I have heard a number of lenders refer to their "greed" as somehow playing a part in our dilemma. Know first that 20% interest on an unsecured loan is not high. I have money borrowed from my brother, for my business, under that same amount of interest, compounded annually. It is not unheard of to have over 30% interest on credit card balances. So get out of your head that expecting Mac to pay 20% on our money is greedy. It is not.
Second of all, even if one feels that they were expecting more than they deserve, it doesn't effect the situation we find ourselves in. The lenders have absolutely no fault here...lenders have done nothing wrong. Thinking otherwise is like a victim thinking that a crime is somehow their fault. That is not healthy thinking.
Mac is 100% responsible, both for the trouble he is in and for our loans not being paid back at this time. The financial agreement is between us as individuals and Mac, no one else. Mac should not shift blame to his lenders in any way shape or form nor should we as lenders accept blame.
And it is normal to feel anger, fear, sadness. For many of us, the monies not being available to us and with no real end of hardship in sight - hurts - plain and simple. This is a natural consequence and Mac must accept this. To not accept it is like hurting lenders twice over.
Greed was not the thought with my mother's investment. I know that without a doubt. She believed in the project. The gain for a women with limited income was surely beneficial, but she doesn't have a greedy bone in her.
ReplyDeleteRomans 8
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
It’s silly to assert that greed played any role in the decision of most supporters to invest in the film project. Rather, clearly, they were seduced by the proposed project’s mystical message and by the soaringly good-hearted intentions of an earnest neighbor and artist. Mac’s having been duped by a supposedly inspirational “silent partner” must testify to the bitter death of his own innocence, but of course such tragic foolishness cannot absolve him of the responsibility to present to his supporters a full accounting of how the rest of their generous contributions were spent.
ReplyDeleteTo have turned over $3 million, in secret, to a cynical and obvious charlatan is one thing, but that figure is a small portion of the total sum that hundreds of earnest supporters gave to the project. By all appearances, the money invested directly in the production of what looks like a pretty frothy film must also be a small portion of the total sum. That's another thing. And in this light, it’s easy to understand the investigators‘ determination in seeking to find out the extent to which the project was a scam (whether sincerely conceived or not) to collect a huge amount of money that Mac ended up spending on things that had no relationship to the original solicitation.
I just thought I'd check the blog to see if there's been any activity lately. In response to Sharon's post, I have never heard Mac blame the investors for anything, quite the contrary. I have heard him take full blame and claim accountability over and over. I also know him to be determined to pay every lender back.
ReplyDeleteI saw some segments of the film recently and "a pretty frothy film" does not describe it. I'm excited about the film! It's a beautiful message and is very timely; I think it brings to the fore an experience, an illumination, that folks are seeking at this time.
This is not life as normal out there, we are living in very interesting and rapidly changing times, and I mean that in the very broadest sense, as well as the minute. I don't know anyone who isn't being challenged in some aspect of their life. Mac has been thrown a curve ball from the universe unlike anything else I've seen, and more than one. I don't know if I could personally handle it, yet I see him doing it with continued spirit and energy and determination. I see him working persistently on the film with continued grace and inspiration, despite gross, illegal (in my interpretation) interference from Horace Williams and daily challenges most of us don't have.
I appreciate the different positions everyone is in, AND I keep thinking that if EVERYONE involved would send good energy to the project, it will be finished sooner and distributed sooner and everyone can more quickly get paid. Thank you to those of you who are able to do that; I'm doing it daily, asking for the highest beneficial outcome for all.
Sorry, but the notion that if the people involved "would only send good energy to the project" it might be finished sooner so that "everyone can more quickly get paid" points to the project's essential, good-hearted futility. "GoAnd td energy" is a wish and a dream, nothing more. The investors' getting paid is a hopeless fantasy.
ReplyDeleteBy all appearances, the film is an earnest, but shallow, exploration of anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner's philosophy that posits the existence of "an objective, intellectually comprehensible spiritual world accessible to direct experience through inner development," as the Wikipedia entry puts it. This sort of silliness has its appeal among New-Age ditherers, and that's fine, but its broader appeal to a paying audience of cinema-goers is profoundly doubtful, especially if that appeal is supposed to redound, over time, to the financial benefit of the investors--to the tune of some $10,000,000, no less.
This is, in fact, a tragic story of delusion and deception on several levels, and its outcome will certainly be a grave disappointment (and worse) to all concerned.
That's "good energy is a wish and a dream..."
ReplyDeletehttp://vermontmedicineshow.blogspot.com/2011/04/mac-parker-film-money-likely-funded-ct.html
ReplyDeleteguys. there is no movie. you might own some health clubs though. check it out.
I can most definitely say that there is a movie.
ReplyDeleteI can most definitely say that there is confirmed interest from a production company in Los Angeles that is capable of marketing it to a niche audience that they understand, have the tools to access, and have previous experience marketing to. The CEO of this company has just completed a Dennis Quaid thriller and is currently producing a single for Steven Tyler.
There is no doubt that it is possible for this film to make at least some measure of the money back for everyone, and God willing, all of it.
On the afternoon of May 2, 2010, in front of 80 members of this community, I held a budget to complete this film in my hand and gave everyone present what I consider to be a sacred promise that I would complete our film for us in three months. I needed no one else's assistance to do this. It was that close.
Six days later, on May 8th, Mac refused to complete the film with me and I consented, under conditions, to allow someone else (not identified) to finish it.
Ten months have passed, along with an effort to change the film's form to either a documentary or a docudrama (I have proof in the form of an audio recording of an AC Group meeting)(which was abandoned after the community was alerted to it) and now there is a new effort to re-construct the film from scratch (you can't open up where I left off unless you use the same software)(digitizing workprints is where I was in spring of 2005) and to re-name it "Return To Innocence" (see recent Progress Report #2).
On the evening of May 8th, I did not promise that I would never again work on the film that I had dedicated 10% of my sixty years of life to, I only consented to letting it be taken to someone else to complete it - which I can assure you was not easy for me to do given all I had put into it.
I have kept backups on behalf of all of you.
Having grown tired of waiting for anyone else to finish the film, and seeing the continued suffering of many people who need revenues from this film to commence immediately, I have completed it myself. Bear in mind that in ten months, I could have kept my promise of May 2nd three times.
Sunset Pictures is most definitely interested in coming together with Mac and with me to allow use of this completed version to bring it to market immediately, work together to clean up the legal mess, and make everyone whole again, at least in spirit.
This would require no input from anyone else, no risk to anyone else, and no funds would need to be raised from anyone else, and it could commence immediately.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were to send good energy to that idea.
Horace Williams, Jr.
While the winsome notion that everyone involved might "send good energy" to the project is patently absurd, we can nonetheless all express our wishes for its good fortune.
ReplyDeleteGood luck to you, Horace. Your struggles have been painful to watch. May you present to Sunset Pictures the kind of film a broad audience will find inspirational and moving. The odds are against you, I'm afraid, but it's good to hear you're making determined progress.
clips?
ReplyDeleteWhat is Mac's attitude toward Sunset Pictures' professed interest in the completed project?
ReplyDeleteAs to Sunset, Mac wrote a letter to Martin Guigui asserting that (he believes) I have no copyright interest whatever, and making a weak appeal for Sunset to keep him in mind.
ReplyDeleteSunset Pictures however, will not deal with Mac Parker - as clearly stated in their proposal.
Mac's stance toward me is one of denial of my creative input to what the film became, which includes threats from a lawyer for me to cease and desist my efforts - threats that include 'more than civil actions'.
This resistance on Mac's part comes despite the fact that the Sunset offer does not require people to sign over their contracts (leaving investors free to support Mac or pursue the money owed any other way they see fit),
and despite the fact that the Sunset offer in no way hampers Mac's efforts to complete the new film (director's cut?) he is now making (with a new name).
There could conceivably be two films from which the investors could recoup their money. If either or both did well, investors might actually get more back than what they were owed.
The film that I sent to Sunset is ready to go in as little as a month. It requires no money to be raised by anyone (Sunset covers costs). It is, and has been, the property of the investors all along, even without my input, because the loan instruments that were used to fund it have been deemed to be securities by Judge Crawford.
This film that I sent to Sunset is based on exactly the film that investors actually saw multiple times during screenings, and that Mac endorsed himself right up until the moment he refused to complete it with me on May 8, 2010.
It is the exactly the film that Mac claimed that Bill Kinzie was going to finish in June/July 2010 (then changed his mind to make a documentary or docudrama, then changed his mind back again). It is the film that Mac presently asserts he is 're-creating' now (from scratch), though he has changed the name to 'Return to Innocence' (doesn't that title sound like a sequel?).
Sunset's offer also includes access to Liv Tyler as final narrator - a clear box office draw.
Now - in contrast - according to Mac's recent updates, the movie that Mac is making now has a 'goal' of being completed in about a year. It requires money to be raised in the tens of thousands of dollars (not including marketing). It has no distributor. To the best of my knowledge, there is not yet a composer for a new score. To the best of my knowledge no final narrator.
Mac's film could possibly be released in about a year, and could provide investors with a second revenue stream - even if Sunset's version had paid everyone back in full !
The 'controversy' could be used to help market both films by inducing people's curiosity and desire to see both, express their opinions, write in their blogs, argue, debate, etc. Oprah would love it.
Now I ask - what's better for investors:
1)thwart the effort made that includes the Sunset Proposal and make people like Robert Finkle wait another year for the beginning of revenue to appear, confining him to only one chance to recoup his money?
OR
2)embrace, support, and appreciate my efforts, honor Sunset's amazing proposal, let a revenue stream begin for Mr. Finkle and everyone else as soon as possible (at no cost to anyone), let Mac take whatever time it takes to build the 'director's cut', release it a year later, and give investors a second revenue stream?
Which option is better for investors?
Which option is better for Mac?
Answer to both questions: Option 2)
By the way - I had two trailers done, months ago.
Horace Williams, Jr.
You're more than convincing here, Horace. It would be a terrible shame if the bad blood that has somehow welled up between you and Mac were to cancel out your promising efforts (and Sunset's commitment to the film). Do you foresee any way a rapprochement might be reached that would permit each of you to release and promote a version of the same project? Why is it, given your account, that Mac remains dead-set against you?
ReplyDeleteHmmm--seems the post that I'd left earlier has been deleted ... I'll say it again.
ReplyDeleteIT'S NOT HORACE'S FILM! HE HAS NO RIGHTS TO IT! Boggles the mind how he thinks he can negotiate the rights for an intellectual property that is not his.
Just bow out and walk away, Horace. You were hired to do a job for which you were paid, you screwed up, your boss fired you. So sorry. Get over it and walk away gracefully.
Marna:
ReplyDeleteSince you didn't observe a single minute of the process through which Mac and I constructed this film, you have no basis on which to assert that I have no intellectual property.
In scores of emails over a period of five years, Mac represented me as his creative collaborator, creative partner, collaborator, and the like.
I was never an employee, I was a subcontractor to whom Mac constantly promised intellectual property.
I was not fired, Mac refused to complete the film with me on the evening of May 8th.
On the evening of May 8th, Mac's lawyer asked him point blank "Do you have any professional issues with Horace"? Mac's answer: "No".
Then Mac was asked "Can you separate personal and professional issues? Mac said "No".
Mac was asked if he could articulate what it was that was bothering him, in case I could 'make a change' and address whatever the issue was. Mac was unable to articulate what the 'problem' was. His own lawyer [who I feel did an excellent job at mediating] then asked "How is Horace supposed to address your concerns if you can't articulate what the issues are?.
Later, I told Mac that I bet that most of the people who put money into this film had earned that money working alongside people that they didn't get along with all the time; that he and I had made a promise just 6 days before to complete the film for everyone, that we had to hang any baggage at the door, roll up our sleeves, and get the film finished.
Mac refused.
THAT is how this went down.
Try asking Mac these questions:
What was the plan behind the handing over of all that money to Lou Soteriou over a period of ten years, without telling a soul?
How could you represent that as a mistake when a person as smart and perceptive as you wouldn't repeat the same mistake continually for ten years?
Did you ever tell Horace and his wife that they would be wealthy after the film was released?
Is it true that Lou Soteriou called you in 1999, and said "You're making a film. It's going to be called Birth of Innocence. This is what it is about."
Is it true that you represented to Horace during the first meeting between Horace and Lou Soteriou in November 2009 that Lou was to be the creative point person, and that you and Horace were to take a back seat creatively because 'Lou had experienced things that you (Mac) and Horace had not'?
Is it true that Lou had been the creative point person for the whole ten years?
Is it true that Horace expressed deep reservations about a person (Lou) who had engaged you in putting only your name on promissory notes for a project that was Lou's concept?
Marna -
Is it OK with you that Robert Finkle went without adequate heat in his house last winter, is selling off family heirlooms to survive, and may have to sell his property in order to have a chance at a decent remainder of his life?
Do you think Robert should be confined to waiting another year for a chance that maybe Mac will finish this film?
Is the spirit of your comment to me in accordance with the spirit behind the film?
Talk to me and ask questions and I will answer every one for you. I will show you all the proof I have of all my assertions. Believe it or not, I'm on your side.
Horace Williams, Jr.
Horace - I just discovered why your previous attempts to post failed...it was in the spam filter. It might help to register... and then use your name...
ReplyDeleteAnd please notice that I started a new thread to focus on you and your proposal and built a new poll. Go to the bottom of this page and click on "Newer Post".
Robert Melik Finkle said...
ReplyDeleteI am fully supportive of Horace and Sunset Pictures because I believe their efforts to finish the film (the original version of Birth Of Innocence which we all invested in because we thought it was a worthwhile project) and their proposal to produce and distribute it is more realistic and more timely than Mac's rewrite and remake of a new version of the film with a vague timetable for completion and distribution for which he has neither a composer, narrator or distributer. Moreover, Sunset Pictures will honor and repay our investments without requiring us to raise more money to finish the film which Mac has said he will need to do after already taking $14,000,000. of our money of which $4,000,000. was given to Lou Soteriou apparently to finance his fitness centers and drive around in a Ferrari. And by the way, Horace has promised not to take any of the profits until every one is repaid. And since Sunset pictures is not requiring us to sign over our contracts to the LLC which they are setting up on our behalf (they will only require proof of how much money Mac owed us as of ll/18/'09) and if their production does not yeild enough to make us whole then Mac will still be liable for the difference. Perhaps Mac can finish a film someday after trying for 12 years, but time is running out for me.
I call upon Mac to convincingly show remorse for the chaos he has created by showing some humility and demonstrating his sincerity by not attempting to thwart the efforts of Horace and Sunset pictures to complete and distribute Birth Of Innocence now so that those of us who are in dire need of money can be repaid.
May 14, 2011 3:29 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am engaged to a low budget successful indi filmmaker. This "film" project of took most of my mother's savings away frome her and she is now broke. I can't believe you people trusted a film that has been in the making for more than 12 let me say it again 12 years. Now I'm reading this "film" raised $14,000,000. Very few hollywood films have a budget like that. Also Both of us watched the so called trailer and it is not a film. who ever you are Mac Parker your full of it. This is not a movie. No one was greedy in this investment. My mother lost most of her money. She even tried to get me to invest in this. I'm shocked after watching your "trailer" anyong believes this is a film.
ReplyDelete