FILMMAKER ETHOS 101: ‘The Calvary Is Not Coming’

Last night I texted a filmmaker friend to check in on how his “turn-a-proof-of-concept-short-into his-first-feature-film” process was going. His response gave me pause. He said, and I paraphrase, “I don’t really get involved with the business stuff, I let the producer(s) do that.”

I wanted to respond saying that he should be involved with all the business — knowing it intimately, and frankly how to do it as well as someone who is just a producer! But I didn’t say anything because in knowing this person and where they’re at in their journey, I sensed that they’re not ready.

Then about an hour after having that text exchange I thought back to a college film professor job I applied for a few months ago. I’ve always had a fraught relationship with film school programs — mainly because they don’t prepare people for the realities of the film industry and seem interested in selling false hopes and dreams (or just being schools that want to profit off of creative desires). But in reflecting upon my own journey, and having authored an film school Op Ed previously, I’ve realized that I do want to teach someday — namely so that I could help others better navigate the landmines, roadblocks and stupidity of the film business than I have. I’ve learned a lot the very hard way and so as I put together my Teaching Philosophy for the film professor application I began with a holistic understanding and definition of what makes someone a filmmaker. An ethos that comes from my own lived and learned professional experience and something I’ve realized that might help other filmmakers as they set out on their journey.

Because after hearing my friend’s response last night I thought “there are too many filmmaker houses built on bad foundations” and maybe I can be a part of a solution by sharing that philosophy so folks can put themselves in a better position to succeed (however you define that…more on that in a little bit).

So here we go:

  1. A filmmaker is a storyteller. Humanity needs stories to help understand the world. And stories need storytellers — people who both know how to tell a story, and which stories to tell. Filmmakers are part of this ancient and grand tradition.

  2. A filmmaker has “vision”. A filmmaker identifies what story they are going to tell and not just why they are telling it, but why they are the only person for the job.

  3. A filmmaker is an entrepreneur. The film industry is a business. Every filmmaking endeavor is a new business enterprise. And every business enterprise has its own economy. Every new film or television series that one endeavors to bring to life will be a new business that they need to build from the ground up. Each of these enterprises will need to be accomplishable at their respective budget, and be an enterprise that pays for itself while also generating revenue. Having a great idea for a business (read; having a great creative idea/story to tell in film or television form) is one thing, but knowing and understanding how to build each new enterprise from scratch, within its own economy, is as important as knowing why filmmakers tell stories.

  4. A filmmaker knows their audience. With respect to the grandest of traditions, and understanding that filmmaking is a business, a filmmaker tells stories for audiences. But that being said, there’s also the greatest difference between what a filmmaker personally wants, and creatively what the story needs in order for it to connect with its intended audience. Part of a filmmaker knowing how to translate the story they want to tell into a realistic and accomplishable business enterprise means knowing what their story needs to accomplish in order to reach their intended audience. At every phase of the filmmaking process, knowing who you are telling a story to/for and why you are telling that specific story to them, influences every decision and aspect of both the creative and entrepreneurial process. Filmmaking is actually a very non linear endeavor whereby a filmmaker needs to understand the end of the business enterprise, knowledge which actually informs the strategy for its beginnings.

  5. A filmmaker serves the story. Too often we see filmmaker egos and hubris motivating choices and a leadership style. Instead I have learned, and believe, that all of our choices and actions as filmmakers need to be in service of what the story needs to connect with an audience while supporting the underlying story, themes and characters organically. We are not making movies for ourselves, or an audience of one (unless you have the good fortune and privilege of being in that unique position, but few realistically do); we are making movies and television for others to consume. That understanding doesn’t mean disregarding our individual vision or creative desires along the way — after all, we are filmmakers making strong choices and executive decisions — it just means that we need to constantly be thinking about how to reach and connect with an audience. And to do that, we need to know who our audience is.

  6. A filmmaker is a good leader and selfless collaborator. There’s always been a classical misconception in our industry that filmmakers have to be self centered, egotistical jerks — people who yell, scream, are rude and are emotionally volatile. We’ve all seen an industry that historically rewarded those types of behavior and so the myth has become pervasive. These are character flaws and are not required to be a visionary or an auteur. Operating that way simply alienates a filmmaker’s collaborators and peers. Filmmaking is about surrounding yourself with creative collaborators you know and trust, people whose choices and input you respect because you know it will elevate the story you’re telling and who you’re telling it for. By the time the filmmaker gets to set — physical production — they’ve empowered their collaborators with the tools and passion to iterate and execute the declared goals. A filmmaker is meant to inspire and lead, trusting in the collaborators they’ve surrounded themselves with. As great leaders of any ilk do.

  7. A filmmaker makes plans. Filmmakers spend as much time as they can in development, planning and pre-production. Filmmakers need to make their project on paper before they make it on set when they’re spending finite time and money. By the time a filmmaker gets to physical production they’re there to make sure that everyone is aboard the same metaphorical train, headed towards the same goal. A filmmaker is there to solve problems when they come up (as they surely will). A filmmaker’s ability to solve those problems in a level headed and precise manner — trusting, respecting and empowering our creative collaborators, and reassuring everyone that their “train” is still headed in the right direction — all comes from preparation, experience and thorough planning.

  8. A filmmaker knows and understands every granular component, process and element of the development, pre-production, production, post-production, distribution and marketing periods. A filmmaker must know how to take any creative idea from inception to completion. Part of this study and practice is not just so a filmmaker can be self-generating and self-reliant, but so that should a filmmaker choose to focus their path and work on one area of the filmmaking process, a filmmaker still knows where every other piece of the puzzle comes from and how they fit together. This will also allow a filmmaker to empathize and understand their collaborators, their process and what they are navigating as they work to support the filmmaker’s singular vision. Take the time to learn everyone’s names and walk a mile in their shoes. That way when a filmmaker challenges someone to extend themselves or rise to the occasion, they will both respect and understand each other. This is also part of being a great leader.

  9. A director must also be a producer. Holistic producers, as defined by the Sundance Film Institute, are unfortunately a dying breed. Instead of expecting to find, or relying on a gatekeeper to help you push the boulder that is your film up a hill, a film director must know how to produce not only because they will have too, but also so they know and can anticipate how a producer works once they have the opportunity to collaborate with one. In this way a director will have agency and can be their own best advocate, instead of depending on or expecting someone else to do everything for them.

  10. A filmmaker ideates endlessly. There’s no such thing as a bad idea, only ideas that lead to better ones. Don’t worry about discarding ideas and projects that don’t add up or worry about getting frustrated by work that falls into Ira Glass’ “the gap”. Like any other craft and job, the more one practices, the more experienced they become. Because film costs a lot and depends on the corralling and coalescing of so many disparate voices and collaborators it’s not possible to always “just go make a movie”. Ideating offers an affordable solution and a way to continue to grow and learn as a storyteller, leader and collaborator. Constantly ideating forces one to analyze underlying narrative needs and find creative solutions to novel and/or expensive problems in the stories you aim to tell. A filmmaker is also not afraid to finish a project, even if it’s not perfect and to move on — while also knowing when an idea is good enough to set aside or conversely, knowing when to quit a project. A filmmaker knows that quitting is not a pejorative word. It’s a useful and empowering reality.

  11. A filmmaker defines success themselves. Success means different things to different people. It’s up to every individual filmmaker to determine whether critical or financial or peer recognition — or something else entirely — means that they’ve “made it”. Don’t let anyone else define this for you. By maintaining agency over your own goals you’ll be doing what you love, precisely because you love it for reasons only specific to you.

  12. A filmmaker sends the elevator back down. When you can, take the time to help others out. Our industry is already hard enough and full of bad apples. To assist the future film maker in navigating their own path through the industry, remember how hard it was for you to get started as a filmmaker. Filmmaking is not a competition and a high tide raises all ships in the harbor. In this way we can make our industry a better place for future generations of storytellers — especially those who have been disregarded and disenfranchised for far too long. One is never too old to learn something new and one of the most beautiful things about making films is that those lessons can come from anyone.

All this being said, as much as my ethos comes from my professional and practiced experience, it also comes from what I wish I had been told — instead of figuring it out the slow and painful way. It’s already hard enough to be a working filmmaker but it does not have to be hard to get started on the journey of becoming one. It just takes looking at the challenge of it all from a different perspective. And even then, it’ll still be hard, but just maybe a little more navigable.

Lest it go unsaid, many others have said things like this before. The most inspired though is Mark Duplass’ incredible keynote address from SXSW 2015. If you haven’t seen that address, it’s 55 minutes long and worth watching every minute of. Also, I’m straight up borrowing his phrase “the calvary aren’t coming” for the title of this article. No shame.

TOXIC HIGH

“In the summer of 1991, Middletown high school, roughly 70 miles north of Manhattan acquired a handful of video cameras. The goal was to train the school’s teenage students in film-making and media production, using local subjects as a starting point – perhaps a documentary about the city’s sports teams or an amateur talkshow. Instead, under the tutelage of Middletown high’s popular English teacher, Fred Isseks, a rowdy and diverse group of teenagers organized themselves into an investigative journalism unit.

Officially, Isseks’ class was open only to the school’s oldest students, aged 16 to 18 – but, unofficially, it welcomed everyone. Kids not even enrolled in the course joined Isseks’ students in shooting short films. The teenagers alternated between grungy early-90s flannel and choker necklaces and awkward attempts at business attire as they honed their reporting skills.

Isseks’ course, known as Electronic English, would propel many of its students into careers in media production and environmental law, but at the time their work did not receive universal approval. There were warnings of arrest from the county sheriff; near-total disinterest from the city’s local newspaper; public frustration from regional politicians; and at least one death threat. All because over the next six years, culminating in 1997, students passing through Isseks’ high school class would film, edit, and release a feature-length documentary that exposed a generation’s worth of illegal, mob-connected dumping of toxic materials in their part of New York state.”

I read about Fred and his Electronic English class in February of 2002. As the child of a life long public school teacher - and a public school student myself - I was instantly moved by Fred’s belief that teenagers need to be given work with genuine meaning and consequence in the world, an ethos which shaped his entire teaching career and, in the process, change his students’ lives.

Alas, by time I reached out to Fred, Rise Films in the UK had already beat us to the punch. But that aside, I’m glad that this story is being told. Visit Fred’s blog where you can watch, GARBAGE GANGSTERS AND GREED, the documentary his students made between 1991 and 1997.

PALMER

This is something I regret.

In 2017 I was offered to direct PALMER. I passed because I had an original film called NORTH about an ex-convict that I thought would get made soon.

Well, NORTH still hasn’t been made. And PALMER came out last month.

Live and learn. When someone offers you an open door, walk through it.

Screen Shot 2021-02-11 at 8.06.10 AM.png

REMAKING THE 1985 FILM 'VISION QUEST' (well….trying to)

A few months ago I was asked to consider directing a nearly note-for-note remake of the 1985 film VISION QUEST.

As someone who enjoyed the original in it’s day, I eagerly agreed to meet with the production company on the remake, Temple Hill, and tell them what I’d do with the film. Temple Hill makes big Hollywood films. You may have heard of some of them; MAZE RUNNER, TWILIGHT, FIRST MAN, LOVE SIMON, etc.

I like big Hollywood films and am eagerly working on getting my film THE WHITE ROOM made with Amblin Partners (a dream come true situation). In the interim, I’m trying to make other movies that come my way, like this one.

I knew I’d have to lay out a big bold plan on the table for Temple Hill to see how and why my vision for the remake would work. Namely how I’d make sure that the unrealistic and improbable relationships in from the 1985 film were challenged and that the story was contemporized …in a big way.

I also wanted to tell Temple Hill about the unique idea I have about how to re-make an 80’s film — a technique that has never been done before. So I went in for a meeting at the studio and told them what I’d do.

After thinking for the past 4 months about the vision I presented them, I need to get the idea out there in the world because it’s burning a hole in my brain. Don’t worry I already registered and copy-wrote the re-make premise. I’ve decided to share it here because even if I don’t get to make the film, I’d like to put some good creative energy out into the world.

So I’m here to share with you what I proposed — and why I proposed it.

But first, for those who don’t know the 1985 version of VISION QUEST, it’s a coming-of-age film (based on Terry Davis’ novel “Vision Quest”) about high school wrestling starring Matthew Modine, Linda Fiorentino, Michael Schoeffling and Ronny Cox.

Modine, whose role as Louden Swain put him on the Hollywood radar, plays a Spokane high wrestler who falls in love with an older woman, an aspiring singer from New Jersey on her way to San Francisco.

If you’re wondering why she drove completely out of the way from NJ to Spokane before heading to LA, don’t worry about that, it’s not addressed or answered.

The 1985 film includes an appearance from Madonna, her first in a major motion picture, playing a singer at a local bar.

In the film Louden Swain (Modine) has just turned 18 and decides that he needs to do something truly meaningful in his life. He’s already THE BEST wrestler at school in his weight class but he embarks on a personal mission to drop two weight classes to challenge the area’s toughest opponent, Brian Shute — the Bag Man — a menacing three-time state champion from nearby rival Hoover HIgh School. The Bag Man has never been defeated. In Louden’s zeal to drop from 190 pounds to 168 pounds, and achieve personal glory (ignoring that wrestling is a team sport where individual wins add to your school’s total) and ignoring the wishes of his coach, his best friend Kuch, and the rest of his teammates — Louden becomes VOCEL — voluntary celibate (he’s a virgin anyway — and a handsome, strapping 18 year old virgin which is made VERY CLEAR OFTEN in the film). These two choices disrupt the team around him and create health problems of his own.

Meanwhile Louden’s father has taken in a 28 year old bombshell named Carla who was passing through, on her way from Trenton New Jersey to Los Angeles. Carla’s car broke down on the outskirts of town and conveniently Louden’s father is a mechanic who can get the part for her broken car, but she’s gonna have to wait a week or two for the part to arrive (it’s the 80’s, things too longer). While she waits for the part for her car to arrive, Swain Senior gave her Louden’s old room upstairs in the house — as Louden lives and trains in the basement.

Carla is headed to LaLa Land to make it as a singer but she’s never had the courage to perform an original song. She’s a damsel in distress — and clearly not capable of taking care of herself or pursuing her dreams till the men of the Swain Family get involved.

Though Carla is 10 years older than Louden, and far more experienced and worldly, Louden’s shirtless roving and exercise regimes around the house turn Carla on.

While Carla is getting all hot and bothered for this virginal man — Louden too wants to get with Carla and his lust causes him to lose sight of his goals to achieve personal glory in a new weight class — while potentially losing the whole meet for his team.

Worse, Louden’s drastic weight loss (not eating, extreme workouts, etc) culminate in an unhealthy situation where he gets frequent nosebleeds. Meanwhile Carla gets a job as a bartender in town, where there just happened to be a temp position open.

Sexual tension continues to rise and finally the two admit their lust for each other. But then Carla realizes she is distracting Louden from his goal of personal glory. Not wanting Louden to both conquer her in bed AND forsake conquering The Bag Man on the mat — Carla decides to move out of the Swain house (her car is now fixed) and continue to Los Angeles…

….but not before seeing Louden’s big match where he pins The Bag Man in the final seconds of the match.

Phew. Okay, that’s the plot of the 1985 film. If you’re a reasonable person you’re thinking like me “This story can’t exist in the world, it’s unrealistic in more ways than one, and it shows a completely impossible version of life, sex and relationships that wouldn’t be smart to show to audiences, especially young men.”

If you’re a reasonable person you too would know that there’s no place in today’s film cannon for a note-for-note remake of that story. That’s the biggest elephant in the room — something my proposed re-make immediately addresses.

But before we get into my proposed remake I want to tell you what I knew about Temple Hill’s remake mandates going into the meeting:

1. Temple Hill wants their remake to have a FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS vibe and feel where the whole town needs a win and the sports team gives (or takes away) their hopes and dreams.

2. Temple Hill wants this to be a film for wide release — a film for all audiences to enjoy. A classic studio movie.

In order to achieve those mandates we’d have to address two additional big elephants in the 2019 room.

  1. Wrestling isn’t a cool sport these days compared to basketball or football — and most people don’t remember or know the original VISION QUEST movie — except wrestlers everywhere who still celebrate and love the original (it’s already a cult classic to them).

  2. Wrestling’s popularity is hard to measure. We know that people wrestle everywhere but how do we tell a story about life, coming of age, community, etc where wrestling and competition provides the framework. That way the movie appeals to all audiences — not just wrestlers and wrestling communities.

My proposed re-make found a way to use those aspects of the story as strengths — and address the first and biggest elephant in the room about making a responsible film for contemporary audiences.

Here’s the idea I brought to Temple Hill.

Thesis: My 2019 remake will turn the 1985 original in a modern day cult classic by re-introducing it to audiences everywhere, by telling a socially and culturally responsible tale — and at the same time reimagine the way we re-make films — something that’s never been done before.

It’s 2019 in a middle class, blue collar small Iowa town wrestling with modernity and a changing America; the factories have all shut down, folks are moving towards bigger cities, life as we know it is up in the air.

Two high schoolers and best friends, Landon and King (our Louden and Kuch characters from 1985) lament the fact that the football program was cancelled two years ago and how they never got to play under the Friday Night Lights. They’re now seniors.

After their football program was cut, the school created a wrestling program. Less money, smaller team, less resources, etc. The team isn’t very good — but Landon and King are okay on the mat. Well, passable. They win a few but lose most of them. They’re tired of losing most of the time — just like everyone else is in this town.

Their discovery of a worn out VHS tape copy of the 1985 film VISION QUEST in an abandoned warehouse sets them on their path to glory…but they don’t know this yet.

Landon and King watch the VHS tape and think the plot of the 1985 movie is absurd. And because they’re modern teenage boys, they think the movie is just weird and very NOT cool. But still, because they’re wrestlers — boys participating in an uncool sport that nobody knows or cares about — they do think it’s pretty cool that their fall sport was once a big deal.

And the boys see the heart in the original film — and they see themselves in the characters — it’s King who first points out that even their names are so similar to the characters Louden and Kuch in the original. It’s only when they see an announcement on Facebook that the Iowa State Champ, and best wrestler and competition in their district — Saber — just got a full ride athletic scholarship to wrestle at the D1 level.

Could Saber be their Bag Man, like Shute was in the 1985 movie?? And is it weird that they found the VHS tape in an abandoned warehouse, in a similar manner to how the 1985 film begins?? Some of the parallels between their lives and the lives of the characters in this movie are uncanny.

They show the 1985 VHS tape their team — all of whom laugh, cry, and cringe at the original. But something happens to them as they watch the 1985 film — they begin to bond as a team for the first time. It’s not lost on the group that the plot of the original film is unrealistic and a male fantasy.

Landon suggests that this single copy of VISION QUEST is their new “holy grail” — and it will give them the strength they need to win — and that the team and town could win glory. Of course he’s joking, but then they all kind of start buying into it.

The wrestling team begins quoting the film incessantly, driving everyone crazy at school, home, and their after school jobs. The wrestling team makes screen print t-shirts with the 80’s style VISION QUEST logo. They start listening to the songs from the 80’s featured in the film — training to Lunatic Fringe by Red Rider, like the boys in the 1985 film.

Then two things happen.

King gets hurt and Landon has to step in and wrestle in his best friend’s weight class — otherwise the team doesn’t stand a chance of winning. Someone can easily take Landon’s weight class but Landon is the only one who can cut weight and take King’s place.

And it’s not just taking King’s weight class at this match — Landon is going to have to wrestle Saber, the Iowa State champ going out for the US Olympic Team.

At the same time Cara moves home to take care of her ailing mother who has Alzehimer’s. Cara, 28 (and whose name is strangely similar to Carla’s from the 1985 film) had been living in New York City, bartending while trying to start her songwriting career. Cara is the prodigal daughter of the town — she was the most talented at everything back in her days, and she was a model student.

Some look at Cara and wonder if this means her hopes and dreams have been put aside forever. Cara is upbeat and positive though; doing what one must do. She’s a role model for anyone. But inside, she’s in pain — afraid of her future and her songwriting career which she barely considers a career.

Of course Landon develops a crush on Cara who was his babysitter 15 years ago. But Cara isn’t one for 18 year old boys and laughs off Landon’s attempts to hit on her. Cara does tell him she’s more than happy to tell him a few things about how to be a good guy. Seems like Landon has more than one set of obstacles to overcome.

Eventually it’s Cara’s return to her hometown that will give her the storytelling material she needs to write an amazing song — an anthem for both the team and the town. A song she’ll perform at an open mic night in town, trying out new material. There are no A&R scouts there, just the people from her community who propped her up and gave her love and support when she needed it.

Of course Landon barely makes weigh in as he cuts weight — and worse yet, he’s struggling in practices. Before the big match against the reigning Iowa State Champs, the entire school re-creates, note for note — the pep rally scene from the 1985 original film. Landon is nervous and knows he’s out of his league facing Saber. But for the first time he seems to be getting to know a girl he has a crush on, someone his own age.

The next day when the team shows up to visit the reigning Iowa State Champs they realize that their rivals too have a copy of the 1985 film VISION QUEST!! Their rivals come dressed in outfits from the 80’s, listening to the soundtrack — the whole nine yards. They weren’t the only ones with a “holy grail”. How will they ever stand a chance now??

In the end, Landon will come close but he won’t beat Saber. He did his best. And that’s what matters. In defeat he, and the rest of the team realize that the whole meet is all tied….and there’s one other match to go.

Going into the final match to determine the winner of the whole meet — the underdog team and all of their supporters gather to cheer on Scrub, the scrawniest kid on the team who has never won a match. But it’s come down to this match to determine who wins the meet.

And Scrub wins. Cheered to victory by his team and the entire community. A classic underdog story come to life. The team’s victory gives town something to cheer for because right now in America, no matter where you are, everyone needs a win.

That’s the idea I proposed months ago. And I still think it would make a great re-make.

I still believe that placing the original 1985 film into the remake, we could call on the best parts of the original story AND call out the unrealistic male fantasy elements, relationships and character/gender stereotypes — all while supporting the studio mandate of making a film about a community inside a responsible and realistic coming of age story.

I also told Temple Hill they could re-release the 1985 film (on VHS!!), sell t-shirts and other merchandise based on the original property, make Snapchat and Facebook filters where kids could place themselves into 1985 era graphics and visuals, etc. Basically the studio could do everything they wanted to market TWO FILMS to audiences — turning the original film into a cult classic.

I don’t know what Temple Hill thinks of my idea for the “re-make” so I’ll just keep working on making my movies. Happy to be here doing what I love.

DR. RAPP

Jeff Maysh’s story in The Atlantic (link here) describes the life of Dr. Sherman Hershfield, a respected neurologist from Beverly Hills, who practiced medicine in California’s San Fernando Valley. When Hershfield suffered a stroke, an unusual side effect changed his life forever: He couldn’t stop speaking in rhyme. Remarkably, Hershfield then emerged in South Central as a freestyle performer, “Dr. Rapp.”

We lost this one to Netflix again. No shame. Just gotta keep trying.

THE WATCHER

We (myself and Dark Castle Entertainment) tried to option this article. We lost out to Screen Arcade.

But that aside, this would have made an amazing film.

I don’t want to spoil the longread, linked here, but I’ll post this from the article to whet your appetite.

“A family bought their dream house. But according to the creepy letters they started to get, they weren’t the only ones interested in it.”

GODSPEED, documentary feature

I'm just going to post the story from The Washington Post. It's too good not to make into a documentary. Now if I could just find someone who wants to produce it...

Seeking to prove that a conspiracy of astronauts fabricated the shape of the Earth, a California man intends to launch himself 1,800 feet high on Saturday in a rocket he built from scrap metal.

Assuming the 500-mph, mile-long flight through the Mojave Desert does not kill him, Mike Hughes told the Associated Press, his journey into the atmosflat will mark the first phase of his ambitious flat-Earth space program. Hughes’s ultimate goal is a subsequent launch that puts him miles above the Earth, where the 61-year-old limousine driver hopes to photograph proof of the disc we all live on.

“It’ll shut the door on this ball earth,” Hughes said in a fundraising interview with a flat-Earth group for Saturday’s flight. Theories discussed during the interview included NASA being controlled by round-Earth Freemasons and Elon Musk making fake rockets from blimps.

Hughes promised the flat-Earth community that he would expose the conspiracy with his steam-powered rocket, which will launch from a heavily modified mobile home — though he acknowledged that he still had much to learn about rocket science.

“This whole tech thing,” he said in the June interview. “I’m really behind the eight ball.”

That said, Hughes isn’t a totally unproven engineer. He set a Guinness World Record in 2002 for a limousine jump, according to Ars Technica, and has been building rockets for years, albeit with mixed results. There’s a brief hiss of boiling water, then . . . nothing. So Hughes walks up to the engine and pokes it with a stick, at which point a thick cloud of steam belches out toward the camera.

He built his first manned rocket in 2014, the Associated Press reported, and managed to fly a quarter-mile over Winkelman, Ariz. As seen in a YouTube video, the flight ended with Hughes being dragged, moaning from the remains of the rocket. The injuries he suffered put him in a walker for two weeks, he said. And the 2014 flight was only a quarter of the distance of Saturday’s mile-long attempt. And it was based on round-Earth technology. Hughes only recently converted to flat-Eartherism, after struggling for months to raise funds for his follow-up flight over the Mojave. It was originally scheduled for early 2016 in a Kickstarter campaign — “From Garage to Outer Space!” — that mentioned nothing about Illuminati astronauts, and was themed after a NASCAR event.

“We want to do this and basically thumb our noses at all these billionaires trying to do this,” Hughes said in the pitch video, standing in his Apple Valley, Calif., living room, which he had plastered with drawings of his rockets.

“They have not put a man in space yet,” Hughes said. “There are 20 different space agencies here in America, and I’m the last person that’s put a man in a rocket and launched it.” Comparing himself to Evel Knievel, he promised to launch himself from a California racetrack that year as the first step in his steam-powered leap toward space. The Kickstarter raised $310 of its $150,000 goal.

Hughes made other pitches, including a plan to fly over Texas in a “SkyLimo.” But he complained to Ars Technica last year about the difficulty of funding his dreams on a chauffeur’s meager salary. A year later, he called into a flat-Earth community Web show to announce that he had become a recent convert.

“We were kind of looking for new sponsors for this. And I’m a believer in the flat Earth,” Hughes said. “I researched it for several months.” The host sounded impressed. Hughes had actually flown in a rocket, he noted, whereas astronauts were merely paid actors performing in front of a CGI globe. “John Glenn and Neil Armstrong are Freemasons,” Hughes agreed. “Once you understand that, you understand the roots of the deception.”

The host talked of “Elon Musk’s fake reality,” and Hughes talked of “anti-Christ, Illuminati stuff.” After half an hour of this, the host told his 300-some listeners to back Hughes’s exploration of space.

While there is no one hypothesis for what the flat Earth is supposed to look like, many believers envision a flat disc ringed by sea ice, which naturally holds the oceans in. What’s beyond the sea ice, if anything, remains to be discovered.

“We need an individual who’s not compromised by the government,” the host told Hughes. “And you could be that man." A flat-Earth GoFundMe subsequently raised nearly $8,000 for Hughes. By November, the AP reported, his $20,000 rocket had a fancy coat of Rust-Oleum paint and “RESEARCH FLAT EARTH” inscribed on the side. While his flat-Earth friends helped him finally get the thing built, the AP reported, Hughes will be making adjustments right up to Saturday’s launch.

But he won’t be able to test the rocket before he climbs inside and attempts to steam himself at 500 mph across a mile of desert air. And even if it’s a success, he's promised his backers an even riskier launch within the next year, into the space above the disc. He told Ars Technica last year that the second phase of his mission might involve floating in a balloon up to 20,000 feet above the ground, then rocket-packing himself into outer space. “It’s scary as hell,” Hughes told the AP. “But none of us are getting out of this world alive.” This is true. And yet some hope to live to see its edges.

Update Feb 15 2018: Talked to Mad Mike Hughes. He wants to be paid to appear in a documentary. Ethically I can't do that. 

AN AGE OF NO INNOCENCE, fiction film

After reading my friend Eli Saslow's narrative non fiction story about a family dealing with the tragedy of the opioid epidemic, 'What Kind of Childhood Is That', I found a haunting story in the New Yorker called 'The Addicts Next Door'.

I then developed an idea, incorporating this landscape and issue, into a story that my wife and I referred to as 'a reverse Age of Innocence'. 

Ellen, a thirty year old woman living in a Charleston, West Virginia nearly has her life ruined after an affair with a married man, who comes from a large family of Appalachian politicians, lawyers, and police members, is revealed. Outcast by the patriarchy and tight knit community, who ignore her assertions that she was the one betrayed and hurt by a man who lied about his marital status and intentions. As Ellen struggles to regain her footing, a chance friendship with another outsider, a former addict, leads to an outing of the dark forces lurking beneath the surface of the family in status, whose own brother, a respected doctor, is selling Oxycodone illegally, contributing to numerous overdoses and several deaths in the surrounding rural communities. Set against the backdrop of a divided social, economic and political landscape, Ellen clears her name and reputation, and manages to effect change in her community.  

Background/Motivation:  

•  I wanted to make a female character driven film, inspired by my frustrations with the way women like Monica Lewinsky and Paula Broadwell were treated and had their lives ruined, while the men involved in their affairs were quickly forgiven and continued to climb up the career and social ladders.  I wanted to believe that the industry could get behind a cultural examination like this.

• And of course I was inspired by turning the situation in Edith Warton’s ‘The Age of Innocence’ on it’s head, and pairing it with an investigation into the opioid/Oxycodone epidemic raging in the bible belt and rural America.  

• The lead role is for an actress in her early 30’s - something I hoped the industry could get behind.  

But nobody in Hollywood was interested. 

FINDING LISA, fiction feature

This is a hard-to-believe-it's-true story about a woman who in her adult years finds out that her father was a serial killer, and not her father at all. 

I tried to pitch this as a fiction feature by my team at the time wasn't interested in the idea. 

Read it at the Boston Globe

A SURVIVOR'S LIFE, feature film

My friend Eli Saslow wrote this story about a young victim of a mass shooting in Oregon. Like with Eli's story about the Barden Family I wanted to make a story that was a character driven portrait - and not directly about the issue. Although of course I would hope that the issue would be the main thing people talked about after watching the movie.

I asked Brie Larson to play the lead role but wasn't able to find a producer who wanted to make the film. 

Read it at The Washington Post

A KISS BEFORE DYING, fiction feature

My friend Pamela Colloff wrote this story about Betty Williams, a fast girl from the wrong side of the tracks and Mack Herring, a handsome football player with all the right friends. When he broke up with her during her senior year in 1961, at Odessa High School, her world fell apart. But Betty asked Marck for one last favor: to kill her. 

Read it at the Texas Monthly

MONTANA 1948, fiction feature

My friend and producer Noah Lang shared Larry Watson's book 'Montana 1948' with me over a year ago and I finally got around to reading it yesterday (thank you Brooklyn Public Library).  It’s a story that de-sentimentalizes the myth of America and in a small way seeks to correct the most dangerous and harmful of our public lies.  The story demonstrates how a disturbing truth is preferable to a comforting lie - and a offers an appreciation of the moral complexity of our nation’s past and character.  

Those reasons alone are enough to make this into a movie. I believe that this is a film that would win Academy Awards. I want to make that film but I can't find anyone in Hollywood who wants to take a chance with the material. Echo Lake Productions/Entertainment bought the rights to Larry Watson's novel years ago and I'm still trying to find a way into that room.

Here’s the synopsis from Wikipedia:

When David's Native American housekeeper Marie Little Soldier falls ill, Frank Hayden, the local doctor and David's uncle, is called. When Marie refuses medical treatment from Frank, David's mother, Gail, discovers that Frank has been using his medical status to prey on the local Native American women. David's father, Wesley, is the local sheriff and begins to investigate these allegations against his brother, but is in a difficult situation between his loyalty to his family and his obligation to justice.

When Marie is found dead, Frank convinces the family that the cause of death was pneumonia. Wesley later confronts Frank about his actions at a family dinner at their parents' house and they reach a compromise, where Wes agrees to forget the whole incident. David, who was playing with his grandfather's pistol, once contemplates shooting Frank because of all the troubles he has given their family. Eventually, David decides to tell his parents the truth - that he had witnessed Frank leaving their house around the same time Marie had died, implying that Frank had something to do with her death.

Wesley eventually arrests Frank, who confesses to killing Marie and molesting Indian women, and holds him captive in the basement, in order to avoid the embarrassment Frank would experience by going to the local jail. Wesley and Frank's controlling and racist father Julian is strongly opposed to Frank's arrest and sends men to break Frank free when Wesley is not home. Gail manages to scare them away by firing warning shots into the air, while David calls for help. Gail later pleads for Wes to take Frank out of their home. Wesley's moral values override his family loyalty and he agrees to take his brother to the local jail the next day, but later that night the family wakes to the sound of jars breaking in the basement. In the morning, Wesley finds that Frank committed suicide by slitting his wrists with the broken glass.

The epilogue in the book is very powerful, especially a single moment where David and his wife are having dinner with his parents years later.  David’s father Wesley became a lawyer in North Dakota after what happened in Montana, and went on to lead a successful life and practice.  At this dinner, David’s wife asks about that summer and Wes sits quietly for a second before slamming his hands on the table and yelling out loud - a sign of the lingering pain and conflict that has existed in him ever since this story tore his family apart. And then after everyone has gone to bed, David sits in his father’s chair in the empty dining room, his hands on the table, trying to understand what it has been like for his father to walk miles in his boots.