Our Lady Burns

“NO NO NO!” I shouted when the image came up on my computer home screen.

It simply couldn’t be true. Like a bad dream. Like a slow motion train wreck. I stared at the images online and read the horrifying news.

Then turned away.

It was too hard to accept.

I lived in Paris in the winter of 79/80. I visited Notre Dame too many times to count. Even if I was simply walking past it – I never failed to take a moment to pause and admire the structure.

I immediately assumed it was some sort of ‘roofing’ accident. I knew it was under restoration – and that the old lead-lined roofs required ‘hot processes’ to repair and replace. Am I right? The investigation is out – but I give zero credence to the conspiracy theories swirling around. “It was THIS faction! It was THAT faction!” and of course the ever popular “It was a FALSE FLAG ” staged by whatever group is least likely to have done it – but lying squarely in the accuser’s personal gun sights.

The accounts I’m reading today, give some hope that the damage was not ‘catastrophic’ – in the sense that the structure was an entire loss and will be razed to the ground for safety’s sake. It will be rebuilt after all. Of course nothing can replace the ancient timber and handiwork. That is gone forever.

It will take an enormous amount of money.

And it will take time.

Lots and lots of time.

What took a lifetime to build (roughly 80 years) likely will not be rebuilt in my lifetime. And that saddens me. Modern technology can speed some elements of the original construction process – but really – it’s the personal craftsmanship – the stone masons and carpenters and stained glass artists – that made it a work of art. Hopefully enough master craftsmen will be found to address this great need. And perhaps – just perhaps – more skilled labor will come of it as individuals step up to apprentice under the limited number of master craftsmen that are available.

We’re planning a return trip to Paris this year. I’m not sure how I’ll feel about seeing the structure in it’s current condition.

Life is all about letting go. And I have my memories of course.

This one is hard.

If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast. ~Ernest Hemingway

Time Marches On

Occasionally current events will catch up to a screenplay I’ve written and require me to do a rewrite.  Cultural developments, politics, or global catastrophes can sometimes require a line or two to be updated.  But I find more often it is science and technology that move faster than the pen writes.

This week heralded the major announcement of the first ‘picture’ ever taken of a black hole. 

To be accurate, it is an image constructed of the data collected from the pattern of radio waves emitted from around a black hole.  Some folks likened it to the “Eye of Sauron” from Lord of the Rings.  In truth, scientists could have assigned any optical value to the data – it was all invisible electromagnetic radiation by the time it reached earth. But painting it yellow – gave it the other worldly glow that we come to expect from glowing objects in the visible spectrum in space. It was an impressive image of a major scientific discovery.

Well done physics! But what did this mean to my writing?

A major plot point in my limited location thriller EPSILON ECHO – is the discovery of certain radio signals bouncing back – ‘echoing off’ – a deep space anomaly and returning to earth. These radio signals harbor old ‘deep state’ information. Information that the current surveillance state agencies aren’t too keen to have brought to light.  “The past is never where we left it,” is one of the taglines I use.

Exactly HOW this happens in the script, is accomplished with a bit of SciFi ‘handwavium’.  It’s tricky when your plot involves scientific theories. You have to at least root them in some plausible scientific concept or theory.  Faster than light travel for instance – is impossible for all we know. But it’s necessary to travel the vast distances of interstellar space in the course of a human lifetime, much less a two hour movie. So even physicists who know better – will accept a bit of ‘handwavium’ for the sake of a good yarn.  Sometimes SciFi even precedes, or stimulates real scientific research, raising such questions as ‘how COULD a ‘transporter’ work?”

In a brief scene in Epsilon Echo – the physicists discuss how such a signal might be ‘bounced’ or ‘slingshotted’ back to earth  – Doppler shifted of course – but still intact. I toss around some info I researched on radio waves ‘bouncing’ off charged layers like the ionosphere – suggesting a type of anomaly like that in space, allude to ‘gravitional lensing’ and sprinkle in ‘faraday rotation’.  All good theories that MIGHT go into such an anomaly. It worked – okay.

BUT I had one character – the ‘dumb one’ – suggest a Black Hole. The others laugh at this, and point out that radiation striking the black hole would pass through the event horizon and be lost forever.

Except – not – as it turns out.

While watching the press conference describing how the ‘image’ of the black hole was constructed – I learned a number of important scientific points and terms.  Chief among them – the name of the Event Horizon Telescope – the concept of the Swarzchild Radius and a phenomena known as  Relativistic Beaming. 

I learned that light rays (electromagnetic radiation) that approaches the ‘edge’ of the event horizon at a distance of two point six Schwarzchild radii actually WOULD be warped around the black hole, and sent zooming off in the return direction at an accelerated rate.

Bingo! I had a plausible basis for my handwavium.

It didn’t NEED to be correct; it just needed to be one of the possible explanations – along with some sort of charged nebula or faraday rotation. Together I had grab bag of theories that would be a good enough point to start working the plausible explanation.

Hell, it was even better than dilithium crystals!

Putting this in only required tweaking a few lines. It even gave me a chance to make Stuart, the ‘dumb one’ – the hero of the moment. So, good character development.

So the story is ‘refreshed’ and made a bit more plausible.

Yay physics!

Artists rendition of a black hole, based on scientific theory – created before the actual photo was imaged.


A bit of progress in the short film area of my career. My short thriller “One Shot” goes into production in Atlanta this weekend. Directed by Chris Miller, he has assembled an impressive cast with some nice IMDB credentials. I’m excited to see the final product.

The premise of the script, involves a Hitman sitting alone in a cheap hotel room, watching an intersection. He’s waiting for his target to emerge from a different hotel. The plan is to shoot him. (Because – you know – ‘hit man’.)

Meanwhile, as he whiles away his days waiting for the call to alert him to the target, he’s watching a young woman in her apartment diagonally across the way. Nothing pervy here, it’s a view of her living room. She’s mostly just studying and dealing with an asshole boyfriend. When the boyfriend gets out of hand the Hitman must make a choice.

Now – as originally written, the Hitman never hears the dialog in the other apartment. Aside from her choice in classical music, no sounds really drift over to him.

But about a month ago, Chris asked me to work up some dialog for the characters to utilize in their interactions. I had never really given these characters much thought. I always saw the story from the Hitman’s point of view. He doesn’t know why the relationship has gone south, so why should we?

But as a writer, director and ACTOR , I can sympathize with the time constraints on shooting a short. And it would certainly be nice if these two actors already HAD some lines to improvise their physical business around. So yeah, I can do that.

I cooked up the character names Jackie and Nathan. I already knew what we had to ‘see’ happen in each of their inter actions – I just had to write the dialog to fit. Suddenly – an entirely NEW story popped into my head.

This is not unusual or really remarkable. Every character IN a story, has their own story. Tom Stoppard did a great take on this in his incredible absurdist play “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead “. He took two minor characters in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” and retold the story from THEIR point of view.

So I found myself imagining how Jackie and Nathan met. What were their backstories? What had brought them together? And just why did their relationship go south? Finally, what events brought them to the climactic confrontation that required our Hitman’s intervention.

Pretty good fun, actually.

I sent the sides off to Chris, and didn’t hear a word back.

This is not unusual or really remarkable. The writer is kind of the red-headed step child of a production. It’s nothing personal.

When I got the head’s up in a text that they were shooting this weekend, I asked if the sides I sent were of any use.

“Fuck yeah.” He replied. “We used it for casting and we’re actually playing the windows open, so the dialogue can ‘travel’. It’ll be so low it might only be on a subconscious level, but your mind will put it together…”

“Good! I wanted the relationship to be ‘complicated’. Not a simple break up.” I replied.

“It’s never a simple break up…” he responded.

True that!

Sending good vibes out to the cast and crew of “One Shot” this weekend. Knock ’em dead kidz!

PALISADES The Deadliest Town in the West

A Civil War cavalry veteran reluctantly agrees to engage in a series of staged gunfights in a dying western town. The charade to bring in tourists turns deadly when the Army arrives, and our veteran tries to keep the Cavalry away from the Indians, and the handsome young officer away from the lovely young innkeeper

I recently finished my newest screenplay “PALISADES”. Or perhaps it’s “PALISADES: The Deadliest Town in the West”. I’m a bit conflicted over the title length. Apparently single word titles sell better, but I really like the descriptive version.

Sometimes an idea takes a long time to come to fruition. Such is the case with this script. I hit on the idea sometime back around 2003 or so. I read about this crazy town in the West that put on ‘fake gunfights’ – mostly as a way to fool the greenhorn tourists coming west. Just the local boys having fun at the travelers expense. But this town took it to a whole new level. Fake blood, bank robberies and Indian raids.

Things got so bad – allegedly – that the President had to send in the cavalry to quiet things down. The cavalry promptly joined in on the charade.

“How in the hell is this not a movie already?” I asked myself. So I decided to do some more research and work up a script.

Some sixteen years later, I finished it.

What kept me? Well this and that. It took some time to dig up more information. This was early days of the internet. (I’ve since gone on to find more about the town and the incidents in question.) Other, more pressing and ‘better’ ideas would take hold and push this notion to the back burner. Or hell, into the cupboard if I’m honest.

But if I’m honest – it’s because I know this is going to be a big (ish) budget film, and well… “It’s a WESTERN!” Everybody knows, nobody buys westerns. Except – yeah, occasionally they do.

Over the years of research, I took notes. I noticed where different versions of the tales conflicted,and where they overlapped. At one point, when I was travelling across the country to direct a show in Pennsylvania, I drove THROUGH Palisades. Or, what was left of it. Nothing really.

Around 2011 I took a stab at starting the script. I got about eleven pages written, then… stopped. The idea never left my mind, and beginning in December of 2018, I decided to work on a new limited location horror script I want to do. I sat down to write it, and that muse of the mind said… “NO! FINISH PALISADES!”

“But… it’s a WESTERN!”


“But it’s probably a big budget, it’s got a TRAIN in it!”


“Well, if I can find my old notes, and the beginning of the first act I had on a different computer… maybe…”

And like that, I was off into the quirky little town in Nevada.

I did have some notes. Some ideas for what was going to happen. Some character sketches. A loose idea about how to finish it. Nothing really solid. I’m not the type to outline an entire script with ‘beats’ for every page and such. I like to let the story surprise me as it unfolds.

And boy, did it. Gone entirely is the idea of the local telegraph kid, replaced by a young Shoshone. A MUCH better choice. And the perfect ending I had planned some ten years earlier? Yeah, it disappeared as my two characters discussed how to solve the problem. They came up with a whole new solution.

Funny how that works.

I created the lead characters pretty much out of whole cloth. I invented the pretense for the charade. I built tension around a love triangle, and even tossed in the themes of redemption and tolerance.

And in the big showdown, as the hero rides into town in a cloud of dust, I was surprised by who he turned out to be. Sometimes, your sub-conscious hides things from you. Funny how THAT works too.

At any rate, it’s as ‘done’ as it needs to be. Yes of course, if it’s ever optioned someone will want changes. That’s one thing I’ve learned about the process. And yes, it’s a mid-range budget film. (It’s got a TRAIN in it!) There aren’t a lot of calls for Westerns from independent studios.

But when the muse calls, you answer.

Another short story listed

I cut my teeth on Sci-Fi as a kid, starting with the old “Tom Swift” series of books and following those with the “Rick Brandt” series. (The Rick Brandt series served as the ‘inspiration’ for the Johnny Quest TV show.) By the time I was in third grade, I was reading Heinlein’s juveniles.  I read “Starship Troopers” the summer between third and fourth grade, which would have made me nine years old.  I missed all the not-so-subtle militaristic, pseudo-fascist politics of course, but the notion that you could fight in “Space Armor” was simply awesome.  It was an image that stuck with me throughout my life.

When I first saw Imperial Storm troopers burst through the bulkhead in the opening sequence of “Star Wars” I believe I shouted “Starship Troopers!” out-loud in delight and surprise.  I’m not very impressed with the modern riffs on Heinlein’s book though. Not enough ‘armor’ for my taste.  Storm trooper armor came close to what I imagined Heinlein’s troopers were wearing. Though in my story, they’re polished like mirrors.

Shortly after reading “Starship Troopers” – I saw the episode of “Outer Limits” called “The Soldier” (1964). Written by Harlan Ellison, it was the germ of the idea utilized by James Cameron for his movie “The Terminator”.  Of course, it was a little too similar, and Harlan carved out a nice check for infringement from Cameron’s profits.

My on set copy of “Soldier”. It’s made of ‘mimeographed’ pages – and is slowly fading away.

Everything influences everything else of course. So it was with decades of exposure to sci-fi space opera that I tackled “Trenches”, back in the mid-nineties.  I’d been jousting for a while, and studying up on medieval weaponry and tactics. I was also catching up on the history of WWI at the time.  As it happens, my own grandfather was a veteran of the “Great War” – though he served in Russia, not the European theater.

Here then, is my attempt at the “Space Opera” genre of sci-fi . It’s heavily influenced by my WWI research, by Heinlein of course, and the great Harlan Ellison’s  – “The Soldier”.  I fancied having one of my artist friends work up an “Amazing Stories” type of cover, with a retro feel to illustrate it. But unfortunately, all my talented artist friends are too busy making real money to take on a small one-off project.   So I’ll make do with some suggestive images of the theme.

I hope you enjoy “Trenches”.

One Step Closer

After two weeks of waiting for notes from the investors, I finally heard from my director saying they had agreed the script was good to go. (I have no idea what the investors concerns were, or how the producers overcame them.) They have a casting director on board, and are now moving toward a sales agreement.  As one producer said, “I feel like we have some good momentum going forward.”

This is generally good news.

As the option was due to expire at the end of May, the producers asked to extend it while they proceed. Not an unusual request. My last two options needed to be extended because things started happening just as it was coming down to the wire.

I’m feeling encouraged.  It’s ‘found money’ in my pocket. But the champagne is still on ice.

I’m cautiously optimistic, because this has been my experience with the option and development phase in the past. It’s a heady moment to have someone say, “We LOVE it, and want to BUY/OPTION it!” Because, hey – a money offer is a great validation. It sits heavier in your hand than the trophies, accolades and plaques from contest wins.  And when the option check clears the bank, I DO allow a bit of a celebration. “One step closer.”

But I’ve been here before. “Just… This… Close…” to  a BIG deal, with a BIG name… only to have it slip away.

I’m not complaining. As an actor, I know how great it feels to get a callback to an audition. And then a second callback with maybe a screen test read with the lead. You can ‘smell it’, the role is real. Then, for whatever reason – they go another direction. Maybe the funding fell through. Maybe they’ve decided on a different take. It’s not ‘personal’, as hard as it is to understand that. You pat yourself on the back for making it that far. You learn from the process. What did you do right? What might you have done differently? What can you use the NEXT time you’re in this position?

It’s the same thing basically, with the option process. You have to let go of what you can’t control. My most difficult lesson to learn, always.  Work on what I CAN control; the next script, how I pitch, my daily writing routine.

I have to rest in the assurance one of the producers gave me.

“Thanks for your patience with us, we’re busy working behind the scenes and want this project to be the strongest it can be while staying true to the world you created.”

True to the world ‘I created.’

That’s heady stuff.

Another dark day.


Another shooting, this one close to home, literally. Santa Fe, Texas is about twenty five miles from where I used to live in Seabrook, Tx. I would buy round bales from a hay farmer there. I have friends who live nearby to this town. The town were I live now, is about three hours south on the coast.

When I saw the story pop up online, I immediately thought of my friend. She has two high-school aged daughters. Did they attend that school? I sent her a quick email, and a text.

I found myself missing Facebook – for the first time.

It’s sad to say, but over the past couple of years, Facebook had become a good way to quickly assess who was safe when a disaster occurred. “So and so marked themselves safe in the mass-shooting at (fill in the blank). Or – “Anyone hear from ‘Susan’?” – “Yes, I talked to her, she’s fine…”  Like the old ‘phone trees’ of yore – but almost instantaneous.

After a tense hour, my friend texted back. “Yes we’re safe. They go to a different school, but how awful!”

So yeah, I missed that.

But I’m not missing the inevitable diatribe on gun rights that is sure to follow. No one is going to change anyone’s mind on Facebook.  And the fact that it’s likely a great many memes and ‘meetups’ were generated by Russian bots in the past – in order to foment dissension and division in the country – just makes me glad not to be seeing it scroll across my feed.

In other news – movement on the screenplay front. I’ll post more next week when I’ve got more to say.

So far, so good.

It’s been two weeks since my hiatus from Facebook began. I thought I’d post an update on how it’s going.

Fine. Just fine.

The world didn’t crash. I’m not ‘jonesing for a fix’.  But I have noticed a few things since I left.

First, I hadn’t realized how often I hit “F Enter” in my browsing habits. I have a set of websites I visit whenever I log in. My email addys first of course, then some ‘news’ sites. I use several different news aggregators – including some foreign sources so I get a different objective. My ‘business’ sources – meaning my script listings, and some filmmaking/screenwriting pages – and then, I hit ‘F Enter’ to open my face book page.

I kept on doing that, without even meaning to. Of course, what it brings up, is my Facebook LOGIN page, with the name and password already filled in. I’d have to LOGIN again, and everything would be just as if I’d never left.

My muscle memory, my ‘browsing routine’ had integrated the Facebook search pattern into my habit. Slowly, I’ve been dropping it. Two weeks now, and it only happens maybe once a day, usually when I’m distracted. It takes three weeks to make/break a habit, so I think it’s working.

I really noticed it a lot, in the middle of the night.

Like most humans, I tend to sleep in two ‘shifts’. A first, and second “sleep” of approximately 3 to 4 hours each. It’s a good night to log a total of 7 hours of sleep. If my fitbit is to be believed, I’m doing better than average “For a man my age”.  But instead of reading a book, I’d usually pick up my phone, and do a quick scan of the usual suspects. Again, the search pattern was routine.  Emails, News sights, Business, and FB….

Very occasionally there is an email worth reading in the night. But here’s the thing. News sights are RARELY updated in the middle of the night. I mean, if I read a headline at nine pm – it’s likely going to be the same headline at two-thirty in the morning. So… there’s really no NEW news to read.  Whereas if I had been on FACEBOOK at three in the morning, there is no doubt that some friend somewhere in the world would be awake at that hour, and posting some ‘update’. Hell, even updates from local friends saying “Why am I awake? Is anyone else awake?” would stream across my screen.


In the past, that led to lots of perusing threads, maybe even making comments or engaging in conversations. And that led to EXTENDED ‘wake times’ between sleeps. Not to mention the fact that you really should NOT be looking at the blue light from a phone or computer screen anyway – it disrupts the sleep cycle.

So – now that it’s no longer in my search pattern, my ‘midnight rambling’ really only lasts a few minutes, instead of a half hour to an hour.

And this improves my sleep cycle.

More and better sleep – is a good thing.

I’m missing some of the social engagement. I find myself wondering ‘what’s so-and-so up to?’  But you know what? I just sent so-and-so an email. If they don’t respond, it’s on them. I also received emails from a few friends, asking some insight into business or personal issues. So – I’m still ‘connected’ to people I want to be connected to.

I also find that I seem to have less stress, overall, in my daily routine. I AM writing more. And hell, just doing things around the house. More and better chores. Getting things done.

So at this point in time, I’d say it’s a net gain.



When it comes to notes, I always think about something Neil Gaiman is alleged to have said. “When someone tells you it’s not working, they’re almost always right. When they tell you how to fix it, they’re almost always wrong.”   I think that’s an excellent way to approach notes.

If there is something “not working” for a reader, well then it’s not working for them. You can’t argue with them about it. The question then becomes “why”?  And that develops into “Is this a UNIVERSAL problem or a personal one?”  If it’s personal, then what “need” of theirs is going unmet, and what is my “strategy” for meeting that need?

Back when I was hosting screenwriting salons of six to ten writers, we would workshop one script a meeting. As we went around the room getting notes, I limited the participants to discussing a maximum of three or four notes each, in two separate categories. “Housekeeping Notes” and “Story Notes”. The housekeeping notes were easy to give. Typos, faulty headings, missed transitions, bad punctuation. Everyone screws up and it’s great to have a fresh set of eyes to spot something you’ve looked at a thousand times. There’s rarely any ‘ego’ involved in finding or fixing these. Practical housekeeping notes are a blessing to get, and easy to fix. It was interesting too, to see which typos were picked up by some readers, and which were missed by others.

The “story notes” were where the rubber met the road. These were notes about the structure, the dialog, the plot, the action. These were things that each reader had a ‘problem’ with. For one reason or another, something wasn’t working for them. As we worked our way around the circle, it was important to recognize when a note seemed ‘common’ and when it seemed ‘personal’.

”I got lost here in this scene, did he know that she had the gun before?”  ”I had the same problem, I got lost…” someone else chimes in.  Okay, it’s a problem; people are not seeing something clearly.  Listen for the echoes of ‘me too’ with the other readers. This is a solid note.

The ‘lone note’ – may or may not be valid.  “I just didn’t find Susan’s motivations to be strong enough.” If someone else chimes in with, “Oh I thought she was PERFECTLY clear…”   You’re likely looking at something personal at work in either of these note givers. Maybe they ‘know’ a Susan. Maybe they’re married to one, were raised by one, or WORK with one.  Something about their complaint strikes a very personal chord. It’s not working FOR THEM.  But is it working for everyone else? Is it working for YOU? Is it a singular problem or a universal one? I once got a note, “Families don’t act like that after the death of a loved one…”  Well, I assume this person’s family wouldn’t, but I know for a fact, that MY family did. So yeah – it worked FOR ME. And it served the needs of the plot.   Now… multiply that note by potential hundreds of thousands of viewers. Is it something that needs to be addressed?

Maybe the note giver has a real, valid inside track to the problem.   Maybe it’s some inside baseball note.  “They don’t use that model anymore, they use a Mark 7”  or “That’s not a Sergeant’s job – that’s the lieutenant’s.”  Okay great. That’s an easy fix, akin to housekeeping. No problem. These are valuable. Perhaps it’s something you missed in your research. Well great. The pros out there in the audience are going to have an issue with this element. Usually it’s some technical issue. What percentage of your audience, is a professional in this area? Do you change it?

CAN you change it?

If it’s a simple thing like the type of gun, or military rank or a technical term – then sure. Easy peasy.  But maybe its – “I’m a Doctor, you don’t get those tests back in four hours, that’s going to take a week, at least.”

Okay, realistically it takes an entire week to get these results back, but the bomb goes off in twenty four hours, so… No. You can’t. You need this plot point to work EXACTLY the way you need it to work. The professional might tell you “Make the bomb go off in a week, stretch the story out. That will fix it.”  Well… that fits in with their world view of medical tests. It meets THEIR need for reality and veracity.  But it won’t serve the dramatics of the story.  “Is there ANY way this test can be fast tracked?”  you ask.

“Well…. Maybe, if you had a ZEMO machine on premises… but no one keeps those…”

FINE, we’ve got one on premises. Next problem?  You just finesse it. Usually it can be passed off with a one line mention. “Good thing we have a Zemo machine next door!  Good thing my uncle manufactures Zemo machines!” Be creative, INVENT a “New ZEMO MARK II processor that does the test in twenty minutes!” (It’s fiction, remember. A liberal application of handwavium is useful.)  Or even hand it off to the tech and simply say, “Expedite this, STAT!”

No one wants to spend precious screen time watching the hero look for a parking space. Of course there is one right in front of the building. This is screenwriting shorthand. (Hell, do we need to see him park at all?)

Then there are notes that really strike close to home.  “I didn’t like the ending…”  Well again, is this personal? Is it a one-off? She didn’t like it, because in her world, they did NOT wind up happily married? Or – HE has an issue because he wanted the hero to miss the meeting, and the best friend to wind up with the girl… because he’s the best friend in his own life.  Yeah, again – it’s a real problem with these people. Their idea on how to ‘fix’ the script – is to make it end correctly with their world view.  Is the ending working for OTHER people? Is it working for you, in terms of answering the main question of the theme? Yes? Don’t change it. Or keep your strategy, and ADD a girlfriend for the best friend. Find a strategy that meets their need, but keeps your own vision intact. (Especially if that need comes from a producer.)

These are just notes you get from group meetings, good friends, people you might pay to read your script and give you feedback. All good stuff to know, hear and decide to deal with.  This is how you hammer out a script that gets to the point of submitting to the gate keepers.

Once the script has caught the attention of producers, we’re at a whole new level of notes.

I’m speaking as someone who has optioned several screenplays, and done numerous rewrites as part of those options. I’m not currently a WGA writer, so I’m not protected by the number of rewrites, or even PAID for doing them. As a low-mid level writer, usually I’m doing the rewrites as part of the option. On occasion, I’ve had an incentive to do the rewrites, in the form of a higher pay-out if no one else is called in.

Once there is money on the table, ‘Shit gets real’.   You’re STILL going to get notes. And they’re STILL going to come in two flavors, more or less.

“Budgetary” notes.  Hopefully at this point, the script has been gone over with a fine toothed comb, and there are no actual housekeeping typos or mis-slugged scene headings. If they crop up – change them without comment or explanation. What you’re more likely to get are budgetary type notes. These are notes to make alterations to the script, usually for some practical budgetary reason.  “Cut three pages, I don’t care where.” – No, don’t cut them by altering the margins. Cut them by CUTTING them. Come in later, leave earlier in each scene – will usually do the trick. This is the least painful alteration. None of your “perfect” scenes are removed; you’re simply tightening them up.  Or maybe it’s practical, “We can’t shoot this goodbye scene in the airport, can we have it happen in the car, outside?”  Well, that’s how they would fix it, but maybe you can get what you wanted back at the restaurant, before they leave. Save on one whole location. “Do we need another cop? Or can this all be done by one?”  Sure, cut and trim dialog, combine characters. You’re saving a day-player rate or maybe another location. None of this should be dinging your ego. It might even be challenging your creativity to RISE up to the limitations. Recently, I dealt with a “Rating Change” note. It’s currently an R rated thriller; can we get it down to PG-13?  Take out the “fucks” – dial back on the sex.

Some seemingly major changes will be easier than others. “Can the hero’s gender be switched?”  Unless their gender is germane to the story line as in “A woman in a man’s profession, or a man in a woman’s place at home,” – the fish-out-of-water trope – then sure why not change the gender?  And for this reason, I seldom signify the RACE of my characters anymore. Unless it’s central to the story line, then it really doesn’t matter. These are battles not worth fighting and in fact, might possibly raise the stakes. Be open to them. This is the sausage making, nuts and bolts part of working with the team. Roll up your sleeves, and make the fix.

Then, there are story notes…

“I really am fascinated by the villain. Can he come in earlier? Can we START on him?”  Well…. Maybe.  But then again, maybe not. I once did numerous re-writes on my thriller, “Scars of the Mind”. The producers kept asking for different takes on the villain. Originally, he was a banal street thug. For me – it was a comment on the banality of evil. And he didn’t show up on scene until the third act.  He was pursuing the heroine, who was on the run, and rescued by our hero.  The STORY was about the impact this heroine, and her preteen daughter, had on our hero’s life. They were three lost souls, looking for help. The villain showed up late, like a force of nature, and created the final confrontation that led to the solution for our new ‘family’ of characters – binding them together. In helping one another, they found their individual salvation.

But over the course of not one, but TWO options of this script – no less than five different producers saw the story as a vehicle to examine different types of villains. He was alternately, a banal street thug, an evil street prophet, and a super-villain Drug Lord who runs an International Pedophile Ring. In each case, the villain got bigger, and meaner, and entered earlier, and earlier, until the story morphed into a different vision than I had intended. Instead of SAM rescuing KRYSTAL and her daughter MIA from a terrible life on the road… It became about KRYSTAL running from a VILLAIN, who was after the package (Mia, the McGuffin) and just happened to be rescued by a generic Hero named Sam.  In short, it morphed from a thriller about a middle-aged vet with PTSD, into a “Woman in Peril” film.

Was it good?

Was it better?

It was the best version of a “Woman in Peril” film I could write.  But it also inspired me, in my frustration of being sidetracked into meeting their need for their vision of my story – into writing yet another take on the film.  The evil villain -“Daddy” as he was called – Never. Shows. Up.  He never makes an appearance, AT ALL, in the script. In fact, he exists as a figment of Krystal’s imagination. This strategy, MY strategy,  altered the final sequence, and the ending – but it remained true to my original vision of the story, and supported the original theme.  When I ran this version past the investors, they were blown away. “It has never been about ‘Daddy’” I said. “It’s always been about Sam, Krystal and Mia.”

And sometimes, you have to hold your ground.

I once explained the rewrite process to my father, as the same process you enter into with the architect of your home.  The screenwriter is the architect. The Producer is the buyer of the plans.  “Can we have brick, instead of siding?” they ask.  Sure –but that will cost more. “Can we have the back door by the fireplace?”  Sure, I can do that; just put it where the window was. “Can we KNOCK OUT THIS WALL?” – No. That’s a load bearing wall. Knock it out, and the entire house falls down.

As the architect of the film, you have to know what walls are load-bearing in your script.

In the same script above, the character Mia – is described as being lost in the ‘preteen years’ – somewhere between six and ten. Her age is never stated. But part of the horror, is that her worldview has been warped by living in a sexualized lifestyle driven by her mother’s choices.  Several producers asked, “Can we push her age to maybe 13 or 16? We can cast an 18 year old actress, and save money on a tutor on the set.”  That SOUNDS like a budgetary note, but really – it’s not.  They were looking to lower the ‘ick factor’.  My response? “ That story was already done in “Taxi Driver”… so ‘no’ we can’t. And yes, it’s uncomfortable knowing a child has been living in this world. But raising her age, lowers the dramatic impact of the character’s actions and choices.” As one producer finally relented, “I get it. It’s the difference between shooting a dog, and shooting a puppy.”  They finally understood that keeping the character’s age as young as we could possibly cast it, was essential to the impact of the story line. That raising her age, lowered the stakes.

And now, I have FOUR versions of this script. Which is the ‘best’ version? The one the investors want. Personally? I like the simplest version. The  “All in Krystal’s Head” version.  But working with the notes I was given, doing my best to find a solution to ‘what wasn’t working’ for THEM – led me to employ different strategies for meeting their needs, which led me to new ways to see the script.

This week – I’m waiting on what should be final notes from the money people on “Working Title”.  I’ve already jumped through hoops on this script, working with notes from three producers and the director.  A recent email said, “We may have one or two notes coming your way based on feedback from the investors. They should be minimal; we’re fleshing that out with them now. They did agree the script was much stronger, as we all do!”

There’s that word, “Minimal”.  To me, that would be some small budgetary changes or additions. Perhaps cutting/combing some locations or scenes or trimming dialog to meet ratings restrictions.  If it involves a new ending, or a major thematic shift … then it will be all about meeting THEIR needs, by coming up with my OWN strategy.

Forward, through the fog.

The Man Who Walked Away From Facebook.

Starting later today, April 30th, I’ll be suspending my Facebook account.

My plan is to do without the social media app for the duration of the month of May.  My reasons are many.

For one, I’m tired of the petty back-biting and political sniping that passes as ‘discussion’ on the platform. Try as I may – and I DO try – about once a week I’ll be sucked into some discussion based on a seemingly logical statement I’ll make in the course of the thread. The “debate”, and I use that term loosely, that follows is usually painful and pointless. And the fact that it transpires in “slow motion” only exacerbates it.  Checking back to see if there is a response – over and over – during the course of a day – is simply too time consuming.

A time suck, that’s what bothers me most. It is a carnivore of attention. Time I COULD be spending doing something productive.

And it’s not just the acrimonious debates, it’s the need for affirmation. Sure, I’m a performer, and a writer, and a middle child. I’ll freely admit I LOVE attention and affirmation that comes from an audience. Hell, most of the time it’s all one gets from one’s efforts, the pay being so meager in the performing world.  But again, the time it takes could be better used to CREATE. In particular, stories and screenplays.

This month the script I currently have under option, “WORKING TITLE” will pass through one more checkpoint towards production. Either it will receive the funding the producers are asking for, or it won’t. If it does, it will likely go into production this summer, and I’ll likely be doing more rewrites.  If it doesn’t, I MIGHT need to tweak it a bit more – to get it. The option expires at the end of this month. Either they’ll RENEW the option – likely because they think they can get funding elsewhere ,  or they’ll allow it to lapse. In which case I’ll need to rededicate myself to marketing the script, which will take more of my attention.

The fact that Facebook’s privacy policy is… laughable, at best, also plays into my decision. I’m not so sure I WANT to give Corporate Big Brother any more of my magnetic ink than is absolutely necessary. I don’t trust Zuckerberg. One more reason to leave.

They say it takes 21 days, to form a habit. It’s my hope that in the course of the month while I suspend the account, that I will develop different habits in my daily routines. It will be one less thing , one less reason, to look at my phone. One less thing to occupy my attention. One less virtual online persona that will require maintenance and attention.

If, after a month of abstinence, I feel there is a net “gain” in the quality of my life and creative output, I’ll likely actually DELETE the account.  If I find that there is no marked difference, and in fact, if I find that I require access to the network of friends and acquaintances then I’ll re-activate it, and deal with it as best I can.

Meanwhile, I’ll post my professional updates, and my thoughts on “Breaking the leash” here on this blog, which virtually no one will read. My good friends and associates know how to reach me directly. And of course, there’s an email addy here under the ‘contact me’ page.

Wish me luck.