Wrote, read, walked, lay still on the carpet. No BBQ or beer, soaked up the rain, turned off Triple J.
As far as writerly concerns go, it was a very productive day. As far as being an Australian, it was practically treason. Today also, this blog was born in effort to track the progress of scripts, feel accountable for my projects and learn from what I've been reading, watching and listening to.
Weekly report:
Read The Office (UK) Season 2 scripts. Marvelled at how specific and telling character's dialogue was written. Or perhaps Gervais and Merchant have unwittingly cheated given that I am picturing their cast, their timing and blank faces. No. No, I am decided. This is very funny and well-formed on its own. I hope I have soaked up the beats and nuances of these brilliantly considered season.
Also read The Completely Incomplete Graham Chapman which included unproduced scripts co-written by Monty Python's silly, drunken enigma. I especially enjoyed reading his TV pilot Jake's Journey which has inspired me to involve more adventure in my stories and less of the hum-drum that reads entertaining on the page. There's nothing wrong with a good old quest or foray into timetravelling. Old and cliche? Nay, classic. The challenge in screenwriting is crafting something personal and affecting, and if you can do that within the formula for a sellable, audience-loving hit then you're golden.
Listened to Scriptcast - both new (to me; the podcast is on an indefinite hiatius) and repeats with comedian Dwayne somebody, Christy somebody and actors Lawrence Long and Natalia somebody. Richard Walter’s episode was interesting and incredibly familiar (having attended one of his seminars), but I didn’t like it as much as these less “expert” people. I reason that it's because he's already well-established and regurgitates jokes. But I also disagreed with some of his points: the main one being that a novel is easier to write than a screenplay. More books are published than movies are made every year, so yes, it’s easier to get more [read: wider scoop of rubbish] made, but there is still serious genius, rewriting, editing and challenging story decisions that go into a novel. Different skillset and slightly different methods to approach the tasks, but you’re still need to tell an engaging, valuable story and delivering that is nearly shit-impossible.
Disappointed by Girls Season 2 episodes 1 and 2. I found it unbelievable that Newly Skinny (name escapes me!) embraced a profession change so readily – she sought a career in the visual art world, doesn’t she want to hang onto that? There are certainly tranferrable skills and similar personal rewards in transitioning from a being a curator to being a hostess such as service and presentation, but what about her passion?
Enjoyed the addition of Andrew Rannells to the cast and also how Charlie was written in the first episode.
Didn’t enjoy the ‘set up’ of this big secret taking place in episode one, no doubt to explode at the end of the season shattering friendships and waving Elijah goodbye from Hannah’s world once again (and the series, because Rannells is surely a man with other projects brewing). These people were easy at the time and it'll be an easier point of conflict at the end of the season. Still, I can understand the revelation devastating Hannah all the same.
Didn’t like the Creepy Adam, simply didn’t believe a dismissive douche would feel no shame or embarrassment singing an album of sad songs. It might be funny, but didn’t seem consistent. I could see the evolution of his character in season 1 but I don’t buy stalker – he walks away from things if anything. Though a broken leg might have taken away from his valued active side of life.
Whilst the both doe-eyed Shoshannah and Ray are cute together and provided the greater enjoyment for me, it's honestly too flaky a reconnection. Why didn’t they draw it out more? Probably because it’s just an attraction to be gratified and not a struggle of serious questions and emotions. Perhaps that all took place over the off-season. Even still, that’s the stuff that builds tension and that’s what audiences love to see.
Not interested in English girl’s early storyline at all. And she was super intriguing and funnier in the first season.
As for Hannah and Donald Glover(!), the scene between English girl and Hannah, and all scenes with Hannah and Donald were too on the nose regarding the fact he wasn’t into her writing. Why not leave a little to imagination and not let him give anything away? It’d be more (dare I say) typical of a girl (or her friend) reading too much a male’s slack and non-commital behaviour. Also, it might have been more interesting and unexpected a scene when he does confess his opinion. Then the eventual breakdown of their relationship would be unforeseen. But with his hesitation and terrible lie, Hannah’s on the nose dialogue expecting him to love her writing “like all her friends” and be disappointed that he didn’t, we saw it coming. So we didn’t emotionally invest in their relationship, which we might have by episode 2.
I feel the kind of situations and exchanges within Girls are very much Six Feet Under – in a similar dark, dramedy vein - but that was a show which wasn’t anywhere near sloppy when it came to subtext. It was elegant, let you fill in the blanks nearly completely or be taken by surprise by sudden lines or actions – which did ultimately make sense when you considered what was on that character’s plate. I’m sure I have also laughed more during Six Feet Under’s saddest episode than I did watching episodes 1 and 2 of new Girls.
Speaking of which, haven’t watched New Girl in a while. Might check back in after I’ve assessed why I gave it up.
Enjoyed and wept in Your Sister’s Sister – the performances, intimate setting and situation coupled with incredible personal stakes just allowed me to watch it – barely from a conscious or critical perspective.
It wasn’t about grief or about whatever complicated relationship Jack (Mark Duplass) had with his brother – I understand his point: toasting the whole man, not making him out to be perfect. He wasn’t characterised by generosity or selflessness, had a spectrum of a personality, wasn’t perfect but still liked, loved and missed immeasurably.
That was the backstory and they didn’t examine the nature of death or have big musings or profound statements to share with each other or the audience. It was about a family (not broadly or conceptually) - these were real people reuniting, admitting love, sharing secrets and becoming closer and more mature, possibly raising a child together.
I liked the conclusion but I don’t think it was so elegant. The slightest tweak or addition might have made it feel tidier. To clarify, it didn't need to be wrapped up -we received all the closure relevant I believe. I only ask for, a simple shot in the hallway outside the bathroom, rolling backward, or a shot of the house as the final image.
Really appreciated specific details and nuances – like Hannah’s vegan lifestyle, skinny jean men, getting out "that red bike" with the dust (alluding to Iris' intimate knowledge of Jack's past), Hannah remaining standoffish to Jack and not being overwelcoming or acting polite like women often do. She’s not immediately easy to get on with which makes her interesting and it was as if I shared Jack's personal challenge to break down barriers between them.
In future, these posts will hopefully be select and concise.
Cheers,
Claire
No comments:
Post a Comment