Philosophy Of Screenwriting

Rabbit Hole & The Choices We Make

2011-01-30T11:37:00.002-05:00

The interesting thing about Rabbit Hole is not that it's about a couple struggling with the death of a child, it's the philosophy behind the movie. It's the way that the people mirror our own society and they may or may not make the same choices that we do in similar situations.

An interesting aspect of the human condition is our ability to lie to ourselves. Another interesting aspect is our ability to rationalize our circumstances. One scene that particularly stands out in Rabbit Hole is a scene where Nicole Kidman's character is attending a support group for parents who have lost a child. Nicole listens to one parent rationalize her daughter's death by saying that God needed another angel so he took their daughter. I assume this couple were telling themselves this were Christians, as Kidman's character seems to agree, and that this belief has no justification, biblical or otherwise. It's just a lie to tell themselves to deal with the pain and suffering of losing a child. Really, there might not be any good answers for such a loss, but do we need to lie to ourselves?

This scene is contrasted to another scene later on when Kidman's character makes the same mistake on a different matter. Having rejected the conventional ways to deal with grief like God and therapy, her character turns to another belief just as illogical and requires just as much faith to believe. In a conversation with the boy who accidentally killed her child, she is turned on to the idea of alternate universes and alternate realities where she exists in one of these universes and she's happy. Instead of grieving with the person responsible for the death of her child, she imagines herself making pancakes. Kidman's character makes the same mistake the christian couple makes.

But, isn't this what we do in our own lives? Do we justify certain things? Do we ignore potential contradictions? Do we rationalize?

Here's another potential rationalization in Rabbit Hole. With marriage between Kidman and Eckhart unraveling during the movie, Each partner turns to another person to meet certain needs. Kidman turns the young man responsible for the death for communication and understanding where she gets her emotional needs met. And Eckhart turns to Sandra Oh's character for a potential affair. Although Eckhart stops short of physically cheating, he has already emotionally cheated, even lying to his wife about the pot and the group meetings. Kidman's character is just a guilty of cheating displaying all the signs, waiting till her husband leaves to go and see the person she's emotionally cheating with. She sneaks around meeting in secluded public places (park benches) and fails to tell her husband about any of this.

I have to give these characters their due recognition for not following through with their deceptions. When they come to terms with how they are deceiving themselves, they realize their marriage is worth saving.

With the ending, can I make a case that they are continuing to lie to themselves by how they deal with the future? Well, I'm not going to make that case, because theres a difference between lying to yourself and just plan not knowing the truth.

The Bourne Romance

2010-03-14T17:36:00.002-04:00

I watched all three Jason Bourne movies yesterday back-to-back and wanted to focus specifically on the Jason Bourne/Nicky Parson's relationship and how it flows through all three. In all actuality, it doesn't. More than likely, an intimate relationship between the two of them was probably dreamed up during Ultimatum. The director's commentary on the DVD reveals this subtle but very interesting development.

Upon seeing Bourne Ultimatum, the thing that I was most intrigued with coming out of the movie theater was the mysterious relationship between Nicky and Jason. I was left wanting more. Maybe it was because of Julia Stiles and wanting to see her more involve in the storyline.

With director Paul Greengrass pulling out of the next Bourne film and no word whether Matt Damon is even attached to it, the possibility of fulfilling my craving for resolution more than likely won't happen any time soon.

In this blog I will revisit all three movies and comment specifically on this mysterious relationship. This will have to do for the time being.

In The Bourne Identity, little is revealed about Nicky Parsons other than she's a CIA agent undercover as a student in Paris. And the one seen the two characters share in the movie almost betrays any sense of history they may share. Just before Jason reveals himself to Conklin, Nicky says to him something to the effect, "It's Bourne, isn't it?"

Now if they had shared some history together, don't you think Nicky would have addressed him as Jason, not Bourne. Any kind of intimacy probably would have produced more familiarity.

When Jason does reveal himself, Nicky gets a look of horror on her face. Of course, Jason takes one look at her and doesn't know show she is. This carries over into The Bourne Supremacy, in which the one sequence of events where Jason gets Nicky alone to question her and induces nothing but fear into Nicky. Again, Nicky doesn't show any sign of intimacy, only fear.

With The Bourne Ultimatum, the Jason Bourne/Nicky Parsons relationship is hinted at. Again, probably having been just imagined for the first time. But since it's being drawn up for the first time and fails to follow through, this is why the dilemma is so interesting and another movie is necessary to satisfy people like me.

Nicky mysteriously shows up at Neal Daniels' office for reasons that are unclear to me. apparently she had been reassigned to Daniels, in a twist of fate that befuddles even me. But nonetheless, the two of them are together and for the first time, Nicky doesn't show absolute fear, but loyalty and benevolence.

She doesn't look at him fearing her life anymore. Now she looks at him as a long lost friend. In the diner seen, she questions him, "You really don't remember a thing?"

Here's where the contrast between the Jason/Nicky pseudo relationship compares to the Jason/Marie storyline. In bother Jason is confused, cold and calculating. With Marie, she was able to break through the barrier Jason's personality has resurrected. Marie was open and engaging; just what jason needed in order for their relationship to develop.

By contrast, Nicky was almost as cold and confused as Jason was. They were too much of the same person to be an effective couple. Jason, having lost Marie, couldn't dye Nicky's hair like he did Marie's. Nicky had to do it herself. And when Jason and Nicky share eye contact, he couldn't help but noticed the similarities between Nicky and Marie. But Nicky can't express herself like Marie could, thus she can only let Jason go.

It makes you wonder, what kind of relationship Nicky and Jason had, if they ever had one at all. Was it doom to fail because they were too similar in personality?

2010-01-02T10:33:00.002-05:00

After reviewing Nine, I did some research into narcissism and came up with some good ideas of my own for the character in a screenplay I'd like to write. This is the research and development part and I think this is what Philosophy of Screenwriting should be all about. The ideas and concepts that are presented in philosophy, psychology and the sciences should be utilized to make our screenplays more realistic. We shouldn't just fly off the cuff in our own understanding thinking that will be enough. All of us should be philosophy majors. In fact, two the best screenwriting books I've read, Story by Robert McKee and Psychology For Screenwriters, are great technical books; college-level reading for the screenwriter.

This may seem obvious, but I'm using this blog as a free flow outlet for my ideas that are universal. In conveying information, I most importantly am informing myself.

2010-01-01T19:25:00.002-05:00

I started the new year off with a viewing Nine. Having seen 8 1/2 I was already aware of the basic storyline. I figured the retelling as a musical would remind me of Chicago, but this is Oscar season (my favorite time of year) and this is an Oscar contender. I must see this at any cost.

Daniel Day-Lewis gives another terrific performance and each female performance holds their own against this perennial heavy weight; including a surprising appearance of Stacey Ferguson.

The music...eh...take it or leave it.

Philosophically, the narcissism of the main character is what this movie is all about. Every musical seen centers around his relationship with a woman. I'm not sure what the song titles are but you could name them off as Song About Guido #1, Song About Guido #2, etc.

The director in the movie is unable to produce the screenplay for his next film, partly because of his growing distaste for what I'll call the Hollywood system, though the setting is Italy in the 60's. He has come to believe that camera's image and the beautiful actress being filmed is all that people want or notice. The director spends the entire movie running away into the arms of the women in his life; which is his other problem. He has drained the women around him. his narcissism is that of an emotional vampire. Even his producer has had it with him.

One seen in the movie sums up the struggle between sex and the film industry on one hand, and the Roman Catholic ideal of prudence. The director has a conversation with a Cardinal of the church and the Cardinal praises his early films but questions the amount of sex that is portrayed in his movies. The Director wants to enquire about God, but instead gets a lesson in morality. The director once again becomes overwhelmed with the criticism of his films, and heads off into his musical dream world that ends with him being whipped by a priest and his mother displeased with him. Again its the women in his life, this time his mother, that is the directors problem. You get the sense that if he could just have one decent relationship he will be fine. But as narcissistic as he is, he cannot.

It is only when he has lost it all, that he can direct the movie he is mean to direct; the story he's been telling us all along, the story of himself and the women in his life.

Top 5 Films of 2009

2009-12-28T12:30:00.002-05:00

1. Inglorious Basterds

2. Boondock Saints 2

3. Taken

4. Avatar

5. Zombieland

New Years resolution: To write more often here.

The Problem With Nick And Norah

2009-04-20T08:37:00.002-04:00

As I see it, I probably am out of touch with today's youth, but the problem with Nick and Norah is the love story failed to be more everlasting. The great thing about love stories is that they eventually become about two people who were meant for each other and will spend their lives together...er...uh...happily ever after. However absurd, that's usually what we expect.

The problem with Nick and Norah is that I never came to believe they would end up together. Both are lovable enough to engage in a interesting conversation with, But neither seem to look outside themselves. Although Nick seems a bit attached to something other than himself, Norah seems to just be looking for that elusive orgasm. Both seemed to be looking for that certain someone for their next lay and not a life partner. Granted, their teenagers, but certain subjects like love should not end up being trivialized. Even teenagers should long for something real and not be such materialists.

I did like Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, as it hits on the same hipness as Juno does. Whereas Juno had to deal with a much serious matter, Adoption, Nick and Norah never seem to get beyond their own shallowness. If I were to write a sequel to the movie, it would be Nick pining over his breakup with Norah, while Norah beds the wrong guy again. Neither character developed enough to not repeat their past problems. But, whatever. Their teenagers, right?

Adventureland

2009-04-17T14:43:00.002-04:00

Has this ever happened to you?

About an hour into watching this flick, the fire alarms go off and the movie stops. I head out into the lobby to see what's going on. The usher tells me this has been going on all week. I hang out for a couple minutes to see if the alarms will stop so the movie can restart. As I was standing there waiting to see what will happen, I started to reflect on the movie and realize I didn't really care to go back in and finish the movie. The movie didn't work on any of the levels I was hoping.

first of all, I remember the summer of 1987 and this didn't look anything like it. Other than the great Falco song, a guilty pleasure of mine, which was used for a couple of laughs, I didn't listen to any the other music from the movie. This was not my my 1987. In fact, the Falco song is not even 1987. So the movie failed to be nostalgic.

Granted, I was not in college in 1987, but I was in junior high. I didn't think the hipster attitude of liking old bands and wearing obscure band t-shirt came until the 90's. I was not listening to Lou Reed and Husker Du in 1987. It was Bon Jovi and U2. So, the movie fails in it's level of nostalgia.

I couldn't get into the love story either. Although Kristen Stewart was good, facial expressions and all, she was given a drab character to play. I can't give a final judgement because I haven't finished the movie but I really don't know if I even want to finish it.

2009-04-11T11:14:00.003-04:00

It's been over three months since I last posted. Let's just I had some personal things to work out and deleted this blog. But I'm back. I resurrected the blog and plan on posting again. I have a general area I want to focus on, but I will reveal more of that later.

I haven't been keeping track of the movies I've been watching, so that's gone.

2009-01-26T20:28:00.001-05:00

I met goal of watching the rest of the Oscar nominated movies this weekend. Here there are:

#14 Vicky Christina Barcelona
#15 Happy-Go-Lucky
#16 Revolutionary Road
#17 Wall*E
#18 The Wrestler
#19 Rachel Getting Married
#20 Frost/Nixon
#21 The Visitor

Soon, I'll post my predictions.

The Oscars Are Upon Us

2009-01-23T16:18:00.003-05:00

#13 Klute - I saw this one as part of my Neo-Noir craze. I haven't really seen much of Jane Fonda's early work (I mean the 60's stuff). This movie is '71 so it's the youngest Jane Fonda film I've seen to date. Having never really seen Barbarella, I never did equate Jane Fonda with sexy until this movie. I guess I'm going to have to see Barbarella after all.

This is Oscar weekend for me. In honor of the nominations being announced, I plan on watching no less than eight Oscar nominated movies this weekend. It will be the first time I have seen all the movies in the eight major categories. This weekend I plan on watching the remainder.

It's a bit of a game for me when it comes Oscar time. And I've been quiet successful at it. Two years ago I went 5-for-7 (for some reason I didn't bother predicting adapted screenplay) and last year I went 6-for-8. And I've successfully predicted the best picture three years in a row.

After seeing the nominations, I can't help but feel it has been a weak year for movies. Of the five up for best picture, none them I feel strongly enough toward to get behind. Which makes my bid to get best picture correct even tougher. Three years ago, Crash blew me away. Two years ago, Departed was an awesome movie. Last year, No Country For Old Men, although the ending threw me for a loop, I knew it was a brilliant movie. This year, none of the nominees really moved me. Not even Slumdog.

Next time I write, I should have a crop of movies to discuss. I'm already feeling a bit burnt out on my new years resolution to writing more here. I figured I'd stick with it through the month of January and then break the resolution in February, like most resolutions.

2009-01-19T17:07:00.003-05:00

#10 The Third Man - Film Noir is one of my favorite genres (if you believe that it is even a genre) and The Third Man is one of the best in that genre. Why I haven't bought it yet, I don't know. I watched it as part of the Existentialism class. I'm beginning to see much more clearly the problem of ethics and how it relates to different characters. And how different people can be on different levels ethically and not be judged as so. The female's devotion to the criminal of the movie proves she is operating on a higher ethical level than the hero who must turn in his best friend, because it's the right thing to do. Watch the movie or go study existentialism.

#11 Last Chance Harvey - Not too many movies that I see I can actually say I'm disappointed in, but I was disappointed in this one. It's supposed to be a strong performance by Dustin Hoffman, but based on previous work, this movie really doesn't come close. They glossed over the love affair between Hoffman and Thompson, as if we the audience will buy that these two are meant for each other with only a montage sequence. I would have much preferred if we had been able to see the attraction in real time. And I also didn't buy that Hoffman was as bad off as he thinks. It was Thompson who became the real hero of this film overcoming a far more believable loneliness.

#12 Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fabulous Stains - If I wasn't a wanna-be philosopher and amateur screenwriter, the thing I would most want to be is playing bass in a punk rock band. With that said, I have a soft side for punk rock movies. I'm even willing to sit through poorly made films like this one. Only watch this film if you're interested in watching Dianne Lane, Laura Dern or Ray Winstone's early work.

2009-01-17T13:26:00.002-05:00

#8 Revolver - One of my top 5 favorite movies that I saw last year. A friend came over and I watched it with him again. I was wondering if it would be as good as the first time I watched it or would it have subsided a little bit. Upon second viewing, it still holds up as one mind blowing movie. But I won't hype this movie too much. I'm just going to sit back and wait for the rest of the world to catch up with what I already know. This is a great movie.

#9 Notorious - Biopic about the infamous rapper Notorious B.I.G. Biggie Smalls. Big Poppa. Christopher Wallace. I can't thing of any other names. Although it's a touching story, I couldn't help but feel the production value doesn't quite match up to the grandness of Hip-Hop. It's got much more of a indie feel than a blockbuster performance, which is what I would expect from this type of music. Maybe I just don't get rap music and the grandness of it all just escapes me. But I do enjoy watching real people come to life on the screen, particularly the performances by the actresses playing Faith Evan and Lil' Kim. But this movie just doesn't live up to other music biopics like Ray or Walk The Line.

One interesting aspect of the movie for me is the lip service that rappers like B.I.G. pay to God, yet live such criminal lives. I would expect a man of God would live his life by a higher ethical standard. But maybe I got it all wrong. Maybe, in the end, we all are redeemed by an acknowledgment to a higher power rather than the life we have lived.

2009-01-16T15:10:00.003-05:00

#6 The Gospel Of John - A faithful retelling of the gospel according to the Apostle John. What sets John apart from other gospels, John's is a about a much more personal relationship Jesus had with his disciples and with other people. I always was intrigued by Jesus' first miracle where he turned water into to wine. His words were to his mother, "It is not my time." But he does it anyways. Watching this story unfold has a different perspective than if we were simply told the story. His mother doesn't have to be told no. The look on her face and on Jesus' tells us that Jesus would do anything for his mother, because she simply asked. I might be a bit theologically off, but there's much that a movie can portray that a story can not.

#7 Hiroshima Mon Amour - As part of a podcast I'm listening about existentialism, this movie is one of the required materials for the course. Although the connection didn't appear as naturally as I would assume, it was a good movie standing alone by itself. I love these types of love stories and I often thought about writing my own based on the premise of a one-night-stand that becomes the best thing that could have happened to someone. This movie is just such a movie. Suspending the ethical implications of a one-night-stand (which is where the existentialism comes in), the lead character receives healing from a past lover whom she identifies with her current fling. It's French New Wave cinema, one genre a film I'd like to dig into deeper having seen such classics as A Band A Parte and Breathless.

Theology and Screenwriting

2009-01-12T15:50:00.002-05:00

I must confess, I've recently made personal commitment. A personal commitment to something that has always been in the back of mind, no matter how hard I've tried to ignore it. Growing up in the church may or may not be a good thing, depending on your world view. It can either give you a ground work on the dealings of faith and a zest for all things theologica, or if you prefer, it brain washes you into a belief system you that adds a permanent scar on your psyche. I've held both points of view at one time or another.

But I can't help shake thoughts of God or an after life, or subscribing some sort of meaning to the events in my life. And I can't ignore that fact that things that give thought to some sort of supreme power or purpose are just way more interesting than not believing.

I've been reading a lot of those philosophy and _____ books. i.e. Philosophy and The Matrix, Philosophy and Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Philosophy and Quentin Tarantino. Those have been some of my favorite reads so far. And I feel they can be very helpful to a screenwriter, but that's another topic all together.

When reading these books, they main topic that keeps popping up is ethics and how it relates to the subject. In the book about Tarantino, there is a good read on the ethics of criminals and the idea of Mexican standoffs. But I can't help but take it one step further and see the connection between Theology and things of pop culture. And I find it's not too hard to see them if you're willing to look.

I say all this because two movies I saw this week relate to theology:

#4 Luther -Thespian Joseph Fiennes plays the great theologian and father of the Protestant faith Martin Luther. A great little film on the history of the church and the great schism with the Catholic church. Luther is a very important and very interesting person. Fiennes does a great job presenting the struggles with faith and tradition that Luther encountered. The church, however noble we make it out to be, has a rich history of mistakes and evil thats not easy to come to terms with. But Luther stands strong on his convictions and provides a model of faith that ought to be emulated.

5# Gran Torino - On the other hand, Gran Torino presents a more worldly view point of faith. The world is full of awful and misguided people. Some have evolved to the point of recognizing the conflict of their own convictions and how they mesh with how they've acted through the years. It's a point well represented by a character like Clint Eastwood. And I call him a character because it's Eastwood playing the person we've all come to associate him as. And along with that character comes a sense that the world isn't operating on the same codes or ethics that we've come to believe as important or right. It is tale of life and death and redemption from the past. (spoiler) It's one man dying for another. It's one man's final attempt to put things right. It's very catholic in the sense that the deeds we do here define our existence and it's never too late to put things right. Leave this world a better place than the way you found it and you can be certain of justification.

I Pledge Allegiance To 2009

2009-01-06T13:32:00.002-05:00

My intention for 2009 is to be more active in my writing this year. I have been putting off the inevitable with the lame excuse that I'm still learning. I have much to learn and so why write crap? But I have learned that theory and knowledge can only get you so far. You must let go of the analytical side of you and just write. This is when the muse takes over and you write for the sake of writing. This is also when musicians play music for the love of music. When dancers dance just to dance. You can't critique yourself the very moment you are being creative for you will lose art for the sake of art. How eastern of me to say that.

Therefore I will list every movie I see this year and try to add some kind of thought. I may not be as philosophical as I would like to be, because sometimes just rambling can be of use.

Movie #1 - The Reader. Oscar season is my favorite time of the year. Maybe it has something to do with my desire to some day win an Oscar. Or it could be the level of excellence goes up a couple of notches. The Reader is the first Oscar contending movie of 2009 that I got to see and I was excited. The lovely Kate Winslet is by far my most favorite actress out there right now. Although I haven't seen everything she's done, I've probably seen a good three quarters of her work. And she never ceases to amaze me.

Movies about Nazis and the Holocaust tend to be a little didactic and at this point, overdone. If Kate Winslet hadn't been in this one, I might have avoided it, like I tend to avoid all war movies that critique current events like the plague. But throwing in an erotic love story between and young man and an older not-so-innocent woman provided enough of a distraction to keep me unaware that I soon will be bombarded with the horrific nature of the Holocaust. When it did come, I found an interesting diversion from the "let's blame the bad people" premise to more emphasis on the Germans themself; on how could the have let a such a thing happen. And then to appease themselves, they go on a witchhunt. Every crime needs someone to blame. In order for justice to be restored, someone has to pay a price. It's unfortunate that a guilty society fails to acknowledge their own blame. That they claim to have acted without proper knowledge and therefore, aren't as guilty as they would appear.

Well, anyway, not much is resolved, other than the display of the two people's lives who are affected slowly begin to deteriorate and then heal. The healing for the most part, is just a hollywood ending. Sometimes, no amount of compensation will ever put things right.

#2 - Valkyre. Much like the same joke about Titanic, I won't tell you how it ends because I wouldn't want to ruin it. It did provide me with enough suspense and interest to hope that the hero succeeds. It was an interesting device at the beginning to morph from German language to English to eliviate the fact that it's Germans speaking in english. My only quabble was it was perfect english, and I would much rather have perferred a german accent. But these are the things you give up when you enter the land of movie world.

#3 - Fanny And Alexander - An old nugget. I only decided to watch this because some podcast put it as one of it's top 5 christmas movies. I should have known from their number one selection of Die Hard, that the movie really doesn't have anything to do with Christmas. And despite the foreign language (srike one) and the three hour time length (strike two), it did manage to get on base with a single. Any body who has issues with parents, and how mean they can be, will like this movie. The charm of the movie revolves the elegant aristocratic lifestyle the family lives in. In The beginning, Alexander explores his grandmas large mansion at Christmas time, and in the process, we the audience get to see the richness and beauty of a bygone era. And noticeably abscent is the critique on how overly pious and superior such people can be. I get the sense that these are genuine people, however flawed they might be.

The level of magic and coincidence might be lost in the translation and proved to be a hinderance in judging what the movie was really about. But at that point, I just wanted the movie to end.
Would I ever watch it again? No. But it was a good foot note on Ingmar Bergman's career.

Body Of Lies

2008-10-12T02:30:00.002-04:00

My friend commented to me, when I asked him if he was going to see Body Of Lies, that he had no idea what the movie was about even after viewing the trailer. There's a reason for that.

After viewing the film I realize the trailer was a little vague because it's just like every other movie that has come out in the last couple of years. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody says, "Body Of Lies? Isn't that that movie starring Don Cheadle where he infiltrates the Jihad only to come to terms with what Loyalty and truth really mean? Wait a minute, that was Traitor. And yes, I am trying to say the movies have similar plot lines.

But the movie wasn't that bad. It's watchable. Maybe I'm just bored with the middle east as bad guys. But right now, they're the hot ticket in Hollywood. Just like the Nazis, the Russians and the Viet Cong were at one point. I usually skip these types of movies but good actors are always able to suck me in.

And speaking of good actors, for the first time, I realize that Dicaprio is becoming a caricature of himself. I hadn't figured it out up until this point. All good actors become caricatures and DiCaprio wasn't able to avoid it either. Pretty soon we will see SNL imitations of DiCaprio when everybody else catches on.

And Russell Crowe. I think he's trying to win an oscar by gaining 30 pounds, but it won't matter since DiCaprio steals every scene there in together. Is it just me or is Crowe trying to impersonate George W. Bush? I swear he stole some one-liners out of W's book.

I did have high hopes for Body Of Lies, though. I picked it as my big movie for my fantasy league (yes, I do one of those). After winning this summer, my fall line-up has stunk to high heaven and I'm currently wallowing in last place with no hope of climbing out of it. And with a less-than-stellar reception for Body Of Lies, I just might be mopping the floor with my pride this time around.

Are You Guys Blind?

2008-09-29T16:17:00.002-04:00

I just got back from seeing Eagle Eye and was completely blown away. I would consider it one of my top five movies of the year. It had me at the end of my seat almost the entire time, except for a few moments when the action dies down for some character development. Being a student of screenwriting, you come realize these technical points and will pan or praise a movie on how well you bought into it.

Well, I completely bought into the whole danger sign being flashed to us one cat-and-mouse chase after another. Maybe it's just where I'm at as a human being or what conspiracies float my boat, but the fact that technology can progress to this point is scary.

I was amazed that when I got home and read the overall feeling for the movie is somewhat negative from the critics. All I can say is, "ARE YOU BLIND!"

The general consensus is the movie is stupid and mind boggling and how unrealistic the story line is. Isn't the whole point behind the cinema going experience a suspension of disbelief for the purpose of being entertained or challenged? How can you not see that this movie is a treatise on technology and government control of it. I guess people would rather be entertained with stupid slapstick then challenged by the truth.

I think it's because people are generally blind to what's going on around them. They don't want to be told the truth. In fact, they go so far as to deny the feasibility of the truth and the possibility that there lives are heading in the wrong direction.

I won't bore you with what I got out of the movie because I would just be evoking another conspiracy theory. But to deny any inkling of truth and panning a movie because you think the script was far fetched goes to show how blind we really are.

Stoic Philosophy in John Adams

2008-07-21T15:09:00.002-04:00

I recently saw the HBO miniseries John Adams and was very impressed with it. I am a bit of a history buff or sorts and I also have my own idea of a mini-series dealing with Presidents, so I was eager to see what this movie had to offer.

I was reading on Stoicism and it brought to mind the scene where John Adams insults Quaker John Dickinson's religion and his refusal to support the Declaration Of Independence. The result in the movie version of this story was for John Dickinson to simply not show up that day in order for a unanimous decision. John Dickinson is not portrayed in a favorable light and some might feel that this action is a breakdown in the integrity of John Dickinson. If he really believed in not going to war with England then he should have stood his ground.

But understanding Stoic philosophy a little bit more, I have come to determine that John Dickinson did no such wrong. It is a stoic principle that all life happens in cycles and all we can do is just get out of the way and accept it. At this point, John Dickinson hoped to resolve conflict with England as peace is better than war, but all attempts to alleviate the threat of war broke down. All John Dickinson could do is sit by and let history run its course.

Besides, they was more at stake than peace. There was the pride of being a free man being trampled on by England. Courage and Justice are also principles of Stoicism and in maintaining them could be worth the price of war. Despite the bleak picture we get of John Dickinson in the movie, it should noted that he served as a general in the Pennsylvania Militia. Even passivism has a point of action.

What does this have to do with screenwriting? The one point of this blog. That an understanding of philosophical principles could help you determine your storyline and how your character should act. It worked for The Matrix.

Screenwriting Tip # 519

2008-05-19T18:38:00.003-04:00

While watching the new Chronicles Of Narnia film, I saw a technique that was used by the screenwriter that I felt worked very well. There was a scene where the protagonists had to descend into a dark cavern. The easy thing to do would have been to have the guy pull out a flash light. But then you would have to explain why he was carrying a flashlight to begin with. But instead, the writer managed to work the flashlight into the movie. first, the writer managed to get a quick joke out of it, by having another protagonist rip his shirt and create a torch. An ingenious act of cleverness, even if he wasn't able to obtain a match. The first protagonist then pulls out the flashlight and asks will this work; Information that could have saved the first protagonist from ripping his shirt to shreds. Then the flashlight also came into play later in the movie providing necessary points of strategy and humor. It was a clever add instead of relying on the old Deus Ex Machina. In one sense, it was never explained why he was carrying a flashlight in the first place, but it works because it provided humorous plot points.

The Summer Season Is Upon Us

2008-05-11T15:42:00.002-04:00

The summer blockbuster season is here and ready to take the millions of dollars from the consumers pockets. Being an indie guy myself, this time of year isn't exactly my favorite. That would be Oscar season, where the truly remarkable films get released in hopes of winning a golden statuette. And last year, all my favorite movies, and there were a lot of good movies last year, most of them came out before the summer season or in the fall. Movies like Smokin' Aces or No Country For Old Men.

I always go into the summer season with a grain of salt and a bucket of popcorn. I know I'm going to be watching the most spectacular and high-bugdeted films of the year. Last year, I understood that Spiderman was the movie everyone wanted to see. I knew that Pirates Of The Carribean would set records. These are a given. There spectacular movies and they are supposed to be spectacular movies. You get what you expect. Sometimes these movies don't live up to the hype. Well, hype always hurts a movie. If you go in expecting a great movie and it sucks, it probably was an okay movie but just didn't live up to the hype. and what if a great movie does live up to it's hype. Than it succeeded in meeting expectations, but failed to blow me away.

Movies like Smokin' Aces and No Country For Old Men came out of nowhere and blew me away. That's the mark of a truly good movie. That's why I love independent film so much. I go in knowing nothing and have the possibility of walking out totally blown away. The best movie I've seen this year so far, actually came out two years ago in England and is now getting released here. It was Revolver, the Guy Ritchie film. I rented it not knowing a thing, maybe a trailer, that was it. And it blew me away.

This summer will be the same. Iron Man actually looked like it was well written and it was. And I actually didn't mind Speed Racer. But for some reason you can't have a million dollar movie that's campy at the same time. Viewers need to lower there expectations or, better yet, go into to a movie not knowing a thing about it and just maybe they will be blown away.

But we live in a skeptical society and everybody is looking to bash the next film if they don't get what they want. We're a knowledgeable society unwilling to be surprised. We all want meaning in our movies. That's why war movies are so popular right now. I'm all for meaning in a movie, but not at the expense of entertainment. I've given up on war movies right now because of all the bullshit being shoved down our throats. I'll take a campy Speed Racer over Lions For Lambs any day.

This blog has turned into too much of a rant, so let me back off and say this summer actually looks promising. Or maybe I'm willing to be less skeptical and enjoy movies again. I'll go see the Hulk, even though I know the film will be CGI'd to death. And I just saw the trailer for the Star Wars animated movie. Even though it looks like Veggie Tales in space, I'm actually looking forward to indulging in my childhood fantasies again.

Let's not forget Indiana Jones and Narnia. But the movie I'm looking forward to being blown away by the most is Wanted, the Angelina Jolie action thriller. Instead of being too cynical this year, I'm going to keep an open mind and enjoy the popcorn.

A Digression Into Dylan

2008-05-09T22:08:00.002-04:00

I like to view my film viewing process as almost like a continous path from one movie to the next, trying to discover the connection. Like a linear tale told in segments and I must figure out the secret clues and overlapping themes. Granted, we interpret films though our own experiences and can easily identify with anything if we look hard enough for the pattern.

One obvious trend in my viewing pleasure has been musicians and, to be more specific, Bob Dylan. There have been three films in the last month or so on the iconic 60's figure that have been filmed for me to graciously ponder. Here's a small synopsis of the Dylan canon in the last year.

The first film was the documentary No Direction Home, by Martin Scorcese. It captures a short time span in Bob Dylan's history from is early years to when he first went electric and the backlash that eventually led to his disappearance from the public eye. It presents Dylan as a tortured soul, a victim of his own genius. As a writer, I relate to the conflict of the man as he tries to come to terms with what he wants to do, which is be famous, with the man everybody else wants him to be, which is the messiah to lead his people in protest. It's the classic tale of a reluctant hero, only this hero is pushed into seclusion.

The next film to use Dylan as a reference, albeit, a conglomeration that's 98% Dylan, is Factory Girl, the tale of Warhol's Edie Sedgwick. In another tale of the pursuit of fame leading to madness, Edie befriends the Dylanesque folk singer and a love triangle forms. Dylan, here, is also a tortured soul, but the point of this movie is Dylan's actions indirectly lead to the destruction of another human being. It's a great movie to see if you've always wondered about minor characters and how they might have turned out, if given their own movie.

The third movie is by far the most interesting and detailed exploration of cinematic experimentation I've seen on the legend we know as Bob Dylan. Instead of sticking to one character, I'm Not There, offers six characters who explore who Bob Dylan is and how the many sides to the man can be more interesting than just sticking to one plot line. Like I said, this is cinema pushing the boundaries on what can be done, including having a woman play Bob Dylan.

The lesson I took from I'm Not There, is that nothing is sacred. You don't have to tell a linear story with one theme. Much like an ensemble movie, if it's well written, than it works. And to take the nothing-is-sacred advice a step further, stepping on toes when it comes to political or religious views might be where you need to go to get your point across. There's a line in the movie that I absolutely loved. Cate Blanchet is Dylan and he's hanging with David Cross as Allen Ginsburg (you heard me right). Together the two of them stare up at a crucifix of Jesus. Cate yells out, "Play your early stuff!"

It may be sacrilegious, but it gets the point across.

Expelled - Part 2

2008-05-03T14:53:00.003-04:00

It's been about two weeks and this movie is still in my mind. I really hadn't given much thought to the whole ID thing before this. It's been pretty much a given in my mind growing up in the church. But since, as one might say, I've lost my faith, I'm more open to these hard topics of discussion. More so, than most of my friends. Most people have pretty much made up their minds as they spout off the same old arguments. I, on the other hand, have always considered myself a sponge, willing to soak up anything out there and let it digest in my brain. I have no hard concrete facts that determine my existence. I always adhere to the conflict-is-better philosophy, which is why I am puzzled by my friends lack of willingness to discuss the issue.

One friend I approached about the movie to explain the theme of the movie, stopped dead in his tracks and said, ID has no place in science. I was really taken back by his stone cold response. You mean, you're not even up for the possibility of discussion? I walked away a bit upset. First, because I espouse to the theory that all points of interest should be open for debate, whatever they might be. And second, because I use these opportunities to perfect my craft of storytelling. By that I mean, If I can outline a movie and what it's about without giving away the ending, and they still want to see it, I've succeeded in pitching that movie to them. I never even got that far with this friend.

The next friend I chose was the opposite extreme, a religious conservative with all the answers in the world. When I told him that I felt like the flaw of the movie was connecting Darwinism to Hitler and the Nazis, I discovered this is what he totally believes. I should have expected this, but somehow, it was too proposterous of a claim for even him to believe. Turns out not only does he believe this, but in our discussion, he believes in aliens that existed thousand of years ago and that they still exist out there, planning on striking again. He has it all figured out and with biblical proof to back it up. This kind of stretches my definition of conservative but...okay.

After pondering this for awhile, and dealing with why ID is not a open topic of discussion with scientists, I finally realized it. I am not a scientist. I am a philosopher. The God question will always be an open topic. let science explain how the world turns and give me faster technology. I'll probe the deepest darkest secrets that science won't touch without them.

I did have a point that related to screenwriting, but for the life of me, I can not remember what it was. Instead of making some bull shit point how we as screenwriters play god, I'll leave it at that. That's what I get for waiting to write these blogs instead of when inspiration hits. But it's my belief that if you can't remember it the next day, It probably wasn't that good enough to begin with.

Just Got Back From Watching Expelled

2008-04-21T18:49:00.002-04:00

First of all, I know without a doubt, going into these films I'm watching propaganda. It's undeniable. But I don't think thats a bad thing. I go to these types of movies, not just to obtain information, for I am nothing but a sponge when it comes to debates like this, but I go to these movies for the exact same reason I go to any movie - The narrative flow. That's why I think Michael Moore is a genius. He can make me generally care about any topic he decides to make a movie on. You always got to stand back and realize that you are being manipulated, but that's true of all movies. You're being manipulated to believe a certain way whether you are aware of it or not.

Anybody smart enough can realize their being manipulated by this film when stock footage clips of the Berlin Wall being built at the same time Ben Stein is trying to convince us of a wall being built in the scientific community about Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism. As a screenwriter, I must say that's brilliant story telling. I can really care less about either argument, but I love the fact that I'm being manipulated to one side or the other. That's where emotion comes from. I feel for the victims of this movie. I am appalled by the atrocities being laid forth. Do I care if there true or not? Not one bit.

Personally I feel, my time here on earth is such of a minuscule amount, that it's not worth the effort to take a side. My life, where at I'm at right now, and where I'm heading as a screenwriter or artist, is not deeply effected by such scientific inquiry. Unless I plan on writing a screenplay on said subject, it doesn't matter in my universe. But that's just my beliefs. Take it or leave it.

But to delve further into the matter, another reason I love such documentaries like this, is not just the narrative flow, but the amount of conflict involved. We're talking about philosophical ideals held in high regard by both sides and they're butting heads, Clash of the Titans style. That's what really makes these movies so interesting. That's what makes all movies interesting. who will win the conflict?

Personally, I believe such conflict is beneficial to our society. As long as we have opposing sides bashing it out, the truth will be revealed somewhere in the middle. Whether it's Republicans vs. Democrats. Creationism vs. Darwinism. Pro-life vs. Pro-choice. Both sides will keep the other side in check. And they'll come to a necessary compromise to ensure life as we know it will continue on as best as possible.

That might be my narrow-minded sugar-coated version of what's really going on, but that's the position I'll take. Whoever wins, I will follow. What really worries me, is when one side or the other is taken out of the picture. That's when we get the dictators, the megalomaniacs like Hitler who leave a tremendous dark spot on the history of humanity. As long as we have two opposing sides, we're all safe somewhere in the middle.

And In Other News...

I'm not sure if my last post was appropriate for me or not. On one side I want to be professional with this blog. But the other side of me treats this more like an online diary of sorts. The post may have come off as a bad joke, one that I nonetheless, felt like sharing. I could delete the post, but I would hate to have to censor myself. Free speech is free speech, not matter how ill-humored it may be. But, as it was pointed out to me, professionalism is always preferred to immaturity. From this point on, I will act my age and not my I.Q.

Pacino Cops A Feel

2008-04-19T13:36:00.002-04:00

I just got back from watching 88 Minutes. Not a bad movie at all. I thought it was told really well. I was generally concerned with the characters. It had a great plot. Blah, blah, blah. I mean is there any other way to describe a good movie. Not a great movie. We can easily write about movies we're blown away with, but good movies get the same old tired expression. Maybe, because I just got back from watching it, I can't clearly articulate how I feel yet. Maybe, I need time to digest the movie before I can go in depth about it.

But I had to post right away, because there's a scene you should look out for. It's Pacino coping a feel on his co-star Alicia Witt. It happens right after the car explodes. He had just knocked her down and his hand brushes across her right tit. Then, when he picks her up, his hand brushes against her left tit. Way to go, Pacino! Even in the midst of peril, he manages to cop a feel. Ain't Al just the personification of cool?

Philosophy of Darjeeling Limited

2008-03-24T10:17:00.003-04:00

I watched the movie for the first time last night, so I haven't let the movie work it's way through my brain's endless analysis. But it has consumed me enough to where I felt I should expound on it here.

I love movies that entail spiritual journeys. Not necessarily those with very general, very hit-you-over-the-head agendas, but those films that send their characters on journey's of spiritual enlightenment. With that said, I think you could constitute a very large number of films that could fit that definition. You just have to stop and think about them.

I love how the characters in Darjeeling Limited set off on a spiritual journey and just seem to get it wrong. They feel as if all they need to do is travel to a perceived holy land to obtain it. I would think real spiritual enlightenment comes from within, wherever you are at the moment.

And the characters have little patience in such matters of importance. They feel as if they just follow a few instructions or kneel for a short time, they will obtain spiritual enlightenment almost instantly. I would imagine this comes from how they were raised. You never see the father, but I surmise he was well off and that his kids are set for life. Several clues lead to this hypothesis. First, none of them seem to work. And they seem to take matters of money very lightly, spending money like crazy on snakes and personal assistants. Schwartzmen's character is able to afford a large hotel bill and the father drove an expensive sports car.

I think it's safe to say that money and their parents have spoiled the main characters to the point where material possessions may be the key to their spiritual struggle. In fact, by the end of the movie, when they're racing to catch the train, they cast off their luggage they've been humorously carrying the whole film as if they are freeing themselves from that bondage.

And speaking of parents, in a freudian analysis, I really enjoyed how through the whole movie, you were led to believe that the father may have been the root cause of all their problems. They mysteriously only refer to him vaguely and always in such a positive light, as if they haven't quite gotten over his death. By the end, when we finally meet the mother they've been searching for, you realize the similarities between the mother and her children are uncanny and she displays the same behaviors the kids have been displaying throughout the whole movie. I.E. Running away from spouses and kids, Controlling people by setting an itinerary. And the fact that she's on her own spiritual quest is what the entire movie is about.

I'm sure there's a deeper level of philosophical meaning behind the movie that could be explored. But in a nutshell, what rises to the surface after a night's sleep is just as compelling as the movie itself.

And The Winner Is...

2008-02-25T00:10:00.002-05:00

I went six for eight in the major categories at this years Oscars. And I've predicted the Best Picture correctly for the third consecutive year. Last year I was six for eight also, and the year before that I was five for seven (for some reason I didn't vote for adapted screenplay). That brings my three year total to 17 out of 23 predictions. I think that's a pretty good score. But for some reason, I have a really tough time choosing the winners in the actress awards. I just can't seem to figure out the female. Wait a minute. That is so true, no matter how you look at it.

Good Intentions...

2007-12-30T15:56:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted in this blog for quite some time. And there is a very good reason. I've been off trying to start a Rock 'N' Roll band. This means my career as a screenwriter must suffer. At least for the time being. But while I'm off trying to be Johnny Ramone, that doesn't mean I haven't seen any good movies. And It's my favorite time of the year. Oscar season!

Just got back from seeing Juno. Great movie! Probably this years Little Miss Sunshine breakaway hit. I expect to see at least a few awards come this movie's way. I'm looking forward to Atonement (when my Hell-forsaken city decides to show it!) and There Will Be Blood (Ditto!).

I saw No Country For Old Men. Great movie up until the ending. I felt it was anti-climactic and vague. It could have been that I was just tired and exhausted that I zoned out during long patches of dialogue, but it was intriguing enough to warrant a second viewing to understand what I missed the first time. Best picture of the year? That's a tough one. But here are my pics for my top 5 movies of 2007

1) Smokin' Aces - One of the few movies that blew me away.
2) Death Proof - I'm a Tarantino fan. I was going to like it anyways.
3) Shoot 'Em Up - Cheesy and Predictable in all the right ways.
4) Alpha Dog - Early favorite that stuck in my head all year.
5) The Lookout - Joseph Gordon Levitt is the new indie poster boy.

Honorable Mention: Bourne Ultimatum, Shooter, Once, Into The Wild, Breach, 1408, Disturbia, Across The Universe, Number 23, Mr. Brooks, Ocean's 13.

All in all, it was good year for Neo-Noir and Crime movies.

All Hail The Film Critic!

2007-09-04T17:31:00.000-04:00

I often have long conversations with one of my co-workers about movies, even while on the clock when I should be doing something more efficient - out motto at work is "with a sense of urgency." He has good taste in movies. He judges every movie on how much of an emotional connection he gets to the film. For example, one of his favorites is Pieces Of April. He connected on an emotional level with Katie Holmes trying to cook a turkey dinner for her parents. I told him he needed to see Little Miss Sunshine, about a dysfunctional family that must pull through together on a road trip to a beauty pageant. He didn't understand it. The emotional connection for him wasn't there. To each his own, I guess.

Now I can respect his taste in movies because emotional impact is what every movie should strive for. What I don't agree with about my friend is how he comes to determine which movies he will see. He swears by his favorite film critic. he loves going on to metacritic.com and see what movies get the highest ratings. And his favorite film critic is Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal. If Mr. Morgenstern likes a movie, then my friend will probably consider seeing it.

Now I haven't really paid much attention to film critics in the past. You never really remember the movies you agree with them on. You just remember them tearing apart your favorite movies. It's just the way our minds work. We tend to remember the negativity more often than not. All I really know about film critics are Siskel & Ebert's TV show when I was a kid and the movie reviews I would occasionally read in Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone. But actually paying attention what they really had to say, well that was new to me.

So I decided to apply science to this predicament. I would figure out which critic is most suited to my taste so that I can have someone to turn to and determine what I should see (wink, wink). First, I would take 10 of my favorite movies and see how their scores stood up to mine. All 10 of my movies are what I would consider 100's (the scoring system on metacritic). I would take a handful of critics and add up their scores of my 10 and see who had the greatest total. I determined my top 10 by selecting 5 of my all-time favorites and 5 of my favorite movies in the last 5 years.

I started with Pulp Fiction, the movie I would consider to be my all-time favorite. If the critic didn't at least give that movie a decent score, then I probably wouldn't agree with them on most movies. Then, I found out that most critics hadn't reviewed all 10 of my movies, so I improvised my scientific experiment. I would take the highest 5 ratings of any of my 10 and compare the scores that way. So, essentially they might not have given Almost Famous(one of my top 10) a good score, but that wouldn't hurt them as long as they scored another movie of mine high.

After I added up all the score of my test critics, taking just the top 5 scores, I came to an interesting conclusion. The critic that had the highest score in my experiment is...drum roll, please!

Roger Ebert!

This was both exciting and a let down. exciting because Roger Ebert is the man! It was a let down because, it's Roger Ebert. I was hoping to find some obscure film critic from some newspaper in Bumfuck, Oregon to be my messiah. Roger is cool, but everybody knows Roger. But upon further introspection, I realized that Roger Ebert is the perfect film critic for me. After all, he loved Pulp Fiction, gave it a thumbs up. And any fan of Tarantino knows that film doesn't have to be perfect and grand. It can be small low budget b-film that entertains, even with it's many flaws. And Ebert wrote what I consider to be one of the worst movies ever made and he still went on to become a successful film critic. He can appreciate movies that most others wouldn't see.

My runner-up critic ended up being James Barardinelli of reelviews.net. From what I gather, he's an average person like you and me who became accredited (whatever that means) and now posts his movie reviews on his website. So there's hope for me after all.

and, for your information, my friends film critic, Joe Morgenstern scored the worst. Go figure!

What is Cinema?

2007-08-22T21:31:00.000-04:00

Book Review:

Syd Field - Going To The Movies

I was going to sum up this book with one sentence that appears on page 222:

"...Good structure does not create a good story, but rather that a good story is what creates structure."

I have a habit of posting 3x5 cards on my wall with these bits of wisdom on them. This is surely going up there.

For those of you who have read Syd Field's Screenplay, This book just elaborates what Mr. Field had explained already in his previous books. He just goes more in depth with how he came about with his brilliant bits of revelations. At the end of every chapter, I felt that Paul Harvey's voice should play like a greeting card message proclaiming, "...And now you know, the rest of the story."

Syd Field should give himself more credit for the hard work he's done and all that he's given us lowly screenwriters. He views himself stumbling upon these bits of information regarding structure much like the apple hitting Newton on the head and in the process discovering gravity. But as Ol' Syd pointed out in this book, Gravity wasn't sitting there waiting to be discovered - it was already there.

But alas, the book is about Syd Field's movie going experience. One that was brought home, personally to me, by the last chapter. When Syd recalled his own experiences seeing Pulp Fiction, Run Lola Run, Magnolia. These are the movies I also can recall very vividly. These are the movies that have inspired me to become a screenwriter. In a sense, I can see Syd Field coming to the end of his run. He is holding his baton out, beckoning me to take it and continue on. For it's in these moments where He and I overlap.

It's encouraging to know there's a connectedness in all cinema as it grows greater and greater with every passing year. It's just waiting out there for me to discover their truths as they fall from the sky like frogs. And like frogs falling from the sky, they can only be understood in their proper context.

The other bit of wisdom I found in this book are the words, "So what?"

When Syd was facing his inner critic he would take out a sheet of paper and call it the Critic's Page. Then he would write words like "These pages are no good", "I've read this before", and "You suck". I added that last one because that's what my inner critic tells me quite often. At the end he would write "So what?" And he was able to continue writing. The whole process was quite cathartic for him.

Then talked about the movie Magnolia and how people trashed it. But somehow, Syd liked it, as I did to. He would answer the critics. "It's too long." So what? "It doesn't make sense." So what? Frogs falling from the sky?" So what? If it works, it works.

So come on everybody out there in MovieLand. Let's all say it together. SO WHAT?

Death To Creatures Of The Night

2007-08-13T18:42:00.000-04:00

I just got back from watching Skinwalkers. It's not as bad as the critics pan it out to be. Which leads me to one conclussion. Critics don't want to see another vampire or werewolf movie. To them, they hit there peak with American Werewolf in London or Interview With A Vampire. This is tough news for me because I'm writing a screenplay about a vampire. And it doesn't matter how original or invigorating my idea is (one critic described Skinwalkers as having a few clever twists to add to the genre), it's still not good enough. Critics don't want to see it. At least I still got fans of vampires and werewolves movies. They'll come out to see the movie. Maybe not on opening weekend (Skinwalkers - .75 million. Good enough for 17th place), But they will still see the movie. When it comes out on DVD, that is. It's ashamed how the movie business works. But that's the ultra-independent DIY in me speaking.

The Bourne Romance

2007-08-10T13:55:00.000-04:00

To celebrate the opening of The Bourne Ultimatum this week, I went out and bought the previous two movies. That was only because my friend was supposed to let me borrow them and didn't come through. But, hey, they're worth the 10 bucks a piece.

I've only seen both movies once. The first one, Identity, was barely recognizable. There was a lot I had forgotten. It even makes me wonder why they felt a sequel was justified. But I think the franchise didn't really take off until the second movie, Supremacy. That's when I truly realized we had a James Bond in the making. Each movie was able to develop the character further, quite successfully.

So I was eagerly awaiting the third installment. And it didn't fail to entertain me. Although I was a bit let down on where it ended, the movie delivered on everything I expected. Great action. Great character development. A great movie.

Where I was let down was partly my own doing. They say every great movie is a great love story. I was wondering who Jason Bourne's love interest could be in this movie. His last girlfriend Marie was killed off and she was the catalyst for the last two movies. I wondered who it would be this movie. I had a brief thought that it could possibly be Nicky Parsons. She's been in the other two movies. She's a very minor character who has ties to Jason. I thought that would be a good idea.

Then when you watch the movie (This has nothing to do with the main plot line so there's no spoilers here) there is a brief scene in a diner where Nicky sits across from Jason and looks at him like a long lost lover. Then she asks him, "You really don't remember anything, do you?"

I knew I called that one right. So the rest of the movie I'm anticipating the Jason Bourne/Nicky Parsons story line that never comes. There's even a scene where Nicky has to dye her hair, like Marie had to do in the first one. But Jason doesn't help her do it like he helped Marie. And Jason just looks at her completely unattached. You can tell the thought running through his head is, "Not now. I can't deal with another relationship at this moment." Or maybe he was protecting her; not wanting her to end up dead like Marie. Either way, the storyline was dropped.

But The very end leads you to believe the powers that be know there is going to be another movie so we should set it up as such. When they end on Nicky Parsons watching television announcing Jason was still alive, she smiles. The ending I wanted was Jason appears out of nowhere to take Nicky in his arms and kiss her. But they already did that in the first movie and such an ending wasn't properly set up.

The Bourne Romance - The Jason and Nicky Story. That's the story I was anticipating and that's the movie I want to see.

Midnight In The Garden Of Savannah

2007-07-22T19:58:00.000-04:00

I'm in Savannah, Georgia at the moment enjoying the fine weather and sunny beaches. Actually, I've been flown down here by my company to work. 52 hours of work a week for two weeks. I did have a couple of days off and was able to swim in the Atlantic Ocean for a bit, lay out on the Savannah beach and get an annoying sun burn on my back.

What is of interest to people out there in MovieLand is Savannah is the place where many movies are filmed. The most notorious being Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil. If you've seen the movie you know Savannah is beautiful. It's even more spectacular in person.

Let me be frank. the movie wasn't really that great. I don't know why my free time has been consumed with the movie. But I found it at Best Buy for $7.50 and picked it up. I enjoyed watching the movie and then seeing the actual scenery that was filmed in person. I can imagine the only thing better would be to see a movie actually being filmed at the time. No wait. Even better would be to see your own script being filmed live on location.

I wanted to see the Bird Girl, the statue that graces both the movie poster and the book. But they've moved it out of the cemetery and placed it in a museum that was going to charge me ten bucks to see it. I didn't think it was worth that much at the time. Maybe later. Really, I was only going to look at it just so I can say I've seen it live in person. I did buy the book and a post card of the Bird Girl. So that will have to do.

I did stop at a shop that calls itself the official store of the Midnight book and movie. If I wanted to I could have walked out with a small statue of Bird Girl for a Hundred Bucks. Maybe next time, also.

I had an interesting conversation with the lady who worked there. She was one of those people who love to tell stories and had a ghost story to tell us relating to the nearby city we working in. When I told her I was from Kalamazoo she said it sounded like a song. So I told her about the old song with the same name, which she was familiar with. I asked her about the Savannah Art College because we were seeing a lot of buildings with their name on it. She city was behing taken over by the college. It turns out she was a graduate of the college along time ago. She got her degree and probably never left the city. She said she survived cancer twice and now was working at a tiny gift shop. I'm assuming since she went to college and works at a gift shop she never achieved anything with her art degree. And that she is a struggling artist who devoted her entire life to art with nothing to show for it. But she did seem very happy. I can only hope that after I've lived a long life, whether or not I have achieved any success in screenwriting, that I can be doing something I love associated with my passions in life and be just as happy as she seemed.

I was asked the other day by a good friend how much am I willing to put into this to achieve success in screenwriting. My answer was if I live the rest of my life writing screenplays and I achieve nothing, it will still be worth it because I am having that much fun reading screenplay books and watching and studying movies now. My answer reminds me of the old lady working in that gift shop. Maybe living in Savannah just being surrounded by great art is enough for her to be passionate about life. Just like how I would perceive living in Hollywood being surrounded by movies and artists passionate about movies would be.

Office Memo #1

2007-07-05T19:23:00.000-04:00

They say you should treat your screenwriting career like a business. The sooner you can take it that serious enough, the sooner you'll be on your way to making the necessary steps to success. Well, I created an inter-office memo to myself to do just that.

To: Myself
From: Myself, CEO & Chairman of your career
Date: 7/05/07
Subject: Morning Habits

We'd like to thank you for your commitment and dedication to screenwriting. We feel your accomplishments in the not-too-distant future will have a positive effect financially for our organization. We'd like to take this opportunity to challenge you to remain steadfast in our company policy.

It has recently come to our attention that you have been "sleeping in" instead of rising early enough to perfect your craft. Although your alarm clock is set at 4 a.m. eastern/standard time, pressing snooze for an hour and a half and awakening at the last possible minute before being taken away to your other job is counter-productive and goes against your better judgments as a screenwriter. Please make all necessary changes to keep your account in good standing with our firm.

The Bathroom Reader Of Screenwriting

2007-07-02T21:14:00.000-04:00

Book Review: Zen And The Art Of Screenwriting Vol. 1 & 2

It's not that these were awful books full of toilet humor or anything like that. It just happens to be the time that I chose to read this books. I needed something screenwriting related to read while taking a massive a dump only a man can be proud of (I ripped that off of John From Cincinnati). These books were the perfect opportunity to do so. The insights were usually only a couple of pages long and offered plenty of good food for thought. The interviews were also informative. Not Like, "Holy-shit, I need to know this stuff!". But more in retrospect of your favorite movies and authors. The first volume was published in 1996, with volume 2 in 2000. So most of the interviews from author William Froug are with the legends of screenwriting and seem to be a bit dated. So anybody looking for fresh perspectives on the industry today might do better with a current copy of Creative Screenwriting.

Another problem I have with the book is the misinterpretation with the title. There is no chapter on Zen philosophy and how it relates to screenwriting. But that's fine. I understand it was just a clever title. I pretty much try to pattern the titles of my blogs in a similar fashion. Hell, the title "Philosophy Of Screenwriting" was inspired by these books. I just wish they had picked something else so I could use the title for a true journey into Zen and screenwriting. But I digress.

So these books, along with Joel Engel's "Screenwriters On Screenwriting", have become my choice for bathroom reading. I have a few other books by Engel and Froug that will later take their place on top of the magazine rack in my bathroom full of old Playboy's and men's magazines. If it has to be all screenwriting all the time, then I need to keep my priorities straight. So that Playboy will have to wait. Right now, my current bathroom reader is "Screenwriters: America's Storytellers In Portrait." Hey, what do you know? It's got pictures. Who needs those Playboy's after all.

Pulp Fiction And The Theory Of Autonomy

2007-06-16T18:13:00.001-04:00

Have you ever been asked what your favorite movie is? Have you ever asked someone what their favorite movie is and they couldn't give you a response? It's a hard question to answer. With all the great movies out there it's hard to narrow it down to just one. And there's always the fear of rejection when they didn't like the movie you chose.

I find this a hard question to answer when it comes to music. I listen to so many different types of music and I love music so much that I'm not able to give a justifiable answer. Giving an answer to your favorite band question is even more typecasting than movies. If I said Nine Inch Nails then you would automatically assume I'm goth. Or if I said Bon Jovi, you would assume I'm an over-the-hill pot smoker stuck in the 80's. And If I told you what I really like to listen to right now is Bluegrass, you would assume I'm a down-on-the-farm country hick with straw sticking out of my mouth. But really, I'm a college town suburbanite from the Midwest.

But when it comes to movies, it's more ambiguous. For instance, what does it really mean to like Will Ferrell movies? Well, for me, it's on par to liking Britney Spears or the Backstreet Boys. Yeah, they have that one good song, but overall they suck!

But not having an answer to your favorite movie is just as bad. It either means you are incapable of forming your own opinion or you just haven't thought it through yet. Or it means, your afraid I'm going to judge you harshly for liking Will Ferrell movies .

I decided long ago that the answer to my question was going to be Pulp Fiction. And here are the reasons:

A) It's a safe option, being one of the most critically acclaimed movies. And it's constantly being listed on every one's best movies of all time lists. Besides, if you say you didn't like it, I can say you're a moron and more people agree with me than you.

B) No move has ever given me a better movie-going experience than Pulp Fiction. Here's the story: Me and my girlfriend at the time went to go see it at the theater when it first came out in 1994 (So I'm not jumping on the bandwagon, here). To me, I was just going to see the latest Bruce Willis movie. I'm one of those people who will go see a movie just because it has Bruce Willis in it. And I remember sitting there listening to Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer just talk about nothing important and it through me for a loop. Where's the story at? What's the point? Then the cool surf music came, then there was that guy from Grease and some black guy with an Afro. I thought, "How cool is that?"

Then they killed a guy for something in a brief case and then John Travolta was dancing. And then Uma Thurman O.D.'s and John stabs an adrenaline shot into her chest to make her wake up. At this time it's game over. This has been the coolest movie with the sickest shit I've ever seen! My best friend at the time, rented this movie and got to this part and had to shut it off. He couldn't watch any more. I don't think to this day, he ever did finish watching it.

And Bruce Willis hadn't even done anything at this point. When he comes out and does his "Die Hard" thing, It's like you've watched two cool movies at once. And it ain't over. There's the Bonnie Situation, and Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer again. None of the stories put together made any sense, but you still walked out of the movie theater thinking you watched a complete movie.

Not only can you quote from it, you can watch it over and over again and still surprised.

So that's my favorite movie of all-time. When I tell people that, they're either surprised that I've thought it through so much or they didn't see the movie to begin with and couldn't say much either way.

And it pretty much defines who I am. I love crime movies. I love Tarantino. I love Film-Noir or Neo-Noir. And I live my life in a post-modern society where pop-culture is recycled and spoon fed to the masses. This movie is the turning point. It's the Nirvana "Smells Like Teen Spirit" of Cinema. You can take it or leave it. But that's just me.

Another Top 5...

2007-06-13T17:42:00.000-04:00

Top 5 movies as this years Waterfront Film Festival:

1) Chapter 27 - The darkest movie I saw this year. A fictional tale about Mark David Chapman's three day stay in New York City before he shot John Lennon. His adventures mirror that of Holden Caulfield's in Catcher In The Rye. And Jared Leto gained 67 lbs. to play the lead role. He won't get an Oscar nod but he sure does deserve one.

2) Eagle Vs. Shark - New Zealand's answer to Napoleon Dynamite and in many ways, surpasses it. A quirky romantic comedy for the rest of us.

3) When A Man Falls In The Forest - This movie contained the single most exciting moment of the film festival. When Timothy Hutton calls his wife Sharon Stone on the phone and gets her answering machine, he pours out his heart and soul in rapid fire. Afterwards, the audience clapped at his heartfelt honesty. Then the audience let out a loud gasp at what happened next. Go see this movie to find out.

4) The Go-Getter - They ought to name a genre after Holden Caulfield in which the premise is always the same. A teenage boy comes of age while going on a road trip to find a family member or discover an unknown truth. Throw in a little Oedipus Complex and you got yourself a good movie.

5) Tie - Blue State/ Divergence - Both these movies took on Bush and the war in Iraq. In Blue State, a defeated democrat attempts to move to Canada. in Divergence, a wounded soldier falls in love while contemplating the fact he may have to go back to war. I'm not anti-war or anti-Bush so the filmmakers' attempts to draw sympathy to their plight went over my head. But put together, these two movies did have enough of a storyline outside their political agenda to warrant a place on my top 5.

Screenwriting And The Art Of Being Lazy

2007-06-05T00:36:00.001-04:00

I realize I haven't been posting that much on here. My excuse is that I'm busy working my day job trying to make money to eventually make the move out west. But really my intention was to only write quality stuff on here to represent my writing style. I suppose I could turn this into an online diary and tell you guys what I had for breakfast, but I think I should keep it somewhat professional.

Instead, I'll give a sort of state-of-the-union address on this summer so far. First, what's with all these two-and-a-half/three hour Blockbuster movies? Pirates, Spiderman, etc. I thought we were told to keep our scripts under 110 pages? I personally subscribe to the hour-and-a-half movie theory myself. If it clocks in at one-fifteen, bonus!

Next week, I'll be attending the Waterfront Film Festival and I'm excited. I was a bit disappointed at this year's selection at first. But after reading all the movies, I've found a couple I'm looking forward to seeing. Like Chapter 27, the Mark David Chapman movie starring Jared Leto. Lindsey Lohen is in it, and since she's Maxim's hottest babe right now, that can't be bad thing. Although, there's no horror movies this year. Where's all the genre films at? But I'll get my weekend pass and watch every movie I can. I plan on taking in over 19 movies/documentaries/seminars/short film programs in a three day span. I'm devoted like that. Or crazy.

I've got my next script down in treatment form. I let my screenwriter friend read it and he liked the storyline and loved the title. But he often likes my ideas then trashes my screenplays. But that lets me know what I need to work on then.

Top 5 movies of the first half of 2007:
1) Smokin' Aces
2) Grindhouse
3) 300
4) Alpha Dog
5) The Number 23

Screenwriting And The Art Of Losing

2007-05-13T12:41:00.000-04:00

Well, that screenplay contest I entered just announced the finalists. And I wasn't one of them. I'm not too upset because you can't expect to win everything. But it is a good experience for me to feel failure and rejection on one of my screenplays. It's all new to me. It's a new feeling. One that I'm going to have to sort out and work through. Other screenwriters have felt this feeling on much larger scales. It's something I should expect to get used to.

It does bring up a lot of questions, though. You take stock in what you've accomplished so far and measure all the hard work you've put into it. You start asking questions like is it all worth it to continue? Do I believe I have enough talent and determination to continue? Am I willing to make it a life-long career pursuit or should I try something else? Am I ready for Hollywood?

Than you need to ask yourself the hard questions. Did I really write the best screenplay I could write? Did I really work hard enough? Am I just fooling myself? I can say the answer to that last question is yes. We all are fooling ourselves. But some how we press on anyways. It doesn't matter that we're chasing after fool's gold. Because how neat would it be to write a movie someday?

So, here's my post-contest depression plan:

1) I'm going to post this for all the world to see.

2) I'm going straight to the movie theater. I'm going to sit by myself with a large tub of popcorn with extra butter and I'm going to fight through the screenplay blues.

3) I'm going to come home and take stock. Set more goals. drop more time-consuming activities. Read more books. Write more every day.

4) Enter another screenplay contest.

5) Repeat process until I have a happier ending.

P.S. Now that I think about it. My original goal wasn't to win the screenplay contest. It was to enter the screenplay contest. Something I had wanted to do the last two years and had failed. But this year I was determined to and I did. So I'm a winner after all.

Football And The Art Of Narrative Flow

2007-04-29T09:19:00.000-04:00

It's an ongoing debate in my house about the narrative flow of something and how important it is. Or maybe I'm just on a kick and I'm driving my roommates crazy. The arguments usually follow our Sunday night line-up of Sopranos and Entourage (Which we have dubbed Family Night). My one roommate usually suggest, "It needs more nudity!" To which I spout off something about gratuitous nudity and it not being necessary to the narrative flow.

So I'm watching the NFL draft and all the boring analysis that's going on and what do you know - a narrative story pops up. I'm talking about the plight of Brady Quinn. Quinn is from Columbus, Ohio and his dream as a young kid was to play for the Cleveland Browns, which is not too far from his hometown. How do I know this? Because they kept flashing up the photo of him at age 4 with a Cleveland Browns helmet and jersey. The Cleveland Browns had the third pick in the draft and a really good chance of picking Brady Quinn. When Oakland picked JaMarcus Russell and Detroit selected Calvin Johnson (Yes!), it looked like Brady Quinn will have his dream come true. They cut to Quinn sitting in the audience with his hot blonde girlfriend (No nudity...that would be gratuitous) . He's excited with anticipation. Cleveland has 15 minutes to make their selection so for 15 minutes the commentators talk up Brady Quinn.

"The Cleveland Browns select Offensive Tackle Joe Thomas from Wisconsin."

Everybody's going crazy! What just happened? Brady is reserved but you can tell he's dissapointed. Not only is he not gauranteed to be one of the top paid rookies, he has to sit there for who knows how long until he's drafted by another team. There was talk of him going to Miami at No. 9. But when that pick came and went hours later, you could see the smile on Brady Quinn's face getting strained. And you couldn't miss it because the camera was there to record every facial expression when his name wasn't announced.

For the next couple of hours, Brady Quinn was the top prospect coming in the draft and he sat there and watched as Cornerbacks, Safetys, Defensive Ends were drafted in picks 10 through 21. Then Dallas was next with pick 22. Now Dallas has been known to trade away their picks for more picks and it was a strong possibility. All Brady Quinn could think about is will he be drafted by Dallas? Dallas already has a quarterback so probably not. Then the announcement comes.

"The Dallas Cowboys trade their pick to the Cleveland Browns."

What? Is it true? Could it really happen? Did the Browns have a change of heart?

"The Cleveland Browns select Brady Quinn out of Notre Dame."

Yes! Out protagonist reaches his goal. It was a long, hard road for Brady Quinn but dreams do come true. And I would like to thank Brady Quinn and the NFL for providing a little narrative flow to spice up an afternoon of watching the football draft on TV.

WGA Certified!

2007-04-20T20:11:00.000-04:00

I just got my documentation of registration from the Writers Guild of America, west. This may seem like a very trivial thing to you but for me, I'm quite excited! I was entertaining the idea of framing it. The only other thing I've got to proudly display is a little trophy I won in high school. If you can believe this, I won a Turkey Tourney Free Throw Contest. It was the first time I ever won anything. It will always be a fond memory of mine.

As far as the big picture goes, it doesn't mean squat. But, it's these little moments that let you know you've reached the next plateau. It's good to sit back and see how far you've come and take pride in that. And it keeps you in perspective on how far you still got to go.

So, toast to me - and my certificate of registration. May there be many more to come.

Hello World Of Screenwriting Blogs

2007-04-14T19:06:00.000-04:00

I've decided to join the world of screenwriting blogs. For my first post, I realized I didn't have that much to say. I've got a few ideas I'd like to share with you but I'll save them for another day.

I should probably start with a little bit about myself. I live in Michigan and have been studying screenwriting for a couple of years. I'm 33 years old and I am determined to make a career out of my passion for movies. My education isn't NYU or USC Film School, but rather my education began when I sold a lot of my CD's on ebay (I'm also a music fan) and used the money to buy every screenwriting book I can get my hands on. In essence, I'm getting my screenwriting education at a fraction of the cost. I've bought over 88 books, most of them for under five bucks. Later, I hope to review some of these books for you to let you know how helpful they might have be.

I realize reading a couple of books doesn't make you a screenwriter. But isn't it all really just theory. Like football - it's just a ball and field. Everything else is theory. That's why I've called my blog Philosophy Of Screenwriting. To me, it's all a bunch of rules I need to learn and dissect. To learn their importance. If I can figure out why to do something, I can figure out how to do it better. And, if need be, how to break them.

So far, I've written three screenplays and do not consider myself anything but amateur. Maybe even Lower than an amateur. I recently entered my first screenplay contest. If anything comes of it I'll let you know. But just disciplining myself enough preparing to enter was a tremendous learning experience about myself. And I'd like to share that with you also.

Other plans of mind include actually moving out to California in the near future. I don't plan on moving to Los Angeles until I'm invited, but I recently have received an opportunity to move to San Diego that I'm preparing for. That will put me two hours outside of Los Angeles.

Well, that's all for now. Breathless in on the Sundance Channel and I'm looking forward to watching it.