Hey y'all. So I'm about to start (hopefully) collaborating with a dude on a screenplay. I have a thing about titles. I would like to go into this project with a title in mind, even if that title winds up changing (as it probably will.) But I just wanna have something to call it just like if ya have a baby or adopt a pet of some kind, you just don't wanna call it "Baby" or "Dog (or Cat, Bird etc.)"
So I'll be trying to think of one myself but I will take any suggestion from you guys if it sounds cool enough. If you wanna steal it from a song title, song lyrics or other pieces of literature then that's fine. Quotations, bible verses, whatever. Just gimme something good to work with. If I like anybody's suggestion then, uhm, you can get a walk on part if this baby ever sees the light of day. Or I'll name a character after you or something.
I don't really want to tell the plot of the script but here are some of the ideas and themes I hope to base it on and hopefully that will be enough to give y'all something to work with. It's simultaneously about the nature of evil and the power of perception. This girl I know believes wholeheartedly that there are no real evil people and that when a person does something viewed as "evil" or immoral that there's something that happened sometime in that person's life that drove them down that particular path or course of action. I disagree to an extent. I actually think that may be the case most of the time but I also believe that logically, there just have to be some people out there who just have bad wiring and have absolutely no desire to do "good."
The story concerns two characters: one of whom is a bit of a social outcast and dealt with by most of society in a way that we would rather see him dead or in jail but never would we think to sit him down and ask him "what's up?" The other character (from the outside) appears to be "one of us." He goes to work everyday, pays his taxes, visits/calls his mother frequently, he votes, does everything that a good citizen would do. When the two come together there are fatal results. The story focuses on that particular clash, the 24 hours leading up to it and how the way each man is viewed in society effects our emotional responses to the event.
Don't worry about the plot specifics. If anybody has any suggestions then spit 'em out. I'll read y'all's responses but may not actually comment on them.
(In my own brainstorming I've been focusing on words/phrases that deal with the act of seeing but that doesn't mean everyone else has to. It could be something completely unrelated. Just like the movie Fargo doesn't actually take place in Fargo.)
meredith [email] said at 10:31 AM 12-16-2005: You have two choices "King's Crossing" or "Meredith Rae" because you KNOW I'm going to have more than a walk-on!
myriam [email] said at 11:32 AM 12-16-2005: Recently I learned a bit about psychopaths from Craig's girlfriend (a psychology grad student...not a psychopath). Psychopaths have no sort of emotional wiring, so to speak, so they don't really care about "right" and "wrong" or feel any sort of compunction about anything they do. These people could possibly be genetically wired to be evil, perhaps. There are some fascintating books out on the subject that are easy to read (I think one was called "the psychopath next door"?). Sounds like this might have some bearing on your idea? In any case, what you said made me think of it.
jake [email] said at 1:42 PM 12-16-2005: Arg. The "no emotional wiring" stuff is a really sloppy metaphor. It's more like, they have no capacity to create emotional attachments, and their more raw emotional impulses run rampant. But that's not a good catchphrase.
Sorry, in the same way that you get picky about architectural language and concepts, I get about psychology stuff like this.
myriam [email] said at 2:43 PM 12-16-2005: you don't have to apologize at all, i find it interesting, thanks :) this stuff is fascinating. clarify away!
jake [email] said at 3:00 PM 12-16-2005: Well in that case, to further the clarity--
It's pretty much accepted science that no complex human behavior is purely genetic or learned. The best example is reading. There's a whole series of genes that produce each piece of the eyeball, and the network of neurons to distinguish things as small as letters, and the cognitive capacity to assing meaning, etc. Mess with any of those genes and you get someone with a deficit that they might be able to work around (blind people can learn brail) or might not (if your whole brain doesn't get made, you ain't gonna read.).
But all those genes together can produce a person that will live their entire lives and never learn to read...
Or someone with eyesight that goes bad so early that they never learn the joy of reading and so only read road signs...
Or someone with eyesight that goes bad so early that they get huge thick glasses, become a social outcast, develop a keen internal life, and produce great works of literature like Truman Capote.
There are gene combinations that make us more or less vulnerable to social pressures/lessons/constructions/etcetera. Someone with all the genetic markers for hard-core-alcoholism who grows up muslim and never tastes liquor won't be an alcoholic, for example. The scientific study right now is about how much different gene combinations load the dice for people.
My own favorite question then, is: Of all the things that make you feel unique, which are connected to obvious/likely genetic traits? In what ways are you like the person who loves sport, dreams of being a professional athlete, but doesn't have the genes for muscle density/height/whatever the pro's need?
jake [email] said at 3:37 PM 12-16-2005: My point is that genes set the odds, and environment rolls the dice.
First, you name me a genetic marker with a better than 60% prediction rate for sociopathy or psychopathy.
Then, I'll describe the widely used "treatment" that accounts for the less than 40% who turned out fine despite carrying the "bad" genes.
milky [email] said at 4:23 PM 12-16-2005: describe, in 50 words or less, without plagarizing, a "genetic marker." If you're going to the use the term, I want to know that you have an understanding of it.
And don't answer my question with a question. If you know the material, you should have an answer.
jake [email] said at 4:27 PM 12-16-2005: Completely off the top of my head:
A genetic marker is a cluster of genes (I think in a specific order) that have been identified as occurring together, and are associated with some physical attribute or behavior.
jake [email] said at 4:42 PM 12-16-2005: My answer was embedded in a rhetorical question intended to parse the fallacy in your question. I wasn't trying be evasive, rather, it seemed the most direct response.
I don't know of any widely used, effective treatments for socio- or psycho- pathological disorders. There might be lots, I don't know, it's not my field.
I don't see what that proves.
There are plenty of disorders that arise from a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental triggers, that can't (yet) be cured/removed through any intervention.
amanda [email] said at 5:13 PM 12-16-2005: I believe he is saying that sociopathic behaviour is not treatable, thus it is likely not the result of nurture in the good ole "Nature vs. Nurture VII: This Time It's Personal" debate. Also, unlike your alcoholism mention above, in this case there is no substance/catalyst needed to set off the behaviour. One could be raised by sappy wholesome adoptive parents and still wind up in the basement torturing birds. Environment counts for certain mental defects, but not with this one. This is not a treatable condition.
jake [email] said at 5:35 PM 12-16-2005: Exactly, Milky's trying to read from a script where this is some pitched flamewar and accusing me of being evasive and out of depth, but avoiding dealing with any substance himself.
I agree that there are some disorders where genetics plays a huge role, and loads the dice maybe 100 or 10,000 to 1... but then nurture still comes into play. From what I've read, there's always some degree of environmental catalyst, playing some role. It might be the difference between producing a Bull Connor or a James Earl Ray or a Charles Manson...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's definite genetic markers with a anything approaching 100% prediction for pathological behavior. And without that, it seems pretty clear that Nature and Nurture both play a role, to different degrees in different people.
amanda [email] said at 5:47 PM 12-16-2005: Nothing in Science can ever be completely proven; I'll agree with you there. That's sort of the Achilles heel of Science and people like to find this weakness and spear it, though I find it noble. I also can't disprove that evil spirits didn't cause someone to commit mass murders. But, from things I have read and been taught, sociopaths just ARE. That's why they can't be fixed. That's not to say that we won't one day figure out what causes it and be capable of treating them. Currently the condition seems to be purely genetic and thus that is what we accept until something else offers adequate dissuasion.
jake [email] said at 6:30 PM 12-16-2005: Yeah, I'm not asking for absolute certainty. Scientific probablity would be plenty for me. If there's an identified marker with a 60% prediction rate, I'd like to know about it.
But I really reject this argument that incurability equals pure genetic cause.
If I've got hemophilia and an early injury causes me to lose one leg, well, you can't regrow my leg... But I wasn't genetically determined to lose it either.
milky [email] said at 6:51 PM 12-16-2005: It's actually my piles, but thanks for your concern.
Look, I think antisocial personality disorder is hard to pin down because of the overlaps with narcisstic, borderline, histrionic, et al. It looks to be genetic and renforced by environment. My untested theory is that this environment acts in a cyclical fashion: people with this disorder breed and produce offspring for which they trigger the behaviors or outright teach them through reinforcement. Their environment or culture keeps the cycle going. I think this is why many of the antisocial personality traits can be explained in this PC world as maybe being cultural: by this, we don't have to say race when it make be a race's primary culture of identification (which leads to an inherent rationalization).
Or as the vets of the mental health like to sum it up: "Piss Poor Breeding, Piss Poor Parenting." We'll put in a chart (in code) PPB,PPP. Because if their parents brought them up tha way then it MUST be right. Maybe people are too stupid to be more educated these days, hell, in California, biology wasn't always required in high school, let alone trig or geometry. I come from the almost dead last state, but at least those of us (mixed, raciallly and SES) with good genetics were seperarted and given material we could handle. We may have been FLKs (funny looking kids) but we were given privilege and thank God because our taxes earned us the right.
jake [email] said at 7:58 PM 12-16-2005: I almost wrote piles but thought you might think I meant messes.
I agree with everything you said here.
I would tentatively suggest that you're reacting to a Culture versus Biology debate that I'm not engaged in. I'm saying Nature and Nurture, both Biological forces, play a role... Mostly, what Nature starts, Nurture shapes... but in some extreme cases the effects from one are so strong that the other is almost indetectable. Any kid, subjected a hostile enough environment, can be made into a sociopath. Some kids are born so loaded with predispositions to pathology that it's a miracle if they manage to just be bullies and not serial killers. I don't think we really disagree here?
ed [email] said at 11:25 AM 12-17-2005: I have to admit that I haven't done more than skim this "my weener's bigger than yours" portion of the comments (for the inevitable insults), but I agree 100%, here.
jake [email] said at 1:20 PM 12-17-2005: Ed, there really wasn't more than a little ritualistic penis-comparing, sorry if it made you uncomfortable.
If you really are curious, I can explain it simply by saying that Biology is the academic study of living things, and since anything that "nurture" refers to do is something that living things do, a biologist can study it, just with a different focus and interest than a psychologist might.
Here's an example: when people see a baby they automatically shift their voices up an octave. It's something we do instictively, it's not purely taught the way, say, reading and writing is...but it's also reinforced by other people's behavior.
Now a baby actually hears better at the higher end of the scale, so the instict is useful.
Maybe a different way of saying this is that nurture becomes biological when the psychologists and sociologists put down the tools of soft science (surveys, self reports, and statistics) and pick up the tools of hard science (um, q-tips and electrodes and um, lab stuff).
Baby talk, by the way ("gootchie gooing!" at a kid) that doesn't seem to do much for the kid compared to overpronouncing simple sentences in a very happy lilting voice.
jake [email] said at 3:40 PM 12-17-2005: Ed, I took you at your word that you were really curious. If you're not and you're just trolling, then okay fine have your fun but remember usually when we trade trash you end up pissed and I end up smug.
What I wrote is a biological explanation of what most people think of as social/nurturing behavior.
My point is that Biology can be used to look at lots more than just genes and what genes cause on their own.
jake [email] said at 5:20 PM 12-17-2005: Well, X isn't used to Y when it's inside a womens' prison...
Seriously, Ed, I didn't "choose to expand" biology. I'm not making up definitions, playing semantics, or just spouting my own perceptions and opinions.
I'm doing my best to present a scientific viewpoint that is held by a significant number of biologists, psychologists, and other kinds of scientists.
And by the by, all opinions are not equally valid. That word means internally consistent and logically supported. If I said "Josh is a racist because he doesn't like it when it rains" that would not be at all valid.
jake [email] said at 1:23 PM 12-17-2005: Lots of scientists in psychology and biology do just that. Julian Jaynes does that when he speculates that the corpus collosum explains why Homer described Gods that took on human form, and the Old Testament doesn't.
Milky, you are considering Nurture in a biological light when you say:
people with this disorder breed and produce offspring for which they trigger the behaviors or outright teach them through reinforcement.
jake [email] said at 2:12 PM 12-17-2005: The "triggering and teaching" not to mention the mate selection, are all commonly discussed as parts of nurture/environment.
mary [email] said at 10:05 PM 12-16-2005: If Jake has to stay out of psych arguments, I'm going to ask Josh to get rid of the News section. Can't have you amateurs talking about the media.
jake [email] said at 1:45 PM 12-16-2005: There's a spoken word poem on a cd someone gave me with the hook:
"What it feels like/What it is"
That's a little unweildy for a film title though.
cecil [email] said at 3:39 PM 12-16-2005: any title that tries to encapsulate the whole story before it's written is a bad idea. I'd give it a working title of the protagonist's name. Then it's like that character is telling you the story as you write it and the character will give you your final title.
myriam [email] said at 4:49 PM 12-16-2005: Yeah, I totally agree about the title thing. Name it now--even if you *tell* yourself it's a provisional name--and the story will start to become formed to the title you have. Use a fake placeholder and allow yourself more creative freedom on for this collaboration to mutate.
reggie [email] said at 11:01 PM 12-16-2005: Well that's why I said that there's the possibility it will change. It's probably likely that it WILL change.
That said, the story already has been formed. I know how it begins, I know how it ends. I know what I want to say. I know how I want to shoot it. I know how I want to edit it. I even know what kind of music I'd like to use. The only thing I don't know is the specifics of what's going to happen in the middle and what the sucker's going to be called.
I have never been more sure about anything in my entire life.
Shell said at 10:26 AM 12-19-2005: Call the screenplay "Sure." Everyone who "sees" your protagonists are sure they know who these men are, sure their superficial assessments are accurate, sure they can predict an outcome of the encounter, et cetera. Your story is about people's certainty (sureness) being shaken, yes? Plus, you've never been more sure of anything in your life, so using "Sure" as a working title reinforces your ideas without dictating story (because I agree with Cecil's statement above about the danger of writing to title, not character).
Does any of that make sense? I'm running on way too little sleep, so I could just be babbling :).
reggie [email] said at 10:32 AM 01-13-2006: Yes I get it now. Yeah that makes sense. It shall be considered. Or rather, it "shell" be considered. Okay that's bad but really thanks for the input...
josh [email] said at 11:50 AM 12-19-2005: i disagree, rather i think it's different for each person... the two feature film scripts I have written to completion both started with titles, or the titles appeared very close to the beginning of the process. i didn't choose them, though, they just were what i referred to the story in my head, so it was natural that they be the title.
same thing for most of the short stories i have written.
reggie [email] said at 10:02 PM 12-17-2005: So I met with the guy today. He seems like a nice enough guy. I have to admit, when he first responded to my add I had the feeling I was talking to a middle-aged white guy trying to sound hip. But I was pleased to find that he's a slightly less than middle-aged black guy.
Anyway, as I was saying, he seems like a nice enough dude and we seem to agree on many things regarding the current state of movies, TV, the potential of DC's film scene, our general disdain of the notion of moving to L.A. to be closer to the industry.
But I'm not sure if he's the right guy (that sounds so gay) for me to work with. This tends to be a constant problem I have whenever I try to work with people in that most people's instincts tend to be much more commercial and genre-centric.
The stuff he mentioned suggested he was inclined towards moving the project in a suspense thriller/supernatural thriller kind of deal.
I just don't think in a "high concept" kinda way anymore. Actually, I really never did. Even though some of my favorite movies are pretty high concept (Die Hard, Speed, Sixth Sense) I tend to think in a more non-linear experimental kind of way.
Even when I do think in genres I approach them from a deconstructive kind of way.
So now I'm wondering if this collabo thing is the wrong approach or should I seek another collaborator who thinks like me. OR should I further explain what I'm thinking 'bout and let HIM decide if he wants to work with me... (which leads to my fear that he'll jack my idea even though I really haven't fully revealed the details to him for this exact reason.)
Shell said at 10:40 AM 12-19-2005: Not to be offensive, and you might have covered your writing style in another post someplace, but why do you need a collaborater at all?
Sandra Hocking said at 10:09 AM 01-13-2006: I would like to write about my husband's accident on 9/11/04. He feel and is now a quadriplegic. I have kept a journal from the very beginning and many interesting things have happened since that time. He's been in several hospitals, only coming home on one occasion...his b'day on 9/10/05. He has had several articles published in our local newspaper and the next one will be when he finally comes home, which hopefully, will be soon. I think it's an interesting story and it has changed the perspective of many friend's and relative,s lives.
kara [email] said at 11:21 AM 12-19-2005: Hey, you should write the screenplay for "Higher Grounds," the stoner comedy starring myself and Abby as two zany broads working at a struggling independent coffeeshop. When some weed finds its way into the french roast... hijinks ensue!
