Billy Mernit provides an insightful analysis of the movie Man on Wire:

James Marsh’s sublime documentary, its title taken from a police report document’s description of the event: Man on Wire, is deservedly an Oscar front-runner. Already available on DVD, the film should be required viewing for all creative types. Certainly any writer should see it, perhaps on a yearly basis, as a kind of talisman for You Can Do It faith.

John August writes about “premise coincidence” in an interesting analysis that starts with Slumdog Millionaire:

I would argue that Jamal’s knowing the right answers falls into my category of a Premise Coincidence, much the same way that in Die Hard, John McClane just happens to be in the building when the villains attack, or in the original Spider-Man, Peter Parker just happens to get bitten by the radioactive spider.

In each of these cases, the coincidence is the reason why the story is happening.

Mystery Man on Film follows up on some rather incendiary reactions to his latest Script magazine article with this post called “The Great Character Arc Controversy.” Interestingly the original article features quotes from playwright, screenwriter, and fellow blogger Joshua James:

Well, I can see that lips are flapping over my article called “The Case AGAINST Character Arcs” in the latest issue of Script Magazine. I’ve been told of a few debates on message boards, like here and here.

But nothing prepared me for the flood of e-mails in my inbox. So I shall try to address common questions and responses. I have no problem at all with people disagreeing or putting my feet to the fire to test whether what I said is true. I think that’s a good thing.

The LA Times Patrick Goldstein weighs in with why Disney dumped the Narnia Chronicles:

So why would Disney walk away from such a valuable property? The back story is complicated, to say the least. The obvious reason was that compared to the astounding success of the first film, 2005′s “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” which amassed nearly $750 million in global business, the second film in the series, 2008′s “Prince Caspian,” was a big disappointment, grossing roughly $420 million. Still, $420 million is nothing to sneeze at, being way more money than any Disney film, except for “Wall-E,” made all year.

Julie Gray at The Rouge Wave provides an update from the Sundance Film Festival:

Like I said, Sundance is about the parties. celebrities, money, etc. Not that I care about those things very much, but those are the things that get films made. Specifically, and hopefully, my films. So we went up to some place on Main Street (If you’ve never been, most of Sundance takes place on this street.) This place had a huge line. We slip up to the front and the doorman is telling everyone how it’s at capacity. No one can be let in. Even on a list. Riight. I think they just say that. And my theory held true because the guy turns away all these people, but looks at my friend and I and says, “You two can go on in.” Random? Yes.

And finally, Todd Alcott starts a multi-part analysis of Batman (1989):

Since Batman takes so long to develop into a protagonist, the movie must give us a number of other protagonists to follow while we’re waiting. In this, the screenplay does not disappoint — Act I offers no fewer than four different protagonists, some of which are more interesting than others. First we meet Harvey Dent, Gotham City’s new District Attorney, who pledges to clean up Gotham City’s corruption, and for a moment it begins to look like maybe Batman, like The Dark Knight 19 years later, is going to develop into a Batman/Joker/Two-Face story. But Harvey’s crusade against corruption in Batman barely receives another mention before being swept aside by more colorful, more dynamic forces. Next, the screenplay offers Alexander Knox, a reporter who seems to be the only “straight” person in Gotham City concerned about the appearance of Batman. (Batman, although he is around from the beginning of the narrative, does not operate initially as a protagonist — he’s more like a weather condition. Civilians don’t take him seriously, and the powers that be are unconcerned; it’s only street criminals who fear and mythologize him.) Knox’s interest in Batman brings us to Vicki Vale, a serious photojournalist who is sexually attracted to bats. Once we’ve got a gorgeous blonde who’s turned on by bats, we kind of lose interest in Knox, who still hangs around the narrative, but is relegated to sidekick and functionary for Vicki. In between these three, we are introduced to Jack Napier, a high-ranking gangster in boss Carl Grissom’s crime empire. Jack is a dandy and a thug, a little like 80s mobster-of-the-moment John Gotti, and is in trouble with Grissom, since he’s making whoopie with Grissom’s moll. Out of all the characters who emerge in Batman‘s first act, Jack is by far the most interesting, perhaps because he’s played by the only bona-fide movie star in the picture, and perhaps because he’s not particularly interested in Batman. His problem is Carl Grissom, whose problem is Harvey Dent. Dent and Grissom are unconcerned about the problem Batman presents, but Knox and Vicki are concerned solely about Batman to exclusion of all the other serious problems that seem to plague Gotham City.

Blog on!

UPDATE: Per the Mystery Man on Film link above, I believe this is the blog post by Joshua James that from which MMOF quoted in the Script article.