This past week I’ve not had much time to think about my feature outline due to other pieces of work, however I have been able to begin forming the skeletal structure of the feature whilst trying to adhere to a clear three-act structure and arcs for the character’s I’ve created. I looked into the evaluation of the three act structure paradigm in Raindance writers’ lab: Write and Sell the hot screenplay (Grove, 2001, 24 – 38) in which Elliot Grove describes how useful the structure is to new screenwriters. As the film’s plot is linear and relatively simple, splitting the film into three acts was easy, and it allowed me to experiment with determining the importance of various character subplots and tertiary characters that the idea naturally began to develop for me.

For example, as Michael and Jacob lock themselves within their house for the majority of the film’s second act, their odd behaviour (getting rid of everything in their house that could be substituted as a weapon against them, screaming and crying loudly etc.) attracts the attention of their neighbours, Mr & Mrs. Preil – an elderly couple who seem to be incredibly nosy and suspicious of the two. The two were inspired by the characters within The Burbs (Dante, 1989) and a small segment of Monty Python’s: The Meaning of Life (Jones, 1983), in which an elderly couple (played by Eric Idle and Graham Chapman) watch over the their Catholic neighbours and their many children whilst judging them from their home. The Preils’ characters also fed into the plot’s third act, where the police are called in on the situation thanks to their suspicion of the two’s actions within their home.

 

 

As the first act of the film needs to ‘communicate the theme to the audience’ (Grove, 2001, 25) I began to think about how I wanted the main duo of Michael and Jacob to develop over the film. As it’s part of the comedy genre I partially believe that characters sometimes don’t necessarily need to develop too much throughout, but I feel like Jacob’s overcoming of his ex-girlfriend and determination to build his life back up again after living on Michael’s sofa and leaching of him would be sufficient enough. The whole experience with the mafia could also affect Michael, by forcing him to take action (he is previously shown to be nothing but passive in most aspects of life) it could revitalise him to achieve his dreams or quit his dead-end job? I may need to continue thinking about this one.

At the moment, my three act structure looks like this:

ACT ONE |

– Jacob and Michael are introduced, they live together. Jacob is a recently-single, depressed slob whilst Michael is a passive, uptight man.

– Whilst in a woods (Why are they in a wood? This needs explaining) they stumble upon a ruthless murder by two mafia members (the Mulbys).

– Jacob and Michael run home screaming, whilst the Mulbys are shown to be just as scared.

ACT TWO |

– Jacob and Michael become paranoid and board up their home for days on end, not leaving or communicating with the outside world.

– They get rid of everything within their home which could be used a weapon against them.

– The Mulbys hide the truth from the rest of the family and search for the witnesses to their murder.

– Jacob and Michael’s odd behaviour catches the attention of The Preils.

ACT THREE |

– Jacob and Michael need characterisation here….(needs more thought)

– The Preils call the police on the two, who show up at the same time as the Mulbys.

– A larger gunfight ensues, Michael kills someone with an apple corer…

 

That’s all I have at the moment, but it’s a starting point for me to jump off of.

 

Bibliography:

Grove, E. (2001) Raindance Writers’ lab: Write and Sell the hot screenplay. London: Focal Press, 24 – 38.

Dante, J. (1989) The ‘Burbs. [DVD]. Universal Studios.

Jones, T. (1983) Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life. [DVD]. Universal Pictures.

 

My film is no longer a horror-comedy.

During the week I began to read through How to Write a Movie in 21 Days: The Inner Movie Method (King, 1988) and, whilst a lot of is useful for personal writing, because I’m only writing the outline of a feature for this project not much of it applied to me apart from an overwhelming sense of letting the story change naturally. I began to think about the sheer contrast of the slapstick, dialogue-fuelled comedy of Shane Black’s Kiss Kiss Bang Bang/The Nice Guys (Black, 2005, 2016) I wanted to emulate and the serial-killer horror I wished to play it against. I found myself wondering whether or not I was simply incorporating the horror genre because of my personal love of it. It seemed to take away a layer of reality within the film so I thought it would be best to change it to something more realistic but equally fun to play with. Instead of them witnessing a murder by a serial killer, instead Jacob and Michael witness a mafia killing by another idiotic duo, who are almost just as idiotic as those two:

Angelos Mulby (Late 30s) – A bald, stocky man with an intimidating presence but a surprisingly endearing outlook on life. Despite his exterior his biggest passion is poetry and he often dreams of becoming an unironic restaurant critic who specialises in Italian cuisine. Takes his role in the family business seriously. His goal is to find the witnesses to his job at the start of the film and silence them to keep the family out of trouble.

Anton Mulby (Late 20s) – A thinner, more nasal man with slicked back hair, obviously takes great pride in his appearance. More eccentric and immature than Angelos, settles into panic when talking about the witnesses throughout the film. He wants to be taken seriously by the rest of the family and his goal is to one day run the family business.

The idea came from a mixture of sources. One of my favourite films, In Bruges (McDonagh, 2008) again features a similar tone I wish to capture within my film, the dark comedy that’s superbly undercut by witty dialogue between characters throughout, even with the antagonist Harry (played by Ralph Fiennes), the dialogue is identical to that of the two protagonists. Everybody within the film appears to be in the same boat and I love that sense of dramatic irony in the idea that there are no clear antagonists within the film, there are just people with different agendas and different jobs. With that in mind two idiots being part of a larger crime syndicate family, terrified of their family being brought into the light by two accidental witnesses gives me a lot to work with in terms of character interactions. They desperately won’t want to be caught and that will drive them to find the two protagonists in the film.

To keep the comedic sensibilities I gave Angelos a small backstory that would be used as a recurring joke, as his italian connections due to being involved with the mafia could lead to his passion for italian cuisine being seen as a joke. Both Mulby’s were heavily inspire my my potentially first associations with mob members…those seen on The Simpsons (Fox, 1989-). In particular the characters ‘Fat Tony’ and ‘Louie’ (one of his men). I had both of these characters’ appearances in mind when crafting the two, which probably heavily influences how they act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

King, V. (1988) How to Write a Movie in 21 Days: The Inner Movie Method. USA: Quill Publishing.

Black, S. (2005) Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. [DVD]. Warner Bros. Pictures.

Black, S. (2016) The Nice Guys. [DVD]. Warner Bros. Pictures.

McDonagh, M. (2008) In Bruges [DVD]. Universal Studios.

The Simpsons (1989-) [DVD]. 20th Century Fox.

 

 

As I wanted the characters in my outline to take precedents and provide comedy from their interactions, I knew I needed to first develop the ones I would create, particularly the central male duo who guide the film along. Because I knew I wanted their bickering to be a main part of the film, I knew the two had to contrast, then with the situation they were placed in I needed both of them to be at least partially idiotic/passive as to not reach for the logical conclusion of standing up to such an individual. I knew I wanted one of the protagonists to be more passive than the other, similar to Zach Braff’s protagonist in Garden State (Braff, 2004) where instead of him tackling problems and causing conflict, instead actions simply happen around the individual. This would allow me to use a lot of the character’s reactions to mine for comedy. It also justifies the presence of another protagonist for the sake of conflict, as ‘a weak character cannot carry the burden of protracted conflict’ (Egri, 2004, 80), therefore the other half of the duo would need to be more self-assured and confident in his actions, an active protagonist. I thought back of other examples of central duos within films and began to look at the relationships of friends that provide good ground for comedic dialogue and began to develop the two characters and explore their relationship and backstory:

Michael – Late 20s sales assistant who lives with Jacob. The more adult of the two: smart, sensitive and logical in thought. Witnessing the murder has a severe emotional impact on Michael, who uses it as an excuse to abandon his responsibilities for a short period of time. His goal is to feel as free as Jacob appears to seem daily. He is the passive protagonist of the two and, due to how burnt out he feels by his job, seems to go with the flow and latch onto Jacob’s paranoia and actions throughout the film. Because he seems fed up with how his life going, his jealousy of Jacob’s ‘free spirit’ attitude will help me add character to the film and allow the two to become three dimensional, adding an extra layer to their relationship instead of having them just be jokes throughout the entire outline.

Jacob – Late 20s, currently unemployed man who lives with Michael. Childish, lazy and extremely idiotic, his paranoia infects Michael throughout the film multiple times. Recently single, he’s still hung up over the breakup with Katie and tries to use his situation to enforce himself into her life once again. His primary goal is simply not to die, though he’s secretly worried Michael plans to kick him out the house and attempts to stop that happening at any cost. He’s the more active of the two and is the primary source of arguments and conflict. The backstory of his break-up allows for subplots to be present throughout the film’s main story, and will allow me to flesh the character out towards the second act where his love for his ex puts the two of them in danger once more.

I’ve begun noting down small plot plot points that could develop these character traits within the plot, but I think I need to think more about structure in the next couple of days so I know the limits of what I can and can’t do.

 

Bibliography:

Braff, Z. (dir.) Garden State [DVD]. Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Egri, L. (2004) The Art of Dramatic Writing. London: Simon and Schuster.

Over the past two nights I’ve been taking into account the ‘central duel protagonists’ idea I took from my horror-comedy research and have begun forming a feature film concept that I think would work whilst also allowing for comedic and horror-centric aspects. Over Christmas I found myself arguing with a friend over whether or not you would be able to kill someone with an apple corer, and whether or not it would make a suitable weapon. Despite being told that the pressure needed to ‘core’ someone was impossible to muster I found something oddly quirky about the image of someone using something so quaint and insignificant to cause death by potentially plunging it into someone’s chest and removing their organs. The thought stayed with me and consistently made me smile and as soon as I began to think of two protagonists who would need to have the same conversation my friend and I did, the concept for my outline began to form almost immediately.

Rough Concept: Two friends who live together accidentally stumble upon a masked serial killer and become convinced that they’re next on the chopping block. They run home and lock themselves in, getting rid of everything in the house that could potentially be used as a weapon against them whilst slowly going insane from the paranoia.

I feel like even though the premise is simple, it would give me a good chance to develop the central characters and have their personalities take center stage which would allow the outline to work as an actual film. The minor horror aspects of the outline would be illustrated by the presence of the masked serial killer, and would contrast to comedic effect with the paranoia and idiocy of the central duo, allowing the scares to act as ‘recreational terror’ (Nowell, 133) for the audience, making the film almost more of a dark comedy.

 

Bibliography:

Nowell, R. (2014) “A kind of Bacall quality” Jamie Lee Curtis, Stardom and gentrifying non-Hollywood Horror. In: Nowell, R. (ed.) Merchants of Horror: The Business of Horror Cinema. New York, USA: Bloomsbury, 133.

Over Christmas I began going over potential plots for my feature script, I knew from the start that I wanted to go for the black comedy genre as many of my favourite films are part of that genre. My interest in horror also began to play a major part in my thought process, and I began to rewatch my favourite examples of horror-comedies for inspiration into the tone I wanted to capture. I rewatched The Cottage (Williams, 2008) and began to take notes on how both the comedic and horror-centric aspects were focused on, and how the two fused together. For example, within the film Peter (Rheece Shearsmith) is often the victim of horrifically gory wounds that leave him soaked in blood and add texture and tension to his movements within the horror aspect of the film, however these wounds are usually the subject of slapstick antics and provide the majority of the physical comedy within the film (the rest of which comes from the back-and-forth dialogue between the bickering brother protagonists).

 

I then rewatched Tucker and Dale Vs Evil (Craig, 2010) which feels more like a straight comedy despite adhering to common horror genre tropes. The slapstick physical comedy was present again, though once more presented in a gorier and darker fashion as much of the substance from the ‘horror comedy’ genre seems the be the playfulness filmmakers have messing with the contrast of the two genres and smashing them together.

 

Then finally I rewatched what myself and many consider to be one of the pinnacles of the subgenre, Shaun of the Dead (Wright, 2004). The slapstick element, whilst still present in certain moments, is less relied-upon here. Instead the majority of the comedy within the film’s script come from the characters and their interactions/reactions to their situation. Having Shaun & Edd (Pegg & Frost) act as a catalyst for group of characters around them maintains a solid tone and flow throughout the entire film before the final act, when the film’s plot and tone seem to darken and overshadow the comedy a bit more. The horror aspect is mostly just kept to appearances with the presence of zombies, and certain tropes are poked fun at and used well (the movement of a mirror to show a zombie in the background, for example). Even though these are used to good effect, in the same way as the other two texts I watched I found myself more engrossed in the interactions of the characters. Each film I watched contained a central duo (almost always male) to guide the film through its premise and I think that’s something I want to include within my outline as it would give me a good platform to stage the comedic element of my film.

Bibliography:

Craig, E. (dir.) (2010) Tucker and Dale Vs Evil [DVD]. Magnet Releasing.

Williams, P. (dir.) (2008) The Cottage [DVD]. Pathe Pictures.

Wright, E. (dir.) (2004) Shaun of the Dead [DVD]. Universal Pictures.