E R I K V I D A L

DEREK SIVERS: Advice on Moving to Los Angeles

As a few of us writer / actor / director types here in New York City debate the (now, it would seem) inevitable move to Los Angeles, aside from the obvious "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here..." sign which should surely be posted (just for us New Yorkers) right outside the taxi stand at LAX, perhaps a few sagely words of wisdom might be in order, with all this. Check out this post my man Darby Parker just kicked my way, written by one Derek Sivers (of CD Baby fame), re: "Advice on Moving to Los Angeles". In particular I like--

Americans are already quite individualist, but Los Angeles is the most individualist part of America. Because so many people are employed by the entertainment industry, many are self-employed freelancers. They’re very focused on themselves. People talk about themselves a lot because they feel they have to, for survival, for self-promotion. Just as you can’t fault anyone in the world for doing something for survival, try not to fault them for being so self-promotional. Learn to lovingly listen like you’d listen to an 8-year-old who excitedly tells you about their train set for an hour.

...

Every culture values different things. In some places, it’s your bloodline. In others, your university. In others, it’s where you live. In LA, it’s who you know. Since the entertainment industry is all about short-term projects, everyone survives by their next project, and these projects always come from a connection. So everyone is collecting contacts. (Again: it’s survival.) Friendships are pragmatic and often short. Don’t fault them for talking about who they know, the same way you wouldn’t fault someone from India asking about your family. Introducing people to each other, people who could potentially work together, is the most valuable thing you can do, as it raises your value and theirs. LA people want (NEED!) to have powerful well-connected friends, to survive and thrive.

>> To read the rest of the article at DEREK SIVERS click here

NOTES FROM A HACK: Unorganized, Semi-Coherent Thoughts About DRIVE

I read the script for DRIVE a little while back and loved it, thought it was one of the best reads of the year, had high hopes indeed for the movie, hopes that weren't quite met in the theater but, still, all in all I thought they did a pretty good job considering the extremely limited budget they were obviously saddled with ($10M)... But then, looking back on it, each time I mentally review the movie in my head, I'm finding it gets just a little bit worse, and I'm actually starting to wonder, now, if I didn't give it more credit than it deserves, simply because everything else this year has been so very, very bad...

So to hop on the ever-growing "DRIVE Really Didn't Work For Me--And on a Number of Different Levels" Internet Bandwagon, check out the following ("Unorganized"! "Semi-coherent"!!) review of DRIVE from NOTES FROM A HACK--

I get movies that are slow. Movies without a lot of talking. That's fine. But this was beyond that. This was uncomfortable and not representative of real life. There are long stretches where he is asked a question and just stares without saying a word. That doesn't happen. People don't do that. And people that do do that, are fucking weirdos who don't get Carey Mulligan.

She says "you want some water", and he stares at her for a good minute and a half, and then says "uh, sure".

Love!

He's in love now! She's in love now! That's all it took. They have no connection other than physical, I guess. And even that is questionable. Do they have anything in common? Nope. What do they talk about? Well, water and how refreshing it is. Not even that, just the offer of water and the acceptance of it.

Oh, but one time, she touched his hand.

Love!

Yeah, I find I've really gotta agree with The Hack on this one--watching the interaction between Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan, I was thinking the exact same thing: "A glass of water--and they're in love? Really?"

(Or maybe Gosling just ordered that pheremone cologne off the Internet... Hmm...)

>> To read the rest of the article at NOTES FROM A HACK click here

Lazy Sunday morning: Jene, budding movie star extraordinaire, learns the lines for her first feature (PICS)

The Many Faces of EMMA WATSON, And Then There's KRISTEN STEWART... (PIC)

STAR TREK Gag Reel

ACADEMY AWARD WINNING MOVIE Trailer

THE BIG BANG THEORY: Sheldon's Knocking Montage

CINEMATICAL: Is This The Age of the Bland Action Hero?

When last afternoon brought the news of a fourth Mission: Impossible film, I only felt a tepid sort of interest. I enjoyed the third one and all, but I'd be hard pressed to really remember anything about it other than Keri Russell's hideously brilliant death scene. For me, the answer is simple -- it's because Ethan Hunt is the most boring character to lead a franchise. The reason I remember Keri Russell's character is because I felt some level of empathy for her (and a "How did they do that to her eyes?"), but I can't really feel anything for Hunt. So why should I sit through the impressive action sequences? It doesn't really matter if he lives or dies, because he's not really there in any appreciable way.

By now, someone out there is violently disagreeing with me, and that's cool. But I ask those people to tell me something really significant about Ethan Hunt. I know he had a fiancee in Mission: Impossible 3, so that doesn't count. Tell me something else. His favorite weapon, perhaps, or his biggest fear. What does he do in his off time? What does he feel about his job, and the body count it requires? If you can answer any of these questions, I will give you a gold star. (Well, figuratively.)

But Ethan Hunt isn't the only tepid culprit. This decade seems to be the one full of the bland action heroes who are inexplicably given franchises when they don't have anything but a name. I feel the same way about John Connor in Terminator: Salvation (and, sadly, in its short-lived "companion" The Sarah Connor Chronicles). I can't remember one significant thing about Jack Ryan beyond that he was a nice guy, and had a "cover" as a historian (and that was only thanks to his last "reboot", The Sum of All Fears) so I can't understand why he's a viable property. The only thing all these guys have in common is that they have cool names.

>> To read the rest of the article at CINEMATICAL click here

RE:FOCUS: The Problem With Goal Setting

Growing up in Fargo, ND, performing on Broadway seemed like an impossible dream.  There were no fancy schools for musical theater in Fargo and there weren't many big shows that came through town.  But for Jessica Pariseau, making it to Broadway was her life's goal.

Flash forward a dozen or so years and a couple of cruise ship revues later, Jessica made it to Broadway.  Her big break came when she got a part in the national tour for Cabaret. After that she landed a part in one of the most celebrated shows in Broadway history - in the Broadway production of Mel Brooks's The Producers. It was miraculous.  She proved that with enough tenacity and a goal-oriented mindset, you could achieve anything. 

But then what?

Jessica spent her whole life focused on her goal that she neglected to think about what she would do if she achieved it.  For 20-something years she was so driven and so focused on that one thing, that after she achieved her goal, she didn't know what to do next.  Though performing was still fun, though she still enjoyed the singing and dancing, that steely-eyed focus and direction wasn't the same. 

This is a common feeling for many young performers who set their sites on making it to Broadway and make it.  They focus all their passion and energy on that one point that when they get there, they don't know what to do next.  Many simply go on to perform in show after show, but the passion is at a decidedly different level.  A few find new careers and go on to do other things.  But one thing becomes very clear - passion is not about the destination, it's about the journey.

>> To read the rest of the article at RE:FOCUS click here

Video Montage: The Films of the 2000s

the films of the 2000s video montage by Paul Proulx

SLASHFILM: 70-Minute Video Review of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE

Chances are you probably didn’t like Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace. You might be a Star Wars fan, or at least a fan of the original trilogy. After waiting in line for hours, days, weeks, you may have even written a mini 200-400 word review on an internet message board somewhere. If you were a working movie critic, you might have even written a 1,000-2,000 word review of the film for some newspaper or magazine. All of this exists in the realm of possibility…but what about a 70-minute video review?

Some guy named Mike from Milwaukee, WI put together a 70-minute video review discussing the many reasons why the movie was horrible. And this isn’t your usual fanboy rant, this is an epic, well-edited well-constructed piece of geek film criticism. In fact, the way I learned about the video was from Lost co-creator and Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof, who said “Your life is about to change. This is astounding film making. Watch ALL of it.”

>>To read the rest of the article at SLASHFILM click here

VIN DIESEL'S MULTI-FACIAL: The Short That Got His Career Started

Here, the man went to Cannes, booked a screening room, showed his short film around the clock (about a multi-racial actor trying to make it in LA), invited everyone, a few actually came and saw it, they liked the film, they liked him, sent it to Spielberg, Spielberg liked the film and liked him, put him in Saving Private Ryan, and the man got his career started. Truly, a lesson to us all (and, at a budget of $3,000, absolutely a must see for aspiring actors and filmmakers everywhere...)

LATINO REVIEW: SAM WORTHINGTON to star in DRACULA: YEAR ZERO?

Today, Tuesday is literally D Day- Dracula Day.

This is the day that Universal decides what it is going to make for summer 2011.  You see, Universal has been stagnant since they got sold to that Cable company Comcast.  They haven't been allowed to go to the toilet without a permission slip.  And now they realize they need to make 8 big films for 2011. You see it takes at least a year to make a moving picture- and they don't have enough for next year.

So there are 14 possible films with 8 needed.  And they need to figure out what the freak they are doing quickly.

Each of the possible 14 are ready to go with scripts and directors.  Some of them you know and some of them you don't.

But the craziest one is called DRACULA: YEAR ZERO.  Yes I know, un titulo de mierda. This is a period retelling of Dracula.  Like back in Transylvania and sh*t.  Vampires and Vlad the impaler.  You know, Van Helsing without that dial a hack Sommers.  Because Dracula worked out so well in Blade: Trinity. And I think there was a Dracula 2000... but I don't know who saw it.

Check it though, you know who is supposed to play Dracula? Sam Worthington! That's right, the newly minted "movie star" who everybody paid to see in Avatar.  Except they didn't pay to see him now did they?

The movie is budgeted at over $100m.  That seems like a lot of cashola for Dracula.  But then they spent $165m on the new WOLFMAN wherein fellow Latino Benicio is looking pretty miserable.  They are obsessed with the old Universal monsters, even though they are in the public domain.  Oh, and nobody cares.

Film is being produced by the guy who gave us the less than brilliant Ghost Rider and directed by the guy who made Will Smith suck in I ,Robot.  Don't worry, he blames the head of the studio, for everything, just like Harry Knowles.

Hello, Comcast- maybe you can stop the deal for NBC/Universal.  Dracula is not a teenager and he ain't in high school.  He is an OLD school vampire.  If the new regime is going to spend $100 million plus of your cable revenues on Dracula starring the live action guy from Avatar (or, alternately, the star of the suckiest Terminator)  you should cancel the deal.

Now if they were doing Duckula, you would have had me from hello.

>> To read the rest of the article at LATINO REVIEW click here

You know, I seem to recall they tried this with Colin Farrell, when he was first taking off (which is to say: deciding to put him in EVERYTHING), and as I further recall, I don't know if that really worked out quite so well, for him... I like Sam Worthington as an action star (and certainly casting directors are leaning more towards the Aussie men for male leads at any rate, as they're finding--surprise! No kidding--American male actors too effeminate...)--but really now, to put the man in Dracula? THE Dracula? Period piece and everything? Not seeing that one working on any level, but then, major studios were never known to be geniuses when it comes to looking ahead...

UNINFLECTED IMAGES: I had one line on The Sopranos...

"I had questions to ask, and research to do,
Like why does Leon take a break and why is it at 2?"

>> From UNINFLECTED IMAGES

Ah, actors...