The Hunter: Dafoe vs Tasmania

(SPOILER ALERT)

.
.
.
.
.
.

Some questions for Meg le Fauve – the script doctor/guru/expert brought onboard to improve the quality of the screenplay for THE HUNTER:

What dramatic purpose do the fire and death of Sass and Lucy serve other than to render Free an orphan and thus available to be ‘adopted’ by Martin David? In what way is David’s killing of what he thinks to be the last remaining Tasmanian tiger, in order to save it from being cloned, an act of redemption that leads him to want to adopt the recently orphaned Free? To save it from being cloned and used by the forces of evil that have employed him? Okay, so he has, he thinks, killed the last Tasmanian Tiger but what if he hasn’t? What if it has a mate and the mate is pregnant and there will soon be a whole litter of baby Tasmanian Tigers? Of what value, then, will his having killed the ‘last’ Tiger been – if indeed there was any value in it in the first place? Why was capturing it and taking it to a zoo not an option?

It’s not just Meg le Fauve! There’s a whole bunch of names in the end credits that suggests this was a screenplay designed by a committee. It certainly seems that way! What a mess of a screenplay! God preserve us from script doctors! They are the bane of our industry

(ANOTHER SPOILER ALERT)
.
.
.
.

Thought it might be me but, hey, why did he kill the tiger? Is it my imagination or did the tiger droop its head at the last moment as if to say, “Please kill me! I donpt want to be cloned?” And who the f*** was Sam Neill? What was he up to? Why was he giving the mum pills? Why does he pull a gun on the Hunter? Lots of questions but no answers! I studied screenwriting for a year and I can tell you that if I had handed in this screenplay my tutor would have jumped on me and sent me away with a long list of problems to be sorted out.

Don’t you guys know what the obvious truth is, we can’t write our own stories we need Americans to show us how..they know our stories better than any of us..its so obvious! Anyway the screenplays in Australia usually write themselves, we don’t have any screenwriters we have narrative phantoms.

ANOTHER SPOILER ALERT…
.
.
.
.
.

The basic premise of THE HUNTER is a bold one: Mercenary hunter Martin David has been employed to find the last Tasmanian Tiger before anyone else does. His task is to deliver the DNA of the animal to his paymasters. He is not concerned with the fact that the DNA is to be exploited by his employers is a way that is (to put it mildly) ethically questionable. As he searches for Tiger he becomes, despite his loner tendencies, caught up in the lives of three members of a family in crisis – a mother, a pre-pubescent girl and a young boy rendered mute by the tragic disappearance and probable murder of his father. When Martin David finally confronts the last Tasmanian Tiger and is in a position to either kill it, as he has been instructed, or let it live, he experiences a transformative moment of self realization that results in him returning, after he has acted on his profound change in world view, to commit himself to playing the role of father to the now orphaned boy.
As the starting point for a drama about a man re-orienting his priorities as a result of his meeting with, and growing concern for, a fragile family living in a remote part of Tasmania, the basic premise of THE HUNTER, as psychological thriller, has much to recommend it. In the right hands, the boldness of the original concept, could result in a film that, like DELIVERANCE, is both a work of filmic art and a bums-on-seats box office success. So, what went wrong? Why didn’t Meg le Fauve solve the problems? I am sure she would have been handsomely paid to do so!

SPOILER…
.
.
.
.
.
.

@ Anonymous

I imagine, in your year of studying screenwriting, that you will be aware that in whatever genre a screenwriter is working, a believable world must be created for the story being told. This is as true for science fiction and cartoons as it is for the most realistic of dramas. This is Screenwriting 101 – a statement of the obvious. So, what do we know of the world that THE HUNTER inhabits? It is one in which a man (father to Sass and Free) can disappear under mysterious circumstances without anyone being all that concerned about what has happened to him after a two week search has been called off. The police are conducting no ongoing investigation despite the weight of evidence suggesting that he may be the victim of foul play. It is a world in which a mother (Lucy), with no apparent source of income, can take to her bed in grief after the disappearance of her husband and leave her two young children (Sass and Free) to fend for themselves – no one other than Jack Mindy (the Sam Neill character who has been giving Lucy pills that exacerbate her psychological problems!) apparently at all concerned about the welfare of her children – one of whom seems to have been rendered mute by the loss of his father. Lucy has, it seems, no mother, father, brothers or sisters or friends taking an interest in hers and her children’s welfare! Her disappeared husband likewise seems to have no mother, father, brother or sister taking an interest in the welfare of the grieving (and effectively dysfunctional) mother or her now-fatherless kids. It is a world in which there are no social services available to either the psychologically ill pill-popping mother or her neglected children living in a remote area. It is a world in which no-one from the school Sass and Free attend seems at all concerned by their absence as they stay at home doing their best to take care of their comatose mother. It is a world in which Martin (the Hunter) does not bother to entertain such questions about the welfare of the children – despite his eventual decision to adopt the lone survivor of the family. Martin David is quite prepared to leave Sass and Free with their clearly dysfunctional mother (whom he has not even met) for two weeks as he heads off into the wilderness. Since Jack Mindy accompanies him for the first leg of the journey (expecting to go along for its entirety) both Jack and Martin seem quite oblivious to the dangers inherent in leaving two young children with their sick mother. (The motivations of both Martin and Jack are a mystery!) It is a world in which speakers can hang from the branches of a tree for months on end, unaffected by heavy Tasmanian rainfall. It is a world in which (because otherwise the ending makes no sense and is devoid of emotional impact) a strange American man can simply decide to take care of an orphaned boy as if he were a stray dog – there being, it seems, no family on either the mother’s or the father’s side taking an interest in Free’s welfare. It is a world in which this mute boy, who has lost his father, mother and sister, suddenly discovers his voice and, his problems now behind him, is overjoyed when Willem Defoe, having discovered his humanity by killing what he thinks to be the last Tasmanian tiger, turns up at his school!

What kind of world is this that the story of THE HUNTER inhabits? Hopefully Meg le Fauve will be able to join this debate.

Oh my goodness. No wonder the Australian screenwriting community stinks; never have I seen more petty hate, simply because someone was paid to do their job. Why don’t the anonymous and identified haters have an amazing job as a script doctor/guru/savior? Does that year of lessons in screenwriting qualify you to be the judge and jury on this films script?

Never have I seen a more outrageous claim on this site than “God preserve us from script doctors! They are the bane of our industry” Obviously someone that is so far outside the feature film industry they are talking with complete ignorance. Do you know why, for the most part, US films are narratively superior than AUS films? It’s because they get re-written and script doctored countless times. Often up to a dozen writers will all get their hands on the script. And this, usually, is a good thing.

I bet you all think you’re amazing writers. If someone gave you a chance your film would be pulling in Oscar’s and AFI’s like it’s nothing. Sadly, unless you’re Aaron Sorkin or someone similar, you’re delusional. Nearly every script has holes, and script doctors bring that objective eye that helps fix those holes.

I don’t know anything about this Meg Le Fauve, is she American? Is that why everyone is taking cheap shots at her? Or is it just envy that she got a well paying role in a big Aussie movie and you didn’t?

It honestly depresses me that our small, Australian screenwriting community is so quick to rip each other down. You say Screen Australia and other government bodies are the problem with this industry. I put to you all that the spiteful people that work in this industry are the true problem. Be proud of other writer’s achievements, don’t let envy drive you.

(As for the comments about the film’s world not being believable, while your points may be valid they really aren’t the end of the world. Find me a film that doesn’t have any plot or story holes. Even the best films of all time don’t account for all possiblities. “omg, where are the police? where are child services?!” Come on now, so petty.

No, not a ‘hater’, Brian, just an avid viewer of Australian films who sees the same names time and time again associated with the development of films that fail at the box office because the scripts from which they were made are lousy.

For what it is worth, my first film (I’m still quite young) was crap. I copped heaps for it (and deserved to). My second film was less crap. I copped less criticism. If my third film is better (as it will be) it will partly be because I have always invited my friends to be honest with me and never seen their criticisms (they are mostly would-be filmmakers) as being driven by hatred or envy. Is it some kind of betrayal of the film community to call a spade a spade? If we can’t criticize filmmakers who produce crap (and this includes script doctors) out of some perverse sense of solidarity or fear of being labelled as ‘haters’ driven by envy, no wonder we continue to make the same mistakes year after year and produce films that no-one wants to see.

Anyway, you’ve misrepresented the point I was making – namely that as a novice screenwriter my teacher would have insisted that I solve basic script problems of the kind that exist in ‘The Hunter’. It is the accumulation of the details James has identified that is the problem – not any one in particular. (I can live with rain-resistant speakers in trees!) When there are too many illogicalities, as there are in ‘The Hunter’, the reality of the world that the screenwriter has created is eroded, making it more and more difficult for an audience to believe in it. And if audiences don’t or can’t believe, for the duration of the film, in the world the story lives within, they can’t lose themselves in it. In the case of ‘The Hunter’ every one of its problems (Lucy and her husband without families, kids not going to school, speakers in trees) could be forgiven if, at the end, a world had been created in which it makes sense – in terms of story, motivation, understanding of character and human psychology, for the Hunter to decide, as a result of killing the last Tasmanian Tiger, to step into the father role for young Free. Either I and my friends who saw the film are all equally stupid not to get it or this is a problem of mammoth proportions. If you can answer this question for me, Brian, that would be great. Or am I being petty in asking it?

I loved “Animal Kingdom” and disliked the next film by the same producer (‘The Hunter’) so am I a ‘lover’ or a ‘hater’, Brian ? As for envy, I’m not a filmmaker so this epithet can’t apply. Is it fear of being labelled ‘haters’ that drives Australian film critics to go soft on Australian films?

Can someone please point me in the direction of one successful Australian film made in the past three years whose screenplay was enhanced by the employment of an overseas script guru? Just one. Likewise, can anyone point me in the direction of Australian films that failed to find an audience that did have an overseas script guru attached? The answers to both questions would help us determine the contribution they make. have the funding bodies done any kind of survey with questions such as these in mind? If so, could they make their findings available to the industry?

Would love to read Meg le Fauve’s Reader’s Report for the final draft of ‘The Hunter’. If, in her Report, she sings the praises of the screenplay and sees no problems with it, will she be demoted from ‘guru’ to ‘expert’?

Okay, joking aside (and with no disrespect intended to Ms Le Fauve), why should Reqaders, Gurus, Experts, Doctors and others intimately involved in the development of screenplays be immune from criticism? It aint always just the screenwriter’s or the director’s fault when films tank.

Fair call Brian..still having seen the film there are some very grinding flaws in the film that make you scratch your head an wonder. That said, I enjoyed the film and thought it had some strong themes. I RECOMMEND SEEING IT. I’m not sure I expect Oscars and AFI’s and I don’t think I’m a hater revelling in the mistakes of others. Its just we seem to think that we need American perspectives on stories with an Australian slant. its all messed up. American script guru’s, American script doctors. I don’t think American films are narratively superior, they might have more money to throw at development, but with a little self belief we might actually find we have all the talent and intelligence right here. But we don’t cast the net widely, we rely on old networks and spend stuff all on script development and if we do its usually when we lack any sense of self belief and look abroad. I’ve heard people from funding bodies dismiss the opinions of script editors saying they do more harm than good. Its a mad industry and none of us really know the solutions. And do I think I’m an amazing writer..not at all. Am I sick of seeing the same narrative mistakes made and talented people giving up and moving on from this industry..of course. I agree spiteful people are the problem and I have constantly said that funding bodies need a perspective change, they aren’t the root cause of our problems..ignorance, arrogance, nepotism and cynicism..they are the main problems, change the perspective, tweak the model..who knows.. we might be able to use our own talent to write ourselves back into the picture. The screenwriting community doesn’t stink, its just never really been given any respect…and still struggles to get the measure of its real worth in the collaborative process of making a film.

Yes Brian, nearly every script has holes and the input from skilled craftsmen/women (by whatever name) is invaluable to the script development process. The operative word here is ‘skilled’. In Hollywood the script doctors who survive (and are deservedly well paid for being ‘skilled’) do so on the basis of onscreen results. In Australia, the lack of onscreen results (measured in terms of either bums-on-seats or critical acclaim) is no obstacle, year after year, to being considered (and referred to by funding bodies) as an ‘expert’. (The term ‘guru’ is reserved for non Australians). Herein lies one of the problems we face as an industry – a script development gravy train in which no-one involved is ever held responsible for the poor screenplays that come out of the very script development processes designed to produce good screenplays.

In Hollywood the producers who keep bringing in new screenwriters to solve script problems do so because they do not want to go into production with a screenplay that is not ready. Then, of course, there are the studios (or whoever is financing the film) that will not greenlight a project until the producer presents them with a first class screenplay. There is a creative chain of command leading down from those who control the purse strings (are in a position to greenlight a project) to the screenwriter and everyone in it must accept their share of the responsibility when a film fails – the screenwriter, the script editor/guru/doctor/expert, the director, the producer and ultimately the ‘studio’. This is not the way it works in Australia. With some wonderful exceptions, too many (most!) of our films are greenlit by our own version of the studio system (Screen Australia and the state funding agencies) before the screenplay is even close to being ready – as I believe the case to be with THE HUNTER. (The success of RED DOG, hopefully, has put to rest the notion that Australian audiences don’t want to see Australian films. What they want to see are films that entertain them)

I do not think that the problems of logic and motivation that I have identified are petty but lets say they are and I am just being a small-minded pedant. What about the big question: In what way, in the world the story inhabits, is Martin David’s killing of what he thinks to be the last Tasmanian Tiger, an act of redemption that leads to his decision (clearly implied) to care for young Free? And what has occurred in the interactions onscreen between this traumatized mute young boy and Martin David that leads Free to find his voice and rush into the arms of his new ‘dad’? This moment should be (and could have been) an incredibly powerful one but for it to be so the various beats in the change in the change taking place in the Hunter need to be clear. They are not.

The basic premise of THE HUNTER is a bold one and, in the hands of a good screenwriter, might have been made to work. It may well be that there was, at the outset, a great concept waiting to be developed through successive drafts. So, what went wrong? The script gurus, doctors and experts (along with a bevvy of assorted film bureaucrats) seem not to have asked any of the questions implicit in what I have written. If so, what have the script consultants/gurus/experts/doctors brought to the project to enhance its prospects as a film that audiences (domestic and international) will want to see?

If there was a great screenplay lurking in the early drafts (original concept), waiting to be developed, it has been destroyed, in my view, by the very script development processes that are designed to result in first rate screenplays. Australia’s film funding bodies have, for years now, been calling on the services of script gurus, script doctors and script experts to improve the quality of Australian screenplays. Many of these come from overseas, as was the case with THE HUNTER – the guru in this case being Meg le Favue. A legitimate question for the industry to ask itself is: Are our script development processes working? And if not, what are we going to do about it? Persist with the status quo or try out some new approaches?

Brian, if you are a filmmaker (an anonymous ‘lover’ as opposed to an anonymous ‘hater’!) you will probably have received some bad crits for your work at some point or another. I certainly have. To dismiss legitimate criticism of your film (whether you be the producer, director, writer or script doctor/guru/expert) as being merely an expression of hate and envy is to bury your head in the sand. And burying our head in the sand is something that we, as an industry, are very good at.

Let me begin by apologising for the rant. So often on film blogs and sites such as this one whenever there is ‘good news,’ the comments section always seems to be filled with people shooting down those doing well. After a while you just snap, and hence the rant against ‘haters.’

Doug and Emily/anonymous, it’s great to hear you argue your points and I agree you’re not haters at all – I share many of your views on the state of the Australian industry. It’s infuriating to see the same name’s attached to the relatively few films Australia produce every year, particularly when these name’s have a history of failure. I’m all for second chances, but not tenth chances, especially when it is my taxpayer money on the line.

As for Meg the US script doctor, I still think it’s impossible to blame her for anything without knowing the facts. Writers are on one of the lower rungs of the filmmaking ladder. For all we know Meg pointed out all of the flaws mentioned above, and had her notes ignored by a director or producer. Why was a US writer brought in instead of one of the many talented Aussie writers? Maybe it was to do with the market; casting Dafoe was clearly a choice made to give this film a chance in the US market. Filmmaking is such a collaborative process I’m sure a lot of people were behind the flaws we see in the film.

On the topic of critiquing Australian films, I do agree that we treat our hoemgrown films with a bit of bias. We love to absolutely tear down the trash (and we have every right to do so, when so much of it is made…A Heartbeat Away springs to mind…) but when we make a decent film, our critics seem to like to put the film on a pedestal. I’ve seen the Hunter and as Doug said, it is worth watching. Will I buy the DVD or watch it again? Probably not, so many more films to see and not enough time. It leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth when I see renowned local critics, say David & Margaret, giving The Hunter 4/5 stars. If this was a US film it’d be unlikely to even be screened or reviewed here in Aus, and the films flaws would most definitely be exposed. This could be one of the many problems plaguing our industry. People see a local film get 4 or 5 stars, expect an amazing film as well you should, and end up seeing an average film that has been unfairly praised because of where it was made.

Curious question to end this unneccessarily long post: has anyone (Encore?) approached Screen Aus for comment on a lot of the complaints that often pop up on this site. Are the government body oldies who are attached to all of these failed films ever scrutinised? Does Screen Aus deliberately fund films that don’t have a market and will never be profitable (Sleeping Beauty, Heartbeat Away)? I’m not saying SA is the only problem with our industry, but they certainly are responsible for their fair share of mistakes and as a government body you’d expect some transparency.

I think one of the biggest problems we have in our industry is that we don’t actually pay any attention to how cinema savvy our audiences are. They are very clued in, extremely so, they can appraise the worth of any production with a high degree of narrative intelligence. Filmmakers still see themselves as the ones “clued in” the posse with all the tricks and tools that can swoon any audience. I think there’s a growing audience out there that is very in touch with what they like, why they like it, whats wrong with the narrative, the direction etc etc..I don’t see a great deal of respect being paid to this audience and I think they are looking for a variety of entertainment and we ignore this audience at our own peril. SA and other funding bodies have a government mandate to make content that will register in our public psyche, stuff that will give us a picture of who we are, where we have come from and our place in the modern world. I don’t see how films like A Heartbeat Away or Sleeping Beauty figure in this mandate. One a cynical cliche riddled mess developed by people who should know better, but obviously didn’t know a thing, especially about their audience. I’d be really interested to see if the people behind this mess ever articulate what their aspirations for this utterly crap film were. I haven’t heard one person from a funding body say anything other than the film employed X amount of people. Pictures in Paradise, we are waiting for an explanation. The Other Sleeping Beauty, was a cold, distant study of what I’m not sure..I never really got to know the main character ( and yes I know I don’t have to like every character) and all I could think of at the end of it was “I’ll never get that time back”. When I saw the trailer I thought, “Great filmmakers pushing the envelope, fantastic”. When I saw the film my reaction was one of being stuck at a party listening to somebody telling you a story that they swear will be interesting and knock you for six if you just stick around and hear the ending. The ending came and I was “is that it?”…time to leave the party. I think all those films show a healthy amount of what is wrong with our industry. If you do the research its not hard to see how these films came into play. Rules were broken that are concrete for everybody else. A first time director allowed to direct a feature and ex CEO of the AFC allowed to access funding for a script that anybody with any sense of cinema could have said after reading the script “This is a cliche riddled mess, why are you making it?” Hindsight is a great thing, but so is applying some degree of fairness for all and that intelligent cinema savvy radar that a growing % of our public has hardwired to their perspective. Its a pity more filmmakers aren’t tapping into the wealth of narrative knowledge we have in our own backyard. But then again we’ve never really been all that good at believing in ourselves. We talk big, but think small. And we keep shovelling people into film schools and writing programs…pity we don’t tell them that their opinions and perspectives aren’t really valued and they might not have anything that is reflective of a career until they are 50..thats if they stick around. But hey lets keep them in a perpetual state of HECS debt as they try and build that career and slowly realise a good idea needs to take aback seat behind the solidified wall of ignorance, greed, nepotism, cynicism and spiteful scheming.
Some say I’m a hater..but I actually love cinema..even Australian cinema.

Doug, Brian

Great that this dialogue is happening here. I do wish it was one that included the film funding bodies – for whom dialogue with the industry (real dialogue Q&A style) is anathema. I would love to be in an auditorium filled with filmmakers tossing ideas around like this!

I agree that HEARTBEAT AWAY was a seriously bad film that should not have been made but I wouldn’t bother to write as much about it as I have here about THE HUNTER because it was not worthy of such attention. THE HUNTER is different, however. The story concept is a bold one and, I think, could have been made to work if the script problems (as I see them!) had been sorted out. Those of my concerns that you have referred to as ‘petty’, Brian, are all problems for which solutions could (and I believe should) have been found. (I have literally lain in bed awake thinking about solutions!)

The biggest problem to solve was establishing a relationship between Martin and Free such that his arrival at the end of the film, having made a decision to take care of the boy, makes psychological and emotional sense. With a few more drafts this could have been achieved. A few extra scenes between them would have been needed and these would probably have come at the expense of Martin’s relationship with Lucy – a relationship which goes nowhere anyway. Indeed, I think that she is almost a superfluous character and that if she just remained an inadequate dysfunctional mother the pressure on Martin to step in and help out would have been great and leaving the kids with mum when he went bush would have been harder for him and…

The horse has bolted so there’s not much point now in pursuing HOW the relationship between Martin and Free could have been enhanced but with not too much work Martin’s arrival at the school to see Free could have been a heart-in-the-mouth Kleenex tissue scene that left the audience emotionally satisfied.

A less easy problem to solve is Martin’s motivation for killing the Tasmanian Tiger and destroying rather than saving the DNA and the way in which this is a transformative moment for him. Not an impossible one to solve but…the horse has bolted.

My point, speaking as a screenwriter, is that I can see how the script problems could have been solved so that the final draft screenplay could have lived up to the boldness of the concept. Many Australian scripts are based on slight or clichéd ideas and no amount of script doctoring would save them. THE HUNTER could, I believe, been a great film and I hate to think that other similarly bold ideas may, in the future, be harmed by the script development processes we have in place – highly dependent as they are on calling upon the services of the same doctors/gurus/experts whose track records leave much to be desired.

And I agree with you, Doug, that there a good screenwriters and script editors here who could do a better job than overseas ‘doctors’ whose work I am now familiar with.
And they have the advantage of understanding Australian culture from the inside, know the speech rhythms, regional vernacula and so on

And yes, please, representatives from the funding bodies administering our script development processes, please join this discussion and others of its kind.

No comment from Meg le Fauve. No comment from any of the other ‘experts’ involved in the development of this mediocre screenplay. No comment from any of the film bureaucrats at any of the agencies involved in greenlighting ‘The Hunter’. Does Encore ever invite these film bureaucrats to comment on opinion pieces it publishes, to participate in dialogue and debate with the industry it is their job to serve? Do they simply refuse to comment? Please, Encore, if you are not doing so, apply a little pressure to these people to either participate or explain why it is they refuse to do so.

‘Sound of Silence’, you are being naïve in presuming that film bureaucrats might want to engage in dialogue. This is not the way it works. They are ‘experts’, don’t you get it? That’s why they have their jobs – because they are the best people in the country to sit behind the desks they do. The reason why the films they greenlight rarely work is not their fault: “Hey, this is a collaborative industry…etc. and it is all the other collaborators who fucked up. Not me. I told them the script wasn’t ready but would they listen…?”

They didn’t answer the movie watchers answer. Is this movie has any truth to it or any of it’s seens .since it was based on a true story

So is it based on a true story or what