Watching out for myself

I haven't posted in a while because - I swear! - I've been doing a lot of work towards getting my projects together, researching, rewriting, all that. I've also been trying to watch more films lately. I've seen very few movies over the last few years, because planning to spend 2 hours watching a movie often strikes me as a colossal waste of my free time, because think of how much other stuff I could be getting done in that time, right (even if not much actually ends up getting done, but it's the thought that counts, I guess?). But I find it's easier to commit to that time if I know I'm going to think critically about the film I'm about to watch, in terms of its script and story structure, and how I can use that information to better my own process.

In other words, I've been on the front end of the screenwriting process for so long that I need to regain a clearer view of the back end; it does no good to sit around and assume I know what studios are looking for if I don't get out there and see the kinds of stories they do pick up, and which ones are successful.

(Granted, many scripts purchased or optioned never see the light of day, and those that do are often rewritten and mucked about with by studio, director, actor, test audience, etc. So it's an imperfect science. But, like everything else, if you can't predict the future you should at least try to make an educated guess.)

So I engaged a few recent films with my Critical Writerly Eye, hard-forged from constant peer review and structural study, to see what I could see. Results and SPOILERS! after the jump.



Slumdog Millionaire: Oscar®-Winner for Best Picture 2008! Wow! This movie must be amazing, right? I had high expectations, which were mostly filled out by Danny Boyle's typically expert and unique direction, strong performances from many age groups of actors, and some really beautiful locations. It's impossible not to feel for Jamal and his eternal quest for Latika, and there are some incredibly emotional moments in the film. But the resolution left me feeling a little flat, and it took me a while to figure out why.

For all its skill and flavor, the Slumdog story is missing one of the cardinal components of what constitutes a "structurally sound" script: its protagonist, Jamal, has no real flaw. Sure, the guy is a little nerdy and does have to resort to crime at a young age to survive, but none of this causes an internal struggle that must be overcome in order for Jamal to succeed in his quest (to win Latika and, to a lesser extent, to be able to support her financially). Even Jamal's status as a Slumdog in caste-obsessed Mumbai takes the form of an external impediment to his success; we get no hint of internal turmoil when he strives and searches in settings and lifestyles far beyond his own. Jamal simply continues on his single-minded quest to win Latika and succeeds at the end, his personality remaining the same as it was at the story's beginning (even, arguably, as it was a decade earlier in the character's life).

Is this a bad thing? It may depend on your point of view. If I had brought this script to a peer review, I almost certainly would have been lambasted for such an omission (and would have been referred to several memorable protagonists who do have to overcome an inner obstacle over the course of their journey, like Lethal Weapon's near-suicidal Sgt. Riggs or As Good as it Gets's misanthropic Melvin Udall). But I've spoken with several writers about this and most seem strangely OK with it. Most of their reasoning has to do with it either being adapted from a book, or purposefully trying to feel like a modern fairy tale. I understand both of these points, but I'm not sure I agree with either one. Would Slumdog have been better and more interesting if Jamal had a deep flaw to overcome? Maybe. I personally find it hard to root for idealized characters, but your mileage may vary.

District B13: Watched this for research on Parkour and freewalking. A French film that went by with not a lot of fanfare in 05/06, it was a really enjoyable action flick with a fairly solid script and enough humor to keep the whole experience really enjoyable.

As noted, Parkour was a huge component, thanks in no small part to the presence of co-star David Belle, who actually helped create the Parkour movement in the late '90s. His Parkour sequences are breathtaking to watch; you're not likely to find this stuff anywhere else (though Casino Royale has a pretty good sequence in its own right). In fitting with the Parkour aesthetic, his movements aren't flashy or aggressive (he's typically running and escaping, not fighting or showing off), but they're no less impressive for their ingenuity, proficiency and audacity. (The hour-long making-of doc on the DVD does reference Parkour, though I was hoping for more than a brief mention of one of the film's most unique dimensions.)

Story-wise, there are a few ridiculous and inexplicable moments, sure, but for the most part it's solid and even fits a few cool spins on old ideas here and there; the typical action tropes of "tacked-on love interest" and "bad guy gets his just desserts" do surface, but here too, a little innovation goes a long way. Even the clichéd "some problems can't be solved with violence" message really fits - again, in no small part thanks to the philosophy behind Parkour. At any rate, I enjoyed the film a lot.

Terminator: Salvation: Woof. The less said about this, the better.

The Hangover: Absolutely hysterical. And as a broad, high-concept comedy, this is exactly the kind of film I stand to learn the most from. If there's one thing the script does best, it's the sheer volume of real jokes, packed into almost every line; and here I've been using entire scenes to build up to one punchline! Everyone in Hollywood has been amazed that a film with no bankable stars has made so much money. I'm not, really, and anyone who's seen the film probably shouldn't be: with such a funny script (finely acted by all involved), easily explained to Joe Public and more than able to be cut into a hilarious trailer, why wouldn't droves of people want to see it? Some even twice, because they were too drunk to remember much of it the first time, appropriately enough?

As with most broad comedies, the bellylaughs do disguise some plot holes and character development, though it's far more infrequent (and the quibbles more minor) than you'd expect. The gang's visit to the Tyson residence doesn't move the plot or their quest forward (especially glaring since the rest of the scenes do such a good job of this) - it only shows them, via security camera feed, that their missing buddy Doug was with them at that point in the night, which doesn't really propel the story anywhere. And this is further complicated by a later discovery of photos of the night, which show the guys going off to Tyson's after they put Doug to bed? I also would have loved for Heather Graham's character to have evolved past the typical sweet-smiling, ever-understanding love interest typical in broad comedies like this. At least she's a hooker. (Which is probably the first time I've ever used that phrase.)

Finally - and this might say more about me than it does the movie, but - in keeping with my focus on plot, structure, character, etc, I felt there was a lost opportunity in the character development of Phil (Bradley Cooper), so deftly introduced to us as he swindles his students out of money for his Vegas trip. Here's another kind of misanthrope, who will nevertheless pull out all the stops for his best friend; I wanted to know more about this guy, especially when he says early on, and with very little irony in his voice, "I hate my life". I saw this as the starting point for his character's journey over the next debaucherous days; but, as he marshaled the search for Doug, kept his motley crew of groomsmen alive and motivated, and finally reached the wedding only to lovingly embrace his wife and son, I realized that journey never came. Maybe that "telling" line was poorly delivered or poorly interpreted by me; maybe his character scenes got cut (we'll see when the DVD comes out). And maybe it's just in my head: I brought this up to my friends as we left the theater, and they didn't seem bothered. They actually liked that it wasn't a Thing; that if his character did evolve, it happened beneath the surface. Maybe because not everything needs to be fully explained, or it would have detracted from the laughs, or it just wasn't necessary. It bothered me, but again, there's varying mileage.

***

So what did I learn? I think after all of this I came out with more questions than answers. When it comes to writing and story structure, do "rules" really count for anything? Am I already interpreting movies in a far different light from most other people? Am I paying too much attention to the plot to be able to forgive or enjoy the rest of the film? Is there an incorrect way to watch films, or a correct way to watch anything? Or should I, you know, sit back, shut up, and enjoy the ride?

I wish I knew.

Read the rest of this entry...

Adventures in Short Fiction #03: Inverse

(haven't posted much lately since I spent a few weeks in Japan and I'm now working heavily on a new series... so here's another short story from back in the day.)

Melinda's parents wanted their child to be smart. A noble idea, certainly; but, as if secretly ashamed of the idea of education, or just doubtful that their little girl could operate without a sugar coating, they decided it would be best to educate her through a cornucopia of "edutainment" products. Most of these were cheap videos starring googly-eyed anthropomorphic puppets who, over the course of 22 minutes, learned various life lessons about sharing or the Dewey Decimal System while singing catchy songs about shapes or the letter B. As an only child with working parents, this was Melinda's primary method of learning and communication for a good while; where some parents used flash cards or read the newspaper to their children, Melinda got The Mayor of Math and Geography Gina 2: Greece's Pieces. At first she was a little insulted by these egregiously obvious attempts to pass off learning as recreation. Not because she disliked learning; the tyke loved it, and that was the problem. The parts she found interesting, such as lists of prime numbers and the average rainfall of the Amazon basin, were regularly obscured by pedestrian story arcs featuring skittish wallabies or jive-talking rodents. But Melinda's folks mistook her sieve-like thirst for knowledge for a serious interest in edutainment products, so the videos, activity books, snack packs and Sing-a-Song cassettes kept coming.

Before long, Melinda had grown accustomed to digesting information in bite-size, song-accompanied chunks. She memorized the entire soundtrack to Timothy's Tiddlywinks and couldn't count to ten without seeing Ensley Elephant carefully climbing up that infamous flight of stairs. In grade school, Melinda would make up songs to help her learn state capitols, and constructed a menagerie of puppets to ease memorization of the Declaration of Independence. Though these endeavors were generally successful, they didn't improve her grades - her methods of learning were just too complex and time-consuming to keep up with her ever-increasing workload. While the rest of her sixth grade class was memorizing lines of Shakespeare word-by-word, Melinda was designing 16th-century garb for a dozen glassy-eyed Montague monkeys and Capulet squirrels, pondering each puppet's motivation. In middle school she found that the good grades expected of a "weird dork" like her were getting harder to attain; she redoubled her efforts, inventing bookfuls of rhyming couplets which formed an impenetrable map of the foundations of her knowledge. Lunchtime was mostly spent alone, furiously scribbling through sketchbook after sketchbook. To the other kids, she began to seem less "eccentric" and more "nuts".

High school found Melinda suffering two nervous breakdowns (the first fueled by heavy amounts of Mr. Pibb and Mountain Dew freshman year; the second, much later, from LSD and battery acid), developing three different eating disorders, and single-handedly derailing a 10th grade production of "Guys and Dolls". During English tests she would mutter convoluted rhymes under her breath at breakneck speeds, grunting when she tripped over her own tongue. Her graveyard shift at Wal-Mart funded her ceaseless search for rare Etiquette Goats merchandise (only $75 for the rainbow shirt - original pressing!) and whatever other edutainment-related nostalgia she could revisit from the days when everything was simpler. She even flirted with a brief puppet-crafting career, until one of her more twisted creations caused a boy to wet his bed for a month straight. One day at lunch, a popular girl decided to steal Melinda's sketch book to prove some kind of point; neither her parents nor the principal could understand why Melinda retaliated by trying to bite the girl's nose off. Stanford was pretty much out of the question by this point.

Thirty years on, life is still interesting. Melinda now lives in a treehouse in Sarasota filled with hundreds of stuffed animals and notepads full of scribblings, strange loops and formulae that would baffle cryptographers. She speaks in fragments and symbols, cooing quiet, garbled melodies as she sews new clothing for her puppets. She has created a rickety, steam-powered machine which paints perfectly careening mobius strips of any size or color; her mind houses a 10-year oral history of her synthetic housemates which dwarfs Ulysses in scope and grandeur. Her life might have turned out far differently if she could remember how to connect with people; but that's far behind her now, the possibility an old uninteresting relic. Maybe someday her sidewinding genius will be recognized and appreciated. It just has to be communicated first.

Read the rest of this entry...