A Great Many Thanks

For the past twenty years I've always fancied myself a writer before most any other creative endeavor.

Just over five years ago I realized that my commitment to writing had waned and my output had slowed to a trickle... I was losing my edge. So, I decided to open up my creative faucet by starting this blog with a promise to write an entry everyday for a year. And I did.

And that's how this all started... as a way to get my artistic booty into gear.

Now, five years later, it's coming to an end. So many things have changed over that time.

My marriage moved from 12.5 to 17.5 years. I could not be more happy with my relationship with my wife. We are truly blessed.

My children moved from childhood into young adulthood. My daughter was 11 when we started and my son eight. They have grown into such fine, young, driven, faithful people. I am amazed by them, inspired by them and can't believe I have the honor of being their father.

My understanding of my Catholic faith has grown exponentially over the past five years. What was a small spark has grown to consume me more and more, enough that I put my faith and my passions together into one vocational endeavor called Sonlight Pictures.

Within the past five years I lost my father. His passing, though sad, was one of the most beautiful experiences of my life and which I chronicled on this website. I will never fear death again.

Over the past five years I shot a couple of award-winning projects. The micro-budget digital feature The Box, the first Sonlight Pictures project Club God and the web series Nikki & Babs (formerly Purgatory, USA).

I've watched my beautiful wife become involved with our Lifteen Mass band called Messenger. Her visible display of faith during Mass has inspired many... I know, I've heard it over and over again. They've released a CD and now I get to hear her sing whenever I want.

I've been blessed with good health and consistent employment during this last half-decade. Two things of which I NEVER take for granted.

I've coached my son's baseball teams saw a group of young, talented boys turn into young, talented men. I've seen my gifted son be a better person than a baseball player. He is known by coaches, players and umpires alike for both his competitiveness and his compassion on and off the field.

I've helped my daughter with her acting homework and saw her touch the lives of her friends by her faith and her example. I've grown to love many of her friends as if they were my own children and am awed at their passion for Jesus Christ.

I have been very, very blessed.

On this, the last entry of this five year blog experiment, I'd like to say a few thanks. Granted, over the 1800 or so days of its existence we've had many of visitors. However, there have been a few very consistent followers of this humble acre in cyberspace and I'd like to thank them for their kindness and support.

My Mother - My mom has been the most consistent visitor of this site and, by far, the greatest contributor to our comments section. So, thank you, Ma, for your wonderful love and support these past five years. Her weekly Carolina Chronicles that she sends out via email for the past decade has inspired us all.

Paul - having moved away from the family to Texas and taking our mother's lead, took the Bauer family's first foray into the blogosphere with his now defunct blog called the Houston Chronicles. He's also been a great supporter and consistent visitor to the site and a selfless enabler of my creative endeavors.

KT and Rett - Both my niece Katie and my sister Loretta are about tied with their visits to the website and their comments. They always filled their input with humor and heart-felt support.

Steve, Chuckles, Laura and the rest - For the other family members who made this place a part of their lives, I want to thank you as well! Your witty, wise and timely comments comforted me when I feared this blog was merely an unintentionally selfish exercise by which I would only hear my own voice.

THANK YOU... ALL OF YOU!

Over the past five years, I've shared an awful lot about myself here. Funny stuff, family challenges, growing pains and faith struggles. I've tried to be honest and humorous and I even attempted being insightful at times. Don't know how successful I've been, but I will say that it has been a pleasure to be part of your lives these past five years.

I hope the grace of the Almighty will inspire you, guide you and protect you, not only in 2010 or the next five years, but for the rest of your days.

God bless you all!

My Little Felicity

My daughter, Dorothea, has started her own blog, named after her Confirmation Saint, St. Felicity.

http://felicityinhappiness.blogspot.com/

Check it out. She's a talented writer :) Yeah, I'm a little biased.

Acting is the Thing

Christians want to support good Christian films. They yearn for something to latch onto... a group of filmmakers like those at Sherwood Baptist church making films like Fireproof that extols the virtues of saving a marriage. Or movies like Bella, which extols the virtues of saving a child from abortion. Or even The Passion of the Christ, which tells a historically accurate representation of a Roman flogging on Jesus Christ and his subsequent sacrifice on the cross.

Christians want to support films that tell a story they want to see and one that flies in the face of the hedonism that rules the day in Hollywood. They're searching for entertainment that is not filled with sexual innuendo and showcases vices as virtues or lust as love.

If, as a filmmaker, you happen upon such a movement, its important that you have everything in place to ride that large, growing wave all the way to the shore.

Two recent Christian films could be considered case studies of potential Christian game changers, that, instead of the growing into a tidal wave, slowly dissipated into another wave among many due to the same fundamental reason.

Come What May and Pendragon are both independent Christian films that were ambitious and very successful in almost every way. Their approaches were timely and inventive and touched the core of Christian film audiences.

In a growing anti-Christian social and political climate, Come What May had the ingenious approach of attacking the legal case surrounding the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling by having a student in a Christian college tasked with arguing against the ruling in a moot court, which has real judges and/or retired judges in an arena that simulates Supreme Court proceedings. The lead character struggled with taking on the task of trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and was searching for a compromise solution. When forced to face the issue head on, he had to rely on his faith as well as overcome opposing viewpoints on the issue from his own parents.

The script was very well written and, for a Christian film, the production value was quite good. Having access to a relatively new, small Christian college that looked like a historic Ivy League school elevated the look of the film to higher than normal levels. The lead actors were good looking, wholesome young people which was appropriate for the characters.

Pendragon: Sword of His Father is an incredibly ambitious film from home school families that started small, but ended up being massively grand and epic in scale. The film takes place in 411 A.D. when the Romans left Britain and left a void of power that various groups tried to fill by attacking villages and acquiring slaves and wealth. Pendragon follows the son of a village leader that is killed by marauders who destroy his town. At first he is enslaved, then escapes, then leads a group of other fighters to defeat the marauders that killed his father. The film talks about the need to follow Christ's example and that God's plans last more than just one generation.

The film has tremendous production value, with special effects, swords, battles, explosions, etc. It has over 600 extras, full sized sets that look like real villages, chases on horse back and fisticuffs.

Both films were on the verge of being powerhouses. They both garnered tremendous press and support within the Christian film community. Come What May was a selected film of the American Family Association and was offered for sale via the AFA in a number of the AFA's email updates. Pendragon won numerous awards and was written up in a number of Christian film blogs and websites.

The problem that both films struggled with that kept them from being blockbusters was the basic and fundamental issue of acting. Both films had everything going for them, except one of the three fundamentals of film making. When people watch films they need to see it, hear it and believe it. Believing it comes from the writing and the acting. Both films have good scripts, but the acting completely undermines everything else.

It's just an example of how difficult it is to put together a completely successful film. And it also shows that some of the core items, acting, lighting, writing and directing, are at the root of a successful film experience.

In both films, Come What May and Pendragon, once the initial impressiveness of scope and approach wore off, you are still stuck with the core items. Once we grasp the amount of effort and time it took to make the world of Pendragon come alive, once we've accepted it as the reality of the film, the only thing that is left is the character journeys. And the believability and effectiveness of those journeys are fueled by the quality of the acting.

I hope we can, someday, put together a project that has reached some social and spiritual critical mass like these two films, where we can leverage the press and attention, growing one small ripple into a tidal wave of both critical and financial Christian film success.

Merry Christmas

To my family and friends that have been visiting this website for five years, I want to thank you for your support and I wish you all a very Merry Christmas!

I hope you all are blessed with an abundance of God's graces this holy holiday and throughout all of 2010.

Microcinema Flashback - Breath Mints, Microcinema and the American Film Market (2004)

The last of my microcinema articles which was printed online as the microcinema revolution neared its end. This one talks about the American Film Market and the lessons we can learn from it for the microcinema filmmaker. Funny how things had, well, not changed much as far as quality film creation during these years in microcinema. As many amateur filmmakers cried foul at the lack of respect for their work, in reality, most of the product created during this immensely prolific time were just bad cinema.

From May 2004.

*****

Breath Mints, Microcinema and the American Film Market
By Pete Bauer

After the Round table that produced a theoretical "ten commandments" of microcinema, there was some heated discussion on the Microcinema Scene message boards about the topic. One of the outcomes of that discussion was that, as Mike Amato stated so succinctly, some microcinema filmmakers are "Breath Mints" and some are "Candy Mints." Breath Mints are those microcinema filmmakers who want their projects to "smell nice" and would love to make movies for a career. Candy Mints are those who simply have fun making movies and don't have any real movie making career ambitions.

Well, this article is for all of the Breath Mints out there.

For those of you who are hoping that your creative jaunts in microcinema will somehow propel you into the fray that is the Hollywood movie machine, there is a simple way to see if your projects are up to snuff, to see just how far microcinema has to go to reach any sort of globally accepted quality level... attend an American Film Market (AFM).

If you've never been to the AFM, I strongly suggest you attend one. It is the place where films are screened and sold, primarily by U.S.-based distributors to international markets, however there are some U.S. distribution rights that are acquired from domestic and international films too. Everything from the next big Universal release to latest batch of Troma films are there. I attended the AFM in 1999 to see how the process worked as friends of mine assisted their distributor to get our low-budget action flick out into the market.

When you go to the AFM, what you will find is a very large group of below average films vying for the limited international distribution deals. If you can't actually attend the AFM, it wouldn't hurt to at least pick up the AFM edition of the Hollywood Reporter (usually comes out the month of the market... February this year, moving to November next year). In it you will find a lot of information about the films, a lot of advertising for films looking for distribution and a detailed list of every company and the films they have to offer. When scanning this years Hollywood Reporter, some interesting things come to mind in regards to microcinema.

First, some real distribution companies make the absolute worst posters. Its amazing how cheesy these things are. Maybe its on purpose, maybe in some twisted way they sell because they look stupid. I don't know, but there is enough of them that it makes me wonder.

Along with bad posters, there's a lot of movies with actors that scream "this movies going to suck, but at least you'll recognize the name of the star." Names like Eric Roberts, Gary Busey and Lorenzo Lamas come to mind. I've often been of the mind that I'd rather have the right no-name actor in a movie than the wrong name actor. But, that may not help me sell anything. The President of MTI Home Video says in the mag "I'll take all the Eric Roberts films I can find" because they fill a niche market. Scanning through you'll also find out that movies such as Ginger Snaps 2 & 3 are in post-production and that Corman's The Keeper of Time looks A LOT like Lord of the Rings.


You'll also find the estimated prices for worldwide markets. For films budgeted between $750,000-$1 million (the lowest budget covered), for example, you could make:

- between $30,000-$90,000 from the German/Austria market.
- $10,000-$15,000 in Malaysia.
- $2,000-$5,000 in Pakistan.

Compare that for films between $6 million-$12 million:

- you could make $500,000-$1.1 million in German/Austria market.
- $90,000-$150,000 in Malaysia.
- $20,000-$30,000 in Pakistan.

But even in Hollywood, making your money back is hard work. Consider that if you were in the lowest category ($750,000 - $1 million budget) the MOST you could make back (if their estimates are correct in the magazine) if you sold to ALL of the international markets at their HIGHEST value is $1.24 million. For the $6 million - $12 million budget range, the most you could make is just under $11 million. Of course, there are other ways to make money on a film (domestic, etc.) but this clearly shows that international sales has its limitations. I guess the key is to make a movie that LOOKS like $750,000 film, but costs much less. I don't think the technology used in microcinema is there yet, but perhaps someday it will.

What does all of this have to do with the Breath Mints of microcinema? I think you could safely say that many of the films at the AFM are what we most of us would consider crap. But, if you look at the difference in production value, story and acting, most are vastly superior to what is available on the microcinema scene. Granted, the nature of the microcinema scene promotes experimentation and imitation from learning filmmakers. But, I also get a sense from a lot of microcinema filmmakers that because we made a movie over 74 minutes long, people should consider it just as valid or valuable as the features Hollywood churns out. Yet, most microcinema efforts don't equate in quality to any of the features available at the AFM. As sad as a movie like SCI-FIGHTERS starring Lorenzo Lamas and Don "The Dragon" Wilson looks, it would still kick most of our microcinema asses.

In the end, as microcinema filmmakers, we may not give a crap about Hollywood's financial paradigm. Like Candy Mints, we may just make movies for ourselves. But, if one thinks that their next microcinema effort is going to be able to compete with even the lowest quality product selling at the AFM, unfortunately for the Breath Mints, we still have a long way to go.

God Only Wants 100%

This will appear over at our Sonlight Pictures blog next week, but since it applied to the family, I thought I'd post it here as well.

*****

The good news is that God does not want from us more than we can offer. He doesn't expect us to give 110%.

He does, however, expect us to give 100%... of us... to him.

God wants us entirely, mind, body and soul. He wants us to embrace him with our every goal, hope, aspiration, need, desire and challenge. He wants to lead us down the path we need to take to reach salvation and live eternally in his presence.

Like his chosen people in the Old Testament, that journey may not be an easy one, but a necessary one. When Moses led them out to the wilderness it would take 40 years of a level-setting spiritual boot camp for his people Israel to purge their 400 year connection to the gods of Egypt. God forced them to rely solely on his own mercy to provide food everyday. And when they lost faith, like building the golden calf, they had to pay the price for their spiritual weakness. Even Moses, who answered God's call time and time again, failed to do as God spoke and was punished by not being allowed to enter the land they were promised.

It was not until the Egyptian generation had died away, and their children only born in the wilderness with the strong reliance on God's mercy, did his chosen people finally make it into the land of milk and honey.

The funny thing about offering ourselves up to God is that, well, he will take it.

My daughter, for example, had been struggling with managing her stress level this year in school. We had prayed often and asked for God's guidance. As we neared her final exams and prayed we realized this final exam was not a test of math, but a test of faith. My daughter understood that and accepted God's guidance and went to bed, ready to trust God's will.

The next day, the day of the exam, she awoke with a high fever. She opened her eyes and said "Thanks, God. Still testing my faith, huh?" And he was.

After she took the final exam she waited for the teacher to let her know what was her final score. The teacher scored the test and told her she had failed.

My daughter left the classroom devastated. The result of the test would require her changing her entire college plans. She had prayed and put her faith in God and she failed anyway. She knew God must have had other plans for her. She wept to herself, but knew it was God's will and accepted it. She didn't like it, but she accepted it.

However, it was another test of faith.

As she walked outside of the classroom the teacher ran out after her and told her she had given her the wrong person's results. She had actually passed and received a B.

As her faith grew, God's test of that faith grew. The more she was tested, the more she had to offer more faith. The more she offered faith, the more she was tested. She started giving 10%, God wanted 11. When she gave 11, God wanted 12. Why?

Because God wants all of us. 100%. Nothing less. We are his creation, after all. Why would he want less?

The saints have often complained about God's continual and growing moral tests of faith. I can't remember the saint's name, but one of them said to God, after a very hard moral challenge, "if this is the way you treat your friends, no wonder you have so many enemies."

Think of Mother Theresa. After giving her life to Jesus, she did not feel his presence again, except one brief moment. For fifty years she felt nothing, but lived everyday for him.

Why?

Because God wants 100%. Any amount of ourselves we do not give to God is tainted by our own imperfection. When we offer ourselves up, God must purify us from our own sinfulness by testing us, forcing us to rely on him.

For my daughter, she did not have faith when it came to school work. Her fear was interfering with her faith. When she offered that up, God had to push her more and more until he had finally forced the fear from where she could replace that void with faith.

Our moral journey, our path toward heaven will not be easy because it can't be. We are holding on to too many percentages of our lives, not giving God all of us.

We are his children. He wants all of us. Not just once a week on Sundays. Not just when life treats us poorly. He wants us when we work, when we talk to our kids, when we mow our yards, when we wash the car, when we face illness, when we lose our jobs or lose a relative close to us.

God wants us all. Whatever you can give him, he will take... and wait for the rest.

Microcinema Flashback - THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE... An Example That Anything Can Happen! (2003)

Two years earlier I had written an article about how to overcome writers block by focusing on the phrase Anything Can Happen. In November 2003 I share a Coen Bros. story that shows just that.

*****

THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE... An Example That Anything Can Happen!
By Pete Bauer

I spent last night watching the Coen Brother's film THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE and was surprised at the amount of plot twists that happened in what appears to be a realitively innocuous storyline. It empitomized my belief, in screenwriting, that anything can happen. The film takes place in 1949 and stars Billy Bob Thorton as Ed Crane, a second-chair barber working for his brother-in-law at a three-chaired barber shop. Crane's wife Doris, played by Coen regular Frances McDormand, works as a bookkeeper in a local department store. The store is managed by Big Dave, played by Soprano James Gandolfini, who got the job as a manager by marrying Ann, who's family owns the department store chain.

Crane's professional and personal life are stagnate. He doesn't speak much and doesn't like to be spoken to either. One night, during dinner with Big Dave and Ann, he comes to the conclusion the Big Dave and his wife, Doris, are having an affair. Big Dave is excited that he's about to open his own new store in the department store chain and that Doris would be promoted to Comptroller. Even though Crane believes his wife is unfaithful with Big Dave, he is uninspired to confront it. However, the next morning a stranger, named Tolliver, comes into the barber shop venting his frustration on failing to acquire venture capital to start a new thing called Dry Cleaning. He's already approached and been dismissed by Big Dave and he's ready to leave town. Crane, realizing he's never pursued any of his own dreams, tells Tolliver that he'd be able to provide the $10,000 investment by the end of the week.

Crane then drafts a ransom note to Big Dave stating he knows he's having an affair with a married woman (he does not name Doris by name) and he's demanding $10,000. At a department store party, Big Dave confides in Crane that he's been having an affair with a married woman (not necessarily Doris) and that if the news gets out, he'll lose his job and his dream of owning his own department store. Big Dave believes Tolliver is behind it and the only way to get the money would be to ask Doris to cook the books (embezzle) the get the cash.


Big Dave has Doris embezzle and he deposits the money as the ransom note has stated. Crane picks up the money and gives it to Tolliver, signing contracts for the partnership in the Dry Cleaning business. A few evenings later, after a family wedding that left Doris passed out from drinking, Crane gets a call from Big Dave to meet him at the store. Crane uses Doris' keys and her car and meets Big Dave in his office. He discovers that Big Dave had beaten Tolliver and found out Crane was behind the ransom note. Big Dave then tries to choke Crane, but Crane slashes his throat with Big Dave's lucky knife, who drops to the floor and dies in a pool of his own blood. Not knowing what to do, Crane goes home.

The next day police arrive at the barbershop. Crane, expecting as much, all but confesses before they interrupt him to tell him his wife had been picked up for the murder. Apparently, they theorize, she killed Big Dave to cover up the embezzlement activity, for which they believe she was solely responsible. This is where the story really takes off creatively.

- Crane's brother-in-law and fellow barber gets a loan against the barber shop to pay for the best attorney, played brilliantly by Tony Shalhoub.
- Ann, Big Dave's wife, stops by on the way home from Big Dave's funeral to tell Crane that, while camping a few years ago, Big Dave and Ann were abducted by aliens and that Big Dave had not been the same since.
- In a meeting at the prison with Shaloub, Doris and Crane, Crane confesses to the crime, but it's dismissed by Shalhoub as a ineffective defense ploy.
- On lonely nights Crane finds comfort at his friend's house, listening to the piano playing of his friends teen daughter.
- Tolliver has disappeared. Crane surmises he left with the money and his dreams and his reality are now hoplessly lost.
- Shalhoub hires a private eye who discovers all of Big Dave's WWII claims were false and they would use the potential revelation of that info as the motive, replacing the embezzlement motive.

Ann speaks of UFOs

- As they are about to begin the trial, Doris commits suicide by hanging herself herself.
- The brother-in-law is so distraught he no longer works, so Crane handles the barbershop to keep it out of foreclosure.
- The Medical Examiner tells Crane, in confidence, that Doris was pregnant. Crane tells him that they hadn't made love in years, which means she was having the affair.
- Crane, intent on doing something important, pays for his friends daughter to play piano for a master teacher, in the hopes that she would go on to become a great pianist.
- The teacher states the student has talent, but no heart for music.
- On the drive back the teen girl makes passes at Crane and attempts to give him a blow job, causing an accident.
- Crane awakens to find the police in his room, arresting him for the beating death of Tolliver, who was found at the bottom of a river. The contracts with his name and the money are found and are used as motive.
- Crane gets a loan on his house to pay Shalhoub for defense, but an unexpected tirade by Crane's brother-in-law's during the trial causes a mistrial.
- Unable to pay for a good attorney, the state appointed one convinces Crane to plead guilty and hope for the best.
- He is sentenced to die in the electric chair.
- He dreams of a UFO visiting him at the jail.
- He is walked down and executed.

The amazing thing about this screenplay is that every fifteen minutes or so something outrageously new is interjected. As is typical with a Coen Brothers film, these unexpected and intriguing turns spin a world that seems familiar to most of us into something oddly unique. They take the classic film noir and turn it into their own brand of black and white reality.

The script and the path the storyline travels is a prime example that anything can happen.

The International (2009)

The International could have been a great movie, but it ends up only being a good movie.

The story revolves around two people, New York District Attorney Eleanor Whitman played by Naiomi Watts and Louis Salenger from Interpol played by Clive Owen. These two people have been actively investigating a large International Bank for years, believing it be involved with organized crime.

Things with the bank seem to have escalated as the investigation has unearthed plans for the bank to purchase missiles.

Director Tom Tykwer does a nice job with the visuals of the film, often pitting Owen against the large, omnipresent buildings that represent the seemingly immovable force that is the International Bank. There are action sequences in the film that are very well done. And the cast is extraordinarily talented.

So, what keeps this good film from being great? Two things which are tied together. I'm not sure which is at the root cause of the issue, or whether they are equally at fault, but the two main issues are the acting of Naiomi Watts and her character/her lines in the script. Not only is her character two dimensional and her lines stiff, but the Aussie actress can't quite pull of the Americanized lines in a believable manner.

The International has a 1970s nihilistic feel to it, that the machine is greater than the man, that the war against large forces are too hefty for one person to overcome.

The International is a good movie, bordering on very good, but it just can't quite make it to great.

Microcinema Flashback - Momentum, Movies and Fearful Moments (2003)

From April 2003... this is about taking advantage of the momentum you gain on a project once its started.

*****

Momentum, Movies and Fearful Moments
By Pete Bauer

Today, after working 3 a.m. to around noon, I had lunch with my brother Charles near his work. Afterwards he and I shot some exterior Lab shots of his building for the opening of our nearly completed dv feature called THE BOX. It wasn't as if I had accomplished a lot, but it was nice to get something done. Anything done. One of the things I've learned through this project is how momentum impacts your life. After we got done with the principle shooting, I needed a break and took a few days off. Then work became increasingly busy and evaporated any forward movement I had made on the project. And now, it's like starting a lawn mower for the first time after a long Winter. It takes an awful lot of pulls to get the thing cranked up again and it isn't too happy about being bothered. That's the way I felt today. My work schedule has me fighting exhaustion on a daily basis, but I knew if I didn't get the motor on this project cranked up and running again, that it would only be harder to start later.

But once the engine starting purring again, it seemed as if all was right with the world. Plopping that Sony PD-150 on the tripod and shooting some basic shots felt oh so good, comfortable. Made me realize just how much I enjoy this stuff.

So, I've learned that momentum is a critical component of artistic endeavors. I remember reading once that one of the ways to make sure you make a movie is to tell everyone you're going to do it. This forces you into action, which creates momentum and, eventually, you have no choice but to follow through on your word... or fail and lose all credibility with everyone you've told. And with THE BOX, this has certainly been the case. When I decided to shoot a feature, and picked THE BOX as the one to attempt, I was determined to finish it, no matter how it all turned out. I'll admit that, at the beginning, I was very apprehensive as to whether or not I could pull it off... I mean, there are a mountain of things to overcome, challenges to face and adjustments to be made, all of which have to be handled in order to shoot a feature. But, after I made that decision and started telling people about my goals, I found myself surrounded by co-workers, friends, even friends of friends, all of whom, to my surprise, had similar aspirations and who wanted to participate in the project.

One of the potential momentum stoppers in things like making movies is when you are forced to face things for which you are uncomfortable. An old boss of mine once said to me "there are parts of your job you like and parts of your job you don't, but they are all your responsibility, so figure out a way to do all of them well." And that is very true, especially when trying to scrape together the time and resources for a micro-budget feature. Who wants to ask friends and family to help out? Who wants to approach total strangers and convince them that giving you what you want is in their best interest? Not a lot of people. But, if you want to get it done, you find a way to get it done. At some point, when there is enough momentum behind the project, you find that it is more painful NOT asking for something for which you are uncomfortable. That NOT getting what the project needs means you've wasted all of your time up until that one awkward moment.

I read a psychological study on successful people and one of the critical personality traits of "winners" is that their initial reaction is to take on what they're afraid of. Most people are debilitated by fear and never start initiatives, which means they never succeed. However, since a "winners" first instinct is to face their fears head on, they are, statistically, more apt to succeed then the rest. And I was lucky enough to have a real life example... one of my brother-in-laws was once vastly overweight and smoked. When his father died of cancer he decided to change his life. He lost over 150 lbs and quit smoking AT THE SAME TIME. I asked him one day how he had the strength to do that, to take on two seemingly insurmountable tasks at the same time. His response was quick. He said "It simply became more important than anything else."

And, in the end, it's that simple. So, whatever obstacles he feared when facing those two challenges weakened dramatically with the death of his father. Suddenly, the pain of NOT changing far out-weighed the challenge of facing his fears, of changing his life, of facing failure.

And though my brother-in-law's struggle is on a much more noble scale, the same basic principle holds true when making a movie. You will be faced with situations you don't want to face, with fears you don't want to challenge. But, if you have enough momentum, enough riding on NOT doing what is uncomfortable, than "it simply becomes more important than anything else." And you do it.

And the funny thing is, when you look back, you realize that the fear was much greater than the reality.

Audio Bible

I don't remember when I first became a fan of old radio programs... sometime in college I think. Thanks to the internet, over the last few years I've been able to accumulate over 100 old radio shows, including shows such as Casey: Crime Photographer, Philip Marlowe and Barry Craig: Confidential Investigator.

What I love about old radio programs is that they take you beyond the simple written word and allow you to dive into a world made up of real life sounds with actors playing the characters in such a way that your mind fills in all the blanks and you can watch the show unfold before you in your mind.

It's that love of old time radio programs that makes me so excited about buying the audio bible called Word of Promise. It's a King James version of the bible done in audio theater format. There are sound effects and over 600 actors playing the numerous parts, including Jim Caviezel, Michael York, Richard Dreyfus, Max Von Sydow, Gary Sinise, Marcia Gay Harden, and on and on.

The bible comes alive when you listen to Adam take his first breath and hear Noah building the ark. The story moves at a very quick pace and it's entertaining and immersive in quality.

Over a year ago some of our fellow strong believing Catholics would get together every Sunday evening and watch Jeff Cavins' The Great Adventure bible study. It's a great, wonderful bible study that condenses the grand salvation story of the bible into 14 critical narrative books. It shows you where the other books in the bible compliment the main narratives while not losing sight of the primary story being told.

The problem I've had with the bible study is that it is 24 weeks long and I've never been able to finish it. Life would always get in the way. So, it occured to me that if I could record the audio from Cavins' DVD bible study as well as the appropriate audio bible sections required for the study using the awesome Word of Promise series, I could make an audio series that I could listen to in the car or at home, where ever it is convenient.

So, I've spent that last month putting this together. I hope to have it completed by Christmas. So far it is a wonderful experience. On the way to and from work I've already listened to Genesis while moving through three of Cavins insightful and inspiring bible studies.

The only downside is that, since the audio bible is a King James version, it does not include Maccabees, which is in Catholic bible and covered in the Cavins study. I guess reading one book out of the bible instead of listening to it won't hurt me too much. :)

As I told my wife the other day, I know I've changed as a person when one of the most exciting purchases I've ever made has been the Word of Promise bible study. It is an amazing tool that literally brings the bible to life.

Combine that with Cavins' deep and educational insights as to how each book ties to the next and, in the end, with Jesus Christ, will give me an understanding of the bible that I have never had before.

Microcinema Flashback - Things My Nine-Year Old Daughter Taught Me About Acting (2003)

From March 2003, lessons I learned from my daughter, Dorothea, during the shooting of our DV feature called The Box.

*****

Things My Nine-Year Old Daughter Taught Me About Acting
By Pete Bauer

When shooting the DV feature, THE BOX, one of the main characters ended up being played by my nine-year old daughter, Dorothea. Even though she had never acted before, I knew she was perfect for the role because:

1. she took direction well,
2. she has a natural talent with words
3. since she was my daughter I could make her work whenever I needed. :)

It was through coaching my daughter in THE BOX that I came across some things that may help other micro-budget filmmakers working with non-actors.

The entire purpose of "acting" is to look like your NOT acting and that's where non-actors get into trouble... they try too hard. But here are some tips that you can use to get a stronger performance out of your non-actors.

Relaxation: This is probably the hardest things for a non-actor to achieve. Relaxation comes from comfort and the fact that you're using non-actors means that, more than likely, you're dealing with people who haven't spent a lot of time in front of the camera. So, getting them to relax in front of it can be difficult. This tension often manifests itself with a nervous giggle or an incessant smile on their face. And then they'll "act" for you, which is exactly what you want to avoid. So, here are some things you can say to non-actors to alleviate the pressure:

• Tell them that you'll shoot as many takes as necessary. If they need 100 takes to get it right, fine, no problem. And, for most non-actors, it may take 10 or 12 takes to get them comfortable.
• Tell them that your sole job is to make them look as good as possible, which is true, and that you'll do whatever you can to help them do that.
• Let them understand your appreciation for their contributing to the project. Let them know that, without them, this couldn't happen and empathize with the awkward situation they're in.
• When they screw up, joke with them, keep the atmosphere light. If they sense you're at all tense or frustrated, they'll lose whatever relaxtion they've acheived.
• One final thing you can try is, after a take, tell them that you got the take you wanted, but that you want to do a couple more for safety. Even if their last take was lousy, when they think that you've got a take you can use, they'll often sigh and you'll see the burden of acting lifted off their shoulders. You'll find that they're suddenly relaxed and these next few "safety takes" are the ones that will end up in the finished product.

Know Your Actor's Weaknesses: It's important to know what your actors can and cannot do BEFORE shooting starts.

• Have your actors run lines together, going over the scene again and again. Let them do this for as long as they need, because it will save you a lot of time when the camera's rolling.
• While they're running lines, throw in some direction (move here on this line, don't get so angry, etc.) See how they respond. You'll get a better idea as to what will and will not work, what type of direction they respond to and what they can't process.

You should also find out if they are "first take" actors or "last take" actors.

• First take actors do their best work on the first take and only get weaker and more stilted the more they redo the scene.
• Last take actors get better and more relaxed with each take and their best performance is the last one you shoot. Fortunately, most actors fall into this category.

Find out if your actor prefers "line readings" or more subtle direction.

• A line reading is when you say the line exactly as you want it to be said, with the tone, inflection, urgency, etc. The actor will then copy how you said the line.
• Some people need to make their line readings their own and you'll need to make them understand why they're saying the line... which leads me to the next category...

Lines vs. Logic: Most non-actors spend a lot of energy worrying about getting their lines right... too much time and it shows. Bad acting doesn't come from how they look, but how they sound... their words just don't sound believable. This usually comes from putting too much focus on making sure each word in the sentence are in the proper order instead of understanding exactly why they are saying what they're saying. It's like turning a line "Can't you show me how you feel?" into something as daunting as memorizing "5463 511 58914 654860644 654699." When you see an actor investing more time in the order of their lines than in the meaning behind them, try the following:

• Take a moment to make sure they understand the logic behind the words. Make sure that they focus on WHY they are saying something, as opposed to the exact words they are saying. If a scene is written well enough, and the actor can understand the logic behind their lines, then they will eventually understand that the only appropriate line to say next is "Can't you show me how you feel?"
• That understanding of logic also needs to work for a scene. In THE BOX I had one long scene that had to be shot in single take. So, I went through it with the actors, breaking the scene into sections, or "beats". I explained the logic behind the words and the logic behind the beats. So, instead of them having to memorize a LONG scene, they put together a bunch of short beats that made sense to them. For example: The first beat you want to make him angry. The second beat you want him to apologize. The third beat your are sorry for pushing him too hard.
• Let them paraphrase. Unless an exact line is necessary for the plot, if you see an actor is stumbling over words, then tell them to put it into their own words. Simply ask them "what are you trying to say?" They'll first try to recite their lines, but don't let them. Tell them to tell you, in their own words, what they are trying to convey. Then, tweak the line to fit how they feel comfortable saying it. This allows them to take ownership of the line, they feel like they're contributing and their performance will be more believable. And, what you'll usually find is that, once they put it into their own words, they eventually end up using your original dialogue, except they now understand what they're saying.

These are a few tips that I learned when directing my daughter and other actors in the making of THE BOX. Nothing pulls an audience out of a story like bad acting. So, do everything you can to get the strongest, most sincere performance you can from your actors. In the end, you'll have a more successful project and you'll be living up to your promise... to make the actors look as good as possible.

Tick... Tick... Tick...

Well, here we are... the last month of this blogs existence.

Since I've been turning these blogs into books, I've indulged myself a bit by posting some old, but entertaining articles about microcinema from a few years back... I wanted to have them documented somehow and this seemed like a practical way.

But, I will be adding some blog entries here before we close up shop.

I am very active on our Sonlight Pictures blog, so don't be a stranger over there. Would love to hear your comments about our thoughts and our projects.

So, enjoy the last 31 days of Surviving in Safety Harbor.

It's been a long five year run. Enjoyable, challenging and fun.

Microcinema Flashback - Front Row at the Saints and Sinners Film Festival (2002)

Our short film Justice was showing at the local Saints and Sinners Film Festival in August of 2002. Below, I share my thoughts on the unique experience.

*****

Front Row at the Saints and Sinners Film Festival
By Pete Bauer

While the rest of the REwind community was recuperating from the 2002 RMAs, I attended a similar festival in St. Petersburg, called the Saints and Sinners Film Festival. The festival was very well attended by a varied group of independent film fans... everyone from metal goths, to tan yuppies, to spike-haired punks, to parents and grand-parents... they were all there to support local micro-budget filmmakers. Held in downtown St. Pete at the State Theater, this usual haven of up and coming metal and rock bands was quickly transformed into an underground, indie-edge style showcase of aspiring filmmakers, with uncomfortable chairs, over-priced drinks and pizza and a great amount of enthusiasm and communal support... it was perfect.

Saints & Sinners The festival started at 4:00 p.m. and the line formed around the block. Though there were some kinks in actually getting people into the theater in a timely manner (after all, it's frickin' August in Florida! Open the doors early and let us get in the air conditioning!), no one seemed to mind. The festival, which separated the entries into non-horror (Saints) and horror (Sinners), showcased projects made by Florida filmmakers. Feature projects were interspersed with shorts and the festival concluded with the premiere of TOXIC AVENGER 4: CITIZEN TOXIE. As most of you know, I am not a fan of horror movies... at least the real bloody ones, but I really wanted to show my support to the fest so I sat quietly, hoping I wouldn't get grossed out. And, to my surprise, I wasn't at all. The Sinner projects were horror, but not gory, which I appreciated.

Now, I'm not sure if this was intended by the festival organizers at Renegage Films, but the best of the line-up came within the first four hours of this ten hour event. The fest opened with a local shot-on-video pseudo-documentary called BLEED, which was eerily like THE LAST BROADCAST. It was a nice project to start the festival and the audience was eager to show their support with appropriate hoops and yells. It was then followed by an effective film short called UNRAVELING AMELIA, about an old woman's trip into insanity as a result of being snowed in at a remote cabin. The highlight of the fest actually came from one of the guys at Renegade Films. He was home with the kids one day and threw together an absolutely hilarious and adorable short called WONDERBOY. It rocked! Other quality films were IT'S ONLY YOUR IMAGINATION and the very funny Clerks take-off called CLARKS, which ended with a hilarious homage to THE BREAKFAST CLUB.


Other projects were either not effective or just not that good. CHILD OF THE APOCALYPSE, about a Satanist having the Anti-Christ, though trying to be satircal look at tabloid media, was far too blasphemous for my tastes. And LOOKING IN THE FISHBOWL, a Crystal Reel Award winning short film, was very funny, but seemed to go out of it's way to bash Catholics. Being a card carrying Catholic, I couldn't help but ask the simple question... WHY? I'll never say Catholicism, or any other religion, is perfect. But, attacking any of them without it actually meaning something just seems lazy and a waste of a good story-telling opportunity. Falls into that oh-so-typical "rebelling against the institutions" thing that just isn't that original to me... so high-schoolish... rebellion-lite. But, that's just my opinion.

As all of you know, I have GREAT respect for anyone who can put a film together, not matter what the end quality. We've all been there and know that even unsuccessful projects take a hell of a lot of work. That being said, the worst short of the day was easily a mafia story called HIT & MISS... it was obviously their first effort. Shaky camera moves, bad audio, bad logic and bad framing all combined to make this one that will quickly fade from my long term memory. And one of the most memorable shorts was called GOOD GOLLY MISS DOLLY... it was so bad, it was charming. The story, about two hillbillies arguing over the love of Dolly (a peeing goat) was memorable because one of the guys kept his face down the entire time, obviously reading the script (which was visible on the table). It was hilarious. You end up loving those types of things even more because you know that these people have had no real training, yet are still driven to make movies. It was inspiring, in an odd sort of way.

Now, I'll admit, I must be getting old, because I could not make it through the entire festival. I ended up leaving after CLARKS at around 11:30 p.m. Unfortunately, there were some shorts I really wanted to see, but my eyes were starting to glaze over and I was struggling to pay attention. I didn't want to do the filmmakers an injustice by not paying attention, so after 7 1/2 hours I hit the road and headed home.

Major kudos go to the guys at Renegade Films for all the time and effort in pulling this whole thing together. I'm sure Jon and the Linns know what a Herculean task that can be. I was pleasantly surprised at the overflowing crowd that attended the event. There's obviously a larger mirco-budget film community in the area than I had expected. The only real down side was that I was hoping the event would have lended itself to being more conducive for networking with like-minded filmmakers. However, the nature of the venue and the tight schedule limited that opportunity. Perhaps, in future fests, there will be more of a chance to just hang out and talk shop with other filmmakers.

From what I hear, the guys at Renegade are trying to get together another festival... perhaps as soon as November. So, any micro-budget filmmakers out there, especially those located in Florida, make sure to submit your stuff and plan to attend. If the upcoming fests are as successful as this first effort, it can easily become one of the top mirco-budget festivals in the country... second to the RMAs, of course!

Microcinema Flashback - Godzilla vs. Bin Laden (2002)

September 11, 2001 changed the world. It changed everything.

One of the more important areas which were effected were public sensibilities to the military and to mass destruction. Still healing from the wounds of the tragic events from the year before, I talk about how Hollywood would have to change with the times in order to remain relevant.

*****

Godzilla vs. Bin Laden: The Re-Evaluation of the Hollywood Blockbuster (2002) July
By Pete Bauer

I took my daughter to the local public library the other day and found that they had recently added DVDs to the things one could check out. I wasn't in the mood for anything thought provoking, I wanted some mindless drivel. It had been an extremely long work week and I needed some mental down time. So, I picked out one of the biggest, expensive and unsatisfying examples of Hollywood drivel I could find, 1998's GODZILLA.

Ever since the terrible events of 9/11 I've been wondering how that would spill into the public's cinematic appetite. Since that day, I had not seen an abundance of philosophical changes coming from Hollywood (Sum of All Fears, Collateral Damage), so I wondered if anything had really changed. I wondered if something as truly horrifying as what happened in New York and Pennsylvania last September was going to have any lasting impact on the movie-going audiences. I thought that, if America had not truly lost its soul over the past 200 years, we would, as a people, no longer need the irrelevant fluff we so eagerly purchased from the media outlets previously in order to fill our lives. That films, television and books would some how take on a more meaningful purpose. I was afraid to think that our decades of excess living in a land where generations had lived with a war-less history, that we would have lost ourselves irrevocably to the baser urges of mankind.

And then I watched GODZILLA.

It was while watching this super-fictional attack on the New City of the north that I finally noticed the stark differences between "what was" and "what is" after 9/11. There was no escapism for me in watching a monster destroy people-filled buildings, or the military flying through the city in a desperate attempt to save human lives. And the jokes of the political ramifications of a Mayor ordering the evacuation of the city now seem so hopelessly out of place... almost offensive when considering what Mayor Guiliani dealt with when real-life terror impacted his city.

What used to be found as amusement or flights of fancy, such as destroying skyscrapers or blowing up well known landmarks, are now so morally inappropriate, so misplaced, so hollow and weak that it cemented in me how the world had truly changed. Prior to that awful day we were so distant from true life horror that it took a gigantic monster destroying a larger than life city to merely whet our appetite. Now, it's almost embarrassing to think that anyone would find such a story entertaining.

Years of the consistent devaluing of human life, of adding body count for cinematic impact instead of layering the true human stories that fill each of those dead bodies, culminated in the fact that we thought of it as nothing very important to watch a monster wreak the largest of body counts, for people to be stomped on like insignificant bugs. And that the killing of men and women serving in the armed forces was somehow an effective punch line.

Oh, how things have changed.

Does that mean there should be no more monsters in the movies? Of course not. But, what I hope it means is that America, and perhaps the world, are more in touch with the substance of their existence and to expect more from their escapism... to layer the stories with a touch of humanity as well as entertainment... that we have moved permanently above the expectation that the highest we should expect from our entertainment is the lowest form of our existence.

At least, I hope so.

Microcinema Flashback - The Hollywood Recycling Center - One Man's Classic is Another Man's Paycheck (2002)

From May 2002...

Imitation may be a sincere form of flattery, but in Hollywood, I think it's simply a shortcut to payday.

*****

The Hollywood Recycling Center - One Man's Classic is Another Man's Paycheck
By Pete Bauer

When you're pounding your head, trying to think of new story ideas, does it ever feel like that you have nothing new to offer? That the idea in your head is really just a re-tread of an existing film? Don't worry. This happens all the time. Sometimes, new ideas are hard to come by, even for the most lauded of screenwriters. Take Robert Towne. Here's a guy who's written some of the most important, critically acclaimed films in the history of Hollywood. He's written or helped write such films as Chinatown, The Parallax View, Marathon Man, The Two Jakes, Tequila Sunrise, The Firm and many more. He's also written two of my favorite recent films, Mission: Impossible 1 & 2. Just a few weeks ago I rented both MIs on DVD, watched and enjoyed them both. Then, last night, I plopped in one of my all time favorite films, a film that I had not seen in years... Alfred Hitchcock's Notorious. I was stunned to find out I was actually watching the original Mission: Impossible 2. Let's look at the similarities:

The stories revolve around government agents (Cary Grant in Notorious and Tom Cruise in MI2) who are asked to get to know a woman, a non-agent (Ingrid Bergman in Notorious and Thandie Newton in MI2), whom the government wants to enlist to assist them in a critical mission. Both agents quickly fall in love with these beautiful civilian women before they are told the specifics of the mission. As part of their job, both women are asked to rekindle an old relationship with an ex-lover (Claude Rains in Notorious and Dougray Scott in MI2) and must even agree to sleep with them, if necessary. Both ex-lovers are men who were desperately in love with these women previously, to the point that their partners (Leopoldine Konstantin, who plays Rains mother in Notorious and Richard Roxburgh in MI2) fear they are clouded by their lust and love when their old flames suddenly reappear back into their lives.

Once undercover, both women agree to meet with the agents for the first time at a horse race, where the ex-lover watches them from afar, then approaches them just as the agent leaves. Both women are successful at their espionage (Bergman gets the key to the wine cellar in Notorious, Newton picks the flash disc from Scott's pocket in MI:2). However, both women make a slight, critical error (Bergman doesn't get the key back on the key chain in time, Newton slides the disc back into the wrong pocket) which arouses suspicion in the ex-lovers. Once the men verify the women are traitors, they are unable to tell their cohorts in crime for fear of repercussion (more so in Notorious than MI:2). Both women are then poisoned (Bergman by the tea she drinks, Newton by injecting herself with a virus) and both agents must come to their rescue and save them before the poison kills them. Both of the women are saved from their missions in the nick of time by the agents, whom they love and who love them. MI:2


Stunning.

If there were only a few similarities, it would be different, but the first half of both movies are almost identical. The climaxes vary widely due to the style of the directors (Hitchcock and Woo), but the storylines are identical. The only major difference in both stories is that Grant, when he finds out what Bergman must do on her mission, refuses to admit his love for her. Where as in MI:2, Cruise makes a point to tell her that he'd rather her not take the mission because of his feelings for her. Hitchcock's love story is much stronger because it adds an entirely different level to the story. Grant's and Bergman's relationship is brutal at times and you want her to know that he really loves her just as bad as you want her to complete her mission and get out of there. But, beyond that and the directorial styles, the films are nearly identical.

Even though I think we need to tell the most compelling, unique stories possible, when Hollywood recycles, it also includes their screenplays (I won't even get into the whole Casablanca vs. Barb Wire fiasco). So, the next time you come across a great idea that may not have been all that original, remember that HOW you tell your story appears to be more important than WHAT your story is about. If someone as truly talented as Robert Towne can, maliciously or not, turn Notorious into MI:2, then you can certainly turn your favorite film into something uniquely your own.

How about Raging Bull as a sci-fi musical? Or Citizen Kane as a sitcom starring Gary Coleman? Or The Sound Of Music Television. And I'm sure Towne won't mind if I turn Chinatown into Universal Soldier VIII! After all, a man has to make a living.

Microcinema Flashback - Defining Your Style (2001)

In the early phases of the microcinema revolution there were a lot of film makers who made films for the sole purpose of making them, but with no other artistic goal. I would be hard pressed to find the difference between one filmmaker and the next because most of them simply plopped their camera on a tripod and started shooting.

So, in November of 2001, I try to inspire new film makers to try not only to tell a story, but to tell an artistic one as well.

*****

Defining Your Style
By Pete Bauer

For any new low to no-budget filmmaker, I think there is an important question that should be asked. What makes me so special? What I mean by that is, why should anyone watch your stories? I am a firm believer that humans are storytellers by nature. We love to hear stories, make up stories, and watch stories. We see stories in paintings, in poems, in music and in sculpture. We listen to stories in gossip, in sharing memories and in relaying our hopes and goals. And filmmakers feel the instinctual urge to tell their stories with moving pictures. But, the question we should all be asking ourselves is what is going to make the way we convey our stories that much more unique and effective than the other wanna-be filmmakers out there?

This is something that I think most starting filmmakers often neglect to define within themselves. Part of this is understandable. We usually spend the early part of our "careers" learning the skills necessary by copying filmmakers we admire. We make our own personal versions of Scream or Star Wars or Indiana Jones. But, once we've grasped the basics, we should start trying to define who we are as filmmakers, how we tell stories, how we are to effect the audience, because, in the end, our primary goal as a story teller is to illicit emotion from our audience. Failing to do so means our attempt was unsuccessful at the most basic level for nothing screams failure louder to a filmmaker than a passive audience member.

Filmmakers have a seemingly infinite variety of ways to affect the audience. Some filmmakers choose a tense, realistic subject matter to illicit emotion. They'll convey stories of abuse, or drugs, or poverty or family crisis. Others choose a more fantastical way to illicit emotion, through horror or gore or science fiction. Some combine a little of all of these in thrillers and conspiracies and deception. We pick a genre that fits our strengths and our tastes and pursue making the most effective story possible. But, again, we should be asking ourselves, what makes me so special? Out of all of the low budget horror films out there, what will make mine stand out, what will make my story my own personal contribution to the genre. There are many horror directors out there, but only a few Cravens or Carpenters. There are many thriller directors out there, but only a few Hitchcocks or DePalmas.

When people think of Hitchcock or DePalma or Carpenter, the term "genius" is often attached in some fashion. But, are they a "genius" because they were born with an extra filmmaker gene or are they a "genius" because they have truly defined themselves as storytellers? And is this definition by accident, by some deep-seeded instinct, or is it, rather, because they are that much more thorough in creating their visual imagery? I think their "genius" comes from 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. Hitchcock, for example, never just "filmed" the scene. Every single shot was evaluated for it's emotional impact, either on its own or how it fit within a scene. Nothing was shot just to get the shot. Every angle was chosen as part of a whole to create the maximum impact to the audience. In Dial M For Murder, for example, the scene where Grace Kelly is attacked is divided into three 30 second sections. Pre-Attack, Attack and Post-Attack. Each section is 30 seconds long, because Hitchcock wanted the audience to understand that the attack was it's own event within the entire story. Just like the overall film, he wanted the attack to have a beginning, middle and end. And he wanted it defined in 30 second segments so that the audience, on a subconscious level, would understand that this unique, important event, had it's own life.

How many of us think to that detail in order to create the maximum effect on the audience? Granted, that's a daunting task, but it's worth it if you want to be anything above ordinary. I don't think it's by coincidence that the more effective filmmakers are also storyboarders. Hitchcock, DePalma, Spielberg, the Coens, etc., they all storyboard and take the time, before hand, to define every shot, to make sure that the way that image is relayed on the screen is as potent as possible.

So, when your throwing together your next low to no-budget film, make sure you take the time to define your style, to determine what's going to make you so special? Will it be your story or your effects, your imagery or your characters? It can be anything, but make it stand out. Make sure that, when people hear about your next film, that they are immediately aware of the unique opportunity they have to view your work. The budget has many limitations, but it shouldn't impact your style. Each of us is a unique creature. Our job is to relay that individuality through moving pictures.

And, then, we will have our own cinematic voice, our own unique, defined style.

Microcinema Flashback - The Three Most Important Words A Writer Needs To Remember... (2001)

Writers block is one of the hardest things to face as a writer. Nothing is more daunting than a blank page. In November of 2001 I offer some advice for writers on how to overcome it.

*****

The Three Most Important Words A Writer Needs To Remember...
By Pete Bauer

All writers eventually face a common, simple, deadly foe... writer's block. And writer's block usually comes down to one simple problem... we don't know what happens next. We may have an idea of what we want to happen, but not how to get there. So, we sit and stir and fuss and sweat and stare at the blank page trying to figure out why the words stopped coming. And the longer we sit, the more insurmountable the writer's block becomes until it evolves into the writer's second deadly foe... procrastination. Unchecked, days and months may pass with the empty page still waiting for the next injection of creative inspiration. If never overcome, the result is another unfinished project that sits in your desk drawer, reminding you of a great idea that was never fully realized.

In order to keep myself from sliding down that slippery slope, I've tacked three words above my desk. They read ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. I have found these three words to be the most important words as a writer. Because, in reality, the blank page has no preference to what you place on it. It doesn't care. It's just a void that you're trying to fill and you can fill it with anything... absolutely anything.

Most writers will tell you that writing can often be a contradictory experience. When we start, we usually have a good idea of where we want the story to end up. But, once we begin writing, the characters slowly take on a life of their own. They become real people, with wills and attitudes and tastes and needs so when you get into the meat of the writing process, you're not so much writing as you are taking dictation from the characters who are now telling you what should happen next.

It's moments like these which are both the most rewarding and the most frustrating. You feel like you've got the wind at your back as the spirit of inspiration takes you down unplanned paths to exciting places you didn't expect. Then, suddenly, you find yourself wondering where the hell you are and how the hell you're going to get out? It's no longer the issue if this is where the story should lead... the characters have told you as much. Your job is to take it to the next step. To figure out… what happens next? If not careful, these are the moments where writer's block rears its ugly head. You can easily get stuck between your original vision of the story's path and the new one the writing process has created.

And, it's at that moment, that I look on my wall and read the words ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. And it frees me. It wipes the creative slate clean and allows me to let the story travel wherever it needs to go. Because, on the blank page, anything can happen, to anyone, at any time. It may not be the original intent, but it is what's right for the story, what's truthful to the characters, what is necessary for the fruition of the plot.

So, if you're ever faced with trying to figure out… what happens next? Remember, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. What's the most dramatic? What's the most appropriate? What's the most effective? It can be anything. And it's that freedom, that unlimited supply of possibilities, that is the greatest reward we get from this frustrating, inspiring and, ultimately, satisfying process called writing.

Microcinema Flashback - A Cry For Help... (2001)

I've always envied the horror film genre. Their fans are the most loyal and most forgiving. The market place may increase as public taste fluctuate, but they never dip into obscurity. I think you can be pretty successful if you can shoot good low-budget horror. Unfortunately, I've never really liked the blood and guts horror flicks. Just not my thing.

In this article from October 2001 I ask for help on understanding the appeal of this odd, but loyal film genre.

*****

A Cry For Help... As Blood Spews From My Neck.
by Pete Bauer

I need help... understanding... education. I have to admit something that may offend some of you... but I hate horror movies. Not scary movies, not spooky movies, not boogy-man movies, but the blood splattering, in your face, knife-plunging, decapitation gory movies. I know there are a lot of people in this world who find some sort of entertainment from such films, otherwise the local video chains wouldn't be stocked with Children of the Corn VII! But, I just don't get it... never have. And I need you fellow horror-film fans to explain it to me.

I remember when Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street and other flicks came out. I saw a few, but always found myself spending more of my time closing my eyes during the bloodfests than watching and finding enjoyment from it. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm too in touch with my sensitive side. Maybe I need an injection from the Wes Craven testosterone factory.

Don't get me wrong... I love suspense movies, scary, creepy, watch-out-for-the-bad-guy-behind-the-door films. The original Halloween is one of my favorite films of all time. So, it's not that I dislike the genre, just the more excessively bloody versions of it. Halloween worked so well for me because the graphic events are more implied than visual. It made me imagine... create what's going on as we hear the knife stabbing the older sister... we only see the knife through the eyes of the child's mask and since I have to fill in the gaps with my imagination, it makes it much more real than watching some clever special effect happen in front of me.

After the initial attack on Halloween night, the setup of impending evil, the rest of the movie is really a stalker movie. He follows Jamie Lee around, standing ominously across the street in shadow or near the clothes lines... scares the living crap out of you. Even the last act, where all of the bloody mayhem ensues, is handled with restraint and is incredibly effective as we see this evil finally unleashed.

I guess my problem comes from the point of the attacks in these types of films. Cheaper versions of the genre just throw a bunch of scantily clad beauties in a central location and let the hacking begin. Obviously this works well. This standard storyline is repeated over and over again by just about every level of filmmaker and it always makes money.

But, again, I just don't get it. I get offended seeing a knife plunge into the chest of a woman who's only crime is that she's in the wrong shower at the wrong time. I get offended when I see a guys neck slashed, blood spurt out and his head fall next to his lifeless body. Part of me has attached some sort of humanity to these characters and their loss, no matter how annoying the character is, is still a loss. That's just the way I am, I guess. I don't see them as plot devices that need to be hacked into oblivion, but people being killed. And, people dying gruesome deaths offends me.

Maybe I'm just a frickin' wuss! Maybe I need to go through another round of puberty. But, that's how I react to gore-fest films. Now, I avoid them at all cost. I remember back to something my Dad said to me when I was young... "watch out what you put into your brain because you can never get it out." So, I weigh the value of allowing certain images into my head and seeing a water-logged Jason return for one more vivisection just doesn't seem a logical use of my brain... don't think I gain anything from experiencing the imagery.

Again, help me here. I'm not judging, I'm not criticizing, I'm just trying to get it. I'm trying to understand where the enjoyment is for fans of horror. Is it that you don't attach yourselves to the characters and just appreciate the effects as a fellow filmmaker? Does it tickle some dark fancy within you? Is it "just a frickin' movie" and I should get out of my cinematic diapers? Give it to me straight. I can take it. I know many of you make horror flicks, and from the response, apparently they're very successful. I'd love to see the works of Timberwolf Digital or Eric Stanze or a variety of other filmmakers out there because I LOVE low-budget films with an edge... as long as it's not the edge of a large kitchen knife with blood dripping from the end.

Hell, I'll admit it... part of me is a hypocrite. My first film was a Super 8 slasher flick where we got all excited that we were able to get a knife with blood on it to look real. So, I've been there as a filmmaker making the best effects we could with bailing wire, some chewing gum and loads of food coloring. And I envy people who can make films in the genre with continued success, on any level, not so much because of the story that they're telling, but because they have tapped into a profitable niche market. If it was in me, I'd make a billion lesbian vampire flicks and retire... but I just can't tell that type of story. It's not in my genome.

So help me out... help me understand what so many people see that I, apparently, just don't get. I'm a fellow filmmaker with a cry for help. Just educate me before you dissect me and feed me to your relatives at the next holiday gathering.

Bucco Bruce Makes a Comeback

The Bucs had an unexpected win over the Green Bay Packers this past weekend, welcoming in the Josh Freeman era as the Bucs franchise quarterback.

The Bucs chose this weekend to play in their throwback Orange and White jerseys with the famed Bucco Bruce on the side of the helmet.


Initially, I thought I would not enjoy seeing the Bucs in their old style uniforms because of my childhood full of watching bad football in creamy orange... players like Vinnie Testeverde or Jack Thompson or Errict Rhett...

But to my surprise, I really enjoyed seeing the old unis. It was nostalgic.

Where the creamscicle uniforms were once a symbol of winless football, this weekend the Bucs got their first win of the season while wearing those bright threads and while also honoring Lee Roy Selmon for putting the Bucs legitmately onto the football map.

Throwback Sunday ended up being a good time all around.

Good win, good uniforms and good memories... well, some good memories, at least.

Microcinema Flashback - Writing What You Know... Second Best (2001)

From August 2001.

*****

Writing What You Know... Second Best
by Pete Bauer

There's a common, useful theory for new screenwriters which is to "write what you know." This means to write about your own experiences instead of trying to write a space-epic-horror-musical. The purpose of this exercise is to allow the writer to learn to write without having to do a lot of real pre-writing work... since you're writing from your own experiences, you don't have to do a lot of research, character development, etc. If you've been a waiter for three years, then write a script about waiting tables. If, like Kevin Smith, you worked in a convenience store, write a script about Clerks.

And, as your experience grows, you will find your older scripts could use an injection of your newer life lessons. For example, Steven Spielberg, who wrote and directed Close Encounters of the Third Kind, stated that, now that he has been a father, he never would have written Close Encounters the same way. When he made the film, he was young and single, without any children. So, he had no issue with the main character, played by Richard Dreyfuss, deciding to leave his family to go do some intergalactic galaxy hopping with the nearby aliens. However, now, as a father and truly understanding the love and attachment a parent has for their children, he stated he could never write that Dreyfuss would leave his family. His real life experiences have taught him that it just wasn't believable. And any parent will tell you he's correct.

Like all new writers, I wanted to set the world on fire with my creative genius, but I found my first two scripts falling outside the world of believability. The first, Undetected Risk, was a script about college kids who accidentally receive a top secret satellite transmission. The second, Mirage, was about brainwashing experiments that turn average citizens into assassins. Both had enough quality substance and structure to know that I could write thrillers, however, both stories took place in a shallow world. Both took place in the only world my limited imagination could create. Since I was so young, the only brainwashing and government secret stories I had seen were on television, so most of my stories were written with those pre-fab TV worlds in mind... and in the end it meant my stories offered nothing truly original.

So, I decided to take the phrase "write what you know" to heart and wrote a romantic comedy about a drama student (me) who is dealing with the struggles of a college relationship, called A Moment In The Moonlight. It was based on all of my failed relationships I had to overcome during my college years. After writing this script I realized two things: One, that my characters were much more believable, and Two, the world they lived in was real and unique. Even though the script in its entirety is not spectacular, the experiment, the process of "writing what you know" was extremely helpful. It allowed me to grow as a writer by letting me focus on the process of actually writing 120 pages instead of struggling with trying to create characters and a world from scratch.

However, there's a serious downside to this that I have noticed more and more lately. As the proliferation of DV shorts and features stream from all of the creative minds across the nation, there are more and more stories about filmmakers. About filmmakers unable to make films. Of course, I'm certain that these were done because they were "writing what you know." But, I've got to tell you, most people DON'T CARE and CAN'T IDENTIFY with filmmakers. They see them and the process of filmmaking as uninteresting and they see filmmakers as necessary, creative freaks. So, they could care less about the struggles of a filmmaker. They only want to see the finished product... a quality film that allows them to escape their everyday lives for a couple of hours.

If I see one more story about a struggling screenwriter, actor, director or producer, I think I'll vomit. I love making movies and I HATE watching stories about filmmakers... because, who cares? So, you're having trouble making your movie so you write about a filmmaker having trouble making a movie... unless it's because your potential financiers are actually Iraqi Underworld or something exciting, then why would I want to watch a story about your struggles when I'm having filmmaking struggles of my own. And if I'm not a filmmaker, then why should I care at all? Because, the reality is that usually the writers of these filmmaker stories aren't really good enough to make these types of stories universally appealing. It's a niche market that very few people are interested in.

Does that mean you shouldn't write about the struggles of filmmaking? No, the experience you gain from writing about it will make you a better writer for your next story. But, for God's sake, just don't make a film about it.

Hollywood still hasn't learned this lesson. They find any story about filmmakers as some sort of satire about their own lives. But, in the end, very few of these stories actually ever make any money or rarely bring any true notoriety to the writers and directors. Now, for some reason, the average public IS still fascinated with the lives of the stars. And, trying to cash in, Hollywood decided it would be interesting to make a film about a star and the whole Hollywood-Star experience. So they made America's Sweetheart. Considering the talent on and off the screen, this thing should have been a blockbuster. However, it got mediocre reviews and luke-warm box office receipts. Because, like I said before, NO ONE CARES. Every once and a while some of these stories have enough edge to be successful, such as Swimming With Sharks, Living In Oblivion, and Misery (a writer wrote about a writer). But for the most part, these stories are not appealing.

The writer we could all learn from in overcoming this dilemma is Rod Serling of The Twilight Zone. Serling was a genius and he wrote the bulk of those classic episodes. However, when he started to get creative burnout near the end of the series run, instead of writing about writers having burnout, he wrote about burnout in general. He wrote about advertising executives or plumbers or husbands having burnout. He turned his own experiences into something everyone could identify with simply by changing the employment in which the main character was experiencing the burnout. Suddenly, we participate in the pressure and helplessness of the characters because we think they are just like us... average people who happen to be having extraordinary experiences.

"Writing what you know" is a great way of getting new writers into the writing game. But, when you decide what to shoot, please, please, please choose a story about something you know... second best.