Vicky Christina Barcelona/Woody Allen Badwriting

Depending on the movie, I’m a big Woody Allen fan. He was one of my early idols. When my partner and I were writing spec scripts we would often play his stand-up routine album to get revved up. I still think ANNIE HALL is hard to beat as the best romantic comedy ever. At his best he is the best.

It’s just that he hasn’t been his best for a really long time. Year after year he cranks out movies faster than Apple rolls out new iPod models. And like iPods usually it’s the exact same product with a different size or color. Even his best received film of late, MATCH POINT. was just recycled CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS. (I was less enthusiastic about that movie than others. Inspector Clouseau is a better detective than those London buffoons.)

But apparently no one has told the Writers Guild that he is no longer the Woody Allen of BULLETS OVER BROADWAY, HANNAH & HER SISTERS, CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS, and LOVE & DEATH. He is now the Woody Allen of SCOOP, HOLLYWOOD ENDING, and THE CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION. And yet, year after year Allen is honored for his various screenplays. He recently received his 19th WGA nomination for VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA. Really? Of all the original screenplays that were produced this year that was one of the best five?

I saw VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA. It was nice. My order of preference: Vicky, Barcelona, Christina. Rebecca Hall and Penelope Cruz gave wonderful performances. And Woody wasn’t in it himself so we weren’t asked to believe that Tea Leoni would ever go to bed with him, so that was a big plus. But the screenplay was incredibly lazy.

He just used the narration device to tell the entire story. To the point where it was almost amateurish. The movie opens with Vicky and Christina in a taxi driving through the city. The narrator tells us not only why they’re there, what they’re looking to achieve but also defines their characters. This one is a free spirit. This one is very clenched and engaged to someone whose biggest attribute is that he’s boring. And then we just see examples of what we’ve been told.

That’s good storytelling? Three minutes of bald exposition? How about finding ways to show us who these people are? I know, that’s the hard part, but if you write one screenplay a year instead of four you can achieve it.

And yet he is rewarded. Another “Best Original Screenplay” nomination.

Early in the movie they go away for a weekend. The narrator tells us when they arrived, that they checked into the hotel, went to lunch and what they talked about at lunch. I’m sorry. This is staggeringly bad writing.

The story itself sort of plods along until Penelope’s character arrives. And I’m not sure whether I loved her because of her performance or just the fact that something actually happened.

Part of my disgust is that Woody Allen is capable of so much more. If he pushes himself. The way he did when he had something to prove. But if Allen keeps getting recognition for working at half speed what's his motivation to do better? Don't encourage him! Challenge him!

If you want to nominate VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA for a writing award, fine. But it should be for “Best Short Story Prose” not "Best Screenplay".

Woody Allen's best six movies

The Times of London asked Woody Allen to list what he thought were his best six movies. His answer rather floored me.

ZELIG
PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO
HUSBANDS AND WIVES
VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA
BULLETS OVER BROADWAY
MATCH POINT

Now granted Woody Allen has made probably 200 movies. He pops them out like they were Pez tablets. And yes, a lot of them are God awful. It’s even harder to narrow those down to six. But some worthy candidates might be…

HOLLYWOOD ENDINGS
CELEBRITY
SHADOWS AND FOG
SCOOP
THE CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION
WHATEVER WORKS
DECONSTRUCTING HARRY

And I don’t disagree that several of Mr. Allen’s picks are good films. BULLETS OVER BROADWAY and PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO. But MATCH POINT? Sorry but that’s just the British reboot of CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS (a great film) with the world’s dumbest police detectives. And you’ve heard me rant about VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA before. Lazy storytelling all done through narration. I thought HUSBANDS AND WIVES had its moments (namely the Sydney Pollack subplot) although it was impossible to watch with that jumpy camera technique. The only way to see that movie comfortably is to watch it in an airplane during extreme turbulence. ZELIG was an interesting exercise but hardly a satisfying film.

Plus it seems to me there are so many better movies he could have chosen. Like I said, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS was a masterpiece. HANNAH & HER SISTERS was brilliant. ANNIE HALL was the perfect romantic comedy. A case could be made for MANHATTAN. And then there are the early funny ones that Allen inexplicitly chooses to distance himself from. Give me SLEEPER, BANANAS, LOVE AND DEATH, and TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN over VICKY any day. Hell, I’d take BROADWAY DANNY ROSE, EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX, RADIO DAYS, and his segment in NEW YORK STORIES over VICKY. I’m convinced Penelope Cruz won an Oscar for that movie not because her performance was so extraordinary, it’s because when she came on the screen the audience woke up.

So here are my six for now. Depending on my mood, the list could change weekly… or hourly.

ANNIE HALL
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
BANANAS
TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN
HANNAH AND HER SISTERS
SLEEPER

Yes, I’m shallow because three of the six are early funny ones. But those are the movies that made me want to go into comedy. So that counts for, y'know... something.

What’s your list?

Lazy writing

I know. This is a personal pet peeve of mine. There are many writers who disagree. Many writers I respect. So this is one scribe’s opinion. One lowly scribe with a blog.

But I am not a fan of narration. Unless it’s in prose.

And lately there seems to be a plethora of narration on television, especially among new shows.

What’s my issue? For the most part I think it’s lazy writing.

The hardest part of telling a dramatic story is doling out the exposition. Backstory tends to be dry. Actors hate to say it. And for good reason. It’s just briefing the audience; a data dump of facts the writer feels are important. The trick – no, the art of storytelling is finding clever ways to either show the audience what they need to know or communicate it through entertaining dialogue.

Unless narration is integral to the premise of the series (like in HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER where the entire conceit of the show was the father talking to his kids), or a Bullwinkle cartoon (where the narrator was not just a character but did the comedy heavy lifting) it’s generally not necessary. 

When I hear “This is the story about Sarah and Skippy….” Or “Sarah is a good student but has trouble talking to boys…” I zone out. Anybody can write “Sarah is a good student but has trouble talking to boys,” but a good writer can create a character (who by her actions) shows us that in a fresh and funny way. He relies on behavior and attitude and the situation. Just saying it is the bald on-the-nose easy way.

And just who are these narrators anyway? Why are they there? Why do we need a narrator to guide us through the story? Another big offender of this is Woody Allen. The first five minutes of VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA is all flatfooted narration that tells you who the heroines are, what their personalities are, what they’re desiring, and why they’re there. LAY-ZEEEE.

Then there are shows where one or more of their characters provide narration. Unless there’s a real good reason for it I don’t know why it exists. Often it’s used to wrap up the show or tell us that week’s theme or life lesson. I like to think I’m smart enough to determine that on my own. I don’t need to be spoon fed.

I suspect one reason shows employ this device is so when scenes they’ve shot turn out poorly they can just scrap them and have the narrator cover the information.

On MASH we occasionally used narration to frame episodes by having a character write a letter home. First off, you knew who the narrator was writing to and why. And secondly, we used this technique very sparingly. It was a way to break the format. And even then, by year seven when David Isaacs and I were heading the writing staff we felt the device was wearing thin. We devised an episode where a Korean spy was writing about the MASH unit and the fun was hearing how he misinterpreted everything he (and we) saw. We never used it as a crutch.

Some shows break the fourth wall and have their lead characters talk directly to the audience. In some cases it works. FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF would be one shining example. But that’s because the narration was less about relaying info and more about philosophizing. And I like it in HOUSE OF CARDS. But in that show the narration is part of Kevin Spacey’s character. He uses it to justify his behavior and toot his own horn. And he uses it very sparingly. I love the episode in season two where he doesn’t talk to the audience for almost the entire show, and then at the last minute he turns to the camera and says, “Did you miss me?”

But other times it feels like characters are talking to the camera just to be stylistic. There’s always the danger that you’ll take the audience out of the moment by shattering the reality. So the question becomes – is the device really necessary?

I find this less concerning in the theatre where stories are generally told stylistically, but the reality of film and TV makes it harder to buy… at least for me. JERSEY BOYS is an example where narration worked on the stage, not on the screen.

Some may argue that a narrator is necessary because there are so many facts and the exposition is very dense. The audience would be confused without it. If that’s so I question whether the story itself is too complicated.

Another problem with narrators is that they often just drop out after awhile. You hear them at the beginning and maybe an hour into a movie for three sentences and that’s it. If you establish that the narrator is your vehicle for telling the story then stick with him. To have him just pop in when you need a hole patched is again, lazy writing.

I have no conclusion here. It’s not like writers are going to stop using narration because of this post. Or Woody Allen is going to send me an apology. But if you’re an aspiring writer I want you to challenge yourself. I want you to avoid shortcuts. I want you to rise above. Or I want you to just say screw it and write a novel.

What to watch? MAD MEN or ICE ROAD TRUCKERS?

Here are some Friday questions and answers. Leave yours in the comment section.

Let’s start with Patrick:

With dialogue that deals with the involvement of lawyers, is there often a decision to just try something else in order to avoid a hassle? On The Office tonight there were two lines that seemed odd. At one point Dwight said something like, "... I search engined her." Obviously he meant Googled. Seemed like a specific choice to not use the term. Then later their was an entire segment based on a youtube video, and a character actually said, "I saw it on youtube." Any ideas on why one monstrous, topical, copywrite protected term was used and the other wasn't?

Yes, it makes no sense but that’s what we deal with on a daily basis. It depends on the network and the reference and the day and the phase of the moon. When I was consulting on the show IT’S ALL RELATIVE a few seasons back, ABC had a policy where any mention of brand names was forbidden. I don’t know if it’s like that over there now. But since comedy is specific it made things incredibly hard.

I remember once we had a character come back from a 7-11 in the middle of the night. But he couldn’t say “7-11”. Well, who says, “I just came back from an all-night convenience store”? We wrestled with this for a half hour. I don’t even remember what we finally landed on but I did make the observation that here were seven highly-trained comedy writers wasting valuable time looking for synonyms for 7-11.

I will say that on CBS we didn’t have that problem and when we were doing CHEERS, NBC let us mention specific brand names of liquor. Customers didn’t have to order “Jack Dandies” or “Granny Goose” vodka.

From David:

My question dates back to the beginning of season 4 of Cheers - after Diane leaves Frasier at the alter at the end of season 3 --- what was the thought process in keeping the Frasier character around past the first ep of season 4 when he comes back to say Diane left him? He certainly was expendable at that point. Glad you kept him, but wondering what led to that.

Kelsey really scored with the audience and the producers saw the potential of making him a series regular. Having a tightly-wound psychiatrist hang out in a bar exposed daily to the woman who jilted him seemed very funny, and a real test of his sanity – a test he rarely passed. By the way, doesn't he look a little like Jack Torrance from THE SHINING in this picture?

amyp3 asks:

Do you think mockumentaries AND flashbacks are a lazy way of storytelling? (I can remember taking a screenwriting class years ago and being told "Don't do flashbacks.")

It depends on the project. Would SPINAL TAP be anywhere near as good if that story weren’t told as a mockumentary? And would LOST be as rich if we didn’t see flashbacks that really illuminated the characters?

But certainly these devices can lead to shortcuts. Characters in mockumentaries just tell the interviewer what they’re feeling instead of us seeing it in behavior. And flashbacks are an easy way around exposition.

Lazier still are the devices of narration or popular songs. Why expend a lot of energy trying to craft an artful way of conveying a character’s attitude through behavior when you can just say in voice-over what they’re thinking? This is one of my pet peeves, as you’ll recall in my review of Woody Allen’s VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA.

And why use dialogue and acting to create a mood when you can just show the character and play an old song that conveys the message the director wants to convey? Nora Ephron is a big fan of this. So is Nancy Meyers. I’m not sure either could make a movie without Louis Armstrong.

And finally, from Richard Y:

I'll chime in on a Friday Question regarding the Nielsen television ratings. I have read (or heard) that they claim to have a 50,000 household list (also heard that it is only 5,000). Regardless of the number it is what advertising rates are established by and if a TV program fails or succeeds.

With that low of a number generating what the rest of the country watches long term why can't they tap into the two largest cable providers, Cox and Comcast, for example to generate the figures? They would be able to see not only what is being viewed 'live' but what is also being recorded (Tivo, DVR) and does not make any difference when it is watched.

Wouldn't this be a more accurate figure for the networks and advertisers to go by? No privacy issues as only the program information is gathered not where you live although they could also include geographical areas. Just a thought.

First of all, there is a privacy issue. Because if they can collect data from cable boxes they can determine exactly where they came from. This was actually an issue with Tivo. They were able to monitor just which shows were being taped and from where. Not sure if it’s still like that.

Not every house is hooked up to cable. Or satellite. And if the method of measurement is different depending upon how you receive television then you’re still not getting an accurate account of just who is watching.

There is some formula for registering data recorded on DVR’s but I’m not sure how that works. I do know it saved DOLLHOUSE.

All of this used to be less of an issue when there were only three networks. Even with a larger margin for error you basically knew that ALL IN THE FAMILY beat the living crap out of GETTING TOGETHER. But now everything is so fractionalized. It doesn’t take too many Joe Six Packs with Nielson boxes to kill PUSHING DAISIES or make ICE ROAD TRUCKERS a hit.

I find it interesting that since radio has abandoned diaries for people meters (little pager devices that accurately record whatever radio is within earshot) station rankings in most markets have been completely upended. Turns out the oldies format that just two years ago was considered dead and obsolete is now leading in most major markets.

So you wonder, does MAD MEN really get beat by ICE ROAD TRUCKERS?

All the Neilson and other rating services can tell us with 100% accuracy is that no one is watching Jay Leno.