This weekend, I did one of my favorite things: I sat down for a marathon of an entire season of a TV show. See, I like to TiVo up a good ten hours of a show and then watch the whole lot of ’em at once. This weekend: Project Greenlight on Bravo. Wow. What a great show for aspiring actors who want to know all about the behind-the-scenes of the low-budget filmmaking process, from conception to test screenings!
Before I get into my theories and observations, let me mention that this season’s Project Greenlight drew a lot of controversy from those who felt that the filmmaker was railroaded throughout the casting process. If you’ve not seen it and want to get a taste of what fans had to say about this element of the show, check out the message boards and blogs for the show at Bravo’s website.
Whether you’ve seen the show or not, you most likely have wondered how much weight the casting director has in the feature film casting process and whether that varies based on the budget of the film, the profile and reputation of those involved with the project, and the number of investors with an opinion to share. One thing to note, no matter what conditions are present, is that most casting is done by committee — not by one person alone. Everyone involved gets a say in the casting process and the weight of each person’s opinion is different. Casting is far from a democratic endeavor!
On a “true indie” (in which no studio is involved), the CD, the director, the producers, and even additional non-producer-level financiers will get a say-so in the casting process. On the film chosen for this season of Project Greenlight, the studio required lists of four or five names per role, based on the recommendation of the CD, producers, and director. The studio would then approve offers to their favorite actor for each role and would outline the terms of those offers (which were never discussed explicitly on-camera, though that would’ve been some gripping TV for me). The most controversial part of this process was the fact that the film’s CD submitted a name to the studio without consent from the producers and the director. Of course, that turned out to be the studio’s favorite actor for the role.
Quite frankly, there should be no conspiracy theory here. Having watched all season in one weekend, I was able to imagine the show’s storyboards. Each episode would have a primary conflict. Since, in the episode prior to the “casting controversy,” the director had come within inches of being fired for threatening to go to the head of the studio with a screen test of his family members in the four lead roles to prove he knew better than everyone else that nepotism was a great idea across the board, the director had become more docile than ever at this point. He had been made to roll over for the producers for fear of losing this opportunity and the timing would of course make it seem that he was being railroaded by the casting director. Her “scandalous decision” was the only source of conflict for that particular episode. Having worked in reality television, I can assure you that this was a story arc, plain and simple.
While I would’ve loved to see an episode that centered on the entire casting process (breakdowns going out, pitch calls coming in from agents and managers, boxes of submissions arriving, prereads, callbacks, short lists being made, offers being extended and rejected or accepted, SAG contract elements being fleshed out, discussions of billing and favored nations issues, haggling of contract terms, and the crucial trump call from the studio selecting the one actor the director had made clear he did not want for his film), that wouldn’t have earned the show much-needed heat and viewership. Just like scripted programming, reality shows need good guys and bad guys. By selecting a difficult script, a non-communicative director, a studio-pleasing CD, and a few other key people to stir the plot pot, Project Greenlight was hedging its proverbial bets for a hot first season on basic cable.
Outside of the casting process on the show, I found it very interesting that, on the first day of “the job” for the contest winners (two screenwriters and a first-time director), producers made it a point to let the newbies know that there was fervent debate on whether these were the “right guys” to choose. Seeing this ego-crushing discussion saddened me, as I know that creative types certainly do not need people outside of themselves to help stir their self-doubt. But it was a good reminder that the entertainment industry is not generally a nurturing environment, but instead is a money-making business with bosses and bigger bosses and even bigger bosses.
Further fascinating was the fact that the contest directors chose a filmmaker who, in the final interview process, was a lousy communicator. Everyone agreed that this potential director was very internal about his process and would need to become better at communicating his vision and his needs. I’ve always loved the adage, “When people first show you who they are, believe them.” Basically, people don’t change much, no matter how they may try. So, why then, week after week on this show, did people vent about what a bad communicator this filmmaker was at every turn? Duh, folks! Certainly, our hero did end up being a more confident, better communicator by the end of this process, but the people around him should’ve never been surprised each time that he wasn’t so good at relaying his thoughts.
Bottom line, the filmmaker chosen for this feature film provided a Cinderella Story for the accompanying TV show. He arrived for his final interview in a jalopy that broke down at the valet and with credit cards too maxed out to cover the hotel room incidentals. By the end of the series, he had completed his first feature film, which had managed to survive many hardships and even weather a studio conglomerate “divorce” to earn distribution for late 2005.
Remember, Project Greenlight was not a documentary. Had it been, you’d have seen it on the Sundance Channel, it would’ve been 90 minutes in length, and there would be very little drama, buzz, or audience for that matter. Project Greenlight was a reality TV show. And in a genre shared by bug-eaters, million-dollar race-winners, wannabe supermodels, plastic surgery, karaoke singers, and billionaires with bad comb-overs, of course the competition is stiff for ratings! The folks at Project Greenlight (the competition, not the show) made it very clear that this was the make-or-break season not only for the TV show but for the competition itself. Wouldn’t high ratings help the cause along? You betcha! Best way to get viewers? Create buzz. Best way to create buzz? Get people talking about something “scandalous” on the show! That part of the equation worked. But will Project Greenlight continue? Looks grim according to Exec Producer Chris Moore’s blog. That’s a shame, since indie filmmaking (even if it is being supported by a major studio) is such a great place for actors to do amazing work.
Bonnie Gillespie is living her dreams by helping others figure out how to live theirs. Wanna work with Bon? Start here. Thanks!
Originally published by Actors Access at http://more.showfax.com/columns/avoice/archives/000229.html. Please support the many wonderful resources provided by the Breakdown Services family. This posting is the author’s personal archive.