More Meta Commentary
April 25, 2006 · by The Urban Shockah · Permalink · comment on this post in the forum · Category: Original Version, communiqués, technique, the screenplay
Shockah? Did I forget something?
Don't think so. I told you about the crazy opening scene of Sam Fuller's The Naked Kiss and how I saw that in connection with the potential opening of Time to Die, with the brutal violence that starts without any context, but other than that, I think that was it.
One thing we did talk about that you didn't mention (probably because I haven't written my bio for it yet) is the stuff we discussed about Rasputin the Translator. Way back when, I mentioned how I didn't want the Rasputin character to be an out-and-out Bad Guy, in the same way that I don't want either Okkervil or the warden to be Bad Guys. But now that we've started on characters, we've hit upon an odd and interesting way of defining Rasputin: by who he isn't. He's not Jake, he's not Jones, he's not Cemile, he's not any of the other characters. He's defined by the negative space created by these characters. I even proposed that we not know (and thus, not define) anything about Rasputin except for what he wants, the major definition of a character in a mainstream screenplay. And because of this idea, I came around 180 on my position: I think it's okay, perhaps even mandatory, that Rasputin be a capital "B" Bad Guy.
(Oh, and you had an idea where each character sees Rasputin differently, and thus his personality and even looks seem to change depend on who he's talking to, which is a cool crazy-ass idea. Assuming I presented it correctly.)
This is interesting commenting on a different character and thinking about how they might dovetail with the character I did the bio for in the movie--this feels so much smoother than working on the same character and having to deal with the things that don't fit in with your vision of the character. We'll play it by ear, but I might just pick other characters than you do in the next round.
Good idea -- I say we continue with this mode until we come to a situation where it doesn't seem to work. It's interesting: part of me says that we're bound to come to a story where we severely disagree about the presentation of a character... but part of me says that the disagreement will be more about the kind of a story that character represents (like what happened in Round Nine) and not about the character per se. But, you know, keep writin' them like you did for Round Ten and that'll never happen.
So, what's Round Eleven again?
(checks)
Little Black Stray v. Terminal Connection
Oh fuck me.

