I've always been a fan of honest assessments in interviews -- I'm talking about those fleeting moments when an actor, actress, director, or anyone else in film backs out of the marketing machine for a second and speaks about their work honestly. It drives me up a wall when I see a talented person lather a bad movie/role in platitudes as if we won't figure out that they're lying. Sure, they have to help buzz for their projects, but sometimes a spade is just a spade.
Katherine Heigl has ticked off many recently for removing her name from Emmy contention because she doesn't feel the material she was given on Grey's Anatomy was worthy of consideration. It may be a bit too truthful, but isn't it accurate? Her character arc isn't the stuff of Emmy nominations. We complain when actors are given nods they didn't really deserve, but are equally put off when someone pulls their name out of the running for that reason. Or, is it just because she admitted it publicly? Or, that she's been very honest before? I wasn't entirely thrilled with the portrayals in Knocked Up, and was relieved that she admitted so herself, even if the film has given her a lot of success.
It's been so long since we discussed Hounddog that it seemed like the film had already come and gone without a whisper. Not quite. The infamous Dakota Fanning movie that caused many waves for a controversial rape scene was planning to hit theaters on July 15. Now a new press release says the film will hit theaters starting September 5, where they are hoping to get the surprisingly high gross of $15 million before hitting shelves on DVD on January 20, 2009.
But that's not all. The company says that along with cross-promotion with other titles, it will "be supported with national television and radio ads, a consumer sweepstakes, and in-store merchandising." Defamer has mused about a whole Simpsons/7-11 approach with "Hounddog Sex Shacks," but the snark is not that big of a jump.
Whether warranted or not, the film has ruffled the feathers of many people, and it seems surprising that sweepstakes and in-store merchandising are being thrown into the mix. Hell, push aside the unrest and just think about the initial response. When Kim reviewed it from Sundance way back when, she said: "Hounddog is also one of the least likeable films I've seen here at Sundance -- and not, as you might expect, merely because it has a scene of the young actress being violently raped."
How far will they take it? We'll have to wait and see.
One page of screenplay translates to one minute of movie. Since most movies are a little under two hours long, most screenplays should be a little less than 120 pages.
That’s an absurd oversimplification, of course.
One page of a battle sequence might run four minutes of screen time, while a page of dialogue banter might zip by in 30 seconds. No matter. The rule of thumb might as well be the rule of law: any script over 120 pages is automatically suspect. If you hand someone a 121-page script, the first note they will give you is, “It’s a little long.” In fact, some studios will refuse to take delivery of a script over 120 pages (and thus refuse to pay).
Before we look at how to do that, let’s address a few things you should never do when trying to cut pages, no matter how tempting.
Don’t adjust line spacing. Final Draft lets you tighten the line spacing, squeezing an extra line or two per page. Don’t. Not only is it obvious, but it makes your script that much harder to read.
Don’t tweak margins. With the exception of Widow Control (see below), you should never touch the default margins: an inch top, bottom and right, an inch-and-a-half on the left. 2
Don’t mess with the font. Screenplays are 12-pt Courier. If you try a different size, or a different face, your reader will notice and become suspicious.
All of these dont’s could be summarized thusly: Don’t cheat. Because we really will notice, and we’ll begin reading your script with a bias against it.
There are two kinds of trims we’ll be making: actual cuts and perceived cuts. Actual cuts mean you’re taking stuff out, be it a few lines, scenes or sequences. Perceived cuts are craftier. You’re editing with with specific intention of making the pages break differently, thus pulling the end of the script up. Perceived cuts don’t really make the script shorter. They just make it seem shorter, like a fat man wearing stripes.
Fair warning: Many of these suggestions will seem borderline-OCD. But if you’ve spent months writing a script, why not spend one hour making it look and read better?
Cutting a page or two
At this length, perceived cuts will probably get you where you need to be. (That said, always look for bigger, actual cuts. Remember, 117 pages is even better than 120.)
Practice Widow Control. Widows are those little fragments, generally a word or two, which hog a line to themselves. You find them both in action and dialogue.
HOFFMAN
Oh, I agree. He’s quite the catch, for a fisherman. Caught myself trolling more than once.
If you pull the right-hand margin of that dialogue block very, very slightly to the right, you can often make that last word jump up to the previous line. Done right, it’s invisible, and reads better.
I generally don’t try to kill widows in action lines unless I have to. The ragged whitespace helps break up the page. But it’s always worth checking whether two very short paragraphs could be joined together.3
Watch out for invisible orphans. Orphans are short lines that dangle by themselves at the top of page. You rarely see them these days, because by default, most screenwriting programs will force an extra line or two across the page break to avoid them.4
Here’s the downside: every time the program does this, your script just got a line or two longer. So anytime you see a short bit of action at the top of the page, see if there’s an alternate way to write it that can make it jump back to the previous page.
Nix the CUT TO:’s. Screenwriters have different philosophies when it comes to CUT TO. Some use it at the end of every scene. Some never use it at all. I split the difference, using it when I need to signal to the reader that we’re either moving to something completely new story-wise, or jumping ahead in time.
But when I’m looking to trim a page or two, I often find I can sacrifice a few CUT TO’s and TRANSITION TO’s. So weigh each one.
Cutting five to ten pages
At this level, you’re beyond the reach of perceived cuts. You’re going to have to take things out. Here are the places to look.
Remove unnecessary set-ups. When writing a first act, your instinct is to make sure that everything is really well set up. You have a scene to introduce your hero, another to introduce his mom, a third to establish that he’s nice to kittens. Start cutting. We need to know much less about your characters than you think. The faster we can get to story, the better.
Get out of scenes earlier. Look at every scene, and ask what the earliest point is you could cut to the next scene. You’ll likely find a lot of tails to trim.
Don’t let characters recap. Characters should never need to explain something that we as the audience already know. It’s a complete waste of time and space. So if it’s really important that Bob know what Sarah saw in the old mill — a scene we just watched — try to make that explanation happen off-screen.
For example, if a scene starts…
BOB
Are you sure it was blood?
…we can safely surmise he’s gotten the necessary details.
Trim third-act bloat. As we cross page 100 in our scripts, that finish line become so appealing that we often race to be done. The writing suffers. Because it’s easier to explain something in three exchanges of dialogue than one, we don’t try to be efficient. So you need to look at that last section with the same critical eyes that read those first 20 pages 100 times, and bring it up to the same level. The end result will almost always be tighter, and shorter.
Cutting ten or more pages
Entire sequences are going to need to go away. This happens more than you’d think. For the first Charlie’s Angels, we had a meeting at 5 p.m. on a Friday afternoon in which the president of the studio yanked ten pages out of the middle of the script. There was nothing wrong with those scenes, but we couldn’t afford to shoot them. So I was given until Monday morning to make the movie work without them.
Be your own studio boss. Be savage. Always err on taking out too much, because you’ll likely have to write new material to address some of what’s been removed.
The most brutal example I can think of from my own experience was my never-sold (but often retitled) zombie western. I cut 75 pages out of the first draft — basically, everything that didn’t support the two key ideas of Zombie Western. By clear-cutting, I could make room for new set pieces that fit much better with the movie I was trying to make.
Once you start thinking big-picture, you realize it’s often easier to cut fifteen pages than five. You ask questions like, “What if there was no Incan pyramid, and we went straight to Morocco?” or “What if instead of seeing the argument, reconciliation and breakup, it was just a time cut?”
Smart restructuring of events can often do the work for you. A project I’m just finishing has several occasions in which the action needs to slide forward several weeks, with characters’ relationships significantly changed. That’s hard to do with straight cutting — you expect to see all the pieces in the middle. But by focussing on something else for a scene or two — a different character in a different situation — I’m able to come back with time jumped and characters altered.
Look: It’s hard to cut a big chunk of your script, something that may have taken weeks to write. So don’t just hit “delete.” Cut and paste it into a new document, save it, and allow yourself the fiction of believing that in some future script, you’ll be able to use some of it. You won’t, but it will make it less painful.
But! But! you say. In the Library, both Big Fish and Go are more than 120 pages. I’m not claiming that longer scripts aren’t shot. I’m saying that if you go over the 120 page line, you have to be doubly sure there’s no moment that feels padded, because the reader is going in with the subconscious goal of cutting something. Go is 126 pages, but it’s packed solid. Big Fish meanders, but those detours end up paying off in the conclusion. ↩
Page numbers, scene numbers, “more” and “continued” are exceptions. ↩
I try to keep paragraphs of action and scene description between two and six lines. ↩
While I rag on the program, Final Draft is smart enough to break lines at the period, so sentences always stay intact. It’s a small thing, but it really helps the read. Other programs may do it now, too. ↩
Earlier today, Elisabeth shared with you a Slate story that questioned whether United Artists photoshopped a picture of Claus von Stauffenberg so that it would look more like Tom Cruise when they were promoting the casting of the actor in Bryan Singer's Valkyrie. That post is over here. Read it. Love it. Investigate! In the same Slate story, however, they talk a bit about Mission Impossible 4. There's been rumblings recently of a new Mission Impossible -- how Cruise and Paramount's Sumner Redstone wined and dined one another -- leading many to believe they may patch things up and move forward on a sequel. Wonderful. Fabulous. Let's hold hands.
Not so fast. Slate says Paramount offered Cruise the chance to produce the sequel (they have to since it's in his contract), but not star in it. Not star? Cruise? No way. And that's exactly what happened: Cruise turned down their offer. Now, says Slate, Paramount may hold off on making a new Mission Impossible until their contract with Cruise's production company expires. This will then free them up to go out, cast some hot young stud as the new Ethan Hunt (or some other random Hunt-type dude), and continue along with a fairly popular action franchise.
Tom Cruise and Valkyrie just cannot stay out of the press -- and alas, the press has rarely been good. Well, here comes a bit more controversy: There have now been claims from German press that United Artists doctored a photo of hopeful Hitler assassin, Claus von Stauffenberg. In the interests of historic representation, journalistic credibility, and a chance to see how weird Cruise's career can get, Slate took the above photo (released by United Artists) to their design experts. Visit the magazine to see the details of their analysis -- but they have come to the conclusion that it has been doctored. A comparison with a AP file photo of von Stauffenberg is remarkably different than the one UA has been publicizing. It seems to be the same photo, but that too could be up for debate. Possibly, UA is guilty of nothing more than carefully choosing a flattering photo. Other photos of von Stauffenberg, which are from the front and better lit, don't have much of a resemblance to Cruise.
Visit Slate to judge for yourself, then come back and tell us your take. If it has been doctored, how silly is that? Plenty of historical figures have been ably played by actors bearing little resemblance to them -- and perhaps even the better for it, as they didn't rely only on physical looks to carry the role. The whole story smells of insecurity on the part of someone (or everyone) at United Artists. Though, for now (or until more experts weigh in), we'll just chalk this up as another piece of fascinating Hollywood mystery.
The rap on Cyd Charisse was that she was a far better dancer than an actress, but I don't care what you say: The lady had presence. When that endless leg stretched out before Gene Kelly's dazzled eyes in "Singin' in the Rain," you knew a star was being born.
Like all the pure dancers of Hollywood -- Astaire, Kelly, Eleanor Powell -- Charisse expressed persona through movement rather than dialogue, and in her case that persona was smoky, sinuous, and cool: a quintessential 50s mix of sex and poise. She was the choreographic equivalent of a classic Sinatra LP.
She also had one of the great Hollywood birth names: Tula Ellice Finklea. Born in Amarillo, Texas, and nicknamed "Sid" by a brother who couldn't pronounce "Sis," she moved to Hollywood when she was young to study ballet. After dancing with the Ballets Russes and a first marriage to her teacher, Nico Charisse, in Paris, Charisse made the move into film, starting with 1943's "Something to Shout About." (It wasn't.)
It was her dance number with Astaire in 1946's "Ziegfeld Follies" (here's a link to the video; Charisse turns up about 1:30 in) that made audiences sit up and wonder who the hell was dancing with Fred. She still had to wait six more years, until the climactic "Broadway Melody" setpiece of "Singin' in the Rain," to become a full-fledged household name. After that it was more Astaire ("The Band Wagon," "Silk Stockings") and more Kelly ("Brigadoon," "It's Always Fair Weather"), and a 60-year marriage to singer Tony Martin, who survives her. Feast your eyes on the Mickey Spillane-derived "Girl Hunt Ballet" number from "Band Wagon":
Class is what she had, and legs as long as Manhattan. Of all her movies, the one I treasure most is 1955's "It's Always Fair Weather" -- the dark, dyspeptic answer-musical to "Singin' in the Rain" -- in which Charisse entertains a gym full of pug-faced boxers who toss her around the ring in delight and sing "Baby, You Knock Me Out." That she did. Behold -- we were not worthy.
So the American Film Institute is airing its top 10 list of genre movies, 10 in fact: animation, courtroom drama, gangster, romantic comedy, fantasy, western, sports, mystery, epic, science-fiction. The show is another of the group's highly arguably but immensely watchable -- especially so since it's looking temporally impossible for the Lakers to catch the Celtics -- summer specials. Although, seeing Rob Reiner impersonate Lee J. Cobb in "12 Angry Men" might have cost me my appetite. (Right now, they're on courtroom dramas and Sidney Lumet's movie is number three.)
The lists were culled from a pool of 500 movies (50 per genre) and distributed to a big list of critics (not me), historians, and film professionals. And since the AFI has already done horror-thrillers, musicals, romances, and comedies, this list gets a bunch of marketable categories over with. Now it's official: These lists are a real video-store organization principle.
I do like that "A Cry in the Dark" made the cut of courtroom dramas (sing it in your finest American Top 40 voice: "number nine"). Is "Schindler's List" really an "epic"? According to the institute's definition, pretty much: It's a "genre of large-scale films set in a cinematic interpretation of the past." Fine. In romantic comedy, "City Lights" was number one. That's nice. So is "Thief of Baghdad"'s coming in at number nine on the fantasy list. (Criterion just put out a new edition.) Dirty-old "Shampoo" did not make the cut.
Here's the rest of the lists.
ANIMATION
1 SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937)
2 PINOCCHIO (1940)
3 BAMBI (1942)
4 LION KING, THE (1994)
5 FANTASIA (1942)
6 TOY STORY (1995)
7 BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1991)
8 SHREK (2001)
9 CINDERELLA (1950)
10 FINDING NEMO (2003)
FANTASY
1 WIZARD OF OZ, THE (1939)
2 LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (2001)
3 IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1947)
4 KING KONG (1933)
5 MIRACLE ON 34th STREET (1947)
6 FIELD OF DREAMS (1989)
7 HARVEY (1950)
8 GROUNDHOG DAY (1993)
9 THIEF OF BAGDAD, THE (1924)
10 BIG (1988)
GANGSTER
1 GODFATHER, THE (1972)
2 GOODFELLAS (1990)
3 GODFATHER PART II, THE (1974)
4 WHITE HEAT (1949)
5 BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967)
6 SCARFACE: THE SHAME OF A NATION (1932)
7 PULP FICTION (1994)
8 PUBLIC ENEMY, THE (1931)
9 LITTLE CAESAR (1931)
10 SCARFACE (1983)
ROMANTIC COMEDY
1 CITY LIGHTS (1931)
2 ANNIE HALL (1977)
3 IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934)
4 ROMAN HOLIDAY (1953)
5 PHILADELPHIA STORY, THE (1941)
6 WHEN HARRY MET SALLY? (1989)
7 ADAM'S RIB (1949)
8 MOONSTRUCK (1987)
9 HAROLD AND MAUDE (1971)
10 SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE (1993)
COURTROOM DRAMA
1 TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1963)
2 12 ANGRY MEN (1957)
3 KRAMER VS. KRAMER (1979)
4 VERDICT, THE (1982)
5 FEW GOOD MEN, A (1992)
6 WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (1958)
7 ANATOMY OF A MURDER (1959)
8 IN COLD BLOOD (1967)
9 CRY IN THE DARK, A (1988)
10 JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG (1961)
EPIC
1 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
2 BEN-HUR (1959)
3 SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993)
4 GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
5 SPARTACUS (1960)
6 TITANIC (1997)
7 ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930)
8 SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998)
9 REDS (1981)
10 TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE (1956)
SCIENCE FICTION
1 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
2 STAR WARS: EPISODE IV- A NEW HOPE (1977)
3 E.T. - THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL (1982)
4 CLOCKWORK ORANGE, A (1971)
5 DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, THE (1951)
6 BLADE RUNNER (1982)
7 ALIEN (1979)
8 TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY (1991)
9 INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956)
10 BACK TO THE FUTURE (1985)
WESTERN
1 SEARCHERS, THE (1956)
2 HIGH NOON (1952)
3 SHANE (1953)
4 UNFORGIVEN (1992)
5 RED RIVER (1948)
6 WILD BUNCH, THE (1969)
7 BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (1969)
8 MCCABE & MRS. MILLER (1971)
9 STAGECOACH (1939)
10 CAT BALLOU (1965)
SPORTS
1 RAGING BULL (1980)
2 ROCKY (1977)
3 PRIDE OF THE YANKEES, THE (1943)
4 HOOSIERS (1986)
5 BULL DURHAM (1988)
6 HUSTLER, THE (1961)
7 CADDYSHACK (1980)
8 BREAKING AWAY (1979)
9 NATIONAL VELVET (1945)
10 JERRY MAGUIRE (1996)
MYSTERY
1 VERTIGO (1958)
2 CHINATOWN (1974)
3 REAR WINDOW (1954)
4 LAURA (1944)
5 THIRD MAN, THE (1950)
6 MALTESE FALCON, THE (1941)
7 NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959)
8 BLUE VELVET (1986)
9 DIAL M FOR MURDER (1954)
10 USUAL SUSPECTS, THE (1995)
Tila Tequila sat down for an interview with King Magazine where she addressed the rumors that she's not really a bisexual:
What about the people who say you’re not really bisexual—that you’re hetero and just pretending for the show? Care to set the record, uh, straight?
They can suck my dick.
Wait, she has a penis now? Why wasn't I told of this? Get me the White House. In the meantime, here's what else Tila had to say. She really wants that third season:
If you’re faking bisexuality, then you’d be one of those Girls Gone Wild girls. I’m not one of those fake ones. I have real emotions for people, whether they’re male or female. So whoever said that shows me that they’re really ignorant, and it makes me cringe. It’s like saying, “Hey, you’re not really Vietnamese, you’re just trying to be.” How do you answer that?
"'Hey, you're not really Vietnamese, you're just trying to be.' How do you answer that?" Um, are you serious? Did Tila Tequila literally equate proving your ethnicity with proving your bisexuality? You see one of them, ethnicity, is a documented fact. While the other, bisexuality, is a clever marketing tool used by an elf in a bikini.
Fun Fact: Tila brought her own fishbowl for this photo shoot to be taken in. She said, "Bisexuals always come prepared!" Then spent five hours crying for someone to believe her. And that, boys and girls, is where butterflies come from!