Rules for Hollywood? (2009 - Avatar & Paranormal Activity)

It recently occurred to me that 2009 may have provided the two furthest ends of the spectrum in filmmaking success in a single year...

"Avatar" and "Paranormal Activity".

When you think about these two extremes, it's hard to believe that there are really any rules in Hollywood for what it takes to have a successful film.

Okay, so this really isn't breaking news. "There are no rules in Hollywood." Fine. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

All I'm saying is that 2009 may have been the best illustration of that fact.

The budget for Paranormal Activity was somewhere in the neighborhood of $15k (yes, that's "k", as in "thousand"). The technology was primitive (at best). The director had no experience. Expectations were low (to say the least). Marketing was mainly via social networking (at least initially). The movie has grossed in the ballpark of $200 million.

Not a bad ballpark for a $15k investment.

The budget for Avatar was about $200 million. The technology was ground-breaking. The director had a lot of experience, including the previous all-time high-grossing film. Expectations were high (to say the least). Marketing was mainly "old school" (e.g., commercials and talk shows). The movie has grossed over $2 billion.

Not quite the same return on investment as Paranormal Activity, but not too shabby.

So, when I hear advice from various people in the industry saying, "You must [fill-in-the-blank]" or "You can't [fill-in-the-blank]"... I have a hard time taking any of this advice at face value. What they're saying me have been true for them at one time in their careers, and it may be true again.

Or it may not.

It's like Newton's Law of Hollywood...

"For every piece of advice, there's an equal and opposite piece of advice."

That's not to say nobody knows what they're talking about. Experience should count for something, right?

Maybe.

But how much (if any) does experience matter?

On the one hand, a film (or writer, director, actor, etc.) can have tons of experience, and be involved in a flop. On the other hand, a newcomer can skyrocket to the top.

I didn't intend to rhyme. That was an accident.

Like much of what happens in Hollywood.

There are some people who have great track records, producing more hits than misses... but nobody's batting 100%. Nobody has this thing totally figured out. The big studios produce some garbage, and the indie world creates some masterpieces.

Speaking of indies...

I've read some articles about death of indie filmmaking. They go on and on about the details of how the funding sources and distribution channels have dried up in recent years, and therefore it has become harder for indie filmmakers to survive. While I can't argue these facts (not being an indie filmmaker myself, I don't know enough to say if it's true or not), I have a hard time buying it as an overarching generality.

Or, put another way...

Did you hear the one about "Paranormal Activity"?

Distribution channels and funding sources may be changing, but come on... who really understood those things in the first place? And I'm not just saying this out of my own personal ignorance. There's a story about some college professors who traveled West in an attempt to map out the economics of Hollywood...

And traveled back East even more bewildered than when they'd arrived.

There may... I repeat, MAY... be some rules to follow in order to be successful in "THE INDUSTRY". But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that it's just a lot of free-wheeling poker playing.

To me, that's encouraging.

If nobody REALLY knows what's going on, then people down here at my level know about as much as everybody else.

"Paranormal Activity" -- A Coin Flip from Stardom

Okay, maybe not "stardom". But these days, when the words "star" and "celebrity" have become so watered-down, let's run with it...

The point is, I had a 50-50 chance to be in a movie called "Paranormal Activity". This movie recently became a huge cult hit. And judging by the latest box office numbers, has now been elevated from "cult" to "mainstream" hit.

(Am I using too many "quotes"?)

Whether or not I'm using too many quotes, and whether or not it's cult or mainstream, and whether or not I should be using the word "stardom", here's how I fit-in to this story (as originally posted in response to a fellow actor's comment on Facebook)...

---
Trivia... I got a callback for the demonologist role in "Paranormal Activity". The director said it was down to me and one other guy. Basically... a coin flip. Heads, you're part of a surprise rag-to-riches cult hit story. Tails, you're posting a comment on Facebook.
---

So, that's the story in a nutshell. And because of that bit of behind-the-scenes movie trivia, for days now, I've been tripping out (he said, showing his age) on how close I came to having my IMDb STARmeter ranking move from 755,201 to 6,758 (the true sign of success in Hollywood these days).

Of course, I had no way of knowing at the time that the ultra low budget movie I auditioned for would become the runaway rags-to-riches hit movie that it's become. And that's part of what's tripping me out...

We never know.

That's nothing new.

We just never know.

Seemingly little things become huge. But we don't know which ones will launch, and which ones will languish. At this very moment, and at every moment, there are countless opportunities to be in ultra low budget films. Most will lead to nothing. A few will lead to other opportunities. And very few, like "Paranormal Activity", will explode beyond anybody's wildest dreams.

I'm both discouraged and encouraged by my "so close yet so far" relationship to this movie. Discouraged because I'm not currently part of this blockbuster hit. Encouraged because I am "in the game".

Like all other actors slugging and slogging away at this business, I'm always one audition away from something big. The difference this time is that I know how close I came. Many times, we have no way of knowing. When we submit to something, we have no way of knowing if the project will amount to anything. When we audition, and don't get the part, we don't know if we were runner-up, or at the bottom of the pile. And we don't know why we weren't selected. Sometimes, it's a "look". You don't look like the image the director had in his head, or you don't look like a person who's already been cast in another role as a family member. Sometimes, it's talent. Another actor auditioned better than you. Sometimes, it's the gut feeling of the people selecting for the part. Sometimes, it's totally random... like, eenie-meenie-mynie-mo. Literally. My acting teacher has a story about that.

There are so many factors involved.

And there are also times when we don't even know what happened to the projects we auditioned for. For instance, when I auditioned for this film, it was just another "UNTITLED FEATURE". It's just a fluke that I recently connected the dots, and realized that the callback I got was for the movie that eventually became "Paranormal Activity".

And the callback was in the same house (belonging to director Oren Peli) that was used as the sole location for shooting the film! When I first saw the trailer, I thought, "That place looks really familiar". I was in the house that's now a part of the folklore. Once again...

So close, yet so far.

So, as I search for an ending to this blog post, I'm choosing to focus on the "upside". I'm choosing to feed off of the fact that I'm "in the game". I'm leaning towards "encouraged".

And I'm also leaning towards continuing to use "quotes" whenever I damn well please.