# THE BAKER: Internal Team Deck Stress Test for Ronny, Nicholas, and Aya **Date:** 2026-05-08 **Object tested:** `assets/decks/THE_BAKER_Cannes_Deck.typ` and compiled PDF after the Visual Direction slide was added. **Use:** Internal live-presentation stress test before presenting the Cannes deck to Ronny, Nicholas, or Aya. **Status:** Recommendations only. No deck changes applied from this note. ## 1. Executive verdict The deck is strong enough to present to Ronny, Nicholas, and Aya as a working Cannes package, but it should be framed carefully. This should not be presented to them as a finished answer. It should be presented as a decision tool that needs their approval on four things: 1. story spine 2. visual and directing language 3. credit and role accuracy 4. finance and Cannes meeting posture The biggest internal risk is different for each person: - **Ronny** may react emotionally to whether the deck understands his film, his family/community world, his scene anchors, and his role as writer, producer, and Vincent. - **Nicholas** may scrutinise whether the visual language, director framing, and George Miller reference feel accurate, owned, and sophisticated enough. - **Aya** may test whether the deck is useful in Cannes, credible on finance, clear on partner strategy, and practical enough for follow-up. Recommended framing before showing the deck: > This is a screenplay-first Cannes package, not final design. I want to pressure-test whether the spine, visual direction, credits, finance assumptions, and Cannes asks are accurate enough before it goes wider. ## 2. Internal presentation objective Do not try to impress them with every slide. The goal is to extract decisions: 1. Does this feel like THE BAKER? 2. Is Fredric and the house the right centre? 3. Is the visual direction accurate enough for Nicholas? 4. Are Ronny, Nicholas, Aya, and Tracey credited correctly? 5. Can we state Ronny as Vincent? 6. Can we state Nicholas as director? 7. Which finance numbers can survive a Cannes conversation? 8. Which Cannes meetings are highest priority? 9. What needs to be removed, softened, or held back? 10. What does the designer need next? ## 3. Best internal route if all three are in the room Use this route for a 35 to 45 minute internal review. ### Slide route 1. Cover 2. The Bargain 4. The Fault Line 5. The Opening Wound 6. The House 7. Fredric 8. Ronny's Scene Anchors 9. How the Film Works 10. Visual Direction 11. The Church 13. Magda 14. Director 15. Ronny 16. Producers 17. Cast Strategy 18. Audience 22. Finance Structure 23. Australian Offset Model 24. Target Stack 25. Finance Questions by Counterparty 28. Cannes Conversation Map 29. Close ### Why this route works - Ronny sees that his film is being understood through his scenes. - Nicholas sees the visual and directing problem early enough to comment. - Aya gets to finance and Cannes utility before the meeting becomes purely creative. - The team can correct facts before external circulation. ### Suggested timing - 10 minutes: story spine and Fredric - 8 minutes: scene anchors and visual direction - 7 minutes: Nicholas, Ronny, producers, cast - 10 minutes: finance and Cannes asks - 10 minutes: decisions and corrections ## 4. Opening script for the internal meeting Use this almost verbatim. > I want to show this as a working Cannes package, not as final design. The purpose today is to test whether it does justice to the screenplay, whether the visual language is accurate, whether everyone is credited correctly, and whether the finance model is safe enough to use as a planning conversation. I am going to move quickly. Please stop me where something feels wrong, too soft, too hard, too revealing, or too far ahead of the facts. Then add: > I have kept the deck centred on Fredric and the house. The old deck's useful visual direction has been brought back, but the positioning has been rebuilt from the screenplay and Ronny's own scene anchors from the call. ## 5. Stress test for Ronny ## 5.1 What Ronny needs to feel Ronny needs to feel: - the deck understands the screenplay - the deck does not flatten it into a generic crime film - the family and community world are respected - his scene anchors are honoured - Fredric is tragic, guilty, loving, compromised, and human - Magda is a true opposing force, not just a supporting character - Ronny is visible as writer, producer, and Vincent - the Cannes package gives him confidence to hand the deck to a designer ## 5.2 Ronny's likely positive reactions He is likely to respond well to: - the logline centring Fredric, clean legacy, and the house - “Fredric wants the house to remember him clean” - “Almost all great men are bad men” - Ronny's Scene Anchors - Holy Communion and the white dress connection - Redemption versus revenge - Magda carrying continuity - Ronny as writer, producer, and Vincent - the Australian Offset model, because it reflects his WhatsApp explanation ## 5.3 Ronny's likely objections or pressure points ### Objection 1: “Is this too dark? Where is the love and resilience?” Risk: The deck is morally strong, but it may understate family warmth, food, humour, noise, generosity, and love. Ronny may want the family bond to be more present. Answer script: > That is a good correction. The deck is deliberately built around the moral engine, but we can bring more warmth into the Communion, bread, and family-life language. The darkness lands harder if the audience feels what the family is trying to protect. Possible deck adjustment later: - Add one warmer sentence to The House or Ronny's Scene Anchors. - Example: “The house is also food, children, noise, pride, laughter, and love, which is why its corruption hurts.” ### Objection 2: “Are we spoiling too much?” Risk: The deck mentions hidden bloodline, Vincent, and the house's final continuity. Ronny may worry about revealing too much to cast, sales, or partners. Answer script: > For internal and finance conversations, I think we need the full tragic shape. For external versions, we can create a cleaner version that protects the Vincent reveal and the ending. The master deck can hold the truth. The send-out deck can hold back the twist. Decision needed: > How much of Vincent and the bloodline can appear in the market-facing deck? ### Objection 3: “Fredric is not only bad.” Risk: The quote slide uses “Almost all great men are bad men.” Ronny may love the quote but still want Fredric's tenderness, age, illness, grief, and love protected. Answer script: > The quote is there because it is in the script and because it gives the deck moral charge. But the surrounding slides have to keep Fredric human. If the balance feels too judgemental, we can add more of his love and exhaustion into Fredric's slide. Possible deck adjustment later: - Change one Fredric card line to carry tenderness and illness more strongly. ### Objection 4: “Where is the action and scale?” Risk: The deck centres the house and family more than cartel mechanics, Lebanon action, or the General. Answer script: > I have kept the crime machinery inside the house because that is what makes this feel distinct. But the wedding-night escape and Lebanon origin are there. If you want more action proof, we can add a one-slide set-piece appendix without making the deck feel like a generic crime package. Possible deck adjustment later: - Add an optional “Set Pieces” annex, not necessarily in the main flow. ### Objection 5: “Do we need named cast in the deck?” Risk: Ronny may want Tony, Daniela, Hiam, or other names visible to show ambition. Answer script: > The current deck keeps the cast strategy role-based so we do not overstate access. We can create a private cast-target insert for meetings where names help, but I would avoid putting names in the main PDF until access and permission are clearer. Decision needed: > Which names are safe to use in a private Cannes version, and which must stay internal? ## 5.4 Ronny-specific decision questions Ask Ronny directly: 1. Does the logline feel like the film? 2. Are the three scene anchors accurate to what you want partners to see? 3. Is the Fredric and Magda axis right? 4. Can we mention Ronny as Vincent in the deck? 5. Can we mention the hidden bloodline in external materials? 6. Do we need more warmth, humour, or family life before the darker slides? 7. Which cast names are safe to use privately? 8. What is the current budget and schedule? ## 6. Stress test for Nicholas ## 6.1 What Nicholas needs to feel Nicholas needs to feel: - the deck respects his creative authority - visual direction has not been reduced to decoration - the film's form is being described with precision - his director status is worded accurately - the George Miller reference is useful but not reductive - the visual direction taken from the old deck still feels like his intention - the finance model does not dictate form before the film is designed ## 6.2 Nicholas's likely positive reactions He may respond well to: - the house as a machine of ritual and consequence - sacred ritual and violence moving together - grandeur with decay - chiaroscuro location language - Holy Communion as immersive and alive - cross-cutting as moral grammar - the idea that pressure, movement, and choices echo across generations - the director slide framing the film as a formal challenge ## 6.3 Nicholas's likely objections or pressure points ### Objection 1: “The George Miller reference is too reductive.” Risk: The Director slide says his George Miller lineage matters. That can be useful commercially, but Nicholas may dislike being framed through someone else's brand. Answer script: > I agree this has to be handled carefully. The point is not to define you through George. The point is to communicate to market people that the film has craft lineage around pressure, movement, and consequence. If it feels reductive, we can change the sentence. Possible deck adjustment later: Current: > His George Miller lineage matters because the screenplay is built from pressure, movement, visual logic, and choices that echo across generations. Softer option: > His work across performance, dramaturgy, and large-scale screen storytelling matters because the screenplay is built from pressure, movement, visual logic, and choices that echo across generations. ### Objection 2: “Visual direction is too prescriptive before prep.” Risk: The Visual Direction slide states Baroque Catholic weight, Phoenician memory, chiaroscuro, and cross-cutting. Nicholas may see this as useful but too fixed. Answer script: > This is intended as a market-facing articulation of direction, not a locked shot plan. If you want, we can soften the language to “visual approach” or “directional principles” and leave room for your final director's statement. Decision needed: > Does Nicholas want this slide to be a director's statement, a visual approach slide, or a production-design prompt? ### Objection 3: “Phoenician memory may feel decorative or vague.” Risk: “Phoenician memory” came from the old deck. It can be evocative, but Nicholas may want more exact language. Answer script: > That phrase came from the old visual direction. We kept it because it points to Lebanon's ancient weight and the estate's self-mythology. If it feels too vague or ornamental, we can replace it with more grounded language around Lebanese stone, Catholic iconography, family photographs, and diaspora wealth. Possible deck adjustment later: > The Barakat estate draws from Catholic iconography, Lebanese stone, family photographs, and diaspora wealth. ### Objection 4: “The deck over-explains theme.” Risk: Nicholas may prefer images and contradictions over explanatory moral language. Answer script: > That is the right creative pressure. For Cannes, the deck needs enough language to open finance and sales conversations. But if any slide feels too explanatory, we can strip it down and let the image or scene do more work. Likely slides to review with Nicholas: - The Fault Line - Fredric - The Church - Magda - Visual Direction ### Objection 5: “Director credit is ahead of the paperwork.” Risk: The cover says “Directed by Nicholas Lathouris.” The call note says status needs confirmation. Answer script: > We stated it strongly because Ronny framed you as the intended director and creative driver. Before external circulation, we need your preferred wording. We can keep “Directed by” if that is accurate, or change to “Director attached,” “Intended director,” or “Co-writer and intended director.” Decision needed: > What exact director wording is safe for Cannes materials? ## 6.4 Nicholas-specific decision questions Ask Nicholas directly: 1. Is the visual direction accurate? 2. Should the deck say “Directed by Nicholas Lathouris” or softer language? 3. Does the George Miller reference help or reduce the pitch? 4. Should “Phoenician memory” stay, or should it become more grounded design language? 5. Is cross-cutting as moral grammar the right way to describe the film's form? 6. Should we add a short Nicholas director statement? 7. Which three images would he want the deck or designer to prioritise? 8. What should never be said about the film in Cannes? ## 7. Stress test for Aya ## 7.1 What Aya needs to feel Aya needs to feel: - the deck is usable in Cannes meetings - it does not take too long to get to finance and partner logic - her producer role is visible and not limited to MENA access - the finance model is conditional enough to be safe - the regional strategy is practical - cast, distribution, and financing are connected - the deck creates clear follow-up tasks ## 7.2 Aya's likely positive reactions She may respond well to: - the deck being modular - the finance cases instead of one fixed budget - the Australian Offset model - the partner-path slide - MENA being framed as cast, services, equity, visibility, and distribution - Cannes Conversation Map - the annex questions - keeping the deck designer-ready but still strategic ## 7.3 Aya's likely objections or pressure points ### Objection 1: “This is too long for Cannes.” Risk: The deck has 29 main slides plus annex. Aya may worry about usability. Answer script: > Agreed. This is the master PDF and leave-behind. For live meetings, we should not present it linearly. I have mapped short routes by counterparty, and we can create a 10-slide live version if needed. Decision needed: > Does Aya want one master PDF only, or a master plus a short live-meeting version? ### Objection 2: “The finance numbers may sound too certain.” Risk: Slides 22 to 24 include AUD 8.5M, AUD 10.5M, AUD 12.5M, QAPE, offset, and cashflow assumptions. Aya may want more caution. Answer script: > The numbers are planning cases. The deck language says model, projected, planning, and test. But if you think the room may over-read the numbers, we can add a clearer footnote: subject to QAPE modelling, Screen Australia certification, lender terms, and final production structure. Possible deck adjustment later: - Add one small note to Finance Structure or Australian Offset Model. ### Objection 3: “MENA value needs more specificity.” Risk: The deck describes MENA lanes but does not name territories, commissions, platforms, or cast pathways. Answer script: > The main deck keeps MENA broad because we do not yet have territory assumptions or content-sensitivity feedback. The annex asks the right questions. The next deliverable should be a MENA partner sheet by country, cast dependency, sensitivity, and finance route. Decision needed: > Which MENA territories should be treated as priority for Cannes conversations? ### Objection 4: “Aya's producer role is too narrow.” Risk: The Producers slide says Aya leads the Cannes-facing regional and co-production conversation. It is positive, but it may risk reading as regional-only. Answer script: > If that feels too narrow, we should revise it. The intention is to show you as a producer leading partner strategy across finance, cast, regional value, and co-production, not only as a regional connector. Possible deck adjustment later: Current: > Aya leads the Cannes-facing regional and co-production conversation, connecting finance, MENA value, cast, and partner strategy. Stronger option: > Aya leads Cannes-facing producer strategy across finance, co-production, regional value, cast, and partner conversations. ### Objection 5: “We need the current budget and schedule before using this.” Risk: The deck has credible modelling, but current production facts are still missing. Answer script: > Yes. The deck can open conversations, but the follow-up package needs the current budget, schedule, Australian spend, Lebanon or regional spend, QAPE estimate, and chain-of-title summary. Decision needed: > Who is responsible for sending the current budget, schedule, and QAPE assumptions? ## 7.4 Aya-specific decision questions Ask Aya directly: 1. Is this useful in actual Cannes meetings? 2. Should we make a shorter 10-slide version? 3. Which meeting lane is highest priority: Australia, France, MENA, sales, or cast? 4. Does the deck describe Aya's producer role correctly? 5. Which MENA territories and partners should the deck support first? 6. What finance numbers are safe to say aloud? 7. What should be held for follow-up rather than shown in the deck? 8. What materials do you need from us before Cannes? ## 8. Stress test if Ronny, Nicholas, and Aya disagree in the room ## 8.1 Likely conflict: Ronny wants emotion, Aya wants utility, Nicholas wants precision Risk: The meeting could pull in three directions. How to chair it: > Let's separate the three questions. First, does the deck understand the film? Second, is the directing and visual language accurate? Third, is it useful for Cannes? We do not need one slide to solve all three at once. ## 8.2 Likely conflict: Ronny wants bigger cast ambition, Aya wants finance realism How to chair it: > We can separate private target lists from public deck language. The main deck can stay role-based while the meeting insert carries names where access is live. ## 8.3 Likely conflict: Nicholas resists market simplification How to chair it: > The deck needs to simplify enough for market meetings, but it should not simplify falsely. Let's mark any line that feels false, then decide whether to sharpen, soften, or remove it. ## 8.4 Likely conflict: finance detail slows creative approval How to chair it: > We only need creative approval on the story and visual slides today. Finance assumptions can go to the accountant and producer contacts after we confirm the current budget and schedule. ## 9. Biggest red flags before showing them ### Red flag 1: Director credit certainty The cover says: > DIRECTED BY NICHOLAS LATHOURIS This may be correct, but the call note says exact status needs confirmation. Recommendation: - Present it internally as a question for confirmation. - Before external circulation, verify the exact wording. ### Red flag 2: Ronny as Vincent The cover and Ronny slide state Ronny as Vincent Karam. Recommendation: - Confirm whether this is locked, preferred, or flexible. - Confirm whether it helps or complicates finance and cast strategy. ### Red flag 3: Vincent reveal and hidden bloodline The deck reveals material that may be too much for a public deck. Recommendation: - Make an internal master and an external market version if needed. ### Red flag 4: Aya's role could be broadened The current Aya line is useful but may be too region-coded. Recommendation: - Ask Aya whether she wants broader producer language. ### Red flag 5: Finance numbers need factual backup The model is credible as a planning case, but it needs budget, schedule, QAPE, Screen Australia pathway, and lender feedback. Recommendation: - Keep all finance language conditional. - Add a stronger footnote if Aya wants extra safety. ### Red flag 6: Visual direction may need Nicholas's authorship The Visual Direction slide imports useful old-deck material, but Nicholas should approve or rewrite it. Recommendation: - Ask Nicholas for a short director statement or visual statement. ## 10. Recommended changes after this stress test These are recommendations only. Do not apply until the team has reacted. ### High priority 1. Confirm credit wording for Nicholas, Ronny, Aya, and Tracey. 2. Ask Nicholas to approve or revise the Visual Direction slide. 3. Ask Ronny whether Vincent and bloodline material can appear externally. 4. Ask Aya whether her producer card should be broader. 5. Add a clearer finance footnote if Aya wants more caution. 6. Create a short 10-slide live version for Cannes if Aya wants one. ### Medium priority 1. Add a little warmth to The House or Ronny's Scene Anchors. 2. Create a private cast-target insert. 3. Create a MENA partner sheet by territory and sensitivity. 4. Create a Nicholas visual statement insert. 5. Create an external spoiler-light version. ## 11. Recommended internal close End the presentation with a decision list rather than open discussion. Say: > I need decisions on five things before this goes wider: the logline, Nicholas's exact credit, Ronny as Vincent and spoiler level, Aya's producer wording, and which finance numbers are safe as planning cases. Once those are settled, we can prepare the designer handoff and the Cannes meeting versions. Then ask: 1. What is approved? 2. What is wrong? 3. What needs softer wording? 4. What needs stronger wording? 5. What cannot leave the room? 6. What must be ready for Cannes follow-up? ## 12. Final assessment The deck should work with Ronny if he feels the family, the Communion movement, and the redemption versus revenge axis are honoured. The deck should work with Nicholas if he is given authority over the visual language and exact director wording. The deck should work with Aya if it becomes a practical Cannes tool with clear routes, safe finance language, and defined follow-up materials. Best internal posture: > This is the strongest version of the package so far, but the team now needs to correct it before the market does.