Tony Gilroy in The New Yorker
The New Yorker has a terrific article by D.T. Max about screenwriter Tony Gilroy, whose films range from Dolores Claiborne to The Bourne Identity to Michael Clayton (a personal favorite).
I particularly liked his discussion about the challenge of writing a thriller:
Gilroy believes that the writer and the moviegoing public are engaged in a cognitive arms race. As the audience grows savvier, the screenwriter has to invent new reversals—madder music and stronger wine. [...]
“How do you write a reversal that uses the audience’s expectations in a new way? You have to write to their accumulated knowledge.”
Definitely worth a read.
Articles
March 9th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
There is a danger to reading these things for me. I’m always so impressed by seeing the cleverness of the artist, that I wonder “will I ever be that good?”
Of course, most people aren’t Tony Gilroy good. So maybe that’s not necessarily a deal breaker.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Its 7:58 am. I’ve been awake since about, oh I dunno, 3pm. I just read that 8 page monster. Every sentence. I liked it.
I didn’t like Gilroy’s arrogance. I mean, I guess there comes a time when all of us have to maintain some sort of ego… or else you’re kind of self-hating, or carry a worthlessness about you, but personally, I prefer a quiet confidence to an overt arrogance. I do enjoy his cursing nature. And his writing/directing.
But chill out on the Id-trips.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Instead of coming up with more ingenuously derived plot twists, why not invest your characters with more nuance and conflict? I think because that kind of writing is far more challenging.
But it’s what distinguishes, say, Dark Knight from Casino Royale, or Michael Clayton from The International.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Thanks for the link. Good read. I’m gonna watch my wives VHS of “The Cutting Edge.”
March 10th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
@Erik:
And yet, if you’re not working with the goal of be as good as (or better than) Gilroy, should you be a screenwriter?
March 10th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
See, John, I put a little salve on my easily bruised ego, and there you go kicking it again.
I strive to be one because I want to make an adequate living doing what I would want to be doing even if I weren’t making a living. Being better than Tony Gilroy – or you, for that matter – is something about which I permit myself a modicum of doubt, from time to time. :-)
March 10th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I wasn’t struck so much by his ego, but the reporter’s classification of his behavior “he bragged to Variety”, etc.
I don’t think anyone that’s serious about their work has much of an ego. The process is humbling. Trying to make a great film is as obsessive and exhausting an endeavor as one can embark upon.
On some basic level someone has to control the world, to filter each decision and hold the film’s vision for the duration of the process and play God to some extent — perhaps that professionalism is mistaken for ego-tripping?
I’ve worked with a lot of headcases, but the good writer-directors are always decent guys.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
CFK (aren’t your initials backwards?):
I was also struck by the writer’s slant, including the example you mentioned. I had to read Gilroy’s quote twice before I realized that it was just the writer trying to be edgy, or something. Very annoying.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Thanks for posting the article John. It motivated me to look at my own work in a new light and see how it could be improved, especially the parts about reversals.
Will I be as good as you or Gilroy? Who knows?
But I’ll take my shot at it. :)
March 10th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Love or hate his personal behaviour, Gilroy’s professional skill is undeniable. ‘Michael Clayton’ is one of my favourites too. Thanks for posting John.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
This is actually my primary defense of the Saw films. The latter films use “movie logic” against the audience. We accept absurdity because it is the 4th sequel. Then the filmmakers pull the filmic rug out and we are left with real plausibility as the twist.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:36 am
@ CFK & Tim K.
Reread the article once more maybe, because doesn’t Gilroy’s friends say he’s a bit arrogant? That that’s just who he is. Now, I’m not using the arrogance as such some disgusting quality that must be nuked until there’s nothing left, its just not for me. Some people dig it in their friends and don’t mind much. But it wasn’t just that writer’s slant. You can tell that the writer was filtering that slant from the friends and their interaction with Gilroy, understanding that that was simply his nature.
Of course we gotta have room for mistaken body language, or vocal inflections… but I dunno. It “feels” accurate.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:16 am
I really enjoyed reading the article. Mr. Gilroy is crazy talented.
There are many arrogant people in Hollywood who can barely string a sentence together so I didn’t find his attitude off putting. He’s confident not arrogant.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Is there a link?