Monday, August 1, 2016

MARTIN MCDONAGH

Students MUST post reactions (minimum 250 words) to the assigned viewing/reading(s) linked below. Students are encouraged (but not required) to additionally respond to other student reactions.

"The Badass Interview: MARTIN MCDONAGH" by Amy Nicholson: "Martin McDonagh is the biggest thing since Shakespeare. That's not an opinion—that's a fact. The two playwrights are the only men in history to have five plays running in London at the same time. And like Shakespeare, McDonagh loves wordplay, antiheroes and death." Click heading to read interview.

"Interview w. screenwriter MARTIN MCDONAGH" by Jeff Myers: "McDonagh first tried his hand at cinema in 2005, with a pitch black 27 minute film called Six Shooter. With a budget of $125,000 and Brendan Gleeson in the lead, it won the Academy Award for Best Live Action Short Film. He has since made several Hollywood features, always mixing grim humor, moral hand-wringing, and sudden violence into an irreverent and hyper-literate cocktail." Click heading to read interview.

Click HERE to watch Martin McDonagh's Oscar winning short film Six Shooter.

10 comments:

  1. From my perspective I feel that Martin McDonagh appears to be downright honest about everything that he writes about and everything that he is questioned. I read both “The Badass Interview: Martin McDonagh” by Amy Nicholas and the “Interview with screenwriter Martin McDonagh” by Jeff Myers and my perception of Martin McDonagh and his work is that he is literally blunt with his work and he truly does not fear judgment, ridicule or any sense of people thinking that he is crazy writer, which he isn’t exactly but more so eccentric. I feel that as a writer that is how your work is effectively created because its in its most raw form because you are writing exactly what you see in your head and how you perceive for it be created into paper. Specifically what stood out to me from this interview was the premise of his very first film, “Six Shooter” which is a dark comedy about suicide and exploding cows. First of all what type of contradiction is that? Where do you find a point of intersection within suicide and exploding cows? With this story line alone, it is clear how absurd McDonagh’s screenwriting is but again much like Professor A. Dawg says throw an animal into the backseat or add something that is completely different than what you would expect to find in a typical screenplay or in writing, McDonagh successfully encompasses this by somehow relating and creating an amalgamation of a storyline within these two opposing concepts. I have actually never heard of this short film but I am interested in seeing it now that it has been brought to my attention. Furthermore, something else that stood out to me was in his interview he was asked a question regarding money and his writing and he admits that he believes in integrity as a writer and how you shouldn’t do anything for money, which of course reminded me of what Professor A. Dawg says about how we shouldn’t feel the need to write and sell a book in order to keep the lights on for our family because it truly takes away from your writing and the reasons that you are writing to begin with, which I feel McDonagh’s work reflects this mentality because he does it as leisure when he says he isn’t lazy which admits to being so. Therefore, this ties back to my thoughts on one’s work truly portraying whatever you want it be because you don’t do it for that sole intent of money and success with it but more so for your self and for your love of the art, which is essentially what writing is.
    - Julissa Peralta

    ReplyDelete
  2. First of all, I don’t know why In Bruges is defined by its “crude humor”. It the trailer made it seem like your average, surrealist humor people use to distract themselves from their problems or situations. Then again, my sense of humor finds very…odd…things hilarious. The plot for The Seven Psychopaths seems hilarious, as far as dog-related humor can go. Although multiple side stories and tangents can become tedious if drawn out too far, anything can become hilarious if it diverts astronomically from the norm. I liked how McDonagh made mention of the very specific differences between writing for movies versus writing for plays, even though both follow a similar script formatting. The discussion on how writing in a particular actor’s voice can change how you write a character seemed like something easy to try for oneself. The second interview opens by immediately claiming that Martin McDonagh is the biggest thing since Shakespeare. Perhaps in popularity, but I must immediately ask if the playwright stuffed as many sex/genitals jokes in his work as Shakespeare managed to fit in. Every other scene, in any of Shakespeare’s play, had some sort of innuendo in it. I would be thoroughly impressed if Martin McDonagh managed to hit even half that number, purely because there were a million different references for genitals or sexual acts in Victorian ages. According to leading historians, this was because discussing sex was frowned upon so severely in Victorian ages. Is it counterintuitive? Probably. But also remember that Portugal is at an all-time low for addiction rates after legalizing drugs. Really. All the drugs. It’s actually kind of sad.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the Badass interview I liked how McDonagh gave his insight into what differentiates between him choosing to write a story as a play or as a movie. He said that if characters are having conversations in one room or in one general time/place/vicinity then he writes it as a play, but if the story skips between various timeframes and places then he writes it as a movie. I thought it was a very simple way to look at his work. His work is, to me, simplistic. Although he has some very peculiar things going on his works, particularly in Six Shooter, it all seems very raw and simple. He doesn't complicate things, his work is very blunt, which gives it its dark humor. Six Shooter was a really interesting piece. It was quirky and dark and original. The cow scene was absolutely ridiculous and hilarious, kind of makes me think that we shouldn't keep poking at the things in our lives and just let nature run its course. McDonagh uses basic techniques that we learn in Intro to Creative Writing like opening with an emotional moment. The main character's wife has just died, there has just been some catastrophic ending and yet it is the beginning of a whirlwind for him. It is the beginning of one of the strangest days of his life, and it makes it so that his wife dying wasn't even the biggest thing to happen to him that day. There is a lot of irony in this work. Interesting to watch, glad that I did.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What stands is out is the toy monkey that looks like its smiling on the window. It makes it seems more disturbing as the talks about death come up. It looks like it symbolizes the rude boy. So far, it seems to be simply a joke to him until he realizes that he pushed to line too far. After the scene where the picture of the baby splits in two, he tells himself that he may have went a bit too far. What stands out to me is in the Badass Interview, he talks about how he focuses on the small things and not so much the plot.
    In Interview with Screenwriter of "Seven Psychopaths", he brings an important point about how what the author wants to convey is twisted by the director’s preference in the films:
    "Have you ever considered letting someone else shoot your scripts, or vice versa?: No, because you spend so much of your life working on a film, pretty much two years from start to finish. You have to put your own stories out there. Or, at least, I do. And if you give your script to someone else to shoot it’s not yours anymore. The director is God. Whereas with a play no one can change your words. I’ve never actually directed any of my stuff on stage but I’ve had as much influence as the director. They can’t cut a single word. Instead they’re in rehearsal every day talking to the actors, getting it just right. The influence of writers in stage plays is so much greater than… well, it’s almost non-existent in films. Even the strongest voices can get cut out by a scumbag director."

    Posted by Mena

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amy Nicholson Interview and the Six Shooter Film
    I watched the film before I read the interviews, so I expected Mr. McDonagh to be as dark and sarcastic as I felt the film was. He wasn't. I actually found the interviews light hearted and informative. The film, however, with the macabre sadistic young man surrounded by the grieving man and grieving couple was very hard for me to identify with. I felt for the man and the couple but I couldn't get why he was placed in their lives. Taunting the mother, and her throwing herself from the train was shocking. When she tripped trying to get away from the young man and she realized the picture was torn, I thought she would kill him. Her killing herself was a little unexpected.
    In the Nicholson interview, he is really funny when he talks about how much he dislikes the Expendables. I've never seen it so I can't comment. I find his comment about Hollywood movies and guns comical too, especially since the character in his short film had two guns, the police had more, and he ended the film with the poor grieving man shooting his wife's pet and bungling his own suicide. By the way I found that character's response at the end morbidly funny.
    Why did he choose a rabbit and not a traditional pet like a cat or dog?
    In this article he seems to be a reluctant success. His concern for the integrity for the art of writing is paramount. Money is not the issue for him at this point. I guess it's good that he has several plays running so he can eat and keep his agent happy.
    He seems to have good natured feud/competition with his brother John. I'd like to hear John's perspective.
    In the Meyers interview again he honors his craft as a writer saying he allows for interpretation from his actors, but they must own his words. McDonagh does seem to respect what the actor brings to his words is their gift. He doesn't trust directors with his work. He prefers to be in charge. I can agree with this. I never had the experience of seeing my work on film or directing any piece for film, but I have directed all of my plays. I allow for interpretation but, I get married to my words. Which can be frustrating when working with volunteer actors who work full time, have families, other responsibilities and just want to help out. I lose whole paragraphs sometimes.
    In this article I see him allowing the editor in him over rule the writer director side I assume because film and the stage are different in terms of expectation.
    Back to the film-I guess I looked at the film with a more literal eye. I expected there should be a moral or teaching, reason for the film. I didn't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Amy Nicholson Interview and the Six Shooter Film
    I watched the film before I read the interviews, so I expected Mr. McDonagh to be as dark and sarcastic as I felt the film was. He wasn't. I actually found the interviews light hearted and informative. The film, however, with the macabre sadistic young man surrounded by the grieving man and grieving couple was very hard for me to identify with. I felt for the man and the couple but I couldn't get why he was placed in their lives. Taunting the mother, and her throwing herself from the train was shocking. When she tripped trying to get away from the young man and she realized the picture was torn, I thought she would kill him. Her killing herself was a little unexpected.
    In the Nicholson interview, he is really funny when he talks about how much he dislikes the Expendables. I've never seen it so I can't comment. I find his comment about Hollywood movies and guns comical too, especially since the character in his short film had two guns, the police had more, and he ended the film with the poor grieving man shooting his wife's pet and bungling his own suicide. By the way I found that character's response at the end morbidly funny.
    Why did he choose a rabbit and not a traditional pet like a cat or dog?
    In this article he seems to be a reluctant success. His concern for the integrity for the art of writing is paramount. Money is not the issue for him at this point. I guess it's good that he has several plays running so he can eat and keep his agent happy.
    He seems to have good natured feud/competition with his brother John. I'd like to hear John's perspective.
    In the Meyers interview again he honors his craft as a writer saying he allows for interpretation from his actors, but they must own his words. McDonagh does seem to respect what the actor brings to his words is their gift. He doesn't trust directors with his work. He prefers to be in charge. I can agree with this. I never had the experience of seeing my work on film or directing any piece for film, but I have directed all of my plays. I allow for interpretation but, I get married to my words. Which can be frustrating when working with volunteer actors who work full time, have families, other responsibilities and just want to help out. I lose whole paragraphs sometimes.
    In this article I see him allowing the editor in him over rule the writer director side I assume because film and the stage are different in terms of expectation.
    Back to the film-I guess I looked at the film with a more literal eye. I expected there should be a moral or teaching, reason for the film. I didn't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I read the interview with A. Nicholas, with McDonagh, and when he says So killing people doesn't make you a psychopath. It's why you kill. This is why I love these type of movies, because its not that these killers are crazy, its basically they have a job to do and must do it well, and if that takes a bit of psychoness (for lack of a better word) then so be it, the job must get done, McDonagh I think has a bit of that in his eye for this type of writing. I think he puts me in mind of a mixture of Steven Spielberg with a little bit of a Steven King who is really nuts. Nonetheless, I might like his movies because of the fact that he seems to not relate to these characters with the norm of them being psychotic. They could be ordinary people....

    ReplyDelete
  8. I do appreciate the whole anti-hollywood that he is bringing to his work, and that's probably why the reviews were so mixed. You can’t deny that most of the popular media today follows some type of formula, some things more closely than others, but that formula repeated becomes predictable and stale.
    I have a family friend who worked on broadway making plastic prosthetics for 40 years, working on shows like Beauty and the Beast and Young Frankenstein. This guy has been around film and theatre quite a long time and it's interesting to talk to him about the transformation of the genres, and how the “formula for success” is always changing. So I relate when McDonagh talks about wanting to create something different.
    It’s interesting how he is so dead set on not adapting his plays into movies. Of course he can do anything he wishes to do with his work, or wishes not to do rather, but somehow I was under the impression that movies are the ultimate goal. Probably just because it is where the most money is. But McDonagh says to not do anything for the money. As a music major, this is something I can definitely sympathize with.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I do appreciate the whole anti-hollywood that he is bringing to his work, and that's probably why the reviews were so mixed. You can’t deny that most of the popular media today follows some type of formula, some things more closely than others, but that formula repeated becomes predictable and stale.
    I have a family friend who worked on broadway making plastic prosthetics for 40 years, working on shows like Beauty and the Beast and Young Frankenstein. This guy has been around film and theatre quite a long time and it's interesting to talk to him about the transformation of the genres, and how the “formula for success” is always changing. So I relate when McDonagh talks about wanting to create something different.
    It’s interesting how he is so dead set on not adapting his plays into movies. Of course he can do anything he wishes to do with his work, or wishes not to do rather, but somehow I was under the impression that movies are the ultimate goal. Probably just because it is where the most money is. But McDonagh says to not do anything for the money. As a music major, this is something I can definitely sympathize with.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Okay number one ‘The Expendables’ was actually pretty cool, though got worse as they made sequels. But still the original shouldn’t just automatically get burned for having a lot of guns in it. Having seen Seven Psychopaths pretty much right when it came out I knew of Mcdonagh’s work though never really knew his name. I liked just about everything about the movie, and in fact can’t think of anything negative mention at all. I thought the inclusion of bunnies was quirky idea. That being said, since we all have our own little quirks it really boils down to a humanizing force/factor. The lead gangster’s attachment to his poodle is another great example of humanizing these peculiar characters. I definitely appreciate Martin’s distain for the Hollywood process. I like watching the big Hollywood productions but really revel in seeing something quirky and original that may just one day fall into the category of cult classic. Something the like of The Crow, or Serenity, or The Matrix (JUST THE FIRST ONE!). Guys like him who strive for originality above all things, more or less, are the ones who push the boundaries of what’s acceptable or more accurately plausibly economical for the big Hollywood studios to put out. Thusly, enriching movie making and watching for everyone else. On a side note I really enjoyed Sam Rockwell in The Way, Way Back, a coming of age tale told at a water park.

    ReplyDelete