Thoughts on Star Wars: The Force Awakens!

via GIPHY

Ahoy! Thar be spoilers ahead!










Part of me knows this is not a perfect movie. So why did I cry like a child who got a pony on Christmas morning? And I don't mean I cried after Han's death. I mean I cried tears of joy when Rey first flew the Millennium Falcon.


via GIPHY

No, I can't bring myself to criticize this film, or call it on its coincidences and "the force caused it" abuse. Mary Sue me.

Instead, I want to point out a couple things that you may have missed that show how real craftsmen wrote this thing.

Remember the running gag where Han fired Chewie's crossbow-looking blaster for the first time? Several times throughout the movie, Han brightens like me watch Star Wars over this weapon, because it blasts harder than any other gun has blasted. And you think, after a few trips to that well, they're done. Fun bit.

But no. This wasn't a joke for joke's sake. This was exposition, so that later when Chewie shoots Kylo Ren with that blaster, you FEEL how this isn't like the blaster Kylo blocked at the beginning of the film. This is a wound that won't be shrugged off. So Finn can reasonably last a minute in a lightsaber fight. And rookie Rey can win. Plant and payoff, as I've mentioned in another post, masterfully executed.

And remember how Rey and Kylo force fought for the lightsaber, and rookie Rey won? How could rookie Rey beat out Kylo? Well, first, Kylo is groggy from a blaster wound. But also remember, who cares? Rey had sworn she would never touch that lightsaber again. And not only does she touch it when Finn's life is on the line, she force grabs it out of Kylo's hands. Remember how awesome reversals are in movies? Let's review the emotional impact:

via GIPHY

When you make the adult turn into an eight year old kid riding a pony on christmas morning, you are a wookie, and I let you win.

Happy New Year everyone!

Stop Putting Spoilers in Your Damned Headlines and Lead Images, Pajiba

via GIPHY

I'm an avid reader of Pajiba.com. But those days may be numbered if they keep ruining my favorite shows and films. Pajiba, get your act together before Star Wars comes out, or else there will be blood. Here, let me show you how you recap entertainment content correctly. Let's talk about the latest episode of The Leftovers, Ten Thirteen. Spoilers ahead!

First of all, notice how my lead gif doesn't in any way reveal the big twist at the end of this episode. Rather, it communicates how you, Pajiba, make me feel with your recaps. Lots of people like me read your website, scanning for articles they want to read while trying to avoid spoilers INSIDE the articles they DO NOT YET WANT TO READ UNTIL THEY'VE SEEN THE EPISODE/FILM. They expect you to be professional and considerate. After all, you're entertainment bloggers who rail against this sort of thing all the time when movie trailers do it! Remember the trailer to Free Willy?


via GIPHY

Hmmm, I wonder if Willy gets free? THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

I'm not saying you can't put spoilers in the full article, of course. Case in point: Ten Thirteen. The Leftovers has been a revelation this whole season, making Ten Thirteen merely amazing until its big reveal in the final minutes. An unspoiled viewer would watch this episode with great apprehension that Meg is about to unleash an old airstream filled with explosives into the "holy" town of Jardin. But guess what's actually in that airstream? Oh, did you open the home page of Pajiba the day after the episode aired? Well, then you already saw the lead image and headline for this article, and will now quickly surmise that the airstream actually holds the town's missing daughters, led by Evie. Here, let me contrast that spoiler with another spoiler-free Leftovers gif which expresses my bemusement:


via GIPHY

Here, Pajiba, check out how io9 and Warming Glow do this, and see how it's done. Love you Pajiba, but if you do this one more time, I'm punting you until January, because you can't be trusted with Luke Skywalker spoilers at all.

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.