The Revealing of the Soul

We're coming back quickly...

2011-03-02T21:26:00.002-05:00

I haven't theorized in months on here. I really miss it. It's unfortunate that I'm so dry (code words added) and technical and some people would burn all of their money before using my theories, but I know my narrative structure is without match.

If only I still didn't love SW Development too much... But then six figures sitting in a chair is close so I can take my time and find the person who wants to print my shit - I mean it's all shit right...?

Anyway, I need to expound upon my Story theory but I've been real busy with scripts and work and trying to start a business so I guess the three people who read this blog can forgive me a bit.

But then I have a story right now that I think would sell from the title and log line so there's that.

More to come...I hope...

New Rant for today

2010-11-02T20:20:00.000-04:00

Everything sucks.

Well,, we're almost back.

2010-10-26T01:07:00.002-04:00

Howdy wrongers, writers and others. Just a little post to update the blog. Many things have been percolating since my "Revealing of the soul" posts. Mainly visual stuff, but that doesn't really gel well with the current blogging phenomenon.

The discourse is all but dead, replaced by the not-so-self-help blogs of flash. Unfortunately the discourse is the root of cinema as you can't copyright an expression or a gesture or a flickering of light.

I've still been creating new stories and working on existing ones but having just moved and still settling into a day job (spent most of my money) I'm not in find, send and sweat mode right now.

Wait the sound of that sucks. No wonder I'm a writer.

A Moment of Silence for The Mystery Man

2010-06-05T13:54:00.003-04:00

Yes, the unthinkable has happened. One of my mentors and I hope friends has passed away. I never knew his real name but I feel that I knew him. He was one of the first "non-gurus" I ever came across when I began the path to being a screenwriter.

We discussed everything from sex in cinema, doing away with character arcs to four act structure and visual storytelling.

This is a really sad day for me as I was missing him ever since he changed from Blogspot to Twitter.

Go here for some of the best analyses of film you can get for any price:

Mystery Man

In his memory I'll be reposting some of his articles for the next few weeks.

Hiatus ahoy!

2010-05-19T18:15:00.002-04:00

I just realized it's been two months since I posted a new post. I'm in a funk right now and don't really give a shit.

Indie Gold

2010-03-17T02:39:00.002-04:00

Howdy folks,

We've got something a little different today. Rather than boring everyone with dry theory we're gonna do a spoiler free review of a cute little film called One Too Many Mornings (onetoomanymornings.com).

It's the story of two old friends. One - Fischer - lives in a church for free and has a party every night. The other - Peter - runs away from a five year relationship and comes to stay at the church. They drink, party and laugh for days. Fischer tries to convince Peter that his girlfriend is no good and goes as far as to even curse her out on the phone.

Things come to a head as Fischer's drinking gets way out of control, causing him to nearly lose his cushy job and home at the church. He tells Peter to do something to him if he ever drinks again. Peter does...something rather funny and effective.

Finally, Peter's girlfriend comes to see him and after a few near misses they reunite and we find why he really left. After things have gone South with his Pastor and landlord, he finally gets a date, though most of his encounters are filled with drunken slurs and casual sex.

To avoid spoilers we just glossed over minor points so if you want a few good laughs check it out today. The film maker you help maybe your own.

Mysterious ways...Not out like I thought

2010-02-20T22:27:00.003-05:00

Howdy folks,

The time has for all good men... damn it Off topic already. I really need to get my banalities in order. Ehhh, fuck it. It's all served me well thus far. There is a lot to be said for a person who doesn't actually have a personality, only a function. Right now the function is cinematic excellence.

The funny thing is that I was inspired by a hero who failed me and it is the most liberating experience I've ever had. I've long tried to be accommodating through ultimate hardship and be the better man in BAD situations.

My path though has forced the return of the Poet that will NOT be denied and I'm glad that I chose to take a huge chance, relying only on faith in the power of study and hard work.

I had to make really difficult decisions recently and hope that I can handle them gracefully without obscuring my real motivation, that cinematic excellence thing.

I have found that - to wax biblical - a prophet is never respected in his own country. I'm nobody but hey this is a spontaneous post to help me relax for my next moves. My short has been getting some good people attached and I think it will be a great film for it's target demographic.

I've still not finished my Master's thesis script but I have had the opportunity to compile three years of work into a forward thinking hypothesis that should allow me to quickly and efficiently produce popular narratives.

I mean I could soup up some of my club exploits or some of experiences as a houseless person with a job in an office - well I did live in a movie theater though. It was a funny thought while worked at Microsoft after flipping a few birds for my Bachelor's program where my head exploded cause I was trying to prove my Big Bang Theory (I found Einstein did agree after I sewed my brain back up). Or hell I could dig into my basic training or AIT or even Airborne duty assignment.

The problem is that I plan on shutting out the entire world and sitting on the beach for a week or two. I love NY but I LOVE LA.

Coming soon - Genre Abstraction for Action Lines

2010-02-13T19:41:00.003-05:00

Yeah, we're getting geekier and more dry by the day but I also punch peopel so I can.... Ooops I romised i wouldn't let my lack of "life" to creep its way into this blog.

OK I have done very freaky things in clubs all around the country not to mention various "Spring Break" type events - god I could write a movie about it. Get back on track... ehhh shut up. Listen this post is about serious stuff. ....yeah, yeah, yeah.

Excuse my prsonality - excuse me - banality issues.

At any rate a new frontier has emerged after months of "dialog-action-personality" study we have found that the diverse types of genre require an abstract pattern to accurately represent the desired "scene-emotions." Much of this can be gleaned from the study of the active\reactive patterns of the involved personality but that more so influences description of character action rather than scene - "mise en scene" - description.

The key therefore lies in the use of abrupt, curt descriptive language. Scenes of motion will then become quick cuts

The cars smash together...smashing side to side....pedestrians scream

Because these are not descriptions such as character movement

He drops down amongst them a whirling dervish of blinding speed.

the shortness of the lines denote the pace. This works even when the pace of generated action is horror film limping slow like

The creature growls menacingly.....its flashing eyes reflect in the low light...it approaches on all fours....deformed.....nearly human...Jennifer stops...breathless.....eyes wide....legs immobile

When these lines are analyzed they contain the minimal information, doled out in visual chunks, some rooted in imagination, some rooted in emotional state, others vividly descriptive.

Because the script is merely a visual guide for a film maker it's a tightrope to grab the reader but also give the film maker a map that is direct and FILMABLE AS IS. (Some readers need Godard like thugs need Jesus.)

Some people believe in the multiple draft theory, but that's not the science in the craft. The science in the craft requires due diligence of thought before the draft is accomplished. As a software developer who has daily business in their hands I have learned the discipline of careful architecture. Film making is even more complex than any web site as the only linearity is time. The dialog-action narrative will bump and assuage, turn and rotate, characters adapt, change and are emotionally forwarded by a change in situation and intensity.

That's where creative abstraction can enable a more in-depth picture as it doesn't complicate but isolates traits, reactive emotion, dynamic interaction and overarching thematic construction. There have been millions of visual narratives presented all over the world and this allows for enough diverse comparison that modern film makers need just review their "list of catalogued cinematic examples," some of which may be found in the review of old movies, some may be be found in the various analyses of "the original film makers." Be they right or wrong they started the ball rolling and a true embrace of the tenets of cinema and not the trappings of fame can lead to a freeing of words to emotion.

Welcome to the Revolution.

Just when I thought I was out...

2010-02-07T11:28:00.004-05:00

We've extended our thesis a little more to cover elements of story. We're not going to expound greatly at this juncture but in essence the extension follows the same hierarchical pattern as before where:

The Subtext of the Story is the Characters,

the Subtext of the Characters is the Situation,

the Subtext of the Situation is the Dialog,

the Subtext of the Dialog is the Emotion,

the Subtext of the Emotion is the Personality

and the Subtext of the Personality is the Soul.

As always this fits with my earlier Circular Argument - that everything in cinema is defined as circular, where no matter where you are on the circumference of the cinematic experience, whether it be character, story, structure, they all intersect along the path.

For instance Story will determine what type of Characters you need, but the Characters can influence the Story based on their Personality - or the Subtext of their Emotion (one personality responds differently to the ambush than another). At the same time the Character will determine the Story as different Characters will end up "on the run" for different reasons.

For example, the Accountant will probably not be in a seedy bar when they overhear "McGuffin plans" or pick up the wrong "bag."

From the opposite perspective the Soul you wish to reveal will affect each of the things on the pyramid. From Dictionary.com "Soul" means:

the principle of life, feeling, thought and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body.....

and

the emotional part of human nature, the seat of the feelings or sentiments

The definition of Story is:

a report or account of a matter or a statement of allegation

and

a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse or instruct the hearer or reader; tale

Looking at the definition one gets a sense of similarity in that we are in effect writing "a report or account of the emotional part of human nature."

Or Revealing the Soul.

The Circular argument extends to the relationships of the definitions applied to all of the "Steps" of the hierarchy and I think we'll get to those later. I've got some software code to write.

The Soul Has Been Revealed

2010-02-06T12:49:00.002-05:00

A heavy sigh of relief emanates from deep within. I can slow down a little now and finish the six or so half done scripts in my pile.

Active vs. Reactive: The Art of Interaction

2010-01-24T23:01:00.005-05:00

Howdy those who care,

We're back and though we've never used tags we seem to be coming back to this Active vs. Reactive thing. In my travels I've found that every conversation, meeting, presentation is based in this theorem. Cinema, as a reflection of life's studies and crises exemplifies this best as it transcends time making what happens today a reawakening memory after 20 years.

The one thing that is consistent in every form of cinematic expression is the necessity for personality interaction\conflict with the banality of the participants affecting the shape of the narrative where a mid level drug dealer and a scared rookie cop would make a different narrative than a cold blooded collector though the abstract view is that of cop chases or evades drug dealer and her minions. The dialog between disparate banality types - I'm an ENTJ who thought several questions sucked too bad to answer can cause characters to veer left or right which doesn't perhaps effect an increase or decrease in tension but does allow that 50 couples will react differently to a small kitchen fire.

Film makers need not worry why but use the abstract narrative to influence interaction. In those 50 couples there are an unlimited number of combinations of the active\reactive dialog types. A mixture of a Demanding Wife and Abrupt Husband creates a different character-dialog than even a Demanding Husband and Abrupt Wife where the Demanding Husband may use a humbling approach to retrieve admission of the source of the fire and the Demanding Wife may use a guilt-inducing approach to achieve the same result. The state of prominence of the character need not change with the difference in their active interaction though transposing character-dialog between them allows for a more rounded banality (used in place of personality for the purposes of international copyright) - wow hopefully the humor in my scripts is better. Wait who said that was a joke? OMG and he has multiple banalities - :-)

At any rate, the preceding is just designed to show that interaction is the key to good cinema which is why you don't want one-sided conversations, but everyone expressing themselves equally and subjectivity of the viewer (cinema of the seer) determines the leanings while the screenwriter merely determines who gets the last word - something Eula seemed to continually do to Rooster as they fought outlaws and carefully handled nitro.

In this sense we can say that underneath emotion is personality as different personalities will interact differently with other disparate personalities. On the one end of the spectrum you have the passive personality and the other end is of course the aggressive one. The most drama in these interactions can truly be garnered as personality types converge rather than diverge. If a character is too passive all interaction will be one-sided which can become tedious. But when there is an active verbal sparring that comes from "equally matched banality."(read:people who stand their ground)

This also enables a better path to "character parallels" as interaction with disparate personalities and types (dialog types - Demanding Sarcastic, Supportive Probing, Prohibitive Abrupt, etc). Active\reactive dialog is more so a way to look at personality by defining a person's purpose which then can guide you to the most "impressive" lines by determining both the active style of dialog and the reactive style for the character. Some characters may do better with more supportive active dialog but more Inhibiting reactive dialog whereas a different feel can be created by having the active dialog be usually Inhibitive while the reactive dialog can tend towards supportive. (Augie and Ronnie: Role Models)

Combining these types can paint a "dialog-picture" of the character more succinctly than a bio or history as the "dialog-picture" represents the moment where back-story can often cloud the scene - meaning a person should react in the moment as no one really has "flashbacks to childhood" before reacting. This is very important in cinema as everything needs to be more spontaneous and impactful as to elicit the most emotion in the viewer. When interaction is the key to your scene construction you have less opportunity to "talk to the audience" which is indeed a no-no. This violates the concept of the "cinema of the seer" where the viewer is a participant and therefore doesn't need "explanations" they need to be involved.

That's all for this post, but we will revisit the subject.

As an update, we actually did more fleshing out over at Go Into the Story:

I basically feel the same way. I think the writer can make implications about back story using props; I used a picture to imply the death of a parent, certainly actions; a character says, "Hey I've got a sister" when asked why he did something. The former being before the start and the former being after.

I always think about parents, siblings, birth place etc. as a part of the process and then I try to abstract the type of personality by showing their emotional reaction to situations.

I do this in the outline and then I will give that character a "dialog-interaction" frame - where they generally state things in a demanding way or supportive way or inhibiting way and respond to positive or negative interaction prohibitively or angrily or abruptly or sarcastically.

I've been working on a theorem that says using these emotional states leads better to personality which is in fact what people go to see.

So I guess backstory is good for the writer but not for the reader.

The full theorem is basically:
SITUATION sits above
ACTIVE DIALOG\REACTIVE DIALOG and
EMOTION sits above
PERSONALITY

OR

The subtext of the situation is the dialog, the subtext of the dialog is the emotion and the subtext of the emotion is the personality and the subtext of the personality is The Soul.

So after three years we have finally fulfilled the purpose of this blog. THough we will continue to refine the Active vs Reactive paradigm, we'll be doing more thought work for directing. As I've been studying it, I understand why you don't find a lot of Director blogs. It's nearly impossible to translate what you think in terms of blocking, framing etc. and how you work with actors could be considered trade secrets.

Onward and upward.

Happy New Year

2010-01-03T18:47:00.002-05:00

Ringing in 2010. Obviously I'm too busy to post this on New Year's but hell I'm only 2 days late. Here's to a lot of Revealing of Souls in the new Decade.

Soon to be an Angeleno

2009-12-15T01:43:00.004-05:00

Yep, FINALLY. I've been working, saving, writing, networking, blogging and partying but now, finances have finally fallen right to allow me to quit my job and move - NO unemployment in such a case.

Still, the stars - no pun intended perhaps - have aligned and I won't be spending 1000s of dollars to attend pitch fests and push for meetings. I plan on getting another software job but these means a lot.

The short I have in pre should be done by then and hopefully it's as good as the director and I think. Festivals here I come. Plus, I can think more about shorts and find more people who are hungry to see themselves in quality celluloid.

As an aside we're working on several new posts, including follow-ups to the Sex in Cinema and Active vs. Reactive posts. Pus, a bunch of framing, blocking and movement stuff. Unfortunately, the day job requires most of my "working-day hours" so it works how it works.

Stay tuned.

Now Using Movie Outline Software

2009-12-08T15:27:00.002-05:00

Yes, that's right. After getting a special sale price, I decided to go for it now. For the 5 of you who may be interested, the code for the special discount is

XMASSALE

You save 50% off the regular price and $20 off the upgrade from FD price.

That's right, the most full-featured program for creating everything from Character bios to Step outlines to Scripts for only

$99

Click the title for the site. You can even get the download and start sequencing right away.

More RED Specs

2009-12-02T02:51:00.002-05:00

Yes, that's right, the next info about Scarlet and Epic have been released over at Red - and it is looking too good. They're basically improving every facet of the Red One for very little more money with the modularity of Scarlet. Epic will be in another league with Monstro-X "Super-Incredible-Sensor" referenced a few posts ago. I guess we can expect some more info on Epic a month or so but the big news was RedRay. They hadn't talked about it for a awhile but the pics are creamy.

The specs are drool-worthy and it's due before Scarlet. Exciting.

Movie Outline Software

2009-11-04T10:49:00.002-05:00

Howdy writers,

As the title says this post is about software. Screenwriting software to be exact. In my travels, I came across this new package called Movie Outline. It's actually recommended by UNK.

I grabbed a demo of it and I really think I'm going to switch. I can get an upgrade version for a few bucks more than FD8. I'm only upgrading because I use Vista X64 and the FD7 PDF printer doesn't work.

I definitely suggest that anyone give it a try. It has a lot more features than FD and Movie Magic. It lets you add character bios, outlines, story notes and lots more. It exports and imports from FD.

I like it because I have stacks of 5x8s that are flowing all over my desk and shelves. This would let me put all of my notes and stuff in the file for the screenplay. I just need to find out if they have a working 64-bit PDF driver. They do, I'll be getting it in a few weeks.

Here comes EPIC

2009-11-03T20:13:00.003-05:00

Yes, that's right. THose of you who drool over the thought of an EVF sitting next to a Red ONE or better. THe pics of EPIC are comign out over at RED.com and they've begun the process of getting beta testers and trade-in programs.

No shots taken by it yet but it's great to see it ready for field testing. For those who don't know, the new versions of the Mysterium-X sensor go from still image 2/3" all the way up to the SuperWide Monstro at a massive 6.6" x 2.1". These cameras should change the game and put all other digital cameras on notice.

RED is reporting even surpassing their expectations for improved picture and processing. They say there will be an announcement at the end of the month and I hope it'll have some actuals screen shots from the new "brains."

Until then here's some images to whet the appetite.

UPDATE:

Blogger hates the width of these shots. Does that mean the web isn't ready for EPIC?

Modern Cinema and the Paranormal Activity Effect

2009-10-24T13:55:00.003-04:00

Howdy folks,

It's time again for a look at modern cinema and the breakout successes that frame the zeitgeist. As the title says we're looking at the sensation that is Paranormal Activity. It's the third breakout hit this year that was indie made and released smaller than wide.

It has managed a $25K per theater average, much higher than even Gran Torino of last year. It has yet to reach 1,000 theaters but should end this weekend with $60M gross. It's said that Paramount only spent $11M for the pic and is providing their greatest return in HISTORY. (Paramount's pretty old)

So the question is why are people flocking in droves for this movie? It's I guess because of the quality of it. Rather than going for the gore (which people have seen enough of for it to be old) they went for the tension and knowledge of danger. The handheld self-documenting feel of it definitely helped with the claustrophobic environment.

Looking at the Active\Reactive paradigm, we see that it is established as inhibiting vs prohibitive. Katie plays the Inhibiting role in her attempts to convince Micah's Prohibitive archetype of her psychic perception. This serves to build the greatest amount of tension between the characters which transfers to the audience.

I may go and see the movie if I can find it even though scary movies are usually for me an experiment in determining how everything was done - OK that's every movie - but it kind of kills the "scary." Or maybe my years as a Paratrooper thickened my skin too much.

Anyway, I'll definitely update this post to fully examine the way it builds tension and how it's complimented by the dialog and interaction where interaction is defined as the reason for existing dialog patterns.

Big Changes Coming Soon

2009-10-10T22:39:00.004-04:00

Yes, folks, we're going to refine our focus here at The Revealing. Instead of concentrating on screenwriting were going to expand to more directorial\cinematographic info.

Things are still to incredibly hectic as I'm learning a new Web Programming paradigm right now, plus finishing our last requirements for our Master's thesis script.

We're well on our way to that truthfully psychotic PhD. That'll require decomposing and recomposing our Master's into an even more complex yet tenable weave of events and emotions.

Stay Tuned.

Dedicated to Blake Snyder

2009-10-07T18:22:00.003-04:00

Howdy writing fiends, all three of you :-)

We're back with a new installment of blogging for edification. Today we're going to be talking about Blake Snyder. He passed away on Aug 6, 2009 and we need to talk about his works and perhaps his effect on writing and writers. I have only read his TOCs - bless you Amazon - but his theories seem to "not be what they are portrayed as." Reading through the TOC and beginning of the insightful Save the Cat Goes to the Movies I can see that the meat is definitely there and it's more like Trottier than any "gurus."
I tend to shy away from those types of books because screenwriters are competing as BFA and MFAs - Shane Black wasn't sitting in his garage - so it's a REQUIREMENT that I only read material that would be in the Tisch or USC curriculum - hey you can find the books they use, I recommend David Bordwell. Though that's not to say that the Trubys and Snyders, etc don't have something to offer any level screenwriter - it always helps to look at things through the eyes of others. We will also take the movies we have written or are in the process of writing and add them to the list - hey we need to make sure that we actually wrote a movie.

But at any rate in his theory he espouses the concept of abstracting - that should be familiar - stories into ten distinct categories. We will list and analyze them and hopefully convince people to buy it. The theory and the book. Note that I won't be reproducing the book or any parts but will look at each type theoretically from our point of view.

Monster in the House - movies where the behavior or actions of the heroes "allow the evil" in. He gives Alien and Fatal Attraction as examples - two totally disparate but amazingly similar movies. They do emphasize the life-threatening nature of "the Monster." You can even use the same cinematic progression (structure) to locate "plot points."

Inciting incident

Alien - the beacon hits the Nostromo, they land on the planet

Fatal Attraction - Alex spots Dan, they flirt and have sex

ACT2

Alien - Cain explodes at dinner

Fatal Attraction - Alex begins stalking

And so forth. The key is that these movie require graphic violence and even death. Threats to the supporting characters is a prerequisite (Alien had the whole crew except Ripley - you also have to establish the "thinker" who usually survives). In the case of Fatal Attraction, Beth is actually representing the thinker as Ash and Dan are paralleled as the "conduit of the monster." The separation then becomes the ferocity of the monster and the accidental nature of Dan's indiscretion. They are also paralleled by the small confines of home and work and the communication with "the higher power." For Alien it was Mother\The Company and Fatal Attraction touted the "hands tied" police. Fatal Attraction can even call itself a thriller while Alien is pure horror but the "Monster still gets in." Next up is:

Golden Fleece
- These involve perilous journeys to receive important artifacts. Movies such Jason and the Argonauts, Saving
Private Ryan and many others fit this mold. This is the clearest path to the true "Hero's Journey" as it is usually forced on an anti-hero. War films are well-suited to this as are police actions. Even movies like Witness are ultimately Golden Fleece films though it's a "soul-finding" exercise more so than a quest for the physical. We refer you to our Flexible four act structure.

Though this structure works for all films, it's most prevalent in Golden Fleece stories as they always involve "life-threats" to the protag and his allies. As you can see this abstraction doesn't mold to exact points of time but instead uses the linearity of progression to allow for fluctuations in "page numbers." This allows for more spontaneous sequence placement while maintaining structural consistency.

Out of the Bottle - Snyder describes this as the movie with magical\fantastic occurrences. Ones such as Cocoon which even mixed the alien interaction vein with the magical healing vein. This type leaves no stone unturned in possibilities for cinematic drama. Referring back to the chart we can see that it actually changes the "names" of the sections:

I. At home or work becomes "Introduce the magic or mysterious visitor"

II. Start of decision becomes "Sucked in by necessity"

III. Meeting with allies becomes "Searching for mentor"

IV. In the thick of things actually stays the same as it is the beginning of the third act (in four act structure) and is always where the protagonist should be in the start of the last half of the film.

Semantically, the rest of the sections do remain the same though dramatic license is nearly required. My take: Future Glory.

Dude With a Problem - The "Cat Design" here revolves around the "innocent in trouble." Since we're talking movies here the innocent usually knows how to use a gun - and may have three or four on his person at any given time. Movies like Die Hard fit this mold. James Bond may be a stretch but how long will it take for the workings of Dr. No to actually trickle up to MI5 agents? My particular cinematic homage to this type would have to be Ties that Bind. I'm already a contradiction so conventional wisdom be damned. These movies are best done with 80% physical conflict as they are the "urban action movie," usually replete with exploding buildings and flipped police cars.

Off-duty law enforcement officials are fodder for this type, mainly because they, ummm, probably have more than one gun... though a resourceful UPS guy may be a match for a bad guy with flaws - wait the bad guy can have flaws? This self-edification stuff is enlightening. No wonder people sell this kind of stuff. I do accept beer and cigarettes. :-)

Rites of Passage - Halfway there in the TOC and already a wealth of good information. Oops, maybe I shouldn't say that. :-) Anyway, next up is the transition movie that may also be called the negative character arc - for most of the movie. You know the person whose life is in danger due to drugs and stuff. Sandra Bullock did a great job at being a pathetic user in 28 Days. These movies are usually "Oscar-fodder" (wow we finally found a phrase where even the word fodder can't make it sound bad) like Rachel Getting Married or worst case Leaving Las Vegas. These are usually character or perhaps even case studies about the fragility of the human condition and echoes the theory "most people are a bad day away from ruin." Maybe I just came up with it but it's rooted in the paycheck thing.
It enables fare as varied as Falling Down and The Bucket List or my modicum of effort (read:fricking humility) Spiral. People do fall down and have a strong reaction to their own mortality. It makes for great cinema but not so great a life. I guess it's a case of "art shouldn't imitate life shouldn't imitate art."

This definitely requires a "massage" of the hero's journey but the triumph of the human spirit is always a hero's journey, whether it's the story of a recovering addict, manic, bulimic, workaholic. Hmm, why do all of those end in "ICK?" A consequence of the language perhaps.

Well, that's it. I'd suggest you get the book and

Keep Writing as Writing is the Revealing of the Soul

New Blake Snyder post coming

2009-08-26T15:23:00.003-04:00

Be patient, the four of you. Or go out and get Snyder's book Save the Cat goes to the Movies.

The Art Of Dialog: Active vs. Reactive

2009-07-24T12:06:00.006-04:00

Dialog. The final frontier...wait that's not right. Dialog; the bane of many writers, the reason for script supervisors, the basis of every story, every character and every moment. Even silent films included subtextual dialog. It had to be to fit on the intertitle.
But what is dialog? Is it the expression of feelings, the suppression of feelings? Or perhaps it's both and neither. Well-written dialog works in any movie whether the dialog is funny and the story is serious or vice-versa. The key abstraction to be gained from dialog in general is that it's all either ACTIVE or REACTIVE, meaning that it comes from the initiation of a idea or the reaction to it.
These two ideas can then be abstracted to include all types of dialog as noted:

1. Probing - an attempt to gain information
2. Sarcastic - an attempt to reverse the momentum
3. Abrupt - an attempt to end an interaction bluntly
4. Angry - an attempt to release tension
5. Despondent - an attempt to express negative emotions
6. Inhibiting - an attempt to disallow undermine
7. Supportive - an attempt to relate acceptance
8. Uncaring - an attempt to relate lack of concern
9. Demanding - an attempt to overwhelm opinion
10. Prohibitive - an attempt to change direction

As you can see, all of these types are defined here as an attempt as that what all dialog is: an attempt to emote to the viewer through the receiver of the active dialog and responder to the active dialog using a reactive statement.
One thing that should be noted is that this dialog can increase in intensity without changing it's "form."
There are countless permutation of the preceding but in effect all dialog CAN BE abstracted in this way. If you carefully study each of these types you will notice that they are all based in emotion. This is because cinema is emotion. We are attracted to it because it enables us to experience emotional states we normally don't.
These types of dialog are not limited to the protag or the antag, but everyone in the narrative will use these as they do elicit emotion and thereby drama. As time permits we will update this post to show successful movies that have these and unsuccessful movies that don't.
When you look at dialog using these ten types you can go back and forth with the juxtaposed types.

For every PROBING line there should be a REVEALING line.
For every SARCASTIC line there should be a SERIOUS line.
For every ABRUPT line there should be a CALM line.
For every ANGRY line there should be a NICE line.
For every DESPONDENT line there should be a HAPPY line.
For every INHIBITING line there should be an ENCOURAGING line.
For every SUPPORTIVE line there should be an UNCOOPERATIVE line.
For every UNCARING line there should be a CARING one.
For every DEMANDING line there should be a TRIVIAL line.
For every PROHIBITIVE line there should be an UNRESTRICTIVE line.

You may wonder how this works but it's the same as everything in cinema. There has to be a juxtaposed position for everything. Two people who agree make no conflict. Two people who have the same opinion make no drama.
Of course this is an abstract concept but what isn't?
The key is that dialog is the most important thing in the movie. You can have a great story but if the "personalities" don't come through the story will fall flat. I feel that this is the level beneath "SUBTEXT."
All subtext has a basis in one of these 10 types as these are a good basis for underlying meaning.

As examples we can use nearly any movie ever made to show this form.

The Dark Knight:
Begins with a PROBING question: Who is the Joker; the response: Some nut in a purple suit.

Later we get a somewhat SARCASTIC line: No I'm supposed to kill the bus driver.

This could also be considered ABRUPT in that the receiver is then hit by a bus.

Next up is the ANGRY dialog spouted by the mob banker when he runs out of bullets.

The DESPONDENT dialog starts with the MOB members who are becoming overwhelmed by the BAT on one side and the Joker on the other.

The INHIBITING dialog is indicative of the relationship between Harvey and Rachel and Bruce where Bruce states that Harvey is the better to support than Batman.

Rachel is the definition of SUPPORTIVE dialog throughout the movie where she desires Harvey's strength and helps him to maintain it.

The UNCARING dialog is the province of the Joker who speaks only in terms of hate. It would seem that the Joker would be ANGER but he's not angry, just uncaring about others.

The DEMANDING dialog definitely goes to Batman as is evidenced by all of his interactions with criminals.

The PROHIBITIVE dialog is probably most realized by HARVEY who tries to convince Gordon of the corruption in his department.

We won't map the opposite dialog responses but we live it to the THREE readers we have to do the same with other films. It will work with any film and though there will be times when characters seem to use more than one type, that is not consistent with the fact that very few people change, even in cinema. You can usually determine these types by the first lines uttered by the character and will be matched with their Personality and actions.

Well, that's all for now, but there will be more to come. In the meantime,

KEEP WRITING AS WRITING IS THE REVEALING OF THE SOUL.

Modern Blockbusters and the Transformers Effect

2009-06-29T13:08:00.003-04:00

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

2009-05-08T10:57:00.003-04:00

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?

2009-01-14T19:09:00.003-05:00

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?

2008-12-30T21:13:00.003-05:00

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

2008-12-14T17:27:00.001-05:00

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

2008-12-09T20:41:00.002-05:00

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

2008-10-03T19:49:00.006-04:00

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

2008-10-03T06:34:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-18T22:11:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-08T14:56:00.002-04:00

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.

Google Chrome

2008-09-02T22:33:00.002-04:00

Howdy folks, I know this isn't a screenwriting post but I've been using Google's new browser for about 10 minutes now and I have to say they have a great beta here. It should kick IE and FF in the ass. It has worked with sites that haven't worked in one browser or the other.
It seems pretty stable and is a fast renderer. Unlike IE or FF where if you get a site that is rendered incorrectly the refresh won't fix it but with Chrome I had a site load incorrectly hit refresh and it rendered correctly. I'd say that MS shouldn't have tried to horn in on the Internet.
Now IE's share is goig to experience real problems. I can say to anyone still using Netscape (I held out until I had to install Windows on 100s of test machines) you WILL love this. It's just a beta but is so far very stable.
Kudos to the Google browser team.

Aristotle’s Poetics – Part 1

2008-07-20T19:41:00.002-04:00

Howdy campers. It's that time again. Yes, time for a new post. I know I should be finishing my comedy but writing comedy seems to be a little harder in terms of length(funny exchanges only get you so much "black space" - damn that punch line).
Anyway, as the title says, we're going to do an intro to The Poetics, perhaps the "granddaddy" of all screenwriting tomes. Written several THOUSAND years ago, its concepts of plot, character and dialog are still valid and perhaps the basis of all later theorems, whether philosophical, scientific or even artistic.

We will use the translated text and it will be in italics.

I was introduced to the Poetics recently in my screenwriting group. It's headed by this year's winner of the Sundance Lab, Steven Arvanites. We had a very inexpensive visit by Prof. Gordon Farrell of the Tisch School and many others.

The Poetics is not a book in the regular sense of the word in that it is compiled from lecture notes from Aristotle as there were no texts that survived. It is in-depth in terms of what he spoke of though. Depending upon the translation, it can be rather difficult to read as he analyzes the works of early Greek poets and dramatists and uses words that don't have the same meaning as now.

As an example, "imitation" in his time meant "a genuine representation" but now it means "a false representation." Contextually, this becomes apparent but the use of rhythmic speech is not as commonplace so words like "iambic pentameter" or "dithyrambic hexameter" are more so the domain of poets.

In his teachings he advocated that all stories must have a beginning, middle and end. But this is not in direct correlation to what evolved into the current three act structure. To Aristotle, this was time based.

Now, according to our definition Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude; for there may be a whole that is wanting in magnitude. A whole is that which has a beginning, a middle, and an end. A beginning is that which does not itself follow anything by causal necessity, but after which something naturally is or comes to be. An end, on the contrary, is that which itself naturally follows some other thing, either by necessity, or as a rule, but has nothing following it. A middle is that which follows something as some other thing follows it. A well constructed plot, therefore, must neither begin nor end at haphazard, but conform to these principles.

The substance of his theories though encompasses the gamut of cinematic representation - albeit then in stage form. His theories on Tragedy (qualitative) are the basis of the 3 Act structure currently in use - but ironically that was his definition of plot(qualitative) and not content(quantitative). His content involved four linear concepts.

Prologue, Episode, Exode, Choric song; this last being divided into Parode and Stasimon. The Prologue is that entire part of a tragedy which precedes the Parode of the Chorus. The Episode is that entire part of a tragedy which is between complete choric songs. The Exode is that entire part of a tragedy which has no choric song after it. Of the Choric part the Parode is the first undivided utterance of the Chorus: the Stasimon is a Choric ode without anapaests or trochaic tetrameters: the Commos is a joint lamentation of Chorus and actors. The parts of Tragedy which must be treated as elements of the whole have been already mentioned. The quantitative parts- the separate parts into which it is divided- are here enumerated.

Well, that's it for Part 1. We actually tried to post from Word but Blogger doesn't use the same <> syntax. Fricking JavaScript.

The Flexible 4 Act Structure

2008-06-16T14:36:00.006-04:00

Howdy campers, don't forget your booties cause it's cold... uhh wait, that's not what I meant. I guess I write too much while reading.

Anyway, today's topic was inspired by our good friend UNK.
He is a stickler for using a 4 Act structure rather than traversing that long second act in the 3 Act structure. I whole-heartedly agree.

Especially since the 2nd Act midpoint is always desirable. I like to look at the movie(script - but we are writing movies) from the end to the beginning and back so that I can map points of interest(conflict - whether it's setup, build up or payoff) to the desired ending. This actually helps maintain tone and theme, I find.

To help me look at it abstractly, I borrowed from The Hero's Journey to develop a more flexible course through the circle (nearly all movies are circular arcs in that the hero usually ends up at or near where he started in the regular world). Of course the negative arc doesn't, though (Leaving Las Vegas).

Rather than using four sections, I use 8 so that you have more chances for change, disruption, conflict and resolution and also because this abstraction doesn't tie you to page numbers.

The first section is "At Home or Work," which is where every story starts. Sometimes this is as simple as a character preparing for her day or rescuing someone from the bad guy or hell even going to sleep after a hard day's work. This is the chance to START to intro your main characters (the order isn't as important as the reason for it). I say start because giving too much info too quickly will come out on-the-nose and expository. It's best, in my opinion to show a few images that show mind-set or social status and move on to the "problem at hand."

As you can see, it doesn't start at 0 degrees because this is reserved for the hero and you may intro the villain first. Sometimes, it increases the tension to imagine who will stand up to "Villain X who is so heartless and cruel." This section more so establishes location, genre, etc. rather than in-depth personality traits(that should come with the various conflicts). Some stories don't have an actual McGuffin so the goal is an accomplishment rather than a possession(graduate Cum Laude, break the hot dog eating record, get married before next week, etc.)

The next section is "Start Of Decision." This section usually begins the trip to the "new world of conflict" and includes the incident which moves the hero to take on the challenge or not. By this point, you have intro'd what the villain wants and it should be perfectly juxtaposed to what the hero wants(graduate Cum Laude, break the hot dog eating record, get married before next week). Of course those are simplified cases but they speak to the abstract notion of "implied conflict." You aren't the only student, hot dog eater or person desirous of marriage). Here we really expand on the hero's personality and show the contrast between their perspective allies\enemies. The Act 2 incident will be what cements the relationships whether they be for the better or the worse and should occur in this section.

The next section is "Meeting Allies and Discovering Enemies." This is where the rubber hits the road so to speak and the hero is truly in the midst of conflict. After the answer of the call, those who want to help and those who want to hinder are brought into view. Depending on the genre and story they could be peers, underlings, or just intimate with the hero or villain. Of course, the McGuffin becomes the total reason for everyone's existence by this point, no matter what it is. This section takes you around the halfway point as everyone jockeys for position and feels out their adversaries. Once again this flexible structure means that things aren't exact time-wise as scenes\sequences take as long as they take.

This section gets us even closer to the inner-desires and conflicts of the hero and villain and their supporting cast. Again, never give to much too fast. Let it happen in conflict. It may never be relevant that the hero is afraid of dogs or cheated with his best friend's wife while drunk. I guess that's an extension of it's "on the page" that I'd call it's "in the story."

As an example, if a story takes place on a boat, the hero should be unable to swim. Or if it takes place in the desert, the hero should have trouble in the sun, etc. Let the story find the flaws rather than developing them in what I think is a vacuum. Any back story is well-placed here but again, be careful as you don't want to tell whole stories. So if the hero is afraid of dogs, have them walk by one that startles them or even tries to sniff them.

Ex: Indy falls into the pit near Marion. The hissing rises with him as he grabs is torch. His eyes light in horror as the moving ground reveals itself.

Indy
Not snakes. God, anything but snakes.

I had to use that example with the Darabont Indy 4 script making waves lately.

What I like to do with back story is to use a dream. That way you can be "abstract" and very visual without the usual, "When I was young" technique.

But I digress. The next section is called "In the thick of things" and carries through Act 2 into Act 3. This section brings most of the twists, big reveals, and sets up the final Act. More enemies reveal themselves in the build-up from their intro. This section is where sub-plots and story threads are concluded (depending upon their "closeness" to the goals of the hero) The lead supporting character usually continues their story\arc beyond this point, but underlings get wacked here A LOT. Never to return.

By a lot I mean, multiple underlings, be they on the good guy's side or the bad guy's. The level of their "destruction" is also story and genre-dependent though as poignant dramas don't work well with murders just as action movies don't have people flunk out of school(unless it's a "SEAL" movie).
This section also elevates the conflict between the main characters and will contain the 2nd Act midpoint so used in 3 Act structure.

The next section is called "Give up or go on" and occurs near the end of Act 3. It's when the hero is becoming weary of the fight after others are "wacked" out of the story and the villain just keeps coming. You can really show what your hero is made of here as this is also a good time for a "duplicitous reveal" or double-cross if you will. You are grinding closer towards the McGuffin and the villain usually gets it by this point but can't manipulate it without the help of the hero. Kidnappings or threats to those close to the hero usually happen here as the desperation of the villain becomes greater. "Why didn't she give up?" syndrome. The hero normally will have to accomplish some feat to retrieve the McGuffin and\or ensure the safety of those closest to her. Again, this is story and genre dependent and has no exact structure, just an abstract idea. (If you really want abstract read "Deleuze on Cinema")

The next section is called "Bleak as night" and usually occurs when the hero has the most personally destructive thing happen to them. Their HQ is bombed; their dog is killed; they get kidnapped, etc. and it is the point where we all think the hero is a psycho for enduring all of this (you could have given up in the other section), but this is also where we find out why this person is a hero. They handle this in stride, though obviously their heart is heavy.

The last section is called "The final battle" and usually happens because fo the kidnapping, dead dog, etc. The hero's back is against the wall and they usually "flip out" becoming for a moment like the villain and doing something against their code. This is also the final straw for the villain and the villain's last chance to win the McGuffin. This section can be a surprise in terms of who the real villain is or it can just be the natural progression of the struggle. Thrillers pull the twist, action and comedy usually doesn't and drama can go either way.

Here we determine once and for all who gets the McGuffin and who is the last person to be wacked. This is usually the villain but movies like "No Country" break the mold (OK it's not really a mold, more like a "mold concept."). This is also the point where everything in the hero's arsenal is required as many times it's tiered (in the vein of Game of Death) where the hero has to get by the last of the underlings (like a lot of video games) before confronting the lead villain. Sometimes they must face both at once. Again this will be story\genre-dependent and to some extent character-dependent. Back to the flaws, it takes place on a boat when the hero can't swim. There are dogs everywhere. It's really cold or too hot. Perhaps an old friend who was turned long ago is the last underling. It's up to you. BE CREATIVE.

The battle with the villain must have more at stake than any other, so that's why I write from the end so that I don't go above the ending in the beginning or middle. Continuity is a bitch.

That brings us to the EIGHTH and final section, "The return to life at home." This is just when the hero settles back into her routine to wait for her next challenge or just to continue living life, having retrieved the McGuffin, protected those closest and vanquished the villain. This is the place where you set up a continuing franchise or just a sequel. You can have some mysterious stranger show up with some startling info or have something happen in the home life.

An example is the ending of Iron Man where Nick fury mentions the Avengers. A lot of franchises rely on standalone stories but the ending of Matrix Reloaded made certain everyone would see the Revolutions. In other words, leave a string untied or a thread hanging. Stand alone features should realistically tie up all loose ends and close out all threads.

Anyway, that's our description of the 4 Act flexible structure. If anything the key is don't count pages count events, emotions and images. Most viewers don't realize "structure" in the movie, they just expect certain things to happen at certain times. Though by that I mean in relation to other events.

Example: The killer appears in the mirror, we expect a murder. Or the villain can't get the McGuffin to work, he kidnaps the hero.

This of course all goes to the duree and the Six Movement Images which imply that all images should relate to all others and all actions should be extensions of others.

Wow, this is fun. I wish I had decided to do this years ago. It's truly invigorating to be able to use everything I've noticed in my travels.

So remember
Keep Writing as Writing is the Revealing of the Soul

Six Images of Dissemination

2008-06-03T23:13:00.002-04:00

Thoughts are faster than the structure of typing.

Great News for a Tired Writer

2008-05-05T20:08:00.003-04:00

Yes, after a serious funk and being at the end of my rope (fortunately perhaps, I'm the homicidal type), some really good news came this weekend. I actually got involved with a writers group a few months ago and last weekend, we did a 5 page script read of my well underway Political Thriller.

Everyone loved it. Out of the 10 or more read, mine got the best feedback on pacing, dialogue, white space and readability. I guess my crazed PhD program is working pretty well. I managed to even keep my job.

Also, I have THREE, count em, THREE ProdCos waiting on scripts, so my schedule seems to be good. My goal is to start a movie this year, whether it be an indie or a sale or an assignment.

I found out about a federal program (Section 181 of the Jobs Creation Act of 2004) that allows private investors to write off 100% of their investment as the money is spent. I'm thinking about finding some investors and filming a horror film.

I may even start blogging again. WooHoo!

An Image of a Moment

2008-05-04T18:36:00.003-04:00

Howdy writers,
We've been away in the library, but we're back with a look at the philosophy of Henri Bergson through the analysis and theorems of Gilles Deleuze.

What does that title mean? Well, Bergson defines what he calls the duree, which is the infinitely divided slice of time, dependent on that before it and after but existing as its own qualifiable instant.

With any cinematic attempt, small moments can be large parts of a movie. The slow step towards a door, the slight smile of acceptance, or the look of fear at an encounter with the unknown. All of these moments add up to create a chronological series that isn't dependent upon the measure of time but the measure of the passage of time.

This is seen in movies like Memento which happens backwards or Pulp Fiction which happens out of order. It can also be seen in films where the passage of time is greater than the film length - which is basically every movie. Different films and creators handle time differently as different stories may compress or expand time by years or hours.

Anyway, that's a taste of duree. I'll post more when I finish the books.

A Countenance Worthwhile - Neo-Real Character Studies

2008-04-10T22:05:00.001-04:00

As soon as we get around to it.

The Saga of the Anti-Hero

2008-01-21T14:07:00.001-05:00

Howdy fellow writers,
We're back because of the holiday. I thought I would do a new post on directors next but an interesting topic came up in a post from UNK
which talks about a definition of different story scenarios.

It was an interesting list of contradictory goals and immediately made me think of "anti-heroes." You know the guy who is forced to do something he wouldn't normally do to "save the day" as it were.

This is a very difficult character to write as you have to be careful to not put the "hero" in the position of violating that covenant at the wrong time, nor fulfilling the covenant at the wrong time.

The anti-hero though can be a very exciting character as he will not do the expected but the unexpected; such as torturing a villain or shooting a running criminal in the leg rather than chase.

These characters are also interesting as they can be "non-heroes" like the hacker who has to commit a crime to get his daughter away from a porn star mother or a hitman who has to save his target. Amazingly, I picked two stories from the same author, Skip Woods. The films are Swordfish and Hitman, neither of which were heralded though Swordfish had a pretty good BO run.

I, though, would rather have the quintessential hero; the family man who is used to trouble but takes on the job because he has to protect those he loves and what he believes in. He doesn't turn down the call. Sorry Mr McKee. I disagree. Sure you can add a few minutes of regret and soul-searching but you are still limited to how you actually construct the intro and the inciting incident.

You're stuck with the same old speeches as to why the hero won't do it at first. This type of hero is limited to the military or some derivative as the person can choose to refuse, so their life is not in danger.

If you look at perhaps the most famous modern hero, John McClane, he can never turn down the call as it is his job. In history there was one hero that comes to mind who does at first turn dwn the call and that's Wyatt Earp. But looking at the back story, it's clear that he is in the same position as the recent "Rambo" where he was "retired" from the hero game and doesn't want to get involved.

Non-Acting Characters

2008-01-20T10:12:00.000-05:00

Yes, we're back after a long hiatus. Today's topic is strangely enough, characters in your movie with no lines.

You may say, how can you have non-acting characters in a movie. Well, these characters don't say anything because they don't need to. They are light breaking through shadow, the object of everyone's desire, the wind that threatens the town, etc.

The camera itself is also a character in that its placement can determine the effectiveness of a conversation, argument or even a love scene. Props can also be used as characters - or sometimes the extension of character.

Indy's whip, or Neo's sunglasses speak volumes about their characters. Even something as simple as lip gloss can be an effective character if it's used during times of stress or even times of happiness. You would just merely change the character's expression and hand movements.

Light and shadow are also great characters as they can set the tome for a scene or relate danger.

For example, you can have several different meetings in the same bar, but slight changes in lighting or camera placement make a totally different location.

Ex.1 - Man is meeting his girlfriend for dinner where he plans to pop the question.

INT. DOWNTOWN BAR - NIGHT

Pat strolls into the dimly lit establishment, his eyes squint to adjust. The bar has booths around the perimeter lit by candles while a pool table occupies the center area. A smiling bartender dries glasses as a scantily-clad waitress saunters up with menus in hand.

WAITRESS
Good evening sir. Table for one?

PAT
I'm meeting someone. There she is.

Pat moves excitedly towards a booth in the middle of the wall. His girlfriend's face shimmers in the candlelight.

----------------------------------

Ex. 2 - Man meeting a drug dealer

INT. DOWNTOWN BAR - NIGHT

Pat strolls into the dimly lit establishment, his eyes squint to adjust. The bar has booths around the perimeter lit by candles while a pool table occupies the center area. A smiling bartender dries glasses as a scantily-clad waitress saunters up with menus in hand.

WAITRESS
Good evening sir. Table for one?

PAT
I'm meeting someone. There he is.

Pat moves cautiously towards a booth in the back corner, his eyes squint in tension. A leather-jacketed ruffian sits in the corner of the booth, his face obscured by shadow.

------------------------

That's a rather rudimentary example but shows how light and shadow can change the tone of a scene. Camera angle can also be a character as it can change the tone of the scene in different ways. For example, a person's tear can say a lot about the scene or character.

Ex. 1 - Man trying not to hurt a woman's feelings.

EXT. BEACH HOTEL PATIO - NIGHT

On Pat, as he paces back and forth, trying to find the words. Sheila sits apprehensively, her eyes follow Pat with anxiety. She stands, abruptly.

SHEILA
Just say it.

PAT
Well, I...I mean we...

SHEILA
It's OK.

Pat and Sheila stand facing each other. Sheila raises her hands to his supportively. A tear streams down the right side of his face.

Ex. 2

EXT. BEACH HOTEL PATIO - NIGHT

On Pat, as he paces back and forth, trying to find the words. Sheila sits apprehensively, her eyes follow Pat with anxiety. She stands, abruptly.

SHEILA
Just say it.

PAT
Well, I...I mean we...

SHEILA
It's OK.

Pat turns and faces her. His face a mask of pain as tears cover his cheeks.

------------------------------

With these two examples we can see that in the first scene, it's a minor issue that hurts him, while the second one shows a man tormented with a horrible secret. In both we can see the love in the relationship.

Other non-acting characters include the sun:

Ex. 1 - Man dying in the desert

EXT - DEATH VALLEY - DAY

The sun blazes brightly in the sky as Hank lies face down in the sand. His breathing slight, his lips chapped and burned. He struggles to rise, the fierceness of the heat saps his every energy.
He finally drags himself to his feet, his sand-scuffed arms meekly attempt to block sunlight as he sees his goal shimmer before him, shade cast down onto the sand by the welcome SUV.

Ex. 2 - Man waking from a hangover on the beach

EXT. CABO BEACH - DAY

The early-morning sun shines warmly against a beautiful blue sky as Hank lies face down at the edge o the tide. He snores heavily, his lips and face covered with cheap lipstick. The tide awakens him with a shove and he struggles to rise, his hangover making the task difficult.
He finally rises unsteadily, his tanned arms hide his face from the brightening day. He makes his way toward a barely visible goal, a row of small cottages with similarly overcome college students laying next to bottles on the patio.

In these cases the sun goes from being a deadly phenomenon to being a backdrop for a vacation. But in both cases, it is merely the use of a visual non-acting character. This technique can be used for weather, time of day, exact location in a city, etc.

Non-acting characters are also scene transitions as they can link two disparate scenes with a common thread such as an action, an emotion, an object or a sound. As writers we need to think about these non-acting characters as they provide a more interesting read.

Another way of thinking about is the simplistic, "good action lines." That is so generic a term as to make it nearly inconceivable. Again, the key becomes study or doing. Something I've found good practice is writing the first ten off a "sequence map" for different genres and heroes (I quit saying antag\protag as I interchange them too much), which is to say "end result" and "personality-type."

The aforementioned can perhaps be the most powerful non-acting character and is simply "a dissemination of concepts such that you can define them in your terms." Every filmmaker has their own starting point for the cinematic journey. Some begin with story, some with concept, some with character. Some start at the end, and some at the beginning. None are right or wrong, just more efficient for each individual.

But the constant is the toolset at your disposal; the eye, the word, the sound, the emotion, but it all starts with the eye. Directing the eye is the basis of the art, controlling the other elements is the defining of genre.

It's a circular dependency though as emotion can control sound (speaking vs. yelling) and sound can control emotion( startling vs. involving), just as the word can control the emotion and vice-versa. Your acting characters MUST interact effectively with your non-acting characters to create the most effective story.

An excellent example of this use is the poster (tear sheet) for The Exorcist. Though only one character has a speaking part the streetlight effectively describes the tone of the movie: a light shining in the darkness. A solitary figure surrounded by darkness. The use of rose petals in American Beauty also lend a hand in describing mental state and perception. In the "bathtub scene" there was an interesting use of POV as when at Lester's POV, a song is playing, but not when at Angela's.

Another excellent example is the Jaws theme (score), as it defines the way the shark attacks, tension building and the strike. Or the "stabbing violins" of Psycho. Or the theme to Shaft, which represents a character and a description.

Of course the most obvious non-acting character appears in every horror movie and that's sounds. Sounds can take a scene from being just "a dark room" to being "an eerie darkness, drips and clanks echo in the background, a dragging sound seems to come from everywhere."
Of course, sounds can be used effectively in any genre, such as; "soft cries are heard from the other side of the door," or "the click of the hammer stops him in his tracks, inches from his ear," or "the sound of crashing cabinets is heard as Jack glides into the cupboard on his skateboard."

This NAC can represent nearly every emotion; "The sounds of props and bombs cause screams of relief from the small band of beleaguered troops."
"They can hear each other heart beats as they embrace tightly."
"His shouts are heard from the rooftops."
"The roar of the creature signals its presence, just yards away."
"The clank of the metal door is a somber sound, defining the truth of your captivity."

Those are examples from actual successful films:
Saving Private Ryan
The Matrix Reloaded
Network
The Edge
Shawshank

Well, that's all for this episode of "Somewhat Untitled Musings." Our next topic will either "Theme vs. Story" or "Hitchcock to Mamet."

See ya then and,

Keep Writing as Writing is the Revealing of the Soul.

The Dangers of Backstory

2007-11-12T16:24:00.000-05:00

Hi again,
Today's topic is back story; when do you use it, when don't you include it? While we were procrastinating about this post, we actually realized a nifty way to introduce back story without flashbacks or boring exposition.

After all, back story usually comes out like "when I was a kid we had to...."

In my mind the best way to cover back stroy is through a dream. Why a dream you ask? Well, because a dream has no "structure" you can put anything in you want - just make sure it's filmable - and it can be a precursor to an event, the reaction to a previous event or even a look into the psyche without dialogue or exposition.

As usual I used this in my favorite script, South of La Brea (Ascha's Song - new title). I changed it because I may be able to get the whole budget by using Louisiana instead of Los Angeles (get it - South of La Brea).

At any rate, there are two places where I use a dream to reveal story or character. The first is near the middle and the character is just getting used to being on her own.

She had a kind of bad day (almost everyday after the near-rape of a virgin) and as mos people know what is on TV while you sleep may affect what you dream about. Anyway, the idea is that we wanted to show that her mother died in a car accident so we give her a dream about it while her roommate is watching "Days of Thunder."

DREAM SEQUENCE
Lights fill the void, screeching tires break the silence.
Metal crunches.
Spinning.
A car horn.
Darkness.
END DREAM
AWAKE.

The next one comes later in the film and we use it for several things. The first is that the protag's grandmother died, so we show an old lady reaching out. The second is we want to show that the protag now understands what "gay" is - she has a friend that is gay. I also use this dream as a look back at her college life and how she's changed.

Anyway, so that's out spiel about back story. I hope it is of use to the two of you.

Au revoir,

"Keep writing as writing is the revealing of the soul"

On a side note, I have lost my fucking mind today. I hate being the good guy. Sometimes I wish just once I could be the asshole that only cares about himself, but then I remember that I like being me. A LOT!!

Situation vs. Dialogue : TV vs. Cinema

2007-11-12T15:35:00.000-05:00

Howdy strikers,
Just to stay sharp we are talking about the difference - as we see it - between TV and Film. It's a simple concept. Basically if you think about ads for TV, you will see more situations ( maybe that's why it's called "situation comedy") and most people who refer to a TV show will say do you remember the episode where.....

Now with film, it will be remember when the bad guy said...

It's interesting and there really isn't a lot to say about it other than it's somethign to take into account if you are going from one to the other.

That's not to say that dialogue doesn't attract people to TV or situations don't attract people to film, but in the long run, you will see that they are separated by this. A lot of the reason is because TV usually happens in a much smaller "area" than film.

I mean, look at Seinfeld or Frasier, two of the most popular sitcoms. They both occurred almost totally in one room. But even a small comedy like "Clueless" will take place over a much wider area.

Another good example is Curb Your Enthusiasm with Larry David. He starts out with a situation every episode. Don't confuse these situations with plots. His stories have no plots, just people reacting badly to situations.

I can't remember many of the lines but I do remember the show where he had the black guy staying with him take a baseball jersey from some guy. Or the one where he has to take the head off of a doll to replace another doll's head.

Now if you take "Clueless" the first thing that springs to my mind is not how hot Alicia and Stacey looked in those short skirts but when Alicia says "As if" to the guy trying to hug her in the beginning. or when Brittany says, "you're a virgin that can't drive."

Even though I can't remember the situation I do remember the line. or perhaps the most famous line of all "I'll be back." If you think for a second you can remember that he's in the police station but the line itself reminds you of that not the police station reminds you of the line.

There are tons of examples of this if you compare genres in TV and film. Another reason for this discrepancy is that TV is usually much shorter. The average sitcom is only about 24 minutes of air time, while a drama may be about 49 minutes. A film on the other hand will be a minimum of 90 minutes and may stretch to over 120 minutes.

This allows the writer to think less about the situation and more about the conflict in the situation. Added to that is the fact that TV is recurring and you can leave something unsaid at the end but with film, it has to be said\done in the time allotted.

Even if you start out with a plan for sequels, you have to definitively END each segment, whereas with TV you want to leave something hanging so that people will tune in the next time. So I guess that's another difference, the way you end it.

Well, that's it for today. We hope our ramblings are at least worth reading and at best help out a writer or two - which coincidentally is how many visitors I usually have. It's OK, though I'm the consummate writer who would rather stay home and write and then spend time in compromising positions in my favorite club than to have any friends.

Anyway, see ya and remember,

Keep writing as writing is the revealing of the soul.

The funny thing about the strike

2007-11-10T21:54:00.000-05:00

Howdy bloggers,
We're back and we finally have word one to say about the WGA strike on this blog. It'll be a quick word or several and I think shows why the WGA was right.

What is the issue at hand? New Media. Why is it important? I get Universal On Demand emails. Why is it not an issue? If they don't get any revenue, they don't have to pay residuals. Deal, schmeal. There are already horror stories about actually receiving residual checks. Just continue with that and at least writers will still work.

That's it. My next post will be - interestingly enough - about the difference between TV and features.

And remember,

Support your fellow writers. Chip in for coffee on those cold NYC streets. Take a day off and join them.

Happy, Sad and Angry: The 3 Dimensional Character

2007-11-07T13:41:00.000-05:00

Yes I know. I should be writing scripts but sometimes it's good to write about the craft to get it straight in your own head. After all, no one knows nothing so maybe you're nothing will be worth something to you.

So as the title states, we're blithering about 3D characters, but not those of the Ratatouille type, but those of the "having depth" type. I see people struggle over depth all the time but it's a really simple topic.

Depth means
the amount of knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, insight, feeling, etc., present in a person's mind or evident either in some product of the mind, as a learned paper, argument, work of art, etc., or in the person's behavior.

at dictionary.com.

Basically a person has more than one emotional state. You have to create situations(scenes) that take each of the aforementioned states and "reveals" them - or at least the character's version of it. Every great character has scenes with these emotions.

The great thing is that these emotions are a part of screenwriting structure and are a direct product of conflict\resolution in a scene or sequence. For example, action movies have killing so the direct result is sadness - depending on who gets killed. This also works in drama and horror as people usually get killed, maimed, tortured or just plain treated bad.

In a drama you want to concentrate more on the happy and angry cause drama usually implies "not the best of times or situations." Comedies are just the opposite, where you want to focus more on "strong emotion" not quite sadness but there needs to be a moment where we aren't actually telling a joke, but exploring a relationship or character flaw - which usually only turns up in relationships - aaah the circular notion.

Also, in a comedy you always want a serious person (straight man) to balance the actions of the comic. That's I guess why buddy movies don't usually consist of two of the same personality. Like Father's Day where Robin Williams is the neurotic while Billy Crystal is the calm in control type.

Or even Dumb and Dumber where Jim Carrey is the wild man and Jeff Daniels is the "level-headed" one (very loosely - they're both idiots).

With dramas, you normally will contrast social graces with characters to maintain that 3D balance. With a film like Shawshank you have Morgan Freeman playing the outward people person and Tm Robbins is the introvert. A movie like North Country goes even farther and places the strong-willed Charlize with the seemingly "spineless" everyone else.

Horror has a built-in mechanism for this as you always contrast the "last victim" or hero with the killer. Take Alien for example, the creature is patient, biding his time while Ripley is moving fast to kill it. Or with The Ring, you have an unloved little girl contrasted with a loving mother - yes it's not direct but relevant.

Thrillers usually fall into the same vein as action, though a good thriller will give you more "character time" rather than just inserting a heart-wrenching moment in the middle of a shootout. Not to say that's a bad thing. It actually gives your hero a little "reality" to them - or 3D-ness if you will.

If you plan well, you can have three characters who lean towards one or the other and juxtapose what shakes them into one of the other emotional states. That's what I like to do, compare and contrast characters. In one of my scripts, I contrast two "stalkers" to show how a person reacts to stress and even courtesy.

In another I contrast the two heroes by showing one as a younger version of the other - it's a buddy movie with a kid and a super spy - or rather two kids and two super spies.

I was on UNK and got to talking about a horror flick with a serial killer. We are just fleshing out our "anti-hero" but he will definitely be a complex person on the edge (for 10 minutes of the movie) who then falls and commits horrible acts in contrast to the ugliness he perceives.

So in essence, once again, your mileage WILL vary as I probably have serious mental problems. I mean how can you make a grandmother into a torture tool? Very carefully, I think. Well, we're going to stop now as I have blogs to visit and work to do - well not much work as I'm currently doing an application support job where most of my day is spent trying to not be bored.

And remember,

Keep Writing as Writing is the Revealing of the Soul

And also,

DON'T FORGET TO SUPPORT YOUR FELLOW WRITERS ON THE PICKET LINE.

Fade In Film Maker's Conference 10/20-10/21

2007-10-29T19:26:00.000-04:00

Howdy Scribes,
I'm just back from the Pitch Fest - it was cheaper than Expo in vacation days - and I have to say that all writers should go there at least once. It is a great Conference. The first day you sign up for 10 pitch meetings, but you can get more at no extra charge.

After signup, you hang out and ask questions of screenwriters consultants and industry people. This go-round, they had Adam Rifkin (Look), Preston A. Whitmore (Fled), David Benioff (Troy) and John August (Go) showed up to replace Oliver Stone.

We had a brilliant pitch expert, Allen B. Ury, but unfortunately he suffered a medical problem and had to leave in an ambulance - last word is he's fine. Later in the day, you are given the opportunity to present 30 pages of a script to major agencies to try and get repped. It's hard to say what will happen though because of the potential for a strike.

The agencies, William Morris, CAA and others had a panel for questions about how to get repped. Of course, it's "write great scripts," but they had a lot of interesting stories about how they made it and I found it amazing how many came from a law background.

I for one, found that the best part was Saturday as it's great to talk to people who had made movies. You get a real feel for what's entailed. Unfortunately, most didn't hang out as I guess they didn't want to pitched while having beers with us.

If there's anything I did learn from the weekend it's that YOU SHOULD NEVER EVER PITCH to someone who is there to talk. Don't ask them to read anything either. Talk about your process, or your goals. They will be much more receptive and may even ask you "what have you written?"

A lot more execs would blog, etc if they knew writers just wanted to "talk shop."

But anyway, Sunday was the big day. At least 10 pitches and as many as 20 were possible as some people missed their meetings and they just slotted someone else in. That is definitely worth the $40 cheeseburger dinner I had at the hotel.

The day started out pretty well as the script I was most confident in got reactions like "I can pitch this" and "it's got a high concept to it." That was my first pitch. It went just as well for the others, though I was really there to interact and network rather than sell a script.

I got about 6 business cards and have started sending out the requested material. It is TERRIBLY unfortunate that the strike will more than likely happen which means that signatories HAVE TO stop buying as soon as a strike is called, but it will give me more time to complete more specs in different genres.

The pitch day went from 10AM to 6PM, though the wild fires did cause some problems with people not making it or being late. I think I had about 16 pitch opportunities and only one was a complete failure. I could have pushed more, but it seemed like the exec was either tired or just an asshole so I just pitched it to someone else and if the hook I came up with works, this movie is almost GUARANTEED to get made - or at least bought. With the nature, or should I say scope of the project, it's worth mid six-figures, so wish me luck.

At any rate, my poor little beautiful "coming-of-age, fish-out-of-water" drama is beloved still until it's time to pay up. It's really the first movie I want to make in terms of desire. I talk about it here all the time and I think I might extracts of it here.

Anyway, I highly recommend the February and July versions of this Conference. It's definitely worth $295, especially if you live near Beverly Hills as you don't need to get the $200/night room. Well, I guess you could find cheaper hotel but it's not worth the travel at 7AM. There are even actual execs, whereas I've heard that assistants show up to other Pitch-Fests. I can't verify that as this is my first, but I will definitely go back.

Character vs. Story

2007-08-29T11:45:00.001-04:00

Howdy bloggers,
I'm back again with my version of the cinematic experience. Today's topic is one that I hear bandied about everywhere: do you start with a story or with a character.

As usual there is no answer, only the way you are most comfortable. As a sw developer I come across a similar conundrum when designing software. Do you concentrate on the man page(character) or the interaction between all of the pages(story).

I myself usually come up with a story and then find a character that can cause as much conflict and drama in that situation as possible.

My first and most beloved spec is a good example. I wanted a dramatic story about a girl who wants to graduate college a virgin. So I said how can I make this character?

I decided she would be very sheltered, almost "clueless." She would also have a party spirit, so immediately we have two antagonists, one who tries the "turn your head" method and one who doesn't believe she could be so innocent when she dances like a stripper.

Another story involves a young kid who daydreams a lot. It's a comedy so I figured we'd give him a real "daydream."

A basic logline is usually enough to flesh out your protag and that's what I do. I brainstorm a bunch of story ideas and then start to research the topic to find the best protag, or perhaps I should say "personality-type."

I also tend to use the "high-concept" path where I think of a topic that would be exciting and interesting to most people. I have a few at this point and they are coming together. The story skeleton almost always give me the path to the best character type, though I admittedly don't do a full "what's in their refrigerator" character map.

I usually let my sequences guide me from the story skeleton and basic character actions to the widening of the personality. If you pick the right character, you will definitely have too much material with which to torture your protag.

Of course, every piece of writing has to be taken with "YOUR" particular grain of salt as what works for others may not work for you. For example, I "appropriated" the use of large index cards from Rossio\Elliott but probably use them totally differently.

I have looked at the sequence method but ended up making it more granular( up to 60 sequences rather than 8). It usually works out pretty good as I am zooming through several specs right now, with the hopes of an assignment that will give me my first credit, WGA-sig or not. But I digress...

So just like always your mileage may vary so you have to find the voice that suits you especially since different genres, though basically structured the same, have different necessities for advancing the story.

For example only a dark comedy can effectively use violence, just as there are not going to be many poignant speeches in an action movie or sex scenes are usually not acceptable in Rom Coms.

Someone in the BlogoSphere mentioned that comedy is all situations but I'd extend that to all genres as situations and reactions are what make a story move. Plot-driven stories usually involve actions by the antag while character-driven stories usually involve actions by the protag so looking at Die Hard, the bad guy always does something to sweep McClane into action, but in Shawshank Andy's actions are what caused the antags (especially the "sisters") to act.

I'm not really a firm believer in every "rule" but some are just a part of the cinematic experience and should be adhered to.

Well, my fantasy comedy awaits so I think we'll call it here and hope it's worth something to someone as I've obtained a wealth of useful info from folks here. I always say that screenwriters are the most helpful professionals followed closely by software developers.

So see ya in the movies and don't forget:

Keep Writing as Writing is the Revealing of the Soul

Logistics, Location and Logic

2007-08-24T13:55:00.000-04:00

Hello again,

We're on track with our current specs so i thought I'd rant a little about the titled references.

What does it mean? It's probably the most important things for new writers to consider when starting new specs. I mean, for your first spec you should limit locations, which eases logistical problems and thereby is logical.

I have read specs at various places where the stories take place in exotic locations, like mountaintops and islands off the coast of Japan. Unrealistic unless you are a prodigy.

I mean it's one thing to submit to contests where they are not considering production but whatever the hell they look at. I have heard stories of people who won several contests and can't get their calls returned or even arrested.

The first thing is BUDGET, BUDGET and finally BUDGET. Movies like Evan Almighty and Stardust faced the budget wall in that they have made money but have yet to recoup the total costs. Sure it's great to have explosions and cross-country car chases but someone has to pay for all of that stuff so LEAVE IT OUT. Go for the small movie. Show you can write characters and dialog rather than sweeping descriptions that may never happen because there is no place with a waterfall next to town.

Of course, you can say what do you know? That wold be a good question as I know very little - wait I mean I haven't sold anything yet - but then I don't sell movies, I make them. I'm probably the guy who would turn down lots of money for the ability to do MY movie, not some producer's or other writer's movie. There are a few that I consider "sellable" but they're all comedies, horror and action. Thrillers and dramas are what I want to be known for and would not accept ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY for them unless I have a deal like the Writing Partners with Fox.

If all goes well with a playwright I came across, I could end up with a small credit in the next few months. That would be great as I want to start small and work my way up. Then if my first movie flops, I didn't lose someone millions of dollars. But then I hope it just makes a few bucks to cover costs.

Character Juxtaposition

2007-08-23T17:06:00.000-04:00

Howdy again,
We're back with a new post. This time we're talking about character juxtaposition. What's that you say? Simple it's a method for getting the most out of your antagonists. When I create a character\story the first thing I do is map out the protag's outward personality. Inward personality traits very rarely show up around others.

For example I have a character that doesn't appreciate when guys only hit on her so I gave her an antag that can't and won't take no for an answer.

Or if you have a protag that doesn't like children surround him by children.

The protag cant swim, the antag kidnaps him to a boat in the middle of the Pacific.

And so on.

It's the best way I've found to create conflict.

The next thing I usually do is intro a functional or support character who does take no for an answer and then flip flop interactions between the two.

This also adds conflict as the functional character will be in opposition to whatever the antag does.

This also works with the other supporting characters. Everyone needs their own personality so one support maybe more shy or less aggressive; more experienced or less worldly; more open or less social.

A lot of teachers recommend letting the character determine the story and I wholeheartedly agree. Some people may call it character-driven but I call it "character-centrism." When the story or plot points take precedence, characters are more likely to be dry, just reacting to the plot and not driving the story with their personality.

I'm of the opinion that plot-driven stories end up "boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back" because of the "non-use" of personality.

As an example I have a spec where a guy follows the protag to college and instead of them having some horrible falling otu I chose to have her goal be "inconsistent" with his and he finds that he assumed too much and has to change his plan. Then I pulled a fast one and put him together with the "more open" support.

Another thing I noticed with plot-driven stories is that people tend to wreck their apartments out of anger from "being an asshole" to the love interest. It happens all to much which is why you have a dearth of action stories where no characters are developed to balance out the crappy plot-driven dramas and thrillers.

More writers should be willing to sacrifice box office to write something substantive. With practice it becomes possible to include those "character moments." Myself, I feel that it is better to have ten people see something different. That means that those ten people may converse and try to see what the other sees. After all, repeat viewers are what you want.

But that also means researching your protag to line them up with the demographic they represent. If you get the demographic with the character people outside the demo will be interested enough to see what the fuss is about. The key is no fear. Let your characters live and breathe, but don't make the mistake of letting them "decide" what they say or do.

Rather let them get themselves into the positions that CAUSE plot points and twists.

The Art of the Scene Transition

2007-08-21T09:53:00.001-04:00

Howdy writers,
It's a twofer today. I watched an amazing movie last night that justifies my psychosis involving the aforementioned. The movie was Hoffa, with Jack Nicholson Danny DeVito and Armand Assante. It got a nod for Cinematography and should have, even though it also got two Razzies for Actor and Director.

To watch closely you can see that every scene exits and enters with an image or sound that maps them together. This is the first thing I do when writing a movie so I feel good that David Mamet uses the technique.

My first spec uses it diligently and is the main thread that ties the action together. Well all of my specs use it and it seems to provide a more seamless look at the sequences. It also makes it a little more sublime as it has stumped pro readers.

By stumped I mean they flowed through the movie and missed a few things that were placed in. Truthfully, after I rewrote with their notes and sent it back, it still hid things just under the surface with dialog and images. That was what it was supposed to do as it has a total of four, count em, four antagonists intro'd at various points throughout Act II.

But every sequence flowed from the following one with things like a radio playing, a video camera, a pair of sneakers, people drinking champagne, and more than anything characters looking into mirrors.

My favorite transition comes after the main antag was defeated. The characters are cleaning up a mess and find a hat. The hat is tossed into the air towards a trash can and when it comes down it's a cap for graduation and the hero is fulfilling her inner desire.

Some others that I liked were ones that linked scenes with studying. Like one transition has the hero stacking books after a tutoring session and then the main relationship character says "Put those books away" in the next scene.

Some of my favorite ones are scenes where one person goes down steps in one scenes and back up in another. It implies the passage of time or the perhaps the emotional state of the character in the two scenes.

I also have one transition where the supporting love interest (unrequited though it maybe) has a frown in one scene and a smile in the next and they define the tone of the scenes.

From what I've read in the 100 or so specs I have gone through at this point, this is a hard thing to do and it's not something that you can do after the story. It has to be written into the story.

I even do it with non-dramatic stories. It seems to add a bit of, what's the word, ambiance to the entire movie. I think it also helps keep the audience from losing their place. Some people do a good job with the dialog and situation but it would be so much better with an image, whether in contrast or comparison.

I wish I could find more examples of it but they seem to be few and far between. There was another recent movie that had one good transition using the protag's face. It was The Covenant. Not the greatest movie but it was interesting enough to watch, mainly because of a scene where a character says "Harry Potter can kiss my ass..."

But speak of the devil, I'm working from home today and I'm kind of watching "The Lake House" with Keanu and Sandra. It tends to move between a mailbox and an apartment for each sequence. The technique seems more prevalent in dramatic cinema but I am definitely using it for action and comedy as it's different in a standard way.

Most good writers could probably find an image that can be carried across sequences (not scenes as those should be chronological) and probably even an auditory cue or two.

Give it a try.

How far to walk?

2007-08-21T09:33:00.000-04:00

Howdy folks,
We're taking a break from our action\adventure to talk abotu something that most of us probably don't think about. As the title implies we're talking about characters walking while deliver dialog.

You'd probably wonder how that is important but if you think about it distance can make or break a scene. If your characters have two minutes of dialog but only walk for one minute the scene is long. If your characters have one minute of dialog but two minutes of walking it's now too short.

I just hit this exact problem with a script and found that clever editing and filming will allow five minutes of dialog to last for a cross-country trip. A good example is "Little Miss Sunshine" which had them going a long way but the movie was only 2 hours long including hotel stops and the like.

I've also come to the conclusion that green screen can be used for this kind of thing though it still requires the same editing to insert the background correctly.

Negatively Impacting Social Traits

2007-08-20T11:46:00.000-04:00

Howdy bloggers,

What does that title mean you say? Well it's my definition of a character flaw. Of course as usual I'm totally going against the grain but at least in this case I have at least a well-known author who passively agrees that a flaw doesn't need to be a terrible internal conflict, it could just be a trait that would serve you well in one instance but be a hindrance in another.

The example the aforementioned author - Dr Linda Seger - wrote about was that she was from a small town and the values and mores she considered important would likely be a problem in say West Hollywood.

My favorite example of this occurs in the movie "RV," starring Robin Williams. In the movie Robin's character takes his wife and family on an RV trip to cover up his having to cancel his vacation.

Along the way they meet the Gornickies, a nice enough family but with living in a bus and home-schooling most people would stay far far away from them. Their light demeanor and wholesome folk singing would be pretty much frowned upon in the average trailer park full of tattooed temptresses and under-achieving rockers.

Another good example that I think of is both Red and Brooks who were institutionalized and all of the things that made them "big men" in prison will hardly serve them well in a world where people don't need cigarettes are books delivered or even solemn companionship.

In Brooks' case his traits wouldn't allow him to succeed, but with Red his friendship with Andy forced him to keep a promise else he would have been hanging from the ceiling also.

Another good one from a non-produced movie is a character I created named Ascha, a sheltered young virgin who dances like a stripper. Now of course in high school, where everyone knew her over-protective brother, no one wold dare say or try anything, but in college - where casual sex on alcohol and drug use are the norm - her friendly wholesome attitude will lead to trouble as people expect her dancing to reflect her lifestyle. It doesn't and she quickly finds out that there are those who can only see external personality traits and not internal.

Another really good example is North Country, in which Charlize Theron plays a woman who wants to stand up for herself in a place where it is not accepted. She goes through hell as soon as she makes note of the total abuse of women in the mine. Of course her negatively impacting social trait can be described as a "single mother." (She must be a slut)

When looking at modern movies, several come to mind, beginning with "Clueless" where Alicia Silverstone is a virgin who doesn't now a guy is gay or what a "bent one" is. In her sheltered environment she is a "queen" but throw her into a party college and her "wholesome" traits would definitely be mislabeled.

Jaw Breaker is another where the new girl wants to fit in with Rose McGowan's crew but finds she is not quite "vicious" enough.

That's not to say that being an asshole can't be exploited as a "flaw" or even an angry person who doesn't mix well with others (As Good As It Gets).

I'm actually working on a Rom Com where the hero is insecure about women exceeding his level of achievement and acts to maintain his "superior position" however he must; moral or immoral, legal or illegal.

A trait like that can be totally destroyed by a woman already his equal and only concerned about getting the job done. It ought to be interesting. Of course we throw in the boss who wants to teach him a lesson and voila, instant 90 minute drama.

At any rate I've been promising to post this for awhile but the original draft got lost when Google Pages crashed or something. So here it is in all its glory. I think it's important to remember that no one really knows what will be interesting to the masses but the re-telling of stories is starting to get rather lackluster as is evidenced by the bad numbers from "The Invasion" and several other remakes.

As writers we have to push the envelope, as something like the Matrix blew away all comers for a franchise. I'd love to create a franchise like that but I'd be happier with 20 small movies that movies critics stand up and say, "What the hell was that?"

It was interesting but I didn't get....

To do that nowadays, you have to find your pop culture voice.

Of course I don't believe in the exploitation of various groups for laughs but then I also write heroes who don't smoke so maybe that's my "flaw." I just have to be positive. Most of the time. Sure I have a movie that could end up NC-17 if I'm not careful but it is a real story about a real person whose "egotistic traits" cause her many problems as she is reluctant to take advice from anyone.

For more examples of this just find movies that are "fish out of water" tales. Most of those have a hero whose flaw is just being different from the majority of their social or cultural group.

When do you start a new script?

2007-08-16T15:39:00.000-04:00

We're back again. This is the first tiem we've posted twice in a day but I just had an epiphany - or maybe it's a hangover LOL. Kidding. I kid.

This post concerns when you should start a new script. Should you force yourself to work on one at a time or should you let the wind blow to the scenes you want to write today?

The hell if I know. I haven't gotten a year into this yet so I guess I can find out the answer as others do. Right now I am working on a fantasy comedy and as I was working on a logistical issue (getting everyone in a middle school), I just had the feeling i should work on another film that is serious in nature and rather uhhh, how should I say, sexual.

So should we start something new when the current one has issues or is sailing smoothly or is tempting you to end it all?

Again, I don't know but I do know that when I work on two different genres I seem fresher when I go from one to the other. Don't know why. Maybe it's because I can clear my mind of one but not feel guilty for letting writing time pass without any pages.

So I guess the ultimate answer is:

Whenever you want. Just don't write until you have an outline or sequence map.

Cheerio.
And remember:

Keep writing as writing is the revealing of the soul.

To pitch or not to pitch

2007-08-16T14:55:00.000-04:00

Howdy writers, wrongers, and all in between,

This post as the title says tries to ask\answer the question, do you pitch something you haven't finished?

It's a tough question, I'd say and is totally p to the discretion of the screenwriter. No one is going to hate you if you say:

"I'm working on a great idea that... It's not done yet but I love it so far. It's about..."

I see everyday on Done Deal Pro that many of the sales are for pitches. I, for example, have one spec finished, two in various states of completion and about ten that are sequenced and have all of the characters defined.

Sure it's better to have them written but being able to come up with ideas is just as important as having 10 finished scripts. besides, if you write ten scripts, the shelf life will be different than if you concentrate on selling some of them before piling up a bunch more.

This is of my course my humble opinion and should in no way encourage anyone to approach a pitch fest or the like with unfinished work, but you never know if someone maybe interested if you don't pitch it.

A good example is a prodco that I queried for one script. They were willng to read it so I asked about ones that weren't done.

The answer was:
"Send the loglines and I'll let you know which ones may interest us."

Funny enough the ones that I thought were my strongest concepts and most complete stories were the ones that garnered interest. I should be sending them out by mid-September, around the time I should hear about the first script.

My fingers and toes are crossed on that one as it is my baby.

One reader thought that so much was going on they may have missed something. Of course that was what I was going for. I mean if a viewer mentions something they noticed but you didn't, there is more incentive to actually see the movie again to try and catch that part.

I guess having one protag for each year of college is a lot but all of the subplots revolve around the desires of the protag - as they should.

I personally am looking for an apartment in LA right now so that I can take a day off every two weeks and hawk scripts. I carry my first one in my bag at all times and soon hopefully I'll need a bigger bag.

Even contemplating this takes huge balls so I say go for it. Every chance you get. No Fear. They can only say no. True the pitch works better for an established writer but a new writer with a good sense of a good story can at least et a meeting.

For me it would be much worse to have scripts or ideas in any form that I didn't push than to have an exec say:

"Come back when it's done. It sounds intriguing. Here's my assistant's email."

or even:

"We don't look at unfinished work from unknown writers. What do you have completed OTHER than that?"

At that point your newness may pay off as you say, "though my completed body of work leaves a little to be desired, I did get through three drafts in under two months and have the others sequenced and researched. could I possibly initiate a query upon completion?"

I mean, you have to be as open and excited about your work as possible or no one else will. I hear from lots of paid writers that enthusiasm and positivity will get you farther than three scripts and a bad attitude about criticism or notes.

I actually would love the opportunity to discuss possible changes and their ramifications with an exec.

So to make a long story short, do your best Carlton Fisk impression and get out there. Execs are waiting to hear from you.

Cinematic Excellence

2007-08-06T11:23:00.000-04:00

This is a post inspired by the MernitMan over at Living The Rom Com. he really made me miss the old days where women actually had to act and men had to be honorable.

I really need to watch more of those types of movies. I get sick of the silly dramatic conversations that consist of guys calling each other names for 10 minutes at a time.

A laugh or a tear are perhaps the most powerful images. With a furrowed brow or the raising and lowering of a head coming in a close second.

More emotion can be packed into that than C4 in a trashcan.

I also long for better scene transitions that allow for a seamless look at different parts of a story.

I just wrote something that utilizes wardrobe and hair styles to show change rather than speeches about how a character changes.

I did add some more conflict to it to appease the reviewer gods, but I think I did an excellent job with imagery and sub-plots. Most sub-plots tend to be some back story connection between the protag and antag but I think that's a cop-out. Who cares if they killed each other's dog.

What about the buddy and the love interest? Do they interact? Give them a few scenes - hey hey can talk about the protag. Most movies rely too much on "conflict" and not enough on the human condition; the differences between five friends, the similarities between people we love and the people we hate, how psychological trauma(death of a loved one) is more powerful than external forces(death threats), etc.

I found in this movie that the use of dreams work really well to abstract a person's reaction to action. My most fervent desire is to make people stop and think, "What just happened?" They'll think about it until they figure it out or ask someone to see it and tell them what they thought.

I have never produced a movie myself but have you ever found yourself knowing what the next line would be? A strange feeling that. Does it mean the movie is bad or good or perhaps that you have found your calling?

Who knows, but I love to play games with images. I'm working on a comedy where I figured a way to introduce all of the main characters in the same scene, but they don't see it. I'm really happy with it.

I know that "fluff pays" but substance lasts.

Another thing I try to do when writing is finding parallel characters and arcs. In my favorite unproduced script, I parallel three different guys and how each of them influences a different reaction by the protag. I also use a parallel between two secret societies on different sides of the protag, though it also looks at how all men, in one way or another, want to possess women.

I don't use a lot of "conflict amongst friends" as a way to add drama - what the hell are the antags for?

In South of La Brea (my baby) I actually managed 4 antags through sub-plots at different times. I guess the first thing is like they say "write what you know."

But back to Mernit's post, I know what he means about the armchair reviewers who just want to see explosions and friends arguing for half the movie and making up for the other half.

As a screenwriter, I find it difficult to critique other writers, especially those that are selling movies, but I will critique a movie after I see it. not to say how good or bad it was but whether or not it had memorable images or dialog.

One from SOLB that I love is after a long day the protag sits in the car, exhales and looks to the sky, hands on the steering wheel. To me it evokes worry and strength.

Anyway, here's to cinematic excellence in all its forms and to Antonioni and Bergman, pioneers both.

Just my luck

2007-08-02T16:15:00.000-04:00

This is a short post that I just had to make. Recently I was working in Melville NY and though I wanted to stay (why I don't know - oh yeah it was an office full of T&A) I ended up getting a new assignment in midtown Manhattan (yes the land of beat up jeans).

The first day I came to work I was a few days from receiving my first license of Final Draft (yes I have two) and to my surprise the heavens opened and pouring through was what looked to be the HQ of my favorite company - get ready for it - Price Waterhouse Cooper.

Yes that's right I walk right by the very building where the Oscar Awards are tallied. I wonder if that's a sign? I don't know but I'm definitely writing more touching dramas now.

Advanced wire work with Motor Curve Generation

2007-07-31T12:58:00.000-04:00

Hi folks,
This is a post from my other blog. Little did I know when i wrote this that I would be mere months away from the "world of the spec."

It's been awhile and I know I’ve kept the four of you waiting but hey the early bird catches the worm and doesn’t always have time to update the blog. Today’s post is about wire work in movies.

I love advanced special FX and this is a topic I’ve long studied especially in the advent of the Americanization of Chinese martial arts movies, such as; “Crouching Tiger,” “Kung Fu Hustle” etc.

Watching these movies is more a hobby than entertainment for me because I have to figure out what I see. Most of today’s movies use a mix of blue screen and wirework to simulate “additional environmental collisions” and the like….. I digress, back to the topic.

Most movies have trouble with one particular thing in the use of wires for fights and climbing, etc.

There needs to be a motor curve worked out for each individual or an active lookup algorithm based on various physical maneuvers, so that differences in “active feedback” on the cable erase the appearance of “floating.”

I’m thinking about moving this kind of thing to a website because I hate not having active image references on Blogger – I have to link to another site – maybe one of you three can tell me how to access images with “root HTML.”

I’m working on a new website and I may try to squeeze in some features that allow for image storage.

This technique is slightly harder to implement though because it requires a “track” to run the engine on, but two cranes with two pulleys connected to either end of an IBeam, tracks can be made for “linear” action – meaning that a secondary beam structure would need to be added to allow for perpendicular movement.

But by adding a second “cam” to the X Axis mechanism it would then be possible to add a third “rotational axis” to allow characters to move farther than contact where contact is the zero point in relative coordinates.

I guess studies like these led to advances in “blue screen positioning of CGI objects” but that would make actors into “voices.”

Don’t know if that would be a bad thing.

Anyway, such a device could be scaled to fit small spaces by using an I beam framework instead of relying on cranes for support, though cranes would help with “aerial maneuvers” like those in the last Matrix.

Blue screening using this technique would definitely have helped with the SpiderMan 2 climax on the subway. I was left flat by their mixture of live action and CGI.

I need to get a good 3D app like MicroStation but that’s a bit much. Guess I’ll have to cough up $600 for one of the lower priced ones – too bad I can’t get the student rate anymore.

As I’m writing this I seem to have “visualized” a more compact version that would enable large groups in one scene on a coordinated group of “motor wire assemblies,” hey that could be patented – anyone got a couple grand burning a whole in their pocket?

The basis of the mechanism is that you have to do tests of “height displacement” using a multi-axis solid bar that registers these differences. Certain movements would use a single bar (only height changes or rotation around the perpendicular axis of connection) and certain movements would use two bars connected for the parallel axis range.

The second mechanism allows for additional points of connection along the body for flight scenes. Since this condition allows – necessitates – more connection points motors can be made smaller and connected in pairs. With a second level of resistance it would be possible to “balance the “shoulder and ankle” connections and move the ankle connection closer to the body and the shoulder connection farther to enable close quarters between two “flyers,” while enabling the same type of “free-movement”

Anyway, that’s the gist of today’s topic. Hopefully, someone will see it…..

Disney Butts out...of smoking that is

2007-07-26T11:09:00.000-04:00

Howdy fellow scribes,
Today's topic is a bit of an "I knew it" story. As you can see from the title Disney as a company has totally backed away from smoking in any future movies. You may say "you knew that?" Well, not exactly, but I have never envisioned a character who smokes. Why I don't know especially since I smoke but it's good to know that at least my favorite script has an even better chance since nowhere in the script are cigarettes even mentioned.

I even went a step further and there are no scenes with anyone actually drinking though we do see beers during one party scene. Wow, that's boring you say. Perhaps, but throw in a few KOs, some hot dancing, serious wise-cracks (Where'd you get that line the phony papers? or Don't you have any friends? Yeah, but they're all ugly.) beautiful women with good lines and great clothes. (Well I may have to bribe a costumer, but...)

Anyway, this is great news for me and I had to share it.

Thanks Disney.

South Of La Brea: FADE OUT #2

2007-07-13T14:52:00.000-04:00

Howdy writers, wrongers and everyone in between. Yes you heard it right, a two and a half month rubicon has been crossed. I have done the FADE OUT on my first feature. It's right now getting notes from none other than Scott The Reader (hey, he's cheap).

It's a poignant story about a young woman who wants to keep her virginity through college. Of course, she loves to party and dances like a stripper, but hey nobody's perfect.

It was an interesting journey as I found that it was the most boring topic ever (well, maybe Shawshank is in the running). Even though it is a college movie, there is no gratuitous sex or nudity. Very little alcohol (no one is actually seen drinking) and lots of violence (hey I had to put something in it).

I actually surprised myself with how well it reads. I even managed to make it the whole four years of college with some calendar/banner-based sleight of hand. I even managed to get my second rejection with it, but hey that's good. I've only queried two people and I'm sure there are those of us who feel like we have the plague with how many responses we get.

I have to give props to Chris Soth and his Hollywoodbyphone.com service.

Anyway, my next one is at the inciting incident and again no sex. Seems like a theme, but not really as my short(First Fade Out) has gay sex scenes and I have a few others in the works that may have more sex scenes than dialog.

I'd say that if nothing else, my scenes are linked so well to the plot that it doesn't seem like it could possibly be my first spec, but indeed it is.

I'm so happy I could masturbate. OK, maybe I'm not that happy.

I'm busy reviewing scripts on TriggerStreet and I should have the last two done this weekend, so my beautiful baby will be on display for all to criticize. MUSIC TO MY EARS.

If only it was that easy to get it read by the "greenlight" crowd. I think I managed to get every human emotion into 109 pages (I was shooting for 110); love, hate, anger, sarcasm, etc.

I managed to get some good foreshadowing in and kind of threw a twist at the end so that there are actually TWO climax scenes where one is an internal climax and the other is an external one.

I feel really good about it as both a writing sample (who would really buy a movie about a virgin in college with no sex or drugs?) and a movie blueprint. It is registered and any who view this can ask for a copy. I think you'll enjoy it.

Wel, that's it for today. I have to get back to my family comedy and also get my notes together for a post I've got called "negatively impacting social traits," which is my term for character flaw.

See you in the movies.

Clothing in Film

2007-07-03T13:54:00.000-04:00

Howdy folks,
After an interesting discussion with Mystery Man I decided my next blog should talk about what I think can be the most effective imagery.

The wardrobe of the character.

For example, one of the biggest images in the Die Hard movies is how McClain starts out all neat and clean and ends up looking like a homeless punching bag. It makes him more human, more likable, than if he stayed clean.

Or with James Bond, he would be a totally different character dressed like James Coburn's "Flint," but with the tuxedo, he becomes more aloof and unreachable.

Or even Men In Black where RayBans made them look both professional and a little frightening.

Of course when describing wardrobe simple is better. Rather than saying "a beautiful white gown with ruffles and a matching choker," "a vision in white, reminiscent of Cinderella." That way the costumer can experiment drawing on the character's personality and the actor's "look."

As an extension, we can then illustrate our characters' personalities with accessories.

Like if you're describing a nerd and say "slips on his usual collection of jewelry," you would obviously get a total different look if you say the same thing about a drug dealer or a pimp.

The same would be true of a businesswoman vs. a female basketball player. I guess it all comes back to the saying that a screenplay isn't a movie, it's a blueprint for a movie. They don't contain colors or sizes as a house blueprint - from a post by UNK - doesn't contain walls or doors.

Another good example is Big with Tom Hanks where we would say "contrasting with the black tuxes surrounding him, making him appear naive." Big gives another example at the end of his circular arc where he stands in clothes that are much too big for him which reflects the departure of his love interest.

Aliens offers another look at the power of wardrobe with the Burke character, with his loosened tie and upturned collar, making him seem egotistical and even untrustworthy (as he is proven to be).

Wardrobe's effects can even be felt in real life as it's much easier to use a private bathroom wearing a suit than wearing jeans and sneakers.

At any rate, there are tons of examples of how wardrobe imagery can describe a character better than the silkiest "expositional" prose.

Another excellent example is "The Devil Wears Prada," where the frumpy journalist who probably gets ignored a lot becomes the beautiful butterfly who turns head wherever she goes, or Ms. Congeniality, the plain FBI clothes contrasted with the slinky dress worn on the Regis show which examines how her personality changes with the necessity of fashion.

Or imagine Arnold, in T2, grabbing a guy with a tux rather than the ubiquitous bikers' clothes and bartenders' shades. It wouldn't matter but "Bad to the Bone" would have no place in the sequence.

The Addams Family also shows this with Fester becoming more and more "shut down" wearing designer clothes and hair implants.

The comedy Second Sight also uses wardrobe to change a mood as when Bronson Pinchot tears off his suit and runs through the church in his underwear. That's a satirical use of it but it was funny.

Wardrobe can even define an institution as with the Star Wars story, where the robes of the Jedi evoke a feeling of piety and strength or even a society where Amidala wears the makeup of the queen, making her look regal and aloof. Also, the squared-shoulders of the vests Jedi where make them seem honest and morally strong.

Of course, the job of the screenwriter is to evoke the feeling with short exposition, like from one of my scripts, "her pony tail glistening like ribbons of silk" or "adjusts her midriff jeans jacket and heads towards the kitchen."

Those short phrases are designed to give a general idea of age and personality. Another great use of wardrobe. Well, that's about it for today. Next I think we'll talk about

PROPS. Not those you give but those you place.

As always

Keep Writing as Writing is the Revealing of the Soul

My first rejection. Am I the lucky one?

2007-06-29T17:49:00.000-04:00

Howdy folks in the ScriboSphere. I'm on Cloud 9 right now as I managed in 3 months of trying, to get a rejection for not 1 or 2, but 5 loglines. I love it. I can't wait until I get some more scripts finished as I could make it to 100 rejections by the end of the year.

How great is that? Some people are ignored by everyone but I can get people to say, and I quote:

but i'm not sparking to any of these ideas. my advice is to send query letters to producers and managers!

I mean how great is that? It's actual text and how many people can say they were turned down by a big shot?

It's like a dream come true. Now if only I could get a read, I might even think my life improved from being shit.

Anyway, maybe I should query,

Will write for food?

That's a good idea. I probably won't do it but hey what the hell, creativity is the key. I haven't been this giddy since I stole my first girlfriend. This one may even top the first fight in the street over me.

Man, I love this attempt at a job. I'm ready for my protag's close up Mr. De Mille.

Anyway, back to reality. I'm so pleased with myself, I could just pee. I guess my rotten life may be worth something after all as I have a very thick skin now. Almost thick enough to relocate to LA and walk around with a collection of scripts and pictures of notables.

I guess also that since SW jobs are plentiful, I could even support myself. Yes, I think that I will miss the NYC winter this year. If I can get a good deal on moving, find an apartment from 3000 miles away and find a job before I give notice where I am, I will eb an Angeleno in time for XMas. Aaaaah, joy.

Wow, this move is almost like trying to be a screenwriter. I'm not sure if that's a good sign or a bad sign but what the hell, I'm supposed to die anyway so I may as well go out in pursuit of my heart.

To all who enter:

Keep writing as writing is the revealing of the soul

South Of LaBrea

2007-06-26T12:35:00.001-04:00

Well, this my second post. A lot sooner than I thought. What does that title mean, you ask. That is the title of possibly the most boring movie I ever tried to make exciting.

It's actually coming along pretty good as I have gotten YouTube, studies in sexuality, abusive relationships, close friendships, a shattered goal, the stages of grief (it was an accident), etc. into the script. The actor I want for it should love it (secret for now).

Anyway, this movie is teaching me more than I thought it would when I started. I am getting really good at scene transitions and my dialog is sharpening up tremendously.

I will definitely TriggerStreet it when it's done. Unfortunately, I can't talk too much about it yet, but after these last 30 pages fall this weekend, maybe I can loosen up some more info.

I can say that it is a story that should empower a whole lot of women. The story takes place in college but it's definitely NOT a college movie.

I'm also working on a fantasy comedy where a grandmother is actually a torture technique (I know. I'm sick).

It's coming along pretty good as I just came up with a novel way of introing the antag and main relationship character. This one shouldn't take the three months South Of La Brea is taking but I can also get away with 90- pages. It's also got this neat little trick to distingish it from other comedies like it(nothing is new after all).

Anyway, I've got to get back to the script and some database stuff I have to fix - in my real job - so I'm going to cut it here but as soon as we get to ActIII, we'll look at some screenwriting stuff featured in the excellent text "Advanced Screenwriting" by Dr. Linda Seger. I think it's the best of the four books I've read as it looks more at abstract ideas than examples (not to say it doesn't have examples) such as one that will be the gist of the next post.

She says and I quote

"A character's problem doesn't have to be negative. It may be a quality that is usually considered positive, but in a certain situation becomes a problem."

I take that to heart as the idea of a character flaw can mean so many things in every different screenplay even in the same genre.

I spoke about this on Mystery Man and I think it's the next frontier. Of course character change can provide an "intrinsic plot thread," but I don't think it should be done too "externally."

A good example is Red from Shawshank. Most people consider his last parole hearing the end of his arc, but I feel that it was just him not caring anymore. Andy had escaped, why get excited. It just so happened that those were the marbles he foreshadowed "rolling around in his head" earlier in the movie. Of course it could have been a genius plan or it could have been an arc where he finally has hope.

I'm betting on a tired old man that lost his best friend and just doesn't care anymore. Anyway, we'll save the rest for another time.

Keep writing as writing is the revealing of the soul.

My First FADE OUT:

2007-06-12T09:48:00.000-04:00

Yes ladies and germs,

I have written my first screenplay. It's a 15 page short but it does say FADE OUT. It was important for me to get something out pretty quickly as I really want this as my career. The idea for it came from the screenplayshollywood blog.

I scanned through all of May and found the perfect short. It has drama. It has sex. It has betrayal. It has more sex. Just kidding. It has redemption.

It's basically a pretty good writing sample. I'm hoping the individual who posted it wants it, though it's small enough that I could make it myself.

All I need is a cameraman and 3 actors with an apartment and a car.

Anyway, I'm now on my second project though this one is a feature length drama. It's coming along good as when I read it aloud, I like it and I am so picky that...well that's another story.

Plus, I am partly working on a few treatments for a couple of movies I could actually sell.

Mostly, I don't write specs to sell them but for them to be writing samples. I am trying to have at least two in every major genre and for the most part I do (read: they are just loglines and premises).

It's funny because I used to think about it and I wrote a pretty decent screenplay years ago and couldn't figure out what to do with it as breaking in can be intimidating especially when you're basically on your own with no support structure.

But now with the advent of the Internet and my resolving my issues, I am gong to make this happen no matter what. I think I am pretty good at this, even better than I program or engineer.

My ultimate goal is to see an actor go up and get an Oscar for one of my roles. Of course that's ot an easy thing but I figure if I can flood the market with good stories and great scripts, I may get a chance to be noticed by the sometimes hard to understand Academy.

It's a pretty good plan that will probably take years but I have nothing else to do. I have no life at all because my mentality is now so inward that this is really all I can do and be happy. I hate my cubicle now and I need to get away.

Sure I may end up in a cubicle writing for some TV show, but hey I guess it's not the cubicle but what I do all day. It's exciting at times but times like now are so boring I could shoot myself and have fake blood pour out.

Well, that's it for my first post commemorating my first FADE OUT but
"I'll be back."