Where to cast?

[Ted Spencer]

What does a contest have to do with a production?

Ever heard of a 'contest' called "Sundance"? Or that silly little competition they call "The Academy Awards"?

Winners of the former, obviously *pointless* contest (I mean - *ick*) that no first-time filmmaker should ever bother with because, hey - they're *way* too cool for *contests* man, they're already *good* at it...have made far more major, highly lucrative film business careers for themselves than you can list on a stack of single-spaced pages. I worked on one called "American Splendor" a few years back, which cost very little to make. The filmmakers (Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Berman) were virtually unknown before then, but after winning the Grand Jury Award, made a deal with the Weinstein company to write and direct the adaptation of "The Nanny Diaries" on a $30M budget (I also worked on that film). Their next project, "The Extra Man" (which I am not involved with, so I know less about the inside story of) is premiering this year at Sundance (but not in the competition). If cast is any indication, and it pretty much always is, it also appears to have a sizeable budget. Katie Holmes, John C. Reilly, Paul Dano, Kevin Kline, and a number of other top actors are in it.

Bob and Shari, who I knew when they barely had two dimes to rub together (I did all their earlier films too), are multi-millionaires with solid careers in Hollywood and proven, bankable films. And it's in large part because they participated in...oh...um...a *contest* (barf).

Regarding the latter (Oscars) while it's not a contest that one "enters" from the outside (you're basically invited) you better believe it's campaigned like one. Studios spend millions on promotion to get their films nominated. I worked on "Metropolitan", which was nominated, as well as "American Splendor". Neither 'won' (remember? It's a 'contest'), but believe me, plenty of time money and effort went into trying to.

Yeah, contests are silly...sure.

Regarding screenwriting contests, Nicholls would probably be the "Sundance" of the bunch. Past winners, as I mentioned previously, have become among the most highly paid screenwriters in Hollywood. I'm going completely from memory here (people like Barry Green know a bit more about Nicholls than I, IIRC), but I believe that Nicholls winners are treated near-automatically to lucrative screenwriting deals. Yes, it's that good a...um... 'contest'... And zoetrope.com submitted scripts have placed in it very highly many, many times (those idiots).

Oh and don't forget to diss that ridiculous "American Idol" thing, or its UK "Britain's Got Talent" counterpart. Millions and millions of CDs sold by winners. Over 700,000 copies of Susan Boyle's CD sold in one week. That makes it...drum roll please...the best selling debut album (CD or any other format) by a female artist *in the history of recorded music*. Not to mention that she did it in an era of decimated music sales overall. After winning a...uh...you know...

So yeah...those things are for morons. Don't bother.

I'll close my statements on this thread by making one more rather sad observation. The people who I've known who make the kinds of mistakes I've been trying to bring your attention to here, that is to say stubbornly refusing to do *thorough* advance script vetting, or work closely in collaboration with everyone involved, or welcome constructive criticism and advice from almost everyone, and tend to be distrusting, scared of getting their work "stolen" etc., almost without exception turn out to be among the *least* successful people I know who attempt whatever it is they're attempting. And if they do succeed initially, it's usually short-lived. Small wonder...

I hope that you are that rare exception among the countless like-minded failures I've known over my many years as a pro in the industry. But a combination of underexperience and overconfidence, which I'm not saying does, but *might* accurately describe your approach, is one of the most sure-fire recipes for failure that I have ever known.

So I'm done pounding my fingers to the bone at the keyboard over this for now. It appears to have been an almost complete waste of time, and I've spent quite a bit of it. Best of luck with your presumptive reinvention of the wheel.

 

[Chamber005]

Ever heard of a 'contest' called "Sundance"? Or that silly little competition they call "The Academy Awards"?

Winners of the former, obviously *pointless* contest (I mean - *ick*) that no first-time filmmaker should ever bother with because, hey - they're *way* too cool for *contests* man, they're already *good* at it...have made far more major, highly lucrative film business careers for themselves than you can list on a stack of single-spaced pages. I worked on one called "American Splendor" a few years back, which cost very little to make. The filmmakers (Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Berman) were virtually unknown before then, but after winning the Grand Jury Award, made a deal with the Weinstein company to write and direct the adaptation of "The Nanny Diaries" on a $30M budget (I also worked on that film). Their next project, "The Extra Man" (which I am not involved with, so I know less about the inside story of) is premiering this year at Sundance (but not in the competition). If cast is any indication, and it pretty much always is, it also appears to have a sizeable budget. Katie Holmes, John C. Reilly, Paul Dano, Kevin Kline, and a number of other top actors are in it.

Bob and Shari, who I knew when they barely had two dimes to rub together (I did all their earlier films too), are multi-millionaires with solid careers in Hollywood and proven, bankable films. And it's in large part because they participated in...oh...um...a *contest* (barf).

Regarding the latter (Oscars) while it's not a contest that one "enters" from the outside (you're basically invited) you better believe it's campaigned like one. Studios spend millions on promotion to get their films nominated. I worked on "Metropolitan", which was nominated, as well as "American Splendor". Neither 'won' (remember? It's a 'contest'), but believe me, plenty of time money and effort went into trying to.

Yeah, contests are silly...sure.

Regarding screenwriting contests, Nicholls would probably be the "Sundance" of the bunch. Past winners, as I mentioned previously, have become among the most highly paid screenwriters in Hollywood. I'm going completely from memory here (people like Barry Green know a bit more about Nicholls than I, IIRC), but I believe that Nicholls winners are treated near-automatically to lucrative screenwriting deals. Yes, it's that good a...um... 'contest'... And zoetrope.com submitted scripts have placed in it very highly many, many times (those idiots).

Oh and don't forget to diss that ridiculous "American Idol" thing, or its UK "Britain's Got Talent" counterpart. Millions and millions of CDs sold by winners. Over 700,000 copies of Susan Boyle's CD sold in one week. That makes it...drum roll please...the best selling debut album (CD or any other format) by a female artist *in the history of recorded music*. Not to mention that she did it in an era of decimated music sales overall. After winning a...uh...you know...

So yeah...those things are for morons. Don't bother.

I'll close my statements on this thread by making one more rather sad observation. The people who I've known who make the kinds of mistakes I've been trying to bring your attention to here, that is to say stubbornly refusing to do *thorough* advance script vetting, or work closely in collaboration with everyone involved, or welcome constructive criticism and advice from almost everyone, and tend to be distrusting, scared of getting their work "stolen" etc., almost without exception turn out to be among the *least* successful people I know who attempt whatever it is they're attempting. And if they do succeed initially, it's usually short-lived. Small wonder...

I hope that you are that rare exception among the countless like-minded failures I've known over my many years as a pro in the industry.

But I'm done pounding my fingers to the bone at the keyboard over this for now. It appears to have been an almost complete waste of time, and I've spent quite a bit of it. Best of luck with your presumptive reinvention of the wheel.

lol

Come on, you don't actually hope that I'm the rare exception. You hope that I turn out exactly like these other examples. Which is fine, I understand. It's important for people to feel like their perspective is the correct one. But don't assume that I'm "like-minded" to anyone you've ever known simply because there may be some correlations between the way I hold my fork and the way they hold their spoon. As I've said before, I'm me. I'm not in a group, I'm not included in a legion of types. Just me doing what I'm doing for reasons that are mine.

And if you look at the entirety of your post, please realize that all you did throughout was talk about money, fame and awards -- none of which I am pursuing. I have business for money and awards (and fame is just the worst thing that I can possibly ever imagine happening to anyone. I actually like taking walks on the lake with my girl without being bothered, thanks). Again, I think it's difficult for performance artists to understand other kinds of creative artists' position in the arts because the performance artists' plight has so much to do with acceptance while the creative artist seeks nearly the exact opposite. If the creative artist is accepted, chances are they're doing nothing of any real value, nothing that is screwing with the status quo.

You said it sarcastically, but yes -- the awards you mentioned and all the fame they bring mean nothing to art, period. If I want a million dollars I'll go make a million dollars in something that pertains to money matters. Art is not about money, it's not about fame, it's not about winning anything. Art is about giving people something that they could otherwise not find on their own; art is about revelations, about the universal spirit and helping people to understand their place in all of it.

The artist should never want to be known or examined, it just so happens that people so devoutly worship their artists that they can't help but idolize them. But the artist who WANTS or even STRIVES for idol worship is no artist at all. It boggles my mind that this wouldn't be a consensus, but such is the mark of individuality, right? Everyone is entitled to their own perspective, their own path.

But I promise you, as one who pursues money for a living (because we all hopefully do something to earn a living that has nothing to do with our art, lest we become dependent on it for financial survival), the pursuit of finance is EMPTY. Hundreds of thousands of dollars do not improve life or creativity. Money only matters to money matters.

But like I said, there's a divide between creative artists and performance artists. I think the line is much harder to walk when an aspect of your craft regards acceptance by the masses. I personally do not have to walk that line.

Bottom line, if there was anyone alive that was qualified to "judge" what I write, they would be telling the stories I'm telling. It's no one's position to award or detract from what I do. They can either choose to experience it or not experience it. Everything else is just nonsense.

 

[Ted Spencer]

lol

Come on, you don't actually hope that I'm the rare exception. You hope that I turn out exactly like these other examples.

No I don't, and that is why I invested the time in posting as I did. I sincerely hope you succeed. Success means adding something of value to the world. That is absolutely, positively good. My intention was as an experienced guide - not a detractor. You can learn from the knowledge of those that have preceded you, or you can ignore them. It's a choice.

 

[Loki]

For someone that opens a thread saying they are about to do their 'first' casting call, you appear to have a lot of experience.

Which leads me to believe you are a grand student of B.S. (Bullshi* for those that don't deal well with acronyms).

Thanks for being respectful.

I personally don't let people (except for two) read what I write. That's my personal position as a writer. I have a laundry list of reasons as to why I won't, but lower down on the list is outright theft.

I promise you, there is nothing amateurish about not posting your screenplay or novel or poetry on the internet -- or just handing it out at random casting calls. If you're a writer or artist hired by a comic book company do you think it would be okay for that writer to post the script before the comic is published? Do you think he'd be allowed to show that script to thousands of potential comic book artists? It's absurd. Someone who is giving away all that they have because they can't earn the talent on personality and premise alone is the reason you see people everywhere giving their scripts away in bathroom stalls and posting their crappy poetry online, they're desperate and talentless.

Right, but nobody is saying that. Giving a script to an actor isn't the same as posting it on the internet. Generally, most actors are fine with getting sides from a script. Some will ask for the full script, most not.

But you are not going to let them read the entire script after you've cast them? Did I read that right?

I am unsure of why you think it is absurd to let someone you are going to be working with read the script for the project? Your reasoning is.. cause... they should be 'in the moment' ?

That must reference your years of experience. (sarcasm)

Any writer worth his/her salt should never, ever put their story out into the world until it is complete (and, in the case of film, it isn't complete until it's been shot and edited and printed). It doesn't mean an initiate few won't see the parts of the whole and maybe even understand it (e.g. I have two people, by the end of the piece there may be 5 or 6 more included in that small group, specifically for this piece).

Again this is assuming that writers just toss their work up on the internet like it doesn't matter.

When the remaining actors are actually cast I'm sure we'll start having a dialog about the piece which may even entail (if they are incapable of operating in a more method tradition and need to experience their character's arc prior to creating their performance) giving them a larger, character-specific portion of the script to read.

But like I said, theft is not my primary reason for keeping things close to the vest. If I was doing some traditional form of media maybe I could articulate to the individual the various progressions of their characters; but in this regard, from any normal perspective, I would essentially be taking every single extra on the set and giving them the entire script and working with them on their character (just to exhibit an example).

Then what is your reasoning? I have a hunch.. bear with me.. that this is a traditional film project. Feel free to correct me with more info on what makes your project special or unique.

The piece isn't something that can be articulated. If it was I would be going through normal channels to produce it. I'm not making a feature or a show or anything that can operate in a normal context. *I* can comprehend the entirety of the thing, but even my most devout reader has only thus far been able to grasp about 10% of the whole.

Uh huh. It is possible that your most devout reader, was only able to grasp 10% of what you've written because.. bare with me.. what you wrote was a complete mess? Or perhaps it is the seconding coming like you think it is..

So, nutshelled, A) Though written, it would be extremely challenging for any one person to "read the script" in any concievable terms and comprehend it and B) I would have to give the script to every single extra and crew member on the set if I was taking your advice.

Thats idiotic. Only your keys really truly need to read the full script. I do believe you mis-interpreted. I suppose you could get by having been the only one that has knowledge of the entire script / project.. but you'd be limiting the potential of the film (or whatever mind blowing non-traditional outside the box new media format you've concocted)

It's better for me to say (and the talent to hear) that we're simply shooting a feature. From the perspective *I provide them* (the lines I give them to read) they'll be able to digest and exist in the moment that they need to for the purposes of their performance.

√ whatever works I suppose.

If other people could comprehend the totality of the thing they wouldn't be actors and crew members and the audience, they'd be writers.

The air is ripe with arrogance. Take a slow deep breath and fill your nostrils with the smell of B.S. Nobody else can comprehend the words you typed out?

Ted's response was far more eloquent and informative. Good thing there are people like him on here to provided needed perspective.

Do let me know how your.. whatever it is .. turns out.

peas.

 

[BrandonC]

Before this gets too heated, I just want to quickly ask...

What mic do you plan on using?

 

[hannah]

Actors as script interpreters.

Actors as script interpreters.

That is an interesting article that you cite. However, according to Stella Adler, in her book titled "On Ibsen, Strindberg and Chekov, an actor is an 'interpreter of a script'. I certainly understand that a lot of actors get to wrapped up in their IDEA of how their role SHOULD be in a project. However, that is usually the problem of an amateur actor. I have rarely seen it happen with professionals. But, if you are casting amateurs, then it might possibly be okay to withold the script, but the chances are slim that it will work best. All of the good actors are able to really speak intelligently as far as being aware of where their character fits in to a well-written story. Additionally, you should be casting contrasting characters. If the actors don't know what the other characters superobjectivers, objectives, spines, intentions, doings, conflicts. etc. are; then they will have trouble making the most interesting choices for your project. You will probably say that you will tell them what to do, or tell them what you want from them - however the best performances will always be from actors who find the motivation themselves, within the script and story. They really 'get it' for a particular role and that is why you hire them above all others - for their intepretation. All of the best acting schools teach this , and I would hope that the actors you hire have this type of training. I just don't see any really experienced actors willingly committing to a project when they have not seen the script - unless you have a great body of work to show them. Since I'm in L.A. , I'm looking at it from the point of view of the actors here that I know. And they judge harshly since they are in demand and only have so much time to spend on various projects. But, if there are not a lot of projects where you are, but a ton of actors; then maybe you will have some luck. I just know that in L.A. or New York, you'd most likely be getting the bottom of the barrel actors for your project without a script, and if you got lucky and were able to cast someone great; they would very likely quit your project if something better came along where they could view a script and have a better idea/ guarantee of a good finished product. But again, you are in a different market; so it might make all the difference.

 

[hannah]

Actors as script interpreters.

Actors as script interpreters.

That is an interesting article that you cite. However, according to Stella Adler, in her book titled "On Ibsen, Strindberg and Chekov, an actor is an 'interpreter of a script'. I certainly understand that a lot of actors get to wrapped up in their IDEA of how their role SHOULD be in a project. However, that is usually the problem of an amateur actor. I have rarely seen it happen with professionals. But, if you are casting amateurs, then it might possibly be okay to withold the script, but the chances are slim that it will work best. All of the good actors are able to really speak intelligently as far as being aware of where their character fits in to a well-written story. Additionally, you should be casting contrasting characters. If the actors don't know what the other characters superobjectivers, objectives, spines, intentions, doings, conflicts. etc. are; then they will have trouble making the most interesting choices for your project. You will probably say that you will tell them what to do, or tell them what you want from them - however the best performances will always be from actors who find the motivation themselves, within the script and story. They really 'get it' for a particular role and that is why you hire them above all others - for their intepretation. All of the best acting schools teach this , and I would hope that the actors you hire have this type of training. I just don't see any really experienced actors willingly committing to a project when they have not seen the script - unless you have a great body of work to show them. Since I'm in L.A. , I'm looking at it from the point of view of the actors here that I know. And they judge harshly since they are in demand and only have so much time to spend on various projects. But, if there are not a lot of projects where you are, but a ton of actors; then maybe you will have some luck. I just know that in L.A. or New York, you'd most likely be getting the bottom of the barrel actors for your project without a script, and if you got lucky and were able to cast someone great; they would very likely quit your project if something better came along where they could view a script and have a better idea/ guarantee of a good finished product. But again, you are in a different market; so it might make all the difference.

 

[Roarke00]

Read this, should be helpful: http://www.ehow.com/how_5667196_set-run-successful-casting-session.html

 

[Chamber005]

For someone that opens a thread saying they are about to do their 'first' casting call, you appear to have a lot of experience.

Which leads me to believe you are a grand student of B.S. (Bullshi* for those that don't deal well with acronyms).



Right, but nobody is saying that. Giving a script to an actor isn't the same as posting it on the internet. Generally, most actors are fine with getting sides from a script. Some will ask for the full script, most not.

But you are not going to let them read the entire script after you've cast them? Did I read that right?

I am unsure of why you think it is absurd to let someone you are going to be working with read the script for the project? Your reasoning is.. cause... they should be 'in the moment' ?

That must reference your years of experience. (sarcasm)



Again this is assuming that writers just toss their work up on the internet like it doesn't matter.



Then what is your reasoning? I have a hunch.. bear with me.. that this is a traditional film project. Feel free to correct me with more info on what makes your project special or unique.



Uh huh. It is possible that your most devout reader, was only able to grasp 10% of what you've written because.. bare with me.. what you wrote was a complete mess? Or perhaps it is the seconding coming like you think it is..



Thats idiotic. Only your keys really truly need to read the full script. I do believe you mis-interpreted. I suppose you could get by having been the only one that has knowledge of the entire script / project.. but you'd be limiting the potential of the film (or whatever mind blowing non-traditional outside the box new media format you've concocted)



√ whatever works I suppose.



The air is ripe with arrogance. Take a slow deep breath and fill your nostrils with the smell of B.S. Nobody else can comprehend the words you typed out?

Ted's response was far more eloquent and informative. Good thing there are people like him on here to provided needed perspective.

Do let me know how your.. whatever it is .. turns out.

peas.

lol

It's so weird that people keep attacking my personal approach to creative arts, even going so far as to name call, when I've never once said that anything anyone else does is incorrect or attacked their way of doing whatever it is that they do. There is no "right way" of doing something in art, there is only what the artist decides is best for his/her piece. When pressed, I've tried explaining why I'm working the way I am on this particular piece, and when called "unprofessional" I've cited specific examples of professional behavior vs amateur (e.g. entering a writing contest vs having funding for a writing project).

I've explained that contests and fame in the arts are meaningless and have been flamed as if I'd made some personal attack on someone here. There is of course no logical argument that says art benefits from fame and awards. Art benefits from the creative process, that's it.

And, to your point, people yes indeed DID say that writers should be posting their script online (whether in contests or to lure potential talent or for general critiques) and should give it to anyone who will read it. I said specifically that on THIS PIECE I am handling things in a way that *I* think best benefits the piece *I* am creating. I further said that, if I were doing a feature, I would not be completely against providing an actor with a complete script so long as I felt it necessary to their creative process.

I have been working on this piece with an assortment of actors for the past half year. Based on critical and audience feedback as well as with working with the actors on set I've learned how to best effectively execute the filming and creative process of this particular piece. I'm also using a combination of film, professional HD and consumer HD as well as computer generated effects combined with prostetics and 3D and traditional animation in conjunction with live music and digital interpretations. Would you like to also attack me as a person for those creative decisions?

The only thing you need to be positive of is that I am not wrong. I created and am inhabiting the piece, you aren't. I know what's best for it, you do not. You only know what is best in your own personal artistic experience which has nothing whatsoever to do with mine. I've said it before, no valid advice can be given to the creative process; valid advice in the arts can only pertain specifically to its technical aspects.

The argument then can be made whether or not I am being TECHNICALLY sound by not allowing people to read and experience the whole of the piece, in which I case I've said I don't feel that there is a technical comparison to what it is I'm trying to accomplish. Alec Baldwin has said that his performance in The Hunt for Red October was directly influenced by the director telling him that in future movies he wanted Baldwin to be a grumpy, pipe-smoking, weathered old sailor -- in complete juxtaposition to the role Baldwin played in the only movie he ever appeared in within the series. Was the director lying? Should he have given Bladwin the script for the next three movies so that Baldwin could understand who his character should be right now, in Red October?

Again, absurd.

I love a lively debate. The opposing opinions regarding creative process is a thrilling discussion most people don't get to have in an everyday setting. But since the thread has gone from a technical query to a more philosophical discussion, it seems valid that we don't attack eachother's creative process and branding the other as "arrogant" or a "grand student of B.S." simply because their process differs from your own.

"...find out what it means to me."

Just a little bit.

 

[Kegan]

I have to say, I am very curious to your reasoning behind your threads then. I have followed most of them and all I really see are blocks of text in response when someone "attacks your approach". This is unnerving and fairly annoying to people responding back. I am 100% positive you could answer questions in less than that giant block of text.

Also, when you type "lol" at the beginning of your response, it insinuates a very condescending tone and people are more likely to look for errors/flaws within your post.

You are asking questions of people who are typically in a TRADITIONAL film type environment in terms of shorts and features. You have to be careful of how you phrase things. Just by looking at your thread title, nobody would think this conversation would spring from it. You just had to add that you wouldn't be giving them the script...that was an error in judgment and causes issues - much like in your other threads.

If you want clear answers, learn how to phrase your questions and learn what to leave out. Consider your audience prior to posting and maybe you'll actually get the information you're looking for.

Personally, I don't care what super-genre/film/media thing you are trying to concoct - just be blunt with your questions and leave out particular information pertaining to it, otherwise you're going to have a "lively debate" on your hands everytime.

Kegan

 

[Chamber005]

No I don't, and that is why I invested the time in posting as I did. I sincerely hope you succeed. Success means adding something of value to the world. That is absolutely, positively good. My intention was as an experienced guide - not a detractor. You can learn from the knowledge of those that have preceded you, or you can ignore them. It's a choice.

Seems impossible to win a debate regarding someone's *intentions*, but it felt to me that you were much more concerned with seeing your way and the way of your people being viewed as the "right" way than you were about encouraging my own personal creative process to see its peak. You defended you and your peoples' creative process by saying it was somehow more "professional" (which I don't specifcally agree with, at least as it pertains to contests and accolades) and lent an experience that cannot pertain to my own as no two creative processes are identical.

If you would have been concerned with helping me in my creative process and future success you would have instead disregarded your own experiences and asked further questions about how I enact my creative process and would have then been able to give answers that pertain to how exactly I can better them, not how they can be morphed to resemble the processes you and others that you have known have enacted.

So if your original intention was to urge me on to success, you took a poor approach by deciding to compare my approach to anyone else's and stating that I should follow their lead, as nothing in another person's creative process can possibly pertain to me (and also to a lesser extent the piece I'm developing). As an artist, if I am ever following someone else's lead and creative suggestion, *my* art is then inconsequential and has no reason to exist.

I am successful each and every day as an artist specifically because I do not work to accomplish what others already have. Let someone else be the next Kevin Smith or Robert Rodriguez (a couple of the local idols whose names float around these boards), I am and will continue to be successful at being myself.

I whole-heartedly encourage the wisdom and experiences of others as it pertains to life matters, but to matters of spirituality, of universal terms, no human walks the earth who can defend (or should attempt to inflict on others) their position. Doing so does little to encourage their own personal process in others but can only be interpreted as a verbal reassurance to their own self, their own decision, which means the speaking of which comes not from a place of giving but instead exists in selfishness.

Your spirit does not need to be the same as my spirit. Attempting to make it so has nothing to do with the betterment of me. But people have been making that mistake for centuries.

Also, I completely understand people saying that I'm "pompus" and full of myself because they think that when I protect my creative process from influence they take that to mean that I somehow think my way of thinking is better (or more improved upon) than their own. But I don't feel that way at all. I know that my process is best for me because my life has been spent in pursuit of that process -- only as it pertains to myself, not as it matters to anyone else. I am content and full of super happy awesomeness every single day, but I can never say that if someone behaved as I do that their experience would be similar to my own. That's up to them.

The only advice someone should ever give others to the creative process is that no one should ever take any advice with regards their own creative process, as no advice given comes from within and will leave you weaker for having used the crutch of creative advice and impotent to securing your own process.

 

[Chamber005]

I have to say, I am very curious to your reasoning behind your threads then. I have followed most of them and all I really see are blocks of text in response when someone "attacks your approach". This is unnerving and fairly annoying to people responding back. I am 100% positive you could answer questions in less than that giant block of text.

Also, when you type "lol" at the beginning of your response, it insinuates a very condescending tone and people are more likely to look for errors/flaws within your post.

You are asking questions of people who are typically in a TRADITIONAL film type environment in terms of shorts and features. You have to be careful of how you phrase things. Just by looking at your thread title, nobody would think this conversation would spring from it. You just had to add that you wouldn't be giving them the script...that was an error in judgment and causes issues - much like in your other threads.

If you want clear answers, learn how to phrase your questions and learn what to leave out. Consider your audience prior to posting and maybe you'll actually get the information you're looking for.

Personally, I don't care what super-genre/film/media thing you are trying to concoct - just be blunt with your questions and leave out particular information pertaining to it, otherwise you're going to have a "lively debate" on your hands everytime.

Kegan

Ha! You're so right about my mentioning my auditiong process in the opening of the thread. Instead of just asking questions, I injected an aspect of my creative process in the initial question thus opening myself up for attack.

Too funny.

It's quite possible that I always inject something of myself in a question, especially in a forum context. Not sure about that. It's probably in my nature not to walk into a discussion or question/answer session with my gaurd up. But good point! Next time maybe I will be more gaurded in my topic so as to not unintentionally move the discussion off-topic.

Maybe it's some sort of psychological slip, as I absolutely LOVE a "lively debate". IMO the only thing more important than talking about art is creating it.

 

[rsbush]

The only advice someone should ever give others to the creative process is that no one should ever take any advice with regards their own creative process, as no advice given comes from within and will leave you weaker for having used the crutch of creative advice and impotent to securing your own process.

With all due respect, if I'm understanding you correctly, I think you're way off base here. The wise approach, passed on to me by a great teacher to whom it was passed on to by an even greater teacher, is very simple: "Use some of it, all of it, or none of it". Whatever works for you. To imagine that you are in no way influenced by any of the art that has come before you is, frankly absurd. If you don't want to take this advice, fine, but if you take a good look you will never find any artist of any repute that ever lived that would deny influence. And just in case you may be thinking that you're art is influenced but your process is not, art is the process. Art is in the making.

 

[Chamber005]

With all due respect, if I'm understanding you correctly, I think you're way off base here. The wise approach, passed on to me by a great teacher to whom it was passed on to by an even greater teacher, is very simple: "Use some of it, all of it, or none of it". Whatever works for you. To imagine that you are in no way influenced by any of the art that has come before you is, frankly absurd. If you don't want to take this advice, fine, but if you take a good look you will never find any artist of any repute that ever lived that would deny influence. And just in case you may be thinking that you're art is influenced but your process is not, art is the process. Art is in the making.

Interesting and eloquent last phrase, but I don't agree, not as a creative artist. Maybe the art is the process as a performance artist, but as my life has existed the creative artist is given the thing which to create, not by influence but by "divinity".

And, again, you're talking about things that teachers told you -- things people whose job it was to teach. A teacher can't reference divinity because they'd be out of a job. My mother owns several music schools and is a devout teacher of the Suzuki method whose premise is, essentially, "everyone can be taught." If she believed in divine talent she wouldn't be able to run a profitable business model. So a university and a teacher will tell you that being taught and taking some advice might be a good thing because they must, that's their sales pitch, it's their business and, in so many cases, becomes their way of being.

People who are taught by someone regarding universal matters with something to gain by the teaching then go out into the world and are essentially salespeople for the greater institution. Most people are infected by teachers, authority and the institution as a whole at a young age; they respond to it and reacte within the boundries of that institution and I'm sure most of them live and die having never progressed beyond those walls.

But next time you're going to enact something that someone sold you on, consider the source. Did that person have something to gain, either personally, financially or professionally by giving you the instructions they gave, even if it was only an affirmation that their own position (and life's choices and works) was sound?

If someone is giving you advice about something that a human cannot conceive of, chances are they have a stake in the pot, even if their only stake is their own reassurance that the choices they've made have been good choices, that the decisions have been created from purpose, not programmed by design.

 

[rsbush]

Interesting and eloquent last phrase,

It's not mine. It's Raymond J. Barry's, an artist from whom I've learned a lot.

 

[rsbush]

Chamber005,
I'm trying to figure out what you are actually saying. If you are simply stating that an artist should never allow anyone or anything to divert or deter him from the course he chooses for his process, I am in total agreement. And as far as your instinct to not give your actors the complete script goes, I think it's a fine choice.
But what I am hearing is someone so completely wrapped up in materialism that they are claiming total and complete authoring and ownership of every idea that occurs to them. Or, someone claiming to be impervious to outside influence. A vessel that claims to have been gifted by "divinity" and has no use, now or ever, for anything any mere mortal may have done or offer to share. I have to be off base here, right?

 

[Chamber005]

Chamber005,
I'm trying to figure out what you are actually saying. If you are simply stating that an artist should never allow anyone or anything to divert or deter him from the course he chooses for his process, I am in total agreement. And as far as your instinct to not give your actors the complete script goes, I think it's a fine choice.
But what I am hearing is someone so completely wrapped up in materialism that they are claiming total and complete authoring and ownership of every idea that occurs to them. Or, someone claiming to be impervious to outside influence. A vessel that claims to have been gifted by "divinity" and has no use, now or ever, for anything any mere mortal may have done or offer to share. I have to be off base here, right?

So I probably exist a little different than a lot of people (not better, just differently). I acknowledge my "human self" and my "artistic self" as being two completely separate entities. For my human self I am extremely focused on my relationships, personal health and wealth. For my artistic self none of those things are of any consequence. If I allow my human self to interact with my artistic self the purpose of the artistic self becomes skewed by my humanity.

So while I feel that all creative artists are vessels if they allow themselves to be, they are also very much human -- which is what typically conquers their ability to let the message or art pass through them unhindered.

So as a man I am not impervious to anything, but as a person gifted with the creative process flowing through him it's my personal position that I should do anything and everything I can to protect that process from interference. The only other thing I can relate it to is love. The reason my girl and I have never had an argument, have never said or done anything mean to each other or have treated each other badly is because as a human it's my obligation to protect the love I have for her and to not lot the menial human stuff taint or infect that love, because the love matters more than my human life.

I am flawed, I have as many shortcomings as the next person, but the original message my artistic self receives is not flawed, the love is not flawed, it's just a question of how much we let our human selves get in the way.

So if I sound pompus or whatever in anything I say, I'm not being pompus about me -- ask anyone who knows me and they will tell you that I personally take NO CREDIT for anything I've ever created; I only ever will take credit for being a man who did not interfere with what comes to him.

If you believe that you are the thing that creates whatever it is you create, that's your own belief system. I am incapable of believing that based on the things I've written and my own personal experiences. That's why I don't believe artists should ever be citing awards, accolades, fame or fortune as reasons for being artists as they themselves do not deserve anything for the art itself only in so much as they got out of the way of the art.

But as far as the non-personal, collaberative experience in art goes, I think that's a whole entirely different kind of magic that can evolve from a variety of different paths. I choose to manage each of those collaberations based on the material and the people I'm working with.

So no, I don't think the shield I put up to protect my love and my art is impervious, but I work every single day to try and make it as durable as is humanly possible.

 

[rsbush]

So I probably exist a little different than a lot of people (not better, just differently). I acknowledge my "human self" and my "artistic self" as being two completely separate entities. For my human self I am extremely focused on my relationships, personal health and wealth. For my artistic self none of those things are of any consequence. If I allow my human self to interact with my artistic self the purpose of the artistic self becomes skewed by my humanity.

So while I feel that all creative artists are vessels if they allow themselves to be, they are also very much human -- which is what typically conquers their ability to let the message or art pass through them unhindered.

So as a man I am not impervious to anything, but as a person gifted with the creative process flowing through him it's my personal position that I should do anything and everything I can to protect that process from interference. The only other thing I can relate it to is love. The reason my girl and I have never had an argument, have never said or done anything mean to each other or have treated each other badly is because as a human it's my obligation to protect the love I have for her and to not lot the menial human stuff taint or infect that love, because the love matters more than my human life.

I am flawed, I have as many shortcomings as the next person, but the original message my artistic self receives is not flawed, the love is not flawed, it's just a question of how much we let our human selves get in the way.

So if I sound pompus or whatever in anything I say, I'm not being pompus about me -- ask anyone who knows me and they will tell you that I personally take NO CREDIT for anything I've ever created; I only ever will take credit for being a man who did not interfere with what comes to him.

If you believe that you are the thing that creates whatever it is you create, that's your own belief system. I am incapable of believing that based on the things I've written and my own personal experiences. That's why I don't believe artists should ever be citing awards, accolades, fame or fortune as reasons for being artists as they themselves do not deserve anything for the art itself only in so much as they got out of the way of the art.

But as far as the non-personal, collaberative experience in art goes, I think that's a whole entirely different kind of magic that can evolve from a variety of different paths. I choose to manage each of those collaberations based on the material and the people I'm working with.

So no, I don't think the shield I put up to protect my love and my art is impervious, but I work every single day to try and make it as durable as is humanly possible.

O.K. This actually clears up your position quite a bit for me. And believe it or not, I'm not in total opposition to your beliefs. Where I believe we differ is that I want to invest my humanity into my art. For my goal is to illuminate the human condition. But really, this difference may be more a matter of semantics than anything else.

I personally don't feel ownership of what I create. On the contrary, I readily cite my influences or just plain admit, "I have no idea where that came from" or "that was really an accident". I'm in love with the process not the commercial or social benefits that may or may not result. Nor do I equate someone's value or ability as an artist on the commercial or social benefits their work may bring them. History proves this to be the folly of fools.

I encourage you to stay on your path as you see fit. I also encourage you to be open to what the world has to offer you, sometimes one persons single good idea can eliminate an infinite number of bad ideas that may be getting in your way.

 

[Chamber005]

O.K. This actually clears up your position quite a bit for me. And believe it or not, I'm not in total opposition to your beliefs. Where I believe we differ is that I want to invest my humanity into my art. For my goal is to illuminate the human condition. But really, this difference may be more a matter of semantics than anything else.

I personally don't feel ownership of what I create. On the contrary, I readily cite my influences or just plain admit, "I have no idea where that came from" or "that was really an accident". I'm in love with the process not the commercial or social benefits that may or may not result. Nor do I equate someone's value or ability as an artist on the commercial or social benefits their work may bring them. History proves this to be the folly of fools.

I encourage you to stay on your path as you see fit. I also encourage you to be open to what the world has to offer you, sometimes one persons single good idea can eliminate an infinite number of bad ideas that may be getting in your way.

Yay! We're awesome.

And in life I am an absolute sponge. I don't know that a day goes by that I don't ask someone a question about something either online or off. The only thing I don't seek influence on is my creative process and my understanding of love. For me everything else is a deep sea of fun things to know and learn!

:-Mark-12(DBG)

 

[Chris Adler]

So, if you're the only person that can understand it, who's your audience going to be made of? If so far the most success anyone has had at understanding the concept was 10%, doesn't that make you worry a bit how it will ultimatly be received?