It's become my "morning paper" on the subway, which works great since I'm above ground for half my commute. I use it to keep up on some local and national news, particularly feeds from liberatrian outlets Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute. Plus a few good film related blogs, such as John August's (Go, Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Nines) outstanding screenwriting blog.

The feed for this blog is on their, too. Maybe I'm being a bit narcissistic, but I dig seeing this embryonic writing effort appear in an RSS feed. Subscribe here.

1) Don't Let the Background Videos confuse you- In private Korean karaoke spots, your song will play and there will usually be Korean dramas playing on the TV. Don't be confused, scared, or weirded out. This is just the way it is, so enjoy the random videos of Asian couples who walk in the countryside.

2)Beware of the Quiet, Shy One- Yeah, at karaoke, there's always that one quiet, shy person who claims to never have done karaoke. Um, yeah, then an hour later, they're totally hogging the machine. haha...

3) Service- In Korean spots, this means they'll give you something for free. Again, if you bring an Asian person, they will work it out.

4) Be courteous- In these spots, if you're not Asian/Asian-American, you will probably feel odd, but hey, just have fun, kick back, and sing. The point is to make a fool out of yourself and have fun. It's okay, you can rap Biggie, sing like Bon Jovi, or pretend that you're Britney Spears in her "Oops, I did it again, days." lol.

Also, check out the following websites that I came across... really funny and interesting.. in case you wanted to know what an Angry Asian Man thinks or perhaps John August, a Hollywood Screenwriter.

Oh, and thanks to Anthony at Ploomy for the t-shirt. Your site rocks.
Peace out,
K

From his blog:

My advice? You should make an indie film to make a film. Period. Artistic and commercial success don’t correlate well, and at the moment, only the former is remotely within your control.

If I had to do it all over again, I would have made the same movie but completely rethought how it went out into the world. I would have challenged a lot of the standard operating procedures, which seem to be part of an indie world that no longer exists. The Nines would have likely made just as little at the box office, but could have made a bigger impact on a bigger audience. Ultimately, I think that’s how you need to measure the success of an indie film’s release: how many people saw it.

He's got a lot to say, including that Theatrical releasing is overrated and Sundance buzz is meaningless.

But to get back to his point -- you as a filmmaker will always have a different agenda than whomever is producing or distributing (even if that person is you).

The filmmaker just wants to share their work with the largest possible audience.  To communicate and to move people.  The producer and distributor wants to make money from showing it to those people.

Sometimes those goals are in conflict, or at least they appear to be.

Especially nowadays when it takes a massive amount of cash to build awareness and get anyone remotely excited enough to shell out $10 or more to see your film in a theater and $20 to buy it on DVD.  If it's an unknown quantity, they are not going to want to buy it.

That's why you as a filmmaker want to give it away.  You want to build that audience because that's the only thing you can directly influence.  That influence has value to you moving forward in your career because there will always be someone who is better at producing than you that will want to try and use your influence with the audience to make them lots of money.

When I say that independent film is dead, I'm mostly talking about the pipe dream of theatrical distribution.  That's a money losing affair, even big studios look at major releases like Pirates of the Caribbean as a loss leader for merch, DVD, TV licensing, etc.

And look who the messenger is on this, not some sort of Hollywood outsider or new media miscreant, this is the dude that wrote the Charlie's Angels movies.  He has more access to the system than you or me (even taking into account how much writer's are shat upon in Hollywood).

If he's having these problems and learning these lessons, you will too.

(found via NewTeeVee)

"Primary exposition is telling and showing to the audience the time and place of the story, the names and relationships of the characters, and the nature of the conflict."

                                                                  Irwin R. Blacker
                                                                 The Elements of Screenwriting 

"Within the first pages of a screenplay a reader can judge the relative skill of the writer simply by noting how he handles exposition."
                                                                   Robert McKee
                                                                   Story 

Dramatically speaking exposition is simply the way you convey information.

Consider these facts:

I share a birthday with Slim Pickens.

I was born the same year as George Clooney, Meg Ryan, Michael J. Fox, Melissa Etheridge, Peter Jackson, Heather Locklear, Enya and Barack Obama.  

I graduated from high school the same year and just a few miles away from the high school Wesley Snipes graduated from.

Not that I lump myself in with those well known people (okay, I just did -- but let's just say I'm not well-known or as accomplished like those mentioned) but I want to show you a form of exposition. I wasn't totally on the nose with the above exposition but it gives you a ballpark of how old I am. (Old, but not that old. Come on, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, Sheryl Crow and Jon Bon Jovi are just a year or two behind me.) If you wanted to, with a little research you could put all the pieces together.

Exposition works best in films when it is sprinkled here and there and it doesn't feel like exposition.

Think of exposition like exposure in photography. It reveals a subject. When you take a picture of someone on film you expose a part of them. And every angle gives you a little different exposure or insight into the person. In a close up you might see a small scar on their face, from the side you may see a tattoo on their arm, and from behind you might see their hair is thinning. 

In compelling portrait photos you’re exposing someone and giving little glimpses of who the person is. In your screenwriting it's best if your exposition is almost invisible so the audience doesn’t feel they are being spoon-feed info.

In real life people are constantly giving us exposition. Two pieces of real life expo that come to mind were in the form of a warning about other people. The first one came years ago when I was young and began a job wide-eyed and excited. A fellow who had been at the company a few years warned me about the president of the company; "Be careful there is a trail of broken relationships behind him."

That was a great bit of exposition given in a way that was fresh and allowed me to fill in the blanks without knowing the details. Another person I worked with said of someone we knew, "I know there is a good person in there wanting to come out." Great line.

And a fellow I once interviewed for a video told me, "The memories of my father could be put on the back of a postage stamp." That one lines says lot more than a typical movie scene than dumping a two-minute monologue on what a bad a father he had.

This week keep track of how exposition is given to you in real life and in movies and TV shows you watch. Detective shows on TV are some of the worst at dumping exposition on an audience because they have to front load so much information because they need to grab your attention early so you know what's going on before you change the channel. 
"Okay, we think Joe did this because his girlfriend just broke up with him and he lost his job at the factory where he works and he has a hunting rifle that uses the same caliber bullet that was used in the murder." Then they often dump more exposition right at the end to explain all the details of why such and such happened.  

Consider these great lines from movies that convey exposition in an excellent way:

"What was your Childhood like?"

"Short."
                                                                          
                                                                   Escape from Alcatraz

"What do you do with a girl when you're through with her?"
"I've never had a girl." 
                                                                   An Officer and a Gentleman 

“Are you something else I’m going to have to live through?”
        
                                                                   Erin Brockovich 

In one sentence we get a glimpse than Erin's been through some crap.

A key to writing good exposition is to only reveal what you have to reveal. We do this in real life. It's the guy who says after the fifth date when things are getting more serious, "Have I told you I have a kid?"

In Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid timely exposition comes just before there is going to be a shootout and Butch says to Sundance: “Kid, there's something I ought to tell you. I never shot anybody before. ”

Films often use exposition early in the film to set the stage as in Jerry Maguire where the Tom Cruise character explains what a sports agent does. (Speaking of Jerry Maguire, I loved how Cameron Crowe actually used exposition to avoid the usual spill-your-guts exposition when Dorothy tells Jerry, "Let's not tell all our sad stories.") The stuff you have to get out to set up you story is what Blake Snyder calls "laying pipe" and warns that audiences can only stand so much of that before they get bored with the technical jargon.

 "Laying Pipe," is about how much screen time you must use to set up your story. In my opinion, audiences will only stand for so much of that. A good example of "too much pipe" is Minority Report, which does not get going until Minute 40. Why? Because this adaptation of the Philip K. Dick story requires A LOT of pipe! And to me, it torques the whole movie out of shape. So we must be careful. Just because we can lean on the built-in audiences that a beloved novel brings, we have to make sure we create a movie-going experience that resonates for everyone -- even those who aren't familiar with the book.
                                                               Blake Snyder 

See how well exposition is handled in Man in Black: "What you do not smell is called iocane powder. It is odorless, tasteless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the more deadlier poisons known to man." Mystery Man on Film says of this line of exposition: "Perfect.  The pipe is laid, the audience knows the name of the poison, its properties, and how it works.  More important, the audience knows how this scene is going to work — one of the men will die from ingesting the poison." 

One reason flashbacks in general are frowned upon in screenplays is because they are often put there to simply be an info dump rather than being integral to the story.

In Field of Dreams, Kevin Costner's character says, “Dad was a Yankees fan then so, of course, I rooted for Brooklyn. But in '58 the Dodgers moved away so we had to find other things to fight about." Two lines that sums up his relationship with his father.

"But you have to be careful that your characters are not talking only in order to get information out. If you need to give the audience a bit of information, make sure to give the character his own reason to tell us about it. That's called making the dialogue organic to the character."
                                                                      Alex Epstein
                                                                      Crafty Screenwriting 

"Always ask yourself: Would the character actually say this, or is he only saying it because you need the audience to know some fact or detail? If the answer is the latter, you’re writing exposition and not dialogue. That’s not good."
                                                                      John August
                                                                      Big Fish 

Save the best exposition for last. Of course, one of the best examples of this is when Darth Vader says, "Luke, I am your father." Other great memorable lines of powerful expo are "I see dead people" (The Sixth Sense) and "She's my sister and my daughter" (Chinatown).

Good exposition doesn't need to be spoken either. "Show don’t tell" is a popular Hollywood phrase. Films are visual. When Jack Nickelson’s character continually washes his hands in As Good as it Gets we get a hint that he’s a obsessive compulsive neurotic. We don’t need to have him explain to a character why he washes his hands. We don't need to see a flashback of him growing up in a dirty household where his mother didn't let him wash his hands in order to save on the water bill. 

In Good Will Hunting, Matt Damon's character reads books in a room filled with books. We get a clue that he reads a lot. Simple visual exposition.

Sometimes you can use false exposition to lead the characters and audience astray as Norman Bates does in Psycho. Just because someone tells you something (and even believes it themselves) doesn't mean it's true. 

Subtext is another way of masking exposition. Actors love to talk about playing subtext. That is what is being said beyond the words. Think of the many ways someone can say "I love You" and have it mean so many different things including "I hate you."  

As you're writing and rewriting your script be aware of how exposition is being conveyed. Make ever effort to make the exposition seamless and there for a good reason.

Copyright 2008 Scott W. Smith

 What do you do when you reach the point in your work when you are so sick of this piece of Drek that you are writing or re-writing, that all you can think about is the exciting NEW idea that you are sure will turn into a wonderful book which is far better than this one, which is so terrible that you just want to throw it into the bin/ delete it?

By a strange quirk of Serendipity, I came across two posts today on the same topic.

Phillipa found his letter from Neil Gaiman on Susan Hill’s writing Forum, which I shall take the liberty of copying here.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear NaNoWriMo Author,

By now you're probably ready to give up. You're past that first fine furious rapture when every character and idea is new and entertaining.

You're not yet at the momentous downhill slide to the end, when words and images tumble out of your head sometimes faster than you can get them down on paper. You're in the middle, a little past the half-way point.

The glamour has faded, the magic has gone, your back hurts from all the typing, your family, friends and random email acquaintances have gone from being encouraging or at least accepting to now complaining that they never see you any more---and that even when they do you're preoccupied and no fun.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And just in case you thought this problem was only for novelists, the well respected screenwriter John August made this comment in reply to a question of the lure of the new;

‘The script you haven’t written is always better than the one you’re staring at, cursor blinking, its flaws so obvious that you can’t believe you ever started writing it. That doesn’t change over the course of a career. You will always want to be writing something else.’

 Only good times ahead.

 What do you do when you reach the point in your work when you are so sick of this piece of Drek that you are writing or re-writing, that all you can think about is the exciting NEW idea that you are sure will turn into a wonderful book which is far better than this one, which is so terrible that you just want to throw it into the bin/ delete it?

 By a strange quirk of Serendipity, I came across two posts today on the same topic.

 Phillipa found this letter from Neil Gaiman on Susan Hill’s writing Forum, which I shall take the liberty of copying here.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

By now you're probably ready to give up.

You're past that first fine furious rapture when every character and idea is new and entertaining. You're not yet at the momentous downhill slide to the end, when words and images tumble out of your head sometimes faster than you can get them down on paper.

You're in the middle, a little past the half-way point.

The glamour has faded, the magic has gone, your back hurts from all the typing, your family, friends and random email acquaintances have gone from being encouraging or at least accepting to now complaining that they never see you any more---and that even when they do you're preoccupied and no fun.

Welcome to the club.

The search for the word gets no easier but nobody else is going to write your novel for you.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 And just in case you thought this problem was only for novelists, the well respected screenwriter John August made this comment in reply to a question of the lure of the new;

‘The script you haven’t written is always better than the one you’re staring at, cursor blinking, its flaws so obvious that you can’t believe you ever started writing it. That doesn’t change over the course of a career. You will always want to be writing something else.’

  Only good times ahead.

"The time to move on is when reaching the “best version” of your script ceases to be interesting to you."

This is a total burn as by the time I'm off whatever I was on that was keeping me too busy to come in and work, I've been replaced on the call list by someone else - and folks have a list that they go down when they have work. The higher up on that list one's name is, the more often one gets work calls.

So, as much as I hated to do it, I had to turn down an offer of a day on a fairly regular gig Friday because of numbers.

It was for a one day call, and since the show I'm currently working for shoots on a lot which gives hiring priority to their own people, were I to lay myself off for that one day to go do another show, I'd probably not be able to get back on so I'd be giving up the five days of work I've currently got (on a lot that's so close to my house I don't have to drive and use expensive gas) for one day on another show.

Normally, I'm not hesitant to give up two days for one or to work for a lower rate if it's someone who calls me regularly - the trade off being that I continue to be on that person's call list and maintain relationships so I make more money in the long run.

But five days is a lot of money, and with a SAG strike looming, I'm in mercenary mode. Right now, it's all about the money and my banking as much of it as I possibly can before I'm once again unemployed and watching news coverage of picket lines from the comfort of my living room.

If the SAG strike doesn't happen after all (something we're all desperately hoping), I'd love to have enough money by the end of the year to buy a car. I had enough right before the WGA strike, but had to use it to keep a roof over my head instead (before the comments about my extravagant lifestyle commence: not a new car. A new-to-me car).

Hmm.. I wonder if I can use the "you put me out of work" guilt to get John August to buy me a car.

Probably not worth the effort. I'm guessing it's going to be much easier to guilt one of the actors.

La próxima película estará basada en el show televisivo de los años 60 de mismo título. Por la serie, que duró más de 1200 episodios, solían desfilar todo tipo de monstruos del terror más clásico. Desde hombres lobo a vampiros, pasando por brujas, fantasmas, momias y zombis... todos ellos tenían su pequeño espacio en Dark Shadows en un programa marcado por una atmósfera muy característica.

Todos estos elementos son más que suficientes para ser aprovechados por el talento de Tim Burton. Depp por el momento suena como protagonista metiendose en la piel del vampiro Barnabas Collins, aunque por el momento lo único confirmado es que tendrá una participación como productor a través de su sello Infinitum-Nihil.

"There’s spit-balling, and then there’s just spitting."

The goal is to write a scene where one character explains to another what investment derivatives are.  It was a difficult writing problem, since I have no idea what investment derivatives are.

I'm #48.

The problem, though, is that you've got to explain the rules of this concept so the audience can go along for the ride.

The class struggled with how to do that -- without slowing the movie down and without drowning the audience in details all at once, so the film's comedy could come through. It was a tough balancing act and one which the actual filmmakers ultimately solved much better than the class did.

Still, the interesting point about all of this is "how do you explain the horrifyingly unexplainable?" Or, to be more precise, the "horrifyingly difficult to explain." The rule of thumb in feature-length films is that you have about ten minutes to do whatever you want with the audience before they start demanding to know just what kind of movie they're watching. If you spend too much of that time explaining, that's what they feel the movie is going to be like the whole way through. And that, in general, is poison.

I've spent many weeks in editing rooms trying to get to the script's inciting incident more quickly, collapsing the first 30 minutes down to 15 or 10 minutes. For some reason, scripts always are written without thinking about that (or, if the writers do think about it -- and I'm actually sure they do, I'm just being catty here) and then we get to speed everything up in editing. Sometimes well, and sometimes not so wel..

These thoughts come to mind on reading John August's blog post yesterday called "A somewhat derivative challenge." August is a screenwriter and director (of THE NINES) who has been publishing this dynamite blog for a few years, in which he gives a great tour of what it means to be a working filmmaker in Hollywood. Along the way he has published tutorials on screenwriting which are, often, much better than anything McKee or Truby have put in their books (his post on How To Introduce A Character is, in my mind, brilliant).

Yesterday he gave his readers a writing challenge, and it's a doozy:

Have a character explain derivatives, as used in the financial industry. (The thing that’s like a stock, not the thing that you learned in calculus.)

The speaker should be knowledgeable, and the listener should be a layman, i.e. a proxy for the audience. What are their names? What’s the story? What’s the genre? You decide, to the degree it matters. My suggestion would be to create a scenario in which the term needs to be explained — but only to the degree necessary. Metaphors and similes are powerful tools.

You’re welcome to write as much of the scene as you want, but the focus is on the explanation. The winning entry might be one sentence long.

How many times have you had to sit through a scene in a film where there is a long, boring explanation from a scientist to a reporter about some scientific concept which will become important later in the film. Or watched as the coal miner explained to someone (anyone!) how coal was removed from the earth and how there were plenty of safety measures to make sure that no one got hurt doing it (because you knew that someone was going to get caught in a mine collapse later in the film)?

In short, how do you explain the difficult to explain? And, parenthetically, still make it interesting to watch?

The dealine for his competition is this Thursday, May 8th. So I'll be interested to see how people solve the problem.

And then I'll shut up about having to do all of this heavy lifting in the editing room.

Made of Honour, on the other hand, looks pretty atrocious. It's about a bloke who is great friends with a woman and is asked to be her maid of honour when she gets married but he loves her yadda yadda yadda. One wonders how they think of all these great ideas.

Nim's Island is strictly for kids. It tells the story of a little girl who lives on Swiss Family Robinson style island with her father. When he goes missing she contacts the only person she knows who can help her, adventurer Alex Rover. Unfortunately, Alex is a fictional character created by agoraphobic author Alexandria Rover (Jodie Foster) who, despite her fear decides to do what she has only ever written about, albeit with the help of a mental manifestation of her creation. This looks like great stuff for kids. It's brightly coloured, and fun and there is even a hint of danger and a dash of Freud for those accompanying them.

Also showing are Fool's Gold, Horton Hears A Who!, The Eye and Forgetting Sarah Marshall (it seems that Three and Out is over and out after just one week).

Full screening info can be found on the 'Mallard Cinema' page.

It is very well done, there are a lot of details that I really, really liked and after the plot twist is revealed everything fits. The acting is very good, as well. You notice that it's thoroughly thought through and I don't think that there's anything that doesn't go with the explanation. [Congratulations to John August! But what else to expect from the writer of Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Corpse Bride. On the other hand, it's nothing you'd expect from the writer of Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, which are fun, but not necessarily the best movies in the world.]

But I didn't like the ending very much. I don't like it, when people resort to really weird supernatural explanations, although I have to admit that I couldn't think of anything less strange to finish the story with. Also, I don't like it when the ending is explained and you get shots of the clues hidden in the movie to go with the explanation. I prefer to think of them on my own.

It's worth a watch and then you can go to the imdb forum and discuss if you think that you are a nine.

Sendak's picture book is probably one of my all-time favourite children's books: it is haunting and not a little scary. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Currently doing the rounds of various culture and art-related blogs is the news that not only have Warner Brothers pushed back the release of the Spike Jonze directed adaptation of 'Where The Wild Things Are' until next year but various 'technical issues' are being cited. These issues are not the special effects but rather the actor who plays the boy and the script itself.

Why did a studio employ both Spike Jonze (as director) and Dave Eggers (as writer) if they wanted the sort of nonsense that Chris Columbus could make? The test screening saw children in tears and being taken out of the cinema. Didn't their parents show them the book first? Didn't the parents explain that the monsters they saw were going to be moving and therefore scarier?

Here's the real twist: reportedly, Jonze and Eggers have consulted the author, Maurice Sendak, through-out filming. Surely the one person who knows how the film should look is the person who created the story.  If you think that 'scary' has no place in children's films, particularly adaptations of children's books, then ask yourself which is the superior version of 'Charlie and The Chocolate Factory'? Johnny Depp is an extraordinarily talented actor working - in that film - for an extraordinarily talented screenwriter (John August) and of course, an extraordinarily talented director, (Tim Burton) but... Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka? Absolutely the definitive version. Remember: scary in kid's movies is a good thing.

Here's a link to the article that broke the news: Link

Here's a link to Amazon so you can check for yourself that, yes, it is actually a scary story and isn't all cookies-and-cream: Link

"So many gurus and so few good writers. Where are all these lessons going?"
                                                                                     Larry Gelbart (Tootsie)

 Here’s the straight story. There are many screenwriting gurus out there and I thought I’d warn you about them. Actually, I just need to warn you about your addiction to them. 

Back in November I was doing a video shoot in the Bay area and the fellow I was interviewing said he had a friend who worked at George Lucus' Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) who might be able to give me a tour if I was interested. (Is there a reason I wouldn't be interested?)  I took the photo of Yoda at the ILM headquarters at the Presidio in San Francisco a couple hours later during my Forrest Gump-like experience . Who doesn't want a wise and powerful mentor to help guide them from the dark side? The trouble is always knowing who to trust.  

A couple years ago I spent seven months of my life producing real estate and financial infomercials. As far as infomercials go, these were big budget fares that were well done.

I’ve had worse gigs and definitely ones that paid less. It was a good experience as I worked with a talented group of people and learned a ton of production techniques. A common question my friends asked about the shows I was working on was “Are they true?”

Well, they weren’t really false, but they didn’t quite tell the whole truth. For instance the sound bite you heard on TV was, “I made $10,000 on my first deal.” What was edited out was this guy explaining how it took him two years to put together his first real estate deal. Another fellow said it was not uncommon for him to make 100 lowball real estate offers before one got accepted. 

Infomercials never touch on how hard it is to make money because infomercials work emotionally on how easy things are to do. They skip showing the scenes of Rocky running up the stairs and pounding the beef.  Instead they pound the testimonials of how much money people say they have made until you hear what you want to hear. The executive producer where I worked was fond of saying, “There is no such thing as over-the-top in infomercials.”

Most of my work was focused on the success stories. Two-minute vignettes that showed how a person or couple used such and such products and became wealthy. In the business this is called a zero to hero story. (I have that in a folder of potential titles for a future script.)

A zero to hero is someone who was down on their luck, went to a seminar or ordered books and audio products and applied the principles and in a short time became wealthy. Who among us doesn’t yearn for the magic formula?

The history of this in our country goes way back to Ponce de Leon looking for the fountain of youth in St. Augustine.  Come to think of it, in another time and place weren’t Adam and Eve just looking for a little more knowledge?

Infomercials have a tremendous failure rate and the ones that do succeed focus on just a few categories:

1)    Kitchen & Cooking (George Forman Grill)

2)    Beauty & Fitness (Chuck Norris and the Total Body Gym)

3)    Self-improvement (Tony Robbins)

4)    Making Money (Rich Dad, Poor Dad)

5)    Leisure (Time –Life Music)

Basically they touch on our deepest longings in life to look good, feel healthy, and have money. You want to believe the infomercials, that's why they work.

Here’s the problem as it applies to screenwriting seminars. We want to believe they will give us the missing link and make us a better writer.  Many writers are like crack addicts thinking the next book, workshop, audio series, writing software will make them a better writer. Just one more hit off the pipe and we'll quit.

There may be a kernel of truth in books and seminars (my blogs are intended to pull out those kernels for you) but the fact is if you are reading or searching more for the secret of writing more than you are writing then you are heading down the wrong path.

John August the screenwriter of Big Fish, Charlie’s Angels, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (and a Drake graduate here in Iowa) wrote this on his website blog , “The truth is, there’s no magic formula for writing a great script. (Or for that matter, a commercial one.) Anyone who tries to convince you that theirs is the One True Way is deluding themselves and you.”

Robert McKee who wrote the book Story is the main screenwriting guru.  On his website he lists the number of major award winners and nominees who were his former students. (Of course, he taught at USC so many professors there could make the same claim.) But his advertising materials imply that he is the reason for their success and if you attend his class you’ll be walking down the isle to accept your Academy Award.

After all,  didn't one of his students Akiva Goldsman do just that? Well, the Oscar winning screenwriter of A Beautiful Mind does credits McKee's class with helping him make the transition from novelist to screenwriter. But the fact is Goldsman has a MFA from NYU and was, by his own admonition, a failed novelist for 10 years. And if he started writing as a teenager he probably had many teachers who he learned from, but more importantly he was writing.    

There’s a glaring problem in respect to gurus and I’m not the first to point it out. Take McKee for instance, he's not only not won an Academy Award he’s never had a feature screenplay of his produced. Ever. Zero. If it was all formula you think he’d have had one hit movie made in his lifetime.  McKee’s real problem is he is an academic. PhD’s are analytical by nature. McKee is brilliant in telling students why a film works. Many critics can do so just as well, they just don’t have the theatrics or business acumen that McKee has to become a screenwriting guru.

Of course this doesn’t mean that McKee is a bad writer or that he hasn’t sold any scripts before, or that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’m just stating a fact and making an observation. With McKee there is a disconnect, a gap between what he knows and what he’s done.

August writes, "To read his brochure, you'd think that everyone on Hollywood has taken McKee's course, but the truth is, I don't know anyone who has. Wherever I hear his name brought up, it makes these tiny hairs rise on the back of my neck, because it usually means the speaker is going to cite some piece of screenwriting gospel, or use some cleaver word like "counter-theme."  

McKee does such a through job of breaking down Casablanca you think that its writers attended his seminar, until you realize the movie was made before he was born. He also does a several hour breakdown of Chinatown.

 “I’ve never met McKee and have nothing against him, but to read his bio it’s clear that he’s not a very successful screenwriter and never really was. “ August continues on his blog “That’s not to say he can’t be a great teacher, just as many great film critics are not filmmakers, nor do I think that there’s anything wrong with a screenwriting class per se, especially if it helps you get off your ass and write. But I would rather have dental surgery than go through a structural analysis of CHINATOWN.”

That is the fundamental difference between successful screenwriting gurus and successful writers. It's like the engineer who builds the car and knows how it works and the race car driver who takes that engineering feat and does something amazing with it. But there is a tension there, and it's rare to find a person who can do both well.

In fact, if you took the five top screenwriting gurus you might find five produced films between them. And of those five films, you would have five that were little known and/or poorly reviewed. That's why they're doing seminars because there is more money to be made teaching this stuff than writing screenplays. And the flip side is even if the working screenwriter took the time off writing to do a seminar the chance are it wouldn't be very good. 

In the book Screenplay; Writing the Picture (Robin U. Russin and William Missouri Downs) make this observation:
"It is interesting to note that few Hollywood screenwriting gurus have ever sold a movie (and Aristotle never wrote a play). This is because the ability to structure a story and the ability to analyze the structure of a story are two totally different talents. They come from different parts of the brain...Good writers seldom have an analytical understanding of what they do or how they do it. Instead they have a practical understanding of dramatic techniques."

And screenwriters learn those practical techniques in a class, seminar or book and if that teacher finds a larger audience he or she becomes a guru. It's a beautiful thing. Just don't kid your self into thinking that the guru is the answer. Writing and rewriting is the answer. If you forget that you are lost and can become dependent on the guru.

McKee is so popular in some circles he could form a cult if he wanted to. Americans love gurus. I’m a fan of business guru Tom Peters, marketing guru Seth Godin, and even McKee himself.

I attended one of McKee’s first public seminars on screenwriting. The year was 1984 or '85 in Los Angeles. (Back when he was a guru in training.) I was a recent film school grad, working as a photographer, and studying acting and hungry for my break in the industry and didn’t blink at the cost that at that time equaled a week's salary.

McKee’s insights into screenwriting were more articulate than anyone I had ever heard speak on film. It is a class that I recommend to this day, but it's best if you have at least a script of two under your belt. Because there is a danger there. As Morpheus says in The Matrix, "There is a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path."

Speaking of gurus did you see where Maharishi Mahesh Yogi died earlier this month?

He was famous for (temporarily) being the guru to the Beatles in the 60’s and bringing Transcendental Meditation (TM) to this country in the 50’s.  Few people realize that in 1974 he started a college in Fairfield, Iowa that is still there today.

Fairfield is one of the most interesting places in the US. Mother Earth News called it one of the “12 Great Places You’ve Never Hear Of.” The article said, “Your image of southest Iowa probably doesn’t include the world’s premier ayurvedic health spa, more restaurants per capita than San Francisco or 25 art galleries on the downtown square but these are some of the many features of Fairfield, a surprisingly sustainable and cosmopolitan town.” (It's also less than an hour away from the Iowa's Writers' Workshop that keeps coming up on this blog.)

Fairfield is also home to Hawthorne Communications whose founder Timothy Hawthorne literally wrote the book on infomercials. After I moved to Iowa and was looking for production work there I naturally met with Hawthorne. No work came out of it but he was kind enough to give me a copy of his out-of-print book “The Complete Guide to Infomercial Marketing”  that he told me was fetching $125. on ebay.

And to bring this full circle back to movies David Lynch was a follower of the Maharishi and makes occasional trips to Fairfield. I’m sure there is some connection there and his directing The Straight Story featuring Richard Farnsworth as a elderly man who drives a riding lawn mower from Iowa to Wisconsin to visit his ailing brother. (Watch that film again and ask yourself how Lynch's practicing TM for 30 years effects that material. And I dare you to watch the Catholic-influenced Koyaanisqatsi in the same night.) 

There is no doubt that Lynch is an artist and one of America's most original filmmakers. The “I am not an animal” scene from The Elephant Man is one of the most moving scenes recorded on film.  From the first time I saw Eraserhead in a college film class my perception of what movies could be was altered.

But I don’t think I’m letting the cat out of the bag by saying that Lynch’s work at times can be a little hard to understand.

I believe enough in cross pollination to think that a trip to Fairfield might do McKee some good and if Lynch could sit though McKee’s seminar it might also do him an ounce of good.  I’d pay to watch those guys in a room debating story structure and the roll of screenwriting gurus. 

By the way, anyone interested in employment or an internship at ILM check out this section of their website: www.ilm.com/employment.html 

Photo and text © Copyright 2008 Scott W. Smith

The Nines is actually three short stories that overlap a bit. The first story is about a successful (at least professionally) actor (Reynolds) who goes over the edge. After accidentally burning his house down, and then going to a sleazy motel with some crack and a prostitute, the actor gets sentenced to house arrest. The second story deals with a TV show creator (also played by Reynolds) who shoots a pilot and then is asked to do some recasting/reshooting. All the while he is being taped for a Project Greenlight styled reality show. The third story is actually the pilot that is shot in part two (starring Reynolds).

Due to the multiple stories, The Nines ends up feeling a bit uneven. The first story is a great introduction. It tells the audience that this is going to be a fun and interesting story. There are several genuine laugh out loud moments in this part. But just as the first plotline really heats up, they move on to the second part. In the second part, they lose all the humor that had accentuated the first story so well. Also, as we continue with the second story, it becomes obvious (to anyone who reads John August's blog) that this storyline is basically JA's life (in a fictitious Hollywood way). Outside of that, this story does offer some solid drama, but you are too busy trying to figure out what the heck The Nines is/are to really care about the drama. The third story rolls around and things really start falling apart. The third part didn't really make any sense to me (in that Horror movie/Cloverfield/Why would that character do that sort of way). Then, we finally get to the big payoff at the end of the movie, and it just fizzles. I get who/what The Nines are, but the ending it self goes to a weird place and I'm not sure what the heck it was supposed to mean.

Overall, The Nines comes off feeling like a small breaking wave. It starts breaking and you are excited and cool things are going on. But too soon, the wave gets smaller and less entertaining until it completely dissipates to nothing. The Nines starts off great and fades out until the end.

I gave The Nines, 3 stars out of 5 on Netflix. The movie had a lot of potential, but it never capatalized on that potential. If you are interested in checking out The Nines, it is probably worth the rental. If you have no interest, you shouldn't go out of your way to see it.

the nines is a largely neglected drama that comes from the prose of a considerably overlooked writer. john august has penned many a modern classic, including tim burtons charlie and the chocolate factory, the corpse bride, big fish, and even the wildly adventurous titan a.e. with the nines, august had his chance to not only compose a superior simplistic production but also had the chance to conduct it as well.

the film stars a small cast which is nice to see in days of late. ryan reynolds [just friends, amityville horror], hope davis [proof, the matador], melissa mccarthy [gilmore girls] and elle fanning [babel and sister to dakota fanning] round out the main personae and they are realistically all that's needed. august keeps the production uncluttered, which becomes a pleasant present later on, as the story gets more complicated, the presentation is very stable and simple to follow.

reynolds and most all the other main players portray more than one figure in the film, rounding out at three characters per actor/actress. reynolds is a personal favorite and does nothing to deviate from the norm. his performance is the essential and central act and he plays it off perfectly. the movie is broken into three acts and reynolds is the lead performer all three times; once as an actor, again as a screenwriter, and lastly a videogame designer. the plot seems elementary at first glance but with every act it gets more abstruse as it plays out.

august does a superfluous first job in the directorial chair and is visually refreshing. each act is done in a different format; the first a standard movie, the second from a reality show perspective, and the last in a blue overtone, but each piece has the same formula. reynolds is a considerably normal person that starts experiencing bizarre things. by the end of each routine you find yourself asking "what the fuck?". this, however, is not a problem, for the film forms together neatly at the end, like a rubiks cube you've spent about two hours on.

to put it simply, the movie is a nice break from the standard criterion, and plays out smoothly with no hitches. unlike other abstract and peculiar playacts, their are no unanswered questions in this movie. august does a great job as does every actor involved in the project. also, since the acts are brief and simple, the movie has a lucid pace that makes nothing drag.

bottom line: rent the movie and watch it. make sure you aren't distracted during it because it's not that simple. it could easily become a cult classic and is a great portrayal of reynolds versatility. it's a great little flick that was largely overlooked by the general populous.

the movie is comparable to: identity or vanilla sky [but only subtly], a play, a new and fresh experience that is easily lovable to the constant moviegoer.

'The Nines' is sort of like 'Donnie Darko' meets 'The Fountain' with a modern and quite timely twist. And for those of you who are fans, it's quite Grant Morrison-esque. Not wanting to spoil the experience too much with my already excessive praise, I must mention that the film also defies genres, leaving the viewer in expectation of what could possibly come next.

This film is executed perfectly! If you like the ideas on this blog then you'll LOVE this film. Do not read any synopses or reviews... just go out and see the film! Go!

P.S. Look For The Nines (or 23, to each their own)

Update: If the film wasn't cool enough already...

The director of the hit 2007 movie ‘The Nines’ says he’s been monitoring BitTorrent for its inevitable leak: “Sony, Interpol and the MPAA will do their best,” he says, “but as the guy who made the movie, I honestly want people to see the movie. If the only way you’re going to watch The Nines is illegally, so be it.”

Via Torrent Freak
Download: The Nines Torrent

Lo extraño, lo loco, los giros en la historia, en definitiva la sorpresa es casi un subgénero por si solo en el cine actual. Un subgénero transversal a la comedia, el drama y la ciencia ficción, cuyo máximo y primer exponente fue El Sexto Sentido. En este caso la ópera prima de John August, The Nines nos muestra tres historias relacionadas al mundo de Hollywood, con un extraño vínculo en común. Protagonizada por un versátil y consolidado Ryan Reynolds, la siempre excelente Hope Davis y la agradable Melissa McCarthy, The Nines nos lleva directo a donde las películas con giros sorpresivos nos desean llevar, a donde jamás pensamos ir.

Conocí a Ryan Reynolds en la sitcom Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place (renombrada Two Guys and a Girl cuando decidieron dejar la Pizza Place) y siendo aún un adolescente inmaduro reconozco que me llamó la atención su actuación. Era una sitcom livianita, no daba para una actuación sobresaliente, pero si dejaba ver que Reynolds tenía posibilidades de convertirse en un actor importante. A pesar de estar confinado a la comedia fácil, demostraba a ratos signos de versatilidad, en especial en los escasisimos, pero muy intensos momentos de drama, que incluso comedias como Friends tuvo. En esta oportunidad podemos ver a un Reynolds liberado de sus ataduras de sitcom y con la posibilidad de interpretar tres roles distintos entre si en una misma película. Aparece el Reynolds pendejo, inmaduro y juguetón, un excelente Reynolds trabajólico, depresivo y gay, y un Reynolds serio, inteligente y padre de familia. Cada una de sus actuaciones son convincentes y le dan ese adicional necesario que necesitaba esta película dividida en tres.

Las historias se centran en la vida de tres exitosos personajes de Hollywood. El primero es un famoso actor que está pasando por un mal momento personal y se ve bajo arresto domiciliario en la casa de un guionista. El segundo es un guionista que se encuentra peleando la posibilidad de incluir el programa que inventó para que sea elegido para salir al aire. El tercero, el más alejado al Hollywood convencional, es un famoso desarrollador de videojuegos que se encuentra en pana en el bosque junto a su familia. Las tres historias tienen un vínculo que de a poco se va develando en un guión que sorprende por la entretención que le ofrece al espectador. Otro punto a destacar es la belleza y simplicidad de las imágenes, en especial en la primera historia, y la excelente banda sonora que acompaña a toda la película, la cual, si la escuchan con detención, va dando luces de la naturaleza real del film. Definitivamente es una película reconfortante por su simple y original historia, que hay que ver.

FICHA TÉCNICA
Nombre: The Nines
Año: 2007
Duración: 99 minutos
Dirigida por: John August
Escrita por: John August
Protagonizada por: Ryan Reynolds, Hope Davis, Melissa McCarthy, Elle Fanning, Dahlia Salem, David Denman, Octavia Spencer y Ben Falcone.
Producida por: Destination Films

TRAILER