Film Utopia

Sunday Movie Blog: Where The Bad Ideas Come From (How Not to Pitch)

photo by smithco

I like the Muppets. I have always liked the Muppets. 

I also like the band OK Go. 

Therefore, logically, I am the ideal listener for this OK Go cover version of the Muppet Show Theme.

The thing is though, I don't. Like it, that is. It does not work for me. I don't enjoy it. It's not for me.

Obviously, I'm not telling you this because you need to know or have any interest in my Muppet related musical tastes. Of course not. I'm telling you this because if you can understand this one thing, you can understand one of the most pervading problems in the film and TV industries. A problem that tends to curse screenwriters in particular.

At a fundamental level, a lot of the thinking you'll witness in the industry, fails to understand that it is possible to like the Muppets, to like OK Go, but NOT to like OK Go singing the Muppet Show Theme. They fail to understand that because, like most screenwriters and most producers, they are looking for a simple answer to a difficult question. The question being "What film or TV show can we make that will be successful?"

The simple answer to the question, "What can we make that will be a success?" is called reverse engineering. Basically, you look at what already is successful, guess at which element of that is the key to all the success and then attempt to clone that success onto other projects. This is the kind of logic which drives the Hollywood star system. Audiences liked Tom Cruise in "Top Gun" and therefore, logically, that means they'll like him in any other similar project. And, to a certain extent audiences do buy into that. Which is why all these years later Tom Cruise is still working. People do tend to watch projects which contain actors whose movies they've liked. The same has become true of certain name directors. People like Spielberg movies, they like Tarantino movies. It's not a completely bogus idea. 

However, (you knew they'd be a however, didn't you?)... however, the fact that people tend to be drawn to the same kind of products over and over again, isn't a guarantee that reverse engineering really works as a tool for concept development. As I proved at the start, the fact that people like X and they also like Y, doesn't meant that they'd like X plus Y. The fact that people like Tom Cruise in one movie, isn't a guarantee that they'll like him in everything he does. And, it certainly works less well the more generic the concept. So, therefore, the fact that people liked "Jurassic Park" is no kind of guarantee that they'll love all movies with Dinosaurs in it.

The problem is, a lot of the people you have to deal with in the industry act as if you can make that assumption. They act as if success with a new project is just a case of figuring out what people are buying right now, and churning out something that seems to fit that slot. So, if Twilight is a successful show about teen vampires and Glee is a successful show about singing teens, then "We Suck" a show about singing, teen vampires, is sure to be a winner. Isn't it? Surely, that's got smash hit written all over it. Nah... I agree with you, it would be a terrible show. (I can guarantee, however, that some idiot is pitching this, right now). And, because I am a writer, and therefore a slut, if approached I would write episodes for that show! If the cheque was big enough.

Which leads me very neatly onto screenwriting. Unfortunately, screenwriting is taught as if reverse engineering was the key to the castle. Pretty much everyone I've ever heard talk about generating ideas to pitch, starts with the idea that a writer should look at what's working at the moment, attempt to predict the trends, and then write to hit the trends. I can't tell you how many online discussions I've seen where writers try to predict what the next, new, hot trend will be. And, I have always found those kinds of discussions both baffling and tedious. I happen to think that teaching writers to write to trends is idiotic.

In my experience, good ideas are rarely related to existing successes. Good ideas tend to stand on their own merits. In fact, I would go further than that, and say that good ideas tend to be fresh and unexpected. The best pitches I have ever heard have been ideas that I never would have come up with myself, that bear no relationship to any existing products... and, which also have a ring of truth about them. When someone pitches me a great idea, it absolutely makes my day. What never makes my day, is someone trying to pitch me two existing shows/film ideas bolted together like Frankenstein's monster. 

One thing that is absolutely true, is that most spec screenplays are rejected simply because the original idea for the script wasn't good enough. Everyone worries about the writing, hardly anyone worries about the actual ideas. And, you only have to attend a few pitching sessions, to see how hopeless most screenwriters are at pitching. I can't tell you how many times I've regretted saying "So, what is your script about?" Mainly, because the answer involved half an hour of plot description, which I stopped listening to after the first ten seconds. Most pitches and therefore most script ideas aren't developed or focussed enough to be out in the world.

I honestly believe most screenwriters would become better overnight, if they threw out all of their screenwriting books, and instead woke up in the morning and asked the simple question "What is this script about?"

If when a writer asks the question "what is this script about?" if they can immediately answer "betrayal"... or "lust," then that is probably a good day to start writing. 

My thought for this week is pretty simple... think for yourself and be clear about what your idea is. That is what makes for good ideas, good pitches and good movies. 

viva la revolution

Posted via email from Filmutopia's Sunday Morning Movie Blog

Sunday Movie Blog: Putting Writer back into Screenwriter

photo by Feuillu

There are a lot of good reasons for someone to learn the fundamentals of screenwriting. I happen to believe that a screenwriter should know how to format a script and why that formatting is necessary to good communication; I also believe they should know the difference between a three act and four act structure; they should also have a rough understanding of how what they write relates to budget; and, a sense of where their kind of writing fits in the movie market. All of these things are worth learning.

However, at the same time, the very act of learning how to format a script, the process of learning what structure means in screenwriting can do more harm than good. A lot of screenwriters become so obsessed with the "screen" part of screenwriting, they forget about the "writing" part. Basically, screenwriters can become so focused on learning the "rules" of writing a successful script, they lose any sense of voice or style they may have had as writers. This is what I want to write about, this week.

The most destructive and harmful piece of information I ever heard in any screenwriting seminar, was the idea that a script is a only a technical document and therefore not literature. I remember hearing that and, initially, nodding my head in agreement. I looked around the tatty hotel conference room and ninety-percent of the people there were doing the same. The other 10% were scribbling this gem down, frantically. The thing is, there is a some truth in it. I do understand the idea that, ultimately, a script is only the blue-print for the end product and not the product in itself. So, there is always going to be a sense in which a script is a document written for actors, directors, art directors, DOPs, wardrobe mistresses, stunt co-ordinators and 1st ADs.

But... and this is an important but... for most writers that concept is horse-shit!

When you're writing a spec script, only bad scripts are written for solely for production teams... good scripts are written to be read.

I'm going to repeat that one again, because it's massively easy to skip over "GOOD SCRIPTS ARE WRITTEN TO BE READ"

Scripts ARE literature. And, your ability to ever to see one put in the hands of a production team, will depend entirely on someone picking up your script and finding it a pleasure to read. 

Just in the same way that a reader can recognise from the page a novelist's distinctive voice. They know who the writer is, simply by the way they use language, by the way they construct their stories. I believe the same should be true of screenplays. This, I know, is a controversial statement. Most people will tell you that it's unprofessional to be overly distinctive in the way you write for the screen. I happen to disagree. I happen to think that the people who say that are idiots, and tedious, and they probably frown on my multiple "ands." and my wacky sense of where a comma goes. Down with those varlets and their frowny faces!

I happen to believe there are a couple of good reasons why a screenwriter should have a distinctive, readable style. 

The first is to with answering the question "why hire me as a writer, rather than anyone else?" If your writing is indistinguishable from everyone else, then there is no real answer to that. The thing about a unique voice is that it can only be acquired from that one person. I don't want every single producer to find my work to their taste. I'd rather have one or two producers who are really, really into what I do. For that reason and that reason alone, I'm happy to have some people find my approach to screenwriting unconventional. 

The other reason that a writer should strive to be literary in their approach to screenwriting, is because the purpose of a script is to inspire people to do things for you. This script's job is to inspire people to invest time and money in the telling of your story... and, the best way to do that is to not just tell a good story, but to tell a good story stylishly. 

Ultimately, nobody ever gets inspired by tediously bland, off-the-shelf writing.

And yet, the vast majority of screenwriters do seem to be hell bent on making their scripts as tediously bland as possible. They become so engrossed in character arcs, conflict points and the technical side of the process, that they completely forget that some poor bastard is going to have to read the words on the page. A lot of scripts just aren't that readable.

Let me give you one small example of a common failing, which I see in 99% of the screenplays I read:

John crosses the room and sits in the chair. He starts writing.

This is the way most of the screenwriters I read describe actions. And, at first glance it seems fine and dandy. However, it's almost impossible to describe how spartan, tepid and useless those two sentences are to a reader. So, for instance, how does John cross the room? Does he dance across the room because he's ecstatically happy? Does he stomp across the room, because he's livid? Basically, the sentence "John crosses the room" is bloody hopeless as a descriptor... and yet it, and sentences of equal blandness make up the vast majority of most scripts. 

So, what would improve it? Well, how about actually describing what is happening in the scene.

John storms across the room, scattering papers from his overflowing briefcase. He throws himself into the armchair, grabs his notebook and scribbles, furiously.

or

John limps across the room, a hand clutched to the bleeding wound in his shoulder. He collapses into the armchair and painstakingly scrawls "HARRIET" on the notepad, in his own blood.

What I want to drive home this week is one simple fact... screenwriting is writing. Get the writing spot on and the rest of the technical nonsense takes care of itself.  John never just crosses the room, he crosses the room in a specific manner and for a reason. He never just sits, he perches, he flops, he collapses, he lounges, he sprawls... he does any damn thing, except sit. People watch movies in order to understand why people are doing things, a fact that needs to be reflected in descriptions of actions.

Basically, If I can't inspire people with every single word, to see the vision of the movie I have in my head, then I have failed at being a screenwriter. It is all in the writing. The question I ask myself with every new script is this one:

"If someone handed you this script, would you enjoy reading it, purely as a piece of literature?" If the answer is no, then on in my opinion I have failed.

keep writing and viva la revolution

(just as a post-script to this, it doesn't matter how good you get at this, you'd be amazed at how often failure to focus on the possible meanings of every single word in a script or pitch can cause problems for you with a reader... a lesson I keep on learning over and over and over again).

Posted via email from Filmutopia's Sunday Morning Movie Blog

Sunday Movie Blog: Writing Complex Action Sequences (How to)

photo by  Jin's diary 87

About five years ago I decided to take on the challenge of writing a spec action-movie. Not written for independents, but something that would take at least $30M to produce. In other words, I wanted to see if I could write a Hollywood blockbuster. I didn't expect to ever see it make the screens, which was just as well, really. It was a writing exercise and nothing more. However, what I soon realised was that rather than being easy, writing good action sequences is difficult. It's difficult, because good action sequences don't focus on one person in one room. Good action sequences move multiple characters through the events of a sequence, all from slightly different locations; all of whom are moving, reacting and problem solving on the fly. Tricky stuff.

In this week's article I want to write about how that is done. I want to focus on this, because once a writer understands how to tell a story from different and moving points of view, then their scripts get better. Ironically, understanding how to write action sequences, is the key to understanding how to write cinematically. Which is a good thing.

So, why are action sequences so difficult to write?

Well, largely because action sequences are about keeping track of a lot of things and people, all at the same time... and, therefore, there is always going to be a struggle to balance coherence and the pace of the read. 

If you watch the first minute and a half of this clip from Bad Boys II, you'll start to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

If you look at how that sequence is cut together, you can see you've got a huge intercut from at least five different locations: you've got the action on the multi-story, the guys in the surveillance van, Will Smith's position at the exit of the multi-story, the inside of the victim's vehicle, the inside of the antagonist's vehicles, the inside of Will Smith's vehicle... and, all of this before you get into the car chase.

Another way of seeing this sequence, is to understand that what are unfolding, are the individual story-lines of multiple players. The camera and the audience aren't stuck to the protagonist. The story consists of all the things that are happening around the protagonist, which impact on the protagonist, even if the protagonist doesn't witness every single second. Again, easy for the director and editor... tricky for the writer.

The other point is that the audience's attention doesn't stay on one single location for much longer than a single unit of action, of about half a second. When the editor cuts to Will Smith the first time, it is for him to notice the gunfire and to swear... and that is it. Then we are somewhere else. And then, half a second later, we are somewhere else. And so on.

The problem is, most writers don't think like editors. They tend not to skip rapidly from one location to the next. Most writers like to nail their protagonist into one place, so that the hero can talk about stuff. As you can see, the action sequence is the polar opposite of nailing your protagonist in one place so they can talk. This is what makes a complex action sequence so challenging and so fascinating for the viewer.

So, how do we write about rapid location changes, following the stories of multiple players, without the script becoming incoherent. Well, basically, it comes down to two things: clear character names and minor slug lines.

Let's deal with the minor slug lines first, because for a lot of writers this will be a new concept. Basically, at the start of a scene the slugline is the line of information that tells the reader where the scene is and when it's talking place... for example:

INT: THE ROOF OF THE MULTI-STORY CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY

Possibly the worst way you could write an action sequence, would be to break each minor location into a distinct scene. This would be bad, because it means the entire page would be sluglines followed by one line of action and maybe a line of dialogue. It would be bad, because reading the sluglines slows down the read and takes the pace out of the sequence for the reader.

EXT: THE ROOF OF THE MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY

A Black van is parked on the roof

INT: BLACK VAN: DAY

Julie checks her watch, she's anxious.

JULIE

They're late

EXT: THE ROOF OF THE MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY

Three muscles car drive up the ramp on the roof of the car park. They drive towards the black van.

INT. THE TOWER BLOCK OPPOSITE THE CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY

Policeman 4 checks his watch, barks into his radio

Do you see how difficult that is to read. How broken up the sequence feels. It robs the scene of all the excitement, movement and pace. It makes the read turgid and slow. The opposite of what you want at this point.

The answer to that problem is to forget the production team for a moment, who do need to break the sequence up into distinct locations to shoot... and, instead see the sequence as one single location, that just happens to have different points of focus. Therefore the slugline for the sequence identifies the larger location. Like this.

EXT/INT: MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY

then, all of the location moves within the sequence are flagged up using minor sluglines ":ON THE ROOF", for instance.

So, it would become:

EXT/INT: MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK: MIAMI: DAY

A black van, parked.

IN THE VAN:

Julie checks her watch, she's anxious.

JULIE

They're late

:ON THE ROOF

Three pimped out muscles car roar up the ramp to the roof of the car park. They bear down on the black van.

:IN A WINDOW OVERLOOKING THE ROOF

Policeman 4 checks his watch, barks into his radio

"Three cars, coming in fast"

As you can see, by doing this, the writing gets back the pace it loses by using full sluglines. And, with an action sequence you really need the reader to feel the pace, to get how fast moving the sequence is. It does this without robbing the reader of coherence. In fact, it's easier to visualise the sequence this way.

Now, the interesting thing about this, is that once you understand this technique you can apply it to any kind of sequence. It's not just for action sequences. This way of anchoring the distinct lines of story within a location, makes it easier to separate out storylines, as they unfold in one or multiple rooms. It one of the ways that a writer can guide the audience's point of view within the scene... and the more you think in terms of guiding the audience's point of view, the more cinematic the script becomes.

This technique allows you to move the point of view of the audience from the protagonist, to any other character. Simply by doing that, you are making the screenplay less like a play, where the audience are nailed to one point of view, and more cinematic, where the audience's point of view moves with the story. 

The other thing that helps with action sequences, is to not give all of your characters names. If you've got ten different people doing things all at the same time, then you on;y want to give names to your main and established characters... everyone else needs to be: "Fat Cop" "Muscle Guy" "Tattooed Biker"... embrace the cliche on this one and only situation, because keeping it simple will keep it coherent. I don't trust a reader to juggle more than four characters who are identified by their names; and, fewer than that if the names are common place. It is better to call a character Mr Sharky, than Jim, for just this reason. 

Of course, other than mastering the writing of action sequences for movies that will never see the screen, there is another reason for learning how to do this... basically, I rarely, if ever, read a script where the writer knows how to handle the actions of multiple players, in one story. Every script I ever get sent, nails the protagonist into one room, where they talk about stuff. The action never moves away from the protagonist, unless it is in a distinct scene. And yet, this style of multi-player, audience shifting, story-telling is what makes movies vibrant, it's what gives them pace, it's what keeps the action and the story moving.

Basically, it's worth doing because almost nobody does this. It's also worth doing, because it is writing the way directors think. By allowing the director to see what the audience needs to be shown, you're making it easier for them to visualise the finished movie. They will love you for that... or hate you for doing their job for them. Either way, they'll remember you.

keep writing brilliantly and viva la revolution

Oh, and if you're wondering... I got a lot of interest in my Hollywood spec in Hollywood. It sold my skills to some very cool people, who are still helping me today. Ultimately, what let me down was the core concept wasn't right for that time. Now, I'm reworking it for the TV. Even specs that stand no chance of ever seeing a movie screen are still worth writing. Always.

Posted via email from Filmutopia's Sunday Morning Movie Blog

Sunday Movie Blog: Basic Script Development for Independents

photo by orangebrompton

I got a phone call a couple of hours ago. It was to offer me the job as script-editor on a new feature film. The writer and the producer on the project are both old mates; it's always good to take a call from them. And, because I've known the writer for years, I know the script will be a good one, which is always a great starting point. So, this week, I want to write about script development, because it's one of those areas in independent film-making that is often ignored or misunderstood. 

One of the first things to understand about the development process, is that to be effective it needs at least three or four people. The bare minimum are: a writer; a script-editor; and, a producer. The forth person is the director. Involving the director in the development process is one way to avoid having to repeat the process, when the director wants to rework everything. However, often the development process is undertaken specifically to get the script to the point where it can attach a specific director. So, often, the process starts with three people.

I think a lot of film-makers are afraid of the development process. It's one thing to buy a camera, where you can read all the reviews before you buy, it's another thing to hire a script-editor. If you buy a camera you don't like, at least you can put it on Ebay. When you hire a script editor you can't read reviews, or look at the brochure. You have to make a decision whether this is the right person to help the writer and the project. Which is tricky, how do you judge the value of a person's opinions? A lot of independents just don't know anyone whose opinion they'd trust. I wish I had some simple answers to this one. I created the very small list of script-editors I've worked with, on my scripts, from personal referrals. That seems to be the way to go at it. It also helps to know what you want from a script-editor.

Personally, I think the script editor's job is to be an advocate for the audience. A task that is undertaken by asking pertinent questions. The script development process itself also starts with two simple questions:

What in this script is working?

What in this script isn't working?

These aren't just questions for the script-editor, they are also questions for the producer. However, whilst the producer and the script-editor are asking the same questions, it is from different perspectives. The producer is asking "what in this script isn't working commercially?" The script editor is asking "What in this script isn't working for the audience?" In essence it is the difference between coherence and commercial. 

Personally, I like to give notes in question form. "Why does this character do this, at this point in the movie?" I think, that is a good note. It tells the writer they've failed to sell their vision to me, at that point in the film, without trying to tell them how I would rewrite it. The reason I give notes in question form, is because as a script editor it isn't my job to rewrite the script. It actually isn't relevant how I'd tackle the script... what's important, is to show where the writing isn't selling itself.  When I give notes as a producer, I might use "If we keep in the rape scene, in this form, our current distributor won't touch the movie and we won't get cinema distribution, which means we'll have to reduce the production budget by 75%... is that scene so important, that it's worth finding a different distributor, quartering the budget and giving up a theatrical release?" As opposed to "Cut the rape scene and make the protagonist Cuban, but not too Cuban... oh, and he should have dog, people love dogs."  Giving notes in question form, prevents either the producer or the script-editor from letting their egoistical desire to tinker with the script, get in the way of the development process. It's not the only way to do it, but it's the way I like to work.

Ultimately, the reason development needs a three person team, is to balance out the egos of the people involved. A writer can't possibly be expected to see the flaws in their own writing, or to be totally on top of the business implications of each creative decision. At the same time, a producer can't be expected to know enough about writing to script edit... and, personally, I don't think a producer should be giving creative notes, unless they've got writing credits of their own. There are too many producers out there who see script development as a way to play out their fantasies of being a writer. 

In many projects the script-editor is the mediator between the writer and the producer. I happen to think it is largely about selling. Selling the writer on the changes the producer needs... and, at the same time, selling the producer on the writer's vision, in a way they can use to persuade both investors and distributors. 

At the end of the day, the basic principles of script development are about balancing an artistic vision, with the need for coherence, and commercial pragmatism. If you can find three people capable of understanding their own roles in the process, who can also avoid turning the process into a huge ego-fest, then you are golden. 

Of course, the most important thing is that every project needs development. Good writers know this. Every project needs a good script editor, and every good producer knows that investing in that is just as important as raising funds for production.

keep writing (and script editing) and viva la revolution!

Posted via email from Filmutopia's Sunday Morning Movie Blog