 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 09, 2007 |
|
John August - How to write a scene |
|
|
|
How to write a scenePOSTED BY JOHN AUGUST OVER AT JohnAugust.
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.
There are some great tips following, so click this link to read them.
//John August
Categories: [plot_] [dialogue_] [structure_] [action_]Labels: action, dialogue, John August, plot, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
6:29 AM |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 07, 2007 |
|
Scriptwriting & Reading in the UK - Watching the Script |
|
|
|
Watching the ScriptPOSTED BY DANNY STACK OVER AT Scriptwriting & Script Reading in the UK.
To achieve the ultimate literacy in screenwriting, the writer must be fluent in the visual language of cinematic storytelling. This means dismissing all the convenient words and phrases that easily describe everything that’s going on, and instead, relaying exactly what’s occurring on an audio and visual level. That’s the intention. That’s the ideal. ‘Less is more’.
The reason why we’re continuously told that sparse screenwriting is more effective and fluid than regular prose is not because readers are lazy, or that execs want to quickly get through the script. It’s because the fewest amount of words conveys the immediacy of what’s happening on screen. We know this, we get it, we’ve ticked it in our box of screenplay fundamentals.
Yet, so many writers unnecessarily overwrite the narrative description in their screenplays. They spoon-feed information about character motivation, backstory and a whole range of stuff happening off-screen. Even the produced screenplays available on-line are full of this kind of language, which helps to perpetuate the generalised standard of screenwriting from Oslo to Ohio.
//Danny Stack
To continue on this post, follow this link.
Categories: [plot_] [action_] [structure_] [dialogue_]Labels: action, Danny Stack, dialogue, plot, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
1:32 PM |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, December 21, 2006 |
|
Unk - Shut up and do your ABCs… |
|
|
|
Shut up and do your ABCs…POSTED BY UNK OVER AT The Unknown Screenwriter.
This is the first time I’ve had Internet access in the last five days… WOW! Lots of email wondering if I’m okay and if I ever plan to make another post on the blog. LOL. 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. -
act out. -
Psychology. to give overt expression to (repressed emotions or impulses) without insightful understanding: The patients acted out early traumas by getting angry with the analyst. -
act up. -
to fail to function properly; malfunction: The vacuum cleaner is acting up again. -
to behave willfully: The children always act up in school the day before a holiday. -
act funny, to display eccentric or suspicious behavior. -
act one’s age, to behave in a manner appropriate to one’s maturity: We children enjoyed our uncle because he didn’t always act his age.
Yow! Of course we’re talking mostly about your Protagonist but let’s face facts… Your character has to ACT. Too many spec screenplays have the protagonist being a very passive character and unless that act of being passive is consistent with the character, it becomes downright boring when your Protagonist doesn’t ACT. Let’s talk about PASSIVE PROTAGONISTS for a minute… I’m not saying that your protagonist can’t be passive but if you’re going to make him or her passive, then you’ve got to create the quintessential passive protagonist and paint them on the page for us… That way, when they finally do ACT, their ACT, while still somewhat passive, is a major act for THEM. In other words, be consistent. How many times have I read a spec script with a rogue cop who’s fucking passive almost all the way through the script? Are you fucking kidding me????? How in the hell did he get to be a rogue cop in the first place? LOL. By ACTING. Through ACTS. Definitely NOT by being passive. Do you ever wonder what people YOU KNOW are doing at any given moment? I do. I wonder what so and so is doing at Christmas. I wonder what he or she might have thought about a certain movie or book. Why do I wonder that? Because I know these people and I LIKE them. By the same token, I could give a shit what other people are doing right now. Why? Because they’re boring and because of that characteristic, I can reasonably predict what they are doing right now. Nothing. So think about it… I contend that for pretty much the same reasons we wonder what certain other people are doing right now or what certain other people’s opinion is about something are the same reasons we care about the characters on the screen. Of course the eventual actor on the screen will only ADD to this phenomenon but damn… THAT’S ICING ON THE CAKE, BABY! It starts out with you and how you create that character… More importantly, your Protagonist. Make us care about your characters. Make us wonder what they would think about something. Make us wonder what they might be doing right now. Do that and we will lean forward in our theater seats and peek over your characters’ shoulders and root for them all the way to the end of the movie. Make them ACT. B = BECOME Definition… become: -
to come, change, or grow to be (as specified): He became tired. -
to come into being. -
to be suitable or necessary to the dignity, situation, or responsibility of: conduct that becomes an officer. -
To grow or come to be: became more knowledgeable; will become clearer in the morning. -
undergo a change or development; “The water turned into ice”; “Her former friend became her worst enemy”; “He turned traitor”
Don’t just make your characters ACT… Make them BECOME i.e., the character arc. The internal change that they don’t necessarily want or desire but absolutely NEED to be able to move on with their lives. Each ACT from above should be yet another step closer to completing your Protagonist’s evolutionary process. Notice BECOME doesn’t necessarily mean good or bad. Yeah, some protagonists can undergo an evolutionary process that makes them worse than they were at the beginning of the story. Note that I said, “evolutionary process.” Make each ACT allow your Protagonist to BECOME just a little more and a little more and a little more until, at the end, we can SENSE the transformation. Your plot should SERVE your character’s transformation not the other way around. Remember, your audience doesn’t know SHIT about character arcs… LOL. But they can SENSE transformation. C = CHARISMA Definition… charisma: -
a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people. -
A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm. -
Personal magnetism or charm: a television news program famed for the charisma of its anchors. -
a personal attractiveness or interestingness that enables you to influence others. -
Extraordinary power and appeal of personality; natural ability to inspire a large following.
How many times have we seen Protagonists that we don’t care about? Plenty. Let’s put a STOP to it now! It doesn’t matter if they’re good or bad… They must have charisma. Let’s take a look at what they say about charisma at Wikipedia: The word charisma (from the Greek word χάρισμα (kharisma), “gift” or “divine favor,” from kharizesthai, “to favor,” from kharis, “favor”) refers to a rare trait found in certain human personalities usually including extreme charm and a “magnetic” quality of personality and/or appearance along with innate and powerfully sophisticated personal communicability and persuasiveness; in short, charisma is often used to describe a seemingly uncanny ability to charm or influence people. It refers especially to a quality in certain people who easily draw the attention and admiration (or even hatred if the charisma is negative) of others due to a “magnetic” quality of personality and/or appearance. Though the term as it stands is extremely difficult to define, other similar terms/phrases related to charisma include: grace, exuberance, equanimity, mystique, positive energy, joie de vivre, extreme charm, personal magnetism, personal appeal, “electricity,” and allure, among many others. Another term constantly used is the “X-factor.” Usually many of these qualities must be present within a single individual for the person to be considered highly charismatic by the public and their peers. Despite the strong emotions they so often induce in others, charismatic individuals generally project unusual calmness, confidence, assertiveness, dominance, authenticity, and focus, and almost always possess superb communication and/or oratorical skills. To the early Greeks, charisma was said to be “a divine favor/gift” or “gift of grace,” implying that this “divine quality” was an inborn trait; today however, many believe it can be taught and/or learned, despite the persistent inability to accurately define or even fully understand the concept. In other words, what I’m trying to say is that your characters… Especially your Protagonist… Has got to have enough charisma to influence me, your reader and your audience to sit forward in my seat and root for him or her until the end of the story. So quit thinking of charisma in the usual manner… It works both ways in screenwriting. Even your antagonist can use some charisma… Give your antagonist enough charisma and he or she will become one of our guilty pleasures… Take a look at Hans in the original DIE HARD. Wasn’t he almost like a guilty pleasure? Why? Charisma. Here’s another interesting read about CHARISMA. No, probably not in a screenwriting book… Yet. LOL. But so so imperative to create characters we want to root for or admire. The ABCs. Learn ‘em. //Unknown Screenwriter
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [characters_] [action_] [dialogue_]Labels: action, characters, dialogue, Unk
Posted by
scribosphere @
5:56 AM |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, December 16, 2006 |
|
Eric's POV - Channelling Aaron Sorkin... |
|
|
|
Channelling Aaron Sorkin + Arguing with David MametPOSTED BY ERIC ANDRADE OVER AT Eric's POV.
And so it goes: you embark on your spec writing, thinking that the idea you have is so brilliant, that the outline you did was so bullet-proof; that you merely have to sit down and type it up.
And then you do. And it sucks.
Sadly, the work of writing does not stop once the beat sheet is complete; nor when the cards are on the board; nor when the treatments are done; nor when the first draft is printing furiously out of your trusty ink jet.
You've got to develop your character backstories. You have to do your research (and here, I'm talking about getting to know your characters). You have to make every effort to inhabit the world in which you are proposing to be omniscient. Which means, you have to own the actions and elements of every little thing in this world.
And if you don't then you end up with forced situations, lame dialogue and an inferiority complex that compels you to believe that it's not the script that's the problem, but everyone who has given you feedback on it.
Dialogue is the writer's key to expressing character. And actors' interpretations of that dialogue are what bring the characters to life. It layers personality over the verbal expression, exposing their innermost thoughts through actions. You can write the actions, but an actor can take your stage directions and make them into something much more alive. I've seen it happen.
Aaron Sorkin is a master at creating dialogue that is extremely good at exposing the core of his characters. Yes, he does it in a sometimes unorthodox way, but you can't say that his characters' inner lives are not portrayed in stark relief. It's bloody brilliant.
Hence I'm channelling Aaron Sorkin.
Now...if the actors just read their lines, no one would ever buy a ticket to see this movie, because only half the job is done. And without the actor giving their interpretation of character based on the dialogue supplied by the writer, how can we know whether or not it's crap writing?
We can't.
Hence, the beef I have with David Mamet. His claim once was that actors should just read their lines as they are written, because the dramatist's writing takes care of the drama.
No way, dude.
Of course, any actor would kill to get to recite Mamet. Indeed a great resume builder.
Ultimately, I guess he can say what he wants and not worry about pissing off actors.
I certainly don't have Brad Pitt looking for my next spec script for development.
But still: Actors are not talking props. They're the writer's missing twins.
//Eric Andrade
Read/Post Comments
Categories: [characters_] [dialogue_] [structure_] [action_]Labels: action, characters, dialogue, Erics POV, structure
Posted by
scribosphere @
5:30 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
