Sponsor PFCOne
Loading ...
The Conspiracy against Screenwriters
You are a part of it.
As are film journalists, directors, actors, critics, reviewers, right down to the spot boy. The most egregious offender is of course the self-effacing screenwriter, who puts up with the debasement and will often partake in it. So, you have people running around spouting sewage like, “A film is merely a ploy to wokka wokka wokka,” or “A story gives you an excuse to enter certain spaces,” “Scripting and plotting is a yawn mechanical exercise” and similar wankery.
Be wise and end it now, because I have declared war and I wear barbed knuckle dusters.
I will level the instigator blame squarely on the French. Truffaut, his band of merry wankers and the auteur theory. The whole notion that directors were the primary authors (auteur in French) of film, and had a distinct vision or theme running through their films. The role of Screenwriters was minimized, as was the fact that film is collaborative. Their disdain for story chafes and their approach of imbuing meaning through interpretation based on knowledge of the director’s life and/or experiences is at best suspect.
It may also explain why I can’t sit through a single film from the French New Wave without nodding off. No one has a story to tell. They just want to share what they feel and how they see the world. If you try telling a story, the choices you make will be a greater expression of your worldview than any amount of turning the camera on your navel.
I have a theory that if you have a theory and you repeat it often and with conviction, it will be accepted as fact, and at times border dangerously close to truth. The sheep of the world will receive someone else’s words without a trenchant dissection of the idea conveyed.
When it comes to the social sciences, theories and hypotheses can neither be proved nor disproved. They may only be discredited, or championed, and research in the humanities suffers without the rigour of scientific approach. This is usually compensated by a desire to discern the truth. Not in recent times. While academic circles are finally smarting up to the handjobbery that is Deconstruction, that other loathsome group, purveyors of second hand information, of which there is an increasing army in the age of the blog, continue to peddle misinformation and play obscurity for depth.
The malaise runs deep. Not through concerted effort, but by casual ignorance.
The problem with writing in general, and screenwriting in particular, is the familiarity of words. Most people can string a bunch of words together, and shockingly, sometimes it forms a sentence, and doubly shocking, sometimes it makes sense. Try it.
I want water.
Me hungry.
Aati Kya Khandala?
A Writer communicates the intangible, much the way an artist does. The artist feels an emotion that translates onto a canvas, that you receive and process through your worldview and set of experiences. They may not match, but such is the joy in the human accident of communication.
A Writer of fiction, literary or otherwise, has a grab-bag of tools. Words that describe thoughts, emotion, dialogue and action. A Screenwriter has only the last two. You don’t think you can write a novel, or one that is good anyhow. You don’t think you can paint a mural, or play the piano. What makes you think you can write films? Are you willing to give it study?
Much as I dislike the term technicians bandied about in the Indian film industry, I would not mind as much if they added Screenwriters to that group. Ours is a technical craft too. When done well, like all other disciplines, it looks effortless and leads the pygmies to think they too can write a scene loaded with drama, pathos or comedy, AND make it visual. Everyone accepts that you need a good script or Writer for a film, but use every opportunity to belittle the Writer. Let me count the ways in which screenwriting is denigrated.
The journalist covering the film writes. In journalism school, news is referred to as story. The journalist thinks s/he can write stories and write for film. They envy you, the Screenwriter, since your name appears on the film, and you get paid for it (however meager that money is), while they don’t. For them, it’s probably like watching you fuck their wife or girl/boyfriend. They hate you, and will do everything in their power to take you down.
An example would be how they always ask the director or actor, how many scenes/dialogues were improvised. They refuse to believe someone put that shit down on a page. Someone sat in a room or coffeeshop, and created a world out of nothing. Just their thoughts. Everyone else is just interpreting the Screenwriter’s words. Jealous bastards.
Critics. The ones that write glowing or withering reviews of films. Again, read above. You’re fucking their wife too. They want to make films, and will grudgingly admire directors, editors and whoever else. Screenwriter William Goldman said that no one messes with the DP, because no one knows what a fucking f-stop is. All these fields that make up a film are considered technical, and they probably don’t have the aptitude for it. Yet, because they use words, they think they can write dialogue, and create drama through action. They can not, not unless they respect the craft, and are willing students.
Directors - They are jealous that they have to be on a set and sweat it out and bring to life your thoughts. That great dolly shot they have in mind…useless if it does not serve your story. You are better read than them, and they may feel intellectually inferior to you. They hate you and are insecure that you are judging their interpretation of your scene. That’s why they don’t let the Writer on the set.
Actors - The first ones to take credit for a Screenwriter’s dialogues in the name of improvisation. They’re dying to play that cool character that YOU wrote. Without your character background, information, and actions that they can play, they have nothing. Your words dictate their performance. Witness Ellen Burstyn in Requiem For a Dream and The Fountain. She is a very good actress, and they both have the same director. But in The Fountain, Aronofsky does not have Selby Jr. backing him up on the script, and everyone made a hash of it.
Dialogue Writers - A uniquely Indian situation. Have some fucking pride. You are also the Screenwriter of the film. You can change the direction of the whole film with one line of dialogue. Don’t let them divide and conquer. Insist on being credited as a Screenwriter in partnership with the originator of the story/screenplay.
Screenwriters - Last, and certainly the least. I spit on you. Have some dignity, and stop settling for the scraps. Head up, chest out. Say it loud, and say it proud.
I am a Screenwriter and without me you are nothing.
63 Responses to “The Conspiracy against Screenwriters”
Leave a Reply
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
- When Naseeruddin Shah and Anupam Kher met on A WEDNESDAY
- Wednesday Review
- Lots of soul, lots of heart - that’s what Tahaan is
- Maati Maay(2006) -A Grave-keeper’s Tale
- Recipe for a Chick Flick - Easy Primer :-)
- Lots of soul, lots of heart - that’s what Taha
- Wednesday R
- Anurag & I… Jab Imtiaz
- Again a New Beginning…&#x
- When Naseeruddin Shah and Anupam Kher met on A WEDN
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
My sewage is your chocolate milkshake dude. so why blame the French?
Dabba
Whats your opinion on Robert Mackee’s STORY?
What are the best screenwriting books in your experience.
@ tushi -
everyone is fair game. The French for the auteur theory.
@ mainak -
in my Aamir post, i gave a list of 108 screenwriting books in the comments towards the end. around comment 85 or something, and followed it up with the books i found most useful. As for McKee, Story is a very good book, but take everything he or anyone says with a pinch of salt. When was ther last time you saw a film that he wrote?
Working screenwriters are far better at giving useful tips, hence wordplayer.com and johnaugust.com
Just to play devil’s advocate and stir up the pot.
There are diff approaches on how to tackle a script. Some feel that the written word is sacrosanct while others feel that the script is a guide and not a map. WKW pays lip service to the idea of a script and so does Herzog. I read an interview of Bale in GQ where he said that one day Herzog heaped praise on him for a scene and asked him where he got the inspiration for it.
When Bale replied he was merely following the script Herzog got furious and shouted at him to not follow the script. Of course Herzog was the writer himself.
As for your objections towards exploring spaces, do you think that masterpieces like Aguirre or Y tu mama tambien would have been as incredible if they had stuck slavishly to the script.
Have you ever read Joe Esterzhas’ books where he demands that not a single word of his scripts should be changed. Mind you this is a guy who in my opinion hasn’t written one memorable script in his entire life despite the box office his films have got.
My earliest heroes have all been writers but there is a hierarchy to be followed in the filmmaking process and everything is subservient to the director’s vision. Even DP’s get a lot of shit and have to do shoot scenes knowing full well its a piece of shit. And this despite you can have a film without a script or actors but you can’t have one without an f-stop.
And I for the record hate the FUCKING WORD TECHNICIAN. VK Murthy and Subrata Mitra were not fuckng technicians but giants among men.
the script is the blueprint, the starting point. you have to interpret the script because a screenplay that can be translated exactly to the screen will be god awful to read.
my grouse is with the systemic denigration of writing, and the importance of a screenplay.
As for y tu mama, you can do whatever you want in your interpretation of the story. Just don’t pretend like that’s all there is to it. It’s the attitude of herzog and others that continues to do this. I am guessing he would not have said that to Bale if he was not the writer. he had the authority and power.
People would read that same GQ article and think, yeah director director rah rrah rah, who needs a fucking story. That is my grief.
agreed about technician.
disagree about nobody criticising DPs. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry review have a couple of precious lines on ‘cinematography’.
I think screenwriters are definitely more respected out there in the west. Here in India, even lyricists get more acclaim. I mean have you noticed the way the credits appear before the movies start? In Hollywood movies, ‘written by’ appears just before ‘directed by’ and out here, ‘produced by’, ‘music’, ‘lyrics’ all take precedence.
If there was a screenwriters union in India, that’s the first thing they should insist on. Their place in the sun when the credis roll. But till the time Bolly movies rip off DVDs, there is no integrity in that profession.
argument sumhow is weak…words r searched 2 justify a self made theory…
everything depends on who has bigger name…
this theory can b valid 4 unknown scriptwriters only…this cant b true 4 famous nd successful script writers like salim javed etc as they ruled the market…
directors ve 2 change scenes dialogues sumtime as per immediate requirement nd it cant b conspiracy…if there is conspiracy then y they ll higher a known script writer…everywhere they can hire writers who ll b ready 2 work as anonymous…becoz they need money…
then where is the place 4 concept in this theory?
an actor…or a director has got a concept nd he gives this concept 2 a script writer 2 develop further…
sumwhere this whole discussion is irrelevant…
dont v read daily everywhere that film is team work but still director has last call…
army fights a war nd different ppl has different responsibility nd a lone person cant say he won the battle but still few key post holdrs get more name…
its unending conflict whenever a team of many ppl ll b formed…
wht abt those script writers who r directors also?
ven they themselves improvise their own written scripts on the sets becoz as a director on sets they ve got new ideas or improved ideas?
Someone once told me that the closest comparison that one can give a screenwriter, ofcourse when taken in the best possible sense, is a poet: Someone who has to get all the emotions, thoughts, and story out in a limited space…while keeping in mind the metre…
[...] Originally on PFC [...]
@ Dabba
Agreed that the script is the maibaap of all and screenwriters deserve all the praise under the sun. May be we gotta think that just because we previleged few happen to dissect every movie - either made by manmohan desai, farah khan (why in hell both names come together…), david dhawan, priyadarshan, and countless southern masala movie makers, do we have enough reason to say that instant improvisation and countless other things by every other member is as equally important as script.
May be every screenwriter might have heard ”
Dayymn dawg….where did this come from….”
What say?
@dabba..nice write up..so true.I rank screenwriters on top followed by the actors and then the director.An actor can screw or bring to life a screeplay..director can always manage to see through the screenwriters thoughts.
@ krishn -
i know for a fact that directors and actors take credit for a writer’s lines. i have read original drafts of screenplays, and then heard the director’s commentary when they take credit for a particular line of dialogue that I saw in the original draft.
i am not asking for writers to be called the authors of film. Again, this idea that the concept is important, the rest is just some futile technical exercise that anyone can do. Every monkey with half a brain has an idea. it’s only a good writer that can develop it into a coherent story and exploit the true potential of the premise.
tell me why every journalist asks a director, which scenes were improvised? Why don’t they ask the director, about lighting or sound and say, which scene’s lighting was happenstance because of clouds being in the right position, and the director capitalizing on improvizing that situation? Because, they don’t understand lighting, or even if they do, they respect it and think that it needs to be planned.
For every department in film, you plan meticulously, and allow accidents to happen, and use them when they work in your favor. But when it comes to scripting, people think the whole thing is just a case of happenstance.
Munnabhai is a very well written screenplay. But, when it came out, i heard so many people saying, very funny, enjoyable movie. No story, just bombay slang. Every thing that happens in the mvie was crafted at the screenplay stage.
From the opening scene, to the parents coming, to going to medical school etc. Yet, because the writer is director, again the writing gets short shrift, and people talk about Raju Hirani the director.
Every time there is a writer-director, people conveniently ignore the writing part of the film, and say wah kya direct kiya. this is what i’m calling a conspiracy.
@ D&C -
it’s not about criticism. It’s about respect. Most critics/reviewers/audience don’t understand cinematography. They think it’s pretty pictures. they don’t understand the lighting choices (except for some superficial understanding of light and shadow), they don’t understand how production design is a very integral part of good cinematography etc.
Watch The Cooler (William Macy, Alec Baldwin), and Road to Perdition, and listen to the commentary. they take individual scenes and talk about the lighting choices and how that is integrated with production design and character background. Right down to the color of the tie, color of the wall, and overall lighting scheme.
The difference between criticism of cinematography and screenwriting is that critics KNOW they don’t get it, so they have respect for it, even when they say something bad about it. With screenwriting, everyone thinks they get it, and they can do better. But they suck wombat balls at it. witness every critic that has written a screenplay made into a film.
It doesnt happen everytime Dabba.
When there is a genius work of writing out there the writer does gets his/her due sometimes.
Tarantino’s films are case in point. When Satya came out Anurag & Saurabh Shukla became overnight sensations.
Charlie Kaufman always is the star of all the films he writes.
Like there are people who think Munnabhai was all directing, there are lots of people who thing Munnabhai was the most amazing script in Bollywood since Satya.
Yes writers get raped in Bombay. No denying that.
@ shiv -
yes, and people respect poets, and shit on screenwriters.
@ reelgenius -
didn’t comprehend your comment completely. please elaborate.
@ sourav -
actors can add meat to the character with guidance from the director but the writer created it in the first place. I am not asking everyone to bow down and praise the screenwriter for everything. Everyone has a place, and there is a hierarchy. It is not easy to manage a set and be responsible for millions of dollars being spent by the hour. Give writing the respect it deserves, and it deserves a lot more than what people accord it now.
And don’t you think there should be all kinds of films? Great stories, great characters, etc etc…
Do you want only the kind of films that tickles your balls to exist? Others can go fuck themselves? eh?
BTW i have seen you praise french cinema so many times.
You may not like French New Wave, but movements like that liberate cinema from its clutches & moves it forward. Cinema is always evolving.
I don’t like some of Godard’s work. But most of my fav directors are his fans. Which means his work influenced all these kids to make amazing cinema.
@ mainak 15-
Kaufman is an exception. he is the only working screenwriter in Hollywood that has a distinct voice, and no matter who directs his films, he gets praise.
agreed that anurag and saurabh got a lot of credit for satya. that was how i heard about who he was. Yet, writers continue to get the short shrift. Example - see my comments to krishn and D&C about cinematography.
@ 17 -
I watch and enjoy all types of films. Genre films to the more contemplative type. there should absolutely be all kinds of films/cinema. Again, perhaps I’m not able to articulate my argument well enough. Any kind of film/cinema needs a story. Some require intricate plotting, others don’t. It is when people apply the same standard or logic to an intricately plotted film as they would a WKW film, thereby reducing the role of story and screenwriting in ALL CINEMA.
I like a lot of the current crop of French movies, so my rant is not some generalized diss about Cinema made by the French, or the French themselves. The current crop Priceless, Sheitan, there was a spy movie that came out recently, are all well written. They are making very entertaining films that have good stories well told.
Priceless will be picked up by Hollywood for a re-make, They’re a bunch of buffoons if they don’t. It is the best romcom to come out in recent times, and Hollywood hasn’t made one that is mainstream and not terrible in the last 10-12 years.
French New Wave (the movement) and the auteur theory behind it single handedly denigrated and killed stories in movies. They certainly challenged and liberated cinema from several conventions and pushed the envelope.
Instead of taking from it what works - the technical, experimental aspects of film, and applying it to well written films, people have bought the theory hook kline and sinker. at least among the intelligentsia and cinema literate.
This is why Koreans, Brazilians, Mexicans have taken the world by storm. They have taken every development in cinema over the years, and applied it to their stories. They still always tell a story, that entertains, and reveals something about the world we live in. Be it the nature of revenge and it’s psychological impact (all Korean revenge movies), violence in the ghetto (City of God etc) or even something as simple as coming of age and sexual awakening (y tu mama tambien).
I dare someone to say that City of God has no story, and it’s just saturated photography and the hyper-realism of Rio’s ghettoes, or Y tu mama is Merely a trope to explore bourgeois sensibilities and sexual taboos. try doing any of that without a story or a sequence of events happening driven by causality, and you will have a giant casualty at hand.
The basic problem arises because everyone who watches films thinks they can write and direct. Everybody here in LA has a script dude and most of what I’ve read makes me cringe. I’ve actually stopped reading the scripts on films I grip coz I want to limit myself to the task of getting theshot done. Of course when the director specifically asks me for my opinion then I read the script and give them an honest answer.
Most of the films I have worked on have been written and directed by the same person and its almost hard to for them to distinguish between the two and the writing part gets the short end of the stick.
I have also met people from the other side of the spectrum ie writers who think that any monkey can direct when the script is good. When I ask them why is it then that brilliant writers like Paul Schrader and Robert Towne are mediocre directors they start cussing me. :-)
If it’s any consolation writer-producers or show runners rule to roost on Network and Cable TV in the US at least. They have full creative control and the director is nothing more than a hired hand. I used to watch TV shows just because David E. Kelley or Steven Bochco had written it. Their scripts were followed to the letter and I doubt any improvisation with dialog was allowed and the shows they worked on were fantastic like Picket Fences, NYPD Blue, Hill Street Blues, Doogie Howser etc.
So each situation requires a different approach. I mean honestly what would cinema be without Jules et Jim and Breathless.
Dabba, in the world of the Purists, ‘Cinema’ is far greater than the sum of it’s parts..i.e the auteur theory. If you subordinate everything to merely serve the screenplay then it just becomes an extension of theatre or literature….and it is far more than that. The truly great cinema minimizes emphasis on dialogue, making it a secondary concern. The great thing about democracy is that it allows differing viewpoints to exist. Your prescription sounds almost fascistic…’directors, they are jealous that they have to sweat it out and bring to life your thoughts’..!! Now that’s a pretty bizarre statement…sour grapes maybe..?
When you pigeonhole cinema into just being the sum of it’s parts, no more, no less, you run the risk of removing everything that’s magical about it…in other words, why dont people just sit in a room with their eyes closed and listen to the narration of the screenplay…? Wouldn’t their own imaginations serve them better then the interpretation of a Director/Editor/Music Composer/DP/Art Dir. etc…? No, and people don’t just ’shit on screenwriters’…ALL film professionals get shat on at some point in their careers…Directors/DP’s/Editors/Designers etc, etc…maybe you haven’t been around long enough to gather that….
Maybe you should try Radio…where all the emphasis is on the written word..?
I agree on the Mckee comment….most of these guys can only point out the devices that have ALREADY been used by writers/directors…Aristotle codified the three-act paradigm way before technology bastardized it…
@ mitch -
i was going to do a post called “when screenwriters direct”
it is usually quite disastrous, and i think I know why, having first hand experience with my short film. agreed about role of writer/producer on TV. Lot of it may also have to do with shooting schedules on TV/Cable. Very rigorous, since the meter is running, and they don’t have the time to experiment, or lose a shooting day. Movies are different in that aspect.
And Dabba, re:’I am screenwriter, without me you are nothing’..the reverse also holds true…without a director/dp/editor etc…the screenwriter is NOTHING… Truth is..it’s a totally collaborative medium. The caste system doesnt apply here. Any seasoned filmmaker will tell you that…
Blinkofaneye
You are bang on!
Dabba does sound “almost fascistic”!
You know I’m reading 3 books right now.
Blink Of an Eye(great book)
Aristotle’s Poetics
Story by Mckee
Somehow your comment covered all 3 of them. I thought it was weird :)
@ blinkofaneye -
“far greater than the sum of its parts” I can agree with that, but not the extension of that which is parroted about as auteur theory, which is to say, it is the director’s idiosyncracies on celluloid.
When traditional screenwriters were brought in to adapt plays/novels, they adapted the story fully well understanding the limitations of the medium to translate things that work in literature. Example being Billy Wilder. Every novel/play he wanted to adapt, he brought the original writer, and they could not write for the screen, and he would subsequently bring in other screenwriters and work with them. Part fo the application of auteur theory was that even passages/thoughts in literature that were not filmic, could be translated, and hence you have shots that are held for 5 minutes to imply boredom. You don’t need to bore an audience to show the character on the screen is bored. You just need to evoke an understanding of that emotion in the character.
Much like when people write a character that is annoying to those around him/her in the film, they think the audience also needs to be annoyed by that character to understand that, which makes it unpleasant.
Let me just say that I’m trying to redress the existing situation, so hyperbole is part of it, as are bizarre statements like the one you pointed out. No sourgrapes, since I have not sold anything yet.
As for radio and/or narration of screenplay as an alternative to cinema, that is not what i’m suggesting at all. either i’m terrible at articulating or nobody understands the actual role of a screenplay.
A screenplay is written and intended as a blueprint, that a bunch of people use as a starting point to collaborate and interpret and produce the end result. The closest analogy I can think of is from architecture, and i read this somewhere. Even the most elegant and artistic and idiosyncratic buildings/structures have an architect’s design and blueprint behind it.
No one wants to see the blueprint except for the people commissioned to putting the structure together. The blueprint is not a substitute. It is the means of getting there. You have material scientists, structural engineers, the financier etc., that interpret the blueprint. No one starts without a blueprint/design or says that you don’t need one to put up a structure.
People that have good imagination do what you suggested. They read fiction/literature which is written in it’s final form, and allows the reader to create the world in their head. Screenplays are not written for final consumption. That is the big difference.
Others also get shat on a quite a bit, like the sound engineer/DP etc. I can’t take up the cudgels for the whole world. I pick the battles that affect or irk me the most. I am guessing you’re an editor, and you should do the same. Behind every good film and good director, is a master editor, and they don’t get enough love, but they have the respect that is not accorded screenwriters.
13…
i dont know much…
i get ur point…but journalists r also writers though they may not write fiction stories but they write reports etc… so naturally they feel they ve control on writing deptt more than light nd sound…moreover directors r always in better position becoz ultimately film is called his product nd only when camera work is extraordinary a cameraman is noticed…nd camera work cumes b4 audience on screen while writing doesnt cum…but if dialogues r gud then dialogue writer is praised nd there director cant take credit…writing is a hidden part..nd its difficult 4 audience 2 take notice of writing… they understand dialogues so they praise…
i read on pfc…in anurag k’s posts on satya that rgv had thrown their writings in trash nd said now he knows what his film is…means he did nt use their writings but still satya is called anurag k nd saurabh shuklas written film…so all directors r not same…
nd anurag k is writer director but where is story in no smoking??
Cinema should be primarily a visual medium.I don’t buy into this new conspiracy of cinema being a writers medium to be turned into a dialogue infested plotpourri of cliches dictated by script nazis.If you want a story read a book…Cinema should be left to play with light and images..If anyone wants to seriously explore film making don’t waste time writing screenplays…it is not art but craft like basket weaving..just take a camera and start shooting.
Great advice indypendy. can’t wait to watch your films when they play on the neighborhood screen called your basement, to an audience of 1.
You can’t wait to watch my movies before i have even thought about making one …..nobody can resist the lure of the auteur.
Cue Outrage!
Are you suggesting that one needs to put in thought before making a film? I thought your advice was all about taking a camera and shooting someone weaving a basket.
or writing a script…
I am sure taking a camera and filming someone writing a script will be great, especially when you’re left to play with light and images…Or Shooting someone writing a script.
I didn’t think you would be convinced so easily to plot films, so I’m flattered that you decided to sell out and write a plotpoint, by introducing a gun and drama.
Recently viewed Marathon Man.
I was about to write t up as a new post - but you snatched my dabba you dabba.
The whole freaking climax was changed by the jewish sensibilities of Dustin Hoffman.
The end as written in the novel and screenplay (Bill goldman) was for babe(dustin’s character) to kill the nazi general (Sir Lawrence Oliver) in a sadistic manner in retaliation to the earlier blood curdling dentist style interrogation scene. However Dustin forces director Sidney lumet to change this climax to a lukewarm one wher Sir Lawrence falls down and accidentally stabs himself (thereby clearing Babe’s conscience and protecting the Jewish innocence). In my opinion this is a total disrespect of the great sciptwriter and it completely sidetracks the theme of Marathon man. As expectedly the whole behind the scenes DVD is an extended tribute to Dutin Hoffman’s ‘Organic Acting’ whatever the f*** that is.
“Re:I never liked any of the French wave films because they had no story…”
To succumb to pure “story” is to never move from the novelistic, something that is already accomplished by literature at a depth and length impossible in the cinema with its restricted durations, its inablity to put the viewer/reader into the characters’ heads and minds (let’s just say that you are not going to see a film-version of James Joyce’s Ulysess anytime soon!), and the sheer expense of constructing fictional worlds, something that the skilled writer can do in a page or two, and in any case has the luxury of writing at whatever length s/he feels like in order to realize such a world o the page. So there is a swee spot, a magical zone, where filmmakers can operate between all the arts - the narrative being one of them - and that is what I call the cinematic. Given that we’re talking of a mass audience that “thinks” it goes to the movies to see stories, there must be enough narrative to hook audience attention, but the cinematically oriented filmmaker will, having got the attention of the audience, proceed to use it as a springboard for extended passages of the purely cinematic. There is a delicate balance between the narrative interest and the cinematic (whether this. at any point, be primarily music, dance, architecture, lyricism, other non-narrative mode or a combination of all of these - the Bollywood song-n-dance is one such “cinematic” interruption of the narrative), which is why films so often fail.
@ French -
define what you call story, and pure story. To me it is an account of DRAMATIC events. the events may be told through words or pictures. In film or cinema as you like to call it, both.
“and the sheer expense of constructing fictional worlds” - since when has that been an issue. LOTR, Ben Hur etc etc..
Do you think the “cinematic” (quotes because I’m using your definition) must engage/entertain or be accesible since it must still play to a mass audience? Or, must one be a well versed in philosophy, and literature to comprehend the cinematic?
What do you think of the scene in Tarkovsky’s Solaris where you have the scientist driving from the country home to the city (St.Petersburg?). That scene lasts nearly 10 minutes, and it is of the lead driving from the country home to the city. What happens, and better still what changes if you remove it. What changes if you cut it to 4 minutes?
As a corollary, would you consider the carpet bombing sequence from Pearl Harbor that lasts about 4-5 minutes cinematic? Apply that also to any chase sequence, extended gun battle (like in John Woo films) etc.
@ jaiganesh -
i remember that whole segment, and it was another film i studied for my Everyman thriller dissection. that self stabbing climax was so weak. it had so much visual tension and drama going for it, with those exhaust blades, light streaming in, the stair case, glittering diamonds etc., and they blew it.
However they were atleast honest to admit that a change from writer’s original vision was made and who was instrumental. In our films, changes to scripts are made arbitrarily and by every tom, dick and harry - It is a gang rape scenario.
in 25 i left few things…
anurag k was a writer first nd later he became director nd his no smoking has no story means as director he did not use his own writing talent.. so a director dont need a writer all the time…
if writing is most imp thing then y v dont c writers writing books, making films also on their books?
they cant make…
nd another question ven a director has got a gud book then y he needs script writer?
is it must? book is there nd he can shoot scenes as he likes…isnt it…whts the need of script writer in this case…
dialogues can b added to make scenes better but whts the need 2 write
int room.. he stood up took glass turned nd said blah blah blah…
director himself can decide on set how he will direct his actor to say fixed dialogues…
am i completely wrong?
@ 37 krishn -
You are about 11% correct.
As director, Anurag did not use his own writing talent properly. No Smoking had a story and screenplay, just not a very good one. He too bought into the conspiracy against writers for that film. There’s hope that Gulal will see him back in good form, as both writer and director.
Another person that did the same was RGV, with Naach. he went around all over town giving interviews about how he wanted to make a truly cinematic film. Why does one need a story, screenplay etc., and made Naach. How can one make Satya, Company, Rangeela, Kaun, etc., and then make Naach? Buying into this conspiracy that one doesn’t need a story.
As for director adaptin literature on the set, there is a primary difference between writing novels, and writing screenplays. see my comment #24.
What works in a novel will not work in a screenplay. In literature, one describes the internal state of you characters. what they think, what they’re eating, how that orange reminds them of something etc., and it helps you understand the psychology of the character. You can not shoot that on film, so you will not write that in a screenplay. Instead you have to create a scene to describe the psychology of the character by the actions of the character.
Like I mentioned in my Aamir analysis, if you decide that Aamir is a character that wants to distance himself from his muslim identity, you have to show it in a scene. In a novel, you can describe the state of the world, go off on a tangent about Mohammed’s teachings, how Aamir read his Namaz the first time, how when he was 12 years old and visited his hindu close friend’s home, he was not allowed into the kitchen to get a glass of water etc., You could write a whole chapter in a novel, and in a screenplay that would have to be one scene or one action. That’s the difference and that’s why you need a good screenwriter who understands what plays on screen and what doesn’t.
hmmm. very interesting discussion indeed. you are surely wearing barbed knuckle dusters boss. I ll again add some thoughts:
- French cinema: I am not sure if I can generalize it in a category. may be take FNW. these films are so panoramic boss. I wouldn’t want to rip them. like Mitch said, what would be cinema without them. and for whatever new wave I have seen, they have all spoken to me in a quiet space. away from the noise. there have been some great accidents. last one was lemmy caution. thanks to sid for that. but the point I am trying to make here is, well I am not sure if I am doing so, but I believe you have a firm belief, which everyone has, or may be some don’t, and I don’t blame none. and that you are bringing in postulates and examples from the world grande to the fore. which is exciting because we get to discuss all of the newer sheep. but my point is. errm. forget it.
- while reading everyone’s thoughts, two thoughts crossed my mind - theater & radio. two things I have dabbled in. and how I have respected the script in both the mediums. even with a film shoot, i can’t work without the scratch. but with films, or whatever I have shot, its a different feeling. I grow wild and forget the rules. but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect scripting. and the point is not to prove I am justified but just sharing the facts so that I bring some meat to the talks.
-critique of shot techniques and boring cinema - boss this is never ending. so I wont go there. but taking that as a shooting point, I feel, and rightly so in all good spirit, that you are well read, and have your reasons to say what you say. while I or a few others might not have that much salt. so you would feel a drift. that’s how the world is. so how does one stand head to head? i don’t know.
you spoke about naach and solaris and no smoking. accidentally all my fav films. for different reasons. agree with you on solaris. but then, i can go back and say OK remove this shot, change the sequence, do this, so that. question is: why should I do that? shouldn’t I respect the creator for whatever shit he created? naach. boy wanted to do something to satisfy himself. he did it. no smoking. same.
-city of god : perfect harmony. agree totally. one of the films I salute the writing. same for y tu.
I don’t know why I am writing all this while I can go back to a film. you are to blame.
38…
true…books can write wht a person is thinking inside …but in film a director has 2 show it in simple way…state of mind of a person has 2 b described by a scene or through narration or as in old films songs used 2 do this work…
focussing on this…a director shd write his own screenplay…
i read in interview of ashutosh gowariker on PFC only…
he is not a writer but he is a man of screen play…he writes … send to some writer …who refines it nd write gud dialogues in it …nd they improve this screen play in several drafts…
a director has to actually shoot the scenes, he is actual worker also nd team leader also…ideally he shd write his own screen play…but sum ppl r lazy in writing so they hire writers…
nd another scenario…
salim javed were famous for writing detailed screen plays…having minute details…but none of them cd direct a film…
do they know clearly the difference between 2 skills… writing nd directing?
i read nd saw also javed akhtars interviews… salim javed used 2 remain on shooting all the time…so they exactly knew nd saw how directors used their detailed scripts…
i dont know hollywood’s operational activities but in hindi films v can c more than 50% ppl who start as actors, cameraman, writers etc want 2 becum director nd they learn on the job…
so it cant happen that salim javed cd not learn the art of taking shots…
but they knew their skills shine better on paper …
then i read hrishikesh mukharji interview…he said anybody can shoot scenes..main film is made inside editing room nd he enjoys editing more than direction…
nd i read he hardly had detailed screen plays for any of his films…he had a story nd mostly he used 2 improvise scenes on sets…or he used 2 cum prepared from home…but his actors were told scenes many times on the sets only…though they knew what character they were playing nd what were the charertistics of that character…
nd it luks 2 things…story nd screenplay…
a detailed screenplay can b written 4 a weak story also becoz its more behaviour of characters nd its not necessary that it has 2 depend on a gud story…
a gud story, taken from a gud literature, may or may not require a screen play…
nd then again 3 things cum…
who is bigger…
story writer?
screen play writer?
dialogue writer?
if these things r done by 3 different ppl then this clash ll b there…
wht i wish 2 say…v ve examples of every category…
or v can say directors r mostly jack of all nd hence they overshadow every other deptt…
they know sumthing of writing, music,camerawork,sound etc but specialist ppl know only their own area?
in theatre also directors r there nd they hold supreme powers…nd plays of big writers r borrowed in theatre but still director holds the rights 2 give direction to whole drama…
every day rehersal…agin nd again nd he improvises performance of actors… nd whole scene…
is it not true writing nd directing is also difference between theory nd practise…
screen play writers r needed but they never can b bigger than director…do v accept this theory?
commercially screenplay ppl may earn more than directors…like salim javed did ..but workwise director holds more power…more responsibility…
its different direction…but except poor acting by antara mali…naach is as gud in scenes as kaun…
both r weak films…nd both dont hold attraction in second watching…kaun luks borrowed from hollywood in every frame…
i dont think i can praise kaun nd criticise naach…there seems no difference in writing,directing,screenplay…these things r weak in both the films…
khosla ka ghosla luks gud as far as scenes r concerned…
they r simple but impressive scenes…
i read in arshad warsi interview…his circuit character was not same on paper…he made it as v saw in munna bhai…so how scrrenplay writer… raju hirani in this case can take credit 4 this funny character? director raju hirani can take becoz he allowed warsi 2 develop funny things 4 his character…
so in end whoever is creative nd has got mind ..can add sumthing on sets…
this whole fight is commercial…
though proper rights shd b given 2 all deserving deptts…
but 2 say screenplay writers r bigger creators than directors…seems forced…as they all dont make films… if majority of screenplay writers can make gud films…then this argument is fine otherwise not…
No Dabba, actually you are pretty good at articulating…it’s only when you make ‘hyperbolic’ statements like the ones above, they tend to skew the rest of your message…
The auteur theory that seems to irk you actually was born during the ‘French New Wave’ when a bunch of former film critics (Cahiers du Cinema) went on to create some of the most groundbreaking cinema ever made…and yes, most of them were writer-directors, which is perhaps why the ‘writer’ component didn’t get special attention.All the major watershed films down the years have always been driven by the ’single-vision’ or auteur mentality..where the Director has co-written or entirely written the script for his film.
I would liken your classical hollywood type of cinema to the ‘literal’ school of art - Medici, early and pre-renaissance etc..and ‘auteur’ cinema to the interpretative/absurdist school - Picasso,Monet,Chabrol etc..
Architecture is not a good analogy for Cinema. The screenplay is NOT analogous to an ‘Elevation’ (blueprint). Directors/Editors/DP’s etc have a LOT more freedom to INTERPRET a script than say a structural engineer has with an architect’s layout..
In fact many writers are permanent fixtures on a movie set, so the director can tweak the film till the last possible moment. Imagine a contractor/engineer trying to make changes at the construction stage..while the mortar is being poured..!!
Mainak…’Blink..is a great book..I was talking to Ron Bass (highest paid writer in H’Wood) the other day…he said his advice to aspiring writers was to stay away from ‘How To’ manuals, and just sit down and write. He also said that ‘Story’ was hard wired into the human mind.
He said that the best way to learn about filmmaking is to read a script simultaneously while viewing a film of the same..and that if you wanted to learn Directing, it would serve you a lot better to assist an Editor for a couple of years than be an AD on set..
@ blink -
“The closest analogy I can think of is from architecture.” I said closest, not exact. While I agree that the screenplay is not the same as the architectural blueprint for the reasons you pointed out,it serves well for discussion. I have no problem with giving autership status to people like the Coen Brothers, Nolan etc, who write/direct and edit their films. It’s when cinema literate folks blindly pick up a theory (auteur in this case), divorce it from its context and origins and apply it to everyone that I am irked.
These are the same folks that when one points out flaws in a story/screenplay, go all out to defend it as the director’s vision and auteurship, and think they make their case by saying “who needs a story?” for a movie.
Why don’t they watch a film of someone waking up, brushing their teeth, taking a shower, eating breakfast, putting on the kettle, reading, taking a dump, and whatever minutiae that is a partof daily human life, filmed with breathtaking cinematography, and all the other cinematic elements? Is there such a film?
THANK YOU DABBA for putting it so damn well! THAT right there is EXACTLY how most screenwriters ARE viewed and its COMPLETE BULLSHIT!
Allow me to provide a frustrating testimonial.
As stated in an older post of mine (http://passionforcinema.com/whatever-the-course-the-end-is-the-renown/), last year, after a grueling period of creative constipation, I finally started working on a script for a Canadian feature film (”The Golden Road”… will write more about it here soon).
Unfortunately, writing is not my full-time job and so it’s been coming along slowly… whenever I’ve had the time (and inspiration) to contribute to developing the story and character further. On that note, what many people (won’t name names) don’t always understand is that you can’t just “force” the story. You can’t just “sit down and work on it”… well no, you can, it just won’t always be the best for the screenplay (hence all the rewrites/ommissions and additions, many of which signiciantly alter the course and flow the of the narrative). I’d warned my Producer/Director of this up front. I’ve written “on the fly” a few too many times, just churning out “A” script to meet deadlines move the production forward. Yes I understand deadlines are important and yes, its still a decent script, but hindsights a bitch and I hate thinking back to what I COULD HAVE done with that premise.
Anyways, with a one page and basic outline done a few weeks back an executive producer (with a finance background) was brought on board this project as we’re at that stage of the game where we need to submit applications for funding/financing.
So the two producers met a few times and did their thing while I decided to lay low and just continue to work on the flushing out the details of the story and the screenplay treatment.
Then one night the two producers brought me in on a conference call, and you know what the new guy said to me? “Welcome aboard the project”. Welcome the fuck aboard the what? I couldn’t help it… I replied “There would be no fucking project without me. Its MY story.”
I am a Screenwriter and without me you are nothing.
@blink,
u will be amazed how close the process is between arch and cinema. (take it from an architect)
DPac.. are you really an architect?
afraid so Tony
“My recollection is that these ideas are featured in Syd Field, but I’m not inclined to look it up, for fear of sparking of an enraged tangent about how damaging I think most screenwriting books are,” John August.
@ suchita -
Don’t take this personally. the you refers to everyone.
what is your point? so, on the one hand you have screen writing books that tell you something, on the other hand you have john august saying screenwriting books are damaging, and you chose his version. if that works for you, i’m glad. what amazes me is the stubborn intolerance most people seem to have to try something new. Everyone thinks they are avant garde artists because they don’t follow the rules.
If you think that I’m being overly structural or prescriptive or follow-the-rules-ish when i say that for Aamir i would spend the first 20 pages with denial as the underlying emotion, then you don’t know what a rule is.
One word is what i use to describe my approach to scenes for 20 pages. And people get flustered by that, and think it is regimented. really? I know how long I can hold a scene and a certain emotion. 20 pages would break down to about 8-10 scenes. I can not hold that emotion any longer. you have to build on that. that’s why i broke down my denial in to two parts. denial that there is a problem, and denial that it is the protagonist’s problem. Please find me the book that says what I’m saying, and with respect to a thriller or this film. I just watched that other thriller Frantic yesterday. First 17 minutes of nothingness. They hit 2 beats. Suitcase does not open, so they have the wrong suitcase. Wife goes missing. 17 fucking minutes! If I had received that script I would have torn it apart. But, BUT, BUT, that movie was made in 1988. The world and movies have changed a lot since then. You can’t have the pacing of movies from 20 years ago in today’smovie. you can’t have one or two plotpoints, because the trailers will give it away. If you watch the trailer, and you know his wife will be missing, and he’s gonna try and find her, tell me how you would feel till the wife actually goes missing? You’re boreed, shifty cos you know it’s coming. How do you carry 17 minutes? Humor, or character development. They do neither. I am not that confident in my writing. i would not wait 17 pages for something to happen.
How do you write a movie when your best jokes, or the big concept hook, and your idea is sold to the audience in the trailer. You build on it, and have 10 instead of 1. You can’t carry a movie with one idea anymore.
There’s a reason that majority of student films, and novice writers suck. they read interviews of artists/writers/directors, that say there are no rules, and these people are like yeah, yeah, fuck the rules. I’ll do what i want.
this is exactly what happened at the writer’s groups i went to, and where i met my friend. no one wanted to listen to something that may actually help their writing.
a commentor upthread mentioned that Ron Bass said story is hardwired in to the human psyche. if that were the case you wouldn’t have the shit that floats around. may be story is hard wired, but the ability to tell it is a craft or skill and must be learned. what continues to amaze me is how convinced people are that their writing is good and they don’t need help. you may say that i do the same, since i declared that i’m a good screenwriter. but i did so after critical thinking, and starting from a point where i admitted i didn’t know jack. it came from a willingness to study and listen to everyone, think through it and take from it what works for me.
i know what my strengths are as a writer, and what areas i need to improve. i’m constantly looking to improve my writing. Do you know that I started acting class yesterday? So that I can understand how actors think and so that I can write scenes and dialogue thinking about how actors would approach a scene. What have you done to improve your writing?
You read one book, may be apply some of those principles to one or two screenplays you write, and think it’s done. do you think you’re a good writer? Your stubborn resistance to receive information leads me to believe that if you are a screewnriter, you would be pretty bad. Take a step back, and look at what you’re doing. If you can pick up a screenplay for say Collateral or Sixth Sense or Sideways (whatever type of film you’re writing), and compare yours with it, and can say with all honesty that yours is just as good. I salute you, and please teach me. I suspect you don’t, and don’t know where you’re going wrong. I’m trying to help you, and save you time. but you don’t want to listen. I can do no more.
For all that are writing. Find a screenplay of a movie in a genre/type that you like, and transcribe the screenplay word for word. just copy it. Word for word. Do it till you know every word that was used. At the end of that you will be a better writer. You don’t need me or a book. It may take you 10-15 writes. Are you willing to do that?
@ 44 Tony -
thanks for sharing
Sorry Dabba for going on such a tangent… the point is that i feel your pain… :)
dabba, i think u need to keep pointing out somewhere always, that u r talking mostly about the thriller genre (im talking about the comments here).
:-)
someone reading only the comment 49, might think u r saying u r god eheh (which u well might be, i wnt hold it against u)
but i would like to take u up on the changing the rules part. understanding fully well what u mean by the rules and stuff, maybe when u talk about something specific later on perhaps
@ DPac -
it doesn’t matter what genre it is. drama is drama. a thriller has greater emphasis on twists and turns etc., because the plot hinges on that. if you take sideways or american beauty, the story lies in character development. shit has got to keep happening.
changing the rules? please elaborate…
hmm..
i was thinking about what u said about pacing..
it comes across as you have a rigid format on pacing per se. u might not and u may be talking about generic stuff.. so i kinda find it difficult to elaborate on it right now.
but for eg, a lot of people didnt like manoramas pacing (generally) when i found it overall to be appropriate. so too the case with american beauty. guess i am saying you cant generalise the rules so much and that it generally depends on the ‘intent’ of the filmmaker on how/what he wants as a response from the audience.
i have a story which i have been ruminating over for the past 8 years. been procrastinating on the script soo much that i just got a 2 page synopsis on story and characters done till now. and for this particular story i want to bore the audience a bit in parts..
now u i presume would have something against it wouldnt u? but moi feels i can carry it off
nothing wrong with manorama or american beauty’s pacing. if stuff keeps happening, thats all that matters. a thriller needs urgency so lots of stuff has to happen over a short period of time. for dramas and other types of movies, you don’t have to go at a clip. if there is enough stuff happening in every scene, that’s fine. stuff need not all be plot points. you can have character scenes as well.
watch the eastwood movie blood works (or something like that…he’s a cop investigating a murder) and compare it to manorama. you’ll see what i mean by pacing.
thats one clint movie which i slept off (this was a decade back i think)
exactly what i mean
“what do you mean by story and “pure” story?”
What I meant by that was that most audiences go to the Cinema in anticipation of a story.Their so called engagement is limted to the sequence of events,but there is a lot that happens in between these events which is totally neglected.The best films I have come across are those where the director simply uses these “dramatic” events as springboards for launching into purely cinematic visuals.Visuals which affect you either emotionally,psychologically and give you food for thought even after you’ve left the hall.Without going to Tarkovsky and Solaris I’ll point to the inordinately long sequence where Amitabh is arrested and driven away from his mansion, how Varma holds audience-attention for a length of time no filmmaker I can think of will attempt. I think the purpose there is clear, it’s the feeling of awe along with the outrage at a desecration that Varma wants to communicate and examine (of course this also “charges” narrative events of vengeance etc. that follow), and so he does with nothing but images and music - a reverse-montage sequence. Where montages typically elide time, this one stretches it. And similar passages recur throughout the film.
“since when has creating fictional worlds been a problem”
The challenges posed are not that great if you have points of reference.The topography of the setting and the physical features of the characters are derived either from mythology or real life in LOTR.But how do you create worlds with no reference points at all?I am struggling for examples here,but Literature always trumps cinema in terms of storytelling because of the sheer scope it offers in creating these worlds.
Talking about pacing The Shining is a marvel of languorous pacing.The pace is slow and insidious, but the film is all about anticipation. That we feel we know what will happen makes the success of the film that much more remarkable because we are never sitting there bored waiting for the action.
*i’ll point to the sequence from Sarkar
@dabba “starting from a point where i admitted i didn’t know jack. it came from a willingness to study and listen to everyone, think through it and take from it what works for me.”
I totally agree with you. I’m reading as much about screenwriting as I can, but some of the exceptions to the gurus’ ‘rules’ have made great movies as well. Syd Field talks about the 3 act structure and the necessity of plot points at around pages 30 and 90. That’s all fine and dandy, but if everyone wrote exactly like that….
A solid exception I found to this rule was Life Is Beautiful. About half of the movie is the hero winning over the heroine, and the rest is set in the concentration camp.
There two can be viewed as completely different movies. I feel finding a three-act structure here would be too forced. Round peg in square hole blah blah. And what about 3 hour epics?
“So that I can understand how actors think and so that I can write scenes and dialogue thinking about how actors would approach a scene”
I applaud you for that. I’ve been acting and writing since school and college - I’m just starting out professionaly. And it’s a great bonus to be able to imagine and act out a line before finally putting it down. (”Would an actor love this line?”)
@ French -
there have been many movies with richly textured worlds that originated as screenplays and not literature or graphic novels, without budgets ever coming in the way of realizing them. The most obvious is of course THE MATRIX, and there’s also another futuristic film called Dark City or something like that. Brazil, 12 Monkeys etc…the list is endless. One only needs to look. Even the recent The Fall.
Studios continue to sissyfoot around dropping money into these ventures which are not pre-sold to an audience with an existing fanbase.
As for pacing, there is no one pacing that fits all. As I mentioned in my comment to DPac, each story and maker decides the pace at which they want to unfold the events. Sometimes they are right, and find the balance, and others they are wrong. A thriller, that too one that claims to be real-time, must have a sense of urgency, and that is done by having events happen at a clip. One must never be slavish to anything. The Director could have used the stretch 1 minute before the bomb is supposed to explode into 3 minutes by using slowmo, as a departure from thrillers to make a statement. He could have done that if the whole movie was brisk, and finally right when he has to make a decision, time almost comes to a standstill. I would have said here is a director that is bold and willing to take risks, and it would have been wholly earned.
Everything is conncted. People show me their endings and say it’s not working, help me fix it. I go to the begining to fix it. Let me give you an example from Sarkar raj. The movie abuses close ups. every scene is a close up. The CU is such a powerful visual tool. By abusing that, the director is left with few options than to use a loud backgrouns score to underline characters power, impact and entry, or the gravity of the situation.
Let’s go back to your Sarkar example. The reason he can hold that shot of Sarkar being driven away by the cops is becasue of what happened before, and what we anticipate to happen after. We are so involved in the STORY, that the director can take a minute, give the audience a breather, and imply the seriousness and import of the situation. Every scene is affected by what goes before it. I don’t remember the details of this scene. Michael Mann does the same thing in Collateral, and The Insider. In Collateral, there’a scene when Foxx looks outside then cab and sees a coyote. It has a surreal quality to it, and it’s a great shot that reflects the strange situation that an Everyman has found himself in. That shot is obviously not in the screeenplay. You don’t write things like that in a screenplay. You evoke a mood, and pace, and unfold dramatic events. Your events, and your ability to evoke them will influence the Director’s interpretation. That scene happens a little more than halfway into that movie. Why did it not happen somewhere in the beginning when say Foxx witnesses the second murder, and Cruise makes his deal? Because enough had not happened. In Insider there’s a scene when Crowe is being driven back home after a lot of shit has happened. Now his mind is probably just all over the place, and he sees a burned accident wreck on the side of the highway. Again a way for the director to evoke either as metaphor the state of his mind (a burning wreck), or create a sense of weirdness for the audience to put us in Crowe’s shoes. Again, the director’s prerogative, suggested by everything that has gone before and after that in the screenplay. You would not write that in a script. Most novice scripts describe emotion and acting, which is the worst thing to do. Stuff like, “He took a bite of the sandwich, and put it down. A look of sadness on his face, which turns to anger and then determination.” This is terrible, and people think they are giving the actor so many things to do, wow how great is that, I’m good. try communicating to an actor that he must be sad for a scene. They start indicating. Adjectives and nouns will get you nowhere.
Going back to the Solaris scene. Nothing happens for 10 minutes, and you are not anticipating anything after that. The cinematic (your definition) divorced of narrative or story will fail. And that is ok. without experiments and failuers, we would not evolve. Just don’t call a failure a triumph, and acknowledge the reason for failure. Stories fail too.
@ kenny -
Everything must be taken not with a pinch, but with buckets of salt. I have not even read Syd Field, cos anyone that says you must hit a certainturning point by page 30 is full of it. the definition of turning point is so loose that you can analyze any screenplay and shoehorn it into a paradigm. My scripts don’t exceed 100 odd pages. I don’t write drama, cos they are damn hard to sell.
I cheat all the time in my screenplays. I write things that cannot be filmed, i give nods to the reader. I do it judiciously. I need to get the reader and the audience on my side. So, my first 10-15 pages have got to be super tight, and engaging. Then when i think i have earned the trust, i start doing my own thing. I wrote a fish out of water comedy. I wanted to say that this is not going to be the usual. Some weird shit is going to happen in this film, such as a breakdance -off for the climax in a gangster film. How do I earn that? By littering the whole film with references to that and weird shit so that when it finally happens the audience isn’t like “what the fuck was that?” I started around page 12. It was straight up until then. The hero accidentally kills a mobster’s brother (doesn’t come any triter than that in this genre). To start off with I had a very visual accidental death scene. Then, when the hero is in panic, and doesn’t know what to do, I brought the dead gangster back to life (not really to life but sort of as a spirit/imagination of the hero), and he tells him what to do. Now if I use a device like that once, I’m going to have to do it again later on. So, when I was stuck in a scene, I brought him in. Now, a bit character that I wrote and was going to bump off became a main fixture and I could develop his character, and give him an arc. It fixed a lot of problems. I made this guy so likeable, sort of like that character in City of God (the cool thug in the hood that everyone loves), that you understood why the villain wants to avenge the hero so badly. It made you feel the villain is justified, and think that the hero’s goose is really cooked. How does an Everyman hero come out of that? By giving the gangster/villain something he wants. A shot at nostalgia and regain the innocence and glory of his pre-gangster days. From his breakdancing days. So, that one bit of weirdness I created tied in to everything else in the movie, and fixed all my motivation problems.
It’s a different thing that people thought it was a well written mess, and no one wanted to buy it.
Excellent post Daba - loved your digs on the Deconstructionists and the critics. As they say, those who can, do, those who can’t….