Castaway

Ive had the script for CAST AWAY for quite a while now. I never reviewed it because I was asked not to. The person who handed it to me intoned, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Fox is being very secretive about this movie.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" I let the script sit and never gave it a second thought. Then two days ago I caught the trailer for the film and was a little shocked to see that they blatantly give away the entire movie. The ending of the movie is so explicitly ruined the thought process must have been: We have Hanks -- we have Zemeckis -- who cares? More on this trailer in a moment. But now to the script...

The studio may have had high hopes for this film. But I didn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t

. The last Zemeckis-Hanks extravaganza was FORREST GUMP. A film I felt didn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t

work. But since so many love it I wont get into the why. Zemeckis is an extremely talented director (he can work that Steadicam like a Kubrick incarnate). But when working with Hanks the person who crafted the swoops and dives of CONTACT seems to be smothered. I was right about their next collaboration. But I had no idea just how bad it would be.

Was the script for CAST AWAY bad? Put it this way: Ive read thousands of scripts (most voluntarily, it should be said). And only about seven or eight times have I thought about tossing it aside before finishing it. CAST AWAY belongs on that list. But I suffered through it because I owe writer William Broyles (APOLLO 13) that much.

Im sure you all know this, but Ill spell it out anyway: Tom Hanks plays a man named Chuck. Chuck is a workaholic problem-solver for FedEx who, because of the importance of his job, can fly off to Russia without so much as packing a bag. Obsessed with his work, he ignores the love of his girlfriend, Kelly (Helen Hunt). She wants marriage, she wants kids, she wants a life with him. But Chuck wont commit. Soon enough Chuck is on a plane that crashes into the ocean and washes up on a deserted island.

Now, children, the problem here lies squarely on the shoulders of William Broyles. I dont know how much actual writing hes done in Hollywood, but hes clearly not mastered the art of screenwriting. The setup of this script feels slapdash and arbitrary. Its also much too long. We learn a needless amount of information about how FedEx works. But who cares? Is this just padding for the one-man act to come, or did Broyles really think wed want to see FedExs Russian offices?

You have to set up who Chuck is. So these scenes before hes trapped on the island are monumentally important. But even when Chuck is finally home with his family they still feel artificial and we never learn anything important about Chuck. His farming family thinks hes \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"uppity.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Great. That tells us a lot. How does Chuck feel that his family thinks hes aloof and they dont approve of what he does? We dont know.

The entire point of these early scenes (which are painfully protracted) are to set up Kelly, his long-suffering girlfriend. Chuck is emotionally distant. And Kelly is...boring. Shes dull. A total cipher. Shes nothing more than a yes-woman, an Ill-do-anything-for-you-no-matter-how-you-treat-me mannequin, for Chuck. No wonder he doesn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t

want to marry her. Broyles creates a population of dullards around Chuck and its no surprise to us why he escapes to his work.

Considering how void these people and these scenes are, its downright baffling that it stretches to critical mass the way it does.

And it also makes the brevity of Chucks plane crash nearly incomprehensible. Im sure in the film the crash is something spectacular. But the screenwriter has to entertain, too; he cannot

wait for a director. In the script the plane simply falls from the sky and we see Chuck wash up on a beach. Thanks, William, you squandered the one chance you might have had to shake us up a little.

Okay, students, were now on the island. Our movie is going to actually start. This is not a new tale. Certainly not. And since we just had a reality-based show with the same premise (city people in the wilderness -- watch them survive) it feels downright ancient.

But that doesn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t

matter. What does is the scenes. Any script/movie set up with a single plot line (two men are stuck together trying to get home for Thanksgiving; two workers in a convenience store all day; a man walking cross-country because of his dead wife) comes down to the scenes the author can come up with. The hoops he can make his characters jump through. In this case the author blunders.

In my opinion Broyles mistake was to take his premise and its points (cooked up by Hanks five years ago, by the way), hit them on their heads, and walk away happy.

This causes some structural awkwardness (not to mention vitiating the already bare-bones story) and leaves one feeling nonplussed. Take for example the fact that Chuck washes up on this island with a bunch of FedEx packages. Hes hungry and tired and scared. But he doesn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t

open the packages! \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"His conscience gets the best of him,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" it says in the script. What? Are you kidding me? Who knows what can be in those packages! Does he think some granny sending her grandkid a sweatshirt would mind if he wore it while he was trapped on a deserted island and could possibly die? Its ludicrous. Broyles does it only as a cheat -- he doesn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t