Five Greatest Romantic Comedies of All Time

The Five Greatest of Something: an occasional entry when I don’t have anything else to report and just want to put something on line.

The Five Greatest Romantic Comedies of All Time



Annie Hall

La Ronde


Smiles of a
Summer's Night










It Happened One night

The Awful Truth

Slamdance Screenplay/Teleplay Competitions Call For Submissions

From the Slamdance website:

Writing Competitions Launch:

.
After the festival, we turn our attention to Slamdance's Writing Department: 2009's Writing Competitions have already kicked off with fantastic prizes and sponsors. The Short Screenplay Competition's final deadline is just around the corner (February 9, 2009), so hurry up with those submissions: the Grand Prize Winner walks away with $500.00.

.
And wait … there's more! One of top five finalists will be selected and produced as a part of Slamdance's $99 Special Competition and screen at the 2010 Festival! Check out previous Slamdance $99 Specials here.

.
The Teleplay Competition Call For Entries has also launched: The scripted portion is sponsored by Act III Productions and the unscripted portion is sponsored by the Greif Company: early deadline is February 17, 2009. Save some money and get those original ideas in ASAP - we want to read them and connect you with companies who want to produce your ideas. Step to it now!

.
Feature Screenplay Call For Entries opens in March 2009 and is sponsored by Upload Films with a $7,000 Grand Prize Award. Upload Films recently signed an option agreement with our 2008 Screenplay winner Neil McGowan (NUMBERED).

.
The Slamdance Horror Screenplay Competition begins in June 2009 and the winner walks with $5,000 as well as a possible option agreement. And regardless of genre or length, if you have a script and you want some constructive feedback from our expert team, check out our year round coverage service.

Sherlock Holmes to be Gay in New Film

According to gay.com:

.

Sherlock...Homos?

.

Tongues are wagging at the news that Guy Ritchie's upcoming Sherlock Holmes film will give the legendary detective (portrayed by white-hot Robert Downey Jr.) and his ever-faithful assistant, Dr. Watson (almost forgotten "It" boy Jude Law), a chance to finally express their attraction...to each other.
.
The source of the wagging is none other than RDJ himself. (incidentally, this "news" comes days after rumors that producers demanded some major changes. ...) According to News of the World, when asked about the relationship between the two sexy sleuths, he reportedly answered, “We’re two men who happen to be roommates, wrestle a lot and share a bed. It’s badass.” Law went on to add, "Guy wanted to make this about the relationship between Watson and Holmes. They’re both mean and complicated.” Mean? Complicated? Grrrr...

.
Those familiar with Ritchie's macho, undernuanced and oversaturated style know better than to expect any hint of a "Brokeback" mystery here. But kudos to him for giving a go at some bloke-on-bloke action. And why not? Holmes was a borderline misogynist with but one vague heterosexual relationship. Author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle rarely provided insight into the inspector's emotional life, but when he did, it was in the context of Holmes' feelings for Watson.

.
Let's just hope it's not a total cock tease, with Holmes falling into one of his drug-induced stupors or "doing it for a case." Yawn. Then again, we know both these guys can play gay, and I'd break out my pipe to watch these two strip off the manacles of Victorian finery and get "mean and complicated" with each other. Case closed.

Regent Releases Depatures and Shake Hands with the Devil

Regent Entertainment is releasing Departures (Okuribito), the winner of the Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards and and 10 Japan Prize Awards (the Japanese Academy Awards), and Shake Hands with the Devil, Roger (And the Band Plays On) Spottiswoode's new film (nominated for 12 Genie Awards--the Canadian Academy Awards).

For more info:

For Departures:

http://www.regententertainment.com/NewsResult.CFM?IDNumber=186

For Shake Hands with the Devil

http://www.regententertainment.com/NewsResult.CFM?IDNumber=188

Five Greatest Romantic Dramas

The Five Greatest of Something: an occasional entry when I don’t have anything else to report and just want to put something on line.

Casablanca

.

The Children of Paradise

Letter From an Unknown Woman

Jules and Jim

.

The Earrings of

Madame de...

Howard Zieff, Eric Blau and Hercules Bellville pass on

Howard Zief, director of Private Benjamin and the creator of the speecy, spicy meatball commercial in the 60's,

Eric Blau, producer of Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris,

And producer Hercules Bellville, most recent projects include Sexy Beast and the Dreamers

have all passed on.

UPDATED: End of the Road for New Yorker Films, Legendary Distributor of “Difficult” Cinema

by Eugene Hernandez (Updated 22 hours, 17 minutes ago)

EDITORS NOTE: This story was updated with information regarding an email message sent by New Yorker to filmmakers.

With rumors swirling all weekend among industry insiders, New Yorker Films, the venerable film distribution company, confirmed today that it is closing its doors. They made the announcement via a simple statement on their website.

“After 43 years in business, New Yorker Films has ceased operations,” the statement reads. “We would like to thank the filmmakers and producers who trusted us with their work, as well as our customers, whose loyalty has sustained us through the years.”

For full story go to

http://www.indiewire.com/article/end_of_the_road_for_new_yorker_films_legendary_distributor_of_difficult_cin/pem

DEPARTMENT OF SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT

Just a weekly catching up of what's going on in my life.

I received positive comments back on my script for Here! Networks/Regent Entertainment. Any further notes are waiting until there is a production imminent. As everybody in the industry knows, getting a production can never be counted on until the movie is in the can (and even then, one sometimes wonders), so there is still no guarantee the film will be made. So wish me luck and keep sending out those Richard Gere positive karmic thoughts.

I just completed a workshop wherein I did revisions on my sci-fi film Revelation and I am pleased with the results.

Two theaters in England expressed interest in taking a closer look at some of my plays. One said they were going to have an in-house reading (just among the members, no audience) of Queen Christina Goes Roman. Again, keep those Richard Gere thoughts going.

I am starting up reading again for the Slamdance teleplay competition. Last year, I had to not participate due to too many conflicts. I am always looking for private consultation gigs, so if anybody knows of anyone, please pass my name and blogsite on to them.

I'm debating whether to take the long bus ride to go to the Nuart to see Moscow/Belgium or take the lazy way out and see the International today. Tomorrow night I may go to the LACMA for the Germany Divided movies of Escape from East Berlin and Funeral in Berlin.

Oscars Sunday. My guesses, Slumdog Millionaire (Ron Blagojovich has a new nickname: Slumdog Million Hair) for picture, director and adapted screenplay. Sean Penn, Kate Winslet, Heath Ledger, Penelope Cruz acting; and Milk best original screenplay.

Talk to everyone later.

Five Greatest Science Fiction Films of All Times

The Five Greatest of Something: an occasional entry when I don’t have anything else to report and just want to put something on line.


The Five Greatest Science Fiction Film sof All Times

2001: A Space Odyssey

La Jetee

Alphaville

Metropolis

Dr. Strangelove...

How to Improve the Academy Award Telecast

Is there a way to improve the Oscar telecast? Probably not, since not everyone can even agree on what a good Academy Awards program consists of. Is it one that is entertaining (and comes in at an agreed upon length)? Is it one that receives high ratings (and comes in at an agreed upon length)? Is it one that reflects the average movie goer’s taste (and comes in at an agreed upon length)? Is it one that awards the truly best in a category (and comes in at an agreed upon length)? In the end, the only thing anyone can really agree upon when it comes to the Academy Awards show is that it’s boring and if they could do produce it, it wouldn’t be.

It’s gotten to the point where one feels sorry for the producers since they are in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. Don’t do full productions of songs and get criticized. Do full productions of songs and get criticized. Interrupt an acceptance speech for running too long and get criticized. Don’t interrupt acceptance speeches and get criticized. It’s gotten to the point where there are critics who will lambast the Academy for the dance number between Rob Lowe and Snow White and then years later the same critics will say, “Why don’t they do things like the Rob Lowe/Snow White number? That’s what makes the Awards so entertaining, when they do kitschy and tasteless things we can make fun of for years to come”.

In the end, though, no matter what ideas are considered, the producers of the Academy Awards have to realize they will never be able to please everyone. No matter what changes one makes to the system, some group is always going to be upset that a deserving film was overlooked. For proof of this, all one has to do is look at the Foreign Language Film Category, which has undergone several changes in the last years in an attempt to get only the “right” films nominated, and still can’t seem to do it (Gomorrah, anyone?).

But how to change the show and please all four criticisms mentioned above? There probably is a way to achieve most of them, and it’s actually very simple: bring back the award category for Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production (won by Sunrise in 1929) and run it alongside the Best Picture, Production (won by Wings in 1929). If the Academy did that, it would be far less likely that films like The Dark Knight and possibly even Wall-E would be overlooked. Of course, this wouldn’t make the show any more inherently entertaining or make it come in at an agreed upon length, but it might resolve the issues of reflecting the average movie goer’s taste, while still awarding the truly best in a category, while helping to improve the ratings. (Of course, wouldn’t it be hysterical if the Academy did this and The Dark Knight still didn’t get a nomination? What would that say about Academy voters?)

Another possibility is to do what the Golden Globes do and divide the Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress into comedy and drama (and not comedy/musical—why, oh, why does the Foreign Press Association think that just because something has a lot of songs in it, it belongs in a category alongside comedy). There are several problems with this. The first is that there is no guarantee that movies like The Dark Knight would receive a nomination (it didn’t at the Golden Globes) and thus would defeat the purpose of putting in such a change. The second is that one would then have to not go through with the Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production suggestion (which would probably have guaranteed The Dark Knight a nom) since one wouldn’t want to award three best pictures of the year. At the same time, it might be worth considering having the Best Picture divided into Best Production and Most Unique and Artistic Production and then divide the top acting categories into comedy and drama (which would please the people who feel comedy performances are often overlooked). However, the coming in at an agreed upon time would probably put a kibosh on the whole idea (three extra categories? Yeah, right.), but what a list of nominations this would make.

And as for the length of the telecast, in the end, the only real way to make the show come in at an agreed upon time is to award certain (dare I say it) more “minor” categories (sound effects editing, anyone?) at an earlier ceremony (as the Tony’s have learned to do). But every time this suggestion has come up, the idea has been shot down faster than that guy who went hunting with Dick Cheney. And the only way to make it more entertaining is to…well, make it more entertaining (of course, any actor who has received an acting instruction of "be funnier", knows how useful a comment that is). But of course, if making something entertaining were that easy, we wouldn’t have movies as bad as The Love Guru and The Happening.

The Five Greatest Films about Movie Making

The Five Greatest of Something: an occasional entry when I don’t have anything else to report and just want to put something on line.

The Five Greatest Films about Movie Making

Day for Night

Sunset Boulevard

Singin' in the Rain

A Star is Born (1954)

Contempt

My Take on the Nominees for Best Picture Oscar

My take on the Best Picture Nominees for the Academy Awards—Why not? I’m as opinionated as the next guy and I’m between free lance assignments (i.e., if you want me to stop writing about this stuff, find me work).

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: This is the one that went right over my head personally. I know how successful it is, a lot of which is due to the clever and unusual subject matter (a baby, born as an old man, grows younger as everyone else grows older) combined with some outstanding special effects. And to those who have found great meaning and emotional resonance with this movie, my hat is off to you (it should be said that I’m also one of those people who can never see the hidden ship or other object in those pictures no matter how long I stare at them). There are some marvelous scenes with Tilda Swinton (the only scenes that worked for me). But the intermittent gimmick of Daisy’s daughter reading the tale of Benjamin while Hurricane Katrina approaches seems not only unnecessary, but suggests that the director (David Fincher) and writer (Eric Roth) had so little faith in the audience that the whole thing had to be explained to them (these sections could have been removed with no damage to the telling, but with thankful damage to the viewing time). There’s nothing wrong with any of the acting, which is probably to everyone’s credit, especially Brad Pitt’s, since the characters aren’t always that interesting. In the end, it’s a story that seems to succeed almost solely on its logline.

Frost/Nixon: Was David Frost really this much of a moron? Was he really this incompetent an interviewer? Did he really make a muck up of everything and then accidentally, without any real action on his part, just happen to be at the right place at the right time when Richard Nixon screwed up and said something he shouldn’t have? According to Frost/Nixon he is. David Frost, as written by Peter Morgan, is one of the most unsympathetic and unlikeable good guys in films in recent memory. One almost hopes he blows the interviews because it’s hard to want someone who could win Monty Python’s upper class twit of the year competition to succeed. Thank god for Frank Langella as Richard Nixon. Though he probably won’t do what George C. Scott did for Patton (make us only see his face whenever we think of the real historical figure), it’s probably not his fault because the real Tricky Dick is just too familiar from his many TV appearances (Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In anyone?). But it’s a magnificent performance. Langella has long been an underrated actor (thank god for Broadway, the sanctuary of many an underrated actor) and this lack of recognition is almost as big a crime as Watergate.

Milk: The most satisfying of all the best picture nominees, mainly due to the strong performances (it’s one of those movies in which every part, no matter how minor, is filled with the perfect actor who gives it all they’ve got) and clever directing (the scenes at city hall often have an odd Escher-like feeling to them that’s quite unsettling). The script itself by Dustin Lance Black is well done, but it falls into the category of a typical Warner Brothers biopic (a description of such 1930’s movies as The Story of Louis Pasteur and The Life of Emile Zola—they get the job done, are entertaining and have their moments, but not much else). Its main flaw is that, like …Benjamin Button, it’s narrated to make sure the audience gets it all. Sean Penn, who at times is unrecognizable, will probably do what George C. Scott did for Patton: make us only see the actor’s face when one thinks of the historical figure. Josh Brolin is one of those villains who feels more villainous the more sympathy is shown him. James Franco plays the long suffering love interest who leaves the hero when the suffering becomes too long (and the role is just as annoying when played by women who don’t want their husbands to become a singing star or break the sound barrier). But Diego Luna is a standout as an emotionally desperate man who can’t help his desperation. Kudos to the use of archival footage; the art direction; and the amazing costumes that make many of us cringe as we remember we actually used to dress like that.

The Reader: The least satisfying of the best picture nominees with the idea, unintentional one hopes, that the evils of Nazism were caused by the inability to read (U.S. public school systems, take note). The author, David Hare, never really gets the audience to understand why someone would rather be thought a murderous Nazi instead of an illiterate; how one develops that sort of moral insanity doesn’t seem to interest anybody in the film. And there’s a moral quandary that the central character (and the author) gets wrong. The hero knows that his ex-lover can’t read, but won’t reveal it because he knows she doesn’t want him to, even if it would mitigate her guilt. But by not revealing it, he actually allows other defendants, some far worse than the one played by Kate Winslet, to receive far lighter sentences than their actions deserve; again, the injustice of this never seems to enter anybody’s thoughts. The strongest aspect of this script is the strongest aspect often of any film with Winslet in it; Winslet herself. She is quickly becoming the new Meryl Streep (anyone want to make a wager on her next accent?) and her work in Revolutionary Road was just as amazing. The hero, Michael, is played by two actors, Ralph Feinnes and David Kross, and both give good performances. But there is one hysterical moment when the movie jumps from 1962 (with Kross as Michael) to 1972 (with Feinnes in the role) and all one can think is, “my god this guy has gotten old in just ten years”. Though a lot of people are harping on the profound and unsettling messages here, when all is said and done, the real theme of The Reader is never count out Harvey Weinstein when it comes to Oscar nominations.

Slumdog Millionaire: There’s nothing really that wrong with Slumdog… It’s very entertaining and it has a clever gimmick, the answers to the questions on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire also reveal the history of the central character’s life. At the same time, this is the part where I’m asked to leave the party because I’ve just pooped on everybody’s good times. I didn’t dislike it, I just didn’t find it to be the great movie everyone else loves. In spite of the gimmick, the plotting is conventional and formulaic and the various plot twists are obvious and easy to guess (the very basic plot, that of two people who were close as children ending up on different sides of the moral divide with a woman between them, dates back at least to Manhattan Melodrama in the 1930’s and can be seen as a subplot in The Departed). And the gimmick does get a little tiring, which would be fine, but there’s not much else to take up the slack except the predictable plot. There’s also something a tad offensive about the theme. The hero and heroine end up together because it’s their destiny and everyone ends up dancing in joy at this happy ending. But if destiny brought them together, then destiny is equally responsible for all the violence, corruption, and horrifying poverty in life shown here (one can’t have it both ways), a view of the world that hardly justifies the joyous ending. The acting is first rate, with Dev Patel almost unrecognizable from his character on Skins. The music is exciting and beautiful. But in the end, the film’s a downer disguised as a feel good movie. Much has been written about the whole thing being “poverty porn”, some of it unjustified (what is Oliver Twist, after all), but it must be said that in spite of all the destiny talk, many in the audience might get the idea that the real theme here is never go to India as a tourist, it’s just too horrifying a place to visit.

The Five Greatest Musicals of All Time

The Five Greatest of Something: an occasional entry when I don’t have anything else to report and just want to put something on line.

The Five Greatest Musicals of All Time

Singin' in the Rain

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg

Cabaret

Top Hat

A Hard Day's Night

Sample Coverage A

An sample of my written coverage. In addition to this, my coverage service also includes written notes on the script as well as a one hour in person consultation.

SCRIPT TITLE: *

What works:

It’s important to have a hook when doing a reincarnation film and there is an interesting idea here of a person who has been killed in three past lives because of a murder he committed in one of his past lives against four people—that each person he killed was reincarnated and killed their murderer’s reincarnation.
The idea of * not wanting the baby born because it has no soul is arresting, especially when * says that * will die (pg. 7).
There is a good hook in that the baby in the coma comes out of the coma when * dies.
There is something infectious about * when he first appears. He has a certain tongue in cheek quality about him.
There are some good scary scenes, especially when * is being chased in the hospital (this is the strongest of the scenes).

What doesn’t work:

The central problem I have here is the focus of the plot. At this time it tends to sort of go all over the place without a central through line. It does sort of all come together at the end, but at this point, I really think the audience is going to be struggling to put it all together, spending more time trying to figure it out, rather than be into the drama.
There are several areas to look at. The first is how the theme of reincarnation and karma is used, especially for a film that is supposed to be commercial. The one general problem the audience may have is that they may feel that * is not deserving of the ending. She is a likeable person, an obstetrician, smart, together, nothing like * and she ends up committing suicide for something that she did in a past life, something she can’t even remember, something that is not reflected in her personality right now. The audience may be very unsatisfied with what happens to her. This doesn’t seem to be a fulfillment of *’s character or her character arc, but is rather a fulfillment of *. If this is a comment on karma, that’s fine, except that it’s such a negative idea (that someone, no matter how good their present life is, has to pay for sins in a past life), that to make it work for the audience, I believe it would have to be discussed and made more central to the story. Even so, for a commercial picture, this may still be problematical.
Also, the story seems to start out being about one thing, a really neat idea about a soul not ready to be born and how that affects *, but then becomes another. I believe the audience will so latch on to this first idea that they will think that the shadow following * has some immediate connection to the soul not being born and they will be waiting for that mystery to be answered (I never really understood what the shadow was that was trying to kill *). Then it suddenly seems to become about *’s past lives. It’s not until pg. 78 that the baby in the opening is brought back into things. I believe this is far too long to connect things up.
The character of * starts out being kind of interesting, but there’s something off about his motivations. He’s a lab technician that has taken up hypnosis—how did this come about? He looks up * in the hospital; does he just coincidentally happen to work at that hospital (is it the same hospital that * works at)? That may be problematical (of all the hospitals * ends up with she just happens to end up with one that just happens to have an old school mate that just happens to be into hypnosis and reincarnation even though he’s a lab technician). Then he seems to disappear for long periods of time. But since it’s his idea that * may be reincarnated, I would think that he would be with her every step of the way during the investigation. But he seems to be a character that’s there to do the bidding of the authors and disappears when the authors don’t need him. But he’s an important character and if he’s as interested in the truth as much, if not more, than *, then he’s going to be there all the way. Also, on pg. 106, * says they were brought together—but it may be unclear how they were brought together.
I believe there are some problems with the plot and that you might want to check with lawyers and psychiatrists and psychiatric hospitals. I believe that after * has made what may seem like a death threat (pg. 7), * would immediately report this to her superiors and the hospital’s lawyer (they would probably have an interview about what happened with the baby anyway).
I was unclear why the police searched the house for an intruder (* has attempted suicide, but hadn’t told anyone she thought there was an intruder).
After * attacks *, she’s immediately put in a special unit without a hearing (I believe, but the authors need to double check, that since a crime has been committed and * claims to have been attacked, they couldn’t just commit her, but would have to have a legal hearing).
One major scene is * doing experimental procedure. I don’t believe that * could use an experimental procedure on * without her signing off on it (if this is intentional, it needs to be dealt with). At this point it only seems a plot device to give * a reason to get her out of the hospital, which doesn’t work for me.
Once * escapes from the hospital, I didn’t understand why the police aren’t looking for her (she’s dangerous—she attacked an orderly).
I had problems with the transition on pg. 35. It still seems like a stretch that * thinks her problems may be due to a memory. Part of this is because there’s only been two scenes where he’s talked to Catherine. He doesn’t really have the information to come to this conclusion.
I didn’t understand why *’s parents were completely oblivious to her being put in the hospital (after all, * is not her next of kin and has no authority—they would need to call her nearest relative).

Suggestions:

You need to develop * more.
I believe you first need to find an ending that will satisfy the audience when it comes to karma and reincarnation.
You need to link the baby in the coma with the events that follow it.
You need a more focused through line.
You need to justify the shadow following her or drop it.
You need to fully develop *’s character and make him more integral to the plot and make his appearance on the scene more satisfying.
You need to build up * and *’s relationship.

When it comes to *, don’t think of this as a movie about reincarnation, but about a woman who discovers that something is happening to her that leads her to believe she has been reincarnated and that that’s affecting her life. It’s about a woman who…, not a concept. I suggest you write 3-4 pages, whether you use all of them or not, that explores her before she goes into delivering the baby. I suggest these scenes be her getting ready for work, which will have her interact with * (thus developing their relationship more); her arrival at work and what she does when she first gets there; her first rounds; you might consider having her go to therapy that day; perhaps in therapy she gets the call for *; she calls * on her way to the hospital and tells him that she’ll be late for whatever they’re planning that night (which explores their relationship more).

When it comes to the shadows, I think you push it too fast. I like a slower build. I think the structure starts going off a little starting on pg. 8. The authors might consider a different build. Have the scene where * talks to the lawyer and her boss. She goes to get her car and she sees a shadow briefly. She calls * on the way home and he agrees to come over. She takes a shower. When she turns off the shower, she hears the breaking glass. She thinks it’s *, but then she sees the shadow coming to her.

I believe you need to write *’s story whether they use it or not. You need to dramatize (or at least summarize) what * is doing when he’s not on screen.

In addition, it is suggested that * say that if the soul doesn’t enter the baby by the 21st, the baby will die.

Though the location of * is good and works (I assume it’s based on a real place), you might consider placing it in a place closer to where * and * are (they are both drawn to the area), or have it take place in Alaska.

Movies to study are women in danger films, especially those with a supernatural element.

Reviews of Of Time and the City, The Secret of the Grain and Serbis

Of Time and the City: Terence Davies’ elegiac, bittersweet portrait of his hometown of Liverpool, England from the 1940’s to the present is nostalgic in the true sense of the word: every memory is filled with pain. It’s a lovely film made up of almost nothing but found footage, of a young boy delivering milk on his bicycle, of women gathered at a public place to wash their clothes while laughing and talking together, of empty streets—one eventually wonders just who shot some of this footage, who just happened to have a camera and thought, “I know, I’ll just film some kid delivering milk”, and then actually kept the stock all these years. As usual, Davies counterpoints his story with popular music, often highly sentimental, which doesn’t make the reality easier to live with, it actually makes the music more heartrending to listen to.

Other films of Davies highly recommend: The House of Mirth, The Neon Bible, The Long Day Closes and Distant Voices, Still Lives

The Secret of the Grain: An intense and painfully penetrating study of a dysfunctional family written and directed by Abdel Kechiche. There are moments of astounding power here as the members of a struggling family go after each with the focus of the Furies, employing dialog that seems both brilliantly improvised and honed into sharp knives. At the same time, many in the audience may find that the extended scenes tend to weaken the emotional stakes due to their length: the author has a habit of making his point and then remaking it, often for five and ten minutes. The ending gears up the suspense, but whether one finds it gripping or eventually annoying, especially since the story doesn’t have a resolution, will probably be the deciding factor as to whether one likes the film or not. Worth seeing, but at the same time, may not be as satisfying as many critics suggest.

Serbis: Another study of a dysfunctional family, this one in the Philippines and set in a once gorgeous movie palace that is now decaying and only showing pornographic films. The clientele is gay men who come to pay for sex (“serbis” translates as “service” and is used by rent boys looking to be hired). It’s not as homophobic as it sounds, but it’s not a happy picture either. The family, barely hanging on and none of them sure exactly how they ended up as they have (the main character who runs the theater is perplexed by the idea that she started out with a nursing degree), is beset by the same problems many families have: sibling rivalry; a son getting his girlfriend pregnant and not wanting to take responsibility; a woman seeking a divorce (this last does seem to have some peculiar Philippine aspects, the suggestion is that adultery can land a person in jail and the legal ramifications regarding offspring are more complex than in the U.S.). The only really happy person is the gay son who got married so he could be a father; he dotes on his pregnant wife who seems to be as happy as he is. The movie is not uninteresting and well worth seeing, but at the same time, it’s hard to say that it really connects emotionally to the audience as well as one might want. Directed by Brillante Mendoza, who apparently started making movies when he was 45, which should give hope to us all; written by Armando Lao and Boots Agbayani Pastor.

Patrick Goldstein on The Class and screenwriting

In the Tuesday, February 10, 2009 edition of the L.A. Times, Patrick Goldstein in his column The Big Picture referred to most American films on education in this manner:

Required to have a third act that reassures audiences that hope springs eternal, they are packed with idealistic teachers, feel-good nostrums and kids whose exterior brashness disguises a sweet-natured soul. This holds true from “Blackboard Jungle” through “Dead Poets Society,” “Stand and Deliver” and “Dangerous Minds.”

He describes the new movie from France, The Class, as:

Cantet’s film was...made independently, so the filmmaker wasn’t barraged with studio notes, asking him to insert inspirational moments or soften the insolence and anger of some of the key students.

There’s no three-act structure, no obstacles to overcome, simply the drama inherent in a situation that pits a doggedly focused teacher against a scrum of embattled teenagers, most from immigrant families, who take it as a challenge to see if they can provoke confrontation and undermine the teacher’s authority.

At least someone seems to understand what may be wrong with screenwriting in the U.S. today.

Coverage Sample B

SCRIPT TITLE: *


What works: There is a potential here for an Alfred Hitchcock type thriller in which an innocent man gets involved in something way over his head and has to use his wits to get out of the mess he’s found himself in. One of the best scenes that demonstrates this is on pg. 49, where * pretends to be a customer in order to get away from *.
I liked * as a prophetess and thought she was an intriguing little personality. She’s mysterious, yet fun, and is effective in her little scene with *. Also, the idea that she purposely died to save * is intriguing. The use of * is also interesting and the ending of *’s death and the parallel to the story of Appointment in Samara holds potential and does contain a certain poignancy.
There were certain individual scenes that worked. The */* scene when the conversation turned and it became clear that * was giving * a personality test (pg. 19).
There were times when the contrast between the *’s philosophy and modern technology were effective, such as bikes able to get farther faster because they’re not hampered by traffic; * frustrated with the computer in the hospital (pg. 25—a good parallel to frustrations with calling customer service and only getting a recording).
The use of *’s Catholicism is a good idea.
The characters, though I had some reservations, do generally talk like people and have a basic personality.
Good scenes and lines:
Pg. 1
D-Clone Labs: We Bring Good Seeds to Life is very clever
Pg. 2
Appointment in Samara movie, a nice touch
Pg. 7
The Robot
Pg. 69
Don’t get Mad, Get Even

What doesn’t work:

The author should consider changing the date from 2020. 2020 is very close to now (or at least close to the year when the movie will get made, assuming it takes five years to get made and released from now). The author might consider making it 2050 (as a variation of 2005—re, 1984 was written in 1948) or something similar like 2500.
The first issue the author might consider is that he may not have found his story or conflict yet because there seems to be a lot of stories and conflicts and I’m not sure the author has found the way to tie it all together. There is the conflict between *s and * over technology. There is the serotonin deaths. There is the * preaching that there is a second coming. There is * being the chosen one. There is *’s story, giving birth to another chosen one, which may be slowing down the plot because it doesn’t interact with *s enough. There is * wanting * out in order to tear down the building his office is in. There is the parallel to the story of Appointment in Samara. I had a hard time pulling all these different strands together. And the author might consider that he may be over complicating the plot unnecessarily.
One of the problems here may be that the story right now is not really about people, but about an idea (or ideas, which may be an additional problem). The main difference between this and a Hitchcock film is that for Hitchcock the character came first and the idea (or maguffin) came second. Another difference is that here the maguffin is very important whereas for Hitchcock it was very unimportant and it could be anything. It’s fine for the maguffin to be as important as the characters, but the characters still need to come first.
I’m not really sure I got to know * all that well. There were moments (such as when he and * talk about the eviction; he and * have their scene; some of the * and * scene in the elevator), but the rest of the time, he seemed a bit nebulous and it also took a long time for me to get to know what I did about him. Even in some of these scenes, at times * seems to say things (like his comments against technology and comments against “Christian Punk”) that the author wanted him to say, not that he would say. This was also true for some of the other characters. In the end, I never knew why he was so opposed to technology, why he repaired watches (which is technology), why he was so isolated and kept to himself so much, why he didn’t want to take up the *’s generous offer and move. I also didn’t feel like I got to know * much better. I also didn’t know why she was so against technology. It may also be unclear why * works for the * if he believes in a different religion.
The author talks a lot about religion, especially Christian religion, but I had two difficulties with this. One, here religion permeates this society in such a way that it doesn’t now. Everything revolves around religion, from street preachers, to stores, to TV shows, etc. It may be unclear why the U.S. has undergone such an extreme religious “conversion”.
Second, like the plot, there seemed to be a lot of different strands of religion and this sometimes confused me. For example, there seemed to be three or four different beliefs in a second coming of a Messiah. There was a street preacher in the beginning (but I wasn’t totally sure what his Messiah was about). There was * trying to protect * because he’s the chosen one. There was the * belief in a second coming (I never really understood how a second coming worked into * or how it benefited them). There was * giving birth to a Messiah, but I wasn’t sure how he was going to be the Messiah.
People are going to assume that * is Scientology and that * is someone like Tom Cruise. But there seem to be important differences, as well, and the author may need to address this.
Also, when it came to *, by pg. 30 I didn’t really understand what was so awful about their beliefs. One: I was never quite sure what their beliefs were. The only mention of them is * who said their goal was to avoid suffering (as opposed to Catholicism, but it may be unclear what is so bad about this) and that * is trying to avoid paying taxes. But since the author hasn’t demonstrated that it isn’t really a religion, it may be unclear why they should have to pay taxes. The author seems to also want to draw a parallel to * and modern technology, i.e., * is bad because modern technology is bad, and I didn’t really see the parallel, why * supporting modern technology is bad (or that they particularly support modern technology any more than any other organization). At this point, the author may be depending too much on the audience drawing parallels to * and Scientology, but just drawing the parallel isn’t enough. The author really has to demonstrate there’s something wrong with *.
Also, the author might consider that at this point, the followers of * seem to be very happy, together people, while * and even * seem rather sad, isolated people. Is this a conscious choice?
* is a good character, but at this point she may come too much out of nowhere, and the author may want to do more with her introduction (pg. 13). She may work fine, but it’s something to consider. And it is suggested that the author dramatize her purposely walking in front of the *and *’s car. I was never quite sure how the watch fit in.
From a plot standpoint, for me the story doesn’t really start until pg. 47, when * has to flee for his life. Up til then, * didn’t seem to have a goal or do anything.
I was also unsure about the scene on pg. 53, that it quite works yet.
On pg. 95, * comments about the heifer being genetically engineered as if that would mean it doesn’t count as part of the prophecy of the second coming, but I’m not so sure.
The ending with *, though it has a poignancy, puzzled me. It may be unclear why * was surprised to see her in the hospital. The hospital is not so far away from where he was to meet her that he should be surprised. In Appointment in Samara, death saw the hero in a totally different city.

Other things to consider:
Pg. 1
Surveillance cameras: consider leaving off the ostensibly to enforce traffic regulations—there are cameras around and they are very clearly for surveillance
Pg. 3
It may be unclear why the billboard says The Messiah is Coming (who would pay for that ad) or what the payoff is
Pg. 3
Are we suppose to know this is * (on the earlier billboard, it doesn’t mention a picture of *)
Pg. 4
It may be unclear why the Talk Show Host only compares * to Catholicism; that would apply to most Christian religions and would also be in opposition to most Eastern religions, if not Islam
Pg. 4
I wasn’t sure what the robot meant by “One of you gentlemen not eating?”
Pg. 17
It is suggested that * call the police for *
Pg. 18
It may be unclear that * is being disingenuous when she seems to be against messing around with nature
Pg. 26
It may be unclear why *’s going to the hospital, or why would she go to a * hospital
Pg. 30
How did the doctor and nurse not see *
Pg. 31
Small detail—Immaculate conception refers to the birth of Mary, not Jesus
Pg. 32
I was unsure why the author continued to list specific ads in the elevator
Pg. 33
This reader didn’t understand the relationship between the experiment on the cats and *’s belief that SS is purposely given to people so that pills will be sold to combat it
Pg. 46/47
It may be unclear that the audience will recognize * as *; it may be unclear why * doesn’t ask why * brought up the accident
Pg. 63
Christ rose on the eighth day?
Pg. 68
The purpose of this scene may be unclear
Pg. 72
Why would it be hard to get a picture of *
Pg. 95
Why did the transmission go black
Pg. 98
It may be unclear why * couldn’t miss her just because she’s pregnant

Why is the baby black.




Suggestions:
I can make certain suggestions, but first I need to understand what you are trying to do with the Second Coming.
The most important elements for me that you might consider focusing on:
The central maguffin here seems to be this Serotonin Syndrome and it is suggested that the plot revolve around that.
The watch having something important that the * needs.
The need to tear down the building.

This would mean consider dropping the conflict over technology between the *s and the *. The conflict might instead be over medication. It may also mean dropping the Appointment in Samara parallel and the focus on the Second Coming. Or finding ways to bring them into the picture.

Focus the plot by focusing on the character of *. I would first suggest he not be the Chosen One and never be referred to as that. *’s baby should be the chosen one. Then he’s a relaxed, rather happy go lucky guy who hates the rat race and has simplified his life. Maybe his father committed suicide because of pressure from modern times. Maybe he just got fed up. But he likes to ride his bike, read, visit art museums, walk along the beach.

It is suggested that that * not be a watch repairer, but he goes to a man who is a watch repairer. It’s this guy who doesn’t want to sell to *. Maybe he finds the man dying and the man gives him something before he dies that the * needs, or can implicate the * in something. Or the man dies, but leaves the building to *, asking him not to sell it to the *. * gives him the watch, which may have something important in it that the * wants. When * won’t sell, they set * up as the murderer of the old man and he must flee for his life.

It is suggested that * be *’s aunt, that that’s why * goes to the hospital and that * and * become more involved after *’s death (such as * takes * to the doctor’s office).

Have the Appointment in Samara refers to * not to *, but * will have to be a bigger character.

Think Alfred Hitchcock

10/29/2008 - Regent Acquires "The Blue Tooth Virgin"

I saw this movie at the Hollywood Film Festival and I highly recommend it. Though it almost seems as if it's going to be a one joke movie, it is anything but. It takes all sorts of unexpected twists and turns by the end. You will get a kick out of it.

Award-winning Feature selected for Palm Spring International Film
Festival

LOS ANGELES -- October 29, 2008 -- Regent Releasing, a leading independent U.S. film istributor, announced today that it has acquired worldwide distribution rights to "The Blue Tooth Virgin," the second film from writer/director Russell Brown. Regent acquired the film from The Simon LLC, and will distribute to select U.S. cities in early 2009.

"The Blue Tooth Virgin" made its premiere at the Seattle International Film Festival 2008 winning the Special Jury Award and was recently voted as a Top-Ten Audience Favorite at the Sao Paolo International Film Festival in Brazil. "The Blue Tooth Virgin" will also show as part of the official line up at the Palm Springs International Film Festival in January of 2009. The film stars Austin Peck ("As the World Turns"), Bryce Johnson ("Popular"), Tom Gilroy ("Spring Forward", "Dont Let Me Drown"), Roma Maffia ("Nip/Tuck"), Lauran Stamile ("Grey's Anatomy"), Amber Benson ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer") and Karen Black ("Five Easy Pieces").

"We're thrilled to be working with Russell Brown on his second accomplished feature," said Mark Reinhart, West Coast General Manager and Executive Vice President Distribution and Acquisitions. "Regent is committed to nurturing and showcasing artistic innovation and we are honored to work with such a talented filmmaker like Russell Brown." Brown's first feature, "Race You to the Bottom," was released theatrically in the United States in March, 2007, by Regent Releasing.

In "The Blue Tooth Virgin," two writers must face a dilemma that is common to anyone who has ever had an artistic friend: What happens when you have to give feedback, and the news isn't good? Sam, an aspiring screenwriter, and David, a successful magazine editor, have been pals for years. When David doesn't appreciate Sam's latest attempt, it opens a fissure in their friendship, one that spreads through the rest of their lives. Ultimately, both men must reevaluate their motivations to write, their need for praise and validation, and what it means to see yourself as you actually are.

Russell Brown, writer and director of "The Blue Tooth Virgin," said, "Regent recognized early on that 'The Blue Tooth Virgin' is an accessible comedy with universal themes. I couldn't be happier about the collaboration.

"The acquisition deal for "The Blue Tooth Virgin" was negotiated between Mark Reinhart, West Coast General Manager and Executive Vice President Distribution and Acquisitions for Regent and Ronna Wallace, of Eastgate Pictures.

For more information, please visit www.regentreleasing.com.

Screenplay Winners Announced for 2009 Writers Guild Awards

Congratulations to Waltz with Bashir, one of the top ten movies of the year.

From the WGA website:

LOS ANGELES, NEW YORK -- The Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW) and the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE) tonight announced the winners of the 2009 Writers Guild Awards for outstanding achievement in writing for screen, television, radio, news, promotional, and videogame writing at simultaneous ceremonies at the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles and the Hudson Theatre at the Millennium Broadway Hotel in New York City.

SCREEN WINNERS

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Milk, Written by Dustin Lance Black, Focus Features

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Slumdog Millionaire, Screenplay by Simon Beaufoy, Based
on the Novel Q & A by Vikas Swarup, Fox Searchlight Pictures

DOCUMENTARY SCREENPLAY

Waltz with Bashir, Written by Ari Folman, Sony Pictures
Classic

Log Lines for Screenplays/Teleplays

Revelation: Megan Johnson is an ordinary woman forced to be a witness to extraordinary times. People are disappearing for no reason in her town of Revelation, Illinois. When it is revealed to be an international phenomenon, the question becomes: is it a plague, is it supernatural, or is this just the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper. If M. Night Shyamalan had done the Left Behind series.

Forests of the Night: A Sexual Odyssey: When Uli’s best friend dies, he goes on an orgy of sex, drugs and violent behavior in order to rid himself of his anger and despair in a drama reminiscent of Charles Bukowski, Henry Miller and the films of Gregg Araki.

Welcome to LA: In this black comedy, Adam’s first few days in Los Angeles are greeted by a continual discovery of dead bodies in his building, an amorous police officer who wants to have sex with him then wants him to read his screenplay, and a mentor whose main advice is not to masturbate more than once a day. Will things get worse or better?

Rough Trade: On his way to audition for a porno film in L.A., hustler B.J. spends the night with a john only to wake up the next morning to find he has switched identities with his one night stand and that two thugs are after the john and plan to kill him. A gay North by Northwest.

.

Shooting Starz (co-writer): Two fictitious Hollywood actors, who always made a promise never to compete against each other in the Biz, suddenly find themselves fighting for the control of a mega Hollywood movie remake and the championship of a celebrity teenage girls’ basketball recreation league. With the female Hollywood studio head throwing both of them for a hoop…uh, loop.

.

Rita's World (co-writer): Hour TV comedy. When the owner of a long-time kids talent agency finds herself at a cross roads, her life finds an"unusual" way of showing her the path to take.

Profile

I began writing screenplays when I moved to Los Angeles in 2001. Since moving here, I have completed four screenplays on my own and co-written another and a television pilot. Most recently I have been contracted to write a straight-to-cable screenplay for Here! Networks/Regent Entertainment. My screenplay Rough Trade is a semi-finalist in the 2007 Extreme Screenplay Competition and a quarter finalist in the 2007 Screenwritingexpo Competition and my screenplay Revelation is a finalist in the 2007 Screenplay Festival Competition. In 2004, I taught the course The Dirty Dozen: The Twelve Most Common Mistakes Screenwriters Make at the Village at Ed Gould Plaza

Log Lines for Monologue Plays

THE AUDITION (1 W) An actress shows up for a mysterious audition.

ETHYL MAE POTTER, WE NEVER FORGOT HER (1 W) Ethyl Mertz tells her side of the I Love Lucy saga and how she got revenge on Fred, Ricky and that redheaded bitch.

I'D LIKE TO KISS YA, BUT I JUST WASHED MY HAIR. (1W, sort of. It will probably be more effective if done by a man; comedy monologue play). The central character finds herself entangled in a series of bizarre adventures after "he fell on mother". She is joined by such famous movies characters as Addison DeWitt, Waldo Lydecker and Marie Browning, and must battle such fiends as Harry Lime and Wilmer. Guest appearances by such luminaries as Margo Channing and Longfellow Deeds. Could make an interesting double feature with Film Noir.

SNAKES AND LADDERS (1 Character plus 1 other who has only one line—either can be played by a male or female) A great artist reveals the nightmarish secret of her success to a critic she has kidnapped.

Log Lines for One Act Plays

The plays that are highlighted can be accessed from this site. To locate a copy of the play, please click on the title.

A COLD COMING WE HAD OF IT. (2M, 1M or F). It's a blizzard and John and Dave are stuck at a train station waiting and waiting and waiting. And the bag lady that wanders in doesn't help matters any. But the blizzard does more than trap them. It provides them (to quote the Chicago Reader) "an opportu­nity to bicker, cajole, deceive, joke, cry, wheedle, and otherwise negotiate their way into an understanding" of their relationship as we discover why Dave is really so upset and where John really was the night before.

FILM NOIR. (5M, 3F). Based on the brooding, dark films of the forties and fifties that made Humphrey Bogart and Joan Bennett stars, Film Noir finds Fred Nirdlinger trapped in a grim world with little hope of happiness. In a desperate attempt to escape into a brighter world, he has an affair with a younger woman with a mysterious life.

GENTLE READER. (3M). Two friends have a weekly lunch until a chance disagreement shows just how fragile relationships can be.

IT’S ONLY FUCHSIA IF YOU’RE A GOD DAMN FAG. (2M). Azzie and Bayard are having an affair. Azzie wants Bayard to leave his lover. Bayard likes things the way they are. Caution: nudity and sexual content.

A LITTLE LEAR AND LAUNDRY. (3M). One day Cordell learns something of the truth of the line from King Lear, "Like flies to wanton boys are we to the gods, they slap us in their fun", when he runs across Larry in a laundromat. Larry, along with his lover, Reggie, owns the most successful bar in town, along with other various properties, and never has to cook, clean or, Cordell notes, do laundry if he doesn't want to. So what is he doing here and why is Reggie so upset when he shows up looking for his lover? The answer is not at all what Cordell expects.

THE MOMENT I WAKE UP. (2M). A man has an unusual encounter with a man who claims that his “brain is shrinking”.

THE PAST REMEMBERED. (4M). Two ex-lovers, betrayed and betrayer, meet. But who has the upper hand now?

THE SCREAM. (3M, 1F). At first it seems like a typical afternoon at the National Institute of Art for professor Daed Avrams, his wife Sarah and their son Zak. But it takes a decidedly bizarre turn when Terry Barnard, an ex-student of the Professor's, forces himself into their midst. The professor distrusts him and for some mysterious reason Zak hates him. His wife, however, welcomes him with open arms. And relationships that were slowly breaking apart, finally reach a point of no return.

THE VENERY OF LARKS. (2M). Two gay seminary students, Paul and Stephen, work out one morning while drilling each other for finals. They also dish, discuss a sick friend, size up men, and play a game. However, it is obvious that something is amiss for Stephen had disappeared with no warning for a few days to visit family and has just as suddenly returned demanding Paul meet him at the gym. By the end of the play, the word "finals" begins to take on a decidedly ironic meaning and Paul has to make some important decisions about his life and what it means to be in seminary.

THE WAY OF THE WORLD. (2M, 3 others which can be M or F). Two young men make life miserable for a series of elevator passengers until unexpected events take over.

Log Lines of Full Length Plays

CLO. (1 central M, 2 central F, various supporting depending on double and triple casting). A teacher new to Chicago slowly discovers that the plots of the books she is teaching in her accelerated English class are happening to the inhabitants of her condo complex. At first, when her upstairs neighbor claims that her children were kidnapped only for the police to discover that she murdered them because her husband was divorcing her and her new boyfriend wanted nothing to do with them, Clo only notes a passing coincidence to the fact that she is teaching Medea at the time. But when events, both sad and funny, start mirroring Hamlet, A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, Adam Bede and Oliver Twist, she no longer is sure what to think. Then when two woman are murdered under circumstances similar to Crime and Punishment, she decides to quit teaching her latest novel, Anna Karenina, only to discover that her solution might be worse than what came before.

ENDLESS NIGHT/SWEET DELIGHT. (4M, 1F). EN/SW is a ghost, though not a horror, story. Oran, an up and coming folk singer, retreats to some friends farm to recover from the death of his lover and to decide upon his future, though this decision has more serious ramifications that his friends realize. At first he only hears about the legend of Shad, a young man whose lover died during the great flu epidemic of WWI, but then he meets Shad and finds his life, and Shad's death, taking unexpected turns.

FORESTS OF THE NIGHT: A Sexual Odyssey. (1 central M with several supporting roles to be double and triple cast). When Uli's best friend dies, he tells friends he is "going away" for awhile. But the way Uli defines going away is different from what most people mean by that term. A challenging piece of theater, this play is extremely frank and includes several sexual encounters.

THE KINDNESS OF STRANGERS. (9M). A group of gay Catholics must come to terms with the sudden and mysterious death of one of their group.

QUEEN CHRISTINA GOES ROMAN. (5M, 2F) An historical drama...(NOT!), this plays begins as a burlesque of Queen Christina's abdication from the throne of Sweden and her conversion to Catholicism, though it takes a very serious turn by the end. The central characters also include Pope Julius II, Edward II, Roy Cohn and Peter Tchaikovsky, all alive at the same time. There exist all the modern conveniences such as movies and planes, but Galileo has just renounced his theory that the earth is round and Boccaccio has just published The Decameron.

SOME ENCHANTED EVENING. (9M). What would you do to gain the person you love/lust after? Would you change the way you dress? Your hair? Would you take on a different personality? Two different personalities? The central character, William Faydor, asks that and more of three unsuspecting men as he leads them on a merry chase after each other that culminates in a game of "Ill Met By Moonlight".

WINTER OF DISCONTENT. (3 central M, 1 central F, several supporting roles). Billie, a woman made highly introspective by a mishap during a fire at a Catholic school that left half of her face paralyzed, owns a bookstore in Chicago. What is it that Dick, an extremely charismatic and attractive young man who chances into her store one evening, wants from her?

Resume

2008

Production of Queen Christina Goes Roman by Halsted Street Productions

2007

Contracted to write a screenplay for Here! Networks/Regent Entertainment
Screenplay Rough Trade a semi-finalist in the Extreme Screenplay Competition
Screenplay Revelation a finalist in the Screenplay Festival competition
Screenplay Rough Trade a quarterfinalist in Screenwritingexpo Competition

2004

Originated and co-produce SLAMDANCE ON STAGE, a series of readings at different theaters in Los Angeles of all the winners of the Slamdance Screenplay/ Teleplay Competitions (until 2006)
Taught the course The Dirty Dozen: The Twelve Most Common Mistakes Screenwriters Make at the Village at Ed Gould Plaza

2002

GLAAD Nomination for Production of A COLD COMING WE HAD OF IT (one of the plays from Halsted Street…) for best Los Angeles Production of 2002
HALSTED STREET, CHICAGO: A FEW TALES FROM BOYSTOWN ranked second by Frontiers Magazine for best Los Angeles production of 2002
Production of HALSTED STREET, CHICAGO… at Korbett Kompany Productions in San Diego
Production of ENDLESS NIGHT/SWEET DELIGHT at Wings Theatre, New York
Production of HALSTED STREET, CHICAGO… by Halsted Street Productions in Los Angeles

2001

Production of THE WAY OF THE WORLD at Shelterbelt Theatre’s Shelterskelter Theatre Festival, Omaha, Nebraska

2000

Production of ENDLESS NIGHT/SWEET DELIGHT at Bailiwick Theatre, Chicago
Production of A MISREADING OF CAMUS at West Coast Ensemble, Los Angeles
Production of RANDOM ACTS: THREE TALES FROM BOYSTOWN by Potter Productions, Chicago

1999

Production of A LITTER LEAR AND LAUNDRY at Bailiwick Theatre Director’s Festival, Chicago
Production of EHTYL MAE POTTER, WE NEVER FORGOT HER at the Mary Archie Abbie Hoffman Died for Our Sins Theatre Festival, Chicago

1994

Production of QUEEN CHRISTINA GOES ROMAN by Theatre Praxis, Chicago
QUEEN CHRISTINA… selected as finalist in New Hope Performing Arts Festival

1993

Workshop Production of QUEEN CHRISTINA GOES ROMAN at Western Stage’s Salinas River New Works Project, Salinas, California
ENDLESS NIGHT/SWEET DELIGHT commissioned by Lionheart Theatre, Chicago
Chicago contributor to The Purple Circuit Newsletter (position held through 2001)

1992

A COLD COMING WE HAD OF IT released on video by Golden West Productions, California

1989

Production of THE VENERY OF LARKS at The Commons Theatre, Chicago

1987

Production of A COLD COMING WE HAD OF IT at Déjà vu Coffeehouse, Los Angeles
Production of A COLD COMING… by Golden West Productions for an AIDS benefit in California

1986

Production of A COLD COMING WE HAD OF IT at West Coast Ensemble’s Annual One Act Play Festival, Los Angeles
Production of THE SCREAM by Bailiwick Repertory and Greenlight Productions, Chicago

Profile

My plays have been seen in Chicago, New York and L.A. My most recent L.A. production was for Queen Christina Goes Roman in 2008, and in 2002 I received a GLAAD nomination for best L.A. production for my play A Cold Coming We Had of It as well as rave reviews for an evening of one acts Halsted Street, Chicago: A Few Tales From Boystown.

Screenplay Consultation Philosophy and Fees

When providing coverage or script consultation, I am a firm believer in not providing feedback based on a set of rules one gets from a popular book on screenwriting. All coverage should be based on the idea of trying to make a script work on its own terms. I don’t care if a character is active, passive, or reactive, but only if the story works. I don’t care if there is a three act structure and the first act ends on page 30, but only if the story works. I don’t care if the central character has a character arc, but only if the story works. I am a great advocate of writers trying to break the rules and find new ways of communicating their visions.

My charge for script consultation is $150.00 and consists of doing three to four pages of detailed notes, making notes on the script (if a hard copy is provided) and a one hour in person consultation. Turn around time is one week or less.

I also provide four to five pages of notes alone (no notes on script, no in person consultation) for $50.00.

I began doing script consultation in 2003 for the Slamdance Screenplay Competition. That year and for the next three years I discovered the first place winner. I quickly became one of their top readers and my coverage is used as the sample on their web site. In addition, I have read for the Slamdance Teleplay Competition (where I discovered the first place winner the first year) and the Horror Screenplay Competition. Also through Slamdance, I originated and co-produced the Slamdance on Stage reading series in which the winners of the competitions were provided staged readings of their scripts at different legitimate theaters around town.

At the present time, I provide coverage and am a reader for the Slamdance Screenplay Competition and the Big Break Final Draft Screenplay Competition. I have also read for Here! Networks/Regent Entertainment, Creative World Awards, the African Film Commission Screenplay Competition and been a judge for the Great Gay Screenplay Contest. 

The Best Films of 2008 or the Howies

Top Ten Movies of 2008

Best Picture: Reprise
The rest in alphabetical order

Antartica
Che
The Counterfeiters
Edge of Heaven
In Bruges
Let the Right One In
Love Songs
Tell No One
Waltz with Bashir

Honorable mentions:

The Dark Knight, Wall-E

Special mention for Documentary:

Man on Wire
Helvetica

A Special List of Movies only shown once in L.A. (at film fests, etc.) in alphabetical order:

Before I Forget
The Chaser
The Good, the Bad, the Weird
The Headless Woman
Solitary fragments
Summer hours

Special Award for Best ensemble:

Doubt (Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Viola Davis, Philip Seymour Hoffman)
Note: I know this is cheating, but it freed up spaces on the best acting lists.


Best Actors of 2008

Best Actor:

Jacques Nolot – Before I Forget

The rest in alphabetical order

Francois Cluzet – Tell No One
Robert Downey, Jr. – Tropic Thunder, Iron Man
Karl Markovics - The Counterfeiters
Sean Penn - Milk

Honorable mentions:

Collin Farrell – In Bruges, Cassandra’s Dream
Benicio del Toro – Che
Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler
Frank Langella - Frost/Nixon


Best Actresses of 2008

Best Actress:

Melissa Leo - Frozen River
The rest in alphabetical order

Juliette Binoche – Flight of the Red Balloon, Summer Hours
Sally Hawkins – Happy Go Lucky
Maria Onetto – Headless Woman
Kirsten Scott Thomas – I Have Loved You So Long

Honorable mentions:

Angelina Jolie – Changeling
Kate Winslet – The Reader; Revolutionary Road


Best Supporting Actors of 2008

Best Supporting Actor:

Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight

The rest in alphabetical order

Josh Brolin – Milk
Ralph Feinnes - In Bruges, the Duchess, The Reader
Gilles LeLouche – Tell No One
Eddie Marsan – Happy Go Lucky

Honorable Mentions:

Michael Shannon – Revolutionary Road;
Diego Luna - Milk

Best Supporting Actresses of 2008

Best Supporting Actress:

Penelope Cruz – Vicki Christina Barcelona
The rest in alphabetical order

Kathy Bates – Revolutionary Road
Lisa Kudrow – Kabluey
Elza Lyberstein – I Have Loved You So Long
Amy Poehler – Hamlet II

Honorable mentions:

Marissa Tomei – The Wrestler
Hannah Shygulla – Edge of Heaven

Best Direction of 2008

Best Director:

Che - Steven Sodenbergh
The rest in alphabetical order

The Chaser – Hong-jin Na
The Dark Knight – Christopher Nolan
The Good, the Bad, the Weird – Ji Woom-Kin
Reprise – Joachim Trier

Honorable mention:

Jon Favreau – Iron Man

Best Screenplays of 2008

Best Screenplay:

Reprise – Joachim Trier, Eskil Vogt

The rest in alphabetical order

Antarctica – Yair Hochner
The Counterfeiters – Stefan Ruzowitzky
In Bruges – Martin McDonagh
Tell No One – Guilliame Canet, Harlan Coben

Biography

Howard Casner began writing screenplays when he moved to Los Angeles in 2001.  In 2003, he became a reader and judge for the Slamdance Screenplay Competition where he discovered the first place winner for that year and for the four years following.  Also, though Slamdance, he originated and co-produced the Slamdance on Stage reading series in which the winners of the competitions were given staged readings at different legitimate theaters around town. 

Since then he has provided coverage and screenplay consultation for Slamdance Screenplay Competition; Here! Networks/Regent Entertainment; Final Draft Big Break Screenplay Competition; Budget Cheetah; Creative World Awards; Gimme Credit Screenplay Competition; African Film Commission Screenplay Competition; Screenplay Readers and Coverageink. 

He has also completed a number of screenplays and written a straight-to-cable screenplay for Here! Networks/Regent Entertainment.  His screenplay Rough Trade is a semi-finalist in the 2007 Extreme Screenplay Competition; a quarter finalist in the 2007 Screenwritingexpo Competition; a quarterfinalist in the 2009 Champion Screenwriting Competition; and a semifinalist in the 2012 Outfest Writer’s Lab.  His screenplays Rough Trade and Welcome to L.A. both made the top twelve in the 2011 Great Gay Screenplay Competition with Welcome to L.A. making the top five.  His screenplay Revelation is a finalist in the 2007 Screenplay Festival Competition.  His most recent screenplay made the finalists in the London Film Awards screenplay competition.

In addition, he heads and moderates the Write Club screenwriting group that meets every other week in Hollywood.  For more information check out: http://www.meetup.com/Write-Club/.

Prior to his arrival in L.A., his main emphasis had been on writing for the stage and his plays have been seen in Chicago, New York and L.A.  His most recent L.A. production was for his dark comedy Queen Christina Goes Roman and in 2002, he received a GLAAD nomination for best L.A. production for his play A Cold Coming We Had of It.