Michael Patrick Sullivan is a hack writer. He can be contacted at m@redrighthand.net
- The Carl Sautter Scriptwriting Award
- PAGE Int'l Screenwriting Awards - 1st Place
- Creative Screenwriting Expo - Television Award
- Hurricane Season Playwriting Festival Audience Award - Best Playwriting
- Rod Serling Short Feature Competition - 3rd Place
- Mastermind
- Comic Book Resources
- Ghosts That Smell Like New Car
- Astonishing Adventures
- McSweeney's & Mountain Man Dance Moves
- Radio Ghost
LA AREA SCREENING OF MASTERMIND
Oct 19 at 7:30 PM
Eclectic Company Theatre
5312 Laurel Canyon Blvd.
Eclectic Company Theatre
5312 Laurel Canyon Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA
MINING THE STORY
It's only a matter of time before the San Jose miner movies, books, and LA theatre plays hit. And I'm certain they will be heartwarming tales of the triumph of the human spirit and ingenuity.That's not the one I want to see. I want to see the satire version. I want to see the one that focuses on these following things:
- The miners were counseled while sub terra on dealing with sudden fame.
- They were also given lessons on how to give good interview.
- That Camp Espereanza was comprised of the miners families, friends, rescue workers, and book agents.
- The miners were clean-shaven when they emerged from their ordeal.
- That when Shift Foreman Luis Urzúa, being a good boss and looking out for his employees, made sure he was the last miner out of the hole, there was speculation that he was looking to secure the world's record for being underground.
- That the miners had contracts drawn up and sent down to them so that they would all profit equally (admirable, but still weird).
THE DOCTOR WHO LOST AN OPPORTUNITY
The Well, it's been addressed. The Doctor will be able to regenerate past a thirteenth incarnation. And for my money, it's been bungled like a big-- no, I'll leave that analogy dangling in the ether.
It's being handled unnecessarily early. It's being done in one throwaway line. And it's not even being done on the Doctor's own TV show.
From The Guardian:
While the Doctor and Clyde Langer, played by Daniel Anthony, are in the process of outwitting spooky vulture undertakers the Shansheeth, Clyde asks how many times he can regenerate. The Doctor indicates that there is no limit. The action continues.
I came up with an explanation to get around the limit some while ago (see GEEK THEORY #2: DOCTOR WHO), but that's all it was...an explanation. Not a story. Surely, this is exactly the sort of thing that would be the springboard for a ripping yarn, a stirring tale, an awesome episode or two. Yeah? I mean, whenever the Doctor regenerates, it's usually cause for a - you know - ripping yarn (as in ripping the fabric of space time). The thirteenth regeneration would have demanded event programming.I just fail ti understand why the DW team would decide to just dump the potential for a future story like that...for no apparent reason.
In writing, we say "show, don't tell." Not always possible, but...I would like to add "don't tell anything you don't have to."
Thirteenth Doctors by Ben Templesmith and Adam Law.
AFTERTHOUGHT: Now they've set up a situation where the Doctor could regenerate mulitple times in rapid succession. Perhaps there could be a season where the Doctor regenerates every couple of episodes. That way you can have some crazy stunt casting and get all those guys whose names get bandied about but don't want or don't get the full time gig.
IT'S OKAY TO FAIL THE BECHDEL TEST*
In the last couple of days, I've come across a few cases of The Social Network being criticized for failing the Bechdel Test.
So fucking what?
To pass the Bechdel Test a film (or TV show, or book, or comic, or whatever with a story in it) must fulfill these criteria.
Most of the time, I'd say it's an admirable goal to try to hit those three points and with the exception of Mastermind (which features only two characters, a man and a woman) my work generally meets these criteria. The Social Network does not. Nor should it.
The chief complaint is that the women in the film are treated as objects, more or less. Sorkin himself admitted as much when called on it on The Colbert Report. He called them prizes. And he's right.
There have been the suggestions that some of the coders Zuckerberg picked up should have been female. I don't know that they weren't, but I expect probably not. Some complain that would make the film inaccurate. I highly doubt the film is 100% accurate anyway. But, no. None of the coders should have been made to be female.
Another suggestion was that Zuckerberg surely had friends who were women. Normal, non-prize women. He probably did. Including them would have hurt the film. Yes. HURT the film.
There's a reason for this Bechdel failure. And I thought it fairly fucking obvious from the first five minutes of the movie.
According to The Social Network, Zuckerberg started this who Facebook thing for two reasons. He wanted to do something that would get him into the exclusive final clubs and because a girl dumped him. And this was a girl who was portrayed in the movie with intelligence, class, and a conservative wardrobe. She was, aside from Rashida Jones' audience-identifier character, the only one.
So is it unreasonable to think that an self-serving egotist who just got dumped might develop (or further develop) a less-that-awesome attitude toward women? Given the first thing he did after said dumping was to create Facemash - an all female hot-or-not clone made up of Harvard's female population. Doesn't that give you a little clue about who we're dealing with?
This movie is about Zuckerberg first and foremost and, as the character in the film, his view of women was as prizes. They were his reward for being smarter than the next guy. Saverin wasn't far behind in that view.
"What are we to do with a great film that makes women look so awful?" asks Rebecca Davis O'Brien in her Daily Beast piece. Well, that's not the point of the film and I am not allowing for dumb people who take that away from it. There will always be dumb people who don't understand and I'm never making allowances for them. So, let's face it, not all women are awesome individuals. Nor, of course, are all men...as I think the movie itself demonstrates. Is it not unreasonable to think that the shallow, the stupid, and the self-centered (who are the most likely to behave in an immature and pyromaniacal manner) would be the ones that would attach themselves to assholes who look like they're going to richer thanGod Gates? So those are the ones that are going to gravitate into the story.
In the narrow scope of the film (which is Zuckerberg's greed, self-aggrandizement and insecurity), including women in his life who do not fulfill the role of prizes will only serve to dilute that part of his personality damage the thematic focus. It would not be a complexity, it would be a contradiction. In real life - yeah - it's a complexity. This is not real life.
So some people, I think, have missed the point.
So, occasionally, depending entirely on the subject matter of the film, it's okay to fail Bechdel. When any of those three fall outside the scope of the work, it's just chaff**.
*Not always, but sometimes.
**The Great Escape, for instance would be brought down by having some unnecessary subplot created solely to get women into the movie to make them talk about something other than a man. As it was, I'm glad they didn't create an insipid romantic subplot to get a woman in there at all - as was done with The Caine Mutiny. It doesn't make either of them bad movies - there just weren't women in the stalag or on World War II minesweepers.
So fucking what?
To pass the Bechdel Test a film (or TV show, or book, or comic, or whatever with a story in it) must fulfill these criteria.
- It has to have at least two women in it.
- They talk to each other.
- About something besides a man.
Most of the time, I'd say it's an admirable goal to try to hit those three points and with the exception of Mastermind (which features only two characters, a man and a woman) my work generally meets these criteria. The Social Network does not. Nor should it.The chief complaint is that the women in the film are treated as objects, more or less. Sorkin himself admitted as much when called on it on The Colbert Report. He called them prizes. And he's right.
There have been the suggestions that some of the coders Zuckerberg picked up should have been female. I don't know that they weren't, but I expect probably not. Some complain that would make the film inaccurate. I highly doubt the film is 100% accurate anyway. But, no. None of the coders should have been made to be female.
Another suggestion was that Zuckerberg surely had friends who were women. Normal, non-prize women. He probably did. Including them would have hurt the film. Yes. HURT the film.
There's a reason for this Bechdel failure. And I thought it fairly fucking obvious from the first five minutes of the movie.
According to The Social Network, Zuckerberg started this who Facebook thing for two reasons. He wanted to do something that would get him into the exclusive final clubs and because a girl dumped him. And this was a girl who was portrayed in the movie with intelligence, class, and a conservative wardrobe. She was, aside from Rashida Jones' audience-identifier character, the only one.
So is it unreasonable to think that an self-serving egotist who just got dumped might develop (or further develop) a less-that-awesome attitude toward women? Given the first thing he did after said dumping was to create Facemash - an all female hot-or-not clone made up of Harvard's female population. Doesn't that give you a little clue about who we're dealing with?
This movie is about Zuckerberg first and foremost and, as the character in the film, his view of women was as prizes. They were his reward for being smarter than the next guy. Saverin wasn't far behind in that view.
"What are we to do with a great film that makes women look so awful?" asks Rebecca Davis O'Brien in her Daily Beast piece. Well, that's not the point of the film and I am not allowing for dumb people who take that away from it. There will always be dumb people who don't understand and I'm never making allowances for them. So, let's face it, not all women are awesome individuals. Nor, of course, are all men...as I think the movie itself demonstrates. Is it not unreasonable to think that the shallow, the stupid, and the self-centered (who are the most likely to behave in an immature and pyromaniacal manner) would be the ones that would attach themselves to assholes who look like they're going to richer than
In the narrow scope of the film (which is Zuckerberg's greed, self-aggrandizement and insecurity), including women in his life who do not fulfill the role of prizes will only serve to dilute that part of his personality damage the thematic focus. It would not be a complexity, it would be a contradiction. In real life - yeah - it's a complexity. This is not real life.
So some people, I think, have missed the point.
So, occasionally, depending entirely on the subject matter of the film, it's okay to fail Bechdel. When any of those three fall outside the scope of the work, it's just chaff**.
*Not always, but sometimes.
**The Great Escape, for instance would be brought down by having some unnecessary subplot created solely to get women into the movie to make them talk about something other than a man. As it was, I'm glad they didn't create an insipid romantic subplot to get a woman in there at all - as was done with The Caine Mutiny. It doesn't make either of them bad movies - there just weren't women in the stalag or on World War II minesweepers.
LIKE - THE SOCIAL NETWORK
If you want a comprehensive review, there are other places to get them. For my money, it was just fuckin' good. Sorkin on all cylinders. Fincher, as usual does his thing+1 and -- I'm not even going to be objective about Reznor's score. T'was awesome.These are just some observations.
That first seen between Zuckerberg and the girl who set him off was very Sorkinesque being high speed and figure-it-out-your-damn-self, which I love. More screenwriters need to actually aim just a wee bit over their audiences heads instead of giveing them soft lobs. It was not this, however, that sealed it as Sorkin.
The Sorkin cameo made me smile and cringe a little at the same time. At least he didn't "uh" between every word as he does when he speaks publicly. Not that I should complain. When people tell me I should have no trouble being witty in person I have to remind them that I write because it gives me plenty of time to be witty beforehand.
Finally, I see somebody use tilt-shift photography and it doesn't feel like it's just a gimmick. Something that looks cool. This time, it thematically fit. Making the rowers looking like miniatures or toys comments on the absolute lack of importance, relevance and general pretentiousness of the world the Winklevi inhabit.
And Reznor and Ross managed to do something with "In The Hall of The Mountain King" that also comments on the scene as ridiculous in the same way as the tilt-shift without being outright comicical.
Winklevi. -snort-
"..and there's two of me."
While I might not be even remotely a fan of the real-life Zukcerberg, the fictionalized Zuckerberg is one of the best fuck-you characters I've seen since President Bartlet or Tyler Durden. Coincidence? The "Do I have your full attention?" scene being utterly perfect.
And did you catch the Tyler Durden reference?
When Parker and arguably Zuckerberg get all Machiavellian - or just plain assholish - and devalue only Peter Parker's Saverin's stock and we get the line "That's Life in the NFL." That's when it was solidified as a Sorkin movie. It was either going to be that line (sometimes substituting the NBA) or it was going to be a Gilbert & Sullivan reference. If there was one, I missed it.
If you any doubts about seeing the Facebook movie, let them be assuaged. It doesn't matter that it's Facebook. It could be about a really awesome blender. it's about greed, ego, betrayal, talking rally fast and cruelty to chickens.