Genre: Drama (Dark Comedy)
Premise: A couple of friends plan out a relaxing weekend vacation, but get involved with a party of wealthy snobs on the verge of a wedding instead.
About: This will be Max Winkler's directing debut. It will star Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland) and Michael Anagarano (Snow Angels) and be produced by Jason Reitman (director of Juno). Max Winkler is the son of The Fonz.
Writer: Max Winkler
No idea who this girl is. I just wanted to include a hot girl in the picture.If you've been following Scriptshadow long enough, you know that I've read two of Max Winkler's scripts. The first is The Ornate Anatomy Of Living Things (co-written with Matt Spicer), which I thought was awesome and stands strong in my Top 25. While it's not for everyone, the Kaufman-esque tale of a bookstore clerk who discovers a museum dedicated to his life is one of the most imaginative scripts I've ever had the pleasure of reading, and it put Winkler and Spicer on the "I'll read anything of theirs" list (a prestigious list if I do say so myself). The second is the one million dollar spec Winkler and Spicer co-wrote with Jonah Hill, "The Adventurer's Handbook." I like Winkler and Spicer. I like Jonah Hill. How I came to dislike this script so much then is a bit of a mystery. I think it was the issue of squandered opportunity, a cool idea sacrificed for Apatow-style "guys hang around and make fun of each other for 120 minutes" humor. Whereas Ornate had imagination to spare, Handbook's imagination would've taken its own adventure to find. In retrospect, however, I champion the sale. A big spec sale is good for all writers. Inspires other companies to go out and make their own big spec splash.
I didn't know much about Ceremony other than Winkler was writing alone this time and would be using this as his first directing vehicle. Hooking up with the talented Reitman as producer was also a smart move. The draft I read was dated late 2008, so I'm sure some of its contents have changed since then. I'm guessing the overall story and characters haven't though. So how was it? Let's find out.
Overly selfish Sam, 24, is an unsuccessful children's book author who's recently connected with his psychologically scarred best friend, Marshall, whose defining characteristic is that he always seems to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The two haven't seen each other in forever because the selfish Sam stopped returning Marshall's calls. Lucky for Marshall, Sam's invited him to a weekend getaway where the two can catch-up and patch-up their friendship. They head off to the New York countryside and find a little hotel in the middle of nowhere.
Once there, however, Sam immediately starts acting strange. He's always distracted, and seems particularly obsessed by the large party of people residing at a nearby mansion. Instead of plugging up old holes in their friendship, Sam suggests they head over to the mansion and see what all the fuss is about. Marshall, who seems incapable of thinking for himself, reluctantly agrees. Once at the party, it becomes clear that Sam is looking for someone. And that someone is the stoic emotionally unavailable Zoe, who happens to be ten years Sam's senior. It's clear that the two have some kind of past together and that Sam is here to declare his love for her. Little does he know (or did he know?) Zoe is getting married this weekend to the even more selfish documentary filmmaker "Save The World" Bono-wannabe, Whit. It doesn't take long for us to realize that "rekindling his friendship" with Marshall was never a part of the weekend plans. Sam merely used Marshall for his car. The rest of the story concerns Sam desperately trying to convince Zoe to run away with him, while the oblivious Marshall tries to refocus Sam on their friendship.
In short, I didn't want to participate in this ceremony. The movie's full of characters who are extremely difficult to like. Sam is so selfish and so cruel to Marshall, it's hard to muster up even a sliver of sympathy for him. And Marshall is so spineless and such a loser, you practically root for someone to kick his ass. Zoe's emotional unavailability and constant toying with Sam makes her just as bad as the others. It's like hanging out at a party with a bunch of people you don't like. There are shades of Max's relationship with Rosemary in the great movie, Rushmore, here, but those characters were dripping with heart. I can't find a pulse in any of Ceremony's characters and it made for a disappointing read.
I'm hoping these problems were addressed in the rewrites, but even if they weren't, I root for this movie to do well. It's normally the kind of film I fall head over heels for and I'd like for nothing more than to be proved wrong. Winkler's still on my "Read anything of his" list but as much as I wanted to, I couldn't get into Ceremony.
Link: Ceremony
[ ] trash
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Winkler and Reitman seem to be subscribing to the theory that Eisenberg and Anagarano will make these characters tolerable. Casting actors to make up for character issues in a script is always a risky proposition. Of course there are cases of it working, but even if you cast Tom Hanks as Adolf Hitler, it doesn't mean we're going to like Adolf Hitler. It's best to address these issues on the page, where you still have control.
I dug it. It sounds so suit-y when you say, the characters aren't likable enough. Why does every character have to be likable? Besides, we've see Jesse so much as this sweet, earnest, innocent kid, maybe it'll be fun watching him be a dick to Angarano, which is how I assume the roles are cast... Either way, two great young actors and regardless of how Adventurer's Handbook turns out, Max is one of the best young writers out there.
Couldn't get past the title page.
I realize it sounds "suity" and stock and that it's way overused but my reaction really is that simple. I didn't like these characters.
Although it's possible, it's really hard to write a script where the main character isn't likable in any way. It takes a lot of skill. Sometimes it's as simple as giving us one little thing we can latch onto about them. I couldn't find that here.
Anyway, we agree on one thing, Winkler is definitely one of the best young writers out there.
Do we get a WHICITA review tomorrow Carson? I'll love to see why Tom decided to choose that as his next project.
Anon, lol.
Lumi, e-mail me. I don't think I'm doing it this week.
Hey Carson. Did you find that other Winkler script you were after?
The girl is Henry Winkler's daughter.
Actor Henry Winkler (C) with son Max Winkler (R) and daughter Zoe Emily Winkler arrive at Sony Pictures premiere of 'Click' held at the Mann Village Theater on June 14, 2006 in Westwood, California.
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/9meS9sEzG2b/Sony+Pictures+Premiere+Click+Arrivals/80N3xVAPB8e/Zoe+Emily+Winkler
M.
And she just got married. [Just last Monday, June 29, 2009]
http://www.celebritybrideguide.com/henry-winklers-daughter-gets-married/
M.
Oh yeah, I guess I see the resemblance now. Anon, what was the script called again?
Didn't you review 'Witchita' already?
I share your lack of enthusiasm. It's not funny enough for a comedy, and not enough depth of character for a drama. It's OK to have an unlikeable character for a protag, but then they must have drive and energy. Sam is too passive. And what era is it set in, with film cameras and 45 rpm records? 1970s? Why not tell the reader? Presumably Winkler was writing the script for himself so it is not as vivid and informative as a spec script would be.
BTW in a previous post when I suggested disabling "Posts Relacionados," I actually meant "Labels." They seem to be reconstituted in real time and take a long time to download. If you have a search box, surely "Labels" is redundant?
Martin, I'll look into the labels thing.
Anon, that was a different Wichita. Very very different (note to new Scripshadowers: If you want to read a totally fucked up script, go to my old review of Wichita).
Wait, so the writer named the bitch lead in his screenplay after his own sister???
"And what era is it set in, with film cameras and 45 rpm records? 1970s? Why not tell the reader?"
Come the fuck on - what is with you people and this incessant need to be explicitly, explicitly, EXPLICITY told when & where a story takes place. I remember the same lame complaint being lodged against "Peacock" and "Never Let Me Go." What's so wrong with aiming to create a timeless, not-quite-identifiable filmic world? Nothing, that's what.
"Come the fuck on - what is with you people and this incessant need to be explicitly, explicitly, EXPLICITY told when & where a story takes place."
Because we need to know the rules of the world the movie's set in, which depend on the technology available at the time. When we are in the theater watching the movie we'll get enough clues from haircuts, clothing, motor cars etc to know what era we're in without a super that says "Upstate New York, 1970" or whatever (unless we are very young). But a script with sparse description, like this one, makes it difficult to figure out.
In this script you have to know something about postcards. Remember them? How did they work again?
We also need to know something about the social conventions of the time. The female lead Zoe is a free-spirited hippie type whereas her fiancee is a 'square,' and the male lead Sam is too young for the 60s so misunderstands Zoe's psychology and is hurt thereby. (I write this with some diffidence because I found it difficult to understand just what everyone's motivations are, but there seems to be a reason why it is set in the 70s and Zoe is in her 30s and Sam is ten years younger, and this is my attempt to decode it.)
Although it didn't bother me with Ceremony (I just assumed it was current day), I think knowing the world your story is set in is a big deal because, as Martin says, there are different rules for different times. Sex in the 50s is seen differently from sex in the 60s is seen differently from sex in the 80s. Normally, you can piece together these things with clues. But when you're addressing controversial topics (cross-dressing, slaughtering people), the time and place have a big influence on the story. (in Peacock, they made a mistake. The year was supposed to be in there but they forgot)
Post a Comment