David Bazan is a Beautiful Heretic.

So semi-recently, I was introduced formally and personally to the stylings of Pedro the Lion and David Bazan as a solo artist. For the uninformed, feel free to Google the name, you'll figure it out. As a result of this musical foray I have been fortunately and unfortunately sucked in by both feet into the world of everything Bazan. the guy is one of the most honest songwriters I've ever heard. His recent record, the eponymous Curse Your Branches is a genius amalgam of post rock, post indie, post folk rock n roll that verges on progressive in some ways. it's a weird album musically, but also brilliant. A lot of that has to do with the little flourishes and accompaniments in the background. It's a well produced, well designed, extremely well written affair.

I have to give you some full disclosure here. I am writing this while listening to Wilco's excellent new album "Wilco, the Album" . Why? Because I needed a freaken break. Let me explain. For the past two days I was stricken with a flu so I've been preoccupied with that anyways, but I decided not to listen to any music at all because I was trying to get Bazan out of my head. I mean seriously. I would go to bed with Bazan in my head. I would wake up in the middle of the night with a Bazan melody in my head. The same song for hours, then it would change to a different song. It was driving me crazy. It wouldn't leave. So I finally caved after two days of torture and I listened to Fewer Moving Parts and Curse Your Branches in a row. Then I put Wilco on and started writing this article. Sigh. Sweet relief. The Wilco record is awesome. I love it. It's saving me from self-destruct right now. Ok. So maybe thats a little melodramatic but you get the idea. But back to the purpose of this article - to blather about Bazan.

Curse Your Branches is a dense, hypo-internally-critical journey. You must proceed with caution if you are a person of faith. The lyrics are rife with question after question after assertion after accusation regarding matters of faith. Pedro the Lion was seen primarily as a Christian band, and Bazan as a solo artist has gotten to a place where he feels his Assemblies of God upbringing simply doesn't make sense to him anymore. It's easy to see why. If you are raised in a hyper Christian environment, what are you going to do? You are going to rebel against it. And Bazan is no ordinary dissenter. He is a world class songwriter with a penchant for overly honest diatribes. Pedro has a near cult following. So it is no surprise to me that Bazans audience , from what I've read and seen, have been somewhat fragmented by this shift. He considers himself a non Christian at this point, an agnostic, and his wife of 9 years is still a believer. It's gotta make for some tense conversation, especially when your faith is being dissected in such a public forum. I am interested to see how this thing plays out over the years to come. With lyrics like


Wait just a minute
You expect me to believe
that all this misbehaving grew from one enchanted tree
And helpless to fight it we should all be satisfied
WIth the magical explanation for why the living die?

and

god bless the man who falls
god bless the man who yields to temptation

you are bound to get some reaction from people of faith. It continues on in When We Fell

if you knew what would happen and made us just the same
then you , my lord, can take the blame

and lastly,

when job asked you the question
you responded “who are you
to challenge your creator?”
well if that one part is true
it makes you sound defensive
like you had not thought it through
enough to have an answer
like you might have bit off
more than you could chew


Needless to say, this is pretty heavy stuff. it's direct, it's powerful and ..... it's how he really feels at this point.

So how has this affected me? Not how you might expect.

My faith has been bolstered by this music, gotten me out of my skin a little and forced me to examine some of the pertinent questions he raises in the album all the while making me glad I am not in his shoes in this regard. How is this possible you ask? Because I already went through this myself. Although I never quite divorced myself from it as he has, I certainly hit the wall a couple of years ago. I understand where he is at. I do think it is slightly absurd in some ways, and I will explain that a little later, but I will categorically say this music has had another effect on me. An unexpected one. For the first time as a musician, as a songwriter, I could hear my own voice. I don't know how to exactly explain this. Bazan's method and madness resonates with me on a musical and a lyrical/stylistic level that I did not expect. It's going to force me to push myself to a greater and higher level of being a songwriter. Jeff Tweedy often fills this space for me as well, except that we have a similar voice. With Jeff it's personal without being personal. It's occasionally revealing, usually endearing, and often poetic. But Bazan, at least on this one album, has done something else entirely; he has truly channeled himself into the songs. They are one and the same. They are personally written, totally connected to his personal state of being. They are also written (accidently I'm sure) in a very populist fashion. Anyone can relate to this loss of faith, Christian or no. It's a universal theme.

Don't get a fat head Dave. The chances of you catching that kind of lightening in the bottle twice are slim and none and slim left the building. Unless you happen to be Bob Dylan. And even he will admit he wasn't present for his mid 60's material, so powerful was the muse. That kind of momentary genius is rare. Catching it once is amazing. A gift. You might say divinely inspired. (wink wink)

It is my opinion that most bands have one song, have one lyric, and occasionally, that one album that fits into this category. I mean, even Brett Michael (Poison) wrote one good lyric -

every night has it's dawn
every cowboy
sings a sad sad song
every rose has it's thorn

That's pretty damn poetic isn't it? I won't drag out any of their other lyrics - it simply isn't worth the time. I made my point though. Really amazing bands might pull it off twice in a career. It just doesn't happen that often.

Ok, so the abrupt left turn back into the subject at hand. I did get the sense that Dave's loss of faith was a bit contrived, a bit disingenuous, and dare I say... predictable. I know, I'm treading on thin ice here, but I will explain myself. It's not that I don't think Dave is personally genuine or that it's some sort of farce - it's certainly not - but I think the cultural forces that drove many to these decisions (and let me say that I realize Dave's situation does not follow this exact narrative, but it does have elements of it from what I can tell) - overbearing Christian school experience, overbearingly "evangelical" parents, being generally sheltered, being a 'social' Christian, being a PK, booze, experiencing sex and drugs, simply growing up in the age of the iPod, being surrounded by people who think faith is stupid and illogical - are shallow, pathetic excuses to throw away 2,000 years of history, art, discourse and yes, faith simply because things don't seem to entirely "fit" or "feel" right. Let me be clear - we always need to follow our hearts - especially when you are a musician, painter or other artisan, the muse - the feeling - is incredibly important. it must be followed at almost all costs. Great art would not exist without it. Great science would not exist without it. The thing that gets me is how we (us americans - the 'west' in general) seem to forget that all of this ability to sit on our asses and contemplate the universe is a gift. We aren't out plowing fields for food and tending to firewood for heat. It's a bit callous to read a few things, listen to a few things and essentially say "the last 2,000 years of scholarship, research, academic pursuit and faithful plumbing of the depths of Christian thought essentially have no meaning because I had a few beers and most of the people I know are disconnected with faith and it just doesn't sit well with me" That's pretty lame. It's a well worn story isn't it? Boy grows up in a Christian family whose dad is a pastor. Boy moves to college. Begins to experience the "real world" and suddenly realizes that not everything is as he thought it was. He dabbles in this, he plunges into that. He starts to justify his actions by dismissing his heritage. They eventually get into drugs, alcohol, sex, you name it. They fall of the wagon. 20 years later they wake up and return to faith. After they finally realize that life without God isn't all it's cracked up to be either. It happens all the time. Maybe some do stick to their guns. It is difficult, after all, to admit you are wrong. (because who wants to admit that? Who has the balls?) The overriding message of Christian faith is that Jesus claimed "I am the way, the truth and the life". Choose well, because if you are wrong - you reject God in the most fundamental way. This isn't fear - this isn't a hammer over the head - it's a categorically correct statement. Guess what? He'll wait. In 20 years when you've had enough Dave - he'll be there. He isn't going anywhere. He's God. That is not supposed to sound like a challenge. It really isn't. I just wonder to myself.. "as keen and insightful as Dave is, didn't he see this coming?" I'm not saying you shouldn't struggle with the nature of truth - on the contrary - you should - but I also think that you should also be able to look at history, look at people's story and remember - "I'm not so different that I am not subject to the same forces". Speaking of history - I just think that people like this, throughout the ages - brilliant, brilliant people - should not be dismissed. Whom am I talking about? How's this for a list?:

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) became hugely influential regarding the scientific method
John Ray (1627-1705) did the foundational work in species classification
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was a renowned chemist, bacteriologist, invented vaccination, pasteurization, sterilization & immunization
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a mathematician, hydrostatics and hydrodynamics pioneer, laid the foundations for conic sections, differential calculus & probability theory, invented the barometer
James Joule (1818-1889) electricity
Michael Faraday (1791-1867), was one of the great physicist/chemists of all time who helped developed electricity etc,
Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873). Sedgwick mapped more of the geological strata than any other person, and modern geology has accepted his ideas of periodic geological catastrophes
Sir Issaac Newton (January 1643 – 31 March 1727) does this guy need a description?
Galileo Galilei (15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642) or this one?

There are a lot of others. These were all scientists, geologists, inventors and .. people of specifically Christian faith. You cannot tell me that simply because we understand the natural world better that somehow we are smarter, more informed or more capable of seeing the truth of faith than these people. Giants. All of them. Some so giant that we literally owe the very way we see the universe to their insight. So many of Newtons and Galileo's ideas have been proven by "modern science" that they are scientific canon. These were some incredibly smart people.

You can argue that you are struggling with the nature of how the Christian faith fits into modern day society - sure. You can argue that the world today is incredibly more complex then it ever has been and that faith seems to be becoming an illogical choice for many. I can agree with that. You can struggle with the nature of truth and place of scripture as a valid signpost in life. I can acquiesce to these these things. You can argue that your parents, however well intentioned, failed to remember what they were like in their teenage years and in their twenties and rammed way too much theological crap down your throat. You can argue that you were missing an entire side of life you didn't know existed, That the complex struggles did not come with ready made easy answers spelled out in sunday school. True enough. Faith is, and has always been, a struggle of the mystical over the practical. Between the metaphysical and the morass of experience. That will never change. The very fact that we struggle with the same problems, questions, and issues as people always have throughout time should tell you something though. How do I know they dealt with the same faith issues?

As I was driving to Baudette one time to visit the folks. I managed to find a radio station up north that was, bizarrely enough, rebroadcasting an entire day from 1944 in real time. Talk radio - news, music. Everything. I listened for about 2 hours and literally almost forgot what year it really was. it was amazing. You know what I heard? it was exactly the same kind of news we hear today. Roosevelt did this, the Democrats disagreed with it. The Republicans made a move to do something else. Public opinion was split. It was eerie. Downright spooky. There are still reading from that same script. Nothing has changed.

There is nothing new under the sun. If Jesus is Christ, then there is indeed an enemy as well. We keep remembering to question God but we always forget to wonder what the devil is up to. Why is that?

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
(from the movie the usual suspects)

You can be sure that there is a narrative to life. There are a lot of legit questions. I agree. I do not think the answers we've been spoon fed by the "church" are always right. But I also believe that we have giants of science, philosophy, theology, political leadership and history itself to help us take heart that despite the mystery that surrounds, you don't have to throw your brain out the window to follow Christ. Do I have all he answers? Absolutely not. Does Dave bring up some damn good questions? Of course he does. I would completely agree with Dave's quote from Chicago Reader (article by Jessica Hopper):

"The last 30 years of it have been hijacked; the boomer evangelicals, they were seduced in the most embarrassing and scandalous way into a social, political, and economical posture that is the antithesis of Jesus's teaching."

how can anyone argue with that? it's the truth. So do you throw the whole thing out the window? Or do you wipe the slate clean and re-approach?

At the end of the day, I would quote Dave two things:

tonight I'll sing my songs again,
I'll play the game and pretend.
But all my words come back to me in shades of mediocrity
Like emptiness in harmony I need someone to comfort me.

and

through a darkened mirror i have seen my own reflection
and it makes me want to be a better man
after another drink
god bless the man at the crossroads

No Line on the Horizon by U2

"Choose your enemies carefully cos they will define you
Make them interesting cos in some ways they will mind you
They're not there in the beginning but when your story ends
Gonna last with you longer than your friends.."

After listening to the newest offering from Uberband U2 for like, the 100th time, I felt like it was finally time to talk about it

and what exactly is.. it?

I initially found the album unsettling and not accessible. What was weird about the experience is that it made me feel exactly the same way Achtung Baby did 15 years ago. I was not really sure about what I was hearing. Having been at least a middling fan since the War record, I feel like I've got some U2 street cred. I was a fan before they were massive, and only became more enamored as the years went on. I even liked Pop. (it's a severely underrated album. deal with it.)

As for this smattering of emotion. this shotgun blast of song and technical studio craft. I can only say one thing:

it's pretty amazing.

I mean - this isn't a band that started 5 years ago and is just hitting their peak - this is a band that has been together for nearly 30 years and is hitting it's stride for.. a third.. possibly fourth time..? Is that even possible?

The Beatles invented it. U2 perfected it.

I do stand up and say that there are 2 songs I wish they would have left on the cutting room floor though. "..go crazy.." and "stand up". No matter how self effacing, tongue in cheek and smarmy Bono and the boys intend to be, there is no excuse for some of the lyrics and vocals on these two tracks. Sorry guys. All respect given but....

The rest of the album, however, is absolutely amazing. I liked the cut of the almost surely Lanois influenced "Moment of Surrender" (listen to that chorus - that is a Lanois melody if I ever heard one), the sure to be a classic "Magnificent", and the unspeakably well written "Cedars of Lebanon".

U2, and indeed popular music in the 21st century, simply do not get better, more serious, more thoughtful or more real than this. Was it the touted re-invention? Not really. Does it fall short lyrically at times? Yeah, it does. I can cop to that. But the beauty is that I think they know it. They are willing to fall down in front of all of us and enjoy the trip on the way down. At this point, they can do what they want. I'm inclined to let them do it.

If I can make one suggestion though - I think they should ditch the studio wizardry and do a record that sounds like it was barely done in a basement. Allow the songs to stand on their own without the technology. Maybe the Lilywhite and Rubin sessions will see the light of day someday. Lilywhite, while a ham fisted pop radio guy, does have a gift for finding the core of things and evoking that classic U2 thing. Rubin has a gift for finding near perfect songs. I say lets get these guys together, ditch the egos and watch the fur fly. It would be a helluva album, that's for sure. (Although let me say for the record that I'm a huge Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois fan.)

It took awhile to grow on me. Now I listen to it once a day and probably will for some time until it's worn it's path trough my soul much like The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby.

I'm not making this up. It's that good.

who watches the watchmen?

Of course, that is the question we should all contemplate.

I went to see the iconic comic book movie Watchmen last week with a couple of friends, and I have some mixed feelings about it. I ran across a blog that rates the general morality of films, and ended up responding to the post. While I agree with the general sentiment - this film is definitely not for kids - I had to disagree with some of the points in the article. You can see it here

I liked my response to his article, so I truncated part of it and post it here. I would love to get some response from people on this subject. Also, let's get this out of the way - I do consider myself a person of faith and I take that faith seriously. That is the prism through which my response to the blog (and this posting) is filtered through. I find it difficult to discuss things that involve morality outside of the context of an established moral fabric. That is to say, if you are not a person of faith in any way, then these discussions have no merit or value to you because you have nothing to base your morality on besides what 'society as a whole' agrees with. If that is your viewpoint, then this will be a fruitless read.

First, let me lay out the situation - The Watchmen is a comic book series done in the mid to late 80's by a guy named Alan Moore. He has not approved of the movie version, despite the fact that the movie is incredibly faithful to the comic. As for me, I liked the animated version of the film better (the acting is actually better believe it or not)and it covers the comic's story a lot better. In case you've been hiding under a rock, the movie version was just released. It contains some of the most realistic on screen violence I have ever seen, and it also has a gratuitous amount of general nudity and sex. It is rated R. (in the business what we call a "hard R") the film also takes the Lord's name in vain like a million times. (the word g-d damn) While I am not a stuck up moralist, I have to admit that these things ground into me a bit and I had to think hard about the subject. Just how far is too far in Hollywood? Having worked and lived in Hollywood (and quoting from a band I once knew) "too much is not enough", apparently.

I also need to tell you an unintended consequence. As a present, I bought tickets for my friends. They both happen to deal very directly with sexual addiction issues in their lives. I heard tell afterward that there was fallout from seeing the imagery in the film. I can believe it. It was extremely graphic. I have apologized for not doing more research to my friends, and I meant it. I take their sobriety in this area seriously.

I will always defend the folks in Hollywood - I am one of them. I genuinely understand the pathos, the drive and the desire to do something big. I will not, however, defend their consistent and flagrant misuse of the power to influence they wield. You can be sure that behind locked doors, there were conversations about what to include in the film and what not to include. I can virtually guarantee that there was conversation about the possibility of putting the R rated stuff into a DVD version of the film and releasing a strong PG-13 version to the theaters. You can clearly see what happened. I can tell you exactly why filmmakers in this position make the decisions they do:

1. money
2. publicity for the film
3. demographic studies (how many 40 year old church ladies do you know that read comics?)
4. to piss off people that they feel are oppressive moralists (generally speaking, Christians)

That's the truth folks. It has nothing to do with what is it right and wrong. It has everything to do with the bottom line. When you spend upwards (and over) $100 million making a film and marketing it, you want to make damn sure you're making the studios money back or you won't be working next year. When you remove morality from the situation, then it is easy to see why these things happen. The directors cut wasn't good enough for these guys - they wanted the publicity it would create. Did it create waves? Ironically, not as much as you would think. I believe we are entering a different phase of our society here in America, but that's a different article. What's telling is that the film did just fine without the pissed off Christians - who I think have finally generally figured out not to boycott things. If you boycott it, you'll make it three times larger than it would have been without the boycott. It's a fact.

On the subject of the film itself (and it's content) I can say these things: Having read the comic, I can say that the source material also included the nudity and the abbreviated rape scene. I would disagree with people who would say that these two are unnecessary to tell the story. While rape is bloody, uncomfortable and a purely evil act, it happens all too frequently in our world and too often we would turn a blind eye to that fact. Perhaps we might (very uncomfortably) find something of ourselves in the characters involved and that forces us to ponder not only the evil at hand, but our own morality. Remember that Christ said "even if you look on a woman to lust after, you have committed adultery in your heart" (my paraphrase) As for Dr. Manhattans nudity, it made me uncomfortable for sure, but then I realized why - do you recall how God called out for Adam in the garden and Adam said "I Hid and was ashamed because I was naked" and what was God's response? He said: "who told you you were naked?" Think about this. The character in the movie is supposed to be basically omniscient. Why would he care if he wore anything? that is not his natural state. Remember - we are talking about people telling a story here - filmmakers and producers who are not Christians and probably have very little moral fabric in general but they do posses a tremendous sense of how to tell a story and present it artistically.

I will, however, agree with one point than many have been making. The three minute sex scene in the middle of the film was in the comic but completely unnecessary for the film. They could have easily shoehorned this unabashedly soft porn material into a directors cut. Which brings me to my point - They could have easily done the film as a PG 13 and gained a much wider audience. Although they were faithful to the comic book, they could have saved all the sexual grittiness for an expanded directors cut and given general movie going fans (among them the tens of thousands of kids and teenagers who will obviously end up seeing this) a chance to enjoy the story such as it is without having to worry about getting bombarded by messages they don't want to/need to/shouldn't see. Of course, these are gray lines and maybe one of these producers would argue that I am censoring art. On the contrary I would say - I am allowing art to be seen by a great many more people. Although who am I kidding? sex sells. We all know this. It's just a shame. It would be nice if a few more people in Hollywood had a moral bone in their body.

My take: its an amazing movie in some ways. I love the character Rorschach. He is the one most Christians would ultimately relate to. He cares about morality at all costs. Unfortunately, life is not that simple.

At least not since the garden.

Hollywood 102

What I've found is that most people have these hackneyed ideas of what it take to make a successful movie - including people who have been in the industry for awhile. They think they are going to "make it" by "beating the odds" and "staying true to their vision" when the reality is they are too ignorant or lazy to learn the business side of the business. It's unfortunately a very money oriented business, but in some ways, I feel better about that. To explain: I am a songwriter, and to me, songwriting is a very personal expression of who I am and how God made me. until very recently, the idea of selling a song simply for commercial purposes was anathema to me. But in the movie business, art and commerce aren't seperated at all - they are one and the same. It costs an enormous amount of money to properly make a film - even on the very low end - and practical business considerations happen right away. The entire point of making a movie is that people will spend money to watch it, recognize you for your artistic merits, and make you rich, right? So how do you expect to receive allof these glorious benefits without doing the job right? Sure, some miracles squeak through the cracks in the door - Clerks, The Brothers McMullin, Memento, Pieces of Amy, Army of Darkness Blair Witch, etc - but those are absolute anomolies. Even the very experienced in the business will be at a loss to explain why those projects were successful. They struck a nerve with the public and became popular. Other projects, on the other hand, are really well thought out caluclated risks with serious artistic merits - such as Eternal Sunshine, the aforementnoned Forrest Gump, Fight Club, name any Terry Gilliam or Coen Brothers film and on the smaller end of the spectrum The Second Chance (an excellent first film by Christian music maverick Steve Taylor), Saved!, Big Fat greek Wedding (special circumstances did apply however) and others. The thing all of these movies had in common was that they were all really artistic or social statements that would have probably never been made unless there was some element to them that made either a studio or a buch of investors get together and fund them. Let's face reality, The Matrix, which was a brilliant concept, would have never seen the light of day without the aid of an already established famous person to step in and get the ball rolling. They had a bunch of very large name actors in the film - thats what I mean by mitigating the risk - no matter what the final film turned out like, they knew a certian number of people were going to watch a film with Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburne in it and backed by a major studio. Put Tom Cruise in any movie - any movie - and the proejcted return will be 300%. No movie he has ever been associated with has lost money. Not even Stephen Spielberg can say that! My point here is that when you make a film, you are creating a piece of commerce and you have to treat it that way. Here are ways to mitigate risk that I've found - these are pretty specigfic to low budget independent pics, but most of the rules apply to any budget picture. Remember - the more money you have, the more security you can buy.

1. The Letter of Intent, or LOI, is your friend. it allows you to get a good faith agreement with people (producer/director/actor) that will satisfy most investor types and it proves you know what you're doing. it's one of the major tools in an indie producers toolbox for mitigating risk.
2. have a big name person attached. No matter how small the project - find one big name - the producer, the director, an actor - anyone. This will help you sell it and get it distributed. it will also ease the pressure on you artistically.
3. get an LOI distribution deal in place - again - these are deals that may go away in the end, and they should be an non-exclusive agreement and usually will be. If the distributor is not putting up any cash, it should be non-exclusive. This will allow you to say to investors that the film will be distributed no matter what. that is a major selling point.
4. package the film with great music. Do not underestimate the power of a good soundtrack. even unsigned unknown bands can be helpful. This is why relationships in the music industry are so helpful - even major labels want to promote thier new up-n-coming bands - there are windows of opportunities for both parties.
5. raise some first-in money - it hardly matters how much - just so you can say the first-in has been raised. This helps investors feel like they aren't the only ones taking the risk.
6. make friends in the festival circuit. create buzz for your project while you are shooting.
7. if you can find even one or two theaters to screen your film then arrange it. This is another way to make potential investors feel safe.
8. as a long term strategy - only do projects that you are reasonably sure will make thier money back. break even is fine - you get to fight another day.
9. Don't go out to make your epic right away - even if you succeed, you may never raise that much money again if the film fails to generate income.
10. read rule #2

So that gives you some general idea of how it is an indie producer can lower the risk factor.

Instead of focusing singlemindedly on what you think is a great project that everyone will want to see because it's such a compelling story it doesn't matter if you have any distribution or well known actors in it - learn the reality of the business. You might get a project or two made, but you'll eventually hit the wall unless you get lucky or have an "in".

Of course, every rule or list I come up with is trumped by Hollywood Rule 1 - "it's not what you know, but who you know" Thats how some no name 'never done anything' loser like myself will come screaming down the highway in a career on fire someday - because rather than focus on just making a bunch of crap projects, I took the time to learn what makes project good first, both artisically and business-wise, and I networked my rear end off. that, at the end of the day, is what will make my (and your) career happen.

Hollywood 101

Hey everyone. So I thought about this for some time, and I've spent the past 8 years compiling this list. My goal has been to formulate essentially an extensive list of things I want to remember about becoming a producer. Not the BS lists you see, but something that is culled from real experience. Most information I've read and or heard about producing has been so surface level that it's basically public knowledge. "real" producers don't share their knowledge too deeply or share anecdotes - it gives away too much about the inner workings of Hollywood. From time to time, I'll write about things that have happened in my journey, good bad or otherwise and really - I hope it illuminates things for someone. If you find this following list or anything I say on this blog useful, please message me and let me know!

So without further adieu, here it is - the most "un-Hollywood" reality check list of what a producer needs to know. Notice that 95% of it is relationally based. there is a reason for that. More discussion about that in future posts. This list is 'in progress' and may be added to from time to time.

1. Desperation Kills
2. Networking is king. You will succeed or fail based on your networking skills.
3. You don’t know everything. Get help.
4. the more money you have, the more security you can buy.
5. Call/email your contact list regularly. Even if you feel like you're being a pest.
6. make back ups of your phone book. multiples in different formats.
7. Know where your project is going before you shoot it
8. Don’t ever make a film with unknown actors. Have at least one well recognized name.
9. Technicality is not everything, but professional sound is a must.
10. Everyone thinks they have good projects. Everyone thinks they’re a genius. Not true.
11. Avoid politics. Avoid pride. Both of these will kill your career.
12. Strive to be underestimated.
13. everyone does things for their own reasons, not someone elses.
14. unfortunately, people are selfish. Appeal to their selfishness and you’ll get what you need. And related -
15. do your best to be as unselfish as you can by helping other people. The people you help succeed will remember and by and large help you when they get there.
16. Network with “the old dogs” in the business who have been cast aside because of changes in the industry. They are invaluable assets.
17. Take everyone who shows some smarts and determination seriously. You never know.
18. If you want to succeed, get into distribution.
19. always return phone calls and emails. I hate it when people don't respond.
20. this is a business first,- not an art form That is the sad truth. it costs too much money to do to 'risk it all' on anything less than brilliance. the only way Forrest Gump got made was because some enormous figures in Hollywood were willing to stake thier reputations on the art. Terry Gilliam, Marty Scorcese, and George Clooney are slight exceptions. But then again, they are uber famous and carry a lot of wieght.
21. be willing to "risk it all" for the art. If you have something that is brilliant - be a bulldog about it and learn how to mitigate the risk. It can be done.
22. Surround yourself with critical people you can trust who are willing to tell you the truth. Even the Bible says “the wounds of a friend are faithful, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful”
23. Never ever ever be arrogant.
24. There is always someone bigger.
25. a producer is someone who knows how to hire better people than him/herself. A director is just a person who knows what he/she wants.
26. Be friendly to people.
27. never ever be a screamer or throw around attitude. It just makes you look like an ass and people will dislike you and talk about you behind thier backs.
28. don't use people.
29. Pay attention for good opportunities when they present themselves. Don’t be so hung up on your own thing that you can’t see it. Don’t be too proud to work on other people’s stuff.
30. learn about acting, gripping, set dressing and all of the trades you can. Gain an appreciation and understanding of their needs.
31. read “Hello, He Lied” by Lynda Obst. Classic.
32. Today’s PA is tommorow’s producer. They will remember. (including me)
33. crews will work long and hard for someone they feel respects them and has a vision.
34. The greatest story in the world does you no good unless you can sell it.
35. Producer teams work the best. One is good at the business stuff, one is good with the creative stuff.
36. Be prepared for the 3 – 5 year turnaround it takes to make a film. If you have something that could become a classic, be prepared to wait longer.
37. Carefully choose your battles.
38. Know your limits.
39. drivers and PA’s are your friends.
40. Compare your project to classic films you love. Does it measure up? If not, kill it.
41. Hire well known crew people when possible.
42. Learn about ancillary markets and multiple revenue streams.
43. Make friends in the music industry.
44. Don’t ever quit or you will never make it.
45. a great soundtrack can save an otherwise bland project.

thus all things end where they begin.

so I started this blog to have someplace to talk about the doings of myself, from a projects standpoint. It might seem like I'm doing 900 things at once, and well, that's pretty much the case. But I do basically four things:

• film and television production
• songwriting and producing
• technology and business development (specifically in the advertising and marketing field)
• entertainment industry consulting

When I post, it'll be in those four basic areas somewhere. I have also four major projects I am working on:

1. developing and packaging feature films (which I will describe in some detail from time to time)
2. working with my new record label and developing the music side of my career
3. doing business development with Hyperclick
4. creating online entities such as Frivilous Living and FreelanceSchedule.com

out of these basic categories comes the enormous breadth of activites necessary to make things happen in the entertainment industry. You will notice a few things:

• I'm going to be coy and non-forthcoming about certain things when I feel like it could jeopardize a deal I am working on, but I'll leave good general details.
• I won't write about something that isn't actually happening unless I point out that it's not actually happening.
• The names will be real, but occassionally I'll change or omit a name when talking about something, but I'll point those out.
• this is a truly insane business - don't harrass me when things fall through. It happens. a lot.
• if you hear a rumor and you haven't seen me mention it here. It's a rumor. if you hear a rumor and I've chosen not to mention it here for some reason, then you don't need to know.

I am looking forward to having a place to post my thoughts, challenges and happenings in a way that will be entertaining, enlightening and theraputic. Please check out my friends, partners in crime and other stuff on the sidebar.

peace!

Scott Mclain