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.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Screenwriting Tip # 519
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.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
The Summer Season Is Upon Us
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.
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.
Friday, May 9, 2008
A Digression Into Dylan
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.
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.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Expelled - Part 2
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.
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.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Just Got Back From Watching Expelled
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.
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.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Pacino Cops A Feel
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
