I'm so happy about this
post. How happy? SO happy. Why? Because it combines two things that I
love, writing + Stephen Fry. This is just a preliminary post, a
teaser so to speak... assuming that there was anyone to tease these
things to.
I've been reading, and
working, through Stephen Fry's book 'An Ode Less Travelled'. It's a
no nonsense explanation of poetry. This, I believe, may be a vial
skill for those looking to write any form of fiction. Hell, just ask
yourself, why did Shakespeare write in the strange way that he did?
The answer is metre and verse.
Much like
screenwriting, poetry's creativity comes from its structure.
So in the next few
posts I will be going through each chapter of Fry's book, posting (or
not) my work assignment results, and sharing how this may influence
my screenwriting (if at all).
Incidently, this is one of the ways I'm battling writer's despair.
Finishing off my last
post with "battling writer’s despair" and then never
blogging again would have been quite a story to finish this site off
with. It would, without any extra narration, have told a story that
anyone reading would have implied from the context alone.
Sadly for the God of
Neat Plot Lines: I'm back!
So far, my number one
tool for getting over the depressing parts of writing is to remember
how much fun it is!
I listened to a recent
interview of Syd Field, while on a long walk from university to a
local train station. It had been quite some time since I just turned
my brain off and listened to people talk about writing - it was
great!
While I was interested
in what they were saying, my mind started to race to my own stories
and possibilities with characters I've long since abandoned in
notebooks.
I didn't act on any of
this, I kept my mind on my stories for a few days until suddenly the
block lifted and I found myself solving plot problems.
However, to really
enjoy writing and coming up with stories you need to have the time to
do it in a way that you don't feel too pressured. Or at least I do.
I work full-time as a
writer (doing news) and am also a full-time psychology student, so my
spare time is very, very limited - especially if I hope to ever
socialise or just relax.
That's when I heard
about Syd Field's iPhone App, The Script Launcher.
As far as I can tell,
it's a portable version of his Screenwriter's Workshop book (which I
have blogged about in detail). I've already made use of it to start
an old idea of mine from scratch, now that I've solved a few problems
that had me hamstrung.
I've not formed an
opinion on the software yet (although initial impressions are good)
but I'll let you all know what I think and what its functions are in
a later post.
The key message I'm
saying here is: Make life easier on yourself by getting the tools to
write wherever and whenever in short bursts or long sessions and
remember that writing is fun. Who cares if the project is ever picked
up or if anyone reads it? Making these worlds and expressing your
core ideas is fun.
It's been a long time since I've written in this blog and I feel I should explain. While I could blame a lot of my neglect on holding multiple jobs (one of which sees me write thousands of words a day) and preparing to return to university, I don't think that's the whole story.
I think there's something more directly related to this project that's sapping my attention away from writing, it's a road block I wasn't expecting and I guess I'll call it "writer's despair".
My initial enthusiasm for screenwriting as a hobby and as potential, exciting career move fed me for about a year.
That's a year of practicing, writing, reading, editing, and finally left me with a script I think has a good plot, the outlines of a few more ideas I'd love to spend more time on and the tools to constantly improve.
However, it also left me with a sense of futility. Getting into screenwriting seems like playing the lottery. Even if I become a brilliant writer - I don't even consider myself "OK" yet - my chances on finding success are minuscule, especially being based in England.
Compounding the problem, screenplays aren't something I can really share with people.
If I wrote a novel I could work to get it professionally edited, have an expert coach read it over and offer suggestions and then have a polished product, just like I could a screenplay.
But, unlike a screenplay, if I write an excellent novel that no publisher will touch I've still got a gift to share with friends and family. I can even mass produce copies myself and sell them on or even try my luck with e-book edition.
Screenplays are niche. Almost no one reads them who aren't interested in making a film or writing a screenplay themselves. This means that outside of its professional medium it's almost entirely pointless.
All is not lost: I think I still want to pursue this, even as a hobby just for me. That turns this problem into an interesting opportunity for this blog.
I now plan to continue working on my scrip and experiencing rejection or criticism and exploring ways to deal with that.
I'll also be on the look out for how others handle writer's despair and try to discover if professionals ever experienced it before finding success.
Sometimes a piece of advice comes along that I find so encouraging and helpful I can't help but want to share it. This time, with the jubilant return of the free On the Page podcast (178), writer/director Mark Travis had some really interesting thoughts on what an initial screenplay should be. He argues that a screenplay is merely a suggestion for how a story could be told on screen and that the story, not the writing, was key.
“There's a whole difference between a story and a script,” he told the On The Page podcast. “The script is a tool, a map, or a blueprint; 'Here's how I think we can get this story up on the screen.' It's not the story. In fact it's a compression of the story. But at the core this there is a story.”
This interested me because it took the burden off the writers' collective shoulders by saying the focus should be on the story, rather than the presentation, when writing I find I can get overwhelmed by the idea that I should be developing a brilliant story and then write it equally brilliantly – it's a lot to bite off all at once.
“There are many times... I'll read a script and go: 'This is a great story but a terrible script. But that's OK, that's fine, we've got a story.'... I have also read great scripts that aren't great stories but they're brilliantly written... That kind of a script, once it goes into [production], the writing will disappear because it's become a film. So the power of the writing will disappear – like it always does – but if the story isn't good it won't work as well because the story has to carry the film.”
This was really the mind blowing part for me. He's absolutely right! I can be as witty as the writers of Scott Pilgrim are or poetic as I like but most of that won't ever see the screen. What movie makers are looking for is a core story.
“The writing gets absorbed into the whole process and by the end you have a film where acting comes forward, where visuals come forward, and sound comes forward. The thing that really has to carry it is the story.”
Hello everyone! And happy new year!... ok ok, that's a little late.
I can't make this a long post. Things have been keeping me very, very busy. However, I wanted to tell you all about 'the good news'. Many of you have heard of the bible, but only some of you know that TV-shows tend to have bibles of their own. These tombs lay out the plot, the history, the character arcs, and the technical points of any show. They are the go to source whenever a question arises.
I've never had the opportunity to read one of these bibles, they're usually kept quite secret. However, the bible for Battlestar Galactica has been made available online. Check it out here for some snipes at Star Trek, some ambitious ideas and some insight into how such a structured show is planned. This is a great read for fans and aspiring writers alike - and as both I found it especially enjoyable to read.
I’ve been taking advice from a number of self-styled screenwriting gurus, these include Syd Field, Robert Mckee, Blake Snyder, and Pilar Alessandra. While I was adding one more to this list, Jeff Kitchen, I couldn’t help but wonder what use this was. With the exception of Blake Snyder, none of the advisers made their daily bread from screenwriting. They were all professional consultants and lecturers. Why am I taking screenwriting advice from people who haven’t been able to/interested in achieving success as a screenwriter?
This isn’t meant to reflect directly on Jeff Kitchen and his Full Day Screenwriting Seminar. Although, truth be told, I’ve found his input significantly less educational than other consultants’. But this might just be because I’ve come to him last and he’s restating what I’ve already heard from others – it could also be that he made a comment about there being principles behind acupuncture, which is tosh.
Whatever the reason, I decided to start viewing advice from screenwriting consultants with a bit more criticism. I don’t mean to say : “because they’re not screenwriters you shouldn’t listen to them”. I’ve had quite the opposite experience as an editor and a writer in journalism. Two very distinct roles. Some people are much better copy editors than they are writers but their advice on your work is often immeasurably valuable. This might be analogous to screenwriters and consultants.
I suppose the key is in not taking the advice as gospel truth (indeed I don’t take the gospel as “gospel truth”). Sure it’s fine to experiment with the ideas or processes taught in the books and videos of screenwriting consultants, but if it doesn’t work you shouldn’t take on that responsibility. By which I mean, you shouldn’t say “I must be doing this wrong”. You might be doing it wrong, but so might the consultant.
This reminds me of an debate I had recently concerning Strunk & White’s Elements of Style. I think this is an excellent book with some great advice. However, a lot of people despise the book. They say it contradicts itself – and indeed it does – and that it often breaks a rule in the expression of that rule, which is true. But I think those people are missing the point, sometimes these are deliberate jokes, but really none of these things are “rules” they’re suggestions. They serve as solutions for problems you encounter, not as a template for your work. In a similar way, I may only turn to a lot of these consultants’ ideas as a set of tools for when I feel stuck.
Since I’ve delved into reading books on Screenwriting the best description of the craft I’ve found is “emotion machines”. I forget which book, or books, that described screenplays as “emotion machines” but it makes total sense. There’s a technical craft that can generate intense emotions in the viewer – even without the use of words.
I’m a blubberer in movies. I can cry about almost anything while watching a film. The magician Penn Jillette best described this experience with a quote from Bob Dylan: “It frightens me, the awful truth of just how sweet life can be.” So when discussing what generates emotions best I wanted to look for a clear and universal example, one that even the most emotionally resolute would be shaken by.
That’s when I thought of UP!
The opening 15 minutes that introduces the main character from his early childhood through to his entire relationship with his wife is so moving and heartbreaking that I defy anyone who watches it not to at least feel their tear ducts welling up a bit.
The clip above isn’t perfect, it doesn’t have any of the scenes with them as children but I think still works.
I really want to know how this came across on the screenplay. Was it written in a way that worked on such an emotional level or was that something achieved by the director and artists alone.
Luckily I was able to find the script here. The first thing that struck me was how similar the opening is to the film. It’s all printed there, almost word for word, as it appears on screen.
I’ve only read the opening of the script, but so far it’s very adult. It trusts the reader to understand what the little descriptions it provies is trying to convey. For example, the scene where Carl & Ellie find out they can’t have children is so well set up and works brilliantly despite the minimalist descriptions of events. Here's the four scenes, with only a few sentences between them, that get across such complex ideas as hope and disappointment around having children.
EXT. RURAL HILLSIDE - DAY
Again at their picnic spot, they watch clouds. Ellie sees an elephant with wings. Carl gives it a try and points out a BABY. Ellie lights up, excited. She sees ALL the clouds as babies! Carl is stunned... but smiles.
INT. CARL AND ELLIE’S HOUSE, BABY ROOM - DAY
Ellie finishes painting a wall mural of a stork carrying a bundle in its beak. Carl hangs a mobile above the crib.
INT. DOCTOR’S OFFICE - AFTERNOON
Carl touches Ellie’s shoulder as the doctor explains. Ellie drops her head in her hands.
EXT. CARL AND ELLIE’S HOUSE, LIVING ROOM - AFTERNOON
Carl looks out the window. Ellie sits alone under a tree, the wind in her hair.
I particularly loved the description of the scene in the Doctor's office. I'm not sure how I would have written that same moment. I'd have probably added lots of touches and little details to make sure I was conveying that he's a specialist in talking about fertility and he has bad news. The writers of UP! didn't worry about it. They kept the moment clean and pure and it works all the better for it.
I also love the moment where you see the 'Paradise Falls' penny jar, their savings for their big adventure, repeatedly get ransacked by unexpected costs. This is, again, a very complex series of emotions the writers try to convey and it is, again, handled very simply, with trust that the audience will "get it".
A SERIES OF SHOTS
The jar slowly fills as Carl and Ellie toss in spare change.
Their car blows a tire.
The two stand by the jar, reluctant. Carl BREAKS the jar.
New tire.
Carl in the hospital with a broken leg.
Breaking jar.
A storm rages. A tree falls, crushing the roof.
Breaking jar.
Reading UP! is one of those experiences that reminds me how far I have to go as a writer. It's just an enjoyable read, once you're into it you mostly forget that you're reading a screenplay. Anyone who reads this blog and is interested in seeing how you write an "emotion machine" please read UP!.
