The gay film New Mexico doesn't want you to see needs your help

[hsher]

Let me be as brief as I can. I'm an aspiring indie filmmaker (IMDB page here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0566764/bio). The film is titled, "THE HOUSE OF CLOSE SCRUTINY". I'm announcing it here on DU because one of you might have just what I need to get this movie made.

It relates to General Discussion because New Mexico's Film Board rejected and censored it based on its anti-RW political storyline, and refused it funding. Here's why.

THE HOUSE OF CLOSE SCRUTINY: THE STORYLINE

Ten years from now, America goes to war against China and loses. The Chinese briefly occupy the US. There is an uprising led by RWers and the suppressed military. The US drives out the Chinese, but at a price: the right wing now controls America. You think they do now: that's NOTHING compared to their control over us after the Chinese are ejected. The fundamentalist church controls every aspect of life. Imagine "The Handmaid's Tale", only worse.

While the Chinese were here, they brought gay male brothel activity with them from the East. Gay male concubinage is actually very popular and open in Asia. That standard comes to the US. After the Chinese leave, the Christian church decides gay brothels make so much money among their closeted powerful, a Christian evangelical version of gay brothels should be started. So they do.

Hypocrites all, they refuse to allow actual gay men to populate the brothels or even enter society. Gay men, forced to exist in ghettos, are only allowed to supervise the brothels and instruct its concubines in how to serve. The Christian church rejects actual gay men and starts a system of selecting, abducting and re-educating straight men to be the "Jonathans" to their closeted, wealthy Christian "Davids" - to whom they are sold for money which benefits the church.

Salem Kahan, a NY psychologist before the war, is among the men kidnapped and re-educated. He is sent to a Christian minister's home to serve as his Jonathan. Grant Hallmark, the closeted minister, is unhappily married to a woman. Over time, against the backdrop of hypocritical right-wing political and religious intrigue, Salem realizes he is in fact gay and falls in love with Grant, who returns it. The two men become freedom fighters and risk their lives to transport fleeing liberal families to safety in Canada, and make it there alive themselves, so they can be free.

THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO FILM BOARD REJECTED THIS MOVIE FOR FUNDING.

I need a loan guarantor who will back the film so I can take it back to the State and change their minds.

DOES ANYONE HERE ON DU KNOW A LOAN GUARANTOR? If so, contact me for script and more information. Here goes; crossing fingers. Help me, DU!

- Heather

[and-justice-for-all]

1. I would go see it...sounds good.

I dont know a Loan Guarantor, do you have an agent?

[hsher]

4. I'm in talks with a new one

[acmejack]

2. I don't know much about film making

If you tell me what I am looking for I will try to run some information to ground for you. IN Austin, it would seem there would be some confluence of Film making, money and the gay community. It does sound like an intriguing concept to me, too. PM me for my contact info or if you would rather perhaps we can arrange for you to come here and do this yourself? We have a fairly vibrant film community here too.

[Ian David]

3. Can you add a scene where a bear has sex with women? n/t

[hsher]

5. No, I don't want Stephen Colbert to condemn the film

Bears are godless killing machines and you know that.

[uppityperson]

6. Don't know loan guarantor but sounds like a good movie.

Good luck with it.

[JeremyWestenn]

7. Errr...

As a gay person, a democrat, and a pagan, it just sounds batshit crazy.

:\ I wouldn't see it, but you got a right to make it.

[hsher]

11. ... I'm devastated.

[Maddy McCall]

16. Not gay, not pagan...just an avid film fan...

and I gotta agree.

It sounds insane.

(And you've been labeled a non-gay, lying troll for stating your opinion. See her post below. :eyes: )

[JeremyWestenn]

17. I just saw that.

And in the words of Kathy Griffin, " 1, 2, 3 go, " see my response.

[phusion]

8. Does your script contain a lot...

of sexual material?

Did they turn you down because of excessive sexual content or did they blatantly say "this is an anti-RW movie and we will not fund it"?

From http://www.nmfilm.com/filming/incentives/investment-program.php :

"*Eligibility requirement: The State of New Mexico's incentive program is limited by statute and regulation to avoid excessive or gratuitous violence or sexual content, hard language, drug abuse, culturally sensitive material or a combination of some of the above. The Film Office will make a determination of eligibility based upon these elements."

Good luck...

[JeremyWestenn]

9. Good point Phusion.

That may be apart of it. If not then remember that there is the ACLU and Lambda legal.

[hsher]

10. They read the same thing you just did and assumed it'd have high sex content

They wouldn't even read the script to learn that that was untrue. Insiders told me it was the political slant of the picture, which was deemed "culturally sensitive". To me in New Mexico, "culturally sensitive" applies to films that invade, exploit and misrepresent Native and Latino culture. NOT political party.

It was bogus.

[phusion]

12. I agree about "culturally sensitive"

and I am surprised that the film board would reject it on those grounds. If I remember correctly this board is a taxpayer-funded entity? There should be some kind of appeal...

Oh, and :hi: fellow Burquean :)

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nikki Stone1]

14. kicking and recommending

Good luck!

[blogslut]

15. Can't you take it somewhere else?

Like, to a studio that is gay-friendly?

EDIT: Nevermind. I guess you need the AZ film board to approve it so you can film it in AZ. My bad.

[and-justice-for-all]

18. Its a new idea and not...

...a remake or rehase of previous story lines, its FRESH. It would go into the "Red Dawn" catagory, if it was to be compared to anything.

[Bakunin]

24. A gay Red Dawn? With Swazey , Sheen and Howell as Rethugs?

So after the Chinese get past Taiwan, Japan and the ROK then eliminate a half dozen carrier groups and all our attack subs with a weak navy they land on the West Coast with their pathetic amphibious force? And the first thing they do is start up a Gay friendly infrastucture and job program? As a Black Gay man in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming I got to say you have set of balls on you for putting that idea to the suits and EXPECTING a yes. Good luck, if this thing gets made I will make it my friday night substitute for the long lamented 'USA Up All Night' if it makes it to video. Any other plans?

[readmoreoften]

26. Welcome Bakunin! /nt

[JeremyWestenn]

27. Quote for truth man.

Quoted for mother fucking truth.

[Maddy McCall]

55. This...

is the funniest post at DU I've ever read.

:rofl:

Oh, and welcome to DU.

:toast:

[Bluebear]

56. ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwugutICBc4&mode=related&search=

[MoseyWalker]

19. from what I read

a loan guarantor has to be on board before the possible approval.

I wish you luck. Sounds like something I would see.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[readmoreoften]

20. Some real advice from a filmmaker...

Very few people get their films funded from a state arts commission. Film funding is extremely difficult. Your best option is to get funding the old fashioned way-- by working your way up. Shelve this idea for now. It's a complex feature film, and complex feature films almost always cost MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to make. A good idea is not enough. A good script is not enough. No one is going to give you the money to make a movie if you have no track record.

No filmmakers start out making a feature film. None. You have to learn the ropes first. Take ONE SCENE out of this script and turn it into a 10 minute movie. (That means a 10 page script.) Rewrite it so that it has the feeling of having a beginning and an end. Look into funding sources or take a risk and run up some debt. I'd suggest budgeting for about $1,500 per minute if you're planning on shooting it digitally (you'll have to use a 24p camera or HD camera to be competitive) much much more if you're planning on shooting it on film. My advice: don't even think about film.

You will need-- at minimum: a producer, a director of photography, a gaffer, an assistant director, a sound person, a boom operator, a set designer, a make up artist/stylist, a production manager, and some low or non-paid production assistants. That is a skeleton crew. That's as low as you can get it. You will be expected to provide three decent meals a day for EVERY MEMBER OF YOUR CAST AND CREW. In post production, you will need a sound mixer and an editor. Minimum.

Once your short film is cut to perfection, send it to film festivals. Not just Sundance and Cannes... multiple film festivals. Once you have a track record, you will find it easier to get real funding. You might even get real offers from producers attending festivals.

That's how it works. I'm in the same process myself. The short I co-wrote and directed has played in 15 countries now and we have access to a little (and I mean a little) money. (And, by the way, the state rejected us for grants as well.) Remember, an extremely low budget feature is $250,000. Most low budget features run about $1.5-3 mil. What you are describing sounds financially taxing. Your best bet for getting money is to build yourself up as a director first.

[hsher]

25. Thank you

I appreciate it, but I already know this, as you saw on IMDB. I'm busy on a production now in fact. Your suggestions are super deeply appreciated, and I've tried getting the feature made "the business as usual" way, and only wanted to try a slightly weirder take on it and see what happens.

Once again online I've been shown that's apparently not a good thing to do, because you get suggested being on IMDB makes you famous and infallible... and why would people like us ever visit forums... so if we do, we must be dumb or lying in some way... sigh

I won't mention it again, folks. Lesson learnt. Somebody take the thread down and end this conversation... I forgot I have screen credits. I'm not normal, so I'm supposed to go drink lattes, talk deal with the real pros, and stop asking for creative, unthought-of-before suggestions from gifted, interesting people I thought were my cool friends on DU :(

Somebody call me the waaambulance.

[readmoreoften]

30. I'm on IMDB too-- that doesn't really mean much though.

I've also noticed that you have no actual credits on IMDB, or at least when you put your name in the engine. If you DO have movie credits, you definitely might want to get that fixed because, to those who are doing research on you, it will look like you haven't accomplished much. The first thing I would do is get that fixed.

The second thing I'd do is get directing credit. It doesn't sound like you have any directing experience. You're going to need that if you want investors. If you don't want to direct this thing, sell it and see what you get.

I've seen people do all sorts of creative and nefarious things to get $ for their films-- drug dealing, prostitution, etc. My biggest suggestion is to put a mormon spin on your movie. The mormon's are crazy about investing in movies right now, from what I hear.

But from what I've seen, directors don't break out unless they have actual directing experience first on some kind of small scale project.

You might get creative ideas on DU, but creative funding for filmmakers...very few people here will understand that.

[readmoreoften]

21. Actually, I find it weird after reading your IMDB bio.

You seem to have some experience in the industry. Why are you asking this question on DU? Strange...

[hsher]

22. Why not?

[readmoreoften]

23. Why not take it to people you know in the industry? It makes more sense.

The film you are describing is going to be a HUGE budget film. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the script. I just don't think you're going to get much help here.

[hsher]

28. Yeah, I kind of see that now

FYeverybody'sI, it's at Dreamworks right now. I'm skeptical about what would happen if they did it. It's at Regent Entertainment and a couple of other places, too. I own the rights; can't I discuss it? Sheesh...

I like trying unusual things. "Shaking the trees", as Scorsese's ex-wife used to say. Got me in trouble here. I won't do it again.

It may be time to take a break from this site.

[readmoreoften]

32. Well, good luck. /nt

[Bluebear]

31. We could have a bake sale?

:shrug:

[hsher]

33. Nobody wants this film made. Just forget about it.

I won't give up the fight for gay and lesbian rights, despite this. This was just apparently too much fun a thread to attack me on and a bad night for everybody. The struggle continues, and I continue to support the GLBT cause, even if it doesn't support me.

Yeah, I know. "Waaa."

[readmoreoften]

34. If you want to make it for the GLBT community, attend GLBT festivals

and pitch it within the community. If the GLBT community isn't interested, you may want to rethink your pitch.

[hsher]

35. Working on it, they're very receptive and excited so far

But no one has any ties to enough money to make the film right. Which is why I don't know what I did to be interrogated and attacked like this, just for posting about a movie I thought people online, like the ones offline, would be interested in. Just goes to show it's true, the online community is very different from the offline one... I think from now on I'm sticking to off.

[readmoreoften]

36. Of course not. You're talking about a film that needs a multimillion dollar budget.

Your best bet is to prove yourself as a director first. Even established directors don't get to make every film they want. You should know that.

I think you're getting a bad reception because you're pitching this to DU as some kind of censorship issue. Lots of films don't get funding, for many reasons.

[Maddy McCall]

37. And a car wash.

:P

[hsher]

38. .

.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JeremyWestenn]

41. LOL! Good one.

/clap

[hsher]

44. There's a smilie for that

Were you looking for this, perhaps? :applause:
The genius continues, folks.

[hedgehog]

40. Your headline is misleading because it implies censorship

New Mexico just doesn't want to fund your film. There is a difference between active suppression and just not offering support. Before you claim that lack of support is censorship, please tell me what percentage of films submitted to this board get funding.

On edit: it may have a gay rights theme, but I have to agree that the story line is bat shit crazy.

[Bluebear]

43. When I think that they actually made "Brokeback Mountain"

when this story went untold, well . . .

[Maddy McCall]

47. Well, I was partial to Crash...

because it should have won because it appealed to more people then Brokeback and that's not fair.

:D

:hi:

[Bluebear]

49. Riiiight.

:crazy:

[Maddy McCall]

51. Having a flashback as I type.

:freak:

[JeremyWestenn]

46. I lol'd in real life...

When you use my adjective to describe it.

/cheers

[JeremyWestenn]

52. You have a very legitimate point here.

The honest truth is that the state board probably isn't funding it because it stays off of of controversial like themes. But more importantly if they weren't objective to funding GLBT themed films they probably still would have denied the funding of this, because as you and I both agree, the storyline is unsellable, unexplainable, beyond impossible, and bat shit crazy.

They could just be blatantly denying any GLBT themed thing, and if it's state funded it's possibly there may be possibile litigation. If that's a reality then by all means think of taking it to the court. But my point is that even if it's a completely unbiased board it more then likely still would have been rejected.

[hsher]

58. I appreciate that

Thank you for another fair comment.

[sniffa]

42. wow! this is briLLiant!

wait, i'm sorry; it's the compLete opposite.

:rofl:

[hsher]

45. That... is SO... FUNNY!!!!!!

:spray:

[sniffa]

48. true, true

and way more cLever than this crap. now, if onLy new mexico wouLd Let the worLd see this post....

[hsher]

50. What's up with your L's?

Yes, if only. Then the world would see your genius.
And I could call it batshit insane.

[sniffa]

53. pfft

now where have i heard the term 'batshit insane' recentLy? hmmmm... it'LL come to me.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hsher]

57. Self-delete

[sniffa]

59. no, no

your one week out of the month bi fantasy Lover

[hsher]

60. We broke up, dear

That "going back to men" thing.

[sniffa]

61. that's a shame

great for women though

[JeremyWestenn]

66. That's discouraging.

The whole, " I'm bi, lolz! " and then " changes." Playing around with people to be different is so insulting. I'd probably become very un Wiccan and hex/curse her...

<_<

[hsher]

62. I apologize to Jeremy Westenn

The duel is over. It was just a misunderstanding. He has a black sense of humor and I took it the wrong way. Sorry, Jeremy. Welcome to DU. :toast:

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hsher]

65. ALerting on an apoLogy...?

We apoLogized to each other. Go ahead, be our guest then, knock yourseLf out.

[TroglodyteScholar]

63. No loan guarantor help here, but...

...can I ask how you arrived at that title? No offense intended, as the plot looks very interesting, but this isn't the most exciting or intriguing of titles.

[pinto]

67. Locking.

While we don't have a specific rule about round robin, petty, personal sniping, this applies here:

Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

as does this

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Thanks.