#screenplay analysis

[david-talks-sw]

Since people were talking about it recently: is there any official reason given of why Padme forgave Anakin immediatly after the Tusken Raider massacre? I always see a lot of diferent reasons given on the internet, from long and deep analises of theirs characters to "the writers didn't think about it".

Okay, folks (or single person who messaged me three times) I'm finally talking about this XD !

I got no official answer.

That said, here's a few points that I do think merit consideration, and I haven't really seen them mentioned anywhere.

1. Anakin is more regretful in the script.

If you look at how the scene is portrayed in the Attack of the Clones July 2001 draft of the screenplay, in Scene 118, pages 83-84...

... he's sorry and ashamed. He is in absolute shock of what he did. We get a bit of this, in the film...

... but in the script it's much more explicit. It starts out with him lashing out at Obi-Wan, at his own lack of power, but it ends with him breaking down and just apologizing over and over.

He didn't just kill them, he went Wolverine-style berseker and murdered EVERYTHING in his path, and he's thinking back on it with a clear-ish head now and realizing the gravity of his monstrous act.

When it's on paper, it reads very differently, to me. He's more remorseful, so Padmé's reaction makes more sense.

But there's a big difference between what you write in a script and what comes out in the film. Once you're shooting, myriad other factors come into play. So Anakin's dialog changes as the delivery and the rhythm are narrowed down, the beats in the scene shift around... but Padmé's reaction stays the same.

And that's where you get the disconnect.

Because what sticks with the audience more is this moment, now.

The anger. Not the shock and remorse.

So why the change? Well, George Lucas had this to say:

"He's very unhappy about that. Very sad and depressed. There was some dialogue here before that I took out, because it seemed to get in the way of the emotional moment of this scene where she says, "To be angry is to be human," and he says, "But to control your anger is to be a Jedi." And so that issue was actually laid out in dialogue at one point, and I decided to pull back from it... because it seemed to me that it was pretty obvious that was what was there. And I didn't think I needed to state it quite as boldly as I did. And that issue will come up at a later time, and I just felt it took away from the moment of his sadness. And I thought the sadness pretty much said the same thing without words." - AotC, Commentary Track #2, 2002

The reasoning was: too much dialog takes away from emotion.

An audience member will have a stronger emotional reaction from Anakin crying than Anakin crying while screaming "woe is me!"

I get (and generally agree) with the reasoning. But, personally, I have mixed feelings about this particular artistic choice.

On the one hand... if the intent is to show that Anakin made a big mistake and is sorry and sad because of his actions, then I think it's safe to say that it's not what most people took away.

Which then leads to things like John Ostrander writing Anakin as thinking he'd kill them all over again.

Also, it makes the viewer question the wisdom of Padmé's judgment.

But on the other hand... whether Anakin was feeling apologetic or not, he still did it. He still effectively massacred a whole tribe, he made that choice.

And whether the intent in that specific scene is conveyed efficiently or not, Anakin's character flaws (which the Prequels are really about) aren't really impacted and still tie together perfectly.

The only real change to that scene is that Padmé goes from having a more understandable reaction to "missing a lot of red flags".

2. Padmé thinks she can fix Anakin.

Here's what Natalie Portman had to say on the scene, which I think is an interesting take.

"She's this very powerful woman, and I think Padmé is sort of intrigued by this darker side she sees to him, especially because she's such a person who tries to fix everything. She sees problems in the world and she still has that idealistic passion… to think she can change everything, and she can change people who have darkness to them. And she sees goodness in him. She sees this passion. And she sees that there's a lot of anger in that passion, that it's not just the goodness and purity of her passion. So I think that is definitely attractive for her- that there's something that she can try and help heal or mend. That might be a big surprise for her when she can't." - Natalie Portman, AotC, Commentary Track #2, 2002

A part of Padmé is intrigued by Anakin's darker side, the "handsome bad boy" part... but that's coming from a place of "I can change him".

But the only thing that can change Anakin... is Anakin himself. Unfortunately, he keeps:

indulging his darker selfish impulses because he lacks discipline, acting on emotion despite knowing better,

regretting it for a moment and acknowledging that it was wrong,

starting again, never learning from his mistakes.

Which is part of the reason why their relationship is sort of doomed from the get-go.

[kanralovesu]

Spiderman Far From Home: The Smartest Marvel Movie?

To make up for the click-bait title, I’ll get right to business: Spiderman Far From Home is a movie about how we put up facades of perfection and try to hide our flaws instead of embracing them. This is especially true for superheroes who are embodiments of perfection which we mere humans should look up to and strive to be (an idol). At the beginning of the movie, Peter is stuck in this mindset and therefore he believes he cannot step into the shoes of Iron Man as he’s only that kid from Brooklyn. He meets Mysterio who literally uses the facade of heroism to get what he wants. He’s also stuck in the same mindset as Peter, but he believes the power of the idol is more important than the physical ability to be a hero. So throughout the movie our protagonist is someone who is physically able to be a hero but doesn’t believe he can be the idol and an antagonist who is the idol without the being physically able to be a hero. Peter eventually escapes his doubts by realizing that you don’t have to be an idol to be a superhero. He learns that the superhero facade is unrealistic and embraces his faults. Peter DOESN’T become the idol and he DOESN’T change except for realizing that his original self was already good enough. However, what other parts of the movie support this idea of perfection being a facade? Let’s see:

Ned and his girlfriend form a “perfect” relationship early in the movie using all kinds of cute couple talk and doing classic couple things, but by the end they’ve broken up.

Peter’s plan to enter into a similar relationship with MJ fails multiple times. By the time MJ gets the gift he’s given her, its already broken and yet they form a more real bound through embracing each other’s flaws.

The idealistic spiderman “swing your girlfriend through the city” fails, highlighting just how unrealistic that is and how scary it’d be in real life.

Flash Thompson (Peter’s asshole classmate) is revealed to have a troubling home life when his mom couldn’t make it to the airport to see him. His image online is much more filtered than the reality of his situation.

The idea of “the perfect vacation” is subverted multiple times. First they end up in a rundown hotel and have to face the reality (sinking buildings and water) instead of the facade we all understand about the beautiful city on water that is Venice. Later after Fury upgrades their vacation, the kids are happy at first until they have to go to the opera. They prefer the chaotic nature of the festival to the scripted nature of the opera. It turns out that perfection isn’t always the most enjoyable. No matter how you feel about the opera we know it represents “perfection” because its a very scripted experience much like Mysterio’s battles.

Happy’s offhand comment about how its actually called Tower Bridge not London Bridge. Yet another references to how famous tourist locations are nothing but a facade as well. 

Peter defeats Mysterio in the end without using his webs (his super powers) and instead by using his own ingenuity. He even uses scraps from the drones as a way of literally symbolizing how broken doesn’t mean worthless. 

Mysterio shoots himself because he orders the drones to fire while they’re close to him. He clearly viewed himself and indestructible. This is a case of where the idolization of super heroes as invincible ends up getting him in trouble when he can’t actually physically deliver on the bullet immunity and super strength the real heroes have. It also shows that his drones are flawed.

Mysterio’s motivation is revenge for being treated badly by Stark. In this way he himself is an example of how superheroes are flawed.

When Fury asks Mysterio something off script he totally fucks up the line and confirms Fury’s doubts. Its impossible to keep up the facade when unexpected circumstances kick in, hence the weakness of the facade.

When Mysterio’s illusion ends, Peter is hit by a train, literally symbolizing the phrase “reality hit me like a”.

The movie also has a pretty clear message on Fake News:

They joke multiple times about how “you can always trust the internet / news”

The media is easily manipulated into calling spiderman “Night Monkey”.

The post credit’s scene with our favorite Fake News reporter.

These two concepts go hand in hand and combined they illustrate the message “if its too good to be true, it probably isn’t”

This will always be one of if not my favorite Marvel movies because of the clear attention to detail they put into delivering the theme in every conceivable part of the story. It really feels like a complete package with no loose ends. I also love how the theme comments on superhero movies as a whole with very clear nods to how the theatrics behind Mysterio are similar to that of a classic Marvel movie. I hope this is an indication that the movies coming next are diverting from the classic hero formula and breaking down the facade that is a superhero.

[screenspirit]

Analysis of ‘Memento’ and How it Impacted My Screenplay ‘Amygdala’

My screenplay: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SM-EqRAisszWltuZg--KBPkexH8An4MYlyQoXKdOick

Christopher Nolan's 'Memento' provides unique aspects to the screenplay, presenting a narrative which is essentially told in reverse and holds classic tropes to its genre. While studying its screenplay, I gathered a range of knowledge on how scripts can be formed and executed, in addition to how to elevate their creativity. These assisted in developing my own screenplay called 'Amygdala'; focusing on a young man volunteering for a scientific experiment to help conquer his fears which proves to be challenging.

Firstly, 'Memento' is perceived as an innovative screenplay when observing its story and theme; meaning an accounting of events of the narrative, which are connected with a set of values. The story shown follows Leonard Shelby, who is suffering from Short Term Memory loss after being attacked by a man classified as 'John G', seeking revenge for his wife who he believes was murdered in the same attack. However, he faces obstacles as he cannot keep a grasp of reality due to his inability to grasp memories. The narrative's logline demonstrates the film's values; Memory, Identity, Personal Expedition and Revenge, which can be tied together to illustrate more developed observations of the film which are known as the themes. To elaborate, one can conjugate the values provided when breaking down the story to identify the theme of 'Expedition of Revenge destroying Identity'. This suggested theme holds a syntax which correlates with 'Memento', demonstrating the significance of themes and story in dissecting the screenplay. These underlying themes are important as 'When thematic statements become the central organizing principle of a screenplay, they can serve as an analytical tool for reading and evaluating for coherence and unity' [1], thus, it is the themes stemmed from the values which grant opportunities to understand cinematic text in an advanced manner by becoming critical approaches. One sequence which displays this theme is the one in which Leonard and his companion, Teddy, are discussing his work on 'John G'; inviting the values of Revenge and Identity into the sequence. The technique of dialogue is used to convey the themes illustrated here; Leonard states that he is determined to catch 'John G' as he 'Took away my [his] memory. He destroyed my [his] ability to live'. When Teddy tells him he is still living, Leonard retorts with 'Only for revenge', thus, underlying the theme in question as Leonard now believes his only reason for living is to achieve his revenge. It is also important that here, the theme is represented in his ideology. This is significant as the narrative allows opportunity for this ideology to change since 'every story is ultimately a record of value-changes' [2], therefore, the themes of the film are held together by the ideology and values associated with them which can change. We find this theme being developed when we learn that Leonard has spent the film's plot chasing a man whom he has already killed, but because he cannot remember it, Teddy has used him to kill other criminals by letting Leonard believe they are 'John G'. Teddy tells Leonard that he 'gave him a reason to live', which echoes the previous statement Leonard gave on only living for revenge. Teddy has granted Leonard a purpose orientated around a vendetta which Leonard invests his life in, despite being false and not connected to Leonard's past. One must consider that the conversation in the café chronologically takes place after this reveal of information but the non-linear structure exchanges the order in order to heighten dramatic effect. As a result, the values of Revenge and Identify have been changed in the screenplay's structure on the spectator's part; they have realised that Leonard is trapped in a repetitive cycle of his false expedition which is stealing his original identity. After doing so, they are left to question the goal and existence of these values as Leonard is unable to do so. Overall, story and themes are significant to the screenplay in representing the film's core areas for analysis. They cooperate to elevate the screenplay with relation to the critical or analytical conversations it can generate, thus, defining Nolan's skills of writing a screenplay with cohesive thematic structure.

In addition to this, the form of which 'Memento' takes offers evaluations to be made in order to understand the film and its screenplay. By form, we are referring to the cinematic elements which combine to perform the complete systems (cues) spectators experience when viewing. These elements consist of many aspects such as the literary design of the story ideas, the visual design of mise-en-scene and cinematography. These elements are essential ingredients to establishing a film, such as 'Memento', with cinematic credit, specifically demonstrating the rhythmic progression of the plot. Rhythm is key to the execution of a screenplay because 'the aim of rhythm is to provide a unity of experience' [3], thus, a screenwriter has created a successfully entertaining film if the narrative follows a precise rhythm. This comes from 'a creation of patterns within the narrative' [4] and one significant pattern 'Memento' uses lies in the props of the photographs Leonard takes to provide visual marks he needs to remember. The photographs represent important sights or people and some have notes on the back, thus, they are a vital prop to the film in serving as Leonard's memory. Their purpose provides a pattern to the film's plot: any time an important person or place comes into Leonard's life, he captures it on camera and solidifies its importance. As a result, spectators are conditioned to observe the film using this pattern represented in the props to identify characters that will influence what happens in the story. In addition to this, the notes on the back provide clues or predictions that will be developed later on, thus, engendering anticipation and assumptions in the viewer, also feeding into the pattern of the narrative as seeing the photograph on screen with the notes signifies the assumptions. Overall, the narrative is grafted within these photographs by gathering up as a motif of significant stages and developments of the plot.

These props used in 'Memento' which serve as a narrative element also correspond with the film's conventional genre, that is, they convey how a 'screenwork is a set of disparate images' [5].  The film's genre can be classified as a psychological crime thriller after observing the previous logline and the values it demonstrates. There are psychological aspects with the value of memory and how the plot is orientated around Leonard's thought processes. Furthermore, he is trying to solve the crime of his attack and wife's 'murder' in a journey which elicits moods of suspense and anticipation. The photographs Leonard takes during his expedition not only consist of places and people he needs to remember, but also evidence of what he has done, echoing pictures taken of a crime scene. Spectators also observe Leonard taking photographs of crimes he has committed, such as the murder of the real John G which took place before the plot. Therefore, the photographs are not only important in engendering a rhythmic pattern in the plot as an element of form, but they also act as visual codes to the psychological crime thriller as the film's genre; acting as the 'disparate images' to the screenplay to highlight genre. Furthermore, genre is significant to the screenplay of 'Memento' in terms of giving it a structure to be written in, despite the non-linear narrative, which is also linked with the style of the film. Screenwriting relies on 'the combination of genre and style' as it 'provides the unifying framework for all...narrative elements' [6], thus, the conventions which convey the crime thriller genre such as the photographs are vital in defining what is featured in the screenplay with relation to mise-en-scene and plot events. To elaborate, writing a crime genre screenplay such as 'Memento' would require specific sequences and characters which correlate with that genre in question, for example, a villain character type who needs to be brought to justice in a climatic sequence. As a result, there is some level of a structure to the screenplay which can still be identified by both the writer and the spectators watching the final picture. This can be made evident when observing Leonard's hunt for 'John G' to bring him to his interpretation of justice, in the form of a murderous vendetta. The screenplay can be structured with the possibility of a successful capture of 'John G', which can be predicted by spectators as they observe his expedition which in turn provokes the moods of anticipation a thriller needs from an audience. Nolan provides a unique aspect to the structure of a crime thriller screenplay with 'Memento' using the non-linear narrative to play with ideas of when this plot event will take place. As the sequences are displayed in a non chronological or reverse presentation, spectators will undergo a different experience when watching Nolan's take on a psychological crime story, in terms of not being able to predict when which conventional event to a crime thriller; the capturing of the criminal, will take place. The reveal to spectators that Leonard actually fulfilled his revenge against 'John G', who fulfils the role of the villain or criminal, before the spectators were invited to experience the narrative is an example of this innovative experience. Audiences are not granted the chance to witness John G being brought to justice by the protagonist as a plot event because of the value of memory and mental health conveyed in Leonard, thus, elevating how the screenplay of 'Memento' provides a diverse take on the crime thriller genre.

Gathering all the previous identifications and analyses of the screenplay of 'Memento', I was able to draw inspiration from it when developing my own screenplay 'Amygdala' with relation to themes stemmed from values and cinematic techniques. To elaborate, the themes involving personal expedition and identity were significant to me in writing my screenplay, creating a mirroring between the protagonist of Leonard and my own named Xander. Similar to Leonard's journey throughout the plot to fulfil his goal of justice to regain some of his identity despite his memory issues, Xander undergoes his own personal journey of combating his deepest phobias in order to receive some development to his identity. There is a psychological aspect to both of these summaries; 'Memento' with memory or mental disorders and 'Amygdala' with phobias; psychology being a framework which captures my attention and creativity.  Progressing this further, one value of 'Memento' is reality which clashes with memory; creating the theme of 'Memory influencing Reality' and this is presented in the same café sequence the theme involving expedition/revenge and identity is. Leonard articulates how 'Memory's not perfect....[they] can be distorted. They're just an interpretation. They're not a record', thus, conveying how he does not trust memories because he feels they manipulate reality. This ideology is echoed in 'Amygdala' with relation to the motif of the simulations Xander experiences. When facing his first phobia of germs (Mysophobia); manifested in a mirrored reflection of him covered in dirt, that contrasts with his real clean self, it is realising that the germs are exaggerations in his mind which help him defeat it. He then struggles to combat his biggest phobia of abandonment on the first try because he becomes overwhelmed and believes it's real, only to be told by doctors to find an anchor in how it isn't reality and is 'all in his head'. Once he processes this, he faces this phobia manifested in a simulation version of his mother telling him she is leaving and conquers it by firmly telling her she won't leave him. This conveys the presence of reality and illusion in both screenplays as they not only fight each other but also merge in the process. Furthermore, props and visual design to progress the story was also present in my work caused by the influence of Nolan's 'Memento'. Likewise to Leonard's photographs of things to remember with the notes highlighting significant narrative events and information to spectators, my protagonist comes across photos and notes in his simulations which share insight into his story and identity. The photograph of his parents with the father's face scratched out placed next to the note from his mother which informs him she is leaving serve as vital examples of mise-en-scene assisting narrative, similar to Leonard's photos. This is because they explain events which have happened before the plot but are still important to understanding the story and Xander's character; he has a phobia of abandonment from his mother after his father did the same. This is all revealed to spectators through the props of the photo and letter, echoing how information of characters in 'Memento' is hinted at using the props of the notes and generates anticipation and assumptions. In addition to this, both examples of visual elements are representations of the psychological states of the protagonists; Leonard relies on his example of props as he cannot trust his own mind and Xander repressed phobias is what causes the props to exist. Overall, 'Memento' impacted the development of my screenplay by providing ideas related to themes and how to express them using cinematic styles.

Word Count: 2,195

Footnotes

[1]. Screenplayology, 2.5-Theme and Ideology, 2.5.5-Analysis and Interpretation

[2]. Screenplayology, 2.5-Theme and Ideology, 2.5.3-Broad vs Specific Themes

[3]. The Art and Science of Screenwriting by Philip Parker, Rhythm and Tempo, Page 132, 1998,Intellect Books,15 Feb 2006

[4]. The Art and Science of Screenwriting by Phillip Parker, Rhythm and Tempo, Page 132, 1998 ,Intellect Books,15 Feb 2006

[5]. The Art and Science of Screenwriting by Phillip Parker, Explorations of Genre and Style, Page 151, 1998,Intellect Books,15 Feb 2006

[6]. The Art and Science of Screenwriting by Phillip Parker, Explorations of Genre and Style, Page 151, 1998,Intellect Books,15 Feb 2006

[kanralovesu]

Joker is an Irresponsible Movie. Wait, can art be irresponsible?

I think its possible for art to change people. I’ve personally experienced many wonderful pieces of art from video games to tv shows and movies that have shaped me into who I am. It stands to reasons then that its possible for art to change people negatively. This primarily happens unconsciously, so its not entirely clear to most people that they’re getting influenced at all, but if you look inward about times when you’ve been positively changed you can understand the effect media has. An irresponsible piece of art is one which potentially invites bad change. As the name one suggest, this is not intentional by its creators. Its an accident resulting from incompetent story writing. I also think its possible for most movies to be interpreted negatively by a select audience who wishes to do harm, but the key with irresponsible movies is how they are structured so as to not discourage this. Let’s use Joker as an example.

Joker is a movie that presents a problem but does not present a solid solution. Society is made out to be the larger antagonist of the story, made clear early on by how rats are infesting the city and causing disease. Nature is literally against the people of Gotham here and this is a very good way of showing this. This problem is then expanded on by having random people commit acts of violence in the streets, funding getting cut from social services and just in general there being a lot of wealth disparity. Now while this is perfectly fine so far, lets think about what the movie is saying about this societal problem: well its very bad. So bad in fact that it corrupts our main character into being a psycho killer almost singlehandely. There is NO character in this movie who presents a solution to this problem or even a voice of reason saying “perhaps we should find another way besides killing?” Presenting a problem without a solution in your story is bad writing. Its extremely easy to see a problem, but its extremely hard to fix a problem and solutions are a lot more helpful to the audience because they provide a call to action for after they’re finished viewing. What is this movie’s call to action? How do the characters deal with the problem of society? Well they murder a bunch of people. That’s the closest thing the movie has to an “answer”: riot in the streets. 

Now I’m not saying the movie actively encourages people to murder other people. After all, most of us realize the murder is being carried out by the “bad guys” of the movie. However, this movie is missing a crucial piece to any superhero movie, the piece that often reflects the “answer” to the movies problem: a hero. Without a hero or a clear solution to the movie’s posed problem, its easy to see how a certain section of the audience might view the protagonist of the film as the hero as that is often how movies are made. In actuality, the protagonist is just the character we focus on and not necessarily good or bad. Most films that have the protagonist as the bad guy also present some sort of opposition who the audience is clearly meant to associate with the “hero”, thus preventing them from falling into the trap of thinking the hero is protagonist. That’s because most movies have some positive message about how to solve the problem of the movie presents and the hero embodies that. Joker does not and that is irresponsible. 

Joker also has the added negative of already being associated with a negative ideology. This is obviously not something the filmmakers can change, but its something they needed to be more vigilant of. As it stands, the movie does not actively challenge the negative ideology already associated with it, in fact it kind of revels in it. Notice how the entire theme of the movie boils down to the famous phrase “we live in a society (bottom text)”. Its almost comical how similar this meme that originally parodied the Joker is to the movie, with “Bottom Text” as the punchline to the joke originally being funny because it was pretty clear no one using Joker as a symbol of the problems in society actually knew anything about the problem or cared to solve it. Turns out the movie is just a literal reflection of that and I think that’s the funniest joke of the whole thing. Now while certainly funny and ironic, its really shouldn’t be because as we know the “we live in a society” meme and even “gamers rise up” has been cooped by actual bad people like incels, racists and the far right. These are the types of people who might take violence into their own hands as a method of appealing their lord and savior Joker. What the movie needed to do instead is present an argument against the extreme ideologies that cooped it and do so very obviously. I think a very good way to do this would have been putting a focus on Joker’s lack of socialized medicine as a reason why he slowly became mad. Also the core problem with “we live in a society” is that it’s too general of a statement and everyone’s individual trauma and problems are different. The movie doesn’t actively fight against it and instead uses metaphors like the rats as a way of saying society as a whole is rotten. Instead, a better message would be saying life sucks differently for different people (in Joker’s case abuse and mental illness) and we’ve got to build very specific support networks to help people personally. Overall the point is that the movie didn’t acknowledge the negative ideologies associated with its character and thus played right into the hand of people who use that character in nefarious ways. 

So, in conclusion, I would describe Joker as an “irresponsible” movie because it A. presents a problem without a solution (other than violence), B. doesn’t have any characters who actively combat Joker’s ideology, thus making it seem like he’s the hero to some people purely because he’s the protagonist and C. doesn’t acknowledge and fight against the negative ideology associated with its title character. This movie is scary because its not hard to see how it could empower those with the potential to hurt people or radicalize people into an already existing ideology based on its material and because of that its an irresponsible piece of art. I think the movie needed drastic screenplay changes in order for it not to appear this way, possibly changing the theme slightly and adding in at least one additional character that shined as a positive force in Joker’s like (which he could totally kill as a way to cement himself as the bad guy).