24 January, 2012

Who Dropped The 'Moneyball?'

            Aaron Sorkin wrote the Best Picture of the year.
            Sadly, you'll never see it.
            Let me explain.
            On rare occasions, I’m lucky to get the opportunity to read an A-list script before seeing its end product.  Two wonderful experiences were the Ted Griffin-Steven Soderbergh ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ (better than the original, another rare occasion) and the wholly underrated by anyone who hasn’t read or seen it;  Joss Whedon’s Pilot for ‘Firefly.’  I loved both those scripts and eagerly looked forward to seeing what Cast & Crew would bring to them.  In both instances, Cast & Crew shined.
         Flash forward to now (ish) when I get the opportunity to read the Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin adaptation of Michael Lewis’ book ‘Moneyball.’  (Note there that I write Zaillian and Sorkin, not Zaillian & Sorkin, and that’s intentional, but more on that in a bit.)  The ‘Moneyball’ script is breathtaking;  and, no, I’m not using that word lightly.  If you don’t believe me, have a little breath taken for yourself right here: 


Sure, it’s moving, funny, uplifting, honest, enlightening, surprising;  all the great things we want in great movies.  And, sure, people see Sorkin’s name and jump on board (I did) but I’ll go ahead and give Zaillian his due credit right now.  If you don’t know his name off-hand, how about these?  ‘Schindler’s List,’ ‘Mission:  Impossible,’ ‘Gangs Of New York’ and ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ just off the top of my head.  But then get a rewrite from Aaron Sorkin – and this is what I meant about “and” and “&;”  Sorkin did a rewrite, they didn’t write it together – and how could it not be great?  Sorkin’s the master of witty pace and dialogue, not to mention he’s living in his wheelhouse:  the behind-the-scenes look at something (in this case baseball, but he’s hit it out of the park with a sports show, The White House and late night sketch comedy).  Honestly, how could it not be great? 
Well, the script is.  It’s better than great.  As I say, it’s breathtaking. 
But the end product?  Not so much.
Now, to be fair, a couple things to level the playing field.  First of all, scripts in general aren’t meant to be read by the theatre going public.  I’ll say this very quickly, and certainly don’t mean to insult anyone, but, to be honest, most people don’t know how to read a script (just like most people don’t know how to watch dailies, but I digress).  More importantly, movies (and TV shows) are the end product of a hundred – hundreds – of different people coming together to make that end product.  So the script, like the Director and Grip and Script Supervisor and Sound Designer and Publicity Agent, are there to serve The Story.  It’s a blueprint by which everyone will build their movie.  Looooots of chefs in the kitchen (and, to continue being fair, that’s usually a good thing).  But reading a Script and then seeing its end product?  It’s rare.  (But if you get the opportunity, gooooolden.)  Add to that THIS minor inconvenience to all involved with ‘Moneyball,’ I got to read the script and see the movie ON THE SAME DAY.  So that’s not easy for any Cast & Crew.  After all, I had all these wonderful expectations very fresh in my mind’s eye going into the viewing and … well …
But first, more play-field leveling.
For second of all, the only version of the script I got to read was Sorkin’s.  I’m sure there’s a version of Zaillian’s original floating somewhere out there, but I sadly haven’t seen it (and before writing this, I looked), so if anyone can, please send it to me.  But I read a lot of Sorkin.  Let me say that again.  I read a lot of Sorkin.  I don’t just WATCH ‘A Few Good Men’ and ‘Malice’ and ‘American President’ and ‘Sports Night’ and ‘West Wing’ and ‘Studio 60,’ I READ as much of his as I can.  So I recognize his pace, his verbal hiccups, his style.  And it explodes in this script.  Not just is it stat filled (natch) it’s stat filled in a way that makes someone like me who can at-best SPELL the word “sports” follow what’s going on.  And then, beyond the baseball, it’s that wonderful behind-the-scenes style of his.  The failure and triumph.  The family.  The love and loss.  The guys working together, fighting together, and their women looking in on them (and they so much stronger than the working and fighting).  It’s great STORY.  Really, Sorkin at the top of his game.
But the movie?  I’m sorry, I really am, but it's ...
I promised myself that I wouldn’t compare and contrast – after all, spoilers! – so I won’t say, “there’s this great scene in the script where …” and then argue why it should have been in the film.  What I will say, simply, is that all of the script’s HEART doesn’t make it into the film.  It tries, and I give Cast & Crew a hell of a lot of credit for trying.  But all the CHARM of the script either falls flat or simply isn’t there. 
All right, I lied, one (not spoilerish) moment.  This is the scene right after Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) doesn’t get his player from The Cleveland Indians and (basically) meets Jonah Hill’s character (Pete in the film, Paul in the script). 

INT. INDIANS’ FRONT OFFICE - LATER

BILLY comes into a bullpen with many cubicles. He walks through the cubicle maze, looking over the partitions, until he finds the preppy kid from Shapiro’s office.    

BILLY
        Hi.

PAUL
        Yes sir.

BILLY
        I’m going to talk like this in a
        congenial way and smile and nod
        like we know each other and you
        do the same.

PAUL
        Okay.

BILLY
        Who the fuck are you?

PAUL
        I’m Paul DePodesta.

BILLY
        I don’t give a shit what your name is.

PAUL
        You just asked me who--

BILLY
        What are you doing? What do you do?

PAUL
        I’m a statistician.

BILLY
        I don’t give a fuck.

PAUL
        Well again, you--

BILLY
        You just cost me a left-handed set-up
        man.

PAUL
        I’m sorry about that.

BILLY
        You’re sorry?

PAUL
        I like Rincon.

BILLY
            (raising his voice)
        You like Rincon? You like Rincon? Who
        the fuck are you?

PAUL
        Paul Depo--

BILLY
        I don’t care! I have never heard of you.
        I have no earthly idea who you are. I
        want to know why Mark Shapiro listens
        to you.

PAUL
        He doesn’t most of the time.

BILLY
        He just did. So tell me what--

PAUL
        I’m in seven fantasy baseball leagues
        and I win all seven every year.

And now BILLY’s stepped off the edge of the world...

BILLY
            (long pause)
        What?

PAUL
        I win at fantasy baseball.

BILLY
        You win at...?

PAUL
        Fantasy baseball.

BILLY’s nose to nose with Paul now...

BILLY
            (calmly)
        Did I misunderstand you or did you
        say that you’re here because you
        win at fantasy baseball?
PAUL
        I do.

BILLY
        I’d imagine it’s easier when you’re
        playing with fantasy money. You ever
        play actual baseball?

PAUL
        I was the equipment manager at Harvard.

BILLY
            (pause)
        Wow.

PAUL
        Can I give you some advice?

BILLY
        Absolutely not.

PAUL
        There’s no other first baseman like
        Giambi so I think it’s a waste of
        time to look for the summer stock
        version.

BILLY
            (pause--a little stunned)
        That’s...What? That’s exactly what I
        said. I said that exact same thing
        yesterday except I said dinner theater
        instead of summer stock.
            (beat)
        Same idea.

PAUL
        Yeah.

BILLY
        Yeah.

BILLY’s thrown off now...something tells him he wants to keep talking to PAUL but he doesn’t want to admit it.

BILLY
        Some summer stock is good.

PAUL
        Some dinner theater is good.

BILLY
        Why are you talking to me?

PAUL
        Do you understand how conversations work?

BILLY
            (pause)
        Alright. I’m done here.
            (pause)
        You’re saying statistically there’s no
        first baseman like Giambi.

PAUL
        My statistics or your statistics?

BILLY
        They’re statistics, they’re the same.

PAUL
        No they’re not and that’s your problem.

BILLY
        I don’t have a problem.

PAUL
        You don’t have Rincon either.

BILLY
        I’m leaving.

But BILLY just stands there...

PAUL
            (pause)
        You’re actually just standing here.

BILLY
            (pause)
        Now I’m leaving.

BILLY exits down the hallway and disappears, but PAUL stays out there.  After a moment, BILLY reappears.

BILLY
        Show me.

      ?!
       Sorry, I’m not really sure what to write there except, “?!”  I hope it comes across as a typed emoticon for, “How the fuck do you WRITE a scene as good as that?!”
       I promise I won’t continue pulling direct references.  For one reason, it’s simply too depressing that a scene as good as that was cut into the imitation that appears in the film.  Because this is a key moment.  This is the moment that made us believe in the Pete character and “thinking his way,” believing his crazy idea could work, that everything Billy Beane, clearly a smart guy, a clever guy, a good General Manager, has done hasn’t worked so far, and he might try something as crazy as this to help his team win.  Not to mention Pete doesn’t totally back down in front of this giant (I love the statistic exchange that ends with, “You don’t have Rincon either.”)  This was THE SCENE.  But the scene in the film?  Most of the feeling throughout the film?  You’re not sure why Beane would have tried this.  In fact, in the movie, you kinda agree with everyone arguing with him.  But have this scene?  Have an exchange like, “I win at Fantasy Baseball” and have it mean EVERYTHING?  Priceless.  And I don’t want to take anything away from Mr. Pitt or Mr. Hill (both, at press, nominated for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, respectively).  They’re actually very good in the film, as, honestly, they generally are.  And I was excited at the prospect of seeing them rattle off Sorkin dialogue.  But, alas, there just isn’t all that much Sorkin in this film.  Scenes, moments, sure.  But the film isn’t given the chance at half as good of material as Sorkin’s script is.  (And not just their characters, but nearly all of them.  For instance, I cried when reading the script – read that again if you have to, I cried when simply reading the script – as Scott Hatteberg is brought on the team and his wife overhears the good news from the kitchen.  Ready to beat the dead horse?  In the script, literally breathtaking.  In the movie?  No better than “eh.”  And that IS sad.)
       So what happened?
       Who dropped the Moneyball?
       Well, the short answer is, obviously, whomever made the decision to not go with Sorkin’s rewrite.  As I say, I haven’t had the chance to read Zaillian’s original, so I don’t know if the film went back to his or is yet someone else’s uncredited rewrite of Sorkin’s rewrite of Zaillian’s original.  (Follow that?)  So is the short answer we blame the director, Bennett Miller?  Possibly.  After all, a film’s director can shoot any version of any script he or she wishes.  But, to be fair, he did ‘Capote’ and that was a very good film.  (The always wonderful Philip Seymour Hoffman is in ‘Moneyball’ as well.)  And Miller’s DIRECTION here – camera placement, overall pace, actors’ performances, overall EXECUTION – is perfectly fine.  He knows how to direct a movie.  But did he pick the right script?  (While ‘Moneyball’ was nominated for Best Picture – sorry to the hard work done by their Cast & Crew, but yawn – Miller wasn’t nominated for Best Director.)  Or was Miller over-ridden by one of the (again, sorry, yawn) eight producers (of which Mr. Pitt himself is one)? 
       I don’t know;  nor am I writing the great ‘Moneyball’ Making Of, so, to be fair, I’m not digging too deep to find out.  After all, that isn’t what my writing this is about.  I simply couldn’t help but say, “But have you read the script?!”  ‘Cause THAT’S the movie.  And if THAT movie had been made, it’d not only win Best Picture, but become an instant classic, rivaling that of ‘The Natural’ and ‘Jerry Maguire.’
       As I was saying, it’s always dangerous for any end product to read its script – especially one by Sorkin – and then see its Movie or TV Show immediately after.  Your mind’s eye simply carries too much into it.  Of course, with something like his own ‘Few Good Men’ through ‘Studio 60’ – and the much anticipated HBO series 'The Newsroom' – he had some control to continue his pace into that of the actors and editing.  But that doesn’t mean an auteur can’t bring something of their own to it.  Reiner did brilliantly with both ‘Few Good Men’ and 'American President,' as did Fincher with ‘Social Network.’  Their Cast & Crew ENHANCED the work.  But I’m sad to say – and it is genuinely saddening – Miller’s Cast & Crew – and these are hundreds of really talented people – just didn’t get it.  I think it’s best summed up in a quote my dear friend Diana Kongkasem shared with me (this about Clint Eastwood being a writer’s director).
       “I’ve learned that when you have a good draft of a script, you just shouldn’t mess with it anymore.  When I worked with Don Siegel, he’d get a script he liked and say, ‘Let’s not kill it with improvement.’” 
       Here here.
       When trying to catch the badly thrown ‘Moneyball,’ at the very least, we can be proud that the script is, at press, also nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.  And if The Powers That Be have any sense at all, any legitimate power, they’ll ignore the movie while giving Zailian and Sorkin The Oscar two years in a row.

27 December, 2011

As The Beatles Wrote, "Love Love Love"

Hello dear readers ...

I read the following at Jo Blo (THE site for Movie News) and had to comment on it.  Firstly, I want to say how great Jo Blo CONSISTENTLY is, as well as how great one of their leading correspondents is;  Mike Sampson (who wrote this).  It's on the (at press) much controversial replacing of the 'Thor 2' director.  Recently announced (at press time) Alan Taylor will take the reigns.  But I'll let Mr. Sampson tell it --

Patty Jenkins had been hired, at the suggestion of star Natalie Portman, to direct Marvel's THOR 2. But as Jenkins and Marvel had continuing script discussions it became clear that Jenkins, who hasn't directed a film since 2003's MONSTER, was in over her head. So despite Portman's protests, Marvel and Jenkins parted ways and the search for a new director was on. Enter "Game of Thrones."  Marvel was looking at two directors who had been working on the popular HBO series - Alan Taylor and Brian Kirk. Well over the holidays, it was confirmed that Taylor has gotten the gig and will begin directing THOR 2 (which I'm sure will have a fancy subtitle) next year.  How happy that makes Portman, who was reportedly "furious" when Jenkins was fired, remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen whether Marvel gives a shit. Let's all be honest and admit that the Jane Foster storyline was the least interesting part of the original THOR. More Asgard please.  Another good question to ask regards who the villain will be in THOR 2. Loki will be the main villain in THE AVENGERS and audiences will likely need something fresh for the THOR sequel. Maybe Enchantress?

So there it is, the original post in its entirety.  What I want to chat about very quickly is the comment on the Jane Foster storyline.  That it's the "least interesting part of the original."  While for some viewers it may not have been as exciting as Asgard or the battle(s) on Earth, let's be honest (to use Mr. Sampson's benchmark), IT'S THE ANCHORING OF THE MOVIE.  You want to make a movie about The Civil War ('Gone With The Wind')?  Give it a love story.  You want to make a movie about The Sinking Of A Ship ('Titanic')?  Give it a love story.  You want to make a movie about a (and let's be REALLY honest here) fairly lesser known super hero such as Odin's son?  For God's sake give it something that everyone can relate to, especially the girlfriends that are being dragged to it by their comic-book-loving-boyfriends (and I'M a comic-book-loving-husband):  GIVE IT A LOVE STORY.

I can't think of an action-thriller-anything-NOT-a-cliche-love-story in the last bazillion years that didn't have a love story.  (And, to be fair, I'm even considering 'Aliens' which, while "mother-daughter" between Ripley and Newt, is still that bond;  much like 'Field Of Dreams' being between father and son.  But that's for a longer article ...)

I'm thinking back to the 'Solaris' commentary with James Cameron and Steven Soderbergh in which they both wax lyrical about being suckers for a good love story (which 'Solaris' CLEARLY is, though I don't want to spoil anything here) ... and how much I'M a sucker for a good love story ... and how aren't we all?  Really, it's the anchor of most movies, and how is that ever a bad thing?  Especially in the case of this "lesser known superhero" (I'm talking outside us fans) in which HOW CAN WE NOT have a love story between god and human, not just as an anchor for the audience to the comic, but, just as significantly, God to Earth?  He needs to care about this "lesser realm."  Why?  'Cause she smiled at him.  And really, guys, isn't it ALWAYS as simple as that?

As I say, I don't want to take anything away from Jo Blo or Mike Sampson, as they consistenly do great work.  I just read that and had to say, "Whoa, shut the front door."  'Cause -- God, I don't want to sound cheesy here, but -- love IS the anchor, especially in story;  poetry, song, story, film, tv, all of it.  Lose that?  Lose your audience. 

And, let's be honest here once more:  isn't it our audience for whom we all write?



14 June, 2011

The Great Buffy Rewatch: Something Blue



w Tracey Forbes
d Nick Marck

As mentioned, this ep caps the big Angel crossover, Buffy mentioning to Willow she only saw him in L.A. for five minutes – yep, sniffle for those of you who know.  As I say, I feel it could have been bigger than Pangs although I Will Remember You works so well that I write it off as “more of the change.”  Buffy has to move on, so that her relationship with Riley can evolve;  and fair enough.  But the biggest change I realized in watching these episodes again (primarily Pangs and Something Blue) is this:  this is where we begin to love Spike
            We’ve always loved to hate Spike, but these are the two eps in which Whedon & Co ingratiate him to The Scoobies and, more significantly, to us the audience.  Whedon himself says (I’m paraphrasing), “When we lost Cordelia to Angel, we needed someone to fill that saying-what-we’re-all-thinking hole, and Spike does that beautifully.”  So he was brought back.  Of course, to give him those Cordelia moments, and not have him back just to wage war on Buffy, he had to get into the group, hence the implant (introduced in Pangs), being held captive at Giles’, and his (still biting but) more comedic handling.
            Speaking of the comedy, Ms. Forbes handles it very well here;  in most people’s opinion, getting a tabula rasa after her Beer Bad

ANYA
Giles is blind?

Xander goes to Giles, waves his hands wildly in front of Giles' face.
GILES
Stop whatever you're doing. You smell like fruit roll-ups.

SPIKE
This is the crack team that foils my every plan?

BUFFY
Spike's right. We have to get organized.

ANYA
Why are you holding hands?

Xander turns, eyes them.
SPIKE
They have to hear it sooner or later...

BUFFY
Spike and I are getting married.

XANDER
(to Giles)
How? What? How?

GILES
Three excellent questions.

Buffy and Spike kiss, big time.
XANDER
(off this)
Can I be blind too?

            As I wrote in The Zeppo how much I love What Ifs, this too has that feel.  Some have said this ep feels like Season 1’s Nightmares, specifically in which (in that ep) Giles can no longer read, and everyone faces their own demons, but where I think Whedon & Co get away with it is in playing the comedy instead of rehashing a monster-of-the-week.[i]
And as I have the soft spot for Xander, I have to point out here that he’s the one to figure out what’s going on, underlining just how close he and Willow are.[ii]
All in all, I think these three eps playout quite nicely;  as I say, especially in repeated viewings when you’re not just coming off the whirlwind Buffy/Angel storyline and can watch Season 4 for its own merit.  I hope you’re enjoying it, and have enjoyed these three eps’ mostly comedic breather.  Because what comes next is -- wonderfully -- anything but.



[i]  (A similar argument can be made for Out Of Mind, Out Of Sight Vs Season 6’s Gone.)
[ii] Foreshadowing the Season 6 end.  Speaking of that, do take note of D’Hoffryn inviting Willow to join his merry men, foreshadowing just how powerful she is, and will become.

The Great Buffy Rewatch: Pangs




w Jane Espenson
d Michael Lange

            More so than most of the writers in The Whedonverse, I tend to gravitate toward Ms. Espenson.  While Whedon himself hits us with the big eps, Espenson tends to bring the funny, the off-kilter, and I often list more of hers under “personal faves.”
            For me, Pangs is bitter-sweet.  On the one hand, given as big a Buffy/Angel fan that I am (and I mean that as opposed to Buffy/Riley or Buffy/Spike), I was thrilled to hear we were getting our first crossover (after Angel left to L.A.).  Angel’s The Bachelor Party ends with Doyle having a vision of Buffy in danger, Angel returns to Sunnydale here, Buffy visits L.A. in Angel’s I Will Remember You, and it’s capped in Something Blue.  I just can’t help but feel that “Angel’s return to Sunnydale” should have been bigger – later in the season? – than for a primarily comedic episode such as this.[i]  Now, on the other hand, as well as Ms. Espenson handles this episode – especially with the funny – what could have been a monster-of-the-week peppered by Indian-Vs-Native-American soapboxing holds up really well, even after multiple viewings.
            The His Girl Friday banter of Giles and Willow arguing over that very “Vs” is really well written, from both sides, and is (almost) as funny as its counterpoint:  Buffy just wanting to have a nice Thanksgiving dinner.  There are great momens throughout like --

WILLOW
This isn't a Western, Buffy!  We're not at Fort... Giles,
with the cavalry coming to save us!  It's one lonely and
oppressed warrior guy who's just trying to --

BUFFY
-- kill a lot of people?

WILLOW
I didn't say he was right...

BUFFY
Will, you know how bad I feel.  This is eating me up --
(to Anya, who holds up the bottle of brandy)
-- a quarter cup, and let it simmer --
(to Willow, as Anya goes back)
-- but even though it's hard, we have to end this. Yes,
he's been wronged, and I personally would be ready to
apologize...

SPIKE
Oh, someone put a stake in me!

            Capitalized by the great end with all of them at the table, even tied-to-the-chair Spike as returned-from-Syphillis Xander, loveable old Xander, blurts out that Angel was there. 
Alas.



[i] Though I Will Remember You is anything but comedic, and one of the really great tortured romance episodes of both series.