Woulda Beens

Wrote though to the end of “Northwestern” late last night. This one’s been a very odd journey. I told a friend a few months back that this script was going to be a train wreck or the work I’d be most proud of, but I wasn’t sure which.

It’s been difficult at times. It’s my first try at outright comedy and there’s a certain lack of confidence there on my part, and an inability to evaluate the humor elements of the script and feel secure about which jokes are working.

Still, my partners seem happy with the work so far, although two of them have remained very aloof throughout. That’s been a bit of a disappointment.

I turned a corner with it just about three weeks ago and eliminated what I think was a major problem gumming up the works. I did an intensive rewrite of the first two thirds that I had written, which felt VERY clunky to me. The resulting script was lean and smooth and flowed Captain Morgan’s.

It’s been hairy, but there’s a real sense of accomplishment.

There’s still a lot of work to be done. I skipped three scenes to get to “THE END” so I have to fill in the gaps there. There are some remnants from the first take that have to be worked out (or in…depending). And in general the jokes need work and the whole thing needs polishing.

But what I have today is 99% of a first draft that I’m happy with.

Making good progress on “Codename: Northwestern”. I hit the first act break yesterday and decided to stop and make a new skin of Thanator. Clicky click for the NW skin (if you’re not already looking at it).

If anyone is puzzled by the slogans and or artwork on the various skin banners: you should be. They won’t make a ton of sense to anyone but me. But, hey, it is my site after all.

Today I begin writing the script pages proper for a new spec screenplay. I’m calling it “Codename: Northwestern” for blogging purposes. This is after almost three months of prep work.

Prep work is stuff like researching the subject.

Watching a bunch of movies in the same genre and taking copious notes (like writing down everything that happens in a movie, in 30 second blocks), then organizing those notes, observing story structure, scene length and generally trying to figure out why and how certain movies work.

Writing character histories and biographies (often starting with grandparents or great grandparents and leading up to the day before our script starts).

Making notes and outlines and 3×5 cards and more notes and writing treatments and getting notes and so on.

Stuff like that.

I always find the prep work very difficult. The research can be super interesting (depending on the subject) but there’s this nagging feeling that if I’m not generating script pages, then I’m not being productive. It can be a tough thing to get past. When I feel unproductive I start to get depressed too. Depression decreases productivity. The vicious circle turns, and it can become a downward spiral, usually involving alcohol, Taco Bell and sometimes firearms.

So?three months of that.

Thank God it’s mostly over and we (and by we I mean “me, myself and I”) can start writing pages now. Writing pages has the opposite effect. There’s the illusion that I’m being super-productive when I’m writing pages. Sure, some of those pages will be moved, rewritten whittled down or beefed up until they don’t really exist any more.

Still, each page is a tangible and measurable step towards the goal. Watching the page count rise is like ticking off the mile markers on a long car trip.

“Codename: Northwestern” is a project that found its way to me late last year. Like my previous spec script, one exciting aspect of it is the people I’m working with on it. Not naming names, but one would be familiar to any comic readers out there. The other will, within the next ten years, be familiar to most every film buff out there. The third is a new acquaintance that seems really cool in addition to having invaluable experience for us to draw from.

Codename: Northwestern: Now underway?

A few weeks back I’m looking around on NetFlix to see if the movie “Charade” (1963) is available to rent on DVD. Turns out it is.

Strangely, it’s available on the flipside of the DVD movie “The Truth About Charlie” (2002). It’s only then that I realize that Charlie is a remake of Charade.

So I order the flip-disc figuring I’ll watch them both and compare.

For those who haven’t seen it “Charade” stars Audrey Hepburn as Reggie, a woman who returns home from holiday, determined to divorce her husband Charlie, only to learn that Charlie has been murdered and a cast of rogues now circles her waters sniffing around for some unknown bankroll they believe her to be in possession of. Cary Grant seems to be the most trustworthy of these shady characters, but with a title like “Charade”, who can be sure?

Although it’s sometimes mistaken for a Hitchcock thriller “Charade” was actually directed by Stanley Donen. It’s a romantic thriller with comedic touches. Or perhaps it’s a romantic comedy with the trappings of a thriller. I’m never sure, but the charm of the movie is that it works as romance, comedy and thriller by turns.

Which brings us to “The Truth About Charlie”. This 2002 update features Thandie Newton in Hepburn’s role and Mark Wahlberg standing in for Grant. Jonathan Demme (“Silence of the Lambs”, “Philadelphia”) directs, and I figure, how bad can it be?

Well, sadly “Charlie” misfires pretty badly. Although at times the story hews pretty close to the original, the devil is in the differences.

The strangest decision that Demme made was to de-fang all the film’s bad guys. The original sports a tangled web of dubious relationships and shifting alliances that eventually degrades into a murder plot. Like poor Reggie, we’re left wondering who, if anyone, can be trusted and which of these characters is desperate enough to start killing off the competition. By the end, even the dashing Grant is suspect.

In Demme’s version, none of the characters seems particularly threatening. Indeed, at one point they all start cooperating with each other until finally the story introduces a new character, Charlie’s MOTHER, who then becomes the heavy in the movie. I kid you not.

The tango scene in “Charlie” is extremely perplexing, with Reggie dancing around with all her antagonists. But as I said, they’re not really antagonizing. At one point femme fatale Lisa Gay Hamilton (replacing Ned Glass) even proclaims, “I like you, Reggie!”

This seems to be an attempt to transplant the orange-game scene from the original, but again, the effect was the complete opposite. In “Charlie” the tango scene is some kind of wierd truce between the parties and it occurs late in the movie. In “Charade” the orange scene is filled with menace and threats and arrives earlier in the film, forcing poor Reggie to bump up against the sharks for the first time.

Of course, another big discrepancy is that Wahlberg is no Cary Grant. While it seems like “Charlie” is sometimes reaching for the quirky, genre-defying sensibilities that made “Charade” so enjoyable, it just can’t seem to get there. It’s hard to estimate how much of what worked about “Charade” was due Grant’s charm, but his ability to pull off the romantic and humor bits went a long way. Still, I can’t imagine any leading man pulling off the “wash-and-wear” gag from the original.

One innovation that worked well in the new version is that Reggie has a greater role in bringing the money grab to a close. In 1963 it may have been OK for Hepburn to simply be a damsel in distress, but the thoroughly modern Reggie actually gets to have a hand in thwarting the bad guy.

In the end “Charade” remains a highly recommended movie. The truth about the updated “Charlie” is that you needn’t bother with it.

I’m sometimes disappointed to find that the old classics haven’t held up over time. Yesterday I watched “North by Northwest” first the first time in about 10 years.

Thankfully, this Hitchcock masterpiece still plays pretty well. Sure, it has its share of implausibility and dated language and attitudes, but it’s also chock full of action, suspense, humor and romance. Definitely worth watching.

Anyhow, getting to the point of this bloggage. I don’t quite get the lynchpin plot point of this movie.

If you haven’t seen it: advertising man Roger O Thornhill is mistaken for a secret agent named Kaplan by a bad guy named Townsend (and later revealed to be Van Damme). Due to the mistaken identity, Van Damme tries to do away with Thornhill, thus spinning him into his thrilling adventure.

What I don’t get is: why or how did Van Damme ever arrive at the conclusion that Thornhill is Kaplan? Was this explained while my mind was wandering? I’ve already sent the DVD back to NetFlix so I can’t watch the movie again any time soon.

Anyone? Help a brother out?

Regardless of the answer, the movie is still highly recommended.