Complications Ensue:
The Crafty Screenwriting, TV and Game Writing Blog


April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

November 2015

December 2015

January 2016

February 2016

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

December 2017

January 2018

March 2018

April 2018

June 2018

July 2018

October 2018

November 2018

December 2018

January 2019

February 2019

November 2019

February 2020

March 2020

April 2020

May 2020

August 2020

September 2020

October 2020

December 2020

January 2021

February 2021

March 2021

May 2021

June 2021

November 2021

December 2021

January 2022

February 2022

August 2022

September 2022

November 2022

February 2023

March 2023

April 2023

May 2023

July 2023

September 2023

November 2023

January 2024

February 2024

June 2024


Thursday, March 30, 2006

I watched a bit of Julie Taymor's operatic Titus Andronicus adaptation, Titus. I've been pondering her choice to cast the reedy Alan Cumming as Saturninus and give him a little Hitler hair flop. As cast and played, from the git-go we know he's an evil munchkin. So it's hard to understand why Titus Andronicus chooses him over the adorable, deep-eyed Bassianus to be the next emperor.

Now the question is: would it have been better to cast someone adorable as Saturninus, or at least someone strong and leaderly, so we can understand why Titus would choose him? And then we can be with Titus's point of view as Saturninus's evil comes out.

I'm not sure if that would have been better, though. Is the point of the play that Titus makes a terrible mistake based on his blind adherence to old Roman custom, and that is his downfall -- his tragic flaw -- all through the play? He simply does not consider whether Saturninus or Bassianus would make the better Emperor, he just chooses the older son.

If you are telling the story of Hitler's rise, for example... it seems amazing that people would follow the guy. Charlie Chaplin was not the only person to see how ridiculous Hitler was, with his angry yelling and his little mustache, and yet one of the most sophisticated nations fell in love with him. Do you try to cast a charismatic actor, so we'll see what the Germans saw? Or do you cast an actor who will make the insanity clear?

In a B story that we just junked on one of our "Exposure" scripts, we introduced a woman who'd turn out to be a pathological user in the last act. In the first version, it was clear from the beginning that she was a nasty piece of work. In the second draft, we did our best to present her to the audience the way she was coming across to our main character, and only gradually reveal the nasty side.

My question to you, class is: is it always better to save the reveal? Or do you sometimes want to warn the audience in advance that the hero is making a big mistake? And if so, what do you achieve that way?


That's a great question, Alex, and I think clever casting is a big part of when/how you reveal the true nature of some characters.

For example, if one were to cast Brad Dourif in the role of the cheery new next door neighbour who works as a veterinarian and loves kids, I'd begin to suspect almost instantly that he's really some sort of psychotic freak -- and I would expect the story to reveal that by the second or third act out.

However, if you were to cast say...Jeffrey Pierce in the role, well, revealing his sinister side, either slowly or in one shocking scene would totally blow me away.

So, find the right actor for the part and blow me -- away, that is. :-)

By Blogger Kelly J. Crawford, at 12:09 AM  

Marketing will change your strategy, too—thanks to T2's staggering hype, everyone knew when they bought their ticket that Schwarzenegger was a good terminator, so that reveal was an empty one. Since we never know how much is going to be shown in commercials, selecting which reveals to sacrifice to the marketing mammoth is a choice battle.

I love it when actors are cast against type and the writer feints by turning the "good guy" actor into a villainous scum by saving the reveal. In fact, it's so unsettling that I start thinking... my god, if he's not the good guy, then anything could happen!

Generally, I'd say save the reveal. Although I do agree with Mackey, too—if can be a hell of a lot of fun to have an interesting character to watch (someone really angry or unpredictable) and tip off the audience early who the bad guy is and make us bite our knuckles until the showdown.

Side note: I saw a stage version of Titus with Brian Cox. In that adaptation, the Romans were dressed in dusty, dirty clothing and my drama professor told me later, "The whole point to Titus is that the Romans were the most civilized people for their time. They had irrigation and city planning and ironed their own clothes. These people weren't barbarians, so when they begin doing barbaric acts, it's meant to be that much more shocking."

By Blogger Ross Pruden, at 12:39 PM  

Post a Comment

Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.

This page is powered by Blogger.