ENTERTAINMENT

CO-EDITOR FRAN MULVEY & CAMERON LUSTY

AN INTERVIEW WITH

BY FRANCESCA ANNIE SCHERERPART 2

FRAN: Okay and, apart from piano and I think the Ukulele, that sort of...

ANNIE: Yeah I do, I play [laugh] I actually play trumpet and... guitar too.

FRAN: You have extensive musical instrument usage [...] I don’t know how that came out that way [they both laugh] but you – you play a number of instruments – I know – I think a number of other musicians from various communities also play a myriad of them. I think the most I’ve heard a musician plays is seven, or something? There are probably people that play more than that many which is amazing – I used to play the flute.

ANNIE: Oh yeah?

FRAN: But this isn’t about me this is about you [they laugh]. And, going into the main event of the interview which is the discussion about your debut album ‘Garden Bed’ – which I only recently noticed is that’s lyrics taken from one of your songs.

ANNIE: Yes, yeah it’s from ‘Phases Grow’. I decided – I, I like to choose titles that are kind of like, hidden, so I – with ‘Garden Bed’ which on the surface I sing a lot about nature and there are a lot of flowers that I sing about, but more deeper I, I really wanted to capture a theme of growth and just presence and beauty.

I really like visuals so I do draw a lot of inspiration from visual art and nature around me so I thought that that title kind of, encapsulated all those things.

FRAN: That’s great! And I know you’ve, you’ve recently done an Instagram post with, sort of background on each of the songs...

ANNIE: Mhm...

...but there were a few of them I thought I’d ask you a bit more about, in terms of the inspirations and the messages behind them. The first one I wanted to ask about is ‘Ashamed’ because that resonated with me in a way very personally, because... of some experiences that I’ve gone through, and I wondered what influenced that song in particular.

ANNIE: I – when I wrote that song, I think I was kind of speaking about a collection of experiences that I’ve had with people it’s just kind of like an observation that has occurred frequently; you know when people disappoint you and you give the benefit of the doubt and it continues, and so I wrote that song kind of just thinking of several situations in my life, but I think what’s kind of funny about it is that since I wrote it I kind of feel I’ve been able to relate to it more than I realised I did, at the time that I wrote it. So I, I don’t know it’s like, kind of like it’s for my future selfbased on what I had experienced, but now I almost like, appreciate, the song more because of what’s happened since then, if that’s makes any sense, [she laughs].

FRAN: Yeah, I feel like a lot of people can relate to that, in – for various reasons. Personally I feel like it’s not so much related to people letting me down, rather… I don’t often talk about it but I have personal issues which can make life difficult at times, and for a large number of years, no one seemed to want to – well, it wasn’t that no one seemed to want to listen but they just – they kind of dismissed me in the sense that they didn’t think I’d fit into a certain ball of what constituted as that specific thing, because I didn’t exhibit certain traits or characteristics, people who know me [...] will probably know what I’m talking about – but it’s also with experiences that I’ve had with certain people who have said that they’ll do something and then not done it – but I do feel drawn to that song in the sense that I didn’t feel heard for a long time, until I was nineteen, and fifteen in a way, but nineteen more so because of what that age related to – I was nearly twenty at the time – when someone finally told me, this is what it is, you are definitely this, and that – that’s why ‘Ashamed’ speaks to me so strongly – moving on to the next song before things go any deeper [she laughs].

ANNIE: [Laughs] no I like to hear – I like to hear how you relate.

FRAN: [Smiling] that’s nice. After ‘After Rain’ was also – I feel like I’ve listed them in order of how much I love them [giggles].

THE SUICIDE SQUAD

2021 REVIEW

BY SOLOMON HOLMES

Let me take you back.

It’s August 2016. Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is beginning to be taken seriously. You scroll past another article about Trump saying something awful about a minority group, you ignore it, he’s just too silly to be taken seriously right? Zack Snyder’s Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) (BVS) has only been out for four months yet has already earned its title as the worst superhero movie to ever grace the earth. Zack refuses to explain why his titular characters won’t stop killing people. However, that same year another superhero flop was released. Suicide Squad (2016) directed by David Ayer. The failure of BVS forced Warner Bros into a panicked frenzy, where they recut the movie into a disjointed mess in an attempt to make it funnier. The movie was so poorly received that there was a petition to take down the popular movie review site, Rotten Tomatoes. It was a movie so jaded by outside interference, so obfuscated by reshoots and recuts, (by a trailer company of all things), that the end result was a failure of almost admirable proportions. You’d think that Warner Brothers and DC Studios would learn from their mistakes. They would not get cold feet. They would pick a strong director and allow them to fully realise their vision, right?

Enter The Suicide Squad (2021), written and directed by James Gunn; a guy who has an excellent track record for creating loveable murderers. The studio chucked this guy a lot of money and basically allowed him to do whatever the hell he wanted.

Thankfully this approach pays dividends. The film is gutsy in tone (and in content), unafraid of obscenity and violence; there is a lot of violence...

Where the original movie shied away; making the protagonists fight a faceless horde of rock creatures, this movie relishes in showing every punch, stab, shot, and decapitation. It is a violence so gratuitous, that it surpasses horror and lands smack bang in the middle of parody. The action set pieces are exciting, inventive, and on one occasion, mesmerising. Where Marvel has been ham fistedly trying to present an anti-government message for years but never committing to it, The Suicide Squad easily presents that message. It has an anarchic charm to its makeup. The social critique of the film goes no deeper than ‘America bad! Government bad!’ but its conviction to that critique is refreshing in a movie of this budget. The humour is fluid; both adult and juvenile. At times touching, and others repulsive. With a lesser director/writer at the helm, these tonal shifts would appear discordant with the rest of the film, but in Gunn’s hands, they cement the film’s intentionally anarchic sensibility.

The events of the film culminate in the traditional larger-than-life CGI monster mash, but for once the spectacle is earned. The characters’ motivations and quirks come together, to make the conclusion a satisfying one. The preposterous nature of this particular monster definitely lends the movie a little more magic, too. This isn’t high art. However it is an astoundingly good crack at adult light entertainment. The movie presents us with a simple statement:

Strap in, turn your brain off a little, and let me entertain you.

BEST UNPRODUCED SCRIPTS

BY CAMERON LUSTY

For every film that’s released there is probably 3 others that were never made. Recently I’ve come across a few scripts for films that haven’t been made and might never see the light of day.

CHARLIE KAUFMAN’S A SCANNER DARKLY

A Scanner Darkly (2006) was a film by Richard Linklater and it was a good movie. Although the rotoscoping was a brave choice but one I think that works well to represent the effect of constant psychedelic drug use (I’m sure people would disagree with me). However, in the late 90s, only a few years after Philip K. Dick had published the novel, a young Charlie Kaufman (before Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Anomalisa), wrote a film adaptation of A Scanner Darkly.

The movie’s major plot points are all similar to the Richard Linklater’s version, which are similar to the book. However, the scattiness and absurdism that Kaufman portrays in his writing gel really well with the tone of the book’s story and characters. There are some exceptionally stand out scenes that aren’t in the movie that I think would have made this even better to see on screen. And the dialogue does really well to capture the scatterbrained, tangential, and often mood driven conversations by the perpetually high drug-addled main characters

It is worth noting that this is a first draft, so I’m sure if it was ever made it would have gone through multiple more rewrites. There are parts that could have been tightened up (but who am I to give vague criticisms to Charlie Kaufman) but overall, it is a thrilling and captivating read. Especially if you’re a fan of Kaufman, the book, or the 2006 film. However, I don’t think it will ever get made because one has already been made and who knows if Kaufman is still even interested in making this, but, in this era of reboots, never say never, I guess.

Admittedly, this is another Charlie Kaufman script, but it’s an original idea: a musical comedy about movies. But also, so much more. The main reason it’s never been made is because it doesn’t have the funding. Why that is so baffling to me is because of the calibre of actors who agreed to be in the film. Jack Black, Steve Carrell, Nicholas Cage, Elizabeth Banks to name a few. How this has never been made is beyond me and if I was an executive producer, I would fund this in a heartbeat. There is hope as this is an original idea, and a fresh, fun take on the idea of film critique, film commentary, film stars, their relationship to their audience, and what the audience expects from them, filtered through the lens of what is effectively social media and forums dedicated to film fans and armchair critics.

The story touches both ends of the spectrum and that’s what the title refers to. Frank is a big star actor who’s promoting his new film where he plays every character; simultaneously losing parts of his life while trying to rescue his career. Meanwhile, Francis works a menial job, lives with his parents, and watches films (reductive yes but that’s his character at the beginning before the character arc he goes through). Not only does he watch films, he is intensely passionate about films. He has a forum with quite a few followers dedicated to his opinions and criticisms of films and actors. This is what leads him into conflict with Frank. The supporting cast of characters include a robot’s head who vows to write the greatest screenplay ever written, that will appeal to all people.

The ending is very bizarre but is very Kaufman like and it makes sense within the context of the story told. Again, like with the other script, it can be polished up and updated for the slight advancement in technology and social media since it was written. I’m sure it certainly would be if it was ever made and might not even be the latest draft that currently exists. Regardless, it is still a very great read if you need that hit of Kaufman’s idiosyncratic and absurd storytelling.

If you want to read either of these scripts, then you can find them at beingcharliekaufman.com

SEND ME ANY OF YOUR FAVOURITE UNPRODUCED SCREENPLAYS AT CAMERON.LUSTY@STUDENT-LIFE.CO.

SCREENPLAY WRITING TIPS BY CAMERON LUSTY

From an Experienced Amateur

PART 1

How do you write a screenplay? It depends on who you listen to.

Some say that every little rule must be followed whereas other writers will say that the rules are meant to be broken. I agree mostly with the latter but there are a lot of rules (chiefly formatting) that should be adhered to in order to make sure it’s at least recognisable as a screenplay.

Such as formatting slug lines, the scene heading, correctly, to make sure it includes whether it’s inside or outside (ext./int.), the time of day (night/day), and where it’s set (e.g., Ext. House – Day). Also, you must capitalise every letter of a character’s name when they are first seen, denote their age, and a line or two of character description that gives a flavour of who this character is (E.g., JANE DOE, 27, with sunken eyes that have seen more than enough for one lifetime). Admittedly, my example isn’t good but hopefully it helps you get the idea. With those type of character descriptions, they go against the classic rule of screenwriting: that everything you write must be able to be seen on screen. Writing lines like the one above or writing a character’s thoughts don’t work in a screenplay when it is translated to the screen. However, you can get away with it when you introduce a character, as long as it isn’t overly long and provides strong characterisation. But, at any other point of the screenplay it would be considered a no no.

Some of the other musts regarding formatting – spacing of margins, dialogue aligned to the centre of the page – are all done automatically when you use screenwriting software (Final Draft, Celtx, etc.). Outside of the formatting and character introductions, the rules are pretty much fast and loose and are at your disposal to play with. You may hear some writers talk about how scripts should never be dialogue heavy or other ‘cardinal sins’ such as no voiceover. But for every rule, there are multiple examples of scripts/films that break the rules and are still considered successful (in terms of commercial or critical success). So, in my opinion, as long as it is formatted correctly and avoids the pitfalls of classic first-time writers (which I also went through), then it can be a good script. As long as it is a compelling read, contains interesting characters, and a story that follows some

form of logic (even one established in that story world), then I would consider it a good screenplay even if it breaks the socalled cardinal rules of screenwriting.

And this is what I discovered during my degree in Screenwriting. Like any other medium of art, if you follow all the specific rules that are supposedly needed, then you restrict your creative freedom. And art without creative freedom is just a paint-bynumbers where you are making decisions based on some authority that says you have to, as opposed to making decisions fuelled by an ineffable creative impulse.

I do recommend the following books because I do think it is important to familiarise yourself with the discourse in the subject

John Yorke’s ‘Into the Woods:

How Stories Work and why We

Tell Them’;

John Truby’s ‘The Anatomy of

Story: 22 Steps to Becoming a

Master Storyteller’;

Syd Field’s ‘Screenplay: The

Foundations of Screenwriting’; For short films I would recommend

‘Writing Short Films: Structure and Content for Screenwriters’. I do want to reiterate that these should be read just to understand what rules people consider necessary and what you can get away with in a screenplay. To follow all these rules would create a screenplay devoid of your unique writing voice and one that feels too designed by committee (see old adage about camel). They will also help you analyse your own scripts as well as other people’s. I also recommend reading scripts as they are way better than scriptwriting books for teaching you how to (or how not to) write a screenplay. The more scripts you read then the more you will see what I mean about how often scripts break what are considered cardinal rules. And hopefully that’ll inspire you to break a few rules yourself.

If I missed anything then please do let me know – either angrily or kindly – email cameron.lusty@student-life.co.

If you have a screenplay which you would like feedback on then feel free to send that as I would be more than happy (I love reading new ideas!).