For Mature Audiences Only (NSFW)
I was getting ready to go to work the other morning when I glanced out my home office window and beheld two raccoons having sex on the roof next door.
Though I've never been an advocate for animal pornography, after a few minutes of slack-jawed observation, I went for my camera - not because I wanted to get a better look, but because I wanted my absent wife to see this - not because she has any interest in raccoon sex, per say, but because a simple description wouldn't really do justice to such a scene.
It's not a common occurrence on our block in Venice Beach at 7 in the morning. And that's the thing, I guess: Nothing could be more common in the world at large, but the context, the public exhibitionism of it all, gave the experience an extra level of interest. There was also an aspect of character-driven intrigue: the male raccoon was being a brute about it (this not exactly a shocking development, either), and the female apparently had other things she'd rather be doing, such as getting off the roof.
They were still going at it when I left, now a few minutes late for work. And the images stayed with me as I read a spec screenplay at the studio. Which occasioned my establishing a new standard for such reads.
I'd often been at a loss when asked what compels me to give a "Consider" to a screenplay. Now I can answer this, by posing a crucial question in response: Is the script more interesting than the sight of two raccoons humping?
You've started to read a screenplay. Someone comes to the door of the room and tells you, "Hey - there's two raccoons humping outside my window." Do you immediately put down the draft and go to the window? Or do you say, "Wow, I'll be right there," and keep reading to the end of the scene you're reading, first?
It's really that simple. I will call this the TRH (Two Raccoons Humping) Factor, and I plan to lobby for having the studio add a box for this on coverage cover sheets, in addition to "Consider," "Consider Concept Only," and "Pass." In the box next to "TRH Factor," readers will rate the script with a number from 1 to 10, i.e. a low number indicating that the raccoons would win out fairly easily, and a high number indicating that the script will be more likely to sustain an audience's interest.
I share this with you as the preamble to a blog post of more substantive interest, re: the current Oscar contender Amour, and the issue of story stakes. I'll be posting that within the next 48 hours, but in the meantime, feel free to contemplate this:
Yup. This is amazing. And of course true.
Posted by: JustMe | January 27, 2013 at 02:12 PM
Funny. Out where I live we have a lot of deer and elk running around, but to date I've never seen animals mating. What a way to start your morning off, Billy. Who knew So. Cal's animal romance life was so alive and well!
Posted by: E.C. Henry | January 27, 2013 at 04:59 PM
I'm so glad you got footage. I never would have fully appreciated the TRH factor.
Posted by: Judith Lewis | January 27, 2013 at 08:26 PM
You sure this wasn't Ralph and Ed after a night at the Lodge?
Posted by: Rick Klauber | January 28, 2013 at 03:36 AM
JustMe: Always pursuing that critical High Bar...
EC: Alive, well, and a little scary, actually.
Judith: Always thinking of you, honey.
Rick: New interpretations of "To the moon, Alice!"
Posted by: mernitman | January 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Fantastic. It's akin to what I used to call "the tv test." When I'm on a date, I sometimes ask myself "would I rather be here than home watching tv?" If it even occurs to me to ask this, well, it's not a good sign.
(Totally aside--what do you think of someone (not me) who has written 18 unproduced screen plays? Is that a good sign or a bad sign? Fortitude or absurdity?)
Posted by: jamy | January 28, 2013 at 01:19 PM
Jami: 18 SP within what period of time?
Posted by: mernitman | February 01, 2013 at 08:43 PM
Haha! This just took screenwriting to a whole new level! I'll constantly be comparing my imaginary TRH to what I'm writing from now on :)
Posted by: Chris Badeaux | February 03, 2013 at 12:46 PM
What would be better/worse, more or less time? I don't know the answer but my guess is over more than a decade.
Posted by: jamy | February 07, 2013 at 01:24 PM
As much as I enjoy looking at these pictures of TRH, I'm dying to hear your thoughts on Amour. Are you still planning on doing a post about that film?
Posted by: Teddy Pasternak | February 07, 2013 at 02:46 PM
Chris: Excellent.
Jamy: That sounds "normal" to me. You're getting better all the time, right?
Teddy: Sorry, it's been an insanely busy couple of weeks. I DO plan to write about Amour, and hope to get to it before long.
Posted by: mernitman | February 14, 2013 at 06:26 AM