An old friend had read a few scripts of mine. He brought up
an interesting observation. I write mostly style, very little substance. He
compared this type of style to a director like Tony or Ridley Scott. “Thanks” I
said, figuring it was a compliment. I don’t think he meant it like that. He
said I write mood. A tonal movie and very little story or character
development. When you think about movies like that, I think you walk away from
them and just say very little.
I started to think about the stories that drive these types
of filmmakers. For instance, if I were to break down Tony Scott’s movies, I
couldn’t tell you one of them that had character development. I think the
closest one was “The Fan.” I
wonder if this didn’t lead to his depression.
Anyway, going through his filmography, I really can’t see a
single movie that a lead in the film has depth. Depth like, say an Anthony
Minghella movie. I watched “The Talented Mr. Ripley” last night again. Wow, is
that movie beautiful. It’s like Italy shown in the most beautiful light. BUT
the lifestyle too. That is all nice, but what transcends the subject, is the
character of Tom Ripley played pitch perfect by Matt Damon. His
characterization of Ripley is of a man who is so desperate to live the
lifestyle of the rich and wealthy, he despises his own poverty. He dreams to
live the way Dickie Greenleaf (played by Jude Law) lives. A beautiful girl,
money and a life of leisure. Then you realize, not everything is truthful with
his life as well. This is great filmmaking. No one is one thing at all times.
People change. And their behavior will destroy them. Then I examined “Blade
Runner.” The original script seemed to have examined Deckard’s inner conflict
which you hear in voice over. It’s a cheap gimmick they ditched in the
director’s cut. But for the theatrical release, they wanted to make a film
noir. This doesn’t require inner monologue’s. And the only reason he becomes
conflicted with his hunt for replicants, is that now he has fallen in love with
one of them. THEN, to add a twist…it’s implied that he may be a replicant as
well. Hardly the same type of behavior that connects us as human. Seems last
minute. Which is why they had conflicts during the shoot. They just couldn’t
figure out the “human element.”
I recently wrote a quick script to fast track into
production. This was due to a film noir atmosphere movie I always wanted to
make. I realize that there are just key moments that I would not have time to
develop in a short. My friend Sam had pounded out a quick synopsis based on a
concept/location. Train station , man sitting on bench, woman with knife runs
into him – GO!
He had a great concept. And could be told completely without
dialogue. However, I felt that it
lacked a connective film noir element. That the woman gets away with screwing
over the guy and leaving him to his demise. He’d written a nice ending. That’s
when I added that he was on the run, as was she, and they run into each other
at the train station, only to have him get screwed over in his escape by a
woman he showed kindness to. Then I realized one thing…logic. Why would these
two “accidentally” meet and just happen be her escape route. If he never
existed, she’d be stuck.. Fuck me.
So I shuffled the story around to not make it so
coincidental, and maybe imply she already has plans to screw him over. This
still doesn’t solve my problem of behavior=character=story. But maybe that’s
not a bad thing. Maybe just watching a high style movie, people can just walk
away and say “man…that sucks.” Worked for early Billy Wilder.
No comments:
Post a Comment