It can be a good thing to have mental health problems.

One of the most depressing things about today's so called television entertainment is the almost complete lack of empathy on almost every channel out there. When you take a look at all those different shows, it's pretty obvious that those people that produce these shows don't have much empathy for you as a viewer.

As unfortunate as it is, there are just too many examples (shows and their writers) where you can almost immediately say that this and that person does not care. No decent person would put out that crap for the audiences to see.

But why is this so? Is it because the television industry is so tough, so stressing and so demanding. Because, I mean, certainly I've heard that explanation before. "You should try it yourself, you wouldn't last for a day". In my opinion in most cases this is just a really weak excuse.

I know that it's very difficult to come up with quality concepts. It's not easy to come up with a comedy series that actually works. It's not easy to create a drama series that manages to captivate the audience. Neither is it easy to create a reality show that is both uplifting and real. 

There are so many television channels today that it's admittedly impossible to fill them all with quality shows. You're bound to have a lot of shows that are a bit questionable when it comes to their quality. I do understand that.

Nevertheless, I think we still have to draw the line somewhere. The unfortunate truth is that there are just too many bad shows that for no reason at all treat you - as a viewer - as someone who has no value. You're not important. You're not precious.  Too many shows are cold, cruel and even sociopathic.

I think one of the biggest reasons for this is that there are too many people that write these different shows who just don't understand what it means to be a human. They don't understand that they have responsibilities that are bigger than just keeping their shows on air.

They don't understand what pain means. Instead of serving others and not wanting others to be in pain, usually all they want to do is to take the easy way out. These people are lazy, superficial, vain, ignorant and hollow inside. They don't care.

The biggest reason that I myself became a writer, is because - at least in my opinion - I care about people. I want to do what's right and what's good for others. I think I understand at least to a certain extent what it means to be in pain. I have a clue what depression, anxiety and ocd can do to you.

The requirement for being a talented writer, I believe, is that you know as much as possible about how the human mind works. Having problems yourself is a good way to learn empathy.  It won't guarantee that you'll become a great writer but it's nevertheless a pretty good start.

In any case, we need writers who have empathy for people like you and me. Because in all honesty, we need to become better human beings.  Without compassion it's just never going to happen.

Some reasons for getting rejected.

So this is one of those of painful topics that very few of us want to talk about. How do you react when your work - screenplay or whatever that is - gets rejected? Do you get mad or do you give up? How do you cope with it and do you ask why it happened?

There are actually a lot of pretty good guides out there if one wants to know how to cope with rejection. The advice is pretty basic but it's definitely helpful. It ranges from not blaming yourself to talking to your friends etc.

Nevertheless, even though we have to come up with coping mechanisms that allow us to move on, as human beings we should be curious enough to know what exactly went wrong and why.  In my opinion it's not enough to just move on. 

One of the things that I myself have learned about rejections is that I have learned to pay  more attention to the quality of my product.  I take another look at what I managed to do, if there were mistakes and how big of a difference those mistakes made.

With just about every script I have noticed that, yes, I  really did make mistakes. Some of them were bigger, some of them were smaller. Some of them really made the difference and objectively speaking probably ruined my chances. 

In any case, noticing that you make mistakes is a good thing and it should bring you relief. It gives you a rational explanation to why things went wrong and why you were rejected. It was your fault - that's awesome. Next time you can do better. You have a reason.

But it isn't always that simple. Even if you happen to make mistakes, it doesn't mean that it was the reason why you got rejected. It's possible that your product nevertheless, overall, was good enough. So there can be other reasons too.

Speaking from my own experience (writing specs & competitions) and how much I've learned about how people in the business think, I think I can say pretty safely say that quality doesn't always matter. As shocking as it sounds, not all people care enough.

As unfortunate as it is, everyone has biases. There are of course exceptions, but too many people out there simply don't have what it takes to say what's good and what's not. Too many in charge can't tell what's right and what's wrong - or they just don't give a damn.

That's what makes the whole thing so difficult and depressing.  Make mistakes as a writer that are too big and you get rejected. Don't make mistakes, do things too well and you might get rejected too. That's something that's not easy to accept at all.

24: Live Another Day - some issues I had with it.

SPOILERS: If you haven't seen the season yet, DO NOT read this.

So anyway, even though I did like 24: Live Another Day: There were certain problems I had with this new mini-season. In my opinion most of these problems could probably have been avoided had the writing been slightly better.

The first big problem I had - and many others had a problem with it too - was when President Heller survived the attack that he was supposed to have died in. This really didn't make much sense. It felt gimmicky and convoluted. 

Before that the audience had seen stuff that was totally entertaining. Jack and co. being chased by drones in the middle of London was easily the the best thing that we saw on tv this season. It wasn't even close in my opinion - this was gold.

I really liked the drone strikes storyline this season. There was a clear moral dilemma. If the terrorists can hijack a drone, don't they have every right to use them as well? After all, there's no honor in using drones as weapons.

Why President Heller surviving didn't work was because everything leading up to this moment had not only been entertaining but also - if not completely believable - at least relatively plausible.  The subject matter was relevant and the character development was pretty good too.

Margot Al-Harazi was a pretty interesting villain and her terms for stopping the attacks were pretty fair too. Just give the president of the United States who ordered the killing of her husband and she would let go off the drones. 

I found it very disappointing when the audience didn't get what it "wanted". Since it was revealed that President Heller suffered from Alzheimer's disease, sacrificing himself in order to save thousands didn't seem like a bad idea. Too bad this cathartic moment never happened.  

Nevertheless, things got worse this season when Mark Boudreau,  the White House Chief of Staff decided to sell out Bauer for the Russians - again. I didn't like this turn of events at all. Even though he started as the token bad guy, the audience started to like him as the episodes went on.

That he acted like a total coward didn't really make sense.  It's as if the writers forgot his character arc and decided to cop out. Clearly there were other options available that would have served the story better than how things eventually went.

There were some other obvious problems too. Benjamin Bratt's character turning out to be the villain didn't seem right. The token 'mole' in the headquarters had been played out so the writers probably shouldn't have taken that route.

I also didn't like how everything was so connected. That Michael Wincott's 'resistance' character was connected to the Chinese and how the Russians were connected to everyone - including being able to get information about that forged signature in the White House.

Of course probably the worst part of this season was Audrey's death. Not that I really cared about her character - or anyone else did for that matter - but her death was pretty much straight out of a Monty Python comedy. How can you fail at securing that place - twice in a row?

Other than that I am not someone who necessarily wishes to see happy endings all the time. Nevertheless, the ending of Live Another Day was just too depressing even for me. It wasn't really derived from what had happened during this season.

A lot more than that it was a compilation of what had already happened during the earlier seasons - awful things happening to everyone. In all honesty they should have given at least Boudreau some kind of a happy ending. After all, he did lose his wife too.

Since it turned out that Jack turned himself over to the Russians, the story obviously isn't finished yet. This of course means that we're almost certainly going to get another season of 24 at some point in the future.

In the end, this season had a lot of great things going for it. Unfortunately the last third of the series turned out to be pretty disappointing. Hopefully the final upcoming season will set things right for Jack. That might not happen, but I guess you never know. 

How to motivate yourself to write: get mad or get really depressed.

I think it was Hemingway who said that he doesn't like writing, but he likes having written. I don't necessarily like writing that much either. Writing isn't always easy - sometimes it's really hard. 

Having said that, in my opinion writing, even bad writing usually beats not writing at all. As much as it pisses me off when I can't seem to be able to put together coherent sentences, not writing many times feels perhaps worse.

But in order to be able to write something, you need ideas. For me personally, it's not that easy to get them. Nothing happens when I don't have a clue what to write about. I'd like to write about something, but the ideas, they just don't keep coming.

It helps to have a certain writing routine that you try to stick to most of the time. It also helps when you have goals that you try to reach. These are the things that give us a feeling of having control over the process.

That is the rational approach to writing. Planning, thinking about writing, being analytical about the whole process. Thinking that we can decide what to write about and when to write. Thinking that we're in charge.

In reality though, we can't always decide when and where to get ideas from. That's not how our minds work. Our ability to control it is much more limited than we are willing to admit to ourselves. That is because our emotions play a big part too.

In my case I can safely say that I tend to get ideas and I'm actually motivated to write when I'm feeling mad over something that has happened in my life. I have the need to vent and I have to get rid of my frustrations. This seems to work rather well.

What also gets me started writing  is when I feel depressed and life becomes pretty unbearable. This forces me to do something - and writing helps, because it makes me concentrate on things other than my problems. 

If I don't feel bad enough or if I don't feel angry enough, it's usually hard to get anything done. There are exceptions too: sometimes I do like writing and sometimes I'm even excited to start writing, but those days are few and far between. I just don't get ideas.

In any case, when it comes to writing it usually doesn't hurt when you're hurt. Most of the time the worse you feel, the better you write. If you're mad or depressed, there's a decent chance that something good is about to happen.

Hilarious stand up by Michael Mcintyre.

 

There are very few current stand up comedians out there that manage to be funny. One of them is Michael Mcintyre, who I suppose is not well known in the United States. After all, he's not American - he happens to be a Brit.

Now, I admit that Mcintyre's stand up routine is not that daring and it won't necessarily challenge anyone to think. Jokes about the Queen aren't by default that edgy. Neither are the bits for example about England's football team to be honest.

Nevertheless, even though he's not a social commentator like Bill Hicks, that shouldn't stop us from taking a look at those things that he manages to get right. Because in my opinion he's a very talented performer who knows how to keep you entertained.

One of the good things about Mcintyre is that his style of comedy isn't that much about telling jokes. Instead his stand up routine is based on making observations that happen to be funny. They're funny because they're true.

I think he's also pretty good at telling a story. He's also good at doing physical comedy. The way he walks, the way he "dances" and the way he imitates with his moves. His facial expressions are hilarious too and he's also good at doing voice impersonations.

He's also funny because he makes fun of himself constantly. What is especially good is that despite mocking himself he manages to keep the tone upbeat and cheerful. It doesn't distract in any way, it doesn't feel out of place.

He also seems to have a really good grasp of the popular culture. For example in the clip above is the hilarious "I'm going to Hogwarts" moment derived from the Harry Potter series. The bow shooting from Lord of The Rings was great too.

Little things like these make you feel like you can trust the performer. He knows things that you know and manages to  integrate these references into his acts. (I especially recommend Mcintyre's playstation bit from his "World Cup" video).

In any case, it not easy to be a good stand up comedian. It takes so much work to perfect an act like this. There's no way I myself would ever be able to do something like this. Like no way...

But Michael Mcintyre does and the way he performs makes me feel happier about life. I hope this guy keeps going because there can never be enough laughter on this planet.

Matt Damon should get back to writing.

Last week I wrote about recent coming of age movies that I felt were really mediocre and disappointing to say the least. These films could have been so much better had they been written by someone with talent, compassion and insight in life.

That got me thinking about movies of this genre that managed to get it right. Movies the draw you in from the get-go. Movies that make ordinary seem extraordinary. Movies that make you feel like you're actually worth something.

Naturally one stood out from the rest. It wasn't really hard for me to start thinking about Good Will Hunting, a  film about a troubled genius with pretty incredible abilities. A movie that in my opinion is one of the best of all time.

There are a lot of reasons why Good Will Hunting is a really good movie. For example, it is wonderfully acted and directed. The performances are all great. It also has a relaxed feel, even though it's a pretty serious movie.

However, the biggest reason that the movie is so good is because of its script, written by the actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck (mostly by Damon). It has all the elements that makes the audience care and gets them involved with the story.

For example, Damon's character Will Hunting is an underdog, which is something that you can almost never emphasize enough. He's a math genius who for some reason only works as a janitor at M.I.T university.

He is also a conflicted character with a troubled past. But even though he gets in trouble with the law, he's not an unlikable person. Everything that he does happens for a reason. As an audience member you can't help but to root for him. 

He has real problems that make the story so compelling. He's about to go jail, until a Math professor saves him - as long as he's willing to work for the professor. So the stakes are real - it's about his freedom, both physical and psychological.

The movie is about change, which makes it important that it has strong characters. Will's therapist is a great match for Will's sensibilities. Without good protagonists/antagonists, movies can rarely succeed. 

The movie is also exceptionally well structured. It manages to make its big moments feel natural and real. Like when Will breaks up with his girlfriend (token break up), This feels completely natural. It makes sense, which is really rare in today's movies.

Also the dialogue in Good Will Hunting is really wonderful. Not only is the dialogue amazing but the scenes themselves are amazing. Watch any of the numerous clips on youtube and see for yourself.

So many movies fail or are mediocre because they don't get the important ingredients right. The characters aren't interesting enough, the problems aren't real or big enough, the stakes aren't there or perhaps the writers make too many misreads.

Good Will Hunting is a great movie because it manages to get almost everything right.  Its script is one of the best ever, and watching the movie makes you wonder why Matt Damon hasn't really written that much after this wonderful film.

Here's a guy who has a real gift. It's a shame that he hasn't utilized his skills more in recent years. After all, there are too many hacks and clowns in the business anyway. Damon on the other hand, is the real deal.

Movies to avoid: 500 Days of Summer, Spectacular Now, The Fault in Our Stars.

Last week I managed to watch "The Spectacular Now". It had gotten pretty good reviews overall and I also had read The Bitter Script Reader's rave about it. Naturally I had to give it a chance, not because I thought it would be a good film, but because my instincts told me it's a bad movie.

Now, the reason that I didn't have any high hopes for "The Spectacular Now" was because some months ago I had seen "500 Days of Summer". That movie was written by those same guys who also wrote "The Spectacular Now" too.

As you might know, "500 Days of Summer" had gotten great reviews and was a box office success. It was supposedly this great indie romantic comedy that would set the standard for future aspiring film makers. It was so fresh and original, they said.

The problem with "500 Days of Summer of course was that despite its success, it wasn't really a good movie at all. Even though it started off rather well, after I finished it, I had to admit to myself that the film made very little sense.

500 Days of Summer had huge problems with the story, the themes and its point of view. It was about a guy who loves a girl - who doesn't really love him back. An objective look at a subjective experience that the guy was having. 

That itself was pretty confusing already, but it got way worse. For example the writers had decided to play with the structure of the movie. Scenes were played in random order so that the so called smart (dumb) people wouldn't notice that the movie didn't have characters or a plot.

I couldn't believe how disappointing the movie was. The characters talked and nothing interesting happened. They just moved on from one scene to the next one. There was no conflict and there was no real growth.

So once I finally started watching "The Spectacular Now" - by the same writers - I already knew what to expect. The story would be severely undercooked, the characters wouldn't really make sense, the conflicts - if any - would be forced and the reactions would come out of nowhere.

In "Spectacular Now", the main character  meets a lovely girl and they start dating. How this movie differs from 500 Days of Summer is that instead of the girl not loving him back, this time the guy has an alcohol problem.

I wasn't really sure about this 'problem'. When I kept watching the movie,  it became pretty obvious that even though the guy has a drink in his hand in almost every scene - which I found to be pretty comical - he doesn't really seem to have a drinking problem.

This is what made the movie so bland. The whole gimmick was the non existing personal issue, so once we got to the last of third of the movie, none of the things that happened were organic. Most of the beats came out of nowhere, which made the movie so disappointing.

It simply wasn't believable how the main character got so freaked out over his dad's "problems". His reaction came out of nowhere and from that moment on the film made no sense. It just tried to follow the beat sheet - and failed.

Anyway, this still leaves us with "The Fault in Our Stars", a film that _again_ is written by the same guys who wrote these other two movies. This one is a well reviewed movie too that has done extremely well when it comes to the box office.

"The Fault in Our Stars" is a film that is again about a girl and boy who this time happen to be cancer patients. It is, not surprisingly, supposed to be some kind of a romantic comedy that will make you laugh and cry and will give you insight about life.

I haven't seen the movie yet but based on those other movies, I feel pretty strongly that there's no reason to watch "The Fault in Our Stars". I'm pretty sure that it's an uninspired film where the characters mostly talk, the story is underdeveloped and there's no conflict. It's just like those other two films.

In my opinion, the lack of raw writing talent on these films is just a bit too obvious and unfortunate - and based on some of the more critical reviews I've read, "The Fault in Our Stars" isn't any better or any different from "500 Days of Summer" or "The Spectacular Now".

It's pretty amazing that this is the best that Hollywood can do with romantic comedies. But I think it's even more amazing that someone in charge keeps hiring these clearly-not-that-talented guys over and over again.