 |
|
|
|
Friday, February 02, 2007 |
|
Happy Groundhog Day! |
|
|
|
Billy Mernit writes about one of my favorite romantic comedies: Groundhog Day.
Cheers!
- E.
Yes, it's that time of the year again. Romantic comedy lovers, romantics, lovers comedic or serious -- pretty much all humans with beating hearts know that as soon as February rolls around, there's a major holiday to be reckoned with, one that's come to symbolize the meaning of love and romance for America, if not the world.
I'm speaking, of course, about Groundhog Day.
Granted, there was a time, long, long ago (i.e. before 1993), when this holiday lacked the romantic associations since bestowed on it, due to the efforts of Danny Rubin, Harold Ramis and Bill Murray. But ever since the writer, director and star, respectively of Groundhog Day created what's now generally acknowledged as one of the great American movies of all time, February 2nd has become synonymous with romance and comedy. In fact, when people ask me to name a couple of my favorite romantic comedies, this one invariably comes to mind.
Groundhog_dayWhat's that? You've never thought of this cinematic classic as a romantic comedy? For shame. I have it on good, nay, unassailable authority that the film more than qualifies. For starters, it says so right on the friggin' DVD box's front cover ("A romantic comedy fantasy that is Bill Murray's best screen performance" -- thank you, Gene Shalit). But you can also look up the definition of romantic comedy in the um, definitive text on same, and find (p.12) that "a romantic comedy is a comedy whose central plot is embodied in a romantic relationship" and that (p.13) "the central question posed by a romantic comedy is: 'Will these two individuals become a couple?'"
As you well know, when TV weatherman Phil Connors (Murray) gets inexplicably trapped in the same repeating February 2nd, his sole recourse to getting out of it becomes the object of his affections, producer Rita (Andie MacDowell); his salvation lies in the answer to their coupling question. (Screenwriting theorist sticklers may point out that the story's central question is really, Will Phil ever get out of February 2nd? To this I say, also true, because the movie is a rom-com hybrid -- ibid, pp.21-28 -- a romantic comedy/high concept fantasy, and thus the couple/escape conflicts are intertwined. But let's stop boring our civilian readers, shall we? Thanks.)
Strange but true, there still exist deprived, disadvantaged people who have not seen the movie Groundhog Day. If you are one of those poor souls, what better opportunity to improve the quality of your life, than to view it this Friday, on the official Day itself? And even if you're one of the many enriched individuals who's seen it, Groundhog Day is of course a movie that you can watch over and over, and over, and over and over and over...
Ground_main_1...And if you're a major Groundhog Day fan, you might even consider journeying to the scene of the crime: the town of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania is having its annual celebration, and it promises to be quite a hoot. Such a trip was actually enjoyed by Day's writer and star before the movie was made, and therein lies a little tale that speaks, I believe, to the true spirit of romance, or as we might say, what love's got to do with it.
Danny Rubin recounts the following in his illuminating interview accompanying an early draft of the screenplay in Scenario (Spring '95 issue, regrettably out of print). He talks of having been hired, fired and re-hired to work on the script, and when he, his wife Louise and kids were preparing to move from Los Angeles to New Mexico, getting a call from Bill Murray:
He says, "Do you realize that the day after tomorrow is Groundhog Day?"--"Yep."--"And do you realize that between the director, the producer, the star and the writer of this film, nobody has been to the festival at Punxsutawney? Doesn't that seem wrong to you?" And I said, "Absolutely. And I think you should go, I think that will be a great thing." And he said, "I think we should go." And I said, "Bill, that's a really nice offer, sounds like fun, but I'm moving, I'm moving my family, we're up to our necks in boxes, I can't just abandon them and go off to Punxsutawney." And he said, "Well, think about it and call me back. Here's my number." When I got off the phone, Louise asked who it was. "Bill Murray," I said. "He wants me to go to Punxsutawney tomorrow." And she said, "Cool." And I said I'd told him I couldn't do it. She said, "Are you nuts?" So I talked to [the studio] and they said, "We'll pay for the move, we'll get someone to help pack, we'll fly out a friend of your wife's to help her move in so you don't have to be there."
Groundhog_day2_1This level of support was very nice, and I embarked on the most surreal adventure of my professional life. All of a sudden I'm flying in a private plane from the middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night with Bill Murray and we're talking about the script. We landed somewhere near Punxsutawney at 2:00 in the morning. And there were fans out there waiting for him--it was supposed to be a secret...
Rubin goes on to say that he used a lot of what he saw on that trip in the script. He'd originally only spoken to the town's Chamber of Commerce and looked at their literature, but:
After we actually saw it, there was a whole different feel to it than we had imagined. It was delightful, really delightful--a wonderful civic event. We incorporated a lot of that into the movie... Everyone there knew it was a goofy ritual--it was almost sophisticated in its hickyness. What was so much fun about the festival is, it's the middle of the night, zero degrees, they've got bonfires going--and they're playing Beach Boys music.
Groundhog_day
Sometimes I read this excerpt to a screenwriting class when I'm talking about the inestimable value of research, to illustrate how really being there can make all the difference in writing a given project. But I quote it now in this pre-Valentine's Day context to highlight my favorite moment in Rubin's story, which is when Louise says, "Are you nuts?"
I just love that! Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling every time, because it seems to me that Danny Rubin's wife is the hidden heroine of the Groundhog Day saga. Love doesn't mean never having to say you're sorry. It means having someone be able to say "Are you nuts?!" to you at a crucial moment. Love is sometimes about saving loved ones from themselves -- which come to think of it, is kind of at the core of what the movie ended up being about, don't you think?
Go watch it again, again, and see if you agree.Labels: Billy Mernit, characters, craft, Living The RomCom, screenwriting, Story, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
1:54 PM |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 |
|
Don't Fence Me In, Unless It's For A Really, Really Good Reason |
|
|
|
From Julie Gray at The Rouge Wave.
Enjoy!
- E.
Ophelia Has Left The Building – Stereotypes in Scripts
I have noticed a disturbing trend among the younger male screenwriters I read. When they write of love, sex and romance they consistently – and I mean consistently – feature two kinds of girls. The hot girl, with big breasts or long legs, blonde hair or brunette, depending on the taste of the writer, and the nice girl – similar physical attributes but just a little more ordinary looking. The hot girl puts out and this is the source of the sex scenes early on in the script. The nice girl does not put out but more than that, she is “sweet”, she often cooks, she is definitely maternal and she is the one our main character will choose to either marry or fall in love with in the end. If I had a quarter for every time I have seen this dynamic in scripts written by younger males, I would be very rich. This disturbing, archaic, binary view of women is, well, disturbing and archaic. Largely this is the result of inexperienced writers being simply too youthful to understand that real women are too complex to pigeon hole and so they fall back on stereotype.
Falling back on stereotype is not only lazy writing it can even be offensive. All readers have seen cringe-inducing scripts in which ethnic characters are portrayed in a deeply offensive light. Other likely victims of stereotype are women, cops, priests, bratty children or just generally any character that the writer just couldn’t wrap his or her mind around. I think we all remember with a collective shudder the Mickey Rooney character in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S.
Stereotype can be a beautiful thing - if it is a conscious choice. For example, teens are famously myopic and self-centered, yes? Naturally, the teen comedy is from the teenaged point of view - so even if you are a thirty-seven year old writer who knows better, the best choice for the parents in your teen comedy would be the repressed work-a-holic dad and the horny and bored mom. Is it true to life? Not really. But it is true to life for a teenager. And that’s the genre you’re writing.
The young male screenwriter who winds up with Jezebel the horny cheerleader versus Jenny the fresh-faced home ec sweetheart who also does his homework and bakes cookies is most definitely simply lacking in life experience and perspective. (See blog about distance). But for any other writer, stereotype is inexcusable – unless you are making a conscious choice that is in service to your story.
Check in with yourself and your story. What is the functionality of each character relative to each other and relative to the story, genre and tone? Are you maximizing each character? Do you need that character to make a larger thematic point? In other words, if the character is a stereotype, are you aware of it? Can you justify it?
Good character and dialogue work is considered one of the crown jewels in the toolkit of sought-after screenwriters. Stereotypes have a place and serve a function – sometimes the cop really should just eat a donut. Just make sure that as a writer, you are making a conscious choice that works within the world of your story because nothing says PASS writer faster than unfunny, unromantic or unscary stereotypes.Labels: characters, craft, screenwriting, The Rouge Wave
Posted by
scribosphere @
8:48 AM |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, January 20, 2007 |
|
Stop Over-Writing |
|
|
|
Matt Hader gives some good advice on avoiding the "140-page monstrosity".
Enjoy.
- E.
Write Short
One of the nice blog readers from Guatemala sent in a request that I write about self-editing ones work. She’s having trouble keeping her screenplays under 120 pages.
I may be going against the "write long and cut, cut, cut" flow, but here’s the way I make sure that I don’t have so many “babies” to kill in my scripts that even after I do edit my work, I’m not saddled with a 140 page monstrosity. Apparently for some of you this is a common problem – this writing long.
Simple fix…Write short instead.
How?
Firstly...write a “silent movie.”
Without writing dialogue - compose the screenplay using the briefest descriptions to relay the story. Be descriptive without being novelistic. It is possible. If you can say the same thing in two words instead of two sentences – do it. Grab the reader’s imagination with an economy of words and direct the film in their minds eye. And when I say, “direct the film,” I don’t mean that literally. Don’t place in clunky camera angles, just write descriptively so the reader can imagine the type of angle, or camera shot that would be needed. And please add your personality to the descriptions. Readers want to experience new “voices,” it makes their difficult job a little more bearable.
After completing your “silent movie” screenplay, what you’ll (hopefully) discover is that you have a solid story in place - basically an extended outline. Then, and only then, add in the dialogue you need. Again - only the dialogue you need. Don’t go all Tarantino on your screenplay at this point. A lot of writer’s believe that writing a screenplay is all about dialogue. It’s about story first, dialogue second. Why/how do you think that snappy dialogue works within the context of your favorite movie? The story has you roped in first. Write the story, and then add in only what needs to be said. Sparse is good. Breezy is your friend.
“Get into scenes late, get out early” - You’ve probably read that a million times, but there’s a lot of validity to it. Example: If it’s absolutely necessary to show how your character travels and arrives at their next destination, show it – otherwise, cut it.
Be objective, and cut any scene that does not advance the story. Yeah, it could possibly be really cool/dramatic/funny stuff…but if it’s not moving things along – it’s out of there.
Give these exercises a try on your next draft. I’d venture a guess that you’ll have a completed screenplay in the 100 page range when all is said and done.Labels: characters, craft, dialogue, Matt Hader
Posted by
scribosphere @
1:55 PM |
|
|
|
|
Friday, January 19, 2007 |
|
Crazy Talk |
|
|
|
Scott the Reader posts on some "techniques" that writers use that drive him crazy.
Enjoy. I did.
- E.
I've Said It Before, But I'll Say It Again...
I actually have posted on this before, but since they keep popping up in things I read, I feel that I need to rant about these bad screenwriting habits again.
Things that drive me crazy in your script:
CHARACTERS TALKING TO THEMSELVES. There are times when a character might logically talk to themselves -- hell, there are times when I talk out loud to myself -- but it needs to be done very judiciously and sparingly, if at all.
Instead, I read script after script, where the writer, desperate to make us understand what is going on in a character's head, will have them just blurt it out, even if there is no one else in the room.
I read one script the other day that had about 15 different incidences where this happened, with about a half-dozen different characters. And in most of the cases what they were saying was really very obvious anyway.
Trust your readers/audience to understand things, and if you think they need a push, figure out how to do it visually or more inventively. There's always a better way than the random I'm-alone-but-I'm-chatty blurt out.
MENTIONING THE MOVIE IN THE SCRIPT THAT YOUR SCRIPT IS SIMILAR TO. I've read two scripts in the last week that did this, part of an odd habit that is shockingly widespread and endlessly reoccurring.
It seems to be driven by guilt. Writers who find themselves penning scenes (or storylines) that are derivative of something that came before feel driven to namecheck this film, as if acknowledging it makes it okay.
But there are few really-original moments any more, and pointing out the ones your script is borrowing is counter-productive; it just makes the reader even more-aware that even you know that you haven't put forth the effort to make your tale truly original.
Best-case scenario? You make your script as original as possible. But if it does hew close to something that came before (because that's the best way to tell the story), don't feel you have to point it out. If you are doing a story about some kids going on an adventure, you really don't need a scene in which "The Goonies" plays on a TV in the background, or one of the kids mentions that in "Stand By Me" the kids found a body.
CRIMINAL MISUSE OF APOSTROPHES. "It's" is ONLY to be used to represent "it is", not when something is possessive.
"Let's" is short for "Let us", so you shouldn't write "Lets go".
Apostrophes are used as possessives, or to replace letters. If you are talking about the Kennedy clan, they are the Kennedys, not the Kennedy's.
It's The 1960s, not The 1960's. Shortening years, it should be The '60s, not The 60's.
Characters are in their 30s, not their 30's.
VARYING THE NAME OF THE SAME CHARACTOR IN THE SCENE DESCRIPTION. If a guy's name is John Brown, you shouldn't be calling him John sometimes, and Brown others. In the dialogue, fine, but not in the scene description.
And after you intro characters, we should never see their whole name again. It shouldn't say JOHN BROWN as the name over all the dialogue (much less something like ASSISTANT DA CHARLES KINCAID). Pick the first name or the last and stick with that, and make sure it's what you are calling him in the scene description.
EXCLAMATION POINTS IN SCENE DESCRIPTION. These look really amateurish. If you are writing an exciting scene well, you really don't need them.
posted by Scott the ReaderLabels: Alligators in a Helicopter, characters, craft, market, scribosphere, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
7:52 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Hart Hanson: Writing Down the "Bones" |
|
|
|
Will Dixon has an interview up with Hart Hanson, the Executive Producer of "Bones" which I think is a relatively under-rated show.
I'll admit, I do quite like most things the Deschanel sisters are in, but I really enjoy this procedural drama, as it has an interesting twist: who knew anthropologists could be so sexy? :-)
Plus, Hart's a big Led Zeppelin fan. Nice!
In any event, an excerpt from Part 1 is below. You can read the rest of it here.
- E.
Will: You have and have had an overall deal with Fox for a number of years now. How did you get it and can you explain how such a deal works exactly? How much they ‘own’ you as it were (as in, what can or can’t you work on)?
Hart: An overall deal means that the studio owns all my television development. They buy you out of the market for two or three years with an option for a third or fourth. I wrote five pilots for 20th Century Fox, two of which were produced, one of which became the series "Bones". I also ran "Judging Amy" for them. They were very, very kind to loan me out to Sony for "Joan of Arcadia" for 13 episodes.
Will: Here you are pictured with the cast of Bones (and getting a smooch from David Boreanaz...the ladies are swooning) along with Barry Josephson (glasses/ballcap). Who is Barry and what is his relationship to you and the show? Do y'all get along?
Hart: Barry Josephson is an Executive Producer on 'Bones'. He has a production deal with the studio, 20th, with which I have an overall deal. He owned the rights to a documentary on Kathy Reichs which was the genesis of 'Bones'. The studio put me and him together and we made the pilot. His office is across the parking lot from mine. He is still involved in the show in the same way Bruckheimer is involved in HIS shows. Barry is producing movies and other tv shows as well. The studio owns the show and the network "rents" it for a production fee which is a large part of the budget. The studio makes profits on other platforms: ie, DVD. There are always different opinions and attitudes from the studio and the network. It's just part of the minefield the showrunner has to navigate.
Will: Talk a little bit about making that Toronto to L.A. transition when you're not 23. You went down not as a fresh young thing in a business where you're old at 30. And you were Canadian. How did you do it? Was it like starting all over again? Did your Canadian "mystery credits" mean anything at all? How did you make the leap?
Hart: I was old when I came down here. I was 38 and approaching 39 fast. My Canadian credits meant nothing. Luckily for me, Rob Thomas at "Cupid" liked a spec script I wrote for "Ally McBeal". The interview went great and I suspect he liked the idea of having someone on his staff who'd run a show but who didn't look like he intended to take his show away from him. It was a hard decision to leave Canada -- I was ensconced, working with people I really liked, we had a nice house in the Beaches part of Toronto (Toronto's not my favourite place to live, I'm from Vancouver Island, but it was literally the kindest place I've ever been. People really accepted me and my family.) But, when I asked Brigitte if she'd consider moving to LA to try to get work from scrap, she said, "I think we have at least one more adventure in us." The biggest worry was whether LA was a good place to raise kids. It's still our biggest worry and they are almost grown.
Will: Shifting gears, any favourite actors you can’t wait to give your dialogue to because they always take it to another level?
Hart: Tons! Right now, aside from my series regulars who I really, really like (I'm not blowing smoke ... they're good...), I LOVE writing for Stephen Fry. Ryan O'Neal is also a blast. Tyne Daly was a gift. Joe Mantegna was great. Mary Steenburgen. Back on Traders, I loved writing for Patrick McKenna.Labels: characters, industry, scribosphere, Will Dixon
Posted by
scribosphere @
9:02 AM |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 15, 2007 |
|
Eric's POV - Writing: An Emotional Freefall |
|
|
|
Writing: An Emotional FreefallPOSTED BY ERIC ANDRADE OVER AT Eric's POV.
Having a great technique can literally catapult you to the top of your profession. It's true in acting. It's true in massage therapy. It's true in advertising. So it is also true in screenwriting. And these techniques can be taught. They have to do with breaking down the story, breaking down the character, breaking down the scenes, and you can find great techniques for your writing from him and him and him and her.
However...
Nothing and NO ONE can teach you how to let go. And if you're a writer like I'm a writer than I suspect you might know what I'm talking about. There are necessary points in your work that you really need to be able to understand what your protagonist, antagonist or ANGRY BARKEEP #1 is feeling.
Not thinking: FEELING.
And if you're any kind of writer, you probably like your role as the omniscient, detached, non-interventionst overlord.
But it may kill your script.
You have to be able to get in there when your boy is beaten down; the girl has left him; he's just come in from the pouring rain to a ransacked apartment; his cat ran away; there's a message on the machine from his mother telling him that his father finally succumbed to the cancer...and CRY with him.
Or laugh with him. I'm not sure what he would do there. You're the writer.
I don't know your life.
But I do know that if you can't empathize with your characters feelings in some way when they are sloshing through the hell that you have created for them to test their limits: then you aren't really testing yours. And your characters may seem flat and uninspired.
I'm challenging you to try to go there a little more. I'm not saying to go out and recreate those scenes with you as the main character in real life. Hell no. And I'm not suggesting that you confine yourself to writing what you know. What you are comfortable within your own skin.
I'm asking to write what you KNOW. You have the same set of emotions—the same range of emotions—that I do, and that we all have. And at some point in your life, you've probably been exposed to them. And since you're a writer, you've probably closed yourself off from them. But you know them. You've been introduced.
Rip off that bandage. Get some air in there. Feel that pain just a little bit.
Give your characters what they need: emotion.
Good luck.
//Eric Andrade
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [characters_] [plot_] [action_]Labels: action, characters, Erics POV, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
3:20 AM |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, January 13, 2007 |
|
Thursday, January 11, 2007 |
|
Unknown Screenwriter - Handle Character Conflict |
|
|
|
How do your characters handle conflict?POSTED BY UNK OVER AT The Unknown Screenwriter.
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:
To see the list, follow this link.
//Unk
Categories: [characters_] [plot_] [action_] [ideas_]Labels: action, characters, ideas, plot, Unk
Posted by
scribosphere @
2:37 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
John August - Clarification on point one |
|
|
|
Clarification on point onePOSTED BY JOHN AUGUST OVER AT JohnAugust.
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.
To take a look at the clarification, follow this link.
//John August
Categories: [plot_] [characters_] [action_]
Labels: action, characters, John August, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
2:15 PM |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 08, 2007 |
|
Alligators in a Helicopter - The Process |
|
|
|
The ProcessPOSTED BY SCOTT MULLEN OVER AT Alligators in a Helicopter.
So the screenplay I'm writing now is the first new one I've actually gotten immersed in in several years. My Nicholl script was an old script that I tweaked, while my supernatural thriller was the latest rewrite of a script I first wrote 2 or 3 years ago.
I did start several other scripts last year, only to get sidetracked and ultimately set them aside. I wrote about 40 pages of a horror movie rife with sex and violence; I wrote about 15 pages of a supernatural comedy that I had done a pretty full treatment of. Both are scripts I'd like to finish sometime this year.
But now I'm immersed in the new thing, and trying to refine my writing process, which is something that I know all writers wrestle with, and something that by its nature is different for everyone.
I used to dive into the actual writing process way, way too early. I'd come up with some interesting characters and a basic situation, and just jump right in. I dig the actual writing process much more than the sitting-around-and-thinking-about-it process, and I wasn't mature enough to rein myself in.
The good thing with this is that I'm the kind of writer who gets a lot of ideas while actually writing scenes, more so than in the pure-brainstorming process, so there's a method to my madness.
The very bad thing is that this process tends to take a long time, because in the course of finding the best story (which often had little resemblance to the story I started out with, while probably neither was actually the "best" story) I would write draft after draft after draft after draft.
I'd like to say that I'm such a genius writer that I knocked out my Nicholl semi script on the first pass. The truth is that it took about 20 drafts, during which a LOT of different storylines came and went.
But as I kept setting that script aside, and writing other stuff, I refined my process more. Some scripts came easier than others. My frozen time script somehow blew into my head fairly fully-formed; I wrote out an extended treatment of it, and then knocked out a first draft. It still took a few more passes and a couple of story shifts to get it right, but it was a lot less work than my Nicholl script was, while quality-wise they are fairly similar.
Still, the essential quandary for me (and, I'm guessing, a lot of other writers), is this:
Read about the essential quandary over here.
//Scott Mullen
Categories: [characters_] [plot_] [action_] [dialogue_]Labels: action, Alligators in a Helicopter, characters, dialogue, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
4:01 PM |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, January 06, 2007 |
|
Fencing With the Fog - The Sidekick Story |
|
|
|
The Sidekick StoryPOSTED BY MARYAN BATCHELLOR OVER AT Fencing With the Fog.
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 -- BUBBA: . . . shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it. Yup, that's about it. //MaryAn Batchellor
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [characters_] [action_] [plot_]Labels: action, characters, Fencing With the Fog, plot
Posted by
scribosphere @
10:10 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 03, 2007 |
|
Unknown Screenwriter - Give it a name… |
|
|
|
Give it a name…POSTED BY UNK OVER AT The Unknown Screenwriter.
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?
Yeah, what is a name? Head over to Unk and find out.
//Unk
Categories: [characters_] [ideas_] [action_]Labels: action, characters, ideas, Unk
Posted by
scribosphere @
8:50 AM |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 01, 2007 |
|
Thursday, December 28, 2006 |
|
$1000 Spielberg - Shady Protagonists, Redeemed Antagonists |
|
|
|
Shady Protagonists, Redeemed AntagonistsPOSTED BY CLIVE DAVIES OVER AT $1000 Spielberg.
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 multi-protagonist or protagonist vs antagonist
//Clive Davies
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [characters_] [structure_] [action_]Labels: $1000 Spielberg, action, characters, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
7:15 AM |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 27, 2006 |
|
