Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Elitism & Experience

A few weeks ago John August had a post on his blog that got a rise out of me.

John wondered if the blog had become too advanced for a beginning writer, so he decided to read through his mail to see if he was too “inside baseball”... and printed a note from a writer that asked all kinds of stupid questions and then made fun of the writer. Ridiculed the dude. I posted in the comments section that I thought that even though many of the guy's questions could have been answered by spending some time searching John's site – at least the guy was asking questions, right?

And on Done Deal Pro I said basically the same thing: Lots of new writers don't know where to begin, they Google “How do I write a screenplay” and find a website and don't know the first thing about screenwriting so they don't know what to search for – they don't even know what a screenplay consists of.




In one of my favorite films IN A LONELY PLACE, a screenwriter played by Humphrey Bogart says that people don't know screenwriters exist – they think actors just make up their lines... and when they become stars, they do. And that's where a lot of new writers are – what's on the page? Everything? If you just have a great idea – can you sell that? If you need an agent, can you tell me where to find one? On Done Deal Pro we regularly see new writers ask these questions and many more. And people on DDP ridicule them and make fun of how naive they are... but they also answer the questions and point them to places where they can read real screenplays and explain how the whole agent thing works. My theory is help them... then make fun of them.

Here's the thing – to me all of these questions sound silly. They sound like things people should just be able to figure out on their own, right? Things they could just find online, right? But when they land at someplace like John's site or DDP – they *have* looked online and ended up there asking questions. Things that we see as obvious. But that's because we forgot when we were them. Now that we know stuff, we think everyone else does!

Plus, there's that pecking order thing – I did a blog entry on that, and I think it's going to come up in this one, too. Nobody knows everything, and all of us are still learning and have things that we need to learn. Now, we can look at those who know less than us and make fun of them, or we can give them the information they need and send them in the right direction.

Or both.

The thing about writers is that many of us are smart asses and are just waiting for someone to say something that's a set up for our joke. I know I am. Yes, this makes me a partial asshole, but I also answer the questions so I figure I kind of earn my assholiness. But, if you just trash the person without helping them, you're building up some negative karma and eventually you will be the person who doesn't know something and someone will make fun of you. All of us are stupid about something.

AM I AN ELITIST?




One of the interesting things in life is how various different things happen at the same time... and all seem to add up to something larger. These random things are connected – which is just plain weird. Plate of shrimp. If I were crazy, I would imagine a giant conspiracy out to get me. But instead, it's just life.

Before the John August blog post, two other things happened back-to-back that connect to the concept of know-it-alls and know-nothings and screenwriting.

There's a message board I frequent that is filled with new writers – and many of them suffer from being overly artsie. This is a common thing. Many new writers think that Hollywood makes all of those remakes and sequels and comic books movies because there is a shortage of quality original screenplays... and *they* have the ability to write those brilliant screenplays!

In fact, when they compare the kind of crap Hollywood makes to what they are capable of, it's obvious that they are geniuses and the people who work in Hollywood now are all morons. Many of these folks believe that film is art, and Hollywood would make nothing but art movies if they had enough great artsie screenplays. Every film would be TREE OF LIFE, if they had a couple hundred similar (genius) (artistic) screenplays.

This is not true.

Hollywood makes movies that will attract a mass audience. That mass audience is more interested in being entertained than seeing some great piece of art... check out the grosses for this year's Oscar winner... and TREE OF LIFE while you're at it. There was a recent article on how the general public no longer goes to see the Best Picture Winner – they don't care about it and don't relate to it anymore. The “Oscar bounce” is gone! They've worked all week long and this film is their escape from all of the crap of real life – they may want to laugh so hard they pass out. What makes them laugh that hard may be the bathroom scene from DUMB & DUMBER.




That makes that bathroom scene from DUMB & DUMBER great screenwriting. I know that makes some of you think I'm crazy or a massive hack – but do you know how hard it is to find something that makes 60 million people around the world laugh? That is the art of screenwriting – making 60 million people around the world feel something. Some emotion. That may be fear from a horror movie or love from a romance or excitement from an action film – but finding that universal thing... and 110 minutes of those universal things – is so difficult that Hollywood pays great money if you can do that. They pay lots of money if you can entertain lots of people. The fewer people you entertain, the less money you get. Kind of trickle down.

Now, that doesn't mean that art films are bad, or TREE OF LIFE is bad, or THE ARTIST or HURT LOCKER are bad... just that they may be really tough screenplays to get anyone to read, let alone buy and produce.

Well, on this message board full of artsie new writers a few people posted some stuff that was completely naive... and someone posted a well thought out reasoned response explaining why their theory of how Hollywood worked was incorrect and something an outsider might believe. Here's the amazing thing – this guy who posted has been nominated for awards, wrote a great critically acclaimed film which you have all seen, that got him a gig writing a couple of big Hollywood films you have also seen, and recently wrote critically acclaimed film that I really love and own on DVD. Dude is a great writer. He was lurking. He de-lurked to help this writer...

And got crapped on.
And argued with.

Nobody knew who he was. They thought he was just some other idiot hack like me who was defending Hollywood films. They trashed whatever he said. Now, I knew who he was from another board, but none of these jokers even tried to figure out who he was... or just respect what he said. The guy was using logic and reason and the people fighting him were defending their position without ever acutally *thinking*. They were too busy arguing with him.

For me, the amusing thing about this was that this guy *was* a legitimate artist as a screenwriter. And he was explaining that *in his experience* commerce was still a major issue and you will have to find the way to sell your screenplay. To businessmen. Who want to make money.




Okay, everyone on this board knows who I am – I do not lurk. I jump in to the discussion, with a different side than the famous writer. Based on my actual experience in the business – I used some real examples both from my stuff and some other well known and easy to Google examples. And my experiences lead me to very similar conclusions as the other writer. Because that's kind of the way things are. From the outside you might think "If only Hollywood had 200 TREE OF LIFE scripts they would make 200 films like TREE OF LIFE." From the inside, you know that a film like TREE OF LIFE is hell to get off the ground... and no one in Hollywood really wants a screenplay like that. In fact, TREE OF LIFE was not made by Hollywood!

If you were to take a hundred professional writers, we would all have similar experiences with slight differences. If you take 100 people who have gone to the DMV and taken a driving test, the main points will all be the same but there may be some individual differences due to that handful of variables there are. So I jump in and basically agree with the other writer – and so do the handful of other pros on the boards...

THEM AND US




And now we have an interesting dichotomy – those who earn a living writing screenplays vs. those who do not. Those with experience in the business and those who do not have experience in the business. The working writers are saying “this is the way it really works” and the new writers are saying “no – it doesn't work that way”. When I say, “Hey, I've been doing this for a while, that really is the way it works.” And the professionals are branded “elitists” for saying that “our way” is the one that works and “their way” doesn't work.

This confused me.

I thought elitists were all about having power over others and excluding them... when the reason we were there giving this advice was to *include* these folks – to show them the secret way into the business. To help them. “You know that wall? There's a doorway through it over here!” But it seems that knowing what you are talking about, having actual experience, is a big negative thing.

Who knew?

The issue becomes facts vs. opinions – and that's crazy. But this seems to be something that isn't just on screenwriting messageboards, the whole country seems to think that a fact is the same as an opinion. That they are equal. If 99% of scientists think the world is round and 1% think it's flat – those 1% are “equal” to the 99%. Crazy! That 1% are the lunatic fringe. In science as in anything else there are always a couple of nutjobs... but the *majority* of people who know what they are talking about agree with each other... and 1% is *not* equal to 99%. Those are *not* two equally valid viewpoints – because at the end of the day the majority rules.

Except, when you are in that 1% you'd much rather believe that it's equally valid to believe the Earth is flat and the space program is a conspiracy and they put something in our milk as children to make us see that curve on the horizon...

And that's *science* - when you're discussing screenwriting and there's an art component and as many different definitions of “good movie” as there are people? More difficult to even agree on what is a “fact”!

But add to this – screenwriting is strange in that it is both art and commerce wrapped into one. Sure – there are arthouse indie films, but even those get some form of distribution because someone thinks they will make money. They are more of a niche thing – and aimed at being popular with that niche. If you plan on *selling* a screenplay then it is a commercial endeavor – not just for you but for who you sell the screenplay to... and for the screenplay itself. There are so many elements of the *craft* of writing that tie into the commercial aspects that you can't really talk art and craft without at least touching on the commercial part. And, on a messageboard filled with artsie types, bringing up the money part brands you a sell out.

On another board there is an intelligent, articulate, artsie screenwriter guy who makes great arguments in favor of seeing screenwriting as an art. I often argue with him, but I also encourage him to keep making his case - because he isn't one of those just fighting for his point - he also *thinks* and *considers the other side* and argues with facts rather than opinions. I like this guy. We need this guy in teh business. The funny thing about my art vs. commerce arguments is that if you drop me in a room full of artists I argue on the commerce side... but if you drop me in a room full of mercanaries I fight for art. Screenwriting is both.




The problem is – two people can write screenplays of equal artistic quality, but if one is about a farm boy in Ohio who dreams of moving to Cleveland and getting a job in a shoe store, and the other is about a farm boy on Tatooine who dreams of being a Jedi Knight and starfighter pilot and rescuing a hot Princess from an evil Black Knight... well, you can guess which screenplay is going to have an easier chance of selling.

There are commercial considerations involved with every screenplay that is bought – and that becomes part of the conversation on the experienced screenwriter side. It's not elitism, it's another danged lesson that most of learned the hard way – and we're trying to help others. Though everyone learns at their own rate, the biggest problem with many of these debates is that some people DO NOT WANT TO LEARN. Not just the commercial stuff (I mean, who really wants to learn that? I fought it) but much of the story stuff that's important. The artsie folks don't want there to be any elements that they can be judged by – so the concept of one script being better *even artistically* than another is some form of elitism.

Huh?

The real problem with this whole “Elitist” thing is that it makes people with experience and actual knowledge, and brands them with a negative for *trying to help*. That does not make them want to stick around on some messageboard and continue helping when they really should be writing. It also demonizes education and intelligence and experience – which seems crazy to me. It guarantees that those folks on messageboards will stay exactly where they are – because the *do not want to learn*. Knowledge is a negative - ignorance is bliss - stupidity is art.

They often seem to think they know everything – which I don't think this famous writer or myself or any of the other working pros who these folks argued against believe about themselves. I believe there are tons of things that I don't know – and a large part of my life and my website and my blog are trying to figure out how things work and share that knowledge... but mostly trying to figure it out because there are things I don't know.

Do you think you know everything?

WINO THEORY




I think for most of us, the more we know the more we realize we don't know... and need to learn. Writing screenplays is incredibly complicated, and requires that you get a bunch of different ingredients in the proper mix.

The problem on some messageboards (and with some executives) is they think that one 110 pages of typing is the same as another 110 pages of typing. That writing the pages is the hard part. And there are plenty of screenplays that get so damaged in development that their 110 pages of writing *is* equal to just about any other 110 pages of typing. But those scripts die a quick death – and if they are made into films due to some mistake, the films die a quick death.

The key is to write something that people think about a decade later... because it will be good (art!) *and* because a decade later you'll want them to call you and hire you for some project. If they read your 110 pages of typing and instantly forget it, you have a problem. Though scripts can be developed into crap, you don't want them to start out that way. My belief (hope) is that even when a script gets mangled there's enough good stuff left to hint that there was a great version they bought. Though, I have no idea what that good stuff might be in the filmed version of CROOKED.

Of course, even if they screw up your screenplay on the way to the screen, your actual screenplay still exists as a sample - and I get all kinds of calls years later based on someone reading a screenplay before it got ruined. I have also used those screenplays as samples. In fact, I have some people interested in hiring me now based on a screenplay they read in the past... which they remembered.




You see - art is involved in screenwriting. Even in popular screenwriting. It's not just "write a 110 page action script", it's writing a 110 page action script that is better than the other hundreds of scripts they have read and will turn out an okay movie once it goes through the meatgrinder. If anything, a popular commercial film really needs to be *artistic* and great more than the art film - since if the art film ever gets made it is most likely to be written and directed and produced by the same person (no meatgrinder). The martial arts star lead isn't going to rewrite all of his lines... so that the actions end up being the thing that carries the story and theme and emotional conflict.

There are great commercial scripts and stinkers. Some screenplays are better than others. Some writers have learned more than others - and that is reflected in the quality of their writing. Doesn't mean those other writers can't learn as much and write scripts of equal quality eventually. Just means *at this point in time* the more experienced writer is, well, more experienced. They've done it many more times and learned more.

I think one of the issues with those who think all 110 pages are equal is what I call the WINO THEORY. I once dated a woman who worked in the wine biz, and know some people in the biz (one guy who gets paid to drink!) and a sommelier – and wrote a script called ROUGH FINISH that was James Bond as a wine taster.

Wine ends up being a lot like screenwriting.

The average person can drink two different glasses of wine and think one tastes good and the other does not – but that's about it. If you give that average person two different glasses of *good* wine, they may not be able to tell which is better. Both are equal to them.




But “educate their palates” and teach them a little about wine, and they can easily tell a cabernet from a merlot from a zinfandel from a pinot noir. They may prefer one over the other. They also know what a cabernet is supposed to taste like (basically) and whether it tastes strange or even has been cut with some other grape. At this stage they can also probably tell you whether the wine was fermented in oak or steel or even redwood or acacia or pine.

The next step might be to refine their palates so that they can tell which region the grapes were grown in – each soil leaves a mark. And maybe even make a good guess at the year due to the amount of tanic acid in the wine. Now they can take a dozen “good” glasses of wine and tell you more about each one – and maybe even taste minor defects in some wine that the average drinker never knew were there. They “have better taste”.

And with each increase in education, with each piece of knowledge, they can taste little details that the average drinker may not even know exist.

My character in ROUGH FINISH was a “private palate” who would break into a winery and taste the wine “before its time” to help investors and wine connoisseurs know which Bordeauxs to buy. He tastes something in the wine that only a handful of people in the world would even notice – and becomes the man who knows too much. Fun idea for a chase action script – but it's based on the (real) idea that an expert wine taster would be able to denote things no one else could... is that Elitism or Experience and Education?

My theory is that the new screenwriter might think the difficult part is getting to FADE OUT – and that *is* difficult. But a hundred thousand people a year get to FADE OUT... and the more you know, the more you can see what is just a bit off on one script and right on the money in another – and the more you know how to write that better screenplay.

You don't just give every character a unique voice and vocabulary and world view and attitude... you realize that all of those different elements are connected in some way to theme... and theme is connected to universal truths that connect to the audience. It just gets more and more complicated! And I don't think you ever reach some point where you know it all. There is always something to learn.

But if you think just writing 110 pages is all there is to it, you have failed.

If you think you don't need to learn anything more, you have failed.

If you think that the 1% who believe the Earth is flat are just as correct as the 99% who believe it is round, you aren't thinking and are not trying to learn and better yourself.

If you think someone who has learned more than you know at this point in time and is trying to help you is an elitist, you have failed.

And, if you know more than someone else – help them. Costs you nothing.

I've found that most established screenwriters want to help new writers – they empathize. They were that new writer at one time, and want to help you avoid all of the pitfalls they stumbled through. So, on a messageboard or in person or whatever – thank them for the help and don't fight them until they just give up on *everybody* and leave. I think it's all about learning - and continuing to learn. Any writer who is giving you advice - even if you don't like what they are saying - is trying to help you. they don't have to do that. They don't get paid to do that. They have many other things they can do that either pay more or are more enjoyable.

Experience and knowledge are not elitism.

If people are trying to *help you* - that's the opposite of elitism.

And DAYS OF HEAVEN is one of my favorite movies... along with AIRPLANE!

- Bill

IMPORTANT UPDATE:


TODAY'S SCRIPT TIP: EMOTIONAL OPENINGS - you don't need to start with a bang, you need to start by involving the audience.
Dinner: Subway - Teriyaki Chicken.
Movies: Have seen both CHRONICLE and THIS MEANS WAR - loved one and hated the other.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

84th Annual Academy Award Winners

And the Oscar goes to...

Best Picture: "The Artist."

Adapted Screenplay: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, "The Descendants."

Original Screenplay: Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris."

Actor: Jean Dujardin, "The Artist."

Actress: Meryl Streep, "The Iron Lady."

Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, "Beginners."

Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer, "The Help."

Directing: Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist."

Foreign Language Film: "A Separation," Iran.

Animated Feature Film: "Rango."

Art Direction: "Hugo."

Cinematography: "Hugo."

Sound Mixing: "Hugo."

Sound Editing: "Hugo."

Original Score: "The Artist."

Original Song: "Man or Muppet" from "The Muppets."

Costume Design: "The Artist."

Documentary Feature: "Undefeated."

Documentary Short: "Saving Face."

Film Editing: "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo."

Makeup: "The Iron Lady."

Animated Short Film: "The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore."

Live Action Short Film: "The Shore."

Visual Effects: "Hugo."

Oscar winners previously presented off camera because the were tech awards:

Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award: Oprah Winfrey.

Honorary Award: James Earl Jones.

Honorary Award: Dick Smith.

Gordon E. Sawyer Award: Douglas Trumbull.

Award of Merit: ARRI cameras.

Pretty much what we all thought - "Artist" sweeps. I liked the movie - and it's an example in my Visual Storytelling Blue Book, so I'm happy.

But what about you? Comments section is open.

- Bill

Friday, February 24, 2012

The French Hitchcock?



If you've seen INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, the movie playing at Shoshana's cinema that gets bumped for the Hitler Assassination Plan is called LE CORBEAU (THE RAVEN) - she has to take the letters off the marqee. The film was directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot, who is often called the French Hitchcock. Clouzot also directed a couple of my favorite films, WAGES OF FEAR and DIABOLIQUE. He is a great director - knows how to build tension to the breaking point. LE CORBEAU was only his second film, but it still works decades later.

LE CORBEAU is about an alof handsome young doctor in a village hospital who begins to get threatening letters signed by "The Raven". The letters accuse him of having an affair with an older doctor's pretty young wife... and of being an abortionist, who may even have been the one who knocked up all of the women he's accused of aborting. Because he wasn't born in the village, he's seen as an outsider... and when word gets out people believe these rumors.

The old doctor's wife also gets a letter from The Raven... and soon half the village are getting threatening letters accusing them of some rumored activity. The Raven knows *everyone's* secrets! Who can it be? The old cuckold doctor and young doctor basically must work together to find out who is The Raven. And there are some *great* suspects and a really shocking twist end. Actually, a double twist.



Though this is an early film of Clouzot's - not as suspenseful as DIABOLIQUE, it still packs a punch and has some very well drawn characters and it will keep you guessing until the end. The alof doctor is an interesting protagonist because he has a deep dark secret - and we think we know what it is and we are completely wrong. The character is a twist.

If you're curious about French films made during WW2 and during the Nazi Occupation, check this one out. Oh, and look between the lines for a message about living and working in Nazi Occupied France.

- Bill

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Lancelot Link: Passion Of The Chimps

Lancelot Link Thursday! This week's links to some great screenwriting and film articles, plus some fun stuff that may be of interest to you. Brought to you by that suave and sophisticated secret agent...



Here are nine cool links plus this week's car chase...

1) Kubrick's Unused Movie Titles

2) British Intelligence Have No Idea Where Charlie Caplin Was Born - Was He A Space Alien?

3) Amazing Charts Of Hollywood's Hits.

4) Long Running LAST SAMURAI Legal Despute.

5) TOTAL RECALL 2 - was it a real project, or only in their minds?

6) End Of The Indie Film On Screen?

7) Behind The Scenes Filming THE ARTIST.

8) The Secret History of STAR WARS revealed.

9) John Logan - He wrote all of the Oscar Nominees this year (okay - some of them).

And the Car Chase Of The Week uses a *boat anchor*...



From KHILADI 420 from Bollywood.

- Bill

IMPORTANT UPDATE:


TODAY'S SCRIPT TIP: 110 Pages - No Waiting! Why people in movies never say Goodbye before hanging up the phone.
Dinner: Panda Express - Peppercorn Shrimp, plus...

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

John Carter...

This is a fan made trailer for JOHN CARTER (OF MARS) that blows away the official Disney trailer and makes me wonder why Disney isn't firing people.



Compare it to this official trailer...



And JOHN CARTER (not of Mars)...



- Bill
IMPORTANT UPDATE:


TODAY'S SCRIPT TIP: Dramatizing Emotions And a film that won THREE Oscars.
Dinner: Taco Bell - and not even the Dorito-Taco.

TV: CASTLE - okay, I probably haven’t mentioned that I’m a big fan of this show, but as a mystery writer how could I not be? This has been a really good season so far - which is amazing because by this point most shows are limping along. KILL SHOT dealt with Beckett’s PTSS over being *shot* at the end of last season and almost dying - and really dug deep into her character’s fears. This has been one of the great things this season - they have taken these characters we know from the outside and takes us deep inside - like in KICK THE BALLISTICS, where Ryan’s stolen gun is used in a murder and he has to deal with his guilt over losing it... that episode also had a triple twist ending that was great. The other episodes have been fun - Castle & Beckett handcuffed together in bed, etc... and though I didn’t like the 1940s Noir episode, it was at least trying to be different and fun (I just didn’t think it worked).

Now we come to this 2 parter, and it just kicked ass in many ways. Part 2 (Monday night) was amazing - but it took part 1 to set it up. What starts out as a murder takes a strange turn when their suspect - a mysterious man named Gage - says that they are in over their heads and the whole case will vanish... and it does! The body vanishes from the Medical Examiner’s table and Gage vanished from a locked cell. All of this brings them to a secret CIA operation in NYC run by the always sexy Jennifer Beals - who is Castle’s ex-lover. So we get some great tension and a nice triangle and Gage is an assassin who is after some target in NYC... but who? As bodies pile up, Castle & Beckett find clues that the CIA never considered and all of this leads to a dead man - who is still alive: a scientist working on a “linchpin theory” that one small event can change the world - create a domino run of events that will result in the destruction of the US economy. As soon as they find this guy, he gets shot by a sniper (Gage?) and Beckett and Castle get rammed into the Hudson in Beckett’s car...

Part 2: The car sinking into the Hudson, slowly filling with water as they try to escape, is a big feature film type scene. Just amazing. And some great suspense. It’s hard to believe you can do stuff like this on TV - it seems like something out of a BOURNE film. And that Linchpin Theory is an awesome concept - when they break it down in this episode you can see how easy it would be to destroy the world with a single bullet - provided you could figure out the one person to shoot who would cause the domino run. The great thing about these two episodes is that they are like a feature film - and yet still have a bunch of series running plot material. The CIA forbids them from discussing the case with Ryan and Esposito... and Iron Gates. So that fuels those running plots. Plus the ex-lover creates conflict between Castle and Beckett - and there’s a nice scene in part 2 where Beals and Beckett discuss how a romance with Castle plays out... Beals’ past and maybe Beckett’s future. The story still has a bunch of plot twists and a great race against time to prevent the assassination of a little kid!

Season 4 of a show that kind of has a simple premise, but still manages to find interesting ways to explore it... and hasn’t run out of steam yet. Created by Nicholl winner Andrew Marlowe who also wrote AIR FORCE ONE.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Book Report: The Night And The Music

Thanks to Lawrence Block having a great time with this new e-book technology and rounding up his old work, dusting it off, and putting it up on Kindle – I've been reading a lot of his stuff lately. I've been a fan since I bought SINS OF THE FATHERS at DeLauers News Stand in Oakland because it had some James M. Cain quote on the cover – and I love James M. Cain. Block has been a prolific writer since he was in college – check out AFTERTHOUGHTS for a strange history of his career in the form of collected afterwords to his books – and the most important lesson we can learn from him is...

MATERIAL.




This is a lesson that I have recently learned while expanding the Blue Books. If you seldom write anything, you end up with not much material to collect and publish somewhere. On the Blue Books I find that I have a pile of articles and Script Tips and long answers to people's online questions that for some reason I saved (most are not saved anywhere – maybe a million words lost). And all of these things can be rewritten and used to expand the Blue Books. Someone once asked me a question about some subject, I gave a long and detailed answer, and now that answer goes into a Blue Book and helps a bunch of people. But that only works if you've done the writing first. If you *have* the material. The same is true with screenplays – if someone is looking for a female lead thriller with limited locations – I have something like that. Because I wrote it instead of just thought about writing it. (Though, I have *many* stories I only thought about writing – and I don't have anything to show for that.)




Well, Lawrence Block wrote a pile of short stories and novels and novellas. In AFTERTHOUGHTS he talks about writing a novel a month for one publisher, and then setting up a deal with another publisher for *another* novel a month. Dude was a machine! And you might think that the stuff he just jammed out under some crazy deadline would be crap... but it's not. That ends up being the strange thing about reading these guys who write fast – speed has nothing to do with accuracy. They are two different things. A pulp writer like Walter Gibson could turn out a novel (or two) a month and those books read better than much of the stuff that some writer spent years to write today. And those Walter Gibson titles are still in print! Block was writing two novels a month for years when he started out... and now most (or all) of those novels have reverted back to him – and he's putting them up on Amazon for Kindle and B&N for Nook (and other formats). He has all of these books and short stories that he owns, and he's not just embracing new technology and putting them on Kindle – he's freakin' all over it! It's been fun to watch him progress – from some short stories with no covers, to some photo of Block as the cover (the one with the cute Panda from his China trip on the cover of some violent action story was kind of amusing), to his current covers that kick ass. He's become an e-book maven! And he has a huge catalogue of material to release.

So the lesson I have learned from all of this is – write a stack of stories and scripts! Later these things will be worth something. That *idea* you had yesterday? Why didn't you just write it? Then you would *have something*. And if the writing sucks – just rewrite it later! But a story unwritten is... well, it's nothing! Block has been taking all of these things he's written long ago and not only turned them into some money for his pocket, he's made these stories available to all of his long time fans... and probably created *new* fans. He would not have been able to do that without having written them in the first place.




Which brings us to THE NIGHT AND THE MUSIC, which is a collection of Matthew Scudder short stories. After I bought those first three Matt Scudder novels at DeLauer's Newsstand in Oakland (12th Street BART station) I waited for more... and there weren't any. But there were some short stories every once in a while in Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine or Alfred Hitchcock Magazine (I don't remember which) and it was always cool to see that Scudder was still alive and kicking... and eventually the novels came back.

I have probably said this here before, but SINS OF THE FATHERS is one of my favorite mystery novels of all time... because it's all about the characters. Matt Scudder's investigation is more about *why* these people did these things than *who* did them. He really digs in to motivations... and traces the whole crime back to one moment in a character's past when she was a little girl. That moment triggered at least two deaths.

After the first three Scudder novels, Block moved on to other characters... but every once in a while had an idea for short story with the character – and now those are collected here along with some new stories. To make this world even smaller for me – the introduction is written by screenwriter Brian Koppelman (ROUNDERS, SOLITARY MAN) who has some knowledge of my existence.

If you don't know Scudder – he was a NYC cop who drank on duty, took a bribe now and then, and was no saint... but when he kills a kid by accident, he gets fired from the force, drinks even more and loses his wife and kids to divorce... and now lives in a crappy hotel downtown and hangs out in Armstrong's Bar (and some others) and will help out “friends” for a fee. He's not a private detective, he's just a guy with skills. He drops 10% of whatever he makes into the poor box of the nearest Catholic Church, even though he's not much of a believer. He's a man riddled with guilt who figures helping people with his donations might make him feel better about himself... I don't think it ever does. If you want to hire him, you drop by Armstrong's and the bartender or waitress will point him out.




The first short story in the collection I read in AHMM when it was first published – I had a subscription. It's about one of those waitresses at Armstrong's who takes a dive out of her apartment window. Her sister hires Scudder, because she's sure her sister was murdered. The story takes all kinds of twists – but the great thing about it is that it all comes back to motivations and characters and the *human* side of crime. The second story is about a dead bag lady – one of those street people you might see every day but never think about. After she's killed, her lawyer finds Scudder in the bar and tells him she left him some money – not much. Scudder feels guilty getting money for nothing, and decides to find out who she was and how she died. Again, instead of seeing the surface of the person, Scudder really digs in to who the person was... and you will never look at a homeless person the same way after reading this story. Each of these stories takes some person you might never think of – that guy who bought a round in the bar once – and digs deep into their lives, and you learn about them *and* Scudder in the process.

One of the great thing with the stories is that they often explores “holes” in the series between novels (the new novel A DROP OF THE HARD STUFF does this) – and one of the stories flashes back to *before* SINS OF THE FATHERS to give us a story of Scudder while he was still a cop on the force solving a crime with his old partner. The cool part of this is that the partner is talked about in other books (and may even be a character in some books – I forget... hey, a good reason to re-read them all!) - but here we get a story about a young Scudder working with his partner back in the days before his life imploded... as remembered by the old Scudder. Again, the great thing here is that it's about his partner and a sort of mixed up morality where sometimes doing the wrong thing is really the right thing. A story that will haunt you – as most of these will. You'll be thinking about the bag lady for months, I guarantee it.




When we get to the new stories – and Mick Ballou, the retired hitman/mobster who shows up in later Scudder novels – the tales are full of melancholy and regret and deal with aging and death. Scudder has kicked the bottle, taken up the 12 steps, and has a new wife... who was part of his old cop life. The last story (brand new - written for this collection) takes place at Mick's after hours bar on the night before it meets the wrecking ball – and how reckless driven young men end up being thoughtful old men remembering their pasts... kind of like me remembering reading most of these stories when they were first printed and telling you about it here.

The great thing about Scudder as a character is that he has gone through profound changes in his life – ups and downs – yet continues to be a series character that we look forward to spending more time with. Other series characters either don't change and often get stale, or change in ways that seem to remove their emotional problems leaving us with an empty coat solving crimes. These stories show Scudder at different points in his life, dealing with different issues in his life and those issues as a doorway into the problems of others. It's a great collection of stories... and makes me glad I happened to walk into DeLauers Newsstand that day and spot that one paperback out of the thousands and met Matt Scudder.

- Bill

Note: Picture of DeLauers above was taken from my cellphone over the holidays (when I actually read this book) - it's still there.

IMPORTANT UPDATE:


TODAY'S SCRIPT TIP: Always do your best work! Roger Corman hands you a monster movie idea, do you just "crap it out" or do you make it the film Variety called the best movie ever made about the Viet Nam War?
Dinner: Togos #9 sandwich (again).

DVD: GIVE 'EM HELL MALONE. So, I pass a Blockbuster that is closing and selling off it's DVDs, and figure I'll grab some movies that I missed in the cinema or maybe favorites that for some reason I do not own on DVD... and the first thing is that most of the stock was $9.99 – for a used DVD? Hey, I can buy *new* DVDs for $9.99! But there were some at $1.99, so I grabbed a stack of films I'd missed that looked good – that's the cost of a rental, right? One of the films I threw in the basket was GIVE 'EM HELL MALONE, a gonzo neo noir starring Thomas Jane and Ving Rhames and directed by Russell Mulcahy. How can you go wrong with that line up? I'd seen the trailer and it looked cool... so I figured I'd get more than $1.99 worth of entertainment out of it.

I was wrong.

The cast is great, the production value is great... but the script seems like something that was written one scene at a time between snorting lines of coke off a cheap hooker's ass. It makes no sense at all, and is one of those scripts with a “twist ending” that makes the rest of the story completely impossible. It's crass and stupid and suffers from ADD and has cartoon characters that, yeah, are supposed to be cartoon characters – but are just more cartoony than you could have imagined. The thing I hate about films like this is that everything is “good” about them but the screenplay. The trailer makes it look like a candidate for Bill's Favorite Films because a few seconds of a scene are great – but the whole scene sucks and when you add those scenes together it sucks even worse!

Movie starts out great – a shoot out with Jane against a bunch of cartoony villains fighting over a metal case. Jane is both tough and clever and gets past the bad guys and grabs the metal case. There's tough guy voice over making it seem like a lost noir film – but the VO isn't very clever. That was my first tip off that the film might not live up to the trailer. Then the dialogue began being more cliches than clever lines... at first the cliches seemed like they were having fun with genre conventions, but then you realized none of it had that twist you need to be *commenting* on cliché lines... so it was just cliché lines. After 5 minutes of lines we've heard a hundred times before in situations we've seen a hundred times before the film starts tipping to the negative. At this point, it can still be saved by a few clever scenes or a twist that makes the cliches of the past scenes clever. But that did not happen. Instead, we just get more cliches and cliches and cliches. The film looked great, and every actor no matter how stupid their character was did their best... but by the time we got to the Japanese schoolgirl hitwoman stolen directly from KILL BILL the film was dead. And that doesn't even get into the impossible plotting where a “clever twist” ends up negating the whole story up until now, and characters who don't know each other at all are revealed to be long lost lovers – even though in previous scenes together they acted like strangers. Were they just holding their natural reaction to each other for the twist?

Mulcahy does a great job with the direction and deserves to get some studio gigs... but please – read the screenplays before you decide to make them. I think the producers of this film need to be taken to the Hollywood City Limit and kicked out of town, told never to return. You can have all of the elements, but if you don't have the script you'll end up with a film like this. Not a single good review on Rotten Tomatoes!


bluebook


BRAND NEW!

*** VISUAL STORYTELLING *** - For Kindle!
*** VISUAL STORYTELLING *** - For Nook!

Expanded version with more techniques to tell stories visually! Using the first Oscar Winner SUNRISE and Oscar Nominee THE ARTIST plus other Oscar Winners as examples... as well as RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is around 250 pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage! (limited time price)


bluebook


FINALLY!

*** THE SECRETS OF ACTION SCREENWRITING *** - For Kindle!
*** THE SECRETS OF ACTION SCREENWRITING *** - For Nook!

Why pay $510 for a used version of the 240 page 2000 version that used to retail for $21.95? (check it out!) when you can get the NEW EXPANDED VERSION - over 500 pages - for just $9.99? New chapters, New examples, New techniques!

"SECRETS OF ACTION SCREENWRITING is the best book on the practical nuts-and-bolts mechanics of writing a screenplay I've ever read." - Ted Elliott, co-writer of MASK OF ZORRO, SHREK, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and the sequels (with Terry Rossio).(ie; 4 of the top 20 Box Office Hits Of ALL TIME.)


Only $9.99 - and no postage!

Monday, February 20, 2012

Presidents Day

INDEPENDENCE DAY:


AMERICAN PRESIDENT:


SUPER PRESIDENT:


PRESIDENTIAL MORPHING:


- Bill

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Writers Guild Award Winners

Film: Original Screenplay

"Midnight in Paris," Woody Allen

Film: Adapted Screenplay

"The Descendants," screenplay by Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash; based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings

Film: Documentary Screenplay

"Better This World," written by Katie Galloway & Kelly Duane de la Vega

Television: Drama Series

"Breaking Bad," Sam Catlin, Vince Gilligan, Peter Gould, Gennifer Hutchison, George Mastras, Thomas Schnauz, Moira Walley-Beckett

Television: Comedy Series

"Modern Family," Cindy Chupack, Paul Corrigan, Abraham Higginbotham, Ben Karlin, Elaine Ko, Carol Leifer, Steven Levitan, Christopher Lloyd, Dan O’Shannon, Jeffrey Richman, Brad Walsh, Ilana Wernick, Bill Wrubel, Danny Zuker

Television: New Series

"Homeland" Henry Bromell, Alexander Cary, Alex Gansa, Howard Gordon, Chip Johannessen, Gideon Raff, Meredith Stiehm

Television: Episodic Drama -- tie

“Box Cutter” ("Breaking Bad"), written by Vince Gilligan

“The Good Soldier” ("Homeland"), written by Henry Bromell

Television: Episodic Comedy

“Caught in the Act” ("Modern Family"), written by Steven Levitan & Jeffrey Richman

Television: Long Form - Original

"Cinema Verite," David Seltzer

Television: Long Form - Adapted

"Too Big to Fail," written by Peter Gould, based on the book written by Andrew Ross Sorkin

Television: Animation

“Homer the Father” ("The Simpsons"), written by Joel H. Cohen

Television: Comedy/Variety (Including Talk) Series

"The Colbert Report," writers: Michael Brumm, Stephen Colbert, Rich Dahm, Paul Dinello, Eric Drysdale, Rob Dubbin, Glenn Eichler, Dan Guterman, Peter Gwinn, Jay Katsir, Barry Julien, Frank Lesser, Opus Moreschi, Tom Purcell, Meredith Scardino, Scott Sherman, Max Werner; Comedy Central

- Bill

Friday, February 17, 2012

Friday's With Hitchcock:
Frenzy (1972)

Screenplay by Anthony Schaffer based on the novel by Arthur La Bern.

Hitchcock’s 52nd film manages to combine many of his most popular elements into one story: We get the wrongly accused man story - this time very similar to one of his other lost gems, YOUNG AND INNOCENT. We also get a STRANGERS ON A TRAIN story of guilt transferred. Plus we get a sexy, violent, shocking serial killer story like PSYCHO. Hey, add a twist ending and you've got quintessential Hitchcock. Oh, and it's funny and clever, too - screenplay by the brilliant Anthony Shaffer...writer of the original SLEUTH, the original WICKER MAN, and SOMMERSBY. This is the best Hitchcock film in the post-PSYCHO period.




After a bunch of interesting failures after PSYCHO - movies that only Robin Wood could love - Hitchcock needed a hit... and here it is. FRENZY is a return to England and to London. The business had changed, and Hitchcock - who always seemed ahead of the curve - had coasted on past brilliance in the 60s until he stopped dead. This was the film that restarted him - and probably the film he should have gone out on. Though it’s about a man who is wrongly accused, he isn’t on the run like in NORTH BY NORTHWEST, instead he’s kind of “a man on the hide” - trying to find some safe place to hole up or some scheme to avoid the police by being smuggled out of the country. After years of sly winks from Hitchcock about sex - trains entering tunnels - the new permissive world of cinema practically demanded that he do a film full of nudity and sex. This is Hitchcock’s only R rated film. Instead of those glossy Hollywood “personality” stars like Cary Grant that he had used in the past, or the new method actors and low-key guys like Paul Newman - who didn’t match his style, FRENZY stars a bunch of fine British stage actors. You don’t know their names, but you may have seen them in movies or on TV before. The hostess of Masterpiece Theater, Jean Marsh, plays a role. Whether Hitchcock was returning to his roots or his comfort zone, the results are a fun and frightening little film that is still fun to watch.




Nutshell: Bitter bartender Richard Blaney (Jon Finch) seems to have lost everything in his divorce, including many of his friends. The one pal who took his side was Bob Rusk (Barry Foster) who runs a produce company at Covent Garden. These two are polar opposites. Where Blaney's life is a mess, Rusk is on top of the world.

London is plagued by the Neck Tie Killer - who strangles swinging single women with neck ties. When Blaney’s ex-wife (Barbara Leigh-Hunt) becomes the latest victim only a day after they had a very public fight, he finds himself on the run from the police. Unfortunately, everyone sided with the ex-wife in the divorce, and no one will believe he's innocent. And when another Neck Tie Killer victim can be traced back to Blaney? Even his old pal Rusk thinks he’s guilty... and turns him in to the police. Lots of twists and turns, and one of those great end twists where the real killer is revealed.




Hitch Appearance: In a crowd listening to a political speech - right
at the beginning of the film... then someone spots a dead woman floating in the Thames River, naked except for a neck tie. “Is that my club tie?” someone asks.

Hitch Stock Company: Elsie Randolph who plays the Hotel Clerk was also in RICH AND STRANGE (1931).

Birds: One of the few Hitchcock films without birds - though there are some seagulls in the opening shot and a quail is served at dinner.

Experiment: Hitchcock plays it safe as far as story is concerned. FRENZY is a great example of taking us into a world, Hero & Villain “Flipsides”, character flaw creating story, set ups, and traditional twist endings. There are also some visual experiments in the film that we will look at in a moment.

SPOILERS!!!

Motifs: One of the great things about this movie is that it also manages to use *food* as a leitmotif - not only is one of the characters in the produce industry, and much of the story takes place in London's Covent Garden food market (where Hitchcock’s father worked), the Detective's wife is taking a gourmet cooking class... which supplies a lot of comedy as he attempts to eat her odd concoctions. We get food and friendship and romance as story elements that pop up in a variety of places throughout the film.

Love and sex are also leitmotifs, here - with Rusk a real lady’s man, always talking about women. Blaney’s ex-wife runs a dating service, and people tend to be defined by their sex lives. The police detective investigating the murders (Alec McCowen) has been married for years, and his wife is trying to spice up their relationship... with cooking lessons. The way to a man’s heart...




After Blaney has a blow up with his wife in public (at a restaurant - food), Rusk shows up at the dating service. He has “peculiar appetites” when it comes to women, and Blaney’s ex-wife refuses him service... so he rapes and murders her with his neck tie. About a third of the way into the film we know who the Neck Tie Killer is - and it’s Blaney’s best friend! And by the 33 minute point, Blaney is on the run from the police with nowhere to hide.

When Blaney finds some money his ex-wife put in his coat pocket, he calls his girlfriend from the bar Babs (Anna Massey) and they go to a no-tell hotel, where they are given the “Cupid Suite”. Babs knows Blaney could never be the Neck Tie Killer - he only owns two ties. There have already been more murders than that. The hotel desk clerk recognizes Blaney from a wanted photo and calls the police. Blaney manages to escape without his clothes and his now on the run in his pajamas. Hard to be inconspicuous when that’s all you have to wear.

World Of The Story: One of the interesting things about this film is that you get a great behind the scenes look at the wholesale produce business in London. You often hear people say in interviews that “New York is a character in our film”, and usually that’s BS, but sometimes a location *can* be a character. One of the great things about movies is that they allow us to visit places we have never been and experience things we will probably never experience. Who wants to be falsely accused of murder? Just as NORTH BY NORTHWEST took us on a tour of famous sites between New York and Mt. Rushmore, FRENZY takes us on a tour of the Covent Garden Market and the wholesale produce business.




There are some great shots of Covent Garden’s market, including a high overhead. You get a good feel for the place, but the story takes us behind the scenes to see how the market works. Because Rusk’s business is wholesale produce, we get to see his warehouse and hear him make deals as the background to scenes. The audience is fascinated by how things work - that’s why we have all of those procedural shows on TV - but we aren’t only interested by crime scenes, we are interested in reality shows about how restaurants work and commercial fishermen and truck drivers. We love to see behind the curtain. Every story takes place in some world, and part of our job as screenwriters is to show the audience the secrets of that world - the things we didn’t know. This can be a travelogue like NORTH BY NORTHWEST or a documentary like FRENZY - both are the thriller versions of something you might see on National Geographic.

The key to showing the audience the world of your story is to show us how things work as part of the story - Rusk has a conversation about some of the produce having a short shelf life so he has to get rid of it, and there is a conversation about sending old potatoes back to the farm... which enters into the story later. There’s a scene where Rusk goes through his warehouse and we see every element of his business. The other key is to find some interesting little details - one of the things I love about Elmore Leonard novels are those cool details like the rubber bands on the grip of a pistol to keep it from slipping. Might have been a Leonard novel where I first read about super-gluing to find latent finger prints - that’s cool! Look for those interesting details that people will remember and talk about after seeing the film. Hey, can we trim the brown spots off those veggies and still sell them? Can we turn those apples over so that the brown spots don’t show?




The most important thing is that the world of the story is *part* of the story. Those potatoes being sent back to the farm because they didn’t sell end up being the perfect place for the killer to hide a body. The potatoes are shipped in a truck - and we get to see most of the trip, including the cruddy diner where truckers stop for a meal on the road. The body gets into the truck by the tools of the trade - a dolly. I did an article for Script Magazine ages ago called Hitchcock’s Chocolates about how he consistently uses the tools of the character’s trade as part of the story - in the remake of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH Jimmy Stewart is a doctor who gives his wife a sedative before telling her that their son has been kidnaped. So Rusk uses all of the tools and elements of the produce market in the story - as part of the story.

When Blaney gets fired, his friend Rusk gives him a carton of grapes to help him out... and a tip on a horse.




Flipsides: Richard Blaney is our protagonist and Bob Rusk ends up being the antagonist - notice that they share the same initials, but reversed? And each character is almost the opposite of the other - Rusk is “lucky” and seems to breeze through life without any problems, he gives Blaney that race horse tip... and Blaney doesn’t have any money to bet. Rusk’s horse wins, but Blaney still loses. Rusk owns his own business, Blaney gets fired from his job as a bartender about a minute after he’s introduced. Rusk is great with the ladies, Blaney is divorced and throughout the film seems to have problems with women. One of the best gags is that Blaney is *sure* he’s going to score with his ex-wife... but ends up sleeping on a cot at the Salvation Army. Rusk is cool and glib and always smiling, Blaney has some serious anger issues and always seems to be snarling and frowning. Though each man has similarities to the other, if one is positive the other is negative.




In my long out of print Action Screenwriting book I talk about heroes and villains who are “flipsides” - like Indiana Jones and Belloq in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. This is a great way to define your protagonist and antagonist - find their common ground (like both are adventurous archeologists) and then show where they are opposites. What’s interesting about Rusk and Blaney is that Rusk seems like as genuinely nice and caring guy - he would do anything to help his friend out. And Rusk even seems to care about the feelings of his victims, kind of - he tells Blaney’s ex-wife that he wouldn’t do anything to a woman she didn’t want done (well, except rape and kill them, I guess). Blaney, on the other hand, seems to think only about himself. He is always asking people to do him favors - like getting Babs to collect his things from the apartment behind the bar. But he also suffers from the sin of pride - he’s a loser who doesn’t want to look like a loser, so he’s always getting angry when people try to help him, and starts the film off throwing all of his money at his boss when he gets fired to pay for his drinks and that advance on his salary. When Rusk asks if he needs money, he *must* say no to keep his pride, even though it’s obvious the reason why he went there in the first place was to hit him up for a loan. Same thing with his ex-wife. Blaney is isolated from society before he’s accused of being the Neck Tie Killer. Where Rusk charms people into doing things for him, Blaney is so bristley he pushes away the people who want to help him.




The Clues Lead To The Hero: One of the great things about the way this script is plotted is that all of the clues to the Neck Tie Killer lead right to Blaney. Every woman he comes in contact with ends up being a victim! How can he ever convince the police, or anybody else, that he’s *not* the killer? In a story where a man is wrongly accused of a crime, one of the difficulties is to find a logical reason why he would be accused in the first place, and then keeping him wrongly accused for the rest of the story. In NORTH BY NORTHWEST, we have George Kaplan - the fake spy that Roger O. Thornhill thinks has all of the answers - and that keeps Thornhill going to the wrong place at the very wrong time and staying deep in trouble. In most other Hitchcock films we get something similar - the protagonist chases after the villain and the authorities believe he is the villain. But in FRENZY we have a different solution - Blaney’s friend Rusk knows who Blaney knows - knows that his ex-wife is doing well in her business (first scene between them), knows that he’s sleeping with Babs who works at the bar (also in the first scene between them), so all of the women that Blaney knows, Rusk knows. When Rusk kills one, Blaney is blamed. The great thing about FRENZY is how *friendship* enters into the story again and again - if Blaney and Rusk had not been friends, Blaney would never be prime suspect in the Neck Tie Killings. Blaney’s Air Force pal ends up being the guy who offers to hide him... except his wife wants to turn him in to the police. Again - a friendship that puts Blaney at risk... causing him to lose his temper yet again.




Triple Set Ups: There are many great set ups & pay offs in the film - and they seem completely invisible. In Rusk’s first scene he uses his monogrammed tie pin to pick his teeth, and does this throughout the film. You think it’s just a bit of business - maybe something the actor came up with.... but it’s actually a set up for a later suspense scene. Also, in a throw away conversation about the produce business, Rusk talks to another produce guy about a shipment of potatoes that is being returned. We think this is just showing us the world of the story at the time, but it is also a set up. And the third bit of set up is Rusk telling a victim, “You’re my type” - which is particularly chilling at the time, but also a set up. None of these three things seems like a set up at all...

That Long Tracking Shot: On of the most amazing shots in film history is in FRENZY - Rusk takes another woman connected to Blaney up to his apartment and tells her “You’re my type” as they enter his apartment. Because that phrase has been set up as part of Rusk’s Neck Tie Killer side, we don’t need to go inside the apartment and see him kill again, we *know* what is going to happen. So we get a long backwards tracking shot from the apartment door, down one flight of stairs, around a corner and down another flight of stairs, through an entry hall, out a door, across a bustling street, then craning up to see more of the building. This would have been a difficult shot with a Steady-cam, only that wouldn’t be invented for another four years.



Here's the trick - the camera is on a jib arm for the stairs, then there is actually a cut when we leave the house which is covered by a man carrying a sack of potatoes walking in front of the camera. I call this a "Hitchcock Wipe". Spielberg used it in JAWS for the that cool scene on the beach when the Kittner Boy gets chomped by the shark.

Then we have a great scene where Rusk puts a victim’s body in a sack of potatoes that will be driven back to the farm where they came from - the pay off from that conversation earlier in the film that we never suspected was setting up this scene. And all of the evidence is gone, and Rusk is free and clear. He goes to pick his teeth with his tie pin... and it isn’t there. We get some great flash-cuts: the victim grabbed it while he was killing her! Rusk goes back to the potato truck, searches for the sack with the dead woman... and the truck starts up and drives away! This is a great suspense scene, with the *villain* in peril of being discovered... And it works! Rusk retrieves the tie pin, but now must escape the speeding potato truck.



As every woman he has ever known ends up a victim of the Neck Tie Killer, Blaney has no one else to turn to for help except his old pal Rusk... and Rusk turns him over to the police, where he is arrested and thrown in a cell. This is all done in a high overhead, turning Blaney into nothing more than a pawn.

Here's that shot:



Character Flaw:Blaney is an interesting protagonist - an angry, bitter, ex-war hero who manages to pick a fight with anyone who tries to help him or shows him pity. He has enough self-pity, no need for anyone else’s. But this leads to some great blow ups that get him fired and make him the prime suspect in his ex-wife’s murder. His character and character flaw are what make him the perfect suspect. This may be a thriller but it is still character related - and Blaney’s *character* and his emotional issues are directly related to the story being told.




One interesting element of the film is that we spend a great deal of time away from Blaney. Most Hitchcock films stayed with the protagonist for the majority of the scenes. This is true whether the film is NORTH BY NORTHWEST or REAR WINDOW. But here Blaney shares screen time with Rusk and the Detective. The three seem to have almost equal screen time.

There are hilarious scenes where the Detective must suffer through his wife’s gourmet cooking which help define his character. How do you pretend to enjoy the eel head soup? These scenes do more than provide a laugh, they show the Detective slowly beginning to believe that Blaney may not be guilty. He is a “pivot character” who begins as an antagonist chasing Blaney, but slowly changes sides and tries to find the evidence that will exonerate him. This happens in a swell scene where we see the Detective thinking in the courtroom after Blaney has been captured and found guilty of murder.




There’s a great scene where the Detective and his wife are discussing the dead woman in the potato truck, the killer had to pry open her rigored hand to get the tie pin, breaking each of her fingers... And his wife snaps a break stick in half. Ouch! This is done throughout the film - very clever stuff! Sound and image working together.

Twist Ends: The film works its way to a great traditional twist end and doesn’t waste a second of film time after the twist - it goes directly to closing credits. This is not a "Sixth Sense" twist that changes the entire film we have previously seen, but the sort of twist ending the Hitchcock Presents Show was famous for - in this case we have sort of a triple twist: Blaney escapes prison and goes to kill Rusk... but the person in Rusk's bed he beats with a crow bar ends up being the latest neck tie victim (in the novel it's Jean Marsh's character, in the film it's some hot naked woman)! There's a great shot after he gets done slamming the crow bar into the person's head when an arm falls from beneath the sheets - a woman's arm with too many bracelets. Twist! Just when Blaney realizes his mistake, the door opens - and it's the Detective. Twist! The Detective puts his fingers to his lips and hides... as the door opens *again* and it's Rusk with a trunk. But Rusk tries to pin it on Blaney. Twist! Who will the Detective arrest? And then we get our final little twist - kind of a Columbo Moment - when the Detective notes that Rusk isn't wearing a neck tie. For a moment there, we thought for sure Blaney was screwed!




There are some other great twists in the film - instead of just dumping information on the audience Anthony Shaffer and Hitchcock always seem to find a way to spring it on us. After we know that Blaney is the Neck Tie Killer there’s a great scene where Babs leaves the bar - in shock because she’s worried that Blaney might actually be the killer - and when she steps outside the scene becomes completely silent. She’s lost in thought. And when she moves her head - WHAM! - Rusk is right behind her! Great shock moment. Another example is when Blaney’s Air Force pal’s wife asks how Blaney’s ex-wife is doing - a great tense moment - and Blaney admits that she’s dead... and his friend’s wife grabs a newspaper with a front page story about the police searching for Blaney the Neck Tie Killer and shoves it in Blaney’s face and says: Because you killed her! Knocks Blaney back, and knocks us back as well. These are the people trying to help him - and they think he did it! Blaney really is a man with awful luck! Throughout the film, every piece of information is given to the audience in the most interesting way possible - through little twists and reversals that make FRENZY a consistently exciting film.

A great summation of Hitchcock's thrillers that also works as kind of a little tour of London and a behind the scenes of Covent Garden market. Lots of suspense, twists, and a fun look at what happens when you lose all of your friends in the divorce... except for the bad boys you used to hang out with as a bachelor. Great script by Shaffer, great cinematography by Gilbert Taylor. Marred by iffy music by Ron Goodwin (replacing Bernard Herrmann after he had a falling out with Hitch). Hitchcock's best film in the post-PSYCHO era (after he began to believe all of those critics that called him a genius - and made mostly cruddy films). A modern film, that holds up really well.

- Bill.

The other Fridays With Hitchcock.

BUY THE DVD AT AMAZON:







Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Book Report... Happy Valentines Day!

I know that I've been a slacker when it comes to the Blog so far this year, but I hope to turn that around now that I'm done with the Visual Blue Book and think I have figured out the best way to expand future titles. I wrote a monster article on Silent Films, then took my primary example and re-ordered the techniques covered in the original BB to match the film... then completely integrated the "Bonus Material" articles into the main body of the book to prevent duplicate lead paragraphs. Now that I know what I'm doing, the next BBs will be better. Using BRIDESMAIDS for Supporting Characters BB, and writing a new article on comedy characters that uses HANGOVER (1) plus adding some articles from the vault.

The 63k words (full length book!) on VISUAL will probably not happen again (but who knows) - the new silent movie article is actually longer than the original paper BB. But now that I've figured out the best way to expand the Blue Books there will be less beating my head against the wall and more time for blogging and those new Script Tips I promised. Hey, since we're talking about books...




I just began reading my friend Nancy's Oprah-endorsed Best Selling Novel THE CROWN on my Kindle – and it's off to a great start! Not my usual genre (since it's a period story I don't expect many car chases) but I'm trying to get around to reading books written by my friends (a problem – because they are mostly writers!) and *Oprah* loved this book. I feel by reading Nancy's book, I'm closer to touching the hem of Oprah's garment...

But here's the great thing – not my genre, people wearing frilly shirts... and from the first page I'm *hooked*! Nancy opens with conflict, which not only gets us involved in the protagonist's story, it also exposes the protagonist. After only a couple of paragraphs I'm totally with the protagonist. The year is 1537, the country is England, and a broke young woman is trying to get a ride into town so that she can attending a woman's hanging... wait, it's not just a hanging - they're burning her alive. The dude who owns the cart wants *cash*, and even thought this young woman might clean up real good – at this point in time she's been wearing the same sweat stained clothes for a while – which she has probably slept in – and to top it all off she's biracial at a time when that was not considered “hot”. So there is no way in hell this guy is going to let her on the cart.

She is the uber-underdog and yet finds a way to get herself of that cart headed to the hanging, er - burning alive. The method she uses (not sexual – more tragic) shows that she is resourceful and driven to get to this burning. Which also creates a fair amount of mystery. Oh, and to add to the mystery we discover that this scruffy looking gal is a *nun* who has escaped from a convent, and the woman being burned alive is her cousin (more of a sister). This is a great
opening to a story... and a lesson that works in screenplays as well.

Nancy's Author Page on Amazon – this photo looks more like the real Nancy than the photo on the book.





Whether you are writing a screenplay or a novel or a short story, you need to grab the reader on page one! This is nothing new, by the way, Edgar Allan Poe said you need to grab your reader in the first sentence or you have lost them. My friend Joshua Grover-David Patterson – I think his zombie novel with heart MERCY was one of my past book reports – has a novelette on Kindle called BABY TEETH that opens with this sentence: “This is the night I'll finally kill my baby.” Okay – don't you want to know why someone would kill their *infant*? And why they've been thinking about it, maybe planning it, for long enough that it's *finally*? I know I did, and that's why I kept reading.

No matter how we tell our stories, we need to start strong and find that scene or line or situation that pulls the audience into the story and makes them want to read more. If we're writing a screenplay and it takes a while before anything interesting happens, there's a good chance you need to cut those boring scenes or at least find some way to reorder your scenes so that the story hits the ground running. Even “slow burn” screenplays like THE SIXTH SENSE opens with *something interesting happening* - going down into the dark wine cellar and having the light explode... plunging the scene into scary darkness. This sets the stage for the rest of the screenplay – it tells us that spooky things *will* happen, wait for them!

One of the reviews of Nancy's book says you can't put it down – and though I've obviously stopped reading to write this blog entry... I can't wait to get back to those people in frilly shirts in 1537 England!

- Bill

IMPORTANT UPDATE:


TODAY'S SCRIPT TIP: Writing Sequels -
Dinner: Togos #9 sandwich.
Movies: SAFE HOUSE and THE GREY (plus lots of others I haven't told you about... but will!)


bluebook


BRAND NEW!

*** VISUAL STORYTELLING *** - For Kindle!
*** VISUAL STORYTELLING *** - For Nook!

Expanded version with more techniques to tell stories visually! Using the first Oscar Winner SUNRISE and Oscar Nominee THE ARTIST plus other Oscar Winners as examples... as well as RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is around 250 pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage! (limited time price)


bluebook


FINALLY!

*** THE SECRETS OF ACTION SCREENWRITING *** - For Kindle!
*** THE SECRETS OF ACTION SCREENWRITING *** - For Nook!

Why pay $510 for a used version of the 240 page 2000 version that used to retail for $21.95? (check it out!) when you can get the NEW EXPANDED VERSION - over 500 pages - for just $9.99? New chapters, New examples, New techniques!

"SECRETS OF ACTION SCREENWRITING is the best book on the practical nuts-and-bolts mechanics of writing a screenplay I've ever read." - Ted Elliott, co-writer of MASK OF ZORRO, SHREK, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and the sequels (with Terry Rossio).(ie; 4 of the top 20 Box Office Hits Of ALL TIME.)


Only $9.99 - and no postage!


bluebook


*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Kindle!
*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Nook!

Expanded version with more ways to find great ideas! Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is around 155 pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage!


bluebook


*** CREATING STRONG PROTAGONISTS *** - For Kindle!
*** CREATING STRONG PROTAGONISTS *** - For Nook!

Expanded version with more ways to create interesting protagonists! Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is once again around 155 pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage!


bluebook


NEW!

*** DIALOGUE SECRETS *** - For Kindle!
*** DIALOGUE SECRETS *** - For Nook!

Expanded version with more ways to find great ideas! Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is almost *200* pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage!

Friday, February 10, 2012

Fridays With Hitchcock:
Rebecca (1940)

Yesterday they announced they are remaking this. It won Best Picture Oscar - do they think they can do a better job?

Screenplay by Joan Harrison and Robert E. Sherwood, story by Michael Hogan and Philip MacDonald, based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier.

“Do you think the dead come back to watch the living?”

Hitchcock is one of the best known directors in the world, a director who understood the language of film like few others (and is studied in cinema classes), has probably had more books on cinema written about his work than any other director, and most people know what he looks like and sounds like... yet he never won an Oscar! He was given one of those consolation prize Oscars before he died... but for all of the visual experiments and story experiments he did to push the envelope of cinema, and for all of the precise, quality direction he did in his 53 films (where every shot was carefully chosen to create emotion in the viewer), he got nada. REBECCA won the Best Picture Oscar... but that went to Selznick, the producer.




I think it’s interesting that a quiet costume drama has a better chance of winning a Best Picture Oscar than a movie that makes you feel something - maybe once a movie becomes something experienced on an emotional level it can no longer be analyzed intellectually - and those Oscar voters set it aside.

When I am writing Script Tips for the website, the most difficult films to use as examples are the ones that engaged me - where I became so caught up in the story and characters that I forgot I was watching a movie and felt as if I was just living that story. These are the films that I must see several times before I have the ability to pull myself out of the film enough to analyze the story and jot down notes... yet even then I find myself sucked into the tale no matter how hard I fight it. But a bad movie? My mind is free to wander and analyze all of the faults - the reasons why it is *not* engaging me. Same with a dispassionate movie, or a story “told from outside” where I am viewing what happens but not emotionally involved in the outcome. Those are the easy ones to write Script Tips about, because I’m sitting on the sidelines - they don’t involve me emotionally, only intellectually. Yes, this means those bad parody films like DATE MOVIE only involve me intellectually - I have no emotional connection to those stories and can easily analyze why they suck. One of the reasons why I love AIRPLANE so much is that it actually pulls me into the story emotionally every time, even though it’s a parody. I find myself wanting Robert Hayes to get over his fear of flying and save the passengers and get back together with Julie Haggerty. So it doesn’t matter what the *genre* of the film is, I get pulled into the story based on the writing and characters and situations and direction.

And emotionally involving films are kind of frightening, because we are no longer in control - we are just along for the ride. A great film kidnaps us, and whisks us away to their world for a couple of hours. We forget we are sitting in a cinema... and maybe we aren’t. Maybe a great film transports us in our minds into the world of that film, and leaves our mortal shells in that sticky-floored theater. We are swept away by the film, whether we like it or not. This loss of control may be uncomfortable to some people, so they attempt to intellectually reject these films. I know many people who hate horror movies because they get scared - the very thing a horror movie is supposed to do! Though I understand not wanting to be frightened, this is intellectually rejecting a film *because it works*. The film is stronger than they are, so it is feared and rejected. A film that makes them feel little or nothing, that does *not* sweep them away, is something they can control and therefor like. That staid costume drama is an *easier* film for them to watch than a genre film that kidnaps them for two hours and then dumps them back in their cinema seat emotionally spent. Part of the intellectual is to reject the emotional. To be *civilized*.

Hitchcock films are also filled with plot twists - they are designed to fool you into believing one thing, then springing in that twist Again, critics don’t like to be *fooled* because it makes them into fools - so they often dislike films with plot twists or decide that it is as cheap plot device... because it worked. They may be intellectuals, but they were tricked! By a genre movie! They must say they saw the twist coming, because if they didn’t they are admitting to being fools. Plot twists make them feel stupid, so the *must* dislike and belittle a film with a plot twist in order to save face. So add plot twists to your emotional story and you have a film that critics will dismiss... because it works.

So Hitchcock never won an Oscar... though his film REBECCA did. Who wants to reward the kidnapper who makes you feel like a fool?

Nutshell: REBECCA is a Gothic Romance - a popular fiction genre where the paperback cover usually shows a woman in a nightgown fleeing a castle with the silhouette of a stern man in the window. This subgenre dates back to the novels of those wacky Bronte Sisters, and at times REBECCA seems like a contemporary version of the first half of WUTHERING HEIGHTS by Emily... and by some coincidence Laurence Olivier was hot off playing Heathcliff in the film version only a year before playing Maxim in REBECCA. JANE EYRE by that other Bronte Sister has a similar haunted dude the chick falls for named Eddie Rochester (not the Jack Benny one). Gothic Romances always have some dark, troubled romantic dude who has some terrible secret, hooking up with some innocent young woman who is not prepared for a guy with this much baggage. So she’s running away in her nightgown while he’s looking out the window in silhouette. (Weird Bill aside - the only part of that I had to look up was the year Olivier was in WUTHERING HEIGHTS!)

REBECCA is kind of the Cinderella story from Hell.




Our leading lady (who has no name and is called “The Second Mrs. De Winter” sometimes in the film, and “I” in the screenplay) (Joan Fontaine) is the mousey assistant to tasteless rich blowhard Edyth Van Hopper (Florence Bates) and her job seems to consist of being constantly insulted and doing all sorts of menial tasks. She is at least ten times as intelligent as Mrs. Van Hopper even though she is in some sort if servant class. While on vacation in Monte Carlo, the boorish Mrs. Van Hooper keeps trying to force herself into the company of rich, brooding widower Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier) who does everything possible to avoid her - even though she never gets the hint. Maxim seems to be the only one who notices our leading lady’s wit, and they begin going out together... only Maxim isn’t exactly the best companion. He’s a quiet, brooding man who seems to be haunted by... something. But our leading lady seems to cheer him up, and when the vacation is over, Maxim asks her to marry him. By this point I think she’d marry Jabba The Hutt to get away from Mrs. Van Hooper, so she says yes, they are married in a civil ceremony, and go on a fabulous honeymoon in Europe. Maxim may be quiet and preoccupied by... something... but he’s still a great catch. He’s rich and lives in a massive estate named Manderley and is handsome and kind.

When they return from the honeymoon, things begin to go wrong for our leading lady. She is basically a servant who must now be a princess - and that includes managing the huge mansion and huge staff... headed by the seemingly evil Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson - stealing the show). Mrs. Danvers was the personal maid to Maxim’s first wife, Rebecca, and remains loyal to the dead woman. Our leading lady just isn’t in the same league as Rebecca was, and Mrs. Danvers manages to sneak this into every single conversation the two have. If the giant mansion and all of the servants weren’t intimidating enough, Mrs. Danvers seems to be trying to make her life hell. Add to all of this - Maxim seems even more preoccupied at home than when he was on vacation. He takes “distant” to new lengths. Our leading lady pokes around the big house, but one room is locked - Rebecca’s bedroom (about twice the size of my entire apartment) - which has been kept exactly as it was the day she died. Creepy!




Our leading lady becomes obsessed by Rebecca in two ways - there is a mystery surrounding her death and no one talks about it, and she tries to dress and act like Rebecca in order to win the attention of the distant Maxim. Rebecca’s life and death include all kinds of strange things - she drowned while sailing, but was an expert swimmer. He also seemed to have a “cousin” (ultra-suave George Sanders) who may have actually been her lover. And there’s a boathouse that no one is allowed to go near - which may be where the lovers met. And many mysteries within the house that concern Rebecca, which Mrs. Danvers is trying to make sure our leading lady does not solve. The other element - our leading lady trying to become Rebecca - is something that pops up in other Hitchcock movies like VERTIGO. Here we have our intelligent but unsophisticated leading lady trying to do a full makeover into the ideal society woman... but when she asks Mrs. Danvers what Rebecca was like in order to duplicate it, she’s usually sabotaged.

Eventually she goes to Maxim and asks about Rebecca’s death, and he tells her what happened - he killed her! Not the answer she wanted to hear. (Actually, he doesn’t say he killed her, he says “I put her there” when asked how she ended up in that sailboat at the bottom of the sea... but in Brian DePalma’s excellent Hitchcock homage OBSESSION - written by the great Paul Schrader - the Maxim-like widower tells his fiancé who is trying ever-so-hard to be like his dead first wife that he killed her. It’s a much better line, kind of the Paul Schrader rewrite of REBECCA 35 years later.)

Well, our leading lady pokes around some more and discovers that Maxim didn’t kill Rebecca, he found her dead and planted her body in the sailboat to avoid a scandal. He didn’t love Rebecca - she was a manipulative slut who only married him for his money and when she died it was the best thing that ever happened to him... except he’s worried that someone will open up the whole can of worms and discover he covered up her death... and now our leading lady has done that very thing!

Experiment: This is Hitchcock’s first film in the United States after a successful career in England, so he’s kind of playing it safe. The cast is mostly British and the story is from a novel by Du Maurier who wrote the novel Hitch’s previous film was based on JAMAICA INN and the story THE BIRDS was based on. But the film is almost the opposite of Hitchcock style suspense - instead of big suspense set pieces the film works mostly on mood. This is interesting because it almost works by the *absence* of action, by the stillness of locations and story and Mrs. Danver’s face. For a director whose style is action oriented, moving camera and editing oriented, the lack of movement ends up being an experiment.

Hitch Appearance: Walking past a phone booth.

Sound Track: Another great Franz Waxman score.

Great Scenes: Though the film does have some great scenes, like when Mrs. Danvers sabotages our leading lady at the costume ball, what makes the film work is the mood, the way it turns the Cinderella story on its head, the secrets and reveals, and the way it always seems to put three characters together with shifting alliances. So let’s look at those aspects of the story.




Mood: The film establishes the mood right out of the gate - which is exactly what you want. The opening image not only sets the tone for the entire story, it also sets up the story itself. We open at night on a winding driveway leading to the huge country estate named Manderley - the mansion shrouded in fog and darkness. Our unnamed leading lady says in voice over, “Last night, I dreamt I went to Manderley again. It seemed to me I stood by the iron gate leading to the drive, and for a while I could not enter for the way was barred to me. Then, like all dreamers, I was possessed of a sudden with supernatural powers and passed like a spirit through the barrier before me. The drive wound away in front of me, twisting and turning as it had always done. But as I advanced, I was aware that a change had come upon it. Nature had come into her own again, and little by little had encroached upon the drive with long tenacious fingers, on and on while the poor thread that had once been our drive. And finally, there was Manderley - Manderley - secretive and silent. Time could not mar the perfect symmetry of those walls. Moonlight can play odd tricks upon the fancy, and suddenly it seemed to me that light came from the windows. And then a cloud came upon the moon and hovered an instant like a dark hand before a face. The illusion went with it. I looked upon a desolate shell, with no whisper of the past about its staring walls. We can never go back to Manderley again. That much is certain. But sometimes, in my dreams, I do go back...” The mansion is from her past - a memory in the darkness. It begins as a dream, but as we get closer to the mansion, the fog breaks and we see that it is the skeleton of a mansion - burned out by fire. Some tragedy has taken place here. The beautiful mansion destroyed. The fog concealing, and then revealing the shocking wreckage - and that is how the story works as well. Dark things are revealed. Things have been destroyed in the past...




Beginning with a strong image is a great way to open any kind of screenplay, and here the image of the once beautiful mansion in ruins prepares us for the rest of the story.

Situation and location are important elements in setting the mood, as is time period. Imagine a children’s playground in summer... now imagine that same playground in the dead of winter. These are some of the tools we use when setting mood, along with word choice. The opening of any screenplay can be used to establish mood and location through word choice and description that is poetic... before getting down to the nuts and bolts of action oriented description. But even after a strong image opening, the choice of words used in your action/description is critical to maintaining that mood. I bought a hard copy of the REBECCA script, hoping to post a few evocative descriptions as an example, but this was an adaptation, and the only available version was the shooting script - which was pretty dry and mechanical. I would suggest a script like this is where you get to use the *writing* skills in screenwriting and find the most evocative words you can to paint the picture, without becoming verbose. The key is not to use *many* words, but to use *the right* words - the one that add tone and mood and feeling to the actions.




But every situation, every scene, should be used to create mood. Because this is a romance, there is a “meet cute” - that clever scene where the romantic couple meet. In a rom-com it would be a funny scene, but in REBECCA our female lead comes upon Maxim at the edge of a cliff where he is about to jump to his death. They have an awkward conversation and he moves away from the cliff so that she’ll go away.

After they get married by a justice of the peace - a brief scene of happiness - they drive through the rain to the hulking mansion Manderlay.

Manderley is not a location that is surrounded by life and people - it is secluded at the end of a long, winding, drive - completely isolated from everyone. Though it is surrounded by nature - it seems to be autumn, and the trees are barren. This gives us not only isolation, but *desolation* as an element of location. These things create mood in the background of every scene. The mansion itself is big and empty - creating isolation and desolation even when the scenes are indoors. The mansion is mostly empty rooms shrouded in darkness. To add to the mood, our leading lady is often exploring the closed west wing... where Rebecca used to live. The rooms are not lighted, and she dare not bring a candle or flashlight. Other great locations that create mood are an abandoned beach house filled with cobwebs and dusty boating equipment. Locations, time of day, characters, and story are all selected to create that mood of death and danger and darkness. Consider location as an element of mood.

Negative Cinderella: Once Maxim and our leading lady get to the fairy tale castle of Manderley, the fairy tale romance is over. Because she can never measure up to Rebecca, and everything is a minefield waiting for her to make the wrong step.




There are four minefields in Manderley, beginning with Cinderella having no idea how to be a Princess. She is supposed to be in charge ogf the house, and that includes the huge staff of servants... but she is a servant herself and has no idea how to order people to do things. Not because she isn’t intelligent enough, but because she isn’t aggressive enough - she is still that mousey little "paid companion". Questions about the dinner menu (which is *printed out* every day) need to be answered right away. The gardening staff is here, what do you want them to do? She has no personal maid of her own, which means someone will have to be pulled from some other job to take care of her. She is in charge of correspondence, and there is a huge desk with drawers full of envelopes and stationery and an address book - all monogrammed with Rebecca’s initials. She doesn’t know who any of these people are - and when she scans down the address book everyone is some form of royalty or society... except her. She has no idea that there is a “morning room” where you have tea in the morning, and some other room for later in the day. All kinds of rooms and rules and customs she is unaware of... and she is so far out of her league that everything she does is a potential mistake (and usually an actual mistake). Suspense is built around her not knowing “the rules”, being completely out of her depth and making mistake after mistake. How will she keep from looking like a fool? When she knocks over a China Cupid on her desk and it shatters, she hides the pieces in a drawer rather than call for a maid to clean up the mess. Being a Princess means that if she uses the wrong fork at dinner, people will think she’s an not worthy of being Max’s wife.




Another minefield is that monogrammed stationery... and Rebecca`s ghost. Though there is no translucent figure or someone in a sheet, Rebecca’s ghost is still present in every scene. “Mrs. DeWinter always...” She lives in the shadow of the former mistress of the house, and *everything* has her monogram on it - her territory is marked. Scene after scene has our leading lady bumping up against the memory of Rebecca - the perfect woman. It’s bad enough that Mrs. Danvers and the other servants seem to be constantly comparing her to Rebecca, but even Maxim changes at Manderlay - he’s more moody, always brooding, and distant. Rebecca is present in every scene, every decision that our leading lady makes, and every time Maxim looks at her. In a scene where she cries, Maxim hands her a handkerchief... with Rebecca’s monogram! Maxim seems to still be in love with his dead wife, using our leading lady as nothing more than a romantic band-aid to cover his pain. REBECCA is a ghost story without a physical ghost - just the strong memory of Rebecca, and almost everything in Manderlay is a reminder of Rebecca and a part of Rebecca and designed by Rebecca or created by Rebecca. There is no escape from Rebecca - she haunts our leading lady no matter where she tries to hide in Manderlay.




To give the ghost of Rebecca a human form, we have Mrs. Danvers - who began service at Manderlay as Rebecca’s personal maid. She is constantly peering over our leading lady’s shoulder, waiting for her to make a mistake... waiting to point out how much more sophisticated Rebecca was. She asks our leading lady if Maxim approves of her terrible hair style... which makes her doubt Max’s affections when she probably needs them most. It is impossible for our leading lady to win Mrs. Danver’s approval, yet that seems to be what is required to exist in Manderlay. Mrs. Danvers has kept Rebecca’s room exactly as it was - like a shrine to the dead woman. Her brush in *exactly* the same place - not a centimeter to the right or left. When our leading lady sneaks into Rebecca’s room, Mrs. Danvers *materializes* in the room to discover her, and then gives her a full tour - every single moment designed to compare our leading lady to the always superior Rebecca. Rebecca’s lingerie was hand made by nuns - how can you compete with that? Also - you can see right through Rebecca’s night gown - her body so perfect that she wanted it to be seen.




Mrs. Danvers is a great character - and maybe the model for Hannibal Lecter - she is almost never shown moving - she just appears in a room... or disappears. Her face is always so still it looks dead - the only expression she has is disdain. Her voice is quiet and expressionless - almost robotic. She provides a few shock moments when she suddenly appears somewhere to criticize our leading lady, then vanishes in the time it takes you to look away. The use of stillness, long pauses, and a slower pace builds suspense by creating *denser* conflict - and Mrs. Danvers character is that stillness incarnate. By the end of the tour it is obvious that our leading lady will never measure up to Rebecca - it is impossible. And she can never win Mrs. Danvers’ approval - everything she does will always be wrong. Minor issues of etiquette result in major disdain and disappointment from Mrs. Danvers.




The biggest minefield is Maxim - he has some dark past, some secret, and our leading lady has no idea what it is. Everyone seems to know the backstory of Rebecca’s life and death except her. A dinner conversation mention of *swimming* brings up Max’s memories of Rebecca *drowning*. Everything for conversations about sailing to the boat house to what she wears to a costume party might be the thing that sets Maxim off - flooding him with painful memories of Rebecca’s death. These things make Maxim angry and sullen and he pulls farther and farther away from our leading lady. Isolating her in the huge house with Rebecca’s ghost. By having her *not* know the Rebecca backstory, almost anything she says or does might trigger Max. A scene where he is joyously showing her home movies from their honeymoon *instantly* goes south when she says the wrong thing. Completely innocent, nothing you would ever think would trigger the tirade from Maxim that follows. Suspense is built around our leading lady saying the wrong thing at the wrong time or wearing the wrong clothes... and Maxim exploding. And scenes are created where she must tip-toe through the minefield, knowing that one false step...




Three’s A Crowd: I believe that good drama requires three characters. Two characters is an argument where either may be right, and it just goes back and forth. Add a third character and you have someone who can be convinced that one or the other is right - or maybe that both are wrong and they are right. You have a character who can go back and forth between the two possibilities. When you have a third wheel, that person can end up “stakes” (whether they side with a character or not) or “conflict” (if they come between two characters). The great thing about three characters is the character who is an obstacle to one character can be the stakes to another... and all the way around the circle! Three is one of those magic numbers... and in REBECCA almost every scene and plot element are about groups of three characters.

We start out with our leading lady, her bitchy boss Mrs. Van Hopper and Maxim - one of those three gets in the way of the other two.

At Manderlay we get our leading lady, Maxim, and Mrs. Danvers - one of those three gets in the way of the other two.

We also have our leading lady, Rebecca’s ghost, and Maxim - one of those three gets in the way of the other two.

We find out that Rebecca had an affair: Maxim, Rebecca, her “cousin” Jack Favell (George Sanders) - with Favell getting in the way of Maxim’s marriage to Rebecca.

Again and again in the film we are given a situation with three characters, one who gets in the way of the other two - one who is the antagonist in this scene or situation. Look at your scenes - if you have two characters who are together, who or what keeps them apart? Though this may be more important in a romance or rom-com, in any situation where two characters are in agreement (lack of conflict) who is the character that forces them apart and creates conflict? If you have two people who agree on a solution to a problem, who disagrees to create conflict and drama? And which of the two characters in agreement begins to be swayed to the other side? (which is kind of a betrayal.) Look for the magic number three - it can be the key to drama and conflict!




Secrets & Reveals: The most important thing in a gothic romance is that character with a dark past that hangs over them like a cloud and must be brought into the light in order to be resolved. The minefield that is Maxim DeWinter is all about that dark secret surrounding Rebecca’s death, and even though every time our leading lady stumbles into some aspect of that dark secret it creates conflict with Maxim, the man she loves, the only way to resolve the conflict is to get Maxim to reveal that secret. There is a built in dilemma there, and that’s what makes the story work. The thing that will cause our leading lady the most pain is the thing that is required in order for her to find eventual happiness. Rebecca’s ghost must be laid to rest - and the only way to do that is for Maxim to reveal what really happened that night.

The key to a great reveal is that the *audience* wants to know the information. Needs to know the information. Are *hungry* for the information. Reveals that don’t work are just information dumps with shocking information - but as soon as that shock is over, we don’t really care. The information may not alter the story in any discernable way or may not satisfy any need in the audience. This was one of the problems with UNDER CAPRICORN - the reveals were a soap opera shock, but nothing much else. To make the reveal a *real* moment, you need to tease us - to make the audience ask “What is the secret behind Rebecca’s death?” The more you tease the audience and make us wonder what the big secret is, the more they want to know the secret, and the more impact that secret will have when it is revealed (provided it is not what we expected).




Most movies have a big question at their core, and the screenwriter’s job is to know what that question is and keep the viewer asking it. In a romantic comedy the question may be - will the couple get past all of the obstacles and hook up at the end? In RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and other quest movies the question is - will Indiana Jones get the ark and keep it away from the Nazis? In a romantic thriller movie like SEA OF LOVE the question is - is the woman the cop loves a serial killer? There is usually some question at the heart of every story, and in REBECCA that question is - how did she die and did Maxim kill her? The movie keeps teasing us with this question again and again - it is what drives the story. For our Cinderella to live happily ever after, Maxim must no longer be obsessing about Rebecca... and she must know the location of all of those hidden mines so that she doesn’t step on one... and maybe even have Maxim *defuse* those mines. To do that, we need to know what happened that night, the night Rebecca was killed. So the whole story *needs* to be building to the moment of the reveal, we need to know that there is a big secret, and wonder exactly what that secret is. Did Maxim kill her? Is Cinderella married to a murderer? By keeping this question alive throughout the film, so that the audience *needs* to know the answer, when it is revealed it has impact. It is a *resolution* not just a shock. A good reveal *answers* questions, instead of creating more questions.

That means whatever is reveals *can not* be what we expect... making a reveal like a plot twist. It needs to be something that is logical and motivated and *present* in the story so far (not something you pull out of your ass at the end), but at the same time not what that audience thought it was going to be. So we need to create a “red herring” reveal that we hint at, that the audience believes will be the big reveal... so that they can be surprised by the actual reveal. In REBECCA we are lead to believe that Maxim was madly in love with Rebecca, and when he discovered that she was cheating on him with Favell, he murdered her. But that is *not* what happened at all! When the truth is revealed, it makes perfect sense - but Maxim is not the killer at all. So the reveal can be a surprise even after 2 hours of teasing the audience with the secret.

What that secret is I have already revealed in one of the opening paragraphs... but maybe you have forgotten it by now? If so, you may still be surprised at that moment of the film when you watch it. REBECCA is a great lush romance that still works well 60 years later.

- Bill

The other Fridays With Hitchcock.

BUY THE DVD AT AMAZON:







Labels: , , , , ,