As you know if you've been gracious enough to read my previous ramblings, I've been going on about a Three Day Thriller that I've been working on. Turns out that the idea has evolved, thanks to some of my Tweet-Buds @robertcarroll (blog here) and @hollywoodjane (blog here) and @sambanova. We've morphed the Three Day Thriller into a Five Day Feature to encompass more than a single genre, and given ourselves between now and Sunday to complete it, choosing the five days that work best for us to write.
I've realized that I've painted myself into a bit of a corner here, as I am leaving for a two week hiaitus on Friday at 5:30AM and between now and then I am scheduled to work every day at the bill paying job. So, I have a small confession to make. I'm going to be cheating ever so slightly. I am planning to transfer my Three Day Thriller into the Five Day Feature. I have currently already worked on the thriller for three sittings, which would give me two more sittings to finish it. Since Thursday is a total write off due to holiday preparations, I figure I'm not cheating too badly, and am hoping my tweet-family won't excommunicate me too easily. I'm Thirty-one pages in, which still leaves me quite a feat to accomplish around my work days. I'm extremely excited to have some moral support from other (read: better) writers who are forging on along the same timelines.
Check this blog for updates, or follow along on Twitter. You can search #5dayfeature for Twitter info. Happy writing to my compatriots.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Writing the High Road
I had a great discussion tonight with Derek (@dereklanger for you twitterholics) about why The Hangover worked for us, when Old School (both from director Todd Phillips) failed to impress either of us. We came to the decision that it was a combination of several factors that set The Hangover apart, not the least of which was a decision made by the writers to take the high road, and grant a marginal amount of intelligence to their viewers.
Generally, we avoid seeing comedies in the theater. Being on a modest budget as we claw our way into our chosen field, we usually spend on movies that will deliver more in the theater than our BluRay and LCD can achieve at home; most of the time this doesn't include comedies (romantic or otherwise) without a substantial amount of special effects. The Hangover was an exception, since it had come highly recommended and we were looking for a group-friendly show on a Saturday evening. We were duly impressed.
The Hangover is atypical of its genre because it does not write its characters into a corner and then inform you that the walls in the corner are white. Instead, the writers have written characters that embody some of the traits necessary to foster humorous reactions and a wide variety of jokes, but they allow them to grow on you slowly. They provide a wonderful platform for you to relate to each character by giving them a voice of their own to tell you who they are, and what they are struggling with instead of having characters B and C tell you that A is an uptight loser who brushes his teeth sixteen times a day. This, coupled with using relatively unknown actors who do not bring their typecast to every role they accept breathes new life into a genre that is begging Jim Carey and Will Ferrell to take a vacation.
This got me to thinking about the guts it takes to write the high road. It is always easier to have Mr. A tell you that Mr. B is a forty year old virgin, who will likely never get laid (better yet, why not have the title inform you of that) but it is a subtle art to get the character to tell you about himself, through his reactions, his lifestyle, even his puce cashmere sweater. I want to learn to be the type of writer who always takes the high road. Lending intelligence to your audience increases the likeliness that smart people will want to see your film, and plays Darwin to the ones who really should just be in Space Chimps which is likely in the larger air conditioned theater down the hall.
Generally, we avoid seeing comedies in the theater. Being on a modest budget as we claw our way into our chosen field, we usually spend on movies that will deliver more in the theater than our BluRay and LCD can achieve at home; most of the time this doesn't include comedies (romantic or otherwise) without a substantial amount of special effects. The Hangover was an exception, since it had come highly recommended and we were looking for a group-friendly show on a Saturday evening. We were duly impressed.
The Hangover is atypical of its genre because it does not write its characters into a corner and then inform you that the walls in the corner are white. Instead, the writers have written characters that embody some of the traits necessary to foster humorous reactions and a wide variety of jokes, but they allow them to grow on you slowly. They provide a wonderful platform for you to relate to each character by giving them a voice of their own to tell you who they are, and what they are struggling with instead of having characters B and C tell you that A is an uptight loser who brushes his teeth sixteen times a day. This, coupled with using relatively unknown actors who do not bring their typecast to every role they accept breathes new life into a genre that is begging Jim Carey and Will Ferrell to take a vacation.
This got me to thinking about the guts it takes to write the high road. It is always easier to have Mr. A tell you that Mr. B is a forty year old virgin, who will likely never get laid (better yet, why not have the title inform you of that) but it is a subtle art to get the character to tell you about himself, through his reactions, his lifestyle, even his puce cashmere sweater. I want to learn to be the type of writer who always takes the high road. Lending intelligence to your audience increases the likeliness that smart people will want to see your film, and plays Darwin to the ones who really should just be in Space Chimps which is likely in the larger air conditioned theater down the hall.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Fear
I've been reading a delightful blog called "Ruts and Grooves" lately. The author of this blog has been touching on some topics that have been stirring the molasses in my brain and helping me shake up some old skeletons, in a good way. She mentions how fear is a huge impediment when it comes to writing. The fear that there are flaws that you cannot conquer, the fear that your characters are flat, or your dialogue is boring, the fear that you won't know what to do once you've finished, all the things that cause you to stop typing and say "why even bother?"
To this end, I have set a goal for myself. I decided to attempt to write a thriller in three days. A feature length script, from concept to completion in three days. The goal of this project is not to write a masterpiece, rather just to write. By setting a time limit, I am forcing myself to ignore the fears that cause me to halt my progress, or abandon my attempt altogether. The only thing I hope to gain from this exercise is a ninety page screenplay. Quality is not even part of the equation.
Today is sitting number three. I am clearly not finished, however, the project has only been gaining appeal as I work on it. While I have to extend the time limit, I am still on track with the purpose behind the exercise, and I haven't rewritten a single line. I have not even granted myself the liberty to reread what I wrote in the previous sitting, except for a quick clarification.
I don't know how many sittings it will take, but I'm extending it to five for the time being. Even if the only thing I can even use it for is campfire kindling, I will be proud to say that I've completed a project, and exorcised my fear. Thank you to the author of "Ruts and Grooves" for putting your finger on a plaguing issue.
The fear is in the backseat. I may have no idea where we're going, but I'm behind the wheel and we're going to wind up somewhere different than where we began!
To this end, I have set a goal for myself. I decided to attempt to write a thriller in three days. A feature length script, from concept to completion in three days. The goal of this project is not to write a masterpiece, rather just to write. By setting a time limit, I am forcing myself to ignore the fears that cause me to halt my progress, or abandon my attempt altogether. The only thing I hope to gain from this exercise is a ninety page screenplay. Quality is not even part of the equation.
Today is sitting number three. I am clearly not finished, however, the project has only been gaining appeal as I work on it. While I have to extend the time limit, I am still on track with the purpose behind the exercise, and I haven't rewritten a single line. I have not even granted myself the liberty to reread what I wrote in the previous sitting, except for a quick clarification.
I don't know how many sittings it will take, but I'm extending it to five for the time being. Even if the only thing I can even use it for is campfire kindling, I will be proud to say that I've completed a project, and exorcised my fear. Thank you to the author of "Ruts and Grooves" for putting your finger on a plaguing issue.
The fear is in the backseat. I may have no idea where we're going, but I'm behind the wheel and we're going to wind up somewhere different than where we began!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
You May Ask, But I Have Not The Answer
If it is generally accepted that everyone wears a black hat, black gloves and a black cape, and my closet is filled with seven sets of the same, then it stands to reason that I wear these things as well. The truth is I hate black hats, black gloves and black capes, but if that is what is good and honest and enduring in a body, then is that not what I must wear?
If I were to venture out in a brown hat with purple polka dots and a scarf instead of a cape, who knows what sort of calamities may befall me. If I forgot my gloves at home, surely the bus would not stop to pick me up, truly I might fall in a large mud puddle, absolutely could I be refused entry to my place of employment. All of these possibilities are enough to scare me from committing such a widely unpopular faux pas. But I do so long for the courage to toss away my black hat, black gloves and black cape. The fear holds me back.
If I was to wear a red coat, perhaps I could learn to dance. If I was to wear a blue cap, perhaps I could learn French. If I had the spunk to dress apart, stand apart, live apart, who knows what I could be capable of? What chances I may take? But the fear holds me back, so I cling to my black hat, black gloves and black cape, and live a black life.
If I were to venture out in a brown hat with purple polka dots and a scarf instead of a cape, who knows what sort of calamities may befall me. If I forgot my gloves at home, surely the bus would not stop to pick me up, truly I might fall in a large mud puddle, absolutely could I be refused entry to my place of employment. All of these possibilities are enough to scare me from committing such a widely unpopular faux pas. But I do so long for the courage to toss away my black hat, black gloves and black cape. The fear holds me back.
If I was to wear a red coat, perhaps I could learn to dance. If I was to wear a blue cap, perhaps I could learn French. If I had the spunk to dress apart, stand apart, live apart, who knows what I could be capable of? What chances I may take? But the fear holds me back, so I cling to my black hat, black gloves and black cape, and live a black life.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Five Reasons I Love the Classics
I'm sitting here watching "Roman Holiday" instead of doing my work, and I'm trying to put my finger on a few reasons I love classic Hollywood cinema. Here's what I've come up with so far, in random order:
1. Intonation: It seems everyone speaks with the same inflection. The girls all enunciate with faux British staccato, unless they hail from the Deep South. The gentlemen all talk either like Jimmy Stewart or the Old Prospector, both of which are equally entertaining. I wonder if studio speech courses were a requirement in order to appear in "the talkies".
2. The Sets: These ridiculous fake sunsets, the most audacious of back lot city streets, not to mention the background behind the car while driving.
3. The Kiss: That momentous moment when the leads realize they cannot live without one another, gaze into each others eyes. The music builds, the edges blur, and the actors press their faces together with such force you almost expect a perma-meld of the cheeks. The woman's head inevitably tilts back and the man enfolds her in his strong dominant embrace. Nobody move, hold it, five more seconds AND...release.
4. The Pacing: I love old movies that I have never seen, because I never know what to expect. The formula is completely apart from the typical 90 minute Rom-Com, where I can guess the next scene simply by looking at my watch. I love being surprised, and the unexpected knocks on my door so seldom these days, that being in the dark is refreshing.
Alright, I tried to go for five but its an even number kind of night. Feel free to hit me with some of your favorite (or least favorite) elements of classic cinema.
1. Intonation: It seems everyone speaks with the same inflection. The girls all enunciate with faux British staccato, unless they hail from the Deep South. The gentlemen all talk either like Jimmy Stewart or the Old Prospector, both of which are equally entertaining. I wonder if studio speech courses were a requirement in order to appear in "the talkies".
2. The Sets: These ridiculous fake sunsets, the most audacious of back lot city streets, not to mention the background behind the car while driving.
3. The Kiss: That momentous moment when the leads realize they cannot live without one another, gaze into each others eyes. The music builds, the edges blur, and the actors press their faces together with such force you almost expect a perma-meld of the cheeks. The woman's head inevitably tilts back and the man enfolds her in his strong dominant embrace. Nobody move, hold it, five more seconds AND...release.
4. The Pacing: I love old movies that I have never seen, because I never know what to expect. The formula is completely apart from the typical 90 minute Rom-Com, where I can guess the next scene simply by looking at my watch. I love being surprised, and the unexpected knocks on my door so seldom these days, that being in the dark is refreshing.
Alright, I tried to go for five but its an even number kind of night. Feel free to hit me with some of your favorite (or least favorite) elements of classic cinema.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Life We Choose
We shot a conference today. I am always pleasantly surprised when the keynote speaker is interesting enough to keep me engaged in more than singing "Mama Mia" over and over in my head to the rhythm of the time code. One topic the speaker touched on particularly resonated with me. Though he was talking about a different area, I found myself applying it to my writing and film career, as it stands (currently on all fours, though we're working towards two legs).
He mentioned that he has always been a terrible fundraiser, because when he is asked the question "What would you do differently with our money that you are not able to do now?" his response has always been "Nothing. We're already doing what we want to do." His intent was not to say that they don't want funding, but that they plan to accomplish their goals with or without the extra cash. He stated that the best people to pay to perform a job are people that are already doing the job for free, because they like it. That way by paying them, you're taking the pressure off, and allowing them to make even more of an impact. Though this methodology does not work with every business model, I believe it applies to us. If we want to make films, we should make them. Funding or not, credits or not. If we are passionate, we are passionate. Perhaps someday someone with a rich uncle, or Harvey Weinstein himself will pay us to do what we want to do, but until then we continue to pursue our passion on our own.
This made me re-examine my priorities, to reconsider my motives for doing what we do. Sure, I love to make money. Do I want this to be my full time paying career? Absolutely. Is that my motivating factor? Absolutely not. We want to create films with a message, that share our artistic vision and allow us to exorcise pent-up creativity. We want to tell stories, weave legends, and live a passionate life. These things are not dependent on money, though its easy to convince yourself that they are. Obviously I will not say no to a budget that will greatly increase the production value of our films; heck, I'll actively seek one out if it suits us, but we will make our films without one if necessary. Whether we see our projects on the big screen in Hollywood, or crowded around our laptops with our families. Whether we affect only one person in our family, or one thousand in our city, or one million throughout the world, we are going to do this because we love it. Most of the time.
He mentioned that he has always been a terrible fundraiser, because when he is asked the question "What would you do differently with our money that you are not able to do now?" his response has always been "Nothing. We're already doing what we want to do." His intent was not to say that they don't want funding, but that they plan to accomplish their goals with or without the extra cash. He stated that the best people to pay to perform a job are people that are already doing the job for free, because they like it. That way by paying them, you're taking the pressure off, and allowing them to make even more of an impact. Though this methodology does not work with every business model, I believe it applies to us. If we want to make films, we should make them. Funding or not, credits or not. If we are passionate, we are passionate. Perhaps someday someone with a rich uncle, or Harvey Weinstein himself will pay us to do what we want to do, but until then we continue to pursue our passion on our own.
This made me re-examine my priorities, to reconsider my motives for doing what we do. Sure, I love to make money. Do I want this to be my full time paying career? Absolutely. Is that my motivating factor? Absolutely not. We want to create films with a message, that share our artistic vision and allow us to exorcise pent-up creativity. We want to tell stories, weave legends, and live a passionate life. These things are not dependent on money, though its easy to convince yourself that they are. Obviously I will not say no to a budget that will greatly increase the production value of our films; heck, I'll actively seek one out if it suits us, but we will make our films without one if necessary. Whether we see our projects on the big screen in Hollywood, or crowded around our laptops with our families. Whether we affect only one person in our family, or one thousand in our city, or one million throughout the world, we are going to do this because we love it. Most of the time.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Magic of Star Trek
I am currently coming off my second viewing of J.J. Abram’s “Star Trek”, and am still reveling in the excitement I felt during both screenings. I come at Star Trek primarily as a fan of TNG (The Next Generation, in non-geek) and of late, Deep Space Nine. I rarely watched the original series though I have seen all the movies (The Undiscovered Country being my favorite; no hate from the Khan lovers please.) I went into Abram’s adaptation feeling a certain amount of trepidation. Like so many other fans I was nervous that the genre would be overrun by a new wave, and homage would not be paid to the vision of the late Gene Rodenberry. Within the first hour my fears had been allayed and I knew that I loved the movie. This is unusual for me since most of the time I cannot gage my reaction to a film until the credits.
The thing that blew me away about this film was the cast. Though my knowledge of the original characters has by no means reached Trekker status, I couldn’t have asked for a better selection of actors to play the young crew of the Enterprise. Whether it was a strategic decision to choose relative newcomers to the big screen or just dumb luck, this film struck gold in its lead players. Chris Pine was able to breathe life into young Captain Kirk, making the character his own, whilst still humbly paying tribute to the Kirk created by Shatner and the original series writers. Zachary Quinto portrayed Spock in conflict, struggling with the pull between his human and Vulcan heritage. I was worried going in that I would only see brain-lusting Sylar of Heroes, marauding around space with pointy ears and a botched eyebrow job, but this was not the case. Quinto separated us so fully from his silver screen persona, allowing us glimpses of the Spock we know and love, but whom he has not quite grown into yet. The most paralleled portrayal in my opinion was that of Karl Urban, who portrayed Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy. His mannerisms were nothing if not precise, and the humour surrounding his Bones-isms was perfectly timed and had just the right amount of tongue-in-cheek.
SPOILERS to FOLLOW
I read a review today where it was mentioned that Kirk’s character has zero development, and his journey is pretty much nil, in the emotional sense. I couldn’t agree more, though at first I couldn’t figure out why I still loved the movie. Typically if a character is lacking development I am turned off; in this case, I think I was just so excited to see where Kirk came from that I bypassed my normal must-haves for a character. I know from the original series that Kirk is a fairly stagnant character. Kirk is who he is, no bones about it I expected this. Seeing it brought to life by the vibrant and attractive Chris Pine only solidified my love for Kirk and his ways. I get the feeling that this movie bucks the system in many ways. Abram’s took an unpolished script from mid-writer’s strike, characters beloved by possibly some of the most intense fan group (ever met a trekker?) and a story arc that had a very specific format to follow, dashed a little bit of cinnamon and paprika on it, and the rest is magic.
The choice to create an alternate timeline was probably the best thing the writers could have chosen to give the film a little bit of breathing room from the expectations that it had to live up to, whilst showcasing characters that are recognizable despite different circumstances. The alternate universe allowed Abrams to showcase a different set of events without feeling like he was stepping on the toes of those who’ve memorized the dates and times of every important Star Fleet event in Trek history.
Nero as a villain was an interesting choice. This is possibly the only thing that remains up in the air for me (other than the copious sun flares that plagued the movie; seriously once is funny, twice is annoying, three times deserves a spanking). Nero is a villain that facilitated both Kirk and Spock’s agendas in the film. Kirk has a personal vendetta against Nero for causing the death of his father. Nero’s reactionary choices allow Kirk to showcase his shoot from the hip style. Spock, whose future self incidentally caused Nero to become what he is, struggles with the emotions brought on by Nero’s form of revenge and Kirk’s method of dealing with Nero. Why am I up in the air? We barely get to know anything about Nero. We see a brief holograph of the pregnant wife he lost when Romulus was destroyed. We know why he is here, but we never find out who he is. Some history on his personality would have been nice. Was he always so reactionary? Has he proven himself ruthless prior to these events? Do those awesome tattoos mean anything? Even a flash-forward (or back depending on how you look at it) to him with his wife may promote more sympathy for Nero, thereby creating more intensity behind his cause. One thing I can say for certain, Eric Bana delivered a great performance, as usual. I could barely find Bana in Nero at all, unless I scrutinized the eyes. He went as far as he could with what he was given.
Abrams breathed new life into the worn backdrops and tired sets, creating an Apple Store bridge, with clean white technology and Kindle-esque tools. Engineering resembles a submarine packed with technology, and well-oiled machines. The Enterprise gives the impression of the Navy, in space. The crew salutes the captain when he walks past, and you can tell that they are there to perform a duty, rather than attend a housewarming party. This was s fantastic directorial choice, as the original Enterprise was essentially a ship, not the home that was portrayed in The Next Generation where the crew lived on the ship for years at a time. In Kirk’s early days a mission was undertaken, executed, and the crew was returned to earth or their respective planets. This take gives the viewers a sense of realism, something that we can attach ourselves to based on the knowledge and experience that we possess.
The pacing of the film can be summed up in my phrase of the week “A no holds barred, action packed, non-stop thrill ride”. From the opening sequence, my eyes were glued to the screen. A great portrayal of familiar characters with a new cast and the best that updated technology has to offer. Combine that with J.J. Abram’s particular brand of magic, and you have a summer blockbuster that few can resist, and will likely last through the winter as well. Kudos to the team of Star Trek for approaching a seemingly insurmountable task, and showing us all that there is no reason you can’t buck the formulas and still appeal to the masses.
The thing that blew me away about this film was the cast. Though my knowledge of the original characters has by no means reached Trekker status, I couldn’t have asked for a better selection of actors to play the young crew of the Enterprise. Whether it was a strategic decision to choose relative newcomers to the big screen or just dumb luck, this film struck gold in its lead players. Chris Pine was able to breathe life into young Captain Kirk, making the character his own, whilst still humbly paying tribute to the Kirk created by Shatner and the original series writers. Zachary Quinto portrayed Spock in conflict, struggling with the pull between his human and Vulcan heritage. I was worried going in that I would only see brain-lusting Sylar of Heroes, marauding around space with pointy ears and a botched eyebrow job, but this was not the case. Quinto separated us so fully from his silver screen persona, allowing us glimpses of the Spock we know and love, but whom he has not quite grown into yet. The most paralleled portrayal in my opinion was that of Karl Urban, who portrayed Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy. His mannerisms were nothing if not precise, and the humour surrounding his Bones-isms was perfectly timed and had just the right amount of tongue-in-cheek.
SPOILERS to FOLLOW
I read a review today where it was mentioned that Kirk’s character has zero development, and his journey is pretty much nil, in the emotional sense. I couldn’t agree more, though at first I couldn’t figure out why I still loved the movie. Typically if a character is lacking development I am turned off; in this case, I think I was just so excited to see where Kirk came from that I bypassed my normal must-haves for a character. I know from the original series that Kirk is a fairly stagnant character. Kirk is who he is, no bones about it I expected this. Seeing it brought to life by the vibrant and attractive Chris Pine only solidified my love for Kirk and his ways. I get the feeling that this movie bucks the system in many ways. Abram’s took an unpolished script from mid-writer’s strike, characters beloved by possibly some of the most intense fan group (ever met a trekker?) and a story arc that had a very specific format to follow, dashed a little bit of cinnamon and paprika on it, and the rest is magic.
The choice to create an alternate timeline was probably the best thing the writers could have chosen to give the film a little bit of breathing room from the expectations that it had to live up to, whilst showcasing characters that are recognizable despite different circumstances. The alternate universe allowed Abrams to showcase a different set of events without feeling like he was stepping on the toes of those who’ve memorized the dates and times of every important Star Fleet event in Trek history.
Nero as a villain was an interesting choice. This is possibly the only thing that remains up in the air for me (other than the copious sun flares that plagued the movie; seriously once is funny, twice is annoying, three times deserves a spanking). Nero is a villain that facilitated both Kirk and Spock’s agendas in the film. Kirk has a personal vendetta against Nero for causing the death of his father. Nero’s reactionary choices allow Kirk to showcase his shoot from the hip style. Spock, whose future self incidentally caused Nero to become what he is, struggles with the emotions brought on by Nero’s form of revenge and Kirk’s method of dealing with Nero. Why am I up in the air? We barely get to know anything about Nero. We see a brief holograph of the pregnant wife he lost when Romulus was destroyed. We know why he is here, but we never find out who he is. Some history on his personality would have been nice. Was he always so reactionary? Has he proven himself ruthless prior to these events? Do those awesome tattoos mean anything? Even a flash-forward (or back depending on how you look at it) to him with his wife may promote more sympathy for Nero, thereby creating more intensity behind his cause. One thing I can say for certain, Eric Bana delivered a great performance, as usual. I could barely find Bana in Nero at all, unless I scrutinized the eyes. He went as far as he could with what he was given.
Abrams breathed new life into the worn backdrops and tired sets, creating an Apple Store bridge, with clean white technology and Kindle-esque tools. Engineering resembles a submarine packed with technology, and well-oiled machines. The Enterprise gives the impression of the Navy, in space. The crew salutes the captain when he walks past, and you can tell that they are there to perform a duty, rather than attend a housewarming party. This was s fantastic directorial choice, as the original Enterprise was essentially a ship, not the home that was portrayed in The Next Generation where the crew lived on the ship for years at a time. In Kirk’s early days a mission was undertaken, executed, and the crew was returned to earth or their respective planets. This take gives the viewers a sense of realism, something that we can attach ourselves to based on the knowledge and experience that we possess.
The pacing of the film can be summed up in my phrase of the week “A no holds barred, action packed, non-stop thrill ride”. From the opening sequence, my eyes were glued to the screen. A great portrayal of familiar characters with a new cast and the best that updated technology has to offer. Combine that with J.J. Abram’s particular brand of magic, and you have a summer blockbuster that few can resist, and will likely last through the winter as well. Kudos to the team of Star Trek for approaching a seemingly insurmountable task, and showing us all that there is no reason you can’t buck the formulas and still appeal to the masses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)