Review of Cloud Atlas Screenplay by the Wachowskis and Tykwer

I've taken it upon myself to read more screenplays and watch the movies. I suppose I'm becoming even more of a film geek than before. In a few weeks I will start a screenwriting class as part of my creative writing degree. I'm looking forward to it. Anyway I decided to read the screenplay to Cloud Atlas, than watch the film. In this blog I will make some comments about the screenplay only.

This was one of the longer screenplays that I have read. The total length of the screenplay in the book I borrowed from the library was 197 pages. It was also one of the more complex screenplays that I've read. At some points the language and vocabulary were difficult. It wasn't totally beyond me, it was just a little challenging. Especially since it changes time periods, locations, and characters frequently it is not as easy to follow. I showed this film in my Cinema and Digi class as an example of non-linear editing/story construction. If the class I will probably show it again.

The changes in dialect and the non-linear structure make the screenplay challenging, but some of the setting description and camera directions are pure poetry. I was engrossed in the script for about 3 hours on Sunday night. I ate dinner then was confronted by a choice; read the Cloud Atlas screenplay or watch the Yankees and Red Sox play. I chose the former. I had already seen the film so my visual imagination only thought of the actors and scenes from the film. I thought to myself while reading the screenplay what would it be like to read a screenplay that hasn't been made into a movie?

The movie follows the script to a tee. There is very little diversion from the script. Perhaps that is because the Wachowskis and Tykwer also directed the film. In most of the scripts I've read and watched the film there are some omissions or minor changes. Not in Cloud Atlas, what is written is what is shot. In today's film industry that is a rarity. Most scripts are heavily manipulated and in most cases more than one screenwriter works on the script.

I really learned a lot by reading the script. It was challenging. It was long, complex, but engrossing and entertaining. I have made a request to get the screenplay for V for Vendetta another Wachowski film. Looking forward to it.

Review of Blue Velvet by Lynch

This is the third film I've watched in my study of David Lynch's work. So far it's the best one. Eraserhead is very good, but I think Blue Velvet has more substance. Elephant is good. I didn't see Dune, perhaps I should. Blue Velvet is the first film that the term Lynchian could be used. It is similar in many ways to his Los Angeles trilogy which were the films that created the term "Lynchian."

The film as the nytimes reviewer said in an article about a re-release of Blue Velvet on it's twentieth anniversary reminds me of Hitchcock films from the late 50's and early 60's. Like Vertigo and Birds, Blue Velvet presents an eery setting only to be disturbed by something beneath the surface. The firetruck, the serene setting of a small city, the white picket fence, create a calm that is deeply disrupted by the inquisitiveness of a college kid and the masochistic drug dealer who abuses Rosselini's character.

Roger Ebert gave this film a harsh review. I don't agree that it should receive such a harsh treatment, only one star. I do agree with him that Lynch presents a satire of life in a small city. That there is a deep, dark underbelly to the seemingly quaint, orderly day-to-day life of a small city.

I really like Dennis Hopper's performance in the film. He came off as sadistic, violent, and deranged. I also thought Rosselini turned in a good performance. The technical aspects were well done. I liked the settings a lot; the apartment, the warehouse, the nightclub, the quaint homes, all created a ambience which took the viewer into a small city. And, as I mentioned before, the cinematography was great in creating the feeling of satire. I felt very turned off at the banality that is created by the showing of the flowers and picket fences, the firetruch, the hokiness of everyone. Then when it's juxtaposed against the violence and depravity of Rosselini's situation; her husband and son kidnapped by Hopper, and of course Hopper's sexual depravity, his violent temper, it creates a feeling of disgust, of horror, and raises the question that Jeffrey's character asks; why are there men like Frank?

A very good film.

Review of David Lynch's Elephant Man

Elephant Man was a very good film. I thought the performances and dialogue were extraordinary. John Hurt and Anthony Hopkins turn in performances that garnered Oscar noms, too bad this film didn't win any Oscars. It should have.

I'm in the midst of a David Lynch film festival. I have tasked myself with watching all of his films. I just bought the lime green collectors set off of amazon.com and am getting through all of them, from his earliest works up to his last movies Inland Empire. I plan on reviewing each film, then writing a blog devoted to analyzing Lynch's film ovuere.

There are many good things about Elephant Man; the performances, as I mentioned above, the writing is very good, and the cinematography is very well done as well. The film is shot in black and white which gives it a bleak, art house cinema feel. Throughout the film we see the two sides of Victorian society. On one side is the exploiters, those who want to profit from the Elephant Man as a freak. There is his master, Bytes, and later on the nightsman from the hospital. Both seek to exploit John Merrick for their personal gain. On the other side is the Doctor and polite Victorian society. They seek to save John Merrick from exploitation and destitution which his mired in when the good doctor rescues him from squalor.

Throughout the film I tried to guess what would happen. Would John Merrick end up peacefully? Or would he die a bad death at the hands of his former master? In the end Lynch fades out on a Merrick who is quietly settling in for sleep. In reality the real John Merrick died at 27, possibly from suicide. I knew that his former master would make a repeat appearance. I just didn't know how or when.

Of course the fulcrum point of the film comes when John Merrick escapes from servitude in the circus and makes it back to London. He is then discovered, runs away, and is cornered by a crowd of people and the police. It is here that he gives his famous lines, "I am not an animal. I am a human being." That is the best, most famous, line from the film.

This was Lynch's first mainstream film. It was his big break into Hollywood filmmaking. It was his first film in which he worked with famous actors like Anthony Hopkins. I think he turned in a good effort. Especially in revealing the Elephant Man which he does bit by bit. It is not until well into the film that we get full facial on the Elephant Man. Several other shots are framed nicely. Yet, it doesn't have the "Lynchian" sequences or ending that come in his later films like Blue Velvet and the LA trilogy.

Review of David Lynch's Eraserhead

This was Lynch's first feature. It took him a long times to make. It is shot in black and white which gives it a very serious, art house, neo-expressionist look. Of course, as with all Lynch films Eraserhead is just as weird, perhaps even more weird than some of his other films. The creatures in this film resemble the creatures from alien very strikingly. The plot centers around Henry a weird looking man with very high, wavy hair. He always looks distressed throughout the film, worried about something; the baby, his wife, the neighbor next door.

The narrative of the film is linear, unlike other Lynch films. It starts off with Henry in an industrial wasteland and moves to his wife's home, then to Henry's tiny apartment. There are several gross scenes with the hugely deformed baby. The gross scenes build tension up until the final sequence of the film when Henry stabs the baby with scissors and puts it out of it's misery. The dialogue is sparse. It is a short film, only about 86 minutes.

The things I liked best about the film are the shots and the tension sequences. There are several great camera shots of his neighbor which I thought were great and made even better by the use of light against the desolate, dark background. There were also a lot of great shots of the main character. Several using a brigh white against the dark background which brought his hair and face rendering it a stark outline against the black backdrop.

I was trying to find a review to argue with about this film but unfortunately there are very few out there. Only some short reviews of the film on the Guardian, the nytimes.com. Ebert.com didn't have anything. It is a very good film. Some of it resembles Lynch's short film that he made about his childhood. Eraserhead, Lynch has stated, is about his fears of being a father. There are clearly some themes in this film that allude to that.

Review of Brief Encounter by David Lean

I first learned about this film from the Victoria and Albert Museum website. I don't remember when I saw the film exactly, but it said that Lean's Brief Encounter was a favorite of British moviegoers and that they play it every year with good attendance. I really like David Lean. I've seen his big hits; Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, and Passage to India. Yet, I've also seen some of his early works; Great Expectations and Brief Encounter. I really enjoyed Great Expectations. A lot of great camera work, shots, editing which Lean was so well known for.

Brief Encounter was a play based on a Noel Coward stage play. It was a one act play called Still Life. Lean and Coward expanded it into a full length screenplay which became the movie. It is not a long film. It only runs about an hour and a half. The film is in black and white. The shots are straight forward. There is, true to Lean's style, a great editing montage sequence where the woman looks out a train window at her and her lover dancing in a ballroom, at the Opera, and in a horse carriage. The dream sequence takes place in the window and the woman's face is reflected against the window the entire time the dream sequence is playing. It is a great montage of how film editing used to be done; with overlapping streams and imprints on top of other scenes. It is the most technically sophisticated part of the film.

The other great parts of the film are the dialogue and the rising tension between the two lead actors. What starts out as an innocent meeting turns into something more. Over the course of the film the tension rises until they finally confess to each other that they are deeply in love. Then, later on they kiss. Yet, they break it off. They don't commit total adultery.

I suppose that's the reason why this film is still popular in Britain today. From what I know, which isn't much, Britain is country that values restraint, perhaps, even to the point of repression. Perhaps a counterpoint to Brief Encounter is Lady Chatterley's Lover, a novel, made into a film several times. It was so scandalous that the book wasn't allowed to be published and the film could only be made after several decades had past. They are opposite. Brief Encounter is a film which the couple don't consummate their affair. They practice restraint and maintain their marriage vows keeping their passion for one another repressed inside of them. In Chatterley, the restraints are violated. Lady Chatterley commits adultery, with not only another man, but the a person of lower class standing, a big no-no in extremely class conscious Britain.

I enjoyed Brief Encounter. It reminded at times of Casablanca. The two protagonist close together, their faces filling up the screen, each word slowly coming out, revealing more emotion, creating more tension. A short, heartbreaking romance.

Further Discussions about Peter Biskind's book about 90's Independent Cinema

The last hundred pages I've read of Biskind's Down and Dirty pictures has been very informative. I grew up in the 90s and I remember watching Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction on VHS. I borrowed from the local video store. Those stores aren't around anymore. Yet, the book tells the interesting and improbable story of Tarrantino. A video store clerk who becomes a global film phenomenon. One year he's an unknown and the next he's dating Mira Sorvino. Pulp Fiction was a huge hit, it brought Miramax big box office and critical acclaim. It made Tarrantino a rock-star director. He even got leverage over the Weinstein brothers which was unheard of. Yet, Pulp Fiction also spelled the end of the glory days of American Indie Cinema. It made it into a lottery where instead of filmmakers wanting to make good films, they all wanted to make Pulp Fiction. I remember that there were a crop of films that were remarkably similar to Pulp Fiction. Just as violent, sexy, provocative. I think Biskind puts it at 1994 when the Indie film movement went into decline. I think his assessment is right. I can't remember so many indie films from the late 90s from the States. And Miramax, which sold out to Disney, which I couldn't understand at all, moved away from doing edgy, avant garde films that might not do good box office, but were good films.

The book talks about The English Patient, a favorite film of mine. It gives all the dish about how it was almost not made, then finally, with Harvey Weinstein's help, it did get made. It was a Zaul Saentz production and all the talent took a defferred salaries most of which were never paid. The film went on to gross something like 220 million, and all Harvey Weinstein had to pay was for foreign distribution rights of 10 million dollars. Zaentz threatened to sue, but Weinstein simply said that "we're Walt Disney we have a hundred lawyers." I'm glad the film got made. Yet, it shows, even in the throws of the indie golden age, how hard it is to get a great movie produced.

Harvey, as I will call him, is the most colorful character of the book. His appetite is enormous, his drive is relentless, and his abilities at acquiring films and negotiating deals are legendary. He married a WASP, he was a  Jew. He comes from a humble background in Queens. One story Biskind tells is of Harvey at Martha's Vineyard in "WASP" central and he wast he only Jew there. Perhaps this commeuppance is why he turned away from making the films that Miramax made it's bones with. After Pulp Fiction, the English Patient, and some other films he was worth over 100 million dollars, correct me if I'm wrong. He makes the book enjoyable and is in stark contrast to the rather palid character of Robert Redford, the head of Sundance and the other major character in the book. They are very much polar opposites. Redford aloof and evasive. Harvey obsessive and controlling every detail. Yet both fuel the independent movement on opposite ends.

Biskind also talks about young filmmakers from the 90s; Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, Kevin Smith, Ed Burns, Steven Soderbergh, and Todd Solenz among others. He gives the dish about how they got their films made, whether they were flops and in most cases, modest successes. It was interesting to learn all the details about Good Will Hunting which Miramax rescued.

So far the book is interesting, like Raging Bulls, it is informative, it's more than just a gossip column. It delves deep into the film culture of the 1990s, and reveals how the films got acquired which seemed to be the way which films were distributed in those days. I don't know if acquisitions is still the way to get a film to an audience, but some of the stories Biskind tells in the book are intense. I can't believe film executives would pay so much money for a film they have only seen 10 or 15 minutes of.

Lastly, many of the filmmakers talked about in the book seemed to have gotten a bad deal. Many of them never made any money or sold at a price far less then the film took in at the box office. The Weinsteins in particular were tough customers. Yet, I guess back in those days if you had film that was indie or edgy, you wanted to be bought buy Miramax. I'll have to keep reading the book to find out exactly what happens to Miramax, because if I recall correctly it runs into financial troubles. I'm looking forward to the end of the book.

Review of The Graduate; Screenplay and Film

This was the second film I read the screenplay and watched the film. I had mentioned to my theater directing teacher to put on the Graduate, but she demurred because there weren't enough roles for the whole class to play. I put it on the back burner to read later. I had also read Larry Turman's introductory book about Film Producing. He was the producer behind the Graduate and reveals a lot of the work that went into make it a big hit. Peter Biskind's book Raging Bulls also goes into detail about how the film was cast. Instead of Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft it was supposed to by Robert Redford and Candice Bergen. Originally it was supposed to be WASPs, instead they cast Beverly Hills Jews. It was what Turman wanted. He was a big fan of Dustin Hoffman and had to have him in the film.

The script is good. It is definitely a product of the 60s. The wording, the language, and, of course the them really captures what it was like to live in the 60s. There were two parts left out of the film. At the beginning, Benjimin is supposed to make a speech and his fellow classmates are supposed to clear out, and he is left standing there all alone. This was cut from the script which I thought would have created more of an explanation about Benjimin's sense of directionlessness and disillusionment. I suppose the shots of him drifting around on the float in the pool suffice.

Another shot cut from the script is where Benjimin imagines his family and Mrs. Robinson going to dinner together. In the sequence he can't take being so close to Mrs. Robinson and screams out in anguish. It could have added more tension to film, but it was taken out.

The rest of the story reads smoothly, goes right along. I thought the script, like the film drags a little at the end. I don't know how it could have been done differently. How could Benjimin find out the address of the wedding other than go to the frat house? How does he stalk Mrs. Robinson's daughter without going to Berkley? I don't know. I thought the whole object of marrying Mrs. Robinson's daughter was farcical. It was funny, it makes the film outrageous, yet is it really believable? I suppose it doesn't matter; it's a movie, it's the 60s, a lot of strange things happen in movies and a lot of strange things happened in the 60s.

The best scene was, obviously, the seduction scene. The dialogue is great. It's compelling, intense, funny, awkward, and alluring. The whole sequence grabs your attention and doesn't let go until Benjimin finally leaves the Robinson house. Toward the end of the film, like I mentioned before, there is less dialogue, it is mostly scenes and music with little dialogue. I enjoy it, the music is great written especially for the film, and the shots, which must have cost a fortune, of the suspension bridge in California are great. Must have been a helicopter shot? Probably. Yet, there is little dialogue. I suppose it's not necessary for the rest of the film. Still a great film. I would like to show it in my American Cinema class.

Review of Gosford Park by Robert Altman

I decided to watch this movie again for at least the second time mainly because it stars Kristin Scott Thomas who I watched in The English Patient and Love Crime which I have reviewed previously in this blog. To my surprise this was Julain Fellowes first, I believe it's his first effort at film. Julian Fellowes is the creative genius behind Downton Abbey the big British costume drama that's airs on PBS on Sunday nights. I suppose it's a big hit. There have been several write ups in the times about it and it has been renewed for sebsequent seasons.

Gosford Park resembles Downton Abbey in many ways. They are both about essentially the same classes of people; British Aristocrats and the people "downstairs." It looks, visually, very much like Downton. It has the same palid, somewhat grey sky. An enormous estate, many rooms, a kitchen, a dining room, and so on. There are even several characters in Gosford Park that show up on Downton; Maggie Smith reprises her role as older, socialite collected an allowance. She plays the same gossipy Lady in Gosford as in Downton.

The plot swirls around the murder of the Lord of the house. He is knifed in his study. Perhaps it's just me, but I didn't determine that anyone way apprehended for the murder. There were several suspects, Maggie Smith, a man from downstairs, but there was no conclusive resolution. In the last scene the visitors simply drive away in their cars leaving Scott Thomas on the steps waving goodbye. I suppose that's what Fellowes wanted. Perhaps I should read the review to get my facts straight. Yet, I think I'm right, no one was arrested for the murder.

The film is a little longer then two hours. It is very dialogue heavy which is in stark contrast to many films made these days which are heavy on the visual effects and stylization. That said the costumes and hairstyles are very visually alluring. From the women's and men's hairstyles, I couldn't get over the women's bobs and how hard the men's hair was parted, to the dresses which looked very appropriate for a film set in 1932. The language was also particular for the time period. I thought to myself why don't British filmmakers make anything contemporary, then I remembered Danny Boyle's Trainspotting, and the thought passed.

Perhaps the best thing I like about Gosford Park, aside from the ability to gaze at Scott Thomas, is the very slow pacing of the film. As with Downton Abbey, the acting and action is never rushed, in fact some people would probably be turned off by the glacial like progression of the story. Yet, it works. It strikes a chord, like being rushed through the post-modern world and given a respite of a few hours to listen.

Gosford Park is a good film. I think Robert Altman was probably the director most suited to do something like it. I distinctly remember him saying in Biskind's Raging Bulls how much he hated Star Wars. Gosford Park is certainly another world from Star Wars.

Review of English Patient; Screenplay and Film

I've seen this film several times. In fact I've reviewed it previously on this blog. I'm going to study for a degree with a focus on screenwriting and now that school is over I though I would read some screenplays and watch the film. The script for English Patient was on my coffee table and I was reading a film history book which talks about it in a few chapters, so I picked it up and decided to read it. It's one of my favorite films with many of my favorite British actors; Ralph Fiennes, Kristin Scott Thomas, Colin Firth, Willen Dafoe, as well as produced by Saul Zaentz who is a legend in the Film World for his extremely high quality productions. Sadly, I found out he passed away recently. A terrible loss.

The script was written by Anthony Minghella, he directed as well. He has an interesting background which I will not go into here. The script is, perhaps I'm biased, but I think it's flawless. The way it's written to go back and forth from the past to the present creates an anxious feeling to know where the story will go next, to the past, which part, to where, the desert? A market? Italy? I liked that non-linear quality very much. Also the descriptions of the desert and the planes flying overhead, fantastic. It totally reminded me of Lawrence of Arabia, which this film should be compared to, in some ways. And off course the dialogue. Several of the exchanges between Fienes and Scott are truly memorable. A few days later I started to remember where they are talking about why Almasy went to the desert. The lines and scene played through my head and upon further reflection it was very well done. There many other good dialogue scenes, not only in the desert between Almasy and Mrs. Clinton, but at the villa in Italy with Willem Dafoe, Fiennes and Binoche. The tension between the actors, the war going on outside, and whatever else comes to the fore creates dramatic tension that is resolved with the death of Mrs. Clifton, the end of the war, and the death of Almasy.

The multiple resolutions creates a relief, the war is over, and it creates a devastating heartbreak. Almasy is too late to save Mrs. Clifton. The plane sequences bring in another dimension to the film. It is not just cars on the ground. There are aerial views and in the last scene Mr. Clifton crashes the plane, narrowly missing Almasy. It is a great idea to have the planes. At the beginning of the film they allow aerial views of the desert, they created eerie shadows on the sand, and allow for a very violent, dramatic crash sequence

The film, perhaps because Minghella directing and wrote, stays faithful to the script. It doesn't leave anything out of the film. From what I remember, each scene is included in the film. Several of the screenplays I've read aren't so faithful to the script. Most likely they leave some scenes out.

The script is based on a great book, which was adapted into a great screenplay, which was made into a great film. It's not just the script and the directing though, this film was incredibly well done in all aspects; photography, editing, writing, acting, etc. It won 9 Oscars and jumped started or revived several careers.