October Round-Up
"The balance must be respected."
GREETINGS & SALUTATIONS
In this edition:
Happy first birthday to The Round-Up!
Hugh Grant goes bad! Again!
Frank-N-Furter is BACK! In pixel form!
The Short People Monthly Round-Up is celebrating its first birthday! It has been a bit of an experiment up until recently, but I think people seem to be enjoying its current format (hey, let me know what you think!)
Anyway, happy birthday to Short People.
It has been a strange month. I’m getting into the birthday season (lots of family birthdays coming up, all days apart, some even on the same day). Work-wise, there have been lots of ups and downs in equal measure, with the downs having a kick to them.
I’ve been focusing on writing a feature script about clans of survivors who cannot exist in sunlight. Hopefully, I’ll be submitting this for the BBC Writers Room open call for scripts. It’s the total opposite of the usual script I would submit - it isn’t standard BBC fare AT ALL, but they want a sample of storytelling, and my mantra whilst writing this script was “Just tell the story”. Opting for leanness, pushing the story on as opposed to getting bogged down with ideas, characters, one-liners etc. Will it work? Probably not, but a change in approach isn’t a bad idea.
I plucked up the courage to contact a producer I had sent a script to back in May.
I’ll be totally honest: I love writing. But the rest of it? Not so much. Trying to be respectful of other people’s time/busyness, but also not wanting to pussyfoot about… it’s a hard tightrope to walk. Figuring five months was probably long enough, I e-mailed the producer. They responded by sending me the script reader’s report, which was GLOWING.
"... It’s very well written with excellent characters, dialogue and a thorough grasp of story structure. The story world is engaging and well-crafted... provides a good setting for a light, comedic murder mystery to take place. The period elements - music, clothes, cultural references - give the piece a distinctive feel and also compliment the comedy itself. It is funny, and the overall tone is fun and engaging... there’s real potential here."
RECOMMENDATION: READ
Now, how exactly do we get this thing made?
JUST ONE MORE THING…
Sadly we recently lost cinematographer Dick Pope, who collaborated with directors Mike Newell, Ed Norton, Christopher McQuarrie, Gurinder Chadha, Barry Levinson, Richard Linklater, and Chiwetel Ejiofor. Most of all, Pope was known for his work with Mike Leigh - Naked, Topsy-Turvey, Mr. Turner, Vera Drake, Secrets & Lies - and most recently, the yet-to-be-released Oscar-tipped Hard Truths.
I worked with Dick Pope 30 years ago: It was a horrid, awful shoot for me (well, for quite a few involved): One of those life moments where you change your direction in life because you are so sick and tired of the way things are.
My two memories of working with Dick: I arrived on location in Deptford, London only to be asked to construct a scaffold tower for a high shot. Even as a wet-behind-the-ears 3rd A.D., even I knew I wanted no part of that, having had no experience with piecing together scaff poles. I’ve no idea who ended up flinging those poles together, but after a while, there stood a scaffold tower. The camera was hauled up to the top (which was at least at roof level, to give you an idea of scale), and Dick Pope got his shot. About a minute after he and the camera came down the entire tower collapsed in a heap. Lots of looks. Lots of silence.
About halfway through the shoot, I had a major ding-dong with the second A.D., who had been having beef with the producer’s assistant and was using me as his go-between/dirty work conduit. I grew increasingly tired of the petty behaviour and egos, and especially the treatment of which I was on the receiving end: So I told the 2nd to shove it and quit. Door slam and everything. That night, the 1st A.D. (a lovely, decent bloke and friend) informed me if I didn’t come back the next day I wouldn’t get paid for the work I had done.
So I returned to the location shoot. Who was the first person I saw? The 2nd. “I knew you’d be back.” was all he had to say. The story on set was much different: I arrived to praise and fanfare from Mr. Pope, who totally supported my actions and thought it was brilliant that I had stood up for myself and "stuck it to the man", given my lowly position. And that is something I will always remember. Thank you, Mr. Pope. RIP.
CINEMA
HERETIC
Back in 1995, I was listening to a lot of Jeff Wayne’s War of the Worlds. I read the book and adapted it into a spec screenplay just to see if I could. There was a character in it called Stent, who is Ogilvy the astronomer’s assistant. After the tripods show up, Stent vanishes, only to return later as a sort of Kent Brockman “I for one welcome our ant overlords” type, and I wrote him for Hugh Grant, who at that time was Mr. Four Weddings and a Funeral. But Hugh always struck me as a great bad guy - or at least someone with a dark side. And his role in Heretic is note-perfect for him.
Two young Mormons (Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East) arrive at the door of Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant), who seems more than willing to debate all things religious. Seemingly innocent to begin with, the situation eventually becomes Hansel and Gretel-ish, with the Mormons’ faith being challenged to breaking point.
Heretic is a philosophical horror/thriller about religious debate and mind games and is mostly challenging and provocative. The premise of “what-if you had afternoon tea with a psychotic Christopher Hitchens” is undeniably a fresh concept for a tense religious chiller and I sincerely believe Hugh Grant should get an Oscar nom for his work here: This is his Hannibal Lector. Mr. Reed is all charisma and kindly smiling eyes on the surface. Underneath you half expect him to be revealed as Satan. He’s a bad guy who believes in what he’s doing, and Grant is the perfect choice to play someone so malevolent.
Heretic has a talky but nail-bitingly tense first hour and mostly stays the course until the final ten minutes where its conclusion felt empty and rather pointless, but on the whole it is a nicely shot movie with two strong performances from Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East as the Mormons-in-peril. Their “challenge” arrives a little too late in the script - I never truly felt like the young women’s faith was being challenged to the extent it could have been: If you know someone is a loony and they’re deliberately forcing you into a scary situation would you feel like you were the one who needed a bit of introspection time? Another character arc felt under-explored, and Topher Grace’s church leader only serves as a diversion.
The idea is great and it keeps you on your toes, but a little more balance to the subject matter would have helped it sound less like a mouthpiece for the writer/directors. Soulless conclusion aside, Heretic is unique and original, talky and tense with a surprising amount of laughs for film about a posh English bloke terrorising two young women.
VERDICT: Hugh’s due for an Oscar nod.
JOKER: Folie à Deux
Goodness me. The back and forth online about this movie has proved increasingly tiresome. The haters came out in droves. Then it was the turn of the defenders. You were wrong if you hated it. You were wrong if you loved it.
So allow me to be right and wrong.
Disclosure: On the whole, I generally like Batman and all the characters. Some movies I love, some I don’t care for. But I’m not someone who gets upset over how they interpret characters and lore. Do what you like, so long as it is GOOD. I wasn’t a fan of the first Joker movie, as it felt like a Taxi Driver & The King of Comedy mega-mix.
Someone on Threads actually believes this: "Todd Phillips made the Joker sequel to piss off fans of the original."
Sounds good, but I don’t believe this for a second. WB aren’t so stupid that they didn’t know what film they would be getting. It’s not like they were never “in” on this perceived “trolling”. All involved knew the film they were making.
The one question which haunted me after seeing Joker 2 was: Who is this film made for? Who asked for the big-budget musical character study? The packed audience I sat with left disgruntled. I walked behind grumbling couples as we all left the cinema.
The director, Todd Phillips, claims the movie isn’t a musical. Joker 2 utilises songs which echo/solidify the characters’ emotional state, so it’s not like the songs are telling the next piece of their story or convey a character’s emotional position: Joker 2 tells you everything you need to know, then follows it up with a song which repeats the broad strokes of information.
So it’s all just the same vibe. The main two characters like each other. We get it. Now get them to do something interesting. Expand it. Don’t keep telling this they’ve got a messed up thing going on because we know that. The film has two big characters - Arthur Fleck/Joker and Lee Quinzel - and does little with them. There was potential for a mad Natural Born Killers spree with two insane lovers. But no, they had to go the big-budget musical courtroom character study route.
Lady Gaga is hypnotic: I would have easily watched a film about her obsession with the Joker. Instead, she is under-used. Joker 2 chases the “iconic” moments like the first film, but there’s only so much posturing, leg kicks and arms flung wide with an arched back that you can take - that is not character progression, it’s grandstanding schtick.
Part courtroom drama, part lounge club crooner show, the film is impressively staged and has many shots which stick in the mind, along with some good performances - but it never gets going. Films can be brilliantly made but not fun, and some films want you to squirm and deliberately not enjoy it, and I think this is the case here.
It is tantamount to driving a sports car at 20mph just because you can. What’s your point? Who are you trying to impress? The people that love things that fly in the face of conformity? Does that not then imply that by being deliberately awkward you’re conforming because it’s premeditated?
I don’t care for these kinds of exhausting cinematic philosophical arguments. Being a contrarian for the sake of it is as dull as this movie. Yes, it is different. But whatever happened to giving people what they want? You pay thirteen quid for entertainment, not the debate. Debate is the bonus take-it-or-leave-it stuff. Was Joker 2 entertaining? For me, no.
Joker: Folie à Deux is not a bad movie. It’s not “so bad it’s good”: It’s more “I never want to sit through this again” territory. It’s closer to The Last Jedi in terms of a director trying to create something different at the expense of the world in which these characters inhabit. I don’t care if it’s misunderstood or whether the ‘You Just Don’t Get It’ army thinks I didn’t get it. If you want a Joker film about a troubled individual mistreated by the system then maybe there’s something here for you.
For me, it’s one big Alan Partridge shoulder shrug.
VERDICT: Impractical Joker
THE WILD ROBOT
The second most heavily-promoted movie of the year (after Migration, which felt like it would never come out), comes another Dreamworks animated movie. The reviews had me sold: Lots of talk about crying and how moving it all was. “Best animated movie of the year!” Wow! (Presumably whoever wrote that review hadn’t watched Inside Out 2, which had me repeatedly bawling and is just one of my all-time favourite films.)
I was strangely unmoved by The Wild Robot. My brain just kept replaying Wall-E, bits of The Good Dinosaur, and even a bit of Finding Nemo… The film strives for the greatness of those movies, it desperately wants to be profound, but after an hour the story wanders in all directions. I found it unfocused and - shock - a bit dull. It’s the sort of movie that tells you how to feel instead of emotions coming as a response. Bill Nighy’s wise bird spouts naff platitudes, and all the guffy soundbite wisdom cannot make up for the lack of genuine insight.
The world-building isn’t solid: Robot-in-the-wilderness, malfunctioning and learning about life? Great, if a bit Short Circuit. But the story introduces a sort of “enemy” too late in the game. I just didn’t get how the story world worked. Wall-E had Buy-N-Large, which was set up right from the start. The baddies in The Wild Robot don’t have much purpose other than what the conclusion requires, which is sad because it does look great. It’s harmless, well-intentioned, undemanding Sunday afternoon on the telly stuff, and nowhere in the league of the movies it so wants to stand alongside.
VERDICT: “On a scale of one to ten, how would you rate my performance?” - Five.
TRANSFORMERS ONE
I used to love Transformers as a nine-year-old, back in the eighties. I had the toys, I watched the cartoons on VHS before school every. day.
This new movie, voiced by the likes of Chris Hemsworth and Scarlet Johanssen, and a brilliantly cast Steve Buscemi (I won’t say which character, but it is SPOT ON.).The film is a fast, fun, and for this old timer - migraine-inducing - buddy origin story which changes tone halfway through to become something grander and darker… which it almost gets away with, but only at the expense of the more light-footed first half. If you’re a fan of Transformers you’ll dig it, if you’re not then this probably won’t change anything. It’s a loud, whizzy, flashy, slam-bang thang, competently crafted and quite a bit of fun.
VERDICT: Autobots! ROLL OUT!
THE SUBSTANCE
I never really understood Demi Moore’s career in the 90s, whether it was GI Jane, Disclosure, Striptease or Indecent Proposal. They all struck me as seeking to be provocative for provocation’s sake, with Moore as their poster girl. The Substance IS definitely in this category - a sci-fi/fantasy/horror about a fading star’s desperate attempt to stay young and desired - but this time round Moore owns the film, going all-out as she battles with her younger doppelganger (Margaret Qualley) for dominance over their shared life.
It’s a mix of body horror (namely The Fly, The Thing and Society) and Black Mirror-esque social commentary and is certainly not for those with a weak stomach. There’s not a lot of dialogue or characters, other than Dennis Quaid’s gross-out lech producer and an annoying next-door neighbour, so at times it feels a little under-written as the focus is solely on Moore’s character as she transitions into a personal hell, but it is darkly humorous and has a lot to say on the pressures of remaining beautiful in the eye of society. The climax is deliberately over the top and a decent conclusion is sacrificed for a shower of gore, but the final shot sticks with you.
VERDICT: More, Demi!
THE CRITIC
A typically acidic theatre critic (Ian McKellen) finds his career in jeopardy and before you can say “blackmail”, bodies begin to pile up. The Critic has a lot of potential in its premise, but can’t decide whether to be a character study or a campy pot-boiler. So it strives for both, and never really hits either target. The ending was reshot after test screenings, and I’m pretty certain you can pinpoint the moment when the changes are implemented. It is well-cast, with Gemma Arterton being the stand-out (McKellen’s performance, whilst good, feels like it belongs to a different version of the film), but the supporting cast (inc. Mark Strong, Clare Skinner and Lesley Manville) aren’t given a great deal to do. What lets the film down is the script: It can’t decide on what it wants to be. It’s all fine and watchable, but had it settled for one or the other it could have been more entertaining.
VERDICT: Watch it for Arterton’s performance.
TELEVISION
RIVALS
I’ve only watched the first episode so far but I’ll say this: Rivals knows what it is, who its targets are and it goes for it. It is exactly what you think it will be - backstabbing and the upper class being horrible to each other, but there’s a mile-wide fun streak, and lots of 80s nostalgia to boot. Had this show been made in the 80s viewers may have aspired to emulate this onscreen, but this version is told through a post-Saltburn prism, meaning the characters are very much those you love to hate.
VERDICT: Trashy fun
READING
INTO THE WOODS by John Yorke
It seems I’ve been reading this book for years, but it is so full of fascinating insights - the kind which makes your brain click in agreement with John Yorke’s wisdom. As someone who is quite stuck in his ways when it comes to writing, I initially found it a challenge to get my head around John Yorke’s way of doing things, but I’ve recently ditched the typical three-act structure for five and seven acts, and it is clear to me that story structure works so much better this way. If you’re a writer you should own this book.
GAMING
Predator: Hunting Grounds has had a shiny new upgrade! If you’ve not played it, it’s a fair multiplayer game which captures the spirit of the original film.
Finally, here’s what musical picks have been on rotation this month:
Thank you for reading Short People!
It would greatly help if you could share this post on your socials. If you’re a writer on Substack, please could you add Short People to your recommendations.
If you enjoyed Short People, please spread the word!