The Fate of Zioncheck for President
Now, two years is not a long time in the project life of a major Hollywood film. But this is not a major Hollywood film. In fact, in the official press release, Stephen envisioned producing and directing a quick, no-budget indie, saying “[The book] Zioncheck for President is about doing things by the skin of your teeth. And I want to do things the same way.”
What’s held it up?
While my beloved manchild tarries yet again in Italy, taking a break from his financial worries and blogging at Huffington, let’s look at the possible setbacks.
The problem is not the money. Once after re-reading the book (good book, by the way), I worked out on a paper napkin the kind of budget it would take to make this film, and saw that it could be done for five million, or five hundred thousand, or even, in true indie fashion, just fifty thousand dollars. Any of these productions could be successful—provided the producer committed himself to the kind of film he wanted to make.
How about the script, then? For the adaptation, Stephen hired a 28 year-old screenwriter plucked from one of his Sundance seminars named Justin Rhodes, whose one and only feature credit is a low-budget action flick called Contract Killers which he wrote, directed and edited. I felt obliged to spend an evening watching this movie, and would donate blood to take those two hours back. Why this screenwriter? My guess (and it’s only a guess) is that Stephen believes that Rhodes’s representation—ICM handles him—might bring in some A-list attachments. Obviously Stephen’s handling this like a player. But again I ask: Is it a good screenplay? A few months ago Stephen admitted to me that he was having “script problems”—which could also mean that his writer was having to endure his well-known pointless tinkering.
How about ageism in the system? Steve’s brought up from time to time the fact that his age—he’ll be 60 this October—is working against him Hollywood. Or prejudice regarding his track record? The last film he made, Homegrown, was 11 years ago; his one and only studio picture, Losing Isaiah, was released in 1995. But why would that have any effect on a filmmaker who wants to do a “DIY, seats-of-the-pants, Sundance-worthy, out-of-the-system” movie?
And that’s another point. Stephen has never produced a feature film before, either in or out of the system. That fraught position was always filled by Naomi, and Naomi has her own life now.
Here’s what I think the problem is: Stephen just got bored with the project. He’s like that. He gets all heated up pursuing something shiny and new, then when he’s finally in the position to make things happen, he freezes up and loses all interest. I don’t really know what attracted him to Zioncheck in the first place—ostensibly it was the political angle, but knowing Stephen, it was probably because the flambuoyant, multi-faceted yet enigmatic subject, Grant Cogswell, reminded him of his father. Not to mention a high-concept property like this looks great to own.
So. The fate of the film version of Zioncheck for President hinges on nothing as mundane as attachments, budgets, or what have you, but how the producer feels about himself at any given moment. Remember, I’ve worked with Stephen. I’ve been with him when he’s been on his best behavior, but also when he’s made some incredibly boneheaded pronouncements that not only alienated his faithful followers, but served to undermine his own cause. (“Babygate”—the incident at his poetry reading back in October, 2006—is still one of the enduring gossip points of Jake fandom. I recreate it at length in chapter eight of my memoir, A Poet from Hollywood).
Would I ever want to work with Stephen again? Well, I’m in love with him, but let’s just say I wouldn’t give him the greatest recommendation on LinkedIn.