Kids Love Jokes

So I wrote a sort of “review” for There Will Be Blood way back in January when it was still a newborn. I meant to have the blog up and running back then.

…That was three months ago. Unfortunately, my review of Blood is now a little out of date. There’s nothing that I wrote in January that hasn’t been written since. But there were a few sections I wanted to put up anyway — little tangents inspired by the movie and Paul Thomas Anderson.

TANGET 1:

Boogie Nights remains my favorite (Always+Forever, smooches) PTA flick. I’ll never forget being 13 years old waiting up till 3 am just to see Julianne Moore’s tits and then having nightmares choreographed to “Sister Christian.” Much like Scorsese, PTA seemed a lot more concerned with the characters and settings than he did that…other…thing. Oh, plot. Right. Yeah, I’m not into that. The ideal movie that I promise I will one day write is a bunch of characters sitting around chatting it up. Maybe there’s a bottle between them. Really, that’s what films should be, no? Character studies or a detailed look at environments (No, not that kind — you were close, Al Gore) in which these people exist trumps CGI explosion each and every time. It’s human interest. It’s relatable. How many people choose invisibility as a super power when given the hypothetical choice? Do these people want to go watch some big explosion or would they much rather sneak into their manager’s/friend’s/enemy’s/ex-girlfriend’s home and simply watch them perform their daily routine? I think it’s the latter, because we’re all totally bizarre and it’s fun to see how others are more bizarre than we thought they could be. It’s the reason gossip columns, or Ask Mary You’re Totally Embarrassing Question runs every week in such-and-such a newspaper. People are interesting behind closed doors. That’s what PTA and his influences and their influences understood. Open those doors, you got yourself a picture!

END TANGENT.

BEGIN TANGENT 2:

As this is a screenwriting blog, I have to talk a little about Blood’s fantastic script, specifically about one of PTA’s techniques: the use of the elipses. Most of the time you’ll see them in the middle of dialogue, like so:

GUY:

I…can’t…remember…anything.

He’s pausing, having trouble with words, whatever. But PTA uses the elipses in such a unique way in his screenplay:

ELI:

You owe me money, Daniel Plainview.

DANIEL:

…

Ha! Awesome. I’ve already found ways to incorporate this into my own script and it’s oh-so liberating.

I can’t think of any other screenplay I’ve read that’s used this nifty little trick. It’s a much more efficient way of writing something like, “Daniel stares at him, angry.” For one, action like that is not necessary. It’s tempting for new writers (as always, me included) to feel the need to explain every last detail of the script. It gets to the point where there’s a line of action after every line of dialogue. Not only does that slow the reader down (and remember if you’re just starting out that you’re essentially writing scripts to be read and not made) but actors don’t like reading scripts like that. Actors like being creative, and creativity comes from one’s own interpretations. If every last action is spelled out, that’s not acting. It’s paint by number.

The great thing is this can work in any type of scene. If it’s in a scene full of tension, we get that the character is staring at his opponent, stewing, so angry he can’t think up the right words. If it’s in a comedy, we understand it’s meant to be an awkward silence or something of the sort.

People are phenomenal at connecting the dots. We’re trained to make patterns of everything. It’s the reason we see shapes in the clouds and the Virgin Mary in our French toast. It’s important to remember that when writing. You may think that you’re visual comedic gag won’t translate well without detailing it to a T, but believe it or not your readers are probably better putting two and two together than you think.

END TANGENT 2.

Just thought the second tangent in particular would be helpful.