlike Miller, I think people are not lazy because they choose not to go to church or the mosque, they are genuinely conflicted or disillusioned. But one cannot escape religion simply by stating one’s independence from it over a latte at Urth Café while your passé in-law sits in a pew. That’s where I think Miller, and all the Hollywood “spiritual but not religious” types, are wrong. Indeed, they have not simply rejected religion. They have created a new one. It’s called, “Cool.”

“Cool” has always been around as an archetypal force, signifying an aesthetic sophistication or cat-and-mouse game with the status quo. It’s an archetype we need as a culture. It keeps us interesting. Cool’s ascendency to a religion can be traced to James Dean, who continues to personify “Cool” and now resides in the upper echelon of the gods of the new polytheism. This is ironic because Dean, at least from what I’ve read and surmised, positioned himself as an adversary to authority. His “coolness” was essentially a rejection of the dominant, conformist ethos of his time. He certainly never intended for his image to become the dominant ethos of a culture. Indeed, his nature seemed much more masochistic and it appears (at least if you believe the insightful biography “Boulevard of Broken Dreams” written by Paul Alexander) that submissive gay sex was both a path of career advancement and spiritual growth for young Dean. Unlike many of today’s followers of “Cool,” James Dean actually used the space provided by his own “coolness” to explore shadow sides of life and himself. He read philosophical texts and sought answers from older mentors, several of whom were apparently fucking him as well. He looked cool, but in practice he was a man in transition, travelling between an empty, dominant religion that left no room for his vulnerability and experimental sexuality to a primal, sensual promised land yet undefined. His car wreck symbolized a crash of ideals, a crash that will be repeated en masse unless we, as a culture, learn to explore and understand the un-illuminated territory that sent Dean to his death.

Subsequent generations of Hollywood misunderstood, then codified the beginnings of James Dean’s “Cool” into a self-serving religion whose shifting rules quickly took on a life of their own. At first, they provided a needed alternative for creative types disillusioned and disappointed with our dominant Judeo-Christian religion. I repeat – it was a needed alternative. But now, improbably, the religion of “Cool” has actually become our Dominant Religion, a somewhat perverse turn of events since the domination of “Cool” is the exact opposite of its intended use by Dean. (Hmmm….power hungry extroverts at work again?)

If you need proof that the “Religion of Cool” has taken over, just check out the “Rules of Cool” compared to the traditional Christian tenets of “the meek shall inherit the Earth” and “love thy enemy as thyself” (which in practice of course conflicted with The Crusades, the persecution of so-called witches and other atrocities, but still….).

The Rules of Cool

  1. Anxiety is not cool. But knowing some answers about life is cool.
  2. Unrequited love isn’t cool. Being the object of unrequited love is cool, though.
  3. Enthusiasm isn’t cool. Having an understated passion is cool, if you keep it in check.
  4. Being caught acting like a fool is cool IF you’re a certain age or personality type, but uncool if you’re a different personality type or older (unless you’re so old that it’s cool again). For example, if you’re Prince Harry, it’s cool if some naked Vegas pictures leak out but if you’re a politician who does the same thing with women not as physically attractive, it’s VERY uncool.
  5. Confidence, confidence, confidence is the key to life.
  6. Being devoutly religious is uncool. Being “spiritual but not religious” is cool.
  7. Having way more Twitter followers than people you follow is cool (admittedly this is a new rule).
  8. Talent is cool.
  9. Tattoos are cool (be careful – this is sure to evolve into ‘tattoos mean you’re trying too hard.’)
  10. Skinny jeans are cool (this rule also may be temporary)
  11. Abs are cool (this is unlikely to change anytime soon).
  12. Being a celebrity is cool, as long as you’re the right kind of celebrity.
  13. Smoking is cool, as long as you’re under 30.
  14. Pot is cool, but crack is whack.
  15. Alcohol is cool. Getting drunk is cool. Becoming a hopeless drunk is uncool, unless rehab sticks after the first round. Then you’re super cool.
  16. Gay marriage is cool. Lesbian sex is cool. But sex between two men is uncool, especially if there is photographic evidence of it (unless you are an attractive gay male dealing ONLY with other attractive gay males – in this case, being a star of pornography is super, super cool IF it’s the right kind of pornography).
  17. Being an artist is really, really cool as long as you’re being well compensated for it in terms of money and fame.
  18. Being young and hot is cool.
  19. Tis better to reject than be rejected.
  20. Caring without caring too much is cool.
  21. The Rules of Cool are subject to change by the Cool People.

In terms of the Rules of Cool, if you’re lacking in one area, you can try to make up for it in another. For example, if you’re a devoutly religious man and enjoy gay sex, that’s uncool. But you can make up for it by being even younger and hotter and a gay marriage activist (or if you don’t care about hanging out with straight people, a porn star). Or if you’re not young and hot, you can make up for it by being famous (for a good reason) and getting a well-placed, meaningful tattoo exuding confidence.

The Religion of Cool is tricky at first, but better get the hang of it. Otherwise, un-coolness follows. And what follows un-coolness? Irrelevance. And not just irrelevance to the culture at large, but even within your own family and friend circle. After all, what kid these days wouldn’t rather spend time with someone cool than his own grandfather (unless said grandfather is cool)? Not understanding or adjusting to the Rules of Cool is dangerous. But here’s the real dark side of the Religion of Cool. Conforming to the Rules of Cool also spells D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R.

Other than the internal quality of talent, Cool doesn’t really address inner tension or turmoil or moral prescriptions, other than to give indirect advice to channel whatever conflict you have into whatever brings you as much fame and resources as possible (without looking greedy for it, of course). Cool’s lack of guidance is responsible for why the children of celebrities (who achieved priest status in the religion) are almost universally fucked up. It’s also why the religion’s main priests (celebrities themselves) end up in rehab so often. They are given an amazing set of guidelines for navigating the politics of fame, but nothing for when something real happens or, God forbid, goes wrong. Of course, they try here to apply Rule Six – the “being spiritual but not religious rule” – but sometimes it doesn’t seem to work.

“Cool” was meant as a stop-gap rejection, a phase from which to gather strength from refusing to accept societal norms. It has evolved into a societal norm more punishing, random and soulless than its Judeo-Christian predecessor. The future of wisdom depends on this generation’s ability to create, deepen or properly re-invent religion on the basis of meaningful soul exploration that Cool’s original author attempted. Maybe it was worth a try, but the Religion of Cool just doesn’t work and if we keep praying to the temple of Brangelina, we’re all gonna crash.

And that will be uncool way too late.

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).

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Recent Posts

  • We’ve moved!
  • Co-Creating With Your “Audience”
  • The Voice of Your Film
  • New Film Distribution Models – 7 Ideas
  • The Duty of the Artist

Archives

  • December 2018
  • January 2017
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012

Categories

  • Budgeting
  • Casting
  • Development
  • Financing
  • Interviews
  • Post-Production
  • Pre-Production
  • Production
  • Release
  • Scheduling
  • The Script
  • Uncategorized
  • Wardrobe

Connect with us….

Connect with us….

Twitter Updates

  • How can you as a storyteller or #filmmaker empower yourself to navigate the funding of your passion projects? One s… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 months ago
Follow @fatelink

Subscribe...

  • Vimeo
  • Youtube

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Inside-Out, Outside-In
    • Join 43 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Inside-Out, Outside-In
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: