Austin360 blogs > Austin Movie Blog > Archives > 2009 > October > 25
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Panel highlights: TV development
“Lost” co-creator Damon Lindelof, “Freaks and Geeks” creator Paul Feig and late-night comedy writer Chuck Sklar met Saturday afternoon in the ballroom of the Driskill Hotel to discuss how pilot scripts written on speculation become successful prime-time television shows.
It turns out the panel’s premise was kind of faulty: While Sklar has sold three pilot scripts, none was ever produced; as Feig pointed out, “freaks and Geeks,” while a cult favorite, could hardly be classified as successful, having been cancelled after it’s freshman season; and “Lost?” Lindelof called it “an unmitigated disaster.”
Here are some highlights of the discussion:
On “Lost”: “Lost” was an unmitigated disaster. I am the worst person to be on this panel,” Lindelof said. Outgoing ABC Entertainment Group President Lloyd Braun decided to make the most expensive pilot ever as a (expletive) you.” The network had a pilot script called “Nowhere,” that was basically pretty, shirtless people romping around on a beach, Lindelof said. ABC liked the idea of a plane-crash, island show, but wanted it re-written. “Our idea was that it would be a mystery show. Heavy serialized and supernatural.” He says the show wasn’t his and co-creator Carlton Cuse’s idea, but they tried to make it their best. “They tested it and it tested well; they picked it up,” he said.
“As we were writing the pilot, the network wanted us to create the show’s ‘bible’, but until you’re actually doing it you don’t know what’s going to work and not work,” he added. “That’s like asking somebody on the morning of their wedding day, ‘How are you going to raise your kids?’ One of these days we’ll let the public see this ‘bible’ and they can see how quickly we deviated from it.”
On “Freaks and Geeks”: Feig wrote the “Freaks and Geeks” pilot as a spec script. He had sunk all of his money into making an independent film “that never went anywhere.” While he was shopping it around, he decided to write a spec script to kill time. That became “Freaks and Geeks.”
“Over two weeks of driving around the Midwest, it just poured out of me,” he remembered. One of Feig’s best friends was current comedy golden boy Judd Apatow. Feig’s wife said the “Freaks and Geeks” spec was right up Apatow’s alley. He took it to Dreamworks, who bought it. A pilot was made and the series got picked up. “I went from worst year of my life to suddenly having this thing,” Feig recalled. “I told Judd, ‘tell NBC we’re not going to cast this with beautiful people. And I don’t want geeks with tape on their glasses’.”
Sklar’s story: “My advice would be ‘get a famous comedian and then set up a meeting’,” Sklar joked (he wrote for the sitcom “Everybody Hates Chris”). “I’ve sold 3 pilots over the past 7 or 8 years. I’ve been lucky, I’ve sold some pilots, I’ve written them. None of them got made, but they have all served me well as writing samples.”
On writing “safe”: “Nobody knows what safe is,” Lindelof said. “If anybody knew, there would be no pilots and no failures. People are always asking me, ‘Do you have another “Lost” in you?’ That completely ignores that (‘Lost’) was a fluke. People are always saying something is the the next ‘blank’ to create an illusion of safety.
“The public and television executives all say ‘we want something new,’ but (the executives) anesthetize it — make it the same,” he added. “If you can get your pilot made without compromise you’re good.” He uses “Lost” as an example … one character was a torturer, another a fugitive, the hero cries all the time and he’s a man. These are all things that would have been changed had the series beginning followed the original spec script, pilot, pickup route.
“Really be original, don’t be beholden,” Feig said. “Don’t mute your voice; write what you’re passionate about. If they love the idea, it blasts through. (TV executives) are not ultimately creative people, but they know what they want, and they want good content.”
On television vs. movies: “If I were you guys I would concentrate on TV,” Feig said. “It’s an amazing place right now. Think of how many good shows are on. The people taking over cable stations want prestige shows. They can bring in a much smaller number of viewers and get attention. That’s the place to do edgy stuff.”
“If you can come up with the show that puts Starz on the map like “The Shield” did for FX, you’re golden,” Sklar added.
Lindelof agreed. “We have ten times as many jobs as the movies,” he said. “Your odds are much higher of being successful in the television business. The movies are now looking to TV and asking, ‘Do you want to do a movie?’ (Lindelof co-wrote this summer’s hugely successful “Star Trek” reboot).
We really need to break the old prejudice we have against TV,” Feig added. “Because it got so crappy, but it’s not anymore. There is crap, but there’s crap everywhere, in movies, too. People get much more attached to something like a television series that goes and goes. You’re creating a world that people are invested in and it keeps going and going.”
On casting: “We did not have a script when we started casting (‘Lost’); we just had an outline. Yunjin Kim came in to read for the character of Kate … we just had to create a character for her. We made a suit tailored to the body. That’s entirely different than pulling suit off the rack and trying to find most perfect fit. If I ever do another TV show I’d do it the same way.
Feig talks about a youngster coming in for an audition. “Smart show runners go, ‘this kid is so great, there’s nothing in the script that’s so good that we can’t change it’. It makes it easier to write the show. You need the blueprint, but then you need to be open to the human beings who are bringing it to life. There’s nothing worse than the inflexibility of saying, ‘well, this is how I heard it in my head’.”
On opportunity: “Every great success story has 2 things in common: right place, right time — also called luck, which you have no control over; and you knew somebody — that you do have control over,” Lindelof explained. “I was in LA for 5 years building up my network of somebodies. Talented is the other important part, of course.”
Feig suggested creating a variety of content. “Don’t just walk around with that one thing you have,” he advised. “Have the goods. You want to be undeniable. Have a voice, have content, make them need you. If you want to write … write, write, write! Generate as much as you can.”
On the Internet and the democratization of technology: Lindelof pointed to the Internet as a useful tool to find out what’s working with audiences. “The only way you used to be able to tell was by ratings,” he explained. He said it’s easier now to know when a mistake has been made. He uses the unpopular introduction of “Lost” characters Nicky and Paulo as an example. “We realized we messed up and we were already fixing it. It’s hard to say we made a mistake, but we all make mistakes.” He compared the debacle to Clark Griswold’s itinerary in “National Lampoon’s Vacation,” saying that movie would be less interesting if everything went Clark’s way. He says today’s TV viewers are still the water cooler generation, but that blogging or twittering or updating Facebook pages replaces standing in front of the water cooler.
The point came up in this panel, as in many, that just about everyone in the room had access to the technology to create their own pilot — to produce a more or less finished product to use in a pitch. There was some disagreement amongst the panelists about the wisdom and efficacy of that strategy. Sklar talked about a Web series he had created called “Come to the Net” and suggested that he might have been more successful pitching an idea instead of a completed video. “If you show (the executives) a finished thing, they’re like, ‘Where do we come in?’ ” he said. “They want to hear your ideas first, and then ruin them.”
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
A full ‘Moon’ with Austin’s Tim McCanlies
Austin filmmaker Tim McCanlies was smiling like the birthday boy in the lobby of the Paramount on Sunday, 30 minutes before the afternoon premiere of his new family-friendly drama “Alabama Moon” during the Austin Film Festival. He was awaiting the unveiling.
McCanlies is always smiling — his good cheer and bonhomie are famous — but this was different. He glowed. He looked jazzed, antsy with the nervous excitement of watching one’s movie for the first time with an audience. Many in the crew were there, as was co-star Clint Howard, who was also at the festival for Saturday night’s marquee screening of big brother Ron’s “Apollo 13.”
“Alabama Moon,” based on Watt Key’s 2006 young adult novel, is an unabashedly old-fashioned coming-of-age story shot through with action, comedy and a gut-punching melancholy.
Lushly shot by UT grad Jimmy Lindsey in the bright and shadowy woodsy splendor of Louisiana (where tax incentives for filmmakers are irresistible — hear that Texas?), the movie chronicles the swirling, funny and heartbreaking adventures of 12-year-old Moon Blake (Jimmy Bennett, who played young James T. Kirk in this year’s “Star Trek” reboot). Moon grew up in the forest with his stubborn papa, a recalcitrant anti-government survivalist who thinks he’s raising his boy right but is really robbing him of a childhood. Living off the land, fishing, trapping and hunting, Moon, a feral, shaggy-haired kid who resembles a preteen Dave Grohl, doesn’t realize his isolation until his father dies and he has to meet civilization head on.
The movie is low-budget and often looks it, including some spotty acting among the child performers (though Bennett gives a witty, self-possessed turn). But McCanlies knows the emotional terrain of young people, the ecstasies, dreams, terrors. He kicks up what is a sometimes frustratingly simplistic story into a vaguely mythic tale rife with emotional complexity.
With a broad, cartoonish wink, Howard plays Moon’s tenacious nemesis, a bumbling, ornery southern sheriff with a vendetta for a boy who constantly foils his lame attempts at capture. John Goodman, always a pleasure, co-stars as Moon’s angelic benefactor.
“Alabama Moon,” which screened as part of AFF’s Target Family Film Series (children under 15 get in free to these shows), is McCanlies’ fourth film as director, and the first film he’s directed that he didn’t also write. (His other directorial credits: “Dancer Texas Pop. 81,” “Secondhand Lions” and “The 2 Bobs.” He also created the hit series “Smallville” and wrote “The Iron Giant.”)
Clint Howard in ‘Alabama Moon’
During the post-show Q and A with Howard, McCanlies sort of apologized for shooting in Louisiana by noting that he “brought everyone from Austin that I could.”
The movie was made in a hasty four weeks with “a TV movie budget and a TV movie schedule,” McCanlies said.
McCanlies is used to waiting years between script and screen, but because he didn’t write the film (he did do rewrites), production moved rapidly. When Howard was approached to play the heavy, he said he had scant time for contemplation, but liked the script enough to jump in.
“I’m a professional actor and gainful employment is something I’m always interested in,” he told the crowd.
Howard, wearing a Steelers jersey, said that after careful deliberation he elected to play the doofus sheriff as “Barney Fife on steroids.”
A child actor on classic TV shows like “Gentle Ben,” “Star Trek” and “The Andy Griffith Show,” Howard said he empathized with the young performers in “Alabama Moon.”
“I certainly understood their plight,” he said. “I was almost like an uncle on the set.”
And while he played many scenes with Bennett, the younger actor’s short schedule (school, etc.) forced Howard to play a lot of scenes with Bennett’s double — a young woman.
“Almost any time you see the back of Jimmy’s head,” McCanlies explained, “it’s her.”
McCanlies
In a both strange and, for what it says about contemporary film distribution, sad move, the filmmakers have posted an online petition beseeching American distributors to get “Alabama Moon” into theaters. If you’re all for that, sign the petition HERE.
See the trailer and read more about “Alabama Moon” HERE.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
Panel highlights: Script to screen … ‘Caprica’
“Caprica” pilot director Jeffery Reiner (“Friday Night Lights”) and star Esai Morales stared down a handful of “Battlestar Galactica” fans Saturday afternoon at a script-to-screen panel at the 2009 Austin Film Festival. Fielding softball questions about the “BSG” prequel series from USA Today blogger (and “BSG” fan) Whitney Matheson and tougher, more specific queries from those in attendance, the pair talked “Battlestar,” the Lakers, the series’ unusual marketing campaign (the pilot episode was released by Syfy on DVD in April although the series will not debut until January, 2010), co-star Eric Stoltz and “Glee.”
Here are some highlights:
On sci-fi: Morales says working on the series has awakened a dormant interest in the genre. “I enjoyed science fiction as a child, but as I got older, I kind of put it away; you know … like Halloween costumes.” Reiner admits he’s not a sci-fi fan, but can appreciate films such as “Westworld” and “The Omega Man.”
On the dark tone of the show: “This is Rome before the decline,” Reiner said. Morales talks about the “dread, weight and gravitas” in the show. “It mirrors a lot of what is happening today, sadly.” Neither panelists were regular “BSG” watchers. Reiner admits that he needed to have the mythology and technology explained to him while Morales gleaned details about his character from a post-series comic book. Reiner, after reading several of the upcoming seasons scripts, said he was surprised at how dark the writers were going at times.
On directing: “I could never do a mystery. It’d be all (expletive) up,” Reiner said. “You’d never know who killed who. I think abstractly. I use the script, but I’ll get way off book to get actors to find behavior, then steer them back to the script. It’s an organic way to do it. It’s being fairly brave. Knowing you’ll get back but being brave enough to find something else.”
Morales, who has directed “some short-form stuff,” would like to helm a “Caprica” episode in the future. He admits to being less-than-organized and not particularly driven to venture outside of acting, his area of expertise. He’s less inclined to direct a feature film, where you have to give up a year of your life and risk losing momentum in your acting career. Still he points to actor/directors such as Clint Eastwood and George Clooney. “I admire them because they get it done.”
Morales said that co-star Eric Stoltz was directing the episode currently shooting. Morales asked Stoltz who would be keeping an eye on Stoltz’s performance while he juggled directing chores. “He looked at me, thought, and said ‘you will’,” Morales recalled.
The pair differed on one aspect of the shooting — the sets. “A lot of it is completely artificial. That’s one thing I’d change. I’d like to shoot on live sets,” Reiner said. Morales however, said that “in a weird way, as an actor, it’s kind of liberating.”
On his character: In “Caprica,” Morales plays the father of “BSG’s” Adm. Adama (Edward James Olmos). “He starts out trying to assimilate into Caprican culture,” Morales says. “That doesn’t work. In mythology, he’s akin to Orpheus — that arc model where someone goes to Hades to find love. My character will take that kind of a journey.” Somebody told Morales that he is “channeling” Olmos’ Adama portrayal which amused him, since he didn’t study Olmos’ performance at all.
On Eric Stoltz: “I’m still getting to know him,” Morales said. “He’s very private.”
On the possibility of a musical episode: “You mean ‘BSGlee’?” Morales joked.
On the series’ originality, when it could have been derivative: “It’s the difference between being in space and being on planet Earth,” Reiner explained. “What kind of house do they live in? What kind of car do they drive? I was able to free my mind up. The fact that it wasn’t in space, that freed me up. It’s probably the most exciting thing I’ve ever done in terms of creative freedom.” He said that for club scenes, he would “harken back to ‘Sid & Nancy or my days in the LA punk scene. I wanted it to have that energy.”
On the Jan. 22, 2010 premiere: The pair claimed there would be some new stuff in the airing that we haven’t yet seen.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
‘This could end badly, Ron.’
A large crowd gathered at the Paramount Theatre at 3:45 on Saturday afternoon to hear three titans of the business, Ron Howard (“Apollo 13,” “Parenthood,”), Mitchell Hurwtiz (“Arrested Development,” “The Golden Girls”) and Steve Zaillian (“Schindler’s List,” “All the King’s Men”), discus the “The Art of Storytelling.”
The panel was moderated by trailblazing producer Marcia Nasatir (“Ironweed,” “The Big Chill”). While Nasatir at times seemed to have a very loose format to her questioning, her wit, charm and specifically her back-and-forth with the hilarious and sarcastic Hurwitz made for a compelling, if scattered, discussion.
What follows are some of the highlights:
- Hurwitz received a large ovation when he confirmed that, yes, there is going to be an “Arrested Development” movie and he will be directing. While he has been very tight lipped about what will be in the movie, Hurwitz relented to Nasatir, and said, that there would be a heavy jail presence and then made jokes about the inclusion of TARP money, a nod to the inability of a film to be as timely as television due to lag times in production and release.
- Speaking to the fact that many of his movies are based on real events, Zaillian said the reasoning is two-fold: 1) He’s always been interested in telling those kind of stories; and 2) Writers often get pegged with certain types of storytelling, and he has never felt the need to break away from that. As for his influences with regard to telling stories based on true events, Zaillian cited the Italian neo-realism movement and his love for documentaries. He said he has never liked the idea of putting “based on true events” at the top of one of the movies, as he feels that conceit is a loophole which serves as an “excuse to not do it right.”
- Howard on what makes a good script: “No matter what the genre, it has to be suspenseful.” He went on to say that most stories have to be about challenges and tests of character.
- On the writing process, Hurwitz said the things that come easiest to him in writing are the things about which he is the most suspicious, as he thinks it should be hard to write. He also described writer’s block not as the inability to sit down and write, but the fear that what he writes won’t meet his idea of what a screenwriter should be.
- On “Arrested Development” as a TV show versus a movie, Hurwitz said that he is excited to make the movie, because writing “A.D.” for only a 20-minute show is much more difficult because it restricts his ability to go into greater detail.
- While he said that there was a good reason behind why scripts he wrote didn’t get made, Zaillian did confess that he has one idea for a movie that he has carried around with him for years. He said he likes the idea of having one movie in his pocket for the future. In his case, that movie is an adaptation of Geoffrey Wolff’s book “The Duke of Deception.” Unfortunately, he said, the movie would be a period piece, which he said is “a great way to kill a project,” and not just because of the cost to rent the cars, as Hurwitz humorously suggested.
- On the writing process, Hurwitz gave an anecdote about listening to Timothy Geithner talking about trying to fix the economy. Geithner had said that even when they did not know exactly what they were doing or how to fix what was broken, the financial team just kept showing up to work their way through it. Hurwitz said this story correlates to his understanding of how writing works. You just keep showing up to work, and you write. Expanding on the idea of work as being a key to success, Hurwitz also told a story about two sets of children were given a math test. One group was a set of students who were told that they were very hard workers, while the other had been told that they were extremely smart. After the smart kids outperformed the other group on the first test, a second, much more difficult test was administered to the kids. On the second pass, the “smart” kids gave up before finishing the near-impossible test, while those who were told they were hard workers pressed on in an effort to solve the problems that were above their education level.
- At film fest panels, you will often get an awkward “question” from an audience member, and it seems at these large panels with big stars in big venues, you are almost guaranteed one. This year’s most awkward fest moment probably goes to the young lady who called on herself (in her defense, the room is big and recognizing questioners from the stage is a difficult task), and, after thanking the three men for inspiring her, went on a long tangent about the role of Ron Howard and “Richie Cunningham” in her life. She admitted that as a child she always thought “Richie” was a real person, and that instead of seeing the people on her TV as actors playing characters, she felt as if she was getting a look into someone else’s actual living room. This delusion continued, she said, until she was about 12 years old. She then said that when Howard left “Happy Days,” it scarred her and left a wound in her childhood. At this point, with the audience hoping a question was imminent, Hurwitz (who had the audience and panelists rolling throughout) leaned forward, looked at Howard and said, “This could end badly, Ron.” Everyone laughed, but the woman continued her questioning and pleaded with Howard that he produce Dan Brown’s new novel, “The Lost Symbol,” to help heal the wounds from her childhood. Howard laughed, and while admitting that these things take time, magnanimously assured the woman that there were development discussions underway.
- It all ended well when Hurwitz concluded with the sentiment that whatever writers do, they should make sure they enjoy it.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
Panel highlights: ‘What Gets Producers Excited’
Although it was going head to head with a “Conversation with Ron Howard,” the panel “What Gets Producers Excited” had enough of a draw to fill the Maximilian Room at the Driskill Hotel on Saturday afternoon at 2 p.m. Listening to a 50-year veteran of the film and television world is nice and all, but producers are the ones who help get writers jobs, and this festival is packed with screenwriters looking for a break or a tip on how to get their work on the screen. Practicality, then, trumped entertainment in this instance.
The panel, moderated by Drew Yanno featured producers Jeff Graup (“Obsessed) and Dawn Wolfrom (“The Perfect Man”). Garret Basch, a V.P. at Steve Zaillian’s production company, was scheduled to be on the panel, but was not around when things commenced. He would eventually make a belated and humorous entrance about 15 minutes into the proceeding, and his charming wit helped provide some momentum to the talk.
What follows are some of the highlights of the discussion:
- Wolfrom said that one of the most important elements of any writer’s pitch to her — besides the fact that it relate to her field of interest, specifically comedy - is a writer’s passion for the project and his ability to get her excited about the project. In order for successfully pitch the work, she needed to share the enthusiasm and sell that enthusiasm to the next person in the line of development. The writer is not the only one who hears “no,” the producers must battle the same doubts, so they need to feel excited about a script in order for it to get momentum.
- Graup: “The world of studios is a world of followers.”
- Wolfrom on producers only taking on projects they feel can succeed: “I kind of feel like we’ve got three shots with each of our friends (in the business).”
- Just as Brasch entered the room, the talk turned to foreign distribution and pre-sales of a film. Pre-sales are the money that can be made by selling distribution rights to foreign markets. Graup said that foreign market money used to make up for 40% of revenues but is now responsible for 60%. He said that for this reason, studios and producers are well aware of making a film viable internationally. To wit, he said that anyone would be sorely mistaken if they didn’t think Tarantino casting a German actor to play one of the leads in “Inglourious Basterds” wasn’t partially a product of the fact that studios knew it would make the movie more appealing to German audiences.
Brasch went on to explain how pre-sales are basically the way a studio sells raises the money to make a movie before it is made, by selling foreign distributors on a script, director, actor and budget. He disagreed with Graup somewhat in that he said he believes that pre-sales now account for only 10% of a film’s production budget, whereas it used to be in the neighborhood of 95%. While this part of the conversation may not have had much practical use to screenwriters looking to get their screenplays made, it was very instructive in the ways movies get made. Brasch explained how some firms sole purpose is to use a complex calculus to figure out how much money certain stars, depending on the genre of the film, the star’s status and past performance, can be expected to bring in internationally. As a humorous example, Brasch said that while American audiences and executives may not drool over Richard Gere or Kevin Costner, to foreign movie folks, they represent box office gold. A weird system, indeed. As it relates to the theme of the panel, then, I guess it could be said that foreign money gets producers excited - but less and less so in today’s economic climate.
- Graup, speaking on chasing trends and trying to fit a square peg into a round hole: “Don’t try to do what is hot. Do what you do best … Write what you know … Write with passion … and stop trying to sell stuff. Studios are out of money.” Following up Graup’s sentiment, Brasch said, “Don’t think about whether it is going to sell or not. We’re interested in the things that won’t sell. That’s what we buy.” He named “Half-Nelson,” “District 9,” and “Little Miss Sunshine” as examples of these types of screenplays. I would imagine the words of the two men both scared some of the writers in the room and liberated them.
- Although they admitted it was a harsh reality, all three said that they are rarely inclined to take on a massive majority of most of the scripts they read. They all said that they could tell within the first 10 pages, and often in the first page, if a script was good or not. They also picked up on an instructive theme from the weekend: Writers should pitch a script, but always have several other ideas in their back pocket. One good script or idea only has so much heat; it is important to have multiple ideas. And, as always, the key for writers is to keep writing.
- Discussing query letters, Graup said it was of extreme importance for writers to be diligent and original. He said that writers should spend a month crafting an excellent query letter, as it is the first (and maybe only) opportunity to display their writing prowess and creativity. If you’re just going to sit down and fire off an email query that you spend 10 minutes writing, it’s probably best not to bother.
- Brasch, sincerely with a slight bit of self-aware corniness, said the scripts he looks for are “dramas that will make you laugh and comedies that will make you cry.” So, there’s your answer, folks.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
Quick sneak peek: “Warrior Champions” on Sunday
I haven’t had a chance to watch all of “Warrior Champions,” and I usually don’t write about movies that I haven’t had a chance to see all the way through.
But I thought I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention this documentary, which screens at 9 tonight at The Hideout. The Hideout is right down from the Paramount, and “Warrior Champions” would make a good companion piece to the earlier screening of “The Messenger.”
I’ve watched the first half of “Warrior Champions.” It focuses on a group of wounded American soldiers who come back to the States and try to turn their disabilities — from missing limbs to paralysis — into the chance to compete at the 2008 Paralympic Games in Beijing.
Craig and Brent Renaud direct. And as you might guess, the movie is an inspirational tale about endurance, persistence and hope.
Like “The Messenger,” it’s a good look at war’s aftermath.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
Animated shorts at AFF
If you get a chance to check out the animated shorts, be sure to attend the next screening of “Shorts 10” on Wednesday.
The collection of nine shorts is easily one of the best compilations of the festival.
Two big favorites: “The Not-So-Great Eugene Green” and “The King of the Island.”
Most of the entries here are from outside the States. “Eugene Green” is from Australia, and full of the quirky humor that the Down Under is known for. “The King of the Island” is from Italy, and is the most touching of the shorts.
“Eugene Green” deals with a guy who thinks he’s terribly funny, with his “gulp, gulp” antics involving his very long throat. But no one else seems to get the joke, except a diminutive young woman with big glasses. And when she laughs, her voice is loud enough to shatter glass — and even buildings. It’s simply charming, and proves that there’s someone for everyone.
“The King of the Island” is more contemplative, dealing with a boy whose father has gone missing on a ship. He dreams of his father’s heroic looks and imagines all sorts of feats, based on what he sees as model fathers in his native Italy. But when he finally meets his long-lost dad, he is disappointed with him. The dad is dumpy, less-than-heroic-looking. And he seems to be the consummate loser. As you might expect, the son begins to realize that his initial judgments were wrong and that his father really is a hero. This touching short is beautifully animated and deserves as wide audience.
Be prepared for a crowded venue. The Hideout Theater was packed for the first screening on Friday. The next screening is Wednesday at the Independent at 501.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
Panel highlights: A Conversation with Mitchell Hurwitz
“A Conversation with Mitchell Hurwitz” Saturday in the Stephen F. Austin Hotel Ballroom really was a conversation. Moderator Paul Feig shifted quickly from interviewing the winner of the 2009 Austin Film Festival’s Outstanding Television Writer award to just shooting the breeze with him.
Feig, the creator of “Freaks and Geeks,” has become a sought-after director — kind of to TV what Foo Fighters frontman Dave Grohl brings to other bands as a drummer for hire. He’s directed episodes of “Mad Men,” “The Office” and “30 Rock” in addition to ” “Arrested Development.”
Hurwitz, best known for the shaky, hand-held camera antics of the Bluth family, began his television career on a program called “Nurses.”
Here are some highlights of their conversation:
On writing: Hurwitz said that he often likes to begin writing with constructs, such as ego, superego and id. When he was starting out and writing spec scripts, he said, he would ask himself questions, such as “Okay, how many people are on Cheers? How do they connect with each other?” Such devices, he says, become invisible to the audience but can help spark the creative process. In “Arrested Development,” he originally began basing his characters on the construct “matriarch, patriarch, craftsman and clown.” Originally envisioned as the series’ four main characters, Lindsay, Michael, Buster and Gob filled those roles.
“As a creative person,” Hurwitz said, “the hardest thing is a first draft. It destroys your image that you can write. It doesn’t come out of the pen correctly. Then we go the stage and the first run-through, and I’m devastated. Then to post-production, where I think, ‘I’m a fraud. It doesn’t work.’ Hard work is so much more a part of this than talent is. The harder you work the more chance you have of being talented. If you struggle with it, that’s okay. That’s part of it.”
“The only people who love to write are bad writers,” Feig added.
Hurwitz said the old aphorism, “Write what you know,” is a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. “Even if you write science fiction,” he said, “you’re going to be writing what you know.”
On inspiration: Hurwitz says his favorite quote is this gem, from philosopher Isaiah Berlin: “Life is choice, and choice is loss.” Each time you make a choice, you let go of all of the other possibilities available. But, ” If you do make a choice and commit,” Hurwitz said, “you will find your creative direction.”
On Ron Howard: The impetus behing “Arrested Development” was highly praised by Hurwitz, who said, “He made a schizo mathematician into a big, wide-release movie. He’s kind of amazing that way.” It was Howard who approached Hurwitz about creating a cinema verite, documentary-style show. They dialed the documentary idea back after learning about the original, British version of “The Office,” which had begun airing as they created “Arrested.” Howard encouraged Hurwitz to take risks which Hurwitz, coming from a background of conventional (but good) sitcoms such as “The Golden Girls” was happy to do.
On the executives: “There are no longer executives that come from Broadway or from entertainment backgrounds,” Hurwitz said. “They all come from accounting,” Feig added. Both said that was okay, there was definitely a need and a place for that.
On “Arrested Development”: “We knew we weren’t going to be a financial success; we knew we weren’t going to be a ratings success,” Hurwitz said. So they just made the best show they could make.
On the show’s ground-breaking camera style: As a director, Feig claims the method allows for a funnier product. It enables him to ask actors such as Steve Carrell of “The Office” to change things up and approach scenes several different ways, which is difficult and costly to do with conventional camera set-ups. “Multiple hand-held cameras make it possible to catch improvised takes from many angles,” Feig said. ” ‘Arrested’ got people used to the handheld camera quick cuts; I think it’s the best way to shoot TV. You can run, you can fly. It’s great for actors — you can go again and go again.” Intricate camera set-ups have their place, he said, but “there are not many comedies about camera set-ups and shots.”
On the “Arrested Development” movie: “I’m tempted to change the style for the film, but Ron Howard wants it to stay the same,” Hurwitz claimed. “It will have just a little more polish.”
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
Top pick for Sunday viewing
“Precious” is one of the best movies at this year’s Austin Film Festival. But the other great movie is “The Messenger,” which screens tonight at 7 at the Paramount.
I won’t review it here, but I’ll make a few comments and offer some tips on viewing and why I think it’s so great.
Watch the eyes of Ben Foster, who plays Will Montgomery, a soldier who has been wounded in Iraq and has to use eye drops because his tear ducts have been damaged in an explosion. It’s a good metaphor for the entire movie, and Foster makes the most of his eyes. In fact, much of the movie can be seen as a long point of view from his perspective, with the need for tears representing his need for emotional engagement. (I know that sounds corny, but it’s true.)
Firs-time director Oren Moverman shows an astonishing ability to do long takes, without jerky cuts and unnecessary camera movements. Instead, he sets his camera and trusts the actors to deliver. And man, do they deliver. Besides Foster, the two other key characters are a crusty Army man (Woody Harrelson) and a grieving war widow (Samantha Morton.)
If you go to the screening, pay close attention to the kitchen scene between Foster and Morton. Their primary directive was to portray two people who desperately want to kiss but can’t bring themselves to let their lips touch. The scene lasts nine minutes and is done in one take. It’s important to note that the scene you’ll be seeing was actually a rehearsal. Foster and Morton pulled it off so perfectly in rehearsal that the scene ended up in the movie, without editing.
It’s a major debut for Foster, in his first leading role. But it’s also an eye-opener because of Harrelson’s performance and Moverman’s unexpected virtuosity. This one is a must-see.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
Scenes from the Austin Film Fest
- Photos: ‘Apollo 13’ red carpet with Ron Howard
- Photos: ‘Serious Moonlight’ red carpet with Cheryl Hines
- Photos: Top AFF picks
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
Panel highlights: A Conversation with Ron Howard
The crowd who patiently waited in a packed Stephen F. Austin ballroom for Ron Howard — held up at the awards luncheon (which by all accounts was a riot) — was more than rewarded with an engaging and thoughtful exchange from the actor-turned-director whose work includes some of the best-loved American movies of the past two decades. Not surprising: With his instantly recognizable voice, he came across as charming, sincere and quite funny. Surprising: He apparently takes advice from coaches including Pat Riley and Joe Torre.
Moderator Bill Broyles Jr., who has worked with Howard on movies including “Apollo 13,” essentially opened up the floor to questions. Some of the highlights:
On how Howard picks a script: He recalled reading the “Apollo 13” script standing in a packed train into New York. “When I got to the end, I was fighting off tears while standing near all these commuters.” He knew then that he “wouldn’t let anyone else work on it,” and to him, that’s the moment he knows that a movie needs to belong to him. Calling it almost “jealous greed,” if he can’t stand the idea of someone else working on a project, he knows it’s his.
On what makes a script work: In addition to a strong subject, setting and characters, the film needs to find ways to create suspense, regardless of genre, Howard says, calling all of his movies “suspense movies” to some degree.
On creating that suspense, even when the viewer knows the outcome (such as in “Apollo 13” and “Frost/Nixon.” Even when a film is completely fictional, “nine times out 10, people guess the ending anyway. The key is to invest the audience in the journey,” Howard says. When the viewers relate to the characters, the film becomes more of a “human journey,” and you focus more on “How will they be when they get there?” As an example, Howard said he knew when he saw the play, he wanted to make “Frost/Nixon,” but to flesh it out, he wanted to expand more on the secondary characters, the observers, who viewers would probably be able to relate more with than Richard Nixon or David Frost.
On making the switch from actor to director as a young man: Howard told a hysterical gem about one of his projects in his mid-20s, “Skyward,” a TV movie filmed in Dallas starring the great Bette Davis. Howard called Davis before meeting her to discuss the project, and she kept referring to him as “Mr. Howard.” When he asked her to call him Ron, she said, “I will call you Mr. Howard until I decide whether I like you or not.” On his first day on the set with her, inspired by the photos he saw of Davis working with directors on set in Hollywood’s heyday, he wore a jacket and tie, despite the Texas August heat. Not impressed, she referred to him as “a child” in front of the crew. But soon he gave her direction, which she took despite protest, and she agreed that he made the right call. As they were wrapping for the day, Howard recalls: “She said, ‘OK, Ron, I’ll see you tomorrow,” and she patted me on the ass.”
On using his acting experience as a director: Howard recalled his work on “Cocoon,” which starred four gifted but incredibly different actors: Wilfred Brimley, who loved improvisation; Hume Cronyn, steeped in formal training; Don Ameche, more old-school Hollywood; and Jack Gilford, who rose from vaudeville. Howard said the actors were a little unnerved by Brimley’s ease with improv. So Howard would pull them all aside and say ‘We have to help him out,” he’s not good at remembering scripts, etc. And they all got into it, except for Ameche, who just could not do improv. So a writer on the set would secretly feed Ameche ad-libs so that he would fit in.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
Narrative shorts followup
The narrative shorts award was announced Saturday, and the winner was “Nice Shootin’ Cowboy,” an Australian flick from director Ben Phelps.
The previous post about winners didn’t go into detail about any of the winners, but “Nice Shootin’ Cowboy” was a worthy winner.
Shot in a rural, deserted spot in Australia, the movie unfolds as four people sit in a car, with flies swarming around their faces. They’re waiting on something or somebody, but it’s not clear. The movie doesn’t say. Instead, it slowly shows. Two young men sit in the front, and a young man and woman sit in the back seat. The flies, of course, indicate the unsavoriness of what’s to come.
They’re there to sell a baby, obviously the offspring of the couple in the back of the car. After another car drives up and faces them, one of the young men gets out and carries the baby for inspection. The judgment: It’s too black and is not wanted. To say more would be to give away too much of the short, but let’s just say it’s a powerful examination of prejudice and desperation.
One other short deserves to be mentioned, but didn’t get an award. It’s called “Bar Flies,” and is directed by David Broyles from a script by Alan Barkley. If the short is any indication, Broyles and Barkley have the potential to become a new David Lynch. The music, the costuming, the ambiance all combine to produce an ethereal look at a world unto itself — a bar in the middle of nowhere, inhabited by regulars who seem to be in a perpetual state of disassociation. It’s 10 minutes long and was made in the U.S. And it deserves a hearty endorsement.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment Categories: Austin Film Festival 2009
