Interesting problem

D

D_and_G

Well-known member
This question covers a couple of areas, so I'll just post here, and let the mods sort out where it goes.

I just came back from a meeting with a potential investor in a feature, and he's enthused about the project. I'm attached to direct. That's the good news.:beer:

The problem is he wants me to co-star in the film and direct it. He saw some of my acting in another production (no release - long story). The part would require a few months of physical workouts and diet to loose some of the muscle I have , to get to a leaner shape. So, not only will I be physically running the gamut, but also encumbered by all the pre-pro stuff involved. On top of all that I have to worry about giving a good performance, and keeping my girlfriend (who is pissed i'm even thinking about it) happy.

So my question is : Has any of you ever been a principle and directed, a feature ? Advice? Warnings?

And do any of you think I should just walk away if the investor insists that i act in the pro.? I learned the hard way, to walk away from a project that I disagree with creatively, or I think is a waste of time. But I've never encountered this scenario before.

Thoughts would be appreciated. :)

Cheers.

EDIT : I'm also putting my own money into the project via my production company. It's a SMALL movie - below the mini-Studio level.
 
That's what happened to Mel Gibson when trying to get Braveheart financed. Technically he was way too old to play the historic character of William Wallace (something he tried to impose on the studio(s) to no avail.) They said without him starring...no dice.

Take the offer anyway you can get it IMHO.

From an acting standpoint, at least you'll get to work with your favorite director. :beer:
 
Thanks for the reply Callaghan. I talked to the investor today, and have convinced him to wait for a screen test (for myself). I also pointed out that an actress we have interested (fairly well known in Canada) might not appreciate a greenhorn co-star (not to mention the fact my narrative work can be counted on one hand:beer: )

It's a relatively small budget, but should be distributed, so I want to make it the dogs bollocks.

What's your opinion on a production diary (for an indie) ?

Cheers.
 
I think production diaries are good for building buzz from the very beginning. You'll also have a chunk of special features already in place for the DVD assuming you do video diaries.
 
Yeah, sounds like every meeting I go to. They're all like "Mr. Eads, we'd like to give you 40 million dollars for your film, but only if you produce, direct, act, edit, and promote the film all by yourself." Not to mention I have a girlfriend and a girl I cheat on her with, and so how am I going to have enough time for them if I'm doing all this movie stuff. And you can't forget my two ferraris. If they break down and I'm directing, acting, editing, and promoting and trying to keep two women sexually satisfied, when am I going to have time to take my ferraris in?? This would all be easier if i wasn't running 3 multi-million dollar companies, which also need their fair share of attention. Ohhhh, life is tough.

Okay, that was an asshole post. But reread yours, it sounds ridiculous. If someone's giving you a lot of money to make a film and their only request is that you act in it, then act in the damn thing. Come on, man. Money's hard to come by.

c.g.
 
C.G - Yeah, I can see how my post may look. That's why I hesitated on even posting. Guess i'll clarify. The fact is it's a SMALL movie - not amateur time, but not mini-Studio either. I also put my own money in everything I make/produce/sell/direct through my own production company (no Ferraris in the parking lot ...yet :beer: ). So if I make a mistep, I don't just take my paycheck, grab a lager and toodle on down the street. It means I'm lucky if i break even.

Every project I initiate or participate in, means giving away another - which means pretty much choosing the correct revenue stream is a necessity - like betting on horses. So I would get paid (minimally), but with my own money/company in the project, that benefit is negated. I thought I'd risk posting (looking like a wanker) because I respect this communities depth, and maybe someone has directed and acted in a indie feature, or had worked with someone who had.

With some companies you only get one shot (at least here in Canada) and if you screw it up, that's tuffed. Another producer i know says it's better to walk away from projects than collect some $ and turn out less than stellar product. Anyway, hope that clarifies it. I didn't mean to sound "ridiculous". And as to the girlfriend thing :). I was just enquiring as to how some of you might balance a relationship with long days and nights working (cause if i take this project, that's exactly what i'll be doing).

Anyway, like i said, i'll be doing a screen test to shake the trees (and i'll burn the print when done ) If we do the production diary thing, I'll post them her first.

Cheers.
c.g._eads said:
Yeah, sounds like every meeting I go to. They're all like "Mr. Eads, we'd like to give you 40 million dollars for your film, but only if you produce, direct, act, edit, and promote the film all by yourself." Not to mention I have a girlfriend and a girl I cheat on her with, and so how am I going to have enough time for them if I'm doing all this movie stuff. And you can't forget my two ferraris. If they break down and I'm directing, acting, editing, and promoting and trying to keep two women sexually satisfied, when am I going to have time to take my ferraris in?? This would all be easier if i wasn't running 3 multi-million dollar companies, which also need their fair share of attention. Ohhhh, life is tough.

Okay, that was an asshole post. But reread yours, it sounds ridiculous. If someone's giving you a lot of money to make a film and their only request is that you act in it, then act in the damn thing. Come on, man. Money's hard to come by.

c.g.
Click to expand...
 
I think it is a fair question, but one that only you can really answer.

Do you want to act in it? Can you act? Can you direct yourself? If "no" to any of those, then don't just walk away, but fight your corner first. If the $$$ guy doesn't back down, then say that you're not happy with the terms, and then if necessary go elsewhere.

I haven't been in this situation before, but have been in many different creative struggles - they are definitely best avoided. Power struggles can easily rip a film apart into a indecisive mess. I've learnt that the hard way :cry:

Just my 2 pence.
 
I know I can direct. And possibly have potential in acting, but doing both is a unknown quantity.

Also, like you, I wonder where the project will go creatively, if this investor (who is a numbers money -man mostly) feels he has the need to use his great intuition about creative matters more liberally.

I guess getting a great performance is like rolling the dice, even with proven commodities...

Thanks for the Pence.

Cheers.
 
Seems to me like your investor is looking to save a quick buck by making you act in it as well. By consolidating these responsibilities, it would seem that he can also consolidate the cost of paying directing and acting talent by having you in it, as opposed to hiring someone else and paying two people for two different things.

The danger in doing this, because he has financial leverage over your film, is that he may continue to dictate/puppeteer you into making the film he wants to make instead of the film you want to make.

From what I've read thus far, it's definitely a "buyer beware" scenario in my eyes since it seems you weren't the one that requested to be in the film in the first place.

I say try not to compromise your artistic vision and try to articulate to your investor why you feel iffy about doing the project under his terms. Possibly find out why he wants you to do it this way, and negotiate a compromise.

What I fear is that you may end up compromising your artistic vision of this film, and as a result, become a corporate puppet. Hopefully, you haven't sold the rights to the production of this film yet, because that would enable you to shop around with other investors that will comply with what it is you want to do with the film, and also how you want to make it.

I know money might be an issue, and I don't know what your financial situation is, so I can't tell you what's best for your family or not, but from an artistic standpoint, I'm a bit weary of your investor's intentions.
 
I agree what jermz said about him controlling it overall because he's the financial backer. He has the option of closing everything down midway through and simply stop investing if everything goes wrong.

If you can act, and know you can direct, go for it. Money is so hard to come by, that you should jump on this opportunity. However, personally, I wouldn't do both, if it's your first feature (is it?).

But I think you should try and get sole position of director. He can be a producer (he'll still try and input his opinions and bash you for everything), but atleast you have the title of director, and ultimately the director makes all creative decisions.

I'm in Toronto, if you need any help with editing or camera work :beer:

tell us how it goes.
 
D_and_G said:
I also pointed out that an actress we have interested (fairly well known in Canada) might not appreciate a greenhorn co-star
Click to expand...

This doesn't help either. For all sakes and purposes, you may also be at risk of possibly losing your actress (if you don't know her personally). It's one thing if a director decides to act in his film due to budgetary reasons. That's okay, IMO. With an investor's backing, it's different. And as honest as you may be, something tells me that telling your actress, "the investor made me do it" wouldn't fly very well with her.

As an established actor (not saying that I am one, but rather to hypothetically take the stance of one as if I were), I would be iffy if a rookie director with limited acting experience were to take a stab at doing both simultaneously. Again, I'm not sure what your situation is or how much you're really telling us about your acting experience. For all I know, you could be Joey Jeremiah from Degrassi High, but modest. :grin:

Again, something worth noting/discussing with your investor. If your actress is cool with it, cool. It would help if I knew your situation better, but from what I do know, this could be an issue you may have to deal with in the future.
 
You don't seem to mention whether or not you think you fit the role at all.
Who did you have in mind for the role originally, and did you ever think about being in the piece until the investor brought it up?

Also, do you have any other avenues for investment, or is this investor it?

I would strongly caution against doing it all. If it's as small a movie as you describe, you'll probbly be taking a lot on as it is. BUT, if it's between doing it with you in the role, or not doing the film at all... by all means play the role.


By the way, do you even want to be an actor?
 
Jermz - I'm not an established actor. I've been in a couple projects (one feature that is held up in corporate internecine BS ). I'll leave it at that. I don't have any of that Degrassi coin :beer: Actually, I would only want to act out of necessity. I respect the craft to much, not to give it 100% attention - if i wanted to do it full time. I'll know where I stand after the screen test. If our actress (or myself) thinks it's a bad idea, then I'll have to stand my ground, and insist we look elsewhere.


Luis - I think I fit the role (with some physical work to lose some muscle). I actually think i may do a decent job (since i understand the world he inhabits), but like I mentioned before, I am worried about losing focus with the overall goal. Also, i would like to get another name (obviously), or someone who can do the role justice. I looked through some preliminary choices, and was not happy with the results. Taking the time and widening the search for the character was something i brought up in the scheduling of the pre-production timeline (with the investor).

As to other investors, the answer is yes and no. Trying to cultivate motivated interest (money on the table, not BS) would take more time if this investor dropped out, but there were other alternatives - not as solid, though.


Sorry I can't give explicit details, but this is all tentative and preliminary.
I appreciate all your input. :beer:

I'll keep you updated if this goes beyond the negotiating stage...And I'll post any opportunities for the Toronto members to apply for.

Cheers.
 
First off, congratulations. Just meeting with a possible investor is an accomplishment. Everyone else gave better advice than what I can give, so I'll just say, do whatever it takes to where you can still be proud of yourself. If, in the end, you're not happy with yourself (or the film) then it's not worth it. Just make yourself happy, the rest will follow.

Good luck!
 
Sounds like you're probably approaching it the right way.
Another thing to consider (and something you might want to bring up to the investor) is that if you are in the film it will probably take up more time on set. I imagine you'll want to watch playback quite a bit if you're doing double duty like this.

I'm not sure what sort of shooting schedule you're looking at...but if it's like most small films it's probably pretty tight already. You'll be able to move faster and more efficiently if you're not in it, and if anyone understands the time=money equation it's an investor.
 
Just get a good assistant director (to watch *you*, mostly) and don't worry about it.

Oh...and stop being the Director when you're on-camera. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top