Crowdfunding – Anything is Pozible

On Wednesday I went to a briefing by Pozible co-founder Rick Chen and ScreenWest re the 3 to 1 Crowdfunding Initiative which is an Australian first. In brief, if you raise a minimum of $5,000 in pledges up to a maximum of $50,000, ScreenWest will tip in $3 for every $1 (of your target NOT the total pledged). This is for narrative film projects such as short films, web series, documentaries and only available to Western Australian creative teams.

It’s a fabulous idea and very encouraging to see the local funding body take such an entrepreneurial approach to encouraging new content. Basically, you have to show there is an audience for your project with a minimum of 40 contributors (maximum $2000 per pledge per person) to meet the minimum dollar requirement. ScreenWest will vet all the submitted projects to ensure the budgets are realistic and include components for the rewards offered; and Pozible’s percentage take and credit card fees (allow 6-7% of your budget).

Other than that, if the project meets the minimum requirements of narrative, screen-based, West Australian and doesn’t breach SW’s charter, then it’s basically up to the market to decide. It appears SW won’t assess the creative merits of each project.

There is a total pot of $250,000 available from SW to be accessed on a ‘first past the post’ basis. So, as an example, if you have a target of $15,000 and get pledges to the value of $16, 250 then SW will tip in $45,000.

As you might guess, there was a large turnout of local filmmakers with plenty of questions after the presentations which included two creative teams that have successfully used Pozible. Natalie Lewis and Werzel Montague were representing ‘Super Dingo’, a comedy web series whose first episode generated over 1 million hits on YouTube; while Alice Ross and Sam Field talked about 'Hunter: The Documentary' which currently holds the ‘record’ for most dollars ($20,360) pledged for a WA originated project.

It was great to see the two teams openly sharing their experiences and being forthright about both the positives and the negatives. It also demonstrated the diversity of projects that find support through Pozible.

I jotted down plenty of notes but to summarise some key messages about what works when using crowdfunding:

A personal touch is important.

It requires a lot of work… every day!

Be creative with the rewards.

A social media presence is essential – facebook page and twitter account in particular.

Set a realistic budget.

ASK people to share and contribute.

But DON’T spam or beg!

Keep people updated and thank them individually and publicly for their support.

Deliver the project!

Deliver the rewards!

Understand your audience and research similar film projects on Pozible.

The key date at this stage is 12 November when the initial submission to ScreenWest is due. So get your creative team and ideas together and check out the guidelines. It really is a great opportunity to test the viability of your project and source the dollars to make it happen.

If you need a screenwriter to help bring your story to life or to give feedback on your script(s) then send me an email at rwhyde3.0@gmail.com.

For Better Or Worse – Short Film Shoot

Actor Adam T. Perkins looking suitably menacing 

I had the opportunity during the week to go on location a couple of times for a short film shoot to refine my highly honed skills of staying the hell out of the way. I was asked a few times how it felt to see “my words come to life” but it’s always a little awkward as my job is done and I’m merely a spectator at this stage of proceedings. The answer is, of course, fascinated, impressed, apprehensive, curious, and generally amazed at all the energy, talent and dedication that goes into turning my scribbling into moving images.

I was brought onto the project pretty late in proceedings to write the shooting script based on previous drafts by other writers. I was also asked to talk to the creative team from the Central Institute of Technology, it being their advanced diploma project. This involved me basically asking a heap of questions about the story, characters, tone, theme and what they hoped to achieve to get a sense of what it was I would write.

The general story stayed somewhat the same but there was a character on the fringes in both previous drafts that intrigued me. So I wrote the final version of what is a nice little thriller idea with that character a far more central player. It was my “in” to try and make the material work. After a few minor notes and a polish, the shooting script was delivered - all in the space of two weeks from that initial meeting. I wish all assignments were so quick!

Actors Ian Toyne (Peter), Clara Helms (Joelene) & Justin Burford (Vincent)

The word was that everyone was pleased with the script which was a relief and I moved onto other projects. It was only when I saw an online request for a featured extra a few weeks later that I discovered the script was going into production. I texted my contact at CIT who acts as a ‘supervising producer’ during shooting and was invited along and later added to the call sheet distribution list.

Clara rehearsing a scene. No blanket come time for a take!

Normally I would have worked closely with the director during the scripting stage, possibly know some Heads of Department and maybe even sit in on auditions. This time, apart from the one hour meeting, I didn’t really know anyone other than the supervising producer. But everyone was very friendly and welcoming so I lurked in the shadows and watched cast and crew go about their business.

Justin in full hero mode!

That was Day One of a five day shoot. I impulsively went to Day Four at Sunset Hospital which is now the playground for filmmakers and a really interesting place - sprawling and disused with long, dark corridors and a maze of rooms. Great fodder for the imagination. This time I came armed with pad and pen so I was writing while watching the creation of a pretty intense scene set in a decrepit old bathroom. By the way, those scribblings ended up being a ten page script that I sent off yesterday so I was working too!

Long, dark corridors at Sunset Hospital

The enjoyable part of being on set is meeting new people passionate about film and visual storytelling so I had great conversations with the actors and members of the crew… whilst, of course, trying to stay the hell out of the way. Oh, and just happened to stay around for a lovely lunch in the sun… purely coincidental of course!

The shoot wrapped yesterday and the vibe seems to be very good. Now we wait as post production takes over to see what it is we have wrought. There is a hard deadline determined by a screening of all the diploma films in November. I’m looking forward to seeing the finished product. Oh, and also very happy this is on 16mm not digital so from what I could glean from the locations, the stills, some of the action on the monitor, this should look fabulous. Hopefully I’ve done my job properly and the story is equally as fabulous.

... and that's a wrap, everyone! 

Thank you to all the cast and crew.

For Better Or Worse

Producer: Cathryn Langman

Director: Jacob Kemp

DOP: Christian Niddrie

Starring: Justin Burford, Clara Helms, Ian Toyne & Adam T. Perkins

Old News Is Good News? or Rewriting and the Sorkin Psychosis

Remember the moment when you first discovered that Santa Claus wasn’t real; the Easter Bunny was a fake; and the Tooth Fairy was a low rent bribe? The devastation, the confusion, the hurt? Things you knew with all your heart to be real were suddenly taken away from you. The magic GONE.

Well, I don’t… but then I have terrible memory. But I’m starting to experience the sensation I’m sure accompanies such traumatic revelations.

Readers of this blog and those who know me well would be aware my writing hero is Aaron Sorkin *genuflects* and that, to this day, Oscar wins and nominations included, I still consider the first four seasons of The WestWing his masterpiece.

Something, however, happened on the way to the deification. Two things actually.

The first is that a director gave me the complete box set of Sports Night, Sorkin’s inaugural television series. The second is The Newsroom, his latest.

Now, I know Sorkin recycles material and has certain phrases he is quite fond of and uses liberally (pun intended). Indeed, this recent YouTube clip highlights the tendency to great effect. 

Sure, one of the knocks on Sorkin’s writing is that all his characters sound the same with super quick, intellectual patter that mere mortals would never utter. I have absolutely no problem with this – if you can write dialogue as music such as Sorkin does then what do I care?

Where the sheen is starting to wear off is this – the exact same scenarios being played over and over in different shows. It’s interesting watching the genesis of this in Sports Night through to the perfection of it in The West Wing and now the outright cannibalisation in The Newsroom.

I should pause to say here that I thought Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip had a brilliant pilot and a not so brilliant one and only season. But that’s a separate discussion.

Sports Night certainly is the prototype for many of the story strands and character flourishes that appear in The West Wing. The common denominator of all his series, a group of passionate professionals in a behind the scenes look at a workplace, is established as are the romantic entanglements that are a hallmark of his television work. He certainly “brought the funny” and it’s a show I’m really enjoying even though I can clearly see devices he will use later such as Jeremy writing a letter to his sister commenting on events as they wait for an event to play out - in Sports Night, an improbably long tennis match; in The West Wing, the Stackhouse filibuster.

The West Wing overlayed a certain gravitas given the nature of that workplace and had a stellar cast and production budget. So it’s kind of fun to see some of its origins in the earlier show though odd to realise this “perfect thing” had not arrived fully formed as I had imagined.

What troubles me is that The Newsroom seems to totally disregard the fact that many of these scenarios and devices have been used before. The cumulative effect is what makes me have doubts. Does Sorkin think people with more than a passing familiarity with his writing won’t notice? Is he just being lazy? Is that all the story he has to tell, rewriting scenes to fit the current workplace of choice?

Sure, The Newsroom has its critics due to its depiction of the female characters, the preachy tone, and use of real life news, some of which is discussed here by Australian critics. But it’s the recycling of material that frustrates me.

Take Episode 6 where I was stunned as I called out the equivalent scenes from The West Wing: Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) can’t sleep so goes to a therapist (Night Five); he receives a death threat via email and is assigned a bodyguard (Enemies Foreign and Domestic); the therapist asks if Will’s father used to hit him (The Two Bartlets) and on it went. Suddenly Will is a combination of Jed Bartlet and CJ Cregg. I could have written those scenes as the moment they started I recognised them exactly for what they were – a rehash of previous material.

It feels like Sorkin is simply rewriting existing work as the structure of the above scenes and even some of the dialogue is exactly the same. I was almost surprised after Will asked the bodyguard, “So how does this work?” that he didn’t reply, “I don’t have to see you naked or anything.” Where it was cute to see the genesis in Sports Night, it is now troubling to realise how overt the self-referencing is in his latest show. Truly, Santa Claus doesn’t exist anymore.

But why?

In that episode there were also two cracking scenes, both involving extended, passionate rants, firstly by Charlie Skinner (Sam Waterston); then in an on air interview where Will is slapped down hard. First rate, Sorkin at his best. Why surround this with rehashed dialogue and storylines? Why make me think Will is now some kind of facsimile of Bartlet with the whole backstory of his childhood?

I remarked before Episode 7 that if anyone calls Will “Uncle Fluffy” I’m out of there. It didn’t happen but there were echoes again (Will high on medicinal marijuana had all the hallmarks of Bartlet high on back medication) though not as overt as the previous week.

I understand Sorkin is the ‘sole writer’ on the show which involves a prodigious work rate especially given this is closer to an hour each week on HBO not a 42 minute commercial outing. But enough with the self-referencing, the rehashing and the recycling ("three things that all mean the same thing") – you’re better than that, Mister Sorkin… much, much better!

Script Reads & Feedback

It’s been an interesting couple of months – I have become quite popular with local writers asking me to read scripts and give feedback. Everything from features to television pilots to lots and lots of shorts. It’s flattering and I enjoy doing it but it’s also time consuming to do properly and I generally prefer to give feedback in person rather than written notes. Invariably those feedback sessions will last for 2-3 hours at a minimum.

When you factor in the reading time (each script at least twice); thinking about and analysing the screenplay and ordering my notes in a usable format; then the discussion and any follow up; it is a big chunk of time away from writing my own material.

I have occasionally been paid to do this sort of work but usually it is for the price of a coffee and a hearty thank you. Alas, my circumstances have changed and money has now become a concern where it hasn’t been for some time. It’s also a skill that has value… so where does that leave us?

The Australian Writers’ Guild rates for “freelance script assessment” are $51.40 an hour or not less than $411.20 per feature script, television pilot or theatre piece for a reader's report. I mention this to illustrate what the industry rate is for what presumably would be an experienced writer (full AWG member) to undertake this task. Now, I’m not suggesting this is the rate I would charge nor does it cover short film scripts.

What I am saying is that if you value my feedback and want me to read your script then make me an offer. I can’t afford to do it for gratis anymore.

Part of the struggle of being a creative person in Perth is deriving an income from your craft, whether that is as a writer, actor, director or any of the many other specialist roles in the film industry. My value is in my ability to write and to analyse script structure and visual stories.

With a professional transaction also comes guaranteed timelines whereas now, with my workload, I cannot make any commitment on turnaround times to get to the pile of scripts I have been sent.

I have already said I will charge to write monologues or show reel scenes as, again, this is the generation of a product with inherent value.

If you are interested and have a script you would like my feedback on then please contact me at rwhyde3.0@gmail.com to discuss further. If you have received feedback from me before and would be so kind as to offer a testimonial to the usefulness of my services, that would be greatly appreciated.

Happy writing!

Richard Hyde

ps The only exception I would add is where I choose to undertake a mentoring role which I am currently doing with a young writer. That's all about giving a little something back and hopefully helping the next generation tell good stories in their own distinctive voice.

Darkness - Light at the end of the tunnel

After a delay of over two months the short film Darkness recommenced shooting last night. I’m not across all the details – once I deliver the shooting script my involvement largely is one as interested spectator – however, there was a combination of key crew availability; coordinating the actors’ schedules; and issues to do with obtaining a key location that led to such a big gap between day two and day three of a five day schedule.

Caitlin (Hannah Hugessen) and Samantha (Jessica Hegarty) square off.

Suffice to say, I was happy to visit the location where a dedicated and talented group of crew and actors had gathered to complete our little film. There were some new faces – notably Director of Photography, Antony Webb who had come in for David Le May who was unavailable due to other commitments – and many familiar ones.

It’s quite humbling to see all these people working so diligently in somewhat difficult circumstances – it was a cold Perth winter night and the set was a cramped basement. I will tell you the ceiling was such that I had to stoop (that’s my story and I’m sticking to it!) but you wouldn’t have wanted to be anything over about 5’10 for it to have been vertically challenging.

With a new DoP came a different camera which didn’t allow for a monitor for technical reasons beyond my understanding. This meant I didn’t get to see much of the actual shoot. Though the director, Paul Komadina, seemed in good spirits as our usual banter confirmed (I’m sure much to the bemusement of the rest of the crew).

Forced inside due to the cold, it was great to see the attention to detail with the make-up and costuming of the actors. Indeed, it was the only time I was asked a question in reference to the script all night to which I gave a very pragmatic answer re the look of one of the characters. To explain further would stray into spoiler territory. It was also interesting watching the actors running lines for their scene as they were being made up.

Debbie (Jessica O'Connor) - what's behind the red door? 

I jokingly had remarked that one of the advantages of being a writer on set with nothing to do was that I didn’t have to stay until the scheduled 1am finish. Nor did I – but I knew everything was in good hands. The shoot continues over the next two evenings and I intend to try and see the filming of the closing scenes including the somewhat intricate climax.

Jessica Hegarty as Samantha.

Special mention to actor Jessica Hegarty who came off a 5am start for the second day of a feature film shoot to back up for Darkness. Greatly appreciated, Jess. Also to Doug and Toby whose house has been invaded by a bunch of filmmakers for the weekend. 

Thoughts on characters as people

The following quote was posted on a local film networking site recently that had me thinking:
 

‎"Characters in scripts are people...not artifacts to be shuffled and manipulated like cards in a magic trick, to suit the contrivances of plot. I think that if filmmakers could approach characters more as if they were people, we'd have much better movies." 

~ Judith Weston, The Film Director's Intuition

It is a timely reminder as the discussion continues to rage over character motivation and actions in Prometheus. Yet there is an aspect that troubles me a little.

Simply this, characters aren’t people. I know this as a screenwriter because of this one essential truth – I DO manipulate them from above, God-like in what is known as the holy grail of screenwriting – STRUCTURE.

The moment you use words like “inciting incident”, “turning point”, “midpoint”, “reversal”, any screenwriting term, you are imposing your will on a character. Whether you use the three act structure, the Hero’s Journey, or any other structural template. Characters obey the rules of good storytelling craft; people do not.

That’s even before we discuss the requirements and expectations of genre and yes, the needs of the plot.

I’ve heard writers talk about characters not knowing that they’re in a movie or television show, not knowing that there is an audience. Then in the next breath tell me that a character has to do something interesting right before the first ad break so that the audience stays tuned in… huh? And my personal favourite – the script “that writes itself” where the writer supposedly lets the characters do as they will.

Well, firstly, scripts don’t write themselves, especially not feature screenplays. They are agonisingly hard to get right at the best of times and require more than their fair share of blood, sweat, tears, prescription medication, therapy, a healthy bar tab, an unhealthy level of bloody-mindedness and a singular focus on the task at hand.

Secondly, I simply don’t believe the mantra “I let the characters do what they want” – that leads to a three hour masterpiece (probably in French with subtitles) about a teenager deciding whether to get out of bed or not. People can be irrational, inconsistent, lazy, passive, unmotivated, goalless and maddeningly stupid. Characters can be all those things until they are propelled on a journey of some description with clear goals and stakes and forces of antagonism. That journey invariably has a shape and the characters an arc where they grow and learn some essential truth about themselves. Some people never learn (yes, you know exactly the sort of person I mean).

Sure, I absolutely agree that characters should act consistently based on the strengths, weakness, flaws, wants, needs and goals established within the context of the situation the writer puts them in. But if a character is left to his/her own devices I fear there would be a lot of “refusals of the call” because it’s rare that people are truly heroic. And isn’t that why we go to the movies? To see characters larger than ourselves do “heroic deeds” (however defined) that we can only dream of?

Aaron Sorkin was asked in an excellent article published in “On Writing” (February 2003, Volume #18) if one of his characters in The West Wing would “…react to a situation differently than [President] Bartlet?” This is his answer which I find most instructive: 

Possibly. But only when I want her to. When it suits my purposes. If I want to tell a story about a woman reacting to the severe oppression of women in a certain Middle Eastern dictatorship, then I’m purposefully having C.J. react differently than Bartlet would. But if I wasn’t interested in telling that story and I was interested in telling a different story about women in the Middle East, I would have no problem having C.J. and Bartlet react the exact same way. In other words, I don’t sit there and think, oh shit, C.J. wouldn’t do this. C.J. would do whatever I make C.J. do. Don Scardino directed A Few Good Men on Broadway, and there was this moment during rehearsal one time when an actor came up to him and said, “I don’t think my character would do this.” And he just said, “I think you’re playing the wrong character.” Of course he would do it—it’s right there in the script.

So what do you think? Character above all else and treated as people or a happy balance between character and structure? Thoughts? Rebuttals? Would love to hear people’s opinions…

Deadtime - Teaser Trailer

The first teaser trailer for the independent low budget feature production Deadtime out of Perth, Western Australia has just hit social media.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I am a big fan of Filmbites Youth Film School having worked with them on two short films that will see the light of day later in the year.

Deadtime stars talented Filmbites actor (and instructor) Jessica Hegarty; along with Rody Claude (also credited as co-writer/producer/director), Kenny Low and Paul Boucher with Kylie Claude as producer/co-writer. I believe there are also many familiar faces with other Perth actors involved.

Shot in Perth and Singapore it looks very slick so check it out!



You can find the Deadtime facebook page here and on Twitter here.