I saw Let the Right One In (dir. Tomas Alfredson, 2008) before I read the novel. I was immediately impressed by how Alfredson balanced purely cinematic elements and yet maintained a distinct lyrical, at times poetic, edge to the visual narrative.

The screenplay was written by the novel’s author John Ajvide Lindqvist and it’s a dramatically tight and emotionally sustained piece of cinematic writing – a very impressive debut for a feature screenplay adaptation.

I’m not sure what early drafts of the screenplay were like, but for the shooting script Lindqvist had cut more than one character from the novel and jettisoned a major climax

What usually happens when a novel is adapted into a movie is that a number of sub-plots are jettisoned and peripheral characters are amalgamated. This is due to cinematic time constraints, and is also an effort not to clutter the narrative with too many characters.

It’s curious that what works easily in prose doesn’t necessarily work well for cinema. I’m not sure what early drafts of the screenplay were like, but for the shooting script Lindqvist had cut more than one character from the novel and jettisoned a major climax that occurs during the last third of the novel, turning the film into a more conventional boy meets girl romance.

Author John Adjvide Lindqvist

The basic premise of both novel and movie is this: 12-year-old Oskar meets a Eli, a girl of roughly the same age. Oskar is an only child and is bullied at school. Eli is a vampire who lives with her middle-aged caretaker Hakan. Oskar and Eli become friends, while Eli continues to live the life of a vampire, killing in order to consume blood, in order to survive.

As it turns out Eli is not really a girl. And herein lies the novel’s brilliant twist. It is a twist which, curiously, Lindqvist decides to not address anywhere near as directly in the movie as he does in his novel.

What usually happens when a novel is adapted into a movie is that a number of sub-plots are jettisoned and peripheral characters are amalgamated.

In both the novel and the movie Eli explains to Oskar that she is not really a girl. The audience has already assumed that Eli is a vampire, so they are making the connection that by saying she is not a girl, Eli is hinting she is a vampire.

However there is more to this. Later in the novel Eli kisses Oskar and in doing so initiates a kind of memory transference: Oskar experiences a memory of Eli’s as if it is happening to him.

In the memory Eli is a young boy who is tied down and has his genitals cut off by a middle-aged man. Eli also tells Oskar that his real name is Elias, which is a boy’s name. Oskar eventually realizes the truth, but his fondness for Eli is not dampened.

Eli

When I saw the movie I was initially shocked, then very intrigued by it. I wasn’t sure what I’d seen.

There are only two visual references to Eli not being a girl in the movie. The first is when Eli kisses Oskar (the memory transference) and tells Oskar “try being me for a moment”. As Eli breaks the kiss and pulls away the audience sees for a brief moment that Eli is not a girl but a grown adult man but with the same features.

The other moment, which is also in the novel, is when Oskar peeks at Eli dressing after having had a shower and glimpses a horizontal scar where Eli’s genitals should be. When I saw the movie I was initially shocked, then very intrigued by it. I wasn’t sure what I’d seen. In fact, I hadn’t registered the scar, but simply that Eli had no genitals. It didn’t occur to me that Eli might be a boy.

In this respect it seems a conscious decision was made by Alfredson and Lindqvist to leave that side of Eli’s character more cryptic and mysterious. It certainly adds a dark, phantasmogorical element to the movie.

Hakan

In the movie Eli has an assistant, a middle-aged man named Hakan. He has to do Eli’s dirty work, collecting the blood from young boys for Eli to drink. In the novel Hakan is a pedophile, and there is a scene where he buys the services of a young pubescent boy who it turns out has no teeth.

Hakan’s aberrant character is toned down immeasurably for the movie. In fact there is no direct reference to him being a pedophile. It can be safely assumed that director Alfredson and/or producers decided that having Hakan as a pedophile would severely damage the audience’s sympathy for Eli, despite Eli being a supernatural killer. Curious, still, is Alfredson’s decision to cast a girl in the role of Eli instead of an androgynous boy.

I find it hard to believe that Hollywood would embrace those darker more perverse elements of the novel for the movie

Another change from novel to movie is this: In the novel 12-year-old Oskar has a friend, Tommy, a 16-year-old who lives in the same apartment complex and uses the basement to sniff glue and hang with his teenage mates. He offers to sell Oskar toys (no doubt stolen). Tommy might have dodgy morals, but he’s not a villain character.

Eli and Tommy represent two halves of what Oskar desires. In Tommy he sees the confident “adult” who can look after himself and not have to worry about being bullied, which is what is happening to Oskar in and out of school. In Eli he sees the pretty girl whom has stolen his heart.  Yet Tommy is not included in the movie.

Tommy’s mother Yvonne is also dropped from the story, along with his father Staffan. In the movie the name Yvonne is given to Oskar’s mother, who is never named in the novel.

Oscar and Eli

The movie plays out more conventionally as a boy meets girl romance, where the girl happens to be a vampire, and the boy needs a dose of self-confidence. The novel, however, it is much darker tale, where the vampire’s sexuality has been stunted through castration, and presumably he has lived for two hundred years in this way.

Hollywood is remaking the movie; to be re-titled Let Me In. Rumour has it that screenwriter/director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) plans to stick more closely to the novel. I find it hard to believe that Hollywood would embrace those darker more perverse elements of the novel for the movie, when even the famously open-minded Swedish baulked at adapting the novel as it was.

Bryn Tilly is a shameless cinephile, freelance writer and professional DJ who spends his daytime hosting two movie blogs – http://www.horrorphile.net and www.cultprojections.com. Night time he spins deep funk for jazzed souls at Sydney’s glam hotspots such as The Ivy and The Opera Bar. He provides a ‘Movie of the Month’ review for lifestyle website www.freshmag.com.au.

We’re giving away 5 copies of the novel LET THE RIGHT ONE IN by John Ajvide Lindqvist, courtesy of Text Publishing. To win, send an email to books@thestorydepartment.com and tell us what you think was the most memorable ever film adaptation.

In a series about screenwriting software, some of the main screenwriting software titles out there will contribute an article to The Story Department.

We open the series with Mark Kennedy, CEO of Celtx.

“Just a few days ago, we released version 2.0 of the Celtx software.

A lot of people don’t quite get what Celtx is about. I guess people see things from their own perspective. If they are screenwriters, they see a screenwriting application, if they are filmmakers, they see a pre-production package, if they are storyboard artists, they see a media application, if they are comic book creators, they see a new tool to help them make the same. And so it goes, each person seeing in Celtx what is useful to them in their own pursuit of creativity.

Don’t get me wrong. That’s all fine by us. In fact, that’s what we hoped would happen. That people would derive their own benefit based on their own needs. We always figured that there were, are, as many different ways to create media as there are users, so we tried to make the Celtx software as flexible as possible.

Thing is, no matter how they work, whether following traditional bottom up approaches to developing their story, or employing non-linear methods, most every media creator uses a lot of the same tools as the next person. It comes down to Story – characters, a situation, and locations.

You see a lot of references these days about the trend towards “convergence”, the merging of many different media formats – film, game, audio – the re-purposing of one media format for adaptation to another format. This in our view, is only describing what has always been the case. Artists have never been afraid to try new forms; to apply, and expand their skills beyond the confines of a single type of media.

Very few, if any, of the existing media software offerings seemed to recognize that fact, choosing instead to pigeon hole users in to one type of media, and through the use of proprietary file formats, and rigid work flows, preventing those same users from expanding beyond their initial canvass.

This, ultimately, is the opportunity we saw – to provide media artists with a tool that would be as expandable as they wanted it to be. One that let them easily re-purpose their media to other formats, and re-purpose their data to other applications.

What was needed was a universally accepted tool. A platform. Whatever you want to call it. But a way for any and all media creators to use one system that supported all of their requirements and let them collaborate without worrying about data formats, and incompatible technologies. Making media is hard enough without being frustrated by files that won’t open or technologies that limit creativity.

This is why Celtx is open source and uses only open standards. It ensures maximum flexibility and a common platform that all media makers can use.

Being an open source software application, Celtx is open to anyone to integrate their own technology in to the system. Just recently, another company developing a script writing offering had indicated that they are developing a tool that ties in to the Celtx software.

That’s the whole idea. To make Celtx the default system for developing media regardless of the specific application you are using to create different aspects of their project. Once saved in a Celtx Project, the media is unassailable, re-purposeable, convertible, and sharable by all.

This usually begs the question of how do we make money from all of this? What motivation do we have to make Celtx a success (other then for altruistic reasons)?

The growing use of web services is an undeniable, and unstoppable trend in the technology business. Every company developing technology sees the writing on the wall. The future is in selling web services that augment the desktop environment.

When the cell phone industry first got going in Europe, everyone agreed (with the help of some gentle persuasion from the regulators) to a common standard. The risk was that without a common standard everyone would go off madly in all directions, balkanizing the cell phone environment in to a myriad of networks, none of which would talk to each other. The result would have been very bad for users.

Instead, an open standard was promulgated, and everyone rushed to innovate off that open standard, introducing new hand sets and new technologies to gain market share. Nokia became one of the best in the industry at being the first to market with new innovations, gaining more and more users. The rest, as they say, is history.

This is what we hope for Celtx – that it continues to establish itself as the open system for creating and sharing media. We may have invented it, but we don’t own it, any more then Nokia owns the 3G cell phone network that they have so successfully leveraged.

The new Celtx Studios is our first commercial offering based on the open standards Celtx software. It is designed to provide media creators with web based access to their media projects, including optimized archiving for sub-versions, collaboration features and the ability to create protected web Previews.

The same offering, or one similar to it, could be developed by anyone using the open source code of Celtx to achieve their goal, just like the Nokia competitor, Ericsson, has also developed new cell phone technologies that work on the same system as Nokia’s.

One open system, many offerings based on that system, all benefiting users. That’s the promise. That’s the future.”

-Mark Kennedy
CEO Celtx

Not just a great comic book adaptation and an exciting action flick, but also an elegantly written piece of cinema entertainment, executed with a daring cast and grounded in a solid foundation of character.

ACT ONE

SEQUENCE A

- Tony Stark visits soldiers on duty in the Middle East.
- The convoy is attacked, the soldiers are quickly killed.
- Stark flees when a bomb explodes, severely wounding Tony’s chest.
- Tony is captured and recorded by a group of terrorists.

FLASHBACK

- Tony’s history as a child prodigy, taking over his father’s company at 21.
- Colonel Rhodes presents Tony with an award in his absence.
- Stane accepts the award in Tony’s honor.
- Rhody finds Tony partying in a casino.
- Reporter Christine approaches Stark with questions regarding ethics.Stane
- The two end up spending the night together.
- Christine is greeted by Tony’s assistant, “Pepper” as she leaves the house.
- Pepper helps Tony with some business before he heads out to the airport.
- In flight, Tony talks with Rhody, who is unhappy about Tony’s attitude.
- Tony gets Rhody to relax, they get drunk and have an in-flight party.
- At a military outpost, Tony demonstrates the Jericho, a missile system.
- Tony goes off with the convoy that is soon attacked by terrorists.

SEQUENCE B

- Tony regains consciousness, his chest is hooked up to a strange device.
- His cellmate Yinsen explains the device keeps shrapnel out of Tony’s heart.
- The captors tell Tony to build a Jericho. Tony refuses and they torture him.
- The terrorists show off a huge weapons stockpile and Tony starts building.
- With Yinsen’s help, Tony constructs a super power generator.
- Tony designs a powered weapon suit to defeat the terrorists.
- Terrorist Raza, attempts to torture Yinsen and gives them one more day.
- Yinsen and Tony set off a bomb as distraction as Tony powers up his suit.
- Yinsen grabs a gun and runs off to distract the surviving guards.
- Tony muscles his way through the cave, his suit deflects weapon fire.
- A dying Yinsen encourages Tony to not waste his life as he escapes.
- Tony destroys their weapons, the armor is ruined, but he is alive.
- US helicopters fly overhead, a group of soldiers led by Rhody, find Tony.

ACT TWO

SEQUENCE C

- Back home Tony announces to shut down Stark Industries’ Weapons.
- Agent Coulson tells Pepper he wants to talk to Tony about his capture.
- Stane confronts Tony about his actions, furious.
- Tony wants Stark Industries to move forward with Ark Reactor technology.
- Stane tells Tony to lay low for a while so the company can sort things out.
- During the upgrade of the Ark Reactor, Tony verges on cardiac arrest.
- Pepper helps in the process, she’s told to get rid of the old model.
- Rhodes says Stark is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
- Tony starts upgrading his armored suit to “Mark 2,”.
- The terrorists gather all fragments of the original armor in the desert.
- Tony perfects the armor’s flight system.
- Pepper comes in and leaves a box on Tony’s desk.
- Stane and the board filed an injunction to gain control of Stark Ind.
- Tony completes the upgrade of his flight system.
- A test flight shows Tony the power supply shuts down at great heights.
- After a near-crash, Tony crashes through three floors of the house.

SEQUENCE D

- Tony finds Pepper’s box with “Proof That Tony Stark Has A Heart.”
- Tony rebuilds the suit to solve the icing problem, to code name Mark 3.
- Tony leaves to attend his benefit dinner while the suit is being painted.

MID POINT:

- At the charity event Agent Coulson wants to learn about the incident.
- Tony and Pepper share a moment together in the moonlight.
- Christine challenges him on his weapons being used in the Middle East.
- Stane reveals he filed the injunction against Tony.
- Tony is furious, transforms into Iron Man for the first time.

SEQUENCE E

- In the Middle East, Iron Man defeats the terrorists, destroys their weapons.
- Two F-22 jets spot him.
- Col. Rhodes contacts Tony, who plays ignorant.
- The jets are too much and Tony reveals to Rhodes he is responsible.
- Iron Man is hit by one fighter jet but saves a pilot’s life.
- Tony convinces Rhody to pass it all off as a “training exercise.”
- Back at home, Pepper catches him removing the Iron Man armor.

SEQUENCE F

- The terrorists are visited by none other than Stane.
- He paid them to kill Stark, but they demanded a much higher price.
- Stane takes the remnants of the Mark 1 armor they have gathered.
- Pepper agrees to help Tony.
- In Stane’s office she finds evidence he was behind Tony’s capture.
- Stane realizes what she was up to.
- Agent Coulson agrees to help stop Stane with his fellow agents.
- Stane cannot figure out how to create a power source for the suit.
- Stane arrives at Tony’s house and paralyzes him with a sonic weapon.
- Stane yanks out the power source from Tony’s heart.
- Tony gets the Ark Reactor that Pepper gave him.
- Tony gets the power source installed just as Rhody arrives.

ACT THREE

SEQUENCE G

- Pepper and Coulson spot the Mark 1 Armor, Stane attacks them.
- Iron Man fights Iron Monger, with half power in the suit.
- Tony grabs Iron Monger and climbs higher, then loses him.
- Iron Man is now almost completely powerless.
- Tony instructs Pepper to overload the building’s Ark Reactor.
- Pepper is hesitant, believing that Tony could also be killed.
- Tony manages to keep fighting while she builds up power to the Reactor.
- The Ark explodes, killing Stane, injuring Tony but saving him from death.

SEQUENCE H

- At a press conference Tony adopts the name “Iron Man”.
- Coulson: cover stories about Stane and the “truth” about Iron Man.
- Tony goes before the reporters once more, and declares “I am Iron Man.”

EPILOGUE

Back home, Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D. talks about “The Avenger Initiative.”

Thank you to IMDb for the full synopsis.

A Room with a View (Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, 1985).

Without any doubt, this is one of the finest literary adaptations and a timeless romantic movie.

The film launched the careers of actors Daniel Day Lewis and Helena Bonham Carter, while it was a first major hit in a string of successful adaptations written by James Ivory’s scribe of choice Ruth Prawer Jhabvala.

The film formed the inspiration for my university thesis about film translation and subtitling back in 1988. For that purpose I had to view it dozens of times (on VHS). But it couldn’t stop me from watching it many times again over the twenty years that have since past.

ACT ONE

SEQ. A: The English – Boredom and bickering about a view

00.00 Titles: Cast of Characters. Lucy Honeychurch, Charlotte et al.
02.30 Florence. Lucy & Charlotte unhappy: room without a view.
03.30 Charlotte complains over dinner. The Emersons stir the pot.
04.00 George is after Lucy. His dad offers room w/ view: vision within!
06.30 Charlotte affronted: how to deal with these people?!
07.00 Sisters Allan: Tactless, Kindness / Delicate, Beautiful.
09.00 Rooms changed. George leaves question mark for Lucy.
10.00 Father & son Emerson put cornflowers on sisters’ beds.
12.00 Lucy at piano. Beebe: if she would live as she plays: exciting…
13.00 Charlotte and Eleanor go out together.

SEQ. B: The Italians – A call to adventure in Florence

14.00 Santa Croce Boredom. Emerson tells Lucy about George’s mind.
17.00 Ch. & Eleanor: physical sensation, smells, alleys. Adventure!
21.30 Lucy sees fight, blood. She faints; George catches her.
22.30 Her photos are blooded. The man is dead. George offers help.
25.00 By Arno, George: “Something happened to me. And you.”
27.00 (Out to see a view) Priest makes girl descend. Romance!
30.30 George in tree. He is declaring the ‘eternal yes’, father says.
31.30 Charlotte & Eleanor send Lucy away so they can gossip.
33.00 Lucy looking for George. He kisses her, while Charlotte watches.

ACT 2a: Lucy resisting George

SEQ. C: Leaving George and leaving Italy.

35.30 Leaving back for Florence in a storm. George is walking.
37.30 Charlotte: How to silence George? Promises: “Silent as the grave.”
39.30 Charlotte negotiates refund at the hotel.
40.30 George arrives back at the hotel.

SEQ. D: Officially engaged – Living a lie

41.30 (Home) Lucy has accepted Cecil Vyse’s marriage proposal.
44.00 Beebe about Lucy: “One day music and life will mingle.”
44.30 (Officially Engaged) News shocks Beebe in front of Cecil.
46.00 Lucy & Cecil walking, he is snobbish, elitist about Beebe.

MID POINT:
47.00 By lake: Cecil’s first kiss, clumsy, Lucy thinks of George.

ACT 2b: Lucy resisting Cecil

SEQ. E: Looking for new tenants – The Emersons

50.00 Lucy writes to the Allans for tenants.
51.00 Lucy plays to audience, Cecil takes credit for her culture.
52.30 Cecil and mum talk about Lucy & preparing her for London.
53.00 Cecil patronises her, then kisses her.
54.00 Tennis, Beebe reads letter; Freddy about new tenants ‘Emersons’.
56.00 Cecil tells about new tenants, he met them at gallery, Italian art.
58.00 Lucy mad at Cecil, calls him “disloyal”, he patronises her again.

SEQ. F: The Emersons are in town – The pot is boiling

58.30 Freddy & Beebe go to the Emersons: come and bathe!
60.30 George about coincidence & fate, Italy. The men bathe.
62.30 Cecil, Lucy and mum pass by, seeing the bathing scene.
65.00 Freddy at piano, Charlotte’s letter: she is coming over.
66.30 Mum complains about Cecil’s attitude.
68.00 Freddy raves about George.
69.00 Mum & Lucy: Charlotte will be arriving.
70.00 Charlotte meets George at station.
71.30 Charlotte arrives, chaos about cab fare.
73.30 Lucy & Charlotte: ‘no other source’, have you spoken to HIM?

SEQ. G: Cecil reads Lavish – Pandora’s Box opens

74.30 Cecil reads out loud from ‘Under a loggia’ by Eleanor Lavish.
76.00 Lucy and George recognise passage about kiss in Florence.
79.00 Lucy runs off, mad. George follows her and kisses her again.
80.00 Lucy challenges Charlotte. Coincidence! Eleanor no friend.
81.00 (Lying to George) Lucy orders her out, George declares his love.
84.30 (Lying to C.) breakup with Cecil “because he didn’t play tennis.”
87.30 Cecil seems to take it well.

ACT THREE

SEQ. H: Planning Escape to Greece

88.30 The Sisters Allan: letter to Lucy, raving about about Athens.
90.00 Freddy tells Mr. Beebe. Cecil: Greece is not for our little lot.
91.00 Charlotte, mum, Lucy; Beebe takes Minnie to the Beehive.
91.30 (Lying to Beebe, mum, Freddy, servants) Lucy plays piano.
92.30 Lucy: I must go away, Constantinopel, Athens…
93.00 Lucy to Charlotte: Help me, I must go to Greece.
94.00 Lucy & Freddy, he plays piano.
94.30 Charlotte talks to mum, Lucy has a plan. Go to Greece with her.
95.30 Emersons preparing to leave. George: ugly house anyway.
96.30 George leaves, his dad is sad.

SEQ. I: No more lies – Speaking up

97.00 Lucy and Allans about Cecil and travel.
97.30 Lucy and Mum: Glad! why not announce it?
98.00 Allans: Didn’t look like a future bride; she lacked radiance.
99.30 Emerson tells Charlotte George loves her, reason for move.
100.0 Charlotte: Lucy not marrying. Emerson: Time for speaking out!
101.0 Mum: why Greece? Mum hurt.
102.0 They see the moving. Mum: pity for the Emersons.
103.0 (Lying to Mr. Emerson) He pushes her to confession.
106.0 Lucy runs out: “Wait! Lucy has got something to tell us.”

SEQ. J: Aftermath

107.0 Charlotte reads Lucy’s letter from Florence
107.3 V.O. Dinner at pensione: “We have a view”.
108.0 Lucy reads letter from Freddy, with George in room with view.

108.3 The End

NOTES ON THE STORY STRUCTURE

The film stays relatively close to the original novel and I believe this may be the reason why the turning points are not all where you would expect them. But perhaps I’m just not seeing it right. Please compare notes and comment.

Act One

Much like Rose in Titanic, Lucy longs for adventure in her ordinary life. The inciting incident occurs quite late in the film (25mins) when she is alone with George for the first time, under emotional circumstances. The meaning of the moment is emphasised when George says “Something happened to me. And you.”

George kisses Lucy in the Tuscan flower fields, a moment that feels very much like a second Inciting Incident. But it marks Lucy’s decision to resist him, and the end of Act One.

Act Two

The conservative English upper-class mores, an abstract antagonist in Act One, is incarnated in the character of Cecil Vyse from Act Two.

Cecil’s kiss (at 47mins) marks the Mid Point and the moment Lucy realises she will never be happy with this man and the values he represents. The flashback to George’s kiss underscores her change of heart: from this point onwards she is no longer committed to Cecil. She will be moving apart from Cecil until the final breakup, which marks the end of Act Two.

Act Three

It is tempting to see the talk about “going to Greece” as a Road Back Home sequence, or break into Act Three, in which Lucy finally confronts her true feelings and admits her love for George.

A cult comic, two charismatic teen actresses, an inspired director and a sparse score. Only six pages of still pictures were turned into one of the coolest movies of the decade.

Because the plot points are often quite subtle, structurally this film seems a bit fluid and the protagonist’s objective is never explicitly stated. Yet there is a clear Hero’s Journey, with Enid Crossing the Threshold to enter and discover the Special World of Seymour. But where does this happen, at the end of Sequence B or C?

Enid is a reluctant character, and although she decides to enter the Special World, it is under a pretext. She will be resisting her attraction to Seymour (the Call to Adventure) until the second half of Act Two, when she explicitly suggests to Seymour she could move in (an Approach to the Inmost Cave).

At the end of Act Two, Enid goes through the crisis of losing both Becky and Seymour. The truth about her cruel joke on Seymour has to come out (an Ordeal, both for Enid and Seymour) before she is ready to move on.

I’m not sure if Enid’s visit to the hospital should be seen as the end of Act Two or the first scene of Act Three. Because the scene can be experienced as Enid’s redemption (the victim of her joke she calls now her hero) and she is finally honest about her feelings, I decided to put it in Act Two.

The scenes printed in blue represent the comic book source material that is – almost verbatim – included in the film. It shows how this is more than just an adaptation. It is almost entirely an original story, inspired by the characters created in the comic.

ACT ONE

SEQUENCE A: Life after Graduation

00.00 Panning across rear windows, against 50’s music.
02.30 Eccentric Enid, in her room, is dancing to the music.
03.00 Student graduation speeches; Enid &Rebecca roll eyes.
04.00 Gossiping outside school.
05.00 Enid & Rebecca in bar, making fun of un-cool girl.
06.00 Todd, making fun of the two girls.
07.30 Dennis, dork – not seeing him again: depressing.
08.00 Enid at breakfast with dad: an icon of boredom.
09.00 Enid & Becky at diner making fun, follow old ’satanists’.
10.30 Wowsville, 50’s diner; Weird Al serves.
11.30 Personals ’striking blonde’: plan for joke.


SEQUENCE B: A Cruel Joke

12.00 At Enid’s: calling the number, date at Wowsville.
14.00 Annoying Josh at the store, Doug interferes.
15.30 Please, Josh, give us a ride.
16.00 Driving with Josh.
16.30 Rebecca about Al “I want to make love to him.”
17.00 Seymour walks in, has vanilla milkshake.
18.00 Seymour leaves, cruel joke
18.30 Seymour’s near-accident; following; E. feels sympathy.

SEQUENCE C: Getting closer to Seymour

19.30 Art class;teacher announces community show.
21.00 Looking for flat, stalking Seymour, check his mail.
21.30 Garage sale; Seymour sells record. E.’s impressed.
24.00 Diner, E.: he’s almost cool. Un-cool friend: “funky”.
26.00 Enid dyes hair green, father enters. Rebecca watching.
26.30 Let’s go hassle Josh. Old man Norman at bus stop.
27.30 Josh is not home; Enid’s note: “You are gay.”
28.30 Johnny (magazine shop) provokes “punk rock is over!”
30.00 Enid plays Seymour’s record on repeat.
32.00 Seymour shows her the original 78.

ACT TWO

SEQUENCE D: A Challenge for Enid

33.00 Art Class: politically correct art in ‘higher category’.
35.30 Jamie @ Masterpiece Video, 8 1/2, go to surprise party.
36.30 Seymour’s Record Party: loser cracks on to Rebecca.
39.30 Enid in his record room, to Seymour: “You’re cool.”
40.30 I am your personal Dating Service.
42.00 Seymour’s type? Introduce him to Josh; he is shocked.
42.30 Taking S. to Anthony’s Adult: having fun, cat mask.
44.00 Becca’s at work, sick of losers; E.’s job? working on it.
45.30 Dad & Maxine: to bed early – art class for retards.

SEQUENCE E: Enid and Seymour have things in common

46.30 Art class – controversial imagery!
48.00 At diner, invited to band performance, Enid jealous
49.30 In car w/ Seymour; about music, misanthrope
50.30 Bands perform; Enid pushes S. to date; ruins it
53.30 Driving back; can’t relate to 99% of humanity
54.00 At Seymour’s, the story of Coon. Can I borrow?

SEQUENCE F: Things change when Seymour has a date

56.30 Takes Coon to class
58.30 Candy counter, turning customers away
60.00 Fired after one day? Some ideas for money.
61.30 Yard sale. Not selling. Forgot birthday cake.
62.00 Birthday, tells S. about Josh obsession.
63.30 Voice mail from redhead, Enid pushes to call.
64.30 Shopping w/ Becky, who’s sick of Seymour.
66.00 Dana visits Seymour; Enid reads.
67.00 D. & S. dancing; D. wants to see art movie.
68.30 Enid jealous, calls Becky, doesn’t want to see her.
70.00 Seymour; “Dana works out”. Dana arrives.
71.30 Enid almost ruins it, claims she hooked them up.

SEQUENCE G: Lots of offers but no friends.

72.30 Art Class: scholarship offered.
73.30 Dad has job for Enid, she is not interested.
74.30 Art Exhibition: critics hate Coon.
75.30 Seymour doesn’t show because of Dana.
77.30 With Norman on bench. Leaving town.
78.30 Fighting with Becky over flat, they split.

79.30 Dad says Maxine will move in.

SEQUENCE H: Enid wants to move in. With anybody.

80.30 Art Academy: no passing grade, no scholarship.
81.30 To Seymour: move in with you. Don’t you like me?
85.00 Post-coital; Seymour about moving in. Sleeping.
86.00 Seymour wakes up, Enid is gone.
86.30 Seymour goes to break up with Dana.
87.30 Maxine acts like mother; Seymour msg: moving in.
88.30 to Becky: I really want to move in with you.

SEQUENCE I: Losing it all. A confession

89.30 Seymour alone, calls Enid, no answer.
90.00 Boss calls Seymour: Coon art in newspaper.
90.30 Becky’s new place.
91.30 Enid is packing.
93.00 Becky tells Seymour about Enid’s blind date joke.
94.30 Seymour threatens Josh, Doug: citizen’s arrest.
95.30 Enid visits Seymour in hospital: You’re my hero.

ACT THREE

SEQUENCE J: Different paths

97.30 Enid & Becky on bench, reconciling.
99.00 Norman’s bus arrives.
100.0 Seymour with shrink, mother waits outside.
101.0 Enid on bench.

Aronson, Linda: Scriptwriting Updated, Allen & Unwin
Field, Syd: Screenplay, Dell Publishing
Gulino, Paul: Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach, Continuum
Hauge, Michael: Writing Screenplays That Sell, Harper Resource
Howard, David & Edward Mabley: The Tools of Screenwriting, St.Martin’s Griffin
Jeffrey, Tom: Film Business, Allen & Unwin
McKee, Robert: Story, Harper Collins
Miller, William: Screenwriting, Virgin Publishing
Seger, Linda: Making a Good Script Great, Samuel French Trade
Tierno, Michael: Aristotle’s Poetics for Screenwriters, Hyperion
Truffaut, Francois: Hitchcock, Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Vogler, Christopher: The Writer’s Journey, Michael Wiese Productions
Voytilla, Stuart: Myth and the Movies, Michael Wiese Productions

The screenwriting books in italics are available through mail order from www.filmtvbookshop.com.au as well as the following books or audio CD’s on screenwriting:

Screenwriters Bible, David Trottier
Save The Cat!, Blake Snyder
Save The Cat Goes to the Movies, Blake Snyder
Screenwriters Masterclass, Kevin Scott
Scenario, Tudor Gates
Screenplay Story Analysis, Asher Garfinkel
How To Adapt Anything Into A Screenplay, Richard Krevolin
Psychology For Screenwriters, William Indick
Screenwriting, Richard Walter
The Scriptselling Game, Kathie Fong Yoneda
Scriptwriting For The Screen, Charlie Moritz
Screenwriters Guide to Agents and Managers, John Scott Lewinski
Screenwriting Is Storytelling, Kate Wright
Perfect Screenplay, Katherine Atwell Herbert
Screenwriting For Dummies, Laura Schellhardt
Idiot’s Guide to Screenwriting, Skip Press
Adaptations, Denise Faithfull
Writing The Second Act, Michael Halperin
Writing The Short Film, Pat Cooper & Ken Dancyger
Writing The Killer Treatment, Michael Halperin
Top Shelf 1,Greg Haddrick
Writing Television Comedy, Jerry Rannow
Write To TV, Martie Cook
Writing The TV Drama Series, Pamela Douglas
Raindance Writers Lab, Elliot Grove
Story Audio CD, Robert McKee
Anatomy Of Story, John Truby

A more extensive list for those interested in myth and Hero’s Journey:

The Hero

I had ordered 2:37 from Quickflix, as reference material for a feature film in post-production I am currently working on in the capacity of co-producer and story consultant. Because of some friends’ recommendations, I was really looking forward to watching young Thalluri’s directorial debut. Imagine my joy when less than forty-eight hours after putting it on my wishlist, the DVD tumbled in the letter box!

Thalluri is obviously infatuated with Gus Van Sant and more specifically ELEPHANT, of which 2:37 is a blatant pastiche. The school, the parallel points of view, the moody light, the school massacre reference, etc. How much more derivative can you be without breaking the law?

But all this could have been forgiven. Other great directors have copied shamelessly, to create something better or at least equally entertaining. I hate to admit but this umpteenth Australian case of the emperor’s new clothes is boring as hell. The best five minutes are the opening scene and this is indeed great cinema: a promising naturalistic build-up of suspense, leading to the discovery of a student’s suicide.

The dead body is not shown in the opening scene and most if not all of the movie’s anticipation (or lack thereof) hinges on that single question: “Who died?” For most of the 98mins running time, the filmmakers are trying to outsmart the audience, ultimately delivering a twist nobody could have possibly seen coming. It may work in novels but it doesn’t in movies, as evidenced by that obscenely successful whodunit whose screen adaptation embarrassed even the die hard fans: THE DA VINCI CODE. Too bad 2:37 didn’t have the same marketing pull to defy any story sense and make hundreds of millions nonetheless.

ANOTHER ELEPHANT: LACK OF DRAMA

The mystery around the identity of the suicide victim in 2:37 is equivalent to that bad whodunit in which a totally uninteresting character we have hardly seen, suddenly shows up with motive and weapon. Even when a whodunit is done well, it often lacks suspense. On this subject Hitchcock once said:

“Mystery is seldom suspenseful. In a whodunit, for instance, there is no suspense, but a sort of intellectual puzzle. The whodunit generates the kind of curiosity that is void of emotion, and emotion is an essential ingredient of suspense.”

That said, 2:37 might still have worked, if only the screenwriter had made the least effort to entertain or excite us along the way. Instead we are witnessing a never-ending tirade of profanities and artful but empty cinematography. Unfortunately I wasn’t impressed either by the performances of the army of young and gorgeous actors. But you can’t blame them, with this poor material.

The film does make various attempts to convey emotion but most of those lack drama. When the main characters talk about themselves and their youthful angst, the effect is theatrical, not cinematic. And until we know and understand the circumstances of these confessions, we will not fully invest emotionally in their content. That is why the ‘talking heads’ in this film don’t work, no matter how desperately the actors try to convince us.

Bottom line: there are some basic screenwriting rules you break at your own risk such as: “you must not deceive the audience.” I suspect Thalluri was considered an auteur and a prodigy, who de facto transcends the principles of storytelling. Here’s my two cents: beginning writers should not try and outsmart their peers, let alone the audience.

WE DON’T GIVE A SHEET

Mysteriously despite all the above, the film was selected for the 2006 Cannes Film Festival where it received a 17 mins standing ovation, effectively paving the way for a successful theatrical release. Or so you would expect. Banking on the festival response, quick international sales were achieved reportedly bringing in three times the film’s production cost.

The reality of the film’s performance at the box office was sobering: at home it hardly grossed $500k. Of course some sources blame the distributor’s bad release campaign. Or the exhibitor’s marginal programming. And finally the audience, for not wanting to open up to the film.

And tomorrow me, for not supporting Australian cinema.

To appease your conscience you will make scene level tweaks. Lots of them. You will call it draft two, three, thirteen. The reality: this is still draft one. You will finally get sick of the script and move on to the next Great Idea. Years go by and many scripts may come from your hand but none will ever get made, let alone reach an audience.

Did you just recognise someone you know in the above description? Perhaps yourself? Do you really believe, off all the readers of all the blogs in all the world I’m trying to convert you? No. The above was taken from a promotional blurb I wrote for a two-day story workshop at Metroscreen.

The course will be partially about the foundations of screen story and partially about practical ways to apply them to your work. You may not need those foundations for draft one. The first draft is all about “Don’t get it right, get it written.” But then comes draft two and reality kicks in. If you haven’t written your first draft yet, you still need to be aware of the elements that will come into play further down the road.

Successful feature screenwriters don’t cherish that first draft. They know it is crap so they won’t show it to anyone let alone shop it around, except for advise on how to move to the next draft ASAP. Successful screenwriters listen to the honest constructive criticism from industry professionals and follow a process on the way to a wonderful, radically different Draft Two.

For these writers the second draft is an easier and more important leap forward than any next draft of the script. This has to do with the ‘law of diminishing returns’, but more about that in a later post on this blog.

Apart from making sure you will not unknowingly fall in that Draft One Trap ever again, the Metroscreen course will focus on most of those issues I have come across in unsuccessful scripts during my six years as a producer. The second day of the two-day course will show how to implement a writing process that may significantly speed up the development and create a genuine opportunity when pitching your projects to producers, directors or funding agencies.

If you are interested in this course or would like to know more, send me an email or contact Metroscreen. Or just download the enrolment form and send it in! If you’re not a Metroscreen member, you can sort that out using this form.

But enough about me and my course.

TRIBE OR TRITE? STONEKING’S MANTRA

At a recent AWG NSW event poet and AFTRS teacher Billy Stoneking performed a short version of his ‘tribe act’. Many in the audience were confused. And yes, over the years some have questioned the contribution of the national film school to Australian screenwriting culture. But rather than fueling the controversy, I would like to give Stoneking credit where credit is due.

Stoneking’s ‘tribe’ theory focuses primarily on the writer’s connection with both the material and the audience. If you think Stoneking has a purely artistic, individualistic approach to screenwriting, think again. He pays ample attention to the importance and the meaning of ‘drama’ and he acknowledges that a good movie is made for an audience. And not just ‘an’ audience: it must be the audience you have – in some way or other – a connection with. Do read the article here. Being a poet, the man masters his language in a way I can only envy.

If on the other hand you would like to see the entertainer Stoneking, you might be lucky enough to still find his Sony Tropfest videocast of the ‘tribe act’. Have fun!

HOLLYWOOD VS. OZZYWOOD

As you may have noticed from earlier posts on this blog, Creative Screenwriting Magazine is a personal favourite. It was recently named “the best magazine about screenwriting” by the Los Angeles Times.

Their ‘Story Department’ (photo above) web forum opened in April 2006 and since then they have received 42 posts from writers all over the world.

Closer to home, four months ago some passionate story consultant opened a little forum on the bulletin board of the Australian Writers’ Guild (photo left) to answer questions from writers.

The writers dropped by … and they keep coming back! If you’re an AWG member you should be able to check it out here. If you’re not, perhaps you should become an associate? The benefits are surely worth it.

WRITING FOR ACTORS
(Or: why writers should win the Best Acting awards)

Until recently I was only a producer and story consultant. I can now add ‘writer’ to my credits. Well, in spirit that is. The credit will never be on the screen. It was a rewrite-for-hire job and although in my humble opinion the story is now 200% better, the original writers will get the praise, if any. In any case, it is exciting to know after my rewrite the script was deemed ready for consideration by a Hollywood Studio (Fox) where it is at the time of writing.

But all that is beside the point. The project in question is supposed to launch the career of a particular actor, which I could hardly believe after reading the draft I received. The actor’s character was NOT the story’s protagonist, he had limited screentime and worst of all: he was given the most unspeakable dialogue.

Which set me thinking. How do you write dialogue for a beginning actor? You don’t. You write emotion. And emotion the actor will not need to perform. I have had this conversation a dozen times over the past month so I apologise in advance for those who have heard me preach about this before.

Let’s go back about eighty years (or ten blogs) to the work of Lev Kuleshov (Photo: The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks, 1924).

Kuleshov took unedited footage of a completely expressionless face [...] and intercut it with shots of three highly motivated objects: a bowl of hot soup, a dead woman lying in a coffin, and a little girl playing with a teddy bear.

When the film strips were shown to randomly selected audiences, they invariably responded as though the actor’s face had accurately portrayed the emotion appropriate to the intercut object.

As Pudovkin recalled:

“The public raved about the acting of the artist. They pointed out the heavy pensiveness of his mood over the forgotten soup, were touched and moved by the deep sorrow with which he looked on the dead woman, and admired the light, happy smile with which he surveyed the girl at play.

But we knew that in all three cases the face was exactly the same.”

(from David Cook’s splendid A HISTORY OF NARRATIVE FILM.)

These results are known today as the ‘Kuleshov effect’ and it explains why often actors win awards for performances they didn’t give. When Russell Crowe broke onto the Hollywood scene with his nomination for THE INSIDER, it had IMHO nothing to do with his acting skills but everything with Eric Roth and Michael Mann’s terrific writing, which effectively projected the feelings we share with the Jeffrey Wigand character onto Crowe’s blank face.

A more recent example is the late Ulrich Mühe’s performance in THE LIVES OF OTHERS (Das Leben der Anderen), which won him numerous best actor awards including at the European Film Awards. The second half of the movie is an emotional powerhouse, yet the actor’s face is near blank.

Conversely, great actors have been blamed of bad performances where the only culprit really was the screenwriter. The actor could have avoid the blame by politely passing on a screenplay that was not worthy of his attachment.

Bottom line: if you want to write great drama for any actor, irrespective of the experience level, don’t describe the emotion you want to see on the actor’s face. Make the audience feel the emotion before the character has to respond to it. Great drama does not have visible emotion; it makes you, the audience feel it. If you must, write a tear on an expressionless face.

Hitchcock would say: “I need actors who can do nothing well.” He understood perfectly that it was the writer’s job to convey the emotion, not the actor’s. He also perfectly understood the power of the Kuleshov effect and consequently: the power of editing.

Great actors are not those who can be express sadness, anger or desperation better than others. Great actors are those who can pick great scripts.

AUSTRALIAN FILM: FRANK COX AND ERIC BANA

Frank Cox of Hopscotch can help greenlight a feature film. He is one of the ‘good guys’: he looks at films that don’t necessarily fill the multiplexes. Better even: he reads those screenplays. But that doesn’t mean he will be betting the house.

“I ask ‘Who do you think the film is for?’ Some of them say ‘Frank, I make movies for myself, because I’m an artist and the audiences will follow it if I do something fantastic. I’ve got a vision.” “And I’m going ‘Good on you, if you’ve got the stuff to do this and you find a market, fantastic. But if you’re not going to talk to me while you’ve got these ideas, then don’t come to me at the end and get disappointed if I tell you I don’t know what to do with it.’”

I had to think of these words tonight while I was watching a freshly shot Australian film (I’m bound by secrecy as it’s not out yet). Multi-protagonist, not done badly but just not good enough. Another case of “I’ve got a vision”… In today’s market, anybody with a brain would steer away from multi-protagonist for a first feature. But what I found completely baffling was the fact that a government agency had put money in the project, both for development AND production. What are we doing? Anyhow, where does Frank Cox see the current Australian cinema?

“Australian films are a bit of a question mark.” The talent is certainly there, proved by the success of Australian industry people overseas, but “It seems to me that most projects in Australia are hurried. In other words, the development process lacks, the stories are not fully developed, and they don’t reach their optimum because everyone seems to be in a hurry to put their film in development and then production.” It’s a familiar story; the problem is understood throughout the industry.”

Thank you to ScreenHub for the kind permission to re-publish. You can read the full interview here. here.

Recently a good friend and fellow Belgian interviewed Eric Bana in Rome for his latest LUCKY YOU (another Eric Roth screenplay). My friend asked his opinion about Australian film and I have a funny feeling he would not have given this answer to a reporter on Australian soil:

“It may sound weird but working in Australia is not that important to me. It can even be dangerous to a career.”
[...]
“I know an ‘international name’ can help, for instance if you want to get a high budget film financed or if you want to launch a difficult project. But as I said, there is a real danger. You receive a lot of scripts that aren’t ready. The producers then believe a big name will solve the problem. So I am very careful”

THE STORY DEPT.: FROM IDEA TO PRINT

My preparations for the Metroscreen course explain why it’s been a bit quiet in The Story Dept.; for the other reason behind the temporary silence I have to profoundly thank many of you, the readers of this blog! Over the past months I have been increasingly busy as a story consultant, both on projects in development as some films in post-production.

Indeed the principles of story don’t stop with the shooting script. From a story perspective the assembled footage is a work that hardly ever reflects the story beats exactly as they were intended in the script. Or if they are, sometimes a better option becomes apparent in the editing suite.

For a team that has laboured over the same movie for months or years, it is hard to make far-reaching decisions without being consumed by feelings of insecurity and doubt. Fortunately there may be a guiding light as the principles of story still apply! If areas of the story don’t work for the outsider, sometimes the reasons can be found in a breach of (one or some of) those principles. Enter the story analyst!

Next to the consultancy work I have been happily producing the short animation ACID SUN (photo) by writer/director/animator Rodney March. The third OZZYWOOD short film is also the first one rigorously co-developed in terms of story and I am hopeful this will bear fruit at the film festivals once it will hit the screens later this year.

As a matter of fact the validity of my mission as a story consultant (see ‘about us‘) has been proven repeatedly over the past year. It’s been a wonderful ride and I hope my clients agree even if it has been rough at times. I have seen filmmakers look at their works with professional and passionate scrutiny, think outside the box and at the same time question the reasons and motivations behind their stories. In most if not all of the cases we have improved their works, sometimes immensely, resulting in a marketable draft, a re-energised development process or at worst: an improved insight in the mechanics of story structure and the dynamics of our film industry.

THE QUIZ

If you have taken the quiz before and failed miserably, try again. Most likely it was not because you can’t see the difference between a main plot and a subplot but … you only had 3.7 secs to type in your answer. That has been fixed, so you can now improve your score!

To pass you need to answer 14 out of 20 questions correctly. The quiz is definitely not for beginners but most of the answers can be found somewhere in the articles of this blog. Click through to see your score and the right answers. Finally you’ll be guided back to the OZZYWOOD web site. Good luck!

http://ozzywood.com/quiz