THE TRICK TO SEQUELS

If there were such things as genies, and I could have three wishes, my first wish would be to be given the PREDATOR franchise from the powers that be at Twentieth Century Fox. It’s a Walmart version of a gold mine – accessible and affordable. The beautiful thing about the PREDATOR franchise is that it is simplicity at its very core, and hearkens back to earlier (more innocent) day of science fiction pulp magazines. A lot of those early science fiction stories worked off a very rudimentary idea: you got a guy (a spaceman); you got a monster (an alien). They fight it out. One prevails, one doesn’t. The end. Vladimir Propp would identify this as a “fundamental function,” of science fiction storytelling, and he might be right--there may only be thirty one basic stories of science fiction, with everything else a derivative of one of the basic structures. What makes the PREDATOR movies attractive is the universe of the Predator, which is neatly embodied by the individual Predators themselves. Watching the Predators do something is like watching an Animal Planet documentary on some strange animal we’ve never seen: we just want to keep watching it to see what they do and how they do it next. The fact that we only glimpse into their world (and their motivations) is what makes them interesting, which is the same mystery that STAR TREK’s Klingons possessed, until franchise overkill drilled too far down into their mythology and left them little more than angry, bitter humans with ugly faces. The success of the original STAR WARS was based on the same principal, that the mythology of what we were watching was defined just enough for us to understand, but amorphous enough that we could fill in the gaps ourselves, and guessing at what a Jawa city must be like, or what the Wookie world might be all about, well, that was part of the fun. The trick to sequels is in the filmmakers allowing us to bit by bit discover what we didn’t know before. Too much, and the story’s over. Just enough, and we can’t wait for the next sequel, to find out what else we don’t know. Hopefully, the PREDATOR films will prevail (we’ll all just quietly forget PREDATOR 2). And they won’t fall into the trap of the ALIEN franchise, which seems to more about finding some new kind of Alien than building on the universe. There are so many interesting stories that could be built around the PREDATOR franchise. As Dr. Suess put it so well: “oh, the thinks we can think” and “the places we could go.”

INCEPTION

Not a movie without flaws, and you definitely have to be patient with the storyline and allow it time to develop, but overall, once you’re trapped by the entire story, you are truly emotionally trapped. It is without a doubt one of the coolest and most imaginative pieces to come out of Hollywood in a long while. Certainly it’s the kind of story that couldn’t result from a first timer’s pitch, and this kind of film’s existence relies solely on the success of the principal elements (in this case, Christopher Nolan’s success with THE DARK KNIGHT). This film shows you what a true creative artist can do given the leeway of an unfettered canvas, and gives you a hint at what Hollywood movies could be if the business were run by creative people. The beginning of the movie is at best difficult, primarily because Nolan chooses to ignore the typical “explain the rules of the universe” opening that most science fiction films have to have in order to build anticipation in their audience. But let there be no doubt: Nolan is a superb storyteller who knows how to layer subplot with action pieces, carefully using reveals and flashbacks to pull us into his dream. Truly organic, is the best way to explain this rare type of film, and its circular nature is the most compelling component: Nolan knows what images to repeat, when, and how to repeat them. However, the thing that is unforgettable about this film, and which is supremely remarkable, is how Nolan crafts his story to create a wholly interactive ending. Everyone sitting in the movie theatre gets to choose the ending of the movie, ultimately making it “their movie” (and no matter which ending they choose, they are right). This result shows how well Nolan understands the nuance of film and its ability to convey ideas and concepts that other art forms cannot contain.

CREATION

Again, good movies go back to the screenwriter using his tools correctly. Especially in creating characters and their motivations, their wants and needs, and their world views and their personal philosophies. A screenwriter has to begin with an understanding that everyone is – on an emotional level – the same: we all feel the same things, no matter our language, or our profession, or our time period. Confusion. Love. Loss. Etc. This movie’s lack of commercial success ($513,000 total worldwide box office; yes, you read that figure right, only half a million bucks total) stems from the unmarketable perception that you’re sitting down to see basically a dramatized version of a documentary – Charles Darwin writing his penultimate work. Sure, that’ll attract a few eggheads, but what kind of date movie is that going to be? He doesn’t fight battles, woo the ladies, or rule a country. He’s a scientist living in Victorian England. How exciting can that be? Nevertheless, what you get on an emotional level, is one of the most successful and well crafted screenwriting efforts in years. The screenwriter goes straight to the emotional core of a character, knowing exactly what kind of sinking ship topic he’s dealing with and creates a man driven to torment , struggling with the same things we all struggle with: being true to ourselves without compromising the people we love the most , and facing the bitter obstacles of life and random horrible events with a sense of dignity and purpose. Gut wrenching and unforgettable. It’s not an INHERIT THE WIND kind of debate movie about the pros and cons of evolutionary theory; instead, the screenwriter personalizes the debate within the character himself while simultaneously visualizing the internal conflict of the main character’s suffering, a very complex and difficult thing to do.

MUST SEE FILM FOR ASPIRING SCREENWRITERS

This post (and hopefully more posts in the future ) are thanks to Shane Dresser (one of the best students I've ever had the privilege to teach and a good screenwriter himself), who's got me thinking about posting again...

Not for the mainstream Hollywood crowd looking for an EDGE OF DARKNESS, but a model exercise in dealing realistically with the mechanics of raw human emotions, especially in the consequences of violence, both from the perpetrator's and the victim's point of view. Simple story structure: “17-year-old Irish-Protestant Alistair Little assassinated 19-year-old Catholic Jim Griffin in his Ulster home. The murder was witnessed by Griffin's 11-year-old brother Joe. Thirty years later, Little has been rehabilitated and released from prison, while Joe Griffin remains traumatized and bitter. But when a television talk show decides to bring them together for a live on-air reconciliation, two men haunted by one moment must come face-to-face with their own worlds of pain, violence and vengeance”. What makes this "film" (as opposed to a popcorn movie) great, is that it humanizes the world of a political struggle from an individual’s point of view, and allows the audience entrance into that community by the use of one of the most basic tenets of screenwriting – anticipation. This story is all about anticipating the “five minutes” of the title. It takes a little time to set things up, and the political references will be lost on the majority of American audiences, but ultimately riveting in the portrayal of lives that are intertwined by a single moment. The way the emotions are treated realistically is what sets it apart from a movie like EDGE OF DARKNESS. The only drawback is the language barrier, which is probably why it flew under the radar for American audiences. The authenticity of the language is challenging, which makes subtitles a good choice.

WORST DVD ART OF ALL TIME: Northwest Frontier

Sometimes studios will change the dvd art of their movies in order to identify which discs are "for rental only" -- sold to Netflix or Redbox or Blockbuster. Basically all they do is put no dvd art, with ony the title across a grey disc. (I'm not sure exactly why they make the distinction between rental only discs in the first place. I guess in order to prevent resell.) But here it is, the worst dvd art of all time. Not a rental art disc, but an honest to God "for purchase" production dvd:

Riveting, isn't it? White background, bold black letters. Wow. You may ask, just what is this steamroller of a film about that would inspire such cataclysmic artwork? Here's the summary:

When the rajah of British India's most northwestern province is slain during a massive uprising, English army officer Captain Scott (More) is ordered to rescue the 5-year-old heir to the throne and speed the child to safety. Boarding their only means of escape - a decrepit old steam locomotive - Scott and the boy race to farway Kalapur, accompanied by a tempestuous governess (Lauren Bacall), a handful of passengers and an undercover enemy agent. Hurtling across 300 miles of rebel-held territory, Scott battles impossible odds on a perilous cross-country train ride jam-packed with hair-raising native attacks, death-defying bridge crossings and white-knuckle last-minute escapes!

I don't know about you, but I'd at least give it a look. So what about the dvd box cover art?

What could be the problem? Put that train on the disc!