Developing an Alternative Producer’s Workflow

by

Tom Duncan

07012676

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in Screen Project Development

School of Design and Media Arts

Napier University

18 February 2009

1

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Gracia and Paul for the advice, my family for room, board and support and Gordonstoun School for printing and binding.

2

ii

Abstract

The producer is a pivotal figure in the filmmaking process but is more often maligned by the

creative community than celebrated. Robert Altman’s ‘The Player’ typifies the fast-talking, cut-throat

reputation of one of the most important roles in the filmmaking business. Over the course of the next

two chapters I will examine the role of the producer as it pertains to striking a balance between

creativity and commercial viability for a screen project. Specifically, I will consider the behaviours and

processes which make up the Standard Producer’s Workflow.

The problem I have identified is that with the current model, the producer is sidelined during

the creative process and demonized by the industry at the ultimate expense of the screen project.

By considering the most current ‘hands-on’ literature such as the Guerilla Guides and a plethora of

producing and filmmaking handbooks, relevant case examples and gained knowledge through my year

of studies I will outline the Standard Producer’s Workflow, pinpoint it’s weaknesses and offer in it’s

place an Alternative Producer’s Workflow. This workflow will be investigated through the use of

specific case studies, the application of alternative approaches to producing and, to a lesser extent, my

own experiences in project development.

My conclusion will assert the need for increased interactivity in the production process and a

new understanding of the non-linear offscreen narrative. I will also conclude that the current

producing model is ill-equipped to cater to a contemporary audience. I will suggest that a reflexive and

holistic approach to interactive filmmaking controlled by the producer, in a command atmosphere, is

the ultimate framework for the future of filmmaking.

3

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................

Abstract.............................................................................................................................

List of Figures..................................................................................................................

List of Appendices..........................................................................................................

Introduction.....................................................................................................................

Chapter 1 - Standard Producer’s Workflow.................................................................

1.1 Project Generation............................................................................................

1.2 Pre-Production..................................................................................................

1.3 Production..........................................................................................................

1.4 Distribution........................................................................................................

Chapter 2 - Alternative Producer’s Workflow.............................................................

2.1 Conceptual Project Generation......................................................................

2.2 Reflexive and Holistic Screen Project Development and Production......

2.3 Marketing Identity.............................................................................................

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................

Bibliography......................................................................................................................

ii

iii

v

vi

1

3

5

12

20

27

33

35

45

53

60

62

4

List of Figures

Figure 1.0.......................................... 3

Figure 1.1................................ 5

Figure 1.2................................ 12

Figure 1.3................................ 20

Figure 1.4................................ 27

Figure 2.0......................................... 33

Figure 2.1................................ 35

Figure 2.2................................ 45

Figure 2.3................................ 53

5

v

List of Appendices

Mechanics Practical Project

I. Two Page Treatment................64

II. Draft Script..............................67

6

vi

Introduction

A new age is dawning. To be more precise, a new age is dawning again; as with the advent of digital

filmmaking at the turn of the millennium, the arrivals of ‘Web 2.0’, ‘360 degree commissioning’ and

‘On Demand’ entertainment are reinventing the world of film and television today. While discussions

of how entertainment will be consumed in the future throw up terms like “ubiquitous wireless access’

and ‘limitless streaming media’ my own fascination lies firmly at the other end of the filmmaking

process - with where screen projects begin. More specifically, with ideas, their creation, development

and realization.

If new media1 can allow a user to access their chosen film or television programme whenever

and wherever they want, can it allow a producer to create a project with the same freedom? If the way

in which we consume films is changing vis-a-vis mobile, DRM-free2, multi-platform availability, will the

way in which we produce them follow suit? To respond to these questions it is crucial to understand

the dual narratives of all truly interactive screen projects. Firstly there is an onscreen narrative with

which we are familiar but there is also an offscreen narrative which charts both the producer’s control

of the production process and the user’s interaction with the project.

Onscreen, a story exists, characters interact and relationships evolve but offscreen, the way in

which we are presented with this information changes. Derived from Russian Formalist thought, this is

the central methodology I will use to explore the offscreen narrative as I consider both internal and

external factors influencing the role of the producer in the filmmaking process. Contemporary

audience response to film and television is changing. It is my opinion that the agents of this change

should not be the end-users in the filmmaking process but the creative team of a producer, writer and

director working together from the start of the project. The ultimate goal of this study is to determine

1

1 new media; referring to the emergence of digital, networked information technologies with particular relevance to internet communication.

2 DRM-free; referring to digital rights management free or unprotected digital content.

how we can maximize positive audience response to a screen project through the creative team’s, and

particularly the producer’s, manipulation of the offscreen narrative.

In considering interactivity in the filmmaking process I will not deal with the specificities of

technological advancements, only their part in allowing the reinvention of feedback processes and idea

germination. I will explore what will potentially constitute truly collaborative, innovative and interactive

entertainment production in the future. To best analyze their role in the offscreen narrative, I will

interpret the producer’s interaction in the filmmaking process through observation of set behaviours,

consistent processes and familiar relationships present in extant projects and theory. My aim is to

establish benchmarks and guidelines which will lead to the creation of a more pragmatic future

workflow.

Figgis argues that ‘digital filmmaking requires an engagement of the sort that is best suited to

an artistic viewpoint’ (2007:43). Thusly, this study will investigate the creative, as opposed to the

organizational, role of the producer at every stage of a screen project’s development and interpret the

positive and negative aspects of that role in the currently accepted workflow.

Over the first chapter, I will delineate a ‘Standard Producer’s Workflow’, considering the most

popular academic and hands-on literature available and set it against my own ‘Alternative Producer’s

Workflow’ in the second chapter. This workflow will be developed in conjunction with extant and

ancient screen projects which are already beginning to bring interactivity into the production process

across film, television and new media. To reinforce my findings, the second chapter will include

extended case studies for each phase of the process entitled “Project Generation in Vertigo’s

‘Faintheart”’, “The Malleable Macabre; David Lynch’s ‘Mulholland Drive’” and “Flaw in the Workflow:

‘Snakes on a Plane’”.

2

Th

e S

tan

da

rd

Pro

du

ce

r’s

Wo

rk

flo

w (

SP

W);

an o

rigin

al sim

plifi

ed m

odel adapte

d b

y T

om

Duncan.

Sc

rip

t

Pre

-Pro

du

cti

on

Pro

du

cti

on

Po

st

Pro

du

cti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Fu

nd

ing

Po

int

Fu

nd

ing

Po

int

Fu

nd

ing

Po

int

Fu

nd

ing

Po

int

Pre

p

-

S

ho

ot

-

Re

-Sh

oo

ts

Ed

it

-

A

ud

io

-

D

eli

ve

ry

Co

nc

ep

t

Tre

atm

en

t

-

1st

Dra

ft

-

2n

d D

ra

ft

-

F

ina

l D

ra

ft

Bu

dg

et

- S

ch

ed

ule

- F

ina

nc

e P

lan

Ch

ap

ter 1

.1:

Pro

jec

t G

en

era

tio

nC

ha

pte

r 1

.2:

Pre

-Pro

du

cti

on

Ch

ap

ter 1

.3:

Pro

du

cti

on

Ch

ap

ter 1

.4:

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pro

du

ce

r -

Hig

hly

Ac

tiv

e

Pro

du

ce

r -

Le

ss A

cti

ve

Re

co

up

me

nt

Po

int

Re

co

up

me

nt

Po

int

3

1. The Standard Producer’s Workflow (SPW)

To consider the offscreen narrative of the Standard Producer’s Workflow(SPW), as depicted in Figure

1.0, we must first recognize the currently accepted and established logic of the filmmaking process.

Given a standard starting point, we can anticipate a progression from pre-production through

production into post-production. These phases not only correspond to organizational shoot-based

activities but the development journey of the creative team. As a pre-cursor to my analysis of these

phases, the first area of the producer’s workflow which I will consider is the aforementioned starting

point, as I discuss how the way in which producers currently generate a project influences the overall

development workflow.

4

1.1 Project Generation

In the Standard Producer’s Workflow, project generation can occur in several different ways depending

on both internal and external factors such as personnel involved, type of creative environment or

current market trends. However, the basic routes, or the essential elements which contribute, towards

development in the current workflow are either through concept, script or talent.

5

1.1.1 Concept

Firstly, concept driven projects are borne out of an idea, or combination of ideas, which the producer

wishes to realize on screen. This idea may be completely original or a new take on an existing genre,

style or format. It will have to represent some form of unique selling point for the producer to

develop into treatment, attach talent and ultimately gain finance. In this scenario the producer is a

trigger character in the offscreen narrative of the project. Houghton describes the creative producer as

“a judge of creativity, he administers everything...he has an idea and pursues it” (1991:viii). This

inspirational description alludes to recapturing the former glory of a role in the filmmaking process

which has since been greatly devalued. In concept driven project generation, the producer’s key traits

are motivational and inspirational in finding collaborators or personnel to push the project on to the

next step.

An example of a concept driven project would be Graham Robertson’s ‘Able Edwards’.

Developed to be the first all ‘green screen’, fully digital feature film, the project was originally pitched to

Robertson as ‘Citizen Kane in Space’. Over the next two years he began to draw together the script,

talent and crew. Using his connections as a member of the design team on television series ‘24’ and by

advertising in local press, Robertson managed to piece together an enthusiastic and committed team.

Their sole common goal was to produce a film which would remain true to its concept of full digital

integration(Robertson 2006:15-67).

The main advantage of concept driven project generation is unlimited possibility. There are no

barriers to imagination or creativity as the core concept of the project can be realized in any number of

ways or styles. While a script contains an authorial voice or an actor may carry particular associations

or character traits, a concept is pure. Due to this purity of starting point, and speaking in terms of

developing both an onscreen and offscreen narrative, conceptual work provides for the most freedom

and variation in the role of the producer. It is particularly common amongst short films where the

6

producer is often fulfilling a dual role and is the go-to lynchpin for problem solving as well as day-to-

day organization.

Although this set of character traits is most visible on low budget projects, the high degree of

producer involvement in concept driven project generation represents the most artistic approach to

producing a film in the current workflow. Consequently, it is also the hardest to fund. The balance of

artistic goals versus industrial or financial goals will become an ongoing focus of this study as I

consider parallels between narrative development and financial development.

7

1.1.2 Script

Secondly, script driven projects are perhaps the most common of all three project generation starting

points and are the staple of the American studio system. From the point of view of the producer,

these projects begin their life cycle several steps ahead of concept driven projects.

A script may lie unread in a filing cabinet or office drawer for years until it is finally deemed

relevant or appropriate. The producer only becomes the active trigger character in the offscreen

narrative when he or she selects the script for development. Considering this offscreen narrative, script

driven projects are generated by the writer. This is done by either submitting a speculative script to a

studio or producer, working to a brief or inventing their own original screenplay with a view to

developing it themselves. Traditionally, in higher budget projects, the writer is a purely creative force in

the development process. This effects the producer’s role, generally causing him or her to become less

creatively involved. It is from this traditional pattern that the role of the producer has been

marginalized towards an organizational, rather than creative position in the production team.

The advantages of a script driven project are the established voice and solid foundation which a

script represents. Easy to appraise and familiar, scripts allow studios and producers to grasp a project

in a standardized format. Indeed, as producers may deal with several scripts in a day with a view to

‘cherry-picking’ and developing the best of the bunch, the script is a key element in the benchmarking

process of the currently accepted Standard Producer’s Workflow.

However, Thurlow suggests that, particularly in short film production, ‘characters drive plot,

but the underlying theme, the message is what holds the narrative together’(2008:29). This recalls the

importance of the original concept which should be present during project generation and which

should remain the essential foundation underpinning any script.

8

Projects generated through a script represent an industrial process more in line with

manufacturing than creating. With the introduction of benchmarking, development from a script

precipitates further rules and standardization which become necessary in progressing the project

further. The industrial development of Hollywood was based on models by Henry Ford whose

scientific management techniques revolutionized modern production processes(Belton 1994:61-62).

While the modern filmmaking process does not move in a standard conveyor belt fashion, the

Hollywood production process does involve the coordination of hundreds if not thousands of

contributing workforce. Resultantly, it was streamlined for efficiency rather than creative integrity.

Often, legal processes including rights acquisition and the inevitable redrafts and noting in script based

project generation become a dampening effect on a project’s momentum.

Furthermore, as a screenplay provides only a template for the director and actors to expand

upon, generating the project from this stimulus ignores several key elements of the creative process

such as the input of the design team, cinematographer and production manager. In this situation we

can appreciate one of the key flaws of the SPW, in that the accepted logic excludes reflexive discussion

between creative parties. In order to align both its onscreen and offscreen narratives, a project should

be generated with a holistic creative life-span in mind and this tenet forms the basis of my ‘Alternative

Producer’s Workflow’ covered in the second chapter.

Powdermaker’s anthropological study discussed the essential contradiction of filmmaking in

Hollywood as being at once ‘an art and an industry’ (1950:39). In our current models of production, I

would suggest that development from concept is a more artistic approach while development from

script is more industrial.

9

1.1.3 Talent

Finally, talent driven projects are generated when individuals bring specific skills or expertise to the

table, whether in front of or behind the camera. These projects are usually most successful when the

role of the producer is to usher two or more talents into a collaboration. In discussing the influence of

talent, Ellis suggests that ‘stars provide a foreknowledge of the fiction;’ being ‘at once ordinary and

extra-ordinary’ and this allows them to contribute to the ‘creation of a narrative image’(1992:616). This

narrative image will become a key element in the distribution phase of the project to be discussed later.

Furthermore, star, or talent, driven projects are usually generated through word-of-mouth or

face-to-face networking. Considering a recent example from the American studio system, Columbia

Pictures release ‘Pineapple Express’ was generated when heavyweight comedy producer Judd Apatow

ushered his friend, actor/writer Seth Rogen, into a collaboration with writer Evan Goldberg on an

action/comedy project. As they began writing the script, they attracted indie director David Gordon

Green and long-term friend and actor James Franco. With this package deal in place, the project was

able to secure the studio go-ahead and be released worldwide in 2008. As recognized in this example,

talent driven projects are generated almost solely through the reputation or caché of the parties

involved. A disadvantage of talent driven projects is the unpredictability of its key elements. Often

projects generated on the fame of an actor or director can become devalued due to shifting popularity

and the fickle fluctuation of celebrity.

Ultimately, there is likely to be an amount of overlap between these types of project generation.

As I will go on to address, the producer’s workflow does not necessarily progress in a straight logical

line and setbacks can often force re-negotiation with the key players or inputs into the process. In

terms of which type of filmmaker should align with which type of project generation, I would suggest

that younger, inexperienced filmmakers will be more likely to work towards concept or script to find

their starting point while experienced industry professionals will use their networks and contacts to

develop projects which lean more towards talent. Once the initial creative springboard is in place, both

10

in terms of project content and crew, the producer can then push on to the pre-production phase of

the workflow.

11

1.2 Pre-Production

Once a project has been generated and is entering into a development process, the producer will use all

available information, primarily the script, to develop the initial financial documents to support the

project. At a minimum, these financial documents would include a finance plan, shooting and

recoupment schedules and a budget. This phase in the SPW is known as pre-production. It is the

planning and strategizing phase of the project. As an industrial process this phase will set the

commercial range of the project. As a creative process, budgeting around available talent, locations and

crew can heavily affect the onscreen narrative. Scenes may be cut or added dependent on budgetary

constraints or flexibilities. Resultantly, the finance of a film has a strong influence on the onscreen

narrative. Over the course of this section I will consider the existing processes in the pre-production

phase of the SPW and assert the strengths and weaknesses of the currently accepted role of the

producer therein.

The most common problems encountered by budgeting and scheduling in the SPW are specific

to the level of finance. For the purposes of this analysis I will consider three budgetary film bands

varying between zero to micro, low to medium and big to blockbuster.

12

1.2.1 Zero to Micro Budget Pre-Production

In micro budget features, films made for less than £100,0003, financial processes are generally found to

be about doing things as cheaply as possible. Most often they are all about cuts. Slicing out catering,

chopping down crew and condensing shooting days are all typical shortcuts in micro budget projects.

For these cuts to occur, crew members will often have to accept an increased workload. This may over-

burden and pressurize a crew, compromising the atmosphere of the working environment, the

professionalism of the project and ultimately the final onscreen product. The negativity surrounding

the financial constraints on a film will often be directed towards the producer. While it may be his or

her role to accept this negative feedback, it is an awkward position to find oneself in whilst attempting

to retain creative involvement in a project. By allowing the director to deflect criticism towards them,

the producer can become a scapegoat for any number of mistakes or mismanagement across the

project. This further distances the producer from the crew and creative team. Conversely, there are

those who would argue that it is the role of the producer to assume the role of the scapegoat.

However, this is another accepted tradition which can, and should, be avoided by employing alternative

methods and systems in the producer’s workflow.

Paradoxically, zero budget films tend to engender a different ethos altogether. Due to the

crew’s initial involvement being voluntary, it is accepted that they will give as much time and energy as

they choose. In this scenario, an excessive workload is almost easier to withstand as a meagre payment

can often seem insulting. Indeed the backlash of making minimal or incongruous payment across the

crew can create discontent which may breed resentment especially amongst a crew with a wide

experience gap. The lack of options available to the crew, either to walk out or work on, actually

empowers them significantly, forcing a director or producer to tread very lightly and maintain a positive

atmosphere on set.

13

3 approximate figure as budgetary bands are the subject of continual debate

Maintenance of a positive atmosphere on set is key in the role of the producer. “All the artists

involved in making a picture from the star to the kid who keeps the coffee hot, work better, indeed at

their best, in a command atmosphere...the producer’s creation”(Houghton 1991:197). It is in the pre-

production phase that the producer must begin this process if he or she wishes to reap the benefits in

the subsequent phases of production.

14

1.2.2 Low to Medium Budget Pre-Production

In low to medium budget films, expenses are usually top heavy. As bigger name actors, writers and

directors become involved the above-the-line talent will demand a much higher percentage of the

budget. It is likely that any film with a budget of over one million pounds, and using a SPW, will

feature a recognizable name either behind or in front of the camera. As a consequence, budgets in the

low to medium band will appear imbalanced and unfair to potential investors. The role of the

producer in this scenario is to be selective and diplomatic in what information he or she chooses to

communicate to investors. The producer is the key lynchpin between investment and talent. His or her

ability to finesse egos, nurture relationships and maintain a positive atmosphere is crucial.

In addition, low to medium budget projects are usually genre specific. It is far more likely to

see a social realist or family drama project emerge from this budget range than a futuristic adventurer

per se. These films are often passion projects or indie productions hoping to become ‘the next big

thing’. While not all films will be able to match the hyperbolic case of Jason Reitman’s “Juno” which

budgeted for $7m and reined in over $200m in international box office revenue, some such as Black

Camel’s ‘Outpost’ will score significant success in overseas, limited release and DVD markets. This

example of ‘expectations management’ is also important in the role of the producer in order to set

goals for the creative team, cast, crew and the investors.

15

1.2.3 Big Budget Pre-Production

In big budget and blockbuster fair, the vast quantities of money in play tend to invite only the most

experienced producers to the party. Film studios will happily expend multiple millions on a project as

long as they can guarantee a return. This guarantee is primarily made through the personnel involved.

Although the vast quantities of money involved may represent an equally massive risk, an experienced

cast and crew put in place by those studios operating in the top budgetary band represents huge

‘bankability’.

Furthermore, in the current climate it is unlikely that a top budget film will be released without

an accompanying line of merchandise or franchising. In recent years blockbuster films have become

conglomerated umbrella industries including everything from mundane lunch-box and poster lines to

flamboyant theme-park rides. In particular, producer George Lucas’ success could be attributed in part

to his ability to diversify and maximize revenue streams from the outset of his pre-production process.

His recent ‘Star Wars’ trilogy not only arrested millions from the box office but spun out long tail

revenue across a myriad of action figures, computer games and animated series. Although not the case

with Lucas, the creative role of the producer tends to be minimal in blockbuster budget projects unless

they have been heavily involved in project generation.

16

1.2.4 Scheduling

Elsewhere, the schedule is the most crucial document in coordinating crew and locations. Derived

from the script and developed in conjunction with the budget, the master schedule dictates the role of

the producer across the remainder of the project. In the SPW, it is an area where flexibility causes

serious problems. As a rule, every member of the crew will need to be on the same page, so an

accurate and well kept schedule is extremely important. A common fault with many low to zero budget

productions is not keeping to schedule. The innate inflexibility of the scheduling process does not

account for any unforeseen obstacles or barriers to production. The larger the budget, the more severe

the setbacks are if found to be losing ground from the schedule. In low budget filmmaking, the dawn

of digital technology has served to eliminate several costs, as cheaper software and template legal forms

are widely available. However, higher budget projects still gravitate towards huge accounting and

auditing processes and are yet to really reap the benefits of digital technologies.

An area where scheduling is paramount is television. For returning series, finding a rhythm in

recording and editing allows for multi-tasking over the course of a series. Susie Brown, producer of

‘Location, Location, Location’ was a strong advocate of timetabling her entire series production run.

With an existing team and strategy in place she could orchestrate the simultaneous researching, filming

and editing of multiple programs in a block. This required experienced crew and the assistance of

post-production supervision but inevitably produced her required series in an efficient and financially

sound manner.

In the SPW, the master schedule is completed as a projection by only one or two people. This

lack of information leads to inaccuracy whereas if the process involved all heads of department and

was updated regularly by each, the process would be theoretically smoother. In many cases,

experienced producers will attempt to hide money in a budget to deal with contingencies or overages

(Lazarus 1992:81-102). This process, which is deceitful by definition, represents a barrier to entry for

younger, inexperienced filmmakers who need to be fully transparent with their budgeting process in

17

order to learn the most from each process. A coordinated approach to pre-production is designed to

anticipate scenarios in which a compromise will be met. Most successful projects, across all platforms,

are singular of vision. Compromising to accommodate errors, mistakes and inconsistencies damages

the creative integrity of many projects.

18

1.2.5 Toward Interactivity

In the SPW, the pre-production phase of the project represents the least audience interactivity of all.

While limited information may be disclosed over the internet or within tight studio circles there is a

complete lack of transparency. If the producer’s goal is to maximize audience response to his project

then he must recognize that interactivity is a requirement. This will allow him or her to better cultivate

their ‘command atmosphere’ throughout production and eventually create the best output possible.

Interactivity in pre-production can challenge the idea that compromise is necessary between financial

and artistic goals in filmmaking. In the following chapter I will go on to explain how increased

interactive discussion and feedback can begin to solve the transparency obstacles of the current pre-

production traditions and positively develop the entire offscreen narrative as a whole.

19

1.3 Production

The production phase of the project often divides the producer into one of two categories; the

organizational producer or the creative producer. The organizational producer, often known as a ‘line

producer’, only has responsibilities to the financial goals of a project. Their primary function is to

complete production on time and on budget. Oscar-winning producer, Nik Powell, refers to the role of

the producer as the “boss” of the film (Jones and Jolliffe 2006:38). Considering the producer in this

way does two things, it provides a figure of authority other than the director on set, creating both

positive and negative dynamics. As my workflow experiment is geared towards the role of the

producer in influencing the entire offscreen narrative and not purely production, I will concentrate my

investigations into the behaviours of the creative producer rather than the line producer.

20

1.3.1 Creative Control

In a Standard Producer’s Workflow the creative producer will entrust the control of the production

process to the director and his team for the duration of the shoot. The creative producer becomes a

detached entity only approached to resolve the occasional financial or contractual disputes. Lazarus

suggests that “producers whose talents lie with story development or finance should avail themselves of

a line producer or production manager to get to the bottom of a production problem” (1992:82).

Indeed, in the current model for feature film, this is the most common method of production

management and it is a process which removes the creative producer from the process entirely.

On the other hand, the ultimate paradigm for retention of creative control in producing would

be the television series. While the British model for television is predominantly writer-biased, his or her

name usually being the primary credit on an episode, the American system employs a specific type of

producer known as the ‘showrunner’. This creative producer retains full organizational and creative

control over a project operating in Houghton’s aforementioned ‘command atmosphere’. While a

director may come in to elicit top performances from actors or a post production supervisor may

control the edit, the ‘showrunner’ will have the final say on all strategic creative decisions, reporting

only to the network or commissioning body. The ‘showrunner’ is the only remaining example of a

truly creative producer in the Standard Producer’s Workflow and with the prohibitive writer-biased

system in the UK, it is a role which is unlikely to proliferate on this side of the Atlantic.

21

1.3.2 Creative Focus

In terms of production in feature filmmaking, the first area I will consider is the influence of finance

on narrative in a low-budget production. Using the example of Oscar Van Heek’s ‘Blinded’, a feature

film financed by Scottish Screen, filming was actually completed on location while serious narrative

negotiations were still ongoing. During filming, certain key members of the team were removed and a

new direction was developed with the script. Eventually, the film was cut using a non-linear narrative

and previously unwritten dream sequence created during the post-production process. The film went

on to garner significant critical acclaim. This example demonstrates that the modern filmmaking

process is non-linear. Narratives can be manipulated at several points in the production process and

different production teams, whether editing or writing, can be revisited through the process. This

represents a huge shift away from the ‘straight corridor’ production processes championed in twentieth

century Hollywood and suggests a re-focusing of the creative team on how to conduct their offscreen

narrative to reach a contemporary audience.

In a recent masterclass at Screen Academy Scotland, Oscar-nominated editor, David Gamble,

discussed his opinion that “a film is made three times”. Firstly, when it is written, then when it is shot

and once again when it is edited. Considering the SPW, the three key creative forces, writer, director

and editor are distanced from one another. This apparent lack of communication is simply a lack of

coordination amongst the creative team. Editing requires such precision and insight that it should be

considered as early as possible and the distance between the key players in the creative team will cause

the focus of the project to bleed or distort. Potentially, putting an editing team in place on set may be

one feature the current model can incorporate. While editing is currently seen as an extracted process

it is perhaps the most important process in pursuing tonal continuity. One of the goals of the second

chapter will be to discuss the incorporation of the editing and indeed the writing team into the shoot.

22

1.3.3 Linearity in the Production Process

One of the strengths of the current workflow is the systematic progression of the processes. While

linearity in production may be accused of compromising creativity, it does provide a hard template for

all the crew involved. The advantage of this system for new and inexperienced filmmakers is the

stringent benchmarks which are in place. Working through from pre-production processes, even the

most inexperienced producer and director can work to a shot list and script. However, this depends on

a high amount of pre-production discipline which is often lacking in low budget productions. The

theme of discipline is key in understanding the production phase of the workflow because as crews

become more knowledgeable and aware of the larger processes at work, they become more capable of

understanding the process as more than steps in a straight line. They can begin to appreciate the

artistic concept of the project and the way in which they can best serve that concept.

In the current system there is also a contingency system in place to account for reworking audio

and re-shooting. This requires a re-activation of dormant team members which may be problematic,

costly and cause further scheduling conflicts and increased delays. With more sets of eyes on the

production process, for example from the editing team, there is a lesser likelihood of having to go back

and film again.

Furthermore, reporting processes during production are very important. The use of a call-

sheet and daily reports to investors or producers are the documents which keep production ticking

over. This is the existing communication loop on set. Its primary drawbacks are again couched in

linearity. At present, information is passed infrequently and inefficiently between the creative team and

the cast and crew on the ground. While a call-sheet is highly informative and sets everyone up for the

day, it is only produced once with very occasional amendments, thus it is inflexible and can cause

serious problems. It only works to its potential when there are strong and open channels of

communication in place.

23

1.3.4 Onscreen and Offscreen Narrative Development in Television Production

If onscreen narratives are becoming increasingly complex and multi-stranded then surely it is in the

interest of the offscreen narrative to adapt and develop in kind. Creative teams in television are

coming around to the idea of non-linearity. Indeed, one of the most successful currently airing US

sitcoms is premised on a non-linear narrative asking the audience to determine “How I Met Your

Mother”. By melding typical New York locations, a bar, an apartment building and an office with an

approach to storytelling traditionally unseen in this genre, the creative team behind ‘HIMYM’ are

developing their onscreen narrative in tow with their offscreen narrative. The show not only airs a 22

minute weekly episode but has a great deal of interaction and cross-pollination with its web content.

Frequent references to one of the main character’s blogs corrals the viewer into narrative immersion,

eliciting a type of audience participation previously unseen amongst the situation comedy format.

As television leans towards ‘360 degree commissioning’, every new project must align itself

with new media. Existing workflows are rigidly structured and are not designed to cope with this

demand. The current trend in adapting to this demand is to place a ‘New Media Team’ into existing

crews, whose responsibility is to extract additional information and footage for online consumption.

One of the most successful examples of this process is NBC’s US version of UK hit “The Office”.

Their award-winning online content involves a plethora of supporting cast from the show and

interweaves itself with the episode being aired that week.

In a recent masterclass at the Media Guardian Television Festival in Edinburgh, I discussed the

role of new media in UK television with Linda Paalaane, New Media Development Executive for

Kudos production. As creative producer on ‘Spooks: Code 9’, Linda’s primary goal was audience

participation. Her social networking and online content for the show invited users to respond to

forum threads and news postings by putting themselves in character. All responses were vetted by

administrators to ensure compliance but eventually produced a completely user-generated narrative

which interwove with the series. Linda liaised with the production crew on the main show while

24

negotiating the online content with her writers in Canada and then handing off to an Australian-based

software and web-development company. Her development workflow was in operation 24 hours a day

across three continents and represents the huge impact of technology on creative production.

25

1.3.5 Once More Toward Interactivity

We can see from these projects that the interactive element of broadcast television is inevitably going

to become much more important. Hanson suggests that “the arrival of appliances that allow us to alter

our traditional viewing experiences...heralds a long overdue adjustment in our relationship with

film”(2003:116). This is clearly the case in broadcast television as consumers use PCs, mobile phones,

and set-top boxes to access this burgeoning media resource. In the second chapter I will go on to look

at how incorporating new media into development processes will improve interactivity at both the

consumer and producer ends of projects whether in television or film.

26

1.4 Distribution

In developing a project’s distribution plan, a producer is essentially determining who will be watching.

Distribution is the phase of the process with the most audience interaction and as a result will be most

effected by changes in audience behaviour. In this section I will assert the current model for

distribution and determine the strengths and weaknesses in the Standard Producer’s Workflow as the

industry looks toward an interactive future.

27

1.4.1 The Distribution Climate

The current cinematic distribution construct in the UK is dominated by big business, predominantly

American, cinema chains. In 2006/2007 the top 10 distribution firms had a 96% share in the market.

Is it surprising then that American chains prefer to use this advantage to exhibit predominantly

American content? British broadcast television is little better, being controlled by an oligopoly of

established channels. The existing processes at the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are guaranteed to

perpetuate a cycle of period dramas, one-off serials and middling returning series. Online and digital

outlets are, at present, a fairly open market.

In the SPW, the producer’s active role in distribution is not necessarily the marketing of the

film, which is usually outsourced, but the recoupment of finance and its fair redistribution. The

financial and entrepreneurial traits of the producer take precedence over the creative, as the producer

works as an agent to ensure all parties are satisfied as best possible. Indeed, the producer may even

employ a collection agency to perform this role for him which further emphasizes the current trend

towards ‘washing your hands’ of a project once production is complete. In other projects, a

distribution team may be assembled to attempt to push the product towards a bigger market.

In terms of the characteristics of a producer operating within a distribution team, Nik Powell

suggests that picking up the industry at the ‘coalface’ is a great place to start (Jones & Jolliffe 2006:39).

This will equip the producer with a clearer understanding of audience behaviour. Blockbuster video,

for example, provides the ideal situation to conduct primary market research with a database which

shows buying trends, particularly busy periods and demographic specific information. In this

situation, the scientific processes of marketing can be applied throughout the distribution process. In

identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, the producer is developing their product in

the same way as any other business. One strongly influential characteristic about a film or television

series, however, is that it is incomplete without being shown to an audience. With the appearance of

new digital technologies finding that audience has become increasingly complex.

28

In the SPW, digital or interactive distribution models are still somewhat of an unknown. While

marketing whizz-kids and new media gurus advocate cross-platform, multi-tiered synergy, experienced

producers such as Erickson et al discuss the threshold issue of whether a specific project is appropriate

for digital exploitation(2002:307). They raise the question of exclusivity in distribution; “because the

digital programming market is so huge and no leaders have yet emerged it is risky to grant

exclusivity”(2002:308). Indeed, seven years on from their work, still no dominant force has emerged in

the market as On Demand media providers jostle with Apple’s iTunes amidst a market constantly

weighed down by the ongoing piracy debate.

In the second chapter I will consider how combining and targeting selected elements of this

market with audience specific material and content will allow distribution teams to interact with them in

a mutually beneficial way.

29

1.4.2 Exhibition

At present, there are limited outlets for film exhibition. The key boom areas in the current climate are

home video, gaming and DVD markets, with DVD already accounting for 42% of UK film revenue.

In the current workflow, producers are beginning to question whether to exhibit a film in a public

forum at all. The traditional processes of screening films for critics or entering competition are

becoming less and less common while the gap between cinematic exhibition and DVD release dates is

consistently narrowing. Whether this is undertaken as an anti-piracy measure or as a saturation

technique in a rapidly fluctuating market is open to debate. The burgeoning challenge for the creative

producer is designing an exhibition scheme which will position the project to garner both industrial and

artistic success.

Indeed, film festivals and awards ceremonies are an excellent example of the industry/art

paradigm. It is mutually beneficial for the creative and financial goals of a production to be recognized

for outstanding achievement. From an artistic point of view, public praise will open the project to a

wider audience and from a financial point of view ‘laurel leaves’ guarantee increased revenues. What is

surprising, however, is the high amount of homogeneity across the lists of nominations and award

recipients. Acquiring an accolade such as an Oscar or, to a lesser extent a Bafta or Golden Globe, has

become an exclusive perk for Hollywood studios and is seen by producers purely as a boost to income.

The mass-media market and cut-throat competitive atmosphere surrounding these awards ceremonies

have become counter-productive to artistic integrity. A perfect example of this industrialization of the

awards process is the plastering of click-through “for your consideration” banners across the top film

and media websites. These films are no longer advertised on the merit of their content or to amuse the

viewer, but purely so that the viewer will consider them worthy of an award.

On the other hand, there is an increasing number of film festivals which are geared towards

celebrating alternative or particularly impressive local or international content. The smaller

independent festivals have always been about publicity and providing a showcase of previously

30

unearthed talent. In a low budget Standard Producer’s Workflow exposure through festivals is

extremely important. It represents the sole creative forum in which to exhibit your work. While

Sundance, Toronto and Edinburgh have a strong reputation for fulfilling this remit, they are becoming

increasingly popular destinations for bigger budget, star-filled productions. The emergence of smaller,

newer festivals such as the Middle East Film Festival in Abu Dhabi or the Inverness Film Festival are

encouraging younger talents to make their mark on the industry.

In the second chapter I will consider new avenues for exhibition which will work in synergy

with the festival format to improve the distribution potential of screen projects.

31

1.4.3 Packaging

While low-budget productions may ignore the costs of distribution or treat it as an afterthought, in big

budget studio system productions, distribution is taken extremely seriously. The marketing plan for the

film will typically package the stars, creative team and identity of the project across a variety of

platforms. At the top end of the budgetary scale in the Standard Producer’s Workflow, the central

catalyst to spurring on a marketing campaign is the press junket. Usually involving a myriad of

reporters from all publications and a comfortable hotel suite, the process may take a few days while the

stars of a film relay information to media outlets. Of course, this superficial and monotonous system

is controlled by the studio as each and every word uttered from the actors’ mouths is vetted by a crack

marketing team. Manufacturing support for a film through propaganda and hype has been the

mainstay of blockbuster marketing for some years. A negative review of a project can determine it’s

entire distribution life cycle so the key watchword for developing an alternative workflow will be

‘customization’, in targeting a specific demographic with a clear and appropriate message. In chapter

two, I will go on to examine how marketing should be about finding the right audience rather than just

any audience.

32

Th

e A

lte

rn

ati

ve

Pro

du

ce

r’s

Wo

rk

flo

w (

AP

W);

an

orig

ina

l m

od

el a

da

pte

d b

y T

om

Du

nca

n.

Sc

rip

tP

re

-Pro

du

cti

on

Pro

du

cti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Co

nc

ep

t &

Pro

jec

t Id

en

tity

Bu

dg

et

- S

ch

ed

ule

- F

ina

nc

e P

lan

Ch

ap

ter 2

.1:

Co

nc

ep

tua

l P

ro

jec

t G

en

era

tio

n

Ch

ap

ter 2

.3:

Re

fle

xiv

e a

nd

Ho

listi

c S

cre

en

Pro

jec

t D

ev

elo

pm

en

t &

Pro

du

cti

on

Ch

ap

ter 2

.3:

Ma

rk

eti

ng

Id

en

tity

.

Pro

du

ce

r H

igh

ly A

cti

ve

Pro

du

ce

r L

ess A

cti

ve

Po

st

Pro

du

cti

on

Ve

rsa

tile

an

d A

da

pti

ve

Sh

oo

tin

g &

Cre

win

g

Co

nsis

ten

t N

ar

ra

tiv

e D

ev

elo

pm

en

t

On

Sit

e E

dit

ing

an

d F

ee

db

ack

Ta

rge

tin

g A

sse

ssm

en

t

Fu

nd

ing

Po

int

Re

co

up

me

nt

Po

int

Com

mun

icat

ive

Tech

nolo

gyC

onne

ctiv

e Te

chno

logy

Cus

tom

izat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

33

2 The Alternative Producer’s Workflow

In presenting a dialectic approach to film form, Eisenstein suggests that ‘at the limit of organic form is

nature and at the limit of rational form is industry, what stands between them is Art’(Jay Leyda

1949:46). With this dynamic concept in mind, it is my aim to provide the synthesis of nature and

industry, involving both positive conflict and reflexive thought that truly represents the most artistically

and financially sound producing workflow.

34

2.1 Conceptual Project Generation.

The first phase of my proposed Alternative Producer’s Workflow (APW) combines project generation

with pre-production. As noted in Figure 2.0, this phase is used to establish a concept which will

become the central creative resource for the project. This structure provides for each strand of future

development and production to be linked back into the concept. As part of an APW, this is a method

of maintaining creative consistency and targeting a specific aim within a screen project.

35

2.1.1 Order

Bernstein would argue that ‘cost-concious producers would explore all various avenues for expression

in pre-production allowing the director to take more risks in production because order can be restored

so easily’(1994:249). Having analyzed the development of a contemporary audience and the negative

effects of standardized processes in the previous chapter, it is my contention that the accepted ‘order’

of the current workflow is counter-intuitive to the creative process. In discussing linearity and the

human brain pattern, the offscreen narrative can be interpreted from the Bordwellian point of view

that traditionally the ‘straight corridor’ of Hollywood narrative has been designed to maximize control

over an audience and is now out of date. This ‘straight corridor’ is shifting amongst contemporary

audiences who are becoming more participative and demanding. Derridian thought states that

audiences no longer interpret through sequences of events but through multiple narrative strands

(Heise 1997). It will be the goal of this workflow to establish the narrative strands within the

production process and re-create a natural, organic basis on which to produce screen projects.

36

2.1.1 The Double-Edged Sword

The advantages of initiating a workflow in this way centre around unity within the creative team. By

asserting a single fluid concept for a project it requires the involvement of every member of the team

from the producer and writer, through each head of department to the director. Every step in the

process is about servicing the concept and resultantly everyone must pull in the same direction. While

a writer may fight against script changes, a producer wants to limit shooting on location or a director

needs more takes, the single conceptual goal is designed to limit any unhealthy conflict. While

disagreement and conflict are essential to a development process, conceptual project generation aims to

eliminate the assumed stigma which accompanies each member of the creative team’s role.

The disadvantages of this process are the perception of homogenizing the roles of the creative

team from the outset. Indeed if a producer’s key skills are financial, why should he have an

involvement in the script? Ideally, the attitude amongst the team is designed to appreciate everyone’s

input and should accommodate a balanced opinion considering both artistic and industrial goals.

Another disadvantage of conceptual project generation is the unfamiliar demands it places on the

creative team. The enhanced coordination which is demanded by the process requires those involved

to up their negotiation and arbitration skills. The process demands patience, objectivity and tolerance -

which are sensibly in theory but often difficult to manifest under pressure.

37

2.1.2 The Hero Returns

‘Producers have surrendered a great deal of the creative leadership in filmmaking and have expanded,

to a degree, their control over the financial and entrepreneurial aspects of movie-making’(Lazarus

1992:123).

In developing the APW we are repositioning the producer at the centre of the offscreen

narrative. He has become a supporting character of the development process in recent years and this

new model aims to rebuke that marginalization. The key traits of the producer in this early phase,

however, remain similar to the previous model. Their role is to motivate and inspire their key

collaborators and investigate the best ways in which to serve their creative goal. While the producer

maintains the responsibility of producing the financial documents for the project, they are supported

by the creative team. This gives them the maximum information in preparing budgets and schedules

and will inevitably provide for a clearer and more accurate financial strategy.

In motivating and inspiring his team, the producer must cultivate a ‘command atmosphere’.

The APW is shaped from the outset to accommodate the ‘motor character’ of the creative producer.

The stewardship of a dynamic and creative individual is required to manage communication in project

generation, connectivity in production and customization in distribution.

In assembling a creative team, The Guerilla Film Makers Movie Blueprint refers to a

‘magnificient seven of artist, leader, deal-maker, flirt, organizer, opportunist and pragmatist’(Jones

2005:18). While these individual tags all represent specific skill-sets, the role of the producer is to adapt

and morph between these personae. The variety of problem-solving, lateral thinking and

interdisciplinary tasks which will present themselves throughout a constantly evolving workflow will

demand peak performance from the ‘hero’ of the APW.

38

2.1.3 Technology - Communication

The primary technological advance which can aid this process is social networking, communication and

conferencing software. Technology such as instant messaging, video-conferencing and shoutcasting

not only allows the creative team to exchange opinions at the touch of a button, but it instantly allows

the audience to access the project at an early stage in the offscreen narrative. One of the dominant

ideas in developing this alternative workflow was the introduction of technology to enable audience

interaction. By harnessing the interest and involvement which contemporary audiences are beginning

to show at a pre-release stage, the producer can interact with the audience and continually discern and

rediscover how they feel about the direction of the project from the outset.

Of course, it would be almost impossible to initiate full transparency with the audience from

the inception of a project. The fear of revealing plot information, character development or even

becoming vulnerable to potential theft of concept or idea would represent a massive risk to investors.

The APW does not necessitate complete disclosure from the creative team but it encourages more of

it. Ideally, any producer choosing to use this method of production would be able to increase

transparency through successive projects, establishing a long-term culture of interactivity.

Furthermore, this model would be particularly appropriate in broadcast television, especially in

the American market, where competition is fierce and the fanbase play such a huge role in the longevity

of a project. In the examples of CBS’ ‘Jericho’ or the WB’s ‘Roswell’, both projects were cancelled by

the network but returned to screens after pressure from the fanbase. In a similar way, television

projects such as ‘Family Guy’ and ‘Futurama’ have re-negotiated deals involving new series and feature

length projects from the success of their DVD sales. DVD has become the new champion of many

cult followings and is now a primary player in early discussion surrounding funding.

39

2.1.4 Funding

Another key element to audience involvement at pre-production phase, is the potential for investment.

In Figure 2.0, the funding point for the project is designed to enter the project at the conceptual stage.

This commitment of finance requires a shift in the viewpoint of the investor. While film and television

projects have become an increasingly industrial commodity, the goal of the APW is to secure funding

based on the artistic merit of the project. Securing funding, especially in low-budget projects, is one of

the toughest obstacles to getting a project off the ground and this artistic mindset would more closely

align film to painting or sculpture. In this way, film is used as a way of harnessing new media to

capture cultural development. There are also several technological advancements which could facilitate

low-budget filmmaking in the APW including click-through advertising or donation options on web

portals.

However, even in the most creative of environments finding funding can be seen as a “lottery,

(...) and a good grasp on realism is the best antidote for disappointment”(Thurlow 2007:64). In

developing a strong relationship with the audience in the pre-production phase, the producer has more

ammunition when seeking financial support. The impact of a busy website or active forum carries as

much weight in terms of ‘buzzworthiness’ as coverage in newspapers or sales of a novel.

40

2.1.4 Practical Investigation - ‘Mechanics’

In considering an alternative approach to filmmaking I undertook an accompanying practical

investigation designed to highlight some of the stumbling blocks for first time producers. To better

introduce the project, “Mechanics” is the working title for a developing screen project whose goal is to

be progressed through the APW incorporating elements of feedback, audience response and constant

re-evaluation.

One of the first stumbling blocks for a budding filmmaker in the ‘Standard Producer’s

Workflow’ is project generation. As outlined in the previous chapter, young filmmakers working

without a budget or network of contacts will quickly come up against barriers to entry into filmmaking.

Therefore, I suggested, and pursued in my accompanying practical work, a method of project

generation based on the characteristics of a “concept-driven” project.

As a concept, the project was generated during a “brainstorming” session using a phrase from

the notes of F. Scott Fitzgerald; “A car drives along rooftops”. With this starting point in place, my co-

producer and I began imagining the reasons why the car was on the roof and conjured the idea of a

budding inner-city mechanic. This nugget of story was expanded into a template involving the

inhabitants of the building below and a concept began to develop. We chose the central story of the

narrative to be about expectation and the strained paternal relationship between the young mechanic

and his father. Our concept was now clear, an exploration of repairing a father/son relationship

through the metaphor of repairing a vehicle.

Following Figure 2, this concept would be the central creative source for the project, with each

strand of development and production being linked back into the concept. As part of an Alternative

Producer’s Workflow, this is a method of maintaining creative consistency and targeting a specific aim

within a screen project. The aim for this project was to develop a feature length product using an

41

alternative development process. The next step in the SPW would be scripting, but with the APW we

move firmly towards pre-production before considering the script.

Working to a shoestring budget, the pre-production processes of budgeting and planning were

firmly rooted in borrowing, asking for favours and involving friends and family to help as best they

could. This is a common occurrence in no to low budget filmmaking, but with the alternative

approach to the project, everyone involved recognized their role to constantly feedback on

development once the project had begun.

The alternative generation of the project was wholly successful as attested by the accompanying

2 page treatment in Appendix I. However, the production phase of the project presented much more

radical changes to the producing workflow and would go on to cause serious problems for the project

as detailed in chapter section 2.2.5.

42

2.1.5 Case Study: Project Generation in Vertigo’s “Faintheart”.

In 2004, the social networking business was confined to a few Ivy league schools and some software

programmers. In 2008, facebook.com is valued at over 15 billion US dollars.

It was with this in mind that Vertigo commissioned an alternative production workflow for the

first fully user-generated film. Operated through web service MySpace.com, the project would involve

users from the very inception of the project. The format was a simple nomination and voting system

in which users could suggest any idea, concept or story online and then a vote would take place to

select the final narrative destination of the story. Similarly, the key creative team members including the

writer, director and cast were selected through an online voting process.

The main question on everyone’s lips at the Edinburgh Film Festival, where the film was

premiered in August 2008, was “is this just a gimmick”? The answer is unequivocally ‘no’. The genesis

of the film was an excellent gauge as to the preparedness of the industry to develop a truly interactive

film. ‘Faintheart’ merely represents the tip of the iceberg with the potential of audience interactivity in

the production process. Contemporary audiences are no longer just bums on seats in a cinema. They

are investing time and money in discovering more and more about each and every film, television

broadcast or online series and they are doing so at a very early stage in the offscreen narrative.

Rarely has more hype surrounded a director as Quentin Tarantino whose upcoming film,

‘Inglorious Basterds’ is currently filming in the south of France and has been listed in development on

iMDb for over 4 years. An example of a director whose ability to capture a pop culture zeitgeist has

propelled him to super stardom. His use of non-linear narrative was one of the essential drivers in

pushing an audience towards their modern awareness of their involvement in a narrative. In reference

to the work of Fincher and Tarantino, Isaacs suggest that ‘narrative self-awareness is merely one

element of a broader ironic relationship that exists between then mainstream cinematic text and the

contemporary audience(Isaacs 2008:194).

43

In terms of Faintheart’s online generation process, there is the potential to abuse this system. It

may require significant organisation and dedication but collective vote-rigging and deliberate

defamation of parties involved is very difficult to police and administration on any web portal would

have to be very rigorous. Indeed there are no existing rules or regulatory bodies in place who would be

able to monitor this activity, which is why director Vito Rocco managed to secure his position on the

film by creating a huge online campaign of multiple votes and profile creations.

The scale on which Faintheart was developed is global. The website is accessible to anyone

with internet access and the film industry are slowly coming around to the fact that social networking is

not a fad - with official add-on sites appearing for new release films such as Facebook groups and

mySpace pages. I would suggest that Faintheart’s exciting and dynamic use of technology in project

generation could signal a development of similar alternative approaches in the production and

distribution phases of future Vertigo projects.

44

2.2 Reflexive and Holistic Screen Project Development and Production

With the project now funded, or in the absence of funding, planned and prepared, the input of

talent and development of content can begin. Lazarus suggests that “in production the producer has

no specific task to perform” (1992:64). This is because he or she must be at once willing and able to

understand every task which is ongoing. At this point in the process the producer must commit to

their creative role and recognize that a production manager or line producer may be necessary to

facilitate that commitment. Clévé points out that “the production manager’s work creates the necessary

structure within which artists can create their visions”(2006:2) and the Alternative Producer’s Workflow

supports this suggestion by empowering the creative, rather than the organizational, facilities of the

producer. In the first instance, this process begins with encouraging the producer to rediscover their

creativity.

45

2.2.1 Rediscovering Creativity

Potentially the most defining characteristics within the Alternative Producer’s Workflow, as seen in

Figure 2.2, are the short lead time between phases of production coupled with the cycle of feedback

between the stages. This was designed as a counter-measure against the sidelining of the producer

during the scripting, shooting and editing processes. Theoretically, acting as a go-between for the

departments on a creative level anchors the producer to the project. The aim of the short lead time is

not only to keep the narrative as fresh as possible but to create an interdependency between the writing,

shooting and editing departments. The near improvisational nature of the workflow will require the

team to access and demonstrate their individual skill-sets to ensure fluid progression of the project.

This relates inextricably back to one of the central tenets of the workflow; reflexivity. The producer or

producing team should be involved in an ongoing discussion to pinpoint the unexpected and incidental

factors influencing production. The goal of the reflexivity in this workflow is to alert the producer to

potential emergent problems in a more timely fashion.

In terms of operational integrity, the result of aligning the writing, directing and editing

processes so closely shortens the amount of preparation and dedicated time for each discipline. To

prevent bottlenecking and inconsistencies in the schedule, a typically longer production period is

required. The advantage of this is a relaxed, convivial, creative atmosphere. On the other hand,

project time would have to be borrowed from the traditionally cheaper periods in the workflow such as

scripting, editing or distribution when there are far fewer employees on the clock.

46

2.2.2 Managing Relationships

In considering these employees and their relationships, Schreibman suggests that the creative producer

should be able to finesse ego especially in an ‘industry which works on a horizontal basis’(2001:17).

Vertical interaction, between for example, a producer and camera hand, completed with genuine

enthusiasm is mutually beneficial to both parties and the workflow as a whole. Schreibman’s discussion

of the producer’s ability to develop relationships relates back to Broughton’s advocacy of the

‘command atmosphere’. Myatt articulates that “couched in discipline, structure and praise (the

producer) should always stand with an open mind and an open ear, predisposed to say ‘Yes’ but

everyone should know that when they say ‘No’ it is the final word”(Schreibman 2001:110). This

understanding is only developed through consistent displays of leadership, arbitration and creativity.

Again this reinforces the importance of the APW placing the producer at the conceptual centre of the

offscreen narrative where he is best position to perform the heroic tasks required of him.

47

2.2.3 Technology - Connectivity

The key technological input at the production stage of this workflow is connectivity. With the creative

team at it’s busiest and the crew at it’s largest, flowing communication in all directions is very

important. Digital technology not only allows for lightweight, film-free shoots but also, through the

use of wireless and bluetooth technology, connects team members across various platforms. With the

APW bringing the editing and writing teams on set, one of the most important elements from their

point of view is being kept informed. Technology will now allow separate audio and video streams to

not only be recorded but beamed wirelessly between laptops or PDAs so that all departments can

remain in touch and up to date with what is happening on set. This allows for greater attention to

continuity and detail as well as a universal understanding of the progress of the project. Feasibly, with

the post-production team on set, the second unit crew can wirelessly transmit footage to a focal hub

where it can be edited and the director and cinematographer can comment and feedback whilst still

shooting their own content.

Elsewhere, the increased connectivity and communication between the crew in this workflow

draws a parallel with the consumer shift towards integrated home entertainment systems. While

consumers look to integrate their home computers with their television and audio systems, production

teams are witnessing the combination of departments and the compacting of task-specific crews.

Consider the metaphor of a home consumer using multiple remote controls to access the same media -

they would clearly prefer a single universal control. In the same way, the producer will wish to discard

unnecessary and costly reporting procedures, scheduling conflicts and asymmetries of information in

exchange for a high-tech new media hub which collates, assesses and relays information faster, more

accurately and to more people.

We can see that the primary goal of production in this workflow is to constantly treat the

project as a single complete entity, rather than a disparate array of hand-offs, change-overs and

substitutions. Holistic understanding is crucial to the creative process, as all parties involved in the

48

offscreen narrative must both comprehend the need for artistic and commercial value. By consistently

referring to the original concept, redefining the way in which it is being approached and relating it to

the project as a whole, the behaviours and processes of the crew can point towards the same essential

goal.

49

2.2.4 Practical Investigation - Mechanics Part 2

With “Mechanics” the immediate issue in testing this experimental workflow was the workload placed

upon myself as producer, writer and director. Although I was being assisted in various stages of the

project by co-producers Britt Crowley and Martyn Burrow, the burden of objectivity was extremely

difficult to manage. Indeed, as the workflow attempts to define the role of the creative producer more

clearly, it has potential negative effects on dual role producers who are also either writing or directing,

as not only their objectivity is challenged but their boundaries and limits become much more rigid. In

this case, there was a trade-off between the artistic and operational integrity of the project.

While I became personally responsible for more and more areas of the project, each one began

to suffer individually and inevitably caused a huge barrier to principal photography when delays in the

process prevented an actor from being involved. Now faced with the responsibility of re-casting or re-

writing the script, I was still overburdened with operational issues including location management,

transport costs and an ever-extending schedule.

Ultimately, the project was put on hold because the improvisational nature of the workflow

required a more experienced and larger creative team at the helm with an equally experienced crew

ready to back me, as the producer, up when needed. The project remains in a state of development

stasis and it’s development journey can be followed to the point of a draft script in Appendix II. It

stands as a testament to the necessity of structure, delegation and expectations management in zero

budget projects operating on a very short timescale.

50

2.2.5 Case Study: The Malleable Macabre: David Lynch’s ‘Mulholland Drive’

Middle America has rarely produced a son as wildly off-kilter as David Lynch. A maverick artist turned

director/producer with a penchant for the surreal, Lynch has carved the slate underpinning the murky

subculture of Hollywood. It was in 1998, when presented with the opportunity to develop a drama

pilot for television network ABC, that Lynch took steps towards a new way of thinking in terms of the

offscreen narrative of a production.

Firstly, Lynch had already experienced success on television with national phenomenon, ‘Twin

Peaks’ and his reasons for returning to the silver screen were quoted as “a really strong desire to tell a

continuing story in which you go deeper and deeper into a world and you get lost in that world”.

Clearly his motivation was to explore a narrative with a freedom and longevity not possible through

film.

Lynch approached ‘Mulholland Drive’ with a conceptual basis in place. He was not looking to

tell a set story, but to find that story through a process. He continually referred to ‘working to an idea’

and one particular co-producer on the project referred to his work as ‘unconsciously coherent.’

Unsurprisingly this type of coherence was much to the chagrin of funding body, ABC, who were

purely interested in the bottom line - finding as wide an audience as possible.

My particular interest in this project was Lynch’s ability to service the narrative as a producer

rather than becoming a slave to format or deadline. His ability to motivate those around him may have

evolved from his track record of groundbreaking cinematic auteurism across all budget sizes. It may

also have been generated through his holistic approach to the development process.

Orr suggests that Lynch is “very contemporary precisely by returning to the past...but the

mocker of genre is also it’s prisoner (1993:12). ‘Profoundly conservative in his mythic enslavement’,

Lynch typifies the American obsession with nostalgia and his devotion to this ethos inevitably effects

51

his offscreen narrative. In my initial discussions on the funding of projects, I discussed how film

should be interpreted more like sculpture or painting. Indeed Lynch exemplifies this view as he spends

as much time producing artwork and designing furniture as he does behind the camera. However, his

primary skill in his production workflow was communicating that view to his crew. The experimental

nature of his work engendered a pioneering spirit in filmmaking which the APW hopes to re-ignite.

52

Chapter 2.3 Marketing Identity

In modern film and media consumption we are witnessing a synergy of user and brand identity.

The days of fan minorities, such as ‘Trekkies’, facing ridicule and mockery have been succeeded by

‘geek chic’ and the legitimization of extreme fanaticism. Where once there were DVD collections and

posters on a bedroom wall to show support for your favourite films or series, there are now mySpace

profiles and Facebook groups where everyone’s cinematic tastes are displayed for the world to see.

With this dynamic and open climate, the ability to negotiate the vastness of global availability will come

down to one of the essential tenets of marketing theory, customization. Whether this is through a

specific unique selling point, original idea or new presentation method, the calibre of the marketing

material regarding a project must represent the identity of the project entirely.

Richard Burdette, Head of 4 Creative, recently discussed the difficulties Channel 4 found

themselves in regarding a marketing campaign which advertised 3 celebrity chefs in the same line-up.

Indeed, the advert was for 3 separate programmes running together in a season of programming but

viewers felt duped, expecting a show in which all 3 chefs were involved. This slight oversight added to

an already ongoing muddying of Channel 4’s reputation amidst accusations of not fulfilling their remit

53

as a public broadcaster. It shows the severity of consequence in poorly developing and executing a

marketing plan.

Freeman was one of the first to suggest that films should be marketed like any other product.

He states that ‘We don’t have the advantage of an established brand as in packaged goods. We have to

conceptualize the product and present it in a number of different ways to the consumer.’ (Lazarus

1992:166). This forms the basis for the distribution phase of the Alternative Producer’s Workflow.

54

2.3.1 Working to Concept

The approach of the Alternative Producer’s Workflow is to tie the original concept off with an

appropriate, balanced and faithful marketing identity. The artistic concept is the core driver in the

project’s commercial pursuits. In the standard model, marketing and advertising can be a fractious,

outsourced activity. Outside of the producer’s sphere of influence, outsourced distribution allows a

project to be twisted into fitting into somebody else’s agenda. In the example of digital channel Virgin

1, their recent acquisition of ‘Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles’ was relayed to the Creative

Services team for development into an on-air promo. The remit from channel control was to explore

the mother/son dynamic in the promo and go after a female demographic with the show. The creative

services team were adamant that the show was about robots sent back from the future to destroy

mankind and advocated a more epic, action-oriented direction. This lack of understanding at the

distribution end of the process inevitably effects the reception of the show. Key decisions in the

marketing of the project were not being taken by the producers of the show but by channel

administrators who were pushing through a dozen similar promos in a day.

55

2.3.2 The Role of The Producer

For the producer, distribution should be as creative a process as project generation. Publicity and

marketing are essential to the project’s image, but distribution and exhibition are the key to it’s physical

consumption. The producer’s role in navigating this vast expanse of digital distribution and marketing

options is to be adaptive, persistent and determined in pursuing their chosen audience.

Through the Alternative Producer’s Workflow I suggest a new approach to marketing a film

through the development of one of the existing elements of the current model, the Electronic Press

Kit or EPK. While the majority of films or television series plaster stars and staged photographs

across some hyperbolic literature, the EPK for the APW would offer an immersive, expansive look at

both onscreen and offscreen narratives. The journey of the creative team in dealing with their concept

would accompany any plot information or star publicity. Thusly, the producer would be able to mould

and direct the EPK towards the target audience.

In so doing, this ability to pinpoint the desired market becomes the primary function of the

producer in the distribution phase. While traditional processes would suggest outsourcing or handing

off the project at this point, the APW empowers the producer to give one last mammoth effort in

delivering an idea to an audience. Having been involved in a creative, reflexive and holistic

development journey the producer becomes the envelope inside which the message of the film is

enclosed. The producer has a responsibility, within the ‘command atmosphere’ of the production

process, to be the exponent of the film and help it reach it’s potential.

56

2.3.3 Technology - Customization

The key technological input at this stage is customization. The development of social networking

facilities such as Facebook and mySpace have opened up a new area in the world of marketing.

Advertising campaigns are now highly personalized using the information provided by the user. This

means automated, targeted, continual access to a very specific market. Consumer demands in the

current mass-media saturated market require a bespoke entertainment product. The focus of the

Alternative Producer’s Workflow in this process is to optimize the distribution of a film by reaching the

desired target market, across maximum range for minimum financial outlay.

As consumers become targeted by specific products in their social networking zone, they begin

to identify themselves with these products. Indeed, user film and music playlists represent the ideal

gauge of who is listening to what and when. In addition, this information is being supplied to all their

friends through automated ‘status relays’. Social networking has become a portal for entertainment to

become a core element of audience identity. There’s no greater success in publicity or marketing than

when a campaign develops an inertial momentum within the audience, perpetuating itself into wider

and deeper demographic areas.

In terms of exhibition outlets I can’t imagine it will be long before a ‘Facebook Film Festival’ is

held exclusively online with streaming content, cast and crew commentary and forum or chat-based

audience interaction. The increasing online presences of distribution outlets such as cinemas and

theatres will also influence exhibition with targetted marketing schemes designed to engender client

loyalty to specific exhibition methods or venues. While Glasgow Film Theatre already offer discounted

or even free screenings for families, seniors and students, cinematic chains are offering online purchase

and alert systems for returning customers. The only way to ensure loyalty amidst clientele is provision

for need satisfaction across all aspects of their consumption process as the audience.

57

2.3.5 Practical Investigation: ‘Mechanics’ - A Final Word.

In the case of “Mechanics”, the overall tone target of the piece is somewhere between ‘Billy Elliot’,

‘Million Dollar Hotel’ and ‘Son of Rambow’. Although the project is yet to reach distribution phase,

the creative team have already begun to discuss targeted distribution. We considered using the film as a

lead-in to a retrospective of the aforementioned films in a small venue. In terms of retail we

considered publishing and delivering batches of DVDs to small independent venues and outlets.

However, the tiny to non-existent budget, limited the extent to which we could consider this method of

distribution in the APW and again highlighted the difficulties of manifesting the APW in a low budget

environment.

58

2.3.4 Case Study: A Flaw in the Workflow; Snakes on a Plane

Few projects carry the stigma of brazen action flick ‘Snakes on a Plane’. The title is the pitch, the

narrative and the experience encapsulated in four words. In certain climates it will be a crass, cookie-

cutter trudge through every action movie stereotype available, in others a delightful Tarantino-esque

homage to the ridiculous commercialization of cinematic storytelling.

Through one specific feedback process, the movie was elevated from B-movie, straight-to-DVD

status to kitsch internet phenomenon and it all started with the words “Get these motherfuckin’ snakes

off this motherfuckin’ plane!”

In development, the project was an R-rated action romp. Elements of suspense, chaos and

the irrepressible hero dominated the script. After the project was posted on IMDb and thoroughly

ridiculed as potentially the “worst movie ever”, the producers were left in a quandry, “how do we get

out of this alive?” None of them knew. So they asked.

Hordes of online users began submitting ideas through a variety of web portals, the most

popular of which revolved around whether or not Samuel L. Jackson would at one point utter those

fateful words. As far as the producers knew, he hadn’t, so again, they asked.

Indeed the producers crewed several re-shoots and inserts, hired a popular rock band to create a

soundtrack and found themselves with a retro-interactive blockbuster on the tip of the youth culture

zeitgeist. The key issue arising with this project is the producer’s willingness to engage their audience.

From day one, the creative team were aware of the tongue-in-cheek nature of the storyline and the

producers committed fully to that concept. There is no pretense or facade with “Snakes on a Plane”.

Barriers to communication were summarily overcome and through an active pre-release online user

dialogue, the producers directed the movie toward the ideal demographic.

59

Conclusion

Aside from the arguments of re-invigorating a stagnant offscreen narrative and shifting workflows in

order to accommodate shifting narratives, the conclusions reached in this work are that the producer is

indispensable as a creative resource. A producer who can operate a command atmosphere and

empower his creative team and crew will become the catalyst in uniting a series of disparate elements

into one cohesive whole. The role of the director in production will no longer be an over-arcing,

omni-presence but a specific and targeted role in working with directors, designers, actors and story to

realise the ultimate performance. The producer must understand their limitations of involvement in

this process just as the director must understand the producer’s responsibility to the entire life-cycle of

the screen project and not just the production phase.

Over the preceding chapters I have asserted the inflexibility of the standard workflow in which

the producer currently operates. While the alternative approach theoretically benefits creativity and

artistic expression, the individual and collective demands are probably only able to be met by highly

experienced crews, as clearly demonstrated through my practical investigation. Developing an

alternative workflow is a task in which we are consistently redefining the producer; who is at-once a

leader, negotiator and utility crew member offering advice, opinion or simply listening to the demands

of the crew. This lack of clarity of purpose and fuzzy vocational role will only become clearer as more

producers commit to non-linear, holistic production processes which are ultimately the most creative

and efficient way to reach a contemporary audience.

However, the one irrefutable change which the alternative approach heralds is the increased

importance of technology. While the entire workflow itself may represent an extremely steep

operational learning curve, the uses of technology which it advocates will inevitably be applied in

smaller doses to the standard approach.

60

Over time, offscreen narratives will catch up with the diversifying onscreen narratives

recognized by contemporary audiences and through further study of the oevres of creative producers

such as Lynch, Houghton and Schreibman an Alternative Producer’s Workflow could become a reality.

61

Bibliography

John Belton, ‘Manufacturing Dreams’, in American Cinema / American Culture, (McGraw-Hill, 1994), pp.61-82.

Steven Bernstein, ‘Pre-production”, in Film Production, (Focal Press, 1994), pp.249-257.

Bastian Cleve, ‘The Production Manager’, in Film Production Management, (Focal Press, 2006), pp.1-7.

Joan Dupont, ‘A Smooth Exterior But Wild At Heart’, The International Herald Tribune, May 2001, http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/05/19/lynch_ed3_.php

Sergei Eisenstein, ‘A Dialectic Approach to Film’, in Film Form, edited and translated by Jay Leyda, (Harcourt Brace and Company, 1949) pp. 45-63.

John Ellis, ‘Stars as a Cinematic Phenomenon’, in Visible Fictions, collated in Film Theory and Criticism, (Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 614-621.

Gunnar Erickson, Harris Tulchin and Mark O’Halloran, ‘Key Issues in Digital Distribution’ in The Independent Producer’s Survival Guide, (Schirmer Trade Books, 2002) pp.307-312.

Mike Figgis, Digital Filmmaking, (Faber and Faber, 2007)

Tad Friend, “Creative Differences” in The New Yorker, September 1999, pp.56 http://www.lynchnet.com/mdrive/newyorker.html

Matt Hanson, ‘The Eternal Gaze: The Future of Audiovisual Consumption’, in The End of Celluloid, (RotoVision, 2003), pp115-121.

Buck Houghton, ‘Jumping in’ and ‘Then...after the ball is over”, in What A Producer Does, (Silman James Press, 1991, pp. viii, 196-197.

Bruce Isaacs, ‘The Cinematic Real: Image, Text, Culture’, in Toward a New Film Aesthetic, (Continuum, 2008), pp.157-197.

Chris Jones, ‘Blueprint Overview’, in The Guerilla Film Maker’s Movie Blueprint, (Continuum, 2005), pp13-28.

Chris Jones and Genevieve Jolliffe, ‘Anatomy of a Movie Section 2 - Concept’, in The Guerilla Filmmakers Handbook, (Continuum, 2006), pp38-41.

Paul N. Lazarus III, ‘Pre-Production’, ‘Collaboration with the Director’ and ‘Marketing’, in The Film Producer, (St Martin’s Press, 1992), pp81-102, pp123-134, pp153-164.

John Orr, ‘Film and the Paradox of the Modern’, in Cinema and Modernity, (Polity Press, 1993), pp. 12-13.

Hortense Powdermaker, ‘Mass Production of Dreams’, in Hollywood, The Dream Factory, (Little, Brown and Company, 1950) pps39-53. Also available online: http://astro.temple.edu/~ruby/wava/powder/intro.html

Graham Robertson, ‘Able Edwards:The Story Of...’, in Desktop Cinema, (Thomson, 2006), pp.15-67.

Myrl A. Schreibman, ‘Understanding Producing’ and ‘The Production Period’, in Creative Producing from A to Z, (Lone Eagle Publishing, 2001), pp.13-26,110-155

62

Clifford Thurlow, ‘The Script’, in Making Short Films, (Oxford, New York, 2008), pp29-40.

Paul A. Woods in Weirdsville USA, (Plexus, 1997)

UK Film Council Statistical Yearbook 2006/2007. www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk

Resource Websites

www.IMDb.com

www.snakesonablog.com

Films

Juno, dir. by Jason Reitman (20th Century Fox, 2007).

Outpost, dir. by Steve Barker (Sony Pictures Entertainment SPE, 2008).

Pineapple Express, dir. by David Gordon Green (Columbia Pictures, 2008).

The Player, dir. by Robert Altman (Fine Line Features, 1992).

Referenced Masterclasses/Interviews/Coursework

Susie Brown, at Screen Academy Scotland, March 2008.

Richard Burdette, at Edinburgh Television Festival, ‘The Network’ Masterclass, August 2008.

David Gamble, at Screen Academy Scotland, February 2008.

Linda Paalaane, at Edinburgh Television Festival, ‘The Network Masterclass’, August 2008.

Oscar Van Heek, at Screen Academy Scotland, February 2008.

63

Appendix I - Mechanics - Two/Three Page Treatment

Title: Mechanics.

Format: 20-25 minute short on 1080 HDCam.

Tagline: A Film in Parts.

Genre: Social Realist Comedy/Drama “Crash meets Amelie in rural Scotland.”

Hook: A car plummets from the roof of a council house and the film recycles through a multi-perspective narrative as, layer by layer, the truth about who was in the car is revealed.

Genesis: “Mechanics” is designed as part of an “alternative producer’s workflow” where it will form part of an ongoing investigation into audience response and will influence further development of the script into feature length form.

Short Synopsis: Cal Sutherland’s father runs a garage where life revolves around cars, women and football, none of which are of particular interest to Cal, much to the chagrin of his brutish father. In an attempt to win over his Dad, Cal resolves to rebuild their broken-down car. Our story opens outside their council house as the aforementioned car careers off the roof of the house and crashes into the ground. The film then recounts 8 different points of view surrounding the build-up to the crash which show the intertwining lives of a rural Scottish small town.

Long Synopsis: Eight stories in one non-linear narrative.

Cal Sutherland, (13)Cal rushes back from school to his dad’s garage, to find him arguing with some of his staff. His dad, Davey, storms out of the garage, taking Cal with him. Their car breaks down. Leaving it behind in a frustrated depression, they walk home. When they return the following morning, the car has been vandalised. Cal’s father calls one of his staff, Josh, to tow it off the road and they scrap it at a landfill site near the house. Cal returns with his best friend Fhinn later in the day. Cal decides to salvage what he can from the car and begins the process of rebuilding it. He finds a “construction site”, on the roof of their house, then contacts Josh for some schematics and plans. Over the coming weeks he and Fhinn rebuild the car as best they can.

Davey Sutherland, (37)Davey Sutherland gets up early and looks over a muddle of company invoices, delivery notes and statements. Before he leaves he makes a call to try and negotiate a new lease on his garage. He hangs up and is instantly called back, expecting to hear the bank when it’s a cold caller asking after his wife, who has passed away. Infuriated by the rude and insensitive phone call he heads off to work. As mid-afternoon approaches one of his best workers asks for an advance, which he has to decline. Things get heated and he walks out, taking his son with him. When their car breaks down, he knows that he can’t afford to fix it and he leaves it for junk. That evening, he heads to the pub and reconciles with Rob. He recognises the voice of the cold caller, who he punches. He is then chucked out of the bar and passes his car on the way home. In a misguided rage he vandalises it for the insurance. Over the coming weeks he notices his son being very secretive. He discovers

64

that he is rebuilding the car. Impressed by his endeavour he secretly re-arranges and fixes a few key mistakes the boy has made.

Josh Finnegan, (19)Josh Finnegan sits opposite his sister Anna in their local bank. She works there and has arranged for a loan to get him to university. He arrives to work at the garage, in a positive and ambitious mood. When the rest of the staff storm out he is left in charge of the garage. A dodgy punter arrives to try and sell him some parts, which he refuses, and the guy threatens him. Later, he heads out to night class and has his eye on Lisa, a girl in the classroom next door. When he begins to talk to her he realises she is his co-worker Rob’s sister. Over the coming weeks he pops in and out of the deli where Lisa works and strikes up a relationship - against Rob’s warnings. One evening he meets her out on the beach when the guy who threatened him at the garage starts giving him grief. He tells Lisa to go home as the guy and his mates chase him down. As he turns to face them they beat him solidly until Rob shows up and helps him out. Bruised and crestfallen he returns home, and starts to drink. He notices the car on the roof...and gets inside.

Rob Burnett, (29)Rob Burnett watches from a distance outside the bank as Josh leaves. His face is sweating and we get the impression that he’s about to rob the place. He heads inside and is met by Josh’s sister who is surprised to see him. He tells her he has a meeting and then presents his case for a small business loan. She lays out for him why it wouldn’t work. He is pissed off. He heads in to work for his shift. When Davey questions him about doing separate call-out work on the side, he tries to tell him he needs the money and it all gets out of control. Davey storms off with Cal, Josh is left in charge and Rob heads off to do a job. Over the coming weeks Rob deteriorates into depression and desperation. He gears up to rob the bar. He heads down to the beach bar and is about to go through with it when he sees the altercation going off in the distance. He rushes over to find Lisa and tells her to go home. He chases down the pack and helps Josh fight off the aggressors. He tells Josh to head home and delivers the gang to the police. Who tell him one of the group was wanted down south for identity fraud, and the reward was £5,000. He heads over to Josh’s to see that he’s OK and spots the getaway gang member, Gavin, heading inside. He chases Gavin up he stairs and passes Josh, who is coming down from the roof, on the way.

Lisa Burnett, (19)Lisa Burnett is working at the deli. She sells sweets to Fhinn and gives the morning papers to Davey. She spends a lot of her time online and is completing a distance learning course in journalism. She asks her brother, Rob, to help her financially to get to uni but he can’t as money is just too tight. She meets Josh at night class and over the coming weeks they strike up a friendship. She neglects her studies, spending more and more time with him. After they are set upon by the group of dodgy punters she rushes back to Josh’s flat and kisses him, as a car plummets past their window outside. Her ensuing account of the story is published in the local paper and gains her access to University.

Anna Finnegan, (27)Anna Finnegan drives her boyfriend, Gavin, to work. They discuss their relationship - which is extremely strained, primarily due to Gavin being an asshole. He is dropped off at a call centre and she heads to work at the bank. She calls Davey to discuss his lease and then meets with Josh to arrange his loans. She meets Gavin again for lunch, at the deli,

65

where he chats up Lisa. After telling Gavin that he needs to get out of the crap flat he’s staying in and lose the company he’s keeping, she dumps him. Over the coming weeks she has her eye on Davey. She heads round to his house on the night of the car crash to find him fixing a car on a roof.

Gavin O’Dey, (25)Gavin O’Dey is not a nice guy. He wakes up at his messy flat and is given a lift to a call centre where he loves nothing more than picking targets on his call-list and giving them attitude. He calls Davey and gets on his bad side, issuing a tirade of abuse. He then lunches with Anna, where he spots an attractive waitress. He embarrasses both Anna and the waitress and gets dumped. He tells his friends about it and they mock him. They hear about her brother, the mechanic and resolve to bring him some parts they’ve nicked. He refuses the parts and the vendetta is set in motion. Gavin heads to the bar to pick up women or find his next target. He stalks the Anna over the coming weeks and eventually sets his “crew” on her brother Josh. He escapes the fracas and heads back to the house. to see Anna and Davey on the roof. Rob storms upstairs after him and, trapped on the roof, he is forced to hide in the car. It rolls off the roof.

Fhinn McClure, (11)Fhinn buys some sweets from Lisa at the deli and heads to school. He arrives back from school with his friend Cal and they go to the garage. He watches as the arguments get more heated and Cal takes another picture. As they all leave he sneaks past Josh to borrow Cal’s camera. He walks around town taking pictures of everyone.

Talent: Tom Duncan will write, produce and direct with co-production from Martyn Burrow and Britt Crowley. Script supervision and additional writing by Fergus Cook and Stuart Duncan. The film will be shot by Tom Duncan and Martyn Burrow with Robert Hall and Stuart Duncan running sound. Location management by Anne Duncan and sets/construction/transport by Bill Duncan.

Timescale: “Mechanics” enters pre-production at the end of the first week in July. A 4-5 day shoot is planned (dependant on the final draft of the script) for the first week in August. Post production to be a further 3 weeks, with the project concluded by September 13th 2008.

Status: At present the script exists in outline form with the first act complete. With the writers looking to complete a draft for budgeting and scheduling by 07.07.08.

66