kevin costner – The Story Department https://www.thestorydepartment.com Story. Screenplay. Sale. Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:20:08 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://www.thestorydepartment.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cropped-fav-32x32.png kevin costner – The Story Department https://www.thestorydepartment.com 32 32 2808072 Movie Moment: The Untouchables – Mexican Standoff https://www.thestorydepartment.com/movie-moment-the-untouchables-mexican-standoff/ https://www.thestorydepartment.com/movie-moment-the-untouchables-mexican-standoff/#respond Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:20:08 +0000 https://thestorydepartment.com/?p=26309 Read more]]> Let’s face it, ever since David Mamet started directing his own movies, his screenwriting has gone downhill (Glengarry Glen Ross was a play first, remember). His last master piece for the screen was The Untouchables (1987), which he wrote for Brian De Palma. I saw the film at the Venice Film Festival where that year Mamet’s own House Of Games was also showing.

by Karel Segers

Ironically, the success of House of Games and his ensuing directing career might have been the nail in the coffin of Mamet’s screenwriting genius. Never did he reach the level of e.g. The Verdict again. Something Wag The Dog may have fun, but ridiculously overrated to my taste – and certainly not a huge success, given its star power.

I believe Brian De Palma has never reached the standard of The Untouchables again, either. So let’s reminisce about the good times.

UNTOUCHABLE

The Untouchables is a classic in every sense. Masterful storytelling, lush art direction, outstanding cinematography and solid performances, most of all by De Niro in his landmark role as Al Capone. Some people argue that Morricone’s outdated music score ruins a contemporary viewing of the film, but I don’t mind the added touch of melodrama. (De gustibus et coloribus… I also love Bowfinger) The Untouchables is textbook example of storytelling in the tradition of Aristotle, with a strong Hero’s Journey framework. It shows again how powerful movies pay off on these essential story elements.

THEMATIC QUESTION: WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO

Our movie moment follows right after the hero’s lowest point, when Eliot Ness’ mentor Malone is found murdered by Capone’s right hand guy Frank Nitti. The scene is a screenwriting master class in designing “The Ordeal”. Malone hands Ness two gifts before passing away: in the outer journey he gives Ness the time tables of the train Capone’s bookkeeper will be on and for the inner journey he reminds Ness “What are you prepared to do?” The question refers to an earlier scene where Malone explained that Ness can only succeed ‘the Chicago way’, which is basically an upgraded version of ‘an eye for an eye’. The Ordeal scene is preceded and followed by a brief shot showing Capone enjoying a night at the opera (the Shadow’s high point).

(I can’t seem to get the audio in sync with the picture – apologies for this)

THE MOMENT: CHICAGO TRAIN STATION STEPS

You may have noticed that most mainstream movies have a scene of travel or movement at the opening of Act Three. In this healthy tradition, David Mamet wrote a train chase in the script but De Palma had splurged most of the budget by the time they had to film it, so he had to improvise.

For years De Palma had toyed with the idea of paying homage to Sergei Eistenstein’s ‘odessa steps’ scene from Battleship Potemkin. Now the circumstances were handing it to him on a golden plate. When Ness (Costner) and Stone (Garcia) enter the train station and descend the steps, two marines cross them, going up. At this moment, every true movie buff subliminally makes the connection. Of what follows, most people will remember the spectacular Mexican standoff, but what makes this scene really work is the suspense leading up to it.

De Palma had been doing Hitchcock style exercises for over twenty years and here we see him at full maturity. The scene runs for six minutes before the first bullet is fired and another two before the standoff is fully established. A great example of a beautifully built, meaty scene with a totally satisfying climax. The purest of cinema.

– Karel Segers

 

(first published for ScripTips)

Karel Segers is a producer and script consultant who started in movies as a rights buyer for Europe’s largest pay TV group Canal+. Back then it was handy to speak 5 languages. Less so today in Australia.

Karel teaches, consults and lectures on screenwriting and the principles of storytelling to his 7-year old son Baxter and anyone else who listens.
He is also the boss of this blog.

 

]]> https://www.thestorydepartment.com/movie-moment-the-untouchables-mexican-standoff/feed/ 0 26309 The Serial Killer Hero https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-protag-serial-killer/ https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-protag-serial-killer/#respond Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:45:15 +0000 https://thestorydepartment.com/?p=12728 Read more]]> How should a writer handle a story in which the protagonist is a serial killer?

It’s an interesting dilemma, isn’t it?

Because every book tells you that your protagonist should be “empathetic” and/or “sympathetic,” right?

The audience has to “connect” with him/her on some level, “feel” for the character, and hopefully “root” for that person to achiever a goal. But how can you connect with or feel for or root for a protag who’s killing people for all the wrong reasons?

Consider “Mr. Brooks”. It failed as a story. Mr. Brooks (played by Kevin Costner) is a serial killer.

In order to make the audience “sympathize” with Mr. Brooks, they created this cheap gimmick of showing us Mr. Brooks’ alter bad boy nature in the form of Mr. William Hurt who Mr. Brooks calls “Marshall.” And thus, we see Brooks whine and argue with Marshall about quitting and not wanting to do this anymore, thereby giving the writers an easy venue to externalize Mr. Brooks’ inner conflict through verbal arguments. This was also a way for them to squeeze some sympathy out of the audience.

But it puts the audience into an awkward position – (“Oh, poor Mr. Brooks. I hope he achieves his inner goals of not killing people. Oh, look, he slipped up and shot a couple. Oh well. In the end I hope he finds a way to stop.”). Please. They also gave him an inner arc by leading us to believe he met his goals in the end and hopefully, quit. But then the ending left it wide open for sequels. Come on.

Sometimes you have to go with
“entertaining” and/or “fascinating.”

It would’ve been far more entertaining had they just presented us with a fascinating individual who inevitably gets his comeuppance in the end. The point is, you cannot stuff this convention of “empathetic/sympathetic protag” into every type of film. Sometimes you have to go with “entertaining” and/or “fascinating.” Darwin is most certainly both.

I did a study a while ago, which I can’t find anymore, on how to handle serial killers as protagonists in scripts. I concluded that there are only two successful approaches:

– a vivid, honest portrayal (Monster)
– wicked satire (American Psycho)

In both of those cases, you absolutely must avoid cheap gimmicks or subplots designed to squeeze out of the audience more sympathy for the protag, because that undermines the credibility of what you’re trying to accomplish.

Thus, ScriptShark completely missed the boat when they rated Mickey’s story poorly in the category of “protagonist is sympathetic and/or engages our emotional investment.” It’s just absurd that they would judge every protag by those requirements. Those are the kind of narrow-minded, tunnel-vision ideas that have created endless bad movies.

avoid cheap gimmicks or subplots designed
to squeeze out of the audience more sympathy for the protag

And ideas from other reviewers that push Darwin into being more sympathetic, like (so sorry, Ted) “everything Darwin does, he does for the daughter he loves” would ruin the integrity of the story.

Take for example, Monster. Just in the act of seeing this beaten down women’s inner conflict of wanting to have a normal life with her lover but yet, new murders seemed necessary to cover the tracks of previous murders, she’ll get SOME sympathy from the audience, but you can’t force it. The most you can hope for is just an illumination of the human condition, a sense of understanding to this tragedy that we may not have had before. And that’s what we got.

The most you can hope for is
just an illumination of the human condition.

It would be absurd to ask audiences to sympathize with Patrick Bateman, and that would have muddled the point of the satire. Make no mistake, the filmmakers would’ve lost all credibility (and careers) had they stooped to a sympathetic portrayal. But, you see, that’s the essence of satire, which is to ridicule the protagonist and/or the protag’s environment.

As Ebert wrote:

“Mary Harron (director) sees him as a guy who’s prey to the usual male drives and compulsions. He just acts out a little more…

The film regards the male executive lifestyle with the devotion of a fetishist. There is a scene where a group of businessmen compare their business cards, discussing the wording, paper thickness, finish, embossing, engraving and typefaces, and they might as well be discussing their phalli. Their sexual insecurity is manifested as card envy…

The function of the murders is to make visible the frenzy of the territorial male when his will is frustrated. The movie gives shape and form to road rage, golf course rage, family abuse and some of the scarier behavior patterns of sports fans.”

– Mystery Man

In his own words, Mystery Man was “famous yet anonymous, failed yet accomplished, brilliant yet semi-brilliant. A homebody jetsetting around the world. Brash and daring yet chilled with a twist.”

MM blogged for nearly 4 years and tweeted for only 4 months, then disappeared – mysteriously.

The Story Department continues to republish his best articles on Monday.

Here, you’ll also be informed about the release of his screenwriting book.

]]> https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-protag-serial-killer/feed/ 0 12728 The Untouchables – The Mid Point(s) https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-mid-points-in-the-untouchables/ https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-mid-points-in-the-untouchables/#comments Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:56 +0000 https://thestorydepartment.com/?p=5719 Read more]]> A movie’s Mid Point usually fulfills a number of functions.
In the Hero’s Outer Journey, an event occurs that makes the Hero change the approach to pursuing the goal.
On the inner level, the Hero shows a first commitment to change.

Some people speak of the Point of No Return. Because every strong plot point is in essence a point of no return, I don’t find this approach helpful. Both the Inciting Incident and the 1st Act Turning Point are almost always strong points of no return.

Mid points are often at a location very different from the rest of the movie (One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, The Untouchables), near rivers (The Queen, The Untouchables), bridges (A Fistful of Dynamite, The Untouchables) or cliffs (Butch & Sundance, The Incredibles, Forgetting Sarah Marshall). The ‘cliff mid points’ often include a jump into the unknown, showing the Hero’s newly found Faith.

photo(2)

At first sight, in the Untouchables there seems to be one Mid Point, mathematically placed right in the middle of the movie at 58mins (out of 112), at the end of Sequence D (fourth out of eight).

At closer inspection, there is a little more to it.

If Ness’ outer objective in the first half of the movie is ‘to catch Capone’, then this changes once they get hold of the bookkeeper’s ledger. Now the objective is ‘to catch the bookkeeper’ in order to decode the names of the recipients of money. The overall objective remains the same: ‘to protect the people of Chicago from violence by bringing Capone to justice’.

The Inner Journey is more complex, because two themes are at play: Ness’ struggle to stay within the law and his naivety around the effects of his type of work on a family life.

At the end of Sequence D, Ness shows he is willing to go beyond ‘The Law of the Land’ and adopt ‘The Chicago Way’. He shows this by replying to the mountie who disapproves of his methods by saying “Yeah? Well, you’re not from Chicago.”

photo(3)

A stronger mid point is yet to follow. Note that exactly halfway Sequence D, Ness kills one of Capone’s men.

Exactly halfway the next sequence, one of Capone’s men kills Wallace. The two killings form the transition into the second, darker half of the movie.

Both ‘families’ (Capone’s and that of the Untouchables) lost a member and they’re now both ‘Touchable’.

Soon after this reversal Hero and Shadow (the antagonist) will face each other for the first time, on the stairs at Capone’s hotel.

photo

To summarise, the following reversals happen around the movie’s mid point:

Change of Ness’ approach:

  1. Bring Capone to trial
  2. Bring the bookkeeper to trial

Change of Ness’ morality:

  1. The Law of the Land
  2. The Law of Chicago

Change of energy, mood:

  1. Untouchable
  2. Touchable

These are not mere points of no return, they are complete reversals.

So, what’s there to learn?

The second act is by far the hardest to write, we all know that.  Creating a strong mid point or mid sequence is the first way of dealing with this.  You have successfully chopped the story into smaller, more manageable bits: you will only have to bridge story sections of 25-30mins (two sequences) maximum.

Although this may seem a purely structural device; it is not.  It is impossible to create a meaningful mid point without knowing exactly what your story and characters are about.  I really believe that once you have truly nailed the mid point (or sequence), your story will have its foundation and the other sequences will fall into place much more easily.

]]> https://www.thestorydepartment.com/the-mid-points-in-the-untouchables/feed/ 1 5719