Confessions of an Executive Producer

allen stewart konigsberg

Woody Allen turns 75 today. His films have left an indelible impression on me. He help me discover his New York, appreciate the Marx Brothers, and embrace therapy and neurosis. Putting aside the creepy Soon-Yi stuff, he is one of my all time favorite filmmakers. 

We could debate whether he is in the upper echelon of all time American directors but it's hard to argue whether he's the most prolific. The man has written and directed over 40 of his own films. He has released a film every year since 1969 starting with "Take the Money and Run" through his soon to be released "Midnight in Paris". For those keeping score, that's a feature film every year for 42 consecutive years. This streak makes Cal Ripkin look like Andrew Bynum. Okay, I mixed sports but it's the only comparison I could think of. 

Creatively speaking, how about this 10 year run starting in 1977:

Annie Hall, Interiors, Manhattan, Stardust Memories, A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, Zelig, Broadway Danny Rose, Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and Her Sisters, Radio Days. 

I wish there was more of his stuff on YouTube but here's a few noteworthy selects. Well worth the viewing and a few moments of appreciation. 

CLASSIC OPENING

I LOVED THE SLAPSTICK WOODY PRE BECOMING AN AUTEUR

 

ALWAYS CONTEMPLATING THE MEANING OF LIFE

 

POSSIBLY MY FAVORITE HIS FILMS. WATCH THESE CLIPS BACK TO BACK

  

VINTAGE ALLEN HUMOR AND PICK UP LINE

 

NO ONE CAPTURES NYC BETTER

 

 

the end of the season

In the early 80's Peter O'Toole starred in a movie callled "My Favorite Year". Growing up my sister Susan and I watched it 100 times. We taped it off HBO onto our betamax. How's that for dating myself. It's an underrated film. If you haven't seen it, rent it or stream it or however people watch movies these days. 

The movie is the story of a washed up Errol Flynn-esque movie star looking to make a comeback and earn some money by guest starting in a sketch comedy TV program based on Sid Caesar's "Show of Shows". In one scene in the movie Alan Swann, Peter O'Toole's character, quotes a famous English actor who on his deathbed proclaimed dying was easy but comedy is hard. As a producer I feel that way about episodic TV. 

Commercials are all about speed. Bid, prep, shoot, edit, and on air all within a matter of weeks. This is what makes them hard to produce and harder to make good. Yet again, you only need a good 30 seconds. Features are a huge time commitment. Getting all the pieces in place (talent, money, distribution) may be harder than actually making one. And then there is TV. 

Take an hour long network show like "Glee". They have to produce on average of 22 episodes from September thru May. This is approximately 17 hours of programming. In other words its the equivalent of producing 8 features...IN 9 MONTHS. Hard on production. Harder on the actors. Near impossible on the writers. 

You want to know why TV shows like "Hung" or "Mad Men" or "The Sopranos" are so good compared to network shows. They have 10 episode seasons with often 9 months or longer between the season ender and new season premiere. It is the perfect number to maintain a high creative standard. This works for cable or premium channels. Not for networks. 10 shows isn't enough product to generate the required revenue.

As my wife tunes into the season finales of her favorite shows, I started to think about TV from a producer standpoint. TV has the speed of spots, the longevity of features and the mind numbing repetition of shooting the same characters, sets and plot lines over and over. Even knowing the hardships, I mercilessly rag on her shows. I get on my intellectual high horse mourning the downfall of American culture with an unread New Yorker on my lap and one eye on "Gossip Girl". I begin to realize maybe the glut of bad TV it's not entirely the producers fault after all. 

forward thinking in reverse

My friend Ed Herbstman sent me this link. He thought it would make for an interesting post. He was right.

The video was made by the UK branch of Dorling Kindersley Books. It was originally created for internal company use but was so well received they decided to place it online. Ironically enough the concept was ripped off from an ad agency in Argentina. They applied the idea to a spot for a Presidential Candidate. The film won a Silver Lion at Cannes. Not sure how the politician fared.  

What I liked most about this video was the idea of re-purposing the same words. Finding a different meaning by playing around with what already exists. It's a message wrapped in a metaphor. Or, a metaphor wrapped in a message. 

The message is something we all hear everyday, media distribution is changing rapidly. It isn't as if people have stopped reading books or watching TV or listening to music, quite the contrary. The difference is they are just consuming them differently. 

No matter what the doom and gloomers say, it's only a matter of time before digital content is monetized on a large and sustainable scale. This is just another example of people publicly thinking aloud. By doing so, they encourage innovation and embrace the current and future culture.  

an undocumented life no longer

There was a new documentary that debuted at SXSW called "The People vs. George Lucas". It's an examination of the love/hate relationships between Lucas and his many Star Wars followers. I heard the director, Alexandre Philippe, speak last week on a panel. The creation of the film relied as heavily upon originally shot materials as it did on user generated footage. 

Another film that debuted at SXSW, "11.04.08" by Jeff Deutchman is about the day Obama was elected President. It explores this historic day through the experiences of a number of Americans. Like "P vs. G" it relies on user generated footage. In fact, it relies almost entirely upon user generated content. One reviewer called it more of a time capsule than a film. 

These two films raised an issue on curating versus filmmaking. If the director is relying upon other peoples film work other than their own, is it held in the same regard? Is it still art? Does it carry the same weight?

The point was brought up that documentaries are looking for some form of truth. There may be no better way to find it than from the vantage point of someone actually experiencing it and documenting it themselves. The filmmaker must still piece together these moments to communicate some type of narrative. You'd be hard pressed to find any documentarian who doesn't agree the filmmaking occurs more in the editorial than in the production. 

Through this discussion someone raised the issue that in this era if you wanted to make a video about the life of your 80 year old grandpa, you'd be hard pressed for materials. At best there would be a decent amount of photos and random film footage. The same holds true for a more contemporary individuals, like for example myself. Being the youngest of three kids born in the analog age there are very few images documenting my upbringing. Probably more than that 80 year old grandpa but not by much. 

Flash forward 30 years from now. It's my daughter Eliza's 40th Birthday. Her husband wants to make a video about her life. He will have more material then he'll know what do with. Video. Photos. Art work. Written word. Fortunately that lucky young man will have everything cataloged but that's an entirely different post about my organizational neurosis. 

At no time in human history has their been so many affordable, accessible and easy to use tools to document ones life. Even better, it's sharable, storable, and retains it's quality. 

As it relates to the discussion on curation versus filmmaking, Malcom McClaren said a long time ago all art is appropriation. Stealing from one source. Borrowing from another. Seasoning it with an original perspective to create something entirely new. Film is currently debating this topic although its one hip hop settled for the music industry a long time ago. 

Piecing together other peoples art to make your own is hardly a new phenomenon, it's just easier. Art is no longer solely in the hands of the artists. Everyone can participate if they so choose. We're living the age of truly democratized creation. I'm all for it. What about you?

and that's the way it is

My friend Jonathan Gordon sent me this piece by Charlie Brooker of the BBC. It's a hilarious poke at news coverage. It's a little off topic from my usual fare but you gotta mix it up now and again. Maybe that's one of the points of this video. 

On first viewing this piece made me laugh. Afterwards I thought about pre-packaged news coverage. I realized the majority of people receive their news via TV. Now it seemed a little sad. The process of delivering news is so formulaic its become expected to the point of being forgettable. I guess this is why the Daily Show is so popular.

If you ever wonder why there is a relatively uninvolved and uninformed electorate, this may be one of the reasons. Or maybe there is just comfort in consistency. Take a look. Good food for thought as well as a nice chuckle. 

reverse sell out

In a recent Friday rant I wrote "Did it bother anyone that VW licensed Grizzly Bear's 'Two Weeks' for their most recent spot? Maybe I'm too much of a purist." A few people commented, not publicly, on what the hell I meant by this statement. Was i questioning the agency choice of music? Did I not like Grizzly Bear? My statement not only rightfully needs clarification but it also sparked notice of an interesting cultural shift. 

Back in my day before their was indie rock or alternative music, there was something call college bands. We're talking The Smiths, REM, The Replacements. These bands didn't get any radio time or video play on MTV unless you include "120 minutes" which aired from 11pm to 1 am on Sunday nights. Pre-DVR so you actually had stay up or figure out how to program your VCR. Getting turned on to this genre of music required close proximity to a cool record store, a hip local club or good reception range from a college radio station. Then, Nirvana happen and it all changed.

In my youth a corporate brand would never consider using college bands. Even if they did, it was doubtful the artists would license their music. There was no quicker way to lose cred and alienate a fan base. The poster child from this era for selling out would be the Del Fuegos. They were an underground band out of Boston that did a commercial for Miller. They never recovered. 

This stigma slowly faded away. The first major breakthrough I recall, ironically enough, was when VW used the Nick Drake song "Pink Moon" for a classic commercial directed by Dayton Ferris. Pretty safe considering he'd been dead for a decade. Regardless, the indie band became acceptable as a soundtrack for capitalism. 

Today there is an abundance of examples. There is the aforementioned Grizzly Bear VW reference. Vampire Weekend and "Sprint". Band of Horses and "Ford Focus". Phoenix and "Cadillac" (and that's TARP money talking). I'd throw in Feist and "iPod" but that doesn't really count. It's Apple. 

My ears still perk up when I hear an indie band on a commercial. I shake my head in disbelief almost as a reflect action. My response is counter to what's going on in the culture. This is why I labeled myself in the rant a purist. Maybe I should've instead said "dated". I began thinking about the evolution for licensing music for commercials. It's gone from certain career suicide to potential career maker. 

I decided to conduct one of my very scientific studies. I walked around the office questioning the under 30 sect about their thoughts on indie rock bands licensing their music for spots. Almost unanimously they didn't care. "You gotta make a living", "Everyone does it", "As long as it's a cool brand". These were just some of the comments.  

The definitive answer was when I asked,  "What did you think when you heard Phoenix on a Cadillac commercial?"

"I downloaded it"

Today's generation for better or worse is less cynical about being marketed to. They seem okay with the favorite celebrities or cool bands working for "the man". It can actually motivate a call to action i.e. buying the single, going to show, purchasing a t-shirt. For the bands, it's just another venue to build a much desired fan base.

What I learned in the end is fhe fans can forgive commercialization. The real crime is not being entertaining. 

role models and fallen idols

Tiger. Tiger. Tiger. Another American hero built to mythical proportion only to be taken down in shame. It's a familiar pattern. A once in a generation athlete dwarfs his competitors. His singular focus, drive to succeed and performance in the clutch personifies everything a blue chip company wants to be identified with. Tiger Woods has all those attributes, he just happens to have one little flaw that everyone conveniently ignored. 

In 1993 Charles Barkley made a controversial TV commercial where he proclaimed he was not a role model. Kids shouldn't look up to him because he is an exceptional basketball player. They should look up to parents and teachers. It stirred an interesting debate in our culture about athletes as corporate spokesmen.  

In Barkley's case he never proclaimed to be anything other than what he was. He was opinionated and abrasive albeit entertaining. No one questioned his ability but they did question his marketability. It was the price he paid for his honesty.

As I see it with Tiger, it wasn't his actions that were unforgivable it was the hypocrisy. I wasn't outraged by the the sordid details of his lifestyle. Who am I to judge? If Tiger wasn't married and was banging bar maids three at a time would we really care? It didn't hurt Joe Namath. Or if we found out that he loved his wife and kids but had a less than traditional arrangement, would it bother us. Maybe? But it would bother quite a few of his corporate sponsors so they crafted an image that work for them. 

The corporate branding world found the golden goose. He was a half black and half asian boy dominating an elitist white man's game. He was serious and well spoken. In shape and focused. He was a the perfect corporate role model. Feed his fancies. Keep him happy. And, hope no one ever finds out the truth. 

Phil Knight, Nike Chairman, said this week, we did a background check on Tiger and he "came out clean" but "there's always a risk". Call me crazy but I find it hard to believe that Nike or any of his major backers were completely unaware of his behavior. If anything they enabled it. They were all heavily vested in perpetrating the falseness of his image. Tiger is the rare athlete that is bigger than the sport. Now, they have to pay the price, no one more so than the PGA.  

Truth is I hope this blows over soon. I love watching the guy play golf. That's the only reason to admire him. And it always was. 

the written word

Communication through the written word has had an amazing comeback and it doesn't get nearly enough attention. Both of my kids, in particular Eliza my 10 year old, can't get enough of writing primarily through email, ichatting, texting or even a good old fashion note. 

The weekend before Thanksgiving Eliza went to Washington DC with my mother for a sightseeing tour. Eliza was a little anxious so we gave her a cell phone just for the weekend. We told her she could call or text us any time she was feeling a little nervous. She called a couple times mostly to say good night but texted continually. 

"Gma Judy and I r about to go to the portrait gallery. Love u. See u tomorrow"

"We r about to go see a movie"

"We just got out of the movie. We went to see a christmas carol. Lets say it wasn't the best movie I've ever seen. It was kinda creepy."

There were also emails telling me about her day accompanied with embedded pictures. I'll probably get someone commenting on the use of "u" and "r" and other short form typing techniques. I know It's not proper grammar. Does anyone speak the Queens English anymore? Every generation develops their own linguistics. The point I'm making is the next generation is not only seamlessly forced to express themselves in writing but it's actually their preferred method of communication. I find it encouraging. 

As a kid growing up I didn't write half as much as either of my children do. My sister Joanne wrote two blog postings about shopping and cooking with my 7 year old, Ruby. When my wife showed Ruby the posting in the morning, she asked if she could comment. She wanted to communicate and join the conversation. She loved reading the comments back on her comment. She even asked if she could start her own blog. I told her it was too much effort and only gets you into trouble. 

Technology needs to be monitored without question. The internet can be a scary and confusing place for kids without adult supervision. However, technology has brought back the lost art form of the written word albeit shorter and across new platforms. Most of the kids I interact with have little fear of writing or self expression. How can that be a bad thing?

season finale

I know I've blogged about "Mad Men" on several occasions but this will be the last time for a while. Sadly, last Sunday night was the season finale. 

I have to admit that I DVR'd the show and yes, I fast forwarded through the commercials. The episode not only did not disappoint it raised the series to legendary status.

Don Draper, the creative director of Sterling Cooper, is a serial philanderer, continually belittles his staff, disrespects his partners, is a liar and pretty much an all around asshole. He's portrayed as so incredibly insensitive and self absorbed that the Kennedy assassination seemed to have little impact on him. In the season finale Don's personal life turns into shambles. Much of his pain is self inflicted and well deserved yet we still care about him. The ability to pull for a character who possess few redeeming qualities is what makes a classic anti-hero. This is only part of the genius of "Mad Men". 

In all great tragedy there needs to be a moment of redemption. As Don's marriage ends he begins a new family in the shape of a new agency. He learns to value the people around him at the very moment when it appears all will be lost. Unlike his marriage he has a chance to save his company and himself along with them. Through his rare act of humility and personal risk, he manages to embark on a new beginning and inspire those around him. 

I wish I could do the episode or even the series more justice. It will be easier to simply watch. If you aren't a fan do yourself a favor and rent the entire series from start to finish. If you are a fan watch it again especially the season 1 finale ending scene (Kodak carousel pitch) and the season 2 finale end scene (the showdown with Duck in the conference room). It's brilliant how the each finale ties together the season and the arc of the series. Through it the audience experiences the growth of a complex character with the transition of the country as the backdrop. 

Here's a little taste of this season last episode. Enjoy!

 

cultural attache

My partner Mindy told me a couple months back she wanted to hire one of our former interns, Brielle, to join our staff. Mindy didn't exactly have a position as much as she knew Brielle is young, smart, creative and capable. There should always be a place for people who possess these qualities in our company. I agreed. 

We started by placing Brielle in production to help out Charlie and Mamta. Mindy asked what else could we assign to her. I suggested making her our cultural attache.

This is something I wanted to do for a while. I got the idea from who else, my wife. Dana had met with a young man who had worked for Imagine Entertainment. His job was to mine the cultural landscape for Brian Grazer. He researched whatever he thought Brian might find interesting. If there was 12 year old musical prodigy, a company working on telepathic technology or a scientest building a new rocket ship out of cardboard, Grazer wanted to meet them. I thought that was kinda cool. 

I don't think Epoch needed to go to the same extremes but the concept had real value. To provoke conversation within the company. To inspire ideas. To make us all more aware. 

When I was in NY in September, we briefed Brielle on her new role as Epoch's personal cultural ambassador. We requested she write a monthly report. It would contain articles, links, websites, the latest non-mainstream films and music, whatever information is relevant to our business and our world. We are fortunate that Brielle is an instinctive thinker and a talented writer. 

Brielle filed her second report last week. It was exactly what I was looking for. Topical insight. Short cuts to surfing. Blog fodder. It had it all the tidbits I was looking for from technology and the arts to advertising and innovation. 

Yesterday I shared the monthly cultural report with our entire staff including our directors. The initial response was positive. It didn't hurt that that opening salvo was in the NEWS section "Obama's new policy on medical marijuana will stop prosecuting marijuana users who abide by state laws" and ended with the INVENTION section informing us that "We need this: new machine that turns used office copy paper into toilet paper." There were other great tidbits, to name a few, a link to Spike Jonze's and Kanye West's short film, YouTube's most popular October video, and the newest trends in interactivity including sculpture and art. 

I hope they it's something that creates conversation within our company and becomes a mainstay of our culture. Now that the "Mad Men" season is over we need new stuff to talk about.