Paul Thomas Anderson, 2006
This is clearly a very well made film. It reminds me of No Country For Old Men in how well it tells you things, visually. I'll again reference David Mamet's ideas about juxtaposition of shots, and cutting out what is unnecessary.
But I have to be honest here. I don't know what this screenplay is about. I suppose I do have some ideas. It could be about the danger of obsession. It could be about the destructiveness of paranoia. It could be some kind of metaphor for gluttony, or envy, or pride. There are a few things that seem to be pretty significant, and I'm trying to piece together what these things all mean.
1. Daniel's relationship with his son HW is clearly important. Daniel clearly loves his son, but he ultimately chooses his oil company over him. HW is sent away when his hearing becomes a problem and Daniel doesn't want to take time out of his day to help. This is not portrayed, in the script, as a just action, so we as the audience know that Daniel is wrong for doing this. Later, HW willingly leaves Daniel because of Daniel's terrible obsession with oil.
2. Daniel's relationship with his "brother" Henry. Henry is likely just a tool to show Daniel's increasing paranoia and unhealthy stress about his job. As soon as Daniel discovers Henry has been lying, he immediately shoots him. The motivation for this is difficult to write in words, but I think it's meant to show how unreasonable Daniel has become. He's growing a terrible emotional demon inside.
3. Daniel's relationship with Eli. They don't really conflict that much. He probably embodies the things about people that Daniel hates. But Eli's biggest significance seems to come at the very end, when Daniel kills him and states "I'm finished."
This line seems to be the key that I can't figure out. Finished with what? Carrying around an incredible amount of hatred and fear? This story seems to track the development of Daniel's internal darkness until he is finally finished. But I can't seem to grasp why it finishes, or why it makes Daniel behave the way he does, or why this story was constructed with this particular setting.
Though I don't understand the specifics, I do at least understand that the message of this story seems to be "don't do this." Don't carry around these destructive emotions. Don't get involved in a business that will tear you apart and drive you to this point. HW understands that, and he gets out.
If anyone has thoughts on what is going on in this story, please comment. I'd like to hear ideas.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
Day 23: An Education
There was a lack of posts last week because I needed to take some time off. But now it's a new week, and my motivation is back. So let's start with a film I saw a year ago that I thought was pretty good. I actually wrote an essay about it for an English class, but that was before I started studying story structure.
Armature: Life does not need excess pleasure, but a balance of pleasure and hard work, for the most meaning.
There are a few reasons I believe this, specifically, is the armature. I'll get to that in a moment.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time, Jenny was a bright young schoolgirl who lived in a boring, strict world, but dreamed of leaving for college and really experiencing life.
2. And every day Jenny studied hard, excelled in school, and was strictly controlled by her father.
3. Until one day Jenny is taken out to a concert and a jazz club for a night by the man David and his fancy friends, and she is exposed to the high-class art she has dreamed of.
4. Because of this Jenny is taken on many adventures with David and his friends, and even goes out of town to beautiful cities with them.
5. Because of this, Jenny gets engaged to David and leaves school.
6. Until finally, Jenny finds out that David has been lying the whole time, and is left with nothing.
7. And ever since that day Jenny has pursued a good education at Oxford, and taken life at her own pace.
This story is all about the balance between hard work and excess. Jenny is a great relatable character for this idea: she's a dreamer trapped in a boring life in which she can't even listen to French music. Her life is completely hard work. But, she doesn't completely dislike it. She's eager to answer questions in class, and likes learning French.
David is Jenny's wish fulfilled, like Oz is for Dorothy in "Wizard of Oz." He whisks her away to a life of culture, art, and class. She gets to experience what she always wanted. So she starts to wonder, what is school good for, anyway? Why go to school if I can experience this by marrying David?
But David also comes with a lot of badness. In order to afford expensive things, he and his friend Danny steal paintings from old ladies' homes. They lie and cheat and steal. David is also married to another woman, and has romanced a lot of other girls like Jenny before. So Jenny can't have the luxurious life she wants for free.
What Jenny learns is that the life she wants is a balance of the two. She visits her schoolteacher, Ms. Stubbs, for help after David has left her. Ms. Stubbs is the embodiment of the armature, a projection of what Jenny could be one day. Ms. Stubbs works hard, but has a meaningful life. When Jenny visits her home, she comments that all the photos and images are lovely. And then she realizes that even though those decorations aren't real (they're merely copies and postcards), they're enough. That's when she understands. Her life doesn't need to be an excess of glamour. It just needs enough.
What this story does particularly well is use a lot of clones. Danny and Helen are like a "successful" version of David and Jenny. It's implied that Danny also has a wife and Helen knows it. Helen is beautiful, but also a bit of an idiot. They know things about art and music, but their lives aren't morally that good. When David leaves her, Jenny realizes just what kind of people they are, and that she almost became them.
Jenny's schoolgirl friends Hattie and Tina are clones of what Jenny could become if she only studied. The two are, to put it bluntly, boring. They don't have dreams like Jenny, they aren't beautiful like Jenny, and they aren't nearly as studious as her.
Then, as I've already said, Ms. Stubbs is also an impressive clone. She's kind of like the mentor figure, but she doesn't die partway through the story because she isn't present until she needs to be. She allows the viewer to understand what the armature is trying to say: a simple, balanced life is ideal.
I don't know if I'm explaining more than I need to here. All in all, this script is easier than most to understand because a lot of characters explicitly state their goals, and the plot is pretty straightforward. I would recommend it to those wanting to understand narrative tools without having to dig too deep.
An Education
Nick Hornby, 2009ishArmature: Life does not need excess pleasure, but a balance of pleasure and hard work, for the most meaning.
There are a few reasons I believe this, specifically, is the armature. I'll get to that in a moment.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time, Jenny was a bright young schoolgirl who lived in a boring, strict world, but dreamed of leaving for college and really experiencing life.
2. And every day Jenny studied hard, excelled in school, and was strictly controlled by her father.
3. Until one day Jenny is taken out to a concert and a jazz club for a night by the man David and his fancy friends, and she is exposed to the high-class art she has dreamed of.
4. Because of this Jenny is taken on many adventures with David and his friends, and even goes out of town to beautiful cities with them.
5. Because of this, Jenny gets engaged to David and leaves school.
6. Until finally, Jenny finds out that David has been lying the whole time, and is left with nothing.
7. And ever since that day Jenny has pursued a good education at Oxford, and taken life at her own pace.
This story is all about the balance between hard work and excess. Jenny is a great relatable character for this idea: she's a dreamer trapped in a boring life in which she can't even listen to French music. Her life is completely hard work. But, she doesn't completely dislike it. She's eager to answer questions in class, and likes learning French.
David is Jenny's wish fulfilled, like Oz is for Dorothy in "Wizard of Oz." He whisks her away to a life of culture, art, and class. She gets to experience what she always wanted. So she starts to wonder, what is school good for, anyway? Why go to school if I can experience this by marrying David?
But David also comes with a lot of badness. In order to afford expensive things, he and his friend Danny steal paintings from old ladies' homes. They lie and cheat and steal. David is also married to another woman, and has romanced a lot of other girls like Jenny before. So Jenny can't have the luxurious life she wants for free.
What Jenny learns is that the life she wants is a balance of the two. She visits her schoolteacher, Ms. Stubbs, for help after David has left her. Ms. Stubbs is the embodiment of the armature, a projection of what Jenny could be one day. Ms. Stubbs works hard, but has a meaningful life. When Jenny visits her home, she comments that all the photos and images are lovely. And then she realizes that even though those decorations aren't real (they're merely copies and postcards), they're enough. That's when she understands. Her life doesn't need to be an excess of glamour. It just needs enough.
What this story does particularly well is use a lot of clones. Danny and Helen are like a "successful" version of David and Jenny. It's implied that Danny also has a wife and Helen knows it. Helen is beautiful, but also a bit of an idiot. They know things about art and music, but their lives aren't morally that good. When David leaves her, Jenny realizes just what kind of people they are, and that she almost became them.
Jenny's schoolgirl friends Hattie and Tina are clones of what Jenny could become if she only studied. The two are, to put it bluntly, boring. They don't have dreams like Jenny, they aren't beautiful like Jenny, and they aren't nearly as studious as her.
Then, as I've already said, Ms. Stubbs is also an impressive clone. She's kind of like the mentor figure, but she doesn't die partway through the story because she isn't present until she needs to be. She allows the viewer to understand what the armature is trying to say: a simple, balanced life is ideal.
I don't know if I'm explaining more than I need to here. All in all, this script is easier than most to understand because a lot of characters explicitly state their goals, and the plot is pretty straightforward. I would recommend it to those wanting to understand narrative tools without having to dig too deep.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Day 22: It's a Wonderful Life
Frances Goodrich, Albert Hackett, Jo Swerling, and Frank Capra, 1945ish
For this screenplay, I don't want to do my usual armature-and-7-steps format. Rather, there's something else I want to talk about.
Someone about this story bothers me. I don't think the lesson quite fixes the main character's problem. Let me explain. (if you don't want the plot of the movie to be spoiled, don't read this post.)
George Bailey spends the entire film wanting to get out of his small town. As a kid he wants to travel. As a young adult, he wants to go to college. After he gets married, he wants to Honeymoon in Europe. But things keep getting in the way, and George stays in his small town because he puts other people in need before himself. He is never able to leave. Eventually, this takes a toll on him. Just before the climax, George Bailey is frustrated with the world for keeping him from the life he wants, while many other people he knows get to follow their dreams. He is angry at everyone because life has been unfair to him. He is stuck.
This is resolved when the angel Clarence shows him a world where he never existed. Everything is drastically different. People he knows ended up in different places, his family business got shut down, the town has a different name. This frightens George, and he realizes that he really wants his life back. He wants the things he thought he didn't want. And when Clarence gives it back to him, he is grateful for all the people he knows and they all show their appreciation by helping him out of a big fix.
The lesson here seems to be "be grateful for your life and the connections you make, because it's better than you think." George doesn't want his life for, essentially, his whole life. But then it's taken from him, and he understands that he does want his life. So he learns the lesson.
This bothers me because it doesn't seem to quite add up. I sympathize greatly with George's inability to go find his dreams. His problem the whole film isn't that he doesn't want his life, or wishes he didn't exist. His problem is that he wants to do something greater. He wants to serve mankind by building cities and bridges, not live in a run-down old house and run a loan business. He's driven to suicide because he can't get this, and hasn't been able to get this for his whole life. So I feel like Clarence isn't fixing that problem, Clarence is fixing the suicidal problem. Clarence makes him want to stay alive, but Clarence doesn't give him the ability to leave town and see the world. George Bailey still does not get to leave.
To be fair, George is kept in town the whole film by his own morality. He doesn't leave because he feels a great sense of duty to the people who need his help, but he technically had a few opportunities to leave if he ignored those people. It could be argued that this means George really did want to stay in town the whole time, and Clarence just made him see that. But I disagree; I think George is simply a selfless, good person who genuinely wants to help people, more than he wants to help himself. But if that was the case, then wouldn't the ultimate reward be the granting of his selfish dreams? Because he is a good person, he finally gets to leave and travel, like he always wanted?
The reward ends up being "this place you're stuck in isn't too bad, look at all these people who love you! You should be satisfied with that!" And that's not a bad reward. It isn't a bad thing that George sees the value in his life. But it bothers me that he is stuck with his life and has no choice but to see value in it, instead of pursuing the life he really wants.
So I feel like the message here isn't as much "be grateful for your life" as it is "good ethics will not let you follow your dreams."
If anyone has any thoughts on this, please comment. Maybe I just don't value the things they used to value in the 40s, and back then something like staying at home and being happy was more important than following your dreams.
For this screenplay, I don't want to do my usual armature-and-7-steps format. Rather, there's something else I want to talk about.
Someone about this story bothers me. I don't think the lesson quite fixes the main character's problem. Let me explain. (if you don't want the plot of the movie to be spoiled, don't read this post.)
George Bailey spends the entire film wanting to get out of his small town. As a kid he wants to travel. As a young adult, he wants to go to college. After he gets married, he wants to Honeymoon in Europe. But things keep getting in the way, and George stays in his small town because he puts other people in need before himself. He is never able to leave. Eventually, this takes a toll on him. Just before the climax, George Bailey is frustrated with the world for keeping him from the life he wants, while many other people he knows get to follow their dreams. He is angry at everyone because life has been unfair to him. He is stuck.
This is resolved when the angel Clarence shows him a world where he never existed. Everything is drastically different. People he knows ended up in different places, his family business got shut down, the town has a different name. This frightens George, and he realizes that he really wants his life back. He wants the things he thought he didn't want. And when Clarence gives it back to him, he is grateful for all the people he knows and they all show their appreciation by helping him out of a big fix.
The lesson here seems to be "be grateful for your life and the connections you make, because it's better than you think." George doesn't want his life for, essentially, his whole life. But then it's taken from him, and he understands that he does want his life. So he learns the lesson.
This bothers me because it doesn't seem to quite add up. I sympathize greatly with George's inability to go find his dreams. His problem the whole film isn't that he doesn't want his life, or wishes he didn't exist. His problem is that he wants to do something greater. He wants to serve mankind by building cities and bridges, not live in a run-down old house and run a loan business. He's driven to suicide because he can't get this, and hasn't been able to get this for his whole life. So I feel like Clarence isn't fixing that problem, Clarence is fixing the suicidal problem. Clarence makes him want to stay alive, but Clarence doesn't give him the ability to leave town and see the world. George Bailey still does not get to leave.
To be fair, George is kept in town the whole film by his own morality. He doesn't leave because he feels a great sense of duty to the people who need his help, but he technically had a few opportunities to leave if he ignored those people. It could be argued that this means George really did want to stay in town the whole time, and Clarence just made him see that. But I disagree; I think George is simply a selfless, good person who genuinely wants to help people, more than he wants to help himself. But if that was the case, then wouldn't the ultimate reward be the granting of his selfish dreams? Because he is a good person, he finally gets to leave and travel, like he always wanted?
The reward ends up being "this place you're stuck in isn't too bad, look at all these people who love you! You should be satisfied with that!" And that's not a bad reward. It isn't a bad thing that George sees the value in his life. But it bothers me that he is stuck with his life and has no choice but to see value in it, instead of pursuing the life he really wants.
So I feel like the message here isn't as much "be grateful for your life" as it is "good ethics will not let you follow your dreams."
If anyone has any thoughts on this, please comment. Maybe I just don't value the things they used to value in the 40s, and back then something like staying at home and being happy was more important than following your dreams.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Day 21: Casablanca
Philip Epstein, Julius Epstein, and Howard Koch, 1942
Armature: something like, The world is greater than our lives alone.
7 steps:
1. Once upon a time Rick Blaine owned a bar in Casablanca.
2. And every day he looked out for his own interests and treated life and politics with neutrality.
3. Until one day, his old love Ilsa comes to the bar with her husband Victor, who is being tracked by the police.
4. Because of this, the two are unable to leave Casablanca.
5. Because of this Isla asks Rick for his help getting Victor on a plane out of there, while she will stay behind because she still loves Rick.
6. Until finally, Rick helps Ilsa and Victor escape on the plane to Lisbon.
7. And ever since that day Rick has fought for a greater cause than himself.
There are a couple things I want to discuss about this screenplay. I feel like they're worth discussing, seeing as Casablanca is often regarded as the greatest screenplay/movie of all time.
First, I expected this movie to be a love story. And, I suppose, it was. The plot seemed to be focused on Rick and Ilsa's romantic relationship in Paris. But that's not what this story is about. This is about Rick learning how to allow himself to help other people after being hurt by them. Rick is a contained, mysterious character who doesn't make friends or trust anyone. He chooses his words carefully. He keeps a neutral face at all times. But he does have a heart, as we see when Ilsa enters the picture. And he steadily learns to help other people over the course of the film. By the end, Rick is no longer thinking about himself. He even is ready to be all buddy-buddy with Renault.
So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'm surprised that everyone seems to remember Casablanca as a love story, when that really isn't the point. There needs to be powerful love involved to get Rick to open up again, but that love isn't what's important. What that love gets him to do is the important part.
Secondly, I'm impressed by how meticulous this script is. Everything is very well thought out. There are many moments that exist solely for the purpose of showing what kind of guy Rick is, but they fit in so smoothly with the plot that you can't even tell. There are a ton of named characters, and a lot of politics going on. Which means there's a lot of dialogue and filling-the-viewer-in-on-what's-happening. But it works, seamlessly. I wonder about the use of a narrator at the beginning, though. Perhaps there was just no other way to give that initial exposition.
Thirdly, I am not sure how I feel about the flashback scene. I tend to not be a fan of flashbacks in general, because I feel like they often serve as a cop-out. Oh, there's this thing the viewer doesn't know about; let's show them a flashback! Like that. But I think the reason there was a flashback was to get the viewer to understand how Rick feels about Ilsa. If he did something like talk about his experience and how he loved her, it would probably be not quite as effective or convincing. Especially since we've already seen Rick interact with a woman by now (Yvonne, his french admirer, who is really only there to show us a contrast against Rick's feelings towards Ilsa).
And finally... I am not actually moved by this script. I have respect for it. I am fascinated by it. But its message doesn't pierce me like some other screenplays have. Oh well, to each their own.
Armature: something like, The world is greater than our lives alone.
7 steps:
1. Once upon a time Rick Blaine owned a bar in Casablanca.
2. And every day he looked out for his own interests and treated life and politics with neutrality.
3. Until one day, his old love Ilsa comes to the bar with her husband Victor, who is being tracked by the police.
4. Because of this, the two are unable to leave Casablanca.
5. Because of this Isla asks Rick for his help getting Victor on a plane out of there, while she will stay behind because she still loves Rick.
6. Until finally, Rick helps Ilsa and Victor escape on the plane to Lisbon.
7. And ever since that day Rick has fought for a greater cause than himself.
There are a couple things I want to discuss about this screenplay. I feel like they're worth discussing, seeing as Casablanca is often regarded as the greatest screenplay/movie of all time.
First, I expected this movie to be a love story. And, I suppose, it was. The plot seemed to be focused on Rick and Ilsa's romantic relationship in Paris. But that's not what this story is about. This is about Rick learning how to allow himself to help other people after being hurt by them. Rick is a contained, mysterious character who doesn't make friends or trust anyone. He chooses his words carefully. He keeps a neutral face at all times. But he does have a heart, as we see when Ilsa enters the picture. And he steadily learns to help other people over the course of the film. By the end, Rick is no longer thinking about himself. He even is ready to be all buddy-buddy with Renault.
So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'm surprised that everyone seems to remember Casablanca as a love story, when that really isn't the point. There needs to be powerful love involved to get Rick to open up again, but that love isn't what's important. What that love gets him to do is the important part.
Secondly, I'm impressed by how meticulous this script is. Everything is very well thought out. There are many moments that exist solely for the purpose of showing what kind of guy Rick is, but they fit in so smoothly with the plot that you can't even tell. There are a ton of named characters, and a lot of politics going on. Which means there's a lot of dialogue and filling-the-viewer-in-on-what's-happening. But it works, seamlessly. I wonder about the use of a narrator at the beginning, though. Perhaps there was just no other way to give that initial exposition.
Thirdly, I am not sure how I feel about the flashback scene. I tend to not be a fan of flashbacks in general, because I feel like they often serve as a cop-out. Oh, there's this thing the viewer doesn't know about; let's show them a flashback! Like that. But I think the reason there was a flashback was to get the viewer to understand how Rick feels about Ilsa. If he did something like talk about his experience and how he loved her, it would probably be not quite as effective or convincing. Especially since we've already seen Rick interact with a woman by now (Yvonne, his french admirer, who is really only there to show us a contrast against Rick's feelings towards Ilsa).
And finally... I am not actually moved by this script. I have respect for it. I am fascinated by it. But its message doesn't pierce me like some other screenplays have. Oh well, to each their own.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Day 20: Kramer vs Kramer
Robert Benton, 1979
Armature: It takes courage to walk out on your husband and son. (To be fair I didn't figure this one out for myself, I learned it from Brian McDonald.)
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time, Ted Kramer was a hard-working businessman who had a wife and a son.
2. And every day he worked long hours at his job, while his wife Joanna took care of their son Billy.
3. Until one day, Joanna leaves Ted and Billy.
4. Because of this Ted learns how to be a dependable parent for Billy.
5. Because of this Joanna returns and wins a custody trial to take Billy back.
6. Until finally, Joanna understands what she really wants and lets Ted keep Billy.
7. And ever since that day, Ted and Billy have lived together happily in New York, along with all the other families out there.
This screenplay really moved me. Its story is really simple, but it tells some incredible emotional truths. I am a young adult, who doesn't plan on becoming a parent for a long awhile. But this script made me understand what parenting and divorce are like. And it made me feel what it's like to love a child. The fact that this screenplay could make me feel that is incredible.
Some of the camerawork is pretty well done, too. My favorite is the final shot, which has Ted and Billy running through a park, happy to be alive. And then the camera pulls back and you see all the other parents and children at the park. I think what this shot is saying is we are all the same. Then the film ends, with that impression of humanity.
That's why this film movies me! That's it. It teaches about humanity. It accurately and honestly portrays humanity, and doesn't sugarcoat anything.
I am also really touched by the character of Joanna. Both Ted and Joanna are the characters of change in this script, even though Ted is portrayed more as the protagonist. Joanna feels the weight of marriage and motherhood on her shoulders, and she digs down deep inside her and finally comes to the conclusion that she doesn't want it, even though it hurts her to admit it. I am astounded by the maturity in her, to be able to see that in herself. Even though she ultimately did not end up with her child, I feel like the viewer can learn more about life from Joanna than from Ted.
Ending thoughts: my god, this was freaking good.
Armature: It takes courage to walk out on your husband and son. (To be fair I didn't figure this one out for myself, I learned it from Brian McDonald.)
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time, Ted Kramer was a hard-working businessman who had a wife and a son.
2. And every day he worked long hours at his job, while his wife Joanna took care of their son Billy.
3. Until one day, Joanna leaves Ted and Billy.
4. Because of this Ted learns how to be a dependable parent for Billy.
5. Because of this Joanna returns and wins a custody trial to take Billy back.
6. Until finally, Joanna understands what she really wants and lets Ted keep Billy.
7. And ever since that day, Ted and Billy have lived together happily in New York, along with all the other families out there.
This screenplay really moved me. Its story is really simple, but it tells some incredible emotional truths. I am a young adult, who doesn't plan on becoming a parent for a long awhile. But this script made me understand what parenting and divorce are like. And it made me feel what it's like to love a child. The fact that this screenplay could make me feel that is incredible.
Some of the camerawork is pretty well done, too. My favorite is the final shot, which has Ted and Billy running through a park, happy to be alive. And then the camera pulls back and you see all the other parents and children at the park. I think what this shot is saying is we are all the same. Then the film ends, with that impression of humanity.
That's why this film movies me! That's it. It teaches about humanity. It accurately and honestly portrays humanity, and doesn't sugarcoat anything.
I am also really touched by the character of Joanna. Both Ted and Joanna are the characters of change in this script, even though Ted is portrayed more as the protagonist. Joanna feels the weight of marriage and motherhood on her shoulders, and she digs down deep inside her and finally comes to the conclusion that she doesn't want it, even though it hurts her to admit it. I am astounded by the maturity in her, to be able to see that in herself. Even though she ultimately did not end up with her child, I feel like the viewer can learn more about life from Joanna than from Ted.
Ending thoughts: my god, this was freaking good.
Day 19: The Wizard of Oz
Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson, and Edgar Allen Woolf, 1939
Armature: We all are searching for something we already have. Or, we must appreciate the things we have. Or, the things we want are in our own backyards.
7 STEPS GO:
1. Once upon a time Dorothy lived on a farm in Kansas with her family and her dog Toto.
2. And every day Dorothy was not listened to or appreciated by the people she lived with, and she wanted to run away.
3. Until one day, Dorothy is whisked away to the land of Oz, where she is told to find the Wizard in the Emerald City if she wants to find her way home.
4. Because of this, on her travels Dorothy meets a Scarecrow, a Lion, and a Tin Man who also want to see the Wizard.
5. Because of this the Wicked Witch of the West kidnaps Dorothy, but she is saved by the Scarecrow/Lion/Tin Man.
6. Until finally they reach the Wizard, who helps them find the qualities in themselves they are looking for. Dorothy goes home.
7. And ever since that day, Dorothy has appreciated her home as what she wanted all along.
What I realized while reading this screenplay was just how much of it is not that meaningful. What I mean is that this story has been so cherished and idolized and classicized that everything about it seems "special" in the media these days. Dorothy's red slippers? BEAUTIFUL! INNOCENCE! The Wicked Witch? MISUNDERSTOOD! The land of Oz? HAS A TON OF MYTHOLOGY BEHIND IT! I mean, heck. I come from the state of Kansas. There are books and musicals written about this world.
But the thing is, not much of it is really *that* special. Rather, the things that people usually remember about this story are more of what I like to call "necessities of the plot." Perhaps it's true that L. Frank Baum originally wrote this story about the economic crisis in America or something, and all of the characters were originally symbols of socio-economic classes. Apparently the slippers were originally silver, and stood for the silver standard. There was a grande metaphor behind everything. But in the screenplay, the story is not about the economy. The story is about four people searching for things they already have. All the decoration on top is really just... decoration, that is merely there to enhance the story's point.
Let me give a specific example. Dorothy's red slippers have been hyped up so much in our culture that I thought they were supposed to symbolize something. I thought they were red because they stood for her heart, or something romantic like that. But really the slippers are just a plot device. Dorothy only has them to give the Wicked Witch a reason to want to kill her. The Wicked Witch only needs to want to kill her so that Dorothy can get kidnapped, and realize how much she really wants to be home. This also gives the Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow an opportunity to use their supposedly-missing skills of courage, heart, and intellect in order to rescue her. Dorothy doesn't even need the slippers to get home; she's able to do that by desiring it, once she learns that home is what she really desires. So all the hype about the red slippers? There is nothing actually that significant about them. They only exist so that the witch's-castle-rescue-scene has a reason to exist. At least, that's what it seemed like to me.
This story is quite good. It's simple, it's elegant, and it's rather clever. But I think American culture has warped it in our minds a little bit, to cherish it for the wrong reasons. I don't think people love its message as much as they appreciate the dressing. Which is too bad.
Armature: We all are searching for something we already have. Or, we must appreciate the things we have. Or, the things we want are in our own backyards.
7 STEPS GO:
1. Once upon a time Dorothy lived on a farm in Kansas with her family and her dog Toto.
2. And every day Dorothy was not listened to or appreciated by the people she lived with, and she wanted to run away.
3. Until one day, Dorothy is whisked away to the land of Oz, where she is told to find the Wizard in the Emerald City if she wants to find her way home.
4. Because of this, on her travels Dorothy meets a Scarecrow, a Lion, and a Tin Man who also want to see the Wizard.
5. Because of this the Wicked Witch of the West kidnaps Dorothy, but she is saved by the Scarecrow/Lion/Tin Man.
6. Until finally they reach the Wizard, who helps them find the qualities in themselves they are looking for. Dorothy goes home.
7. And ever since that day, Dorothy has appreciated her home as what she wanted all along.
What I realized while reading this screenplay was just how much of it is not that meaningful. What I mean is that this story has been so cherished and idolized and classicized that everything about it seems "special" in the media these days. Dorothy's red slippers? BEAUTIFUL! INNOCENCE! The Wicked Witch? MISUNDERSTOOD! The land of Oz? HAS A TON OF MYTHOLOGY BEHIND IT! I mean, heck. I come from the state of Kansas. There are books and musicals written about this world.
But the thing is, not much of it is really *that* special. Rather, the things that people usually remember about this story are more of what I like to call "necessities of the plot." Perhaps it's true that L. Frank Baum originally wrote this story about the economic crisis in America or something, and all of the characters were originally symbols of socio-economic classes. Apparently the slippers were originally silver, and stood for the silver standard. There was a grande metaphor behind everything. But in the screenplay, the story is not about the economy. The story is about four people searching for things they already have. All the decoration on top is really just... decoration, that is merely there to enhance the story's point.
Let me give a specific example. Dorothy's red slippers have been hyped up so much in our culture that I thought they were supposed to symbolize something. I thought they were red because they stood for her heart, or something romantic like that. But really the slippers are just a plot device. Dorothy only has them to give the Wicked Witch a reason to want to kill her. The Wicked Witch only needs to want to kill her so that Dorothy can get kidnapped, and realize how much she really wants to be home. This also gives the Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow an opportunity to use their supposedly-missing skills of courage, heart, and intellect in order to rescue her. Dorothy doesn't even need the slippers to get home; she's able to do that by desiring it, once she learns that home is what she really desires. So all the hype about the red slippers? There is nothing actually that significant about them. They only exist so that the witch's-castle-rescue-scene has a reason to exist. At least, that's what it seemed like to me.
This story is quite good. It's simple, it's elegant, and it's rather clever. But I think American culture has warped it in our minds a little bit, to cherish it for the wrong reasons. I don't think people love its message as much as they appreciate the dressing. Which is too bad.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Day 18: Tootsie
Larry Gelbart, 1982
Well. This is another one of those screenplays. I knew going into this one that it was gonna be hella good, which means I scrutinized every scene to try to understand its significance. There are some things I don't quite understand. There are some things I appreciate. Overall, I can tell that this is a very meticulously-crafted screenplay. But I can't completely learn from it after reading it just once. It isn't quite as straightforward as something like No Country for Old Men. Like Sunset Boulevard, I need to sit on this one and then see the movie and then sit on it some more and then reread the screenplay. And I don't want to judge it until then.
Still, I figured I should at least make a blog post that I read it, if only just to keep track.
I wonder if the mark of a good screenplay is that it makes me think? That I don't completely understand it the first time? Or I wonder if that's not a very good sign, and that means the writer wasn't as clear as he could be. Maybe I just have to be in the right mood to "get" everything.
Well. This is another one of those screenplays. I knew going into this one that it was gonna be hella good, which means I scrutinized every scene to try to understand its significance. There are some things I don't quite understand. There are some things I appreciate. Overall, I can tell that this is a very meticulously-crafted screenplay. But I can't completely learn from it after reading it just once. It isn't quite as straightforward as something like No Country for Old Men. Like Sunset Boulevard, I need to sit on this one and then see the movie and then sit on it some more and then reread the screenplay. And I don't want to judge it until then.
Still, I figured I should at least make a blog post that I read it, if only just to keep track.
I wonder if the mark of a good screenplay is that it makes me think? That I don't completely understand it the first time? Or I wonder if that's not a very good sign, and that means the writer wasn't as clear as he could be. Maybe I just have to be in the right mood to "get" everything.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Day 17: Sunset Boulevard
I haven't been marking any spoilers on this blog because I think to do so would just be silly. The whole point is to analyze things in order to learn, and I'm really more concerned about understanding what a story has to say than hiding the ending. Nobody has commented or anything, but if you're the kind of person who doesn't like to know the ending to any story and you also happen to be reading this blog, too darn bad.
Armature: Substance is more important than style. Or, a poor life of value is better than an empty rich life.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time, Joe Gillis was a poor screenwriter who was desperately trying to get a job by producing a lot of crappy scripts.
2. And every day Gillis tried to get a break or borrow money from people to avoid the repo men.
3. Until one day, Gillis escapes the repo men by hiding out in the old mansion of Norma Desmond, an actress who clings to her days as a big star, and is forced to stay there.
4. And because of this Norma falls in love with him, and Gillis stays with her because he pities her and doesn't want to crush her false reality.
5. Because of this Gillis starts meeting up with Betty Schaefer, another writer, and the two meet up in secret to work on a potentially really good screenplay. Betty also falls in love with him.
6. Until finally Gillis tries to leave Norma's mansion to go live a more meaningful life, but is shot and killed before he can escape.
7. And ever since that day Norma has continued to believe she is a big star, though cameras only look at her because she is a murderer.
This movie is pretty good. Everything exists for a reason, all the fat is trimmed, things happen that support the armature. Things happen within the boundaries. The conflict is exaggerated to make a point. It's all solid.
But I gotta admit, I'm not moved by this story. Perhaps it's because I've never been exposed to the Hollywood world in a career sort of way, or perhaps it's because I already value the armature and so didn't feel like I learned anything from it. I can tell that it's saying something important. But at the end of the script, I didn't feel anything.
I'm not sure what else to say here. If anyone wants to read more on what's cool about this story, Brian McDonald can explain better than me. For now, I'll shelf this screenplay as one that I don't completely understand and will try to re-read later.
Sunset Boulevard
Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder, and D.M. Marshman Jr, 1949Armature: Substance is more important than style. Or, a poor life of value is better than an empty rich life.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time, Joe Gillis was a poor screenwriter who was desperately trying to get a job by producing a lot of crappy scripts.
2. And every day Gillis tried to get a break or borrow money from people to avoid the repo men.
3. Until one day, Gillis escapes the repo men by hiding out in the old mansion of Norma Desmond, an actress who clings to her days as a big star, and is forced to stay there.
4. And because of this Norma falls in love with him, and Gillis stays with her because he pities her and doesn't want to crush her false reality.
5. Because of this Gillis starts meeting up with Betty Schaefer, another writer, and the two meet up in secret to work on a potentially really good screenplay. Betty also falls in love with him.
6. Until finally Gillis tries to leave Norma's mansion to go live a more meaningful life, but is shot and killed before he can escape.
7. And ever since that day Norma has continued to believe she is a big star, though cameras only look at her because she is a murderer.
This movie is pretty good. Everything exists for a reason, all the fat is trimmed, things happen that support the armature. Things happen within the boundaries. The conflict is exaggerated to make a point. It's all solid.
But I gotta admit, I'm not moved by this story. Perhaps it's because I've never been exposed to the Hollywood world in a career sort of way, or perhaps it's because I already value the armature and so didn't feel like I learned anything from it. I can tell that it's saying something important. But at the end of the script, I didn't feel anything.
I'm not sure what else to say here. If anyone wants to read more on what's cool about this story, Brian McDonald can explain better than me. For now, I'll shelf this screenplay as one that I don't completely understand and will try to re-read later.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Day 16: Rear Window
John Michael Hayes, 1953
From reading the Wikipedia article on this film, I think it's historically significant. It seems like this was the first film to explore the ideas of voyeurism and suspecting your neighbors. So that's pretty neat.
I feel similarly about these movie as I feel about Psycho. Like, I feel like it's culturally significant, but reading it now, it doesn't seem... that great? Or very new?
To be honest, finishing this screenplay didn't really make me feel anything. I didn't feel amazed, or amused, or touched, or even bored. I just felt impartial. It certainly wasn't a bad screenplay, but it didn't wow me.
So I'm not going to write an extensive review or analysis until I can appreciate it more, because I really feel like I should. Maybe I'll try watching it, or reading it again sometime. Maybe I'll ask a film student for help.
From reading the Wikipedia article on this film, I think it's historically significant. It seems like this was the first film to explore the ideas of voyeurism and suspecting your neighbors. So that's pretty neat.
I feel similarly about these movie as I feel about Psycho. Like, I feel like it's culturally significant, but reading it now, it doesn't seem... that great? Or very new?
To be honest, finishing this screenplay didn't really make me feel anything. I didn't feel amazed, or amused, or touched, or even bored. I just felt impartial. It certainly wasn't a bad screenplay, but it didn't wow me.
So I'm not going to write an extensive review or analysis until I can appreciate it more, because I really feel like I should. Maybe I'll try watching it, or reading it again sometime. Maybe I'll ask a film student for help.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Day 15: No Country For Old Men
Joel and Ethan Coen, 2006
Armature: The world has a harshness that can't be stopped. Or, there will never stop being savagery in the world.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time Sheriff Bell wanted to hold off the evils of the world, so he became a Sheriff at the young age of 25.
2. And every day, he dealt with terrible crimes that seemed to have no point.
3. Until one day, the man Llewelyn Moss stumbles across an abandoned murder site and steals a case full of $2 million.
4. Because of this, Anton Chigurh hunts him down and finds him. Sheriff Bell, meanwhile, investigates it all.
5. Because of this Moss tries to run, but is inevitably killed.
6. Until finally, Chigurh kills Moss' wife because he once said he would.
7. And ever since that day, Sheriff Bell has retired.
This is quite the pessimistic screenplay. It moves me because it's terrible. It's rock-hard and serious and terrible, and makes me fear mankind a little. But I will say some things about it, because the fact that it makes me feel that way means it has done its job.
The Coen brothers really know how to tell a story visually. Most of this movie is not dialogue. The Coens have incredible control over what shots they want, and they describe almost every shot in the screenplay. They only include shots that are absolutely necessary. They recognize that the audience is smart, and can put 2 and 2 together. A lot of writers/directors do not have that much trust in the audience's abilities. The plot is also really quite straightforward, so there is nothing complex that needs to be explained through dialogue.
The Coen brothers understand that a complex story is not what makes a story powerful. The plot of this film is pretty simple and straightforward, but the audience is on edge the entire time. Nothing is skipped over, and nobody is giving long exposition speeches. Everything that must be shown is shown, and that is plenty.
This is how you make something simple into something powerful.
I also love just the format of this film in general. The main character is not Llewelyn Moss, it is Sheriff Bell. We hear a voice-over from Bell at the beginning to establish the beginning of his tale. The chase between Moss and Chigurh is the meat of the plot, but it is only significant because it is means something to Bell. When Moss dies, it's okay. We are affected by it, and maybe even surprised, but we aren't sad about it. Because Moss isn't the main character, and neither is his wife.
Perhaps a better way to phrase it: Moss is not the character of change. We don't even get resolution with what happens to Chigurh, because the justice of what happens to him isn't the story's point. Chirgurh is more of a tool to demonstrate Bell's fears about the cruelty of the world that he cannot hold at bay.
I wonder why the Coens chose to write a story about this.
Armature: The world has a harshness that can't be stopped. Or, there will never stop being savagery in the world.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time Sheriff Bell wanted to hold off the evils of the world, so he became a Sheriff at the young age of 25.
2. And every day, he dealt with terrible crimes that seemed to have no point.
3. Until one day, the man Llewelyn Moss stumbles across an abandoned murder site and steals a case full of $2 million.
4. Because of this, Anton Chigurh hunts him down and finds him. Sheriff Bell, meanwhile, investigates it all.
5. Because of this Moss tries to run, but is inevitably killed.
6. Until finally, Chigurh kills Moss' wife because he once said he would.
7. And ever since that day, Sheriff Bell has retired.
This is quite the pessimistic screenplay. It moves me because it's terrible. It's rock-hard and serious and terrible, and makes me fear mankind a little. But I will say some things about it, because the fact that it makes me feel that way means it has done its job.
The Coen brothers really know how to tell a story visually. Most of this movie is not dialogue. The Coens have incredible control over what shots they want, and they describe almost every shot in the screenplay. They only include shots that are absolutely necessary. They recognize that the audience is smart, and can put 2 and 2 together. A lot of writers/directors do not have that much trust in the audience's abilities. The plot is also really quite straightforward, so there is nothing complex that needs to be explained through dialogue.
The Coen brothers understand that a complex story is not what makes a story powerful. The plot of this film is pretty simple and straightforward, but the audience is on edge the entire time. Nothing is skipped over, and nobody is giving long exposition speeches. Everything that must be shown is shown, and that is plenty.
This is how you make something simple into something powerful.
I also love just the format of this film in general. The main character is not Llewelyn Moss, it is Sheriff Bell. We hear a voice-over from Bell at the beginning to establish the beginning of his tale. The chase between Moss and Chigurh is the meat of the plot, but it is only significant because it is means something to Bell. When Moss dies, it's okay. We are affected by it, and maybe even surprised, but we aren't sad about it. Because Moss isn't the main character, and neither is his wife.
Perhaps a better way to phrase it: Moss is not the character of change. We don't even get resolution with what happens to Chigurh, because the justice of what happens to him isn't the story's point. Chirgurh is more of a tool to demonstrate Bell's fears about the cruelty of the world that he cannot hold at bay.
I wonder why the Coens chose to write a story about this.
Day 14: Forrest Gump
I have never seen this movie before. I actually knew very little about it, up until a few hours ago. I knew that it was a classic, and that Forrest does a lot of running. So I wasn't prepared for what this script was going to tell me, and it caught me off-guard and moved me. A lot.
Armature (Just ripping this right out of the script, because I can't say it better than Forrest): I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe it's both.
Several things happen in the script that support this armature. There are two characters who each express their opposing opinions on destiny, and several events happen that seem to support each opinion. But what gets me most about this armature is the meta way that the script demonstrates it.
This script begins with a feather that floats around and lands on Forrest's shoe. I thought it was a really great opening shot, because it set the viewer up for a story about a man who wanders all over through life. But at the end, Forrest tosses aside the feather and it floats away, and the camera follows it. This strongly implies that we, the viewers, have been following the feather through the whole story, not Forrest. We began with the feather, and we listened to Forrest's life story as he told it because we were still with him. But when he lets the feather go, we leave Forrest with the feather.
We are the feather. This story is about us, not about Forrest.
And this armature applies directly to us. Forrest has a beautiful life story, but in the end, he's just one more person we encounter as we float through our own lives. We find Forrest, spend some time with him, and then leave him. Just like Forrest found and left all those things he encountered in his life.
This means that the movie is going one step beyond what a lot of movies do. It is my belief that a good movie (or just a good story in general) tells you something meaningful about your life. You learn from the movie by connecting with the characters, and you (as a viewer) learn something by watching the characters change and grow. But this film takes it further. Forrest Gump is directly reaching out to us, the audience, and applying the lesson to our own lives.
This explains the entire format of the movie. Most of it is Forrest narrating his life as people listen to him on a bus stop bench. Why would this be the format? Why does Forrest need to narrate everything, when we could just as easily see it for ourselves? Why do people keep listening to him? These scenes are including us, the audience, as listeners in his story. We, as the feather, are also watching him as he talks, and listening to what he has to say. Just like if we were to meet him in person. Those people who miss their buses to hear his story are just like us as we watch the movie. But life goes on, and Forrest leaves his listeners as the bus stop, and leaves us when he shakes the feather away. And we leave him when the movie is over.
Heck, the title of the movie even supports this concept. "Forrest Gump" is the name of the man who tells us his story the whole time. It's like a label of someone you can talk to if you choose to drift by him, like labeling the coffee shop or the street you're on. As if to say, "In these two hours, your life will pass by Forrest Gump." The title is not something creative and meaningful, it's just a label.
The more I think about this screenplay, the more I respect it. I strongly believe that a powerful story is best told by just saying what you mean to say, and letting style follow. This movie does just that. A counter example would be something like Moonrise Kingdom, which has more focus on style.
One of my favorite quotes is from Brian McDonald's book "The Golden Theme": "Art is not to show people who you are, it is to show people who they are. If the artist digs down deep inside, finds the deepest part of himself, and exposes it to the world, the artist will disappear and the audience will only see themselves." I think Forrest Gump proves this quote exceptionally.
Armature (Just ripping this right out of the script, because I can't say it better than Forrest): I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe it's both.
Several things happen in the script that support this armature. There are two characters who each express their opposing opinions on destiny, and several events happen that seem to support each opinion. But what gets me most about this armature is the meta way that the script demonstrates it.
This script begins with a feather that floats around and lands on Forrest's shoe. I thought it was a really great opening shot, because it set the viewer up for a story about a man who wanders all over through life. But at the end, Forrest tosses aside the feather and it floats away, and the camera follows it. This strongly implies that we, the viewers, have been following the feather through the whole story, not Forrest. We began with the feather, and we listened to Forrest's life story as he told it because we were still with him. But when he lets the feather go, we leave Forrest with the feather.
We are the feather. This story is about us, not about Forrest.
And this armature applies directly to us. Forrest has a beautiful life story, but in the end, he's just one more person we encounter as we float through our own lives. We find Forrest, spend some time with him, and then leave him. Just like Forrest found and left all those things he encountered in his life.
This means that the movie is going one step beyond what a lot of movies do. It is my belief that a good movie (or just a good story in general) tells you something meaningful about your life. You learn from the movie by connecting with the characters, and you (as a viewer) learn something by watching the characters change and grow. But this film takes it further. Forrest Gump is directly reaching out to us, the audience, and applying the lesson to our own lives.
This explains the entire format of the movie. Most of it is Forrest narrating his life as people listen to him on a bus stop bench. Why would this be the format? Why does Forrest need to narrate everything, when we could just as easily see it for ourselves? Why do people keep listening to him? These scenes are including us, the audience, as listeners in his story. We, as the feather, are also watching him as he talks, and listening to what he has to say. Just like if we were to meet him in person. Those people who miss their buses to hear his story are just like us as we watch the movie. But life goes on, and Forrest leaves his listeners as the bus stop, and leaves us when he shakes the feather away. And we leave him when the movie is over.
Heck, the title of the movie even supports this concept. "Forrest Gump" is the name of the man who tells us his story the whole time. It's like a label of someone you can talk to if you choose to drift by him, like labeling the coffee shop or the street you're on. As if to say, "In these two hours, your life will pass by Forrest Gump." The title is not something creative and meaningful, it's just a label.
The more I think about this screenplay, the more I respect it. I strongly believe that a powerful story is best told by just saying what you mean to say, and letting style follow. This movie does just that. A counter example would be something like Moonrise Kingdom, which has more focus on style.
One of my favorite quotes is from Brian McDonald's book "The Golden Theme": "Art is not to show people who you are, it is to show people who they are. If the artist digs down deep inside, finds the deepest part of himself, and exposes it to the world, the artist will disappear and the audience will only see themselves." I think Forrest Gump proves this quote exceptionally.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Day 13: The Big Lebowski
The Coen brothers, undated
I feel a little foolish admitting this, but I honestly have no idea what I just read. This script seemed to have no point whatsoever. I don't actually know what was the primary conflict, and what was the climax, and why it resolved the way it did.
Was it a Dude vs. Walter thing? Why did Donny die? Why was there that crazy fight with the Germans? Why was the narrator even a character at all? I don't... I don't understand.
The wikipedia page had a quote from Joel Coen that this movie "has a hopelessly complex plot that's ultimately unimportant." So does that mean the plot didn't even matter? What was the point of this movie? Was it about the Dude's journey of... becoming more... something?
Maybe I need to see it to understand it. Someone please help me out here. I am so confused.
I feel a little foolish admitting this, but I honestly have no idea what I just read. This script seemed to have no point whatsoever. I don't actually know what was the primary conflict, and what was the climax, and why it resolved the way it did.
Was it a Dude vs. Walter thing? Why did Donny die? Why was there that crazy fight with the Germans? Why was the narrator even a character at all? I don't... I don't understand.
The wikipedia page had a quote from Joel Coen that this movie "has a hopelessly complex plot that's ultimately unimportant." So does that mean the plot didn't even matter? What was the point of this movie? Was it about the Dude's journey of... becoming more... something?
Maybe I need to see it to understand it. Someone please help me out here. I am so confused.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Day 12: ParaNorman
Chris Butler, no date given
What I love about animated movies is how they can tell a powerful message through an exaggerated situation. Movies shot with actors are reaching that point, with CG and everything nowadays. But the medium of animation allows for just about any kind of special effect, or any kind of strange world. ParaNorman is animated because it can tell its simple message under the dressing of some beautiful effects and a wonderful visual style.
Armature: Sometimes when people get scared they say and do terrible things. (Norman literally states this in the climax.)
7 steps:
1. Once upon a time, 11-year-old Norman could speak to ghosts.
2. And every day he was picked on by people at school, and even by his own family.
3. Until one day, the witch who was buried in the town long ago wakes up (along with all the zombies buried with her), and Norman is told by his mysterious uncle that he is the only one who can put her back to sleep.
4. Because of this, Norman and a few others (who don't really understand what's going on) go to the town hall to find out where the witch was buried, while the town forms an angry mob to fend off the zombies.
5. Because of this, Norman receives a vision and understands that the zombies need Norman's help to stop the witch.
6. Until finally Norman goes to the witch's grave, and instead of putting her back to sleep for a hundred years he talks to her and puts her to rest for good.
7. And ever since that day, Norman's family has been more understanding of him.
I'm a bit fascinated by this story because the main character is not actually the character of change. The characters of change are actually everybody except Norman. The antagonist changes when Norman gives her understanding instead of fear. The townspeople change when Norman finally gets them to listen to the zombies' plight. Norman himself is more like the embodiment of a solution to the armature. Norman is like the wise sage who teaches his wisdom to others through his actions.
But Norman is only 11 years old. Isn't that interesting?
Also, the people in this movie are not portrayed very well. They are all characterized by their fakeness, their vanity, their impatience, their selfishness. And once Norman solves everything and they being to understand, the townsfolk still do not admit their own fault. The people are ugly and imperfect. But Norman does not feel he needs to make everyone better people, he just wants to make them listen and understand. In fact, he accepts that others are mean and cruel. But he knows that doesn't mean he should be the same way. Thinking about it this way, this film is actually quite the impressive critique on our society.
I wish I could say more good things about this movie, but it really just explains itself quite well. ParaNorman is exceptionally well written and I wish more people would see it. It has some powerful lessons worth learning.
What I love about animated movies is how they can tell a powerful message through an exaggerated situation. Movies shot with actors are reaching that point, with CG and everything nowadays. But the medium of animation allows for just about any kind of special effect, or any kind of strange world. ParaNorman is animated because it can tell its simple message under the dressing of some beautiful effects and a wonderful visual style.
Armature: Sometimes when people get scared they say and do terrible things. (Norman literally states this in the climax.)
7 steps:
1. Once upon a time, 11-year-old Norman could speak to ghosts.
2. And every day he was picked on by people at school, and even by his own family.
3. Until one day, the witch who was buried in the town long ago wakes up (along with all the zombies buried with her), and Norman is told by his mysterious uncle that he is the only one who can put her back to sleep.
4. Because of this, Norman and a few others (who don't really understand what's going on) go to the town hall to find out where the witch was buried, while the town forms an angry mob to fend off the zombies.
5. Because of this, Norman receives a vision and understands that the zombies need Norman's help to stop the witch.
6. Until finally Norman goes to the witch's grave, and instead of putting her back to sleep for a hundred years he talks to her and puts her to rest for good.
7. And ever since that day, Norman's family has been more understanding of him.
I'm a bit fascinated by this story because the main character is not actually the character of change. The characters of change are actually everybody except Norman. The antagonist changes when Norman gives her understanding instead of fear. The townspeople change when Norman finally gets them to listen to the zombies' plight. Norman himself is more like the embodiment of a solution to the armature. Norman is like the wise sage who teaches his wisdom to others through his actions.
But Norman is only 11 years old. Isn't that interesting?
Also, the people in this movie are not portrayed very well. They are all characterized by their fakeness, their vanity, their impatience, their selfishness. And once Norman solves everything and they being to understand, the townsfolk still do not admit their own fault. The people are ugly and imperfect. But Norman does not feel he needs to make everyone better people, he just wants to make them listen and understand. In fact, he accepts that others are mean and cruel. But he knows that doesn't mean he should be the same way. Thinking about it this way, this film is actually quite the impressive critique on our society.
I wish I could say more good things about this movie, but it really just explains itself quite well. ParaNorman is exceptionally well written and I wish more people would see it. It has some powerful lessons worth learning.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Day 11: Sideways
Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, 2003
I am not sure how to feel about this one. I just finished it a few minutes ago and I feel like I really need to think about it.
It must be infinitely easier to understand a movie when you're watching it, instead of reading it. Because I know there has to be something awesome about this screenplay, because it's number 90 on the list of top 101 screenplays of all time. It's listed higher than "Grapes of Wrath," which I loved. Something about watching a movie allows you to keep track of events better than reading, because it's easy to zone out while reading. Or maybe I'm just making up excuses.
Why am I not sure how to feel about it?
Well, it's a comedy movie. A few events happen that would probably be funny to see, but everything seems serious when you read it (in my opinion, at least). So I can't tell if what parts were supposed to be funny and what was dramatic. Secondly, I can tell that the writers really knew what they were doing. There are some really good moments. A few shots are composed really well, and the visual metaphor of the main character's anxiety being like tightrope-walking is pretty smart.
But, you see, I'm not completely sure what it's about. I think it's saying something like "seize life" or "don't let the good things pass you by," but I really am not sure. I know Miles was the main character, going through some kind of change involving seizing the day. But I don't really know why Jack was a character, or what his purpose was. I think he was to show contrast to Miles and convince Miles to do some stuff, but overall he seemed to be kind of insensitive to Miles' troubles. So what purpose did he serve?
I... don't know. I think I need to read this script again, or see the movie or something, so I can understand it better. I just feel.. puzzled.
I am not sure how to feel about this one. I just finished it a few minutes ago and I feel like I really need to think about it.
It must be infinitely easier to understand a movie when you're watching it, instead of reading it. Because I know there has to be something awesome about this screenplay, because it's number 90 on the list of top 101 screenplays of all time. It's listed higher than "Grapes of Wrath," which I loved. Something about watching a movie allows you to keep track of events better than reading, because it's easy to zone out while reading. Or maybe I'm just making up excuses.
Why am I not sure how to feel about it?
Well, it's a comedy movie. A few events happen that would probably be funny to see, but everything seems serious when you read it (in my opinion, at least). So I can't tell if what parts were supposed to be funny and what was dramatic. Secondly, I can tell that the writers really knew what they were doing. There are some really good moments. A few shots are composed really well, and the visual metaphor of the main character's anxiety being like tightrope-walking is pretty smart.
But, you see, I'm not completely sure what it's about. I think it's saying something like "seize life" or "don't let the good things pass you by," but I really am not sure. I know Miles was the main character, going through some kind of change involving seizing the day. But I don't really know why Jack was a character, or what his purpose was. I think he was to show contrast to Miles and convince Miles to do some stuff, but overall he seemed to be kind of insensitive to Miles' troubles. So what purpose did he serve?
I... don't know. I think I need to read this script again, or see the movie or something, so I can understand it better. I just feel.. puzzled.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Day 10: Paper Moon
Alvin Sargent, 1972
You guys. I can't. I just finished this script a minute ago and oh god it is so good, it makes me tear up. I just. Ahh it is so good. Brian McDonald recommended this one, and I am so glad I finally read it. I'd really like to see it in movie form, too.
Armature: Family comes from relationships, not necessarily blood.
Before I try applying the 7 steps, I first want to mention what I love about this script. It is just so simple. The story is simple: a young girl spends some time with her maybe-father and, after a series of events that bond them together, chooses him as her family over her stranger blood relatives. There really isn't much to it. Moze and Addie dislike each other in the beginning, but steadily help each other out and, by the end, come to need each other.
This simplicity is what's so beautiful. There is nothing extraneous in this story. No time is spent on Addie's pre-Moze life, because it doesn't matter. There is no explanation of what the two of them do after the climax, because it doesn't matter. We never even find out if Moze is actually Addie's father, because it doesn't matter. Only the plot points that bring the two closer are included, because those make the story.
The problem with a lot of movies nowadays is that they feel they must be complex to be good. I strongly disagree with this idea. Simplicity and precision gets the armature across better, and thus makes a more satisfying movie. Paper Moon proves that.
This script is also brilliant at precision in visual storytelling. So many ideas get across without any speech. All of the reasoning behind Moze and Addie's con schemes are explained visually. The bible-selling sequence is the best example of this. That kind of precision takes a lot of skill to construct.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time, the con man Moze Pray is stuck transporting his potential daughter Addie to her nearest blood relatives after her mother dies.
2. And every day Moze makes money by conning people, trying to make enough to pay back Addie.
3. Until one day, Addie helps Moze in his cons and helps make them more money.
4. Because of this, Addie helps Moze in business and keeps him from losing all his money to a gold digger.
5. Because of this Moze and Addie get in over their heads with the law and lose everything.
6. Until finally, Moze takes Addie to her welcoming blood aunt, but Addie runs away and finds Moze again.
7. And ever since that day the two have stayed together as family.
As usual, I'm not sure how the 7 steps apply here. It's arguable that step 3 ("until one day") is actually when Moze gets initially stuck with Addie, or when Moze steals Addie's $200 and she calls him out on it. The reason I think that Addie helping Moze in his bible cons is step 3 is because that seems to be a major turning point in their story and relationship. That's the moment that their father-daughter relationship begins to build.
There doesn't actually seem to be a large act 1 in this movie. That's more of why I put that step 3 there. The exposition comes across pretty fast in the first scene, but the couple scenes after that (Moze trying to get money out of someone, Addie being stubborn about her $200) continue to establish some character traits. So perhaps those scenes could still be part of act 1.
Hmm. Well. I feel like placing exactly the right scene on each step is overall less important than understanding that the focus and precision in this script is what makes it really good.
You guys. I can't. I just finished this script a minute ago and oh god it is so good, it makes me tear up. I just. Ahh it is so good. Brian McDonald recommended this one, and I am so glad I finally read it. I'd really like to see it in movie form, too.
Armature: Family comes from relationships, not necessarily blood.
Before I try applying the 7 steps, I first want to mention what I love about this script. It is just so simple. The story is simple: a young girl spends some time with her maybe-father and, after a series of events that bond them together, chooses him as her family over her stranger blood relatives. There really isn't much to it. Moze and Addie dislike each other in the beginning, but steadily help each other out and, by the end, come to need each other.
This simplicity is what's so beautiful. There is nothing extraneous in this story. No time is spent on Addie's pre-Moze life, because it doesn't matter. There is no explanation of what the two of them do after the climax, because it doesn't matter. We never even find out if Moze is actually Addie's father, because it doesn't matter. Only the plot points that bring the two closer are included, because those make the story.
The problem with a lot of movies nowadays is that they feel they must be complex to be good. I strongly disagree with this idea. Simplicity and precision gets the armature across better, and thus makes a more satisfying movie. Paper Moon proves that.
This script is also brilliant at precision in visual storytelling. So many ideas get across without any speech. All of the reasoning behind Moze and Addie's con schemes are explained visually. The bible-selling sequence is the best example of this. That kind of precision takes a lot of skill to construct.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time, the con man Moze Pray is stuck transporting his potential daughter Addie to her nearest blood relatives after her mother dies.
2. And every day Moze makes money by conning people, trying to make enough to pay back Addie.
3. Until one day, Addie helps Moze in his cons and helps make them more money.
4. Because of this, Addie helps Moze in business and keeps him from losing all his money to a gold digger.
5. Because of this Moze and Addie get in over their heads with the law and lose everything.
6. Until finally, Moze takes Addie to her welcoming blood aunt, but Addie runs away and finds Moze again.
7. And ever since that day the two have stayed together as family.
As usual, I'm not sure how the 7 steps apply here. It's arguable that step 3 ("until one day") is actually when Moze gets initially stuck with Addie, or when Moze steals Addie's $200 and she calls him out on it. The reason I think that Addie helping Moze in his bible cons is step 3 is because that seems to be a major turning point in their story and relationship. That's the moment that their father-daughter relationship begins to build.
There doesn't actually seem to be a large act 1 in this movie. That's more of why I put that step 3 there. The exposition comes across pretty fast in the first scene, but the couple scenes after that (Moze trying to get money out of someone, Addie being stubborn about her $200) continue to establish some character traits. So perhaps those scenes could still be part of act 1.
Hmm. Well. I feel like placing exactly the right scene on each step is overall less important than understanding that the focus and precision in this script is what makes it really good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)