Thursday, November 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
"UP IN THE AIR" & Character Stakes.
After seeing and reading the screenplay for "UP IN THE AIR," I feel like musing a little on what I think this film does well: set up and pay off character stakes.
Stakes are essential to a story. I think a good defintion of "stakes" is: what does the protag risk to lose if he/she doesn't accomplish his/her goal(s)? What are the consequences of failure? Stakes make a story matter. They give it gravitas. High character stakes put our protag in grave emotional danger, which is key to getting the audience to root for him/her to change.
So, onto Ryan Bingham's character stakes in "UP IN THE AIR."
When we meet Ryan, he is living a burden-free life. Total independence. No strings, no commitments, no compromises, and most importantly: no personal relationships. Ryan believes his way of life is ideal. He actually gives a motivational speech telling people to NOT to commit to anyone. He charges people to basically tell them, "avoid the human race. Especially the ones who care about you. Don't love anyone but yourself." Ryan has convinced himself that he's happy, but we know he's not. We know what he's missing out on: human connections. The poster tagline even tips us off before we see the movie: "The story of a man ready to make a connection." (Although a more literal description would read, "the story of a man NOT ready to make a connection") Friendships, love, family: to varying degrees, we all value the connections we have to these people. But Ryan doesn't.
That's what Ryan risks to lose if he doesn't change: living the rest of his life alone, isolated, cut off from his family, with no chance at ever finding real love or frienship. There's a great line where his sister says, "You basically don't exist to us." Ouch. That's the grave emotional danger we find Ryan in.
As the story unfolds, Natalie and Alex catalyze his change. And by the end of the film, Ryan's arc is complete: he is ready to make a connection.
A good screenwriting lesson I learned from "Up in the Air" is to ask myself: what are my protag's character stakes? What does he risk to lose if he doesn't change? Is my protag in grave emotional danger?
Stakes are essential to a story. I think a good defintion of "stakes" is: what does the protag risk to lose if he/she doesn't accomplish his/her goal(s)? What are the consequences of failure? Stakes make a story matter. They give it gravitas. High character stakes put our protag in grave emotional danger, which is key to getting the audience to root for him/her to change.
So, onto Ryan Bingham's character stakes in "UP IN THE AIR."
When we meet Ryan, he is living a burden-free life. Total independence. No strings, no commitments, no compromises, and most importantly: no personal relationships. Ryan believes his way of life is ideal. He actually gives a motivational speech telling people to NOT to commit to anyone. He charges people to basically tell them, "avoid the human race. Especially the ones who care about you. Don't love anyone but yourself." Ryan has convinced himself that he's happy, but we know he's not. We know what he's missing out on: human connections. The poster tagline even tips us off before we see the movie: "The story of a man ready to make a connection." (Although a more literal description would read, "the story of a man NOT ready to make a connection") Friendships, love, family: to varying degrees, we all value the connections we have to these people. But Ryan doesn't.
That's what Ryan risks to lose if he doesn't change: living the rest of his life alone, isolated, cut off from his family, with no chance at ever finding real love or frienship. There's a great line where his sister says, "You basically don't exist to us." Ouch. That's the grave emotional danger we find Ryan in.
As the story unfolds, Natalie and Alex catalyze his change. And by the end of the film, Ryan's arc is complete: he is ready to make a connection.
A good screenwriting lesson I learned from "Up in the Air" is to ask myself: what are my protag's character stakes? What does he risk to lose if he doesn't change? Is my protag in grave emotional danger?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Two < Double.
What the H-E-Single C-K is up with sportscasters suddenly saying "NC-Two-A" instead of the tried-and-true, rhythmically superior "NC-Double-A?" It's awkward, off-putting, and takes me out of the story. Simply saying "NCAA" is a better choice. Who started this nonsense?
Probably Dick "diaper dandy" Vitale. Every annoying NCAA slang is his fault.
Probably Dick "diaper dandy" Vitale. Every annoying NCAA slang is his fault.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Report: Mark Mangino Admits to Dick Slap
College football has had one wild winter.
On the heels of the scandal that led to the firing of Kansas head football coach Mark Mangino, another shocking chapter to the story has been revealed. Numerous sources, including Mangino himself, have confirmed that he dick slapped quarterback Todd Reesing during halftime of their blowout loss to Texas.
For those who aren't familiar with the urban slang, a "dick slap" is defined as an action in which a man slaps someone or something with his penis. A "dick slap" can also be called a dick smack, penis slap, cock smack, or pecker slap.
Various accounts from inside the locker room claim that after a heated, vitriolic halftime speech, Mangino directed Reesing to sit on a bench directly in front of him. He then dropped his khaki pants to his ankles, pulled his BVD boxer shorts down to about his knees, grasped the base of his penis with his thumb and forefinger, and with a quick whipping motion, slapped his quarterback across the cheek with his member.
"It was awkward," one player recounted. "At first coach wasn't tall enough to reach his face, so he made two graduate assistants go find a stool. We all just stood around silently for about five minutes, stealing quiet glances at each other. I felt bad for Todd."
Another player thought the whole situation, "was really fucked up."
Kansas Athletic Director Lew Perkins was disappointed but not surprised when the story broke. "Unfortunately, the days of tough love and dick slapping are over," said Perkins. "You have to find other ways to get to your players, besides slapping their faces with your dick."
Mangino has been very honest and open about the incident. "Do I wish I handled it differently?" he responded. "Sure, I wish I would have dick slapped the whole (expletive) team. Then maybe we wouldn't have lost by four (expletive) touchdowns." Mangino went on to point out Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops, under which Mangino served as Offensive Coordinator, frequently used the dick slap to motivate players. That is, until the Sooner adminstration found out and ordered him to stop. "People wonder why OU has struggled in big games," added Mangino. "Well, now you know."
Mangino went on discussing different aspects of the dick slap for an uncomfortably long time. He even admitted to practicing on tackling dummies hidden around his office and home. When asked if Mangino would be willing to give up dick slapping in order to coach again, he grew very pensive. After a long pause, he wistfully asked, "would a cadet give up his gun to become a cop?"
One can only wonder what the future holds for this strong-willed, dick-slapping leader of young men.
On the heels of the scandal that led to the firing of Kansas head football coach Mark Mangino, another shocking chapter to the story has been revealed. Numerous sources, including Mangino himself, have confirmed that he dick slapped quarterback Todd Reesing during halftime of their blowout loss to Texas.
For those who aren't familiar with the urban slang, a "dick slap" is defined as an action in which a man slaps someone or something with his penis. A "dick slap" can also be called a dick smack, penis slap, cock smack, or pecker slap.
Various accounts from inside the locker room claim that after a heated, vitriolic halftime speech, Mangino directed Reesing to sit on a bench directly in front of him. He then dropped his khaki pants to his ankles, pulled his BVD boxer shorts down to about his knees, grasped the base of his penis with his thumb and forefinger, and with a quick whipping motion, slapped his quarterback across the cheek with his member.
"It was awkward," one player recounted. "At first coach wasn't tall enough to reach his face, so he made two graduate assistants go find a stool. We all just stood around silently for about five minutes, stealing quiet glances at each other. I felt bad for Todd."
Another player thought the whole situation, "was really fucked up."
Kansas Athletic Director Lew Perkins was disappointed but not surprised when the story broke. "Unfortunately, the days of tough love and dick slapping are over," said Perkins. "You have to find other ways to get to your players, besides slapping their faces with your dick."
Mangino has been very honest and open about the incident. "Do I wish I handled it differently?" he responded. "Sure, I wish I would have dick slapped the whole (expletive) team. Then maybe we wouldn't have lost by four (expletive) touchdowns." Mangino went on to point out Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops, under which Mangino served as Offensive Coordinator, frequently used the dick slap to motivate players. That is, until the Sooner adminstration found out and ordered him to stop. "People wonder why OU has struggled in big games," added Mangino. "Well, now you know."
Mangino went on discussing different aspects of the dick slap for an uncomfortably long time. He even admitted to practicing on tackling dummies hidden around his office and home. When asked if Mangino would be willing to give up dick slapping in order to coach again, he grew very pensive. After a long pause, he wistfully asked, "would a cadet give up his gun to become a cop?"
One can only wonder what the future holds for this strong-willed, dick-slapping leader of young men.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
"Invictus" & Suspense!!!
Yesterday I went to see "INVICTUS" alone, by myself. I left the theater feeling disappointed. Feling like the trailer moved me more than the actual film. I've since been pondering what went wrong, and then something occured to me.
This movie lacks suspense.
Suspense, simply put, is doubt as to whether or not the hero(es) will succeed, prevail, triumph, accomplish his/her goal(s), etc. And in a story like "Invictus," doubt especially needs to come from the characters. Because if we're invested in characters that doubt themselves and the goal(s) they've set out to accomplish, we doubt their ability to succeed. And then we find ourselves worrying about them and rooting for them to find the ark, win the girl, win the world cup, or whatever. The esteemed Michael Urban once told me, "we go to movies to worry about the characters." Therein lies my problem with "Invictus."
For one, Mandela barely doubts his ability to lead and unite his country. It's kind of touched on in the beginning, but never really explored. He also never seems to doubt that the Springboks will defy all odds and win it all. He is strangely confident about this improbable mission, almost as if he's clairvoyant or something. I understand that perhaps Mandela exudes greatness to inspire greatness in others, but we need to see his other side. The shadow. The side of his conciousness that surfaces when he's alone and says, "I am so fucked." The same goes for Francois. He never doubts his ability to lead and inspire his team to achieve the impossible, nor does he ever really seem to doubt the Springboks' chances of winning. We don't see or feel his fear of letting down Mandela, not to mention his hot girlfriend, his parents, and his entire country. Dude, MANDELA just ordered your ass to win the world cup. That's serious fucking pressure. So, show us! Tell us with voice over! Shit, do something! South Africa's extremely slim odds of success are talked about, but never really felt. Actually the only character who doubts them is this sportscaster guy, but he's kind of sleazy and bitter toward Francois, which communicates to us that he's a jerk and he's wrong. Therefore, we don't worry, and the ending feels like a foregone conclusion. We just watch shit happen, and sit around waiting for that climactic scene when a thicker Matt Damon hoists the trophy over inspirational chant music and we all get to cry and be moved.
"Invictus" reinforced something that's worth repeating. Suspense is absolutely essential to telling a good story in any genre. If the audience doesn't doubt the outcome, they will get bored. And if they went to the movie alone, during the daytime, and sat near a weird, Venice-y guy who wouldn't stop sneezing and blowing his nose, they'll just sit around thinking about how pathetic and lonely their lives are.
This movie lacks suspense.
Suspense, simply put, is doubt as to whether or not the hero(es) will succeed, prevail, triumph, accomplish his/her goal(s), etc. And in a story like "Invictus," doubt especially needs to come from the characters. Because if we're invested in characters that doubt themselves and the goal(s) they've set out to accomplish, we doubt their ability to succeed. And then we find ourselves worrying about them and rooting for them to find the ark, win the girl, win the world cup, or whatever. The esteemed Michael Urban once told me, "we go to movies to worry about the characters." Therein lies my problem with "Invictus."
For one, Mandela barely doubts his ability to lead and unite his country. It's kind of touched on in the beginning, but never really explored. He also never seems to doubt that the Springboks will defy all odds and win it all. He is strangely confident about this improbable mission, almost as if he's clairvoyant or something. I understand that perhaps Mandela exudes greatness to inspire greatness in others, but we need to see his other side. The shadow. The side of his conciousness that surfaces when he's alone and says, "I am so fucked." The same goes for Francois. He never doubts his ability to lead and inspire his team to achieve the impossible, nor does he ever really seem to doubt the Springboks' chances of winning. We don't see or feel his fear of letting down Mandela, not to mention his hot girlfriend, his parents, and his entire country. Dude, MANDELA just ordered your ass to win the world cup. That's serious fucking pressure. So, show us! Tell us with voice over! Shit, do something! South Africa's extremely slim odds of success are talked about, but never really felt. Actually the only character who doubts them is this sportscaster guy, but he's kind of sleazy and bitter toward Francois, which communicates to us that he's a jerk and he's wrong. Therefore, we don't worry, and the ending feels like a foregone conclusion. We just watch shit happen, and sit around waiting for that climactic scene when a thicker Matt Damon hoists the trophy over inspirational chant music and we all get to cry and be moved.
"Invictus" reinforced something that's worth repeating. Suspense is absolutely essential to telling a good story in any genre. If the audience doesn't doubt the outcome, they will get bored. And if they went to the movie alone, during the daytime, and sat near a weird, Venice-y guy who wouldn't stop sneezing and blowing his nose, they'll just sit around thinking about how pathetic and lonely their lives are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
