The four examples from last week just weren’t enough for me. So I’d like to share three more examples, except this time, they’re written by aspiring screenwriters, a few people who I think represent the next generation of cinematic storytellers.
Some day, guys, some day, a professional in the biz will say to you, “when I was reading your script, I could totally picture this on the screen.” And you will thank your old friend Mystery Man for all those damn articles about visual storytelling. Hehehe…
Hope you enjoy them.
-MM
----------------------------------------------
First, a scene from a script that marked my 100th TriggerStreet review. It’s written by our longtime friend Mickey Lee Bukowski. If you were to mix a little bit of James Bond and Indiana Jones and throw this new character into a 1944 a British commando team battling the Nazis, you’ll get a big script called Operation: Atomic Blitzand a protagonist by the name of Garrett Davies. Great, great fun. It’s entertaining how Mickey Lee plays with action genre expectations while also giving us the hero’s arc in the protagonist IN AN ACTION MOVIE, which is unusual (and welcome), especially in a franchise-starter.
In this scene, the commando team is storming a German castle. (A little background, the castle is still partially in ruins from an earlier scene, which is why there are lots scaffolding. There’s also a little ribbing about Garrett having once tried to steal the Crown Jewels. He was a bad thief given a second chance by joining this commando team.) I love the way Mickey cuts back and forth between the smoking guard on the main platform and Garrett on the scaffolding.
And the gag is priceless.
EXT. GRAND TOWER BASE - NIGHT
Rubble from the original grand tower litters the beach. The Partisans take cover behind the larger stones.
The tower itself is a nest of scaffolding growing up from the beach all the way to the very top of the castle. Guards walk the upper platforms.
Garrett, Johanna, Hamlet and Ophelia crouch behind a large stone.
GARRETT You sure you want to do this?
JOHANNA Who else is going to disable the bomb?
HAMLET Don’t bother arguing with women, Garrett. You just end up married to them.
Ophelia gives him a look.
GARRETT Cover me, Hamlet.
Ophelia unzips a bag, pulls out a huge sniper rifle. Lines up the sights, pulls back the bolt, readies to aim.
HAMLET And now you know why I don’t argue.
Garrett nods, waits for the spotlight to pass, darts across the beach to the
SCAFFOLDING
Garrett climbs the lower scaffolds with cat-like agility. He leaps silently from one platform to the next.
MAIN PLATFORM
A SMOKING GUARD walks back and forth, stops to enjoy the beach. Hears something. Looks down the side to check. Sees nothing.
SCAFFOLDING
Garrett looks up -- too high to climb. He takes a grapple and rope from his shoulder. Balances it. Looks up at the next platform. Swings the grapple, lets it loose.
It catches. Garrett gives it a tug. Not stable. Curious, he tugs it again. Tries to climb, but it’s not secure.
MAIN PLATFORM
Smoking Guard struggles to stand, the grapple tied around his neck. The rope inches him toward the platform edge.
SCAFFOLDING
Garrett yanks harder and harder on the rope.
Seconds later, Smoking Guard topples off the platform, screaming.
The rope catches around a beam, acts as a pulley sending Garrett up to the Main Platform. Garrett catches onto the ledge, lets go of the rope.
Smoking Guard plummets to his death, hits all the scaffolding on the way down.
German Guards on the upper platforms look over to see their comrade fall to his doom.
Spotlights zero in on the scaffolding. An ALARM sounds.
ON THE BEACH
Hamlet and Johanna share a look.
HAMLET The Crown Jewels, eh?
He stands, signals his Partisans.
HAMLET (in Danish) Take them down!
Gunfire erupts between the Partisans and the Guards on the scaffolding…
----------------------------------------------
Second, a scene taken from the completely visual screenplaywritten by another longtime friend,Bob Thielke. This writer found himself so inspired by Jennifer van Sijll's book, Cinematic Storytellingthat he wrote for himself, just as a creative exercise, a nearly dialogue-free screenplay just to practice the art of telling a story through visuals. The result is a script called 99 Luft Balloons. It’s a story about a couple separated by a big ugly wall and the protagonist, Albert Schaff, dresses like a clown and floats over the wall with a bunch of balloons to be with the one he loves. It’s really moving, actually.
In this scene, toward the end of Act 2, Albert’s at the job office (where he’s paid to be a clown for parties) and he just realized that the balloons won’t work. He goes to tell them he doesn't want to be a clown anymore. At the beginning of the scene, he's small and in the background (feeling diminished) until he realizes that they need him to do the birthday party for the chancellor's kid. He sees this as his possible escape and he moves up to the desk and towers over the poor little clerk who is now the diminished one.
This is brings to mind the scene in Citizen Kane, which I wrote about here, where Kane, having just learned from his guardian, Thatcher, that the crash of ’29 wiped out his estate, paces along the Z-Axis and walks from the foreground to the background and back to the foreground again. Orson Welles communicated visually without one word of dialogue that Kane had returned to a state of boyhood. Great!
Ironically enough, in Bob’s script, which was virtually dialogue-free, this is one of the few scenes that actually has dialogue.
Anyway, hope you enjoy it:
INT. MINISTRY OF LABOR – DAY
Albert sits in his usual chair at the far end of the office, submissive look on his face.
The Clerk sits down and taps his pencil repeatedly.
CLERK Now you’re telling me you don’t want to be a clown? You are the most difficult person I’ve ever had to deal with.
Albert hangs his head in shame.
CLERK Your skills for office work are negligible, you’re too frail for manual labor, and you show no aptitude for technical skills.
Shrinking down in his chair, Albert looks away, feeling even smaller.
CLERK But, I do have some interesting news, if you’d care to hear.
Albert straightens up as his curiosity is piqued.
CLERK I don’t know how you did it, but the Chancellor wants to hire you to entertain at his son’s birthday in two months.
Albert is duly impressed.
CLERK There will be at least one hundred children there.
Albert, oblivious to the world, adds digits using his figures.
CLERK You realize what an honor this is. But you also realize that if you turn this down or mess this up, we’ll both be in huge trouble. I for one don’t care to visit Siberia anytime soon.
ALBERT They’ve got to have balloons, huge balloons.
CLERK What?
ALBERT The children. They’ll want to have balloons.
CLERK What concern is that of mine?
ALBERT If they don’t have balloons, they won’t be happy. If they’re not happy, I can’t imagine the Chancellor will be happy either.
The clerk comes to attention and scrambles to find a pencil.
CLERK What’s a party without balloons? How big do you want them?
----------------------------------------------
And finally, here’s a scene from a script that’s still in the works by our good friend Pat (GimmeABreak)who has participated in almost every study on our blog. When I posted the Write the Shotsarticle, Pat shared a scene from her script and I just loved it. This captures exactly what we mean by writing the shots. Good job, Pat.
INT. CELLAR – NIGHT
It's black.
Sounds of stilettos on a concrete floor.
A yellowed florescent light sputters to life.
Jack struggles against the chains that have him pinned to the wall.
The black leather hood lies next to a rubber mallet on a nearby rickety old table. A piece of duct tape covers his mouth.
LACY (O.S.) How's it feel, asswipe?
Lacy, clad in the same scanty ensemble as earlier, approaches Jack.
In one hand, a
BIG FUCKIN' KNIFE, dripping with blood.
In the other, a Dove ice cream bar.
Jack, eyes wide, stares at the knife in horror.
LACY Recognize this? One of your favorites, I believe.
She slices the buttons from his shirt with the tip of the very sharp blade as Jack, petrified, watches the last one fall in slow motion.
She spreads his shirt open with the knife tip to reveal the location where most of the hair from his head has migrated.
She gives him the once-over.
LACY You're such a liar. Furry AND flabby. Yuck.
She tickles the tip of one of his nipples with the sharp edge of the knife. He flinches and issues a muffled cry as the blade scrapes the sensitive flesh.
Lacy giggles, teases the Dove bar with her tongue and jerks the knife upward with a quick flick of her wrist. Behind the gag, Jack screams.
LACY I'd say payback's a bitch but I think you used that one. In Gruesome Twosome, I think. Or was it Hammered? I forget. They all just kind of melt into one.
She sets the ice cream bar on the table (where it sizzles like a steak on a grill), grabs a handful of chest hair and, wielding the knife like a straight razor, dry-shaves the patch. Jack's cries become louder and more high-pitched.
Jack watches with fear as a
FEMALE HAND
retrieves the mallet from the table. His fear becomes terror when he follows the hand up the
ARM
Across the
SHOULDER AND NECK
to
KITTY'S FACE.
She stares at Jack, licks the back of her free hand and, in a sweeping motion, wipes it across her forehead and back across her hair before looking at Lacy with a nod.
Lacy positions the tip of the knife just so in the bare patch on Tom's chest.
Kitty aims the mallet at the end of the knife handle.
As though she were Hank Aaron setting up for a series-winning home run, she raises the mallet like a baseball bat.
LACY Well, girlfriend, let's see if there's anything worth keeping in this fat tub of goo.
The mallet smashes the knife handle with bone-crushing force to the sounds of:
EXT. KITTY'S APARTMENT - DAY
METAL GARBAGE CANS being tossed to the sidewalk of the house next door.
My apologies to Evan Astrowski (pictured above). My sincere, heartfeltapologiesto Evan. I don’t know how Blogger chooses the preview pic. Rest assured, dear readers, that Evan’s a smart guy, respected by all, and any news video that includes him is most certainly worthy of your time. Hehehe…
Anyway, above is the latest episode of Dana Brunetti’s TriggerStreet TV, which covers industry news, trends, and topics.
"Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it." – C.S. Lewis
"Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self." – Cyril Connolly
Eight Decades of Oscar Winning Screenplays “If you’re a screenwriter, or even remotely interested in screenwriting, watching the films that have won an Oscar in a writing category, and reading the screenplays would be beneficial. Watching these films and reading the screenplays is a study in screenwriting mastery. It’s also a good idea to read the books on which the adapted screenplays are based. I reviewed all the winners over the past eighty years and put together a list showcasing my favorite screenplays from each decade.”
Are Oscars Worth All This Fuss? “Like anyone else I’m glad when my favorites win and dismayed when they fall short. So I am not against the Oscars, any more than I’m dismissive of the Salesman of the Year or the Employee of the Month, or opposed to lavish annual trade association conventions for actuaries or ophthalmologists. But I am nonetheless bothered by the disproportionate importance that the Academy Awards have taken on, and by the distorting influence they exercise over the way we make, market and see movies in this country. The Oscars themselves may be harmless fun, but the idea that they matter is as dangerous as it is ridiculous.”
Oscar-nominated writers went deep in portrayals “Character is destiny. Score one for Heraclitus, whose succinct aphorism seems especially apt in describing screenwriters' path to the Oscars this year. While taut plotting and visual ingenuity were certainly in abundance in this year's crop of nominated screenplays, it is the writers' compassionate, three-dimensional depictions of the flawed and fearsome, the courageous and resourceful, the bereft and bruised, that most beckoned for reward. It may seem a facile thing to say, for what story doesn't live or die on the relatable nature of its characters and their actions? But at a time when a battered world cries out for an understanding of humans' most troubling motivations, these deep investigations into the jagged and tender parts of us resonated in the collective psyche with perfect pitch.”
25 biggest Oscar snubs ever John August on Writing Shorts “The hero’s fundamental problem/challenge/obstacle needs to occur by the time you get to the 1/3rd mark. So, if your short is meant to be three minutes long, the big event needs to happen on page one. If it’s a 10-minute short, it happens around page three. It’s not that you’re worried about your reader getting bored before then — if you can’t entertain us for three pages, there’s a problem — but rather that if you delay any longer, your story is going to feel lopsided: too much setup for what was accomplished.” (Is it any coincidence this posted shortly after we finished our script full of20 love shorts?)
Unk on Zhura “Got an email today fromZhura.comasking me to take a tour of their new online screenwriting tool… I was on it for maybe less than 10 minutes and it’s actually not too bad. Fast and easy to navigate through.” (Yeah, I got that same e-mail from Jennifer. She was nice. It’s a free web-based screenwriting software. I haven’t seen any free screenwriting software that yet makes the cut in terms of professionalism. I’m curious to see how this one does.)
Danny Stack on Critics “Professional critics. What are they for? What do they do? Seriously, I’m asking, because I’m getting a little bit fed up with them. As far as I can see, most criticism nowadays isn’t about the actual creative content that the writer is supposedly assessing. No. It seems it’s more to do with making the journalist look good with his smug and witty remarks, and being scathing or dismissive of whatever material it may be (TV show/film). They offer no insight or valid argument, and instead simply pass breezy judgement (or biting remarks about the leading celebrity) as they get on to the next preview. More worryingly, a lot of these so-called critics show no core understanding of the medium they’re reviewing, which leads to ill-informed remarks...”
Emily asksWhat's a screenplay for, anyway? “There's that old "blueprint" theory. It's a blueprint. It's a document for building your movie with all the pieces listed in clinical description so all the construction workers can follow along and do their part correctly under the watchful eye of the contractor. If the blueprint is off, the house will fall unless the contractor does some quick calculations on the spot to fix it. And if a construction worker decides to ignore the blue print he might create a cool new breakfast nook or an unstable support and the whole thing could come crashing down.”
“Here's a meaty Hitchcock website: Ken Mogg's 'The MacGuffin'. Mogg is the author of The Alfred Hitchcock Story.” (Thanks toGirish.)
For Scott Rudin, there will be quality “The producer makes only movies he believes in, and it's paid off this year with two best picture contenders... 'I look for a voice,' says Scott Rudin, on the Brooklyn set of his new project, The Reader.”
“David Mametis 'the greatest American playwright of his generation,' declares Jeremy McCarter, but Ira Nadel'sDavid Mamet: A Life in the Theatre isn't the biography we need: 'The definitive biography will need to cut more finely, separating not just successes from failure but success from success. Mamet has written a scathing play about sexual politics, Oleanna; the screenplay for a brilliant and (I'd wager) timeless political satire, Wag the Dog; and an uproarious courtroom farce, Romance. But these all pale next to American Buffaloand Glengarry Glen Ross.' What's more, 'the definitive Mamet biography will above all need to give a full accounting of his voice. Mamet, according to [Gregory] Mosher, 'worked the iambic pentameter out of the vernacular of the underclass.' For all the comparisons to [Harold] Pinter, there is nothing like Mamet's profane poetry in modern drama.'”(Thanks to GreenCine.)
"Fatih Akin, whose Head-On(2004) is one of the great films of the decade, returns to scour the same vexed ground of exile and migration in The Edge of Heaven,' writes Anthony Quinnin the Independent. 'His obsession with the relationship between Germany and Turkey (his roots lie in both) is becoming as intense as Sam Peckinpah's with the US and Mexico, only with less blood and whisky.' 'This is an intriguing, complex, beautifully acted and directed piece of work, partly a realist drama of elaborate coincidences, near-misses and near-hits, further tangled with shifts in the timeline - and partly an almost dreamlike meditation with visual symmetries and narrative rhymes,/ writes Peter Bradshawin the Guardian.”(Thanks to GreenCine.)
"At its best - and queasiest -The Counterfeitersasks disturbing questions more commonly found in the survivor literature of Primo LeviorBruno Bettelheimthan at the movies," writes Ella Taylorin the Voice. "Without resorting to the crassly relativist reversals in Paul Verhoeven's idiotic Black Book(treacherous resisters! sensitive Nazis! who knew?), [director and co-writer Stefan]Ruzowitzkyquietly asks what counts as moral behavior under fascism, and whether or not one's first duty is to survive." "Nominated for an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, The Counterfeiters manages to be devastating without a hint of sentimentality," writes Raphaela Weissmanin the New York Press. "Ruzowitzky's straightforward approach to this unusual story and cinematographer Benedict Neunfels's documentary-style immediacy transcend the now well-worn Holocaust genre, bringing another side of the tragedy into unflinching focus." (Thanks to GreenCine.)
Toy Story 3 Plot Revealed “Woody the cowboy and his toy-box friends are dumped in a day-care center after their owner, Andy, leaves for college.”
Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are to Be Entirely Reshot “Yet I’m hearing that just such a massive reshoot is what is on the table right now. And it’s not because of technical issues, unless you want to consider the lead kid actor and the script technical issues. Sources tell me that the suits at Legendary and Warner Bros are not happy with Max Records, the actor playing Max, the mischievous boy who is crowned King of the Wild Things. Worse than that, they don’t like the film’s tone and want to go back to the script drawing board, possibly losing the Spike Jonze/Dave Eggers script when they do it. Apparently the film is too weird and ‘too scary,’ and the character of Max is being seen as not likable.”
Two hundred word screenwriting competition! “And, speaking of short literary efforts, after the phenomenal success of the six word story I’m sure that many of you will be keen to write a three-minute short film synopsis for Jameson whiskey’s new screenwriting competition.”
How Much is Streaming Worth? “With the strike settled, the WGA won residuals for content streamed over the Internet beyond an "initialstreamingwindow" of 17 days (24 days for first-year shows). But how much is this still-new revenue stream worth? More important, how much will it be worth in the future?”
Let's Make a WGA Deal! “Jonathan Handel at Digital Media Law has an excellent summary of the WGA contract terms here. Critics and advocates of the deal will find much to digest. And certainly worth a careful read in anticipation of the start of negotiations by AFTRA and SAG.”
Hollywood and the internet: There will be blood “Sixty years have not done much to alter Tinseltown's instincts. As it prepares for its 80th Academy Awards this weekend, Hollywood is facing another new medium—the internet. Instead of using the web to get films to people, studios are still in the cabbage-rolling business: they use the web mostly as a medium to show dross, and just a handful of decent films. Yet, if the studios hope that by ignoring the web, Tinseltown can put off change, they are surely wrong (seearticle). Hollywood needs to confront the web—by embracing it.”
“Blonde Ambition is the number one moviein the Ukraine, where it took $253,008 in its opening weekend beating out Definitely, Maybe, Alvin and the Chipmunks and Oscar-nominated Atonement.”
I need to get this off my chest. I have a question for anyone who can answer it: What the hell is so wrong about There Will Be Blood?
Because I find the reaction from the critics perfectly maddening.
Let’s start with this quote from Roger Ebert’s review:
“
There Will Be Bloodis the kind of film that is easily called great. I am not sure of its greatness. It was filmed in the same area of Texas used by No Country for Old Men, and that is a great film, and a perfect one. ButThere Will Be Bloodis not perfect, and in its imperfections (its unbending characters, its lack of women or any reflection of ordinary society, its ending, its relentlessness) we may see its reach exceeding its grasp. Which is not a dishonorable thing.” I need to tackle this one-by-one.
On the word “perfect.”
Here’s a crazy notion - films will never be perfect. They will forever remain fallible creations that are just as human as their creators. And that, to me, has always been the beauty of this art form. So why the hell would a world-renowned, Pulitzer-prize winning critic call a film – any film - “perfect?” That might be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen Ebert publish. You critics do realize that Movie Mistakeshas listed 7 continuity errors in No Country For Old Men? That’s the most basic level of craftsmanship, is it not? Of course, the greatest films have continuity errors. Citizen Kane is listed as having 13. Godfather has 55. Does that make them any less great? Not at all. They’re all human films. But Ebert should’ve known better than to call any film, much less No Country, “perfect.” That’s absurd. (And ironically enough, Movie Mistakeshas yet to find one single mistake in There Will Be Blood. Not one. The only complaint they posted is that oil periodically splashed onto the camera lense. Big deal. I’m sure there are mistakes, although I’ve seen it twice and have not noticed any.)
On “it’s unbending characters.”
When did the characters ever “bend” in No Country? Can anyone tell me that? Let me quote Anthony Lane: “The movie charts no moral shift in Chigurh, or indeed in the men around him; all of them are set in stone from the beginning...” Exactly. Never once did Chigurh or Moss ever waver in their single-minded pursuits. (While you can’t say that Bell was “unwavering,” he consistently wavered until the very end.) Doesn’t all of this mean that the characters of No Country were flat and weak in their construction? They’re great characters, but in the debate about the best film in the land, they don’t measure up. It’s not essential to me that a character has an arc, but in great films, they ought to have depth. And critics should criticize weak characters. Stephen Hunter of the The Washington Postmay be the only one who did his job. He wrote, “You can't say it cuts to the chase. There was never anything to cut from to the chase. It's all chase, which means that it offers almost zero in character development. Each figure is given, a la standard thriller operating procedure, a single moral or psychological attribute and then acts in accordance to that principle and nothing else, without doubts, contradictions or ambivalence. Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), the laconic vet who finds the stash, is pure Stubbornness. His main pursuer, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem in Robert Wagner's haircut from "Prince Valiant"), is Death, without a pale horse. Subsidiary chaser Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) is Pride, or possibly Folly. Tommy Lee Jones appears in the role of Melancholy Wisdom; he's a lawman also trying to find Llewelyn but not very hard. He'd much rather address the camera and soliloquize on the sorry state of affairs of mankind, though if he says anything memorable, I missed it.”
Why would the critics heap so much praise onto a film with weak characters? I just don’t understand this. While Chigurh and Moss were one-note instruments in their pursuit of money, Daniel Plainview was a full orchestra whose pursuit of money sent him headlong into madness. Ebert pinned the right “unbending” criticism onto the wrong movie. And I would argue that Plainview did a hell of a lot of bending. He bent every time he negotiated. He made concessions to Eli when he bought the Sunday ranch. He made concessions to Bandey in order to get the pipeline through his land. He made an unspoken concession to H.W. and sent him off to a special school to get help, and thus, gave up his most valued prop to earn contracts. And when Daniel was forced to confess in the midst of his baptism that he had abandoned his child, he immediately bent again and had H.W. brought back home. And he bent even more to pay a teacher to stay with him.
On it’s “lack of women.”
This was a complaint that Manohla Dargis leveled against the film, too, which I never understood. Who the hell says that every great film must have lead female characters? Or male characters, for that matter? Blood, as we know, was primarily about the rise and fall of Daniel Plainview, but the subplots centered around relationships between fathers and sons and brothers. What’s wrong with that? Who said that you can’t write a story that’s only about fathers and sons and brothers? Why can’t critics judge a film for what it is and not what it isn’t? Why can’t they look at it on its own terms and not complain about the absence of, say, female characters, who were never part of the story in the first place? I read the script before seeing the film and my only (very minor) complaint about Blood are the ways in which so many other sides of Daniel were cut. He was an even richer character on the page than in the film. For instance, you’d learn that he was impotent, which, if you really think about it, explained an awful lot.
On “any reflection of ordinary society.”
Is he honestly suggesting that where he felt Blood faltered in this area, the Coens succeeded? Is he mad? Can anyone rationally say that the world the Coens created in No Country was ordinary? What the hell does that mean, anyway? As far as I’m concerned, Anderson succeeded quite well at verisimilitude – the appearance of truth.
On “it’s relentlessness.”
I may be in the minority here, but I didn’t exactly find Blood all that relentless. I found No Country wholly relentless. In fact, I don’t know why Chigurh’s Terminator-like relentlessness wasn’t a bigger complaint amongst critics. Wasn’t that implausible to some? I recall Ebert’s review of No Countryhaving a complaint about the transponder. I’m almost certain he had a spoiler warning and a logic question about that transponder and how Chigurh kept finding Moss. I took Ebert’s thoughts with me into the theater when I first saw the film. And now, as I want to reread those questions again, they are no longer in the review. I had no idea that Ebert revises his reviews after he publishes them. Isn’t that cheating? Maybe he got complaints.
On “it’s ending.”
I’m wildly confused on what is exactly Ebert’s complaint about the ending. Earlier in the review, he wrote, “It has scenes of terror and poignancy, scenes of ruthless chicanery, scenes awesome for their scope, moments echoing with whispers and an ending that in some peculiar way this material demands, because it could not conclude on an appropriate note -- there has been nothing appropriate about it. Those who hate the ending, and there may be many, might be asked to dictate a different one. Something bittersweet, perhaps? Grandly tragic? Only madness can supply a termination for this story.” And that’s exactly what Anderson gave us. Plainview was, as they say, non compos mentis. And the ending accomplished exactly what, as Ebert said, “this material demands.” And yet, the ending is a complaint.
It’s confounding to me that critics like Ebert and even James Berardinelliwould criticize the ending of Blood and call it “poorly focused,” and yet, they’d give a pass to the ending of No Country, an ending where a character talks about a dream that had no bearing whatsoever on the story. In the novel, this dream was nothing more than McCarthy hinting at what would be his next novel, “The Road,” “a post-apocalyptic novel about a father carrying the fire to keep his son alive in a world of desolation.” This is okay? At least the ending Anderson gives us was wholly rooted in his story.
Timothy Noah published an article in Slate called What’s Wrong With There Will Be Blood. I thought, “Finally, I’ll get some answers!” But there was not one word that I agreed with, not his complaints about the lack of “grand political themes” that he felt should have played out more (since when is the greatness of a film measured by its political themes?); its failure to answer the question “How does the world we live in work?” (this is a character study, not an economics class); how it’s “promisingly broad canvas shrinks” (the canvas was never broad but focused squarely on Daniel from beginning to end); that Plainview’s corruption was less defined as Joe Ross in the book (the reasons for Plainview’s corruption couldn’t have been more obvious); or finally, Noah’s belief that Plainview’s “evil” was “innate.” That’s not true. Plainview certainly wasn’t evil in the beginning so how did he wind up that way? It was not innate and Anderson never presented it that way.
But here’s the kicker:
Kathleen Murphy and Jim Emerson had a Greatness Debateabout Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance in There Will Be Blood. Kathleen beautifully reinforced my belief that people will embrace characters that are not sympathetic so long as they fascinate: “When I callPaul Thomas Anderson's movie something ‘new,’ I mean that he's working a kind of storytelling that doesn't really invite you in, but compels you to feel in your blood an awful process that is, as one reviewer aptly put it, both ‘sickening and elating.’ The unregenerate energy, call it a peculiarly American incubus, that has chosen to possess Daniel Plainview for a time finally leaves him empty and broken – ‘finished’ -- and moves on, seeking another vehicle for the dark, voracious appetite that is manifest destiny.”
But then she really fights passionately for Day-Lewis. She writes, “But Jim, Day-Lewis' performance is necessarily operatic, over-the-top, designed to be a ‘goddamn helluva show.’ His Daniel Plainview isn't small, and he is an authentic American monster. He's blood-kin to Ahab, whose obsession with a white whale mirrors Plainview's hunger for the oil that runs in the earth's veins. Day-Lewis takes this black-hearted creature inside him, and lets him burn his way out. This takes courage, or a kind of madness, a willingness to act out on the grand scale. Isn't your argument for the craftiness and calculation of his creation precisely the criticism -- all art, not heart -- that's been leveled against the Coens' No Country for Old Men, a film we both admire? You say, ‘Here is a moral tale of one greedy and misanthropic bastard, a moral gnat played with grand flapping flourishes by a big actor.’ I believe Day-Lewis plays the hell out of a ‘greedy and misanthropic bastard,’ never once stepping outside his character to invite sympathy or empathy. What's ‘moral’ got to do with it? Plainview embodies D.H. Lawrence's description of the ‘black, masterless’ men who invaded the New World: ‘The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.’ The thrumming I hear in the very ground and air of TWBB grows out of Lawrence's insight that, from its founding, ‘America [was] tense with latent violence and resistance.’ We're talking metaphysics here, the stuff that made this country, dream and nightmare.”
And how does Jim Emerson respond? He says, “I have to tell you, Kathleen, when it comes to watching Day-Lewis, I fully acknowledge one fundamental reality over which I have very little conscious or rational control: I do not like him, Sam I Am. I do not like him in a hat, I do not like him with a bat. That response is almost autonomic.”
That might qualify as the most intellectually vapid statement any “critic” has ever said about an esteemed actor like Daniel Day-Lewis. It is offensive to my sensibilities that a man who fancies himself as a fill-in for Roger Ebert will totally dismiss a performance simply because he doesn’t like the actor. I say strip this man of his credentials and find another fill-in for Ebert, because Emerson clearly lacks the capacity to be objective about the true merits of a performance. This kind of automatic, knee-jerk dismissal of a celebrated actor is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty and it’s about as childish as the Dr. Seuss rhymes he used to back up his point.
But, to his credit, he gave one example:
“The movie's (black) heart is the speech Plainview gives to his presumed long-lost brother Henry, about how little use he has for people and how much he hates them. It's a breakthrough moment for Plainview, as he allows Henry into his confidence and his business: ‘I can't keep doing this on my own ... with these ... people.’ And then he laughs, dryly and too loud. It's too, too much: first the contemptuously pregnant pause, then the overemphasis on his disgust with the word ‘people,’ and finally that gilding-the-lily laugh. All Day-Lewis leaves out is the dastardly Snidely Whiplash twirl of his mustache… Day-Lewis shoves me right out of the movie. The emotional void, the disgust, the bitterness -- they're all qualities Plainview also exhibits, but he's a better salesman. If Plainview is trying to bond with his brother over whiskey and misanthropy, or to test Henry to see if he shares Daniel's all-consuming envy and entitlement (‘If it's in me, it's in you’), the oilman and the actor are overselling it egregiously. And that's the fatal miscalculation of this film and this performance: Day-Lewis isn't content to play this character; he stands apart from Plainview, judging him and telling us how we should feel about him, every step of the way. Plainview himself sucks the air out of any room he inhabits (even when he's outdoors), but I feel like Day-Lewis goes him one further, strutting and fretting to upstage his own character.”
I find the last few sentences wholly without merit. Day-Lewis undeniably embodied the man Daniel Plainview heart and soul. And I find any interpretation of Emerson’s about Day-Lewis’ performance in Blood to be worthless because, by his own admission, he doesn’t like the actor. But I do have a few of thoughts about this scene. I’ll grant Jim and Timothy Noah, who also complained about this moment, that it’s a weak scene. But the problem is not Day-Lewis. He played that scene as well as it could possibly be played. The problem is this weak on-the-nose writing, which usually transforms into bad acting even by great actors, and this is a great lesson learned for many aspiring writers. But is this weak scene truly fatal for the film?
When you compare this speech to Sheriff Bell’s dream, I’ll take “I hate most people” any day.
During my two-week hiatus (and inspired by Billy’s The Movie on the Page), I went through a few screenplays to find great examples of writing the shots. And I have four to share.
First, the opening scene from Hampton Fancher’s Blade Runner. He never used “we see” or camera angles, but his writing clearly implies with the Secondary Headingof “THE EYE” that the scene opens with an extreme close-up of an eye, which is essential to the story. His descriptions help visualize (without taking you out of the story by using technical jargon) that the camera would pan back to reveal that the eye is just an image on a screen. As we pan and see more of the mechanism, we’d learn an important detail by seeing the VOIGHT-KAMPFF words. The camera would keep panning back to reveal the desk and then pan around or perhaps cut to Leon. We’d first see his nametag and the folded, pudgy hands in his lap before we move up to his face. I love the way he carefully leads your mind's eye around the room through his simple descriptions. He goes from the extreme close-up of the eye to the mechanism on the table and over to Leon. Then there’s a cut to Holden, the man facing him, which reads like a medium shot. It’s not until after that cut that we’re even given a description of the room.
How many aspiring writers would start with just a general description of the room and try to use dialogue to get out the VOIGHT-KAMPFF information as well as the names of the two characters in the room? This is such a great, writing-the-shots example of cinematic storytelling. It’s the way Fancher is thinking like a filmmaker that’s impressive to me. [The result in the finished film (if you can ever call Blade Runner a “finished film”) is slightly different. The shots are all there, as described in the script, but Ridley Scott would open the film with a shot of the city and an approaching vehicle that’s flying toward the Tyrell building so that you could see Holden pacing in a window as he waits for Leon to show up. Then he cuts to the interior of the room. Leon walks in, and for some reason, Ridley uses a VOICE OVER to introduce him. A computerized female voice says something like: “Next subject: Kowalski, Leon.” Ugh, makes me cringe every time. Ridley should’ve listened to his screenwriter. It was far better on the page.]
INT. TYRELL CORPORATION LOCKER ROOM - DAY
THE EYE
It's magnified and deeply revealed. Flecks of green and yellow in a field of milky blue. Icy filaments surround the undulating center.
The eye is brown in a tiny screen. On the metallic surface below, the words VOIGHT-KAMPFF are finely etched. There's a touch-light panel across the top and on the side of the screen, a dial that registers fluctuations of the iris.
The instrument is no bigger than a music box and sits on a table between two men. The man talking is big, looks like an over-stuffed kid. "LEON" it says on his breast pocket. He's dressed in a warehouseman's uniform and his pudgy hands are folded expectantly in his lap. Despite the obvious heat, he looks very cool.
The man facing him is lean, hollow cheeked and dressed in gray. Detached and efficient, he looks like a cop or an accountant. His name is HOLDEN and he's all business, except for the sweat on his face.
The room is large and humid. Rows of salvaged junk are stacked neatly against the walls. Two large fans whir above their heads.
Second, here’s a scene written by Alex Proyas (with the help of David S. Goyer and Lem Dobbs) from their Dark Cityscreenplay, which became a four-star film, one of Ebert’s Great Movies. In fact, he once went through the movie shot-by-shot with film students in Hawaii. It took him four days. He wrote, “Proyas likes deep-focus compositions. Many interior spaces are long and narrow. Exteriors look down one street to the vanishing point, and then the camera pans to look down another street, equally long. The lighting is low-key and moody. The color scheme depends on blacks, browns, shadows and the pallor of the Strangers; warmer colors exist in human faces, in neon signs and on the billboard for Shell Beach. ‘I am simply grateful for this shot,’ I said in Hawaii more than once. ‘It is as well-done as it can possibly be.’ Many other great films give you the same feeling -- that their makers were carried far beyond the actual requirements of their work into the passion of creating something wonderful.”
Alex Proyas is a writer-director so this scene has some camera angles in it, which we would not write. It’s just as easy to say “SLEEPING EYES – between waves of light…” than “ANGLE ON SLEEPING EYES.” They both mean the same thing. Also, you could just as easily say “WALKER” instead of “TIGHT ON WALKER.” Instead of “P.O.V.”, you could write “He looks” and write “AROUND THE ROOM” as aSecondary Headingto imply a pan. In any case, I love the way he’s thinking visually here and begins this scene by moving the camera around the room, first with the glass syringe on the floor, over to the clothes on a chair, to the puddles of water, and up the tub to the sleeping eyes of Jonathan Walker. You can easily visualize the editing in this scene, too - where one shot ends and the next one begins.
INT. BATHROOM - NIGHT
SHADOWS DANCE - in and out of darkness. A hooded light-bulb swings IN SLOW MOTION from the ceiling, its dim light REVEALS:
A GLASS SYRINGE - broken on the floor.
Clothes on a chair...
Puddles of water on the floor...
ANGLE ON SLEEPING EYES - Between waves of light they snap open and dart about in confusion.
ON JONATHAN WALKER as he sits up. Water splashes. He's in a tub of long-cold water. His neck aches like he's been sleeping forever.
TIGHT ON WALKER - he's in his early thirties, dark featured.
HIS P.O.V. - looking around the room. Everything's strange, unfamiliar.
He stands, steps from the tub.
ANGLE - THE SWINGING LIGHT BULB. Walker's hand ENTERS FRAME, stops the bulb mid swing.
ON HIS REFLECTION in a cracked wall mirror. He moves to the mirror and looks at himself. A line of blood runs across his face, from a point between his eyes. He wipes it away, and notices a tiny pin-prick wound on his forehead.
WALKER'S P.O.V. PUSHES TOWARDS a circular window. The glass is cracked, covered in grime. His hand wipes it, this only smears the dirt, but the window is unlatched and swings open with a creak.
Here’s a sequence from Robert Towne’s Chinatown, a script that really deserves no introduction. This is my favorite sequence in this script in terms of screenwriting techniques. Reading this for the first time was such a revelation to me. I love the way Towne uses Secondary Headingsto cut back and forth between Gittes and Mulwray. In the hands of lesser writers, this sequence could have been a bear to read and follow. With a pro like Robert Towne, it’s simple, seamless, and visual. As far as I’m concerned, there was no other way to write this sequence.
L.A. RIVERBED - LONG SHOT
It's virtually empty. Sun blazes off it's ugly concrete banks. Where the banks are earthen, they are parched and choked with weeds.
After a moment, Mulwray's car pulls INTO VIEW on a flood control road about fifteen feet above the riverbed. Mulwray gets out of the car. He looks around.
WITH GITTES
holding a pair of binoculars, downstream and just above the flood control road -- using some dried mustard weeds for cover. he watches while Mulwray makes his way down to the center of the riverbed.
There Mulwray stops, tuns slowly, appears to be looking at the bottom of the riverbed, or -- at nothing at all.
GITTES
trains the binoculars on him. Sun glints off Mulwray's glasses.
BELOW GITTES
There's the SOUND of something like champagne corks popping. Then a small Mexican boy atop a swayback horse rides it into the riverbed, and into Gitte's view.
MULWRAY
himself stops, stands still when he hears the sound. Power lines and the sun are overhead, the trickle of brackish water at his feet.
He moves swiftly downstream in the direction of the sound, toward Gittes.
GITTES
moves a little further back as Mulwray rounds the bend in the river and comes face to face with the Mexican boy on the muddy banks. Mulwray says something to the boy.
The boy doesn't answer at first. Mulwray points to the ground. The boy gestures. Mulwray frowns. He kneels down in the mud and stares at it. He seems to be concentrating on it.
After a moment, he rises, thanks the boy and heads swiftly back upstream -- scrambling up the bank to his car.
There he reaches through the window and pulls out a roll of blueprints or something like them - he spreads them on the hood of his car and begins to scribble some notes, looking downstream from time to time.
The power lines overhead HUM.
He stops, listens to them -- then rolls up the plans and gets back in the car. He drives off.
GITTES
Hurries to get back to his car. He gets in and gets right back out. The steamy leather burns him. He takes a towel from the back seat and carefully places it on the front one. He gets in and takes off.
And finally, here’s the opening scene from The Long Kiss Goodnightby Shane Black. A number of elements I love about this scene. He has the camera panning from the windowpane over to the bed and to the eyes of the sleeping little girl who wakes up. It’s dark. The mother by the bed is just a vague shape. After a little dialogue, she turns on the nightlight, which brings a surprising visual revelation. And then we’re back to the mother by the bed and then back to same windowpane where we began. Perfect.
My man, Shane Black - I love his work.
A WINDOWPANE
Assaulted from without by SNOWFLAKES. Wind tossed.
INSIDE, a bed, dappled with moon shadow. A LITTLE GIRL, fast asleep. The wind whistles and sighs outside. She DREAMS... Eyelids closed, eyes roving beneath... then suddenly they SNAP open. A stifled cry. She thrashes for her STUFFED BEAR, as a soft voice says:
VOICE Shhhhh.
And there's MOM, kneeling beside her. Vague shape in the dimness. The full moon throws light across one sparkling eye.
LITTLE GIRL Mommy, the men on the mountain...!
MOM Shhhh. Gone, all gone now. (strokes her hair) I'm here. Mommy's always here and no one can ever hurt you. Safe now... safe and warm... snug as a bug in a rug. (beat) I'll sit with you, think you can sleep?
LITTLE GIRL Turn on the nightlight.
The mother nods. Passes her left hand gently over the girl's forehead.
MOM Close your eyes now. I love you.
The child subsides, breathing steady. Eyes closed. The mother rises. Regards her through the dimness. Slowly turns, heads for the door. Flicks on a Winnie the Pooh NIGHTLIGHT --
Her entire right forearm is slicked with blood. More blood on her Czech-made MP-5 machine gun.
She staggers just a little... barely noticeable. Passes out on the light. Into darkness. Sits beside her daughter's bed. The child sleeps peacefully. Outside snow slithers at the glass.
Above is the latest episode of Dana Brunetti’sTriggerStreet TV, which covers industry news, trends, and topics. Dana, as many of you know, is one of the founders of TriggerStreetand producerof four films coming out this year, including21with Kevin Spacey, Kate Bosworth, and Jim Sturgess. It opens March 28.
No more Best Of articles! I’ll be back with a vengeance this week - new articles, reviews, insights, and I’m sure, controversy! Woo hoo!
-MM
--------------------------------------
New Screenplays:
Pineapple Express- November 28, 2006 unspecified draft script by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg (story by Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg).
Domino- September 8, 2004 draft script by Richard Kelly.
Bob’s I Can Do It Better blog-a-thon in TWO WEEKS! 1. Please choose a well-known movie, book, painting, sculpture, speech, song, performance, or other manifestation of human artistic expression. 2. Describe how it fails to attain perfection. 3. Describe your remedy. 4. Publish the article on your blog between February 28th and March 2nd...
A year for hot movie scripts “Nevertheless, the quality of this year's Oscar-nominated movies gives him reasons to believe. ‘Good movies still get made, even with the profit ratio of the blockbusters that demand nothing more of you than your money. And with technology changing and access to movies widening, there'll be even more ways for writers like me to tell stories without being hampered by studios.’”
New Ideas Always Look Wrong at First “Here's an essay on what successful new ideas in software seem to have in common. Headline:good new ideas often look wrong.: ‘I like to find (a) simple solutions (b) to overlooked problems (c) that actually need to be solved, and (d) deliver them as informally as possible, (e) starting with a very crude version 1, then (f) iterating rapidly.’ These point all apply to screenwriting…”
3 leaked pages of Diablo’s Quotey You’ll also find notes written on the pages by “yours truly.” Now I’m disappointed that my copy of Jennifer’s Body didn’t have her notes…
Juno wasn’t Canadian enough “Swinging a little late on the pitch here, but the fact that Juno, the sharp delightful little dramedy that's all the buzz right now, wasn't eligible for Genie nominations is still nagging at me. As the Toronto Star's Peter Howell points out inthis article...it was shot in Canada, it was directed by a Canadian (Jason Reitman), and the two main leads (Ellen Page and Michael Cera) were Canadian. Yet because it was financed by Fox Searchlight out of the U.S., it didn't qualify. It wasn't Canadian enough.”
Presence and Absence: Towards a Working Conception of Screen Characters “It seems a little silly to speak of characters in films as if they possessed a full-bodied existence of their own. Unlike their counterparts in the novel (think of Anna Karenina, Isabel Archer, Leopold Bloom), the film character can never consist of more than a few defining quirks, a seemingly coherent (but ultimately simplistic) psychology and above all the presence of the actor. When we speak of a great performance by Marlon Brando, Robert DeNiro or Jack Nicholson (to name three of the more celebrated actors of the last fifty years), it is really this presence, so strongly pronounced in these unusually telegenic men, that are we referring to. In the most interesting work of the trio (Brando in Last Tango in Paris, De Niro in Taxi Driver and Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces), it is the commitment of the actors, the expression of a few unique personality traits and the ability to suggest a kind of deep-seated damage in the characters' psyches that accounts for any notion of "depth" we may read in the performances. To suggest that these creations transcend their essence as screen characters and partake of the same full-bodied existence as the best characters from literature is to (in one sense) overestimate the possibilities of the cinematic medium. Yet focusing so emphatically on character to the detriment of film's other capacities is to underestimate these possibilities as well.”
Great moments in 2007 screenwriting “There's so much sparkling dialogue in the movies nominated for best adapted screenplay and best original screenplay that the Academy could have doubled the number of nominations and still had plenty of worthy candidates left over. Here's a sampling of some of the best.” (As far as I’m concerned, the best line of ’07 was “I drink your milkshake!” Hehehe… I love that line.)
I drink your Oscar promo “The milkshake analogy isn’t all that bizarre. Daniel chooses a metaphor for drainage that he thinks Eli can understand. Beyond that, the milkshake speech is a way of emphasizing Daniel’s delight, not just in making a fortune in the oil business, but in doing so by paying little, or in this case no, money to those whose land he exploits. Stealing someone’s milkshake is a petty form of theft, so Daniel is able to trivialize the removal of oil that Eli has been counting on as his last chance for financial and spiritual salvation. The taunting also allows Daniel to revenge himself for the parallel earlier scene in the church where Eli had forced him repeatedly to confess how he had betrayed his own son. In this final portion of the film, Daniel no longer has any need to put on a friendly face, to pretend to have empathy…”
Mark’s Conversation with Mills “Mamet's great for character - his dialogue can become great when it is delivered from the mouth of an accomplished performer - the slightest hesitation and it comes across like they're chewing on a plank of wood - and when that happens it reflects not just on the performer, who bears the brunt of the immediate audience reaction, but also inevitably on the writer because it makes their words sound stiff and hollow. Mamet can write poetry when he wants to and is not above writing dreck when he can get away with it - cast his shit with the best performers and he sings - why? It's not because of the famous Mamet dialogue - it's because he depicts human beings acting badly with each other and we love to watch that so long as we aren't directly in the line of fire. Emotional gladiatorial games. The intellectual exercises of Mamet's work hinge not on mind-fucks but on emotional manipulation - emotional sleight of hand - look over there - feel this - oh, by the way, I just stole your wallet, stole your heart and dropped your pants.”
Do you outline? “I recently heard Diablo Cody talking about the way she wrote her award-winning screenplay Juno. (Check it out while it’s still available forfree download at Fox Searchlight.) Here’s someone who very deliberately projects a public image of being the intuitive, artistic type. But when pressed, she revealed that about halfway through her first draft, she decided to compile a bulleted list of scenes in order to avoid getting lost. She found this extremely helpful.”
'Passion' Screenwriter Sues Mel Gibson “Fitzgerald's suit couldn't be any worse-timed for the director, landing on the cusp of a bold new era for the most downtrodden and exploited peg of Hollywood's rigid above-the-line caste system. It's disputes like this that can plant seeds of simmering resentment, eventually exploding on the side of the Pacific Coast Highway as an officer waves away the potent agave fumes that accompany Gibson's hate-fueled accusations of, ‘Are you a screenwriter? Fucking screenwriters... The screenwriters are responsible for all the strikes in the world.’”
Alan Rants about the Indy Trailer “There are far too many computer-generated effects in this trailer. I know that’s the way it’s got to be, but what happened to Frank Marshall and the others crowing about how they were going to do this the old-fashioned way, with Big Macho Practical Stunts and effects?” Amen. The moving four columns toward the end of the trailer and the gang sinking into the sand felt more like it came out of Tomb Raider than Indiana Jones. I would also add that he’s got too big of a team with him and that car chase sequence looked very fake. And Marion and her son tagging along through the temples feels like overkill. There’s also been some discussion about thedifferences between the American and International trailerswith side-by-side comparisons like pictured above.
Critic takes aim at Jumper screenwriters “Jumper would be lame simply on the basis of its under-written characters and slack attitude toward the hero's adventures (the action scenes may be as sleek and colorful as car commercials, but they're so pedestrian in their staging and cutting that I found myself focusing on the travelogue cityscapes instead of watching the characters, which made me wonder if this movie was funded by international tourism boards), but the lazy regard for David's moral crisis, or lack thereof, is pitiful. While Spiderman has to wrap his addled teenage head around the notion that with great power comes great responsibility, David wonders how best he can lie to his girlfriend about himself and keep her in his back pocket; even after she learns the truth, his primary concern is finding the way to keep her in his orbit with the bare minimum of embarrassed apology. I haven't been so disgusted with the hero of a mainstream Hollywood offering since Russell Crowe had to struggle between choosing his high-income job as an investment broker and making a lot of money off of his winery and chateau. In other words, these people are wondering what selfish bit of wish fulfillment they want ‘right now.’”
Haggis In the Valley “When Paul Haggis talks about his latest movie, In The Valley Of Elah, he's keen to cite the three Oscar winners in the cast: Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon. The writer-director has likewise basked in Academy Award glory as the writer and director of 2004's Crash. Still, he says, ‘I think it's odd to judge films. It made me personally uncomfortable with Crash being called the best film of the year when there were many great films that year.’ In The Valley Of Elah is arguably a better movie than Crash…”
Pacino does Bond? “The folks over atAICN recently threw outquite the dizzying rumor that Pacino will be playing the big boss behind the events in the first film, which is who Bond is looking for in the second film, not only to find out who's the puppeteer of the first film's events but to get a little revenge for his lost love.”
Interview with Dr. Linda Seger “Story Structure – Learn the 3-Act structure well. Later, you can work with non-traditional structures (such as Crash) but don’t start there.”
Wendy Ide's ten greatest screenwriters “Quentin Tarantino: Tarantino gets a lot of stick but there’s no arguing with the fact that his densely layered brand of wordy, cine-literate screenwriting spawned innumerable imitators...”
Sir Tom Stoppard on writing Shakespeare in Love “I like the early stage of screenwriting, the first and second drafts. I am an optimist: each time I think it will go perfectly and every time I will write a script that everyone loves. It never quite works out like that; there is always a slight disappointment. Many people have asked me to adapt my own plays for film. But one seems to fall between two equally awkward stools: you film the play and end up not satisfied with the film, or to make the film you leave out two thirds of the play, so why make it as a film in the first place?”
14 Great Movies About Writers “With the WGA strike finally ending, we celebrate the scribe tribe's return by saluting screenwriter characters in movies, from Sunset Boulevard to Leaving Las Vegas to Hannah and Her Sisters and more…”
Screenwriter Takes Name Off Punisher: War Zone, Cites Difference in Vision “My pitch, my vision, for the Punisher franchise was something much different. I tried to rip Frank Castle from the comic book world and place him in the real streets of NYC. Castle is the only superhero without powers. He’s a tortured, highly skilled soldier with a really bad anger problem. I always felt we should see Frank in some place uber-real and gritty. I threw away the first draft written by Nick Santora and did a page one rewrite. I changed the locations, the characters, the story. I dropped Frank in a real New York City with real villians, real cops, real relationships. To me, the Punisher deserved more than the usual comic book redress. It shouldn’t just follow the feature superhero formula. Apparently, I was the only one who shared that vision.” (According tothis article, he was getting death threats.)
The Science of Fairy Tales “In the story, Ariel loses her voice because of a curse. However, a less skilled sorceress could use a different method to silence asinging mermaid. Scientists have figured out a way to bend sound waves around an object and, can even prevent the escape of all sounds created inside a given area (important for keeping a transformed, singing mermaid from being heard). Recently, Steve Cummer, Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Duke University announced that it is theoretically possible to create such a sound shield. Building on research demonstrating how light waves can be bent around an object to make it appear invisible, Cummer and his collaborators used mathematical analysis to show how to do the same thing with sound. They established that it is possible to create a material that bends sound waves around walls, pillars, or any enclosed area, where the sound waves emerge as if nothing had been in their way. It would be like someone in the bedroom being able to hear what someone in the living room said, but as if there were no wall between them.” (See also Top 10 Beasts and Dragons: How Reality Made Myth, The Surprising Realities of Mythical Creatures, and The Science of Sea Monsters.)
Michael Bay has Already Written Transformers 2 “I’ve been writing Transformers 2. We’ve got our characters all designed. I always write all my scripts, my movies anyway so at least I’ve got something to give the writers. It’s like a template. We have a really good outline so I worked on that,” Bay toldRotten Tomatoes. “We had to because I want to make my date. I’m not going to let the strike take me down.” (You can get a first look here.)
Actors Threaten to Take Up Strike Cause “The Writers Guild strike was over for less than 24 hours before Screen Actors Guild members seized headlines and began publicly positioning for their contract negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers.”
Marc Norman’s Happy Ending for Writers “If history is written by the winners, let me gloat. I'm one of 10,000-plus members of the Writers Guild of America, and we're about to ratify a new three-year contract that was concluded last week. We're an odd union, the WGA, composed of rich uncles and poor cousins, the uncles being the A-list screenwriters and TV show-runners, the cousins folks scraping by writing for low-budget reality shows and soaps, and it takes a significant issue to weld us together. When our contract came up for renewal in July, for the first time in decades, we had one -- everybody wanted contract language that would give us a cut of revenue when our work is broadcast on the brave new media world of the Internet. We got what we wanted.”
Strike Notes from a Screenwriter “Our strike is a victory against negatives. We successfully resisted the studios on rollbacks. And the union remained united, solid and militant in the face of the media conglomerates' obvious intent to break or enfeeble the Writers Guild of America, west and east. The strike the conglomerates' film studios provoked had the unintended consequence of strengthening our union and uniting the membership as never before. By staying out, we staked our claim to future income via DVD residuals, internet, streaming etc. And established a beachhead in the new technology. Nobody knows if this will turn out to be a bonanza or a bust.”
WGA Says 'Deal Isn't Perfect' “Even though the end result isn't exactly what striking Writers Guild of America wanted, Hollywood writers are going back to work Wednesday following a three-month-long strike. ‘This deal isn't perfect,’ WGA West president Patric Verrone told reporters. ‘We wish we could have gotten more. We deserve more.’”
Last August, we concluded a study in which fellow writers and bloggers had to provide 3 examples of plot dumps in film:
* One BAD example of exposition. * One GOOD VERBAL example of exposition. * One GOOD NON-VERBAL example of exposition.
The non-verbal examples were the most fascinating, and for me, the best kind of verbal exposition is always put out there in the context of something else. It's Reese explaining the terminator in the middle of an action sequence. It's Perry White telling Clark and Lois to go to Niagara Falls to expose a honeymoon racket while Lois gives Clark hints that she knows he's Superman. Anyway, hope you enjoy them.
I share the e-mail below (with Cemal's permission) because this isn't about me as it is really about the online screenwriting community. So many people contribute not only articles but ideas and comments that no one person can actually take credit. I love this e-mail.
Thanks, Cemal.
-MM
-----------------------------
Hi Mystery Man,
I should have written this several months ago when you mentioned me in one of your entries. This is the guy from that distant piece of troubled land called Turkey that religiously visits your blog almost every day.
I'm a struggling screenwriter that tries to support a family in the soul destroying world of directing TV commercials (my ex-wife calls me a drama queen, I guess you can tell why).
I''m 38, and I guess I'm a bit late in starting, but that's always been the case with me. I completed one screenplay before being lost in several, back in those times I was unaware of the wonderful blogs and books that were around to guide me. My screenplay naturally sucks, although it has garnered some interest among producers, though not enough to go ahead with it. I'm trying to make it better whenever I find some time between directing horrible commercials for horrible products ,though I'm grateful for finding the little work I can get, and being on a set with film people and a camera. Whenever I'm in the same room with a camera, I'm happy.
Anyway, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for being there and doing what you are doing. Your blog and some others like yours have been much reliable friends in tough times. It's funny whenever I'm stuck with something and I generally am, it seems like you are always providing, if not a solution, at least a discussion about that problem. Above all, you have thought me what it is to live like a screenwriter, and what it is to really love this craft. I'm humbled and frankly can't help feeling depressed when I see the amount of time, work and passion you put into what you are doing. I fell I have lost years doing, well, nothing.
I live in a country where the only way to make a living as a screenwriter is to churn out 90min of poor dialogue into terribly shallow plots for TV series (I can't do it) and the standard of movie writing is extremely low. Pushing 40 I'm running the risk of turning into one of those bitter guys who know a lot about something but can't produce anything worthwhile. Enough of this self-pity.
I'm trying and will go on trying now that I know through you guys how difficult it is for everyone, everywhere else, and how much work and passion and patience you have put in it to be able to hang in there. You can't imagine how much it helps...
I thought I'd also share a classic article of mine in which I regurgitated all the ridiculous Indy 4 rumors that I chronicled over the years. I had wanted to start a filthy, dirty rumor to call my own and had mentioned in some of my earlier Indy articles that the Ark was going to return. As the rumors trickled out about Crystal Skulls, I couldn't think of a way to connect the two artifacts, so I didn't put much passion behind it. But ya know, it certainly looks like we'll be seeing a big action sequence in the (now famous) government warehouse...
Lucas saidin an interviewthat the MacGuffin had always been the Crystal Skulls but I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. How do you explain the Jeb Stuart script? Was it real? I think so, because the wedding was very well written, and in old interviews, they repeatedly referenced the scene following the wedding where Indy's ex-girlfriends show up. By the way, there is also a new article over at Deadbolt on The Scripts That Weren't, which was a lot of fun.
Anyway, hope you enjoy this trip down memory lane.
-MM
------------------------------------
1994:
Harrison Ford revealed at the Venice Film Festival that he was considering playing his most famous character one last time. (It's been long acknowledgedand reportedthat Spielberg and Lucas were DONE with the Indiana Jones series, but Harrison Ford has been the one pushing for the fourth film.) A couple of months later, that “bastion of investigative journalism,” the Daily Mail, ran a story (titled "From Speed to Ford Escort") claiming that Sandra Bullock would play Indy's "sparky" sidekick in Indiana Jones And The Lost Continent, which allegedly concerned the fate of Atlantis, a rumor that Variety put to rest. "While Nazis and various cultists couldn't stop Indy, the lack of a suitable script has pushed back the fourth installment in the series for the time being," the article said.
1995:
By Oct, we knew that Jeffrey Boam was working on scripts for Indiana Jones IV and Lethal Weapon 4. In an article in Variety, Boam was quoted as saying that Spielberg wanted the pic to be shot almost entirely in L.A. Only one week will be on location, probably in Honduras. Russia had first been planned. "And," added Boam, Harrison Ford will play his own age, "so he can limp and/or wear glasses!" Apparently, Boam had been asked to flesh out the MacGuffin thatSteven and Harrison didn’t want to do. Empire reportedthat the story concerned an attempt to foil a Soviet plot to establish a missile base on the moon, or had something to do with the UFO crash at Roswell, New Mexico, or both. I can’t imagine why Ford and Spielberg wouldn’t want to do THAT. Poor Jeffrey.
1996:
In a Drew Babcock interview (which I can't find anymore - only referenced here), Spielberg assured the world that Atlantis had not been considered as part of the scripting process and mentioned that the script "had to do with Adam and Eve." After Babcock did some digging, a source at Paramount told him that the title Indiana Jones and the Garden of Life was being tossed around. In May ‘96, a script entitledIndiana Jones And The Sons Of Darkness, which was credited to Boam, hit the web from someone who claimed to have lifted it from Lucasfilm's offices. As reported by Empire, “The script, which concerned a race by Indy to beat the Russians to the remnants of Noah's Ark, was removed from the web a day after its initial posting, fuelling rumors that it was genuine.” Fans were invited to post feedback because "Lucasfilm is monitoring the Web to assess what Indy fans do and don't want to see." In truth, the folks at Lucasfilm had nicknamed this script "Indiana Jones and the Sons of Plagiarism." Four months and several cease-and-desist notices later, ambitious Indy fan, Robert Smith, fessed up to having written a bogus script. Later, Kevin Costner and Tom Selleck were rumored to play Indy's 'bad seed' brother.
1997: This is the year that brought us Chris Columbus’sIndiana Jones and the Monkey King. At the time, Columbus was known for writing and directing Goonies. He would later go on to direct a couple of Harry Potter films. In any case, the story of Monkey King had Indy, Marcus Brody, English anthropologist Dr. Clare Clarke and 'Scraggy', a Portuguese guide, on the trail of a legendary Chinese artifact, which was believed to hold the secret of eternal life. We would learn later that this was in fact, a rejected Indy 3 script. (The absence of Henry Jones Sr. would’ve been your first clue, and sadly, the actor who played Marcus Brody had passed away in ’92). Of this story,Justin Clark (Ugo Screenwriter’s voice) wrote, “Where Columbus commits his most cardinal sins is with the characters. Long story short, they're cartoons. Indy is an asympathetic womanizer, with only fleeting hints of confidence, and constantly being made the fool by his situations. Screwing up Indy right off the bat should've been where Columbus put the pen (well, nowadays, keyboard) down, and handed over script duties to someone else, but sadly, it doesn't stop there. He also sees fit to saddle Indy with a virtual army of stereotypes (particularly, the stiff, British female scientist who guides him to a stray member of the lost city, and the superstitious African who drives him and his crew around while spouting words of wisdom from his many gods) and annoying sidekicks, none more so than Betsy, a clinging, pain-in-the-ass harpy who, somehow, we're supposed to think has chemistry with Indy. If you thought Willie Scott's perpetual screaming was a problem, she'll look like Katherine Hepburn by comparison. Some of the script's most cringe-worthy moments come from her. And the second I realized the characterizations weren't getting any better, that's when I realized this script, no matter what came later, wouldn't work. And believe me...it does get worse, especially once Sun Wu Kung shows up.”
Also in ’97, there was the rumor (from the now defunct Corona site) in which Lucas told a Dutch TV magazine that Indy will have a son. In May '97,Spielberg told Varietythat he, Lucas, and Ford are "tenacious" about a fourth "Indiana Jones." "We are totally committed to one -- if the story is right, of course." Speaking of tenacious, the rumor about his brother just would not die. Posted on the web was a note from ananonymous Paramount sourcewho said that Indy would not only have a brother but he would also be cast by an unknown. In late '97, Corona got word about a minister and a theologian who were asked to do some historical accuracy checking on the Indy IV script. Apparently, the script dealt with the Garden of Eden and was very "religious in tone." Also in '97,Aint it Cool Newsspread the rumor about Indy being in his 50's searching for Noah's Ark and that Lawrence Kasdan was the writer. They also reported a rumor about a quest for Shangri-la, which was utterly baseless.
1998:
In January, Dark Horizons posted what it claimed to be the opening pages of another script, entitled Raiders of the Fallen Empire, which sounds like a reference to the Roman Empire, but apparently it had to do with Indy's discovery of the Garden of Eden. No matter. It was a hoax. (According to Corona, this debacle stressed out a few Paramount execs. Rumor has it that Lucas was very interested in “Fallen Empire,” but it was an unsolicited spec script, and he had not yet decided whether to purchase it. Even though there is still very little known about this script, the mere leaking of the title is said to have been enough to send blood pressures rising.) Later, rumors flew from Corona that Mark Hamill was being considered to play a villain in the Indy sequel. Hamill's "people," however, assured Cinescape that the rumor had no basis in fact. In May, Mr. Showbiz spoke with Jeffrey Boam about his rumored Lost Continent script. He said that he hadn't heard of anything called that, and in fact, he was told not to place a name on the script he turned in two years prior and had not heard anything about it since. In November, Lucas told those at the Screen Producers' Association conference held in Australia that the Indy IV script had been completed. He cited the availability of Ford and Spielberg as the remaining obstacle. However, later interviews with Ford and Spielberg would indicate that all were not in agreement with this script. Then there was the "Law of One" rumor in whichCinescapewas handed a script where the action took place in 1953 and involved a "race to harness the power of the ancient device which was responsible for the destruction of Atlantis." Uh huh. Willie Scott also appeared in this script. '98 also brought us a new legitimate script,Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars, which came out of the blue and was apparently written by The Fugitive scribe Jeb Stuart from a story by Stuart and Lucas. Saucer Men From Mars concerned an alien artifact that constantly changes hands between Indy, Russian baddies, and a group of extra-terrestrials. Indy gets married to beautiful linguist Dr. Elaine McGregor, but the ceremony gets interrupted by the arrival of Elaine's ex-husband, Bolander who takers her away to White Sands, New Mexico. There, a spacecraft has crash-landed, killing its alien occupants and sparking a race between the Americans and Soviets to discover the secrets of the alien ship's fuel supply, a stone cylinder covered in hieroglyphics. The wedding was great fun.
1999:
There was the rumor that Dennis Lawson, the guy who played Wedge Antilles in Star Wars, was set to portray Belloq's brother seeking revenge for the events of Raiders, which was flatly denied. And then there was theSword of Arthurscript, which was a hoax. However, the pranksters cleverly peppered their pages with "Property of Lucasfilm Ltd," which made it almost feel real. The story had to do with the search for King Arthur's magical sword, Excalibur, which was reputedly hidden on Enigma Island, a small isle off the Spanish coast, six centuries earlier. The Nazis are after it, too, as are the surviving descendants of the original Knights of the Round Table. Indy and his companions - Including Anthony Brody (Marcus' son) and Arianna Smith (a kind of female Indy, as might be guessed from the name) - recover the sword, only to have it snatched from their grasp by the arm of a woman who reaches up from the Atlantic Ocean to reclaim it forever. (Indy loses an eye during one fight and has to wear an eye-patch the rest of the film.) The “aspiring writers,” Steven Frye and Michael Prentice, claimed to have been duped into parting with the script, unaware it would be touted as the real thing.
Lest we forget, 1999 also brought us Indiana Jones and the Red Scare, which hit the web on July 17. This 12-page treatment,as reported by Empire, “allegedly seen by someone working at Industrial Light & Magic, was set in the early 1950s, as Indy is retained by Eisenhower's administration to find out about the Russians' retrieval of artifacts found in Hitler's bunker. No one has ever owned up to the treatment.”
2000:
There was the rumor that Natalie Portman, while on the set of Star Wars, asked Lucas if she could play the role of Indy's daughter, Idaho. Spielberg told an Italian newspaper, “Actually, I have to answer that same question all the time: 'Dad, when are you going to film a new Indiana Jones movie?' But tonight I want to make a promise - Indiana Jones is coming back soon.” That was seven years ago. Then there was M. Night Shyamalan, who, fresh off his success from Sixth Sense, admitted on The Howard Stern Show that he'd met with Spielberg, was in early talks to do something with Indy, and that he would love to write the script. Shortly thereafter, Variety reported that Shyamalan was on board to write the new script and that filming would begin in 2002. But then we’re toldscheduling didn’t work out. Uh huh. Harrison Ford described his departure as "the failure of George and Steven to attend to him." Lucas admitted he would not be able to give the project his full attention until he completed the new Star Wars trilogy… in 2005.
On a side note - Jeffrey Boam, one of the first reported Indy IV screenwriters would pass away this year due to heart disease, sadly. You just have to love Jeffrey Boam. He wrote some fun scripts – Innerspace, The Dead Zone, The Lost Boys, Funny Farm, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and of course, Lethal Weapon 2 and 3. We’ll miss you, buddy.
2001:
What? No fake scripts this year? I’m disappointed.
2002:
In January, we’re told that theyalready have a title. Spielberg said, “Kate is in it.” Ford is quoted as saying that they finally have “the right script.” But then, in February, Empire reported that they approached Stephen Gaghan to write a new screenplay, which didn’t work out. In April, Empire reported that they’re courtingTom Stoppardto write a new screenplay. A couple of days later, Lucas confessed, "There is a scene where a lot of Indy's ex-girlfriends show up, but they are not major characters." This had to have been a direct reference to Jeb Stuart’s script, an idea that apparently everyone still wants to use. In May, we’re given the news that Frank Darabont hastaken the helmas the new screenwriter. In July, we learn that the story will be set in the 1950s, and there will be no Nazis. In December 2002, while promoting Catch Me if You Can, Spielberg said he planned to shoot two films before Indiana Jones 4 in 2004 for a release the year after. He also dismissed shooting it digitally.
2003:
Frank Marshall said that there will beno son for Indiana Jones. He said, "We're sticking with Indy on his own. He still gets around pretty good." Really. In June '03,Variety told usthat Frank Darabont whipped Indiana Jones 4 into shape for a 2004 start. Woo hoo! In August, Darabont said the words that brought such warmth to my heart: "I absolutely don't want to do things like having him say, 'I'm getting too old for this shit...' I don't want to be slipping and sliding in cliches. This character is no longer in the 1930s. He has to age honestly. He's got to be in the 1950s." Amen to that. In September, Fordtold Variety: "Steven Spielberg and myself have reserved time in 2004 to begin shooting." (Some claim that Darabont’s title was Indiana Jones and the City of Gods.) Also in September, the question about the use of CGI came up, andFrank Marshall told Empire: “I think we're going to try and rely, like the first two movies, on realism and not try to do too many things with the computer... When you start getting into computers you get fantastical situations like in the Matrix or movies like that. We don't want that, we want exciting heroism, we want seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action. We didn't have all the money in the world on the first films and we want to keep that B-Movie feel. We want to make Indy 4 like we made the first three.”
And finally, a UK website for women called FemaleFirstallegedthat an insider on the production told them that Spielberg told Ford to "'get off of any and all exercise programs.' It's been 15 years since the last Indy movie and obviously Harrison has got a lot older but that's not a problem for this movie," the "insider" told FemaleFirst. "Steven doesn't want a middle-aged guy trying to look young — he wants to bring a new type of hero to the screen. He's going to be older and wiser and a lot less physical than Indy of old." Oh. Hmm.
2004: In January, Darabont turned in his script. "I've finished my work,” he said, “now it's in the hands of God, or Spielberg and Lucas if you prefer.” But a month later, LucasrejectedDarabont’s script despite the fact that Spielberg was so excited about this script that hetold Darabontthis was the “best draft of anything since Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Darabontsaid, “The project went down in flames. Steven and I looked like accident victims the day we got that call. I certainly don't blame Steven for it. He wasn't in a position to overrule George, and wouldn't have overruled him even if he could. He and George have been close friends for a long time, and they've had an agreement for years that no Indiana Jones film will ever get made unless they both completely agreed on the script. It was just such an awful surprise, after all my hopes and effort. I really felt I'd nailed it, and so did Steven.”
In October, we learn that Jeff Nathanson, writer of Catch Me If You Can, wasbrought in to do the rewrite. Not only that, it wasa PAGE ONE rewrite. Spielberg would latersay in an interviewthat none of Darabont's script will be used. At all. Zip. All we will know about Nathanson’s script is that hemoved it back to the '40s. Later that year, while shooting War of the Worlds, Spielberg met with stuntman Vic Armstrong to discuss three stunt sequences he had envisioned.
2005:
In January, Ford gave a deadlineand said that if they didn’t make this movie by 2008, forget about it. Later that month, Spielberg confirmed that Indiana Jones 4 will be his next film, calling it "the sweet dessert I give those who had to chow down on the bitter herbs that I've used in Munich.” He would later say he’s “taking a year off.” In May, Lucas is quoted in Time Magazine as saying that he didn’t plan to make anymore Indy films. In June, Ford made a joke at a press conference that the working title of Indy IV was Indiana Jones and the Opal of the Mer-Man Prince. The news spread like wildfire across the web, and a week later, Spielberg had to issue an official statement to kill the story. A few months later, there was the rumor about Spielberg visiting the set of Memoirs of a Geisha and telling Michelle Yeoh he still wants her for Indy IV. (Her agency reported in '98 that she met with him to discuss her role in Indy IV.) Close to the end of the year, we’re told that Nathanson’s script was "finished" and "approved."
2006:
Apparently, Nathanson’s script was NOT "finished" and "approved," because in February, Entertainment Weeklyreported that Spielberg himself was working on the script. May '06, Frank Marshall confirmed that there might be a desert. Oh. Nice. Then, on June 23, David Koepp was hired to polish the script. It would be “due” in a few months. He’s Spielberg’s trusted “closer.” Really. And then cameConnery's official retirementdespite Lucas' public assurance that he willpush him into doing it. In an August ’06interview in Empire Magazine, Lucas said, “We’re basically going to do The Phantom Menace. People’s expectations are way higher than you can deliver. You could just get killed for the whole thing… We would do it for fun and just take the hit with the critics and the fans.” (I don't know about you, but as a screenwriter, as a lifelong lover of movies and Spielberg and Lucas and Indiana Jones, that sends CHILLS up my spine.) The article went on to say that the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation freed up an idea for a plot that was originally deemed too incendiary. “I discovered a McGuffin,” continued Lucas. “I told the guys about it and they were a little dubious, but it’s the best one we’ve ever found… Unfortunately, it was a little too ‘connected’ for the others. They were afraid of what the critics would think. They said, 'Can’t we do it with a different McGuffin? Can’t we do this?' and I said 'No.' So we pottered around with that for a couple of years. Then Harrison really wanted to do it and Steve said, 'Okay.' I said, 'We’ll have to go back to that original MacGuffin and take out the offending parts and still use that area of the supernatural do deal with it.'” Hmm. In Sep '06, Karen Allen may havereignited rumorsthat Indy will have a daughter. (That rumor has been recentlysquashed.) And then, of course, in December 29, 2006, Ford, Lucas, and Spielbergconfirmedthat they will be shooting the movie, which will be released May 22, 2008. Production will start on June 18, 2007. All we know is that it will be a “character piece” with “very interesting mysteries.”
Do you know what the picture above is? No, it's not the government warehouse where they stored the Ark of the Covenant. This is, in fact, where they store all of the Indy IV drafts. Hehehe...
"On Tuesday, members of the Writers Guilds East and West voted by a 92.5% margin to lift the restraining order that was invoked on November 5th. The strike is over.
Writing can resume immediately. If you were employed when the strike began, you should plan to report to work on Wednesday. If you're not employed at an office or other work site, call or e-mail your employer that you are resuming work. If you have been told not to report to work or resume your services, we recommend that you still notify your employer in writing of your availability to do so. Questions concerning return-to-work issues should be directed to the WGAW legal department at 323.782.4521 or the WGAE’s assistant executive director Ann Toback at 212-767-7823.
The decision to begin this strike was not taken lightly and was only made after no other reasonable alternative was possible. We are profoundly aware of the economic loss these fourteen weeks have created not only for our members but so many other colleagues who work in the television and motion picture industries. Nonetheless, with the establishment of the WGA jurisdiction over new media and residual formulas based on distributor’s gross revenue (among other gains) we are confident that the results are a significant achievement not only for ourselves but the entire creative community, now and in the future.
We hope to build upon the extraordinary energy, ingenuity, and solidarity that were generated by your hard work during the strike.
Over the next weeks and months, we will be in touch with you to discuss and develop ways we can use our unprecedented unity to make our two guilds stronger and more effective than ever.
Now that the strike has ended, there remains the vote to ratify the new contract. Ballots and information on the new deal, both pro and con, will be mailed to you shortly. You will be able to return those ballots via mail or at a membership meeting to be held Monday, February 25th, 2008, at times and locations to be determined.
Thank you for making it possible. As ever, we are all in this together.
The first study we did here was aboutsubtext in dialogue, which was SO much fun. I have such a great treasure trove of scenes to share. We decoded wordless subtext, one-word subtext, single and double entendres, lines that have two or even three layers of meaning, subtext in seduction, poetry, evasion, and appeasement, the subtext of not saying what would normally be said, I could go on and on…
It’s just as true today as it was in July, 2006, when we concluded this study that layered dialogue always fascinates and entertains even after repeat viewings. Hope you enjoy them.
In the great debate of Story vs. Character, I proudly stand on the side of character. Character always comes first. One can debate endlessly about how to approach a story, but there is never a debate about having great characters. In fact, people will forgive weaknesses in plot and structure if they really, really love the characters.
So here are three posts wrapped in one little bundle about characters, which is my favorite subject. The first is a highlight from an old script review, which you may not have seen. The second is my Character Development Sheet, a seemingly never-ending series. But you get 6 links so far, and I’ll eventually complete the entire sheet. And finally, I have highlights from our character depth study.
FromCharacters as Individuals “...I have always loved studying cultures and beliefs and personalities and psychology, but yet, the human resource groups who teach these classes annoy me to no end because they do little to broaden anyone's horizon and do more to foster narrow, racist thinking with all the ways that they categorize, generalize, label, and stereotype entire groups of people. Human beings never ever fit easily into limited, compartmentalized categories. Life and truth and movies are, in fact, complicated and multi-faceted. Within any large group of people, you are going to find such a vast and unquantifiable range of personalities, beliefs, opinions, styles, etc, that it almost feels wrong to lump them all together. The only thing that connects them just happens to be that ONE THING. When it comes to everything else, frankly, all bets are off, because one cannot say that entire groups of people have certain behavioral tendencies because that's simply not true. There is not a single person I know, and I know a lot of people, who, when you really get to know them, would easily fit into the common perception of a particular group that that person might be associated with. Everyone I know is an exception. What does that mean? It means that they are, like everyone else in the world, unique individuals. More often than not, great movies are about AMAZING characters who DEFY tradition, BREAK barriers, and WOW us by their UNIQUENESS. Am I wrong...?
“Now, I do believe that you can THROUGH STORY make statements about classes, professions, etc, and illuminate problems within ethnic, cultural, political, and social groups, but you cannot ever construct A CHARACTER that's intended to represent an ENTIRE GROUP. That kind of thinking has got to go. Besides, you can tell when you're watching a bad movie that that studio has been thinking along the lines of 'here's a typical X-kind of person,' and I believe that engenders more resentment in those groups than it does appreciation. In any case, writers have to treat every character as an individual, not a stereotype. Okay, so you have a character that's gay. That's not enough. Who is this person? How can you create depth in this character through inner conflicts and believable contradictions? What is this individual's personality like? Religious, political, philosophical perceptions? Fashion? Education? Family? Integrity? Attitude? Where would that person's personality fall under the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicators? Or the DISC pattern? What's their temperament like? Does that character have any neuroses? Insecurities? What is that person's relationship like to all of the other characters and how do those relationships SERVE your overall story? How are you going to handle the Cast Design so that we get to see ALL the different sides of this particular character? You have figure this out. And you have to make sure that all of those factors have a place in your story, because it's not enough to have a character that's 'just gay.' That character has to have depth and serve a STORYTELLING FUNCTION...”
How does one create depth? By constructing contradictions in the personality. For example, a character talks one way but BEHAVES another way. Or a character ACTS one way but at his/her core, that person’s True Character is in fact, something very different. This is one area that we can thank Mr. Robert McKee for teaching us. In “Story,” he wrote: “Dimension means contradiction: either within deep character (guilt-ridden ambition) or between characterization and deep character (a charming thief). These contradictions must be consistent. It doesn’t add dimension to portray a guy as nice throughout a film, then in one scene have him kick a cat.”
For a time, we did a study where we each wrote a paragraph, usually about 300 words or fewer, chronicling the various dimensions / contradictions of a character.
Everyone wrote such great samples. Here are three. First, our very good friend,Pat (GimmeABreak), wrote about Hannibal Lecter:
“That a sociopathic cannibal could be brought to tears by beautiful music, recall with delight the fate of a census taker who had the temerity to disturb him, behave so tenderly toward Clarice (the finger touch as he hands her the file), take such pleasure in tormenting Miggs, salivate at the thoughts of eating Dr. Chilton, patiently explain the delicate flavor of (human) brains to a child, gently guide Will Graham toward death, and disfigure himself instead of his captor (who happened to be the only person he loves or has ever loved) makes Hannibal Lecter my nominee for the most interesting and complex character in modern cinema, the only character I've loved, feared, admired, and despised all at the same time.”
“One of my favorite movie characters of all time is Graham Dalton fromSex, Lies and Videotape. He's an honest pathological liar. An impotent man obsessed with sex. A man who is able to know the female subjects he videotapes more intimately than their husbands, without touching them. He comes to town to obtain some measure of closure on a relationship he destroyed ten years earlier and ends up inspiring a naive woman to leave her deceitful husband, his former friend. In doing so, he redeems himself. All of this - while in dire need of a simple haircut.”
“Cyrano is an interesting character for sure full of contradictions - on the one hand fearless of nothing and on the other terrified of rejection. He will openly mock his own nose, declare that he is proud of his great appendage, and yet, his hopeless insecurity about said nose keeps him from declaring his love to Roxanne. He is self-involved and yet selfless as he sacrifices his own happiness in order to give his love that which her heart desires most. He talks to Le Bret about refusing to be morally tainted or compromised and then Cyrano allows himself to become entangled in a great big deceptive lie to his most beloved object of desire. All the while, apart from the occasional duel, he fights for the pride of the Gascons, he fights for France, he fights a hundred men for Ligniere, he fights for everyone within reach but himself.”
Here's the latest episode of Dana Brunetti’s TriggerStreet TV, which covers industry news, trends, and topics. Dana Brunetti, as many of you know, is the founder of TriggerStreetand producerof four films coming out this year, including 21with Kevin Spacey, Kate Bosworth, and Jim Sturgess.
-MM
--------------------------------------
CS Weekly’s Words of Wisdom:
"Every writer I know has trouble writing." – Joseph Heller
"A professional writer is an amateur who didn't quit." – Richard Bach --------------------------------------
Fade In’s Studio Poll “Fade In polled producers and writers (hey, maybe they can settle their differences) on their experiences working with studios and minimajors…” Here are three samples:
“New Line ‘Every movie is going to get made if the green-light committee says it's gonna to get made. So all these people have to weigh in on it....And if one person doesn't like the project, or it doesn't work with all his numbers, then the whole movie could get derailed.’ (Producer)
‘In the hierarchy of it all, i found the lieutenants at New Line to be pretty good; they worked very hard and did a great job for us. But I found the top brass to be pretty checked out.’ (Producer)
Paramount There is a lot of bitterness aimed at Paramount. So we're going to take an, er, pass.
Sony ‘(Amy Pascal) has always struck me as being a very smart person, an excellent businessperson and she has a pretty good track record. But the problem is, there's no respect for writers. The studio executives all think they can do it.’ (Screenwriter)
‘Everyone at Sony gets along really well, so you don't get that sense of territoriality that you get at other studios.’ (Screenwriter)”
Rapping On Writing - Keep It Active & Mind Your Tenses “Verbally, people tell stories passively, as a rule, if you asked your buddy what the President is doing today, your buddy is likely to say, ‘He is sitting in the White House with his thumb up his ass,’ right? He wouldn’t say, ‘He sits in the White House with his thumb up his ass,’ even though that’s grammatically correct, it’s not how most people talk. So a CHARACTER speaking passively is normal. But when writing a screenplay, in your action descriptions, you should put – ‘Bush sits in the White House, his thumb firmly up his ass,’ because it’s far more active.”
Unk onGetting an Agent “Another slew of emails I’ve been getting recently is the same old tired, “Unk, how do I get an agent?” The email then goes on to complain that of course they can’t get an agent because no agents will talk to them and yada yada yada.”
They’re turning Mike’s Comic Strip into a Film. Hehehe... A Rom Com Call To Arms! “But if you have seen “27 Dresses,” — or last year’s“Because I Said So,”let’s say, or the other Mandy Moore wedding-theme comedy that came out in 2007, or any of the dozens like them disgorged by the studios in the past decade or so — you will know what I mean. How did this genre fall so far, from one that reliably deployed the talents of the movie industry’s best writers, top directors and biggest stars to a source of lazy commercial fodder? There are several possible answers. The most obvious one (and to me the least persuasive) is just that they don’t make them like they used to, that the history of American cinema since its classical era has been a sorry chronicle of decline. It may be true that you rarely hear the kind of sharp, sparkling dialogue that used to animate the films ofErnst Lubitsch,George Cukorand Preston Sturges, but it would be hard to look at movies and television today and conclude that there is a shortage of funny writing or sharp storytelling.” (I gotta say, I completely agree.)
Emily Blake on There Will Be Blood “The other great thing about that lack of dialogue is the concentrated silence it creates in your brain. You've been sitting in that theater with all these other people, just contemplating the events before you without anyone even having to speak. Then Plainview begins to talk calmly and quietly. Then a bunch of people start yelling. Since it's been so quiet for so long, the yelling is jarring as hell and you get his frustration and annoyance right away. It's a very effective contrast.”
On the Slumming Genre Writers “What we look for in genre writing, Mr. Updike suggested, is exactly what the critics sometimes complain about; the predictableness of a formula successfully executed. We know exactly what we’re going to get, and that’s a seductive part of the appeal. It’s why we can read genre books so quickly and in such quantity, and happily come back for more of the same by the very same author. Such books are reassuring in a way that some other novels are not. Does that make them lesser, or just different? Probably both on occasion. But it doesn’t necessarily make them easier or less worthwhile to write…” Here’sEmerson’s reaction.
David Bordwell’s What happens between shots happens between your earsoffers a discussion of analytical vs. constructive editing segues in an analysis of a scene in Godard’s Hail Mary. He writes, “Kuleshov’s example was the formulaic scene of a man sitting at his desk and deciding to commit suicide. The Russians, Kuleshov claimed, would handle this all in one distant framing, with the result that the key actions were just part of the overall view. By contrast, Americans would shoot the scene in a series of close-ups: the man’s face, his hand taking a pistol out of a desk drawer, his finger tightening on the trigger, and so on. This gave the scene a powerful concreteness, and was cheaper to film besides (no need to have a full set).” This, in screenwriting terms, would also be the difference between on the one hand just telling the story, an interpretation that would lend itself to thoughtless wide shots and on the other, actually writing the shots.
Cozzalio’s In Defense of the Perils of Pauline “A few days ago, Jim Emerson offered a post that once again considered, depending on your point of view, either the estimable influence or the declining reputation of Pauline Kael. The Scanners post came in response to the near-44-year anniversary of the publication of her essay,“Are Movies Going to Pieces?”, and by posting it Jim was opening up discussion not only to the continued relevance, or lack thereof, of Kael’s criticism, but also to questions we, as thoughtful moviegoers, are still askingtoday.”
David O. Russell to pen 'Playbook' screenplay “David O. Russell (I Heart Huckabees, Three Kings) has signed on to write the screenplay adaptation of Matthew Quick's soon-to-be-published comic novel The Silver Linings Playbook for the Weinstein Company. Playbook centers on a man who, after a mental collapse, is released from a facility only to find that his wife has remarried and moved on. Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella are on board to produce through their Mirage Productions. Currently, Russell is in preproduction on Nailed, a political satire starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Jessica Biel, which he cowrote and will direct. It is expected to start shooting on April 15. ” People are still willing to work with him?
What is that next to Indy's head? An alien?
"Breakthrough Performances in Film" - a New York Times Magazinemultimedia Oscar season special. Times Richard Corlisslists the 25 most important films about race.
In Bruges Q&A Senior CreativeScreenwriting Editor Jeff Goldsmith interviews writer-director Martin McDonagh about In Bruges. Also - Juno Q&A Screenwriter Tom Epperson is living his dream “Tom Epperson, a longtime Hollywood screenwriter and even more longtime aspiring novelist, is a gentle man who's just published a brutal book. Epperson, who has a shy Arkansas twang and a slight hangdog manner, was talking on a recent afternoon about his 1930s-esque noir, "The Kind One," at Musso & Frank's in Hollywood, a place he loves for its literary ghosts.
Multi-faceted Mamet gives advice “‘If there is any question about a line or a scene, get rid of it,’ Mamet said… ‘The gag is a complete theatrical unit: Set up an expectation and destroy it,’ he said. ‘All dramaturgy is gag writing.’”
He Nearly Quit Scripting Diving Bell “Screenwriter RONALD HARWOOD found creating the screenplay for THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY so hard - he nearly quit the project. The 73-year-old agreed to the job years after reading the autobiography of the same name by Jean-Dominique Bauby - and struggled desperately when he began to script the ‘untellable’ story of a man completely paralysed except for his left eye. He says, ‘I read it five years before being offered it and thought it was an extraordinary book. ‘Five years later (producer) Kathy Kennedy offered it to me and I said yes without re-reading it. It was not a clever thing to do. When faced with reality I was totally stuck. I had no idea how to proceed.’ And the writer - who won an Oscar for his screenplay to 2002's The Pianist - was so ridden with anxiety, he began to suffer panic attacks - and even considered returning the advance he received for his work. He adds, ‘As I was about to say 'I can't go on' I had the idea of seeing it from his (Bauby's) point of view and the camera did the blinking, and that was the breakthrough.’ ‘Then I knew what story I had to tell - one of illness and imagination. This was the most difficult screenplay I ever had to write, no question.’”
Jim Henson: The Movie “Empire Film Group has acquired the motion picture production and distribution rights to Henson, an original screenplay by Robert D. Slane that tells the story of the life and achievements of Muppets/Sesame Street creator Jim Henson. Empire plans to hire a major director, such as Penny Marshall, and name talent for this $30 million production which is aiming for a Summer 2008 start. The screenplay follows Henson’s rise from a teenager to entertainment mogul.”
A-Team Script Review “After 20 years that’s how I remember The A-Team. And I seriously cannot believe I am going to say these words but, wow, this A-Team movie screenplay I got my hands on takes all of those best remembered aspects of the show, scrapes away all the silly stuff, gives the concept a fresh coat of paint to make it contemporary and then proceeds to shove it into overdrive. This is the goddamn A-Team movie that you wanted so badly to see when you were a teenager: R-rated, a little more adult but completely and totally the same A-Team that you loved. And the action stuff? Imagine the old show with a budget of $100 million dollars. Seriously. It’s insane and yet so perfectly movie-level A-Team!”
Fitzgerald's Writing Room
An essay on F. Scott Fitzgerald “If there is tragedy in Pat, it lies outside the stories themselves, and that is where today’s writers’ strike and Pat Hobby intersect. While writing these stories, Fitzgerald was working out the last plot details of what would have been his best novel, ‘The Last Tycoon.’ A magically driving story of a studio baron battling death, labor unions and unpredictable women, the novel has a sophistication of voice and a truly cinematic flow of scenes unparalleled in his earlier work. But with no residual income from the many films to which he contributed, Fitzgerald was forced to keep putting the novel aside and grab whatever bone floated his way, be it Esquire’s story fee or his $250-a-week screenwriting fee — similar, not incidentally, to Pat Hobby’s. In the rare moments he was able to get in bed and work on the novel, Fitzgerald found his only peace. ‘I am deep in the novel,’ he wrote several months before his death, ‘living in it, and it makes me happy.’”
A Deal with Chris McQuarrie A week after signing a deal with Paul Haggis, United Artists has made a first-look deal with another Oscar winner: The Usual Suspects writer Christopher McQuarrie.
Weinsteins Cry Wolf The Weinstein Co. has optioned Evan Kuhlman's Wolf Boy: A Novel, and has set animation writer Christopher Parker to adapt the book.
Stuck in a Moment Fox Atomic has optioned the rights to Lizabeth Zindel's young adult novel Girl of the Moment, which is about a teen girl interning for a starlet and experiencing celebrity herself.
Want A Peek At The Castlevania Screenplay? “I'll ask again. Do you want to take a possible early look at the feature film adaptation of Konami's Castlevania? We have 32 pages worth…” (I peaked. It’s not pretty.)
"Smart Peopletakes two frequent cinematic stand-bys, the dead spouse movie and the fractured family film, and manages to execute both of them with no small amount of skill," counters James Rocchiat Cinematical. "Unlike PS I Love YouorDan in Real Life, the loss of Lawrence's wife is neither operatically omnipresent or glossed over; it's just always there, always sad, always real. And unlike Little Miss Sunshineor many other 'dysfunctional family' films, Smart People isn't slathered with wacky, zany characters. Everyone onscreen is human, and the film's full of small, deft character touches that feel unforced." And he talkstalks with Dennis Quaid,Sarah Jessica Parkerand Thomas Haden Church.
To those loyal readers who soaked in all three "Best Of" articles this week - How's your brain? Does it hurt? How do you feel? Good, I hope. We're a tough bunch. (BTW - I haven't even shared half of the articles I wanted to share. So on Sunday, we'll do the usual Screenwriting News and then we'll continue this "Best Of" series next week because I'd really like to get into characters and dialogue.)
Do you remember that scene inWonder Boyswhen Professor Grady Tripp (Michael Douglas) was in the Hi-Hat Club with James Leer (Tobey Maquire) and Terry Crabtree (Robert Downey Jr.)? They noticed a funny-looking guy across the hall and played a game in which they tried to imagine his life's story. They drummed up the name “Vernon Hardapple” and a tale about him being a jockey who fell off his horse, which is how he got his scar, and now he’s addicted to pain killers, and can't piss standing up, etc.
We used to play that game on the weekends. Remember that?
So tell me - who is this crazy girl pictured above? What's her story? Why does she look like this? What kind of funny contradictions would she have in her character?
I don't believe anyone had ever before written substantively about how to choose locations for your screenplay. This is essential stuff, you know, because nothing dictates the visual look of a film quite like the locations. Locations not only set the mood but can also make visual statements about the characters, too. And here you'll find perhaps a painfully exhaustive number of ideas as well as links to other articles from my Visual Storytelling series that may be of interest to you.
Every decision matters.
-MM
-----------------------------------------------
INT./EXT. WHERE SHOULD THIS DAMN SCENE TAKE PLACE
Ironically, little has been written in screenwriting books (and around scribosphere) about how to pick locations for your screenplay. This is important stuff! And it is such a pet peeve of mine when writers are so thoughtless, unoriginal, and uncreative about locations in their scripts. (Or they keep returning to the same boring location again and again. Or a protagonist goes halfway around the world to Italy only to spend the majority of the time in a hotel room. Are you kidding me? If you’re going to Italy, then show me Italy! I don’t need the country to be showcased like some vacation video, but please, let me soak up the sights and sounds and culture within the story.)
I have a number of thoughts about locations.
First, know your story. The locations cannot dictate the story; the story must dictate the locations. So do the homework. Do the character development sheets. Do the outline. Have a god-like knowledge about the world of your story. Know your themes, your conflicts, and your resolutions. Then you’ll make wise decisions about locations.
Second, once you know your story, you should make decisions about the visual palette of your screenplay. I think there’s an enormous significance to a script’s visual palette and the movie images you’re putting into the mind’s eye of your reader. It disappoints when you lack originality. It disappoints when your visuals are clichéd or unoriginal or lifted from another source. (Just because you like something from another movie doesn’t mean you should incorporate it into your script. It may not necessarily be the right fit. You have to consider your story on its own terms and what’s best for YOUR story. Besides, I think you’re better off considering all of the other films that have been made about similar subjects or themes and use that to make decisions about how your script will be distinctively different not only in terms of the story but also the visuals.) You may recall my post about Away From Herwhere I wrote, “We also have to recognize that a screenplay is the foundation to a film’s visual palette and that lightness and darkness and tone are monumental considerations to make when comparing your screenplay to other films on a similar subject. Ebert wrote about how we see this story ‘not in darkness and shadows and the gloom of winter and visions in the night, but in bright focus. Polley told Andrew O’Hehir of Salon: ‘For me the overriding palette that we were working with was the idea of this very strong, sometimes blinding winter sunlight that should infuse every frame. I didn’t want the visual style to draw too much focus to itself. I felt like this needed to be an elegant and simple film, and that it had to have a certain grace.’”
Having said that, there are practical considerations to be made about a certain location. Is it do-able? Can you get permission to film there? Don’t even think about it. If you can’t film there, it could be reproduced in a studio, but that costs money and you have no idea what the budget will be if your script gets produced, so don’t worry about it. I think some writers choose cheap locations so as to impress people by how well they can save money, when ultimately, a writer should write to inspire people with a great story, not prove how cost-conscious he/she can be. Always aim for the best locations that serve your story but be willing to make changes as the needs of a production evolve.
There are only two kinds of locations you can choose:
NATURAL or UNNATURAL
(I first had “man-made” instead of “unnatural,” but then I could imagine someone saying, “Well, what about alien spaceships? Is that ‘man-made’ too?” Okay, fine – “unnatural.”)
UNNATURAL
There are a number of things to be said about man-made locations. Consider the setting of the story. How does this affect or make statements about the characters? You may recall in an earlier post on Cinematic Storytelling, we talked about Strangers on a Train and there was a moment early in the film in which Hitchcock cut to an exterior moving shot of the train tracks, as if the camera was bolted to the front of the train. We smoothly glide along one set of tracks, and then we come upon one and two and then multiple intersecting tracks. Suddenly the train veers off suggesting that the protagonist has done the same.
In my second Art of Visual Storytelling article, I talked about The Conversation. Harry Caul’s personal environment came out of Francis Ford Coppola’s interest in repetition through symbols of the circular. To quote Jennifer Van Sijll from her book, Cinematic Storytelling, “What is being repeated is man’s emotional weakness represented by deceit and betrayal… Harry is a surveillance expert. His outer person is symbolized by the linear. He is rational, technically competent, detached, and remote. Coppola gives him clothes and a physical environment made up of straight, elongated lines. Harry’s job is dependent on the circular spinning wheels of the tape recorder. As long as he stays detached from their content, he is competent and stable.” Harry, of course, gets drawn into the emotional lives of his subjects, which is his undoing, as the surveillance expert becomes the surveillance subject. There's a scene toward the end where he tries to change the outcome and enters the building of the man who hired him. The building is linear on the outside but circular on the inside – just like Harry. As Jennifer wrote, “Once inside, he is confronted on the circular stairwell by corporate thugs. Below him is a floor tiled in a circular pattern. Once ejected from the building, he is safe again. He walks along the linear structure almost disappearing into its gray lined walls.”
Consider Hedwig and the Angry Inch, about a young man who struggles with his sexuality set in the backdrop of Berlin, a city divided by a wall. A man-made wall, by the way, divided two lovers in Bob Thielke’s completely visual screenplay. I once wrote a script (just for fun) that incorporated the French Riviera as a setting to represent a particular character because the deeper you explore the city, the colors get darker and the streets are more twisted. I just think that we're the ones who are expected to explore the world, ya know, and internalize what we learn about cities and structures and shapes and cultures in order to incorporate those nuggets into films to show the world and movies in a new light that we haven’t seen before.
On that note, here are four inspirational visuals:
Nature overtaking man:
Nature bringing light into a character’s darkened world:
Contrast of old vs. new:
And reflection vs. reality:
Even on a more practical level, ask yourself, “What kind of statement does this location make about the character?” (That question makes me think of Billy Wilder’s The Apartment and Holly Golightly’s pad in Breakfast at Tiffany’s.) Other questions: “Can the character afford to live here?” “What feeling does this location evoke?” “Would it make the audience nervous, uncomfortable, or would it give them warm & fuzzies all over?” “Does it add a sense of wonder to the story?” “How does this location add or undermine the tension?” “What’s better for an argument – a loud marketplace or a library? While someone’s at work or after they get home? On the phone or in person?” “Have we seen locations like this a million times before?” “Where can we go that we’ve haven’t seen?” “How can I show this tired location in a new light?”
Since reading Girish’s recommendation, I’ve been going through the book,1000 Defining Moments in Movies, and I found an entry worthy of our consideration. Contributing writer Miguel Marias offers up a key scene from Roberto Rossellini’s 1953 film Voyage in Italy starring Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders. To quote Miguel:
“An English couple journeying in Italy to clear up the affairs related to a recently deceased uncle’s estate have, while forced to stay together in a strange environment, wandered apart, realizing what they had so far avoided to admit through each living his or her own lives. They have just said the words ‘let’s get a divorce,’ when they have to accept an invitation to see new archeological discoveries in the ruins of Pompeii, an ancient city buried in lava and ashes after a cataclysmic volcanic eruption. The people working on the ongoing excavation slowly and carefully unearth what seems at first an arm, then two legs, then a skull from which, delicately, the earth is brushed off to reveal the plaster cast of a disintegrated head. Finally, there appear – much like photographed images appearing on a film as it is developed – the full bodies of a man and a woman who died suddenly in their sleep as they lay together in bed and who now look like the sculpture of a couple. We make these discoveries gradually and at precisely the same time as do the two characters, Katherine (Ingrid Bergman) and Alex Joyce (George Sanders), so that we can fully share or at least understand their reaction; both are impressed, and Katherine is affected so deeply that she wants to leave the place. As Alex escorts her out of the ruins towards their car, he admits, “I was pretty moved myself” – a first step towards mutual understanding, which prepares us to accept as (barely) feasible the almost miraculous reconciliation of the couple.”
NATURAL
I could write volumes about nature in films. I think to find the right placement in your story as a setting for a scene is to ask first what that scene’s about. Nature can be a sanctuary or it can be a force of death. Nature can represent anything and it can be used as a metaphor for everything. You just have to consider the relationships between forces and objects in nature and consider how it relates to your story. At Symbolism.org, they have an article on the Symbolism of Placeand talked about the four basic elements of water, fire, earth, and air:
“Perhaps the most obvious general symbolism of the elements is the division between masculine and feminine. Fire and air represent the Yang within Chinese thought and symbolize the masculine archetype, the active state and the thinking function. Water and earth represent the Yin within Chinese philosophy and symbolize the feminine archetype, the passive state and the intuitive function. Fire and air have found a historical association with the sky and a relationship with the well-known symbolism of the Sky Father. The earth and water have been associated with the symbolism of Mother Earth. As Jung notes in his article "Psychology of the Transference" in The Practice of Psychotherapy, "Of the elements, two are active - fire and air, and two are passive - earth and water."
“For example, fire is associated with the sun and the light of day which relates to consciousness. It is an above space phenomena in that the quality of fire moves upward rather than downward. Our sensory perceptions relates fire to both the heat of the day and the heat of the summer season when light rules over darkness. Water is the element whose symbolism stands in direct opposition to that of fire. It is associated with unconsciousness, the darkness of night and the moon's monthly cycles which control ocean tides. While fire moves upward water moves downward and is associated with below space rather than above space. The element of air has a masculine archetype and the element of earth a feminine archetype. Again, there is a similar symbolism with these two elements and those of fire and water. Air is an above space because it is most present above the earth rather than in the earth or below the earth. Like water, the earth is a below space rather than an above space.”
I’m going to close this with another key scene taken from 1000 Defining Moments in Movies. This can show how the same location can be used for both joy and sadness. It’s taken from a 1964 Denmark film by Carl Dreyer called Gertrud and starred Nina Pens Rode and Baard Owe. Here’s what Jonathan Rosenbaum’s wrote:
“‘She awoke at last to find herself getting laid; she’d come in on a sexual crescendo in progress, like a cut to a scene where the camera’s already moving.’ Curiously, this sentence by Thomas Pynchon in The Crying of Lot 49 (1966) comes only two years after the release of Carl Dreyer’s final feature. This isn’t to suggest any influence – only a striking congruence with a cut to a scene where the camera’s already moving as it follows Gertrud’s (Rode’s) determined stride across a park to keep her rendezvous with Erland Jansson (Owe), the much younger composer she’s fallen in love with. In the previous scene – ponderously paced, in a claustrophobic flat – she has just told her stuffy middle-aged husband at some length that she no longer loves him and is leaving him. And Dreyer’s sudden cut in media res to her moving towards Erland expresses infatuation and orgasmic passion like few other camera movements in cinema – as if to replicate both her impatience and her ecstatic anticipation… They meet at a bench beside a placid pond that seems to glisten with Gertrud’s happy rapture. Much later in the film, when Erland breaks her heart in the same setting, the same pond is ruffled by quiet turbulence, but here it shines with joy.”
I loved Billy's recent article called The Movie on the Page. He wrote, "Cinematic storytelling -- the term that's come to define this particular approach to screenwriting -- involves a kind of three-step process (though these steps are often enacted simultaneously): 1) you conceive your story in filmic terms, 2) you see the movie in your head, and 3) you write the story in a language that vividly communicates that movie's sounds and images." Amen and amen! Billy also reminded us of Robert Towne's famous dictum, "When I write a screenplay I'm describing a movie that's already been shot." Exactly.
And so, along these same lines, I wrote this "Write the Shots!" article last November. There is still too much confusion about action lines, about what to write, how much you should write, and fears about "Directing the Director." This madness has to stop. Between this article, Billy's, and Jennifer van Sijll's "Directing the Director," which is referenced below, you should hopefully put this whole issue behind you and you can start to really hone HOW you write your action lines. Believe me, kids, THIS is what master craftsmanship is all about.
-MM
-------------------------------------
Okay, let’s just clear the air of so much bad thinking about action lines. I don’t know how or why this happened, but a lot of newbies seem to think that a scene is comprised of 1) a Master Scene Heading (such as INT. MYSTERY MAN’S KITCHEN – NIGHT) and 2) they should just add some action lines to describe the room, the characters, write a bunch of dialogue, (and quite a few more action lines to describe even the slightest gestures of characters, which we call incidental actions), and 3) move on to the next scene and repeat this process for 120 pages.
Wrong.
How did they get so far away from the core principles of screenwriting? Were they mislead? I don’t know. Even by the very low standards described above, some newbies can’t even get that right and they fill their action lines with what we call unfilmmables – sentences in action lines that are not visual, such as backstories of characters, author’s intrusions, inner thoughts, questions to the reader, etc.
Now, what do we know about action lines? With Trottier’s Screenwriter's Bible, we know that we ARE meant to describe the setting, characters, or actions of those characters, but these sentences must be very lean and mean. We write only what we see on the screen and only the most essential elements using the most minimal words. We have to provide a framework of visuals that tell the story so the reader (and audience) can put two & two together and visualize what's happening on the screen. Action paragraphs should be 4 lines or fewer. You typically write one paragraph per beat of action, and they should be important actions. I loved what Trottier said about incidental actions: “If your character raises her cup of coffee to her lips, that’s not important enough to describe… unless there’s poison in the cup.”
Hehehe...
Always, always err on the side of brevity.
Now let’s take it to the next level. The only way you can truly excel at writing cinematic stories (on a par with or surpassing the pros) is to elevate your craft to a level where you can (without using camera angles) WRITE THE SHOTS.
Bwaaah! You’re SO wrong, Mystery Man! Yes, I can hear you balking already and screaming at your monitors that, dammit, man, you can’t describe the shots because it’s up to the director to decide how that scene will be filmed and thus, all you can do is just tell the story – what happens to what character and then move on to the next scene.
Wrong.
That’s completely and absurdly wrong.
This kind of hands-off thinking about filmmaking has harmed more screenplays, prevented more writers from getting sales, and generally lowered the quality of contemporary films. It’s not enough that we, as screenwriters, must have a god-like knowledge about the story we wrote and about the art of storytelling, characters, dialogue, and structure. Screenwriters are filmmakers, too, and we have to think like filmmakers and endeavor to render our stories CINEMATICALLY, which means that we should write the shots.
This does not, has not, and will not ever offend directors or anyone else. On the contrary, reading a truly visual, cinematic screenplay that really feels like a movie on paper INSPIRES readers, INSPIRES producers, INSPIRES executives, and yes, directors, too, and those are the scripts that GET SALES. I mean, come on. The way to get a director onboard is to get him/her excited about the story and the visuals. And your screenplay is essentially the first grouping of cinematic ideas, the first shot across the bow about how to render this particular story cinematically. It’s the springboard for what will be many future creative discussions about turning your script into a film.
Conflicts between screenwriters and directors have more to do with a screenwriter not thinking like a filmmaker (and wanting to tell instead of show) than it is about a director not recognizing how brilliant the dialogue is. Rules about not writing the shots so as to avoid offending directors are so absurd, because, like everything else in life, this business is about relationships. It's ALL about the relationships you build with people in the business. Period. If you walk into a room and say “this is the way it is and to hell with what you think - no one big or small can change one word or comma of my screenplay,” yeah, everyone will hate you. If, on the other hand, you walk into a room and you're capable of having a creative discourse and engaging people who have different ideas and calmly explaining how and why and what you were trying to accomplish with each moment of your screenplay, you’ll go far. Establishing good, working, creative relationships with people is, umm, a good thing for your career.
With some directors, that’s impossible, but that’s another article.
So let’s talk about writing the shots. I once had a brief conversation about this topic in e-mail with Jennifer van Sijll, a screenwriting professor, consultant, former professional reader for Universal, and author of Cinematic Storytelling. She wrote,
“I think a writer should avoid anything that takes readers out of the read. As soon as they start visualizing equipment rather than what's on the screen, they've broken from the story. Here is an example.
Joe scans the room. His eyes land on the glock. He stops. He trains his eye on the murder weapon, and puts a match to the curtains.
This is a pan, probably a push in to closeup, and a wideshot.
If you can write without mentioning camera angles, it's more engaging.”
Exactly. She also wrote a great article about this called Directing-the-Director. Here’s a portion in which she discusses a scene from Pulp Fiction. (People always remember Pulp Fiction for it’s great structure and dialogue, but many don’t realize that he also wrote the shots and practically edited each scene through the action lines.)
Cinematic Example: Editing - Pacing and Expanding Time
In the drug overdose scene, midpoint in the movie, Vincent (John Travolta) attempts to revive Mia (Uma Thurman) by stabbing Mia’s heart with a hypodermic needle filled with adrenalin. The scripted scene fills us with tension. We hold our breath hoping that Mia is going to make it.
The reason “we hold our breath” is because the script is written “already edited.” In this case it is edited to “milk the scene” and thereby pump up suspense.
So how does Tarantino do this?
Tarantino does this through overlapping action. He includes cuts to the needle, the red dot, and the faces of characters. These cuts lengthen the time needed for the real-time-event of the stabbing to occur. Although Vincent counts out three seconds on the dialogue track, it takes ¾ of a page for the moment to take place or 45 seconds of screen time. That means that we are holding our breath 15 times longer than Vincent’s three-second countdown suggests.
Through purposeful use of editing, the writer is guiding the reader’s emotional experience, and delivering a scene that can be imagined as a movie.
Writing in Shots
Tarantino accomplishes this by writing in shots. He doesn’t write in descriptive paragraphs like novelists. Each of his sentences implies a specific camera angle. “Implies” is the operative word here. Camera angles and lenses are not called out, but understood from his description.
The script’s pacing mimics what we will later see on screen. Paragraphing and sentence length suggest how long a shot will play on the screen. For example, a single one-sentence paragraph implies one shot. The implication is that it should play out longer on screen than would say, multiple shots implied in a four-line paragraph. The white space buys the single shot time. Adding an editorial aside like “Mia is fading fast. Nothing can save her now” is like saying “hold on the shot”. It again gains the shot more screen time.
Let’s take a look at how this is done in the actual script. This excerpt is taken from mid-scene.
The top line is from Tarantino’s script, where no camera information is given. The parentheticals in the line below are my interpretation of the shot that is implied.
Excerpt from Pulp Fiction
Vincent lifts the needle up above his head in a stabbing motion. He looks down on Mia. (LOOSE CLOSE-UP VINCENT) (VINCENT POV – MIA)
Mia is fading fast. Soon nothing will help her. (HOLD ON MIA.)
Vincent’s eyes narrow, ready to do this. (TIGHT CLOSE-UP – VINCENT)
VINCENT Count to three.
Lance on his knees right beside Vincent, does not know what to expect. (WIDE SHOT – LANCE AND VINCENT)
LANCE One.
RED DOT on Mia’s body. (CLOSE ON RED DOT )
Needle poised ready to strike. (CLOSE ON NEEDLE)
LANCE Two.
Jody’s face is alive in anticipation. (CLOSE-UP JODY)
NEEDLE in the air, poised like a rattler ready to strike. (CLOSE ON NEEDLE)
LANCE (OS) Three!
The needle leaves the frame, THRUSTING down hard. (CLOSE ON NEEDLE)
Vincent brings the needle down hard, STABBING Mia in the chest. (MEDIUM SHOT)
Mia’s head is JOLTED from the impact. (CLOSE ON MIA’S HEAD)
The syringe plunger is pushed down, PUMPING the adrenalin out through the needle. (CLOSE ON SYRINGE PUMPER)
Mia’s eyes POP WIDE OPEN and lets out a HELLISH cry of the banshee. (CLOSE-UP ON MIA’S EYES) She BOLTS UP in a sitting position, needle stuck in her chest---SCREAMING (WIDE SHOT - MIA)
Summary
In this brief page, Tarantino has implied 15 camera angles. Despite his use of camera, the reader isn’t taken out of the read because the script never calls out specific camera positions or angles.
Had Tarantino described the camera angles with 15 descriptors like CLOSE-UP ON MIA’S EYES, it would have been an unbearable read.
Tarantino was able to slow down real time by cutting away to objects and multiple reaction shots of the characters. He used editing and the inherent elasticity of the medium to help dramatize a pivotal moment and up the suspense.
Pacing was further aided by how Tarantino suggested shot length through paragraphing.
I also want to share one more quote from Jennifer’s article:
“Writing cinematically is not the same as Directing-the-Director. Directing-the-director is when you write: “JOE’S POV WINDOW– LOW ANGLE,” instead of “Joe looks up at the window.” They mean the same thing. The first unnecessarily draws attention to camera information taking us completely out of the story. The second method implies it’s a POV shot and a low-angle, but it does not distract us with technical jargon. Similarly if a tracking shot is essential to a scene it’s better to say “Joe jogs alongside Susan” rather than “TRACKING SHOT – JOE AND SUSAN JOGGING which is considered directing-the-director.”
Exactly. I couldn’t agree more.
Consider the “write the shots” example I gave in my Billy Mernit script review. Remember how visual that was? Consider how Melissa Mathison brilliantly incorporated low angles from the creature’s POV in the opening sequence of her E.T. screenplay to make the trucks, the lights, and the keys, all so very scary and to establish the humans as the antagonistic force. Consider the L.A. Riverbed sequence in Chinatownwhere Gittes follows Mulwray. With Secondary Headings, Robert Towne starts with long shots, then cuts back and forth between Gittes and Mulwray. When the action gets intense, he goes to close-ups of Gittes. Consider the way Apocalypse Now and Barton Fink uses creative camera angles to disorient the audience in order to make a statement about the mental state of the protagonist. You can write that so long as you don't use camera angles. I could go on and on.
Did you know that the world’s first screenplay was written by a woman? Yes, Alice Guy-Blaché wrote “screen-plays” in order to organize her thoughts and all the ways she would experiment with sound and visual effects in the late 1800s. The whole point of her “screen-plays” was to write the shots. By the way, the first screenplay was for a short called The Cabbage Fairy/La Fée aux choux (France, 1896), which was a comic fantasy about babies that were born in cabbage patches. Guy-Blaché would go on to direct over 700 short films and establish one of the world’s first movie studios – Solax.
I don’t mean to say that you have to edit every scene and write every shot with every action line. Sometimes, you just need to write about the action, and yes, the director will figure out how to film it. But write the shots when it really counts. And now you can also take a deep breath and embrace and study all those old screenplays that are full of camera angles. The only thing that’s changed is the fact that we no longer write camera angles, but the principles of action lines have never changed in that we should think like filmmakers, we should render our stories cinematically, and we should write the shots.
I had written quite extensively in my reviews on TriggerStreet and here on the blog about Secondary Headings, but this post compiled all of that information into one resourceful place. This is a perfectly acceptable industry standard technique, and I believe Secondary Headings are crucial to great craftsmanship in specs. This is what gives you the freedom to go anywhere and do anything in a screenplay. This is what gives you long tracking shots, implied closeups, camera directions, as well as big, seamless action sequences.
I don't know what possessed me to use these photos. They're pretty funny, I guess. Anyway, hope you enjoy it.
-MM
--------------------------
What kind of photos does one use for an article about Secondary Headings? How about some imaginative (photoshop’d) locations thanks toWorth1000? Because if locations like these were in your scripts, you’ll probably need to use some Secondary Headings to get around.
I’ve said so many different things about Secondary Headings in so many different places that I’ve been wanting to put it all together in one comprehensive post. Amateurs and pros alike hardly ever use them, which I cannot fathom. I do not see how any truly devoted craftsman can live without Secondary Headings. They are nothing less than your golden ticket to freedom in screenwriting. And there is just no excuse for pro readers to not know what they are and how they work. Because if Trottier says it can be done, Screenwriter's Bible, well, it CAN be done. Period.
So let's take a look at them. As I’m sure you know very well, STUPID BORING Master Scene Headings usually look like this:
INT. LOCATION – DAY
Trottieris pretty strict about how Master Scene Headings should look. It’s INT. or EXT., LOCATION, only ONE DASH, and then DAY or NIGHT (or CONTINUOUS or SAME or LATER). There are very few liberties you can take with Master Scene Headings. You can, at times, have two dashes in the event of a FLASHBACK SEQUENCE, but that’s about it.
Master Scene Headings have always felt so confining to me and so full of limitations with the way they force you to be stuck in one location until you move on to the next Master Scene Heading. Does that not feel completely wrong to you guys? All the great movies I’ve seen are FULL of movement. Thus, I love so very much Secondary Headings, which is a perfectly groovy and acceptable industry standard technique.
If you have different scenes taking place in the same building (or general location), all you need are Secondary Headings. For example, if you have, say, early in your script, one big talkative 6-page scene with 5 characters in a kitchen, you’re running a huge risk of losing the reader and the audience. However, you could (through Secondary Headings) break up that monster conversation into short vignettes that take place in, say, the Family Room, Master Bedroom, Back Patio, and Garage. Plus, in the process of breaking up that long talk, you can eliminate all the non-essential lines in that one scene and shrink those 5-pages down to maybe 2 good, tight pages full of movement.
Spacing wise, you should treat Secondary Headings as you would Master Scene Headings. They're painless, too, because all you have to type is the location:
INT. MYSTERY MAN’S KITCHEN – NIGHT
Jack the Ripper grabs a steak knife.
GREAT HALL
Mystery Man foxtrots with Mystery Woman.
Or (praise the movies gods) Secondary Headings can also be prepositional phrases:
IN THE GREAT HALL
Mystery Man foxtrots with Mystery Woman.
Secondary Headings can also offer movement:
Jack the Ripper tip-toes into the
GREAT HALL
and hides behind a statue of David.
Let me ask you - how would you handle multiple conversations taking place in different locations at the same party? Like, for example, the wedding reception at the beginning of The Godfather? Secondary Headings - BY THE BUFFET TABLE, ON THE STAGE, IN THE PARKING LOT, etc.
How would you handle long tracking shots like the great ones we’ve seen in Stanley Kubrick’s films? Secondary Headings. (I love long tracking shots. There was always a point to Kubrick’s tracking shots, too, you know. Kubrick was, in essence, marrying his characters to their environment and saying, “Hey, look, these characters are products of their environment” or “They are being horribly affected by this environment.”)
How would you handle the third act dogfight sequence in Top Gun? Start with EXT. BLUE SKY – DAY and then fill it with Secondary Headings - INSIDE MAVERICK'S TOMCAT, ABOVE THE SEA, INSIDE MIG TWO, etc.
Secondary Headings have had a long and treasured history in cinematic storytelling. There was Lawrence Kasdan withRaiders(I'll never forget those Secondary Headings in that famous opening sequence like "HALL OF SHADOWS" and "CHAMBER OF LIGHT" and "THE SANCTUARY" - didn't know those rooms had names, did you?). Spielberg also used them prolifically in Close Encounters. And there was Ted Tally with Silence of the Lambs(probably the most famous and chilling Secondary Heading in screenwriting history - "DR. LECTER'S CELL"). There was William Goldman with All the President's Men, and John Milius with Apocalypse Now, and Robert Towne with Chinatown, and Paul Schrader with Taxi Driver, and Randall Wallace with Braveheart, and Scott Frank with every script he's ever written but lately Minority Reportand The Lookout, and of course, a classic - Herman J. Mankiewicz & Orson Welles with Citizen Kane.
Secondary Headings are so popular right now amongst the pros that some ONLY write Secondary Headings and NO Master Scene Headings AT ALL. Like the Coen brothers. Fargois one that comes to mind. Or take, for example, their latest script - No Country for Old Men. It's so downright minimalist without any primary slugs at all that it's just plain weird-looking. (I can't say I approve of this, but hey, they're writing for themselves nowadays.) I recently did a review of a Billy Mernit screenplay. I didn't mention this in the review, but he didn't use ANY primary slugs either. This is the trend. (Of course, this means nothing to us. We have to continue to follow industry standard format as outlined in Trottier's Screenwriter's Bibleand prove to all those intelligent industry people how well we understand how a screenplay FUNCTIONS. Once we become "established," THEN we can take a left turn at Albuquerque and do crazy things like not write any Master Scene Headings.)
Of course, like everything, there can be pitfalls to Secondary Headings. One can have too much movement, movement that makes no sense, too many quick scenes in a row, etc. It’s a technique that, like everything else, has to be mastered. But, ohh, how fun it is when an artist masters the form and delivers a truly great cinematic experience.
Above is the latest episode of Dana Brunetti’sTriggerStreet TV, which covers industry news, trends, and topics. Dana Brunetti, as many of you know, is the founder of TriggerStreetandproducerof four films coming out this year, including 21with Kevin Spacey.
Vacation Alert - I'll be out this week but do not fret! All week long, we will be posting Best Of articles from the archives (with new intros written by me) to give all you new readers out there a chance to catch up. If you haven't read these articles before, this could be a life-changing week for you as a writer.
Required Reading: Billy’s The Movie On The Page “The ten Oscar-nominated screenplays are all "pre-directed." They're crammed full of specific visual/aural choices that timid Little Brains would deem "directors only!" -- and most of them achieve their aims without ever resorting to camera language (the Coen's No Country lays out the writer/directors' shot list, as is their wont, but this and P.T. Anderson's There Will Be Blood prove the exceptions amidst the current crop of Oscar-nom'ed screenplays).”
Danny Stack on Theme “Writing for theme works in a variety of ways. One, don’t worry about it and get your first draft done, only then revising the story to add notions of theme and what you really want to say. Two, write with theme in mind (many writers stick the theme, or even one word, over their computers to remind themselves that everything must feed into that idea) and really get a hold of the resounding power of your story (get you). Three, forget all about theme. Write what you like. If you feel confident that the story delivers what you want in terms of entertainment value but you don’t have a clue what the theme is, don’t worry, someone else will come up with one for you, probably a critic (especially if the film is a hit). Loads of hit films don’t have themes but that doesn’t mean to say that they’re hollow or without merit. The slimmest suggestion of a theme could be enough...”
Laura Deerfield onDepression and Creativity “But the article I found most helpful was this one: An interview with a doctor who did an empirical study on creativity and mental illness, and so is speaking from facts rather than supposition. In his study, around 70% of the writers had depression, which is just massive. However, he noted that during a depressive or manic phase, an individual is not motivated or organized enough to actually create. It is only after they emerge from that state that they are able to use those experiences as fuel. He addresses the fear that some have of medication stifling their creativity with examples, and states that creative people are more functional and more able to actually produce work while their illness is under control. He also notes that besides major Depression and Bipolar disorder, schizophrenia has a link to creativity - but once again, not when it is out of control.”
For Writer, Happiness Isn't Free, but It's Cheap “With a knack for getting the most out of a dollar, Jeff Yeager likes to call himself the ‘Titan of Tightwads,’ ‘Maestro of Misers’ or ‘Commander in Cheap.’ ‘I am cheap, and I am a loser,’ Yeager, 49, of Accokeek said last week, pointing to his soiled shirt and bluejeans. ‘Look at me. Do I look like an author?’
Bardem, Ledger and the truth about movie acting “Bravo to Bardem for publicly acknowledging what every cinematic actor knows but few talk about publicly. If you've ever asked yourself, "How can Actor X be so good in one picture and so bad in another?" -- Bardem's got your answer in a nutshell: Any performance is created from many random bits and pieces of film, carefully chosen (we hope!) and assembled from among hundreds of choices and many thousands of possible combinations. Actors may give several very different readings of the same scene, adjusting nuances and emotions or improvising something spontaneous that the director and the editor (n the Coens' case, the pseudonymous Roderick Jaynes -- can't wait to hear his Oscar speech) must put together from what would otherwise be incoherent scraps.”
Emily Blake onThings you can learn from high school storytellers “1) They didn't show me, they told me. They told me two characters were best friends. They told me a boy and girl were in love, they told me a boy's mom was a whore. I gave them examples of how you can add a scene into a story to show the relationship in a way that's much more effective at getting me into the story.”
Zach Campbell’s Revisitations “I recently re-watched All About Eve, All That Heaven Allows, and The Fly (Cronenberg) on DVD… Mankiewicz's film comes off somewhat better than the first go round--I wasn't a huge fan the first time I saw it, and I know it's a classic and full of great lines, and I see now that it's not a shallow film, that the whole Addison DeWitt angle especially gives it some substantial resonance. But I just haven't been able to jump aboard 100%. Don't ask me why, I'm not certain I could give you a rational reason. Or even a coherent irrational one. Yet.”
Dennis Cozzalio Loves to Dance “The rest of Dance Party USA is indeed a dance done to and in the rhythms of two restless people desperate to connect to someone—perhaps each other—who must deal with the ramifications of the honesty Jessica inspires in Gus and where it will lead them, if it can lead them anywhere. Director Katz has fashioned his first film in a way that remains true to the sensibility of self-absorbed teenagers without itself becoming bogged down in a morass of self-reflection or self-serving romanticism. His camera is free-floating but patient, willing to settle on Jessica’s relatively mature gaze, or on the squirming self-consciousness of Gus’s self-protecting grin as he begins to reckon with the ways Jessica is beginning to transform him, from a sexual predator to a social partner. What Katz finds in those visages, as well as in the freshly observed city environment in which their small drama plays out, brings flesh to what could have been just another plastic indie D.I.Y. romance of the sort Sundance spits out like sunflower seed shells these days.”
Ed Copeland on Death Proof “In Death Proof, few of the characters have any sort of distinct personality outside of Russell, especially in the case of the first group of young women Stuntman Mike terrorizes. Most of the actresses in the early sequence are really bad, and not in a good way. Since we spend nearly an hour with them, it gets to be unbearable. The second group of women, which includes Rosario Dawson, are slightly better, but their repartee comes off as very tired.”
New Voices in Writing Offer Their Advice “Silas House ("The Coal Tattoo," Ballantine): You have to be determined. That's the only way to get published. Never take no for an answer. I think that you should never have a big ego about yourself, but you should have an ego about your writing. But before that, you have to get to the place where you can have some objectivity about your own writing. So many of my undergrads come in and they think they're the best writers in the world, they think they know everything. So part of my job is to focus in on what they don't know, and whatever it is they do know, that's what they need to be writing about. You have to be patient. It took me about six years to get published, from the time I started querying agents.”
Burt Reynolds Blog-A-Thon! “Has it really been more than 30 years since he was larking it up on Carson's couch, or tear-assing across the South in that black Trans Am, or navigating the rapids of the Cahulawassee River, or posing - grinning, naked and hairy - for the centerfold of Cosmopolitan magazine?” asksLarry Aydlette, the intrepid host of very fun blog-a-thon. See also Peter Nellhaus's piece on 100 Rifles and Burt-a-Thon, Day 2: Semi Tough.
Drown Doubt With a Dose of Inspiration “The truth is some people have big dreams that will require hard work, creating opportunities and, perhaps most important of all, faith that those dreams can happen. Henry Ford said, 'If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right.' Every time a client comes to me and says some variation of, 'I’m writing a screenplay, but everyone is writing a screenplay' I want to shake him or her. Honestly, if you think your screenplay (or painting or music composition or novel or brief or presentation or speech) has no distinguishing qualities, then how do you expect anyone else to engage it?”
Q&A: Difference between Story By, Screenplay By and Written By “Answer: If a person wrote only the story (plot, characters, etc) but did not write the actual screenplay, that person will get the 'Story By' credit. If a person only wrote the screenplay, then they’ll get the 'Screenplay By' credit. Lastly, if a person wrote both the story and screenplay, they’ll get the 'Written By' credit.”
Screenwriting 101: Pop Quiz “The protagonist of 2001: A Space Odyssey is: a) Moon-Watcher b) The Monolith c) Dr. Heywood R. Floyd d) Dr. Dave Bowman e) Dr. Frank Poole e) HAL 9000 f) The frozen astronauts g) None of the above”
Former 007 screenwriter Bruce Feirstein talks about Bond film titles “Ordinarily, I don’t like writing about the James Bond franchise. Having written or co-written three of the pictures from the Pierce Brosnan era, it feels like something that took place a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. But with last week’s announcement of the curious title of the latest film in the series, Quantum of Solace, my editor—who knows that I bear responsibility for the equally controversial title Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)—has asked for an explanation as to how these movies are named. So, for once, I’ll indulge him.”
Vanderbilt psyched for 'Spider-Man 4' “BlogTalkRadio chats up screenwriter James Vanderbilt about Zodiac as well as his next project Spider-Man 4. 'I went in on that. I really loved the films,' Vanderbilt said. 'It's sort of an odd process because you're sitting down with the people who made the first three and going, 'Well let me tell you what to do.'”
Are You a Screenwriter on Strike? “If so, it's the perfect time for you to become a playwright! Many striking members of the WGA, in addition to battling the producers for fair compensation, are using this opportunity to hone their craft, polish up old scripts, and perhaps even try out new mediums.
"A couple decide to document poltergeist-like disturbances inParanormal Activity," writes Dennis Harveyin Variety. "Oren Peli's crew-less debut feature is one of the best genre spins on the pseudo-nonfiction 1st-person-cam since The Blair Witch Project, with which it shares improvised performances, no explicit violence or 'solution,' and a gradual escalation of chills."
Cloverfield 2 Writer Announced “Production charts have made it known that Drew Goddard will write CloverField 2. Cant really complain since the first movie was fantastic. IS it just me though or is JJ Abrams getting all the credit?”
Haggis takes Hwy61 to United Artists “Filmmaker Paul Haggis has inked an overall deal with United Artists that will have the Oscar winner writing, producing and possibly directing projects with the studio through his newly created Hwy61 production shingle.”
Screenwriting 101 -- Some Thoughts on Dialogue “3. To every extent possible, characters should not tell each other how they feel. Any time a character tells another character how he or she feels, the audience is going to wonder 'what the heck is he or she getting at?' Any time a character says 'Here's the truth of a matter:' what should follow the colon is anything other than the truth of the matter. Think of it: any time someone comes to you in your daily goings-about and says 'Let me tell you something about myself' or 'I have some feelings I want to share with you' or 'The fact of the matter is...' you want to turn around and run in the opposite direction. Because the only reason someone would come up to you and offer you some kind of truth is because they want something from you.”
Richard Armstrong’sModernity and the Maniac: The Fall of Janet Leigh “In Touch of Evil and Psycho, the icon came into her own. These films painfully chart specifically modern degradation. In Touch of Evil we witness the downfall of the All-American Girl at a key moment in Leigh's evolution from ingénue to star. As Harvey puts it, Susie Vargas ‘is no campus-queen sweater girl, but a courageous, self-possessed young woman. On her honeymoon.’ ‘Susie’; the accessibility is piquant, almost gooey. But if in early scenes her coiffed blonde hair--check that quiff--and brimming confidence, suggest the brash American on a spree—‘on the trail of a chocolate soda’--by the end of the film the young bride has been molested, drugged, and stripped bare.”
Meet the Spartans Gives Hope to Screenwriters Everywhere “If absolute crap like that can be made, then my wonderful screenplay (called Love in the Time of Hedge Funds, a romantic comedy about a Hedge Fund manager who falls in love with a venture capitalist and they live happily ever after earning a 19% return on invested capital) can be made into a movie!”
"Savage Graceis a quiet stunner, a reserved but engrossing psychodrama whose cumulative impact is devastating," writes Sam Adamsin the Philadelphia City Paper. It "builds to a series of incidents that would seem outrageous in another context. But without relying on reductive foreshadowing or pat psychobabble, [Tom]Kalinand screenwriter Howard Rodmanearn the movie's final scenes, when what has seemed like a poisoned take on Edith Whartonsuddenly becomes something out of Edgar Allan Poe." "One of the more controversial films at Sundance, Savage Grace dramatizes the real-life story of Barbaraand Tony Baekeland, a bizarrely intertwined high-society mother and son whose Oedipal relationship ended in tragedy," writes Kim Voynarat Cinematical. "Tom Kalin, whose prior film Swoonre-told the 1924 Leopold and Loebmurder case, seems fascinated by exploring these unusual true-crime type stories, and Savage Grace, while frequently difficult to watch because of the nature of the storyline, is both intense and fascinating." (Thanks to GreenCine Daily.)
15 Nominees for Worst Movie Dialogue Ever “Some of the most regrettable lines in Hollywood history come from the mouths of babes (Drew Barrymore), Oscar nominees (Tom Cruise), and superheroes (Halle Berry)...”
Last week, we shared A Softer World, and then I was made aware of another webcomic of similar sensibilities –Tiny Ghosts.
Funny things keep happening to the "Dodgeball" writer “But he somehow sold ‘Dodgeball’ to Fox with himself attached as director and landed his dream cast. Upon release, the movie stunned industry observers by besting Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks' ‘The Terminal’ during the films' opening weekend in 2004 before going on to take in $114 million domestically. Suddenly, the San Francisco-born writer-director went from zero to hero (well, sort of). ‘There were all these offers for me to do romantic comedies about competitive darts players. Or curling,’ he recalled. ‘I got seven competitive eating scripts.’ But then another funny thing happened to Thurber en route to becoming the next Judd Apatow — or at least, the next auteur of blow-Pepsi-out-your-nose-inducing, below-the-belt comedy. Against the advice of his agent (‘He said: 'Capture the bouquet of this moment' — do something that's very similar’), the 32-year-old followed up his ‘Dodgeball’ success by making a low-budget, independently financed art house drama…”
Mike Le’s Paradise Lost. Sundance winners start with 'Frozen Water' and 'Trouble the Water' “Alex Rivera's ‘Sleep Dealer’ won the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award as well as the Alfred P. Sloan Prize for a film with science or technology as a theme. A vivid, visually exciting sci-fi epic with a strong sense of social commentary, 'Sleep Dealer' created a fully realized world on a shoestring budget….The world cinema screenwriting award went to France's Samuel Benchetrit for his ‘I Always Wanted to be a Gangster.’”
Striking Screenwriters Slum It In The Lit World “‘Oftentimes, you shudder when a screenwriter sends you a novel, because they tend to be strong with dialogue but crappy with context, and novels are all about creating the proper context for the story...’”
“Esteemed screenwriting sage and Fulbright ScholarRobert McKeehas grown weary of pacing chilly theaters and yearns to feel the wind through his eyebrows. He is now offering* the following vacation packages, all of which include Mr. McKee’s in-demand, three-day Story Seminar. ‘Relive the Cuban Missile Crisis with Robert McKee…’ ‘Backstage at Ringling Bros. with Robert McKee…’”
I'm famous yet anonymous, failed yet accomplished, brilliant yet semi-brilliant. I'm a homebody who jetsets around the world. I'm brash and daring yet chilled with a twist. I also write for Script Magazine.