Category Archives: Development

Halloween: The Soul Revealed through Costume, then Squashed

01 Thursday Nov 2012

Posted by in Development, The Script

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

It doesn’t take a social scientist to recognize that a Halloween costume is rarely just that. It’s not random. People must select, on some basis, what they will wear for Halloween. No where was this phenomenon more on display that at the annual Halloween festivities in West Hollywood, probably the single best attended event in the city (with perhaps Pride in June as a close competitor). In the gay world of WeHo last night (which by the way was at least 60% straight), Halloween was a High Holiday and the most common costume was that of Robin, sidekick to Batman. I also saw couples having fun with the concept of “twinning” – both dressing up as prisoners, both as cave men and, in one case, both dressing up as zombies with ‘sex for brains.’ There were some couples that had related but opposite costumes, such as Devil with Angel, Cop with Criminal, Master with Slave, etc. One wonders if these are the accurate psychic representations of the relationship or if they are toying with inhabiting the opposite role for a night (a friend told me he’d once dressed up as a slave to a dominatrix when in fact he held all the power in the relationship). But either way, the selection of the costume means something about who you are and your relationship to your self and others (Know that whenever you are at a Halloween function, psychologists and artists are having a lot of fun looking into your subconscious). Some people are relieved from the stress of choosing to represent themselves as an individual and dress up as whole groups – there was one group of friends that dressed up as the Scooby Doo clan and another group that all dressed up as Waldo from the ‘Where’s Waldo?’ posters. Then, there are those that create or select something that is their costume alone – whether a witch or zombie or fairy or something else of their own creation (inspired by my existentialism class, I wore a black suit, black shirt, red tie, black mask, carried my textbook and went as an ‘Existential Messenger of Death’). And, of course, there are those that choose to wear no costume at all, which in and of itself is another interesting choice. You cannot say nothing about yourself on Halloween, like it or not.

That’s what is truly eerie about Halloween – it’s an opportunity to reflect unseen layers of our psyche for ourselves and others to see. But this potentiality is so powerful that the herd instinct in us rises up to prevent Halloween from its illuminative potential and turns it into the most mundane and meaningless holiday of them all. It starts out as a curious conundrum for the psyche and turns into a boozing mass of conformists confronted with one makeshift hot dog stand after another, all selling the same thing.

There’s an argument to be made that a Halloween costume reveals our own ExistenZ’s struggle to express itself. Karl Jaspers describes ExistenZ as the being inside that fights against “mundane being.” From my understanding, it’s the authentic, transcendent self that takes its cues not from the world and the demands of the world, but from its own essence (a force for the purposes of my movie that I will describe as “Inside-Out”). Maybe it’s the tricky psychic force within that inspires you to dress up as Peter Pan for Halloween in the midst of your Puer Aeternus complex (so you might get a clue). But another powerful force is at work on Halloween. Nietzsche and a host of others identified the concept of a “herd instinct” which some, like Martin Heidegger, believe also exists in some form within each individual whether they are currently engaging with a herd or sitting by themselves (a force for the purposes of my movie that I will describe as “Outside-In”). Maybe it’s the powerful messaging you receive to be like your peers that compels you to gather en masse, drink, have fun and observe the unspoken social contract of what it means to enjoy a Halloween festival.

Heidegger argues that the primal potentialities of the soul are “leveled down” by idle talk and concerns of people on a “group level.” An individual’s instinct to subject itself to the mentality of the herd mitigates the fear of that person’s inward ExistenZ potential…and its impermanence. The herd instinct most fears death. It is something that is processed on a group level that protects the group from processing impermanence on a soul level. The herd tells you what to do when death occurs, but it allows you to avoid associating it with your own eventuality. As Heidegger explains, death happens, but in a strange way it doesn’t happen to you when you’re in the herd. It might sound nice to be protected from the reality of death, but the herd also protects you from considering how your own death might change – and even liberate – your life with all its potential.

Now, back to Halloween…so just when your ExistenZ bubbles up to the surface and demands you choose a ridiculous costume because it desperately wants to show you something about yourself that you simply can’t see, the herd instinct swells with its zombie-like message from the outside: drink, drink more, friends, idle talk, bullshit, HOT DOGS!, other friends, drink, sex, sex, sex, sleep. It is a slumber that costs the transcendent lesson that the ExistenZ made available through the selection of the costume in the first place. It is a slumber that keeps at bay ExistenZ and the reality of our own death…during a holiday that supposedly highlights it.

And so I walked into West Hollywood last night as the “Existential Messenger of Death,” selecting someone in the crowd, usually someone not wearing a costume, that I would then stealthily approach and say, “Happy Last Halloween. End of Days is here. You have been Chosen.” Then, I would walk away, just slowly enough to see either a mocking insolence or disturbed agitation register on their face.

I saw it as my responsibility to inject the idea of Death back into Halloween. People deserve some Dread. Not just because death is part of Halloween, but because feeling the angst of death is the best hope that an individual will throw off their herd mentality and turn towards the inner potential waiting for them to create a uniquely amazing life.

My movie is currently titled, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” But when you see it (sometime in 2014 with any luck) I hope it might earn the reputation of, “Existential Messenger of Death.”

This essay is the third in a series on the themes of “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” The first two are available on the site and include, “Is Cool cool? Reflections on the New Religion” and “Mutual Self-Interest vs. Love (and why Dr. Phil and Oprah have it wrong).”

—

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).

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

30 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Development, The Script

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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).

Accepting your personal Steppenwolf

27 Saturday Oct 2012

Posted by in Development, The Script

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

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).

Interpreting Dreams – an artist’s shortcut to the unconscious

25 Thursday Oct 2012

Posted by in Development, The Script

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

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).

Deepening the Characters – Mindmapping

24 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Development, The Script

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

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).

From the mouths of actors….the first reading.

23 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Development, The Script

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

“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).

Breaking through the Rewrite Resistance

04 Thursday Oct 2012

Posted by in The Script

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

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).

Is “Cool” cool? Reflections on the New Religion

03 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Development

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

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).

Top Five Stupid and Smart Things I Did Directing a Web Series (and how the lessons will help my upcoming feature film)

02 Thursday Aug 2012

Posted by in Development

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

As many of you know, I recently wrote and directed an original web series called, “Dumbass Filmmakers!” The show runs 68 minutes over 12 episodes, so for all practical purposes, I got a great crash course in what it’s like to write and direct a feature film.  “Inside-Out, Outside-In” is now scheduled for a mid-January start, so the time is right to look at what I did right…and what I learned…in the process of making my first long-form film project.  Let’s start with the good decisions I made.

1. Investing in Rehearsals.  I don’t know how many times I’ve heard directors say that the first time they heard the actors say the lines to each other, they were on set rolling the first take. The magic of the “first take – unrehearsed” has a sort of legendary history with some directors, but I made a far different choice with “Dumbass Filmmakers!” and I’m glad I did.  All too often, those directors have the luxury of a more relaxed shooting schedule.  On this project, we had 10 days of production, plus an additional three days of reshoots that were added. My committed team of actors spent weeks rehearsing the material in my apartment and on set before the camera crew showed up. And I’m glad they did. We needed to work out the beats of the material, the blocking and some natural acting challenges that come up AHEAD of time. Once it came  time for production, we were much, much more efficient on set because we had rehearsed and people knew their blocking and business ahead of time. If other first-time  directors want to try the magic of the “first take – unrehearsed,” I’m all for it. But in this case, our shooting schedule didn’t provide for a risk like that and I’m glad I made the call to invest in preparation.  And, yes, my pug Romeo saw all the rehearsals go down.

2. Writing three-dimensional characters and demanding that actors play them that way, even though the show is “comedy.” The biggest trap I see with actors in comedy is that they start judging their characters as fools or losers and make fun of their own character while they’re playing the part. Any actor who auditioned for the show with this mentality didn’t get very far. I’m not interested in Saturday Night Live, sketch-style acting. More than once, actors were in tears sobbing dealing with demons that I wanted to exist for the character. On the whole, I’m satisfied with our results and many people have said they not only found the characters funny, but also recognized them as real people that exist in Los Angeles. I’m proud that we steered towards a more humanistic brand of comedy than a shallow, sketch brand of comedy.

3. Crowdfunding. This may relate more to producing than directing, but the decision to crowdfund part of our budget (made with my producing partner Elizabeth Gordon) was a good one. Most of the nearly $5,000 we raised came from members of my own family, with the largest donation by far coming from my brother Parker. (Special note: It’s pretty cool that my brother – an officer in the Army who just returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan gave a big chunk of change for his brother to make an LGBT web show). While $5,000 didn’t cover the majority of our expenses, it sure didn’t hurt. And we wouldn’t have gotten any of that money if we didn’t ask. It gave me a heightened sense of confidence to know that my family took the step to write checks to support my creative endeavor, a first for me. Big credit also to Elizabeth for securing some donations from her circle as well. It is not comfortable for most artists to ask for support, but sometimes it pays off.

4. Creating an amazing post-production team. I call special attention to the post-production team because, as a director, these people are most closely aligned with you as you take a raw product and refine it towards your vision until a finished piece exists. So it’s extremely important to find amazing people to help you with this part of the process.  I lucked out across the board with our two editors Chris Friend and James Lee Hernandez, our composer Sergio Jiminez Lacima, our post-audio supervisor David J. Kruk and our colorist Sam Mestman. All these guys not only expertly did their specific job, but also supported my vision of the piece by listening to what I wanted and then finding a way to translate that into how the show sounded, its editing rhythm, its look. And because they could see so many individual pieces of the project, they all had an understanding of the scope of “Dumbass Filmmakers!” and the difficulty of its development in post. That empathy was key for me in surviving the post-production process, because by then, you’re so tired and so overwhelmed that you’re not sure you can keep moving forward on the project. Then you show up at someone’s studio or an apartment with blinged-out computers. A techie geek or hipster dude (or both) brings you a cup of coffee and you get to work. That unspoken camaraderie was key to the success of the show and I gratefully acknowledge it here. You’ll be working with your post-production team a whole lot more than the crew on production, so be sure they are people that you respect, trust and, yes, like (and vice versa). It’s very important.

5. Putting my life on hold to finish the project. There came a time in the last 120 days of post-production that I had to put my entire life on hold to finish the project. No more dates. No meditation. No day jobs. No meetings. Just at least 80-90 hours of work every single week without a day off until it’s done. While it’s true that sometimes balance is necessary, some of the people who spout that off have never finished a project of any scope. I offer a different point of view. There comes a time with your project when it’s like a wild animal or bear that you must either wrestle down to the ground or let it go free. Quit Facebook. Quit working out. Quit your day job if you have to. Run the risk that you’ll piss off your girlfriend/boyfriend/family/friends and just FINISH THE F’ING THING. Once you do, you will emerge a new man (or woman) and feel proud of yourself. Somehow, the other stuff will come back into balance eventually. Hollywood is not for wimps. So don’t be one. I’m extremely proud that – whatever its flaws – my 68-minute project has been completed. And yeah, willpower, endurance and a conscious decision to forgo everything else were a big part of the reason why.

Five Things I Could’ve Handled Better

1. Anxiety over Technical Issues – I’m the guy that panics when it looks like a drive is failing to fire up or a media file shows up offline in Final Cut Pro. But remembering that even technology is imperfect is key to managing your stress in production and post-production. Sometimes, tech stuff goes wonky. Deal. By the end of post-production, I learned that 99% of the time if a drive doesn’t show up when you turn on the computer, let’s just unplug it and restart and it’ll probably be fine. Bringing that stress to yourself and others doesn’t help anyone.

2. Cutting too early. On set, you get so caught up in the rush of trying to finish shots that all too often, you cut too early. With digital cameras, it really doesn’t cost you anything to let the camera run a few extra moments. And sometimes it’s those moments after an actor thinks they’ve “finished” their business that things actually get interesting. More than once, my editor yelled at the monitor, “Why did you cut? Why did you cut? What happens right after this? It’s getting so interesting!” I cut because, on set, you’re in an adrenaline mode, so subtle moments of humanity that occur are sometimes lost to you. Next time, for safety’s sake, I’ll let the camera roll a little bit longer than you think you need to.

3. Not Structuring the Show Properly. The biggest flaw in “Dumbass Filmmakers!” is the structure. I originally wrote the series as four discrete 22-minute episodes. We decided to basically shoot two-and-a-half of those episodes then “worry about it in post” to break it up into webisodes. This decision caused me the single most amount of pain than any other decision associated with the show. Learn from my dumbass-ness!!! Write for the medium you’re in. If you’re making webisodes, write a five-minute webisode. Now, I’m satisfied we did the best we could to make something interesting out of the structure. But on the feature film, I’m so grateful that it’s been written as a feature, will be shot as a feature and edited as a feature. This was the biggest pain in the ass and remains the biggest flaw in the show.

4. Not playing with all the tools available ahead of time. In my defense, we had a compact schedule rolling from our short film “Winner Takes All” to this project. But I wish I’d taken more time to just play with all the tools available to me as a director ahead of time. From the Canon 5D to the Gorilla software to MindNode to Final Cut Studio, I wish I’d spent more time fooling around with these valuable creative tools so that learning would take place before the stressful schedule of making a film project.

5. Being Daddy. (It’s a boy! It’s a girl! It’s twins! It’s everybody!) Anthony Hopkins famously said, “Most actors are damaged goods.” Nina Foch, the famed acting coach whose pupils included Sean Penn, theorized that the only reason someone becomes an actor is because they are convinced that at least one of their two parents didn’t love them. Without insulting any of my amazing actors, I want to say I agree with both Hopkins and Foch. What’s more, many other creative artists in other fields related to filmmaking are similarly damaged. And when you strap on that title of “Director,” guess who is the authority figure? Guess who, consciously or unconsciously, becomes their Daddy (or Mommy as the case may be) that didn’t love them? YOU DO. And what’s more, most artists are completely unconscious of the fact that they’re playing out their unresolved parental issues (on top of their stress of juggling day jobs, acting class, friends and family). And here’s the kicker…guess what? I’m an actor, too. So I’m doing the same thing! Projecting my unresolved pain and needs onto others and wanting attention and love to fix it. However, with tight schedules, there’s really not a lot of time for a director to get caught up in being triggered but it is also, for better or worse, inevitable. So think of ‘Being Daddy’ as part of the collateral damage of ‘Being Director.’ Sometimes I was able to channel it into my own work. Sometimes I let it throw me. But on this project, there was a sense of shock that this type of projection was even happening. My head kept saying, “It SHOULDN’T be this way. It DOESN’T HAVE to be this way.” Wrong. It does have to be this way. Artists are vulnerable, damaged people and when you come together to make a movie, that’s a lot of vulnerable, damaged people in the same space (including you!). So expect yourself and others to act like triggered teenagers from time to time and roll with it the best you can. It will be this way on EVERY SINGLE PROJECT THAT YOU MAKE (that’s in any way based in the truth, at least). If you handle it properly, you and your cast may even get some healing out of it. With “Dumbass Filmmakers!” I believe we emerged from the process as better human beings (and I say again, I really do love all my actors on the show and think they’re talented and amazing), but next time it won’t be such a shock that when you deal with emotional terrain, emotions come out…one way or another. It’s normal and to be expected.

Now that I’ve learned some valuable lessons and can build on the momentum of “Dumbass Filmmakers!,” this blog will be shifting pretty much full-time to the making of “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” Hope you will enjoy the ride! And in case you’re curious, here is a peak at the first episode of “Dumbass Filmmakers!”

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).

Making Lists…and a timeline

23 Monday Jul 2012

Posted by in Development

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Today, I finally returned to tasks relating to Inside-Out, Outside-In after focusing most of my energy on the release of a web series (see below).  The two main tasks were to write down a timeline for the project and begin writing a list of potential talent for a key character.

The timeline existed before – just in my head.  But it did help to write down all the target dates as I go into high gear finding investors and collaborators.  People need to know how much of their time the project is likely to require and when milestones should occur.  I found too that whatever knowledge of film festivals that I retain is giving me a hint of how the film’s schedule might affect its initial release and which festivals may be appropriate to target.

Then, I started a list of actresses to consider for the role of Rose Meresh, a key supporting role in the film.  Making lists of actors – especially at this stage – is a whole lot of fun.  I don’t limit myself based on the actor’s status or how likely they are to do the project.  I just think in terms of the archetypal energy of the character and who might be right for it.  It also helps to crystallize the character in my mind because such a list inevitably brings up one of several ways to go with the character.  By the end of a brainstorming session, I had six or seven names on the list. One is a major movie star household name.  Another is a friend I worked with in a play a few years back. And of course, even this list can barely qualify as rough draft territory.  The casting of other roles could really impact who’s right for the role of Rose.  But she’s one of my favorites in the script, so it’s crucial I know who to approach.  Because I believe that it’s approaching the right people that matters most. If you confidently approach the right actress, you don’t just know who the character is in your GUT, you know how to articulate the essence of the character to other human beings.  And you better! Because you’ll be approaching agents, managers and actors and communicating with them about the character.  Once you’ve approached the right actor, it’s up to the “Casting Gods” whether or not your first choice comes through.  But the process teaches you so much about the character that you’ll be able to make maximum use of the actor who eventually plays the role.

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).