Interview (Part 3): Craig Mazin

Craig Mazin is a successful screenwriter in the comedy genre whose movie credits include RocketMan (1997), Scary Movie 3 (2003), Scary Movie 4 (2006), Superhero Movie (2008), The Hangover Part II (2011), Identity Thief (2013) and The Hangover Part III (2013). With fellow screenwriter Ted Elliott, he hosted the informative writing blog “The Artful Writer” from 2004–2011. Currently Craig and screenwriter John August co-host the popular weekly podcast Scriptnotes for which the pair recently celebrated their 100th recording.

I recently spoke with Craig about his background, some of his writing projects, the state of the movie business and the screenwriting craft. Today in Part 3, Craig reveals some background on The Hangover movies as well as the hit comedy Identity Thief:

Scott: You did Scary Movie 3 and 4, then you did Hangover 2 and 3. Those are franchise movies. What are some of the challenges as a screenwriter working on a movie franchise as opposed to, say, an original movie like Identity Thief?

Craig: From an emotional point of view, you kind of have to compartmentalize and understand going in that there’s no personal victory for you. If the movie works well, you are drafting behind what started it all. If it doesn’t work, then you’re the guy that blew it all up. There’s no glory there. It’s not a glorious job, writing sequels. You push that aside, and you just say, “Let us try to make a good film as best we can, because a good film will be our only reward.” And of course, that’s really the only reward that matters anyway.

The challenges then are coming up with a story that isn’t the first story to tell, because the first story’s already been told.

I’ve had great success and limited success. Overall, the sequels that I’ve done have all been very well received by the audience. They’ve shown up in droves all over the world. For that I’m very grateful. It’s not easy to get people to show up for another episode of a thing they’ve already seen, particularly when it’s comedy.

Knowing that I’m not going to get any love from anybody else over it, I’d better take my love from the audience.

Scott: So, Hangover 2 comes out, big hit. How does that work for Hangover 3? The studio says, “OK, we want to do another sequel.” Do they come to you with that central idea about Alan’s situation, or do you come up with the concept, or is it something that Todd Phillips comes up with? How did that work where you generated that story idea that was similar but different than the previous ones?

Craig: That was Todd and me sitting there alone going, “What should we do? What kind of story do we want to tell, and how do we end this?” The studio, I have to say [Warner Brothers] is very respectful of Todd and his process. I think in a very smart way, they said, “You seem to know what you’re doing. We’ll be here to discuss how much this is all going to cost, but, creatively, we trust you.”

Scott: Let’s move on to Identity Thief which is very funny, and a hugely successful movie that came out this year. The logline, “Mild‑mannered business man Sandy Patterson travels from Denver to Miami to confront the deceptively harmless‑looking woman who’s been living it up after stealing Sandy’s identity.” That comes from IMDB, so…you know.

Craig: Yeah. That’s basically the idea.

Scott: How did you get involved in that project?

Craig: I had met Jason Bateman. At some point a mutual friend had put us together. There was an idea that he was developing and kind of noodling on. I was talking with him briefly about that, and then I pulled off, away from that, and I was working on — I can’t remember what it was — Hangover 2 or 3, but I got a script from him, basically for Identity Thief.

It was a spec script that had been written many, many years ago. Then another writer came and did his own version that was very, very different and very interesting, but not quite what the studio was looking for in terms of tone.

He basically said, “Look. There’s something I’ve been developing. It was for me and another guy, like Zach Galifianakis, but I just saw Bridesmaids, and I think it should be me and Melissa McCarthy. What I have is a log line. Add that, and add me and Melissa McCarthy.” The two of us sort of sat down and talked through the story. Then I wrote it, and Melissa signed on, and off we went.

Scott: One of the things that’s actually quite interesting about the movie is that you’ve got Sandy, played by Jason Bateman, who is the story’s protagonist. He’s like the official character that you kind of tell the story through. Yet you treat Diana, Melissa McCarthy’s character almost like a dual protagonist. She’s almost on screen at least as much as Sandy is, plus the story spends a significant amount of time dealing with her own sort of emotional, psychological journey. I’m curious, what was your mindset when developing these two characters, in terms of that balance between the screen time?

Craig: It’s a good question. I don’t believe in co‑protagonists. I know sometimes people say that there are such things, and I don’t really believe in them. I think that there’s one protagonist, and then there’s somebody that you think is a protagonist, but isn’t. I’m always fascinated by movies where the non‑protagonist is kind of pushed into the limelight as if they were. I started thinking about that, actually, all the way back when I was adapting Harvey.

In Harvey, it’s easy to think of Elwood Dowd, the character that Jimmy Stewart played, the guy who sees the invisible rabbit, as the protagonist, but for me, it was his doctor. Because Elwood Dowd is a bit of a Christ figure, and it’s Man that changes, not Christ.

In this movie, I thought there was an opportunity to do the same thing. To make this larger-than-life character who was complicated, and messy, and emotional, and create her to be instructive to somebody else. For me, the protagonist is Sandy Patterson, Jason Bateman’s character.

The problem is very simple, he doesn’t think he’s good enough. In the end she, through all of her messiness and misery, is going to show him that he is… that what he views in his life as weakness, being a chump, being a loser, being a guy that gets passed over, is irrelevant in the context of his genuine goodness and what he provides in love for the people who love him back.

That’s how I approached it. I wanted to hide that a little bit, and not make it a big, big deal, because I wanted us to watch her. I mean, look, Melissa is a force of nature. I’m not going to shortchange her. I want to treat her like the protagonist, but I want the true dramatic change, ultimately, to be his.

Scott: Sandy does go on a hero’s journey. He starts off, as you say, not feeling like he’s good enough. Then there’s the fact he has his identity stolen — he’s a victim. Which steps right into that issue of not feeling good enough about himself. He’s got to confront that. Hence, the necessity of his journey.

Craig: That’s exactly right. The movie is about a man who feels put‑upon by the world. He’s followed the rules, and everybody around him is breaking the rules, and so he suffers. At some point he thinks to himself, “Why should I? Why should I be suffering? I’m shortchanging my family.” Her life illustrates back to him, “They don’t want the shit you think they want. They want you. They want you, in all of your humility and meekness. That’s all that matters to them.”

In the end, the defining choice is merely, “Do I turn this woman in or not? Because if I turn her in, I am rewarded with the things I believe I need to be loved. If I don’t, I’m a chump. But a sweet, good chump.” And he’s rewarded for being himself, at last, in the end.

Scott: What’s so great about the movie on one level is that it’s wonderful to have all the comedy set‑pieces and action, but you’ve really got to care about the characters. That’s a pretty universal thing. Everybody’s had a situation where they’ve felt like the victim. Everybody’s felt like they weren’t good enough. Sandy’s arc may not be huge, but it’s widely identifiable.

Craig: Yes. I like to think about a simple theme, but a dramatic argument. That is to say, brotherhood or jealousy is not a very valuable theme for an argument. Better to be yourself than be this, or that.

For me, I think that there are a lot of men in this country who feel “less than,” not good enough, because worth is determined externally by what you have, and what you drive, and what you look like. I think it’s unfair, and I also think it’s foolish, frankly. I think it’s a trap.

The thing that my kids look at me lovingly for has nothing do with anything other than me being there, just being present. I wanted to make a story with a simple lesson in it, for men: being present for your family is job number one.

If you’re doing that, you’re the man. You’ve done it. The rest of it is OK. There will be struggles and it will be tough and it may not always be fun, But you’ve done the most important thing. Here, in opposition is a character who can literally buy anything she wants, any time, and all she wants is to not be alone.

Please stop by comments to thank Craig and ask any questions you may have.

Tomorrow in Part 4, Craig digs into the movie Identity Thief.

For Part 1, go here.

Part 2, go here.

Craig is repped by CAA.

Twitter: @clmazin.