I'm now about 20 pages into the Ghostkeeper sequel screenplay and am going through all the usual things; like it's really good for an hour, then it's awful and I don't know how to write, followed by "it's not too bad", and so on and so on.
So I thought I'd post a quick review of the films nominated for the Academy Awards. One thing continually bugs me about the way the media handles the awards. They usually only mention the actors and the movies. Sometimes they'll include directors but nobody ever mentions the writers. They'll be buried somewhere on page 5 of the LA Times while the actors faces grace the first page.
After all, who's more important, the actors or the writers? I know people who think the actors make up all the words they speak, you don't have any idea how many times I'm asked "exactly what does a writer do?"
But that's another subject and who likes whiners.
What's interesting about this year is that it could be a landmark year for anyone under 40. Or it could remain like it's always been.
It seems that 3 movies are the leaders, The King's Speech, True Grit and Social Network. Social Network is the favorite in Las Vegas but not a sure thing.
What's interesting about Social Network is that it's essentially a movie for 20-somethings. I saw it and didn't mind it,although I thought of it as an HBO movie. But I noticed I felt sorry for the guy who started Facebook. But that was a bit of manipulation by Arron Sorkin, the writer who flat out stated that when he wrote it he had Citizen Kane in mind. I was there when he said it.
What does that mean? Well, if you remember Citizen Kane it came to the fact that even though he was ruthless and uncaring, when he died, he remembered the sled he had as a child. The point being that he wasn't happy with his riches and success. That made the rest of us feel better, you won't necessarily be happy if you have all the money in the world. It's an equalizer.
What Sorkin did was inventing the thing about Mark Zuckerberg losing a girl at the beginning of the movie. And the last scene has him being rebuffed by another girl as he watches her walk away.
We feel sorry for him now, don't we? Or at least we can think he doesn't have everything in life.
But what's more important in the race for the Oscar is this; it's a contest between hope, inspiration and loyalty and greed and betrayal
True Grit for example, is about loyalty and hope, and the King's Speech is the same thing. It's about the good that comes from people. It's positive.
Social Network, on the other hand is about betrayal and greed, sort of a Y-Generation version of Wall Street, the movie.
The average Academy member is above 40 and so this is where the contest begins to be interesting. Will the older members vote for loyalty and hope or will they vote for greed.
And more important, is this saying that greed and betrayal are the standards and values for anyone under 40.
Blame Arron Sorkin, he made Mark Zuckerberg likeable. Ironically Zuckerberg did get the girl in real life. But that ending wouldn't have been as good.
(Monday: GKPR 2)
