I opened up my inbox and saw and saw an e-mail subject line that read “Weather Channel Adds Feature Films to Network Schedule”. I immediately clicked on the headline thinking iI would find a link to another brilliant parody from The Onion, or maybe a video from FunnyOrDie or College Humor. I was surprised to discover that the e-mail was not a joke, but an actual press release.
That’s right, The Weather Channel is going to start airing feature films, movies which are in some way weather themed, beginning with The Perfect Storm. Remember the days when you could turn on MTV and see music videos? Well it appears the days where you could tune into the Weather Channel for weather forcasts might be soon behind us as well. Not that I care that much. If I need a weather forcast, I’ll go online, or turn on my iPhone and open the Weather app (yes, there is an app for that too…). I think it’s more of the principal that bothers me, the idea of it all. And who is really going to tune to the Weather Channel to watch Misery? Really… - Peter Sciretta
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
God Is Our Space Pilot: Does every Sci-Fi show need Jesus now?
(warning, spoilers ahead for many scifi shows)
Science fiction TV shows used to be about scientists playing God — now our intrepid heroes meet God, instead. The overt religious discussions on Battlestar Galactica stood out as unusual, but now every SF show brandishes a bible. What happened?
Oh, and there are some spoilers for upcoming TV shows here.
We can't help noticing the odd religious moments in a lot of the fall's biggest SF TV shows, and how shoehorned-in the references to God or the Bible often seem to be. Unlike Firefly, which featured a man of God as one of its major supporting characters and naturally sparked theological discussions, or BSG, which took place during an apocalypse, the newest crop of shows seems determined to mention God even when it doesn't make that much sense.
Take the scene above from the season opener of Fringe, where FBI agent Amy Jessup goes through all of the Fringe Division's cases and compares them with Bible verses — it's all in the Book Of Revelation! (Thanks to Meredith for suggesting this one.)
Or FlashForward, whose pilot includes one character who randomly questions whether God gave everyone on Earth a glimpse of the future as a punishment. Leaving aside the fact that clairvoyance seems like an odd shape for divine punishment to take. There's also the fact that the slutty/Christian babysitter just happens to be making out with her boyfriend (while the girl she's looking after is asleep) and thus feels guilty — so she decides that God gave the entire world a future vision just to punish her for making whoopie on the couch. Make sense? Absolutely not. Unless you think that some studio exec in a meeting said, "We need a religious angle here. There oughta be one character who decides that this was all God's doing. Because that'll play well in the God states."
And then there's V, which — spoiler alert — has aliens visiting us and claiming to be benefactors, who've come to help us. Plenty of people are suspicious of these allegedly enlightened visitors, but then we meet a Catholic priest who's decided to preach that these aliens are "God's creatures," with the implication being that they're sent by God. And the priest tells his underling, Father Jack, that he must preach the aliens are divinely sanctioned — or else. It's even sort of implied (if I remember correctly) that the Vatican has made support for the aliens official policy. WTF? Why would the Catholic church come out in support of random aliens that we know nothing about? It's one of the few moments in the V pilot that literally makes no sense whatsoever, and it inspired much head-scratching when we saw it at Comic Con.
And then there's Stargate Universe, which — spoiler alert again! — has a character experience weird religious visions for no discernable reason in its second episode. (Or third, if you count the two-hour pilot as two episodes.) It's never entirely clear why one character, stuck on a weird, inhospitable planet, is having visions of being in church and talking to a priest, and it seems partly designed to give us a chunk of this character's backstory. But it also feels like a quick-and-dirty way of conveying that this character is having a spiritual wandering-in-the-wilderness thing, without actually having to create any real religious/spiritual content to go with it. It feels a bit cheap: he's in the wilderness, and he sees some churchy stuff. Oh! So that means it's deeply symbolic or something.
And of course, Dollhouse gave us the ultra-stereotypical "Christian cult with guns" in one of its first-season episodes — the one where Echo gets turned into a blind religious zealot with cameras in her eyes, and everybody's sorta Amish and sorta Mormon.
Honestly at times, watching current SF TV it's hard not to feel like someone watched too many early John Woo movies and thought "church with birds in it — deep!" Or maybe too many early 1980s New Wave videos, where Duran Duran dance around pews and it randomly turns black and white. (And yes, I know that those videos are directed by Highlander auteur Russell Mulcahy.) But it also feels like a bit of pandering to a Christian nation that's perceived as being a bit suspicious of science-y stuff.
The Genesis of religion in SF TV
Once, it seemed like religious iconography and rhetoric was rare in science fiction — the original Star Trek confronted Captain Kirk and his crew with Greek gods, as well as godlike aliens who just wanted to toy with our heroes. You might have a hysterical crewman babble something about "If God had wanted us to go into space, etc," and the Roman episode did end with Uhura staring at the camera and saying the rebels were worshipping "the son of God." But these were just grace notes. (We won't get into Star Trek V, since that was a movie, and it came much later, and it makes the head hurt.)
After Trek, you certainly had the occasional SF program where the good guys were confronted with bog-standard space gods, who were notably free of any religious dogma that people on Earth could recognize. In fact, one reason why space gods are so often ridiculous and campy is the fact that they're trying so hard to be ecumenical. One common SF trope, over the decades, was the "meeting the real-life alien behind the ancient Earth myth — but this was usually the creature who inspired the Aztecs or the Egyptian religions, not the Judeo-Christian deal.
But in general, when television SF did grapple with religion prior to recent years, it was to reveal religious icons as aliens, using high technology to impress the superstitious. It wasn't until the final couple of seasons of Stargate SG-1 that this "superstitious humans worshipping aliens" storyline seemed to be an overt critique of organized religion. The show suddenly introduced a new antagonist for our heroes, a set of "ascended" (non-corporeal) aliens called the Ori, who encourage humans to worship them and preach from the Book of Origin. Writes blogger Chris Bateman in his 10-part essay on religion in science fiction:
Bateman theorizes that the producers of SG-1 were aghast at the Bush Administration's war in Iraq and wanted to satirize what they perceived as a right-wing Christian crusade against Islam. To some extent, The 4400 also seemed to be taking jabs at organized religion on occasion.
But before SG-1 introduced the Ori, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine took a huge leap forward in introducing religious themes to SF, with the Prophets, aka the "wormhole aliens." For most of DS9's run, you could choose to believe the secular theory that the Prophets were merely interdimensonal aliens, who lived outside space/time and saw future and past as the same thing. But towards the end of the show's run, the messianic overtones around Benjamin Sisko made it harder and harder to sit on the fence. And meanwhile, Babylon 5 won praise for including characters of faith (including a Catholic commander, and a group of Catholic monks who come to live on the station) as well as including religion in many of its storylines.
Most recently, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles included Agent Ellison, who's frequently shown to be a Baptist, and religious references became more and more predominant in the show (which is about the actual apocalypse, so it does make sense to bring it up.) Most fans of BSG would agree that the show's monotheist/polytheist divide made it a much richer experience than a simple robots-vs-humans show would have been otherwise — regardless of how you may feel about the Baltar Cult, and the hand-wavy "Starbuck turns into ZZ Top" ending. And it's pure blasphemy to suggest that Firefly would be better without Shepherd Book.
The rise of Space Jesus?
Lately, though, it's seemed almost required to have some kind of religious discussion among a TV show's themes — and it's more likely to be Christian rather than some kind of vague Space Religion (TM) or misty spirituality.
Religion is part of society, and including religious points of view makes your world seem more realistic and three-dimensional — it would seem odd if science fiction on television never included a religious viewpoint, just as it would if people never mentioned politics at all. At the same time, there are ways to include religion that make sense (Firefly and T:SCC come to mind immediately) and ways to include it that feel gratuitous and weird (the Vatican is endorsing the aliens!)
And yes, when you throw in religion in a nonsensical way, it either feels like you're going for a cheap effect, or like you're pandering to religious people. Add to that the fact that scientists and people who use pure empiricism to deal with problems are far and few between — Walter Bishop and maybe the twisted Topher on Dollhouse are our only real avatars of tech nerdhood that I can think of off the top of my head. It's become a taboo in televised science fiction to show people doing science.
The show that's handling religion in the most fascinating manner right now is Supernatural, which is modern fantasy rather than science fiction. In the last year or so, angels have joined the show's long-standing demon characters — and now Lucifer himself is roaming around. And there are lots of hints that we'll actually be meeting God this season at some point. Theological discussions over why God allowed all of the horrors of the 20th century to happen are automatically more fascinating when they come out of the mouths of actual Angels, and the fact that the Archangels believe that God is dead makes for fascinating viewing.
So consider this a plea for more thoughtful portrayals of religion in science fiction — and fewer random, thoughtless, kitchen-sink inclusions. People who watch science fiction are smart. We can tell when we're being pandered to, and when we're being spoonfed religious ideas just because it makes your show seem more "mythic" or "relevant." Religion can make your science-fiction story feel like it takes place in a world we can relate to, and it can deepen your characters and add another layer to your story — or, in the wrong hands, it can feel like a random piece of baggage, tacked on to your story for spurious, external reasons. We can usually tell the difference between the two. - Charlie Jane Anders
Science fiction TV shows used to be about scientists playing God — now our intrepid heroes meet God, instead. The overt religious discussions on Battlestar Galactica stood out as unusual, but now every SF show brandishes a bible. What happened?
Oh, and there are some spoilers for upcoming TV shows here.
We can't help noticing the odd religious moments in a lot of the fall's biggest SF TV shows, and how shoehorned-in the references to God or the Bible often seem to be. Unlike Firefly, which featured a man of God as one of its major supporting characters and naturally sparked theological discussions, or BSG, which took place during an apocalypse, the newest crop of shows seems determined to mention God even when it doesn't make that much sense.
Take the scene above from the season opener of Fringe, where FBI agent Amy Jessup goes through all of the Fringe Division's cases and compares them with Bible verses — it's all in the Book Of Revelation! (Thanks to Meredith for suggesting this one.)
Or FlashForward, whose pilot includes one character who randomly questions whether God gave everyone on Earth a glimpse of the future as a punishment. Leaving aside the fact that clairvoyance seems like an odd shape for divine punishment to take. There's also the fact that the slutty/Christian babysitter just happens to be making out with her boyfriend (while the girl she's looking after is asleep) and thus feels guilty — so she decides that God gave the entire world a future vision just to punish her for making whoopie on the couch. Make sense? Absolutely not. Unless you think that some studio exec in a meeting said, "We need a religious angle here. There oughta be one character who decides that this was all God's doing. Because that'll play well in the God states."
And then there's V, which — spoiler alert — has aliens visiting us and claiming to be benefactors, who've come to help us. Plenty of people are suspicious of these allegedly enlightened visitors, but then we meet a Catholic priest who's decided to preach that these aliens are "God's creatures," with the implication being that they're sent by God. And the priest tells his underling, Father Jack, that he must preach the aliens are divinely sanctioned — or else. It's even sort of implied (if I remember correctly) that the Vatican has made support for the aliens official policy. WTF? Why would the Catholic church come out in support of random aliens that we know nothing about? It's one of the few moments in the V pilot that literally makes no sense whatsoever, and it inspired much head-scratching when we saw it at Comic Con.
And then there's Stargate Universe, which — spoiler alert again! — has a character experience weird religious visions for no discernable reason in its second episode. (Or third, if you count the two-hour pilot as two episodes.) It's never entirely clear why one character, stuck on a weird, inhospitable planet, is having visions of being in church and talking to a priest, and it seems partly designed to give us a chunk of this character's backstory. But it also feels like a quick-and-dirty way of conveying that this character is having a spiritual wandering-in-the-wilderness thing, without actually having to create any real religious/spiritual content to go with it. It feels a bit cheap: he's in the wilderness, and he sees some churchy stuff. Oh! So that means it's deeply symbolic or something.
And of course, Dollhouse gave us the ultra-stereotypical "Christian cult with guns" in one of its first-season episodes — the one where Echo gets turned into a blind religious zealot with cameras in her eyes, and everybody's sorta Amish and sorta Mormon.
Honestly at times, watching current SF TV it's hard not to feel like someone watched too many early John Woo movies and thought "church with birds in it — deep!" Or maybe too many early 1980s New Wave videos, where Duran Duran dance around pews and it randomly turns black and white. (And yes, I know that those videos are directed by Highlander auteur Russell Mulcahy.) But it also feels like a bit of pandering to a Christian nation that's perceived as being a bit suspicious of science-y stuff.
The Genesis of religion in SF TV
Once, it seemed like religious iconography and rhetoric was rare in science fiction — the original Star Trek confronted Captain Kirk and his crew with Greek gods, as well as godlike aliens who just wanted to toy with our heroes. You might have a hysterical crewman babble something about "If God had wanted us to go into space, etc," and the Roman episode did end with Uhura staring at the camera and saying the rebels were worshipping "the son of God." But these were just grace notes. (We won't get into Star Trek V, since that was a movie, and it came much later, and it makes the head hurt.)
After Trek, you certainly had the occasional SF program where the good guys were confronted with bog-standard space gods, who were notably free of any religious dogma that people on Earth could recognize. In fact, one reason why space gods are so often ridiculous and campy is the fact that they're trying so hard to be ecumenical. One common SF trope, over the decades, was the "meeting the real-life alien behind the ancient Earth myth — but this was usually the creature who inspired the Aztecs or the Egyptian religions, not the Judeo-Christian deal.
But in general, when television SF did grapple with religion prior to recent years, it was to reveal religious icons as aliens, using high technology to impress the superstitious. It wasn't until the final couple of seasons of Stargate SG-1 that this "superstitious humans worshipping aliens" storyline seemed to be an overt critique of organized religion. The show suddenly introduced a new antagonist for our heroes, a set of "ascended" (non-corporeal) aliens called the Ori, who encourage humans to worship them and preach from the Book of Origin. Writes blogger Chris Bateman in his 10-part essay on religion in science fiction:
It is almost impossible not to interpret the Ori as a paper-thin parody of Christianity... Much of the shallow critique of Christianity occurs between Claudia Black's ex-Goa'uld host Vala Mal Doran – who takes over Richard Dean Anderson's role as comic relief in the later seasons and fulfills this role magnificently – and her Ori-worshipping husband Tomin. Vala and Tomin square off in debate after Tomin reads incessantly to her from the Book of Origin, with Vala accusing him of taking a bunch of stories about how to live well and using it as a justification for war and murder. The scene serves a narrative purpose – Tomin later witnesses a Prior blatantly distorting the meaning of one of the verses in the Book of Origin, causing him to question his faith – but it also reads as a clumsy attack on contemporary Christianity.
Bateman theorizes that the producers of SG-1 were aghast at the Bush Administration's war in Iraq and wanted to satirize what they perceived as a right-wing Christian crusade against Islam. To some extent, The 4400 also seemed to be taking jabs at organized religion on occasion.
But before SG-1 introduced the Ori, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine took a huge leap forward in introducing religious themes to SF, with the Prophets, aka the "wormhole aliens." For most of DS9's run, you could choose to believe the secular theory that the Prophets were merely interdimensonal aliens, who lived outside space/time and saw future and past as the same thing. But towards the end of the show's run, the messianic overtones around Benjamin Sisko made it harder and harder to sit on the fence. And meanwhile, Babylon 5 won praise for including characters of faith (including a Catholic commander, and a group of Catholic monks who come to live on the station) as well as including religion in many of its storylines.
Most recently, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles included Agent Ellison, who's frequently shown to be a Baptist, and religious references became more and more predominant in the show (which is about the actual apocalypse, so it does make sense to bring it up.) Most fans of BSG would agree that the show's monotheist/polytheist divide made it a much richer experience than a simple robots-vs-humans show would have been otherwise — regardless of how you may feel about the Baltar Cult, and the hand-wavy "Starbuck turns into ZZ Top" ending. And it's pure blasphemy to suggest that Firefly would be better without Shepherd Book.
The rise of Space Jesus?
Lately, though, it's seemed almost required to have some kind of religious discussion among a TV show's themes — and it's more likely to be Christian rather than some kind of vague Space Religion (TM) or misty spirituality.
Religion is part of society, and including religious points of view makes your world seem more realistic and three-dimensional — it would seem odd if science fiction on television never included a religious viewpoint, just as it would if people never mentioned politics at all. At the same time, there are ways to include religion that make sense (Firefly and T:SCC come to mind immediately) and ways to include it that feel gratuitous and weird (the Vatican is endorsing the aliens!)
And yes, when you throw in religion in a nonsensical way, it either feels like you're going for a cheap effect, or like you're pandering to religious people. Add to that the fact that scientists and people who use pure empiricism to deal with problems are far and few between — Walter Bishop and maybe the twisted Topher on Dollhouse are our only real avatars of tech nerdhood that I can think of off the top of my head. It's become a taboo in televised science fiction to show people doing science.
The show that's handling religion in the most fascinating manner right now is Supernatural, which is modern fantasy rather than science fiction. In the last year or so, angels have joined the show's long-standing demon characters — and now Lucifer himself is roaming around. And there are lots of hints that we'll actually be meeting God this season at some point. Theological discussions over why God allowed all of the horrors of the 20th century to happen are automatically more fascinating when they come out of the mouths of actual Angels, and the fact that the Archangels believe that God is dead makes for fascinating viewing.
So consider this a plea for more thoughtful portrayals of religion in science fiction — and fewer random, thoughtless, kitchen-sink inclusions. People who watch science fiction are smart. We can tell when we're being pandered to, and when we're being spoonfed religious ideas just because it makes your show seem more "mythic" or "relevant." Religion can make your science-fiction story feel like it takes place in a world we can relate to, and it can deepen your characters and add another layer to your story — or, in the wrong hands, it can feel like a random piece of baggage, tacked on to your story for spurious, external reasons. We can usually tell the difference between the two. - Charlie Jane Anders
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Rhode Island Film Community: What the ****?
I was born and raised in Rhode Island. I believe in Rhode Island. I fear for Rhode Island.
For the past six years I’ve been working in the Film Industry in and around New York City in several different capacities and several different positions. I learned more than I ever thought possible and it was truly the best experience of my life so far. One of the projects I worked on in New York provided an opportunity for me to return to, and work, back in Rhode Island. I couldn’t be more excited. I took the job, came back to the state, and due to extenuating circumstances, the project fell thru and didn’t happen. I would have instantly returned to the city, but instead I stayed in Rhode Island because I had met and formed a partnership with a local production company and began development on a collaboration with them.
While my partners in the production company are very talented and capable, the rest of the film community was… well, there’s room for improvement.
The Fundraising Nightmare
While raising money for our project, we had an extremely fruitful first few weeks, approaching several investors from our own resources, all of which have never invested in film and were excited about the project and opportunity. When we began approaching potential investors who have invested in film once or twice before, and eventually any potential investor after our initial first round of fundraising, we were met with slight animosity and quickly dismissed out of hand.
Why? Why was this the case? The answer, it turns out, is remarkably simple. A handful of local film makers have proven less than capable, made several films for large sums of money and were unable to pay their investors back, then, after two of three of these instances, announced even more projects, the dates for those projects, the actors “attached” to those projects, and ultimately failed in following thru on any of them, thus destroying the integrity of local film makers in Rhode Island.
The state loves when larger studio films come in from out of state, but is less than thrilled when local film makers attempt to make a film. And I don’t blame them at all, how could I when every project announced or attempted by this same group of people falls apart and the ones they did make failed to return their financiers investments? However, there are a handful of qualified and capable local film makers that suffer because of it.
One of these film makers recently made a film for 8 million dollars. I was fortunate enough to have a free pass to the premiere where I went to see it and I left with only one conclusion: “That was not an 8 Million dollar film.” Sure, that’s what they spent, but that’s not what it could have been made for. It could have been made for half of that, even less. Undoubtedly, a lot of the money went to attaining the big name actors they had in the film, and it did, but after getting my hands on a copy of their working budget to see where the money went, I was almost insulted. While there were both Union and Non-Union cast and crew members, most of the department heads were paid far above the standard for a film of that budget size and there were several line items in the budget that were far too high for what they were. And after looking at their crew list, a little more of why the budget was the way it was became more apparent, which I will get into a little later.
The decision to make the film at that price shows clear inconsideration for their investors. This group of film makers has made and sold several films that have attained national distribution over a decade ago, which, I would think, would give them the foresight to understand the scale, scope and expectations of their current projects. This project in question was not terrible, it was a good film, the acting was wonderful, cinematography was creative, but the story itself was far from unique and riveting, and the characters were less than interesting. Yes, I am aware that is simply MY opinion, and I stand by it.
The reason I state that, is that for the past year I have been totally immersed in market research, distribution statistics, buying costs and all kinds of numbers that make me feel less like a film maker and more like an analyst, but it is valuable information none the less. If they had been knowledgeable in the same material, they would have said to themselves: “hmmm, this budget is far too high, lets see where we can make it for less” I would imagine that had to have known they were not going to sell the film at a price to recoup its cost. If they didn’t, that means, to me, that they were not responsible film makers and hoped for the best (and we all hope for the best, but when handling invested monies, we have a responsibility to be realistic and knowledgeable) OR they took advantage of their investors and did not care that their investors would most likely not make their money back.
The Crew Pool
Now, why was the budget so high? I don’t have the whole answer to that question, but I have part of it. As previously mentioned, their department heads paid far above standard salary in comparison to projects of similar size and scope. But, also to note, all of the department heads were from out of state; out of New York and Los Angeles. The fact they’re from out of the area does not upset me, in fact, I completely understand it, there simply is not enough experienced crew in Rhode Island for every position on a film, although, that doesn’t HAVE to be the case.
Recently, the state put a cap on the Tax Credit available to projects shot in the state. While the amount of big budget projects flowing thru the state is not vast, it could very well be. Politics aside, by putting a cap on the Tax Credit, the state essentially said “we’re fine with the way things are”
Studios and Production Companies look for Tax Credit Incentives when wanting to shoot in another state, and if the 15 Million is already taken, they’re most likely not going to shoot in Rhode Island. Basic economics; more projects means more jobs, means a demand for crew, means more chances for growth and the ability to train crew.
I’ve had several conversations with people I’ve worked with in the past who are no longer open to the idea of bringing their projects here because of the Tax Credit Cap and the lack of properly trained crew. Sure, there are plenty of Union Crew around the area, and the Union is a wonderful thing, but, as any major film region will tell you, you can’t have a film composed entirely of Union crew, the regulations of so many crew combined will eventually hinder the project in time, which will eventually raise costs.
Where Do We Go From Here?
So how does Rhode Island regain its integrity within the larger film making community? First, I’d suggest dropping the cap, but that is not within the immediate reach of the local film community.
Aside from that, the first and most immediate thing I would do is to stop publically announcing projects and dates when your funding is not yet secured. This seems to be the constant and most common problem. Naturally when people constantly announce that they’re going to do things and never get to them, they’re going to lose credibility. Announcing that your developing a project is more than fine, announcing that you are going to do it, drawing attention and publicity to yourself and the project when, technically, there is no project, is a very bad idea. I know most people are excited to announce a project they’re proud of, tell the world they’re hoping to do it, but remember there’s a difference between HOPING to do it, and actually doing it.
Another suggestion would be for local film makers to utilize the vastly talented crew and acting pool that the state has. They’re not big pools, but they can be cultivated and nursed. Each of them is eager to be part of something, but they need to be given the chance. Utilize them as much as possible; otherwise they will leave the state for more regular work. I did.
The Rhode Island Film Community has a chance to become something great, to bring regular work here, one cable series and two films a year isn’t enough for someone to plant roots in the area, but if film makers put their heads together, put aside their egos and plans, they can come up with limitless po
For the past six years I’ve been working in the Film Industry in and around New York City in several different capacities and several different positions. I learned more than I ever thought possible and it was truly the best experience of my life so far. One of the projects I worked on in New York provided an opportunity for me to return to, and work, back in Rhode Island. I couldn’t be more excited. I took the job, came back to the state, and due to extenuating circumstances, the project fell thru and didn’t happen. I would have instantly returned to the city, but instead I stayed in Rhode Island because I had met and formed a partnership with a local production company and began development on a collaboration with them.
While my partners in the production company are very talented and capable, the rest of the film community was… well, there’s room for improvement.
The Fundraising Nightmare
While raising money for our project, we had an extremely fruitful first few weeks, approaching several investors from our own resources, all of which have never invested in film and were excited about the project and opportunity. When we began approaching potential investors who have invested in film once or twice before, and eventually any potential investor after our initial first round of fundraising, we were met with slight animosity and quickly dismissed out of hand.
Why? Why was this the case? The answer, it turns out, is remarkably simple. A handful of local film makers have proven less than capable, made several films for large sums of money and were unable to pay their investors back, then, after two of three of these instances, announced even more projects, the dates for those projects, the actors “attached” to those projects, and ultimately failed in following thru on any of them, thus destroying the integrity of local film makers in Rhode Island.
The state loves when larger studio films come in from out of state, but is less than thrilled when local film makers attempt to make a film. And I don’t blame them at all, how could I when every project announced or attempted by this same group of people falls apart and the ones they did make failed to return their financiers investments? However, there are a handful of qualified and capable local film makers that suffer because of it.
One of these film makers recently made a film for 8 million dollars. I was fortunate enough to have a free pass to the premiere where I went to see it and I left with only one conclusion: “That was not an 8 Million dollar film.” Sure, that’s what they spent, but that’s not what it could have been made for. It could have been made for half of that, even less. Undoubtedly, a lot of the money went to attaining the big name actors they had in the film, and it did, but after getting my hands on a copy of their working budget to see where the money went, I was almost insulted. While there were both Union and Non-Union cast and crew members, most of the department heads were paid far above the standard for a film of that budget size and there were several line items in the budget that were far too high for what they were. And after looking at their crew list, a little more of why the budget was the way it was became more apparent, which I will get into a little later.
The decision to make the film at that price shows clear inconsideration for their investors. This group of film makers has made and sold several films that have attained national distribution over a decade ago, which, I would think, would give them the foresight to understand the scale, scope and expectations of their current projects. This project in question was not terrible, it was a good film, the acting was wonderful, cinematography was creative, but the story itself was far from unique and riveting, and the characters were less than interesting. Yes, I am aware that is simply MY opinion, and I stand by it.
The reason I state that, is that for the past year I have been totally immersed in market research, distribution statistics, buying costs and all kinds of numbers that make me feel less like a film maker and more like an analyst, but it is valuable information none the less. If they had been knowledgeable in the same material, they would have said to themselves: “hmmm, this budget is far too high, lets see where we can make it for less” I would imagine that had to have known they were not going to sell the film at a price to recoup its cost. If they didn’t, that means, to me, that they were not responsible film makers and hoped for the best (and we all hope for the best, but when handling invested monies, we have a responsibility to be realistic and knowledgeable) OR they took advantage of their investors and did not care that their investors would most likely not make their money back.
The Crew Pool
Now, why was the budget so high? I don’t have the whole answer to that question, but I have part of it. As previously mentioned, their department heads paid far above standard salary in comparison to projects of similar size and scope. But, also to note, all of the department heads were from out of state; out of New York and Los Angeles. The fact they’re from out of the area does not upset me, in fact, I completely understand it, there simply is not enough experienced crew in Rhode Island for every position on a film, although, that doesn’t HAVE to be the case.
Recently, the state put a cap on the Tax Credit available to projects shot in the state. While the amount of big budget projects flowing thru the state is not vast, it could very well be. Politics aside, by putting a cap on the Tax Credit, the state essentially said “we’re fine with the way things are”
Studios and Production Companies look for Tax Credit Incentives when wanting to shoot in another state, and if the 15 Million is already taken, they’re most likely not going to shoot in Rhode Island. Basic economics; more projects means more jobs, means a demand for crew, means more chances for growth and the ability to train crew.
I’ve had several conversations with people I’ve worked with in the past who are no longer open to the idea of bringing their projects here because of the Tax Credit Cap and the lack of properly trained crew. Sure, there are plenty of Union Crew around the area, and the Union is a wonderful thing, but, as any major film region will tell you, you can’t have a film composed entirely of Union crew, the regulations of so many crew combined will eventually hinder the project in time, which will eventually raise costs.
Where Do We Go From Here?
So how does Rhode Island regain its integrity within the larger film making community? First, I’d suggest dropping the cap, but that is not within the immediate reach of the local film community.
Aside from that, the first and most immediate thing I would do is to stop publically announcing projects and dates when your funding is not yet secured. This seems to be the constant and most common problem. Naturally when people constantly announce that they’re going to do things and never get to them, they’re going to lose credibility. Announcing that your developing a project is more than fine, announcing that you are going to do it, drawing attention and publicity to yourself and the project when, technically, there is no project, is a very bad idea. I know most people are excited to announce a project they’re proud of, tell the world they’re hoping to do it, but remember there’s a difference between HOPING to do it, and actually doing it.
Another suggestion would be for local film makers to utilize the vastly talented crew and acting pool that the state has. They’re not big pools, but they can be cultivated and nursed. Each of them is eager to be part of something, but they need to be given the chance. Utilize them as much as possible; otherwise they will leave the state for more regular work. I did.
The Rhode Island Film Community has a chance to become something great, to bring regular work here, one cable series and two films a year isn’t enough for someone to plant roots in the area, but if film makers put their heads together, put aside their egos and plans, they can come up with limitless po
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)