I wanna go out and play

Over the past few months I’ve been revising the novel I’ve been working on for far longer than I’d like to admit.

I wish I could say it’s a masterpiece of Catcher In The Rye proportions, but sadly no.

I’m on a very tight deadline at the moment, even still I can’t bring myself to focus. I keep looking outside, up at my canoeing calendar, over at my dust covered bike.

in West Highlands, Scotland with Hamish

When I was a kid, my mother never made me take any lessons or extra curricular activities. If I wanted to that was fine; naturally I never did. Sometimes I regret that discipline not being forced upon me.

Perhaps I’d know how to play the piano or build a robot. Other times like now, I think, what a relief. A relief, because I can sit here chained to my desk and my Mock (mac), look outside and remember that I used to do things, a mix of things, lots of things, fun things.

Now, I just write about characters who do.

Oh-no, I’m a prole?

In Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World, people take a drug, Soma.  The drug causes people to be distracted, their thoughts centre around the drug and just how wonderful it makes them feel.   In George Orwell’s 1984, the ordinary citizens (proletariats) are kept amused and addled by the lottery.  These distractions allow the governments to do what they want without any trouble from the masses.

I’ve never cared much for playing the lottery, and thus far I’ve never stepped into a casino.  My mother has always bought tickets, but she’s never been obsessed with it as some people seem to be.   She said to me recently, “I used to imagine winning all sorts of millions, now I just hope to win enough to pay off my bills.”

The lottery site lists the most common numbers presumably to give people an opportunity to mix and match in order to gain better odds.  Some people have been playing the same numbers for years.  I watched a news piece that said, there is no difference in odds between someone who plays the same numbers and someone who gets a quick pick.

The other night the lottery was so large that wherever my man and I went, friends, clerks in shops, strangers would mention it.  I bought 2 tickets, plus encore (I have NO idea what encore means or how it works), for this big money roll.

Of course there are always the devoted people who play faithfully.  But in this economic climate my co-workers, friends, family are all betting a few dollars for the hope of financial happiness.  I care about costs, and responsibilities but I’ve never bothered to try and pay my way through life with a lottery ticket.  When I bought that big money hopeful ticket the other day, I had lofty goals of what I would do with it.  Help my family and friends, help my list of charities.  Even the house I imagined buying was a solar, water and energy efficient do-gooder.  So for that, I convinced myself to stop balking at my previous attitude and chip in a buck or two (another dollar with encore).

Today, alas, I am not any richer.  It was when I said to my man, “Well next Wednesday for sure,” when I stepped back and Orwell’s proles came to mind.

I’m pondering how that can be applied to the way I, and my non-typical lottery playing friends, have changed our behaviours.  The lottery organization donates to charities.  So why should we feel guilty?  It gives people a sense of hope and excitement.  So is that a bad thing?  Maybe most of the people who win, are good people, and hopefully they needed the money, and they spend it wisely.  So why shouldn’t people try for themselves?

I can’t decide.  It seems harmless to buy a ticket, and maybe it doesn’t require a discussion.  But I can see that we have quite an array of distractions vying for our time.  I don’t want to be a mindless drone moving through the malls, or turning to a reality show instead of choosing to watch the news.  I may be putting too much thought into this, or maybe others aren’t putting enough in.  For the moment, I don’t want to waste my money on anymore encores.

Coffee Machine Missives

We have a new coffee machine at work. It has a black rotund pod body, glowing blue runway lines and giant blue buttons.

It seems to be sending me messages in my mochaccino foam: star, flower, laughing kid, boot kicking someone bent over, angry terrier, and Friday afternoon I think it gave me the finger.

So, no more mochaccinos.

Screwball ….continued

Screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s couldn’t always be called high-brow, story-lines anymore than comedies nowadays.

Because of censors, writers had to be clever about their innuendo (check out:  It Happened One Night 1934 – Frank Capra).

Above all, the screwball comedies, and the present day romantic comedies, should have charm and connection with the audience.  Best known for its fast-talking overlapping witty dialogue, screwball comedies pitted man and woman against one another in a typically exaggerated situation.

Filmmaker Howard Hawks was a master at these and many of his films are still considered the best.  Hawks’ Bringing Up Baby (1938) is an excellent example of putting two opposites in a ridiculous situation and having them fall in love in an outrageous scenario.

His Girl Friday (1940) Directed by Howard Hawks

My personal favourite is another Hawks’ gem, His Girl Friday (1940).

Its sharply witty rapid one-liners over a sophisticated and yet exaggerrated scenario is absolute screwball comedy at its best.  Based on a stage play, (The Front Page 1931) by the fantastic writers, Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur.

Hildy Johnson says she wants to give up being a reporter get married and have kids. It’s up to Cary Grant to keep her at the paper, and his in his life.  This is set against the backdrop of a scheduled execution, a woman’s attempted suicide and crooked politicians.  That’s some serious adult content.

It has a fantastic script, great talent and jaw-dropping rapid-fire dialogue, over and under all of that it has charm.

Leatherheads is a recent film that pays homage to the screwball comedies of the 30s.  I appreciated the attempt more than the box office numbers seemed to overall, but it fell short of the magic of the original screwball comedies.

The most recent comedy that falls comfortably into the romantic comedy category may be surprising but I think this illustrates my point, in part one regarding the absolutely terrible:  My Best Friend’s Girl.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008); this from Kevin Smith, typically known for his direct and often very crass comedy style.  Smith made a film that may not dance around sexuality or care about subtle innuendo but it doesn’t matter (unless you’re very prudish) because this film at it’s heart is a sweet charming story about two people who realize they love each other set against an exaggerated scenario.

I’ve never been fond of cloying romances or formula for that matter.  I look for wit, genuine characters and a tone of story that has heart.  If some poo-humour creeps in, well then that’s okay.  But to override the charm and wit in place of crudeness, that is inexcusable and the film has no business being included in the category of romantic comedy.

Screwball…

I’m a fan of old black and white films, His Girl Friday, My Man Godfrey, You Can’t Take It With You; otherwise known as screwball comedies.

My Man Godfrey (1936)

I’m not sure when the term romantic-comedy was first coined as a film category. But I suppose they stem from the screwball comedies of the 30s/40s. Films generally tagged as romantic-comedies follow a basic formula:

Setup: The story sets up the two main characters; generally with their respective sidekicks, usually the ones with the punchlines or they are a punchline to the main character’s straight guy/gal.

Meet Cute: The two main characters encounter one another in what the writers hope the audience finds adorable. This doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be plausible (Kate & Leopold for instance).

What follows is a formula of clashing/one-liners/falling into some degree of infatuation/some misunderstanding/moving apart/reuniting. This almost always involves: a wedding, a dance/musical number, and someone pregnant going into labour, and or declaring they’re pregnant.

There have been smart versions of the romantic-comedy: When Harry Met Sally. There have been some that tried to break away from the formula somewhat: Black Book, Forces of Nature.

However, generally they follow the above formula and fans of this category expect it. So then, after my man and I tortured ourselves by dialing up, My Best Friend’s Girlfriend, I wondered what the writer, filmmaker and Kate Hudson, were thinking.

The audience for romantic-comedies are usually predominantly women. There are men who enjoy these too if the film is accessible to them, doesn’t insult them, or has a slight coming-of-age self-enlightenment tone to it such as The Devil Wears Prada. Basically I use my man as a gauge for most men; he expects fun, funny, smart.

MBFG starts with Dane Cook being nasty to women to hide the nastiness of the women’s boyfriends… then ends with him being nasty to his love (Hudson) by openly being nasty to her family; including dropping his pants and asking her mother for a blow job.

Wow.

I’m a film buff, film grad, writer and I would say I watch 200+ films a year, no exaggeration, and given the expected formula I outlined above, I have never seen something quite so off-the-mark to put it mildly.

Who, I thought, is this film aimed at? Oh, I expect the chest-beating mouth breathers found that hilarious. So any of those types who got dragged to the expected romantic-comedy with their girlfriends would have been relieved their time wasn’t completely wasted. But let’s for the moment say, f-ck them: Because really, f-ck them. They get their Harold and Kumars, they get their puby hair in the hummus joke films; the romantic-comedy isn’t FOR them.

The film’s story resolution is that Kate Hudson publicly humiliates him and he in turn her and then they embrace.

A perfectly attractive successful, intelligent women reduced herself to the crass gutter for a guy who asked her mother for a blow job at her sister’s wedding. In He’s Just Not That Into You, the film attempts to expose the games and lies, and show that both men and women can be jerks to one another. It isn’t a great film but as for romantic-comedies it does what it’s supposed to do, and I felt was at least smarter than most lately (I’m looking at you 27 Dresses). Whoever wrote and thought that MBFG would make a good romantic-comedy should be slapped. That’s it: Just slapped; then ignored forever.

My man usually thinks DC is funny, so I asked if he liked the film. He did not. And yes, he was telling me the truth.

Eureka!

With Battlestar Galactica’s final season having just begun along with Lost, and with Heroes not far behind, my friends and I have returned to discussing our favourite topic: Science-fiction; particularly science-fiction television.

Over the years I have liked:

Stargate: Atlantis over Stargate SG-1, Babylon 5, Star Trek Next Generation, I even liked Total Recall 2070, Eerie-Indiana (campy sci-fi horror).

My all time favourites are: Farscape, X-Files, Twilight Zone (Rod Serling still kicks serious literary, sci-fi butt).

Lately, my favourite television hasn’t been BSG, Lost or Heroes. It’s been EUREKA.

Not only is that show a great mix of drama and comedy but all of the episodes are extracted from real science and theoretical scientific concepts. It’s cleverly written and the characters are unique and diverse. Give it a try!

http://www.scifi.com/eureka/

Other all time favourite shows since you were asking:

Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Supernatural.

iTunes University Junkie: Or how I finally comprehend what Schrödinger did to the cat.*

You have your film buffs, the podcast devotees, and the music fans. I spend at least 3 hours every Saturday scanning, selecting and downloading any of the education lectures, classes, research, interviews on iTunes I can find.

I’m interested in just about everything, in fact it would be pithier to say what I’m not particularly interested in (Opera).

Mainly though, I am hooked on any course that discusses quantum science, physics and astronomy.

My recent favourites:
Oxford University – Caging Schrödinger’s Cat – Quantum Nanotechnology (clear, good visuals)
Seattle Pacific University – The Case of Quantum Entanglement (clear presentation, good enthusiastic prof)
Michigan Technological University – Astronomy (concise, great (and funny) prof, good visuals)

Also be sure to subscribe to the SETI institute’s, “Are We Alone?” Podcasts. If you love all that is science fact, those programs will not disappoint.

These courses, and others, are so fascinating I can’t bring myself to delete them.

Last night I managed a better understanding of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. I learned that the cat can be both dead and alive, and I finally think I get the ‘why’.

Tonight I’m going to learn about the birth and death of stars; Ooh, and Fusion: The Real Solar Power, and waiting for me in the next few days: Cambridge University’s Science In Society series.

I had a dream about math last night, so maybe if I keep watching these I’ll finally be that smarty-pants person I’ve always longed to be.

*first posted on group site: www.hardcorenerdity.com

Scrooge-you

I’m watching yet another take on Dicken’s, A Christmas Carol. This one is a cross between Groundhog Day and Scrooged (though not as funny). I never get tired of these movies revisiting the concept of turning someone selfish into someone thoughtful.

You would think that a character as famous as Scrooge would eventually solve the issue of scrooges. I guess it’s obvious, but it only just hit me like the volume of the commercials when this film took a break; Scrooges don’t know they are.

Yes, I know that was the point in the original and all the decades of subsequent versions, but even when scrooges watch a movie about scrooges (some of them must at least bother to watch, right?) they don’t see it as them.

Very bothersome.

What’s it going to take? Bugs me when the bad guys get to just go ahead and continue to be bad guys. /sigh

Merry Christmas to all those non-scrooges out there. If you run into one, give them a kick.

Why is the writer staring at nothing?

…and does that drool mean she’s catatonic or passionate?

The Writer’s Role and the Job of Creating a Narrative in Game Writing

It’s a common perception that fiction writers make up story, character and write dialogue.

While this is true, it’s important for the project team to understand the writer is in charge of maintaining the integrity of the overall vision.

The creative director, developer, video game publishing execs may form the vision, but regardless the writer’s primary job is to maintain the integrity of whatever the agreed upon premise is.

All narratives (movies, novels, graphic novels and video games) encompass this framework:

Theme, story/plot, subtext.

The framework is always present it’s the execution that makes it degrees of excellent or awful.
The framework is always present regardless if the story is in one, two or multiple parts, and regardless if it is linear (told in order) or non-linear or branching (Pulp Fiction for example).

- Once the premise is agreed upon the writer begins to piece the narrative framework together. This is pulled together from a number of widely varying sources of research and ideas.
- It is common for new and unconsidered subtext to develop within the story. Finding ways to play off these allows for a richer narrative.
- Character dynamics, the way they interact, what they say, how they say it,what they don’t say develops each character,fills in themes, back story and reflects sub text.

Some characters can help drive the story as well as provide the additional flavour of theme and subtext.
Other characters may just hold one or two functions within the narrative.
Creating complex characters requires the writer to have research and observation skills and a finely-tuned sense of empathy.

- Once the framework is in place the writer always has to check every additional idea, alteration, shift and deletion against the narrative framework.

To apply any suggested changes from anyone the writer must cross check against every element in the framework to ensure nothing breaks when the change is made.
Writers are generally very skilled at finding compromises to allow the desired changes while maintaining the framework.

Changes, additions, shifts and deletions will fracture the story if the writer is not first allowed to do their cross check.
Sometimes seemingly small changes can fracture the story. Alternately sometimes large changes, swapping scene/event order for example may not do damage to the story at all.

In my experience in video game writing, it’s a very common pitfall that when the writer does not accept a person’s idea/change without edits or compromises project members can misunderstand this as being a personal slight to their idea.
It’s important to understand that it is not a personal slight, or rejection of the person’s creative input. The writer’s paramount job is to maintain the integrity of the story.

Therefore the writer should always take the ideas into account and offer alternate solutions in order to avoid these misunderstandings. Team members should try and appreciate that they may not see what the writer is seeing and trust the writer’s proven skill set.

I hope this helps anyone interested in the details of what a writer does.

If I owned my own company…

I wouldn’t want to run a company unless I could beat people up. I’d run into their tiny boxes and scare them. Every now and then I’d even club them on the head.

I’d call it baby seal day.

In the lobby I’d have dungeons and dragons style dice and each morning the staff would have to roll for their day. Depending on the amount of their roll I’d terrorize them differently and in varying degrees.

Then on Friday mornings and evenings before hometime I’d make them pick up garbage along the highway.