The Mystery That Is Coverage

I've been on a blogging hiatus. Mainly because I have a script that is actually gaining traction. Being the superstitious fool that I am, I don't want to jinx it.

But there is something strange that has come up. Something that I had no idea about.

Let me start off by saying, I set out to write an Action/Adventure picture that females would enjoy (yet, still be a balls to the wall action/adventure flick). I love Blockbuster movies, but I have a hard time convincing a date to come see one with me. And I understand why. I mean, this summer was atrocious.

So I did it. And the script is good. It's not just good. It's excellent. At least that's what the word that has been getting back to me has said.

But here's where the Twilight Zone music comes in...

Every positive piece of coverage on my script is from a woman.

Mission accomplished, right? WRONG. Unfortunately, Hollywood is still very patriarchal. When the script gets bumped up to producer level, which is overwhelming male, most of the producer's simply "don't get it."

The lead is a female. She's our 'in' to the story.

This creates a variety of dilemma for a producer. They can't relate to her character, simply because she is a woman. Instead they try to relate to the male character in the script, who is more or less a comic foil. And now we have real problems, because our producer is projecting himself into the embodiment of the fool in what is supposed to be a heroic action/adventure script.

And it is. Just from the point of view of the female. Which is the whole point of the story. That this female lead is overshadowed by her comic foil male counter-part.

My female readers have understood that with no problems. In fact, written coverage that has scored off the charts. A handful of male readers as well.

The problem is ... do a handful of male producers want to make it?

And that is yet to be determined.

...............................................................................

This experience has reminded me of Bill Martell's blog about "Passing Notes," in which he discusses a similar problem. He tackles it from the POV of a writer being forced to change the intent of the story. However, I think it reflects a larger issue. Take a gander.

Mike Wieringo!

http://www.newsarama.com/Chicago_07/Ringo.html

This is a big shock to comic book fans.

44 years old and a powerhouse of artistic talent.

My world has just gotten a little smaller. And a little less magical.

That Thing You Do

I owe some very nice people ... something. I don't really do reviews on this site.

I received an email asking if I wanted a free copy of THAT THING YOU DO. There were no strings attached. Just watch it. Write something about it if I felt like it.

How can I say no to free stuff?

Since this is a re-release and much of the draw to this DVD is the new EXTRAS and the extended cut I figured I'd go through all the content before posting. And that's where I found items that are actually applicable to this blog.

To screenwriting.

To filmmaking.

To collaboration at its best.

I have to warn you... The Extended Cut is pretty boring. (Luckily, the DVD provides BOTH the original theatrical cut, as well as the extended cut). It is long with scenes that really do not touch on anything other than giving minor character motivation and backstory (through dialogue). They are not bad scenes. They simply do not push the story forward, and thus, do not belong in the film.

How could you say this? These people gave you a free copy of their DVD.

Well, take a step back for a second and think about it.

That means the editor and director made GOOD choices when lopping off scenes that did not deal with the central premise of the story. In a time when extras on DVDs are expected as an additional bonus to the theatrical release, it is oftentimes easy to forget why scenes get cut out of movies in the first place.

Every "extended" cut should be WORSE than the theatrical cut. If they aren't someone didn't do their job getting the best possible cut to the viewing public.

And this is where the strength of both this movie and DVD lies.

THAT THING YOU DO was Tom Hank's directorial debut.

It is a fun movie that struggled due to a lack of genre expectation. I think it succeeds in a way I haven't seen from the hordes of 'bands coming to glory and falling apart' stories previously have. These stories tend to be overly nostalgic and overly dramatic, forgetting what it is that made these bands fun in the first place and trying to transfer that feeling to the screen. To this the movie was a success.

Secondly, actors that become directors tend to focus heavily on character to character interaction and generally forget that the director's job also includes the overall tone, attention to detail, and storytelling of the film as a whole, and not just moment to moment.

This DVD illustrates something very rare.

Tom Hanks made good DIRECTORIAL decisions on this movie.

And while it received fairly luke-warm reviews, the movie is actually able to capture the feel, tone, and vibe of a Beatles-esque type band coming up around that era.

If you are a big fan of Tom Hanks, I think this DVD is a must-have. It marks his debut into directing. Illustrates that he has potential as a future director (Hopefully, he tries directing more often (especially seeing as his looks are going.)) The behind the scenes footage, as well as comparing the Extended Cut Vs. the Theatrical Cut is also a great tool at analyzing the different toolsets that are needed from one filmmaking profession to the next.

On the Karmic DL

Some things have come up. Things I'd really like to share. To talk about. To get out of my head and into the nether-void of the internet. Things that pertain to the struggle of the screenwriter, trying to get their first big break.

But, right now I just can't.

Really, I use this blog as a forum to gather my thoughts. To make them tangible. As much as I want to get them off my chest, at this point, I am keeping a low profile ... for karmic reasons. I am the most pessimistic optimist you will ever meet.

Things are going good. There's some potential with a few projects, but for me, personally, when there is a ray of sunshine, I am waiting for the thunderclouds to roll in and rain on my parade.

It makes me uneasy when things are up in the air. I dream big and I chase those dreams like Jason chases under-aged campers that have just lost their virginity. But the duration, length, money, time that needs to be invested to get anything off the ground as a screenwriter has me perpetually holding my breath, crossing my toes, rubbing my lucky rabbits foot, and performing a horde of other superstitious rituals in the hopes that nothing will get jinxed.

And talking about that which is yet to happen ... is very high on my list of ways to jinx everything.

So I'm letting these chicks hatch before I start counting them.

That said, I will share the inner workings of what is going on when the time comes. Afterall, success or failure, it doesn't really matter. This blog is about the journey.

Identification With the MAIN Character

In short-hand this is often referred to as making the main character "likable." Rarely is the term "likable" ever what anybody means when they use this term in reference to a screenplay.


What they really mean, or are asking, is how will the viewer/reader identify with the main character.


Why is this so commonly asked? Why does it seem like every producer and network exec all ask this very same question?


Because it is IMPORTANT.


In a novel, we get to hear the inner thoughts of every character (if the writer chooses to let us in on those thoughts). Identification in literature isn't as big of an issue as it is in film. In film, the main character is the viewer's ticket into the story. And ultimately into the thoughts of the writer.


When you can put yourself in the main character's shoes, the screenwriter and director have succeeded. However, there are two kinds of viewer identification.

1. I feel for the character and would NEVER want to be put in the situation that main character is in.
2. I want to be the main character.

Believe it or not, but GENRE actually plays a huge role in differentiating between the two. Almost every HORROR film plays off #1. Most FANTASY films play off #2. THRILLERS tend to play off #1.

But interesting things happen when you play with viewer identification within a given genre.

Let's take two examples. THE FUGITIVE and THE BOURNE IDENTITY.

Both are excellent films. In terms, of screenplay, direction, genre, and fulfillment of genre expectation they are pinnacles of the craft. Both are Thrillers. Structurally they are very similar. Both are "chase" films in which the main character is fleeing for their lives, trying to resolve the issue/problem that put them in this predicament in the first place. When the chase is over, so to is the movie.

But the identification is EXTREMELY different.

THE FUGITIVE

Richard Kimball is convicted of murdering his wife. When the bus transporting him to a maximum security facility crashes, Richard is given the chance to prove his innocence. This is the First Act of the film. From this point on Richard is constantly on the run.

It is easy to identify with Richard Kimball's plight. But no one would trade places with him.

THE BOURNE IDENTITY

Jason Bourne has lost his memory. He puts together a few clues, opens his safe deposit box, discovers his identity (or at least one of them). This alerts the powers that be to his presence, and from this point on Jason Bourne is continually on the run.

Again, it is easy to identify with Jason Bourne's plight. The difference is, I believe there are a lot of people that would like to be Jason Bourne.

Why?

The plight is the same.

The difference lies in the central premise of THE BOURNE IDENTITY. If I were to pitch the story to an exec or producer, all I'd have to say is, "It's The Fugitive, except instead of being a doctor, the guy was a hired assassin who has lost his memory."

The difference being that Jason Bourne is a trained assassin. And when he is chased, he kicks some serious ass. The stakes are innately higher because if Jason Bourne were put in Richard Kimball's situation, the movie would be 15 minutes long. This creates a much more iconic figure, which in turn makes it a much easier film to market. It also opens it up to a variety of ancillary markets. Hence, why most Blockbusters tend to be of the #2 variety.

Here's the kicker...

Viewer identification has nothing to do with REALISM. It has to do with understanding the situation of the main character, and rooting for him.

There is no right or wrong in the crafting of a story. THE FUGITIVE is excellent. I'd argue, better than THE BOURNE IDENTITY. But you won't see action figures of Richard Kimball. You could easily see action figures of Jason Bourne (or Mini-Coopers brought into popularity in the U.S.).

P.S. -- As far as GENRE EXPECTATION goes, Chase/Thrillers such as these two movies tend to also be Fish-Out-of-Water stories. Note, that THE TERMINATOR is a similar Chase/Thriller. Sarah Connor is most certianly out of her element in that story.

THE BOURNE IDENTITY does a terrific job of pretending to be a Fish-Out-of-Water story. It did this by erasing Jason Bourne's memory. Think about it... He really isn't a fish-out-of-water. He is always a kick-butt assassin, able to handle his own. He just doesn't know why he is able to do that, which gives the audience the illusion of a fish-out-of-water. Richard Kimball, a renowned doctor being placed into the realm of criminal is truly a fish-out-of-water.

In both instances, the story is about how the audience will react to it, and living up to the expectations of the genre. Not the actual nuts and bolts of the story itself.

My next post is going to be on WISH FULFILLMENT in films, which plays largely into #2 and why such movies are easier to market.

Do we really even need the MPAA?

"Clearly, smoking is increasingly an unacceptable behavior in our society," MPAA topper Dan Glickman said in a statement.

Uh huh.

~~Maybe~~ in California.

Apparently, this guy has never been on a movie set. Or in any artistic field. When I was messing around with my art career, illustration or some such nonsense, there were SMOKING BREAKS in every class, every 45 minutes or so because 99% of the people smoked.

But let's skip ahead to the real issue:

LEGISLATING MORALITY.

Jim Steyer, CEO of family advocacy group Common Sense Media, called the announcement "a big step forward for the MPAA to connect the dots between onscreen behavior and the impact on kids' health."

Or maybe, you know, PARENTS actually taking an active role in ... well... PARENTING. Could the ever-escalating numbers of single parent households be responsible? And not the movies. That would seem to be Common Sense to me.

What I really don't understand is... Why take a stand against cigarettes? Why not alcohol?

There's many, many, many more times the amount of deaths DIRECTLY related to alcohol than has ever been even indirectly connected to cigarettes.

What's a PG-13 coming of age, college, comedy without excessive binge drinking? I've yet to see ANY movie portray cigarettes in a light that is a fraction of the endorsement movies are for alcohol.

Or how about food consumption? Should we stop showing people eating? The number one cause of death in the U.S. is HEART DISEASE. And somehow we like to dismiss the fact that America is rapidly becoming the most OBESE nation... by a large margin. Gee, wonder if that extra ton of belly fat puts more strain on my heart, that leads to further complications, such as heart disease. Go figure.

Are we going to start warning against all the evils of the world that can be put into a film? I thought the singular LETTER was supposed to represent the general idea of how acceptable a movie is to a given age group. Not the be all, end all, final decision of every minor offensive vice held within. That decision is SUPPOSED to be made by the parent. But so many people in this day and age love to blame others for their problems. And corporations, in the endless pursuit to avoid any liability, placate even the smallest minority.

Could you imagine the warning label that would play at the start of the film if this trend continues? It would be longer than the end credit crawl for a Peter Jackson film.

There is only one word that can sum it all up:

PUSSIES.

Montage in Screenplays

Montage is a great tool in films. It can tell a lot of story in very little time. Add tension and drama through intercutting. Create tone.

The problem is... it is not a WRITER'S tool.

It really is an editor's tool. (Director too. Cause you know, he'll tell the editor, "Hey, nice montage" and take credit for it).

Here is the thing about montage in a screenplay.

It SUCKS to read.

The majority of the time when montage is used in a screenplay, it is because the writer is lazy. He wants to shortcut through necessary exposition with a montage, instead of crafting a dramatic scene/sequence. Or worse, supplements drama with a laundry list of things to "look" at.

In my experience, there are two types of montage.

1. Symbolic Juxtaposition
2. Series of Shots

When you link symbolic actions or items in a way that juxtaposes the images, the reader has to understand the meaning of the symbols and then figure out what the writer is trying to say by juxtaposing them. It is much easier for a reader to understand symbolism when it is placed within a scene, rather than just thrown at them.

The alphabetcal list of items in a series of shots often reads with a very sterile tone. More often than not, the reason to use montage is to CREATE a specific tone. Montage does a great job of creating tone on the screen. Montage on the page reads extremely flat.

If you are a screenwriter, your job is to create the tone of the movie on the page. Montage, more often than not, works against that goal.