"Y'know, these work..."

Lieutenant Ed Traxler: Nowt wrong with his specs.

Repeat after me: "Show. Don't tell."


Yes, we get it. Nobody likes to read in a script (or see an actor reeling out) exposition and plot reminders again and again. That's not to say you can't ever do that - used sparingly, or in a comedic way, it can work. (e.g. The Terminator: Lance Henriksen's cop reels off a load of info for OUR benefit, and his boss Traxler gives him a wry slap-upside the head. Genius.)

Its a good rule to try to avoid patronising your audience. But I often find its easier said than done.

Having spent the past six weeks script editing my completed works, I've found polishing dialogue and perfecting character motivation the most challenging part of writing a script. Its where the hard work really comes in, constantly asking yourself 'How can I make this flow better, or at least in a more challenging or original way?' Not that everything I write is dire, I hasten to add/protest too much: But its having that inner 'coach' voice that pushes and drives you to improve: The literary version of 'Gimme 50 more laps!'

And then I watch a tv show like 'Treme'. Now I know I've been evangelical about this show: Tough! I'm not kidding, they should be handing out the scripts to film students, or at least make them available to buy. Its that good. In a couple of the latter episodes, I witnessed a couple of scenes that were so simple but effective - and a good example of 'less is more'.

Davis & Annie: Will they, won't they?

Firstly, there's an episode that centres around a Mardi Gras parade. Local DJ and general hyperactive loudmouth Davis crosses paths with street violinist Annie. They have a nice day together, and get on great. Later in the day, there comes a moment where you think Davis and Annie might make a cute couple - at least that's the look on their faces. And then Davis pulls out a joint, sparks up and offers it to Annie.

Unbeknownst to Davis, but known to the audience, Annie is struggling with a drug-addicted boyfriend. And for the time being, it derails any possibility of a blossoming romance. And its all said and done with a look.

Big Chief: 'Nuff Said.

Next up: Albert/Chief leads his clan through the streets, only to come up against another 'rival' procession: Things look heated. The two clan chiefs face-off, but ultimately show each other respect and pass-by peacefully. Later on, Albert and his clan come up against a group of aggressive cops. After a brief shout-down, one of the cops informs his colleagues to back off: Show respect to tradition. A lovely mirroring of a previous scene - one for the spirit world, the other for the real world. Again, not much is said, but having been informed that the first face-off was about showing respect, then second face-off has a deeper relevance.

Now where can I get my hands on those 'Treme' scripts?

"I'll show you the life of the mind!"

Jack Lipnick: Not one of those guys who thinks poetic has got to be fruity.

Jack Lipnick:  

"We're only interested in one thing, Bart. Can you tell a story? 

Can you make us laugh? Can you make us cry? 

Can you make us want to break out in joyous song? 

Is that more than one thing? Okay!"

Following on from the second biggest question in the universe "Why should your feature-length screenplay be made for a cinematic release?", I thought I'd stare deeper into the abyss and ask 'What is drama?'

A visual depiction of desperate times.

I recently read a great blog post by Filmutopia about drama vs. conflict.Or rather, drama is NOT about conflict: Its about what's at stake. The cost. What our 'hero' stands to lose. Then comes the varying levels of jeopardy: What is physically and emotionally at stake; relationships, career, sanity etc. And THEN what happens if our 'hero' has to choose between these treasured pathways?


A few years ago, when I was having one of those desperate 'Where is it all going?' moments, I wrote to director, writer and producer Walter Hill for advice. And why not? Made perfect sense at the time. "I'm stuck. There's no way out. Let's ask the man who is the master of 'No Way Out-ness.'"


So I asked Walter for his opinion on what makes a good film. The reply was most definitely from the man responsible for such classics as 'Southern Comfort', '48HRS', 'The Long Riders', 'Trespass', 'Red Heat', and most special of all - 'The Warriors'. (Not forgetting that he also produced the 'Alien' movies.)

Walter Hill: Can you dig it!

"There's an old quote of Howard Hawks I always liked, 
when asked 'What is drama?', he answered,

'Will he live or will he die, that's drama.'

I humbly agree.

Keep writing, good luck in the jungle."

So there you have it. In a precise little nutshell. 
Don't get caught up on time-filling incidentals - ALWAYS concentrate on what's at stake.

Pop quiz, hotshot...

... You receive good feedback from the BBC regarding your commercial feature length screenplay 'Viktorialand', but the closing comment is: "Why should your script be made for a cinematic release?" What do you do?

Its a question that stumped me, if I'm honest. My initial response is 'Why should ANY feature length script be made for cinema?' Most films could work as a tv series or a one-off drama. Likewise, a lot of tv shows have cinematic quality (HBO shows in particular).

On Saturday I went to a screening of 'Swinging With The Finkels' at the Apollo Cinema in London (a 'Script to Screen' event, hosted by Chris Jones). Find out more here!

'Finkels' Director Jonathan Newman

After the screening, 'Finkels' director Jonathan Newman discussed his journey as a film maker. His honest account of his experience was great to hear, and its fair to say he's had an amazing couple of years. After the screening, I grabbed five minutes with Jonathan, and I put to him the question that the BBC asked me:

What makes a feature length script worthy of a cinematic release?

Why not tv? 

• We have more of a 'television industry' in this country as opposed to a 'film industry'.
• Do ideas have to be BIG for a cinematic release?
• Is TV for telling, and cinema for showing?
• Is it about how the script is shot?
• Is it about big name actors in starring roles?
• What about all those films we've seen where not much happens, but its a GREAT film? 

'The Walking Dead': Cinematic in scope...

The Kings Speech: As not seen premiering on BBC4.

I've come round to the idea of television being a good home for certain projects of mine. Even those hard-sell projects which tv wouldn't know what to do with - why not make them as a web-series? Why is cinema our ultimate goal? 

'Another Year': Oscar-nommed slice of reality.

Take Mike Leigh's "Another Year". Great film, loved it, and it was up for some Oscars too, if my memory serves me correctly. But ask me what its about. Well, not much. Sure, stuff happens in the story, but the brilliance of it was spending a couple of hours with characters that you could relate to, and it was an emotional, poignant,  enjoyable experience. But why was it made for cinema? It could have been a tv drama on BBC 4. Recently, Gareth Unwin (producer of 'The Kings Speech') revealed the original intention for his Oscar-gobbling project was precisely that: Television.

Its a difficult question with no clear, obvious answer. It made me step back and look at my script 'Viktorialand': Could it be a tv series? A one-off comedy/relationship drama?  In my mind, I picked the story apart; adapted it into various formats - but each time it lost something. And the only answer I had as to why it wouldn't work as good on television, web, etc. - Because it is meant to be a film. Some scripts are meant for the cinema - so its my word against yours!

Yup, it all boils down to force of personality. If you're passionate enough, then you go for it. People might disagree strongly with you. You might not get the budget you want, or enough time to develop it fully (If someone approaches you saying 'I have a few million to spend of a film - will you be ready to shoot in seven months? You say 'YES!'). Your project might go straight to DVD and bypass the cinema altogether. But it is still a feature film. And that's what being a Guerilla film maker is - listening to and weighing opinion, but also being assured of your own.

Bueller... Bueller... Bueller: He did it his way...

 

Down In The Treme... We're All Goin' Crazy...

Being a huge fan of HBO's 'The Wire' (apart from series 5: They dropped the ball IMHO), I looked forward to settling into 'Treme'; a post-disaster New Orleans-based story about how real lives are affected by the floods and how they are left to pick up the pieces of their lives.

This is what Lester Freamon gets up to when he's not
building miniature furniture.

Once again, I'm left with the same thought that I had when 'The Wire' ended: Why can't we make television drama like HBO in the U.K.? Okay, HBO has the budget and all that, and I'm not about to start knocking Brit-TV Drama - we've had plenty of successes in our time - but with both instances, 'The Wire' and 'Treme' show a reality that rarely hits our screens. A humanity. Its gives time and space for the characters to unfold - not in a pretentious, drawn-out way - but it has a clear love for their people, even down to the one-liner bit-parts. And above all - it all feels necessary.

Cheeky womaniser Antoine Batiste

Bunk Moreland: No relation.

I recently watched a labyrinthine UK drama which was strung out over many episodes, when it could have been told in about, oooh, three episodes. The critics loved it - "nevermind the quality - feel the width", they chimed. Sure, the first few episodes held my attention. But then it 'gave time' to its characters - and they didn't have much to say for themselves. Suddenly, it was all looking one-note and repetitive; a self-spoof.

Like 'The Wire', 'Treme' has a lot of atmosphere. Its not about pace, storylines and what-not: But you actually care about the characters: The good and the not-so-good. 

So take time to soak it up - nevermind the width, feel the quality.

Back to life, back to reality...

...Back from planet film.

Chris Jones with 'The Kings Speech' producer & writer
 Gareth Unwin & David Seidler

After spending two days and one evening in the company of Chris Jones and hundreds of film makers, I've got the same feeling that I get when I've finished shooting a film. Some of you may know that feeling: Its been hard work, tiring, challenging, educational, energising, inspiring, motivating... and a great reminder of WHY we ride the rollercoaster.

That's me, under the big red arrow...

I won't go into detail too much about what Chris spoke about - If you want useful tips, just go on the seminar next time Chris runs it. If you're serious about making films, you really have got no excuses. You simply cannot afford not to go. Yes, the days were very long, but the ground covered was immense. And most importantly, it wasn't two days of someone blowing hot air up your backside - it was sound, career-changing advice and opinion.

That's me in the corner... Well, towards the right...

Most importantly for me, the reason for going was utterly affirmed:

Should I still keep trying?
Why do I want to be a film maker? 

In the past, I've had:
The joy of creating a film, from script through to the edited film itself
The pleasure of meeting and working with some very talented, lovely people
The chance to go to places that I'd never normally go
The buzz and excitement of being on-set
The Quentin Tarantino phone call (or OMG Part 1)
The Terry Gilliam phone call (or OMG Part 2)
The Fred The Weather Man (from 'This Morning') phone call (or 'Excuse me, I need to get back on my weather map now!')

I've also had:
The on-set mutiny
The six-police-cars-arriving-on-location-induced panic attack
The firing the lead actor a week before the shoot
The second on-set mutiny (quashed before it got any legs)
The script not being ready to shoot
The why-is-there-no-audio-adaptor, hire company?
The colossal confrontations
The personal disappointment
The disappointment of friends and others
The disappearing 'friends'
The rejection and unwarranted judgment
The immense self-doubt

But: I'm still here.

I've had some horrendous times making films. I made some wrong choices. I was also at the mercy of uncontrollable elements. I've also had some of the best times of my life making films.

Hearing the trials of Chris Jones's career was pretty much a cathartic experience. Having had my guts kicked out and jumped up and down on whilst making films, I feel restored after last weekend's seminar. Like the cowardly lion after a trip to see the Wiz, I've been put back together. I know WHY I want to do this (and its not fame, money, peer recognition, proving myself or any of that stuff Chris wrote on the white board). Its because I simply have to do it. I've got stories to tell, and they need to be communicated to an audience.

I'm an 'end of stage 2-looking to start stage 3' film maker: I've worked as an A.D., I've made my own short and feature length films, have made tons of mistakes and have learned a lot from them. I'm now looking to make that 'Stage 3' quality short film.

So next year marks 'The Year Of The Shorts'.

The plan is to make two high-quality short films, get back on and ride that pony, Sheriff!

"Do it if you have the guts!" AKA "New decade.... New Rules.... Better haircuts."

*****SPOILERIFIC POST ABOUT SCREAM 4 - DON'T MOAN AT ME FOR GIVING AWAY THE ENDING, ALRIGHT?**********

Those were the days.

What's the best way to chill out on a hot day? Go to the cinema. See something a bit edgy for extra chilliness.
So me 'n Stu met up for a few ciders before traipsing off to a not very good multiplex (Vue @ Romford - sticky, STICKY floors, blurry screen. Not a good combo). Our film of choice was Scream 4 (or Scre4m, according to the film makers. Never liked numbers in titles - a trend started by the equally daft-monikered 'Se7en'. Se-seven-en?).

Why did we see this film, even though we both knew it was going to be at least a bit rubbish? Because we felt like we owed it to the other three. I never saw the first installment at the cinema (which I absolutely love - watched it last week, and it still holds up as a fresh, funny film), but I did see 'Scream 2' (which runs on its own hype - it has energy, but also has too many characters that do precious little. And killing off Randy was never a good idea. As soon as he died, the humour went with him.) and 'Scream 3' (which overdoses on its own in-jokes and ends up playing like an episode of Scooby-Doo.)

Ghostface never misses a photo opportunity.

So, part 4.... Kicks off as per every installment, with the pre-title murders. Only this time it plays out like an over-stretched Monty Python joke. Meanwhile, I'm hoping that none of the other 5 or 6 people in the cinema are going to act out any Scream fantasies - this is why me and scary films don't mix. Anyway, so far, so 'hmmmm'. But then Hayden Panettiere shows up. Or rather her haircut does. Suddenly, the film improves. Some one-dimensional characters die in not particularly creative ways, and our trio of survivors are wheeled out once more. Sidney has written a book on her experiences, which to me doesn't fit her character - If she had any sense, she'd keep her head down. Dewey and Gale's marriage is as dry as a biscuit (Given the Arquette's recent split, it certainly adds a bizarre depth to their on-screen partnership). Dewey is now the sheriff, and Gale is a bored housewife.

Do I like scary movies? Did you not notice my haircut?                   

The only new characters with any spark are Charlie and Kirby, played by Rory Culkin and Hayden Panettiere: Both elevate their characters with edgy performances and choice haircuts. Seriously, the cheerleader from 'Heroes' is wearing that haircut. Anyway, more people die, Sidney never thinks to jump on the next plane to Marrakesh, the big reveal happens, and we discover that the only way to make Scream 4 fresh was to remake the original but with added role-reversal. As for their motive - They did it because they wanted to be famous? Wasn't that Mickey's reason for killing his friends in part 2? If not, it was flippin' close to it. Anyway, the film almost ends on a risky, daring note: ALMOST.

Do it if you have the guts. Or maybe not.

The film feels like some choice decisions WERE made, but then were RE-SHOT when test audiences didn't like seeing their favourites die. I'll admit, I went to see this film on the basis of 'Are they going to kill Dewey/Sid/Gale'? Even in the trailer, there's a clip of Gale - about to be knifed - saying 'Do it if you have the guts'. I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying this, but I don't remember seeing this moment in the film. And there's nothing that bugs me more than seeing stuff in trailers that isn't in the actual film itself. (Okay, other things DO bug me more... just sayin', like...). And I seem to recall seeing a still from the film with a body hanging from the ceiling - ALSO NOT IN THE FILM.

As not seen in Scream 4.

Scream 4 felt like a movie that was going to have balls - but the makers lost their nerve. Killing off the main three characters felt like the thing to do - and The Bitter Script Reader's blog makes some good points about why they should have gone through with it.

http://thebitterscriptreader.blogspot.com/2011/04/scream-4-when-core-character-needs-to.html

But to me, killing off Sid, Gale or Dewey wasn't the answer. In fact, killing off your stalwarts can sometimes have a detrimental effect to the previous entries. Think Ripley in Alien 3. Okay, ballsy, somewhat inevitable ending, but it undid a lot of good work in Alien and Aliens. When I watch those movies now, they feel a little redundant because you know in part 3, Ripley buys the farm. So offing Scream main trio would have lessened the previous entries. What, in my opinion, was required was DECENT STORYLINES.

All Dewey has to keep himself busy in Scream 4 is show up at crime scenes, or be seen driving to them at speed. Gale does even less. Their characters feel stale because they've been given nothing to do. Thats no reason to kill them off; because they've served their purpose and the writer doesn't know what to do with them. The best answer is: Don't use these characters any more - move on, get fresh blood in, so to speak. The Scream movies work best when its kids in peril whilst being smart-arses. Killing off all the new characters was not a smart move. Its always better to keep a couple of the more likable new characters alive, for sequel purposes. When the same 3 people are alive at the end of each film, it gets a little tiresome. Much like Jack Bauer in '24'. But that show wouldn't work without Jack. Scream movies CAN work without Sid, Gale and Dewey.

New Stu, New Randy, New Casey, New Tatum

By now you probably think that I hate Scream 4. I don't, actually. It was nonsense, but enjoyable, watchable  nonsense. Yes, each approaching death scene is signposted in big neon letters, but there were a few fun moments, a couple of laughs, and some great haircuts (okay, I'm stopping now). The films have always been more about mis-direction than anything else, and Scream 4 certainly offers an array of possible killers. Is it an essential addition to the series? It plays better than parts 2 and 3, but its a pity that a lot of potential went untapped. Still, it wasn't half as bad as I feared it would be. 3 out of 5.

Too much, too young...

Whilst listening to the numerous ways to create and market your movie @ AI Day, my mind drifted to a thought that's been following me around for a few months: Is there such a thing as over-saturation when it comes to promoting a movie?

I've been a film fan for as long as I can remember, and as a kid (back in the 80's), the few promotional outlets were:

Barry Norman on Film-whichever year it was.

Bus Stops

Massive billboards on the A13

The cinema foyer

Trailers before movies

Adverts in newspapers.

As my interest in films grew, I would buy Photoplay, Starburst, Time Out, before moving onto the staple diet of Empire, Neon (which lasted for about a year: Shame.), and Total Film.

"With the advent of the world wide web" (tm), access to movie news has reached the point where you can, say, download the script of 'Inglorious Basterds' (or however QT spells the bloomin' thing) BEFORE he even had the finance secured.

Which poses a question: Whatever happened to the mystery?

The first time I knew ANYTHING about 'Ghostbusters': I stood at the bus stop outside Collier Row community centre, seeing the GB logo and the words "Who Ya Gonna Call?". That was it. I had no idea what it meant, but I wanted to know more. Then came the bus stop posters for 'Highlander' and 'Extreme Prejudice'. Again, me: stood there, admiring the artwork, trying to work out what the film was about.

Going back to the start of it all when I was about 3 or 4, I can remember being at a tube station, seeing the poster for 'Moonraker'. Roger Moore in a silver space suit: SOLD! But there was also a downside to this: Seeing Jack Nicholson's sweaty, mad-eyed stare through a smashed-through door for 'The Shining', or the wolf extreme close up for 'An American Werewolf In London' was enough to give me nightmares (hey, I was 5.) Worst offender was a schlocky horror film called 'Rosemary's Killer', which had a huge cardboard cut-out display in the cinema foyer - unpleasant to see at any age. (Another subject I will cover soon) Even up to the point where stepping off a tube train to be confronted by a huuuuuuuge poster for 'The Abyss', with its endless depths of blue was simultaneously awe-striking and dread-filling.

Maybe I'm being a melancholy, sentimental old duffer (ME?) or having some kind of mid-life crisis, but I do miss the days when I felt genuine intrigue and excitement towards new releases. Yes I'm a film fan, and its part of my nature to want to know about what films are being made, but we've all seen those trailers that give away the ENTIRE plot of the film. The trailers ends, and we mutter 'Okay, don't need to see that now'. So much coverage/hype is given to these big movies (Empire, I'm looking at you), that by the time they come around, these essential, must-see movies seem stale. I'm bored of hearing about it. And on top of this, Empire gives the movie 2 stars (End of Empire bashing).

Of course movies need promotion, otherwise we (the audience) wouldn't have a clue. But as Ted Hope related on the AI Day - The trailer for 'The Shining' stuck in his mind for months, because all it showed was a steadi-cam shot of the hotel carpet, reaching those elevator doors... then the doors open and... (no spoilers). The imagery leaves you with a sense of 'What the heck was that about? And when can I find out?'

Same goes for the trailers for Alien (and Aliens - although a direct copy of its predecessor's trailer) - the close-up of the egg cracking, the mysterious light shafting outwards; the haunting, bewildering howls of SOMETHING...

So my question is: Are movies losing their mystery?