We really shook the pillars of Heaven, didn't we, Wang?

It makes me sad, to see the same post, over and over.


So, I'm going to offer an appreciation of John Carpenter's Big Trouble In Little China.


This is not an in-depth analysis, but perhaps I'll work on that. I may want to use some of John Carpenter's films as examples, in future posts.


For the time being, I'll simply try to wet the appetite of anyone who hasn't seen this one.












"EGG SHEN
See? That was nothing. But that’s how it
always begins… very small."



Watch this movie for the myths, for the dialogue, for the
twists on nostalgic cliffhanger moments.

Watch it to see a movie where the hero is strong, quick,
but not too bright. And he always loses, but always manages
to be tough about it. Jack Burton is kind of like The Dude
Lebowski crossed with Dirty Harry and Indiana Jones.
Ironic, sarcastic, tough and completely confused.

A movie in which on the nose dialogue is used to its
greatest effect. Following the poor use of such dialogue in
the adventure serials the movie is inspired by, but using
it for comedic effect.

For example, we have Gracie Law, the Lawyer who helps the
helpless:

"GRACIE
You know me, I’m always poking my nose in
where it doesn’t belong. And, as a result,
I admit it, this mix-up is my fault. Sort of."

And we have Margo, the reporter looking for her big break:

"MARGO
God, it’s creepy. Do we actually have to go
in? B-because I will, if I have to. I’ll go
anywhere or do anything to get my story. It’s
my big break."

As far as exposition goes:

"GRACIE
Mr. David Lo-pan.

MARGO
(all in one breath)
You mean the David Lo-pan that’s Chairman of
the National Orient Bank and owns the Wing-
Kong Import/Export Trading Company, but is
so reclusive that no one’s even laid eyes on
this guy in years?"

But performance and dialogue/action timing makes this
comedic, rather than bad writing. It’s not easy to write
well, while using the tropes of bad writing. This movie
pulls it off.

"GRACIE
The Wing-Kong Exchange? The most dangerous,
cut-throat den of madmen in Chinatown? You
cant just waltz in and out of their like—

WANG
--like the wind. Yes I can, Miss Law. My mind
and my spirit are as one.

JACK
As two. I said I was coming."





"JACK
This is Jack Burton in the Porkchop Express
and I’m talkin’ to whoever’s listening out
there. It’s like I told my last wife. I says,
"honey, I never drive faster’n I can see and
besides that, it’s all in the reflexes".




"JACK
Can I ask you a serious question?

GRACIE LAW
Absolutely not.



JACK
Then would you ever consider just jumping
into the s—

GRACIE LAW
Sure, but never with a person in your
condition.



JACK
Let’s talk about my condition, what’s
wrong with it?

GRACIE LAW
You should stand down-wind, where I am.
(beat)
It’s Miller time."



Jack is a tough guy with a penchant for getting his ass
kicked. He’s strong, fast, and of average intelligence,
surrounded by people who are stronger and faster than
humanly possible. But his guts, alone, keep him alive. And
a general lack of awareness keeps him moving forward.

He’s not above a Clouseau-level undercover job:


"JACK
Boy, sure is raining cats and dogs!"

And he’ll use a gun, when need be.



Though he may have never used one, before.

You’ll meet Margo and Eddie.


"MARGO
This is just so shocking. I must be
monumentally naïve.

EDDIE
You are."


The Good Guys:





The Bad Guys:



The evil Three Storms, Lightning, Rain, and Thunder:



Evil creatures with supernatural powers.

There are Monsters and Creatures of every description:






Magic and mysterious places and danger every step of the
way:







A typical Jack Burton Moment:


"JACK
Alright, we’re almost outta here. Now
from here on it gets pretty normal.

JACK
I count to three, open that door, we
move out. Ready? Follow the leader. One,
two, three…



JACK
We could be trapped."





Initially, Jack’s in it to get the $2000 that he won from
Wang, gambling. Then his truck disappears and he’s just in
it to get his truck back. Of course, the truth is that
Jack’s a Good Guy. He’s in it because it’s the right thing
to do. But being a Tough Guy, he can’t say that. Anymore
than he can say that he likes a woman.

Ultimately, they must face Lo-Pan, the dreaded spirit demon
who used to be a man. Lo-Pan wishes to become flesh-
and-blood, again, so that he can be master of everything.

Lo-Pan comes in various flavours, as a result of being a
dream. (confused? It’s actually easy to follow, in the
movie. The parts that matter are simple and the weird stuff
doesn’t matter… it’s just spice)

The three faces of Lo-Pan:






It’s an unreserved joyride through cliffhanger serials,
adventure movies, asian myths, and tongue-in-cheek
broadsides against every action hero stereotype and trope.

And the original spec was written as a western. Go figure.


(And the commentary by John Carpenter and Kurt Russell is quite fun, as well.)

Meta-Ethics, Verisimilitude, and You

Warning: Rough work, ahead.

I wasn't fully prepared, but Captain Fahrenheit needed some low-cal high-brow filler.


Okay, I’ve been reading a bit about ethics and I was struck by the analogies to writing. I’m still in process, but I wanted to toss some ideas out and see if there’s a reaction. I’m just warning that this is still rough. I’m looking for comments, criticisms, and anyone wishing to take up a torch and self-immolate, in an attempt to flame me.

(Note that in the following discussion, I presuppose that a character’s (or a real person’s) philosophical stance may (and, indeed, usually is) unconscious and fully unexplored.)

What I noticed is that Character motivations are described by normative ethics.


Normative ethics is the attempt to provide a
general theory that tells us how we ought to live.


But the theme is meta-ethical. This is where you test the value of the various ethical stances, within your story.


Metaethics... doesn’t ask what acts, or what kind
of acts are good or bad, right or wrong; rather, it
asks about the nature of goodness and badness,
what it is to be morally right or wrong..


The thing that has me looking at this is comments on a discussion board. The original question was regarding a character who is a Fundamentalist preacher. The thread went into acrimony, fast. But I was less interested in the religious arguments, than in the lack of writerly attitude being presented.

From that discussion:
“I can tell you there is no interest on my part to characterize fundamentalist christians anything but narrow minded, and only interested in their own selfish definition of 'morality'. And if the majority of non-fundamentalist christians didn't at some level feel the same way about the moral code that the fundamentalists express, they sure keep their candle of enlightenment well hidden under a bushel...”


Is the fundamentalist narrow-minded and selfish? Of course, any flaw is possible for any character. But would it be believable if every Fundamentalist Christian in your movie were narrow-minded, self-interested swine? I suggest that even those who hate Fundamentalists would, at best, find your characters to be funny caricatures. Deep down, even the less aware will feel that the characters are... “off”. It doesn’t matter whether the audience member can identify why the characters are not real. It only matters that they can.

Could that Fundamentalist character instead be a Consequentialist? If one includes, as a STRONGLY believed consequence, the fiery lakes of Hell?


Consequentialism: An action is morally right
if the consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable.


What would you not be willing to do, if you TRULY believe that one action may lead to God’s love, the other to God’s wrath?

Or the character could be a ... Pufendorfian? (a deontologicalist)

Pufendorfish Deontologicalism: a practical duty
to both inwardly and outwardly worship God


The point isn’t that you should know all of the various ethical stances, though that wouldn’t harm, in the slightest. The point is that your characters need to not just have different actions and ways of speaking. They need to have entirely different ways of seeing and understanding the world.

We all know that an evil genius who thinks of himself as “evil”, is not realistic. And verisimilitude is what it’s all about.

A character is “narrow-minded and selfish” from the POV of others, but not from their own. Or, if they see themselves as selfish, then that is motivated by their ethical stance. Highly likely a negative self-image comes from a failure to live up to a conscious or unconscious ethical stance.

And, again, it’s not necessary to identify that your Protag is motivated by Virtue Ethics and sees himself as a failure because he wasn’t able to run into a burning building, to save the child. But knowing it might help maintain consistency.

In some ways, this is like an actor preparing for a role and learning about the character’s background, beliefs, favorite music... even though none of it goes on the screen. It’s not about what the audience is told, is about how the actor informs the role.


If your characters are different, they’ll stand out. If they’re consistent, they’ll be believed.






Among morality's distinctive features, all agree, is its apparently intimate connection to action. In making moral judgments, for instance, we seem to be making a claim that, if true, establishes that someone or other has a reason to act or be a certain way. This marks an important difference between moral claims and claims concerning, say, color. The claim that something is red is, even if true, only contingently connected to whether anyone has any reason at all to act or be a certain way. Whereas if a certain thing is morally good it seems that everyone necessarily has at least some reason (perhaps overrideable or defeasible, but still some reason) to promote, pursue, protect, or respect it — at least if they recognize that it is good. Moreover, many have thought, to judge sincerely that something is good (whether or not one is right) is to have some motivation (again, perhaps overrideable or defeasible, but still some motivation) to promote, pursue, protect, or respect it

BROKEN PROMISES

Greetings, Good Morning, Hello & Howdy,

I'm back . . . sort of. I've been busy with several writing projects and preparing for the release of Kamikazes, which I'm supposed to be chronicling realtime. I will be back in a few days to catch you up on the saga of releasing one's own film, and to comment on other issues that are bugging the hell out of me ;)

See you soon,

Lin

What Is A Cinema Rebel, Part II

Hello.

I guess the trick is to introduce myself and explain my take on what a Cinema Rebel is.

Heh. It’s a new term, for me, if not a new concept.

I’m not an anarchist. I don’t fight just to fight. But I don’t surrender my understanding, to anyone. I don’t accept the voice of authority; I’m more interested in the voice of wisdom. If you have something valid to say and can back it up, with examples, etc, then I’m listening. But I’m die hard, when it comes to writers and writing. Claim to be a writer? Show it. Learn how to spell, learn how people talk, have an interest in human nature, learn what people expect (whether you give it or not).

Learn the freaking rules, people.

Yes, everyone can point to a well-loved writer who doesn’t follow the rules. But he knew he wasn’t. He did it, for a reason. He wasn’t blundering, blindly, hoping to strike a nerve, once in a while.

A Cinema Rebel breaks the rules, he doesn’t stumble, blindly, through them.

Since the odds are that you suck, as a writer, at the very least you can apply yourself. Treat it like a vocation, a calling. A duty. Show some pride in your work. If you don’t, I can almost guarantee that I won’t. Why should I? Odds are good that you suck, as a writer, and your script is in desperate need of lighter fluid and flame. Treat it carelessly and the best I can offer is my lighter.

A Cinema Rebel isn’t doing a job, he’s being a writer, director, etc..

But imagine the warmth we could generate, over a long winter, burning all the craptastic scripts circulating. There’s always a silver lining.

The gurus.

I’ll not knock what they’ve accomplished, but I’ll dismiss how it’s usually used. The McFields are post-hoccers. They’re work is based upon finished FILMS. Get that. It’s important. They may be using the scripts to formulate/demonstrate their beliefs, but they saw the movies, first. This is not the way to work out a battle plan for screenwriting.

More importantly, they’ve each found their own methods in performing their literary autopsies. But the best medical examiner isn’t stupid enough to think that, if he just cuts enough bodies, he’ll understand how to give birth. He can find the organs involved, but it’s too late... the task is long done.

The gurus are looking at finished works, coming up with some relatively similar elements, then saying, “this is how it’s done”.

No.

This is how it looks, after it has been done.

The authors of the screenplays they use as examples (Casablanca and Chinatown being high on that list) did not use these methods to write their scripts. That should be a warning bell, for everyone. These various 3.6Act/44Sequence/___ things are best used to double-check your finished script, not to write it. And even then, only if you can’t quite place your finger on what’s wrong.

A Cinema Rebel notes what’s out there, learns from anyone and everyone, then does their own thing. They’ll adjust, ask, talk, learn, and change as they go. But not because Rule 33b says X. The Cinema Rebel doesn’t care about Rule 33b, as anything other than a reference.

Unless they’re paying you to deal with rule 33b. Because a work ethic is not a bad thing.

A Cinema Rebel experiments with what has been done and with anything else he comes up with.

So, while Lin delivers a flurry of one-inch punches to the structuralists, I’ll sift through the bloodied corpses, to see if they have anything to help trim an edge, here and there.

I’m the kinder, gentler, Canadian-flavoured rebel.

What is a Cinema Rebel?

Greetings, Good Evening, Hello & Howdy!

Recently, an associate and I were discussing our projects and bouncing ideas around, when he said to me, "So Lin, what exactly, is a cinema rebel?"

I'll explain it to you as I explained it to him.

The term "cinema rebel" has no strict definition. Like Jeet Kune Do, it's different for everybody, and I can only speak for myself and what it represents for me.

The definition of a cinema rebel, as it applies to me, is as follows:

It's my filmmaker's version of bushido ... my code.

I am telling my stories and my making my movies the way I choose to, and not according to rules, laws and techniques created and set forth by so-called gurus and snake-oil salesmen, who themselves are unproven in the fields they profess to be experts in.

I believe in my own knowledge, experience, skill and creativity, and will not submit my swagger (not the obnoxious kind) to any writer, director, executive, actor or guru, regardless of their stature or track record.

Why? Because aside from God himself, I am the supreme lord of my creative universe. I am Ronin. I have no master. Why should I grant any human being the power to validate me?

That wasn't a rhetorical question, by the way.

Does this mean I think I'm above learning from others or growing? Absolutely not! Many of my friends, family and associates can confirm that seeking the counsel of those I respect, is a common practice. Too common for many of them I would imagine.

What it means is, I see everyone I work with as a colleague, from the "most successful" to the "just starting out." I try to treat everyone with the same respect I desire, and I don't subscribe to reserving the VIP treatment for higher profile individuals.

Sure, there's more, but that's the basic definition of a cinema rebel as it pertains to me.

Now, I have a question for you.

What is a cinema rebel as it pertains to you?

Greetings, Good Morning, Hello and Howdy!

I'm writer/director/producer, Lin Fahrenheit, and welcome to my blog. I feel strange even using the word, because I've always thought of blogging as something others did, and never dreamed I'd start one myself, but here I am --blogging. I guess that makes me a blogger too. And you know what? I'm cool with it.

As I said in the "About Me" area of my profile, my primary objective with this blog is to establish a hub, where film industry folks and moviegoing folks can get together to talk about movies and anything else that comes to mind... almost.

Some filmmaker blogs and forums like to keep discussions focused on filmmaking and it's almost heresy to introduce a topic that doesn't lead back to it.

Now, I'll readily admit, that filmmaking and all that it entails, is a primary component of this blog, but it's far from being the only component. I want us to share thoughts and ideas on a myriad of issues like everyday life, love, politics, ups, downs, careers, you name it.

I figure that no matter how diehard a filmmaker or moviegoer you are, you have a life outside of filmmaking and movies. I know I do.

Let's talk rules. I don't have many, but here goes.

Racism, insults, flame wars and the like, will not be tolerated -- at all. So if you're one of those emotional vampires, who feed on the negative emotions you stir up in others, then understand that I will raise up the proverbial cross and banish you from this blog without so much as blinking.

I don't mind heated debates. I don't mind words like shit and damn, so long as they are not used to promote chaos or to insult a blogger or commenting visitor.

Just one, last thing before I check out.

"Greetings, Good Morning (or Afternoon), Hello & Howdy," that's mine -- I own it :)

If you see anyone else using it, they lifted it from me, and should be reported immediately, to the Federal Authority of Unoriginal Misfits.

Seriously though, I look forward to sharing and talking with you. Spread the word and let's blog!

Thanks,

Lin