Vampires and Boogie Nights
22 pages of notes on a feature I’m trying to write involving vampires. It seems like questions about the who, what, where, when, and why of the story are sprouting faster than I can answer them. Answering a question about plot leads to five more questions about character, setting, and theme. And so it goes. Should I start writing the screenplay now? Probably not.
I heard an interview with Matthew Lieberman where he said that he takes a story as far as he can go with his eyes on it only before he gives it to outside influences, like his peers, for feedback. I think I can take things further in the outline stage. I know I can come up with more solutions that will provide me with a more solid foundation when I eventually do write the story. I feel like all the work I’m doing is necessary, but it’s getting to the point where I want to put what I have in screenplay format so badly that I’m half-expecting the story to shoot out of me like a cannonball when I do eventually get there.
There’s this other story that I’m working on that’s less high-concept, and that seems to elude the traditional screenplay narrative whenever I try and outline it. For example, no concrete antagonist, no explicit goal from the protagonist. What’s connecting everything is a subculture I’m passionate about. Now, this doesn’t equate to a good story, but I think it’s good that I’m getting the sense that the story isn’t quite fitting into traditional narrative conventions of screenwriting, but still needs to be told. If all good screenplays needed to have an identifiable protagonists with a specific goal, as well as a concrete antagonist, and big set pieces — you know, we’d never have movies like Boogie Nights or Almost Famous.
John Logan mentioned in his BAFTA lecture to study Shakespeare. And he’s right. I watched the four hour cut of Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet because of him, piecemeal. I’m no Shakespearean expert, but now I feel like I understand more about why the story works. The qualities that define Hamlet for me involve a very driven protagonist that pushes forward the plot in a high stakes situation. Obviously, if you can create a story out of these elements, you’re on your way to something very compelling (for some reason, the first movie that came to mind from this combination was Dirty Pretty Things, which was also nominated for a Best Screenplay Oscar). But that doesn’t mean that stories that don’t follow this narrative paradigm aren’t successful.
I’ve seen Boogie Nights before. I think it still holds up wonderfully. I think the screenplay is actually its own achievement, separate from the visuals. My questions for the screenwriting gurus has to do with Dirk Diggler’s goal. Is it to make the best porno picture ever? Is it to keep his job? Is it to continue to make money? Is it okay if he isn’t working toward an explicit goal in the movie? Why does the movie still work? From what I’ve heard, and obviously I’m a skeptic about this, is that if your movie doesn’t feature a character with a strong goal, it falls apart.
I’m unsure what Dirk Diggler’s goal is. I don’t even know if I want to look up the answer from somewhere else, because to me the movie still works even if I can’t identify it. The scenes that take place in the movie, often between two or three characters, are really well-written. There’s a lot to cut your teeth into with the dialogue, which reveals so much about the characters’ personalities and shapeshifting intentions in one or two lines. Also, the scenes in this movie seem very innocuous. Like, if the characters were real people, none of them but Dirk would probably remember the day he was introduced to Jack Horner’s crew, so why is it featured in the movie? Why are Buck Swope’s conversations about stereos featured in the film? Why the attention given to Dirk Diggler’s name, and what about the conversation about video versus film in the Colonel’s office? What about the scene with the Colonel in jail?
I feel like these exchanges are somehow really significant in the characters’ lives and to the story itself, even if they seem pretty casual in the moment. Maybe it’s like — if your character’s seen in the movie getting a soda from a fast food restaurant, if it’s not a really important moment in the life of your character or the story, does it need to be there at all? What’s this moment showing?
Am I stating the obvious again? Maybe. But I feel like I’ve read enough amateur scripts where nothing happens in a scene. Within professional scripts, something is always happening, the story is never in stasis, and it’s partly due to the fact that the moments featured in the script matter to the characters and story. They’re significant in some way. My unsolicited opinion — if you want a scene in a screenplay but can’t justify it within the context of the narrative at the time the scene is shown, it doesn’t need to be there.