Category Archives: Screenwriting Issue of the Day

These are the meat and potatoes of this blog, where the rubber meets the screenwriting road. I believe resolving these (semi-) daily snags is the key to getting my script to where it needs to be. Join me!

Screenwriting Issue of the Day

Giving Feedback – Do Your Job!

Leave a comment

Once, several years ago, after I’d completed a first draft, I excitedly solicited a feedback exchange in a social media group I was a part of. A writer who’d purportedly written and sold a script of the same genre volunteered to read it, I sent it, and a few days later I got this back…

Read the first 10 pages – with all do respect – can’t go any further – boring and uninteresting writing – no depth or imagination to the characters – nothing pulls you into the story on page one or to page 10 – go over ur [course] notes to see where you went wrong or buy

Anatomy of A screenplay and put your script on the rack

I would have to write many pages of notes to get you in the game

Best

Pretty harsh, huh? My favorite part is “with all DO respect”. I guess if you’re gonna ‘do respect,’ do it write! Sure, it’s dismissive and snarky, there’s a lack of DO respect, and it’s a half-step above telling me to give up all hope; but do you see the real problem here? In the long run, what really bothered me was that, as a writer who’d agreed to give feedback, he didn’t honor his commitment.

When it comes to giving feedback, there’s loads of great advice out there about the mechanics of script dissection and evaluation, but what I’m really talking about here is mindset. When the writer enlists you for this crucial task, they’re trusting you to aid in translating their vision from the subjective creative echo chamber of their brain to the objective world at large, or, more frighteningly, the market. You have a job to do. What is that job? First, here’s what it’s not… 

  • Making it all about you – Showing off your own screenwriting prowess by picking out everything you would’ve done differently, and then sending the writer something that reads like a “top 100 list of the ways I’m better than you.”
  • Being an unconditional cheerleader – The other extreme. Usually, this happens when it’s a close friend’s work you’re reading, so you praise every single word, even the misspelled ones, calling them a creatively quirky stylistic choice, and tell the writer they’re an unadulterated genius with nothing to improve, regardless of the objective quality, clarity, and impact of the writing itself. This may sound unrealistic, but trust me. That nasty note above notwithstanding, I’ve exchanged feedback with some real sweethearts.
  • Treating it like an academic assignment – marching through it with your red pen and a mechanical “correct/ incorrect” mentality (“Oh, your description got inside the character’s head here, minus five points!”), rather than a storytelling/ marketability perspective, and handing them back something that’s more “graded” than assessed for its narrative effectiveness.
  • Copping out – Telling them that after the first few pages you already know it’s not good enough and giving no real guidance or tips to course-correct, except maybe vague book or course recommendations. SEE ABOVE (More on this momentarily).
  • Faking it – Instead of taking the time to read it, just picking out a few random scenes and making a few comments about them to give the illusion that you read it; and turning over a few disjointed unhelpful comments. 

All of these amount to misunderstanding the central tenets of the feedback-giving mission: 

It’s an employment/ business proposition: Even if the writer calls it “friendly feedback” or some other gentle euphemism, you should still think of it as business. This will put your ego in check. In a job interview, if the HR person asked about your interest in this company, would you think of that as a juicy opportunity for a power trip to pick apart and harp on every aspect of the business you think is “wrong”? If so, how do you like living in your parents’ basement? The dynamic here is that someone is employing you to enhance their enterprise, thus… 

Join the writer’s team. By agreeing to give feedback, you’ve taken on an interest, however small, in the direction this piece will go. You’re putting, at the very least,  your trustworthiness with this writer on the line, and purporting to put your best writing know-how into picking up this script, wherever it is now, and carrying it as close as possible to the end zone as defined by the writer. This is a task not to be taken lightly. BUT… You don’t want to cross the line and start offering notes like “I think it would be cooler if right here this character did x,” and “I would like it better if this scene ended this way.” You’re on their team, but not their new writing partner. this hasn’t become your script, which brings me to my next point.

You’re a hired gun. This should provide just about the right balance between detachment and commitment.In reverse order, the hired gun is committed enough that he’s made the client’s enemies his enemies, and will risk his own life to kill them. Luckily you’re not being asked to risk your life, kill anyone, or make any enemies (if you are, maybe pass on this one). But you should take on the writer’s desired outcome as your own; whether that’s to get the draft ready for a submission, iron out an Act 2 lag, flesh out one or more characters, whatever. But… the hired gun is also detached enough so that there’s no personal investment or emotional dissonance to get in the way of accomplishing the mission. So you should not get so emotionally involved in the writer’s script that you do things like forego your own work, relentlessly follow up on how your feedback was applied or not after the fact, or get involved in the writer’s decision about the next step. A hired gun doesn’t really care, as the job is just a job he took on under certain very strict terms. He’ll do his part and then move on with his life. If he’s not ready to do that, he’ll turn it down, as should you, so…

Get all the way in, or all the way out. If you’ve got too much on your plate already, you really don’t care for script-reading, or for some other reason you just have a distaste for the job from the outset, don’t take it on just to be nice! Politely declining to read and give notes is far preferable to giving half-baked, disinterested, or even fake feedback (see above) that can set the writer on the wrong track moving further away from their vision. If you’re not ready and willing to do the job right, don’t do it at all. 

So back to that love note I received,…

It’s fine to think my writing is crap. That’s just an honest assessment of the quality as he sees it. It’s fine to stop after ten pages. As mentioned, it wasn’t paid feedback, and ten pages is more than enough to get a feel for how the rest of the script will go. I dare say no script has ever been crap for ten pages and then morphed into greatness on page eleven (what a twist!). But what about that part where he said he’d “have to write many pages of notes to get me in the game?” Does he owe me that? Should he or any other generous offerer of feedback have to trudge through writing so bad that it’s hard to know what the intention was, and pen 120 pages of notes for a 90-pages script? Of course not. BUT… to read ten pages and then write a few sentences just saying it’s basically hopeless? Good thing this wasn’t paid feedback. What should he have done? 

Well, someone claiming to be on the level he did shouldn’t require this explanation, but here we go… He should’ve isolated one scene, or even one scene segment, that he felt was representative of a fundamental problem with the writing overall; missed opportunities for “depth or imagination,” description and details that were extraneous and don’t “pull you into the story,” whatever; and given me a few tips on what would be a better direction to take it. 

So, the lesson here is, in case it wasn’t clear or was too “boring and uninteresting” to follow (I’ve heard that my writing can be that way), NEVER give feedback like the note above. Actually, it’s too generous to call it feedback. He basically offered to give feedback and then withdrew his offer in a rather nasty, back-handed fashion. When a writer shows the respect and reverence to request your thoughts on their work, do your job!

Screenwriting Issue of the Day

Derail Your Plot To Get It On Track!

Leave a comment

First, the bad news…

Recently, while trudging through a page-one rewrite (those are always a breeze), I found myself in a familiar (not to downplay its awfulness) predicament. In my steadfast resolve to knock out this draft from start to finish, I’d written myself into a corner, or several corners if the metaphor still holds ( I don’t think it does). It went like this – I had an idea of where I wanted my plot to go but didn’t see how the stuff I was currently writing could reasonably get there. I wouldn’t call my condition the dreaded b-word (you know the one), but I was definitely stuck. (No more parentheticals. I promise.)

This lead to me adding things, things, and more things. Entire expository scenes and new extraneous characters were popping up in my story to bridge logic gaps and steer the narrative in my intended “right direction.” The anatomy of my script became nightmarish. The core meaning of the story that had initially drawn me to this concept was getting buried under a muddled mass of fluff, to the point where it was becoming unrecognizable. The plot was wandering aimlessly. I was re-committing the same sins that had necessitated the page-one rewrite in the first place.

I took stock of what I was writing and I wasn’t sure whose material this was, but it wasn’t mine, and I wasn’t sure who was writing it, but it wasn’t me. There was a severe lack of “me” all the way around this thing. No, this was some other guy, who was writing a term paper of sorts, in strict chronology, with mandatory requirements imposed by… someone? And what was his tool of choice to fulfill those requirements? Plot contrivances employed to rationalize other plot contrivances! I got into such a tangle that I started asking those questions that can be lethal to a writer’s motivation: Is every word I write taking me further in the wrong direction? Do I need to go all the way back to the concept phase and rethink my whole idea? Should I maybe scrap this piece altogether and start that other one I’ve been pondering? Am I really cut out for this writing thing?

But it wasn’t time to hit self-destruct quite yet.

And now, the good news…

Having already wrestled with creative roadblocks in several forms, I’d found that taking a short break from the process to reboot my perspective was usually in order. So, while catching up on my consumption of Better Call Saul, cookie dough, and Bourbon; my decompressed mind conjured up a way out of this abysmal slump that might just help you too.

Interestingly, my instinct to go back to the source wasn’t actually wrong in principle, only in content. The solution simply involved asking BETTER QUESTIONS, the type that everyone should ask when they lose their way: Why am I doing this? Why do I want to tell this story at all? Why this one instead of another of those creative bugs infecting my brain? The answers were just as useful as they were reinvigorating. They got me unstuck and in a better flow than I had before all this happened, when I was writing insincere fodder with blissful ignorance.

Why am I doing this? This one’s easy. I’m doing this for the enjoyment of it, for the unparalleled excitement of having my creative impulses pour out through my fingers and take a form that some like-minded (and maybe even some differently-minded) readers can recognize and appreciate.

Why do I want to tell this story at all? This one isn’t so hard either. I wanted to tell this story because I have a perspective on life that’s uniquely mine, and by putting these characters that I have in mind in these situations that I’ve conceived of, I can try to express that perspective in a way that connects with people to make their experience of reading/ watching my work as satisfying as it was for me to create it.

At this point, I realized that scrapping the idea was no longer on the table, and the tougher question with the more actionable answers was to soon to follow…

Why this one instead of another of those inspiration bugs infecting my head? Because I was excited about this and that particular sequence; the moments that would be a true pleasure to write, where the characters were pushed to their limits and forced into the actions that would define them and make them memorable, the points where the audience and the characters thought things were going one way, and then they take a sudden turn, and the plot unfolds in a surprising and satisfying way to subtly convey my theme.

Once I realized all this but didn’t see it happening the way I wanted, I just snapped and said, “I’ll write that scene that really needs to be in there to keep me excited about this thing, and even if I jettison the whole thing, it’ll be fun to write that scene. And that’s what this is all about, right?” So I did exactly that, and, it came together nicely. But what about when that scene was written? Where to take it next? And what about this big timeline gap standing between where I’d gotten stuck, and this completed scene?

Rinse and repeat. I thought, what’s the next most important scene for me to include in this sequence, to make this a story I’d be interested in as a writer and as a reader? It was a scene that takes place a little down the road from the one I’d just written. That scene was also a blast to write, and some unexpected gems found their way in there to enrich it as I went. I did this again and again, without regard for what came next, only what came next in importance to me.

After a few more scenes were done, I’d worked my way down to one that actually occurs between where I initially got stuck and that first “priority scene.” So, instead of being lost near the start of the journey, not knowing how to get where I wanted to go, I now had a series of waypoints laid out in front of me, and I just had to figure out how to connect them. This took some adjustments and alterations, but that was part of the fun too! And in the course of this, I really got the feeling that I had overcome something.

Things continued to happen in the process that surprised me. The characters told me what should happen, and each sequence came out a little different than I’d planned it. Most importantly, this all rejuvenated my enthusiasm for what I’m doing.

But now let’s come back down to earth. This wasn’t a magic bullet that just launched me into the stratosphere. I’m not writing this post poolside at my new place in the Hollywood hills, where John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart once arm-wrestled to decide who would eat the last cigar butt. But it did generate a wealth of inertia that continues now and has me barreling through this draft with renewed confidence that I will complete it, my only limitations being time constraints and the fact that my typing skill falls somewhere between infant and nineteenth-century Santa Fe pack mule. If I hit another snag, I know that I’ll handle it, and it may very well involve another joyous discovery!

So… if you find yourself similarly confounded; take a step back, consider your grander purpose for all this, let go of any overly-rigid “plans” that might just be stifling your inspiration, and move forward according to your priorities. Let us know how it goes!

My Story Theories, Screenwriting Issue of the Day

Is Your Protagonist an Attention-Hooker?

Leave a comment

If we contemplate all of the possible failings a story can have, it becomes clear that nearly every one of them is some permutation of “losing the audience.” Naturally, the surest way to lose them is to never have had them in the first place. Since the spine of most narratives entails a protagonist on a mission with some goal in mind, it’s often said that we have precious few pages to get the reader on board with our hero. If we don’t, then nothing – not the coolest action-packed scenes with the wittiest dialog, the sexiest character dynamics, or the trickiest twists and reversals – will save it from the deep clutching quagmire of audience disinterest. It’s not enough to give them pretty things to look at, they must be along for the ride, with some kind of emotional investment in where it’s all going. That’s what keeps them reading and watching.

So how do we accomplish this? What’s the “right” way to set up the protagonist to get the audience involved? There’s an entire school of screenwriting named after the idea of having your hero “save a cat” as an introduction, to get the reader on their side, but of course, there’s a lot more to this issue than that (which is duly acknowledged in the Save the Cat literature). We’re often told “he/she doesn’t have to be likable, just interesting,” but what does that really mean?

One important component is curiosity. The audience is sitting down to watch the movie after having a great deal of the plot leaked to them through the promotional materials, in addition to their general cinematic expertise of all the genre conventions and tropes. So in those first few minutes (pages), you must fight against this foreknowledge and create some questions in their minds as to how things will turn out for our hero. And their desire for answers should be emotional, not purely intellectual.

Again, how? Well, the good news is – it’s not a rigid rule, but a spectrum of emotional engagement. Your protag just has to be somewhere on it.

The Emotional Engagement Spectrum

This range of interest, to the best of my estimation, runs as follows. At one end is total sympathy, in which we genuinely feel for the protag and want them to beat the odds (another necessary ingredient) and achieve their goal. Toward the middle would be empathetic support, in which we have a fairly shady and corrupt anti-hero who is surrounded by much worse specimens who make him shine by comparison, and we want to see him defeat those whose wickedness outdoes his own and possibly achieve some kind of redemption in the process. At the “low” end would be morbid curiosity. Here we follow a despicable individual with no redeeming moral qualities, but there’s something intriguing about his/ her character in relation to the goal that makes us stick with them to see if they achieve it.

Let’s have a look at some examples:

Andy Dufresne

Why does The Shawshank Redemption – a prison movie with no gunfights, no car chases, and no romance; that was a box office failure – have such enduring appeal? There are many virtues here, not the least of which is Andy Dufresne. Has there ever been a more likable and sympathetic protagonist? Remember how he was set up? When we first lay eyes on Andy, he’s sitting in his car, on the verge of tears, swigging whiskey from the bottle, with a gun. Though an armed man clearly stalking someone, he has the look of prey more than predator. Through a purely visual presentation, we already get that he’s an underdog, pushed to desperate extremes, experiencing what is probably the worst night of his life. All of this is confirmed When we start intercutting with his wife and her lover, and his testimony as he’s tried for murdering them. Here he also shows great poise, earnestness, and even some cleverness as he professes his innocence to the prosecutor. Then he’s condemned to two life sentences. So we have an innocent man, sentenced to a literal lifetime (two!) of undeserved suffering, victimized by a ruthless system in a cruel and unfair world. In less than seven minutes of screentime, we’re on Andy’s side and want to see him get out of this.

Léon

In The Professional (entitled Léon outside the US), the titular assassin is set up with an oft-used (for good reason) technique of giving one impression of the protag, and then spinning it in a new direction to subvert the audience’s budding notions and add texture to the character. Léon is briefed on his next job by his employer Tony. A few seeds are dropped here that Léon isn’t your garden-variety scumbag hitman. While Tony has a bottle of hard stuff in front of him, Léon’s drinking milk, and being told that he’s to give an unreasonable gangster a talking-to on behalf of a more reasonable one. He delivers the message, with a blade to the guy’s throat, after unceremoniously wiping out his entire entourage of bodyguards. Afterward, this certified killing machine goes shopping for more milk, then home where he has an unexpected encounter. He meets his twelve-year-old neighbor Matilda, shows genuine concern for the bruises on her face that obviously came from her abusive father, then subtly agrees to keep her smoking a secret. So we have this fierce and able warrior with a soft spot for his weak, innocent, defenseless acquaintance, whose family, we soon find out, has mounting trouble with some very dangerous characters. Who wouldn’t want to stick around to see how this shakes out?

Louis Bloom

As we creep to the lower end of the spectrum, we come to Lou Bloom of Nightcrawler. His opening few minutes consist of him stealing materials from a construction site, trying to lie his way out of it when he’s caught by a security guard, and then assaulting and robbing the guard. For all we know at this point, we’re meeting the antagonist (which isn’t entirely untrue, I suppose, but that’s for another post). But, once again, things take a turn. When Lou sells his stolen goods to another construction company, he doesn’t just take the money and run. Lou applies for a job. He asks to be taken on as a construction worker right there on the spot, and he pitches himself pretty hard. He even offers to start as an unpaid intern! Of course, his sociopathic tendencies precluded him from spotting the imprudence of offering to work for someone you just sold stolen goods to, and Lou is turned out to seek employment elsewhere. But here we have an unstable criminal, but with a sincere desire to get a legitimate job and earn his keep. We may not particularly like the guy, but anyone can identify with the hopeless feeling that no one will give us a chance to show what we can do (aspiring screenwriters, anyone?), and from here we’re left wondering if Lew will get his chance, and what else he’s willing to do along the way.

Patrick Bateman

And now we come to the bottom of the barrel. How can you get any lower than a narcissistic, psychopathic, Wall Street executive serial killer? I give you Patrick Bateman of American Psycho. After a series of atmosphere shots around a trendy hipster restaurant to set up the world and introduce the theme of runaway shallow materialism, we settle on Patrick and his “friends” gossiping about colleagues, ribbing each other about their personal lives, and generally wallowing in their frivolity. But then we get the first hint of who this story is about when Patrick goes on a sarcastic rant about world social issues that’s ironically intriguing. It shows that he’s completely cognizant of mainstream moral values and willfully rejects them. His only goal seems to be “to fit in” (as he expresses later). Then he truly distinguishes himself among his superficial, borderline sociopathic cohorts when he goes to the bar and issues an extremely graphic death threat to the bartender for refusing his drink voucher and making him pay cash. Here it goes from a question of stability to one of self-control, and we hang with him out of pure morbid curiosity to see how long he can maintain it, what’ll happen when he loses it, and what the ramifications will be in this fairytale world of delusional excess.

Now let’s have a look at a few films that fail at this:

Patience Phillips

Who can forget that 2004 masterpiece known as Catwoman? Sure, it’s easy to scoff in hindsight, but this movie had quite a bit going for it when it was announced; One of the hottest actresses in Hollywood at the time, who had already proven she could blend sexy with badass, would be playing a beloved character from the Batman mythology with a built-in fanbase. What could go wrong? Let me count the ways. We first see Patience floating face-down in a stream, presumably dead. Not a bad opening image, but simultaneously the awfulness starts. We’re treated to a clunky, expository voiceover telling us how unremarkable, monotonous, lonely, and unfulfilled her life was to this point. And this voiceover follows us like a persistent mosquito as we cut back a few days, and Halle’s been outfitted with a painfully unconvincing costume of stringy hair and baggy clashing clothes to show us she’s “nerdy.” Her boss reprimands and nearly fires her, then issues her a tight deadline in a confusingly heavy-handed and unnatural exchange. From here, things really go off the rails. She fails to quiet her noisy neighbors (gee, I wonder if this is a setup for later), then there’s an extremely awkward scene where she climbs out her window to save a stray cat (must’ve read that book) and gets rescued by a handsome cop who thinks she’s a jumper. Then, as she races to meet her deadline, she stumbles into her boss’s secret shady meeting with criminals and “hears too much.” From here, she gets chased and shot at by guards and falls into the chemical waste-filled stream, and we’re back where we started. So, what can we make of this mess? Well, the character did encounter several hardships and misfortunes that put her in a precarious position, but the situations are so oddly illogical and unbelievable that they invoke the wrong kinds of questions from the audience, those dreaded ones that start with “Why would…?” It’s really difficult to develop an emotional connection to a character whose plight 1) is explained rather than shown, and 2) entails a stream of occurrences that defy all logic and aren’t in any way believable, even within the fantasy-based story world.

What? Bad example? Too easy a target? Okay, let’s look at a “film” that succeeded at the box office, but failed at engaging the audience with its protagonist…

Sam Witwicky

Once we finally meet Transformers‘s protagonist, after some prerequisite explosions, Sam is introduced as the quintessential high school geek whose classmates include the jock bully who’s inexplicably fixated on harassing Sam, and who’s dating the hottest girl in the class, who inexplicably can’t take her eyes off Sam. Yawn. Sam’s getting his first car and is upset that his dad’s about to buy him a used one instead of a new Porche. (His dad drives him past the Porsche dealership first as a joke that he totally falls for. Hilarious, right?) Then he “gets chosen” by the 1977 Camaro Transformer Bumblebee, which he drives to a lake party where he runs into Jock Bully and Hot Girl, who inexplicably breaks up with Jock Bully at a really convenient time and Sam is able to give her a ride home. Bumblebee tries to get him laid by breaking down and playing sexy music, Hot Girl offers to fix it, then just bails. That night Bumblebee starts and drives himself, and Sam chases after him, thinking his car’s being stolen, and we’re pretty much off to the races. Here we have a clear-cut case of failure to arouse any curiosity whatsoever. We may enjoy watching Sam’s adventures for the visual spectacle they deliver, but is there anything the least bit intriguing about him that we haven’t seen in a hundred other “high school geek” characters? Not only do we not wonder if he’ll get the girl and save the day, but we can confidently predict an awful lot about how he’ll go about it. So what’s there to care about?

By looking at these examples of failed protagonist setups, a few things become apparent. It’s obvious that these filmmakers understood the necessity and even the conventions of setting up the protagonist, as both of them “went through the motions” of endearing their main characters to the audience, but it takes more than a few cookie-cutter “good deeds” or “underdog” scenes to evoke any kind of emotional concern. We have to ride the line between enough uniqueness to make them feel like a person rather than a plot delivery device and enough relatability and logic to root them in our universal understanding of the human condition. Too easy, right?

So, hopefully, you gleaned something from this take on engaging the audience with the protagonist. As we can see from how these pros pulled it off, there are many ways to skin (or save) this cat. You can go about it by a variety of methods, but two things you can’t do are is skip it, or gloss over it! If you do, you have a dud on your hands (at least from a storytelling standpoint). So what do you think? Got any insights about how to get the reader hooked into the protag’s journey? Let us know below!

Screenwriting Issue of the Day

Writer’s Bliss: The Creative Breakthrough

Leave a comment

Rewriting is, by and large, problem-solving. We clip the stuff that isn’t necessary, add the things that are missing, rearrange and refashion the ideas that aren’t being expressed with maximum clarity and effectiveness, and generally engineer a narrative that will hopefully instill in the reader/ audience the same roused fervor that incited us to write it in the first place.

This means a lot of whittling and fiddling. We spend hours contemplating solutions to ideas that aren’t working and sentiments that aren’t coming through. We list the alternatives, draw out mind maps, watch or read the greats, stare at the wall, etc. Maybe we get flustered and step away to reorganize the DVD collection, clean the bathroom, or think about starting another script. It’s a fight to push through all this resistance and commit to the trial and error of making those needed alterations and get the story going in a more cohesive and engaging direction.

I think the best of us revel in this process, regardless of the individual’s workflow. As exhausting as it is, the wherewithal to inflict this mental, emotional, and intellectual self-torture on a regular basis separates those who could have a career and those who become a statistic.

BUT…

There are also those moments that come along and remind us why we do it, and why we fancy this more than anything else. Those precious nuggets that make the process – not only not miserable – but a great pleasure in itself. The pinnacle of these is the creative breakthrough.

This is a different animal from the typical hard-won story fix that materializes from the aforementioned grind. These are those ideas that spring forth, maybe as a result of some serious brainstorming, perhaps after spending some much-needed time away from the piece, or most intriguing of all, without warning while we’re focused on something else. And they have some amazing attributes that truly set them apart…

They’re simple: So many story logic issues, overwritten tangents, flat sequences, disagreements between character or plot actions, etc. necessitate a bunch of explanatory fluff as a vain attempt to square those circles. When a breakthrough hits, it irons things out, streamlines the operation, obliterates the anomalies (and the fluff right along with them), leaving action and dialog that are more intuitive, coherent, visual, and concise, which brings me to my next point…

They’re economical: Early drafts (mine, anyway) carry a compulsion to explain every last feeling, motivation, gesture, and tick to combat the bugbear of “they won’t get it.” What’s left is a 145-page eulogy to the human imagination. But after one of these amazing boosts of inspiration, we’re left with a more intriguing sequence, with more for the reader to decipher, at a lower page count. It’s a fantastic moment for a fledgling writer when the true meaning of “say more with less” really hits home.

And coolest of all…

They fix other issues: This is the magic ingredient that let’s us know we’re really onto something. We get one idea out of the crapper and it touches on other story elements that were either missing or not doing their job, and sets off a chain reaction of plot repair.

I’ll use this example of a recent breakthrough I’ve had to illustrate my point:

Problem: I have a character in my script, a friend of a friend to the protagonist, who is a doctor, and ultimately ends up giving our hero the help he needs to fight his ailment, complete his arc, and achieve his goal. Since this doctor is a relatively small (but important) supporting character, she seemed to just show up when needed, do exactly what was required to progress the narrative, then disappear, rinse and repeat. So she wasn’t a character at all, but a flimsy plot device. I had developed her relationship with the hero’s friend, but the dynamic between her and the hero was an afterthought, and it showed. In trying to round her character out, I had fabricated a bunch of plot interruptions where he had to visit her for help, and attempted to justify it with convoluted discussions and circumstances.

Breakthrough: Turn her against the protagonist. Make her hate him and resist helping him at every turn.

Once I made this change, it did so much to straighten out my story. Now this character wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire. Their interactions have become terse, conflict-laden, and they keep things moving, because they come up much more organically as the consequences of various accidents and calamities that befall the main character, and neither of them is happy about it. These new hardships and obstacles subject him to a great deal more suffering through the middle of the movie, creating a much more interesting series of events.

Without my initially realizing it, this also filled in an element that was missing before. The main conflict of the piece arises from a mistake made by the protagonist, stemming from his main flaw. While a sense of guilt slowly builds in him throughout, there was no one to hold up a mirror to him, force him to take a hard look at himself, put him at a dramatic low, and make him realize he needs to change. But now there is. This character now dovetails so nicely into this task, it seems as if I’d planned it for her from the beginning.

Oh, and as a casual aside, she now feels like a real person that has a rightful purpose in the film. Her contentiousness toward the hero, contrasted with her protective affection for the friend, adds a realistic complexity to her that makes her someone the audience would (hopefully) like to get to know. It also allowed for a much-needed arc for their relationship, in that (you may have guessed) he manages to earn her respect and a certain amicable understanding develops between them. This, of course, also added another layer to him.

This kind of beneficial butterfly effect from one snap flash of inspiration can’t be expected to happen all the time. Perhaps even the opportunities for them recede over time as greater experience precludes one from leaving such gaping chasms in the story that require this type of drastic solution. Whatever the case, these occasions bring a true thrill to someone in the early stages of exploring their creativity.

How about you? Has something like this happened to you? What have been the biggest leaps, bounds, and setbacks in your process? Let us know below!

Screenwriting Issue of the Day

Don’t Cross the Themes!

Leave a comment

There’s no point in writing if you have nothing to say. (It sounds self-evident, but a quick glance around at what’s being produced these days reveals that this mantra doesn’t stop a lot of aimless schlock from slipping through the cracks. Anyway, pre-success bitterness aside, let’s get into this…)

It’s all about the theme. What do you, as a writer, have to say to the rest of us about what we’re doing wrong (or right, but usually wrong)? Perhaps focusing on this aspect of the craft, rather than “ya know what would make a really cool movie?!…”is the mark of a mature writer. Maybe the ideal balance is “I believe I have a new take on this or that idea, and ya know what would be a really cool way to state it?!…”

There’s a lot of debate about where theme should rightfully come from. Is it the proper starting point of the whole process, or is it more creatively organic to just start vomiting narrative chunks and let the theme naturally unfold and present itself when everyone, especially the writer, least expects it? We all know the correct answer here, right? Who cares? The all-time greats are all over the map on this one, so there could never be a definitive key to how and why the theme(s) should emerge. I think the usefulness of this debate lies in the mind of the individual writer, as an introspective exercise.

But how about this…

As I’m rewriting and contemplating what comes out, I’m coming across numerous threads that point to multiple themes, on varying levels of complexity and consequentialism. This is bound to happen to some degree, but if I remain a little hazy as to whether my story is about my protagonist’s need to grow up and become self-reliant, the obligation we all have to fight an evil despotic force rather than wallow in apathy, or the idea that risking one’s life for someone they love is not a sacrifice at all, then is this an indicator of a confused and convoluted story in desperate need of being pared down?

Countless classic stories have multiple intertwined themes, but is it more than a new writer can chew? Is the thematic volume greater than the scope of my script? Is the effectiveness of one of my underlying statements undermined by interference from the others?

If all the themes are to stay in, how are they to be managed? I have some semi-educated guesses about this one:

  • There’s seems to be a natural hierarchy that’s conducive to their harmonious execution, with one over-arching theme that the others should serve in some way, or at least be subordinate to.
  • Multiple themes seem to work better when distributed over the story, residing within the choices and actions of different characters in separate story threads.
  • It feels ill-conceived to have a theme pop up once, never to be seen or heard from again. Each one should be interlaced through a substantial segment of the plot.
  • And what seems most important is that they compliment each other philosophically, so I shouldn’t cram “no man is an island” in the same yarn as “you can only rely on yourself,” even though they could each work quite well on their own.

Those were easy enough to write, but I’m still working on developing the sense to know if I’m following them. Also still struggling with this question: Is it possible to have “too much theme” and become preachy?

So what do you think? How do you manage the themes in your writing, and how many is too many? Let us know below!

Screenwriting Issue of the Day

Moving Forward With Backstory?

Leave a comment

A screenplay is not a novel, right? Especially for us spec (unpaid until and unless someone likes your work) screenwriters, page count is a huge consideration. While many of the current top-earners at the box office are running well over two hours, we’re still hammered with the notion that 120 pages (at one page per minute of screen time) is too long. 110 is better. Under 100 is ideal.

So, after we’ve strived to keep the description terse and make the dialog lean and to-the-point, comes the brutal rewrite step of “killing your darlings,” “love cutting,” whatever cutesy phrase you want to use. It’s time to remove everything that isn’t absolutely crucial to getting the story across. This puts a lot of pieces on the chopping block, and according to many, one of the first things to go should be extraneous backstory, which frequently shakes out to mean – any backstory at all.

Backstory is the childhood trauma that made it impossible for her to trust anyone. It’s the toy his father gave him at age 5 that he would kill to hold on to. It’s that “thing” that happened in the war. It’s the “what” from the past that supplies the “why” in the present. And therein lies the problem. Its purpose is to tell the audience something, which we should always avoid in favor of showing them. (Like in a flashback? Come on, get serious.) And what’s worse, it’s telling something that’s outside the story’s timeline. Can you hear the guillotine dropping?

It’s said that backstory is essential knowledge for the writer, in properly fleshing out the characters before the writing begins, but that’s largely where its usefulness ends. Little if any of it should make it into the actual script. The character’s traits guide his/her/its actions, which drive the plot, which tells the story, or something like that.

So, I’m thinking that backstory should only creep in to plug any logic holes about why a character is taking certain actions, and only if leaving it out would render the character under-developed and lead the reader/audience to start asking those horrible “why would they…” questions. But just where is that line of necessity?

Is the fact that there’s a certain burning question on the audience’s mind about the origins of certain relationships, attitudes, and current happenings enough to justify the inclusion of slivers of backstory? What if these characters are in a peculiar situation, doing and saying unusual things, and something in their collective past will explain it all? Is such curiosity a handy, if a little sadistic (which I’m not against) tool to keep them engaged in the story? Or will it just be distracting and frustrating?

I know we should never aim to answer every question and tie up every loose end, but I’m wondering if too much is left unsaid about how these people got to where they are, and I wonder if a little more background is necessary to get the audience emotionally involved in what they see happening in the present.

Anyway, I’m about to send it out for the second round of notes, and I’ll let them be my guide. For now I’m sticking with convention and erring on the side of omission, for the sake of my instincts and my page count. If I’m getting consistent feedback from multiple sources demanding answers the the same chasms of information, I’ll sprinkle some more in there.

What do you think? How much backstory should go in there, and how much should be withheld? And how much do specific factors like genre, style, and idiosyncrasy play a role in this? Let me know below!

Screenwriting Issue of the Day

The Rewrite Workflow Labyrinth

Leave a comment

First, the good news: I’ve reached a magical milestone in my rewrite. I’ve completed a draft that, if a deadline were imposed on me today, I could submit without utter shame and embarrassment (only predominant shame and embarrassment).

This comes after a protracted slog to align the plot of my story to the point where a reader could get from Fade In to Fade Out, and and have a fairly clear sense of what had happened. The disposable henchmen have consistent names and actions despite their relative unimportance, the events of one scene don’t obviously counteract or undermine those of a previous one, the payoffs are more or less set up and vice versa, and the main characters are somehow different at the end than they were in the beginning as a result of what’s happened to them. (Of course, this is according to my own judgement of my own work. Am I right? That’s for the next guy to decide in the upcoming phase: getting external feedback.)

As I reach this point of the game, a lesson emerges that I believe will be of extreme importance to my career: How could I have gotten here sooner? What if I were on, say, a realistic professional screenwriting timeline? I’d need to come to these answers and solutions that I’ve pored over for months and months in a matter of weeks.

My process thus far has worked like this: write a draft, find a problem, brainstorm some solutions, mull it over, do other stuff while continuing to mull it over, brainstorm some more solutions, get inspired, rewrite the scene. Now, this has been a wonderful experience of exploring and cultivating my creative inspiration, but it’s not gonna cut in a business of strict, merciless deadlines. So…

This is the tough part when it comes to formulating some kind of regular streamlined system for working out these issues: it seems to be a highly subjective element. I’ve delved into many writing books and a few courses, and I’m afraid the magic bullet isn’t in there. While they do an awesome job getting us acquainted with structure, theme, characters, and all the stuff that makes up the initial steps of deciding what to write, banging out the first draft, and some very broad-stroke rewrite guidelines, they don’t quite get us to where we can confidently and consistently tackle and eliminate more intricate story problems with ease. I think the reason for this is that there is no magic bullet. There are likely as many workable processes for this as there are professional writers.

However, there’s more good news, maybe. I have no doubt I’ll be faster on my next script purely from some lessons learned on this one, even if I didn’t change anything about my process. Ironically, it seems that it’ll just take time and patience to get faster. But more importantly, perhaps the mere identification of this as a screenwriting puzzle to solve is a crucial first step. This awareness and the desire to work out an efficient scheme to put out the best material I can in short order should put me on the right track to improve this facet of my writing. After all, what else can I do about it?

How about you? What’s your rewriting system? What’s the big, obvious answer that I’m missing? Let me know below!

Screenwriting Issue of the Day

Enslaved By My Wants

Leave a comment

As I make my way through a late-stage read through,  I’m happy to find far fewer calamities in need of exorbitant time and attention to remedy. Hopefully this is more indicative of progress than self-delusion. Time will tell. I am, however, running into some anomalies that may threaten my story integrity.

I’m reading a lot of cool scenes and sequences that play out just the way I envisioned them in the earlier days of developing this concept. There were always certain things that I wanted to happen a certain way. Essentially I had several ends in mind, and then went to work constructing the means, as well as the plot points to bridge them together. I’d always assumed that this is how stories were crafted, but could I have been mistaken about this?

Just today, I watched an interview with Tarantino in which he intimated that, in early drafts, he doesn’t tend to write with a definite ending in mind and work backwards. He starts with the characters, the world, and the situation. As these elements develop, he lets them tell him where they’re going and how they’ll get there. Early in the process of penning The Hateful 8,  he didn’t know who’d poisoned the coffee!

I realize that this free-hand, organic method of story creation is just his particular style, and there are as many different ways to do this as there are writers, but hearing his approach and reading my own work got me to thinking…

Am I sacrificing the most natural and creatively consistent progression of my plot and arcs of my characters for the sake of hitting certain beats the way I originally wanted? Many of the major events and actions of the story were conceived of (and outright decided) before I’d really fleshed out my characters and the rules governing their universe, and my script may be suffering for it.

I have several instances of characters making mistakes that they might be too mature within the narrative to make, saying things that perhaps they should know better than to say, and taking action that seems to somehow not fit into the context of the movie.

So, my plan at this point is to do a pass with only this “filter” in mind, to make an effort to really evaluate the characters and setting I’ve created, and consider whether maybe they’re telling me to go a different direction with them than what I had preconceived. I believe that by ironing out some of these beats, and coming out of this with something more congruous, I can make for a more satisfying read (and watch!).

How about you? How do you go about plotting out your story? Let me know below!

Screenwriting Issue of the Day

The Ultimate Culmination

Leave a comment

The ending makes the story. This is what the audience files out of the theater talking about. This is what sticks with the reader after he/ she’s put it down. Blow the ending, you blow the story. No pressure.

Any (non-short) story worth its salt has opened up multiple, mutually-reinforcing threads that the audience/ reader is squirming to see satisfactorily resolved. This leaves us with the considerable task of formulating the ideal beat that’ll bring them all into a fitting, seamless, climactic collision that addresses all their burning questions, and either answers them or (purposefully) leaves them open. Whew!

As I chip away at my ending, I find myself falling into a lot of traps, such as…

I’m shoehorning in bits of dialog here and there to complete some character arcs. I know I should be doing this with action that is timely and organic to the plot.

I’m bringing multiple events together, into relationships that border on coincidental and convenient, in order to conclude them simultaneously. I’m afraid this might set off the WTF alarm.

My closing sequences seem lengthy and muddled, like a long-winded, pedantic closing statement, making sure to rehash every point and remind the audience of what they’ve been watching, why it was important, and the reasons why it’s finishing this way. Is there a way to do more with less?

Some of my story threads are just kinda… fizzling out.  It seems their endings don’t do justice to their setups and influences on the overall story. Can they all go out with a bang? Or at least in a more suitable way, that’s commensurate with their narrative functions? And how will I know what is “commensurate?”

And the all-inclusive: will they see this coming? Are the outcomes of these elements too predictable and direct to be worth the price of admission? In my efforts to keep things logically consistent, have I created something so sensibly dull that it won’t engage the reader/ viewer?

It seems that the key to getting through this one is to not be hesitant (or afraid) to straighten out the ending and then work backwards from there. I want as effective a denouement as I can create, so if that means betraying something that came at the beginning or in the middle, and I have to go back and alter that, so be it. I may have some serious overhauling ahead, but I believe it’ll be worth it. Maybe a willingness to do this is one of those things that separate the pro from the amateur? (Translation: I hope I’m on to something with this.)

What do you think? What kinds of problems have you had with endings? Let me know below!

Screenwriting Issue of the Day

The Screenplay Description Tightrope

Leave a comment

I think the hook that draws most of us to screenwriting is dialog. When we envision penning the perfect movie, It’s all about those great snappy lines. I doubt too many of us set out to do this because we thought we had a whole new way to explain “she angrily wipes her nose,” a laundry list of synonyms for “snort laughs,” or the most awesome wording to detail the bedside table.

We tend to want to barrel through these parts to get to the chatting. I’ve heard a former script reader describe this phenomenon by saying that page one of many bad screenplays looked like a big “T,” with one or two lines of description spanning the width of the page at the top (just because they have to be there), and then the rest is dialog, streaming down the center. Unfortunately, according to him and various other big boys and girls in the business, this won’t do. They say that “the description is where the story is told,” thus we’re gonna have to eat our vegetables and get that description popping.

I got off to a very rocky start with this particular skill. I was initially misled into the “only what you can see and hear” camp. This led to a few years (!) of clunky, awkward, boring, lifeless, and morbidly confusing prose like “he furrows his brow, purses his lips, and cocks his head,” rather than “he doesn’t know what to make of the question.” To make matters worse, I was taught that every set’s and every person’s appearance must be recounted in excruciating detail, a la “MAX, 34, caucasian, muscular build, with a stubbly square jaw and graying temples under his dark brown hair,  wearing an off-the-rack gray suit, a fake Rolex, and alligator shoes, arrives.” By the way, Max is just the guy who parks the car, then we never see him again.

Finally, after sending a TV pilot draft to the fantastic consultant Rebecca Stay, she asked a massively overdue question; (paraphrasing) “Why do you write your description that way? Why is it important what the valet’s wearing? This isn’t The Devil Wears Prada.” It was just the dose of tough love I needed to seek further guidance on this. Thanks to the ScreenwritingU ProSeries (which I can’t recommend highly enough), my eyes were finally opened to the true nature and purpose of screenplay description. I finally stopped treating it like an academic exercise with “right” (what we see and hear) and “wrong” (anything in the character’s head that can’t be readily perceived) answers, and started approaching it as more of an indispensable vehicle to clearly and concisely say what needs to be said, with a little style thrown in. This set me on a whole new journey of honing and shaping my descriptive passages to imprint them with as much of my distinctive voice as the dialog, which brings us to my present dilemma…

When does conveying the mood and feel of the story become too much, and overreach into the area of “directing from the script?” While the days of dull and robotic over-description are behind me, I have been accused by some esteemed peers of including too many characters’ subtle gestures that are better worked out on set, such as “she rolls her eyes,” “they exchange glances as he exits,” and “He fumes at that last comment “. These are seen as not only wasting page space and reading time, possibly evoking a certain distaste in the industry reader, but also having a stifling effect on the actors should it ever reach the production phase. However, my counter to this would be that these are not meant as set-in-stone directions, but merely essential little symbolic cues as to the overall feeling of the scene, and certainly open to modification or omission while shooting.

The value of feedback (from the right sources) can’t be overstated, and these “directing” notes have given me a new pitfall to guard against. Maybe the inclusion of these details is spoon-feeding the reader and bogging down the readability. My plan is to go through my description and measure it against these questions: 1) Is this absolutely necessary to convey the color of the piece? 2) Without it, is my intended meaning lost or muddled? 3) Should I leave more room for the reader’s subjective interpretation here? Hopefully these, and additional notes from colleagues, will suffice to filter out the nonessentials.

What do you think? How do you handle screenplay description? Let me know below!