Novel new "chick flicks"

Read this interesting article yesterday about how the success of movies like The Help shows a new trend in “chick flicks” aka movies about women who don't blow things up.  The article says the chick flicks that are doing well nowadays aren’t rom coms but movies with substance…movies about female empowerment, friendship, and not just girl meets boy, girl loses boy.  While I think there are plenty of rom coms with substance, I agree that movies like The Help are certainly part of a popular (and positive) new trend.  The article points to an LA Times article that notes the success of other recent chick flicks of past years that fit this female empowerment/friendship mold: Eat, Pray, Love, Julie & Julie, The Devil Wears Prada…The Blind Side is also mentioned.

Is "The Help" helping to change chick flicks?

While the article touches on the themes and ideas these movies have in common and why they’re doing better as of late than Kate Hudson/Katherine Heigl-type vehicles…I think the article misses a chance to examine one other important thing that all these movies also have in common.

They’re all based on popular books.

Now, I’m not saying that it’s the marketing machine at work and not the subject matter that’s drawing audiences to these movies.  In fact I think it’s something else entirely.

A novel/book gives a writer a lot more space to explore and introduce a rich cast of characters (or just one great character) than a 100 page screenplay.  That’s not to say a screenplay, even a rom com, can’t have amazing characters or be an awesome character study, but I think sometimes rom coms get bogged down in their hook.  Not that hooky rom coms haven't made some awesome movies with characters that I love…Sleepless in Seattle…woman falls in love with a man she’s never met when she hears him on a radio show…You’ve Got Mail…a pair of rivals who loathe each other are unknowingly each others romantic online pen pals (this is actually based on a play).  I think the problem is that there’s probably only so many good original hooks out there and because of that, rom coms are starting to feel a little tired and derivative of one another (see No Strings Attached and Friends with Benefits...both did well by the way...but not Devil Wears Prada well).

I guess what I’m trying to say is that if you still want to write the type of hooky rom com that would star Kate Hudson while also taking something away from this new trend in chick flicks, maybe a good idea is to first imagine your screenplay not as a movie but as a novel.  Heck, maybe outline/write some of it first as a novel.  If nothing else, maybe that will help you think outside the rom com box, and give your characters more depth.  Or not.  I could be wrong.  Maybe rom coms in general are just "out" right now.  Something Borrowed (which yes, co-starred Kate Hudson) was based on a popular chick lit novel and domestically, The Help has already earned more than what that movie made in its entire run.

The Halloween Costume Test

I know I should save this post for Halloween, but since I’ve started work on my new pilot, I’ve been thinking a lot about how I create characters.  So, what is this “Halloween Costume Test” you ask, and what does Halloween have to do with creating characters?

Nothing!  Muahaha!  Oh wait, just kidding...I had a point...

I went to a talk a while back for some screenwriting workshop/class thingy where the speaker stressed the importance of creating “character conceits."  But, what's a "character conceit?"  If you break down those words the term makes no sense, but from what I could gather, it was just a fancy way the speaker used to describe extremely memorable characters (Latka on Taxi, Kramer on Seinfeld, Urkel on Family Matters, and Sue Sylvester on Glee just to name a few).   Basically, the speaker was emphasizing the idea that writers should strive to create these types of characters since they stand out and can make hit shows.

Uh…duh, right?  Make an amazing character people latch onto, have a hit show.  I’ll get right on that.

And yet, I shouldn’t roll my eyes too much.  After all, who wouldn’t want to write a hit show?  So, I decided I’d go ahead and try to write a “character conceit” but how would I know if I was actually, you know…doing it?  Well, I think I’ve found one way and that is…you guessed it, the Halloween Costume Test.

What do all those characters I mentioned have in common?  I think their uniqueness and instant recognizability makes them all pretty good Halloween costumes.  Ergo, if I want to know if I’ve really created a memorable character (or “character conceit” as it were) I’ll just ask myself if people could easily dress up as my character for Halloween.  If the answer is yes, I just might have something good…or er…popular (Jersey Shore…huge hit, and the cast members were the most popular costumes from last year).  Heck, just look at some of the biggest music stars in the world at various points in time (Elvis, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga)…all are Halloween costume worthy.

Now, I don’t think this means a script would suck without one of these "character conceits" and I’m sure some people will say this idea puts too much emphasis on creating a bizarre look for a character for no reason, or promotes the writing of catch phrases rather than meaningful content.

But, I don’t think it has to be that at all.  I think keeping this idea in mind could help writers hone characters and force them to get really specific and create a person a reader has never seen before rather than "pretty doctor #1" or "handsome lawyer #3."  And hey, I think Don Draper, Joan Harris, Dr. House, and Dexter, would all make totally sweet Halloween costumes, and all are from shows with a lot of critical acclaim.

Now obviously, I understand that iconic looks for characters are brought to life by talented costume, hair, and makeup departments, and that the right actor can also take a role to a whole other level. Would Sue Sylvester be as easy to imitate without her Adidas tracksuits, megaphones, and Jane Lynch’s deadpan delivery? Maybe not. But she wouldn’t be Sue at all without her snarky comments and absurd one liners.

Entitled

No, this isn’t a post on nepotism…it’s a post on…titles!

Since I’m working on a new pilot I’ve been thinking a bit about titles lately and what the heck I want to call my new pilot.

Titles are fun…but tough.  Sometimes you have an awesome title that inspires you to write something and other times you have a great concept and can write the whole thing but when you're done, you're still stuck with just Untitled.

What the heck do I call this thing?

This is clearly something writers struggle with at every level (baby and up).  Just looking at the recent pilots, several changed their titles (Rookies became The 2-2, The Rememberer became Unforgettable, Damage Control became Scandal, etc.).  Now, the reason for title changes for pros aren’t always creative…there are sometimes bigger (read: legal) reasons for networks and studios to change a title…but other times it’s just about trying to find that one perfect title.

Here are some thoughts I’m trying to keep in mind so I pick the best title:

Get specific!

I remember Blake Snyder mentioning this in one of his Save The Cat books.  He talked about the movie Four Christmases.  Sure, they could have called the movie Yuletide or Noel or some other generic word that evokes the idea of Christmas, but Four Christmases is specific.  He also mentions a fake title...something like Love or Money, as an example of the sort of title that presents a concept that is SO generic dozens of movies could have it.  You don't want that.

I agree that vague concepts make pretty mediocre titles.  I know someone who recently revealed a project they had been writing and the title they picked was SO generic it could have been for pretty much every other piece of writing in that genre.  My Significant Other also mentioned seeing a driving billboard the other day (one of those billboards on a truck) and it was advertising some YA book called Dangerous Children.  I couldn’t help but think this was a sub par title.  While I like the contrast of dangerous and children (you don’t usually think of children as dangerous) this was SO generic it could have been the title for a bunch of other books like Lord of the Flies, The Hunger Games, or ANY book where there are children who do something dangerous.  All in all this title tells me ZIP about what the book is actually about.

So yeah, get specific and pick a title that could only be for that movie/show/book…I like to use the “no other” test for this.  Imagine the title Humans Vs. Robots…could have been used for several existing sci fi works, but there is no other Battlestar Galactica and no other Terminator.  Likewise, there is no other Harry Potter…no other Hunger Games…no other Jurassic Park...no other Bridge to Terabithia…no other Great Gatsby…no other Ugly Betty…no other Gossip Girl…no other Gilmore Girls…no other Shawshank Redemption…no other Jerry Maguire.   Find that thing, character, element, that makes your script/book/idea/whatever special and unique…and if you can’t find one…maybe you need a new idea?

A little something extra

Another Blake Snyder tip I recall is that a great title will have irony, an unusual contrast, or a double meaning.  His prime example was Legally Blonde which is great because it’s not only a riff/play on words of the term "legally blind" but it also refers specifically to the story of a “dumb blonde” going to Harvard Law.

I think Mad Men is a great title for similar reasons.  Think of all the meanings you can get out of it…(Mad Men as in Madison Avenue men, as a play on the phrase “Ad Men,” and of course "mad" as in crazy).  Also, there are no other Mad Men…another reason it’s an awesome title.

Anyway, just something I’m thinking about…but I think it’s also wise to keep in mind that what you write is more important than the title.  There might be no other Gigli but that doesn’t make Gigli a good movie.  Likewise, plenty of acclaimed books, movies, and TV shows have done just fine with fairly generic titles:

The Killing (couldn’t any crime show be called this/or some form of this?)
Friends (could be the title for pretty much any sitcom)
Election (could be used for any movie with an election)
Pride and Prejudice (pretty much good for any romance/rom com)
War and Peace (that pretty much covers everything…right?)

But then again, for every Pride and Prejudice there’s also a Love Happens.

Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Blog Post Ever Written

Happy Friday, all!

Okay, Pom Wonderful...where's MY check?

Ah, I kid I kid.  Let's see, what's new...outlining my new spec, but the mood struck and I actually wrote the first draft of the first act, so that’s good…just need to buckle down and focus on actually finishing the outline before I get too far along writing scenes or I know I’ll get stuck later.

In other news, I obviously saw the new Morgan Spurlock film, The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, and found it really funny and enjoyable.  That being said, I don’t think it said anything new or amazing that most people don’t already know/assume…yes, product placement happens…a lot...yes, it can be funny... yes, it can be necessary to make money/finance films and TV shows... yes, you should take advantage of that and take the money but try not to "sell out."

One of my favorite parts of the movie that was not entirely related to the overall point of the movie was a scene where Morgan had to identify his “brand.”  I actually mentioned this idea of "brand" last Friday and I’ve alluded to it before when I talked about streamlining the genres/types of pilots, specs, and screenplays you write.

So yeah, think about your “brand” so people will "get" who you are as a writer.  I know it’s hard for a baby writer and I struggle with it ALL THE TIME.   I want to be a special little snowflake and write all sorts of stuff in different genres, or I read a new book/see a new show/watch a cool movie and feel all inspired to try something like what I’ve seen.  I guess growing as a writer is about learning to balance that urge to stretch/try new things, and perfecting a specific style.

On a slightly related note, Idol did another “express yourself” themed show last night and the Idol wannabes got one of their best chances to show their “brand” as it was "Songs of the 21st Century Night."  I think some Idol winners have struggled with “brand” in the past. You win the show by essentially being an awesome karaoke singer and singing songs in a bunch of genres, some of which haven’t been Top 40 popular for 20, 30, even 40 years, and then you’re expected to be a current artist…it’s tough.

Speaking of expressing yourself what was with all the Lady Gaga drama this week?  If I’m all caught up, here’s where things stand: no, she did not rip off Madonna's Express Yourself when she wrote Born This Way, and no, she didn’t tell Weird Al not to parody her (by the way, I happen to enjoy Gaga AND Weird Al, and Perform This Way is fantastic...even if it does sound suspiciously like Madonna's Express Yourself).

$#*! my blog says

Didn’t know what the #&%! I should write about today, but I did read John August’s post about profanity in pilots the other day, so why not talk about profanity?

First, did you know that profanity can be good for you?  Yeah, I saw that episode of Mythbusters too.

Second, I find the way profanity is treated by the media to be interesting.  I think it's incredible that movies like The Dark Knight and Avatar are rated PG-13 while a film like The King’s Speech gets an R rating because of one scene where Colin Firth (humorously) drops the F bomb over an over again. Apparently, being blown up or stabbed in the face/chest is okie dokey as long as there isn’t lots of flowing blood or the movie is a “fantasy.”  It’s the same with network TV.  People get raped, murdered, shot, and mutilated on crime/law shows almost every week, but as long as it’s not too graphic, it’s just fine.  But, don’t even think about dropping a swear word.  That’s over the line.

And then there's sex in movies/TV...the way sex gets treated is bizarre.  I remember people protesting that film Zack and Miri Make a Porno just because it had the word “porno” in the title…as if the film was an actual porno that was going to be shown to your kids in school (btw if you want to protect kids, please keep that Miracle of Life film out of classrooms, you know the one with the close up of a baby being born...seriously, that movie kinda traumatized my entire 11th grade class).

All jokes aside, I don’t really have a problem with violence, profanity, or nudity/sex on TV or in film as long as it’s being used to "serve the story" or whatnot.  I just get annoyed by the way the three aren’t treated equally.  I guess profanity is just the easiest to police.  What’s simpler than “these are the words you can’t say in your movie or you’ll get this rating” or “these are the words you aren’t allowed to say on network TV.”  On the other hand, violence gets a pass when it's not bloody…and sex…well, like I said, the way that it’s treated confuses the heck out of me.  Shows have teens having sex all the time, and some get majorly called out for it (Gossip Girl, Skins) while others don’t get as much/any grief (Friday Night Lights, Parenthood, Glee).  I know it has to do with the age of the actors and the perception of how sex is being “sold” or not sold to teens who watch the shows, but it’s still a little strange.  Then there’s movies. I always thought any nudity equaled an R rating but look at Titanic...that has a big old nude scene but gets a pass (and a PG-13 rating) because it’s…what…“artistic”?

In the end, not sure there’s a point to this post except that I think a writer should write whatever they want as long as it serves their story...but I agree with John August in that it’s dumb to fill a pilot script with profanity (especially for a baby writer).  There are pretty much only 2 major cable networks (HBO and Showtime) where you can say all the words you want.  Why limit yourself so much?  Or better yet, why write a show that you know is a network type show not a pay cable show and load it up with words you can't say?  I guess some writers want to look edgy or maybe they think their show does belong on HBO?  I remember reading the pilot for The Mentalist a while back and it had some profanity in the dialogue.  I figured this was because the creator had done an HBO show before.  Regardless of the reasoning, the show ended up on CBS and all traces of bad language were erased.  While I think established writers can get away with slipping profanity in pilots and still be taken seriously, baby writers might look foolish to do so.

Is it okay to trade/share copyrighted scripts?

Yep, I'm going there.  This is gonna be a long post…get ready.

There was a stir in the online world last year when a certain blogger was sued by a certain major studio for running an online script sharing library.  Now, I never saw/used this library, but according to what I've read, the majority of the scripts shared were for movies so old you might have owned them on VHS, but one in particular was new…brand new…the unproduced script for Deadpool (you know, the X-Men spin off that may or may not happen depending on Ryan Reynolds' schedule).  Now, as I understand, this blogger was not the source of any leaks, she just collected scripts posted online and re-posted them in her library.  And now, she is getting sued for copyright infringement and a mess of other stuff.  Which brings me to my question: Is it okay to trade/share copyrighted scripts?

Sharing copies of your butt from the office holiday party = never okay.

So, what's the answer? 

First, let’s get some stuff straight (as I understand it).

1.     Writers read scripts to learn how to write.

2.     Scripts have copyrights.

3.     Sharing copyrighted material is a no no...except cases of  “fair use” (right?)

Ugh.  Now, I’m no legal expert, but it would seem that when you share/trade scripts or run sites that do just that, you are walking a thin line.

Now, I know some people will say, “fine, script trading is wrong/illegal/whatever but suing for millions is absurd.”  Some people even say a script for a movie that has already been released is worthless and others would argue a script in and of itself is worthless, regardless of whether the script is being produced (haha).  On the other hand, scripts for produced films have made money by being sold in book form (I understand Christopher Nolan worked hard to keep the Inception script under wraps so he could do just that).  So, when people trade a script for free, money might (or might not) be lost from the (theoretical) sales of a (theoretical) book.

So, there's that.

BUT BUT BUT...before I say, case closed, I think there is something A LOT deeper that needs to be addressed about this whole thing, something that goes WAY beyond one blogger and one script library.

There is a culture of script sharing in Hollywood, and a lot of it is sneaky.  I’ve heard tales of interns whiting out their boss’ watermarked name on scripts so their boss could have a copy they could share/trade and I can GUARANTEE you there are assistants at every studio on tracking boards right now asking for scripts that they/their bosses want.  In other words, studios are suing people for sharing copyrighted material while their own employees are DOING THE EXACT SAME THING.  This doesn’t make it RIGHT but it does suggest that studios that file these lawsuits are turning a blind eye to their own employees/other industry professionals doing the very thing they’re suing over (so long as it benefits them).

And, I mean, how do scripts get online in the first place?  That’s right, SOMEONE (or several someones) leaks them.  And who is that someone?  Well, logic would suggest it was someone who had access to the script, that probably means someone at the studio or at an agency.  In other words, the following scenario is quite possible: studio employee shares script, script gets passed around, script gets posted all over the place online, person finds script and puts it in her shared script library, studio sues woman. 

There’s got to be a better way, right?

This brings me back to the first thing I said:

1.     Writers read scripts to learn how to write.

It was great to see all the Oscar nominated scripts posted online a few weeks ago.  I think it would be great if studios/production companies/writers/the WGA could come together to create one (or several) easily accessible online libraries for already produced scripts.  I know most people don’t give a damn about aspiring writers, but I have a ton of respect and am super grateful to pros like John August and Kay Reindl who share their work on their blogs.  Now, of course, you can always read scripts in person at the WGA library, but if you don’t live in LA or you work a full time job, that doesn’t do you much good.  While a convenient online library for scripts wouldn’t eliminate the trade of unproduced scripts (like Deadpool) it might take many baby writers who just want to learn and don’t want to infringe on copyrights out of the legal crossfire.  Any other ideas out there to improve the script trade problem?

Fixing a "Date Night" plant

So, I wanted to do yesterday and today’s planting and payoff themed posts because of a question my Significant Other asked me after we recently watched Date Night (cute movie, I liked it...I'm sure a lot of folks didn't...if you haven’t seen it this post won’t make that much sense, and yeah, SPOILERS, I guess).

Can these two PLEASE host the Oscars next year?

The question was:

Was there ever a payoff for Steve Carell’s character never pushing drawers in?

I said, "Yeah, there was" in the scene where they break into the realty office to get Mark Wahlberg’s address, Carell forgets to push the drawer in and Tina Fey runs into it (and then later confronts him about it).  To which my S.O. replied: “Lame!  Lame payoff!”  Thinking about it, I kind of had to agree, the payoff was weak (so weak my S.O. didn’t seem to remember it happened).  We see early on that Steve Carell’s character has a quirky fault (he never remembers to push in drawers) but the only payoff is one little gag.  It’s too bad, because I think the plant had potential.  

So, you ask, since I'm such an expert, how should it have been done, huh?

One thought I had was that Carell not pushing in a drawer might have helped them thwart the bad guys in some way.  Pretty good...but, I think it could be even better by thinking about how that specific plant reflects the themes of the movie.  This is a story about a couple learning to break out of their routines, improve themselves, and appreciate one another…Tina Fey lets go of her controlling side so Steve Carell can mastermind the plan that saves them in the end…and Steve Carell learns to appreciate how awesome and multi-talented his wife is during their crazy adventures.

Since the drawer quirk is a fault, I think the best FINAL payoff would be if Steve Carell remembering to shut a drawer (i.e. fixing his fault) somehow helped them thwart the bad guys.  Too cheesy?  Maybe...it's just a thought.

Planting and Payoff

Today, I’d like to talk about one of my favorite little screenwriting techniques.  You probably already know, but planting and payoff is just what it sounds like: the writer plants something early on in the script (it can be anything like a prop, a mundane skill the protagonist has, or even a line of dialogue) and then, later in the script, that plant pays off when the script recalls it (the protagonist uses that same mundane talent, prop, or line of dialogue to some amazing effect).

Wrong kind of planting.

I really enjoy planting and payoff because it’s like a little gift to the attentive reader/viewer.  Sure, you noticed the protagonist put that child’s toy in her purse or that they have excellent aim when throwing clothes in the laundry, but since it hasn’t been brought up for a while you’re totally delighted when the protagonist rediscovers the toy and uses it to distract that guard dog or when they realize their amazing aim translates to amazing zombie fighting skills.

Not only is planting and payoff clever, but it also makes a writer look like they know what they’re doing, that they’ve planned meticulously and are not just making it all up as they go along.  Also, I think using planting and payoff makes a writer more aware of when they’ve got extraneous stuff that doesn’t need to be there.  I mean, why show the protagonist’s weird talent or write: CLOSE ON: WHATEVER PROP if it isn’t going to matter later?

So yeah, planting and payoff...use it…wisely, I think having every little thing in your script pay off would generate more groans than pleasant “ah-has!”

The difference between an Oscar and a Razzie

Happy Friday!  Today is the day I usually talk about my own writing, but who cares, it’s OSCAR WEEKEND!  I’ve always enjoyed the Oscars though as I’ve gotten older, I’ve gotten more jaded about them and the fact that the nominations/wins often reward a person more for their career or their last project than their current project, but hey, whatever, it’s the OSCARS.

One good thing about being a little jaded now is that I’m pretty good with an Oscar ballot.  Not to toot my own horn too much, but in the past few years I’ve won several Oscar pools.  My secret?  Honestly, the thing that clinches it is usually the shorts, docs, and technical awards.  If you just look these up beforehand or go with who won the guild awards, you can usually pick correctly, otherwise pick the movie with the coolest name, that works too.

Anyway, I’m clearly excited to see the show.  Also, for the first time ever, I worked on a movie that was nominated for a couple things, so I've got people to root for (actually I’ve worked with people who were nominated in previous years because Hollywood is such a small world, but I feel closer this time).  On the downside, I will probably be less objective with my ballot picks, but on the upside, it’s a nice change to tell people you worked on an Oscar nominated movie instead of a Razzie nominated movie (yep, I worked on one of those, too).  The funny thing is, from my perspective, the people I work with are always working hard and doing excellent and professional jobs.  I’ve worked on a couple “bad” movies, and their sets and costumes totally blew me away.

Now, I’m not saying I couldn’t tell the difference between working on an Oscar movie and a Razzie movie...in hindsight there was definitely a difference.  But in what areas?  Well, I’d say the biggest differences were at the script level, followed by the higher ups level (Director, Producers, etc.).   Now, maybe that’s just me being biased as a writer, but it makes sense doesn’t it?  All other technical quality factors being fairly equal, a better script with a stronger vision/direction, equals a better movie.

And on that note, I'll leave you with this video that cracked my up and made me think of all us baby writers out there.  

While I wouldn't recommend copying Seinfeld word for word if you want to be a comedy writer like this little girl, I think watching shows you love or exposing yourself to anything written by a writer you like can only help you be a better writer (plus, you've gotta watch a bunch of shows anyway if you're planning to write a new TV spec this year).  Speaking of exposing yourself (ha) to good work, here is a link posted by ScriptShadow yesterday to all the 2011 Oscar nominated scripts.  Enjoy, and happy Oscar watching/happy writing (whether you're penning a future Oscar winner, or just your latest TV spec, like me).  

Music in scripts - "The Proposal"

Yesterday I mentioned a lazy and not so good way to include music in your script.  In general, I think dictating the moments where music isn’t in the world of the characters (they can’t hear it) can be dangerous because it’s a crutch for using the song to tell your story instead of actually WRITING it yourself.  Conversely, I think good uses of music are often ones where the music interacts directly with characters.

One example that comes to mind is from the hit rom com The Proposal where Betty White and Sandra Bullock's characters sing and dance to Lil’ Jon's "Get Low."

Betty White knows how to get low.

While attention is obviously paid to the song, the scene isn’t funny because the song itself is funny and the writer was counting on the song alone to make the audience laugh.  The scene is funny because the characters (a sweet Grandma and an uptight control freak) singing and dancing to a song with dirty lyrics is a funny contradiction.  One other good thing about this use of music is that if I read it in a script and I thought it was funny, I know the movie could use a similar song if they couldn't get the rights to this one. That's because the CHARACTERS are the star of this scene NOT the song itself.

Music in scripts - what NOT to do

Okay, so maybe I gave some mixed messages yesterday.  I said, “Go ahead, put music in your script, just remember there’s a big chance people will judge you poorly for it.”  Well then, allow me to point out good and not so good ways to use music in a script.  Today, the not so good…

I’d say the most cringe inducing use of music in a script (regardless of your personal taste in music) looks something like this:

MUSICAL MONTAGE - RICK SPRINGFIELD’S "JESSIE’S GIRL"

Bob watches longingly as Jessie and Jane fall in love.

I think the main problem is the song is working too hard while you are not.  By writing this, you’re saying: “I’m gonna take a break and let "Jessie’s Girl" tell you the story because I’m not a good enough writer to write a scene about a guy wanting another guy’s girl.”  Not that a "Jesse’s Girl" montage wouldn’t be great/funny/whatever, this choice just looks lazy. 

So, before you put a music choice in a script, ask yourself: Is this song doing the work my writing should be doing?  Am I relying on the song to tell my story or set a tone that wouldn’t exist otherwise?  If the answers to those questions are yes, I’d say scrap the song and focus on your WRITING instead.

Must...use..."Jessie's Girl"...can't...stop...myself.

Can you put music in your script?

So, you've seen movies or read scripts that use music and now you want to write something like:

MUSICAL MONTAGE - QUEEN'S "BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY"

OR

CREDITS ROLL OVER JAMES TAYLOR'S "FIRE AND RAIN"

But, you've probably heard that's a big no no….so what gives?  Can you put music in your script?  Thinking about yesterday's post on Love Actually (which is full of music) made me want to write this post and now I’m gonna be a little controversial and say the answer to that question is YES.

A Billy Mack hit is ALWAYS welcome in a script

The music question is really a stand in for a bigger question: Can I break the unwritten rules of screenwriting?  In other words, can I write a 140 page script?  Can I write an 80 page script?  Can I put in camera angles?  Can I say what characters are thinking?  Can I write my script in the 1^st person? And so on.  The writers asking these questions usually want to break these rules and others (duh) but they’ve heard people say: DON’T DO IT!!!

So, why do I say yes?  Well, you’re the writer, even if you are a baby.  Write what you want to write!  If you want to include music because that’s your creative vision, then do it.  Some great scripts I've read break the music rule and I’d hate to discourage someone from writing something good because they were told they MUST MUST MUST do things a certain way.

BUT, be prepared for the consequences of your actions.  Baby writers can't get away with nearly as much rule breaking as pro writers.  So, what is breaking the rules worth to you?  If you do something that people say you shouldn’t (like assigning music choices) don’t be shocked or pissed if a friend/reader/people in general hate your rule breaking choice (or your taste in music).  Hollywood wants to find the next big thing, the money maker, the new fabulous talent, and it’s tough…if it was easy, every movie would be a critical and financial success.  People doubt their own taste sometimes…you enjoy a script you read that when made into an actual movie, totally blows (I’m still mad, P.S. I Love You).  So, if you see a “mistake” from a baby writer like telling us what song plays, it’s easy to feel more confident saying “this writer is an amateur”…PASS.

Oversharing

John August had a great post earlier this week about waiting to share script ideas so you don’t get discouraged by less than enthusiastic responses.  I was happy to read this, I know Blake Snyder has a sort of different opinion (if I’m not mistaken, he basically suggests constantly pitching loglines and seeing what people respond to) but I’m with Mr. August on this one because I have first hand experience with sharing too early.  I told my friend who is a reader I respect about the spec I was going to write that eventually got me a finalist spot for a TV writing program.  He was very blah about my idea, but it ended up being the best spec I ever wrote, and thank goodness I didn’t scrap it right then.

I think the biggest problem with sharing work when it's still just an idea is that most baby writers aren’t very experienced pitchers so when we're in casual situations where we aren't ready to pitch we might give a bad pitch OR when people ask us what we're working on in these types of situations, they only take notice when our ideas are really out there.  I mean, if I told you I was writing a movie called Zombie Rainbow Butt Rockets that might get your attention, but if I said I was writing a psychological drama about a troubled ballet dancer you might think…ballet dancer?  BOOOORING!  But, I’m pretty sure Black Swan is a way better movie than Zombie Rainbow Butt Rockets.

On the flip side, I think you must share your work and get feedback when you have something to show (John August mentions around 20ish pages).  Being too secretive about projects will turn you into that person who thinks your work is too brilliant to have a logline or too complicated to explain, which is just bogus.  Think of it this way, how will Tom Hanks possibly intro a montage of your Best Picture nominated masterpiece at the Oscars if the plot of your movie can’t be condensed into about 20 seconds worth of description?

The simple joys of sharing.

You must watch..."Marty"

TCM has been playing tons of awesome movies in their countdown to the Oscars.  Seriously, my DVR is busting.  Anyway, last week I caught the lovely film, Marty.  I saw the movie for the first time several years ago, but I think my first introduction to it was that scene in Quiz Show where Marty is the right answer to the question “What movie won Best Picture 1955?” and the guy has to throw it and say On The Waterfront, which won in 1954…yeah…now I’ll never forget what year both of those films won Best Picture.

Marty was written by the much celebrated Paddy Chayefsky…perhaps most well known for writing this famous scene/line in the movie Network:

But back to Marty, I think lots of baby writers turn away from “classic” movies thinking they’re too old/stuffy/epic and the storylines don’t connect with the types of movies they want to write (often smaller, “indie” movies).  The funny thing is that I think Marty fits in that indie film aesthetic.  The movie is beautifully simple - just two days in the life of a single working class everyman who goes on a "date" with a plain woman who he connects with emotionally.  A guy goes on a date...that’s it.  Most of it is just people talking about life and hanging out around the city...sounds pretty "indie" to me.  So yeah, don’t let the age of the film deter you…just go see it, and try to not to get invested in the lives of these characters.

Speaking of which…I think there’s so much a writer can learn from Marty (basic structure, dialogue) but I think the biggest thing I took away from it was the characters…all of the characters.  Chayefsky not only writes a protagonist who I cared deeply about, but he gives each character their due, even the small ones.  I think lots of baby writers use or throw in smaller characters to help spread out exposition or to be small foils for their protagonist, but the small characters in Marty aren’t puppets and don’t get the shaft like that.  In a movie so dominated by one character and one actor (Marty) we still get several scenes where we see smaller characters (like Marty’s cousin, his cousin’s wife, his aunt) living their own lives and having their own problems and dramas and opinions…these are all three dimensional characters.  I think having richly written small characters makes for a richer world in your script, one that feels "real" which in turn makes your audience care what happens to all of these people...I mean characters (see, Chayefsky wrote them so well, I think of them as real people).

Does a protagonist need to be likable?

When the movie American Splendor came out it caused a stir among some of my film school friends.  While some enjoyed the biopic about comic book writer Harvey Pekar, others said they hated the film and couldn’t finish watching it because the protagonist was so unlikable -- if you haven’t seen video of the real Pekar (who passed away last year) you should check out one of his appearances on late night TV…he’s not exactly Jimmy Stewart.

This leads me to a question I often hear (usually due to the fact that baby writers get the comment to make their protagonists more “likable”): Does a protagonist need to be likable?  I say: NO…BUT.  Let me explain…

I think it's okay to write scripts about whoever you want, likable or unlikeable to the outside world (if your protagonist is SUPPOSED to likable but isn't, that's a different problem).  So yeah, write an unlikable character...BUT...and it's a BIG BUT, you’ve got to make me understand why that character is the way they are and understand that your unlikable protagonist probably DOESN'T think that they are actually unlikable. Think of your protagonist (and each character) as a real person and get in their head.  If your unlikable character has reasons or justifications for their actions, the audience can buy into them.  I think a good recent example is The Social Network (I guess biopics get less grief for unlikable protagonists because they’re showing you “real people”).  Mark Zuckerberg always has reasons for the "unlikable" things he does.  He fires his best friend because he thought he was hurting the company, he defends his actions towards the frat boy twins because he saw them as rich condescending jerks who couldn’t see the true potential of a good idea…and so on.

Now, this isn’t to say I won’t enjoy something with a likable protagonist more than an unlikable protagonist (let’s get real, do I want to spend 2-3 hours with someone I can’t stand?).  On the other hand, I think “likable” is subjective.  I know people who say Scarlett O’Hara is unlikable and while she goes through a lot of changes, I wouldn’t say her personality does a 180 even after 4 hours of Gone With The Wind.  It’s true, she is basically a spoiled brat who whines, complains, and often isn’t nice.  But, I happened to enjoy Gone With The Wind (the book AND the movie) and I think while Scarlett isn’t the sweetest, I get why she is the way she is (e.g. she's entitled because she was raised that way).  I also think those bad qualities are actually good because they contrast the circumstances she is thrown into and make for an interesting story (a spoiled Southern bell forced to come face to face with the realities of The Civil War).  I would MUCH rather watch THAT movie than a movie about Melanie, Scarlett's friend/rival who is unquestionably kind, nice, and “likable.”

So there you have it.  You can write a script with an “unlikable” protagonist, just think about why they are that way, why they do the things they do, and know that they probably don't think that they are unlikable.  When you do this, you might be surprised to find yourself liking your unlikable protagonist.

You must read...the "Memento" beat sheet

I mentioned Save The Cat and beat sheets and the importance of outlining in my last post AND I’ve also mentioned Christopher Nolan once before on this blog.  I wouldn’t call myself a die hard Nolan fan, but I really enjoyed Memento, the movie he directed and co-wrote that got Hollywood to take notice (hey, his screenplay got nominated for an Oscar).  I’ve gotta say, I didn’t remember much about the movie except some of the actors, a few key scenes, and most importantly...spoiler alert…that the movie happens in reverse.

I bring up Memento because I think it’s the type of movie lots of baby writers are dying to write – something indie and something that has a really unusual or unique hook (like being told in reverse).  One problem though, is that writing these sorts of scripts divides a lot of people.  Some, including the late great Save The Cat creator himself, Blake Snyder, point out that while these types of scripts can be calling cards, they aren't the sort of specs that sell.  And so, I see writers who want to write these types of scripts saying “screw beat sheets, screw Save The Cat”  OR giving up on their original idea to write something mediocre that they think is “commercial."

That’s why I think it would surprise certain baby writers to read this entry that appeared last year on the Save The Cat  blog…why look, it’s a beat sheet for Memento.  Ha.  I know there are some people that would say it’s easy to try and make any completed movie fit into a box or beat sheet, but I think the beat sheet is right on...annnnd...as out there as the movie/script might seem, Memento is surprisingly simple and can be viewed as hitting all the usual beats.

So yeah, read that beat sheet, watch the movie again, and know that maybe, just maybe, the world of Save The Cat beat sheets and the world of unusual indie screenplays don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Save the pilot!

It’s 80 degrees in January and as much as I’d love to be playing outside, I’m inside trying to finish my new pilot.  I stopped for a while this week to finish reading a couple novels I’m sure I’ll talk about at some point (and to work on a novel I’m also kicking around...that old writer’s ADD).  I guess I was also feeling a little discouraged by the pilot and had to set it aside because it’s waaaay too long (ah to be J.J. Abrams and get 2 hours for a pilot…not that my family drama needs 2 hours but I could probably use it). 

Anyway, I know I’ll get through it, and make the cuts I need to make, but I think what’s harder than running too long right now is feeling a little lost at the end of my episode because my original outline falls apart a bit near the end (i.e. it degenerates from lovely little summaries of each scene in each act to a list of things that I know happen in roughly the right order in the last 2 acts).  And didn’t I just mention how important outlines are?  Well, they are, and this proves it.  Shame on me.  Now, here I am, stalled on finishing my first draft because I have to go back and fix the original outline. 

But, let’s not dwell on that.  Instead, how about some resources for writing an outline?  Don’t know how to write an outline?  Everyone has their own preferences, but I think the library section of John August's site has some excellent outlines of his own work (film and TV), and if you’re a baby screenwriter and haven’t heard of Blake Snyder’s Save The Cat  beat sheet you really should check out that site (and read the book!).  Not that a screenplay has to hit every single Save The Cat beat right down to the page (I’ve heard some people say they dislike this because it’s so predictable) I still think it’s a great resource for anyone starting out who needs that guiding hand to get through a screenplay (and isn’t that all of us, at some point?).

Screenplays for "The Social Network" and "The King's Speech"

Holy scripts Batman!  This past week, Deadline Hollywood posted (with permission from Sony Pictures and The Weinstein Co.) the scripts for both The Social Network and The King's Speech (if you missed those articles, get to each one and the subsequent script by clicking those links, Aaron Sorkin also does a Q&A).  While many people in the Hollywood grapevine have likely passed around and read these scripts already, not everyone is on a tracking board or has friends who work at agencies, so this is really great.  It's not only nice to see these scripts released for public consumption and education, but it also shines the spotlight on screenwriters, and let's face it, screenwriters often get the shaft or go unnoticed (okay, maybe not Aaron Sorkin, but I'd never heard of David Seidler before).  I'm sure the release of these scripts corresponds with awards season/Oscar campaigning (The Social Network and The King's Speech just won the top screenplay awards at the Critics' Choice Movie Awards) so, enjoy!

Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, and YOUR original screenplay

It’s the most wonderful time of the year in LA….awards season!  Soon, Hollywood will rain trophies and praise on itself.  Nominations are rolling in, and the WGA announced their nominees last week.

As I was looking over the nominees in the narrative screenplay categories, I was surprised to see a lot of scripts with multiple writers, and sometimes multiple writers on top of multiple “story by” credits.  There were a few lone wolves, but of the 10 nominees (5 in each category) 7 had more than one writer.  This struck me as funny.  The joke is usually that the quality of a script goes down with each additional writer.  This stems from the reality that lots of writers often equals lots of drafts/development/people pulling in a bunch of directions so that what you finally see on screen is some terrible patchwork of fifty disparate visions.

So yeah, that was interesting, but what was even MORE interesting to me was WHICH films only had one writer.  I think there is another perception in Hollywood that the movies written by committee are the big blockbusters while the solo efforts are original low budget indie projects (like Nicole Holofcenar’s Please Give, one of the nominees).  Lots of baby writers have this fantasy of sitting alone in their ivory tower, writing movies like Please Give, and one day reaping the rewards (sounds good to me).  But then you see a nominee like Christopher Nolan's Inception, one of the biggest blockbusters of the year...an original script AND a solo writing job (oh, and like Holofcenar, Nolan directed, too).  Last year, it was the same, there was James Cameron's Avatar.  Oh, and both Inception and Avatar made a TON of money.  

So, what does that all mean?  Well, it means original screenplays ARE being made AND doing well…BIG name “visionary” directors are getting studios behind them to produce their original stuff.  But what does that REALLY mean for the rest of us?  Well, Hollywood always wants to make money.  With the financial success of movies based on popular books like Alice in Wonderland, Twilight, Harry Potter, and cartoon/comic book characters like Transformers and Iron Man, studios can be expected to continue to greenlight movie after movie based on existing properties.  And who can blame them?  Hey, I liked the first Pirates of the Caribbean and that was based on a theme park ride, should I really be appalled that there is going to be a Ouija board movie?

But then, some of these movies flop, like The A Team and Jonah Hex.  So, did I have a point?  Well, as a baby writer, it’s a tough road.  It’s hard to get ANYTHING sold/made let alone something original you wrote all by your lonesome.  Maybe the only way you’ll ever see your solo masterpiece is to ALSO become a visionary director?  Or, more realistically, maybe these original projects doing well for big directors (both critically AND financially) will spill over for the rest of us?  Maybe the success of these films will justify studios getting behind more original scripts (like the next Furry Vengeance…)?  I recently read an interesting interview with Scott Rudin where he talked about his current awards season movies getting wide releases from their studios rather than small releases under their studios' indie divisions (like they might have a few years ago).  And what do you know, these movies have done well critically AND financially.

One final note…have you all seen the trailer for Sucker Punch the latest from director Zach Snyder (300, Watchmen)?  Usually movies categorized as "epic action fantasy" are based on a book or graphic novel, but nope, this one is totally original (although it has more than one writer).   Interesting...


EDIT: So I wrote this whole post, and then I saw this interview with Christopher Nolan where he addresses studios and originality...ha.