Last week I put forward the idea that there is a difference between the kind of script a screenwriter writes to gain the confidence of large sectors of the industry, and the kind of script a writer should write as a writer/producer. This week I want to write more about what I meant by that... and, also about the creative dynamics of a good development team. Those might sound unrelated topics, but I believe if more people understood what a screenwriter's job should really be, within the development team, we'd see better movies and better TV shows.
The first idea I'd like to put forward is that a screenwriter's role should always be as a dissenting voice. This isn't how it actually is in the industry, but this is how I think it should be. So, whilst I respect the idea of craft, of form, of historical ways of approaching story-telling, of what is tried and tested, at the same time I believe it is the screenwriter's job to challenge the conventions of form and of format, in the search for a better expression of story-telling within the medium. Or, in other words, I believe it is the screenwriter's job to tell their story, creatively, regardless of the rules. The script isn't the movie, and isn't the place for perfection of form and commercial value. For me, the characters and the vision for the movie are the only boss a screenwriter should have when writing. The screenwriter's task is to create a story, by whatever means they can imagine, as long as it is done coherently, well, and in a way the writer believes is worth doing.
If you're looking for a simple analogue for this... the screenwriter's job is to run towards the edge of the cliff and then to jump off that cliff in the most spectacular and entertaining manner possible, regardless of the consequences.
However, it's massively important for that scriptwriter to not jump off that cliff alone.
If it is the scriptwriter's job to be reckless and unruly, it is the script editor's job to be the rope that prevents the writer from crashing into the rocks below.
And, it is the producer's job to make sure that where they eventually land, is cushioned by a big, fat wad of cash.
So, in an ideal world, the writer creates... the script editor drags the writer back into coherence... and, the producer makes sure that there is a market for the end product.
In the ideal and perfect creative team, everyone knows, understands and respects those roles. It works, simply because the task of steering the end product is guided by three different perspectives: creative; structural; and, commercial. Each area having their own fierce advocate in the writer, the script editor and the producer.
My personal understanding is that there should be a balance between each of these forces. If a movie is too unrestrained creatively, it runs the risk of being self-indulgent and masturbatory. If a movie is too structural, it runs the risk of being mediocre and pedestrian. If a movie attempts to be solely commercial, it runs the risk of being exploitative, derivative and crass. It is only when there is a healthy balance between these forces that great things happen. That most perfect of all movies, the one that is surprising, coherent and accessibly entertaining.
When I go to the cinema, I can see where the balance of power has been too strongly exercised in one particular direction. These days, sadly, it is unusual to see a movie where the screenwriter has been a robust enough advocate for creativity, to pull the movie out of the doldrums.
One of the most common failings of a lot of movies, appears to be when the scriptwriter has not understood that their role is to challenge and vex the script editor's understanding of how to tell a story. These days it is increasingly common for writers to be "well behaved." Personally, I blame producers for this. We have raised a generation of producers who are predisposed to hire writers who are easy to work with... writers who are compliant... writers who know how to play the game. Pussies, I believe is the collective noun. As a result of this, unknown writers strive really hard to become pussies. I don't see this as being a good thing. I'd much rather see the industry encourage writers to be innovative and bold story-tellers.
On one level, I can understand why producers and script editors want to hire pussies... it is easier and it must seem that they get what they want, which is creative control and a safe, predictable product. Producers and script editors don't like to be called idiots in script meetings, they don't like writers who throw things, they find the relentless contempt of a sulky creative hard, bloody work. They really don't like to sell risk and innovation to investors.
I think this fear of badly behaved writers is is short sighted. I think producers and script editors need to toughen up a bit... I think they need to encourage bad behaviour in their writers and to relish the tantrums. I think they should learn to enjoy having having an antique typewriter slung across a table at their heads, whilst having their family, penis size and genetic heritage questioned! (Even when they don't actually have a penis)
Actually, I don't really believe this, at all (I just really like the idea, visually, of throwing a typewriter at a producer, any producer).
I do believe that the industry and the public's experience of movie going, is made less vibrant, simply because the industry has forgotten that the writer's job is to be a brilliant, but profoundly annoying arsehole, as they work as an advocate for creativity and innovation.
More important than that, writers have forgotten this as well. The vast majority of writers who I met and speak to are only really interested in understanding what the rules are... so, they can apply those rules successfully to their careers. My question to writers who aspire to that is "Why did you become a writer?" I honestly believe that any writer whose sole ambition is to be well behaved and compliant really has picked the wrong job, or perhaps has forgotten why they started writing in the first place.
Of course, in this modern age, a writer wanting to see a pay cheque does have learn how to be well behaved and compliant. We're not encouraged to throw heavy objects... which is why last week I stressed the difference between developing a career in the industry as a writer, where compliance is rewarded... and, the work of a writer/producer, where the real job is to inspire other creative people to work with you. By and large, production professionals are the first people to recognise the worth of a writer. The people who actually have to take the pages and turn them into something, are usually pretty good judges of a script's worth. These days I'm not happy until a working 1st AD tells me my script is awesome, and a producer's script reader has told me it's a pile of wank. That's how I judge how well I've done my job, these days.
For the independent film-maker there is another lesson here. As I said earlier, I believe every project needs the balance of three people pulling in slightly different directions. The writer as advocate for the story-telling, the script editor as advocate for structure/coherence, and the producer as an advocate for the commercial realities. Independent filmmakers all too often choose to fill all three roles. That is a recipe for bad movies, because the process lacks dissenting voices. The person who green-lights a project shouldn't be the person who wrote it, especially if they haven't worked with a script editor.
So, what are this week's conclusions? Well...
The development process isn't about everyone agreeing, it's about each person being good advocates for their area of responsibility.
The industry would be better it it hired more provocative writers, and fewer compliant ones.
Independent filmmakers need people to tell them that their script sucks massive amounts of ass, before it goes into production, and therefore need to create their own development teams, made up of people who disagree with them.
LATER: (after much tea and ponderation)
Since writing the first draft of this article, which ended at the sentence above, I realised that the piece needs further clarification.
What I'm not suggested here is that writers should be badly behaved or be obnoxious. That was merely a bit of rhetorical embellishment I put into the article, in order to dramatise the notion of the rebellious screenwriter. The point I'm really trying to make with this piece, is that most of the training offered to writers about script development and script writing is really better suited to script editors. This is because a script editor's job is largely about applying tried and tested principles to a script, when the writer has lost their connection with the audience.
When there is a problem with a script, we do need to look at act breaks, character arcs and good form... but, they probably shouldn't be the most important consideration for a writer.
Now, this isn't saying that writer's shouldn't understand the principles of story-telling. Writer's should have knowledge of the craft. They should be able to talk intelligently to a script editor and understand why they give the notes they do. A writer should understand the place structure and good form play in story-telling.
Where I think problems arise, is when the writer sets out with the intention of pleasing the script editor with faultless form, instead of concentrating on the relationship between the movie and the audience. What I see a lot of writers doing, is writing for script editors and producers, rather than writing for the audience. Writer's are playing it safe... and that seems idiotic and a little bit sad. As does the idea that safe and commercial are the same thing. When I see very little evidence for that.
I understand why writers feel the need to show good form. Professionally, it makes perfect sense. The point I'm trying to make here, and also last week, is that there is a huge gap between what is good for a screenwriter's professional development and what a writer needs to do to create a great movie. Employable writers need to know the rules, understand the rules, be compliant to the rules in their submitted drafts. What I am arguing, is that very compliance to conventional thinking, is exactly what screenwriters should be challenging if they want to create outstanding movies and television... and that by encouraging compliance in their writers, producers are being short-sighted. I don't, however, expect producers to change. So this is a fact we all have to live with.
As it isn't possible to be challenging, successful in the industry, and unknown, this means writers have to make intelligent, adult choices about their career and their craft. So, in many respects, we have to achieve a veneer of compliance in our dealings with the industry... we have to become skilled in the way that we write subversively, whilst appearing compliant...we have to become adept at selling our visions of the movies, without appearing anything but charming and compliant... ultimately, we have to accept that some writing projects can't be pitched within the industry... and, that some projects need to be nurtured by us. Or, in other words, as writers we have a responsibility to produce for ourselves, work that is too challenging for the industry to take on.
This is the reason, as a screenwriter, I have always supported the ideals of independent film making. I have always felt that the digital revolution was an opportunity for writers to demonstrate to the industry where the boundaries of storytelling really are. When it is all said and done, any writer who can demonstrate that their particular brand of breaking the rules is attractive to audiences, will soon discover, that in the process they have rewritten the rules.
That is the real revolution... so, let's have at it
keep writing and viva la revolution
Posted via email from Filmutopia's Sunday Morning Movie Blog
