![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hooray for Captain Spaulding
Nov. 17th, 2009 08:14 pmI've started writing a new feature script (actually, two new feature scripts with radically different attributes, so that I can go back and forth when I want to procrastinate, rather than going back and forth between one script and spider solitaire). It's called "Somewhere, Something Incredible," and it's a romantic comedy with a lot of science and literary analysis in it. Also, it's not exactly a romantic comedy, so much as a dramedy about an established couple, and structurally it's more like French New Wave or early Woody Allen than a contemporary Hollywood script. (It's also a bit My Own Private Idaho.) I am trying not to let it get too twee (ugh, mumblecore), which I think I will manage mainly because I'm committed to actual strong emotions rather than ironic distance.
On the one hand, this should be my comfort zone, because I am the master of neurotic comedy. I've been doing drama for a few years just to stretch myself, but it's not my home. Absurdity is where I live. On the other hand, it's difficult, because almost all of the writing about what makes a good film and how to do films is assumes you are writing plotty drama, and encourages you to gravitate away from dialog and toward strong images. Plot is the enemy of comedy, in many respects. The only thing truly useful that plot does for a comedy is to give you opportunities to introduce new situations for characters to riff on or respond to. Does the plot in Animal Crackers matter? Not one bit. Do the characters just sit around and talk a lot? They do. (Sidebar: I think plottiness is the reason Horse Feathers is considered the masterpiece film - it conforms so neatly to that structure. I think it's one of the Marx Brothers' weakest pieces. It bores me to tears.) Do I care about the plot points in Withnail & I? Would I not rather spend more time watching Richard E. Grant terrorize people in coffee shops?
I mean, I made an eight minute film that is basically a single monologue about my character obsessing over something she's misheard, with James looking confused about it. It's funny. It moves forward. There is nothing at all that happens in the film. Rocker Box Gasket has made at least two other comedies composed entirely of non-sequitors. They work. I mean, Jesus. Look at Tim and Eric. Look at most of the best stand-up of the last ten years. But all the comedy films that are coming out are shit, because they keep shoehorning in this three-act structure that doesn't have anything to do with comedy. (Don't get me wrong - one can do beautiful epic comedy like Ghostbusters, and really structured and beautiful comedy like State and Main - but I think that's at least partly because State and Main is about the movie business. I also think neither of these films are purely comedy - I think they cross genres.)
But damnit, it feels so much more secure to have that structure. I'm going to give myself an ulcer. I have half a mind to develop an entirely new theory of modern comedy so that I have something comfortably academic to reference, but that would just be me procrastinating. I just need to have characters you want to be around and then be around them and let stuff happen.
On the science/romance side, I am trying to hold on to Carl Sagan: "For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love."
On the one hand, this should be my comfort zone, because I am the master of neurotic comedy. I've been doing drama for a few years just to stretch myself, but it's not my home. Absurdity is where I live. On the other hand, it's difficult, because almost all of the writing about what makes a good film and how to do films is assumes you are writing plotty drama, and encourages you to gravitate away from dialog and toward strong images. Plot is the enemy of comedy, in many respects. The only thing truly useful that plot does for a comedy is to give you opportunities to introduce new situations for characters to riff on or respond to. Does the plot in Animal Crackers matter? Not one bit. Do the characters just sit around and talk a lot? They do. (Sidebar: I think plottiness is the reason Horse Feathers is considered the masterpiece film - it conforms so neatly to that structure. I think it's one of the Marx Brothers' weakest pieces. It bores me to tears.) Do I care about the plot points in Withnail & I? Would I not rather spend more time watching Richard E. Grant terrorize people in coffee shops?
I mean, I made an eight minute film that is basically a single monologue about my character obsessing over something she's misheard, with James looking confused about it. It's funny. It moves forward. There is nothing at all that happens in the film. Rocker Box Gasket has made at least two other comedies composed entirely of non-sequitors. They work. I mean, Jesus. Look at Tim and Eric. Look at most of the best stand-up of the last ten years. But all the comedy films that are coming out are shit, because they keep shoehorning in this three-act structure that doesn't have anything to do with comedy. (Don't get me wrong - one can do beautiful epic comedy like Ghostbusters, and really structured and beautiful comedy like State and Main - but I think that's at least partly because State and Main is about the movie business. I also think neither of these films are purely comedy - I think they cross genres.)
But damnit, it feels so much more secure to have that structure. I'm going to give myself an ulcer. I have half a mind to develop an entirely new theory of modern comedy so that I have something comfortably academic to reference, but that would just be me procrastinating. I just need to have characters you want to be around and then be around them and let stuff happen.
On the science/romance side, I am trying to hold on to Carl Sagan: "For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love."
