About Me

My photo
PLEASE NOTE: I have moved my blog to http://howardcasner.wordpress.com/. Please follow the link for all my updated postings. Thank you.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

LONDON CRITICS CIRCLE NOMINATIONS

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/tinker-tailor-soldier-spy-drive-275698

Monday, December 19, 2011

WGA RESTORES DALTON TRUMBO'S CREDIT TO ROMAN HOLIDAY

http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/wga-restores-blacklisted-writer-dalton-trumbos-screen-credit-to-roman-holiday/
Better late than never, I suppose.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

FINALLY: They're Beginning to See the Light

They're finally coming around. The Artist is going to win Best Picture. It's taking them long enough. http://www.indiewire.com/article/10-notable-things-about-the-sag-golden-globe-and-critics-choice-nominations

GOLDEN GLOBE NOMS

No Tinker, Tailor...
http://www.goldderby.com/cms/view/125

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

SAG NOMS ARE OUT

This should be close to the Oscars, but the voting group is different since it includes TV actors who don't have Oscar membership.
http://www.goldderby.com/cms/view/122

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

BROADCAST FILM CRITICS--ON LINE CRITICS--AWARDS

No Tinker, Tailor,..but other than that, generally speaking, this should be the group to choose the Oscar nom from.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/hugo-the-artist-lead-critics-choice-movie-award-nominations-with-11-each/

Sunday, December 11, 2011

NEW YORK FILM CRITICS ON LINE

Another mention for Melissa McCarthy, and a nice mention for Attack the Block, but no real surprises. http://www.goldderby.com/films/news/2270/new-york-film-critics-online-awards-news.html

LA FILM CRITICS AWARDS

Most pleasant surprise: Yung Jung-hee for best actress, who will probably make my top list.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/la-film-critics-christopher-plummer-jessica-chastain-
take-supporting-prizestor/

BOSTON FILM CRITICS AWARDS

I tell you--it's the Artist for Best Picture at the Oscars and probably Brad Pitt for actor. Most interesting surprises here: Melissa McCarthy for Best Supporting Actress and the Clock for best editing (also Incindies for best foreign film, but only because that was eligible for the Oscars last year--Boston may not have gotten until this year).
http://www.bostonfilmcritics.org/content/current-winners

Friday, December 9, 2011

HOW TO PLEASE A SCREENWRITER: Know Your Job: Storyboarding Deux

It’s been a long time since I wrote an entry for my How to Please a Screenplay Reader. I got work and then I’ve started a new screenplay. But I need to start catching up here.

To continue with my topic of storyboarding, I will devote this entry to a basic set of no-no’s when it comes to narrative. Most, if not all, of these rules you should know already. If not, let’s just say that the following should almost never be done. And remember, you’ve been warned: I have a ruler and I’m not afraid to use it.

TRANSITION SHOTS

Do not indicate transitions shots. This means anything like “fade in”, “fade out”, “cut to”, “dissolve to”, “smash cut to”, “match cut to”, etc. The only exception is using “fade in” to begin the screenplay (it’s like saying “once upon a time”) and using “fade out” at the end of the screenplay (there is no need to say “the end”--fade out is the same thing).

Including “cut to” is something that is just not necessary anymore. It serves no real purpose these days and is implied. And eliminating them saves you two lines for every transition. (I’ve read scripts where a writer could cut the script by two to five pages alone by getting rid of these annoying, pesky, little creatures--and believe me, if you don‘t get rid of them early on, they start breeding like rabbits.)

You don’t use any of the others (“dissolve to”, “slow dissolve”,
“match cut to”, etc.) because those are a director/editor’s decision based on issues you don’t know yet (budget--some transitions can be more expensive than others; style--what effect the director is trying to communicate; what shots are available to connect one scene to another; what rhythm is the director trying to create, etc.). In addition, “smash cut” is no different than a cut. It’s not faster (it’s impossible for anything to be faster than a cut). Some people use it to imply that something jarring is happening. That makes it a variation on the match cut with all the no-no’s attributed to that (again, that’s up to the director and editor).

As an adjunct to this, a friend in a writing group separated two scenes with:

FADE IN
FADE OUT

Not on the transition side of the script, but in the narrative area. None of us knew what this meant. The writer explained that this was traditional shorthand to indicate a long period of time passing. I actually like this idea. But again, it’s not necessary. It’s one of those things that just isn’t done anymore and many readers will have no idea what this means (they’ll think you deleted a scene and forgot to delete the transition shots).

CAMERA ANGLES

Do not state camera angles. You know what I mean and I know you know what I mean and you know I know…whatever: POV, CU, WIDE SHOT, LONG SHOT, etc.

These are all a director’s decision (along with the editor, cinematographer, even the actor). And it’s a decision they often won’t or can’t even make until after the scene has been shot and the director/editor can see what shots are available and what camera angles work and don’t work and what is the best way to tell the story and communicate what is going on in the scene.

What a screenwriter does, if he wants, is imply shots. The one example I remember from a book is:

A cowboy rides up onto a hill. He is sweating heavily. He looks behind him to see if he’s being followed. He rides down the hill and off into the distance.

Translated means:

A cowboy rides up onto a hill (wide shot). He is sweating heavily (close up). He looks behind him to see if he’s being followed (medium shot followed by POV). He rides down the hill and off into the distance (wide shot).

However, the director may still want to shoot it differently. But again, that’s his job, not yours.

There are always exceptions. The one that comes to mind is a POV shot when you don’t want the audience to know who’s watching (Friday the 13th). I still wouldn’t say POV. I would imply it. “An UNSEEN PERSON watches as Character A does something”. But this is a bit tricky, I agree.

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

1. Please don’t use a Prelap or Postlap voice overs. These are voice overs that began at the end or beginning of a scene, but are said by someone in the next or previous scene.

JANE (V.O)
And now we homo erectus.

INT. COLLEGE CLASS ROOM-DAY

Jane points to a picture projected on a screen behind her.

First, this is just plain annoying to read.

Second, it causes a momentary disconnect as the reader has to stop and think a moment in order to figure out which scene this line belongs to.

Third, this is a director’s decision with all the yadda, yadda, yadda reasons already mentioned.

Fourth, I have yet to read an example where it was essential to the plot.

Fifth, it’s just plain annoying as hell to read.

2. INSERT is no longer required:

John looks at the clock.

INSERT: 12:00

The insert is implied and redundant. Just say: John looks at the clock which says “12:00”. This also saves space and streamlines the narrative.

3. PERONAL PRONOUNS: Don’t use “we”, “us” or other personal pronouns in the story. The main reason here is that it’s just not done and people tend to look down on writers who do (not rational, I know, but there it is). It’s also redundant. Saying “we see a boy running” is the same thing as “a boy runs” and the later is more succinct and stated in a more streamlined manner. It also is a way of sneakily suggesting camera angles, etc., which doesn’t fool anyone and is not the writer’s job.

NEXT: I FEEL A NEED FOR SPEED: HOW TO STREAMLINE YOUR SCREENPLAY

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

PGA NOMINATIONS FOR TV

The WGA had no Mad Men, PGA has no Breaking Bad. They must be on a different schedule.
http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/mad-men-modern-family-receive-producers-guild-tv-nominations-33390

WGA TV NOMINATIONS

I was going to say where's Mad Men, then remembered there was no Mad Men this voting round.
http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/boardwalk-empire-breaking-bad-modern-family-lead-wgas-tv-nominees-33392?page=0,0

NEW YORKER: BEST FILMS OF THE YEAR

Pauline Kael is rolling over in her grave. Very middle brow and safe for a publication with the cache of the New Yorker, but their movie criticism hasn't been that challenging for some time.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2011/12/denby-the-best-films-of-2011.html

ANALYSIS OF BEST ACTOR RACE

I still think it's going to be Brad Pitt.
http://www.goldderby.com/films/news/2242/oscars-george-clooney-michael-fassbender-movie-news.html

THE NEW YORKER PUBLISHES A REVIEW OF GIRL WITH DRAGON TATTOO WHEN IT PROMISES IT WOULDN'T

http://www.miami.com/fincher-david-denby-film-critics-and-embargoes-article

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

LARS VON TRIER DOESN'T ACCEPT HIS BEST PICTURE AWARD AT EFA

Lars Von Trier doesn't pick up his European Film Award for best picture. http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/in-contention/posts/von-trier-maintains-his-silence-at-european-film-awards

ANALYSIS OF BEST DIRECTOR RACE

http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/hammond-oscar-race-for-best-director-in-the-year-of-the-master/

AWARD PREDICTIONS

http://www.indiewire.com/article/for-your-consideration-indiewire-predicts-the-oscar-precursors-part-2

HOW TO EXPLOIT THE AWARDS SEASON RATHER THAN BE DESTROYED BY IT

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/11/30/142943006/sorting-through-statuettes-a-skeptics-guide-to-surviving-awards-season

A NUMBER OF SCREENPLAYS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR OSCARS

http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/artist-shame-among-films-not-eligible-writers-guild-awards-33297

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

HOW TO PLEASE A SCREENPLAY READER: Know Your Job: Storyboard on your own time

KNOW YOUR JOB: Storyboard on your own time

The second type of overwriter are those who write from a director’s point of view, often what we call storyboarding a screenplay.

Their screenplay often reads something like this:

INT. KITCHEN DAY

A pair of hands clear the remainder of dishes from a table.

A cat rubs up against a pair of legs.

Two feet in worn slippers pad against the floor.

A set of fingers, one with a tarnished wedding band, change the channel on a radio.

An arm wipes sweat off a tired brow.

A figure covered in a sad blue dress starts swaying to the bosa nova beat coming from the radio.

The woman, now fully seen, is Elizabeth, 40’s. She loses herself in the lush music.

Let me say here and now, storyboarding is not your responsibility. Don’t do it. Don’t even think about doing it. Don’t even think about thinking about doing it. Cut off you right hand (or your left if you are so inclined) if it threatens to offend you by doing this.
It’s not your job.

Now that I got that off my chest:

For the scene above, all that is needed is

INT. KITCHEN DAY

Elizabeth, 40’s, careworn, clears a table and washes dishes.

She changes the station on the radio, then loses herself in the bosa nova music that comes over it.

It’s actually unclear to me why author’s even want to storyboard a screenplay. They often say it’s an attempt to get the director to film the image the way they see it (sneaky little devils).

I would accept this if the way the author was storyboarding the scene was essential to the meaning of the story, that the plot or character or character arc or whatever is driving the story would be meaningless if the scene was shot in any other way. But it would take a lot to convince me that the second way the scene was written (the way I wrote it) is significantly different, changes the plot or arc or whatever, in any way from how the scene was written in the first example.

I can just see the audience now. “I don’t understand that scene. It makes no sense. Wait, I know. If they had only had close ups of the hands first, then everything would be crystal clear”.

And in the end, the second example, the way I wrote it, is much easier to read and follow and brings more forward momentum to the story. The other is just a bit slog, bog heavy, unnecessarily slowing the scene down.

Storyboarding is the director’s job. They put long, hard hours into it. It’s one of their few creative outlets (we did write the screenplay and come up with the whole idea, characters, themes, mood--you know all the good stuff). So throw them a bone and let them add that something creative to the proceedings since it‘s all they have to offer.

The problem writer’s have with director’s is not that they do the storyboarding, it’s when they rewrite the script, which are two different issues--and writing the screenplay as if you were storyboarding it isn’t going to stop the director from rewriting it; it might even encourage him to do more of it.

In addition, storyboarding is often based on issues that you as a writer are not aware of yet: budget; scheduling; how many takes a director can take; how does he edit a scene out of the shots he made; the location and set design; how the actors want to do the scene and what they want to bring to it; etc., etc., etc.

What I often find interesting here is that more often than not, when a screenwriter begins their screenplay the way the example does above, it usually only lasts a couple of scenes. After that they tend to go back to writing in a more clear, concise manner (notice I said more clear and concise, not clear and concise).

Why, I don’t know. I mean, if the story or characters made no sense in the opening scenes without the storyboarding, then that should be true of the screenplay as a whole. My guess is that it’s much harder to write a screenplay by storyboarding it and the author quickly realizes they don’t need all this directory type stuff to communicate their intention. It’s an exhausting way to write a story and it doesn’t really do what the author thinks it does.

NEXT: STORYBOARDING DUEX

Thursday, October 13, 2011

HOW TO PLEASE A SCREENPLAY READER: Proust or Hemingway--what goes into a narrative paragraph

My topic de jour is what exactly goes into a narrative paragraph. The answer actually resembles two phrases you may have encountered somewhere along the way. A story is made up of a beginning, middle and end. A person is born, lives and dies.

Both statements are deeply profound and incredibly insightful. The first one tells you everything you need to know about how to structure a story. The second tells you everything you need to know about the meaning of life.

At the same time, both statements tell you nothing at all. The first doesn’t tell you what goes into a beginning, middle or end, or how to use them to achieve your goal. The second doesn’t really tell you anything about how to live your life and falls short of explaining what the “meaning of” even means.

It’s the same for what goes into a narrative paragraph. The answer is that it is the least number of words necessary to introduce a character; establish a setting; or further a plot. Nothing more, nothing less.

I will eventually be getting into particulars of how to do all three, but right now, I want to continue in generalities.

The two main errors I see in how screenplay narrative is written (and as I said in my first column, I do believe it’s getting worse and worse) is first, overwritten narrative, especially those with a literary bent, and second, narrative that is storyboarded or written from a director’s viewpoint. I’ll deal first with overwritten narrative, saving the second for my next column.

Overwriters are those who approach their narrative like it’s a novel. They fill it with details and minutia , ideas and commentary, figures of speech and literary flourishes, all of which would be a joy to someone reading a book (it’s actually one of the joys of reading literature), but are a nightmare to someone reading a screenplay.

For example:

EXT. GARDEN DAY

Henrietta stands like a soldier in front of her easel as if ready to do battle. Then she suddenly drops her shoulders, relaxing into the excitement of what is to come.

She delicately grasps a brush and playfully twirls it in a glass of water, as if her artistic weapon were a ballerina. She thinks a moment, then carefully dips the brush in a reddish color that explodes off the palette.

She knits her brow as she deconstructs a vibrant red rose that almost seems to be blushing. Then she takes the brush and with delicate strokes, she applies color to canvass almost as if she is entering a trance.

In a way, I’m exaggerating. In a way, I’m not. I’ve actually gotten a few screenplays run riot with that much detail (the one above is a recreation of a page that actually went on for quite a few more paragraphs before the whole scene was over). Unfortunately, I had to inform the author that all she needed, believe it or not, was:

Henrietta stands in her garden painting a rose.

That’s it. End of story. That’s all she wrote, or should have.

At the same time, you’re right. I don’t get a screenplay that detailed very often (though more often than I or anyone should). However, it is not unusual to get a screenplay that reads something like:

John gets in his car like a thief in the night. He puts on his seat belt and adjusts the mirror. He starts the car. He listens attentively to a talk show on the radio for half a minute, trying to figure out if he wants to keep listening to it. He looks over his shoulder and pulls out of the driveway, calmly driving down the street.

When all that is needed:

John gets in his car and drives away.

I’m not sure why writers want to do this. For many it’s simply not knowing any better (the only acceptable excuse, though after reading this column, you can‘t use it anymore).

For many, I think they believe this is the way to create a visual image (it actually does the opposite as I‘ll go into in a future column).

For many, they think this is the way they can control what is shown on the screen and how it is shown (it won’t; first it has to get past a reader and this kind of overwriting will probably prompt a keeper of the gate to tell his boss that the screenplay is a slog to get through and moves at a snail’s pace; secondly, the director will just ignore all the details and storyboard the screenplay the way he feels he needs to in order to create his artistic vision).

One rider said he wrote in such detail in order to create a mood. I didn’t tell him, though I was tempted to, that the only mood he was creating was boredom. (Mood is not created through the literary details of narrative, but through action, character, setting and maybe, just maybe, every long once in awhile, a very carefully placed adjective or two--preferably no more than one if any at all).

I still have much to say here as I delve into such things as how to introduce a character and how to establish a setting. But first I want to deal with the idea of writers who storyboard a screenplay with their narrative.

In conclusion, I am going to make one last comment. When choosing a style for writing narrative, do not chose Proust or Faulkner as your literary model. They are two of the greatest writers that ever lived, and I relish their books. But if you write like them in a screenplay, it’s deadly.

Instead, take as your model Ernest Hemingway, especially the short story Ernest Hemingway. Simple, short, finely honed to the point declarative sentences with little to no literary flourishes.

Actually, there are times when I wish people would copy the style of their first grade reader: See Dick. See Dick run. See Jane. See Jane run. See Dick and Jane run. But Hemingway will more than suffice.

NEXT COLUMN: KNOW YOUR PLACE

Saturday, October 8, 2011

HOW TO PLEASE A SCREENPLAY READER: Does Size Matter--how long should narrative paragraphs be

Another issue that comes up when I’m reading scripts is the length of narrative paragraphs. Sometimes it seems to me that writers either don’t know or just don’t care or think it’s irrelevant what the length of paragraphs should be. But I suggest that by not caring, it is so easy to create a screenplay that a reader has to slog through rather than breeze through. And believe me, I’ve done more than my fair share of slogging in my time.

One way to deslog one’s script is to find user friendly lengths to the paragraphs. Most writers tell me they are taught, or read in books, that narrative paragraphs should be no more than 3 ½ to 4 lines each. However, I wish to support a more reader friendly length. Narrative paragraphs should be no more than 2 ½ lines each. The exception here would be for action scenes, which I suggest be no more than 1 ½ lines each (a column on action scenes, on which I sometimes feel my opinion to be a lone voice in the wilderness, will be covered in a future column).

My preference for 2 ½ line paragraphs (or less) is not based on anything but experience; I can‘t point to anything empirical here, just a feeling based on reading script after script for years. It’s not unusual at my peak period to read four to five a day (not that unusual for people who read for a living). And based on this, I have found that paragraphs of 2 ½ lines each are easier to read than 3 ½ or longer. And there are times when even less than this is better.

Also, having a paragraph line that ends halfway through or sooner (and no more than 2/3rds of the way through) is psychologically easier to read than a paragraph in which the last line reaches the end of the margin. It’s the same thing as something costing 99 cents coming across as way cheaper that something costing a dollar on the dot.

In addition, the number of paragraphs you have in a row or in a scene is also a pertinent factor. There is little that is more dispiriting than for a reader to turn a page and see four or more paragraphs of 3 ½ lines or longer in a row. A reader’s usual reaction here is to sigh heavily, roll their eyes, then gird their loins and start on a painful journey through a mire of slogginess.

It is thus suggested that the more paragraphs you have in a row, the shorter the paragraphs should be. It is also suggested that if you have three or more paragraphs that you vary the length, say make one 2 ½, the next 1, the next 2 lines, etc. In addition,
my experience has been that if a writer has three or more paragraphs of 3 ½ lines each, most likely the paragraphs are overly written, filled with unnecessary details, and need to be ruthlessly edited.

This is where the concept of “white space” comes in. In the end, what the author is trying to achieve with his screenplay is having as much “white space” as possible, i.e. to have more white space than words.

The easiest way to check this out is to pull up a number of pages at a time and look at them (they don’t even have to be readable here; all you need to be able to do is to see at a glance how much white space there is). I agree that this sounds arbitrary; and it is, in a way. Shouldn’t the number of words parallel what Mozart said to the Archduke when the Archduke commented that there were two many notes in an opera Mozart had written--paraphrasing, Amadeus replied, only the exact number that is needed, no more and no less?

At the same time, the more I read scripts, the more the idea of white space does seem to correspond to a screenplay that is easy breezy to read. The less white space there is, the more likely again that the narrative is being overwritten. The more white space there is, the more likely that you will have the exact number of words you need, no less and certainly no more.

There are methods one can use to help with tightening paragraphs to within an inch of their lives, thus keeping paragraphs at a user friendly length and adding to the amount of white space. But first, I want to talk about what actually goes into narrative and what doesn‘t, which is the subject of my…

NEXT COLUMN: PROUST OR HEMINGWAY

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

HOW TO PLEASE A SCREENPLAY READER

In Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy opens his novel with the line “[a]ll happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”. I’ve just finished reading for several screenplay competitions for the year, and Tolstoy’s observation can also be applied to screenplays, though in a vice versa manner: all good screenplays are good in their own way, but all mediocre to badly written screenplays resemble one another.

So I thought I would start a series of articles based on what are for me the most common errors I have run across in my years as a reader and script consultant, not just for contests, but for a production company as well as with my personal clients.

There was one area that was particularly frustrating this year, an area that seems to have actually been getting worse every time competition time comes around (if I had hair, I wouldn’t, because I would have torn it all out by now). For some reason, screenwriters often have little to no idea how to write effective narrative and formatting. In fact, I got so frustrated that at one point I publicly growled on my facebook page wondering whether writers were even being taught how to write narrative well, desperately wishing that someone, somewhere would devote a course to nothing but this topic.

First it should be noted what I mean by effective narrative and formatting. It’s not, as some people think, following a set of rules that if not followed, will automatically get an author a failing grade from a reader or production company or agency. The main reason to strive for effective narrative and formatting it to make the screenplay easy to read and understand; make the plot easy to follow; and make the characters come alive.

I even had to respond to a contestant who said that a professional script doctor was telling him to do things differently than I was and was curious which set of rules were correct. My response was that the screenwriter was approaching the idea of narrative/formatting from the wrong perspective. It’s not a matter of rules that have to be followed. It’s a matter of creating a use friendly screenplay that will be entertaining and exciting to read.

Usually there are two reasons writers give for why they write narrative and formatting the way they do (other than pure ignorance--writers who really have no idea). The first reason is that a book or teacher told them to. The second is that they read a script in which the writer did the same thing.

For example, one issue that continually pops up is writers who fully capitalize sounds and other objects the author wants to emphasize.

My suggestion is that it is more effective to only fully capitalize the names of characters when they first appear. The reason for this is that fully capitalized words are distracting to the eyes and can therefore interrupt the flow of the reading. In addition, fully capitalized words can throw off the rhythm of the lines, making me emphasize the capitalized word in the sentence rather than retain the natural rhythm of the sentence (“John throws the grenade” and “John throws the GRENADE” read very differently in the head).

When I ask a writer why he wants to capitalize these words, he often says that a book told him to. When I ask him why the book said to do it, he often says that the book said it was a rule. I suggest that that is usually an insufficient reason for doing something.

The only reason that ever made any sense to me in regard to capitalizing like this is that the writer wants to emphasize something for the director so that the director knows how to visually shoot the movie (in other words, the author is storyboarding the movie). But this is not the author’s job, it is the director’s. And the director isn’t going to care what you want to emphasize visually. They are going to storyboard the screenplay and shoot it the way they want to.

The second reason is that the author read a screenplay (one that has been made and/or lauded) and that that writer did something not normally done and therefore the screenwriter should be able to do it, too. Again, that’s not a reason to do something since you don’t know why this particular screenwriter did what he did.

Also, screenplays at different levels of development look different. Shooting scripts can look very different from spec scripts because there is often a lot of detail that has been contributed along the way, details that the director and producer asked the screenwriter to include. Also, sometimes these screenwriters are directors and include details for their own purposes. And sometimes these screenwriters have reached a level where they can do whatever the hell they want. Also, screenplays written for Hollywood studios do sometimes look different from spec scripts written for independent producers.

But in the end, I’m not here to tell you what you can get away with, like these writers have done. You can get away with anything. I’m here to suggest what is best for the screenplay and what makes it easier to read and understand, what works best for the screenplay. You can do anything you want and it’s possible that you might get the script bought. My purpose here is to make your screenplay more readable and more appealing to production companies, contests and others.

Next: length of narrative paragraphs.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

My screenplay Welcome to LA makes top 5 of Great Gay Screenplay Competition

My screenplay Welcome to LA made the top five of the Great Gay Screenplay Competition. My screenplay Rough Trade also made the top twelve.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs062/1102568755484/archive/1107684534746.html

Monday, September 12, 2011

Why Is Television Losing Women Writers?

Interesting article on a disturbing trend.

http://www.aoltv.com/2011/09/08/women-television-producers-decline/

Saturday, August 20, 2011

My Screenplays ROUGH TRADE and WELCOME TO L.A. make top 12 of Great Gay Screenplay Contest

Yes, that's two, count them two, in the top 12. http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs062/1102568755484/archive/1107185937988.html

Monday, August 8, 2011

An interesting article on a different way to write a spec script--very clever

http://www.scriptmag.com/2011/08/01/primetime-8-great-books-to-help-you-break-in-and-when-to-write-a-novelty-spec/

Saturday, August 6, 2011

I'm getting a tad tired of flashbacks myself

http://www.scriptmag.com/2011/08/01/breaking-in-its-high-noon-for-flashbacks/

Thursday, August 4, 2011

A blog entry on two kinds of endings to stories

http://johnaugust.com/2011/the-two-kinds-of-endings

A posting on my facebook wall re my script consultation

Got a great posting on my Facebook wall from Doug Winningham. "Thank you for your precise and professional notes on my screenplay "Among Thieves." You're right: it took a lot of work to get it right but I'm very proud of the results." Thanks, Doug, for using my services.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

CARS suit running out of Gas?--Cars copyright lawsuit dismissed

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cars-copyright-lawsuit-dismissed-win-217613?utm_source=Film+News+Briefs&utm_campaign=325cee1865-TUESDAY_AUGUST_2_20118_2_2011&utm_medium=email

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Only four days left to enter Slamdance Screenplay Competition

https://www.withoutabox.com/03film/03t_fin/03t_fin_fest_01over.php?festival_id=7890

Monday, July 25, 2011

Excellent article on how to break into the business, especially TV

http://www.scriptmag.com/2011/07/18/primetime-wannabe-a-writer-get-in-the-game-or-go-home-also-comedy-writing-programs-and-pilot-page-counts/

Friday, July 22, 2011

10 Unrealized book to film adaptations from Flavorwire

Fascinating article on unrealized adaptations.

http://flavorwire.com/196203/10-unrealized-book-to-film-adaptations-wed-like-to-have-seen/10#post_body

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

ARTICLE ON WRITING CHARACTER DESCRIPTION

An article on writing character description. I don't agree with it (see my comment), but am listing is as another viewpoint.
http://www.scriptmag.com/2011/07/06/magic-bullet-characters-characters-and-how-to-look-like-a-pro/

ARTICLE ON LIES WRITERS TELL THEMSELVES

This is a really good article. I didn't fully agree with it (see my comment), but it has some excellent points.
http://www.scriptmag.com/2011/​07/13/meet-the-reader-the-lies​-screenwriters-tell-themselves​/

SOME IDEAS ON WRITING ACTION SCENES

This is an interesting article on how to write action scenes. I totally disagree with it and my response is in the comment section, but I list it as someone else's opinion.
http://johnaugust.com/2011/writing-fight-scenes#comment-191264

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

ART HOUSE FARE: Reviews of Myth of the American Sleepover, Happiness Runs, Tiny Furniture, Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench

I am a big fan of independent, indie and low budget films, but I have to be honest. I haven’t been overwhelmed lately by most of what I’ve seen. The low budgetness really, really shows, not just in the technical aspects of the film, but often in the lack of professional actors and scripts that lack ambition. At the same time, maybe it’s me, because some of these films that I talk about below, mainly Myth of the American Sleepover, Tiny Furniture and Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench, all have strong support from critics and other movie goers. So, for the record, I’m willing to admit that in these cases, it’s me and not them.

I saw the Myth of the American Sleepover at the AFI film fest where other people were talking about it was if it was the next Breakfast Club (or any other John Hughes movie). For me it was a poor man’s American Graffiti. The acting was amateurish, the plotting tedious, the whole thing fairly predictable and formulaic. I suppose one should feel relieved that someone made a film about teenagers in which our reaction is supposed to be that the world isn’t going to hell in a hand basket like Kids, The River’s Edge and even Gregg Araki’s apocalyptic movies. And there is something a bit calming in the normality and everydayness of these characters and their situations. But does something have to be tedious just because it’s not outrageous or edgy? Does normal have to be this uninteresting?

Happiness Runs, in contrast, is about how our youth were going to hell in a hand basket back during hippie times. The story revolves around a young man coming of age on the hippie commune where he was raised. The screenplay, by director Adam Sherman, wants to blame all the bad things the kids are doing, their sociopathology, on these peace loving, Birkenstock wearing, free love practicing adults (where is Eric Cartman when you need him). The problem with this is that the teenagers here are acting no differently from movie kids who live in the suburbs and blame their hypocritical, money loving, spousal cheating parents on their socipathology or the sons of conservative, Republican, off spring of entitlement parents who blame their mommies and daddies as well. The criticism seems just a tad shallow and way too easy. If every background, no matter the socio economic, religious and political leanings produce sociopaths for kids, then it can’t be due to the socio economic, religious and political leanings of the group. And if the kids are the way they are because of their parents, then you can’t blame the parents, because they are the way they are due to their parents, ad infinitum. The problem in Happiness Runs, though, is that though it feels like an inside look at a hippie commune, the characters still come out a little flat and not particularly vibrant. Not helping are Andie MacDowell, who seems rather bland, and Rutger Hauer, who seems miscast.

Tiny Furniture is about a college student who comes home and moves back in with her mother because she doesn’t know what to do with her life. This might have been an interesting story if it had been about the character actually trying to figure her life out. Instead, it’s about an immature, whiny, selfish young adult Aura (played by the writer/director Lena Dunham) who feels she’s entitled and doesn’t have to do anything with her life. Her mother Nadine is one of the most patient person’s in the world. No matter how irresponsible and immature Aura acts, all she has to do is throw a childish tantrum and Nadine lets her off the hook (where are belts and woodsheds when you need them). At one point, Aura wins an argument by asking Nadine whether Nadine’s house is Aura’s home or not; how I so wanted Nadine to tell her that now that Aura has graduated from college, no, it’s not her home, Aura is now a guest and/or a tenant and must act accordingly (it’s one of those loss of innocence times that all kids have to go through). Aura proceeds to arrive home from college and not do one thing to try and pursue her chosen career (something in film, it’s a big vague). She’s supposed to move in with a fellow student when the student moves to New York (she’s even supposed to be looking for an apartment). Instead, she lets two men take advantage of her sexually (one by not taking advantage of her sexually). What’s frustrating here is that it’s so obvious what the men are doing, it’s hard to feel sorry for her. At the end, she seems completely at a loss as to why she was treated the way she was while everyone in the audience saw it coming a mile away. At the end, Nadine tells her daughter that she is extremely talented; it’s hard to know how to feel about this since this talent of Aura’s has never remotely been dramatized; is Nadine’s remark just a comment a mother makes to make her child feel better, or does she really believe it? Who knows? Who cares? However, in the interest of full disclosure, I went with my friend Jim and he found it very interesting. So there.

Guy and Madeleine On a Park Bench is a low budget, indie musical that is magical whenever it’s a musical. The rest of the time, I couldn’t even follow the plot or know why I was supposed to be interested in what was going on. Maybe I saw it at the wrong time and was too tired to follow it. I mean, enough people and critics liked it so someone obviously had no trouble figuring it all out. But for me, I recommend two French movies that do the same sort of thing, but with a more interesting plot and engaging characters: Love Songs and Up Down Sideways. But then, as I said, maybe it’s not them, maybe it’s just me.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

OSCAR, OSCAR, WHO’S GOT THE OSCARS: Reviews of The King’s Speech, The Rabbit Hole, 127 Hours, True Grit, The Fighter, Black Swan, Biutiful, Blue Valen

The King’s Speech is one of those old fashioned dramas about the English royal family—so old fashioned, it never goes out of style (The Private Lives of Henry VIII to The Queen and Young Victoria). The U.S. may have thrown off the yoke of George III back in 1776, but we can’t get enough of those who have replaced him. It’s like penis envy. The King’s Speech is very enjoyable; it’s a lot of fun; it’s a great time waster. It’s not a lot more than that, which may be because the movie (directed by Tom Hooper, written by David Seidler) which was based on an unproduced play, often comes across as a series of pas de deux acting scenes, exercises almost, that seem to betray their stylistic origin (the scene between Geoffrey Rush, playing the speech therapist, and Colin Firth, playing the King, when Firth discovers that Rush isn’t a real doctor, is especially a bit obvious and stale). In addition, the final climactic scene of the king’s speech (hence one of the references of the non-sexual double entendre title) after England enters WWII is hampered by a certain inherent humor (the scene can’t really be written any other way), that prevents it from fully becoming the heart stopping moment one would like. But oh, that acting. The British can be genius (from James Bond, to Harry Potter, to Lawrence of Arabia) at filling every part, no matter how brief, with outstanding performers, from Michael Gambon to Claire Bloom to Guy Pierce (in England there are no small parts, only big actors in small parts). The leads are beautifully played by Rush and Firth, often as if they are engaged in a tennis match. Helena Bonham-Carter is the Queen Mother—she’s fine, but for me a bit bland; just one of those things. Whenever I see her, I can only think how brilliant she was in Alice In Wonderland.

I went to Rabbit Hole (I know, it sounds like a bar, but it’s not, it’s a film about parents trying to come to terms with the death of their little boy in a traffic accident) with my friend Jim and after it was over, we both had the same feeling: it was an excellent okay film. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s well done with expert and moving performances by Nicole Kidman and Dianne Wiest (especially heartbreaking), with able support from Aaron Eckhart. But beyond that, like The King’s Speech, it doesn’t quite rise above what it is: one of those Broadway or off-Broadway plays that is very, very serious about its subject matter, serious enough to get an audience, but not too serious or edgy to alienate them (the director, John Cameron Mitchell, and the writer, David Lindsay-Abaire, who adapted his own play, are stage veterans extraordinaire). The whole thing feels just a tad safe and familiar, especially the through line with Eckhart’s character thinking about having an affair (but the movie just can’t seem to go there). There is one plot development that threatens to raise the film above what it is and that is the confrontation and growing relationship between Kidman and the teenage boy who accidentally hit the child with his car. The teenager has created a graphic novel that seems to be growing out of his life and experience, a detailed and imaginative look at parallel worlds and how they are all connected. How I so wanted the movie to focus more on that.

How one responds to 127 Hours probably depends on how one responds to James Franco. For moi, Franco is someone who has never worked for me. It’s just one of those things and I’m being quite sincere when I say it’s not him, it’s me, because I simply know too many people who like him very much. I do, however, admire his determination to increase his range as an actor and chose edgier and more independent films to do. However, again, I have to say, 127 Hours just didn’t do much for me. Danny Boyle does everything he can to keep the story interesting (including a rain storm that’s beautifully shot), but the movie didn’t really connect with me until Franco does you know what to his arm and has to find his way back for help. The combined awfulness of the scene and the uplifting, spiritual music almost brought a tear to my eye. I also felt that the script (by Boyle and Simon Beaufoy), in striving to find meaning to the incident, played it a little safe, and maybe even a tad shallow, by saying that problem for Franco’s character was that he was a loner. I could just as easily come up with a scenario in which his going on this trip with someone actually could cause his death; but I wouldn’t then come to the conclusion that one should always go out alone.

I saw the original True Grit when it came out. The most that could be said for it was that John Wayne was hysterical fun in a part that seemed to almost parody himself and Robert Duvall was around as a villain. Beyond that, no one I know really remembers much else about it. The Coen Brothers’ True Grit is an exhilarating piece of movie making that leaves the original in the trail of dust from an old timey stagecoach. There is almost nothing wrong with this movie. The writing, using the tongue tying period speech of the time; the acting by Jeff Bridges (who does just fine in John Wayne’s boots, thank you very much), Matt Damon (who, the more he disguises himself to look like someone else, the better a performance he gives, and those mutton chops definitely disguise him), newcomer Hallie Steinfield (an astonishingly assured performance by a twelve year old) and baddies Barry Pepper and Josh Brolan (who plays a convincingly dimwitted murderer); the beautiful cinematography by Roger Deakins; the costumes and set designs; the music that is influenced by Protestant hymns, are all excellent. Even the habit of the Coens throwing away the climax (here where Josh Brolan is killed) works to their advantage, as the drama becomes about whether the Steinfield character will survive a snake bite. A wonderful remake of a less than okay film.

The Fighter, the true life story of boxer Micky Ward, is a lot of fun with an excellent feeling of time and place, especially when it comes to the working class clothes, hair style and sets. The directing by David O. Russell is solid. And it’s hard to fault some of the best acting of the year in Christian Bale (a tad over the top until you see the real person he’s portraying at the end and you realize he got it spot on), Melissa Leo and Amy Adams, and a bunch of new comers playing Ward’s gaggle of sisters. Mark Wahlberg, always a presence when he’s around in a movie, underplays in contrast, which apparently is true to the real person he portrays as well. The movie is stirring and moving and works until a climactic scene between Bale (playing Ward’s brother) and Adams (playing his girlfriend) near the end, when the whole thing comes to a screeching halt for a reconciliation scene that seems forced and not remotely convincing. I felt sorry for the writers (all four of them); the scene had to be written (it happened in real life in some manner), but how to write it and make it believable is beyond me. Adams and Bale do their best, but it almost robs the movie of all the good will that came before.

Black Swan is a love it or hate it movie, though I was a bit more indifferent. It has a great, grainy look with a fun supporting royal for Milas Kuna as a possible Eve Harrington on the prowl. Natalie Portman is also effective. But it’s a bit unclear whether the director Darren Aronosky wants to be Repulsion or All About Eve and it never came together for me. And when Portman starts turning into a swan at the end, complete with extending neck and sprouting feathers, that was it for me. However, I think the real problem lies in the way the characters of Portman and Vincent Cassel are written. Cassel plays the director of the production of Swan Lake. He picks Portman to play the lead because he thinks he sees a hidden depth to her. But once the rehearsals begin, Cassel does almost nothing to help her create the character (he gives her one acting note and then mysteriously leaves her to her own devices—no wonder she goes crazy). If the story had been about Portman’s attempts to find this character, instead of the somewhat vague series of scenes it is now, the story might have worked for me. As it was, it left me a big cold.

Biutiful (sounds like the misspelled name was inspired by the movie The Pursuit of Happyness) has a great, gritty look (direction by Amores Perres and 21 Grams director Alejandro Gonzelez Inarritu—someone who wallows in grittiness) and the background of various people living on the edge of illegal immigrants, sweat shops and black marketeering in Spain does have inherent interest. Javier Bardem also gives a strong, solid performance. But I’m afraid to say, this sort of went over my head. By the time it was over, I wasn’t quite sure what it was about or what the authors (Inarritu, Armando Bo and Nicolas Giacabone) were trying to say. It’s about a man who finds out he’s dying and then proceeds to find redemption; the problem is that he does something so horrible (and something that is telegraphed a mile away) so late in the film, that there’s not enough time for him to be redeemed. So in the end, the movie came across to me as a rather nihilistic; there’s no point in looking for meaning in life, because there isn’t any. Even that idea, a valid one, seems to be dramatized a bit awkwardly. Because of this, I’m afraid I found much of the movie a bit tedious as it struggled to find a focus and strong through line. The idea of a man who can contact the dead to help them find piece before moving on to the next world (and that man not being the most moralistic banana in the bunch) is a good one, but I’m not convinced that the movie made that central enough for it to work. A movie with some interesting ideas, but in the end, one that just didn’t work for me.

Whether Blue Valentine works for one probably depends on how you see the central characters and their decaying relationship. My friend Jim liked it and found the story to be about a relationship that started out strong, but then went sour like so many relationships do; and often for reasons no one understands. I, on the other hand, saw the story as a woman who married a man to get out of a situation, who never loved him (though she might have convinced herself she did), and now years later has to face the consequences of that decision. Even that wasn’t the problem for me. The problem for me is that the woman won’t admit that that is what is going on. Instead of taking any blame on herself, she manipulates things to place all the blame on her husband, who has no idea why the wife is acting the way she is. There is a tough, grittiness to the whole thing. The costumes and sets are wonderfully working class, the sort of design that never gets the recognition it deserves. And Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are great. But I have trouble getting into a movie in which two people argue and disagree, but it’s never clear what they are disagreeing about.

The Illusionist is a sweet animated film from France based on an unproduced screenplay by Jacques Tati. I had a good time and the charm went a long way. I do think that since there was essentially no dialog, the authors had a difficult time telling the story and there were times I did get a tad lost. But it was nice. That’s about all I have to say.

Another Year is the latest entry from British director/writer Mike Leigh. It has all his trademark strengths: incredible characters with remarkable dialog, and cast to an inch of its life. No one gives a bad performance, with Lesley Manville as a clinically depressed woman who drinks too much. The story is about Tom and Gerri, a very, very, very happy couple—very—you know the kinds, people so at peace with themselves they drive all their friends to the bottle. They are nurturers in metaphor (they spend weekends at a community garden), but not quite literally (they are surrounded by people in need of emotional help, but neither of them can do anything but listen patiently and make that English cure all of all cure alls, tea—with an occasional whiskey and bottle of wine thrown in for good measure). I loved the film and don’t want to fault it. Mike Leigh, the director and writer, is one of Britain’s finest filmmakers. At the same time, there were some aspects that did disturb me. Tom and Gerri never stop and ask themselves why they only seem to attract people who have serious emotional problems and whether letting them hang around is good for these people. And there is one scene where Lesley Manville is confronted by their son’s new girlfriend, a shock since she is secretly (well, not so secretly, everyone knows it, it’s just not admitted) in love with the son. It is so incredibly obvious that she is in deep pain by this revelation, yet everyone seems to do little but rub it in her face, and then blame her for not being the life of the party. Still, another success from Leigh, one of the best films of 2011.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

MY BEST OF 2011

BEST OF 2011 IN FILM


BEST PICTURE - MOTHER

Top Ten:

Animal Kingdom

Another Year

Carlos

The Killer Inside Me

Mother

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

True Grit

White Material

Winter’s Bone


Runner’s Up

Cyrus

The Father of My Children

The Human Resources Manager

Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work

Mesrine, Parts I and II

Mother and Child

Scott Pilgrim v. the World


BEST DIRECTOR – GASPAR NOE – ENTER THE VOID

Top Five:

Olivier Assayass – Carlos

Joon-ho Bong - Mother

Ethan and Joel Coen – True Grit

Gasper Noe – Enter the Void

Christopher Nolan – Inception


Runner’s Up

David Fincher - The Social Network

Jean-Francois Richet - Mesrine, parts I and II

Edgar Wright - Scott Pilgrim Versus the World


BEST ACTOR – EDGAR RAMIREZ – CARLOS

Top Five:

Casey Affleck - The Killer Inside Me

Vincent Cassel – Mesrine, Parts I and II

Geoffrey Rush - The King’s Speech

Aamir Khan - 3 Idiots

Edgar Ramirez – Carlos


Runner’s Up

Jeff Bridges – True Grit

Jessie Eisenberg – The Social Network

Colin Firth – The King’s Speech

Mark Ivanir – The Human Resources Manager


BEST ACTRESS – ANNETTE BENING – THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT/MOTHER AND CHILD

Top Five:

Annette Bening – The Kids Are All Right/Mother and Child

Isabel Huppert – White Material

Hye Ja-Kim - Mother

Hailee Steinfeld - True Grit

Tilda Swinton - I Am Love


Runner’s Up

Jennifer Lawrence – Winter’s Bone

Noomi Rapace - The Girl Who Played With Fire trilogy


BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS – JACKI WEAVER – ANIMAL KINGDOM

Top Five:

Helena Bonham-Carter - Alice in Wonderland

Dale Dickey – Winter’s Bone

Melissa Leo – The Fighter

Leslie Manville – Another Year

Jacki Weaver - Animal Kingdom


Runners Up

Amy Adams - The Fighter

Diane Wiest - The Rabbit Hole


BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR – CHRISTIAN BALE – THE FIGHTER

Top Five:

Christian Bale – The Fighter

Gerard Depardieu – Mesrine, Part I

Andrew Garfield – The Social Network

John Hawkes – Winter’s Bone

Ewan McGregor - I Love You, Philip Morris


Runners Up

Pierce Brosnan – The Ghost Writer

Kieran Culkin - Scott Pilgrim Versus the World

Louis-Do de Lencquesaing – The Father of My Children

Jeremy Renner – The Town


ENSEMBLE – CYRUS

Animal Kingdom

Another Year

Cyrus

The King’s Speech

True Grit


Runners Up

Winter’s Bone


SCREENPLAY – ORIGINAL – ANIMAL KINGDOM

Animal Kingdom

Another Year

Carlos

Cyrus

Mother


Runners Up

The Father of My Children

Mother and Child

White Material


SCREENPLAY -- ADAPTED – THE SOCIAL NETWORK

I Love You, Philip Morris

The Killer Insider Me

The Social Network

True Grit

Winter’s Bone


Runners Up

The Human Resources Manager

Scott Pilgrim Versus the World

Toy Story 3

Thursday, February 3, 2011

FILM, THE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE, Part Deux: Carlos, Submarino, Dos Hernanos, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, Everyone Else, Rare Exports

Further Quick Run Downs on Films I Haven’t Reviewed Yet

Carlos is Olivier (Summer Hours) Assayas’s latest film (well, it’s a three part television mini-series, actually, but let’s not quibble). It’s a magnificent achievement that helps put Assayas at the forefront of contemporary French filmmakers. Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (code-name Carlos, aka The Jackal, though his only connection to that assassin was that authorities found a copy of the Frederick Forsyth book among his belongings) was one of the superstar terrorists of the 1970’s, but his life, at least as portrayed here, was in many ways a comedy of errors. His biggest hit, the one that put him number one on the top 40, was the 1975 OPEC meeting he took over, during which he accidentally kills the minister from the country that was eventually to give him asylum (oopsies). Suddenly, like an actor whose latest billion dollar film flopped, no one wanted him anymore and Carlos spent much of the time flying from place to place, being constantly rejected until he had to make a humiliating deal to survive. The whole movie in many ways reads as a treatise on the uselessness and ridiculousness of terrorism. It’s not so much that it’s immoral in itself, as that it is doomed to failure and just never works. Edgar Ramirez plays Carlos and probably gives the performance of the year. It’s also one of the films of the year.

Submarino is the latest film from Denmark’s Thomas Vinterberg, the director of the powerful film Festen. Denmark is supposed to be the happiest country on earth, but you’d never know it by the downbeat films we’re getting from there. Submarino is about two brothers, Nick and Martin, who, as very young boys, were left by their alcoholic mother to take care of their baby brother; the baby dies under their care, a horrifying incident that latches onto their lives and never lets go. Now adults, Nick is an ex-con who can’t stop drinking while getting random blowjobs from a neighbor and trying to help a mentally compromised friend. Martin is a drug addict who has a child. The two brothers, who haven’t seen each other for a long time, meet up again at their mother’s funeral. When the mother’s death brings Martin money, he starts selling. He ends up in prison and now Nick has to decide whether to take care of his nephew. One wants to dislike these two siblings, but the script by Tobias Linholm and Vinterberg, as well as the strong performances by Jakob Cedergren as Nick and Gustav Fischer Kjaerulff as Martin, won’t let us. And no matter how dark life becomes, Vinterberg strongly believes in the power of redemption.

Dos Hernanos from Argentina is a comic study of a brother and sister. The brother is gay, passive and takes care of their sick mother while the sister is a bully and at times seems to have a precarious hold on reality. When their mother dies, the sister takes over everything including her brother’s life. But while brother starts making inroads toward independence during an amateur production of Oedipus Rex (an odd choice here since it doesn’t seem to have any relation to what is going on off-stage—at least I hope not), sister must accept the idea that she can’t even control her own life, must less anyone else’s. I saw the film at an Argentine film festival and asked a couple I met what they thought of it. They disliked it intensely. They didn’t “get it”, and they have a point. Once the director/writer Daniel Burman and co-writer Diego Dubcovsky decide to not make the sister mentally unstable, which she sure seems to be for most of the movie, they didn’t know how to resolve the situation and the ending is a bit of a mess. But until then, this is a fun, often hilarious character study of a dysfunctional relationship.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest is the last in the Lisbeth Salander trilogy about the mildly autistic IT genius and central character of a series of popular Swedish mystery novels. In the same way that Denmark is supposed to be the happiest country on earth, yet as of late has been releasing some of the most depressing movies in Europe, Sweden is supposed to be a country incredibly low in crimes like murder, yet seems to release extremely violent mystery novels. My friends hate the movie and the critics were disappointed. I loved it, which caused my friends to look at my oddly (no word on how the critics felt about my opinion, but it probably wouldn’t have been much more positive). I thought the story (director Daniel Alfredson, writer/adaptation by Ulf Ryberg) brought everything together and resolved Salander’s story and character arc very satisfactorily; Salander goes from someone who trusts no one, least of all the government, and comes to realize that there are people out there who care and sometimes the government, in the right hands, can do the right thing. Noomi Rapace, like Edgar Ramirez for Carlos and Vincent Cassell for Mesrine, gives one of the performances of the year and the mystery is first rate. I’m not sure why I’m in such a minority here.

Everyone Else is a study of a Gitti and Chris, a man and woman on holiday whose relationship takes a sudden turn when Chris runs into an acquaintance and he begins to wonder whether he is out of his girlfriend’s league. Gitti, realizing that something is wrong, bangs her head against the wall for awhile and then decides to take her life into her own hands and tells Chris she doesn’t’ love him anymore (take that passive aggressors everywhere). For the first two thirds, the movie (written and directed by Maren Ade) works very well and Birgit Minichmayr gives a strong performance in the lead. The ending however is a serious misstep. Maren Ade, for some odd reason, wants a happy ending and the lengths she puts the characters through to get to it are just a bit too manipulative to be convincing. And who would want Gitti to go back to that louse of a boyfriend anyway?

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale is a dark twist on the Santa Clause story. Instead of a holly, jolly fat man who brings toys to boys and girls, he’s a demonic figure who eats children alive. Some time ago, the local villagers in a town on the Finnish/Russian border had enough and encased Santa in ice and then proceeded to rewrite the myth. Now an oil drilling company (headed by English speaking characters of course) accidentally finds Santa, which reawakens Santa’s elves who then work to free him by stealing heaters and melting his ice prison while taking children prisoner so Santa can eat upon his reappearance. The elves say it all, naked old men who run around looking like refugees from NAMBLA, providing some fun tongue in cheek humor to the whole thing. All in all, a fun, quirky little film, imaginatively told.

Monday, January 24, 2011

MY PREDICTIONS FOR THE 2011 OSCARS

BEST PICTURE

127 Hours

The Black Swan

The Fighter

Inception

The Kids Are All Right

The King’s Speech

The Social Network

Toy Store 3

True Grit

Winter’s Bone

Possible: The Town is in, 127 Hours is out (possibly Winter’s Bone, but I don’t see it)

BEST ACTOR

Javier Bardem – Biutiful

Jeff Bridges – True Grit

Jesse Eisenberg – The Social Network

Colin Firth – The King’s Speech

James Franco – 127 Hours

Possible: Mark Wahlberg in, Javier Bardem out

BEST ACTRESS

Annette Bening – The Kids Are All Right

Nicole Kidman – The Rabbit Hole

Jennifer Lawrence – Winter’s Bone

Leslie Manville – Another Year

Natalie Portman – The Black Swan

Possible: Leslie Manville or Nicole Kidman out, Hallie Steinfeld, Noomi Rapace, Michelle Williams or Juliane Moore in

BEST DIRECTOR

Darren Aronosfky – The Black Swan

David Fincher – The Social Network

Tom Hooper – The King’s Speech

Christopher Nolan – Inception

David O. Russell – The Fighter

Possible: The Coen Brothers for True Grit in, David O. Russell for The Fighter Out

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Christian Bale – The Fighter

Andrew Garfield – The Social Network

Jeremy Renner – The Town

Mark Ruffalo – The Kids Are All Right

Geoffrey Rush – The King’s Speech

Possiblity: I don’t see any. Michael Douglas in, Mark Ruffalo or Jeremy Renner out

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

The most difficult:

Amy Adams – The Fighter

Helena Bonham Carter – The King’s Speech

Melissa Leo – The Fighter

Hailee Steinfeld – True Grit

Jacki Weaver – Animal Kingdom

Possiblity: Mila Kunas and Julianne Moore in, but who out? Maybe Hailee Steinfeld if she gets nominated for Best Actress