#you HAVE to understand how that structure works to write a successful screenplay | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hussainshiyam · 3 years

Text

Mank (Netflix 2020), My Thoughts

An obvious attempt at an Oscar or at the very least a nomination, Mank tells the story of how Herman Mankiewicz while recovering from a horrific car accident was hired by Orson Welles to write a movie for him and how Mankiewics went about writing – what many consider to be the greatest movie of all time – Citizen Kane (1941).

This is the second movie on this particular story that I have watched. The first being the HBO produced RKO 281 released in 1999. In order for anyone to actually grasp the stakes and characters that are involved in this movie they need to first watch Citizen Kane (1941), know who William Randolph Hearst was, the power he wielded, know the political climate of California during this period, and know that America was arming itself for its inevitable participation in World War 2.

Without at least some level of understanding of the context in which this story is told, the audience wouldn’t understand the motives of the characters in this film nor the reaction of the characters to a script and why so many were apprehensive.

Mank is a basic story. Simply put, it is the story of a brilliant screen writer who is an alcoholic and a gambler but a man of principle and ethics; the antihero if you will, that so many of us love as a character. He is hired by Hollywood’s latest wonder boy Orson Welles to write a screenplay but had an agreement that he will not get any credit and that it will only be accredited to Orson Welles. And, how Mank (as Mankiewics was known), while recuperating from a broken foot and many other injuries, came to write the screenplay. As a result of everyone’s immense praise of the script, Mank reneges on his deal with Orson Welles and demands credit. That is basically the story in a nutshell.

In order for this very simple premise to be made in to a 2 hour feature length film, the filmmakers use flashback scenes from Manks past to give context to and what inspired the screenplay. The first film I saw that used this narrative structure was Shakespeare In Love (1998). In that film the filmmakers suggest Shakepeare was in a relationship with a woman whose family was against it. This, as the movie suggests, is the inspiration for his magnum opus Romeo and Juliet.

In much the same way, the film very strongly suggests that the events told in the flashback scenes are the inspiration for Citizen Kane. However, if you haven’t watched Citizen Kane, you wouldn’t understand why this is a big deal. The modern audiences have watched true stories of very powerful men that weren’t too kind to them, yet the films were released without a big fuss being made about it.

I don’t know what this movie trying to say. Was it a story of betrayal? I don’t know. We know that Mank did indeed socialize with William Randolph Hearst because of his close friendship with Hearsts mistress Marion Davies. Did he betray her confidence by fictionalizing her and her lovers life? Is this movie about freedom of speech? Did Mank end up losing friends because he was steadfast in his practice of Freedom of Speech? Is it about family? Is this about loyalty? Loyalty to Mank from the people around him such as his secretary, and his wife who stood by him even as the choices he was making made life difficult for them.Is it about alcoholism? Is it about the duplicity of the wealthy? Is it about remaining honest to one’s self and beliefs while everyone around him suggests he could be more successful with a compromising attitude? I don’t know. Is it about the wealthy and their ability to manipulate public opinion to sway elections? I don’t know.

The film has all those elements. But, having all those elements made this movie convoluted, unfocused, and incomprehensible. Instead it could have focused on a few elements which could have made this movie better.

Films like The Social Network (2010) didn’t need a lot of exposition because of how recent the events in that movie are. Mank needed a lot of exposition because a scene with actor friends trying to find work in the Great Depression didn’t have the emotional weight it should have carried nor did Louis B Mayer cutting the salary of studio staff by 50 % deliver the hardships of those times. It was just a greedy businessman exploiting economic circumstances for profit which it absolutely was.

The irony of all this is that the very person who directed The Social Network (2010) David Fincher is also the director of this movie and the screenplay was written by his father Jack Fincher who passed away in 2003.

It seems like David Fincher wasn’t aware that the success of The Social Network was largely based on the audience’s familiarity with the story as well as the characters in it. That is not the case for Mank. Some in the audience might have watched Citizen Kane, but I highly doubt they know the caliber of people who were the real-life inspirations for the characters in it. We may have heard of Orson Welles but hardly any of us know why this guy was such a big deal and why he got the type of contract RKO gave him.

This movie’s saving grace are the performances of the cast. Gary Oldman’s performance as the alcoholic yet principled man Herman Mankiewicz was brilliant. His ability to capture the totality of his character may very well garner an Oscar nomination. Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davis gave us the conflicted mistress yet steadfast in her love for an older man, and her innocence were well received.

Shot completely in black and white, it gave us the aesthetic feel of the early 20th century and the dialogues were written using the tone and cadence in how English was spoken in that era. I suppose one could watch this film to get an idea of Hollywood was in the 1930’s. For me it’ll just be a movie that excellently displayed the art of filmmaking with great performances based on an average screenplay. You may or may not like this film. I don’t think I will watch it again.

Ranking: 6/10

#mank #mank 2020 #gary oldman #review

1 note · View note

writing-prompts-for-friends · 4 years

Photo

Why Read?

“Reading adds richness to your language and imagination. By reading good work, we learn the sound of good writing. We learn how to handle the elements of craft. We cultivate an aesthetic, developing and honing our opinions about what works and why. We learn about--and thereby more truly inherit--the tradition in which we’re working. We even can steal techniques, ideas, and phrases from the masters.

Reading feeds your imagination. It puts you in touch with the language part of your brain. It develops your vocabulary. It teaches you the names of things. It shows you how successful writers work, the techniques they use to develop characters and structure stories. It places you within the ongoing literary discussion of the times in which you live. In fact, I feel safe in saying that if you don’t read widely and well, you won’t be as good a writer as you can be. Amass, if you will, evidence to the contrary, and I’ll still believe that reading is a fundamental element of writing.

If you want to be a good writer, you have to read a lot, and you have to learn to read like a writer. It’s that simple. If you want to be able to assess and develop your writing ideas more effectively, you have to read widely and well. By reading, you develop your critical aesthetic. You learn what works and what doesn’t. You learn what’s been done and what’s been done to death. You learn the techniques that work and those that don’t. You learn the techniques that may have worked in the past but no longer work.

In short, if you want to be a good judge of your ideas and understand why they are working or why they’re not working, you have to read.”

Source: Heffron, Jack. The Writers Idea Book: How to Develop Great Ideas for Fiction, Nonfiction, Poetry & Screenplays. Writers Digest, 2012.

#write #writing #writers block #creative writing #writing prompt #writing exercise #writing resources #writing tips #writing advice #writing inspo #writing inspiration #writing ideas #writeblr #writer #jack heffron #the writer's idea book #wpff writers idea book #writing prompts for friends

10 notes · View notes

centrally-unplanned · 4 years

Text

The Phantom of the Opera Movie: How (not) to Adapt Your Fanfic to Stage & Screen

I recently watched the infamously-maligned trainwreck that is the 2004 Phantom of the Opera film adaptation of the stage musical, which lived up to its reputation! Rehashing the atrocious casting of literally-sang-for-the-first-time-two-weeks-before-filming-Music-of-the-Night Gerard Butler as the Phantom is well-trod territory, but I don't think that is the real crux of the film's failings. Instead, I think it serves as a quintessential example of the failure to transition from stage to screen - and how lucky the stage adaptation was.

For the "PotO" uninitiated, despite the endless shipping the titular Phantom and the female deuteragonist Christine do not have a romantic relationship. Oh the Phantom is trying to get down with that, for sure, but she sees him as either a ghost, an angel, or a terrorist at various points, never a credible love interest. In the original novel this is extremely explicit, and it is actually preserved in the stage adaptation - though as you realize with this film not intentionally.

In a stage musical, audiences don't really "suspend disbelief" the way they do for something like movies. There is one or more human beings, right in front of them, being real people in a wooden box with minimalist decour - the artifice is inescapable. Which is fine, actually! Instead of being immersed in the worldbuilding the audience can appreciate the craft of it all, the acting chops of the leads and the high notes they hit and the cool set designs around them. As such strong plots for musicals aren't really required; details are skipped over in exchange for focusing on other aesthetic elements. More importantly for our purposes, in a musical like Phantom of the Opera the audience isn't set up to expect a tight directorial vision, with instead the characters being the a product of the choices of the actors themselves - people even look out for the different interpretations different leads will bring to the same script. Each performance is itself an adaptation.

This lack of verisimilitude does wonders for the musical version of Phantom of the Opera. Honestly, plot-wise and arc-wise? Phantom of the Opera isn’t that great. Christine, one of the supposed leads, has no motivation for like 90% of run-time, instead being buffeted about by the whims of other, more powerful characters (just like early 20th century France ooooh, eat it Leroux), and Raoul, her earnest, wealthy suitor-cum-fiance, is the dried cement of love interests with no arc to speak of. Lots of plot elements are covered quickly and left vague as to their meaning. But really, who cares? You get to watch a tortured, corrupted genius offer a panoply of shadowed delights to a beautiful ingenue in a rock-opera baritone, and Rage Against The System so hard when spurned they drop a God-damn chandelier on the stage - that’s really all you need!

In the stage musical there is often - lets be honest very often - sexual subtext between the Phantom and Christine. But that is the choice of the actors, it's not in the script, it stays subtext. You are there to watch those actors put their spin on it and take it to the limit - let them have fun with the material! On stage it serves a great metaphorical function; to be tempted by music, by the mystery of darkness, has been metaphorical sex for so long it needs no more explication.

Now, however, we loop back to the movie adaption, with two key points to establish. First, movies do not work like musicals. There is no live person in front of you, every shot is the product of a dozen takes and as many hours of editing choices, and as a viewer you are dragged along lockstep seeing the results of these choices. All of this is in the service of building a cohesive vision that allows the audience to fully suspend disbelief. The price for this immersion is that now every moment of the film is imbued with intent. Everything has to be there for a reason, the way things in reality are - or more accurately the way we want reality to be. To quote Best Girl Mizusaki:

(Just when you thought I was going to write a media essay without being a huge weeb for once, huh?)

What's true for animation is almost as true for film, all of which means that how characters act is no longer an actor on stage doing their spin but the cohesive narrative of a story.

Second, the movie takes all of that fanshipping sexual subtext and cranks it all the way up the nosebleed seats, while changing none of the relevant plot points. In fact, it adds plot details to strip away the musical’s ambiguity! One of Christine's opening scenes, only briefly touched on in the stage musical, explains cleanly that she considers the Phantom the angel of her dead father come down to protect and guide her. Later in the show, as the Phantom's villainy becomes more apparent, when propositioned by Raoul her only objection is to how the Phantom might hurt her if he found out. Well after all of his temptations, rage, and villainy, near the climax of the film, she still sings in a graveyard about her uncertainty over whether or not he is a literal ghost or spirit of her father. So the plot structure is preserved and explicit - Christine is drawn to him due to his musical talent and offerings of instruction, is unsure if he is even human, but realizes his corporeality, villainy, and fundamental pitiable humanity at the end. Raoul throughout is her explicit, engaged-to-be-married romantic partner.

So then why are her and the Phantom fucking??

Seriously, I cannot undersell how sexual their scenes are.They are all over each other, fingers gliding over skin, and the next scene after this one is her in his bed with sex-hair all over the place! This subtext is continued in every scene they have together, long after he has been revealed as a murderer. At one point he confronts her in public, with her fiance watching, and it's still played like he is the Tuxedo Mask to her Sailor Moon. Even the scene where she takes off his mask is shot like it was foreplay-gone-wrong, and the Phantom just forgets to say his safeword in time (This is why you pre-negotiate about your kinks, all!).

Any movie-goer understands what the intent of scenes like these are, why a director would choose these actions & shots; they want us to know that they are getting busy off camera, even if only by implication. We know they don't actually do that because there is a book to refer back to but damn does this movie want us to forget that...in these scenes. Which is the problem, of course - the rest of the movie operates as normal! In the above scene Christine thinks the Phantom is, again I must emphasize this, the ghost of her father; apparently she is going for the reverse-Oedipus achievement but no one told the rest of the script. Is she lying to Raoul about her love and her reasons? Is she actually tempted? Stop telling me you are unlovable via haunted monologues Gerard Butler, you look like testosterone on a stick and y'all boned literally five minutes ago, I am not buying it!

The subtext and the text are at war with each other - and given that, as we established, the dynamic between the Phantom & Christine is really the only interesting part about this story, strip that down to a muddled mess and you really have nothing left. And in a movie, subtext like this is just another form of text - the director chose these shots, it's intended. Beyond the terrible vocal performances and sometimes baffling shot direction, the movie's biggest failing is this schizophrenic mismatch between the script and the actions on screen which is a problem the stage musical honestly didn't have to worry about. These scenes are not set up like this, and the ability to add subtext by the actors is just fundamentally limited by the medium; it cannot touch the story itself, which isn't even the focus of the audiences. Even if these contradictions did exist more in the stage musical, they wouldn't doom it due to the nature of said medium.

Which is very, very fortunate, because there is one final point to make - Andrew Lloyd Weber, the creator of the stage musical, wholeheartedly approved of this direction for the movie. He produced the film, wrote the screenplay, chose the director, the works - this is his film. And, as is apparently from interviews and a...not fondly remembered stage sequel to the musical that he wrote, he ships the Phantom and Christine hard. Not in the "oh I love their dynamic on screen way", but in the Ao3 sort-by-fetish-tags "they are my Trash'' way. And I would never begrudge a man his ships, but apparently he was not content to keep it away from the canon. He absolutely reads the stage musical this way as well! It's just one of those interesting ironies of life - one of the most successful adaptations of a book to a stage musical was made by someone who, in my opinion, did not grasp the fundamentals of the story he was adapting. We just didn't notice because the medium didn't care, and also damn can he write a score that slaps.

I would not be the first person to say that this movie for Andrew Lloyd Weber is something of a George Lucas moment for him, a creator completely missing the appeal of his own work; but after seeing it the comparison rang deeply true. The Phantom of the Opera movie is truly the Phantom Menace of musicals.

No, I don't feel bad for that last line, why do you ask?

#I had to edit the Eizouken screenshot because the subtitles appeared at an awkward moment #So I just took a adjoining frame that looked much cleaner and had a better pose and re-inserted the subtitles #I def went way too far for a random Eizouken reference - anything for the Brand I guess!#poto #phantom of the opera #media essays

1 note · View note

scorchroots · 5 years

Text

3 reasons learning screenwriting is helpful for novelists

Hi everyone! This is a topic that is important to me because I went to school for screenwriting and thought for a while that I'd screwed myself in trying to write books, but discovered that I'd actually helped myself a lot. I was struggling with prose writing, but I eventually realized it was hard because I was failing to apply what I'd learned because I thought it wasn't applicable.

It is very applicable!

I did a whole film program, but that isn't necessary at all; if you can afford it, some community colleges will reach screenwriting 101, and the good thing is that beyond 101, it's pretty much all practice. There are also great resources online for screenwriting as well that will you teach you! The only bummer with these is that you don't get workshop feedback on any writing, which is helpful, but again, not necessary to learn the basics.

(I've reblogged other posts about screenwriting resources in the past and haven't used any myself so I can't endorse any personally and won't mention any specific ones here, but I believe I've tagged them all with 'screenwriting' if you want to check.)

So here are the reasons why screenwriting is a good skill for a book writer.

1. It teaches you structure.

Scripts are heavily structures, much more than books. I love working in those frameworks; it's like a puzzle, seeing how your story slots in. Books generally do follow the same general framework! They don't have the same hard rules, but if you struggle with structuring a story, screenwriting will definitely help you clean up your writing.

Not to mention that I find the flow of screenwriting very helpful for pacing and things like fight scenes; because your script has to be concise and clear enough for a director to interpret what they're showing on the screen, it helps you understand what is important to show and what'ss superfluous.

2. It teaches you how to outline.

There's a reason people discussed the differences between George R.R Martin and the GoT screenwriters' writing styles. More novelists tend to be pantsers, because they can. This goes along with structure, but outlines are a crucial part of screenwriting, even for purely business reasons! Often a writer will show an outline before showing a script, so a financier can decide whether they think the writer will be good for a project before the writer invests the time to write the whole thing. Learning to outline efficiently saves screenwriters time and money, because if they aren't expending the time writing every project they're up for, they can write the ones they already have a contract to be paid for.

Likewise, outlining will help you see if a particular story will work in the way you want it to, before you write a hundred thousand words that don't flow right (honestly, I'm still struggling with this in prose)!

3. More writers are involved in the adaptation of their work all the time!

I spoke with executives who had multiple projects where the original writer adapted the scripts, and though they still considered that an outlier, both 'risks' had been massive successes in how the scripts had turned out.

Though the belief is that most writers cannot translate skills across mediums, I don't think that's true at all; I think most writers who've done that in the past don't take the time to learn the format before they try. Screenwriting is actually a very simple medium; it's not hard to learn the technical principles of it, and if you can adapt to the harder structure, you can write it!

Plus, I've heard from both people in publishing and in film/TV development that more and more writers are now selling the film rights before the book is even published, and if you have an outline for a screenplay or pilot, a studio or production company is more likely to work closer with you on that project.

Of course this is a writer stretch goal (this would come after you've got an agent and when you're in talks for a deal), but even writers who plan to self-publish can use this—The Martian was a self-pub that had sold the film rights before the book even launched, and they tied in the marketing of the book with the film. (Pro-tip: movies have MUCH bigger marketing budgets.)

Bonus: It teaches you dialogue!

I don't particularly feel that you need to learn screenwriting to learn how to write good dialogue; I think you just need to start reading you prose out loud when you're editing, because that's how you learn dialogue. If it sounds clunky when you say it, it's probably not going to sound natural on the page, either. But if you're really struggling with dialogue, screenwriting is helpful, because it's the type of medium where you can get other people to read your work aloud, and that's usually easier to analyze and critique than if you're trying to do it all yourself.

#writing tips #writeblr #screenwriting #writing masterpost #screenwriter

15 notes · View notes

shitizsrivastava · 5 years

Text

TB#8 || Why a film director has to be a Good reader?

Reading books is a must. There is no denying the fact.

Every story you have heard about people showing up or being in the right place at the right time have one thing in common.

They are wrong and made up.

They eliminate the part where they were desperate, weak and were ready to do anything to get the job and start their stories right from where they got the job.

All those stories are hearsay which you hear from fellow struggling actors and wannabe directors.

Knowing inside stories constitutes one of the most interesting parts of the experience in the film industry and at times makes you passionate and motivate you towards cinema.

Don’t believe in hearsay. That is just random talk done to soothe your mind and it does not affect anything.

To get some verified data, try reading books.

Every great man in history has more or less been a good reader.

If you want to be a film director, a good one, then you have to be a reader.

How else you think you are going to read all those scripts and find the best one from it?

If you are not a good reader then you might end up becoming a director but not a very great one.

I have met directors who don’t even read the scripts.

They rely on their assistants to narrate them the scenes so that they can shoot it. I wonder how they started their career.

It’s either they have good connections or long assistant career.

Do you think they will make good directors?

Never.

Most of these directors are in TV field in which good content does not matter.

Since filmmaking is a specialized field so they never end up becoming a film director because filmmaking requires more meticulous preparation.

Hundreds of hours of writing, reading and re-reading go in before a good film turns out to be good.

I once interviewed the DOP of Rajkumar Hirani, C.K. Muralitharan.

He told me that Rajkumar Hirani and his writing partner Abhijat Joshi goes through more than 300 re-reading and drafting of the same script to make sure there is no fault or loophole in the script.

I believe that if someone goes through that much amount of hard work in making their movies then their films are ought to be a super hit.

None of the films of Hirani is a flop, leave flop, they are all blockbusters.

But why do you need to read books on filmmaking?

1. To know how others made their films and approached filmmaking?

2. To know what mistakes other filmmakers did and how you can avoid them.

3. To know more about films, shot taking, direction and writing.

Being part of any profession there is one thing that everyone must never forget —

The learning should never stop.

Just because you are out of film school or you have managed to make your first film does not mean that you have learned everything about cinema.

Cinema is an art form that has age beyond 100 years now.

There are things that you don’t know and there are things knowing which will make your films not only better but great.

I remember reading books on scriptwriting during my college days because I was interested in filmmaking.

There was a website called Passion for Cinema which would publish film scripts for its readers to read.

I would download them, take their printouts and read then, again and again, to understand how that script was written. Most of those scripts were from Anurag Kashyap.

There is a book by Syd field called “Screenplay: The foundation of Screenwriting” which is considered one of the best books on screenwriting which with the help of a screenplay of Chinatown makes you understand how the story should be written. According to him, the screenplay of Chinatown is one of the greatest screenplays written and he is right about it.

For a filmmaker, you must develop a habit of reading screenplays. They are ubiquitously available on the internet.

Download them and put them into your Kindle, iPad or laptop or whatever gadget you have and start reading them as soon as possible.

Before making The Shining, Stanley Kubrick couldn’t find any book or concept worth devoting his time and talent into.

In his biography written by his assistant, the author narrates how Kubrick would sit in his room entire day and keep reading new books till he found this book by Stephen King called The Shining and decided that it is going to be his next film.

I was once doing an ad film with Anurag Kashyap and one thing I noted about him was that he was continuously reading books throughout the shoot. He would always manage to find time between film direction and read books.

Ever wondered why the great and successful people are not much active on the internet.

It is because they are busy reading books to gather more knowledge and hone their skills.

Reading books gives you more visualization than watching a documentary on the same thing. Visualization is something which is a cornerstone of success for any director.

My biggest asset while reading books was that I got to know that nothing is easy in this world and everything takes its own due course of time.

Some filmmakers start early while some filmmakers start late to make their films.

Ang Lee struggled for six years from age 30 to 36. He was unemployed and kept working on his screenplays and kept polishing them. He submitted his screenplays to few Festivals and won some awards, which further led him to make his films.

The biographies had taught me a lot about film directors, their life, their struggle, their methods and their persistence to make a film.

Some of the best biographies to read are from Satyajit Ray, Andrei Tarkovsky, Kieslowski, Ritwik Ghatak, Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Robert Rodriguez among others.

You cannot experience everything on film sets and not everyone in the film line will sit with you, help you, guide you in becoming what you want to become.

You need mentors in life. Mentors help you guide in a certain direction and help you show you the way. Books will do the same for you.

Now coming to the practical aspects of how books can help you apart from developing your personality.

When you will be in the film industry people will talk to you about films and if you don’t know anything about the film industry it shows that you are there merely for superficial glamour purposes.

When I first went to Mumbai, I had read hundreds of blogs on filmmaking, read myriads of books and had seen thousands of films so when my first interview happened, I passed it with flying colours. Not only that, I impressed them all.

There were times when I was fortunate to sit with known filmmakers and get to talk to them. Since most of the people at the top of the film industry are avid film buffs and book readers, they were interested in talking to me about cinema theories, philosophies and how it evolved only because I had read so many books, had several anecdotes and trivia to tell.

So many times, it happened with me that due to my borrowed understanding of film writing from books I was given a chance to read scripts and give feedback based on that.

I knew about script structures and everything about them in details and a hundred percent of those times my analysis of the scripts solved their problems and they would keep calling me again and again. Later I started charging money for that. So, can you imagine, reading books helped me developed another source of living? I am not boasting about my skills here as none of this is a natural talent. I had to read numerous books and devote several hours to reach tot his point.

Book also taught me a lot about set blocking. I read a few books on the direction which I researched a lot on blocking of Alfred Hitchcock, who was a master of camera blocking and how the characters move on the screen. So imagine if you go on sets and you see a director setting the actor movements and blocking actors with respect to the camera. A normal person would be clueless about everything but if you had basic, even theoretic knowledge about set blocking, trust me, within two days you will become a pro at it.

The core foundation of developing any art is researching as much about it as possible and then explain it to someone else. If he understands it then you have done a good job. This is not me but Nobel Prize-winning Scientist and Theoretical physicist Feynman who said this.

You need to know how the art has evolved over time. It is not wise to start from beginning and makes the same mistakes that people before you had already made.

One of the best books that you can lay your hand on right now is How to read films. I borrowed the book from someone and I had finished it two times as I loved it so much. This book touches upon pretty much every topic within cinema, be it history, technique, film theory or whatnot.

You should start from reading biographies because they are light to read and then move on to the books which are technical, about art, have philosophy inside it and then read every book that comes near to your Goal.

Reading books gives you the inspiration that you can also do it. It motivates you to go ahead and do it rather than sitting on your ass and brooding how you are going to do it.

While, on one hand, The autobiography of Robert Rodriguez, A Rebel without a Crew, inspired me that I can make my own film in very less money, on the other hand, the biography of James Cameron told me that hard work always pays and if you work really hard to achieve your dream, you can get anything in life.

Reading screenplays taught me how the script must have been first read and then watching the movie on it made me imagine how and what must be going on sets to make those scenes alive. Scenes on paper are nothing but dead words which are made alive by the efforts of the film director, actors and another crew.

I realized my own screenplay style while reading those screenplays. For example, some writers write screenplays in a detailed amount of descriptions (James Cameron) while some writers (Aaron Sorkin) doesn’t write much in the description but are masters of dialogue.

Reading books about filmmaking also separates you from other people who don’t know what goes behind the screen. More than that whenever you will be on sets, you won’t be alien to the majority of things.

The biographies of film directors make you go inside their mind and then you will better understand what was going inside their minds while shooting a particular scene.

While reading the acclaimed director Ritwik Ghatak biography, I realized how great he was. He narrates a scene from his magnum opus Megha Dhake Tara. In that scene, a woman who is tormented from all sides is sitting with her lover. He is about to ditch her and there is the sound of whiplash you hear in the background.

At first, when I saw the film I didn’t notice anything but it affected me. After reading the book I again saw the film and witnessed the scene from another dimension, from the eyes of the director and understood it better.

First time I watched the film from my perspective and the next time I saw it from the perspective of the film director and it educated me with many things which I missed the first time.

Any scene in any film is an amalgamation of visuals, sound, art, acting, editing, camera and hundreds of other things which we feel but are not obvious to us so sometimes you have to get inside the minds of director to understand his film.

I am not just talking about art films but I am also talking about Commercial films where directors often shoot scenes expecting a different effect on the minds of the audience but the audience understands them in a different manner.

Here is a list of books you must begin reading with -

1. In the Blink of an Eye by Walter Murch

2. Shooting to Kill by Christine Vachon

3. On Directing Film by David Mamet

4. Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting by Robert McKee

5. The Filmmaker’s Handbook, 3rd Edition by Steven Ascher & Edward Pincus

6. Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance, and the Rise of Independent Film by Peter Biskind

7. The 5 Cs of Cinematography: Motion Picture Filming Techniques by Joseph V. Mascelli

8. The Techniques of Film Editing by Karel Reisz

9. Directing: Film Techniques & Aesthetics

10. How to Shoot a Feature Film for Under $10,000

Here is a list of biographies you must read

1. Rebel Without a Crew by Robert Rodriguez

2. Something like an autobiography by Akira Kurosawa

3. Adventures in the Screen Trade by William Goldman

4. Kazan on Directing by Elia Kazan

5. Spike Lee’s Gotta Have It, by Spike Lee

6. The Magic Lantern, by Ingmar Bergman

7. Sculpting in Time, by Andrey Tarkovsky

8. Speaking of Films, by Satyajit Ray

9. Jean-Luc Godard — Godard on Godard

10. Luis Buñuel — My Last Sigh

Here is a list of screenplays should begin reading with.

1. Casablanca

2. Psycho

3. Chinatown

4. The Godfather

5. American Beauty

6. Memento

7. Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind

8. The Sting

9. Pulp Fiction

10. 12 Angry Men

4 notes · View notes

dweemeister · 5 years

Photo

Toy Story 4 (2019)

2019 marks the completion of the John Lasseter era at Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios with Toy Story 4 (credited as story writer; uncredited as producer) and Frozen 2 (as producer). Lasseter’s disgraceful end as the creative head at both studios was marked by scandal, in which the Walt Disney Company cut ties as quietly as possible. At one point untouchable because of Pixar’s creative output – not a single dud from Toy Story (1995) to Toy Story 3 (2010) – Lasseter’s recent years had reeked of complacency, dependence on sequels, and having played a part in erasing the final vestiges of hand-drawn animation at the famed Walt Disney Animation Studios. Pixar’s impeccable record is no more; the groundbreaking studio is fallible after all. With Lasseter now at Skydance Animation (to the dismay of many), his final involvement with a Pixar film continues the legacy of arguably the most consistent animated film series ever.

Directed by Josh Cooley and with a screenplay by Stephany Folsom (her cinematic debut) and Andrew Stanton (1998′s A Bug’s Life, 2008′s WALL-E), Toy Story 4 had languished in development hell for years. An army of writers have doctored the story since 2014, so it is difficult to understand who contributed what. For those who were children when Toy Story and Toy Story 2 (1999) were released to theaters, Toy Story 3 appeared to be the fitting farewell to Woody, Buzz Lightyear, and their friends. Pixar, which has claimed that it does not pursue sequels unless there is artistic and narrative sense to that sequel – they have some explaining to do about the Cars sequels – has charged forward with this newest entry in the Toy Story mythos.

Now with Bonnie, the cast of toys must contend with the fact she is about to attend Kindergarten. Worried that Bonnie will have a difficult day of Kindergarten orientation and the fact that – though he would never openly admit it – Bonnie has not given him much attention recently, Woody hops into Bonnie’s backpack and has a hand in the creation of Forky. Forky, believing himself to be trash, makes numerous attempts to toss himself into the wastebasket, much to Woody’s dismay. As Bonnie’s family embarks on a vacation, Woody and the gang must prevent Forky (whose scenes are frequent and comedically overcooked) from disposing himself. While at a mountainous town, numerous situations will introduce the likes of other toys including Gabby Gabby (a ‘60s-era doll who longs to be loved by a child); the miniscule Giggle McDimples; prize toys Ducky and Bunny; motorcycling daredevil Duke Caboom; and Woody’s old flame, Bo Peep.

Without detailing the film’s conclusion and, as someone who rewatched my VHS of Toy Story and DVD of Toy Story 2 ad nauseam as a child, Toy Story 4 does not feel as strong a conclusion as its immediate predecessor. Yet Toy Story 4 deepens the series’ existential themes and characterization of Woody – its moral center after extinguishing his homicidal feelings towards Buzz in the original – at the unfortunate expense of almost the entirety of the cast of toys. Nevertheless, Woody’s character growth has been tremendous to behold. His steadfast loyalty – so often a source of adoration from moviegoers – is called into question here. His unwritten sheriff’s code to be of service, embodied by Jimmy Stewarts or Gary Coopers in decades’ past, clashes with the “lost toys” without children to call their own. The misadventures and toy-sized heists characteristic of Toy Story are derailed by unfortunate timing and increasing stakes. No wonder the frustration towards Woody – among the characters and the audience – is so palpable.

The fragmentation of the plot and physical separation of its characters creates a handful of storylines that, with the film’s sharp editing, are comprehensible. Toy Story 4, when analyzed through its editing (and even when excluding flashbacks and fantasies) and writing structure, is the least linear of the Toy Story films. Characters are not so much reacting to a singular event as they are personifying or espousing the film’s themes. One’s ability to tolerate this structure will be tested, but screenwriters Folsom and Stanton are content to not devolve into lengthy expositions or soliloquies that too explicitly outline their intended subtext. Gabby Gabby’s apparent and ultimate fates will elicit instant, strong reactions that might just be universal. Woody’s final decisions in the film’s closing minutes will be viewed through the prism of life experience. Many of the questions Toy Story 4 presents once Forky has been introduced have been central to the series, with variations with each passing installment. What does it mean to realize one’s obsolescence? How does one come to terms – if at all – with that realization? When does a lifelong dream transform into obsession? Folsom and Stanton are not interested in whether there is a “correct” way for a toy to exist – note that every toy in this film defines their existence in bringing joy to a child, even those toys have been lucky enough to do so.

After years of late Lasseter-era twist villains and films with so little nuance in trumpeting their vaguely liberal inclusive messages, this is a refreshing change of pace. Whatever answers viewers find will not arrive easily and will change with time. The most worthwhile art tends to be as such.

Toy Story 4′s characters are stand-ins for human relationships with a coat of comedic paint to make the most difficult moments bearable for everyone. To ask so bluntly the nature of meaningful existence might be dismissed in a live-action film as maudlin, manipulative (film is always manipulative; the effectiveness and appropriateness of such manipulation is not beyond criticism). Inside Out (2015) and Coco (2017) are the best recent examples of this from Pixar’s filmography of how animation lowers these barriers to posing such ideas. The studio’s success is not because they created imaginative worlds filled with talking toys, rodents that can cook, or a post-apocalyptic humanity too dependent on technology. Nor is it the storytelling the studio justly prides itself upon. It is because of the raw ideas found within their films, when the excesses of plots are discarded.

youtube

The production design by Bob Pauley (1993′s The Nightmare Before Christmas, all three previous Toy Story films) – in addition to the ever-increasing photorealism of Pixar’s backgrounds and character animation – is superb. Pauley juxtaposes the dusty, earthy antiques store that the film spends much of its runtime with the neon-lit carnival beaming its lights into the night sky. More than the previous Toy Story films, this edition allows the use of colors to help guide the dominant moods in respective scenes. The darker, subdued antiques store scenes lend a feeling that something or some secret lurks around the next cobwebbed corner – evoking claustrophobic spaces, ideological and personal entrapment (the placement of “Midnight, the Stars and You”, which is most famous for its use in 1980′s The Shining, plays a key contribution). The carnival/fair has occasionally been a source of macabre elements or thematic irony in Western cinema; it is a tradition that at least goes as far back to 1920′s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (more recently, and though not a film, the third season of Stranger Things contributes to that tradition). The summer carnival of Toy Story 4 is more liberating than most, leaning into whatever escapist nostalgia the audience holds – of which Toy Story could be a part of. The fourth installment of this series is the most atmospheric; one wishes that the filmmakers could have slowed down a tad to allow a fuller appreciation of the various settings.

Pickier than most film score composers, Randy Newman (1984′s The Natural, 2009′s The Princess and the Frog) nevertheless has become a staple with Pixar and has created, single-handedly, Toy Story’s musical identity. Recorded, in typical Randy Newman, with an enormous orchestra of Los Angeles-area musicians at the 20th Century Fox studio named to honor his uncles (Emil, Lionel, and especially Alfred were gifted composers contracted to Fox), Newman’s ability to integrate musical ideas he has not revisited for twenty or more years with newer motifs is most apparent in the film’s busiest scene. The cue that plays there is “Operation Pull Toy”, which utilizes character- and plot-driven motifs drawn and rearranged beautifully for this newest film. But standing above the rest is “Parting Gifts & New Horizons”, which plays during a fateful moment and a series of fond farewells. The Americana that Randy Newman incorporated through the series and was especially acclaimed for before working on the original Toy Story appears, without restraints, brass instruments backing, and high strings leading. Though not as distinguished as previous Toy Story scores, Newman knows when to pull the emotional strings with his sweeping melodies.

To digress slightly: in isolated parts of Newman’s score (the brief theme beginning at 4:04 of “Parting Gifts & New Horizons” included), I yearn for Newman scoring for an American Western film.

In the recording studio, Tom Hanks (as Woody) and Tim Allen (as Buzz Lightyear) admitted that neither could record their lines without being overwhelmed by emotion. Hanks claimed that he could not even face the crew as he neared his final moments of dialogue. Another member of the cast, Don Rickles (Mr. Potato Head), passed away in April 2017 – well before any voice actors began work on the film. Rickles’ family urged Pixar to see if a performance could be pieced together through archival recordings. Poring over almost a quarter-century of voice work from outtakes and recordings for promotional materials, Disney parks, and video games, a brief, but serviceable performance was spliced together by Pixar. Rickles is credited as Mr. Potato Head in the film and he, along with animator Adam Burke, is one of the film’s two dedicatees.

As a disappointing decade in mainstream American animation closes with sequels and the ignominious departure of a figure central to the industry, Pixar’s artistic future is uncertain. Pixar’s new chief creative officer is Pete Docter (2001′s Monsters, Inc. and Inside Out). Docter, who has been with Pixar since 1990, is not likely to fundamentally transform the studio’s mission – as outlined by Lasseter – or artistic direction. He is noted, however, for imbuing his films with his deep sense of morality. Combined with the fact that Pixar intends to move away from sequels in the immediate future, will the studio regain its form after an inconsistent decade? Toy Story 4 is, by way of its structure and overuse of Forky, the weakest in Pixar’s most venerable series. That standard, however, is comparing greatness with excellence.

My rating: 8/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found here.

#Toy Story 4 #Josh Cooley #Pixar #Stephany Folsom #Andrew Stanton #John Lasseter #Tom Hanks #Tim Allen #Annie Potts #Tony Hale #Keegan Michael Key #Jordan Peele #Madeleine McGraw #Christina Hendricks #Don Rickles #Keanu Reeves #Ally Maki #Randy Newman #My Movie Odyssey

1 note · View note

danwritestuff · 6 years

Text

Tagged by @sorbriquette and putting it in my so-called writing blog cuz i keep anything related to writing here

1. How did you begin writing? Uhhmm, I’ve always been a daydreamer and it was my Coping Mechanism(tm). So naturally, I’ve always wanted to write about weird shits I think about. Most of the time, though, I end up just imagining things and never get to writing it. I wasn’t really good at writing in my own language (Korean) and then I’ve gotten into writing in English (my second language) and found out I write BETTER in English lmao.

2. What was your first writing project? Tell us a little about it. I started writing when I was around 13 or so. Never really got to write a full story and it was in Korean (I hate writing in Korean). I began RPing in tumblr since late 2012/early 2013 which is when I got into writing in English. I did wrote a short novel for a class in 2014 and I wrote a long fanfic in 2013 or something. Also wrote a screenplay once.

Not going into details because I am ashamed. I try not to think about my past writings.

3. What is your preferred medium for writing first drafts? MS Words. I just like formatting and spelling everything correct too much.

4. What rituals or habits do you have around writing? Um, I have a weird habit of writing a word ‘d’ and deleting it repeatedly when I’m not sure what to write. I make weird facial expressions too.

5. We all have a “type”– of character, plot, theme– what is yours? Plot-wise, most of my stories involve a theme of ‘HUMANS ARE DUMB BUT THEY ARE ALSO AMAZING’ which has to do with my perpetual disdain for the humanity at the same time my self-contradicting love for humane shits. I love stories that involve... humans choosing something absolutely stupid that makes no sense, just because they are human.

As for characters, I try to write everyone as different as possible. Not sure if I’m successful at that. Though my favorites are either: dumbass characters who are well-meaning and goodhearted but at the same time morally ambiguous, one of those idiots who are like a ray of sunshine but will also fuck you up if you hurt someone they love; or ‘average’ or ‘mediocre’ characters (like, skills or power-wise) surrounded by extraordinary people.

6. Introduce us to one (or more!) of your OC’s. I have a problem of writing too many characters but here goes the main characters in a series I’m trying (and failing) to write:

- Rafael: My dumbass son (kind of jobless) who eloped with his fiance from his home, a secluded temple where he spend all of his life in. Proper and polite to a fault. Oblivious to human malice and sometimes dumb because this is the first time in his life in the civilization. Incredibly lucky, though he doesn’t notice it. Has a voice like an angel but doesn’t like to sing. He refuses to carry any type of weaponry but doesn’t mind beating the shit out of assholes because “God gave us fists so that we can punch bad people.” - Emmy: Technically not my OC cuz my friend @kyaarin created her but she lets me write her. A young Mage/engineer who wants to be successful. Grew up on streets taking care of orphans like her so she is like a big sister to everyone. Friendly and gets along with everyone except assholes to whom she can be a bit vicious. Energetic and kind of hotheaded. Smart and logical most of the time but when she is pissed she just goes off and does something stupid without thinking of the consequences. - Terra: Technically not my OC (by @kyaarin) 2. An assassin/spy who is also like a private detective. Was from a rich family but she left her family to be free. Got into troubles on her own so she got into being a hit woman. She is either your best friend or your worst enemy. Quiet and observant. Doesn’t like to act before knowing EVERYTHING about what she is getting herself into. Doesn’t care how long it takes to get what she wants, or what price she would pay for that. Is out to revenge her friend ultimately. - Lance: A Knight (basically a magehunter in this world) who hates magic. He kills mages because he believes that would make the world a better place. So definitely a shithead which is inexcusable. He KNOWS that he is a mass murderer and there will be CONSEQUENCES but at the same time he believes it’s necessary to do what he does. Snarky asshole. Dogged workaholic and reckless, mostly because Knights in this world are sorta OP. Also financially unstable af because he gets sued a lot.

7. What’s your favorite genre to read? Ummm, I like fantasy and sci-fi but I also just like regular fictions. I have a really specific taste in books and it’s hard to find those.

8. Your favorite genre to write? Anything fantasy or sci-fi. I really like world building.

9. How do you conduct your authorial research? Google is your friend. I might have spent way too much time on that because I am obsessive.

10. What does your editing (gasp) process look like? Mm... I rewrite 1834931041 times while my first draft (which is a horrible habit and I write really slow thanks to that). I reread to check and then I get it to friends and get feedbacks by chapters.

11. What are your favorite tropes? Mm.. Idk I really like characters being asked to hand in their weapons several times because they have so many hidden weapons. Also love non-human characters (like robots or AI or something else) beginning to understand or becoming humans?

12. Show off your writing space. I don’t have one ‘cause my life is a mess.

13. What is the most useful piece of writing advice you’ve ever used? “Sit your ass down and just write.”

I mean, it all comes down to writing constantly and regularly I believe, which I struggle with (because I work better with deadlines). But I think that is as good as it gets with writing advice. Like? Everyone writes differently and there ain’t one formula for that? Step off of your high horse and throw your ‘don’t use this kind of expression/phrase/structure’ over a cliff.

14. What is the least useful piece of writing advice you’ve ever ignored? Any advice that has to do with fancy “alternative” vocabulary.

Like... it’s not about which words you use to decorate your sentence. It’s about the content. I find the best sentences convey strong emotions or meanings and that doesn’t always have to do with which words are used. Write as you feel and if what you feel is “that asshole of a man said some bullshits” then go with it.

15. Your writing beverage/snack of choice? Coffee? Though I feel like I work better when my needs are deprived.

16. How do you compile your ideas? Writing blogs, some memos. I have a huge Google document that has world building information in it. I think it’s about 40 pages long and I’m not even done.

17. What are your controversial opinions ™ on the craft of writing? I’m not sure if I have a controversial opinion on writing... Maybe “you can’t separate real worlds or yourself from the fictions”? Wherever and whenever your story takes place in, it is written by you, so it is bound to reflect YOUR world view. You are the storyteller, so you can’t just say “It’s just a story”. It’s not. You are writing what you want to write about and if it’s problematic, then you gotta do some reality check.

Tagging: @eva-writes @darklingsea @rjwrites @proserpinewrites @wiscowrites @ashlaaaywrites @viirgowrites and anyone who wants to do this

#me #misc #answered

4 notes · View notes

son-of-alderaan · 6 years

Link

SPOILER WARNING: reveals information about some of the script's themes and about a character's transformation that happens gradually throughout the film. Information is given about early plot elements, but no plot details are given about the end of the film.

Tony Grisoni has collaborated on a number of projects with Terry Gilliam. The pair wrote the script for Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), and then The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. Grisoni and Gilliam performed a rewrite of Ehren Kruger’s script for The Brothers Grimm (2005) and wrote the script for Tideland (also 2005), based on Mitch Cullin’s novel. The pair also worked on scripts for Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett’s novel Good Omens and a project called The Minotaur, although neither of these scripts went into production.

Grisoni’s other feature films as screenwriter include Queen of Hearts (1989) directed by Jon Amiel, In This World(2002) directed by Michael Winterbottom, and Brothers of the Head (2005). In This World won the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival. He also collaborated with Samantha Morton, writing the script for her directorial debut The Unloved (2009).

The writer has also had considerable success in television, with credits including the outstanding Red Riding trilogy (2009) featuring Andrew Garfield, and the acclaimed Southcliffe (2013). His script for The City & The City, based on the novel by China Mieville, screened on BBC2 in 2018.

Grisoni was executive producer and wrote two episodes of The Young Pope (2016 - ), and penned Crazy Diamond (2017), the Steve Buscemi episode of Channel 4’s anthology series Philip K. Dick’s Electric Dreams.

The writer spoke with Philip Stubbs about his work with Terry Gilliam on The Man Who Killed Don Quixote in July 2017, just after principal photography had completed.

Philip Stubbs: Once Fear & Loathing had completed photography, there was a frantic postproduction. During the publicity for the picture in 1998, I remember that Terry said he’d been too tired to start anything else. I think it was towards the end of 1998 that he kicked off the Quixote project with you. Tony Grisoni: People remember Fear and Loathing very fondly, but what they forget is that, when it premiered at Cannes in 1998, it was a total disaster. I think that almost every trade publication trashed us. As a result, that had a huge effect on the distribution of the film. It was seen as being a failure. After going through the blood, sweat and tears that you shed to make the film, you can imagine how tough that must have been for Terry to have faced – guess what, this film is no good. Yet, over the years, students and schoolkids have made it a huge success, because it became the Friday night video.

It was a big seller in Walmart! Yes, huge. It became a very big home video seller, and then the movie became known as a great success. But at the time of its theatrical release, that was not how it was seen. The great and the good in the critical world saw it as trash. It was hard thing to take at the time.

So around 1998 he started talking about Quixote. He had a script from years before that he’d written with Charles McKeown. So we were having these conversations. Terry said, “I want to do something about this advertising executive. He’s really arrogant - he thinks he knows everything. He gets dragged into Quixote’s world. He goes back in time and he becomes Quixote’s sidekick.” Terry was talking about this, and I said, “But it’s not written down.” Terry then said, “It’s all in my head.” It sounded like a weird fusion of Don Quixote and A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain.

In fact Terry had spent six months working on Mark Twain’s novel just after The Fisher King I didn’t know that! So that’s where Terry stole it… now we know! In fact, this particular advertising executive, Toby, did bang his head, go back in time and meet Quixote. In the first drafts that we did together, it was split between the contemporary world - this advertising man making commercials, having betrayed any creative truth that he had, selling out to make commercials to flog cat food or whatever... He gets a bang on the head, and goes back to meet the real Don Quixote and then learns to become a servant to this crazed man. That was very much the early drafts. That balance and how you went into the Quixote world changed a lot, there was a moment I remember where he slipped into the contemporary world for a bit before being plunged back into the past. It very much played with that play between past and present.

In the middle of a previous script, he woke up in a hospital before going back to the world of Quixote. Yes, in one draft he woke up in a hospital. There were many different drafts, versions of this.

Casting your mind back to 1998, early 1999, when you put that script together, what can you remember about the roles you played? I’ve never worked with Terry where anything was distinct at all. Part of the joy is that it is play. What you have to do is to jump in and play. And it is hard play - you do it for a long time. I remember we’d act out scenes in a very natural way. We didn’t stand on a stage performing, but we’d just go through scenes and play different roles. Then we’d swap the roles we played.

By doing this, we understood the sense of the scene, the timing and how the jokes work. We would do that kind of thing, and I would go away with the material. I’d write and then send to him and then we’d meet up again and go over the script - that’s what we do.

Meanwhile Terry would say, “I had a go. I had a look at that scene and I’ve got a new version here,” and Terry would often say things like, “I managed to destroy the work that you did!” Joking aside, sometimes he has! But I say: well you’d better send it to me then. Toss the ball back. Then I have a look at it, and of course he hasn’t destroyed it totally, the destruction always brings a new idea or a new twist or an interesting take on something, or a new element. Then I incorporate that. We talk, we read the script, we have new ideas. I make sure I’ve got many notes, so I could go away and piece it together and do the writing and then come back and do some more. So it’s a very fluid process.

When it comes to putting a script together, the skills you bring in and complement each other, is there something that Terry specifically needs you for? I know that everyone likes the image of Terry being a crazed, out-of-control madman. But he’s not - he’s actually very disciplined. You can’t make a film unless you are disciplined. His take on a script is very, very good. He’s got a very good eye for a script. He understands structure of a script.

I’m in love with structure because I think structure is everything when it comes to a screenplay. It’s all about juxtaposition, it’s all about the transition from one scene to the next scene, and the meaning is in the middle, in that juxtaposition.

The film will be shot to shot to shot. The joy is the same in the script, going from one sequence to another. So to be really blunt about it, if you’ve got a really sad scene, you really want to come in with a very funny scene. The closer you put beauty and horror together, the better the horror works and the better the beauty works. The closer you put funny next to sad, the better the funny works and the better the sad works.

The other thing is that I used to be scared of writing dialogue. These days I really enjoy it. The biggest demon in dialogue is exposition of course. One of the biggest problems is the number of notes I get saying “Can we make it clearer?” In other words: can we tell everyone what’s happening? That implies that the executive understands, but he or she is worried the mass audience won’t.

The best dialogue you write is never about the plot. The best dialogue you write is about something else. The opposite of what’s happening. I enjoy writing that stuff very much.

Terry is a very visual filmmaker. Of course he is. But he’s also a chatterbox. He does a very funny thing with some dialogue: sometimes he’ll start talking non-stop. It’s very funny, very stream of consciousness, and it is great is to integrate stuff like that. I see the script as being my responsibility, that’s what I do. I’m the screenwriter. I want to pull everything back to me, write it and set it down.

This method makes him free to come up with ideas, to write something which is freed of the rigours of the framework of the screenplay, which we can then go over and explore. I can then try and integrate it all so that it works.

That addresses my next question: why does Terry need a collaborator on the screenplay? Because it leaves him freer to invent, when he has a collaborator to work with him? Well, I think that’s a really interesting point. I think what you are describing is the bigger business of filmmaking. A mentor of mine, the great producer - Tony Garnett - refers to filmmaking as being a social act, which it is of course. This isn’t just paying lip service like a great award ceremony where people say what a collaborative art it is - before they then take the gong…

The point is that it is an actual description of the business of filmmaking. It is a social act, and if I am writing a screenplay on my own - do I need a collaborator? Of course I do. It tends to be a producer whom I trust, whose notes are part of an ongoing conversation which is not just for that one film. Does Nicola Pecorini do his cinematography all on his own? Does a designer, a sound mixer, and actor?

No - none of us do what we do on our own. And we really are only as good as the people we are working with. And that applies to directing and screenwriting too. It’s about the dynamic between us all the time. It doesn’t need to be a fixed thing: one person can play the sensible one and the other person can be the irresponsible one. Then you can switch over - you can be free about how you play. It is about dynamic - you can’t have the same roles, because that’s when you don’t get anything interesting. So you need to challenge, offer up an alternative. It’s a debate. Does that sound too dull for you?

No, it’s fascinating insight! The way I work with Terry is unique - totally different from any other way I work. I think what you say about him writing with a screenwriter, partly yes there are many instances where he can be freed because - guess what - my main responsibility is the screenplay, that’s my job. But it’s not the only way it works. I might come up with an idea which is a bit off-piste, to which Terry might respond that it doesn’t really fit. We argue it out. He might have the final say - it’s his brand - but I will still argue. He enjoys a fight - as you may have noticed. The important thing is fluidity. You don’t stop.

Terry has said himself the two things you need to get films made is momentum and belief. If he had enough knuckles he’d have them tattooed on his knuckles! Those are the two things, the two requirements. That’s all to do with playing. And by playing you avoid the demon of fear.

Momentum and belief is what gets movies into production without full financing! Absolutely, and it’s also increasingly necessary. I can’t remember the last time I went into production on a feature film with a contract all signed and sealed. There’s always something slightly outstanding isn’t there? I think that’s one of the reasons we’re all moving to television.

There was a 1999 attempt to make the film that fell apart, but shooting started in the autumn of 2000. How happy were you with that script going into production? Then, I was very happy. With hindsight, I am not. The first thing is that anything that you wrote a day ago just doesn’t look as good. Anything, let alone something that’s from 17 years ago. At the time you think it’s something of complete genius. And then it doesn’t seem to be quite so genius a week later. You gain a certain objectivity, hopefully you get better. You have new ideas, new ways of putting something together. And after 17 years, you’re not the same person. It’s a very natural thing. Yet at the time, I thought it absolutely felt just great to be getting it out there on the road.

Over the 17 years, I think on average we probably rewrote the script twice a year, maybe more sometimes - depending on the possibility of the film going into production again. Whenever it looked like there was a chance, I’d get the phone call and it would be Terry saying, “It looks like we’ve got Quixote back together again… I read the script and it’s crap!” That would be his way of saying we’re on the road again, let’s have a look at it. 17 years on I think we’ve finally got quite a good script.

One of the big differences is that now there is no time slip: everything is contemporary. That was a very welcome decision in a practical way. It’s also a smarter move because it’s not such a literal thing. As a result of shooting in Spain, we can still have Holy Week; we still have interiors of castles; we still have period costumes for great extravaganzas. So we are in the contemporary world, but we can slip back into a more ancient world in a subtler way, in a way where the old world and the new world are combined.

The other thing was to find a more solid story for Toby, which is what happened to him in the past when he was a young filmmaker- how he was recreating the Quixote myth in Spain using people who are nonprofessional actors, people who had jobs, such as an old man who was a cobbler. A man who is losing his marbles and who becomes convinced by Toby that he is in fact Don Quixote de La Mancha. Therefore Toby feels a responsibility for what subsequently happens.

Toby’s guilt gives him a solid grounding for his transformation. Yes it does. It is interesting if you ask yourself what is this guilt about - because he made something, because he produced something, because people were affected, some people were damaged by what he did? It’s interesting that he has that guilt.

I think Toby’s guilt is about irresponsibility, but to be honest he’s talking about a much younger self. I think his guilt is misplaced to be honest. I don’t think he is in fact justified in feeling the guilt he does feel. I don’t think it’s a true thing.

Making a movie can shake up people’s lives, yet I don’t think that it destroys them. Far from it. Anything you do in this world can affect people. I’ve seen plenty of examples of people becoming involved in films from outside the film world, and it’s only been a good thing. It’s like running away with the circus. People can reinvent themselves; people can throw off an older life. It’s a responsibility because if you are part of this whirlwind, this crucible stirring, of course you are responsible. You can’t pretend that you’re not having an effect, but it is not necessarily a negative thing. In fact most of the time I don’t think it is a negative thing. I think it enhances the world. It’s a bigger world, though a more dangerous world. I would never say that Toby was involved with a cynical misuse of the Quixote myth, and now he’s going to suffer because he’s guilty. Now he may feel guilty, and he clearly does, but I think it’s misplaced. I don’t think he’s thinking straight about it.

The part that really captures me is the tenderness between Toby and Quixote. And I really like that part of the story which is developed throughout, really. Toby does start off to be an arrogant shit, but I really like his gradual taking on of serving Quixote, and what I like about it is – it is two characters of course, but it’s about Toby giving himself up to a crazy idea, something you can’t see, something that is bigger and more extraordinary than the world you touch and see. That’s what he’s really giving himself to. He’s allowing, he saying that he’s not everything. There’s a huge world out there that’s nothing to do with me, and I’ll be in second place to that world. That sounds very highfalutin but that’s what’s going on.

By the way, isn’t that partly the source of his guilt, his being self-centred? As Quixote says to him, “It’s always about you…. me, me, me,” he says. I do think that guilt is about him being self-obsessed. Toby thinks, “It must be me, I caused this.”… I’m not sure - perhaps his real sin is he never lived up to his promise.

Straight after the Quixote collapse you did some work with Terry on Good Omens… The collapse of Quixote and the collapse of Good Omens was a real blow. I started working with Michel Winterbottom actually around that time, and that became In This World. That was a different kind of filmmaking where we were going to people and asking them for their experiences, and making a film guided and informed by that. It was purposefully a different tack. It was in response to those two big collapses. Although Good Omens wasn’t as big a disaster as Quixote, we did a lot of work on that script. And I still feel it would make a really good film. I think we had a good script there.

Tell me about the backstory of Toby’s student film. First of all, remember that we had come through the collapse of Don Quixote, so what was happening there? A filmmaker was making a version of Don Quixote which then collapses because of a great storm. So that’s sitting there. Plus we’ve both had experience of being ambitious young filmmakers. These things are in the ether. Toby’s student backstory grew out of those elements. It’s not: here’s a new idea - we’re going to slap on, it was quite a natural development.

I remember writing the details of it – it just ran, it just went, it was very easy. It felt such a natural progression, but it didn’t come out of nowhere. It comes out of the fact that we are constantly talking about this film, this story and these ideas. I don’t think we ever mentioned: isn’t this like another mirror on what actually happened on the collapsed Don Quixote shoot? I don’t think we even said it.

We have a film where, guess what, we’re making a film with a version of Quixote but as a commercial, and it collapses. We didn’t say: just like in real life. You don’t have to say it. By analysing those things, it destroys them. You’ve got to believe in the story. It’s the story you go to, not the storyteller. You just need that belief in the story, keep going, don’t worry about whose idea it is, just do it.

The script is very funny. Nicola, who clearly was there when it was shot, said that what was shot was funnier than the script, He said that the moviemaking alchemy has made it a very, very funny film. What challenges were posed by having to write humorous dialogue? There are different types of films, and different film projects call for different kinds of dialogue. It’s both a curse and a blessing, working on what is going to be labelled a Terry Gilliam film, because that’s what’s going to happen. One of the freedoms you get is the way that people talk to one another can veer into quite sort of surreal comedy. It allows you to do that. And remember this is co-writing - it’s a to and fro’.

I remember writing Rupert’s dialogue, and really enjoying it because I didn’t plan to write comedy. I planned to write this particular character, and Rupert’s very controlling. He makes a living out of being as close to Toby as possible, as close to power as possible. He’s full of that, ingratiating himself to survive - a bit of a guru, and a fake. All of these things can only be funny if played to Toby as the straight man. Which is what happens - it comes out of character, it doesn’t come out of comic intent. The development of that of course depends on the playing of them - performers picking up on that particular dynamic between those two characters in this instance. And getting it and playing it to the hilt. That’s what happens.

(Tony jokes) Maybe Nicola’s English is not good enough to appreciate out brilliant script. What a cheeky fucker! What Nicola is saying is that his bit of filmmaking is better than my bit of filmmaking. I shall poison his vineyard!

Clearly Nicola is talking about what the actors brought to it enhanced it! Listen, I recently worked with Steve Buscemi. The big danger with Steve Buscemi performing the lines that you’ve written, is that you think: I’m a really good writer. Because you get someone like that, you get Adam Driver, you get these people - they take hold of the lines and make them theirs. It’s a beautiful thing. I always think that writers pretend, and actors become. So I’m very pleased and absolutely believe everything what they have done with this script can only make it better, and thank Christ for that. People can then say, “Really great writing!”

One scene I did see being shot was when Jonathan Pryce as Javier/Quixote and Adam Driver as Toby arrive horseback at the castle. Jonathan Pryce was terrific, the one scene he was particularly good at was trying to please Alexei, while at the same time apologising for Toby’s behaviour and also being angry at Toby’s behaviour. He did all of those things simultaneously. It was hilarious. He’s born to the part or what? What I’ve seen of Jonathan Pryce becoming Quixote is just sublime. People pretend that the writing stops when you go into production, and of course it doesn’t. It continues, and that’s what Jonathan Pryce has done because he has continued the writing of the film. That’s what’s so beautiful. What Nicola’s saying is absolutely right, of course it is, and it’s a great thing when that happens.

Now, did you ever think it was an impossible dream, and did you ever take Terry to one side, and say “Don’t you think it’s time, you’ve tried it 10 times, to be focussing on something else?” I never did say that to Terry, but I did think it. That is the truth. If anyone asked me, as they did on several occasions, “What about Quixote?”, I’d say absolutely we’re going to make it. Absolutely it’s going to happen. Privately, I visited the garden of Gethsemane more than once. That’s my confession. My joy of Terry turning over on the first day was only surpassed by my joy of him turning over on the last day. I’m very pleased for the man.

Did you visit the set of this one? No I didn’t. I stayed away from it. I think that’s why it’s turned out such a success! I almost went to the set, but I didn’t go in the end. It’s a funny thing, Terry used to phone up every now and again, and say something like, “We’re shooting a scene and they’re hiding under the stairs and I need some dialogue.” I said, “Who’s hiding under the stairs - what are you talking about?” He said, “Quixote and Toby are hiding under the stairs - just write something!”

We also had conversations about what song is Adam singing? Lots of little bits and pieces. These missives from the front now and again appeared, and I just loaded up some ammunition and sent it back.

We talked before about Terry’s wild imagination, so you could say that Terry resembles Cervantes’s character Don Quixote, but you also mentioned the side of structure and practicality that you need to get a film made. So to what extent does Terry resemble Quixote, that is, Cervantes’s character? If you watch Lost in La Mancha, we make a big thing of that, and I think we got it wrong. I really do. I think Terry has a love of Quixote, he has an understanding of this old man’s dreams which are so detached from the waking world - yet that isn’t Terry. You can’t make movies like that. Don Quixote would not - could not - make a movie.

So I think the relationship is way more interesting and less literal than a bunch of us, myself included, stated in Lost in La Mancha. It’s much more interesting. It’s a love for Quixote’s detachment from the world, a wish for it as well, but it’s the conflict that makes it interesting, the very worldly process of the business of making a film. You are freest when you are writing, because you’re furthest away from the reality, compared to when you are shooting. Time is limitless when you start writing, up to the point just before you start shooting. And then it reverses out.

It rains; someone falls off a horse; the scene wasn’t as great as we thought it was; we found a different way of doing that scene; everyone was pointing in the wrong direction that day - all of these things, these are practicalities. And Terry is very, very practical.

With analogue film, the actual film was literally physically clicking through the gate at 25 frames per second: every frame costs money. That’s what’s happening when you are making the film, just as John Boorman called his book Money Into Light. That’s the alchemy that’s happening, that’s the magic going on. You can’t be Don Quixote and make that magic. You have to be someone else.

It’s interesting about Terry Gilliam/Don Quixote, because I regret having bolstered that equation. It’s a bit lazy and not close enough to the truth. I think the reality is really fascinating: that tension between recognising the crazed dreamer that is Quixote and recognising that in yourself and at the same time embracing the very practical things that enable you to turn the dreaming into film. It’s a way more interesting equation. In the end the film is Quixote and we are all Sancho.

You mentioned some other projects you have on the go... I’ve had three things all shooting at the same time: there’s Don Quixote (Terry Gilliam), and one of an anthology of Philip K Dick short stories called Crazy Diamond, which Mark Munden has directed for Channel Four and Sony. A third thing is an adaptation of a novel called The City & The City by China Mieville, and that’s a four-parter for the BBC, which is directed by Tom Shankland. They are all now in the cutting room. I am now writing In the Wolf’s Mouth, which is a set of interlocking stories all set around Sicily in 1943. That’s with Andrea Calderwood producing.

#the man who killed don quixote #tony grisoni #terry gilliam #adam driver #jonathan pryce #long post

6 notes · View notes

emilysierrawriter · 4 years

Text

Writer Recommended: Books on Writing

As an aspiring author, I’ve spent a fair amount of time reading. A lot of what I read is fiction, of course—books for my college classes, books for fun, books for research—but there’s an important category of books that I believe aspiring authors should look into: writing books.

Books on writing, particularly those by published authors and members of the publishing industry such as agents and editors, often offer a perspective that aspiring authors need: advice from both those who were successful and those who helped make them successful. But there are a lot of writing books out there (if you were to look up “how to write a book” on Amazon’s bookstore, for instance, you’d get over 50,000 results), and sorting through them can be at best complicated and at worse impossible. With that in mind, I’d like to share five of the best writing books I’ve read, and whether I think you should read them, too.

The books mentioned in this article are:

Save the Cat! Writes a Novel by Jessica Brody

Story Engineering by Larry Brooks

Wonderbook by Jeff Vandermeer

Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott

Master Lists for Writers by Bryn Donovan

Save the Cat! Writes a Novel by Jessica Brody

My own copy of Save the Cat! Writes a Novel, which I’ve filled with Post-It Notes marking the passages I refer to most often.

Save the Cat! Writes a Novel was the very first writing book I bought, and with good reason. Based on the Save the Cat! series by Blake Snyder, Save the Cat! Writes a Novel explains the Save the Cat Beat Sheet method of outlining a novel, as well as showing how several well-known novels follow the method (whether the authors knew they were or not) and ten universal story genres that can help you figure out how your particular story works.

I recommend Save the Cat! Writes a Novel to anyone who is an avid planner (someone who outlines and plots out their novel before writing) who appreciates a strict structural approach to writing, like me. However, for pantsers (someone who finds their novel’s outline as they go along, or writes “by the seat of their pants”), this book may be too strict.

Also, the Save the Cat fifteen-point Beat Sheet method is one of many, many different writing methods and outlines. If this particular outline doesn’t suit you, don’t worry! There’s a whole lot more out there, and one may be a better fit—or maybe none of them will, and that’s fine, too.

Story Engineering by Larry Brooks

Story Engineering is truly a book on writing. Rather than focusing on a particular aspect of writing, as books like Save the Cat! Writes a Novel does, Story Engineering focuses on the Six Core Competencies of Writing—what Brooks considers the six essential pieces of every successful piece of writing, whether a novel, short story, or screenplay.

Story Engineering is less strict than Save the Cat!, and emphasizes that what you learn can be applied to any method of writing. However, Story Engineering is also a book that firmly favors planners over pantsers—in fact, one of the author’s core messages is that his book may convince pantsers to become planners, or at least plansters (a hybrid between planners and pantsers). Story Engineering is also written in a style much more favorable to logical thinkers, and though it doesn’t follow nearly as strict of a progression as Save the Cat!, it is still very structured.

Wonderbook by Jeff Vandermeer

If you aren’t a fan of the highly structured approach of Story Engineering, you’re firmly a fantasy/science fiction writer who would prefer a writing book more focused on the non-realistic side of writing, or you think most writing books are boring, then Wonderbook is something I highly recommend you check out.

Unlike the majority of writing books, Wonderbook is illustrated with hundreds of diagrams, photographs, and surreal artworks. Wonderbook, like Story Engineering, covers the overall writing process rather than a specific portion, but that’s where the similarities end. Wonderbook uses its illustrations, along with writing exercises and essays from famous authors like Neil Gaiman and George R. R. Martin, to help the reader understand and become comfortable with the tricky world of speculative fiction—although the author emphasizes that Wonderbook‘s lessons can be adapted to any style of writing.

Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott

Bird by Bird isn’t a writing book in the traditional sense, in that it has almost nothing to do with the actual act of writing. Unlike the previous three books on this list, Bird by Bird doesn’t set out to teach you about structure, character, and plot. Instead, this book contains a series of essays by author Anne Lamott about her own experiences, both as a writer and as a human being. Bird by Bird is less a book on writing than a book for writers, with chapters on accepting your first draft for what it is and getting through the rough phase of editing and revising.

If you’re looking for a book that tells you that whatever you’re feeling about your writing is alright (and you aren’t opposed to dark humor and a fair amount of cursing), and you’d rather figure out the rest on your own, then Bird by Bird is definitely a recommended read.

Master Lists for Writers by Bryn Donovan

Like Bird by Bird, Master Lists for Writers isn’t really a book on writing—but it isn’t a book about writers, either. Instead, this is more of a reference book. Master Lists for Writers contains about a hundred different lists, on topics ranging from descriptions of facial expressions to common last names in the US. Rather than a book to be read through, Master Lists for Writers is designed to be picked up when needed, whether for inspiration before you start a story or to diversify your descriptions in the editing phase.

Because Master Lists is a writer reference book, it holds no opinions on what you write or how you do it. Instead, it’s an invaluable book for any aspiring author to have on hand, no matter where in the writing process they are.

An example spread from Master Lists for Writers

Starting out as an aspiring author can be tough, and many of us turn to writing books to lighten the load or get a head start. But with the number of books on writing out there, it can be daunting to try to find one that works for you. I hope that you found at least one new book to read from this list—and if not, let me know! This is only some of the many writing books I’ve read, and I’m sure that together, we can find one that works for you.

__ATA.cmd.push(function() { __ATA.initDynamicSlot({ id: 'atatags-26942-5f3b45d59a1d3', location: 120, formFactor: '001', label: { text: 'Advertisements', }, creative: { reportAd: { text: 'Report this ad', }, privacySettings: { text: 'Privacy settings', } } }); }); from WordPress https://ift.tt/3g6VPgP via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

writing-prompts-for-friends · 4 years

Photo

Why Read?

In short, if you want to be a good judge of your ideas and understand why they are working or why they’re not working, you have to read.”

Source: Heffron, Jack. The Writers Idea Book: How to Develop Great Ideas for Fiction, Nonfiction, Poetry & Screenplays. Writers Digest, 2012.

2 notes · View notes

septembercfawkes · 7 years

Text

21 Recommended Books for Writers

As I've talked about on my blog several times, an important part of growing as a writer is learning about writing. For years I've wanted to compile a list of writing books I've read, liked, and recommend. Today I'm happy to say I now have that list to add to my blog (perfect timing for anyone who likes summer reading). I'm sure over time, this list will be added to.

Many writers I've talked to have read quite a few of these books. How many have you read? And is there one I need to look into? (You can comment at the bottom).

If you haven't read any of them, cool. Now you have a list to chose from should you ever want to.

Hundreds of books have been written on the art of writing. Here at last is a book by two professional editors to teach writers the techniques of the editing trade that turn promising manuscripts into published novels and short stories. In this completely revised and updated second edition, Renni Browne and Dave King teach you, the writer, how to apply the editing techniques they have developed to your own work. Chapters on dialogue, exposition, point of view, interior monologue, and other techniques take you through the same processes an expert editor would go through to perfect your manuscript. Each point is illustrated with examples, many drawn from the hundreds of books Browne and King have edited.

BUY / LEARN MORE

What makes a good story or a screenplay great? The vast majority of writers begin the storytelling process with only a partial understanding where to begin. Some labor their entire lives without ever learning that successful stories are as dependent upon good engineering as they are artistry. But the truth is, unless you are master of the form, function and criteria of successful storytelling, sitting down and pounding out a first draft without planning is an ineffective way to begin. Story Engineering starts with the criteria and the architecture of storytelling, the engineering and design of a story--and uses it as the basis for narrative. The greatest potential of any story is found in the way six specific aspects of storytelling combine and empower each other on the page. When rendered artfully, they become a sum in excess of their parts. BUY / LEARN MORE

Bestselling author David Farland has taught dozens of writers who have gone on to staggering literary success, including such #1 New York Times Bestsellers as Brandon Mull (Fablehaven), Brandon Sanderson (Wheel of Time), James Dashner (The Maze Runner) and Stephenie Meyer (Twilight). In this book, Dave teaches how to analyze an audience and outline a novel so that it can appeal to a wide readership, giving it the potential to become a bestseller. The secrets found in his unconventional approach will help you understand why so many of his authors go on to prominence.

BUY / LEARN MORE

How do you create a main character readers won't forget? How do you write a book in multiple-third-person point of view without confusing your readers (or yourself)? How do you plant essential information about a character's past into a story? Write Great Fiction: Characters, Emotion & Viewpoint by award-winning author Nancy Kress answers all of these questions and more! This accessible book is filled with interactive exercises and valuable advice that teaches you how to: Choose and execute the best point of view for your story Create three-dimensional and believable characters Develop your characters' emotions Create realistic love, fight, and death scenes Use frustration to motivate your characters and drive your story.

BUY / LEARN MORE

The road to rejection is paved with bad beginnings. Agents and editors agree: Improper story beginnings are the single biggest barrier to publication. Why? If a novel or short story has a bad beginning, then no one will keep reading. It's just that simple. In Hooked, author Les Edgerton draws on his experience as a successful fiction writer and teacher to help you overcome the weak openings that lead to instant rejection by showing you how to successfully use the ten core components inherent to any great beginning. Plus, you'll discover exclusive insider advice from agents and acquiring editors on what they look for in a strong opening. With Hooked, you'll have all the information you need to craft a compelling beginning that lays the foundation for an irresistible story!

BUY / LEARN MORE

This ultimate insider's guide reveals the secrets that none dare admit, told by a show biz veteran who's proven that you can sell your script if you can save the cat!

BUY / LEARN MORE

"Show—don't tell." How many times have you heard this standard bit of writing advice? It's so common in writing courses and critiques that it has become a cliche. Writers are often told to write scenes, dramatize, cut exposition, cut summary—but it's misguided advice. The truth is good writing almost always requires both showing and telling. The trick is finding the right balance of scene and summary—the two basic components of creative prose. Showing and Telling shows you how to employ each of these essential techniques in the appropriate places within a narrative. Complete with examples from bestsellers and interactive exercises, this comprehensive guide offers an in-depth look at scene development, the role of reflection in storytelling, the art of summarizing, and how to bring it all together.

BUY / LEARN MORE

One of the biggest problem areas for writers is conveying a character's emotions to the reader in a unique, compelling way. This book comes to the rescue by highlighting 75 emotions and listing the possible body language cues, thoughts, and visceral responses for each. Using its easy-to-navigate list format, readers can draw inspiration from character cues that range in intensity to match any emotional moment. The Emotion Thesaurus also tackles common emotion-related writing problems and provides methods to overcome them. This writing tool encourages writers to show, not tell emotion and is a creative brainstorming resource for any fiction project.

BUY / LEARN MORE

This book is a set of tools: literary crowbars, chisels, mallets, pliers and tongs. Use them to pry, chip, yank and sift good characters out of the place where they live in your imagination. Award-winning author Orson Scott Card explains in depth the techniques of inventing, developing and presenting characters, plus handling viewpoint in novels and short stories. With specific examples, he spells out your narrative options—the choices you'll make in creating fictional people so "real" that readers will feel they know them like members of their own families.

BUY / LEARN MORE

All successful writers use resonance to enhance their stories by drawing power from stories that came before, by resonating with their readers' experiences, and by resonating within their own works. In this book, you'll learn exactly what resonance is and how to use it to make your stories more powerful. You'll see how it is used in literature and other art forms, and how one writer, J. R. R. Tolkien, mastered it in his work.

BUY / LEARN MORE

An illuminating and invaluable guide for beginners wary of modern poetry, as well as for more advanced students who want to sharpen their craft and write poems that expand their technical skills, excite their imaginations, and engage their deepest memories and concerns. Ideal for teachers who have been searching for a way to inspire students with a love for writing--and reading--contemporary poetry.

BUY / LEARN MORE

Like a muse for the writer, Oakley Hall thoughtfully leads us past the sinkholes of cliches, flat prose, and self-conscious writing and guides us toward the magic of vivid and original storytelling. ...An essential resource for any writer -- beginning, published, or just plain stuck. -- Amy TanOakley Hall cites the works and methods of such great novelists as John Steinbeck, Joyce Carol Oates, Leo Tolstoy, Agatha Christie and Milan Kundera to show readers what works in the novel, and why. This book features advice on taking a novel through each of its stages, from the beginning of an idea to The End, and guides writers through the process of writing a novel.

BUY / LEARN MORE

How essential is setting to a story? How much description is too much? In what ways do details and setting tie into plot and character development? How can you use setting and description to add depth to your story?

You can find all the answers you need in Write Great Fiction: Description & Setting by author and instructor Ron Rozelle. This nuts-and-bolts guide - complete with practical exercises at the end of each chapter - gives you all the tips and techniques you need to:

Establish a realistic sense of time and place

Use description and setting to drive your story

Craft effective description and setting for different genres

Skillfully master showing vs. telling

With dozens of excerpts from some of today's most popular writers, Write Great Fiction: Description & Setting gives you all the information you need to create a sharp and believable world of people, places, events, and actions.

BUY / LEARN MORE

Learn step-by-step how to create fictional fights that leave the reader breathless with excitement.

The book gives you:

* A six-part structure to use as blueprint for your scene.

* Tricks how to combine fighting with dialogue

* Information about swords, daggers and other weapons, and suggestions how to write about them

It helps you to decide:

* What's the best weapon for your character

* Where the scene takes place

* Which senses to use, how and when

* How much violence your fight needs

and more.

BUY / LEARN MORE

“Long live the King” hailed Entertainment Weekly upon publication of Stephen King’s On Writing. Part memoir, part master class by one of the bestselling authors of all time, this superb volume is a revealing and practical view of the writer’s craft, comprising the basic tools of the trade every writer must have. King’s advice is grounded in his vivid memories from childhood through his emergence as a writer, from his struggling early career to his widely reported, near-fatal accident in 1999—and how the inextricable link between writing and living spurred his recovery. Brilliantly structured, friendly and inspiring, On Writing will empower and entertain everyone who reads it—fans, writers, and anyone who loves a great story well told.

BUY/LEARN MORE

The Elements of Style is the definitive text and classic manual on the principles of English language read by millions of readers. The 18 main topics are organized under the headings, “Elementary Rules of Usage,” “Elementary Principles of Composition,” “A Few Matters of Form,” “Words and Expressions Commonly Misused,” and “Words Often Misspelled.”

BUY/LEARN MORE

Robert McKee's screenwriting workshops have earned him an international reputation for inspiring novices, refining works in progress and putting major screenwriting careers back on track. Quincy Jones, Diane Keaton, Gloria Steinem, Julia Roberts, John Cleese and David Bowie are just a few of his celebrity alumni. Writers, producers, development executives and agents all flock to his lecture series, praising it as a mesmerizing and intense learning experience.

In Story, McKee expands on the concepts he teaches in his $450 seminars (considered a must by industry insiders), providing readers with the most comprehensive, integrated explanation of the craft of writing for the screen. No one better understands how all the elements of a screenplay fit together, and no one is better qualified to explain the "magic" of story construction and the relationship between structure and character than Robert McKee.

BUY/LEARN MORE

A deft analysis and appreciation of fiction―what makes it work and what can make it fail.

Here is a book about the craft of writing fiction that is thoroughly useful from the first to the last page―whether the reader is a beginner, a seasoned writer, or a teacher of writing. You will see how a work takes form and shape once you grasp the principles of momentum, tension, and immediacy. "Tension," Stern says, "is the mother of fiction. When tension and immediacy combine, the story begins." Dialogue and action, beginnings and endings, the true meaning of "write what you know," and a memorable listing of don'ts for fiction writers are all covered. A special section features an Alphabet for Writers: entries range from Accuracy to Zigzag, with enlightening comments about such matters as Cliffhangers, Point of View, Irony, and Transitions.

BUY/LEARN MORE

Get Your Readers' Attention—And Keep It—From the First World to the Final Page.

Translating that initial flash of inspiration into a complete story requires careful crafting. So how do you keep your story from beginning slowly, floundering midway, and trailing off at the end? Nancy Kress shows you effective solutions for potential problems at each stage of your story—essential lessons for strong start-to-finish storytelling.

Hook readers, agents, and editors in the first three paragraphs.

Make and keep your story's implicit promise to the reader.

Build drama and credibility by controlling your prose.

Consider the price a writer pays for flashbacks.

Reveal character effectively throughout your story.

Get the tools you need to get your story off to an engaging start, keep the middle tight and compelling, and make your conclusion high impact.

BUY/LEARN MORE

* This is a guidebook for nonfiction, but I've included it because many of its great principles can apply to creative writing

On Writing Well has been praised for its sound advice, its clarity and the warmth of its style. It is a book for everybody who wants to learn how to write or who needs to do some writing to get through the day, as almost everybody does in the age of e-mail and the Internet.

Whether you want to write about people or places, science and technology, business, sports, the arts or about yourself in the increasingly popular memoir genre, On Writing Well offers you fundamental principles as well as the insights of a distinguished writer and teacher. With more than a million copies sold, this volume has stood the test of time and remains a valuable resource for writers and would-be writers.

BUY/LEARN MORE

* This is a guidebook for nonfiction, but I've included it because many of its great principles can apply to creative writing, and I have referred to it in my writing tips.

Engaging and direct, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace is the guidebook for anyone who wants to write well.Engaging and direct, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace is the guidebook for anyone who wants to write well.

Williams’ own clear, accessible style models the kind of writing that audiences–both in college and after–will admire. The principles offered here help writers understand what readers expect and encourage writers to revise to meet those expectations more effectively. This book is all you need to understand the principles of effective writing.

BUY/LEARN MORE

Happy reading ^_^

In other news, I do have several writerly blog posts in the works. This last week I started one on Mary Sues--that's been an interesting one to write.

#writing #writing tips #writing tip #writing help #writing helps #writing lesson #writing lessons #writing advice #writing reference #reading #recommended reading #writeblr #writblr #writerblr #writing tips and tricks

2K notes · View notes

oliverphisher · 4 years

Text

Anne Buist

Anne Buist is a Professor of Women’s Mental Health at the University of Melbourne. She has thirty years clinical and research experience in perinatal psychiatry and works with Protective services and the courts in cases of child abuse and infanticide.

Medea's Curse: Shocking. Page-Turning. Psychological Thriller with Forensic Psychiatrist Natalie King (Natalie King, Forensic Psychiatrist) By Anne Buist

She is the author of the three Natalie King, forensic psychiatrist series; Medea’s Curse, Dangerous to Know and This I Would Kill For. A stand-alone rural psychological thriller, The Long Shadow, will be released in 2020. She is also co-author with husband Graeme Simsion, of a midlife renewal romantic comedy, Two Steps Forward (and is currently working on the sequel, Two Steps Back).

Anne Buist is an Australian researcher and practicing psychiatrist specializing in women's mental health, in particular postpartum psychiatric illnesses. She is also a novelist, author of the Natalie King crime fiction series, and co-author, with her husband Graeme Simsion, of the novel Two Steps Forward.

What are one to three books that have greatly influenced your life?

The White Hotel (DMThomas): a fictionalisation of one of Freud’s cases, I read it at a time when I was deciding my career—it helped me go into psychiatry and rather than biological psychiatry, it guided me in a way to understanding why people do the things they do.

The White Hotel By D. M. Thomas

How has a failure, or apparent failure, set you up for later success?

Lots of things I’ve learnt from but nothing quite fits this. Each thing that hasn’t worked has just made me more determined, or opened another door.

Are there any quotes you think of often or live your life by?

The greatest danger is not that we aim to high and miss it, but that we aim too low and reach it. (I think from Michelangelo): It gives me the courage to try; trying and failing is easier to live with than not having the courage to try in the first place.

What is one of the best investment in a writing resource you’ve ever made?

Syd Field’s Screenplay. Great on structure and helps you work out why your plot isn’t working

What is an unusual habit or an absurd thing that you love?

My two Camino credentials (I got the bit of paper at the end of the walks but it’s the credential with all the stamps over 2000 km each, that I treasure)

In the last five years, what new belief, behaviour, or habit has most improved your life?

Doing regular long walks (two to three week walks every year, but every two or three, one that lasts a thousand kilometres or more). Its like forced mindfulness and a life reset.

What advice would you give to a smart, driven aspiring author? What advice should they ignore?

Keep writing, keep learning. Do courses, read books, find a fellow aspiring author to work with/ talk over things with. Face your demons (ie whatever is holding you back). Find what works for you—but remember a blank page can’t be edited. Better to put done something however bad and improve it than just dream (unless having a vague dream is actually all you want!). Dream of making a lot of money—but don’t expect it.

What are bad recommendations you hear in your profession often?

"Just write”. For too many people that gets you one chapter to one third of a book, no further. And writing is a craft. It needs to be learnt.

In the last five years, what have you become better at saying no to (distractions, invitations, etc.)? There’s never enough time…but when needed I can prioritise…

What marketing tactics should authors avoid?

Personally I think anything on Twitter is a waste of time.

What new realizations and/or approaches have helped you achieve your goals?

A page a day of you’re busy and can’t do more. I’ve learned to love editing—every single thing you do is making your work better.

When you feel overwhelmed or have lost your focus temporarily, what do you do?

Read or walk—or watch Harry Potter (what can I say? It’s comfort watching…)

Any other tips?

Try short stories, and enter competitions. Also get a paid independent assessment of your manuscript.

________

Enjoyed this Q&A? Want to discuss in more depth? Join Community Writers. You'll get access to 100+ exclusive writing tips. Q&As with successful authors, an exclusive ebook on building an audience and much more. Sign-up for free as a community writer here

source https://www.thecommunitywriter.com/blog/anne-buist

#Writing WriteMotivation WritingAdvice

0 notes

lynchgirl90 · 7 years

Photo

#TwinPeaks' return wasn't just a masterpiece – it may be the most groundbreaking season of TV ever

David Lynch and Mark Frost's 25-years-later murder mystery was not only a masterpiece – it may have permanently changed the medium

When some phrases pass through the prism of Twin Peaks, you can never hear them the same way again. "Damn good coffee" is one; "Gotta light?" is another. We'll submit a third candidate, one that the just-concluded third season of David Lynch and Mark Frost's supernatural murder-mystery masterpiece has marked for permanent retirement from the critical vocabulary: "Like nothing else on television." The TV landscape remains full of singular, spectacular shows, Peak TV fatigue be damned. But just as the original Twin Peaks inspired visionary showrunners from David Chase to Damon Lindelof to create the New Golden Age, the show's revived third season may have leapfrogged them all. What we just witnessed was unmatched in the medium's history.

To explain why, it's worth digging deeper than the obvious ways in which the season broke ground: its wild shifts in mood and style, its avant-garde editing and effects, the atom bomb of an hour that was Episode Eight. Crucial to the show's success was Lynch and Frost's insistence that it wasn't a TV show at all, but a film. This isn't just about treating the season as "one film broken into 18 parts," as Lynch put it, though that's a welcome rejoinder to the voguish notion that any showrunner who thinks of their series in these terms is a pretentious doofus. Good television, like good cinema, can be made in any number of ways; Twin Peaks Season Three will become a textbook example of how a truly movie-like approach can pay off.

But just as importantly, this 18-part movie/series/whatsit fits beautifully in Lynch's overall filmography. Indeed, the more of his work you've seen, the better equipped you'll be to handle what he's throwing at you here. Particularly in its final episodes, The Returnrelies on a recursive, Möbius-strip structure, in which events echo and loop rather than proceed in straightforward fashion; these repetitions and reflections are distorted and gap-ridden enough, however, to keep the pattern intoxicatingly opaque. Not counting the aptly titled The Straight Story (a rare case in which Lynch worked from a screenplay he himself had no hand in writing), all of the director's post-Peaks prequel films – Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire – are constructed in this funhouse fashion. He and Frost (and, to their eternal credit, Showtime) either trusted that their television audience would be as willing and able to keep up as the arthouse crowd, or simply did not care.

A side note here: It feels goofy to praise David Lynch for not participating in the usual back-and-forth between showrunner and viewer about the need for answers, closure and a finale that "sticks the landing," which the conclusions of The Sopranos and Lost have rendered a seemingly permanent part of the TV discourse. (It's like giving Stanley Kubrick a shoutout for resisting the temptation to create the Kubrick Cinematic Universe.) Still, even if this wasn't on the filmmaker's mind, as seems likely, it certainly was on ours. How refreshing to watch a show wholly alien to the debates that consumed the final seasons of even the most truly wonderful dramas, from Mad Men to The Leftovers. And how cool to see a series so gloriously unsuited to the era TV takes, too. After "This is the water and this is the well," didn't every article you came across with a title like "Lucy Brennan Proves David Lynch Has a Receptionist Problem" or "Dr. Jacoby's Spray-Painted Shit Shovels Would Work Much Better Using the Netflix Release Model" feel … a little small? Like, even smaller than usual?

To backtrack a bit ("What year is it?"), The Straight Story may be the anomaly in Lynch's past quarter-century of work, in terms of narrative flow, tone and his usual interest in horror and sex. Yet in a roundabout way it too provides a key to understanding what made Twin PeaksSeason Three so strong. Its story of an elderly farmer who travels by tractor on a multi-state odyssey to reconnect with his dying brother shares with several Lynch-pins with the series, namely a love of the road, western America's scenic beauty and Harry Dean Stanton.

Most importantly, the film is about aging, and the vast gulfs of space and time we don't realize we've traveled until circumstances force us to confront them. That description fits The Return like a magic ring. Both in the story and behind the scenes, the people of Twin Peaks have grown old; the men in particular, from Bobby Briggs to Deputy Hawk to Big Ed Hurley, have grayed and weathered like stone. And the litany of cast members who died between then and now is long and heartbreaking: Miguel Ferrer, Catherine E. Coulson, Warren Frost, Michael Parks, Frances Bay, Don S. Davis, Jack Nance, Frank Silva and, of course, David Bowie. (The Thin White Duke would probably be delighted to discover his character Philip Jeffries spending eternity as a gigantic steampunk teapot.)

And as much as the Black Lodge itself, aging is the source of so much of Twin Peaks' power and pain. It's not just the 25-year gap that both the audience and Agent Cooper endured. Shelly Briggs watches her daughter Becky fall prey to an abusive husband just as she did as a teenager – while she herself has unwittingly fallen back into a pattern of attraction to "bad boys" with her own new boyfriend, a mysterious and malevolent drug dealer. The Log Lady is dying of cancer, just like Sheriff Harry S. Truman, stranded offscreen as the saga moves on without him. Audrey Horne is trapped, frightened and alone, in a limbo we may never learn the truth about; she was likely raped by the doppelganger of the man she saw as a hero. Coop himself is doomed to repeat his pattern of almost but not quite saving the day, supremely confident until the very moment he realizes he's blown it again.

Even as an older, living woman, Laura Palmer is forever linked to the house of horrors where she grew up. And her mother Sarah … well, God only knows what's been eating away at her (or through her) all those years. Even America itself is still paying for the sins unleashed by the bomb, itself just the most symbolically resonant manifestation of the country's power to destroy. Sure, Big Ed Hurley may have gotten his happy ending with Norma Jennings, but his forlorn face several episodes earlier as he contemplates the wreck of his life could well be the face of the whole season.

Twin Peaks: The Return was a dazzling work of filmmaking. But unlike its jittering cameras, flashing lights, billowing smoke and ambient whooshing and whirring, its emotional foundations were rock solid. We may marvel at the cosmos Lynch and Frost created – a universe of vast purple oceans, towering metal fortresses, billowing red curtains and infinite fields of stars. We may spend another 25 years attempting to puzzle out Audrey's location, the glass box's bankroller, the true identity of "Judy" and what, exactly, became of the girl with the bug in her mouth. But there's nothing ethereal or mysterious about abuse, trauma and the irresistible death-march of time. That part of Twin Peaks, the part that counts most, is as clear as your reflection in the mirror.

link (TP)

#Twin Peaks #Rolling Stone #David Lynch #Mark Frost #Kyle MacLachlan #Sheryl Lee

24 notes · View notes

dweemeister · 6 years

Photo

Ready Player One (2018)

On a recent episode of CBS Sunday Morning, author Ernest Cline attributed his debut novel’s success as, “a testament to what happens if you be free about what you love and why you love it.” That novel, filled with 1970s and 1980s pop culture, is Ready Player One, now directed by Steven Spielberg (who, arguably, defined cinema in those decades), co-adapted to the screen by Cline and Zak Penn, and retaining the ideas Cline sought to express. After a run of topical dramas, this is Spielberg’s first legitimately “fun movie” since 2011′s The Adventures of Tintin (as much as I liked 2016′s The BFG, it is tonally scattered). Jaws (1975) and Jurassic Park (1993) scared the pants off of sensitive viewers; E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) and Hook (1991) reached into childhood fears amid the entertainment. But of all of Spielberg’s “fun movies”, Ready Player One is the only one that is pure spectacle. Its nostalgia there for show, almost never in service of whatever themes the film happens to stumble upon. This pure spectacle is a fleeting, flashy thrill and little else – take the jump, because despite its weaknesses, there is no film analogous to Ready Player One.

It is 2045 and humans are addicted to the virtual reality world of OASIS. OASIS was designed by co-creators James Halliday (Mark Rylance; whose eccentric character has been deceased for some time) and Ogden Morrow (Simon Pegg; who left the developing company before OASIS became so widespread), who hid an Easter egg requiring three keys within his game. The Easter egg promises the winner ownership of OASIS. Living in a multi-tiered trailer park in Columbus, Ohio, is the orphaned Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), whose OASIS username is Parzival. He befriends one of the game’s best players, Art3mis (the avatar of Samantha Cook, played by Olivia Cooke) on his way to acquire Halliday’s three keys and unearth the game’s deepest secrets that millions have tried to solve. Faster than Wade can tell Samantha, “I wanna be your lover”, she rebuffs his requests to meet her in person because she fears that he will not like the real her.

Everybody wants to rule the world. One corporation, Innovative Online Industries (IOI), has essentially dedicated itself thousands of employees to find the Easter egg to gain full control of OASIS. The CEO of IOI is Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), and he finds himself in conflict with Tye’s friends – who name themselves the “High Five”. The High Five will also include (actual name/username): Helen/Aech (Lena Waithe), Zhou/Sho (Philip Zhao), and Toshiro/Daito (Win Morisaki).

One could spend much longer explaining the world inhabited by the characters, but Ready Player One is up to the challenge of excessive exposition as Penn and Cline’s screenplay spend about twenty minutes with Wade explaining what has happened to 2045 Earth (or, at least, Columbus). The screenplay also refuses to grasp any of the implications of the dystopia it presents – having not read the book, my hope is that Cline does examine those social aspects more. How did the widespread disillusionment in real life that, apparently, the whole world (?) is connected to OASIS come to be? Aren’t humans, even those who believe they have no power, more resilient than that? How can an enormous conglomerate be able to have what basically is a paramilitary that engages in domestic terrorism (police forces exist, if the ending is any indication, so do cops work one day a week or something in 2045)? Given trends in gaming today, are there microtransactions or something similar in the OASIS that creates a class structure replicating itself in the real world and allowing for certain in-game or real-life advantages by class?

Maybe it is just my imagination running away with me, but why the hell are all the best players in the world living in Columbus, Ohio?

One way or another, enduring science-fiction asks questions of its characters’ humanity and dares the reader or viewer to understand, question, and improve their own being. In cinema, Metropolis (1927, Germany) comments on class power struggles and how society is impoverished with a permanent working class; Planet of the Apes (1968) is a sharp allegory of religious and scientific tensions; A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) asks if a synthetic being programmed to simulate love can feel love. Ready Player One’s stake in cinema’s science-fiction tradition is not as weighty as those films, but there are pressing thoughts to be gleamed from the film.

The movie presents fandom that is corporatized, excessive, or taken in moderation, as well as providing an environment of pandemic video game addiction (now a disorder recognized by the World Health Organization). On corporatized fandom, Ready Player One presents audiences with IOI – a combination of video gaming as sweatshop work and individuals whose job it is to know everything about twentieth-century cinematic (I might be a decent candidate in this department but turning it into soul-sucking work is too depressing to think about), comic book, and video gaming culture. Something like IOI is laughable now, but the film stands on it, so perhaps we will not be laughing if something resembling it emerges in the decades to come.

Regarding excessive fan culture, one could argue the whole conception of OASIS is a monument to one man’s uninhibited obsession with elements of pop culture. Ready Player One – at least in this adaptation – is unwilling to examine how damaging one’s fandom, when taken to extremes, can be (the throwaway epilogue in the film’s final frames is not enough). Outside of Halliday’s story, how does one’s fixation on video games or movies or other art forms make actual life easier or more difficult? The epilogue’s reveal that Wade and Samantha no longer log into the OASIS every day makes one wonder how prepared they are to go without a virtual reality where they have essentially lived their lives. Perhaps that latter point belongs to a different movie or the fan-fiction writing corners of the Internet, but the fact that Ready Player One only superficially touches upon these points adds little else to this reference-heavy movie.

What non-readers of Ready Player One may have noticed is the presence of so many popular movie and video game characters. One begins to wonder about how much money was spent on licensing. Many detractors of Ready Player One, who aren’t gonna take it, have commented on how some of the references in the film are shallow, disrespectful of the original source materials. These critiques are mostly beside the point. Take the Iron Giant. The Iron Giant appears as Helen’s avatar in the climactic battle as she/it proceeds to punch the stuffing out of IOI’s mechanized tanks and Mechagodzilla. This goes against the character’s essence: that it will only use violence in cases of self-defense. True, but this is an Internet avatar and the OASIS not necessarily a strict role-playing environment.

Nevertheless, one’s personal sense of fandom always has some degree of appropriation. Understanding a person’s passions and the origin of those passions make for incredible emotional connections that can barely be described. Where Cline’s passion for largely 1970s and ‘80s popular culture is apparent, what about his characters? Halliday is a human compendium of knowledge and trivia of that period – its movies, television, video games, anime, comics, and more. But why does he love those things implemented into OASIS? Why is Wade’s ride a DeLorean? Is it because he identifies with Marty McFly from the Back to the Future series? Artemis has the motorcycle from Katsuhiro Otomo’s Akira (1988)? Is she an enormous anime fan, and is Akira a personal favorite anime film? Spielberg, Penn, and Cline need not have crafted indulgent soliloquies for every reference, but the audience is bereft of understanding why these references from these past works appeal so much to Ready Player One’s characters. It does not help that the romantic kindling between Sheridan and Cooke (as Samantha, she is very much ashamed of a sizable birthmark… thankfully, not to Phantom of the Opera levels of shame) is iffy at best.

The BFG was the motion-capture dress rehearsal for Ready Player One. Almost everything that occurs in the OASIS was shot using motion capture – a process that is similar to regular film shooting for actors but is more demanding for visual effects teams. The results produced by these hundreds of visual effects artists for Ready Player One are commendable, but Spielberg regulars cinematographer Janusz Kamiński and editors Michael Kahn and Sarah Broshar (not a Spielberg regular, but co-editor of 2017′s The Post) are more at ease in the non-OASIS scenes in how they use lighting to evoke the decrepit nature of Wade’s neighborhood. Production designer Adam Stockhausen (Wes Anderson’s primary production designer since 2012′s Moonrise Kingdom) makes these towers of trailer homes feel lived in and not soundstage-bound or CGI’d into the film. Contrast that with the sleek, ultramodern headquarters of IOI – which somewhat recalls the aesthetic in the Tron series.

This is only the fourth Spielberg movie not to be scored by John Williams, who withdrew from the project after scheduling conflicts with his work for Dear Basketball (2017), The Post, and Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017). So in comes Alan Silvestri (1994′s Forrest Gump, 2012′s The Avengers), who worked with Spielberg when the latter served as producer on Back to the Future. Outside of the musical quotations Silvestri uses from Back to the Future and other films, his score successfully recalls the orchestral adventurism of 1980s action movies. Several are interspersed throughout, with the most commonly-used motifs – for Wade and Halliday, respectively – incorporated into the main titles. Lushly orchestrated and allowing strings, woodwinds, and brass jumping into the action-packed or romantic frays of the plot, Silvestri’s score is weakest when the cameras are inside IOI’s headquarters and the electronic elements reminiscent of a Marvel movie do little even to increase suspense.

Separate from the score is a ‘70s/’80s soundtrack that many viewers will be familiar with. A dance sequence using the Bee Gees’ “Stayin’ Alive” echoes John Travolta’s moves in Saturday Night Fever (1977). Many other songs are included in the soundtrack, but they have already been name-dropped in this review to prove a larger point (ahem).

Having already criticized Ready Player One for its insubstantial callbacks, I may be guilty of shameful hypocrisy because of this paragraph. One musical omission that defined Ready Player One’s marketing campaign should have been implemented into the film. “Pure Imagination”, composed by Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newley for Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971), played an important part in setting the tone for Ready Player One’s trailers. Whether integrated into the score or soundtrack, “Pure Imagination” is a widely-known song even to audiences who consider older movies not worth their time. I see Willy Wonka and Ready Player One as distant cousins: a young character embarks on an exhilarating, occasionally dangerous, adventure and – through their actions – will become the loving custodian of another person’s fantastical dream. Such a decision would not be unprecedented in a Spielberg movie. In Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), John Williams used “When You Wish Upon a Star” from Pinocchio (1940) in his score to underline the interstellar optimism and childlike wonderment in both films. Ready Player One never has a moment like that – where the film can make sense and explore the emotions behind what pieces of popular culture enabled the creation of the OASIS.

If this review seems like poop in the punch bowl, that is not my intention. As a self-identified nerd who shuns nerd culture, I enjoyed Ready Player One and got a kick out of identifying the movie and video game characters my eyes could catch in time – I had fun, and that is important in watching movies. If Ready Player One is nothing more than a celebration of how our popular culture tastes makes us who we are, then that is fine. Yet it never asks where such love comes from because that is the most exciting thing we can ever learn about another person.

My rating: 7/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found here.

#Ready Player One #Steven Spielberg #Tye Sheridan #Olivia Cooke #Ben Mendelsohn #Lena Waithe #T.J. Miller #Simon Pegg #Mark Rylance #Philip Zhao #Tin Morisaki #Hannah John Kamen #Zak Penn #Ernest Cline #Janusz Kaminski #Michael Kahn #Sarah Broshar #Alan Silvestri #My Movie Odyssey

1 note · View note