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.

Script review - "Juno" by Diablo Cody

 Read this just for fun - warm, simple, unplotty. Great dialogue of course but also consistent - Juno and Leah talk different to Juno and Bleeker and Juno and her parents. Complication provided by the two yuppies. Cody doesn't demonise either not even Mark - it's clear Vanessa doesn't get him either.

Movie review - "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" (2021) ***1/2

 I was resistant to it for a while and even now feel the script could've done with another draft (there was a lot of clunk, like Paul Rudd hating science then having kids watch VHSes, small kids don't podcast, the reality of how Ghostbusters sat in the world never seemed to work, and the elder black girl character had no... well, character) but it was a good idea to make it from the POV of kids, the kid actors were good, the small town locales charming and the ending was unexpectedly moving.

Script review - "Chloe" (2008) by Erin Cressidia Wilson (warning: spoilers)

Not bad erotic thriller/drama from Wilson which I read because I loved Wilson's script for The Girl on The Train. This isn't as good but is still sharply written. It has an intriguing premise - a woman is convinced her husband is cheating and pays a hooker to seduce him.

You can have more fun reading erotic tales written by women (I have anyway) because you can go "hey if it turns you on" and don't have to worry about (as much) dodginess. It's the basic story that I felt a little underwhelmed by - it lacked a twist or two. I think the husband should have genuinely been a cheater and one of the family should have died. Just to give it more oomph and deliver on its promise. Though it was cool the wife slept with the hooker.

Script review - "The Front Runner" by Jason Reitman, et al

This film didn't do much business when it came out - maybe everyone's weary of politics in the age of Trump, at least not without very strong reviews - but I found it a smart, entertaining, thought provoking script. It looks at the 1988 Presidential campaign by Gary Hart, a charismatic democrat whose career was derailed by reports of infidelity.

Interestingly the film doesn't flat out confirm this - it does imply it, I mean she's hanging around at all hours, and Hart is cagey. He doesn't come across terribly - but he's not a hero. He's cranky and a bit of a dill. I don't think the film says "coverage of private lives is bad". I think it's more complex than that.

It's a smart movie and I wish it had done better.

Movie review - "Men, Women and Children" (2014) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

This Jason Reitman film didn't find much enthusiasm amongst audiences or critics, despite a cast including Adam Sandler and Jennifer Garner, plus a "hot button" subject matter - namely, the influence of the internet on our lives.

It's a well made, solidly acted film, done with affection and skill - Reitman has a wonderful humanity about his movies. Some of it was so eerily spot on - the recreation of net life, the details - and there were a bunch of very impressive young actors, especially Kaitlyn Dever, plus beautiful music. I enjoyed it when watching it.

But thinking back on the movie, I admit I feel a little sordid or "yuck". I think because every internet-related aspect of the movie had some dodgy overtone - Adam Sandler looks up porn and escorts on the internet; his son looks up so much porn he can't get it up when he gets the chance to bang the trashy cheerleader, Olivia Crocicchia, who is oversexualised due to the internet, who has warped ideas of fame due to the internet, and whose mother (Judy Greer) sells dodgy pictures of her on line; Sandler's wife, Rosemary De Witt, seeks out an affair on line; Jennifer Garner is so obsessed with daughter Dever getting in trouble on line she drives a wedge between them and almost causes a death; Ansel Elgort becomes so into a role playing game he can't function in the real world; Elena Kampouris is encouraged into bulimia by people on line. 

It's actually all quite bleak and down - the only real bright spot is the sweet romance between Elgort and Dever. So my memories of the film are mixed.

Movie review - "Young Adult" (2011) ***1/2

Those explaining Chekov to younger audiences could do worse than pointing to this as an example of the Russian's style: funny but not really, sad but not gentle, low key story telling, characters hung up on the past, people in love with others who don't love them back, worries about social status and money. It took me a while to get into Charlize Theron - I thought maybe they could have gotten a more expressive interest - but after a while I got it: she plays it like the school bitch, never asking for sympathy or patting the dog, a scowl on the face. Like her the movie refuses to take sides or offer easy answers: the husband is a drip but happy, his wife seems to be nice but is she, small town life isn't demonised or deified, Theron ignores her parents who don't seem to care that she thinks she's an alcoholic, the little sister who asks to go with her is knocked back. It's a brave Hollywood movie that surely could not have been made without the success of Juno.

Excellent performances, including Patton Oswald in the best role (fat, tormented, funny, geeky) - and pretty much everyone else. A very grown up, mature film about immaturity.

Script review - "Young Adult" by Diablo Cody

Like Juno, Cody takes a very familiar, simple story - woman comes back to town to win back an ex - and handles it with freshness and verge. The look at small town life is more cynical and jaundiced here - her ex is happy, chubby, a father and bland, the locals have low horizons, there is a lot of smugness. And the lead is a mess - near alcoholic, bitchy, selfish, egotistical. It works, though, especially the stuff with her old chubby former school mate with a horrific injury (really horrific - he has trouble masturbating) and his sister. It's going to be interesting to see how the public take to this.

Script review - "Up in the Air"

Smart, stylish, sceptical, cynical, with a heart - Jason Reitman is proving himself the true heir to Billy Wilder. This is two films - the minor one of a business sacking people (really the George Clooney job could have been anything that involved travel, but it does have terrific thematic echoes), and the major one of Clooney's company learning to connect. Some of the bantering dialogue involving the Clooney and his love interest (e.g. sizes of miles, crashing the party) and protege/threat (e.g. talking about ideal match) is of Golden Years of Hollywood (the good stuff) quality. It has heart and point and only goes Hollywood in one bit - when Clooney runs away from the speech at the end. At least he doesn't quit his job.

Movie review – “Up in the Air” (2009) ****1/2

Wonderful movie – I was a bit hostile coming in to watch it, all that acclaim and Jason Reitman being so damn talented – but was totally disarmed by it’s brilliant writing, excellent acting and all-round skill. George Clooney is good as ever, there are superb performances across the board – that new girl is great, Jason Bateman is having the most wonderful second act to his career, Vera Farmiga is the perfect girl, the small roles are spot on. I can imagine the studio asking several times for the ending to be tweaked (“can’t Vera turn out to be nice”) but that’s what rises this to true greatness. There is also the fact part of Clooney’s life is very attractive – going around the country, nice treatment, minimal commitment (I was reminded in some ways of Hugh Grant in About a Boy). My favourite bit was crashing the techno people party - Young MC makes an appearance!

Movie review – “Juno” (2007) ****1/2

A film which could have taken so many wrong turns but works marvellously. The script is a marvel of rich characters, bright dialogues and a logical plot (there were two Hollywood endings that could have happened – two different couples winding up with the kid – and both are avoided). Every performance is faultless, not just Ellen Page (impossible to imagine anyone else in this role) but the girl who plays her best friend (so often this is throw-away casting), and Jennifer Garner’s touching portrayl as a girl who just wants to be a mother. Delightful music and design. Love how dad doesn’t notice the evolving attracting between Juno and Jason Bateman, but step mum Allison Janney is on it right away.

Movie review - "Thank You for Smoking" (2006) **1/2

So wanted to enjoy this film more than I did - such a rich topic of satire, and the idea of making the hero a tobacco lobbyist is fresh and wickedly delightful. But as is the case when other young filmmakers try to enter Wilder territory (eg the Weitzes), something has gone wrong - I think it was the plot maybe which has Aaron Eckhardt trying to persuade Hollywood producers to put more cigarettes in films. Don't they do that anyway? (Hollywood agent is played by Rob Lowe who surely must have had aspirations to play the lead himself, it's up his alley - I guess he hasn't comeback that much just yet.) Maybe I don't like movies where the big plot twist is someone... writing an article. Then getting back on that person... by speaking at a press conference. Maybe the film simply didn't have the guts to go hard core. Maybe it lacks a point of view (I'm sorry but those "hey it's hypocritical" arguments are boring - how do you reconcile libertarianism with passive smoking?). Despite a fine cast, the result was a bit flaccid.