Script reviews

I don't see what's so heinous about the L.A. Times launching a column -- "Scriptland" by Jay Fernandez -- about script reviews.

Various online columnists (Stax, Drew McWeeny, myself) have done the same thing for many years, and the Times is just looking to jump on the same boxcar. It's mildly flattering in this sense. I think that Variety was the last major print publication to take a stab at script-reviewing -- editor Peter Bart riffed about two or three back in the mid '90s, if memory serves.

My only rule is not to review a script that disappoints or otherwise doesn't seem that exceptional.

I'll never stop wanting to read (or read about) the hot new scripts, but I've begun to appreciate more fully over the last couple of years how reading them can lead, almost more often than not, to disappointment with the finished films. The unavoidable tendency, of course, is to cast and direct the film as you're reading the script, and a lot of times the movies I've "directed" have seemed, in restrospect, better than the actual ones. (This syndrome had a something to do with my initial reaction to Wes Anderson's The Royal Tenenbaums.)

The other side of the coin, sometimes, is a script seeming moderately okay or pretty good, and then the movie turjing out much better. This, for me, was the case with the script of Anderson and Owen Wilson's Rushmore -- enjoyable as the script was, the movie was twice as good. There are also instances in which scripts read fairly well with a need for some polishing, as was the case with Cameron Crowe 's Elizabethtown...and then the movie comes along and very little of the script's charm has survived, much less been built upon.

Toronto pics #5<< previous | next >>Consideration Blahs

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 14, 2006 at 10:22 AM

comment #1

jesse Author Profile Page says ...

I don't know, it seems to me that this sort of column would be a lot more useful and productive -- and less "me first!! look what I have!!" -- if it was used to call attention to great unproduced scripts. I'm not talking about stuff that's probably going to roll in a few months but isn't finalized yet -- I mean actual unproduced/unattached scripts that could actually use the attention.

One could also talk about published versions of recent releases (do publishers still do those for the higher-up writer/writer-director types?)... but of course that isn't as sexy as saying "I read the latest Charlie Kaufman script even though he didn't want me to!"

Posted by jesse Author Profile Page at September 14, 2006 11:02 AM

comment #2

tholl-yung Author Profile Page says ...

This is going to be an ultimate showdown with lots of fur flying and meetings at the WGA.

Posted by tholl-yung Author Profile Page at September 14, 2006 11:07 AM

comment #3

Josh Massey Author Profile Page says ...

When you justify your actions by inferring it's OK because AICN does it,... well, you automatically lose the debate.

Posted by Josh Massey Author Profile Page at September 14, 2006 11:17 AM

comment #4

le corbeau Author Profile Page says ...

Jesse-- Years ago American Film did an article on ten great unproduced scripts. Some were really out there but sounded fascinating-- George C. Scott had tried to produce a film of Defoe's Journal of the Plague Year, and Michael Wadleigh (Woodstock) had a scrupulously documented script about the American Revolution which told all the things no one knew about that time period (the only example I remember was showing John Hancock as a screaming queen with a crush on Washington).

Over time, some of the scripts were produced, in fact-- two that I recall were Eight Men Out and Jacob's Ladder. Good movies... but far from great movies in my book. So you really never know how things that read well will play-- or how good things that seem ordinary on the page may turn out to be.

Posted by le corbeau Author Profile Page at September 14, 2006 12:19 PM

comment #5

Ron Cossey Author Profile Page says ...

I like the "Scriptland" column. Good pub for scribes is always a plus. Was glad to get the update on "Enemies," and Vanderbilt's work on it. If the column continues to focus on projects of integrity, it's thumbs up.

Posted by Ron Cossey Author Profile Page at September 14, 2006 12:57 PM

comment #6

christian Author Profile Page says ...

Finke is such a Player Hater, it doesn't matter what anybody here does, she'll find a way to seek and destroy.

Maybe more focus on screenplays could help the studios understand that marketing is what should come AFTER the script.

That said, I don't need to read anything about the evolution of TRANSFORMERS drafts.

For the record, the best script I've read in years is NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. This should be the Coen brothers return to form.

Posted by christian Author Profile Page at September 14, 2006 1:47 PM

comment #7

Mike Schaefer Author Profile Page says ...

"Michael Wadleigh (Woodstock) had a scrupulously documented script about the American Revolution which told all the things no one knew about that time period"

Funny you should mention Wadleigh... I nearly posted about him in that recent whatever-became-of-their-careers? thread. nearly a dozen years after he made "Woodstock", he directed his only feature, the terrific urban horror flick "Wolfen". Still waiting for the follow-up more than 25 years later!

Posted by Mike Schaefer Author Profile Page at September 14, 2006 1:55 PM

comment #8

Burbanked Author Profile Page says ...

I think the *idea* of the column is great - and yes, it borrows heavily from its online counterparts.

But this first installment is written with WAY too much self-serving glee and hyperbolic praise of Charlie Kaufman. Sure, he's a terrific writer, but did he *really* write a script for which we should doubt that "cinema is even capable of handling the thematic, tonal and narrative weight of a story this ambitious"? Really? What does that even mean?

I'll visit Scriptland a few more times, but it'd be nice to see it move away from the Exclusive! Script! Review! stuff that we see everywhere else (and Elsewhere) and dig a little more deeply into the unseen work and professional lives of screenwriters.

Posted by Burbanked Author Profile Page at September 14, 2006 2:10 PM

comment #9

Terry McCarty Author Profile Page says ...

My memory is a little fatigued at this hour
but I do recall the AMERICAN FILM article
and I thought there was a script written by
Anthony Burgess (A CLOCKWORK ORANGE)which was
intended as a remake of WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE (PUMA?).

Posted by Terry McCarty Author Profile Page at September 15, 2006 12:10 AM

comment #10

le corbeau Author Profile Page says ...

I don't remember Puma being in the article but it's certainly possible. You can basically read Burgess's treatment in his book The End of the World News, which recycles it (the acronym for the two planets coming to smash us is Lynx instead of Puma). It's minor but interesting Burgess, wrestles with some of the philosophical issues which, amazingly enough, were completely neglected in Deep Impact and Armageddon....

Posted by le corbeau Author Profile Page at September 15, 2006 9:02 AM

comment #11

le corbeau Author Profile Page says ...

Oh, one other note about unmade versions of When World Collide-- Cecil B. DeMille optioned the book when it first came out but nothing ever came of it. That would have been pretty cool, a silent or early talkie When World Collide with Flash Gordon-era special effects.

Posted by le corbeau Author Profile Page at September 15, 2006 9:03 AM

Leave a comment