John August

Rant

I voted

Rant

voting stickerThis past week, I trekked down to Norwalk for [early voting](http://www.lavote.net/VOTER/PDFS/EARLY_VOTING_INFO.pdf). I hadn’t originally planned to, but I kept envisioning getting hit by a car on my way to the polls, and watching the returns from a hospital room with two broken legs, despondent that I missed my chance at exercising my democratic right, and exorcising a democratic wrong.

It will shock exactly no one that I voted for Obama. Twenty months ago, I attended an early fundraiser for his campaign, and left with guarded optimism. “Wouldn’t it be great if..?” was how I spoke of his candidacy, trying to imagine a president who would inspire rather than infuriate. At every step, I tried to temper my hopes and brace for disappointment. But I was constantly surprised by the intelligence behind the eloquence, and the consistency of message and tone he maintained over a ridiculously long trial. It was a great pleasure to ink the dot beside his name.

While the presidential campaign has been going on since the Pleistocene, the more recent and urgent issue in California is Proposition 8, a ballot measure that would take away my marriage by amending the California constitution. I’ve written about it before, particularly in [Off-Topic](http://johnaugust.tumblr.com), and have had a virtual yard sign on the sidebar for months.

On Saturday, I sent a long email to friends and colleagues making sure they understood how urgent it was that this ballot issue be defeated. While only Californians can vote on this proposition, the impact will no doubt be felt nationally and beyond. So in that spirit, I’m reprinting my letter here. I know that a huge portion of the readership lives outside the state — and nearly a quarter of readers are overseas — but if it helps a few voters understand what’s at stake, that’s something.

We’re ten days away from the election.

Which seems as impossible as it is welcome. Can you even remember a time when the news wasn’t dominated by election coverage? What did we talk about? What did we do? I look forward to rediscovering it all on November 5th.

In all the non-stop coverage of the candidates and their foibles, a tremendously dangerous ballot initiative has gotten much less attention than it deserves:

__Proposition 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.__

Mike and I got married on June 28th. We want to remain married on November 5th. And without your help, we won’t.

[Read more…] about I voted

The purpose of drama, and its relationship to Cameron Diaz’s ass

Film Industry, QandA, Rant, Story and Plot

Matías from Mallorca, Spain writes in:

I’d really like you to comment on these thoughts by David Mamet:

“People have tried for centuries to use drama to change people’s lives, to influence, to comment, to express themselves. It doesn’t work. It might be nice if it worked for those things, but it doesn’t. The only thing the dramatic form is good for is telling a story.”

I haven’t read Mamet’s full essay on “Countercultural Architecture and Dramatic Structure,” ((It’s apparently also in On Directing Film.)) but through the wonders of Google Book Search, I was able to look at the [quote in context](http://books.google.com/books?id=W7HdXRCLcoIC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=drama+to+change+people’s+lives,+to+influence,+to+comment&source=web&ots=LLNGLm-aRJ&sig=z_VLT3K-5jjyfxEBaRVo2g_VrSc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA224,M1) ((Page 224 may no be included in the Google Books preview.)). It’s part of a meandering rant, and not the key thesis of his essay. So I feel safe disassembling it without challenging the authority of a revered playwright.

He doesn’t detail his logic behind why drama doesn’t work for those four specific purposes, but it’s part of a larger criticism of how filmmakers spend too much energy making “statements” and too little effort on making movies. And fair enough.

I don’t have evidence to argue that drama can change people’s lives. I know it can affect them; I’ve got a folder full of emails about Big Fish. But “changing someone’s life” implies a marked and permanent alteration, and given my limited sample size (myself), I haven’t found that any drama has necessarily done that.

Can drama influence or comment? Certainly. We often think of comedy as the preferred means of making a social or political observation (Bulworth, 9 to 5, Borat), but there’s a long history of issue-oriented dramas, many of them top-tier (Reds, Traffic, Hotel Rwanda).

Can writers use drama to express themselves? Well, yes, obviously. Most artistic works, from graffiti to haiku, can be considered self-expression — though to my thinking, anyone who defends his work as self-expression is very likely a hack.

There’s no question that you can write a movie about [how shitty your parents were](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439289/). Mamet isn’t really denying that. He’s saying drama isn’t good for this purpose, the same way you can pound a nail in with a wrench, but it’s not the ideal tool. Maybe drama, with its demands of plot and tension and resolution, is not particularly well-suited to a lot of the tasks put before it.

Ultimately, I agree with his point if not his conviction. The foremost purpose of a movie should be the story itself. If a secondary purpose (such as social commentary, or “telling my journey”) weakens the story, you’ve weakened the movie.

I know this is high talk coming from a guy who co-wrote Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle. But that trainwreck is actually a perfect example of how a movie collapses when nearly every element (wardrobe, choreography, wire-fu) is allowed to trump story. ((If you’re bored and curious, the DVD commentary between me and The Wibberleys is an amusing dissection of how Full Throttle got so messed up.))

WRITER

Why don’t the Angels just sneak onto the boat?

DIRECTOR

We need a striptease number.

WRITER

But what are they doing?

DIRECTOR

It’s going to be sexy -- lace stockings, riding crops and...

WRITER

But why are the Angels doing it?

DIRECTOR

I dunno. They need to get something. Think of something they need to get. You’re the writer.

(Repeat 149 times.)

What Mamet is arguing is that even high-minded goals like social commentary ultimately become Cameron Diaz’s swirling ass — attractive distractions that ultimately lessen a movie. And he’s got a point.

Lessons of the summer, so far

Adaptation, Rant, Rave

Between deadlines, travel and wedding plans, I haven’t had the chance to blog about this first batch of summer movies, and more importantly, What We Can Learn. So before I get any further behind, let’s pick three of the most notable films to date.

(Mild spoiler warnings throughout.)

Heroes are more important than villains
—

Iron Man spent 85% of its storytelling energy on Tony Stark. It had the requisite set pieces, all of which were well-staged, but for an action movie it didn’t really break new ground. Where it succeeded was in creating a funny, flawed hero who propelled the story by his own ambitions. He wasn’t just responding to outside threats.

Did the villain get short-changed? Yes — to the degree that his motivations didn’t really make sense. Did it matter? Not much. In order to better establish the villain, we would have needed to spend more time away from Stark, which would have been counter-productive.

*The lesson: There’s no equal-time rule for antagonists.*

Leo ex machina
—

Price Caspian featured a terrific and surprising defeat at the movie’s mid-point, which gave me hope that the movie would transcend its kid-lit roots. But when another lengthy battle sequence ((I call shenanigans on that PG rating. It may be the most violent “family” movie ever.)) also ended on the south side of success, my worst fears were confirmed: the fricken lion suddenly showed up to save them. And teach them humility. Or something.

Yes, I know: it’s a Christian parable. But that doesn’t make it any less maddening. If it weren’t based on a famous book, no screenwriter would ever get away with that ending.

*The lesson: Let your heroes succeed or fail on their own merits.* ((And without interference by supernatural beings who could have shown up in the first reel, sparing a few hundred lives. Thanks.))

Why is he doing that?
—

I don’t want to pile on the Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull hate-parade. But beyond the tonal issues, I was often at a loss to say why Indy was doing what he was doing. Is he trying to take the crystal skull *to* the cave, or keep it *out of* the cave? Does he think Mac is a traitor, an ally, or not really care one way or the other? (Sadly, I think the last option is probably correct.)

It’s this kind of granular motivation I’ve [written about before](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2008/rethinking-motivation). It’s not psychoanalysis. It’s making sure the audience understands what’s happening in any given moment, so they can anticipate what might happen next. Without this ability to anticipate, the audience is just flung around helplessly, wondering why the great Indiana Jones is just standing there watching special effects.

*The lesson: Every scene, every moment, ask the question: What is my hero doing, and why? If it’s not obvious, stop and rethink it.*

How not to choose a movie title

How-To, Projects, Rant

I’ve written about the importance of [a good title](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/a-movie-by-any-other-name) before. A great script with a crappy title faces an uphill battle. That’s why I always make sure I have a title I like before I type “FADE IN,” even if I later change my mind. ((I never really had a title for that zombie western, which I should point out, never sold. Readers had [great suggestions](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/a-movie-by-any-other-name#comments), though.))

So yes, I’d pay for a great title. Today’s [LA Times article](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-titles12-2008may12,0,6148790.story) about companies that consult on movie titles sounded promising, until…

> Last summer, Lockhart and Barrie tried to persuade Sony to change the title of “Hancock,” a big-budget action comedy starring Will Smith as an alcoholic superhero known as John Hancock. They told studio executives they thought the current title was vague and pitched alternatives such as “Heroes Never Die,” “Unlikely Hero” and “Less Than Hero.”

There’s spit-balling, and then there’s just spitting. I’d rather have an inscrutable one-word name than any of those crappy alternatives.

I helped out on that movie as it was transitioning from “Tonight, He Comes” to “Tonight He Comes” — the removal of the comma helped soften the double-entrendre. But by the wrap party, it was simply “Hancock,” which serves it well. ((One added advantage of a single-word title is that it requires no translation for international audiences. Except in Germany, where Go is called “Go! Sex, Drugs & Rave’N’Roll.” Shudder.))

By the way, the Josh Friedman who wrote the [LA Times article](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/a-movie-by-any-other-name#comments) is not the [Sarah-Connor-Chronicling neighbor](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0295264/) and [erstwhile blogger](http://hucksblog.blogspot.com/).