Sunday, May 19, 2013

Misfits in Space



Three stars

One of the great things about the current reboot of "Star Trek" is you don't have to be a trekie to enjoy it. I went to see this film with my brother Greg and he is new to the wonderful universe of "Star Trek" and he really enjoyed it. Also, I loved seeing it in I-Max. and 3-d. It is really cool but it always highlights something wonderful about "Star Trek" as well. There's a lot of talk, and not everything is sock-them, in your face space mayhem. "Star Trek" is never entirely a thrill ride. It has intelligent talk about space, life and emotions between the original odd couple of pop culture, Spock and Kirk.  Of course, it's always fun to see the Starship Enterprise coming right at ya. 

There's a reason we love "Star Trek" so much. It's basically misfits in space, and that's been the reoccurring theme throughout the entire series. Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Kirt (Chris Pine) are the original odd couple. Kirt saves Spock's life, but breaks a bunch of rules of the federation. Spock rats him out in the report about their mission to Starfleet Academy , because its protocol. Kirt is pissed, but it ends up Spock and Kirt have a lot to teach each other, and that's what we see in this version of the new film in the "Star Trek" franchise "Star Trek: Into Darkness". Spock teaches Kirt to do the right thing, by the rules, while Kirt teaches Spock to sometimes bend the rules to get the job done.

Meanwhile, Spock in this version is still in a relationship with Uhura (Zoe Saldana). They been fighting recently,  and even Kirt askes her whats that even like? It's like fighting with Sheldon Cooper. J.J. Abrams does a very good job in this film of doing a balancing act. He is balancing the original Star Trek feel, of a lot of talk but also infusing it with some more fight scenes and action. To keep this franchise alive, I think that's exactly what it needs. It can be odd at times to watch this younger cast play the original Star Trek characters, because one of the charms of "Star Trek" throughout the years is that they never went for young and sexy. It was always people you would trust to guide the ship like Patrick Stewart as Captain Picard in "The Next Generation".

However, I really am unashamed to admit I really like this new version of "Star Trek". I think the scripts strike the right balance between the old and the new. The franchise wasn't going to live on if it didn't have some updates done. In this one, though, the Enterprise crew is facing a old enemy in Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch, sounding a bit like Snape from the "Harry Potter" films.) He talks slow, and the screenplay at times, can feel a little patched together. One moment the USS Enterprise is working together with Khan, the next minute they are against him. There's a lot of characters who come through the film that we aren't sure are good or bad. However, it all pulls together at the end. That's one of the reasons we love "Star Trek". When the crew is going to be killed, no one leaves. They are a family, and they know that.

There's the other cast too. Simon Pegg provides some comic relief as Scotty and John Cho is good as Sulu. The cast has very good chemistry. I don't think this was as good as the first "Star Trek" but it is a very good summer flick that I think both Trekies and their kids can both get something out of. It feels like both a pop corn thriller and a Star Trek film. The special effects are good, and the Enterprise ship looks great.

Finally, this brings up a interesting point. Later that night, I watched the finale to "The Office" and season finale to "The Big Bang Theory". The secret to things like this (and lets throw in "Harry Potter" too) is that we love the characters. People love to follow misfit people in extraordinary situations. People come for the stories and space, but stay for the characters they love. 

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Making Sense of A Tragic Narrative

"Thats the thing about pain it demands to be felt."-John Green

John Green, the popular young adult novelist, wrote this quote in his novel "The Fault in Our Stars",  which deals with young adults with cancer, and he is right. Sometimes nothing makes sense. Sometimes all we have is an emotional response, and emotions do not make logical sense. They demand to be felt, and who can blame us? When something tragic happens, we feel it. Feeling is all we have sometimes, and when the story is tragic, our feelings can be the first thing we feel.

If you read my stuff, you know I mostly write about film and fictional books. My job isn't to make sense of the real world. It's to make sense of the reflection of it. Fiction is a reflection of the real world, but it isn't the real world. When a tragic event happens, one that affects us but not directly, we need to make sense of it through a narrative. Of course, we can't know everything, even with the news covering it through hours and hours. So, in a way, a big event, tragic or just well, big, has to be processed like a story. Of course, the Boston Marathon Bombing is a tragedy. It is a tragedy that makes us use words I won't publish here. Our response to this event shouldn't be elegant. However, it's the job of the newspaper man or the creative type to try to give us a narrative response. Stories are our way of trying to digest something that really doesn't make sense to any sane human. We all know how the story is going to end, but it doesn't make it any better. It's going to be some extremist nut, ranting about one of two things: some kind of vendetta against America or nonsense about how he did this for some spiritual reason or both. However, the problem is, despite the end of the story being there, we can never make sense of this event. We will get a narrative one day, with details that will never be revealed, nor should they. That being said, how do we make sense of the senseless?

Well, the simple answer is, we can't. This isn't a movie or book. This is the real world. Only the insane person who did this, does this make sense to. His narrative for why this happened will be twisted, for sure, and make no sense to those of us trying to make sense of why. We might never know why. The only narratives that will make sense to us is the stories of those who ran towards the explosions, and the narratives of those who surrounded it. We know their stories are narratives that make sense, because like any good story, the core of those stories are raw emotion. That makes sense.

I don't claim to try to make sense of any of this. More than 100 people were injured and 3 died, including an 8 year old boy. It's horrible even to type these words. Sometimes the only story that makes sense is our emotions, not the actual story that happened. Not every narrative makes sense, and believe me, this one won't. After all these years, the narrative of 9/11 doesn't make complete sense. However, we can pick and choose the narrative we want from this event. Let the narrative be that good people can exist. There are no suspects yet, but I do hope this was one twisted dude and not some terrorist group. This will never be a good story, however, we can make it an emotional one. When I talk about stories, movies and books I like, I often say  that stories about people are the most important. Even if the story is a fantasy, the core still needs to be human. The only way we make sense of a tragic narrative, is to focus on the stories of people, and not the bad people. Our emotional response is the story we need. At the end of the day, lets let the proper people put together the emotionless story of information on how this happened. Yes, that story of information is important. However, our emotional story is the one that will stick with us.

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Remembering Roger Ebert


 "The wonder of life and the resources of the imagination supply all the adventure you need."-Roger Ebert's review of "My Neighbor Totoro".

I think that quote describes Roger Ebert so well. He didn't only give me a review of a film, but often I would walk away from his reviews with new  ways to look at both film and life.  I'm a fan of a lot of things. Film directors, writers, and other creative types, but I think it was much more with Roger Ebert. I truly admired him. In fact, I once left a comment on Roger Ebert's blog and he responded to me. What a thrill! As I read tributes to him this morning, I see that it was not unusual for him to respond to his fans.

This makes the headline in the New York Times all the more true, "A Critic for the Common Man". That is true, in a lot of ways, because Roger Ebert wrote about the art form of the common man. Movies have meant a lot to me, and so have Roger Ebert. I have had a special relationship with both film criticism and film in general. I like a lot of film critics but there was something special about Roger Ebert's brand of film criticism. The way he wrote, I felt like I was talking with a friend, and not some cultural elite who was lecturing to me. I like the way that he loved movies the way they should be loved. He was emotional about them, he wasn't afraid to explain an independent film in simple terms to someone new to that wonderful world of art cinema, or explain to a snob why a dumb movie is worth their time, and sometimes entertainment is simply entertaining, and why that isn't a bad thing. He loved all sorts of films, and in that way, he was a friend to all sorts of people, and I felt like he was a friend of mine.  


I have to be honest. I have never had a relationship with a writer the way I have had with Roger Ebert. Sure, I've been a fan of many writers I've admired. However, there's something different about Roger Ebert. Maybe it was the way he wrote, but I also think through his writing, his reviews, his columns, books and TV shows, we got to know the man himself and quite honestly, he was a good one. Ebert was the kinda critic I want to be. A man who doesn't just show a love and knowledge of films in his work, but a love of knowledge of life and a love of knowledge. I admire him both as person, writer, journalist and critic. 

It wasn't just a film critic I read in the newspaper. It was the TV show I remember, watching "Siskel and Ebert" every weekend, growing up. When I became older, I started to read his reviews carefully, aspiring to write mine like his.  As "Game Of Thrones" author George R.R. Martin said this morning, Roger Ebert was a "a terrific writer" and I agree. He wasn't just a critic talking about movies, he was a writer, a real person, talking about film criticism. 

However, I also want to not just talk about Ebert the film critic. One of the great delights of Roger, was we got a sense through his writing, he was much more than his job. One of my favorite Ebert essays is in his "Great Movies" collection, on E.T., because it gave us a look at not just Ebert the film critic. It gave us a look at Ebert the man. Roger Ebert wrote this essay on E.T. as a letter to his grandchildren. He says thanks to his wife, he has step grand children, and went on to talk about how they reacted to watching E.T. for the first time. He also talked about his affection for them, and taking them to ride horses. Okay, maybe it sounds a bit sappy but that's one of the things I really loved about Ebert. We got a sense he was a friend, and he wrote to us like he was our friend, not just the snobby film critic sitting on a high perch, criticizing other people's work. He was a fan, he was passionate, he loved this art form, and he explained in simple terms, how art affects us. That's why Roger Ebert was so important. At the end of every episode of "Siekel and Ebert", they would say the balcony is closed. Well, I'm going to say, thanks to Roger Ebert, the balcony in our hearts and minds, will always be open. 

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

“The Hobbit” is Fun


 

Three and a half stars

Some people are accusing director Peter Jackson of cashing in on “Lord of the Rings”, and yes, I understand, you might roll your eyes at I-HOP’s Hobbit breakfast menu, or the fact that he took a 300 page children’s novel and turned it into three films. Even as I watched, a part of me kept saying, couldn’t he have done this all in one film? It does run for two hours and forty six minutes. So, yes, he is milking Lord of the Rings a bit. However, I really enjoyed Peter Jackson’s film, and it didn’t feel like three hours. It moves along really nicely. As you know, (if you are a J.R.R. Tolkien fan) it’s the story of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), a hobbit who lives in Middle Earth. One day, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) drops by and tells him that he needs him for an adventure. At first, Bilbo doesn’t want to go. He’s a quiet hobbit, living a hobbit life in middle earth.  However, he comes to his senses after Gandalf’s merry band of men invade his house, eat his food and ask him to sign a contract to join them as their burglar (funeral costs covered!) Hobbits are short, and he would be sure to be able to get past their enemies. So, Bilbo runs out of his house, yelling “I’m going to go on a adventure!” and joins the band of dwarves, who need him so they defeat the dragon which keeps the valley in fear, as he sleeps in the mountain, surrounded by gold.
Okay, so this isn’t really a film you go into, with your critic’s gloves on. Even describing the plot sounds like a total fantasy fiacre, and you know what? It is. There are a lot of chase scenes and mystical creatures and wizards and evil doers and dwarves. In one scene, they are captured by trolls that Bilbo outsmarts because they could eat the band of men. There’s capturing by evil creatures, chase scenes, battle scenes, and whatnot. There’s the first appearance of the Ring and Gollum (Andy Serkis). After all, this is the prequel to Lord of the Rings, so if you are a new comer to the world of J.R.R. Tolkien, you are in luck. This is what happens before The Lord of the Rings. The visuals, no surprise, are really good, and it’s always beautiful watching them walk New Zealand, and it's really stunning seeing New Zeland in 3-D.

There are some great warm moments, like when one of the dwarves says to Bilbo that he was sure he shouldn’t have come, and that he knew it was a bad idea but then hugs him and says he was wrong. So, “The Hobbit” is a lot of fun, and Peter Jackson is really good at directing a fantasy epic. So, while splitting up “The Hobbit” only seems to make economic sense, as this stuff has a built in audience, on the other hand, I had a lot more fun seeing this than I did seeing “Les Miserables”. The story is great, and the acting is good. Its fun watching all these Shakespearian British actors recites lines about wizards and dwarves and defeating dragons and trolls.

So, in conclusion, go see “The Hobbit”. It’s a really fun way to spend your afternoon, and sometimes that’s what the movies are good for. I would say, even ignore my earlier criticisms about how he could of done this all in one movie. Just see it, because you know you want to, it’s visually nice, and it’s simply a good story with a lot of fantasy and adventure. So, don’t be a hobbit yourself, and set out to the theater. As Bilbo says, “I’m going on an adventure”. Good advice. I like this better than the messy “Les Miserables”, which was this year’s other big epic. I mean, you can’t really compare them but “Les Miserables” can be really upsetting in places, and this one you can bring your kids to. Your kids probably will sit spellbound through all three hours. Oh, and my spell check has all of the proper names for J.R.R. Tolkien’s characters. How cool is that.

Friday, January 11, 2013

"Les Miserables" Mess or Masterpiece?


Two and a half stars

After watching “Les Miserables”, I had a simple thought. I can’t decide if what I just watched was great or a total mess. I hate to knock this film, because it’s “Les Miserables”, and obviously a lot of effort was poured into this. So, I hate to report that as much as I wanted to love this film, for the most part, it was kind of a mess. It just seemed to be all over the place, and condensed a lot of themes and songs into two and a half hours without leaving any breathing room. The problem with a film like this is there are a lot of money and music and graphics and people singing to the camera. Yes, the music and story are beautiful but does it really work as a film? There’s hardly any dialogue in this movie. It rushes from one song to another. It’s very sad in places, and all the themes are there, but I did find myself looking at my watch, more than once.
One of the problems is the director, Tom Hopper, who keeps zooming in on people’s faces. They seem to be singing directly at the camera instead of to each other. Some of the songs, like a long one about a crazy hotel people stay at, where Cosette (Isabella Allen) works, as an orphan who sweeps the floors, goes on way too long. A lot of the songs seem to go on way too long. The film could have benefitted from some editing. I know, a lot of fans of the play are going to tell me I’m wrong. How can you edit out songs and cut down on scenes in “Les Miserables”? The problem is a play and films are different mediums. So, I’m sorry to say this, but I’m not sure that “Les Miserables” really works in the way that they put it together. This is not to say they are bad singers, or bad actors. Hugh Jackman, as Jean Valjean, can really sing. Russell Crowe, as Javert, I’m not really sure can.

The best scene in the movie is when Fantine (Anne Hataway) signs simply her song about dreaming a dream. If any scene in this film will become iconic, it’s that one. I’m all for musicals, but the problem with movie musicals today and ones of the past is really a matter of budget. All movie musicals today are high budget. It’s not simply producing a good musical, but being over the top with everything. Now, maybe this isn’t the best movie for me to review because I’m not a expert on “Les Miserables”, and maybe it needed a high budget to succeed.

However, I do love costume dramas. I do love sweeping epics. So, in theory, I should have loved “Les Miserables”, but I couldn’t help feeling like this film is kind of a mess. As I said, it doesn’t leave any breathing room. Instead, it stuffs the film with way too many themes, songs, emotions, sweeping camera shots, close ups, and whatnot. I hate to knock a film that everyone involved obviously strongly believed in. When one goes to see a movie like “Les Miserables”, they have a choice to make. Are they going to determine if this works as a movie or not, or be swept away by the story, music, emotions and tearful moments that populate the film? It just goes from one huge theme to another huge theme, one big song number to another big song number, and doesn’t let the viewer really feel the emotions of the piece. That’s really important to a film, because you are watching it on a screen. When you are watching something on a stage, it’s more likely to give off that emotion.

However, I should also point out I’m a bit spoiled, as I do live in New York and I could see a stage play of this. Films like this are valuable to people in other parts of the country, where people may not live near stage productions of this stuff. If a kid is inspired to discover the theater because of a film like this, that is a service. While I do not really think this succeed as a film, I do think it’s a good thing that people in other parts of the country get to see a musical, brought to them by the movies. So, an audience member can either be swept away, and that’s not a bad thing, by a film like this or can determine if it works as a film. Either way, the choice is up to the audience member. If you are swept away by this, that’s fine. If you think it doesn’t really work as a film, which it doesn’t really, that’s okay, too.  Whatever your emotional reaction is, it’s fine. If you are a teenager in Kansas, who does school productions or simply a person who loves musicals, but doesn’t live near a big city, than this is a treat for you, and I totally understand that. "Les Miserables" can be a mess, or a masterpiece, it all depends on the viewer.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

How To Not Write A Screenplay: 10 Mistakes Screenwriter Makes



I read an article about Carson Reeves in the New York Times. He is a blogger behind a powerful Hollywood blog, Script Shadow, which reviews unproduced screenplays. The problem with a lot of the screenplays on his blog is they sound pretty bad. I don’t think I have a complete right to make that judgment because I haven’t read these unproduced scripts. The problem is that there is big differences between saying you’re writing a novel and a screenplay. If you are writing a novel, you feel like you are being a literary person. You feel like you don’t need to qualify yourself as a true writer. If you say you are writing a screenplay, than you are more likely to get that reaction of “oh, everyone is writing a screenplay.” There are a lot of problems with people who write screenplays. Often, the vision of the screenwriter is someone sitting in a coffee shop, being “creative."  
Recently, someone I know who writes screenplays came up to me and said that writing a screenplay is easier than writing a novel. In some ways, that’s true. In other ways, not so much, but as someone who reviews a lot of movies, there is advice I wish I could give the screenwriters of America. Hollywood is such a seductive idea for a writer that often it gives platforms to people who can’t really write. After all, with screenwriting, you don’t have to be concern with prose or making someone turn pages or having someone pick up the book. Your readers are actors, producers, other screenwriters, directors, and whatnot. You don’t have to compel that general reading audience, because you aren’t turning in a final product. You are turning in a blue print for something that will look much more polished than simply a manuscript.

However, there are pros and cons to screenwriting. A pro to writing the book before the movie is that if the movie sucks, you always have that wonderfully good book. Another pro is that no one is rewriting your book, maybe except editors. Though, even if editors rewrite parts of your book, you still get that sole credit. Screenplays often are handed off to script doctors and other screenwriters, so by the time you are done; you get a “story by” credit instead of a “written by” credit. Stephanie Meyer, author of the Twilight books, said she would never be able to write a screenplay, because she couldn’t cut out all the stuff she wanted to say and describe about her characters. William Golden, novelist and screenwriter, sums up the difference between the magic of a book and the magic of screenplay in his book on screenwriting, “Adventures in The Screen trade,” pretty simply; If your parents read you screenplays instead of books to you as a child before you went to sleep, then I don’t really want to hear about your childhood.

Or take the joke “Community” made about screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, as Abed talks on about making a postmodern movie about Jesus, Shirley says “That’s nice , Charlie Kaufman, but some of us have work in the morning.” We all praise the novelists, but tend to look down on screenwriters, and I think there’s some truth to that. A problem with screenwriters is that they fall in to a couple categories that make them sound like the hacks of the writing world. I am often guilty myself of thinking poorly of screenwriters, as opposed to those writing novels. So, here it goes. I’m going to ask the question. Are you a really good writer who happens to write screenplays or are you a “writer” who is writing a screenplay for all the wrong reasons. So, here are the good and bad reasons to write a screenplay. I call this article “Are You a Writer Who Writes Screenplays or Are A “Writer” Who Writes Screenplays.” These are the questions one must ask themselves before they write a screenplay.

1.       Does This Work As A Movie?- A lot of screenwriters have a good idea for a story, but the question the writer must ask themselves is, is this a good story for a movie or is this a good story for a novel? For example, I tried co-writing screenplay years ago with a friend. The friend and I wanted to write an epic fantasy. Half through the screenplay, I realized it probably should be a novel because we kept describing stuff in the description of the screenplay, like how their time system works, that wouldn’t appear on screen. My friend and I totally disagreed. My co-writer did not understand that the description was too much for a narration (unless the audience wanted to sit there for 4 hours of narration), and this would of worked a lot better as a novel or short story. Often a writer will have a story that works better as print. A person can read a book, put it down, come back to it, and whatnot. Not in a screenplay.

2.       Can I Cap the Story in 120 Pages?- Steve Kloves, the screenwriter of the “Harry Potter” books often says people are often upset with what he cuts out of the screenplay. Remember, though, Kloves has to take 800 pages and cut it down to 120 pages. Film is a visual medium, and the audience is looking at their watches. They don’t want to be in the theater for hours upon hours. Think about “Harry Potter” as a good example of this. The books become a lot longer as the series goes on, and while the kids might love it, I think often the parents, who might love it too, are still checking their watches. People want to be in and out of the theater, within a couple hours, not sit through hours and hours until their eyes bleed.

3.       Am I A Good Writer In General? - The problem with a lot of screenwriters is that they aren’t good writers, and they figure, well, I still want to write, so if I write something that gets made into something else, then the rules do not apply to me. Well, yes and no. No one expects beautiful prose in a screenplay. You are writing a fairly standard description such as “My character walks here, looks like this and does, this” followed by your character’s name in CAPTIAL LETTERS, and the dialogue under their names. However, the problem with poor writers writing screenplays is that they are lazy and under mind that movie going audience. Gone are the days that audiences are stupid. That being said, I have nothing against the occasional dumb movie. I think sometimes we should all go to the theater to just have a good time. However, even dumb movies need some skills. Take the “American Pie” movies, which aren’t exactly brilliant films. They still have good characters, and know how to set up jokes and scenes. This brings me to the next point…

4.       A Lot of Screenwriters Are the Lazy Writers- A lot of screenwriters believe they don’t need to read or write in regular ways. A lot of screenwriters think they just need to watch movies all day, and they need to read screenplays and nothing more. They don’t need to know about the mechanics of storytelling or take creative writing courses or even know simple literary genres.  You need to be a WRITER, and not simply a SCREENWRITER. I love movies too, but if you want to write, you need to read books. Yes, you need to read literature, and not just books on screenwriting. I can’t tell you how many screenwriters I meet who fill their book shelves with how to books on screenplays. I have nothing against the screenplay how to books, because they can be quite helpful. However, there is no better lesson on storytelling and character creation than reading stories, novels, and creative non-fiction. You cannot skip over the physical book, because you happen to think, “I’m writing movies, so why put in the work of reading? I’m not writing books!” WRONG. If you do not read anything, and just watch movies all day, your screenplay will just sound like a bunch of other movie clichés thrown together.

5.       Tell a Good Story and Create Great Characters- How many screenwriters tell a terrible story, and cover up bad writing with action and gimmicks? A lot, actually.  A lot of screenwriters don’t have good characters and totally bland ideas because they figure it’s a movie. Once again, that’s undermining your audience, and just plain bad writing. Think about the world’s most beloved screenplays? How memorable are the characters? Here’s a perfect example. Eric Roth, the screenwriter of “Forest Gump”, could have just written a straight adaptation of Winston Groom’s novel. However, how memorable was Forest Gump? Now, a lot of screenwriters make the mistake of relying on the actors. Yes, Tom Hanks made that role memorable. However, that character and sense of storytelling must have been very strong in the script. And another thing, do you think Tom Hanks would have even played the role of that character didn’t come strongly through the script? You need to pack a punch in your script, because like a novel, it goes into a slush pile if you don’t. You need to think you are J.K. Rowling writing “Harry Potter” instead of some dude writing a screenplay.

6.       A Lot of Screenwriters Want to be Rich- A lot of screenwriters do get rich, but the problem with the salaries in Hollywood is that this breeds a lot of writers who just want to be rich. Writing a screenplay just for money isn’t the way to go. Oh, I understand we all want money, but there also must be a story you want to tell. A character you want to introduce. You need to treat your screenplay as if you are writing a story, a novel, and a passion. You need a motivation besides making money because that will lead to a weak, clichéd script and the people reading that script will see right through that.

7.       You Are Not Special- This are really advice for all writers. Do you know how many people come to Hollywood with a briefcase full of screenplays without actually a decent screenplay in the bunch? Yes, that fantasy is cool but unrealistic. I think you need to really have something unique. Your screenplay, your romantic comedy, your “Harry Potter” knock off may fly but you need something unique and original too.

8.       Don’t Pander To Your Audience- One of the biggest problems with screenwriters is they are thinking of the box office and target audience before they think up a good story. A lot of screenplays pander to a crowd. A romantic comedy full of clichés panders to women. Teen sex comedies that try too hard to gross out their audience also try too hard. Torture porn? Yes, it sells, but the “Saw” movies are more than horror. The Jigsaw Killer, as evil and uncaring as he can be at times, is actually a great character. That hook that he wants to punish people for taking life for granted, actually makes him deeper. So, even if your screenplay isn’t exactly high culture, you still need to put thought into it. It still needs some depth. There is nothing worst than 120 pages of pandering and clichés.

9.       An Example of Perfect Screenplay - A good story and good characters should still be your top of your list. “Little Miss Sunshine” is a perfect example. What could have been a stupid comedy about a family taking a road trip turns into a warm film about a family pulling together for the daughter. Michael Arndt takes time with each character, and gives them all back stories. Each character has a story, each character is defined. Every member of his family is so well done; we don’t even stop to wonder what their last names are. He doesn’t complicate the story, which is key in a screenplay. The story is simple, which a story in a screenplay needs to be, because this is a movie that’s visual and fewer than 200 pages. Point A to point B. Middle, beginning and end. However, each character is defined, in a visual way that the audience can see. Remember, they can only see what you describe in the script. The dialogue is sharp and relatable. I could go through each point of why this is a perfect script, but I rather you rent it and see for yourself.

10.   The Audience Can See Your Writing- Don’t think that just because a movie screen is between you and your audience, they can’t see your bad writing. Just because they aren’t looking at a page doesn’t mean your audience won’t see your bad writing. If the dialogue and descriptions are bad, your audience will see that. Just because they aren’t looking at a page, doesn’t mean they won’t see your bad writing on the screen. Don’t be lazy. Write as well as you can, and treat it like it’s going to be published. You always write like it’s going to be published, even if that’s not your goal. Trust me, your audience doesn’t leave their brains at the theater door.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Beloved Book Becomes Beloved Film


Four Stars

John Hughes had a saying that you are more serious at age 16 than you are at any other time in your life, and I’m suppose that’s true. Reading a novel like “Perks of Being a Wallflower” as a teenager, you walk away with an intense emotional experience. It would be easy for me as an adult to shrug off this book and movie as easily the case of overly dramatic teenagers, despite how serious their problems are. I have read the bestselling young adult novel the movie is based on, and I always thought that “Perks” was a story about closed doors. The problem with me as an adult is that “Perks” packs a lot of teenage problems in a novel that’s about 206 pages. Rape, pedophilia, coming out of the closet, bullying, drugs, sex, mental health, depression, and all sorts of stuff that teens deal with. Between all the typical teenage scenes in the book and movie, someone says something that sticks out like a sore thumb, often an admission of some kind that doesn’t sound quite right.
This brings me back to John Hughes’s saying, that everything is more serious when you are a teenager. It would be really easy for me to talk on and on about all the issues this novel brings up in such a short space, but on with the movie review. Charlie is a shy kid, who is just starting high school. On his first day, he meets a wonderful English teacher (Paul Rudd), who sees how smart he is, and starts giving him extra books to read. He starts to read books like “A Separate Piece” and “Catcher in the Rye”, which in this story is almost foreshadowing of the actual story we get. Angst ridden teen novels, in an angst ridden movie based on an angst ridden teen novel, I’m starting to get the picture. It helps that this movie is written and directed by the author of the actual book, which is very rare, Stephen Chosky. Charlie is a wallflower, which means he sits back and observes, doesn’t get involved and has an unusual way of thinking.
 
Soon he meets some older kids, Sam and Patrick (Ezra Miller). Emma Watson and Ezra Miller have wonderful chemistry as step brother and sister, and are obviously good matches for the shy Patrick. They are quirky and it’s hard not to like them as they go on and on about good music versus bad music.  Ezra Miller is very good here, as Patrick, the gay kid who has some secrets of his own. Emma Watson is also very good, with an American accent. As Charlie, the beloved character from this beloved novel, Logan Lerman does a wonderful job, and I’m (probably foolishly) hoping he gets an Oscar nod. There are a lot of hints in this movie (and in the novel) about his obsession with his dead aunt. Obviously, something was going on between him as a kid and this aunt that wasn’t exactly normal. Often, victims of abuse in the way Charlie was, become obsessed with the abuser.
Despite all the issues this film brings up, it works, because with all the underlying darkness, there’s a lot of sweatiness to these characters. Charlie’s shyness, and his two outcast friends, Sam and Patrick bring a lot of great friendship that helps them get through their traumas. Scenes like when Sam gives Charlie his first kiss, saying that the first person who kisses him should be someone who loves him, we get the sense that she means she loves him as a very good friend loves another. The scene where Patrick buys Charlie a suit because of Charlie’s great desire to be a writer or the scene where after Charlie admits that his best friend shot himself, they raise their glasses to Charlie after Sam tells Patrick what happened.

“Perks” would be easy for me to dismiss as I am no longer a teenager, and maybe I don’t have that intense nature anymore that I once had as a teenager, but a lot of teenagers have an intense nature and this film brings us back to that. I know a lot of kids will be waiting on line to see “Twilight”, and believe me, I have nothing against that. I think we all need an escape, but it is kind of a shame that more kids won’t be on line to see “Perks of Being a Wallflower”, which they might actually take something away from. One of the great accomplishments of the writer Stephen Chbosky in both the film, and this, his so far only novel, is just some of the lines alone, like “We feel infinite” or “We recieve the love we think we deserve.” Writing for teenagers often allows a writer to go for a line that perhaps some adults would roll their eyes at, because a teenager feels that seriousness John Hughes was talking about. However, a lot of Chobosky’s lines have become iconic and have great truth to them.  A lot of the lines from the book (and now the move) raise this story from a normal young adult novel.  “Perks of Being a Wallflower” might require the viewer to get in touch with their inner adolescence, and remember a time that the world did feel that serious. However, the issues these teenagers deal with aren’t exclusive to only teens, as many adults have problems with the same things.

What I would suggest is that if your kid is begging to see the finale of “Twilight”, make a deal with them that they also see this. I always think it’s important for younger movie goers to not only go to movies that feed them entertainment, but also give them something personal and positive to walk away with. As I said earlier, I have nothing against escapism for younger viewers, but I think “Perks” might also balance that out with something they might hold onto. “Perks of Being a Wallflower” is that book that teens probably pass along to each other, and this movie is the kind of movie that might actually help teens copes with some of the very serious issues they deal with.  “Perks of Being a Wallflower” is one of the year’s best films, and a testament to being able to create characters for teenagers and adults alike. On a personal note, I’ve been waiting to review the movie version of this book ever since I’ve read the wonderful novel, and I wasn’t disappointed with the film.  Often smaller movies that are geared for teenagers are the best films for them to see. “Perks of Being a Wallflower” is one of the year’s best films, and hopefully one of the best attended.