me and margaret thatcher…

 

…or how the hell are they going to get me to empathise with THIS hero!

on december 16th of this year, a film will open in the u.s., the premise of which chills me to the bone!

not a horror film, ghost story or an intense drama about the terrors of war. nope! this is a biopic about the second most influential woman of my young life – margaret thatcher, one of the most strong-minded women in modern history.

to help you understand where i’m coming from with this post, i just want to give you a very brief personal history.

when mrs. thatcher became prime minister of great britain in 1979, i was a mere boy of 10 years old. when she was finally ousted from power by her own party, i was 21, enjoying a theatre career in london and a socialist!

in addition to this, my favourite film director, ken loach, was practically blacklisted and only made 2 feature films during her time in office – one of which was made primarily in germany.

margaret thatcher will be played by meryl streep, one of the most revered actors in film history, and an actor i like very much. however, she has really got her work cut out to make me empathise with a person who stirs such feelings of anger and disdain in me. i suppose it could be argued that the negativity of these feelings has, in the end, created a positive effect in me, but that still doesn’t make me grateful to her or make me in any way forgiving.

so how will meryl streep win me over?

in my mind, there are a few options open to a writer when creating characters that, on the surface, will struggle to gain empathy from the audience.

the first possibility is to make your main character funny. i recently saw the terrific movie four lions. now, a suicide bomber isn’t necessarily the first type of person you think of as a hero of your story, but omar and his fellow jihadis won me over with their humour. this humour enabled the writers to show the human side of the members of the terrorist cell, so when combined with the dark subject matter, it gave the film a perfect balance and made me enjoy the journey that these characters take.

i can’t see that the makers of the iron lady will be taking the edgy comedy route (although there is a little humour in the trailer), so let’s look at the next option.

make your main character so compelling and fascinating that the audience won’t be able to take their eyes off the screen. when i sit down to watch a film or to read a script, i want to be drawn into the story, regardless of the subject matter. if the writer gets it right, then no matter who the character is – hero, villain, car park attendant #2 – then the audience will engage with that character. for example, der untergang (downfall), the story of adolf hitler’s last days captured the attention of the world. great writing and a superb performance by bruno ganz managed to humanise hitler without detracting from all the horror that he caused. it shows a once powerful man trapped in a desperate situation that he himself caused. however, it also shows us a man that has had his hopes and dreams shattered, and regardless of how wrong those hopes and dreams were, it made the character and the film not only palatable, but compelling.

i suspect that the story of margaret thatcher will focus on her hopes and dreams and the sacrifices she made in attempting to attain them, thereby humanising her as much as possible for people like me! and just for the record, i am not comparing margaret thatcher to hitler, nor to muslim terrorists!

a third option might be to make your main character the lesser of two evils. this idea has been utilised in countless films. there is the ‘hitman with a heart of gold’ (the killer), where the main character decides that the bad guys he is working for have no honour or morals and need to be punished, or for example in absolute power, where a burglar on a job witnesses the president of the united states beating a woman and her subsequent shooting by the president’s bodyguards. the lesser of two evils is a common choice for stories set in the world of crime, gangsters and even police corruption.

another example of how to create a ‘hero who does a bad thing’ is brilliantly described in stephen king’s must-read book on writing. in it he talks about his novel the dead zone, later filmed by david cronenberg. the hero, johnny, is a man who is in a car accident, a side effect of which enables him to see the future of anyone he touches. when he shakes hands with a presidential candidate, he sees that this man will start a nuclear war, so johnny decides to assassinate him. king’s main concern was how to get his audience on the side of the assassin. he does this by making johnny the nicest guy you have ever met – he even makes johnny refuse to have sex with his longtime girlfriend until they are married (something king himself admits to be pushing the boundaries of believability!). he also makes the politician a really nasty man, who is introduced in the book in a scene where he kicks a dog to death!

unless the film makers really demonise the members of the party that caused margaret thatcher’s own downfall, i don’t think that the lesser of two evils will be a truly viable option either.

so, will the makers of the iron lady be able to make the character of margaret thatcher compelling and fascinating enough for me to get me on her side and empathise with her? who knows, but i hereby vow to watch the film leaving my preconceptions at the door, so i guess we’ll have to wait and see if they succeed or not!

happy writing

phil

scriptguyphil.com

(and you can follow me here on twitter and facebook)

reach for the stars

Stephen Dorff persuading Melanie Griffith to be in his movie from Cecil B. Demented

The story goes that in 1985, young up and coming director Anthony Waller met acting legend Alec Guinness by chance in Hamburg. Waller asked Guinness if he was interested in doing a one-scene part for his first feature film, Mute Witness. To Waller’s surprise, Guinness said he would, the only problem was that he was unavailable for 18 months. Waller suggested they shoot the scene the next morning before Alec Guinness had to catch his flight.

This all took place nine years before the rest of the film was made and used a scene from an early draft of the screenplay. When Waller later wanted to add a second scene with Guinness, he simply reversed the footage he’d already shot to make it look different.

Mute Witness is an entertaining, atmospheric film, but when it came out in ’94 all the talk was about Alec Guinness. STAR POWER!! If it hadn’t been for him the film might have been a straight to DVD release.

On all of the projects I’ve helped developed, the first question asked (after deciding that the script is good enough and could make a good feature), is invariably “who can we get to direct this?” or “who can we get to star in this?”

In a time where it is difficult to get films made, having a bona fide star or at least a recognisable face on your project is a distinct advantage. It helps with foreign pre-sales, which can be a large percentage of your budget, and it will also entice private investors who are becoming increasingly important in independent film production. The ‘glamour’ of the movies is one element that can be attractive to private investors, and a ‘name’ can be a big help with that.

So, how to get a ‘name’ actor attached to your project? As in all matters of writing, this is a two-part question – one-part artistic, one-part business.

To start with, look at the reasons why big names have done small movies.

If you look at it from a slightly cynical angle, the first word that might spring to mind is ‘Oscar’. Powerful roles in smaller, worthy movies can be a good route to one of those gold statuettes. For example –

Charlize Theron – Monster

Forest Whitaker – The Last King of Scotland

Kate Winslet – The Reader

Would any of those films have ever come up for Oscar consideration if these actors hadn’t been involved? Maybe, but that these fine and well regarded actors were on board meant that these movies got more attention than they would have otherwise.

Another reason, and one which I suspect is far more important to the vast majority of actors, is that a role is just too good to say ‘no’ to. This might well have been the case for the actors I mentioned above, and when you combine great actors in a smaller movie that you wouldn’t expect them to appear in (unless it’s a misguided passion project or they are appearing as a favour to a friend), this is when you can get performances that are often extraordinary.

Simply put, actors will kill for a great role regardless of how big or small a budget might be.

And this is the artistic answer on how to get a ‘name’ attached to your project – write a part that is so good and so challenging that an actor will be unable to say ‘no’ and will have the passionate drive to take a pay cut and persuade their (20% commission-earning) agent that it is the right thing to do.

That’s easier said than done, of course, and there is a great chapter on ‘stars’ in William Goldman’s book Adventures in the Screen Trade and how you must always give them the best lines!

Of course, if you do write the right role as well as a strong script, then it is possible to end up in a situation like Quentin Tarantino found himself in after the Sundance Lab in 1991. His script for Reservoir Dogs found its way to Harvey Keitel, who liked it so much that he attached himself as executive producer and later as one of the main characters. Keitel’s involvement lead to the bringing together of a great ensemble cast and eventually one of the most highly praised film debuts in recent memory.

In an interview I have just listened to with top international actor Stellan Skarsgard, he talked about making big Hollywood movies to be able to earn enough money so he can make the more interesting independent movies that he also appears in. He even said that he has put his own money into certain projects that he desperately wanted to be a part of – literally paying to be in someone’s film!

So artistically – Write a great role.

Moving on to the business side of attaching a name actor, the major problem is that of time constraints. These people tend to be extremely busy, but there is a way to counter this.

If when writing your script you feel that one of the roles, either lead or supporting, would be great for a name actor, then you have an opportunity to tailor that role in a practical sense.

By having the character appear in as few locations as possible and in scenes that are fairly simple to shoot, it will really cut down on the number of shooting days that your name actor would need to be around for. Can the four scenes involving a particular character in four different locations actually be shot in one location? Any professional actor, in particular one who has worked on large scale productions and all the hanging around that involves, will generally prefer one day of solid shooting than four days of some shooting, but more waiting around. Give your producer the chance of attaching a name by writing great roles that require as few shooting days as possible.

So regarding the business side – Condense your shooting schedule.

Which leaves us with a neat little equation –

A great role + short shooting schedule = more chance of attaching a name.

Needless to say that you should never do this to the detriment of the story!!

So take the group of actors that you really admire and would want in your movie, write your characters well enough that these actors would seriously consider them, attempt to condense the amount of shooting days for which they would be required and then get the script to their respective agents. Even if they say ‘no’, you will still have a script with great characters.

And then again, if they say ‘yes’……

Happy writing

Phil

scriptguyphil.com

reading between the lines

One of the constants in the scripts that I read is that writers of the good ones have a much better grasp of subtext and will use it often and with meaning. Subtext is one of the elements usually missing from the scripts that aren’t as good.

Subtext gives your characters and your dialogue additional depth, and the more meaning you can give the subtext, the richer your script will be.

It is especially important in scripts that are more character driven. When you spend a lot of time with characters that drive the story through conversation and relationships, then it is imperative that the dialogue you give those characters invokes as much emotional resonance with the audience as possible. If the dialogue is continually matching precisely what the characters are thinking, then the script will soon become tedious.

As an example of a strong use of subtext, here is one single speech from Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation.

It comes exactly 31 minutes into the film and is the moment when Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) and Bob (Bill Murray) speak to each other for the first time. We have seen Charlotte acknowledge and show interest in Bob in the bar in an earlier scene, but otherwise there has been no real interaction until now.

The scene plays out like this:-

                               CHARLOTTE

                       So what are you doing here?

                               BOB

                       A couple of things. Taking a break

                       from my wife. Forgetting my son’s

                       birthday. And getting paid $2 million

                       to endorse a whiskey, when I could be

                       doing a play somewhere.

Now, bearing in mind that the interpretation of art is subjective and that there is no right and wrong, here is the subtext that I read into this dialogue:-

Taking a break from my wife                       =  I’m available

Forgetting my son’s birthday                      =  I can admit my mistakes

Getting paid $2 mill to endorse a whiskey  =  I’m mega-rich

When I could be doing a play somewhere  =  I still have artistic integrity

When I see this scene play out, it’s like a double punch. The first and third lines convey his status and pave the way to impress others (the ‘public’ Bob Harris), but the second and fourth lines indicate how Bob is or at least wants to be (the ‘real’ Bob Harris).

All in all, it shows Bob in a good light and we can understand why Charlotte becomes fascinated by him. It also feels very practiced from Bob’s perspective and it is easy to imagine that this is a skill that Bob has cultivated over the years to get on the right side of his ‘public’. He is showing off, but also showing his human side.

However you read the subtext in this scene, it goes to show that the more information you can put behind the words, the richer it can be.

An example of how a lack of subtext makes dialogue feel a bit flat is the exact same speech in the shooting script!                              

                                   BOB

                         My wife needs space, I don’t know my

                         kids’ birthdays.  Everyone wants

                         Tiger Woods, but they could get me,

                         so I’m here doing a whiskey

                         commercial.

There’s something about this piece of dialogue that doesn’t give much information other than what is being said – except for a minor inferiority complex over Tiger Woods!

The little subtext there is paints a rather negative picture and would be a shaky foundation for the relationship that then grows throughout the rest of the film.

“My wife needs space” is very passive and makes it seem that he has been kicked out of the house, and Bob is shown to be second best when it comes to who gets hired for whiskey commercials. Not knowing his kids’ birthdays makes him neither fascinating nor endearing.

The subtext in the finished film is not only more layered, but it also makes Bob a more attractive and charismatic figure meaning that the audience is as fascinated by Bob as Charlotte is, which in turn makes the relationship between them start in more truthful way.

Regardless of what happened between the shooting script and the finished film, the speech we get to see, which comes at one of the story’s key moments (the first meeting of main characters Charlotte and Bob), is a much richer piece of writing and gives the relationship that will become the driving force of the film a certain amount of weight at just the right time.

Happy writing!

Phil

scriptguyphil.com

a new perspective

Still taken from “Field of Dreams” – Kevin Costner & Dwier Brown

Or how a change in your life affects your movie watching – and making

(Warning – this blog post contains spoilers for Field of Dreams including the very end of the film!)

I first saw Field of Dreams, written and directed by Phil Alden Robinson, in the cinema when it opened in 1989. It was a film that I liked a lot – the first hour absolutely flies by in a very hypnotic way. I bought the film when it came out on video and must have watched it a few times in the following years.

Cut to 2010 and my wife finds a DVD of the film in a bargain bucket and buys it – she’s never seen it and knows that I like the film. A few days later we settle down on the sofa, pop the film in the player and start watching. The first hour or so moves along in its usual hypnotic fashion and it is actually better than I remembered. Then the strangest thing happened,…

–   I began to cry – a lot.

About 20 minutes from the end, tears formed in my eyes and my stomach tightened. Then, for the last ten minutes it is very hard to focus – I’ve reached the point when there’s no chance of hiding or controlling the emotions I’m feeling.

Now, I remember it being a moving ending, but it had never hit me this hard before. Until I remembered what the approaching final scene was – Ray (Kevin Costner) finally got to meet and play catch with his estranged father who had actually died a number of years before. To play catch with each other was the remedy for the emotional pain the men had been through.

In 2002, my own father died, and the reason the film hit me so hard is because this was the first time I had seen it since that major event in my life.

The simple act of a game of catch helped remind me of the good times we had, but also awoke certain longings in me, making me yearn for the opportunity to kick a football with him again.

Our daily lives and the people around us affect the way we watch movies, but they will also have a deep effect on how we make them.

An actor has to delve deep into a character to be able to mine and use all the emotion in order to help their performance.

As a writer, you need to delve deeply into ALL of your characters to mould them and shape them in a way that helps you say what you want to say and tell the story you want to tell. I’d suggest that this is practically impossible to do without utilizing your surroundings and the things that affect your day-to-day existence.

It is important to look at the little things and the life-changing moments in life and how they offer a new perspective on your work. Try and recall the moments from your past that have provoked the strongest or most unusual response – an actor calls this ‘emotional recall’. An ability to access the variety of emotions that you have experienced in life is strong tool to have in your toolbox.

How does your daily life influence your work? Or has there been a major event in your past that has helped you take your writing in an unusual direction?

There’s a little piece of you in all your characters after all, right?

Happy writing.

Phil