Just Saw [Insert Movie Title Here]...

Moving to www.scriptenabler.com

2007-01-21T20:55:00.000-08:00

To my loyal blog readers (all sixteen of you):

I've decided to bite the bullet and set up shop under my own shingle. I managed to move all the articles over to the new domain but unfortunately, I wasn't as successful moving the comments. This is my last post here at "Just Saw...".

Get out your bookmarks.

www.scriptenabler.com

See you on the other side!

Isaac

The Good Shepherd

2006-12-24T08:25:00.000-08:00

The good idea: Matt Damon plays a counter-intelligence administrator during the events leading to the formation of the CIA.

What worked: The life within U.S. covert operations from pre World War II through the Bay of Pigs is richly depicted through Damon's stoic portrayal of Edward Wilson. The paranoia and anxiety are tangible.

What didn't work: Much of the film is made up of flashbacks of Wilson's life: the suicide of his father at a young age, his induction into Yale's secret society Skull and Bones, his recruitment into counter-intelligence work and his loveless marriage to Clover (played by Angelina Jolie). Unfortunately, for all their efforts and attention to detail, these flashback scenes serve as gloriously shot exposition revealing not much more than the emotional complexity of Wilson's life.

There is precious little story. A U.S. military operation in Cuba is severely compromised by a leak within the intelligence community. An anonymous package is slipped under Wilson's door with grainy, underexposed photographs of a couple having sex and a sound recording of their pillow talk indicating that this tryst was the leak.

Wilson turns in the package for forensic evaluation and enough clues are discovered to reveal where this tryst took place. Upon traveling to the location, Wilson discovers the leak is his own son and the woman who passed on the information is his son's fiancee.

Eric Roth's story structure is daring. We start the film with Wilson's receipt of the package. All the flashbacks occur during the time it takes the forensics team to evaluate the photographs and to demux the various sound elements.

Wilson's revelation that the leak is his son is the second act break. In essence, most of the first two acts are flashbacks of events prior to the discovery of the leak. From his Soviet counterpart Ulysses, Wilson is presented with the choice embodied in the movie's theme: Would you protect your country or your son?

What the film gains by this structure is a true mystery. By showing Wilson's past, we are presented with a gallery of credible suspects in this cloak and dagger. Everyone occupies an area somewhere between light and dark. Sometimes it's easier to trust your enemy than your friends because you know he's your enemy but no matter what, you are always looking over your shoulder.

Without this structure, The Good Shepherd would be an ordinary whodunit with some vintage CSI techniques. However, the movie has a far greater emotional resonance because it takes great pains to show how Wilson's father's weaknesses passed down to him and how he subsequently passed them down to his son.

Is there anything heroic in Wilson's choice to assassinate his son's fiancee? Ultimately, Wilson is protecting himself more than either his son or his country. That Wilson ordered the assassination is my surmise: the film leaves the point ambiguous if Wilson or Ulysses ordered it but it would be an utterly pointless exercise if it weren't Wilson's decision.

Ultimately, there is not enough story to sustain the nearly three hours it takes for The Good Shepherd to play out. Even though the flashbacks depict many different events from Wilson's past, they repeat the same theme over and over again: choices are difficult when you don't know who you can trust. Forty five fewer minutes of this theme and The Good Shepherd could have been an excellent film.

Battlestar Galactica: The Eye of Jupiter

2006-12-15T00:00:00.000-08:00

Let me offer this disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of this show. Life on earth isn't good enough for me so I've adopted another universe to live in. Tonight's event was a special screening of the mid season finale (I'll never get used to that phrase) of Battlestar Galactica: The Eye of Jupiter. Special because the episode was screened in a movie theater a day before its scheduled airing on TV.

Let me also say that I have no industry connections or studio perks. I signed up for the ticket lottery off www.scifi.com and stood on line for 2 hours to get a seat. You have to understand, I get impatient if I'm in my doctor's waiting room for more than 10 minutes. [for the record, I was the guy who asked 'was it different with an audience?' at the Q&A]

If you've read any blurb about this episode (and this will be moot within 24 hours), there is not much more I can add here plotwise. After all (and please don't be shocked) it is the first part of a two parter so there isn't any great revelation other than nuclear weapons will be involved.

In attendance (forgive me, I couldn't hear all their names and don't recognize the staff by sight) were writers David Weddle, Michael Taylor, Jane Espensen, Mark Verheiden, and Anne Cofell Saunders. What was gratifying was that the sole ovation during the opening credits went to the writer of the episode, Mark Verheiden (if writers were musicians, he'd be a rock star).

Battlestar Galactica is one of the few shows I watch in real time even though I have a DVR (not Tivo, but a p.o.s. Moxie). Normally I enjoy it with a beer in one hand and a burger in the other. Tonight was communal. We laughed at the jokes (and maybe at a few things that weren't intended to be funny-- 'Algae Planet'? I guess all the good names were already taken), we gasped when Starbuck's raptor went down and we all screamed when "to be continued" flashed on the screen. The theatrical experience was different from the television experience.

I don't mean different in just the banal difference between sitting at home and sitting in a theater. There was something different about this experience. With Edward James Olmos' face towering 20 ft high and seeing every pock on his cheek, suddenly every intimacy took on mythic proportions.

I wondered if I had felt the same way with Kirk, Picard, Mulder and Scully, and Malcolm Reynolds: characters embodied by the same actors on both the small and big screens. The story of this episode was 'big' enough to fill that cinema screen unlike some of the Star Trek sequels. That's not a snipe at Star Trek by any means.

We the audience didn't want the Star Trek universe to surprise us as much as let us relive the glory days, like an aging rock band that can't leave the stage until they play all their hits. We had come to expect certain things from a Star Trek yarn and were disappointed if we didn't get them all. The characters had lost their capacity to surprise us and became cliches.

When I said 'big' up above, I mean that the episode showed me something I hadn't seen before, at least not in the Battlestar Galactica universe. Will Adama sacrifice Lee, Kara and the Eye of Jupiter? Of course not because we know that would be the effective end of the series. How Adama will get out of this dilemma, I haven't a clue... but what is joyful to me is that because the show is still young, I don't know what the 'Battlestar Galactica' solution would be.

Let me put this in a Star Trek context. Kirk led a charmed life and would bluff or use cowboy diplomacy (The Corbomite Maneuver) to win the day. Or our intrepid crew would utilize some obscure science or technical wizardry to gain the upper hand (any episode using the transporter). We want to see Kirk being Kirk because we take comfort in that.

What made The Wrath of Khan so shocking was that with the death of Spock, the Star Trek universe suffered a real loss for the first time and it changed Kirk. We saw something new in his character. However, once Spock conquered death then really, how do you define 'loss' in this or any science fiction/fantasy universe anymore? By forfeiting any sense of real danger, all the subsequent Star Trek sequels suffered from the lack of any true dramatic tension.

Did Malcolm Reynolds do anything in Serenity we didn't see him do in Firefly? Did Mulder and Scully do anything in the film version of X-Files that we hadn't seen them do hundreds of times during the series?

The James Bond franchise suffered from the same malaise. Not only did we know James Bond would win the day, he was smug and glib about it. What made Daniel Craig's Bond so refreshing was that he truly was a 'blunt instrument'; that he shared the audience's sense of 'oh shit, what's going to happen now?' He allowed himself to be fooled, betrayed and outsmarted. He didn't have an answer for everything and he paid a price.

Perhaps that also might be my biggest complaint about movies in general is that for all the big budgets and splashy casts, they have lost the capacity to surprise. I suspect it's because we've become slaves to the three act/Hero's Journey structure which is now used to mitigate financial risk at the expense of artistic risk. Even so-called 'indie' movies have smoothed their rough edges either by design or by process because they have to appeal to a large audience to make back their nut.

By taking a television series episode (which is the definition of 'same, but different') and magnifying it on the big screen, the overused story muscles and go-to plot devices would become apparent. But despite having seen every episode and analyzed more than a few, I've noticed that BSG has rarely repeated itself.

So far, there are few things sacred about the Battlestar Galactica canon. That's good. 'Adama being Adama' has no meaning because we don't yet know all there is to know about him.

And as long as the exploration of the characters has the capacity to astonish, disgust and delight us, that as long as 'Adama being Adama' or 'Baltar being Baltar' has no meaning, and as long as the surprises outnumber the cliches, Battlestar Galactica has a welcome home on any screen.

Heroes (on NBC)

2006-11-01T12:02:00.000-08:00

I've been handicapping the new shows this fall searching for something fresh to spec. I'll make an admission here: I love television. I've been a TV addict all my life. My first grade teacher said I sounded like a TV announcer when I spoke (that's how she knew I wasn't retarded and just needed eyeglasses).

A lot of hay is being made about how serialized dramas aren't doing too well this year. The New York Times (October 29) ran a huge article about how audiences aren't willing to make a commitment to these shows for various reasons. That, in a nutshell, to watch these shows requires a huge commitment to keep up with the interweaving plots and an emotional investment in the characters.

So what did "Heroes" get right?

The pilot for "Heroes" was a "premise" pilot. What a premise pilot is (to me) is a pilot that is heavy on exposition required to introduce us to the characters and their world. What's typically missing from a premise pilot is a strong story to carry the episode. Among the other pilots this fall season I consider premise pilots are "Studio 60," "The Nine," "Jericho" and "Six Degrees."

What made "Heroes" different from these shows is "Heroes" had a lot more action. Consider the cheerleader, Claire Bennett. We're introduced to her as she tries to commit suicide (again) which reveals she has the ability to heal herself. Then she rescues a fireman from a burning train, fishes her class ring out of a running garbage disposal, and asks her parents who her real parents are.

Compare to Jordan McDeere on "Studio 60." She makes a faux pax at a dinner and hires a new showrunning team (which doesn't give us any more information than the TV Guide blurb). The WGA Awards dinner scene where we meet Matt and Danny for the first time is 100% exposition: the characters reveal information they already know for our benefit. We know Harriet Hayes is a great comic actress only because everyone says so. She hasn't done anything herself to define her character.

In "Smith" we spend a good five minutes learning that one of the team members is a cold blooded killer (and quite petty too) by watching him kill two surfers in cold blood with a high powered rifle. Since this type of character isn't a huge surprise in the crime/caper genre, could they have spent some of this time on something else more interesting?

In "Heroes," the characters don't know the extent of their powers, what to do with it or why. When they find out, we'll find out. In "The Nine," the characters presumably know everything that happened during the bank robbery and the series is built on teasing that information out of them little by little. But since they already know the events of the robbery, there's no suspense. As they face their dilemmas, you can't put yourself in their shoes and empathize because you don't have all the information they have.

We're also given the tease that the characters in "Heroes" are destined to meet each other. Well, so are the characters in "Six Degrees." However, since "Six Degrees" is themed on the randomness of life, what we have to look forward to is a series of "meet cute" scenes where they will declaim what we the audience would already know. In "Heroes," our characters will have to figure out a way to find each other.

Finally, "Heroes" has a sense of humor. When I first saw Hiro I said to myself, "Uh-oh, not another Asian stereotype." But in the case of "Heroes," Hiro adds a lightness and mischievousness that's missing from "Jericho" which is about as bleak, hopeless and dark as a show can be. Hiro is the best thing in show (especially now that we have a hint how he's going to change and get all badass) because he's the only one who's really having fun with his special power, not burdened and tortured like everyone else.

Change is always possible. Last year, I remember the first few episodes of "E-Ring" watching Benjamin Bratt coordinate missions from his desk at the Pentagon. Then about three or four episodes in, he started going on the missions. I'm guessing that someone realized Bratt is more interesting out in the field than behind a desk and made the requisite adjustment to the show's template.

But some shows, like "Smith" aren't fixable. Nina Tassler, CBS Entertainment president said in The New York Times (October 23):

The problem with ''Smith,'' Ms. Tassler said, is that CBS executives did not believe it was going to get any better.

''We have a unique vantage point at the network,'' she said. ''I've seen cuts and read scripts for the next four to five episodes, so I could see where we're headed creatively. And we weren't 100 percent happy with what we were looking at.''

Specifically, she said, the show's scripts were becoming harder to follow. ''You have to have clarity in the story-telling,'' she said. ''Confusion kills. I think it was particularly challenged in that area.''

Personally, I would love to know what it was specifically that she saw that made her give up hope.

A lot of people subscribe to the "build it and they will come" philosophy. That if you tell a story well, you'll attract an audience. But sometimes a well-produced show can't find a mass audience (just ask the producers of "Arrested Development"). However, in this case, it's too easy to say the audience is unwilling to make a commitment because they have so many options. But it seems to me that some of the fall shows aren't completely built yet and some tinkering would be prudent to give the characters the arc they deserve.

The Playboy Mansion

2006-10-15T12:20:00.000-07:00

Some coach said to some team before some big game, "Act like you've been here before." Even with my jaded views on American culture, it was hard not being awestruck standing on the ground where many a teenaged boy's fantasies began-- The Playboy Mansion.

The event was a Safari Brunch Benefit celebrating the 30th Anniversary of The Wildlife WayStation. Among the celebs I saw there were Bill Maher, Jillian Barberie, Lou Ferrigno (in his Sheriff's uniform), Corey Feldman and Nicollette Sheridan. Monty Hall ran the live auction and for a moment I thought about bidding on a Gene Simmons autographed guitar (which finally went for $2,500). Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. sang. It was like being in heaven except I'm pretty sure heaven doesn't have an open bar.

There were many animals there that were rescued by the Wildlife WayStation. A macaw, babboons, lots of different birds (and lots of piles of bird shit), a golden eagle, and some kind of yellow boa. For me, the most impressive was the 12 year old white tiger. This was as close as I wanted to get. I felt my clothes had the word "bait" written on it.

Oh yeah, Hef was there too. He was past me by the time I could pull out my camera. That's Holly walking next to him. He looks like a man who really enjoys his life. Unfortunately, this was a close as I could get to him as he always seemed to be surrounded by a crowd of cameras.

I got to visit the game room and saw the original Bally's Playboy pinball machine. There was a cool leather sofa, ash trays(!) and a pool table. The drink in my hand is a Bacardi and Coke (just enough Coke to give it color). I managed a peek into the adjacent guest rooms (ah, if only walls could speak).

What trip to the Playboy Mansion would be complete without a visit to the grotto? It was about a hundred degress in there. I'm cramped up against the side of the wall because there was a couple over on the other side making out. I didn't really want to disturb them. That round purple thing is not a lens flare but a floating ball.

And of course, the answer to the question you're all dying to ask: Yes, the portable toilets had their own air conditioning units.

The Power of Film

2006-09-21T06:40:00.000-07:00

Howard Suber wrote a book, "The Power of Film." Before you scream, "Not another book about screenwriting!" let me tell you a story.

Upon my acceptance into UCLA's MFA Screenwriting program, I was given this advice: Take Lew Hunter's class and take Howard Suber's class. I had heard of Lew from his screenwriting book "Lew Hunter's Screenwriting 434." I didn't know a thing about Howard but once I got to school it was apparent that Howard was "the man."

Because of certain scheduling peculiarities (read: my chaotic life), I wasn't able to take Howard's Structure class the first quarter I was in school. What became obvious to me after that quarter was that my classmates who had taken his class seemed to know something I didn't. It wasn't just facts or theories but they had tangible insight into films that I didn't possess.

During my first few quarters at UCLA, I was struggling to find a new writing process. The process I had developed as a playwright didn't serve me well in screenwriting. I would leisurely write a play over the span of a year using dialogue to explore my characters. Now I had to tell a visual story using succinct scenes with spare dialogue and squeeze 100 or so pages out of my brain every 10 weeks.

At the same time, I was struggling to make sense of the Hero's Journey, the purpose of the act breaks, the importance of conflict, how each conjugation of "narrative" had a different meaning, the difference between making a film and getting a film made, the phenomenology of perception (I dropped that course after one class. I'm still not sure what phenomenology means.), pitching and the art of presentation, the word "diagesis" and how it relates to Star Trek, the corporate conspiracy behind television... well, let's just say my mind was about to explode from information overload.

What I didn't have was a way to organize and contextualize all this information.

My last quarter at UCLA was the first quarter I was able to take Howard's Structure class. In the syllabus he included the OED definition of structure: "The relationship of the parts to the whole and to each other." I hoped his class would help me make sense of everything I learned at UCLA. I wasn't disappointed.

Between his lectures and his handouts I could feel my brain rewiring itself. Neural connections were being made that didn't exist before. All the facts that were floating around in my head now had a place to live. That thump you hear is the sound of me kicking myself while thinking, "Why didn't I see that before?"

"The Power of Film" is a distillation of 42 years of teaching, 8,000 pages of handouts and countless hours of lectures. Free of techno-jargon and movie-speak, Howard's book contains many illuminating insights and how they manifest themselves in popular American films.

While "The Power of Film" is not a book about screenwriting specifically, it is extraordinarly useful to screenwriters.

During my 434 classes I obsessed over my act breaks. I couldn't seem to get them right. Then I read the following paragraph from Howard's chapter on acts:

"Thinking in terms of acts is similar to erecting a scaffold to build a building: it may be a useful tool for the craftsmanship during the construction phase, but it obscures the view of the work itself, and the people who gaze on the finished project will not know or care what kind of scaffold was used."

I had a new perspective on the purpose of an act break and suddenly I felt free of the dogma that dictated, "Your act break must..." blah blah blah. I had felt the need to shine a light on my act breaks in the same way I'd point to a building (using Howard's metaphor) and say, "I used a scaffold here."

My mistake was trying to construct a building so you would know I used a scaffold to build it. No one needs to know I used a scaffold. So now the question becomes, "How do I use an act break to serve my story?" instead of, "How do I get my story to an act break by page 30?"

What is also apparent in reading these pages is Howard's great love for film. There is almost an "I can't wait to share with you..." quality to his prose; the same quality that was present in all his lectures.

When I'm stuck (which is often), I'll leaf through a few chapters of "The Power of Film" and suddenly I'm back in Howard's class and I'll feel the same inspiration I did then and use my renewed confidence to keep pushing forward. For me, it's become an essential book simply because I reach for it over and over again.

The Power of Film, written by Howard Suber, is available on Amazon.com

Hollywoodland

2006-09-18T09:10:00.000-07:00

Logline: A PI investigates the death of a Hollywood icon.

The good idea: A period piece about a murder in old Hollywood.

What didn't work: Louis Simo is not a very good private investigator. The people he's watching know he's watching, he's condescending toward his clients and he has no sense of human behavior. It would have been a brilliant artistic decision to make this guy solve a crime but unfortunately, he is never able to overcome any of his critical flaws to see the bigger picture.

Fortunately for Simo (and unfortunately for the film) there was no bigger picture for him to see.

George Reeves is dead. His suicide is inconceivable to his mother so she hires Simo to find his murderer. In his way is the studio Reeves worked for (personified by Eddie Mannix) who will do anything to quash all hint of scandal that might alienate their audience.

Through flashbacks Simo wanders through events in Reeves' humiliating Hollywood life including casting cattle calls, cheap publicity stunts and lip service to artistic integrity. Reeves' affair with Toni Mannix would be Hollywood's worst kept secret as they attend public events arm in arm.

But despite all this, the audience is never presented with a smoking gun that declares there is something wrong with Reeves' suicide. Simo's motives for continuing his investgation lies more with prolonging his paycheck than finding the truth or healing his relationship with his estranged family. Reeves' own mother eventually abandons the case.

Everyone seems to have a strong motive to keep Reeves' death quiet. However, no one really seems to have a strong enough motive or constitution to kill him. Not his fiancee Leonore Lemmon, a golddigger who could cash in on the notoriety and move on to another sugar daddy; not his sugar mamma Toni Mannix who proves to be too weak and frail to commit murder; and not the cuckold Eddie Mannix who was really under no great threat from Reeves' professionally or romantically to provoke him to murder.

Usually in a conspiracy, the clues are presented and alternate theories are created to explain the clues. However, the film does a poor job presenting its theories in its flashback set pieces. There are two gunshots in the floor that are explained in only one of the flashbacks. Neither of the other theories even addresses them.

Probably the greatest weakness in the film is the character of Louis Simo. When confronted by Mannix's thug Strickland, Simo backs down and gives up leaving us with a mystery that no one wants to solve. Simo hasn't failed because he's exhausted all his options, nor has he ceded his will for a higher purpose (like protecting his family).

Superman is supposed to be invincible just as Louis Simo is supposed to risk everything in pursuit of his goal. Both failed in this film because of their own internal weakness. Maybe that was intended to be the overall unifying theme: that putting faith in heroes leads to disappointment both for the fans of Superman and for the audience of this film.

However, the way this theme manifests itself through Simo's actions isn't compelling. At the first sign of trouble, Simo gives up. I could have done that.

Little Miss Sunshine

2006-08-20T01:05:00.000-07:00

Logline: A dysfunctional family goes on a road trip to bring their 8 year old daughter to California to compete in a beauty contest.

The good idea: "Dysfunctional family" and "road trip" in the same movie.

What worked: Confine a group of quirky, dark souled people in a small vehicle that's falling apart and see what happens.

What didn't work: The subversive humor wasn't subversive enough and there wasn't enough of it.

There is a lot of humor in Little Miss Sunshine, some genuine surprises and one or two real belly laughs. Richard is a motivational speaker who doles out destructive self-help advice to his eight year old daughter Olive much to the dismay of his long suffering wife Sheryl. In the meantime, his heroine addicted father has been kicked out of the nursing home and lives with them as does her gay, suicidal brother Frank who rooms with Dwayne, their nihilistic teenage son who has taken a vow of silence.

This movie is driven by Olive's desire to complete in a beauty pageant. Unable to afford a plane ticket from New Mexico to California, they pile into a vintage yellow VW van and trek across the desert. Along the way, we learn why Grandpa got kicked out of the nursing home, why Frank is suicidal, and that Richard should take a page from his own advice on success.

The film is more of a character study than an adventure. Strange as this may seem, this is the film's greatest flaw. What the audience learns about the characters, the characters (for the most part) already know so we are denied opportunities to watch them discover as we discover.

Where the film succeeds is in its ability to throw humorous obstacles in the way of their road trip and how they have to live with the results (as opposed to overcoming the obstacles, they learn to co-exist with them-- a defective car horn comes to mind).

However, the film's greatest strength (humor) also is its greatest weakness. The jokes (while funny) are few and they go on for far too long and are repeated often.

Once the road trip ends and they are at the pageant, none of the characters' conflicts are resolved... because, despite their quirkiness, there isn't a lot of conflict within.

While the film is offbeat, humorous and a little subversive (Olive's talent performance treads that fine line between satire and exploitation), Little Miss Sunshine is strangely unsatisfying.

World Trade Center

2006-08-11T10:19:00.000-07:00

Years ago I videotaped some friends shooting pool. Over the course of the evening, I taped about 5 or 6 games with various players which I edited down into a 2 minute clip. What amazed me was that even though the clip was complete fiction, since the viewing, all my friends remember that evening the way I depicted it.

My concern about any film showing the events of 9/11 is that the story and images in the film may ultimately replace my own memories.

Viewing this film was difficult. I couldn't tell if the emotions I felt were a direct result of the story or the actual emotions I felt on 9/11. Much in the way a director will use a popular love song to evoke feelings of romance not intrinsically present in the performance, I suspect that just seeing the Twin Towers was more than enough to recall emotions from that day.

Looking at the film as dispassionately as I can, World Trade Center is an ordinary disaster movie. The acts are clearly delineated. The objective for the characters is survival. There are fewer twists and turns here than in a movie like "The Day After Tomorrow" but also a lack of assignment: WTC doesn't even try to explain the motives behind the attack but tightly focuses on the human drama of getting our men out from the rubble.

This film will not be all things to all people. That was a smart decision. Stories about geopolitical intrigue can be abstract, intellectual and byzantine. Oliver Stone and Andrea Berloff have given us primal emotions. They don't ask the questions, "Who is responsible?" or "Why did this happen?" Indeed, our main characters, for the most part, don't even know what happened.

World Trade Center doesn't offer any answers. It offers relief but no catharsis. Its theme that we are stronger with each other than without is common in disaster movies and maybe this film is a not-so-subtle reminder that we've forgotten this. But still, I found myself fighting back tears despite my stoic demeanor. Even though we're approaching the five year anniversary, we're still very early in the healing process and maybe WTC is a not-so-subtle reminder of that too.

In Memorium: Mako

2006-08-04T15:38:00.000-07:00

On July 21, Mako passed away. As one of the co-Founders of East West Players his name was well known within the Asian American artistic community. Outside the community, those unfamiliar with his name would say, "Oh yeah, that guy," when shown his photograph.

I did have the privilege to meet and work with him. I met Mako on our LA stop while touring with "And the Soul Shall Dance..." by Wakako Yamauchi. Later, I stage managed a reading of "Pay the Chinaman" written by Lawrence Yep where he played the title role.

But more than the privilege of meeting and working with Mako, I owe much of my career to his influence.

When I began writing short stories in high school, I was treated as if I had a learning disability. Despite being born and raised in America and fed a steady diet of Star Trek and the Flintstones, I was often told that I would need to learn to speak English before I could write.

While I was in college training as an actor, I faced the cold reality that unless the role was specifically written for an Asian American, I was not considered for the part. These roles included doctors and lawyers... professions where race didn't matter. The Asian American roles that were offered to me were so demeaning, I was ready to commit violence.

I began writing plays for my own artistic survival.

When I met agents and literary managers, their response to my plays were "We're not interested in Asian American plays." This was before I ever gave them a logline or synopsis. Many of my plays then didn't have anything to do with being Asian American.

When I applied for work as a stage manager in theaters, a typical response was, "We' re not doing an Oriental play this year." No matter what I did, I was always perceived as an Asian foreigner first. My acting teacher said I had to get involved with Asian American theaters because I wouldn't be able to work anywhere else because of my limitations.

Asian American theaters are a double edged sword. On the one hand, you get an opportunity to develop your craft free of the burden of justifying your choice in careers to anyone with a belly button. On the other, you face the perception that you're not good enough for mainstream work. As I began to read plays by Asian American writers, I discovered Mako's name was usually nearby. Either as the man who suggested to Wakako Yamauchi that she adapt her short story into a play, or as the director of the world premiere of FOB by David Henry Hwang.

If you think all of this is a matter of perception: that all you need is talent and that talent and hard work alone will win out every time, then you haven't seen America from a minority's perspective. When I did work in mainstream theater, I was always "the Chinese guy." "Find the Chinese guy, give it to the Chinese guy, the Chinese guy can do it." It wasn't until I worked at Tisa Chang's Pan Asian Rep that I became "Isaac" for the first time. In a company of Asians, being "the Chinese guy" was far from adequate to define the totality of what I had to offer where in a mainstream company, "the Chinese guy" was all you needed or cared to know.

Ultimately, I found my way to Los Angeles, where I took several playwriting workshops through East West Players. Encouraged to discover and create my own poetry for my characters and stories, the plays I wrote during this period would elevate my career to the next level. One play would be produced by Lodestone Theatre Ensemble. That, and another play from the workshop would be my writing samples which got me into the MFA Screenwriting program at UCLA.

I shudder to think how my career would have turned out without an Asian American theater company to call home. Mako's legacy gave me much of the support and encouragement I needed to forge an artistic path for myself that I couldn't find anywhere else. To call Mako the "Godfather of Asian American theater" and say that "If it wasn't for Mako there wouldn't have been Asian American theater," is not hyperbole. I'm proof of that.

What Does 'Pedestrian' Really Mean?

2006-07-19T09:39:00.000-07:00

A note that comes up once in a while is your script/character/story is too pedestrian. Pedestrian is one of those terms that means something different to each person who uses it.

I like to think of pedestrian as the opposite of driving. Instead of being in a car speeding down the road, you're standing on the sidewalk watching the cars go by. A recent example I can think of is Eva Longoria's character in The Sentinel.

Jill Marin is a rookie agent on her first day on her new assignment. Unfortunately, she's the exposition character. In a story with a complicated plot, the advice writers are often given is that we need a character who is in the dark and needs events explained.

This character is usually a neophyte in the world we're exploring so we the audience have a way to understand what's going on around them.

Unfortunately, in the case of Jill Marin, that's all she does. David Breckinridge is forever explaining to her what's going on and what the context is of the events happening. She rarely participates. She's along for the ride.

What is her character's problem? Does she have an arc? Does she have any sort of emotional journey? Granted, she is a minor character but if we're ultimately seeing the story through her eyes, then we need to feel what ever she's feeling and neither George Nolfi nor Clark Johnson have layered that into her character.

As a result, she's on the sidewalk observing. She's passive. Her purpose is nothing more than being a cipher for information. Things are explained to her for the benefit of the audience.

Early in the film after agent Pete Garrison has fallen off the grid, David Breckinridge tells his agents that they may have to shoot a friend and to prepare themselves for it. For me, this was the theme of the film. Could you shoot, possibly kill, a friend to protect the President? However, it played itself out around the midpoint when Breckinridge failed to shoot Garrison. Then the film had nowhere to go because we had our answer.

In a film like this, "whodunit" is the device that carries the theme. Whodunit is not nearly as important as what would you do to figure it out? Since we're seeing the film through Jill's eyes, it would have been interesting to put her through that decision process late in the film.

Unfortunately, her character doesn't have any strong emotional attachments that would put her in this dilemma. She never questions Breckinridge nor does President Ballentine inspire this kind of loyalty. It was a missed opportunity. As a result, the last half of The Sentinel was plot driven with no emotional stakes.

By design, an audience watches the film. The real trick is to get us involved where we feel like we're going through everything the characters as going through as if we were them. Pedestrian means that we're still on the sideline, emotionally detached from what's going on. We're rubberneckers passing by an accident with no relationship to the victim.

Rewriting is Hell

2006-07-10T07:36:00.000-07:00

For the past several months, I've been living in Rewrite Hell. I decided to revisit the first script I wrote for school and rewrite it with the full knowledge and experience I'd accumulated during my time at UCLA.

My God, it was painful.

Mind you, this is a script I thought was ready. I had sent it out for contests and had pitched it to agents and producers. Having put it to bed for several months, I came back to the project with fresh eyes and I did not like what I saw.

What I thought was a fun romp on a cruise ship now reeked of passive main character. My protagonist took no action for the first 3/4 of the script. Much of her 'action' was instigated by her best friend or the people around her. Until Act 3, all she did was react. She didn't initiate a single thing.

The other hard truth that I had to face was that the only reason I liked this script was because I wrote it. Had someone else handed me the same script with the same logline, I probably would have hated it. In fact, I did. I was appalled that I thought this script was ready for anyone.

I had to go back into my notes, my memories, my emotions to recall why I liked this script in the first place. Why did I choose to devote 10 weeks of my life writing it? Why was it was the first project out of the gate for me at UCLA? What was the "good idea" that everything hinged on?

There it was on a wrinkled, coffee stained index card. "A coming of age story about a women who learns to make decisions for herself while on a cruise." Strange that I thought this was enough to base a script on. It's not. I know that now.

It's Friday night, I'm leafing through the paper, why would I choose this movie? What would make me move my lazy ass off the sofa, away from my Netflix DVDs, fight the crowds of teenagers and spend $10 to watch something on the big screen (more if I was on a date)?

Now I'm sitting in my seat, armed with stale popcorn and a flat soda. What did the advertising promise me that I would see? Literally? What am I expecting to see? What's stopping me from saying, "Fuck this, I want a burger."

These are purely selfish questions, but if the answers are equally selfish (ie, because I wrote it, because that's the way it happened), then I propose that your script is in trouble (as mine was). I don't see everything Jessica Alba is in nor do I see everything Charlie Kaufman wrote merely because their names are on it. They have to earn my attention every time.

I started scribbling notes for what I call "externalities." I'm sure there is a real term for it but it was my own personal shorthand for the fun stuff. Bizarre situations, crazy incidents, sarcastic remarks that could happen on a cruise.

Then I drove my friends crazy.

I pitched them logline after logline asking them, would you see this? Over and over again they'd listen to my pitch and say it didn't intrigue them, at least not enough to get them to see it. I needed a hook and I didn't have one. I fell into the abyss for about six weeks.

Finally, out of sheer chance, I thought about my antagonist. Why is he making her life miserable? Why is she a threat to his way of life? Because he thinks she's a... And then I got it. My new pitch made people chuckle, which was a vast improvement over the old pitch.

So now I had my pitch, my theme, and a whole bunch of scenes. Easy rewrite, right? Nope. Now I had to cure the passive main character syndrome.

One of the popular paradigms for describing screenplay structure goes something like this: Act one, your hero climbs up a tree. Act two, you throw rocks at him. Act three, your hero climbs down. I found this paradigm not only useless, but counter productive. Who is throwing rocks at our hero? The image of a person protecting himself creates the foundation for passivity. Act two should not be happening to our hero but happening because of our hero. He should be breaking branches, grabbing fruit, chasing birds not cowering from thrown rocks.

Now comes the pain. How does my protagonist's overall want/desire/need put her into the scene? How does she put herself there so that the scenes don't merely happen to her? How does she makes the scene happen? Now I can make use of the scene fundamentals: what is her tangible objective? what is her tangible obstacle? what does she do to overcome the obstacle and achieve her objective?

This was painful because in my mind, I had already answered these questions. I had to come up with new solutions to the old problems. Fighting the inertia of "been there, done that" was excruciating but in the end, worth it.

About 5 pages of the original script remained when all was said and done. And now I consider this draft a first draft. The original draft (which I now call the vomit draft) was not completely useless. I had used the vomit draft to discover my characters, create their voice, and get under their skin. I created the world of the story and the rules of the game. The rewrite made it come alive.

Things I Learned in Grad School

2006-06-13T11:07:00.000-07:00

Sushi and sunlight are a bad combination. Hard liquor before 10am is generally a bad idea (tomato beer is the exception).

Your life is your best source material.

When your life is your source material, there is no more need for regrets.

Don't bring the laptop to bed with you unless you like playing chicken with power cords.

After three weeks, research becomes another word for procrastination.

Try to have a variety of canned foods available at all times.

Seeing your script from other people's point of view is useful only if you have a strong sense of your own.

Most writers want an honest critique of their writing. Most everyone else doesn't.

Don't write something you wouldn't pay money to see yourself.

It's better to turn in something late than turn in something bad.

If you're enjoying complete artistic freedom, you're either at the beginning of your career or at the end.

Make sure the hole isn't over the seam before you sip your coffee.

If "The History of Fried Chicken" on the Food Network sounds interesting, you're probably procrastinating.

Keep an extra jacket and umbrella in your car at all times.

Don't park on the top level of a parking garage if you need to nap in your car.

Don't nap in the driver's seat of your car. It's a bad habit to get into.

Nothing is more valuable than knowing where there are clean places to crap.

If you have an opportunity to pee, pee.

In your car you should keep Tums or cigarettes but not both.

If you have to take Tums, that's probably a sign to stop eating. There's no shame in asking for a take out box for the rest of your fried chicken.

If you do take Tums, don't finish your soda.

Ex-girlfriends don't like to talk about writers' block at 4am (especially if you're drunk).

Everything seems like a good idea at 4am.

When your life is your source material, there is no more need for regrets (sigh).

If it doesn't come with a belt clip, don't buy it.

The best commentary tracks on DVDs are the ones where they're drinking while commenting (you really can tell).

If you're trying to figure out if DVD commentators are drunk, you're probably procrastinating.

If you can't figure out what you're good at, no one else will.

Keep track of your time. It'll help you keep track of what's hard to do.

If you think about anything long enough, it won't make sense.

If you sprinkled bacon over it, it's probably not good for your diet. If you're doing it with a cigar in your mouth, it's probably not exercise.

It's worth the effort to heat your leftovers before you eat.

If you're eating straight from the can, it's time to wash the dishes and buy paper plates.

If it sounds right, then you probably heard it from someone else. If if feels right, then you probably lived it.

If you don't believe in your own ability, no one else will.

You really don't know until you try. However, there are some things you really don't need to know.

If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.

Prevaricators fear death.

If you can't be funny, be gross. If you can't be gross, be sick. If you can't be sick, be pithy. If you can't be pithy, then something's wrong.

You are your best source material, just don't let anyone know that unless you like explaining embarrassing things.

When your life is your source material, there is no more need for regrets (please be true, please be true, please be true).

I write like I fuck. I start with the climax and spend the rest of the scene explaining what just happened.

If you're blogging, then you're probably procrastinating.

The Da Vinci Code

2006-05-21T09:33:00.000-07:00

Note: I purposely didn't read the book in anticipation of the movie.

Logline: An American symbologist and a French cryptographer investigate the murder of an elderly antiquities curator and, while running for their lives, uncover a conspiracy that threatens to expose Christianity as a hoax.

The Good Idea: Tom Hanks starring in Dan Brown's phenomenal best seller.

Why it Didn't Work:

Robert Langdon is not the protagonist. Or, at least, he doesn't behave like one. He is the classic passive main character who takes little action and spends nearly the entire movie reacting to what happens around him.

Langdon is called to investigate a murder while not being told his name was scrawled on the floor. He is told his life is in danger and he is hidden away in the museum by Sophie. The mystery of the fleur de lils is also solved by Sophie. Their escape from the French bank is engineered by the manager Vernet. Their escape from Teabing's chateau is orchestrated by Teabing.

All the while, the scenes are generally made up of exposition (lots and lots), explaining the conspiracy to hide the fact that Jesus was mortal, married and a father... a fact that could bring down all of Christianity because it destroys his aura of divinity.

Time is inconsistent throughout the film. Despite the ticking clock of the ever approaching French police, Langdon and Sophie always seem able to leisurely examine artifacts and trade stories. Clues that seem important (the use of the Fibbonacci sequence) turn out to be red herrings (the numerical series is merely a password).

Coincidences abound. Why was Langdon so important to the story? Ultimately, the puzzle didn't require his vast skills as a symbologist but a halfway decent knowledge of Newtonian trivia. His mentor Teabing just happened to be a Holy Grail freak? or is it that the world's greatest Holy Grail freak just happened to be his mentor? Is there only one living descendant of Jesus or is it possible that the family tree has many branches? The film in its last few minutes may have unintentionally raised this question by introducing a grandmother.

The film lacks a sense of gravitas. To protect a secret that could destroy the foundation of Western culture (think of how many works of art, literature, political movements were inspired or influenced by Christianity), Opus Dei has surprisingly little reach and competence. It is also unclear what they would have done to Langdon and Sophie if they ever caught up with them. Kill them? Make them join? Make them repent? Worship them?

What would have helped is the sense that conspirators and protectors are everywhere. That both have great reach and great power. That somewhere in our lives, we may have sworn allegiance to some organization and now we are called upon to test our own conviction of faith. Because Langdon is a symbologist, there is the potential to reveal new meanings in everyday objects. That once we leave the theater, the next time we see a painting, or a gargoyle or some architectural flourish, we can't help but wonder anew who put it there and what it really means.

Without this, most of the killing in The Da Vinci Code (supposedly in the name of God) has as much impact as when henchmen are dispatched in your typical action films. Neither Langdon nor Sophie's faith is tested because they are not faced with having to kill in the name of God. As a result, the film becomes very small in its scope.

It is probably difficult for anyone seeing this movie to not know a few basic concepts or the premise of the story. For those with some familiarity, the movie doesn't really begin until the halfway point, after Teabing explains the Mary Magdalene connection. However, once this point is reached, the movie continues at the same lugubrious pace as the previous hour... a tense action scene bookended with spoken exposition and flashbacks.

The general flaw is that we never really get to know Langdon or Sophie. They are merely ciphers for information. Though we know Langdon is claustrophobic and Sophie lost her parents, those emotional wounds never create a desire that results in action for either of the main characters. Simply put, there is no strong desire or need that drives Langdon or Sophie to solve the mystery of the Holy Grail.

The ending reminded me of Star Trek V where Kirk and Spock travel to the center of the galaxy to find God and Kirk debunks the deity by asking, "Why does God need a space ship?" The discovery of Jesus's descendant has no emotional impact of Langdon. His beliefs are not shaken to the core. If this knowledge has no effect on our protagonist, then why should we worry that it will have any impact on civilization?

How Do We Know They're Supposed to be In Love?

2006-05-18T09:04:00.000-07:00

A comment that usually turns up about my scripts is, "How do we know they're supposed to be in love?" Believe me, I've pondered this one a lot, not just for my writing but for my own sanity. We've all had that moment when we're introduced to a couple, scratch our heads and think, "I don't get it." That happens a lot with lovers in my scripts.

I wish I had an answer for this because I don't have a clue why some relationships are meant to be. I've tried creating that magical moment like in West Side Story when Tony and Maria see each other at the gym and everyone around them moves in slow motion while they sing.

I know they're supposed to be in love-- I see all the signs-- but I have a hard time believing they are in love. I have this problem, not just with my scripts, but with a lot of movies I see.

I've tried the opposites attract method. By showing that he loves chocolate and she loves vanilla, that he loves dogs and she loves cats, that he's a slob and she's a neat freak, they were meant for each other.

I've tried the eHarmony philosophy matching bizarre, obscure characteristics. They both like the same punk band from Indiana that released only one album in 1982, or can quote from the same movie from the French New Wave (in French).

All of these devices feel clumsy and contrived. One of the more successful ways I've seen love indicated was in The Music Man. Harold Hill's theme song, "Seventy Six Trombones," and Marion Paroo's theme song, "Goodnight My Someone," both have the same melody. They sing a duet toward the end where their separate songs become one melody.

In reel life, those "love at first sight" moments are destined by the gods as a sign of true love. In real life, those "love at first sight" moments often lead to the discovery that it really wasn't meant to be.

In reel life, the guy calls her at her unlisted home number, sends flowers to her work and serenades her under her bedroom window. In real life, she calls the police and gets a restraining order.

In reel life she leaves her fiance at the altar in favor of her true love and everyone is happy for her. In real life everyone wonders if they should ask for their wedding presents back and how to keep them separate at future parties.

Our society has a lot of codes, cues, signifiers, symbols to tell us what is true love. Rings, flowers, puppies, and heirlooms are examples of how love is indicated in movies. But real life is not as simple as finding a lost, out of print book from her childhood or giving him blank music sheets as a symbol of your emotional support for his chosen future.

What seems to be my current paradigm is that the lovers have the ability to give each other what they need to complete themselves. However, if this were true, I should be in love with my shrink, my car mechanic and the barista at Starbucks.

My guess is that I resist any notion that there are prescribed courses of behavior given certain stimuli. That there are things we're supposed to do given certain situations. Do we search for order in films that's lacking in our own lives?

This is one of those, "How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin," kind of questions. Every answer is right, every answer is wrong. I just have to find a way of expressing it that I can live with... writing about love, that is.

Eve & the Firehorse

2006-05-08T01:33:00.000-07:00

Written and directed by Julia Kwan
Produced by Erik Paulsson, Sham Tam and Yves J. Ma

Eve & the Firehorse is inspired by two real life events in the writer/director's life. A story about reincarnation into a gold fish when her grandmother died and a Sunday school lesson about how she would be in hell because she was a Buddhist, not a Christian.

The story of Eve & the Firehorse weaves the discovery of Christianity into the lives of two sisters, Eve (Phoebe Kut) and her older sister Karena (Hollie Lo). Bad things happen begin to happen to their family after their mother (Vivian Wu) chops down an apple tree in their yard. Karena embraces Catholicism whole heartedly and takes their teachings to comic and near tragic extremes. Eve is more questioning about her faith, following her mother's lead and hoping that multiple beliefs will her cover all her bases.

This is because Eve carries the guilt of believing she was responsible for her grandmother's death. She follows her sisters distorted teachings of Christianity to try to absolve herself of that guilt and the subsequent tragedies that befall her family.

The scenes move skillfully between very funny scenes (a singing goldfish) to tragedy (we are unsure if Eve drowns during an impromptu baptism in their bathtub). The performance of the sisters is incredibly honest and unpretentious, easily overshadowing Vivian Wu's excellently nuanced performance. The emotional dynamics of the family scenes will be familiar to anyone who grew up in a Chinese family (the brusqueness, the candor and unabashed threats and discipline with no veneer of politeness or diplomacy).

An interesting note from the Q&A. This film was 80% financed by Canadian subsidies and tax credits. You can't help but see it in the credits as well. You have to wonder what filmmaking in America would be like with strong support of independent voices.

Fishing Luck

2006-05-08T01:31:00.000-07:00

Written by Tseng Wen-chen and Yuan Ling Yang
Directed by Tseng Wen-chen
Produced by Yeh Ju-feng and Su Li-mei

I'm probably not the target audience for this film which tells the story about Zing (Linda) from Taipei who finds herself stranded on Orchard Island and is befriended by the free spirited locals led by Behong (Biung Wang).

Zing is escaping a broken heart and Behong is looking for love. It is a youthful melodrama of falling in love and broken hearts. Unfortunately, the film doesn't track the emotions of the lovers very well. Each new scene brings with it a new emotion that doesn't carry anything over from the previous scene. For an old, jaded movie goer like myself, I missed the linear unfolding of emotions.

However, the movie does play like the fractured memory of a lost love. It reminded me of what I thought true love was before I hit puberty and started dating for real, of how quickly emotions could be turned on and turned off at a moment's notice and how you sacrifice logic when living moment to moment.

I say I'm not the target audience because I have long since outgrown believing that radio dedications can be a catalyst for true love. That if you throw your ring into the ocean, a quick swim in snorkeling gear will retrieve it.

Fishing Luck plays like an afterschool special for teenagers, painting life and love with gigantic brush strokes where emotions are as big as the ocean. The cynic in me wanted to hate this film but I was charmed by the appeal of the lovers, the scenery and a strong nostalgia for my own lost innocence.

The Motel

2006-05-08T01:28:00.000-07:00

Written and directed by Michael Kang
Produced by Michael Kang

The Motel is a gem of subversion and nihilism. Exploding the myth of the model minority, The Motel carries themes about class in a rural motel that would be lucky to have any rating in a AAA guide.

Ernest (Jeffrey Chyau) is a 13 year old Chinese boy living at a rent by the hour motel owned and operated by his mother and his grandfather. Between cleaning toilets and washing stained sheets, he writes stories about life in the motel. He is befriended by Sam Kim (Sung Kang), recently thrown out by his fiancee, elevating drinking and whoring to an art form.

Sam is more than willing to play the father figure and educate (read: corrupt) Ernest as he enters puberty and deals with new feelings and urges.

Even thought the film masterfully exploits low humor, there is great poignancy in the evolution of Sam and Ernest's relationship. Ernest takes Sam's lessons in defiance to heart as he learns to stand up to his overbearing, controlling mother but also quickly outgrows the need for Sam's influence.

Journey From the Fall

2006-05-05T00:50:00.001-07:00

Written and directed by Ham Tran
Produced by Lam Nguyen

I'm not easily moved by a film. I'm conscious of the subtle and not so subtle emotional manipulations that tell me what I'm supposed to feel. However, the emotional bond that connects a family separated by war is devastatingly powerful as shown by the skillful hand of Ham Tran.

After the fall of Saigon, Long is sent to a re-education camp where he is subjected to both mental and physical abuse. Escape is a futile endeavor met with death from either from a guard's rifle shot or from surrounding landmines. He has sent his wife (Mai), son and mother on a dangerous journey to America onboard a small fishing boat ill suited for the task.

Long is told by the guards that his family is dead, killed by pirates at sea. In Orange County, California, Mai believes her husband was executed through official reports. Through a chance meeting Mai receives information that Long might be alive. She engineers a covert delivery of letters, drawings and photographs which Long receives.

Structurally, the film found its own storytelling rhythm. It did not have predictable act breaks and employed a parallel structure (read: non linear narrative) that enhanced the emotional impact of its revelations.

There are no fancy twists or ironic turns. As Americans we can't begin to fathom what it must feel like to part with loved ones and live only on the distant hope that one day we might be reunited. What does it mean to be forcibly uprooted from your home on pain of death? Can you move on to new lives and new loves when the fate of so many family and friends are unknown? No words could express this as eloquently as the expressions conveyed by the cast.

In the Q&A session after the film, a cast member commented that they didn't have to act. The story in the film is very familiar to them in that they either lived it (as a boat person when they were a child) or it touched someone close to them (as in the re-education camps). It's a luxury that most Americans don't have to live with these emotions so close to the surface or have to bury them so deep in order to keep your sanity.

Journey From the Fall measures the cost of war not in destroyed buildings, spent missiles or in a cold, statistical body count but by showing how one family copes with the unknown fates of their loved ones. Complex, powerful and raw (and technically accomplished), Journey From the Fall deserves a theatrical release. Let's hope they find a distributor.

VC Filmfest 2006 - May 4 - May 11 - Los Angeles

2006-05-02T14:35:00.000-07:00

This weekend begins the VC Filmfest 2006, The Los Angeles Asian Pacific Film Festival. Lots of interesting features and shorts to catch. Most of the films will be shown at the DGA or at the Laemmle Sunset 5 Theater.

Check out the official website (which is a pain to navigate).

http://www.vconline.org/ff06/index.html

I'm pretty much going to live there this weekend. If I see anything interesting, I'll try to steal some time to blog about it.

Here's what I'm planning to see. If you plan on seeing anything, drop me a line and we can meet while I'm mainlining caffeine between showings.

Opening Night Celebration - Journey from the Fall
Thursday, May 4, 2006 - Directors Guild of America • 7:30 p.m. • Theatre 1

Program 06 - The Motel
Friday, May 5 - 10:00 p.m. • Directors Guild of America, Theater 2

Program 15 - Fishing Luck
Saturday, May 6 - 5:00 p.m. • Laemmle's Sunset 5 Theatre

Program 18 - Eve & the Firehorse
Saturday, May 6 - 7:00 p.m. • Directors Guild of America, Theater 1

Program 23 - Secret Identity Crisis
Saturday, May 6 - 10:00 p.m. • Directors Guild of America, Theater 2

Seminar 7 - So You've Completed Your Film - Now What?
Sunday, May 7, 2006 • 2 pm • DGA Atrium

Program 35 - Asian Stories (Book 3)
Sunday, May 7 - 7:00 p.m. • Directors Guild of America, Theater 1

Program 39 - The City Never Sleeps
Sunday, May 7 - 9:00 p.m. • Laemmle's Sunset 5 Theatre

Between the Step Outline and the Pages

2006-04-20T13:12:00.000-07:00

I outline. I didn't use to outline but I outline now. Prior to screenwriting, writing was how I explored and discovered. Scripts would wander and meander through long soliloquies and meditations with complete disregard for structure and form. A first draft would take a year or two to complete. I let the artistic expression dictate the form.

Screenwriting is a little different. There's less "discovering" and more "knowing." That's why I outline now. That's not to say I don't let pages rip when the muse strikes me (I believe everything is valuable eventually), but I have to know where the story is going before I write pages. Therefore, I outline.

Writing for UCLA has made this a necessity. A quarter at UCLA is 10 weeks. Figuring that the first week is lost pitching for classes and the second week is spent discussing story ideas with your teacher, you're left with 8 weeks to write the screenplay. If you have an instructor who critiques during week 10, then your script has to be finished by week 9. So that leaves 7 weeks for pages. If your instructor spends a week going over your step outlines, then you have 6 weeks for pages.

Typically, there is a month during the quarter where we are squeezing out 30 pages a week, either by design or necessity. Unanswered emails, missed phone calls, long stretches of time between blog postings, a steady diet of pre-cooked foods from Costco... you get the idea.

This is when I developed my love/hate relationship with the three act structure. As much as I love to follow my muse where ever it leads me, the reality is that I (and all my classmates) have to finish a script by the end of the quarter. Valuable time and energy is wasted questioning the loss of creative freedom under this restriction. It simply is what it is and you deal with the task in front of you.

What helped me during this process is the page count. Once I've completed the step outline, I estimate how many pages are needed to realize each step. For example, suppose this is one step in my outline:

When CARL arrives at his apartment, there are seventeen messages from ROCHELLE demanding that he meet her.

I'll begin thinking: How many pages would it take to realize this scene? Carl checks his messages but what really happens? What does Carl want and what do I, as the writer, need? Does he listen to all 17 messages? Should the scene start when Carl enters his apartment? Where does the scene end? What does Carl do as a result of hearing the messages? What does this scene look like?

And then I'll jot some notes in the margin, and think, "I can write this scene in 1 page." What's good is that I force myself to justify the existence of each scene by asking the fundamental questions that most screenwriting books advise you to ask: What does my character want, what action does the character do, what is his obstacle, is there conflict, and how does he feel about it? Believe me, it's much easier to ask these questions at this stage than while you're cranking out pages.

What you also discover is that your 40 step outline will yield only 60 pages. That everything between the midpoint and the end of Act II is only 7 pages long or Act I is 45 pages long. Again, it's much easier to fix this before you write your pages.

The outline is a tool to help you see if your story will work before you write pages. Using it to estimate your page count is one way to use this tool. In the UCLA program (to quote Khan), "Time is a luxury you don't have."

By the way, the step above ended up being 3 pages long before I realized I didn't need the scene and cut it.

The Godfather and The Godfather: Part III

2006-04-19T21:40:00.000-07:00

I'm taking Film Structure at UCLA with Professor Howard Suber. Our assignment was to watch The Godfather and The Godfather: Part III, compare them and write in 800-900 words why Part III was less successful than Part I. Below is the essay I turned in.

The story of The Godfather (G-I) is about Michael Corleone's rise to power fueled by his desire to protect his family (specifically his father Vito Corleone). Between Vito Corleone's rejection of Sollozzo's proposal to fund narcotic sales and the assassination of the heads of the five families are a series of events that are either a direct result of Michael's actions, or actions taken by characters in Michael's interest.

Once Vito is wounded in an assassination attempt, Michael proves to be a worthy leader of the family by taking action to protect him. Scenes where Michael stands guard at the hospital and where he assassinates Sollozzo and Chief McCluskey obviously serve this purpose. What makes G-I successful is that even scenes that don't include Michael are a direct result of action he has taken.

Even scenes without Michael bear his imprint. Sonny Corleone is the heir apparent however, his order to kill Pauli and his street brawl with Carlo demonstrate his impulsiveness and hotheadedness. Not only do these actions prove Sonny doesn't have the necessary leadership skills but they ultimately lead to his demise, clearing the way for Michael to assume the leadership of the family business.

The actions of Michael provides a strong spine for the action in G-I. Sonny's demise may appear at first as a simple sub-plot but it is directly related to Michael's decision to kill Sollozzo and McCluskey. The assassination created a war between the five families fueling Sonny's desire for revenge. The removal of Sonny from power was paramount in fulfilling the other families' interests. Sonny's death results in Vito seeking a truce, which allows Michael to return home safely.

There is no equivalent spine in The Godfather: Part III (G-III). In fact, there is no concise, succinct storyline that unifies G-III. The action of G-III is split between the competing objectives of two characters: Michael, who alternately wants legitimacy for his family's business dealings and wants to absolve himself from his sins; and, Vincent Mancini, Sonny's illegitimate son who aspires to become a part of the Corleone family by being an enforcer.

An argument can be made that the main spine of G-III is Michael's quest for legitimacy through the acquisition of a controlling interest in Immobiliare. But is the acquisition of Immobiliare a result of Michael's quest to absolve himself of his past sins or vice versa? When the Pope delays his approval, Michael is powerless to do anything about it and is no longer an active force driving the story forward.

A strong argument can also be made that the main spine of the story is Vincent's rise to power in the Corleone family. Yet Vincent kills Joey Zasa under orders from Connie, not Michael. Nor is Vincent able to prevent the assassination attempt on Michael's life. Vincent intervenes only after the assassin's weapon is drawn and fired. Vincent does not possess or inherit Michael's skill of outsmarting and outthinking his enemies.

Many events and characters in G-III do not expedite or complicate either objective. Andrew Hagen (Tom Hagen's son) is introduced but never plays a pivotal role in any of the story's events. Reporter Grace Hamilton has no influence on Vincent. Mary provides minimal complications in Vincent's quest for power in the Corleone family. Even though Michael asks Kay for forgiveness, his request is neither accepted nor refused. Anthony's desire to sing opera doesn't create a void in the family power structure simply because Anthony was never strong or smart enough to be considered an heir to the throne.

In G-I, the motive behind the assassination of Vito is clear. The five families want Vito's influence to facilitate the sale of illegal narcotics and when he refuses his help, his removal is necessary to completing their task. There is a strong sense of cause and effect in G-I, which shows Michael's transformation from an honorable, almost naïve war hero and outsider into the ruthless head of the family business.

In G-III, the forces that conspire to stop Michael from acquiring Immobiliare do not appear to have any deeper purpose other than to stop Michael. Even though it is revealed that Don Lucchesi is behind the Pope's delay tactics, no deeper reason or motive is ever revealed. This conflict does not serve to force Michael to change or transform. Michael is merely a man haunted by a past that has finally caught up with him. It is a past that long precedes the events of G-III.

Though the events of G-III hint at a King Lear-like transfer of power from Michael to Vincent, the connection is lost despite a nearly inconsequential scene where Michael tells Vincent to use the Corleone name. Vincent very quickly demonstrates his ability to kill in cold blood leaving little room for character evolution. His estrangement from Mary at Michael's order does not factor as a cause for Vincent's ascension nor as a cause for her unfortunate death. Her death, which is pivotal to Michael's demise, is random, the result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Structurally, G-III is less successful than G-I because the events of G-III seem unmotivated and arbitrary while G-I has strong cause and effect relationships. Michael is fundamentally a different person at the end of G-I than at the beginning. Neither Michael nor Vincent transform in any meaningful way during the course of G-III.

The Dirty Little Secret of Screenwriting Books

2006-04-07T18:46:00.001-07:00

Books about screenwriting don't teach you how to write. What they do is analyze successful movies and reveal recurring patterns while offering tips for economy and clarity.

The best advice I ever got about writing was from my ninth grade English teacher Richard de Rosa who said, "The only way to learn how to write is to write." While this advice hasn't turned me into a great writer (yet), it has definitely made me a better writer.

The proliferation of screenwriting books has been a double edged sword. It gives us a common vocabulary to discuss story, plot, character arcs and themes. Unfortunately, it also sets an arbitrary standard for expectations that oftentimes quashes creativity and innovation in favor of mitigating risk: the risk of losing all that money someone (usually not the writer) is spending to bring the screenplay to life.

Successful and respected screenwriters are able to employ their unique creativity within the restrictions that modern screenwriting requires. Very few reasonable people would label this skill as a betrayal of some vague notion of "artistic integrity."

We aspire to become the things we admire. However, as you live your life, the desire to use your experiences, point of view and all the things that make you unique, will force your writing to expand beyond imitation and mimesis.

In the meantime, I offer you my synthesis of all the analyses performed in those screenwriting books. If you're trying to emulate popular films with your writing, chances are you're emulating some variation of this structure. Like all tools, its success depends on the person using it.

ACT ONE

THE INCITING INCIDENT

Something happens or has happened that throws the world out of balance. If someone can't figure out how to restore the status quo (the "central question"), the world as we know it will come to an end (the "stakes").

THE CALL TO ADVENTURE

The hero is given an opportunity to solve the problem but he won't participate. His refusal usually results from some anti-social behavior he engages in (the "flaw") to avoid re-experiencing some deep-seeded, emotional wound. Re-experiencing his deep-seeded, emotional wound is typically the hero's greatest fear.

THE ANTAGONIST MAKES HIS PRESENCE KNOWN

The hero is compelled into action by the antagonist.

ACT TWO

LEARNING NEW SKILLS

Usually with the advice of a mentor, the hero learns, but doesn't fully appreciate, a new set of skills and values.

ASSEMBLING THE TEAM

New friends join the quest to save the world. Their friendship is usually bonded by some sort of initiation rite or shared ordeal.

THE FIRST VICTORY

The hero scores a small but decisive victory and erroneously believes that the quest is easy and will be over soon.

MIDPOINT

THE ANTAGONIST STRIKES BACK

Having suffered this setback, the antagonist proves to be much more formidable than previously believed. Will now actively hunt down and destroy the hero.

FEAR LEADS TO DEFEAT

The hero battles the antagonist or his agents. All his skills and abilities prove inadequate and his confidence is broken because the antagonist is able to embody and exploit the hero's greatest fear.

MAY AS WELL BE DEAD

The hero comes as close to death as he can without dying. He has lost everything and suffers.

ACT THREE

CHANGE OR DIE

The hero can't return home nor is he able to live with his failure. With great pain he fundamentally transforms himself by embracing the lessons of his mentor, atoning for his past sins and healing his emotional wound.

THE FINAL BATTLE

The hero takes the battle to the antagonist. Once he chooses to apply the lessons of his mentor and conquer his own fear of emotional pain (thereby, fixing his "flaw"), is he then finally able to face his antagonist without fear and vanquish him by answering the "central question."

The pithy life lesson the hero had to learn to heal his emotional wound is typically the story's theme.

BALANCE IS RESTORED

A new status quo for the world is achieved. Society is safe, life goes on, mostly the same but presumably a little better for the experience. The hero reaps the reward of his victory.

If you find this tool unsatisfactory or inadequate, may I suggest you break down 3 to 10 films of your own choosing and analyze them for their patterns. After all, that's what screenwriters did before 1979, the year Syd Field first published Screenplay.

The Rhetoric of Sean Hannity

2006-04-07T02:49:00.000-07:00

I was flipping through the news channels and heard Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes interviewing Dan Dewalt, a Selectman in the Vermont legislature who voted to pass a resolution to use an obscure procedural rule to impeach the President. Mr. Colmes let him state his position and then Mr. Hannity joined the conversation.

Well, it wasn't much of a conversation. Mr Hannity insulted Mr. Dewalt, got him off topic and insulted him again. It might have been entertaining if it didn't feel so much like a mugging.

What troubled me the most was Mr. Hannity's admonition at the end that Mr. Dewalt's opinion was a selfish act that hurt our troops.

I'm ashamed to admit it but I've used Mr. Hannity's argument technique when I wanted to make a fool out of someone in public. Insult them about something personal to get them emotional, force them to accept a premise I know to be true regardless of its relevance to the topic of discussion, and then dismiss their entire argument based on their acceptance of the premise.

I must also add, the last time I used this argument technique was in third grade after which I got the shit kicked out of me on the playground. From my teachers then and now, I learned that name calling was not a proper way to argue, even if you believe they are blatantly misrepresenting your position or the facts behind their own position.

However, Mr. Hannity's admonition did send chills down my spine.

While Mr. Hannity's opinion is his own, does it represent a sentiment shared by many who believe that dissent is harmful to the well being of our society? If an elected official can be admonished for his dissent, what about someone with a video camera or a blog who expresses an unpopular or controversial opinion?

Is it possible to measure the harm that dissent causes? If dissent does cause harm, does it require a remedy? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech does have restrictions. Do the actions of Mr. Dewalt violate those restrictions?

I don't believe that the resolution of a state committee impacts the morale of our troops. I have more faith in our troops than that. Mr. Hannity did not attack Mr. Dewalt's position as much as he attacked his motive and right to express it and he did it in a way that was disrespectful, regardless of the justification.

Freedom of speech is something we take for granted in this country. I was reminded by a fellow writer about the time a writing workshop I was in was visited by a group of artists from Communist China.

They asked us what we were writing and were shocked at our descriptions. They remarked that it would never occur to them to write about such things because they would surely be subjected to imprisonment if they attempted such projects.

What good is sacrificing lives to defend our Constitutional rights if we are not freely able to use them? Mr. Hannity's opinions may be consistent with some Republicans in government, but he has no government sanctioned authority to prevent anyone from exercising their Constitutionally protected rights.

What if no one heeds his admonition and similar admonitions from those who would use their own sense of morality, microphones and video feeds to bully people into silence?

I've included the transcript of the entire segment below if you wish to form your own opinion about the exchange.

I will write something about screenwriting soon. I promise.

* * *

Hannity and Colmes: March 31, 2006

Alan Colmes: Welcome back to Hannity and Colmes. A Vermont Democratic State Committee will decide whether to urge Vermont lawmakers to use a little known provision in U.S. House rules to file for the impeachment of President Bush. Democratic committees in at least fourteen of the state's Democratic counties have passed resolutions calling on Vermont lawmakers to use this little known provision from Jefferson's Manual, a book of Parliamentary philosophy and procedural guidelines written by Thomas Jefferson. Joining us now, one of the Vermont Selectmen who voted to impeach President Bush, Dan Dewalt. Dan, welcome to our show.

Dan Dewalt: Thanks.

Colmes: I'm not sure if this is really do-able unless you have a Democratic house. What bothers me, whether or not we agree, should or should not be impeached, that you have been personally attacked simply for offering, going forth with your free speech rights. The Washington Times reported your income as I understand it and mentioned you wear Birkenstocks. Just trying to typify you.

Dewalt: I didn't realize Birkenstocks were an attack. But you're right. You're right.

Colmes: And in an AP story, I think, was posted on the terrorism knowledge base that says it's a comprehensive databank of terrorist incidents and organizations. So they're trying to type you a terrorist simply for offering what is a controversial point of view.

Dewalt: That's true.

Colmes: Why are you doing it?

Dewalt: Why am I doing this? I'm doing this because I'm ashamed of the actions of my President and my country. I feel that I'm a patriotic American. I feel that as a patriotic citizen of this country I need to stand up for what the country stands for. And the country stands for rightness, the country stands for living up to the Constitution and the rule of law. This President, through lies and deceit has broken the law, has led the country into a war, which has led to countless tens of thousands of deaths, and I am not willing to stand by and say, "This represents me, this represents what I believe in.

Colmes: I may not agree with impeachment as being the way to go and we can debate that, what bothers me, though, is those who really, who oppose this will say you hate Bush, you hate America, I'm sure you're called a traitor--

Dewalt: No, this has nothing to do with--

Colmes: And this kind of rhetoric does not really allow us to have the debate that you're really offering to put on the table here, which we should be having as Americans right now.

Dewalt: I agree a hundred percent. It's not about hating George Bush. I haven't-- there's been lots of Presidents I didn't like. Reagan, I didn't like Clinton. I wasn't talking about impeaching any of them. This is talking about the rule of law and adherence to the Constitution. If this country does not adhere to what it was it was built to be based on, then we are not a country where [inaudible]

Colmes: [overlapping] By the way, you're not that fond of Democrats either as I understand it.

Dewalt: No, I'm not a Democrat.

Colmes: Where are you on the spectrum?

Dewalt: The party in Vermont which is closest to what I stand for is the Progressive party. It's, this isn't about politics. This is about citizens of the country standing up for what we believe in and what I have been gratified-- you're right, I have been attacked, but on a very small scale. I've gotten a few pieces of hate mail, poorly written, I might add. But we have been overwhelmed with letters of support from across the entire nation. Not just Vermont, not just New England, but Indiana, Arizona, Minnesota, Chicago, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey--

Sean Hannity: And what did you vote for, for President, sir?

Dewalt: Ralph Nader.

Sean Hannity: Ralph Nader. A lot of good that did. It was a wasted vote.

Dewalt: You know, you know, a wasted vote--

Hannity: It was.

Dewalt: A wasted vote--

Hannity: 'Cause he didn't have a chance to win, but that's fine. Let me ask you. So, so let me ask you a question.

Dewalt: Okay.

Hannity: The argument that the President made that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, did you think it was a purposeful lie? Is that your essence, the essence of your argument?

Dewalt: President Bush presented that argument, knowing, absolutely knowing that the evidence was not really solid. He knew--

Hannity: And John Kerry, and John Kerry made the same argument, did he do the same thing as the President?

Dewalt: I am not the least bit interested in John Kerry. This, this--

Hannity: I didn't ask you that question, if you were interested. I asked you if John Kerry equally lied like the President did, considering he said Saddam's WMDs and nuclear weapons are a grave threat to America.

Dewalt: I'm not privy to exactly who gets what information but I do know that there's nobody that gets more information than the President of the United States. And I also know that the President of the United States can control what information goes out to other people. What John Kerry knew, I don't know. That's not the issue. The issue is who is in control of this country? And who led this country to believe that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Hannity: [overlapping] Actually there is [inaudible] documents that have come out--

Dewalt: [overlapping] Well it's--

Hannity: [overlapping] There're actually new, If you look at the documents that we have now been, if you read the newspapers, you see that there has been a connection that was there, that Al Qaeda operatives were operating out of Iraq for a period of time leading up to 9/11 and that they were trained there. We have learned from the general that worked under Saddam Hussein that there were weapons of mass destruction his belief--

Dewalt: Wait wait, where were these weapons of mass destructions--

Hannity: Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. The same weapons that Bill Clinton told us about when he bombed them but you didn't call for the impeachment of him. Here's the bottom line. I don't care what you write, I don't even care about your silly resolutions or your proposals, it's a waste of our time. But I'm going to tell you something you need to think about the next time you want to propose something as idiotic as this. Everything you say as a leader is heard by our enemies, it is heard by our allies and it is heard by the troops. When you call their Commander a liar, you are undermining their war effort, when you do it in such a political fashion and only go after Republicans, you do it to the detriment of them. And if you selfishly want to continue that you go right ahead, but look at who you're hurting.

Dewalt: Let me tell you what undermines the war effort, let me tell you what undermines the troops of this country, is telling them that we're going to war for a reason which is not true.

Hannity: You Liberals are a broken record--

Dewalt: Why don't you--

Colmes: And I thought I was--

Hannity: You're angry that you lost the election. You can't get over it. And the bottom line is that the President, you forgot we were attacked on 9/11, the President was authorized by Congress to defend this country and [inaudible]

Colmes: [overlapping, inaudible] I think it's important that we have this debate, we should be able to debate it on a fair and even playing field.

Dewalt: Why don't you give me a chance to respond?

Hannity: It's an idiotic proposal.

Colmes: You got ten seconds Dan, go ahead. We gotta go.

Dewalt: We have a President that misled these troops--

Hannity: Oh stop it.

Dewalt: He has not supported them, he has not equipped them. You guys are like Mickey Mouse and Tweedle Bird.

Hannity: Oh gee.

Dewalt: Honest to God.

Hannity: And you're a waste of our time.

Colmes: By the way, you got a band I understand. Good luck with the band, good luck with your Birkenstocks. Thanks you very much for being with us. Appreciate it.

Dewalt: You guys are losers.

Silly things I've heard in my life from American non-Asians

2006-03-31T20:56:00.000-08:00

Silly things I've heard in my life from American non-Asians. FYI: I'm Chinese, born and raised in New York. Used to be an actor.

================

Her: I-S-A-C-K?
Isaac: Isaac, I-S-A-A-C, spelled the same as in the Bible.
Her: B-I-B-L-E?

=================

Him: If you're going to NYU that means an American kid can't go.

=================

Him: We don't allow ESL students to take playwriting classes.

=================

Him: Do you think in Chinese or do you think in English?
Isaac: I don't speak Chinese.
Him: But do you think in Chinese?

=================

Her: The call was for actors who could play doctors. What are you doing here?

=================

Him: The call was for Shakespearean actors. What are you doing here?

=================

Him: The call was for typical Americans. What are you doing here?

=================

Him: I can tape my eyelids and play a samurai.
Isaac: Can I play the Irish cop?
Him: Don't be ridiculous.

=================

Her: We can't cast you in Pacific Overtures. You'd look funny being the only real Oriental on stage.

=================

Her: Kissing a Chinese guy would really piss off my dad.
Isaac: Want to have sex and give him a heart attack?

=================

Him: You're Isaac? You're not Jewish.
Isaac: I'm circumcised.

=================

Him: Hong Kong action films suck. They're not as realistic as American films.

=================

Him: You can't register for classes without a Green Card.
Isaac: That's a U.S. Passport.
Him: How'd you get a U.S. Passport?

=================

Him: You people shouldn't be allowed to vote. You only vote for what's best for you. You don't know what's best for the country.

=================

Him: You date Asian women too, how come you don't have yellow fever?

=================

Her: Your play is about failing relationships, video games and science fiction. What does that have to do with being Asian American?

=================

Him: Do you think in 200 years Chinese and Japanese culture will merge so that they'll be indistinguishable from each other?

=================

Him: You come to America and you still want to be Chinese? What was the point in coming to America?

=================

Him: I'm more Chinese than most Chinese people I know.
Isaac: And how many times have you been mistaken for me?

=================

Isaac: The Chinese invented gunpowder, paper and noodles.
Him: They also invented Communism.

=================

Her: The only reason why you got the job is because you're Chinese.
Isaac: It never occurred to you that I'm smarter than you?

=================

Her: So nice to meet you. Can you take a look at my computer?

=================

Him: You're in America. Eat American food.
Isaac: Okay, how about spaghetti and meatballs?
Him: Fuck you too.

=================

Her: Tell the waiter what we want in Chinese.
Isaac: Only if you want your order wrong.

=================

Her: What is this we're eating?
Isaac: If you like it, it's better you don't know what it is. Trust me.

=================

Her: Live kill is barbaric. Why can't you people buy chicken in the supermarket like everyone else?

=================

Him: My tax dollars are paying for your education. Do you think that's right?

=================

Him: No, don't give him the gun. There's nothing scarier than an Oriental with a gun.

=================

Him: I love Oriental women. I love their stubby legs and pointed toes. That doesn't make me a racist.

=================

Her: If we imprisoned Japanese people during World War II, it'd be in all our history books.

=================

Her: We have to break up.
Isaac: Why?
Her: You're Chinese.
Isaac: It's not like I kept it a secret.

=================

Him: Stop trying to be so American.

=================

Her: Stop trying to be so Chinese.

=================

Him: Minorities always make race an issue. If you don't make it an issue, it won't be an issue. Next issue.

=================

--And people wonder why race is an issue with me.

Screenwriting: One Unnatural Act

2006-02-10T01:20:00.000-08:00

There is nothing natural about screenwriting.

As a mode of self-expression, it is highly restrictive, serving function over form. If screenplays were the artistic experience, then you would go to museums to look at blueprints. Screenplays use written language to suggest a visual language where the writer is not the final interpreter.

However, like any discipline, when a screenplay is executed well, it looks easy and effortless.

Perhaps the greatest disservice a writer can do when struggling with a scene is to ask, "What would I do if I were in that situation?" It's a disservice because we tend to be conflict-averse, mediating disputes before they become problems. We will often make personal sacrifices to maintain the status quo, seeking a peaceful equilibrium. This is our nature, this is who we are.

By contrast, our characters must be agitators, destroyers of the status quo who hurl themselves head first into physical, psychological or emotional danger. Characters who are so obsessed with achieving their goals that they are willing to risk everything, including their lives. Not only is this unnatural, it is contrary to the very instincts that help us survive.

A good protagonist drives the action. He must constantly be the domino that starts a chain reaction of events. Do you initiate action or do you merely react to the world around you? Are you the barbarian pounding at the gate demanding entrance or are you waiting for someone to fire the starting pistol? How many of us are the protagonist of our own lives?

Many of us aren't. Many of us need these stories of conquering heroes to feel powerful in a world where, as individuals, we are growing more and more powerless. Acknowledging the role you play in your own life is vital to understanding the role your characters assume in the stories you tell, especially if you rely on your instinct to navigate your characters through their adventures.

Annapolis

2006-02-06T20:40:00.000-08:00

Logline: James Franco endures trials and tribulations to survive his first year in the Naval Academy.

The good idea:

It's "An Officer and A Gentleman" only different.

What didn't work:

Jake Huard is set up as a hot headed, anti-authority misfit. However, neither in his home life nor in his plebe year does he demonstrate this trait to the level where we can believe it has held him back.

The first half of the film is interminably episodic. Scenes happen to Huard. Nothing happens as a result of his drive or determination.

The film stretches believability. Plebes are thrown out of the academy for lying about a shower and failing to run an obstacle course in under 5 minutes. Yet, Huard remains in the academy despite punching a superior officer.

The character parrot all the necessary bon mots (you'll never make it, you're not tough enough) required in a coming of age film but the actions don't reflect this. Despite Huard's protestations that his father stands in his way, his father really doesn't. He benignly stands by and lets Huard kill his own dreams.

What could have been a touching moment where Huard returns to his old job dressed in his navy whites is tepid at best. This is because the film never builds up to this point. We never get the feeling that this act is important to him.

The most important thing to Huard is getting into the academy to fulfill a promise to his dead mother. This accomplishment is handed to him in the first ten minutes. The dream of completing the academy is one that he abandons and reclaims with no motivation.

What makes this film ordinary is that there is no exploitation of naval culture, specifically customs, rituals, hazing and the sense of honor and patriotism that pervades a military institution. What makes this film less than ordinary is its liberal use of tired and worn cliches.

Good Night and Good Luck

2006-02-06T20:39:00.000-08:00

Logline: A TV newsman puts his network at risk confronting a US Senator on his investigation tactics.

The good idea:

Recreate the behind the scenes discussion at CBS during the Senate hearings investigating Communist activities in the US.

What worked:

Edward R. Murrow's own words. An unconventional story structure, probably based on the needs from actual historical events, the movie is more a four act play than a conventional film structure.

Act One ends with Murrow's decision to run the story about Milo Radulovich being brought up on charges because his father subscribed to a Serbian newspaper which makes Murrow a target for Senator McCarthy.

Act Two ends with Murrow's report on Senator McCarthy.

Act Three deals with McCarthy's interrogation of Anne Lee Moss, his rebuttal to Murrow's original report, Murrow's subsequent rebuttal, and Don Hollenbeck's suicide.

Act Four Murrow is, for all intents and purposes, demoted by CBS for losing corporate sponsors for his reporting. Murrow delivers a prescient analysis of the future of television.

What didn't work:

I don't know if Murrow and McCarthy ever met face to face in real life. The lack of a final confrontation between them left the story unsatisfying. Even though the Senator's downfall was directly precipitated by Murrow's reporting it didn't feel like a triumph for Murrow.

Dan Hollenback's suicide didn't leave a significant emotional impact. His relationship with Murrow was respectful but hardly a friendship. The choice to show Murrow only in his professional environment denies us an opportunity to learn how his decisions affected him on a personal level. By confining the locations almost exclusively within the halls of CBS, we don't see how Murrow and McCarthy affect the average person.

While he did ultimately lose his show, he didn't really lose anything, CBS did and it's hard to have sympathy for a corporation.

Underworld: Evolution

2006-01-29T10:39:00.000-08:00

Logline: Kate Beckinsale must end a centuries old blood feud by preventing a vampire from freeing his werewolf brother.

The good idea:

Kate Beckinsale in a leather jumpsuit, lots of non-stop, over-the-top violence with a gothic vision.

What worked:

The film tries to infuse a larger story into all the action: Enmity and hatred spanning centuries coming to an end (Marcus freeing William); father-son guilt and loyalty (Corvinus's inability to kill his sons has cost many lives over the centuries); and psychological ghosts and demons from the past informing the present (Selene discovers her own father's actions were not arbitrary).

What didn't work:

Unfortunately all of the above comes across in long expositional speeches by Derek Jacobi midway through the movie and through various flashbacks and blood visions. While the opening flashback sets up the outer goal of Marcus wanting to free his brother William, it doesn't clearly convey why. Is it world domination? Revenge? What is their unfinished business?

Also, Selene, played by Kate Beckinsale, is compelled to stop them for no apparent reason other than if she doesn't there wouldn't be a movie. Again, without knowing what the stakes are if the brothers reunite, her reasons for stopping them seem arbitrary. Marcus is coming after her because she literally has the key to finding William but why does she feel compelled to stop his dastardly plan, if he has one?

A couple of missed opportunities story-wise. Michael, a hybrid, has special powers. However, those special powers never seem to come into play. He's just as strong and has many of the same abilities of his enemies (jumping long distances, absorbing bullets, jaw ripping strength). The reason for his Act III resurrection is muddled. Did he arise from the dead because of his special powers (though still undefined) or from Selene spilling her blood into his wounds?

Selene is a vampire and thus, cannot be exposed to sunlight. This is established at the beginning of her story when her hands and face burn at sunrise. When she drinks Derek Jacobi's blood he tells her she will have greater powers than before. However, it doesn't appear that these special powers ever come into play. She uses only her well established abilities in the climatic fight. After the climatic fight is over, the sun rises and Selene is able to stand in sunlight without danger. Perhaps a more integral use of this newfound ability would have been to have the sun rise during the climatic fight and Marcus becomes over confident that he has won because she will now die in sunlight. Her ability to survive sunlight allows her to defeat Marcus. This way, drinking Derek Jacobi's blood affects the outcome rather than reading as a nice bonus at the end.

Despite its storytelling ambitions, the only thing you really need to know to follow the plot is that the attractive people are the good guys (as good as good can be in this world) and the ugly people are evil.

Casanova

2006-01-09T00:19:00.000-08:00

Logline: To avoid arrest for immorality, Casanova betrothes himself to the virginal Victoria but soon his affections turn toward Francesca, a strong willed, educated writer of heretical philosophy.

The Good Idea: A luxurious, costume romantic comedy for people who enjoyed Shakespeare in Love.

Why it worked.

Classic romantic comedy structure. We see the lovers meet in Act I and discover each is betrothed to someone else. Each has their deception they must maintain as they pursue each other. They separate at the end of Act II when their deception is revealed and reunite in Act III after a chase scene.

There is enough charm to cancel some incredibly gaping holes in logic. Structurally, every setup had a payoff and every payoff had a setup. It's an enjoyable movie if you don't think too hard and embrace the silliness of its contrivances.

Why it didn't work.

Casanova is known for his male libido. However, once he falls in love with Francesca, his ability to seduce women never becomes a complication or obstacle in his quest for her. For a man who gets around, very few people seem to recognize him.

The setup for his rescue from execution in Act III is barely one line in Act I. To recall this line in Act III is asking a lot and is confusing until Casanova's mother makes the connection for the audience.

Syriana

2006-01-05T23:48:00.000-08:00

Logline: A Middle Eastern reformer and heir to an oil empire is assassinated in favor of his brother who has policies more favorable to American corporations.

The Good Idea: Expose some underlying causes to the instability in the Middle East.

Why it worked.

The film conveyed a good sense of danger and duplicity. In nearly every scene, nothing was as it appeared. Bennett Holiday is charged with finding out if any laws were broken when a small oil company lands drilling rights in Kazakhstan just before they are bought out by a large oil company. The truth he discovers is superceded by the interests of the corporations and the judiciary. Yes, some laws were broken, but find a high profile scapegoat and sweep it under the rug for the greater good. But just who decides what the greater good is?

Why it didn't work.

I had a hard time keeping track of all the different story threads. Bennett's investigation was the main one. Bryan Woodman's friendship and counsel to Prince Nasir, heir apparent to an oil fortune and idealistic reformer was another story. Bob Barnes CIA mission to Beruit and finally the transformation of a young man into a suicide bomber.

Confusion arose for me in Bennett's investigation because it seemed he was following instructions from Jimmy Pope, Dean Whiting or a mysterious man in the back of a limo. Prince Nasir already intended to put in place social reforms so I didn't understand why his relationship with Bryan Woodman was important. What exactly was Bob's mission to Beruit, how did he screw up and why did he need to go to the Persian Gulf?

All these threads are building to the Range Rover caravan in the desert. Prince Nasir has just received word from his father that he will not inherit the kingdom. Bob Barnes has fought his way back to the Middle East to catch up with Prince Nasir only to die with the Prince in a smart bomb explosion sent by the U.S. before he has a chance to do what he needed to do. This scene, while horrific, did not feel inevitable nor tragic but arbitrary. Why would the U.S. government kill a political figure who had no power? Storywise, he didn't die at the worst possible moment, indeed, the bomb could have been sent minutes earlier and achieved the same emotional effect. Looking back at all the various story threads, I couldn't see who's agenda this act fulfills.

Using Bob Barnes CIA mission to Beirut as an example: Bob meets an old man to arrange a meeting with Mussawi. Later, Bob is kidnapped by Mussawi, tortured and is about to be killed when the old man intervenes. CIA HQ receives word that Bob has blown his cover and concocts a CYA story about him being a rogue agent. Then Bob is back in Maryland recovering at a military hospital. The sequence of events is clear, each scene logically follows, however, it's never stated why he was there. What was he supposed to do? We knew the mission was important to him but because of his misanthropathy, we never fully sensed he was "our guy." Without knowing or even having a sense of this, the torture becomes mere spectacle illiciting little more than sympathy at the sight of another person's pain.

I can see why this film has garnered its acclaim. It's ambitious and challenging with no clear cut themes or traditional heroes and villains. It uses a lot of morally gray characters and hidden agendas to convey the sense that Middle East politics and economics is byzantine, controlled by a handful of men. It achieves its intent by not serving up easily digestable fortune cookie solutions to complex problems.

However, following (more like, assembling) the story becomes such an intellectual exercise that the emotional impact is lost. Who are these people and why should I care about what they're going through? Because it depicts a world of backroom deals, corporate, governmental and international sleight of hand, a world that is far removed from my everyday experience, then I need to know how all these machinations affect me within the world of the story.

Munich

2006-01-03T00:41:00.000-08:00

Logline: Israel sends an assassination team to kill the terrorists responsible for the death of their athletes during the 1972 Olympic games in Munich.

The Good Idea: A compelling "what if" scenario based on a best selling book directed by Steven Spielberg.

Why it worked:

The central dilemma faced by team leader Avner as he dispatches each terrorist is: Is killing ever justified? His actions are sanctioned by Golda Meir (though not officially acknowledged), but as his missions progress, he wonders if he is any better than the men he is killing.

It's a powerful and frighteningly relevant question complicated by the backdrop of a morally ambiguous world where information is bartered with no regard for nationality or loyalty. It became far simpler for Avner to carry out his mission than to live with the consequences of a world that he helped create. Here the theme is delivered: The human toll from killing is far greater than a mere body count.

The use of food as a metaphor for Avner's state of mind along with his anxiety once he realized he was being hunted were well executed.

The final moment where Ephraim refuses to break bread with Avner with the Twin Towers as a backdrop forces the audience to acknowledge the price Avner paid for his loyalty and ask if his actions ultimately solved anything.

Why it didn't work:

The death of the athletes was Israel's nightmare realized and created a deep wound in the psyche of a nation. However, intercutting scenes of their death with Avner making love to his wife were not effective because we were never given a direct, personal connection between Avner and the athletes. For example, was he there as a guard and failed his duty, or were any of the athletes close friends of his?

It would seem to make more emotional sense that the haunting intrusion would be from the death of his team members with whom he shared personal connections and overall responsibility rather than from athletes with whom he shared a national empathy.

Perhaps a more organic place to intercut the athletes' death may be during Avner's final attempt to kill Salameh when he might ask himself if their deaths justify this act.

King Kong

2006-01-02T01:09:00.000-08:00

Logline: A film crew stumbles across the island home of a great ape who falls in love with their lead actress.

The Good Idea: Naomi Watts charming a computer effects gorilla.

Why it didn't work:

Okay, I'll harp on the same thing many other critics have said. It's too long. Why is it too long? There is a sequence in Act II that belabors the point: the island is dangerous and you shouldn't be on it unless you have a gorilla for a body guard. While stunning, the sequence where the bugs and dinosaurs attack the seamen doesn't add anything to the plot. The gorilla has Ann and they can't get to her.

Where it did work was creating the emotional attachment between Kong and Ann. It was set up where she dances and juggles in the opening vaudeville act and paid off when she dances and juggles for Kong. We know why she's different from all the other women he's had and what actor doesn't love an appreciative audience?

Act III raises too many unanswered questions. Why didn't Ann participate in the Kong show? Why didn't Ann participate in Jack's play, after all, Jack did kiss her while they were on the ocean and wrote the damn play for her. If her love for Kong was inevitable, what kept them apart while they were in New York? If she did love Kong and didn't love Jack then what was the intended emotional impact of having Jack with her at the end? Jack believed he was rescuing her from Kong but in actuality, he wasn't, so Jack had nothing to gain. Once she turned down being in his play, the love triangle between Kong, Jack and Ann was over and so was the dramatic tension of "Will she choose Kong or Jack?" Unfortunately, the movie ended before we could see if Jack ever figured out she didn't love him.

If King Kong is a love story at its heart (and I believe it is) then somehow, climbing the Empire State Building had to read as some kind of sacrifice Kong made to save Ann. Storywise, Kong had to sacrifice himself to save Ann from some kind of jeopardy. Instead, it played out as Kong getting away from the army's attack and Ann happened to follow him. Since Ann wasn't in any jeopardy (other than incidental), her anguish at the end reads more like, "I couldn't save him," instead of, "He did this to save me."

Rumor Has It

2006-01-02T00:33:00.000-08:00

Logline: A woman seeks out the man her mother had a fling with to determine if he is her father.

The Good Idea: Satisfy the long held (mistaken) belief that "The Graduate" needed a sequel and Jennifer Aniston opening a romantic comedy.

Why it didn't work.

There are two questions the movie asks which are answered very quickly and with few obstacles in the way. "Is the man my mother slept with before her wedding my father?" She finds out, yes. Next question, "Will she sleep with a man who slept with her mother and her mother before her?" Barely enough time is given to even pose the question before we see Jennifer Aniston in bed with Kevin Costner (actually just waking up alone, the morning after).

This sequence happened in roughly the first 15 minutes of Act II. So what's left? Predictability. Will her fiance find out? Yes. Will her family find out? Yes. Do we care that they will? Not really, because they're comic caricatures. Mark Ruffalo, as her fiance, is too good to believe, so we don't believe for a moment that he won't forgive her. Mena Suvari is far too giddy to be taken seriously when we meet her. Shirley Maclaine is wonderful as the acid tongued grandmother so we aren't too worried that anything can shock her or hurt her feelings. Richard Jenkins is very good in the thankless dad role who gives caring and understanding advice on cue. The bottom line is that Aniston's character acts with no consequences at stake.

Believability takes a holiday. Sure she's got a job but it never comes into play as an obstacle in that she never has to choose between finding Costner or her job.

The biggest flaw is the dialogue. Much of it is used to tell us what we already know. The audience knows more than the characters do and waiting for them to find out what we know becomes an exercise in saying, "get on with it."

In terms of pure romantic comedy structure, the end of Act II is when she loses her fiance. Unfortunately, since she is pursing Costner, he should be the one she loses. The success of a romantic comedy also hinges on having to choose between two pretty decent choices. Costner was never a serious contender for her long term affections.

Memoirs of a Geisha

2006-01-01T23:35:00.000-08:00

Logline: In prewar Japan, a young girl is sold to a geisha house where she struggles to find love and success.

The Good Idea: Cinderella in a kimono. A lavish, exotic love story about a down trodden young woman.

Why it didn't work.

Most of Act I is devoted to Chiyo's quest to reunite with her sister after they've been sold. It's a strong desire and one the audience can readily empathize with. However, at the end of Act I, they separate and the voice over declares that she will never see her again. The dramatic tension created by the question "Will she ever find her sister?" evaporates and the film must find a new direction.

The new direction is the question, "Will Chiyo ever become a geisha?" Of course the answer is yes, but she achieves this goal too easily. We like our protagonists to struggle before they succeed so it feels like they've earned their victory ("wax on, wax off"). What was supposed to take years only took Chiyo weeks to master. The driving force behind her training did not come from the protagonist Chiyo but rather from Mameha, the head of the rival geisha house (who in turn is under instructions from the Chairman).

The diva of the geisha house, Hatsumomo, is wonderfully set up as her antagonist, representing a possible future for Chiyo (now Sayuri). However, Hatsumomo is not responsible for Chiyo's greatest betrayal. When Sayuri hatches a plan to sleep with an American solider to ward off a potential danna in Nobu, she is betrayed by Pumpkin who brings the Chairman (Sayuri's true love) instead.

Instead of facing her greatest enemy, Sayuri is blind-sided by her enemy's protege. What Pumpkin had to gain by this betrayal is never revealed but the betrayal is rendered moot because shortly afterwards, the Chairman confesses his love for Sayuri and how he engineered her education as a geisha. She wins his love but doesn't truly earn it.

In Romeo and Juliet, the family's blood feud keeps the lovers apart. The Chairman is a wealthy and powerful man. Sayuri is poor and can be had for a price. There really isn't anything to keep them apart. We are offered some notion of loyalty in that the Chairman owes Nobu his life and that he waited until Nobu's affections for Sayuri were dashed before he acted on those feelings. However, this felt more like an afterthought rather than as an ongoing dramatic tension throughout the picture (will the Chairman choose the love of a woman or loyalty to his best friend?).

A great opportunity was lost by skipping over the World War II section of the story. What other skills did Sayuri possess that helped her survive? She was sent into the mountains by the Chairman and waited for the end of the war. Meanwhile, Mameha sold her kimonos and started a hotel. This makes Mameha more interesting than Sayuri, a dangerous thing to do to your protagonist.

Sayuri's struggle doesn't add up to much. She gets the Chairman in the end but what did she have to give up? What piece of her soul did she lose? What new principles of life did she have to embrace?

The movie is unapolegetically Hollywood in that it follows the axiom, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. However, they forgot the good story.

Welcome

2006-01-01T23:01:00.000-08:00

Having studied the three act structure, narrative theory and fighting my own tendencies towards writing passive protagonists (as well as reading nearly every screenwriting book under the sun), I have a pretty good notion about what is expected in a commercial screenplay. But does meeting those expectations mean you'll have a good movie?

My plan is to comment on movies that I've seen in theaters and on DVDs and address why they didn't work for me using my understanding of screenwriting as a guide. Please feel free to agree or disagree. All opinions expressed by me are my own.

WARNING: Please be advised, I plan to discuss plot points in detail so if you haven't seen the movie and don't want the surprise ruined, stop here.