Inside the Brain of E.C. Henry

Movies: To the Edge, or Not

It has recently come to my awareness that I like movies that have an "edge" to them, as opposed to movies that don't have an edge to them.  And I'm wondering out there, if they're honest with themselves out there are willing to admit that they really like "safe" movies as opposed to movies that unpredictable, put their protagonists in real jeopardy, and have and "edge"?  

Will start by attempting to define what is meant when one says a movie has an "edge".  So here's an attempt by me, E.C. Henry to define edge as pertains to movies and what implied when I say a movie's got an edge or not:

Edge: a plot that puts the protagonist in a conflict that puts the audience in a heightened state of anticipation where the outcome is not known and may even be feared 

I think a movie's edge or lack thereof IS a direct reflection of the filmmakers' sensibilities, and speaks directly to the plot.  Will the filmmaker put their protagonists (lead actor or actress) in genuine harm, OR is the story's conflict "safe" where the audience goes on a ride with the protagonists, but they are of the genuine belief that the protagonists are "safe" and genuinely won't be in life-threatening situation where the outcome is really worried about by the audience.  

Perhaps in delving into the issue: does a movie have an edge or not; it's best to start by talking about some movies that I think don't have an edge.  Let's start with a VERY popular series: "Pirates of the Caribbean" (2003: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, directed by Gore Verbinski)  EVERYONE likes that movie series.  Hard now to.  BUT I will contend that this movie is quite lame in the plot tension department.  Honestly, in watching any of the "Pirates of the Carribean" movies do you ever think Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) or Keira Knightly's character is EVER in any real danger of death?  Come-on now, hell no!  Sure they'll be chases.  Inventive chases where the British or some other adversary chances Jack Sparrow and Keira Knightly, but don't you always get the sense that that Jack Sparrow and Keira Knightly's character are safe, that they're NOT going to die or suffer any real harm.  Thus in thinking like that, you are, by my way of thinking, admitting that "Pirates of the Caribbean" LACKS a edge to it's plot: the audience never believes that the main protagonists are in any real danger.

Another movies that I would say lacks an edge is the "Transformers" (2007: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, directed by Micheal Bay).  Here you are you have these gigantic, shape-changing monster machines, and they're doing dizzying, special affect laden, fight scenes.  But these a fight scenes with no real drama to them, no real threat to protagonists.  Rather its all whizzbang special affects, done at dizzying rate that makes you feel roller coaster ride sick watching.  The special affects trump plot and rather superficial and lack drama.  Honestly, in ANY of the "Transformers"  movies do you believe that Shia LaBeouf or Megan Fox's character are in any real danger.  Fuck no!  And its that back of your mind belief, that this is the case that gives the audience and out, and sets them up just to be along for the safe ride of a special affects festival.  Your know going up front, you're going on a roller coaster ride where eveybody by the end of the ride will becoming home safe to the terminal with you.  Shia LaBeuf and Megan Fox's character will live through this adventure.  They must -- because the studio wants to do sequel with them in it!

And while I'm at it lemme go on to say ALL the "Resident Evil" movies are garbage too.   And I say that after watching 10 minutes of one on cable the other night.  It was so bad that's all I could stomach.   Video game movies are RIDICULOUS.  Can't stand 'em.  Would rather watch back-to-back-to-back episodes of "Transformers" that sit through 5 minutes of "Resident Evil" which I think is COMPLETE GARBAGE.  I can make a case for watching "Pirates fo the Caribbean" and "Transformers", but "Resident Evil", come on now, that's like watching a video game.  Total horror set-up; a post-apocalyptic world over-run by zombies and monsters, but without ANY stakes.   Rather it's just about watching Milla Vovocich run around in black dominatric's attire with a gun doing stunts as she shoots zombies; ridiculous, an utter abomination of film.  

O-kay, so now I've bashed three HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL franchises.  Let's look at the other end of the spectrum; movies that have an edge.  First movie that pops in my mind, Ridley Scott's "Alien" (1979).  I think what made "Alien" so memorable and scary was how its leads kept kept getting killed by the alien.  Kane, played by John Hurt looks a main character, YET he's the first to meet his end.  Later, what looks to be the hero on the ship, Captain Dallas played by Tom Skerritt, actually goes into the air duct to put an end to the alien, only to get killed himself.  Okay, two main characters die.  What happens next?  Who's safe?  Nobody.  "Alien" has an edge to it, their doubt and fear in the audience's mind.  They're on the edge of their seat because events have happened that have turned the plot off what looked to be key characters and now the audience isn't sure what's going to happen next.

"Planet of the Apes" (1968: Charleton Heston, Roddy McDowall, directed by Franklin F. Schaffner, screenplay by Michael Wilson and Rod Sterling) has edge.  "Planet of the Apes" (2001: Mark Wahlberg, Tim Roth, directed by Tim Burton) does not.  Why?  Look at the world and what happens to the main protagonist.  In "Planet of the Apes" (1969) Taylor crash lands on a foreign planet with two other surviving astronauts.  Then as the plot unfolds the Taylor's buddies get offed, and he learns the Dr. Zauis has done experimental brain surgery on one of them and is threatening to do the same to Taylor -- unless he divulges where the rest of his civilization of talking humans are hiding.  Taylor is in real trouble; he faces death at the hand of an antagonist bent on maintain his culture's identity at the cost of taking Talyor's from him.  "Planet of the Apes" (2001)?  Where was the edge in it's story?  Thade the villain tired... this story did have some different trapping but it lacked the edgy set-pieces that "Apes" (1968) had:

• The hunt in the cornfields where the apes race gets revealed -- brilliant!
• The scarecrow scene when the three astronauts reach the new world's civilization.
• The hunt through the ape museum and the the ape funeral where Taylor sees one of his fellow astronauts is now enshrined as a stuffed attraction.
• The final scene where Taylor sees the downed Statue of Liberty and comes the horrific realization that this planet was once his own.  

"Apes" 2001 had some attempts at shockers and being different.  But view as a whole I felt that Tim Burton's movie lacked an edge and felt like rip-off.

I like movies that have the feel like they could go in any different way, and the protagonists are in real jeopardy.  I think that's why I like filmmakers like the Coen Brothers, Ridley Scott and Quentin Tarantino.  I've seen enough of these guy's movies and risks in the past they've been willing to take, and immediately, before I even see the movie, I'm thinking, "O this might be good, don't know what twists and turns I'm in for."

HUGE fan of Quentin Tarrantino's "Reservoir Dogs" (1992: Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Steve Buscimi, Michael Marsden, directed by Quintin Tarantino)  Why?  Because this movie has some serious edge.  A botched robbery where all the participants gets scattered, and someone in their ring is suspected of treachery.  Then you have the police officer torture scene.  You have a Michael Mann's wild card character.  You just don't know how this movie is going to unfold.  It has a edge to it.  And it is Quentin Tarrantino's masterpiece which to date he has never topped, in my opinion.  La-ove the edge to this movie.  Will always love Quentin for having the guts to make a movie like this.  

The Coen Brothers scored similar points with me with "Fargo" (1996: William H. Macy, Frances McDormand, directed by Joel and Ethan Coen) then re-enforced my love for them when they made "No Country for Old Men".  You don't need whizzbang special affect to put an edge to your plot.  Just watch the Coen Brothers work their magic.  The wood chipper scene in "Fargo"; a bad guy who does something truly gruesome to cover-up his crime.  Weren't you on the edge of your seat when Josh Brolin's character was shooting it out with Javier Bardem's character in "No Country for Old Men".  I was.  This movie had "edge".  What gave it it's edge? Anton Chigurh.  First he kills a police officer -- in police station, then he kills someone with cattle gun.  Later Anton even turns on the people who employed him, goes to their office and guns them down.  

 

The unpredictabitly of the villian sets the edge.  

And the Coen Brothers handled this BRILLIANTLY!  Hence, at Oscar time they were walking home with their of the gold and deservedly so.  

But the "edge" isn't a place for everyone.  I recognize that.  I talked with my mom and dad about movie with an edge versus those without, and what I found was they actually preferred "plot safe" movies where they knew up front that the good guys were probably going to be alive and ready for the next installment of the franchise.  Probing further, I found that they just wanted the good guy to win, and along the way have some fun set pieces to talk about after the movie.  Didn't matter if the gun or fist fight never had the edge which put the hero in real jeopardy.  They just want some action with a roller coaster feel to it.  

Does "edge" speak to a greater mainstream versus art house discussion?  Yeah, probably.  Perhaps a greater truth must be realized when thinking about a movie's edge.  And that's the fact that mainstream audience doens't want a plot with real genuine thrills.  Rather, they want a hero that they can root for, who will be the victor at the end of the movie.  They want whizzbang special effects, something they haven't seen before.  They don't want something too dark.

Does edge necessary mean a movie has gone dark?  Hmmm...  Now that's an interesting question.  Could it be that "edgy" movies are really dark ones.  I dunno.  Guess its possible.  Don't wanna be dark, myself.  But I must admit that I favor movies with a edge and risk element to it.  I don't wan't to go into a movie where I know up front that the hero is really never going to be in any jeopardy.  That lack of edge takes a lot out of the movie going experience for me.  That's why I la-ove filmmakers like Ridley Scott, the Coen Brothers and Quentin Tarantino so much -- they're willing to take risks!  You DON'T know how far these far these men will push the envelope.  True trills, not faux thrills.  Sure, Ridley Scott, the Coen Brothers, and Quentin Tarnatino make mistakes in their movies, but they error in the right way; trying to elicit a trill, trying to entertain with a plot that you can't figure out.  

A key place to look is your own anticipation when you go to the movies.  Do you think you know how a movie is going to unfold even before you watch it?  THAT'S one of the key reasons I can never get into any James Bond movie anymore.  I thin the last one I genuinely liked was the one that had Christopher Walken as a bad guy, I think it was Roger Moore's last go-round as Bond.  It's like you know upfront what the whole plots about before the movie ever begins: a sexually charge credit's scene with women guns, James Bond is going to face some e-vil mastermind, James Bond is going to sleep with some sex pot, James Bond is going to get into some elaborate chase scenes with guns, James Bond WILL be available for his next mission at the end of the movie.  True, in recent years the filmmakers have attempted to put some edge to the Bond movies with more elaborate villains, but honestly this is just window dressing for a highly predictable, and edge-less franchise.  

But my dad loves James Bond movies.  Can't argue with him either.  He doesn't care.  Doesn't matter to him he's essentially seeing that same thing that been done over ten times before.  Just re-package it a little differently.  Different scenery at the curves of this roller coaster ride.  Good enough for him.  Not nearly good enough for me.  

I like movies where I don't know what's going to happen next.  Movies where I actually fear for my protagonist's life.  Movies that take some chances.  Filmmaker who take chances.  Buy the numbers seen-it-all-a-million-times-before doesn't cut it for me.  I'm an artist.  I want to see stories that have a compelling conflict.  I don't want safe.  I want unsafe.  

I want the edge.

Getting My Strength Back

Finally got "The Commune II" completed.  For me being "done"/completed means several things:

1. I've sent the script to "my guy" in L.A. for notes.
2. I've taken got the script registered with the WGAw and the U.S. Copyright office.
3. I've taken the script as far as I can.  Reached the point of burnout, and am ready to stop. 

There comes a time in a writer's journey that he or she must come to a place of burnout.  It's a place where you've tried your hardest.  You gave it your best shot.  And it's time to stop, you're hurting your work more than you're helping it.  I "think" I've reached that point with "The Commune II".  I'm just so close to it right now, it's hard to be objective.  It would be very easy to keep working on it right now, but I think  need some time away from it.  Time to get my strength back.

Thanksgiving couldn't come at a better time for me.  I am sooo ready to just sit and talk to people, as opposed to spending 6 hours straight at my computer with Final Draft open, the premiere script writing software out there -- if you didn't already know that, going over and over the same mater ad nauseam.  Time to get away.  Time to get my strength back.

And I've so neglected my family for the past month or so.  OR at least I feel in my heart I have.  It's just when you're really into your writing it takes you away.  Takes you away from really, and other people.  Need to spend some time with Jesus too.  Need get on my knee and just talk and listen to the Almighty.  Do I believe in prayer.  Yes, I do.  I'm the product of  a praying mother.  And I don't take what Jesus did on the cross lightly.  Feel real bad about skipping out on church last Sunday so I could work on my script more.  Another telltale sign of a life that's out of whack.   

That's one part about myself I really hate.  I hate being so wrapped up in myself that neglect other people whom I truly love: Brycen my five year old nephew, Derek, my brother, my mom, my dad, my aunt, even the dogs!  Sometimes I feel like such a shit.  In my mind I justify it as just being part of the cost of being a writer; you HAVE to give your creative side time.  But what about real people?  People God has place in your life for a reason.  Does being a writer give you a pass in interpersonal relationships?  No.  I don't wanna be dick to the people I love.  The people I love deserve my time.  Not half-ass time either, where I'm distracted by my writing.  And now they're going to start getting it.  

I've got A LOT of things to do outside of writing.  Really need to straighten up my room.  Really need to clean out our garage.  Lotta home projects I need to jump into and get moving.  Can't relli on my 67 year old father to do it.  I gotta do it.  Should have been doing it YEARS ago.  But then I'm a shit, a selfish writer.  But at least I realize my shortcomings, and have enough youth, time and energy to do something about it.

And that doing something about it, starts over the Thanksgiving weekend.  Sure I'll do a little writing.  Will probably start work on the next script.  Review some old notes, and checkout my index card board.  But I'm not going to let that eat up my weekend.  No that's just a couple hours over the 4 day holiday.  Time to get my strength back.  Time to spend some time with my family.  Welcome back to planet Earth, E.C.!

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

P.S. Sorry about no post last week or weekend.  Was too busy wrapping up the "Commune II".  Look for a new entry in the logline bar sometime this weekend, and hopefully for the rest of the year I'll start posting on a more regular basis.  

The Time Altered Romantic Comedy: Exploring Issues in Rom-com Movies: Volume 36

Time to name and define a new sub-genre under the romantic comedy umbrella.  I'm calling this one, "The Time Altered Romantic Comedy".  And it has a definite twist/catalyst that helps define it.  

Of course EVERY romantic comedy explores the issues that arise when a romance arises between two people.  That's a given.  Also a given is a romantic comedy will have attempts at romantic elements to it, and comedy elements to it.  It's implicit.  It's in the name.  

But when looking romantic comedy movies you'll find certain romantic comedies have a similar hook, and not all romantic comedies do things the same way.  The raunch-com ("The 40-Year-Old Virgin") is VERY different than a destiny rom-com ("Sleepless in Seattle"), likewise an ego-com ("How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days") has a different feel than a fam-rom ("My Big Fat Greek Wedding").  Hence, the reason for sub-grouping under the rom-com umbrella.  Someday in the near future I'll do post on all sub-genres under the rom-com umbrella, just not today.

And their is some good use of such groupings.  As understanding them raises your bar and empowers you to add to the collection: using the the same only different principle.

Okay, so what is a "Time Altered Romantic Comedy"?

A Time Altered Romantic Comedy is a romantic comedy that implores some use a time altering agent as its unique device which is crucial to the story's plot, theme and character arcs.  

List of Time Altering Romantic Comedies:

1. "Groundhog Day" (1993: Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell, writers: Danny Rubin, Harold Ramis)  The time altering comes under the fact that Bill Murray's character keeps re-living the same day, over and over and over again.  Their is a lesson God is trying to teach Bill Murray's character, and that's not missing out on finding love with a woman who's a work acquaintance of his.
2. "13 Going on 30" (2004: Jennifer Garner, Mark Ruffalo, writers: Josh Goldsmith, Cathy Yuspa) The time altering comes in the form of wishing dust, which after being sprinkled on Jenna, fast-forwards her to her early 30s where she learn what her life is to become if she was granted all of her desires as a 13-year-old girl  The time altering serves as the catalyst for a life-changing cautionary message for Jenna to consider.
3. "50 First Dates" (2004: Adam Sandler, Drew Barrymore, writer: George Wing)  The time altering comes in the form of Drew Barrymore's medical condition, that erases her memory every night, which complicates Adam Sandler's pursuit of having a long-term, romantic relationship with her.  
4. "About Time" (2013: Domnall Gleeson, Rachel McAdams, writer: Richard Curtis)  The time altering agent comes in the form of Domnail's character discovering that he can travel back and re-live days in his past, a gift that he uses to first win a girl he likes, then improve people and relationships in his family.  
5. "Click" (2006: Adam Sandler, Kate Beckensale, writers: Steve Koren, Mark O'Keefe).  The time altering agent comes from an angel, Christopher Walken's character who gives Adam Sandler's character a remote control that controls his life, fast forwarding though the boring parts of his life.
6. "17 Again" (2009: Zac Efron, Leslie Mann, writer: Jason Filardi).  Can't exactly remember how this happens but Matthew Perry's character somehow gets transported back into a 17 year old, where the character now as played by Zac Efron woes the love of his life, Leslie Mann's character.  

Can you see how all four of these romantic comedy movies are similar?  Altering time is the catalyst for change in a romantic relationship.  Why be subtle about it, right?  "Groundhog Day" and "50 First Dates" are very similar in the fact that one person in a romantic relationship is stuck in time.  Bill Murray keeps reliving the same day, and Drew Barrymore's character can't live the next day remembering what happened in the day before.  Of all these stories, I  think "Groundhog Day" has the best romantic comedy plot.  The high concept of "Groundhog Day" is second to none: reliving a day over-and-over again until you learn your lesson and don't miss out on that someone special that you should connect with.  Now as you all should know by now, "13 Going on 30" IS my favorite romantic comedy of all-time, but I also recognize that "Groundhog Day's" brilliance.  Good job Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis.  Good job crafting a classic worthy of repeated viewing.

Common traits in Time Altered Romantic Comedies:

1. One pair of the romantic couple will typically be in superior position, while the other is at a position of decidedly weaker insight.  In "13 Going on 30" Jenna knows she's a 13 year old girl living in her now 30 year-old body.  Whereas Mat, Jenna love interest, is a realist and is in the dark about Jenna's dilemma.  In "Groundhog Day" Bill Murray's character knows he's reliving the same day over and over and over again, but his love interest does not know this.  In "About Time" Domhnall Gleeson's character knows he has the power to use to time travel to re-live and change his life, but his love interest, Rachel McAdam's character is totally in the dark about his ability.  And finally in "50 First Dates" Adam Sandler's character knows that in the morning his love interest won't remember what happened the day before.
2. Themes of re-living your past to learn a life lesson and improve your life today.  In "Groundhog Day" Bill Murray's character goes through the gauntlet of things he could experience in a given day, to learn the lesson that their is woman in his midst that he fall in love very deeply.  In "About Time" Domhnall Gleeson relives days in his past to improve his chances romantically and help remember of his family: his sister and his dad.  In "50 First Dates" Adam Sandler's character is forced to be re-live his life daily to progress the life of his love interest.  In "13 Going on 30" Jenna must learn that getting everything you want comes at a high price, and may cost you the most, losing your true soul mate, who secretly loves you very deeply.
3. Universal appeal that speaks to audience's desire to re-live their own romances, and think of what they could have done differently to make them last and be better.  This truth came to me while watching "About Time."  Somewhere in Act I to early Act II, when Domhnall's character is reliving his days with Rachel McAdams so as to not come off so clumsy and have their relationship progress better, I started thinking about my own experiences with girls and how if I had a second chance, how's I'd do thing differently.

And there-in lies, what I feel, is the universal appeal of this sub-genre of the romantic comedy: second chances at romance given a higher degree of knowledge of how past romantic exchanges played out.  Of course in the movies EVERYTHING always turns out roses for our beloved protagonists: the couple in the romance in the movies.  But in real life, how does that play out for you and me?  It doesn't.  BUT thinking over our past failures DOES equip us to make changes so those failures don't doom future romantic prospects.  Fall forward, don't fall backwards.  Make sense?

I guess this sub-genre really speaks to me, because it reminds me of all my past failures. of which their are too many to number.   Which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone as I'm 44 years old, single and without a love interest in sight.  Failures with potential romances because I WAS as clumsy as Domhnall Gleeson's "Tim" in "About Time."  And don't we all want every romantic exchange to be maximised and as good as it possibly can be?  

The time altered romantic comedy plays into that fantasy that you can do it again, that you can overcome your past romantic failing and get a second chance at getting it right.  See the universal appeal of the time altered romantic comedy now?

So was "About Time" good?  Well, I just got back from seeing it, and some of the movie was really good.  I really liked Domhnall Gleeson's "Tim" in this male-weighted, romantic comedy.  Rachel McAdams is not given nearly enough to do, and too much screen-time is given to Tim's father, Bill Nighy's character.  But for the most part the supporting cast works.  And I laughed a few times.  But "About Time" has a FETAL FLAW which it does not overcome, and that's a lack of a compelling conflict.  

Conflict in a romantic comedy?  That's heresy!  No, actually it's not; meet-loses-gets is common paradigm when analyzing a romantic comedy.  A compelling conflict is the one of FIRST THINGS that one should look at when evaluating ANY movie.  And it's not all high stakes.  But what I was getting at, is that the time altering aspect in "About Time" squashes a lot of potential conflict, and gives the protagonist, Tim, an easy way out time and time again, thus throwing a proverbial wet blanket on the conflict that should be driving the story forward.   And the way Tim and Tim's father time travels is really underwhelming; they get in a dark, quiet place, close their fists and concentrate on the time they want to go back to.

In his defense, I do applaud Richard Curtis for taking some chances with "About Time."  This far from a cookie cutter plot.  After Tim secures Rachel McAddam's character's heart and devotion, the plot shifts to Tim's family and how he can use his gift to improve their lives of his sister, Kit Kat, and his father's desire to be closer to is son.    

So bravo, Richard Curtis, you did try something different.  You didn't follow the common path.  But what you did try, didn't work as well as it could have.  But alas, my dear boy, your creative choices didn't pay-off in making "About Time" a rom-com classic; it's far from that -- in my opinion.  A rom-com needs a viable conflict that puts the hero at risk of failure.  Now in a rom-com setting that typically involves the risk of the couple NOT staying together at the end.  But in watching "About Time" I never got feeling mid Act II on that Tim's and Rachel McAddams' characters' relationship wasn't at any real risk of dissolving by the end of the movie.  I did like the Kit Kat character, and thought that had some real potential, but the stuff with Tim's dad...  Needed to go.  That screen time would have been better served with twists and turns in the main romantic relationship between Tim and Rachel McAddams' character.  

The whole romance between Tim and Rachel McAddams' character felt too easy.  Lots of pillow talk between those two, not many real scenes of romantic jeopardy.  Going back time was the cure for all ills.  Kinda felt like a cheat after a while.  And the method of time travel, get in a dark place, concentrate, and close your eyes, was quite uninspiring.  

Still, Richard Curtis is a pro.  And I tip my hat to him.  I like his sensibilities of what to, and what to leave out in a movie.  There's charm galore in "About Time."  This is a movie that EVERY rom-com aficionado should see.  It's quite sentimental, and yes, when Tim and his father have a last go back in time together I did tear up.  I know, E.C. is SUCH a softie...  Anywho, I plan on seeing "About Time" again, JUST to see if I like it better the second time around.  Rachel McAddams could just read the phone book, and by the end of it I'd say, "Read it again!" with lovestruck, starry eyes.  Also was blown away by Margot Robbie's beauty.  Margot plays a rival for Tim's heart early in the show, then falls completely by the wayside, completely under-developed.  Another area this story could have went to be better.  Still, Margo Robbie is a total hottie.  Better yet she's in her early 20s and could be around for a long, long time.  Hopefully Margo Robbie will star in more rom-coms.  I'll be watching with eager anticipation to see how her career unfolds.  We need a girl like that to grab the genre by the horns and get people excited about seeing romantic comedies again.  

Hope I explained the "Time Altered Romantic Comedy" to your satisfaction.  If not please leave a comment in the comment section, as I'm always looking to improve my opinions.

P.S. Just finished the latest editing round of "The Commune II" over the weekend.  The script now weighs in at 117 pages.  Also started the spec.script soundtrack artwork.  Will work on the script a little more, listening to it in Final Draft and doing some minor word changes.  It really is nearing completion.  I promise you won't be hearing me belabor this script much longer.  And soon you'll see an entry for it on my side-bar - probably sometime over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend.

 

 

 

 

The Final Push to # 18

It really is getting closer all the time.  May not feel like that to you, but it definitely feels that way to me.  ALMOST got sell-able screenplay # 18 complete.  Caveat: got another script 1st drafted by it's a re-envisioning of the first two "Planet of the Apes" movies, and I was given a cease and desist letter from a VP at 20th Century Fox so I can't show that to a soul UNTIL they give me permission.  Anywho...

I am having a blast writing this script, "The Commune II".  This is the most fun I've had on a script in some time.  The guy in me is really coming out in this one.  

Okay, so what do I mean by that?  Guys like adventure.  They like the challenge of conquest.  They like going into the unknown and exploring.  THAT'S what I've been doing with "The Commune II".  It's a guys script.  Trust me.  

My new goal is to have the script done by next Sunday, then mail to "my guy" in L.A. on Sunday night to have it to his house by the day before Thanksgiving.  

Still got SOME re-writing to do.  And will be doing a lot of that this weekend.  AND I've still got to finish the image for the spec. script music CD.  I've been rockin' out to this music for the beter part of 9 months now.  

Writing "The Commune II" has really pushed me.   Pushed me to try harder.   AND I've now made a key revelation: I write for directors.

What do I mean by that?  Easy, I write movies to make a director's job easier.  I have an acute mind to visualize how a scene should be shot, shot by shot.  Literally I go shot by shot as you read paragraphs of my script.  Am I overstepping my bounds?  No.  What I'm doing is laying down a GROUNDWORK vision.  A first draft.  A springboard for all else that follows AFTER the script is purchased.

I write for directors.  I want whoever reads me scripts to be the director seeing the movie I'm laying out.   

Pretentious as all fuck?  Naw, I dont' think so.  I'm actually a very humble person.  It's just I want you to see the movie that I envision.  THAT means a lot to me.  And is the ultimate goal of my writing.  

I don't want to water down the vision.  I wan't to elevate EVERY soul who reads my work to a higher level.  A director's level.  That's right when you read one of my scripts I want you, whoever reads it, to be the director.  

Don't worry about the ride when reading an E.C. Henry script.  I put LOTS of icing on what I write.  That's one of the reasons it takes me so long to complete a script; I'm VERY hard on myself, and always testing the concept.  Testing the scene.  Seeing if there's any way of improving it.  

The pursuit of perfection can be quite draining at times.  Going over and over and over your work ad nauseam IS the norm for me, and even then I've come to realize that may not be enough.  

Am I the greatest writer on the planet?  Fuck, I don't know.  I hope not.  I know I have a lot of faults and flaws.  But I also know for certain that I'm no hack.   I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that I can stand with the best of 'em.  Why?  Because I know how hard I try.  I literally can't try any harder.  Can't work any harder.  Given my status on this planet as a working Joe, I have done my best.  

So this weekend I'll be sitting at my computer doing A LOT of writing and drawing.  Didn't sign up to work at the day job this weekend.  Will only being going out to see "About Time", HUGE fan of romantic comedies which you should know by now,  and will probably watch the Seahawks game against the Vikings on Sunday.  Other than that... it's time to buckle down, and finish # 18.

- E.C Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

P.S. Mr. Fix-it was at it this week too.  I worked on my mom's dishwashing machine one day after work and re-legleveled it, then added three screw on the counter to keep the weigh of the drawers from tip the machine threatening dumping the dishes.  Yes, I fixed it.  AND it only took me a little over a half hour to do. 

Why Men Watch NFL Football Games

Have you ever wondered, why men watch football?  Well in this post we're going to get into that.  Why, well, because E.C. Henry is a big-time, NFL football fan.  I preface that because I'm not too into college football, and I definitely tune out all high school football chatter.

Football is soap operas for men

Are football games like soap operas?  Yes, but with decided masculine, testosterone package.  Lemme explain.   Why do men watch football?  Listen to common discussions.  Our team in the playoff hunt, this game in crucial to us staying the hunt.  Think we can beat these guy?  I can't wait to prove that our team is ready to take the next step up.

Watch enough NFL football, and you'll find most games have a distinct drama element to it.   

I love the NFL.  I can watch almost any game and get into it.  Why?  Because, in my mind I have my own hierarchy of "hero teams" and "villain teams" which I have a natural bend to root for or against.  And I believe a lot of NFL enthusiasts do the same.

• Teams E.C. Henry has a rooting interst for: 1) Seattle Seahawks, 2) Pittsburgh Steelers, 3) Green Bay Packers 4) New England Patriots
• Teams E.C. Henry has a rooting interest against: 1) San Fransisco 49ers, 2) Dallas Cowboys, 3) Oakland Raiders, 4) Denver Bronkos, 5) Baltimore Ravens

Significance?  If a games on for a team I have a rooting interest for, I'm very likely to tune in.  Conversely, sometimes I'll tune in JUST for a team I have rooting interest against, with the hopes I'll see them lose.  What about all the other NFL teams not listed on either side of the rooting ledger?  Ambivalence.  Not really too into them.  Buffalo Bills v.s. Cleveland Browns?  Good luck getting me to watch that one.   Or in other words the soap oprah on that network isn't working good enough to solicit my interest.

Football is soap oprahs for men

So who did the the best?  Who was best at delivering the "drama" element of NFL football.  That's easy ABC's Howard Cosell from their Monday Night Football broadcasts in the 70s through the early 80s.  I can still remember how I used to "have to watch" the halftime highlights where action from around the league was played in slow motion and Howard Cosell stepped us through the action and how it played into the drama unfolding through the teams competing for playoff spots.  This was GENIUS.  And NOBODY and I mean nobody has EVER done it as good as Cosell did it back in the early 80s.  Too bad eventually Cosell lost his edge and eventually his job for saying inappropriate thing during his commentary on a kick-off return.  Once Cosell left Monday Night football, the broadcast suffered.  Lot of good broadcaster, but no one had the flair for accenting the drama like Cosell did.  He was unique.  He was the best -- in my opinion.    

Why men love watching football:

1. A masculine form of drama that appeals to their inner need to conquest.  Read the book of Genesis.  What did God originally want men to do? Conquer and subdue the earth.  Men have in heart to be conquerers.  Football and the drama therein appeal to a primeval desire to be heroes and conquer foreign lands.  Football is an easy transition from the that inherent desire God place in man.
2. Simple strategies that men can relate to.  Most men while watching an NFL game will discuss the strategy of the moment in a given what.  What should and shouldn't be done.  Watch enough of these games and you'll find pretty much the same strategies are discussed over-and-over-and-over again.  YET, men somehow feel there being smart, making the right call in a given situation.  Actually, the simplicity of thought in some circumstance is quite funny, after a while NFL strategy is quite predictable and easy to follow, unless you're a retard or something.
3. Football is like an avatar where men envision themselves as something physically greater than they currently are.  When watching football commonly men get sucked into the fantasy element of the game.  They start acting barbaric and sometimes act out in violence.  This is really accent if one is inebriated or not too smart to begin with.  
   
4. The inner need to be part of something bigger than themselves.  Men typically tend to be solitary creatures, but football provides the allure of communing with other men and being part of a common horde.  Ever watched how fans filing out of a stadium cheer and goad other fans to do the same.  It's a communal bonding thing.  Sure its ridiculous, bonding over a sports team.  Most times you don't even know these people.  But the bonding is real.  I've felt it before.  It's a shared reaction.  "Yeah, I'm elated that our team just won," and I'm able to share that with like-minded strangers.  
5. The hoopla element.  Marketing my the networks, and the newspapers.  Standings watching and the hope that your team can do enough to make the playoffs, and maybe, just maybe do something extraordinary like win the Superbowl.   
6. Human interest stories that appeal to men.   Take for instance the Michael Vick saga years ago, where Michael Vick actually did prison time for his role in dog fighting, then came back and was restored as a starting quarterback in the NFL.  Really cool story, makes you want to watch Michael Vick in games.  Or the Brett Farve saga, will he or won't he retire?  Which franchise is ge going to string along next.  Brett's is a case of how an elite hero can wear out his welcome, and end up being the villain in many people's minds.  Like I said, a soap oprah for men.   Only the action isn't romantic, it's action driven.  Kinda like an action adventure movie; a soap opera for men.  Sorry, I just keep coming back to that thought.

Now it's time to consider the flip-side argument.   Don't you hate it when writers do that?  This is where you get to see a different side of my personality and make-up.  The FACT that I CAN look at an opposing viewpoint and articulate that perspective in reasoning.  It's a hallmark that you're in the presence of a writer; his or her's ability to see things for a different point of view.  How do you think writers write credible villains? They're forced to look at through a different lens.    

Why watching football is a complete waste of time:

1. You are an uninvolved party who is actually celebrating or commiserating someone else's accomplishments.  This a truly weird delusion, if you think about it.  When a football team wins, spectators pump their arms in the air boasting how "they" won.  No, you the spectator didn't win.  You were merely watching a game being play by two participating factions.  YET a lot of people get caught up into the fervor, and actually behave like they won and were part of the winning team and their success.  
2. The 2 to 2 and half our commitment that ONE game takes up.  And guess what, the NFL has now orchestrated it so that on Sunday you can watch up to three games live and in real time, back-to-back-to-back.  OR in essence spend the WHOLE day watching the boob tube.  
3. You do not affect the outcome.  The game is being played by professionals.  One team's going to win, one team's going to lose whether you're there to watch it or not.  Again, this hearkens back to the delusional element of being a spectator, thinking your role is bigger than it actually is.
4. Sometimes a game is a lemon.  They don't announce that upfront, but sometimes even when so-called "good" teams meet on the grid iron, when you go in with the expectation that you're in for some excitement, as game plays out you find it's quite boring, with things not living up to your pre-game expectations.     
5. You can always catch the highlights of the game in the newspaper the next day, or watch video highlights on-line, or on the local sports cast, as part of some ESPN summary of the day's action.

Okay, so now you're probably thinking that I, E.C. Henry, am NOT a big fan of watching NFL football.  Well, nothing could be further from the truth.  I'm a HUGE fan of watching football.  It's just over the years I've done a lot of thinking about it, and come to a more mature of the whole thing.  And basically a quick summary of why I think men watch football can be succulently summed in the following statement:

Football is a soap operas geared for men

When all's been said about the NFL and being a spectator out there watching it, I'm learning over time to watch it in spots, but not get carried away by like I used to when I was younger.  I'll give you an example of how carried away a fan can get.  Back in the 80s after the Seahawks flirted with a Superbowl run, I got so into their playoff runs, and how they would lose and fall short, that after one game I cried.  I was teenage boy at the time.  And yes, this crying was ridiculous and over-the-top, but I did it.  And it was then that I realized how emotionally wrapped up I could get in something so frivolous as NFL football

You need a balance.  Over time I've become a much more seasoned, and savvy fan.  I enjoy the game for what it is: elite athlete doing amazing things in the context of a dramatized sporting event.  I have now reached the level in my fan-dom where it's not catastrophic when the Seahawks lose, and I can actually even appreciate it when the opposing teams makes a good play.  Note: this ability can result in violent flare-ups from less mentally strong watchers of football.  When cheering for Tampa Bay when they made good plays against the Seahawks last Sunday, my brother took it upon himself to walk to to me and beat me with the tassel of his Seahawk hat.  

When all's been said and done, enjoy watching NFL football, it is truly a great sport.  But learn to enjoy it in moderation.  Don't waist ALL DAY with it.  And don't let it get you down when your team fails to meet the expectations you place on them.  Try to enjoy elite athletes doing remarkable things.  That's ALWAYS a treat.  

This year's Seahawk team is turning out to be quite the enigma.  Right now as I type in this post their record is 8 regular season wins vs. 1 loss.  But that record feels misleading.  This year's Seahawks haven't been the dominating force that and an 8-1 record suggests they are.  Most of their wins have been squeekers, nail-biters, games that weren't decided until very late in the game.  HUGE fan of Seahawk players such as: Russell Wilson: the magician at quarterback, Richard Sherman: our Dion Sanders of this era of NFL football, Golden Tate: our play-maker who has a knack for the "big play" when Seahawks need it the most, and Marshawn Lynch: the Seahawks bulldozer of a running back.  

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

P.S. This post comes courtesy after watching NFL football this last Sunday with my family. That is those willing to participate in watching the Seattle Seahawks take on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  Namely, my 66-year-old father, my 40-year-old brother, his wife and two kids: 1-year-old Riley, who is too cute for words, and 5-year-old Brycen who's attention spand didn't even keep him engaged in the game until the first commercial, but I digress...

Truth be told the Buccaneer game was the first Seahawks game I sat down to watch in its entirely since the pre-season.  Been busy, AND until a couple weeks ago we didn't have much TV reception.  But that changed once my dad FINALLY broke down and decided to buy a cable TV package.  About 9 months ago our reception off a rooftop antennae went to shit and we we're no longer able to get network broadcasts (NBC, CBS or FOX) from Seattle broadcasting towers.  Trust me I tried, bought like four different antennas, tried different set-ups, nothing worked...  But that's forgotten history now that we've got cable...

P.S.S. The work remains on-going for "The Commune II".  Still line editing; before work, after work, during breaks at work.  Working on it.  All.  The.  Time.  Trying desperately to make this script as good as I'm capable of; very dedicated to maximising the idea.  This story has a very high concept.  Can't wait to share it with you all.  Stay tuned...  The goal is the have this story done, and to my guy in L.A. by Thanksgiving, as I really want to start work on my next project over the Thanksgiving holiday.

The Raunch-com: Exploring Issues in Rom-Com Movies: Volume 35

There is a sub-genre under the romantic comedy umbrella that behaves much, much differently than any of its other sub-genre.  So much so that after watching one you may wonder, am I really watching a romantic comedy here?!  It's a sub-genre which twists the conventional trappings of the genre, and re-arranges them to actually appeal more to men than to women.  A rom-com geared towards men and men's interests more than womens.  Probably my least favorite romantic comedy sub-genre of them all.  I call it the raunch-com. 

The raunch-com is short for: raunchy romantic comedy.  

The raunch-com first came to light to me after seeing Judd Apatow and Steve Carrell's "The 40-Year-Old Virgin."  Lemme start out by saying I think "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" is a BRILLIANT movie, currently ranks as my 6th favorite romantic comedy of all-time.  "Virgin" has boatloads of GREAT comedic set-pieces, a workable romance between Steve Carell's "Andy" and Catherine Keener's "Trish", and a supporting cast that is to die for.  

But though "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" can be lumped in as a rom-com, this champion of the raunch-com subset has some major differences from more traditional romantic comedies.  First off it's a decidedly male weighted romantic comedy.  This movie really focuses on Andy's issues, and his main love interest isn't given near the same screen time.  Secondly this movie has a boat load of raunchy comedy geared to entertain juvenile and immature men.  This is a key distinction and it will test the bounds of your taste.  And its in the juvenile, raunchy humor where many divides amongst rom-com enthusiast are bound to rise.

Why?  Because aren't romantic comedies the place for women to be celebrated?  Where chivalrous, noble men slay their dragon to win the princess' heart?  Aren't romantic comedies a place of women's wish fulfillment where they see a more idealized romance played on the screen?

Well a raunch-com undermines a lot of that.  What does a woman want in a man?  Some crass, juvenile minded slacker?  Or a handsome prince who will scale the castle walls and do whatever it takes to win the heart of his beloved?  Well, in a raunch-com, TYPICALLY the male lead is a slacker with some issues.  Most raunch-coms I've seen: "Knocked-up" (2007), "Good Luck Chuck" (2007), "Superbad" and "There's Something About Mary" (1998) deal with male lead protagonists who have maturity issues.

And YES I am guy who pees standing up.  And sometime I even laugh at juvenile gags.  But I have a definite bias against this sub-genre.  Namely it reminds me too much of the lower nature of men, and I don't like those traits thrown in my face and re-enforced.  Rather, I like romantic comedies that make men want to be better people.  NOW you can argue that raunch-coms do just that: they show flawed men addressing a character flaw, and then through the transformational power of love they become more mature and well rounded people.  I'll grant you that, and agree with that -- to a point.  My gripe is a re-enforcing of crass behavior to get there.  

Specific examples of crassness in raunch-com movies: Camereon Diaz sperm jell in her hair after Ben Stiller's character jerks off prior to their date from "There's Something About Mary".  Seth Rogan pumping away on a very pregnant Katherine Heigl in "Knocked Up".  Porn in several scenes of "The 40-year-old Virgin", also some very crass talk about women from Andy's "friends".    "Superbad" has a scene were a teenage boy goes on and on about drawing dicks and his fascination with penises.  "Good Luck Chuck" has a buddy character who heats up piece of fruit so he can have sex with it.  Very crass.  Stuff that makes you kinda squirm in your seat in a bad way. 

The rauch-com: rom-coms for men.  Quadrant expanders -- but at what expense?  I think these movies are big disappointments for women.  They disappoint in what their expectations are when they go to see a rom-com:

Celebrating women in games of courtship

Raunch-coms do not celebrate women.  Yes, they do have a romance in them which has women and men in them, BUT raunch-coms tend to focus on male maturity issues and the complications they bring into romance.  The woman isn't as celebrated as they are in other sects of the romantic comedy genre.  

Key tenants of a raunch-com movie:

1. Male dominant.  The primary character arch delved into will focus on the male lead of this romantic comedy.  Look for immaturity and flaws that need to be overcome my the male lead to have a healthy relation with his love interest in the film.
2. Crass, juvenile style humor which aims to solicits laughs from guys.  
3. Themes of male immaturity and coming of age.
4. Peer pressure as experienced in male circles.
5. Can be place for women to look and better understand the way men think better. What goes on in men's circles when their all alone.  Caution: ladies you may not like what you see.

For my money "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" stands head and shoulders better than any of the other offerings in the raunch-com sub-genre.  It takes a lot to overcome the crassness implicit in the movies in this genre.  This crassness IS realistic, it reminds me of many actual times in my life were male friends, acquaintances, and people I looked up to (jocks at school) actually talked about women.  I view women as angels.  But in the crass spirit of the raunch com women are commonly reduced to mere sexual objects available to meet men's carnal needs.  This bothers me.  Rubs me the wrong way.  And I don't like thinking like that.  

I love women.  I love them so much I completely stay away from them.

A quote from Andy in "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" said this, and for years growing up that's kinda what I did.  There's a lot of Andy in me.  I grew up with the belief that two people should love each other BEFORE they have sex.  Held onto that belief untill I was in my early 20s.  

I have witnessed the raunchy reality of men in my life.  Saw it in high school.  Something that floored me, that I never quite got over was how the jocks at my high school played round-robin with the "hot chicks" at my school.  How they could talk about these angels in a crass, disrespectful manner when they thought they were in safety of the company of men.  The girls they were going out with were angels -- but the way spoke about them in private was like a piece of meat.  It just sickened me.  Still makes me sick when I remember it even today.  Here I was, couldn't touch these girls with a ten foot pool.  And there they were priveledged enough to go and be seen with these princesses, yet in private the crass princes talked about doing sex acts to these girls, and what these angels were like sexually.  Total male peer pressure environment where my ideals were at a distinct dissadvantage. 

O-kay so men have a sex drive.  I get that.  But does a man's lower nature deserve to be lauded on the silver screen?   Is it worthy of permeating romantic comedies?  Or should the ideal be elevated?  Obvioulsy, I side with the later.  

You're putting the pussy on a pedistal...

Another quote of "The 40-Year-Old Virgin."  Well, first off, women are more than just that. Totally bothers me when someone trivalizes a woman as just being a piece of ass. Women are meant to be wooed.  They are meant to be lauded and treated with respect by men.  And I still hold to the belief that the romantic genre is a place for women to get to the higher, idealized form of romance played out.  They're places to challenge men to raise their game in effort to impress the girl they like.  Something to think about when thinking about the romantic comedy genre as a whole and the sub-genres therein.  

P.S. Got my parrents heater working this weekend.  Yay!  Had to replace heater elements temperature, saftey switch which was burned out,  And re-attached a jumper wire that some HVAC tech removed which as keeping a relay from being energized which kept 2 of the 4 heating elements from geting the necessary 240 VAC which needed to go through those two formerly dormat elements.  Anywho, the house is heating up much better now.  

P.S.S. Still hard at work on "The Commune II".  Last week was very stressful at work.  Hopefully this week will be better so I can focus more enegry on the final push.