Brooklyn

via GIPHY

I saw Brooklyn. I enjoyed Brooklyn. Saoirse Ronan is fantastic. 

This film can do terrible damage to new screenwriters!

Of course, the new screenwriter doesn't see it this way. They see a movie that's getting near-unanimous love on Rotten Tomatoes, and say, "See! You CAN do a movie with a passive protagonist!"

Wow, is the protagonist, Eilis Lacey, passive in this movie! I don't think she makes a proactive choice in the whole film. 

Standard movie structure would have Eilis enter a new world that overwhelms and confuses her. But her drive for her big-want fuels her to eventually take on this new world on her own terms. The world changes her. She changes it back.

Brooklyn ain't having it.

So why does Brooklyn get away with dissing standard movie structure? Let's count the ways! With spoilers, you were warned!

1. It's based on a novel. In fact, not just a novel: A historical novel. That means your protagonist is coming to you double pre-baked as more passive. Novel protagonists are often more passive as they "report" the story more than live it. Historical protagonists are often more passive as they're composites of real human beings. 

2. In the original novel, Eilis does more proactive things, but those things are kind of awful, and had to be massaged for the film version! In the movie, she's thrown by the death of her sister back to Ireland, where everyone conspires to keep her there by giving her her sister's old job and setting her up with a rich guy. The life that wasn't there for her before presents itself, and she's torn by conflicting duty to her mother and her secret husband back in the states. It's all very relatable and understandable. But in the novel, it's not a rich guy who can help take care of her mother; it's the guy she wanted before she went to America! And she goes a lot further with him, driven by passion, not duty! She's a two-timer! And when her secret marriage is exposed, she returns to the states in a much more emotionally ambiguous place, rather than embracing the choice. You can square that circle in a big ol' book full of history. You can't make that Eilis in the movie. So the second half of the movie keeps Eilis reactive/passive in order to make her...ugh...likable.

3. There's historical baggage. With every choice Eilis makes, she's choosing by proxy America or Ireland. You can't have a GLOBAL film make those kind of choices! Better Eilis is unable to choose! They're both great! Global box office, step right up!

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying Brooklyn is a bad film with a flawed story. I'm saying that a new screenwriter is extremely unlikely to duplicate this success with such a passive protagonist without optioning a bestselling historical novel, and attaching heavy hitters like Saoirse Ronan. Look at those eyes. Her tears are a better special effect than all of the Transformers films combined.

Go see Brooklyn! 


via GIPHY

It's Clear That This Description Needs To Be Rewritten.

Ever read "it's clear" in a screenplay?

"From the look on her face, it's clear that she loves him more than anything or anyone in the world."

"It's clear that he he hates his boss."

"It's clear that he doesn't know how to swim."

I've read it in professional scripts, from writers I respect.

Don't do it.

I mean, do it in your vomit draft if that gets you through the scene, but when you're done, do a search, and cut that duct-tape wallet of a description line out, and write better.

I was just reading "The Martian" by Drew Goddard: Let's look at how he achieves a character's internal mental states--

Italicizing internal thoughts: Genius. I'm gonna start using that. It's just so clear!

This Movie Watching Tip Will Improve Your Writing And Ruin Movies Forever

You SAY you want to be a screenwriter. But are you willing to do what it takes? Are you willing to destroy the thing that made you want to be a screenwriter in the first place?

Read on and you will never be able to fully lose yourself in a movie again. You will become like Neo in the Matrix, transmogrifying your movie worlds into ones and zeros, the curtain lifted.

via GIPHY

Are you ready? Minor spoilers ahead, but what do they matter? They're in movies you'll no longer be able to lose yourself in, anyway.

Whenever you watch a movie, be on the look out for refusals, like when Neo refuses to jump off a ledge:

Guess what's going to happen in the movie later?

via GIPHY

Maybe the protagonist doesn't like snakes?

via GIPHY

You can count on a snake pit.

via GIPHY

Maybe the protagonist is an actor who HATES the catchphrase that made him rich and famous but makes him feel like a hack?

via GIPHY

This catchphrase WILL be spoken with gravitas.

Or perhaps the protagonist HATES androids?

That protagonist and android are going to save each other's lives.

These are more well known refusals and reversals. But refusals like this INFEST every movie you see. And they are like Chekov's gun: If they're shown in act one, you KNOW they're going off by act three with a reversal.

Why are refusal/reversals so common? Because film ignites our imagination and entrances us with the implied promise that our own lives can change in big ways in a matter of hours. We may be mere baristas today, but by tomorrow, we too may be emperors. The bigger the change in the movie, the more we believe in our emperor destiny. So movies don't show us two people who love each other, and by the end of the movie love each other a little bit more. They flip hate into love, fear into courage, pain into ecstasy.

And how does a visual medium establish the two opposite ends of a spectrum? Not through dialogue! We don't want to just hear someone define the spectrum, we want to see it through action. And that first action is the refusal.

So the next time you watch a movie on TV, have the pause button ready, and every time you see the protagonist refuse something--she won't apologize, he won't get drunk, it won't get on an airplane--stop the movie and ask yourself how they might reverse that refusal. You'll probably be able to predict act three with great accuracy, and from then on will never be able to lose yourself in the medium again. 

But on the plus side, you'll see opportunities in your own work to amplify your own characters that you may not have seen before. You're welcome!

Calling My Shot on Fargo Season 2

via GIPHY

First off, if you didn't know already, Fargo is the best non-HBO TV show since Breaking Bad. Please,  don't make me choose between Fargo and Game of Thrones.


via GIPHY

You know those scenes in other shows where you figure now is a good time to check your email? Fargo doesn't really do those scenes. Fargo let's you know from the get-go that it's got an ending coming that pays off countless plants, so pay attention, THIS IS NOT A SHOW TO WASH YOUR DISHES BY.

Hey, btw, SPOILERS ahead. To continue obvious statements, the following will be in English.

I could analyze any episode with sincere slow-clap praise, but I want to focus on one of the strangest plants of any TV show in recent memory. I'm talking about the UFO sightings: What the hell is this about? Right?

There's been much internet discussion about the UFO bit already--that it's based on a true story, that it's a reference to other works by the Coen Brothers, that it speaks to the paranoia of the time period.

But I want to call out where I think they're really going here. I think Betsy Solverson is going to be abducted by aliens.

Betsy was strangely absent from season one, and has cancer in the season two prequel, so the safe bet is that cancer kills her. Which is precisely how a clever show like Fargo sets up its fake outs. 

Of all the characters, Betsy is MADE for abduction. She's the angel too good for this world, whose absence haunts Lou and Molly with loss in season one. How did they deal with her death? How could they? 

I don't think they did. Either Betsy is abducted, or Lou convinces himself and Molly that she was abducted in order to lessen the pain of loss. If it's a fantasy, then I suspect her body is lost and never recovered, which makes me wonder if Betsy falls beneath the ice, perhaps in a suicide. 

I actually had this suspicion since episode 4, Fear and Trembling. But that suspicion has become a nagging one with episode 5, The Gift of the Magi, where Betsy sees a UFO in Molly's drawing.

Five more episodes to see if I'm right. Second prediction: Blood will be involved, moving in an inside-the-body-to-outside-the-body direction.

Project Greenlight Season 4: A Postmortem

I've only seen the first 15 minutes of The Leisure Class, but it doesn't bode well for Jason Mann's career. It was uncomfortable to watch such an unfunny shoveling of exposition: Scene after scene of contrived and redundant conversations to inform us that this is a world of money and political power. All without jokes. How does this happen?

Let's look back! Go watch all of season 4 first if you don't want to read SPOILERS.

First mistake: Jason throws out the script given to him and rushes his own script into production. How do I know this is a mistake without having read the first script? Because the first script was vetted without cameras. Certainly, no vetting process in Hollywood is going to be entirely about making the best film--egos and greed will compromise "perfection" every time--but at least that first script wasn't judged with the considerations of what makes a good episode of television. And if it was bad, HBO would own the mistake.  Jason would have served himself better to keep his objectivity about quality, and worked with the script given to him. Instead, he gave HBO the opportunity to shoot an amazing twist in their tv show, AND point the finger at Jason for the trainwreck! 

Second mistake: Jason insists on film! Wow. Just, wow. Skyfall was shot on digital. Michael Mann shoots all of his movies on digital. What the hell did Jason think he was making?? This is one of those self-destructive tendencies I've seen time and again in directors who put camera before story. They'll spend hours on a dolly shot because they want to feel like Scorcese, and wind up missing the story element that mattered. But, oooooh, look at the lighting! Once again, Jason hands HBO great television, and releases them from blame.

Third mistake: Not getting things from Effie in writing. This is a mistake which he seemed to learn from and adjust to late in the shoot, as he started using email to confirm the decisions from meetings. Look, I don't know who the real Effie is, I only know how she was portrayed: A little two-faced. We watched her say, or at least imply, that she can get Jason's car flip stunt, then crater the option after letting the clock run out on preparation time. Jason trusted the earlier conversation, when he should have gotten it in writing. That being said, Effie was probably doing things for the greater good, because she was dealing with a director who cared more about feeling like Scorcese than about getting genuine applause from an audience.

Fourth mistake: Those first fifteen minutes. Watch them if you can. They're horrible exposition monsters. Then watch the short upon which the film is based. It's quite good, and amazing in comparison!   

The Leisure Class from Hakker Shorts on Vimeo.

How does this happen?? Honestly, I have no idea. But it made great TV. Bring on season 5! And to the next director, learn from Jason's mistakes.

Outlining Tip: Don't Use Dialogue

via GIPHY

This isn't a hard "rule", more like an observation. If you're outlining your story, and using dialogue quotes to capture the essence of nearly every scene, you may not actually have a proper understanding of the scenes. 

Now, if you're just trying to record that perfect line of dialogue in the moment, sure, put it in your outline so you don't forget it. But if you're writing dialogue in your outline that reduces down to bland statements of exposition, then lookout: Your scenes may lack conflict, and you should revisit them.

If the essence of your scene in the outline is introducing two characters, Marvin and Gepetto, where one of them congratulates the other, "Gepetto! It's Marvin! From the Institute! Congratulations on the success of your anti-matter time travel machine!", then you're focused on the wrong things. The point of the scene is not to make the reader aware of the names of Marvin and Gepetto, nor is it to make the reader aware of anti-matter time travel, nor of Marvin's employer, the Institute.

The purpose of the scene is to communicate wants and conflicts. What do Marvin and Gepetto want? Do they want opposing things? The same thing? Is this a negotiation? Or are they each preparing the battlefield for inevitable conflict? Is this in fact a first strike? 

The essence of the scene above should be a demonstration of how Marvin wants, say, to get in good with Gepetto, in hopes of getting a job working on anti-matter time travel, while Gepetto pretends not to remember Marvin, as a way of getting back at Marvin for not getting Gepetto a job interview last year at the Institute. Communicate the same exposition through what really matters: The conflicts.

Also, why are you naming a character "Gepetto"? Terrible name!

Where The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Lost Me

via GIPHY

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. will not be getting a sequel, earning only $100 million dollars worldwide on a $75 million dollar budget. Guy Ritchie is a great director. What happened?

I only know what happened for me when I tried to watch it yesterday. It had a solid opening action sequence. Henry Cavill fit right in. Alice Vikander stood out. Armie Hammer was doing a Russian accent, which probably SOUNDED fine but was coming out of the mouth of a frat boy.

Note to Armie: Your hair is KILLING your range. That being said, his accent was a distraction, but not a deal breaker. There have been worse accents in movies that are amaze-balls. Armie's in fine company.

So, solid act one. And then, we get the movie killer:

via GIPHY

This is the scene where Armie and Alice have checked into a hotel posing as a couple, with the intent of infiltrating some evil cabal. It's a pretty cool big-want for the characters. Pretty big stakes. Screams "movie". So they're in the hotel room together, and what do they do to launch into their big-want?

Armie plays chess. Alice gets drunk and lures Armie to dance with her.

First of all, let's question the wisdom of the proposition that this spy movie was missing a Big Chill impromptu dance number.



But the real shame here is that this scene puts the movie I came to see on hold. These characters aren't pursuing their wants. They're at a dead stop, twiddling their thumbs, and chewing the splashy hotel room scenery. Was this decision made by the set decorator?

I stopped watching after this scene. Don't do this scene.