Modern Blockbusters and the Transformers Effect

YEs, after reading some of the funniest thoughts ever written about a "summer movie," I thought I would add my $.02 to the spiraling madness. First, I should start by saying that I haven't seen it and probably won't. The first was a little too camp and not enough "super-hero" for me. Though I guess the caricature that Megan Fox became didn't help. I can say that she had a "kick ass" scene or two in the first but couldn't we have given her some FRICKIN PANTS for her intro!!! Sorry, "tension-breaker had to be done."

Anyway, I was pretty much expecting a BOFFO opening though I'm not convinced it'll have Star Trek legs as "word of mouth" doesn't work for this type of movie. Bay obviously wanted to strike fast and hard and go down just as fast and hard because 4200 theaters can have a slightly "not-Gran Torino" per theater average. I think Bush proved that appealing effectively to even the lowest common denominator has the desired "short-term" effect. Box office is definitely "short-term" so I think we can count on at least $700M worldwide. The big problem is going to be that the perfect demo needs accompaniment and adults are turning their noses up in droves.

It's actually rather amazing and telling that the same team that wrote Star Trek wrote this. Though it seems like a third writer was brought in after Orci and Kurtzman - Ian Bryce who has produced a lot but not written - it's obvious what a different director will do. Abrams did a bang up job on a very fun script, while it seems that Bay has gone for the glitter of glitter. According to sources a big factor was the writer's strike in 07 which put the skids on the entire production, writing-wise. That could be an "excuse" if not for the fact that IT'S A MOVIE ABOUT GIANT ROBOTS - give them a McGuffin and go. What was the "plot" of Iron Man? The Dark Knight? POTC? No one needs to know what happens after a Transformer dies.

At any rate, the reviews are fast and furious - though none of them can convince me to or dissuade me from seeing it. Some of the elements in the trailers and snippets were just awful. Maybe Bay should stop telling Megan Fox to "just act hot." Who would think she wasn't hot - except a guy who hates tattoos - but even then she'd have a hard time being thrown out of bed.

Anyway, I think people should just remember that 6 months from now this will be a distant memory and there will probably be little permanent damage to anyone's psyche - unless of course they don't take Ebert's advice and sit in the front row. Of course the racial furor won't help the next weeks' BO tally, but hey I have to live around MudFlap and Skids as a Brooklynite so I'm glad others have to deal with it. (I guess it's what happens when you don't stand for something)

I can say that this film - one review called it T:ROTFL - has brought out the cinema purists in America. Some of the posts at Ebert's blog were seriously thought out and gave me hope that real movies about real people still have an audience - not that I don't write mindless fluff - fart jokes and all - but hey the saying is you can't know joy until you know pain(I always thought that was BS in life) so all well-crafted movies should have an equal foothold in the release schedules of studios. Rather than the experimental searching for a star power ( how many of those flops have there been lately) or the countless remakes it would be great if proven content and technique for other demos (there's more than one route to 4 quadrant success) became more important.

 

The saying is that "no one knows what will be successful" but I don't believe that. Analyses have shown that the most successful movies have the same basic elements. Of course, blending these elements into a "unique" story is hard work, it's not impossible. Perhaps more writers should hang out in popular bars with viewers. Then they will understand that viewers want entertainment, not "proven quantities" besides we just established that "no one knows what will be successful" which should include "faces" or "names."

Transformers had no huge names - the original made Shia and Megan - and no human "heroes" but still dragged the kiddies in by the droves. I highly doubt that any of them are having water cooler discussions about plot problems and socio-political messages inherent in what is being called sexist and racist. Sure, Bay is probably insensitive to anyone but his "group" but it's making him money though it is destroying the integrity of the blockbuster. A true blockbuster has legs and will at the very least, please the "escapist" nature of the film critic. After all, whether or not you agree, think they are full of it or anything else, they actually watch the movies. Being impartial when your head is spinning is difficult and truthfully unnecessary.

Opinion is opinion, even with proven factors supporting same.

 

Maybe I'll update this if I decide to "get my glitter on." I just don't like movies like that. I need a feeling super hero that flies and survives explosions, not ones who are there just to be blown up or ripped to pieces - I'd rather they didn't kill Jazz and pointed him to dictionary.com. It could have been an intervention side story.

Also, remember that theaters don't give money back usually so once you pay, you've paid.

Nicholl and Me: Finally did it

Yes, that's right. I entered Nicholl this year with a coming of age drama about college, peer pressure and the plight of the beautiful woman. It always gets good grades but it's hard to make a movie about college with no smoking, drinking, drugs or sex.

I did think that college was about higher learning, not "higher" learning. Pardon the pun. I really believe in the demographic potential of the film so my fingers aren't crossed. I just hope that someone judges the thing on what it is, not what it isn't.

Anyway good luck to me. My next several have been dragging because of my day job, but I'm starting to get back into the groove. I was "blocked" on one BIG scene in my thriller and I left it alone for a month or so while I sharpened some new projects and actually broke the 100 outline start milestone.

If only I could sell that. :-)

Anyway, I think I am doing more complex plot structures now. My first few were meant to be simple plots with good characters. I've been told I accomplished that. I've had a lot of good help along the way and I appreciate them and all the discourse hopefully to come. They're all in my link list for those who manage to venture this way.

I've actually been modeling my progress along the lines of Tisch and USC Fine Arts schools. It's been paying off. My concepts are more aligned with Godard, Deleuze, Welles, Hitchcock than the "guru crowd:" no offense meant. There's nothing wrong with writing "Screenwriting for Dummies." It does though provide a real glut of "not well-thought out" material, where anyone with a couple of bucks for a program thinks this is easy because they're special.

Rather than writers starting out with something that happened down the street they go to exotic, hard-to-film locations and think act breaks make a movie. Of course, you want to stand out but look at Juno. Simple story, unique dialog. Even superhero movies are "location-accessible" for large audiences.

Anyway, rant over. The day job is getting on my nerves right now.

But being a Mechanical Engineer means a need for complex learning methods.

The Circular Arc - The only character arc?

Howdy writers,
It's that time again and this time we're talking about Character Arcs. Ah yes, the ubiquitous character arc, known for producing such hits as What Women Want, As Good As It Gets, Disney's The Kid, and a distinguished list of others.

Oh you may mean where the character learns valuable lessons and undergoes a transformation. Well, that sucks. You can't reduce cinema to the minimalist view of character change. People rarely change: the virgin who gets raped is still that "virgin" including what makes her a virgin; whether it be a stern family, a devout choice, s spiritual challenge, etc.

The Circular Arc defies these premises, It is truly the scope of the cinematic experience and enables film makers to experiment with the depth and breadth of the human experience under stress. It enables gritty characters who have to respond to the whims of the most depraved antagonist. It enables reality because of the strength of the human spirit; best personified by the archetypal protagonist. The hero who can bend her moral base without breaking. She can withstand even the most withering barrage of loss vs. defeat. This is what's necessary for the true cinematic experience. It enables the film maker to view life from various different eyes.

Rather than try to experiment with some tyoe of growth based on Conflict, writers need to concentrate on the human experience, realizing that the survival instinct can overcome odds and allow a battered, literally destroyed protagonist to return tot their normal life, thus fulfilling the Hero's Journey. Campbell's representations do much for cinema while not forcing a mold. I believe this is because even archetypal figures have human grounding; it's like how even the same type of person reacts differently to heights or barking dogs or dense woods.

When crafting story vs. character it's important to think about the worst situations for the character and the story then becomes a matter of crafting situations(elements) which force the protagonist into action. These actions then of course push the antagonist to greater evil which should force the protag to become even more dangerous and violent. It's a circular motion that continues until someone is defeated.

It is of course possible to show a difference in the character in their reaction to certain situations. In "The Long Kiss Good Night" Geena Davis' character realizes that her abilities aren't the worse thing as her and her husband laugh about her knife trick at the end. Or in the John Ritter film "Real Men" where after his adventure he returns to the garage of the guys who stole his son's bike and gives them what for. That itself is not as much the "dramatic character arc" but more the increase in ability to defend himself.

I'm not even sure how a protagonist can be as strong as possible if they are "wishy washy" enough to "change" which really means "transform." People rarely change their stripes which I guess is why we need a three strikes law. In real life the weak don't survive but the strong of heart and steady will always grow with the situation but not "transform." The most popular characters are always the same after the adventure is over, though they may be bruised and more aware of the "ways of the world." This is really evident in the direction of "Quantum of Solace" which saw Bond become "unhinged," but he was still Bond.

Even a comedy such as "Tootsie" shows the Circular Arc. Michael learned a valuable lesson but in the end returned to his former self as an actor. Fro these reasons and more, the Character Arc only works for making an asshole into a normal person.

Don't transform this.

Sex in Cinema?

Howdy fellow writers. Today is our second post dealing with Clint Eastwood. You may say; what does Clint Eastwood have to do with sex in cinema? I would say exactly. He is the most prolific star and film maker in America today and has NEVER had an even slightly "risque" sex scene.

In fact the only time Eastwood deals with sex either in front of or behind the camera is "rape." By rape I mean sex that is not exactly consensual and is not meant to be romantic or "pretty."

The first example comes from High Plains Drifter. Eastwood plays his usual role as the mysterious stranger, good with a gun and his hands. This particular film sees him rape a woman who disrespected him. There is no graphic display, but the point is made that sex can be a weapon.

The second example that I will note is The Gauntlet in which Eastwood plays a drunk cop who gets setup to take a fall. In this example Eastwood doesn't have a sex scene but there is an attempted rape on the train. "Forced Sex" is a recurring theme in Eastwood. You won't see the "obligatory" climb out of the bathtub or the slow strip so common in "adult-themed" movies, but still his movies are touching, exciting, sometimes sexy - Sondra Locke is HOT in some short shorts (she got him for awhile) and nearly always profitable and/or award winning.

I think it shows that if you can make good movies about extraordinary people you will ruin it with sex. I can say that The Departed turned me totally off with it's sex scenes. Perhaps I think of women as the same level of protagonist as men and that type of "disclosure" takes away from a strong character.

It can also be very offensive to people as it may strike a chord with their most "intimate" thoughts. The rise of explicit sex and nudity has I think spoiled the ability of female actors to excel as they are told to "act hot"(Bay's words to Megan Fox). This marginalizes these characters as it's hard to take a person serious when they're nude(perhaps why periods of nervousness about being judged are said to be countered by picturing a person "in their underwear").


At any rate, we will begin our analysis of sex in three different arenas: as a movement image, as a time image and as a memory image. These will be disseminated into the various reasons people will have sex in a given scenario. Some of them are money, love, trust, companionship, and of course the opposites of each.


The Movement Image:
This is probably what most film makers aim for with sex scenes - as outdated as it is. The movement image represents the quanta of interpretation through the various stages of the movement image - perception - affection - action and those intermediate steps. We'll concentrate on those as they most closely represent the "idea" of sex in cinema.

The first effective use of the movement image in memory is a recent film that somehow worked a sex scene into it. "300."

If you look at the images of sexuality beginning with the Oracle the movements are abrupt and not pervasive of time but requesting perception and gaining a "reaction to action" through the use of the affection image, such as Leonidas watching the spectacle of the dance unfold. The action image in this case would be the licking of the girl's flesh which, again, is not encompassing time but relating to the movements of the participant for effect. Of course the same effect would have been preserved with non-flowing gown - who wants to see nearly naked men anyway but this is about narrative not pandering.

The only other instance was the scene right after when Leonidas appears to need comforting. We begin with a time image of him standing nude in the archway. This is time image because absorbs the viewer into the duration of his pondering. We then proceed to him on the edge of the bed where his wife (never named which demonstrates the necessary marginalization of the "exposed and vulnerable") awakes to his troubles.

For me, it seemed to limit the range of the character as there's an underlying tinge of maybe she should wear more risque clothing and not talk much. (of course that's a personal opinion and not scientific) The same scene could have been done with him laying his head on her chest or her getting upset at his frustration and throwing him over and giving him a stern lecture.

Our second example is Miami Vice. There is one graphic sex scene with Colin Farrell which is what some might consider well-placed but in terms of the narrative it has no relevance. It is merely a series of movement images which have no affection image or action image. Consider that if they have an attraction that could come back to haunt them this is fulfilled by the scene in the club where they dance together and are filmed. This does provide a memory image of the "passion" but passion is not a narrative except in "negative arc" films such as Fatal Attraction(to be referenced) where it is the narrative and not an "insert."

There are tons more examples and I leave it to the reader to determine when Movement Images are used. It's an interesting challenge.


The Time Image:

This is probably the least used of the images when referring to sex. It's not because it can't be done but because the sex scene has to be encompassed in a secondary passage of time, such as; the progress of a train or other vehicle. This though necessarily moves the emphasis from the actual sex scene and towards the element which does encompass time. Coincidentally, Alfred Hitchcock's "North By Northwest" used this technique at the end where as the couple is headed towards coital bliss we view the "phallic" train heading into the tunnel, which fulfills both the Memory Image in that it is linear, and the Time Image which is the movement of the train through the tunnel.

Of course, Hitchcock was never known as the "modern" auteur, using sexuality as a vehicle. He was once quoted in an interview that he didn't work with actors like Marilyn Monroe because he felt they "wore their sexuality like baubles and there is no discovery of their sexuality possible." I agree. Even in Marnie, when the famous "rape" scene happens, there is no actual sex, just the images leading up to it which try to capture the emotional state of the participants. We can then use that memory image as the fuel for the relationship in later scenes.
The falling of her robe represents the use of a time image (would have been more effective in slow-mo) but it more so enters the realm of the action\affection image.

Foreplay scenes are much easier as Marnie implies. One of the more effective Time Images involving foreplay was the elevator oral sex scene in "Fatal Attraction." This film managed to maintain the tenuous grip to the time image while including sexual content, but when examined they all work out to the passion involved in their "foreplay" (evidence of the passion in the narrative). We see them all over her kitchen, knocking things over water spilled; very sensual yet not sexual.

As I scan through the myriad sex-based b- and mainstream movies, I can't find a single instance of the actual sex act translating to a Time Image. You can't encapsulate movement because sex is about stationary movement. Time Images encapsulate movement by revealing displacement. You can actually do it but it has to be the same thing every time: a romp around the room; going from the bed to the dresser to the wall to the closet, etc. But again this is ALSO achieved with no nudity or "implied penetration."

This now brings us to the
Memory Image:
which is perhaps the biggest enemy of sex in cinema. It has probably killed many a career and is an unfortunately inherent aspect of all cinema. It can take a person who is enjoying the fare and turn them into an offended spectator. The reason is that it's impossible to know what a person doesn't do sexually. Offense is rarely caused by something that a person doesn't or wouldn't do, it mostly comes in the form of that MEMORY. Imagine you take a date to the movies and something that you may have done comes on screen out of context. It could be construed as being an invasion or somehow an attack. This could perhaps be why you won't see a lot of women and couples discussing sex scenes.

Another way this Image can be bad for the movie is that the memory image continues throughout the film, so that as was previously stated shows exposure and vulnerability and can affect how viewers respond to shows of strength by said character - unfortunately usually only female due to the stigma attached to breasts and female intimacy. Also, these images can’t be "controlled" as the memory image can be encompassed within the time image or usually the movement image. It is more of an abstract notion as it's again impossible to know what image will strike a chord with what viewer or whether that chord will be positive or negative. Sexual memory images will almost always bring a negative feeling the more graphic it is. It isn't a point of morals or sexual freedom but again intimacy and vulnerability.
Even heroes like James Bond will break down upon orgasm, which may perhaps be why the orgasm is rarely a part of the scene. The one male orgasm I can recall was in The Matrix Reloaded. There was comedic one in Eddie Murphy's Boomerang but I could feel a tinge of discomfort when viewing it.



Now we will turn our attention to other facets of sex in cinema such as the "purported" necessary scene. We will examine several films that will be picked by a fellow writer and perhaps a few that stick out in our minds. I guess the best place to start this section is the ubiquitous creation of Ian Fleming, James Bond. Bond is special in that though he has at least one sex scene in every movie, it's nearly always PG-13 sex, meaning there was rarely any full frontal nudity. His scenes do have the requisite of having a reason other than passion. Normally, he's lured into bed by a femme-fatale who is on the side of the villain. She then proceeds to fall for him and help foil the villain's plans.

Examining how we can manipulate cinema to emphasize these as character motives, we first assume that we will merely encompass the perception\affection\action image pattern. We'll start with "Die Another Day," the last 007 I've seen. The "action" in this installment was provided- on the good guy side by Halle Berry and - on the bad guy side a relative unknown, Rosamund Pike who later steamed up Doom.

At any rate, establishing the sexual tension begins early with Rosamund (Miranda) being briefed by M about working with Bond. Bond then meets Halle (Jinx) on an island and the usual sexual banter ensues. We then nearly cut to a sex scene where there is little nudity and no slow undressing - which usually characterizes James Bond films (perhaps the film makers realize how jarring a graphic sex scene is). The purpose of this particular scene is none, except maintaining the "mystique."
The second "sex scene" is when Miranda has to let James stay in her room as a cover. This gives a reason for a sexual encounter but not the actual sex scene itself. The sex scene can only serve itself as it doesn't and can't forward the story between the missionary position and the doggy style one unless of course the film is about convincing a person to experiment with different positions. And even then, the close-up can enable reaction shots that don't require visible nudity.

As Hitchcock once said, "Once you zoom into the act, where do you go?" This in my mind implies that the master of cinema saw little to no cinematic usefulness in sex acts on screen.

We're now going to pick a few random films with both graphic and non graphic sex scenes to analyze how the increasingly graphic scenes affect word of mouth, box office and critical acclaim.



We've already looked at one of the more acclaimed films, Fatal Attraction. We'll next look at "Showgirls." It was an immediate hit with its under the covers look at Las Vegas and its glittering showgirls. Elizabeth Berkley and Gina Gershon highlighted the tale most famous for its writhing pool moment in which Berkley attempts to set the record for removing water from a pool while engaging in the most fake sex scene ever. The entire film was an exercise of writhing bodies, great for the "pig" in me but seriously lacked a coherent narrative other than a reason to have an exercise of writhing bodies. This was of course interspersed with a plethora of homoerotic images, none of which provided any true insight into the characters. This type of film is always bound in the classic perception/affection/action realm.


Next up is the recent "The Departed:" perhaps the most irrelevant use of sex in the list. When looking at the motives for the psychiatrist character to have sex with both characters, it does perhaps show a conflict of interest, but the inclusion of explicit sex merely cheapens the overall inner turmoil. It nearly reduces the character to a mere McGuffin, needful and confused. It's difficult enough to view the complexities of such a relationship without exposing the intimate details. These will be specifically in the realm of the memory image, which evokes thoughts of betrayal. This does fit in the narrative but need not be specifically viewed to impact it.

Vulnerability can be shown in many ways more cinematic and touching. Sex scenes merely force you to have an intimate personal opinion as per your moral views.


Next we'll look at the recent box office smash, Knocked Up, obviously it has sexual content but even its title evokes an end result rather than the action of sex.

It's what I like to call the fact of sex vs. the act of sex. The fact of sexuality can drive a movie, but once you enter into the realm of "interpretation" it becomes a crap shoot of offending people vs. cinematically realizing sexuality.
There are two sex scenes in Knocked Up, both of which minimized "exposure" and concentrated on what could be considered a time image. If you turn down the sound, you can imagine the passage of time as Rogen's character discusses "hitting the kid in the head." Had there been more exposure, the scene wouldn't have been funny as it would have forced a reaction to the to the perceived vulnerability of the characters.


Next we'll look at Wild Things, rather acclaimed in a cult status way. This included scenes of a homoerotic nature where the women were merely playthings for the pleasure of the antagonist. The narrative was thereby destroyed because the draw was not forwarding of the story but the continued exposure and vulnerability of the main characters. When the audience remembers the movie, they won't think about the plot to steal money but the sexual content. This of course is fine for the purposes of the movie but would not hold up to true mainstream entertainment.


Another similar narrative can be found in Bound with Nina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly (I could use the term usual suspects) which will also be analyzed. The usual frolicking takes place and drowns the narrative. The appeal then becomes the fragility of the contact and not importance of its meaning. The list of these types of movies is rather long but very few ever achieve mainstream status which begs the question - Where does the audience lie? I would say in the home video market where such exposure is more comfortable as there sure fewer other viewers with differing tastes. It's similar to the effect of home video on X-Rated fare. Even with the "relaxed" morals of the late 80's millions of people who would never expose themselves were renting videos for every reason including a desire to experiment with someone else's tastes.

Also, when looking at the participants we can say they are always the usual suspects which begs the question - Why aren't more "modern" women desirous of such romps? Everyone has a voyeuristic nature to some extent, but it's rather hard to see yourself purposefully vulnerable. This may explain why the lure of beautiful women doesn't create more male porn stars.

Looking at the recent "We Own the Night" there was as much press over the fact that Eva Mendez have to have a few stiff drinks for the 10 seconds of genital groping as there was about the excellent cast (I thought the movie fell flat). But if we examine the context of this groping, it was like being dropped into a B-Movie scene on Cinemax as there was no intro of either character; no understanding of their relationship and no real establishing scene. Then the vulnerability and marginalizing occurs in the next scene where a time image shows her progression towards the crowd as an object of sex, complete with the push up and dangling cigarette. The character goes nowhere and later we are jarred by her lack of acceptance of Joaquin's choice. Again a common theme: confusion and shifting "values."

Personal Opinions

Aaaah, yes, it’s that time: the time where we expound on our personal feelings about the uselessness of sex in MAINSTREAM CINEMA. As we have viewed previously the sex scene itself can only ever be a Movement Image, which is contrary to the “cinema of the seer” as the Time Image and its variants came to be known.
Now you may say: “Well you are seeing,” but the point of the designation is that you are drawn in to the STORY over time not the images. I can’t remember a really sexual female character that wasn’t merely a caricature. They usually have no depth other than an outburst or two regarding their “marginalization.” I guess it’s difficult for me to separate the character from the actor. It wouldn’t be an issue but porn stars are not the role models we want for young female thespians. They need to be in touch with their humanity not their sexuality. I guess perhaps I’m taking a huge chance crapping on everyone’s “logic” but hey as soon as you grow huge tits and tend to leak, I’ll pay the slightest bit of attention to you.
With all of the movies I’ve analyzed there are lots more that were even more offensive to me. By offensive I mean I couldn’t imagine my girlfriend or wife in such a position as an actor. Men refuse to even show pubic hair which begs the question: “Are you afraid that you may like testicles on screen?” Either way how are women supposed to be comfortable in what is admittedly a homosexual embrace while males basically sit back and try to look interested?
I really like women who can dance but I can’t watch hip hop videos cause I’m waiting for the rappers to start kissing each other (read: they never seem to ACTUALLY TOUCH the girls).
Now there are those people who say I think sex is dirty or something but I have stories about encounters that could be in Penthouse Letters. I just wouldn’t film it; mainly because I don’t want to see myself exposed like that but partly because of my sense of chivalry. When I view graphic sex I am totally snatched out of the narrative. I don’t care what happens after the scene with the juicy tits. I don’t care how the story ends. I would just watch the tits for the whole movie like in Idiocracy (except I won’t be looking at a guy’s ass).
Anyway none of this is to besmirch those who tend enjoy a writhing experience on the big screen. But I have done more sexual things in the club than most movies with sex. I’m working on actually having sex in the club and I would have if… never mind – not very cinematic.


So we'll call this little diddy to a close and just say to all who care,

Keep Writing as Writing is the Revealing of the Soul.

Just skip the graphic sex and nudity. :-)

Modern Cinema and the Eastwood Effect

Howdy writers,
Today we want to talk about the current master of what I like to call the personal story. These are stories about everyday happenings that may or may not have happy endings.

To understand let's look at a definition for "everyday happenings." These are the dramatic things that happen to all of us. Looking at Eastwood we can reference "Mystic River" in which a tragedy befalls a group of men who have seen their share - of course the additional individual conflicts add a dramatic flare.

Looking at the body of his recent work behind the camera this theme is played out time and again. Starting with his first directorial effort, "Play Misty For Me" he always maintained a "human realism" wherein his characters tend to deal "extraordinarily to "ordinary" conflict.

Even the Sergio Leone movies held to this technique. "A Fistful of Dollars," High Plain Drifter, Joe Kidd, and The Outlaw Josey Wales. They were all basically the same movie with a slightly different premise.

A stranger rides into town and brings trouble.

It was around this time that Eastwood began to take on more urban stories. He maintained the "unfeeling tough guy" mentality throughout movies such as; The Gauntlet, and The Dirty Harry series. He even expanded the tough guy role to comedies such as "Every Which Way..." and "Any which way..."

As he got older he seemed to become more thoughtful and his movies began to show this. The first of which has to be the Unforgiven, the award-winning story about the "beast who was tamed by beauty and lived to tell about it." Analyzing it you can see that there isn't much excitement, just very "soul-revealing" lines.

From the start there's a violent crime against a woman and an intractably "sexist" sheriff. Then we see Munny on his farm, dealing with life with pigs and children. It's an excellent twist on "refusal of the call" since it's not from a person in danger but from one who wants to make some money.

His motivation is as simple "getting a better life for them youngsters." He justifies his actions as a man of the old west: "he deserves it for cutting up a woman."

Again we see character studies with the relationship between Little Bill, English Bob and the biographer. Of course he throws in a vicious beating to maintain the tone of indiscriminate violence. This see saw pace of "character reveal-conflict" continues throughout all of his movies.

Unforgiven started a "franchise" for him with this type of human examination story and it continued in movies like "A Perfect World" - one of Costner's best performances showed Eastwood's resistance to interference in his role as the "always get his man tough Texas Ranger." It examined the relationship between a man at the end of his rope and a boy with no rope to speak of. As always he plays the tough, competent man's man.

Next up was "Madison County?" a woman's movie about an illicit affair that bore only a letter. It worked with the isolation and yearning of a housewife who meets a world-traveler with a slight demeanor. Mushy but effective.

Eastwood then did "Midnight In the Garden of Good and Evil," a twisted tale about a gay man who murders his low-life lover. A very good Cusack role and for Spacey as well. He had no role but it was an interesting movie.

He then followed up with True Crime, a story of redemption; Space Cowboys, a group of irascible old guys save the world; and Blood Work, a strange tale about "having what it takes."

Then he hit with Mystic River, an adaptation that was admittedly long on moments but short on substantive relationships and closure. Still the high concept of a murdered daughter and an excellent cast led to boffo-land.

Next up was Million Dollar Baby, Haggis' second Oscar winner in a row. A touching story about determination and loss. Eastwood showed not a tough guy that would keep the faith but a tired man who couldn't see the things he'd seen anymore.

A few war films which cause a brouhaha with Spike Lee were next and though I saw neither even now, I'm sure there was not a conscious effort to remove black units from the fighting scenes. And hey, I wouldn't want to be rushing artillery anyway, so you white guys can take Spike with you and God speed.

Moving into the now we have this year's Changeling, called a hodgepodge by critics, though admittedly Angelina's range may have affected it and Gran Torino a new entry this week that has the per-screen record as it's likely Eastwood at his intractably gruff best.

All in all, Eastwood has been a ptolific film maker who has the distinction of playing the same character over and over in different settings and still being "fresh."

I think he has proven my theory that people don't care abotu twists or clever stories, but respond best to extraordinary people reacting and overreacting to situations which could hinder their path to the McGuffin, whether it be a mindset (Neo), a trinket (Indy), a job (Tess - Working Girl), or anything else.

Ordering elements that perfunctorily enable triumph through tragedy will entertain by equating memories to images. It again speaks to what I call "juxtaposed banality" which is consistent with the differences in characters' everyday lives as they pursue their life goals based on their life view. There will never be anything new at this point just a retelling, which may explain the prevalence of "reimagining" older films.

I can admit that I don't really watch a lot of old movies, though I have seen large parts of classics like The Seven Samurai, Breathless, Birth of a Nation, and most Hitchcock. I moreso like to abstractly examine these films from the philosophical point of view of people like Deleuze. His Movement and Time Image texts are a must read and can encapsulate the techniques of all the greats new and old.

Well, that's all for now. So

Make My Day

and Keep Writing as Writing is the Revealing of the Soul.

Conflict vs. Tension vs. Suspense

Food for thought. How do we differentiate these three essential components? Let's start with definitions.

Conflict: The interaction of juxtaposed opinions.

Tension: the interaction of conflict and character.

Suspense: The interaction of tension and time.


Notice that all definitions involve interaction. This is because movies are about interaction. One-sided dialogue can rarely sponsor either element. A single character cannot a drama make.

Differences between the elements are also many. For instance conflict can occur in a single scene, while tension spans multiple scenes and suspense spans a whole movie. So as is usually the case time is the determining factor while interaction is the necessary starting point.
This interaction can be between people, animals, or nature with similar effects.

Tension/Suspense and No Country For Old Men

Howdy folks,
We're talking today about SUSPENSE at the behest of our fellow scribe .

I didn't see it in the theater but I did catch it as soon as it hit cable. Actually I've seen it three times, so the analysis should be pretty thorough. We're going to go scene by scene chronologically and hopefully readers have seen it to be able to follow along.

To start we'd like to define the expectation that invokes suspense. We can direct you to UNK for his definition of suspense - recreated here for your convenience:

HOPE vs. FEAR = UNCERTAINTY = TENSION

I'd like to extend that to venture into the territory of why such cinematic concepts are so intriguing:

Suspense is evocative of a simple thread existent in life. It extends to all living creatures as danger exists for us all. You can especially see it in the wild. For instance imagine a wooded setting; a small fawn hides beneath some bushes as mother deer returns from foraging. Suddenly the scent of a cougar wafts through their noses. Elsewhere a cub sees its mother stalking their prey.

This is classic suspense. On the one hand, if the mother cougar doesn't catch the deer the cub may starve. On the other hand if the mother deer cannot return to and care for the fawn it will starve. This shows that either of them could have a destructive outcome.

Now you may say I would be rooting for the deer, but you aren't the cub. We're lookign at it from the point of view of either side of the food chain. Both of these parties experience the same sense of what I call:

"Cognitive realization of a possible destructive outcome."

This is the essence of suspense and why we gravitate towards it.





NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Tommy Lee's VO tells the theme of the story "old-timers" vs. "new-generation."
We see Chigurh being loaded into a police car. Then we see him kill a police officer in the station. He simply slips the cuffs around, walks up behind and strangles him with the cuffs.Then we see him pull over a vehicle and brutally kill him with an air gun. Here the mystery of why he got arrested heightens the tension.

Moss' story begins with a barren landscape which immediately raises the hackles on your neck as you try to imagine the horrors that await. The next scene shows Josh Brolin peering through a rifle scope eyeing what may be his source of food. Now we jump to direct conflict that may prove to be destructive for him or the prey. If he misses they scatter, he may not get another chance. He hits it but not a killing shot so now he has to track it.


He begins his search across the barren plain. A blood trail. Things are looking up. He lines up the spots. Ahead he sees a limping dog. What? He heads towards it and at the top of a ridge he sees several vehicles and bodies around them. Tension is heightened. Suspense builds as he approaches cautiously. It builds even more as we see the bodies and bullet-riddled vehicles. More dead dogs. The mystery builds tension.

Suddenly he finds a live one. Checking the vehicle he spots drugs. A drug deal gone bad. Speaking Spanish, asking for water. He has none. Then realization. Where's the money? A guess and he's off, taking an Uzi with him. he walks, walks. Then next to a tree a body leaning. Bingo. But how long before the orchestrators send backup?

A large briefcase sits at the body. He opens it. A dream come true. Stacks of hundreds. Grab it and go. Take the chance. No one's around. Or are they? More tension. Thunder rolls as he make his way to his pickup.

Arriving home he stashes the Uzi, greets his wife. Later he awakes, thinking why not take him some water, see what I can see. Tension ratchets. We've seen the bodies. Arriving he sees the hombre is dead, but notices a truck has joined his on the ridge. Suspense as it comes toward him firing. No choice. Gotta run for it. What chance does he have? He runs and runs shots whizzing by. Finally, he's hit and tumbles to the ground. He gets up and dives into the river. Escape? No a dog is sent after him. He crawls from the water, desperately tries to dry the gun. Just in time the dog careens into him shot. He examines his buckshot wound and contemplates the events.


We jump to Chigur in a store. A friendly store keeper makes small talk. Bad idea. Tension rises when he asks how the weather is in Dallas. Chigur snaps back "what business where I'm from?" It goes downhill. Will he kill him? Demeaning questions follow. Then the fateful coin toss. Call it? Oh my god! Heartlessness awaits our hero. The heartlessness Bell spoke of minutes ago. Heads. You WIN!


We go back to Moss retrieving his weapon. Get out of town. They got my license number. His expectation raises the tension more. Nonchalant yet deadly serious.


Chigur meets mystery men. They go to deal site. He kills them quickly after getting the VIN off Moss' truck.


Bell gets horses, goes to site of Chigur's latest getaway car. His mellow nature, like the others', seems disarming, slightly scary. They locate the site, examine it. NO DRUGS!! Just some powder in the truck bed. They spotted Moss' truck.


Chigur arrives at Moss'. Grabs some milk to wait after searching a phone bill. He sits still almost mechanical. SCARY!


He appears at the office. The landlady is difficult yet stern. Will he kill her? She has no fear. Sorry. No information. He tries an intimidating look. She doesn't budge. Not worth it. He's gone.


Bell and deputy arrive at Moss'. Wait. I think we just missed out mystery man. Deputy raises tension with his realization of the threat to Moss.


Moss gets his wife off to Mom's and checks into a hotel. Out comes....a coin. COnnecting object of tension to object of help. STashes dough.


Chigur callign numbers on the phone bill. Cold. Direct. Tense.


Moss buying boots? Back in the cab. Nervous. Drive around the parking lot. Go to another motel.


Chigur driving towards Del Rio. Raises his gun over a small bridge. Oh my god! He fires at a crow. Misses. No reaction.


Bell told about autopsy. There's no bullet! We know why. DEA? Screw em. Go back out there? No way. I can't even eat.


Moss planning. Sawed off at the ready. Back to original motel. But a different room. Maybe next door. The walk to the room. Shoulders looked over. Get the money. Poles spilled.


Chigur in the car. A beep. A transmitter. In with the money. Oh my god! Narrowing down the rooms. He pulls into the clerk. I use maps too.


Moss making a grapple.


Chigur searching room.


Moss ready to retrieve money.


CHigur removes shoes. Readies large shotgun with silencer. Oh MY GOD!


Moss retrieving money.


Chigur walking in socks with gun and air cannister. REALLY OH MY GOD!! Balsts open the door, flicks lights. Kills one. Second from bathroom. TOO SLOW. Shots ring out.


Moss hears. HURRY!! HURRY!!


Chigur examines bathroom. One left. Unarmed. TALK! TOO LATE!! He removes is socks. Searches for money. Where? The vent. Out comes a coin. Scratches. Slide marks.


Moss in getaway car.


Large building. New player. Chigur's an animal. Find our money.


Moss in his new digs. Cautious. Still not realizing what others have. Perhaps too naturally brave. Settling in. Can't sleep. What if....? OH MY GOD!!!! Searching, searching. Dollar bills...in the bundle A TRANSMITTER. OH MY REALLY FUCKING GOD!!! Call the desk. No answer. UH OH!! Carefully check door. SHHHH! Get the gun. Turn out the light. Wait. Wait. UNBEARABLE. I'm brave. Shadow under the door. COCK the hammer. Shadow leaves hall lights go out. Suddenly the lock flies to his chest. He fires.
RUN!! Out the window. The chase is on. I caught one. Dark lonely street. What now?
A truck. Flag it down. Shots. bloods spray from driver's neck. OH MY GOD!!!! SLAM on gas. Get out of here. More shots. Duck down. Out of control. CRASH! RUN! HIDE! Chigur approaches slowly. A different LARGE GUN. Spotted in mirror. Brace yourself. NOW!! Chigur senses him and barely dives away. Hurry. Too late. Chigur is gone. His gun left.


Moss struggling to walk across border. Buys a jacket to cover his bloody clothes. Stashes the money over the fence. Strolls into Mexico. Wakes to serenade. I'm not dead but...


Chigur stakes out a PHARMACY? Cuts a shirt removes cotton balls. He's limping. Wasn't fast enough. Blood soaks through a pants hole. He rigs a gas tank. Wlaks into the pharmacy. Suddnely an explosion. PANIC!!! He calmly retrieves medicine. EVEN COLDER!!! He patches himself up. WHAT IS HE!


The Sheriff gets deeper. Dead men owned the cars. Still no excitement in his voice. Sheriff work. The bodies hanging off a flatbed. Everything's changed!!


Moss wakes to Wells and some flowers. He tells him his slight chances. STubborn. I'm no coward. Maybe you should be?


Bell meets with wife. He's strong. He takes on anybody. These guys are not from around here. He may be tough but shit happens.


Wells finds the money. HA! But Chigur awaits him at his hotel. He's going up the steps. Turns. There he is. Gun in hand. SHIT!!!! Begging. No response. Bargain. No way! A foregone conclusion. Defiance. Deafening moments. The phone rings. DEAD!! A slow meander to the phone. It's Moss. Discussion as blood runs. Your wife is next. OH MY GOD!! The agony. The cruel deal. More defiance. Now I hunt you!!!


Sheriff learns of more bodies. Lock cylinder knocked out. Who are these people? Horrors of the world.


Moss in his robe. Gotta cross sir. I'm legal. Need some clothes. Get the moeny. Wells won't be. Call the wife. ext phase. Take the money and run.


Chigur in the contact office. Gun rises. Guy takes one to the neck. An accountant remains. Should he die? We'll never know. EXCRUCIATING!!


Carla Jean and Mama on the run. Being followed. Carla Jean gives up. Help him Sheriff.


Chigur on the road. Car approaches. OH MY GOD!! That foregone conclusion. Questions. Need a jump. Can you get those chicken crates out? IT JUST NEVER STOPS!! Dry, terrifying.


Moss on patrol. Rifle slung. Small talk.


Bell aproachign motel. SHOTS RING OUT! OH MY GOD!! Too late. A truck speeds away. A trail of bodies. Moss lies inside the room.


Carla Jean. He's dead. I'm sorry.


Sad meeting of old-timers. This guy is unbelievable. No remorse. Deep thought. Winding down.


Let's investigate. Did they find the money? Door cylinder blown out. Our friend. Fear. Apprehension. The gun comes out. Door swings open. Empty. Moss' blood stepped over. All clear. Gotta sit.


Bell visits an old friend. Passes for small talk. The big news. I've seen too much. The tension needs to end. It drags on. Horrors of the world.


Carla Jean in grief. Returns home. Seated in grief. An open window. In the bedroom. Chigur. Cold stare, cold words. Immobile. "It's my code. I told him I would kill you." Bargaining. "Call it." "I ain't gonna call it." No shot. Outside he checks his boots. Pretty good sign. Bye Carla. THE HORRORS!!


Driving away. More tension. CRASH!! Plowed into. Other driver unconscious. Limps hurt to the sidewalk, bone protruding. Kids amazed. "Buy your shirt for a splint?" He just walks away.


Bell at home. Glad it's over. Strange dreams.


The end.


Wow, what a roller coaster. This took a little longer cause I wanted to do a scene by scene so I watched it while writing. I treied to narrow the wording to the points of interest. As you can see, throughout the movie the lack of excitement in the voices actually increased the tension. Chigur's cold demeanor was just chilling when thinking about the cougar. Fast, swift, deadly. No emotion.

Moss' bravado and wife's belief lent credence to the belief that maybe he can survive. Bell's calm yet rattled demeanor suggested otherwise as did the presence of Wells, who was in fearful awe of this "psychopath." Throughout, the antag was kept close. Near misses made the tension skyrocket every few minutes. Moss saw himself having to make change after change as things were obviously beyond him, but still we wouldn't want the drug dealer to win.

We will root for the mellow guy who just found some money. We want to see his wife take advantage of the money. We HOPE beyond hope, but the viciousness of Chigur raises the UNCERTAINTY. We are cognizant of the stakes and realize that there could very well be a destructive outcome. Destructive for Moss. Destructive for Bell. Destructive for Carla Jean. Destructive for Wells. Like the cougar we find it difficult to root for Chigur but we do admire and fear his ruthlessness and power.


Very few movies in recent memory did such a good job of ratcheting up the tension, but in a movie where death is the original stakes, you can only maintain tension and build suspense. It was an excellent film. Classic tension. Classic suspense. Classic dread.

News from the Bailout

Yes, we're talking about the bailout today. The interesting part of it is the $470M earmarked for the entertainment industry. It extends Section 181 through 2009 (don't know why 2012 wasn't chosen).

So all you indie filmers, hit up those friends and let them know they can write off anything they give you.

It also raised the cap on budgets to unlimited. This means that you can write off $15M in taxes no matter the size of the movie. Good deal.


UPDATE:

After talking with a very prominent entertainment lawyer, I found that even companies can take advantage of this tax break and incentive program. So all of you out there trying to film shorts and even features, approach those local business owners and tell them they can't lose because the gov't will refund all of their investment in the current tax year. No waiting.

New Start

Howdy campers....Maybe I should stop saying that. I sound like a serious comedian. Or maybe that would be a "serious" comedian, with all of the contradictions. But then maybe that will help me write movies filled with contradictions.

Anyway I finally stopped using the comma after "Anyway." Well that's not what I meant. I guess that's the conflict with writing for speech.

This post is about our latest start. Book that is. Well I mean I'm reading a new book. A highly recommended piece by Judith "I hope I remember if it's "o" or "i" Westin: The Film Director's Intuition."

It does make it easier to write dialog if you study how directors deal with cinema.

A little tip: Go to Amazon and do searches on screenwriting, cinema, Seger, and film theory. There is a plethora of info just waiting to be a sound or visual image.

Oh yeah,

Keep writing as writing is the revealing of the soul.

Elements vs. Plot - Examination of the Time Image

Howdy campers, it's time for yet another piece about the thing we call cinema. I've got a few days off and I'm letting my over-worked brain cool down, but I love the philosophy of cinema. It's voice ever-reaching; it's thoughts transcendental; it's effects infinite.

I was recently reading a post by Julie Gray over at The Rouge Wave about the glut of movies currently. One thing led to another and voila I realized why SPOOF movies are so popular these days. It's because as viewers see more and more spectacle, drama and hilarity, plot becomes less important and elements (character traits - The Joker; situational comedy - Tropic Thunder; recognizable occurrences - Juno, Knocked Up; and character props - Hancock) become the way to go.

Of course, as Disaster Movie, etc showed you have to have an "abstract coherence" as just a bunch of jokes is what you get in the average "non-spoof" (though I believe every movie is a spoof (Aristotle might call it imitation) on something - sometimes just not meant to be funny).

It gets back to something is actually in the Bible; there's nothing new under the sun. This is apparent in cinema with the growth of the remake market lately. Writers are looking for the clever hook about the x who does f(x) with complications leading to f'(x) - sorry for the algebra, but people just want a couple of good scenes in between stuff that leads up to them. Clever is only for dialog. It allows you to reveal character in reaction to a joke; in a voicing of learning or understanding; in approaching the opposite sex; in responding to the opposite sex, a friend, a mentor, a sibling or a colleague.

Juno has to be the worst story for "the Hollywood Style" of filmmaking. Do you threaten the baby, reveal some horrible adoptive parent secret, have an adoption agency scandal? No, you have a snarky teen who gets knocked up by a nerd, goes through to full term and gives up the baby, albeit only to one parent.

It was those dialog elements along with recognizable banality. The struggling couple, the naive, yet well-meaning parents, the comic relief BFF and a wealth of pregnancy jokes. Not to mention the circular path of the two protags.

Robert De Niro once said he would be in any movie with three good scenes and no bad ones, which I believe defines perhaps a low but the maximum you really need to aim for to make a film commercially well-received. Commercial is what people want to see not what is popular with the studios. People don't know what they want to see. One day it's The Dark Knight, the next it's Mamma Mia.

I watched Martian Child with John Cusack last night and it was missing certain elements that made it hard to recommend. It didn't properly relate back story, it fumbled the development of the psychosis by making the boy seem intelligent enough to know better; it presented conundrums that were superficially explored; the child had no real back story because the contrast of his childhood missed. It coincidentally had him as a writer who writes science fiction with an adoptee who pretends to be from Mars. There were just too many misplaced scenes.

SO you may say what does this have do with a Time Image? Well, the time image is an abstract concept defined by a succession of frame stat encapsulate time and subjugate movement. A simple example is showing two cars in a chase. It's an immediately recognizable passage of time as we switch from car to car, showing firing and ducking, swerving and bullet holes.

Tracking shots are other examples of the time image as we are concerned with the "combination of instants" rather than the instants themselves. In the pre-sound days, emotion was displayed specifically with abrupt hand gestures and varying levels of body language to emphasize the dialog sections. Close ups were instrumental in relaying emotion without speech, but now the close up has become a definition of time as it represents a progression of events rather than an instant of reaction.

For example, many film makers employ a technique whereby reaction shots are zooms rather than static cuts. This shows the realization rather than the emotion, which is more effective. Camera angles can also define the time image through the use of montage with several static cameras. You'll see this over done n action movies where we see the punch three times from different angles, sound fx and all.

Everything in a film should be about the relation of time to image. That's why the best movies don't show every movement but only those that represent time. For instance, you won't see the family enter the van in Little Miss Sunshine or you don't see Batman jump behind the wheel of the Batmobile, start it and pull out.

This is what good cutting and multiple camera angles does. It enables you to have a shorter time in your chase without missing the sections of it. A good example is the chase in Hot Fuzz, where they go back and forth between cars, which enables you to separate sections so you can be on a city road in one segment and a country road in another. The Dark Knight also has a well crafted chase.

Another version of the time image is the memory image. Memory images merely use quick images to establish location or time of day. Memory images are what allows the sound to be turned down and you can still understand what's going on.

The time image is also the basis of the "cinema of the seer." Where earlier films used sensory-motor schema which consisted of a perception image, an affection-image and an action-image (many others in between). This is a progression of a shot where a movement signifies each image.

The use of the time image is also the basis for the term "auteur," which describes the director as the storyteller rather than the screenwriter. Directors such as Hawks, Welles, Ford followed the practice along with most popular foreign directors such as Resnais, Godard, Eisenstein. That's why I believe every screenwriter should study directing as it makes it easier to determine what will work and what won't.

In mt ravels I came across perhaps the best shot I've ever seen. It was bound in time and made the movements into a whole rather than parts. The scene was in Citizen Kane when Kane was a child. He was outside a window and his mother and uncle I believe were discussing his future. The camera pans backwards away from the window framing them all in the shot as they move through the room. It comes to rest in the kitchen where mother has sat down at the table. The beauty of the shot is that it's one fluid move. Welles beautifully hides the track the camera is on by cutting off the shot below the ceiling of the room. Hitchcock does something similar in Frenzy with the famous scene that moves backwards out of the building and across the street.

These shots clearly denote the use of time rather than movement. It's also why many of the greatest films take place over years and not days as time subjugates growth and change rather than actions. Great films also tend to show an actual end rather than the end of a conflict. Take Silence of the Lambs, it doesn't end with Clarice killing Buffalo Bill and ending the case, it ends with her truly coming to grips with both her childhood and Hannibal Lector's fascination with her. In the beginning we could see her being terrified of that phone call, but in the end she has grown enough to understand he wasn't a threat to her.

I think that's the difference between a $40M box office and a $140M box office. It's not resolution of conflict but a picture of growth. Juno could easily have had birth complications or Clarice could have been at the other house. These both would have changed the tone and purpose of the movies. Purpose is perhaps what makes filmmakers great. There are no new stories; nothing people haven't seen, or at least heard of.

Making yourself stand out by remembering the picture before the plot is what writers should be striving for. Plot stems directly from character so memorable characters will produce memorable (interesting conflict) moments. Memory images make up these pictures. Memories of what just happened in the film and\or what people are cognizant of or averse to.

Aristotle called plot the "representation of truth." Character is the representation of choice while thought is considered to be the representation of character. Interestingly enough some call new-wave cinema the "power of the false." Meaning that it's all made up so it can go places where real life can't. Thus how "flying monkeys" work in the Wizard of Oz or how invaders snatch bodies. It doesn't actually defy logic but it can twist it to fit the circumstances. As an example, Live Free or Die Hard should have seen McClane in traction after just a few of the stunts, but we can believe he can take it by showing him limp or grimace or bleed. The memory of previous Die Hards makes it less of a stretch though the stunts became more demanding and McClane got older.

Curiously, early Greek theater was filled with more treachery and deceit than sex though it touched on sexuality and sensuality in taboo formats. The reason why sex doesn't work well for cinema o the seer is because sex can only be equated as a movement image and not a time image unless we use rapid cutting of facial expressions and use of the hands. This section was admittedly a last-minute addition as I finally found Hitchcock's opinion about sex in cinema (I wasn't really looking for it). In his opinion, he would not cast a "Marilyn Monroe" as she, as he puts it - "wears her sex like an amulet." He would rather have it under the surface to be discovered which explains why he used Tippy Hedron types.

Well, that's it for this installment of the Time Image. Join us next time as we explore this paradigm even further.