BEST PICTURE

My pick: Avatar

While the idea to alter the “Best Picture” category to include 10 nominees was never met with universal praise, it was thought by some that it would at least make the race for the top Academy prize more interesting. That hope appears to have died now that we close in on the famous awards show. As the awards circuit receives more attention every year, the result is a well-publicized race that weeds the contenders down to a praised pair (in this case, Avatar vs. The Hurt Locker). In a field of five, this isn’t that big of an issue, as everyone can sort of pretend that the others have an “outside shot.” But when you expand the field to ten, it becomes glaringly obvious that 5 of the films have no shot at all. If you put films into a category where everyone knows they don’t even have a 1% chance of winning, then why include them in the first place? I guess the answer is that getting nominated *is* the Oscar for these films. And that we should celebrate them for their achievement today, but forget about them on Awards Night. As for my pick, I’m going with Avatar. It wasn’t my favorite movie of the year (that goes to District 9), but I think when you talk about the best FILM, you gotta go with the James Cameron goliath. It excels in so many areas of the filmmaking medium. So that’s where my money’s going. Which about you? Here are all the nominees.

Avatar
The Hurt Locker
The Blind Side
District 9
A Serious Man
Precious
Up In The Air
Inglorious Basterds
An Education
Up

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

My pick: Jason Rietman’s “Up In The Air.”

In the adapted screenplay category, I think this one’s pretty clear cut. Up In The Air has been getting a lot of publicity out of the Reitman/Turner credit-gate, and in a category that plays 8th fiddle to the brawnier Oscar categories, sometimes a little publicity is all you need to get people to vote for you. It’s a fine screenplay so I’m down with the choice, but I wish there was something with a little more oomph leading the way. Out of the nominees, the only other screenplay I read was “An Education,” and I didn’t like it. I loved the randomness and unpredictability of District 9, but I get the feeling the script is a bunch of incomprehensible notes scribbled in a notebook. I haven’t read or seen In The Loop so I can’t comment on it. And I think Precious is a little too heavy-handed to win the award. Here are the nominees…

Up In The Air by Jason Reitman
An Education by Nick Hornby
Precious by Geoffrey Fletcher
District 9 by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
In The Loop by Armando Iannucci, Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Ian Martin and Tony Roache

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

My pick: Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglorious Basterds.”

Finally, the big cajomma, or at least as far as the writing world is concerned. Best screenplay for a completely original work. To me, this is as done a deal as going to In and Out at least once a week. Quentin’s got the thing wrapped up. I still haven’t read or seen The Messenger, so I’m coming at this with a bit of ignorance, by I feel pretty confident about my choice. The reason you gotta give it to Quentin is that he takes so many chances in his work where no one else would even try. He’s the only writer I’m comfortable with writing a ten minute dialogue scene. His characters are always bursting with originality. I don’t always like his movies, but I’m always impressed with what he brings to the table. Inglorious Basterds may be the best script he’s ever written, so you have to give it the Oscar. As for the others, I couldn’t make it past 30 pages of A Serious Man. It’s just too scattershot and, quite honestly, wasn’t my thing. Up starts off wonderfully but becomes increasingly predictable as it goes on. And The Hurt Locker likewise starts off great, but gets lost for awhile in the second act in my opinion. But I mean, this category isn’t even a race, is it? The nominees…

The Hurt Locker by Mark Boal
Inglorious Basterds by Quentin Tarantino
The Messenger by Oren Moverman and Allesandro Camon
A Serious Man by The Coen Brothers
Up by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson and Thomas McCarthy

What about you? What are your picks?


I remember when I watched the pilot for this show. Someone slipped me an early screener. The promos hadn’t even started yet. It was before all the hype, before all the buzz. All I knew was that it sounded like a cool concept. A plane crashes on an island and there are survivors. In no way was I prepared for what I watched. It was easily the best pilot episode for any show I had ever seen.

Michael Eisner, then calling the shots for Disney/ABC, famously said about Lost, a show he viciously opposed greenlighting, “Who’s going to care? A bunch of people crash land on an island. Then what?” I’ll tell you what, Michael: Flashbacks. The risky structure of flashing back to the character’s previous lives, while simultaneously making every character on the island the protagonist, just wasn’t done. And if you’re going to put a show up against the best TV shows of all time, it has to have changed the game somehow. And there’s no question that Lost changed the game. I will never forget watching the third episode in the series, Walkabout, in which John Locke’s character was higlighted. To me, that’s the best hour of television I’ve ever seen.

Now I won’t pretend like the show didn’t get “lost” at times. The third season was…err…umm…interesting? But just when you thought the show didn’t have any more rabbits to pull out of its hat, it found its rhthym again and gave us some superb television. I don’t know if I’d call Lost the best show ever written. But everything considering, I’d say it’s somewhere in the conversation. Here we are on the eve of the final season, so I pose this question to you: Is Lost the best written TV show ever?

Script Link: Pilot episode

Genre: Drama/Love Story
Premise: A couple struggles to keep it together on the last leg of their marriage.
About: I know I said l was finished with Sundance script reviews but people kept pushing me to review more, so I’m pumping out a couple extra this week. Derek Cianfrance and his writing partners have been trying to make this movie for 12 years. Their hard work was rewarded when Ryan Gosling chose “Blue Valentine” over Peter Jackson’s “The Lovely Bones” (and left poor Jackson with the 3rd rate Mark Wahlberg in the process), new “serious actress fave” Michelle Williams joined him, and the Weinsteins bought the film at Sundance. While this may be a 2004 draft, from every review I’ve read of the film, it sounds almost identical to the shooting script.
Writers: Derek Cianfrance, Joey Curtis & Cami Delavigne
Details: 121 pages (2004 draft)


I know everyone loves Ryan Gosling, and I think he’s a fine actor, but I can’t say I’m a huge fan of the material he chooses. The double-dip combination of Half-Nelson and Lars And The Real Girl is about as enjoyable as sneaking into your local pizzeria and crawling into one of their ovens for the afternoon. I have a real issue with indie films that hit you over the head with their relentless depression for all 100 minutes of their running time, and I have a particular issue with actors who choose to only appear in these types of films. It’s as if they’re so desperate to be taken seriously, that they’re willing to sacrifice any semblance of a good story in the process. I mean, okay, you’ve moped, you’ve screamed, you’ve argued, you’ve cried…wonderful. Here’s your Oscar. But what about us? What about the people who actually want to sit down and ENJOY a film?? To me, Gosling is the poster child for that type of actor, and it’s why I don’t get excited for his projects anymore.

Blue Valentine is the third in his “slit your wrists” trilogy. Whether you love it or hate it, this is not the kind of script you enjoy. It is simply something you endure – a no holds barred look at a miserable couple trying to make it through their miserable existence. No film coming out of Sundance divided audiences more than this one. This Movieline review implies it’s one of the worst films ever made. Yet this Firstshowing review seems to say it’s one of the most authentic experiences the reviewer has ever had at a theater. Where do I come out on all this?


Well, I can’t comment on the finished film. But I can say that this draft was one of the most unpleasant reading experiences I’ve ever had in my life. I could get into the fact that there’s no real discernible story. I could talk about how the flashback device seems designed to distract us from that fact. I could get into how terribly unlikable the characters are. I could talk about how absolutely nothing happens for long stretches at a time. I could talk about how the same emotional note is hit over and over and over and over again. I could talk about the lack of character development, the stilted dialogue, how all the flashbacks could’ve been wrapped up in a single one minute scene. I could basically talk about how I had no idea what this script was about until one of the characters spelled it out for me on page 90.

BUT

The movie DID sell. The movie DID work for some people. So why?

One word. Emotion. If you’ve had a recent traumatic break-up where someone fell out of love with you, this script will hit you hard. I think the empty helpless crushing pain of being left is so powerful that it renders all of my above problems moot. It sounds like in Derek’s review on Firstshowing, that that’s exactly what happened. It was a very personal experience for him. And I get that. It’s the one thing I always say. The X-factor in your script is your subject matter. You never know who’s going to be into it, and who isn’t. But man, I mean, as a screenplay, I don’t think this works at all.

So what happens in Blue Valentine? Not a lot. But I’ll try and give you the Cliff’s Notes. David Periera is “35 years old and 35 pounds overweight.” His wife, Cindy, is beautiful. The two have a 5 year old daughter named Frankie. There seems to be an unhappiness in their relationship but we’re not told what that unhappiness stems from. The first 30 pages are basically different variations of giving us this same information.

It was this plodding approach to the story that first turned me off. I’m okay when things move slow if *something* is building. But from what I could gather, this wasn’t going to be that kind of experience. In fact, the focus appeared to be put on the most random things, characters or moments that added nothing to the screenplay. For instance we learn that Cindy had a bit of a strange family. But their introduction didn’t seem to have any point. We’d read a scene where one of the family members flipped out and then…that was it. That moment or the effects of that moment or the result of that moment never ever played into the screenplay at all. Which leaves you wondering…well then why show it in the first place?

Then there was the daughter, who also fell into this category. Why was she here? Whatever was wrong with these two had nothing to do with her (even when we reveal a “secret” about her later on, one that’s supposed to be shocking – it has no effect on the dynamic of their relationship). After a lot of passive-aggressive bickering and weird conversations between the two, David gets the idea that they should go on a weekend trip together. It’s clear Cindy doesn’t want to go but she does anyway.

Gosling at a Q&A, talking about the film, smiling more in one answer than he did the entire movie.

During their trip, we occasionally jump back six years to the period when they first met. David was the son of a logger who dreamed of bigger things. Cindy was hoping to be a doctor and was also engaged to a guy named Bobby. Somehow their paths collided, they fell in love, and they got married.

The flashback structure is supposed to be there to contrast their past with their present, not unlike a more depressing version of 500 Days Of Summer. Although as I mentioned before, nothing happens in the flashbacks that warrants them. For example, during one present-day sequence, Cindy runs into Bobby, her old fiancé, while she’s at the grocery store. They speak for a few minutes, and it’s clear Cindy and Bobby had a past together and that Bobby doesn’t like David. Cindy gets back to the car and tells David about the meeting. We can see he’s not a fan of Bobby’s. Right then we know all we need to know about Bobby and David. There was a past – the two probably fought over her – and David won out. Yet nearly 20 minutes worth of flashbacks are given to showing us this scenario, even though it’s exactly as we assumed it had been. I’m a big believer in that you don’t use flashbacks unless they add some critical piece of information or move the story forward in a way that you couldn’t in the present. And I just didn’t see that here.

Anyway….

From an objective point of view, this device of jumping from the beginning to the end of a relationship SEEMS like it could be interesting. But since the past holds so few surprises, it feels more like an obligation. You’re predicting every word five minutes before it comes out of the characters’ mouths. She’s going to yell at him here, you say. Sure enough, it’s a scene of her yelling at him. It’s as if we’re watching those fake animals at Chuck-E-Cheese’s exchange pre-recorded lines with each other. I guess that was my biggest problem with the script, is it was so predictable. I wanted more than two people who were unhappy with each other in 50 successive scenes.

And the characters. Oh the characters. You had David, who was nagging clingy jealous and annoying. And you had Cindy, who was cruel heartless bitchy whiny and a sociopath. Not to be flippant but who wants to spend their evening with two people like that?

There’s not much more I can say about this script. I’m trying to find some positives here but it’s like trying to find positives in a plane crash. I guess one thing it’s got going for it is I won’t forget it. They say the worst scripts/movies are ones you forget 2 minutes after you finish them. If it stays with you then it at least had an impact. Well, I can say with certainty that I will never forget Blue Valentine.

[x] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: A couple of things here. A gimmick is not a substitution for a story. Jumping back and forth in time isn’t going to distract your reader from the fact that your characters aren’t growing, that the script only hits one note, that the goals are vague, that the focus is put on meaningless scenarios/scenes/characters. If you’re going to use a unique way of telling your story (like Blue Valentine, like Eternal Sunshine, like 500 Days of Summer, like Pulp Fiction), make sure you put just as much effort into your story as you would if you were telling the thing straight up. In addition to that, in my interview with Stacey Menear, he made a great point about how good movies hit multiple emotional notes. You’re scared, you’re happy, you’re sad, you’re angry. Blue Valentine hit the same note over and over and over again – sadness – just suffocating us with depression. Make sure your script hits multiple emotional notes, WHATEVER the genre is!

Mike Le over at Geekweek gives his take on the twenty greatest movies about writers!

Roger and I get scripts thrown at us from every direction. And if we could read them all, we would. But there are only so many hours in the day, and as much as I would love for the Scriptshadow audience to demand Joe Nebraska’s very first attempt at a screenplay, the reality is, there probably wouldn’t be a Scriptshadow if that’s all we were reviewing. However every once in awhile we come across a script with some admirable credentials that just hasn’t found its way through the system. Roger bumped into this script by chance, enjoyed it, and found out it won the Creative Screenwriting Screenplay Contest. After getting in touch with the writers, they were more than happy to have it reviewed on the site. So, we get another little peak into what it takes to do well in a respected contest. Let’s check out Roger’s review of “Full Circle.”

Genre: Action (Ninjas!), Fantasy
Premise: A supernatural thrill-ride about a struggling artist forced to share his body with the soul of a dead ninja who is determined to stop a malevolent sorcerer from transforming the human race into an army of demonic slaves.

About: Winner of the AAA Screenplay Contest sponsored by Creative Screenwriting Magazine. “Full Circle” came out on top in a field of 1,200 entries. Now, Mr. Regan is set to direct another script he and Mr. Henderson wrote, titled “Sherwood Horror” (a vampiric retelling of the Robin Hood legend set in the modern day American South), which has been optioned by Collective Development Inc. and will star actor DJ Perry.
Regan and Henderson met in High School in a TV production class, collaborating on short movies. As proof of how important having a mentor is, the two were initially doing poorly in the class, working under a teacher who could care less about the arts. Just as John was about to drop out, the teacher was replaced with someone even Mr. Holland would be jealous of. He encouraged them to just take the cameras out and shoot whatever inspired them, and it ended up changing their outlook on the medium. The two wrote this script because at the time they had never seen a really good Ninja movie that wasn’t treated with B Movie production value. Full Circle is still available. So if you’re a ninja fan, time to snatch it up.
Writers: John Regan & Ben Henderson

Look, this thing has fucking ninjas in it.

And for some people, that’s worth the price of admission alone.


Yes, I’m the kid who gasped in the theater during Edward Zwick’s The Last Samurai when, out of nowhere, ninja assassins attack our bushido-practicing heroes. Yes, I’m the dude who paid to see Ninja Assassin in a theater, wherein I learned that shurikens leave contrails in the atmosphere.

If you’re not a fan of comic books, kung fu, Japanese sorcerers, or hot Asian chicks, man, I guess we really don’t have anything in common, do we? Go play a round of golf or something.
Fans of John Carpenter’s (and W.D. Richter’s, David Z. Weinstein’s and Gary Goldman’s) Big Trouble in Little China, or more generally, those who still have their sense of awe and wonder intact, you
may continue forward to find a seat in our reading room.
What’s this sucker about, Rog?
Last week I looked at a script that turned to Chinese mythology and culture for its inspiration (The Bone Orchard), and now this week we’ll continue this Eastern mythology theme and jaunt over to ancient Japan.
That’s where “Full Circle” opens, in the Koga Mountains where a father and son are fishing. Hope of a peaceful night and good eating is shattered when demonic kappa (usually mischievous water sprites, but straight up killers here) emerge out of the lake and attack the village.
This village has a temple that’s home to a ninja clan who take up their arms against this reptilian sea of trouble. You would think a clan of ninja could keep a situation like this under control (Demons? No problem, eat my throwing stars and katana), but there’s a problem. Not only are the kappa infecting the villagers, creating more kappa, but they are led by a rather nasty sorcerer named Izanagi.
Izanagi wields a mystical amulet that gives him his Lo Pan-like powers. He can summon energy blasts, which comes in handy when tengu descend out of the sky, “Powerful creatures said to be able to shape-shift into human form. Supposedly they were a dying race, older than man, who needed allies in their battle against their adversaries, so they trained defenseless villagers, turning them into warriors, and that’s how the Ninja began.”
Izanagi has some kind of blood feud with the leader of the ninjas, Toshiro (perhaps a nod to Toshiro Mifune?), and he’s here to collect. Of course, the key to defeating Izanagi is taking away his amulet, and we’re treated to a flight and fight through the trees as the army of kappa and tengu battle around them.
The tengu, looking to end this wholesale bloodbath, try to stop Izanagi as well, but in a magical snafu, end up trapping the souls of Izanagi and Toshiro in a Black Stone.
Sounds like a cool enough prologue. What happens in the modern day?
At the age of eleven, Tom Rafferty appeared on the cover of TIME magazine with the headline, “American Masters: It this Child Prodigy the next Picasso?”
Like many parents that have a kid who turns out to have a profitable talent, Tom’s parents used him. They denied him of certain freedoms, so much so that Tom learned to hate painting. When he decided to stop altogether, they betrayed him and shut him out of their lives and kept everything he earned for themselves.
So by the time we finally meet Tom in present day San Francisco, he’s become the rebel type who loses his (and his girlfriend’s) rent money street-racing crotch-rocket motorcycles. Gemma Soto, Tom’s cute and dorky Asian American girlfriend, is none too pleased with his acting out. One could say she’s at her last straw with all this selfish behavior.
She doesn’t understand why he won’t simply sell some of his work so that he can begin to secure his future financially, and more than that, she’s tired of babysitting her regressing boyfriend.
She breaks up with him so she can focus on her upcoming museum exhibition, an exhibition which will feature ancient Japanese paintings and artifacts.
But like any spurned boyfriend who doesn’t want to lose a good thing, Tom continues to harass Gemma. Fortunately for him, he works as a forklift operator at the same museum Gemma is having her exhibition at.
It should be noted that Gemma wears an amulet on a necklace around her neck, the same amulet that belonged to Izanagi.
Of course, while Tom is at his forklift gig, a crate falls from a shelf, splitting open the Black Stone that rests inside of it.
It’s not long before Tom is haunted by the ghost of Toshiro, allowing for a few comedic Ghostbuster-esque antics. Eventually, Toshiro manages to explain the weight of the situation to Tom. If Toshiro doesn’t kill Izanagi (whose spirit was also in the Black Stone), Tom is going to find himself in the middle of an end-of-the world scenario. Only problem is, Toshiro needs Tom’s body to do so. He needs consent for a full possession.
Tom has a decision to make: It’s either help Toshiro or be haunted and annoyed by the spirit of a pranksterish ninja before the world is destroyed by a demon army.
What else will Toshiro throw into the pot? Oh yeah, some of those mad ninja skillz. Now, what would you do?
Okay. So if Toshiro possesses Tom, who will the evil sorcerer possess?
Ah sooo…our villain. One Charles Caspian. A sweater-vest wearing museum file clerk who has a stalker hard-on for our protag’s ex, Gemma Soto. Constantly treated like shit by his boss and made fun of by Tom, Charles is kind of like the Eddie Brock of “Full Circle”. If given super-powers, he would just love to make Tom, Gemma and the world see what he’s truly capable of.
And he does.
As Izanagi slowly tempts him to the dark side, convincing him that not only Gemma can be his, but the world, Charles dons a decorative Japanese mask and goes on a crime spree, honing his newfound powers.
But true to character, his main interest is Gemma. With the boost in confidence that comes with having an evil sorcerer on your side, Charles convinces Gemma to go out on a date with him. Although Charles likes his new abilities, he is faced with a dilemma.
Does he merely woo the girl, or does he obey Izanagi’s bidding and rip the amulet from her neck? Well, there’s a compromise in such matters. Charles will take the amulet once Izanagi helps him bed Gemma.
As we want it to happen, Tom/Toshiro and Charles/Izanagi clash at Gemma’s exhibition. What starts out as an argument over a girl explodes into a full out ninja versus sorcerer brawl that leaves a swath of destruction through San Francisco.
Charles has had a little too much action and evil for his fragile personality, but Izanagi takes the reins and all bets are off as he attempts to execute his master plan of rebuilding the kappa, raising a demonic army, and taking over the world.
In true action movie personal stakes fashion, Gemma is ultimately kidnapped by Izanagi and Tom must go full ninja to save her.
Crazy. But does this script work?
If all of this sounds very comic-booky and cartoonish to you, it is. But in a good way. If you look below the surface, there are some really interesting things going on with these characters.
Toshiro and Izanagi act as opposing moral consciences to our protagonist and antagonist. Angel and devil, ego and id.
Tom and Charles are characters who seem to suppress their true natures, and Toshiro and Izanagi do their best to convince their respective vessels to take off their masks, to let the world see who they really are.
On one side, Toshiro is trying to convince Tom to tell Gemma how he really feels, to drop his façade and defense mechanisms so she can see his soul laid bare. On the other, Izanagi is trying to convince Charles to stop hiding his sins and reveal his true nature as a killer to the world. It’s about vulnerability.
This was a surprising thing to find in such a pulpy and action-packed script, but you know, this is what makes it a solid screenplay. It remembers to anchor the plot and the action in character.
The execution might seem a little on-the-nose at times, or unabashedly comicbooky, but this is a solid and entertaining adventure yarn that manages to mix together some too-hot-to-handle explosive ingredients: Ninja action, Japanese mysticism, supernatural shenanigans, and most of all, characters who really have something personal and intimate at stake other than just saving-the-world, all set against the backdrop of modern day San Francisco.
It’s crazy alchemy.
Just look at the logline again. If a writer can take flight with such bombastic pulp material and create an original genre spec that’s not based on a comic or a novel, while managing to stick the landing, then they get cool points in my book.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive  
[ ] genius

What I learned: Chances are, a script that has demons, bird-men, possession, ninjas, sorcerers, katanas, guns, and energy blasts isn’t going to be for everyone. In fact, when you have these type of elements, many readers (honestly, how many Hollywood readers are well-versed in literature, B-movies and comicbooks? Not many, I’m guessing. Something like this speaks to the right people, i.e. directors or industry people who like this kind of material) are going to think you’re a fucking lunatic or that your script never had rails to begin with. So what do you do? You create characters that not only have goals, but have flaws and shortcomings that they are trying to overcome. Flaws and shortcomings, that, emotionally and psychologically, we as humans can understand. In this script, Tom is intriguing because he’s developed a defense mechanism that frustrates the shit out of his girlfriend. If he wants to get her back, he’s going to have to learn how to let his guard down and trust people. Even Charles, the antagonist, is trying to overcome his nebbishness so he can get a little more respect from his employer and the girl he has a crush on. These are real flaws these characters are trying to overcome. Focus on that stuff about your characters, and you’re focusing on Story.