Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Tuesday Talkback: Sex comedy week - Day 2

Over the years, I've read a lot of sex comedy specs from both pros and amateurs. If there are two things they all had in common they were: 1) cheap titillation and 2) gross-out gags.

Yet here's the interesting thing - I can't recall ever reading a scene in one of these films that was genuinely titillating. In fact, I can't remember even seeing a truly titillating scene in one of these movies. There's plenty of cheap T&A in those flicks, but that's not what I'm talking about. Scenes of naked breasts, or girls in bikinis and lingerie might be appealing as eye candy, but usually those moments are so "in your face" as to be empty calories. The fact that I can't pick out a single scene that was truly sexy might seem to back that up.

Gross-out gags are another matter. I can think of plenty of scenes that rubbed me the wrong way in some major films. We're going to discuss gross-out gags tomorrow, so I don't want to get ahead of myself. However, I'll give a no-prize to anyone who correctly guesses both of the gross-out gags that still make me want to throw up in my mouth a little when I think about them. (A few have made me laugh, so you lose points if you pick one I liked and one I hated.)

And while you're at it - try to prove me wrong and tell me what you think the sexiest moments in sex comedy history are. Shoot for "genuinely sexy" and not just "hey, cheap excuse to show boobs!" If you agree with my conclusions, then do you think the lesson is that sex in general is window dressing in a sex comedy?

Monday, February 8, 2010

Sex comedy week - Day 1: Furries aren't funny

If you're writing a sex comedy, and you need a "funny" sex scene for shock value, I want you to go right now and check out this Wikipedia list of paraphilias.

As the article explains, paraphilia is "defined as powerful and persistent sexual interest other than in copulatory or precopulatory behavior." In plain English, it's a catagory that means "weird sexual fetishes."

Here are some of the more interesting ones on that list, with the titles, followed by the unusual cause of the sexual arousal. I invite writers to pick any one of these:

Abasiophilia - People with impaired mobility
Acrotomophilia - People with amputations
Agalmatophilia - Statues, mannequins and immobility[6]
Autoerotic asphixiation - Self-induced asphyxiation, sometimes to the point of near unconsciousness
Chremastistophilia - Being robbed or held up
Dendrophilia - Trees(!)
Emetophilia - Vomit
Formicophilia - Being crawled on by insects
Ursusagalmatophilia - Teddy bears

As you can see, there's quite a list to choose from. Unfortunately, most writers don't give it that much thought. Screenwriters often think they're being edgy and clever when in actuality, they're merely reusing an idea that has been done to death. Case in point, whenever a sex comedy calls for an "oddball" sexual deviance, there's a 99.9% chance that a writer is going to pull out a plush suit and subject me to yet another furry joke.

What's a furry, you ask? Well, in short, it's a sexual fetish that involves dressing up in an animal costume while having sex. In other words, it's people who like having sex while dressed as Yogi Bear and Elmo from Sesame Street.

(Dear god, I really don't want to see the Google searches that this post is going to bring to my page!)

Bizarre? Yes. Funny? Maybe when it's done for shock value. The fact is, this joke has been told many times before, not just in spec scripts, but in actual shows. It's been done on ER, CSI and Entourage among others. In other words, it's gonna take more to get me to laugh than showing Johnny Drama taking a girl from behind while wearing a pink plush bear outfit.

So strike out on your own and pick one of the more obscure "freak" fetishes. Or invent your own. If there is actual documentation on a guy who likes to have sex with trees, then surely your own imagination couldn't come up with something less plausible than that. Be creative and show me something I've never seen before.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Friday Free-for-All: Groundhog Day trailer

I always enjoy a clever trailer that is done in a way that completely alters the feeling of the movie it's promoting. It's a good lesson in how one shouldn't put too much stock in the previews and the commercials. A clever marketing team can always cull just the right footage and and play just the right music under it to get a specific reaction out of their audience.

In honor of Groundhog Day earlier this week, I present this fan-made trailer for Groundhog Day, which is cut in such a way so that it appears to be a creepy horror movie.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Thursday Throwback: When good scripts go bad - "Domino"

As I mentioned last week, I've just celebrated the one year anniversary of this blog. I'm very aware that most of you who read this blog regularly arrived here after June. As such, there are some posts you might not have seen in the archives, or perhaps ones that you saw, but didn't choose to comment on.

With that in mind, I've decided that every now and then I'll repost an entry from the first five months of this blog's life. I won't do this every week... probably just the weeks I'm swamped with work and haven't had time to fill out an entire weeks worth of posts. So without further introduction, here's a post
from last February 5th, entitled "When good scripts go bad - 'Domino'"

---

For most readers, probably 90% of what we read will never be produced, but you can get a helluva education from the 1 out of 10 scripts you read that do end up produced in one form or another. The reactions range from “They made that? The script sucked?” to “What happened? The script I read was so good!” I’m sure there are readers who fear for their jobs or their credibility after a script they raved about comes out as a terrible movie, but the fact is that there are always plenty of other places to point the finger.

Almost five years ago, I had the then-rare distinction of reading a really clever and engaging script for my bosses at the time. It had a complex plot, a clever non-linear structure, some funny showbiz cameos, and some really well-executed twists. In short, it was one of the most original scripts I’d seen and also one that I would have been willing to stake my reputation on. The script in question? Richard Kelly’s Domino, the story of a former model-turned-bounty-hunter, based on a true story (sort of.)

Unfortunately there was not shortage of reasons why my boss felt that the script was an inappropriate fit for us at the time, and there were factors I wasn’t expected to know about, so the company quietly passed. I spent the next year lamenting the fact that my bosses had let such a sure-fire hit movie get away. During that time, whenever someone asked me if I’d read anything good lately, I was quick to reply that Domino was one of the best scripts I’d ever seen and that it was sure to be a hit when it came out. Maybe I’m exaggerating, but in hindsight it certainly feels like I was staking all my script-reading credibility on this movie, at least as far as my rep among my friends was concerned.

So it was apt punishment for my ego when the film came out and tanked horribly. The reviews were savage. This wasn’t just a weak movie, this was a BAD movie. Rotten Tomatoes has it at a 19% Fresh rating, and it made a paltry $22 million return worldwide on a supposedly $50 million investment. (The domestic box office was a pathetic $10 million.) By pretty much any standards, this was a failure. Clearly something had gone wrong, but what?

I saw the movie on DVD and there weren’t any drastic script deviations that I could detect. How had my instincts had been so off-base? Easy. I had forgotten about one major factor – the director. This was perhaps the most over-directed, over-edited, over-stylized film I ever had the displeasure of sitting through. The story and dialogue might have been the same, but the presentation was marred by the sort of ADD/MTV editing that critics like to rip to shreds. Don’t get me wrong, I completely agree with every criticism lobbed at this film – but I still think the script was awesome.

It is pretty much an inevitability for any script reader that eventually a script they loved is going to be horribly miscast, thus ruining the entire film. The best thing you can hope for is that when it happens, it isn’t with a script being produced by the company you work for.

And if that does happen. Just let it go. You don’t write the movies, you don’t produce the movies, you don’t cast the movies. You are just the guy who reads them and helps the important people decide it’s worth their time to read them too.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

The Secret Life of the American Teenager: How phone calls can kill a scene

Lady Bitter (who in fact is the exact opposite of "bitter") is a regular viewer of some excellent TV shows and one utterly, irredeemably awful series on ABC Family known as The Secret Life of the American Teenager. I've only caught a few episodes here and there, but the best I can tell, it's about a bunch of teenagers who repeatedly talk about sex in clunky, unrealistic dialogue, yet rarely have it. If you're thinking that sounds like Dawson's Creek, let me disabuse you of that right now. This makes Dawson's Creek look like The Sopranos.

After just a few minutes of watching this show, I realized there was something familiar about it. The crappy blocking, the uninteresting direction, the universally flat performances, the stilted conversations... and especially, the propensity for repeated expositional dialogue in each scene. And then came the final piece of the puzzle - multiple dialogue scenes staged as phone conversations.

Scene after scene featured one character talking on the phone to another. Each character remained stationary in their respective sets as they talked back-and-forth - usually about some plot-point that at already been reestablished at least once in the previous five minutes. It looked like the director had positioned the actor, told them to sit still, then just let the camera roll while the actor read their lines from an off-screen cue card. This also clearly was a director who didn't believe in rehearsals or second takes, judging from the The most work in this entire scene came from the editors, who had the hard task of cutting back and forth between both sides of the conversation. As I watched, I knew I'd seen this sort of hackery before... and I trembled.

Yes, friends. This had the unmistakable stench of 7th Heaven all over it. 7th Heaven, a show harder to kill than Jason Voorhees, though not nearly as redeemable. Occasionally sympathetic friends and readers inquire about the terrible quality of the scripts I read, and wonder if I ever see anything better than what's produced by Hollywood. I often answer, "So long as shows like Brenda Hampton's last two series are produced, there will be writing out there at least as bad as the slush pile.

I could devote a week of posts to using this show as a "how not to write compelling scenes" but frankly, I don't have the motivation to sit through that much drivel to unearth a few nuggets. And it's not just that the shows are badly written, it's that they have truly horrible ideas. The episode I saw revolved around how one teenage girl spurs on all the other girls in their school to start a masturbation club, called "Just Say Me." As I understand it, this club got started because a few girls were tired of having their boyfriends cheat on them. They considered cutting them off from sex, but decided that wouldn't work because, "Boys can't help that they want sex, and the problem is that there's always another girl willing to have it with them."

Yes, you heard that right... The problem with having a boyfriend who cheats on you is not that he's unfaithful - it's that some other Jezebel is out there ready to give it up if you won't! And this shit was written by a woman!

If I had a teenage daughter, I'd sooner let her watch something like, "A Working Girl's Guide to Giving Oral Sex" than The Secret Life of the American Teenager.

But I'm drifting. The point of this post was to discuss the right and the wrong way to handle a phone conversation between two characters. First off, I avoid writing scenes as phone conversations whenever possible. It's always hurts the performances when the actors aren't really playing against each other. Having said that, there are times when it may be unavoidable, so heed these warnings.

1) Try to give the two characters something interesting to do as they're on the phone.

2) If the film is a suspense/thriller, see if you can milk some tension from the location. Perhaps your hero is talking on the phone to a stalker and suddenly has reason to think that person is very close.

3) Avoid having dramatic conversations take place on the phone unless Rules 1 and 2 apply OR there is some deep emotion in the dialogue for the actor/character to call upon.

4) When dealing with exposition, as always, make sure we don't have to sit through one character telling us what we already know. Consider if it is important that we see the phone conversation, or if we have enough context for what's going on so we just need to see Bill dial and say, "Charlie, it's me. I need a favor..." Cut to - that favor being put into motion.

Good uses of phone calls:

The Scream movies: Often there's suspense drawn from the fact that the phone call means that the killer is in the immediate vicinity and could be ready to pounce on the character in question at any time. Tension comes from several facts here: since we only hear the voice, we don't know who the killer is - so he could be anyone, and we don't know where the killer is - so he could be anywhere.

In the Line of Fire - the same rules apply as for Scream. Director Wolfgang Peterson also does a great job in shooting these conversations so that they're not visually static.

Phone Booth and Cellular also make strong dramatic use of phone conversations, which are effective for many of the same reasons as the above examples. So, this proves that phone conversations need not always result in a dead duck of a scene - but it takes care to avoid falling into some easy traps.

If this makes sense to you, you'll already have a better understanding of how to craft an interesting scene than the team working on this show. Then you too can have a series that not only survives cancellation, but the cancellation of its entire network and the loss of half the principle cast - and get to create a new show after that!

Hmmm... perhaps I'm the crazy one.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Tuesday Talkback: Good movies from bad talent

I'm sure every moviegoer has had the experience of being let down by one of their favorite filmmakers, but how many times has a director or writer you dismissed as a hack totally surprised you? Can you recall ever seeing a good movie by someone you thought was a bad filmmaker?

The first film like this that comes to mind for me is Red Dragon, directed by Brett Ratner. I haven't liked a Ratner movie prior to this or since it, but Red Dragon was incredibly well-done. I know this is probably sacrilege, but I liked it a lot better than the previous adaptation of that novel, Michael Mann's Manhunter. Not only was it more faithful to the book (save for the expansion of Hannibal Lector's role), but it felt more intense, the film was paced better, and as much as it pains me to say this - it was more visually interesting.

Yeah, I can't believe I actually gave Ratner a "win" over Mann, either - especially since Collateral is one of my favorite movies and Heat was pretty cool too.

So how about you? When have your favorite whipping boys impressed you?

Monday, February 1, 2010

How do I do it?

Nicholas sent me this email a few weeks ago and I'm only just now getting around to it. Sorry!

I've been reading your site for a while. Love it. You give great advice. But to be honest, having never read or attempted to read a bad script, I never really knew what it was like to be a reader. Until just 20 minutes ago...

On a whim I decided to get a Triggerstreet account so that I could DL some bad scripts and learn from them. I immediately regretted my decision. Let me just say...the script I attempted to read was instantly painful to behold. No, seriously, it cause me physical pain. I don't know how, but it did.

So I attempted to read the first few pages of that same writer's newest script -- the forth they have uploaded. It was certainly better, but still so entirely cringe worthy.

How do you do it man? If nearly every script I read was that bad... Fuck, I just don't know... I'm not a drinker, but I feel like the only way I could get through being a reader is if I knocked back a bottle of scotch before heading to work each morning.

So really, all I wanted to say was: I feel your pain, man. I'm bitter after just 10 pages, and I'm not even required to finish the damn thing. I'd hate to find out how bitter you are after 6 years of this dreck.



I'm sure someone is going to pop up and defend Triggerstreet, but I will say that my extremely limited exposure to their scripts (a fact which goes back probably five years at this point) leads me to believe that most of what you'll find on that site is worse than what I read. Like I said, I haven't been there in a long time so for all I know, it could be a writer's haven, populated by only the best and the brightest who give insightful critiques to truly stellar scripts.


But I doubt it.


However, reading bad scripts is just part of the job. Sometimes the bad scripts excite me more than the good ones, to be honest. If it's a weak script, but I can see exactly where it went wrong and I'm pretty sure I know how to fix it, it really ends up stimulating my imagination. It's always fun to be able to write coverage that points out several flaws while still being able to offer a lot of intelligent solutions to them. How many jobs let you exercise that part of your brain?


And then there are the scripts that are beyond saving but are still entertainingly bad in an "Ed Wood" sort of way. These are rather rare, though. Most bad scripts are of the "boring bad" variety, and yeah, they can be total soul drainers. If you're lucky, they're bad in ways to entertainingly savage. Bad reviews are almost always more fun to write than good reviews. There are times where I'll write a really brutal, savage review of a script just to get it out of my system. Then I'll go back and rewrite a lot of it to make it acceptable for "agency-style" coverage.


Are there weeks where I'm bored to death and just frustrated with what I've had to read? Sure, all the time! But is there any job that doesn't suck at all? I'm sure that even the guy who gets to paint the bikinis on the naked Sports Illustrated Swimsuit models would have something to bitch about if you asked him.


Though I can't imagine what.