“Creativity, Inc.”: New book on Pixar

April 23rd, 2014 by

I find Pixar fascinating. Not only because they have produced some of my favorite movies including Toy Story, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Wall-E and Up, but because of how they do it, their utter and absolute commitment to story, and as I discovered in my interview with Mary Coleman, head of their story department, their affection for great characters.

So when I saw that Ed Catmull, president of Pixar Animation Studios and Walt Disney Animation Studios, had co-written a book called “Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True Inspiration” (published April 8th), I immediately zeroed in on it.

As a taste of what the book offers, here are some tidbits I’ve aggregated for you. First, there is a first-person piece by Catmull in Fast Company: Inside the Pixar Braintrust:

A hallmark of a healthy creative culture is that its people feel free to share ideas, opinions, and criticisms. Our decision making is better when we draw on the collective knowledge and unvarnished opinions of the group. Candor is the key to collaborating effectively. Lack of candor leads to dysfunctional environments. So how can a manager ensure that his or her working group, department, or company embraces candor? By putting mechanisms in place that explicitly say it is valuable. One of Pixar’s key mechanisms is the Braintrust, which we rely on to push us toward excellence and to root out mediocrity. It is our primary delivery system for straight talk. The Braintrust meets every few months or so to assess each movie we’re making. Its premise is simple: Put smart, passionate people in a room together, charge them with identifying and solving problems, and encourage them to be candid. The Braintrust is not foolproof, but when we get it right, the results are phenomenal.

While I attend and participate in almost all Braintrust meetings, I see my primary role as making sure that the compact upon which the meetings are based is protected and upheld. This part of our job is never done because you can’t totally eliminate the blocks to candor. The fear of saying something stupid and looking bad, of offending someone or being intimidated, of retaliating or being retaliated against–they all have a way of reasserting themselves. And when they do, you must address them squarely.


Candor could not be more crucial to our creative process. Why? Because early on, all of our movies suck. That’s a blunt assessment, I know, but I choose that phrasing because saying it in a softer way fails to convey how bad the first versions really are. I’m not trying to be modest or self-effacing. Pixar films are not good at first, and our job is to make them so–to go, as I say, “from suck to not-suck.”

Think about how easy it would be for a movie about talking toys to feel derivative, sappy, or overtly merchandise driven. Think about how off-putting a movie about rats preparing food could be, or how risky it must’ve seemed to start WALL-E with 39 dialogue-free minutes. We dare to attempt these stories, but we don’t get them right on the first pass. This is as it should be. Creativity has to start somewhere, and we are true believers in the power of bracing, candid feedback and the iterative process–reworking, reworking, and reworking again, until a flawed story finds its through line or a hollow character finds its soul.


You may be thinking, How is the Braintrust different from any other feedback mechanism?

There are two key differences, as I see it. The first is that the Braintrust is made up of people with a deep understanding of storytelling, who usually have been through the process themselves. While the directors welcome critiques from many sources, they particularly prize feedback from fellow storytellers. The second difference is that the Braintrust has no authority. The director does not have to follow any of the specific suggestions. After a Braintrust meeting, it is up to him or her to figure out how to address the feedback. Giving the Braintrust no power to mandate solutions affects the dynamics of the group in ways I believe are essential.

It’s interesting to read about this because over the years, I’ve stumbled into a similar approach I use with the writing workshops and classes I teach. I frame each session with my take on constructive critiques which summed up briefly is this:

* Critique the story elements, not the writer.

* Provide an honest assessment of the story elements.

* But also generate suggestions to improve the story.

Moreover when we workshop stories and I inevitably plunge into brainstorming, tossing out lots of ideas, I always say this: Any of my ideas, you are free to use or lose. Use them if they help your story. Lose them if they don’t. I have no ego. All I care about is the quality of your story. Ultimately it is up to the writer to decide.

A second article from Fast Company: Pixar’s Ed Catmull on How to Balance Art and Commerce:

With certain ideas, you can predict commercial success. So with a Toy Story 3 or a Cars 2, you know the idea is more likely to have financial success. But if you go down that path too far, you become creatively bankrupt, because you’re just trying to repeat yourself.

So we also want to do things that are unlikely, that are harder to solve. WALL-E, Ratatouille, and Up would all fail an elevator pitch. A rat that wants to cook does not sound like a commercial idea; you’re not going to generate toys out of that. A man nearing the end of his life goes off with a young Scout in this balloon. Where does that lead? Are you going to sell toy walkers? With such ideas, you start out knowing there’s a top to what you can get. So we try to strike a balance.

There’s a quote attributed to Charlton Heston: “The problem with movies as art is they are commerce.” Catmull’s observations echo that tension. What’s interesting to note is Pixar has an awareness of what they are doing with each of their stories. Some tilt more toward commerce like Cars 2. Others tilt more toward art like Up.

This is another perspective I’ve discovered on my own, reflected in this post: Write what they’re buying or sell them your dreams.

So I’m picking up “Creativity, Inc.” to see what else I can learn about Pixar… and maybe more about how my process is intuitively aligned with theirs!

More about “Creativity Inc.” here.

9 Pulp Fiction Facts For Die-Hard Tarantino Fans [Video]

April 23rd, 2014 by

Via FilmmakerIQ.

Interview: Lindsay Devlin (“Devil’s Due”) — Part 3

April 23rd, 2014 by

January has turned out to be a reliable month for Hollywood with regard to one genre in particular: Horror. This year was no different when Twentieth Century Fox released Devil’s Due, a movie that thus far has brought in over four times its production budget in box office revenues.

The movie’s success is one reason I was excited to interview its screenwriter Lindsay Devlin. Another reason is her extensive background working in Hollywood on the story development side of things.

Lindsay and I had a terrific conversation, and I’m pleased to share her many insights into the craft of screenwriting and the movie business, along with her creative process with the film Devil’s Due.

Today in Part 3, Lindsay talks about the challenge every screenwriter faces: How to wrangle Act Two, the middle of the story and the rationale behind the found footage aspect of Devil’s Due:

Scott:  That’s so interesting what you were just saying, because you’ve got this great set‑up, which is due to this mysterious set of circumstances on the honeymoon. Samantha comes back and discovers she’s pregnant, which is shocking to her because she wasn’t expecting it, being on the pill. Then, almost immediately thereafter, there’s some clues for moviegoers where, well, this is may not be your normal pregnancy.

You’ve got that going on. Then you’ve got the ending, which inevitably is something to do with the delivery. Then there’s this whole middle part, which is always the challenge.

Hearing you talk there, it sounds like a part of how you structured that was thinking through that psychological dynamic of how each of them, and then the couple together, was starting to understand, or trying to cope with, what was going on as she’s getting more and more pregnant.

Lindsay:  Yeah. Like I said, he switches from worried, to slightly paranoid, to full‑blown wanting to stop whatever is going on. For her, she instinctively, as a mother and as a woman, knows a little bit sooner that there’s something really wrong. The wedge that starts to happen between them is something that really fascinated me, too.

It’s heartbreaking, because you see how much they love each other from the beginning, but this other, this truly third party has taken over. It’s the elephant in the room, and she is trying so hard to understand it. At the same time, as you see throughout the middle part of the movie, she’s actually not fully conscious of some of the things she’s doing. Whether it’s eating the raw meat, or killing people. That’s not her in her conscious state, so there’s something terrifying in the fact that she’s lost control to that degree. Allison had a challenging role because she has to go through such physical turmoil and raw emotional states, and she did it with incredible grace.

Zach is just trying to be reassuring, but of course beneath that is like, “Oh, fuck. Something’s really wrong with my wife.” I thought their performances were wonderful and everything I hoped for when I was writing it.

Allison Miller, Zach Gilford

Scott:  That middle part again, what struck me about it is you took all those conventions about having a baby — fixing up the baby’s room and buying baby stuff and going to the OBGYN and baby showers — and explored them in the context of a horror thriller movie.

How much of that were you just going down the laundry list of, “OK, what are things that happen when you get pregnant in terms of preparing for the baby,” and used those and then spun them with this conceit that there’s something wrong with this pregnancy?

Lindsay:  A hundred percent. That’s actually how I ended up approaching it before I even went to draft, was writing up a list of all those ubiquitous pregnancy things. All kinds of stuff that every expectant parent does.

It was a lot of fun to take especially things that should be joyful, like registering or the baby shower, and turning it into something terrifying. Yeah, it was actually one of the most fun things to do, is take all the joyous things and basically twist them into something a little bit perverse.

Because, I think, underneath it all there is, even in the joyous moments of pregnancy, there’s still the anxiety of, “Can we do this? How are we going to do this? How are we going to afford this? How are we going to survive this?” We tried to keep it always grounded in real life anxiety. But, knowing obviously that there’s a Satanic principle to this movie, we had license to go a little crazy, which was fun.

Scott:  You mentioned earlier, you’re really more of a fan of psychological thrillers and supernatural dramas as opposed to horror. I would think that one of those challenges you would face particularly in the middle of the story is, “How do I build the tension? How do I sustain that?”

As a writer, how conscious were you of that, what horror fans might be anticipating and their need to have something go “whammo” every five or ten minutes, versus your own instincts where you’re drawn more towards psychological thriller?

Lindsay:  I think it’s a balance. I definitely credit the directors for helping push me, because I developed several drafts with them. I certainly would say they helped push me maybe a little bit past my comfort zone. They would know, of course, visually what would work better than I would.

But ultimately, just like I would say about Paranormal Activity, I still think it is more psychological. You don’t have a ton of body count, a ton of blood. It truly still lives and breathes in this couple and in the tension and in the atmosphere. I’m sure people call Rosemary’s Baby a horror movie as well, but that movie is actually very slowly paced, very psychological.

I think it gets clumped into horror because the name Devil’s Due and because there’s a Satanic principle to it, but I still would stand by the fact that I think it’s largely a psychological thriller with horror elements to it.

Scott:  It certainly builds toward a big, compelling ending. I’d like to discuss the whole found footage angle. First of all, did you always know you were going to write the story using video from available sources to tell it, and if so, what appealed to you about that?

Lindsay:  Yeah. Actually, after I first had that dream and started playing with the notion of it. I did feel that it should be found footage, because I felt it was most authentic to the way couples are documenting their pregnancies and I felt like it had that modern twist.

Also, to be honest, I was conscious of the fact that no matter how we approached the story, there would be the inevitable comparisons to “Rosemary’s Baby”, and if it was just done as a straight narrative it would feel, obviously, more similar to that.

I felt this was a fresher, more modern, more youthful take on a pregnancy. I felt like it was very true to the way I had seen my friends document everything from ultrasounds to baby showers to the birth. I thought it lent itself to found footage.

Scott:  I’ve got a chicken and egg question here for you. You said earlier that very early on in terms of Samantha’s character, you had this idea that she didn’t have a family, she bounced around from foster family to foster family. That became the basis of this idea of them filming what they call a family history.

As I was reading the script, I was thinking, that’s really smart to give her that background, because that creates the internal logic you need for these found footage things, which is like, “Why are they taking all this video?”

I’m wondering which came first. Was it that you knew all along Samantha was going to have a background where she didn’t have the personal history that then set into motion this video thing? Or did you say, “I need to have a justification for why they’re doing this videotaping,” and go back and give that personal history to her?

Lindsay:  It’s actually kind of a hybrid of the two. Because my instinct was to do it found footage, I think that I felt like documenting a pregnancy was a strong enough reason anyway. But I did feel like it would be better if there were a truly emotional component to why there might be this amount of coverage.

I also really felt like I wanted her to have a very specific and possibly surprising take on motherhood, not your normal, very eager-to-have-a-baby woman. I thought it was more interesting, and would be a psychological progression for she went into it not very excited ‑‑ grew excited ‑‑ and then it all turned on her. I was truly searching for a good character dynamic for the two of them, and I felt like this was a little bit unexpected, and I like that.

Tomorrow in Part 4, Lindsay wraps up some thoughts on found footage and lets us in on some other projects on her slate including a personal one that is likely to be her most important production.

For Part 1 of the interview, go here.

Part 2, here.

Lindsay is repped by UTA and Mosaic.

Twitter: @DevlinLindsay.

Movies You Made: “Travellers”

April 23rd, 2014 by

I recently received an email from filmmakers Christian H. Clark & Angela Trevino:

We weren’t sure if you were still taking “Movies You Made” submissions, but just in case you are, here’s our latest short, Travellers, which we made for the Cornetto Cupidity series of shorts about young love.

Travellers is the love story of Marco and Claire who meet on a train in Southern Italy while travelling in very different directions. Will Marco see past his parents’ wishes and follow his heart?

It was shot on location in Polignano A Mare, Italy, one hour south of Bari, in Fall 2013.

Here are the key credits:

Written & Directed by Christian H. Clark & Angela Trevino
Produced by Luca Legnani
Shot by Mike Gioulakis
Production Design by Gaia Moltedo
Starring Vincent Mazzarella, Lily Travers, & Christian Vit

Original Music by Claudio Olachea
Tracks from Daughter & Youth Lagoon
Italian Casting by Ornella Morsilli
UK Casting by Briony Barnett
Produced by City Limit Films (LA & Austin)
Production Services by 9.99 Films (Milan & Rome)

Here is the 7-minute movie Travellers:

I asked Christian and Angela what was it about this particular story that inspired them to make the movie. Here is their response:

There’s something so magical about falling in love for the first time, let alone in a foreign country. What drew us to write this script was the idea of capturing that magic, that feeling of being understood for the first time, even if it was by someone from another culture. We also wanted to focus on a character literally at a crossroads, which is often when we end up meeting those rare individuals who end up changing the trajectory of our lives.

You may learn more about City Limit Films, the production company founded by Christian and Angela here.




Twitter: @citylimitfilms.

10 Ways to Make People Laugh

April 23rd, 2014 by

As readers may know, I’m not a big listicle guy… except for Saturday Hot Links which is where I tend aggregate the countless types of these items which skitter my way over the course of a week via the web. However I found this particular list to have some potential value for those of us who write comedy: 10 Ways to Make People Laugh.

Hey, what’re you laughing at? Psychologists debate whether humor arises simply from absurdity and incongruity, from a need to relieve tension, or from a desire to feel superior. Academics have identified 41 humor techniques, 10 of which are listed below. See which psychological motives you think are at play in the following examples.

1. Exaggeration

Taking things over the top can make for hilarious absurdity. In “A Night at the Opera,” Groucho Marx’s stateroom was crowded. How crowded? Take a look.

2. Timing

Speeding up or slowing down speech or actions can make them “funny strange” and “funny ha-ha.” Gilbert and Sullivan’s patter songs, like “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General” from The Pirates of Penzance, set the bar for speed talking. When it comes to slow delivery, pauses are key. Listen to the notoriously stingy Jack Benny’s pause in “Your Money or Your Life.”

3. Repetition

In Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein, when the horses rear up and whinny the first time the forbidding Frau Blucher (Cloris Leachman) gives her name, it’s ominous. Afterward, however, every time her name is mentioned, no matter how casually, the horses never miss their cue. Repetition makes what was once frightening ludicrous.

The other 7:

4. Slapstick

5. Malapropism

6. Sarcasm

7. Misunderstanding

8. Misdirection

9. Parody

10. Impersonation

How could a writer use this list? A couple of ways:

* If the humor in a scene feels flat, look at what you have at work there and see what type it is. Is that the best type for that scene? What if you think more visually and use slapstick? Or have a character get so wound up they blurt out a malapropism. It’s a way to take humor that isn’t working and trying other approaches to make for better comedy.

* When prepping a scene, the list can serve as a reminder about the variety of ways you can go about injecting humor into the moment. This can be corrective in nature. For example, what if you keep going to the well using exaggeration to generate laughs? Mix it up by brainstorming some misdirection or a misunderstanding.

* Even at the conceptual level, you can use this list to help spin story ideas. Impersonation leads to misunderstanding? That’s as old as Cyrano de Bergerac and we’ve seen it in movies such as Tootsie and Dave. Repetition leads to exaggeration? How about Groundhog Day?

I’m sure for most who traffic in comedy, it’s an instinctual thing. If it’s working for you, don’t over-think it, just keep doing what you’re doing. However perhaps a bit of reflection and thought about your approach to comedy can broaden your horizons and up your game.

By the way, I did a bit of research and believe I’ve found the academic article featuring the “41 humor techniques” noted in the article above. Go here to see a preview and there is a link where you can download the PDF for $39. But digging deeper, I found this link which, if you’re interested, you may find helpful…

For the MentalFloss article cited above, go here.

Movie Trailer: “Wish I Was Here”

April 23rd, 2014 by

Written by Adam J. Braff, Zach Braff

‘Wish I Was Here’ is the story of Aidan Bloom, a struggling actor, father and husband, who at 35 is still trying to find his identity; a purpose for his life. He winds up trying to home school his two children when his father can no longer afford to pay for private education and the only available public school is on its last legs. Through teaching them about life his way, Aidan gradually discovers some of the parts of himself he couldn’t find.


Release Date: 25 July 2014 (USA)

A Story Idea Each Day for a Month — Day 23

April 23rd, 2014 by

This is the fifth year in a row I’ve run this series in April.

Today’s story: Best Dad Ever Sells Amazing Spider-Man #1 To Fund Daughter’s Wedding.

This is love. An Ohio man remembered he might have a copy of the first Spider-Man comic ever in a box in his attic, found it, and sold it to help pay for his daughter’s wedding.

“I gave my daughter a promissory note for the money with a picture of the Spider-Man comic, which we can use to pay for a big part of the catering for her reception,” Richard Schaen, 69, told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer.

Schaen had bought the comic in 1963 at a Columbus drugstore for 12 cents. He had continued collecting comics up until adulthood when the birth of his daughter Jane (who is getting married) forced him to stop his comic book hobby.

“Comics had gone up to 75 cents by then and I was spending $40 a month,” he told the Plain-Dealer. “Also, it took two evenings a week to read the new comics and with a new baby in the house, I found myself stretched.”

Schaen however, kept his comics in the home. “I put them away for a rainy day,” he said. The Spider-Man comic was not in perfect condition, but was in good enough shape to contribute $7,000 towards the cost of the wedding.

I’m not going to do any heavy lifting on this one because there are so many obvious ways you can exploit this conceit, everything from losing the comic, the comic getting stolen, guys sells beloved comic, then the couple gets into a huge argument and the wedding is off, and on and on.

Folks, this one is all yours to brainstorm.

There you go: My twenty third story idea for the month. And it’s yours. Free!

What would you do with it?

Each day this month, I invite you to join me in comments to do some brainstorming. Gender bend, genre bend, what if. Take each day’s story idea and see what it can become when we play around with it. These are all valuable skills for a writer to develop.

See you in comments (hit Reply to join the conversation). And come back tomorrow for another Story Idea Each Day For A Month.

Script To Screen: “Short Term 12″

April 23rd, 2014 by

Short Term 12 was just about my favorite movie last year. Written and directed by Destin Daniel Cretton, and produced with a reported budget of just $400K, it is an utterly compelling drama with incredible performances all down the line, led by a phenomenal turn by Brie Larson as the story’s Protagonist Grace.

Plot Summary: A 20-something supervising staff member of a residential treatment facility navigates the troubled waters of that world alongside her co-worker and longtime boyfriend.

In this scene, Grace deals with Jayden, a troubled youth in the facility, just after a disturbing altercation.


Jayden opens her sketchbook to the back page, where there is 
a homemade pocket taped to the inside cover. She pulls out a 
folded piece of paper and opens it carefully. Grace watches 
her, patiently.

She flips back through her notebook to a page that is covered 
with cool illustrations of underwater scenes and creatures, 
particularly sharks and octopi.

It's a kids' story, so there aren't
any big words.


Jayden begins. As she reads, she points to the illustration 
that she wants Grace to look at.

She points to a small sketch of a cute little octopus.

Once upon a time, somewhere miles
and miles beneath the surface of 
the ocean, there lived a young 
octopus named Nina.

She points to various drawings of the octopus making funny 
artwork out of shells and sand.

Nina spent most of her time alone,
making strange creations out of 
rocks and shells. And she was very 
But then, on Monday, the Shark 
showed up.

She points to a drawing of a Shark swimming up to Nina.

"What's your name?" said the
shark. "Nina," she replied. "Do 
you want to be my friend?" He 
asked. "Okay, what do I have to 
do?" Said Nina. "Not much," said 
the Shark, "Just let me eat one of 
your arms."

Grace watches Jayden read.

Nina had never had a friend before,
so she wondered if this was what 
you had to do to get one. She 
looked down at her eight arms, and 
decided it wouldn't be so bad to 
give up one. So she donated an arm 
to her wonderful new friend.

Jayden points to a morbid drawing of the shark eating one of 
Nina's arms.

Every day that week, Nina and the
Shark would play together. They 
explored caves, built castles of 
sand, and swam really really fast. 
And every night, the Shark would be 
hungry, and Nina would give him 
another one of her arms to eat.

Jayden points at various illustrations of the octopus and 
the shark playing together, and the shark eating her arms.

On Sunday, after playing all day,
the Shark told Nina that he was 
very hungry. "I don't understand," 
she said. "I've already given you 
six of my arms, and now you want 
one more?" The shark looked at her 
with a friendly smile and said, "I 
don't want one. This time I want 
them all." "But why?" Nina asked. 
And the shark replied, "Because 
that's what friends are for."

Jayden points to another drawing of the shark, alone.

When the shark finished his meal 
that night, he felt very sad and
lonely. He missed having someone 
to explore caves, build castles and 
swim really really fast with. He 
missed Nina very much. So, he swam 
away to find another friend.

Jayden folds up the piece of paper and grips it in her hand. 
She stares down at her drawings, waiting.

Grace watches her for a moment before speaking.

Jayden, did your dad ever hurt you?

Jayden doesn't respond at first. But then shrugs without 
looking up. Grace watches her.

Does he still hurt you?

Jayden doesn't respond. She hides her face with her hand. 
Grace sits with her for a moment before putting her arm on 
her back.

She sees tears plopping down onto the drawings of the octopus 
and the shark.

The two sit side by side.

Here is the scene from the movie:

There’s the old saying about movies, “Show it, don’t say it,” but here is a scene where telling a story instead of showing it really works. I asked Destin about this in an interview I did with him last year:

Scott:  There’s another instance which you use a similar device to convey exposition when Jaden shows a story she wrote to Grace about an octopus who develops a relationship with a shark. Do you remember what inspired you to write that story?

Destin:  I don’t, really. It was just another one of those scenes that I struggled with for so long. I knew that this character did communicate through art. A lot of her drawings and things was one of her outlets. That story was one of those moments where it just feels like it came from somewhere else. I took a walk around the block at the coffee shop where I was writing and I was stressing out about it and trying to figure out how to get this character to talk that didn’t want to talk.

That story actually brought me to tears. I had fallen in love with that Jaden character so much.

Compare the script to the film version. The dialogue is quite close, but there are subtle directing choices Cretton made that take what’s on the page and make it even more powerful on screen.

If you haven’t seen Short Term 12, do yourself a huge favor: Watch it. I believe it’s streaming on Netflix now. There is literally not one person I know in the business who has seen this movie and not loved it.

For my interview with Cretton, go here.

And check it! Discovered this 30-minute roundtable with Cretton and key actors from the movie:

If you need one last piece of enticement to watch Short Term 12, two words: Jennifer Lawrence. Last October, it was announced Cretton is set to direct the project “Glass Castle” to which everybody’s favorite young actress is attached to star.

Again: Watch Short Term 12!

One of the single best things you can do to learn the craft of screenwriting is to read the script while watching the movie. After all a screenplay is a blueprint to make a movie and it’s that magic of what happens between printed page and final print that can inform how you approach writing scenes. That is the purpose of Script to Screen, a weekly series on GITS where we analyze a memorable movie scene and the script pages that inspired it.

Daily Dialogue — April 23, 2014

April 23rd, 2014 by

CAROLYN: You know, you could have some really fun backyard get-togethers out here.
WOMAN #1: The ad said this pool was “lagoon-like.” There’s nothing “lagoon-like” about it. Except for maybe the bugs.
WOMAN #2: There’s not even any plants out here.
CAROLYN: (re: shrub) What do you call this? Is this not a plant? If you have a problem with the plants, I can always call my landscape architect. Solved.
WOMAN #2: I mean, I think “lagoon,” I think waterfall, I think tropical. This is a cement hole.
CAROLYN: I have some tiki torches in the garage.

American Beauty (1999), written by Alan Ball

The Daily Dialogue theme for the week: Sales Pitch. Today’s suggestion by Illimani.

Trivia: The shot where Annette Bening screams after her failure to sell the house was done in one take.

Dialogue On Dialogue: Commentary provided by Illimani: “The way how Carolyn tries to lure her customers with cheap lies about the house is a reflection of her incapacity to perceive how her own life is a hoax.”

Could use some suggestions for this week: Sales Pitch!

Do your characters exist beyond FADE OUT?

April 22nd, 2014 by

Last week, Film School Rejects ran a piece honoring the 25th anniversary of the Cameron Crowe movie Say Anything called “Are ‘Say Anything’ Lovebirds Lloyd Dobler and Diane Court Still Together?”

Sometime during the spring of my freshman year at college, a friend of mine decided to break out a big romantic gesture for his girlfriend of just a few weeks – they weren’t celebrating anything special, no anniversary or holiday to peg it to, he just wanted to do something – and he decided to recreate the infamous boombox scene from Say Anything. It went over like gangbusters. He drove his truck to the back of her dorm, stood in the bed of it, and blasted Peter Gabriel’s “In Your Eyes” for everyone to hear. I’m certain that was part of the charm – his girlfriend heard it, the rest of her dorm heard it, people walking to class heard it. (She was, to put it delicately, a bit of a show-off.)

Most importantly, everyone seemed to get it. Cameron Crowe’s film was nearly fifteen years old when this particularly over-the-top expression of love occurred, and although I’d never dare to compare the epic love story that was Lloyd Dobler (John Cusack) and Diane Court (Ione Skye) with a pair of dumb college kids eager to make their affections public in a world pre-Facebook, they did have something in common – neither couple is still together.


It is also a love story with a traditionally happy ending that is still worth wondering about. Say Anything ends with Lloyd and Diane heading off to London so that Diane can embark on her snazzy (and long-looming) fellowship. The duo have already been through quite a bit – a stop-and-start romance, bad advice from friends, a break-up complete with a pen consolation prize, Ice Man Power Lloyd, more bad advice from friends, and her father’s incarceration for bilking the IRS – and exiting America for a new adventure certainly sounds like a nice way to start over.

But nobody thinks it will work. No, really. Diane even says to Lloyd, “Nobody thinks it will work, do they?” to which Lloyd responds with the most perfect line: “No. You just described every great success story.”

If you’ve seen the movie, you can’t have forgotten its last image:

Waiting for the smoking sign to light up, but the subtext of them peering upward is clear: What is their future? An homage to this ending shot:

Benjamin and Elaine in The Graduate staring into their uncertain future. Which brings to mind this final image:

Ryan Bingham in Up in the Air peering up at an airport sign, dozens of flight departures, but again the subtext is about this main character gazing into his uncertain future.

Did Lloyd and Diane stay together? Benjamin and Elaine? Did Ryan ever come down to earth or stay floating above this thing we know as Life?

All good questions that presume an even more important question: Do your characters exist beyond FADE OUT?

We all know about backstory, the set of key events in a character’s past that directly influences who they are and what they will do, essentially their life before FADE IN. But if our characters exist in their story universe — 24/7/365 — isn’t it also true they would have a life after we type THE END?

It’s something to think about as you develop a story: Where will your characters be in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, and beyond.

To spur your thinking, let me ask this: If there is one movie you could find out what happened to the characters after FADE OUT, what would it be?

As for me, it would be Little Miss Sunshine, the 2006 movie written by Michael Arndt. There is the delightful, spontaneous celebration of the Hoover family in support of Olive at the Little Miss Sunshine pageant:

But after the dust settles, what do we know?

We know Dwayne is not going to become an airplane pilot.

We know Frank is not going to get back his teaching job or young lover.

We know Richard is not going to get his self-help book published.

We know Olive did not win the Little Miss Sunshine trophy.

We know Grandpa is dead.

And we know the family is in desperate financial straits.

What we don’t know is what will happen to them.

They have come together as a family on stage and it’s truly a wondrous moment. But then they pile back into the VW, smash through the parking lot gate, pull out onto the highway and head east toward their home in New Mexico. And there’s that fantastic master shot of the VW driving off down the road, accompanied by the final song on the soundtrack, the instrumental version of How It Ends and… the annoying, irregular bleat of the car’s horn, which I have always taken to mean this: “Hoovers, you just had a positive experience. But your life lies ahead of you. You are still going to have to deal with your shit. And there’s a lot of shit for you to deal with. This horn is a friendly reminder of your destiny… after FADE OUT.”


I hope the Hoovers are well. And if I ever get the opportunity to meet Michael Arndt, that’s the first question I would ask him: How are the Hoovers? My guess is those characters still exist for him.

How about you? Do your characters have lives beyond FADE OUT?

For the rest of the Film School Rejects article, go here.