The Next Big Thing!

Comic Con is poised to pounce all over downtown San Diego, and with it the epic search for the next big thing.  There are the “highly anticipated” panels on “Tron” and something called “Megamind.”  There are also panels on films about to be released, such as “Salt.”  Do we really need a panel on a film that will be in theaters in a couple weeks?  I think not.

But the real attention is paid to those properties that aren’t in theaters, or even in production.  Comic Con is the place to feel the pulse of the fan-boy (and girl) community.  Publishers, game producers, and filmmakers all wrangle for the next big thing.  It’s hard to imagine what that thing will be, because there is just so much stuff out there.

A year ago I was on a WGA committee that put on an event for writers interested in turning their scripts into comic books.  It was the hot thing at the time, taking those stories we all have, but that have little chance of selling to penny-pinching studios, and turning them into popular comics (that the studios will eventually buy and develop).  How quaint that all sounds just a year later.

Anyone in the comic trade knows it’s about as easy getting a publisher to pick up your untested property as it is getting a studio to buy it.  And let’s say your books is picked up and published and let’s go further and say it sells a few thousand.  Big deal.  Studios have their pick of comic properties that sell ten times that number.

Self-publishing is no great answer either.  You’re stuck footing the bill for printing, and you’re stuck with the crazy job of trying to market the books.  Anyone in any business at all will tell you marketing is a crazy expensive undertaking, even with the power of the internet and Google ad-words.

There is such a monumental clutter of material in the pop-culture ether today that it’s difficult to imagine anything carrying enough creative oomph to pierce through the clutter and grab a large chunk of humanity by the throat.  I have half a dozen great, killer ideas, but each would take a few million in marketing dollars to reach a critical mass of fans.

So what is a writer to do in this strange world, where production is easier than ever, but finding an audience near impossible?  The answer may be seen in a web-comic call “Axe Cop” (axecop.com).   I know, you don’t spell ax with an “e” but check out the page anyway.  The effort has a few things going for it.

1)  The Gimmick:  “Axe Cop” is created by the Nicolle brothers.  Ethan is the artist/editor, age 29.  Malachai is the creator/writer…and here’s the kicker…he’s 5.  That’s right, he’s a real kid.

2) The World:  Together, the brothers have created a dynamic world that could only spring from the unbridled mind of a child.  This is a skewed riff on the world of superheroes where powers are absurd, villains appear and are defeated in a matter of frames, and characters change and transform in an instant.  There are no rules to this world.  Stuff happens for no reason at all and that’s the charm.

3) The Easy of Use:  Each “Axe Cop” episode is about two pages worth of panels, presented in one long broad sheet.  It’s a throw back to the newspaper comics of a century ago where panels would sprawl out over one huge sheet of newsprint.  This format is perfect for “Axe Cops” freewheeling story arcs.  What most books would take two issues to convey, “Axe Cop” does in two pages.  And Ethan Nicolle is a fine artist.

This combination of quickly told stories (ridiculously so) in bite sized chunks, is perfect for today’s media-grazing audience.  It’s to my mind the most accessible web comic around.  The brothers have experimented with animated webisodes, been fielding inquiries about an animated series, and recently announced that Dark Horse will publish print versions of new “Axe Cop” stories.

This all from a property that was created…here’s the other kicker….last December.  So appreciate the timing here: the property is created in December 2009, put on the internet a couple months later, and by June the phone is ringing…a lot.  Within a year hard-copy books will be on shelves.

It’s quite a ride, and the freakishness of it all cannot be overstated.  Who  knows what the future will bring.  The grabby, stream-of-child’s-thought appeal of the web comics may not translate to longer form stories.  “Axe Cop” has a lot of surface level energy, but so far little heart or subtext.  Maybe that is also the world we live in where such energetic properties will explode on the scene only to be replaced by another explosion a few months later.  You can bet a lot of people in San Diego will be looking for the next “Axe Cop.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Improvising the…you know..uh…words.

I tried watching “It’s Complicated” for the third time the other night.  I had the screener DVD from last fall and found that, yet again, the film doesn’t hold my interest.  It’s pleasant enough and well produced, but there’s just something about the film that makes me want to shut it off and channel-graze basic cable instead.  It’s not a good sign when  you’re watching a film and wonder, “why am I watching this film?”

It could be the subject matter doesn’t grab me.  The film is about 50-somethings (Streep, Baldwin, Martin) having a rollicking post-divorce fling.  These 50-somethings happen to be stinking rich in that smug way of not even acknowledging  or appreciating their wealth.  Meryl’s character lives in a multi-million dollar home in Santa Barbara while her 20-something daughter lives merely a million-dollar house (you can’t buy a house in SB for any less).  Is there that much money in the pastry business Streep’s character operates?  Something about depicting such in-your-face wealth seems inconsiderate when most Americans are struggling.

The setting and subject matter could have been tolerable (these are talented folks, after all) if there had been a more engaging plot to the film.  Two things happen in any film:  1) what happens, and 2) how it happens.  In a plotty film, the entertainment is in the anticipation of compelling situations…the what.  In a character film, the entertainment comes from the merely being along for the ride with an interesting person…the how.   “Star Wars” is a plotty film in which the entertainment derives from the setting and situation…not so much Luke’s personality.  “High Fidelity” is a character film where John Cusack’s heart-broken music guru captivates us like a great raconteur…who cares about the plot.

Hollywood movies typically fall into these two categories.  Plotty films are sold on the amazing worlds they create, the spectacle, and the special effects.  They are very expensive.  Character films are sold by the personalities involved (by that I mean actors with known personas).  This requires big-ticket actors of the Streep, Baldwin, and Martin variety.  Not cheap, but not as expensive as “Transformers.”  Personalities are the critical element in many comedies.  You don’t watch to a Marx Brothers, Keaton, Jerry Lewis or Ben Stiller film for their plot.  You go for the particular shtick of those performers.

So the real turn-off for me with “It’s Complicated” involves the painful reality that Streep and Baldwin are not comedy personalities (Martin is, but isn’t wearing that hat in this film).  Not surprisingly, while Streep and Baldwin are wonderful in scenes with written dialogue, they appear lost and desperate in montage-sequences that rely on comedic improvisation.

As a recovering control-freak, I am no fan of improvisation.  I’ve done enough creative work to know that the first thought that pops into your head is typically not the best thought.  It’s usually a tired cliché.  That’s why writers re-write so much…to root out the tired material in our scripts.  Those skilled at improv have trained their brains to quickly discount these “first-thought” ideas and go for something more original.  These skills – to quickly devise the next moment in a given situation – are not necessarily the same as those of actors trained to bring written characters to life.

Improvisation is often embraced by actors and directors intent on making a scene “real.”  What could be more “real” than something totally unplanned?  Most of Cassavetes’ films were improvised.  Coppola was famous for improvising scenes in “Apocalypse” and “Cotton Club.”  While the process may result in some brilliant moments…the so-called “happy accidents” …more often than not they only serve to muddle the overall composition of the story.  And movies, after all, are not real.  Even if a completely spontaneous moment is captured on film, how spontaneous is it really if there are lights and cameras turned on?  Capturing “reality” may not necessarily be entertaining.  Both the Costner and Crowe versions of “Robin Hood” were no doubt historically accurate and “real,” but neither was as entertaining as the Errol Flynn classic.

Posted in screenwriting | Leave a comment

Box Office Lessons of Summer 2010

A gloomy pall, much like our overcast skies, has settled upon Hollywood.  June Gloom is extending well into July as the industry tries to make sense of its feeble box office performance.  Like the oyster-men on the Gulf, movie distributors rely on these summer movies to offset lower box office the rest of the year.

Perhaps even more than those oil-spattered fishermen and resort owners, Hollywood has become entirely reliant on big films.  These spectacle noise-makers have become the only reliable product the studios can crank out.  Gone are those character driven dramas, the quirky indie experiments, and the pretentious historical epics.  In their place we have explosions, gunfire, and CGI effects, wrapped up in the shell of a familiar franchise.  These projects look good on paper, but have underperformed at the theaters.  From “Robin Hood” to “A Team” and “Knight and Day,” the noise machines are proving unreliable.  Why?  Brilliant minds are hard at work trying to understand why this summer has had such tepid box office.  The conclusions they draw will affect the scripts studios will buy.   Screenwriters take heed!

The films that are working this spring are those with a reliable, tried-and-tested audience. “Shrek,” “Twilight,” and “Toy Story 3” are all performing as hoped for.  Even “Iron Man 2” a noisy hodge-podge of a movie, has excelled where other action films have failed due to the goodwill of it’s predecessor.  If you take these franchises off the table, however, the movie scene looks bleak.

One obvious assumption is that film-goers are seeking reliable, familiar product.  In addition to making the above sequels, this trend bodes well for the upcoming “Predators” and perhaps “Cats & Dogs.”   It would indicate that original films such as “Despicable Me” and “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” may have tougher sledding. (BTW it’s getting to the point where we need a word for a movie that ISN’T a sequel.)

The other trend I see is the need for a film to convey its story quickly.  Many films are simply leaving audiences scratching their heads over what the story is about.  Can anyone tell me what “Robin Hood” was about from the posters and trailers?  “The A-Team” also failed to convey a clear plot.  I like the visual of the guy riding a tank parachuted from a plane, but that’s a set-piece, not a plot.  I believe a major reason “Sex And the City II” failed is that no one knew what the hell it was about.  The first film was about her marriage.  Simple.  This one was apparently about a vacation to Dubai.  Yawn.  “Knight and Day” is suffering the same plot-less fate.

Say what you will about the flagrant nepotism of “The Karate Kid,” the film has a built-in plot.  We all know what the movie is about:  kid is beaten up by bullies, learns karate, and kicks butt.  That story worked 20 years ago and it still works, although I bet the film would have made twice the coin if they’d cast a teenager and included some romantic sizzle (maybe in the sequel).  “Predators” may be the best simple-plot of the summer: instead of the alien coming to Earth, a group of bad-ass killers are brought to their planet as game.  That is brilliant.  My imagination is running wild.

These are the kinds of compelling, easy-to-convey plots that studios will buy, and screenwriters should be writing.

Posted in screenwriting | Leave a comment

Have Your Script Read…a lot

What is it with the movie business these days?  We have a number of high-profile flame outs at the box office (“Robin Hood” anyone?), and now Deadline Hollywood is fanning the rumors that Studios are after original material once more.  I guess “The A-Team” has convinced them that 80’s TV shows are not a big draw for today’s movie-going crowd.  Even Tom Cruise is being soft-pedaled in the marketing of “Night and Day.”  The LA Times reported the studio sneak-previewed the film in a bid to counter low-polling numbers.  I hope it does well as it is a rare original script in a summer of sequels and adaptations.

If studios are after original material, then maybe my timing is right to take my script to market.  I’ve spent the last few weeks revising it.  I’m trying to pitch this one right over the plate, and having as many people read it as possible has been a huge help.

There are three levels of notes I typically receive:  1) The General Note:  this is where the reader gives a general thumbs up or down, but no specifics.  Such notes are not very helpful.  2) The Specific Notes:  here the reader is specific about what works and what doesn’t.  The best sort of notes are those made on a copy of the script as it’s being read, not after the fact.  This way you know where there mind is at each step of the way.  3) The Fix Notes:  these are the best kind of notes.  Not only is the reader telling you what works and what doesn’t, but they’re putting their writer hat on and suggesting plot turns or character reactions you may not have considered.

The best thing about notes isn’t about the notes, it’s about the magical way a writer suddenly sees the script through the eyes of the audience.  Any work of fiction casts a spell over the audience, hopefully one that captivates them to the very end.  Writers are more susceptible that most to that spell and we can convince ourselves that a scene works great, a joke is really funny, or a plot turn isn’t telegraphed from a mile away.  Handing the script over to someone has a way of bursting that bubble.

The notes I received on my script can be boiled down to one: keep it simple.  I was trying to do a lot in the early drafts of what is really a very simple story.  With each set of notes and each pass at the script, I found myself thatching the complexity out.  Intricate back stories or motivations can be confusing to a reader.  Ask yourself why a character is behaving as they do.  If it isn’t obvious, then ask yourself what would be the obvious reaction.  Try that out and see if it works better.

The word I keep in mind when revising is “flow.”  As in, does the story flow along smoothly, or are there glitches and hiccups that interrupt the progress?  Over the last couple weeks I would read the script and note any glitches, then revise them, and the next day re-read and re-vise again.  As the front half of the script was clicking, I’d start reading on page 50 and just revise the last half.

At some point, every writer must let go of the work, send it to their agent or manager, and put it out into the world.  Having the script read often by skilled note-givers can soften that transition, kind of like sending your child to half-day pre-school to prepare them for first grade.

Posted in screenwriting | Leave a comment

“Let’s All Go To The Movies” – or not

I like nothing better than to go see a movie….but just what to see?  Let’s thumb through today’s LA Times Calendar Section and see what’s playing?

Sex And the City:  I know so little about this franchise that I still call it “Sex In the City.”  Apparently the women go to Abu Dabi and dress in fancy clothes.  Other than that I’ve no idea what happens in this story or why I should care.   So moving on…

MicMacs: is a film from France.  The title reveals nothing and the ads don’t either.  It is being sold as “From the Director of Amalie and City of Lost Children”  Sorry, but didn’t catch those either so that tells me nothing.

Ondine: is a film with Colin Ferrell…and that’s about all the ads tell me.  Colin is staring off into the distance, squinting really, so I suppose he’s looking at something on a sunny day.   There are various quotes from various critics, but that would require reading and if I wanted to read…I’d buy a book.

Killers:  Okay, the first big full page ad in today’s paper.  This tells me that the film has huge marketing dollars.  What does a full page, full color ad cost in the LA Times?  $30K?  $50K?  I’m not sure but it’s a lot.  So this is a Rom-Com with two attractive stars.  One carries a gun!  Which is movie code for, “Guys will be entertained too.”  There were no reviews of this film so not sure what the story is about.  I find the title a bit off-putting in today’s violent-saturated world.

Get Him to the Greek:  This film merits a ¾ page ad.  It stars Jonah Hill and Russell Brand.  They were both fun in “Sarah Marshall,”  but not sure I could take a whole two hours of them.  The review says the R-rated raunch is laid on thick, and I do wonder if any Apatow film can tell a joke that doesn’t involve man-junk.  If I were ten years younger this might be of interest, but I’m not, so I’m not.

Marmaduke:  There’s a big full color, full-page ad for this film-franchise spinoff of the age-old comic strip.  It’s got…get this….a dog…but…you won’t believe this…he’s wearing sunglasses!  A dog wearing sunglasses!  This Fox film is targeted to the kids in the world (yes, people do still make babies and they grow into kids).  It features Owen Wilson as the voice of Marmaduke.  That’s gotta be the sweetest gig in town: like a couple million just for a few day’s work in the recording studio.  Man, sign me up.  I have a great speaking voice.  The film is produced by John Davis, who bought cat-related idea I co-created a couple years ago, so I’m hoping this Dog film cleans up!  Maybe they’ll put mine in production.

Shrek 4: If I had kids, I’d take them to this instead of Marmaduke, but then it’s in 3D and that is a negative for me.  Gives me a headache.   I  like the Shrek franchise, though I’ve always found the character design not up to Pixar standards.

Prince Of Persia:  Everyone is wondering why this film isn’t cleaning up.  It’s a Bruckheimer extravaganza and he knows of period swashbuckling from the “Pirates” franchise.  A film like this is not selling a story but a location and overall intensity.  It could be that no one…and I mean no one…wants anything to do with Persia (pssst…it’s now called Iran).

Splice:  This sounds like a fun, scary movie.  It got a nice review and of all the films out there, this is the most tempting.

There are other films out there, all those super small confetti-sized ads toward the back of the Calendar section.  And “Breathless” is at the Royal…a short walk from where I live.  For all these movies, however, there is only one, “Splice,” that would tempt me away from my couch.   Why?  Why not more cool films?  Films that demand to be seen.  And why are so many films are selling a setting, not a story?  Some are barely selling a setting.  I bet “Ondine” takes place in Ireland, but where does “Micmacs” take place?   What attracts me to “Splice” may be it’s the only film out there that tempts me with a story concept.  “Greek” does the same with the clear promise of a road-trip, it’s just not company I want to trip with.

C’mon Hollywood, make cooler movies.  I got money in my pocket.

Posted in filmmaking | Leave a comment

The fading art of dramatic screenwriting.

Just flew back from Chicago and boy are my arms tired.  But seriously folks, it’s the legs that are giving out.  I walked my dogs to the bone overdosing on the great architecture of this town.  Pictures to come!

But first, yet another observation about the state of our cinematic art.  United was kind enough to provide free headsets for their cross-country screening of  “Extraordinary Measures.”  The true-story film involves the father of two kids with a rare muscular deterioration disease and his super efforts to find a treatment.  It’s the kind of story you used to see on TV, and more currently on basic cable.  How this particular “disease of the week” story found it’s way to the big screen, with Harrison Ford as the cantankerous-but-genius scientist, would make for interesting reading.

The film itself, however, is a case study in modern dramatic screenwriting.  The scenes are short, the conflict in each immediate, and the results hold our attention if not our hearts and minds.  Someone should do a study on average length of a scene in a motion picture.  I bet it went from 5 minutes in the 1950’s to about 45 seconds today.  There is no chit-chat.  There is no talking around an issue as people often do before addressing the elephant in the room.  There is just the elephant.

The technique does hold our attention.  I would never have seen “Measures” unless I had been trapped in a packed flight at 35,000 feet.  The subject matter just doesn’t have much entertainment value to me.  But having watched the film, I think the writer Robert Nelson Jacobs did what writers must do when adapting a true-life book, and that is keep…things…moving.

Something is lost, however, in the rush to the next crisis.  It’s the emotional empathy that only comes from spending time with people.  By excising any little moments, the lead characters are less dimensional.  And heaven help the supporting players, who may only have a couple 30-second scenes.  They are hopelessly one-dimensional and only serve to T-up the next crisis.  I found my empathy not with any characters on screen, but with the actors who must struggle to find a way to flesh out a part armed with only a couple minutes of expository dialogue.  It’s a thankless task, but what’s a working actor to do?

This style of writing may reflect our less-attentive, quickly-distracted, impatient culture.  Just as we look back on films from the 1930’s as sluggish and theatrical, the younger generation of film-goers may look back on the character moments in films from the 1980’s as being extraneous and boring.  It’s hard to say where this trend will take us.  The end result may be an entertainment based on kinetic spectacle rather an character growth.  In other words, less of a film experience and more of a video-game experience.   I am hoping the pendulum swings back soon.

Posted in screenwriting | Leave a comment

A New Term for “Screenwriter?”

I wish screenwriters had a new term for what we do.  “Screenwriter” or just “writer” doesn’t cut it in my book.  It’s too easy to slide into  the oft-used slur “scribbler.”  While it is true that screenwriters do on occasion scribble, and the job has long been associated with leaky pens, carbon paper, typewriter ribbons, and now computer printers, we are no more scribblers that an architect is a doodler.  The scribbling is just a means to an end, that being the design for a filmed drama.

Playwrights have a great moniker.  It goes back to the Old English term “wright” meaning a “maker” or “builder.”  A wheelwright made wheels for carriages, a shipwright made ships, and a playwright made plays.  Important distinction:  they didn’t make scripts…they made plays.  Their title implied their involvement through the play-making process as an active member, if not the leader, of the team.

Writers in Hollywood, however, are not seen as “moviewrights” but as “scriptwrights.”  We are alone in the industry as the makers of a thing, a physical object.  Everyone else  (directors, cinematographers, editors, production designers)  does something.  Writers make something – a script.  As such we are typically paid for the thing, whereas our filmmaking brethren are paid for their labor, typically on a weekly basis.

There is a benefit to this.  When an actor or director is rejected from a job, it’s a more personal slam on their abilities.  When a script it rejected, it doesn’t necessarily mean the writer is bad, just that the story isn’t what the producer wants at that time.  The same writer may hit it out of the ballpark next month.  Writers are one step removed from the criticism.

But there is also a downside to being a maker of a thing: we are often kicked to the curb once the thing is sold.   We are often not viewed as on-going contributors to the creation of a film.  This is changing, but only because the industry is going through a period in which adaptations are more prevalent than original screenplays.

“Iron Man 2” is a case in point.  Here writer Justin Theroux was present on the set to help shape and track the largely improvised scenes, based on a premise devised by the producers and director John Favreau.   In the recent “Valentine’s Day,” director Gary Marshall kept a joke-writer on set throughout the shoot to contribute gags on the spot.  Clearly, the ability to work collaboratively and write on the set is valued in today’s filmmaking environment.

The Holy Grail of writers devising their own projects and shepherding them through production does happen in television.  Such lucky folks are called “showrunners” and are given a “created by” credit, though their official title is Executive Producer.   Apparently, the television business is fine with empowering writers as long as they aren’t called writers, but producers.

Playwrights are also known as dramatists, a term that reflects the specialized form of writing they do.  They are designing dramatic situations to be performed.  This is very different from a novelist or poet or journalist.  Screenwriters are also dramatists, but are doubly challenged to create drama with the unique language of cinema.   Perhaps “screenwriter” does reflect some of this, not in the sense that we write for the screen, but that we write the screen itself.

Posted in screenwriting | Leave a comment

The BIG ACTION Climax!

I’m re-breaking the climax of my script.  It’s a lot of action and in some ways action is the hardest thing to write.  This little scene is, in a way, as hard to break as the whole second act.  On the one hand I want plausible action – exciting stuff that tops all the stuff we’ve seen up to this moment – but on the other hand it should also resolve some character issues.  People who were timid before, now show backbone.  People who were brave before, now show sensitivity.

It’s a bitch, no question, and if badly handled can come across as really contrived and jerry-mandered.  I don’t have any easy solutions.  The problem is that so many films have been made that  follow the tried and true formula, there is no way to conceive of something that is both effective (i.e. tried and true) and original.  It all comes out very clunky and forced, and I don’t want to burden actors and directors with clunky crap and leave them to make something good out of it.  That’s my job.

Action without the internal dynamic issues, however, is just action.  I was watching a bit of “Blade Trinity” on the tube a few days ago and it had a big action sequence at the end.  What else would you expect from Blade?  And as in a lot of such films it’s a multi-headed sequence in which three characters are having separate fights in separate parts of a building.  I’m not a big fan of the bifurcated climax.  Lucas did it badly in “SW 1” with all that fighting on the planet, AND a space battle high above, AND a big fight in the palace.

Splitting things up is a lazy way of holding our attention a bit longer.  When the action gets tiresome in one setting, just cut to an other.  In the Blade film, Snipes shows off his fighting skills which are considerable, but after a while it’s just punches being thrown.  How much of that is really needed?  Ten seconds?  Thirty seconds?

In my own little indie, “Military Intelligence,” I had my pick of thrilling WWII battle scenes stolen from old training films.  These were nicely shot sequences with tanks and troops and lots of hand-to-hand combat.  Our first cut was long.  I wanted to stuff all this cool footage I found into the piece.  What I found, however, was once the internal issues were resolved, the action was just slowing everything down.  Imagine that…action becoming boring.  That is exactly what happens, however, for at this point in a film the audience really just wants to get it on over with.

So the trick is parsing out the internal issues and resolutions along with the action beats.  It is perhaps the most specific, nit-picky work a writer does.  I can’t think of any other situation in which a writer gets into almost shot-by-shot detail.  And I am hating every minute of it.

Posted in screenwriting | Leave a comment

3D Cinema

The LA Times ran a series of articles on 3D filmmaking in yesterday’s paper.  Much of the familiar ground was covered:  the “Jazz Singer”-like effect that “Avatar” has had on the industry, the dubious prospects of retro-fitting 2-D films, and the mad scramble to cash in.  The higher ticket prices for 3D features are creating a gold rush mentality with technology companies devising new systems, theater-owners installing new projectors, and cinematographers taking how-to seminars.

3D is the latest in a wave of technological advances over the past 20 years that have whip-lashed everyone in this business.  Vinyl to CD to iPod.  35mm to Digital to 3D.  Really, can we just have a moratorium on technological advances for a while?

The impact 3D will have on screenwriting is uncertain.   One Times article mentions a scene from a horror film in which a body slides to the audience on a zip-line.  Clearly, the writer is taking advantage of the “Comin At Ya!” quality of 3D films.  These gags have been around a long time and I believe are the first clumsy attempts at a new visual vocabulary for 3D.  We’ve all seen the spears, arrows, and swords jabbing out of the screen into our faces.  It’s akin to the first films shot with zoom lenses in which every set-up was a snap zoom.   Or the first films shot with a Steadicam in which every take is an elaborately long moving sequence.

We can only hope filmmakers get the cheap gags out of their system and apply the technology in a more artful, restrained manner.  The most effective shots in “Avatar” were not the showy shots that reached beyond the picture plane, but the longer, slower dolly-shots through a setting that receded into the picture plane.  These shots really gave the impression you were looking through the frame and into a “real” setting.

Realism has always been the goal of filmmaking.  It drove the move from black and white to color, from silent to sound, from mono to stereo, from 4:3 aspect ratio to widescreen, and now from 2D to 3D.  When digital photography started replacing 35mm film, some cinematographers lamented the demise of film’s warm, buttery images and predicted it wouldn’t last.  New technologies don’t replace the old, however, as much as motivate the abandonment of the old.  Movies didn’t replace vaudeville, but they did provide a new mode of entertainment that rendered vaudeville obsolete.

Will 3D render 2D obsolete?  It’s too soon to tell.  The glasses are still the stumbling block.  What it may cause is a new cinematic aesthetic whether the film is shot in 2D or 3D.  Slower moves, longer takes, and an absence of hand-held photography may bring about a statelier cinematic pace.  Writers will need to fill those shots with entertaining story stuff.  Anything that puts the nail in the coffin of hand-held camerawork is a good thing in my book.

Posted in filmmaking | Leave a comment

Gabourey Sidibe is Morbidly Obese

I’m going to get on my un-PC soap-box and vent a bit.  See, the latest issue of Vanity Fair has a bunch of letters chastising the magazine for featuring hot white actresses on the cover of this year’s Hollywood Issue.  There were no people of color, a fair enough complaint, but the assertions that Gabourey Sidibe should have been included are the kind of PC nonsense I can’t stand.

You know Gabourey, right?  She starred in “Precious: based on the novel Push by some writer with an ego so big they wanted their name in the title of the film.”  She is  (here’s the un-PC part…get ready for it, or read another blog….you ready?….okay….here comes)  morbidly obese.  There I said it.  I know we’re all not supposed to, but writers dive in where the spineless fear to tread.  Writers are required to pick up a stick and poke deeply into society’s wounds and blind spots, and this one is a doozy.

The PC Hollywood masquerade goes something like this:  the woman is obese, but did a fine job in “Precious…” so we’ll show how open minded we are by heaping praise on her.  She’s nominated for an Oscar.  Oprah Winfrey praised her.  She’s walking the red carpet in a sleeveless dress.  She’s hosting Saturday Night Live.  Isn’t it great that she’s proud of her body?   What a great example to show young girls that women come in all shapes and sizes.  You go girl!

Secretly, however, we all find her appearance revolting.  Yes, I said revolting.  Harsh word, I know, but obesity is a harsh problem and requires harsh words.  See, my Dad died of a heart attack far too young, and he was maybe 30 pounds overweight.  Ever since then, whenever I see a person of a certain age with any kind of gut, I want to put them in a head-lock and growl, “Put down the deep-fried Churitochanga and start exercising, fatty!”

Fat people may be the only minority group writers can still make fun of.  Eddie Murphy did it in that fat-suit comedy he did (which happened to be on TV last night).  Come to think of it, so did Martin Lawrence in his fat-suit comedy.  And now that you mention it,  Tyler Perry built his career on playing a fat black woman.  (What is it with black comedians and drag fat suits?  I wonder if a white comedian could get away with playing a fat black woman.  Maybe he’s an FBI agent sent undercover to infiltrate a gang of fat black women dealing in black-market donut holes.)

We laugh at the fat suits, the fat make-up, the big breasts, but there is more than a little societal finger-wagging going on.  Societies reward valued behavior with applause and trophies, and condemn bad behavior with ridicule and shame.  Sociologists tell us that physical infirmities are considered shameful, because they weaken the overall health of the tribe.  Some cultures do value obesity, viewing it as a sign of prosperity and fecundity, but those were cultures with shorter life expectancies.

It’s not hard to be obese if you only expect to live to age 40.  Today’s longer life span, however, means that fat young people become diabetic old people with circulatory, cardio-vascular, and respiratory problems.  Obesity in America is one reason medical costs are rising through the roof as a percentage of GDP.  So sure, the all-white Vanity Fair cover was racially insensitive, but I don’t blame them for not featuring Gabouray.  The woman is walking coronary and her career prospects are bleak.  You go girl…on a diet!

Venting complete, we now return you to our regularly scheduled program.

Posted in Politics and Society | Leave a comment