Friday, April 20, 2007

Blogs With Sharp Teeth

Named in honor of the new Harlan Ellison documentary, "Dreams With Sharp Teeth," which I saw at a Writer's Guild Foundation to-do last night. The doc's great and I think it gives the audience an inkling of what it's like to be in Harlan's presence. Readings, rants, opinions, knowledge and stories grab you by the throat, and who could be the same after an experience like that? It was great fun. The film was followed by an encore presentation of the Josh and Harlan Show, complete with microphones and complimentary bottles of water. Josh tried to be a good moderator and ask Harlan a few questions.

You can imagine how well THAT worked.

It was great to see Harlan and his lovely wife Susan, and A LOT of luminaries turned out to fete Harlan -- Richard Thompson (who did the score for the film, and WOW, it's RICHARD THOMPSON!), Werner Herzog (Werner Herzog!!), Ron Moore -- many more of Harlan's dearest friends and admirers. Just a fabulous evening, being all inspired n shit and talking to bunches of friends.

You can't help not being inspired by hearing Harlan talk. Sometimes, writers can get caught up in the bullshit and start to think of themselves as magicians. I think that allows a lot of writers the opportunity to kind of shine it on, to imagine themselves in their (insert choice of writer's retreat cliche here), with their (insert romantic writing tool here) scribbling feverishly on page after page of sweet linen as the muse works through them to compose works of genius. So they wait for the muse to strike them. But waiting isn't the same as working. It's the opposite, actually. Writing isn't the romantic, ethereal thing people like to make it out to be. It's WORK. Don't have an idea but need to pay the rent? Then you WORK to get ideas. And the best way to do that is to do it frequently. Your brain needs to be trained to think in a specific way, and that depends on what you're writing. For example, working in TeeVee is different than working in film and the only way to learn how to switch gears is to just do it, over and over again. And prose is an entirely different animal. Not all writing is banging away at the keyboard, either. Ideas can come from anywhere, so you have to be vigilant and you have to be trained to let the idea take root.

I like to do SOMETHING every day. I like lists. So I make A LOT of lists. Lists help me to organize potential ideas, and I've gotten almost to the point where I don't waste too much of my time on ideas that aren't viable. Almost. But even working over an idea that ultimately doesn't work is worthwhile. Writing bad scripts is worthwhile. So is reading bad writing. Imagine how much I learned from The DaVinci Code! When I've got something to write, I write it. But I also keep up with the idea generator. It's good to get into a rhythm. And writing means working. So do it.

In the past five months, we've written three pilots and a feature. We're thinking about our next feature, our next spec pilot, and what we're going to pitch during pilot season when it begins around July-ish. Just going, "I've got this year's sample, I'm Done" doesn't really cut it anymore. Writers have to generate a lot more work than that. I used to love it on the AOL boards when some neophyte would come on and proudly proclaim that he'd finished his screenplay. He wanted to know what to do next (i.e., who to talk to who would give him gobs of money so he could quit that job down to the canning factory). Every working writer in the place told him to put it in a drawer and write another. Then put that one in a drawer and write another. Lather, rinse, repeat. Needless to say, they always got pissed off. But if all you can turn out is one screenplay, this ain't the industry for you.

Harlan talks about writing being work in the film. It's no great mystery. It's a JOB. And you have to be both pragmatic and insipred by that. If you think that's the wrong attitude, take a gander at how many short stories, novels and essays Harlan's written and get back to me.

He also talked about his preferred equipment -- a typewriter. For you kids out there who don't understand this word, it's that thing Stephen Cannell pounded away on before victoriously yanking out the last page of the best episode of "The A-Team" and flinging it away. It's that strange clackety machine on which Jessica Fletcher wrote her cozy mysteries, which always ended with her avoiding certain capture (or, I wish). Of course, if you don't know what a typewriter is, then you don't know who Stephen Cannell and Jessica Fletcher are, either.

Ask your parents.

Anyway. I wouldn't know how to use a typewriter anymore. I'd freeze up. Every word would have to be precisely chosen. Every plot point would have to be perfect. Every thought would have to be crystal clear. But I've mostly learned on computers, so I think that way. I'd love to think, perhaps romantically, that I too could hammer away at a Smith Corona and produce brilliance. Maybe in an earlier time. But it made me think about rewrites. If there's one thing choking the hell out of Hollywood it's rewrites. Would producers and execs be so free with rewrites if they had to handwrite their notes on onion skin paper and hand them to a typist, who would take all freaking week to do them? I'm not so sure. But since typing on a computer is so fluid, doing rewrites is (for producers and execs) like MAGIC. Don't get me wrong; I don't think rewrites are unnecessary. I just think that for the most part, it's an abuse perpetrated by those with the purse strings. Which brings up another interesting point -- they don't pay you for the bloody things. Oh, you'll get first, second and polish money for a pilot but you're doing WAY more rewrites than just that. And forget about being on a show. They make a half-assed attempt at corralling it but the contract doesn't mean anything. And in features...! Erm, I don't know from experience. I've only heard. But it's true.

It would be nice if the Writer's Guild membership would put its collective foot down and refuse to do work for which it isn't paid. It'll never happen, but it's a nice dream to have.

I saw on John Scalzi's blog that he posted a picture of Fish!! I couldn't believe it! FISH, dudes! From Marillion! Cripes. Go to YouTube, type in Marillion, bask in their glory. I saw them on the Clutching At Straws tour at the Palladium. Bliss.

Actually, what I meant to say was, he is going to be at Penguicon this weekend. Penguicon. Have they run out of con puns, or is this a feeble attempt to tap into the repulsive penguin adoration market? Hmm. Anyhoo, he's going to be on a panel called "Limited Female Roles in Fantasy, Comics and SF." The description is thus:

>Why is it that a female character will either be raped or lose her child? Do TV writers have difficulty coming up with a motivation for women that isn't vagina-related? We rarely see every man's worst fear: castration. For equal rights, what if every time a woman gets raped on a show, they also neuter a male on the cast? The panelists will evaluate the causes and discuss this and other solutions.<

The first thing I'd say is that there are other wrongs being perpetrated upon female characters. It ain't just rape and babies. But let's talk about that for a moment. I'm really liking "Lost" this year, but the "if you're a pregnant woman you will DIE on this island" storyline is evidence of one thing on the writing staff -- Too. Many. Dudes. I don't subscribe to the "only women can write women" rule. I think that good writers can and should be able to create great characters, regardless of gender. But it's easier to create a great female character in a film or a limited series than it is to keep a show going beyond its expiration date. And when male writers -- even super good ones, like the guys on "Battlestar Galactica" -- are backed up against a wall, well... they back the female characters up against a wall and have at 'em. How many "chosen ones" have spurted out of some startled female character's womb? Too Goddam many to count. But everybody (for some unknown reason) can relate to Baby-in-jeopardy, right? That's what the testing says.

It's a shorthand way to get at the audience's emotions. Everybody understands wombs and what lives inside them, right? Target the womb, open the floodgates, baby, because your audience is HOOKED. It does basically say that the only difference between men and women is their equipment. It SUCKS to have to work on a show like that if you're a female writer who tends to think that men and women have more similarities than they're given credit for. Yes, of COURSE, there are major differences and those differences can and should be explored. But seeing babies and wombs used for plot points on show after show is just too effing much. That's one reason I haven't liked a domestic sitcom since the first few seasons of "Roseanne." It's idiotic, simplistic storytelling. America may like it, but it bores the crap out of me.

I saw "Grindhaus" (I prefer to spell it that way) last week and MAN, can Tarantino not write women. I mean, SERIOUSLY. He can't. At ALL. Maybe this is his fantasy woman, I dunno. But if he seriously thinks that this is how women talk to their girlfriends, he hasn't paid attention to anything any female friend of his has ever said. Of course, he's a dude so all he hears when a woman talks is the teacher's voice from Charlie Brown (I learned that from "Everybody Loves Raymond"). It's just painful. And wrong. And stupid. The last half hour is fun, but the first seventy-five hours... just awful. Enough on THAT. Quentin, go find your mojo, doll. Because it ain't around anymore.

This is a loooong blog post, and I'm not even done yet.

The other day, I read that some studio's making a movie where a Duckie (their word!) gets the girl. I kept reading the article, hoping that it would say that then the Duckie turns blind evil and the Blane has to save the Andie from him, but alas, the Duckie just... gets the girl. Talk about a fantasy. Duckies aren't boyfriend material, for all the reasons I've outlined in previous posts. Duckies are two-faced, manipulative little shits, not romantic leads. Why not have fun with THAT?

Lastly (yes, finally), to comments. Erin's all bent out of shape because sh was not given credit for helping to wreck Millennium as well. That is WRONG. She should definitely get some credit. We all wrecked it together, dammit! Dave and Michael made me blush with their praise for Millennium. Thanks, guys! Hopefully we shall one day be able to have that much fun again. The show still means a lot to both of us, since it's a perfect example of a well-run show. Michael also wants to know if we were asked to participate on the DVD. We were not. I think that if M&W had been running things, we would have been. But we weren't. However, with technology being what it is, perhaps we should just do our own Millennium commentary podcast...

Dave (another Dave) is here from the old MBATEOTU days! Hey, Dave! Congrats on the Lifetime movie. Nobody puts Lifetime in a corner!!! And my BROTHER is stalking me!! Yes, stalking me! He Googled me and found the blog! Gah! So now I have to be careful about what I say. Hmmm....

Them's comments in a nutshell. Thanks for reading, y 'all! Hopefully I won't have a Goddam cold for a week so's I can blog more frequently.

The one thing I'll leave you with is a few quotes from a terrific, lyrical book -- Lydia Millett's "Oh Pure and Radiant Heart."

"The ground is where history has happened, she thought, and when the future is mentioned many eyes are cast upward. Far above in space there are numerous phantom worlds, millions of light-years away. Their high meadows lie untouched, the white peaks of their green mountains blinding in the sun. Blowing grasses weave the shapes of wind across the wide plains and rivers run clear as glass. The planets there are home again, she thought: the land before we came. What we have done wrong can be forgiven, for there is the earth, reborn, again and again forever."

This book also has a jaw-dropping last line, but I don't want to give it away. Just read it.

So.

Writing is work, but inspiration is important, too. Get it wherever you can. When you're all adrift with no direction, remember this -- words inspire work. And words are all we have to go on.*

*Name the movie quote, win a pony.

np -- Lola Ray, "Liars"

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would enter the contest, but I already have a pony.

Erin

Anonymous said...

pisher again--have I mentioned I hate this posting format? I'm mentioning it now.

I'd certainly call Death Proof the least accomplished (and least ambitious) Tarantino movie to date, but I thought it was damned entertaining--the talky parts as much as the vroom-vroomy/crashy parts. Your primary complaint, I take it, other than the lack of sufficient action (everybody says that) is that the female characters didn't talk like real women?

You mean the way the Travellers in The Riches don't talk like real Travellers, as you know damned well they don't?

So granting that you can do a TeeVee series where the characters are supposed to belong to a certain ethnic group, without making them look or sound or behave like they belong to that ethnic group, even though the series is going for a certain slice of life vibe, because after all--it's just fiction. I agree completely, which then leaves the niggling matter of whether people find that fiction entertaining, which I gather (from people I know who dug the pilot) has been less true of The Riches with every passing episode, thus explaining the failure-to-burgeon of its water cooler effect.

Anyway, granting all this, how true to life then do you have to be when you're doing an homage to exploitation films running on a double bill with a zombie horror film about women with machine gun legs, that features a guy deliberately running a tricked-out car head-on into another car at high speed as a means of getting away with murder, that same guy then running afoul of two stuntwomen and a hairdresser who are playing a game called "Ship's Mast" that involves hanging by two belts from the hood of a vintage automobile travelling at high velocity?

Hmm?

I don't blame you for finding the dialogue inauthentic. There are no women who talk like that. There are no MEN who talk like that. It's only meant to be 'authentic' to the Quentin-verse. Mr. Tarantino and neorealism have never been on the best of terms. He's always preferred Leone and Argento to DeSica and Rossellini.

You have probably read his comments about Kill Bill--that he has this vision that all the movies he loves (including his own) take place in some kind of wacked out dimension where all exploitation films really happen, and a character can find herself in a martial arts film one moment, and a spaghetti western the next.

And Death Proof actually has a character from Kill Bill in it, and interact with a character from Planet Terror, thus kind of cementing the supposition that all of Grindhouse takes place in that kind of pulp-cinematic 'reality'.

So while I don't blame anyone for saying they don't like Death Proof, I must chide you for expecting realism from it. I mean, have you ever heard two hitmen talking about what a Big Mac is called in The Netherlands? You either dig it or you don't. I dug it. But I'm not surprised the double feature flopped. It was a bad idea, and they badly overspent on it. When's the DVD coming out?

David said...

It’s Dave here. Thanks for the shout-out and the congrats – even though the Lifetime movie was strictly for a paycheck, our script was damned entertaining. Your screed against endless rewrites really hits home, and you’re certainly correct in that it’s just as bad in the feature world. Having written four features in two years (in addition to the Lifetime gig and a miniseries) countless rewrites have pretty much become the central focus of my life, and if we have to hear one more friggin’ suit ask if we can do a “creative pass” over the weekend, I’m going to start randomly smacking people with my laptop. It’s this constant mentality of pedantic second-guessing that results in the truckloads of formulaic drivel that are filling the multiplexes these days. You’d think that after developing a story through the treatment/outline phase (and shit, we’ve literally spent weeks rewriting THOSE) that moving to the next step would be cake. Not so. Even though we’re usually on contract for four drafts, six or seven plus a polish have pretty much become mandatory. That’s usually how “character” morphs into “type” – yeesh. Worse yet is that lovely tendency of on-set rewrites by OTHER writers. My buddy Mark Wheaton wrote a terrific script for THE MESSENGERS, but you’d never know, since not one single line of his dialogue is actually in the finished film. Yet he still gets sole onscreen credit, while the internet boards light up with folks cursing his name. Same old, same old.

Also, couldn’t agree more on GRINDHOUSE. But I think what we’re now seeing goes further than Quentin not being able to write women – Quentin writes how Quentin speaks. And Quentin speaks A LOT, so it’s no wonder that folks are starting to say “Hey, haven’t we already heard this?” In this case, that self-indulgent, hipper-than-thou dialogue was damn near interminable, and there were no distinctive character voices at all. Every single person sounds EXACTLY THE SAME. That’s the reason that the DEATH PROOF script was getting passed around town so much last year accompanied by endless exclamations of “Holy shit, you’ve got read this for yourself to see how much it sucks.” That script, by the way, actually features thirty MORE pages of painful dialogue – yep, as initially written, it’s seventy minutes before that first car wreck. And the Weinsteins are planning on reinstating that sliced footage into the DVD release – joy But hey, the high-point was Edgar Wright’s trailer for DON’T, which nearly doubled me over in laughter (btw, HOT FUZZ is one of the best films of the year). And how sad is it that Eli Roth (totally in agreement with you about that particular douchebag) actually managed to make a three-minute trailer that was infinitely more entertaining than any of his crap movies? But yeah, the car chase stuff was fun; too bad it took a million years to get there.

Excellent blog, all around.

And your taste in music is aces.

Anonymous said...

So Dave, what's the title of your Lifetime movie? IMDb still hasn't given you your own entry. You should get on their backs about that. Damn sloppy, I calls it.

I think people have been waiting a long time for Tarantino to make a flop. Hey, it only took him 15 years. And a too-close collaboration with Robert Rodriguez, which helped RR a lot, and QT not at all.

At least people used to like QT's dialogue a lot, which is more than most people could ever say about Joss Whedon's. To mention somebody who used to write great women, and can't anymore, because everybody ends up sounding like the writer, and the writer has become annoyingly repetitive.

Only that writer just does comic books now. How'd that happen? (whistles innocently)

David said...

By the way Kay, do let us know if you're gonna be doing any panels at ComiCon this July. I've meant to catch one of those panels for quite a while but have never managed to, due to usually hitting the Con either a day before or after your scheduled appearances. And I don't think you were even there last year, right? This year, I got the pro-reg done plenty early and will be there for the full five days. It's certainly shaping up to be a good one this time around (George Romero will be there!) and I'd love to drop by and say "hey" in person if you're gonna be speaking.

AJ said...

All this writer-speak is absolutely kicking my ass, but I'm enjoying it immensely.

Dave, you need to start your own blog, dammit! *LOL*

And Kay, another engaging post. Keep 'em coming.