Loved these two the first time I saw them and have watched them repeatedly. As the years pass, I meet more and more people who haven't seen them or even heard of them, so I'm giving them a shout out here. Both are from 1980:
"The Stunt Man" starring Peter O'Toole, directed by Richard Rush, written by Lawrence Marcus and Richard Rush.
"Breaker Morant" starring Edward Woodward, directed by Bruce Beresford, written by Kenneth Ross and Jonathan Hardy.
The latter is a military courtroom drama set during the Boer War (look it up in Wikipedia if you've never heard of that particular conflict...the movie is based on a true story), the former a story of an arrogant director doing everything in his power, including covering up the death of a stunt man and replacing him with an escaped convict, to finish his film.
"Morant" is a great example of how to open up a stage play for a film. "Stunt Man" has wonderful theme music.
Check 'em out.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Dog Days of Summer
There are a few times during the year when the work slows down. The most obvious one is the end of year holidays. Whether celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or some other religious or secular holiday, mid-December, when office parties are in full swing, to the first week of January is a time of little work. Late July and early August are also a few weeks of lull, then there is Cannes (depending on the company, either during the festival or just after) and Spring Break week. It all adds up to about six weeks a year when little or no work comes in. Such requires expert budgeting of moneys to cover expenses during the lean times.
Like many, I have no patience for budgeting of money. When things are slow, I simply don't eat.
As for filling the time. Working on those scripts that just about any Reader worth his/her salt has stashed in a drawer is always a good idea. Or, if you're really ambitious, continuing work on your version of the Great American Novel. (Note: Philip Roth already wrote a book with that title. If you like baseball, it's a hoot. Can't say there is much potential as a film in it, though.)
But what we live for, like many Writers, is procrastination. Should be rewriting that sitcom spec? Gotta shop for groceries first. Get new batteries for your watches. Mow the lawn. Edge the lawn. Consider buying lawn seed for the bare patches. Hey, there's a "Law and Order" on A&E I haven't seen before.
I'd start writing now, but it's almost lunch time and I want to have a clear three or four hours with no interruptions.
Lunch is over. Gotta watch "NFL Live" on ESPN.
Damn, the rug looks dirty, better vacuum it. Forgot milk at the store, better go before it's too crowded.
Wow, I just got a great idea for a topic for my blog! Better write it before I forget.
A bit hot today. Think I'll wait 'til things cool down before starting on any real work.
You know, "Full House" is a really funny show. And they show four episodes back-to-back on Nickelodeon.
I should check iTunes to see if they have any new music for my iPod. Wow, it's getting near dinner time. The kids come home, the wife comes home. Gotta relax with the family.
But, first thing tomorrow, chapter four of my novel.
Like many, I have no patience for budgeting of money. When things are slow, I simply don't eat.
As for filling the time. Working on those scripts that just about any Reader worth his/her salt has stashed in a drawer is always a good idea. Or, if you're really ambitious, continuing work on your version of the Great American Novel. (Note: Philip Roth already wrote a book with that title. If you like baseball, it's a hoot. Can't say there is much potential as a film in it, though.)
But what we live for, like many Writers, is procrastination. Should be rewriting that sitcom spec? Gotta shop for groceries first. Get new batteries for your watches. Mow the lawn. Edge the lawn. Consider buying lawn seed for the bare patches. Hey, there's a "Law and Order" on A&E I haven't seen before.
I'd start writing now, but it's almost lunch time and I want to have a clear three or four hours with no interruptions.
Lunch is over. Gotta watch "NFL Live" on ESPN.
Damn, the rug looks dirty, better vacuum it. Forgot milk at the store, better go before it's too crowded.
Wow, I just got a great idea for a topic for my blog! Better write it before I forget.
A bit hot today. Think I'll wait 'til things cool down before starting on any real work.
You know, "Full House" is a really funny show. And they show four episodes back-to-back on Nickelodeon.
I should check iTunes to see if they have any new music for my iPod. Wow, it's getting near dinner time. The kids come home, the wife comes home. Gotta relax with the family.
But, first thing tomorrow, chapter four of my novel.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Working With a Writer
Just had the experience of working with a couple of Writers on their scripts. This is the most involving and satisfying part of what I do and I wish I could do more of it. (Whatever happened to the old-time "Story Editor" position, where a person could just work on developing scripts rather than trying to bring the material to the company?)
I always approach working with a Writer from the angle that it's their vision, I'm just here to help them refine it. If I point out that certain speeches seem a little preachy and find they've been left in on the next draft, I have to go with the notion that the Writer wants to make the point in that manner. Obsessing over something like that in draft after draft only wastes time. It's their script and should reflect their point-of-view. If I take the stance of "do what I tell you, regardless of what you feel is best," I'm taking away their creativity. The script should be their voice in telling the story, so I focus on trying to make sure the story's basic foundations are in place. That the plot and characters are set up well, that it offers complications and solutions that serve the story and that things are wrapped up in a manner befitting the story. Whether or not it's a "happy ending" is up to the Writer. After all, it's up to them to sell the story. The most I can do is try to point out ways to tell their story in the best possible manner.
I always approach working with a Writer from the angle that it's their vision, I'm just here to help them refine it. If I point out that certain speeches seem a little preachy and find they've been left in on the next draft, I have to go with the notion that the Writer wants to make the point in that manner. Obsessing over something like that in draft after draft only wastes time. It's their script and should reflect their point-of-view. If I take the stance of "do what I tell you, regardless of what you feel is best," I'm taking away their creativity. The script should be their voice in telling the story, so I focus on trying to make sure the story's basic foundations are in place. That the plot and characters are set up well, that it offers complications and solutions that serve the story and that things are wrapped up in a manner befitting the story. Whether or not it's a "happy ending" is up to the Writer. After all, it's up to them to sell the story. The most I can do is try to point out ways to tell their story in the best possible manner.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Annoying Things in Scripts (Part One)
If you read enough stories of any type, certain cliches, genre conventions and repetitions of ideas begin to stand out. Since popular entertainment can sometimes be simply finding an interesting new way of telling an old story, it's not necessary for a Reader to point out every time a Writer is merely recycling old ideas. With a couple creative elements, "everything old is new again."
But that doesn't mean everything needs to be joyously embraced by a Reader. In my little part of the world, there can be many things that stand out as being repeated so many times by so many Writers that I just want to say "enough." I realize I'm screaming into the abyss (particularly with one of them, for it's too popular a situation in its genre to trash can), but I'm bringing them up anyhow.
First is the horror film set up of (basically, with only minor deviations), "six college-age people travel to a remote location where their cell phones don't work and they're attacked by..." Fill in the last part yourself. It can be one of their own party, a monster, an alien, a serial killer, an animal...you know, you've all seen this story, probably more than a dozen times. Obviously, this is a pretty standard set up for a horror story and many more films will be made from it, but why not a little variation at times? Find a creative way to put the characters in a location teeming with people, but no one can help. Have their cell phones work, but help can't come. Something to make it more than just the basic set up.
Then there are certain situations that pop up in way too many romantic comedies. First of all, I'd like say that I generally like romantic comedies. As long as they make me laugh a few times and I feel that the two folks belong together, I find them a satisfying experience. That said, can we get past using "the big lie" as a plot point? You know, one character tells a lie to the other for some reason in the beginning of the story, doesn't come clean when they could in the middle and the other person gets really angry as things just seem to be heating up and breaks off the relationship. Of course, this monumental disruption to the relationship is typically smoothed over about twenty pages later, so I just never buy into the whole "you've destroyed my trust in you" speech when it's delivered. Walking hand-in-hand with this is the fact that the "wronged" party never allows the liar to explain. Usually, there is an understandable reason why the person lied, usually having to do with the fact that the circumstances of their relationship have changed over time, but the wronged person won't listen. This is basically just false conflict. A Writer who can't think of anything else to do, so they fall back on having one person storm off. Be creative. Try harder.
That and having one character see the other in an embrace of some sort, jump to the wrong conclusion but not try to find out the truth. That's just another lame, too-easy-to-do plot turning point that makes my eyes roll into the back of my head. It's especially disappointing if the script has me hooked up until then.
Basically, don't fall back on overused cliches if you can possibly avoid them. There's always the chance someone out there has avoided them and your script is being passed over because they've captured my imagination with something new, not something overused.
But that doesn't mean everything needs to be joyously embraced by a Reader. In my little part of the world, there can be many things that stand out as being repeated so many times by so many Writers that I just want to say "enough." I realize I'm screaming into the abyss (particularly with one of them, for it's too popular a situation in its genre to trash can), but I'm bringing them up anyhow.
First is the horror film set up of (basically, with only minor deviations), "six college-age people travel to a remote location where their cell phones don't work and they're attacked by..." Fill in the last part yourself. It can be one of their own party, a monster, an alien, a serial killer, an animal...you know, you've all seen this story, probably more than a dozen times. Obviously, this is a pretty standard set up for a horror story and many more films will be made from it, but why not a little variation at times? Find a creative way to put the characters in a location teeming with people, but no one can help. Have their cell phones work, but help can't come. Something to make it more than just the basic set up.
Then there are certain situations that pop up in way too many romantic comedies. First of all, I'd like say that I generally like romantic comedies. As long as they make me laugh a few times and I feel that the two folks belong together, I find them a satisfying experience. That said, can we get past using "the big lie" as a plot point? You know, one character tells a lie to the other for some reason in the beginning of the story, doesn't come clean when they could in the middle and the other person gets really angry as things just seem to be heating up and breaks off the relationship. Of course, this monumental disruption to the relationship is typically smoothed over about twenty pages later, so I just never buy into the whole "you've destroyed my trust in you" speech when it's delivered. Walking hand-in-hand with this is the fact that the "wronged" party never allows the liar to explain. Usually, there is an understandable reason why the person lied, usually having to do with the fact that the circumstances of their relationship have changed over time, but the wronged person won't listen. This is basically just false conflict. A Writer who can't think of anything else to do, so they fall back on having one person storm off. Be creative. Try harder.
That and having one character see the other in an embrace of some sort, jump to the wrong conclusion but not try to find out the truth. That's just another lame, too-easy-to-do plot turning point that makes my eyes roll into the back of my head. It's especially disappointing if the script has me hooked up until then.
Basically, don't fall back on overused cliches if you can possibly avoid them. There's always the chance someone out there has avoided them and your script is being passed over because they've captured my imagination with something new, not something overused.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Decision time -- Harry Potter
I wrote earlier about having trouble settling down with a book to read for pleasure when all I do all day is read. Well, this weekend created a dilemma.
You see, I've read every Harry Potter book published and now the new one is out. For the first time, I won't be reading it to my oldest son, he's going to tackle the book on his own. Now, I have to find time to read the book on my own, rather than every morning at breakfast for my son.
(Sigh) Maybe I'll just flip to the back and find out how it all ends....
You see, I've read every Harry Potter book published and now the new one is out. For the first time, I won't be reading it to my oldest son, he's going to tackle the book on his own. Now, I have to find time to read the book on my own, rather than every morning at breakfast for my son.
(Sigh) Maybe I'll just flip to the back and find out how it all ends....
Friday, July 20, 2007
Best Advice I Ever Got (at least as a Reader)
Back to a Reader/Analyst topic.
Possibly the most common question I get from someone who wants to know more about what I do is, "Where do you start when writing a comment?"
The perception is that there could be so much good, bad or indifferent that choosing what to focus on first might be a problem. However, advice I got from my first story editor has proved invaluable and is so simple, you slap your head if you didn't think of it first.
What is the Writer trying to do and do they accomplish it?
From there, you take the first basic step. Identify the genre. Then, what are the basic elements of the genre. Just keep it simple. If it's an action film, did it have exciting action? Were the reasons for the action plausible? Is the story that holds the action together interesting without the action? If not, why?
A romantic comedy? Do you buy into the romance and is it funny? If not, why?
See, simple. Since most comments are typically a page long, you should probably be able to fill a page just answering the simplest questions, from characterization to dialogue to originality.
Possibly the most common question I get from someone who wants to know more about what I do is, "Where do you start when writing a comment?"
The perception is that there could be so much good, bad or indifferent that choosing what to focus on first might be a problem. However, advice I got from my first story editor has proved invaluable and is so simple, you slap your head if you didn't think of it first.
What is the Writer trying to do and do they accomplish it?
From there, you take the first basic step. Identify the genre. Then, what are the basic elements of the genre. Just keep it simple. If it's an action film, did it have exciting action? Were the reasons for the action plausible? Is the story that holds the action together interesting without the action? If not, why?
A romantic comedy? Do you buy into the romance and is it funny? If not, why?
See, simple. Since most comments are typically a page long, you should probably be able to fill a page just answering the simplest questions, from characterization to dialogue to originality.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
TV Emmy Award Nominations
These were just announced today and columnists around the country are declaring their picks for "snubs" and "well-chosen" nominations.
As I've stated before, I enjoy a lot of TV and agree that there are a lot of worthy shows and performers who are passed over in the nominations. But, there are only five nominations per category, so everyone can't be chosen.
I also feel that we all have our personal favorites and those who criticize the nominations are usually sticking up for their favorites, wishing to see them singled out. That being said, I'm not going to belittle anyone's nomination (there are some nominations that I just don't "get," but I'll just accept that mine is a minority view), but would like to give a pat on the back for a few actors that I feel were truly worthy and I hope will walk away with an award:
Hugh Laurie in "House." I just started watching this show this spring and am always entertained by this actor and the character he plays.
Kevin Dillon in "Entourage." Jeremy Piven is wonderful as Ari, biting deeply into his role and reveling in how he delivers the lines, but Dillon plays a much wider range with Johnny Drama. I really find him to be the heart of the show.
Neil Patrick Harris in "How I Met Your Mother." Not to knock the other actors on this show, but Harris' Barney commands center stage whenever he's in a scene. Maybe the writers just give him the best lines, but I'm almost guaranteed a laugh when he speaks.
T. R. Knight in "Grey's Anatomy." Am bored with his storyline, but still like his character. Gotta be the actor, right?
Otherwise, I think the Emmys basically get it right. Sometimes, shows seem to just get a nomination through past reputation (like All-Star teams in sports?), but fresh blood is also rewarded quite often ("Heroes" is this year's best example).
The toughest category for me are the writing categories. I'm always on the fence about it when one show dominates these. Certainly, "The Sopranos" has great writing and it wouldn't be fair to limit each show to only one nomination when there are so many good writers on the staff, but I always think there must be some way to "spread the wealth" rather than just see one show take three or more of the five. But, I will admit, every strategy I can think of to remedy this has problems. I'll keep working on it and get back to you.
As I've stated before, I enjoy a lot of TV and agree that there are a lot of worthy shows and performers who are passed over in the nominations. But, there are only five nominations per category, so everyone can't be chosen.
I also feel that we all have our personal favorites and those who criticize the nominations are usually sticking up for their favorites, wishing to see them singled out. That being said, I'm not going to belittle anyone's nomination (there are some nominations that I just don't "get," but I'll just accept that mine is a minority view), but would like to give a pat on the back for a few actors that I feel were truly worthy and I hope will walk away with an award:
Hugh Laurie in "House." I just started watching this show this spring and am always entertained by this actor and the character he plays.
Kevin Dillon in "Entourage." Jeremy Piven is wonderful as Ari, biting deeply into his role and reveling in how he delivers the lines, but Dillon plays a much wider range with Johnny Drama. I really find him to be the heart of the show.
Neil Patrick Harris in "How I Met Your Mother." Not to knock the other actors on this show, but Harris' Barney commands center stage whenever he's in a scene. Maybe the writers just give him the best lines, but I'm almost guaranteed a laugh when he speaks.
T. R. Knight in "Grey's Anatomy." Am bored with his storyline, but still like his character. Gotta be the actor, right?
Otherwise, I think the Emmys basically get it right. Sometimes, shows seem to just get a nomination through past reputation (like All-Star teams in sports?), but fresh blood is also rewarded quite often ("Heroes" is this year's best example).
The toughest category for me are the writing categories. I'm always on the fence about it when one show dominates these. Certainly, "The Sopranos" has great writing and it wouldn't be fair to limit each show to only one nomination when there are so many good writers on the staff, but I always think there must be some way to "spread the wealth" rather than just see one show take three or more of the five. But, I will admit, every strategy I can think of to remedy this has problems. I'll keep working on it and get back to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)