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.