| [BACK]
The past few weeks I've been trying to watch a number of films that I should have seen a long time ago. Big hit films that, really, I had no desire to see (as I read all about them) but figured that I should get off my fat ass and take a look at.
So, in between a bunch of Public Domain films - some really good, some really bad - I've watched:
"Being John Malkovich"
"Jurassic Park"
and
"Top Gun"
It's very interesting when you compare these films. "Top Gun" is, obviously, a popcorn movie that plays up the "hot-shot pilot" clich?s. Some of the characters are ABSURD! And some of the dialogue is laughable. Still, you leave the theater with a smile on your face and no questions in your mind. Is there subtext in this film? "Live your dream?" "Push the envelope?" "Fly upside down and give someone the finger?"
"Jurassic Park" was also quite enjoyable in the "Popcorn Movie" vein. It, at least, had us asking some core questions about who we are as keepers of this planet. Is there subtext in this film? "Should we screw with mother nature?" "Where does science and cloning stop?" I think it DOES have a subtext all wrapped around and given to us in a nice look special effects filled Steven Spielberg package.
And then there is "Being John Malkovich." A film that defies description. Obviously a comedy but with some dramatic and interesting concepts and approaches. Charles Kaufmann does an amazing job creating this hilarious parallel universe mix of absurdity and intellect. Asking deeper, more philosophical questions: "What does it mean to be human?" "What if we could control other people?" "If we had a portal we could enter, would we? What would we see, what would we feel?" "How has puppetry changed the American landscape?" (okay, I'm kidding about the last question)
But, as a writer, where do we fall into these categories? The first two films are very "High Concept." A first time writer could easily sell those stories. But with "Malkovich" - I could not possibly see a first time writer showing up with that script under their arm. How could they? Is it even "High Concept?" Let's look at that pitch session now: Writer: "Hi, here's my pitch: It's a comedy about a loser Puppeteer who finds a portal into a famous film and stage actor's brain, enters the brain, sells tickets, figures out he can control the actor and this changes everyone's lives around them. His friends and loved ones need to get him out before a certain date - or lose him into the actor forever." Producer: "Uh, interesting...okay...I think I'm getting it. Who would the actor be? Tom Cruise? Will Farrell? Adam Sandler?" Writer: "John Malkovich." Producer: "Who?" Writer: "You know, Malkovich. In fact the title is: "Being John Malkovich!"" Producer: "Get the F**K out of my office!"
Do we write the "Popcorn Movie?" Or do we write the movie that, we hope, pushes the envelope? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with those movies above. I'm just asking the bigger question to the writers out there.
Do we want to attempt to change the world with something new, unique and fresh? Or do we just want to entertain? Can we accomplish both? And if we attempt to accomplish both - can we as first time writers sell both? Though, it's obvious, that one is probably a harder sell than the others.
|
