Category Archives: Pre-Production

The Voice of Your Film

23 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by in Casting, Development, Pre-Production, The Script

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

One of the founding principles of my production company Fatelink is our belief in the organic development of material.

What does that mean exactly and how do we organically develop material in an age when time is a precious and expensive commodity for the higher profile actors who sometimes drop in for only a day or two of rehearsal, if that?

For me, at the core of the concept of organic development of material is an idea – the idea that the material itself has a life of its own. Furthermore,  over time – the film will communicate with you and clarify what it wants to be, much like a child asserting to a parent the profession that suits their personality. I see directing films not so much as a general leading troops to battle to execute a plan, but as a meditator quietly listening to the “voice of the film” that’s already forming itself somewhere beyond our ordinary day-to-day life. Then, it’s the director’s job to support that voice and to encourage it, just as a good parent enrolls his child in karate classes when they express a desire for a career in the martial arts. The “voice of the film” doesn’t scream at you – it whispers, it entreats, it inspires and, sometimes, it vexes you, especially when the “voice of the film” wants to shoot underwater or rewrite a scene to require more speaking parts that will prompt a difficult conversation with the producer. And the “voice of the film” doesn’t speak in a rapid-fire monologue that is discoverable in one sitting. It requires a number of sittings, over time, and there is room for negotiation. Interestingly, if you really can’t afford those other actors and go back to the “voice of the film”, it may come up with an alternate idea. What I’m calling the “voice of the film” also may evolve as you the director gather information through research, thought and rehearsal.

Admittedly, filmmaking in 2017 seems particularly unsuited for this meditative directorial style. In the studio world, hiring a general makes a lot more sense. After all, they have hundreds of people to be corralled to make the film (some of them, quite frankly in my opinion, who are unnecessary). And even when the “voice of the film” begins to call out to the people involved that the plan needs to change, it’s more effective to execute the plan that was drafted before. After all, hundreds of people have committed to it (and in some cases, it seems like hundreds of people had to agree to it, too) and it’s already in motion. Studios feel they must populate their films with actors that drive box office returns, so when a fragile voice expresses, ‘we need someone with XXXX quality to embody this role, not that huge star’, it’s a business imperative to ignore that voice.

The beauty of being an independent filmmaker is that the lower budget and freedom from bureaucratic power struggles mean that the “voice of the film” has a much better chance of emerging. But don’t be fooled – even an independent film has internal political pressure and time is always a factor. So it’s important to set up your process in a way that empowers the “voice of the film” rather than disempowers it.

Here are some simple steps you can take to ensure that your film discovers and heeds its own voice in an organic way.

  1. Don’t be fooled by magical thinking that says rehearsal is unnecessary in film. I’ve heard so many director’s commentaries where it’s said that a chosen moment in the film was “the first take” and that the film did not rehearse the scene whatsoever. I’ve then heard 23-year old directors mimicking that sentiment with broad statements like, “I don’t believe in rehearsing for film.” But it’s dangerous for new and emerging filmmakers to adopt the attitude that rehearsal is something for amateurs and theatre actors. First of all, so often what underlines this attitude in newer directors is hubris rather than a genuine philosophical point of view (The subtext of that previous quote from Mr. Hot Young Director is, ‘I’m so brilliant that I don’t need rehearsal – it would only slow down the magic that is flowing from my brilliance….’). Done properly, rehearsal is a time when the “voice of the film” reveals itself and, if you’re listening, you will find a moment or two that you didn’t know existed when you wrote the screenplay. You’ll discover dialogue that’s unnecessary and other dialogue that can be simplified. You’ll realize that the intricate shot you storyboarded isn’t as important as an ordinary medium or close-up that reveals something more important…and will footnote that moment as a priority for later on set.
  2. Hire high profile actors. But don’t put them in every single role. The economic reality of independent filmmaking is that you must put some high profile actors in your film to increase your chances to sell and distribute the film. But I strongly, strongly suggest you resist the temptation to put high profile actors in every single role. Why? Usually, these actors – even when working for scale – are less available for rehearsal and conversation before the film starts. They tend to drop in on your movie for the allotted amount of time, then go away again. They do what they do extremely effectively, but you don’t want an entire cast that is under that sort of time crunch. If you have an ensemble film of seven main characters, I suggest going for high profile actors for three of the seven roles, at the most. With the other roles, choose amazing working actors that perfectly fit the archetypal quality of the character. And make sure with their agents that they are available for an extensive amount of time for rehearsals. Usually, these actors are extremely grateful to get a leading role, so you will have an easier time going out with them for coffee just to talk about the film and the role. And this time is crucial because, again, it’s simple conversations like this when the “voice of the film” starts to emerge. And you want to feel 100% confident in those conversations, rather than feeling like you owe an agent a favor for an hour’s discussion with his or her client. What I’ve seen is that once the really high profile actors come on set and realize how much development and work has gone into the film and the other characters, they are inspired to dive in and are suddenly on their A+ game, so you end up getting the best of all worlds.
  3. Storyboard the entire film. Shotlist the entire film. Again, related to the point I make in #1, I’ve heard directors as young as 21 insist that they never shotlist or storyboard their films, but rather discover everything on set. Usually, this is accompanied by some sort of statement about shotlists being too “limiting” or a desire to shoot things, “in the moment.” And again, I am skeptical of whether this mentality is hubris or just laziness. Here’s why storyboarding and shotlisting are important, other than their advantages of keeping the crew informed, organized and prepared and just having a plan generally. Storyboarding and shotlisting force a conversation with the “voice of the film” that you might otherwise be too busy to notice. Going shot by shot allows you to organically hear what your film is resisting and what makes it enthusiastic. It’s sort of a boot camp for understanding what type of film you’re directing. If you have enough of these sorts of conversations, you become attuned to the “voice of the film” so much so that if you decide there’s a scene you need to improvise, you will know how to direct that scene without a shotlist. But again, that ability to be “in the moment” can only come from the weeks of work listening and understanding the “voice of the film” through the storyboarding and shotlisting process.
  4. Read. Then Check in. Watch Movies. Then Check in. It can be difficult to separate yourself as a private individual from the film you are serving. So one simple, but effective tactic for developing the “voice of your film” is to check in with your film immediately after reading or watching a film. As an individual, you may have one reaction to a novel, poem or essay, but the film inside you may find something else of value in what you’ve just read. The same concept applies to watching films. So it’s helpful to ask the “voice of the film” inside you, ‘What did you find interesting or useful about that? You might be surprised at what comes back.
  5. Meditate. First of all, let me be honest. When it comes to meditation, I’m like an alcoholic – on the wagon, then off again. However, I have noticed that meditation helps draw up the ideas needed for a film. The process through which that happens is a bit mysterious and also important to keep private, I feel. But don’t take my word for it. Learn meditation from someone who knows what they are doing and you will see results (send a message if you’d like me to recommend someone).

These are just five out of an infinite number of ways you may begin listening to the “voice of your film.” If you have any more methods helpful to directors or screenwriters, please leave them in the comments!

 

 

Financing your indie feature – options

14 Friday Nov 2014

Posted by in Budgeting, Pre-Production

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

When people find out that I recently directed a feature film, my L.A. acquaintances are quick to offer congratulations. Once those niceties are behind us, the curious hipster oftentimes takes a breath and asks (or wants to ask), “How did you pay for it?”

In the case of “Guys Reading Poems” we used a combination of private investors and crowdfunding to raise the funds needed to make the film.

But now that I’m back in the saddle to produce “Inside-Out, Outside-In,” I face the same question: How will we pay for it?

The way I see it, there are eight options for raising money for feature films. I’m sure there are more. But this is a start.

1. Private Equity Investors – Private equity investors are people who provide capital for a film in exchange for a percentage of ownership of the film or its profits.

Upside – Private investors are great because oftentimes you get more than just the capital. Because they’re motivated for you to win back a return on their investment, they often open up their rolodex and make introductions on your behalf that might be uber helpful to the film. This can lead to even more private investors or other relevant industry contacts. A lot of investors have tremendous business savvy to have achieved the sort of wealth needed for film investment and some of that business savvy might rub off on you.

Downside – It can take time to raise money from private individuals. It can be difficult to find the first investor to take the plunge as it is generally less risky to invest in a film the closer it is to being finished. Unlike crowdfunding, you are obligated to share the success of the film in a significant way with your investors (but hey, it’s only fair…).

2. Crowdfunding – Filmmakers use Kickstarter or IndieGogo or another site to pitch the projects to family, friends and fans, hoping for financial pledges in exchange for rewards related to the film or filmmakers.Kickstarter Congrats

Upside – With crowdfunding, you are not only winning backers, but rallying the front line of your fan base for your film. Although you must provide the rewards promised to your backers, the pledge amount is not money that will need to be paid back once the film starts generating income, a big advantage for your bottom line.

Downside – Take it from me, crowdfunding is a FULL-TIME job. For the weeks of your campaign, you will need to spend at least 40 hours a week working solely on the crowdfunding. Also, if you are too shy to ask people for money DIRECTLY (and yes, I mean making phone calls – personal emails don’t cut it much less just sharing on social media), it will be very difficult for you to crowdfund effectively. Filmmakers are now also facing crowdfunding fatigue as social media is flush with opportunities to back creative projects. You also need to budget to make sure you deliver the rewards promised.

More on the opportunities and challenges of crowdfunding in a future post…

3. Slated – Full disclosure, I have never used Slated.com to finance a film. BUT it’s the most interesting option emerging for the upcoming “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” So if I get any of the particulars wrong, forgive me and go check out their site yourselves. Basically, Slated is a curated community of investors, filmmakers and film professionals that facilitates introductions between parties. You build a portfolio showcasing your project and they go out and verify that you’re telling the truth! This is awesome because it prevents shady people claiming that Jodie Foster is attached to their film, when she’s not. They also ask questions about who has put together your proposal and their level of experience in the business. Then, based on all the information available, they assign you a risk rating in terms of investment potential and you are tasked with building a network, including investors, as you improve your project’s prospects with new attachments and more capital raised.

Upside – Slated is a reputable site where qualified investors and filmmakers intersect. Both parties WANT to be there, unlike those Kickstarter and IndieGogo posts which can become tiresome in your feed. Also, as investors, these people will be rewarded if the movie is a success and can open up not just wallets, but doors, if they choose. All the benefits of the private equity investor apply here as Slated investors often fit that mold – you are just reaching them in an innovative way.

Downside – You don’t personally pick and choose every single person that has access to your ideas and pre-production details. Filmmakers can be guarded about the concept of a film or potential key art. When you are raising money through private investors, it’s always YOUR CHOICE whether you get a good vibe to pitch to any one individual and want to show them your one-sheet or share your data and materials. With Slated, investors have more liberty to view your materials, which might influence their own projects.

4. Find a Studio or production company to back you – Maybe a senior VP will fall in love with your project and the rest is history (it happens!).

Upside – You don’t have to raise the money to pay for it. You may get additional resources and more experienced hands on deck to help complete your film.

Downside – You also may get pressure to step aside in favor of a more experienced director who’s made a film for studios before. There’s also the problem of limited access. A lot of filmmakers would love a studio to back their film, but a lot fewer have the access and connections to make that happen. Even if you get your foot in the door, you may have to make artistic compromises that dilute your vision and don’t serve your long-term career goals. It can take years and years to get the fabled “green light” to move a project forward so patience is needed. You also will likely not share in as many of the profits if your project turns into a studio project (although you will likely be paid more upfront).

5. Grants – This is money given by organizations to artists and filmmakers who embody their taste and values.

My favorite grant program so far is Creative Capital. I’ve attended their application information session and they seem legit.

Upside – The money is free – sort of (your project will have to adhere to the grant’s mission in some way or another). Also, the process of winning a grant includes networking with some very smart people that may help your project in all sorts of other ways.

Downside – Getting a grant is a labor-intensive process that can take a long time. Also, even if you are successful in winning a grant, it might not be enough to complete your whole project. It is more difficult to win a grant for a project that is for-profit than non-profit. Documentarians raising funds for a not-for-profit film probably have a much better chance here than narrative feature filmmakers, in my opinion.

6. Loans – I have personally never worked on a project where bank loans or loans from institutions were used to finance a film (maybe there was a time when I borrowed ten bucks from my cousin for lemonade for our crew but that’s another story….). However, from my limited understanding, loans are the best option if you’ve almost completed a film that needs a little more capital to reach the marketplace and that film has a demonstrable value. I don’t think independent filmmakers can get a loan to make a movie from scratch but maybe some project out there will prove me wrong.

Upside – Hey, you have money that you need to finish your film. And if the film is incredibly successful, you are only obligated to pay back the loan with interest, not a percentage of the film in perpetuity.

Downside – Investors may be resentful if your loan arrangement requires that the loan is paid back before the investors start being repaid. Specific deals with investors may prevent such an arrangement.

7. Pre-Sales – Truthfully, this is not an area of independent film with which I’m terribly familiar. We did receive one offer for a pre-sales for one territory for “Guys Reading Poems” about five weeks before we went into production, but our producer thought the amount was too low and we declined the offer.

Upside – You are getting money in advance of the film being made where you might get none at all. If the movie comes out, there is no guarantee anyone will buy it.

Downside – Our situation is not unique. The people buying your film upfront will want to pay less if they are giving you money before the film is complete because there is a lot more risk for them. What if the film turns out differently than what they were expecting? That could mean gaining in the short term but losing in the long term.

8. Self-finance – It goes without saying that if you have enough cash in the bank, you can finance your own film. Technically, this is actually an outgrowth of option one. It’s just that now, you are your own private equity investor.

Upside – The upside of this arrangement is that if you have the money in the bank, it’s easy to get the capital and you have control of it.

Downside – It seemed like a good idea until you have no more money to live and pay rent. Also, if you’re not careful, using your own money can get messy. An attitude of “it’s my money and I’ll spend it how I want” might lead to sloppy record-keeping (there’s no motivation to keep great books like an outside investor that forces you to justify costs). You as a private equity investor deserve that same clarity and spending control just as if it were another investor’s money. This can often put you-as-investor in conflict with you-as-filmmaker, a weird psychic conflict. Plus, you still have obligations to keep track of what is spent and earned for taxes, etc., even if you’re the only investor.

Some filmmakers may be in that frame of mind where they say, “Screw this!” and decide to charge the entire film to their credit card or multiple credit cards. I can say – with some inside scoop – that some quality directors made their first film that way and succeeded. So I do not judge anyone who decides on that path. However, I do think that you owe it to yourself to try some of these other methods of fundraising for at least six months to a year before you take the plastic plunge, as unsecured debt is almost universally despised as a terrible move financially.

Credit Card image - Blog

—

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).

This film is not dead: The revival of “Inside-Out, Outside-In”

09 Sunday Nov 2014

Posted by in Development, Pre-Production

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Several years ago, I started this blog to chronicle the progress of “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” I was determined to direct my first feature film and wanted to share the ups and downs of the journey with like-minded creative types. Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the set….

One-sheet - "Guys Reading Poems" designed by Chris Friend

One-sheet – “Guys Reading Poems”
designed by Chris Friend

Turns out, I achieved my dream to direct my first feature film. Only, to my great surprise, that film turned out to be a completely different project than “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” “Guys Reading Poems” – a neo-noir, black-and-white feature – consumed my time and energy to the point that I wasn’t able to continue to blog here. However, now that the film is safely into post-production, I am returning to my original mission to get “Inside-Out, Outside-In” off the ground. But now the conversation is a little different. Instead of how to get a first feature film off the ground, I’m dealing with the (ever-so-slightly) better problem of how to get a second feature funded and produced. (ok so yeah, I’m bragging a little….I can’t help it.)

Let me explain.

In the beginning of 2013, I was taking meetings and pitching “Inside-Out, Outside-In” but having great difficulty raising the kind of capital needed to fund a story that takes place in both modern day Los Angeles and ancient India. I came up with an idea – almost on a whim – to combine classic poetry with an all-male secret society narrative and shot some footage relatively cheaply. The results were so good that many trusted friends and advisors suggested I continue developing “Guys Reading Poems” as a feature film. And so I did. Relatively quickly, private equity investors rallied around “Guys Reading Poems” and we were also able to crowdfund more than $40,000 to raise enough money to transform the original project into a feature. Casting also fell into place relatively quickly (actors love black-and-white, apparently, especially when the cinematographer is someone as talented as ours – Michael Marius Pessah). Patricia Velasquez (“The Mummy”, “Arrested Development”) agreed to play the female lead role and Alexander Dreymon (“American Horror Story”) – a former acting student of mine – signed on to play the male lead. Lydia Hearst (“The Face”) also liked the script and agreed to play a key supporting role and so did Rex Lee (“Entourage”) and Christos Vasilopoulos (“Banshee”). The rest of the cast was populated with talented up-and-comers Jerod Meagher (“ABCs of Death 2”), Jason Fracaro and Vincent Montuel (all of whom also took my acting class at StoryAtlas) and also Blake Sheldon (“Age of Reason”), Justin Schwan (“Cutback”), Daniel Berilla (“Kissing Darkness”), Megan Sousa and Gopal Divan. Of the entire cast, only Blake and Lydia were brand new to my life. The rest were either friends or colleagues from previous encounters on projects or in acting classes. In the case of Rex, well, he’s one of my very best friends in the world.

What can I say? I got lucky…but in a way that I could not have predicted.

Looking back, I can’t help but wonder if there was some divine guidance that brought “Guys Reading Poems” up to bat first. Like I mentioned, the budgetary requirements are less than those required for “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” There’s a great tradition of directors starting their careers in black-and-white and the neo-noir feel needed for “Guys Reading Poems” allows me to knock on the door of that club. “Guys Reading Poems” is more daring in terms of its form, whereas “Inside-Out, Outside-In” is a much more traditional narrative. There’s nothing wrong with traditional narratives (in fact, I love them) but one could argue that a more experimental approach is more likely to convince festival programmers and audiences to give a first-time director a chance. Also, since 90% of the cast were personal friends or longstanding colleagues, there was enough trust on both sides to build the type performances I admire – where the dark side of the psyche and its vulnerabilities combine with human need towards a quixotic goal or dream. As a first time director, I needed personal access to the hearts and minds of the talent and “Guys Reading Poems” offered that sort of opportunity. Along the way, I developed relationships that are crucial for my future success not only with acting talent but also investors, fellow producers, department heads, creative collaborators and crew (and yes, Shpetim Zero did the costumes for “Guys Reading Poems” as well, see below).

But now, it’s time to finish what I started with “Inside-Out, Outside-In” so you’ll be hearing from me a lot more! Over the next few weeks, I’ll try to condense some of the lessons of “Guys Reading Poems” and how I feel they might set up “Inside-Out, Outside-In” for success. Then, I’ll move into chronicling the next stages of the project.

I planned for “Inside-Out, Outside-In” to take two years to finish and start hitting the festival circuit relatively soon. Sometimes, plans don’t work out…yet, somehow, strangely, even mysteriously, dreams do.

Jason Fracaro in "Guys Reading Poems" photo by Michael Marius Pessah

Jason Fracaro in “Guys Reading Poems”
photo by Michael Marius Pessah

—

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).

 

 

 

 

Don’t underestimate the importance of wardrobe! (says designer Shpetim Zero)

22 Saturday Jun 2013

Posted by in Pre-Production, Wardrobe

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I sat down with Shpetim Zero to discuss his passion for costume design and his frustration that wardrobe decisions aren’t always given the weight and time (and budget) they deserve. Film is a visual medium and, after all, the garments worn by characters are among the most compelling and revealing visual elements of a film. We sat down to talk at my apartment in West Hollywood, with Sphetim splitting his attention between me and my pug Romeo.

Hunter: So Sphetim, when did you first get into costume design?

Shpetim: I first started doing costumes in theater, in college. But I always had a thing for clothing. Even as a kid, I used to check out clothing, shoes – it was just an innate passion, figuring out how things were made. But it took a more tactile form, a practical form when I started doing costumes for theatrical productions in Santa Barbara. Then I delved more into it and went to school for it.

Hunter: You’ve had success as a haute coutre designer. How is it different to make a garment from scratch as opposed to finding the right item for a film character?

Shpetim: It’s a craft to somehow match something to a character, but it isn’t always necessarily the ‘right’ or ‘perfect’ thing. But when you’re building it, you can actually start the energy of the costume within the character’s energy so that it becomes fully, exactly what you want. This mostly comes in terms of fantasy. Things are made when we do things in fantasy.

Garment designed and constructed by Shpetim Zero.

Garment designed and constructed by Shpetim Zero.

Hunter: Sounds like you prefer to build.

Shpetim: I prefer to build because you actually create a look. And you can manipulate a look. You can manipulate a look better by building it than by trying to find it. It’s a lot more work, but it actually saves time cause you’re not running around town finding things. But with budgets…

Hunter: Sure, low budgets…

Shpetim: Right, it can be a problem. But if you do have a budget or a semi-budget, I prefer to build things. But even finding things, you can be innovative. You can do a lot.

Hunter: Like I thought that what you found for Jerod in the reading really worked and helped bring that character to life.

Shpetim: It was limited. The shirt didn’t actually fit that well. Certain things could be made if we had a budget. But it’s actually okay not to have a budget. You can still be innovative.

Hunter: What are your favorite movies, in terms of costumes?

Shpetim: The three I like the most all have ‘beauty’ in their names. So, Dangerous Beauty, Stealing Beauty and Stage Beauty.  Dangerous Beauty was all done by Gabriella Pescucci. It was all done by Tirelli costume house, which is in Rome. We’re talking about real renassaince costumes, complete real constructions. Stealing Beauty is Bernardo Bertolucci.

Hunter: Oh yeah, he’s good.

Shpetim: Yeah in terms of movies, you could take Hellboy…who cares about the story line? But in terms of costuming and what Del Toro did with the look of that film….costume-wise that film is beyond brilliant. Or Underworld. I don’t even care about the story, but the clothing structure that was built and corsetry were BEYOND, you know what I’m saying? So I look at movies just for the clothing sometimes.

Hunter: Well, that makes sense because of your passion. That’s how you hook into it. So let me ask you this, in terms of the business side of these designers making clothing for film, are these designers making their money from costume design for film or is that just giving them the prestige to leverage into other things?

Garment designed by Shpetim Zero

Garment designed by Shpetim Zero

Shpetim: You make money creating collections that go into mass production. The companies that make money in the fashion world are the companies that do mass production wear. American Apparel. Diesel. Bebe. Zara, internationally. Gap. These are the companies that actually make money because they’re selling to the masses. Selling to the masses is not necessarily creating innovative collections. Innovative collections are created to attract attention, but then you start selling to the masses.

Costume designing is extremely different than fashion designing. They’re two separate entities. They are related, in terms of design. They’re like branches of the same tree.

Hunter: Kind of like theater acting and film acting?

Shpetim: Even more distant than that. They’re very distant branches. Because costume designing, especially here in L.A., just deals with buying shit. No one is REALLY costume designing unless it’s Anna Karenina.

Hunter: I love that film.

Shpetim: Films like that are actually building. And even then, sometimes only the costumes for the main actors are being built, not the rest. Because there’s not enough budget.

Hunter: Not enough money, right?

Shpetim: Right.  So for a project like Inside-Out, Outside-In, we’re not building.  The creativity that comes into it is creating that “essence” that you’re trying to achieve and you have to be open to interpretation when you don’t have much of a budget. But I really want you to take a look at Hellboy and the creative aspect of what was done, in terms of puppetry and building. Innovative. Innovative. Innovative.

[AT THIS POINT WE TAKE A BREAK IN OUR INTERVIEW TO CHECK OUT IMAGERY FROM HELLBOY]

Hunter: You’ve told me before that you sometimes feel your department is underestimated. Tell me about that.

Shpetim: Costume designing is really crucial because it’s creating almost 50-75% of the first impact, visually. So I think it’s really important, whether it’s a fantasy, whether it’s a period piece or whether it’s current day, costume is very important. And it doesn’t get as much respect as it should just because people don’t understand it. They take it for granted, like the mother’s love. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

Hunter: Even if you have a low budget production, you can still make sure the costumes fit properly. You can still make sure the color palette is right.

Shpetim: Yeah! You can’t use my wardrobe in your projects any more, though.

Hunter: OK.

Shpetim: You can find wardrobe, but not the costume designer’s wardrobe.

[WE LAUGH. AND IN MY MIND, I’M HOPING HE IS JOKING, NOT SETTING A BOUNDARY. SUCH IS MY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MAGICAL AND MERCURIAL SHPETIM ZERO]

SHpe

Designer Shpetim Zero, smelling the roses.

—

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).

Abhaya in the world….

30 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by in Pre-Production, Wardrobe

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

First sketch from costume designer Shpetim Zero of “Abhaya in the World.” (As opposed to Abhaya…in the monastery).

Look out for an interview with Shpetim soon! We cover everything from costume design vs fashion design, creating a look on a low budget and the spiritual challenges of creativity. Plus, Shpetim reveals the three movies with best costume design ever. (Hint: They all have the word ‘Beauty’ in the title).

Abhaya in the world copy

“Abhaya in the World.” Sketch by Shpetim Zero, who is prepping the costumes for indie feature film “Inside-Out, Outside-In.”

Inside Storyboards…

07 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by in Pre-Production

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

This week, I began collaborating with filmmaker and storyboard artist Monte Patterson to design the look of “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” Monte just moved to Hollywood from Indiana, emboldened by his successful short film “Caught” and his intriguing film blog “The Final Image,” which already boasts well over 100,000 followers (more on this in another post soon). So I knew I was in good hands as Monte stopped by my office. We flipped open the script and started talking shots.

As an “Actor’s Director,” I know I’m not going to go on the set and think up shots on the fly. Visualizing shots requires me to master a new language beyond the realm of acting and creating narratives, so storyboards become an even more essential way of testing out ideas and working things out in advance. It’s also insurance that I’ll be able to communicate what I want to the cinematographer and other departments. With enough preparation and hard work, your biggest challenge can become your biggest asset (or so I believe. More on owning your own skill set as a director in the next post…). With my skill set, background, taste and ambition, I can’t imagine doing a feature film without storyboards for each and every shot.

I knew I wanted to contain the action in as few shots as possible, both because I don’t see the film as a frenetic, fast-paced film with lots of arbitrary close-ups and to keep camera set-ups to a minimum. Also, it’s important to me that we have fun with the play-within-a-movie motif and to use a little savvy as we employ the illumination provided by the theatre lights.

Here are the results of our work together. Monte beautifully rendered two shots from a scene described in a post here. From darkness, stage lights suddenly turn on to illuminate a lone figure standing on stage in a wide shot. We cut in from the wide to see erstwhile performer Nathaniel Quinn enjoying a moment of theatre play, recapturing glory days, only to be “caught” by his producing partner Dorothy as she enters backstage in anticipation of their day auditioning actors.

What we’ve got so far:

Storyboard by Monte Patterson.

Storyboard by Monte Patterson.

After the punch in from the wide, Nathaniel lifts his fist in mock triumph on the stage and says, “Enter Stage Right. A young man, filled with hope, crosses to the most beautiful girl he’s ever seen.” Nathaniel realizes that his face has softened with tears, feeling the opposite of the sentiment he expressed. From behind him, we hear a woman enter….

Storyboard by Monte Patterson

Storyboard by Monte Patterson

Nathaniel quickly puts his fist down and turns. The camera dollies and pans to reveal Dorothy entering from the darkness of backstage. She says, “Sorry, I’m late.” Nathaniel replies, “You’re not late.”

OK, so I don’t want to give away the whole scene, but that’s enough to give you a taste. Huge thank you to Monte for his beautiful drawings and I look forward to sharing more with you. In the meantime, hope you will check out some more posts about our movie and enjoy Monte’s blog at “The Final Image.”

What do you think of the first storyboards? Ideas? Questions?

– Hunter

—

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).

Stripboard Heaven: Top Five Strategies for Scheduling my Indie Feature Film

11 Tuesday Dec 2012

Posted by in Pre-Production, Scheduling

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Last night, I sat in front of Gorilla (and no, not the primate variety) and whipped up the rough draft schedule for my feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.”

Sample of a stripboard for the web series "Dumbass Filmmakers!"

Sample of a stripboard for the web series “Dumbass Filmmakers!“

My previous producing work on the short film “Winner Takes All” (a four day shoot) and the 68-minute web series “Dumbass Filmmakers!” (a 13 day shoot, including re-shoots) taught me quite a lot about what works and doesn’t work when it comes to scheduling. But neither project required as much ingenuity and brainpower as this new schedule for the feature film (a 24 day shoot – hey, a boy can dream!). Here are the strategies I used in drawing up the schedule.  Do you agree with my approach? Please tell me now before I screw up my movie!

Top Five Strategies for the Schedule of “Inside-Out, Outside-In”

1. Location, location, location.  The most obvious consideration in scheduling a low-budget feature is location. Thinking creatively about which locations can double up for different scenes is a big part of the process. The most stressful part of a shoot for me is a company move and especially stressful are two company moves that take place within the same day. Under the schedule I drew up, we’d be at one location for six days in a  row (an entire week for us), a second location six days in a row (another week) and three locations for three days each. I’ve tried to schedule in a way that minimizes company moves and maximizes use of location.

2. Starting with scenes where I don’t have to act. Since I’m acting in the film as well as directing, I thought it was important to start out shooting scenes in which I don’t have to act. So, I’ve made sure I wasn’t acting for the first three-and-a-half days of the schedule. I feel this is about the right amount of time needed for a crew to start to get into the groove of shooting before absorbing the shock of the director needing to be both in front and behind the camera. This strategy worked well on the web series, so I’m keen to repeat it.

3. Keeping the days for potential “star parts” to a minimum. There are three parts for which I’m considering well-known actors. The first part – a delightful part that’s been played by a talented celebrity friend at the last two readings – I’ve arranged to shoot only TWO days. This is incredible to me.

Sample 'Day out of Days' report for "Dumbass Filmmakers!"

Sample ‘Day out of Days’ report for “Dumbass Filmmakers!“

The second potential “star” part shoots three days. And I’ve managed to keep the main antagonist “star” part to eight days. Very manageable. The rest of the film will be populated with less-known actors who have fewer scheduling conflicts. Making the schedule easy on potential “stars” makes it that much more likely that they will say, “Yes.” At least, that’s my thinking. Plus, if you end up having to pay them more than other folks, you’ve limited the cost of that star. It just makes sense. To call an agent and say you’re producing an indie film and have a great three-day part for so-and-so sounds more reasonable to them than expecting a star client to headline your film when not many have heard of you. Plus, sometimes stars bring additional headaches on the set, however inadvertently. The crew might be distracted by them or you might need more resources to deal with a star, like an extra production assistant assigned to them. So limiting the days they work limits the amount of resources going to them. In both “Winner Takes All” and “Dumbass Filmmakers!” we had known personalities and in both cases they only shot two days.  Remember, no matter how many minutes a star appears in your project, they are still in your film! So for super low budget productions, I think it’s smarter to use stars for meaty, juicy supporting roles that can be shot out quickly than for huge lead roles that might require 15 days and weigh down the production.

4. Shooting the subplot last (in case we run out of money). My film includes an intricately designed subplot that supports and pays off the primary plot. It’s essential for the film. However, God forbid, if we did run out of money somehow, I think it’s more important to have the main plot in the can before the subplot. Worse comes to worse, I can always go back and raise more money and shoot out the subplot a few weeks or months later. But I would hate to interrupt the momentum of the actors from the main plot for any reason. And it is the subplot. So if we’re behind and have to shorten it from six days to two or three, we can make hard decisions without it affecting the bulk of the story.

5. Shooting the scenes that require extras on the same day (and on a Saturday).  There are three scenes that require extras in the script and all are relatively short. One takes place outside at a rally, the next indoors at a conference room and the final scene takes place at a house party. If the scenes were long, I’d say I was crazy for scheduling them for the same day. And maybe I am. But my thinking is…we get the scenes with extra’s done all at the same time. Obviously, this is the day we’ll have to provide more food, hire more production assistants, etc. And we’ll have to ensure that we find locations very close to one another or even on the same grounds. But the rally can easily take place outside a building that would house a conference room. Then, I’m just hoping we find the “house party” location nearby. And it’s certainly reasonable in the realm of the story that some of these extra’s can double up and appear in more than one scene. If I’ve got willing extras, might as well use the hell out of them. So I scheduled these three “extras” scenes for the first Saturday. Granted, it’s gonna be one helluva day. But since we’re scheduled to take Sunday off, at least people have some recovery time to deal with all those extra people on the set before we go to a much more controlled setting the next Monday. Plus, since we’re going to be under the SAG ULB contract, we don’t have to pay the extras and I figure it will be easier to recruit volunteers on a Saturday than any other day of the week because of the work schedules involved.

So…that’s my strategy on the first rough schedule, What do you think? Wisdom or foolery? Let me know, my fellow DIY filmmaker friends.

—

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).

So you’ve raised $2,500. What do you buy first? Filmmaker-distributor Rob Williams discusses DIY indie filmmaking

10 Monday Dec 2012

Posted by in Casting, Interviews, Release

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Rob Williams isn’t just a filmmaker, he and his partner Rodney Johnson have created Guest House Films, which distributes movies primarily for the gay audience. I met Rob after they acquired rob williamsFatelink’s film “Winner Takes All” for their “Black Briefs” collection, which went on to hit number one on TLAGay.com‘s sales chart for LGBT titles. Rob talked with us about his new film “The Men Next Door” and about the process of making a film from incorporating to casting to finding the right distributor. And, yep, he answers that question. What should you do with the first $2,500 you raise?

Hunter: You’ve gotten to the promised land of indie filmmaking and by that I mean, you haven’t just directed one film. You’ve directed six! How has the craft and business of filmmaking changed between your first feature and “The Men Next Door“?

Rob: For me, filmmaking has become easier for two reasons – (1) I’ve gained experience on each film, which lets me better anticipate problems and hopefully be more creative with my work; and (2) changing technology makes for easier camera purchase or rental,  software availability, distribution options, etc. And we have spent a lot of time working on building Guest House Films since we shot our first film, and while the business end of it never gets easier, perseverance definitely pays off.

Hunter: I’m beginning to get a little suspicious of aspiring filmmakers who tell me that the only reason they haven’t made a movie is they have no one to finance it. What advice can you give filmmakers to get over that hurdle? Or, with digital technology, is that just an excuse at this point?

Rob: I think the combination of digital technology and crowd-sourced fundraising (such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo) make it easier than ever to make a movie without any excuses. You can buy or rent a high-quality digital camera for very little money, find actors and crew members willing to work for little or no wages (though I always recommend paying every member of your cast and crew), edit the movie on your computer, and release it online. That’s where the real indie filmmakers are turning these days, and with a little imagination and a lot of hard work, anyone can get their movie made. Now, whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is another question!

Hunter: Are you functioning as your own movie studio in terms of owning equipment, editing facilities, in-house graphics? How much stuff do you rent/farm out versus keep in-house? And if an indie filmmakers has $1500-$2500 to invest in equipment or software, what would you advise as the first purchase?

Rob: We have always believed in doing what we can do well, and then farming out the rest. For us, that means hiring a good director of photography, editor, music composer, graphic designer and all of the other positions that make a movie stand out, and allowing us to focus on the writing, directing, producing and distribution. But we’ve never really invested in equipment for one reason – technology changes incredibly fast. That amazing HD camera that costs $2,500 today might be completely obsolete in a year or two. My advice to an indie filmmaker with that amount of start-up capital would be to find a good attorney and use that money to incorporate their business and get the basic legal paperwork done so that they can move forward with building their brand.

Hunter: How do you keep the casting process streamlined and efficient? Casting is one of those things that a lot of indie filmmakers don’t budget for – they figure it’s two days borrowing an office and buying some doughnuts for the guy helping you video the auditions. But if the casting process takes a month…well…that gets expesnsive, right? Time is money. How do you keep on track?

Rob: Casting should never be an expensive process. We keep track of actors we like, and if there is an opportunity to work with them, we’ll try to bring them in. It’s much easier to find an actor you like and who is good, and approach them directly, than to hold a huge cattle call. But if we have to, we post on online casting sites, carefully comb through submissions and keep the audition process to a minimum. And if that doesn’t work, we ask fellow filmmakers – referrals are the absolute best way to find good actors. If another director or producer can vouch for someone’s talent and work ethic, that goes a long way with me.

Hunter: Of course, as an old school romantic, it seems totally awesome that you make movies with your partner Rodney at your side. Is it fun to be able to develop as a filmmaker with someone you care about so much?

Rob: Absolutely! It’s great that we have been able to start our company together, work together to make it grow, work on each film together and share in the rewards. We are both passionate about filmmaking and dedicated to producing the best films we can.

Hunter: You and I have talked a little bit about the evolution of LGBT film. Are you seeing any trends in how the films are maturing? Or are they maturing at all? Should a young LGBT filmmaker still make his “coming out” story if that’s what moves him? Or are certain stories deemed too “passe” and others “hip”?

Rob: It’s tempting to say that we’re moving into a “post-gay” world of filmmaking, where the characters’ sexual orientation is irrelevant. But that’s just not true, especially for people like me who want to make gay-themed films. Hollywood films may incorporate more and more gay characters in a nonchalant way, but indie gay films are made for the gay audience. Our viewers want to see their lives reflected onscreen (or perhaps see what they wish their lives would be). I wouldn’t ever tell a filmmaker to stay away from any particular genre, because we need filmmakers to tell stories that are important to them, that move them and that could resonate with their viewers. Sure, coming-out stories have been done to death, but if someone has a fresh take on it, they should go for it. Good storytelling transcends genre.

Hunter: You’ve now branched into distribution with the “Black Briefs” and “Blue Briefs” collections of gay shorts. (And we’re especially grateful since it includes our own “Winner Takes All”). How did this bridge to distribution happen for Guest House Films and why did you feel it was important? Is being a distributor more or less fun than the producing?

Rob: After dealing with distributors for our first four films, Guest House Films made the decision to get into distribution with our fifth feature film, “Role/Play,” taking advantage of the relationships we had built over the years and the increasing ease with which filmmakers can get their own products out to the public. After the success of “Role/Play,” we saw an opportunity to get other people’s films out there, particularly short films. There are so many amazing gay-themed short films produced every year, and so few ever get seen outside of film festivals, and we’re glad we can help filmmakers get their work seen. It’s a lot of work, but it’s also very gratifying to see these great films reach a wider audience.

Hunter: I know and many others in the community know your reputation for honestly caring about LGBT filmmakers and being honest in business, which is amazing in a field rife with piracy and “creative accounting.” What are the biggest ethical pitfalls that young filmmakers face and what are some strategies for staying true to yourself?

black briefs

Rob’s collection of dark short films landed on the top of TLAGay.com’s sales chart in 2012.

Rob: The biggest pitfall young or first-time filmmakers encounter is accepting the first offer they receive or not doing their research about distributors. Before signing anything, filmmakers should ask around and find out exactly what they’re getting into. If they want to stay true to themselves and to what they want to do, they should focus on developing good scripts and finding good actors, and then simply make the movies they want to make. Don’t let anyone tell you what you should or should not make – create the movies that mean something to you, and that will make it resonate with others.

Hunter: Thanks for your time, Rob. I think it’s exciting that you’re going all the way with DIY and distributing product yourselves, making more money on your own films and providing a platform for newer artists to gain exposure and a financial foothold in the market. 🙂

—

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).

Seeking Actors for Investors’ Reading/Character Breakdown

12 Monday Nov 2012

Posted by in Casting, Pre-Production

≈ Leave a comment

We will do a staged reading of “Inside-Out, Outside-In” for potential investors and invited guests sometime the week of December 3rd (exact date TBD). There may be more roles forthcoming but for now, here are some of the roles we are seeking:

Jason Quinn, 27, Caucasian, part Irish, dark hair, very attractive. Struggling leading man becomes convinced by his manipulative agent to toy with the affections of a talented gay filmmaker so that he might win a lead role in a feature film, despite being straight and having serious moral/ethical reservations. Lead. Torn between living life authentically vs. “playing the game” to get ahead. Must be comfortable playing a seduction scene with a man (no nudity, no kissing).

Peter Hearndon, 50-55, prefer African-American, but open to other ethnicities. Hard-nosed, successful businessman, imposing presence. Lead. His gay sexuality may’ve caused some to discriminate against him throughout his life, but that’s only made him more motivated to conquer in the boardroom. Senses he may be losing control of his business, but fighting all the way.

Abhaya, mid 20s, male, Indian monk, playful and spiritual renegade who tries to convince a lover to take leave of a regimented life and experience all that the world has to offer. Supporting.

Angela (and company) – mid 40s, female, quirky production designer who’s confounded by the director’s confusing and conflicting directives for creating the set. Same actress will also play multiple other roles in the reading. Supporting.

Ian – male, 30s, red hair preferred, Irish background, Irish accent. Tough heavy-for-hire who doesn’t lack charm and a sense of humor. Real Irish guys preferred. Supporting.

To submit, please send your headshot/resume via mail to: Fatelink, 7083 Hollywood Blvd., 5th Floor, Hollywood, CA 90028 or email your headshot/resume to: casting@fatelink.com (reasonable size photos please). Please include the name of the role for which you’d like to be considered on the envelope or in the subject line of the email. Auditions will be held between Wednesday, November 14th and Tuesday, November 20th at our office in Hollywood.

Many thanks,

Hunter Lee Hughes

Writer-Director, “Inside-Out, Outside-In”

IMDb link here.

Some of our past work:

www.vimeo.com/channels/fatelink

www.youtube.com/fatelinkproductions

—

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).

A Breakdown Is Coming!! (And no, not the emotional kind….) – Five keys to success…

09 Friday Nov 2012

Posted by in Casting, Pre-Production

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Next week, I’ll release a breakdown of some of the characters from “Inside-Out, Outside-In” as I cast our December reading for invited guests and potential investors. I’ll be putting the breakdown right here on the blog, as well as on our Facebook fan page a few days before sending it out over traditional avenues like Breakdown Services to give our motivated collaborators and fans a chance to get the one-up on submitting for parts.

What is a breakdown exactly? Well, it’s a summary of short descriptions of characters and their essential qualities for the purposes of casting, along with some contact information. Filmmakers send them into the world with the hopes that agents, managers and quality actors will submit candidates (or themselves) to play a part that matches what we’re seeking. Here’s an example of a breakdown from the web series “Dumbass Filmmakers!” – Fatelink’s last project.

Character breakdown for “Dumbass Filmmakers!”

There are a few questions that naturally come up when writing these breakdowns. First of all, how much information do you reveal about the character? How much plot? I generally think fears of other people stealing your ideas are a bit paranoid. Let me clarify. I do think people might try to steal your ideas and characters, but the chance for them to pull it all off before your film is finished is not too high. And good luck to them! But still, as an artist, one of your assets is knowing what you’re trying to build, while others do not. So while I don’t like to fall into the trap of being paranoid to reveal any information, I don’t want to reveal too much. And plus, at this level, you need people to get excited about the project and become a little curious about it, so giving out a little information works in your favor. If you’re already Woody Allen, well then, you probably think I’m a dumb shit and aren’t reading this blog anyways, but if you are in that position, I don’t blame you for keeping everything about your story an absolute secret.

In terms of actors submitting to breakdowns, here are my pet peeves as a director. So I offer them with the hopes that they might help somebody more effectively respond to a breakdown, mine or anyone else’s.

Top Five Director’s Pet Peeves at Dealing with Breakdowns (and how to successfully navigate them):

1. Receiving submissions that are “way off” in terms of the character description. Trust me, I’ve given a lot of thought to why a character is a certain gender, age, nationality, temperament, etc. So please don’t completely disregard the breakdown and submit yourself if you’re clearly wrong for the part. And if you are going to gamble and submit against the character type, take the time to explain to me why you believe you’re right for it even if it goes against some major part of the description. (In my life, I have changed a character from male to female once based on an actress’ audition, but this is rare and she was right for the part in all the other aspects). If you at least offer an explanation, I know that you have something in mind, rather than just rudely disregarding what I said that I needed.

2. Receiving high-resolution photos that mess up my email account. Please be kind. I’m dealing with an email account that has a limited capacity for space. So if you send me your headshot as a 24 GB file, I’m going to hate you for a minute and may not even wait the requisite time for it to download. And here’s a hint – if you send in a hard copy of your headshot/resume and I like it, I will file it and keep it. And I do go over those files every now and then. Maybe it’s retro, but if hard copy is available as a submission option, I believe it’s worth it. If you don’t know how to size down your headshot to a jpeg of reasonable email size, please teleport back to the late 1990s.

3. Feeling “guilt-tripped” by friends trying to get a part. If you’re my friend, I already think you’re talented and amazing, so don’t ask me to prove it by giving you a part out of guilt. “Hey! You’ve NEVER cast me in anything,” complain some people. Or others, “I came to see both your plays! Isn’t it time we worked together?” I value my friends. I value people who support my work and take time to see it. And I want to work with my friends, all things being equal. But hey! I don’t owe anyone a part. And it’s not fair to guilt me into casting you. If you’ve supported my work in the past only to get a role in the future, well at least be savvy about that and don’t tell me. Know that if there’s ever a part that’s on-the-money for a friend that I know can hit it out of the park, you will likely get the part, all things being equal. If I’m not sure you’re on-the-money for it, it’s just business and we have to see if it will work out or not.

4. Liking an actor for the part, only to later discover he’s unavailable for the dates required. Listen, I know these sound like basic things. But believe me, actors disregard them all the time (or the agents do by not knowing the schedules of their own actors). Our reading is going to take place in December. So if you’re going home to Nebraska for the entire month, please do not submit! We’ll catch up on the next project, the next breakdown and c’ la vie! I really do understand the desire to expand your network or take an audition just for experience, but when you do so knowing that you are ultimately unavailable to work, you are in bad faith with the casting director/producer/director calling you in and this is a reflection on your character. And to an indie film director, character counts because we often don’t even carry insurance on the actors, so we are relying on you to be truthful and forthright about your schedule. So I say, “Don’t submit unless you are available for the dates required!”

5. Having actors flake because they are uncomfortable with the material. Listen, I have produced a number of projects and films with an LGBT element. I’m also from Texas and a family filled with “red state” Christian conservatives. So I really do understand if an actor isn’t comfortable with material I write. If you see in the breakdowns that it’s a gay character, then it’s a gay character. I’m not going to change it. And if you don’t want to play that character, don’t submit for it in the first place. Or, if you do submit, then read the sides and decide you’re not comfortable, simply call and cancel or email and cancel with enough notice for us to fill your slot. What is not cool is being so uncomfortable that you can’t man up (or woman up) and let us know you’re not coming to the audition. It’s also very rude to your fellow actors. That slot could’ve been filled. There are plenty of amazing actors – gay, straight, bi or questioning – that have no issues playing gay roles. And one of them could’ve auditioned for us in your place. A no-show/no-call is almost a 100% guarantee that you won’t be called in for anything in the future. Again, as indies, we don’t always carry insurance on the actors and I simply can’t risk someone flaking and not showing up on set. If you’re uncomfortable with the character, but  cancel your audition respectfully, I might get a better sense of you and might bring you in for something different the next time around, no hard feelings. That’s how we do it in Texas.

Ok, so that’s my advice for submitting for roles and avoiding running into a director’s pet peeves (at least this director’s pet peeves).  Now, look out for the breakdown next week, which will be released to this blog and to our Facebook fan page. And hope you all keep making movies.

—

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).