Why This is Good

I realize this post comes a little late,  but I resisted the Twilight phenomenon for as long as I could. Partially because I tend to be a bit of a literature snob and didn’t want to get involved in such a trendy book series, and partially, because I’m at least 12 years older than the target demographic of the series. But, like Edward, I could only resist temptation for so long, I really wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I ordered the books on Amazon (so I wouldn’t have to face the checker at Barnes and Noble judging me for my immature purchase), and started reading.

(If you took even longer than I did to get involved and don’t want the ending spoiled, please stop reading now!)

I finished Twilight quickly, and while my sarcastic side was rolling it’s eyes at all the angsty-teenage romance that is like crack for teenage girls, I also had to admit it was a good story, full of suspense and romance. That, along with the fact that it was at about a fifth-grade reading level, meant that I finished the 400-odd page novel very quickly.

Now it was time to get to the movie. It’s a shame that I waited so long, because while reading, I wasn’t able to envision my own versions of Bella and Edward, but instead had to picture Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, who were well cast, I guess, I just wish I could have judged that for myself. It’s one of my favorite parts of watching adaptations-analyzing casting. I was curious how the screenwriters would be able to adapt such a dialogue-heavy, melodramatic book into a movie and keep it dynamic and visually interesting, when the bulk of the book involved Bella and Edward talking to each other in rather boring locations-her bedroom, a meadow, and their cars.

I was pleasantly surprised with how good the adaptation was. First off, a defense of adaptations. No real fan of a novel ever thinks the movie was as good as the book. It’s a given. Because no movie can ever get as far inside the character’s thoughts and minds as a well-written book. Reading a book is personal, it’s just you and the page, you create the story in your mind and therefore feel deeply connected to your version. The mediums are drastically different, and it’s important to realize this and judge an adaptation differently, not expecting it to move you in the same ways as the book.

This movie, however, was adapted very well. It changed a few small details, but they only served to make the story more exciting. The book completely lacks conflict during what would be the second act. The two get together so soon and are instantly professing their love. The only conflict is the tension created by ever-present danger that Edward might kill Bella at any moment. But, like Bella, we trust he won’t. With nothing else hindering their love, and Edwards super-human abilities making it much easier for them to sneak around and spend time together, they are able to lounge around and bask in the glow of their love endlessly-in the book.

The movie upped the stakes right away, by introducing the danger and the conflict early on. The three evil vampires that show up much too late in the book-causing the central conflict and the exciting climax of that story-are out and about very early in the film. This creates anticipation, a sense of danger, and gives Bella’s father something to do besides watch baseball. Most of the endless pillow-talk scenes were shortened, combined, and moved outside, giving the film a dynamic, visually stunning look that the book didn’t have, or need. Scenes, revelations, and events were combined, allowing the adaptation to progress quickly enough so that it wouldn’t have to be a seven hour saga that it would have been if they had remained completely faithful to the book. These changes did not take anything away from the story but enhanced it, and made it more visually impactful, a better fit for the screen.

Small changes, such as giving Bella the goal of going to the bookstore to find a book on vampire legends in Port Angeles, not just aimlessly wandering, made the scene in which Edward rescues her from the gang of would-be rapists much more interesting, and puts Bella in charge as an active hero. Taking the dinner scenes out of their home and into the diner worked well to show-since the film couldn’t tell as the book did-how painfully strained Bella’s relationship with her father was, and it gave them a chance to interact with the townspeople so that we could see (rather than be told) how big of a deal it was to have a newcomer in Forks, and how scared everyone was over the “animal attacks.”

Overall I’m quite impressed with the adaptation. Certainly this wasn’t the best film ever made, and it’s success is due mainly to the popularity of the books, but I always give writers enormous credit for a successful adaptation of a book, and in this case, a very challenging book. If you think adaptation is easy, try writing one, and watch the film Adaptation, to give you a glimpse into how difficult successfully translating one medium into another can be.

With the holidays looming in the near future and 2009 coming to a dreary close, the political and economic climate seems to be reflected in the abundance of dark, apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic movies coming out by the end of this year or the beginning of next. 2012, The Road, Daybreakers, The Book of Eli, and Legion all present different scenarios for the world coming to an end or what life will be like for the few survivors.

Movies about the end of the world, or, in turn, a bizarre world after what we know has ended, have always been around and always been popular. If you believe, as I do, that we watch movies to experience emotion, then it is easy to understand why these movies prevail. They play into one of our most primal emotions-fear-in a realistic and terrifying way that cuts deeper than any monster or slasher movie ever could. A crazed serial killer is something a few unlucky teenagers may have to deal with, but if the world ends and civilization is wiped out, we are all affected, either killed or forced to adapt to a horrifying and unknown new reality.

At the same time, these movies offer a sense of relief to people who feel overwhelmed and burdened by the current state of their personal lives, or the world at large. A catastrophe would wipe out all of the petty problems and issues we all deal with in our normal lives. No one will care about your credit card debt, your missed mortgage payment, that promotion you didn’t get, or that speeding ticket if aliens, God, a virus, a natural disaster or some self-aware computer system destroyed everything. If aliens decided to attack, we would no longer be at war with other nations, but united as humans fighting a common enemy. And since when watching a well-made film, we identify with the hero and not the masses of sacrificed extras, most of us feel deep down that we would survive, as the hero inevitably does, and make the best of this new reality. All of our personal as well as our society’s problems would be wiped away, with the promise that eventually something better could be created.

The best of these movies present logical scenarios for the destruction of civilization, or at least are so well told that we are able to suspend our disbelief and feel that the events portrayed are actually happening. Often times it is man-made events that lead to the apocalypse-computers or robots who turn on us, viruses or vaccines going wrong, natural disasters brought on by our activities, or war and mass use of nuclear weapons.

With the current unrest in the world, as well as the turmoil we’re facing domestically with the economy and divisive political battles being waged on all sides, people are eager to watch the worst possible outcome played out on screen. In addition to allowing us the catharsis of feeling these emotions in a safe way, and getting a subconscious sense of relief at the possibility that we may be offered a clean slate, these films help us deal with our fears about the possibility of a nuclear war or some other horrible disaster, but putting these very real potential futures on screen, they are made less terrifying, as we can reassure ourselves that it is only a story, it’s not real.

What was good:

The wallpaper-I know that sounds odd but see the movie and you’ll know exactly what I mean. The film is set in 1976 and the décor and clothes make the 70s look a lot more chic than they really were. The visuals throughout were quite stunning, and the intense patterns of the wallpaper framed the actors and added to the uncomfortable tension.

James Marsden-I think James Marsden is adorable, and the poor guy always plays the boyfriend of the leading lady who is really in love with someone else (see The Notebook, X-Men, and Superman Returns). I was excited to see him in a leading role, and I think he proved he’s leading man material, finally.

The story-Much of the story worked well, there were constant twists, turns, scares, and surprises. Going in we all knew the intriguing Twilight Zone worthy premise-press the button and get a million dollars, but someone you don’t know will die (incidentally this story was used in a Twilight Zone episode in 1986).  The ever unfolding story behind this weird experiment went places I did not expect or predict, and kept me guessing until the end. It also made me want to read the short story on which the film was based, as I’m sure it’s even better. The story was a little big for two hours, and might have worked better as a mini-series, but overall I give the writer credit for asking a question in each scene, and following each answer with another question leading down another bizarre path.

What wasn’t so good:

The dialogue-it was clunky, repetitive, and often on-the-nose. Cheesy and melodramatic, the story would have benefited from less of it, and a rewrite to take out all of the first draft lines that read like a bad play.

The complexity of the story-I’m all for a challenging, engaging, multifaceted story, and this certainly was one. But, as I said, it was a bit too big to be contained in two hours. The twists and turns sometimes went way too far, taking us in a direction that seemed important, only to end up meaning nothing, or remain unexplained. It hinted at grander, more exciting ideas (sequels, perhaps?) that it failed to address.

There were subplots that didn’t need to be there that bogged down the thrill and the pacing, and there were levels of corruption and conspiracy that were never fully explained. A suspense thriller is necessarily complex, but it needs to be streamlined enough to keep us engaged in the forward momentum of the main story, and not distracted by subplots and unexplained details and phenomena that leave us asking what that was all about, rather than focusing on the main story.

And while a million dollars is still a lot of money and was even more so in 1976, I found it hard to believe that this well-dressed couple residing in a beautiful home (please, that designer wallpaper is not cheap!) in a quaint suburb were so hard up that they would really be tempted to kill someone for money. (Spoiler Alert) The biggest monetary woe presented in the film was that the fancy private academy at which Cameron Diaz’s character worked would no longer allow their son to attend for free. Life is rough. Given that her husband drove a beautiful brand new Corvette Stingray to his job as a rocket scientist at NASA, I wasn’t too worried about them being out on the streets had they decided to forego the million dollars. Of course, that was part of the gimmick, that we humans are so awful we would sacrifice our fellow man just to have an easier time for ourselves. It just made me resent the characters, whereas if I had truly believed they were going to lose their house, or needed some sort of life-saving operation, I would have understood their choice.

The acting-Okay I know I said I liked James Marsden, and he did well with what he was given, but it wasn’t awesome. I can see why Allie, Jean Grey, and Lois Lane all had the hots for someone else. He was a little flat.  Cameron was a bit too weepy eyed and had the same facial expression throughout the whole film. Though I was also happy to see that she’s back to her voluptuous, natural-looking state. I personally prefer the curvy Cameron of The Mask to the emaciated teenage boy look she thought was attractive a few years back.

A big part of the plot hinged on how deeply this couple loved their son. And I knew they did because they were his parents and because they said so. But I didn’t feel this love, it wasn’t authentic. Nor was their love for each other. They had no chemistry, and a sad lack of sexual tension. They seemed to have an admiration, and a brother-sister fondness for one another, and like their love for their son, their love for each other was rooted in the fact that it was written in the script and to be expected, not because they really felt it.

Overall, I would say this film was good. I was literally on the edge of my seat throughout most of it, and intrigued enough that I may go see it again. If nothing else, it accomplished what all films should-it elicited an emotional response in its viewers-I wasn’t the only one who jumped out of my seat in shock at least once. Definitely worth seeing, but if you’re also facing hardships like having to take your son out of private school in these tough economic times, maybe wait until it comes out on dvd.

As a screenwriter, it’s important that you watch movies as often as possible. You can learn things from good, bad, and mediocre films, as long as you watch them critically and pay attention.

If you have the time, ideally you should watch a movie twice. The first time should be watching it like any other viewer-purely for the entertainment value. Don’t look at it analytically, just watch, be moved, or not. Experience it as your future audiences will, pay attention to how it makes you feel. Did you laugh, cry, get bored or fidgety? Jot down notes on your emotional reaction only after you’ve watched the entire film once.

The second viewing will be the one where you analyze. If you’re watching from home, keep a remote nearby so you can pause as needed to write notes. I keep a stopwatch near me so that when turning points occur, I can jot down at what time in the movie they happen. This helps me analyze the plot structure, and generally the successful films have their plot points at 10%, 25%, 50%, and 75%. In addition to writing down these major turning points and when they occur, I write down notes about the characters. How are they introduced? What do we know about them? Does the hero garner sympathy using one of the techniques I discussed in my post on 9/17/09? If not, what do they do that makes us like them, or do we dislike them? What genre is this film? Is the tone consistent and appropriate for this genre? Are the other characters believable? Does the hero face opposition that creates conflict? If so, is this conflict, and therefore suspense, sustained throughout the movie? If not, when does it falter and why? If you were bored and restless in the initial viewing, what moments made the film boring? What could the screenwriter have done to improve these scenes? Does the dialogue sound realistic or artificial? Why? Are there holes in the story? Is the problem solved in a realistic way, given the parameters of the world of the story? Are you happy for the hero when they accomplish their goal (or sad for them if they don’t), or do you not care? If you don’t care, is it because the hero was unsympathetic and you couldn’t relate to him or her, or is it because they got what they wanted too easily, so you didn’t empathize with their struggle and feel they earned it.

The answers to those questions will tell you a lot about what makes a film successful or not. You can examine the films that are successful-both the ones you like, and the ones that are successful at the box office, and you will see a pattern of the best films having certain things in common. Equally important is analyzing why the films that don’t work and don’t resonate with you are unsuccessful. Keep a notebook or file of your movie reviews, and refer back to it often, your writing will improve greatly if you can learn to distinguish why you liked a particular film and how the writer made it good.

If you’re a fellow child of the 80’s or younger, you were no doubt reminded of the fun children’s book of the same name as this new movie. But this movie has greatly improved upon what was just a cute, simple children’s book based on a funny and innovative premise. The movie is hilarious and uses many of the screenwriting principles I’ve been discussing. It’s a great example of how much poetic license you can and must take when adapting a book into a movie. Most books, even the ones more complicated than a children’s picture book, don’t translate easily into good films.

What stood out most to me about what made this film good was how intensely visual it was. Of course, it’s yet another computer animated wonder that takes advantage of the stunning images you can create using this awesome new medium. And since it’s also playing in 3D, there are plenty of gags and stunts intended to take advantage of this unique tool. But even if this had been a live action film, the visuals would have been impressive, and you can learn a lot about how to tell a story visually by watching this film. It’s not based on dialogue and discussion, but, as all films should, relies primarily on images and action to tell the story.  And while I don’t want to give away all of the fun details, I will say this movie features a ghetto blaster made of Jell-O. What more could you want?

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is also dynamic. Every scene involves change and moves the story forward. It features an active hero with a goal that he pursues until the very end. The writers employ the techniques I discussed here to make us like the hero and relate to him from the very beginning. As the story progresses, they continually challenge the hero, making things more and more difficult, forcing him to work hard for every accomplishment, and most importantly, it is always the hero who is in charge, forced to save the day, and rely on his intellect and wit. No one helps him and nothing comes easy. This is an adorable, well done film that adults and kids will enjoy. I highly recommend you go see it, and pay attention to all of the elements discussed above, think about how you can use them in your own screenplay, even if your story doesn’t involve a monkey battling live gummy bears to the death.