What Writers Ought to Know About Die Hard (Part One)

Die HardNormally, when I sit down to write a Trashy Tuesday Writing School post, it’s because I’m trying to redeem some element of sitting down and watching a terrible movie. Films like the Josh Kirby series, which started badly and ended badly and reached a high water mark around number 3, or Speed Racer, which is a triumph of style but a massive failure as a script, or Robot Jox with…well, you get the picture.

I should not that trashy isn’t applied to these films as a statement of quality – I adore the Speed Racer film for its ambition, and loathe Josh Kirby for…well, reasons that will require a blog post of their own. Trashy is instead used as an aesthetic judgement, a way of categorizing films that are unified by a sense of pop-cultural kitsch and the ability to seep into the popular consciousness.

True, not all trashy films are good. In fact, most of them are pretty terrible; at best, they’re guilty pleasures. We could talk about the how and why of that, ’cause the psychology of it is both interesting and kinda terrifying, but that’s not what today is about. Today is about that rarity: a Trashy film that is also good on almost every level you can imagine.

Today is about Die Hard, and what writers can learn from it.

See, Die Hard easily one of the trashiest of trashy films (on account of explosions, quotable lines, and narrative goofiness) while still being one of the most tightly produced movies ever made. While it wasn’t the film that everyone picked when I asked for their #TrashyTuesdayMovie preferences, it’s overwhelmingly the one I end up talking to people about when I chat to people face-to-face.

Lets make this clear: Die Hard is outstanding and ridiculously well-crafted. It’s easy to forget that, here in 2013, when the distance between us and the first film is muddied by X sequels of dubious quality, including several that fuck with the original formula and therefore transmute what’s essentially a man-against-the-world narrative into a buddy-cop cop where John McClain takes down helicopters with airborne taxi cabs.

For our purposes, fuck the sequels; we’re talking about Die Hard number one. John McClain trapped in the NakatomiTowers with a bunch of terrorists. Perhaps the greatest action movie ever made, a masterpiece of narrative structure. The rest of this series is going to focus on pulling apart that structure, act by act, but for the moment I wanted to kick things off with an overview.

Two whit, these are just a handful of things to pay attention to when you watch Die Hard:

1) ONE PLOT, TWO STORIES

Ask most people what Die Hard is about, and they’ll give you a précis that’s fairly similar to the one I used in the preceding paragraph: cop, high-rise, terrorists. There’s nothing wrong with that – it’s the stuff that you’re supposed to notice, the flashy explosions and the quippy lines and Bruce Willis jumping off the tower alone.

The slightly more advanced answer is that it’s all about an everyman triumphing over extraordinary odds. If you’ve ever thought that, give yourself a gold star. Your English teacher will be very proud, and you’re kicking towards the slightly more advanced level of reading that writers tend to operate at when they’re interested in narrative.

Here’s what Die Hard is really about: a man learning to set aside his pride/masculinity and accept his wife as an equal. And an every-man cop trying to stop a group of terrorists who have taken over Nakatomi tower.

Lets make no mistake: the eighties were a dark time for intelligent action movies. There were plenty of schlocky films out there, trashy-as-hell masterpieces that excelled at one-liners, kung-fu, and big explosions, but they lacked the emotional core that makes Die Hard great. Here, the action is just an excuse to explore the inner landscape of John McClain’s character (if you’re wondering, this is what’s absent in Die Hard 2, which is why it’s comparatively pants compared to its predecessor).

Your goal, as a writer, should largely revolve around capturing two stories. The first is all about the physical conflict, the things that actually leap out and challenge your protagonist. The second is internal, a profound emotional or moral change that transforms the inner landscape of the person you’re writing about.

And Die Hard does this. It does it so fucking well it hurts, ’cause you never actually notice how subtly it’s playing you until you stop paying attention to the explosions and figure it out.

2) THREE ACT STRUCTURE FTW

For the record, I don’t think all narratives need to follow a three-act narrative structure (hereby referred to as TAS), but it is enormously prevalent in films and it’s a damn useful tool to have in your toolbox when you’re writing things. There’s a multitude of places online that will tell how the TAS works, but for my money the breakdown runs something like this:

  • Act One: Set the stakes. Show the reader/viewer your character, your world, and all your major metaphors. Introduce conflict and let your character run away from it until they have no freakin’ choice but to go and solve the problem.
  • Act Two, Part One: Having been forced to try and resolve an problem they wanted no part of, your protagonist starts protaging for real and learns the rules of whatever new situation they’ve been thrust into. Keep raising the stakes until you hit the middle of your story. Give your character a win at this point (or, you know, shatter them entirely), but let them learn something that completely changes their understanding of what’s actually going on.
  • Act Two, Part Two: After shattering your protagonist’s worldview at the middle of the story, things get bleak. The law of narrative says every high-point where the protagonist gets a win is followed by a low where you make them pay (writers are basically sadists). Gleefully torture your protagonist. I promise you, no-one will mind. Build tension. Show the reader how your character has evolved. The second act ends when you bring together a number of important details, and make the climax inevitable. It’s not going to happen immediately, but your protagonist knows all the things they need to know in order to confront and overcome both the antagonist and their inner conflict.
  • Act Three: The road to the climax, where your protagonist rushes towards the bit final scene where they make a moral decision, then follow things up with the dénouement where we learn how their life has changed.

There’s a whole bunch of little things that happen in each of these acts, narrative beats that you trust the film to hit, which is one of the reason I ended up breaking this into parts. Die Hard hits those beats like clockwork (not altogether unexpected for a film), and it plays them for all they’re worth.

3) METAPHORS MATTER

Yeah, I know, you graduated from high-school and celebrated the fact that you no longer had to search for the super-secret-hidden-meanings behind objects within your favourite books and films, and you’ve heard a whole of writers talk about the fact that they don’t do this shit intentionally. I don’t fucking care. Repeat after me: METAPHOR IS A GODDAMN POWERFUL TOOL FOR WRITERS.

You learn to use the goddamn tools if you’re going to play around building narratives.

The metaphor pretty-much everyone remembers from Die Hard is John McClain spending the film shoeless, which is a brilliant choice all on its own. There’s plenty of other things to start paying attention to if you watch closely: Holly McClane’s watch, Al Powell’s uniform and cop car, Nakatomi Towers itself, and the fact that the entire thing is set at Christmas. I can’t tell you how many of them were intentional – I’d place good money on the first two, at least – but they’re all a part of how-and-why this film builds itself up.

Here’s the joy of metaphors: you can say important things about the state of a character by messing with the objects we’ve come to associate with them. It’s one of those sneaky ways in writers are all “show, don’t tell” in fiction, but also the way in which film-makers try to avoid beating us over the beat with bad dialogue. A barefoot John McClain says “vulnerable” in a way that a dozen characters saying “there’s no way he can stand up this” doesn’t.

Also, Die Hard is the world’s greatest Christmas movie. If you don’t believe me, tell your friends it’s what you’re planning on watching on Christmas day, and see how many people abandon their families to come hang out.

We’re already a whole lot of words in, and we’ve barely gotten started, so I’m going to cut things off here. Next Tuesday: all the things to pay attention to during Act One of Die Hard, with some focus on why all the metaphors I mentioned are worth paying attention to…

Four Things Writers Can Learn From The Josh Kirby Films

Planet of the Dino KnightsSo we spent a couple of weeks making our way through the first few films in the Josh Kirby, Time Warrior series for the #TrashyTuesdayMovie. After the first week I more-or-less swore I wouldn’t do a Trashy Tuesday Writing School post about this series until we hit the end, but the contrast between the first film (which was dull and awful) and the second film (which was an batshit crazy and awful) was marked enough that I kinda changed my mind.

The first Josh Kirby film, Planet of the Dino-Knights, probably ranks among the most god-awful films we’ve watched on a Tuesday night thus far. It’s not quite bad enough to slip into my bottom five, but it’d certainly earn its spot in the bottom ten.

The Human PetsThe second film, The Human Pets, is better, but it’s greatest strength is being not-quite-as-poorly-made as its predecessor. In this respect, they’re actually an interesting duology in terms of the lessons they hold for writers. With that in mind, here are some things to make note of should you ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of seeing these two films (incidentally, you can probably find them on youtube).

1) EXPOSITION, MOTHERFUCKER, YOU DON’T NEED IT

You know that old saw where writers are all “show, don’t tell!” like it’s meaningful advice on writing? Watch these two films back-to-back and you’ll understand what we mean.

Planet of the Dino-Knights is all about the exposition. I mean, it really, really likes to explain things. People stop to explain some aspect of the plot to one-another every couple of minutes, and none of it is interesting. You literally sit there, watching a film that’s ostensibly about GUYS WITH SWORDS RIDING DINOSAURS ATTACKING OTHER DUDES WITH SWORDS ATTACKING DINOSAURS, and you’re all, like, “yawn, this sucks, wake me when there’s a good bit, okay?”

Then you sleep through the thirty seconds where something actually happens, and you hate yourself so much that you go and find the bourbon.

If you take out the scenes where one character stops to explain something to another character, you would drop an hour and a half long movie to about twenty minutes. Almost none of those twenty minutes would feature the nominal protagonist, Josh Kirby.

The Human Pets isn’t 100% exposition free, but it largely gets down to the business of letting people do things. Not even things that make sense, all the time, but characters are in action and you figure who they are by interpreting their actions within the setting and the context.

This is infinitely more interesting.

Watch these movies back-to-back and one of the most common pieces of writing advice ever given will be horribly, painfully illustrated.

2) THE WORLD IS BIGGER THAN YOU KNOW, BUT NO-ONE ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT IT

The Josh Kirby series follows a plot-line that’s going to be familiar to anyone who has read a fantasy novel in the last thirty years. An otherwise ordinary boy is swept up in world-shaking events, and discovers he has extraordinary powers. Replace “big fantasy battle” with “the destruction of all space and time” in the formula and you have the basis for the Josh Kirby series, right up there with him learning he’s got special powers at the tail end of the third film.

Here’s the thing: we don’t actually care about the world.

The end of the world feels like big, horrible thing to have at stake, but audiences don’t really care about the mass destruction of the human race. We care about the individuals the story has told us to empathise with – we want to see their pain all up-close-and-personal, rather than seeing them as a microscopic dot against a larger landscape.

Josh Kirby tries to bridge this gap – he wants to save the world ’cause his dad and the hot girl he’s crushing on are gone – but it never quite gets there. Josh doesn’t care enough, and we aren’t inclined to care for him.

3) ROMANCE IS MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE SHARING SCREEN TIME

In the grand tradition of #TrashyTuesdayMovies, the villains and supporting cast of the Josh Kirby series is infinitely more interesting than the primary character. And, in the grand tradition of #TrashyTuesdayMovies, it makes the mistake of thinking that romance sparks simply because a male character and a female character appear on screen together.

The Josh Kirby series isn’t the only film to do this, but it’s easily the most egregious example I’ve seem. There is literally five minutes of screen time between Josh having a knife held to his throat and Josh being willing to risk his life for the woman who just attacked him.

At least it takes a whole damn movie before there’s some indication that said woman, Azabeth Seige, may actually have feelings for Josh, although it has to be noted that there aren’t exactly *reasons* for this. The feelings are just assumed to be there, on the basis that one of them is the protagonist and the other is a female character standing right next to them.

Don’t do this.

Relationships should be a narrative arc, not an assumption.

4) KNOW YOUR PRODUCT

If you’re a writer, memorize this: Genre is a receding horizon of expectation.

What that means, more or less, is that we don’t engage with stories in isolation. We, as a culture, are immersed in narrative forms from day one, and since we’re basically organic machines built for patter recognition, we pick up on some of the common elements that occur time and again. Not always on a conscious level (hint: if you’re a writer, start getting conscious of this), but it’s there.

This works on a macro level – the moment I tell you something has narrative, that one word sets a whole bunch of expectations about character arcs and structure, even if you’re not entirely conscious level. You’ll expect a beginning, middle, and end. You’ll expect a satisfying climax.

It happens on a micro level too: science fiction sets different expectations to romance or crime, just as the various subgenres of those particular genres (cyberpunk versus hard SF, for example) do the a similar thing. From the moment you pick up a book and look at the cover, you brain is hard at work deciphering the little queues that tell you what kind of thing you’re about to engage with (so, like, cover art actually matters, despite what you’re parents told you about judging books).

The great flaw of the Josh Kirby series is that they’re marketed as films, but structured like a TV mini-series. The first film, Planet of the Dino-Knights, is particularly egregious in this respect, cutting off at the end of the second act and robbing people of a climax after they’ve invested an hour and a half in the narrative.

Don’t do that shit.

Know your damn product. If you want to be read as a TV series, let people know you’re a TV series. You’re only doing your story harm by setting up false expectations.

Pick Your Poison: Upcoming Trashy Movie Writing Schools

Trashy Tuesdy Movie Banner

Every now and then, my flatemate and I argue about whose responsible for the ongoing #TrashyTuesdayMovie phenomenon. I say the blame is entirely his, since he’s the one who maintains the schedule and the associated wiki and generally makes sure that we have copies of the movie. He blames me on account of the fact that I continue to show up and tweet every week, and I keep talking it up among people I know. Also, that people I know keep adding fucking films to the list.

I think, with the creation of a banner graphic to accompany this post, I have officially lost the argument. Not that it’s a great banner, nor even likely to be the final version, but I was having a slow evening and felt the need to crack open photoshop.

Tonight we’re going to kick off the first of Six goddamn Josh Kirby films, which I gather are actually one long film that’s been broken up into arcs. We both blame Jason Fischer for this, since we didn’t even know Josh Kirby existed until he foisted Quest of the Delta Knights on us, which led to some furious IMDB searching in order to keep ourselves from nodding off while watching the film. The lead of Delta Knights went on to make Josh Kirby. So did a young Charisma Carpenter.

That wasn’t what sold us on the series. We were totally lured in by the titles: Josh Kirby: Planet of the Dino-Knights; Josh Kirby: The Human Pets; Josh Kirby: Trapped in Toyworld. We fell for this ’cause we’re suckers. And ’cause the titles are fucking awesome.

If you’d care to join us, we’ll be kicking off the twitter-slaught from 7:30 Brisbane time. If you hit the #TrashyTuesdayMovie tag, you should be able to find whoever has gathered for this week’s hi-jinx.

That’s not what I’m posting about.

I’m posting ’cause I need your help.

Y’see, I kinda had fun writing up the #TrashyTuesdayWritingSchool post for Robot Jox last week, and it seems that a bunch of people enjoyed it enough to share the link around. So I’m thinking I’ll write a couple more of them – I’m not sure how many yet, but I figure I can keep going until I get bored or start repeating myself.

But there’s no fucking way I’m writing a series of posts about the Josh Kirby series until we’re done watching it, lest the posts consist primarily of me writing don’t sell me a movie that is not a finished goddamn movie.

So I need you to cast an eye over the other #TrashyTuesdayMovies we’ve watched and pick a handful you’d like to see written up. You can go spend some quality time on the wiki where we archive the tweets if you want to get a feel for what we thought when we watched them/figure out what will cause me the most pain, but realistically you can probably make some solid choices using the following list (sorted by theme and date we watched the movie):

Pre-‘theme’ Films

Conan (2011 version) (17 Apr 2012)
Hawk the Slayer (24 Apr 2012)
Wing Commander (1 May 2012)
Suckerpunch (8 May 2012)

Red films

Red Sonja (15 May 2012)
RED (22 May 2012)
Red Dawn (29 May 2012)

Horror Game Adaptations

Doom (5 Jun 2012)
Resident Evil (12 Jun 2012)
House of the Dead (19 Jun 2012)

Fighting Game Adaptations

DOA (26 Jun 2012)
Tekken (3 Jul 2012)
Double Dragon (10 Jul 2012)

Cyberpunks

Hackers (17 Jul 2012)
Johnny Mnemonic (24 Jul 2012)
Strange Days (31 Jul 2012)

Fantasy ‘Epics’

Beastmaster (7 Aug 2012)
Krull (14 Aug 2012)
Kull the Conqueror (21 Aug 2012)

Queen Soundtracks

Flash Gordon (28 Aug 2012)
Highlander (4 Sep 2012)

Special Challenge Week

Quest for the Delta Knights (11 Sep 2012)

Star Films

Battle Beyond the Stars (18 Sep 2012)
The Last Starfighter (25 Sep 2012)
Starcrash (2 Oct 2012)

Your Kung Fu is Weak

American Ninja (16 Oct 2012)
Gymkata (23 Oct 2012)
The One (30 Oct 2012)

Population Control

Zardoz (6 Nov 2012)
Hell Comes to Frogtown (13 Nov 2012)
Logan’s Run (20 Nov 2012)

Wrestlers!

They Live (27 Nov 2012)
Santa’s Slay (4 Dec 2012)
Ready to Rumble (11 Dec 2012)

Merry Brucemas

The Fifth Element (18 Dec 2012)
Die Hard (with bonus Die Hard 2 action) (25 Dec 2012)
Hudson Hawk (1 Jan 2013)

Not So Super

Justice League of America (1997) (8 Jan 2013)
Generation X (15 Jan 2013)
Fantastic Four (22 Jan 2013

They Came to Earth

Beastmaster 2 (29 Jan 2013)
Masters of the Universe (5 Feb 2013)
Super Mario Bros (12 Feb 2013)

Super-Cars

Speed Racer (19 Feb 2013)
Death Race 2000 (26 Feb 2013)
Black Moon Rising (5 Mar 2013)

Ophidiophobia Goes AWOL

Boa vs Python (12 Mar 2013)
MegaPython vs Gatoroid (19 Mar 2013) 

I’m the ophidiaphobe in question here, so both these films are off the menu. Sorry, but watching these will fuck me up in ways it’s better not to talk about in public.

Undead and Undressed

Return of the Living Dead (26 Mar 2013)
Zombie Strippers (2 Apr 2013)
Zombie Lake (9 Apr 2013)

Slacker SF

Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (16 Apr 2013)
Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey (23 Apr 2013)
Repo Man (30 Apr 2013)

Future Sports

Salute of the Jugger (7 May 2013)
Rollerball (2002) (14 May 2013)
Robot Jox (21 May 2013) Excluded on the grounds that it’s already written up

And that’s the list of options. Pick you poison, if you’re so inclined, and I’ll see if I can dredge some writing lessons worth learning from your trashy movies of choice. And to get around the first comment my flatmate is going to make, “All of them” is a perfectly valid choice (albeit one that will likely leave you disappointed).