Honest Fibs

An Ode Less Travelled...

2011-12-11T23:33:00.001Z

I'm so happy about thispost. How happy? SO happy. Why? Because it combines two things that Ilove, writing + Stephen Fry. This is just a preliminary post, ateaser so to speak... assuming that there was anyone to tease thesethings to.

I've been reading, andworking, through Stephen Fry's book 'An Ode Less Travelled'. It's ano nonsense explanation of poetry. This, I believe, may be a vialskill for those looking to write any form of fiction. Hell, just askyourself, why did Shakespeare write in the strange way that he did?The answer is metre and verse.

Much likescreenwriting, poetry's creativity comes from its structure.

So in the next fewposts I will be going through each chapter of Fry's book, posting (ornot) my work assignment results, and sharing how this may influencemy screenwriting (if at all).

Incidently, this is one of the ways I'm battling writer's despair.

Remember: It's fun!

2011-10-16T12:59:00.000+01:00

Finishing off my lastpost with "battling writer’s despair" and then neverblogging again would have been quite a story to finish this site offwith. It would, without any extra narration, have told a story thatanyone reading would have implied from the context alone.

Sadly for the God ofNeat Plot Lines: I'm back!

So far, my number onetool for getting over the depressing parts of writing is to rememberhow much fun it is!

I listened to a recentinterview of Syd Field, while on a long walk from university to alocal train station. It had been quite some time since I just turnedmy brain off and listened to people talk about writing - it wasgreat!

While I was interestedin what they were saying, my mind started to race to my own storiesand possibilities with characters I've long since abandoned innotebooks.

I didn't act on any ofthis, I kept my mind on my stories for a few days until suddenly theblock lifted and I found myself solving plot problems.

However, to reallyenjoy writing and coming up with stories you need to have the time todo it in a way that you don't feel too pressured. Or at least I do.

I work full-time as awriter (doing news) and am also a full-time psychology student, so myspare time is very, very limited - especially if I hope to eversocialise or just relax.

That's when I heardabout 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 Ihave blogged about in detail). I've already made use of it to startan old idea of mine from scratch, now that I've solved a few problemsthat had me hamstrung.

I've not formed anopinion on the software yet (although initial impressions are good)but I'll let you all know what I think and what its functions are ina later post.

The key message I'msaying here is: Make life easier on yourself by getting the tools towrite wherever and whenever in short bursts or long sessions andremember that writing is fun. Who cares if the project is ever pickedup or if anyone reads it? Making these worlds and expressing yourcore ideas is fun.

Battling writer's despair

2011-09-08T13:11:00.001+01:00

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.

Mark W Travis - Focus on story not writing

2011-02-11T14:18:00.002Z

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.”

Battlestar Bible

2011-01-27T19:34:00.000Z

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.

Screenwriting gurus and consultants

2010-12-08T18:40:00.002Z

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.

Emotion Machines - UP!

2010-12-06T15:42:00.004Z

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!.

Battlestar Galactica

2010-12-04T14:27:00.008Z

Wow it's been a long time since I posted on here. I feel rather guilty, so please let me explain. First off, I have been rewriting two scripts and completely trashed a third. Secondly, I think my rush to have a completed sample for the Channel 4 competition burnt me out and I've only just started to develop a positive charge in my writing batteries. Most importantly, I started watching Battlestar Galactica.

This show hooked into me and seemed to act like a viral meme on my attention. It was a love/hate relationship, love because it is so well written but hate because I really just wanted it to end - it was simply crippling me by taking up so much of my time. And it's interesting that I now describe the watching process as "love/hate" because, having just watched the final episode, I'm really not sure if I'm happy with the series.

Let me start by talking in generalities. For those of you who don't know much about the show I'll do a little bit of explaining. This is a remake of a late-70s TV show (which I have never seen), it's the story of human civilisation driven to the brink of extinction by the Cylons, a race of former robot slaves. The few surviving humans band together as a fleet to find salvation in the mythical world of Earth, which they only know of through their religious texts.

I loved the early arguments between views on the supernatural, from the perspectives of Atheist individuals, the Greek-like religion of humanity and the fanatical monotheism of the Cylons. The deliberate, and sometimes painfully obvious, references to real-world moral conflicts, such as terrorism, regime toppling and civil liberties in a time of crisis, are brilliantly handled. Battlestar Galactica's sense of mystery and seemingly magical events is intriguing and, unlike Lost, mostly pays off. I also loved the development of it's main characters. In particular:

Commander Adama, whose stern and saint-like facade crumbles as he takes on the role of father to his crew.

Starbuck, a fighter pilot whose training advice (to never flee the enemy in a dogfight or you put yourself in its crosshairs) is the exact fault she has when dealing with memories of her abusive mother, the result of which is self-descructive behaviour and habits.

Dr. Baltar, a genius who struggles with guilt and a poor sense of self value. He's also haunted by visions of a dead Cylon woman that seemingly predicts the future.

AND

Saul Tigh, the second in charge, a man truly lost who lives to serve his only friend Adama.

This is the final general note I'll make, it's is a superficial one, but I really loved the way they updated the Cylons. The right amount of retro-aesthetic was kept whilst simultaneously making the hulking metal soldiers, the Centurions, really terrifying (they have extenable claws, guns build into them, and a constantly scanning red eye). Towards the end of the series, the personalities of these seemingly souless creatures really starts to shine through and I found myself wanting to see more and more of them. In fact, my only complaint is that they didn't feature more prominently. The show actually changes your view of the Centurions rather brilliantly, while the Human marines are increasingly shown as unthinking obedient soldiers (some unemotionally accept orders to kill civilians and elected politicians in a coup) you start to see the Centurions refuse orders and actually fight their masters in the defence of others.

You can especially appreciate the Centurions when you compare the centurions to their British cousins, the Cybermen. Dr Who's old adversaries didn't fare so well in the reboot and come across as clunky, silly and just lame. Compare the two below:

Cybermen vs Cylon Centurions

Anyway, if you plan on watching the show, if you really don't want any spoilers then please don't read on. There be SPOILERS ahead.

.
.
.
.
... Still reading?
.
.
.
... OK let's go:

The ending... It's revealed that series doesn't take place in our future but actually our ancient past. The fleet finally arrives at our Earth, the "Earth" they have been looking for was actually destroyed in a nuclear war. On this new Earth they find our ancestors in a state of pre-civilisation. The surviving members of the fleet then blame technology for all their problems, ditch it all, and decide to "start with a blank slate" and help our primitive ancestors evolve. What?!

I loved that they tied the story into our world, I loved that they even implied that we share common ancestry with the first, and maybe only, half-human half-cylon child - BUT - no technology, really? How many people could they have saved from cholera, starvation, malaria, cancer... TOOTH INFECTIONS... etc.

As if blaming science and technology wasn't bad enough, they strongly imply that salvation can be found in religion and apparently introduce that into our culture. So they're to blame for the inquisition? For the dark ages?

I can usually separate my science-loving atheist values from my art. I enjoy mysticism in art as a creative form of expression and I try to find the emotional meaning behind it all but this really makes that difficult for me. It simultaneously says (technology=bad) + (religion=good).

At the very end, the show fast-forwards 150,000 years to modern day Manhattan. The ghost-like visages of Cylon Six and Dr Baltar, revealed as something akin to angels, discuss whether or not man is falling back into the pattern of being undone by his machines. They strongly imply two things that, I think, were designed to placate people like myself: 1) they conclude that mankind won't recreate the conditions for it's own destruction again, thanks to the sacrifice of the Galactica generation, and 2) that the "one true God" they serve doesn't really like being called "God" and is maybe just a more complex being that's taken an interest in man/cylon kind. But these feel half-hearted.

Fundamentally, I still love the show for its characterisation as well as most of its storyline if not for its conclusion. I just wish it could have ended on a different note, one that didn't push the anti-knowledge/pro-religion line so heavily. In its current state, all the ending really ever does is mask the very real point of the show, which is: punishment and revenge, even if it's called justice, will only generate more revenge in a constant cycle... or to misquote Shakespeare: "to dwell on past ills is a sure way to create new ones".

This show states this theme over and over again, and the whole ending-plot of "starting with a blank slate" is really pinned to that, but it gets lost in all this religion/technology stuff.

There are several scenes in the series to look out for that explicitly state the overall theme. A good example is the trial of Gaius Baltar. During the trial, Lee Adama points out that so many people have been forgiven for acts that in their former society would carry harsh penalties. He explains that this is because they are no longer a civilisation but a gang that's struggling for survival. The show itself seems to suggest that our habit for wanting to punish those who have wronged us is what will undo us as a society.

Earlier that series there is there is a secret trial/execution cabal that goes through the ship targeting crew members who were thought to have aided the Cylons. This is ultimately undone when its exposed as mere violent rage and punishment in the form of justice. However, this cabal provides the catalyst for what would later develop into a mutiny and threaten mankind's existence.

Starbuck, a flight trainer, is forgiven by Commander Adama for qualifying his son as a figher pilot despite lacking the skills - which later leads to his death. If the Commander had decided to punish her then humanity would never have been saved.

The Chief's inability to not-punish one of the final-five for killing his wife, Cally, leads to the destruction of the "bad" Cylons and nearly to the destruction of humanity. I can keep listing these examples but I feel I've made my point.

The fact that this, fairly obvious, theme is buried by its religious tone is supported by the lack of any substantial clips on YouTube. Most clips are focusing on the supernatural.

Below is the only clip I could find on the topic of forgiveness and a "blank slate":

Here Gaius simply wanted a fresh start. He didn't want the assumptions that came with his original accent. The fact that he is being held in prison for treason that he is not entirely guilty of just adds to the meaning of the scene.

Edited to add this nice little tribute video I found:

Writing is rewriting

2010-11-19T18:02:00.000Z

Dear Mr Field,

For the first time I find myself doing the exact opposite of what you say…

In The Screenwriter’s Workbook Syd Field argues that you should spend some time reading your script before you make any notes or corrections. Just read it and let it sink in, that way you can analyse whether or not the story is conveying the emotions you expected or planned to. He then also suggests three essay questions around your story: What was it that originally inspired you? Is it what you intended to write? How can you make it what you intended to write?

I can’t do this! I just simply couldn’t. Right now I’m about 5 pages in and each page has been littered with pencil corrections and rewrites. I think I will follow Field’s advice after this first re-write. I guess that – at least for now - I just don’t even view the first draft as really being done.

This has been my approach since I started out in journalism. I’d hammer something out quickly, just to get my thoughts on the page, then I’d shape it into a structure. While technically what I’d end up with at this point is a finished article it’s full of tiny errors here and there. I wouldn’t consider the first draft of an article done until I went over it once more. I even do that for this blog. This just seems to be the way my creative brain works, its torture for me to slowly put my ideas down making sure they’re as accurate as can be the first time. I have to get it out as quickly as possible.

So far, I am really enjoying the rewriting process. I like seeing where I’ve nailed a scene and I enjoy fixing them. So far I’ve not hit a problem I don’t know how to fix and there’s a real sense of empowerment from that.

Writing tools and tips

2010-11-15T17:59:00.000Z

After working myself half to death on the competition for Channel 4, I decided to take a break from writing, podcast listening and book reading and, generally anything to do with screenwriting, for a few days. This has left me with little to say on this blog, however, I have been reading articles on solving writers block and generally getting more efficient at work.

I wanted to share with you all these few links, from the great LifeHacker, that I thought were really interesting:

Ten tips for better writing

AND

Five best distraction-free writing tools

I'm hoping to experiment with all these and get back to you all.

Script-Watching: Scott Pilgrim vs The World

2010-11-10T11:48:00.005Z

Do you remember when you were a little kid, or even in your mid-teens, and you saw an exciting, fun, eventful movie that just had you geeking your heart out and the very next thing you wanted to do was watch it again. I started to think that that phenomenon was something you outgrew with age. I've seen lots of movies I've loved in the past few years, lots I've seen multiple times because I loved them, but none that captured the pure enthusiasm in me like movies used to. That was until I saw Scott Pilgrim vs The World. I love this movie. I've watched it about three times this week and I want to watch it again - right now!

Edgar Wright, the director, is responsible for Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and the brilliant SPACED, so I knew going into this that I'd see something I liked, I was just sceptical as to how much I would like it. What I was blown away by was the sense of modernity in the film. It's a very quick movie that plays with visuals in an interesting way, and even the sounds in the background (such as a videogame noise, windows booting sounds, text message noise for blackberrys and many more pop-culture sounds) illicit a strange knee jerk response (such as wanting to make sure your computer isn't restarting, or that you didn't just get a text) that it all somehow amplifies the movie.

Perhaps because of its target, hipster culture, the movie has a very post-modern take on things. Characters will finish each others thoughts, characters will swifly move from realistic normal people to super-powered beings, and even the plot will move into Scott Pilgrim's dream world seamlessly and carry all the same implications as if it had taken place in the film's 'real' world.

It shouldn't work. I mean, it really feels like it shouldn't, but it does and to a startling effect. So, I just had to do a script-watching of Scott Pilgrim vs The World. While the movie departs from the script significantly by the end, the movie is generally better but I'm ambivalent about which final scene I prefer most, the script has the same tone and humour - it's a funny script, you'll laugh reading it and it's strange to consider how rare that is in screenplays. So my hat tips to it's writer, Michael Bacall, and I'm going to gush about his work for the next while:

There are some really amazing bits in the script that read wonderfully. The first page has such a moment in the character descriptions of Scott's band Sex Bob-omb (if you don't remember what a Bob-omb is: congratulations on having a cooler life than mine).

Take a look at how the group is introduced:

EXT. TORONTO RESIDENTIAL STREET - DAY

To the thunderous tones of Guitar Wolf's cover of Eddie Cochran's 'Summertime Blues' we can see the snowy suburbs of Toronto. And from one non descript house we hear...

KIM PINE (O.S.)

Scott Pilgrim is dating a high schooler!

INT. STEPHEN STILL'S KITCHEN - DAY

The three members of SEX BOB-OMB and their one superfan lounge around a small kitchen table.

STEPHEN STILLS, 25, shaggy hair, drinking coffee (weak).

STEPHEN STILLS

Really? Is she hot?

KIM PINE, 22 , cute, bitter, drinking coffee (bitter).

KIM PINE

How old are you Scott? Like twenty-eight?

SCOTT (O.S.)

I'm twenty-two. Twenty-two!

YOUNG NEIL, 17, Superfan Number 1, drinking coffee (milky).

YOUNG NEIL

Like, did you guys 'do it' yet?

SCOTT PILGRIM, 22, fresh faced with an unruly yet adorable mop of hair, drinking coffee (sugary).

SCOTT

Well, we sort of ride the bust and she tells me

about how yearbook club went and about her

friends and you know... drama.

STEPHEN STILLS

Yeah, okay, have you even kissed her?

SCOTT

We almost held hands once, but then she got embarrassed.

I really think this is an amazing way to introduce the characters. It wasn't just the dialouge and descriptions that blew me away but specifically the part about the coffee. That only serves the reader, and it's a joke only intended for the reader, but it comes across in the film so clearly.

Watching the movie, I had assumed that all the use of graphics during conversations was a flourish added by the director, but they're actually competently written in the screenplay.

Here:

Knives looks up to see Scott Pilgrim holding her books.

FUN FACTS appear in an on-screen box:

"SCOTT PILGRIM, 22 YEARS OLD, RATING: AWESOME."

And here:

KIM PINE

WE ARE SEX BOB-OMB! 1-2-3-4!

Kim BASHES the kit and Sex Bob-omb EXPLODES INTO ROCK! GUITAR AND BASS LEADS LEADS INTO THE AIR, SPELLING OUT THE ELECTRIC TITLE OF THE FILM ABOVE THE BAND:

SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD

TITLE SEQUENCE continues over the song. The small rehersal space seems to GROW with the music. Knives watches, mouth ajar. The song winds down, feedback lingers.

KNIVES CHAU

You guys are so amazing...

And my final example of this is:

INT. WALLACE'S APARTMENT - DAY

Scott Pilgrim hangs up his coat and turns to WALLACE WELLS.

TEXT: "WALLACE WELLS, ROOMMATE, 25 YEARS OLD, RATING: 7.5/10"

SCOTT

Before you hear some dirty lies from

someone else, yes, I'm dating a 17 year old.

WALLACE

Is he cute?

SCOTT

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

WALLACE

Does this mean we have to stop sleeping together?

SCOTT

Do you see another futon in here?

ONSCREEN TEXT appears, indicating ownership of each item in the one room flat: 95% belongs to Wallace, FUTON included.

Not only does Bacall seem to be really confident to stray into actually writing out how the title sequence should appear, he goes on to make jokes throughout the script for the script readers' eyes only. Take a look:

Wallace wanders into the bathroom. RING RING. (That's the phone. Keep up.) Scott answers.

And:

A lone spotlight hits Ramona as she leans over the balcony. Music stops... time freezes... flashback...duh.

These in-jokes seem to only appear around standard conventions in screenwriting and make sense giving the self-aware nature of the film itself. It also makes the screenplay a fun read and re-engages you by actually addressing you.

In short: Great movie. See it. The script: brilliant. I have a lot to learn. That's why this post is so long.

Oh... and I promise I didn't just write this because I adore Ramona Flowers:

Channel 4's Screenwriting Course Competition

2010-11-08T00:01:00.000Z

On Wednesday I received an e-mail from a fellow screenwriter, who I met at the Screenwriter's Festival, with a link to the most exciting competition I've seen so far. Channel 4 are running a competition for young unproduced writers to attend their Screenwriting Course.

Only 12 places will be awarded to the best scripts. The lucky writers will receive two weekends of training as well as consulting for about six months and the chance to pitch two spec-tv shows to Channel 4. Channel 4 may or may not option those shows but they'll certainly consider it! This was far too much of an opportunity to pass up! However, it requires a writing sample of at least 30 pages and the genre has to be DRAMA.

I was tempted to spend the next few days solidly working on my movie script, updating it, cleaning it up, and planned to offer that as my writing sample BUT... I wasn't sure it exactly falls within the definition of drama. "Drama" can be used to mean a lot of things but I define it as being something that is mainly focused, if not entirely focused, around conflict within relationships and usually on an emotional level. Dramas are mostly sad. I think of soap operas and Kramer vs Kramer when I think of dramas. My script, a futuristic thriller, is certainly dramatic but not "drama". Also my film script is very "cinema" it wouldn't work on TV and Channel 4 is, obviously, more interested in TV writers.

In a very cool freebie from the festival, The Screenwriter's Pocketbook (from the lovely folks at TwelvePoint), there is an article on exactly this. The author, Phil Parker, notes the features of TV productions as:
- series in which narrative tends to be more dialogue driven
- the range of dramatic action is smaller than in cinema
- TV is more contemporary, with dramatic situations more domestic and involving fewer characters

So I decided to writer a piece of drama that was more dialogue driven, more focused on character, and with a subtler range of dramatic action. I did, however, intend to include a full character arc. TV tends to draw character changes out over the course a episodes or series. I want to tell a story that is compelling, my script will be shorter than a full film script but it will have a good list of characters that grow and change by the end of the story.

With this in mind, I started thinking of ideas on Wednesday. I remembered a story that's been churning away in the back of my head for the past year or two; Pay No Attention. This is a family drama and it touches on a number of issues close to my heart. So I took the idea and started structuring it. I decided to write down all the scenes or sequences I thought I'd need throughout the story. This ended up as 30 3x5 index cards.

The next few days I went to town working on the story, pitching it to my psychologist-in-training flatmate who gave me some great pointers, and began to hammer the pages out. Three days later I was nearing the final act of the story and was running 10 pages longer than I thought. I then showed the unfinished first draft, a terrifying experience, to an English-teacher friend of mine. This resulted in getting some good feedback I need to consider on the rewrite. Anyway, I capped off the day by finishing my 50-some-odd page script. This was over 20 pages longer than I planned for - In the end, I'm not sure if I'll try to edit down or even expand the story further.

Coming up next, before it's due this Thursday!, I'll be getting feedback from two of my film-study-movie-industry-working friends and I'll be trading scripts with the aforementioned fellow screenwriter and exchanging helpful notes over a drink.

It's been a crazy few days of non-stop writing and it looks to be a tough few days of rewriting ahead of me - I can't wait!

Screenwriting for Dummies - A conclusion

2010-11-04T18:10:00.001Z

Early on in this blog I promised to read and review Screenwriting for Dummies much like I am doing with The Screenwriter's Workbook and Save the Cat!.

I soon found that, even for me, the book was a bit too basic to be useful. There were already plenty of chapters I discounted because I already knew what a screenplay was, I already had an idea of what details were included in a screenplay and what wasn't, and I already had a story. In many ways you can get better, more comprehensive books for less money. Syd Field if you want a more academic approach and Blake Snyder if you prefer a more low brow - but no less deep - analysis.

However, I now feel like I finally understand the book. It's a little bit of everything. This means that on the topics I already know anything about it's pretty much useless BUT it works as a pretty good introduction to other topics. I've recently been using it for formatting my screenplay. It has a list of commonly used formatting tools as well as a handy warning on the ones that are considered old hat or corny.

So the book has finally been useful - but that's only really because a book on formatting I've ordered, The Screenwriter's Bible never arrived due to an amazon error. I can't imagine I'd have need of this book if the Screenwriter's Bible had arrived. But that's OK. I think that's kind of the point of Screenwriting for Dummies it's a catch all book that is a Jack of all trades but master of none.

On a personal note. I'm entering into a competition to win a place on a Channel 4 Screenwriting course. I have to have a drama ready and submitted, along with my CV, by next Friday. This will be cutting it close! I've already made a plan with someone I met at the Screenwriter's Festival to share our scripts and meet to discuss them over a beer on Wednesday. Allowing Thursday to be the day we make alterations and submit our work. This would be a great opportunity to snag and so I think I'm going to have to pour all my time and effort into it.

Luckily I've got about three people interested in reading it and providing feedback this weekend, so I'll hopefully have something great to hand in!

London Screenwriter's Festival - Making a good script GREAT!

2010-11-02T17:46:00.000Z

This weekend I was lucky enough to go to the London Screenwriter's Festival. As a novice screenwriter, I wasn't sure how useful this excursion into the industry would be. I have no scripts I'm trying to shill, not yet anyway, and am really in learning-mode. What I did have, however, were two near-completed scripts (one of which is now done). So it was with great interest that I attended a talk by Kate Leys, a script developer, who was delivering the talk: "Making a Good script Great!"

I could not have been more thrilled by this talk. Leys is charming, funny, intelligent, caring, passionate and very knowledgeable.

There were a number of talks I was looking forward to and they all paid off but Leys was, in my humble opinion, leagues above the rest. I came in with lofty expectations and walked out smiling and blown away. In fact, her analysis of Jaws was so brilliant it seemingly unclogged a lot of backed up writing in me and I spent the entirety of the next talk I went to scribbling notes.

Some of her advice I had heard earlier, such as getting the log line or "hook" perfect. Yet she was clear that there is no formula for success. There are commonalities between scripts that seem to be necessary components for success but are not always sufficient. In short: don't take these as rules carved in stone so much as helpful guiding principles.

I wont transcribe the whole talk here. That would be rude, as she deserves money and attention for her talk, but also unfair as I'd no doubt fail to get across the ideas with the same strength and humour. What I will do is briefly list the top ten suggestions I found most intereting:

1. Your characters should be hyperbolic but to avoid cliché cast the characters with real actors.

2. If you're ever stuck on a script create conflict. "Throw rocks at them," explains Leys.

3. Don't protect yourself. This means, you shouldn't worry about getting your characters into a problem you don't know how to solve. Even if you think there's no way out of a certain situation for your character don't be afraid to write it - the longer you work on it the more likely you are to figure out the solution. If it's simple the audience will pick up on it immediately. You have to fool your audience. This advice reminded me of what magician Penn Jillette said about performing "impossible" illusions, which was something like: "You may think it's impossible because you've spent maybe an hour working on the problem. But what if you spend 200 hours working out how to do it?" That's how magic works and maybe that's how writing works too.

4. Causality: Everything happens in the script because of actions set up within the script.

5. Unity: All secnes and sequences are unified by a theme.

6. Tell someone your story and ask them to repeat it back to you. Make notes on what is most remembered and look for anything that is forgotten.

7. Ask yourself: Whose story is it? What do they want? Why can't they get it? And maybe the most important question: What does your character need and why can't they do/get that?

8. Somewhere between what your character wants and what your character needs is the heart of the drama.

9. If there's something that can be cut from your script: Cut it and see how it looks! It can always be added later.

10. The only thing that really matters is your ending.

She is really, very good. If you're a screenwriter and looking for some constructive feedback please check out her website: http://kateleys.co.uk/

Act 3 DONE!

2010-11-01T18:07:00.001Z

The time has come: The first draft of my screenplay is complete! I finished Act 3 today at 110 pages or around 20,000 words.

This about 10 pages short of what Syd Field suggested but I had covered my entire story and felt that if I continued writing it would merely be fluff. I want to edit down the story into a leaner more seductive version for producers and agents to read. I've been hearing that Field's suggestion of 120 pages is a little out of date, in fact 100 pages is now considered long.

I've also heard a great interview of Herschel Weingrod by the folks at On the Page (their podcast can be found on itunes). Weingrod wrote one of my favourite comedies, Trading Places, as well as other movies that I adore such as Kindergarden Cop and Twins, he also produced Falling Down. Weingrod says that your first draft should basically be a sales pitch, it's not a shooting draft, you write this with agents and producers in mind. You should write the script to appeal to them first and foremost. If they love the story, if they love the characters, they'll pick it up and hopefully - but far from certainly - hire you to do a rewrite with any notes and corrections they have.

This is great advice and really helps to focus my attack when it comes to the majority of the writing process: rewriting. It also reminds me of the interview with David S. Goyer where he talks about rewriting a sequence specifically to appeal to an actor's ego - in hopes of convincing him to do a scene.

For now I intend to put the script aside for a week, as was suggested by Syd Field, to let ideas percolate. I'm looking forward to looking at the first printed off version of the script and holding it in my hands!

On a side note, you probably noticed that things went quiet here. Well the good news was that I went to the London Screenwriter's Festival. I met a number of directors, actors, producers, and plenty of aspiring and successful writers. It was thoroughly enjoyable experience and a few of the lectures and panels I attended have been invaluable.

I hope to write up my experiences there asap.

Keep writing and take care!

Scrit-watching: Back To The Future, Part 1

2010-10-28T13:30:00.000+01:00

What with it being the 25th anniversary of Back To The Future: Part 1 I figured I'd read the screenplay while watching the movie. Comparing and contrasting a script to its film adaptation was great fun for Dark Knight and I hope I get the same out of it this time.

Within the first five pages of the screenplay two things struck me: This is really different (in terms of events) than the movie, and, This is exactly (in terms of tone and characterisation) like the movie.

While the events in the opening are quite different (there is a scene in the script about McFly's attempt to get out of detention), in the movie than they are on the page much of the tone has clearly come across, take for example this brilliant description of the wicked high school principal when he confiscates Marty McFly's walkman and has it in a vice:

"Marty fidgets uneasily in an uncomfortable wooden chair in the sparse office
as MR. STRICKLAND, a humourless disciplinarian, tightens the vice. Stickland looks 60, but he could be 160 - he was born old and stayed that way, and has been at the school forever."

How brilliant and descriptive is that? Humourless. Disciplinarian. Looks 60 but could be 160. He was born old and stayed that way. Has been at the school forever. All of these are brilliant character descriptions that just fly off the page. Just like the description of the Doc:

"The driver is DR. EMMETT BROWN, about 65. He looks like an old hippie, with shoulder length white hair, Hawaiian shirt, faded jeans, an Indian turquoise around his neck and lively - almost wild - eyes. He's full of energy, full of life, talks fast, and is immediately likeable for his eccentricities."

The only thing different in the approach to describing Doc than Stickland is the description of what Doc's wearing. He's a more important character and the writers clearly wanted a greater degree of control in how he'd be portayed on screen - but they didn't worry about that with Strickland, a relatively minor character.

This amazing flair for description comes across in its most famous visual:

"The DeLorean keeps accelerating, approaching Marty and Brown. The coils mounted around the car being glowing.

The speedometer hits 85... 86... 87... 88...

The automobile is suddenly engulfed by a BLINDING WHITE GLOW - then, BLAM! It's gone, a TRAIL OF FIRE left in its wake."

This script is really brilliant for character descriptions and tone. It really blew me away and I feel like I've learned a lot.

P.S. I loved the description of one of the lybian terrorists as : "a SWARTHY CHARACTER who resembles Yasser Arafat"

The Screenwriter's Workbook - Chapter 15

2010-10-27T14:41:00.006+01:00

I've never really had what you could call writers' block. I always have something to write, my problem has always been focus - which is maybe what writers' block actually is. Rather than simply having nothing to say it's a lack of focus.

Act 3 should be the easiest part of the story for me. I've done the set up in Act 1, I've built it up in Act 2 and I've got a good idea on what will happen and when with my structure. So why haven't I started it? I've experiencing a tremendous amount of procrastination around this. It's driving me nuts. Fortunately, Syd Field pretty much predicts this response in me. He explains:

".. you might feel strange, find yourself suddenly going 'blank', not knowing what to write or feeling that you have no desire or enthusiasm or ambition to complete the screenplay. You'll look for, and find, every excuse you can to avoid writing," Field, p. 261.

"...this seems to be a somewhat common experience among writers....Emotionally, you don't want to finish your screenplay. You want to hang on, not finish it. It's like a terrible relationship - no matter how bad it is, it's better than no relationship at all.... It's hard to end. It's been a great part of your life," p. 262.

Field suggests that you're afraid to end your relationship with the screenplay, that you'll miss the writing process, the characters, and the direction in life it has given you. This all resonates with me, especially as that's how I tend to feel when a TV show or comic book I love ends. I miss the experience I was having and strangely I miss the characters as if they were real people. And on a more directly personal note, I started writing this almost directly after my last romantic relationship ended.

However, for me I feel that something else is at work as well. I think there's a fear that the script won't be any good and that I will discover this once its finished. This is clearly an unfair way of thinking as almost no one will ever write a successful screenplay on the first draft of their first try. It's simply madness to suggest otherwise.

It's Syd Field's pre-empting and responding to potential writer's emotional reactions that makes this book so invaluable to me. I remember a lot of the hesitation I approached this book with in my review of the opening chapter but now, as I near the end, I feel that this is an essential book for anyone interested in screenwriting.

I also heard some great advice on tackling writers' block: If you're ever in a position where you feel stuck. Where you come with excuses not to write. Then write about what's blocking you. Write it as a blog or personal essay. Get it out of your system. Then go back to writing on your project.

That's exactly what I've done here, with your kind indulgence, and I will drink my coffee and get back to work on my screenplay.

Act 2 Completed!

2010-10-25T16:26:00.001+01:00

Woohoo! I've finally finished Act 2 of my screenplay. Wow was that difficult! It really is the marathon run of a screenplay triathlon. I feel a lot more comfortable tackling Act 3 after finishing 60 pages of mid-story content.

Syd Field's preparation for Act 2 was 100% essential. His approach of writing out key scenes and sequences on 3x5 cards was what enabled me to get through Act 2. It served as a vital tool for keeping me motivated. When I encountered a problem, when I didn't know what to write, I referred to the cards. However, as Field suggests, I wasn't bound by them. If I wanted to write something impromptu or alter the sequence of the cards I would feel free too. The key, for me, was to use the cards as a fall back position. This allowed me the most artistic control while being rooted to a story that was actually going somewhere.

A few things hit me about the process of writing Act 2. I was forewarned that it would be a tiring process but I was still surprised by how completely exhausted I ended up. Even now as I write this, having just finished Act 2, I feel fatigued. So I should probably offer a belated apology for this probably not being the best written post.

I also realised that I was writing in spurts. I would run off around ten to fifteen pages in a sitting (which is why my earlier estimates were to have the Act finished by Friday) but would then spend a long time just processing. I couldn't write during these processing phases but I did do a lot of thinking. Once this period of processing was done I'd hit the screenplay again and hammer out another ten pages.

Finally, I think the most important thing I've learnt is that you have to set time to do writing or to at least think about writing. Right now I've got a decent amount of time to spend but even if I didn't, I'd still try to set some time aside, like waking up an hour earlier to get some screenplay time in before work. Once you're in front of a computer (and if you don't have good impulse control you should disconnect from the internet) you have nothing to do but focus on your screenplay. Even if you're sitting there for an hour just thinking, and only occasionally making notes, that time is still time set aside for the writing process.

OK. Act 2 is done. Yay. Now on to Act 3 and hopefully I can focus on making more blog posts again.

Picture source: BryanPrindiville.com

Scripting a good week's work 3

2010-10-22T18:24:00.001+01:00

Another intensive week of writing but it was pretty light on the blogging side of things. Act 2 has really slowed me down, however, I'm really enjoying it and nearly ready for Act 3!

Lets take a look at what I actually DID manage to do:

- Screenwriter's Workbook chapters 13 & 14
- Save the Cat! chapters 3 & 4
- Notes on: The Dialogue interviews David S. Goyer

What I, sadly, DIDN'T manage to get done but will asap:
- My notes on Act 2!

- Dialogue interview with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.
- Part 1& 2 of the BBC's A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss.

Take care everyone and have a great weekend!

The Dialogue with David S. Goyer & Update on Act II

2010-10-20T18:06:00.000+01:00

David S. Goyer is one of my favourite screenwriters. He's the man partly responsible for three movies I love: Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Dark City. He's also written movies I've enjoyed, such as Blade - which really did usher in a new age of comic book movies and probably saved Marvel Comics from bankruptcy.

In an interview with 'The Dialogue', Goyer touches on many subject some of which are generally quite interesting but not specifically useful to newbie screenwriters whereas others are quite the eye-openers. In particular, he discusses how during the filming of Blade he needed Wesley Snipes to drop into a vat of blood despite the star's apparent distaste of getting wet - and general refusal to do anything moist. Goyer got into a bet with Guillermo Del Toro and swore he could get Snipes to do the scene. The screenwriter went back and rewrote the action in a way that flattered Snipes' ego as an actor. Comparisons were made between Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now and Snipes, and the actor was described as looking like a "god of war" upon emerging from the pool of blood.

Apparently the actor read this and hopped on the idea. This kind of manipulation is really brilliant - and yes I think it's manipulation but I don't think manipulation is always bad. Goyer approached the problem with Snipes like a journalist would when covering the same story for different publications; he spoke to the specific audience. In this case Goyer spoke to an audience of one: Wesley Snipes. The same content was presented in a voice that was appealing to the actor.

Other tips from Goyer: make detailed notes (up to 50 pages), never show those notes to executives (offer a verbal pitch instead), treat the work like a real job (keep set hours) and more.

Generally speaking it's a fun interview but there's not an awful lot in it that's educational for someone at my low level - oh to have the problem of an actor refusing to do a scene from a script I wrote! Although the interview is certainly inspirational and aspirational.

If you have some extra money laying about, sure, this is a good video. It's not expensive either at around £5 on itunes (and is for some reason listed under the audio books category).

OK. On to a little update from me. You all may have noticed that the last couple blogs have been a bit light when compared to earlier posts. That is because I have been working hard on my screenplay with the aim of getting through Act II by Friday. The good news is that I'm over halfway through Act II now, so I should be keeping to my deadline, the bad news is that it probably means less in-depth posts till then.

I hope to come back to you all in full force with my notes on writing Act II, my triumphs, my failures, the unexpected breezes and pitfalls.

Save the Cat! Chapters 3 & 4

2010-10-19T14:12:00.006+01:00

Blake Snyder's take on things can be a little off putting. He really pushes hard on the sell-ablility of scripts written under his approach and it can often sound as if he's making rules that fly against artistic expression. However, I felt a similar way about Syd Field's Screenwriters Workbook but I've found it an invaluable tool and like that book, Save the Cat! is proving to be very useful too.

When it comes to character development Snyder hits on primal themes over and over again. Your're character's got to have a threat to one of his primal needs, that could be sex, death, food, loved ones etc. Perhaps most controversially, Snyder argues that your main character also has to be likeable. That's actually what the book is named after - the idea that you should show the protagonist do something nice like "saving a cat". I'm not sure I agree with this at all. Groudhog Day, with Bill Murray in the lead, is about a total misanthrope - the only way in which Murray becomes likeable is that the other characters are all slightly irritating and he is very witty. In fact it is his utter un-likeability early on that gives weight to the change he exhibits by the end. Although this could be a case of learning the rules so you can know when best to break them.

Snyder offers an interesting look at character-types, which he believes fit Jungian archetypes. The archetypes are put into his own words in a rather interesting list, much like his list of genre's as explained in my post about Chapters 1 & 2, that I found fun and educational. I still feel like he's a bit too restrictive on what makes a good screenplay - or rather what makes a sellable screenplay. However, in writing this post I've come to realise that Save the Cat! is really aimed at people who are just starting out in the business of screenwriting and maybe these approaches are aimed at finding early success.

Another area I had difficulty with is his notes on structure. Structure is all important to Snyder, just like it is with Field, and he goes as far as to argue that the structure is what ensures your writing credit once the script has been sold and rewritten for production. This is really fascinating and something I really would like to know more about, although it's a bit too early for me to worry about post-production credits right now. Where I start to have problems with Snyder is when he provides a 15 point structure that he argues HAS to be adhered to. I had a similar problem with Field when he suggested a 3 point structure with themes in each act: set-up, conflict and resolution respectively. 15 points at first seems overly prescriptive and, dare-I-say-it, a bit egotistical. I want to learn how to be as successful as Snyder - not to write exactly like him. BUT I ate crow on this one. After reading the 15 points, presented in his usual informal and quickly phrased way, I noticed I was already following much of his template naturally to solve problems I encountered and it worked. In many ways, if I had just followed his template from the beginning I may have saved myself a lot of sweat and time, which is precisely his point.

Snyder makes it clear that writing the second act is often just too hard, that structure can help pull you through and he felt that there wasn't enough structure in the models provided by Field and others. To the extend that he wanted to bridge the first and third acts he has succeeded and in an interesting way. While I feel uncomfortable with a lot in this book, I do highly recommend it.

The Screenwriter's Workbook - Chapter 13 & 14

2010-10-18T08:00:00.001+01:00

Act II is an intimidating obstacle. Apparently not just for me too! Field dedicates the entirety of Chapters 13 and 14 to preparing to write Act II. Chapter 13 is intended to help you break up and plan out the the 60-pages of conflict. Field suggests creating two pinch points at page 15 and 45.

The pinch points are a key series of events that hold the story together - apparently its easy to stagger away from the storyline as you progress into Act II and of course you have the mid-point to bridge the two halves of the act. Field recommends writing up 14 3x5 cards for each 30 pages to act as your guide. Write them up, then start writing your screenplay. But you're supposed to approach the screenplay from a fresh stand point - the cards are only there to keep you pinned to an overall story, they're not to be taken as absolutes and can/should be ignored if a new idea comes into your head.

Chapter 14 is all about panic control. It's all about maintaining a mental state whereby you can continue to work. Among the suggestions in this chapter is to keep a journal marked 'critic'. This journal will work as a place for you to vent your spleen as you're writing. While you're hammering out your story or dialogue write down all criticisms in this book. Field suggests keeping the journal for a few days and then putting it away for a few more. When you return to it and read the entries you'll find they're all the same, they're also the same with the criticism you've always given yourself.

I am quite intimidated by the next step. My mind keeps racing about changes I want to make in the overall storyline and going back to fix Act 1. If it weren't for all the coaching by Field I'd have gone back and made those changes. Again, Field has some helpful advice which actually coincides with how I was planning to tackle the problem - write the script in sets of 10 pages. Like I did with Act 1.

So now I'm set to do it. I take the plunge.

Scripting a good week's work 2

2010-10-15T17:00:00.000+01:00

Shave the Cat! is not a book by Blake Snyder.

So, the time has come, another week another load of posts. I've done a lot, shall we go through the recap?

I started my exploration of Blake Snyder's wonderful Save the Cat! - which I keep thinking of as "shave the cat".
I finished Act I of my script and blogged on the Screenwriters' Workbook Chapter 12, Chapters 10 & 11, Chapters 8 & 9, Chapters 5,6 & 7.
I had fun melding psychology and screenwriting in the first part of Character Styles.
I had some troubles with Dummies.

In the coming week, I hope to do some reporting on The Dialogue: David Goyer, an interview with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, Part 1 of the BBC's A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss and I'll be attending a pre-event for the London Screenwriter's Festival Social Networking & Personal Branding For Creatives.

This is all in addition to my continued work on my script, my look at Screenwriter's Workbook and Save the Cat!. Thanks for reading and have a great weekend! See you Monday!

Save the Cat! - Chapter 1 & 2

2010-10-15T14:02:00.007+01:00

Blake Snyder's book, Save the Cat!, came highly recommended to me. Alongside Screenplay by Syd Field and Story by Robert McKee it's held up as a work that changed how writers approached their jobs.

From the outset I could tell that it was a different kind of book from the ones I've been reading. The language and tone were much more informal than Syd Field's, to whom the book is very respectful and referential. Save the Cat! hits a note a few keys down from the academic tune sung by most other books and looks at the screenplay as a commercial project. How do you tailor your story from the initial idea to best find a buyer and then success? The book claims to be aimed at producers looking at screenplays as much as it is aimed at writers themselves.

Perhaps because of this approach, Snyder can often be a bit jarring. Reasons behind his advice can often come across as "because it'll sell better this way". I'm sure he's right. Unlike other books I've been reading Snyder has actually sold screenplays and as he explains: he has enough money that the book has no obvious ulterior motive for him - a seemingly rude poke at Field and McKee who, to some degree, rely on their books to get people interested in their moneymaking screenwriting seminars and work-groups.

The opening chapter of his book argues that the main reason some movies fall flat at the box office is that they fail to answer a simple question: "What's it about?"

Knowing what your story is about and being able to sum it up in a pithy line, with key elements such as tone and irony, is a necessary but not sufficient step - according to Snyder. He lists successful movies' log-lines (the name for the punchy statements of plot) and suggests that their simple summation was part of the cause of their success. In this he may be right but he goes on to say that if you can't write a simple logline then maybe you shouldn't write the script at all. This bothered me, not because I didn't have a logline (I did, quite a good one too) but it seemed to suggest that just because you can't make a sales pitch it means you can't be writing a good story. That ruffled my feathers. Although, there is some artistic merit to this. If you don't know what the core of your story is then how do you know a story is there at all? Try to explain your story to other people, suggests Snyder, if it connects with them and draws them in then you have a story if not then go back to the log-line.

"I have just been working with a screenwriter online. He did not have his logline. He did have a good idea - or at least the start of one - but the logline was vague, it didn't grab me. I sent him back to the dreaded Page One (an almost total rewrite). He bitched and moaned but he did it. He put away his story and all the vivid scenes and all the recurring motifs and started writing loglines - an awful, soul-eating chore... What he discovered, after many failed attempts, was that he had to start fudging his logline to get it to have irony, audience and cost, a clear sense of what the movie promised, and a killer title. And when he finally let go of his preconceived notions of what his story was - voila! The logline changed... His story started to change to match the logline and voila - the story got better!" Snyder.

With this information I completed the exercise at the end of the chapter and moved on to chapter 2 - in which Snyder focuses on genre. Save the Cat! proposes a different view on genre. Instead of "horror", "drama", "romance" etc. Snyder creates his own genres that are surprisingly helpful and effective and based on primal appeal. I would reprint some of them here but that's treading a bit close of plagiarism of his book - if you're curious you'll just have to get a copy.

Anyway, the argument he makes is that you need to understand the tradition of story telling that went into your genre. Only that way can you play off of successful riffs but offer the new twist that'll grab the attention of audiences and thus producers. He makes a very valid point in this section of the book and I found it quite interesting, with various plot ideas jumping around my head trying to find what genre they plugged into.

Although the most personally exciting part of this chapter came when I read:

"...even my own kid hit from Disney, Blank Check."

Blank Check! BLANK-FUCKING-CHECK! This guy wrote one my favourite childhood movies. I almost completely forgot about it until I read that. I remember my sister and I watching our BlockBuster rented copy back-to-back constantly until we had to return it. Take a look at the trailer:

The Screenwriter's Workbook - Chapter 12

2010-10-14T21:13:00.002+01:00

Amazing. Sound the trumpets everyone! I've completed the first act of my new script! And boy does it suck!

That's not some harsh self-criticism or an attempt to illicit commiseration and flattery. It's the truth. It's supposed to suck right now and that's something I have to keep reminding myself of.

In fact it's brilliant that it sucks. I could have written a fast paced interesting series of unconnected scenes - and I certainly felt the pressure to. However, if I did that it would come at the cost of the story. The story, I am beggining to understand, is right now the only thing that matters. My script is lean, it is on target, and it is clear. Yes some scenes are drawn out and boring. Yes I need to work on my descriptions and dialogue but its on target. I fix everything on later rewrites and for now all that matters is that I get the story across. Finish the plot, then go back and polish it till it shines.

This focus, this realisation, has saved me so much pain and I think it is the key to breaking into this field.

So, with that done I started work on reading the next chapter in Syd Field's book. Then I read "to face 60 blank sheets of paper can be daunting." And boy did that hit me. I have only just pulled myself through 30 pages, I now had to write ANOTHER 60?

Field says you should break it up into two sections of 30 pages to make it more manageable. Which is quite clever really. If you think about how he gets people to write the first 30 pages by breaking it into chunks of 10, he then escalates it to chunks of 30 for Act 2. You've already done 30 pages by this stage so it seems less intimidating - I'm aware of this as I read it but it still works. It really does.

He talks about how most screenplays have two units of dramatic conflict with different themes separated by a key middle event. This, he argues, ties the story together and keeps the middle Act on target. The middle event should also be the trigger for the rest of the screenplay, with all other actions merely a consequence of the mid-point. The exercise at the end of the chapter is to watch a movie a couple of times to see if you draw out the paradigm including the mid-point. I've actually been doing this for some time now but I'm going to do it one more time with Chinatown. - Although I feel strange watching Polanski movies.

The Screenwriter's Workbook - Chapter 10 & 11

2010-10-13T16:39:00.000+01:00

Now I'm in the middle of it. I've got the fist ten pages of my screenplay done. Panic is racing through my thinking process telling me that "this doesn't work", "that's too expositional", "you've used up most of the events you planned of Act 1 in the first ten pages! Now what are you going to do?". That's when Syd Field tells you to relax. Specifically he says: Don't go back to re-write. That was my first impulse.

It really does seem like Field is predicting the panic attacks that I'm having and pre-empting them. In fact, that's exactly what he's doing. Your first ten pages of your first draft are going to be rubbish but the key, according to Field, is to make sure you keep at it. Finish the damn screenplay then go back to rewrite. He warned me off against going back into those first ten pages to re-write or add in a scene here and there.

"Don't go back and change something in the first ten pages because you have a better idea; it's not going to work out for you. People who spend too much time making it 'right' usually run out of gas about fifty to sixty pages in and have to shelve their material. In most cases, they drop it and never pick it up again," Field, Page 190.

This quote spared me a lot of hassle, calmed me down and educated me on where I've gone wrong with my other script, a mockumentary which I've put aside for the time being. It's become clear to me that part of what Field is trying to teach is pacing. Screenwriting is a marathon, not a sprint, pacing and self-regulation are vital. I greatly appreciate this book for the good habits it is teaching me.

I also learnt a great deal from my own experience in writing those ten pages. I found a number of times when I was able to turn a block of dialogue into a series of actions which made me quite proud. However, the ninth page is almost entirely dialogue and I really am unhappy about that BUT I can go back and fix it once the latter 100 pages are complete. I don't need to worry about it now. I'll continue learning my way through the script so that by the time I am done I will be a superior writer to what I am now. Writing the script also gave me a greater appreciation of the Bourne movies. I watched the Bourne Identity immediately after and was actually astounded by how visual it is. Very little is expressed verbally and usually only in conjunction with a visual. After experiencing how difficult this is it was quite an eye-opener - I now understand why Field likes the Bourne Supremacy so much.

The next task I have to do is the second and third ten pages. According to Field, the second set of ten pages should focus on your character's day-to-day life with actions that express the symptoms of his problem. The third set of ten should be used to define the problem and present the first plot point which pushes the story forward.

Character Styles - Chapter 1: A Characterological-Developmental Theory

2010-10-12T18:25:00.000+01:00

More and more I'm looking at what makes a character a character, how you best represent a character, how you write a character that makes sense to the audience, etc. Before I was into screenwriting I was, and still am, a big fan of psychology. I've been looking for any book that could represent a good cross over between my two loves. When my flatmate suggested this book: Character Styles by Stephen M. Johnson.

Why read a psychology text book when looking to learn about screenwriting? I believe this book can be very helpful when it comes to developing a story and I think the following quotes explain why:

“The only thing that's important is the story, and the story arises from the conflict between the characters. And you can only evolve that by beginning with their needs and motives, and bringing them together, and they will create the story for you.” - Frank Pearson, Dog Day Afternoon, Cool Hand Luke.

“Much of what is character and much of what makes up psychopathology are understood in terms of the individual's complex reaction to environmental frustration. Conflict is interpersonally derived, but based on what is inherent in the human being.” - S.M. Johnson, Character Styles.

Character Styles offers a formula for understanding the “needs and motives” Pearson talks about. The book argues that character is greatly determined by the frustration of needs early on in life. Some of these needs have to be frustrated, such as a toddler's need to assert independence by darting across a busy road. But some needs can be catastrophic if not fulfilled and a character type is determined by the “escape solutions” he/she developed. Or to put it in more complicated words:

“Personality... develop(s) in particular constellations as a consequence of the interaction of... instinctual needs of the person and the environment's ability or inability to respond to them. These instinctual needs go well beyond... internal pressures posited by Freud and include the infant's well-documented need to attach or bond to a primary caregiver, the child's need to individuate through exploration, self-determined activity, and the building of psychic boundaries, the need for self-determined expression, and a need for an attuned self-other relationship.” - S.M. Johnson.

This ties into the story approach to characterisation which is how the character reacts to events that occur around them and that conflict is the biggest character revealing agent.

There are four stages towards developing a complex personality outlined in the book – this process can be very helpful in developing a character biography

Self-affirmed needs/original impulse.
Negative environmental response
Organismic reaction/“wired in” response, to frustration.
Self-negation – the blocking of the expression of the original impulse and blocking all responses to the block itself. This creates a psychopathology and is the beginning of internal conflict. The block is designed to eliminate the pain of not having your needs fulfilled. Self-negation defines what your character represses or denies in themselves.
Self-adjustment. The person tries to deny their true impulses that have been rejected and create an identity that will survive without them OR create an identity that will illicit desired reactions out of others through actions that are not honest self-expression. It's a form of self and other manipulation. Self-adjustment defines what your character must exaggerate in themselves.

I gave some thought to how this might play out in a story and wrote the following situation.

Imagine a boy who is very much into bug collecting. He gathers his collection of bottled bugs and his books on entomology and presents them to his father. Instead of being supportive, proud, loving and interested (which is all the boy wanted) , the father is dismissive and even chastises the boy for interrupting his sports match on TV. The boy goes back to his room, releases his bugs out the window, puts away his books, picks up a football, marches back into the room and says: “Dad, I want to join the football team!” Then the father responds positively, showing the boy with affection. Meanwhile the boy is suffering great internal shame of his true interests, resentment about being forced to do a sport he's not that interested in and a sadness or sense of rejection – all of which he must block.

Dr. Johnson also provides interesting charts that could be very useful to the writer looking to develop a full background for his or her character. For example, say you needed a character that was very promiscuous, to the point where it might be considered unhealthy or even dangerous and destructive. In the table on pages 12 & 13 you find that the disorder is a 'self-system' problem, which means it is a collection of self-perceptions that protect the character from information that would cause him/her to re-evaluate all pre-existing self-perceptions, like falling dominos (again, the root cause is pain avoidance). This results in a splitting of love and sexual impulses leading to either sexual gluttony or sexual anorexia.

Why? Well it means that an important emotional drive, perhaps for love from a caregiver, was denied at a crucial stage of development leading the character to believe they have little or no value to others. How they react to such a core-belief could be to say “To hell with romance! I don't want it, I don't need it.” Or: “Sex is all I want, forget all that other relationship crap!” But what drives them both is a fear of rejection, in the former it is a fear of reaching out and being rejected, in the latter it is a fear of developing a bond beyond sex and then having it rejected. If either one of them tried to break this pattern they'd find that it's not true that they don't want meaningful connections with others, in fact they want it desperately and CAN have it. They are loveable. However, if this is discovered then they have to trace the root cause of the problem all the way back to that initial rejection. The weight and fear of that puts so much pressure on them that the problem can be almost intractable.

The chart even goes on to suggest behaviours you might associate with a character of this type, they are: obsessive-compulsive and histrionic. So you could try to add scenes which underscore those traits.

OK, now I've got that all out of my system, I feel like I need to add a disclaimer. I've got some history with reading psychological books. I know my Freud, Jung, Bowlby and others but I'm no expert. This book was difficult to follow and large tracts were in the professional language of psychologists not intended for the layman. So please don't take my explanation here as a sacrosanct representation of the book. Pick the book up for yourself but be prepared to fight your way through it.

The Screenwriter's Workbook - Chapters 8 & 9

2010-10-12T13:36:00.000+01:00

Syd Field seems to really love Bourne Supremacy. I don't. It's not that I think it's a horrid film, I think its certainly well made, quite flashy, and strives for meaning in both its plot and characters - it just feels a little hollow and soulless to me. This makes it very difficult for me to understand a lot of Chapter 8, which closes Part 1 of his book, because it focuses so much on the apparent brilliance of that movie.

Certainly the movie was very modern in the way that it blended flashbacks (or as Field calls them "flash-present" as it is supposed to be written as a memory being experienced by the character in the now) within the storyline. This is especially interesting to me because my thriller script plays on similar themes on memory and flashbacks. I just really didn't feel much for the Bourne story and I think that Field highlights why. Apparently the original books are quite out of date and had to be wholly rewritten for relevance to a modern audience - in that way it's a huge success. The three movies deal with revenge, regret, and acceptance (within that order) and those themes are and almost always will be universal. However, The Bourne Identity, the first adaptation, was only ever written to be one movie, so the *spoilers* happy ending in Bourne Identity becomes an obstacle that needs to be delt with before you can begin Bourne Supremacy. Bourne's main squeeze is somewhat unceremoniously killed, while he's set up for a crime that gets the CIA on his back again and he investigates a particular memory that's haunting him. It all felt forced and kind of made the first movie and the relationships he had in it meaningless - to me anyway.

So, I have problems with the movie but why did Field like it: because its so visual. There's little to no expositional dialogue, it's all told in images and flashbacks and when the memories hit him they happen in quite a natural way. This, he says, is a truly screenwriting approach to story telling. With that I have to agree with him.

"Remember that a screenplay is a story told with pictures. Dialogue only becomes an adjunct to the visual information that moves the story forward," Field, p.144.

Part 1 of the book is over, the theory and background research have been introduced or completed, now comes the scary part: Writing the Screenplay. Field suggests painting with as broad a brush as possible when planning the first act of your script. It must, he says, introduce the main characters (with a clear protagonist), establish tone, introduce a dramatic need, introduce conflict and end with the plot point you decided on in earlier exercises. To start he suggests writing down 14 scenes or sequences on 3x5 index cards. Free-associate the ideas, go over those 14 cards again and again adding a layer of polish and thought, replacing some scenes or moving them about when necessary. Once you've done this you have the very bare skeleton of your first act.

I had already done quite a lot of structuring with index cards, in fact the book says that I have done too much. Field warns against writing down every page of the screenplay as an index card first (which was my approach) as this can be far too rigid. He says that he sees writers fail all the time when all they are doing is transcribing their complicated index card notes onto a script. Writing out index cards, he reminds me, is a very different thing to writing a screenplay. Instead, only do 14 key actions within the first act and leave it at that. This was a bit worrying for me at first, as to fully follow this workbook I'd have to put aside all my previous work, but I did it anyway and feel pretty OK about the results. The next chapter is on, *gulp*, actually writing the first ten pages. I've heard a lot about the first ten pages of your script, what has to be in there, what shouldn't, some of which makes sense to me but some also strikes me as pointless rule making for rule making's sake. I'll work on those ten pages today and hopefully have something interesting at the end.

Screenwriting for Dummies

2010-10-10T18:00:00.000+01:00

Along with the other book I've been reading and blogging about, I mentioned some time ago that I also had a copy of Screenwriting for Dummies. So far I've not written a single jot on a pad about this book and I'd forgive you for thinking that I've just not been reading it but that's just not the case. I'm beginning chapter 4 of the book, which has taken little effort to get to, and I have yet to find anything that really enlightens or interests me.

I respect the for Dummies series. There's something Socratic about admitting you total ignorance on a topic before attempting to understand it. If you buy a book that willingly results in you being labelled a "dummy" in your future chosen field you really hold no pretension of immediate success or some ingrained knowledge. Admitting you know nothing is really the first step to learning but you can over do it a bit. I like this approach and I've been looking for a for Dummies book on something I'm interested in for some time.

I am a layman. I really know nothing about screenwriting. I'm devouring what I can and I am constantly learning but so far this book is too basic for me. I'm not sure if I already got all the information of the first three chapters in free podcasts, such as the brilliant Off the Page by Pilar Alessandra, or from the excellent Screenwriter's Workbook by Field or Story by McKee. So I may have already jumped the gun and it may be unfair to judge the book by these standards. Yet I'm still feeling nonplussed about this book and its becoming a real struggle to finish. I think I will double my efforts and hope they yield fruit later on.

I will really try to give this a good read before Save the Cat! arrives as that's a book I've been looking forward to for a while now.

The Screenwriter's Workbook - Chapters 5, 6 & 7

2010-10-09T23:18:00.001+01:00

"Just because you are a character doesn't mean you have character," - Wolf, Pulp Fiction

The above quote is one of my favourite lines from any movie ever but it's also the opening to chapter 5 of The Screenwriter's Workbook, which starts what will probably be a long period of focusing on developing characters. This is something that's worried me for some time. Characterization is definitely my weakest point- especially dialogue. In fact, I'd say my real flaw in characterization is dialogue. I can keep a character acting consistently and in ways you wouldn't expect others to but I lose it on dialogue. However, Syd Field says not to worry about dialogue. He says that the medium is primarily a visual medium. You write what actions tell the story, even sounds you tend to write as an action (i.e. "a gun CLICKS", not: "a gun makes a clicking noise"). The book warns that you'll almost certainly write horrid dialogue for your first 50 or 60 pages but this is your first draft and you'll have plenty of time to go over it again (and again and again). This was quite relaxing for me as it seemed to say: "Don't worry James. Dialogue really isn't something you need to worry about now." However, before I move on, I just want to get across what I think the difference between good and bad dialogue is with the following clips.

Good:

In The Wire even very similar characters have very different approaches to life which reflect themselves in the dialogue of each character. In this small scene there a three characters who say things that would seem out of place in each other's mouths. You have the naive young dealer who talks about things optimistically but ignorantly, the ambitious thug who views the drug trade as survival of the fittest and finally the jaded but realistic boss who really doesn't want anything to do with the business at all.

Bad:

I like Buffy The Vampire Slayer and its creator Joss Whedon but he can't do dialogue or maybe he just doesn't want to. While watching the series I was struck by how nothing one character says would seem that out of place if said by a totally different character. It's very witty dialogue and often very funny, and indeed a lot of the show's charm comes from the silly conversations, the unexpected one liners and the odd directions conversations can take. The video claims that each character has a different voice but I'm not so sure about that. Some of them have better vocabularies or speak with an accent or strange tone but I really don't see how they're that different. As the video openly admits: They all talk like Joss Whedon. That's not a bad thing, it's just not what I'm after.

So rant about that over and back to the book. Field suggests writing out a few exercises so you get to know and understand your character. Explicitly state your main character, his/her dramatic needs, his attitude and his view on life. I expect he'll suggest you do this for all characters and I actually found the exercise quite fun and easy. I look forward to fleshing out the rest of my characters in such a way. The next exercise was tougher and ended up being about 8 pages of work. He tells you to take a few days to think about your main character then to write up the histories of up to three of them - from birth till the moment before your movie begins. I began putting this off almost immediately. I really disliked the idea of doing it. It seemed like so much work for something that didn't seem directly relevant to getting into writing the screenplay. I decided to give myself a couple days to think it over (as the book suggests) and then start work today. When I found myself putting it off again today I pulled out a tip I heard in an interview with the author of Emotional Toolkit (which I mentioned on Friday). The author of it says that when a project seems too large instead of putting it off set a reasonable target, like doing only one page of work, just one page, then when you're done ask yourself: "would you like to do another one?" If the answer is positive do another page. Repeat this for as long as you can. It worked wonderfully.

Within a couple hours I had over six pages on my main character alone, from infancy through to beginning of the movie. This was quite some work and thoroughly exhausting but I feel it was a worthwhile exercise. I now know my main character inside out and look forward to seeing if that helps me to write his dialogue and develop his character in script. After this taxing essay, I went on to write another page and a half on two other characters. Sadly I felt as though the writing lemon had been squeezed dry and couldn't get any more out about them but I did write down key events in their lives that I had been mulling over in my head. During this I learnt two things: The one page at a time approach works very well and I know my characters a lot better.

Finally, Chapter 7 concerns "the circle of being", which Field defines as that defining moment in your character's history that shapes their approach to life and subsequently their dramatic need/s. This in turn clashes with other characters' dramatic needs and leads to conflicts that will drive the story. I felt pretty relaxed reading this. After the biographies I felt all but spent, the prospect of more work in this area was a little daunting, but what I found was that I had already done this. My interest in psychology already had me thinking about my characters' drives and how their histories are connected to it. In fact I feel fairly confident in this regard. The chapter exercise was to pick one movie from a provided list and see if you can locate what internal and external conflicts afflict which characters and what dramatic needs are being pursued. If you can you are asked to note down any "circle of being" events in the characters' pasts. I've chosen to watch Thelma and Louise. Hopefully I'll have a nice blog post about that sometime soon.

Scripting a good week's work

2010-10-08T17:16:00.000+01:00

This blog has been great fun to write over the past week or so. I've done a lot of work for it, which has helped me, and I think relaying my notes to you all as a story has helped me to absorb more information than I would have otherwise. Comments are a bit sparse (I only have one) but the stats are quite promising, there are readers from all around the world and with a small 60%-ish bounce rate. Although I'd be writing this blog even if it were just me and my friends reading it. Anyway. I want to sum up the work I've done this week and what's coming up for next week.

I started with a critique of V for Vendetta.
I've blogged on The Screenwriter's Workbook chapter 1, chapter 2, and chapters 3 & 4.
I looked into the psyche of Mark and Jeremy on Peep Show.
I compared Batman: Dark Knight to its script.

Next week I want to continue my journey into The Screenwriter's Workbook and I plan to blog about some thoughts I had around Ferris Bueller's Day Off and Casablanca. I'll also be ordering two books that I'll no doubt blog about: Save the Cat! and The Screenwriter's Bible. Finally, I'm going to see if I can get a book called The Emotional Toolkit. I heard an interview with it's author on Screenwriting and how the book contains many psychological approaches to solving writer's block. Other than writing my interests lay heavily in Psychology so this could be a good cross over. Take care everyone and I'll see you on monday!

Characterisation - Peep Show

2010-10-06T22:42:00.000+01:00

I've been reading up on developing characters within a script. I've always felt pretty secure in terms of concept and events within a story but I'm really on shaky ground when it comes to characters. Mine all feel the same, they all feel like, well, me.

Me as a bad guy, me a hero, me as a bystander and me as a 7 year-old-girl (a nice image for you all). My characters tend to react as I would to any given situation depending on what my motive is. This impacts on the action quite negatively when the character has to do something that is decidedly un-me, like kill someone or frame someone by planting drugs in their luggage. They act in a horrible way that seems out of character. What I've read has been very helpful, as have the work exercises, but I wont go further into that, you'll have to wait till I publish my notes on The Screenwriter's Workbook chapters 5 & 6.

However, what I wanted to share in this post is my thoughts on Peep Show. I've seen the entire series about three times before but now I'm really focusing on how they develop the characters of Mark and Jeremy. Mark is a anally retentive, uptight, repressed office worker while Jeremy is a sponge living off his best friend while failing as a musician because of his utter reluctance to put any real effort into anything. Both of their approaches to life lead to disaster in different ways.

The following video is really excellent for showing off Jeremy's point of view. Driving, he says, "is bollocks". This is in keeping with his approach to life that things like success, love and money "just happen" and you can have a fulfilled life without putting any effort in - this lifestyle often leads him and those around him in to disaster.

In the next clip you see Mark's view on life: everything's hard work and it'll probably lead to disaster - even during a party. One can't help but think his failures are self-fulfilled prophesies, easily avoided if he just relaxed.

This leads to an interesting conflict between the two friends, where Jeremy finds Mark's tight-lace approach to life stifling and Mark feels resentment over Jeremy's nonplussed attitude.

The Screenwriter's Workbook - Chapters 3 & 4

2010-10-06T02:34:00.000+01:00

Syd Field loves structure. He made some pretty good arguments for it in the previous two chapters but, to be totally honest, I didn't quite get why he banged on about it so much. Until now. I love structure.

In chapter 3, the screenwriter's workbook lays out the screenplay paradigm. This is a simple four stage structure within the three acts.

It looks like this:

Field challenges the reader to figure out the opening scene, the first plot point (the event that sets or alters your characters' needs and leads into the next act), the events of Act 2, the second plot point and then the final scene of the movie. This really helped me to imagine my story in its entirety - like a model of a home to illustrate the blue print in a clearer manner.

This leads on directly to chapter 4, where the initial joy of seeing my story fleshed out became a mild bout of horror as the difficulty curve and workload explode. He tells you to write a treatment... that sounds simple, but have you done it? It's where you write a four page starting off summary of your story. You write a dramatic telling of your opening scene in no more than half a page, then you write no more than half a page on the actions in Act 1. On a new page you write a dramatic telling of your first plot point, again no more than half a page, followed by a relatively long list of obstacles and conflicts that fill out the remaining page and a half. You top the third page off with a dramatic summary of your second plot point. On the fourth page you write out an actions summary of ACT 3 and then complete the treatment with a dramatized telling of your closing scene.

That's four pages of work done. That's your entire story in a bare form. It's a wonderful exercise and I really found it valuable but jeeze did it hurt to get all that out. I'm quite proud with the end result, I've become far more aware of the strengths and flaws in my story.

I debated if I should share the treatment on here or keep it private. I've decided to keep it private, first off the book tells you too. Secondly I now suddenly feel very protective over those four pages. I want to make sure the story grows up into a self sufficient screenplay before I let it out into the wild.

Script-Watching: Dark Knight

2010-10-04T22:33:00.000+01:00

I spent the better part of last night watching the Batman: Dark Knight across one screen with a copy of the script in PDF open on another. Watching one and comparing it with the other. I've been a Batman fan for as long as I can remember but I never felt the movies did the concept justice. I felt quite alone in my quiet distaste of the Burton attempts to bring Batman to life, where he just recreated the 1960s show aimed it at an older audience and replaced the campiness with whimsy. Then, when later directors took the helm for the Val Kilmer and George Clooney outings, the trademark Burton whimsy was thrown out, the series reverted to campiness and aimed for a young audience again.

However, I shrugged and reminded myself that Hollywood doesn't make movies for ME but rather for EVERYONE and everyone seemed pretty happy with the whimsical Batman. That was until the mega-hit Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan's run on Batman has been nothing short of brilliant. I think it converts Batman into a more cinema friendly superhero while keeping many, if not all, of the aspects that make the character great in the comics. I especially loved how they played up Bruce Wayne's ruse to lead criminals into believing he's some sort of mythic monster, like Dracula, to scare the utter tar out of them. In fact, that is the explicit reason for dressing as a bat as opposed to just wearing a balaclava. Although, I must admit that Dark Knight looses a lot of the predatory theatrics that were present in Batman Begins and I was slightly disappointed by that.

I've digressed, back to the point: Christopher & Jonathan Nolan's script is amazing! I'm really going to have to hold this up as a standard I'm going to strive for. The pacing and fluidity of the action are so crisp. I'd highly recommend watching the opening scene along side the script, I think you'll be blown away with how clear it all is.

But when I was looking at it I noticed a couple recurring differences. Often scenes were written a much simpler manner than they ended up appearing in the film. Whole interactions between two different sets of characters would be written entirely separately and then shuffled together in the film, having the scene skip from one group to another and then back again, repeating itself, until the conclusion of both. Sometimes this was exactly as written in the script, but as I said above a fair few times it wasn't. This got me thinking: Am I making my job as a screenwriter harder than it should be? I often worry about the pacing and inter-positioning the scenes together to make it more interesting, when really that's something a good director and/or editor will change anyway, right? So, I'm curious now as to what extent I should just be straight forward and simple in my scenes, letting the director and editors add in extra flare when needed.

I was also struck by how much the actors seemed to make the dialogue their own. Yes it was all written down in the script, except for minor changes, but the emphasis on certain words, the actions that went along with it - actions that weren't in the script at all - were perfect, especially The Joker. This, again, leads me to the thought that I've been making my job harder. I write in a lot of very specific quirks or actions. For example, I would have written the scene in which Gordon interrogates the Joker on Harvey Dent's abduction in Batman in the following way:

JOKER

Me? I was right here.

Joker holds up his chained hands towards Gordon.

JOKER (CONT'D)

Who did you leave him with? Your people? ...

Whereas in the script it is simply:

JOKER

Me? I was right here. Who did you

leave him with? Your people?...

All that stuff about the handcuffs, that was all Ledger's idea, or Christopher Nolan as he was directing it. My point is, for me to worry about small actions on this level may be doubly negative, no only does it give little respect to actor/director's abilities, maybe even putting them off the project altogether, but it also add a tremendous amount of fiddly writing to my workload.

My final thought, from reading the script, is that the Nolans only ever talk about an object that is in the process of doing something else. Instead of "Batman throws the joker against the wall, shattering the two-way mirror." They wrote: "Batman PICKS up the Joker and HURLS him into the two-way glass. The glass SPIDERS." Great word: "Spiders". They almost never mention something, even inanimate objects like a two-way mirror, unless it is in the process of doing something. Nothing just sits around in their screenplay - there's always movement.

FYI: The all caps words in the above quote was their emphasis, not mine, and I often wonder why this appears in screenplays. At times it seems arbitrary but always seems to settle on verbs, not all verbs but exclusively verbs. Perhaps this is to help the reader imagine the scene, or maybe its simply to help the director pick out the actions that are essential to the scene. Formatting of screenplays is a big hurdle I need to tackle.

The Screenwriter's Workbook - Chapter 2

2010-10-04T15:11:00.000+01:00

Structure is something that still remains a scary mystery to me but the more I learn about it the more I feel empowered as a writer. As I mentioned in my last post, Syd Field very much believes in structure and I have already said how jarring I found that. As if he heard me and hastily fired off a new page for his book, the second chapter goes into how he has received harsh criticism for his claim that structure is an essential, though not solely sufficient, part of a screenplay. He describes an early lecture he gave in Paris where he was booed off the stage and labelled "the Devil". This immediately allayed many of my concerns around his approach to structure. He's aware of how it looks, and indeed how bad it can look, and that leads me to think there's something deeper and more nuanced there.

He explains that structure is only context. That you can fill structure with any content and produce wildly different outcomes, however, the structure remains to hold it all into place. This, I think, is fair. Imagine, if you will, a comic book with each panel featuring different characters in mid conversation that is never started or finished before being interrupted by a new set of characters in the middle of a new conversation... and so on. This would be a comic book without any structure to bind specific characters and events together. Of course, he argues that structure should be employed to a greater effect than this, at minimum, but I think the example highlights that we'd almost never choose to consume a visual medium devoid of structure. It would be like taking many strangers personal photographs, shuffling them and then scanning them all. It may arouse some curiosity but it would lack meaning and probably become boring very quickly.

Despite arguing for a strong, almost uniform, approach to structuring your stories, Syd Field shows how this can be employed to create drastic and differentiating results. He breaks down Pulp Fiction into "three stories about a story" buffered on either side by a prologue and epilogue. While this is very inventive, non-linear, and seemingly defies structure there is method to the madness and in fact a quite traditional approach.

This chapter tells you not to be afraid of structure, to play with it, and that it will allow you to tell almost any story in almost any way - and have it still work with the audience!

The exercise in this chapter is to look at some movies, say The Bourne Supremacy, and try to write out its plot structure. Then come up with an idea you may think would work as a screenplay and try to structure it in a similar way.

The Screenwriter's Workbook - Chapter 1

2010-10-03T21:22:00.001+01:00

I like Syd Field. We've only just met but, in the way he writes, he strikes me as intelligent and passionate. I've just started his 'Screenwriter's Workbook', which is apparently based off his screenwriting courses. It is divided into 17 chapters, the first 16 teach you a crucial step in writing screenplays and conclude with an exercise prompting you to put the lesson into action. The purpose is to have a fully realised screenplay by the end of the book.

After the rather lovingly written introduction, I turned to the first chapter: 'The Blank Page'. The beginning of this chapter is dedicated to the challenge of starting the work. The intimidating blank page of a screenplay, Field explains, doesn't just scare you but also published authors, editors and otherwise successful people whom you'd think had already tamed this beast. But screenwriting is a different animal to books and articles, a statement I agree with - being a previously published journalist did not help me one jot in tackling my first sentence.

This first page phobia can come in many forms, one of these grounding fears can be the worry that your story creates a problem later on (in Act II or III) that will be unworkable in a screenplay format. The example given is of a former editor with a book publisher who was worried her story would fall flat in the visually demanding medium of film because the main character would spend the entire second act in a hospital bed. Field rather brilliantly suggests breaking up the act with all the different tests that happen in hospitals, emergency cases in the background, and flashbacks which inform the audience on all the character has lost. To my feeble mind, this is really a rather clever way to spice up an act.

However, the screenplay stumbles on other problems and is eventually shelved. The reason is The Idea. The Idea should be the focus and drive of your screenplay, it should be referred to constantly and bind your action and dialogue together. The above mentioned script eventually diverted from its Idea and failed to commit to a new one.

The chapter goes on to explore the basic ideas behind any given screenplay. Specifically, it looks at Themla & Louise - the author, Callie Khouri, started the script with the simple idea: "Two women go on a crime spree." Once the idea has been established you're left with questions: Who are these women? What did they do? Why did they do it? How did it all end? Once you've answered these questions you have a sense of who your characters are and what the plot is.

Field argues very strongly in favour of a highly structured approach to a screenwriting. He states that you cannot just sit down and start writing to see where the story takes you, like you can a book or a play. The limitations on screenwriting are too great to be so free-flowing. This is the only thing I've been unsure of in his book so far. I've heard plenty of screenwriters claim that writing a treatment or plotting the film out ahead of time is that last thing they'd want to do. They let it just fall out of them and onto the page and I've heard others say they do the opposite. However, both camps have, so far, added something along the lines of: "But that's only the way I do it. I can't say it works for everyone and in fact I have a good friend who does it the other way and he's a great writer." Syd Field is the first person I've run across who says 'no, this is the way to do it'... which is fine, and he may be right but I find it a little jarring.

As it goes for me. I've been writing two screenplays. The first, a mockumentary, is being done without much or any structure and the second, a sci-fi thriller, I'm structuring extensively. Before this experiment, I would have said I was a writer who needed to avoid structure, that I think better when I leave the ends open. Now, after very much enjoying the structured approach, I believe I need that focus... I also enjoy the great sense of productivity that I get when structuring my screenplay. I effectively write a page of action in a third of the time.

Anywho, the exercise at the end of this chapter (which I wont post the details of here as I want to respect the copyright of the book) basically asks for you to go through a series of steps that will leave you with a few key sentences (like log lines in TV guides) that describe events which happen and to which characters. I'll be trying this with my third story idea, a drama, entitled Pay no Attention.*

*On second thought I may wait before I do that. I already have two screenplays on the go, as well as a comic book script, adding another project to the load may be too distracting. This is another area I need to map out for myself: do I work better with multiple projects or just one at a time?

Screenwriting

2010-10-01T21:18:00.000+01:00

Lets be honest shall we? The spark, the magic, it looks like it's gone. Doesn't it? Well that's why I'm relaunching this blog. Sound the trumpets, break out the silly hats and spray silly string everywhere!

My name's James and I'm interested in becoming a screenwriter. I've bought a number of books on the subject, I've been consuming podcasts and reading what I can get my hands on. It's a lot of information to deal with and it can be frustrating to process without a specific focus in mind. That's what this blog is for! When I'm not writing one of my three current scripts I'll blog about the learning process. If I hear anything interesting on podcasts, or interviews, I'll write about it here. I'll also talk about the advice I get on screenwriting and the different approaches I take. Additionally, I'll also share my criticism on storytelling in movies, games, books and TV – which is why I left the piece on V for Vendetta on here.

I'll also be reporting on screenwriting events. Such as invite-only Q&As as well as any social events. I hope you'll all appreciate what I write here, I hope you'll tell me when you think I'm wrong and I hope you'll suggest any new sources of information on screenwriting.

Coming up soon: 'Story' by Robert Mckee, 'Screenwriting for Dummies' by Laura Schellhardt, and 'The Screenwriter's Workbook' by Syd Field.

V for Vendetta - REVISITED AND EXPANDED

2010-09-29T15:00:00.000+01:00

A recent YouTube video of Alan Moore talking about Anarchism got me to thinking about a post I made on this blog last year. In that post I simply lined up scenes from the comic to their counterparts in the movie. I thought that this would be the best explanation as to why I preferred the comic. Now I've decided to reprint most of that original post below but expand on my thoughts. I'll bold any new thoughts.

Please read on:

I remember seeing V for Vendetta the movie for the first time. I am a huge fan of the comic, however, I felt totally underwhelmed by the film, which seemed to be scrubbed of all references to anarchism. But everyone else seemed to enjoy it and I was willing to accept that maybe I was just nit picking. So, I waited years to see the movie again, which I did last week. I was still under whelmed and disappointed, and I thought I'd share some of the the reasons below:

Why I like the comic (click page for larger image):

Why I dislike the movie:

UPDATE:

In the comic book version of this scene responsibility for the state of the world is squarely placed at the feet of every individual in society for sanctioning leaders and consequently giving consent to the idea that some people have the right to make decisions for or against others. The book calls for a revolt against leaders.

However, the film merely calls for the removal of "bad" leaders. The film actually sets this up in a number of ways. Early on the Conservatives (UK Republicans) are explicitly named as the origin of the fascist party. This leaves open the idea that if another party, a "good" party, had stayed in power then this whole mess could have been avoided. This idea was expressly rejected in the original comicbook. No party was named as the root cause of the totalitarian state as V for Vendetta seeks to explain that real political and philosophical differences come from Anarchism/Freedom vs Statism/Serfdom. In effect, it says the good vs bad politicians is a false dichotomy. They're all leaders, it says, therefore they all pave the way to totalitarianism.

As proof that the video encourages the "good" vs "bad" leader mindset, a youtuber comments: "Vote for V!!!" on the above link. In this response it is clear that what people take away from the film is that V represents the voice of the "good" leader vs William Hurt's "bad" totalitarian leader. In effect this achieves the exact opposite of the artistic point that drives the whole comic.

Why I like the comic (click page for larger image):

Why I dislike the movie:

UPDATE

Again, in this scene the whole point, or value being expressed, is flipped on its head. In the comic Alan Moore is clearly expressing the idea that security and protection under the state in the guise of justice is seductive but fatally flawed. It tends towards absolutism and hides a dark side that inevitably paves the way towards cruelty and the decaying of freedom. Once again, it doesn't matter who is in control only that ANYONE is in control at all that will pave the way to serfdom.

The movie, once again, says that its the leaders, holding true to the core values of statism that it believes are good, which create a just system and the bad leaders that steer away from it which create totalitarianism. This is expressly stated by Hugo Weaving's V when he says "This concerto is dedicated to Madame Justice and the imposter that now stands in her stead." State justice, the movie says, is great, but this "bad" leader has ruined it.

I suppose you can make the argument that this movie is supposed to be different from the comic. That the directors were trying to make their own, if not shallow, point and don't have to echo the comic's philosophy. To which I would say: What utter tosh!

To change or remove elements from book or play while converting it into another medium is fine. It's necessary. The artforms of movie/tv/play/book/radio have different strengths and weaknesses. But to subvert the point, to countermand the actual artistic motivation of a movie is to create a parody - a mockery - or is simply plagiarising a setting, plot and characters out of some lack of real talent or ideas. I do not believe this was intended as a parody.

In fact, I believe that Matrix brothers hold the core values of V for Vendetta in contempt. As evidence I present below a comment on Anarchism from V in the comic book versus the only mention of anarchy in the movie:

Comic Book, V: "My precious Anarchy... 'O beauty, 'till now I never knew thee'."

Movie, Thug in V mask robbing a corner shop: "It's anarchy in the UK! Woo!" *Gunshot*