Film Utopia

Sunday Blog: Structure vs Theme, and Dire Hollywood Movies

photo by aaron schmidt

Mark Twain once composed an essay about how to tell a story, in which he wrote:

" There are several kinds of stories, but only one difficult kind -- the humorous. I will talk mainly about that one. The humorous story is American, the comic story is English, the witty story is French. The humorous story depends for its effect upon the manner of the telling; the comic story and the witty story upon the matter.

The humorous story may be spun out to great length, and may wander around as much as it pleases, and arrive nowhere in particular; but the comic and witty stories must be brief and end with a point. The humorous story bubbles gently along, the others burst.

The humorous story is strictly a work of art--high and delicate art -- and only an artist can tell it; but no art is necessary in telling the comic and the witty story; anybody can do it."

I find Twain's opening assertion that their are two different ways of telling a story, fascinating. It interests me, purely because in an effort to explain the difference between a European comic story (or joke) and an American "shaggy dog story," Twain has accidentally stumbled upon the primary difference between the two main styles of screenwriting in contemporary cinema.

Of course, to understand what the difference between the two styles, you first have to be aware that there could be more than one way to write a screenplay. Judging by the vast majority of the articles about writing for cinema and TV, it would be easy to conclude there is only one. That approach I call "structural." Although "story-driven" maybe as good a description. For the vast majority of screenwriters, producers and commissioning editors, structural screenwriting is it, the whole deal, the totality of that which is possible.. It certainly defines Hollywood's output. In terms of a screenwriter's career development, an understanding of how structural screenwriting works is the first skill-set a writer has to acquire. This, of course, is the reason so much discussion and angst is poured into gaining, understanding or selling the basic tools of structural screenwriting. And, funnily enough, even though structural screenwriting appears to be the only game in town, it's amazing how many fledgling screenwriters don't ever really get a grasp of it.  In terms of Mark Twain's description, structural screenwriting is like the "comic story." In that it has a predictable form and is only about substituting the content, and as Mark Twain pointed out, anyone can write one (providing they make the effort to do a little study).

The fact that for many people in the industry 'structural' is the only approach, means that for many people, the possibility of there being another approach is absurd. For a lot of people there are only two kinds of scripts: structural... and, wrong. This idea is embedded mainly in the industry's gatekeepers. After all, a script reader is usually an intern with a list of boxes to tick. Pretty much all of those boxes are related to the structural approach to screenwriting. Does the script have a recognisable act structure? Does the protagonist go on a journey? Is the protagonist likable? Does the protagonist develop as a human being over the course of the story? Is the protagonist thrown into a new world within the first ten pages? -- There are probably about a hundred or so of that kind of question, which are all based on a tacit assumption that structural screenwriting is the way to go.

Then, of course, there is the other style of screenwriting. The style I call "thematic." Thematic screenwriting is based on the assumption that movies need to be about something. That thing could be betrayal, or it could be love. The theme could be as broad as "the exploitation of the working classes by corporate greed," or as complex as "faith." Regardless of what it is, the writer and the director have something to say about a particular aspect of human existence. This is the first and perhaps most important difference between thematic and structural screenplays. Thematic screenplays HAVE to have something interesting to say about the human condition; structural screenplays don't. If you want to understand why the output of Hollywood cinema is so very, very tedious and only fit for naive 14-23 year olds, it is because it's all structure and zero theme.

Thematic screenwriting is more analogous to Twain's description of the "Humorous story," in that it is largely about the execution; it's all in the telling of the story rather than the form. A thematic story can afford to ramble and take diversions from the perceived requirements of structure.

Thematic screenplays live and die at the level of each individual scene. Every single moment of a thematic movie has to be an exploration of the core message of the film. One way to do this is to make the scenes audience centred, rather than story centred. So, in a real sense, thematic screenwriting is more self-conscious of the relationships between the script and the actor; the actor and the lens; the lens and the audience... and, the microphone and the audience. To achieve this thematic screenwriters have to be more technically adept in their understanding of the language of film than structural screenwriters; more aware of both the art and craft of cinema. 

Of course, hardly anyone teaches this... that is because the only people attempting thematic story-telling are practitioners. The reason that so many people teach structural screenwriting, is that structural screenwriting can be learnt and taught by people who have either no or limited experience of producing content. Thematic screenwriting on the other hand is very, very difficult... and it requires a skill-set and an understanding of cinema that can only be gained by studying, reading, thinking, observing, writing and most importantly making. That is the reason I believed for many years the indie-film making community would eventually create a Renaissance of thematic story-telling. I believed that their hands on experience would eventually shape their understanding of story-telling and they develop new and rich thematic approaches. I now hold this belief to be optimistic, at best, simply because for it to happen, the indie film community would have passionately care about writing. Which in my experience, they don't.

Personally, I believe the difference between a tedious film and a great film, is largely to do with the writer and director's ability to create thematically... and, what the industry really needs to grasp in order to escape its current rut, is that it is possible to be both structural and thematic, providing that overall thematic is dominant. For me, the current output of the film industry is often dire and the reason for that is because it lacks thematic vision.. at the heart of it, there is nothing worth listening to being said in these movies; they are the filmic equivalent of diet cola... they look like a drink, but they leave a nasty taste in your mouth and have zero calorific value.

The funny thing is, is if you ask screenwriters about their favourite films, those films are largely thematic. The calling card of the auteur directors has always been consistent thematic approaches... ask Francis Ford Coppola, ask Werner Herzog, and, if he wasn't dead, you could ask Stanley Kubrick. Although you can pick out the structural elements in these director's work, in my opinion they are largely thematic. In their movies they have something they want to say, and they say it... and they say it through the obsessive attention to detail in the creation of iconic, thematic scenes.

With all of this said, there was one more point I did want to make, and that is that structural and thematic writing are not mutually exclusive. Every screenwriter needs to understand structure. It is the first step in story-telling. Calling yourself a thematic screenwriter does not excuse anyone from the laborious task of learning conventional storytelling techniques. Thematic story-telling is what happens after you've cracked structural story-telling and are ready to think for yourself. It's a bit like training wheels on a child's bike: structural writing is with the training wheels on, thematic is when you take them off and build your first homemade ramp. And, just like taking the training wheels off the bike, when you step into thematic writing it is more likely that you'll fall flat on your face and put scabs all over the knees of your career. It is however, more fun and so worth it.

So, that is what is on my mind this week. Basically, it's my desire to see the film industry take the training wheels off... and for writers to understand that there is more to writing a screenplay than just structure. But, when you think about it, that's what's on my mind most weeks.

keep writing and viva la revolution

Posted via email from Filmutopia's Sunday Morning Movie Blog

Sunday Blog: The Value of Friendship in The Movie and TV Industry

photo by janine berben

On the second day at Cannes, this year, an elderly French film producer leapt out of his chair and screamed his petulant little lungs out, for a good two minutes. He has this hissy fit simply because he felt myself and a friend were sitting a little too close to him. I don't think we were too close, I don't think our conversation was too loud. All of us were in a cramped Media pavilion, trying to do business in less than ideal circumstances. The incident was both hilarious and at the same time tedious. It encapsulated the industry for me. The industry is full of petulant little ego-maniacs, who leap out of their chairs at the slightest provocation and who have no social skills what-so-ever.

When I got home from Cannes, exhausted, a friend had sent me a link to recent Roseanne Barr article in the New York Times, in which she recounts how hideously she was treated by the TV industry, on the first series of Roseanne. The jist of it was, although she was the star of the show in name, basically, she was patronised by pretty much everyone and the creation of the show was a relentless power struggle between the industry establishment, her belief in her material and her core working class values. As I read it, and as I recognised my own experiences of being marginalised and patronised by people in the industry, it made me wonder why any of us bother to make the effort in the first place. What it is about the industry that attracts the socially inept?

What I do know, is that as I get older, I get less tolerant of rude behaviour in the industry. But, this week, I don't want to talk about the rude people, because what the Roseanne article the petulant Frenchman really brought home to me is the value of real friendship. That's what I want to talk about this week.

I think people really underestimate the power of friendship to achieve things in this industry. What I do here a lot, is "It's not what you know, but who you know," but mainly used as an excuse, rather than as a celebration of "who people know." The implication of "it's who you know" is that if you just knew some important people, then you'd automatically have a great career. Where most writers and filmmakers go wrong, is that they discount the people they have surrounding them... and instead focus on the people who they perceive to be important. You see a lot of this at Cannes and a lot of this online. It's even got a name. People call it networking. However, from my perspective, networking is pretty much always: the cynical attempt to gain an "Important" person's attention, due to the perceived value they may be to your career.

From my point of view, one of the reasons that the movie and TV industries are often such hellish experience, is precisely because it is predominately a networking culture. If you are surrounded by people who constantly attempt to measure your value to them as a career asset, then it's difficult to create genuine friendships.

Friendship is different. Friendship is about seeing the inherent value of the person, as a person, regardless of their influence or social position. Friendship is not about weighing up the value of this person to your career... basically, your mates are your mates.

The value of friendship is genuinely underestimated in this industry. And yet, the power of friendship to get things done is immense. As an independent film-maker, my ability to produce movies with relatively little money is dependent entirely on the quality and the richness of my friendships. This is one of the reasons that I am not interested in Kickstarter and crowd-funding as concepts. From my perspective, these fund raising schemes miss the point. In my world, no budget independent films are projects that friends do together because they enjoy the process and they believe in the work. Friendship will make a movie happen, in a way that fund raising never really does.

However, more than just a way to make no-budget movies, long term friendships eventually open unexpected doors and mind-numbing opportunities. In my experience, a good friend is worth twenty agents. All of the opportunities that are currently in my life, within the industry have been created for me by my friends. Not my contacts, not my network... my mates. People who I like and who like me. People who I believe in and who believe in me. People who most writers and filmmakers would never bother to "network" because when I first met them, they held no power or influence in the industry. However, over time, because my mates are hard working, creative, nice people, they have made friends with hundreds of other, like minded people. And, because not everyone in the industry is an arsehole, a lot of these people have created great careers for themselves.

In an industry that appears to be run by cynical networking, it's easy to lose sight of this core fact, that friends are the answer to getting stuff done... it's easy to forget, because the media industry is full of people who set themselves up as gatekeepers, when it fact they are not. Dealing with these kinds of people never feels like dealing with friends. It feels like a life-draining struggle to keep your self afloat in a sea of negativity and cynicism. What I'm learning, almost on a daily basis, is that the imaginary gatekeepers are only as powerful as we make them. It's OK to say, "You know what, you're just too snooty and cynical to bother with... now, where are my mates."

At the end of the day, the real revolution in the movie industry isn't a revolution based on new technology, it is really a revolution in the awesome power of friendship over the tedious monotony of media cynicism.

Posted via email from Filmutopia's Sunday Morning Movie Blog

Sunday Blog: Why Screenplays Fail

I'm at Cannes this morning, taking meetings, then I'm driving back to Milan. So, I've stolen a few hours in the week to prepare this week's article. It hasn't been easy. As a result, this article is probably a little more blunt than normal. 

This week, I want to write about what I believe are the main causes of bad screenplays. The things I see as lacking, but that don't get talked about in the screenwriting and filmmaking communities.

In my opinion they fall into three categories:

Poor research,

Poor preparation,

Inability to tell a story cinematically.

Poor Research

Most screenwriters are avid consumers of films and television. We often start off as fans and then progress to the idea of creating. The danger in being a fan of the medium, is that we may be drawn into mistaking consuming other people's work, for research. So, for instance, my guess is that most of the car chases and gun fights seen in modern movies are based solely on scenes the writers saw in other movies. I think that is a good guess. Those kinds of sequences have developed conventions. Conventions that have no basis in reality... and maybe in the case of gun fights that isn't a problem. 

However, what I also suspect is that many writers are also drawing their stories and understanding of character from the same source. Or, in other worlds, most scripts are merely pastiches of previous material. Patchwork quilts of popular movies and TV shows.

What very few writers do, is to read historical accounts, or to interview people who have actually experienced those situations in the real world. Hardly anyone does this, because as an industry we have grown accustomed to the idea that screenwriting is only about story arcs and about characters who learn something. What we've lost is the idea that the writing process is about undertaking anything that may look or feel anything like work. For most writers, the extent of their research will be watching other people's movies and TV shows. This is a bad thing.

Not only is the idea of research lacking  in many writers, when their scripts suck they are encouraged to believe it is because of lack of technique, rather than anything else. So, instead of immersing themselves in the world, they read more screenwriting books. Which is a pity, because all the great ideas are elsewhere.

The bottom line, is that there are more great ideas for screenplays in this month's Scientific American, than there are in all of the screenwriting books ever written.

Poor Preparation

Because there is now a huge industry that sells tools and training to screenwriters, many writers have fallen into the trap of believing that preparation for writing a script is the process of hammering out a beat sheet.

The truth of the matter is, I don't have a problem with people writing beat sheets or even people planning their plot to hit the main plot points. I really don't. However, where I believe there is a problem, is in the mind-set of a community that believes this is valid preparation. 

What I very rarely see in a script, is a story told where the writer obviously understands every aspect of their characters and the world in which they exist. Many film characters seem both sketchy and incoherent on the page. They are parodies of people, rather than explorations. They could not exist as people in the real world, without seeming freakish and deranged. 

For me, the largest part of the writing process is the uncovering of who the characters are. In previous articles I've written about the use of short stories as writing exercises, in which you take characters outside of the constraints of the plot, in order to understand them at a deeper level. And, because I don't believe in the primacy of the protagonist, for me, this thinking extends to all of the key characters in a script.

This is a lot of work. I admit it. But, writing is hard work. It isn't just pulling stuff out of our asses, simply because we are "creative." It is about the graft and hard work that backs and makes that creative process possible.

The Inability to Write Cinematically

Again, as the industry stands at the moment, all of the focus on training and instructing of writers, is poured into getting them to focus on story. Yes, story is important... but, story alone will not make a script stand up. What makes a script stand up is the ability to write cinematically.

Writing cinematically is about giving the actors, the director, the DOP, the art director and the composer a clear visualisation of the movie, when they read the script. It is about how every single detail given, enhances that visualisation... and, it is about controlling the pace and tension in the read. What it isn't about is delegating any part of that process to other people... "Oh, I don't need to describe locations because the location manager can find the perfect place" ... "Oh, I don't need to dictate the pace of the scene, because the director and the editor will take care of that" ... "Oh, I don't have to build subtext into the actions of my actors, because they can work those out with the director." If you delegate enough of the process... eventually, you are left with nothing. Which is exactly what many writers present in their scripts.

Basically, the writer must have a clear visualisation of the movie... and be able to sell that visualisation to everyone who reads the script.

Conclusions

I've spent a lot of time over the years wondering why most screenplays are so bad. The conclusions I've come to are that: writers don't read enough books and rely too heavily on the work of other movies; that most writers don't know their characters or the world they inhabit well enough to start writing, and rely too much on their innate ability to pull stuff out of their ass; and, that writers focus too much on filling pages with dialogue and don't have the slightest idea about the cinematic language of story-telling.

Now, the sad part of this, is that the industry which is designed to guide writers out of this abyss of poor performance, only has one tune... story, story, story. Yes, for sure, scripts fail on story... but, that isn't the whole problem. The real problems are really much deeper than that. Deeper because they extend into the actual industry itself. The industry is stuck in cycle of consuming its own output and copying it again and again, until it is divorced from reality and devoid of all content.

Of course, the good news is that any writer capable of reading a history book, of taking the time to develop an understanding of their characters and who is willing to take on the challenge of teaching them self the language of cinema... well, for them, anything is possible.

keep reading, keep writing and viva la revolution

Posted via email from Filmutopia's Sunday Morning Movie Blog

Sunday Blog: Clever Screenwriting isn't that Clever

photo by Ernst Vikne

INT: A SMALL, SHABBY, APARTMENT KITCHEN: BRIXTON, LONDON 1984: DAY

Everything is this kitchen is clean, but everything is worn with age or cheap; or both. The fridge is noisy; the cooker is ancient; the curtains, at the one small window, are homemade.
At the small, Formica covered table, RITA (31), a woman prematurely making the transition from pretty to handsome. Her are hands caked in flour and fat, which she is kneading in a old, chipped mixing bowl. A stray hair irritates her and she gingerly uses the back of her hand to brush it out of her face.

On the floor ROB (3), a bright kid, paints a picture of a cat on the back of a scrap of leftover wallpaper. Finished, he hauls himself to his feet and presents the masterpiece to Rita.

ROB
Look what I did, Mommy.

FADE TO BLACK

One of the hardest things for a writer to do, is to resist the urge to be clever.

I don't mean intelligent. It would actually be wonderful if writers embraced the idea of intelligence. No, I mean clever. The distinction between being clever and being intelligent is largely about the desire that drives it.

Intelligent people want to understand things for the sake of understanding them; clever people want the audience to see how clever they are.

"Look what I did, Mommy"

I see a lot of cleverness in scripts and also on screen, and I don't like it when I see it. I don't like it for the same reason that I don't like clever cinematography and I don't like clever acting. It is very simply that when a writer draws the audience's attention to the writing, they are drawing their attention away from the story. It is about the difference between being clever and being effective.

For me, effectiveness at a scene level is about: simplicity, observation and theme. If a writer knows what the theme of their story is, if they have effectively observed human behaviour to the point where they can describe it, if they can convey that in a simple manner, then, for me, the job is done.

Where a scene tends to fail, is when a writer replaces one of those elements with cleverness... so, instead of simplicity we get cleverness, or instead of observation we get quirkiness (which is just cleverness with an ironic shrug and a grin), and instead of a theme we get clever, witty dialogue.

The thing about clever is that it is ultimately hollow and unsatisfying. Ultimately you don't give the audience anything to connect with, because at the heart of it, there is no truth other than the writer's desire to show off.

Great writing, for me, is about transcending the egotistical desire for praise, "Look what I did, Mommy," and at its heart is about finding some connection to the truth. Connection is effective and interesting... and where we find connection is in observation, emotional intelligence and ultimately in simplicity. Although it has become a cliche, there is a lot to be said for "keeping it real."

keep writing and viva la revolution

Posted via email from Filmutopia's Sunday Morning Movie Blog

Sunday Blog: Screenwriting Principles, The Lies That Bind Us

photo by Meredith_Farmer

@Chrissy_M sent me a link to his article this week. The article poses an open question to other screenwriters about the limitations of using the most commonly taught principles of screenwriting. In basic terms he asks whether a scene can be viable, if it doesn't fulfil Blake Synder and Bob McKee's requirement for either a plus/minus shift, and an identifiable element of conflict.

Following last week's kerfuffle in the comments section about the "principles" of screenwriting, I wanted to write about my take on the principles of screenwriting, anyway. So, let's have at this poisoned chalice.

The first thing I need to say is that there is nothing wrong with learning what Syd Field, Bob McKee and Blake Snyder have to say about screenwriting. I think buying and reading three books is a fairly small investment in understanding the craft of screenwriting. In fact, to that list I would add "Write and Sell the Hot Screenplay" by Elliot Grove, founder of Raindance. I'd add his book because it is the most practical and pragmatic book on the fundamentals of the writing and selling screenplays I've ever read. I've a massive amount of respect for Elliot and for Raindance. What I really like about Elliot and his book, is that there isn't an ounce of dogmatism in it. It is all couched in the language of "you could try this, it works for some people." That, in my opinion, is how to write a screenwriting book... as a guide rather than as a guru.

I believe that as well as opening new doors for writers to improve their understanding of how to write, these books also contain a trap. I honestly believe that screenwriting books and screenwriting gurus can destroy a potentially good writer. This happens when a writer becomes an apostle of one particular way of approaching a screenplay and judges their writing only from that view point. The writer become blinded to anything but the "principles."

My take is that where this really shows up, is at the level of the scene. For many "principled" screenwriters the heavy lifting in the writing process is focused purely on story. The scene is merely a tool that serves the overall needs of the story. It has little or no significance outside of its assigned role in the structure.

One of the main reasons that I now only pay a passing lip service to the perceived principles of screenwriting is exactly because I believe they engender a blinkered view of what the actual work is. For me, the actual heavy lifting in screenwriting is understanding the relationships between the characters and the way in which the audience is presented with question to ask and puzzles to solve. More important than the hero's journey is the audience's journey. The audience's journey is one of uncovering the story you are presenting. So, instead of asking what the conflict is in the scene and whether there is either a plus/minus shift, to me what is more important is to ask, what does this scene reveal for the audience about the relationships in this story? Conflict in a scene is one possible means to the end; the end being the revelation of something significant.

However, before anyone picks up the idea of relationship and revelation as a new, fix every problem, principle, there is something that is worth considering. The only important principle of screenwriting is the ability to think critically and creatively. What I really believe is that every screenwriter has a responsibility to create their own principles of story telling. Principles that will reflect their world-view, their interests, their sense of story.

Here are some of principles that I use, for what they are worth:

Observe and see what is actually happening. (observation always beats abstract principles, in terms of impact)

What story is this particular location telling me? (stories are specific to specific places)

Guide the audience's attention to that which is significant.

Empathise and understand the perspective of the scoundrel and the dark-hearted harlot. (the antagonist is the hero of his own story)

The simplicity of the sentence is paramount. Except when it isn't.

A moment of truth is engaging, as is a moment of honest vulnerability.

The character owns the story, the story does not own the character. (if all you care about is hitting the arc, your characters are just lifeless dolls, they'll never speak to you)

What a character does with a cigarette, or a ping pong ball, is more important than what she says.

Applied critical thinking is a good thing.

Move subtext into the furniture, clothes and the action. (screenwriting is hardly at all about the ability to write dialogue)

Don't work with thieves or idiots.

Wear comfortable shoes.

Sunglasses are good... bow ties are cool (steal good lines)

What is important to me, about my way of working is that it frees me from the narrow and blinkered restriction of seeing the script as a vehicle for story told through conflict. Story telling is actually more complicated than that. On top of that, cinema and TV aren't the same as classic mythology. Writing a novel and writing a screenplay are not the same crafts. Writing a screenplay is as much about understanding the language of cinema, as it is about understand the eternal principles of story-telling. If I wanted to tell Greek myths, I'd get myself a toga.

This is the main point I wanted to make this week. If as a writer I focus only on the rules of story telling as taught by the holy trinity of McKee, Snyder and Field, I will miss everything else that is happening. I have watched writers deconstruct a movie according to the principles of their favourite screenwriting guru and believe that in doing so they have learnt something. When, in fact, all they have done is confirmed their belief that the rules work. Personally, I believe writers are required to work a bit harder than that. I believe we are required to observe and to see what actually happens and then we have to actually sit down and think for ourselves. Sometimes the most significant parts of the story are told in the movement of the camera, something they are told in the soundtrack, sometimes they are told by the touch of a hand on an arm or the fear in the eyes of a woman when the phone rings.

keep writing, think for yourself and viva la revolution

Posted via email from Filmutopia's Sunday Morning Movie Blog