Near Myths

 

(Dwarf guy from Lang’s SIEGFRIED)

Longterm Shadowplayer Elver Loho emailed me some while ago with a query for the blog, which I’ve been meaning to get around to. But it’s a toughie:

‘I come from a background of computer science and we had plenty of
great academic journals in the field. A lot of research was happening
all the time and academic journals are a great way to keep up with it.
Now that I’m making the switch to screenwriting, I find that there are
a couple of guru-written books on the subject that everyone likes
and… that’s pretty much it.

‘Hell, the biggest works about on one of the most important aspects of
screenwriting — story structure — were written more than 50 years
ago by Propp and Campbell and don’t even mention movies. I haven’t
come across anything that would even begin to rival the research that
those two guys did.

(Vladimir Propp & his magic lamp)

‘This is depressing. Surely, there’s academic research going on in the
field, right? Because I was browsing the online database of academic
journals that my local university library has and there’s a ton of
journals on literature. I even found an issue that was wholly
dedicated to the phenomenon of text in Ancient Roman wall paintings.
Surely if there are people who care enough about text in Ancient Roman
wall paintings to write research papers on the topic, there must be
people who care enough about film to write research papers on the
topic. But where are they? Where do they publish their research? And
is there even research going on in the field or are we trapped in a
New Age type of guru worship?’

Elver’s right, firstly, in that practically everything to do with screenwriting is depressing! Most good scripts don’t get filmed, many lousy ones do, and even the good ones that make it through often get mangled in the process. (I’ve been part of this process as both re-writer – for my sins – and re-written.) The research situation being depressing is consistent and unsurprising.

Magazine-wise, these are probably the best shows in town:

http://www.creativescreenwriting.com/index.html

http://www.scriptmag.com/

Expensive, but pretty good as I recall.

But they’re clearly industry rags rather than academic journals. I must admit I have a hard time picturing an academic journal on screenwriting — I think it would end up containing historical research rather than scientific principles because I don’t entirely believe there ARE any scientific principles in screenwriting. The Robert McKee / Syd Field approach is about as “scientific” as it gets, and much of the time those guys are just passing off opinion as fact or industry norms as universal principles. (Also, Field is a horrible writer, who apparently thinks “sets up” is one word: “setsup”, which sounds like a SAUCE.) Most of the gurubooks contain some insights I find useful, so I do read them, but I think it’s wise to take what resonates for you and discard the rest.

(For instance, I think knowledge of mythic structure is fantastic to have at the back of your mind as you’re shaping a story, but it’s a terrible point to start from, and no guarantee of anything, as George Lucas’ extremely variable storywork on his STAR WARS saga shows. I think Umberto Eco’s essay on CASABLANCA maybe gives a better clue to the success of STAR WARS than Joseph Campbell — think of it as a mass restyling of clichés rather than a New Myth for Our Age. Mythic structure starts from the point of universally recognisable archetypes, which is really the same as stereotypes. Whereas I’d rather start with real human qualities and then maybe connect them to myth as I go.)

I just don’t think there’s a science to study, so what we’re left with is criticism, which isn’t something you can pilot a spaceship on, as this blog probably proves. Writers work on a combination of craft and instinct: a competent beginner can learn craft, but you can’t make it work for you worth a damn without the right instincts — which you can develop by writing a lot, if they’re there in the first place.

It’s very good that there are so many screenplays available online now, and many many books on screenwriting to pick and choose pearls of wisdom from (while hopefully discarding all the plastic beads of received wisdom).

Incidentally, the book that sparked Preston Sturges’ glorious writing career was A Study of the Drama by Brander Matthews. The differences between stage and screen-writing are so obvious as to scarcely need enumeration, so I’m wondering what gems it contains… it seems to be a little expensive to pick up secondhand though.

Euphoria #36: top Marx

As part of our ongoing field study of the most delightful and healthy film moments, film student Zach Rosenau suggested to me, in conversation, “Something from the Marx Brothers…maybe that face that Harpo does, you know, it’s like… I can’t even DO IT.”

Of course, only Harpo can do the Harpo face. The rest of us lack the crucial ability to channel the qualities of papier maché into our cheeks. Above is a whole scene, from MONKEY BUSINESS, showcasing the Harpo physog and its unique subhuman qualities. In the words of Groucho, “The last time I saw a head like that it was floating in a bottle of formaldehyde.”

Here are FIVE HARPO FILM FACTS:

(1) Adolph “Harpo” Marx was not actually mute, nor could he play the harp. Onscreen, he would simply wave his arms about in front of the strings and specially composed music would then be added that approximated to his hand movements. Among the greats who got their musical start composing for Harpo’s hands were LAURA composer David Raksin, and future BeeGee Barry Gibb.

(2) Despite “playing dumb” onscreen, Harpo was in reality a skilled ventriloquist, and would sometimes “voice” his more gabby brothers’ lines while they simply moved their lips in silence. There are persistent rumours that Zeppo was in fact genuinely mute as a result of his First World War aerial combat experience.

(3) After he suffered an aneurysm in later life, Harpo’s face really did “stay like that”. He was able to conceal his disability by pretending he was “just mucking about,” and was eventually cured by Professor Eggelhoffer of Vienna’s patented “car horn therapy”.

(4) Harpo’s curly blond locks required three hours of grooming by the make-up department before and after every single ”take”. When Harpo had a haircut, the trimmings would be meticulously gathered up and used to make wigs for Shirley Temple (a congenitally hairless dwarf).

(5) Harpo’s great gifts as a sympathetic listener allowed him to bed or wed a multitude of Hollywood lovelies, including Jean Harlow, Constance Bennett, Ann Sheridan and, controversially, Trigger, whom he married in a blasphemous midnight nuptial presided over by Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey. This is detailed in chapter 13 of Trigger’s unpublished autobiography, Hooves Across the Table, and resulted in a scandal that ended the celebrity horse’s career in the U.S. Senate.

Quote of the Day: Mr. Dog

 

The film is Frank Borzage’s sublime MOONRISE (1948). The actors, reading from left to right, are Rex Ingram (divine gravitas), as Mose, and Dane Clark (sensitive, painfully expressive face) as Danny Hawkins.

Danny: “Mister Dog…!” Why you call everything “mister”?

Mose: Isn’t enough dignity in the world.

This film is INEXPRESSABLY BEAUTIFUL.