I rewatched a couple of films recently-U571 and The Insider. Here you have two films as different as the proverbial chalk and cheese.
Rewatching U571, I felt it was a competent film - certainly in terms of direction, but the script later struck me as almost join-the-dots for an action film.
At key points in the script, I found myself watching the timer on the machine, and mentally checking off a 'list': 15 mins - establish character/setting/story; 15-30 mins-development; 45 mins-first action 'bit' and so on. The characters were, as would be expected in an action film, secondary to the plot and action.
When I see a film such as The Insider, I am unable to see 'into' it - I couldn't see the 'dots'. Perhaps this is my lack of experience, but there did not appear the same sense as that with the U571 script. Rather, it seemed to display something else entirely - call it what you will, but most will simply call it 'spark'.
This makes me think that much of what makes a good film, at its essence or foundation, is the quality of the story, and how it is put together. Perhaps the script more than either direction or acting. I think that direction can overcome script deficiencies at the least, or even go beyond them to turn something competent into a gem.
I wonder how long it took Michael Mann and his co-writer to get to the finished script? Any one here know about the journey of this script?
On another level, what do others here think about the 'spark'? Is my view of this script misplaced? I sometimes begin to think that this is the same for literature, or poetry or plays - the 'spark' will stand out always, and always make the piece stand out, but such are hard to come by/produced rarely, especially in the face of Hollywood producer demands and their 'conventional wisdom'.
Rewatching U571, I felt it was a competent film - certainly in terms of direction, but the script later struck me as almost join-the-dots for an action film.
At key points in the script, I found myself watching the timer on the machine, and mentally checking off a 'list': 15 mins - establish character/setting/story; 15-30 mins-development; 45 mins-first action 'bit' and so on. The characters were, as would be expected in an action film, secondary to the plot and action.
When I see a film such as The Insider, I am unable to see 'into' it - I couldn't see the 'dots'. Perhaps this is my lack of experience, but there did not appear the same sense as that with the U571 script. Rather, it seemed to display something else entirely - call it what you will, but most will simply call it 'spark'.
This makes me think that much of what makes a good film, at its essence or foundation, is the quality of the story, and how it is put together. Perhaps the script more than either direction or acting. I think that direction can overcome script deficiencies at the least, or even go beyond them to turn something competent into a gem.
I wonder how long it took Michael Mann and his co-writer to get to the finished script? Any one here know about the journey of this script?
On another level, what do others here think about the 'spark'? Is my view of this script misplaced? I sometimes begin to think that this is the same for literature, or poetry or plays - the 'spark' will stand out always, and always make the piece stand out, but such are hard to come by/produced rarely, especially in the face of Hollywood producer demands and their 'conventional wisdom'.
