The Count of Monte Cristo

The Count of Monte Cristo

The Count of Monte Cristo come pretty close to my quest for the Holy Grail of screenwriting: what is a story? But, it comes with a few reservations.

I know what this movie is about. I know what the story is. I can tell you the story in a few sentences. I know what the subject is. I know what the theme is. I know what the premise is.

But, the reason I know these things is because it’s a classic tale, and it is from classic tales that all these story ingredients are born. So one reservation is the telling of a classic tale vs. a modern tale.

This is a bit confusing, because telling a modern story doesn’t mean telling a story that takes place currently, but a modern structure to story telling contrasted with the structure of classic story telling.

It might also be an issue of reinventing the wheel. Maybe there are things that just can’t be improved on, regardless of technological advances or changing times.

An innocent and naive man is falsely accused of treason, betrayed by a best friend, is in love but loses the girl, sent away to prison, escapes, seeks revenge and wins back the girl. It’s a story about revenge. However, the best friend theme was  created by the screenwriter. In the original Dumas story, the two men were jealous rivals who hardly knew each other.

It’s commonly believed revenge is a form of cancer that will eat you up inside and is something not worth the effort. But this story–the premise–proves otherwise. Revenge IS sweet. Revenge is right.

In the theory of screenwriting, a premise does not have to be a universal truth. It just has to be true in the story.

It is the classics that gave us the art of storytelling, at least storytelling in novel form. Telling stories in art, music and dance is altogether different.

And movies borrow from all these forms of story telling to tell a story in an even grander way than the literal telling of a story found in classic novels.

Do movies tell stories better than what the imagination can conjure? Well, it’s apples and oranges.

All the ingredients of good storytelling are here: action, adventure, intrigue, mystery and love. Character arcs are clear. Sets and costumes are exotic, extraordinary and exciting. Direction and editing is fast pased without losing storyline.

We have a classic sidekick: Jacopo, played by Luis Guzman.

We have a classic ally: Abbe Faria, played by Richard Harris.

Sidekicks and allies are considered important components of good screenwriting.

Dialog is clever and befitting, although some critics thought it a bit pretentious to update dialog for younger modern audiences–a valid criticism.

We have a classic damsel in distress, which bothers me. It’s a man movie with a classic love interest. One thing more modern stories do now is turn women into more heroic and stronger characters (but not enough).

The male ego is far too fragile yet for a movie about a woman who rescues a man and not the other way around. There are movies like this, I just can’t think of them at the moment.

Classic story structure: a flawed character overcomes insurmountable obstacles to reach a desired goal.

Jay Wolpert knows how to tell a story, BUT, as in Pirates of the Caribbean, he gets a lot of help from the classic story telling of Alexandre Dumas. However, it is two different worlds between novels and movies.

Wolpert is riding high on the Pirate series but I look forward to anything he does in the future.

The Devil Wears Prada

The Devil Wears Prada

Devil Wears Prada is a wonderful movie (with greater percentage of credit going to Meryl Streep). If there ever was a movie to serve as a model for how to introduce a character, this is it. We immediately know who Miranda Priestly (Streep) is by the sheer terror she evokes in her staff before arrival at work. And we see this all through the eyes of Andy Sachs Anne Hathaway), Miranda’s new “2nd” assistant, clearly a fish out of water.

I have to immediately jump to a discovery I made about Hollywood movies in general. There is an endless series of movies that all send the same terribly idealistic message, that friends, family and personal integrity is far greater than fame, fortune and wealth.

It’s a stereotype of a prototype that does not exist in real life.

A humbled and/or “flawed” character–as screenwriting books like to call it–is offered the world on a silver platter. To get the silver platter, the character must make a choice: leave behind the past, which translates into leaving behind your friends and family–the world you love.

Devil Wears Prada makes no attempt to hide this theme as Andy’s job is repeatedly referred to as “the dream job a million girls would kill to get.”

The message is: the dream job a million girls would kill to get illustrates how cheap most girls are and that girls would do anything for success, fame and glory.

The only twist is that Andy ends up getting the real dream job she wanted, which was journalist with a top publication. In this movie she gets everything: she plays the game to get what she wants, doesn’t lose what she had before she began the journey, and even impresses her boss which is an impossibility.

In the movie all this works out great. We see a journey that could’ve led to hell. We watched a character make brutal choices that affect her life and the life of those around her. We see a survivor in a ruthless competitive world who gets frazzled but ultimately never loses sight of her own identity.

My complaint is that this “morality tale” is totally unrealistic. What happens in the movie is not what happens in real life. And the moral purity that is portrayed on screen does not exist in real life, nor is it even desired.

Meryl Streep’s performance was brilliant. She scared the hell out of me. But she also represented the kind of personality it takes to be at the top. No one dies or even gets remotely physically hurt by Miranda’s intimidating tactics. She builds the fictitious Runway Magazine into one of the most influential magazines in the world. Someone who achieves those kinds of results might not be liked, but is never questioned.

This is extremely important to me as a screenwriter since I’m making choices about the kinds of stories I want to tell.

It is terribly hypocritical to paint a picture of success as something sinful when clearly it is the very thing that makes the world go round. In real life, family and friends are NOT the most important thing. In real life friends and family get in the way and are rarely supportive of a career that aims for the top.

America is built on success, if not the world. We cannot bear the title of “the wealthiest nation” while at the same time hypocritically preaching the message that greed is bad.

This was the brilliance of the line from Wall Street: “Greed is good.” It was the most honest quote I’ve ever heard in a film.

Far, far too many people have risen to the top across virtually every industry imaginable, and who gets left on the side of the road is clearly not a consideration. We stay under the radar of what’s legal, but the tools of lying, cheating, backstabbing, game playing, usury, intimidation and ruthlessness are very desirable traits. We may not applaude these traits outwardly, anymore than we would cheer the kind of hammer used to build a million dollar mansion. Let’s just say these tools are available at our disposal, and if necessary, we will use them.

We need to see the truth. We need to see this is a world of multi-national corporations, businesses, enterprises and entrepreneurs that stop at nothing when it comes to profit. Writers need to stop moralizing and trying to paint this Hallmark/Norman Rockwell view that this world we live in is wrong and that we all need to return to some “natural” humbled state where money doesn’t matter.

We’ve mythologized the fasion, music, film and media industries. They are called the glamour industries. They are the kinds of industries where interns will work 60-80 hours a week for no pay just to be around someone important. We have models, musicians and actors making multi-million salaries. Fashion magazines sell millions of copies.

So let’s stop pretending–no, let’s stop being immoral about being moral–that family, home, hearth and integrity is the moral choice and success, wealth and fame is the immoral one.

On top of this, I wrestle everyday with actors and actresses who make unimaginably huge salaries while portraying characters on screen who are poor, working class, or middle class at best.

What percentage of the movie going audience lives in mansions? And, what percentage of the audience would “kill” for that dream job?

It’s a sin to not want to be a millionaire. Tell someone you don’t want to be rich and watch the disconcerted looks on their faces, if not an outright jaw-drop.

Tell someone you want to be a priest or a nun and only want to live as close to God as possible, in a world where material wealth is meaningless. Tell someone this and you will get the same false and phony response from everyone.

It could be argued that the writers are not sending the message so described above. The Devil Wears Prada could simply be a story about a girl who doesn’t get lost in the rat race to get what she wants. She’s a girl who climbs to the top without losing her integrity. Fine, at that level, the story works.

It could even be argued the story is not anti-success at all. It seems the writers have covered all their bases. Miranda’s first assistant, Emily Blunt, loses out on Paris, but Andy gives her all the cloths she got from Paris, which is ultimately what Emily wanted. So, the fact Andy went to the ultimate Paris show and Emily did not is forgiven as a cutthroat act of competitiveness.

Nigel, a senior editor at Runway, played by Stanley Tucci, seems to be the only loser in the rise to the top. But, it’s for the greater good of maintaining Runway as a top fashion magazine. Not everybody gets what they want and not getting the “dream job” is an occupational hazard in a world of winners and losers.

Ultimately, Andy gets the dream job she REALLY wanted, which was a journalist with a top New York publication. She gets a recommendation from her “bitch from hell” boss, even after quitting the job as assistant. She ends up not losing her friends or losing her boyfriend.

Things left out: she has an affair with another journalist but this is never raised as an issue with her boyfriend.

Her boyfriend is not the strongest character, and I wonder why keeping him was so important to her.

The above comment must bear the brutal truth that in real life, we do not hang on to boyfriends and girlfriends because it’s some kind of “right thing to do.”

The writers add a dash of realism in that Miranda faces her second divorce, an inevitable and even expected fallout of the rise to success. But we must not “hint” that the rise to success with divorce as a tragic outcome is something bad. If it was really that bad, then in real life people wouldn’t do it.

When you realize the country keeps getting richer and divorce is as common as dating, then whatever morality we profess is clearly contridictory to what we do. Our actions speak louder than words.

So, this movie represents to me everything that is hypocritical in America, if not the world. In the movies, we love nice people. And we all know the truth about nice people in real life. In the movies, we love it when a character’s friends, family and lover are at stake, and chooses to sacrifice fame and glory for love. But in real life, we choose fame and glory.

The only other conclusion to be drawn from this tale is that we are, indeed, fucked up. We ARE too greedy. We HAVE lost sight of the good things in life. We ARE superficial, cutthroat, and ruthless.

But frankly, I don’t see this changing. And I certainly don’t believe movies, however powerful they can be to influence our lives, will change the world’s lust for power, money and glory.

The Family Stone

The Family Stone

I have to see this movie again because I didn’t remember much of it even days after having seen it, and I don’t know if I liked it or not.

It’s a culture clash theme, New York Type A business woman meets bohemian.

I also don’t know why I don’t like Sarah Jessica Parker or Diane Keaton. Diane Keaton has starred in many great movies and I will always favor a movie with her in it. I hated Sex in the City, so Parker has to do something to help me get over the prejudice I have towards her.

An immediate observation is that once again, it seems damn near impossible to see a movie without someone dying in it. This is a new quest for me, to see movies where someone doesn’t have to die to make the story dramatic.

Perhaps death as a theme is the ultimate in drama. Perhaps dying is the ultimate struggle (or living, whatever your perspective). And what tenser situation could there be with a loaded gun in your face.

Depending on your worldview, perhaps everything in life is a quest for survival, and so, everything in life is a matter of life and death. Add to this the theme of God or Fate and the ultimate suspense is that any of us can die at any moment. A routine trip to the grocery store is certainly hieghtened drama when the character the camera is focused on is about to die. Otherwise, there’s not a lot of drama in day to day life.

If the worldview is one of life as routine day to day where nothing much happens, then drama is fleeting.

Even though life can be brutally boring, movies must have the worldview that something is always about to happen. Life is never routine since anything can happen and “shit happens.”

But is all this action really a race against death? Is it not really a battle between protagonist and antagonist but the real enemy is death?

Is the celebration of life not dramatic? Can we not be happy without disaster lurking in the shadows?

Speed

Speed

This is not a review.  it’s a synopsis.

Now i don’t know if after writing or shooting the film, at the point where everyone is off the bus and the bus rams into the plane, if the writer or director realized they have another 20 minutes of film left and didn’t know what to do. So, is the added subway crash contrived?

Well, the bad guy hasn’t been caught yet. But, it was overkill to up the ante on what was already a harrowing bus ride from hell.

It’s true, that “upping the ante” is a favored plot device.

Another 1/2 hour and we could’ve had her go through an airplane ordeal.

(NOTE:  as of 5/6/08, this review of Speed was written before seeing the sequel.  I’m shocked at my own prophecy).

It’s not enough that Annie Porter (Sandra Bullock) defeats death on an out-of-control bus. After a tense conversation with Jack (Keanu Reeves), the bad guy (Dennis Hopper) kidnaps Annie and forces her through an underground passage way that lead into the subway. He then straps C4 on her, chains her to the poll (what subway riders use to hold on to), and kills the conductor. He controls the detonator device and is threatening to blow up the train and Annie. A conversation with Annie reveals how evil the bad guy really is.

The money is sprayed with purple die, making it traceable. Jack is hidden and riding on top of the train. When the money bag is opened and the purple die sprays all over the bad guys face, his sole mission now is to kill Jack. He climbs on top of the train to go after Jack. They fight.

“You’ve got a gun pointed at your head, what do you do, what do you do?” Repeated 4/5 times throughout the film, with variations.

Bad guy is killed by low ceiling object.

There is relief when Jack disarms the bomb. But Annie is still attached to the pole. Jack does not have a key. he tries to kick the pole loose, to no avail. Jack gets a radio call. The track is not finished. It’s a runaway train. Annie is still attached to the pole via handcuffs.

Jack sees there is a curve in the track ahead. he’s going to speed up the train and make it jump the track. They share a moment knowing this could be it. They don’t know what will happen. The audience doesn’t know what will happen.

Workers in the tunnel run for their lives as the train screeches off the track. Jack holds on to Annie. The filming is nothing less than phenomenal. We move outside the tunnel waiting for the train. It screetches down the streets of L.A. then finally comes to a halt.

Paraphrased: After the train has stopped, Jack says to Annie, “I have to warn you. I’ve learned that relationships that begin under intense circumstances never last.” This is a quote of what Annie said to Jack after the escaped off the bus and were lying on the airport runway.

End titles song, “speed.” Billy Idol.

Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith

Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith

Ah, how Darth Vader came to be, perhaps the most infamous villian in all movie history. Creating a character like Darth Vader calls to mind the 100s of recognizable characters created throughout the history of fiction, TV and film. I wouldn’t say we know these characters better but we certainly love them more than our next door neighbor, sometimes even our family and friends.

Revenge of the Sith was not meant to stand alone. Star Wars is a series not a chain of sequels. There’s much to say about anything to do with Star Wars, since it is a cultural phenomenon. It turned George Lukas into what may be the most powerful man in Hollywood and at the least, the richest. But then, what a silly game it would be to play to see if Lukas’s bank account is bigger than Spielberg’s.

Imagine sitting back and creating an entirely new world with a cast of dozens of characters never seen before in the history of fiction. Then imagine a handful of those characters becoming as important as Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny, or Superman.

How much Lukas was influenced by sci-fi stories before the creation of Star Wars is a question for historians and film buffs. A story about intergalactic war is certainly not new. In fact, it’s hard to create a sci-fi film without a planetary war or evil alien species. It’s also possible there have been a number of suits by writers claiming Lukas stole a character here or there, after all, nothing is truly original, so they say. But, it’s moot. There’s no need to take Lukas off his throne. He’s earned it.

Star Wars not only changed culture but also revolutionized film technology in ways that rival the revolutions of Microsoft.

Did I miss Harrison Ford? Yeah, he gave an edge to the first Star Wars film. In fact, I believe all the characters of the original were more enduring than subsequent series.

I am very bothered by not following Carrie Fisher’s career since her debut in Star Wars in 1977. No doubt I’ve seen her in other movies, but don’t remember.
Star Wars (the entire series) is such a spectacle that it’s hard to see the core components of screenwriting like character, theme, premise, and storyline. Well, character is obvious. But dialog and acting are not the strengths of Star Wars. In fact, much of the acting is really bad (not so much here, but in other Star Wars series). Still, out of the bad dialog comes some of the most famous lines in movie history.

There are so many firsts for Star Wars it’s mindboggling. People don’t say goodbye anymore, they say, “May the force be with you.” And when people joke about their pasts, they’ll often preface with, “In a galaxy far, far away.”
Clearly there are good guys and bad guys. And in Star Wars, the characters are more important than the actors playing the roles. This alone is an amazing feat since so many films are often star vehicles. Star Wars certainly launched many a career and enhanced others. But when you think of Star Wars, you think of the characters, not the actors.

I’d give anything to be a Jedi Knight. And I’m not a kid. Being a Jedi Knight is not only about doing good but about overcoming fear. It’s about allegience to the most important ideals of our times, like democracy.

Jedi Knights are the savers of the universe.

We have a lot of savers of the universe in sci-fi films, but none rival the likes of Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, C-3PO, R2-D2. Perhaps the only competitor might be Captain James T. Kirk at the helm of the Star Ship Enterprise…or Superman.

Something I wrestle with in almost all films is the creation of sympathy for bad or evil characters. Rather than creating sympathetic characters, we’ve ended up glorifying the most heinous villains, from Jesse James to Scarface.

It’s another subject, but the creation of sympathetic characters–especially villians–might explain why Conservatives characterized Hollywood as being so liberal. In real life, we don’t care how a serial killer came to be. We don’t care about his past, if his mother was a prostitute, or if he was locked up in a closet for 10 years. We just want him dead. But in the movies, we care more for Hannibal Lector than any of his victims.

And so it is with Darth Vader. We’re hooked, because we know Anakin Skywalker was once a Jedi Knight. It’s the Supreme Chancellor Palpatine who is the real enemy.

I believe it’s in Return of the Jedi where we are held in absolute suspense when Luke Skywalker faces off with Darth Vader (aka Anakin Skywalker), not only as father and son, but representing the forces of good and evil.

It’s amazing that movies can evoke such sympathies. By comparison, very few Americans were crying over Saddam Hussein’s downfall. We’re not the least bit interested in how his mother treated him.

Yet, moving past reaction and a demand for justice, there is a contingency of analysts who want to understand how such monsters are created. VICAP-Violent Criminal Apprenhension Program–was set up by the FBI to provide the most detailed profiles of the worst kinds of killers imaginable. Any average student of criminology knows there are patterns of behavior and similar upbringings that help explain, in part, how such monsters are created.

But is there an ultimate goal here? Are we really trying to understand the minds of criminals and evil-doers? Are we doing this so we can stop them or create a world where they cease to exist? Afterall, isn’t peace the ultimate mission in Star Wars, as in all sci-fi?

So Star Wars is definately not just entertainment. It’s full of meaning and morality. Every kid that buys a toy laser saber is thinking about being a Jedi Knight, or, in some cases, being a bad guy. Every Halloween since the first Star Wars in 1977, 1000s of little Jedi Knights roam the American landscape in search of peace, fighting the forces of evil, and being good little boys and girls who dare never venture to the Dark Side.

Elizabethtown

Elizabethtown

It is now official. I am in complete disagreement with the critics featured on Rotten Tomatoes almost all the time. I would really like to launch into a critique of critics, but I’ll save it for an Any Movie comment.

Hollywood knows how to pick a star. Not to sound self-contradictory, but there are stars who I don’t understand why they are stars. So, I’ll have to work on that. But, for the most part, stars in Hollywood are stars because they deserve to be stars. That needs to be checked. I’m not interested in stars, per se. I’m interested in actors/actresses. There is a big difference between being a star and being an actor/actress. That’s another Any Movie comment.

If I could have a romance, if I could relate to a woman the way Orlando Bloom relates to Kirsten Dunst, I’d be happy in love. And guess what? I’m not the biggest fan of either of these “stars.” I love Pirates of the Carribean. But it was Johnny Depp that carried me through the movie, Not Orlando. And with Spiderman, the role of Spiderman’s girlfriend probably could’ve been played by any of a dozen different actresses. It’s not a made for role. It’s a lucky role to get.

Imagine being in a movie where Susan Sarandon plays a supporting role. But they gave Susan her moment on stage, literally on a stage, and she took it.

Is this a great movie? No. But that doesn’t make it any less memorable. There are many movies considered great and I could care less. In fact, there are movies I absolutely loved and can’t even remember the titles.

This blog is not, and I’ll say it repeatedly, an attempt to be a critic. I think being a movie critic is one of the worst jobs on the planet. I’d rather work at McDonalds. This blog is to work through various elements of moviemaking and to express my love for movies.

I’m a hell of a lot more positive than critics. I’m not out to impress anyone.

My over-riding theme in this blog, along with my other blog, “Adventures of a Screenwriter,” found on WordPress, is a continual quest for “What is a story?”

What is the story here? I’m beginning to think most movies are in one way or another about redemption. Every movie is certainly about overcoming obstacles and/or overcoming adversity. Orlando’s character failed big time. However, the movie does not explain the nature of his failure, which left a big hole for me. Accepted at face value, Drew Baylor (Bloom) rose to the top of his game then for some reason, fell majorly from grace–what the movie called, a “fiasco.”

Fiasco was a good choice of words since it is most certainly more dramatic than just any old failure.

Do some scenes seem arbitary? Well, that just might hold true for any movie, and is what usually gets characterized as “suspension of disbelief.” Baylor just happens to be the only passenger on a plane? Claire (Dunst) just happens to be overly friendly and even gives Drew her telephone number? What a fantasy come true that is for any man. I would like to hear a real life story of a stewardess (or whatever they call them nowadys) giving her number to a passenger.

Some things in movies I don’t get. I don’t know why the mother and daughter of the deceased did not go to Kentucky for the funeral, well, at least not until later in the movie. That also might seem contrived–a chance for Bloom and Dunst to do their thing.

Apparently Drew’s father, the deceased, and focus of all the attention, was involved in a deal gone bad. And those responsible were in attendance at the funeral. But what deal went wrong and the ramifications thereof were never really made clear.

What was the meaning behind Chuck and Cindy’s wedding at the hotel where Drew stayed? Well, it could be very simple–showing the fine line between life and death, or, love and death.

Why did Drew stay at a hotel when everyone involved in the funeral were such close friends of his father? Surely someone would’ve had him stay at their home.

I don’t particularly like romantic comedies. And honestly, one of the reasons is that I get jealous. I don’t particularly like seeing the actress of my desire being wooed by some fool. I don’t indentify with the male pursuer. Instead, I want him out of the way. Here, it was entirely different. I really wanted Bloom and Dunst to be together.

I loved the long phone conversation they had together, one that didn’t end until they were face to face hours later. I’ve had that happen in real life and it’s a feel good thing. We do a lot of crazy things when we talk on the phone. Bloom washes his socks and Dunst changes the cat litter. Those kinds of bits make movies happen.

There are things in this movie that don’t make sense and I do understand, to some degree, why the critics were so critical. But again, I emphasis, I do not accept the role of critics in the movie industry. Movies should be seen and heard without any prejudice or bias before viewing. Check and balance your feelings afterwords, is fine.

This is a slice of life movie. It’s more a string of vignettes with a loosely knit love story holding it together. So what. Get out of it what you can. You know, sometimes, actors and actresses are just fun to watch.

The point is, when you fail, it’s not the end of the world.

CRITICS: ONE STEP AWAY FROM GOSSIP

Critics: One Step Away From Gossip

I’ve personally known movie critics. And the one thing that amazed me was that they had never worked on a set, never written a screenplay, never worked in Hollywood. And the worst thing, was that they wrote movie reviews because they couldn’t get jobs writing anything else. AND, they did it for free.

It’s quite clear that America–the world–takes the movie biz seriously. Simply imagine a world without movies. It’s almost as though the entire cultural fabric of the world would collapse. So good or bad, movies are here to stay and they are an important part of our lives.

So when movie critics are trite, or condescending, or use language that is more difficult to decipher than the meaning of the movie itself, I wonder what is their purpose?

Critics are no more important to me than gossip columnists or rag mags. I really don’t give a shit if Tom Cruise jumps up and down on a couch on the Oprah Winfrey show. And it’s certainly no reason to can his ass after he’s made gazillions for the studio that fired him. No, Mel Gibson’s career is not over because he got drunk and said stupid things. There’s a good bet the photographer who got hit by Russel Crowe deserved it. DeNiro punched someone too, if I’m not mistaken.

The only context in which these incidents might make sense is the context that these individuals are multi-millionaires. But if I put money aside and look at people as people, then their actions are no less alarming that the stupid things the rest of us do on a daily basis.

I don’t believe I’ve ever read a movie review that made me want to see a movie. I don’t believe I’ve ever read a movie review that kept me from seeing a movie.

A movie cannot be summed up in a sound byte. In fact, Hollywood itself is guilty of this as well. “This movie is great!” “A surefire blockbuster!” And other such pretentious accolades–made even more pretentious when the movie sucks.

I love the movies. I don’t have a favorite one. I don’t have a favorite Top 10. I have a favorite 1000…and maybe another 1000 after that.

Let’s look at the big picture here (pun intended). Just what is the purpose of a critic? What role do they really play? Is it too affect box office? Is it to prevent audiences from being shocked, disapointed or affected in some negative way? Isn’t that the role of the church, to ban movies deemed immoral?

Some of the best experiences of my life, and I’m including real life experiences like marriage or school or jobs or journey’s, are movies. Movies have a profound affect on my life. And considering the fact that millions of others see movies, I’m not all that different.

If you want to guide me, fine. If you want to point out bad acting, or bad writing, or the overuse of f/x, fine. Certainly, these are valid criticisms. Some movies I cannot for the life of me understand how the hell they got made. But I’ll discuss this with you AFTER you’ve seen the movie, not before.

So just when does a critic write his/her review? I’m guilty here of the same thing I’m criticising. I’m writing about movies that someone might read before they’ve seen a film. I’m even worse, because I don’t care if I give away the plot or the ending.

But, I’m also writing for those who’ve already seen the movies I’ve seen. If you haven’t seen the movie, then don’t read anything. Judge for yourself.

I’ve spent years learning how to write screenplays. I’ve sold one but it will never get produced. I’m now working on several works-in-progress. And what goes into writing a screenplay is far beyond most movie goer’s understanding of how movies are made.

Every movie is a small company, if not large company. Don’t ignore the credits. Embrace them. Hundreds, maybe even a 1000 people put a movie together. In the making of a movie, rarely are any of those jobs despensible. I want to understand what these people do. I want to know how movies are made. I want to know how they are conceived. I want to know the mechanics behind “greenlighting.”

But obviously, for many critics, their role is not to educate. They play mini-Gods with their arrogant and pretentious “thumbs up/thumbs down” approach to movies. You want to rate movies in terms of 5 stars? OK, then be prepared to take what you dish out. I give critics a thumbs down and a star rating of zero.

61 (the movie)

61

I’m not much of a sports fan. Winning a game is not my idea of triumph. Neither is war for that matter. In fact, to be triumphant is not much in my books. I got a problem with dividing people into winners and losers. Realistically, we are. We’re split right down the middle. And the ultimate goal in life seems to be to reach number one. Never settle for second best. And being second best means you’re a loser.

I have not psychologically and philosophically reconciled the human quest to compete–to be number one–to break all records. I don’t believe the need to compete is born out of some Darwinian limited resources thing. Perhaps there is some tie-in to our primitive prehistoric self. And current sports obviously have their roots in ancient Rome.

But whether or not this is some inate drive or one born from capitalism and the need to dominate, to have power over others. And is it a need or a want?

What’s the reason for this line of questioning? Because it informs the quest to find out “what is a story,” or what makes a good story.

Our emotions are wrapped up in the win/lose aspects of a game–and it’s by no means just an American thing. I’ve known men–many men–who only express themselves emotionally during a game, either playing or watching. And, it’s one of society’s most puzzling issues is men expressing themselves or being able to talk.

We celebrate the strong, silent type. Yet, most wives can’t talk to their husbands. This guy could be a winner in every respect: captain of a football team, successful company or job, lot’s of friends, well-respected. But you’d never know what he feels.

The creation of the alpha male–a winner–is not the theme of 61. It’s a movie about hero worship. And we read all kinds of things into the act of hitting a ball with a club. We identify with Mantle and Maris as two heros striving to be their best. We admire their friendship even though they are competing to beat a world record. We are carried along with them as they face adversity. This is the stuff of stories.

But there are questions I ask that I strongly suspect no other fans of this movie are asking. I’m wondering about Maris’ wife and I’m wondering about all the fans that worshiped Mantle and Maris, or fans of any other sports hero.

I’m going to draw a quick parallel, because this is a running theme for me in understanding human nature, and ultimately what movies and stories are about. We focus on Hitler and not the 3rd Reich or the citizens of Germany. One man stands above all the rest.

We create Gods and demi-Gods and Anti-Gods and they get all the attention. What about Maris’s wife? Was she just a housewife and a child bearer who rooted in the stands every time her husband hit a homerun? What about all those fans, their stories, their lives, there loves, hates, wins and losses?

Well, stories can’t be told about a group. Stories must have a protagonist and an antagonist. There was no real enemy in 61. There were obstacles, like Babe Ruth’s record, a team owner that could trade a player at the drop of a hat, a beligerent press, and the pressure of a crowd hungry for satisfaction.

There was some tension and conflict created by Mantle’s drinking and philandering. But both vices were downplayed so much so they carried little weight in terms of how Mantle was judged as a person.

This calls to mind another delimma–heroes can do no wrong. We, the fans, will excuse the most horrendous behavior. But, this is true only in some cases, and I think there’s a lot of hypocracy in this regard. We also like to tear down superstars from their ivory towers. Only recently has the press had a field day with Britney Spears empty marriages, Mel Gibson’s drunkeness and anti-Jew remarks and Tom Cruise’s jumping up and down on the Oprah Winfrey show. To a lot of people–this stuff is news. These careers were nearly destroyed. What could be more devastating than Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction?

Sorry, I have to gossip for a minute. I don’t get the Tom Cruise thing. Supposedly he was demonstrating excitement for his new found love, Katie Holmes. He was just married to one of the most beautiful and talented actresses in Hollywood, Nicole Kidman. Is this guy a little greedy or what?
Out of all the body of work Janet Jackson has contributed to the history of music, all her concerts, her dancing, her relationships and the very essence of her being, she is reduced to one single regretful act during 1/2 time at a football game.

Meanwhile, her brother Michael, has fans that would literally die for him, so it seems, and steadfastly deny all the claims about his alleged sexual orientation and plastic surgery operations.
So, what amazes me about hero worship, beyond the fact that most heroes happen to be in sports and music, is how denigrating and self-deprecating the worshipers are. We think of ourselves as small. Some of us get so negative we tell ourselves and those around us that we’ll never amount to anything. Why even bother entering a race when you were born a loser?

Then there are those who think they are winners, but no one else does. We applaude generals who win battles and wars without the slightest thought or feeling for the 1000s who lost their lives…UNLESS, the lives lost are on the winning side.

Well, I’ve read far too much into this movie than what is there. For Billy Crystal, it’s a display of hero worship and an ode to two of the most famous players in baseball history.

Screenplay note: Screenwriters are always searching for ideas for stories. Of course, one of the easiest is historical figures. The story is already written. The subject matter is well known. Braveheart was unique in that Gibson picked a lesser known historical figure–educational is not a dirty word. The bio I’d love to see is on Bill Gates. The Beatles runs the risk of the look-a-like contest that has happened with Elvis and Sinatra/Rat Pack movies. I’ve never seen better acting than Helen Mirren in Elizabeth I. And I haven’t seen The Queen yet either. The same actress plays both Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II. How do you do that?

Art of War

Art of War

What an excellently made movie. I was prejudiced against Wesley Snipes–no, not because he’s black–don’t be silly. I think it was from his silly role as Simon Phoenix in Demolition Man with Sly Stalone. But then, I was also impressed by him in Liberty Stands Still.

I’ve seen other Snipe films, like Blade, U.S. Marshals, and others, but need to revisit them.

Anyway, Art of War was made in 2000, but the movie cemented it for me with Snipes. He does what he does–and he’s really good at it. Some of the martial arts sequences in this movie are fantastic, and I’m not a martial arts fan. I love his seriousness. I love how he cares, particularly how he cares about Julia Fang, played by Marie Matiko.

Matiko was great too, warm, but with lotza attitude as well.

This is an action film but it damn near came close to being an art film, or should I say, it was filmed artistically. Christian Duguay did a great job of direction. I only know him from one other work, Human Trafficking, which also had Donald Sutherland, along with Mira Sorvino.

But, credit really should go to the DP, editor, art direction, f/x, and sets.

Alot of things I don’t always notice on first pass of a movie. I missed the score on this one. This is ironic, since music is my primary focus, with screenwriting coming second. Well, I notice music supervision more than scoring, because I’m a songwriter, not a film composer.

It pisses me off that I miss things. And it pisses me off that some scores are so effective, they go unnoticed, as they are meant to. I’m torn on this, since in some movies, like John Williams, themes play an integral role in the film. In other movies, scoring is used to heighten the story without detracting from it.

There is a fun scene between Neil Shaw (Snipes) and Robert Bly (Michael Biehn). Biehn is also intense. It’s a fight scene where the two square off and it’s just fun and exciting to watch.

Sutherland does a fine job portraying Douglas Thomas, United Nations honcho. It’s not a big role, but Sutherland plays it tight. I was a little uneasy about Anne Archer, playing Eleanor Hooks, right hand “man” to Sutherland, because I found her too sexy. Well, that’s my problem.

You can cut the story two ways: It’s a bit unbelievable that UN officials would be involved in a plot to thwart a trade agreement between China and America. But then again, I wonder, just how dirty is the United Nations? And the story does draw attention to China/US relations, something we really need to take a look at more in the coming years (to wit, the movie made 6 years ago from the time of this writing).

North Korea is posing a major threat to world security, and where China fits into the nuclear game is controversial and puzzling.

We need to get past the “Triad” depictions of China’s underground and heroin stereotypes. This is a nation of what, a billion people? Certainly there are more stories than drugs or martial arts.

The two main leads in this movie where black and Asian. What a nice change that is.

I’d like to see Snipes in a serious drama, without action, without martial arts. Well, maybe not without action. He’s so serious and so intense. He’s a great action hero. But I’d like to see him “act” more. Maybe he already has, and I just haven’t caught it yet. He’s done a ton of movies since the Art of War.

I’m going to watch this movie again, because of it’s colors and I’ve never seen glass break so artistically before.

I’m still trying to figure out how much of a role the screenplay plays in action movies. Since it’s action, that’s what you’re caught up in, not the story or the dialog, or even the characters, per se. I don’t know how much of the action was created by the screenplay or created during the filmmaking process.

Best In Show

Best In Show

Do you ever listen to the music during the credits? I do almost every movie. And in Best of Show, the most ingenius jazz piece plays. Pure fun, like the movie.

Best in Show isn’t funny as much as it’s fun. There are moments when I did laugh out loud. But, much of the time I was intrigued at what “assholes” these characters were. We can’t avoid R or X rated words or comments here because they’re too befitting for many movies. And Best of Show is really about assholes.

It’s assumed that most everyone knows what an asshole is, or who an asshole is. This is really significant considering that movies are about characters, driven by characters.

There’s not much of a story here. It was a delight as to who won “Best in Show,” the two most downtrodden characters in the movie. They suffered the most heartache, or more so, the male, played by Eugene Levy, who I saw in A Mighty Wind, but don’t remember the film.

Everywhere they went, some “asshole” remembered screwing his wife. In the opening of the film, she claimed to having 100s of lovers, to his chagrin. When they got to the hotel for the dog show, they’re credit card was declined. Being low on cash, the hotel manager put them up in the utility closet. Well, it turns out, they won “Best in Show.”

Parker Posey is one of those actor/actresses who is funny just by nature. she is mesmerizing and a free spirit at the same time. I’m still waiting to see her in a powerfully dramatic role. She’s been in a slew of movies I’ve never seen. I saw her in Party Girl and possibly the House of Yes. But my memory is bad. She was also in The Mighty Wind, which I also don’t remember.

This isn’t a movie about how much dog owners are like their dogs: a sequel or other movie is in order. And I’d like to have seen more about how people live with their animals and the role animals play in peoples lives and in society. Well, you’ve only got 2 hours at best, so you have to go for a slice-of-life. And that slice of life is winning an annual dog show.

The portrayal of both lesbian and gay characters was interesting because instead of focusing on the stereotype of lesbians and gays, the movie took a look at what “assholes” lesbians and gays can be. They’re just like anyone else, where character outshines sexual orientation, class, education or status.

Bob Balaban goes back all the way to Midnight Cowboy. I’ve seen him in many movies, most of which I’ve forgotten. That’s not a reflection of his talent, but a reflection of my memory. I certainly remember him in Close Encounters of a 3rd Kind.

Balaban calls to mind the need I have to trace the careers of many character actors. I’d like to gather up all the movies Balaban has done to see the roles he’s played, the kinds of films he’s chosen to be in (or films that chose him), and how he’s developed as an actor. Plus, it would take me into many movies I’ve never seen.

Other character actors in this movie with long lists of credits: Ed Begley, Jr., Jennifer Coolidge (who I remember in Legally Blonde 2), Catherine O’Hara (I remember in Beetle Juice), and others.

So, this movie was a good character sketch.