cinemastory's topics - tribe.net

Avoiding the Hero's Journey

markallen — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:24:41 GMT

I'm working on a new project right now and I'm finding myself avidly trying to AVOID "The hero's journey."

I feel that the hero's journey in it's very specific Campbell based form has maybe overinfluenced our movie culture to the point that most films have become a cliche - even well intentioned movies. I have been in some discussions lately about why - despite the beautiful imagery in cinema now - the overall feeling is becoming more and more bereft of emotion. Some blamed it on the visual effects - but I think that' not going deep enough.

I think the studio generation has been brought up in an era where cinema has been figured out. And if they are older than I am, perhaps they've simply joined the bandwagon.

Once something is figured out - you can manufacture it. "I really feel that we need a little more punch at the opening and by page 10 or so I really think we need to have established our...." Do these people really feel these things or does this feeling come from the assumption that these things are right?

I suspect the awards thrown upon Crash are an awareness of this. There are examples all the time of movies that break the classic rules and truly stand out. There are examples of breaking them and failing miserably.

So what is it when they work?

Each scene has a dynamic fulcrum and all these scenes are unified by a common theme or thread. Unlike the rigid Unities by Aristotle, perhaps cinema unity simply need a uniting idea (Crash = Racism) or uniting event, person, theory, problem. but we don't watch movies, I believe, as much as we watch a series of moments.

You can make the heros journey, but if you're successful, it's not because of that formula, it's because of the ingredients - the scenes with the fulcrum were compelling. If you just fill out the "hero's journey" form - the story is going to feel flat.

What do you think?

posted in cinemastory - 3 replies

Your tricks

markallen — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:05:49 GMT

A television writer friend of mine shared with me a few beat sheets for different shows and it made me realize how great these tricks can be for getting an idea on paper. As an exercicse I wrote a few simple fill in the blanks of my own... for example for a kids movie:

The kid is trying to ____________
when he discovers ____________
so he must ______________
which causes him to _____________
while he _______________

(Example: the kid is trying to earn money for a bike when he discovers an abused dog which he must save which causes him to challenge his concept of morality while he figures out a solution to save the dog.)

After doing a few of these, I realized that I could expand this concept into different forms. A custom form for a unique project. This allows the end result not to feel like a forumula - but instead have it's own arc and purpose.

That said, the simple fill in the blank I provided could obviously write an original movie - but I found the idea of making a custom format for a project is a fresh way to approach.

What do you think?

posted in cinemastory - 4 replies

New Story Tribe

Margot — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:49:24 GMT

Please consider joining The Art of the Story, all about appreciating and creating myth, legend, and fiction.
http://tribes.tribe.net/storywriting

posted in cinemastory - 0 replies

Stealing Fire From the Gods

markallen — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:22:05 GMT

I just finished reading James Bonnet's "Stealing Fire From the Gods."

The book is 20 years of his personal research into storytelling and is one of the most unique screenwriting books I've ever read because it's goal is to provide a totally different approach to writing rather than the typical "have a plot twist ever 30 pages" method.

His approach really goes beyond the nuts and bolts and into the significance of storytelling from a much deeper level suggesting even that all our mythologies are inherent within us which is why since the beginning of storytelling, so many similar archetypes emerge. And this also leads to a reason why storytelling is so valuable.

He references Jungian theory and Campbell's work freely, but still provides his own very specific methodology. It is not light reading.

posted in cinemastory - 2 replies

Swinging Over The River

markallen — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 03:37:02 GMT

Here is sort of an abstract train of thought from today.

If you watch a man swing over a river on a vine - you're watching a home movie. I've seen home videos of kids doing this.

If someone mentions that the vine isn't secure and maybe even gets a shot of how fragile that vine really is, it definitely adds suspense to the moment.

If the river happens to have have a bunch of sharp rocks sticking out and to fail would not be to get wet, but to DIE, then the stakes are higher even and you're really curious if this guy will make it. It has consequences.

But you might think he is an idiot for doing it. You might make fun of him for doing it and not respect him. Why is he bothering?

If you happen to know a Tiger is chasing him. Then you know he MUST jump over the river somehow - and eventhough he MIGHT die by falling and the vine MIGHT break - it's his only chance for survival.

But what if you happen to know something that he doesn't know - what if you know that an army of angry natives are hiding across the river ready to capture him and cook him up into a stew! Well, then you are captured because you have to not only know IF he gets across, but what happens when he gets there.

Very 30's serial style enhancement of a basic idea. Something which could have been a home movie became an action adventure film. But these same ideas could be applied to any idea.

The basic elements were: The basic goal + the danger of the goal + the consequence of failure + a strong motivator + the unexpected disaster awaiting success.

Anyone want to riff one off for fun?

posted in cinemastory - 0 replies

Establishing Characters Quickly

markallen — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:42:12 GMT

On another forum someone asked an interesting question and I am going to share the question and my answer:

- - - -QUESTION

How do you make the audience care about characters in a short space of time? Any tips?

Conversation? Put them in funny situations so the audience endear to them quickly? Make them vulnerable?

I'm just outling a horror script. Four characters have to die within the first ten pages. I want the audience to care about them (at least just a bit) first. Otherwise what's the point?

- - - - ANSWER

I think absolutely characters having goals is the way to go (as rumely28 indicated). However, I would avoid doing it in dialogue because then it feels a little forced.

We like people to have goals because we understand that. Everyone wants something. Another thing everyone wants is to be loved and cared aboute. You know... think of a young couple, early in a relationship - you might hate them as they look shyly but lovingly in eachothers' eyes for just a glance, but you also envy them. They have something you want (just like a superhero and you like superheros because they are what you want to be.)

(Despite the name I'm about to mention, I'm not about to go political on the forum, fear not...) Michael Moore has a great comment in his book "Dude, Where's my Country?" and it is about the concept of why we do not hate rich people and why we like making sure people can become filthy rich. Because we all think that we are going to have that chance someday. This is why super rich or famous people get away with things that normal people won't. Because while we don't necessarily identify with them in reality - we identify with them in fantasy - and that is just as powerful as proven in life and in movies.

So to sum up - give them something to live for that we respect or desire - but do it in essence and action, not in dialogue.

posted in cinemastory - 1 reply

a website tip

markallen — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:47:09 GMT

There are a couple FREE sites I like. I'm sharing them now.

www.wordplayer.com - read the articles - all of them.

www.scriptsecrets.net - I've never mentioned this one before, but I really respect and enjoy this writer's nuts and bolts attitude to writing teaching. No attitude - just function. Here's a tip for you. If you go to the tip of the day.... all you need to do is change the number from example 156 to... 155 and you get a new tip.... LOTS of tips to be read there. Days of reading. The forums are quiet - the tips are where it is at. I liked them so much I bought the Writing a Thriller Audio CDs. Haven't listend to them yet.

posted in cinemastory - 0 replies

More "So Then", Less "And Then"

markallen — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:49:24 GMT

Think about it.

posted in cinemastory - 5 replies

The Story Game 2

markallen — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:55:04 GMT

First of all - do not read the other story game as it will make this game less effective.

This is how the game works: I am just going to share a story with you. However, I am only going to tell it by answering yes or no to questions asked to me. I will not be using any visuals to start the game this time - we're starting with a blank page.

So - ask away - but remember to form your questions in a way that I can asnwer yes or no. And, remember to find the story - where it starts, what happens and how it ends.

Good Luck!

Here we go.

posted in cinemastory - 66 replies

The Arc

markallen — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:30:31 GMT

Have you ever noticed that when someone tells you an interesting story it always tends to be a moment of paradigm shift?

It seems people have these moments that change their lives - and sometimes a series of them.

It is strange then how much emphasis is put on the concept of "character arc." If you've ever sat in a meeting with producers or investors, you've most certainly heard the "character arc" concept bandied about almost as much as names of famous people.

But I believe this term "character arc" is quite misleading - it helps promote the concept that leads to a really bad and incredibly common young writer mistake of making things happen again and again (usually 3 times) in order to establish that this is the person's life. "His boss pushes him around - then his son pushes him around - then his dog forces him out of the chair." In reality - a perfect scene with the boss would have established this and no more scenes would be necessary. That was slightly tangential, but put there to emphasize the problem that "arc'ing" leads to a subtraction of drama by spreading the change out over many scenes.

I'm not trying to make rules about writing, but I am putting forth this idea:

Drama happens in the moment - if you can charge you scene to a dramatic moment of change - you will have a lot more mileage out of that than creating that change over time as an "arc" implies.

I am sure many brilliant writers are using arc's - but I betcha they don't think about them the way I hear them talked about 95% of the time. They probably think of them as key paradigm shifts, yet call them arcs to fit in.

Thoughts?

posted in cinemastory - 12 replies

Recommended Book

markallen — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:19:31 GMT

I just read a book I would like to recommend because I'd never heard of it and just finished reading it.

I theory it's a directing book. And I would say it is one of the few directing books which really address an important issue about what directing movies is REALLY about. That said, it's written by a writer and you can't hide that much of his thoughts apply equally well to writing.

"On Directing Film" by David Mammet

It's an easy and interesting read. It is not as general as the required reading of Robert McKee's "Story" and not a mixture of writing and business thoughts as the important and entertaining "Adventures in the Screen Trade" by William Goldman and not technical about writing like a ton of other books. It's about telling stories in movie form and how that plays and everyone who is a writer or director should read it.

It also plays directly into what this tribe is about. Not just telling stories, but telling stories in movie form.

posted in cinemastory - 2 replies

Why this tribe exists

markallen — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:16:08 GMT

When I signed up for tribe I joined a bunch of filmmaking groups and I would casually browse or participate in discussions, but most of them were about the tools or industry.

Then I would get back to working on my own projects and my mind was on the tools and infrastructure of the business. I wanted a tribe that would put my mind onto what making movies is really about - telling stories.

And by telling stories, I don't mean creating plot points and I don't even think the stories need to be linear. I think Koyaaniquatsi - a non-narrative semi-documentary - no spoken language - movie had more story than most studio pictures.

So, I've started this tribe in hopes of creating a haven for filmmakers like myself who want to share discussions about the very core of filmmaking - telling the story.

posted in cinemastory - 7 replies

tools for writing

markallen — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:51:51 GMT

I've been writing a ton lately and I thought I would jot down some of the more useful tools I've been using and if anyone else was so inspired, they too could offer some tools.

No particular order.

→ This isn't a rule, but it is more of a guideline. Ever notice when you are telling someone (or a group of people) a story how you can really feel their adrenaline level? Actors who do theater thrive on that. But I'm constantly thinking about that adrenaline level while I'm writing - if I think I were telling a friend this story and the adrenaline level sinks - I know I've lost the drama. This doesn't mean there have to be explosion and sword fights - not that kind of adrenaline. Maybe call it "interest level" but that's too polite. But even in a "Terms of Endearmnet" movie you are constantly looking for keeping that adrenaline (energy/tension/excitement) up. When it's up, there is drama. And, yes, you can have sword fights and explosions with zero adrenaline - it happens all the time.

→ Related to what I just said - I'm always tring to figure out what the dilemma is right now. If there is no dilemma - it's probably not a movie moment. But there can be dilemma in almost everything, you need to find it. (To say, *I* need to find it.) It's not the only way to boost the adrenaline...

→ After the storygame I talked about the idea of going where you don't want to go. This is a fantastic adernaline kicker because in most situations the resolution is what we're waiting for - we don't like dissonance. Unfortunately we don't like it so much, we often don't want to write it. But the secret it. WE LOVE IT. We love it when it is safe and on the screen. Whenever you realize that your about to make the predictable choice - the comfortable choice - what if you do the exact opposite, or make some other justifiable but unexpected choice? Yes, it might derail your story - but who cares if it is interesting! I've read hundreds of scripts (was a reader many many years ago) and I would so long for someone to please please please shock me. A good surprise and I'm yours for the next 10 pages. You've bought my interest. It's a good thing when you are in need of buying a little time to set somthing up and the dilemma might not have the power just yet.

→ "A bunch of stuff happens." The other day I was asked to write the synopsis for what might be the sequel to a very very big studio movie. It was an odd request because they already knew what they wanted to happen - but they were stuck and on a deadline and one of the team members had worked with me and knew I was a quick writer - so I got the call - they needed it by the next morning. So basically - what I knew was that all these things were going to happen. And they're good storytellers so the things had some relevance, but in some ways they were just things. What was a surprise for me was that once I had all these elements - It was relatively easy to just place them in a logical order and once you had them in order - the necessary links just popped up. And suddenly, there was an entire story. Reminds me of the David Lynch quote (who was quoting his professor who said) "A movie is 70 things that happen." In fact, Raiders of the Lost Ark which I think is a successful pop movie was really created from a variety of ideas that Spielberg and Lucas (and Kasden) thought up and talked about one day - then Kasden went off to write it. Now, Kasden is blazingly talented and thus you have a very strong film where I'm afraid the sequel was not so glorious though came from the same method. So there is definitely a way to make "a bunch of things that happen" more interesting - more meaningful. A strong dilemma, a decent point of view on the material - these help elevate it. But my whole point here is really my personal revelation of what a great tool this is when you are just trying to get that first draft out. You have a passion for some idea - just write down all the things... get enough of them and then start ordering them.

i'm sure I could go on, but I'd like to know... what are some tools the other members here like to use?

posted in cinemastory - 4 replies

Story verses Plot

markallen — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:10:11 GMT

Story and plot are two different things. Sometimes you see someone when you leave your apartment or mansion and in their face, there is a story. Or someone does something - a single moment, a single action and it's filled with story. Just today I was in the grocery store and heard a woman on the phone as I passed (and even after I passed - why do people talk so loudly on cell phones?) - She was speaking pretty intensely to the other person - "No - tell me exactly what happens, I gotta get this straight for when I reem her later."

And the strange thing was - I could tell she was loving every minute of it. Sure, she seemed generally upset, and she was certainly boiling, but she was right where she wanted to be. Yeah, later she'll complain to someone else that she's got nothing but trouble - but that is where she lives. That's HER STORY. All in that one beat.

When you're looking at classic paintings if you're evaluating them for how close they match reality - you're probably going to be pretty unimpressed. If you look at them for how they capture the moment - think "A Woman Pouring Milk" by Carravaggio - they are trying to capture the person's story in one frame.

Now, if you ask your friend what they did today and they tell you, "I went to the bank, I went to the hardware store, I bought a screwdriver, I ate at Baja Fresh." - They're just giving you the plot. Informative, but not terribly interesting or dramatic.

posted in cinemastory - 21 replies

Story Game

markallen — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 08:49:49 GMT

I'm hosting this game in another tribe and i thought I should host it here as well with a different story since we have so many creative thinkers here.

Here's the idea. I have a story, but I want you all to guess it by asking yes or no questions. You might start out with a character and then move to his or her or their actions and basically try to tell the story by asking questions. I will answer yes or no and keep a tally of the answers by doing a summary. You may ask more than one question at a time. Once an element is established, try to build on that element. Don't bother with things like guessing people's names or such.

When the entire story has been revealed, you will understand why this exercise is valuable.

And have fun... and just to kick things off - here is a photograph for inspiration:

http://losangeles.tribe.net/template/pub%2CViewPhoto.vm/context/person?page=1&currentoffset=4&parentid=b385aa1a-4e22-4a65-a491-dd021a82ff02&sortby&rows&r=10025

For those of you know where this is from, let me say - that the PSA is not the story - this is just something which reflects the mood of the world we are in for the story (i.e. the story is not about ants) and this is not a "snapshot" from the story.

Let the story begin!

posted in cinemastory - 82 replies

What's a perfect movie moment?

markallen — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:24:01 GMT

Share a moment in a film where in one beat the a greater understanding of the story and or character came into being.

posted in cinemastory - 3 replies

The Problem with Goals

markallen — Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:20:33 GMT

I have no idea where this rant will go - but it's going to be ranty - I can tell already. I am fixated this moment on why so many movies lately have been boring me to hell with their "stories."

Just watched the recent foregin film Avalon. I was lured to view it after seeing some snapshots online which were quite intriguing.

The movie, however, is anything but intriguing and was one of the best examples of poor story work I've seen in a long time.

This film is all mise en scene and not much else. This is why.

The entire plot is based on this pattern.

"You need to disable the big gun."

The character then disables the big gun.

"Good, now you need to kill the ghost girl."

Okay - killed the ghost girl.

Etcetera.

I think the main problem in many action movies (and many movies in general for that matter) is that the writers (or producers for that matter) are under the impression that the more goals - the better - the more headlines - the bigger and better the movie. And if there aren't a lot of them, just make them big.

But the movie is the part that occurs between the headlines. (Replace "movie" with "story" and "headlines" with "plot points" and we'll connect to an earlier discussion.)

The movie happens between the goal and completion of that goal.

If you're feeling argumentative, you're proably thinking "Okay - but then you just make up a whole bunch of new plot point to satisfy that goal."

Well, that's just it - the inclination is to break each goal into a series of headlines and then our new movie is just as empty as the larger movie, it has become it's own string of goals: "Sneak into Camp, take out the snipers on the hill, sneak behind the barricks... etc."

Again - an empty theatrical experience.

So - what if the motivations for taking out the gun were explored? What if the characters and their humanity was taken seriously and you were able to connect to these people on a deep level?

Well - that's good stuff! But the best way to show a character and their motivations is by watching them respond to situations - not having them monologue on about their childhood - and right now our movie is so boring that we don't care about it - and if we don't care about it, we won't care about the characters either - so compelling or noble motivations and character history is not solving our problem.

So this is the heart of my thinking on the subject.

The goal - disable the gun. Then a series of subgoals becomes obvious - sneak into the camp - take out the sniper - get behind the barricks - etc.

So we sneak into camp, we're almost spotted, we have to duck into a tent to hide from a guard. As the guards pass something catches our eye. An open box of photos. We go to the box, and take the top photo. We're confused. It's a photo of ourselves! This is a personally family photo of the lead character. Paradigm shift.

(Okay - I'm not saying this is a great scene - I'm just winging this as I rant) - but suddenly, I believe, the audience is more interested because the unexpected happened. Suddenly everything is different. It could be one of a thousand things, but these paradigm shifts are the only way to keep your audience interested.

Here's a thought on how to incorporate them. If you know your basic story and what happens. Why not set up your story in the beginning to be something else?

What about doing that with every scene?

The audience is always formulating a plan that leads to the end of the movie. It's part of the movie going experience, there is always expectation.

What is not happening lately in our big blockbusters is the altering of that expectation.

Obviously using unique nonlinear story devices like Pulp Fiction or Memento can do that - but you can do that in a Linear movie as well.

Compare Harry Potter 1 with Harry Potter 3 and you will see the same sets, characters, and "stuff" - but in the latter film, you're actually curious. Why? Well - you don't really know what to expect.

So - make the audience THINK the goal is to sneak into the camp, take out the sniper, get behind the bunker - and then throw them for a curve ball. If you know where you movie REALLY has to go, why not set it up to go somewhere else? You can reverse engineer your twists. Your real movie might really have some totally different plot with only the first step (sneak into camp) in common.

If people can imagine thousands of potential moves ahead in chess, certainly writers could imagine at least a couple more goals and fake us out a little bit in our expectation.

Well - I think that's enough of a rant on that.

posted in cinemastory - 6 replies

After Life (Wandafuru Raifu)

KimHS — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:25:05 GMT

Has anyone seen it?

It is one of my favourite movies, with a very simple yet deeply compelling central dilemma.

Would like to discuss it with someone but I only know *one* other person who's seen it...

cheers,

Kim

posted in cinemastory - 0 replies

Character leading to story

markallen — Fri, 04 Mar 2005 02:42:43 GMT

I'm moving a topic in another thread here.

With the idea that interesting characters make interesting choices and interesting choices might lead to an interesting story (and plot)....

...let's ask this question...

What makes an interesting character?

I think quirks are a little risky because so often they are really abstract and mean nothing. I remember reading lots of scripts that would give characters some meaningless little habbit thinking it identified it, but it meant nothing.

What works is the fact that Napoleon Dynamite insists that girls like guys with Skillz - especially in the ninja sense. The like that he rented a dance video and learned the moves and then saved his friends presidential campaign by strutting some 80's moves at the assembly.

I think the ORIGINAL Meet the Parents had some of this charm. Gay Focker. He was a guy who you can identify with - he just keeps doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. His tragic flaw is over thinking - being overly insecure - being unable to let things ride.

What are some other examples?

posted in cinemastory - 4 replies

the "great movie idea"

markallen — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:17:47 GMT

I'll just put a warning out right now that it's late and I might be philosophizing past my bed time, but something's on my mind and I'm open to any and all thoughts.

How many times has someone told you they have a "great idea for a movie" and then (after making you promise you won't steal the idea and making sure that no one else is within earshot) they tell you something like "Club Bouncers - think about it - these dudes have all the ins - they're like the demigods of nightlife." And you think "Demigods of nightlife" - well that is interesting..... but where is the story?

Lejos Egri in "The art of Dramatic Writing" would love this - he is definitely of the mind that all action comes from character. But what do you tell someone about this?

I've been thinking about this today because I had one such pitch given to me recently and I think maybe the answer is that if you are basing your movie on a character (or several characters) you have to build them so deeply and to such a point that they finally want something compelling and the obstacle is clear. Or you need to build several characters enough to the point that there is a moment of atomic instability between them and there is no choice but a breakdown.

So in the first case you'd say "the bouncer wants to be recognized for his poetry" (trying to think of something unexpected here) "And he wants to be recognized a philisophical type, which, sadly, he is not." "But what he does know is.... etc." Maybe he's got a photographic memory etc.

The second case would be something like "There is Harold and Bud - two bouncers at the Visavie club in Beverly Hills." And then build these two up until the point that something between them conflicts - they fall for the same girl, they both want a promotion, whatever...

But these points is where "a great movie idea" is born. No matter what Mr. Egri says... the movie itself is in the latter part - not in the character.

Now, as you can tell, I have no great movie idea about bouncers, but when someone does feel like there is "a great movie idea" about something - I think maybe what is happening is that they really do have a great movie idea - but what needs to happen is that instinct needs to be nurtured and the movie needs to be brought out of them.

posted in cinemastory - 6 replies

Why am I the only one posting topics?

markallen — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:44:33 GMT

uh... yeah.

posted in cinemastory - 4 replies

People in conversation (Sixth Sense Spoilers)

markallen — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:01:08 GMT

I'm about to expose all the secrets of the movie "The Sixth Sense" - please go and watch it if you haven't and don't read this until you have.

Okay you were warned.

I was watching this movie again a few weeks ago and while I didn't really feel like I noticed too many subtleties I hadn't rememered the first time - there was one thing I was noticing which reminded me of a relatively common though probably underused acting and directing technique - the secret. And it made me realize how powerful this is for characters.

The scenes between Bruce Willis and the Boy - The boy has a secret - Bruce is dead. Only the boy knows this. But when you watch the film and YOU don't know this, you can sense this added intensity in the scene and it's riviting - because usually - people are like this - especially in dramatic situations.

Just something to ask yourself about your characters. What do they fear about eachother? How could they hurt eachother? People carry these fears with them. Quite often we, as writers, get lost in the idea of what people want from eachother. That's good too - but asking more questions can add more dynamics. What do we not want said? What do we wish would be said? What do we know about the other person that they don't know?

So when I was watching the Sixth Sense for a second time I was watching the scenes play out with the Boy and Bruce and was thinking how much intensity there was and that many more movies should have this sort of intensity. You see it now and then in good non supernatural movies as well - and it works.

posted in cinemastory - 1 reply

PRIMER

robtronic — Sun, 08 May 2005 00:26:34 GMT

so Mark, hope you don't mind if we move our Primer discussion from Indy Films to here. the topics we were touching on seem relevant to this tribe, and the ensuing back-and-forth seems better placed in this smaller virtual gathering.

(and for those just tuning in, we're discussing the uber low budget indie 'Primer', which i found completely off-putting, because the characters seemed superblah and the narrative twists were annoyingly difficult to unravel...)

anyway, mark last said: 'Back to you, Rob.... you're heart wasn't into it, you never felt involved, the characters seemed plain and thin...... but why why why?'

i don't know. did you feel involved? i think you were pretty right on with your comment that we needed to be spoonfed more. if i had been given a firmer grasp on what the hell was going on, i would have cared a lot more. there was something about the overall tone of the film, too, i think, a bleakness of color and image and emotion that just shut me out of the filmic world. bleakness can work, of course, but coupled with plain characters and an incomprehensible narrative flow, it was just a big bleak cardboard sandwich.

were the characters interesting to you? they didn't look, feel, or say anything particularly interesting. i wanted to know their secrets and their hopes and their fears more.

then again, when i thought about it, i realized that this type of character isn't necessarily a deal-breaker. 2001, for example, was populated with the same sort of plain and thin people, and that worked just fine....?

posted in cinemastory - 1 reply

Take the strange road

Brent — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:10:11 GMT

About two years ago I sat down to write a feature. It instantly created writers block. As much as the story was burning to be put in print I couldn't get going. I tried the Syd Field exercises to no avail. I studiously researched my characters, nothing. Finally I decided to write a short that had nothing to do with my story just to get in motion. I was having fun with it and before I knew it this little short became something I wanted to make. It had character archetypes that I cared about, scene's that wanted to on screen. It had a voice, mine. Furthermore, my other ideas started coming together as well. Not that this method is for everyone but I thought I would put it out here for the taking.

posted in cinemastory - 4 replies

Character Archetypes

Christopher — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 01:25:42 GMT

I recently developed some character archetypes. They are based on two assumptions, one of heart, and one of mind:

Heart: Is the character grateful for the gift of existence, or resentful of its limits?

Mind: Does the character know the Truth, or seek the truth.

Which creates my four archetypes:

Resentful Knower (Monster)
Resentful Seeker (Rogue)
Grateful Knower (Saint)
Grateful Seeker (Hero)

These characters contrast, and network, in some interesting ways. Does anybody else like to deal with archetypes? I find it helps me get beneath the superficial props of culture and ideology to bring in the deeper metaphysical conflicts between character types, which I can then bring into focus with specific symbols of culture that resonate the deeper differences. It also helps me understand why they respond differently to a similar stimulus.

Also, and maybe this belong in a different thread, knowing the base assumptions through which they view reality, I can trigger a shift in those assumptions with a designed stimulus, creating life altering “character movement”.

Does that make sense?

Christopher Sly

posted in cinemastory - 3 replies

Repeating Is not necessary

markallen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:54:50 GMT

I watched I, Robot the other day and was reminded about some of the awful writing I read as a reader and one of the major lessons I learned from it because I, too, was guilty of this up until that year.

If you want to explain something about someone. Do it in one, perfect moment - NOT a series of moments. New writers for some reason almost always believe in an unwritten rule that you have to show something happening three times before the audience gets it. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Show it once, perfectly - the audience will get it and you won't tredge your story down.

So the example - I, Robot - **SPOILERS*** We start with him chasing down a robot which we discover is a totally silly thing to do. DONE. but no.... Will Smith goes to express his distaste for robots in almost every scene - even crazy contrived mentions that make me not like him (like giving his idea for the commercial to the President of the US robot company). Enough already! We get it, he hates robots. It really dredges the story down and it makes us not like the character. Can you imagine any character who has to keep mentioning again and again one of their personality traits? I'm a vegetarian. I was a high school superstar football player. It becomes almost comical.

i will note that when we finally discover why he doesn't like robots - that is quite compelling. Kudos on that point to whichever writer did that. But shame on them for overstating their character.

posted in cinemastory - 1 reply