The formerly sweet Desdemona plots her revenge against her unjust death while remonstrating with a sorry Othello.
Click on the link to read the play
All rights reserved©
The formerly sweet Desdemona plots her revenge against her unjust death while remonstrating with a sorry Othello.
Click on the link to read the play
All rights reserved©
I am the one who discovered the existence of her book. For the ordinary person, it stands for little other than a black mark. But for her, me and others like me, it generates the kind of notoriety that only the likes of …
Readers of my blog know about my obsession with the classic form. Even if none of us had ever read the work of Aristotle, we know and understand the fundamentals of good drama when we discuss plot, characters and story. However, it took someone like Aristotle to explain exactly why great writers stokes audiences. Aristotle dissected the fundamentals of plays to discover the key principles of classic drama. Poetics freed writers to expand the classic form and this is why Aristotle’s principles of writing good drama continue to be of great significance today.
I studied Poetics because it was vital for me to have Aristotle’s key principles present in my work after I discovered that all the works that stoked me from childhood to adulthood originate from this form. Upon studying the work, I soon realised this classic form also exists in music and poetry I love. The problem for me is to be able to express Aristotle’s fundamental principles without it feeling contrived when you write. There is usually a flow which takes shape when this happens. I myself, am put off by contrived situations on screen and in print. I now realise the only way to avoid this is to practice until the the form becomes second nature in my work. Only then, will I be able to play with the form. I examined the work of Aristotle sometime ago but I now intend to return to the work again and I hope this is useful to other writers like me. Apologies if it is basic but I believe in starting from somewhere.
Aristotle, who lived between 384-322BC, wrote ‘Poetics’ but the work is not known to have been widely circulated or published in his lifetime. The discovery of Poetics years after Aristotle’s death has since influenced the dynamics of writing drama and poetry. The impact includes but is not limited to Poetics being properly translated in Italy during the Italian Renaissance and the time of Shakespeare in 1600. An Oriental version existed in 935AD. The classic form highlighted by Aristotle can be found in the works of Henrik Ibsen, Alfred Hitchcock, Arthur Miller, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Joss Whedon etc. The impact of Poetics has been considerable. I have written a short summary of Poetics but the original text, which is only 50 pages is a great read. It can be found at this url:
Poetics looks at the fundamentals of writing great tragedy. Aristotle believed the art of good dramatic tragedy was personified by the works of the Greek playwright Sophocles who was constantly voted as the most popular by audiences. Few of Sophocles plays now survive.
These are the fundamental principles of classic drama: –
Poetics considers tragedy to be the dramatisation of a sequence of events which cause a situation to go from good to bad in a logical but surprising way. The dramatic events must show not tell what actually happens and must function according to the laws of logical probability or necessity. The events must evoke strong emotions such as pity caused by the character facing ‘unmerited misfortune’ or fear caused by relating to the character facing adverse circumstances.
The plot should be an arrangement of events derived from an unbroken chain of cause and effect. The beginning, middle and end must have causal connections comprising a holistic whole to ensure audiences do not suffer from a suspension of disbelief or become disengaged from the plot. This is like looking at one’s own life, it is not split into dates but events which shape-shift into the life we have and know.
Aristotle acknowledged good characters must be complex, never stereotypes. The character like all human beings must have a flaw. This flaw must cause their situation to go from good to bad where they lose something of importance be it power, status or even risk their own lives or loved ones. Aristotle believed a good character has to be highly renowned and prosperous for the fall to be truly tragic.
The character’s speech or action must express their character and their personal motivations must support the plot and its overall holistic theme. There must be continuity.
The written character must be relevant to the role, provide a picture of their morality, be true to life and show consistency through necessity and probability. This realism must also show an otherness which shows the representation of perhaps what may be a greater capacity in all human beings. Today, we may describe this as human ideals but these attributes will be universally recognised in heroes and heroines. A great favourite of Hitchcock and Spielberg is where the ordinary person becomes extraordinary in particular circumstances.
Poetics is the basis of Western drama and is used by playwrights and screenwriters alike. Poetics is the standard text in Hollywood but some choose to digress from the classic form. Therefore, most of us know the classic structure of all drama but choose to watch drama at the cinema, TV or theatre rather than the amphitheatre.
EXT. LONDON GEORGIAN MAISONETTE AND GARDEN – NIGHT
A ginger cat goes out of an upstairs window and out of a huge overgrown garden which looks like a jungle.
Copper eyes reveal the face of Bombay Black pirate cat Gatto camouflaged near a wall in the garden.
Gatto holds down the tail of squirrel Tiny with his paw. Tiny has a watch and scratches notes on to a nut.
Gatto: Draw it up. If you tell anyone about this, squirrel death will descend upon your hole.
Tiny skips away trembling with nut in hand.
EXT. HOUSE GARDEN – NIGHT
Exact same scene, fat ginger cat leaves upstairs.
Great escape theme music starts to play quietly.
Gatto looks behind and slowly climbs up through a window. Squirrel Tiny trembles below.
Gatto: Are you a squirrel or a mouse?
Tiny: Someone said we’re related.
INT. KITCHEN – NIGHT
Gatto climbs on to a cooker door handle, jumps onto cooker and then hops into a larder cupboard. Gatto’s eyes feast upon the bounty.
Gatto drop tins of top cat food out through the window.
EXT. WINDOW DOOR – NIGHT
Tiny ducks food tins which tumble onto the patio.
INT. UPSTAIRS BEDROOM – NIGHT
Gatto keeps sniffing as he climbs bedposts, jumps onto a mantlepiece. The clock swivels to open a trapdoor. Inside is a jewellery case holding a cat collar with sapphires and diamonds.
Gatto: Ging, you fat cat, you.
A croaky groan. Gatto sees old lady in bed.
Gatto is relieved when lady falls back asleep but he now hears the sound of a cat knocking into something.
Ging appears and looks directly at Gatto who starts to creep away but Ging just looks out to space.
Gatto turns to go but cranky sleepy old lady wakes up.
Old lady: Come here you disgusting cat.
Gatto looks at himself and then the old woman. Gatto is about to remonstrate when sleepy lady grabs Ging and slaps him. The old lady now awake sees Gatto.
Momentarily lost, Gatto pulls the cat collar and waves it as a pendulum at both the old lady and Ging.
Gatto: Ging you will leave this place, lose weight and regain your self esteem. You, old lady, will stop abusing cats or anyone. Remember nothing when you wake.
Both Ging and the cranky old lady fall into a deep sleep.
Gatto scratches the bedpost and the bed sheet with a pirate cat skull.
Gatto sniffs both Ging and the lady. Gatto finds a bottle of RUM under the bed. Gatto swigs the rum and puts on the cat collar before disappearing into the night.
INT. RESTAURANT – SUNSET
Swarthy confident David and a glowing but nervous Clarissa are having candle-lit dinner at a restaurant. Sunset can be seen from the window.
David: So how come you said yes?
Clarissa: I had a lot less on this week.
David: I’m curious as to why.
David: And how’s that curiosity coming along?
Clarissa: Coming along.
David: Are you being evasive?
Clarissa: An accusation or a question?
David: Do you enjoy being with me?
Clarissa: Let’s skip the interrogation.
David: I’m enjoying the asparagus.
Clarissa: Finely tipped long shoots always work well.
David: And the artichoke?
Clarissa: Great once you get to the heart of it.
David: The heart is where it’s at.
Clarissa: If it tastes great, it’s probably great.
David: Same time next week.
Clarissa: Sounds like dinner every week.
David: That good?
Clarissa: You only live once.
David: Unless you believe in reincarnation.
Clarissa: I’m in this life now.
David: Looks good from where I am sitting.
Clarissa: I want to blow out the candle and make a wish.
Clarissa: I’m ready.
David: Next dating candidate please. A great eg of how to avoid the sticky four letter commitment. Feel free to come back anytime Melissa.
Clarissa: I’ve got a funny feeling I won’t need any more courses on getting out of being with Ed. By the way, my name is Clarissa and I just committed.
Today’s prompt: A characters says “I love you”… without using the words “I love you”.
There are tens of thousands of words in the English language. Explore them in a scene where one character expresses his/her love for another without the old tried and true expression.
Then take that as a jumping off point: Why does the character not use the words “I love you”? Are they afraid of making that type of commitment? Are they trying to be clever? Have they rehearsed a speech? Stumbling over ILY, then suddenly jump to some other way of conveying their feelings?
And by the way, they don’t have to say anything, it’s possible they could get across their love through a gesture. Movies are a visual medium. Perhaps explore that possibility.
But whatever you do, don’t let the character say, “I love you.”
EXT. FERNCLIFFE CEMETERY – DAY
GIRL: I’d be embarrassed if anyone I knew saw me so that’s why I’m here. Seriously, I’m not sure this is the right place to talk to you but it’s time.
So much has happened since you left but some things sadly remain the same but there are signs of change everywhere. Of course, I miss you being around, that goes without saying. Watching you was always so funny. It seems only right that I’m upset when I think of what could have been if you were still here.
That portentous photograph. Only you would know, but I felt, it was the moment you were most content that you were snatched away. I can’t really remember you leaving the first time round. I’m sorry about that but hey, when I did start to listen to you, I couldn’t stop. Your love, sardony, wit, depth and originality followed me around. So did the ache when I realised you had gone. Your true face is wrapped in London’s fog but they still plaster your image everywhere. All that remains are feelings. What you said still matters to me because you meant what you said. You didn’t try to make me share your exact feelings but the meaning behind your words mean as much to me as they did you. You made so many people feel this way. Still do.
You made it cool for me to care. ‘Imagine’. You never said anything lightly except when it was banter. You’re still more popular than Jesus, who as you said in your own inimitable way, ‘was alright’ but for the hangers on. You said people could make a difference. Everyone of us has the power to have the God we crave. Maybe, people can be bigger than the God we are given or told about if we create the kind of God we want.
You gifted me the feeling that people and our world will always matter. I believed you. Always will. I never got to say thank you but you must have some kind of messaging system by now. Since you left, you’ll be pleased to hear there have been others but you will always be my first.
One last thing before I go. Thought you might like to know it’s Sunday. I’d sing Watching the Wheels but you know I can’t sing, play drums or guitar. You can’t have everything
The job was to rewrite rom com The Break Up, keep all the good bits but this time, not alienate the female audience.
The premise of The Break Up as a rom-com concept is undeniably fantastic when compared with run of the mill rom-coms. Two people love each other and the comedy is that they break up over nothing.
Gary Grobowski, played by Vince Vaughn and Brooke Meyers played by Jennifer Aniston meet at a game. Gary woos attractive Brooke by just talking until she has no choice but to go on a date. Gary’s flaw is, he is a bit overbearing but his funny go-getting attitude and charming approach means we instantly like him when we meet him. Gary’s funny charming manner is confirmed in his job as a tour guide.
The problem is after meeting funny charming Gary, he suddenly becomes a passive cruel unattractive couch potato. Gary’s cruelty knows no bounds, he is homophobic, he is dirty and messy, unhelpful, uncaring and unsupportive of Brooke and others. Worst of all, he is not even funny anymore. Basically the character who we met at the beginning no longer exists and develops a variety of inconsistent traits which are rolled out depending on who he talks to in the film. Brooke breaks up with Gary who becomes even more intolerably cruel with Brooke but she is desperate to get back with him. This is despite the fact that Gary has no intention of changing and has totally lost the sense of humour that caused them to get together. The break up continues amidst animosity and miscommunication. The couple must share the condo before it sells and their break-up can be concluded.
The problem for a female viewer is she cannot understand why Brooke wants to get back with cruel unattractive Gary. A good comparison with The Break Up Gary character is Melvin Udall played by Jack Nicholson in the film As Good As It Gets released in 1997. We the viewers watch and learn that the main character Melvin is not a hateful racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, sexist and misogynistic dog hater. Melvin does not mean to be cruel and over time, we the viewers see Melvin overcome this debilitating flaw and change through the female character. While the waitress Carol Connelly played by Helen Hunt may be a TV trope, a young poor single mother wooed by a rich old cruel man, she is not a pushover.
The film Break Up was released in the year 2006 not the 1950s. The period in which such female TV tropes and stereotypes are rolled out. The problem for the scriptwriters of The Break Up is that they alienate the female audience.
The film had numerous supporting characters that added to the plot and gave some undeniably funny moments: Brooke’s brother Richard Meyers played by John Michael Higgins challenging Gary’s homophobia; Brooke’s boss and gallery owner Marilyn Dean played by Judy Davis offering a beleaguered Brooke unexpected relationship tips; Gary’s best friend and confidante, barman Johnny Ostrofski played by Jon Favreau entertaining us despite being forced to deliver bad exposition and Gary’s colleague Sandra who we see in only two scenes. Sandra’s expressions tell us of her work relationship with Gary and she manages to make driving a bus and boat funny.
But overall, the film had too many characters that were not needed and just diluted the premise. The film needed to cull characters and give viewers time to hang out with funny supporting characters that were essential to integrating the plot and bringing about much needed changes in the lead characters. The characters who were not needed included: Brooke’s best friend and confidante, married with two children, Addie Jones played by the talented Joey Lauren Adams. Addie did not question Brooke’s love for cruel and inconsiderate Gary. Addie’s unsupportive and low-key criticism made their scenes the opposite of funny. Gary’s family and Brooke’s parents were too one-dimensional and they were simply not needed.
The worst part of the film was a wholly redundant scene which actually made me hate the male character irreparably. Brooke invites Gary to a concert for a band he likes two days before they sell their condo. This is a band he likes and she asks him very nicely. Gary does not turn up. Still in as a viewer? I wasn’t. The question for me, is why would the writers write an inconsistent character that is that unnecessarily cruel?
After seeing Brooke cry, suddenly Gary becomes a nice person and so the inconsistencies of Gary’s character continue. Gary’s best barman friend has to tell confused viewers in exposition that Gary always just gets his own way but Brooke is the first girl he has ever been in love with. Really and even as I write this, I have to ask, does the character of Gary and the plot make sense?
Still it is watching these moments that give me enlightenment as a writer. I learned rom coms may be light and funny although Groundhog Day and There’s Something about Mary show such films can also be rich in mythic quality. But lead characters must be engaging in the charming Cary Grant way or at least be people we wish to hang out with or learn about as we have to spend over an hour in their company. The scriptwriter must help us find ways to understand or forgive their frailties. This cannot and must never happen in exposition.
I am certain The Break Up would have had an amazing box office given the performances if the character of Gary could have been revised to make sense.
So here comes the rewrite
Gary the funny but selfish philanderer has met the girl of his dreams and that is his problem, he is on a trajectory which aims to use his fast funny talking to help their relationship go all the way but Brooke is a determined career girl.
Brooke’s grand plans involve trying to convince boss Marilyn Dean played by Judy Davis to change the gallery ethos and re-balance mythic male phallic art with some female presence so they can woo the male crowd. Brooke worships high priestess Marilyn but believes she must make use of the mythic female fertility symbols sitting in Marilyn’s office. Amongst other things, Brooke keeps bringing home scary mythic female art and fertility artefacts which terrify Gary and his mates. Brooke accuses Gary of being uncultured because she believes them to be aphrodisiacs. Both of the issues cause a direct conflict with Gary who turns to barman friend Johnny Ostrofski played by Jon Favreau for help. The couple still break up but this time, it is Gary who breaks up with Brooke after taking advice from Johnny that he has become too much of a pushover to be attractive. Brooke is unconvinced but plays along with it to teach Gary a lesson until she can conclude her work ambitions. In line with the original, Brooke dates attractive men to make Gary jealous. But in the rewrite, she asks her brother Richard Meyers played by John Michael Higgins to find a string of gay men from his all-male singing group to be her date. Gary tries to understand Brooke by befriending the men. The problem is some of the gay men like Gary and other’s just question Gary as a choice. One of her dates provokes Brooke so much that she is forced to defend Gary as a partner choice. Brooke realises she loves Gary and must find a way to make him understand and Gary learns he must use his fast-talking skills to help Brooke to pursue all her worldly ambitions if they are to make it as a couple. Gary stays a consistent fast talking, charming and funny guy and Brooke is not a pushover but a sassy smart attractive girl with some self-respect. Everyone wins. One final note, I’d keep the dinner scene but I would only invite Marilyn Dean, Brooke’s brother, barman friend and Gary’s work colleague Sandra. All of them have their own views and versions of the couple which adds to the madness.