"Sometimes you have to create artificial inspiration. Put music on, do something, go on a date. Get on a bicycle. If you're a writer, not writing is the worst feeling in the world, so do something."
-Sorkin
Showing posts with label aaron sorkin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aaron sorkin. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
Monday, 2 April 2012
THE NEWSROOM - SEASON 1 - TRAILER - YES YES YES!
This is why I wake up in the morning! This is why I breath. YES!!! Aaron Sorkin is BACK! Greg Mottola is BACK! Here is the trailer to the eagerly anticipated show, THE NEWSROOM.
Just over a year ago I wrote this post, because I was just so ridiculously excited. And then I interviewed Greg Mottola, because there was just too much I needed to know about the new show.
The writer of THE WEST WING, THE SOCIAL NETWORK, STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP, A FEW GOOD MEN ------
Teaming up with:
The Director of ADVENTURELAND, SUPERBAD & PAUL.
Am I excited?
No not really.
Actually, YES. Of course I am! YES YES YES YES! SORKIN & MOTTOLA!
Say it with me...
SORKIN & MOTTOLA!
SORKIN & MOTTOLA!
SORKIN & MOTTOLA!
Here we go. Get ready. YES YES YES.
And just look at Jeff Daniels. WOW! He's waited a lifetime for this role! FANTASTIC! The cast are perfect. This is going to be something.
Just over a year ago I wrote this post, because I was just so ridiculously excited. And then I interviewed Greg Mottola, because there was just too much I needed to know about the new show.
The writer of THE WEST WING, THE SOCIAL NETWORK, STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP, A FEW GOOD MEN ------
Teaming up with:
The Director of ADVENTURELAND, SUPERBAD & PAUL.
Am I excited?
No not really.
Actually, YES. Of course I am! YES YES YES YES! SORKIN & MOTTOLA!
Say it with me...
SORKIN & MOTTOLA!
SORKIN & MOTTOLA!
SORKIN & MOTTOLA!
Here we go. Get ready. YES YES YES.
And just look at Jeff Daniels. WOW! He's waited a lifetime for this role! FANTASTIC! The cast are perfect. This is going to be something.
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
GREG MOTTOLA - Film Director Interview
GREG MOTTOLA wrote and directed "ADVENTURELAND", which anyone who reads this blog will know is one of my favourite movies. He also directed the fantastic "SUPERBAD" and last year's "PAUL". His other credits as a director include Judd Apatow's "UNDECLARED" and the hilarious "ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT". He recently shot the pilot for the Aaron Sorkin penned HBO series "THE NEWSROOM", as well as numerous additional episodes.
This conversation gives us some fascinating insights into the production of "THE NEWSROOM", the difficulty of getting films made in the Hollywood system, and the struggle to find time to write when you're raising three children. Enjoy!
You've been working on 'The Newsroom' recently, is there anything you can tell us about that? It's all a little mysterious so far.
I can't wait for people to see it. It's an hour long show and it's very much -- it's much more comedic than 'The West Wing', it's a real comedy-drama. I mean, some of the drama is very serious but there's a ton of comedy. Every episode it goes through major tonal shifts, which I find really interesting.
When I first read the script I was really excited about the chance of working on it. I think Aaron Sorkin post-'The Social Network'; I think his writing has changed slightly. I think he's branching out, he's flexing different muscles. There are people who, y'know, will say he's doing what he does, which is write speeches and making characters exceedingly clever but, y'know, that's a lot of the fun of his writing and I'd hate to see him stop doing that.
It's an amazing cast -- it's sort of a mixture of people that you would have heard of like Jeff Daniels, Sam Waterston, Emily Mortimer.
There are two generations in the cast, there's an older generation and then the younger people are largely indie film and theatre actors. There's this guy John Gallagher Jr who's been in a few indie films, who's fantastic, and Alison Pill who's in 'Scott Pilgrim' is one of the leads, and she's unbelievably funny.
I'd done a lot of TV back when I first met Judd Apatow, and it's fun. But for a director, with television, you always feel like the writers and producers are having more fun than the directors, it's really their medium.
I wanted to ask a question about that exact thing. Something I always find interesting about directing for television -- you've been with this one since the pilot, but with something like 'Arrested Development' where you're coming in, and the characters are already set, and the visual style; and the actors know what they're doing -- I'm always curious about what the role of the director actually is.
It's a very specific kind of skillset. There are a lot of directors I'm quite impressed by, who work a lot, who do a lot of the HBO shows for instance. They'll move around to different shows that have very different styles, and the fact they can work so efficiently in different styles is kind of amazing to me.
For this show, it was fun, because we were doing the pilot and we were really trying to create a very specific style for the show. I hired the English DP Barry Ackroyd to shoot it. Barry comes from documentaries and Ken Loach movies, and he did 'The Hurt Locker'. His way of shooting and his eye is very documentary and multi-camera style, and it would be very different from 'The West Wing', for instance. And it was kind of a style I was interested in for this show and Barry does that extraordinarily well, so getting him involved, we approached it differently to other shows of Aaron's.
Well that's the thing -- Aaron's shows have had such a distinct visual style, if you look at 'Sports Night', 'The West Wing' and 'Studio 60' they all had that certain style. So do you think that this is perhaps a departure from that?
I think so. There are hints of it, because Aaron's writing is very romantic, and there are times when you do want to have camera moves and beautiful lighting. But at the same time I wanted it to play against it, -- it's so beautifully written, so I wanted to play against it, so it feels a little bit like you are there. Part of that is the style that Barry employs; you get far back from the actors with long lenses, and you don't have to be super precise about marks, it doesn't get so technical, it becomes about the scene -- so maybe it'll be handheld, maybe it'll be on dollies that are all moving at the same time, depending on the feeling of the scene. We'd watch the scene first. I had a sense of what I thought the shooting style might be but I really let the scenes and the acting dictate. It was a good way to break out of what I've sometimes felt TV would be, which is that you have to adhere to a formula. But you know, when I worked on 'Undeclared' with Judd Apatow I was also a little spoiled, because Judd didn't care if every episode matched the style of the last episode. He really let us come in and do our own thing. He let the directors really be involved with the writers, re-writing episodes and it was extremely creative.
And I was lucky with 'Arrested Development' because I was one of the first directors in, so the show was still figuring out what it was, so I at least felt like I was a fly on the wall to watch Mitch Hurwitz and his writing staff -- and of course, all the actors were developing the voice of the characters. I mean it was, y'know, that show was so unique.
It really was something special. There's all this talk of it coming back, I don't know what you know about that. They're doing something with it aren't they?
It sounds like it's definitely happening. Just as a fan, I can't wait to see it.
You've worked with all these really strong, unique writers, but what I find also interesting is that, with 'Superbad' and 'Paul' you directed films that have been written by cast members. I'd imagine that can be difficult. Was there ever conflict or disagreements?
It can be tricky but what I like about it, and because I also write -- writers get treated so poorly in feature films, and they get sort of kicked out the door, and uh-- the writing doesn't get the attention it deserves often. So when you have the writer on the set you can; if the scene's not working, or you come up against a problem--- like on 'Paul' we just had to constantly change our plans. Even though it was the biggest budget I'd ever worked with, we had a ton of limitations-- the CGI was very expensive, and that made our actual production budget challenging. We were shooting in New Mexico and it turned out to be the rainiest season they'd had in a decade and we were constantly having to stop and I'd have to throw shots away every day because we were being rained out. And we'd have to think, 'how do we get this?' -- It wasn't the kind of movie where they'd let us do an 'Apocolypse Now', a hundred days over schedule. [Laughs] -- no-no, you're not gonna get an extra day. So with having Simon and Nick there, we'd get to figure it out.
I can't wait for people to see it. It's an hour long show and it's very much -- it's much more comedic than 'The West Wing', it's a real comedy-drama. I mean, some of the drama is very serious but there's a ton of comedy. Every episode it goes through major tonal shifts, which I find really interesting.
When I first read the script I was really excited about the chance of working on it. I think Aaron Sorkin post-'The Social Network'; I think his writing has changed slightly. I think he's branching out, he's flexing different muscles. There are people who, y'know, will say he's doing what he does, which is write speeches and making characters exceedingly clever but, y'know, that's a lot of the fun of his writing and I'd hate to see him stop doing that.
It's an amazing cast -- it's sort of a mixture of people that you would have heard of like Jeff Daniels, Sam Waterston, Emily Mortimer.
There are two generations in the cast, there's an older generation and then the younger people are largely indie film and theatre actors. There's this guy John Gallagher Jr who's been in a few indie films, who's fantastic, and Alison Pill who's in 'Scott Pilgrim' is one of the leads, and she's unbelievably funny.
I'd done a lot of TV back when I first met Judd Apatow, and it's fun. But for a director, with television, you always feel like the writers and producers are having more fun than the directors, it's really their medium.
I wanted to ask a question about that exact thing. Something I always find interesting about directing for television -- you've been with this one since the pilot, but with something like 'Arrested Development' where you're coming in, and the characters are already set, and the visual style; and the actors know what they're doing -- I'm always curious about what the role of the director actually is.
It's a very specific kind of skillset. There are a lot of directors I'm quite impressed by, who work a lot, who do a lot of the HBO shows for instance. They'll move around to different shows that have very different styles, and the fact they can work so efficiently in different styles is kind of amazing to me.
For this show, it was fun, because we were doing the pilot and we were really trying to create a very specific style for the show. I hired the English DP Barry Ackroyd to shoot it. Barry comes from documentaries and Ken Loach movies, and he did 'The Hurt Locker'. His way of shooting and his eye is very documentary and multi-camera style, and it would be very different from 'The West Wing', for instance. And it was kind of a style I was interested in for this show and Barry does that extraordinarily well, so getting him involved, we approached it differently to other shows of Aaron's.
Well that's the thing -- Aaron's shows have had such a distinct visual style, if you look at 'Sports Night', 'The West Wing' and 'Studio 60' they all had that certain style. So do you think that this is perhaps a departure from that?
I think so. There are hints of it, because Aaron's writing is very romantic, and there are times when you do want to have camera moves and beautiful lighting. But at the same time I wanted it to play against it, -- it's so beautifully written, so I wanted to play against it, so it feels a little bit like you are there. Part of that is the style that Barry employs; you get far back from the actors with long lenses, and you don't have to be super precise about marks, it doesn't get so technical, it becomes about the scene -- so maybe it'll be handheld, maybe it'll be on dollies that are all moving at the same time, depending on the feeling of the scene. We'd watch the scene first. I had a sense of what I thought the shooting style might be but I really let the scenes and the acting dictate. It was a good way to break out of what I've sometimes felt TV would be, which is that you have to adhere to a formula. But you know, when I worked on 'Undeclared' with Judd Apatow I was also a little spoiled, because Judd didn't care if every episode matched the style of the last episode. He really let us come in and do our own thing. He let the directors really be involved with the writers, re-writing episodes and it was extremely creative.
And I was lucky with 'Arrested Development' because I was one of the first directors in, so the show was still figuring out what it was, so I at least felt like I was a fly on the wall to watch Mitch Hurwitz and his writing staff -- and of course, all the actors were developing the voice of the characters. I mean it was, y'know, that show was so unique.
It really was something special. There's all this talk of it coming back, I don't know what you know about that. They're doing something with it aren't they?
It sounds like it's definitely happening. Just as a fan, I can't wait to see it.
You've worked with all these really strong, unique writers, but what I find also interesting is that, with 'Superbad' and 'Paul' you directed films that have been written by cast members. I'd imagine that can be difficult. Was there ever conflict or disagreements?
It can be tricky but what I like about it, and because I also write -- writers get treated so poorly in feature films, and they get sort of kicked out the door, and uh-- the writing doesn't get the attention it deserves often. So when you have the writer on the set you can; if the scene's not working, or you come up against a problem--- like on 'Paul' we just had to constantly change our plans. Even though it was the biggest budget I'd ever worked with, we had a ton of limitations-- the CGI was very expensive, and that made our actual production budget challenging. We were shooting in New Mexico and it turned out to be the rainiest season they'd had in a decade and we were constantly having to stop and I'd have to throw shots away every day because we were being rained out. And we'd have to think, 'how do we get this?' -- It wasn't the kind of movie where they'd let us do an 'Apocolypse Now', a hundred days over schedule. [Laughs] -- no-no, you're not gonna get an extra day. So with having Simon and Nick there, we'd get to figure it out.
I have to talk to you about 'Adventureland'. It's one of my favourite movies -- and I watched again last night to remind myself of it again before talking to you-- and it's just, I don't know -- I think it's a rare kind of movie. First of all, what made you first sit down to write it, where did it come from? Did you do it for yourself or did you have a chance to make it?
I started a version of it when I was working on 'Undeclared' actually. I'd had a heartbreaking experience after I made my first super-low budget indie film 'The Daytrippers', I wrote a script called 'Life Of The Party' that got set up at Sony Pictures, and I thought I was going to get to be one of those really lucky filmmakers that gets to, y'know, go straight from indies to a personal movie at a studio.
It was a very personal movie, it was about intervention and it was a black comedy. The basic premise was, a group of friends find out their old buddy's a raving alcoholic, and living in the South of France. They all go their to save him, but they're all as fucked up as he is.
We had cast it, John Cusack and Steve Zahn were the leads and we had an ensemble around them, it had a greenlight. And then Sony decided, y'know, that the film's a little risky, a little dark. They just sort of changed their mind after a few years of pushing the boulder up the hill. While I was trying to figure out what to do, I decided to do some TV for a while because I was just dying to direct. I wasn't sure what to write next, and working on 'Undeclared' with all these young actors, writers---- and Seth Rogen was so young when we were doing that show. I started getting to thinking about writing something about young people and about that period in my life.
There was a version of it where they were high school age. And then 'Superbad' came up. Ironically it came up the week I was about to send out the script of 'Adventureland' to try and get it set up and see if anyone was interested in making it. So I just kind of put it on the back-burner and made 'Superbad'.
After 'Superbad' I changed the characters into college age, because I didn't want it to overlap too much.
Yeah.
Y'know, they were still extraordinarily immature, I mean I was still immature even after I came out of college. But I think I wanted to have this feeling that---- I hoped it would be interesting to some people to make a movie about young people, that wasn't just an out and out mainstream teen comedy thing. I mean, I loved making 'Superbad', I'm very proud of it, but I wanted to do something different. Something that I could treat more like an intimate drama.
Even though theoretically a movie about people working in an amusement park over the summer --and y'know, that's unfortunately kind of how they sold the movie, y'know, the rollicking 'Meatballs 2' comedy. And I wanted to do something that was somewhere between a teenage Woody Allen movie and an indie film, all that kind of stuff.
I think the marketing of that film is really interesting. Even when I recommend it to friends, and they ask 'what is it about?' -- whenever I describe it, it doesn't excite them. It's just one of those films I think that you have to sit down and watch to 'get' really.
Well it's hard to, y'know-- the truth is, I like things that are melancholy, I like things that are character based and episodic. I mean, I love comedies but I don't only want to make those. Especially, in a culture of giant tentpole movies it's hard to convince people to see it.
But what's been nice about 'Adventureland' is that it's had a life after its theatrical release, more-so than anything else I've ever made. I've had people tell me they saw it after the fact and were surprised by how much they liked it. Because I think people do hear that premise or see the trailer for it and think 'oh that's kids stuff', or --
--Well I remember it was just a film that I'd had on my rental list and I'd looked forward to seeing but, y'know, when it eventually came around and I got to see it I was blown away by it. I just think it's one of those films that has to find it's audience.
Yeah.
The films I've always loved and been most passionate about, tend to be by writer-directors with a unique voice, like Chaplin, Woody Allen, Billy Wilder. With 'Adventureland', I get that sense of a unique voice, of knowing the filmmaker a bit. And I wonder, does that interest you? Ideally, would you be writing and directing more features of your own, or do you think that's harder to do now?
My wife and I get to socialise with Woody, we'll go out to dinner or lunch with them a couple of times a year (Greg's wife used to be Woody Allen's assistant). And I asked him the question, just to see what he would say. I said, "do you think if you were coming up today you'd have had the same career?" - and he said "absolutely not". He thinks he was very lucky, and he thinks it's not, well, the world has changed too much. I mean, he has an unprecedented deal--- from the beginning, basically entire creative control, it's in his contract-- he won't work unless he has this control. He has more creative control than anyone outside of maybe James Cameron.
I started out just wanting to be a writer-director, but the truth is I'm a slow writer and there's a lot of things I wanted to try and I was very stubborn and turned down some potential movies after my film fell apart at Sony Pictures. And then when Judd came through with 'Superbad' I really felt that I knew how to make that movie, and I had a possibly unique perspective on it. And the script was great-- and I thought, if we get the right kids for this movie we can make something good. So my approach now, when I get sent material -- is do I have something to bring to this, that the other guy wouldn't?
I don't want to have a production company, I don't want to produce other people's movies, y'know. I don't care that much about box office, except that box office success allows you to keep working and gives you more leverage. So I just look for things that I would be good at. Of course, there are the practical realities of trying to pay the bills and -- but so far, I haven't done anything that I didn't want to do. And I've certainly passed on movies that would have made me a lot richer.
Yeah definitely.
That's not to say that I'm so great or anything. I just know it would be a mistake for me to do something that I didn't really like, because I'd probably screw it up.
But what's been the challenge, I mean, I've been dying to get back to my own writing but it's hard because now I'm a Dad with three little kids. And it's hard to carve out any time--
Are you good with the discipline of writing? I know that you're writing something at the moment -- how are you with the writing process?
Um, I'm pretty good at, yeah-- the problem I have as a writer is that I am extremely hard on myself, so I lose faith constantly. So it's just a matter of-- the only way I can do it and feel good about it is just put in a lot of hours. I'm quite jealous of people who write very quickly and churn out things that they love immediately. But I think everyone has their own path.
 |
| Greg On the set of 'PAUL' |
I don't know how true this is, but a friend of mine had a long chat with Joel Coen - of the Coen Brothers, last year. And he said they spend six months locked in a room, working every day, nine hours a day, and that's what it takes for them to get a screenplay they're happy with. That actually cheered me up. When you get hired to write a script in Hollywood they give you eight weeks to write it. And I can't write a script in eight weeks, not when I'm also taking my son to school and y'know--
With my writing I actually write extremely fast -- just simply because it keeps the self-criticism away. I try and get all the writing done before I allow myself the chance to be self-critical-- does that make sense?
Yeah I mean I've actually gone more in that direction where I write and write and write, and then go back and say 'okay, what's any good here?' That can be a little frustrating when you go back and read it and realise only 20% of it is any good.
Everyone's different, but I do believe in re-writing. I think what's hard when you work in the Hollywood system is that there's a lot of impatience, people don't have faith in the process, and so they want to see stuff before it's ready to be seen, so that's always a bit of a battle.
Going back to 'Adventureland', there are so many subtle moments in it and little lines -- and you almost don't notice them. And I find that so rare in Hollywood movies. And that's the thing I think I crave, as a viewer, more than anything. I like when I'm not force fed something. Whenever there's a film like 'Adventureland', I guess I'm just surprised that it managed to get made and happen, with all these subtle moments left in it.
Yeah. I tend to write with a real eye towards some ambiguity and dryness, and there's no clear villains or heroes. There's protagonists but y'know the protagonist will often be as flawed as the antagonist. And not surprisingly when people read my scripts they seem confused--- they don't understand that there's an actual plan behind it.
My first film, 'The Daytrippers', some people, when they read the script they just shrugged and didn't get it. But some of those same people came back when they saw the movie and said they really liked it, they just didn't see it on the page. And I had the exact same reaction on 'Adventureland'.
I tried to raise the money for it in this window in between the time 'Superbad' was done, but people were hearing about it and heard good things. And I felt maybe this would help me get some money for this other thing. I got a lot of confused reactions, people would just say things like, "well we liked the secondary characters, but I don't really care about the main characters" -- or they would say "we'd consider making this but it needs to be a lot funnier, it needs to be contemporary, why is it set in the eighties?" I just decided, y'know, I'm going to make this my way or not make it at all.
That's what I find amazing, I think, is that it got made in that way, you can sense it when you watch it. When I watched it last night, what I noticed more than ever before--- I watched it almost from the perspective of Joel's character.. there's something quietly hilarious about him the whole way through. He seems to be in love with Kristen's character, or maybe he's jealous of them (of Kristen Stewart and Jesse Eisenberg's characters; Em and James). It was these little subtle relationship things that, yeah-- it's just great that you got to keep them in.
That was something that I talked about with Martin Starr, but never really made explicit in the writing. That's the kind of texture of life that I remember, as opposed to turning it into melodrama.
I get disappointed that a lot of movies-- frankly a lot of movies that I'm told are great movies and get nominated for Oscars, often fall into the world of good guys and bad guys, white hats and black hats. That's fine, that can be tremendous fun -- it's just not that interesting to me. I prefer a movie like 'Win Win'.
That's a great movie.
It had very very flawed characters and that was interesting.
Looking back at your first movie, 'The Daytrippers' - what are you most happy about?
It was a bit of an experiment, in form, in some way. The idea was to take this very simple premise -- a wife is looking for her husband -- and then have all these interruptions and digressions throughout, that relate to issues of familial love or romantic love. It's kind of like, theme and variation. Some worked better than others. The movie was shot in 14 days for $60,000, it's as low-budget as you get.
But I feel like, y'know, some of those ideas of people who are in denial being confronted with their reality in a very stark way comes through. I think it's a movie that gets better as it goes along.
When I was in film school we didn't have digital video, so we didn't even get to shoot that much. So, I was learning on the job. I feel like there are some ideas in it that really still work. Now to me it's a curiosity, because it's like New York City pre-internet, like y'know, people often didn't even have cellphones back then. It seems like a hundred years ago.
I haven't watched it in a long long time, but the rights are reverting back to me and the producers, including Steven Soderbergh, so we're going to try and make a decent transfer of it finally.
Do you have anything else you can add onto it -- like footage or behind the scenes?
I'll probably get the cast together and interview them all. We'll have a little reminiscence about it, they've all gone on to do really interesting things. Campbell Scott and I-- we've spent a million years working on it, but we wrote a script together that I may try to get made in the next year.
You mentioned the lack of digital technology when you began working in film. I think now, although there's great opportunities for directors because of equipment, the other problem is that, y'know, independent filmmaking is flooded with a gazillion writers, directors and actors. How do you see the next generation of filmmakers standing out?
A movie like 'Daytrippers' got a very specialised release, there were only a handful of prints made and it would show from city to city, but it finally got to an audience that was hungry for indie films. I mean, it was a small audience but the right audience.
Now, it's true, it's very hard. As someone who loves movies and has very little free time, I can't figure out which fucking mumblecore movie to see.
Exactly, yeah!
A lot of them sound interesting but some are gonna be great and some are not. Someone who's talented might have like four really good movies and one not so good movie, and I see the lesser one and it turns me off.
But it's true, there is a glut. Like you, I do love personal movies and writer-directors. I do believe in auteurs, people telling their own stories or stories that are important to them. I can feel the difference.
With this technology, there are going to be a lot of people who want to get into movies just because it's such a great job, an interesting job. And there'll be a lot of competent people. But to rise above and be the next Woody or something -- it's really hard.
I think it's tricky. When I was thinking of whether or not to do 'Superbad', I was thinking, "Will I then only be seen as a studio director?" Not that I was like crazy about film festivals and Oscars or anything like that. But when I do something that's different, will they not see it? Will they not take it seriously?
I was offered various things after 'Superbad' but I thought I have to do 'Adventureland' - for me, for my own sanity, but also to kind of say: I do this too.
I'm interested in getting your perspective, linked to what we've been talking about, on something I always blog about. For me, I guess I kind of preach this idea that it's about putting in the work, like the 10,000 hour theory. Like when you look at Woody Allen and the level of work he put in when he was younger. So y'know, it's not so much just about having talent or luck, it's about that journey you have to take.
Woody has a quote. It's something like, 80% of success is showing up. I think really what he's saying is just about doing it. People I know who are really successful are pretty much the hardest working people.
For me, like I said, my writing is slow. I just have to make the hours and do it. And say no to things I'd like to do.
Before you go -- is there anything else that you're working on that you can tell us about?
The only other thing that I'm officially working on is the adaptation of a book, that I'm writing for Brad Pitt and Natalie Portman to star in. And we'll see where it goes. I know that it's a long shot that Brad will actually ever do it.
Is this for you to direct?
It's potentially for me to direct and it's for his production company. There may be a version of it where it's Natalie and someone else. It's a book she optioned. It's been hard because of time, but it's been really interesting.
Does that add a pressure, if you think you're writing for Brad Pitt, is it better to write cluelessly and just get on with it?
It's a little bit of a psych-out, because he's so insanely famous. And I feel the pressure of wanting to write something that would interest him. But I'm not letting it color it too much because I think I'd just---
Go insane.
Yeah.
You can see my articles about 'ADVENTURELAND' HERE, HERE, and HERE. You may also be interested to read my interview with LAWRENCE SHER, who was Director of Photography on "PAUL", which Greg directed.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Tuesday Dialogue #1 Matt Albie and Martha O'Dell
Setting the scene: Matt Albie is Executive Producer and head screenwriter of a weekly televised national comedy show called 'Studio 60'. Martha O'Dell is a reporter for Vanity Fair. She is writing a story about the show, she has full access; but Matt has told her he won't talk about his relationship with Harriet. In fact, he bet her $100 he wouldn't talk about her.
Martha O'Dell: Matt? I'm off to catch the redeye. I'll see you in a couple of weeks.
Matt Albie: Have a good flight.
Is that the bat?
What bat?
I'll say this about you guys, you look out for each other.You're not very good at doing it but it's nice to see the effort. Even Harriet, y'know? When I mentioned your pathalogical dislike of the religious right, she jumped to your defence. You broke up with her because she went on the 700 club to promote her album?
What are you writing about Martha?
I don't know yet. I know that half this country hates the other half. And I know that for 90 minutes a week you and Harriet come together. You were here for two years before anybody knew your name. Harriet got here and you both broke at the same time.
I wasn't a hack.
I didn't say you were.
What bat?
I'll say this about you guys, you look out for each other.You're not very good at doing it but it's nice to see the effort. Even Harriet, y'know? When I mentioned your pathalogical dislike of the religious right, she jumped to your defence. You broke up with her because she went on the 700 club to promote her album?
What are you writing about Martha?
I don't know yet. I know that half this country hates the other half. And I know that for 90 minutes a week you and Harriet come together. You were here for two years before anybody knew your name. Harriet got here and you both broke at the same time.
I wasn't a hack.
I didn't say you were.
I had a one-act at the Humana Festival in Louisville and another at EST; that's the Ensemble Studio Theater in New York. Those are two important stages.
I know them both.
What's this for?
A hundred dollars. I was trying to impress Harriet, that's how I broke.
Dialogue Written By Aaron Sorkin
Saturday, 10 September 2011
Previously, On THE WEST WING: A Collection Of Articles and Interviews
I love 'The West Wing'. Perhaps, instead of this film blog, I should have just started a 'The West Wing' fan page. In fact, that's kind of what Kid In The Front Row is. Today I decided to look back at the things I have written about the show in the past couple of years, along with the interviews I have been very lucky to do with the cast and crew of the show.
My hope was always to interview Aaron Sorkin, the creator, but thus far he has remained elusive, apart from a few kind notes/responses. But there's still the hope that, some time in the future when his schedule allows, we will finally get that interview.
The Articles
January 27th 2010 - The West Wing Is The Greatest Show Of All Time
"Many years ago - my Uncle said to me, "You must watch The West Wing," and I thought yeah right, whatever. No-one tells me what to watch. But he was persistent and he lent me the first season. And I began watching it. My life changed."
Here is a note I received from the show's creator, Aaron Sorkin, after that post.
"Front Row,
Thanks so much for the amazing tribute to the show. You really made my day and I'll be sending it around to everyone on the cast and crew list.
Thanks again,
Aaron"
Thanks so much for the amazing tribute to the show. You really made my day and I'll be sending it around to everyone on the cast and crew list.
Thanks again,
Aaron"
Read the full article here.
December 20th 2010 - Previously, On The West Wing
Some thoughts I had after watching the entire series of TWW for the gazillionth time.
"THE WEST WING represented an idea. It's about 5.30am wake-up calls. It's about dedicating who you are to something bigger than yourself. It's about loyalty and doing something that matters. It's about working weekends and having dinner at 11pm on a Thursday night in the office because you have to get things done, because if you don't the world isn't going to operate properly come the morning. "
Read the full article here.
December 23rd 2010 - Reflecting On John 'Leo McGarry' Spencer
I always loved John Spencer's work on the show. After seven seasons of being in the company of a character, you really feel like you know them. There was something extremely poignant about the work of John Spencer. He carried a weight, a gravitas, while also being sensitive and warm. His final episodes before his real life (and then on screen) death, feature some of his greatest work.
I spoke to Eli Attie about John Spencer.
"John's death left a gaping hole in the middle of the show, a cavernous vacuum, and the rest of Season Seven was largely a reaction to that--a memorial to him and to the creative world he helped to shape and lead."
-Eli Attie
-Eli Attie
Read the full article and Eli's touching words about John here.
INTERVIEWS
Eli Attie - Supervising Producer/Writer
Eli was a writer on the show from 2001 until the show ended, in 2006. In the final years he also served as a Supervising Producer.
"Because of my political background, I did contribute to lots of scripts beyond my own, during all five seasons I was on the show. Some of my favorite storylines were ones I didn't actually write."
"Because of my political background, I did contribute to lots of scripts beyond my own, during all five seasons I was on the show. Some of my favorite storylines were ones I didn't actually write."
Read the full interview here.
Josh played the role of Will Bailey. What I wrote in my intro to the interview is something I still stand by: Josh is one of the most underrated actors in the industry today.
"Tommy is one of the great Producer/Directors out there, and for my money, no one writes like Aaron. But I give credit to John Wells and the writing staff for keeping TWW going as a really great, quality show for the remainder of its run."
"Tommy is one of the great Producer/Directors out there, and for my money, no one writes like Aaron. But I give credit to John Wells and the writing staff for keeping TWW going as a really great, quality show for the remainder of its run."
Read the full interview here.
Larry and Ed were two of the more memorable reoccuring character's from the show. But who are the actors who portrayed them? I decided to find out.
"Would I have liked a few storylines? Absolutely. But I would never trade in a moment I was on that show. For me, it was one of – if not the – best experience of my acting career so far."
Read the full interview here.
"I think, again, because of the fast turn around in television--one's best tool is oneself. Be as natural and reactive as you would be in that actual situation."
Read the full interview here.
Read the full interview here.
Okay, so I didn't get to do a full interview with Aaron. But he did take the time to answer a question about writers block for the readers of KITFR.
"Every time I finish something I think I'm never going to be able to write anything else. And every time I start something I think that this is the one where I'm going to get found out as a fraud."
Read the full answer here.
"Every time I finish something I think I'm never going to be able to write anything else. And every time I start something I think that this is the one where I'm going to get found out as a fraud."
Read the full answer here.
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
AARON SORKIN + GREG MOTTOLA = HEAVEN
Aaron Sorkin, my favourite working TV/Film writer, who penned The West Wing, which is the greatest show of all time, as well as the superb film The Social Network; is teaming up with director Greg Mottola, who wrote and directed Adventureland, which most of you know I am completely obsessed with - for the new TV series "More As The Story Develops".
Plus they're on HBO. The one network that stands up for good content.
And it stars Jeff Daniels.
This is going to be perfect.
Plus they're on HBO. The one network that stands up for good content.
And it stars Jeff Daniels.
This is going to be perfect.
AARON SORKIN On 30 ROCK Video
For Sorkin/West Wing fans, this'll be the most enjoyable minute you've had in ages. For everyone else, I'll post something else soon!
Friday, 18 February 2011
WILLIAM DUFFY - Actor Interview
After a long spell in this industry, actors tend to go one of two ways-- bitter and grumpy, or wise and inspiring. WILLAM DUFFY is one of those who took the latter path. This interview was originally going to be very short, but William's knowledge and wisdom on the industry and the craft of acting are as fascinating as anyone I've ever spoken to, and I know a lot of actors. So we ended up talking at length about his career.
You have been acting for over twenty years -- What do you know now that you didn't know when you started?
Wow. How much space to do you have ? Hmmm, … there are a ton of things you learn as an actor over such a long period of time – both about yourself and about the business. One of the most important for me is: Don’t let being an actor drive you crazy. Especially with auditions. The nutty thing you learn, is that our success in this business (whatever that’s defined as), is almost completely dependent upon what other people think of your work – not necessarily on how talented you are. It’s why everyone has a different favorite movie, or actor, or director, or genre, etc. There’s no “formula” to success, or even booking a job. 2 + 2 doesn’t always equal 4 in show business, so you must learn quickly not to look for any logic. When I walk out of an audition – for example, I just had one today for a series regular on a pilot – if I know in my mind that I did at least an 8 out of 10 – which I think I did today - I’m happy, and I realize it’s now completely out of my hands. I did my part. If I feel I did 7 out of 10 or worse, I know I have no one to look to but myself, and I need to be better the next audition. Regardless, good or bad, I mentally walk away from it after it’s over. I NEVER dwell on the “W’s”: “Why didn’t they cast me?”, “What did I do wrong?”, “What were they looking for?”, “What did they think of me”, and of course, “Was I any good?” and “Will I ever work again?”.
I learned early on in my career to avoid these paralyzing questions because I know, for a fact, that they’re really unanswerable. How? Because early in my career in New York City, I think I did a smart thing: I was a reader for many casting directors. By sitting in that room with the “powers that be” I learned first hand: 1) What many actors do wrong in an audition room, and 2) that many times, believe or not, the best actor does not get the job. This latter one is a hard one to swallow, but very true. There are so many factors – subjective and objective – one’s so stupid you could not possibly imagine - that go into a casting decision, that you just can’t worry about it after you leave an audition. Learn to just go in, do your best, and let the rest take its illogical course !
What was the worst audition you ever had?
Hah, there’s too many to count ! It happens. We’re human. We mess up. Let’s see, early in my career, I remember auditioning for a 3-line role … and I said 2 of them wrong ! I’ve had auditions where they changed the sides to be read … and I didn’t know it. Uhhh … I once auditioned for a musical … but didn’t know that it was a musical (and I don’t sing) ! That was bad. I’ve lost my place in auditions. You try to be off the page with the lines as much as possible, but sometimes you just go blank. It happens. Oh God, one audition - I can’t say it was my worst audition – but it was memorable – was with a casting director (who shall remain nameless) who, after I finished what I felt was a really good audition for them, said to me, “Well, you seem smart enough to know when it’ll be time to quit acting.” … I’m serious. They actually said that. I was floored. I actually cracked up right in front of them and walked out. Needless to say, I did not book that job. … But about three weeks later, I did get the call that I was going to be recurring on “The West Wing”. (see part about “logic” in question #1 above !!)
I loved your character in 'The West Wing' -- but I am curious about what the experience is like to be a regular on a show, but to be one of the guy's behind the other guys. Is it frustrating not having bigger storylines?
Hey, we’re actors – we love the sound of our own voice ! Of course, the more lines the merrier ! No, seriously, I would have loved having more to say on TWW, but with 9 extremely talented series regulars having to be serviced, it was amazing to just be a part of it in any capacity. Many people wrote in, or wrote me asking to have more “revealed” about my character, Larry. Many even wrote in online forums about what they felt my “storylines” were. But as Aaron (Sorkin) once said, he saw Larry as representing many different people in the White House, not just one. The unique advantage to this, especially for a recurring character, like Larry, was that because TWW was such an ensemble oriented show, it allowed me to be written into many of the larger characters’ storylines, rather than just associated with only one of them. As a result, over the seven years, I had many scenes with virtually every series regular on the show. It was amazing to work with all that incredible talent. You learn so much. Would I have liked a few storylines ? Absolutely. But I would never trade in a moment I was on that show. For me, it was one of – if not the – best experience of my acting career so far.
William with Martin Sheen, Mary McCormack, and Josh Malina (with Chris Misiano behind them)
What is it like coming onto an established show, like "Heroes" or "The Event" and being part of one or two episodes? Is it daunting, or just a lot of fun?
For me, it’s always fun. However, I don’t mean “fun” in a relaxed, kicked back, party time way. Make no mistake: it’s work. It’s my job. I can honestly state that I have enjoyed every day I have worked as an actor; regardless of the movie, television show, commercial or theater project. I mean that. I have NEVER woke up and dreaded heading to a set or rehearsal. Now, some projects have been easier than others, and I have to admit that TWW was the most professionally run set I have ever been on – especially given the extreme budgets and pressures we operated under – so I was spoiled for seven years. But it also showed me the importance of being prepared for other shows I might work on - so that it could be a fun experience. While I feel I’ve always had great work ethics, I did learn from my seven seasons on TWW to respect any show I work on. What I mean by that is, I rarely audition for a TV show without having seen at least one episode. Pilots and/or movies are different, but if I can watch something the director has done before, or read the entire script, I will. Too many times, on TWW, guest actors would not have done their homework and watched an episode of the show and/or become familiar with the rhythms of the show. It’s the same when I work on a different, established show. I want to know the feel of that show, so that when I walk onto that set, with actors - probably most of whom I’ve never met before, who already have that feel - I know I can jump right in, and know what role I play in that feel. THAT makes it fun. For me, it’s imperative. For some of my friend’s, they never watch TV, yet audition and/or work a lot. That would be daunting for me. To work on ”Heroes” was vastly different than working on “The Event” and I made sure I watched those shows before I even auditioned. (Thank God for the Internet ! ) I often relate it to sports: I like to know a bit about the stadium and teammates I’m playing with before I start. That way, I can have fun creating and doing my craft and feel at ease to even experiment a little. Again, I saw too many days where new actors had no idea how the specific rhythms of TWW operated – and it dragged the whole day down. I just can’t allow myself to even think that could happen because then the “fun” is gone.
Why do you think these people got hired? The style was so specific, I'm surprised these people slipped through the net. But then, I guess with so many episodes and storylines, you can't guarantee every actor is prepared?
Oh no, it wasn't a matter of slipping through any net. The casting directors did an amazing job of supplying incredible actors for each episode. Because don't forget, in an audition, you're 1) reading with one person - usually a non-actor - even if it's a multi-person scene, 2) you rarely read the entire role, and 3) if you're a big enough name ... you don't audition, you're just offered the role. No, casting had nothing to do with it. We, as actors, are responsible once we book a job to prepare as much as possible for the shooting. However, during the first couple seasons, while audiences (and actors) were getting to know this new "style" of show, it was a very different experience for any guest actor - regardless of their resume - to come play with us. I think most actors prepared, but they prepared like they would for other shows, and not for our show. It's kinda like, you may know how to drive your car really well around town, because you do it a lot, but you now put yourself behind the wheel on a five-lane highway in Los Angeles with everyone doing 70+ mph, and it's a whole new ballgame ! I was just always surprised when a guest actor really had no idea what was expected. And I'll admit, as the show gained it's immense popularity, and the style and expectations of Aaron's writing became more familiar to actors, there were less and less problems.
Also, going back to what you said earlier - how some actors don't watch TV or films at all. That's fascinating to me. I meet actors like that, and I don't get it. That's like working as a chef and not having eaten a meal in five years. For me it's everything.
Me too. It's like a musician who doesn't listen to music ! But everyone works differently. Again, there's no formula, there's no prerequisites. For me, as an actor, I like knowing who the characters are on the show I'm going to work on ! That way I can have an idea of who's in the scene with me, a little bit about story lines, and how I'm fitting in. Also, it's nice when someone in the casting room asks "Have you seen the show?" you can say "yes" rather than "no, I don't watch TV." To me, that's kinda like, "Wow, you're standing in front of us, looking to be hired, but you don't even believe in what we all do for a living?" I can understand if you don't care for a show. We don't love every show on TV. Heck, I've auditioned for and/or worked on shows I wasn't crazy about. But I have to at least watch the show to know whether I like it or not ! Again, that's my way of working and researching. It gives me more confidence when I walk in the room or on the set. Conversely, I mean, c'mon, let's be real: Martin Sheen never said, "Hey folks, can we break early today, I forgot to DVR, "CSI" !" But, it wasn't unusual between scene set-ups or takes, to have discussions about some shows, actors or episodes that people had watched recently or recommended. Hey,... it's not for everyone. I'm just amazed and baffled by actors who don't watch TV shows AT ALL. I can't do it .... but it's a choice by many actors - of all levels - from new to well-established ones.
But I think those actors have their limits; in that, sure they may have great techniques and ideas and intuition; but if you're thrown into an Aaron Sorkin TV show, or a Woody Allen movie, for example -- I think knowing that world is so important. What do you think?
I agree. Absolutely. Like I said, I know it is for me. Techniques, ideas and intuition are essential to acting - all acting. They're what help us express ourselves. And some actors are terrific at one thing, one character, one "type". They do it well, and when you cast them, you know exactly what you will get. And they can be extremely successful - especially in TV where there is very little time to develop characters very far from ourselves. They'll work all the same types of shows. Many times casting or a director will say, "bring me Actor X - they do this type of role well, and I don't have to worry about them". So yes, there's definitely a need for actors who "have their limits" as you said. But, to paraphrase Stellar Adler: imagination is what separates all of us. So for me, and I can only speak for myself, I can't utilize my unique imagination unless I have a feel for how the project, director and even the network, operates. In TV, I don't audition for a drama like "Castle" the same as I do for a drama like "Southland", or a comedy like "The Office" the same as a comedy like "Two and Half Men". A show on TNT is different than a show on ABC. I don't prepare for a Quentin Tarantino movie audition the same as a Woody Allen movie audition. But I won't know the difference if I don't stay current or at least brief myself beforehand. So for me ... watching TV or movies - that's part of how I prepare and stimulate my imagination. ( Though, I'm not sure Stanislavski included watching "Two and Half Men" in "An Actor Prepares", but I'm sure the gist is in there ! )
And I feel it's even more crucial for a show like TWW. You take writers like Pinter, Mamet, Shepard, Shakespeare and Aaron Sorkin, who are detailed rhythmic language writers - where every word is chosen carefully .... if you don't know that going into an audition or onto a set .... you're screwed. See, I think the producers of TWW were smart. I think they chose our ensemble cast because 1) they knew we knew how to actually be an ensemble cast - because almost everyone of us was highly trained in the theater, and 2) they knew because of that theater training, we knew how to pace the dialogue. Many of us - from series regulars (Brad, Joshua) , to recurring (myself, Clark Gregg, Tim Busfield, Ron Ostrow), to guest actors (Noah Emmerich) - had all worked together with Aaron on previous theater projects, like "A Few Good Men" and knew exactly what was expected. Also - this may give you a little insight into Aaron's writing - he writes musically. Each scene of each episode is part of a concert, and each actor plays like an instrument. But for the music to work, you have to hit every note as written - or in this case - say every word as written. You don't ad lib Mozart ... you don't ad lib Sorkin. And if you don't know this going in, if you haven't memorized every word as written, your part - like any instrument played in an orchestra - stands out and throws everything off by a beat or so. And the piece as a whole falls short. Couldn't be more obvious then when you watch any of the now famous West Wing "Walk & Talks". The way each actor (instrument) flows down a hallway delivering their lines (music) with other actors (instruments) darting in and out of the scene adding their quick contributions. It may sound kooky, but if you've watched it and/or lived it ... it's true. In fact, I interviewed Aaron once - a la James Lipton - live, for a charity event for my theatre company for a couple hours, and we talked about this very thing. I told him I would sit at our table reads of each episode and watch him physically conduct with his hands many of the scenes as they were being read. He agreed. Hmmm ... I think I may have gotten a bit off point, but what I'm trying to say is that "knowing that world" as you put it, can only, in my opinion, better you as an actor; because it allows you to use your imagination with your other tools (technique, ideas, intuition) to be creative at a higher level.
A thing that happens a lot with actors I know, most of whom are very talented; is that they feel stuck. They're not getting roles, their confidence is dropping, and the keys to their careers seem outside of themselves. Have you been in that situation? And what advice do you give for getting out of it?
(Sigh) Yeah, the dreaded “business” side of “show business”. We ALL experience that “stuck” feeling at one time or another. And, many times, more than once. Earlier, I mentioned how we are at the mercy of “the powers that be” in this business and how crazy and frustrated it can make us. Consequently, we, as artists, will experience some of our biggest highs and biggest lows in life from this business. Professionally, personally, financially, emotionally. The trick is to somehow keep it in perspective. And to that, I really have no one answer.
I truly adore this profession, but I feel one key to surviving in this business is to not live in it with blinders on. Because when it comes right down to it: it is a business. And a harsh one. And as such, you must make your own definition of “success” and make it a realistic one. Otherwise, I feel you’ll never enjoy what you do. And realistically, this business tells us “no” a lot more than it tells us “yes”. Make peace with that. My ex-wife (a non-actor) once said that she couldn’t understand why anyone would become an actor just because they loved the acceptance and reward people give them for their work … when it’s a profession that gives you more rejection of your work than in any other profession ! … Kinda true.
I too have many friends who are far more talented than me and struggle or have left the business due to lack of “success”. Again, it goes back to: the best actor does not always get the role. It’s a very sad truth. And these days, it’s extremely difficult to make your sole living as an actor because available roles are decreasing. With more established movie actors doing TV shows, or being offered roles, many established TV actors are doing smaller TV roles, which in turn affects every level of TV actor below that. Combine that decrease in available roles, with pay rates decreasing and less shows being shot, and it’s no wonder many actors – especially those who look to TV as a main financial source are, as you put it, “feeling stuck” and experiencing “their confidence dropping”. Again, my advice is to realistically define “success”, and what “making a living as an actor” means to you. Why are you an actor?
I try to work on the “show” side of “show business” as much as I can. I train, take classes, work on small projects – all to keep my instrument tuned and my mind creatively active. I find as many ways to stay creative as I can as I strive toward my definitions. But I do it both inside AND outside of acting – because I know I’m usually unemployed as an actor more than I’m employed as one. For me, when I’m not acting, I tutor kids having trouble academically. It’s amazing how showing them how to creatively look at their homework keeps my creative acting side alive. I also have a financial background, so I utilize my creativity even in a mathematical lens. I also write and play music, I draw, and, … most importantly, I find as much theater to do as possible. I was trained on the stage in New York City, and I think ANY stage – from community theater to Broadway - is an invaluable venue to work on. I am fortunate to belong to an amazing theatre company here in Los Angeles. We are constantly doing readings, workshops and main stage productions. I find theater a terrific playground to work on roles, feel the excitement of creating with other artists, hone my memorization skills, and get jazzed performing live. I’m currently doing the world premiere of a provocative play by Academy Award Nominated writer, Nicholas Kazan, and I am loving every moment of the process. Making no money doing it, … but loving the feeling of being a creative actor !
I love your passion! And I love the honesty, too. "I’m usually unemployed as an actor more than I’m employed as one" -- that's not something you hear from actors, often. Most actors I know try to appear as if they are always employed! But then, I guess that is the hard part -- when someone says, "what are you working on right now?" How do you answer that when everything is slow?
See, I think you have to be honest - especially to yourself. It goes back to my thoughts on being realistic about why you are or want to become an actor. If it's to be regularly employed ... choose again. I was an accountant - a CPA in fact. I could easily be regularly employed as a partner in a large firm or corporation by now. Making far more money than I make as an actor. But, I wasn't fulfilled creatively or happy. So I left and did what I found to be a new career that I love. But I know my happiness can't be dependent on being regularly employed because it's very VERY rare to be consistently employed as an actor year after year. The list of such people is tiny. In fact, I think I read that over 90% of SAG and AFTRA's membership is unemployed at any one time. So again, be realistic ! Look at my time on TWW. I recurred for all seven seasons - I worked on about 50 episodes - from the pilot to the final episode. I did roughly 1/3 of all the episodes in that series. Sounds amazing right ? But that means I didn't work on about 2/3 of them ! For the majority of the show's run ... I wasn't employed ! I was looking for other work until they wrote Larry back in.
Please, every actor knows that we are all always looking for a job - even when we have one. And every actor knows that times are slow. Actors trying to impress other actors makes me laugh - it's senseless; we all know what the business is like every day ! We ask each other all the time: "Are you auditioning a lot?", "Is it slow for you?", etc. And the answer is always the same: "I wish I was auditioning more". I just tell them I’m keeping busy in my other creative outlets – which is true. Looking for work is just as much a part of being an actor as the acting itself is. We have to face it, live with it or think about changing professions.
And I think that question is linked to the guy who says "you know when to give up acting," -- I think half of the work in this industry, especially for people starting out or going through a tough time, is convincing the non-industry people in their lives that they're not talentless and wasting their time. It shouldn't matter what your neighbour, or the-old-school-friend-you-see-in-the-mall thinks of your work, but it can often rankle. You can say "Hey, I was Larry in The West Wing," -- but how else can people fend off the naysayers and the negative people?
Nah, you can't let what people outside of the industry say get to you. I'm not saying don't care about them - couldn't be further from the truth - some are huge parts of our lives. I'm just saying it's very difficult for many non-industry people to understand this profession - especially being an actor. Many people think we are ALL like the actors they see on TV or in the movies ... or that every actor works all the time. It's not their fault - they have no real frame of reference. To most, if you call acting your profession, then you should be employed and working in that profession, right ? They work in their profession - be it plumber, CEO, salesperson, cashier, insurance broker, whatever. They were trained, found a job and now work; you were trained ... where's your job ? Makes sense ... just not in "show-biz world." I really can’t spend the time convincing someone to believe in an illogical profession ! I’d lose ! The important thing I try to do is have a good support system around me – comprised of both industry and non-industry people. It keeps me sane. I’m fortunate: My immediate family is fantastic. They always support me. Do they actually approve of my choice of profession ? … Don’t know. But they support my decision 100%. And that’s more important. Same with my non-industry friends: couldn’t be more proud of me and supportive. They love that I’m doing what I want to do. Can’t ask for anything better.
There’s too much negativity and rejection in this business already, so why would I want more of it in my non-business life and friends. To your question: I don’t try to “fend off the naysayers and negative people”. I just nod and accept them. Hell, they’re right ! What I do IS crazy! But I love it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)