Go Into The Story

Interview: Josh Dobkin

2009-12-05T10:00:00.001-05:00

DoneDealPro.com has a couple of new interviews. This one is with screenwriter Josh Dobkin:

Josh Dobkin was born in Wheeling, West Virginia, but grew up in Pittsburgh. He graduated from the film school Full Sail in Orlando. A month after graduation he moved to Los Angeles and started working as an on-set production assistant on Without a Trace. Shortly after that he landed at Scrubs and has been the Art Department coordinator since the end of Season 5. His sale of The Field to Stone Village hit the trades this past January. Josh and his writing partner are repped by Langley Perer at Benderspink.

The interview covers how Dobkin wound his way into The Biz. This excerpt is particularly relevant given the question we tackled yesterday about the importance (or lack thereof) of a a college education re a screenwriting career:

Did you study film and writing in college? Where did you go to school?

I didn’t originally, because I didn’t know you could actually make a living in this business. For me, and I think most people can relate, Hollywood was so distant, so exclusive, a club I’d never get invited into. As far as I knew you had to be born into that lifestyle. So when I went to school I picked something reasonable and more attainable, computer science. It was about a year and a half into it when I realized I loathed programming and was horrible at it… but I was having a fun time writing for my lit classes and getting great grades in them.

I was never really a “great” student. But I could usually bullshit my way through a report by manipulating the words on the page. I might not really know what the hell I’m writing about, but bet your ass it’s going to seem like I do on paper.

I quit school and moved back home to work and sort through some personal stuff, e.g., what the hell do I want to do with the rest of my life. I still haven’t figured everything out. But one day when I was watching cable a movie came on called Clay Pigeons, and in the opening, the credit was “A film by David Dobkin” and I just about shit. I thought to myself, “Who the hell is this guy and how is a guy with my last name making movies?” I started looking at film schools and programs with the thought that I could do it too. I had someone on the inside, a Dobkin. This guy can get me the golden ticket. I can make it!

So I picked an “intensive” film program (i.e., “expensive”) down in Orlando called Full Sail. While I was there I had some correspondence with his assistant, which I completely geeked on at the time. In my mind I was making headway, people were going to know me when I moved out to L.A. I’d have no trouble finding work… What the fuck was I thinking!? Right about halfway through film school Wedding Crashers came out and did HUGE money. All of a sudden this guy who might be my eighth cousin twice removed was a hot director. My correspondence went from “Hey, how you doing” to “Hey, what the fuck do you want?” in the blink of an eye. And to clarify, I didn’t expect to be catapulted to the upper echelons overnight. My real thought was this guy knows the ropes—maybe dude can shed some light on how to get started getting an entry level job. I’m a dreamer but I’m not delusional.

Here's how they came up with the idea for their selling spec script The Field:

In January 2009, you and your writing partner Sean Wathen sold your spec script The Field to Stone Village Pictures. Can you tell us a little about the script? What was the genesis of the idea? What was the collaborative process like?

The whole idea came about while we were sitting in traffic to and from the San Diego Comic-Con (and that is a long-ass time). We just started talking about old horror movies and the things that used to scare us when we were younger. One of the experiences we both shared was wandering off into a corn field at night and getting lost. Your mind races out there in the dark when you’re young. Anything and everything is possible, the scariest creature from a movie you watched could be sitting right in front of you. So we just ran with it. We sat down and threw every idea out there, a whole book of “what ifs.” Once we had that, we started working out the story. Why are we in this field, who are these people we’re with, and what is the outcome when and if we reach the end of this journey?

I think the reason the script resonated with people is the setting and simplicity of the situation the characters are in. It’s a setting most people can visualize when they’re reading through it. Everyone has an idea in their head of a “field,” and everyone knows what its like to feel lost and alone. Layer in the horror elements—a group of strangers, something in the darkness hunting you, obstacles with tragic consequences—and the thing kind of writes itself.

This was truly our first collaborative project together. We would always work through our individual projects together, but never once had we sat down and started a brand new concept together. So in essence all the previous scripts were just dates, and this was the first one where we, uh… did it.

Interesting to note that even though Dobkin sold The Field, he's still working on "Scrubs."

Daily Dialogue -- December 5, 2009

2009-12-05T06:00:00.000-05:00

"Rosebud."

-- Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), Citizen Kane (1941), screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles

Looking for some killer dialogue

2009-12-04T20:00:00.000-05:00

Jeff suggested this Daily Dialogue theme for next week:

Since we did "Dying Words" this past week, perhaps the flip side...

KILLING words!

Y'know, that slick tongued, seemingly over-rehearsed phrase that a bad (or good) guy will deliver just before pulling the trigger or thrusting the dagger or pushing the "destructo" button or whatever....

How about it, folks? What are the best movie examples of killing words?

Question: What role does formal education have toward working as a screenwriter?

2009-12-04T18:00:00.003-05:00

Open forum question from itstartedwithawindmill:

Hey Scott,

I'm hoping you come back to this post to review the questions, because I've got a question that really doesn't get much discussion. There's a lot of discussion on how to "break in" to Hollywood either by writing spec scripts or working within the industry in another capacity as a writer.

My question is, what role does formal education have toward working as a screenwriter? I'd suspect it is much more relevant for those wishing to work within the industry.

Are there jobs within the industry that traditionally go to screenwriters with an actual college background? If so, which jobs?

Last question first: "Are there jobs within the industry that traditionally go to screenwriters with an actual college background?" Not to my knowledge. That said, most of the screenwriters I know personally or read about have been to college, many to grad school. There are exceptions, of course -- Quentin Tarantino, Shane Salerno, Ben Affleck (dropout), Oliver Stone (dropout), Woody Allen (dropout), Paul Thomas Anderson (quit film school at NYU after 2 days) to name a few. But actual screenwriting gigs that are dependent upon a college education? I don't think so.

[If your plan involves trying to land a gig in the mail room at CAA, my guess is that you would be required to have a college degree.]

But as long as we're on the subject, let me make two points. First, there has been an almost explosive growth the last decade in colleges offering some sort of programs or courses re film - either full blown film programs or at the very least courses on screenwriting. I don't have anything other than anecdotal evidence I've accumulated in some cursory research about what's out there, but many of the approaches I hear about are primarily theory oriented. The teachers have zero background working in the entertainment business - they are strictly academics - and the courses themselves are theoretical in nature, too. If you want to work in Hwood, as a rule, I do not believe going that route will be helpful. Much better to find a program, such as the one where I teach -- shameless plug -- the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where every faculty member in the screenwriting program has worked extensively in Hwood and the courses are a balance of the theoretical and the pragmatic.

Second, it depends upon the student, the school, timing, and so on, but the primary value of a college education could turn out to be more about the networking opportunities than any of the actual stuff you learn in class. Every college that feeds into Hwood - especially the ones with a film school - has their own alumni group. And while schools like USC, UCLA, Northwestern, NYU, and U.T. Austin are the big fish, I've heard of strong alumni networks in Hwood from colleges as diverse as Boston U, UVA, Occidental, UNC, Florida State, U. of Michigan, N.C. School of the Arts, and of course, Harvard and Yale. Those connections can be huge - for whatever reason, college grads tend to feel rather affectionate about their alma mater and that generally extends to helping young graduates.

Now speaking personally, I went to college at the University of Virginia where I majored in religious studies, then got an M. Div. at Yale. In one way of looking at those 7 years of education, they had absolutely nothing to do with preparing me for becoming a screenwriter. On the other hand, they had almost everything to do with it. I was introduced to Joseph Campbell as an undergraduate, studying "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" for the first time, learning about the Protagonist's transformation as typified in The Hero's Journey. I took several courses re myth and symbolism which has helped me to consider my stories in a broader cultural perspective. In graduate school, I studied source and form criticism which made me aware of various narrative forms. At both UVA and Yale, I was a movie fanatic, a member of some film societies as an undergrad and attending a series of Ingmar Bergman screenings in grad school, exposing me to a wide variety of visual styles. And I was introduced to Carl Jung at Yale, another one of my influences, especially in the work I've been doing the last few years on archetypes.

Beyond that, there are two other things that happened to me as a student that helped prep me to become a writer. By my last year at Yale, I had an overwhelming sense that I did not belong there. I had played guitar and written songs since I was 14. While in New Haven, I played in various bands. So I followed my gut and took a year off to pursue a dream of becoming a musician. I played music professionally for several years, which led to a two-year stint doing stand-up comedy, then to screenwriting. Therefore, I think it's arguable that had I not gone to college and grad school for 7 straight years and gotten rather fried on academics, I never would have hit the road in pursuit of my creative muse.

The other thing is this: I met so many people and had so many experiences in those seven years. I made friends and lost friends, girlfriends included. I met students from all around the world. In grad school, as a student minister, I was involved in a number of baptisms, weddings, and funerals. I counseled parishoners, did hospital visitations, met with shut-ins. And each day, with all of those interactions, I heard stories. Indeed, I think it's fair to say that I was actually involved in stories, real life events. The accumulation of all that somehow stored inside as memories and feelings. All of that representing a wealth of story material that I have used and continue to use in my writing to this day.

Is is necessary to go to college to acquire life-experiences? No. What is required is to pay attention to what's going on, be curious about the world around you, the people you meet, the words you hear spoken, the feelings you see being experienced or feel yourself. Because whether a writer goes to college or not, every moment, every interaction, every event is like attending school. The more we pay attention to those moments, the more we feed who we are and can be as writers.

How about you? Did those of you who attended college or perhaps are currently in college feel like what you learned / are learning has been a benefit to your growth as a writer?

Update: Rookie scribe's movie "Brooklyn's Finest"

2009-12-04T16:00:00.001-05:00

Back in August 2008, I posted this fantastic story about Michael C. Martin, a complete Hwood outsider who wrote a spec screenplay and the rest, as they say, is history:

In 2005 a car accident left him injured and his 1991 Lincoln Mark VII totaled. While he would need three months of physical therapy to deal with a bulging disc in his back, his obsession focused less on mending than on making some extra cash to buy a new car. Surfing the Web one day he came across a call for submissions in a screenwriting competition. The grand prize was $10,000. So he began to write the first scenes of what he called “kind of an epic”: the intertweaving stories of three police officers who have misplaced their moral compasses and grown to hate themselves a little along the way.
About a year after the contest Mr. Martin’s agent submitted the script to Warner Bros. on spec for a job writing the sequel to the urban cult film "New Jack City." It landed in a pile of scripts on the desk of the producer Mary Viola. She liked it so much that she not only wanted Mr. Martin to do the “New Jack City” project but proposed that the “Brooklyn’s Finest” script be made into a feature-length movie.
Within weeks the project got the go-ahead. Mr. Martin was paid $200,000 for the script with handsome box-office incentives. After Mr. Fuqua came on board, the big-name cast (Wesley Snipes also stars as a drug dealer recently released from prison) quickly signed on, many taking large pay cuts to work on the film, budgeted at about $25 million.

An update: Brooklyn's Finest got produced and is slated for release March 5, 2010. Here's the trailer just released yesterday:

Looks great. Strong cast. Every lead character flawed and under pressure. And some great bits of dialogue like, "I don't want God's forgiveness, I want God's help."

Congrats to Michael Martin. Hope Brooklyn's Finest is a hit.

What would you do if you won $67M in the lottery?

2009-12-04T14:00:00.002-05:00

You'd become a movie producer, right? That's what Cynthia Stafford from Hawthorne, CA has done as reported in this story from The Wrap:

While Hollywood goes chasing to Abu Dhabi and Mumbai for ever-scarcer funds to finance its movies, the industry might do better just heading to 7-Eleven.
The latest film fund, $30 million to make romantic comedies, thrillers and faith-based dramas, comes from the lottery winnings of Cynthia Stafford, a single Hawthorne homemaker who shared a $67 million jackpot with her father and brother in 2007.
Now she wants to make movies.
"What I like about movies is it's something ongoing," Stafford said. "Movies from the '20s, '30s, '40s -- I still see them today and think, 'Wow, this is something that can go on forever."

The film fund, which follows the creation of her production company Queen Nefertari Productions, will be repped by the Gersh Agency. The banner already has four projects lined up.
Stafford is CEO and executive producer of Queen Nefertari; Jeff Kalligheri and Lanre Idewu, who are her partners in the shingle, are producers.

It's easy to wince at a story like this given the history of so many money people venturing into the movie business only to lose their shirts. That said, at least they're focusing in some profitable story areas:

The company is looking primarily at commercial projects in four broad genres: comedy, romantic comedy, thriller/horror and faith-based.

The first three genres are obvious with proven long-time audiences; the latter proved out once again by the startling success of The Blind Side, which has as of today grossed $103M, a huge moneymaker considering its $29M budget. Here's the prod co's movie slate:

Aiming for an Easter 2010 release is “Risen,” in conjunction with Hyde Park. “It picks up literally the day after 'The Passion of the Christ' left off,” Kalligheri said of the faith-based project.

Also in the works are “Undying,” a supernatural action-thriller the company is co-financing with Media 8 Entertainment, that's out to actors; and “Judd Apatow-type comedy” “Operation Caucasian,” about two Asian-born guys whose sole goal in life is to get with an American girl.

They also have comedy “Adrenaline,” a co-production with Hollywood Farms that the partners described as “Wedding Crashers” meets “Hitch,” out to directors; it's produced by Hollywood Farms' Kirkland Tibbels and actor Matthew Lillard.

Stafford's living out a dream that hopefully will avoid becoming a nightmare. Godspeed, Cynthia!

How about you? If you won $67M, would you start a film production company? If so, what would be its focus, its unique niche? Or would you chuck screenwriting and head off to Tahiti?

UPDATE: Okay, let's up the ante. What would you do if you suddenly found yourself with $7 billion?

Friday Movie Reviews

2009-12-04T12:00:00.002-05:00

Armored (Sony)

No reviews available

Brothers (Lionsgate)

Hollywood Reporter (Kirk Honeycutt): "A remake of a Danish film has much to admire but never comes together with the impact of the original."

Everybody's Fine (Miramax)

Daily Variety (Andrew Barker): "Though a bit too artful to merit the pejorative "tearjerker" label, the film is rigorously streamlined to deliver a good emotional uppercut by the end, and purely on the strength of its craft, it connects."

Up in the Air (Paramount)

Daily Variety (Todd McCarthy): "The tale of an aloof, high-flying exec whose millions of frequent-flyer miles can't keep him permanently above the emotional turbulence he seeks to avoid, "Up in the Air" is a slickly engaging piece of lightweight existentialism highlighted by winning turns from George Clooney and Vera Farmiga."

Hollywood Reporter (Stephen Farber): "Laughs and heartbreak meld seamlessly in this brilliant character drama."

Great Scene: To Kill a Mockingbird

2009-12-04T10:00:00.005-05:00

I've been going through my various Lists and was shocked to discover that in Great Scenes, I currently do not have anything from my favorite movie of all time To Kill a Mockingbird. I determined there and then to do something about it - now!

The problem is - which scene? So many great moments. Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) shooting the rabid dog. Scout (Mary Badham) inside the family car, threatened by a drunk and surly Bob Ewell (James Anderson). The night that Atticus stands guard outside the local jail to keep a mob from lynching Tom Robinson (Brock Adams). The assault on Scout and her brother Jem (Phillip Alford) by Ewell only to be saved by a mystery figure. The reveal of Boo Radley (Robert Duval) lurking in the shadows of the Finch house to make sure that Scout and Jem are safe - for it was he who saved them from Ewell, killing Ewell in the process.

As I say, so many profound moments in the movie. But it is impossible for me to watch the film and to this day not be moved by the closing argument Atticus gives at the trial:

INT. COURTROOM - CLOSE SHOT - ATTICUS

ATTICUS
Gentlemen, I would like to use my
remaining time with you to remind
you that this case is not a
difficult one.

We see the jurors from Atticus' P.O.V. They watch with no
show of emotion. These are the faces of farmers -- lined
and careworn.

BACK TO ATTICUS - As he talks, he looks into the eyes of
the men of the jury as if to find one to encourage him.

ATTICUS
To begin with, this case should
never have come to trial. The
State has not produced one iota of
medical evidence to the effect
that the crime Tom Robinson is
charged with ever took place. It
has relied instead upon the
testimony of two witnesses whose
evidence has not only been called
into serious question on cross
examination, but has been flatly
contradicted by the defendant.
There is circumstantial evidence
to indicate that Mayella Ewell was
beaten savagely by someone who led
almost exclusively with his
left... and Tom Robinson now sits
before you with the only good hand
he possesses... his right hand.
I have nothing but pity in my
heart for the chief witness for
the state. She is the victim of
cruel poverty and ignorance -- but
my pity does not extend so far as
to her putting a man's life at
stake which she has done in an
effort to get rid of her own
guilt. I say guilt, gentlemen,
because it was guilt that
motivated her. She has committed
no crime, she has merely broken a
rigid and time honored code of
our society, a code so severe that
whoever breaks it is hounded from
our midst as unfit to live with.
She must destroy the evidence of
her offense. What was the
evidence of her offense? Tom
Robinson, a human being. She must
put Tom Robinson away from her.
Tom Robinson was her daily
reminder of what she did. What
did she do? She tempted a Negro.
She was white, and she tempted a
Negro. She did something that in
our society is unspeakable: She
kissed a black man. Not an old
Uncle, but a strong, young Negro
man. No code mattered to her
before she broke it, but it came
crashing down on her afterwards.
The witnesses for the state, with
the exception of the Sheriff of
Maycomb County, have presented
themselves to you gentlemen, to
this Court, in the cynical
confidence that their testimony
would not be doubted, confident
that you gentlemen would go along
with them on the assumption -- the
evil assumption -- that all
Negroes lie, that all Negroes are
basically immoral beings, that all
Negro men are not to be trusted
around our women, an assumption
one associates with minds of their
caliber, which, gentlemen, we know
is in itself a life I do not have
to point out to you. And so a
quiet, respectable, humble Negro
who had the unmitigated temerity
to "feel sorry" for a white woman
has had to put his words against
two white people's. The defendant
is not guilty, but somebody in this
courtroom is.

THE JURY -- ATTICUS' P.O.V.

Their faces haven't change expression. One man's chin
itches, and he scratches it. One man brushes a fly off
his knee.

BACK TO ATTICUS

His face is beginning to perspire. He wipes it with a
handkerchief.

ATTICUS
In this country, our courts are the
great leveler, and in our courts
all men are created equal. I'm no
idealist to believe firmly in the
jury system. That is no ideal to
me...It is a living, working
reality. Gentlemen, a court is no
better than each man of you
sitting before me on this jury. A
court is only as sound as the men
who make it up. I am confident
that you gentlemen will review
without passion the evidence you
have heard, come to a decision,
and restore this defendant to his
family. In the name of God, do
your duty. In the name of God,
believe Tom Anderson.

Why is this speech so powerful? Its words work on many levels, but perhaps none more than this: Atticus puts racism on trial. "The defendant is not guilty, but somebody in this courtroom is." The subtext goes beyond Ewell and his daughter; not just generalized bigotry, but the institutionalized racism that existed in the South at the time. Listen to Peck's brilliant delivery of these words, how he rises in defense of Tom Anderson - and indicts bigotry (due to copyright issues, this video only has still images of Finch in the courtroom, accompanied by the audio track from the movie).

Why do certain movies cling to us throughout the years, so profound in their impact that they lurk just barely beneath our consciousness, scenes and moments that we can replay in our minds in an instant? In terms of To Kill a Mockingbird, I have a straight line from my own life-experience -- through Scout.

At the time of the movie's trial, Scout is 9 years old. My family moved from California to Montgomery, Alabama in 1963 when I was 10 (my father was an officer in the Air Force and attended the Air War College in Montgomery from 1963-1964). Although the movie To Kill a Mockingbird was released in 1962, I didn't see it until a few years later, but when I did, I was completely sucked into Scout's journey because of my experience of the institutional form of racism I witnessed in Montgomery - segregated schools, segregated Little League baseball, "Colored Only" water fountains and bathrooms, "No Negroes Allowed" signs at restaurants, and on and on. A white youth for the first time in an overt segregated world.

In 1963, George Wallace was sworn in as Governor of Alabama. In June of that year, he stood in front of the entrance to an auditorium at the University of Alabama, attempting to block the entrance of two African-American students. Every Sunday I attended church in downtown Montgomery - directly diagonal to the church Wallace attended.

Also that summer, President John Kennedy sent what came to be known as the Civil Rights Bill to Congress. He didn't live to see its eventual passage as Kennedy was assassinated that November. When a school official entered our classroom to announce the news of the shooting, many of my classmates applauded.

In 1964, the Kennedy half dollar was first minted. The only physical altercation of my life occurred when one of my schoolmates spit on a shiny, new Kennedy coin and incensed, I jumped him.

As a 10 year-old boy, I grew to loahte Alabama. To this day, I can not think of the state without recalling a host of negative associations. And these were the experiences of a white person, standing on the periphery of the segregationist system, not a person of color subjected to its degrading impact on a daily basis.

To Kill a Mockingbird became an important place for me to go to try process my experiences in Alabama. But it also serves as a reminder that it's possible to write a compelling, entertaining story that can at the same time hold up a mirror to expose social ills and cultural ignorance. And oh yes, to give us one of the most memorable cinematic heroes of all time -- Atticus Finch.

Any other fans of Mockingbird out there? If so, why does the movie resonate with you?

Are there other movies that speak directly to something in your own life experience?

Daily Dialogue -- December 4, 2009

2009-12-04T06:00:00.000-05:00

"James, earn this... earn it.

-- Captain James H. Miller (Tom Hanks), Saving Private Ryan (1998), written by Robert Rodat

2010 Sundance Festival slate revealed

2009-12-03T20:00:00.000-05:00

Per FirstShowing.net:

U.S. Documentary Competition:

This year's 16 films were selected from 862 submissions. Each film is a world premiere.

Bhutto (Directors: Jessica Hernandez and Johnny O'Hara; Screenwriter: Johnny O'Hara) — A riveting journey through the life and work of recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto, former Pakistani prime minister and a polarizing figure in the Muslim world.

Casino Jack & The United States of Money (Director: Alex Gibney) — A probing investigation into the lies, greed and corruption surrounding D.C. super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his cronies.

Family Affair (Director: Chico Colvard) — An uncompromising documentary that examines resilience, survival and the capacity to accommodate a parent's past crimes in order to satisfy the longing for family.

Freedom Riders (Director: Stanley Nelson) — The story behind a courageous band of civil rights activists called the Freedom Riders who in 1961 creatively challenged segregation in the American South.

GasLand (Director: Josh Fox) — A cross-country odyssey uncovers toxic streams, dying livestock, flammable sinks and weakening health among rural citizens on the front lines of the natural gas drilling craze.

I'm Pat Fucking Tillman (Director: Amir Bar-Lev) — The story of professional football star and decorated U.S. soldier Pat Tillman, whose family takes on the U.S. government when their beloved son dies in a "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan in 2004.

Jean-Michel Basquiat: The Radiant Child (Director: Tamra Davis) — The story of artist Jean-Michel Basquiat, whose work defined, electrified and challenged an era, and whose untimely death at age 27 has made him a cultural icon.

Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work (Directors: Ricki Stern and Annie Sundberg) — A rare, brutally honest glimpse into the comedic process and private dramas of legendary comedian and pop icon Joan Rivers as she fights tooth and nail to keep her American dream alive.

Lucky (Director: Jeffrey Blitz) — The story of what happens when ordinary people hit the lottery jackpot.

My Perestroika (Director:Robin Hessman) — Intimately tracking the lives of five Muscovites who came of age just as the USSR collapsed and are adjusting to their post-Soviet reality, My Perestroika maps the contours of a nation in profound transition.

The Oath (Director: Laura Poitras) — Filmed in Yemen, The Oath tells the story of two men whose fateful encounter in 1996 set them on a course of events that led them to Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, 9/11, Guantanamo, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Restrepo (Directors: Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington) — Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington's year dug in with the Second Platoon in one of Afghanistan's most strategically crucial valleys reveals extraordinary insight into the surreal combination of back breaking labor, deadly firefights, and camaraderie as the soldiers painfully push back the Taliban.

A Small Act (Director:Jennifer Arnold) — A young Kenyan's life changes dramatically when his education is sponsored by a Swedish stranger. Years later, he founds his own scholarship program to replicate the kindness he once received.

Smash His Camera (Director: Leon Gast) — Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis sued him, and Marlon Brando broke his jaw. The story of notorious, reviled paparazzo Ron Galella opens a Pandora's Box of issues from right to privacy, freedom of the press and the ever-growing vortex of celebrity worship.

12th & Delaware (Directors: Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing) — The abortion battle continues to rage in unexpected ways on an unassuming corner in America.

Waiting for Superman (Director: Davis Guggenheim) — Waiting for Superman examines the crisis of public education in the United States through multiple interlocking stories—from a handful of students and their families whose futures hang in the balance, to the educators and reformers trying to find real and lasting solutions within a dysfunctional system.

U.S. Dramatic Competition:

This year's 16 films were selected from 1,058 submissions. Each film is a world premiere.

Blue Valentine (Director: Derek Cianfrance; Screenwriters: Derek Cianfrance, Cami Delavigne and Joey Curtis) — A complex portrait of an American marriage, Blue Valentine charts the evolution of a relationship over time. Cast: Ryan Gosling, Michelle Williams, Mike Vogel, John Doman.

Douchebag (Director: Drake Doremus; Screenwriters: Lindsay Stidham, Drake Doremus, Jonathan Schwartz and Andrew Dickler) — On the verge of getting married, Sam Nussbaum insists he escort his younger brother, Tom, on a wild goose chase of a journey to find Tom's fifth grade girlfriend. Cast: Andrew Dickler, Ben York Jones, Marguerite Moreau, Nicole Vicius, Amy Ferguson, Wendi McClendon-Covey.

The Dry Land (Director and Screenwriter: Ryan Piers Williams) — A U.S. soldier returning home from war struggles to reconcile his experiences abroad with the life and family he left in Texas. Cast: America Ferrera, Wilmer Valderrama, Ethan Suplee, June Diane Raphael, Melissa Leo.

HappyThankYouMorePlease (Director and Screenwriter: Josh Radnor) — Six New Yorkers negotiate love, friendship, and gratitude at a time when they're too old to be precocious and not ready to be adults. Cast: Malin Akerman, Josh Radnor, Kate Mara, Zoe Kazan, Tony Hale, Pablo Schreiber, Michael Algieri.

Hesher (Director: Spencer Susser; Screenwriters: Spencer Susser and David Michod; Story by Brian Charles Frank) — A mysterious, anarchical trickster descends on the lives of a family struggling to deal with a painful loss. Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Natalie Portman, Rainn Wilson, Devin Brochu, Piper Laurie, John Carroll Lynch.

Holy Rollers (Director: Kevin Tyler Asch; Screenwriter: Antonio Macia) — A young Hasidic man, seduced by money, power and opportunity, becomes an international Ecstasy smuggler. Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Justin Bartha, Danny A. Abeckaser, Ari Graynor, Jason Fuchs.

Howl (Directors and Screenwriters: Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman) — A nonfiction drama about the young Allen Ginsberg finding his voice, the creation of his groundbreaking poem HOWL, and the landmark obscenity trial that followed. Cast: James Franco, David Strathairn, Jon Hamm, Mary-Louise Parker, Jeff Daniels.

The Imperialists are Still Alive! (Director and Screenwriter: Zeina Durra) — Juggling the sudden abduction of her childhood sweetheart as well as a blooming love affair, a French Manhattanite makes her way as an artist in an indifferent, sometimes hostile world. Cast: Élodie Bouchez, José María de Tavira, Karim Saleh Karolina Muller, Marianna Kulukundis, Rita Ackerman.

Lovers of Hate (Director and Screenwriter: Bryan Poyser) — The shaky reunion of estranged brothers takes a turn for the worse when the woman they both love chooses one over the other. Cast: Chris Doubek, Heather Kafka, Alex Karpovsky, Zach Green.

Night Catches Us (Director and Screenwriter: Tanya Hamilton) — In 1978, complex political and emotional forces are set in motion when a young man returns to the race-torn Philadelphia neighborhood where he came of age during the Black Power movement. Cast: Anthony Mackie, Kerry Washington, Jamie Hector, Wendell Pierce, Jamara Griffin.

Obselidia (Director and Screenwriter: Diane Bell) — A lonely librarian believes love is obsolete until a road trip to Death Valley with a beguiling cinema projectionist teaches him otherwise. Cast: Gaynor Howe, Michael Piccirilli, Frank Hoyt Taylor.

Skateland (Director: Anthony Burns; Screenwriters: Anthony Burns, Brandon Freeman, Heath Freeman) — In the early 1980s, in small-town Texas, dramatic events force a 19-year-old skating rink manager to look at his life in a very new way. Cast: Shiloh Fernandez, A.J. Buckley, Ashley Greene, Brett Cullen, Ellen Hollman, Heath Freeman.

Sympathy for Delicious (Director: Mark Ruffalo; Screenwriter: Christopher Thornton) — A newly paralyzed DJ gets more than he bargained for when he seeks out the world of faith healing. Cast: Orlando Bloom, Mark Ruffalo, Juliette Lewis, Laura Linney, John Carroll Lynch.

3 Backyards (Director and Screenwriter: Eric Mendelsohn) — A quiet suburban town becomes an intense emotional terrain for three residents over the course of one curious autumn day. Cast: Embeth Davidtz, Edie Falco, Elias Koteas, Rachel Resheff, Kathryn Erbe, Danai Gurira.

Welcome to the Rileys (Director: Jake Scott) — On a business trip to New Orleans, a damaged man seeks salvation by caring for a wayward young woman. Cast: James Gandolfini, Kristen Stewart, Melissa Leo.

Winter's Bone (Director: Debra Granik; Screenwriters: Debra Granik and Anne Rosellini) — An unflinching Ozark Mountain girl hacks through dangerous social terrain as she hunts down her drug-dealing father while trying to keep her family intact. Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, John Hawkes, Dale Dickey, Garret Dillahunt, Kevin Breznahan.

World Cinema Documentary Competition:

This year's 12 films were selected from 782 international documentary submissions.

A Film Unfinished / Germany, Israel (Director: Yael Hersonski) — Film reels uncovered in Nazi archives reveal the mechanisms used to stage Warsaw Ghetto life–images which have shaped our view of history.

Enemies of the People / Cambodia, United Kingdom(Directors: Rob Lemkin and Thet Sambath) — A young journalist whose family was killed by the Khmer Rouge befriends the perpetrators of the Killing Fields genocide, evoking shocking revelations.

Fix Me / France, Palestinian Territories, Switzerland(Director: Raed Andoni) — When Palestinian filmmaker Raed Andoni gets a headache that won't quit, he seeks out help and insight in different forms in his hometown of Ramallah.

His & Hers / Ireland (Director: Ken Wardrop) — Seventy Irish women offer moving insights into the relationships between women and men.

Kick in Iran / Gemany (Director: Fatima Geza Abdollahyan) —The first female professional Taekwondo fighter from Iran to qualify for the Olympic Games struggles for recognition in a society where women still play a subordinate role.

Last Train Home / Canada (Director: Lixin Fan) — Getting a train ticket in China proves a towering ordeal as a migrant worker family embarks on a journey, along with 200 million other peasants, to reunite with their distant family.

The Red Chapel (Det Røde Kapel) / Denmark (Director: Mads Brügger) — A journalist with no scruples, a self-proclaimed spastic, and a comedian travel to North Korea under the guise of a cultural exchange visit to challenge one of the world's most notorious regimes.

Russian Lessons / Georgia, Germany, Norway (Directors: Olga Konskaya and Andrei Nekrasov) — An investigation into Russian actions during the 2008 war in Georgia, revealing the little known story of the ethnic cleansing in the region since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Secrets of the Tribe / Brazil (Director: José Padilha) — Is the academic Anthropology community capable of generating real knowledge about mankind? The scandals and the infighting regarding the representation of indigenous Indians in the Amazon Basin seems to indicate that the answer may be a resounding no.

Sins of My Father / Argentina, Colombia (Director: Nicolas Entel) — The life and times of notorious Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar are recounted through the eyes of his son, who fled Colombia to move beyond his father's legacy.

Space Tourists / Switzerland (Director: Christian Frei) — A humorous and laconic view of the way billionaires depart our planet earth to travel into outer space for fun.

Waste Land / United Kingdom (Director: Lucy Walker) — Lives are transformed when international art star Vik Muniz collaborates with garbage pickers in the world's largest landfill in Rio de Janeiro.

World Cinema Narrative Competition:

This year's 14 films were selected from 1,022 international narrative feature submissions.

All that I Love / Poland (Director and Screenwriter: Jacek Borcuch) — In 1981, during the growing Polish Solidarity movement, four small-town teenagers form a punk rock band with the hope of playing at a local festival. Cast: Mateusz Ko?ciukiewicz, Jakub Giersza?, Mateusz Banasiuk, Olga Frycz, Igor Ob?oza.

Animal Kingdom / Australia (Director and Screenwriter: David Michôd) — After the death of his mother, a seventeen year-old boy is thrust precariously between an explosive criminal family and a detective who thinks he can save him. Cast: Guy Pearce, Ben Mendelsohn, Joel Edgerton, Luke Ford, Jacki Weaver, James Frecheville.

Boy / New Zealand (Director and Screenwriter: Taika Waititi) — When his father returns home after many years away, 11-year-old Boy and his little brother Rocky must reconcile reality with the fantasy dad they created in their imagination. Cast: Taika Waititi, James Rolleston, Te Aho Eketone.

Contracorriente (Undertow) / Colombia, France, Germany, Peru (Director and Screenwriter: Javier Fuentes-Leon) — An unusual ghost story set on the Peruvian seaside, a married fisherman struggles to reconcile his devotion to his male lover within his town's rigid traditions. Cast: Cristian Mercado, Manolo Cardona, Tatiana Astengo.

Four Lions / UK (Director: Chris Morris and Screenwriters: Chris Morris, Jesse Armstrong and Sam Bain) — A comedy tour de force about a bunch of self styled British jihadis. Cast: Riz Ahmed, Arsher Ali, Nigel Lindsay, Kayvan Novak.

Grown Up Movie Star / Canada(Director and Screenwriter: Adriana Maggs) — After her mother runs away, a teenage girl, determined to grow up fast, is left to care for her hopelessly rural father. Cast: Shawn Doyle, Tatiana Maslany, Jonny Harris, Mark O'Brien, Andy Jones, Julia Kennedy.

The Man Next Door (El Hombre de al Lado) / Argentina (Directors and Screenwriters: Mariano Cohn and Gastón; Screenwriter: Andres Duprat) — A small incident over two neighbors common wall sparks a conflict which affects the intimacy of the view over the chimney; the protagonist sparks a conflict and with paranoiac obsession destroys everyday life. Cast: Rafael Spregelburd, Daniel Aráoz, Eugenia Alonso, Inés Budassi, Lorenza Acuña.

Me Too (Yo, También) / Spain (Directors and Screenwriters: Álvaro Pastor and Antonio Naharro) — A 34-year-old college-educated man with Down syndrome and his free-spirited co-worker forge an unconventional relationship. Cast: Pablo Pineda, Lola Dueñas, Antonio Naharro, Isabel Garcia Lorca, Pedro Alvarez Ossorio.

Nuummioq / Greenland (Directors: Otto Rosing and Torben Bech; Screenwriter: Torben Bech) — A young man's journey through the exquisite natural landscape of Greenland allows him to piece together elements of his past and move on with his life. Cast: Lars Rosing, Angunnguaq Larsen, Julie Berthelsen, Morten Rose, Makka Kleist, Mariu Olsen.

Peepli Live / India (Director and Screenwriter: Anusha Rizvi) — A satirical look at the predicament of a poor farmer who creates a media frenzy when, beset with debt, he announces that he will commits suicide so his family can receive government compensation. Cast: Omkar Das, Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Raghubir Yadav, Shalini Vatsa, Farukh Jaffer.

Son of Babylon / Iraq (Director: Mohamed Al Daradji; Screenwriters: Mohamed Al-Daradji, Jennifer Norridge, Mithal Ghazi) — In the days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, a young Kurdish boy and his grandmother venture through Iraq on a quest to find the remains of their missing father/son. Cast: Yasser Talib, Shazda Hussein, Bashir Al-Majid.

Southern District (Zona Sur) / Bolivia (Director and Screenwriter: Juan Carlos Valdivia) — In La Paz, Bolivia, in a villa surrounded by beautiful gardens, an upper-class family experiences final halcyon days of luxury as social change penetrates their bubble. Cast: Ninón del Castillo, Pascual Loayza, Nicolás Fernández, Juan Pablo Koria, Mariana Vargas.

The Temptation of St. Tony / Estonia (Director and Screenwriter: Veiko Õunpuu) — A mid-level manager who develops an aversion to being “good” finds himself confronting the mysteries of middle-age and morality as he loses grasp of what was once his quiet life. Cast: Taavi Eelmaa, Rain Tolk, Tiina Tauraite, Katariina Lauk, Raivo E. Tamm.

Vegetarian (Chaesikjueuija) / South Korea (Director and Screenwriter: Lim Woo-seong) — A young housewife, finds herself having strange dreams that make her disgusted by meat, leading to trouble with her meat-loving husband and attention from her artist brother in law. Cast: Hea Min-Seo, Kim Hyun-Sung, Kim Yeo-Jin, Kim Young-Jae.

Reactions:

L. A. Times

N.Y. Times

Daily Variety

Hollywood Reporter

Which titles sound interesting to you?

Question: Is it okay to have the Antagonist drive the Plotline?

2009-12-03T18:00:00.005-05:00

An open forum question from Jeff :

Scott, I'm in the initial mapping/plotting stages of I guess what could be considered a traditional Hollywood blockbuster type movie. Y'know, tubs of nuclear-butter popcorn sold left n' right, THX audio to shake their fillings right outta' their skulls, eye popping 3-D that'll cause the middle rows to ralph out their Milk Duds across the theater...

...the usual.

All daffiness aside, when I say 'traditional,' I mean classic protagonist/antagonist design.

Anyway, as I etch out my timeline, I find that the scenes/events that land on it and seem to guide me are the actions of the ANTAGONIST, since what this 'bad guy' (for lack of a better term) does drives what my PROTAGONISTS do. It doesn't seem to be too skewed a design since something like that little film last summer, you may have heard of it, THE DARK KNIGHT, functions very much in the same way. Let's face it, Batman would just hang upside-down in the batcave unless some arch villain didn't do some underhanded deed and get things in motion, right?

Still... it looks weird not having my main character's name plastered all over my wipe-board, y'know?

My question is, do I panic? Do I have that most foul of creatures called the 'reactionary' main character?

Remember... this is a BIG movie intended to make some lucky studio BIG money!

(heh heh... I'm, of course, being more than a little waggish with bold statements like that and yet...I've never really truly had a project like this before. I've always worked with the low to middle budget stuff, the quirky, the weird, the wonky. This is the first script I've ever tried that I could actually see, in my mind's eye, a giant cardboard standee for in the lobby of some 20 screen mega-multi-plex.

Therefore, I'm panicking.)

Jeff, I'm sure that somewhere in this fine country of ours, a slump-shouldered, pasty-faced, mole-eyed doctoral student has written a dissertation entitled "The Protagonist's Journey: Chasing the Antagonist's Tale" which would answer your question directly. Until you find said dissertation, let me provide a few thoughts.

The yellow flag you raised -- concern that your Protagonist(s) may be too reactive -- is a legitimate one. Development execs pick up on precisely this type of thing more so, I suspect, out of a fear that A-level talent might balk at not being the character who sets the story's agenda rather than any deep understanding of or appreciation for the nuances of storytelling.

But in fact, many movies have a Protagonist who spends most of the time trying to figure out what the Nemesis is doing, the Nemesis the active character, the Protagonist the reactive one. Here are just some examples movies with reactive Protagonists taken from the WGA's Top 101 Screenplays list:

Chinatown
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The Graduate
The Apartment
North by Northwest
Groundhog Day
The Sixth Sense
All the President's Men
The Silence of the Lambs
Jaws
High Noon
Witness
Memento

Different shades of reactive Protagonists, but reactive nonetheless.

So how do these movies manage to work? For one thing, the Protagonist may spend a majority of a movie chasing the Nemesis, and yet there's that word - active - right there in the word "reactive." In other words, the Protagonist is actively on the hunt, actively checking out clues, actively interacting with some of the Nemesis' minions. The Protagonist is also actively interacting with other subplots. And importantly, they often have a Transformation process, moving from one emotion state to another over the course of the story. That can be an active experience for the Protagonist as well.

Another thing: Typically the reader gets the universal view of the story, that is they can see both the Nemesis and Protagonist in action, whereas the Protagonist has a limited view. Handled properly, this can create a desirable psychological state in the reader, intensifying their allegiance too and rooting for the Protagonist to succeed.

One more thing: The inevitability of the Final Struggle - that major and climactic plot point at the end of Act Three - is present throughout the entire story. A reader can intuit that from the very beginning of the script: These two are going to meet up and hash it out. So while the Nemesis may be seemingly in charge of events throughout Act Two, we know the Protagonist will intersect with the N. That can mitigate the Nemesis-in-charge dynamic.

I'm sure GITS readers will have lots of thoughts on this. But my short answer to your original question, I would say, yes, it's okay to have the Nemesis drive the plot - as long as you make the Protagonist active in their pursuit, active in their engagement with the plot, and active in their own transformation process.

National Board of Review awards announced

2009-12-03T17:00:00.001-05:00

Per this release:

Partial list of film awards given by National Board of Review, announced Thursday:

Best Film: "Up in the Air"
Best Director: Clint Eastwood, "Invictus"
Best Actor(s): George Clooney, "Up in the Air"; Morgan Freeman, "Invictus"
Best Actress: Carey Mulligan, "An Education"
Best Supporting Actor: Woody Harrelson, "The Messenger"
Best Supporting Actress: Anna Kendrick, "Up in the Air"
Best Foreign Language Film: "A Prophet"
Best Documentary: "The Cove"
Best Animated Feature: "Up"
Best Ensemble Cast: "It's Complicated"
Breakthrough Performance by an Actor: Jeremy Renner, "The Hurt Locker"
Breakthrough Performance by an Actress: Gabourey Sidibe, "Precious"

Special Filmmaking Achievement Award: Wes Anderson, "The Fantastic Mr. Fox"

And the screenplay winners:

Best Original Screenplay: Joel and Ethan Coen, "A Serious Man"

Best Adapted Screenplay: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, "Up in the Air"

I've seen A Serious Man. Can't wait to see Up in the Air, I've been tracking that since its great reviews at Toronto. In fact, I'll be posting something - hopefully tomorrow - with a lot of interviews with Jason Reitman, who directed and co-wrote the screenplay (Sheldon Turner also received writing credit) and background on the movie.

Re A Serious Man: Has anybody else heard the rumor that the movie is The Wizard of Oz in reverse? Perhaps that explains the ending...

Daily Dialogue contest #2

2009-12-03T16:00:00.001-05:00

Last time, we ended up with two themes: Movies written by women (which we ran last week - suggestion by aleks) and famous dying words (which we're running this week - suggestion by Peter Dwight). So let's see what we can come up with a second time around.

What theme can you suggest we can use for Daily Dialogues for an entire week -- that's 7 entries, one per day. The suggestion has to involve movies we can (A) find the dialogue for and (B) access some sort of YouTube clip (i.e., trailer, scene) to post along with it.

Have at it in comments!

"Blade Runner" dialogue analysis

2009-12-03T14:00:00.001-05:00

This week, as determined by GITS readers, the Daily Dialogue has been featuring famous dying words from movie characters. On Tuesday, the movie was Blade Runner and the dialogue quote was simply "Time to die," as uttered by Rutger Hauer's character Roy Batty. That inspired this email from GITS reader Paul Sanford:

Scott,

I was glad to see Blade Runner show up in the Daily Dialogue today, although abbreviating that moment to “time to die” underplays what I believe is some of the most poetic dialogue ever put to film – the “tears in the rain” speech. I’m glad the Youtube clip featured the entire moment. I think it’s an interesting case study in collaboration, in this case between the writers, the actor and the director. If you don’t mind, I wanted to share what I found when I flipped through the different versions of the script that I have...

In Fancher's July 24, 1980 draft, Batty has no speech at the end. He’s simply shot and killed by Deckard. Batty does say “time to die”, but only to taunt Deckard during the fight sequence.

This version of the speech shows up in an undated draft (which I believe is from Dec 1980) by Fancher/Peoples:

“I’ve known adventures, seen places you people will never see, I’ve been Offworld and back… frontiers! I’ve stood on the back deck of a blinker bound for the Plutition Camps with sweat in my eyes watching stars fight on the shoulder of Orion… I’ve felt wind in my hair, riding test boats off the black galaxies and seen an attack fleet burn like a match and disappear. I’ve seen it, felt it…!”

This version is in both the Feb 21, 1981 & May 15, 1981 Fancher/Peoples draft:

"I've seen things... seen things you little people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium... I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments... they'll be gone."

And the filmed version, with Rutger Hauer reportedly improvising the “tears in the rain” line:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've seen c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in the rain. Time to die."

Part of the poignancy of the dialogue is that the dilemma Batty references when he dies ("all those moments (re: memories) will be lost in time") is something we all face in the end...

As I recounted to Paul in an email, what he did was engage in "textual source criticism," which is something I studied in graduate school as part of my work on the Gospels in the New Testament. And with the proliferation of movie screenplays online nowadays, it's possible to compare / contrast various script drafts to speculate how the creative process may have worked. Given what Paul has discovered, here is my conjecture re Blade Runner:

* The first draft - Batty with no dialogue / he just dies - led someone to suggest that the moment needed more. If one of the underlying themes of the story is the 'humanity' of robots, what better way to show that than have a 'dying' robot recount vivid memories from his past, conveying a deep emotional connection to his life-experience.

* The second draft - representing the longest of Batty's final sides - is an example of taking the idea of the moment needing more and pushing it out. Too far, as it appears because --

* The third draft pulls back some of the description in dialogue and --

* The version in the movie pulls it back even more.

That dynamic of tightening dialogue, even cutting whole sides, is a common occurrence -- I've seen it time and time again when reading a script while watching the movie. I think that is in large part due to the fact that once they shoot footage and assemble it, the visuals often make some of the dialogue unnecessary. Also, too, a side may read great on the page, but just doesn't work on screen. So perhaps Ridley Scott let Rutger Hauer wing the last side of dialogue, maybe telling him to tighten it up, or a writer on-set went through the latest version and cut a few references, but after expanding the side, it contracted by the time the movie was done.

One other thing: Notice how the "Time to die" line was present in the original draft, but used to a totally different effect - to taunt Deckard. So while some writers expanded Batty's last side, then contracted it, somebody along the way remembered that line - "Time to die" - and suggested that might be a fitting coda for Batty, in essence a case of a line going through its own transformation, from taunt to sad irony.

Thanks, Paul, for taking the time and effort for your analysis. Great stuff.

Update: Spec script sale: "Invasion"

2009-12-03T12:00:00.000-05:00

Posted on this Monday, noting the trades hadn't reported it yet. Now they have:

Summit Entertainment and Participant Media are teaming on "Invasion," snapping up a Ben Magid's sci-fi spec script. "Invasion" is described as a sci-fi action movie with an environmental theme. Logline's under wraps.

This is the second project I've seen recently involving Participant Media -- the other being The Crazies -- that seems to stray from their roots - as noted here in a previous post:

Participant believes that a good story well told can truly make a difference in how one sees the world. Whether it is a feature film, documentary or other form of media, Participant exists to tell compelling, entertaining stories that also create awareness of the real issues that shape our lives.

We seek to entertain our audiences first, then to invite them to participate in making a difference next. Participant believes that people are basically good and that everyone deserves the chance to be a participant!

Known for high-minded, "progressive" movies including Good Night and Good Luck (2005), North Country (2005), Syriana (2005), An Inconvenient Truth (2006), Fast Food Nation (2006), The Visitor (2007), The Kite Runner (2007), and Charlie Wilson's War (2007), it makes one wonder if they are dumping their initial guiding philosophy -- or just stretching their brand into more entertainment-first projects.

"17 Movies You Watch Over and Over"

2009-12-03T10:00:00.001-05:00

I generally think these type of lists are pretty dumb. But then this one started out so strong:

Goodfellas (1990)

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Four great movies. And then came this:

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

Watch Conan over and over? Hell, I couldn't even make it through one sitting!

The rest of the list is spotty although The Princess Bride, Breaking Away, Fight Club, Back to the Future -- I can live with those.

All About Eve (1950)

Clue (1985)

The Goonies (1985)

Varsity Blues (1999)

The Princess Bride (1987)

Breaking Away (1979)

The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

Die Hard (1988)

Fight Club (1999)

Back to the Future (1985)

Best in Show (2000)

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

But where's Animal House? Casablanca? Shakespeare in Love? I'm sure you've got your favorite movies you could watch over and over.

How about this: Which movie have you seen the most times and how many times have you watched it? Personally I'd have to say It's a Wonderful Life just because we watch it together almost every holiday season.

How about you?

Daily Dialogue -- December 3, 2009

2009-12-03T06:00:00.000-05:00

"You must do me this honor... promise me you will survive... that you will never give up... no matter what happens... no matter how hopeless... promise me now, and never let go of that promise... never let go."

-- Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), Titanic (1997), written by James Cameron

Question: What's the deal with color coded index cards for script outlines?

2009-12-02T18:00:00.003-05:00

Open forum question from Tom:

When you posted the piece on how author Don Chaon uses color coded index cards for his first draft it made me wonder how? When I use color coded cards, I use them to identify either a theme or a particular character. How do you (or would you) use color coded index cards in outlining your script? BTW, thanks for the link to the Step Sheet for Chinatown. What a great resource!

Remember how Stephen Bochco ruled the TV universe for a decade or more with series like "Hill Street Blues," "L.A. Law," and "NYPD Blue"? Years ago I read an interview with writer David Milch, who worked on "NYPD Blue" for many seasons, where he talked about the Bochco method: Each hour had several subplots. In the case of "NYPD Blue," each episode almost always had three storylines. As the writers would work out the beats in each subplot, Bochco would have those beats put onto color-coded 3x5 inch index cards - one color per subplot - then stripped out onto a board, where he and the others would shuffle them around to intercut each subplot per each act.

So let's say you have your main plot, what I call the Plotline. For now, designate that as blue, which means that all the beats and major plot points involving the Plotline are written out on blue index cards. Then let's say the Protagonist has a subplot with an Attractor character. How about green for that? And a subplot with the Protagonist and the Mentor. How about orange for that? Then the P's relationship with a Trickster. Let's dub that yellow. And so on per each subplot.

Now let's imagine that you've worked out all the beats per each subplot and all those beats have been summarized onto index cards. Like Bochco, you can play around with the best approach in cross-cutting this subplot with that one, then that one, weaving them together as you build the story around the Plotline.

That's one use for color coded index cards. I'll bet GITS readers have more ideas. Anyone?

How They Write a Script: Horton Foote

2009-12-02T16:00:00.001-05:00

One of the most beloved American movies - and also one of my personal favorites -- is To Kill a Mockingbird, the cinematic version of Harper Lee's 1960 novel. The writer who adapted the novel into a screenplay is Horton Foote. A noted playwright as well as screenwriter, Foote's movie credits include Tender Mercies (1983), The Trip to Bountiful (1985), and Of Mice and Men (1992). In a writing career that spanned 5 decades, Foote penned the original screenplay for Main Street while in his 90s. That movie was produced this year, the same year that Foote died at the age of 93.

Here are excerpts from "Backstory 3: Interviews with Screenwriters of the 60s", edited by Patrick McGilligan.

ON WHAT HE LEARNED ABOUT WRITING FROM HIS TRAINING AS AN ACTOR

...for me there was a whole period of unlearning the bad habits I had picked up in my conventional training as an actor, which was to be very vocal and to work things out vocally rather than to find my inner life. They gave us a whole series of exercises for actors... The whole sense of the through-line, the sense of actions, what people want on stage.

It applied to me wonderfully as a writer, because in my work as an actor, I would break a play down so that, without really knowing it, I was studying its structure in the sense of what it was the characters wanted. That's really much more important than the result of the character: what do they want, what causes the conflict between them, what is the structure of the scene, what is the overall through-line of the play, what is the spine, what does everything kind of hold on to. That was one way in which I could instinctually, as an actor, work on trying to understand the play.

ON WRITING "THE TRIP TO BOUNTIFUL"

I had an idea based on a certain situation in my family that haunted me. Originally, I had tried to start the story of The Trip to Bountiful on the day that Mrs. Watts was forced by her father to marry her husband—emotionally, if not physically, forced—and the story just wasn't working. By that time, I knew enough to know that you can't use your well if it's not working. So I just put the work aside, and I don't know how or why—what the mechanics were—but a couple of days later, I realized I had started the story all wrong. I decided I had to start at the end of her life. When I did that, I wrote the script very quickly.

I could never tell one of my stories until after it was written, because it would ruin it for me. After I wrote it, I went down to see Fred [Coe - producer] and told him the story. He used to say that all I told him was something about this old lady who wanted to get back home. I don't believe that; maybe it's true. Then, he used to say—he always laughed about this—"Two days later, you sent me a full script." Of course, the script was already written.

Well, we did the play on television, and of course, it was 'live'. None of us realized the power and phenomenon of the play, but that night we began to sense it, because after the show the phones in the studio started to ring, and they rang and rang. People were calling and talking about Lillian Gish [who played the leading role of Mrs. Carrie Watts]. They had seen her performance and were excited because they had not seen her for years. The response was so emotional.

For the film, I added things, of course. You had to. It was the first time I could actually take the trip, because in the days of live television, the restrictions of television were much like theater. Peter said, "Who do you want in the part, then?" I said, "I want Geraldine Page." He said, "I absolutely agree."

ON WRITING "TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD"

Well, I don't like to adapt, to begin with. It's a very painful process—a big responsibility—particularly if you like something, which I usually have to do. In the case of Mockingbird, it was sent to me, and I said, "I'm not going to read it because I don't want to do it." My wife read it—she's passed on now—but she had enormous influence on me. She said to me, "You'd better stop and read this book." So I read it and felt I could really do something with it. [The producer] Alan [Pakula] and [the director] Bob [Mulligan] had offered it to Harper [Lee, the book's author] to adapt, and she didn't want to do it. They felt she and I should meet, so they brought Harper out to Nyack, and we had an evening together and kind of fell in love. That script was a very happy experience.

I have to find ways to get into things. I had read R. P. Blackmur, a critic I admired, and he wrote a review-essay about it called "A Scout in the Wilderness," comparing the novel to Huck Finn. That meant a lot to me because Huck Finn was something I always wanted to do and still would like to do as a film—if you could, although you would have to wait until the era of being politically correct about it has passed. The comparison to Huck Finn made my imagination go.

Harper also told me that [the character of] Deal was based on Truman Capote, and that was very helpful to me. The contribution Alan made was to say, "Now look, just stop worrying about the time frame of the novel and try to bring it into focus in one year of seasons: fall, winter, spring, summer." Architecturally, that was a big help. Then I felt I could compress and take away and add from that point of view.

ON WRITING "OF MICE AND MEN"

Of Mice and Men, again I resisted. But I had great respect for [the actor-director] Gary Sinise. My great resistance there was it had been done so much—what in the world could anybody ever say that was different? I had spent my young manhood pretending I was Lenny. Everybody was doing Lenny in those days. But then I reread the novella, and I was struck by how fresh it seemed, particularly how it related to today, with the rootlessness and the hopelessness and the migratory conditions. I felt quite taken with it. Then—I know I'll get into trouble for saying this, because it's considered a classic—I happened to run off the [Lewis] Milestone film [Of Mice and Men, 1940], which I decided was terrible. I thought it was full of clich́s and everything I didn't want to do. Gary agreed with me. He said, "Don't pay any attention to that silly thing." He had a great passion about the male-bonding idea. He sent me a film, which I'd never seen, called Scarecrow, with Al Pacino, who I think is a remarkable actor, and Gene Hackman, also a wonderful actor. It is a tale of two guys on the road—very different from Steinbeck—but suddenly, I found myself interested in doing Of Mice and Men and exploring it.

ON WRITING "TENDER MERCIES"

I was working on my Orphans' Home Cycle, as a matter of fact working on Night Seasons and a number of other things. I was living in New Hampshire, and I needed some money. My agent, Lucy Kroll, told me, "They like you out in Hollywood. You're so peculiar—you won't pitch—but if you would just give me a few lines about something, I could get you some money to write it and to finish these other projects."

I thought about it. I was very interested in my nephew who was part of a group that had been playing around for gigs, as they call them, and the life of musicians reminded me much of what I had gone through as an actor. Most of the group had jobs on the side, and they would sometimes go to play at places where somebody—maybe the manager—had hired two orchestras for the same night, but the first one that showed up got the job. I began to think about a country-western band, paralleling it to my experiences as an actor—that kind of rejection. I told this idea to someone at 20th Century-Fox and she rather liked it and she told me that her boss was coming in from Hollywood. His name was Gareth Wigan, a partner with Alan Ladd, and would I tell it to him?

I thought that was easy enough, so I told it to him. He liked it but said, "There's only one thing. I think somewhere in there there should be an older character." I said, "Okay—I'll think about it." He said, "But I want to make a deal with you. When your agent comes out [to Hollywood], have her come round, and we'll work out a contract."

Out Lucy [Kroll] went. She got off the plane, bought the Reporter or Variety, and the first thing she read was that Wigan and Ladd had left Fox. In the meantime, I had been thinking about the idea, as is my wont. I got intrigued, and because I really don't like to accept money before things are written, I thought I'd just pull in my belt and write it. I did and felt it was a wonderful part for Duvall; so I called him up, and we met in New York at a place I was subletting. I read it to him, and he said he'd do it.

It wasn't all that easy to get it done. It took us almost two years. A man named Philip S. Hobel and his wife, Mary-Ann Hobel, were very helpful as producers; then of course [the director] Bruce Beresford was a great gift to us. I had seen Breaker Morant —which I loved and still love as a film—but I didn't think he would be interested in this at all. In the meantime, we'd been turned down by many directors. Bruce was sent the script in Australia. He told me he usually waits a month before reading a script, but something told him to go to this one right away, so he read it. Halfway through it, he called up and said he'd do it. He said, "I just have to know one thing—if I can get along with the writer." And we got along very well.

ON THE RECURRING THEME OF HOME IN HIS STORIES

I think themes do reappear constantly in one's work. I thought what Ben Brantley said about Night Seasons was very perceptive, and I'm going to write him a little note and thank him for it. He spoke about the theme of home reappearing in my works, and how it surfaces and was worked out in Night Seasons, and that's true. I know it does reappear all the time. It's almost an irony in the sense that [the character of] Josie lives in this apartment and can't even remember names anymore; Laura Lee, all she has are pictures of houses that she pastes into a scrapbook; and Thurman and Delia, who get a house, it's hell for them—because they fight all the time—home has no meaning for them at all. In that sense, it's a very ironical use of the desire for home.

ON HOW HE COMES UP WITH STORY IDEAS

I also keep notebooks, and sometimes just a phrase in a notebook will start me off. I never know. I've also learned that you can't really predict the time for the consolidation of the idea. You can use your will, and you can say, "I know this is wonderful—I'm going to make it work," and it just won't do it. Something is larger there, and you have to say, "Okay, you win." Katherine Anne Porter has that theory about the drawer: you put something in a drawer, and when you go back to it, something has happened to it. Sometimes something bad happens to it.

ON WRITING AND 'GRACE'

It's a very mysterious thing—writing. It's like acting: You can study techniques until you drop over on your face. Then there's the x factor. It's not fair, because I know the most wonderful, the hardest-working people in the world that are actors. They know all the technical things, but nothing much happens. The same with many writers that I know. But with certain writers, their talent is the essence of the person. It's something that's uniquely theirs. It's—Grace, maybe. It's like the palm of your hand. It's your voice. You can pick up certain stories and know immediately who wrote that story after three or four paragraphs. I don't think that can be taught, and I don't know where that comes from. It's one of the great mysteries, as far as I'm concerned.

For more on Horton Foote: Go here for an anecdote Foote and Robert Duvall share about Tender Mercies. And here for the GITS post in memory of Foote upon the announcement of his death March 4, 2009.

What to think about our first scripts?

2009-12-02T14:00:00.002-05:00

In his latest book "Outliers," author Malcolm Gladwell lays out something he calls The 10,000 Hour Rule:

The search for success has spawned a motivational industry worth millions of pounds and libraries full of self-improvement books.

It is practice, however, that makes perfect, according to the sociologist whose books have become required reading within the Conservative party. The best way to achieve international stardom is to spend 10,000 hours honing your skills, says the new book by Malcolm Gladwell, author of the best-selling The Tipping Point.

The greatest athletes, entrepreneurs, musicians and scientists emerge only after spending at least three hours a day for a decade mastering their chosen field.
“What’s really interesting about this 10,000-hour rule is that it applies virtually everywhere,” Gladwell told a conference held by The New Yorker magazine. “You can’t become a chess grand master unless you spend 10,000 hours on practice.

“The tennis prodigy who starts playing at six is playing in Wimbledon at 16 or 17 [like] Boris Becker. The classical musician who starts playing the violin at four is debuting at Carnegie Hall at 15 or so.”

3 hours a day. For 10 years. A daunting challenge. Is it possible to speed up the process? Let's say it takes 6 months to write an original screenplay. So you knock out 2 per year. That's 1o scripts in 5 years. That's how many original screenplays Larry Kasdan wrote before he sold The Bodyguard and began his career as a screenwriter.

Whether it takes 10,000 hours of writing, 10 original screenplays, or whatever magical combination of X amount of hours spent to create Y amount of scripts, there is one immutable fact about that process: Your first scripts will range from fair to bad in terms of their quality. And there they will sit. In a stack. In a corner.

Which leads to the question: What should we think about our first scripts? Should we be glad we went through the process of writing them as we churned our way through the requisite amount of time spent 'practicing' our craft? Embarrassed by the lack of quality exhibited in them? Save them to remind us of how far we've come in our writing? Recycle them? Use them as doorstops?

I was inspired to wind through these thoughts after reading this poem "The Surgeon" by Alicia Suskin Ostriker about a surgeon recounting the first death of a patient:

The Surgeon
I was still a kid
interning at State
he reminisces late in the meal—
It was a young red-headed woman
looked like my sister
when the lines went flat
I fell apart
shook
like a car with a broken axle
Went to the head surgeon
a fatherly man
Boy, he said, you got to fill a graveyard
before you know this business
and you just did row one, plot one.

"You got to fill a graveyard before you know this business... and you just did row one, plot one."

Each script we write that doesn't sell does feel a little like something in us died. After all our excitement, the brainstorming and character development, the actual page-writing, rewrites and revisions, we send it out. The response can vary - some interest, but not enough to the harsh void of silence.

In other words: Rest In Peace (RIP).

But hopefully Gladwell is right.
With each script we write that doesn't sell...
We're working our way through hours writing en route to 10,000.
We're knocking off scripts en route to 10.
We're filling a graveyard, one plot at a time.

All in pursuit of "knowing this business."

What do you think about your first scripts? How do you feel about them?

New List link: "Writing Questions"

2009-12-02T12:00:00.003-05:00

I posted the first Open Forum for questions about screenwriting back in June. Due to the sustained interest of readers, I've continued the open forum feature. With so many topics covered in the last 6 months, I've added a new link in Lists: "Writing Questions." To date there are nearly 50 Q&A's. I encourage you to check it out as there may be some questions and responses that interest you.

To be clear: My responses are my opinions. Informed by being involved in the screenwriting trade since 1987 and teaching since 2002, but opinions nonetheless. I encourage you to seek out other online sources for what they have to say such as:

Alex Epstein - Complications Ensue

Billy Mernit - Living the Romantic Comedy

John August

The Bitter Script Reader

Unknown Screenwriter

There are many others - feel free to make recommendations in comments - which is to say you don't have to take my word as Gospel truth.

The other thing is comments on each topic from you. Collectively some stellar thoughts about various subjects related to screenwriting, so yet another reason to check out the Writing Questions list.

Assuming there's still interest in this type of dialogue, I'll keep posting Open Forums for questions every few weeks.

BTW, I'm also doing an upgrade on other Lists. For example, I've just completed going through all of the On Writing entries, providing a key line for each reference to make searches easier. Go here and check it out. I'm doing the same thing for Daily Dialogue, Screenwriting 101, and others as time permits.

UPDATE: Screenwriting 101 updated to go along with On Writing. Great inspiration and wisdom in both lists. Definitely worth perusing.

"Twilight: New Moon" parody

2009-12-02T11:00:00.001-05:00

Awesome!

Screenwriting 101: Anna Hamilton Phelan

2009-12-02T10:00:00.002-05:00

"If I could say anything... it is to keep going. Don't go back and fix that first scene. Don't go back and fix that dialogue. Write yourself a little note saying, 'Put in first scene such-and-such,' if you happen to think of something, then get a little stickum and stick that somewhere on the wall. But don't go back, because going back is a trap. It keeps you from going forward. It keeps you from going ahead. Your first enemy, of course, is yourself. Yourself is also that little critic that sits on your shoulder that says, 'This is terrible'... You have to wipe him off your shoulders and keep going. He's the one who says, 'Go back. Go back'... You must get it down on paper.... you must sit down and write with no attachment to outcome. Try to distance yourself from what's going to happen to this... No attachment to outcome. I don't know where I ever heard it, but I put it on a little piece of paper, and I had it framed. I have it right in front of me. When I get bogged down I say, 'No attachment to outcome. don't worry about what's going to happen to this. Just write the next word.'"

-- Anna Hamilton Phelan (Gorillas in the Mist, Girl, Interrupted)

Daily Dialogue -- December 2, 2009

2009-12-02T06:00:00.000-05:00

"What is your major malfunction, numbnuts? Didn't Mommy and Daddy show you enough attention when you were a child?"

-- Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (Lee Ermey), Full Metal Jacket (1987), screenplay by Stanley Kubrick & Michael Herr & Gustav Hasford

Insanely cool photographs

2009-12-02T02:00:00.001-05:00

Actors revisiting famous movie roles:

Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster - THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS

Lots more at EmpireOnline.com.