DZ-96: Ensembles 1 - What do we mean by an ensemble? — Transcript

Given the opportunity, I will shit in Chezz's sink and his dishwasher.

Hahahaha.

Hi, I'm Chas Fisher.

I'm Stu Willis.

And I'm Melanie Killingsworth.

And welcome to Draft Zero, a podcast where three emerging filmmakers try to work out what makes great screenplays work.

And in this episode, we've already decided to go a little bit off script that we had come up with and talked about in our back matter episode previously, which is that we are doing part one of ensembles, but it's awful is now growing mammothly.

Anytime you invited me to come onto a podcast, There's always the risk that it's gonna become at least a two if not a three-parter.

Thank you for watching!

To reveal the curtain behind our discussions, it's always me going, guys, we're only going to do three films and then Mel and Stu ganging up on me about, but how about we just do four and five and then we cut it later.

Oh, but no this time no this was this time you guys had two films I suggested a third and then next thing I know it was like eight films.

Okay, but what are we covering in this particular episode, Stu?

What we are doing is actually intro in in some bulls so what we realized is that there's quite a bit of groundwork that we wanted to play that kind of the various frameworks that we're all bringing to our, asking in some bulls and we're just basically talking through that because if we put this at the front of an episode you may end up with a four hour episode, which is like two hours of laying pipes so this is kind of similar to what we did with talismans right which is that we have this taxonomy of what a talisman is what we mean by that and then we kind of applied that into the films later so it's kind of like we are assembling the team, So to speak and then the actual mission is episodes 2 and 3 so there's no specific homework for this which is also why we've been able to get it out in quickly.

But what is our proposed homework for episodes two and three on ensembles G.

Okay, so part two of Ensembles is going to be looking at films whose genre generally requires them to be ensembles. And we're going to unpack that a bit in this episode, and that means we're going to be looking at a murder mystery. In this case, Glass Onion. We're going to be looking at a sports film, in this case, Pitch Perfect.

Team sports specifically though.

Yeah.

Teen Sports, yeah, I mean, it's not Raging Bull.

It's early 2000s, but still problematic.

Yes that is a very important clarification. Then we're going to be looking at a slasher film so we're going to be looking at scream probably scream 5 and possibly with reference to scream 1 and then we're going to be doing a family drama and we decided to do the family stone which is an older possibly problematic film from the 90s.

The differentiation being is the film problematic or the people within the film problematic?

It's the people, not the film.

Two very different things.

And then in what is now part three, we're going to be talking about writers of justice. If you haven't seen that, please seek it out. It's a great film. And what's interesting about it is it takes a dad core film and then adds an ensemble to it. And it kind of changes a little bit of the meaning to it. We're going to be doing the Woman King, which is an action film that by adding an ensemble element kind of takes a historical action film and kind of makes it more epic. We'll talk obviously more about that in that episode, but you know, there are films like Braveheart or even like The Last Jewel and stuff like that kind of fit in with that genre. But the Woman King is playing it as an ensemble and that changes the film. And we haven't actually quite decided what we're going to be doing for the third film. We've constantly debating it. So if you're interested in what I have an opinion on that please sign up to the Patreon where you can vote and we can ignore the outcome.

But importantly, and I'm hoping this is going to be a segue into our first agenda item, which is what is an ensemble. We're not talking about films that simply have a lot of stories or a lot of characters. We're not talking about anthology films or hyperlink cinema. We are specifically looking at films, that are telling a single story with lots of characters?

I mean, that's a pretty good definition. Okay, so let's jump, we'll jump in.

Yeah, this is what we're here for.

I think one of the interesting ones that I was considering as we were cycling through all these potentials, right, is we have a film like Away We Go, right? So Away We Go, I think, is a really great example. It is not an ensemble, or I would not consider that an ensemble film, even though you really have eight really key characters. The concept of the film is you have this couple, and they are about to have a baby and they're trying to figure out how they want to raise their kid, what their concept of community is, where they, you know, want to move and live, all these things. And they go and they visit different family members, different old friends, different etc. And you've got a lot of really key characters and all of the sort of secondary characters, if you will, are of about equal importance. You probably have 10 really key characters in the film, And you can have 10 characters in an ensemble film where two of them or one of them is quote-unquote more important than the other. I would say something like The Woman King does that. But this isn't an ensemble film because they're not all interacting with each other.

Mm-hmm, that's a good definition.

You really only have two people who are interacting with all of them in in rotating or different bases. Like they don't interconnect. It's not an anthology. It's not anything like that. It's not It's not even divided into chapters per se, like it's actually really popular to do right at the moment. But you've got this film where a lot of the characters have zero impact on each other. They only have an impact on the main couple. They only have an impact on the main quote unquote storyline and their own storyline, no matter how interesting they are and how much they have their own miniature arcs. Melanie Linsky's character has her own really interesting arc within it and Maggie Gyllenhaal's character has her own really immediately specific impact on the couple, but it's not an ensemble. It is all about the core characters. So the definition can't just be, you've got 10 characters and they're mostly of equal importance, etc. Are their storylines interacting? Are they having an impact on each other, etc. I think also really has to come into.

Well I I'm 100% on board and I want to just stipulate here that in the same way where Stu and I got really into the weeds about what is and is not a talisman and the spectrums of from talismanic to non-talismanic and all these different dials you could play with. To me it's not important whether you definitively agree with us what we think an ensemble film is whether you think your film is an ensemble film or not. The reason why we're setting these parameters is to look at these films that pose particular storytelling challenges. And then hopefully what we can learn from those challenges. And to your point, Mel, I think just having a lot of characters doesn't make a film an ensemble film. If there's a clear sort of singular journey, whether it's, you know, a two-hander like a rom-com or a buddy comedy film, like it's still like those, even though there's more than one quote unquote protagonist, it's still there. They're functioning as kind of as a unit and there might be a huge array of other characters, but all they're doing to your point is they're like sources of antagonism or mentoring or comic relief, but they're all servicing the narrative journey of a single character, single unit. And I think your point about do these characters interact with each other is a really good one because you know, in the, the woman King, when we get to it. But in two episodes time, you know, like, yes, there's two kind of clearer protagonists, but first of all, both of them have incredibly separate journeys. It's not like a rom-com where it's like, will they, won't they? And then all the characters that are supporting their journeys also interact with each other. Not like this divided clean line.

Yeah, and a lot of sports films take that exact same thing. I mean, The Woman King is not a sports film, but a lot of team sport films take that, where you have the quarterback or, you know, the lead singer or whomever. But it's still an ensemble piece because you've got, you know, you've got side arcs of all these other characters and they all interact with each other and they all interact with the lead, and you can sort of see how the whole is necessary.

Yeah I mean you may get it in a film like The Natural even though it's about a team sport it's very much focused on the journey of an individual, player within that team and so this is really I guess part of it is if you notice all our examples of films, and ensembles are obviously way more common in television the story challenging challenges in television, A different and you can do some cool things when I you know one of the shows it really impressed me last year was strange new worlds in Star Trek and every episode because they are building the crew of the ship was focused on a separate. Character is their primary point of view character in that episode and that's what was quite a different approach from Star Trek discovery which is kind of so focused on Michael Burnham's character that it felt less of an ensemble but that's television you know the challenge of film, Which is why we're doing this is that you're limited by running time in a way that you're not with television and so it's kind of that economy of the storytelling and I do think you've kind of like with the talismans I think it is a spectrum. Right that you're gonna have films like all is lost which is clearly not an insubable film because there's just Robert Redford at sea by himself right. And then you can go to these kind of massive tapestry films that are you know hyperlink cinema kind of falls into that you know you got your Nashville's like Robert Altman is the auteur of this style. But you know, his films are old at this point.

We're going to cover Nashville now?

No, I mean, I would, but it's interesting that they remade Nashville into a TV show, right? Because that kind of seems like the natural hope even troubles.

It's actually the TV show is less of an ensemble perhaps than the film.

I think when we get to in this discussion, like doing a vague taxonomy of genres that are inherently ensembles, I think it would be helpful if we point out, well, what's a single protagonist entry into this genre and what's an ensemble entry. So like you were talking about the natural for the love of the game, as well as my favourite baseball movie. And you're basically inside Kevin Costner's head the entire time. Like it's not an ensemble movie. And then one of my, I rewatched it with the kids this year. My, favorite way I think that genuine is an ensemble is cool runnings and cool runnings. Yes. You know, you've got the leader of the team is the most prominent best served character. We're in their point of view. More often they've got more nuance, more journey, more interactions, but their film goes to great lengths to make sure that the coach and every single member of the bobsled team have a journey to go on. They have sources of antagonism both within the team classically, like interacting with each other, but then also unique to them.

The point of simplicity I think it ensembles anything with three or more characters that have character questions that are answered by the end of the film.

Yeah, that's a good definition.

You know the character question something that needs to be resolved the asking of the question and the answering of that question is what gives the character an arc and similarly this we've seen one. I'm pick is the impact of like they're connected to the central dramatic question of the story in some way right and so there's like a plot question around the character and there's a, character question around the character and I think they work in tandem and it was a fantastic suggestion from one of our patrons but we ended up not, doing it as a primary example which is Jurassic Park is an ensemble film right and it's really interesting because there is a character question around Alan there's a character question around Hammond there is a character question not so much around the kids, Right? I mean, there is a plot question for all of them.

Will they survive? But to me, those are more plot resolutions and character questions. Like when.

They both have tiny character arcs.

I mean that's pretty sexy!

They're introduced, it's not like, what does this character, I don't like using these dichotomies, but they're not internal. Whereas like to Stu's point, like even Malcolm has got an internal shift, right? Like he chooses to be a hero, like goes and tries to save the kids. He's not as as effectual as Alan Grant, but you know, like he becomes part of the team, even though, Asensibly at the beginning you think he's this just this pure agent of chaos.

Yeah the kids maybe you could say have a bit of a character arc because there is a sense that she kind of thinks of her brothers a bit of a dick and then ends up being like I'm so like almost a very similar journey.

I think they both do, yeah, absolutely. Like, I think at the beginning, they both disrespect each other's sort of skill set, and then at the end they come to respect even though they say, and say, look, it's not my thing, I respect your thing.

And to go back to your initial observations to setting up a character question and paying it off is a resource like it takes time.

Presenting the internal takes a lot of time.

Yeah and so on an ensemble having to do that for three or more characters in a way that is satisfying like I think we are going to be looking a lot as we get into the deeper analysis in parts two and three at introductions. How do these different genres and different films introduce characters such that we don't just get an idea of how they're going to service the story and the plot and how they're going to interact with the other characters but what is their own internal journey going to be.

You should check out Shot Zero where we're talking about character introductions on screen.

Stop making it sound like we're actually planning this tie in.

Yeah, that's at underscore shot zero right and it's on Instagram and Twitter.

Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, and hopefully Tumblr if we can get it reinstated.

Happy coincidence.

I'm going to say that the character question thing, I'm not sure it's strictly required because I think films like Alien, I'm not sure there's a lot of character questions in Alien, the original.

Well, okay, but now we're talking about subgenres. a lot of slashers, for example, don't need to have character questions.

Okay.

So I actually think the CDQ the central dramatic question the plot question affecting characters is part of what they make them an ensemble right and that's connected to genre conventions the character questions are absolutely important right like maybe the character question for everyone except Ripley in Alien is when will they start listening to Ripley.

Don't get me wrong, you can have slashers that have internal characters. So for example, Ready or Not is I think an ensemble and a slasher and has character questions.

I see you just saying I would use that as an example of a slasher that's not a ensemble. So this is it's an it's a spectrum right so when we kind of breakdown.

I mean now I just want to look at alien because I'm sure there are character questions posed for more than just.

Sure, but they're very small. Like they're very small.

They all have agendas. All the characters have agendas. You've got Paris, Texas, and the other guy, they're talking about their pay and their concern about around pay. So they've got an agenda.

But so does what's-his-name-in-Jurassic-Park, it's all around his- literally around his pay, like that's his agenda.

So maybe thinking about characters having an agenda is a way of kind of sitting somewhere between it's a plot question and it's a character question. For some, their agenda, like we start thinking of it as more of a character question.

The End.

And maybe they've all just got wants and needs, like to use that very broad, slightly vague description.

Cause I'll be interested to see rewatching alien where like clearly aliens is a much more of an ensemble movie cause there are like almost as the characters are introduced, they introduced with flaws and like you say agendas and wants and needs and internal and external and alien is less of that. It's more like that classic slasher where you have a group of people and we know that most of them are going to die. And so maybe there's less of a need, but I think at each of those key decision points, like, do we answer the emergency beacon? Then what do we do with John Hurt's character? Then how do we hunt down this alien? And I think all the different character distinctions at that point will be posing. They're all in relation to plot though. So yeah, you're right. I think there will be genres and stories where it's more important. Because there's no denying I can't deny like Alien is not a single protagonist film Ripley doesn't even emerge as the hero of that film until well into the second act.

Just because she comes on late doesn't mean she's not the single protagonist.

Yeah.

To come back to my technical definition which I like which I've gotten from Stephen Cleary is the protagonist the proto actor is the person who makes the decision that kicks the story in motion and Ripley is not the protagonist in that in the sense that she's not the one who chooses to answer the distress call what's very clever about the film and I think it probably would have resonated more at the time is that Tom Skerritt was well known he's the male character he's the captain of the ship he kind of makes the decision to answer the distress call right. Thanks for watching! So he seems to be the protagonist and it yeah right and and ultimately the question is you know can he defeat the alien and the answer is no and that is that that's his plug question right and his character question is when will he realize that Ripley is right but it raises some interesting questions for us to talk about around agendas I think the characters feel individuated which is definitely something I want to talk about in this series right and it could be that they're given wants and needs that are outside the surface of the plot.

The Drew Barrymore and scream.

Yeah, maybe it's that so it doesn't it doesn't necessarily have to be internal it can be external but it's separate to the plot or servicing the main character.

Yeah, so you've got like Brett, who's the Harry Dean Stanton character and Parker, who's the chief engineer kind of having their whole thing about their pie and working together like their interaction is great and they are so separate from what's going on. You've got Ash has his own agenda and he's functioning as the antagonist. All of that adds to this feeling of it being an ensemble. So yeah, I mean, I don't even think want and need is useful in how vague it is. Cause often I think want and need people is just like, this is what the character wants in terms of the goal. And the need is what I decide for them.

You're not saying they have to be separate from the plot, you're saying they can be to be an ensemble. because I think like there are plenty of ensembles where they're all connected.

To contrast that with hyperlink cinema or something like love actually the characters in that I don't I wouldn't consider love actually an ensemble right because effectively the characters are not they thematically linked but they're not linked to the plot I think specifically we're talking about stories in which the plot and the characters. There is a central dramatic question which there isn't a love actually right there's a thematic question but on a plot question.

But I think it is still a spectrum, right? Because like, so for example, something between Love Actually and Alien, where the characters are not necessarily all linked to the dramatic thing, but I think it would function as an ensemble, it's something like Bad Times at the El Royale. So it is still a spectrum, but I don't think that every character in Bad Times at the El Royale does necessarily have an arc that connects to the central plot question, but it's still an ensemble. So there's there's still a bit of a range in there.

I mean just to give an example of a film that's in the genre of Alien that is clearly not an ensemble like sir and I recently talked about prey that is. Scott quite a few characters some of them are external someone have wants and needs but it is a they're all in relation to her journey. Like all those characters exist to in some way affect.

Further, the single protagonist. Like away we go.

I mean I think the challenge that slightly different you know what's interesting so I'm I know we're still stuck in this question but this is what we're doing is. The writing challenges with a character's basically the protagonist of their own sequence and then you find a way to bring them all together is different from the kind of challenges of we are gonna murder mystery with multiple characters who have to be believable suspects we need to have a slasher film in which, Depending on how you lean into the conventional not you don't know who's gonna leave you don't know who's gonna die or you having fun guessing who is the killer right or you know you've got the man on the mission which is you know all the mission film. Which is very much like similar kinds of things that it's about the group in your interaction with the group and that is a different you know a different story challenge and then the kind of challenges we want to look in in part three is the opposite what if you take. Like something that doesn't have conventions around working with multiple characters and apply them to it. You know, at least with slasher films, you can kind of look at alien. You know, you can look at Scream and you can look at, you know, Texas Chainsaw Massacre or, or, and you can even go earlier and peeping Tom and kind of look at how they've done it and learn from it. And what is interesting with these films, hopefully, when we get to them, is that you sit there and go, what lessons do they take from other films? Films what lessons can we take from them?

So you're saying that pulp fiction is a sample of an ensemble that doesn't require to be an ensemble, but it is an ensemble.

To me pop fiction is closer to being hyperlink anthology cinema like the different stories some of them like don't interact at all or only have a passing flavor of interaction.

Bad Times All Royale is a really good example because it's like Pulp Fiction minus one because they're all staying at the same hotel. You know, I mean, the writing challenges are different. And I guess I just think for what we're trying to do is the writing challenges.

It's all centered in one place and they do all interact. Even indirectly, they are all impacting each other in a way that the audience can see even if they don't realize it. with pulp fiction it's not right that's why I was asking exactly where you were centering pulp.

Where they're a little bit more integrated, you know, I mean, you know, decalogue, it just, Ten short films and each an hour and they're all centered in the thing or the apartment block like amazing bit of you know a bit just amazing bit of amazing cinema right but very different challenges if you're going to be like we're going to do an hour long episode with different occupants of this apartment building then hey let's interweave them so I think that's one of the things we're going to be interested in is how you interweave right like how do you bounce from character to character and.

And Jurassic Park is a great example of that. And I know we're shirking back at it, but since we're not talking about it as one of our main, one of the things that doing that as an ensemble allows you to do is cross-cutting between, different stories and sort of breaking them up and seeing how they eventually interact with each other and are required. But as a writing thing, it allows you to not have to have, you know, like this 10-minute long singular story. Because once you introduce all the characters, they all split off into their own separate things and as an ensemble that can be in in murder mystery it doesn't necessarily happen in a slasher it generally does necessarily happen and then you you have something like Jurassic Park where it's kind of almost in the middle.

And you know and then you get the heist which is often the assemblyman it's part of the rhythm is like when do you bring the team together and when do you break it apart and you know heists are actually often bringing the team together and they only separated in the third act. And as you say like something like Jurassic Park as you bring the people together you scatter them and then you bring the survivors together at the kind of climax so I think there's some interesting ways to think about. What is going on with the group right and there is the group having to work and this is related to the central dramatic question and I'll break this further down in terms of dynamics but there is the group having to work together. There is part of the reason that you need to assemble is so there's people that can be eliminated right literally like as in a slasher all figuratively in a murder mystery right like you kind of want to cast suspicions and eliminate them you know it's not much of a murder mystery if there's only one person in there. But I also think there's another kind of reason to have an ensemble which is to give us different point of view on the action but could also be different point of views on the theme which is I think is something people talk about with writers of justice right. And I think that is kind of the reasons why you do it in simple is kind of also why it's different from a single protagonist or two-hander right.

Let me like just quickly say this is my dream from for our audience you dear listener from this series which is. You will come out hopefully looking at your project that you're working on and you were you know. Either afraid of writing an ensemble and wanting to stick just a single protagonist and you get tools to broaden that out or you look at your story and go oh I've now learned tools where I can service within the time resource. Multiple characters in a way that I didn't have before.

Or I just want to give it more of a feeling of being an ensemble by just giving a couple little arcs to characters or just find those moments so it's a little bit more like Alien all that great moment in Die Hard where I'm one of the henchmen you know looks at the chocolate bar looks out of the chocolate by the next time you see him he's like chewing on a Hershey bar right like having those little moments like characters got an agenda he's got a one.

Hehehehe.

You know, it is on my mind because I rewatched it for Christmas. Die Hard is interesting. It's definitely like a single protagonist film in terms of McClane, but it's definitely got this feel. It kind of is tipping into an ensemble because Hans Gruber is so well drawn. We spent a lot of time with Hans. We spent a lot of time with Holly. You know, talk about it being a Christmas movie. She's literally called fucking Holly. Like the owl character outside like it spends a lot of time with the characters and gives them a little bit more life outside of the plot and so you may even just want to learn tricks like that from this I certainly do.

Yeah yeah definitely alright well do we want to talk a little bit about your lenses that you've come up with before we go in or do we want we've already mentioned some genres that are inherently ensembles do we want to like try and be a little more exhausted with our taxonomy in what order do you want to tackle these.

I think starting with some of the genres that we expect is useful because it might help us unpick some of the conventions around, ensembles because we're effectively talking about genres that part of their conventions and we obviously did two episodes last year on genre which is worth looking about is like those patterns why are they emerged like that so, Talking about drones that we kind of expect to be in samples is as we said this the kind of the classic slasher film right and you know and I think the reason you want to be in some bulls simply so characters can get the killer can kill multiple people.

Any that I think you want the audience to care. Right like you.

Because if they can kill ten people, but if they're ten people that we've never met, then we don't care.

Like in Halloween kills when Michael comes out of the house in the beginning and like kills I know, it felt like 30 firemen. You'd never met those firemen, you didn't care about them.

We didn't have the scene where they say goodbye to their wife and they kiss their child over breakfast and they, you know... Right, exactly. They're just sort of faceless.

I mean you think it's like the signal protagonist version which is told from a different point of view is silent night deadly night like this 1980s slasher film that's told from the perspective of the murdering Santa we do not get to know any of his victims other than the nun that torched him as a teenager right they flipped it like even back then like this is like really the idea of these conventions people have been experimenting with them a while and you know like a slasher film without it in some bull cast, Ends up kind of being like a cat and mouse chase film right like there are survival films where it's like I'm hunting you through the forest.

Well, like, and seven, right? Like seven is not an ensemble film. I don't think it's.

I'd call it a two-hander.

But it is essentially a slasher. You literally have to have seven murders, right?

But it's interesting that that does not feel like an ensemble in the same way that, you know, a scream movie where you're telling it that from the point of view of the victims.

Yeah, and so I think that's why ready or not is interesting because I think maybe it is an ensemble but instead of having the ensemble being the victims of a single serial killer it's a single victim being pursued by a pack.

The important thing for me that makes it an ensemble is you get to know the members of the pack. You get to know why they are doing what they're doing, you get to see their internal conflict with each other, or sorry, you get to see their conflict with each other, and you get to see their internal conflict for at least three of them. Even the maids get their own tiny little arc within it, you know, and so does the butler and etc. So for me that is sort of what makes it.

I actually agree with you, I think you're right, and I think what makes that film fun is it's taken that group, being hunted by one killer and make it multiple killers being hunted by one person so the ensemble we expect an ensemble as a convention of the of it and they pushed it somewhere else it's kind of really interesting. Okay let's jump into heights right heights is really interesting John because when we post this on twitter we had a few people say I love heights they're often in some films. Right but it's also like one of my favorite heist films is Michael Mann's Thief. Fantastic. It's not an ensemble. There is, I mean, even the score, which is like three people, maybe it's borderline ensemble, but it's not it's not oceans 11.

I mean, even even contrasting Oceans 11 with Out of Sight, Out of Sight is very much him and her, and all other characters are...

I wouldn't call that a heist film though.

… Okay. I would defend it as being a romcom heist mashup.

Sure, it's a rom-com that has a con artist. But yes, sure. And I think, but even here, right, where we're talking, the exception proves the rule. Of course you can have films that subvert convention, but that's because the convention exists and has been established in all these films.

I think what's interesting about us to explore the impact on the meaning or the focus is because that's part of what you're doing with the story is like you might go I want to widen my story and make it more of an ensemble but what like ends up being less the exploration of a particular type of person as in thief. You know but what is interesting cuz Michael Mann did heat is heat an ensemble or is it really a jewel kind of point of view character thing I mean like you've obviously got Al and Robert De Niro but even like the felt like it services quite a few characters.

I think it's a two-hander because everyone else's because and again like I'm I've not heard this question until this moment, but immediately my response was everyone else's arcs are still only, important in terms of how they either support or provide contrast to or interact with the two main characters part it like, It is heat is essentially a love story between these two the detective the cop and the robber and everyone else, is necessary to point out their lifestyle and their ethos and make them do different things, or even in the case of having a girlfriend point how they leave different things, but I would not call it an ensemble and that's a really interesting.

Yeah, it sits on the spectrum, right? In the case of Heat, it's interesting because it's like what they've decided to do is they wanted to parallel the life of a detective, Like a cop and a robber, right? And build a web of those characters to say, what is the impact of their chosen professions on them? And look at the similarities and the differences between them. And as part of that, it's had to service multiple characters and give them kind of the appearance of life. They have agendas, right? Like, is it Natalie Pullman?

Oh, the kid, yep.

Yeah. Like her relationship with Vincent and all that kind of stuff. Yes, they're all, they're all orbiting these central characters, but they are kind of in a nice way, kind of have their own lives. I actually really love the Ashley Judd character Charlene, you know, she feels like she's going through something very separate. Neil Robert De Niro's life has definitely affected her, but I think that's just us in our personal differences. It's just, I think that's an interesting film that you're right in the sense that it's dual protagonist and it's very much built around them, but they've done a really good job in enriching the lives of the characters around them. So they feel like characters that are in orbit of these and are impacted by these men, but also not caricatures.

And you can see the difference in what do these films what do leaning turning up the dial or moving to more the ensemble side of the spectrum servicing more characters gives a different feeling from these genres like oceans 11 and out of sight despite having. Same star same director they feel very different.

I mean, I would say that the heist is a subgenre of the the man on the mission kind of film, the saving private riot, right?

But I think a lot of man on a mission films don't need to be ensembles, whereas a height, I think a lot of man on a mission films tend to be not ensembles and a lot of heists tend to be ensembles.

Whereas thinks she was heading is not the man on the mission, but just mission films like that there are there are films where there's an objective and you need to assemble the team to achieve the objective.

Why do you need the team you need a bunch of separate skills right to just make it plausible which is the highest right and then and that makes the mission to rescue private Ryan plausible but what is interesting is something like a war film which is you know dirty dozen and there's a bunch of these examples where they assemble the the film it's a suicide mission. And that's so they can literally raise the stakes by killing characters off so they show that there is this is legitimate threat but also by the numbers dwindling we get more and more afraid that they're going to fail. You know and what is interesting about the highest is like unless the characters are getting caught they're not actually being eliminated so it's kind of this interesting. Like you know I was like the group need to work together to succeed is interesting because you can obviously create situations such as, thief where the character can succeed without needing a team so you having to create a plot that's convolutions suggest that only a team can work out how to do this. And I wonder if that's connected to stakes it's like this is what is it just a reality thing like in heat that you need a four person team to pull this off or is it more that we want to raise the stakes by saying that this is difficult and we need multiple people.

Well, is it like, yeah, you can have more characters to have more people to kill off, put under threat, have more weaknesses or linkages or sequences in relation to achieving the mission or not. Thanks for watching! You know, I was just thinking like, what's the single person version of Saving Private Ryan? And my mind went to Rambo First Flight Part 2, like, just send in John Rambo. That is the solution to our problem. I was going to say war can help us segue slightly into sometimes there are movies where.

Yeah, I mean, there is I mean, that's kind of starts to heading into dad call, right?

I think the scale of the plot is so enormous that it's hard to not have multiple characters. And I think a lot of disaster movies are like this. Nearly all of Roland Emmerich's films are, I think, to a greater or lesser extent, ensembles.

Well, what about something like the War of the Worlds, like even the Spielberg remake for a, would you call that an ensemble? It's technically a disaster film. It's not an ensemble though. It's not like, like Independence Day? I mean, sure, you've got one big star, much more of an ensemble. War of the World's not an ensemble.

The fact that I can only think of maybe a handful of disaster movies that are, clearly single protagonist and the vast majority of them are. Ensembles.

I actually think that might as well and again this is something that I think that might be a more recent phenomenon like if you think about something like Dante's Peak like I would call that a disaster film that's not necessarily an ensemble but again.

But they've got, they end up being five people in a car.

Is Titanic a ensemble film or is it just a-

That's a really interesting one.

They certainly serve as three, to go back to your earlier question, there are three characters that have clear, once needs internal, external, it's more than just two.

But I think you can have a three-hander that's not an ensemble like Pride and Prejudice or you know.

The disappearance of Alice Creed or, or Barbarian, as I saw.

Know whatever. Yeah you can have a lot of three yeah barbarians a great recent example three characters that are all very not an ensemble film so you can have more than the two-hander that's not also an ensemble but Titanic is a very interesting one.

I think it comes partly down to like your focus helps create the feeling right and that if you want to eliminate characters is to create the sense of like the disaster is overwhelming or the level of human sacrifice required you know like it's a weird pool the K-19 the widow maker which is the submarine film that's about the submarine sinking that's definitely a bit of an ensemble. So we feel the cost to the human cost right so people that we love die right which is the same way that you want to do it in a slasher film and what's interesting about war of the worlds is that choice to make it a Tom Cruise right and also have the ending where he's reunited to the Sun is actually just makes it feel optimistic instead of bleak. Right like they've chosen totally to make it lean into kind of like humanity will survive rather than something will bleak even though some of that fucking imagery is insane like those clothes fighting down. You're after being zapped have got real echoes of September 11 it's it's a real interesting film you know it's from the filmmaker that made Schindler's List and tapping into some of that imagery but it's resisting the bleakness. Right and I think it's because it's chosen to focus on something where is when you you scale out and try to do you know I mean the Poseidon adventure maybe or something like that you're trying to show that the human impact.

Well at no point in in War of the Worlds is Tom Cruise trying to stop the alien invasion, but in World War Z I'd still say that it's not an ensemble movie in this huge global disaster which has many many characters in it. Thanks for watching!

Okay, so let's take a page from Stu's slash Spielberg's book to steer away from the bleak. What about something like a hangout movie? Is a hangout movie inherently an ensemble type of film? Like we talked about doing Everybody Wants Some, which was essentially a hangout movie. If you look at something like Barbershop, those are hangout movies that are ensembles. Like, what are some hangout movies that are not like, is that a, again, there can be exceptions.

You can't hang out if you're only like one or two people.

Sure. So is a hangout movie necessarily, generally an ensemble film?

To go back to Linklater, obviously, they're... Those are clearly not ensemble films, but still have, they are hangout, they are hangout movies.

Sunrise, sunset, midnight.

That's all you're doing with those characters. They're hanging out and you're hanging out with the characters hanging out.

I guess the question is hanging out with purpose or without an agenda.

We've selected the family stone to look at in the next episode because like it's not hangout movie, but holiday movies, because they are often inherently about bringing, lots of disparate individuals who don't want to be around each other together, is they are often inherently ensemble films. It's hard for me to think of that many holiday movies. I mean, okay, like I take it back. It's a wonderful life. Clearly not an ensemble. Oh, I mean, maybe, There's a lot of characters serviced in It's A Wonderful Life, but they are all...

It's a Wonderful Life is actually a noir. That's a totally different podcast.

But no is an interesting genre that can be very single protagonist focus but can also expand its lens a little bit to be more about the world has got a different time when you agree.

Yeah, absolutely, which is where you've got the sub-genres of noir that tend to be ensemble and the sub-genres of noir that aren't, which is something we'll tackle, I think, when we talk about mystery films, because mystery is the same way. Like, you've got a murder mystery when you You think of murder mystery, you think of inherently something that is an ensemble. You think of an Agatha Christie, a sparkling cyanide, you know, that sort of thing. However, there are murder mysteries, and I am literally writing one right now, slash have written one, please get in contact, that is not an ensemble piece. There are a lot of characters, but it's not an ensemble suit. Exception to the rule.

But I think that's interesting because like the murder mystery thing definitely does fit like the ensemble version of it is the Agatha Christie locked room we want multiple suspects we want the audience to be suspecting multiple characters even Zodiac which is one of you know is my favorite Fincher film it's kind of an ensemble but.

I'd say that's definitely an ensemble cause.

I was gonna go the other way. It's essentially you're too, it's almost like all the president's men.

That's a great pull, that's a great pull, that's an investigative... It's a mystery.

Yep. And it's a two-hander. Essentially.

Not to get semantic here, but I think there's a big difference between a murder mystery as a, as when you say the words murder mystery, what people think of and a detective story, which they, what they could be in. They're often inspecting, you know, finding out murders, but you are following a detective uncovering clues. It's not like the murder mystery where they're all in the one place at the same time.

And there's obviously Spectrums within that, which is like, you know, only murders in the building, I know it's television, But it's definitely got the, the suspect of the week and it's playing around with the kind of like who could it be and we know it's going to be someone even to season two when they did the big kind of do new Mont. Did I get that right Chas?

No. Yeah.

Denouement? Which is essentially that episode becomes the dinner party murder mystery, right? Where they all gather in the one place and they have the detective who's, you know, postulating and they have the but yeah it becomes that murder that.

But even like Broadchurch, you know, that has that same feel of he is the suspect of the weakest is the suspect we're going to focus on, you know, a lot of murder mysteries are so popular, I think, because the investigation is a way to get you into this unusual town. It's a murder mystery on Antarctica. It's a minute mystery on the moon base. It's the murder mystery on a submarine. You know, because it's just a, it's, it's a point of view, a way to get into that and meet lots of characters and kind of get an understanding of the world. But I think that is very different. Like the, well, I mean, what ways is it different from the glass on you? Is it partly that we're forcing a bunch of characters together or is it an ensemble because they all interact at some point?

Well in terms of the classic murder mystery you get introduced to all the characters before the murder in most classic structures right and then only then does the detective generally as a character appear.

I'll also be semantic for a moment and point out that a locked room mystery is a very separate subgenre. The subgenre of a locked room mystery is often very different because in a lot of cases you really only do have one suspect and it's trying to figure out how they did it when it seems impossible. So locked room mystery I think, and that's really an Edgar Allan Poe sort of designation. I just, for me, that confuses the issue a little bit using that interchangeably.

I'm talking about bottle settings like the murder on the mansion the murder in the boat on the Nile.

Right. Or the Last of Sheila or Glass Onion or whatever, sure.

And that's you know the functional reason to do this is to have suspects have multiple people that we can shift in it's kind of the it's got that interactivity with the audience right do you think that's part of the reason to the in sub or is it more.

100% it's not interesting unless you have a lot of characters but like we've pointed out that there are different narrative structures to detective stories. Which one is single protagonist which has a lot of characters but they're all in service of like destroyer which we did together that is not an ensemble.

No, agree.

Whereas, you know, glass onion and knives out definitely are because they want different things. Destroyer is about what is the effect of this investigation on the detective. Whereas.

Destroyer is like, away we go.

I think it's kind of interesting because we are definitely, we're not talking about genres like fantasy or science fiction or even action.

Well, I was, I was hoping to get to fantasy because I think Fellowship of the Ring is clearly an ensemble, and I think Willow is not.

Correct. I think Willow is less of an ensemble than even A New Hope is. And what's interesting about New Hope is it becomes more of an ensemble over the original trilogy. I think what's I mean they're becoming more serialized but what's interesting about those genres and even I would say action kind of like I think there's some job actions are but I think they're not genres that which you strongly have an opinion about whether they're an ensemble or not that clearly can be like fucking dune. and hugely epic in scale even if they got a primary like heroes journey character or even like family films like Pixar films can be like up all they can actually you know or Toy Story which is kind of a bit more of a two-hander or a make become like can expand and contract. What's interesting is we kind of arguing between like I call this a detective story could call this a murder mystery because they've all got suddenly different tones you know it's a disaster movie or its survival but for me it's just interesting because that is about you know is the I mean I suppose the Grazer survival movie and it's an ensemble but structurally it's a.

Slasher essentially. Yeah, for sure.

Slash because the sector they they're getting picked up on by one which a lot of those survival movies if they're not one character do but a film like all is lost is not a slasher it's just literally how you know someone survives so it is kind of interesting that there's kind of like those super genres which are like more connected to settings is thriller thrillers in some balls are they single protagonist stories.

See the moment you said thriller, I went, well that's just way too broad to tell.

We could possibly put a pin in the taxonomy discussion and move on, but I think it's been.

Possibly.

Useful to go, there are films that lend themselves to be ensembles that we're going to try and learn from. And then we've also found examples of great films within each of those genres, whether, our ensembles or not. And we've discovered a spectrum. And that's the point why we're doing these, these next two parts is like, let's look at these genres that are like, and these stories, these narrative conventions that demand ensembles and see how they're done well. And then look, let's look at films that didn't have to be an ensemble at all and chose to be. And what were were the tools and the effects behind those decisions.

So I'm going to jump into the group dynamics thing because it really kind of connects to an example I was going to use which is Top Gun versus Top Gun Maverick because what is interesting is I think Top Gun Maverick feels more like an ensemble film even though it's got the Maverick in the freaking title.

Eh? Eh?

But it does make me think about the group dynamic because you know Top Gun is a sports movie right the first one but and it's focused on a team of two.

Yeah, it's about a volleyball team, right?

Yeah basically and what is interesting is Maverick literally contrasts the volleyball scene of these competitive players to we're going to play it together and it becomes the people on a mission film and yeah it kind of becomes little bit about Maverick doing a Luke Skywalker at the end but largely it's group dynamics are more focused on them as a team.

Yeah, because he has to teach them how to be a group.

Not only is the mission like you think about the whole objective of it, but it's a mission film. They each have different skill sets, different roles on the team, and they're having to learn how to do it.

Thanks for watching!

And they're, they're being competitive for those spots.

So it's like a heist.

So there's, there's a lot more of those structural elements. And even in the peak climax of Top Gun, in comparison to Maverick, it's a whole bunch of individual planes shooting at each other, right? There are two sides, but it's all about the individual planes. Whereas the climax of the mission in Maverick is about the team and that inherent structure has led them to differentiate the characters more. I'm, you know, I'm still not a hundred percent sure whether it's a quote unquote ensemble or not, but you can clearly see on the spectrum, that in comparison to Top Gun, even though they might have the exact same number of characters with the exact same amount of screen time and dialogue lines, Maverick is far more of an ensemble vibe than Top Gun.

So speaking of competition I've got this idea that I think I just came up with because of the alliteration and then it seems to be like that kind of works which is that you can think of the group dynamics with an ensemble film or with a group within a group of characters right as being competitive. Right do these characters compete with each other this is often the case in a sports film but often I would actually say competitive group dynamics tend to fit into a dynamic that's moving away from an ensemble maybe. I would say you have combative group dynamics right and I would say that's what you see in murder mysteries and family films right.

And sometimes they're the same thing.

Yeah and you get collaborative which is my family playing crosswords that's our family you know we all do the crosswords together. Banana Graham on the other hand or you know we pay a very very competitive scored uno and I must say if you've never played uno with scoring it is so much better. It just makes it like you fucking asshole. But like they're the kind of dynamics I think you kind of see in ensemble films, competitive, combative, collaborative, right? Broadly. And that makes you from scene to scene. But I do think it's interesting. I don't think we've got an example of a film that we have chosen yet where it's an ensemble and the dynamic is competitive.

Pitch perfect.

Do you think they're competitive competing with each other? Okay. Great. I look forward to us breaking it down.

The two leads anyway are highly competitive, but it, I was going to say bridesmaids bridesmaids is not an ensemble either. It's a, it's kind of a, well, maybe.

I would call Bridesmaids an ensemble.

Okay. Well, great. I'm not going to argue, but the, you know, the, the Kristen Wiig Roseburn characters.

Mm.

Are clearly competitive.

I mean, everybody wants some, right? We talk about that as well, and it's a hangout film, it's an ensemble. There's a little bit of that, there's a competitive, like, the whole point of. There's several scenes at the beginning where they're like playing ping pong at each other, and, you know, everything they do is competitive, and there is the idea that some of them might not make the team. Again, it's very subdued because it's a link letter film, but there are certain competitive dynamics.

And that doesn't always have to be the case in comedy because you think of bad mums which is another example of, I guess maybe a hangout film maybe not it's like, they're super collaborative they're helping each other. Right. I'm.

But Bad Moms 2 is both, because they introduce three new characters, and so you've got the three characters who are collaborative with each other and they're very, competitive with the others who come in. So you've- then you get both.

Which is a dynamic you also see in blockers right you got two groups of characters that have their own internal dynamics but the groups themselves are competitive so they're kind of the group is kind of collaborative.

...even if one of them doesn't know it at first.

So the thing that I really like about this too is like, we initially started out with talking about ensembles and saying, well, we need characters that have individual wants or needs or internal and external journeys, or that are separate from, like we were talking about servicing individuals. And then we've also covered a little bit, and I think we'll do it more in the next episodes between the relationship between the characters and the central dramatic question of the story. But the thing I really like about your observation here with group dynamics is I think it's going to be one of the key things that we find is like how storytellers shorthand things. Because if you can, you've got eight people in a scene, but if you've got two groups or three groups that are either collaborative, combative or competitive and those shift, you can demonstrate journeys over lots of people by how they move and interact within the group. And I really like the family stone, I think does that really well.

I think what's interesting about them and this is my observation now is competitive collaborative and combative all imply interaction between the group right and what is you know alien will saying there's not a character journey but like they clearly a. Combative collaborative competitive in a way kind of dynamic in that group it feels like an ensemble because every single character is pushing on them and that's a different way of something like Jurassic Park. Right, which is when they split those characters don't interact right and it feels like an ensemble because we're following multiple point of views but they are definitely in the I mean the collaborative in the sense that they at the end they have to come together in order to survive.

And they have the same objective for the most part.

But Alan and Malcolm when they're in the car are being competitive.

So coming back to bad times at El Real, I know there's probably a whole bunch of people that haven't seen it, but you should. It's on Disney Plus now. So would you say that those group dynamics until the third act, would you say that the people at that hotel have any group interaction?

Some of the stories do, but not, but most of them don't.

Until the end.

No, but like the Jon Hamm character.

That's an interesting one because of how it's structured. You don't always know they do, but they have had it. Does that make sense? That's a weird one because you're not just talking about ensemble, you're also talking about how they structure things because there's some time jumps in there.

Yeah, I'm just wondering, like, as we said, it's a spectrum. I'm just curious that maybe the fact is that the group interaction group having to interact at some point is what makes it feel more like an ensemble than in some way like love actually they all turn up at the fucking airport at the end but. You know but it doesn't mean that they're interacting I wouldn't call love actually in some will fail it has an acting in some bull but I think what it's doing is and simply Magnolia just definitely example of hyperlink I wouldn't say is in some of some will film in the way that I'm thinking about it at least. Like it's clearly following multiple stories and we got like great cast all those characters are well serviced but they do not interact.

And even when they interact with each other, usually it's that sort of butterfly effect where they are unaware that they have either interacted on someone else or been interacted, upon. We know it because we've got that god's eye view, but they have no concept of it. So I think you're, yeah, that I wouldn't call Magnolia ensemble either.

I think that's maybe just a dial that you can sit there and you might disagree with us and that's fine but I think you know, particularly the stuff that Chas and I are particularly working on and thinking about it's about the group dynamics, how the group is interacting, how that impacts and what that means because he, you know, like, dinosaur Newman, Dennis, he is impacting all the other fucking characters in the world by letting the dinosaurs out, you know, and they're all trying to survive.

Mm-hmm.

Even though they're separated, they're actually trying to find each other. So there is kind of a sense of their collaborative even if they're not in the same space, you know, and the thing which is a fantastic and some of them a couple of we haven't brought it up. They are definitely somewhere between competitive and combative the whole way through. there is great group dynamics.

And it doesn't have to be a whole of group. So one of the films that we were considering about as a potential family option was Death at the Funeral. And there's not really a clear central dramatic question of Death at the Funeral other than will we get through this funeral? Right. It's not a plot. It's a, it's a Commedia dell'arte like slapstick.

Like a holiday film that way. Will we make it through? without murdering each other, literally or figuratively.

Yeah. Yeah. Right. Exactly. But I was thinking, how do they define these caricatures? Like they feel really good. And what I noticed as I was watching it is every single one of those characters is an antagonist to one of the others. Right. They almost come in couplets. Right. And then it's that, that kind of fuels the first half of the movie until the movie shifts something and it becomes a kidnapping. And how do we cover up the kidnapping? But as soon as that bit happens, the kidnapping, then suddenly you start getting team dynamics because everyone who's in on the kidnapping is having to act as a team.

And that implies that there's a leader and and all those kinds of things I think your observation about the couplets thing is pretty useful because the thing is anyone is living in a share house can attest to this like the number of people in the shower to people gonna like if it's not my shit it's your shit. Right we can be opposed to each other or we can work together but it's a little bit clearer you start getting like a through pull you know and and power dynamics and all that kind of stuff can become unhinged so it's only it's like. Person A and person B are agreeing and they team up and person C but then person C convinced his person B to join them and so there's a lot more kind of like shifting power if you choose to go into it. But what you'll probably find in these films, we're not doing a big film like in some of the in some of the 11 and some of the 12 and some of the 8.

But within that within that group, right, you know, we've looked at Ocean's Eleven fairly.

We're not breaking those down but that would be really interesting because I reckon if you looked at them they probably do group characters into manageable number of characters except you know obviously particularly in Ocean's Eleven it's Brad Pitt, it's George Clooney and kind of the other characters in more and more diminishing kind of returns.

Recently, so I can hopefully remember some of it. But Matt Damon's character has competitive issues. Rusty is trying to save Danny from himself. Like they have a conflict. I'm not sure. I guess you'd call it combative out of those three. That's the one that fits the most. Like he's trying to stop Danny from doing things. You've got the, the brothers, the Casey Affleck and Scott, Khan brothers who just are being shits to each other. They've deliberately introduced sources of conflict within the team for both plot suspense but entertaining.

And a lot of times they'll start bouncing one or more of those characters into the scenes with the other characters who are more minor to help generate either the conflict or the collaboration or the combativeness. You know, so you don't get a lot of scenes. I mean, Tilbaheist is actually going on and they all have their separate, you know, role to play out. You don't get a lot of scenes which is just with Don Cheadle's character or whomever. He'll be in a scene with one of those characters, and then maybe we'll follow him where he bounces off someone else, et cetera, which really keeps that ensemble vibe going.

So I think this is the reason why I like your group dynamics things to is to me it's actually going odd sometimes having more characters can help us individually them if we have these tools at hand like they have 11 characters and we've got a pretty clear idea of who most of them are just because we've seen them in scenes with these other characters and that's bringing different things out from them.

And that's a little bit different from the character type stuff which I know Mel you want to talk about particularly when we eventually get to the woman King that there are often dramatic functions you get the Joker you get the hardest you get this you get that.

The newbie and the veteran and the more business minded and yeah, all of those things.

And that's partly we leading to those archetypes to create differentiation, you know, you've got the jock, you know, you've got the nerd, like you're pushing that, you know, you've got the slut, you've got the virgin, I mean, this is all cabin in the wood stuff.

I was going to say that I thought you were talking about the Breakfast Club, but...

You almost need to lead harder on it with the ensembles because the more people you put in the the less time you have to individually study their own stories. And so leaning on those archetypes as a shorthand helps the audience get the idea of like, I have a general concept of how this person is going to interact. I have a general concept of how the nerd is supposed to stereotypically interact when they come up against the jock, you know? Right. And so you can subvert that, you can lean into that, and Voolma King exactly does that. But the more people you put in, you know, when you have 11 people in Ocean's 11 and your movie is, you know, 120 minutes, you really have to start leaning on those types a little bit harder than you might with a two-hander.

It just makes me think of Kamau's observation in the big secret is like in a horror movie I would just be like the character that's like the dogs gone missing I'll go and look for the dog and then the movie's over roll credits.

Is there, have we covered, laid enough ground for our deeper dives into genres that expect ensembles or need ensembles and movies that didn't need them at all but benefited from that narrative decision?

I mean I think need is an interesting word because they needed to be in some ball to tell the stories that they wanted to tell. So it like it's an arbitrary distinction that we kind of were interested in exploring because I think it's to do with as all these things are thing what do you what are you trying to say right and how do you push against people's expected like the conventions that we have produced a similar kind of meaning so what's interesting is when you push against those conventions. You know produces a slightly different or just a different flavor it doesn't even have to be a meaning better can create something that feels fresh like radio not I don't think we are not, particularly changes the kind of meaning that you will see in slasher films like all we should you know fuck the rich they just want to destroy us is like, The dangerous game and various battle royale films deal with that the hunger games is tapping into that kind of thing but it just feels really not feels fresh because it inverts the kind of structural expectation.

And i think none of the things that you meant like that we're not used to seeing it as a family per se either and so i think. And again, this event diagram that crosses over, a lot of ensemble films are also family films because they have a shorthand that you can lean on when you're writing them because they're a family. It's the exact same thing as the family stone.

Why are these people in the same film?

They all know each other. We'll figure out how they're interacting later, which is what Ready or Not does.

And that is an interesting, I mean, Texas chainsaw massacre is literally about a murderous family of chainsaws.

It's so much more fun to be able to watch Stu's face as he tries to figure out where that sentence is going.

Hehehehe.

Yeah. But like, I mean, it's an interesting thing when you kind of come up with character dynamics, right? Cause you want your characters to be individuated. But I've used this example many times, but it's, it's a clear, you know, Hans Gruber, European, dresses well, well educated. And he contrasts with McClain right McClain and blue-collar cop wears a fucking singlet and no shoes and like they've gone for a lot of contrasts in that. Like you want to find contrast between characters but you also have to explain how they know each other and families is a easy way of characters that are very different from each other ending up being in the same location because it's a funeral or it's a wedding or it's the bird is free that you have to do is a ritual every time someone gets married.

And that's an interesting one because I think if you have a hangout like two of the hangout films that we've talked about a little bit, Everybody wants some and barbershop what they've done is go. Well, why are all these very different characters together? Oh, they have a sports team in common other they have the same workplace in common And so that's their easy in. And those are, they use those as a de facto family sort of situation.

Yeah, and I think that's an interesting question how these characters linked why these characters in the same story is an interesting question and look all the films that we're going to be looking at have solved that you know I mean this is it's the floor of our process the selection bias that we've got in picking finish films is they've solved this stuff and we're kind of we don't know what challenges that they had. Before that in terms of making this all make sense and also think like you know workplace films and alien is a workplace film that is it's like why are these different people here and how do we make them all different are. They're working on a space truck and this is all their different jobs and you know if you are the. Captain you've got this kind of personality you know if you're if you're the ex CEO which is kind of what replete she's first officer right but exe like that kind of dynamic and this is what the engineer would be like and. I mean I'm just think of all the and this is very filmy person but you think of all the stereotypes of like the grips being fueled on like nothing but like fucking cigarettes and and hate like all that and versus the makeup artists and all those stereotypes in if you're not you should follow movie set me names on Instagram after you follow shot zero it's all leaning into those stereotypes but that's kind of. The workplace thing is that you can kind of lean into that to give you differentiation and give you the source of conflict and I think the reason I we kind of went to collaborative, Compatib and competitive is that kind of different forms of conflict. I mean, collaborative implies a lack of conflict, but not necessarily because it just means you're walking.

But you're usually in conflict with someone else.

And you can still have external obstacles. Collaborative just implies that, you know, you're trying to achieve the same goal. Competitive is you're trying to stop the other person achieving that goal. But you get it collaborative as you're trying to get it together and and Compatib is like a little bit of an in-between.

I feel like combative I like these distinctions and I know you are reaching for the alliteration but like if you've got four characters in a scene it's unlikely that they're all going to be combative or competitive with one another like. It will be more interesting there is like you said with the housemate dynamics you know something in collaboration with others others being in competition with each other but still trying for the same goal and combative to me is where you're two different goals. Yeah, I was always in the couple in the share houses, but you'd be surprised how often I.

You see that dynamic come into the share house thing you know like having lived with couples and not like you can often assume that the couple will effectively be a group voting block.

Was the pariah despite being a couple in the-

Done this podcast with you I would not be surprised.

I thought you were about to say, you'll be surprised at how many times I made my now wife cry.

Alright, well to wrap this up, what do you guys hope to learn from this series?

I think the idea that when you're writing characters, what is the purpose? A lot of things that I write, for better or worse, tend to have a lot of characters. I don't write a lot of two-handers. And so whether it's because I end up writing a lot of TV or because a lot of my films have been mysteries or whatever. So what is the best way to service your ensemble slash what is the best way to have your ensemble service your genre? That's sort of what I'm hoping to get out of this is that in deconstructing ways that, certain genres use ensembles and whether they need to or not, which I think is a really interesting, point of difference for the two episodes. How do you learn from that to take it in? And then, you know, as well as using that as a critical lens of, okay, is this character necessary? What does this character's value add? And, you know, to use Stu's alliteration, how do I I tell whether this character, whether in the scene or in this thing overall is being collaborative, competitive or competitive. And if they're not being any of those things at any point, do I need to make them such? Do they actually serve any purpose, et cetera? So I think that is sort of my lens. I know that's a very broad answer, but you know, it's a pretty big topic.

Yeah.

Stu, do you want to go next?

Yeah, look, I quite like incidental learning and I think that's a reason that a whole bunch of maybe people listen to drive zero. It's less what we say and more about.

What we prompt them to think.

Are we a hangout podcast?

Yeah, well, yeah, no, no, no, more like, Hey, what about this thing? Oh, no, I know what I think about that. You know, like I'm looking forward to being surprised about what we come up with. I particularly love it when I agree with Mel and I get to watch Shaz's face when he realized he's being disagreed with. I am interested obviously in exploring the group dynamic stuff. What I'm beginning to think as Mel was talking, I was beginning to think about like the minutia of character function. You know, character, what purpose does this character serve in terms of the world, the theme and the plot, right? And maybe other things that I haven't talked about, right? I mean it could be obviously comedic relief and there's a bunch of other things that we're going to be talking about in terms of character and the magic trick of writing or a illusion I've said this before and I'll say it again is that characters aren't real people you know they're words on a page that are often unreal in many ways and that somehow the illusion of writing coupled with performances we think of them as real people so it's that, In an ensemble you've got even more compression to do that so how do you make this person feel real and feel satisfying while serving various things and and I think you probably do have to can I you know integration is important to me is like an artistic principle. So you know integrating them with the world of the theme or the plot it'd be really interesting and I think particularly like we will get out a lot out of writers of justice in that because I think the character in some of there is about shifting the theme of a revenge movie I think. Womyn King again in that same episode can be interesting because they've made a decision to look at the like that's connected why is this an ensemble and I think the reason that film is an ensemble is because you want to look at the effect in a world scale right. What's gonna be interesting is looking at like glass onion you know what is the purpose of that being and I guess you break all that down like is the individual characters but the broader question is what purpose does this being an ensemble serve. Why would you give so much screen time to make that happen when you could just focus on an individual character.

I really liked that you ended with integration because my main thing that I hope to learn and it's a big broad idea, but cohesion, because all of these films, they managed to, as you say, service these large ensembles, yet still feel cohesive. And not only that, nearly all these films, it feels like they're not just sacrificing, to serve characters so that this feels deeper. And that's obviously a side benefit, but to me, it almost all goes to that audience experience of the film and in almost a thematic way. Stu and I had a recent discussion with a script editor on our film as to what theme was, and all three of us had three very different ideas of what theme was. But I think, you know, that, that feeling of what was this experience all about?

My understanding of theme incorporates both of yours but your understanding of theme does not incorporate mine so I'm right you're wrong.

I was just going to end on, I think looking at an ensemble film and going, these are all the lengths that they've had to go to, to make this work in a way that either a plot driven film or a single protagonist film wouldn't, they would have more screen resource to dedicate to other ways to engaging the audience. And they've chosen this way. And I can, I'm hopeful that that will lead to actual, rather than just limiting it to character actual thematic learnings.

So the question I want to leave everyone on because it isn't like I was very abused when we decided to do this is a three-hander episode with now is we doing an ensemble with an ensemble.

Hmm. An ensemble.

So think about our group dynamic over this episode reflect on it and the future episodes and think about what moments we're being collaborative competitive or combative and it isn't always combative if it was just as an enemy combative.

And to be clear, in the sharehouse metaphor, Stu and Chas are the couple, and I'm the third party.

I feel like I'm more a cat I can be very affectionate but only when I want to I'm. Hey! Given the opportunity, I will shit-inch as his sink and his dishwasher.

An agent of chaos. Specific because that is what my cat has done. I'm explaining to our audience why you picked Sinkin' Dishwasher for your metaphorical cat to shit in.

I know. Are you sure it was the cat? This is the question.

One day, we will learn how to pronounce your name.