Steven Soderbergh

A very insightful interview.

Welles' Last Interview.

Monster Factory Webisodes

I will be making my internet acting debut on September 6th.  I play the drama teacher in 'Breaking the Fourth Wall'.

Stay tuned.

Sunday Fun

Anachronisme
Uploaded by LesSingesHurlants. - Arts and animation videos.

The Useless Character

My ankles were ravaged by Mosquitoes last weekend and it has been taking it's toll on my sleep (the damn itch!).  I got up at five this morning scratching myself into madness.  I decided to get up and go downstairs and try to distract myself.  I ended up throwing on a thriller that was playing on the movie channel  - 'Whiteout'.  I didn't bother to check it's ratings on rottentomatoes but I did remember seeing the movie poster and thought an Antarctica thriller might ease the itch.

I don't intend to do movie reviews here but I did find that this film had a recurring problem that I've seen over and over in the thriller genre - the useless character.  This is a character in the film that keeps on popping up only to console or help the protagonist.  It's usually very easy to spot the useless character because they are often an actor of some stature and they have very little to do with the plot.

Spoilers Ahead.

'Whiteout' is a little murder mystery/thriller involving a female Marshall who is serving her last duty in the Antarctic and is about to hang up her badge for good.  A few days before she is set to leave she discovers a man murdered out on the tundra and is determined to find out what happened.  Her confidant and best friend on the continent is a doctor.  He is soothing to her.  He is trying to help her and to protect her.  He is also played by Tom Skerritt.  You may need to IMDB that name if you are young but you'll definitely know who he is when you see him.  A half hour into the movie I said to myself, 'why the hell is Tom Skerritt needed for this crappy role'?  He's barely a character.  The answer is that he is the culprit.

Next up is 'Angels and Demons'.  Ewan McGregor is cast as the helpful and passionate priest who is aiding our protagonist along the way.  He is absolutely useless to the plot so a half hour in you know that he's the bad guy.  Why else cast Ewan McGregor in this boring role?

A few lesser watched films - Robert Downey Jr. in 'US Marshalls' or Micheal Caine in Depalma's 'Dressed to Kill'.

It takes a lot of craft to write a thriller and it is essential that all characters have their own needs.  The problem with the films that I've just mentioned is that these characters have no need of their own except to 'help' the protagonist.  A good rule of thumb could be to turn the point of view of the film around.  Can the film work if you change the protagonist to Tom Skerritt's character?  What happens if you write it from his point of view?  What is his selfish desire?  Does he want to help her because he's desperately in love with her?    What is his own motivation in the story?

I'm sure some members of the audience were surprised by the ending but with a 7% rating on the tomato meter most people found it predictable and boring.  It sure didn't help my itching (as I continue as I'm writing this).

Postscript:

The trailer is nothing like the movie.  As relating to my last post - the trailer does a decent job of making the film look far more interesting than it is.

The Teaser...

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).  

Story Logic

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.