Chick Lit is not Rom Com

Today, I got a stroke of luck in getting to read chick lit, which I always enjoy, no matter if it is good. Chick lit is mostly beach reading for women, usually about harried mothers, or a frumpy woman who wants to marry a prince, or a sexy woman having money troubles because she is flighty. They are often written by magazine editors or contributors, so they know how to engage their readers quickly. The covers are always colorful, featuring disembodied cartoon body parts, diamonds, high heels, skinny jeans, or martini glasses, and there tend to be jokes inside about how the characters’ lives are just like “The Hills”, except not at all – no kidding, that cliché is used A LOT in chick lit, usually in the first chapter, as an ice breaker and mood-setter; I’m not complaining.

Obviously, the tone is very light, which is pleasant for a reader, and the font is usually big or generously spaced. Ahhhhh. Maybe the reason so many of them are adapted to film is because execs and readers don’t mind reading them. Oddly, I read almost none of these kinds of stories that originated in script form. I guess chick lit's closest genre would be Romantic Comedy, but chick lit is generally more about lifestyle than romance, and they are free from the truly exhausting formula that has, virtually without exception, taken over the Rom Com genre.

SEX & THE CITY 2 comes to mind as a chick lit movie. Say what you will about it – I’m gonna say plenty at some point (dying to see it) – it’ll probably be a huge hit. But it was based on a TV show, which was based on a chick lit book. Why is no one writing original “chick lit” screenplays? I know plenty go to Lifetime and ABC Family, but PRIVATE BENJAMIN, OVERBOARD, and ROMANCING THE STONE could have worked as earthy chick lit, and audiences loved them so much theatrically that they’re all headed for remakes. Still, where are the original chick lit movies? Why doesn’t Hollywood make original, theatrical, not primarily romantic comedy films about women, for women? 

Chuckleheads?

The other day, I read a script by a writing team whose movies are not only bad, they but are anticipated far ahead of time by my friends, with whom I have Bad Movie Night, which is exactly what it sounds like. BMN has watched all the movies by this pair of writers I’m talking about (not knowing the movies had the same writers), and most of you probably haven’t watched any of them, so make what you will of that. Naturally, it was shocking to find the script to be hysterical. It was one of those one wild night comedies (trend alert: there has been a rash of these since THE HANGOVER), and didn’t have much original to add to the formula, but the dialogue was really funny and the details were modern without being desperate, neither of which was expected from these guys. What I was really impressed with, though, was how easy the writing felt, even though the story was pretty complex. 

So often I read scripts where you can feel the writers are trying so hard, and have rewritten so much, and are passing off an impression of a movie, rather than that they are naturally writers – even the pros. That isn't so much an insult to other writers as a kudos to these guys, because screenwriting isn't a natural form. Yet these writers, who I would have thought would be a couple of chucklehead hacks, made it seem easy to have every line of dialogue or direction be compelling, to twist the plot and characters, to have a theme, with no airs of being artists or skilled craftsmen, just goof-offs having fun writing together. (I've read my fair share of goofball writing duos, but the scripts usually feel like hanging out with drunk people when you're not drunk. Or like someone threw water in a drunk's face and combed his hair to futilely try to make him appear sober.) I didn't feel like these writers  troubled themselves at all to tweak every phrase or joke, but it came off as if they were naturally hysterical people. Who is that carefree about screenwriting? Regardless of how their movies end up once they reach theaters, and regardless of how hard they actually worked on this script, these guys are naturally writers, and it should be disturbing to us all how rarely I think that while I’m reading.

Please don't think I haven't read enough comedy. I've read THE HANGOVER guys' work, I've read Ganz & Mandel, I've read Apatow, and I'm not saying they don't have natural ability - they obviously do - or that their scripts aren't better than than the script in question - they undoubtedly are. There is far more to screenwriting than just how naturally well you write. In fact, I'd almost wager that people to whom writing comes so naturally have a harder time coming up with fresh stories, because they don't have to spend that much time thinking and agonizing to knock out something that is entertaining when you read it. Nevertheless, since I do agonize when I write, I'm in awe of these guys who can do it so easily. 

Breaking the Silence

“Breaking Bad” is the only show for which I have ever demanded complete silence. I’m hooked on a lot, including obsess-able “True Blood”, but I’m going to finally admit to myself and others that “Breaking Bad” is the best show on TV. I only started watching the show because of the big advertising push before the new season for this supposedly great show I didn’t know existed. I like to have re-runs of a TV show loaded up on the Tivo for an impromptu marathon in an off-season, so I chose “Breaking Bad”, with the expectation that I would probably cancel the Season Pass after an episode or two, when I could say I was no longer oblivious about its existence, and, if it became a huge hit, wouldn’t kick myself if I had never given it a shot. I didn’t have high hopes, because people have a tendency to exaggerate the quality of “gritty” material, and I couldn’t care less about drug dealer stories, despite having seen plenty of great ones. Also, I’ve been aware of Aaron Paul for years – WHATEVER IT TAKES with James Franco always stands out in my mental resume for him, but I’ve seen him even in a UCLA short film – and I’ve honestly never been a big fan. Dean Norris, playing Hank here, has been around for years without sparking my attention – I recently caught him (with hair) in the background of LETHAL WEAPON 2. Bryan Cranston had a Clark Griswold intensity that I enjoyed on “Malcolm in the Middle”, but I certainly wasn’t endeared enough to him to watch something just because of him. Cranston’s character Walter White having cancer and a son with Cerebral Palsy were groaners too, and I braced myself for the sentimentality. I think I intended to fold laundry during the pilot episode.

After episode one’s half-naked RV car chase bookends, and the catchy concept of a chemistry teacher becoming a meth manufacturer, partnered up with one of his worst former students, I did not cancel the Season Pass. But after the acid-body-bathtub incident, the drug dealer hostage, goofy Badger’s arrest, Combo’s murder, and crazy Tuco?! I started filling in anyone who would stand still on all of the developments and how they had to start watching now. Since El Tortuga (Danny Trejo buying turtle tchochkes out of Sky Mall Magazine on the DEA’s bill), Gus (you better be able to hear a pin drop in my house when “the Chicken Man” is onscreen), Saul Goodman, and Saul Goodman’s Hall of Presidents-esque office décor (as a general rule, if Bob Oedenkirk has even grabbed a bagel on the set of a show, you should be watching it; see “Arrested Development”, “Curb Your Enthusiasm” and “Tim & Eric Awesome Show, Great Job”), I’ve found I have to save up episodes again for mini-marathons, because I can’t be expected to wait a week between new installments; I’d rather wait four weeks at a time and gorge on it.

The tone can seem a little dour and slow in passing, but it is only so you are blown off your seat whenever the cartel shows up. Feels like years since I’ve seen so many genuine bad asses, most of them silent, and I mourn the state of film for not having the restraint for action sequences like those on “Breaking Bad” – I had to rewatch the showdown between Hank and the scary cartel brothers three times. Not to sound like an old codger, but most modern movies would have used a scratchy, colored filter, crazy editing, and loud whooshing sounds, and I wouldn’t have had a clue what was happening, destroying any suspense. Instead, the scene played out almost silently, except for essential sounds and an ominous hum toward the end, or maybe that was my racing heart. Silence is important on “Breaking Bad”. Sometimes, the most intense moment of an episode for me is just Mr. White or Gus responding to some affront with silence, because inside, I’m saying, “Uh oh.” (Actually, lately, I’ve been shaking my fists at the TV, pacing, and screaming “yes!” or “no!” – I’m past the dignity of internal monologue for this show.) Those two quiet, stuffy, bald guys’s intelligence and caution are just as sharp and scary as the cartel hitmen’s axes.

Still, as with most TV, the characters are the real appeal. Initially, I was attached to Mr. White’s chemistry superhero quality, and then to how he was discovering power he didn’t know he had, appreciating how a lifeless, strict chemistry teacher really could be a formidable enemy. I wanted him to outsmart bearish, good old boy Hank, who acted so superior. Now, I see that Hank, deep down, is a sensitive, good guy, who does what he thinks is right, always helping others, despite an exterior attitude that can be off-putting, but really comes with the territory of his job. Conversely, Mr. White has the air of sensitivity, meekness and doing the right thing, but is deep down a bad, bad, selfish man. And lately, he’s been acting a little cocky and sloppy, which can only lead t more blissful hours of television for me. As much as Mr. White may be among my favorite characters of all time, in the showdown between Hank and Mr. White that has to be the series’s climax, however long it ends up running, I recently decided that I want Hank to win. The same is true for their wives, who are sisters. I didn’t like kleptomantiac Marie (that character quirk seems to have disappeared), and felt bad for Walt’s wife Skyler for having to deal with all these crazies. Now, I see that Skyler is as much of a selfish bad ass as Walt, and therefore his rightful match, regardless of whether they stay together. Walt, Jr.’s Cerebral Palsy isn’t even a factor except that we want to pat him on the back for putting up with all these adults who are so much more confused and conflicted than he is when he has much more of a right. I not only appreciate Aaron Paul’s talent now, but I am painfully compassionate toward his hapless character, who can’t help but throw a “bitch” onto the end of everything he says out of insecurity, and who mostly hates Mr. White, but has nothing else and needs his approval.

 “Breaking Bad”’s rarest quality is its symbolism; you don’t see much of that in television. Never will you have seen so many bald guys, baldness being a symbol for simultaneous weakness and humanity (when caused by cancer) and raw danger (when part of a drug lord’s style); in one symbol, we get the entire emotional brew of “Breaking Bad”. It doesn’t hurt the show’s rich symbolism that the cartel is all about sending overtly symbolic messages. Aside from baldness, my favorite trend is brothers. The cartel hitmen are brothers, Gus’s chicken restaurant is Los Pollo Hermanos, and the motif is leading up to the main point that secret enemies Hank and Walt are brothers-in-law – feel free to add some meaning to the “law” part of that term too, if you like.

I have failed to get any immediate friends or family to make the effort to get hooked on this show, despite their trust in my enthusiasm, and I’ve figured out why. They’ll watch an episode here, a scene or so there, but that’s not how you do it. It needs to be treated like a movie, not a show, as it follows more rules of the former than the latter. Buy or rent the series on DVD, Tivo as many episodes as you can, and only when you have enough to make a day disappear, should you start watching... in silence. Otherwise, it’s like thinking you’ve watched quiet, intense movies like THE SHINING, or THE GODFATHER, PART II when you were doing dishes and talking on the phone during them. True to the nature of its hero, Mr. White, you must respect “Breaking Bad”’s chemistry (and keep Funions out of the RV). 

Check It Out! with Dr. Steve Brule

Last night, I got an urgent e-mail from the friend who introduced me to Tim and Eric, saying that Check It Out! with Dr. Steve Brule was premiering in a few hours, and I didn't even know it existed. I certainly didn't know what to expect, and yet, I think I got it, but that it wasn't exactly what I wanted. Tim and Eric's shows can only really be reviewed in intuitive, mush-mouthed, double-speak, because they don't follow any story or comedy rules at all. For that reason, after a long day of script reading, or after a string of lackluster shows or movies, Tim and Eric is all I can bear to watch.

I'm a big fan of "Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!", have watched their online talk show in its entirety, have downloaded special appearances they've made, very nearly went to editor DJ Dougg Pound's garage sale, and have seen their live show. That show's crowd was disturbingly comprised of mostly urban professionals, which I can only assume was due to Tim and Eric's TV show now being littered with famous guest stars, like Will Forte, Jonah Hill, John Mayer, David Cross, Michael Cera, Fred Armisen, Zach Galifianakis, Jeff Goldblum, Patrick Duffy, Tom Skerritt, Ben Stiller, William Sanderson, Karen Black, John C. Reilly, who has played Dr. Steve Brule for years, and many more. I've also started seeing more of Tim and Eric in individual projects, like Tim on "The Sarah Silverman Show" and Eric directing music videos. I don't mind them any way I can get them, but I like them best when they're just Tim and Eric, alone on their own fifteen minute show.

The reason that live show's demographic shocked me is that Tim and Eric's show can't possibly be reaching that sort of person and not my hipster friends from college with whom I used to watch "Tenacious D" and listen to Wesley Willis. The sketch show is mostly cast with a stable of found "talent" that would be the most memorable actors at any public casting call, for exactly the reason they would never get cast. I could wager some are homeless, or were found in passing on the street, but who knows. I assumed DJ Dougg Pound was a random weirdo cousin of theirs until I saw him at the live show and realized he could be the genius behind the whole thing. So now I have no idea if everyone on the show is doing a method character, or if they are what they seem to be. They've got their own language (Pep-Pep, Chippy, spaghett), their own inventions (the "Cinco" lines feel like the hand of producer Bob Oedenkirk, whose "Mr. Show" had a similar, but tamer omnipresent corporation), and their own interests (gross-out, bodily humor lately, but outdated technology is a constant, as are Comic Relief star impersonators and improperly preserved meats). Every few episodes, I find myself entertained purely by trying to figure out how they decided that any of their ideas should be filmed, or what reaction they're looking for. And yet, it always makes perfect sense when one sketch goes on too long, is too stilted, or just makes no sense, and the image shifts to a black and white freeze frame with a sarcastic "Great Job!" stamp. The show doesn't get attention from critics, possibly because Tim and Eric won't explain themselves to prevent destroying the comedic mystery, or because it is hard to write and support an argument for something that can only be judged with the gut, like David Lynch movies (Tim and Eric went through a very big Lynchian phase awhile back that blew my mind), except that it is even tougher with comedy. Plus, at this point, as may be evident from my attempt to explain Tim and Eric, its a deep universe they've built by now; maybe it isn't that easy to join late in the game.

John C. Reilly's Dr. Steve Brule never (well, maybe once) got the "Great Job!" stamp. That he fits right in with their troupe of possibly real, middle-aged-and-up misfits is a testament to what a great actor he is. Unfortunately, I don't think any of Tim and Eric's other characters could entirely carry their own show, so I'm not sure Brule can either, no matter how good John C. Reilly is. The first episode made me laugh a lot and I've already used the term "cat scraps" a few times today, but I'm worried about a lack of their signature unpredictability in a one character show. At the end, I wished they completely switched it up like they did between "Tom Goes to the Mayor" and "Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!" and made a Dr. Steve Brule sitcom, though they kind of did that with their sketch series with Zach Galifianakis, "Just Three Boys". However, there is the possibility that I am an urban professional just like the crowd I found myself in at the live show, and people working in the film industry get and need what "Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!" gives. For that reason, the tamer "Check It Out! with Dr. Steve Brule" may ironically reach wild youths and make them famous. Or, like everything else they do, the new Brule show will just take a few episodes to get loose and then go nuts.

Storyselling

I used to have a blog called nilblogette, which was mostly reviews and descriptions of old, rare, or bad movies, but I let it fall the wayside as I got more involved in work. I've grown up a little since then, or maybe I'm just guiltier about having down-time, and I spend less time thinking about movies no one has seen and more time thinking about those closer to the mainstream. For instance, nowadays, the horror movies I tend to throw on constantly are JAWS, POLTERGEIST and THE SHINING, rather than THE TENANT, SUSPIRIA, and SSSSSS. For a long time, I've been missing having an outlet for my musings, especially ones about scripts, writing, the entertainment industry, and being a script reader, which I never really discussed on nilblogette, and, in light of that, I've finally decided it is okay to have a new blog - I'd call it a sequel, rather than a remake or a re-imagining.

I've been fond of the idea of Storyselling for awhile now. Industry people love to go on about the importance of "story", because it makes them sound sensitive and artistic. That Q&A auto-response makes screenwriters put all their emphasis on it, despite the fact that no one is too specific about what "story" is, or that what reaches screens tends to have almost nothing to do with "story" and everything to do with selling. Whether I'm reading for new writers or the tops of the industry, I find myself primarily noting that a script has too much story or too much selling, and my job tends to be telling people how to find a better balance between the two. Storyselling obviously isn't a new idea, just a new word.

I really do believe both story and selling are important - I'm not just shining on my employers. I hate reading, or seeing, movies where every line was chosen for its dollar value, which makes most modern films feel like expensive slop buckets, though that can be fun, as long they don't actually make money or garner prestige. But I also hate reading or watching movies that play like diary entries, when I feel like the artist believes the audience should be there for him more than he is there for the audience.

That said, my personal favorite movies tend to be mixed bags, and I've often said that two-and-a-half star movies are the best ones, knowing full-well I'm hyperbolizing. Two-and-a-half star movies tend to be the ones that critics don't know what to do with - they are either a cheap concept executed impressively well, or a prestigious concept or filmmaker executing with too much edge or cheese, because the mismatch makes me think. In the absence of complete originality on every level, which almost never happens, I'll take a movie that's hard to label, but has some good elements. Those tend to be my favorite scripts to read too, even if I can't fully recommend them, because there is a lot more to analyze than with a script that is entirely good or bad.

The ideas of Storyselling and two-and-a-half-stars describe my sensibility about pretty much everything. Nilblogette was proudly a two-and-a-half-star blog, and this one surely will be too, but of an inverse sort. Nilblogette was deeply niche, given to more academic analysis than the subject matter probably deserved, yet interested in chasing hits and becoming a semi-popular blog, just to see if it could. (I'm pretty over movies that behave that way.) I imagine Storyselling will have more mainstream subject matter, presented with more edge or cheese than is typical, and not too concerned with readership. (I'm now mostly into movies like that, if only because I'm 29 and am getting ever lamer as I approach 30.) Nevertheless, most people will probably check in for tidbits from a longtime agency script reader, and that's perfectly fine too. I've just saved them the trouble with this post of having to guess at my bias and tastes.