...is back, in the states. And as a tribute I want to give you a metaphor about writing a screenplay.
To set it up, a football drive consists of a series of plays that are all designed with the end goal of scoring a touchdown. However, in that there are many smaller battles to score first downs. Every four downs, the offense has the opportunity to move the ball ten yards. If they make it ten yards, they have another set of downs, and thus another chance to score. This is truly what sets football above and beyond a sport like soccer. In soccer, the goal is to drive the ball down the field in one play and score. The conflict comes in the end of the game with the final score.
So, what makes football so much more dramatic than soccer on a minute by minute basis? IMHO, it's the drives. See, if football was set up to have to score a touchdown on 4 plays, much of the conflict would be gone.
Instead, we are riveted to EVERY ten yards. Every play could get another set of downs, every down could be an interception, every down could be a touchdown. Which is what keeps us coming back.
And now, to tie it back to filmmaking...think of your script as a scoring drive. If you scored on a hail mary pass on the first play, yes it would be interesting for a moment, but the true drama comes from the conflict and after the initial exhilaration is gone, the audience asks WHAT NEXT. The drama comes from every mistake, every failure, that leads to the players lining up and running it again. Football players are truly dramatic figures, great heroes, because they constantly fail, but they get up and find a way to do it again.
So, you see, with the GOAL in mind of a touchdown, your characters need to focus on the drive, getting the next play a little further down the gridiron. And, when they get sacked for a loss, have them pick themselves off and get back in the huddle.
God, I LOVE football. Anyone else?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Synopses
So, over the past two days I've had an abnormal amount of synopsis which did not follow the standards of what a synopsis should look like. This got me to thinking, and if these people are so wayward in their definitions of a synopsis, maybe some of my readers have the same problem.
So, what is a synopsis. A synopsis:
4. Definite the characters in the story
3. Give a backbone to the script
2. Tell the story
1. Make the audience WANT to read the whole script.
1. Make the audience WANT to read the whole script.
Basically, what you are trying to do is make the reader buy into the idea of the world you have constructed. If you have a script, this is basically the one page definition of your story. Hit all the high points, taking out all of the other stuff. Outside of your logline, it is the most simplified version of your story. After reading a synopsis the reader should WANT to read further.
2. Tell the story
Some questions the synopsis should answer are:
-Who are the main characters? (Capitalized the first time they are introduced, always with a description)
-What do they want?
-How are they impeded from getting that goal?
-What is the inciting incidents of the story?
-What are the conflicts of the story?
-What are the BEATS of the story? (The critical points that introduce another internal or external conflict, the points that move the story along.)
These are some questions that need NOT be answered:
-What is the backstory of the characters? (a little bit is okay, a sprinkle, not a dallup)
-What are the clinical definitions of terms and why are the important to the story?
-What is the five page backstory of the fictional setting of this story?
-How will this carry into further episodes? (for a TV series)
-Why this story is important?
Any important information relating to further defining the character should be answered in a COVER LETTER or a PRODUCTION BIBLE, of THE SCRIPT.
The only thing the synopsis should do is to TELL THE STORY. It is a one page hand-out of the STORY of the movie/show/book. It should be NARRATIVE, not EXPLANATORY. Let me FEEL the story, because that's how I know if I want to read more.
3. Give the backbone of the script
How is my script different from the other 100 million scripts out there. The example I've been using recently is:
Halo 3, Gears of War, Doom are all the same game. They are about an elite military unit that has to kill aliens. There is nothing new about the story. Video games have been made about it for 20 years, and will be made about them for the next 20. However, what was DIFFERENT about the games was the story behind the game. How THIS military unit differed from THAT military unit. How THESE aliens were different from THOSE aliens.
To give you a different example from film, pick out three RomComs from your DVDs and tell me how they are different from each other. Each is about a guy who falls for a girl or a girl who falls for a guy. The only thing that makes any of them different is the story. It's about two people falling for each other, but HOW is yours different from mine. That is what a synopsis, logline, and treatment do for your project. What makes your script DIFFERENT. Because otherwise, it's the same.
So, a synopsis has to give why this script is different, and specifically what moments, beats, in the script make it different. A logline is meant to give a gist of a story for an elevator pitch. However, a synopsis has to lay out in broad terms how the story will be executed towards a logical conclusion.
4. Define the characters of the story
To a lesser extend, the reader needs to connect with the characters, to understand their motivation and want to follow them on this journey. If the characters are not believable, their motivation not compelling, no one will be able to follow their journey, much less want to invest in their character.
So, there it is. Make sure it's one page...it's not a treatment, tighten it up, and make it sing. Remember, it's about the STORY, not the BACK-STORY.
So, what is a synopsis. A synopsis:
4. Definite the characters in the story
3. Give a backbone to the script
2. Tell the story
1. Make the audience WANT to read the whole script.
1. Make the audience WANT to read the whole script.
Basically, what you are trying to do is make the reader buy into the idea of the world you have constructed. If you have a script, this is basically the one page definition of your story. Hit all the high points, taking out all of the other stuff. Outside of your logline, it is the most simplified version of your story. After reading a synopsis the reader should WANT to read further.
2. Tell the story
Some questions the synopsis should answer are:
-Who are the main characters? (Capitalized the first time they are introduced, always with a description)
-What do they want?
-How are they impeded from getting that goal?
-What is the inciting incidents of the story?
-What are the conflicts of the story?
-What are the BEATS of the story? (The critical points that introduce another internal or external conflict, the points that move the story along.)
These are some questions that need NOT be answered:
-What is the backstory of the characters? (a little bit is okay, a sprinkle, not a dallup)
-What are the clinical definitions of terms and why are the important to the story?
-What is the five page backstory of the fictional setting of this story?
-How will this carry into further episodes? (for a TV series)
-Why this story is important?
Any important information relating to further defining the character should be answered in a COVER LETTER or a PRODUCTION BIBLE, of THE SCRIPT.
The only thing the synopsis should do is to TELL THE STORY. It is a one page hand-out of the STORY of the movie/show/book. It should be NARRATIVE, not EXPLANATORY. Let me FEEL the story, because that's how I know if I want to read more.
3. Give the backbone of the script
How is my script different from the other 100 million scripts out there. The example I've been using recently is:
Halo 3, Gears of War, Doom are all the same game. They are about an elite military unit that has to kill aliens. There is nothing new about the story. Video games have been made about it for 20 years, and will be made about them for the next 20. However, what was DIFFERENT about the games was the story behind the game. How THIS military unit differed from THAT military unit. How THESE aliens were different from THOSE aliens.
To give you a different example from film, pick out three RomComs from your DVDs and tell me how they are different from each other. Each is about a guy who falls for a girl or a girl who falls for a guy. The only thing that makes any of them different is the story. It's about two people falling for each other, but HOW is yours different from mine. That is what a synopsis, logline, and treatment do for your project. What makes your script DIFFERENT. Because otherwise, it's the same.
So, a synopsis has to give why this script is different, and specifically what moments, beats, in the script make it different. A logline is meant to give a gist of a story for an elevator pitch. However, a synopsis has to lay out in broad terms how the story will be executed towards a logical conclusion.
4. Define the characters of the story
To a lesser extend, the reader needs to connect with the characters, to understand their motivation and want to follow them on this journey. If the characters are not believable, their motivation not compelling, no one will be able to follow their journey, much less want to invest in their character.
So, there it is. Make sure it's one page...it's not a treatment, tighten it up, and make it sing. Remember, it's about the STORY, not the BACK-STORY.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Finding a writer...
Good afternoon Russell,
What would you suggest as a first approach for enlisting the services of a writer for a movie concept that I have? My story now resides on audio-tape and written notes with a creative writer in Nashville. She created the synopsis. But we need someone to take us to the next level.
There are three important questions that need to be asked when you are looking for a writer. They are:
1- Can the writer write?
2- Does he write for your genre?
3- Do you like the writer and feel he can finish the script you commission him to write?
1-This sounds obvious, but it is very important to make sure you get writing samples from the people you would want to write your script. Don't make a choice with your heart because you like someone. It's a long, arduous process to write a script.
2-While the writer may be an excellent writer, you like him, and their script is great for a specific genre, it doesn't mean that he can write for your genre. Most, if not all, successful writers are excellent at writing for their genre. Writers want to get put on a "list" or be type-cast into a genre. Basically, when someone asks for a list of the best writers for X genre, they're name will be on that list. If they are good at everything, they never get on any list...which means they never get paid.
An example, Quintin Tarrentino doesn't write romcoms, and Paul Guay doesn't write psychological horror. It's almost like having an engineering degree, you can be electrical, mechanical, nuclear, robotics, etc. While there are many similarities, there are enough differences that you wouldn't want a electrical engineer working on your nuclear reactor.
This is, of course, a hyperbole. But, if you want a horror writer, you should find a horror writer, not a romcom writer. Not only will they know the mechanics of the writing horror, but they will be more into writing the script, and most likely produce a better script. Now, you can sometimes find a really good writer who is looking to flip genres, and they can work out. However, I would recommend that if you look for someone like this, you make sure he has substantial credits first. If you go this way, you may be able to get a really good deal on a great writer.
It is important also to understand that IMDB credits don't mean anything with writing. There are writers who have written 20 scripts on assignment, and very successful, and may have 3 produced scripts.
3-While it's not a requirement to like the person who's gonna write your script, you want to be sure he's going to come out with YOUR vision, not his. Many writers can write excellent scripts on spec, but find it hard to write on commission because it's fulfilling someone else's vision. So, its important to make sure the person you are hiring can fulfill your vision, and incorporate the points that you want. Basically, that he is a collaborator.
Now, on the flip side, you DO NOT want to hire someone who is a doormat. The person you hire should have an opinion that can change the script for the better. A good writer will make your vision better than you thought it could.
What you DON'T want is someone who will take your ideas, tell you he'll follow them, and then turn out a whole different script. I call this the BILLY WALSH. This is opposed to the Joe Eszterhas, which will take your script, do what he wants, return something usable, but it will still be your idea.
Writing is usually roughly a 6 week process to first draft, then you will have to give notes, wait for a rewrite, give more notes, rewrite, notes, polish. So, if you don't have someone that can do the job, you could be wasting 6 months of time. Most writers will give you a price based on 2 re-writes and a polish. They will give you a date you can expect the draft, and deliver on that date. It is RARE to find someone who will allow you in on the process, showing you pages, etc. However, if you are working with a young writer I would demand in the contract to see pages on a regular basis to make sure the writer is fulfilling your vision, and writing well.
If you can find someone nice, it's always better not to work with ASSHOLES. They just add gray hairs. The only thing that adds grays faster is Incompetent Nice Guy Yes Men.
Good Luck.
What would you suggest as a first approach for enlisting the services of a writer for a movie concept that I have? My story now resides on audio-tape and written notes with a creative writer in Nashville. She created the synopsis. But we need someone to take us to the next level.
There are three important questions that need to be asked when you are looking for a writer. They are:
1- Can the writer write?
2- Does he write for your genre?
3- Do you like the writer and feel he can finish the script you commission him to write?
1-This sounds obvious, but it is very important to make sure you get writing samples from the people you would want to write your script. Don't make a choice with your heart because you like someone. It's a long, arduous process to write a script.
2-While the writer may be an excellent writer, you like him, and their script is great for a specific genre, it doesn't mean that he can write for your genre. Most, if not all, successful writers are excellent at writing for their genre. Writers want to get put on a "list" or be type-cast into a genre. Basically, when someone asks for a list of the best writers for X genre, they're name will be on that list. If they are good at everything, they never get on any list...which means they never get paid.
An example, Quintin Tarrentino doesn't write romcoms, and Paul Guay doesn't write psychological horror. It's almost like having an engineering degree, you can be electrical, mechanical, nuclear, robotics, etc. While there are many similarities, there are enough differences that you wouldn't want a electrical engineer working on your nuclear reactor.
This is, of course, a hyperbole. But, if you want a horror writer, you should find a horror writer, not a romcom writer. Not only will they know the mechanics of the writing horror, but they will be more into writing the script, and most likely produce a better script. Now, you can sometimes find a really good writer who is looking to flip genres, and they can work out. However, I would recommend that if you look for someone like this, you make sure he has substantial credits first. If you go this way, you may be able to get a really good deal on a great writer.
It is important also to understand that IMDB credits don't mean anything with writing. There are writers who have written 20 scripts on assignment, and very successful, and may have 3 produced scripts.
3-While it's not a requirement to like the person who's gonna write your script, you want to be sure he's going to come out with YOUR vision, not his. Many writers can write excellent scripts on spec, but find it hard to write on commission because it's fulfilling someone else's vision. So, its important to make sure the person you are hiring can fulfill your vision, and incorporate the points that you want. Basically, that he is a collaborator.
Now, on the flip side, you DO NOT want to hire someone who is a doormat. The person you hire should have an opinion that can change the script for the better. A good writer will make your vision better than you thought it could.
What you DON'T want is someone who will take your ideas, tell you he'll follow them, and then turn out a whole different script. I call this the BILLY WALSH. This is opposed to the Joe Eszterhas, which will take your script, do what he wants, return something usable, but it will still be your idea.
Writing is usually roughly a 6 week process to first draft, then you will have to give notes, wait for a rewrite, give more notes, rewrite, notes, polish. So, if you don't have someone that can do the job, you could be wasting 6 months of time. Most writers will give you a price based on 2 re-writes and a polish. They will give you a date you can expect the draft, and deliver on that date. It is RARE to find someone who will allow you in on the process, showing you pages, etc. However, if you are working with a young writer I would demand in the contract to see pages on a regular basis to make sure the writer is fulfilling your vision, and writing well.
If you can find someone nice, it's always better not to work with ASSHOLES. They just add gray hairs. The only thing that adds grays faster is Incompetent Nice Guy Yes Men.
Good Luck.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Way to go SAG
Thanks for ruining my job prospects...
Just Kidding. You know I love you.
However, with 2/3 of the industry shut down, and Paramount now on it's 3rd series of layoffs, lots of people are losing their jobs. And, since people are LOSING their jobs, there's not a lot of jobs to go around. Writer's Assistant jobs are going to WRITERS who were laid off, Production Coordinator jobs are going to UPMs who were laid off, and so on down the line.
So, for those of you moving to the gold coast, I'll summarize what a Temp Agent told me today: "This town died in December". Now, that's quite an oversimplification, and there are still jobs, and there will always be jobs, at least in TV.
But, people are MUCH pickier now than they were pre-strike. Someone told me that they are looking for resumes and interviews from TEMPS! you know, the guys who come in and screw everything up...well now they want to interview the temps before the hire him. My question would be, shouldn't you be trying to fix this problem and don't do you have something better to do than to interview temps? I guess not, since there are no films going on.
And the big issue is, people with much more experience than you were laid off, and they need jobs. Since they can't find another job at their level, they are settling on jobs below their level. And THEY are competing with YOU. So, good luck with all that. Before you make the trip, make sure you can roll calls, take notes, do budgets, write coverage, and do all the other assistant type duties. I was told that I may be a hard sell because:
a) I can't roll calls and
b) I have ambition.
Yes, that's right. Apparently, according to a different temp agent, people want to you know you'll be there forever, and that you can't or don't want to do anything but be an assistant for the rest of your life.
If this is true, it paints a very bleak picture of breaking into an already difficult industry to break into. So, please, for my sake, stop trying to do better by yourself, and do better by me...
Just kidding. Solitary.
Just Kidding. You know I love you.
However, with 2/3 of the industry shut down, and Paramount now on it's 3rd series of layoffs, lots of people are losing their jobs. And, since people are LOSING their jobs, there's not a lot of jobs to go around. Writer's Assistant jobs are going to WRITERS who were laid off, Production Coordinator jobs are going to UPMs who were laid off, and so on down the line.
So, for those of you moving to the gold coast, I'll summarize what a Temp Agent told me today: "This town died in December". Now, that's quite an oversimplification, and there are still jobs, and there will always be jobs, at least in TV.
But, people are MUCH pickier now than they were pre-strike. Someone told me that they are looking for resumes and interviews from TEMPS! you know, the guys who come in and screw everything up...well now they want to interview the temps before the hire him. My question would be, shouldn't you be trying to fix this problem and don't do you have something better to do than to interview temps? I guess not, since there are no films going on.
And the big issue is, people with much more experience than you were laid off, and they need jobs. Since they can't find another job at their level, they are settling on jobs below their level. And THEY are competing with YOU. So, good luck with all that. Before you make the trip, make sure you can roll calls, take notes, do budgets, write coverage, and do all the other assistant type duties. I was told that I may be a hard sell because:
a) I can't roll calls and
b) I have ambition.
Yes, that's right. Apparently, according to a different temp agent, people want to you know you'll be there forever, and that you can't or don't want to do anything but be an assistant for the rest of your life.
If this is true, it paints a very bleak picture of breaking into an already difficult industry to break into. So, please, for my sake, stop trying to do better by yourself, and do better by me...
Just kidding. Solitary.
Friday, August 22, 2008
For those of you...
...who would rather have a more traditional example as to the structure of a screenplay, or any story. Here.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Push your main characters off the road...
be a bully.
Imagine for a moment, you and your protagonist are walking down a road, let's call the road your screenplay. As you walk down the path, you give him one good nudge to get him startled. This pushes him off the path and takes him a minute to recover. You feel bad, so for the rest of the path you may want to nudge him/her, make him trip a little, maybe laugh at him, but because you are such good friends you don't want to cause serious bodily harm to your protagonist, until the END of the path, when you give him one more push to get him to the end.
This is how most people write screenplays. Yes, their main characters go through some issues, and they have some laughs, or cries along the way. But they are never truly challenged in a meaningful way, and they do not have high conflict throughout the script. For the most part, a protagonist is challenged with a MAIN CONFLICT, through an inciting incident.
It is not enough to have a main conflict that a character strives for throughout the movie. A script must also have lots of hiccups along the way. Not just hiccups, life changing events from which the characters must recover. This will lead, undoubtedly, to the next life changing event that will mold the characters more. However, in each event, the character find strength, and more importantly the audience latches on for more time, the suspense builds, and the hero is humanized.
Since I just read a column about Die Hard, I'll use that as an example. In Die Hard, the main conflict was stopping the terrorists and rescuing the hostages. The inciting incident happened when the terrorists took over. This is the SHOVE your character gets off the path. John McClain must NOW save his wife, rescue the hostages, and stop the terrorists.
But, what if he spent the whole movie pursuant to that goal, without any other conflict building? What if his entire plan was to stop the terrorists at the top of the building, and he faced hardly any conflict until the last ten pages. He made a bomb, or stole a gun, or some little things, but his STAKES were not high enough to cause him to be in imminent danger? Crappy movie, right? Who would watch it?
To go back to my analogy, which will now make sense, Jeb Stuart constantly PUSHED John off the path. Whenever he was back on the path, he was shoved harder, and harder, and harder, until finally, at the end, he was victorious...until Die Hard 2: Die Harder.
Now, aside from being fun to be a bully, and it being exciting to put people in weird and almost inescapable situations, causing conflict is how we define character. If it had been easy for McClain to succeed, we would learn nothing about him. If we pushed him and he stopped, we would know him as a quitter. However, by giving him increasingly more difficult tasks and seeing that he not only doesn't quit, but he also doesn't die AND, to top it off, he wins in the end, tells a lot about him as a person and as a character.
CHARACTERS are not defined by success, they are defined by the ability to fail, brush themselves off, and try again.
So, BE a BULLY. Push your characters off that path as often as possible. This isn't just action movies, but all movies. ROMCOMS, SLAPSTICKS, etc. They all have the same thing in common. A heroic character that is pushed to his limits, and somehow succeeds through seemingly impossible odds. Part of the FUN of a screenplay is to push your characters to the limits. If Bob is successful, make him homeless, how does he fight back to succeed? Through a hairbrained scheme that doesn't make any sense, of from a series of trials and errors which make him stronger for the ride. Because, after all, when you get to the end of the path, and your character hasn't given up, doesn't the victory seem all the sweeter?
Imagine for a moment, you and your protagonist are walking down a road, let's call the road your screenplay. As you walk down the path, you give him one good nudge to get him startled. This pushes him off the path and takes him a minute to recover. You feel bad, so for the rest of the path you may want to nudge him/her, make him trip a little, maybe laugh at him, but because you are such good friends you don't want to cause serious bodily harm to your protagonist, until the END of the path, when you give him one more push to get him to the end.
This is how most people write screenplays. Yes, their main characters go through some issues, and they have some laughs, or cries along the way. But they are never truly challenged in a meaningful way, and they do not have high conflict throughout the script. For the most part, a protagonist is challenged with a MAIN CONFLICT, through an inciting incident.
It is not enough to have a main conflict that a character strives for throughout the movie. A script must also have lots of hiccups along the way. Not just hiccups, life changing events from which the characters must recover. This will lead, undoubtedly, to the next life changing event that will mold the characters more. However, in each event, the character find strength, and more importantly the audience latches on for more time, the suspense builds, and the hero is humanized.
Since I just read a column about Die Hard, I'll use that as an example. In Die Hard, the main conflict was stopping the terrorists and rescuing the hostages. The inciting incident happened when the terrorists took over. This is the SHOVE your character gets off the path. John McClain must NOW save his wife, rescue the hostages, and stop the terrorists.
But, what if he spent the whole movie pursuant to that goal, without any other conflict building? What if his entire plan was to stop the terrorists at the top of the building, and he faced hardly any conflict until the last ten pages. He made a bomb, or stole a gun, or some little things, but his STAKES were not high enough to cause him to be in imminent danger? Crappy movie, right? Who would watch it?
To go back to my analogy, which will now make sense, Jeb Stuart constantly PUSHED John off the path. Whenever he was back on the path, he was shoved harder, and harder, and harder, until finally, at the end, he was victorious...until Die Hard 2: Die Harder.
Now, aside from being fun to be a bully, and it being exciting to put people in weird and almost inescapable situations, causing conflict is how we define character. If it had been easy for McClain to succeed, we would learn nothing about him. If we pushed him and he stopped, we would know him as a quitter. However, by giving him increasingly more difficult tasks and seeing that he not only doesn't quit, but he also doesn't die AND, to top it off, he wins in the end, tells a lot about him as a person and as a character.
CHARACTERS are not defined by success, they are defined by the ability to fail, brush themselves off, and try again.
So, BE a BULLY. Push your characters off that path as often as possible. This isn't just action movies, but all movies. ROMCOMS, SLAPSTICKS, etc. They all have the same thing in common. A heroic character that is pushed to his limits, and somehow succeeds through seemingly impossible odds. Part of the FUN of a screenplay is to push your characters to the limits. If Bob is successful, make him homeless, how does he fight back to succeed? Through a hairbrained scheme that doesn't make any sense, of from a series of trials and errors which make him stronger for the ride. Because, after all, when you get to the end of the path, and your character hasn't given up, doesn't the victory seem all the sweeter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
