The separator between the comment pane and the story pane is moveable. Drag it up or down if you need more room to read on the screen.
From: spd3432
Re: Sunday Morning, by Mat Twassel
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:47:29 -0700
Mat,
Wanted to let you know that I did read it (twice). Did it happen? Did it not happen? Was it just Michael's imagination running amok while Shannon was in the shower? Was it Shannon daydreaming while she was in the shower? It had a "Groundhog Day" feel to it. When Michael was sitting at the table and Shannon came back into the room at the end I had to wonder how many times they were destined to repeat the day / drive until they were able to move on. I offer no suggestions for improvement - I'm still trying to figure out what Snagglepuss means by "Exit, stage left".
sean
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:33:57 -0400, "Desdmona" <me@desdmona.com> wrote:
This week in the FT, I'm posting something a little different. Mat has written a film script. The word count is 1,917, but that's probably a little misleading due to set directions and dialogue identification. Mat's thoughts are:
1. Would it work as a film? Can you envision it? 2. I had a lot of trouble with Michael's monologue during the drive. What is your reaction to it? I wanted it to be a little poetic, but mostly sexual nonsense, like music to go along with whatever's on the screen. But what would be on the screen while he's talking? Shannon touching herself? Or a white horse galloping across a field? Or both? 3. What would it take to actually make this movie?
From: Bradley Stoke
Re: Sunday Morning, by Mat Twassel
Date: 15 Oct 2002 10:45:43 -0700
Mat
This was one of those stories you have to read more than once to be sure you really understand what's going on. A story a bit like Roahl Dahl's Tales of Mystery (or whatever) where there's something odd going on but you're never very sure what it is. Intriguing. Strange. Peculiar. And not in the rather obvious way that so many stories in ASSM feature it.
Desdmona has given us license to blur all the usual categories in our assessment, and as this is one of those stories where there are rather a lot more nice things to say than bad things (and I don't want to initiate a long tedious discussion on prepositions or whatever a Pontiac Carota is), I thought I'd just address young Mat Twassel's comments.
1. Would it work as a film? Can you envision it?
I'd like to say "yes", because I enjoyed the screenplay, but I'm not totally sure. I suppose I don't watch enough of the type of television where films of this nature appear. In the UK (where we spell things differently and drive different cars), there are late night slots on television for experimental films and this could probably drop in there. No problem with sexual content for British television (everything short of erect penises and full on penetration is OK after midnight if there's artistic justification), but I suppose you'd have to look at HBO for whether it could be screened in the States.
A lot of films actually have rather less dialogue and rather more action than you might imagine. I think there could perhaps have been more on stage directions and stage-sets, highlighting some of the surreal atmosphere. I envisage this as a mostly soft focus film with an interplay of light and shadow. Something like this kind of consideration might be contained in the script.
2. I had a lot of trouble with Michael's monologue during the drive. What is your reaction to it? I wanted it to be a little poetic, but mostly sexual nonsense, like music to go along with whatever's on the screen. But what would be on the screen while he's talking? Shannon touching herself? Or a white horse galloping across a field? Or both?
The monologue was the single best thing about the screenplay. I liked the lyricism, which reminded me of Molly Bloom's soliloquy in "Ulysses". Nicely erotic. However, there is a tendency in American television to score things heavily. Prancing horse. White clouds in a blue sky on a green horizon. Groaning orgasmic women. It's difficult to know what would make the best focus. Personally, I rather like the idea of focussing on eyes, hands, mouths and steering wheels. Leave the erotic details to the viewer's imagination, perhaps aided by widening pupils, sweaty palms and sultry smiles.
3. What would it take to actually make this movie?
Either a lot of money or a lot of help from friends.
Car interiors while driving are notoriously difficult to do convincingly. Kitchen scenes are dead simple. Intelligent economy on camera angles can make up dramatically for low budgets. Getting television footage (for the scenes where it's required) that doesn't look hammy is incredibly rare. Most first films (you might have noticed) tend to go low on special effects, high on ideas and play to the director's strengths. We may think of Steven Spielberg as a man of expensive studio effects, but "Duel", his first film, mostly just used inexpensive real life locations. Similarly, there are a lot of corners cut on Lucas' "THX 1138" and for economy look at the great Alfred Hitchcock. The famous shower scene in "Psycho" was incredibly cheap to film, but it sticks in the memory for a lifetime.
I enjoyed this mostly as a departure from the usual structure of what you find on ASSM. We get stories, novels and poems. But no screenplays. Let's have more. Oosh could write the screenplay to "Pavlova's Bitches". Cmsix could get started on "NanoVirus" (to be directed by Russ Meyer). Anais Ninja could adapt "Wanderings" for daytime television. Celia Batau could make "Submission 113" into a thirteen part television series. Although (on the whole) what works well in erotic literature doesn't normally translate especially well to film or video.
Bradley Stoke
http://www.asstr.org/~Bradley_Stoke
From: Conjugate
Re: Sunday Morning, by Mat Twassel
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 01:26:57 -0600
"Desdmona" <me@desdmona.com> wrote in message news:uqlf96d3co3vb3@news.supernews.com ...
This week in the FT, I'm posting something a little different. Mat has written a film script. The word count is 1,917, but that's probably a little misleading due to set directions and dialogue identification. Mat's thoughts are:
1. Would it work as a film? Can you envision it? 2. I had a lot of trouble with Michael's monologue during the drive. What is your reaction to it? I wanted it to be a little poetic, but mostly sexual nonsense, like music to go along with whatever's on the screen. But what would be on the screen while he's talking? Shannon touching herself? Or a white horse galloping across a field? Or both? 3. What would it take to actually make this movie?
FishTank guidelines still apply, but feel free to blur the lines.
1) 2 positive comments
2) 2 suggestions for improvement
3) Try not to repeat!
Well, let's see. I like the story, although I feel it's a little bit vague. I'm not quite sure whether Michael and Shannon had a wreck, or if we were supposed to know whether they did or not.
It might work as a film; I don't know whether there would be more camera directions in a real screenplay, such as "CLOSEUP: we see her fingers exploring the elastic waistband of her panties, then slide within" sort of thing.
The relationship between the two of them is great; you get the feeling that they are really in love with one another.
One nitpick:
Michael:
Rub you fingers on the outside.
[Shannon's fingers stroke slowly up and down.]
He would surely say, " ...your fingers," right?
Conjugate
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Sunday Morning, by Mat Twassel
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:53:35 -0600
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:33:57 -0400, "Desdmona" <me@desdmona.com> wrote:
1. Would it work as a film? Can you envision it?
Yes, but it only really fits into the mold of a independent erotic sort of film. A nice short piece, maybe.
2. I had a lot of trouble with Michael's monologue during the drive. What is your reaction to it? I wanted it to be a little poetic, but mostly sexual nonsense, like music to go along with whatever's on the screen. But what would be on the screen while he's talking? Shannon touching herself? Or a white horse galloping across a field? Or both?
Both, I think. A bit of alternating imagery - it all depends on just what you're trying to show. With the right music, the whole segment would work fine as a music video sort of piece, and if that is what you're trying to do it could work OK.
As plain text, it might not hold up so well.
3. What would it take to actually make this movie?
Money and actors. Beyond that bare requirement, the actual set requirements are small. As mentioned, you can't really shoot a video in a moving car, or even in a stationary car, without a lot of work. Most productions use fake cars - set-builds of car interiors - for inside the car shots. Placing cameras in without operators might work, but hiding them from view is harder. Driving safely with them in the way is also a hassle (same goes for the "chase car" method of shooting from a car driving parallel to yours). In any case, low budget means no shots in the moving car.
Conjugate mentioned shot descriptions, the camera angles and setting. A screenplay is going to have tons of such directions, not just the scenes. Maybe the producing director will figure those all out, but it is nice to have them all in place. Things like the kitchen scene, shot in typical movie fashion, will have closeups of both actors, at least one area shot of the kitchen, and at least one under the table shot.
If you know people who are into film production, that is the best bet for making a movie. I've been involved in many small productions, but no big ones (California is the best area for big movie work, NYC ok for TV stuff, the rest of the USA is pretty bad if that is your line of work).
On to the story itself:
First, it still makes it as a story, despite its use of script scene descriptive structure than pure prose. That is a good thing. However, a script prospectus - hmm, that isn't it, that applies to a series not a single movie? Anyway, the outline of a script, short of completion but illustrating the idea, can read much more like a story prose than a play or even a screenplay. We have nice scenes which move into each other, an apparent light plot, lots of things to think about.
I love the car scene. I think it is the centerpiece of the whole story. The kitchen dialog and action merely sets it up, but the playful conversation and actions in the car make it all move. Of all of it, it is the most solidly realized.
Now, stuff to make better, maybe. The entire story isn't clear on what happens, and if I guess right that is your intention. In the semi-surreal world of short films this degree of mystery would hold up. But in a pure prose story, especially a complete story, even a longer movie, it wouldn't. So if it is to be expanded, to tell more of the tale, it needs a lot more than just these nice scenes. They don't connect that well. Maybe they don't really connect much at all; the timeline is unclear to me, as is the question of reality vs. fantasy for the entire piece.
A related thing, again not sure about "improving it". You know the "Lady and the Tiger" story, where the mystery is never resolved in the story? This is one of those sorts of stories. And while not so blatantly obvious about the mystery it still is frustrating to me. I like having a solution given at the end of the mystery. Being left in the dark is bothersome, especially if there aren't enough clues to solve the case. Some other time, I might want to 'write my own ending' to fill in things. When I'm in that other mood, I could enjoy the story just for its surreal imagery.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: PleaseCain
Re: Sunday Morning, by Mat Twassel
Date: 18 Oct 2002 00:13:47 GMT
This would make a neat short. Especially the dialogue is interesting. I like how the last scene gives it that oblique wrap-up. I could certainly envision the monologue sequence: Michael speaking while Shannon masturbates in the background, a cut to her riding the horse, and then return to the original shot while she climaxes. Oh yeah, I've got Oscars lying all over the place.
Perhaps the effect might be enhanced by deleting the names of the couple from the police blotter, so that the identities of the crash victims is left up in the air. Also, and I have only read a little about this, but I believe that directions are to be kept to a minimum in a good screenplay, to allow the director to direct and the actors to act; if that is the case, the opening sequence would need chopping. Don't ask me!
This was a lot of fun, and a great idea for the Fish Tank. Thanks.
Cain
Mat's Erotic Calendar: http://calendar.ateros.com/
From: Desdmona
Re: Sunday Morning, by Mat Twassel
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:09:41 -0400
**********************************
Sunday Morning
Film Script by Mat Twassel
Mat~
I know almost nothing about script writing, so it's hard to say about scene setting or set directions. Do we need more so we have a clearer picture or are there just enough to get our imagination stirring? I tend to think there are just enough for our purposes as readers. But is more detail needed/wanted when writing scripts? Wouldn't specific details, like what kind of table and chairs, what is Michael wearing at the table, or in the car, be left to one person's vision (the director?) anyway? Or do directors depend on very specific directions?
As for the story as a movie, I see this as part of a bigger picture. Michael 's videotaping everything. He's revealing that to Shannon. It makes me wonder what else has Michael videotaped that she or we don't know about, yet. There are hints at a much bigger mystery, and I wonder if that wouldn't be the real story. With that in mind, I can really see this as a movie, or at least, scenes from a movie. It's sexy and full of innuendo. There's enough sex to be provocative without being pornographic. We have the feel of a loving relationship and playfulness and yet, there's something edgy to it. (More about that in a minute.)
On the other hand, as a short story, I think this works as is, well with a little fleshing out to be more story than script. Generally speaking, short stories don't need conclusions, nearly as much as movies do. If I had watched this on the screen and came away with as many unanswered questions as I have, I would be very unsatisfied. Whereas, reading it as a story, the unanswered questions just give rise to my own imagination.
My take on the story is that Michael filmed underneath the table, and filmed in the car and juxtaposed the two films. But there are too many unanswered questions about that. First, close up shots of Shannon in the car would have been difficult. She's got her hand down through zippered pants and white panties. She's not exactly exposed, whereas under the kitchen table she is exposed with just the robe. So to make combining the clips work, Shannon would have to take her clothes off in the car, or have something similar on under the table. So, that makes me have to ask, am I wrong about combining clips or is there more videotaping that we don't know about?
Secondly, Shannon doesn't seem to recognize the genitalia as her own (she repeats twice that it isn't her.) Does she think it's not her simply because she knows she never masturbated in the kitchen, or is it really not her?
The other question I'm left with is: Is this a loving couple or is Michael a very controlling guy? Take for instance this dialogue:
Michael:
You're so good. Now move your fingers inside.
[Shannon's fingers slide inside her panties.]
Michael:
What do you feel?
Shannon:
I'm so wet, Michael.
Michael:
Put a finger inside now. Just a little. Do you feel the little contractions? You're so nice.
AND
Michael:
Come on Shannon, you're a big girl.
Shannon:
Sometimes I feel very small.
Comments like, "You're so good" and "You're so nice" almost seem sinister in this context, and when you combine it with Shannon's comment, "Sometimes I feel very small" it all takes on this allusion of being controlled, albeit in a gentle sort of way. Add that to the secret videotaping and now I really have to wonder, what sort of guy is Michael, really?
As I said, in a short story, filling in the blanks is interesting. But in a movie, I think it becomes frustrating.
I hope this helps!
Thanks so much, Mat, for letting us have this opportunity to try something different.
Des
From: john
Re: Sunday Morning, by Mat Twassel
Date: 19 Oct 2002 23:50:21 -0700
Matt,
Sorry I'm late ... Then I wasn't going to post this, especially after
you responded. But then after a few drinks ... and I've never been
shy about exposing my ignorance in public ... What the hey!
As literature, this seemed complex. There are some excellent bits. Some contradiction. Some confusion. None of it was bad. Bravo!
The excellent bits: The carrot line is just a superb counterpoint to the monologue. Together they're lovely. Michael's speech as a speech is something very hard to imagine ever being said aloud. But Michael is, maybe, that sort of guy: pedantic, sophomoric, eclectic, poetic. Maybe he's not, but you seem to me to have drawn him that way. Michael's speech as a poem is well crafted indeed.
The excellent bits: Shannon, a sweet character development. Mature yet naive. Earthy, cool, practical, yet simple enough to be drawn into the spider's web of Michael's mind.
The car ride seduction: Extraordinary in its simplicity and understatement.
The contradiction: As literature, the lie about Shannon's opening masturbation is not revealed until the "climax." As drama, the viewer knew this from the start [unless a camera angle changed without a notation] and if so the viewer probably didn't hear a single word about the accident or towels or anything as a result. As drama, the "climax" waits until the last line [duh, because the audience saw her mastubate], I guess, where we learn that simple Shannon has become a complete slut and likes doing it on film now. No offence intended.
The confusion: Whether it's a drama or a film no matter, there ought to be a story. For much of the start, I thought I was reading "Waiting for Godot." (which ought to be about as possie as it gets) but then some less ironic, more romantic threads appear. Michael gets some purpose, some prey. What make's it confusing is now long the story takes to make that clear. Yes, there are horny innuendoes (I suppose you meant them as seductive) at the start, but they're so inane. And Shannon seems to be his mate already, seems more than captivated really. So what's he really trying to accomplish?
The source that told me you have a clever pen was surely right. Also a cameraman's good eye. Thank you for a very entertaining adventure. Very.
John
P.S. Was Shannon naked in that last short scene? That's so critical to what she says. She has to be, eh?
From: cmsix
Re: Sunday Morning, by Mat Twassel
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:31:32 GMT
"Bradley Stoke" <bradley_stoke@hushmail.com> wrote in message news:aaacc8d6.0210150945.2e54223b@posting.google.com ...
Mat
This was one of those stories you have to read more than once to be sure you really understand what's going on. A story a bit like Roahl Dahl's Tales of Mystery (or whatever) where there's something odd going on but you're never very sure what it is. Intriguing. Strange. Peculiar. And not in the rather obvious way that so many stories in ASSM feature it.
Desdmona has given us license to blur all the usual categories in our assessment, and as this is one of those stories where there are rather a lot more nice things to say than bad things (and I don't want to initiate a long tedious discussion on prepositions or whatever a Pontiac Carota is), I thought I'd just address young Mat Twassel's comments.
1. Would it work as a film? Can you envision it?
I'd like to say "yes", because I enjoyed the screenplay, but I'm not totally sure. I suppose I don't watch enough of the type of television where films of this nature appear. In the UK (where we spell things differently and drive different cars), there are late night slots on television for experimental films and this could probably drop in there. No problem with sexual content for British television (everything short of erect penises and full on penetration is OK after midnight if there's artistic justification), but I suppose you'd have to look at HBO for whether it could be screened in the States.
A lot of films actually have rather less dialogue and rather more action than you might imagine. I think there could perhaps have been more on stage directions and stage-sets, highlighting some of the surreal atmosphere. I envisage this as a mostly soft focus film with an interplay of light and shadow. Something like this kind of consideration might be contained in the script.
2. I had a lot of trouble with Michael's monologue during the drive. What is your reaction to it? I wanted it to be a little poetic, but mostly sexual nonsense, like music to go along with whatever's on the screen. But what would be on the screen while he's talking? Shannon touching herself? Or a white horse galloping across a field? Or both?
The monologue was the single best thing about the screenplay. I liked the lyricism, which reminded me of Molly Bloom's soliloquy in "Ulysses". Nicely erotic. However, there is a tendency in American television to score things heavily. Prancing horse. White clouds in a blue sky on a green horizon. Groaning orgasmic women. It's difficult to know what would make the best focus. Personally, I rather like the idea of focussing on eyes, hands, mouths and steering wheels. Leave the erotic details to the viewer's imagination, perhaps aided by widening pupils, sweaty palms and sultry smiles.
3. What would it take to actually make this movie?
Either a lot of money or a lot of help from friends.
Car interiors while driving are notoriously difficult to do convincingly. Kitchen scenes are dead simple. Intelligent economy on camera angles can make up dramatically for low budgets. Getting television footage (for the scenes where it's required) that doesn't look hammy is incredibly rare. Most first films (you might have noticed) tend to go low on special effects, high on ideas and play to the director's strengths. We may think of Steven Spielberg as a man of expensive studio effects, but "Duel", his first film, mostly just used inexpensive real life locations. Similarly, there are a lot of corners cut on Lucas' "THX 1138" and for economy look at the great Alfred Hitchcock. The famous shower scene in "Psycho" was incredibly cheap to film, but it sticks in the memory for a lifetime.
I enjoyed this mostly as a departure from the usual structure of what you find on ASSM. We get stories, novels and poems. But no screenplays. Let's have more. Oosh could write the screenplay to "Pavlova's Bitches". Cmsix could get started on "NanoVirus" (to be directed by Russ Meyer).
Sorry, much to commercial for my delicate artistic sensibilities.
cmsix
Anais Ninja could adapt "Wanderings" for
daytime television. Celia Batau could make "Submission 113" into a thirteen part television series. Although (on the whole) what works well in erotic literature doesn't normally translate especially well to film or video.
Bradley Stoke
-
http://www.asstr.org/~Bradley_Stoke
From: dennyw
Re: Sunday Morning, by Mat Twassel
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 13:29:55 -0700
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:31:32 GMT, "cmsix" <cmsix@hotmail.com> wrote:
I enjoyed this mostly as a departure from the usual structure of what you find on ASSM. We get stories, novels and poems. But no screenplays. Let's have more. Oosh could write the screenplay to "Pavlova's Bitches". Cmsix could get started on "NanoVirus" (to be directed by Russ Meyer).
Sorry, much to commercial for my delicate artistic sensibilities.
cmsix
ROTFLOL!!!!
From: Mat Twassel
Re: Sunday Morning, by Mat Twassel
Date: 19 Oct 2002 17:56:05 GMT
Thanks very much for taking a look at this script and offering opinions. I appreciate it. I suppose there is about as much chance of this film getting made as there was of a Boston Celtic scout signing me up after noticing me when I was ten years old swishing basket after basket in my parents' driveway. That a Boston Celtic scout did notice me and did sign me up, and that I had a successful eleven year career in the NBA breaking most of Larry Bird's scoring records doesn't really alter the odds.
Okay, now the Q&A:
Q: While they're talking at the kitchen table, does the shot stay on what's going on underneath the table the whole time?
A: I'm not sure. I think so. But I think it's also the director's call. If the camera moves during this scene, it brings up other questions later, since Michael is supposedly video-taping this scene "hands off." In the playback near the end of the game - er, movie - the camera does move to a close- up. My intent was to signal something going on with that. If this were not a sex film, maybe such a long still frame would get boring. Maybe it would get boring anyway. I don't think so, but I'd have to see. Anyway, the idea in part is to play with the viewer's expectations.
Q: Honestly, at first I was like "Why's he talking so much?" [during the drive] But then I reread it and it made more sense for him to just go on and on like that.
A: Again, it's probably one of those things that might come across better with the visual "distraction." I am sure it fails as poetic text, but it were better, maybe it would sound too hokey. I'd have to see.
Q:
I wanted it to be a little poetic, but mostly
sexual nonsense, like music to go along with whatever's on the screen. But what would be on the screen while he's talking? Shannon touching herself? Or a white horse galloping across a field? Or both?<
Both.
A: A split screen? (Sorry.) I agree. I think both. Whose job is it to get the images blended properly? The cinematographer's?
Q: >3. What would it take to actually make this movie?
Money and a cast and crew? I dunno.
A: So, Souvie, would you like a role?
Q: Overall I liked it even though I thought it was a little bit confusing at times. :-)
A: And I'm not sure if it would be any less confusing as a movie. But maybe it would be more enjoyable. My plan was not to make a movie that necessarily made a lot of immediate sense so much as to make a film that was sexy, sexual, and evocative in other ways.
Q: Wanted to let you know that I did read it (twice). Did it happen? Did it not happen? Was it just Michael's imagination running amok while Shannon was in the shower? Was it Shannon daydreaming while she was in the shower? It had a "Groundhog Day" feel to it. When Michael was sitting at the table and Shannon came back into the room at the end I had to wonder how many times they were destined to repeat the day / drive until they were able to move on. I offer no suggestions for improvement - I'm still trying to figure out what Snagglepuss means by "Exit, stage left".
A: Oh, Groundhog Day is one of my favorite movies. I watch it again and again. As for Sunday Morning, I think everything happens, but keep in mind that movies are in some ways more like music than like stories. Admittedly there's a lot more story to most movies than there is to most music. To an extent this movie is meant to be a tease. I think there are several themes in the piece, just there are several themes in a piece of music. Clearly fantasy and masturbation are important. Believe it or not, Snagglepuss and his exit line was a subject of an ASSD thread several years back. The conclusion, as I recall, was that either Snagglepuss or his evil twin brother Snaggletooth was a homosexual.
Q: This was one of those stories you have to read more than once to be sure you really understand what's going on. A story a bit like Roahl Dahl's Tales of Mystery (or whatever) where there's something odd going on but you're never very sure what it is. Intriguing. Strange. Peculiar. And not in the rather obvious way that so many stories in ASSM feature it.
A: Thanks, I think. My instinct is that the strangeness would be less intrusive in the film version. You wouldn't have such an immediate need to "understand what was going on." Afterwards, assuming the thing worked, you might feel a little puzzled, but the major reaction would be: Yeah, that was good. Or something like that.
Q: In the UK (where we spell things differently and drive different cars), there are late night slots on television for experimental films and this could probably drop in there. No problem with sexual content for British television (everything short of erect penises and full on penetration is OK after midnight if there's artistic justification), but I suppose you'd have to look at HBO for whether it could be screened in the States.
A: When does after midnight end? Is there sanction against carrots? Seems men are singled out a bit, doesn't it?
Q: A lot of films actually have rather less dialogue and rather more action than you might imagine. I think there could perhaps have been more on stage directions and stage-sets, highlighting some of the surreal atmosphere. I envisage this as a mostly soft focus film with an interplay of light and shadow. Something like this kind of consideration might be contained in the script.
A: I've not seen a lot of scripts, but most of them I have seen contain very few set and stage directions. Only what is vital is included. It's up to the director and others to add the rest. But I'm pretty sure a lot of films come from fully rendered stories. In those cases the dialogue sometimes needs to be added, and probably a lot of scenes (and even characters) need to be chopped out. My question here would be: what important pieces are missing? I do like light and shadow. I think I even mentioned it a few places early on.
Q: The monologue was the single best thing about the screenplay. I liked the lyricism, which reminded me of Molly Bloom's soliloquy in "Ulysses". Nicely erotic. However, there is a tendency in American television to score things heavily. Prancing horse. White clouds in a blue sky on a green horizon. Groaning orgasmic women. It's difficult to know what would make the best focus. Personally, I rather like the idea of focussing on eyes, hands, mouths and steering wheels. Leave the erotic details to the viewer's imagination, perhaps aided by widening pupils, sweaty palms and sultry smiles.
A: That might work! Maybe you can have the job of director.
Q: 3. What would it take to actually make this movie?
Either a lot of money or a lot of help from friends.
A: Where's that Celtic scout when you need him?
Q: Well, let's see. I like the story, although I feel it's a little bit vague. I'm not quite sure whether Michael and Shannon had a wreck, or if we were supposed to know whether they did or not.
A: My main concern is if it appears vague as it's happening.
Q: It might work as a film; I don't know whether there would be more camera directions in a real screenplay, such as "CLOSEUP: we see her fingers exploring the elastic waistband of her panties, then slide within" sort of thing.
A: I don't know either. Eventually I'm sure such directions would appear somewhere.
Q: The relationship between the two of them is great; you get the feeling that they are really in love with one another.
A: Or at least that they mostly get along. Thanks! I'm putting you in charge of casting.
Q: One nitpick:
Michael: Rub you fingers on the outside.
[Shannon's fingers stroke slowly up and down.]
He would surely say, " ...your fingers," right?
A: Right. That is a typo. Sorry. Thanks for noticing that. My fingers were too eager to get on to the next bit.
Q: >1. Would it work as a film? Can you envision it?
Yes, but it only really fits into the mold of a independent erotic sort of film. A nice short piece, maybe.
A: Can I sign you up as producer?
Q: >2. I had a lot of trouble with Michael's monologue during the drive. What is your reaction to it? I wanted it to be a little poetic, but mostly sexual nonsense, like music to go along with whatever's on the screen. But what would be on the screen while he's talking? Shannon touching herself? Or a white horse galloping across a field? Or both? <
Both, I think. A bit of alternating imagery - it all depends on just what you're trying to show. With the right music, the whole segment would work fine as a music video sort of piece, and if that is what you're trying to do it could work OK. As plain text, it might not hold up so well.
A: Right. It's definitely meant to be a film, not plain text. I wouldn't say I had any intent of making it a music video, however. Though I think there would be the appropriate background sounds and noises here and there, in the copy that runs in my head there is no background (or foreground) music.
Q: >3. What would it take to actually make this movie?
Money and actors. Beyond that bare requirement, the actual set requirements are small. As mentioned, you can't really shoot a video in a moving car, or even in a stationary car, without a lot of work. Most productions use fake cars - set- builds of car interiors - for inside the car shots. Placing cameras in without operators might work, but hiding them from view is harder. Driving safely with them in the way is also a hassle (same goes for the "chase car" method of shooting from a car driving parallel to yours). In any case, low budget means no shots in the moving car.
A: Okay. I'm not going to worry too much about this right now. But I will say that one possible way to solve the car interior problem is to alternate between very tight or close shots and longer shots of the exterior, so you don't really show both in and out of the car at once.
Q: Conjugate mentioned shot descriptions, the camera angles and setting. A screenplay is going to have tons of such directions, not just the scenes. Maybe the producing director will figure those all out, but it is nice to have them all in place. Things like the kitchen scene, shot in typical movie fashion, will have closeups of both actors, at least one area shot of the kitchen, and at least one under the table shot.
A: Is it the writer's job to provide these directions, etc.?
Q: If you know people who are into film production, that is the best bet for making a movie. I've been involved in many small productions, but no big ones (California is the best area for big movie work, NYC ok for TV stuff, the rest of the USA is pretty bad if that is your line of work).
A: Well, this certainly isn't a big movie. Since I don't know people who are into film production and I don't live in California or NYC, I guess this film isn't going to get out of the FishTank.
Q: On to the story itself:
First, it still makes it as a story, despite its use of script scene descriptive structure than pure prose. That is a good thing. However, a script prospectus - hmm, that isn't it, that applies to a series not a single movie? Anyway, the outline of a script, short of completion but illustrating the idea, can read much more like a story prose than a play or even a screenplay. We have nice scenes which move into each other, an apparent light plot, lots of things to think about.
A: Thanks.
Q: I love the car scene. I think it is the centerpiece of the whole story. The kitchen dialog and action merely sets it up, but the playful conversation and actions in the car make it all move. Of all of it, it is the most solidly realized.
A: Thanks.
Q: Now, stuff to make better, maybe. The entire story isn't clear on what happens, and if I guess right that is your intention. In the semi-surreal world of short films this degree of mystery would hold up. But in a pure prose story, especially a complete story, even a longer movie, it wouldn't. So if it is to be expanded, to tell more of the tale, it needs a lot more than just these nice scenes. They don't connect that well. Maybe they don't really connect much at all; the timeline is unclear to me, as is the question of reality vs. fantasy for the entire piece.
A: Yes - I'll choose "a" - short film. Regarding time- line, without any evidence to the contrary, shouldn't the viewer assume a linear time line with time always moving forward?
Q: A related thing, again not sure about "improving it". You know the "Lady and the Tiger" story, where the mystery is never resolved in the story? This is one of those sorts of stories. And while not so blatantly obvious about the mystery it still is frustrating to me. I like having a solution given at the end of the mystery. Being left in the dark is bothersome, especially if there aren't enough clues to solve the case. Some other time, I might want to 'write my own ending' to fill in things. When I'm in that other mood, I could enjoy the story just for its surreal imagery.
A: Okay, fair enough. When you masturbate, how does the fantasy film running in your head end? When you have a real relationship with someone, or when you fantasize a real relationship, how does that film end? Do the two ever come together? If they do, what happens?
Q: This would make a neat short. Especially the dialogue is interesting. I like how the last scene gives it that oblique wrap-up. I could certainly envision the monologue sequence: Michael speaking while Shannon masturbates in the background, a cut to her riding the horse, and then return to the original shot while she climaxes. Oh yeah, I've got Oscars lying all over the place.
A: I'm putting you in charge of promotion.
Q: Perhaps the effect might be enhanced by deleting the names of the couple from the police blotter, so that the identities of the crash victims is left up in the air. Also, and I have only read a little about this, but I believe that directions are to be kept to a minimum in a good screenplay, to allow the director to direct and the actors to act; if that is the case, the opening sequence would need chopping. Don't ask me!
A: That's a good idea about the names. "Authorities are withholding names pending notification of next of kin," or something like that. Thanks!
Q: This was a lot of fun, and a great idea for the Fish Tank. Thanks.
A: I enjoyed it, too. Thanks, all. Thanks, Des!
- Mat Twassel
Mat's Erotic Calendar at http://calendar.atEros.com
Note that all the comments archived here were culled from active discussions occuring in the Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.stories.d. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please join us in ASSD and say your piece. Everyone is welcome.
If you do not know how to read Usenet newsgroups, there is a nice, free web interface on Google: http://groups.google.com/. If you have any problems, send us email. If we're lucky, we'll get you set up and contributing in no time!
If you have not done so, please read the Comment Guidelines. We ask that all comments include two positive remarks and two suggestions for improvement. Please, try not to repeat!
From: Souvie
Re: Sunday Morning, by Mat Twassel
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:58:25 GMT
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:33:57 -0400, "Desdmona" <me@desdmona.com> wrote:
Yes, actually I can envision it. And I have a question about that: While they're talking at the kitchen table, does the shot stay on what's going on underneath the table the whole time?
Honestly, at first I was like "Why's he talking so much?" But then I reread it and it made more sense for him to just go on and on like that.
Both.
Money and a cast and crew? I dunno.
Overall I liked it even though I thought it was a little bit confusing at times. :-)
-Souvie