Be aware of the rating

Just a quick tip today - when writing your screenplay, it might help to keep in mind the rating of the movie when working on your dialogue. Certain words will automatically get you a certain rating.

For instance: you can say "hell," "damn," "ass" and "shit," in a PG film, but "Son of a Bitch" will usually get you PG-13.

In PG-13, you can say every swear word but "fuck." You're allowed one instance of "fuck," usually, but as long as it's not in a sexual context. In other words, a character can say, "Fuck you!" in anger, but he can't leer at a girl and say, "I want to fuck you." I have to admit, I'm not sure what the rules are on "the C word," but that seems to earn a film an R as well.

Graphic sex will earn you an R faster than graphic violence, so be especially careful when writing scenes that make heavy use of anal and/or oral sex. I see these a lot in script that seem like they'd be aimed at a teen audience - which means that PG-13 would be the desired rating. Yes, occasionally there'll be a successful R-rated teen sex comedy, and the success of The Hangover earlier this year (to say nothing of Judd Apatow's oeuvre) means that R-rated comedies in general might be on their way back in - but for a long time, studios were aiming for that PG-13 sweet spot. If the primary audience for your film is teenagers, you should aim there too.

So don't over use "fuck," and a word to the wise - anal sex scenes are never as edgy and clever as most writers seem to think they are. There was one week where it seemed like every other script I read had a particularly gratuitous example of such a scene. Without them, the scripts would have been soft PG-13, easily. Because of that, not only did the scene feel like a writer's indulgence, but it stuck out like a sore thumb.

So know the audience you're writing for, and don't step over certain lines just for the sake of doing so. Yes, language can always be cut back, but if the word "fuck" appears more often in your script than the word "the," it might be time to do some trimming.

Tuesday Talkback: When your heroes let you down

I'm going to have a shorter preamble to this question because I want to see if anyone brings up my picks without me mentioning them first.

This week's question: Can you remember the first time one of your favorite directors/writers/actors really let you down with their then-newest release? What was the film (or films) and your reaction to it?

The worst query submission I ever had to read

Over the years, I've read thousands of scripts and I can tell you where most of them have ended up - in the circular file. However, every now and then I get a script so hilariously, unbelievably bad that I have to save it for posterity. There's one such script that I have held onto for well over five years at this point. To be honest, I'm not sure how it made its way into the company I was working for at the time. It has all the earmarks of a "slush pile" script, and yet, somehow it got to an assistant who didn't take this sort of thing.

My theory has always been that she requested the script so she could use it to torture me.

It's hard to know where to begin with this abomination, so I'll just describe it the way a professional reader would see it. The first thing you'd notice is that the script is significantly thicker than most other screenplays. A quick flip to the back page will confirm that it is just shy of 160 pages in length - about 40 pages and 33% longer than the accepted norm!

You would also notice that the first fifteen or so pages bound in the script are not actually part of the script. Beneath the cover page is a Table of Contents, that helpfully explains that there is an Introduction, an Overview, and a section on "marketing considerations." These marketing considerations include "observations" on the particular cultural subset depicted in the film, as well as the "Author's Commitment to Marketing."

I'll say this now - as the screenwriter, it's not your job to tell the producers and marketing department how to market their film. Yes, you need to give them something marketable, but then shut up and let them do their jobs.

Oh, and the writer also included several pages of reviews from their last book. (Self-published, of course.)

The page and a half cover letter helpfully informs the executive that the film was inspired by a true story, and then leads into a long uninteresting anecdote about a conversation the writer had which inspired the film. The second paragraph details how this screenplay was first written as a novel and then adapted by the author. The author suggests that "This is a perfect vehicle for Halle Berry, and we already know what she looks like in tight, black latex... though there are others who work as well." In case you don't know this, NEVER offer casting suggestions in a cover letter. Let the casting people do their job.

The next paragraph says that though the script is a little long, that's mostly because of the long descriptions of the settings and actions, and the writer estimates that the film will be more than two hours and fifteen minutes. This is also the point where the writer casually mentions that several scenes are a direct riff on an existing and well-known novel - to the point that several characters assume the identities of the other author's characters.

Oh, and as we get to page two of the cover letter, the author says that all her friends have responded well to the script and again she mentions the research on marketing that they themselves gathered.

But the author still hasn't shut up - there's yet another page! An addendum to the cover letter. It starts with "I forgot to mention how much research went into this script," and then spends three paragraphs singling out specific scenes and essentially saying little more than, "Someone told me this stuff in an interview."

So finally, after I've stopped laughing so hard that my throat is sore, I peel back the real cover page. I'm not greeted with "FADE IN" as I should be. No, I still have to get past a one-page list suggesting possible cast members for the eight lead roles.

Seriously, days like that don't just make me hate my job. They make me hate writers.

Now I'm going to tell you the first two words in the first two paragraphs of the script:

1) "CAMERA PANS"
2) "CAMERA MOVES"

Never, ever, EVER, NEVER direct in the screenplay! At this point I pretty much know all I should need to know. It's utter amateur hour. Not only can I be assured that the writer has no clue what they're doing, I can already tell from the pitch that this is not something that my bosses would ever go for. Unfortunately, this was not one of those times when I had the luxury of simply going back to my bosses and telling them what I told you. It had been made clear to me that I had to read the whole thing.

This script was wretched. There was excessive voice-over narration throughout, insanely overly detailed description, including a healthy serving of "unfilmables." (For those not in the know, "unfilmables" are what we call information in the description that cannot possibly be shown visually. For instance, if the description tells us that Bobby has been emotionally crippled ever since his mom died in his arms when he was 8, that's bad writing. If we need to know that, it should come out through dialogue or action. Putting it in the description means that the only people who will know this are those reading the script.)

There were also a number of graphic sex scenes that, if filmed as described, would have earned the movie an NC-17 easily.

This thing is utter garbage. It's not the most offensive spec script I've ever read, but it's definitely in my Top 5 Worst, if not THE worst. I keep it as a reminder to never make the mistakes that writer did. Plus, every now and then it's good for a laugh.

Friday Free-for-All: Stephen Hawking

Well, November sweeps are upon us in television and we all know what that means - gratuitous "Special Guest Stars" as every show tries to boost its ratings. Frankly, this practice disgusts me, especially when the same actors continue to whore themselves out by making cheap cameo appearances as themselves.

But there's one gratuitous guest star who is the very definition of "fame whore" - one Professor Stephen Hawking, a man apparently not smart enough to feel shame for all the gratuitous guest spots he's done over the years. You couldn't get a more apt example of producer pandering to a low brow audience than the series that have hosted Dr. Hawking over the years.

Here's Hawking appearing as himself on Star Trek: The Next Generation.



And here's a clip of Dr. Hawking discussing his work on The Simpsons. (Sorry, I couldn't find an unedited clip of his cameo.)



What's next? A shot on Entourage where he and Vince go after the same chick? Or perhaps he could get into a fight with Larry David on Curb Your Enthusiasm after Larry parks in a handicapped spot.

Ever notice how this guy always plays himself? What an ego. He needs to get over himself fast.

Around the blogosphere & Nichols musings

I'll be honest, folks, I got a surge of work this week and at the moment, I'm lacking in the free time necessary to compose an interesting and insightful post. But, I've seen a lot of really great posts this week, so why not put in a few plugs?

First, Scott over at Go Into The Story is running an interesting series, posting excepts from a Wrap article on Up director Pete Doctor, entitled "Pixar Movies Are Lousy... A First." Check it out if you haven't already. It's a fascinating look inside the Pixar creative process.

Nichols fans should check out Scriptshadow this week, as he appears to be reviewing a few of this year's finalists. I confess, I spent the time I usually spend writing my blog on composing a post for Carson's review of Victoria Falls, which he calls "a competition script. Plain and simple. You could send this logline to a thousand agencies and you'd probably get 999 rejections."

This provoked me to write the following comment:

Carson, you hit the nail on the head when you called this sort of script a "competition script." I haven't read this one, or any of the other Nichols Finalists this year, but I have read Finalists and Semi-Finalists from previous years and - as is pointed out in other comments - they tend to be dramas. HEAVY dramas. Yet the amazing thing is that within the industry, the perception is "drama is dead."

It seems like there's a serious disconnect between the scripts that get purchased and the scripts that win contests. Any theories on why that is, especially since so many contests boast judges that work within the industry? Do you think these contests feel obligated to reward scripts that might otherwise be tossed into the PASS pile practically on principle? Are they out to give an edge to overlooked scripts rather than single out one that is likely to be "discovered" anyway?

I just find it interesting that the conventional wisdom is that the Nichols is one of the ONLY competitions that anyone in the biz takes seriously... and yet it's winners are consistently of the unmarketable "competition script" variety. Makes one wonder if winning these is little more than a Pyrrhic victory.

Anyone here have any thoughts on this?

Tuesday Talkback: Oscar pics

Now that we're into November, we're pretty much closing in on that time of year when all the Oscar bait movies are released. Most studios employ the strategy of holding their prestige pics until just before the end of the year so that they're still fresh in voters minds when it comes time for the nominations. I'd venture that in any given year, 3 out of 5 or maybe even 4 out of the 5 Best Picture nominees are released in November or December.

Now, this year there are going to be ten nominees for Best Picture, which means that perhaps there'll be a higher percentage of movies nominated from the films that were released earlier in the year. With that in mind, today's Tuesday Talkback question is: If you had to pick the Best Picture winner right now, what would it be?

Two rules:
1) If it hasn't been released yet, you can't nominate it.

2) If you haven't actually seen it, you can't nominate it. This isn't a "who do you think will win" poll. This is a "Who would YOU give the trophy to" Poll.

3) No tangents about "Worst Films of the Year." I promise we'll get to those in due time.

AFI Fest - Best Worst Movie and The Loved Ones

Saturday I decided I was more or less Halloween-d out and decided to take advantage of the fact that AFI Fest was offering free tickets to all of their screenings. Having heard good buzz about the documentary Best Worst Movie, I went in with high hopes. The documentary was made by Michael Paul Stevenson, who 20 years ago was a child actor in Troll 2, a film once considered "the Worst Movie Ever Made." In the ensuing years, it's achieved a sort of cult status among the sorts of fans who enjoy bad movies and midnight screenings of said bad movies.

Despite my affection for those sorts of bad movies, I'd never managed to see Troll 2, but that didn't hamper my enjoyment of the documentary. However if you are interested in seeing it, it's available for free on Hulu.

The central figure of doc is actor/dentist George Hardy, who never appeared in another film after Troll 2, and who is so likable that even his ex-wife can't think of a bad thing to say about it. At one point he hilariously recounts his reactions while seeing the film for the first time. Suffice to say, he harbored no delusions that he had appeared in anything remotely resembling a good film. Its cult status comes as something of a shock to him until he attends a packed midnight showing in New York with a theatre full of fans who treat him like William Shatner at a Star Trek convention. There's genuine joy in seeing George's bemusement and enjoyment of his adoring fans.

But he's not the only cast member the film tracks down. Stevenson tracks down all his former cast members, and they're an eclectic bunch. There's a man who admits he was having serious mental problems during shooting and smoked a lot of pot to stay sane; a younger actress who talks about how Troll 2 was such a blemish on her resume that she knew she'd never win a part if it came up at an audition; and an actress who has become something of a shut-in while caring for her aging mother.

But the real fun comes from seeing Troll 2 director Claudio Fragasso take in the spectacle of the fan gatherings with his own eyes. Unlike most of the cast, Claudio, his wife (who wrote the script,) and his editor, all labor under the delusion that Troll 2 is actually a profound "parable" (yes, he actually uses that word) about the forces that threaten families and try to tear them apart. After watching the film with a group of fans, he seems genuinely shocked (and a wee bit offended) that "they laugh at the parts where they are supposed to laugh, and then they laugh at the parts where they are not meant to laugh." One Q&A with the cast turns tense when the actors predictably slam the film and Claudio proceeds to berate them for being terrible actors.

It's a great documentary, and it's interesting to hear about some of the origins of the documentary via this Suicide Girls interview. I know I recently poked a little fun at Lionsgate, saying that they put out so much garbage that their motto should be "We'll release anything." Now, the quotes below have made me reverse my position on that and realize that isn't quite true, so I want to publicly apologize to Lionsgate for implying such things. I'll let Michael Paul Stephenson take it from here.

I got an e-mail, out of the blue again...from a producer in LA. He said, "I just wanted to let you know I'm a huge Troll 2 fan...and I've done some movies with Lionsgate, and if you ever had any projects, I'd love to have you come in and pitch it."I go in and I meet with him and another gentleman...[This second producer] was, to me, a typical Hollywood dirtbag. He was like, "Have you ever had girls who wanted to sleep with you because of your Troll 2 fame?" I was just thinking, what the hell is this? I was just kind of turned off by it. It felt weird coming out of there. They said, "OK, you can be the star and be the center [of the documentary]!" All of the creative notes that I was getting from them didn't feel right....

So long story short, I come back from New York and met with these producers. I said, "I want to focus on George. He's going to be the vehicle for this thing because he's a small town Alabama guy, and he's a movie star at these screenings, and I like that angle. I think there's [something] very human about it too that would relate to a larger audience than just [Troll 2] fans." They just basically just said, "No. The age range for this kind of movie is your age, you should be the center of it." They offered me a fourth of what I said I needed to do it, and they said, "Can you have it done in four to six weeks?"

I just kind of rolled my eyes and said, "You've got to be kidding me. There's no way I feel comfortable with that." And they just kind of said, "well, there's the door!"

Clueless. Just utterly clueless. If it wasn't for Tyler Perry's oeuvre, it's clear that Lionsgate would have gone under years ago. I want to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to Lionsgate for saying their standards are so low that they'll release anything, because it's clear from conversations like this that they wouldn't know a good movie if it came into their office and physically helped Lionsgate extract it's proverbial cranium from its alimentary canal.

(I figure I'm safe from Lionsgate retribution unless they happen to own a thesaurus.)

Anyway, if you're a fan of bad movies, or enjoy documentaries that explore these cult phenomenons, then Best Worst Movie is the film for you. You can find their website at http://bestworstmovie.com/

I'm going to tread lightly with spoilers for the second film I saw, The Loved Ones, an Australian thriller that recently premiered in the U.S. at the Toronto Film Festival. The set-up is that a teenager dealing with the death of his father turns down the school wallflower when she invites him to an end-of-the-year dance, explaining to her that he's going with his girlfriend. Hurt, the girl has her father abduct the boy and the deranged father/daughter team holds him prisoner in a scenario that recalls Misery and the dinner scene in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

It's a tense film and first-time director Sean Byrne is skillful at playing on the audience's nerves and pushing them to the limits of their tolerance. He allows the tension to really percolate and build to an unbearable level before it's released in painful and disturbing ways. I was left with mixed feelings on this movie, in part because I read a lot of scripts with similar premises. I'll give Byrne credit for not delving too far into the torture-porn that has dominated horror for far too long, but at the same time, this is the sort of film I'd only feel comfortable endorsing to a select few friends. I also can't imagine being motivated to rewatch it anytime in the foreseeable future. Byrne knows how to get a reaction from the audience, though.

As I said in my review of P2, I'm a sucker for two-hander movies like Misery, and this film more or less falls into that genre. However, it fell apart for me for a very major reason - I didn't care at all about the lead character, Brent. It didn't feel like the movie did enough to establish him pre-capture. We see him dealing with the loss of his father and then having sex with his girlfriend. Beyond that, there isn't much depth to him.

Where the film really suffers in comparison to Misery is in the inability to develop a real relationship between Brent and his captor. A lot of the best scenes in Misery come out of the interactions between Kathy Bates and James Caan. There's a give-and-take throughout before it becomes clear just how crazy Kathy Bates is. Now, in The Loved Ones, the girl's derangement is revealed early on, but that's not a problem. The problem is that Brent barely has ANY dialogue after being captured. He's basically restrained to a chair and forced to endure all manner of torture and insanity heaped on him by his captors.

Despite a few escape attempts, he feels somewhat passive throughout the second act. Since he's the guy the audience is supposed to identify with, it feels like the script should do more to make us empathize with him. Instead, it feels like Byrne decided that the real star of the film was the crazy girl and that Brent was just a device he could use to explore her. For me, that made for a less interesting movie. She's a great antagonist, but she needed a more compelling protagonist to play off of.

Without saying too much about the ending, I do feel that it its final moments, Bryne might have veered too far into black comedy. There's a sequence near the end that provoked outright laughter from the audience, likely due to the tonal change.

However, I don't know if it's fair to hold that last one against Byrne so much because the crowd I saw it with was full of "those people." I think you know the kind I'm talking about - the inconsiderate assholes who find it necessary to talk back to the screen during horror films with such great insights as "Damn... bitch be crazy!" and "You betta run, boy!" Let's be clear about this - when I watch a movie in the theatre, I will only tolerate heckling if it's coming from two robots and their human companion.

Beyond that, I feel that talking during a film is grounds for justifiable homicide. It utterly ruined the experience for me, much in the same way a screening of The Exorcist re-release was ruined for me many years ago. The usher's did their best to quell the disturbance. At one point they kicked out 12 people at once and removed another 5 or 6 at another occasion, but a few hecklers remained until the bitter end.

There's a special corner of hell reserved for those sorts of people. May their hell be a theatre that shows nothing but the works of Uwe Boll, an endless loop of Hostel and that one Elisha Cuthbert movie where she's made to eat the blended innards of a murder victim.

Anyway, to bring this to some kind of a conclusion, I invite all L.A. area readers to check out AFI Fest this week. Tickets are free and it looks like there are some great screenings there.