You are viewing a clip of this video, click to Join. Members, click to Log in.
|
Now PlayingWhat's happened to film endings? Several notable films like UP IN THE AIR and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN have "just ended."
Sep 27, 2010 |
||||
When you sign up for Storylogue, you will also enjoy:
Can you explain the core event and the core emotion in the epic?
Aug 24, 2014
What is the purpose of jumping back and forth between multiple storylines within a feature film or TV episode?
Aug 17, 2014
What characterizes a sado-masochistic relationship?
Aug 16, 2014
Do you have any tips for writing a treatment that really sells?
Aug 10, 2014
How does writing an episode for a procedural crime show differ from writing a feature film thriller?
Jul 31, 2014
What's the best way to pitch a new story for television? Should I prepare a full script?
Jul 29, 2014
Do I have to be able to tell a story well verbally in order to be a good storyteller in my writing?
Jul 28, 2014
I wish McKee wasn't so strict with his words in "Story"-- Ideas like "dialogue or narration to spell it out [the climax] is boring and redundant." As a writer, those words made me think "Oh, don't have some explain the climax of the movie." -- likkeee at the end of "No Country," the Tommy Lee Jones character sitting there talking about his father. Or even if the car crash with Chigur was the climax, it's then just a coincidence?
So what makes the car crash in "No Country" a "satisfying" climax? It's as bad as the T-Rex in Jurrasic Park.
The principles from Mckee's book have been ingrained in my head over time and then so often here on Storylogue, I will hear him completley excuse a certain film from what he says in the book.
So what's the difference? Is it because it's just a "good" movie and in which case none of these principals matter, so long as it's satisfying, good. In that case- who is to say that the T-rex at the end of "Jurassic Park" was bad?
I completely agree that it's an unsatisfying ending... and that the ending to No Country was good, but what's the difference? Because it's the Coen brothers? Because it's minimalism?
It drives me mad and makes me re-question everything in that book.
I remember when I saw NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN for the first time. I was absolutely enraptured by it, until Moss dies. After that, I lost interest. My friend and I just said "Robbed. We were robbed."
The reason was we were expecting a big showdown in the airport between Chigurh, Moss, Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson, the Mexicans, and Moss' wife. And we didn't get that.
But, I saw it again, and I enjoyed it tremendously more. And I've seen it multiple times and every time, I enjoy it more and I think the reason is because I know that Moss isn't the protagonist; Tommy Lee Jones' character is.
Everyone I've talked to who saw the film, felt the same way, and it's all because it seems like Llewelyn Moss is the protagonist, when he isn't. So when he dies, the film feels like it's lost its focus. But on the second viewing I noticed that actually, it's all about Tommy Lee Jones and his in ability to deal with someone like Chigurh.
I love NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and I find it amusing that it's 'problem' is that it has too many enthralling characters.
I also really enjoyed UP IN THE AIR.
(Gosh I can’t wait ‘til the next Spiderman film hits the theaters.)