There are many times that I wish that the Studio marketing machines would only put out an awesome teaser for any given film. When a teaser is done well it can peak your interest in a film and make you giddy with excitement. This Teaser for 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' was all I needed to go and buy a ticket on the first night of release.
I also remember being equally excited by Barry Levinson's 'Toys'. They let Robin Williams loose and it was enough for me to want to see it without knowing a thing about it. I haven't seen the film in a long time but do remember that it seems a little prophetic with the predator drones dropping bombs on people with their pilots in an arm chair somewhere.
This teaser for Jerry Seinfeld's 'Comedian' was pitch perfect. It inspired a lot of copy cats.
Most recently Christopher Nolan's 'Inception' came out with a great teaser. No need for a big explanation (although it seems that it wouldn't help anyway). Nolan seems to be the smartest guy in the room these days and it's worked out well for him. For me, the teaser is enough.
I'm not naive enough to think the studio would gamble their entire fortunes on a vague trailer. There is a lot of money invested and you want to get the most exposure. Fair enough. However, compare these teasers to those trailers that run for three minutes and give you the entire film beat by beat only holding back the surprise ending that you can figure out will go one way or the other. There is an old saying that 'Less is More'. You know, 'keep it simple'. Consider the 1999 thriller 'Arlington Road'. It was a decent thriller with two top notch actors (Tim Robbins and Jeff Bridges) and the marketing department ruined the film for many people by giving away all of the surprises. What do we love about a well-crafted thriller? Surprises!! I remember the filmmakers being perturbed about how much of the movie was given away in just a two and a half minutes. You can hear the viewers conversation now, "I don't need to see this film, they just showed me everything". And you know the filmmakers edited this for months, crafting every story beat and every thrill. I imagine there were many sleepless nights, kept awake second guessing whether or not it was working. Well, it didn't matter that much if you saw the trailer first.
I waited until it came out on video before giving it a shot. The film pretty much broke even at the box office and I suspect that, given a better trailer, would have exceeded that easily. Just look at the juggernaut that 'The Sixth Sense' became with that pull the rug out beneath the audience surprise ending. 'Arlington Road' was dead in the water before it even hit the theatres.
The only way I know how to combat such moronic and uninspired marketing is to cover your ears, close your eyes and mumble to yourself until it's over (la la la, I'm not listening).
I sat down to watch "Law Abiding Citizen" a few weeks ago and I have to admit that I turned the movie off part way through. The film started off somewhat promising as a man's wife and daughter are brutally murdered and the prosecutors in the case make a deal with the most criminally responsible character in order to gain a conviction. The fellow gets a plea deal that puts him back on the street in just a few short years. It seemed like the film had a very strong theme that was going to expose the failings of the criminal justice system.
Why did I turn it off? Groaners. I think it was William Goldman who said that the audience will allow you one groaner - after that you are on your own. The groaner is usually a leap in logic in the story that gets the writer out of a jam and allows him to put the story back on the rails and in the right direction. 'Law Abiding Citizen' went further than this for me as it was becoming abundantly clear that the premise was too unbelievable for me to go on. I see this flaw often when I am teaching. Often the student's script reads fine with good dialogue and characters but they build the story on a weak foundation that doesn't feel plausible. This is often based in poor character motivation where the characters are acting on behalf of the writer and what the writer wants to happen rather than what makes sense for the characters.
(small spoilers ahead)
The first revenge killing in 'Law Abiding Citizen' takes place at the execution of the other man responsible for the murder of the man's wife and child. Our protagonist has rigged the execution chamber to ensure a very brutal death. Plausible? Not to me but ok, go on. Our man then hunts down the other killer and pulls a Dexter on him. The protagonist is arrested and is incarcerated for this revenge murder. While in jail he ends up murdering a fellow inmate - happens... ok. Then the big groan comes and I punch the stop button. The district attorney is meeting with the Judge from the earlier trial when she is shot in the head, with her own cellphone. Our protagonist, while still in jail, has managed to kill the Judge by pre-rigging her cellphone. I have a big laugh and am out. Am I really expected to believe this?
The Suspension of Disbelief.
The suspension of disbelief is a very subjective thing. I'm sure others watched and enjoyed this film but I was taken out of the story by a logic that just wasn't working for me. I can sit through 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Star Wars' and buy into it hook line and sinker but 'Law Abiding Citizen' didn't work. Part of the reason why this didn't work was that the film sets itself up in a very serious tone (as seen in the opening of the trailer). The first ten or twenty minutes made me think that this film was going to work more like a drama than a quasi-horror film. Alas, the film turns into a light version of the Saw films and I just can't buy into it. The tone of the film places the audience in our world and then asks us to buy into this genius plan of murdering all responsible for the violence against this man's family. It's a fine line for the filmmaker to walk in balancing the tone of the film so the audience will give themselves over to the story. This isn't always easy to do. I've just finished writing a script where it weighed heavily on my thinking - will the audience buy into the premise? If they don't, I'm dead in the water before the end of the first reel. How can I be sure if it will work? I can't. The only thing I can do is create a logic for the world I am writing about and follow that logic. The other task is to make sure that the characters are acting on behalf of themselves and not in service of my own agenda for the story. The rest is up to the audience.
I have been busy writing a new project over the last couple of months and in this time I have sat down to revisit some classic films for inspiration. I thought I'd share some of the ones that left an impression just in case you are looking for something fresh to watch, particularly in this dry season of the Summer Blockbusters.
1. "Gumshoe" starring Albert Finney.
My friend Larry put me on to this fun film. Great dialogue and a terrific mixture of humour and suspense. Like 'The Long Goodbye' this film doesn't fall into a parody of the Noir genre. It has fun with the conventions but still has a line of seriousness going through the story.
2. "The Long Goodbye" starring Eliott Gould.
Every time I see this Robert Altman film it goes up on my list of favourite movies. Again, the film has a sense of humour about the detective genre but doesn't fall into parody. Gould is perfect as Marlowe. Best ending ever.
3. "Out of the Past" starring Robert Mitchum.
Mitchum is awesome in this 1947 film noir where a man's shaded past comes back to haunt him. Instead of trying to hide, Mitchum's character faces it head on and with tragic results. While I'm on a Robert Mitchum love-in I would also recommend "The Friends of Eddie Coyle". Mitchum plays a small time crook who gets in over his head (not to mention the great Boston Bruins cameo including Bobby Orr). Criterion released an excellent DVD last year. You also can't go wrong with Charles Laughton's nightmare film "Night of the Hunter". Mitchum plays a corrupt preacher on the hunt for some stolen money.
4. "The Insider" starring Al Pacino.
This is my hands-down favourite film of Michael Mann. Although nominated for many Academy Awards it lost out on all. Al Pacino was overlooked by the academy for The Godfather (I & II), Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon and he wasn't even nominated for this picture. Russell Crowe was nominated for his portrayal of Jeffrey Wigand but I think this is Al Pacino's film. "American Beauty" was the big winner that year. Minghella's "The Talented Mr. Ripley" was given few nominations as well.
I always say that you need a good ten year moratorium before you start to put a film into the lists of 'great movies'. 'The Insider' is a great picture and would make a great double bill with 'All the Presidents Men'.
5. "Angel Heart" starring Mickey Rourke.
I quite like the work of Alan Parker and this odd film stands out. I picked up the Blu-Ray for ten bucks and was thoroughly entertained. It is a bit hokey but overall the film holds up very well. Rourke is great and the cinematography reminded me of how over-colour-corrected the modern films are. Very naturalistic. I was also reminded of how similar a plot it has to "Shutter Island" (I much prefer "Angel Heart"). I also thought about Polanski's "The Ninth Gate" as a film that has a similar vibe to it - a supernatural noir if you will.
6. "Heist" starring Gene Hackman.
When I first saw 'Heist' I was a little disappointed in the ending as I had already been conned by David Mamet in 'House of Games' and 'The Spanish Prisoner'. On this second viewing I didn't even think about the con game and enjoyed it even more. It's great seeing Gene Hackman doing anything and this film is no different. Criterion did a great job last year by releasing both 'House of Games' and 'Homicide' in special editions. I like Mamet's stripped down and realistic settings especially in films like 'Homicide' and his secret service film 'Spartan'. One might say it is the function of a low budget and if that's true I hope it stays that way.
In Cameron Crowe's book 'Conversations with Wilder' Billy Wilder spells out his 10 Tips for writers:
1. The audience is fickle.
2. Grab ‘em by the throat and never let ‘em go.
3. Develop a clean line of action for your leading character.
4. Know where you’re going.
5. The more subtle and elegant you are in hiding your plot points, the better you are as a writer.
6. If you have a problem with the third act, the real problem is in the first act.
7. A tip from Lubitsch: Let the audience add up two plus two. They’ll love you forever.
8. In doing voice-overs, be careful not to describe what the audience already sees. Add to what they’re seeing.
9. The event that occurs at the second act curtain triggers the end of the movie.
10. The third act must build, build, build in tempo and action until the last event, and then - that’s it. Don’t hang around.
When working with new writers I find that the third rule is difficult to grasp. The second and the fourth rule are tied inextricably to the third and by default, they often give trouble to the novice writer.
Grab 'em by the throat is commonly called 'the inciting incident.' This is where the goal of the hero is established. A simple example is Orson Welles' 'Touch of Evil'. A bomb is planted in the trunk of a car and explodes a short time later. All of the characters are brought together in search of the culprit and the story is established. In 'The Godfather' Don Corleone is shot and Michael, who has refused to be a part of the family, must protect his father. His journey has started. It's Wilder's rule of 'never let 'em go' that is the hard part.
'Develop a clean line of action for your character'. The inciting incident has occurred and now the hero should have a goal. In Wilder's 'Double Indemnity' Walter Neff conspires to murder his lover's husband. The goal is simple, get away with it, but life isn't that easy (thus the story). In 'The Lord of the Rings' Frodo is the only one who can carry the burden of the Ring and thus his goal is simple, throw the Ring into the fire. That is the movie. Once the Ring is destroyed the story is over. With that clean line of action we are given over twelve hours of story. I quite like Frodo as the unlikely hero. His success is mostly based on courage and dedication and a degree of luck. He is not the superhero his companions seem to be.
In the Bourne films Jason Bourne has a simple goal, "I want to find out who I am". Three movies and six hours later we find out. It is the specific story beats of the films that make the plot complicated while keeping the goal of the hero simple and easily defined. In 'The Fugitive' Harrison Ford's character wants to prove his innocence and, better yet, find the man who killed his wife. 'Silence of the Lambs'? Find Buffalo Bill before he kills again (the ante is raised by the capture of the Senators daughter). 'Apocalypse Now'? Find Kurtz and kill him "with extreme prejudice". 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' - find the Ark before the Nazis. 'Blade Runner' - terminate the replicants. 'Terminator' - keep Sarah Connor alive. 'Star Wars' - save the princess. 'Some Like it Hot' - escape the mob. 'Citizen Kane' - try to uncover the real Charles Foster Kane.
This clean line of action gives the audience a sense of where the story is going (tied into rule four) and the audience will emotionally invest in that character's journey. They want them to succeed, even Walter Neff. The goal of the writer is to surprise the audience on that journey. Eventually you get to rule ten where you build build build to what Mamet refers to as the surprising and inevitable conclusion. Many of my students shoot themselves in the foot right off the top by not setting up their story well. If the audience loses interest then it doesn't matter if you have crafted a surprise twenty minutes into the film - the audience doesn't care (they are gasping for air in a great big yawn).
Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course there are. The French New Wave played around with these rules at will. Does Kubrick's '2001' or 'Full Metal Jacket' plug into this formula? Not very well. It is usually personal filmmakers that veer off the path because they have a different agenda. This goes back to my post on theme. Often these films are interested more in the theme or character and less in the plot and they will break these rules. Charles Laughton's 'Night of the Hunter' is a great example of a film that starts off as a thriller/horror picture and then takes a turn into a morbid fairy tale. His interest in the film is his theme. Having said that, his clean line of action is still there, stop the preacher from getting the money.
'The Conversation' is an interesting film because it follows the clean line of action in the arc of the story but sometimes neglects plot in getting to the ending (the scene with Teri Garr for example). Harry Caul wants a clean recording for his client and he wants to hand it over and get paid. Clean and simple. What stops Harry is Harry. It's his own guilt that stops him from playing a part in another murder. Bertolluci's great film 'The Conformist' falls into this category as well. The clean line of action is for the protagonist (not much of a hero) to find his old University Professor in exile and murder him. Like 'The Conversation' the 'plot' of the film meanders forward to the inevitable end with many diversions that explore character more than they fulfill story and plot.
These filmmakers made conscious decisions and have a very clear understanding of how they want their films to unfold. I like these films and would not criticize any of them for not following Wilder's rules. Wilder does provide some interesting thoughts on Kubrick:
Wilder: "I love all of his movies...but sometimes...Barry Lyndon"
Crowe: "What about it?"
Wilder: "He worked six months trying to find a way to photograph somebody by candlelight...And nobody really gives a shit whether it is by candlelight or not. What are the jokes? What is the story? I did not like it. That's the only picture I did not like...The first half of Full Metal Jacket was the best picture I ever saw. Where the guy sits on the toilet and blows his head off? Terrific. Then he lost himself with the girl guerrilla. The second half, down a little. It's still a wonderful picture...Every picture he trumps the trump...you forget that this is your profession. You just get lost in the picture."
That is the goal of any filmmaker... make the audience get lost in the picture. Never let 'em go.
