Okay, so aside from not having much time to write on my lovely bloggie wog; my post at Brewhaha is keeping me busy & content.

At the moment, I’m unwinding with a pot of lapsang souchong, watching Ghostbusters & relaxing. I’ve never been a great one for ‘unwinding’, or ‘chilling out’. I think I’m beginning to get the hang of it.

At the moment, I’m juggling a number of projects. I’m on a very short deadline to get a piece of theatre together for submission before Christmas for the Tron Theatre in Glasgow. I’m also mulling over ideas for the Glasgay festival 2010, and have been accepted onto a writers programme with WAC Theatre, Aberdeen. To be frank, I’ve not had much time to settle down and concentrate, what with my classes in Practical Aesthetics, work and sleep.

I guess I’m still not properly into a routine. I think it’s important for creative types to find a routine – because the more creative you are, the less organised you are. Well, that’s my experience at least. Regardless, I do think it’s important to work to a schedule, be organised and to always carry a little notebook. My moleskin has been scribbled in numerous times over the past weeks. It’s beginning to prove a vital appendage.

I’ve not long got hold of Google Wave, and I’m very, very excited. There are so many prospects, for writers, directors, practitioners and numerous other professions.

Personally, I’m very eager to start collaborating with people. Lots of different people. In fact, I’m hoping to organise a mass writing event via twitter & Google Wave in the New Year. I believe that doing so, could result in the birth of a new method of collaboration. Think of it as an online ‘writers room’, if you will.  A place for people who live in different towns, cities and even countries; a place for them to collaborate with each other.

Obviously, I’m a little busy at the moment, so I’d imagine none of this will take off until 2010, but I’m very excited nonetheless.

Being a twitter junkie, I think there’s a lot of opportunity for many different persons, of many different levels of experience to contribute to a single entity/script.

Blah. I’m beginning to waffle.

Righto! Off for a bath before bed.
TTFN,

x

I’m getting stoked about the possible “collaberation”.  After several e-mails with the producer/director, I have a good idea of what he wants to create.  I’m actually going to go to the library today and start research.

But, because I’ve never gone through anything like this, I still have questions that make me hesitant.  So I’ve asked the questions and we’ll see…

If you are embarking on this type of project, don’t be afraid to ask questions.   Satisfy yourself before you immerse yourself…

What is expected of you, the writer?   Will you own the script when it is written?  How will you be compensated for its use?   How will  disagreement’s during the script’s creation be resolved?    What if a member of the “collaboration team” can’t perform?  What happens if YOU can’t perform (family illness or something like that)?  What kind of experience do other members of the team have?

One part of me wants to  jump into this project feet first!    On the surface it’s a great opportunity.  But screenwriters know that  every screenplay we write takes part of our life, bits of our soul, so I’m being hesitant.  Perhaps it’s self-protection.  Perhaps it’s dumb.  Perhaps it’s really wise.

It’s another step on my “screenwriter’s journey”.

Steve Oedekerk (born November 27, 1961) is an American comedian, director, editor, producer, screenwriter and actor. Oedekerk is best known for his collaborations with actor Jim Carrey (particularly the Ace Ventura franchise), his series of “Thumbmation” shorts and his film Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002).

Oedekerk gained popularity with his series of “Thumbmation” shorts: Thumb Wars, Bat Thumb, The Godthumb, Frankenthumb, The Blair Thumb and Thumbtanic.

Trivia:

Is highly involved in Martial Arts.

Is best known for the “Thumb” movies.

Was a contestant on “Star Search” (1983), and appeared on the TV series “Full House” (1987) as Joey Gladstone’s (Dave Coulier) competitor on Star Search in the episode “Star Search”.

I received an email yesterday from a filmmaker about collaborating on a feature script.   I am so jazzed about this opportunity that I can hardly find words to express…

Don’t ask me who or what or when but, believe me, I am totally excited about this potential opportunity.  And, of course, if it pans out, any plans I had for the next few months will change.

But, I’m flexible and can “go with the flow” (such an outdated saying but one that says it all!).

Anyway, if it truly develops into a full-fledged opportunity I will record my experience as thoroughly as the relationship  allows!  Subscribe to this blog and follow  my ”journey”!

In a Lonely Place | Nicholas Ray, 1950

Before watching Humprey DeForest Bogart in Nicholas Ray’s A Lonely Place, a few years ago now, I had never been wholly blown away by any of his performances. I could see the charm and the way he suited such Noir-ish roles as Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe, but it took until Ray’s film for me to truly appreciate his talent. With  In a Lonely Place Bogart is actually handed meat to go with his skeleton role, meat he goes after with twenty years’ worth of appetite to create one of the more intriguing characters in memory. Dixon Steele is a tired and laconic screenwriter whose disdain with the movie industry is matched only by his sharpened wit. Cash dwindling, Steele is roped back into the arduous task of adapting the latest trashy bestseller. Instead of taking the proposition seriously, he proceeds to invite a young hat-check girl home to sum up the story, a girl who is later found murdered with our hero as the prime suspect. Steele, however, is quickly cleared by mysterious blonde neighbour Laurel Gray (played by Gloria Grahame) and a whirlwind romance between the pair commences. As mentioned previously, I’ve always admired Bogart’s carving out of a niche for the strong silent type, indeed most of the characters he has portrayed have certain similarities. As an actor he is a man’s man, and this personality is strongly upheld in the roles with which he dealt. The character of Steele seems to deviate from this mean, and Bogart seems glad to be able to play with such layered personage.

Of course, there is still the wise cracking character trait for which Bogart became known, and who could do it better? His one-liners here are particularly keen, ensuring that the audience is immediately won over by Dixon Steele despite his contemptuous antics. As the film wears on, however, and the writer becomes embroiled in scribbling away at his plot, aggressive cracks appear in his previously calm nature, allowing both his companion Laurel and ourselves as the audience to question the earlier certainty of our man’s innocence. Steele is a fervidly imaginative storyteller and Bogie channels this nature quite expertly, in the end even we ourselves are unsure whether or not he is indeed capable of such a crime. In a Lonely Place shrugs off some pacing issues thanks to a remarkably incisive script, one that also aids in building our lead man’s staggering performance. This is less a film about the process of writing movies and more about the lonely place within one’s own psyche. We come to realise that Dixon Steele knows this place rather well, and this is exhibited vigorously through his increasingly destructive personality. This, in itself, leads In a Lonely Place to a well-placed twist to the man-alone ideal, riding an explosive Bogart performance to create one of the most layered and unconventional examples of the noir genre to which I have ever bared witness.

Our Rating:

George Bernard Shaw once wrote that plot was the creation, manoeuvering and destruction of relationships between characters. Plot is derived from character and it’s sole purpose is to drive the story so the character can attempt to achieve their goal. Every scene in your script must either reveal something about the character and advance the story. Flat scenes become boring and lose your audeince. Here are some plot devices that can pique your plot:

• DANGER – I cannot stress this one enough. It can be moral danger such as deciding to cheat on your spouse, or physical danger such as being trapped in a burning house. Raise the stakes and make your character earn their goal and pay for their mistakes. Give them insecurities, flaws, problems and issues we can all relate to. Make them fall into a ditch that they must crawl out of. A common plot device in action films is to either have multiple things go wrong at once or sequentially. The victim tries to escape, but they can’t find the keys to the car so they break in. Then there’s a flat battery so the can’t hot wire it to start. Then there’s no cell phone coverage… What’s needed may not arrive in time or not arrive at all. Oftentimes, dramatists use a Deus Ex Machina (literally God from the machine) whereby some life saving event occurs just in the nick of time before all is lost. Make sure this isn’t a lucky co-incidence or your audience will never forgive you.

• TIME BOMB - Give your characters a ticking time clock where something seriously bad will happen if they don’t achieve a goal. Maybe there isn’t enough time to defuse the bomb? Perhaps the main character doesn’t know how to defuse the bomb. Maybe the main character isn’t even aware of the bomb. Does the audience know? Giving either the audience or the main character such a superior position adds intrigue and interest. Alternatively, the main character can simply run out of options to achieve their goal rather than out of time.

• CONFESSION – After deep humiliation make your character confess to a secret, shortcoming, wound or a deep seeded fear or shame. Maybe they realise the error of their ways and take responsibility for their actions. Consider your audience. Being born out of wedlock is generally not considered a shameful act in the Western world. Forcing a pregnant unwed couple to marry may be acceptable is some cultures, but not in others. Play with morality in your plot. The beauty of it is that it’s never clearly right or wrong like a maths problem. Is it wrong to kill someone? What if they killed your family? What if it is in self defense?

• BETRAYAL – The hero’s buddy changes sides or is revealed as a traitor. What if the main character doesn’t realise this, or does so when it’s too late? What if the traitor leads them into a trap?

• DILEMMA – The hero is forced to make a choice between two equally bad alternatives. Consider the family with premature Siamese twins who must decide which one survives and which one doesn’t. What if the main character consciously decides not to act because they are faced with issues of duty for the higher good? Or even love?

• OBSTACLES – External influences such as bad weather or natural disasters forcing them to stop. Car or other vital piece of machinery breaks down and a replacement part is not immediately forthcoming. What if their progress is stalled due to injury, illness or other physical condition such as pregnancy or diabetes? What if someone in their team is killed or kidnapped? Running out of bullets, money, food, air all add to the excitement of danger.

• DISCOVERY – The element of surprise and shock always jolts your audience. Examples of this include a cover been blown of an undercover cop, the presence of an intruder being noticed, an escalating lie has been revealed. A discovery must pivot your story into a new direction, not simply act as a minor irritant. Remember the scene in “Mad Men” where Betty discovers Don’s true identity by opening a locked drawer? She didn’t sigh and carry on, she left him. Discoveries can also be wild goose chases. Following the wrong lead, the wrong map or the wrong advice.

• LOVE – Due to it’s universality, love will always add to a plot. What if a past lover returns? Consider Jodie Foster in “Sommersby”, when she tells her returned “husband” that he’s not the man she married because she didn’t love him like she loves the impostor. Add a love triangle; one bride versus two grooms. Add gender swaps, such as “Tootsie” who had enamored a man who thinks she’s a woman. Also consider the third wheel. The buddy who suddenly becomes the bride’s love interest when he reveals his true self. Love is also used to tame a savage, misanthropic heart.

• TRAITS – Give your character some endearing traits so the audience can partially overlook their negative ones. Give them courage, give them love. give them scruples so they are fighting for a good cause where the collateral damages justifies the cause, make them perform a good deed, make them desirable such as handsome, physical and funny. Make them spiritual, generous and wise. Ensure it all emerges from a place of truth and authenticity. Audiences retract from phonies. Give them fears, traumas which block their growth, masks which prevent other characters from seeing their real self.

• LIKES – Make your characters like children, animals and art. Give them great taste in cars, partners, houses, music, fashion, food and overall lifestyle. Audiences tend to admire what they aspire to be or what they perceive to be desirable.

So go forth and beef up those plotlines.

Simon Beaufoy, the screenwriter of The Full Monty (1997) and Slumdog Millionaire (2008) and Peter Bloore – an academic, consultant, screenwriter and director – talked about the relationship between the screenwriter and “the others” (director, producer, financiers, etc.) during the development of a screenplay.

Going to a script meeting?

In the earlier stages of his career, Beaufoy often lost control over his screenplay, which went on to go through smaller and bigger changes in the hands of whoever and often with dire consequences. Such as Blow Dry (2001) with Alan Rickman – a film reported to be terrible – that Beaufoy has never seen. Beaufoy found himself constantly being defensive, “protecting” his work, so that it wouldn’t get “ruined” by the others, it was like always wearing a helmet to a meeting, but he started becoming more flexible over time and learned to get over the anger.

Instead of thinking of it as people “ruining” your work you should adapt and take on other people’s ideas without thinking of it as “ruining” the story – because the core of the story, the original idea will remain the same. It can be hard to incorporate some ideas and that then needs to be discussed, don’t let other people assume you’ve just ignored their notes. There can be an area, a sort of no man’s land, between the screenwriter and the others (editors, financiers, sales agents) where they meet. The screenwriter needs to be a diplomat because that way s/he is able to keep the project moving forward.

Simon Beaufoy

Everyone needs to feel like they’ve gained something at the meeting, so that everyone will leave the meeting feeling happy. No one can gain everything and at some point someone has to give up something but everything can be negotiated. It’s very important not to lose momentum because the project might come to a halt. The momentum doesn’t depend on the producer alone but on the screenwriter as well.

The only thing that needs protecting and fighting for is the core of the story – the soul of the story, the thing that makes it original. Everything else around it can be changed. The rest of it can be sacrificed. The fact is that with more money there’s a bigger responsibility and more people will want to make sure the project is as good as possible.

After several flops, Beaufoy decided to make a low-budget film on which he could have total control over everything.  It was one of the best projects he’s ever done. The development process was reversed – first they got the money and then they started figuring out what they can do with it, and the script was written only after casting and doing workshops. This is the future of independent cinema – low-budget films that you can make by yourself.

What happens when a project goes from one company to another? First you’re alone or with your producer, then other people from outside start coming in with their ideas, TV channels have their priorities – you constantly have to adapt but also keep the project the same. It’s always important to keep it moving forward.

Also, you don’t have to change everything they tell you. If you change half of it, they’re happy. You can negotiate the rest. The story is not going to improve if you adapt too much. Don’t change everything. You also need to explain why you haven’t changed everything, so that they wouldn’t feel alienated.

Don’t react to notes right away during a meeting (saying things like “what?! Have they read the bloody thing?”) but remain calm and digest it. You can also request they send you the notes a week before the meeting and on one sheet so that they can sort out any conflicting notes amongst themselves. Thank them for taking time to read it and giving notes. Usually, the notes have been carefully thought thought but just badly put into words (which is what makes you angry). Tell them you need time to think about it and you’ll get back in touch with them. In a meeting, keep it moving forward. Try to avoid saying things like “no”, “I can’t”, or “fucking idiot”. Writing is a fragile, vulnerable process, and when you have to open up to a group of strangers the comments will hurt because they touch you personally.

Peter Bloore

For example, Channel4 didn’t want Slumdog Millionaire to be an R-rated film (because less people would see it) and wanted to cut some of the violent scenes (involving eyes) but after negotiating and making good arguments for keeping those scenes in for dramatic purposes they agreed and the scenes remained in the script.

Beaufoy started out as a documentary film-maker and knows that you need to feel the authenticity of what you’re making, and he wouldn’t have made Slumdog Millionaire without that. He went to India, walked around the slums, talking to people and asked their opinions. He didn’t want to make a National Geographic cover picture, he wanted it to feel real. That was part of the reason why some the changes didn’t go through.

They also had a meeting with the author of the game show “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” who protested against the way the game show was depicted.  The film-makers didn’t want the film to be a huge advertisement for the game and created an unpleasant host but the author didn’t like it because the hosts are always very pleasant. This is an example of how a bad reaction can halt the process. Then, together with the author they discussed how to make the host nasty – and together, they found a solution, and everyone was happy. Had they gone off and fought the author, it wouldn’t have had a positive outcome and certainly not a quick one. But because the author himself was involved in the process of making changes in the story, it worked out fine.

The screenwriter needs to remember that s/he has a great influence over the flow and momentum of the project. Everyone should feel that they gain something from a meeting. You need to keep it moving forward, take on other people’s points of view, and take risks (risks for financiers) in order to be creative!

——————————————————————————————————————————

Notes from this and other Screenwriters’ Festival sessions, visit Vera Mark’s inkblog.

Have a look at other notes from the Screenwriters Festival:
Part 1: Chris Jones and Doug Chamberlain
Part 2: Making a Living as a Writer
Part 3: Armando Iannucci and Kevin Loader on In The Loop

Cheltenham Screenwriters Festival website

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Tomorrow’s Thanksgiving!   There are many things that we, as screenwriters, can be grateful for.  On this Thanksgiving, take a moment and ponder…

Freedom of Speech  and how you can write whatever YOU want. 

How computers have made rewriting easier.  Can you imagine having to retype every page that you need to rewrite!   OR, putting a screenplay on paper using nothing but a pencil?

Research is faster with help from the internet.   But don’t forget the beauty of your local library and be thankful for that, too.

Readers, the people who read what we write … our family, our internet buddies, friends in our writer’s groups.

And our lives.   All our experiences that we draw from as we write.  Our imaginations, wild and crazy as they are.   Our loves and our fears.  Our challenges and our gifts.

Screenwriters be thankful.  And after you eat some turkey, get back to work and finish that feature!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I participated in the NYCMM contest this week-end. And then I wrote a short screenplay for Robbie Comeau titled “Aichmophobia”.

Robbie is a filmmaker who I met through DVXuser and MoviePoet. He’s looking for a screenplay which incorporates a dream-sequence that he has already written. In case you’re curious, aichmophobia is a “fear of knives”. If Robbie accepts my script, it will be made into a short film. When appropriate, I will upload the SP.

So now, after writing two short screenplays, I’m back to my feature “Unknown Caller” (previously titled “Stalked”). The rewrite is going well.  I’m on page 42.

Yesterday, I found out about the Seven Rays Script-a-Scene Adaptation Competition sponsored by Final Draft.    Jessica Bendinger wrote a book titled “The Seven Rays”. As soon as I can read the book, I’ll decide if I want to write a scene and enter the contest. If I decide to enter, I’ve got until February, 2010, to get that finished!   $20.00 entry fee.

Hello everyone and welcome to my blog!

This week-end was reserved for competing in the NYCMM screenplay contest.  I’m happy to announce that I survived the week-end and the assignment.

My five-pager ended up being titled ”Daddy Help Her”.  The assigned genre was horror, the location had to be a farm, and the required object was a remote control.   I’ll post “Daddy Help Her” today if you wish to read it.  Someday it might be rewritten!

I’ll be happy to proceed to the finals but, if I don’t, I got what I needed to out of this competition.  The thing I learned from this competition is how important “time” is when you write.

If you agree  that “writing is rewriting”, then time is needed to do the rewrites.  It is even better if you have a break (more time) in between the rewrites. 

It is possible to produce a polished SP in a week-end but it is a very intense process.   I am so very grateful that my family supports my SP endeavors.

This is part 3 of the Cheltenham Screenwriters’ Festival series.

Writer-director Armando Iannucci and producer/Festival Chairman Kevin Loader talk about the script development and filming process of In the Loop.

In the Loop is written by:
Armando Iannucci
Jesse Armstrong
Simon Blackwell
Tony Roche
Ian Martin (the swearing consultant)

“Well, his briefing notes were written in alphabetti spaghetti. When I left, I nearly tripped up over his fucking umbilical cord.”  (Malcolm Tucker)

The story was born out of the real-life dysfunction that haunts politicians and government offices on both sides of the pond. The middle-management type of life behind the scenes where everything is done in silence and without questions, the serious flaws in internal communication, or the incident with Jack Straw who said in an interview that the invasion of Iran is “inconceivable”, or how politicians return from a big international meeting to deal with something trivial (like a wall). Iannucci spent time in Washington and in the White House, where he sneaked in with a random ID card pretending to attend a meeting. He met politicians and journalists, asking “boring” questions like what hours they worked, what they think about their colleagues, etc. He wanted to create a realistic image of Washington, not a glamorous one. Those nice-looking buildings all hold hundreds of people sitting at desks and not communicating with each other. He saw young people in their 20s with degrees in terrorism studies, and there was a 22-year-old who had written the constitution of Iran.There are people hanging behind doors in case some big shot might invite them to a meeting. Secret meetings have boring names and everyone who wants to be important shows up. And whatever happens – you don’t leave a meeting – when you leave a meeting you’re leaving power. It’s also braver to do the wrong thing (braver not to resign after a blunder) because everyone expects you to do the right thing (and resign). There are parallels with British film-makers visiting Hollywood – where everyone smiles and praises you, but nothing ever happens, and you leave feeling used and soiled.

“The script gives safety, improvisation is liberating.”
(Iannucci)

The feature film was develop in a similar method as the TV comedy series The Thick of It. Although the film was to be improvised, a storyline had to be written down on paper for development purposes – for locations, casting, etc.  Also, the American actors wanted to see what they were committing themselves to. There had to be a physical document that people could work with, not just an abstract conversation. Iannucci and three other writers came up with a storyline between 20-30 pages, followed by a process of adding and cutting back, adding and cutting back, followed by defining the character by going over each character’s story. After casting had been completed they started adding details to the script and characters. There were constant rewrites – constant building and cutting back, and trying to nail the lines. There were workshops with the British actors in order to make the dialogue more realistic, the discussion feel more chaotic and not carefully thought through, to create three-dimensional characters, and perform the whole story without the script. This would help see the relationships between the characters, not just the words on the paper, and come up with new ideas. Scenes would get rewritten based on the improvisations.

They shot around 25 pages a day. There was a lot of dialogue and little time to learn it by heart, but when the camera was rolling the actors had to say something. They would film a take using the script and another one improvised. Some actors felt uncomfortable but they always had a script to fall back on. Through improvisation some trivial element in the story would become bigger – like using the toy calculator in the scene where Lt. Gen. Miller (James Gandolfini) and Karen Clark (Mimi Kennedy) discussed war in some kid’s bedroom. The story would be clarified during editing and they would go back to film what looked interesting and engaging.

There were a lot of scenes that were left out, come of them because they were too self-contained – they stop the story and the rhythm and make the story less funny. They had set out to make a fast, dialogue-driven screwball comedy with lots of characters and an immediate, messy urgency that won’t let go till the end. They didn’t want to tell the audience what to think but let them judge it by themselves.

————————————————————————————————————————-

Follow Armando Iannucci on Twitter.

Jeff Goldsmith interviews co-writer/director Armando Iannucci and co-stars Peter Capaldi and Mimi Kennedy about In The Loop in the Creative Screenwriting Magazine podcast

Have a look at other notes from the Screenwriters Festival:
Part 1: Chris Jones and Doug Chamberlain
Part 2: Making a Living as a Writer
Part 4: Screenwriter as Diplomat with Simon Beaufoy

Cheltenham Screenwriters Festival website

————————————————————————————————————————-

Humans have been telling stories to each other since time immemorial. They serve a deep psychological and sociological need. Let us examine a few key concepts:

WHAT IS A STORY?

Quite simply, it is a journey of inter-connected events with a beginning, middle and an end providing

• dramatic fulfillment
• education
• knowledge
• entertainment
• emotional stimulation and,
• a satisfying conclusion (we love closure)

Stories began as visual medium when our forebearers painted images on cave walls. or drew with sticks in the sand. They were accompanied by words or grunts. As complex language developed, stories were increasingly verbalized, and later on written. Stories today can be exclusively composed of images, written words or speech, but often times are a combination. Cinema is primarily a visual medium, with a lesser proportion of words (dialogue). Television is more dialogue based than cinema in general.

A story must have a purpose. For instance, the Australian Aboriginal woman at a rock formation called “The Devil’s Marbles” in the Northern Territory told stories to keep youngsters away from these rocks to avoid danger. A story can be as dry as a depiction of actual events or “life-like” events. Even fantasy fairy tales emulate “life-like” events through suspension of disbelief. Whatever dungeons and dragons we use, the events in a story must feel authentic .

Stories also need a theme (exploration of the human condition). What topics or concepts is your story exploring? Racism? The power of the human spirit during disaster? Love always triumphs over evil? Revenge? And the list goes on. This has been discussed in an earlier blog in the 36 dramatic situations by Georges Polti.  Be careful that you are only exploring one central theme and perhaps one or two minor ones. Otherwise your story loses focus which must be found.

In order to make a story compelling, there must be a protagonist (hero), a goal, a dilemma, conflict, an antagonist (nemesis) and a moral (leading to growth) to create a complete experience. And more importantly, an audience. Stories help us communicate with each other, and add meaning and enrichment to our lives. They bring people together through sharing and help us evolve and grow stronger.

Dramatica defines story as a grand argument dealing with a problem or an inequity. Huh? Basically, it raises the issue of a hero with a conflict as they are yanked from their natural world through a critical or inciting incident, and how they go about solving it.

During a recent seminar by Jen Grisanti (a Hollywood writers’ consultant and wonderful person too), she spoke of the importance of finding your story. What is the writer specifically trying to say? Why are they taking up her with a series of events? Is your story too episodic? What do you want your audience to get from watching your film? What message are you trying to convey to your audience?

The movie “Tootsie” spent close to a decade in development until the writer Larry Gelbart finally decided that ‘Tootsie” was a story about a man who had to become a woman in order to better understand them and himself. It wasn’t so much a story of desperation, the lengths people go to to make it as an actor, or about a guy liking to dress up. Consider “What Women Want” with Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt which was essentially the same story with body rather than clothes swapping.

Jen Grisanti sees stories as media for building communities. Pretty powerful stuff. A good story must have clarity and must be relevant to the times. How does the story make you feel? These are primal concepts, but difficult to nail down. It must also possess deeper symbolism to have a greater impact on us. She sees the important aspects of raising the emotional stakes in a story as being

• anticipation
• expectation
• participation
• surprise and,
• a delayed payoff

WHAT IS A PLOT?

A plot is simply the way a story is executed, or a cause and effect series of events. A road map. It is the mechanics of your story; how the sequence of events are put together. Many writers confuse the two and think writing event after event constitutes a story, especially in action films. Is your plot linear, non-linear or avariant? Classic examples of unconventional plotting include “Memento”, “Reservoir Dogs” and “Run Lola Run”. Plot also relates to structure, the most common being the Aristotelian three act structure. Is there a clear concept or story idea, which is more specific than a theme? Good versus evil isn’t a story concept.  Is there a well defined central/main character with a clear motivation, goal, a dilemma and obstacles. One way to enhance your plotting is to consider what is the worse case scenario if your main character doesn’t achieve their goal. The ultimate failure to achieve a goal is death.

Subplots are secondary or tertiary storylines. Some readers have complained that, because a writer hasn’t really found their story, some subplots are actually more intriguing than the main plot. It happens in unpolished scripts. Even to me! Another problem I recently grappled with is my choice of main character to drive the plot. In the end I switched the boy to a girl (literally not surgically) and everything fell into  place.

FINDING YOUR VOICE

These are the less tangible qualities that define you as a writer. Jen Grisanti claims that many newer writers lack a distinct voice which distinguishes them from other writers.

This is a difficult process of self exploration. It means that we need to delve deeper into our psyches than ever before. She made us define a critical or life changing incident where the rug was pulled from under our feet and we are forced to deal with a new reality. Sound familiar? In doing so, we help shape our characters which are products of our creativity and therefore ourselves. Imagine placing your profile on a social website. Think of how you would describe your personality? What are your likes and dislikes? What do you value most in your relationships with other people? Certain patterns will emerge which define you as an individual. Are you easy going? Wound up tight? Chatty? Pensive? Conventional? Alternative? Think about how a producer might discuss what qualities you possess as a writer. If a project is greenlit and a producer is looking for a writer and they say “This project is perfect for xxxx (insert your name)”, it’s because of your voice.

Part of finding your voice involves common themes in the stories we like to tell. Are we animal lovers? Philanthropists? Comedians? Feminists? Optimists? Cynical? Interested in human suffering? Are your characters strong, successful people? Are you strong and successful or do you aspire to be? Are characters underdogs? What is their disposition? Happy? Smarmy? Cheerful? Quirks?

Finding your story and finding your voice is rather like wanting a quick definition of the meaning of life. The only way to find it is to keep searching. And the search lies in the writing. So what are you waiting for?

Ah. Bit of a lull there. A slight sabbatical endured, but here’s hoping I’m beginning to get used to my new routine with Brewhaha, tea & general writing.

I’ve absented myself, not entirely on purpose; seeing as I’ve only just been made aware by some who are eager to read my babble, that I’ve not posted in over twenty days. Twenty of the days. Two-Zero. Wow, that’s a little extreme, even for my efforts. This little jobby wob must be taking it’s toll. At least by way of a sleep, work, crash, eat?, sleep lifestyle.

It’s a little premature, but some resolutions that I’m hoping to uphold & maintain over the coming months include the following; ‘winding down’, ‘writing more’, ‘reading more’, ‘moaning less’, ‘running more’, ‘fretting less’, ‘rising earlier’, ‘falling sooner’ and generally being more organised… In other words – Normality.

Chaotic, it has been. Brashly, sounding a little Yoda-esque there…

Oh! And not to mention the theatre. My God man. I moved here to write, read and indulge – & I’ve done very little of the entirety of the former. I suppose it makes sense, in that I’m still adjusting to being away from home, amongst other things.

I’m off home for a short jaunt tomorrow. Should be an experience.

Until next time,

x

Entertainment Weekly recently reviewed The Twilight Saga:  New Moon – what grade did the movie get and do you agree?

The production itself, directed by Chris Weitz (The Golden Compass) from a script by Melissa Rosenberg, is fan-ready and saga-solid. Weitz goes for an appealing, slightly old-fashioned look, one in which the near-
constant rain nicely mirrors Bella’s internal weather conditions. (As embodied by Stewart, she’s one pained and stormy chick.) Pattinson looks, to these post-teen eyes, even more to-die-for, with his red lips, amber eyes, and major hair. I wish Jacob, endowed with Lautner’s lithe bod and Matt Damonesque grin, had more of a chance with Bella. But, well, book readers know best what happens next in Eclipse. Everyone else can catch up on screen next year. Guaranteed, it will still be raining in Forks, Wash. B+

 

Click here to read the full story.

Source.

I am happy to announce that I will compete in the third round of the NYC Midnight Short Screenplay Screenwriting Championship this week-end.   This is the first time I’ve ever entered something like this so I’m pleased with my showing. 

My first entry earned a score of 22 out of 25.  My second entry only earned a 12 out of 25.  What does this tell me? 

Basically it reminds me of how SUBJECTIVE this business is.   My writing style didn’t change.  But the story did because of the assigned genres, locations, and required objects.   There’s also a possibility that I had a different set of judges.

I am currently involved in another contest.    I won’t talk about the contest details  but, if the folks who are sponsoring the contest find a script they like, it will be produced.  The director and producer will decide if anything warrants production.

This contest is informal and small enough that writers are encouraged to submit drafts for comments.  After we receive the comments, we can polish and resubmit.  I submitted my draft and it was read by the director and the producer.  Comments were sent back to me.

I had two very different reactions from them.   One loved it but mentioned a few areas that could be changed.  The other didn’t love it so much.  So I have my work set out for me.

What does all this mean?   It just reminds me that it’s going to be very difficult to please every judge.  Every reader is not going to like my story.   I need to write my best and pray someone out there smiles when they read my work!

Support the campaign by attaching your name here!

——————————————————————————————————————————–

THE EUROPEAN SCREENWRITERS MANIFESTO

Stories are at the heart of humanity and are the repository of our diverse cultural heritage. They are told, retold and reinterpreted for new times by storytellers. Screenwriters are the storytellers of our time.

European writing talent should be trusted, encouraged and supported. The European film industries need to find ways to attract and keep its screenwriters in the cinema and in their craft.

We assert that:

•  The screenwriter is an author of the film, a primary creator of the audiovisual work.

•  The indiscriminate use of the possessory credit is unacceptable.

•  The moral rights of the screenwriter, especially the right to maintain the integrity of a work and to protect it from any distortion or misuse should be inalienable and should be fully honored in practice.

•  The screenwriter should receive fair payment for every form of exploitation of his work.

•  As author the screenwriter should be entitled to an involvement in the production process as well as in the promotion of the film and to be compensated for such work. As author he or she should be named in any publication accordingly, including festival catalogues, TV listing magazines and reviews.

We call on:

•  National governments and funding agencies to support screenwriters by focusing more energy and resources, whether in form of subsidy, tax breaks or investment schemes, on the development stage of film and television production and by funding writers directly.

•  Scholars and film critics to acknowledge the role of screenwriters , and universities, academies and training programmes to educate the next generations in accordance to the collaborative art of the medium and with respect towards the art and craft of screenwriting.

•  Festivals, film museums and other institutions to name the screenwriters in their programs and plan and screen film tributes to screenwriters just as they do to directors, actors and countries.

•  National and European law should acknowledge that the writer is an author of the film.

•  National and European law should ensure that screenwriters can organise, negotiate and contract collectively, in order to encourage and maintain the distinct cultural identities of each country and to seek means to facilitate the free movement of writers in and between all nations.

We will:

•  Distribute this manifesto to industry members and the press in our respective countries.

•  Campaign for the implementation of the agenda defined by this manifesto.

•  Seek the transition into national and European law of the legal changes demanded by this manifesto.

Federation of Scriptwriters in Europe

Ric Beairsto

Got this from a Facebook message from the Vancouver International Film Festival group or page or whatever it is that I joined sometime last year and now can’t remember. But I found the direct Facebook Link anyway. I’m dogged like that, yo.

And really, you CANNOT beat that price! Best price I’ve ever seen on a screenwriting workshop, and with the VIFF behind it, you know it’s going to be quality.

Attention Filmmakers and Creative Writers:

This Saturday Nov 22, 2:00pm, Vancity Theatre

Writing Short Screenplays: The Good News and Bad with Ric Beairsto

This three-hour workshop will address the art of storytelling in its broadest, most accessible sense, then range through to the much more exacting craft of short story writing for the screen. Focus will be on the increased flexibility of short form (the good news) but will include discussion of the impact of the obvious constraints of writing within more immediate boundaries (the bad news). Particular attention will be paid to the evaluative skills involved in determining which story ideas lend themselves best to short screenplay, as well as an examination of the means of writing a short screenplay designed to give the filmmaker the best chance of producing a truly compelling ‘calling card.’ A number of successful short films will be screened during the workshop, some locally produced, some international in their origins, with a continued emphasis on the story characteristics and genres which lend themselves well to successful execution in short form. Copies of  THE TYRANNY OF STORY: Audience Expectations and the Short Screenplay will be available for sale to workshop attendees at a discounted rate.

Ric Beairsto is an award-winning screenwriter, director and producer who has been active in the Canadian film and television industry since 1980. He has written more than a dozen feature-length screenplays, and his TV writing credits begin with The Beachcombers for CBC and extend to Mixed Blessings, currently in production for APTN, where Ric is the Creator and Head Writer. Since 1987, Ric has also taught screenwriting on a part-time basis at various post-secondary institutes, including the Vancouver Film School, The Interior Film and Television Centre, Trinity Western University and Langara College, where he has actively workshopped more than 1500 short screenplays. He is the author of  THE TYRANNY OF STORY: Audience Expectations and the Short Screenplay, first published in 1998, and now available in a revised 2 nd edition. The book is about story form in general, and short screenplay form in particular, and has been used as a regular textbook in over a dozen North American film schools, including UCLA and the American Film institute

Adults $20 // Students $15

For tickets and info: http://www.viff.org/tixSYS/vifc/filmguide/event.php?EventNumber=1711

FACEBOOK EVENT PAGE: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9198386989&ref=ts#/event.php?eid=212018593942&ref=mf

http://vifc.org

Please ignore the title of this post. For whatever reason I can’t get the song “Back to the Hotel” out of my head.

I had a nice trip to Orlando this weekend. I go down at least twice a year. Usually once in July for the race in Daytona, and once in October/November for my college’s Homecoming game. This year I wasn’t really looking forward to going since UCF was playing Houston, who was ranked just outside of the top ten in the BCS standings. I assumed we’d get crushed. Boy was I wrong. We not only beat Houston, we put an end to the Heisman trophy hopes of their quarterback Case Keenum. But that’s not why I’m writing this post.

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before, but I’m not a good flyer. Even short plane trips. I find them just dreadful. There are two reasons for this. One, I have control issues, and trusting some stranger to keep me safe a mile up in the air is hard for me to accept. Two, I’m 6′3″ and airplanes just aren’t meant to handle people that big. I feel like a sardine, and less than human while I fly. Anyway, I prefer to drive to where I’m going.

I don’t choose to drive just because I hate flying. I choose to drive because I literally enjoy driving. Maybe it’s because my family always managed to take one “great American road trip” each summer growing up. We weren’t going anywhere luxurious, (usually a relative’s house, or some far off campground) but driving always provided me a certain sense of adventure. Heading to a destination unknown. I find few things more relaxing than cruising down stretches of highway with the windows down, sun roof open, and some good tunes roaring from the stereo.

While on long drives I usually think about writing. I’m not kidding. I go over stories. Think about scenes. Flesh out ideas. And sometimes just brainstorm/day dream. When it’s just you and the road, you’ve got plenty of bandwidth to think about stuff like that.

During the beginning of my trip I was doing a lot of thinking about Bystander. I’ve completed the partial outline I posted from a few weeks ago, but the reality is that even though I’ve got an “outline” done something is bothering me about it. It was hard to put my finger on too. It’s like, while I know I’ve got a complete story I can write, I’m looking at it and asking myself, “Is this the story that I want to be writing?” And I don’t mean that in the “Is there something better I can be writing about,” I mean it in the more, “Is this really the story I want to tell with these characters.” I mulled this over for a good hour or two before finally accepting that, in fact, it wasn’t the story I wanted to tell with these characters.

I was trying to force the new direction I wanted to take the story on top of plot points and story beats that were around way back from my first draft, and that was over four years ago. I wasn’t doing the total rebuild that I wanted. I was retrofitting. And that’s what was bothering me. Even though I’d put in all this work on the outline, I was forcing it. I was forcing the characters (which have changed drastically over the years) into decisions they wouldn’t make anymore. Finally, I realized, “Enough. You’re not ready for this. If you keep on you’re going to spend time writing something that you’re just going to go back and write again.” So I decided to back off, do some more thinking and brainstorming, and come at this fresh with a new set of plot points. Plot points that actually make sense, and are not some legacy from a time when I knew next to nothing about screenwriting.

And this goes back to my earlier post “On Progress.” This is progress. This is writing. Just because I’m not typing words into Final Draft doesn’t mean that I’m not going somewhere. I am actively working on storytelling, crafting, engineering. When I first started out I might have looked at a situation like this and go, “Man, I must not be any good, or I’d be able to figure this out by now.” That’s simply not true. I realize now that being able to see these types of problems, this high level analysis, was something I wasn’t capable of four, three, or even two years ago. For other writers maybe this comes easier. And I’m sure some of those people get paid to write for a living now. But for me I’m not there yet. I’m still the student. Still just like you.

On the flip side I also made a decision about something that’s going to effect what I work on over the next few months. But I’ve written enough for now. That’ll will come with another post, or maybe a video.

Until next time, keep writing!
-Steve

It’s difficult to whittle away at the same feature day in and day out.    The process is so damn long.   Yes, you might be able to write the first draft  in a couple of months but, in most cases, you’re looking at years to get rewrites perfected.   How long to get it sold?  I’m not even guessing on that…

I would like to suggest that you take a break from the shear length of a feature and write a short.   It  can be as short as a one-pager.   Or longer, you choose!  Most of the shorts I’ve written are under ten pages long.

The beauty of “shorts” is they are done quickly.  And folks who want to direct can get experience with a short, produce it  at a fraction of the cost of a feature.   All this gives you something to add to your writing resume.

Shorts can be fun.   There are web-sites out there that host “free” contests for the “short”.  My favorite is MoviePoet.   Their monthly contests are free and you get a lot of feedback that can help you improve your writing.   It’s a very friendly place to hang out.  Also,  DVXuser occasionally hosts “scriptfests” which are free to enter, too. 

I have had one of my “shorts” made into a film and I uploaded it this past week-end.  It was entered in a DVXuser contest.  If you are interested, take a minute and watch The Puppeteer.

Writing “shorts” allows you to experiment with new genres. 

I’m currently involved in a contest at NYC Midnight.  The results for the second round will be posted this week and I’m hoping to advance to the third round.   In any case, this contest challenged us to write shorts with  assigned genres, locations, and required objects.  In the first round, I was assigned monster movie, horse stable, and generator.  The second round was more difficult with a science fiction assignment that had to include a fish farm and a plunger.

Take a break.  Write a short.  It’s fun.  And rewarding!

Well the good news is… things aren’t getting any worse. Not that there was much scope for the spec script market to fall any more. Universal and Sony have used up their development budgets for this year, or had it taken away form them The other studios aren’t faring much better. So far this year, the proportion of scripts that have gone out wide and sold, hovers at around 1%. That’s about the same figure during the writers strike. Dire news, but at least it’s honest.

Although the persistent economic storm clouds are gradually starting to  lift, with major companies beginning to recapitalize, things should turn in the new year. Progress is likely to be slow as we still face the possibility of a double dip in the economic recovery. You know things are bad when the top tenpercentaries are selling single single digit numbers of projects. Scripts are still being circulated so that writers can display their wares. Make sure you’re one of them and get as many query letters out there as possible, hopefully even a few reads. We still need to market ourselves and network like crazy.

The screenwriting landscape has changed dramatically since the WGA strike of 2008. Television networks are relying on reality tv shows despite audience drops of around 20%. Reality tv shows can cost less than half that of scripted dramas, so are highly profitable. Networks have learnt to live without us. Where major shows used to hire 10-12 writers, the number has dropped by around 30 -40%. The number of pilots commissioned by the television networks has fallen by a similar amount. The good news is that the best television writing around these days is in cable television. Ratings of scripted cable shows have improved by around 20 -30%. Look at the Emmys, with shows like “Mad Men”, “Breaking Bad”, “Weeds” and “Hung”. Go Showtime, HBO and AMC. You rock!

The feature business is murkier. Producers are finding it tougher to get projects off the ground in light of costs increasing by around 10% per year. Many studio films are unprofitable and are considered advertisements for DVD sales and merchandising, both of which faced decreasing sales in the current economic climate.  Old school mentality dictated that you were only as successful as your last project. This adage no longer holds true. Studios are increasingly hedging their bets with franchises, sequels and comics. The beleaguered MGM studio is likely to be auctioned off shortly. In the absence of many serious buyers, it may not survive, given that it’s library is considered old and unlucrative. The worst case scenario would be one less buyer and one less lion roaring.

It has been argued that in 2009, it was easier to get a $200 million plus project like “Star Trek” greenlit than a $10 million indie. The “specialty” film business, which was once swallowed up by the studios, have still not returned in vogue. Studio balance sheets show that the more you spend on a movie, the more money it earns to justify their budgets. Studios aren’t even sure where to  spend their P & A dollars anymore. Given the declining ratings, traditional television advertising isn’t as effective as it once was. Virals and other internet campaigns are gradually being rolled out as audiences are spending more time on the internet.

However, we need this destruction to allow for new creation. How biblical! Old debt based business models need to altered to suit the new streamlined modern age. Can you believe that shows celebrating their 100th episode are really celebrating when they break even financially? How could that be sustainable? You gotta hand it to “The Simpsons” who are just recently starting to post profits. There’s creative accounting for you.

Still, the world will always need storytellers; that means us. However, the media in which we operate will change. As writers, we need to diversify our outlets. Consider writing for downloadable or streamed radio plays, webisodes, audio books on CD, mobile phone content. Nobody has figured out a viable business model for these formats, but they will in time. Necessity is the mother of invention, so we too must evolve. New foliage will sprout in the burnt out forest and we’ll be there to nurture it.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m going to begin a new screenplay in January.  Right now I’m working on the plot, fleshing it out, deciding on major beats, that kind of thing.

I’m also starting to think about what to name my characters.    One thing I learned when I first started to write SP’s … I love names that begin with the letter “J”.  But it would be really stupid to give every character a name that begins with that letter.  Can you imagine how confused a reader could become.  Jan, Jean, Joseph, Judy, Jeremiah, Janet, Jim, Jon, John, etc…

So the first thing I do is open a NAME file for my screenplay.  The file is divided into two parts.  The first part, a list of NAMED CHARACTERS, has the alphabet listed along the left side.  As I decide on names for characters, I add the name to this list, making every effort not to duplicate any letters.    The list might begin like this:

A  Anne Gables

B

C  Christopher Long

D  Danielle Stevens  (nicknamed “Duck”)

E 

F  Frank (Frankie) Lopez

This listing allows me to “glance” at all my character names and make sure that one letter is not overused. 

The second part of this file is a listing of UNNAMED characters.  These are minor characters who only appear for a short time in the screenplay.  The listing might look like this.

Newspaper Delivery Boy

Policeman # 1

Policeman #2

Teacher

Traffic Guard

Utility Worker

Another thing to consider is the LENGTH of the name.  If your main character has a very long name such as Bartholemew, the shear length of the name will increase the page length of your SP.  Bart is a much shorter version of Bartholemew.  Only you can decide which name to use, but it is a consideration.

Also, consider the character’s occupation    A stripper will usually have a more flamboyant name than a librarian.   Mike would be a great name for a welder,  whereas a lawyer might be Michael. 

The age of the character should play a factor.   Matilda or Elsie might be a perfect name for an old lady.   Mattie or Elly would be better for a teen-ager.

Where was your character born?  Is he a Billy Bob or a William Robert?    Is he Jose’ or Joseph?

And be aware of rhythm, too.  Don’t give all your characters one syllable names.  Everyone can’t be Joe, Ed, Tom, Ken, Bart, etc.   Give some of the character’s names with  two or more syllables.    Joseph.  Edward.  Thomas.  Kenneth.  Bartholemew.

Or make the spelling unique for the reader.  When the film is watched, the viewer won’t know that Deb is spelled Debb, but it might help the reader visualize your character better.

I enjoy the process of naming my characters.   It is said that writing a screenplay is like giving birth to a baby.  Well, you gotta name that baby!  And in a screenplay, there are  lots of characters who need names!

Sometimes it takes a while for something to sink into my thick skull.  This happened to me when learning the difference beteen  V.O. (voice over) and O.S. (off-screen).  They are very similar but, at the same time, very different.  It took me a while to fully understand the difference.

What helped me remember when to use one and when to use the other is to think of O.S. (Off Screen) as being OFF SITE.

V.O. and O.S. are both used to indicate that a character is speaking but we do not see them  on the screen.   The key to knowing which to use depends solely on where the character is physically located when they speak. 

In a nut shell, if the character is nearby, use V.O.  But, if the character is OFF SITE, use O.S. or Off Screen.

Let’s say  a wife and husband, are talking face to face.  And the husband meanders out of the room.   On film, we see the wife.  We hear the husband but  we do not see him.   In this case, V.O. would be used.   Although the character is “off screen”, the character is not “off site”.

Now, if this same couple were talking on the phone, O.S. would be used.  The situation is similiar, the wife can’t see the husband but she can hear him.  But the character is OFF SITE so “off screen” or O.S. is used.

Notes from the Cheltenham Screenwriters’ Festival 2009.

In this post:
Janice Day – Making a Living as a Writer
Janice Day and Caroline Ferguson – Networking
Rob Kraitt and Kate Leys – How To Be Better

——————————————————————————————————————————–

MAKING A LIVING AS A WRITER

Janice Day

with Janice Day

What stops you from becoming a successful writer? You don’t have an Agent? Your lack self-discipline? Talent? Writer’s block? Fear of failure? Janice Day says it could be fear of success. For example, you might be afraid of stalkers or people recognising you in the street… Whatever it is, you need to get over your negative thinking.

Irrational fears need to be defined and dealt with. Also, a lack of focus might be a problem. You need to set clear concrete goals – not just “I want to earn a living as a writer” but “I want to write that script about that topic and for that director!” – when it’s clear and concrete, you can make plans and take steps to achieve it.

Janice mentioned Jerrold Mundis who helps people get over what they think is a writer’s block for them; shifting attention or short attention span is also a form of writer’s block.

Discipline – planning time and making short term goals (i.e. writing a number of words or scenes per day) can help you focus. And what’s most important: if you want to increase the rate of success you have to increase the rate of failure.

Spend 50% of your time on the project that pays the rent, 35% on the project that’s going to pay the rent next, and 15% on your dream project.

Know what you want to do – whether it’s film or TV or radio and make plans. Work a little every day – the tortoise wins the race.

If you’re not making a living as a writer or you’re not making enough to support yourself you can find other sources of income: write a novel (which can become the basis of your next script), write short stories and send them to magazines or short story competitions, try copywriting, or sell adverts on your website, send scripts to competitions, publish an e-book.

Recommended resources:
Jerrold Mundis Break Writer’s Block Forever and Earn What You Deserve

Julia Cameron The Artist’s Way and The Right to Write

——————————————————————————————————————————–

NETWORKING

with Janice Day and Caroline Ferguson

Networking is an important part of finding work and furthering your career. Whether you’re a shy wall flower or an extroverted party animal, you can’t get around it. What you can do: make new contacts at events, find an opportunity to talk about your project, find common interests, network, build relationships in order to plant seeds for new opportunities in the future. A random question can lead to something good. Don’t try to sell yourself, you can leave that for later. Networking is communicating, you find common interests.

Common problems with networking: people think they can’t do it because they’re modest, they don’t want to impose themselves, push themselves – you should think about what you can give, how you can help others. People are afraid to look stupid, afraid of how people will react. They don’t want to be a salesman who’s after money – it’s not creative, it’s not sincere.You can overcome shyness by focussing on the other person, not on yourself. Don’t compare yourself to others or compete – it’s paralizing. Don’t think about yourself, think about the other person – be interested in them, what they’re doing. Make it about them, not you. Networking is not selling, it’s building social capital.

Make yourself visible (blogs, forums, Twitter), create personal relationships – you need to know each other in order to work together. Don’t forget your goals. Too much networking leaves too little time for writing. You need to keep a balance.

Who do you network with – with your peers, not just the big shots. You can learn something from everyone. “Hunting and farming”. Building something that will become useful later. Be generous and helpful. When you haven’t got the type of project the producer is looking for, recommend someone else – it’ll leave a good impression. Helping others can boost your confidence. Introduce people to each other.

Lower the stakes. What’s the worst thing that could happen? Imagine your in the audience. If you do nothing, nothing will change. You can either change a situation or your attitude. So, for example, when you’re nervous walking into a crowded room – you can’t change the situation – the crowd – but you can change your attitude. Be friendly. Listen.

Follow Janice Day and Caroline Ferguson on Twitter.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

THE RETURN OF THE GOOD – HOW TO BE BETTER

with Rob Kraitt and Kate Leys

Rob Kraitt is a freelance script editor and consultant and an Agent with AP Watt, and Kate Leys a Script Editor with The Script Factory. Kate did most of the talking accompanied by lots of nodding by Rob – not from sleepiness, from eager agreement.

Kate Leys

No one knows anything – just after Doug Chamberlain had busted this myth, saying that it doesn’t mean that everyone’s an idiot, Kate and Rob back it up – no one knows how many people go to the cinema every month, what is the share of local (UK) films at the box office (more than you’d think – a third in the UK!, and 15% globally); what are the three largest film industries – US, Japan, and UK. People tend to the British films are a failure and play an insignificant part in the global film industry but it’s not true – there’s more money in it than people think.

You should not think about what people want to see while you’re writing a script. You can’t predict what’s going to happen on the market in the future, so you should write what you think is good.

The market and creativity don’t want to fit together. The producers want control over what’s being done with their large sums of money, they don’t want to waste it. The bigger the budget, the bigger the responsibility. If we want the financiers to listen to us, we must also understand them. We need to try to integrate creativity and the market.

People want to hire writers who are already working. The economic climate makes this worse – no one wants to take risks. You need a good reputation and get on with people. People come to those who they know do a good job.

Beginners have to find opportunities themselves, form relationships, take part in competitions, etc. You need to get something made, produced, then agents will come to you, or it’s time to look for one.

No one knows anything. The unknown creates fear – fear of losing their jobs, fear of failing – it makes people behave badly and can ruin the first meeting. There are people who talk a lot and pose – it doesn’t mean they’re ’somebody’ – if someone is ‘big’ they don’t have to say much at a meeting (they haven’t got anything to prove). Fear makes people do weird things. You should assume that everyone’s afraid because the film industry is very unstable. Be confident, calming, composed – it’ll have a good effect on the other party as well.

The term ‘development hell’ has a different meaning in Europe and the US. In America it means that the script has been paid for but nothing’s happening with it. In Europe it refers to the development process.

Don’t miss deadlines. You get paid for the script but the whole crew is waiting after you. Don’t disappoint and ruin the relationship.

Don’t ignore notes. When you think that the producer’s notes don’t work, you need to discuss it. Otherwise they’ll be disappointed if they see that story doesn’t work and you’ve ignored their comments.

Good writing and good editing is invisible.

Rob Kraitt

You can get good advice from film editors.

When someone can’t specify or put a problem into words, you need to interpret their reaction (a problem with the ending doesn’t necessarily mean the ending should be changed).

When they say “I don’t like this character”, it means that they can’t recognise the character, they can’t identify him/her. David Brent in The Office is not a nice guy but we engage with him because we recognise him, we know what type of person he is.

Before the meeting starts, especially when everyone’s tense and nervous, set a goal for the meeting – what you need to accomplish at that meeting. Some people end up admiring each others’ handbags for half an hour.

It’s better to discuss things with one person, instead of six. It’ll be harder to please everyone when there are six producers sending you conflicting notes. Ask them to discuss things beforehand and send you the notes in one document. Let them discover and fix conflicting notes themselves.

Don’t stop writing, don’t give up. When you have a meeting and they don’t like what you’ve pitched, have something else ready in case they want to know. Be prepared. Keep writing. Tony Grisoni said: “The road to the top is paved with dead bodies, and they’re all suicides.”

Do a background check on the producer – see what they’ve done before, talk to people they’ve worked with before.

Keep it simple, keep the concept clear (not simplistic). So that, for example, the composer could go: “I know what to do with that story!”

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Have a look at other notes from the Screenwriters Festival:
Part 1: Chris Jones and Doug Chamberlain
Part 3: Armando Iannucci and Kevin Loader on In the Loop
Part 4: Screenwriter as Diplomat with Simon Beaufoy

Cheltenham Screenwriters Festival website

More notes from the Screenwriters Festival 2009 here on Vera Mark’s inkblog.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Chris Weitz to Direct Breaking Dawn?

by Ted Casablanca and Taryn Ryder

Although Twilight and New Moon screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg played coy when Marc Malkin asked whether she would write the screenplay for Breaking Dawn last month, we were able to confirm from our studio sources that she will, in fact, be back to write the fourth script—and possibly the fifth.

It’s still up in the air whether B.D. will be two movies—hence why everyone dodged any questions about the fourth flick during the New Moon junket.

During the press conference a reporter asked Kristen Stewart about the possibility of two movies, but the mic was immediately pulled away as the intermediary guy said “next question.”

So what’s the latest on the fourth Twilight flick? And will New Moon’s Chris Weitz direct?

Here’s what we could squeeze out of the cast:

“I think the tentative time for Breaking Dawn is fall of next year. I think. They may well change that,” Robert Pattinson told a sea of reporters on Friday.

Rosenberg and Weitz did a panel together, and we grabbed both of them on their way out.

Have you started writing the script for Breaking Dawn, or is it still in development?
Rosenberg: “You know what, I still can’t comment on that yet!”

OK. We all know the fourth one is going to happen eventually—if you say no comment again, can we take that as a sign it’s very much in the works?
Rosenberg: [laughs.] “OK, no comment!”

As for who will direct the fourth flick? Ashley Greene thinks it’ll be a new director, but we’re not totally sure. Summit wanted Chris Weitz to direct Eclipse, but because of scheduling conflicts, he wasn’t able to. And the entire cast loves C.W., too.

Seriously, we haven’t heard one bad thing about you from the cast, crew or studio. If asked, would you come back on and direct Breaking Dawn?
Weitz: “Well, I’d be stupid not to. I loved [directing New Moon]. Summit, the cast, the crew, everyone was amazing. But making a movie takes up a lot of time, and I have a young son at home. Right now my plan is to spend a lot time with my family.”

Looks like C.W. is taking a play out of the Robsten book! We don’t think that’s a firm no—do you all? Plus, since R.Pattz said we’ve got a good year to go, maybe Chris will be ready to get back on the Twilight fan-wagon.

Source.