Zombieland

Zombieland is a road picture. It’s a buddy picture (two buddy pictures, actually). It’s a romantic comedy (sort of). It’s a chase film. It’s a horror flick. It’s a post-apocalyptic survivor story.

The film is narrated by Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), who begins by setting up some of the future action with his rules of survival (cardio, beware of bathrooms, double tap). Columbus is leaving Austin, Texas to find his parents when he encounters Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), another survivor. Tallahassee’s approach to survival differs from (and sometimes complements) Columbus’.

Their humorously prickly friendship would not have been sufficient to carry the film. The writers wisely introduce Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who provide a lot of the twists and turns of the story. They complicate matters for Columbus and Tallahassee several times, and the actresses both hold their own comedically with their co-stars.

The other stars of the film are the script and the sets. The script attempts to hit a lot of different notes and make them sound good together. Zombieland is not the only film to attempt a complicated mix of genres, but it is one of the few films that tries to be many things and succeeds. It never feels like it doesn’t know what kind of movie it wants to be.

Future set designers are advised to watch the special feature on the DVD that includes interviews with Zombieland’s production designer, Maher Ahmad. He discussed the challenges in making scenes look abandoned. He also talks about decisions he had to make in all the main locations, and some of the tricks he used to make it look like there were more props than there actually were.

There are scarier zombie movies than Zombieland, but this movie is more about establishing characters and relationships than scaring the audience. The zombie make-up, however, is very realistic and… unappetizing to look at, so viewers with especially weak stomachs should keep that in mind when deciding to watch. Still, Zombieland may be a good movie for people who think they don’t like zombie films. And if Contagion scared you, Zombieland might take the edge off.

This post was written by LR Simon as part of a series on horror films and television series.

American Horror Story

FX has a new original series called American Horror Story that shows on Wednesday nights. It appears that Ryan Murphy has done it again as he is the creator of two other successful prime time shows, Nip/Tuck and Glee. American Horror Story stars Dylan McDermott (The Practice), Connie Britton (Friday Night Lights) and Jessica Lange. A husband and wife move with their daughter from Boston to Los Angeles for a fresh start. They had hoped to leave their evils behind simply to be introduced to a life that is far more ominous than they could have ever expected.

Out of the gate the show grabbed me. They get away with things on this show that I never would have thought possible on basic cable. The characters are some of the richest and most complex characters I've seen on TV in I don't know how long. One of the most interesting elements to the first two shows was that they used popular Bernard Herrmann scores as the basic score for the show. In the Pilot they used the suite from Vertigo and in the second episode ("Home Invasion") they used the suite from Psycho. Both scores were used in popular Alfred Hitchcock films. Using this technique seemed positively seamless like the scores were written for the scenes in American Horror Story. Each episode is like a mini movie and the audience completely forgets that they're watching a television show. At the end of each episode you're utterly confused, but dying for more.

FX premiered the show on October 4th, so if you aren't watching American Horror Story yet it's not too late to catch up. I can't say enough good things about this show and I highly recommend it to anyone that's a true horror far or just in the mood for something different.

This post was written by Teresa Skibinski.

This is the first in a series of posts about new fantasy/horror television series and movies, both current and classic.

Lyrical Lifestyle

This post was written by CoyoteMoon Films' Megan Guthrie, producer and actor in "The 3 O'Clock," as well as host and producer of Lyrical Lifestyle on YouTube.

I am proud to announce that Holston United Methodist Home for Children has partnered with Lyrical Lifestyle to promote our interview with platinum recording artist, Rodney Atkins!

Links:
Rodney's Video
Rodney's Article
Holston United Methodist Home for Children Link

Also, please see our latest video and article link with Republic Nashville recording artist, Sunny Sweeney and Hunter Hayes (little known fact, Hunter was just six years old when he received his first guitar... And it was given to him by Academy Award-winning actor Robert Duvall).

Music fans, have you heard Blake Shelton's single, "God Gave Me You?" The hit is featured in Lyrical Lifestyle's latest section: Top Music Video Pick of the Week.

For more information on the story behind the music video where Blake discusses his wife Miranda Lambert visit The Boot. If you are interested in reading more of Rodney's adoption story check out the USA Today article.

Stay tuned for upcoming Lyrical Lifestyle interviews with Tracy Lawrence and top selling country artist of 2011, Jason Aldean!

Thank you for your support!

Book or Film? - Samantha Christensen

This post was written by CoyoteMoon Films' Samantha Christensen as part of our ongoing discussion about watching movies based on novels.

When watching a movie based on a book do you prefer to watch the film first or read the book? Why?

In my younger days, I would always prefer to read the book first then see the movie that was made from it. However, my viewpoint has shifted I recent years. I have found that if I read the book first I will sit through the entire movie commenting to myself about inaccuracies, missing scenes, etc. That is not a good way to enjoy a movie. Now, when I watch a movie first, if I feel I got everything I needed from the story there is a good chance that I will not read the book at all. And if I do end up reading the book, it just adds to the story and fills in any informational gaps.

Actor Moments

Note: This post is written by Howard Allen, founder of CoyoteMoon Films and ScriptDoctor.

=====

When I teach Screenwriting and work with my clients at ScriptDoctor, I tell them:

"With me you are getting a professional actor and director who is also a script analyst. Unlike any other script analyst I’ve met or read, my approach to writing and revision is inside out rather than outside in. Why? Because that’s what a good actor or director will look for in your script. This is not just the text, it’s the structures and the landscape you create in the Subtext that finally make a script pop, make it fly and make it sell to actors and directors. They look at how dynamic and exciting your story is in the Subtext -- not in how well you have applied some formulaic template for story to your script from the outside in."

In every action line, in every dialogue exchange, how much more is going on there than you see on the page? Directors and actors create the moment-by-moment reality of your screenplay and they are looking to see if you use Subtext. What are the characters trying to do that's not obviously being said? I recommend screenwriters take an acting class just to see how much is possible.

Aaron Sorkin was asked about writing The Social Network last year in Script Magazine. He liked the 14-page book proposal from Ben Mezrich’s publishers that he had a chance to read. He wanted in.

"Sorkin goes on to admit, “I didn’t know anything about Facebook any more than I know about a carburetor: I’ve heard the term, but I couldn’t open the hood of my car and point to it or tell you what it does.”

What drew him to the tale was its universal qualities. “The irony of it is, you could tell pretty much the same story about the invention of a really great toaster.

The story is as old as storytelling itself: friendship and loyalty. Jealousy and power. [emphasis added] Things Aeschylus or Shakespeare would have written about, or Paddy Chayefsky would have written about just a generation ago. Fortunately, none of them was available, so I got the job.”

I think his script did pretty well, don't you? It's because he works in the boldface areas above, in the Subtext: where directors and actors can make great Actor Moments out of the spaces he's given them in the script.

Book or Film? - LR Simon

This post is the third in a series of CoyoteMoon Films people answering the question:

If a movie is being made from a book, do you make a point of reading the book first, or do you avoid reading the book before seeing the film?

I used to make sure to read books before seeing the movies based on them. I thought that reading the book would give me insight into the story and characters that I might not get just from the movie. Unfortunately, this also meant that I was unable to judge the movie on its own terms—there was always the book, informing me of subtle points that didn’t make it to the screen, or coloring my opinion of an actor’s performance.

I also thought that the movie would show me what someone else thought was important in the book. Watch the many adaptations of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and you’ll see several similar but different stories, some of which exclude important details. The Laurence Olivier version (from 1940), for example, omits Wickham’s attempt to elope with Darcy’s sister, a decision that probably is due to the Production Code; this omission, however, renders Wickham an almost decent fellow, and eliminates any reason Elizabeth has for changing her opinion of him or of Darcy.

Another reason I waited until after reading the book to see the movie is that I didn’t want the movie to spoil the ending of the book. I always thought it was worse to spoil the book. As I’ve matured, both as a filmgoer and as a novel reader, I’ve learned that a good story told well can stand up not only to multiple retellings, but also to having its secrets spilled. Return of the Jedi was spoiled for me just days before I saw it, but I don’t think my knowledge of the nature of Luke and Leia’s relationship diminished my opinion of the film (after all, that had nothing to do with the Ewoks). The Sixth Sense was spoiled for me within an hour of my seeing it, but I don’t think that my prior knowledge of that film’s big twist affected my ability to judge the film’s quality. I suppose I should finally get around to seeing The Crying Game.

Lately I’ve stopped trying to make sure to read the book first, in part because I have a to-read list that’s several miles long, but also because some books seem to be written with the eventual film adaptation in mind. Some writers seem able to combine cinematic elements with internal monologue, allowing filmmakers to see how the book can be made into film, while still giving the reader a satisfying experience. Dennis Lehane’s Mystic River featured scenes that seemed to have been written from a camera’s perspective, and these cinematic scenes play in the film essentially as they read on the page. But Lehane gives his book enough literary meat to keep it from reading like an early draft of a novelized screenplay. Some other writers don’t seem to possess that skill.

I’ve also found that reading a book can affect my decision to see any film based on it. For example, I found reading The Da Vinci Code to be a sufficient reason not to read other books by Dan Brown nor to see any film based on one of his books. He is no Umberto Eco. I find it doubtful that any of the wonderful film people associated with the films based on Brown’s books (and I have nothing by admiration for Ron Howard and Tom Hanks) could elevate that material without changing it wholesale, but if they made such drastic changes to the source, they’d lose the films’ built-in audience.

Book or Film? - Csenge Molnar

This is the second in an ongoing series of posts written by CoyoteMoon Films people answering the question:

If a movie is being made from a book, do you make a point of reading the book first, or do you avoid reading the book before seeing the film?

I typically see the movie before reading the book. I don't have a particular reason why, just mostly because before the movie comes out, all copies of the book it is based on are usually checked out. So it's better to wait until the 'hype' has died down. Another reason is that if the movie is interesting enough, I like to see/read what it was based off of.

--Csenge Molnar

Book or Film?

Note: This is the first in a series of posts from CoyoteMoon Films people about how they approach the movie-going experience.

If a movie is being made from a book, do you make a point of reading the book first, or do you avoid reading the book before seeing the film? Why?

I do tend to try to read the book first. In the instance of the Hunger Games books I really want to finish the series before the movies come out. I generally do this because I feel that movies have a tendency to leave out important elements. They might not seem important at the time, but they make the story better in the long run. An example of this is in the movie Watchmen. The character Rorschach is a crucial character to the comic and he is written so clearly that he is undeniably the POV character. In the comic they go much more into his childhood, his life as an outsider and the reason his costume is so important to him. All that description might have seem unnecessary in the filmmaking process, but it was actually needed to complete the character. It was unclear at times who the POV character was in the film version and that made the movie long and confusing. Don't get me wrong, I think that the movie was good in its own right, but the characters just felt empty.

This is however not always the case. Very occasionally you run across a movie that is exponentially better than the book. Examples of this would be Dolores Claiborne, Stand By Me (The Body) and The Shawshank Redemption. Had I only read the books I don't think I would have run right out to see the movies. This just proves that if you can get the right people behind a movie they can make cinematic magic out of a mediocre script/novel.

Teresa Skibinski

Meet the Crew

This is the first in a series of posts introducing members of the crew on CoyoteMoon Films' latest production, the short film The Three O'Clock, written by Michael Grady and directed by Howard Allen.



L R Simon, Still Photographer and Craft Services
Photograph by Kathleen Gradillas

I worked previously as a Production Assistant on CoyoteMoon Films' first short, Se Habla Español, so many of the lessons I learned on that film were reinforced or expanded on with The Three O'Clock. Some of those lessons apply to businesses other than film or art, such as: there is no job description--if something needs to be done and you're available to do it, then do it, and take pride in doing it. You build your reputation with every job and every task.

Because I documented both pre- and post-production on The Three O'Clock, I became much more aware of how important pre-production is than I was before. Watch the end credits roll on any film and you know that film-making requires teamwork and organization. The director needs to visit the set several times, and it helps to have producers and cinematographers and sound supervisors and other crew visit the set before production, especially if the director is relatively new to filmmaking. If everyone is aware of the issues with the set (for example, surfaces that might reflect equipment in the shot or ambient sounds from the air conditioner), then it's easier to prepare for those issues ahead of time. Time taken in pre-production is time saved on the set.

Working in Craft Services, I also saw first-hand that good food can make for a happy set, and happy sets seem to function better than gloomy or grumpy sets. After good story and good people who want to tell the story to the best of their abilities, good food may be one of the most important factors in ensuring a happy set. We saw to it that fresh fruit was available all day every day, along with breads, yogurt, snacks and drinks, and we made substantive and healthful lunches. We had regular traffic in the kitchen, despite the fact that the kitchen and the set were on different floors, and sound considerations made it inconvenient to leave the set for a snack.

I look forward to working on CoyoteMoon Films' next production.

Howard Allen at IFP Phoenix

On August 18, Howard Allen will be speaking at IFP Phoenix's Screenwriters Group. The event will be held at the IFP Offices in Phoenix at 1700 North 7th Avenue (Suite 250) and is free of charge.

Howard will discuss several major screenwriting tools, including Dramatic Irony, Dramatic Action, Triangularity, and of course, Subtext, using the movie Juno for examples of each. He will also take questions about writing screenplays that are good and can be sold.

Be sure to check out IFP Phoenix's site on the event for more details.