It's more than likely the pretentious film major in me, but I'm somewhat resistant to take what he says to heart when he openly admits that he wants to write essentially just to sell the script. That is something that I completely respect and think is fine...my father likes to tell me the story of the time he took a screenwriting class from someone well known (possibly Syd Field? I can't remember and neither can he probably) and the teacher asked on the first class "How many of you want to move to Hollywood and be hack writers and punch out mediocre scripts?" And, of course, my father raised his hand and explained that he wanted to make hits and money.
The teacher said he respected his honesty.
So, I think that's fine, and of course I would certainly love to write a hit movie and make lots of money, so that's not my problem at all. My only problem is deciding from the outset that you are going to make a conventional movie that clings to pre-set structures. For me, I have to at least keep a part of me thinking that I'm going to try to do something different, otherwise I don't see it as being worth my time.
Snyder does address this in his breaking-cliche section, which I appreciated. I liked his analysis of why Tomb Raider 2 was terrible, and I think it's an important examination to do. I also agree with what he said about researching movies in the genre you're working. If you're creating something new, you should know what's come before because everything will be judged against the things of the past. So, it's clear that he wants to see good movies made with some originality, which made him a like-able, if partially flawed, character to me.
My favorite part of the reading so far was his explanation of exactly what "Save The Cat!" means. Upon reading the explanation, I realized that I LOVE characters that save the cat. I still haven't figured out why I got so excited about that concept, but I think I really do just miss that sort of thing in movies. The Al Pacino example was perfect, and after reading what Pacino's character does for the man and his son, I too was absolutely ready to follow Pacino wherever he went and always wanted him to win. It made me realize that I want my main character to save the cat, and I've been brainstorming about a believable and fitting way for my main character to do that.
People who risk their own safety to compassionately help others are instantly liked by me. And in the case of Pacino's character, it even defines his character as a cop who clearly wants to uphold the law and catch criminals, but who also understands that neither life nor the law are black and white. He is a reasonable character that makes up his own mind about things without sacrificing his beliefs, and I immediately respect that.
The rest of the book so far has definitely been helpful, and like Snyder says, it's nice to know the "rules" so that you can break them. I think for me, personally, I will always try to do the one idea that doesn't quite fit and isn't completely backed by a guaranteed structure. I've found that for me, watching movies where characters walk around overtly trying to solve problems is just frustrating now. All I see when I watch most movies, and about 99% of TV is the structure at work, and it makes it nearly impossible to enjoy anything. Thus, I continue to want to make movies that hide their structure, because that is the kind of movie that I enjoy.
To speak more generally, I think the class is going really well and I am really enjoying it. Last class had a very good exercise I thought, and Brant's critiques were very helpful in driving home the point--which is important when we only meet once a week. I look forward to discussing the best movie ever (well, sort of) today, as I happen to be a pretty large Star Wars fan. That movie is essentially why I am here, doing what I'm doing with my life.
No comments:
Post a Comment