Cinematical Visits MOMA’s “Dali: Painting and Film” Exhibit

July 2nd, 2008

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Even the weirder artists of the twentieth century have been attracted to the allure of Hollywood filmmaking, and Salvador Dali was no exception. In the fall of 1941, the surrealist painter hosted a masquerade party at Pebble Beach during one of his regular visits to the town. Called "Surrealism Night in An Enchanted Forest," the fundraising event, intended to assist European refugee artists, brought out a number of stars, including Bob Hope and Ginger Rogers. It was here, the story goes, that Dali became attached to a major studio production called Moontide. The great German emigre Fritz Lang was hired to direct the movie, and asked Dali to create a three-minute nightmare sequence for the film. Unfortunately, after the incident at Pearl Harbor later that year, Twentieth Century Fox deemed the project too bleak. Lang was replaced, and Dali's nightmare sequence went with him.

Although inspired by the movies, Dali didn't always have the easiest time making them. He would get another chance to inject his hallucinatory vision into American cinema with the hypnosis scene in Alfred Hitchcock's Spellbound, but it's his unrealized projects that truly indicate the scope of the painter's ambition. So many ideas, such little time. Dali: Painting and Film, a breathtakingly unique exhibit currently on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, surveys Dali's completed cinematic works in addition to tidbits from the ones that never came to fruition. Marvelously structured to show how his paintings were intentionally cinematic, the exhibit contains all the obvious highlights from Dali's movie career alongside lesser-known productions. The importance in film history of his collaborations with Luis Bunuel remain uncontested; two large screens in separate rooms showing Un Chien Andalou (where the opening eye splicing retains its original gross-out impact) and L'Age D'Or attest to that. Fewer visitors, however, might know about Dali's collaboration with the Marx Brothers on a deliriously strange movie that sounded too good to be true.

Continue reading Cinematical Visits MOMA's "Dali: Painting and Film" Exhibit

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Writing unspoken things

July 2nd, 2008

questionmarkIn an effort to be less on-the-nose with my dialog, I sometimes avoid the dialog all together.

My overly dramatic example:

  • TIM
  • It’s up to us to fix this.
  • Sarah’s face: How?
  • TIM
  • We go back to where it all began.
  • I don’t want to make Sarah ask how. I want her face to convey the message. Have you ever put in directions for the actors like this? If so, how do you format it?

    – Matt R

    You can do this. I’ve seen established screenwriters do essentially the same things in their scripts. But the fact that I’ve never felt the need to do it leads me to suggest alternatives to face-writing.

    The first option is the gerundic dot-dot-dot:

  • TIM
  • It’s up to us to fix this.
  • Answering her question before she can ask it…
  • TIM
  • We go back to where it all began.
  • In this case, it reads just as well without the gerund. Some writers do a double-dash:

  • TIM
  • It’s up to us to fix this.
  • Before she can ask —
  • TIM
  • We go back to where it all began.
  • Another choice is to stay in Tim’s dialog block and do it with a parenthetical:

  • TIM
  • It’s up to us to fix this.
  • (off her reaction)
  • We go back to where it all began.
  • And don’t discount the option of just omitting it:

  • TIM
  • It’s up to us to fix this.
  • CUT TO:
  • EXT. BACK WHERE IT ALL BEGAN - DAY
  • Sarah and Tim sweep the field with metal detectors.
  • There’s no right way — but that’s not to say it’s unimportant. These little choices are what form your style, and developing a narrative voice is a crucial part of your career as a writer.

    When we think of a Tarantino movie, we remember his dialogue. But the experience of reading his scripts is different. They’re incredibly spare but specific. Other writers — David Koepp comes to mind — write in dense blocks packed with detail. And the scripts for Lost are known for their profanity. Every writer would handle the same basic scene differently. Figuring out how you would do it is an important part of becoming a screenwriter, so always challenge yourself to find the way that feels best.

    McGowan and Rodriguez Break Up! Hollywood Cheers!

    July 2nd, 2008

    Filed under: , ,

    We usually don't report the goings-on of Hollywood relationships (be them long term or of the booty call variety), however this one is pretty epic. According to -- ugh -- the New York Post, sweethearts Rose McGowan and Robert Rodriguez are no longer together and no longer getting married (they were engaged prior to this). Why is this important news? Why should people care? Well, partly because Rodriguez was in the process of lining up a few interesting movie remakes (Barbarella, Red Sonja) with McGowan in the lead. One imagines McGowan had snagged the roles because, well, she was boinking Robert Rodriguez. But when there's no more action between the sheets, does that mean there's no more McGowan in the starring role?

    The Post claims their break-up was partly due to the fact that Rodriguez was having a hard time finding financing for Barbarella with McGowan in the lead because she's not a big enough box-office draw. I know some of you beg to differ because she's got the hot "I'll sleep with your man if you leave him alone for five seconds and he can put me in one of his movies" seductress thing going on, but could you seriously see a flick starring Rose McGowan bringing in at least $70 million (reported budget for Barbarella) to the box office? Personally, I can't. With Jessica Alba or Charlize Theron or Angelina Jolie? Sure. Not Rose McGowan. (Last time I checked, her ass didn't exactly ignite a box office firestorm for Grindhouse.)

    Should be interesting to see what develops from here. What would you like to see happen?

    Permalink | Email this | Comments

    I’ve been misblurbed

    July 2nd, 2008

    Fool%27s%20Gold.jpg

    Congratulations to whoever's distributing this movie overseas. And my condolences to the people desperate enough to rent it. Also thanks, Ryan Landry for your nice note when the movie came out in February.I'm sure you'll appreciate it.

    Producers to SAG: Strike? What Strike?

    July 2nd, 2008

    Filed under: , ,

    Hey, remember the weeks and months approaching the recent writers' strike, when all of Hollywood panicked and began rushing projects into production and feverishly coming up with contingency plans? Have you wondered why the looming Screen Actors Guild strike and the ongoing SAG/AFTRA catfight have not really provoked a similar hysteria? The New York Times' answer: because producers are calling SAG's bluff.

    Or, in the Times' more tactful language: "the film industry's needs have overwhelmed any conviction that actors will actually walk out." That's its explanation for why big, expensive productions like Terminator Salvation, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Angels & Demons are steadfastly forging ahead despite the risk that a strike will send most of their casts off the set, leaving them with half a movie.

    Could just be hubris, or willful stupidity. I haven't followed the recent guild developments closely enough to be able to speak with any authority on whether there will be a walkout any time soon. But look: the idea behind election markets (for example) is roughly that the best way to forecast the future is to see where large numbers of people are willing to put their money. That this time Hollywood bigwigs -- in particular, many of the people who will have a say in the outcome of any contract negotiations -- don't seem to be blinking in the face of a possible strike suggests to me that we aren't heading toward one, or at least not a protracted one. If we are, then it looks like a lot of people are going to be out a lot of money.

    Permalink | Email this | Comments

    Mark Millar and a ‘Big Name Action Director’ Revamping Superman?

    July 2nd, 2008

    Filed under: , , , , , , ,

    Mark Millar is becoming a real Hollywood insider these days, a Frank Miller in training. He dropped quite an intriguing bombshell to Scotland's Daily Record -- claiming that there's a Superman movie revamp on the way. While some of his claims could be dismissed as wishful thinking by a man who merely wants to fulfill his Kryptonian dreams, he's certainly talking it out with someone. Says Millar, "I've been planning this my entire life. I've got my director and producer set up, and it'll be 2011. This is how far ahead you have to think. The Superman brand is toxic after that last movie lost 200 million, but in 2011 we're hoping to restart it. Sadly I can't say who the director is, but we may make it official by Christmas. But fingers crossed it could work out, that would be my lifetime's dream."

    Now, this flies directly in the face of Bryan Singer confirming he was attached to the sequel. But there's been a peculiar lack of progress with it. He's obviously busy with Valkyrie, but when you look at how quickly the Iron Man and Spider-Man franchises are moving, well, someone's not moving faster than a speeding bullet anymore. Could Warner Bros really be open to rebooting the franchise? The parallels between Ang Lee's Hulk and Bryan Singer's Superman Returns are striking, and I can honestly see the studio choosing a similarly clean slate. But they would be ditching a pretty expensive investment in Returns, and creating quite a controversy in the process.
    Far more people loved Superman Returns than Hulk, and Singer commands a lot of geek cred.

    Continue reading Mark Millar and a 'Big Name Action Director' Revamping Superman?

    Permalink | Email this | Comments

    College – Trailer

    July 1st, 2008
      College - Trailer
    A new outrageous comedy, COLLEGE is the story of three high school seniors (Drake Bell, Andrew Caldwell and Kevin Covais) who visit a local college campus as prospective freshman anticipating the best weekend of their lives. Once there, the rowdiest fraternity on campus (featuring Nick Zano, Gary Owen and Zach Cregger) decides to recruit the boys as pledges, subjecting them to endless humiliations, in return for granting them access to the no-holds-barred college party scene. But once the boys catch the eye of some of the older sorority girls (Haley Bennett, Camille Mana and Natalie Walker), the threatened Frat-boys increase the pre-frosh humiliation and blackmail them by threatening to expose their age. The boys decide to fight back, retaliating with a major revenge scheme that lands them on top. What began as the weekend-from-hell turns into the BEST. WEEKEND. EVER.
    Directed by: Deb Hagan
    Starring: Drake Bell, Andrew Caldwell, Kevin Covais, Nick Zano, Camille Mana

    Sundance, The Nines, and the death of independent film

    June 30th, 2008

    A quote from Mark Gill in the LA Times last week would seem discouraging for independent filmmakers:

    Of the 5,000 films submitted to Sundance each year — generally with budgets under $10 million — maybe 100 of them got a U.S. theatrical release three years ago. And it used to be that 20 of those would make money. Now maybe five do. That’s one-tenth of 1%. Put another way, if you decide to make a movie budgeted under $10 million on your own tomorrow, you have a 99.9% chance of failure.

    There are lots of ways to criticize his logic. For starters, most Sundance movies are way under $10 million. Many are under a million. And he seems to omit a figure for how many indie films are getting a theatrical release now as opposed to three years ago.

    We need to ask, “Failure for whom?” Even a movie that doesn’t earn its budget back will likely make money for its distributors, once you factor in video and TV sales. More crucially, a good indie film generates future work for its stars and filmmakers. So there’s a lot of success to be found in that 99.9% failure.

    All that said, he’s kind of right.

    I’ve held off writing a post-mortem on The Nines, but now that everything is said and done, I should probably say and do it. The short version is this: the movie turned out just the way I wanted. The release of the movie was deeply disappointing.

    Here are the key lessons I learned from the release:

    1. Sundance buzz is annoying and meaningless

    The Nines premiered at Sundance in 2007. We were happy the film got in — we were by no means a lock, despite our cast, our credits, and my involvement with the Sundance screenwriters lab. We got a slot out of competition on a big screen on a good night. We got a sales agent. Things were looking good.

    My first inkling that something was amiss was when our first choice of publicity teams watched the movie and passed on representing us. They didn’t love the movie. The publicity team we ultimately hired did love the movie, and worked their asses off for it. Yet that first “pass” should have clued us into the reality that the movie was polarizing, and that every subsequent step along the way would be determined by our champions and detractors.

    We did Sundance the way you’re supposed to do Sundance, with all the press interviews and trudging up and down snowy streets. We kept running into the same movies doing the same song-and-dance, several of them represented by the team that first passed on us. It was all smiles, but every time I heard festival-goers discussing another movie, I got jealous — unless it was negative, in which case I got a little happier. That’s a natural instinct, I guess. Indiefreude.

    Looking back through the coverage of the festival, The Nines was one of approximately 20 movies1 that got significant buzz — either spontaneous or self-generated — while up on the mountain. The others included:

    1. The Signal
    2. Chapter 27
    3. The Good Night
    4. Joshua
    5. Teeth
    6. The Ten
    7. Waitress
    8. Under the Same Moon (La Misma Luna)
    9. How She Move
    10. Son of Rambow
    11. Once
    12. Nanking
    13. The King of Kong
    14. Grace is Gone
    15. Dedication
    16. Clubland (aka Introducing the Dwights)
    17. My Kid Could Paint That
    18. King of California
    19. In the Shadow of the Moon
    20. Hounddog

    All of these except Hounddog (the “Dakota Fanning Rape Movie”) sold, either while at Sundance or shortly thereafter.2 Let’s call these the Graduating Class of 2007.

    I’d put The Nines in the middle of the buzz pack. It was hard to get a ticket, and they kept adding additional screenings. But after the debut, it was clear we weren’t going to be in a giant bidding situation. Other movies were selling quickly, and new titles kept debuting.

    Eighteen months later, it’s fascinating to see how little the festival buzz mattered. Prices for these movies — a key component of buzz, as in, “Did you hear how much it sold for?” — were all over the board, from the low six-figures to $7 million for Son of Rambow.

    But it made no difference. They all pretty much tanked.

    Waitress sold quickly, was released quickly, and made the most by far at the box office ($19M).3 Second place was Under the Same Moon ($12.5M), followed by Once ($9M) and How She Move ($7M). Son of Rambow will likely end up in fifth. It’s currently in release, and made $8M overseas.

    In terms of box office, none of these are hits in the way Little Miss Sunshine was. But you’d be happy being any of them, because beyond those five, the other movies on the list fell off a cliff. None of them made a million. In fact, most didn’t make it over $100,000. The Nines didn’t, despite opening well.

    But at least we opened. At least we sold. For our year, 3,287 feature films were submitted to Sundance, of which 122 played. Roughly 20 played in theaters. 4

    The other hundred films played other festivals, and ultimately hoped for a DVD deal. And maybe that’s not all bad. Because you know what?

    2. Theatrical release is kinda bullshit.

    Even while I was making The Nines, I knew that the vast majority of viewers would ultimately see it on the small screen. In that spirit, we worked to make the shiny disc version extra-rewarding, with commentaries and special features planned from day one.

    But at the same time, we were anticipating theatrical. A lot of effort went in to making the 35mm prints — eight prints in all. We would have conference calls to discuss dates and markets and theaters, with special screenings for opening night and whatnot.

    It was a fool’s errand.

    It didn’t feel like it at the time, but the theatrical release was really a token, contractually-obligated gesture. We were getting our hand stamped before the DVD.

    It was billed as a platform release, opening in just a few key markets before going wider. But from the distributor’s perspective, there was no reason to even consider expanding beyond New York, Los Angeles and Austin. Each new market meant more money they would have to spend on newspaper ads, and there was no incentive to do it. From a cost perspective, New York and Los Angeles gave enough national exposure to drive the DVD release, which was where they hoped to make their money.

    The only problem was…

    3. The DVD should have come out much sooner, maybe simultaneously

    Because of Ryan’s relative star power, we were able to generate a ton of national publicity. He went on TRL and Conan and every other New York outlet you can think of. But making a college student in Iowa aware of a movie that will never play Des Moines is useless. He’ll forget about it in a week.

    So the smart thing would have been keeping our New York and Los Angeles dates but having the DVD come out immediately.5 I know that invokes the stigma of straight-to-DVD, but if it means that potential viewers nationwide can actually see the movie, hooray.

    The shortening DVD windows are a legitimate concern for mainstream Hollywood movies, but for indies, I don’t think it’s even worth serious objection. Arthouse theaters’ biggest competition isn’t DVD, but TV in general. The people who used to keep them in business are staying home to watch HBO and Bravo.

    If I had an arthouse theater, I’d swap out a different movie every week, on the assumption that you can skim off the enthusiastic filmgoers — bolstered by fimmaker Q&A’s — and move on to the next batch. And that’s exactly what they do. As a result, The Nines and most of the other movies our graduating class played at theaters I wouldn’t normally frequent, often for only a week.

    Putting out the DVD right away wouldn’t have cannibalized theatrical. There was no meat on the bones anyway.

    4. I should have paid a lot more attention to foreign

    By focusing on the U.S. release, I largely ignored the international markets until the Venice Film Festival, where we played in Critics’ Week. The smarter plan would have been going to Sundance with the intention of going to Berlin right after, followed by Cannes, followed by every other meaningful festival which invited us. 6 Given family and work commitments, there was a natural limit to how much I could have done. But a real first-time filmmaker could easily spend a year traveling with his movie.

    We ended up getting a theatrical release in the UK, along with a pretty solid DVD. But the rest of Europe — Germany and France in particular — was left hanging. Even a good sale in Australia hasn’t led to release yet. Which is ridiculous, because…

    5. Without an alternative, everyone will just pirate it

    IMDb searches for The Nines peaked at #11 on January 20th, 2008 — two weeks before the DVD was released. That’s because it finally got leaked on BitTorrent. Suddenly, that college student in Iowa and that programmer in Arles could finally see the movie.

    Let’s try a thought experiment: what if The Nines had leaked shortly before the theatrical release, say, August 19th? At that point, we were number 836 on IMDb, and that was during a concerted publicity campaign which would ultimately get us as high as 47 on the chart.

    Would the leak have helped us or hurt us?

    Given we were only playing in two cities in the world, I can’t think it would have hurt us much. And if there had been a legal and easy way to let people watch the movie — say, through iTunes — I think we could have capitalized on the attention. The pirated version was going to be available on or before the release of the DVD regardless, so one might as well benefit from it as much as possible.

    To my thinking, leaking a decent-quality, watermarked version7 would have greatly increased the awareness and discussion of the movie, which could have paid off if the DVD and/or iTunes version were available shortly thereafter.

    Should anyone bother making an indie film?

    I know that a lot of this article comes off as a downer. The odds of getting your scrappy indie in front of paying audiences are pretty low, and the odds of really making money at it are subterranean.

    But I stand by my earlier observation that there’s a lot of success to be found in that high failure rate. The Nines didn’t make a big splash, but it has a fair number of super-fans, including some filmmakers and critics. It has led to new opportunities for me and its stars, and a solid credit for the folks who worked on it.

    Financially, the movie is a wash. I’ve never publicly stated its budget, but it was low enough that no one got hurt. And from the distributors’ perspective, the upside of undermarketing is that there’s not so much to earn back. For all parties, you can calculate the “opportunity costs” many different ways. I certainly could have made a lot more in my day job writing movies for other people, but in the long run, The Nines was probably more rewarding.

    My advice? You should make an indie film to make a film. Period. Artistic and commercial success don’t correlate well, and at the moment, only the former is remotely within your control.

    If I had to do it all over again, I would have made the same movie but completely rethought how it went out into the world. I would have challenged a lot of the standard operating procedures, which seem to be part of an indie world that no longer exists. The Nines would have likely made just as little at the box office, but could have made a bigger impact on a bigger audience. Ultimately, I think that’s how you need to measure the success of an indie film’s release: how many people saw it.


    1. This list is reconstructed by memory and Googling. If I’ve omitted something that was there and buzz-generating, I’m happy to append it. ?
    2. A few more sales came later, including cable premieres. I haven’t heard the ultimate fate of Hounddog. ?
    3. Because we’re accustomed to looking at domestic box office, that’s what I’m showing. But keep in mind that international is a crucial component, as noted later. ?
    4. The grand prize winners — Manda Bala and Padre Nuestro — both got released, but I didn’t know until I just checked. ?
    5. Alternately, make it pay-per-view on cable and satellite, or downloadable on iTunes. ?
    6. Altogether, The Nines got more than 100 festival invitations. ?
    7. I’d have it read “lookforthenines.com” in the corner. ?

    ‘Hancock’ Gets an Experimental Release

    June 30th, 2008

    Filed under: , , , , , , , , ,



    It seems fairly certain that Hancock will do decent business when it hits theaters this week, if only because Will Smith rarely stars in a dud these days -- especially when it's his face selling the movie before all else. Whether or not the film has staying power after opening weekend, however, remains to be seen, but Sony Pictures clearly has a lot of faith in its potential: Last week, the studio revealed its intentions of releasing the film online sometime after its theatrical run and before its DVD release, but only to users with Sony Bravia TV sets. It's a bold maneuver, one that assumes its core base of consumers actually have an interest in Hancock -- but the movie will make a profit either way, so it's a reasonable choice for this intriguing experiment.

    Left in the dust by Apple's iPod, Sony continues to struggle in its search for a piece of the digital revolution. Company head Howard Stringer recently told the New York Times that the strategy for releasing Hancock "vanishes the memory of the failures of the Sony Walkman." Well, maybe. While on-demand technology has changed the way audiences consume their media, they don't like paying more money than necessary. Asking your audiences to buy a special device in order to access what, at this point, amounts to one movie -- well, that's asking a lot. But it's still a step in the right direction.

    What do you think?

    Permalink | Email this | Comments

    I got married

    June 30th, 2008

    On Saturday evening, one hundred friends and family members got together for our wedding at a house in the hills. There were rings and toasts and food and cake. It’s all a bit of a blur. The photos I’ve seen so far have me grinning idiotically, which I’m sure I was.

    We had guests come from as far away as Brazil and as far back as Webelos. Weddings and funerals seem to be the only ways to assemble large swaths of people from across one’s life. And only in the former do you get to catch up. That was a great part of the weekend.

    At a cocktail party on Friday night, I described the feeling that the universe had forked, and that luckily we’d ended up in the version in which marriage is legal and good people win elections. Here’s hoping my theory is proved correct.

    You’ll likely see photos from the wedding in (ironically enough) bridal magazines. And you’ll see my name and face in the press as we get closer to the November election, in an effort to defeat a constitutional amendment which would make Saturday’s festivities impossible.

    But for now, I’m just trying to get used to the ring on my finger. And saying husband.