Richard Glatzer on "Grief"

Once you had the idea, how long did it take to write Grief?

RICHARD GLATZER: I wrote it quickly; it was the easiest script I’ve written. I usually don’t keep journals, but I happened to write down in a little notebook the day that (producer) Ruth Charny suggested thinking about this. It was the end of October in ‘91, and I had a draft of the script by early January ‘92; and I hadn’t even starting thinking about it at the end of October, ‘91. So it was pretty fast.

How did you go about funding the movie?

RICHARD GLATZER: I had about $20,000 saved, and we raised another $20,000 from people who were willing to put up $5,000 investments -- none of which was easy.

I think the gay content helped a little bit, that people felt that it was some sort of community function or something. But it also, obviously, limited the film in terms of people thinking they were ever going to see a lot of money coming back. Ruth put up $5,000; it was mostly little bits and pieces, mostly from friends.

We raised $40,000, and at the same time we were doing that, I put together my cast just by going to Sundance and seeing Craig Chester in Swoon, and meeting people at parties or wherever.

That’s where I met Illeana Douglas. Just as I was leaving -- I hadn’t even spoken to her, really -- and I got my coat and was on the way out the door and suddenly clicked that she was perfect for Leslie. I just went up to her and said, “Hey, you wouldn’t by any chance do some low-budget, independent fag film, would you?”

And she said, “I bet you’re the kind of guy who loves Edgar Ulmer movies.” And I was a big Edgar Ulmer fan, so within a day or two she said, “I’ll do your movie,” as soon as I got her the script.

So I assembled the cast and felt like I had this really great group of people. We’d all been hoping to get more money than $40,000, but there was nothing coming.

Did you write the script with particular actors in mind?

RICHARD GLATZER: No. Alexis Arquette and Jackie Beat I knew from this club I was doing; they both performed there. I was thinking of them as I was writing the script; not from the outset, but as I was writing it, I started to realize that I was hearing Jackie Beat saying these lines.

So by the time I finished the script I definitely had them in mind for those two roles. But it wasn’t like from the beginning I was going to write a role a role for Jackie Beat or write a role for Alexis.

How long did you shoot?

RICHARD GLATZER: We shot for ten days. It was ten days for the bulk of the shooting, and then we did an extra half day in the courtroom. That was our big production value, which of course we made look like shit by deteriorating it. We shot it on film and it looked really good, and then we went and shot it off a monitor.

At the time we didn’t know how it was going to work. And I thought if I shoot it on film, I have the option to use it on film, and if I shoot it on video, then I’m stuck with video. It was basically a half day; we were out of there at three, three thirty.

Do you think there were any advantages to not having a larger budget?

RICHARD GLATZER: I set out to make a movie in one location for financial reasons; I think the whole idea of grieving, and the fact that Mark’s dealing with the death of his boyfriend, to me is so much more interesting indirectly and seen only in the office.

I think if we’d had money to go shoot Mark crying at home, or something -- just because we maybe had the money, and you’d think, “Oh, we have to cover that” -- to me the movie gained its identity and meaning from giving him that sense of privacy and from being limited to the office. That was a budgetary limitation that ended up working in the movie’s favor.

Of course, it probably would have been distributed wider and seen as a more mainstream movie if we’d had more locations -- a lot of running around and all that stuff.

How long did it take to finish the movie?

RICHARD GLATZER: It took forever to post it. We didn’t have enough money; the $40,000 was to shoot it, but we didn’t have anything left to do any of the post. We were trying to raise money and trying to find freebie stuff. This was this UCLA student who had this KEM deck at home and she was synching dailies for us. She let us in there to cut some stuff.

It’s so frustrating when you’ve got this in the can and you want to work on it and you can’t. It took us about a year to edit the thing, getting a few bucks here, a few bucks there and begging favors everywhere. There was a post house near me, an editing facility that would let us go in there for free; they were sympathetic and trying to help us out.

And really the only reason it ever got finished was because Mark Finch, who was the head of the Gay & Lesbian Film Festival in San Francisco, saw a rough cut of the film and loved it and said he would give us the closing night if we could finish. So then it was this panic to finish it.

I put up more money -- fool that I was -- in order to finish it. No one was coming up with any money. I made him a personal guarantee that I was going to get the film done, and we had two or three months and there was no money, and so I finally just put the money up.

One last question: Am I nuts, or is the actor who plays The Love Judge doing an impression of Lionel Barrymore?

RICHARD GLATZER: Yes, the Love Judge is doing Lionel Barrymore. You’re the only person who’s ever figured that out.

The actor, Mickey Cottrell (the clean freak in My Own Private Idaho) loves to do shtick. That morning, when we were at the location of the courtroom scene and he’s getting dressed, he said, “You know, I do a really mean Lionel Barrymore.” I said, “Let me hear it.” And he did his Lionel Barrymore. And I said, “That’s perfect, just do that.”

It was perfect, it was just what I wanted -- a curmudgeonly character. But no one else has picked up on it. That’s so funny.

"Dear J" and the Digibeta Caper

As screenwriters, we're always trying to create conflict for our characters; after all, conflict helps make a good story, right?

A good story, perhaps. Movies definitely need conflict. It's why we watch films... to see the hero overcome all sorts of obstacles. But we'd rather keep the problems out of real life.

Well, sometimes life imitates art. Have we tell ever told the story of the "Digibeta Caper"?

While maybe it's not worthy of its own film, but it certainly was a time full obstacles that we have to overcome... all to get our film Dear J transferred onto a digibeta tape.

And it all began so nicely. We had sent off what we thought was a good tape, only to get an email saying it was "a bad dub"; that the video was jumping up and down.

Okay, now to get a good dub.

Thursday. After re-doing the master, we drive it down to the production house for the transfer. We are told that the guy who does the transfers would pick it up that night. Because we don't want another "bad dub", we attach a note saying something like: "Phone us is there is a problem... even if it's late at night. We need this asap."

Friday. Saturday. Sunday. We hear nothing, so we assume that all is well and that the transfer has been made.

Monday. We call to see how things are going. The answer is not encouraging. The guy went on vacation over the weekend!

Tuesday evening. We get a call. Yes, there is a problem and the dub can't be made.

(It took them how long to tell us this?! Let's see, Thursday to Tuesday...)

We talk to a few different people on the phone, trying to figure out how to fix the problem so the transfer can be made. What comes of those conversations is having to re-render the movie one more time; this time in a different format...

Wednesday. Rendering usually takes several hours. But this rendering takes something like 12 hours... Yes, we start to render the movie around 11:00 am. Although we arranged to bring it in to the production house at around 2:00 pm, we can't. It just keeps rendering. Finally finishing around midnight!

Thursday morning. We jump into the van and head off to the production house. We hand the new rendered version over. This time, the transfer guy is on the ball.

Friday. We get the call that all is well and we can pick up our digibeta.

Friday afternoon. We post the thing in the mail. The stress lifts from our shoulders. Our digibeta caper is over...

Fade Out. The End. Roll the credits.

It Could Be Getting So Much Better All The Time #6: Marketing Money

Actress, writer, director, producer, political activist, choreographer, and independent film enthusiast Rosie Perez knows, it's all about the money:

If you do not have the realistic financial support, outside of your production buget, to promote and advertise your film in the same way studio supported films are, the possibility of a successful box office is lessen, which then lessens the possibility of financial support for your next independent film project, regardless of it's content, which then hurts the future of all independent films.

Most independent film makers and lovers would say that it's not about making a profit but that is naive and pure independent snobbery. If your film is not marketed to the masses or even just to the independent film lovers' community in a relevant way, the chances of making a substantial profit is not likely. If your film does not make a substantial return, your film will be considered a failure. If your film is considered a failure, just based on the box office and not on the content, the studio's, distributors and future independent financial investors response will be that independent films do not work and will be hesitant to support other projects! This is a hard truth that "we" as independent film makers do not want to accept. Well, we can not afford to be blind any longer.

Marketing dollars for television ads, magazine and newspaper campaigns, movie trailers shown not only online but in theaters , press junkets, billboards or at least poster snipes are
vital. Even the "festival" route takes a lot of money after your submission is accepted - word of mouth just does not cut it anymore and if you do not think this is true you are fooling yourself. This is not a part of selling out, it is being business smart about getting your independent, artful and important film seen by as many as possible!

Independent film makers must be competitive and this can be done with out losing our souls. We can be market savvy producers with out selling out our product. We get on our high horse and say amongst ourselves that we do not care about the box office, we care about the content of our films, which we should and do, however, in the real cruel world we must care to an extent otherwise we will be left in the dust.

Much hard love to the Independent Film World,
ROSIE PEREZ

Hope said "Hit" and Lipsky "Suck It" ... then came the response

Karina at Spout called me out on my liberal use of an already overused term.  You ask me though, the meaning of the word "hit" left this world long ago.  And it brought a smile to my face to type each letter as a result.  I couldn't resist.

Her further critique of Jeff Lipsky's Reasons To Be Bullish, Pt 1 & Pt 2, then reminded me of the response of few friends have called me out on my current optimism: that it left them depressed. 

What can I say? In every silver lining broods a deep dark cloud.  Karina labeled it "cranky old man-ism".  She might have something there: I am writing this from the rocker on my front porch.  But Karina got some good response back too.  Old men and their reprimanders are always worth a hoot in my book or blog.  Check it out.

Sundance Creative Producing Initiative

This past summer I was a mentor at Sundance's first Creative Producing Lab.  I was completely impressed.  In regards to Jane's earlier post today, this is that program.  Granted it can only be accessed by a very limited number of participants (there were 4 fellows last year), but it was a comprehensive and intensive program that I would advise for everyone.

And you know what?  The deadline to apply is quickly approaching.

You can also find the application and additional information on the program at the link below:
http://www.sundance.org/applications/CPI/


The Sundance Creative Producing Initiative much more than just the summer lab though  (from Sundance's own literature): 

it is a year-long creative and strategic fellowship program for emerging American producers with their next project.

The program was conceived to develop and support the next generation of American independent producers. For over 27 years, the Sundance Institute has offered in-depth year-round programs for feature screenwriters and directors. In an increasingly competitive and complex marketplace, the health and excellence of the independent film movement hinge on sophisticated creative and strategic producers with whom these directors and writers can collaborate.

The initiative focuses on the holistic producer, who identifies, options, develops and pitches material, champions and challenges the writer/director creatively, raises financing, leads the casting/packaging process, hires and inspires crew, and navigates the sales, distribution, and marketing arenas. The program is designed to hone emerging producers' creative instincts in the scripting and editing stages and to evolve their communicating and problem-solving skills at all stages of realizing a project.

Five producers will be selected for a one-year fellowship and participate in the following:

Creative Producing Lab (described below)
Producers Conference attendance
Sundance Film Festival attendance (screenings, networking opportunities)
$5,000 living stipend; $5,000 pre-production grant
Year-round mentorship from 2 industry advisors
Community building among producing fellows
Year-round support from Sundance staff
SUNDANCE CREATIVE PRODUCING LAB

Fellows will attend a 5-day lab focused on creatively strengthening their projects from script to screen. The idea is to give producers the chance to explore their own creative take on material and to give them skills and experience in evaluating and developing this material at script stage and beyond. Scripts will be discussed in one-on-one sessions with advisors, as well as in a collective notes process with the group. Case studies will be used to explore creative issues in the production and editing processes, while techniques in communicating with writer/directors and potential production partners will also be addressed.

ELIGIBILITY

Candidates must have produced at least one short or feature-length narrative or documentary film (no more than 2 narrative features total).
Producers must have a completed, legally-optioned, scripted narrative project in hand with a director attached to the project.
Candidates may not be writer or director of submitted project.
Candidates must be based in the U.S., although submitted project does not need to be English language nor filmed in the U.S.
Sundance Institute strongly believes in strength in diversity and actively encourages applications from women, people of color, differently abled people, and all persons who support the Institute's mission.

I should also add on another front, it is also deadline time for IFP's Independent Filmmaker Labs.  I just blogged about it on Let'sMakeBetterFilms over on HammerToNail.  Check it out too.  Get those applications in the mail!  These are great programs that we are fortunate to have.

It Could Be Getting So Much Better All The Time #5: Training And Mentorship

Today's suggestion is from Jane Kosek, producer and blogger over at All ABout Indie Filmmaking:

Much of the struggles of the industry are due to the lack of resources, training and mentoring to producers. If we have enough support for the group of people whom actually greenlight the pictures then maybe that will trickle down over everything.

I can't think of one organization that strongly focuses on the development of indie producers. Film school producing programs are just the beginning of training. And most indie producers don't attend film school anyway. You must already have films distributed in order to join the Producers Guild as a producer. By then you have already typically made a few crappy ones that never got distributed. IFP and Film Independent and Sundance try to offer help but they also heavily service directors and writers. And much of the best resources are given in tiny labs that are very hard to get into.

I think we need an organization specifically for producers -- that will be the most effective.

Most of the interviews in film magazines are with writers and directors. I know more about the writers and directors of indie films than producers. That needs to change. More publicity and knowledge of what a producer does will help. Maybe those less experienced won't jump in so quickly if they really understand how big a job it is.

I think that if we start an organization that is helmed or guided by successful producers that really gives back to the next generation of producers then we are on to something that can help indie films get better. Teach indie producers how to develop strong films and be a strong creative partner to the director. Help them understand the importance of a strong cast. Distributors have said they want projects with name actors. How do indie producers make this happen? They need help. Bigger producers could help make inroads with the agents so they are more open to having their clients in smaller films. Give indie producers resources that really help them secure distribution.

You help to teach and build the skills of indie producers and I guarantee there will be significant change in the quality of films being made. They will develop projects longer. Staff it right and cast it well, etc. We lament the loss of billions of dollars each year on indie films. Who is gathering this money and using it? Producers! Let's get us trained and organized and perhaps these losses will diminish. I'm ready to do what it takes to fix the situation. This is my livelihood. If I don't help fix it, who will?

If there were an organization providing more significant training and support from the top at the producer level, we would see a huge difference in the quality of films being made. I know my producer colleagues and I could use more support and the problem is that we haven't been able to find this "ongoing" support. We lean on each other and we join all the usual associations that do exist, but we still struggle finding the mentoring that we really want and need.

Sure, most of us have worked with amazing producers in the past who try to be approachable but it's not an effective system. These amazing producers are extremely busy and have their own projects to worry about. I think these producers would be more available if they were working within an established system of giving back. I personally find it much easier to give back through an established means rather than random email and phone requests that have a high chance of getting lost in the shuffle. In addition, an established system would allow mentoring from multiple sources, which benefits everyone.

I am a case study in what is broken in our system. I work extremely hard and have the best of intentions for making entertaining films that appeal to a wide audience. I want my investors to make their money back, and I believe I am making the right decisions but if I had a system to lean on a bit more, I know I would increase the odds of my films being a success. And if producers like me have a hard time building a proper support system, how do those just starting out have a chance? It's a real dilemma.

We need a system that offers producers a means for receiving guidance and training, and in turn, allows those producers who have "made it" to give back in a significant way. By the time a producer has made a name for him or herself, he or she has usually already made a few films that have lost money. I am sure this "learning" period is where we are seeing the greatest loss in the billions of dollars of investment money. We catch producers at this phase in their careers and we provide a foundation for a thriving independent film industry.

It Could Be Getting So Much Better All The Time #4: Web-based Theatrical Screenings

Today's suggestion from filmmaker and blogger Pericles Lewnes:

What if an internet site could be set up to premiere a movie that an internet audience could watch together on stream at a pre-determined time? There would be a limit to admission - say 200 "seats." This would prevent any disruption from server traffic. The admission would be low ($2?) and buzz can be created on a shoestring. After the movie is over, the filmmaker can open a chat with a q&a. Instant reviews can be posted on a Wordpress style section of the site. Fans of "The Site" itself would end up building their "brand" as reviewers.

An idea of the virtual run life of the movie could be determined by how many virtual ticket sales can be calculated.

Say for instance, you have sold 200 seats and 150 more people try to buy tickets. Well, after judging from the reviews and reaction of the first screening a second screening may be in order. After the movie has had it's "run" it can be made available through DL or DVD sale in a bside style set-up if the filmmaker wants that. Again, I am still trying to formulate the concept and it is only half baked - but there is plenty of room for the DIY filmmaker to get excitement built for their movie and to immediately act to create that important relationship with the audience immediately after. Everything can monitored.