 |
|
|
|
Friday, February 02, 2007 |
|
Happy Groundhog Day! |
|
|
|
Billy Mernit writes about one of my favorite romantic comedies: Groundhog Day.
Cheers!
- E.
Yes, it's that time of the year again. Romantic comedy lovers, romantics, lovers comedic or serious -- pretty much all humans with beating hearts know that as soon as February rolls around, there's a major holiday to be reckoned with, one that's come to symbolize the meaning of love and romance for America, if not the world.
I'm speaking, of course, about Groundhog Day.
Granted, there was a time, long, long ago (i.e. before 1993), when this holiday lacked the romantic associations since bestowed on it, due to the efforts of Danny Rubin, Harold Ramis and Bill Murray. But ever since the writer, director and star, respectively of Groundhog Day created what's now generally acknowledged as one of the great American movies of all time, February 2nd has become synonymous with romance and comedy. In fact, when people ask me to name a couple of my favorite romantic comedies, this one invariably comes to mind.
Groundhog_dayWhat's that? You've never thought of this cinematic classic as a romantic comedy? For shame. I have it on good, nay, unassailable authority that the film more than qualifies. For starters, it says so right on the friggin' DVD box's front cover ("A romantic comedy fantasy that is Bill Murray's best screen performance" -- thank you, Gene Shalit). But you can also look up the definition of romantic comedy in the um, definitive text on same, and find (p.12) that "a romantic comedy is a comedy whose central plot is embodied in a romantic relationship" and that (p.13) "the central question posed by a romantic comedy is: 'Will these two individuals become a couple?'"
As you well know, when TV weatherman Phil Connors (Murray) gets inexplicably trapped in the same repeating February 2nd, his sole recourse to getting out of it becomes the object of his affections, producer Rita (Andie MacDowell); his salvation lies in the answer to their coupling question. (Screenwriting theorist sticklers may point out that the story's central question is really, Will Phil ever get out of February 2nd? To this I say, also true, because the movie is a rom-com hybrid -- ibid, pp.21-28 -- a romantic comedy/high concept fantasy, and thus the couple/escape conflicts are intertwined. But let's stop boring our civilian readers, shall we? Thanks.)
Strange but true, there still exist deprived, disadvantaged people who have not seen the movie Groundhog Day. If you are one of those poor souls, what better opportunity to improve the quality of your life, than to view it this Friday, on the official Day itself? And even if you're one of the many enriched individuals who's seen it, Groundhog Day is of course a movie that you can watch over and over, and over, and over and over and over...
Ground_main_1...And if you're a major Groundhog Day fan, you might even consider journeying to the scene of the crime: the town of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania is having its annual celebration, and it promises to be quite a hoot. Such a trip was actually enjoyed by Day's writer and star before the movie was made, and therein lies a little tale that speaks, I believe, to the true spirit of romance, or as we might say, what love's got to do with it.
Danny Rubin recounts the following in his illuminating interview accompanying an early draft of the screenplay in Scenario (Spring '95 issue, regrettably out of print). He talks of having been hired, fired and re-hired to work on the script, and when he, his wife Louise and kids were preparing to move from Los Angeles to New Mexico, getting a call from Bill Murray:
He says, "Do you realize that the day after tomorrow is Groundhog Day?"--"Yep."--"And do you realize that between the director, the producer, the star and the writer of this film, nobody has been to the festival at Punxsutawney? Doesn't that seem wrong to you?" And I said, "Absolutely. And I think you should go, I think that will be a great thing." And he said, "I think we should go." And I said, "Bill, that's a really nice offer, sounds like fun, but I'm moving, I'm moving my family, we're up to our necks in boxes, I can't just abandon them and go off to Punxsutawney." And he said, "Well, think about it and call me back. Here's my number." When I got off the phone, Louise asked who it was. "Bill Murray," I said. "He wants me to go to Punxsutawney tomorrow." And she said, "Cool." And I said I'd told him I couldn't do it. She said, "Are you nuts?" So I talked to [the studio] and they said, "We'll pay for the move, we'll get someone to help pack, we'll fly out a friend of your wife's to help her move in so you don't have to be there."
Groundhog_day2_1This level of support was very nice, and I embarked on the most surreal adventure of my professional life. All of a sudden I'm flying in a private plane from the middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night with Bill Murray and we're talking about the script. We landed somewhere near Punxsutawney at 2:00 in the morning. And there were fans out there waiting for him--it was supposed to be a secret...
Rubin goes on to say that he used a lot of what he saw on that trip in the script. He'd originally only spoken to the town's Chamber of Commerce and looked at their literature, but:
After we actually saw it, there was a whole different feel to it than we had imagined. It was delightful, really delightful--a wonderful civic event. We incorporated a lot of that into the movie... Everyone there knew it was a goofy ritual--it was almost sophisticated in its hickyness. What was so much fun about the festival is, it's the middle of the night, zero degrees, they've got bonfires going--and they're playing Beach Boys music.
Groundhog_day
Sometimes I read this excerpt to a screenwriting class when I'm talking about the inestimable value of research, to illustrate how really being there can make all the difference in writing a given project. But I quote it now in this pre-Valentine's Day context to highlight my favorite moment in Rubin's story, which is when Louise says, "Are you nuts?"
I just love that! Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling every time, because it seems to me that Danny Rubin's wife is the hidden heroine of the Groundhog Day saga. Love doesn't mean never having to say you're sorry. It means having someone be able to say "Are you nuts?!" to you at a crucial moment. Love is sometimes about saving loved ones from themselves -- which come to think of it, is kind of at the core of what the movie ended up being about, don't you think?
Go watch it again, again, and see if you agree.Labels: Billy Mernit, characters, craft, Living The RomCom, screenwriting, Story, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
1:54 PM |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 |
|
Don't Fence Me In, Unless It's For A Really, Really Good Reason |
|
|
|
From Julie Gray at The Rouge Wave.
Enjoy!
- E.
Ophelia Has Left The Building – Stereotypes in Scripts
I have noticed a disturbing trend among the younger male screenwriters I read. When they write of love, sex and romance they consistently – and I mean consistently – feature two kinds of girls. The hot girl, with big breasts or long legs, blonde hair or brunette, depending on the taste of the writer, and the nice girl – similar physical attributes but just a little more ordinary looking. The hot girl puts out and this is the source of the sex scenes early on in the script. The nice girl does not put out but more than that, she is “sweet”, she often cooks, she is definitely maternal and she is the one our main character will choose to either marry or fall in love with in the end. If I had a quarter for every time I have seen this dynamic in scripts written by younger males, I would be very rich. This disturbing, archaic, binary view of women is, well, disturbing and archaic. Largely this is the result of inexperienced writers being simply too youthful to understand that real women are too complex to pigeon hole and so they fall back on stereotype.
Falling back on stereotype is not only lazy writing it can even be offensive. All readers have seen cringe-inducing scripts in which ethnic characters are portrayed in a deeply offensive light. Other likely victims of stereotype are women, cops, priests, bratty children or just generally any character that the writer just couldn’t wrap his or her mind around. I think we all remember with a collective shudder the Mickey Rooney character in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S.
Stereotype can be a beautiful thing - if it is a conscious choice. For example, teens are famously myopic and self-centered, yes? Naturally, the teen comedy is from the teenaged point of view - so even if you are a thirty-seven year old writer who knows better, the best choice for the parents in your teen comedy would be the repressed work-a-holic dad and the horny and bored mom. Is it true to life? Not really. But it is true to life for a teenager. And that’s the genre you’re writing.
The young male screenwriter who winds up with Jezebel the horny cheerleader versus Jenny the fresh-faced home ec sweetheart who also does his homework and bakes cookies is most definitely simply lacking in life experience and perspective. (See blog about distance). But for any other writer, stereotype is inexcusable – unless you are making a conscious choice that is in service to your story.
Check in with yourself and your story. What is the functionality of each character relative to each other and relative to the story, genre and tone? Are you maximizing each character? Do you need that character to make a larger thematic point? In other words, if the character is a stereotype, are you aware of it? Can you justify it?
Good character and dialogue work is considered one of the crown jewels in the toolkit of sought-after screenwriters. Stereotypes have a place and serve a function – sometimes the cop really should just eat a donut. Just make sure that as a writer, you are making a conscious choice that works within the world of your story because nothing says PASS writer faster than unfunny, unromantic or unscary stereotypes.Labels: characters, craft, screenwriting, The Rouge Wave
Posted by
scribosphere @
8:48 AM |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 21, 2007 |
|
Creative Thinking = Creative Screenwriting |
|
|
|
Hi All,
Hope your Sunday is going well. This post from the Mystery Man caught my eye. I like what he's saying, and I agree. It's pretty pointless to dwell on the "nothing is new under the sun" or "there are only 12 stories to be told" memes. They just demoralize you as a screenwriter.
And if you are a screenwriter like me, you don't need demoralization from others. I've got an endless supply I'm trying to ignore sitting right next to me, thanks.
So, here's an excerpt. Thanks, Mystery Man.
- E.
From, "What's A Spec Writer To Do?"
Be great. Be strong. Be of good cheer. You're amongst friends. Study psychology. Study philosophy, religion, and mythology. Study contemporary issues. Study amateur scripts that fail. Study pro scripts that fail. Study legendary screenplays by true mold-breakers like Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Study history. Study cinema. What hasn’t been done before? What’s being done now that’s wrong? What’s missing in today’s movies? How can you manipulate structure and technigue to find originality?
Storytelling will never die. There is an endless number of great stories that haven’t been told yet, but there are few writers today who can tell those stories really well. The possibilities for new and exciting characters are endless. The variety of contradictions that could be built into characters to have depth are innumerable. Why should Hamlet be the character with the most depth? Who the hell says there can’t be a modern Shakespeare? Or another golden age of cinema?
Above everything, master the craft. Make every detail count. Never, ever sell yourself short. You have to have vision, passion, a love of films, and a true devotion to the craft. You have to be willing to try and fail. You have to push yourself and others. You have to give and receive honest feedback. You have to learn to take criticism. You have to engage other writers in a constructive discussion about the craft. You have to be capable of dealing with the absurdities of the business. And if you fail, fail spectacularly, and go down swinging with the most unforgettable stories ever written.Labels: craft, Mystery Man, Story, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
5:12 PM |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, January 20, 2007 |
|
Stop Over-Writing |
|
|
|
Matt Hader gives some good advice on avoiding the "140-page monstrosity".
Enjoy.
- E.
Write Short
One of the nice blog readers from Guatemala sent in a request that I write about self-editing ones work. She’s having trouble keeping her screenplays under 120 pages.
I may be going against the "write long and cut, cut, cut" flow, but here’s the way I make sure that I don’t have so many “babies” to kill in my scripts that even after I do edit my work, I’m not saddled with a 140 page monstrosity. Apparently for some of you this is a common problem – this writing long.
Simple fix…Write short instead.
How?
Firstly...write a “silent movie.”
Without writing dialogue - compose the screenplay using the briefest descriptions to relay the story. Be descriptive without being novelistic. It is possible. If you can say the same thing in two words instead of two sentences – do it. Grab the reader’s imagination with an economy of words and direct the film in their minds eye. And when I say, “direct the film,” I don’t mean that literally. Don’t place in clunky camera angles, just write descriptively so the reader can imagine the type of angle, or camera shot that would be needed. And please add your personality to the descriptions. Readers want to experience new “voices,” it makes their difficult job a little more bearable.
After completing your “silent movie” screenplay, what you’ll (hopefully) discover is that you have a solid story in place - basically an extended outline. Then, and only then, add in the dialogue you need. Again - only the dialogue you need. Don’t go all Tarantino on your screenplay at this point. A lot of writer’s believe that writing a screenplay is all about dialogue. It’s about story first, dialogue second. Why/how do you think that snappy dialogue works within the context of your favorite movie? The story has you roped in first. Write the story, and then add in only what needs to be said. Sparse is good. Breezy is your friend.
“Get into scenes late, get out early” - You’ve probably read that a million times, but there’s a lot of validity to it. Example: If it’s absolutely necessary to show how your character travels and arrives at their next destination, show it – otherwise, cut it.
Be objective, and cut any scene that does not advance the story. Yeah, it could possibly be really cool/dramatic/funny stuff…but if it’s not moving things along – it’s out of there.
Give these exercises a try on your next draft. I’d venture a guess that you’ll have a completed screenplay in the 100 page range when all is said and done.Labels: characters, craft, dialogue, Matt Hader
Posted by
scribosphere @
1:55 PM |
|
|
|
|
Friday, January 19, 2007 |
|
Crazy Talk |
|
|
|
Scott the Reader posts on some "techniques" that writers use that drive him crazy.
Enjoy. I did.
- E.
I've Said It Before, But I'll Say It Again...
I actually have posted on this before, but since they keep popping up in things I read, I feel that I need to rant about these bad screenwriting habits again.
Things that drive me crazy in your script:
CHARACTERS TALKING TO THEMSELVES. There are times when a character might logically talk to themselves -- hell, there are times when I talk out loud to myself -- but it needs to be done very judiciously and sparingly, if at all.
Instead, I read script after script, where the writer, desperate to make us understand what is going on in a character's head, will have them just blurt it out, even if there is no one else in the room.
I read one script the other day that had about 15 different incidences where this happened, with about a half-dozen different characters. And in most of the cases what they were saying was really very obvious anyway.
Trust your readers/audience to understand things, and if you think they need a push, figure out how to do it visually or more inventively. There's always a better way than the random I'm-alone-but-I'm-chatty blurt out.
MENTIONING THE MOVIE IN THE SCRIPT THAT YOUR SCRIPT IS SIMILAR TO. I've read two scripts in the last week that did this, part of an odd habit that is shockingly widespread and endlessly reoccurring.
It seems to be driven by guilt. Writers who find themselves penning scenes (or storylines) that are derivative of something that came before feel driven to namecheck this film, as if acknowledging it makes it okay.
But there are few really-original moments any more, and pointing out the ones your script is borrowing is counter-productive; it just makes the reader even more-aware that even you know that you haven't put forth the effort to make your tale truly original.
Best-case scenario? You make your script as original as possible. But if it does hew close to something that came before (because that's the best way to tell the story), don't feel you have to point it out. If you are doing a story about some kids going on an adventure, you really don't need a scene in which "The Goonies" plays on a TV in the background, or one of the kids mentions that in "Stand By Me" the kids found a body.
CRIMINAL MISUSE OF APOSTROPHES. "It's" is ONLY to be used to represent "it is", not when something is possessive.
"Let's" is short for "Let us", so you shouldn't write "Lets go".
Apostrophes are used as possessives, or to replace letters. If you are talking about the Kennedy clan, they are the Kennedys, not the Kennedy's.
It's The 1960s, not The 1960's. Shortening years, it should be The '60s, not The 60's.
Characters are in their 30s, not their 30's.
VARYING THE NAME OF THE SAME CHARACTOR IN THE SCENE DESCRIPTION. If a guy's name is John Brown, you shouldn't be calling him John sometimes, and Brown others. In the dialogue, fine, but not in the scene description.
And after you intro characters, we should never see their whole name again. It shouldn't say JOHN BROWN as the name over all the dialogue (much less something like ASSISTANT DA CHARLES KINCAID). Pick the first name or the last and stick with that, and make sure it's what you are calling him in the scene description.
EXCLAMATION POINTS IN SCENE DESCRIPTION. These look really amateurish. If you are writing an exciting scene well, you really don't need them.
posted by Scott the ReaderLabels: Alligators in a Helicopter, characters, craft, market, scribosphere, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
7:52 PM |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 18, 2007 |
|
|
