John August

Rant

How the hell did I get on this mailing list?

Rant

crossword pajamas[PajamaGram](http://pajamagram.com) sells robes and pajamas — mostly for women, but they have some “cute” couples pajamas that are worth flipping to the back to see. Such as these his-and-hers [crossword pajamas](http://store1.yimg.com/I/pajamagram_1879_25298615).

I ask you: Could anything be better than doing the Sunday crossword puzzle _while wearing crossword pajamas?_

I’ve now gotten three catalogs from this place, and I’m at a loss to figure out why. Yes, I’ve ordered stuff from baby catalogs recently, but having an infant hasn’t led me to swearing off actual clothes. I’m tempted to call and ask to have my name removed from their list, but I fear that it will be the snail-mail equivalent of the spam-reply trap: once they know an address is valid, the volume increases.

So for now, I marvel, then recycle. And try to figure out exactly who’s buying this stuff.

If you see me writing ugly pajamas into a future script, it’ll be our little inside joke.

Race and the screenwriter

Rant

[Craig Mazin](http://artfulwriter.com/archives/2006/01/passing_on_the.html) and [Alex Epstein](http://complicationsensue.blogspot.com/2005/12/diversity-pass.html) both recently tackled a topic that was on my to-blog list. Yes, I keep a list of things I intend to blog. And yes, I tend to just write whatever strikes me at the moment anyway. But since Alex and Craig got to it first, I might as well say what I was going to say.

At issue is whether it’s a good idea for the screenwriter to specify ethnicities for various characters. Alex believes in doing the “diversity pass” to keep his script from being lily-white. Craig feels this is absurd and racist.

Craig is wrong.

But not for the reasons you’d expect. While Craig and I tend to be on different wavelengths politically, he tends to come down on the side of common sense. And I think there’s a very practical matter that’s being overlooked.

Unless it’s important for understanding a story point, I rarely specify a race for a character. But that’s not to say I won’t give some strong hints. I will often make the lieutenant GONZALEZ rather than GOODMAN. The internist is more likely to end up DR. CHO than DR. CHASE. The schoolteacher will be PATEL rather than PETERS.

Is it liberal guilt? No. It’s readability.

Screenplays are read quickly. Unlike a novel, you don’t linger for a few paragraphs getting to know minor characters, setting up their memorable quirks. Rather, you meet them on page 20, then see them again on page 64. As a screenwriter, you want the reader to instantly recall that they’ve encountered a certain character before.

A reader is much more likely to remember an international banker named Abebayehu Tegene than Abe Thompson.

You can debate why this is. Maybe it’s just that the name is more interesting. But in most cases, I think it’s because we’re hard-wired to match race to surnames. We see Abebayehu Tegene and we think, “This character is black. Not only that, he’s probably African.” We form a mental picture of “African banker,” then move on.

With Abe Thompson, the reader has nothing to latch onto. Abe Thompson is just a name.

Note that giving a character an African surname doesn’t remove the burden of actually making this character interesting. If he says more than a few lines, there better be something notable about him independent of race. Both Tegene and Thompson might be condescending snobs who openly mock our hero.

But come page 64, you’ll still remember Tegene over Thompson.

In the real world, what are the implications of implying ethnicities for these characters? As I’ve [noted earlier](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/two-sides-to-the-story), when casting, the assumption tends to be “white unless otherwise specified.” But if you write “Judge Fujimoro” rather than “Judge Foster,” there’s a pretty good chance you’ll end up with a Japanese judge.

You might find that stereotypical, or an example of blatant tokenism, such as the “black lieutenant syndrome” which hit cop shows in the ’90’s. After all, shouldn’t the part go to the best actor, regardless of race?

Yes, in theory. In reality, for a small supporting role, it’s a binary decision. Either the actor is Good Enough or Not Good Enough. If you’re casting a judge in Los Angeles, there’s no question you’ll find plenty of Good Enoughs. It might take an extra 20 minutes to find Japanese Good Enough. To me, it’s time well spent.

Obviously, there’s a lot more that can be written about race and screenwriting. As I noted in an [earlier post](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/the-get-a-mentor-program), the role of Ronna in Go was written as African-American. We ended up casting [Sarah Polley](http://imdb.com/name/nm0001631/), perhaps the whitest Canadian you could find. So was I right to write “Black” in the script? Was I wrong to take it out?

Just as it’s naive to think that making a minor-but-likable character Iraqi will better the world, it’s foolish to assume that leaving a character “race-less” lets the screenwriter off the hook. Readers, including directors, studio executives, and casting directors, will assume that European names belong with white people, and that surgeons are white men in the early 50’s, unless you tell them otherwise.

So I say, make the geophysicist Abdul Kalam. Don’t do it for diversity. Do it for your script.

Fixing broken windows

Rant

Reading David Pogues’s [interview](http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/technology/circuits.html) with Todd Wagner, whose company is releasing movies on DVD the same day they are released in theaters, I was struck by a bit of humility that’s rare among system-buckers:

You know, I could sit here and say, “Oh, this is how it’ll play out. We’ll do this and this and this.” But if there’s one thing I’m certain of, it’s that we don’t know yet. And I wouldn’t wanna lock ourselves in to say, “This is the model.” That, to me, would be as shameful as saying the old model’s right.

For most big movies released in North America, I think going out day-and-date with both the theatrical feature and the DVD would be a mistake. Maybe not a disaster; you could conceivably sell more DVDs because you’re piggybacking on the main advertising campaign. But it would hurt movie theaters. It would confuse DVD buyers. Cows and sheep would start mating.

It would not be good.

But note the condition I put on my prediction: “for most big movies released in North America…”

Here’s the thing: Everywhere else in the world, movies do come out on DVD the same day they go to theaters. The difference is, the DVDs are all pirated.

In St. Petersburg, Beijing and Shanghai, I’ve seen the movies I’ve written for sale on sidewalks. They’re always bootlegs. Sometimes, the packaging is impressibly authentic-looking. Most of the time, it’s a crude Xerox. Either way, it’s how most of the world is going to see these movies.

So I can’t blame Sony or Warner Bros. for releasing films with a shorter and shorter time window between the theatrical release and the DVD. If I were running a studio, I’d make the cheapest DVD I could for China, and flood the market with it the first day it’s released anywhere in the world. Better to make fifty cents per DVD than nothing.

Also, the logic of theatrical versus DVD windows breaks down when it comes to very small movies, which never end up playing in much of the country. A film like [Me and You and Everyone We Know](http://imdb.com/title/tt0415978/) will never make it to Wichita, despite good reviews and a fair chunk of publicity. So there’s a fair argument for putting out the DVD right away, or offering it on pay-per-view.

Would this hurt the tiny arthouse theaters? Probably. But maybe not as much as the free screener tapes almost everyone in Hollywood gets around awards season. (To date, I’ve gotten three, but more are coming.) In the interview, Wagner explains a profit-sharing idea that would help the little theaters, which are under increasing pressure from the 30-plexes anyway.

Of course, for movie-goers the issue isn’t financial, but emotional. There’s something intangibly awesome about seeing a great movie on opening day with a packed house. The worry is that if DVDs come out too soon after release, movie theaters will go away. I doubt that. We still have packed stadiums for football games, even though they’re all televised. As long as people want to be part of a shared experience, as long as THX sound makes the seats rumble, as long as teenagers want to get away from their parents, there will be movie theaters.

To reiterate, I think releasing a film like [Charlie and the Chocolate Factory](http://imdb.com/title/tt0367594/) on DVD the same day it goes in theaters would be a Bad Thing, both financially and creatively. But knee-jerk panic over shrinking video windows is unwarranted. The goal of a release should be getting the film in front of the greatest number of viewers (paid viewers, ideally). If we need to tinker with the model to do that, so be it.

About a boot

Rant

Several readers, presumably Canadian readers, have [written in](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/on-accents#comments) to complain that they do not say “a boot” for “about,” and that I have my head up my ass.

So let me clarify.

“A boot” is a comedic exaggeration, the same way Europeans trying to sound American end up channeling John Wayne or De Niro.

Very few Canadians confuse their adverbs and footwear. It’s altogether possible that your “ow” sounds are created deeper in your mouths, just like Americans. But based on my experience casting two television shows with professional actors who have training in “sounding American,” there is a notable difference in words like “out,” “about,” and “house.” So much so that I’ll rewrite dialogue to avoid those words if possible.

Here’s where you need to climb off my ass.

1. Just because I say something is different, doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s wrong. There’s nothing “right” about the various American accents. But if a character is supposed to be from a specific place in the U.S., his accent should reflect that.

2. Yes, Canada is a big country. Vancouver doesn’t sound exactly like Toronto. But Vancouver doesn’t sound exactly like Seattle, either, and they’re a lot closer.

3. Just because you can’t hear your accent, doesn’t mean you don’t have one. This more than anything infuriates me.

I grew up in the American Midwest. That’s my accent. I can’t really hear it, partly because American newscasters are trained to emulate this accent. You can hear a sample of it [here](http://www.ku.edu/~idea/northamerica/usa/kansas/kansas.htm). I sound pretty much like Kansas One, except that I’m older (35) and my voice is deeper.

[Click here](http://www.ku.edu/~idea/northamerica/canada/ontario/ontario1.mp3) to listen to a speaker from Toronto. About a third of way into the recording, she says, “You have that in, what, Michigan? That’s part of what’s weird about being in Canada.”

The “about” is what I’m talking about.

For “sorry,” try [this recording](http://www.ku.edu/~idea/northamerica/canada/ontario/ontario2.mp3), also from Ontario: “Sarah was sentimental, so this made her feel sorry for the beautiful bird.” Compare the same sentence in the [Southern California](http://www.ku.edu/~idea/northamerica/usa/california/california4.mp3) recording.

Just so it’s said: I love Canada. You’ve got national health care, seasons, and gay marriage. Your film crews are friendly, and in Toronto, they feed a hot meal (a “substantial”) three hours after call. So don’t take my observations as criticisms. To a lot of the world, “not sounding American” is a compliment.