|
As the backbone of Black World Studios, Sam David created a spirited, offbeat blog (below) that passes along some personal transparency, bits of professional know-how, common-sense wisdom, fascinating university research studies about actors, writers, TV personalities (and other creatives) -- along with engaging do's & don'ts for nurturing and elevating exceptional talent in film, TV, radio, stage, and literary.
|
|
Creativity is a wonderful gift: the ability to pull words together into sentences, and those sentences into paragraphs, and those paragraphs into chapters... Writing a book, or drafting a television script, or composing a song may appear to be easy... but trust me, it is not. For most of my clients, creative writing is a painstaking ordeal -- and yet, very much a genuine labor of love. Reading is my passion. Working with words is my profession. Representing writers, authors, scriptwriters, screenwriters, composers, playwrights, and columnists is my life. I wish you all the happiness in the world... heavily sprinkled with health & humility. Have a successful journey (with continued commitment every year thereafter)~~!! - Sam David  Whether you are a writer, an actor, a producer or a director, most talents carry a wish-list of success, fame, and fortune. Yet everyone — rich or poor — has their own secret struggles. For some of us it’s losing a few nights of sleep to meet a submission deadline; or trying to reason with an arrogant, ego-centric client. But for many it is much more serious. While I work and advise creative talent, I don’t preach to strangers. That said, regardless of how much celebrity you think you have achieved (either real or imaginary), in the scheme of things, you are just one human being amongst 7.7 billion people worldwide. The next time you are feeling sorry for yourself — perhaps angry and upset that you gained a pound or two… or noticed another batch of wrinkles crisscrossing your face; or received your 22nd literary rejection slip — the “crisis” you are facing may be so incredibly minimal compared to what someone else is going through. Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. My heartfelt prayer today and always: please practice empathy and patience. Stay safe, and a healthy holiday. - Sam David  As a female skilled in nurturing, motivating and elevating talent through the years, there will always be those clients who will never advance forward. For some, it's the fear of failure; for others, it's the absence of patience and commitment. And still for others, the lack of intestinal fortitude. (Actually, it's the shortage of intestinal fortitude that causes enormous career consequences.) While there are tens of thousands of men and women on radio and in television, the fact is that there are only a handful of personalities really worth their weight in gold (regardless of whether or not they are in high visibility). For many, it's simply a matter of boosting low ratings and building up and expanding a dedicated and loyal audience. For those who are not well known (but probably should be), they need to seek out a sturdy repackaging shot of B-12. Because nurtured talent is generally multi-hyphenated, with a creative band of elasticity that can be stretched across multiple genres. (As an example, he who is a talking head on television should be able to segue to writing books. The trick is, how to do it successfully - and with whom.) Last week, a recently added client of mine lost his footing as a screenwriter and impetuously quit, stating that I was "too tenacious" (an oxymoron, to be sure) and that I was steering him beyond his comfort zones. For me, it was another life lesson learned: with every good intention, I can lead an old horse to the water, but I certainly can't make him drink. Every worthwhile accomplishment - big or small - has its stages of drudgery and triumph. A beginning, a struggle, and a victory. This particular writer wanted little work with little effort that would afford him a FAT paycheck. Of course, that's not exactly how life works. A dedicated veteran talent manager doesn't deliver instant gratification (generally gained by more impulsive behaviors). Instead, the talent manager believes that the skill of giving preference to long-term goals over immediate ones (known as deferred gratification or "patience") is usually considered a virtue. That's because as the manager, I am (among other things), the Think Tank for the entire team, with the strategic know-how to connect the dots (dot-by-dot-by-dot) for a client's career development. From where I sit, the manager really is the single most important professional who will invest in you with their time, energy, ethics, creativity, integrity, tenacity, experience, and negotiating power. Keeping in mind that no two clients (and no two projects) are ever alike, a talent manager is the strategic leader, the one who oversees people and their projects. The talent manager cultivates the soil and chooses which seeds to plant for success. Oftentimes, a talent manager will open doors for talent that a talent agent cannot do, for it is the manager who dives into unchartered waters and rides out the storms to bring exceptional TV, film and literary projects to fruition. Mapping out the client's career course, a seasoned talent manager is the behind-the-scenes go-to source and project backbone (otherwise sometimes known as the energizing life force. And that circles around to my original point: one absolutely CAN elevate over-the-top talent to new avenues of exposure without the talent feeling pushed and pulled - but only when that talent lets go of past anger and resentment - that false sense of "entitlement" - in order to see the BIG picture. Because not every radio podcast, not every television show, and certainly not every screenplay will be a winner (regardless of how much effort was put forth). Rather, it is the responsibility of the talent manager to pick and choose which projects will have longevity, as the manager should NEVER - not ever - be emotionally attached to any project: passionate, yes; emotional - absolutely not. And so that client last week threw in the towel, and walked away from a sure-to-be Oscar-nominated script. Actually he ran, fearful of criticism from the film critics. Listening to his so-called friends, he sponged up their jealous wisecracks that he was not worthy of five-star representation. After all, they pointed out, why would I, the manager, take on someone who hadn't earned a substantial living as a screenwriter. That I BELIEVED in him - BELIEVED in his writing talent - fell on deaf ears: he heard only that which he wanted to hear from envious colleagues. All too often, in order to maximize a client's worth and future potential (with shelf life), a talent manager needs to aggressively market not only the talent, but sometimes repackage, redirect, revamp, and reinvent the talent forward through the maze called entertainment. Talent managers also need to insulate their clients from being exploited, handle the client's marketing and promotion and itinerary, along with reviewing booking submissions, radio, magazine, TV and film offerings and contracts. Managers also should be positioned to hire and fire agents and bookers, market to (and meet with) potential investors, all while diligently shielding the client from the day-to-day stress of celebrity that is encountered as they go about their private business. A dedicated talent manager should be loyal, consistent, always inspiring, emotionally positive, a strong motivator, and a technically cross-trained negotiator. Rather than criticizing the client, they should be consistently constructively critiquing the client and EMPOWERING that individual. At every turn, the manager should have the client's back, NEVER "rubber stamping" agreements that need to be fine-tuned (although sadly that generally is not the case). A talent manager need to be principled and passionate with analytical abilities (especially problem-defining and strategy development) - an indefatigable adviser who is disciplined and persistent and loyal and trustworthy and focused. Someone who IS tenacious and driven and who WILL passionately fight to move you forward and overcome obstacles. Someone who really gives a damn - not about his or her commissions - but someone who BELIEVES in YOU, the client. - Sam David  NOTE: On New Year's Eve, no sooner did I post the below blog on social media, when the ugly hate mail started to pile up in my e-mail inbox. "Sam... How could YOU - a WOMAN - POSSIBLY come to Smiley's defense given what he had DONE?" Working alone in my office the entire evening as 2018 rolled in, I sat at my desk scrolling through their nasty late-night comments, as woman after woman RAGED that I had NO RIGHT to offer supported reasoning as to Tavis Smiley's OFFENSIVE sexual behavior. Of course, that begged the question: what horrible sexual act(s), exactly, had Tavis Smiley committed and to/with whom? Because truth be told, as of 31 December 2017, no one knows exactly what Tavis Smiley did - or did not do - as he has not been allowed to face his so-called accusers (who have mysteriously remained in the dark). Is that fair? Is that JUSTICE? (Remember, in the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person - aliens included - “equal protection under the law”.) For those who have come under my wings of guidance, I am someone known as a passionate fighter with a core that's tough as nails. With my bullshit barometer heavily tuned, I have been around the block more than once. The majority of clients have been men, so I have dealt with crazy and ludicrous issues - from absolute stupidity to absolute absurdity - over the years. At this stage in my life, nothing ever surprises me. In response to those women who were angered by the below blog, here is some food for thought:
To my knowledge, no one has yet to report any rapes, broken bones, fractures... Am I being too hard on the female employees? Frankly, I don't think so. As a woman, when I do not feel respected or safe, I quickly remove myself from the situation. And to be perfectly clear, I DO know and recognize the difference between flirty behavior (between a man and a woman) and an actual attempted or forced rape. Because no man - and let me repeat that - NO MAN has the right to take a woman against her will. I was watching the iconic film "Thelma and Louise" a few nights ago. On a weekend vacation, Thelma and Louise stop for a drink at a roadhouse bar where Thelma lets loose with alcohol, then meets and dances with a flirtatious stranger. When he takes her outside to the parking lot (so Thelma could grab some fresh air after a toxic evening combination of dancing and binge-drinking), he starts forcibly kissing her and ripping her clothes off without her consent. Thelma resists, but he hits her, and then starts raping her. Louise finds them and threatens to shoot the bastard with the gun that Thelma brought with her. Suddenly, the man stops the rape, but as the women walk away, he yells that he should have continued with the act and hurls vicious insults at the two women. Enraged, Louise responds by shooting him dead, and the pair flee the scene, with unforeseen consequences. As of this writing, neither you nor I know exactly what transpired with Tavis Smiley. Until the actual details are disclosed - assuming that the fine points are eventually published - Smiley is not guilty until proven guilty and he deserves the benefit of the doubt. An intelligent, articulate man (possibly an extremely, overly arrogant man), for all I know he could be a total and complete jerk at work. Or, consider this: maybe he was looking for love in all the wrong places. Time will tell. Anyway, here's my blog about Tavis Smiley, posted minutes before 2018 rang in. As a woman - especially as an established manager working deep in the trenches in the male-dominated world of entertainment - I nurture creative talent. Which is why I am particularly puzzled by the peculiar handling of "unknown anonymous charges" against Tavis Smiley, and the apparent lack of due process. While his network made a corporate decision to halt programming and indefinitely suspended distribution of the 53-year-old's eponymous nightly show amid secret allegations of alleged sexual impropriety, something about the grittiness of his public hanging (without a hearing or trial) bothers me. I am also disturbed by his own tangled web of media "crisis" statements, i.e, "Let me also assure you that I have never groped, inappropriately exposed myself or coerced any colleague in the workplace ever in my 30-year career.” Such vivid, visual word choices only added further fuel to the fire. His rocky response was awkward - opening up a can of worms - a can that should have been very tightly sealed. For the record, I do not know Tavis Smiley. We have never met (nor have we ever dialogued telephonically). What I do know in my gut is that something is a little off-kilter about both his sudden suspension and his impetuous, knee-jerk reaction to the unclear claims that led to the discontinuation of his television show. On surface viewing, one could speculate that Tavis Smiley is tenacious, aggressive, a tireless go-getter with an independent streak. There's also good reason to presume that he carries a super-sized ego and a cocksure confidence. If he were to be called out for anything, possibly his day-to-day behavior towards coworkers suggests a likely deficiency of a certain social grace, a lack of professionalism and polished protocol, leaving him spilling over with grandiose, controlling, and self-centered ways. Welcome to the world of celebrity, at times a gutsy battleground of self-love and self-hate in the unprotected environment of fame and superstardom, where viewer ratings and a celebrity's TV-Q dips and dives, frequently leading to a show's sudden death - corpsed by network cancellation. To his credit, there is something remarkably special and significant about Tavis Smiley and his extraordinary accomplishments - both personal and professional - that has pulled me into his arena: his backstory. While each and every one of us has a unique past, Smiley's particular skill set - the innate ability to overcome insurmountable obstacles - is a fascinating study of perseverance. His perseverance. For that reason, part of me wants to dismiss the rumblings of inappropriate behavior that may - or may not - have occured in the black-and-white culture of finger-pointing reactions to innuendos and gossip about Smiley. Rather than rehashing the disseminating, disparaging and derogatory comments, I want to come to his defense, as there are always three sides to every story: his side, their side, and split somewhere down the middle - a decaying track leading to traces of truth. I am not one to judge others, as I have spent the better part of my life vigorously fighting to bring about racial awareness and social changes - putting in the extra miles - along with a readiness to go through hell and back on behalf of clients at every twist and turn. Do not begrudge me for pursuing an avenue of alternative thoughts about what did, or what did not, transpire with Tavis Smiley. One thing is critically clear: his road to riches was awfully rocky. There is something very characteristic about growing up in a fractured family. When the unit is not whole, not secure, not pure - when bits and pieces start to fall apart - there is a void, an emptiness, an anger that sets in when life splits at the seams. Suddenly, there exists an absence of structure, of maternal and/or paternal nurturing. The child's inner security and well-being are at stake. I know this scenario all too well, as I myself had a tumultuous childhood, left to my own devices as I struggled for my own survival. Abandonment is cruel; but more than that, it affects us for the rest of our lives. For sure, Smiley's background was painful. His birth mother was single, stern, just a teenager; he was raised in poverty (while not knowing the identity of his actual birth father). At times, he lived in a trailer home sheltering thirteen, including Tavis and his seven brothers and two sisters and three adults, affording him no personal space, no alone time. There was a period when he was placed in foster care, increasingly damaging his relationship with his mother. And yet, in spite of an anguished and difficult childhood, Tavis Smiley was able to pull himself up by the bootstraps and move forward in life. On a professional level, he has excelled beyond one's expectations. That's easy to understand, because in business, business is business; it's about climbing that ladder of success to the top and winning. Where Smiley tripped and tumbled is in his so-called "relationships" with women, which surely should come as absolutely no surprise as his biological mother was just a young girl herself, confronted with her own personal struggles and setbacks. (On that note, Smiley is not alone: too many men tussle emotionally and psychologically when it comes to women.) My guess is that Smiley is a workaholic - a longtime TV/radio/book personality who has spent a lifetime trying to establish his reputation and brand. As a prominent, wealthy, high-visibility workaholic, that lifestyle brings to the table its own set of interpersonal relationship realities: are women flirting with him, chasing after him because they LIKE him or LIKE his bank accounts, or, are they tagging along to ride his celebrity coattails? Is it his fame and money that they are after, or his brains and personality? Equally important, does he himself have the psychological awareness and emotional intelligence to size a woman up to determine her ulterior motives? More importantly, does he even understand the one-on-one dynamics and necessary ingredients that are the essential building blocks of a vibrant, male/female relationship? That said, Tavis Smiley made an interesting point last week: He's single, eligible, a lifelong bachelor. He stated to an interviewer: "And let’s face it, nobody’s working 40-hour weeks anymore. We are working 40-, 50-, 70-, 80-hour weeks. Where else are you going to meet people in this business?" Defending his sexual relationships with employees, he posed the question: "How else are you going to meet people?" From where I sit, Smiley missed the mark of understanding about the definition of a business environment. Furthermore, why, at age 53, is he looking for sexual relationships in the workplace, when what he desperately needs most - more than anything else - is a secure, permanent one-on-one relationship of trust and transparency, a relationship grounded in honesty, openness, devotion, admiration and respect - a tender and loving, emotionally fulfilling relationship and commitment. A relationship where he is not being used, but rather, VALUED. Yes, one might meet people at work in the hope that there would be that one human being with whom there is a common denominator upon which to build an eternal love. But Tavis Smiley first needs to appreciate the essential ABC's of courtship, while also rounding up a small circle of genuine people to befriend him - not for his celebrity status or political connections - but because they share a certain bond, an openness, a camaraderie. He also needs (sooner than later) to revisit possible indiscretions from the past and learn from them, for experience is truly the best teacher. Eventually, he will reinvent himself and elevate himself and expand his horizons. Starting tomorrow, his focus should shift to the future, using his incredible media celebrity to his advantage to make a significant difference in this world. Equally important, he needs to reassess his life's true purpose and priorities, and find a healthy counterbalance in his life. My gut tells me he absolutely will. - by Sam David  Television shows filled with action and sound may be bad for your waistline. TV viewers ate more M&Ms, cookies, carrots and grapes while watching an excerpt from a Hollywood action film than those watching an interview program. Television has been blamed for helping Americans to gain weight because it encourages a sedentary lifestyle. But the focus of why has been on the medium and not the message. TV is like other distracting activities that can cause people to eat more, including reading, listening to the radio and interacting with dinner companions. However, little is known about whether the content or pace of the content influences how much people eat. The authors examined how objective technical characteristics, such as the frequency of visual camera cuts or variations in sound, might influence how much food is eaten. Their study, which was highlighted in a research letter, included 94 undergraduate students (57 female; mean age nearly 20 years). They gathered in groups to watch 20 minutes of TV and were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 different programs: an excerpt from "The Island," a Hollywood action movie starring Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, the interview program "Charlie Rose," or the identical excerpt from "The Island" but with no sound. Viewers had M&Ms, cookies, carrots and grapes to snack on while watching. The snacks were weighed before and after the program to track how much viewers had eaten. Viewers watching the more distracting program "The Island," with its high camera cuts and sound variation, ate 98 percent more grams of food (206.5 vs. 104.3 g) and 65 percent more calories (354.1 vs. 214.6) than viewers who watched "Charlie Rose." Even viewers of the silent version of "The Island" ate 36 percent more grams of food (142.1 vs. 104.3g) and 46 percent more calories (314.5 vs. 214.6) than "Charlie Rose" viewers. "More distracting TV content appears to increase food consumption: action and sound variation are bad for one's diet. The more distracting a TV show, the less attention people appear to pay to eating, and the more they eat." Story Source: The JAMA Network Journals.  The world's best stand-up comedians -- household names including Kevin Hart, Amy Schumer, Jimmy Fallon, Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfield, Ricky Gervais and Eddie Murphy -- are more likely to die early than comedic and dramatic screen and stage actors, according to a landmark study. The world's best stand-up comedians -- household names including Kevin Hart, Amy Schumer, Jimmy Fallon, Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfield, Ricky Gervais and Eddie Murphy -- are more likely to die than comedic and dramatic screen and stage actors, according to a landmark study published in the International Journal of Cardiology. The study -- Is the last 'man' standing in comedy the least funny? A retrospective cohort study of elite stand-up comedians versus other entertainers -- revealed "a pattern of premature mortality in elite stand-up comedians" indicating that higher comedic standing is linked to younger age at death compared to screen comedians and so-called serious dramatic actors. This retrospective cohort study of 498 people included 200 Stand-up Comedians (13% women), 114 Comedy Actors (17.5% women), and 184 Dramatic Actors (29.3% women) listed in the top 200 in each category on popular online crowd-ranking website http://www.ranker.com. These individuals appeared in the 2015 lists 'Funniest Stand-Up Comedians of All Time', 'Funniest People of All Time' and 'Greatest Actors and Actresses in Entertainment History'. Lead researcher Professor Simon Stewart, a world-leading cardiac researcher from the Mary MacKillop Institute of Health Research at Australian Catholic University, said there was a "significant gradient in the age of death, with stand-up comedians dying at a younger age (67.1 years) than their comedy actor (68.9) and dramatic actor (70.7) counterparts." "Indeed, the data confirmed an adverse relationship between comedic ability and longevity, with elite standup comedians more highly rated by the public more likely to die prematurely," Professor Stewart said. "Overall, the results point to a need for awareness of health and wellbeing concerns in the entertainment industry, and in elite comedians in particular." "It appears that for stand-up comedians, being at the very top may be no laughing matter." The MacKillop Institute research confirmed "significantly more deaths among stand-up comedians (14 of 36 deaths -- 38.9%) categorised as 'premature' relative to population-based, life expectancy when compared to dramatic actors (11 of 56 -19.6%), with no difference when compared to comedy actors (9 of 33 deaths -- 27.3%)." And stand-up comedians experienced proportionately more non-natural deaths (7 of 36 -- 19.4%) than their comedy actor (3 of 33 -- 9.1%) and dramatic actor (6 of 56 -- 10.7%) counterparts. Of note, stand-up comedians contributed to both reported suicides and 4 of 9 drug-related deaths. "Within an international cohort of stand-up comedians spanning the last century and voted by the public as the funniest of their profession, we discovered that greater comedic ability was associated with a shorter lifespan, even after adjusting for life expectancy differences based on year of birth," he said. "Conversely, in parallel cohorts of the world's funniest comedy actors and the greatest dramatic actors, there was no evidence of premature mortality related to public-rated professional success or ability." 'Intriguing phenomenon' Professor Stewart noted how his previous study -- 'Does comedy kill? A retrospective, longitudinal cohort, nested case-control study of humour and longevity in 53 British comedians' -- had found that the funniest comedians are most at risk of premature death and reduced longevity, compared to their less funny counterparts. That finding encouraged MacKillop researchers to undertake a "more extensive and objective study of this intriguing phenomenon." "We suspected that if our original conclusions were correct, we would find that the purer and funnier the comedy art form, i.e. stand-up, the more strongly this premature death phenomenon would manifest itself," Professor Stewart said. "Specifically, we hypothesised that among stand-up comedians the inverse association between comedic ability and longevity would be both present and demonstrably stronger than observed in an equivalent cohort of comedy." Professor Stewart's latest research confirmed the hypothesis. Academy Award winners' longevity 'bias' does not apply to stand-up comedians Professor Stewart noted the widespread association between high social status and low mortality -- as evidenced in a study finding that Academy Award winners live longer -- does not extend to every occupation. "Indeed stand-up comedians don't share the 3.9-year life expectancy advantage enjoyed by Oscar-winning actors, which highlights an intriguing and as-yet-unexamined discrepancy," he said. By way of further discussion, Professor Stewart referenced an important 1993 study, which demonstrated that higher parent and teacher ratings of a child's sense of humour and cheerfulness-optimism predicted a greater likelihood of dying over seven decades. Also noted was how comedians appear to exhibit higher levels of psychotic traits (including manic-depression and schizotypal features) than non-comedians -- and at higher levels than actors. Professor Stewart's research also discusses the "demands inherent to stand-up comedy" -- a "highly competitive profession with low pay and low job security; years of working under this pressure may exert a cumulative stress effect even once success has been achieved." "In contrast, elite dramatic actors (a category that applies to the current http://www.ranker.com cohort, as well as to the Academy Award winners described earlier) are more likely to have attained some degree of financial security, with the attendant benefits to health and wellbeing," he said. Stand-ups expected to behave 'erratically' compared to more 'serious' actors Further still, "stand-up comedians and dramatic actors may also face distinct social and professional expectations." "Successful dramatic actors are often regarded as 'role models' and expected to maintain a positive public image, with managers and 'minders' invested in enforcing certain standards of behaviour that might exert a protective effect on health and longevity. This does not appear to apply to stand-up comedians, who are often expected to behave eccentrically," Professor Stewart said. "In fact, in contrast to the highly supervised environment of a film set, the nature of the comedy 'workplace' (i.e., night venues such as clubs and bars) increases exposure to and engagement in violence and risky sexual behaviour, as well as consumption of alcohol, tobacco and drugs." "Similarly, while screen actors are generally required to arrive on set early and adhere to tight schedules, thus increasing the likelihood of regular sleep patterns, stand-up comedy involves irregular and late hours and extensive travel," Professor Stewart said. "The associated difficulty in maintaining regular patterns of sleep, nutrition and exercise may contribute to detrimental physiological effects and health outcomes, including increased inflammatory markers, higher blood pressure, reduced glucose tolerance, obesity, heart disease, and mortality." In concluding remarks, Professor Stewart said: "The current results reveal a pattern of premature mortality in elite stand-up comedians, and taken together with our previous findings, indicate that higher comedic standing is linked to younger age at death. Intrapersonal factors such as personality and other psychological features that help to develop and enhance the creative talent and success of these comedians may simultaneously contribute to their reduced longevity. External or social pressures specific to stand-up comedy may also play a role." Story Source: Materials provided by Australian Catholic University. An actor acquires lines readily by focusing not on the words of the script, but on those words' meaning -- the moment-to-moment motivations of the character saying them -- as well as on the physical and emotional dimensions of their performance.  What gives actors their seemingly effortless memory capabilities? Could acting teach us something about memory and cognition, and could acting principles help those with memory problems? Researchers not only describe a learning principle that can be taught to non-actors but they have tested acting-based interventions to counter cognitive decline in older people. "How do you learn all those lines?" It is the question most asked of actors and their art. The ability to remember and effortlessly deliver large quantities of dialogue verbatim amazes non-thespians. Most people imagine that learning a script involves hours, days, and even months of rote memorization. But actors seldom work that way; in fact, they often don't consciously try to memorize lines at all. And they seldom consider memorization as defining what they do. What gives actors their seemingly effortless memory capabilities? Could acting teach us something about memory and cognition, and could acting principles help those with memory problems? These are the questions that cognitive psychologist Helga Noice (Elmhurst College) and her husband, cognitive researcher, actor, and director Tony Noice (Indiana State University) have set out to answer in nearly two decades of psychological studies of actors. The Noices have not only described a learning principle that can be taught to non-actors but they have also tested acting-based interventions to counter cognitive decline in older people. They review their research in the February issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science. According to the researchers, the secret of actors' memories is, well, acting. An actor acquires lines readily by focusing not on the words of the script, but on those words' meaning -- the moment-to-moment motivations of the character saying them -- as well as on the physical and emotional dimensions of their performance. To get inside the character, an actor will break a script down into a series of logically connected "beats" or intentions. Good actors don't think about their lines, but feel their character's intention in reaction to what the other actors do, causing their lines to come spontaneously and naturally. The researchers quote the great British actor Michael Caine: "You must be able to stand there not thinking of that line. You take it off the other actor's face." The key, the researchers have found, is a process called active experiencing, which they say uses "all physical, mental, and emotional channels to communicate the meaning of material to another person." It is a principle that can be applied off-stage as well as on. For example, students who studied material by imagining conveying its meaning to somebody else who needed the information showed higher retention than those who tried to memorize the material by rote. The active-experiencing principle was also found to be effective against cognitive decline in old age. A group of older adults who received a four-week course in acting showed significantly improved word-recall and problem-solving abilities compared to both a group that received a visual-arts course and a control group. The gains persisted four months afterward, as did a significant improvement in the seniors' perceived quality of life. Some of the Noices' findings confirm those of other researchers on memory. Memory is heavily reliant on emotion, action, and perception. In their work with actors, the Noices' have found, for example, that memory is aided by physical movement. In one study, lines learned while making an appropriate motion -- e.g., walking across a stage -- were more readily remembered by actors later than were lines unaccompanied by action. The physical motion didn't need to be repeated at the time of recall. Source: American Psychological Society  "My research indicates that women in the film industry suffer a lack of access to future career opportunities when they tend to work with people who have collaborated frequently in the past," said Mark Lutter, lead author of the study and head of the "Transnational Diffusion of Innovation" Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG) in Germany. Titled, "Do Women Suffer from Network Closure? The Moderating Effect of Social Capital on Gender Inequality in a Project-Based Labor Market, 1929 to 2010," the study will appear in the April print issue of the American Sociological Review and was published online. For the purposes of his study, Lutter analyzed the career data, including more than a million performances in almost 400,000 movies, of about 100,000 actors and actresses in the American film industry. The data originated from the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), which contains details on all films produced since the advent of cinematography, as well as information on all of the actors and actresses involved and the networks within which they operated -- in other words, with whom they worked. Lutter found that when actresses work more often with less connected, more diverse groups featuring people from different social and cultural backgrounds, their career prospects become indistinguishable from those of actors. "The career opportunities for actresses are more likely to dwindle if they work in homogeneous teams," Lutter said. If the groups they tend to work with also feature a large proportion of men in senior positions -- directors and producers, for instance -- or if the actresses work in male-dominated film genres, the risk of career decline is even greater. The effect is further amplified for actresses still in the early stages of their careers. "I suspect that women suffer when they are frequently part of homogeneous teams because they might enjoy a much lower degree of active support from mentors than men, and their professional friendship networks might also give them access to fewer contacts in positions of power," Lutter said. "This would mean that they are likely excluded from important sources of information about future projects." This is particularly problematic in project-based labor markets, such the film industry, in which jobs tend to be obtained through informal channels and personal networks. "So rather than relying on close circles and personal friendships, women should focus on developing diverse networks of relationships outside their own circle," Lutter said. "By and large, they should take a more strategic, considered approach to their decisions concerning future projects if they want their careers to benefit." While the study focuses on the film industry, the findings have implications for people in other industries as well. "In this day and age, work very often takes place in project teams, the film industry being a prime example," Lutter said. "Those involved in filmmaking move along from project to project -- working together for a limited period of time and then going their separate ways -- like many freelancers in the creative professions, but also not unlike many people working for larger corporations. My research highlights strategies women can use to increase their visibility in these job markets, as well as steps employers interested in advancing women's careers can take when creating project teams." Story Source: American Sociological Association  A new study finds that Oscar winners in the Best Actress category are at a higher risk of divorce than nominees who do not win. By contrast, Best Actor winners do not experience an increase in the risk of divorce after an Oscar.
A long line of best actress winners including Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Halle Berry and Kate Winslet experienced the end of their marriages not long after taking home their awards. A study by researchers at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management and Carnegie Mellon University finds that Oscar winners in the Best Actress category are at a higher risk of divorce than nominees who do not win. By contrast, Best Actor winners do not experience an increase in the risk of divorce after an Oscar. "Research has shown that, in the general population, gender differences have historically given roles with greater power and status to men and roles with lesser status and power to women. Studies have demonstrated that breaching this social norm within a marriage -- for example, when a wife earns more than her husband -- can strain the relationship," says Tiziana Casciaro, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Rotman School, who co-authored the study with Colleen Stuart, a post-doctoral fellow at Carnegie Mellon University, and Sue Moon, a PhD student at the Rotman School. "It appears that even the marriages of Hollywood actresses at the top of their careers are not immune to the consequences of violating social norms that affect the wider population. Our results suggest that the sudden success reduces the longevity of their marriages," says Stuart. The study looked at the 751 nominees in the best actor and actress categories of the Academy Awards between1936 to 2010. The results show that Best Actress winners have a 63% chance of their marriages ending sooner than the marriages of non-winners. The median marriage duration for Best Actress winners was 4.30 years, substantially lower than the 9.51 year marriage duration for non-winners. By contrast, the difference between Best Actor non-winners (median = 12.66 years) and Best Actor winners (median = 11.97 years) was not statistically significant. Story Source: University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management.  That was the conclusion of a paper published in February 2017, in the British Journal of Psychology by Dr Niklas K. Steffens from the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland and his fellow authors. The researchers conducted a large-scale analysis of the distribution of the Academy Awards for best actor and for best actress in a leading role by the Los Angeles-based Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (i.e., the Oscars) as well as the award for best actor and for best actress in a leading role by the London-based British Academy of Film and Television Arts (i.e. the BAFTAs) since 1968. This covered a total of 908 merit prize winners, comprising 97 winners and 383 (unsuccessful) nominees for the Oscars and 97 winners and 331 (unsuccessful) nominees for the BAFTAs. Both awards state that they aim to recognise best performances in films from all over the world. The results showed that US actors dominated the awards, winning more than 50 per cent of all prizes across Oscars and BAFTAs. Nevertheless, actors were more likely to win if they shared social group membership with the judges. This meant that American actors won 52 per cent of all BAFTAs but 69 per cent of all Oscars, while British actors won 18 per cent of all Oscars but 34 per cent of all BAFTAs. Dr Steffens said: "We know a lot about the factors that increase people's capacity to show exceptional performances. However, a somewhat different question is what makes a given creative performance likely to be seen as exceptional. This was the question we addressed in this research. "These results show that whether we see a given performance as extraordinary is not just a function of the objective quality of that performance. For perceivers are much more likely to recognise a performance as truly brilliant when perceivers and performers share membership in a social group." The data also showed that nationality made a difference to actually winning an award. For the Oscars, American actors received 67 per cent of all nominations but 78 per cent of all awards. The same held true for the BAFTAs, where British actors won 31 per cent of all nominations but 42 per cent of all awards. Commenting on this pattern, Dr Steffens said: "Shared social group membership becomes even more important when the diagnostic value of a quality indicator increases -- that is, when we establish whether something is not just excellent but outstanding." In this case, American actors won two out of three of all Oscar nominations but almost four out of five of all Oscar awards." Another important determinant of success was the subject matter of the film. In the Oscars, American artists accounted for 26 per cent of award winners whose performance was in films about non-US culture but for 88 per cent of award winners whose performance was in films about American culture. Dr Steffens said: "There is a widespread belief that our perception of makes a creation original and outstanding is given by its objective qualities, but in fact it is heavily influenced by the social groups we are members of, and which provide the basis for making sense of the world."  There was a study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology General which had found that people fail to notice that White people are White. Sounds pretty ridiculous, eh? Peter Hegarty from the University of Surrey developed a celebrity guessing game in which participants were shown one of two groups of actors: Colin Firth, Kate Winslet and Jim Carey or Halle Berry, Morgan Freeman and Eddie Murphy. Players in the game made a series of guesses at what these actors had in common and generated the names of more actors to see whether they were right. Participants tried to guess the common 'rule' that these celebrities share and won the game when they did. The study found that:
"This study clearly shows one consequence of this: the failure to notice that White actors are White. Also, the guessing game is based on a process that psychologists have used to model how scientists formulate and test scientific theories for over fifty years. To the extent that this model is accurate, then these results suggest why scientists might be much quicker to label something common to Black people as race-related, than something common to White people."  - by Sam David
No matter what you've been told, strategy is everything. Without a high-level plan, you are walking in the dark -- literally. Everyone has a pipe dream at one time or another. For most, there is that pie in the sky, the unattainable fantasy of fantasies. For writers, it's the initial publication of their first manuscript; for TV scriptwriters, the nervous airing of their eight-episodic dramedy; for screenwriters, the red-carpet premier of their 121-page motion picture script. For some, the wheels slowly squeak and turn; for others, the rubber falls flat in a flash. When writers e-mail me to look at their work (in consideration of representation), I always initially ask for three particular items: -- The project's title (because titles are important); they can make or break a sale; -- The project's tagline, because the tagline (let's call it "The Teaser") will set a spin to the story; -- And the last requisite: the project's logline, the definitive one-sentence descriptive blueprint that wraps up words on paper, spinning them down to the story's most essential elements. A solid logline is the nitty-gritty guts to storytelling. More times than not, without it, there's an awfully good chance that you didn't capture a crystal clear vision of the beginning, middle and end of your own work product. Some wordsmiths write their way forward, starting from scratch with the mixing and matching of meaningful nouns and vivid verbs to build and frame a logline; others will sometimes work their way backwards, staging together that key sentence -- the logline -- at the tail end of their finished creation. A well-crafted logline is the foundation to opening the floodgates of interest. Loglines suck up the story/series in a nutshell. Consider this over-exaggerated phrase, off the top of my head, that capsulizes one of the most influential and beloved American television sitcom series ever to air on a major network: A naïve and ambitious redhead yearns to become a star along with her up-and-coming Cuban singer/rumba bandleader husband and gets herself (and her neighbors) caught up in the strangest of silly situations. Just as a puppy needs to be adequately fed, provided clean water, walked, exercised, diciplined and loved, so too, does your writing. Your logline is your starting point upon which to build the body of your written undertaking. It is the glue, actually, that binds the intricate details together and makes them whole. The logline is your compass, steering you forward in the right direction. Without it, you'll be driven off course. Regard it as a compression mechanism, a tool that tightly trims your words (even 372 pages worth) down to one simple sentence that shares the whole story -- and sums it up -- without giving away the ending. The logline should leave the reader lusting for more. The supermarket bestseller, TV Guide, has always been at the genesis of television loglines, drawing the viewer in with a brief synopsis (logline) of almost every show that has ever aired. A fascinating fact: TV Guide's inaugural cover featured a photograph of Lucille Ball's newborn son Desi Arnaz, Jr. And yet, in spite of all the national publicity, that television show got off to a very rocky start before it was ever produced. Because even with its captivating premise, there were still a hundred different contingencies that needed to be ironed out.  - by Sam David
Some time ago, I fell in love with a historically Black university -- in part, because I sort of got caught up in the university's fascinating backstory. It wasn't long before I found myself professionally and passionately committed to donating my time, talent and tenacity to help that small educational facility in any possible way that I could. Of course, I'm of White ethnicity, but even so, when I self-reflect, I see my indomitable spirit. I am tough as nails. I don't need pep talks or probationary dry runs; my strength (and faith) comes from within. Equally important, I have no ulterior motive other than to create a meaningful and purposeful and productive next chapter in my life, as I relocate Black World Studios to the East Coast. As an abandoned child who was not of the Black race, I was raised by two Black women during two decades when "family diversity" was a foreign word. We'd regularly travel to the AME Church on Sunday morning's (which explains my love of gospel music). During my high school years, I was privileged to be privately schooled with children of international races (whose parents were affiliated with the United Nations). In short, I do not know from racial or religious or even sexual prejudice; my tumultuous childhood and fractured upbringing was simply too different and too unique. It stands to reason that through the years, I embraced -- and have represented -- human beings regardless of the shade of their skin, regardless of their religious preferences or their sexual orientation. To believe that I cannot relate to the Black experience, to believe that I cannot relate to the Black religious experience, to believe that I cannot relate to the Black church, to believe that I cannot relate to a black educational facility, and to believe that I cannot relate to Black slavery because one assumes that these "talking points" were not a part of my unconventional childhood and out-of-the-ordinary life experiences... well, that absolutely is not true. You did not walk in my shoes. You did not live my uncommon life. And for sure, you do not understand my passions and activism for racial and cultural unity. Because for me, such matters as race and race relations are incredibly intense, and my sense of injustice so powerfully and overwhelmingly profound.  - by Sam David
Sometimes, people can become insensitive and tone-deaf. They say what they want to say, but tune out reality. In the end, all we have is that complicated thing called "reputation". An unpolluted personal reputation is unequivocally one of the most imperative ingredients a human being can cultivate in life -- it is, in fact, the single most essential factor to moving forward through the years with grace, dignity and diplomacy. So too is the integrity of one's professional reputation in business -- part and parcel to one's character -- and absolutely vital because it isn't just one aspect of who we are; rather, individual respectability infiltrates and influences every conceivable aspect of business. Both your work reputation and mine are intricately interconnected tubing structures that nourish the other through the flow of open and intelligent communication. And that, no doubt, is the downside to e-mailing. Written words tend to be typed so impetuously that sometimes little thought is given to their potential impact. All too frequently, a message hastily clicked off can have devastating consequences, quickly throwing gasoline on the fire. The foundation to professional relationships must be built on key principles like mutual respect, idea-exchanges, chemistry, and trust (to name a few). But one word -- t-r-u-s-t -- is unique and sacred. Respect and a polished expression of word exchanges may fade over time as relationships peak and valley. But trust? Once trust has deteriorated, the game is over. Because when trust erodes, so does the souring of that relationship. I learned long, long ago never -- not ever -- to assume anything. Your relationship with others should always, by necessity, be based on crystal clear communication and trust -- not on assumptions. Because any e-mail, even when not by design or deliberate intent, can be innocently misconstrued. The tone of any written paper can come off as accusatory, or even arrogant in its choice of phrasing. During those stressful times when such a situation arises, one need's to promptly clear the air regarding the contents contained in that communication. Respectfully pick up the phone and talk about the issue immediately (especially if you misspoke inappropriately on paper). Always try to give others the benefit of the doubt. Because from my perspective (both personal and professional), sometimes people simply do not think things out, and that can usually lead to great misunderstandings (and lots of grief). It's not about controlling content, but rather, the frequent absence of genuine and effective communication. Remember BUSINESS 101: never assume anything at any time, because to ASS-U-ME anything in life can make an ASS out of you and me. You've got to know when to hold 'em Know when to fold 'em Know when to walk away Know when to run  - by Sam David Last evening I received an angry e-mail from a client/friend, telling me he was ready to throw in the towel. I could have fired back a scathing response -- telling him to toughen up -- but I chose to walk on higher ground, pointing out that no one ever said life was meant to be easy. Everyone lives his/her life with some misgivings, self-disgust, and discontent; sometimes we fail to speak from the heart, and all too often we'll leave things that need to be aired locked up in a vacuum. To build and create a truly meaningful and purposeful life involves both personal and professional commitment and growth. You cannot move forward without the other. Commitment requires discipline -- while growth is not without its own unique missteps. For it’s in the tussle with life’s day-to-day trials and errors that a person carves out the blueprint for how s/he will live life (and how successfully s/he does -- or does not -- overcome the stumbling blocks down that path). Anyone can quit. Quitting is easy. But for actors and writers, self doubts and lingering frustrations stem not so much from responsible professional management and handling, but from the fact that talent frequently resent when they do not receive the proper accolades and recognition from the TV and film industry -- an industry, quite frankly, to whom they tend to devote most of their time and talent. It is not unusual for a Hollywood or New York creative to have a swollen ego (which naturally comes with the territory as individuals overrate their own productive value and financial worth). The trouble kicks in when they begin to compare themselves to those in higher visibility with whom they perceive to be in competition, causing sparks to soar. Bitter and resentful, somewhere down the road they trap themselves into the false belief that their life legacies are totally dependent on the applause from the faceless and the approval of their acting and writing associates. Of course, in reality, that is 360-degrees from the truth. Most show-biz personalities misjudge their own self esteem; running on a lucky streak, they underestimate what they actually bring to the table, failing to realize that they are so much more than a dusty Golden Globe or Oscar statue sitting on a shelf in their family room. The truly great actors from the past that we love to reminisce about -- the legendary larger-than-life Hollywood heavyweights whom we treasure, i.e., Brando, Bogart, or Cary Grant for instance -- are soldered to our souls more because of what they mean to us than the actual character roles in which they were cast. The long-term vision for most any client -- at least from where I sit -- is to build a highly diversified foundation for them -- as an actor, as a writer, as a director, as a producer. I have never strayed from that course. Life is all about passion, patience, persistence, perseverance, and internal fortitude -- at times against seemingly insurmountable odds. Considering my own tumultuous childhood of abandonment, my destiny has mapped itself in the way that it has, simply because I am not a quitter. The heavy hits, the verbal punches and the put downs that I have taken over the years have only helped to better direct my focus towards greater empathy, understanding and emotional awareness. What speaks to me the most is not that clients fly off the handle and give up without a fight due to fear, but that I should understand such self-destructive behavior in order to rise above it and redirect it towards positive contemplation. As I have often pointed out, clients and managers are joined at the hip -- knee-deep in an exceedingly narcissistic and hugely competitive dog-eat-dog Botox-filled world of heart-felt dreams. And for that reason alone, talent needs to be cushioned with the know-how to harden their outer shells to better equip themselves to weather those harrowing all-too-often times when pink slips and rejection letters are tossed their way. Because viciously lashing out, oral dart-throwing, and impetuously walking away from what they truly love is a clear indication that they are too hypersensitive to withstand the harsh reality storms of this precarious business, along with being oblivious to their own human frailties.  - by Sam David
The #1 question I have been asked over the years is WHY: Why do I -- a New York-born second-generation Russian American businesswoman -- represent so many highly creative Blacks in the entertainment business? A few years ago, I received a note -- a hurtful communication -- that has long been posted on my management site. It read: "Sam: I'm not saying that you are not effective; you ARE. In fact, you are EXTREMELY brilliant, creative, and VERY effective. But it's so obvious to me that you are an activist with a heavy (and VERY, VERY LOYAL) African American and ??? Muslim and ??? gay clientele. Frankly, I'd rather not be represented by someone who is so damn controversial. Your (sic) BIG on BLACK clients. That's your thing. Why that is, I don't know. But that's your niche, NOT mine, and for that reason, you WON'T be representing me any more." As a veteran talent manager, I have taken a lot of hard hits on the head. It actually angers me to think that there is such an open and wide and insensitive divide between Black talent and White talent in Hollywood -- and who represents which color. Equally important, WHY does that even matter when the professional loyalty and project passion between manager and client is reciprocal? When I take someone under my wings, you can be absolutely certain that I will fight like hell on that client's behalf. And while I do represent both White and Black clients, rest assured that the competition among any-color writer, in general, is stiff. But it's far more difficult to sell a Black TV project than a White one; in fact, it's much more time consuming, more doors are slammed in your face, and it's way more exhausting than marketing a White project, which generally has a much-larger group of interested network buyers. The primary reason for the imbalance between White and Black TV and film is quite simple: The NUMBERS ratio. As of August 20, 2017, the United States has a total resident population of 325,700,000, making it the third most populous country in the world. Give or take a few hundred thousand, there are over 196,817,55263.7 White people in America vs. 37,685,84812.2 Black people, suggesting a far-greater White demographic TV and film viewing audience than a Black one. While Blacks watch White TV and film, the opposite is generally not true: Whites tend not to watch Black TV or Black films. Granted, there are the exceptions, i.e, the film Hidden Figures (the story of a team of female African-American mathematicians who served a vital role in NASA during the early years of the U.S. space program). But interestingly enough, the screenplay for Hidden Figures was written by Allison Schroeder, (who earned a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay). Allison Schroeder is White. Before she landed the “Hidden Figures” gig -- her first major feature screenplay -- she’d been struggling to get writing jobs. It also should come as no surprise that Black writers crossover to write White projects. And Whites crossover to pen Black projects. What I do know is that it is painfully harder for a Black screenwriter to sell a Black project. Equally significant, Blacks tend not to receive the same quality pay as Whites in Hollywood. Are there exceptions? Of course. There are always exceptions. How do the demographics in America factor in? Well, consider the imbalance between the two populations. More Whites watch TV and film simply because there ARE more Whites than Blacks in America -- a lot more (according to the United States Census Bureau). In TV and film, everything is supply and demand. The bottom line for companies is always their net PROFITS. More times than not, more money can be made producing White projects, than Black ones, as the pool of White viewers is simply more substantial in scope. Which means, most times, more profits in their corporate pockets.  Sustaining Stamina When You Work With Words
- by Sam David I have always believed in transparency. I point out to clients right from the get-go that projects take time. And I am crystal clear in my disclosure to them that I do not possess the magical powers to bring any project to fruition overnight. Quality productions are not shot from initial drafts, scripts, or manuscripts. There are the required (and often repeatedly requested) rewrites; along with that... consider the time-consuming task of seeking out directors, cinematographers, and actors to attach to the projects. Equally important, is the production designer, who sets the tone and mood of the project and determines what the film will look like. At the same time, there is the intense matchmaking efforts of scouting for interested -- and qualified -- backers (funding). Regardless of the sequence, both the creative and business-end of the movie process is grueling and tedious. Films do not materialize overnight. Almost all quality projects consisting of roughly 120 fine-tuned pages of movie script take years (from start to finish) -- with some film projects lingering on well into their second decade. It is nothing short of a miracle -- after years of passion and dedication, lost sleep, along with the diligent work that filmmakers put in to overcome the rocky bumps in the road and the behind-the-scenes stress and drama -- when films make it to the big screen. And yet, understanding the movie maze, most people tend to be incredibly impatient. That is a fact. The blame, in part, falls on reality TV, where unknown, unemployed talents suddenly become "famous" overnight. It's actually a fictitious sort of fame, spreading at first like a desert wildfire, yet lasting less than 15 minutes. As crazy as it sounds, statistically, people expect instant and immediate gratification, counting their eggs long before they even hatch. But as one who works with and nurtures creativity, I have never realistically been able to achieve that for any client. What I do deliver is excellence and dedication and structure and nurturing support, and my own brand of Taurus tenacity -- all which require time and tremendous patience. And that's because the on-going process from Point A to Point B to Point C is agonizing. Possibly that is why so many writers ultimately give up; they lose their footing and become utterly disillusioned. For most, their expectations are simply out of whack -- they've created an unhealthy wanting or an unrealistic desire to experience pleasure or fulfillment without delay or deferment. Basically, it's when THEY want it; and THEY want it yesterday. Then factor in the absence of a bestseller, the lack of major awards or hefty credits, and/or the missing name recognition. Those are the commonplace obstacles that I work to succeed in overcoming each and every day. Granted, while no two writers are alike, each brings his/her own uniqueness, color and splash to the table... along with a problematic mixed bag of flavors (issues) that I need to grasp and sort out, in order to turn their negatives into positives. If that were easy, anyone could tackle my work. For reasons that I have yet to fully understand, over the years I seem to have been tapped to take on the toughest of creative projects -- especially those that are controversial or Black-based, or bring about racial and social awareness. Activism, actually, is one of my strongest strengths: I am an unbelievably patient and nurturing human being; I stick to my guns. I am not impetuous. As an introvert, I THINK things out. It's the client who grows anxious and antsy, all too often brainwashing themselves into the false assumption that they are far more souped-up than they actually are. And what they always seem to forget to remember is that with every draft, a writer can be easily replaced. In general, writers write because they enjoy it. But every writer who puts words to paper -- from the not-yet published to the polished -- needs guidance and mentoring. Beyond that, writers need intestinal fortitude, as it's a cut-throat and highly competitive business, where time invested can ultimately result in a massive and unexpected loss. It's also controlled (in my opinion) by a White Hollywood, where Blacks (with a few exceptions) earn less than their White counterparts. For those who are truly gifted with the ability to pen a professional script, who have honed their writing skills and style, and who are dedicated enough to have real passion and drive, success can be achieved when the writer is blessed with unwavering support and strong strategic guidance. Without it, it's a long tough battle. Consider the study, conducted by Queen Mary, University of London, which established that just one in ten authors can afford to earn a living from writing alone. In particular, it highlighted a top-heavy market, with just five per cent of authors earning 42.3 per cent of all income from professional writing. Ian Rankin, the Scottish crime writer, has previously said it took 14 years for him to make decent money from writing. In her lifetime, Emily Dickinson, a remarkable and prolific talent, published only one or two poems -- that was all. After Dickinson's death, her sister Lavinia discovered almost 1800 poems of Emily's, all unpublished. Dickinson, we were to learn, had never stopped writing. Writing is a truly rough and tumble business. I always warn writers that if they can't take the 'round-the-clock pressures of the film industry, then they probably should drift away from the business if "burnout" is in their DNA. But for those who firmly believe in themselves -- warts and all -- then they need to be able to muster up the ability to sustain the prolonged mental effort of rejections and setbacks, while dealing appropriately with the industry's day-to-day general chaos. Someone said adversity builds character. But someone else said adversity reveals character. In the end, it's our inner resilience that helps us adapt well in the face of both personal and professional adversity. |
AuthorsAbout Sam Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed