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.

#

Texas Needs to Rework Its Movie, TV and Game Production Incentives

The Austin American-Statesman gets it, and that newspaper doggedly is staying on the Texas Legislature's case, even if many Texas politicians and entertainment people seem to be paying scant attention.

"State officials shouldn't be cast in roles of movie producers, scriptwriters or fact checkers, yet that's exactly where Texas legislators have put them," the Statesman editorialized in its July 3, 2009, edition.

A 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."

Apparently, only Utah takes a similar, thin-skinned approach to attempting to "protect" how that state and its people are portrayed in movies, TV shows and electronic games. The other 48 states apparently are happy just to encourage any and all entertainment companies to spend money inside their borders and let courts, lawyers and lawsuits handle any controversies arising over "accuracy" or portraying anyone "in a negative fashion."

The July 3 Statesman editorial stated: "Legislation that denies tax incentives to movies that put the state in a negative light puts Texas Film Commissioner Bob Hudgins in a situation that is as uncomfortable as it is untenable."

The Statesman called for the law to be rewritten "to remove the negative light criteria that Hudgins used to deny tax breaks to a movie about the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco."

The Waco movie project might have brought an estimated $30 million to the state economy and created dozens of jobs for Texas movie workers who now have to commute to Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico or other states to earn paychecks.

But the project about the disasterous 1993 Branch Davidian standoff in Waco should not be the only focus of opposition to the "negative fashion" clause in Texas' moving-image production incentives.

The bigger issue is how much the restrictions -- and the ongoing controversy over them -- may chill the overall movie, TV and game production business in the state.

Producers looking to spend money on entertainment projects that have Texas subjects or Texas settings may decide to go to other states, just so they can avoid all risk of running afoul of overly protective Texas legislators or a state film commission subject to political pressure and narrow-minded laws.

After all, with current movie, TV and game technology, "Texas" can be created almost anywhere. (Remember the controversy over the Civil War movie Cold Mountain, which partially was shot in Romania, with Romanian army troops serving as "Yanks" and "Rebs" and the Carpathian Mountains doubling as North Carolina?)

Some opponents of the Texas Film Commission ruling, including this writer, have voiced opinions that the Waco movie would be a work of fiction, no matter how truly "based on real events" it is, and the Texas Film Commissioner thus has been tasked by state legislators to censor fiction.

As the Statesman and others have noted before, some of the most successful and enduring movies about Texas, including Giant and The Last Picture Show, have not portrayed Texas and Texans in a positive fashion. Neither have movies such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and TV shows such as Dallas. But Giant and Dallas particularly have brought tons of tourism dollars to Texas and are still infusing cash decades later. And other movies and TV shows, including the definitely inaccurate Walker, Texas Ranger, also will pay tourism and "image" dividends to Texas for many years to come.

"Tax incentives should be given to projects that will have a positive impact on the state's economy," the Stateman declared in its July 3 edition. "The criteria ought be clear, and producers should understand that not everyone is going to get an incentive. Decisions on incentives should be based on the economic benefit to the state -- not on someone's slippery notion of what's negative and what's not."

The Statesman gets it and is keeping the ball rolling. Now, do any of the leading lights within the Texas movie, TV and game industries get it, and are they doing anything to help get the "negative fashion" clause eliminated as soon as possible?

Texas entertainment jobs are on the line at a time when every new job definitely counts.

-- Si Dunn

Fiction Is as Fiction Does: The 'Waco' Movie Controversy Rolls On

One essential point –- fiction -- keeps getting missed as criticisms and free publicity continue for the screenplay for Entertainment 7’s Waco movie project.

No matter how “accurate” anyone thinks it should be, a screenplay –- any screenplay -- is a fabrication, a “play” for presentation on a “screen.” And any movie made from the screenplay will be even more of a fictional representation, once the director, actors, crew and post-production specialists have added their own contributions to the finished product.

The ex-FBI agent who lashed out at the screenplay on the front page of the June 24 Austin American-Statesman certainly is free to criticize the “accuracy” of how he thinks people, places and events are depicted in the script. However, anyone who witnesses or takes part in an event will have his or her own memories, interpretations and opinions of what happened -- or did not happen. Even if a million video cameras had recorded every moment of the 1993 Branch Davidian standoff from all sides and angles, there is absolutely no way to create a screenplay that could get the standoff “right” in every person's view.

A screenplay compresses people, places, things, images and circumstances into a stylized structure with three acts. A screenplay tells a story, and that story always is fiction, even when it is based on “real” events.

Even unscripted “reality” TV shows are unreal. They are just one more form of fiction (bad fiction).

Speaking of “real,” the real result of Texas' controversial "Ogden provision" (ironically named, since Utah is the only other state with a similar, thin-skinned restriction) is that State Sen. Steve Ogden of Bryan, Texas, can take credit for creating new moving-image industry jobs…in Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and elsewhere. Those states, and almost any others including Utah, likely will have no qualms about hosting -- and profiting from -- movie, TV or game projects that portray “Texas or Texans in a negative fashion.”

Sen. Ogden got the "negative fashion" provision added to state law in 2007, the Austin American-Statesman says, "after controversy erupted around the Texas-filmed 2006 sports drama "'Glory Road,' which tells the story of 1966 Texas Western Miners, and, according to school supporters, exaggerated racism at East Texas State University."

It has been noted in the Statesman and elsewhere that classic “Texas” movies such as Giant and The Last Picture Show and TV shows such as Dallas probably could not qualify for current production incentives, because they sometimes depict Texas and Texans “in a negative fashion.” Yet those productions continue to bring tourism dollars to Texas and expand the state’s aura around the world many years after they disappeared from theaters and networks.

The Ogden provision puts the Texas Film Commissioner in the unenviable position of trying to verify the “accuracy” of fiction, a writing form in which anything goes, and to use that "accuracy" as one of the criteria for judging “negative fashion.” Some call this censorship or a state legislative attempt to override free speech provisions in the U.S. Constitution. Others just call it "dumb" and "bad business." Texas has had dubious reputations since at least 1835, yet it has managed to do quite well for itself, thank you very much.

Any movie version of the Branch Davidian standoff would be fiction. The standoff could even be staged in a parallel universe on the planet Yargon in the year 3456. But if the script portrayed “Texas or Texans in a negative fashion,” the project still might not qualify for state production incentives.

At the very least, the continuing controversy over Waco may cause many movie producers to consider spending their money and shooting their “Texas” movies anywhere but Texas, so they won't run afoul of state restrictions and state lawmakers.

As long as the 2007 “negative fashion” restrictions stay in place, perhaps the state’s famous “Don’t Mess with Texas…” slogan should be expanded. It could now include “…or We’ll Diss Your Screenplay and Keep Making Our Moving-Image Workers Cross State Lines to Find Jobs.”

-- Si Dunn

'Waco' Movie Controversy Takes a New Texas Twist

One of the producers involved in the controversial movie project Waco has resigned her post as head of international sales for Entertainment 7 and contends that political "pressure from above" the Texas Film Commission caused state incentives to be denied to the $30 million production, which focuses on the 1993 Branch Davidian standoff that left more than 80 people dead.

Tara Wood adds that her work on the Waco project "as it pertains to assistance with funding" is complete, and she will return to Austin soon to focus on her Texas-based entertainment distribution company. Emilio Ferrari, head of Sherman Oaks, Calif.-based Entertainment 7, will remain the Waco project's lead producer, she says.

"It’s very unfortunate that Texas will not benefit from this project," she says. "I’ve lived in Austin for 15 years, going back and forth to L.A., and have been actively involved in trying to get the film community back on track. This is quite a blow. I was very encouraged when the most recent bump in incentives went through, because it actually allowed us to consider Texas to shoot. I’m shocked at this [Texas Film Commission] decision.

"Since Mr. Ferrari has made that ridiculous statement 'will never ever shoot in Texas,' I have left his company as head of international sales of Entertainment 7. I’ll be damned if I worked this hard to have someone be that reckless! I have a Texas-based distribution company and will put all my efforts there again."

Ms. Wood notes: "When this all went down, the last thing I wanted was to be associated with anything against Texas or the Texan people. My argument is against the language in the provisions [which bars portraying "Texas or Texans in a negative fashion" in any project seeking state production incentives]. In my opinion, this is blatant censorship, and ‘the state’ of Texas needs to take a step into this generation. The picture is going to be made with or without Texas, with another state reaping the benefits, most likely Louisiana (again). It was unfortunate that [Texas Film Commissioner] Bob Hudgins has been attacked in all of this. He made the mistake of taking the blame and becoming the state’s scapegoat by stating it was his decision. If you know Bob, you know he wouldn’t deny the Texas people the benefits. I firmly believe there was pressure from above."

-- Si Dunn

Texas Movie Incentives: The 'Censorship' Controversy Continues

Texans and outsiders hoping to produce moving-image projects (movies, TV shows, documentaries or video games) with state assistance are beginning to wake up to the realities of a legislative restriction that some now decry as "censorship."

A statute signed into law with little fanfare in June, 2007, established the following conditions under which the state-funded Texas Film Commission is supposed to review applications for grants to assist moving-image productions:

"The office is not required to act on any grant application and may deny an application because of inappropriate content or content that portrays Texas or Texans in a negative fashion, as determined by the office, in a moving image project. In determining whether to act on or deny a grant application, the office shall consider general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the citizens of Texas."

The part causing the most debate and heartburn at the moment involves the language where the Texas Film Commission "may deny an application because of inappropriate content or content that portrays Texas or Texans in a negative fashion, as determined by the office..."

Texas Film Commissioner Bob Hudgins recently denied a state grant to assist the production of a $30-million movie project called Waco, after some of the participants and observers of the 1993 Branch Davidian standoff that resulted in more than 80 deaths claimed its screenplay was "inaccurate" and portrayed some real-life characters in a negative light. Numerous Texas entertainment workers were hoping to get jobs on the Waco project. But one of the movie's producers has since stated that his company will "never ever" shoot a movie in Texas as a result of the ruling.

Some opponents of the Texas Film Commission ruling, including this writer, have voiced opinions that the Waco movie would be a work of fiction, no matter how truly "based on real events" it is, and the Texas Film Commissioner thus has been tasked by state legislators to censor fiction.

After all, some of the most successful and enduring movies about Texas, including Giant and The Last Picture Show, have not portrayed Texas and Texans in a positive fashion. Neither have movies such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and TV shows such as Dallas. But Giant and Dallas have brought tons of tourism dollars to Texas and are still paying off decades later. And other movies and TV shows, including the definitely inaccurate Walker, Texas Ranger, also will pay tourism and "image" dividends to Texas for many years to come.

Texas may as well face the truth. The state's image has been less than angelic to the outside world since at least 1836, and there's just no way the Texas Legislature will ever be able to stuff that genie back into a Shiner beer bottle.

Here are links to some of the ongoing discussions voicing criticism or approval of the Texas Film Commission action:


The Austinist.com

The Austinist.com

The Austin American-Statesman

The Texas Legislature currently is bogged down in a pile of partisan political battles over voter ID cards and other issues, and its session will end soon. Thus, the "in a negative fashion" restriction may keep generating controversy--and negative light for Texas politicans' lack of enlightenment--and keep causing job losses for many months or years to come.

-- Si Dunn

#

Hanging out with Robert Rodriguez and Gov. Rick Perry

Well, actually, I was just one of several hundred people standing in a big room at Troublemakers Studios in Austin, April 23. We were watching filmmaker Robert Rodriguez and Texas Governor Rick Perry enjoy a well-earned Big Moment in the media spotlight as the Governor signed legislation that will boost moving image production in the Lone Star State.

Gov. Perry came to Troublemakers Studios in a Texas-sized white limousine that had a movie camera as its hood ornament. He's also one of the few U.S. governors who belongs to the Screen Actors Guild (SAG)--which is a bit funny, since Texas is a right-to-work state and Gov. Perry, a social conservative, is no big fan of unions and guilds.

He got ringing applause, however, from the gathered crowd of Central Texans who work in the movie, TV, game and related entertainment businesses, because the newly enacted incentives promise to bring more projects -- and jobs -- to Texas.

The legislation was spearheaded by State Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin). She said the new law, which went into effect immediately, will give the Texas Film Commission more flexibility when deciding on the size of grants that it can award to movie, TV or game production companies. Approximately $20 million is now in place, and another $40 million in funding is now being debated as separate legislation in the Texas House and Senate. "We don't believe in outsourcing (entertainment industry jobs), especially to Louisiana and New Mexico," she said.

"Oh, we're gonna be busy!" Gov. Perry commented before he sat down to sign the legislation. " He noted that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal recently came to Austin for a visit, and Perry told Jindal: "All those movies you've been having in Louisiana? They're gonna be coming to Texas!"

Gov. Perry added that "the moving image industry has brought in more than $1.2 billion to Texas over the past 10 years. I promise you, this legislation is gonna blow that figure away."

One bystander, San Antonio lawyer David Yanez, remarked before the event that he is changing his focus from state politics to becoming an entertainment attorney. "People want to film in Texas," he said. But he cautioned that states cannot keep trying to outdo each other with production incentives. Before long, the incentives playing field will be more or less level. When that happens, state film commissions may have to create "alliances of states" in their area. In other words, rather than compete with each other, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico and possibly other states may have to team up to compete with California and other areas of the U.S. for movie, TV and game projects.

After the event, I tried to meet Robert Rodriguez, but his line of admirers was too long, and he appeared anxious to move on and get back to work. The Governor also was busy shaking many hands. Anyway, I'm not one of Gov. Perry's political fans; I think he has been wrongheaded on many issues, including trying to refuse federal money to help the unemployed in Texas.

But this event was good news for Texas' beleaguered entertainment industry. I give full points to all who helped push the legislation through--and to the governor who encouraged it and signed it.

Maybe he'll get a few plum movie parts after Kay Bailey Hutchison defeats him in the governor's race in 2010.

-- Si Dunn

One Man's 'Pork' Is Another Man's Movie Project That Creates Jobs

By Si Dunn

The leaders of the Ridiculous Republicans have just published a list of what they consider "wasteful" spending in the Senate's version of an economic stimulus bill.

Near the top of their list is a "$246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film," according to CNN.

Wait a minute. Aren't the Ridiculous Republicans all about reducing taxes? Are they now labeling a tax cut as "pork"?

Clearly they don't understand anything about the movie business.

Number one, it's expensive to make a movie, especially with film. And, despite all of the great digitial advances in recent years, film remains a very beautiful and viable medium for making movies. Movies made with film still look better than movies made digitally. And using film forces better planning and efficiency on the set. You don't just turn on a camera and let it run for two hours while people horse around and do 32 takes of one scene.

A tax break on the cost of film means a producer can put more money elsewhere into his or her production. That means more crew members can be hired. And at least some of the film specialists at post-production labs get to keep their jobs.

Producers who buy film also help keep employees of film manufacturing companies and film processing labs both productive and earning money for their companies.

Things definitely have not been great at Kodak lately. Some of the survivors of recent Kodak layoffs no doubt are now looking to Congress for help with keeping their jobs. Selling more movie film would keep at least some of them employed.

With a tax break on film sales, film editors get more work. Camera operators and focus pullers with experience on film cameras get more work. Lighting crews with experience on film projects get more work. Other members of production crews also get more work.

Jobs are created, and jobs are saved.

This is exactly the sort of economic stimulus that is needed now. And the Ridiculous Republicans are--to put it gently--scurrilous scoundrels and running dogs for opposing it.

You can't incessantly run around screaming "Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Tax cuts!" to the heavens and the moon and then oppose a tax break that both saves and creates jobs in a time of frighteningly high unemployment.

#