Occasionally, Easter Candy Turned to Bile Will Burn the Insides of Your Organs (Brian Hecker Responds)

A few days ago I unleashed a post (http://thecccv.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-vultures-finally-get-you-they-will.html) where I reflected on the experience of seeing both "Bart Got a Room" and "Medicine for Melancholy" in the same week, and hearing the writer/director of each film (Brian Hecker and Barry Jenkins, respectively) speak.

I was definitely harsher on one of the filmmakers, and he not only happened to read this blog, but had the balls to contact me through Facebook. Below is our full conversation. Also, I am voluntarily going back and deleting the two sentences that are personal attacks on character.
From: Brian Hecker
To: Milton Garcia

Hi

I read your blog about my film. Of course discovering your blog comes with the territory of being an artist -- coming upon responses to personal work - positive or negative. Subjectivity and interpretation is the essence of the artistic journey. That said, some of your disparaging comments got me in a way that felt hurtful and a bit on the mean-spirited side. In your review, you disparage my process in sticking with my film for so long and commenting on the fruitless journey. That one just seems a little harsh, and especially confusing coming from a promoter of an organization meant to encourage artists. Making this movie was a very personal endeavor - one that truly inspired me and fueled me as an artist over the years. Of course, you and I are going to care about different issues and have different values. While I've been pursuing sundry creative endeavors over several years, sticking with this project was important to me and my journey. This is an autobiographical story that deals with the true pain I went through as an alienated kid and the product of divorced parents who didn't like each other. I wanted to expose the absurdity of societal pressures and the comparison mind-set that causes people so much unnecessary suffering in their lives. Bart being an invisible entity throughout the movie was an exciting tactic for me to explore these arbitrary attachments to concepts that we all have that lead to so much unnecessary suffering. Of course you are entitled to feel the way you do about the film, but consider for a moment that disparaging a fellow artist for spending years on something that's exciting and personal to him might be antithetical to the very cool and supportive organization for artists you yourself are promoting? Thanks for listening.

With Respect,

Brian Hecker




From: Milton Garcia
To: Brian Hecker

Hey Brian,

First I want to thank you for engaging me about the blog in an frank and genuine way. It forced me to think about what was at the core of the post. I apologize if you were hurt by any of the personal comments, but the snarkiness was there for entertainment value, and like you said, it is something every artist and public figure will go through (and who isn't a public figure now?).

The meat of the post was the contrast between the journeys that you and Barry Jenkins took to create "Bart Got a Room" and "Medicine for Melancholy," respectively.

Our organization, CCCV, is trying to establish a regional film scene out of Miami- and so naturally the question of whether we are wasting our time by not going to LA is paramount in our minds. All of the artists we work with are in their early twenties- some of them are going down your path and pursuing their careers in LA, and others are giving it a go in Miami. We want more to stay in Miami. We have an agenda.

The post was disparaging the idea that you have to go to LA and hustle for someone else for many years before you are permitted to tell your story, and your journey was a pertinent symbol of this.

As I said in the blog, I respect the fact that you filmed it in South Florida, even using local actors. It is respectable that you stood by your story for so long, but our organization wants to ask the question "What if you had decided to shoot it independently, on your terms, when you wanted to?"

While you certainly wouldn't have been able to work with William H. Macy, you would have still been able to tell your story and perhaps had similar success on the festival circuit and maybe found distribution anyway. It wouldn't be unheard of- again I point to "Medicine for Melancholy" as an example.

Clearly things worked out for you, and you have set yourself up for a long and prosperous career- but I would like to ask if you were starting out again, would you consider taking the independent, regional path...or do you believe we are the ones wasting our time?

I recognize that it's easier to tear something down than to create something. One takes a few seconds and the other may take, well, 13 years. Something I neglected to do in the blog was recognize what an achievement it was just to get the damn thing done, and despite my personal opinion of the film (which is another conversation, especially since I said I was not attempting a review of the film) I would like to congratulate you.

If more artists called bullshit on critics and bloggers and engaged in conversation like you have, I think much would be learned. If you don't mind I would like to post this conversation and your responses on the blog as well.

I wish you the best in your future endeavors,

milton




From: Brian Hecker
To: Milton Garcia

The journey one should take is different for everyone and almost philosophical: it comes down to the artist's desire to be seen or heard. The question to the artist is this: how big does your audience need to be to feel satiated and do you want to make a living at being an artist? It's an uncomfortable question to ask the artist but a necessary one to understand a path that resonates with your values. The classic fun question to ask is this: Could you be satisfied spending at least one full year working assiduously writing, shooting, and editing a feature length movie, not get paid, go into debt, not have much time for anything else (including other work and especially other personal relationships), not 'expect' any career advancement as a result of making a movie with no name actors, and then screen the movie to 30-50 of your friends at a rented screening space and be okay with nobody else seeing it again after that except by you (many times) and maybe a couple friends and family over the years that you get to sit down and watch it on video at your house? This happens 3000 times a year as there are literally 3000 independent movies made without name actors that never see the light of day. If your answer to this question is: "Yes, It would be fun to create even if it's just for my friends and even if I don't make money at it," then the path is clear. Of course you don't need to go anywhere but your own backyard. You can get a camera and your friends and have fun creating for creation-sake and screen it to people one glorious night and just celebrate the journey of making the damn thing. This is as valid a path as any. It comes down to your desires as an artist. It's philosophical because you start asking whether or not an artist 'needs' an audience and how much ego is involved. Few artists want to answer this because it's easy to come across like a phony if you say you doing it FOR the money or FOR the recognition. The other very extreme scenario is that you earn a real living making your movies, a company spends real money marketing your movies because of the valuable actors in it, and enough people pay to see the movie so that you can continue getting paid to make others. And in between those extreme scenarios, there are a million variations. Are there exceptions? Naturally, but they are insanely rare. "Napoleon Dynamite" is the rarest of examples where a feature film with no name actors leads to professional career as a writer/director. I'd conjecture to say there are at least 10,000+ aspiring American filmmakers out there and maybe 1-2 indie films with no name actors each year make it into theaters. (And it's not always based on quality either -- there are a lot of politics involved here as well.) For me, I feel proud of the path I took. Since I was a kid, I've always dreamed of seeing a movie of mine in big theaters. Because I got William H. Macy and Cheryl Hines, my movie was screened all over the world at over two dozen film festivals that I got to attend. Watching my movie with sundry audiences all around the country (as well as in Norway, Calgary, and British Columbia) was without a doubt one of the most exciting experiences of my life. I know you didn't get my movie, but the movie had been extremely well received in the festival circuit. We premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival (all 5 screenings sold out), won a few prestigious audience awards including Chicago and Fort Lauderdale festivals and received so far 70% on the Rotten Tomatoes movie review website (with 29 reviewers all together). I've heard many times that the movie industry is the toughest industry in the world to make a living at. All in all, the path is personal. There is no wrong or right choice. If an action you take doesn't feel right or doesn't resonate with your own values, stop, go back, then take a step forward that makes you feel fucking alive.

Respectfully,
Brian Hecker



So there you have it.

Brian makes a lot of good points, but he fails to note that traditional means of distribution are being rapidly overtaken by new media and digital distribution. When Blu-ray/DVD is dead and overtaken by digital distribution in a few years, independent filmmakers will have more options than ever in terms of getting their film to a larger audience. You won't need LA to find a huge audience, unless you want a star. While the idea of going to Hollywood and getting a movie star to be in your film is romantic, most of the 10,000+ American filmmakers Brian mentions are in LA focusing on doing just that, while pulling cables on other people's sets- or worse- to survive in the meantime. There are less than 50 actors who are considered "names" and the odds of a young filmmaker landing one are not good. Brian had luck, talent and 13 years of tenacity on his side. Most of those filmmakers do not, and that is a big reason why those 3,000 films never see the light of day, and even less ever get made.

Personally, I would rather be constantly creating films on my own terms, honing my craft in a fun community of like-minded artists than throwing elbows trying to get at one of fifty people to agre to work with me and be allowed to make my film. People forget where movie stars come from- they aren't magically created (unless they are on Disney- ie Hannah Montana) but many come from these regional scenes.

Even William H. Macy, the name that allowed Brian's film to be made, came from the Chicago theater scene of the 70's. He had a large body of work as an actor working with like-minded artists such as David Mamet before he went to Hollywood.

Owen and Luke Wilson were making cool little films in Austin before they were big names. Working in a regional scene does not mean you are doomed to show your film to "50 or 60 people in someone's backyard," but there are plenty of examples of those who honed their craft locally and then got noticed nationally- From the American New Wave of filmmakers in NY and the Bay Area in the 60's and 70's to Austin in the 90's to the Mumblecore movement mostly coming out of Brooklyn. Almost every major director whom you recognize and still has traces of artistic integrity came from one of these communities.

I'm not a filmmaker, but I am a gamblin' man, and I would rather take my chances with the path of constant creation than the LA hustle. But Brian is right- it's an intrinsic philosophical difference bro.

Then again, his script is being made into a film starring Leonardo DiCaprio, and I am still here, writing in a blog.