Posts Tagged ‘screenwriting’

tuco-noose

Time for another film discussion, this time centering on the most powerful single shots.  More important than aesthetics are the reasons why they stand out as exceptional and changed the directions of their stories.  This is not about length, although some are going to be long duration, but more about how what is revealed altered the story in front of our eyes.

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

In a film filled with iconic, brilliant shots, the one that sticks out is when Tuco finally gets his greedy little hands on the gold.  With a handful of gold coins, he looks up from the grave he dug it out of, and he calls to Blondie to celebrate.  Only, when he looks up, he sees a noose hanging, and the camera frames him inside the noose looking down.  That moment changes everything.  The nature of their relationship has always been in question.  What Blondie would do to Tuco and how much he wants the gold are open questions.  Is Blondie a bad guy like Angel Eyes?  What would Tuco do if the situation was reversed?  All of this rushes forth in that one moment Tuco looks up into the noose.

They had been hanging one another throughout the start of the film.  Tuco had been a professional noose evader for a while.  It all brings the film to a breathless kind of climax at that moment, and the realization that there’s more to the story left to play out.

A Clockwork Orange

Kubrick does things you don’t expect.  The film opens right in Alex’s face, and he’s staring straight into the camera, dressed in a top hat, with odd makeup on his eyes.  The stare is cryptic and discomforting.  The music swirls, and the camera decides to roll back slowly.

The reveal is the point, as the location is extremely unusual.  Alex’s droogies are revealed, drugged out and yet dressed oddly in white long johns of some sort.  This seems like some evil clown convention, but the camera continues backward.  The tables are vulgar porcelain naked whores.  The contrast between Alex and his droogies and the women on which they rest their boots is indicative of something extremely weird, a world we haven’t seen before.  The camera simply rolls back the length of the space, showing that this is a semi-normal night for those present.

A Fish Called Wanda

John Cleese and Kevin Kline engage in a battle of wills, where Kline is insanely jealous over Wanda.  The shot opens up tight on Cleese, who a minute ago was stubbornly ready to fight Kline, insulting him in arrogant British form.  But in this shot, a close-up, he’s apologizing sincerely.  More than sincere, we pull out, flip upside down and find him hanging out the window by his feet.  The camera, on a crane, has swung back to reveal Cleese dangling by his legs, with stunned witnesses in the background, while Kline decides whether or not to drop him.  The shot uses a tight to wide kind of reveal over the duration.  Many of these most memorable shots use creative reveals that throw a monkey wrench into the story. In this case, we realize that Kline is totally psychotic and he might murder Cleese or any of the others at any time.

Strange Days

This harrowing first person POV shot opens in a moving car, at the start of an armed robbery.  The person wearing the camera, if that’s what it is, willingly participates in a violent assault on a Chinese restaurant.  We don’t have any idea who the person filming is, or if they are an important part of the movie to come.

Since these thugs are all we know, it’s another discomforting jolt that this film is being told from the POV of a lowlife, an unseen criminal.  By the end of the clip, he’s hanging on the side of a building, and he falls to his death.  The point then was not to set up this character at all, but rather the technology used to record his death.  These people were all disposable pawns, and the crucial information, the brain/media linkage is what is important.  The recording device successfully became a part of the plot in a unique way.

https://vimeo.com/71011267

The Player

One of the most impressive shots of all time, the camera dances around a movie lot.  There it picks up snippets of various conversations, one of them through a window.  It also provides crucial data about the plot, involving postcards.

The shot itself begins with an odd giveaway, that the film itself isn’t real.  It actually opens on a painting of people making a movie, and the sounds of the crew are included.  The secretaries/assistants handle the studio’s business, but this was already spoiled as being unreal — only it isn’t unreal in the world of the film, because the entire rest of the movie plays as real, with those very same characters a part of the intricate world.

Pulling back and revealing more of the studio, the camera exits the interior and floats a bit, as a grand Hollywood opera plays out across the acres of studio lot.  Griffin Mill arrives, instantly harassed by a sci-fi writer pitching him a story.  Mill gives him the brush-off and barrels inside.  Camera stays on a different conversation, this one the head of security whining about the state of movies, “Cut, cut, cut…”  This obvious counterpoint to the 8 minute shot we are currently inside of is another way of teasing the audience.  There’s interplay, a wink and an acknowledgement of the film and its relationship to the viewer.

We settle in on Griffin Mill’s office, through the window like voyeurs.  We’re allowed a glimpse into the pitching process, the thinking of these guys and how people stream in seeking approval and green lights.  Mill is a prince of the system, and his main job is to say no repeatedly, over a hundred times per day.

We quickly learn that Mill seems alarmed about the sci-fi writer, and he alerts his assistant to notify security.  Of course the sci-fi guy looks as harmless a nerd as they come.

But the action takes a turn and a spill as the bicycle carrying the mail tumbles in the lot.  An unremarkable accident, except for one thing: the camera goes out of its way to home in on a particular postcard in the dropped mail.  It pulls back up again, and the bicyclist is helped.

An asshole in a white Porsche arrives and stops abruptly to chat up a smoking hot actress in a red dress.  Japanese business tourists stroll through.  Lots of exposition passes left and right, right and left with minimal effort or time.  The building blocks of the studio system are all included, tiny snippets that don’t warrant their own scenes or much elaboration.

New suits stroll out of the building, conspiratorial, hushed tones.  “What’s all this talk about heads will roll?”  There’s intrigue around the studio.  Everyone is on edge, and the class system and hierarchy is clear.  As they walk past Griffin Mill’s window, they note how the rumors suggest he’s to be replaced.

Instantly back into the window, Mill is now openly paranoid about the security situation.  We leave the office to rejoin several of the faces we’ve already seen and then return to Mill’s office for the big moment.  The postcard arrives.  Mill’s current pitch involves he and the studio’s aversion to “political” content.  Real political ideas aren’t welcome.  There is a possible political opening, however, if it’s funny, weird, lighthearted, etc.  All this plays upon our perceptions of what we’re watching right now and how we’re to interpret it.

When Mill flips the postcard, it’s a chill.  The card is a threat.  Somebody out there really, really doesn’t like him.  He turns over his shoulder to spy out the window, and we see his face well for the first time.

 

 

Read something for FREE?
Consider Tipping the Writer, any amount.

script

A little bit rambling.  The guy behind Robot and Frank is included, and others talking about making indie movies and getting their thing together.

 

spanking_the_monkey_ver2

 

12-Years-a-Slave

 

John Ridley on 12 Years a Slave and the Power of Cinema

 

LA Screenwriter

AFF_Logoby Angela Guess

At the recent Austin Film Festival, Danny Manus and Pamela Ribon were on hand to teach all the shy, introverted, socially-awkward writers in the room (myself included) how to pitch. Danny’s experience with pitching comes from the executive end. He’s currently running No BullScript Consulting, but he admits that he is a “recovering development executive.” Pamela’s experience comes from actually doing pitches for both film and TV projects, and she has sold numerous ideas and scripts to the likes of ABC, Warner Bros., Disney Channel, and 20th Century Fox.

Pamela and Danny had a lot of wonderful advice to dispense. In no particular order, here are their top 24 tips:

  1. A logline is key. Hook them up front with your big idea, your main characters, and your conflict.
  2. Don’t get bogged down in the details. This leads to coming to the end of your time and…

View original post 579 more words

a993bc26958802da1d4d5c53916cd9a6

To me, a pontificating Internet blowhard of questionable character, it’s not hard to differentiate a good short film from a bad one.  There’s a very easy litmus test, and it usually works.  It works so well that I click right on out of there when a film fails this test, and I have a strong suspicion that I’m not alone.

Perhaps festival snob judges use different criteria (a probability).  Perhaps the masses use this one.

Here is the magical secret to a short film that is truly worth spreading:


A good short film feels too short, and a bad short film feels too long.

That’s it.  That’s the whole ballgame.  I can stop writing now.  It’s the same criteria for longer works as well, but this basic characteristic, this essential and fundamental property of good film vs. bad is usually the last thing that most amateur filmmakers consider.  They obsess over every other aspect of making a movie, the nuts and the bolts.  They don’t even consider the editing of the thing until everything is shot.  Then they don’t want to cut the excruciatingly boring stuff, because a lot of work went into filming it in the first place.  These decisions should have been made at the script stage, in pre-production, thinking about why every shot actually is needed or isn’t.  But more importantly: why the shots they have written are boring and don’t convey enough story in a short enough amount of time.

Craft shots that give multiple channels of information to the viewer, instead of leaving viewers waiting, and waiting, and waiting for your God damned pretentious piece of shit to actually start.

That means an inciting incident right at the beginning that can hook people and set up an interesting story.  Without front-loading your film with a unique and meaningful opening scene you’re dead.  You are done.  I have already clicked onto something else, and I have no regrets about leaving you behind.

Now these are general principles, and building it is easier said than done.  How does one craft an opening scene that can hook people and ensure they keep watching?

Well no one can tell you that.  It’s subjective, entirely dependent on the story.  Each story has its own trajectory, its own unique set of parameters, unless you’re copying others and basically stealing (in which case a career on Wall Street might be more appropriate rather than in the arts).  Art is supposed to take it to the next level, to build, to make connections that others simply hadn’t made before.  Even working in a genre, new situations and consequences can, and must, present themselves.  Remakes of popular films tend to innovate new twists.  Or else what’s the point?  What is the point of shoveling the same story?  Why are you, the filmmaker, required at all?  A machine can rehash the past, and probably with better efficiency.

But the main problem in most short films I come across (and that is quite a lot) is that they are boring as fucking hell on ice.  The opening scenes don’t portend anything at all.  They aren’t intricately thought out situations, and they aren’t much of a story.  They are banal, trivial, pointless and not worth watching.

Perhaps I’m jaded, not wowed by the ability of twenty-somethings to press record on a DSLR.  Perhaps even with filmic visuals the pretty pictures’ complete lack of meaning and drama registers most with me.

Film is dramatic if it is anything.  It needs the conflict of opposing ideas (and an educated writer).  It needs the spark of antagonism.  Something must be off and the resolution unclear.  That’s what compels us to keep watching.  A camera can meander down all the long boring hallways of the world, but who cares?  Each second and each frame of film must be justified: why are you wasting the audience’s time?

When one looks at a photograph he or she can look for a second or for a minute.  The choice is up to them.

Shooting-on-Super8

When one looks at a movie, the duration of every image has been decided by someone else for them.  They are powerless, stuck, trapped, helpless, at the mercy of the editor now.  Film exists in time.  Time is a factor that is a basic fundamental aspect of every shot, every scene, every sequence, and the work as a whole.  Time is unique to moving pictures and needs to be considered as an important aspect of the process.  It needs to be considered at various stages and reconsidered over and over again until the finished film doesn’t waste the audience’s time at any point.

Wasting a minute of screen time on scenery may not seem like an egregious sin.  But with 1,000 people in the audience, you’ve wasted 1,000 minutes of people’s lives on the scenery.  That’s not a formula for success, I’m sorry to say, but it happens all the time.  Economy in the presentation is paramount.

That means giving people more and more of the story through as many channels as possible.  This is where amateurs and professionals tend to diverge.

Reveal vs. conceal is the eternal struggle for writers of all media.  When is the correct moment to show something, and will showing it reveal too much, making the story predictable?  This is where experience and knowledge make all the difference.  Apparently most of these boring films err on the side of concealing everything.  They don’t want to give away the ending, and so they keep it all hidden until the last scene.  Unfortunately, no one is watching by then.  The problem needs a more nuanced approach, a way to reveal a larger truth in tiny increments.  These stages of revelation are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that come together and suddenly jump to life at the end.  Figuring the correct sequence of incremental revelations (and getting it moving soon) is the crux of the game.

A good film will hit the viewer with sound and imagery in abundance: background sounds, foreground sounds, music, specially chosen sound effects that are relevant to the story, foreground imagery, background imagery, the perfect location, the perfect lighting, the perfect camera motion, a perfect transformation as the drama unfolds during a take.  While the student film lingers on some background scenery, the more accomplished film has already conveyed a dozen things about the world, the characters and the conflict to the audience.  The interplay of background to foreground in visuals and in audio keeps the watchers watching.  Shots should be mined for opportunities to give clues in the background as well as in the foreground, by the first frame as well as the last frame of a shot.  The action that unfolds during a shot can convey many different pieces of information, if one abandons linear thinking.

Front-loading, providing sufficient story information up front to set up the narrative through to the end, is the major missing ingredient in bad shorts.  The boring films just exist on a simple linear line.  The amazing films exist on multiple lines of storytelling, weaving a tapestry. Boring films focus on a single, obvious and unremarkable element, and hope that people will wait for something interesting to happen later – maybe.  Films need to start interesting and accelerate from there.  Life’s too short.

Submit a Short Film to the Blog

 

Read something for FREE?
Consider Tipping the Writer, any amount.

cody-640x359

 

Film School Rejects

 

joe

Joe Eszterhas’ 10 Golden Rules of Screenwriting

10. Don’t let the bastards get you down. If you can’t sell your script, or if you sell the script and they bring in another writer to butcher it, or if the director claims in interviews that he really wrote your script, or if the actors claim that they improvised all of your best lines, or if you’re left out of the press junket, simply sit down and write another script. And if the same thing happens to you on that one, write another and another and another and another, until you get one up there that’s your vision translated by the director to the big screen.

Weinstein is Taking Pitches

Posted: September 24, 2013 in -
Tags: , , ,

995480_10151429216153239_1488329104_n

Good luck,
to me,
bitches.

Go here:

 

facebook4 copy

Tarantino-Cover-546x550

Long ass muthafuckin’ interveiw.  Jackie Brown,which is probably my least favorite film of his, seems to be his favorite.  He talks a lot about writing, directing, producing, the whole gamut.

My breakdown of the Pulp Fiction script.

 

dvd_china

This gets moving about halfway through.