Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Are you guility of 'Criminal Conversations'?

"Criminal Conversations," one of my newest screenplays, has attracted a wide range of interest over time. It has been optioned twice, had interest from well-known actors, attracted a commitment from a distributor, and briefly got some media attention and Internet buzz. It also became the subject of an IndieGoGo fundraising campaign that fell embarrassingly short of its too-lofty goal a couple of years ago. And its team of producers eventually broke up and moved on to other projects.

The script now is back in my hands, and I am doing what I can to get it back into action.

Logline: A man meets up again with his ex-wife while his current wife is dying and his ex-wife's current husband is suing her for divorce and trying to prove adultery so he can keep all of their assets.

One budget drawn up for the project has pegged its cost at $200,000. With name actors, it could cost more, up to several million to produce; and the more "name", the more expensive, of course. Or, with actors who are complete unknowns, the script could be shot for just a few thousand bucks.

My Plan A is to get the Criminal Conversations screenplay into the hands of some new producers who believe in it and will stay committed to it. It matters not to me whether the production budget will be big or small. I'll take a very small fee and "monkey points" for the screenplay if that will help the movie get produced.

Plan B is to attempt to produce it myself or (most preferably) find production partners willing to join in and help me. I have been a producer on a couple of projects, but writing is my forte. I am no good at pitching a project and raising money. Most writers aren't. I could even see this script being a fine project for a group of film-school students with access to campus settings and equipment.

The script's synopsis is below:

Dr. Alexandra Livingston, a drama professor, is unpleasantly surprised when her ex-husband of 29 years ago, Dr. Ted Smith, suddenly shows up at her campus office and tells her he’s coming back to school to study acting. Ted, now a psychiatrist, also informs her that he will be in her class, and Alexandra tries to talk him out of it. But he has already enrolled and insists he just wants to learn. He has always wanted to act, he says, and hopes to be in at least one movie or play before he dies. Unable to change Ted’s mind, Alexandra stresses that he will be just one of the students in her classroom. He will get no special breaks from her.

There are other, bigger complications. Ted’s current wife is dying and pushing him away so he won’t keep watching her suffer. She also wants to know Ted can get on with his life once she is gone. Meanwhile, Alexandra’s current husband, Frank, is suing her for divorce and having Alexandra spied on by a shadowy character with a camera (“the Watcher”), who is disguised as a student. Frank wants evidence to prove adultery– which also is known as “criminal conversation” in legal terms. Frank’s goal is to get Alexandra’s assets and leave her with nothing, even though he brought little money to his and Alexandra’s marriage.

Both Ted and Alexandra now need someone they can confide in and seek comfort from – but their timing for getting back together is wrong. Alexandra is up for tenure in her teaching position and needs to keep her pending divorce out of the tenure committee’s sight. And the school has strict rules against teacher-student fraternization. Ted, meanwhile, needs to re-start his psychiatric practice. He sold his previous practice so he could move his dying wife closer to her relatives. And he must be home each day by six o’clock, so his wife’s home health-care nurse can leave.

Ted and Alexandra also are restricted by the expectations of their separate families, friends and colleagues. And they did not have a happy marriage, so there is tension between them that time has not healed.

Whatever can happen between Ted and Alexandra must happen on campus, in the classroom, in her office or on a stage, always in view of others, including the Watcher, who keeps capturing seemingly compromising photographs when Ted and Alexandra are together.

Ultimately, Ted’s wife dies, and Alexandra is granted tenure. Meanwhile, a sudden moment of routine campus life blocks the Watcher from getting the picture that might have appeared to prove adultery--or at least raise reasonable doubt in a judge’s mind. By missing the shot, the Watcher also misses out on a bonus Frank promised. But another opportunity soon arises, and The Watcher’s greed shines forth.

Alexandra’s class begins rehearsing a future performance of Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing, with Ted playing Benedick and Alexandra as Beatrice. When Benedick passionately kisses Beatrice near the end of the play, the Watcher is hiding in the theater. He gets tight telephoto shots that appear to show Ted and Alexandra in adulterous lip-lock.

Ted and Alexandra soon are subpoenaed and face official “criminal conversation” allegations. But when their lawyer and Frank’s lawyer face off to try to arrange an out-of court settlement, the case quickly collapses once the “damning” photographs are revealed and it becomes clear that Frank’s best “evidence” was gathered at a play.

Alexandra is granted a divorce and gets to keep her assets. Ted has proven that he can act, and he is free to move forward with his life. The world is now wide open to Ted and Alexandra getting back together again, if that is what they choose to do. But will they?

* * *

These are the screenplay's major and minor characters and bit players:

TED SMITH – Late fifties, doctor of psychiatry, previously married three times but now very devoted to his fourth wife, GEORGINA SMITH, who is dying of Lou Gehrig’s disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, A.L.S.). As a sign of his devotion, he has sold his psychiatry practice in Washington, D.C., and moved Georgina to Georgetown, New Mexico, so she can be closer to her children and other relatives. In his youth and young adulthood, Ted was an “adrenalin junkie” who raced motorcycles. He finally gave them up after two crashes left him severely injured and caused him to rethink his life and pursue a career in psychiatry.

ALEXANDRA LIVINGSTON – Mid-fifties, drama professor with a Ph.D. Currently married, but that relationship is falling apart. Her current husband, FRANK LIVINGSTON, is suing her for divorce. Previously married to Ted Smith when they both were young. She divorced him after a short, childless marriage because he wanted to keep racing motorcycles, and she wanted a stable home with children and didn’t want to have to constantly worry about Ted getting hurt or killed in a crash. Alimony money from Ted Smith helped her go to graduate school and pursue a career in movie and theater acting. But after a few years, she decided she preferred to teach drama rather than compete for roles. Now she is an established professor with a good reputation, and she is up for tenure just as her marriage is falling apart.

Minor Characters

GEORGINA SMITH – Ted’s fourth wife. Early fifties, a former Washington, D.C., lawyer who has incurable A.L.S. She is now bedridden and in the acceptance phase of dying. She is more concerned with Ted’s ability to get on with his life once she is gone. She has a HOME HEALTH CARE NURSE during most of each day. So she is now pushing Ted to re-start his psychiatry practice and get out of the house and have some fun. She doesn’t want him hovering over her all of the time. It is she who convinces Ted to take a class.

HOME HEALTH CARE NURSE – Forties. Competent and caring. She knows how to take care of Georgina, and she knows the best ways to help Ted cope in the moments right after Georgina dies.

FRANK LIVINGSTON – Alexandra’s current husband. Mid-fifties. He and Alexandra own a house in North Carolina, which still recognizes the old term “criminal conversation” as a legal synonym for adultery. They have rented apartments in New Mexico while Alexandra teaches at the Santa Fe College but have considered North Carolina their official “home.” Now, with their marriage falling apart, Frank has been staying in North Carolina while Alexandra stays in Austin. Frank brought almost nothing tangible to their marriage, but now he wants to use the “criminal conversation” statutes to get a divorce settlement that will allow him to keep everything and pay Alexandra nothing. To that end, he has hired “The Watcher” to help him gather evidence against Alexandra.

THE WATCHER – Late twenties to early thirties. Able to blend in with students on the university campus. Uses his disguise to take surreptitious photographs of Alexandra and Ted when they are together. The Watcher is motivated by money, and his desire to earn a bonus from Frank eventually causes him to get a bit too creative with his evidence-gathering photography.

MIKE KEELER – Late teens to early twenties. One of Alexandra’s students. The class clown. Always looking for opportunities to perform or show off. Has some talent and gets a lot of laughs from other students during classes. But also gets admonished by Alexandra and others occasionally. Wants to be a movie maker.

DOCTOR CLOUD – A drama professor well past his prime. Early seventies. Should have retired several years ago. Most students, including Ted, find him boring when he briefly substitutes for Alexandra.

FRANK’S LAWYER – Sharply dressed, competent, well-experienced, well-paid. Probably in late thirties to late forties, or older.

ALEXANDRA’S AND TED’S LAWYER – Sharply dressed, competent, well-experienced, well-paid. Probably in late thirties to late forties, or older.

Bit Players

STUDENT #1 – college age drama student.

ARMANDO VARGAS – college age drama student.

CYNDIE MASTERS – college age drama student.

REGISTRATION ASSISTANT – female, mid-twenties, working for the university and still taking classes there.

PROCESS SERVER – Fifties. Can be a male in his forties, fifties or sixties who looks like he might be an ex-cop or ex-deputy sheriff.

* * *

If you are a producer wanting to read the screenplay, it is posted at InkTip.com. Or email me at sidunn@hotmail.com.


– Si Dunn is a novelist, screenwriter, freelance book reviewer, and former software technical writer and software/hardware QA test specialist. He also is a former newspaper and magazine photojournalist. His latest book is Dark Signals, a Vietnam War memoir. He is the author of an e-book detective novel, Erwin’s Law, now also available in paperback, plus a novella, Jump, and several other books and short stories.



Friday, October 15, 2010

Movie Project Update: "Criminal Conversations"

Actors Wes Studi, Maura Dhu Studi and Anthony Arkin are now attached to star in my screenplay, Criminal Conversations.

Logline: A man meets up again with his ex-wife while his current spouse is dying and his ex-wife's current husband is suing her for divorce and trying to prove she is guilty of adultery.

California-based movie distributor FilmWorks Entertainment, Inc., has delivered a letter of intent (LOI) to distribute the movie, which will be directed by Stephen Jules Rubin.

The character-driven romantic dramedy is seeking additional funding and donations, and the movie is scheduled to be shot in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in January, 2011.

The one-sheet is available here. A recent draft of the script can be read here.

Donations of any size can be made via Paypal to si@sagecreekproductions.com.

Donors will receive on-screen thanks in the movie's ending credits. It is not necessary to have a Paypal account to donate.

For more information on this project and how to become involved in it, please contact:

Si Dunn
Sagecreek Productions, LLC
3800 N. Lamar Blvd., Ste. 730-131
Austin, TX 78756
sidunn@hotmail.com

#

Monday, August 23, 2010

The Story Behind the Criminal Conversations Screenplay


By Si Dunn


The screenplay for Criminal Conversations explores several areas that intrigue me. (Here's the logline: A man meets up again with his ex-wife while his current spouse is dying and his ex-wife's current husband is suing her for divorce and trying to prove she is guilty of adultery.)

First, I am interested in what can happen when two people who have had a previous, unhappy history together suddenly need each other again, yet they are constrained by forces both inside and outside their new circumstances.

The youthful marriage of Ted and Alexandra ended badly several decades ago, and the two of them moved on to separate, successful lives and new marriages.

Now, they are in their fifties, and happenstance has brought them back together just at the time when their current lives are crumbling.

They could try to be friends or lovers again. They both need someone who understands them and they are increasingly are aware of their own mortality and how time is beginning to run out in their lives. But both of them are still married. There are strict limitations on teacher-student relationships. They have the feelings of their own families to consider, and they are being spied on Alexandra’s estranged husband, Frank.

One wrong move could cause them both to be sued for “criminal conversation,” an old legal term for adultery.

How can they be close again and helpful to each other while maintaining what the law and society would consider a “respectable” distance?

Secondly, I am interested in exploring how two people who once loved each other can find enough forgiveness to overcome the transgressions that tore apart their marriage. They cannot go back and change the past -- anyway, they would not want to give up their children and the careers they have formed since they went their separate ways.

Yet, their new circumstances have thrown them together in a way that causes them both to face a choice: Can the one who was wronged forgive the one who bears the most blame? And, can forgiveness, contrition and the healing passage of time lead to a renewed relationship--one that can succeed this time?

In a third area of interest, the Criminal Conversations story examines how sudden new realities in peoples’ lives can turn their lives in unexpected – and sometimes unwanted – directions that ultimately prove beneficial. At the same time, these changed directions may be limited or misinterpreted or exploited by others outside the new relationship.

Fourth, Criminal Conversations also explores greed and deceit in a divorce setting. It looks at student-faculty relationships in a college or university setting. And it deals with the process of teaching and imparting knowledge.

 
As all of this unfolds, the major characters in Criminal Conversations confront matters that include their feelings about life, life after death, faith, courage, and love in the face of death.

I think you’ll be surprised at how it all turns out.

#

For more information:

The project's one-sheet is available at: http://bit.ly/9JNu6N.
A recent draft of the script can be read at: http://bit.ly/c4VEAX.
A video about the screenplay can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4sPZasOf1o.

Donations of any size can be made via PayPal to si@sagecreekproductions.com. Donors will receive on-screen thanks in the movie's ending credits. It is not necessary to have a PayPal account to donate.

#


Movie Project 'Criminal Conversations' Gains Distributor


California-based movie distributor
FilmWorks Entertainment, Inc., has delivered a letter of intent (LOI) to distribute the movie project Criminal Conversations, which will be directed by Stephen Jules Rubin. The screenwriter is Si Dunn.

Logline: A man meets up again with his ex-wife while his current spouse is dying and his ex-wife's current husband is suing her for divorce and trying to prove she is guilty of adultery.

The character-driven romantic dramedy is seeking additional funding and donations, and the movie is scheduled to be shot in Santa Fe, New Mexico, sometime this fall.

New versions of the movie's one-sheet and business plan are now available.

The one-sheet is available here: http://bit.ly/9JNu6NA recent draft of the script can be read here: http://bit.ly/c4VEAX.

Some of the story behind the screenplay can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4sPZasOf1o.

Donations of any size can be made via PayPal to si@sagecreekproductions.com. Donors will receive on-screen thanks in the movie's ending credits. It is not necessary to have a PayPal account to donate.

For more information on this project and how to become involved in it, please contact:

Si Dunn
Sagecreek Productions, LLC
3800 N. Lamar Blvd., Ste. 730-131
Austin, TX 78756
sidunn@hotmail.com

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1918688/

#

Friday, August 20, 2010

On-Set Security? Even No-Budget Movies Need It


T
he first time I worked on a movie set, I was a featured extra in two crowd scenes. I played a photographer in one scene, and I got to use my own cameras. It was a friendly set, and I was able to get some pictures of the stars. The next scene, however, did not require my cameras. So I left them in the big "extras holding" room where we were supposed to stash our personal belongings.

That room was unguarded and unlocked, of course. And someone who was assumed to be one of the hundreds of extras entered it while the new scene was being shot. All of the set's security personnel were busy protecting -- or gawking at -- the stars. Meanwhile, the room-entering "extra" just happened to have a criminal record for thefts and burglaries. He grabbed my camera bag, plus numerous wallets from coats and purses, and left the set unchallenged and unnoticed. The thefts were not discovered for almost two hours.

The police later caught him trying to pawn my cameras -- I had kept track of the serial numbers. But people's money and most credit cards and identification documents were not recovered.

I remembered this disturbing incident the next time I worked on a movie with crowd scenes. In this production, I was a different kind of extra. My headshot was used as the photo of a murder victim. So I was given a day's pay, but I could not appear in the movie at any other time. With plenty of hours on my hands, I volunteered to help a friend -- one of the casting assistants -- as an assistant's assistant. I sat in and guarded the room where extras stored their personal belongings. All day long, cell phones rang and pagers beeped in coats and purses. And some of the real extras periodically entered to check messages, grab something, put something away, or find new wardrobe items for the next shot.

But the real extras and crew members were not the only ones who entered. I sat in a corner where I could not be noticed at first. Twice that day, people I did not recognize as extras or members of the movie crew suddenly slipped in. Just as they started to poke around, sizing up what was accessible, they realized I was watching them, cell phone in hand.

"Sorry, wrong room!" the first one said. He didn't ask where the "right" room was as he hastily departed.

The second one just said "Shit!" and ran out the door.

Movie production companies are notorious for disdainful and rude treatment of extras and featured extras. Yet even on a no-budget movie set, there is no excuse for failing to secure the belongings and identification papers of cast, crew and extras, when necessary. You expect and need people to bring certain items when they report to the set. But they can't watch over their belongings once they are in camera rehearsals and scenes that are being shot.

Someone you implicitly trust should be given this important (and hopefully paid) security job. Various PAs can take shifts, if necessary. But whoever is room guard, he or she should be supplied with an accurate list of who is authorized to store items in the location and retrieve them. Brief notes on what each person is storing -- purse, make-up bag, laptop computer -- also could be helpful.

And if there is a question, the room guard should be able to quickly contact someone by radio or cell phone and verify that Extra X is indeed Extra X, not some ex-con looking for unwanted ways to make some money off your movie. A little attention to this simple security detail can help minimize some potential major headaches for your production.

-- Si Dunn

Monday, April 5, 2010

Texas Production Incentives: Will They Be a 2011 Legislative Target?

Recent budget shortfalls in several states have caused legislators there to try to repeal the tax breaks that entice movie, television and game productions to temporarily set up shop inside their borders. Indeed, the supposedly nonpartisan Tax Foundation has issued a report arguing for the "immediate discontinuance" of all such tax-funded programs nationwide.

Watch for an incentives-related battle in the Texas Legislature when it returns to session in January, 2011.

Thanks -- or no thanks -- to several factors, including Gov. Rick Perry's signature on a no-new-taxes pledge, legislators will have to deal with a shortfall of $11 billion to more than $15 billion in the state's 2012-2013 budget.

According to the Austin American-Statesman, "[b]udget cuts are already in the offing..." and "[s]tate leaders are expected to pull the trigger soon on about $1 billion in spending trims...." The cuts may mean layoffs of prison guards and smaller payments to Medicaid providers, including doctors and hospitals.

Meanwhile, some observers of the state budget's woes are predicting the Texas legislators will not be able to "cut their way out of the hole" starting next January, the American-Statesman reports.

Paranormal Inactivity on Taxes?

More revenues will have to be raised, which will be tough to do since Gov. Perry, a strong sympathizer with the Tea Party movement, has signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge that supposedly requires him to oppose "any and all tax increases."

Legislators will be left with few options except to increase some fees and look for any tax credits, tax exemptions and tax exclusions that can be reduced or eliminated. Also, they will face decisions on whether or not to allow more gambling choices in Texas.

In the face of the massive shortfall, Texas' production incentives could look like just one tiny plum ripe for picking out of the budget -- unless movie, television and game producers can convince the lawmakers that a lot more state revenue is generated than is spent on the program. Many legislators will be on the lookout for anything they can eliminate or shrink without raising taxes or fees.

The Incentives Hurt Locker?

The state production incentives progam -- if it survives the budget cutters next session -- will need to be given stronger funding. And many low-budget moviemakers say that it needs to be revised. At a time when non-studio movie budgets are trending lower and lower, often down to $100,000 or even less, Texas still wants moviemakers to spend at least $250,000 in the state before tax breaks will be granted. Many indie movie makers feel frozen out of the state's incentives program. The budget levels need to be made lower, and additional provisions need to be created to encourage the development of low-budget, "indigenous" Texas movie, television and game productions.

The state program also needs to be revised to get rid of its ridiculous "negative fashion" clause highlighted in the news last year. The Republican-ramrodded clause, enacted into law in 2007, forbids Texas state incentives to any kind of film, TV or game project that contains "inappropriate content or content that portrays Texas or Texans in a negative fashion, as determined by the [Texas Film Commission] office, in a moving image project." This clause puts the Film Commission in a censorship position and leaves the doors wide open for neighboring states such as Louisiana and New Mexico to keep getting "Texas" projects that can't get past the "negative fashion" restriction.

Gearing Up for the Fight

On the Texas Motion Picture Alliance (TXMPA) website, the organization's president, Don Stokes, recently posted both praise for the state's current incentive program and strong cautions that the program will need to be expanded and justified during the 2011 state legislative session.

Stated Stokes: "I am happy to report that our Moving Image Incentive Program is proving its effectiveness at bringing jobs and dollars to Texas. Since the enhanced incentives were signed into law in April 2009, applications which account for over $225 million in new in-state spending. These projects have created over 12,300 industry jobs equating to over 1,800 full time jobs. All of this has been achieved with a commitment of just over $24.8 million in grant funds. I am unaware of any other program which has delivered these levels of results with an equivalent cost. These projects come from across the State and cover all segments of the industry. This is tremendous news and will be a vital part of our message going into the 2011 Legislative Session."

He continued:

"We cannot afford to let this positive news make us complacent. Now is the time to remobilize and renew our efforts. We will have to battle for continued funding of the program in the upcoming Legislative Session. News reports from the Capitol inform us that all State agencies have been asked to reduce their budgets and cut current and future spending. We have been lucky since our friends in the Governor's office have trimmed in other areas in order to keep our current funding intact. They believe in the value our industry brings to Texas but we will have to make our case anew in 2011. To complicate matters further, we will not simply be asking to retain our current level of appropriation, we will be seeking an increase. At current application levels we will exhaust our funds for this fiscal year well before the next appropriation year begins in September 2010. Those funds will most likely also be exhausted before our next appropriation is in place. The positive side is that we have shown that if the incentive program is funded we can bring in the work. What we will have to prove is that the jobs we create benefit the State enough to justify the funding."

Fade Out?

A prediction from Dateline: Oblivion. Looking at the negative numbers surging into the $11 billion to $15 billion-plus range, Texas legislators will be primed to cut first and ask few questions later. State representatives and senators who don't understand the production business (and that will be just about all of them) will again demand to know why Texans should pay Hollywood anything to bring (or "brang") their "terrible" projects here. With angry constituents and Teabag Rick haranging them about taxes, they won't be receptive to listening to promises and predictions, nor reason.

The pro-incentive lobbyists need to be out in force already, reaching everyone they can possibly reach. The fiscally small but positive news from the Texas incentives program must be clearly heard and understood well before the budget-cuts drumbeat starts pounding everything -- and everyone -- into submission.

--Si Dunn

-30-

Google