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.
Friday, July 19, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)