Script Review: BIG FISH: written by John August

(11/20/01)

DISCUSSION BOARD: Click Here.

NOTE: The screenplays we review are often in development and may experience many rewrites, some could end up being completely different than what is reviewed here. It is our hope that our reviews generate more interest in the film. Thank you.

For a screenwriter, hearing the words "Steven Spielberg is going to make your script" is commensurate to a doctors "Its a boy!" or a spouses "I do."

John August (GO, CHARLIES ANGELS) has joined that club with the script BIG FISH. I expect John will soon face the hard reality guys like Ron Bass and Ryan Murphy have: Steven gets worked up over scripts, doles out money for rewrites and more, and then dumps the work. If you take a quick peek into recent history, youll hear about Steven "considering" many scripts, but almost everything he makes is developed in-house and based on his own idea or a novel handpicked for him. (Even a lucky scribe like Robert Rodat had his script completely rewritten.)

BIG FISH, based on the popular novel by Daniel Wallace, shouldnt be called BIG FISH at all. The obvious title is TALL TALES. Which is what BIG FISH amounts to: a sloppy confluence of outrageous, fantastical stories. The script, which is a wee bit too precious, is never dull and has a pace. Its agreeable, to be sure, and I love a wacky tone, but ultimately it never won me over.

I think the problem lies in the structure. Which Ill get to in a second.

Heres the story: Edward Bloom is a storyteller. A natural one and a good one. The man has never met a situation that cannot be enlivened by one of his bizarre tales. Edwards son, Will, grew up adoring his father. But as time went on, and the stories grew stale, Will became sick of the stories (which he dubs lies) and his old man, too. When Edward recounts the same old story of how he caught "the beast" (a giant fish) with his wedding ring at Wills own wedding, Will chews him out and they stop talking. This is a movie, and we know that when a parent and a kid stop talking well flash forward and the parent will be dying. Exactly as it is here. Will goes to his fathers bedside with his beautiful French wife in tow and he tries to make up with his father and "find out who he really is behind the stories."

So heres the problem: Eds yarns are topnotch entertainment. The kind of stuff you listen to with a smile and call up to mind now and again when you need a laugh. They are filled with giant men and weird towns and the circus. Romance, charisma, true love. The stuff great movies are made of!

But the scripts story, of Will making up with his father, is commonplace muck. Something we dont want to see and dont care about. Edward is a truly charming guy. We love him instantly. Will comes off as self-absorbed and a brat. Its hard to care about Will when he hates Edward and we love Ed to death. Sure, it must have been annoying to live in his fathers shadow his whole life. But, hey, at least he had a loving father who could captivate a crowd.

(Im a person who can understand Wills predicament because it is, in a way, my life! My father is a gregarious storyteller, too. Anytime he meets a new person he lays out the stories Ive heard a million times and can recite with him. (In fact, I think I may even tell them better now; I know I remember them better.) Ive lived the scenes in this script: being left behind by friends when my dad started on some adventure he had; watching with annoyance as some newcomer listened, wide-eyed and open-mouthed; dreading which story would come up in any given conversation. Hell, I am Will (minus the French wife). But all this never made me hate my father. In the end I think I was happy that I was interested in him, that he was interesting to others, and that he could bewitch me with a tale (the first ten times, anyway). Wills anger comes off like a jealousy. And thats unbecoming. And hard to forget. As all pettiness is.)

The structure of BIG FISH reminds me of Clint Eastwoods THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY. It was a terrific flick when we were watching Eastwood and Streep connecting, but when you cut back to the kids in present day you were snoring. This uses the same ploy: Kid discovers something of his fathers, has a flashback, and we see the story.

It would have been one thing to bookend the story with Will as a kid and Will as an adult, but the constant cutting back to him, which gets in the way, enervates the script. He becomes an insistent fly buzzing in your ears. Which you swat at and hiss "shoo."

(From what Ive read Will trying to get to know his father is based, in part, on John Augusts own experience with his dying father. And like most self-discovering autobiographical work, its hard for it to rise above its origins.)

Even with the irksome Will around, you cant deny the good fun of Eds tall tales. It all probably could have survived as an ugly, but acceptable, union. I think what really pulls the script down is the ending. We know where its going to go, and considering the ingenuity and originality of Eds stories, youd think this script would sidestep the obvious son-finds-out-pop-really-loves-him-then-pop-dies routine. And get this! Bet you didnt see it coming. Those stories -- they were true! There really was a giant and a circus and an insanely good-natured town. Wow! What are the chances?

BIG FISH (every time I say that title I automatically think of the P.J. Harvey song "Down By the Water," where she purrs "Little fish, big fish, swimming in the water") is sort of like a vast garden that has blighted on only one side. Eds tales, the unaffected side, shine bright and beautiful. A glorious example of fun storytelling. The blighted side, Wills woe-is-me, I-hate-my-dad crap, is an interminable mess. A distraction. A nuisance, Juxtaposed with the enthralling, vitalizing stories of his father, Wills little arc is like a John Updike novel invading a Roald Dahl kids book.

For the most part the tone of this script is a welcome relief. Its light, its goofy, its offbeat. More or less an ape of THE SIMPSONS (they actually just had an episode, titled TALL TALES, that was quite a bit similar to this), with hints of Terry Gilliam. Its great to read something so unabashedly lighthearted. And that makes me think this probably worked much better as a novel. In the novel you dont have to devote so much time to Will. Im sure in that realm its Will recounting all the great stories his father told him. The one about Karl the giant, and how he robbed banks for the county so the banks could stay solvent, and how he rebuilt an entire town, and how him and his friends saw their own deaths in the eye of a witch, and how he fell in love with his future wife when he first saw her and later convinced her to marry him. All that good stuff a smart man would entertain his kid with before he went to sleep.

I could really see Steven Spielberg gooey-ing this up. Making it cuter than it needs to be. The way he crippled Kubricks darker vision of A.I. You obviously need a director that can handle the special-effects-enhanced sections and the personal drama. But Im no worshipper of Steven, and I think other men, such as Gilliam or Robert Zemeckis, could do a better job. (Why not give this to Mike Bay? Itd be an easier route to "respectability" than a TITANIC wannabe.)

John August shot to fame off of a film that few people saw: Doug Limans GO. He now has about ten movies in the works, including a reworking of BARBARELLA and FANTASY ISLAND, and also an adaptation of HOW TO EAT FRIED WORMS (based on the famous kids book). Hes a busy boy, right now rewriting this script, CHARLIES ANGELS II and "THE UNTITLED JOHN AUGUST PROJECT," so when Spielberg passes on this I dont think hell be too upset.

Without Stevens involvement, it would take one hell of a commitment to make this script. Were talking tons of CG and a budget over the one hundred million dollar mark. We have to see that giant, remember, and a rainstorm that turns into a flood. Tall tales dont come cheap.

BIG FISH is a kind, softhearted affair that, like a sad-eyed puppy, you dont want to turn away. But being congenial doesnt make you worthy, and though parts of BIG FISH are brilliant and a real joy, the story it eventually settles on isnt deserving of it. This is probably one of those projects that started out as a great, beloved book -- and should have stayed that way.