A propos of two-character movies, I had an idea once for a movie that was just a guy staring out his office window in a big skyscraper and talking on the phone for 90 minutes. You can see why I’m not afraid that someone else will steal this idea.

No surfing internet messageboards?

Not on his office phone, on a cell phone, like right up against the glass. I guess it could get dark or light or something over the course of the movie.

I would totally see that movie, Eric.

I hope Hubcap’s surgery goes well, Kelsey!

Eric, I like you a lot but I would not go see that movie.

Eric, do we hear the other end of the conversation?

thanks everyone.

i found the lump on his side & took him to the vet to get it checked out. i opted to have the surgery & now i’m glad b/c it grew over the holidays! poor guy.

he’s so sweet it breaks my heart.

Would stuff happen outside the window?

i like john’s question.

I have no issues with eating lobsters but that pic does make it seem a little weird to have three animals of approximately the same size on your floor, only one of whom will soon be eaten.

Would stuff happen outside the window?

Like another, more interesting movie?

I was just thinking maybe the dude would react if there was something(s) going on out there. But yeah, that too.

So basically, Phonebooth.

It would be funny if there were superhero fights, plane crashes, etc. that were just completely ignored.

slapstick window washers

was anything at stake in ‘my dinner with andre?’ anything in the conversation, i mean?

I’d like it if we didn’t hear the other end and that it was still somehow suspenseful, like in Babel, though for 90 minutes instead of 30 seconds. And, yeah, we’d see all the pretty stuff outside, as if this were high up in the CNA building or something. Maybe the guy would go and take a leak at some point and we’d see the rest of the office maze.

I like the trappings of a story like this because it does have to stay interesting and suspenseful. Stephen King’s at his best when he pulls this off—there’s Misery, and then he also has two novels that only have a single character.

The trouble with this austerity is that Dan and Jordan’s ideas sound good.

I have no issues with eating lobsters but that pic does make it seem a little weird to have three animals of approximately the same size on your floor, only one of whom will soon be eaten

That’s the brilliance of it.

So basically, Phonebooth.

I didn’t see that. Premise was appealing, but Schumacher plus Farrell didn’t sound promising — was it good?

it’s an action flick. aren’t you allergic to those or something?

Yeah, kinda. Children of Men was the most technically impressive, but the least interesting, during its final half hour.

I’d like it if we didn’t hear the other end and that it was still somehow suspenseful, like in Babel

What part of Babel are you thinking about here?

How about a movie where the first half is a dude on the phone and you only hear his half of the conversation, and then the second half is the other person w/their half of the conversation?

john, what was that funny exchange . . . oh wait. i just remembered. you thought that hong kong phooey was a bazooka joe character.

i kinda like your idea for the movie, jordan.

It’s amazing how my tolerance for working goes right down the tubes after a vacation. I only have to work four hours today and 2.5 into it I’m totally climbing the walls. GET ME OUT OF HERE!!!

I have to admit, I’m a complete sucker for movies that show the same scene from different perspectives. Obv. Rashomon is the hip reference here, but Jackie Brown does it well, Lost does it all the time (e.g., the Others watching Flight 815 crash, the Tailies responding to Boone’s radio transmission), and Babel, actually, has the phone call between Brad Pitt and the housekeeper at the beginning and end of the movie, from each side.

I’m thinking of the phone call in Babel.

Maybe 10 minutes of phone talk, 10 minutes of slapstick window-washers, 10 minutes of phone, etc.

Jenny, I will not be offended if you skip this movie. Though maybe the guy will get disembowled at the end or something, if that helps.

XP: OMG that Hal Hartley movie is all about that! Is it Flirt?

Last Days did that different-scene thing well (and was also a chamber movie—not two characters, but not many more).

Kelsey, this thread made me realize that I’m pretty ignorant of Hanna-Barbera characters.

Vincent Gallo gives him a blowjob at the end.

We do hear the other end in Babel, though.

In the opening scene?

Yes, Flirt It plays the same story in 4 different locales with different people involved but same themes.

Oh, you’re right, J.

And there’s another Hartley movie that uses the same script for three different scenes, right? Haven’t seen any of his except the first one.

I have no issues with eating lobsters but that pic does make it seem a little weird to have three animals of approximately the same size on your floor, only one of whom will soon be eaten.

And only one of them would look the same on the plate as it did before. That’s why seabugs are weird.

I like Jordan’s idea of ignoring plane crashes, etc. You could do another take on 9/11, one showing America’s complacency or somesuch.

Though maybe the guy will get disembowled at the end or something, if that helps.

Maybe you could send some zombies or evil robots rampaging through the office.

Chamber movies... that’s a very descriptive term. I’ve never known what to call those types of movies so thanks.

The only thing that made Phonebooth at all tolerable was seeing Colin Ferrel (sp?) standing around being hot.

I have to confess: I don’t really understand Hal Hartley’s popularity. He seems fairly obscure — there’s never any hype around his movies, except maybe Henry Fool (which came out during the Great Summer of Indie Films [1998] and is not coincidentally the only one I’ve seen, if you don’t count The Book of Life) — and yet I seem to know quite a few people who are big fans of his. I’m forever telling myself, “Oh, I need to see some Hartley films” and then forgetting all about it, because nothing reminds me except when people periodically bring him up in conversation. I don’t think Flirt and Amateur and Trust are even on Netflix.

Conversations with Other Women comes out on dvd next week, I put it on the ol’ queue.

xpost yeah I like “chamber movies” too

So do I. I should see more theatre, probably.

I am unsold on chamber movies (cf my inability to stay awake throughout Metropolitan) but I do love Trust so much. Not on Netflix, no. :((((

OK... my best/worst movie idea ever: World War 1 as a horror flick, with the machines of war introduced in that conflict as the “bad guys”.

I can handle a chamber movie if the acting is great and the conflict/topic of conversation is of interest to me. Otherwise I just end up feeling like I’m locked in a tiny room with people I absolutely hate.

Off topic: What is it called when in the middle of a novel, there’s another smaller story that’s related to the larger story but isn’t the main focus of it? The only example I can think of is the one that prompted me to ask the question—in All the King’s Men, Jack Burden tells the story of Cass Mastern, which is long and relevant but also a separate story as far as tone, time, place, etc. goes.

A frame story, Jenny? Although in those the inner story is usually the point?

it is a tragedy that Trust isn’t on DVD yet, Laurel. I wish you could come over and watch my VHS copy!

I can handle a chamber movie if the acting is great and the conflict/topic of conversation is of interest to me. Otherwise I just end up feeling like I’m locked in a tiny room with people I absolutely hate.

WHO’S AFRAID OF VA WOOLF?!!!!

Framing usually refers to how the main story is treated, right?

i saw a bunch of hartley movies that i got from netflix. i think it was amateur that i started with...loved that movie.

eric, would the guy sing? that could liven things up. maybe.

No, I don’t think frame story is right. That would be like The Princess Bride or Tales from the Crypt (to name two extremely literary examples). This is sort of like a long-ass diversion story in the middle of an independent story. I feel like the Bronte sisters pull this kind of stunt in some of their books, but I’m rusty on my Victorian lit and can’t remember specifically.

xpost—In Who’s Afraid of VA Woolf, I’m locked in a room with four horrible people who are drunk and hilarious and awesome, so it’s okay.

I’m thinking of, like, Arabian Nights, Frankenstein, Canterbury Tales, even Usual Suspects, etc.

VA Woolf was an example of a GOOD movie.

That was an xpost, yeah I thought so. I don’t know if there’s a different term for those. It reminds me of The Thin Man where five pages in the middle are randomly devoted to the Alferd Packer (cannibal) story.

Those Hal Hartley movies sound interesting, but if they’re not on netflix then I will never see them. I put Amateur on my queue though.

It is called the interruptischmiddelstorien.

I wonder what it’s called. Like the watch story in Pulp Fiction.

VA Woolf is the classic chamber drama.

Maybe he could sing, Julia. Maybe it’ll be Nick Cave staring out an office window for 90 minutes.

Jackie Brown is Tarantino’s best film. I will fight you so hard if you disagree.

Phonebooth had an interesting premise, poorly executed.

I have an interesting idea for a suspense film involving a portaledge and a multipitch aid climb on Baffin Island, called The Great and Secret Show.

I like the singing idea, but I think it should be long spans of one-sided telephone conversation, interrupted by several short songs that he sings directly to the camera. Or perhaps that someone else sings, commenting on the action (or lack thereof), like a Greek chorus.

That’s beautiful, Nick. It’ll be minutes and minutes of “Uh-huh. [Pause.] I know, I know [Pause.] Did you tell her that? [Pause.] Uh-huh. [Pause.] Uh-huh,” and then he just turns to the camera and lets his heart out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_within_a_story ?

It’s like picture-within-a-picture.

So, Buffy, the Musical, basically? I could do this all day. (XP)

Laurel will be the seen-it-all executive producer who wants results and a big b.o. opening weekend.

What I like about this movie is that we could realistically make it for free, if we borrowed a camera and snuck into an office building.

Do you like how I shifted this from the idea phase to the action phase?

ooooh, project!

i like projects

i am also a former filmmaker!

“Story within a story” seems to describe exactly what I’m talking about. I wish there was a snappier name for it, though.

xpost—I can get you into office buildings.

What is a “mis en scene”?

Mise en abyme reminds me that I heard 2 guys talking at a coffee shop and one used the term “in medias res” in casual conversation to refer to a friend dropping in on him while he was in the middle of something.

Ha ha: Mise en scène (IPA: [miz?s?n]) has been called film criticism’s “grand undefined term,” but that is not because of a lack of definitions. Rather, it’s because the term has so many different meanings that there is little consensus about its definition. (per Wikipedia)

It’ll be minutes and minutes of “Uh-huh. [Pause.] I know, I know [Pause.] Did you tell her that? [Pause.] Uh-huh. [Pause.] Uh-huh,”

I used to write playlets like this all the time.

somehow, that is hardly surprising

:D

He and Chris P. collaborated on them.

I don’t know what Chris has to do with it, but let’s just say I’m a fan of banality and realism in art.

I’m not even a fan of banality in LIFE, and I can experience that FOR FREE. ;)

2x

mise en place

Chris gets off on all things others find bland. (He is hot for the guy who represents the PC in the Mac vs. PC commercials.)

Jenny, I think the chamber movie for you and Jeff (made by some of my poker buddies) is Bug.

Yeah yeah, Laurel, I’ve heard it all before. Trying to recall how I addressed that in my senior project. Something about the thrill of seeing life’s banality replicated artificially. The uncanniness of it. I love good, real dialogue.

He prefers cuddling to an orgasm, a kind word to cuddling, and a pleasant Mona Lisa smile from across the room to all of them.

Chris gets off on all things others find bland.

bland != banal

xpost to Eric—While I don’t think I’d want to be locked inside the room with those people, I would definitely want to look in the window and watch them.

I love good, real dialogue.

But why does dialogue have to be banal to be real?

“so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring” = no thx

It doesn’t. But there’s an element of banality in most conversations. Hardly anyone writes dialogue where people go “umm” or repeat themselves or step over each other’s words, but this happens all the time, and I get a kick out of seeing it reproduced. Here I guess I’m talking about form rather than content, though.

I love this thread.

I don’t find those ‘yeah [pause] yeah’ above banal, in part because of the recognizable rhythms (like John just said), and also because the effect, ideally, is like when you overhear something on the El and you have to make sense of it. It’s writing that isn’t for the benefit of the audience (as far as narrating the story) and ideally has the same what’s-going-on-here? pleasure of eavesdropping.

This kind of sounds like improv to me.

I dunno, are most people not as interested in the aggressively ho-hum as I am? Am I the only one who asks new romantic partners to “tell me a boring story”?

— Chris Piuma (chri...), February 25th, 2003.

so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring

But when real-life banality is applied to art, it automatically becomes more interesting because a) we’re not used to seeing banality in art: it becomes the exception rather than the rule, and b) art has the power to make the banal transcendent.

ideally has the same what’s-going-on-here? pleasure of eavesdropping.

Bingo. There’s an intimate, voyeuristic thrill to it. It feels visceral, somehow.

Haha.

This thread would be great to have read to you as a bedtime story
— oops (buttch9...), February 26th, 2003.

———————————————————————————

Oops is OTM.
— Chris Piuma (chri...), February 27th, 2003.

Oh, I see you already unearthed the Chris P. contributions to that thread. Nice work.

But when you know it’s art and artifice and not someone you’re eavesdropping on (which I also enjoy, but not for the banality, more because something interesting than whatever I’ve got going on might happen), doesn’t that undermine that voyeuristic thrill?

Chris may be a deLillo character.

I mean, take this dialogue from the thread above (which I hadn’t seen ‘til now—fantastic) and add some context and stakes to it (someone’s job is on the line, or ‘me’ slept with boss’s wife), and it’s great dialogue:

My boss: Did you have a good weekend?

Me: Yes, thanks. You?

My boss: Not bad.

Me: Do anything exciting?

My boss: No.

Me: Oh.

There’s some term I learned in a poetry workshop about the mistake some writers make of writing something that is an example of what they meant to write ABOUT—like writing something boring when writing the dialogue of a boring person, or sounding stupid when writing about a stupid character.

Writing about something banal in a non-banal way would be interesting I guess. But I don’t hold out much hope for the outcome.

Hardly unearthed. That was the third or fourth post!

Has anyone seen Dead & Breakfast? It’s a zombie movie (w/Jeremy Sisto!) but it has the best modern use of the Greek chorus that I’ve seen (i.e. a dude singing funny country songs about the action who eventually gets turned into a zombie and continues singing between scenes until he gets killed by a chainsaw).

The way Mamet puts it is that people don’t say what they want, they say what will get them what they want. As long as the actors know what is at stake for their character, and what they are trying to get from the other person, ‘banal’ dialogue can be suspenseful and compelling, beyond the ordinary rhythms of daily life.

Using that poetry analogy, I think what we’re talking about is more of finding the profound in daily life than in being deliberately boring—it’s more like Vermeer and Rembrandt painting daily life in Holland (ho hum) instead of the great moments in religious history.

But when you know it’s art and artifice and not someone you’re eavesdropping on (which I also enjoy, but not for the banality, more because something interesting than whatever I’ve got going on might happen), doesn’t that undermine that voyeuristic thrill?

This is a very good question, and the best answer that I can give is that I experience both at the same time, or go back and forth: the pleasure is both in the visceral voyeuristic thrill and the rational appreciation for the uncanniness of the vérité style. (I’m serious, I have like a whole chapter in my senior project about this where I talk about Raymond Carver and Mike Leigh.)

If dialog contains the “ums” and cadences of every day speech but is rendered suspenseful and compelling beyond the ordinary rhythms of daily life, it’s no longer banal, is it?