This Savage Art

Popularity: 2% [?]

“There is no doubt that most of the dullness of our movies is concocted in advance in the so-called heads of the so-called scriptwriters. Not only the dullness: They also perpetuate the standard film constructions, dialogues, plots. They follow closely their textbooks of “good” screenwriting. Shoot all scriptwriters, and we may yet have a rebirth of American cinema.”

– Jonas Mekas, Village Voice (November 25, 1959)

Author, filmmaker and Professor of Film in the Department of Communication Arts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison J.J. Murphy has written the kind of book that I’ve been waiting for for a long time. Think of Me and You and Memento and Fargo as an alternative to the slew of “manuals” on screenwriting out there. There is valid information in all of them but like we all know application of knowledge is everything. There is no magic bullet to writing a good screenplay.

What Murphy covers in this book is not a “how-to” for independent screenwriters but case studies of a dozen screenplays that range from the experimental collage of Gummo to the film noir reworking of Fargo (see the list here.) He goes on to say that independent film is a sort of amalgamation of art cinema and classic film design. What degree or side of the track the screenplay falls on is at the discretion of the writer. I wouldn’t say this is a bashing of contemporary commercial films but more a contrarian view. He allows us, through deep analysis, to see the moving parts of these screenplays. In contrast these films are more flattened dramatically, not so dependent on the overworked go-to devices of mainstream American cinema. This is not to say that these films don’t incorporate similar mappings like the three-act structure, most of them do with exception to a couple.

In Me and You and Memento and Fargo, the styles of these films are broken down into four parts with three film examples each part. In Part One we see Murphy dissect what is the Problematic Protagonist. Here he states and illustrates that manual writers like Robert McKee teach us that protagonist have to be goal-driven; ambivalence is boring and does not move the story forward. Here Murphy gives Stranger Than Paradise, Safe and Fargo as examples of how protagonists can take on different qualities and still remain interesting, Fargo probably being the most bold by shifting protagonists almost in mid-stream. Characters float through story damned by circumstance and we are engaged just for the pure enjoyment of watching these charismatic, odd and delusional characters make their way in an unpredictable world.

Continuing with Part Two, Multiple-Plot Films, we see how the use of ensemble pieces can tell interesting stories that get discouraged by the manuals. Trust, Gas Food Lodging and Me and You and Everyone We Know are the films chosen. By far the most interesting point made here comes from the two films that are created by women. Allison Anders, director of Gas Food Lodging flat out says the three-act structure is masculine in nature and that filmmakers should rely on a more intuitive and inventive approach especially if you are trying to put your name out there as a independent artist.

Part Three is where the waters get deep with Temporal Structures. These are films that deal with shifting expectations by altering time and orientation in the mind of the audience. By using Reservoir Dogs, Elephant and Memento Murphy shows us how the filmmakers use flashback, foreshadowing and overlapping time to create complex structures that challenge the viewer and probably ask more of the audience than most films. Just explaining Christopher and Jonathan Nolan’s Chinese box film Memento with its demanding exploration of time and memory is an impressive feat.

The collection of the more unorthodox films in this analysis is saved for last in Part Four. Here the films live in a dream state or even possibly a state of psychosis. They are Noncausal Structures. All conventional logic is nonexistent. The film’s world creates its own logic. Mulholland Drive, Gummo and Slacker have no predictable arc, plot points or reversals. Lines of plot drop out sometimes returning much, much later or not at all. It would be easy to say these films have no rules and are a random blurting out of thoughts on a page but upon analysis you can see this is not true. They are a whole creation unto themselves.

“Classical Hollywood narration is not intrinsically superior to either art-cinema narration or the combination represented by American Independent cinema” is the sentiment that concludes Murphy’s book. After reading it and seeing the numerous examples of how these films break the rules one can only ask the question, “why can’t I break the rules?” The answer is you can. The filmmakers discussed are very aware of what the rules are for Hollywood screenwriting, they just choose to not play by them. Screenwriting should have method though. To quote Murphy’s final statement,“Real innovation in screenwriting, as the various independent films in this study boldly attest, comes not from an ignorance of narrative film conventions, but from being able to see beyond their limitations.”

Reading J.J. Murphy’s book was very freeing and I would recommend it to anyone interested in telling a good story for film, not just the independent screenwriter. With emerging technology and distribution models changing the playing field for filmmakers the thing that will never change is the need for fresh inventive storytelling. This is why I think this book is very relevant regardless of where film exhibition is going.

Prior to reading I would suggest renting all the films or at least being familiar with them. The book goes into great detail when explaining the progression of structure of the films. Me and You and Memento and Fargo is an excellent addition to any filmmaker’s library but mostly anyone who has felt tied down by the manuals and in need of a creative punch in the arm.

Popularity: 28% [?]

Cinematical lists seven films that have examples of great film conversations. I have to agree.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Continuing our conversation, Jeremiah and I talk about shooting specific scenes in the film, The Face of the Earth. To repeat, this dialogue makes reference to scenes in the film so if you haven’’t seen it you can download it on the sidebar in a large or small Quicktime file format.

Part Two:

Pre-production: What were some of the things you learned at that stage of the game? You had to deal with SAG paperwork, workers comp, insurance. A lot of paper.

Yeah. Lots of paper. I think what I walked away with was the real need to have a great team and that they really want to see it happen. The ones that don’t can really throw a wrench in the works.

You also had to deal with very unique personalities. Even in the very early stages, I felt like our characters were coming out. Joe Reider (the production designer) was very passionate and hyper. Dave Castillo (the cinematographer) was incredibly busy with his Canon stuff and sometimes difficult to pin down. Would you have done anything differently during that pre-production time if you had it to do over again?

That’s filmmaking and it’s part of being a good director. Knowing how to capitalize on those personalities and make them all work for you and the film.

Differently..sure. Any filmmaker that says they wouldn’t change something about their film or the process of making it is lying.

How many times did we go out for location scouting?

We probably went out about 4, maybe 5 times.

Do you remember anything in particular from those scouts?

I just remember being frustrated because there were shots I wanted and there wasn’t enough light. I would explain to Dave (cinematographer) that I wanted to get a shot of the car coming off this bridge and he would say “Can’t do it”. There was a lot of that.

Our first day of shooting was in that pay-by-the-hour hotel, right?

Yes. Ohh yeah. That place was a trip. There was another one I really wanted in the Bronx right of the Hutchinson River Parkway but they said no way.

It felt like you had already rehearsed with the actors quite a bit. That was the one part of the evening that seemed to go right. I remember several things about that night. First, I remember we kept jumping back and forth from one side of the room to the other, so Dave and Steve would light an area, then break everything down and light another area, then break everything down and re-light the first area. I finally said we had to shoot out one side of the room entirely, then shoot out the other part of the room, because we were wasting lots of time. I remember you, me and Dave had our first intense pow-wow when we were filming an improvisation scene.

Doing it that way was all wrong. It was poor planning. That was frustrating as hell and really set the tone in my mind.

I still think the improv idea might have worked if we had conceived it differently — like a two-shot of the guys talking or maybe a hand-held going back and forth. I like those kinds of scenes because they feel fresh and can tap into something emotionally true. But our team wasn’t equipped for that kind of spontaneity, and as it was we had a hell of a time covering the script pages without improv.

The first day is tough enough and when you are not communicating with your DP it makes it even tougher. I wanted the whole motel scene to be handheld, that was original conception.

How did your nerves hold up that night? You didn’t lose your temper like Dave and I did sometimes but you looked like a slow burn. How far did the project move from your original conception? I don’t mean the finished film being different than the script, or the scenes we did not get to shoot. I mean how far did the scenes we shot move from your original idea of how you wanted them?

Not as a whole but elements changed out of necessity. I really wanted certain shots that we just couldn’t or didn’t get. Not to mention scenes that didn’t even get shot.

How long were we in that motel? 18 hours?

18 hours. I felt the tension at the end to. Another thing we didn’t get was the scene when Cicci is devastated after he sees his friend dead. I wanted to allow Jack Caruso time to find that moment.

Was that because we were rushed and tired at the end of the night?
Or, I should say, the dawn?

Yeah, I knew everyone was dying. It was about 120 degrees with the lights. I couldn’t push more than I did already. I felt like a total failure. I knew everyone was chomping at the bit to get out of there.

One thing we should talk about is the bathroom scene where John decides to shoot himself. I remember Joe splattering blood and fake brains and hair and all sorts of shit all over the wall. Dave had to shoot in there and was getting physically ill. It was like he could barely stand up. If I remember correctly, you asked Joe to make it less bloody in there because it was looking like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and shit.

Looking back it’s hilarious but at the time Joe was just a little too into his job. I didn’t want it to be graphic but it turned into the end of The Wild Bunch.

What was the second night of shooting? Outside the Irish-American bar?

That was pretty crazy too. Really got the tone of the neighborhood. Babies screaming in the street at 11:00 at night. That was something we just captured in some off moment and when I was editing I found it and dropped it in under the opening tracking shot.

Did we have the cops there helping us on that day? I don’t remember if we closed down the street or not. All I remember are the local drunks who wanted to be in the movie. And the crazy alcoholic women hanging off of our Production Assistants and flirting with them.

“We” closed the streets down not the Mayor’s Office cops. We couldn’t get them that day for some reason and I was paranoid that we were going to get shut down. We got some of the local talent in that opening shot but that was it. Again, if the production could have handled the improve moments it would have worked for us. I think one of the PA’s actually took the train up and started drinking with the regulars before we started shooting.

This is like DVD commentary without the DVD.

What about all the hardships you had getting that car? Didn’t you get the car from some Trustafarian kid?

That was insane. This guy got in touch with me from craigslist and it sounded cool but it became harder and harder as time went on. I always paid the guy but i think he saw that he had me because we shot all this footage. He had the balls to give me shit because his lighter was missing from this huge, 25 year old boat. He said we broke his seat. There were so many problems with that car to begin with.

I remember we went over schedule that night. Man, that was a tough one.

I think at one point we were looking to grab another day and he wanted $400. I told him to fuck off.

Was it the third day of shooting where we got rained out? We had a torrential storm coming down. That was the day when I thought to myself, “What did Billy do in his past life to deserve this?” It was like your production was the Book of Job!

That was actually going to be the first night. Dave was concerned with the lights and the electricity.

The next night, Dave showed some can-do ingenuity by putting up the tent.

All I have to say is every film from here on out better be a cake walk…

Popularity: 16% [?]

When watching the film “Sweet Smell of Success” this morning I couldn’t help but be nostalgic for a time when I wasn’t even born (if that makes any sense). It is a film that gave us not one but two magnetic performances by Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster, both disturbing in their own right. James Wong Howe sets the standard high with his gorgeous black and white photography, capturing a dirt under the fingernails view of New York City in the 1950′s. Clifford Odets’ dialogue seals the deal.

Dark, cynical and fascinating. A true character study in what motivates us to do what we do to get what we want and how twisted that path can be.

This brilliant film by frequently overlooked director Alexander Mackendrick should not be missed.

Rent it immediately….

Popularity: 11% [?]