I’ve chosen to publish my short film Modern Prometheus on OpenFilm. Please, enjoy the film and, perhaps, when you’re done suggest it for distribution on Boxee, TiVo, HCC TV, and/or Miniweb. It’s easy, just follow those links, click the “Suggest a film” button and enter: http://www.openfilm.com/videos/modern-prometheus into the URL.

Also, please feel free to visit the Modern Prometheus’ OpenFilm Page and leave comments, favorite it, or just share it with others.

Lower East Side, Manhattan is a short I put together last week after coming across this footage that I shot in the Lower East Side. I’ve had it lying around for about a year now. I originally shot it for a project Audacia Ray was working on and kept a copy for myself for future use. I kept finding it on my harddrive and saying “oh, I should do something with this soon,” and then promptly forgetting it was there again. This passed weekend I remembered it and decided I’d edit together something very short and this is the result. Music is by Kevin Macleod.

As I stated in my review one of my problems with Inception was the flatness of the characters. With the exception of Leonardo DiCaprio’s Cobb none of the characters has much depth or acts as much more than the role they fill in the heist film’s plot. While this is true of male and female characters alike in the film, the very few women in the film are even less fleshed out than the men.

Before diving too far into my thoughts on this, I’d like to acknowledge that there may be an in story reason for the thinness of the characters and that should that be the view you take there is a reasonable explanation for the lack of character depth. The film takes place in dreams and the mind of the main character in particular is where a lot of action takes place. It’s possible that these characters aren’t any more than agents of his subconscious a theory at least partially advanced by the film. Even if that is the case, though, the female characters are still not as well fleshed out as the male characters in the film.

I don’t want to approach the issue of poor female characterization from a political standpoint or a social standpoint. Those are perspectives that I think should both be used to evaluate this issue of the film but are not necessarily the approach I intend to take. This is mostly because I feel there are those better qualified to discuss these issues than I am. Also, I’m a screenwriter and as such I want to consider the issues from the perspective of writing and good writing versus bad writing.

That I want to consider this from a good writing versus bad writing perspective is not to say that Inception is poorly written. Inception is very well written. It’s an excellent movie. That doesn’t mean there aren’t areas it fails in.

The particular area Inception fails in is the depiction of female characters. A depiction consistent in at least two other Christopher Nolan films, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. In these three films the female characters serve more as devices of plot and exposition than as fully realized characters. In Nolan’s Batman films I’m referring to the only female character Rachel Dawes, played by Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal. In Inception there are only two female characters Ariadne, played by Ellen Page, and Mal, played by Marion Cotillard.

None of these characters is given much by way of back story beyond their relation to the male lead. For Rachel Dawes it’s her relationships with Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent that define her character. For Ariadne and Mal it’s their relationship to DiCaprio’s Cobb that define their characters. This is true of other male characters in these films but the main difference is that many of those characters get action and goals of their own while these three characters don’t.

Rachel Dawes and Ariadne are functionally the same character. They both serve as a confidant and conscience for the male lead. This is fine and it allows for appropriate execution of exposition and realizing internal conflict externally but the problem is that they serve no other purpose. No other action is given to them. Rachel Dawes even loses this function by the time of The Dark Knight and becomes a plot point to drive the main characters action to the climax of the film.

Neither Ariadne nor Rachel Dawes seem to want anything beyond helping the main character in their respective films. Why, in Inception, does Ariadne choose to join the team in their heist? For the thrill of entering dreams and manipulating the dream world? Being a thrill seeker isn’t established. At most she’s established as being adept at spatial thinking and puzzles. Perhaps that’s her motivation for joining and yet this is glossed over, because her character isn’t there for that. She’s there to give us insight into Cobb as she learns more about him and to voice concerns about his mental well being. It’s an important role but it’s the entire purpose her character serves. She doesn’t want anything. What she’s getting from joining the heist isn’t well stated.

Mal in Inception is different and there is a temptation to say that since she is literally a part of the lead character’s mind in the film and since it is explicitly stated she doesn’t represent very well what the real Mal, Cobb’s dead wife, was like that it’s okay she’s a little flat. She needed to be more than a plot device. She needed to serve as more than backstory exposition.

This might not be so bad if these weren’t the only female characters in these particular films. They are, though, and as such, to a certain extent, they serve to represent all women in their film world. In these films women are supports for men and not whole people in and of themselves. They don’t have needs and wants beyond the male characters and this is just bad writing.

It’s bad writing, because all characters should want something. They should all be fleshed out to be at least a little more than their function of the plot. The needs and wants of characters is what should bring them into conflict with the other characters. Otherwise, when that conflict occurs it comes off as out of place or things seem to be happening for no reason. I like to think of each character living within their own movie. We’re all the heroes of our own story, what story is this character the hero of? It seems to me that thinking about characters as living their own movie can help to flesh them out better in the writing process.

For me this lack of characterization that particularly effects the female characters of Inception prevents the film from distinguishing itself as a great film. It’s an excellent film, yes, but it is seriously lacking when it comes to this characterization and that hurts it.

For Inception I tried a little experiment. I knew from what little I’d initially heard that I wanted to see the film, it sounded intriguing and that there was a suggestion that there would be some kind of twist. I decided, after initially hearing about the film, that I would do everything I could to see it as fresh as possible. I wanted to go in with as few pre-conceived notions about the film as I could. So, I avoided learning about the plot. I did what I could to ignore trailers, to the point where I actually left the room one time when it came on the television while visiting with a friend. I didn’t want to know anything. I just wanted the film to be what it was and not let what I thought it was going to be color my watching of it. I was successful in my effort.

Going in to see Inception on Friday night I knew that the film was a sort of crime caper, probably a heist movie, and it took place within someone’s mind. I let other people’s talk about the movie go in one ear and out the other. I skimmed past any but the vaguest mentions of the film in my twitter feed. I read no reviews and wouldn’t even read news items online even tangentially related to the movie. Other than Leonardo DiCaprio, I wasn’t even sure who was in the movie.

Avoiding news about a film you know you want to see, particularly a big budget summer film like Inception is difficult. Trailers show up everywhere. In New York, where I live, Inception posters are at every subway stop. Sometimes two or three posters for the film at the same stop. Every website under the sun is writing about the film in some way or another. Not knowing what the movie is about takes a bit of effort.

I started avoiding a lot of detail about the movies I wanted to see in 2009. I decided to do it, because I had heard so much about The Dark Knight before seeing it opening night, that I had been a little disappointed the first time I’d seen it, and there were other movies before and after that I’d learned a lot about before seeing and I started to feel like it was knowing too much that was spoiling my enjoyment. So, I decided to do myself a favor and not learn too much about movies I intended to see before I went to see them. I just wanted to learn enough to know whether or not I wanted to see it.

Not that I think this is for everyone or that I’ve been that consistent about my avoidance. I feel like I knew a lot about Iron Man 2 before going to see it. Some people want to know all the details before they go in and that’s fine for them. I feel like I’m enjoying films a lot more by being mostly ignorant of their content before seeing them.

In fact, two of my favorite films of last year were films I knew very little about before seeing them. Moon was my favorite film of 2009 and seeing it on DVD the only thing I knew was there were a lot of people who loved it, Sam Rockwell was in it, and it was about an astronaut alone on the moon. When I saw Bronson I’d decided to go to the movies and see something independent. Walking up to the ticket counter at Angelika Film Center two movies were about to start Bronson and Black Dynamite, neither of which I knew much about beyond the brief descriptions of the plot I read. Bronson was what I saw that day and I loved it. Black Dynamite I saw some months later on DVD, still not knowing much about it, and I loved that movie as well.

I feel that a movie like Inception with its twists and mind-bending action benefits from a fresh viewing in particular. It’s a familiar movie, as I say in my review, it’s a straightforward heist plot, in an unfamiliar playing field. Not knowing details let the movie build its own world for me and set its rules. I gave it a blank slate to fill and it did so quite well.

This is Part Two of three posts I have planned for this week about Inception. Come back tomorrow for my thoughts on seeing Inception’s female characters.

Friday night I saw Christopher Nolan’s new film, Inception, with the nice folks at Boiling Sky Film Group. Inception was an interesting film that approaches some questions about the nature of what is real without belaboring the philosophical point. It manages to be a fun caper of the Ocean’s 11 variety while also engaging in a post-modern examination of what we see as real.

The plot of Inception is actually very simple, it’s a heist film. It follows the beats of your typical heist film and understanding that can help keep one focused as the film gets, literally, mind-bending. The thing that differentiates the film from other heist films is that it takes place within dreams, within a human mind. This frees us from restrictions that often plague heist films and the over the top nature and sometimes extreme convenience of their plots. Almost anything can occur within a dream and Inception uses that without overusing it.

After the film I found myself unsure if I was happy or not with the approach to dreams Nolan took. In the dreams just about anything can happen, but it doesn’t push that to the sort of extremes seen in films like Dreamscape or the Nightmare on Elm Street series of films. After some thought I decided that I not only liked the approach Nolan took but that I also respected the restraint he exercised. There are rules to the dream worlds in Inception and they are followed closely.

Early in the film the rules for dreams are established. The rules are simple enough and repeated with enough frequency so if you missed it once you’re unlikely to miss it again. They aren’t repeated too often and when some of the rules change by about the middle of the film it makes sense within the world of the film.

From a structural standpoint, a plot standpoint, Inception is one of the best film’s I’ve seen. It has a clear plot that firmly roots it within its genre and the way it plays with its genre is to change the setting and to open up the possibilities of the film beyond those of most that have come before. It establish its rules and follows them closely. It lets you know what you need to know to understand the action and does it in a way that is visually compelling. The lead character’s goal is clearly stated and the plot of the film is the means to his end.

It is his end and the film’s end that have kept me thinking about it since I left the theater. It’s the sort of end you want to write some day. The one that keeps people thinking, the one that might just reframe the rest of the film’s action entirely. The ending that makes people want to see it again. Yet, the film doesn’t rely on that ending for the success of its story. The film is easily enjoyed without the perspective changing revelation of its final moments.

Inception is an improvement over Nolan’s previous film The Dark Knight in that there were  no parts of the film that I felt could have been completely removed with no significant impact to the story. Also, Inception, was better focused than The Dark Knight. While I loved The Dark Knight I strongly feel that the entire sequence in Hong Kong could be removed with no impact to the film except to save about 20 minutes worth of scenes that add nothing to the plot of the film. Also, The Dark Knight seemed unsure if it was an ensemble film or not. In the end, the film gives more or less equal time to the Batman, Joker, and Harvey Dent characters but Harvey Dent is really the core of the film and in many ways the main character, though, not really given quite the time he should have for that. Inception doesn’t have those problems, it’s long but tightly plotted without any particular sequences that should have been completely excised. It has a clear main character who drives the film’s action and with whom we, as audience members, can make a connection. That said the film is almost hyper focused on its main character leading to one of the few complaints I have about the film.

Leonardo DiCaprio’s Cobb is the film’s lead and really the only character who has motivations or really much character at all. Most of the rest of the characters are very very thin to the point that some are one dimensional and others barely extend beyond being one dimensional. Inception benefits greatly from a stellar cast including Joseph Gordon Levitt, Ellen Page, Marion Coillard, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe and Cillian Murphy who bring these mostly thin characters to life enough that you’re almost fooled that the characters are fully realized. Tom Hardy, in particular, continues to impress me after his fantastic performance in last year’s Bronson. While there is perhaps an in story explanation for the thinness of their characterizations, I don’t think that excuses it.

Overall, Inception is an excellent film. Beautifully shot, carefully plotted, and well acted. I have some complaints about some of the writing but in the face of an otherwise extremely well made film they don’t reduce my opinion of it. Its ending still has me thinking three days later. Also, Inception is an example of the sort of thing I love to see, a director improving on his storytelling technique even after an extremely successful effort like The Dark Knight.

This is Part One of three posts I have planned for this week about Inception. Come back tomorrow for my thoughts on seeing Inception “fresh.”

I started writing Catastrophe just over a year ago for my Feature Screenwriting class at the New York Film Academy. This spring, after many revisions, I entered the screenplay in several contests. I’m very excited that the script made it as far as the Finalist stage of the StoryPros contest. The story is a mix of action and dark comedy and one of my New York Film Academy instructors favorably referred to it as an indie comedy colliding with a summer blockbuster.

The logline for Catastrophe and other feature and television scripts I have available or am in the process of revising are available to view on my Loglines page in the Screenwriting section.

The Feministing post about Kamenshek discusses her history in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League (AAGPBL) and briefly mentions the film inspired by the league before talking about women’s sports. Unfortunately, as pointed out on Feministing, the status of women in sports isn’t much better than it was back in the 1940s and 50s. The WNBA doesn’t get much respect and stunts to attract more fans like those featured in A League of Their Own are still common. It’s unfortunate not just that we insist on sex-segregated sports associations and leagues, but that the excuses about women’s physical abilities that are used to perpetuate that segregation are further used to dismiss their athletic associations.

I’m not a big sports fan. There are a few sports I like to watch on occasion. One of them is baseball. I like the sport and the aesthetic of the sport. I was very into it when I was a kid, but that faded for awhile. When I moved from Alaska to New York I decided that, since I finally had a home team to root for, I would try to follow the sport again. I’m now passively following The Mets’ current season. My love of baseball has mostly been focused on baseball films for the last decade or so. That includes A League of Their Own.

A League of Their Own was one of those movies in the 90s that, like Frank Darabont’s The Shawshank Redemption, showed up again and again on the basic cable channels we had. If you had cable and were bored, you could almost always catch A League of Their Own or The Shawshank Redemption. So, I’ve seen the movie many many times. My wife is often subjected to me randomly saying “There’s no crying in baseball.” This statement is usually not related to anything. It’s just a scene that I’ve always enjoyed and it pops into my head every now and again. We re-watched the movie recently and I enjoyed it just as much as I had all those times on basic cable.

Just as the movie has some unfortunate parallels to modern women’s sports, there is something to consider about women in filmmaking here, as well. Even though there are, and have been, women executives in television and film, and even with this year’s Academy Award for Directing going to Kathryn Bigelow, the status of women in filmmaking isn’t much better than the status of the women’s baseball players in A League of Their Own. Characters and the women who play them are subject to dismissiveness and harassment similar to the treatment of the  players in the film.

Women and Hollywood recently covered Megan Fox’s departure from the second Transformers sequel (Fox says she quit and Bay claims he chose not to pick up her contract). The analysis of the situation is interesting. A lot of others have approached the story by saying “good riddance” and have taken shots at Fox. For the last year there have been reports about Fox claiming that Bay was abusive, and reports of those who have supported Bay and accused Fox of being inappropriate and, I believe, “spoiled.” The comments on the Women and Hollywood post cover more about general sexism and harassment of women, particularly young women, in the film industry. It got me thinking about the need to be aware of the situation and to make an effort to change it by being better.

As a screenwriter, how can I affect this? What can I do in my role to try and be better than the attitudes that permeate the industry? I think it comes down to being a better writer. By that I mean being aware of how I write women characters and making sure to make them whole people who exist outside of the desires or goals of men. I don’t think I’ve been successful enough at this in my writing so far. I think this is something I need to work on as a writer. It’s not explicitly about being a feminist or trying to depict women positively, it’s about making myself a better writer.

I think A League of Their Own offers a good example of how to create a woman-centric movie that doesn’t just perpetuate the same ideas of womanhood. The film isn’t really about AAGPBL; it’s not about women being able to do the same things as men; it’s not about sexism, or romance, or any of those things. It touches on all those things, but it’s not explicitly about those things. The film is about two sisters. It’s about the older sister, Dottie, letting go and letting her younger sister, Kit, be her own woman. It’s about Kit growing up enough to earn Dottie’s respect. Men figure in, but they are all supporting characters, and while some of them have transformative arcs, they aren’t central to the plot. The story is about these two sisters and their relationship.

As a screenwriter, those are the sort of women characters that I need to write more of. They are the sort of women characters we all need to write more of. If we write more characters that aren’t there for the sake of men, perhaps we can help, in a small way, counteract the directors, producers, executives, and others throughout the industry who mistreat the hardworking women of the industry.

What other strong female characters can we use as an example to inspire us in our writing?

In the process of writing a story there is the formation of the main dramatic question. Whether we are talking about a movie, a television series, a book, or anything else you’re going to have that question and that is the question, arguably the only question, that must be answered.

The dramatic question that drives the Wachowskis’ The Matrix is “Is Neo The One?” The story’s main action revolves around this question and it drives the characters.  It is the question that must be answered, positively or negatively, by the end of the film.

Kathryn Bigelow’s Blue Steel is driven by the question “Will Officer Turner catch the killer?” That question drives her to join Detective Mann in the investigation. It leads to her pursuit of the suspicious Eugene Hunt. It pulls us through the story until the answer in the climax.

In Rob Reiner’s When Harry Met Sally the question is “Will Harry and Sally get together?” The characters drop in and out of each other’s lives until becoming friends and growing closer until breaking apart and ultimately reuniting to finally be together.

These are questions for the specific movies but they are also the basic questions for the genres for each of these movies. For an action hero’s journey film, “Is Neo The One?” is just asking “Will the hero become the hero?” For a thriller “Will Officer Turner catch the killer?” is just “Will the protagonist discover the antagonist and stop them?” For a romantic comedy “Will Harry and Sally get together?” is just “Will the protagonists get together?”

These are the basic questions that must be answered in the narrative. You don’t write a romantic comedy and leave us hanging as to whether or not our protagonists come together. By the end of the film we either need to know they’re together or not.

There is a desire to have answers to all the questions of a narrative. I don’t think that’s a good idea. It strikes me as one of those things people think they want until they get it. I like to advocate leaving things open for interpretation. Beyond just the general idea that every narrative is open to interpretation, I mean, specifically leaving questions unanswered. I advocate it not for the purposes of getting people talking or being trendily mysterious. I advocate it for two basic reasons:

1. The other questions usually aren’t important to the story and answering is a waste of time.
2. The answer to the question is boring and/or just stupid.

These are sort of the same reason. It all comes down to that there are some questions that just don’t need answering, because that’s not what the story is about.

You can raise all sorts of other questions in the story and leave them out there for interpretation. Let’s take Blue Steel as an example. The main dramatic questions regards whether or not Officer Turner will catch the killer, Eugene Hunt. Why does Hunt steal Turner’s gun? Why does he become obsessed with her? Why does he decide to kill? Who is he talking to during his more psychotic episodes? Ultimately, none of these questions are important. They would not add to the story but would be dull exposition that would only slow down the narrative.

An example of when the explanation added to the narrative would be Demme’s Silence of the Lambs. Why Buffalo Bill kills adds tension to scenes and the film. It gives us our way to find him. Eugene Hunt already wants to be found. He’s not hiding from Officer Turner like Buffalo Bill hides from Agent Starling. His reasons for killing would be expository filler. Buffalo Bill’s reasons for killing are key to answering the main dramatic question of the film of whether or not Agent Starling will catch him.

“Lost” succeeded by answering its main dramatic question “Will the passengers of Oceanic Flight 815 get off the island?” The continuing narrative of the series raised many other questions and they addressed a lot of those but they also left a lot unanswered. Most just weren’t that important. The ones that played directly into the main question were answered. While I didn’t love the conclusion to the series, it did its job and clearly answered its main dramatic question.

He mentions that his theater going tends to be more of a political statement. He’s seeing more independent or artistic films presumably. That strikes me as a good thing and something I need to make more of a point of doing. My theater going of the last six months has been severely limited due to my tight budget. The four films I’ve seen in the theater during that time were all big films that didn’t really need my dollars to fill out their box office receipts (Sherlock Holmes, Avatar, Kick-Ass, and Iron Man 2). I need to resolve to see the movies that need more support and save the big films for Netflix. That’s not really what I want to talk about about Hope’s post, though.

I want to talk about a particular point he makes that I disagree with. I think he’s pretty on the money with most of his points about bringing more value to the cinema experience but in point number nine I take some issue.

When does going to a movie also provide a social good?  Can going to the movies make the world a better place?  Such social good is dependent both on the content and the environment in which it is delivered.  People take great pleasure in doing something positive with their time and sometimes just showing up can trigger that phenomenon.

His point seems to be coming from the assumption that film can provide social good and potentially even make the world a better place. Admitted that his point seems more geared towards making the audience feel good like going to the movies is an act of making the world a better place but I take issue with that as well.

I am not one who thinks film can provide social good. Can it illuminate issues, educate, inform and inspire? Absolutely. However, the majority of us only engage films that reinforce our existing beliefs. It’s unlikely most of the people who voted for California’s notorious Proposition 8 saw the film Milk. Holocaust-deniers probably haven’t gotten around to watching Schindler’s List. So, these movies, powerful as they may be, aren’t necessarily providing a social good. People who already are on board with the message see them and feel good about themselves, which is fine. I am of the belief that it is a rarity for a film to change a person’s perspective on anything of social importance.

I’m not saying it can’t happen. I’m not saying films can’t offer avenue for social change. I’m just of the opinion that when it happens it’s a rarity and that is because people are unlikely to choose a film that will provide a genuine challenge to deep held beliefs.

I base this in that watching a film is an inherently passive activity. To make change and effect social good requires changing that passive activity into action. I don’t see a whole lot of filmmakers doing that. Making a film and getting it out in front of people is hard expensive work. After that’s done the approach seems to be to just be satisfied that people have seen the movie. Sometimes festivals, groups, or organizations will create panel discussions or open forums around a film but that does not become a typical experience of the film but a special event.

I have seen one example of how I think this should be done right. I would love to hear other examples and approaches. Nancy Schwartzman has been coupling her short film “The Line” with a campaign that engages viewers to be active participants in screenings. The film, a documentary about confronting her rape experience, is presented in a variety of forums often accompanied by Nancy herself or someone associated with The Line Campaign who engage the audience in discussion after the screening. From what I’ve seen this is how it’s done at nearly every screening of the film. The campaign is built around the concept of “The Line,” where you as an individual draw your line with regard to consent. It features on its website posts from viewers from the screenings and allows just about anyone to submit their own thoughts on it.

The key to what gives “The Line” the genuine potential to create social good and make change is that screenings are coupled with action. It gives a direct outlet for the call to action in the film. It transforms the passive activity into action and engagement. It creates social good one screening at a time. That is, I believe, the only way film can really accomplish that.

I would love to hear about other campaigns similar to “The Line,” though, or alternative ways that watching a film is transformed into action. If you have something please do share it in the comments below.

I’m a fan of structure. What I have never been a fan of is outlining and planning. I find outlining frustrating. I would much rather be writing. I just want to jump in and do it. I think most people would rather just write than spend the time planning.

As I started writing scripts before attending New York Film Academy’s (NYFA) Screenwriting Program I would get stalled a lot. The stories were always missing steps. When I attended NYFA we were introduced to basic screenplay structures and methods of planning and outlining a script. I didn’t care for them at first ,because of the aforementioned hatred of planning and outlining. Eventually, I came around and realized that my stories are much better developed and structured when I take the time to plan and outline before getting into the meat of the script.

I’ve developed a sort of intermediary outlining method between what I learned in school and my own aversion to outlining. My method is to create an outline defining eight sequences across three acts. The sequences I got from school and different teachers had different names for them but they were all talking about basically the same thing. They are roughly based around Joseph Campbell’s “The Hero’s Journey.”

Act One

1. “Ordinary Life”
2. “The Call to Adventure”

Act Two

3. “Rules of the New World”
4. “Plan Number One”
5. “Happy/Sad”
6. “All is Lost”

Act Three

7. “The Final Battle”
8. “Aftermath”

That’s the structure I use for outlining. I create a simple text document and plug in a description of what should happen in each sequence. When I have specific ideas for scenes I write descriptions of those scenes. Otherwise the outline is very general. This mostly works for me. Still, I get stalled sometimes. I know something is missing or that a particular sequence is weak but I’m not sure yet how to fix it.

I think the structure offered on Screenwriter411 might just be the solution to my problem. On Screenwriter411′s post nine key scenes are described.

1. The Opening
2. What’s on Page 10
3. Crossing the Threshold
4. Pinch Point One
5. The Midpoint
6. Pinch Point Two
7. End of Act Two
8. The Climax
9. The Final Scene

I like these. These are what I’ve been missing. I plan to integrate these scenes into my future outlining process. They fit very nicely into my existing process with the acts and sequences.

This is just an early step in the planning process. I have been trying to make a habit of writing “Step Outlines” (some have called them “Beat Sheets”) before digging into the script after this. It’s been a bit of a fight with myself to better integrate these planning stages to my writing process but I’m slowly winning out and it’s improving my scripts.

I’m interested in hearing other outlining and structure methods, if you’d like to share them in the comments.