G.Morris Feature Script Research

This week in the final part of preparation for my individual presentation I continued to edit my plot points and continued to come up with short sequences which would feature within the film despite them not being needed for my outline. I decided to end the film by punishing the protagonists for their murders and having them locked up in prison, as I feel like their actions dictate such a resolution.

This worked to my advantage too as I found that prison life would give closure to Michael’s character arc, within confinement he doesn’t have to worry about his job or Jacob much anymore and it could lead him to finally becoming happy after unloading the truth to his best friend at the end of the film’s second act.

 

The film’s second act, where Michael and Jacob are slowly going insane in isolation within their boarded up home offered a chance to play fully with the comedic aspects of the film. To help me find a suitable slapstick tone to wash a dark sensibility over I rewatched Death at a Funeral (Oz, 2007), a dark british comedy set during a funeral where increasingly ridiculous acts of absurdity and slapstick happen to the mourning family and their guests. The combination of the absurd tone and the bleak subject matter is one I’d wish the second act to play with to great effect, and lead to me treating the scenario almost the same way in which a bleak sitcom might do. Essentially Jacob and Michael’s story within the second act is a sitcom, or even could be used as a more comedy-based episode of Inside No.9 (BBC, 2014-) due to its one location setting. Though this is something again I can expand upon in another post, I began to create more tertiary character simply to be used as jokes within this segment, such as family members for both Jacob and Michael, characters that suited one purpose and one purpose only – to provide more platforms for comedy within my film.

 

Bibliography:

Oz, F. (dir.) Death at a Funeral. [DVD]. Verve Pictures.

Inside No. 9 (2014-) [DVD]. BBC Two.

Over the last week I’ve been expanding on a lot of the elements within my concept in preparation for my individual presentation, I’ve added a dog into Jacob and Michael’s relationship in order to help solve two plot points I was struggling to find resolutions for. The dog being taken on a walk gives me a suitable platform for them stumbling across the murder, after which in their panicked state they leave the dog in the wood. The dog could then be used as the final piece of information the Mulbys need to find out where Michael and Jacob live as their address could be imprinted on the dog’s collar.

The most drastic changes I’ve made seem to be to both the second and third act, where I felt like restraining Michael and Jacob within their home would mean that a lot of the action within my script outline would feel like padding in order to reach feature length run time of 90 minutes, which is what I’m aiming for. Instead now, I’ve included Jacob’s subplot with his ex-girlfriend and turned her moving on into a pivotal turning point for Jacob’s character. Him and Michael visit her (in balaclavas to hide their identities, more suspicion from The Preils) only to find her with a new man and to be truthful to him about how badly he treated her.

Not only would this give Michael and Jacob a chance to express their true feelings on the way back but it also gives them both a chance to develop into the characters that they could be after the film has ended. The timing of it being at the end of the second act also means that the third act would be bereft of characterisation, allowing me to go all out on action and comedy set pieces which would allow the film to go out on a high note. The two of them leaving the house also gives me a chance for The Preils to phone the police, leading to a cyclical moment where they mistake an intruding officer to be one of the mafia members and tie him up, much like the victim was tied up at the start of the film.

At the moment my list of plot points looks like this:

-Two best friends (Michael and Jacob) are walking their dog together through a nearby forest, when they accidentally witness a brutal mafia killing by two men.

-The two abandon their dog and run home, boarding up their doors and windows scared that they’re being followed.

– Meanwhile Anton and Angelos Mulby (the two killers) begin to similarly panic over the fact that they’ve been seen. They head back home and decide not to tell the family at risk of seeming unprofessional and ruining their reputation.

-Michael and Jacob isolate themselves in their home for days, slowly becoming paranoid and ensuring there’s no more threat within the house (by getting rid of all potential weapons) whilst attempting to contact the outside world.

-The two’s actions gather the attention of their neighbours, Mr & Mrs. Preil, who begin to suspect the two are up to something shady.

-Angelos and Anton begin to search for the two, looking around for suspicious activity and interrogating people over whether they’ve seen anything suspicious or not the only way they know how, with violence.

-After she fails to answer his calls, Jacob suspects his recent ex-girlfriend has become a target and forces the two of them to leave the house to ensure her safety and cause countless damage on their journey there, only to realise she just refuses to talk to Jacob after the break-up.

-Noting they’ve left, Mrs Preil informs the police of Michael and Jacob’s strange behaviour, leading to an officer showing up at the house.

-Angelos and Anton find Jacob and Michael’s dog, whose collar tells them the guys’ address.

-Arriving back at home, Jacob and Michael mistake the officer for a member of the mafia and kidnap him, holding him hostage inside their home and gathering more interest from the police force.

-Anton and Angelos arrive at the house, confused by the hostage situation and convince themselves Jacob and Michael are a rival family, leading to a onslaught of violence ending with both Mulbys being killed by an apple corer.

I’m having trouble with figuring out how to end the film, as technically my two protagonists become murderers throughout the film, meaning I may have to follow the almost-stereotypical rules of a black comedy by punishing my main characters in the end…

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.