The Writers Guild Foundation is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to preserve and promote the craft of writing for the screen. We’re proud of all we do for the community, including our Veterans Writing Project, our Volunteer and Mentorship Programs, our Archive, and the Shavelson-Webb Library - the world’s only library devoted entirely to writing for the screen.
That was very useful and they're both just adorable! Yes, Brit is right about us artists being like a satellite dish tuning into the collective frequency.
I've always been a reader and Abe Polonsky was a hero of mine. Not for his politics but for his moral stance. He was a truth teller and he told truth to power. Today, we have nothing but sycophants, suck-ups and toadies who have no principles and are the worst kind of moral relativists there are. They're the ones who toss away their morals, values and ethics in companies and in politics simply to gain more power over others. We see it with those that surround that criminal who used to be President. They bow and scrape to him and they'll throw everything American, everything good and moral under the bus for him. They have no problem siding with the enemies of America like Putin. I don't know how so many can do that when we've saw the same happen in a country we had to fight to defeat in WWII. They went along to get along and the end result was the systemic murder of over six million Jews, Roma, the handicapped and others not to mention the tens of millions that country killed in that war. We stopped them then thanks to guys like Abe Polonsky. Now, the same are here and they're trying to bring to this country what we defeated in WWII.
When Brit talked about Stranger Things I got chills because as a screenwriter and artist I've always felt that there is some type of electric frequency line with stories that we tap into. It's an energy and you sometimes meet other artists doing something similar to you, but different, because they've tapped into the same frequency line.
18:58 "There's this feeling of being after something quite specific..." - I now see that feeling is what Brit evokes in all her roles and stories - from Another Earth to The OA to Murder at the End of the World - it's a je ne sais quoi that is quite specific but not easily described because it's just so different from anything else
The brilliance of Sherwood was honed in radio, where the importance of dialogue and image were un aided by visual technology.Other greats of TV had similar training in vaudville; these training grounds no longer exist.
Wow, I didn't realize this until I rewatched the dissecting of the script. When they discuss Gong Gong mumbling in his sleep, "We have to go. The Japanese are here" on page 15, it reminded me of stories that my mother would tell about the Japanese invasion and occupation of China during WWII. She lived in the SE province of Canton, China and had to escape from her village when the Japanese marched in. She made her way from Canton into Hong Kong during the war. So, even though that line of dialog was edited out of the movie, it really gave an authenticity to what Gong Gong's experience would have been like living in China at the time. It was a window into the post-traumatic stress that my mother had experienced.
"We'll teach ourselves to write" thank you Brit. Hey Malcolm, I still think your "Million Dollar Murray USMC " the Reno NV story would be a great script idea for the WGF Veterans Writing Project to team score. Salutes.
An observation about two year old Billy Wilder being in a dress - for that time all infants and toddlers of any gender wore skirted garments (dresses). Typically boys did not wear britches until they could pull up and fasten the pants by themselves. However, it is entirely possible that the Wilders may have indeed wanted a girl. I do understand that this commentary lent itself better to the premise of this story. Thanks for letting me have my say.
Back in the day I LOVED watching Gilligan's Island.... Watching it was a lot like visiting good friends once a week...And I especially enjoyed singing along to the theme song....
SPOILERS: CHINATOWN Having seen Chinatown many times, and having seen a couple versions of the script, there are questions I’d like to ask Towne: -At the hall of records, the perfectly cast snotty bureaucrat of a clerk says that part of the Valley (presumably the San Fernando Valley, a phrase I don’t think is ever used in the film) is in Ventura County, which has never been true. Writing error, or done intentionally, to make the clerk seem even more snotty? -In one version of the script (which I think was filmed, but not used), Evelyn, immediately after revealing the truth about Katherine, makes reference to the dam disaster and some kind of mental breakdown on her father’s part. The line, “The dam broke”, appears to have more than one meaning. She very briefly suggests that she had to care for him, and their relationship became like that of spouses. Was this description meant to reflect reality, or just the still-traumatized Evelyn’s distorted interpretation of what happened? Is Evelyn excusing her father or blaming herself? Did he simply not understand what he was doing , or did he just not care? Cross being what he was, I suspect this was a twisted mix of mental breakdown, already being 100% self serving, and already being someone who lived to abuse power, be it political or interpersonal. Cross later avoids answering Gittes’s question as to whether or not he blames Evelyn with an arguably true observation about humans in general (“capable of anything”), but it evades the issue and reflects exactly the kind of muddled assessment of his own culpability that one would expect from Cross. -In the final cut. Gittes, in a question phrased as a statement, says, right after the big revelation, “He raped you” Evelyn responds by shaking her head. Does the head shake mean, “No. It wasn’t rape”?, or, “I don’t want to talk about it”, or, “It’s complicated”? I think that Evelyn, an at least partially brainwashed fifteen year old in a nightmare situation, was very much raped, and could not possibly have consented, but may not realize that, especially if she had, at the time, even the least bit of conflicted feelings about what happened, helped along by her father’s twisted spin on the matter. -Evelyn seems to have had genuine affection and appreciation for Hollis-but while she often appears to be someone who is just barely holding herself together, and I get why she wouldn’t be entirely surprised by his death, she never appears grief stricken or immediately shook up by it. Does Evelyn not actually care about Hollis? Is she too preoccupied to grieve? Has trauma left her somewhat detached from her emotions, or is she just very good at keeping herself ever so barely under control? She very quickly ends up in bed with Gittes. Did abuse teach her that sex is the appropriate response to unpleasant emotion? What was the nature of her indiscretions while married to Hollis. Was Hollis more of a surrogate father than husband? -Gittes appears to be very much the proverbial idealist found just below the surface of many apparent cynics. Is that why Gittes, after many smart moves, makes the not at all smart move of meeting Cross alone, and of letting Cross know that he has the one known piece of physical evidence on his person? With any other writer, I would assume that this is a monumental error. Given that this is the work of Towne (and maybe Polanski), I’m more inclined to think that this is a reflection of Gittes being a mix of jaded and wide-eyed innocent. The catharsis he imagines he’ll get from this confrontation with evil blinds him to what an incredible strategic blunder it is. I would love for Towne to address this. BTW, I don’t think allowing Cross to take the bifocals helps Cross get away with it all. Cross’ style, the physical might involved in drowning Hollis, and the stupid sloppiness of not realizing the bifocals were missing, and not finding and retrieving the bifocals indicates to me that Claude did the dirty work while Cross probably went inside and poured himself a drink. In the unlikely event that someone were to take the fall for Hollis’s murder, the someone would be Claude, or some other sap-maybe even Gittes. Also: from the second Gittes, in the final scene, starts trying to tell Escobar what happened, it’s clear that Gittes could show verifiable film of the murder, and nothing would happen to Cross. It’s likely none of Cross’ henchman would be in trouble either. When Cross tells Evelyn what a “highly disturbed woman” she is, he’s the most powerful man in the city, announcing to the cops and others present what the official narrative is going to be. One more observation about the film’s relentless focus on moral murkiness: Evelyn’s fate being foreshadowed by Gittes description of whatever happened previously in Chinatown, and by the appearance of Curly’s wife displaying the limits of Gittes’s pat reasoning in the barber shop scene about just uncovering the truth, and not being in control of whether justice is done. The Curly situation is a repeat of the Chinatown scenario of never knowing if you’re combatting evil or helping it along. Did Gittes nobly expose the dalliance of a no-good two-timing wife? Or did an abused woman have one moment of respite exposed by Gittes, bringing on more abuse? Interesting that Curly, who’s deep in debt to Gittes for a service that’s caused nothing but trouble, has to ask Gittes for forgiveness of what he owes, in exchange for a trip that’s more dangerous than Curly can possibly know. How exactly is Gittes different from the banker? Finally, a point about screenwriting. One of the challenges is to very briefly convey the spirit of characters, wardrobe, setting; etc without, on the page, micro-managing the experts who bring those elements to life. One great example of this in Chinatown is with the scene in which Gittes first meets Cross. The very brief exterior setting description begins with, “It is California in miniature.” Brilliant! Communicates the vision in a way that allows the other creatives to be truly creative. Almost as good as the first sentence about Max Bialystock in The Producers: “Max Bialystock is a big baby.” The dialogue and actor directions take care of the rest.
WATCH David O. Russell's masterpiece 'Spanking the Monkey', I bought the movie when it came out (on video I think). It's one of those films with a strong theme, but it has the genius of not boxing you in, and that makes all the difference in telling a story. It will be a cult film one day, if it isn't already.
I absolutely love this. The back stories of incredible people, right place right time, persevere, willingness to learn. Becoming so very successful. I wonder if he ever knew how many people he enriched with his talent? Amazing Life stories. Circle of life. I just love this.🎥❤️ RIP Garry Marshall
