Post a Job Join The Guild
Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
Features
Blog Home All Blogs

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: feature  cover  diversity  new media  PGA East  Produced By Conference  Producers Guild Awards  ap council  california  chris moore  disney studios  dodger day  elections  empire  Events  fea  film  financing  gender equity  Greening  Harvey Weinstein  hdr  high dynamic range  Ice Cube  ilene chaiken  incentives  laura ziskin  LGBTQ  lot lunch  New York 

Dodger Day 2018

Posted By Michael Q. Martin, Tuesday, October 9, 2018

On Saturday, September 1st, PGA members attended Dodger Stadium to watch the Los Angeles Dodgers take on the Arizona Diamondbacks in a battle for the lead in the National League West.  Pitcher Clayton Kershaw started for the Dodgers and pitched seven solid innings, despite giving up two solo home runs to Eduardo Escobar in the second and to Christian Walker in the sixth. The score stayed 2-0 for most of the game as the Dodgers could not figure out Diamondbacks starter Patrick Corbin.

In the bottom of the eighth inning the Dodgers found D’Backs reliever Archie Bradley more to their liking.  Justin Turner hit a single before Manny Machado worked a 10 pitch walk. Matt Kemp came to the plate and blasted a home run to make the score 3-2 Dodgers. Dodger closer Kenley Jansen shut down the Diamondbacks in the 9th to pick up his 34 save of the year. Kemp’s blast moved the Dodgers into a tie for first place in the National League West with the D’Backs. With the Colorado Rockies only ½ a game back in the standings, it looks to be an exciting September pennant race. Hope to see you next year at Dodger Stadium.

Article and photos by Michael Quinn Martin

- View the photo album on Facebook

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

There And Back Again - How Michael Wormser Took The YouTube Route Back To Indie Filmmaking

Posted By Spike Friedman, Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Michael Wormser’s route toward his specific present role, as one of the go-to producers for YouTube stars making the jump to the big screen, makes sense only when you trace his career backwards. But also having spent some time with Wormser, it makes sense that an affable, hard-working guy would find his calling working within a creative community populated by those who chose to forge their own unusual paths in this 21st century version of the industry. Wormser was not born into Hollywood but grew up in New Iberia, Louisiana, “Cajun country,” as he readily calls it. He never imagined he would be involved in the entertainment industry until he was in college in Indiana. “Somebody had a sketch comedy group, and I joined that and really got the bug for it,” Wormser explains, citing the ‘90s heyday of Saturday Night Live for inspiring him to move to Los Angeles and pursue comedy.

He took classes at comedy theaters like The Groundlings and Improv Olympic, tending bar at night to pay his rent. While a short stint working as a PA at Gracie Films ended with Wormser making an ill-advised stand over the rotation of PA duties (a move that he describes in retrospect as “probably real dumb”), he was building a community in the comedy scene. “It was a close-knit improv group including guys like Eric Stonestreet and Pete Gardner, who have gone on to be successful, and who I’ve been able to maintain good relationships with,” Wormser says, “and it’s just cool that we came up from the same place 20 years ago.”

But Wormser was trying to perform at the time, and frustrated with his lack of progress following traditional paths, he made some moves to force the issue that would set his course. “I decided to make a short film called Who’s Sherman?” that I would write, direct and star in. All of my friends from Improv Olympic who wanted to be in production just came together, and we did it with no money.” Wormser was making it up as he went, turning to Craigslist for casting, going into production unsure of how he’d finance the whole thing. Mercifully his friend Greg Sipes, now a noted voice actor, stepped up and agreed to help finance the project and teach Wormser the ropes of producing his own work. “I learned that if you can get the ball rolling, you can do anything,” he recalls.

From there Wormser started making whatever he could, including producing music videos for bands he met tending bar. “I thought I had it all figured out,” Wormser says with a laugh. “I would work at night tending bar, and make stuff all day.” That was until he met his wife in 2006, who had a radical suggestion: Why not just produce work for a living? For Wormser, the light bulb went on.

He quit bartending and started taking on more professional work, working as a UPM on indie films. His natural inclination was to push the projects to get bigger and more ambitious. In some cases this meant packaging bigger-name actors into tiny projects. In others, it meant turning lucky moments into moves that brought higher-level talent to scripts he was developing. And sometimes it meant turning a chance phone call from a representative into a working relationship with director John Landis.

But after Wormser became a father, he needed to pursue something a bit more steady than producing indie features in the middle of a recession. So in 2009 he answered a Craigslist ad looking for someone to production manage 20 to 30 videos a week. While that volume and pace of output could have been daunting, it was exactly what Wormser was looking for. When he walked into the interview, it was with the Fine Brothers, who were the creative producers at the then fledgling Maker Studios. Maker was far from the YouTube behemoth that sold to Disney for $500 million. It was a handful of writer/creators, a few shooter/editors and a couple of producers.

Wormser was brought on to make sure that the top creators at Maker had the production support they needed to deliver their content on-time and on-budget. But the business model had yet to mature. “In 2010 not everyone believed you could make money on YouTube,” Wormser reminds me. 

He also was responsible for encouraging creative cross-pollination between the various content creators under Maker’s umbrella. Initially this was limited to a single YouTube channel called The Station, but eventually became a broader mission that led to platform-defining events like the wildly popular VidCon. “The Fine Brothers from the beginning saw how big this could get,” says Wormser. “I was just a producer who was excited to have a job.”

That job was making Maker as functional and efficient as possible. “It was low-hanging fruit,” says Wormser of the work he did to turn Maker into a content factory. He would arrange weekly meetings with content creators like Totally Sketch, run by director Michael Gallagher, Shay Carl, Timothy DeLaGhetto and others, coordinating programming for their channels, The Station and the network’s infrastructure. This meant building out a production process that could churn out dozens of well-produced videos a week on a shoestring budget. 

During Wormser’s time at Maker, they went from 30 million monthly views to 100 million, something he does not take credit for. “They were already growing exponentially,” he says, “but I was able to create a scalable model for the programming structure and workflow.” Despite its ad-hoc beginnings, Maker needed a slate of content they could depend on, week-to-week. Wormser made sure that happened.

Though Wormser was doing good work at Maker, his earlier work on features had lit a fire to produce films. “I came from the feature film world,” Wormser explains, “so I really wanted to make things with a cinematic quality, and the Fine Brothers were into a very regimented system.” That system meant production teams of three people supporting each creator, which allowed for work to be made quickly but limited the ability for it to evolve. “We were able to make great content, and understanding the scale at which we were working helped me facilitate our creators to make quality content within those parameters.” Each video’s budget was often spent on a single key location, prop or actor to flesh out the world; that was the limit of what could be done within the model Maker had created. Aside from that, it was green screens and visual effects provided by the post-production team that Maker assembled to put a professional sheen on the rough-around-the-edges work.

But from that small model, Wormser charted his course back into features. He moved within Maker from head of production to head of motion pictures, with the goal of collecting all of Maker’s talent in a single feature. He paired that goal with Glasgow Phillips’ screenplay “I Did It For The Lulz”, which became Smiley, a horror-comedy that brought a host of YouTube talent to the big screen for the first time. And at the tip of the production spear, he had the perfect in-house director, Michael Gallagher, whose YouTube channel Totally Sketch was the rare Maker channel that didn’t feature its primary talent in front of the camera.

When production stalled out within Maker, Wormser sought and received the studio’s blessing to go and try to make it on his own. “Wormser doubled down on finding alternate solutions to get the project made by any means necessary,” attests Gallagher, “always leading with optimism and a spirit of fun. And he was willing to bet on me as a first-time feature director, with no hesitation.” Gallagher helped finance the film with the money he had made as a YouTuber and was able to help flesh out the team via connections with fellow content creators. He brought YouTube star Shane Dawson into the fold as one of the leads, paired with less experienced, but still well-known talent, including the likes of Caitlin Gerard and Keith David.

Because Wormser and Gallagher had forged a shorthand language from their time at Maker, they were able to get Smiley shot in just 16 days. And because so much of the talent involved was—literally and naturally—internet famous, the trailer garnered over 30 million views when it went online in November of 2011. That kind of interest helped them presell the movie as SVOD, well before that was established as an industry standard. From there, Wormser was able to secure a limited theatrical run by partnering directly with AMC Theatres. As Wormser secured additional funding, allowing for greater resources in post and with marketing, buzz was building consistently from the YouTubers involved in the production—which is to say everything was going about as well as possible for an independent feature.

But 21st century models of filmmaking open themselves up to 21st century obstacles. The outlook for Smiley turned dark when users of an online message board took exception to the content of the movie, leading to a period of harassment for the filmmakers and threats that could have derailed the release of the film. “It went from going swimmingly to just being this nightmare,” Wormser says of the experience. Determined to see the project through, Wormser and Gallagher pushed past the backlash and released the film, though they were forced to attend the premiere with bodyguards in case any of the threats materialized.

Its controversy aside, Smiley planted a flag for the YouTube generation within theatrical releases. Wormser and Gallagher continued to work together, channeling most of their talent through the YouTube pipeline. Some of it has found its way back to YouTube, for channels like BlackBox TV. But they have continued to make work that has gone to larger platforms. Despite their access to YouTube talent, there are still challenges. “They have a bread and butter with their channels,” Wormser observes, “and they don’t want to mess that up by not performing well in a film.” However because of his partnership with Gallagher, Wormser has been able to build a level of trust leading to the likes of Jimmy Tatro, Shane Dawson and Logan Paul appearing in the work he produces. While Paul has waded into his own controversies in the past year, Wormser has nothing but praise for his work on Legendary Digital’s The Thinning. “He was really committed,” Wormser confirms. “He really just brought it.” Wormser also noted how working with YouTubers who are used to a level of creative autonomy means that the rehearsal process becomes an essential collaborative step in the creative process. “Even though we have the constraints of filming something,” Wormser says, “we’re always on the same page and fully prepared.”

It’s been a long journey to get here, but Wormser is back making independent films like he wanted. With Gallagher he’s currently taking the feature Funny Story around the festival circuit. The film is a dramedy, one that represents a more thoughtful evolution of the work that Gallagher and Wormser make together. For Gallagher, there is no better producer for him to work with as his career path takes on new directions. “Wormser is the secret ingredient in our productions,” he smiles. “He will take on any obstacle and move mountains to transcend the usual limitations of independent filmmaking.”

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Welcome To The Machine - Getting Started With Machine Learning In Media and Entertainment

Posted By Jade McQueen, Tuesday, September 18, 2018

The Media and Entertainment industry, specifically film and TV, has experienced incredible growth over the past few years, with new streaming distribution platforms and a bigger-than-ever global audience eager to consume content on multiple devices. New ways of working, a proliferation of applications and devices, and new types of business processes have resulted in more content and more formats than ever before. With the explosion of content creation comes the challenge of keeping production streamlined, on budget and secure. Amid mounting concerns around data protection and cyber security, there are potential threats of costly hacks from a brand reputation, IP protection and monetary perspective.

To be able to address the new paradigm of production, content creators need to modernize their technology stack in order to digitize business processes. It is vital for production teams to stay focused on what matters most—creating award-winning shows and features. Enter machine learning and artificial intelligence. These four words are going to affect every type of business and are not going away. The automation of manual business processes and gleaning insights from the data and information we create are top priorities for any company that wants to stay relevant in the digital age.

 

WHAT IS MACHINE LEARNING?

The media and entertainment business is no stranger to innovation, as cutting-edge technologies have led (and are continuing to lead) to the creation of exceptional storytelling and experiences. With machine learning, we can train technology to automate and power simple, repeatable workflows from casting to talent agreements. Given the size of the administrative data set generated by the demands of production management, there is an opportunity to apply artificial intelligence and machine learning to this ever-growing, massive amount of information. This opportunity frees up time and bandwidth for creators, transferring the “busy work” to computers. The more content you have access to, the more opportunity to train the technology. Production companies with large libraries and archives of footage, images, VFX, posters and trailers are perhaps best positioned to start training machine learning for automation. 

 

HOW DOES IT WORK?

Many best-of-breed technology providers, including IBM, Microsoft, Google and many more already offer artificial intelligence and machine learning services that can be applied to manual tasks or business processes.  At Box, we are able to leverage the machine learning capabilities from these companies by integrating them into our intelligence offering, Box Skills, and applying the intelligence to unstructured content in Box. The ability to apply these technologies to label objects and images, convert speech-to-text transcripts, and deterct faces in videos are just a few of the ways that we have started to apply some of the practical applications for artificial intelligence and machine learning.

 

What do we mean by intelligence?  And what will the technology “learn?”

Image recognition has the ability to detect individual objects and concepts and can recognize text in image files. Imagine if during pre- and post-production, you never had to add tags manually to photo repositiories from shoots, productions and release parties. All of those images would automatically have tags recognizing characters, text and faces.

Audio Intelligence has the ability to transcribe and identify key topics in spoken audio files, making recordings for auditions and trainings easily searchable by topics or even single words within each file.

Video Intelligence can transcribe and identify key topics for speech and detects individual faces, similarly to image recognition, as they appear in video files.  So you could instantly pull up an archive of past productions that mentioned “California” within the file.

 

How can it help producers and production?

Machine learning is coming to a critical point, as producers shift to new platforms for content distribution, expand revenue streams by monetizing existing catalog and new content, and look to eliminate content silos. What if technology could learn to tackle some of these tasks?


GET GREENLIT FASTER, LAUNCH BETTER

Companies like Cinelytic, a machine learning-driven software as a service platform, is empowering entertainment industry professionals to make faster and better-informed decisions around packaging, financing, producing, distributing and marketing of their content. For clients, Cinelytic provides comprehensive data reporting, predictive analytics, risk and project management tools in an integrated, easy-to-use online system. Using these insights, the system allows producers to develop, produce, finance and market content that will resonate with the audience. For example, producers can now prepare and forecast a business plan for a film project to share with potential investors. While the story remains king and key to success, machine learning can deliver insights on what it takes to create a blockbuster and host a differentiated audience experience.

 

CONTRACT & BUDGET MANAGEMENT: DOCUMENT TEXT EXTRACTION

 Contract management is a time-consuming, complex process that involves numerous document types and countless internal and external teams. Production companies can streamline their end-to-end process by leveraging automation to extract text fields from documents, depending on what information the organization needs. Machine learning is the backbone to this new, streamlined workflow. Technologies like optical character recognition (OCR) and natural language understanding (NLU) are applied to content, creating instructions for data that needs to be pulled from documents. With OCR technology, producers working to on-board new talent can automatically pull required information from a scanned copy, photo or PDF of the contract, such as the talent’s name, agent, lawyer, contract signature date or renewal date.

 

FREELANCE AND CREW MANAGEMENT: DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION

 It takes a village for production teams to deliver the final cut. Maintaining the coming and going of freelancers and contractors for projects is difficult to organize and it’s hard to ensure that staffing is within budget.

With machine learning, organizations using outside crew and staffers can automatically assign a unique level of data classification to documents, including employment agreements and tax forms. This can be set up to start with on-boarding new contractors and  maintained during their tenure and through the closeout of the project.

For example, when on-boarding new crewmembers, production is likely to run into repeat contractors and staffers that have worked on other projects. Instead of searching through thousands of old records and files to find previous hire information, such as work history and hourly rates, machine learning can tag crew profiles with specific keywords. This allows production teams to easily find the information they need to finalize authorizations and move forward with their hire.

Machine learning can also be taught data retention policies, where specific information included in documents triggers the type of classification that should be applied, where the information should be stored and the length of time an organization needs to retain it for compliance requirements.

 

DIGITAL ARCHIVING AND WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT: IMAGE, AUDIO AND VIDEO LABELING

 Consider a production company’s digital archive. How many thousands of images, footage, posters, trailers and promotional materials exist in these libraries? All of these assets can and should be cataloged, but with the help of computers instead of individuals poring over pages and pages of data.

Whether during pre- or post-production, marketing departments across the industry can use machine learning to automatically recognize specific objects, characters, text and/or faces within the digital archive files. Agents can also use video facial recognition to filter through their talent’s clips and compile highlight reels, instead of digging through loads of content and files.

In the end machine learning is simply about driving more efficiency with intelligence from content and information that already exists within an organization. With all the content and experiences brought to audiences around the world, the entertainment industry is ready to embrace the power of machine learning technology. The applications for applied intelligence are endless, and we’re only getting started.

 

Jade McQueen began her career as an A&R executive at DreamWorks and Interscope Records before transitioning to film and TV. Her love of innovation and technology, coupled with a desire to bridge the gap between entertainment and tech, led to her current position as Senior Managing Director for Media & Entertainment at Box, where she oversees the company’s media and entertainment strategies globally.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

A Look Back: Marian Rees

Posted By Chris Green, Monday, September 10, 2018

Last week, the PGA office received word of the passing of one of its most revered members, Marian Rees.  One of the great producers of long-form television and one of the most dedicated members to have served the Producers Guild, Marian was an inspiring figure for generations of PGA members. A recipient of the Guild’s highest service honor, the Charles FitzSimons Award, Marian was a long-time member of the National Board, also serving a term as the PGA’s Vice President of Television.

In honor of her life and work, we here re-publish her Produced By cover interview, which ran in the Winter 2002-03 issue.

A memorial service will be held Saturday, Oct. 20 at 2:00 pm at Eagle Harbor Congregational Church, near her home on Bainbridge Island, Washington.  In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to Eagle Harbor Church or the University of Iowa Foundation.

In Memoriam - Marian Rees 1927-2018


Some producers like to hear themselves talk.  Marian Rees is not one of those people.  Some producers waste no time in telling you how many awards they’ve won.  In a 90-minute interview, Marian Rees doesn’t mention a single one of her many honors.  Some producers dominate a room with their presence, their voices. When Marian Rees speaks, the room gets very quiet; the room comes to her.

Born, raised and schooled in Iowa, Marian Rees has the clear-eyed and plain-spoken directness that’s characteristic of her native state.  She has little patience for pretense, though she’s generally too polite and too dignified to let that impatience show.  The simply-appointed offices of Marian Rees & Associates, across the street from the CBS lot in Studio City, are a testament to her modesty, though that same modesty masks a tenacity that’s as deeply held as any in Hollywood.  She is a 50-year veteran of the entertainment industry.  She started her independent production company at a time when the conventional wisdom said that women weren’t cut out to be motion picture producers, much less company CEOs; she’s continued producing right up to this day, long after most purveyors of that conventional wisdom have hung it up and headed for the golf course.

“I liked her immediately,” says Fay Kanin, Rees’ one-time collaborator and long-time friend.  “She’s very talented, very smart, and modest about her smartness.”  Those qualities have served her well in her career, which began in 1952 with a job as a secretary/receptionist at NBC.  After graduating from the University of Iowa with a degree in Sociology—a distinction she talks about far more readily than her Emmys or Golden Globes—Rees found herself in California following the disappointment of not finding a position with her organization of first choice, the United Nations.  The NBC job was intended to be temporary, but she swiftly rose through those ranks to become an Associate Producer on legendary tributes to Frank Sinatra, Ethel Barrymore and Fred Astaire.  In the following decades, she spent seventeen years at Norman Lear’s Tandem Productions, Associate Producing the pilots for such groundbreaking series as All in the Family and Sanford & Son.

In 1981, Rees founded Marian Rees Associates, where she has since made her home and reputation as the gold standard of producing movies for television.  For the company, Rees and partner Anne Hopkins have produced over 40 films for network, cable and public television, including ten for the prestigious Hallmark Hall of Fame, and the five films that comprise The American Collection on ExxonMobil Masterpiece Theatre. Her work received many honors, including eleven Emmy Awards and 38 nominations, as well as a pair of Golden Globes, seven Monte Carlo Television Awards, Six Christopher Awards, the Humanitas Prize and a Peabody Award.  Asked to speculate on Rees’ recipe for success, long-time collaborator Dorothea Petrie pointed out that “every time out, she tries to do something special, special for her and special for her audience.  She knows that story is the most important aspect of any of her films, but they always include strong emotional content, and comedy, too.  Just like life does.”

This is the tenth in Produced by’s ongoing series of Case Studies of the careers of successful producers.  Produced By’s Chris Green had the good fortune to be able to sit down with Marian Rees and talk about Iowa, Hallmark, and the challenges of producing long-form television in a rapidly changing industry.

 

Chris Green: You grew up in Iowa, and I know that despite your many years in Hollywood, you’re still an Iowan at heart.  How has your background affected your career as a producer?

Marian Rees: Growing up where I did and when I did truly shaped my character, and that has been a fundamental part of the work that I’ve done.  Now that I have a body of work, I see it even more clearly.  You begin to see a pattern.  The character of Iowa is distinct, it truly is.  The educational system in Iowa has been historically the best, bar none.  Public education there is truly a heritage, a legacy.  The communities were dedicated to families, and education was at the heart of it.  Every citizen in that state has that birthright.  But when I first came out here I was very self-conscious about being from the Midwest.  I had not planned to enter this business at all.

When did you come out to California?

In 1952.  And with my B.A. in Sociology, I was going to do great social work.  And so being in the entertainment business was always intended to be a temporary job.

This is getting to be a long temporary career.

That’s right. (laughs) But the part of the industry I was in—live television—was very new on the West Coast and there were so many exciting people involved, young guys like Arthur Penn, Bud Yorkin, Jack Shea, John Rich, Norman Lear.  They were driven, and alive, and they were the ones that created and shaped that little industry out here.  They were all from the theatre, and I felt myself to be an outsider for a very long time.  But this whole component of a good education really buoyed me throughout all of that.  There were some instances when I realized I had an education that equipped me better than some I saw around me. For instance, one of the things that I’ve learned is that though I’m no English or literature major, I’m blessed with good grammar.  Now that may sound like a little thing…

Not to a magazine editor, it doesn’t.

That’s right.  You know.  If you’re working with writers, it becomes kind of a screening device.  When you read a script that is so lacking in that fundamental writing tool, it tells you something right away.

Marian Rees with Mario Machado and Tyne Daly
at the Emmy Awards

So, assuming the grammar is up to par, what’s the next thing you see in a script?

As a producer, the thing that has served me well is an ability to recognize a good story.  I’m more comfortable with my role in the community when we talk about ourselves as storytellers.  That’s a source of great security for me—I’m still insecure, even after all this time.  But it has to start with the story, and the best work is done when the producer has that passion and that vision, and allows him or herself to be guided by that story’s strength, its power. That’s when a film for me becomes organic, it has a life of it’s own; it will tell you what to do with it; it will tell you when you’re not paying attention to something; it speaks.  That may sound really quite odd but having made 36 films, you can find the voice in every film and every one will be different.

So, for you, what are the elements that make a good story?

Character.  It’s characters first, plot second.  There’s so much demand for plot-driven material now that it’s hard to persuade people to have the patience that character development requires. 

Did the medium used to be more character-driven, and it’s become more story-driven?

I think the sense of movies has changed.  I was talking with a colleague yesterday—a studio executive—and we were talking about the changing nature of the movie for television, the way the template is different.  It’s a genre that is really so vulnerable and threatened right now.  The way of telling the story is different; the pacing is different.  I think a lot of it is driven by demographics, so there’s almost a built in constraint.  Your movie won’t feel liberated.  You won’t get into the depth of character that will take you where the power of the story is.

Obviously, changing demographics have altered the way lots of producers frame their projects.  Are there other factors?

Well, the vertical integration of the industry has had more impact than anyone is willing to admit; it could have been predicted when deregulation happened.  We fought a losing battle on that, but the consequence was predictable and the vertical integration is clearly in place.  And so it’s not the storytelling that’s important as much as it is the ratings and the advertising revenue.  So we see programming where the story and the drama are eroded by added minutes for commercial time.  That’s a constraint on your story.  Instead of 94 minutes, the standard is down to 80 minutes, and it gets smaller and smaller.  That’s a real constraint.  You can’t let loose the power of the story through character development.  That takes time.

That’s an interesting metaphor: looseness versus constriction.  It sounds like a matter of giving a story room to breathe, room to find itself.

I think that’s true.  And that struggle begins to dissipate some of the strength that a producer can bring.  That’s why the producer’s central job is holding to that story.  That process requires constant vigilance. I keep coming back to passion and management.  I think when you do movies for television, you learn management; there’s no way around it.  The budgets are so stringent and you learn to manage the budget by managing the story.  You control the budget from the very beginning of the story development.  On our first movies, we would bring in our line producer, the late Bob Hudelson; we’d have him read the outline, the first draft and then say, “okay, Bob, where will this balloon? Understand we’re not going to change the storyline, we can’t distort characters, but give us a guide.” We did that to protect ourselves, as we had no contingency.  So it became crucial that we had a cushion, and Bob understood that.


So what were some of the tricks that he taught you?

Bob was brilliant at suggesting ways to compress.  I think that a lot of what he could see—from that outside perspective—was non-sequiturs, or redundancies that you don’t catch sometimes.  He’d say this was a non-essential scene, and he was right.  But if you start with a story and everybody understands that that story is to be protected at all costs, then the adjustments can be made through a process that makes sense.  That’s storytelling.  That isn’t just making a movie, it’s telling a story.  To me there’s a difference. 

What is that difference?

You don’t tell a story with the goal of getting an Emmy.  You tell a story for its own sake, and you do the best you can.  If it’s honored and in other ways recognized, that’s a consequence; it’s not the goal.  But I have many colleagues—and they’re not to be judged—who make movies for volume, for the business side of it, and for reasons that are important to them.  And that’s perfectly legitimate, but that hasn’t been my experience and hasn’t been my goal. 

At the same time, that’s a tough way to make your fortune in the world.

You don’t make a fortune doing it this way.  That’s really one of the reasons I started my own company, to separate myself from the need to drive a volume for another company.  I simply couldn’t do it well.  It was so much more important to me not only to tell the stories I wanted to tell, but also to own those movies.  I knew enough to know that that’s where the real security was.  Otherwise you’re an employee without benefits, without equity.  We don’t own all our films but we have a nice library.  They’re all films that have been personally directed in their development. They are the ones that sit well in my heart, and I’m proud of them.


So, which are the titles that you feel closest to?
 

For me, Love Is Never Silent is the embodiment of that process, both its difficulties and its satisfactions. 


What were the challenges in putting that story together?

It was in 1982, and I just started the company; we had just finished our first film.  So the next one up was a book that was brought by Juliana Feld, who optioned Joanne Greenberg’s book In This Sign.  The book is about a young deaf teenage couple who find each other and marry.  They have two hearing children and one, the younger boy, dies when he falls off a balcony, his cry for help unheard.  And so the fate of this family was in Margaret, the hearing daughter.  That was the crux of the story: her coming of age, conflicted and ambivalent about her role in that family being the ears, the communicator.  And the conflict when she falls in love and wants to have her own life:  How can she leave this mother and father for whom she has been the door to the world?  She finally marries and does leave.  Her telling her parents her decision is probably one of the best scenes that I’ve seen in a movie.  It still moves me, and I’ve seen it recently.  That story went right to the core of me when I read it.  And I didn’t know anything about deaf culture except my own passion for it.  Because if I’d thought about it, I would have said, “Well, nobody’s going to make this movie.”  But you can’t say that, not if you really care.  But Dick Welsh from Hallmark Hall of Fame came and said, “Is there something you really feel passionate about that you want to do?” And I said, yes, I want to do this book.  And he listened, and I told him there was one caveat in it: I had made it a binding agreement with Juliana Feld, herself a deaf actress, to use deaf actors in those principal roles of the parents.  If it fell apart on that, then it would fall apart on that.  So Dick said, “I’ll go to Kansas City and I’ll go to Brad Moore and ultimately to Don Hall.”  That’s where the decisions were made.  They liked the story, and when they heard of the legal binder, they came back in 24 hours and said, “yes.”  They would honor that legal component. So the next thing was to get it to the network.  At that time all the Hallmarks were at CBS, and the head of CBS said that under no circumstances would there be deaf actors.  He would not approve it.

That must have put you in a very difficult position.

I had to hold firm.  I would not unravel the legal thread in all of this.  I couldn’t do that.  And to their great credit, Hallmark wouldn’t budge either.  They held firm.  And it came to a real loggerhead. I’d get calls that said, “he’s not going to let you cast [deaf actors] Phyllis Frelich and Ed Waterstreet, but he’ll give the green light if you get someone like Paul Newman and Joanna Woodward to play the parents.”  Long pause.   And I said, “Isn’t it appreciated that even if we could get these consummate actors to play these roles, they don’t speak one word in the whole 98 minutes of the movie?  And frankly, I’m not sure that Paul and Joanne would want to void the integrity of this piece.”  That was my opinion.  By this time, we had people already on location. The train had left the station, but we had no green-light.  And finally, again to the great credit of Hallmark, they jumped networks.  Carl Meyer and Brandon Tartikoff were at NBC and they liked it.  So I went to Dick and asked if there was any possibility that Hallmark’s passion and commitment to this was sufficient to go outside CBS and go to another network.” When the word came back, Dick said, “I’m going to go to NBC.” And in 24 hours we had a green-light, with a cast in place, and we went off and made the movie, told the story. It was a good story. It just needed somebody to care about it.  And it became history. [Ed. Note: Love is Never Silent was nominated for four Emmy Awards, winning for Best Picture of the Year and for Joseph Sargent’s directing.]

It just struck me when you spoke about Hallmark and going out to Kansas, that this is another Midwestern sensibility.  I can see that their steadfastness spoke to you with a kind of kinship.  

I can’t say enough about the integrity of that company.  And especially in today’s context, with corporate America being judged by the example of Enron.  These scandals speak to the lack of that very integrity, the ethics, that is at the core of Hallmark. They’re very modest, self-effacing.  They know their audience, and they’ve served it well for all these years.  It’s the longest-running dramatic program in the history of television—50 years of uninterrupted programming.  That’s a huge commitment, and you don’t make that unless you believe in it.  We’ve had the good fortune of making 10 Hallmarks.  And you’re right, I understood them, and they understood me.  It was and is a place to tell great stories and have them embraced and promoted.  It doesn’t get better than that. 

How does that compare to the series of films you produced for The American Collection, on PBS?  Was that a slightly different way of working?

Not slightly different, grandly different.  It was a wonderful idea that Dr. Carolyn Reid-Wallace had as the Executive Vice President of Development and Education at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).  She was having dinner in London with a guy who was head of the BBC who remarked, “You know, Carolyn, doesn’t it seem odd to you that all the dramatic programming on PBS has an English accent? Isn’t that odd?”   It really sent her home thinking and she came back to change that.  She went to the Corporation’s board and said, “We need to change this.  I want to do movies based on American literature and American writers.”  They supported her, and then she set about to find a producer to do the series. She wanted the movies to be like Hallmark Hall of Fame dramas.  So she sought us out.

Obviously this represented an incredible opportunity for you.  How do you approach a chance like that?

I didn’t seek the job nor did I audition for it. I just wanted to help her.  I was absolutely taken with this woman’s vision and her passion and her determination to see it come to fruition.  She single handedly nurtured that idea, selflessly put herself in some jeopardy, and you can’t help but respond to someone like that.  She had the task of getting PBS to come aboard.  That was tough, strangely enough.  I was surprised that there was the initial resistance to it. 

Really?  I have to say that I’m surprised, too.

Well, it was new.  Where did we fit?  Where was our place in all of this?  Here we were on the West Coast, and outside of the PBS community, in a way.  Regardless of our credentials, we were outsiders, and we began to feel that.

I imagine it’s just a very different culture than your usual network. 

It is.  I’ve met some wonderful people that I would have never met before, people who are truly committed to the public broadcasting system. They’re deeply caring, well-educated people and are comfortable without the affluence that sometimes is a demarcation in our community.  And that distinction was reflected in other ways.  Our budget for the five films was 15 ½ million dollars.  Though it was the largest single grant in the history of the CPB, that isn’t a lot of money in Hollywood terms.  That makes one low-budget picture.  So I knew we would have to depend on the good will of this community.  And they came through!

When you say this community, the Hollywood community? 

Yes, I introduced Dr. Reid-Wallace to the heads of agencies.  I felt if they got the story from her, they’d understand why I made my commitment.  And they came on board and said, “just tell us how we can help.”  Their clients were encouraged to be a part of it. We had to set ceilings, and everybody bought in; if they didn’t, they didn’t come aboard.  Wonderful talent came aboard!  They went out under Exxon Mobil Masterpiece Theatre, some very different titles that might not have been chosen by someone else. 

Hopkins and Rees at the Caucus for Television Workers,
Producers and Directors Honors. 

 

That’s true.  It’s a very unique collection of titles.

Yes, eclectic in scope and not driven by any demography at all.  I just felt that it was essential that diversity was a central component of the project.  I was somewhat mis-quoted by the New York Times saying that I didn’t want to do works of dusty, dead old white men.  What I didn’t want to do was to go into material that wasn’t relevant, that didn’t have currency.  I didn’t care if it was written recently like Esmeralda Santiago’s story [Almost a Woman].  That’s a very contemporary story, but at the same time, it’s also an immigrant story, and that’s the oldest story of America.  But they had to be relevant; they had to be doable.  You can’t make an epic on $3 million.  I thought it was important that we had a piece that dealt with the South and the Civil War, but I wanted a different aspect of it.  That’s why Langston Hughes’ short story [Cora Unashamed] spoke so clearly to me. He set it in Iowa, which is a different point on that whole compass that directs us to the knowledge and the history of the Civil War or of slavery.  It will always be a part of our life story as a nation; we can’t leave it behind.  Interestingly, Cora Unashamed became the highest-rated movie on Masterpiece Theatre in its 16-year history.  I just learned that about two months ago, and that was rewarding.

I want to ask about your years at Tandem working with Norman Lear and about producing things with a social conscience; that seems to be a goal that’s very close to you.  Especially since there’s often so much hesitation about including a social message in a commercial production.

Well, HBO is doing it.  NBC is doing it, with The West Wing.  You can find it.  It isn’t absent.  It’s the independent movie for television that’s absent; as a result of the vertical integration, there’s a lot of in-house production.  So there’s not that demand for the independent voice.

Norman Lear’s voice was and is as independent as they come. 

That’s certainly true.  Tandem was a comfortable place for me to be because it was risk-taking and challenging.  It was raising the voice of contrariness, and going to a different level of commentary through comedy.  That’s what Norman was: a social commentator.  And Norman was fierce, both fierce and graceful.  But he has that ability as a human being to invite others in and let them become a part of it.  I think about Bob Wood, who was President of CBS and who was the other hero of all of this.  He kept the shows on.  Norman found his voice, and Bob understood what he was saying and put his own job on the line.  They became partners in this commentary.  I think television will always attract people like that. Television is spontaneous, it’s immediate, you know that you’ve connected.  There’s vibrancy and vitality about that and it’s measurable in a far different way than the box office.  It’s compelling, it holds you because of that.  I think it’s the most exciting medium in our lives.

In the very beginning of the interview, you talked about sensing the pattern to your career, looking back on it. The last question I’d like to ask is, when you’re looking at that pattern, what do you see?

At the heart of every movie, there is that central family.  Maybe it’s dysfunctional, or incomplete, or non-nuclear, but it’s that which binds people together with the kind of common thread we find in family.  There’s a kind of human yearning to be connected.  And if we don’t get it in the family, all hell breaks loose.  I think that yearning is universal, it’s timeless, it’s where we need to be, where we want to be… to be “at home.”  And yet we need to be independent.  And we are, some of us fiercely independent, and yet in that fierceness we recognize our own dependency.  I’m not sure that that isn’t a part of almost every movie I’ve made.  In fact, your question puts me in mind of another interview I had many years ago.  And perhaps your question gives me solace in the same way that question did two decades ago.  I never ever felt myself credentialed in this business.  I never felt I belonged; there were always others by whom I was awed.  Fay Kanin awes me.  I was awed by Norman, by Frank Schaffner, awed as I sat in his control room.  Literally in awe… it’s an awesome business in a way, isn’t it?  And so I was asked this question: Aren’t you really proud of this work?  Don’t you have a feeling of real pride in this?  And I started to tear up and I confessed, “Jack, I feel like a failed sociologist.”  It was just a revealing moment, for me as well as for him, and he took a long pause and let me have my little cry.  And he said, “Marian, these films that you have made, look at them.  Don’t you realize that you are a sociologist, working in the field?  That’s what you’re doing.”  And I never had those doubts again after that day.  That feeling was spent, and as a result, I looked at the work differently, and I answer your questions differently. I have a place in this industry.  No one is going to throw me out except myself. I’m comfortable with the movies that have succeeded, and I’m comfortable with who I am.  Looking back, I’m doing exactly what I should be doing and I’m at home. 

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

GAIL BERMAN & LUCY FISHER - The PGA's New Presidents Have Some Big Plans

Posted By Chris Green, Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Typically when we interview a pair of producers for our cover, they represent two halves of a long-standing partnership, with a significant collective body of work behind them. The two subjects of this interview aren’t producing partners—at least not in the traditional sense—and it’s fair to speculate that the duo’s most lasting joint achievements lie ahead.

On June 9 at the Guild’s General Membership Meeting, the PGA welcomed its new Presidents, Gail Berman and Lucy Fisher. In taking the office, they represent the fourth pair of producers to share the duties of the PGA presidency. Not only does their election promise new opportunities for the Producers Guild, it presented a novel prospect for this magazine: the chance to sit down with the incoming leaders and discuss their priorities, as they chart the Guild’s course for the next two years. In years past, incoming Presidents have been the subjects of feature profiles recent enough to disqualify them as repeat cover subjects. But Gail Berman (we’re almost embarrassed to note) has never appeared in our pages prior to this, while Lucy Fisher, along with her producing partner and husband, Douglas Wick, was last seen gracing the cover of this magazine back in 2001, in the sixth issue we ever published.

Needless to say, it’s a vastly different PGA and entertainment industry that we’re a part of today. But if anyone is up to the challenges of the moment, it’s Berman and Fisher, who each bring to the job a lengthy producing career informed by a significant tenure as a network/studio executive at the highest levels. This also marks the first time a pair of women have held the PGA Presidency. Berman and Fisher were both instrumental contributors to the Guild’s landmark Anti-Sexual Harassment Guidelines released earlier this year, and their election is a sure sign that the Producers Guild intends to continue to lead the industry as it reappraises its professional culture.

In taking on the PGA Presidency, we conjecture that Berman and Fisher must have somehow discovered a few extra hours in each day, busy as they are with running their respective companies, The Jackal Group (which Berman founded in 2014) and Red Wagon Entertainment (where Fisher joined partner Wick as Co-Head in 2000). Berman was kind enough to dedicate a couple of those hours to hosting Produced By at The Jackal Group offices in Santa Monica, where the following interview took place.

 

So of course, we need the origin stories. How did you guys find your way to producing?

GAIL: I started my career as a producer in a pretty unusual way.  After graduating from the University of Maryland in my early 20s, a friend and I wound up producing a version of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, which we initially put up at Ford’s Theater in Washington and then took the production to off-Broadway and then finally to Broadway— which served as the show’s initial debut on the big stage. So at a very young age, I wound up being a producer and was purely a producer for the first 10 years of my career. Then I became an executive who was also producing, working for Sandy Gallin, which lead to my running production companies and also producing. However when I went to Fox in 2000, I served solely as an executive for the first time in my career.

 

Well, we’re glad you’re back.

GAIL: I am too. When I went to work as an executive, I missed being a producer. I missed being close to the product. I missed “touching” it. I enjoyed my years as an executive, but I always knew that I would go back to getting as close as I could to the creative idea and to the group that I got to put together to fulfill somebody’s creative vision. And I love that.


 

It sounds like it’s part of your DNA, at this point.

GAIL: It kind of is, I think.

LUCY: I had the opposite trajectory. I was an executive for 25 years, at five different studios. I worked with a number of producers and lived with and married a producer. I was very lucky in that I got to work with some great visionary producers. I worked for Francis Coppola for two years as Head of Production when he had his studio, Zoetrope Studios, on Las Palmas and got to see him work as a producer and director.  And I did many movies with Steven Spielberg, mostly as a producer but sometimes as a director. So I was able to watch some masters in action. I got to watch my husband [Douglas Wick] manage Gladiator and see how he kept three separate writers all still engaged on the project, reading new drafts and scenes even when somebody else was writing those drafts.  Even as an executive, I always liked to think of myself as sort of an executive producer on the movies that I worked on, because I loved to be down in the details of the process.

But as I rose up the ranks as an executive, I kept finding myself further and further away from the creative side I loved, until I was finally offered the Chairmanship at Sony. But I realized that if I took that job, I would be in a room I didn’t want to be in, instead of the room that I did want to be in, which was the room that said “Yes” as opposed to the room that said “No.” I wanted to be a part of putting together the team of talented people who would work together to make something better than it could ever be if any one person did it by themselves. Being a part of that collaborative process is, I think, one of the greatest pleasures of working in entertainment.

 


The Producers Guild, as an organization, has had a few different acts of its own. What was your impression of the Guild before you joined, and what did you discover about the PGA as you became familiar with it?

GAIL: Well, I really dived right in when I joined, but to be perfectly candid, I didn’t know much about the PGA before that. Initially it felt to me that the Guild lent itself more to the film community than it did to television. I realized after I joined that I was mistaken about that, that there was an interest in really broadening the goals of the organization. I felt like I fit right in, that I could participate, get my point of view—and certainly the television point of view—across. Now that I’m working more in film, it’s a pleasure to access the experience of some of the veteran film producers that have lent their services to the Guild. It’s an impressive group.

LUCY: I came to the Producers Guild through Wick, who also later turned out to be my business partner in Red Wagon. But at that point, I was still a studio executive and he was very involved in the early stages of the creation of the Producers Mark, along with Kathy Kennedy, Mark Gordon, Hawk Koch and so many others.  Seeing them put together the definition of what a producer did, and create and sell the value of the Mark is what turned me on to the PGA.

What I came to see after I became a producer and joined it, was that the PGA, as an entity, has a lot of the same qualities that I admire in producers; it’s scrappy, it’s not bureaucratic, it wants to get things done, it welcomes different points of view and it’s okay to argue. I love that its ways aren’t set in stone and it doesn’t have such an old history that precedent always has to take precedence. Instead people are encouraged to speak up. We can act nimbly because we’re not mired down. So I think that the Guild has a similar personality to the best aspects of producing. I like that.

 

What is it that you’d like to see the Guild do? What sort of difference would you like to see it make in the lives of producers or in the lives of people in the industry?

LUCY: That’s a great question. I’ll answer it in a few different parts. At this particular point in time, I was especially attracted to the opportunity because I want to help make the producing community more inclusive. Producers are naturally leaders. They have to lead a lot of disparate individual people all the time, while still trying to keep their eye on the big picture.

With the new attention to diversity and emphasis on stopping sexual harassment and trying to create more equitable workplaces, I felt like this was a point in time where I could actually make a bigger difference at the Producers Guild than maybe I would have been able to at other points in time. I mean, the accomplishment of the Producers Mark is supreme. It’s a hugely significant achievement. So now hopefully another great achivement for us can be to provide leadership and provide a model for some of the ways that we’d like society and our industry to conduct itself. That opportunity is extremely appealing to me and to both of us, I think.

GAIL: Because our world is in the midst of a revolution, and our business is changing at a pace that is almost impossible to keep up with, the opportunities that I see for our members are going to continue to grow exponentially from traditional platforms to the expanding universe of OTT services and emerging technologies.

It is an incredible time to be a producer. But at the same time, I also think we have to continue to protect and fight for producers, as we look to the future and to all of these exciting new places for content. Many people and many companies who have not previously been in the entertainment business are entering the space. Producers potentially can become diminished by that, by the lack of understanding of their role in the project. People seem to know what a director does and what a writer does. But oftentimes the producer, the visionary who started it, the person who’s in charge of putting things together and keeping them together, that person needs to be valued and advocated for in this new world order, if you will.

So I think that one of our goals is to take the organization into the future and to make sure that our current members as well as those who expand the ranks, are respected going forward and enjoy the opportunities that the revolution will provide.

LUCY: That was great. I want to say what she says.

[LAUGHTER]

GAIL: Thanks!

Lucy Fisher discusses a scene with cast member Tom Hardy while on location in Georgia for Lawless.

 

What you’re talking about is the paradox of the producer’s job. When you’re responsible for seemingly everything, how do you get others to understand or appreciate the nature of that responsibility?

GAIL: People used to ask me, “What does a producer do?” And I said, “A producer is the person who gets no credit when the show is successful and gets all the blame when the show isn’t successful.” [laughs] That was my definition of a producer. I think 30 years later, it still holds up as a good definition of a producer.

LUCY: But just adding to that, in the film world, despite the fact that movies are often linked to the star or the director in the public’s mind, when it comes time to handing out the Oscar for Best Picture, it goes to the producer. That’s one of the things that the Producers Guild worked really hard on, to make sure the right people, the ones who truly did the work, receive the credit they deserve.

I think Gail is absolutely right that in this exploding universe of entertainment, we want to make sure that we can protect producers the same way. That requires identifying the work. That requires educating people. And it requires having talented people to do that job. I think we do. We have thousands of members and we’re getting more every week.

I think the expanding ranks of the PGA is evidence that the organization has touched a lot of people, has built a community for producers to be able to communicate, share ideas, share frustrations, and be a place that individuals can find work and feel protected. I think that’s a really good way to look at how to grow this organization and to continue to move its ranks into television and into what the Guild still calls “new media.” I hate to tell everybody, but “new media” is at this point, ironically, a very old term.

GAIL: As a guild, we’re exploring a lot of different ways of going about producing in that space. Certainly that is something that we’re doing at my company. And I’d like to think that’s some knowledge that I’ll be able to share with our membership.

LUCY: On a separate but related note, in terms of the membership, I think the PGA’s expanding and redefining what the AP Council represents has allowed a lot more people and younger people to join the Guild. I mean, that’s our lifeblood. We’re excited that those people can find their way in and find work through their membership.

 

Executive producer Gail Berman (back left) with team members from 2016's The Rocky Horror Picture Show: Let's Do the Time Warp Again. Back row: Berman, producer Lou Adler; Front row: cast members Reeve Carney, Victoria Justice, Ryan McCartan, Laverne Cox, Tim Curry, director Kenny Ortega

That’s what a guild is supposed to do, advance your career and give you a trade.

GAIL: That’s our overarching goal: to keep expanding the ranks so that you can start at one place and begin to grow in your career as well as within the PGA.

LUCY: One of the things that I know I’m excited about and I think the Guild is excited about is that in Gail, we have a President who comes from such a deep television background, even though she’s doing features now too. But we haven’t had that in the Guild at such a primary level before. Since there’s now a highway between film and television, with people commuting from one medium to the other, having that perspective is going to be really valuable.

GAIL: I think the lines are blurred. Here’s the good news: We’re all about quality content. We’re all about encouraging our membership to create and be involved in high-quality content. Going forward, that content will be seen on any number of platforms—platforms that we’re all familiar with, the big screen, broadcast television, cable television and now any number of over-the-top services that are being developed or are already in the game.

I think the key here is not so much to think about serving a given distribution platform, but to think about content and the necessity for high-quality content to populate all of these different ways of distributing product. It’s an incredibly ambitious time for producers. It’s an incredibly scary time for producers. But I am a believer that, when you have this kind of tumult, amazing opportunity comes from it. For those who are willing to look and find it, there is a new day dawning. I’m very happy to be part of helping the Guild be a part of this new day and get it to wherever and however we can benefit our members the most.

 

We’ve already spoken a little about the Producers Mark. It remains the signature achievement of the Guild. Lucy, you had a ringside seat to the creation of the Mark.

LUCY: At first it felt like a pipe dream, that the Mark would ever be accepted by any studio, much less all of them. Studios were not in the habit of respecting producers to the degree that they deserved to be respected. It was a very hard process, which our predecessors undertook brilliantly. But when we finally saw that little “p.g.a” next to our names, we were really excited. People asked us, “What is that?” And then they usually said, “We didn’t know you played golf!”

[LAUGHTER]

LUCY: Of course, we explained what it really meant. Anyway the fact that it caught on the way that it did, and the fact that people wanted to have those initials next to their name and wanted to signify that they really did the work, and that they were proud of the work that they did, all of that happened really quickly once it started. I think it’s certainly a crowning achievement of the Guild, at least in the film sphere.

Now we have to figure out how to keep it relevant and how to make it so people can’t game the system. We have a slew of problems that we never anticipated because some people now want the Mark so badly that they are trying to figure out ways to circumvent or bend the rules. So there will be a constant process of massaging or reevaluating those rules. And it’s something that we would like to explore expanding into the television world.

GAIL: Yes. We really believe that, while it’s a more complicated venture to add it to television, it’s certainly worthy of exploration. We have members that I know are interested in seeing that happen. A full evaluation of what the Mark means and what it could mean for television producers is a conversation that we’re going to take up quickly … just in an exploratory way. What would it mean to expand the Mark?

We’re not going to make any promises. We don’t imagine that this is an issue that can be tackled quickly. But we will certainly engage in the conversation.

 

Certainly the kind of tumult you were just talking about suggests that this is a more Malleable PHASE than we’ve seen.

GAIL: That’s why I think this may be the moment to really begin these conversations because at a certain point in time, producers need to answer certain questions such as: What is a film? What is a television show? What is digital content? If a film doesn’t appear in a movie theater, does that mean it’s not a movie? These are all questions that have to be raised. Producers themselves have to engage in the conversation about these things so that other entities are not deciding this for us.

We want to be at the forefront of that decision-making. We want to rise to the occasion the same way the Guild did when confronted with the issue of harassment impacting the industry as a whole. We want to be the first out. We want to be setting the agenda for our membership, as opposed to bringing up the rear.

 

That’s a perfect segue, because that’s exactly what the Guild made it a point to do in delivering its Anti-Harassment Guidelines for its members—to give them a fixed point to hold on to in the middle of a lot of swirling uncertainty. I know that you both were very key to that process. What was your experience like, of getting together and really digging into this sensitive area during what everyone sensed was kind of a watershed moment?

LUCY: It was incredibly intense. People felt really strongly about many different aspects of the issue. I will be forever impressed with how quickly the Producers Guild acted, A) in convening a task force and B) encouraging the multitude of points of view about what should be done and what measures could be taken. As happens in good producing, everybody was heard. And we actually came to practical solutions in terms of creating a document that became the template for the other guilds.

So the Producers Guild really stepped up very quickly to address the problem. Did we take a great first step? Yes. Will we have to continue to be vigilant? The answer is yes. We have a membership that’s very committed to those issues. They’re serious. This wasn’t a passing whimsy that will be forgotten in a month. It’s a part of our culture that’s going to stay. I think the Producers Guild really stepped up quickly and intelligently.

GAIL: I think what Lucy said is exactly right. I think it was a proud moment, especially in that we took on a painful situation that some of our very own members contributed to. So we needed to be proactive about it. We needed to take a strong stand, the way we want to do with a lot of things going forward. The very fact that we’re in this position—that the PGA for the first time has elected two women as its Presidents—that in itself sends a powerful message in this moment.

We can’t dictate what our membership does creatively. But what we can do is create a standard that we would like to see our membership uphold. If we can just express that priority to the membership and have them embrace it, that will make our tenure really, really worthwhile.

 

At the same time, the pushback against harassment is taking place within a larger context. Lots of voices that historically have been excluded from the industry are speaking up to be included.

GAIL: First and foremost, we have to make sure that those are individuals that are in our Guild, from the very start. If they’re not in our Guild, you can’t represent people that aren’t present. So the Guild itself has to open the doors up and be inclusive of the kinds of individuals and issues that we are concerned about.

I know both Lucy and I are very determined to make sure of that, just as our predecessors were. Gary and Lori did a tremendous job in terms of diversity within our organization. I think we’re going to take that mantle and run with it. These are important issues of the day and we need to have a Guild that’s representative of what we stand for, which is inclusion.

By having those people in our Guild, they will tell stories to the world that other people might not tell. It’s incredibly important to us and I think to the world at large right now, that diverse points of view are represented in entertainment and in every sphere. The artistic freedom to be able to express a panoply of points of view can only happen with a majority of people expressing their experiences.

LUCY: It feels like the world is about narrowing voices right now, putting them into a homogenous box. The PGA should never be about that. We should be about the expansion of storytelling, the freedom of storytelling. We need to protect that for our membership and, really, for our industry as a whole.

Gail and I were talking earlier about the news, how local news has been diminished so much that the news that we’re getting is from fewer and fewer sources. We don’t want that to be the case with entertainment, because entertainment represents people’s dreams and hopes and experiences of life. It’s really important to defend that, not just allow all studios to become one studio that makes one movie.

 

I’ve seen that movie, I think. It’s another paradox of the producer’s world right now—the platforms are multiplying and yet the number of people who are actually in a position to purchase content appears to be narrowing. How do you as producers navigate that kind of tension?

GAIL: These are really important questions, precisely because they’re difficult to answer. It’s complicated. I mean, it’s not easy when one giant company is buying another giant company and you’re not sure—if you’re me, at least—who you actually work for.

[LAUGHTER]

I think these are questions that don’t have obvious answers right now, but as a producer, you do your best to navigate what you’re given. It’s just hard. Everybody is dealing with some version of that question.

 

Thank you for being so candid. Just to have other producers read and recognize that the Presidents of the Producers Guild are ultimately dealing with the same issues they’re grappling with creates real solidarity within the membership.

LUCY: The explosion of digital content is, in part, a reaction against having only a few people deciding what other people are going to get to see. That’s one reason that space is so interesting right now: They’re not asking permission. So we’re watching and we’re learning, same as everybody else.

 

Here’s a big-picture question… The PGA is officially nonpartisan, politically. We don’t endorse candidates, and we respect the diverse politics of our members by basically staying out of them. At the same time, we have fully embraced inclusion, and we now live in a world where that represents an inherently political position. Given that culture is at the heart of so much of the tension and the tribalism that we see today, what’s our responsibility as culture makers?

GAIL: Well I think a big part of our job as producers is to allow somebody to come home, put their feet up, turn on whatever device they want to turn on, and relax and simply enjoy entertainment. I think it’s an increasingly important thing to be able to provide to people, after a difficult day that’s fraught with problems and saturated with messaging. It’s a real blessing to be able to give that to audiences, because people need it so badly, and they need it more in a world that’s as divisive as ours is right now. It’s a wonderful part of what we can do, to bridge the gaps that exist in this world that we’re in.

 

That’s really well put.

GAIL: I also think it’s important to remind ourselves that what we create is, in so many ways, one of the great exports we have to the rest of the world. It’s some of the best product that anybody could ever want to export and represents what our country is like and what our values are. It’s something for us as a country to be very proud of. It represents us really well around the world, when other things may not represent us so well.

LUCY: At the same time, the best of entertainment can travel the globe precisely because it talks about the commonality of the human experience and because it reminds us that there is a commonality of experience. So yes, we provide escape and entertainment and the excitement that comes from being thrilled or moved or any of those things, but it’s also important to remember that it binds us to each other. The Greeks sat in the theater outside to watch plays and experience those stories together. It’s the same impulse you see in response to something like The Handmaid’s Tale, where different people all around the country are calling each other, “Did you watch it yet?” It makes a community, whether you see it on your TV or on your phone or you see it projected onto your eyeball in 10 years. There’s something that binds us together, that makes us feel connected to other people rather than feel threatened by other people. It’s like that moment at the end of Sullivan’s Travels, where the prisoners are all laughing together at a movie or the first time you see a foreign movie and you forget that you’re watching the subtitles because you identify so much with the characters … That’s a magic gift that we have, and we hold it very dearly.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 2 of 54
1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  >   >>   >| 
ABOUT THE PGABECOME A MEMBERPRODUCERS CODE OF CREDITSPGA AWARDSPRODUCED BY CONFERENCEPRODUCED BY MAGAZINE