The Dotted Logline

Today I saw The Bourne Supremacy. Aside from reinforcing my hatred of non-stadium seating theaters and teaching me that that hand-held shooting equals eye-strain headache, I found the characters and story to be seriously lacking, which I wasn’t expecting with the positive reviews. Part of the problem may be that I never saw The Bourne Identity, but the overall empty feel of the movie really turned me off. I have nothing against action movies in general, but like special effects and eye-candy actors, action cannot and should not be expected to carry a film.

Sometimes I think the movie-going public is at the heart of the problem. It’s possible to make decent films within the bounds of the standard genre formulas–the basic three act story structure in screenwriting works for the vast majority of movies. But the cost of producing and marketing a major studio picture has gotten so high that of course the studios are going to go with what has been proven to sell well such a huge investment on the line. Hollywood is a business and they are going to with the product that is most likely to be successful.

So is the majority of the movie-going public really too lazy or too wary to try to watch anything that stretches their mind in any way? Are movies expected to remain solely as a form of escapism, while other art forms are left to say something meaningful? Or have increasing ticket prices and expanding alternative entertainment venues left the public much more selective and less adventurous then they should be? I really don’t know. But in the business of entertainment, it is the demand of the consumer that is most likely to influence any sort of artistic change. Until more people decide that they are tired of the regurgitated and hollow crap that too often opens to a much larger box office than it deserves, that’s what we’ll all be stuck with.

A quote from Alan Moore, writer of such works as the graphic novels The Watchmen and From Hell:

“Television and movies have short-circuited reality. I don’t think a lot of people are entirely clear on what is real and what is on the screen.”

A quote from the 9/11 commission vice chairman, Lee Hamilton:

“The intelligence community gets fascinated with paramilitary covert actions, it’s pretty sexy stuff. The James Bond stuff, and it begins to I think have an impact on the quality of intelligence.”

Does that mean that writing screenplays makes me an indirect threat to national security? I suddenly feel the weight of responsibility I didn’t know I had…

This summer, I took my last literature class (the one I’ve been waiting to take since I started the MFA program at Emerson), Novel Into Film. As the title suggests, it was a study of adapting books into films. My only experience in screenwriting had been original work, and with about half of movies being adaptations, I thought it a good skill to learn. My one attempt to adapt my own work back as an undergrad (from script to short story) had failed miserably.

There was one sentence that the professor said in the first class that was worth the price of admission for me: “The only obligation a screenwriter has when adapting a book is to make a good movie.”

While I would change “only” to “main” as a personal preference, this helped me break through whatever mental block I had about adaptation. If there is one thing I’ve learned throughout my screenwriting workshops, it’s how to construct a good story for film. The secret then is not to look at a book and try to figure out what parts you can streamline to fit into the condensed film medium, but to figure out what elements will work well in a film. Though that seems obvious, it can be a hard concept to focus on. Once you do, things are a whole lot easier.

As my first major adaptation project, I’ve decided to take a stab at writing a screenplay based off my stage play, Goodbye Dolly. It is still very much in the “fermenting” stage at this point, but once I get the two screenplays I have in progress of my plate, I think that will be my next big project.

If I had read more articles as fun as this little beauty, I might not have spent so many years thinking that journalism was utterly boring. This article had me in stitches. It’s written as a letter from Wolverine to Superman about Bryan Singer possibly directing the long-delayed Superman movie. I need to look up more about the writer, Joal Ryan. Some of my favorite quotes:

“But you–you conniving Kryptonian–you pretend you’re all about truth, justice and the American way, when all you’re really about is getting back on the big screen anyway, anyhow.”

“Superman, you are like the messed-up hot chick who can’t keep a guy… Got quite a collection of ex-suitors there, don’t you? (Say, do you keep their pictures on a wall in the Fortress of Solitude–maybe next to your Lois Lane shrine?–you nutball stalker.)”

“P.S.: Superman III sucked.
P.P.S.: Superman IV sucked worse.”

As for the subject of the article, I would be disappointed if Bryan Singer didn’t helm X-Men 3 due to a Superman movie. Aside from never having been much of a Superman fan (he’s just too Super… I like heroes with more humanity and angst), X2 might just be my favorite comic book movie to date. I felt that it had the closest-to-perfect blend of action and emotional conflict I’ve seen on the big screen (much better than a certain arachnid everyone seems to be obsessed with.) And with the ending of X2 being what it was, the third movie has a lot to live up to.

From what I’ve heard of about Bryan Singer, he seems to be a great director to work with. In commentaries and such for the two X-Men movies, those who worked with him couldn’t seem to give him enough praise. I really like the following comment he made in one of the featurettes on the X2 extras DVD:

“A film is not like a book or a painting. A film is made by thousands of people. And I’m kind of a funnel through which all their talents pass. So in that sense, it could be called my vision, but it’s really my vision of their visions.”

I very much like his way of putting it. With so much focus on movies “belonging” to the director (hooray for auteur theory), it’s nice to hear a director genuinely acknowledge the other creative input into a film while not diminishing his own role at the helm.

I was reading a Yahoo! News article about I, Robot pushing Spider-Man 2 out of the top spot this weekend when I came across a stunningly idiotic quote by Fox President of Domestic Distribution, Bruce Snyder:

“There’s a coldness to the science-fiction genre, but Will Smith brings a warmth to it and makes it palatable for the ladies.”

I won’t argue that the scientific/technical focus of science fiction can draw attention away from the more human aspects. The old stereotype of sci-fi=masculine and fantasy=feminine probably does hold some relevance in terms of ticket sale demographics. And I do like Will Smith. I think he’s talented, funny, not unattractive, and one of the more decent human beings in Hollywood.

But really, “palatable for the ladies”? Wouldn’t something along the lines of “more appealing to the female demographic that the typical movie in this genre” have been better? I’m sure you’re happy about the surprisingly good performance of I, Robot Mr. Snyder, but next time, think before you speak. Some of us ladies might find what you say more palatable if you do.

As for I, Robot, I’m a little torn about seeing it. I adore the director, Alex Proyas. His last big feature, Dark City, is quite possibly my favorite movie ever. But I have bad associations with one of the screenwriters, Akiva Goldsman, the man behind the horrors Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. And oh, what horrors they were…