Friday, 30 July 2010

Whose Screenplay Is It Anyway? How Screenwriters Go Insane

You're seven years old, and you think "I really love laughing, hahahahahaha." You're 11 years old and you really really like Mary-Jane, who lives down by the place near the big tree, and you think "I really really love her and I want to be in love forever yeah it's great." You're sixteen years old and you look up at the sky and you're just amazed by how clear the stars are and how big and beautiful the moon is and you think "Holy marbles! The world is incredible! It's a miracle! I can feel it. Wow. Wow. Wow." And then you laugh hysterically, hahahaha. Not because you're insane, but because you really love laughing.

And then you become a screenwriter. And you write your first script in seven minutes. How you did it, nobody knows. But you did. You wrote a 100 page script in seven minutes, and it's wonderful because it's got soul but it's awful because you've never written a script before.

And then your friend Patrick says "dude, it's way too romantic. Nobody likes that cheesy bullshit," so you take out a bit of the cheese because maybe it is a bit touchy feely. And then you meet a guy who wrote two episodes of that thing on that channel nobody ever watches, and he says, "the joke about the pencils isn't funny. Pencils aren't funny. Lemonade is funny." So you take out the joke about the pencils and replace it with a joke that isn't about pencils.

The thing that is great about your script though is that you captured that really incredible feeling you had that time you and that girl went to that bench by the field near where the hill overlooked the big tall building near your old school, when you were looking up at the big beautiful sky. But Mr Singh who works in the shop near the place where they used to sell like a million different types of envelope says to you "I think you're being a bit silly if you think the sky is magic, there's so much pollution, and films that are about the sky don't really sell unless you have a machine blow up and fall out of it."

You know you're right, deep down, you love going hahahahaha and you love that girl and going to the bench near the thing and you love how amazing the sky is. But then you meet a guy called Zack who worked as an extra on that pretty funny thing that used to be on after that famous show and he also directed one episode of a webisode called "LOL @ Life!" which had at least a viewer, so he knows his stuff and he wants to 'develop' new ideas with you but he says "don't write about the moon because it isn't marketable," and he reminds you that pencils don't put people's asses on seats and what you really need are big guns. You're not sure about the big guns but Zack has lots of weird shit in his hair and he has a nice wristwatch so you figure he must really know his stuff so you say "okay, so you don't want the moon?" and he says "no, fuck the moon, that's bullshit," and then you take out the moon and replace it with a scene where the chick with the big breasts blows up the village with her nipples.

But the film never gets made because your script is really shit and the guy with the gunk in his hair is actually an undercover underachieving understudy in a play called "Chipmunks on Skates," so you stop listening to him and go about your day.. and you start to think again about working on a new screenplay.

You have this idea in your head but you don't have much clarity but you think maybe it's something to do with the moon and the magic of the night and a pretty girl with a smile but there's this voice in you that says "that's not marketable you fucking shitfuck!" and then you meet this guy in a suit who says "if you want funding, then you need to know that we need a script that can be branded towards a person who would wear clothes made out of iPhones and eat food made out of Facebook statuses, so you really need to write something current." You keep trying to write it but it's really fucking terrible and you keep asking yourself, "why can't I write?" and you keep trying to feed the magic into your writing somehow but it. just. isn't. there.

You keep looking and you keep trying and you keep hoping that you'll stop being such a bad writer. And some guy who's a big shot says "we really need a film where a guy in his twenties owns a gun and overcomes obstacles by saving the girl from the cheer-leading thing and then he falls backwards in slow-mo and a black man delivers a line about choices and then a woman gets her breasts out in close-up." You write it and it's exactly what they asked for but they don't make the movie-- and you don't know why and they don't know why and nobody knows why and instead someone makes a sequel to that thing with the Vampires.

This part of you starts jumping up and down and screaming at you --- and it's saying, "write a movie about a girl and a tree and the moon," but there are a thousand voices of everyone you ever met saying, "it's not marketable, it's not brandable, there's no breasts, what are you doing, don't you want to be marketable?"

You take a moment to look at your heroes, you look at the essence of what they did and how they achieved it -- and every sign points to people stepping out and saying "HEY, I AM ME, this is how I SEE THE WORLD!" - and you realize, you need to do that very thing.

And it's your choice and it's your choice and it's your choice. You look at your writing over the last few years and the only time you say hahahaha is when you realize the absurdity of the crazy pointless adventure you've been on. You run around, and you search your home and you realize there's just one thing you need and then it will all come together. You run downstairs, you look under the pad next to the table by the chair; and there it is, exactly what you need: a brand new pencil.

Hahahaha you say to yourself, as you write your new screenplay.

What do you want, Mary? You want the MOON? Just say the word...

Care to share?

The Film That Waited Down The Road

The film was just three roads away. It sat on top of the TV in a girl's house, there in its DVD case. The film was in many other places too. It was on a DVD rack in France, on an old VHS tape in Japan and being downloaded by a pensioner in Tennessee. The movie existed. People all over the world had spent time with the characters and had gotten to know them well. But I had never met them.

I knew about them, I'd heard about the movie - but for some reason, had never seen it. What a sad fate - to have one of your favorite movies sitting on top of the TV, only a six minute walk from where you are, without ever taking the time to acquaint yourself.

I'd been to the girl's house many times. I'd lent her films, she'd given me books. All the while, the film I needed to see was sitting there, on top of the TV, not even getting played. Meanwhile, the character's came out in a cinema screening in Norway, and they got chopped up into chunks on YouTube; they lived on, but not for me, I didn't know them.

And then the girl glanced at the things sitting on top of her TV. She mentioned something about the film. I responded, "For some reason, I've never...," she knew where I was heading. She was shocked. So was I. I knew I should have taken the time to get to know the film and characters by now, but I hadn't.

"Take this," she said, as she thrust the DVD into my hands. I went home, and within two hours - my life was a little bit better. Even though I've never met them, there are people walking out of a screening in Norway who I have a bit more in common with, there are girls down the street who I am more similar to than I realise, there are people in Japan who don't speak the same language as me, but we've shared the same experience, gotten to know the same characters, and had our lives changed in small ways.

Isn't it amazing how there are all these characters out there just waiting for you, who may end up being important to your life? They're waiting on DVD shelves in New York, they're being defined in the editing suite in London, they're being penned by a teenager in Germany. They exist for you. I hope you find them.

Care to share?

Thursday, 29 July 2010

A Brief Guide To Early Cinema

On A Tuesday morning in 1867, William Lincoln patented the zoopraxiscope. Whilst many people thought it was a form of anti-depressant, it was actually a device which enabled people to watch moving images. Despite Lincoln being the first person to invent a movie camera, Louis Lumiere went on to be yet another first person to invent one. People decided to credit him as the first, on account of his being French.



Lumiere soon realised the true power of his invention, and immediately ordered a medium bucket of popcorn. It's interesting to note that up until the invention of the movie camera, people had been sitting in empty halls eating popcorn for no particular reason. What's even weirder, is how they were constantly moaning about the prices. Lumiere had wonderful theories about developing a style of filmmaking called 'The French Old Wave,' which went on to influence a creative period in the 1950's when a bunch of French directors who'd grown tired of the Old Wave struggled to find a name for their latest style.


Within a few years Lumiere and Edison (another person who was definitely the first person to invent the movie camera) were both screening silent moving images to the general public. Early films were very simple. Some of the classics include "Man Standing Still Looking At Camera," "Small Dog Sleeping," and "Two Middle Class Men Talking To Each Other Whilst Smoking Cigars." These were all big hits. Sadly, Edison soon began to struggle after audiences claimed that "Small Dog Sleeping 2" lacked originality, and at the very least - could have involved some movement.


Lumiere was once quoted as saying, "The cinema is an invention without a future." It's fascinating to know that he came to this conclusion before seeing Eddie Murphy's latest releases. It's important to remember that all of the early films were silent. As technology changed in the 1920's, 'talkies' were introduced. This was generally perceived to be a good thing, but recently there has been a surge in producers clambering for a return to silent cinema again after witnessing a Miley Cyrus monologue in 'The Last Song.'


By 1902, venues were being built specifically for showing films. People would fight for a seat in the packed movie houses to see films like "Fat Lady Walking Along The Platform" and "Jolly Fellow Swinging A Golf Club." These two films, shown together; would only amount to seven minutes of screen time. This would have been a concern for customers, but luckily, just like these days, they had to sit through thirty minutes of trailers.

Care to share?

Sequels, Remakes, Reboots & Reshoots - The Day The Film Blogosphere Came Together

Wow, that was fun. The finest film bloggers in all the land (no offence to film bloggers who live on sea) came together to write on the topic of 'Sequels, Remakes and Reboots.' It was a pretty open ended assignment, just a chance for everyone to express their feelings on the topic. Much fun was had, some of the articles were detailed and informative, others were light and hilarious.


It all began yesterday morning when The Kid In The Front Row got into a confused mess as he struggled to get a grip of his feelings on the topic, "Will a new 'Texas Chain Saw Massacre' stop people re-watching the original? Does anyone lose sleep over the fact Gus Van Sant did a shot for shot remake of 'Psycho'? No, everyone just watches the original."

Luckily, that wasn't the only post of the day, and the sequels provided a lot more insight. Over at Memoirs Of A Word Nerd, Manda Diaz delivered possibly the funniest moment of the blogathon with the worryingly spot on analysis of 'Oceans 12,' "It still makes me angry that the general public paid money just to watch a bunch of celebrities on holiday in Europe."

The Sugary Cynic makes her point bluntly and honestly, "In practice, these usually suck because they are slapdash, shitty, with no respect paid to the source material and done for the money."

A Nerd Like Me makes a simple point which, to be honest, sums everything up pretty well; "Good sequels, remakes and reboots are good. And bad ones? Well, at least they’re fun to argue about!""

"History is destined to repeat itself. Hollywood just gets around to it faster than most," mused Mike Lippert, from
You Talking To Me?; who was probably the most pro-remakes blogger in the blogathon.

Patrick O'Riley and Sofluid both took the time to break down each section seperately and share their opinions on Sequels, Remakes, and Reboots. Patrick stands up for the point of view you'd hear from a studio head, with "Sequels have an undeserved negative stigma. From a producorial standpoint, the reason a sequel is even considered for production is because an original film proves successful." Similarly, upcoming screenwriter Sofluid brings awareness to the dreaded word that anti-remake/reboot people hate to hear, 'franchise.' Solfluid explains, "Shrek in particular is an impressive franchise. It's got a loveable set of characters (perfect for merchandise!) and the writers manage to keep it fresh and exciting."

The Intermittent Sprocket gets straight down to business and makes a list of films that he thinks should be remade, and one point in particular I couldn't agree more with, "ANYTHING WRITTEN BY SHANE BLACK DESERVES A SEQUEL WRITTEN BY SHANE BLACK." Four Of Them wrote a simple yet heartfelt article which many people will relate to, "You see, they're all too glad to attach the original's good name in press releases, but when it comes time for execution, well, what they do can land anywhere between ineptness, scorn, and all-out hatred."

We end on two distinctly different takes on the topic.
Wellywood Woman, from New Zealand, took the conversation away from bantering back and forth about 'Shrek' and 'Toy Story 3' and focused on something more fascinating and important; "I've chosen to focus on gender and audience, and on the reboot-and-remake of the New Zealand Film Commission, following its review by Sir Peter Jackson and David Court," which makes for a fascinating read. 


I hope I've mentioned everybody. If I've missed any blogs out, please get in touch, and I'll add them in. Feel free to copy and paste this round-up onto your own blogs-- it'd be really great if we can spread awareness of each others work. as much fun as it is to mount up your own reader base and shield them from everyone else; I think community is far more important. I can supply the HTML code of this blog if it helps you enter it into your own blogs.

Thanks for joining in, and thanks for reading. Until next time.

Care to share?

Wednesday, 28 July 2010

Sequels, Remakes and Reboots - A Kid In The Front Row Blogathon

Sequels, remakes and reboots completely polarize opinion in a variety of ways. There are those who are vehemently opposed and think they are ruining the industry, and then there are people who think the retelling of stories has always been an important part of culture, or, perhaps-- they think the advancements in technology mean that there is even more scope for greater movies, and believe the tales of Batman and Spiderman can finally be done justice.

These polarizations exist, and nobody seems to occupy the middle ground. Of course, there is the apathetic middle ground. The "Just take my $12 and show me a movie" crowd. But aside from that, there's little agreement.

And then they made 'Toy Story 3,' which everyone loved. What does this mean? Unfortunately, this didn't bring the two camps together. Whilst the latest 'Shrek' was proof that Hollywood is creatively bankrupt and in need of original characters, 'Toy Story 3' was a lucky fluke. Or "It's Toy Story. That's different."

For everyone to suddenly celebrate sequels just because 'Toy Story 3' was near genius would, of course, be completely stupid. But it suggests this is not a black and white issue.

I am generally against sequels, remakes and all of that stuff. That they're 're-booting' Spiderman like two weeks after they last did it seems ludicrous to me. My instincts are that it's purely based on business. Indeed, why wouldn't it be? This is one of the biggest franchises going, an undeniable pot of gold for the film studios. But then, maybe there's something I'm missing.

I like the new 'The Karate Kid.' It's a lot of fun. I felt bad feeling this, like I had gone against my own belief system. How dare I like it? Why does it bother me? Why should I not like it? It's things like "they shouldn't mess with the original," "it shouldn't be about Kung Fu," etc. But does it matter? Will a new 'Texas Chain Saw Massacre' stop people re-watching the original? Does anyone lose sleep over the fact Gus Van Sant did a shot for shot remake of 'Psycho'? No, everyone just watches the original.

If My friend Pete sees the new 'Karate Kid' and thinks it's the greatest movie ever, and refuses to watch the original.. Why does it matter? I have a feeling it does, but why? Does it matter for me, or for him?

When Spielberg announced he would remake the Jimmy Stewart classic 'Harvey' I was genuinely heartbroken for days. When he dropped the project, I rejoiced, and gave up my hunger strike (I may be slightly exaggerating). But here's the thing:- the majority of people in my life, especially around my age and younger, have no intention of watching old black and white Jimmy Stewart films.. So if they're not going to watch 'Harvey' anyway, what difference does it make if they watch a new version?

I hope you realize my questions are literally that, questions. I'm not saying it isn't important, or isn't different. But I feel that when we get angry about the remakes, we're not entirely conscious of why. Or maybe I'm just talking about me.

So why does it bother me so much when they remake stuff? And why does it bother me when I enjoy the remakes? Maybe it's just part of my personality. I like things to feel fresh and original. I place value on who came first. As for why does it bother me when I like them? That's a more complex question. Or maybe it's very simple--- I've been proven wrong. I enjoyed the the Karate Kid film and I LOVED 'Toy Story 3'-- and in fact, it felt great to be revisiting Woody, Buzz, and co-- and that familiarity is a good thing.

It's easy to take some supposed moral high-ground about how they should only re-make films for reasons of heart and story, instead of money. But, newsflash: 'Toy Story 3' was about money too.

To summarise, in case you haven't realised: I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about. I don't know where I stand on this issue. I identify with the outraged side, and I identify with the part of me that enjoys remakes when they're done well. In fact, maybe I just am the apathetic middle ground after all. (but if anyone in Hollywood ever remakes 'The Apartment,' I will actually kill them.)
This is the first of a Kid In The Front Row blogathon where many wonderful bloggers will be writing about 'Sequels, Remakes and Reboots' throughout the day. At the end of it all, I will be posting links to all of the bloggers who are involved.

Care to share?