Real time in movies vs movie time in movies: some thoughts

I read the script for Saturday Night the other day, a movie which seems to fall into the “good try” category, and is definitely in the “at least 20 years too late for people to care” category (in 2005 people like Bill Murray, Chevy Chase etc were still omnipresent).

It’s written in real time - 90 minutes before the first show - and it got me thinking about the notion of real time in movies versus real time in theatre.

Real time works great in stage plays because, if done well, it creates this extra tension and energy in a work - it’s all happening right there, right then and there, with these people literally right in front of us. It’s also faster because on scene changes slow things down in the theatre: the lights dim, the actors leave, the scene changes, the lights come up, the actors come on. This is usually cumbersome and you have to resort to skill to not slow it down. John Guare's Six Degrees of Separation is an excellent example how to do quick scene changes on stage. But a lot of plays would be better off with longer scenes. Part of the trouble with many of David Williamson’s later plays is he has too many scenes which he'd be better off combining and playing out in real time as much as possible.

Real time works less well in film, where it can slow action down. The audience isn’t as attuned to watching film in real time - it expects time jumps via editing.  I mean, real time movies can work brilliantly (there are exceptions to every rule) - one only has to think of something like High Noon, Run Lola Run or Birdman. 

But you have to be careful picking what specific period of “real time” you are using.

Saturday Night takes place in real time before the first show of Saturday Night Live. That’s a sexy concept and it sounds like a good idea - all the chaos, the madness, etc. You can imagine the colour and movement and feeling of stakes.

But actually it’s not a good idea, not really. Because the last ninety minutes before a script show goes to air are tense for those involved... but not to watch. I mean, the show has already been written and cast and planned and costumed and rehearsed. The key decisions (who to write it, who to star, what jokes to tell) have been made. The ninety minutes before show is for vocal warm ups, props checks and trying not to freak out. It’s exciting but not that exciting, certainly not 90 minutes’ exciting.

Reitman tries to pump it up with some drama like having Lorne Michaels go see a stand up show, be unimpressed by the comic but like the material and hire the writer... which happened... but not just before the first show. Michaels should be on set during that time, to have him run off to a bar and see another show makes him look really incompetent. (I know the event happened, but on another night altogether). Also some things just don’t ring true like hinting Chevy Chase might be the new Johnny Carson before the show goes to air. After the show’s a hit, yes, and that's what happened in real life but it was after the show was the talk of the nation - having this event happen before the first show has aired doesn’t make sense. And all the sketches and bits that people come up with right before the opening show doesn’t feel real. A few lines, yes, a bit of business, certainly - but not to the extent here.

Saturday Night would have been better off focusing on the months, or a week before the show. You could put in the same material, more or less, I just think it would have had more propulsion and felt realer and you could do the countdown to the opening show as a ticking clock throughout.

Another script/film it reminded me of was Jobs. (Sidebar: while reading Saturday Night I was constantly thinking of Studio 60 on Sunset and that was much better written than Saturday night though that’s an unfair comparison. Actually I began to wish that instead of making Studio 60 on Sunset Aaron Sorkin had written the Saturday Night Live story like he did for Social Network.. I think he would have done a banger job, packed a script full of zingers, understood the drug addiction, got that backstage showbiz story out of his system, and spared us that three episode arc where the star’s brother was kidnapped in Iraq. End of sidebar.)

With Jobs Aaron Sorkin came up with a (seemingly) sexy way to tackle the life of Steve Jobs: three different product launches. Well, that is different, and better than from cradle to grave storytelling.

But... problem is, nothing much really exciting happened at those product launches. Like Saturday night the key decisions/conflict had happened before/after those launches. I think Sorkin kind of realised it writing the script - he did pretty well with the conflict involving Jobs not identifying his daughter (this was quite well done) but still couldn’t resist flashing back to the big moment in Jobs’ professional life - when Jobs got sacked from Apple. That was a lot more interesting than the product launches and Sorkin knew it.

Also another thing about real life stage versus film. I think on stage you can allude to things you don’t see more - characters, events. Indeed, it can work quite well, discussing what happened, say, “last spring” with “Camilla” can be very evocative on stage. Tennessee Williams uses it brilliantly - having characters recall events that happened off stage. Theatre audiences will use their imaginations a bit more than film audiences. You can stand on a theatre stage and say “we’re on the moon” and audiences will go for it. Film audiences are on the whole far more literal. Absurdism and expressionism works far better on stage than film, as does references to past events. I think discussing Jobs getting fired in Jobs would have worked on stage but it doesn’t on film because when you watch film you are conditioned to use your eye more. And Sorkin and Danny Boyle realised it so they showed it.

Maybe Saturday Night would work on stage because you can have people chatting about all the big events and the audience would go with it. You can recap events via dialogue quite effectively on stage. (I actually think the dialogue on Saturday Night isn’t very good but that’s a separate issue).

So what am I saying?

I guess it’s this: real time can work on film, yes, but think very very carefully about what sort of “real time” you’re going to do.

“24 hours before a big terror attack” - that’s great. You can do 24. “One hour til the noon train comes in with killers”. You can do High Noon. You just have to juggle the stories but it can work.

“90 minutes before the first show”. Actually not a good idea. Ditto “three product launches”.

One thing I think filmmakers should do more of - longer takes. Play out certain scenes in real time. Alphonso Cuaron does this brilliantly. Sometimes scenes are too short when there’s drama to be had playing them out. Again though you have to pick your moment.

Book review - "Love Life" by Rob Lowe

 Lowe's first book was a pleasant surprise, raising the bar for this second effort. It's well written with some interesting stuff - profiles of Bernie Brillstein, accounts of the flop shows he worked on (he blames the writing), doing A Few Good Men in London, some of his acting tips, an encounter with Warren Beatty. This is all fine. Other stuff was less interesting. Can be annoyingly chipper and you can sense the narcissist there (which to be fair Lowe cops). Frustratingly hinty about some gold - refers to a torrid sexual encounter with "a female Oscar winner" (Faye Dunaway? Sally Field? ) and being ripped off on a surprise hit (Wayne's World? Tommy Boy?). Not bad. Lowe's a good writer. I'll be honest - I was hoping for more encounters with the rich and famous, though.

Play review - "Being the Ricardos" (2021) ***

 Nice patter and dialogue, interesting-ish, easy to watch, Nicole Kidman and Javier Barderm were surprisingly great (they've both been good actors... it was just the playing icons factor), JK Simmons is wonderful.

No stakes, not really. The show was never in danger and it was hard to care about the marriage. Weird subplot between Lucy and Vivian Vance about looking good. Overlong.

Some irritating historical flaws - Judy Holliday was never a threat for Lucille Ball's career until 1946 after her appearance in Born Yesterday, certainly not around the time of The Big Street in 1942 - I don't mind putting all the events on the series in one week (communism, pregnancy, cheating... all took place over different years IRL) -that Judy Holliday thing just bothered me

It went down easy. Gets points featuring an actor playing Charles Koerner of RKO. But maybe they dramatised the wrong week - getting the show up was surely more fraught with peril.

Play review - "Hidden in this Picture" by Aaron Sorkin

 One act play from Sorkin set during the making of a movie - a director is lining up a big shot and has conflict from the production manager who thinks he's spent too much money, and the writer... and a random production assistant. The patter is all there, there's some funny jokes, and it's interesting to compare the director-writer relationship with Studio 60. Not really a major work but entertaining and interesting.

Script review - "Being the Ricardos" by Aaron Sorkin

 Bright, fun, Some great moments. The flashback scenes carried more weight because more was at stake - their whole careers as opposed to a temporary blip while famous. Didn't quite hit the heights for me but always enjoyable.

Random thoughts on the film Moneyball

It’s a film with a great DNA that they ignore so it can be a star vehicle for Brad Pitt.

My take...

“Moneyball” is about beating the system. Watching a sport and going “hang on, they’re not picking the team right... I need to pick the team”.

That’s every sports fan’s fantasy. Well, apart from playing. If we can’t play... to be able to pick the side, and pick it better than the pros.

It’s the core DNA of the film/book.

Someone ignored, who is a joke, no good at sports, but who loves the game... sees what other people can’t see. And is proved right.

The film should be about Jonah Hill’s character. Tubby, nerdy, treated with disdain. But... he knows the Secret. He installs a system... picks players who others think are no good. And... creates a winning team.

Ta-da.

But...

Brad Pitt wants to make it.

Great. Brad Pitt is a big star. People will go see his movies. Jonah Hill not so much. (At least not at the budget).

But there’s only one role Brad Pitt can really play... Billy Beane.

Good looking. Charismatic. The boss. I mean, he never made it as a top player but... he’s brad Pitt. God did not hate him.

So they had to make the film about Billy Beane trying to find a new way... it touches on his unfulfilled playing career but it’s a little convoluted.

I think they made a good film on this.

But it's not the film they should've made.

That should've been about Jonah Hill's character.

Aaron Sorkin and dobbing

I listened to an interview with Barry Diller the other day who defended Scott Rudin over the “bashing up assistants” thing which led me to think about how Rudin is Sorkin’s main producer (Mockingbird, Jobs, etc) and how Sorkin has been so quiet on Rudin which then reminded me that one of Sorkin’s tropes that isn’t much discussed is the “don’t dob” storyline - he really loves it

A big arc of the final series of Newsroom was Dev Patel/Neil not “giving up a source” and indeed going on the run (and indeed disappearing from the show, to turn up and mock the social media team who were coming up with listicle click bait articles).. and there was another arc for Jeff Daniels not revealing a source and going to prison and then being let out because... I think just because

And on West Wing there was that plot where Martin Sheen decides to hire Lily Tomlin because she didn’t dob on her boss...

And from memory Richard Schiff who plays Toby hasn’t stopped complaining about his series 7 plot line where Toby did dob.

And in Molly’s Game the big... B plot, I guess, or A minus plot, is Molly not dobbing on her clients... apart from a few... I think... I got a little confused but I think she was meant to be admirable for not dobbing, but dobbing on Toby McGuire was okay, or something, and the lawyer’s daughter was studying The Crucible, which is all about not dobbing on yourself for doing something you didn’t do...

And there was that episode in Studio 60 on Sunset where they met the crazy writer Eli Wallach who it turned out was blacklisted and at the end of the episode one of the leads forced everyone to sit down and listen to Wallach’s blacklist stories...

And a great part of A Few Good Men hinges on the accused soldiers not dobbing, and the soldier who died was killed (basically) for dobbing

Then there was that time IRL when that female writer who worked on Newsroom took to twitter to complain about the rape storyline, and decry responsibility, and Aaron Sorkin responded he was upset that writer dobbed, eg betrayed the sanctity of the writer’s room

So anyway Aaron Sorkin and dobbing... lots of connections!

Book review - "Mike Nichols: A Life" by Mark Harris

 Fabulous book. Definitive. Nichols was a major player - this book captures it. The background, the upbringing, the college years (he could be mean - not surprised), comedy with Elaine May, straight acting, adventures as a director, early films, incredible success, great disappointment, exotic love life, terrible fathering (at first... he got better), finding his groove as a film director again, compulsive spending, addictions to drugs at a late age.

I was familiar with a lot of the hits - The Graduate, Virginia Woolf - but it was great to read about the disappointments - Day of the Dolphin, The Fortune, Fools. The theatre stuff is gripping. People seem to have really loved him. But he couldn't do everything as those who've seen The Fortune can attest.

A magnificent book.

Movie review - "Moneyball" (2011) ***1/2 (re-watching)

 This is like an indie cover version of what should be a pop song. It kind of misses the drama/fan of the central concept - you get to figure out how to beat the system, you use stats instead of gut feel and talent worship, players get a chance again.

Yet it does work on its own level with languid takes, dark photography, long scenes, all that stuff.

Movie review - "The Trial of the Chicago Seven" (2020) **** (re watching)

 Saw it again. Lots of fun. Bright dialogue. Didn't quite nail the ending. Excellent acting and period re enactment.

Book review - "Stories I Only Tell My Friends" by Rob Lowe (2011)

 Rob Lowe is probably the brat pack star who surprised us the most - impossibly Ken Doll handsome he seemed to have "short term career" stapled on his forehead, and a few flops saw him on target to achieve that goal, but he kept managing to reinvent himself: as a comedy actor in the 90s, as a TV star in the 2000s and now as a very good writer.

I'm not sure Lowe was ever a proper movie star. People thought it was, execs did, off the back of his looks and appearances in Class, The Outsiders, St Elmo's Fire and About Last Night. I'm not sure he was ever a specific draw. 

Maybe that's unfair. He was in the right vehicle, like any star, but it was hard to get the vehicle. The public wouldn't go to any old thing like Oxford Blues and they wouldn't see him even in good movies like Masquerade and Bad Influence. They seemed to only really like him as a star in romances, and as a supporting actor in comedy.

Still he stuck around. Where he seems to really thrive is as a featured played in an ensemble - St Elmo's Fire, West Wing, Parks and Rec. He's marvellous with dialogue - it's a shame he doesn't do more Sorkin/Mamet.

It's been an interesting life - the book is very entertaining. Great snapshots like the making of The Outsiders. Many things I didn't know like he was friends with a French security guy who was murdered, and flew on the flight which was hijacked on Sept 11. Funny accounts of his romance with Princess Stephanie (who got her assistant to move her old boyfriend's stuff out the day after she met Lowe) and Fawn Hall, and hanging with Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden. Coy on Melissa Gilbert and the sex tape. Robert Wagner makes a crack to Cary Grant and co that Lowe is going to sleep with their daughters (indeed, he dated Jennifer Grant and there's a funny account of him meeting Cary). I knew he was offered the juvenile lead in Pirates but not in Dune (he turned it down)

It has its whiny actor-y moments (he seems a sook to leave The West Wing even in this account - "they left me out of the photo") and is full of all that narrative redemptive arc you see in a lot of people's personal stories in Hollywood (eg "I realised I had to be honest with myself" etc etc). But a grand read, and once again I underestimated Lowe. I'm sure he'll be relieved...

Movie review - "Bulworth" (1998) **1/2

 I'm conflicted. I appreciated it being a film for grown ups, some of the political satire was sharp, like the jabs at the insurance industry. It did predict the appeal of the "outsider" galvanising things - like Sanders and Trump. Mind you, it wasn't the first movie to cover that ground eg The Candidate, Face in the Cword.

But so much was annoying. The lib-splaining, the age gap between Beatty and Halle Berry (I don't care if they make a joke out of it, why couldn't Pam Grier or someone have played this? I know the answer, but she should have), the moment where Berry goes to Beatty "you're my n*gger" (yikes), all the lecturing, the martyrdom, the homeless man telling us to live up to Bulworth's spirit..

Dramatically the big problem was the lack of connect between Bulworth/Beatty and the audience. At the beginning of the film he's having a break down and arranges for his own execution - fine. Then he continues to have a melt down, and is running around, and rapping, and dressed in a beanie, and being weird and it doesn't make sense, in part because we've got nothing to contrast him with. Only at the end when he starts acting like a regular person does he seem real. I mean, what does Bulworth truly believe? What did he believe? He's distant from the audience, hiding behind is breakdown. We never meet his daughter, his wife is a caricature.

Strong support cast including Oliver Platt (whose cocaine fuelled rants feel written by Aaron Sorkin but I could be wrong), Will Bailey, Jack Weston, Don Cheadle, Paul Sorvino, Christine Baraski, etc.

Movie review - "Trial of the Chicago 7" (2020) ****

 Enjoyed this a lot - great to see some smart, adult content. I felt it may have benefited from another draft and a different director - that may be unfair, just what I felt, that another "wash" would have streamlined things.

I don't know much about the trial so the details were fresh. The actors were very good. There aren't many women in it (girl who answers phone, honey pot) so Sorkin doesn't trip over the sexual politics, as a friend pointed out. I love the affection he has for the characters of the pranksters and Tom Haden; he even likes the Joseph Gordon Levitt prosecutor. The ending was a bit cheesy but I couldn't see how else you might do it.

Oh, shame no pictures of the real characters at the end. But an entertaining movie.

Movie review - "Molly's Game" (2018) ****

Aaron Sorkin's directorial debut has plenty of bells and whistles - great dialogue, solid structure. It flew along for me - for the most part, I admit... I think the basic story isn't that interesting. Molly ran a poker game and... met some celebrities and... had some morals and... got busted and... wouldn't give up the names of her clients. Only she did give up some. Then she.... went about her life.

It's entertaining though and fascinating to see how Sorkin relates to Molly, who is a smurfette but is also beautiful, smart, sexy, captivating, briefly drug addicted but gets over it, idealistic... it's like he's making a film for his perfect woman and Jessica Chastain is shot like a goddess. She looks gorgeous.

Mind you she's got a lot of voice over and I don't think her voice is that great - she's no, say, Emma Stone.

Sorkin clearly invests in the father daughter stuff (the scenes with Kevin Costner are among the strongest) and the male-female mentor stuff (Idris Elba) and also men having crushes on beautiful women.

I don't really feel this was a film that had to be made but it's clearly a story with a female protagonist that Sorkin felt he could do, and he did do it, and the world is richer for its presence.

Script review - "A Few Good Men" by Aaron Sorkin

I've seen this film a bunch of times - and have read the play - and felt like revisiting it. For the most part it holds up very well - the "world" of Naval lawyers is less fresh than it was at the time but the structure holds. There's plenty of twists and turns and the hero, Kaffee, has a real arc from irresponsible playboy to conscientious lawyer. It's among the most perfect Tom Cruise roles of all time.

True, the one female character, Jo just eggs on the hero - but at least she has a character to play (well meaning, nerdy, clutzy). Sam eggs on Kaffee as well - the wisecracking Jew who is mostly there for extra exposition.

Some end of scene moments aren't great (they weren't great then): "you don't need a badge to have honor", "why do you like them so much", "I'm sexually aroused". The script ends on a kiss between Jo and Kaffee - I think it was good to cut. If you want romance, you can read into it.

But a very strong script. There are some solid parts - the defence lawyer, Ross, is a good role, as are the two defendents, the proud Dawson and the dim Downey - and of course Jessep is a dream, and Kendrick and the mysterious (and sooky) Markinson. It's extremely good stuff.

Top Ten Use of Queen's Music in Film

honour of watching "Bohemian Rhapsody" I thought I'd do a top ten of my favourite uses of Queen's music in other films:
1) In the Space Capsule - in "Flash Gordon" (1980) - seriously the whole soundtrack to this is amazing, the title song, the Football Fight, the Attack of the Hawk Men... but limiting myself to one song, I'll pick the theme that plays when Flash, Dale and Zharkov fly to Mongo
2) We Are the Champions in "Revenge of the Nerds" (1984) - like so many 80s sex comedies there are problematic aspects to this film - but it does have a great soundtrack! in particular the finale with the nerds embracing allies to the strains of Queen's greatest anthem
3)One Vision in "Iron Eagle" (1986) - remember the days when studios made films about young men who flew missions into Libya in order to rescue their dad? this was one such movie - and the man played a mix tape while blowing up Arabs, including "One Vision" - which actually is the perfect tune to do such things
4) Who Wants to Live Forever? in "Highlander" (1986) - another great soundtrack by Queen, with It's a Kind of Magic being a superb single... but... for effectiveness on screen I don't think you can go past the montage of Chris Lambert losing his mortal lady love to this song (used well in Bohemian Rhapsody)
5) Bohemian Rhapsody in "Wayne's World" (1992) - I'm still recovering from the shocking badness of Mike Myer's turn in Bohemian Rhapsody but his use of that song in Wayne's world was very funny and definitely captured a time and a place
6) You're My Best Friend in "Peter's friends" (1992) - remember this film? great cast, good moments, dodgy direction, fantastic soundtrack
7) Don't Stop Me Now in "Shaun of the Dead" (2004) - I actually don't like this song that much but love how it was used in the film
8) Under Pressure in "Studio 60 on Sunset" pilot (2006) - ah this flawed flawed show - the pilot is pretty great though and "Under Pressure" (which pops up a LOT in films) is used very well at the end
9) Flash's Theme in "Blades of Glory" (2007) - I found a way to use more Flash Gordon songs! This brilliant track is used superbly in one of the best sports comedies
10)Radio Ga Ga in "Metropolis" (1927) - okay i'm cheating here but stay with me... in the early 80s Giorgio Moroder released his own version of Metropolis with a new soundtrack including a Freddy Mercury track... in return Queen could use clips from the film in their video for this song which is one of my favourite Queen songs... and was my introduction to silent cinema. True story!2

Script review - "The Social Network" by Aaron Sorkin (re-reading)

Really beautiful work - perhaps Sorkin's best since The West Wing. This feels like what he was trying to do with The Farnsworth Invention - it's less depressing because here the anti social genius, Zuckerburg, triumps.

Zuckerburg actually comes out of, this pretty well - ruthless to be sure, not very since to his friend, but Eduardo was silly for not reading the contract, and the Winklevoss twins aren't too bright either. Sorkin has sympathy for handsome aristocrats - he's show that in his work before (eg President Bartlett, Sam Seaborne) but he doesn't trash Zuckerburg - he's smart, funny, resourceful.

The film copped it for treatment of women and there are some unfortunate choices - the woman who offers Sean Parker the chance to snort coke of her chest, Eduardo's psycho girlfriend (a completely pointless scene). Was this Fincher's input or Sorkin? Still, a masterpiece.

Movie review - "Steve Jobs" (2015) ****

Flamboyant, gloriously wordy, entertaining look at the life of Jobs via three product launches in his life. Having made that decision, Aaron Sorkin locked himself into the fact that major events need to happen off screen, which plays better on stage than film. He kind of tries to get around that by having brief cut aways to said event - Jobs and Woz in the famous garage, Jobs getting fired, etc.

Danny Boyle's direction is energetic and pacey, even if there are times I wish he'd slowed down to milk the emotion. The acting is uniformly excellent - but Michael Fassbender isn't a star and I think the movie would have benefited with someone more likable. Kate Winslet does wonders with that Sorkin standby, the faithful assistant (Sarah Snook is thrown in as another one for good measure - a girl with clipboard); Seth Rogen is really good as Wozniack; Jeff Daniels I was prepared to be getting sick off but he's great as the guy who sacks Jobs; Katherine Waterston is okay in perhaps the most sketchy role, the mother of Jobs' kid. It's smart and brave and I wish it had done better at the box office.

Book review - "The Politician: An Insider's Account of John Edwards's Pursuit of the Presidency and the Scandal That Brought Him Down" by Andrew Young (2010)

I read this because Aaron Sorkin has announced his intention to make a film out of it and I hope he does because it's a great yarn. It lacks a sympathetic hero and all that crap but its a fascinating look at the John Edwards story, the glamour boy who wanted to be President. He had self made wealth, a dead son, looks, Southern connections, charisma, a smart wife. He also had flaws - a lack of desire to be any sort of politician other than President (he was a one term congressman), lack of focus on policy and at heart seems to have been dumb - so dumb as to have an affair with a woman while his wife was dying of cancer and think he could get away with it. To make things worse he got Young to claim to be father of his mistresses baby. Did anyone think that would work? Ever?

There are other terrific characters too: devoted, bright Young; his womanising, social rights preacher dad; the driven, smart Elizabeth Edwards who goes kind of mad via the actions of her husband and Young, but would have been a far better president than her husband; Young's long suffering wife; billionaire Bunny Mellon who was devoted to Edwards; jovial trial lawyer Fred Barton who also helped Edwards; new age mistress Rielle Hunter, prone to tantrums and over sharing about her sex life; Hunter's spiritual adviser.

The book is well written and feels as though Young tries to be fair. It's full of moments which would make great scenes and great little details. Young seems happy to portray himself as an idiot as much as Edwards.

A "what if" - if Edwards had resigned from politics when his wife fell ill and nursed her, he would have been a very strong chance in 2016. But he couldn't wait.

Script review - "Jobs" by Aaron Sorkin

Sorkin shows he's still got it in spades with a bravura take on the life of Steve Jobs. It's heavily theatrical, being three key product launches in the life of Jobs, with heavy focus on his poor relationships with people, including his own family. The draft I read was very very long but easily editable - a lot of discussion about the press could be removed especially, and there were many repetitive beats. It was enjoyable - Sorkin does intense IT moguls very well, and he likes Jobs more than Mark Zuckerberg.