Writing: An Emotional Freefall

Labels: action, characters, Erics POV, plot

Posted by scribosphere @ 3:20 AM

How do your characters handle conflict?

But before I go back to characters… LOL.

A big thanks to those of you posting links to articles at Screenwriting Scoop!

Almost 4,000 unique visitors so far and the tracker has some pretty impressive internet connections taking a look but I want to thank everyone for checking it out… I hope it doesn’t take ANYTHING away from your writing. By the way, if you can think of a category we might need, just let me know.

And to answer the 20 plus emails to those of you who keep wondering what my ulterior motive is for tossing up the site…

There isn’t any.

Geez. I don’t need money. I’m not selling anything. So suspicious! But that’s okay… I still thank you for the thought… LOL.

Kay. I’ve been up all night on this rewrite and I really don’t have time for a huge post but while I’ve been working, I keep wondering about the things my characters keep doing… Some surprise me… Some don’t. The ones that don’t are because these are the things I want my characters to do.

By the way… Let me get a little off track… Great stuff in the Scribosphere lately and a lot being blogged about on characters! Love seeing that!

Real quick before I head back to rewrite Hell…

I have a word processing document that I add to every so often when one of my characters handles conflict in a new way than any of my characters have handled it before…

Some of you might think it’s kinda stupid… If so, please feel free to stop reading. LOL.

On the other hand, I thought it might actually be of some help to those of you that just can’t get your characters out of BORING MODE.

The following list is by no means exhaustive… Please feel free to add your own to the comments section… I think we can all benefit from different perspectives.

One of the things that I’ve done with MY list is to develop it into OUTLINE style. This makes it real easy for me to add new bullets under specific headings or categories.

What I like about having a list at hand is that every once in a while, you get stuck, right? Okay, maybe not. I sure as hell do — and when I do, I like breaking out my list because it helps me brainstorm even more ideas…

So… Without further delay… Here’s the list:

Labels: action, characters, ideas, plot, Unk

Posted by scribosphere @ 2:37 PM

Clarification on point one

In my previous post on How to write a scene, I wrote that the first question a screenwriter should ask is, “What needs to happen in this scene?” Not only that…

Many screenwriting books will tell you to focus on what the characters want. This is wrong. The characters are not responsible for the story. You are. If characters were allowed to control their scenes, most characters would chose to avoid conflict, and movies would be crushingly boring.

As I typed this, I anticipated a sea of hands shooting into the air, a chorus of But! But! Buts! So I added a lengthy disclaimer in which I wrote about terms like “character driven” and “character motivation.” But then I decided to cut it, just to get the reaction:

John, are you fucking retarded? A character must act his character not what’s most convenient for you. — Chris

Now that Chris has lectured the professional screenwriter on the craft, we can take a look at why I stand by my point.

Labels: action, characters, John August, plot

Posted by scribosphere @ 2:15 PM

How to write a scene

One of the thing I admire most about Jane Espenson’s blog is that she talks very directly about the words on the page, giving names to techniques I use but never really think about. The two-percenter, for example.

So one of my goals for 2007 is to get a little more granular in my advice-giving, and talk less about Screenwriting and more about screenwriting — in particular, scene writing.

Spend a few years as a screenwriter, and writing a scene becomes an almost unconscious process. It’s like driving a car. Most of us don’t think about the ignition and the pedals and the turn signals — but we used to, back when we were learning. It used to flummox the hell out of us. Every intersection was unbelievably stressful, with worries of stalling the car and/or killing everyone on board.

It’s the same with writing a scene. The first few are brutal and clumsy. But once you’ve written (and rewritten) say, 500 scenes, the individual steps sort of vanish. But they’re still there, under the surface. It’s just that your instinct is making a lot of the decisions your conscious brain used to handle.

So here’s my attempt to introspect and describe what I’m doing that I’m not even aware I’m doing. Here’s How to Write a Scene.

Labels: action, dialogue, John August, plot, structure

Posted by scribosphere @ 6:29 AM

The Process

Labels: action, Alligators in a Helicopter, characters, dialogue, plot

Posted by scribosphere @ 4:01 PM

Watching the Script

Labels: action, Danny Stack, dialogue, plot, structure

Posted by scribosphere @ 1:32 PM

Make a No Budget Film - Park Your Ego At The Door

Actually the most important commodity a no budget film maker needs is goodwill.

Basically there are only two kinds of movies: movies made with cash and movies made with goodwill.

There is a direction relationship between goodwill and money. The less goodwill you have the more money you need to make your film.

It goes without saying that a $1000 film maker needs almost infinite amounts of goodwill.

I happen to believe that even a film with a budget needs stupendous amounts of goodwill — if you read enough about various film productions, both Hollywood and indie films, you soon realize some films seem blessed with good fortune — the people who work on the project enthuse about the experience, the film becomes a labour of love. On other projects, not even the massive budget can protect the film from the all round bad vibes.

For a micro-budget film maker it really helps to understand the things that increase goodwill and the things that piss goodwill away.

In truth it’s very simple — the more ego there is connected to a project, the less goodwill there is.

The biggest killer of any film is EGO: aloof, assuming, audacious, autocratic, biggety, bossy, bragging, cavalier, cheeky, cocky, cold shoulder, conceited, contemptuous, cool, disdainful, domineering, ego trip, egotistic, haughty, high-handed, imperious, insolent, know-it-all, lordly, overbearing, peremptory, pompous, presumptuous, pretentious, proud, puffed up, scornful, self-important, smarty, smug, sniffy, snippy, snooty, snotty, stuck up, supercilious, superior, swaggering, uppity, vain

Ego ruins projects from day one — the first thing it kills is the script.

As screenwriters we often carry around the idea that the film is our baby, after all we wrote it. But in order for the script to develop it has to challenged, developed, changed, rewritten. The only way that happens, is when the screenwriter lets go of their ego and allows input from outside.

Allowing others into the creative process is the key to creating goodwill. It doesn’t mean running the project by committee, it just means being open to other people’s ideas.

This attitude of creative inclusivity is what turns OK projects into great ones, because instead of trying to impose our single ego onto a film, it becomes about collecting the best ideas of everyone involved.

Some of the best ideas in my films have come from casual comments from crew members and other collaborators. I remember a time on a night shoot when the boom guy noticed the ways the shadows fell during a fight sequence, he felt comfortable in mentioning it and we picked up the shot. It turned out to be one of the best shots in the film — much stronger than the way we had it story boarded.

This attitude to film making, which includes everyone in the creative process, really pays off most when working with actors. If you give actors the opportunity to do work where they feel they are giving of their best, you get exceptional performances.

The job of the producer/director in this kind of project is to be able to facilitate this creative process. Like I said before, making film by committee doesn’t work, mainly because it becomes a clash of egos, each trying to take control of the project.

A good producer/director therefore listens, keeps an open mind but ultimately decides which direction the project moves in. This isn’t about imposing your ideas, but about inspiring the cast and crew with your choices.

Ultimately goodwill is created via inspiration: affect, animate, arouse, carry, cause, commove, elate, embolden, endue, enkindle, enliven, exalt, excite, exhilarate, fire up, galvanize, get, give impetus, hearten, imbue, impress, infect, inflame, influence, inform, infuse, inspirit, instill, invigorate, juice, motivate, occasion, produce, provoke, quicken, reassure, set aglow, set up, spark, spur, start off, stimulate, stir, strike, sway, touch, trigger, urge, work up

So, bottom line is this — if you want to make a successful no budget movie, ditch your ego at the door and inspire the people around you to join you in the process of creating a great movie.

Labels: $1000 Spielberg, action, general, industry

Posted by scribosphere @ 1:24 PM

The Sidekick Story

Remember those brutal notes I wrote on the screenplay I reviewed the other day? Well, not only did the characters lack some very basic differences that would make the conflicts come naturally, but my sidekick had story problems.

Every character has a story. While the viewer may not need to know the whole story, the writer most certainly should. Since the sidekick is usually a sounding board or voice of reason for the protagonist and often helps shape a conclusion or define the theme or morality of the whole film, his back story is sometimes critical.

Common sidekick problems I've noticed in amateur screenplays:

• The sidekick is just there. No story at all.
• His back story conflicts with his character's behavior.
• His back story is a superfluous waste of time
• His back story is a poorly executed red herring
• We learn too much about his back story
• We don't learn enough about his back story
• His story is too big for the role he plays in the film

My story notes told the author that her sidekick had a back story that was bigger than his role in the film AND her sidekick was entirely too wimpy for the back story she'd given him. Double whammy. Something had to change. My opinion was that not only did her sidekick need to grow a pair, but she also needed to adjust his back story.

As usual, she took it well.

The trick is knowing how much back story is enough. Where's the balance? Well, that's like asking how long to cook a turkey. You need to know the oven size, altitude, turkey weight, and whether it's a standard, convection or microwave oven. Or, you just figure it out as you go. (yeah, I know, bad analogy)

The point is that if the sidekick is gonna be handing out advice and sewing a moral thread in the story, we need to know a little something about what he's basing his opinions on. Is he telling your protagonist that home is in the heart because he grew up in an orphanage or because he read it in a Hallmark card? Is he a minor sidekick with major consequences in the story or a major sidekick who is basically only there so the main character has something to throw humor at?

It matters. It's a balancing act.

The best comparison for my sidekick problem I can think of is Forrest Gump. Bubba Blue is a relatively minor character who leaves early in the film, but he's there long enough to make Forrest want to buy a shrimp boat. Why? Because Bubba knows shrimp. We know that Bubba knows shrimp and that's about all we really need to know about his background. Forrest and Bubba become fast friends and that's the rest of Forrest's motivation to begin the Bubba Gump Shrimp Company. But the beginning? It's because Bubba knows shrimp.

Now, back to me. What did the author decide to do with my brutal notes? Well, I set my ego aside and realized that my sidekick problem would be the equivalent of giving Bubba a huge overblown family history. So I'm working on a "fruit of the sea" type solution.

In case you don't know what a "fruit of the sea" solution is --

Yup, that's about it.

Labels: action, characters, Fencing With the Fog, plot

Posted by scribosphere @ 10:10 AM

Give it a name…

First a quote:

Going to call him ‘William’? What kind of a name is that? Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is called William. Why not call him Bill? - Samuel Goldwyn

Naming characters is often a very personal thing with screenwriters… Some writers give it SO MUCH THOUGHT that you can immediately pick that up when you read the script. Others seem to open up a random page from the phone book and simply pick a name.

I’ve done both and guess what?

They both work.

I don’t think there’s necessarily a right way or a wrong way to name your characters… Do what your gut tells you is probably the best advice I would give someone but before asking your gut what your character’s name is, you just might want to ponder the following…

YOU’VE GOT TO KNOW YOUR CHARACTER(S).

I think too often, many of us jump right into a character name without really knowing the character. I know I’ve been guilty of that in the past. Sometimes we just KNOW the character’s name before we know anything about the character.

I’ll eventually end this rant on characters with a final post that includes all the demographics and questions I ask of my characters as well as what I refer to “backstory bits.” For now however, let’s assume that you do SOMETHING to get to know your characters. It could be creating an extensive (or not) bio or it could be that you just think about your characters all the time and while there is no right or wrong, I for one can testify that my characters became a hell of a lot more authentic almost OVERNIGHT — simply by creating an extensive bio on them.

No matter what you do to name your characters, I think the one thing we can all agree on is that your characters gotta have a name even if the name is something forgettable.

Ah… Forgettable. Hmmm. Do we really want to give our characters forgettable names? We’re writing spec scripts aren’t we? I would think that creating a forgettable name is exactly what you DO NOT want to do to your characters and yes… Not even your minor characters.

I always prefer to read a character name like FAT COP instead COP #2. Give me an image!

I’ve managed to STUMBLE on names when doing extensive research on the utilities of my plot. I’ve seen screenwriters create bios on their characters that come right out of their imagination which is fine but I’ve seen many MORE AUTHENTIC characters come out of research for the utilities of the story plot.

More authentic because the bio of the character includes the research of the utilities… By utilities, I mean the world that your story plot consists of. There may be several different kinds of WORLDS that you’re blending together in your story… So instead of creating a character out of thin air and your imagination, consider creating your character out of the research you do on the worlds that will ultimately be in your script.

I know it may seem obvious and to many it is and that’s great… You already know what you’re doing. Outstanding! For others, it’s one of the mistakes I’ve seen quite a bit i.e., they more or less have the premise of their script and based on that crumb of a premise, they start creating characters.

Again, I would say there is no right or wrong way and certainly, one could come up with some outstanding characters this way but consider creating an “open bio” on your characters… Keep it open while you do research on the different worlds that will end up in your script. The more you research, the more you’ll find those interesting backstory bits as well as style of clothing, type of car, address, habits, etc. of real-life characters already inhabiting those worlds.

Something else to ponder and keep abreast of is people in the news… Especially with all our new and upcoming celebrity “socialites” that are always in the news these days, you might want to think twice before naming one of your main characters Lindsay or Paris. LOL. By the same token, watch out for names that might help DATE your script and please please please… If your script is a period piece, make sure that any name you use was actually a name that was in existence within that time period.

MAKE IT EASY TO PRONOUNCE

Wow. This seems so obvious yet I can’t tell you how many scripts I’ve read with character names where I’ve wondered if I was pronouncing the name correctly. Talk about something that will take you right out of a story while you’re reading… Often, it might even be better to phonically spell out your character’s name instead of the usual spelling. I remember a script I wrote a few years back where one of the main character’s last name was MOTACEK – pronounced MO-TAH-CHECK.

I had a couple of meetings and more than a few telephone calls where 90% of the powers that be that I spoke with pronounced the name as: MOT-A-SECK.

What did I do?

I immediately went through the script and respelled the character’s name: MOTACHEK and then even had another character call the guy MOTORCHECK just to make sure there was no confusion.

BE CONSISTENT EVEN IF YOU’RE INCONSISTENT

I’m not gonna get into ethnic names other than to say be consistent… Do the research of the world(s) you’re going to show us and give us realistic, consistent names but be sure you’re not infringing on the names of EXISTING PEOPLE or you’re sure to get yourself in trouble later on.

Read the following article to see what I mean:

What’s in a name?

Labels: action, characters, ideas, Unk

Posted by scribosphere @ 8:50 AM

Which Way to Go?

Labels: action, Danny Stack, plot

Posted by scribosphere @ 3:16 AM

Writerly Insanity

Labels: action, general, ideas, Write Here Write Now

Posted by scribosphere @ 3:06 AM

Shady Protagonists, Redeemed Antagonists

Over the holiday I completed the character sheet on one of my spec scripts and have now started looking at plotting.

One of the conclusions I’ve come to over the last couple of years is, I’m not really as interested as I used to be, in films where the good guys is flawless and the bad guy is totally evil. Maybe this is about me getting older, because there was a time when I loved those kinds of movies, but now I look for a little more complexity in my characters.

One of the advantages of taking a few days off over the holiday, is I ended up watching some TV. A thing I rarely do these days. I’m a real Humphrey Bogart fan and catching some old black and white movies is always a real treat.

To me the characters Humphrey Bogart portrays are always more interesting than your vanilla hero. His protagonists always held the possibility they might not be the good guy after all. There was always that edge, that you didn’t get with say a John Wayne movie. Big John was always going to do the right thing; Boggie, well, you just never knew.

All in all I’ve always preferred a shady protagonist, a person who comes right in the end, but who really has to think about it, before choosing the harder but more noble road.

To balance the shady protagonist, I’ve come to the conclusion that the kind of films I’d like to see in the cinema should offer redemption to the antagonist. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of two dimensional villains who pathologically pursue their agendas.

So, I’ve decided for my next couple of scripts to ensure that in the final act, the primary antagonist is placed in a position where they get to choose between pursuing their agenda or redemption — if they reject redemption then they get everything they deserve, but if they accept redemption, I can either forced them to continue down a path they’ve rejected, by using external stressors (Oh the irony!) — or I can use my second antagonist to take over the role of putting pressure onto the protagonist.

My main point today is this — throughout film history a great deal of latitude has been put into the creation of our protagonists, our hero’s character arcs have always had room for complexity — isn’t it about time we did the same for our antagonists?

related articles:

multi-antagonist screenplays

Labels: $1000 Spielberg, action, characters, structure

Posted by scribosphere @ 7:15 AM

Dramatic Action

I've been working really hard the last few months to craft plots with a lot of dramatic action, so I thought I'd share with you all and hopefully learn a few things from the collective intelligence

Labels: action, characters, Film Diva, plot

Posted by scribosphere @ 4:53 AM

Make A Successful No Budget Movie - Think S.A.N.T.A.

I’ve been trying to find a simple way for people to remember the basic principles of $1000 Movie making — the ideas we believe will allow us to make a commercially successful movie on a $1000 budget.

Then when I was busy hanging up my Christmas stocking, it hit me! Santa! Santa would help me explain.

S - Start with Story

The key to having a successful movie is about having a great idea for a story, a story people will want to see — so forget about genres, forget about what camera you’re going to shoot it on and concentrate on coming up with the perfect idea. When you’ve got that perfect idea — write a logline and test it out.

When you’ve got your story, make sure you write an outstanding Script.

A - Assess your resources — Before you start writing your script, start planning your production and this starts with a list of the resources you currently have — you’re going to need a camera, sound recording equipment, a way of controlling light, a few skilled people to operate the equipment, locations, actors, editing equipment and music for your sound track.

Your list will try to cover as many of those items as you can — and then will extend to people you know who may be able to fill in the holes.

Play to your strengths, you may not own any film making equipment or know any film makers, but maybe you know great musicians or your friends are great actors.

Then when you’ve worked out what you’ve got, Acquire the things you don’t have.

The way you do that is by inspiring the people who have the resources you need to make the film, to come on board and help. By far the best way to do this is to have a great story idea and a stunning script — nothing brings in resources faster than a hot project.

N - Never compromise, Never settle for second best, Never assume how much your film can achieve

The worst thing a $1000 film maker can do is assume that because of their budget, they’ll have to make a product which is substandard and that won’t be able to compete in the market place.

This is utter nonsense — There is absolutely no reason at all why a $1000 movie can’t achieve global cinema distribution or be the toast of Sundance.

But the only way to achieve that is to Never, ever make a decision to produce a lower quality film, based solely on financial necessity.

Which leads us neatly onto

T - Turn your disadvantages into advantages.

At the heart of $1000 movie making is this one simple idea, be creative and keep a positive attitude — and by this I don’t mean a Polly Anna “everything is rosy” kind of denial of the realities of a situation.

My experience is that every situation that occurs can be turned to a film makers advantage if they constantly ask themselves “How can I get this to work for me?”

When my first feature film bankrupted me, I thought it was the end of the my career as a film maker, instead I’ve managed to take being penniless and turned it into an advantage.

and finally

A - Advertise your movie and build an Audience

Don’t expect to be discovered, don’t expect to become an overnight success, don’t expect to get distribution for your no-name, no-budget movie if you can’t create a buzz about it.

Right from day one successful film makers think about how their movies is going to be sold — they create a demand for their movie.

So, there you have it — if you want to create a successful movie on $1000 just think S.A.N.T.A.

Story, Assess and Acquire, Never compromise, Turn adversity to your favour, Advertise to build your Audience.

//Clive Davies

Labels: $1000 Spielberg, action, ideas, plot, structure

Posted by scribosphere @ 4:44 AM

Shut up and do your ABCs…

In fact, while I’ve been up to other filmmaking errands, I have been giving the subject of characters a hell of a lot more thought.

Let’s face it… Your CHARACTERS are YOUR STORY. I would even take this a little farther and say that your Protagonist IS YOUR STORY.

So just how in the hell do you create characters… Especially your Protagonist, so that actors want to play them? We already know that our characters, even if shooting from the hip, really should shoot from the hip in a way that presents an honest (consistent with character) line of dialogue and or an honest line of action.

Time to go deeper… Back to our ABCs…

A = ACT

Let’s look at the definition… I’ll leave OUT the definitions that do not apply…

ACT:

• anything done, being done, or to be done; deed; performance: a heroic act.

• the process of doing: caught in the act.

• activity in process; operation.

• to do something; exert energy or force; be employed or operative: He acted promptly in the emergency.

• to reach, make, or issue a decision on some matter: I am required to act before noon tomorrow.

• to operate or function in a particular way; perform specific duties or functions: to act as manager.

• to produce an effect; perform a function: The medicine failed to act.

• to behave or conduct oneself in a particular fashion: to act well under all conditions.

• to pretend; feign: Act interested even if you’re bored.

• to feign; counterfeit: to act outraged virtue.

• to behave as: He acted the fool.

• act on or upon.

• to act in accordance with; follow: He acted on my advice.

• to have an effect on; affect: The stirring music acted on the emotions of the audience.