Ian Armer2013-05-25T17:41:32-04:00Ian Armerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=ian-armerCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Ian ArmerGood old fashioned elbow grease.Dancing to the Devil's Drum: Joe Eszterhas vs Mel Gibsontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14404882012-04-20T10:47:50-04:002012-06-20T05:12:02-04:00Ian Armerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-armer/Crossbearer: A Memoir of Faith and, unlike Hollywood Animal and The Devil's Guide to Hollywood, it was a worthy if plodding account of how he turned his life around.
On page 200 of the hardback edition of the book, Joe writes about how a certain director of one of his favourite films, The Passion of the Christ, royally screwed up by getting arrested and spewing out a barrage of anti-Semitic vitriol:
"So that was it. Ball game. Open and shut. No doubt now. Mel was a raving anti-Semite. The man who had composed his prayer of a movie about Christ shared the mind-set of Adolf Hitler.
It made me want to retch. Mel had assassinated his own film. Now the movie would be known for all time as a big-screen anti-Semitic billboard. It was said that in the course of making the film, Mel's own hands were used to drive the nails into Jesus's. And now, I thought, Mel had done it again - publically and in full view of the world. He had driven his nail into his own movie."
Eszterhas concludes:
"He didn't even deny what he had said - at least not for long. It turned out there was a police videotape of the filth he had spewed. He went quickly away to some ideological rehab facility in rehab-rich Malibu Man plans, God laughs.
I still maintained that The Passion of the Christ was a prayer and not anti-Semitic filth, but then I was stubborn and I had been wrong about a great many things in my life."
The Gibson incident occurred in 2006. The book Crossbearer was published in 2008. Joe Eszterhas must have changed his mind about Gibson as he sat down to write the first draft of The Maccabees. A draft Gibson and Warner Brothers branded 'substandard' and a waste of time. Eszterhas hit back, accusing Mel of a series of anti-Semitic comments the screenwriter allegedly witnessed and also accused Gibson of cynically using The Maccabees as a way of restoring his now damaged reputation after the 2006 fracas.
In truth, Gibson had been involved on The Maccabees for a good eight years, as pointed out in his carefully drafted reply to Eszterhas. A reply that contains the following important statement:
"I have your letter. I am not going to respond to it line by line, but I will say that the great majority of the facts as well as the statements and actions attributed to me in your letter are utter fabrications. I would have thought that a man of principle, as you purport to be, would have withdrawn from the project regardless of the money if you truly believed me to be the person you describe in your letter. I guess you only had a problem with me after Warner Brothers rejected your script."
Mel Gibson makes a sage point. Eszterhas did indeed know (according to Crossbearer) that Gibson was 'a raving anti-Semite' who had sabotaged his own movie and ruined Joe's profoundly religious feelings towards the film. So, why did Joe Eszterhas take the plunge to work with Gibson? Why dance to the devil's drum?
As the bickering between Gibson and Eszterhas continues, it seems that Joe and Mel are probably cut from the same cloth. Both are Hollywood bad boys, both are very religious, both are extremely passionate about filmmaking, both were once hugely successful and now both have a tarnished reputation to restore to former glory. Eszterhas peaked (if that is the word) with Basic Instinct and then eventually fell out of Hollywood as he battled cancer and then found God. Gibson never recovered from the 2006 incident and is still dogged by myriad accusations of spousal abuse, anti-Semitism and drunken and aggressive behaviour.
It makes you wonder what sort of conclusion to draw from this escapade. It's hardly a moral maze and the protagonists little more than two Catholic school boys bickering in the playground. And yet I can't see what Eszterhas hopes to achieve by attempting to destroy Gibson's weak hold on Hollywood when his own is well and truly broken.
(Extracts from Crossbearer: A Memoir of Faith by Joe Eszterhas, published by St Martin's Press)]]>Kissing the Devil's Rump: The Lie of the Amateur Professionaltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14061162012-04-05T12:50:46-04:002012-06-05T05:12:01-04:00Ian Armerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-armer/
A more realistic sounding temptation is usually the 'eternal optimist' approach, requiring the producer to convince the writer to abandon his reason and common sense. To believe that a film can be made for literally nothing and that everybody will benefit in the long run. 'We can make it for two thousand pounds and earn fifty thousand pounds!' is one such lie I was recently told. What, you pay yourself and I and nobody else involved? The producer and writer benefit and the entire pre-production/production/post-production staff and crew go without? And you can sell it via advertising with no money and expect in excess of fifty thousand pounds return?
The above examples are just two experiences I have encountered over the years of being a freelance writer. Two of countless experiences in which I have been fobbed off, ripped off, underpaid, not paid and wasted weeks and months of my life writing for what I call the 'amateur professional' - that sordid brand of media wannabe parasite who has nothing to show and yet somehow manages to convince people they have a product worth investing in based upon their original idea. Of course, they haven't. It's a lie and one of many they will tell the writer - anybody, in fact - in order to hook them in with a false sense of promise. Let me give you an example.
Producer: 'Ray Winstone has shown interest in the script.'
Translation: 'I contacted Ray's agent regarding the script and was advised to send it for consideration once complete.'
The above is a real-life example of how the amateur professional reasons. To them, it's not a lie, but a bending of the truth, a delusional hope that, because the agent advised them to send 'their' script once complete, it stands a chance of being read by Ray Winstone and therefore has the actors 'interest'.
I have encountered many amateur professionals. They are all squalid, venal little rats with self-promotion at heart. They want adoration, praise, to look impressive and get someplace without actually doing any work. They will lie, beg and fantasise their way to success and it's a poor soul who is suckered in by their showmanship.
There is no money in writing. The gigs are short and shrift and it is nigh well impossible to earn a serious living from it. I am a thrice optioned screenplay writer, a contracted author and have been fortunate enough to have various short stories and poems published online and in print, but it's not something I make a living from. Which makes it all the more important to be paid for whatever work I do outside of my own private interests.
I recently asked a producer for six thousand pounds to cover a screenplay and buy out fee for myself and my co-writer. A ridiculously cheap amount of money, considering this was the chap who expected to earn in excess of fifty thousand pounds from his little two-grand enterprise. His reply was predictable: 'It's a tad high.'
A tad high and yet you want me to write, from scratch, a complicated psychological screenplay with a running time of seventy-five minutes for two people in a one room location? To do so, I would have to plan out the entire three-act structure, work in excess of a full working day for six weeks in order to produce a satisfactory draft (which is usually a second draft) then send it over to you, have you make suggestions, sending me back to my computer in order to craft a revised draft until you are satisfied with the results. You will not pay me to do so, promising me a share of fifty thousand pounds magically split between us at the expense of everybody else on the production, and my quote - to be paid for the work you want me to do and to pass on any profits made - is 'a tad high'?
Writing is not easy, folks. If it is, you're doing it wrong. And it's not made any easier by people such as the amateur professional. And the terrible thing is that they are on the rise, these Taliban of wannabe's! The digital revolution in film has actually been a minor blessing and a loaded curse, because now - literally - anybody can pick up a camera and say 'I'm a filmmaker!' Well, you're not. You are a film enthusiast, a hobbyist, an amateur until you make a film with professional standards and start as you mean to go on by paying your writer to work.
]]>