November 11, 2009

where the wild things are – review

1where_the_wild_things_are_poster22

Where The Wild Things Are – a disappointing imbalance of dramatic and thematic intent.

I knew going in. I’d heard the reports, seen the reviews, and I knew.

“It’s awfully dark,” they’d say. “It’s not a kid’s movie.”

“But it’s a kid’s book,” I’d say. “It’s about a boy who imagines a land with friendly monsters. How can that not be for kids?”

But in my mind I thought maybe at least it would be an interesting adult take on a kid’s story. And it was a tossup between WTWTA and Jim Carrey’s new 3D Scrooge extravaganza from the people who brought you the robotic and unengaging Polar Express. So I opted for WTWTA.

Ah, but they were right. And I was wrong. And here’s why.

What Works

Man, this film looks great. It’s a strange, gritty, naturalistic combination of fantastic costuming and puppetry from Henson’s Muppet Shop, sweetened with CGI to bring character and expression to the creatures that in-camera animatronics just couldn’t do (Interestingly, this wasn’t originally the plan… the CGI was a “save” for an otherwise poorly performing first draft).

The result is a cast of big, fantastic, surreal monsters that at once look every bit like the Sendak illustrations writ real, with moist mouths and shiny eyes and sad, subtle expressions that let you completely forget that they’re giant costumes brought to life by a couple dozen operators each. There is actually subtext in the faces of Carol, Judith, Alexandra, Douglas and The Bull. And that allows you to completely suspend your disbelief and immerse yourself in the world on the screen.

Add to that the amazing production design by K.K. Barrett, and the gritty, hand held documentary realism of the camera work, and you’ve got an interesting, quirky, engaging and immersing visual treat that’s quite unexpected and unique, particularly for a kid’s fantasy movie.

And all the performances, even Max Records, the newcomer who plays the young boy with the big imagination, gives a fine turn even if the character he’s saddled with is less than likable.

What Doesn’t Work

Theme, theme, theme.

Max is a brat, who disrespects his Mom and his sister and acts like a spoiled, self-absorbed child. When he arrives on the island of the Wild Things, he discovers that they are essentially a tribe of argumentative, spoiled, jealous, giant child creatures. He finds himself reflected in them, and as their new King ends up learning how hard it is to have so much responsibility for the happiness of those around you, and yet to be so unappreciated. (Get it? He’s like his Mom, see?)

Story, story, story.

Okay, we get it. Every time the whiney wild things argue, and pout, and complain, Max has to step in and learn a little.

Okay, we get it. It happened again.

And again.

There’s no complexity to the story, once the thematic conceit is set up. That’s as complicated as it gets. Which is about as complicated as the book got, in all of its ten or so lines of text. And about halfway through I started getting bored, feeling like I’d spent the last 45 minutes reading the little book over and over and over, waiting for something more to happen.

As a screenwriter, maybe I’m overly fixated on story, but I’m constantly appalled by the utter lack of story in so much kid’s fodder (watched the D2DVD Space Buddies recently – no attempt at a story there at all). There are events, that happen in some kind of order, that ape the milestones of stories without really becoming stories themselves. And that’s kind of what happens here.

Tone, tone, tone.

Max discovers a pile of human-like bones, and fears that they are the remains of previous Kings (the Wild Things deny this, but in a way that you know is a lie — and later they admit he’s the first King they didn’t eat). Later, in a fit of violent rage, one Wild Thing tears the arm off another (something that looks like sawdust pours out — is he truly a stuffed animal?) and his arm is replaced with a snowman’s twig of an arm. Supposed to be funny, I guess, but it sent my 8 year old into a sobbing fit.

Likewise a dirt clod fight devolves into a raging clobber fest that leaves one Wild Thing with a bloody gash in his head (are they stuffed animals? I don’t know any more…) and another creature knocks beautiful owls out of the sky with rocks (“They like it when I do that” she says).

And finally, Max has to crawl inside one Wild Thing (she’s slimy and fleshy inside – not a stuffed animal after all) to hide from another, angry Wild Thing who is chasing him crashing through the underbrush in a hell-bent effort to eat him alive.

It’s an oddly simplistic and childlike theme for such a dark and adult series of events that never evolves into a story.

WTWTA seems to not quite know what kind of movie it is, or who it’s for (such a common ailment). Someone seemed to think that it was best to aim for the adults who grew up with the book, and assumed that they’d want a grown-up take on the story to suit their new grown-up sensibilities. Someone else seemed to want to make a film for kids around 9 or 10. Records was about that age during shooting, and looks just a little silly in the wolf outfit (I always envisioned Max as about 5-6). Nobody seemed interested in making a movie that was aimed at the target audience of the book itself, small children under 6 with fantasies about giant talking stuffed animals… who would likely be the kids or grandkids of those of us who grew up with the book in our childhood, and would be paying for the movie.

Now of course I didn’t see the early versions of the film, and can’t speak to what complexities the story might originally have had. But the version in theaters ended up with not enough story to satisfy adults (not this one, at least), while unfortunately retaining the adult tone that makes it inappropriate for its younger audience.

It’s a storyteller’s responsibility to balance theme, tone and story. I’ve written in the past about the Dramatic Imperative of a story, and its relationship to its Thematic Imperative. I’ll have to dig up that old essay, and re-investigate it here sometime soon.

But WTWTA is a great example of what happens when those elements are sadly out of balance, whatever the cause or intent.

See it for the production design. But leave the sound off and play “Dark Side Of The Moon” instead.

Or go see Jim Carrey get hit in the crotch with an icicle.

November 5, 2009

It’s a boy – officially

When Cheryl and I got married, I wrote vows to Max as well as Cheryl, and gave him a tiny silver ring of his own (he was four at the time). I married both of them that day, since they came as a matched set.

Today is our fourth wedding anniversary, and when I picked Max up from theater rehearsal I wished him a Happy Anniversary. He said “Oh, it’s your anniversary?” and I said “No, it’s OUR anniversary” and reminded him about the details of the day.

Max at baseball

Max on the Bees

When we got home, there was a moist (it’s been drizzling) non-descript envelope waiting for us in the box. I tossed it on the counter and went to hang up my coat, and Cher grabbed it and opened it up. Interestingly, it was made out to her.

Inside was the single best anniversary present I might have asked for – a brand new proof of Max’s live birth with me listed as the birth father

If you’ve followed the saga, you know that much of this past year was spent jumping the legal hurdles and hoops to adopt my stepson Max. While the court date and paper signings were done in May, the last piece of the puzzle was the actual, official, legal birth certificate.

I showed it to Max right away, and he glanced at it and said “Oh. A  bill.” I guess all official correspondence looks alike to kids. But I had him read it, and pointed out my name in the “Father” field, and he got it immediately, whooped! like a crazy boy, and wrapped himself around me for a long (and delightfully unprompted) hug, saying “Hi, real dad.”

So now it’s legal. It’s always been real, but now it’s legal. All kinds of things get simpler… travel, medical issues, the simplest things that have irritating complications when you’re the step dad. Now I have four awesome kids, and while we’ll always make a point of ensuring Max knows and remembers the whole story, I’ll never have to introduce him as anything more than my son.

November 4, 2009

Julie Brown signs on to indie script “Rocket Summer”

julie brownIt’s official… Miss Julie Brown is attached to the Rocket Summer project in the role of Mercy!

Rocket Summer is great, I love it and would love to be in it!
- Julie Brown

Julie and I worked together a few years ago on the film Fat Rose and Squeaky (where I was Art Director), and I couldn’t be happier to have her involved with RS.

For those of you living under a rock:

“The funniest Woman in America!” -Boston Globe

“Julie Brown is one of the true Comic Queens!” -USA Today

“Just say Brilliant” – TV Guide

“Julie Brown is a poisonous revelation!” – TV Guide

Known for her outrageous comedy performances and songs, Award-winning Actress/Singer/Writer/Director/Producer/Gay Icon JULIE BROWN’s star-turn role as Medusa, in MEDUSA, DARE TO BE TRUTHFUL, a spoof of Madonna´s film TRUTH OR DARE, earned her a Cable Ace Award and the Writer´s Guild Award. Her follow-up film, ATTACK OF THE 5´2″ WOMAN, which she wrote, starred in and produced almost won her another Cable Ace Award for her song “Queen of the Ice.” Her fingers were crossed but inevitably she lost to her longtime rival, Barbra Streisand (she wishes).

For the big screen, Julie wrote and starred in the cult film, EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY. Her other career highlights include her role as the gym teacher in the movie (and subsequent TV series) CLUELESS; starring on the FOX Sketch show THE EDGE and guest starring on the HBO Series SIX FEET UNDER as the bubbly Sissy Pasquese. She is also frequently seen as a commentator on E!´s various entertainment and top 100 specials.”

…read more at Julie’s site.

Rocket Summer is the story of four small town teens who secretly build a rocket-powered car… but family troubles and a lack of mechanical know-how make staying secret, and staying safe, nearly impossible. Stylistically, it’s largely a cross between Breaking Away and October Sky, with a hint of Stand By Me. The story is loosely based on the urban legend of the rocket-powered Chevy Impala.

The script went on to garner a quarter-final placement in the Monterey County Film Commission Script Competition. Since then it’s been optioned for a total of two years, and is now back in my hands. I have high hopes for this script and am looking forward to finding a home for it.

“This story is touching on many levels. You are a talented writer, with a wonderful unique style.”
- 2004 Monterey County Film Commission Script Competition

If things fall together as I hope, Julie will be playing the role of Mercy, mother to teenage daughter Lacey, proprietor of the small town diner, and something of a den mother to the kids.

I’ll be sharing more, as I go through a rewrite on the script, and am working on putting together a shoot of some demo footage to help sell the project.

Thanks, Julie! Here’s to good things happening!

October 26, 2009

the auto-chronicled narrative conceit

The following is excerpted from my Paranormal Activity review… it’s a portion of the post that I find myself referring to and wanted the passage in its own post for reference.

THE LIMITATIONS OF AUTO-CHRONICLING

The “auto-chronicled narrative conceit” has its innate issues. It creates a single camera situation shooting in real time (Blair Witch circumvented this by having two cameras available, but didn’t really leverage it), with one character nearly always off screen, that does away with (or severely hampers) all the established film vocabulary tools… the wides, the two-shots, the over-the-shoulders, the singles, the cutaways, the inserts. All the film tricks that directors and editors use to subconsciously establish relationships between characters, to control tension and mood in dialogue exchanges, to communicate unspoken subtext, to control and structure our experience of the story into a narrative that works, are suddenly wildly restricted if not impossible to leverage.

In order to show us the story in its entirety, the camera operator has to carry the camera with him, and keep it running, and keep it focused, and keep interesting things in frame, all the time. Even when really scary, dangerous things are happening. Especially when really scary, dangerous things are happening. Those are the things that have to be in the shot, right? So he’s not helping his friends, not running for his life with the camera pointed at the ground, but he’s framing the shot.

And we can’t see that character’s reactions to anything going on, since he’s behind the camera (kinda like my mom, who is never in any vacation pics so we can’t prove she was there). Unless he turns the camera on himself and up his nose to tell that he’s “so so scared” — and then we’re not seeing the action, and neither is he. Tough to build empathy for characters who are essentially our guides and who we can’t see engaging in the adventure. They’re narrators, not participants.

Further, the story is shot (as presented in the narrative, not in the true production) in sequence. No flashbacks, no cutting away to other subplots, other characters, to the cops forming a plan, to the army launching a counter-strike, to worried family wondering where our camera operator is. The film has one point of view. One narrative thread.

So the trick is, how do you give your camera operator reasonable reasons to stay focused on the action that don’t yank the audience out of the story? How do you integrate any creative edits, how do you offer different perspectives on the action, how do you shift the audience’s focus or empathy to another character?

It’s not impossible. But it’s hard. And it has to be done right. Which is why much of the time it fails.

Find out why it works in Paranormal Activity

October 18, 2009

Positive feedback on the Faeries script feels so good

Although our screenplay “Faeries” didn’t win at Shriekfest, we still got to see the judge’s notes… those kind folks who put so much time into reading all those screenplays. We’re feeling pretty good about what they had to say…

A lively, unusual slasher movie that delivers plenty of gore, and introduces a new set of monsters that could be worth a franchise.

I could see this as a movie… so many are hard to see actually made. This could be a fun little romp. 9 out of 10!

Clear and atmospheric writing that flows easily down the page. I enjoyed it. Definitely above average writers.

Thanks, amazing readers at Shriekfest! We appreciate your time, attention and obvious good taste!