I plan on moving this blog to another in 2010 first quarter. It depends on whether or not the new site is up and running properly. There is a ton going on behind the scenes here at AOF, and in order for me to not give it completely away, I just want to say this blog will be less about blogging about an ideal or theme and more about what interests me that day. Which is kind of what it's always been, but at least I'll admit to it now. We will probably keep the name "Art of Function" but the URL and subsequent feed would change. So, there you go. Information!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Indefinite Hiatus
I am going to be putting AOF on an indefinite Hiatus. Obviously, I have not posted in a great while, and that trend has been standing for too long here on AOF. I am not "Quitting" this gig, or closing the site. I'm just taking the rest of 2009, to do a little soul searching and determine what I want the site to be about, and what I want a web presence for myself to look like. I will be back when my heart and my soul have an answer that my brain can execute.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
They Don't Know They're Lines?
Dennis Baker of dennisbaker.net posted this article via Twitter. You can read it here! The article features a write up on how some TOP Tier broadway actors are using line prompters and ear pieces for line cues during actual paid performances. Matthew Broderick is the most cited offender. He is currently using a 'helper' who sits in the front row with the script. How sad is that? Angela Landsbury (a theater icon) used an ear piece with a prompter during her Tony run with "Blythe Spirit last year."
The article is blazing through the theater blogosphere, with most folks giving Landsbury a pass for her age (84), but Broderick who has seen his star fade since his "Producer" glory days is getting run on the rails.
It's difficult for me as a teaching artist, because I tell my students that line memorization is basically the bread and butter of their job. It should be like breathing. When I studied with Alfred Molina he often criticized not having your lines as a simple excuse. In his world, Lines should just "Fall out of your Mouth, You shouldn't have to think about them."
So, imagine my surprise when a paid AEA actor can't pull this simple of simplest tasks off. I don't care if you are getting re-writes during the preliminary runs. You have an obligation to that paid audience sitting out there to deliver a professional show.
The article is blazing through the theater blogosphere, with most folks giving Landsbury a pass for her age (84), but Broderick who has seen his star fade since his "Producer" glory days is getting run on the rails.
It's difficult for me as a teaching artist, because I tell my students that line memorization is basically the bread and butter of their job. It should be like breathing. When I studied with Alfred Molina he often criticized not having your lines as a simple excuse. In his world, Lines should just "Fall out of your Mouth, You shouldn't have to think about them."
So, imagine my surprise when a paid AEA actor can't pull this simple of simplest tasks off. I don't care if you are getting re-writes during the preliminary runs. You have an obligation to that paid audience sitting out there to deliver a professional show.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Fox vs Bay
The Megan Fox thing is fairly interesting. When I say the "Megan Fox Thing", I am referring to her feud with Director Michael Bay. Now, I know that both people have their fans and both people have their detractors. Fox has been likened to a younger Angelina Jolie. Sexy, controversial and box office gold. Bay is one of the best action sequence directors of all time, but his reputation for making good dialogue scenes is suspect. What am I saying? Well, they are box office hits in some ways, but they have yet to deliver anything that has inspired the illuminati of the Entertainment World who value both dollar signs and artistic integrity.
FOX started this feud by basically saying Michael Bay was an insecure tyrant on set. He is as she puts it, "Hitler". Bay has been rambling on and on about how he 'discovered' Megan Fox, which is probably true as well. Bay's crew wrote a scathing letter that painted Megan Fox as a dimwitted hack, whose attempts at acting were, "Painful to watch".
So, this was all pretty fun considering that deals for a sequel to Transformers 3 was in the works. Now, you may be reading this and saying, "Those Movies suck!" However, they are gold mines for the Above the Line talent. You are almost set for life if you get above the line or back end on any of those movies. So, the drama in the PR smears between the two was sure to play out in the behind closed doors meetings with the studios.
Bay has signed on to direct 3 and he is going to bring in Fox to reprise her roll as the bouncy breasted girl friend to Shia Lebouf's character. However, now nerd-dom is reporting he plans to kill her off in the first scene. Is this revenge? Probably. I'm sure Bay would love to kill her off, and then bring in some other hot piece of ass to take her place, and then that girl could be the next "It" girl.
Who suffers here? Really, no one. Fox is already booked for the next few years on projects. She'll be working until 2011 guaranteed. By then she'll have enough money to buy plenty of crayons and coloring books and pot to last her until 2036.
This is the product of EGO in Hollywood. A director desides to "Make a Star" in a movie, and then we're forced to stomach it. This is all gamesmanship over a movie that is a 90 minute commerical for toys. This thing in the grand scheme of things does not make humanity better for it being made. It makes humanity employed in a 1000 different ways. Money in this town creates egos so big they are staggering. I don't think Bay could line up his Transformers Franchises up to Peter Jackson's LOTR movies and say, "Mine are as good as his." He can't do it. Yet, when you can OPEN, you have done something in this business. And Bay's films OPEN every time they hit theaters. Thus the landscape of EGO we get to watch unfold.
FOX started this feud by basically saying Michael Bay was an insecure tyrant on set. He is as she puts it, "Hitler". Bay has been rambling on and on about how he 'discovered' Megan Fox, which is probably true as well. Bay's crew wrote a scathing letter that painted Megan Fox as a dimwitted hack, whose attempts at acting were, "Painful to watch".
So, this was all pretty fun considering that deals for a sequel to Transformers 3 was in the works. Now, you may be reading this and saying, "Those Movies suck!" However, they are gold mines for the Above the Line talent. You are almost set for life if you get above the line or back end on any of those movies. So, the drama in the PR smears between the two was sure to play out in the behind closed doors meetings with the studios.
Bay has signed on to direct 3 and he is going to bring in Fox to reprise her roll as the bouncy breasted girl friend to Shia Lebouf's character. However, now nerd-dom is reporting he plans to kill her off in the first scene. Is this revenge? Probably. I'm sure Bay would love to kill her off, and then bring in some other hot piece of ass to take her place, and then that girl could be the next "It" girl.
Who suffers here? Really, no one. Fox is already booked for the next few years on projects. She'll be working until 2011 guaranteed. By then she'll have enough money to buy plenty of crayons and coloring books and pot to last her until 2036.
This is the product of EGO in Hollywood. A director desides to "Make a Star" in a movie, and then we're forced to stomach it. This is all gamesmanship over a movie that is a 90 minute commerical for toys. This thing in the grand scheme of things does not make humanity better for it being made. It makes humanity employed in a 1000 different ways. Money in this town creates egos so big they are staggering. I don't think Bay could line up his Transformers Franchises up to Peter Jackson's LOTR movies and say, "Mine are as good as his." He can't do it. Yet, when you can OPEN, you have done something in this business. And Bay's films OPEN every time they hit theaters. Thus the landscape of EGO we get to watch unfold.
Friday, October 9, 2009
ABC Looks Smarter than NBC!
The news down the perverbial pipeline this morning is that ABC feels so good about their new Comedy Line-Up they've already picked up "The Middle", "Modern Family" and "Cougar Town". I managed to catch them all this week. The Middle is basically Malcom in the Middle, if you did the show from the Mom's perspective instead of the Middle Kid. Patricia Heaton is fairly average, but the rest of the cast picks up the pieces. Modern Family could be Arrested Development if it continues to keep taking big risks. Cougar Town will appeal to people other than me, but it's fine. And it shoots two blocks away from my house. Noticeably absent from the pick ups was the Kelsey Grammer DOA "Hank". This show is campy and awful. So, hopefully it dies. However, the good news from ABC is that they are proving that good writing and good acting can result in ratings.
NBC cancelled another Scripted show, "Southland". This was an edgy piece that painted cops in a negative fashion. Did you really think Middle America would love this? It should have been on FX or something. Also, rumored to go soon is the high price tag, TRAUMA. So, hey all you actors, NBC just keeps on screwing you over with their bad decisions.
NBC cancelled another Scripted show, "Southland". This was an edgy piece that painted cops in a negative fashion. Did you really think Middle America would love this? It should have been on FX or something. Also, rumored to go soon is the high price tag, TRAUMA. So, hey all you actors, NBC just keeps on screwing you over with their bad decisions.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
People Want Leno To Fail: Part 2
Ah Ha! I was making this point about the 'safeness' of the NBC line up, and how it was pretty much doomed about two hours ago. Now, I just read this article on DHD!
"This is not a fun place to be right now. And we committed to Jay Leno on the air for 2 years because he was worried we'd have an itchy trigger finger. It's an embarrassment for all of us. Maybe he'll get fed up -- he's not right now -- and then we can re-negotiate." This is beyond sad. It's the destruction of a brand."NBC is in trouble, which is sad based on the fact that the brand was seemingly on the rise prior to the Writers Strike in 07'. I guess Ben Silverman really was an idiot when it came to handling the primetime schedule.
People Want Leno To Fail
I sat down a few weeks back and watched the premier of the Jay Leno show. My wife who is much more the expert in TV than I am (because she worked in it for 9 years and has a degree in it) thought the concept was a worth while experiment, but ultimately we found it a little flawed. However, NBC is pushing the show with both barrels. Jay Leno has been promoted as the bench mark for comedy today, and all kinds of big hollywood starts are lining up to appear on a show that is basically the same as Jay's old show, just on T.V. an hour and a half earlier.
However, as time has worn on, Leno has failed to match his first night Rating Extravaganza. He's fallen somewhere between 30% - 40% on average, with the biggest plummet hitting 50% below the deput of a 14 share. I don't really like talking numbers. I'm just trying to point out, that Leno is on shakey ground. And in this era when ratings are tracked by the minute, and failure to perform gets you the hook faster than you can say, "Head Cases", Leno has to wonder if his good graces will run out much sooner than say, Jimmy Kimmel's good graces. (seriously, who watches that show?).
There is a large cadre of folks who want Leno to fail. And it's not because people hate Jay Leno. People in the industry generally think he's an okay guy. I met him once at a Panda Express. He was a fairly normal, dude. (folks really reserve private hate for Ellen Degeneres) Folks want Leno to fail because it would be a big blow to "Alternative and Reality" programming replacing scripted series.
Leno's show (which is super cheap to produce, especially in post) replaces nearly 5 scripted 1 hour long dramas. That's millions of dollars and revenue going to writers, actors, producers, crews and post production staff. The cost is well above what Leno is doing his show. NBC, which is currently swirling in rumors of financial crisis (Both major share holders, Vivendi and GE are rumored to be shopping their shares), is trying to do what is ultimately the biggest mistake all SUITS running networks and studios make when they are terrified of their bottom line. They are playing it safe.
You look at their line up. They've cut back on NEW shows by at least 4, and replaced bad shows with tried and true dramas formerly in their 10pm slot. They even spun off SNL into a weekly prime time half hour show, in hopes of getting their viewers to watch more often. Jay's show is just another example of this. This is a safe line-up. While entertaining, their Thursday night line up features shows that basically clones of themselves. Parks and Recreation is a clone of The Office, while one could also argue Community is a clone of 30 Rock. I don't want to run a critique of the schedule, but the reality is this is the 'safest most reliable' way to garner stable ratings and try to hit revenue forecast numbers. It is also a great way to fail miserably.
And Fail Miserably, is what many on the inside want. Production companies are licking their chops and waiting to pitch their "I told You So!" shows once the Jay experiment loses it's grant funding. Only time will tell, dear, readers.
However, as time has worn on, Leno has failed to match his first night Rating Extravaganza. He's fallen somewhere between 30% - 40% on average, with the biggest plummet hitting 50% below the deput of a 14 share. I don't really like talking numbers. I'm just trying to point out, that Leno is on shakey ground. And in this era when ratings are tracked by the minute, and failure to perform gets you the hook faster than you can say, "Head Cases", Leno has to wonder if his good graces will run out much sooner than say, Jimmy Kimmel's good graces. (seriously, who watches that show?).
There is a large cadre of folks who want Leno to fail. And it's not because people hate Jay Leno. People in the industry generally think he's an okay guy. I met him once at a Panda Express. He was a fairly normal, dude. (folks really reserve private hate for Ellen Degeneres) Folks want Leno to fail because it would be a big blow to "Alternative and Reality" programming replacing scripted series.
Leno's show (which is super cheap to produce, especially in post) replaces nearly 5 scripted 1 hour long dramas. That's millions of dollars and revenue going to writers, actors, producers, crews and post production staff. The cost is well above what Leno is doing his show. NBC, which is currently swirling in rumors of financial crisis (Both major share holders, Vivendi and GE are rumored to be shopping their shares), is trying to do what is ultimately the biggest mistake all SUITS running networks and studios make when they are terrified of their bottom line. They are playing it safe.
You look at their line up. They've cut back on NEW shows by at least 4, and replaced bad shows with tried and true dramas formerly in their 10pm slot. They even spun off SNL into a weekly prime time half hour show, in hopes of getting their viewers to watch more often. Jay's show is just another example of this. This is a safe line-up. While entertaining, their Thursday night line up features shows that basically clones of themselves. Parks and Recreation is a clone of The Office, while one could also argue Community is a clone of 30 Rock. I don't want to run a critique of the schedule, but the reality is this is the 'safest most reliable' way to garner stable ratings and try to hit revenue forecast numbers. It is also a great way to fail miserably.
And Fail Miserably, is what many on the inside want. Production companies are licking their chops and waiting to pitch their "I told You So!" shows once the Jay experiment loses it's grant funding. Only time will tell, dear, readers.
Print Vs Online
This week it was announced that Gourmet Magazine, which has been an American Culinary Institution for 70 years will now shut it's doors. Since it was announced a furor of on-line articles and print articles have been wading into the collective consciousness discussing the ramifications of this action. Granted we are quickly watching PRINT media darlings falter in this new Internet Age of information and there is a fundamental problem that is being over-looked.
Here is a quote from Chris Kimbal's Op Ed piece in the New York Times:
"The shuttering of Gourmet reminds us that in a click-or-die advertising marketplace, one ruled by a million instant pundits, where an anonymous Twitter comment might be seen to pack more resonance and useful content than an article that reflects a lifetime of experience, experts are not created from the top down but from the bottom up. They can no longer be coronated; their voices have to be deemed essential to the lives of their customers. That leaves, I think, little room for the thoughtful, considered editorial with which Gourmet delighted its readers for almost seven decades. To survive, those of us who believe that inexperience rarely leads to wisdom need to swim against the tide, better define our brands, prove our worth, ask to be paid for what we do, and refuse to climb aboard this ship of fools, the one where everyone has an equal voice."There is an issue with what is happening in the world of print and online and this great transition and fundamentally, there is an economic problem. Blogs (like the one you are reading now) are usually started because someone has an idea, some time on their hands, and the need to voice an opinion. The second reason they are started is to make some money. However, Blogs are so ubiquitous right now, that no one is really making any money except the idiot withe pink website that we don't want to talk about anymore. A few are rising to prominence. In fact, I got my quote from Chris Kimble from Ed Levin's Serious Eats Blog.
Blogging is a speculative business. My own podcast project The Starting Zone is getting some nice number and great traffic, but we're not making a cent off that site. The best we see are a few donations tossed our way to cover server space.
So, there is no money in the internet, but there was money in Print, but Print is dying because no one is using print and just using the internet... where is that money going?
Who knows really, where the money is going. My guess, people are shoveling it more towards rainy day savings accounts these days. Sure, my wife used to keep a nice little subscription to a few magazines, but she's since abandonned them so we can save a few bucks, and now she's using free online resources.
We all know that the Print businesses haven't really successfully managed to transition over to the internet. Deadline Hollywod Daily is the premier entertainment source on the net, and it surpasses Variety and Hollywood Reporter. However, both of the former Entertainment blab mags, are wallowing in a contracting market. They are losing money in the print game, but can't seem to get their share back in internet game. Why? Because the only way to make money outside of selling a product on the internet is through advertising. And since they lose their ability to sell subscriptions on the internet, they are stuck with the issue of accepting lower ad returns. Print Media, gets' to 'sell' their writing as well as make money in advertising. However, on the internet that model doesn't work because some schmuck is willing to give their writing away for free cutting about 50% of the cost model out of your equation for print business.
So, what happens when all the Print has in essence, died off? Well, perhaps Internet sites not charging now, might start charging. Who knows? Rupert Murdoch claims his Fox New site is going to go to a subscription service soon. Will it work? Well, it kind of has to. There is going to be a lot of folks formerly employed in the Print game who will be out of work without a company that can pay them to do what they used to do.
Economically the world cannot afford to lose Publication without a viable industry there to replace it. It's an interesting concept when you really think about it. What if an industry goes away, and there is nothing to replace it? Moreover, does the quality of writing suffer, when folks are not able to devote a career or vocation to the art of the writing, especially criticism.
What do we do in a world without critics?
Friday, September 25, 2009
Ken Howard Takes the Chair
So, we spent a lot of time in the last year spewing vitriol at how Alan Rosenberg handled the SAG negotiations while in the position of President of the Union. Alan was perfectly incapable of doing a good job in his role and apparently the membership expressed that opinion in the latest SAG board and Leadership Elections.
Membership First, the very vocal and disruptive, faction that at one time held some prominence in the guild with one of their own as President, lost further seats on the National Board as well as saw their nominee for president, Anne Marie Johnson lose to Ken Howard of Unite for Strength.
In other words it's a bit of a new era in SAG headquarters. Hopefully Ken and his pals, don't screw it up worse than it already is.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
How the Media Handles Stupidity
There have been two moments over the past seven days where a public figure has taken a moment where the world is watching, and decided to make themselves look like a complete jack ass.
Congressman Joe Wilson's, "You Lie!" out burst during President Obama's address to the joint Houses of Congress should have been a lesson to those in public office. No matter how much you disagree, public decorum is always best maintained. Passions can get the best of us, and then you can say the dumbest of things. What was ultimately sad about Wilson's outburst was he was wrong. While Obama discussed the point that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for health care coverage under the Public Option, Wilson responded with his, "You Lie!" Then the next day the actual document for the proposed reform bill showed that indeed Obama wasn't lying. Wilson's career seems over with his own party mates now shuffling away from him. His chief rival in the 2010 election for his seat in Congress raised over six figures in campaign funds since the outburst. It was apparent, we had a lesson on our hands. Keep your cool when you don't agree, when its' in front of the world.
Kanye West, who is probably one of the most insulated stars in the music industry, apparently failed to see this lesson. So, he went to the VMA's this weekend with bottle of cognac in hand and crashed an award presentation to Taylor Swift, citing that Beyonce Knowles should have won the award of Swift. The incredible public display of rudeness and idiocy has been plastered over the news and webosphere. There is even a new Meme developing to finally kill the keyboard cat.
Check out an example here: http://imgur.com/h9Guq.png
I find it odd that the press rarely gives the apology though, which is usually equally public as much face time as they do the incident. While, Kanye and Joe Wilson had bad reps to begin with, and deserve their bad press (or is it still good press?), it is odd that the incidents merit more attention than the apology. My question is, does this lack of 'forgiveness' in the media equate to a lack of forgiveness on the part of our society. It's a big question. I just ate a bacon panini... I usually have big questions hit my little head after a bacon panini.
Congressman Joe Wilson's, "You Lie!" out burst during President Obama's address to the joint Houses of Congress should have been a lesson to those in public office. No matter how much you disagree, public decorum is always best maintained. Passions can get the best of us, and then you can say the dumbest of things. What was ultimately sad about Wilson's outburst was he was wrong. While Obama discussed the point that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for health care coverage under the Public Option, Wilson responded with his, "You Lie!" Then the next day the actual document for the proposed reform bill showed that indeed Obama wasn't lying. Wilson's career seems over with his own party mates now shuffling away from him. His chief rival in the 2010 election for his seat in Congress raised over six figures in campaign funds since the outburst. It was apparent, we had a lesson on our hands. Keep your cool when you don't agree, when its' in front of the world.
Kanye West, who is probably one of the most insulated stars in the music industry, apparently failed to see this lesson. So, he went to the VMA's this weekend with bottle of cognac in hand and crashed an award presentation to Taylor Swift, citing that Beyonce Knowles should have won the award of Swift. The incredible public display of rudeness and idiocy has been plastered over the news and webosphere. There is even a new Meme developing to finally kill the keyboard cat.
Check out an example here: http://imgur.com/h9Guq.png
I find it odd that the press rarely gives the apology though, which is usually equally public as much face time as they do the incident. While, Kanye and Joe Wilson had bad reps to begin with, and deserve their bad press (or is it still good press?), it is odd that the incidents merit more attention than the apology. My question is, does this lack of 'forgiveness' in the media equate to a lack of forgiveness on the part of our society. It's a big question. I just ate a bacon panini... I usually have big questions hit my little head after a bacon panini.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Patton Oswald Talks Obama and Time Travel
Yeah, that's a screwed up header for a blog post, but it's what I have for you today. Patton Oswald had a new comedy central routine and as always he delivers some smart, funny and irreverent stuff while being poignant and topical. My jealousy hates this guy. By the way, I'm level 8 on farmville so excuse me while I go bask in my ineptitude. Holy Crap, I suck today.
| Jokes.com | ||||
| DVD - Exclusive Patton Oswalt - The Year 2009 | ||||
| ||||
Monday, August 31, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Zach Gali... fah... something?
Zach Galifianakis (yes, I had to look it up to spell it) or Zach G as I will now refer to him in this post is probably the best unknown hipster indie (insert your own cool cred adjective here) comedian working today... if he wasn't so well known. Most of you know him as the bearded drunk in the summer smash, "The Hangover". Most of us knew him previously as... the bearded drunk who used to do stand-up routines with a piano. Anyway, Zach's star is on the rise and I will not hold the fact that he also starred in "G-Force" against him. Especially, after watching the latest episode of his web series mocking talk shows, "Between Two Ferns". On a side not, I really like Jon Hamm. If I were super handsome, and a critical sweet heart with a Golden Globe, I think I would model my exploits after his exploits. NOTE: I'm have no idea why I am used the word 'exploits' in the previous sentance.
Monday, August 17, 2009
District 9
I have a few points to make here about the film District 9.
First, I do recommend it for those of you who can stomach some gore. The film has some definite gore points in it. So, if you can do that kind of thing, you should be fine. If you are squeamish, then unfortunately, you will have to miss the best movie to be released this summer.
District 9 is remarkable if you are a writer because of how the film takes the idea of the 'Hero' and completely turns it upside down. The lead character Vickers Van De Mere is quite possibly the most dynamic protagonist that has been created in cinema in the last 10 years. I have wracked my brain for a more conflicted hero who undergoes a similar transformation, but I can't come up with one.
What the film makers do is take a completely un-likable non-heroic character and completely transform him in every way, emotionally, idealistically and physically in the course of the 90 minute film. This transformation is at times almost unbelieveable. You at some points lose the ability to understand who you should be rooting for in this film. It's that crazy. You cannot understand how this dim-witted, happy go lucky, by the book, racist, cowardly knuckle head could be at any point likable, but they mange to do it. Even when the character completely abandons your ideals of heroism.
To say that Peter Jackson produced a land mark film is a bit of an understatement. Neil Blomkamp the director should be heavily praised for creating this Phoenix from the ashes of the lost Halo movie. As science fiction it's message of respect for life, and commentary on racism are not new, and in some ways very obvious. However, if one digs deeper they find this amazing selection of character studies ripe for discussion.
Lastly, the amazing part of D-9 is that it's already profitable in it's first weekend of release. Created for 30 million, it netted 34 million this weekend. So, this completely original idea is completely profitable, while 'established' intellectual property based films are not netting the 'sure thing' dollars they were supposed to. It will be interesting to see if this catches the eyes of the suits in Hollywood.
First, I do recommend it for those of you who can stomach some gore. The film has some definite gore points in it. So, if you can do that kind of thing, you should be fine. If you are squeamish, then unfortunately, you will have to miss the best movie to be released this summer.
District 9 is remarkable if you are a writer because of how the film takes the idea of the 'Hero' and completely turns it upside down. The lead character Vickers Van De Mere is quite possibly the most dynamic protagonist that has been created in cinema in the last 10 years. I have wracked my brain for a more conflicted hero who undergoes a similar transformation, but I can't come up with one.
What the film makers do is take a completely un-likable non-heroic character and completely transform him in every way, emotionally, idealistically and physically in the course of the 90 minute film. This transformation is at times almost unbelieveable. You at some points lose the ability to understand who you should be rooting for in this film. It's that crazy. You cannot understand how this dim-witted, happy go lucky, by the book, racist, cowardly knuckle head could be at any point likable, but they mange to do it. Even when the character completely abandons your ideals of heroism.
To say that Peter Jackson produced a land mark film is a bit of an understatement. Neil Blomkamp the director should be heavily praised for creating this Phoenix from the ashes of the lost Halo movie. As science fiction it's message of respect for life, and commentary on racism are not new, and in some ways very obvious. However, if one digs deeper they find this amazing selection of character studies ripe for discussion.
Lastly, the amazing part of D-9 is that it's already profitable in it's first weekend of release. Created for 30 million, it netted 34 million this weekend. So, this completely original idea is completely profitable, while 'established' intellectual property based films are not netting the 'sure thing' dollars they were supposed to. It will be interesting to see if this catches the eyes of the suits in Hollywood.
Crap, it's been a while!
Super Busy Mick, means lack of posting on the Blog. However, weird rumblings and weird actor things and good movies have prompted me back. I shall post, momentarily.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Peter Jackson Said It Out Loud!
I'll post a little blog about Comic-con in a few moments. My general peripheral observations on that Pop Culture mash up may stir a hornets nest or two, and my thoughts are fairly wild. However, an interview was put out by the LA Times with Peter Jackson that took place in San Diego over the past weekend. Geoff Boucher put this little question to Jackson and his response was a fair but unrepentant indictment of business as usual in Hollywood today:
GB: (Referring to Comicon) Certainly, it's a place to introduce the new and celebrate the past, but I suppose what I was suggesting is that these days it seems difficult to make a big special-effects film unless it's based on some pre-existing, known quantity in pop-culture, such as a novel, comic book, video game, TV show, toy line or previous movie."...
PJ: Personally I think that’s one of the most depressing things about the film industry generally today. The writers and directors should be blamed just as much as the studios because really everything seems to be a remake or adapting a 1970s TV show that was never particularly good. Why anyone thinks that it would be a good feature film now, you know, goodness knows why. And I guess it’s easy to say it's security that you know a studio is only prepared to put $150 million or $200 million into something if it’s a known quantity. But at the same time I’m also aware that audiences are getting fed up with the lack of original ideas and original stories. And if you look back to the great days of "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" and those sorts of movies, they weren’t based on TV shows, they weren’t based on comics. They were inspired by them and they had DNA in them which came from years of Flash Gordon and various things in the past but nonetheless they were original. And yet we seem to be incapable as a general industry, which includes not just the studios but the filmmakers and writers and directors, we seem to be incapable of doing that now for some reason. It’s a little bit depressing. But hopefully it’s a cycle. Everything in the film business tends to be cyclic and hopefully this all drains itself out in a couple years and we’ll be back into original stories again.
Now, of course you might say, "This is coming from a guy whose biggest success was a series of movies based off an established work of literature." My only argument was that LOTR is just that an established piece of celebrated literature. Scooby Doo the cartoon or The Transformers are not literature. They are pop culture programming designed to sell toys, just as their movie counter parts were designed to do.
Now whether or not Jackson's film which he produced (not directed) District 9 seems to be a collection of themes taken from various sources, but at the end of the day it is original I.P. that has never been seen before. There is never going to be discussion about 'who is cast as the lead' because there is no established fan base to care about a decision like that. You do not have to cater to fanboys, and you do not have to worry about your 'adaptation' of the property or which story to tell. (Good luck with that by the way to Sam Raimi, P.S. I can help with the script if you need it). You have a fresh story that requires you as a film-maker to push your imagination and the technology around you to the limit, just as Lucas and Spielberg did decades ago.
My only hope for the film-biz right now is Jackson's last statement: Everything in the film business tends to be cyclic and hopefully this all drains itself out in a couple years and we’ll be back into original stories again.
It's clear audiences lap up original ideas. In T.V. you look at the preliminary success of HEROES and the long term success of LOST, and you can point to that and say, "LOOK original ideas work in Hollywood."
Deciding on An Agent
I was asked recently a completely different question as it pertains to the thought of acting and of course agents / managers. Most new actors ask me, "How do I get one?" The answer and method is incredibly simple. I will save that for a later date. However, this question was even more important.
"How do I decide who to sign with?"
BTW, I recently signed new representation recently. I had deliberately waited despite a several rep offers for the person not with the biggest address book, but the person with the most access for me personally. You may have the greatest most well connected agent on Planet Earth, but if you can never get ahold of them, and they never send you out, they are in fact fairly worthless to you despite their pedigree.
So, if you can 'swing by' the office or 'get them on the horn' or 'text 'em' or 'email 'em', and they are receptive to your little check ins, then that's the person you want to be with. Pretty simple.
"How do I decide who to sign with?"
BTW, I recently signed new representation recently. I had deliberately waited despite a several rep offers for the person not with the biggest address book, but the person with the most access for me personally. You may have the greatest most well connected agent on Planet Earth, but if you can never get ahold of them, and they never send you out, they are in fact fairly worthless to you despite their pedigree.
So, if you can 'swing by' the office or 'get them on the horn' or 'text 'em' or 'email 'em', and they are receptive to your little check ins, then that's the person you want to be with. Pretty simple.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The Sage Wisdome of Craig
A Blog on a Sunday? Yep. However, I hate to disappoint you, but this will be fairly short. I'm in the tail end of birthdays and vacations and I don't feel like being particularly clever, witty or observant right now. So, I'll leave that to Craig Ferguson who has this really underrated late night talk show on CBS. It comes on after Letterman. I've loved this guys since the DREW CAREY show, and he's only grown as a talent since then. So, since Craig doesn't have the viewership of other late night hosts, he gets to say whatever he wants. So, check out this gem.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Making Out On Stage
When you teach Meisner based techniques as I do, you will eventually be subjected to some odd conversations surrounding your chosen platform for training actors. Now, we all know that REPETITON is a big part of the training. This exercise simply requires actors to stand before each other, make an observation of the others behavior in a word or two and repeat that word or phrase until a beat in the relationship occurs and the word or phrase changes.
It is the most powerful acting exercise I have ever done and I have ever intergrated into my teaching philosphy outside of Improv. However, repetition is like beginner's improvisation. So, they're kind of one and the same. These relationships that are created in REPS are the perfect harmony of a philosphy, living truthfully in imaginary circumstances. Actors are forced to deal with how they actually behave in certain circumstances opposed to working with 'put on or dressed' character traits.
Inevitably in most sessions of repetitions that I do, lasting up to an hour or more, I'll see around 10 - 20 repetitions with the group. In these sessions, without fail, two people will kiss. It happens frequently. The expressions of the kiss range from gentle, friendly, appreciative, affectionate, passionate, loving and down right horny tongue lashing. The result is always the same. The audience goes very still and is completely enraptured.
I think THE KISS is an incredible expression of human behavior. It's completely captivating. I think that actors need to understand how they do it. So, it's always odd that people have such a hard time simply... doing it.
This gets back to my first point of order... when folks know the exercise and know I teach it, they often ask me two questions: First, how is class going? Second, anyone made out recently? I've had non-actors come to audit the class (directors or agents or producers) they are often struck by the 'making out' that takes place. Which is odd, because it's mostly designated to one or two reps. They often make it sound like it's every rep that occurs. However, what bothers me, is that it bothers them.
Now, I'm not saying all actors should just whore it up on stage and walk into class looking for a cheap grope on-stage, but actors do need to be THAT expressive with their bodies. The fact that a performer could call themselves an actor and place that kind of boundry with physicality in their mind is incredibly baffling to me. We're actors, our bodies are the instrument. Physical touching and affection is part of the game. When I direct pieces, especially for the stage, with relationships that are supposed to be intimate or close, like marriages or families, I often use physical touching the blocking to provide that level of intimacy we need to make the relationship believeable. However, I'm shocked that I have to TELL ACTORS to do this. They don't just do it on their own. I am baffled by this continually. I am shocked that the simple act of holding hands is foreign to people. I am shocked that people think that if they kiss a person on stage, that it might lead to indiscretion or that a simple staged kiss could be considered infidelity in their own off stage relationships.
I think it's a question all artists need to think about, because it goes back to the idea of sexuality and its place in the arts. I think that our puritanical viewpoints on sexuality that still exist in our Western Cultures that are born from the Victorian Age still hold some weight in the fact that simple affection is seen as an open door to sex, and that actors ride this interesting moral ground of how they are percieved based on their choices as they surround the idea of sex. We either forwardly or discreetly bemoan the issues of sex when seen on stage or on television or in film, but at the same time we can't look away, and our numbers and dollars seem to indicate people respond to the idea of affection and even the far ends of sexual expression in media and on stage. Hell, what is HAIR known for? Not the soundtrack. It's the nudity. Why do you think Sex and the City stayed so Provocative, when it was really four almost middle aged women talking about their issues. Well, maybe the title had a little to do with it... that and the actual sex.
Hmmm... I'd love to hear y'alls thoughts on this.
It is the most powerful acting exercise I have ever done and I have ever intergrated into my teaching philosphy outside of Improv. However, repetition is like beginner's improvisation. So, they're kind of one and the same. These relationships that are created in REPS are the perfect harmony of a philosphy, living truthfully in imaginary circumstances. Actors are forced to deal with how they actually behave in certain circumstances opposed to working with 'put on or dressed' character traits.
Inevitably in most sessions of repetitions that I do, lasting up to an hour or more, I'll see around 10 - 20 repetitions with the group. In these sessions, without fail, two people will kiss. It happens frequently. The expressions of the kiss range from gentle, friendly, appreciative, affectionate, passionate, loving and down right horny tongue lashing. The result is always the same. The audience goes very still and is completely enraptured.
I think THE KISS is an incredible expression of human behavior. It's completely captivating. I think that actors need to understand how they do it. So, it's always odd that people have such a hard time simply... doing it.
This gets back to my first point of order... when folks know the exercise and know I teach it, they often ask me two questions: First, how is class going? Second, anyone made out recently? I've had non-actors come to audit the class (directors or agents or producers) they are often struck by the 'making out' that takes place. Which is odd, because it's mostly designated to one or two reps. They often make it sound like it's every rep that occurs. However, what bothers me, is that it bothers them.
Now, I'm not saying all actors should just whore it up on stage and walk into class looking for a cheap grope on-stage, but actors do need to be THAT expressive with their bodies. The fact that a performer could call themselves an actor and place that kind of boundry with physicality in their mind is incredibly baffling to me. We're actors, our bodies are the instrument. Physical touching and affection is part of the game. When I direct pieces, especially for the stage, with relationships that are supposed to be intimate or close, like marriages or families, I often use physical touching the blocking to provide that level of intimacy we need to make the relationship believeable. However, I'm shocked that I have to TELL ACTORS to do this. They don't just do it on their own. I am baffled by this continually. I am shocked that the simple act of holding hands is foreign to people. I am shocked that people think that if they kiss a person on stage, that it might lead to indiscretion or that a simple staged kiss could be considered infidelity in their own off stage relationships.
I think it's a question all artists need to think about, because it goes back to the idea of sexuality and its place in the arts. I think that our puritanical viewpoints on sexuality that still exist in our Western Cultures that are born from the Victorian Age still hold some weight in the fact that simple affection is seen as an open door to sex, and that actors ride this interesting moral ground of how they are percieved based on their choices as they surround the idea of sex. We either forwardly or discreetly bemoan the issues of sex when seen on stage or on television or in film, but at the same time we can't look away, and our numbers and dollars seem to indicate people respond to the idea of affection and even the far ends of sexual expression in media and on stage. Hell, what is HAIR known for? Not the soundtrack. It's the nudity. Why do you think Sex and the City stayed so Provocative, when it was really four almost middle aged women talking about their issues. Well, maybe the title had a little to do with it... that and the actual sex.
Hmmm... I'd love to hear y'alls thoughts on this.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Perez Should Retire
This is my letter to Perez Hilton:
Dear Perez,
I think it may be time for you to hang it up. I am always a fan of creative folks pushing envelopes (writing is a creative process). You not only push, but you shove and punchthe boundries . You have done this for a while now. You have had countless magazine articles written about you, television appearances, etc. etc. etc. Your website is huge, and I know you make about 200K a year off of it. That is a nice little salary. However, I am sorry to say sweetie, but it looks like the wheels have come off the bus.
You are no longer pushing boundries. You are just pushing your luck. This week should be a testament to the reality that your 15 minutes stretched out over a few years, is finally up.
Let's begin with the fiasco of lies and deceptions you perpetrated as truth on your website about an altercation with Will.i.am. You documented your attack was unprovoked and that he hit you for no reason. Then we found out, you called him a name and it was his manager who hit you, not Will.i.am. Then we saw video of you screaming in Will.i.am's face and calling him derogatory names. These names of course being the vulgar words against the GLBT community you say you have proclaimed you are an advocate for. I have to be honest, in the video I saw, you look like you were about to hit him. It's no wonder that Will.i.am's manager stepped in and hit you.
You chose the path of your life. You wanted to spread 'gossip'. Gossip is one of the most dangerous and destructive behaviors to engage in. We all kind of learned this in junior high. You took your junior high mentalities and made a career out of them. Guess, what? The consequences were that by saying dangerous things about people, you would receive dangerous repercussions. I am actually shocked that this has not happened to you before. It goes to show you that the celebrities you ridicule are classier acts than you are.
I know youwrote a very half hearted apology on your website. I know you pledged to file a lawsuit and donate money to the Matthew Shepherd Fund. It must have been a realy slap in the face when the fund publically issued a statement today that they were refusing your money, because you had such blatant disregard for calling another person that slur. If you didn't realize it, they just called you a hypocrite.
Then yesterday you went way too far again, this was your post prior to you editing it about Michael Jackson:
You are no longer pushing boundries. You are just pushing your luck. This week should be a testament to the reality that your 15 minutes stretched out over a few years, is finally up.
Let's begin with the fiasco of lies and deceptions you perpetrated as truth on your website about an altercation with Will.i.am. You documented your attack was unprovoked and that he hit you for no reason. Then we found out, you called him a name and it was his manager who hit you, not Will.i.am. Then we saw video of you screaming in Will.i.am's face and calling him derogatory names. These names of course being the vulgar words against the GLBT community you say you have proclaimed you are an advocate for. I have to be honest, in the video I saw, you look like you were about to hit him. It's no wonder that Will.i.am's manager stepped in and hit you.
You chose the path of your life. You wanted to spread 'gossip'. Gossip is one of the most dangerous and destructive behaviors to engage in. We all kind of learned this in junior high. You took your junior high mentalities and made a career out of them. Guess, what? The consequences were that by saying dangerous things about people, you would receive dangerous repercussions. I am actually shocked that this has not happened to you before. It goes to show you that the celebrities you ridicule are classier acts than you are.
I know youwrote a very half hearted apology on your website. I know you pledged to file a lawsuit and donate money to the Matthew Shepherd Fund. It must have been a realy slap in the face when the fund publically issued a statement today that they were refusing your money, because you had such blatant disregard for calling another person that slur. If you didn't realize it, they just called you a hypocrite.
Then yesterday you went way too far again, this was your post prior to you editing it about Michael Jackson:
“We knew something like this would happen!!
Michael Jackson was taken by ambulance from his Holmby Hills home to a nearby Los Angeles hospital on Thursday afternoon!!
Supposedly, the singer went into cardiac arrest and the paramedics had to administer CPR!!!
His mother is even on the way to visit him!!!
We are dubious!!
Jacko pulled a similar stunt when he was getting ready for his big HBO special in ‘95 when he “collapsed” at rehearsal!
He was dragging his heels on that just like his upcoming 50 date London residency at the 02 Arena, of which he already postponed the first few dates!!!
Either he’s lying or making himself sick, but we’re curious to see if he’s able to go on!!!
Get your money back, ticket holders!!!!”
Michael Jackson was taken by ambulance from his Holmby Hills home to a nearby Los Angeles hospital on Thursday afternoon!!
Supposedly, the singer went into cardiac arrest and the paramedics had to administer CPR!!!
His mother is even on the way to visit him!!!
We are dubious!!
Jacko pulled a similar stunt when he was getting ready for his big HBO special in ‘95 when he “collapsed” at rehearsal!
He was dragging his heels on that just like his upcoming 50 date London residency at the 02 Arena, of which he already postponed the first few dates!!!
Either he’s lying or making himself sick, but we’re curious to see if he’s able to go on!!!
Get your money back, ticket holders!!!!”
Look, I'm not a Michael Jackson fan. I never even owned an album. But clearly he was ill. You called it a stunt and accused him of being a lyer. Need we remind you ,that earlier in the week, you were caught in a lie?
You must have obviously felt very foolish when Mr. Jackson did end up dying. I noticed you edited your post to ease off you attack. I find it odd that you now have the audacity to actually publish story after story about Michael Jackson's death, a mere 24 hours after defaming him very publically at a what was a crisis moment in his life. It is just simply dis-tasteful.
Perez, you really helped put bloggers on the map. Your hit counts alone, made major media have to pay attention to the reality that Bloggers should be taken seriously as a source of information in this new age of communication. However, your actions this week set us all three steps backwards. As the most public member of the blogging community, you clearly did what so many traditional sources lambaste us for. You spoke without knowing or acknowledging the whole truth.
You, my friend, are as bad as Fox News.
I admit that I have been to your website. However, after this week. I can no longer support the effort of an individual who is doing more to disparage myself as an internet writer than they are to encourage and validate what I do. To the much smaller amount of folks who read my blog as opposed to Perez's.,You can continue to read his if you want. That is your choice. However, people who spew hate and negativity, especially at the expense of others are a real drain on us as a human collective.
You must have obviously felt very foolish when Mr. Jackson did end up dying. I noticed you edited your post to ease off you attack. I find it odd that you now have the audacity to actually publish story after story about Michael Jackson's death, a mere 24 hours after defaming him very publically at a what was a crisis moment in his life. It is just simply dis-tasteful.
Perez, you really helped put bloggers on the map. Your hit counts alone, made major media have to pay attention to the reality that Bloggers should be taken seriously as a source of information in this new age of communication. However, your actions this week set us all three steps backwards. As the most public member of the blogging community, you clearly did what so many traditional sources lambaste us for. You spoke without knowing or acknowledging the whole truth.
You, my friend, are as bad as Fox News.
I admit that I have been to your website. However, after this week. I can no longer support the effort of an individual who is doing more to disparage myself as an internet writer than they are to encourage and validate what I do. To the much smaller amount of folks who read my blog as opposed to Perez's.,You can continue to read his if you want. That is your choice. However, people who spew hate and negativity, especially at the expense of others are a real drain on us as a human collective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)