January 31, 2020

SCREENWRITING: MY TIPS AND TIDBITS


I've been meaning to write this post for a while, in a way that distills what I've found practical in my own screenwriting without coming off as boring or dry as paste. Obviously, I don't claim to be an expert by any means, and much of this I've learned through studying other films (hence this blog), especially when films with the money to do so much so well still get it wrong when it comes to their stories. But here are at least some things to think about when you're convinced you have a story worth telling to an audience.

HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY

This should be a no-brainer, right? That's why you've decided to write to begin with. But is your story able to sustain 80-120+ pages? Screenplays aren't usually one-track pieces. Even in comedies, there are themes, subjects of discussion, etc. that (at least should) tie thematically into the main story. You don't want your audience to feel like they've gotten nothing out of your film besides the spectacle and style. Even in films where style is the substance, there's usually an attempt to at least try to keep the audience's attention through characters and dialogue, i.e. Suzy as the audience surrogate in a child-like position of eventual power in Suspiria, or its remake thematically tying the story to Cold War-era Berlin.

"I am not a crackpot!"

TONE!

Even before starting, it's probably best to nail down your film's tone right away, since this will affect everything in your script, from "the big picture" to the "little details", etc.

For one, are you aiming for an outright light comedy? A dramedy? A dark comedy? Some might not see much difference between the three, but it makes all the difference in the world when pertaining to what even happens in your script and how it's going to be framed.

That's not to say you can't induce mood whiplash if it's in service to your story, but you have to be damn careful to do it with consideration to everything that came before it, as you don't want to leave your audience continually unsure how to react.

This is also a large indicator of studio interference or "writing by committee" in many shows and films, since no two people's idea of a certain tone or interpretation is exactly the same. This is why the James Bond franchise can have such varying degrees of successful scripts despite many of the same people writing them.

Sadly, we never got to see Poochie belt it out as Dr. Scrivello.

SUBTEXT (AND CULTURAL CONTEXT)

What cultural factors, dynamics, roles, etc. do your characters represent? Do they have a universality to them? Are they relatable? How do they reflect real life? Are they idealized, or meant to be bitingly satirical?

This too is related to tone (see above), but your characters are also your instruments for your message and what they represent. Is your characters' business relationship played like a romantic one? Does your male protagonist buy a fancy new car while in the midst of a mid-life crisis? One of your protagonists might be keeping a secret, but is it the secret everyone's expecting it to be? How do you update older archetypes, when their old cultural reference points and societal factors have become literally obsolete?

Superman / Clark Kent is an old-fashioned, salt-of-the-earth farm boy
transplanted into the then-modern day late-70s, with all of the
contrast, subtext, and symbolic meanings intact.

In regards to setting, this can be a tad tricky. In large countries like the U.S. and Canada, where areas can be so diverse geographically and politically, it's important to establish the setting so audiences can easier buy into the story's subtext and context. (See "Little Details" below.) After all, if you set your story in 1940s Quebec, it's going to be quite unbelievable if a schoolhouse there is being run by the Mormons.

All in all, once you know what your story's subtexts and contexts are, how do you go about subverting expectations on that deeper level? (See below.)

SUBVERT EXPECTATIONS

Related to the next section below, audiences aren't stupid. They've all become somewhat savvy to the ins, outs, and old and new cliches of a genre or subgenre, whether with story or execution. Going to what's been done before runs the risk of boring your audience, unless you put a new spin on it. The Closer Look goes into more detail about the use of cliches here.

This also comes into play when writing contradictions for your characters. Everyone has them, however large (hypocrisy) or small (quirks and flaws), but knowing what you are going to do with those contradictions can help your script go in new directions and deal with new emotions that can be rare in other works with similar subjects.

Basically, know the tropes so you can subvert them.

Alison Sudol as Queenie Goldstein
Fantastic Beasts' mind-reading blonde is kind, sweet, and
empathetic, but also quick-thinking and highly self-aware.

RESPECT YOUR AUDIENCE

Had I titled this section Don't Treat Your Audience Like Idiots, you'd probably be a bit offended at its condescending tone. Hence why it's not all that good an idea to put that into screenplay form. No one likes to be lectured or treated like someone lesser when they typically go into a film wanting to have a good time. Sure, not everyone goes in wanting pure escapism, but even the best-intended film "with a message" can leave a bad taste in their mouths if executed without respect, nuance, or (even rarer) subtlety.

Similarly, if you do want escapism in your script, it's important to include enough grounding elements of realism, naturalism, etc. for your audience to grab onto. Escapism is not an excuse to leave logic, emotion, and the element of "cause and effect" at the door.

Lois Lane reacts as you'd expect when told by Superman with a straight face 
that he's here "to fight for truth, and justice, and the American way".
Taking oneself too seriously typically spells doom for a superhero movie,
but Superman avoids that pitfall beautifully.

STREAMLINE, STREAMLINE, STREAMLINE!

A problem of many newer "tentpole" films is stuffing far too many characters, subplots, and events into one film, thus preventing most of them from having any semblance of depth or development. This writer may have a short attention span, but too many things to keep up with will always be worse than too few things with a chance of time devoted to them.

For example, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald devotes so much time to the setup of new characters and subplots that it throws off its own structure, doubly so since several plotlines have zero relevance to the film they're in, and only function as setup for the next film in the series. With extended sequences of backstory and explanations, audiences can be bored by all these detours in the film's pacing, with little hope of recovery.

You may have an interesting line, twist, character dynamic, scene, or event for a script, but if you can't make it work organically, it's best to cut it altogether. That way, you'll have more time strengthening, elaborating on, and beautifying the elements that do work and are so top-to-bottom important to what you want to say.

LITTLE DETAILS

So you've decided what tone to strike, what setting to evoke, and what themes you want to tackle. Now you want to build on what you want to see. This, for me, is one of the most fun parts in screenwriting.

Going back to the setting, how do you make it stand out from all the other similar settings in film? Average small towns with nothing to do have gotten boring on film, so delve into its history. Real or fictional, all places have a history. Nanaimo, for example, started as a town tied to both coal mining and the Hudson's Bay Company. Eventually, it stood out for its Nanaimo Bars, Bathtub Races, and the image of longtime mayor Frank Ney (1918 - 1992).

Frank Ney and Bathtub Race exhibit at the Nanaimo Museum

Even the little things done to set your setting apart will be much appreciated by your audience, and show the degree of effort you've put into your story. After all, a setting can inform your characters more than you might think.

In terms of the characters themselves, little dialogue details can really do some heavy lifting in showing the audience who your characters are.

Cleveland Ohio, everybody.

Not every script has to have "realistic" dialogue. In real life, people misspeak, hesitate, hem, haw, and everything in between. But knowing your characters' "voices" will go a long way in informing their personalities, behavior, and motivations. While there's certainly a place for on-the-nose, unsubtle dialogue in a satire, for example, if you're aiming for realistic, slice-of-life dialogue, you're better off sticking "closer to earth".

Needless to say, The Simpsons is not a work known for its realistic dialogue.

TIME

This is a painful one, folks, but it's reality. No script is at its best in its first draft. Even Steven E. de Souza, who did so well rewriting the script for Die Hard, visibly struggled with 1994's Street Fighter (writing the first draft literally overnight) due to the tight deadline imposed on him by Capcom.

Totally worth it.

An upside to more time (provided one actually has it, of course) is that you''ll not only add more of the logical story elements that didn't occur to you before, but you might occasionally turn out a section even better than how you originally planned it, due to knowing your characters and letting their emotions "sink in" longer.

And hopefully, you'll grow to love your script enough to want to spend as much time as possible on it. In my experience, that love always comes through on the page.

TIDBITS AND SUCH

E.M. Welsh's post on crafting complex characters (among other posts) can be found on her blog here.

The Crimes of Grindelwald's story and script flaws are well-covered in these videos by Filmento, The Closer Look, Stephan KroseczPosh Prick Reviews, and Super Carlin Brothers.


Copyright © Chynna Moore

January 26, 2020

SUPERMAN (1978)


In the summer of 2000, the same time my then-five-year-old brother tried to make lemonade with concentrated orange juice and hot sauce, he, my nearly-seven-year-old self, and our parents took one of our many trips to Tri-Star Video on Nanaimo's Bruce Avenue. I haven't the faintest memory what VHS tape I picked, but my brother's choice was Richard Donner's 1978 landmark.

Christopher Reeve as Superman...

...a.k.a. Clark Kent

Margot Kidder as Lois Lane

Jackie Cooper as Perry White

Marc McClure as Jimmy Olsen

Glenn Ford and Phyllis Thaxter
as Jonathan and Martha Kent

Marlon Brando as Jor-El

Jeff East as Young Clark Kent
Though he's dubbed by Reeve in the theatrical cut, 
East's voice can be heard at points in the three-hour T.V. cut.

Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor

Valerie Perrine as Eve Teschmacher

Even at my young age, while not grasping the littler story beats or character humor, the images of Krypton being destroyed, young Kal-El lifting the Kents' truck, Jonathan Kent's death, Superman finding Lois's body, or him spinning back the Earth left indelible impressions even back then.

Between then and early 2018, however, I didn't think back to Superman much, if at all. Not being a superhero fan in general, I certainly didn't intentionally avoid seeing Superman again, but additionally, none of the newer incarnations stuck out to me as worth seeing on a story or cinematic level, especially given how most of them tried ever-so-hard to avoid comparisons to the Donner films.

But funny enough, it was Bob Chipman's "Really That Good" episode on this film that really encouraged me to give it another look. Superman's more-needed-as-ever message of "something to believe in again" resonated not only due to the time, but also my own situation regarding my father, who was more in than out of hospital with both pancreatic cancer and the side effects of chemotherapy.

Without getting into the long of it, after he had passed from tumor-related sepsis a couple months later, it was this film that was one of the things that helped me though the (for me, short, but certainly emotional) grieving process. After all, it was after Jonathan Kent's death that Clark Kent left the Fortress of Solitude to go to Metropolis and be his best self.

Bank the wall, Supes, bank the wall...

Bank the wall, Supes...

Yes!

But getting back to the film, while I never not believed Christopher Reeve was Superman that first viewing, I completely missed back then how damn good he is in the role. Not to repeat Bob Chipman's assessment, but even if a better Superman film is eventually made, we might never get a better Supes than Reeve. Off-the-charts charm, this Superman has.

Seriously, I'm gay as hell, and even I'm practically swooning right now.

Reeve so completely sells being the "Big Blue Boy Scout",
brimming with pure earnestness rather than being over-the-top.

This flying shot from the three-hour cut is a favorite of mine,
but is sadly missing from other editions of the film.

"...
I don't think he wants me to, Mr. Luthor."



I'm probably not alone in admitting I didn't really get Margot Kidder's Lois Lane on my first viewing as a kid. Maybe it was her surface neuroticism that didn't gel with me then, and it probably took actually growing up (and amassing enough comic cynicism to fill Long Lake) for me to warm to her. That's not Kidder's fault, of course, and her Lois's adorkableness goes a long way in sealing the deal for me now. 

Ned Beatty as Otis
Luthor's getup here makes Walter Matthau's in
Pelham One Two Three look subtle by comparison.

Gene Hackman was one of the few actors I actually knew by name (and who actually still did movies) in 2000, so I too was thrown by his portrayal of Lex Luthor. Long used to the post-Crisis, corporate bigwig Luthor, imagine my surprise when the villain of the big, beloved Superman movie was just some brainy know-it-all who smiled way too much for a big, bad villain. Like with Lois, however, it was the personality and inner workings under the surface that bridged the gap between my first and second viewings. Affable as he may be, this Luthor is still a complete sociopath who is more than happy to kill anyone and everyone who even remotely gets in his way.

This scene with Eve and Lex's "babies" is another three-hour cut 
favorite of mine, though it does further confuse why
Eve would return to help Lex and Otis in Superman II.

I had never understood why (aside from materialism) Eve was attracted to Lex. 
The three-hour cut basically answers that question with implications of "the bedroom". 
(Also, note the photo of Hackman's Harry Caul on the right.)

I wonder how Lex felt once he found out Max Zorin basically
stole his evil plan (and yet somehow made it even dumber) in 1985.

But the glue keeping together and informing this film is Richard Donner's direction and Tom Mankiewicz's script (integrating previous drafts by Mario Puzo, Robert Benton, and David and Leslie Newman), the latter of which cleverly inserts more "under the hood" in subtext, irony, and cultural context than could be covered in an article of this size.

In one of the film's many excellent examples, when Superman 
gets Lex Luthor's high-frequency message, Perry White
is in the middle of telling Clark he lacks aggression and confidence.

Seconding Ken Anderson's point about escapism without mindlessness, Superman never strays from the human emotion and personality of the characters, while grounding Metropolis and other settings with enough realism to really believe what we're seeing on the screen. Sure, I love a good, silly, "so bad, it's good" movie like the rest of them (largely for riffing purposes), but when it comes to films like Superman, isn't it always better to have fun and get something innately, viscerally, life-affirmingly satisfying out of it too?

Superman's message and story thrives on its theme of human beings being innately good, and the state of the world being naturally good in turn. That despite all that pose a danger in the world, Superman will be there to avert disaster.

Which makes it all the more a gut punch when he fails to save the woman he loves.

Even six-year-old me was taken aback by Superman
actually going there, even after all that buildup beforehand.

I can only wonder what it was like for audiences in late 1978 - early 1979 watching it for the first time. As much as the tension was building and they saw Lois's car get buried, surely they must have still expected Supes to get there in time.

TIME OUT...

This past year, I've spent my free time writing a screenplay remake adaptation of a 60s romantic comedy, heavily influenced by Superman itself (tone, humor, references, homages, subtext, you name it....) and set in my hometown of Nanaimo. Similar to what the above scene in Superman does, while still ending up playing the genre straight, there's still a subversion of expectations, (partially or wholly) deconstructing tropes that would be seen as either tired, dated, or cliched today.

Also, my town has a Superman and Wonder Woman mural at a street named Lois Lane. How could I not include that?

Nanaimo Urban Art Gallery mural by Lys Glassford

AND NOW, BACK TO THE ENDING...

Ultimately it's the affirmation from his adoptive father that spurs Superman to do what he does to save Lois. While the mechanics of it would give anyone a headache, the film plays it seriously and grounded enough that it doesn't kill the film for most people, and certainly not for me. Hell, I didn't even mind it when Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut reused it for their ending, though that might have been because Perry White wears what has to be the single most ugliest bathrobe ever.

Also, who the hell smokes a cigar while brushing their teeth?
(Although, knowing Perry White, it's probably the other way around.)

Also, you are so not Lois Lane! Go away!
(The Unsworth-esque lighting is much appreciated, though.)

Erm... anyway, will I do the Donner Cut for a post in the future? Perhaps, though I don't plan on watching the Richard Lester cut for comparison (as tempting as the third installment of the Sheriff J.W. Pepper saga is).

As for Superman III? Err.. maybe I'll do an "Extended Observations" on that one...

In terms of subtext, Vera Webster is a pop culture 
analyst's dream, and we'll just leave it at that.

LOGO GEMS


Superman and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure (1979) are the only films that simply start with Warner Bros.' "Big W" stopping in the middle of the screen, with merely a "Released By" credit fading in. This is due to Superman being largely financed by producers Pierre Spengler and Alexander and Ilya Salkind themselves.

OTHER (SUPER) OBSERVATIONS (OH COME ON, YOU KNOW I HAD TO...)

The Stuff of (Super) Travelogues: Drumheller, Alberta...

...and Kananaskis Country, Alberta.

My favorite minor character, Frank Lazarus's Air Force One pilot,
is dubbed in the theatrical cut (and that voice makes that scene), 
but his real voice is heard, of course, in the three-hour cut.

Cliff!

Since the three-hour cut reveals that Jimmy's camera had no film,
this shot is rendered hilariously pointless.

The least convincing model in the film, seeing as the boulders basically bounce 
into the water. Suddenly I'm wondering, was Moonraker really worth it?

Lois's "Can You Read My Mind?" monologue used to feel so out of place
to me, but now its corny charm has quite grown on me.

This. 
Everything about this scene. 
This this this. I absolutely love it.

TIDBITS AND SUCH


Nanaimo's historical Cassidy Pub, which was used for exteriors in Man of Steel, burnt down in 2016 after it was deemed a hazard and ordered to be demolished. 

Read Ken Anderson's Superman essay here. (Oh, to have been an audience member in 1978!)

Watch Bob Chipman's "Really That Good" episode on Superman here.

And if you're late to the fandom like me, the Caped Wonder fansite is the best you'll find online. 

Nanaimo Urban Art Gallery mural by Lys Glassford

Looking back on Superman now, at this point in time, it's indeed difficult to separate all the things that I've taken into my own writing, from the things that resonated with me as a viewer that second time. Perhaps, ultimately, these two categories were never meant to be separated at all.



Copyright © Chynna Moore