|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miramax Television - What were we thinking?
by Billy Campbell & Eli Holzman
We had a very good idea of who we were pulling for going into the final decision-makers' meeting for the Project Greenlight contest. Pete Jones was an early favorite of ours - from our first introduction when we saw his bio video through the reading of his script and the screening of his short scene.
We had an idea of where Ben, Chris, Jon, Matt and Meryl stood from our discussion during the selection of the Top Three. And while we reserved judgement expecting our interviews with the three finalists to be a significant influence, we were definitely pulling for Pete.
Taking a step back we want to make clear we had nothing against Barron, Evan or Brendan. They are talented filmmakers. In fact, all of the Top 10, Top 30 and Top 250 filmmakers are extremely talented. And that only made our jobs more difficult.
For us, Pete represented the best possible choice among many very good ones. That's why that final meeting went on for nearly twelve hours - we appreciated the merits of everyone's argument. No one was right and no one was wrong. No choice was a bad one. But in the end, we must say, we think the best possible choice was made.
Why Pete?
Pete resonated so strongly for us because we felt he represented a perfect blend of attributes - his script was accessible, personal and touching; his bio video was funny and honest, constructed incorporating many of the elements "Stolen Summer" would depend on to succeed; and his short scene showed strength in the one area we considered crucial - he got terrific performances from his actors.
In the room Pete made a great impression as well. He exuded confidence without seeming cocky; he was exceedingly well prepared; and, most importantly, he convinced us that he was up to this monumental challenge.
The Competition
Barron and Evan seemed like a safer choice in the sense that their script was the most commercial and their scene had terrific production value. But their answers to our questions weren't quite as convincing. We knew they could do it (in fact, we're confident they will do it and we're looking forward to seeing "Freeing Mr. Jiggs" with a paying audience). But, for us, "Jiggs" just didn't resonate as strongly and while they gave a great interview, ultimately, they didn't completely sell us on their vision.
Brendan Murphy's picture "Speakeasy" sparked a great deal of debate. While we didn't connect with his script emotionally, there was no denying it was very well written. Brendan's bio video painted a picture of a budding auteur and his short scene was executed with a very confident hand. Brendan and Pete were very well balanced in our eyes - each with strengths in different areas - but capable filmmakers in sum.
The Decision
As we said, Pete was the front-runner for us going into the meeting. While equally persuasive arguments could be made in favor of his fellow contestants, for us, Pete's accessible and well written script, his great ability with actors and his heart and energy as a director were the deciding factors. And in our interviews we were convinced. Pete looked each of the decision-makers in the eyes and won us over individually. If we hadn't been pulling for Pete going into the meeting we can honestly say we think he would have convinced us. And, ultimately, that is why Pete was selected and that is the key factor that makes him such a compelling filmmaker: he can communicate his vision passionately and convincingly to any number of people. We knew that if he could convince all of us, he could convince and motivate his cast, his crew and the audience as well.
In the coming episodes you'll see, as we did, just how right (and wrong) we were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
