Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

    Lesson #1: Perspective

    If any of the class members want to discuss the lesson or clips, they can do it here.

    Peace,
    Jim

  • #2
    Re: Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

    Re: "perspective" and Tin Cup

    Question: let's just say that Rene Russo pulled a star-trip and said she wouldn't even come out of the trailer unless she had something to do in the scene (and I recognize here walking out midway may give her the "moment" she could want nonetheless). So we have different perspectives, and obviously we want to give her something interesting to do as the scene unfolds unique from Don Johnson, Costner, or the "chorus." As she feels this is boyish and silly, it would have to relate to that, correct?

    But also, we know there is something kooky about her; it's one reason she nukes a relationship with Johnson who is stable and successful. It's interesting choice on Shelton's part, as Johnson is never really a bad guy at all. Never is he made into a villain; even in this scene, Costner goads him into participating. In fact, he's only the antagonist because of perspective; Cup is our hero, so we're on his side. In the real world, most of us would understand Johnson's position and respect his achievement and lack of self-destructive tendencies.

    So we wouldn't want her getting angry at Johnson and just rooting for Tin Cup, because that doesn't leave her anywhere to go later when she does dump Johnson for him. We don't want her rooting for Johnson to win because Costner is our protagonist and we do like/empathize with him.

    So what could she do in that scene? It's an interesting dilemma.

    The Die Hard stuff was interesting b/c it's a scene where everyone is in different physical locations, so there's no good reason to cut to a supporting character unless he does something unique/interesting. And the writer(s) came up with what was needed to earn each character his/her "moment." It shows how action writing can still pay attention to character beats even as things go boom.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

      Originally posted by jimjoanna View Post
      Re: "perspective" and Tin Cup

      Question: let's just say that Rene Russo pulled a star-trip and said she wouldn't even come out of the trailer unless she had something to do in the scene (and I recognize here walking out midway may give her the "moment" she could want nonetheless). >>
      On the first film I directed, I would have been mad at the actress and thought she was a diva. But a few films later, I would have thought she was totally right. And the scene should have been improved in the development process. Giving her something important enough to get pissed and leave the scene is not that bad of a choice. No one else in the scene was AGAINST the bet in any way.

      The other perspective could have been to have the Cheech or Chong friend be wary for reasons he can't explain. To know that something is up. You might be giving away too much. But it if he didn't want to insult his con man friend Tin Cup by saying he might be deceiving you, he would make up another reason and Tin Cup would blow him off. And then somehow off by himself he would communicate his real concern "Who knows what that guy has up his sleeve." It would still allow Tin Cup tofigure things out but it would change the audiences POV/perspective and add some potential dramatic irony. That is one way to add a wrinkle in tghe scene. The opening scene of ING basterds chooses to let the audience know in the midpoint of the scene that there is a family underneath the house. That dramatic irony helped to support a scene of that length.

      I am glad you saw some cool stuff in the Die HArd moment. It is pretty crystalized there... When filmmakers know what their film is about, they know what their film is about. ;-)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

        Jimjoanna brings up an interesting point. I also felt like we weren't meant yet to see Johnson's character as villainous.

        This is a little off topic but I thought the choice to have Johnson tee the ball down the pavement was a smart one on the part of the writer. At the time of the scene we aren't totally on board with Tin Cup yet, IMHO, because he's a slacker. (Lazy guys are fun to watch but I think it takes a little effort to empathize with them). And Johnson is mildly snotty but he's not quite a total douchebag, right? So it's a bit ambiguous at that point who we're supposed to identify with.

        So, if Johnson tees off above 272 then we'll see him as a pretentious jerk. And if he tees off below 272 we'll see him as a loser. But, if he tees off down the road then we see him as a worthy opponent and we see Tin Cup as the underdog. The non-decision makes the decision for us.

        Great class
        Last edited by asjah8; 01-14-2013, 10:28 PM.
        life happens
        despite a few cracked pots-
        and random sunlight

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

          The only thing that came to me, which might have given Russo more to do than just go off in a fluster, is to have her try to lecture the "chorus" about what is wrong about this kind of macho standoff. I mean, one nice touch of the film is that she seems to be a mess herself and a pretty lousy therapist! So she can get all worked up and try to use the moment as a teaching lesson to the chorus who are all just cheering for Tin Cup.

          Don't know about giving Marin anything like what you suggested to play with, Jim. It would undercut Tin Cup's "specialness" when he realizes his goose is cooked before anyone else. Also, having the chorus support him is why he is who he is. He is the king of his own silly fiefdom -- his behavior could only flourish because of this support system. Having Marin continually know things are gonna end bad (he gets some of these moments later) would make him seem smarter than Costner. Costner is smart enough to figure out a moment before everyone else what Johnson is up to, but not so smart as to not take the bet. Russo doesn't know what Johnson is up to, but starting a rambling lecture on the male animal to an unlistening chorus could be worth a few chuckles. If anything, in my rewrite, just allow Marin to be the one member of the chorus who attempts to politely listen to the lady as she argues the immature nature of the whole deal. I dunno. The scene works as it is, I was just looking for a theoretical way to keep the female lead in the entire scene.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

            I don't think having Marin raise suspicion was a better choice. I was just pondering other possibilities. And you saw how much work would need to be done to not undercut tin cup's specialness. He would still have to figure it out without any clues. But that SMALL little addition of Tin Cup figuring it out beforehand is huge and too often writers don't have enough diverse perspectives. Or they don't push hard enough for their main character's perspective to be special enough.

            Also, in the script, I think there is a line like "the con man is conned" or something like that. The work was done in the scene and character set up so I think like this cheat is fine and it works as what I call a contextual cheat. It gives the reader a bit of a hint on the angle of the characters. The viewer gets ten times the info as does the reader but everything about the Tin Cup character has pointed toward a con man, a fast-talker who also happens to be deceiving himself.

            A little aside. I watched parts of For Love of the Game and Moneyball recently and I am not sure from which movie it was. Probably the latter although contextually it makes more sense in the former. A kid said to the player or gm that no hitters (or was it strikeouts) are fascist. The emphasis being that it is a one-person totalitarian thing... that is a great and surprising perspective from a character in a baseball movie. Hell, maybe it was even Bull Durham. I'm getting old. ;-)

            REgarding the long diatribe that Renee Russo COULD have given. If you are a writer who tends to overwrite or overwrite dialogue and always choose to go with the long monologue, you can often mine that speech and use it to better understand and define that character's perspective in the scene and big-picture orchestration. And then condense their reaction into more concise and specific conflict. Cut the long speeches in some of the places but use the discoveries they bring to improve the script, character, conflict.

            Hope my responses aren't too rambly. Jumping in here between work stints. Thanks for contributing, all.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

              Originally posted by asjah8 View Post

              Great class
              Thanks, btw!

              Quick pitch.... people can still sign up and get this first lesson a bit late. Go to a-listscreenwriting.com.

              Jim

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

                HERE IS A FREE LESSON - TWO SAMPLES FROM THE ONLINE SCENE WRITING CLASS

                We have a sample from lesson #2 which isn't even out yet.

                Click here to check it out. Remember you can still sign up and retroactively receive the back lessons in their entirety.

                For those in the class, check out ScriptShadow later today. You will see why the next lesson isn't out. We did a LONG but pretty cool interview.

                http://archive.constantcontact.com/f...218984087.html

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

                  Think about how the location of the meal was used in these scenes? What specific props or other elements unique to the restaurant or dinner table were exploited?

                  For theme, variety, visuals, conflict, humor????

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

                    Best. Lunch. Scene. Ever. (Although I suppose it might be dinner).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3HGeENqEo

                    Quiet scene speaks volumes about the characters, the society they both live in, and their roles in it. Not a word of dialogue.

                    Theme: What has been lost in future New York, shown in understated, quiet scene that is tonally quite different from the rest of the film.

                    Variety: contrasting the meat (which of course Heston loves) with the lettuce (which he shrugs about, infuriating Robinson)

                    Conflict: the disgusting world of overpopulation and soylent green and yellow with something we take for granted in our world, a simple dinner. Interestingly, the scene's strength isn't the conflict, but showing the love between Heston and Robinson necessary to sell the impact of Robinson's later suicide on Heston. Robinson is excited to share this "old school" meal with Heston, who stole the items from the rich murder victim's apartment. Their laughter and interaction (not easy to write, wonder how the original script sold it) is key. It isn't a "necessary" scene to drive the plot at all.

                    Humor: the lettuce, the whole way Heston has to eat this food like he's never had it before, Robinson's reactions of elation and frustration.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Jim Mercurio's Online Scene Writing Class Discussion Thread

                      Hey Everyone,

                      There is a tiny sample from Lesson #4 (probably about 5% of the content) below. Anyone can still sign up and receive all four lessons immediately. No homework or deadlines. You get an email, read it and check out the samples or links if you want.

                      For those of you in the class, did I strike a balance of tone in criticizing and encouraging? And in balancing thoroughness with simplicity. Does the idea of expectations resonate as a way to improve your writing?

                      I always want to be a bit on the nose or miss by a little bit when I give super-specific solutions as brainstorms. The specificity should show you ways of thinking or how deep you can go, but I also love it when it immediately strikes a cord in the writer and they perk up and say, "No, that's not right because..." I talk about this concept in the DVD set, there is nothing like the IDEA OF WHAT SOMETHING ISN'T to clarify what it is. I talk about this with tiny mise-en-scene details all the way up to foil characters and the antagonist/protagonist relationship.

                      If you are enjoying the class, please give it a one-sentence or less plug here.

                      Thanks!

                      Jim


                      SAMPLE FROM CLASS

                      ...was pretty dismissive about the script pretty quickly based on the assumption that it was practically impossible to introduce so many characters all at once. And true to form (re: various perspectives), a voice inside my head was saying what some of you might have been saying, "Many films have introduced several characters all at once." This is true. However, many talented filmmakers (directors and screenwriters) avoid this challenge.

                      Can you introduce a handful of characters at the same time? Yeah. And back to craft or expectations. It's hard to do. It's harder for beginning writers to do. It takes savvy craft to do it well. If you want to approach it in terms of expectations, the expectations would look something like this:
                      • Nothing is wasted.
                      • Every element -- including location, wardrobe (btw, I liked the girl in the parka in Warren's scene. If she purposefully disappears into its over-sized hood, that might even tell us more about her.), blocking, perspectives -- would have to be firing on all cylinders.
                      • The dialogue would have to include a lot of what I call "summary" on my DVD set where characters are nailing down (summing up) each other in their lines. In the opening of Alien, one of the first lines in the script is where Kane says "And if we have Parker, can Brett be far behind?" See how the line itself carries context about the other characters. (This is the sort of expansion I would look for on Erica's line (FROM THE SCRIPT SAMPLE IN THE LESSON). In addition to the dialogue containing succinct information about others in the scene, it would contain context and perspective that sneaks in details about the speaker, too.

                      Let's see this in action. The second sequence of Dead Poet's Society throws a bunch of characters together into a room at the same time.
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      The introductions to these characters aren't a complete contradiction to what I prescribe, but there are many craft elements on display that would help a scene to introduce characters from scratch in a mostly-simultaneous fashion...


                      If you want to get the rest of this lesson, sign up for the class (it's less than $20) and you will get all of the back lessons, too.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X