Someday the Posts Write Themselves

This is the time of year when the numbers of pictures I take goes way down.  During the week there's no time before I go to work and the sun sets before I return home.  I could go for a walk during the day and take pictures then, but there's only so many photos of barren trees a person can take.  That leaves the weekend.  If I'm busy, not many pictures get taken.  I should resume posting pictures from Germany and other photos I took this summer, but I haven't been in the mood.

So on the way home this evening I was wondering what to write about.  Do I have a story to which I can match a picture, or is there a picture I can weave a story around?  Nothing popped into my head.  None of my recent photos was striking me as worthy.  I was out of stories about having the flu or falling down stairs.  I was stuck.

Then I read my email.  Problem solved.  Just pick out any old image.  It doesn't have to be relevant to what I'm about to post.  Then again, no photo could be.

In my inbox was a message.  A message 2428 lines, 22,124 words, or 105,553 characters (no including spaces) long.  It starts like this:

        Film Fan Furries,

        When I mentioned the "Oldest Riddle in Cinema Histroy."  To clarify, and not be more "ego maniacal" in my self indulgent claims at "SuperSchlub Wunderkinnd Schlock Meister Riddle Solver Know It All Loonytard of the cyber fright mare verse."

Another explanantion to how I surmised Welles did what he did, some one qualified refered to my suggestion as having possibly solving said riddle of history.

I went some where I should not have in reference to the cabin sequence, by even trying to implly that I HAD ANY CLUE AT ALL, how anything accomplished in that scene was done.  In an effort to explain what I had said about the party scene, I started applying it to another famous and unknown riddle in cinema history.

I guess that what I was getting at in reference to that scene.  Was that the set was built like a "pop up" book.  And the camera is mounted on part of the "pop up" book part  but it is always focused on the back ground image, or visa versa, something like that.  The sets were ALL built elevated and acccessible from muliple different perspectives, the only other cases where a set would be constructed in such a way have been things like, "Gimble rigs."  The whole idea of it implies that multiple different stage elements are movable.

And the photo of the set I specifically was referring to.

Was shaped in a cylindrical or "greater than symbol,"  ">"  and that it possibly was flat when the shot begins and expanded out.

Any one have any free time, and the "keys" to what is MINE!

"The Kingdom of Kool!"

Not the cigarettes!

I am the only individual who has made public, any plan,  I have shared everything, even with competing business entities.  I have stated to every available group or publication my intentions.

I have actually written out what should be done with a real amount of wealth.  THAT EXSISTS AND IS MINE!  Legally!

I have immediate profit potential and the forecast for billions in revenue, is like a  "Santa WInd" compared to the essay in "mopishness" that has been put on display so far!

You do not resemble or whorship Krohmn, nor are you like "Sumatai!"

You will be "laughed out of Vahalla."

And your "Four Winds," suck and do Not BLOW!

Your sky is far from "everlasting," and this is LAME CITY USA!

Could we please proceed to "The Highway of Love in a pink or green or NEON Cadillac!"

    Eager readers, “rascally wabbit want to be” writers, and retailing raccoons,

       One thing that irritates me about the “monitoring” of my life is that I speak things out loud frequently.  When writing my screenplay’s, before writing thing’s and after writing things I act out what I may write sometimes, and then after writing, usually just typing righting into the computer, following an outline or an impulse.  Then I print it out and I read it out loud, usually by myself, playing each character, and going through it with a pencil and, changing things, fixing spelling and punctuation, rewording things so that it sounds more natural or funny, or whatever.  I will do this ten twenty, thirty times.  Before I consider something done, or finished.  When I am writing an outline or thinking about how to structure the story or whatever?  This is how I look at it.  Sometimes a ninety minute film or screenplay usually has three parts, with three scenes.

I
    A.
    B.          Beginning   or  Act one or first half an hour
    C.
II
     A.
     B.         Middle or Act two second half hour
     C.
III.
     A.
     B          End or Act three last half hour
     C

But then sometimes a two hour movie can be looked at as having four.

I
    A.
    B.          First half hour beginning
    C.
II
     A.
     B.         Second half hour middle
     C.
III.
     A.
     B                  third half hour rising action
     C
IV.
     A.
     B.         Fourth half hour climax and resolution
     C.

     And then sometimes, and it kind of depends really.  A screenplay will have just a begging, middle and an end.  So the three part outline structure works.  Or a screenplay has a first part or act one, with three scenes, then a second part or act two with three scenes, then a period of rising action with three scenes, and then the climax and resolution.

      And then sometimes, like with my screenplay I am working on now, “Laughing at Misfortune,” and with the screenplay I wrote and finished last year, “Rude” or “Ruder than you” and or “Lazy Hazy Crazy Daze.”  Whatever, it is just a series of connected scenes, that has a central and underlining plot device or thread that propels the story along.  With “Rude” it was the Nazi skinhead characters trying to retrieve the counterfeit money paper.  It was the thing that or the plot device that allowed the audience to explore the world the characters live in.  It moved the story along.  The screenplay is about the characters and their friendships and relationships, but the story moved along with that plot device.

      Now with “Laughing at Misfortune” it is a series of strange, “Single serving encounters” ala “Fight Club.”  The main character must fly on 36 consecutive airline flights in seventy two hours.  Back and forth, short little forty six minute commuter flights.  But as he finishes each flight he has to go and purchase another ticket from one of three airlines, on the next available flight back.  The reasons he has to do this is similar to a “MacGuffin,” a plot device deployed by Alfred Hitchcock in almost every film that he made, something that in the first half of the film, seems to have great significance to the story and the characters, but turns out to be of no significance.  The term doesn’t apply directly in this case.  Because it is something that through the course of the multiple flights, the main character does try and seek out the reasons why he is doing what he is doing.  But it is never all that important to the story.  The screenplay is just a series of connected situations and random encounters.  Montages of airport strange ness, and the multitude of unendingly weird and unusual people and non stop annoyance that continually plague commuters and people.  The main character in that idea is supposed to be an extremely out going and friendly, sarcastic, cynic.  Some what similar to Holden Caulfield from the “Catcher in the Rye,” meets Benjamin Braddock, in “The Graduate,” meets “Broody” or “Randall,” from “Mall Rat’s and or Clerk’s.”  A young disillusioned guy, who is caught in an unendingly irritating and ludicrous situation, and how he deals with it and what happens.

     There are some people who feel that there are only a set number of story types.  I do not know what the exact number is, or formula.  I suppose that would be a “formula analysts” opinion of how to analyze or go about writing anything creative or what not.  You would focus on creating or writing fiction, based on one of those set story formulas. I am not that much of a cynic, so I try and focus on positive concepts, their has to be something to the concept of inspirational original creativity,  but at the same time, there is something to be said about creating profitable performing artistic endeavors that stay true to winning and previously successful endeavors.  The concept of “uniquely generic,” made infamous by Joel Silver, Quentin Tarantino, and fictional mega movie producer “Lee Donawitz.”

      “Nice……I have more taste in my Penis.”

        True Romance

     But it has a lot of relevance and is always something to keep in mind.  There are standard tried and true Hollywood film formula’s that can continually be recycled and reworked and recreated with a new fresh take on an idea or concept.  An idea can get tired and over done, but a little time off, can bring it new life and suddenly it is an original idea when represented to an audience after a hiatus.  Reworking or looking at possible film ideas, with the “uniquely generic,” concept in mind.  Is never something to ignore and can be very useful when needing inspiration.  I always use references to other films when describing an idea.  Not in the cynical way as extolled in a film like “The Player.” But in a positive way, giving whoever, a point of reference to help them understand things like, “mise en cine,” or theme or genre of a screenplay idea.  If you do not know what “mise en cine” is then maybe you should find out?...

That's only a small portion.  The writer goes on to pitch ten television series ("The X-Files:  Armageddon"!), one TV movie, two completed screenplays, six screenplays "under way", five screenplays being outlined and developed ("Roger Rabbit and the California Coastal Calamity"), and 28 movie ideas "that are just ideas".

Comments

[Steve]

Wow. Can you say Schizophrenia??