A Candid Look At AMNESIA

Being candid and transparent is a risky thing... But I'll be candid and transparent...


A year ago, at this time, AMNESIA was screened as part of RebFest. RebFest got the attention of Yahoo News that month, with an article written about it. AMNESIA made up about 3/4 of the article. We were thrilled to get that much attention. During our tour of the film, in my home state of Maine, where we filmed 80% of the film, a sound designer from LA (who has a summer home on MDI, Maine) watched the film. He asked me what other films I had done. He wanted to see more of my work. I said that AMNESIA was it. He said, "but you must have some short films?". I said, "no". He was surprised that this could be a "first film". Then he asked about equipment used. He was surprised. Then he asked the budget. He stated, "so, since you're from Maine, and you're obviously frugile, I'm guessing you're budget was $500,000". I told him I was under $300,000. His jaw about hit the floor. I made a point in March, when we did RebFest, not to give the actual number on the film but to continue to say, "something under $300,000". Fact was... I wished I had had $300,000 to shoot the film. Even $200,000 would have been nice... or $100,000... I would have even been happy with $15,000! Fact was, if you subtract the 1,000 that was spent on the first attempt to shoot the film but wasn't used in the final shoot, we're around $4,000. Yes, a $4,000 film was mistaken for $500,000 (and I was told that was frugile.) All of that is a compliment. But AMNESIA wasn't orignally designed to "sell" as DVD's. It was a calling card. A very elaborate calling card.

It was also a learning leason. I learned that I could have done more. I also have to be blunter with today's audience (subtle doesn't really work). I learned that even though I am a risk taker you have to lean on the side of caution on how "original" you are in story concept. I learned that I could have used more effects I held back on. Since making AMNESIA I have also learned I could have recruited more experienced cast/crew than I thought possible. One of the extra things I have gained is that I have learned that people do like my stories and want to see more.

On the tour and in March I gained the perspectives of audience members. People just told me what they thought. The good, bad and the ugly. Some people were down right rude, mean... but atleast honest. Others used more polite ways of saying what didn't work for them. Many told me what the film reminded them of. I received many compliments on the unique shot style, comments on my acting, the uniqueness of the story. I gained the one, most powerful tool any filmmaker could ever gain: the perspectives of my potential audience members for the film.

But, as I described in my blog post on the Film Courage blog that David Branin has http://filmcourage.blogspot.com/2010/03/true-game-changers-and-what-indies-can.html I compared films to satelites. Using that comparison, I didn't break the stratosphere. I didn't even come close. Based on that standard, I failed. Let's just be honest. I wasn't reaching out to a niche market. I think that could be the death toll to your film and career. I don't want to be stereotyped into a niche. I think they can be a "launch pad" to reach a larger audience, but they shouldn't be your intended audiene. Hollywood doesn't operate in this backwards perspective, but for some reason indies do. Well, I'm not normal and I'm not indie. I don't like to be boxed in. I set my own bar that I have to reach. And based on my goal to achieve and the potential I knew the concept had I didn't hit the mark. This isn't just candid and honest. Some may think I am being to hard on myself, but a goal is a goal.

Knowing, in the back of my mind, that I didn't hit the goal I grappled with this reality and what to do next. Some said, "forget it, drop this story and move on", others just said, "make whatever money you can", etc. I debated whether to forge on with the sequel. Then there was the debate about a TV version instead, (many compared the film to LOST). I even wrote a TV pilot, which wasn't bad. I then explored the possibility of the entire season. To be honest, it starts to fall apart. It just doesn't work.

The truth was, as a filmmaker I wasn't completely satisfied with the outcome of the film. That's the problem. It didn't live up to the potential of the story concept. It's not bad, it was good... but it wasn't great. The concept is so original and the shot style so innovative that it should have blown the competition out of the water. But there were too many flaws.

I'm a concept guy. I see my weaknesses and my strengths. Just like in acting, I know my limitations and my strengths, it's the same way as a filmmaker. I can tell you that as a concept guy I have huge strengths. I can look at certain concepts that have come to me and I know how large of an audience would potentialy watch it, based on concept alone, and what concepts that a smaller audience would like... The Allan Carter Saga has big potential.

Imagine a builder built a great house. It was designed to be big, beautiful and the talk of the neighborhood... but during the construction it ended up with inherited flaws. The carpenter had a smaller budget than needed. Instead of hiring a company to pour the foundation, he does it himself. It's not bad, but isn't great. He wanted to hire a crew to do the framing, but once again, did it himself. Same with electrical, painting... almost everything. It theory that house worked... but didn't live up to the dream. So what does he do? Gets all the needed stuff together and starts over. After he is finished the new house makes a dramtic statement about the vision and all those who were involved. Sound odd? I'll describe more later.