Morning Shift

So this is pretty much how my morning went:

  • Peter gets up fifteen minutes before his alarm goes off at 6:00 am
  • Peter sits down to write a half-hour ahead off schedule
  • Peter finishes the 1,300 goal he set for his morning writing shift forty-five minutes early.
  • Peter wombles around the internet for ten minutes, then realise everyone else is asleep or on their way to work.
  • Peter gets bored.
  • Peter goes back to writing.

And that, folks, is why I’ve missed getting up early to get writing done. It wasn’t possible for much of the last year, courtesy of the apnea and my tendency to sleep through alarms, so I gradually cut back my morning writing to a bare minimum of getting up a half-hour early and getting a couple of hundred words done (and, even then, there were mornings it didn’t happen).

It’s nice to be back.

#

Speaking of things coming back, tomorrow night will see the return of this:

Trashy Tuesdy Movie Banner

It’s been about two years since we last did a #TrashyTuesdayMovie, but my former flatmate lured me back by waving American Ninja Two around and saying, essentially, neener-neener-neener. Since American Ninja 1 was one of the most batshit crazy films we watched during the first run of films, I pretty much broke immediately and said yes, Tuesday night. Let’s do this. 

It may be a one off. It may come back regularly. I need to talk to The Flatmate and figure that out. But there’s something vaguely satisfying about knowing I can go out on a Tuesday evening and it won’t kill my productivity for the day.

Sleeping properly kind of rules, you know?

 

Six Things Writers Can Learn from Highlander (1986)

Highlander is a terrible movie.

I wanted to get that out of the way early, because it’s the films sequel that famously earns the franchise the vast majority of its grief. People remember the second Highlander film as this massively disappointing experience, an incoherent mess compared to its predecessor, and truthfully it is all those things, but to lay all the blame on the various sequels of the film is a little unfair.

You see, the first Highlander is godawful as well. Actually painful to watch, when you force yourself to sit down and pay attention to everything, rather than just tuning in for the bits you remember fondly.

This truly surprised me when we re-watched the film as part of the Trashy Tuesday movie series. Like most gents of a geeky persuasion, both my flatmate and I had seen the film when we were teenagers and remembered it being all kinds of awesome. There were sword fights. There was Queen. There were mother-fucking katanas of doom. We were actually looking forward to it, when it came up on the Trashy Tuesday list, ’cause we’d watched all kind of rubbish in the lead-up and needed a break.

Then the film started and…oh god. Oh, dear fucking god. MAKE THE FUCKING STUPID STOP.

And yet, I couldn’t quite look away. There are some things Highlander does pretty well, some things it does pretty poorly, and there’s an interesting tension running through a film that you once loved and now find yourself hating. Which is why I came back to it a third time, taking a closer look, in order to figure out what’s really going on.

ONE: THE GOLDEN AGE OF HIGHLANDER IS THIRTEEN

Lets be honest: I demanded far less of films when I was thirteen than I do at thirty-six. Back then, Highlander could have some well-choreographed sword fights, a Queen soundtrack, and a moderately compelling villain and it’d rate up there as one of the greatest cinematic experiences ever. “THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!” didn’t make much sense, but it rated up there with “THIS IS SPARTA” as a cinematic line that everyone remembered and quoted at appropriate moments.

And, hell, lets be honest: it didn’t even need the well-choreographed sword fights or the compelling villain. Getting Queen to do the soundtrack was probably enough for my thirteen year old self (thirteen isn’t just the age where you’re willing to overlook certain flaws in a movie, it’s also the age when Bohemian Rhapsody becomes the most awesome song ever).

There’s a reason the suck fairy seems to visit many of your favourite films from childhood and your teenage years. Partially its because you’ve grown more sophisticated in terms of what you’re looking for in a narrative. Partially it’s because the themes that resonated with you when you were young don’t hold much meaning now.

(And there are some films, if you don’t see them at the right age, you’re never going to get. The Goonies is one of them – I saw it for the first time as a thirty-three year old and it never resonated with me like it did for people who claim it as one of their favourite childhood films).

Your taste in movies change, is what I’m saying. The more stories you engage with, the more you learn about how they work, the more you demand from the things you really enjoy and the harder it is for nostalgia to carry you over the roughs pots.While the adult Peter watches the film and gets bothered by everything – the lack of plot, the terrible acting, the fact that swords seem to make cars and rocks explode every time they make contact – thirteen year old Peter would have been distracted by the music and figuring out the D&D stats for the Kurgan.

TWO: PEOPLE WILL FORGIVE A LOT IF YOU START STRONG AND END STRONG

The beginning of Highlander is pretty well thought out. Strong opening soundtrack; strong opening visuals with the wrestling set-up; quick cuts; minimal flashbacks; a fight scene that hints at the overall mystery at the core of the film, even if there are a couple of elements that are kind of laughable.

The ending of Highlander is pretty solid as well. A nice fight scene with the lives of MacLeod’s girlfriend at stake, with choreography spread across changing terrain, leading into a triumphant win for the protagonist and a big SFX lightshow and exploding windows. Basically, it feels like something meaningful happens, even if you’re not entirely sure what.

The middle? The middle is flashbacks and montages and flashbacks within a flashbacks; this endless succession of infodumping that most films would shudder to attempt, delivering swathes of back story in the least interesting way possible, breaking it up with the occasional sword fight.

Basically, the middle of this film is a fucking mess, but it’s bookended by scenes strong enough that you forgive it the slow parts. Start strong. Finish strong. Even if the middle of your story is pretty average, it’s these two parts that people remember the most.

THREE: HIGHLANDER IS A MYSTERY STORY

I mentioned last week that the narrative impulse behind Tokyo Drift is basically a coming-of-age tale; when you strip away the cars and the narrative trappings, it’s got the same narrative drive as The Karate Kid or, hell, films like Whip It.

When I sat down to re-watch Highlander for this post, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out two things: a) why is MacLeod the least-interesting character in the goddamn film, and b) what’s the narrative impulse behind the film?

Turns out the answer to both these questions is much the same: at it’s core, Highlander is essentially a mystery story (or a whydunnit, if you’re playing along with Blake Snyder’s Save the Cat). It’s just not terribly good at telling the kind of story it’s trying to tell.

How does this relate to MacLeod being dull? Bare with me. For starters, this isn’t entirely Lambert’s fault. All evidence in this film to the contrary, he can actually hold his own as an actor when required,  but it’s never actually required of him by the script. Highlander is just one of those rare films where the protagonist doesn’t have a narrative arc; he doesn’t really change, as a character, in a meaningful way. He doesn’t make the moral choices I keep banging on about that make climax scenes effective.

In this respect, he’s much like the classic Film Noir detective, where the Sam Spades, JJ Gittes,  and Phil Marlowe’s of the story are largely observers who sit at the heart of an unravelling mystery. The protagonist job is to be our stand-in, realising the ways in which social norms have been violated as the mystery unravels. They’re required to be cool and calm, effective at their job, but their not fundamentally changed by their experiences. They’re characters who already know that the world is a grim and grimy place, and the events in their stories merely confirm that.

The main thing that keeps the narrative moving forward in Highlander is much the same: it’s peeling away layer upon layer of mystery surrounding the immortals and the Quickening and the Gathering. We see secret upon secret revealed. The film tries to dress this up by having the bits that aren’t flash-back revolve around a police investigation of MacLeod’s initial kill – but that’s not the mystery we’re really interested in. The mystery at the heart of Highlander isn’t  a murder or a missing girl – it’s the question of who are the immortals and what happens after the gathering?

And this is why the middle of the film is rough, because instead of an investigation, we get an interminable number of fucking flashbacks that reveal little bits and pieces of how Connor MacLeod became an immortal and yet understands very little about what all this means. In a detective story these scenes would be the result of our protagonist proactively investigating what’s going on; in Highlander they’re just…there.

What separates the mystery of Highlander from its narrative cousins like The Big Sleep, All the Presidents Men, Blade Runner, and Chinatown is the nature of the mystery and the way it unfolds, and make no mistake, it’s a pale shadow of those films in terms of its revelations. The way it unpacks information is clumsy, at best, and on-the-nose, at worse.

All of which requires Connor MacLeod to be a moderately dull character, because he’s the guy whose serving as the stand-in for the audience. The guy who needs to seem as normal as possible, who needs to dream small, to feel the pain of living forever in very human ways, so that the possibility of dying actually seems like a win when he finally wins it.

This isn’t an easy thing to pull off, but it’s because Connor MacLeod is so bland that the film gets away with the flamboyant mentor figure, Ramirez, and the cartoonishly evil villainy of The Kurgan. They are the most-definitely-not everymen that counterbalance the audience stand-in MacLeod, showing us what could happen if the mystery shakes out in a different way.

And yet, I constantly find myself wondering how much better this film would have been if the flashbacks revolved around Connor seeking these motherfuckers out in order to find answers, rather than patiently waiting in his Highland home for more experienced immortals to come drop some fucking knowledge on him to advance the whydunnit plot.

FOUR: “HAVING FUN” TRUMPS “RULE THE WORLD” IN BADGUYVILLE

You can get away with a lot if you’ve got a strong and memorable antagonist, and Highlander gets away with a lot: bad acting; bad dialogue; bad world-building; terrible FX; swords that ’cause things to blow up. But we forgive it because the Kurgan, despite his thread-bare motivation, has a distinctive look and the temerity to actually have fun with his immortality, and this makes him remarkably effective as an antagonist.

One of the most common pieces of advice writers get is the antagonist must believe they’re the protagonist of their own story, but there far more to a good villain than that. The Kurgan becomes a great villain, not because he’s convinced that he’s really a good guy, but because he’s so focused in his villainy. He’s not running around talking about how he’ll be the last man standing and take over the world; he’s doing this shit ’cause there’s no-one to stop him.

In short, he’s the guy most people probably would be if granted immortality, which is why we’re rather glad he’s not going to win. This makes him far more memorable than he’d be if he were psychotic for its own sake, or firmly convinced of a grand destiny, and keeps him on par with MacLeod in terms of his long-term planning ability.

Believing in themselves is a great trait for an antagonist. Having fun with their role is decidedly underrated, and few writers seem embrace that particular trait.

FIVE: IF YOU HAVE A SECRET CULTURE RUNNING LIVING THROUGH CENTURIES, MAKE THEM A LITTLE SUBTLE

I have no fucking idea how the immortals of Highlander have survived hundreds of years without being discovered. Going by their actions in this film, they’re remarkably shit-house at hiding their presence from people, particularly in the modern age where there is law enforcement and forensics.

These are the kind of people who stab one-another and leave the weapons beside the body, who get into duels and forget to die, and who pick up women by stabbing themselves in the chest and not dying.

They have magic, rock-exploding swords. They kill one-another and blow out every fuse in a three-block radius.Even the way MacLeod interacts with cops is belligerent and designed to attract attention.

For people who live in secret, they’re remarkably lacking in subtlety. And somehow no-one ever notices. This is one of those things that I’m willing to overlook at thirteen, but actually distracts me as an adult. It’s one of those world-building elements that distracts me fro the story.

SIX: TRUST YOUR AUDIENCE

For all its fault – and there’s a few – Highlander does one thing exceptionally well: it trusts the audience to “get it.”

There’s all manner of weirdness thrown at people through the film, from the immortals to the Quickening to The Gathering, stuff that’s thrown out there and given just enough context for people know that there’s something happening without ever giving a detailed explanation. It trusts you to interpret, rather than explains, which invites the audience into the process of constructing the world.

Writers and film-makers alike tend to get very caught up in their creations, forgetting that story is an inherently collaborative process. It’s one of the reasons phrases like show, don’t tell become part of the advice that gets dolled out to writers, even if it’s rarely put in context. It’s also an art that’s lost in contemporary Hollywood, where films get focused grouped into explaining everything to the lowest common denominator.

Highlander isn’t perfect in this respect – pretty much every time Sean Connery opens his mouth, he’s telling us some background detail – but it still gives away remarkably little, focusing on just enough information to give the action meaning. It’s a delicate balance, but one that’s worth studying and learning how to deploy.

Five (Well, Six, Actually) Things Writers Can Learn From Watching Wing Commander (1999)

WingCommanderMovieOur work offices are located in the State Library of Queensland, which means I’ll occasionally walk past signs for upcoming library events on my way into work. Last week, one of those signs advertised the library’s classic movie screening of the German submarine classic Das Boot and I was…well, mildly interested.

Unfortunately, the screening was during work hours and I missed it, so I went home and made do with the next best thing – Das Boot in space, AKA the cinematic adaptation of the Wing Commander computer games.

Fans of the game hate this film. Like, passionately hate this film. My former flatmate, who reveled in the shittiest of films during our #TrashyTuesdayMovie run, chose not to sit through Wing Commander when it was scheduled. My friends who love the games claim that it fails as an adaptation on multiple levels, but I can’t really speak to that. I never actually played the games, so I was forced to take the film on its own merits (what few there are).

And by those standards…well, I’m in a definite minority here, but I actually like the Wing Commander film. It’s not a great piece of cinema by any stretch of the imagination, but there’s a sense that it’s the product of an ambitious, first-time director working at the limits of his ability and budget. Writer/Director Chris Roberts was the man behind the Wing Commander games and by all accounts he hustled like hell to get this movie made. Then, once it was green-lit, he was given thirty-million dollars and a truncated pre-production time – Fox acquired the rights to the Star Wars prequels, and basically told Robert he needed to beat Phantom Menace out by twelve moths.

When you factor in the limitations of time, budget, and experience, Roberts actually tries to make an interesting film. He’s just not comfortable with the form yet, nor has he learned the skills that would let his reach match his ambition. Couple that with a budget that is woefully achieving the kind of FX people expected of SF by the late end of the nineties – let alone the expectations that came from fans of the franchise – and the results is a flawed film that is widely panned as a failure.

He also makes some choices that are just outright dumb, not least of which is this: if you want to hide the obvious debt your film owes to Das Boot, don’t cast Jürgen Prochnow in a major role.

While that’s good advice for film makers, it’s not a mistake most writers are inclined to make. With that in mind, I turn my attention to the lessons the film has for those of us who work in prose fiction.

ONE: WRITING SKILLS AREN’T AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFERABLE BETWEEN GENRES

Although we’re used to thinking of genre in terms of bookstore categories like fantasy or horror, there are parts of literary theory where the word is used to describe any collection of expectations related to form. In this respect, the novel is a genre, as films, and poems, and computer games. Each of these have broad-scale expectations that creators need to understand before they can really make great works within the genre.

Chris Roberts is a man who’d mastered the art of making computer games. The success of the Wing Commander games were somewhat phenomenal, and he probably could have kept making successful computer games for a long stretch if he’d put his mind to it. His games – which often involved filming live-action cut-scenes – probably felt like they were preparing him for his foray into film, but you only have to look at this movie to see that isn’t true.

The truth is, creative skills aren’t necessarily transferable between genres. Just because someone is a fantastic novelist or poet, it doesn’t automatically hold that they’d be a great film writer. Just because one works in computer games, it doesn’t hold that you’ll automatically know how to direct a play or a movie. The one that always seems to catch people off-guard, including me: just because you can write a decent short story, you’re not automatically going to understand the form of a novel.

You can develop that understanding, certainly, but it’s never a good idea to assume that just because you can write in one form, you’re automatically going to understand the next one you try. There may be a handful of naturals in the world, but the people who generally master a form of expression are those who have taken the time to immerse themselves as a consumer and worked to understand the expectations of the audience on an instinctual level.

Wing Commander is very much a journeyman film – there’s a baseline level of competence, but the understanding of film as a specific medium just isn’t there (Roberts admits as much in his interview with Penny Arcade about the film’s failings, which is recommended reading for any creative type).

TWO: PROLOGUES ARE HARD, OKAY?

Wing Commander fits its prologue over the opening credits, telling the story of humanity’s journey into space, our initial colonies, the rise of the pilgrim explorers, the invention of the navcom AI that would replace the pilgrims, and then the war with the Kilrathi. It’s a lot of information dumped in two-and-a-half minutes…and every single bit of it is important to the plot, somewhere along the way.

It’s followed by another long scene – essentially a second prologue – where the Kilrathi attack a human base and take their AI navigator, which leads a long expository section about how this will doom the earth because the invading Kilrathi can jump into earth space ahead of humanity’s fleet.

The second prologue actually does a pretty good job of establishing how valuable the AI McGuffin is to the plot – there’s a nice sequence where they’re doing everything they can to destroy it before it falls into enemy hands, only to be thwarted by the fact that it’s too well defended by bulletproof glass and other defenses.

Still, we’re sitting through a lot of set-up before we’re finally introduced to the protagonist of the film, Christopher Blair, seven and a half minutes into the film. Proportionally, that’s like investing 7000 words of a 100,000 word novel as a prologue, when most editors would normally wince the moment you cross the 1,000 threshold.

The main problem with prologues is pretty simple: you’re putting roadblocks between your audience and the protagonist, telling people no, really, you need to know all this, before actually introducing them to the person you’re hoping they’re interested in and willing to empathise with.

The average films gets its main protagonist on-screen as quickly as possible, so you know who you’re meant to be paying attention too. Focusing elsewhere may seem like you’re escalating the stakes by showing us how all of humanity is in peril, but…well, we don’t care. People are very good at caring about individual characters; they’re very bad at caring about the deaths of millions.

THREE: COUNTDOWNS ONLY MATTER WHEN TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE

The core of the plot in Wing Commander is based on a ticking clock: the Kilrathi fleet will reach earth in 20 hours, the human fleet will make it in 22. The pilots in the Tiger Claw are responsible for slowing the Kilrathi down.

Thing is…time doesn’t matter much. There’s issues of time dilation, which I’ll touch on again in a couple of points, but there’s also…well, lots of faffing around. No-one acts like time is of the essence. People flirt, fall in love, and get one-another killed within the space of a single sub-plot. People go to bed and get woken up by other characters, and it’s leisurely wake-up rather than the exhausted, jerk-into-consciousness of people grabbing an hour or two of sleep where they can between missions. The ship is damaged and repaired at least once, and it’s not presented as a hard decision. One whole subplot in the film revolves around the long-term effects of missions in space on the psyche of the pilots.

Basically, everything the film can do to make it feel like days are passing, rather than hours, it goes out of its way to do.

It robs the entire situation of its urgency – a situation the film has spent about eight percent of its total running time setting up – and basically kills the central plot. If you’re going to count down to doomsday, you have to treat the clock like it matters.

FOUR: YOUR BACK STORY NEEDS TO SERVE YOUR PRESENT

Remember how I said this film was ambitious? One of the ways that presents itself is the back story, which involves a subset of humanity that was capable of charting jumps across space without the help of a computer. These people started the exploration of space, made colonization of other planets possible, and eventually went to war with the rest of humanity prior to the arrival of the Kilrathi. There are still hints that “Pilgrim Saboteurs” are disrupting the war effort, despite other hints that the Pilgrims are wiped out in other parts of the movie.

Consider this exchange:

Taggart: Sit down. You’re one of the last descendants of a dying race. Pilgrims were the first space explorers and sailors. For five centuries they defied the odds. They embraced space, and for that, they were rewarded with a flawless sense of direction. They could feel magnetic fields created by quasars and black holes, negotiate singularities, navigate not just the stars, but space-time itself.

Blair: Like a Navcom AI?

Taggart: No no, you’ve got it backwards. The billions of calculations each second necessary to lead us through a black hole or quasar is the Navcom recreation of the mind of a single Pilgrim.

Blair: Then why did the war start?

Taggart: You spend so much time out here alone, you end up losing your humanity. When Pilgrims began to lose touch with their heritage, they saw themselves as superior to man. And in their arrogance, they chose to abandon all things human and follow what they called their destiny. Some say they believed they were gods.

This? All of this sound way, way more interesting than the film we’re watching. It’s an intriguing set of circumstances and there’s something about the notion of people “touched by the gods” who are capable of crossing space that appeals to me, as does a war fueled by human jealousy and Pilgrim arrogance.

Instead, the story with the Kilrathi revolves around a stolen computer and…well, the giant hairless space cats are presumably after something with their war, but I’m fucked if I can tell you what by the end of the story.

Your back story needs to serve your present conflict, not over-power it. Don’t make the story that preceded the one you’re telling seem like the really exciting one. There is nothing worse than an audience sitting there thinking holy shit, why aren’t you telling that story? That sounds awesome…

FIVE: SUBTEXT IS THE TEXTURE THAT MAKES YOUR FILM INTERESTING

One of the strengths of Wing Commander are the little touches – subplot elements that get thrown out in a scatter-shot approach, any one of which could have been fleshed out into a strong sub-plot that would provide the movie with depth if it was given more time and nuance. It’s a film that’s actually interested in being science-fiction and exploring what being a space-faring culture means, but it doesn’t know how to make it interesting yet.

Forbes: Remember the briefing. By the time you return, everyone you know will be dead and buried.

This is a future where going to space is a serious deal. Time dilation is in full effect, which means getting deployed is a sure sign the world you left won’t resemble the one you come home too. There are any number of SF writers who could make a meal of that particular set-up, exploring the psychology behind military service in such a future and how it manifests in things like the Tiger Claw’s tradition of “he never existed.”

Angel: Let me give you a reality check. In all likelihood you’re going to die out here. We’re all going to die out here, but none of us need to be reminded of that fact. So you die, you never existed. Understand?

The same is true of Blair’s status as a descendant of the pilgrims, facing moments of racism throughout the film. This is a kid “touched by the gods” in the films mythology, capable of things no-one else is capable of, struggling to understand the reality of his new life. It’s a solid sub-plot, the kind of thing that could easily carry a better-constructed film, and there’s a part of me that wants to go in and rewrite the entire thing to really

The reason neither of sub-plots add the depth they should to the film is simple: they’re only relevant in the scenes that are designated as “sub-plot beats.”

There are a handful of scenes that revolve around Blair’s heritage and the associated racism – just enough to keep it in the forefront of your mind and keep the climax of the film from being pure deus ex machina – but it only happens in those scenes, when another character articulates it. Blair never acts like a kid whose worried about being excluded; the rest of the crew, for the most part, never actually seem to discriminate against him. The racism is limited to the crew members whose role, by and large, is designated as “racist secondary antagonist.”

It’s these elements that give the film its sense of ambition – it wants to be doing something with these tropes – but there’s an element of nuance that’s missing throughout the film. The little things that happen in the background of scenes that aren’t about advancing the sub-plot, or the quiet moments between the dialogue where you can see the relationship between two characters by their body language. Wing Commander struggles with its more ambitious elements because it doesn’t have that level of subtext, only text; there’s no space for the viewer to interpret and confirm for themselves what the characters are saying.

SIX: YOU NEED MORE THAN TWO CHARACTERS SHARING SCREEN TIME TO MAKE A ROMANCE SUB-PLOT WORK

You could probably show me a hundred films and I’ll make this complaint about 95 of them, but you really do need to do more than put a guy and a girl in the same scene a couple of times in order to justify a romance subplot. The thing that pisses me off more than anything else in this movie is the final two minutes, where Blair and Deveraux fall into one another’s arms and kiss because…well, they went on missions together, and she was his commanding officer, and apparently they had a moment just before Blair saved all of humanity.

It’s one of those moments that feels tacked on – an unnecessary sub-plot for either character, but one that’s thrown in because…well, the ending felt flat due the lack of a moral choice being made to give a strong context to what happened.

There’s already a romance sub-plot in the film that’s crudely built, but necessary to the plot, in the form of Maniac and Forbes. They, at least, are given scenes where they actually seem to flirt with one another and express their desire. The film would actually be far better if they’d ended the film with Blair and Deveraux respecting one another as fellow pilots, rather than making out.