Breakfast on Pluto

Breakfast on Pluto
I take movies seriously. And even though I understand the importance of entertainment, and, that I really do like to be entertained, I have abhored the notion that movies are for entertainment. Well, Breakfast On Pluto sure changed that view. This movie is great entertainment. I no longer need a message or meaning or whatever.

Wait…this doesn’t mean it’s trite. It’s not a stupid mindless cartoon to keep me sitting in front of the TV so I stay out of trouble. There is so much good acting in this, and such a great story, and a slew of plenty of messages, that it’s hard to see it all because I’m so busy being entertained.

I believe the critics hated this movie. But any movie featuring a transsexual or transvestite is an automatic subject turn-off for many.

Very important: This movie is a testament to the importance of a music supervisor. Most people don’t know the difference between a film composer and a music supervisor. Every song in this movie tries to match the action and usually succeeds. I’m not sure if there is an academy award for music supervision. There should be. And this movie wins.

This movie is a journey. I always felt the best movies were journeys, like Apocalypse Now.
You must realize that three of the best Irish actors in the world are in this movie: Liam Neeson, Brendon Gleeson, and Stephan Rea. Well, that’s not fair. Because everyone in this movie is fantastic, and I mean everyone. And there’s no such thing as best. I just happen to love those three named actors.

This is one of those movies where you are so taken by all the characters that you forget about the star: Cillian Murphy. His performance is so brilliant that it goes unnoticed, like all the best acting jobs. Same thing for writing and direction. When it’s good, you don’t notice. You’re just enraptured in the movie; in the story. Other credits get taken for granted too, like art direction, cinematography, set design, costuming.
There’s an obvious 60s flavor to the movie, particularly with an emphasis on Bobby Goldsboro, an artist “Kitten” happens to like. This movie was made in 2005, and could very well have had a contemporary soundtrack. Here’s a cliche: they sure don’t write songs like they used to. Songs from the 60s were so melodic; so memorable. It’s damn near impossible to sing along with alt rock today, even though fans do it.

There are some amazing scenes in this movie, but nothing more shocking and unexpected than when the danceclub gets blown up in a terrorist attack. It happens during a Bobby Goldsboro song and a tender moment.

In many ways, this movie was over my head. The tie-in of Kitten’s search for his mother and the IRA is something I haven’t got yet. That’s why I need to see the movie a couple more times.

Kitten gets the crap beat out of him, with the police suspecting him of planting the bomb in the club.

I honestly can’t believe a move can be this creative. Well, yes I can. It’s why I love movies. I am mesmerized by talent. I am mesmerized by how so many people who do so many different things can come together and make something like this happen. I’m even thinking of the casting agent, or the gaffer, or the script supervisor.

And this is a dirty business? This is a business where all the studio execs are pricks, bitches and assholes? It’s a cutthroat, competitive evil industry filled with self-indulgent egomaniacs?

A second terrorist attack happens in the Father’s home (Neeson) while Kitten and — sleep. Only this isn’t the IRA. It’s a moral thing against Kitten’s sexuality and how the Father condones it.

The turning line in the movie: I went looking for my mother and I found you. Neeson turns out to be Kitten’s real father.

I honestly cannot believe out of a 110 or so critics that reviewed this film that it was divided down the middle. I just can’t reconcile this. But then, I’ve known people who hated multiple Academy Award winning films. And there are tons of fans of the stupidest movies ever made. So, this movie puts me right smack dab in the middle of the “either you like it or you don’t debate.”

As mentioned in a separate “Any Movie” note, I am not a critic. I am not a film reviewer. This journal here at Rotten Tomatoes is simply a way of capturing the many films I’ve seen and hopefully saying something about the movie that is relevant to screenwriting and moviemaking.

The thing I hate most about movie reviews is the affect they have an audiences before a movie is seen. No one should ever read reviews before they see a movie. It’s downright immoral. Film discussion should take place after a movie is seen.

I think a person is an idiot who does not see a movie because of something a critic said.

Commitments

Commitments

Some films are void of pretention. And perhaps the best movies are movies that are honest in the storytelling, honest in the acting. That’s exactly what the Commitments is: an honest portrayal of how music is sometimes the only way to rise above the working class life. Using classic soul music as a bridge, it’s the same in Dublin as it is in Detroit.

There are no stars in this movie. And it just goes to show how sometimes stars get in the way.

If there is a star, it would be the music. At the most basic level, the purpose of music elevates us above the reality of everyday life. It’s transcendent. This movie shows how ordinary working class people can be transformed into shining stars through music.
You’ll have to love 60s soul music to appreciate this movie. If there is any subtext, it would be how both England (the British Invasion) and Ireland, if not all of Europe and white Americans exploited black music, blues and soul. Nobody is trying to rip anything off here. If anything else, it’s a celebration of how black music has influenced and informed the world.

There is a lot of humor and real life behind the music, which only serves to enhance how music is a way to elevate above everyday life, if only for a while.

This is an Alan Parker creation, based on a short novel.

There was plenty of opportunity for a love story. A couple of sexual escapades, not shown, and some romantic tension, but that’s as close to any kind of love story the movie comes.

I don’t think a love story would’ve taken anything away from the movie. It might’ve helped tie in the story of the band with the story of Dublin. Dublin was portrayed realistically, and the choice of locations and the way they were filmed helped to make Dublin a character in the film. So the movie doesn’t fail. A love story is just a thought.

Using a less than leading man as the lead vocal in the band was a wise choice to draw attention to the music and not the “look” of music, something that has prevailed in the music industry particularly since the birth of MTV. Today, every artist is a model first. In the 60s, there were certainly a stream of sex stars, but it wasn’t an absolute criteria for musical success. Mic Jagger was certainly never pretty nor was Janis Joplin and if they were, the music wouldn’t have been the same.

The movie was made in 1991, but classic soul lives on forever.

Da Vinci Code

Da Vinci Code

The Da Vinci Code marks a turning point for me in how I view movies. It’s the first time I read the novel before seeing the film. Dan Brown’s novel has to be one if not the most influential novel I’ve ever read.

From time to time I’ve heard from other movie watchers, “You need to read the novel,” or, “It’s not as good as the novel,” pertaining to numerous other films past and present. I rarely read novels, so I blew off their comments and took the movies I saw at face value.

In terms of the movie itself, there’s very little to criticize. Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Akiva Goldman, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina, Ian McKellen–can do no wrong. Relative newcomer Audrey Tautou was equally exceptional. The direction, acting, cinematography, sets, costumes, all fit together in a wonderful film.

But if the film has a flaw–and a fatal one at that–is that it is simply too short. Dan Brown’s novel is huge, extremely complex, and filled with detail. If Lord of the Rings could be done in 3 movies, well, the Davinci Code could definately have been done in two, at least.

But then, I am extremely biased. I don’t know if I’m watching the movie or seeing the book in my head. Remember, this book blew me away–it changed my life. And months after having read it, I’m still realing.

It isn’t so much that Brown’s book revealed the truth, it’s that he asks you to question the truth. Brown is too smart to pretend that regardless of how much research into historical accuracy, he’s not about to single-handedly turn Christianity into a scam.

But I tell ya, for me, he did just that. I don’t know enough about history, and I don’t think I could know, given the obscurity of the historical record. But I have become significantly more suspicious of the foundations on which Christianity is built. And I was already suspicious.

I wanted someone to come along and reaffirm these suspicions. And Brown did that.

I am appalled by male domination in all realms of human endeavor. But it is particularly appalling in the Church.

Even still, despite the “Sacred Feminine,” the movie remains decidedly male. It was directed by a male, written by a male, and the dominant lead role is male.

Howard says in the Special Features that the movie is more about Spophie Neveu (Tautou) than anything else. But when you pit a superstar like Hanks against a relatively unknown French actress like Tautou, well, where do you think the focus will be?

I have not had the opportunity to have in-depth conversations with anyone concerning the Da Vinci Code. With people I meet, who either read the book or saw the movie, I will blurt out that the Da Vinci Code is about women–it’s the ultimate in feminist preaching. I’ll get a nod, as if everyone agrees. But they don’t seem to be as taken by this notion as I am.

I would love to ask Brown, “What are the implications of the Da Vinci code for women?”

How is it that women have been systematically crushed by men throughout history, and what role has the church–all religions–played in this?

Why aren’t women rising up in celebration of this book? Or are they, and I just haven’t noticed?

And the ultimate question, what makes the Da Vinci Code one of the best selling novels, perhaps in all publishing history?

An even BIGGER question: Despite it’s popularity, has it changed the way we do business? Did it really bring Christianity into question?

During the Bush administration, Evangelicals continue to march on their war path as if the Da Vinci Code never existed. Women and gays are still subjugated, and in the case of gays, reviled. The church is still divided between black and white–literally.

This book and this movie made me ask a lot of questions about history, culture and the very structure of society.

To others, it’s just another movie.

I do have another comment. This is the second time I’ve seen a movie where the male and female leads have no romantic ties, or only a hint of one, at best. It first happened in The Intepreter with Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn.

By contrast, I wonder if the Titanic would’ve been as successful without the love story.

Equilibrium

Equilibrium

Equilibrium fails because of two scenes: Cleric John Preston (Christian Bale) let’s a group of resistence fighters die. He looks one of them in the eye before they are slaughter. True, he tried to save them before they were killed. Even worse, he let Mary O’Brien (Emily Watson) be incinerated. Adding to this, the movie opens with him having allowed his wife to be destroyed.

Although he goes on to try and free the resistence, it’s impossible to feel anything for this character other than contempt. His good does not outweigh the bad. This is ironic since this movie is about a man learning how to feel.

It’s a futuristic tale where a Fascist regime has outlawed freedom and any show of emotion is met with death. Soldiers for the regime are forced to take Prozium, a drug designed to kill emotion.

I think this is bad writing. The destruction of life to bring to light something good. Million Dollar Baby made this same mistake for me. I will never watch Million Dollar Baby again because it is utterly too tragic.

Am I pro happy ending? Absolutely. In the case of Million Dollar Baby, I was terribly upset to spend an entire movie watching a character grow and fullfill her dream only to have her destroyed in the end.

In Equilibrium, I have to live with the torture that he allowed Emily Watson to be burned to death. This left at lasting image that made me no longer care for the rest of the movie. She was made into a very sympathetic character. Why destroy her? Why not save her?

This is the second movie I’ve seen Emily Watson play a woman hurt by men (Red Dragon). I haven’t seen her other movies, but I would like to see her in a more substantial role.

This movie could’ve easily taken the turn to saving her and destroying the powers that be at the same time.

So it seems to me some sort of ironic act of cruelty on the part of the writers and filmmakers to destroy the most sympathetic character in the movie.

I could’ve accepted the movie at face value concerning the fight sequences, but because of it’s fatal flaw, I have no choice but to also criticize it as a spin-off or rip-off of Matrix (1999).

– is a good enough actor. I’ll watch him in other movies.

But it’s interesting to me that the roles an actor chooses to play can condemn them throughout their career. Maybe less than 5 actors/actresses in the history of filmmaking–as I know it–have managed to rise above playing horrible characters.

But, in fact, because of this movie and Million Dollar Baby, I’m really beginning to question these careers and the movies they made. For instance, Al Pacino in Scarface: why would he be celebrated for having played such a dispicable character? What is it about American culture or the American movie going experience that would have such a large audience think Scarface was cool?

Another example is Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. He plays a character that openly admits even in the dialog fo the film, that he killed women and children. And we, the audience, are supposed to be forgiving of this because he destroys an evil sherrif and revenges the death of a friend (Morgan Freeman), who also happened to a hired killer?

Where in real life are we ever that forgiving? What killer of women and children could possibly find redemption in our eyes?

Or am I looking at this from the wrong angle?

The most serious criticism of movies and TV is too much violence. But maybe this is not a valid criticism. Maybe the majority loves violence. Afterall, the biggest killers in movie making history are the biggest superstars–and, we’ve turned them into multi-millionaires. On top of this, we took one of the biggest killers of all and made him govenor of California.

Let me use Shawshank Redemption as a contrast. — was innocent of the crime he was convicted of. So when he escapes, it’s valid we would cheer. Can we really feel the same about Morgan Freeman, who admitted he committed the act of murder, but after 50 years, we feel he’s paid his debt to society?

Here’s a bigger question: Do movies reflect our moral beliefs or distort them or exploit them? Can a man released on parole after committing a heinous crime of murder actually be considered to have paid his debt to society? Is this our law? What about the people who loved the victim? Do they feel justice has been served?

And then, who cares. It’s just fiction. It’s only a movie. But, I’m not entertained. I’m not eating popcorn and enjoying the fact that I watched a sympathetic character slaughtered for the sheer sake of violence when the movie could’ve easily taken another direction and protected this character against evil.

No wonder no one knows what they feel. No wonder a group of people can stand around a dead body with a decapitated head, light up a cigarette, drink a cup of coffee, and ask the person next to them if they happen to know the latest sports score.

Friends with Money

Friends with Money

Not much of a story line here. Sort of in the tradition of Robert Altman’s, Nashville, a series of vignettes or character schetches. It’s a slice-of-life, as they call it, and at that level, it works.

I prefer a great story, although I am endlessly searching for the definition of just exactly what that is. there are so many different kinds of stories and so many different ways to tell them that there is no one-size-fits-all.

You live, you die–is not a story. Bad guy commits crime, good good catches bad guy, is a little better. And the classic, boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl in the end is a story, but not all stories fit the model.

Find a missing person. come back from the dead. catch a thief, fall in love, fight a war, go on a journey.
Well, according to screenwriting theory, a story is about a flawed character overcoming obstacles to reach a desired goal.

There’s a good guy and a bad guy (or girl). There’s conflict. There are obstacles. There is the moment when the antogonist is at his/her weakest point. There are friends. There are friends of the enemy.

I am currently anti anything Jennifer Anniston (Nov 2006). This is ironic since i loved her in Friends, and I never watch TV. The industry is making her out to be a bigger star than she really is. A of Nov 2006, I was amazed by a visit to Hollywood Video at how many current titles featured Anniston.

I don’t necessarily think as an actress she should be exploiting her sexuality, but it is ironic that considering she’s a sex symbol, not of the roles I’ve seen really capture her sexuality. In Friends with Money, she masterbates off screen with someone else’s vibrator (she plays the part of a maid) and it’s halarious. she also dresses up in a classic French maid outfit and looks great, but then, there’s very few women who would not look great in a classic French maid outfit. The scene was more for humor than sex, and it was definately funny.
This movie is filled with “movie moments.” if story is less important and bits, vignettes, and dialog exchanges are the thing, then this movie scores big. Anniston is surrounded by three of the best actresses in Hollywood: Frances Mcdormand, Joan Cusak, and Catherine Keener. The male performances were all excellent. The movie took a good look at suburbia, the blandness, the boredom, the neurosis.

After Lovely and Amazing, there’s not much director/writer Nicole Holofcener can do wrong in my eyes.

I really enjoyed this movie. Real characters; honest performances. Sincere.

I’m not sure if there’s much of a character arc for any of the characters.

I laugh the most in movies that don’t pretend to be comedies. Joan Cusak and Jennifer Anniston are two actresses that can cross the lines between serious and comedy. It’s just that with Anniston, I’m too busy thinking about her new found stardom than I am her acting.

This is a good portrayal of women, true-to-life characters living day to day. This is not easy to do since most real people are not all that dramatic. They’re normal, average everyday people who pretty much go through life unnoticed. And, in fact, these are the kinds of characters i want to watch, learn about, and identity with.

Obviously such characters as Queen Elizabeth, William Wallace or Truman Capote are interesting. But such characters are already larger-than-life, and offer much more in the way of acting and storytelling than “normal” folks.

Ordinary stories about ordinary characters run the risk of being ordinary.

Good Night, and Good Luck

Good Night, and Good Luck

Good Night, And Good Luck is a reminder of everything that’s wrong with print and broadcast journalism today. News is disguised as entertainment, and the circuses that have prevailed in the last couple of decades show that it is bad entertainment at best.

Some recent events were so over-covered, it was clear there was some kind of conspiracy to make an entire nation go blind. The O.J. Simpson case, the shenanigans of Michael Jackson, and Bill Clinton’s sexual fiasco are three solid examples.
We still have heroes in journalism, but we’re missing an Edward P. Murrow, a Walter Kronkite and a Woodward and Bernstein. This country has been in the grips of a Republican stronghold that has blinded it deeper than anything during the McCarthy era. And the fact that one single Senator from Wisconsin terrorized an entire nation, demonstrates clearly how easily the American public can be manipulated.

Ah, but editorials aside, what does this movie say about Hollywood’s ability to make meaningful movies? It says Hollywood is not afraid to make meaningful movies. Anyone watching this movie will clearly see, even without past historical knowledge of the McCarthy era, how Edward P. Murrow was not afraid to go after a ruthless and misguided despot who’s wrath had crippled the very foundations of American freedom.

And in watching a movie about a hero not afraid to stand up against tyranny, how can one not be influenced and inspired to do the same? If not inspired, then at least given the green light to question anything and everything that goes on in politics, corporate offices and on the streets.

Why have we not captured Osama Bin Laden? Why was the 9/11 Report, which clearly stated there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, completely ignored? Why is Bushes war on gay marriage so important? And is the United States caught in an international quagmire? Are we hated by more than just Muslim insurgents?

There is still a right wing in America hellbent on covering up America’s weaknesses. This same right wing is convinced that America is God–we are the best. We do no wrong. This utter arrogance is creating isolationism, the likes of which the US is ill-equiped to handle. The world will turn it’s back on us and when it does, we’re on our own.

But it’s worse than outside dissent. There is dissent within US shores. We voted Bush and his evangelical zealots into office, but there’s a huge part of America that does not think that way at all. Allegedly, in the 2006 House and Senate elections, the switch of power to the Democrats is supposedly a reflection of this opposition.

But it’s political stupidity to completely equate liberalism with Democrats and conservatism with Republicans. If there is one thing both party’s share, it’s the ability to screw up.

Good Night, and Good Luck was not about political party conflicts, per se, with the exception that McCarthy was a Republican. But it is about how succeptable this country is to witch hunts, from McCarthy to the Ken Starr report.

Edward P. Murrow’s fight against McCarthy is not as amazing as the American public’s weakness in being intimidated by McCarthy’s scare tactics. How is it that this country, or any country, can be so homogenized into thinking one way and one way only? How does such a process take place? It is an ingenious act for a man like McCarthy who can come along and exploit public fear like the fear of communism during the 40s and 50s.

I just can’t reconcile that an entire nation can be numbed by the same opiate. The US is a nation of free thinkers, so the edict of democracy states. If so, where are the voices of dissent? Where are the voices of criticism, analysis based on fact, the voices of reason and the quest for truth?

Well, clearly, the biggest blinders of all is money. This is reflected in the movie and in our current state of affairs. We are all answering to advertisers.

But the catch is in the word “we.” It is “us” who are bamboozled by advertising. Is is us who the news departments cater too when they turn the news into entertainment tid bits and soundbytes. Is it not a question of supply and demand? Are the networks not simply feeding us what we want?

Based on that theoretical notion, I can only conclude that America does not want to know the truth…about anything.

So, this movie is about a true hero.

Save the Last Dance

Save the Last Dance

I love a white girl who can handle herself in a hip hop crowd. Yeah, OK, so it’s a little watered down. This is not a hardcore gangsta movie.

Movie started out with me immediately liking Julia Stiles. A sad tone, with her mother killed in a car accident just before Julia’s Julliard audition. So you immediately start to care what happens.

It is an amazing ability of movies and in screenwriting to be able to draw an audience in from the very first scene. Sometimes it’s done dramatically. Other times, you just happen to fall immediately in love with the lead character.
It’s a traditional set-up but a set-up that works. You know the players, you know the mood, and there’s anticipation of what will happen next. You’re not asking what’s going on (like the hell I went through with Undermind–see review).

This is a dance movie that doesn’t skip on the story.

It’s not easy always easy to like the hip hop crowd, when they’re portrayed as unfeeling gangstas. There’s a rough crowd here. A good dose of reality. But you care about these people.

Julia Stiles pulls off something that is just amazing. It must be the actress. She’s beautiful without being beautiful. She’s so sincere. So real. Who wouldn’t want her as a friend?

Sean Patrick Thomas is good too.

The soundtrack is excellent. Well recorded; well mixed.

Thomas and Stiles are excellent together.

It’s rare to see a dancer than can act or an actress that can dance.

There is something about the dialog in this movie–simple but effective. It really pulls Thomas and Stiles together.

The black/white issue is handled intelligently and with taste.

In screenwriting, it’s said that what you see in the movie is not really what the story is about. For instance, Rocky wasn’t about boxing, it was about redemption; overcoming obstacles. But, that theory isn’t completely true anymore, even though the point is made. Rocky was definately about boxing.

And Save the Last Dance is about dancing. Yes, the theme is about realizing your dreams. So, in theory, this could’ve been a movie about a female pilot, acrobat, doctor, whatever. Dancing is just the stuff used to make the theme come alive. But we can’t ignore substance. Pursuing the dream of doctor is an entirely different world than the world of a dancer.

Stiles is a great dancer.
The movie was sexy, but sex never got in the way of the story. It just goes to show, if the writers and photographers care about the characters, most likely, so will the audience. Sex and violence are obviously a part of life. You can tell a story with sex and violence, or just focus on the sex and violence. This is the art of storytelling. I’ll use another example. You can tell a story with cars in it, or just focus on the cars and not care about story.

The best movies focus on the story.

The movie is well integrated. There are several facets of the plot with a mix of characters, but they all fit together without drifting from the main theme: making dreams come true.

It’s brave to throw a white girl into an all-black cast. Much of the dramatic tension comes from supporting characters concerned about Thomas and Stiles relationship. It’s a black guy and a white girl. But it’s not whites who are prejudiced. It’s blacks.

Dramatic tension is maintained without losing control. There’s nothing artificial about the conflicts between Thomas and Stiles.

Characters fuck up in this movie, but in a true to life way. There’s nothing unrealistic about this movie. And some people can’t be saved. Others save themselves.

I don’t think Sarah (Stiles) gives her father enough chance. It’s not explained what he did wrong, either that or I missed it. but he goes out of his way to make up for any wrong doing. She selfishly yearns for her dead mother more than appreciate the love of a living father. But I’m gettin’ real nit-picky here.

Noticeably, each time Sarah auditions at Julliard, something violent happens. The first time her mother dies. The second time, Derek’s (Thomas) friend gets arrested in a shoot out.

This is an old Godfather trick. I call it the “Meanwhile Theory.” Part of the Godfather’s dramatic tension was created by Coppolla’s use of showing two things going on at the same time, like Pacino having his son babtised while his associates carry out hits on rival mobsters.
Another nit-picker: Sarah is never shown preparing for her audition. Instead, all her practice is hip hop stuff she learned from Derek. Not sure if that’s a valid complaint or not. But then, in a suprise twist, she merges her modern routine with hip hop. So maybe the hip hop practice was part of her plan all along.

Not sure if the kind of dancing she did for her audition is the kind of dancing seen in Julliard auditions. Her dancing was excellent. If Julliard is that demanding, who cares. Her dancing was so great she doesn’t need Julliard.

I loved this movie.

HOLY GRAIL OF SCREENWRITING: THE STORY

I’m not interested in criticizing or reviewing films, not in any traditional sense.  Basically, I don’t like film reviews.  Half the time I can never understand what’s being said.  I want to respond and react to the films I see in the quest of what I call the Holy Grail of Screenwriting: Finding a great story.

Actually, it doesn’t have to be great. Generally, I want to define “what is a story.”

I also want to understand the importance of movies in my life and the millions of others who just can’t seem to get enough.

I’m a songwriter, screenwriter and freelance writer. The two most important things in my life are songs and films. You could say, I live totally in a fantasy world, a world of fiction…a media child.

I want to understand the meaning of songs and films and if they really are something more than mere escapism or entertainment.

Music and film are inseparable, with the exception that music can be listened to without a visual counterpart. But, live concerts, music videos and film clearly illustrate the visual side of music.

I’m personally offended when someone says, “It’s only a movie,” or, “It’s only fiction,” or “It’s just entertainment.”

So, am I fooling myself into thinking I’m searching for the meaning of life when all I’m really doing is escaping?

Well, the desire to write screenplays helps to answer the question to some degree. I want to touch people’s lives. I guess entertainment by itself can do that. And creating something that makes people laugh, cry, think, scream or get angry is, in a way, entertaining. But the desire to write goes deeper than that. I want people to understand themselves and the world around them better. I want to inspire them to change when things ain’t right.

More so, I want to offer hope, especially in a world where hope is in short supply.
And ah, of course I wanna have fun. Having fun actually has a significantly serious side to it. If you’re having fun, it pretty much means things are OK. Either that, or, you’re just a cold sucker who can have fun no matter what is going on. War isn’t fun. Neither is crime, disease, poverty or natural disasters. Ironically, comedy writers find the fun in personal and world problems. We’re better off for it.

But the thing is, when we’re having fun on a Saturday night, or having fun during a backyard barbecue on a Sunday afternoon, it’s because nothing bad is happening. Something bad happens, and the party is over.

If we could live in a world where all we did was have fun, where EVERYBODY was having fun…we’d probably get bored, ha! So, having fun is a good thing. It’s just hard sometimes for me to have fun when I know so many other people are not having fun.

Am I a martyr? Hell, I could even be an asshole. I mean, why should I give a shit if they’re starving in Africa when everybody else around me is headed for the hottest dance club in town.

Yeah, it’s a money thing. America has a lot of fun. Vacations, amusement parks, shopping malls, ship cruises, arcades, video games, sports, popcorn and candy and…songs and films.

I was in Vegas during 9/11. The experience was an invaluable lesson in what I call “The Meanwhile Theory.” The Meanwhile Theory underlies every movie I see. Very simply it means while one thing is happening, something else is happening someplace else. Think Godfather, when Pacino is babtising his child, “meanwhile,” he’s ordered a string of hits on his enemies, which take place at the same time as the babtism.

In Vegas, sure, tourism was down. In fact, a lot of people got fired. But it sure didn’t stop the casino parking lots from filling up. The tables were plenty busy. People were laughing and drinking at craps tables as if not a thing was wrong in the world. In just under a year, Vegas was back up and running and as of Dec 2006, it is allegedly the fastest growing city in America. Average cost of a home is somewhere around 300K. There are plenty of homes in Vegas that go for much more than that.

Meanwhile, there’s a war in Iraq. And off the Strip? Well, some of the side streets in Vegas are just as dangerous as any other of the most dangerous streets in America.

What does this say about movies? Well, if movies–Hollywood–is anything like Vegas, that is, movies are just for entertainment, then I don’t want any part of it.

Well, this is my cross to bear: I wanna have fun but I feel guilty. This is the kind of stuff that informs the screenplays a writer writes. It defines integrity. It defines style.

You can tell when a movie cares. You can tell when people cared about the movie they were making. You can tell when characters care. Who wants to watch characters that don’t care about anything? We need heroes and heroines. And the first place heroism begins is by caring.

Incredibles

Incredibles

The Incredibles is incredible, and that’s certainly not an original quote, but one worth repeating. In my quest for the Holy Grail of screenwriting, that is, what makes a good story, the Incredibles brings me closer to my goal.

It is the story of the Incredibles that makes it work so well. No, I’m not saying everything else is fluff. A good story sorta runs scared, meaning, it’s only as good as all the things that make it good. It’s not just the theme, or overcoming conflict and obstacles, or has a beginning, middle and end. The animation, sets, costuming, voice overs, soundtrack–all these things are tools used to tell a story.

Yeah, any of these things can stand on their own. Afterall, movies get Academy Awards for one thing and not another.

As much as the story, I loved these characters. I cared immensely about what would happen to them. Credit has got to go to the voice overs.

The animation was like nothing I’ve ever seen, including Bugs Life, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Ice Age, etc.

I’d very much like to see a sequel. I’m not into comics but if it isn’t already, it certainly could be turned into a new comic book.

How ingenius! I mean, the filmmakers created an entirely new superhero. Try doing that yourself. Try imagining something in addition to or better than Superman, Batman, Spiderman.

I don’t recall a non-animated movie where I loved a family so much. I mean, I want this family to stay together. Well, I don’t know, maybe my memory is failing me right now. Maybe I’m just ecstatic. At least the point was made.

This movie foreshadows the future of movies. Animation is not just for kids. Behind the scenes, the Computer Graphics will revolutionize 100s of movies to come.

If you bridge the Matrix with the Incredibles, you’ll see where I’m going with this. The Matrix was not that far from being an animated film. And the story and characters of the Incredibles were just as real and believable as any non-animated film. You forget you’re watching animation.

Weatherman

Weatherman

I wanted to see Family Man and Weatherman back to back. I had seen both before, but forgot a lot of what I saw, with the exception of a handful of scenes that I didn’t know which film they belonged to.

I know the difference between the two movies now, but I still can’t say what the premise is for either one. I wrote about Family Man separately.

So what is Weatherman about? The unpredictability of life? Stay focused and things will work out (the archery metaphor)?

Cage plays a successful weatherman, making 240K a year, according to the film. He struggles through the entire film trying to get back to his wife and establish a decent relationship with his son and daughter. He also tries to prove himself to his father, a Pulizer Prize winning author, played by Michael Caine.

the script really doesn’t follow a plot nor does it fall within a set genre.

The score was enchanting and really set the tone for the film. But just what was the tone?

At a point Cage compares his job to fast food, something that tastes alright but you can throw it away.

He gets hit with fast food while walking on the street, and he comments how it’s always fast food, then making the comparison that his job is like fast food.

Why he gets fast food thrown at him isn’t really clear in the movie. But in the Special Features it’s explained that one of the reasons might be a reaction to how TV people try to come off as your friend, which many people find offensive.

The script captures moments of life most of us take for granted.

The occupation of weatherman was chosen for a reason. It could be just because the occupation itself is quirky. But if there was a metaphor, I guess it would be the unpredictability of life or that forecasting the weather is a lie and a waste of time.

Cage and his wife (played by Hope Davis), take trust building exercises in couples therapy. It’s an attempt to put their marriage back together, but fails.

In a flashback scene he’s sent out on an errand and told by his wife not to forget the tartar sauce. He does and when he gets back, he lies about it, saying the store was out of tartar sauce. She doesn’t believe him and decides to call the store.

Amazingly, such a mundane argument like the one they have over forgetting tartar sauce is incredibly dramatic and poignant, since it’s the real life kind of stuff that breaks up relationships.

He forgets to carry enough money in his wallet (a guy who makes 240K a year, yeah right). Because he doesn’t have enough money, he’s unable to do the simplest of tasks like get his dad a paper or coffee when he asks for it.

He tries to write a novel which his wife hates and his dad never reads or also didn’t think it was any good, I can’t remember.

He does make amends with his kids. He ends up with a job on Hello America for 1.2 million, but it’s not enough to put his marriage back together again.

Allegedly Cage comes to terms with who he is. But I don’t see the character arc in the sense of going from not knowing who he is to knowing who he is.

He seems to find himself in a better place, but I’m not sure exactly how he got there, other than taking on a better paying job and moving from Chicago to New York. I don’t see the things he’s come to terms with that turns a seemingly hopeless and meaningless life to one that brings him happiness.

There are moments when I think his character will break. He’s also not the most likeable in the beginning. He does stupid silly things like hit his wife with a snowball. He’s only trying to be playful, but it hits her in the face and she doesn’t think it’s funny.

He also tries to take his daughter for archery lessons, which seems terribly out of character for her. He takes her to a TV station party and they try to do a potato sac race. They fall down but he wants to teach her a valuable lesson in life and forces her to finish the race with him. In so doing, she tears a ligament and invariably is chastised by his x-wife for it.

There are memorable bits, like his 12 year old daughter being called cameltoe, or when he picks her up at dance class and she’s standing in the studio window. She’s clearly overweight and very out of place in a dance class.

She’s a typical teenager, with no special talents and no sense of direction.

His son is harassed by a drug counselor who is allegedly also a pedaphile. The counselor ends up accusing Cage’s son of stealing the counselor’s wallet. To right the wrong, Cage attacks the counselor and threatens him to leave his son alone. It’s a bit of heroism, protecting his son. But it’s also unrealistic since no one would resolve a pedophile issue by just beating up the guy.

I have personally never known what it’s like to make a 6 figure salary nor do I know anyone who does (give or take one or two people). The house in the movie is gorgeous. The salary, the job, the house, the family, it all seems too good to be true. I have a hard time believing someone who has all that goes through hard times, or fucks up, or has emotional, family or life problems.

This is one of the good things about movies. They let us voyueristically watch life styles we’ve never known in real life.

Most people don’t know what it’s like to be in a gang, or be a government spy, or cut a deal aboard a million dollar yacht, or kill someone.

I don’t understand how I can like a movie and not know what it’s about.

In the Special Features of the DVD, there is discussion about “look,” a color palette, a tone, a style. I don’t get it. I believe the goal was to capture the monotany of the weatherman’s life.

There was also much discussion about finding locations in Chicago. But how these locations achieved unity and/or integration is something I also don’t understand.

What is this story about? I don’t know.