indie-struggle

[indie-struggle]

When do you quit?

When do you quit? I'm not talking about stopping a project, or quitting writing on a script. I mean putting the pencil or keyboard away, forever.

This question was asked to me by a young writer, in his mid-twenties (which I assure you I told him was probably not an age to make that decision), that I gave thought about. A long, long thought about. It really bothered me, what can I say? When you sit there, going no place, watching others get everything they want without effort, or you're on the other side and you get what you worked for but come to a stall, you see people quitting or killed off. I mean, there are just too many factors to not be bothered by. Many great filmmakers have, or do, constantly talk about the legacy of film or its mortality, yet they fail, at least in my mind, to do what it takes to keep film alive, which is teach and hand knowledge down so it can live as long as our race does. This may seem irrelevant to the question, but it really isn't--it is support. I'll put that aside and tell you what bothered me. It made me think about when I was in my teens. I was confused, as most teens are, and I had a lot of problems: gangs, authority, family, etc the lists go on, and they're what makes me me, I get that. It isn't important for this other than that it reminded me that at that time I was playing baseball. I was poor, and it was free. That's how it worked. I played, and I was actually pretty damn good. I'm left handed, so I was a pitcher, and so that made me wanted by a lot of teams and coaches, and ice buckets in return. I loved baseball, or so I thought. I started young as most do, little league, then rose through the chain of command like everyone else. But, as I went, so did the world outside of that world. Baseball was a way to escape at first, but by the time I was 13, I was into other things: skateboarding, drawing, and film. My interests had broadened. I kept with baseball, sure, and I went to practice and games like a good sport for years. But, it soon dawned on me, that it was unusual to not have family members supporting what you're doing: not being there for you at games, driving you to and from, or even asking how you're doing with it. Around the age of seventeen, I had an epiphany. Here I was, in single A (which I believe is now called High-A(?)) ball, a pitcher with his gear and in uniform, sitting on a public bus as usual, alone, and taking the two hour stop-by-stop drive to some game at some park somewhere, with a whole lot of time to think. I realized, sitting there, that no one gives a shit whether I do good or do bad at this thing. No one supports my efforts in this, and, amongst everything else, was I even having fun doing it? Simply put, I wasn't. So, what the hell was I doing? None of it was fun anymore. It was guff from school, guff from gangsters, guff from family, guff from authority, just to turn around and get more of it from spectators, coaches, and players in a game I don't even know why I'm fucking playing. Bus driver, stop this shit please, so I can compare it to what I actually enjoy doing: skateboarding, drawing, and making films with friends. I quit. And you know what? No one even noticed, not one person. Oh, I think my mother might have asked in passing if I had anything going on, but other than that, bon voyage to baseball. I figured if I'm going to get the shaft at some point, better to get it doing something I love than something I hate. And the love of those things with my friends never faded, ever. I followed my heart and joy came out of it. Now, you should see the predicament of this young man's question. When a young kid asks me when they should throw in the towel, how can I, who threw in the towel on something he did since he was six years old, tell someone else what is in their heart? I knew when it was time for me to quit. All the signs were pointing there, I just didn't pay attention to them, but that was me. People always say, "Well, ya never know." But, you can never know until the end of time into your grave. I think you can make it your choice, though. At some point you have to make a decision, and I think that decision has to come with a culmination of a few things: experience, effort, reward, happiness, and your heart. They all must be unified in your decision. Otherwise, they will be replaced later with regret--much too late for a turn back, I might add. I do not, to this day, regret my decision to quit baseball. I do, however, regret not seeing the signs earlier, because that is all the more time taken away from what I really wanted to do. So, if all of those things are in sync for you (I implore any writer, young or old), you should base your decision off important factors like that--just yourself--and no one else's. If you need help, try asking yourself questions, like (not to be exact): * Have I been doing this long enough to give it its fair run? * Is it a wall I'm hitting, or is the wall hitting me? * Am I, or have I, tried as hard as I can to do this? * Am I having fun? * Do I really love this as much as I thought I did? * Is there something else I would rather be doing? Of course, everyone is different. But, no matter what, if you can find a positive in all of those, even with their negative sides, then my answer is no, do not quit. But, again, you don't have to listen to me. One of my heroes, Orson Welles, said: we're discovering new things that are great every day, but they weren't great hundreds of years ago when they existed. The question would be, does the thing matter to you? (paraphrased from cinematheque francaise 1982). This is vital, and no one can make that choice for you. As cliche as it sounds, it's your damn life, so live it. But, before you go throwing away your chains for freedom, I think you should weigh everything I said. We all have our ups and downs and crying and laughing, but you will find out, in your own time, over time (which is a non set amount), whether or not it is time for you to toss in that towel and take off the uniform. Everything will be in sync.

I hope that helps, because the only real advice I can give you to follow, is to remember not to let anyone else try to convince you of what you cannot accomplish.

#screenwriting #writing #film #filmmaking

[indie-struggle]

In ten sentences or less can you explain Hollywood's three act structure for me?

Probably not. But, I can certainly try to give you a no nonsense example of how it goes without being too terse: 

Oh my god, inciting incident! A fight, danger, conflict of some kind has erupted between someone or something in ten pages. Something has happened, crazy or sad. People are established now, the main character, their lifestyle has been shown, given a bit of surrounding, and then a perpetuating stimulant or occurrence moves he/she/they/we out of this ACT 1 to --

An ACT 2 trip, to seek, find out, destroy, mend, right, discover, meet people, get into constant conflict, turns, panting, hurdles, worry, nail biting, and then find out what or who was thought to be achieved, get, want, or lose (etc) is a lie, truth, unrewarding, will destroy a past life, never the same again, for a greater good, for the bad, no turning back, things that weren't apparent have now come more into the light, a change, so -- A dilemma, a choice, a longing, a desire, a sacrifice, something pushes us forward in one way or another, like all the preceding elements or just plain will (optional choice to go back/show true colors here (generic internal conflict)), and then bam!

On to Mr. ACT 3 crescendo to the finish, where we were headed from the start. Everything comes together, loose ends become tied, time reaches the tip of the triangle, all things considered are now in plain view, it’s all come to a head and -- explodes, bursts, destroys itself, falls apart, crumbles, is ripped to shreds or is loved to death, disintegrates to illusion, is left idle, high-fived, nail in the coffin, does nothing at all, does everything, kills them/him/her/they/us/itself, is recognized, is realized, so the audience is left --

Happy, sad, mad, glad, scared, warm hearted, thrilled, fear and pity, delighted, chilled, psychologically stimulated, bewildered with interest or wet in their pants, as the character(s) walk, lie, run, ride into the sunset or die under the moon, and the picture cuts or fades to dead black.

There you go. That's basically Hollywood’s rehashing of different toppings on the same 3 slices of stale bread for almost every American movie made in the last 70 years, but more so in the last 10-20.

Hope it helps, but it would probably be even more useful if you tried pitting it to your favorite new movie and see how it fares.

-

#hollywood's 3 act structure in a nutshell #hollywood 3 acts #writing #screenwriting

[indie-struggle]

Basically, the answer is John August

I was recently asked why I don't write more informative posts in this blog any longer, and I had a little time to think it over. Basically, the answer is John August. It isn't as though he is at any fault of some kind. It's that he has a virtual army of people who cherish and count on to repeat, regurgitate and parrot anything he or his buddy have to say, and why wouldn't they? These are two repped and well known guys who work with the major shit factories in Los Angeles, and they offer helpful advice to those who need it. And good, they have things to talk about. Even if they didn't exist, you still have a plethora of experts, and "experts" out there who have youtube videos, websites, blogs, and post-it's that aspiring screenwriters flock to. I'm just another one of those. Why should my information be any more important? "But you're a filmmaker, they're just writers." It doesn't matter, we're all in the same pool. My trunk’s knot is just a bit more complicated. I can only provide helpful tips that filmmakers like myself have heard a thousand times already, like: if you're making a no-budget movie, there are millions of actors that will work for free just for reel space. You should only pay for food, and in some rare cases equipment, but beware... dun dun duuuuun - you get what you pay for. Did you know you can bounce off smoke, too? Writing something with the littlest amount of locations is... blah-blah-blah. You've heard it all before. So, that is why I don't post more often. Normally, I'm daydreaming, working, daydreaming, working, doing a bit of daydreaming, being annoyed by knocks on my bubble, reading, and doing more daydreaming. Especially, since the whole world got itself up into this mess and decided to drain all the money I’ve ever made. We can talk about that because I know I’m not alone, but why would you want to? Also, I’ve had time to read a lot, not just scripts (I sort of do that occasionally, now, as opposed to a 6x a week obligation), and have found myself with an array of novels (non-fiction of course) that have just sucked my time away like a fucking vampire. Don’t you love it when people pretend as though 2015 was so long ago?

I also haven't been asked any serious questions. There are people out there with big problems trying to do what they're aiming for, and they know what they are, but they can't find any answers. I'm not saying I could answer them. Though, I could try, but I most certainly cannot make up those scenarios on my own to attempt to answer because everyone has very different, explicit issues in regards to what they're doing. For now, I can only make general posts about quite broad issues. Hell, there are problems I have that I don't know the answers to. But, that isn't the point. The point is, I will post more when I have more to say that I feel hasn't already been said a million times by someone else, so much more articulate and god knows, more concise than I. That's all. I haven't quit you.

#screenwriting

[indie-struggle]

Too many rewrites can destroy your work

I know it sounds crazy, but it's one of those untold, and often unrecognized truths about writing. You can rework something over and over and over again, only to realize that it is either no better, or far worse than its original. Or, maybe, that it doesn't even belong. That doesn't mean you shouldn't rewrite. Of course you should. What it does mean is that you should try and learn how to know when something is done. By done, I do not mean 100% perfect. I just mean perfect for itself. Even Paddy Chayefsky's work was modified once taken into productions because of a number of factors: Director choice, Actors, time, him, etc. The difference between page to delivery: the written word to out-of-the-actor's-mouth (or Editor's), can be very different than what is originally written. Not in all cases, but you get my point. Once you have gotten what you feel is the scene, and what the scene is about is clear and works, a Director and Actor should know this, and they will (if they're worth a damn). They can break down the scene into a silent dance without any dialogue if they wanted, and it would still make sense. They could take your beautifully thought out, couldn't have been written better by the greatest writer of our time, and mangle it if they wanted. If it kept its purpose, it will still work. If you've done your work, and the scene works, it will not change the purpose of the scene. Therefore, all of your petite changes after the fact, to dialogue, and that brevity busy work with exposition (that remains the same actions), has little if nothing at all to do with whether or not you have a scene that works. So stop rewriting it. Rewriting a scene that already has its spine, its sense, its pace in your mind, and moves the story forward or gives us information about character, over and over and over, can fuck it up completely.

(This is what writers for hire do, by the way: we fuck up other writer's work, get paid, and another writer comes in and fucks up our work and gets paid--it's nothing new. Also, you get no credit... and you want to do this for a living, ha.) How do you know when it's done? If it does this, it is done. Ask yourself: what is this scene about? Whose scene is it? Does it make sense and work? Is it in the right place? Do I even need it? If the answer is there, and it's yes, then it's done. There. All it took was blood. Remember, you can always change at any point in time, and some asshole will probably want you to change it later, anyhow. Granted, being done is easier to determine for experienced writers than new ones, and it does take time to master, but it's even hit and miss there as well. I wrote something I was convinced was done, and someone wanted it changed. How is this possible, it works, what’s the problem? Well, they simply don’t like this or that, or the color of a hat. Yippie.

Another time, a rewrite was a total. It wasn't a hat to a ball, or a line of dialogue. It was an entirely different need, place, and purpose. A total rewrite of a scene: a kid to a cow. It was a different scene and therefore the previous was completely thrown away. All that hard work for nothing... c’est la vie.

Don’t over rewrite.

Here’s a tip. If you're unhappy with what you've got, you need to find out the reason why you're unhappy. This is obvious, and also hard. But that's when you rewrite and rewrite until you find out if it's even needed, or has done any of the former. It will come. Some strange force within your mind will make it happen. Just like loosening a bolt you’re convinced isn’t coming off until you approached it another way and it did. Don't over think it. The great thing about writing is that you can always go back. Always. Those words you wrote aren't lost to time. You can get them from a previous draft and start over again...

So, don't fret, but also, don't over rewrite. You just might kill what worked.

#writing #screenwriting

[indie-struggle]

After about a year of toiling away, I have successfully finished my 3rd novel and published it with Amazon. I don’t expect it to make any profit or fly me around the country doing sales pitches and book signings, but it was a goal I had set to accomplish and I saw it to the end: through all the heart ache, research, development, and blood on my desk. This is it. I’m quite proud of it, even though it may be a bit niche, it doesn’t matter. It’s finally there and I’m glad. It’s a crime-drama centering around two graffiti artists that really has less to do with graffiti than oppression, loyalty, growing up, aspiration, and love. I hope you readers out there will take interest, and hell, maybe even buy copy.

#novel #screenwriting #achievement #goal for 2020 #writing

[indie-struggle]

A Point of Genre

I just want demystify a couple of genres really fast. I've been in this stupid thing for more than 25 years, so you can take my word for more than a grain of salt. Noir. Film noire/noir is a story of dark subject matter where, also, the protagonist starts off with good intentions that go bad, or he/she goes bad. i.e. Double Indemnity, Insomnia (1997), and a host of others. What it is not. Film noir is not any film shot in black and white with high contrast and hard light. It is also not any and every gangster tale. Neo. Seen mostly with noir/noire (neo-noir). Is when one idea or plot, that has traditionally and conventionally, always stood in a particular genre, jumps genres. Example: Yojimbo is, in fact, A Fist Full of Dollars. This would be a Neo-Western. A genre movie set its plot into another genre, that is what Neo anything stands for: A city detective solving murders in the west. A cowboy in the city. A rodeo clown in outer fucking space. You get it. What it is not. It does not stand for "new," or "modern," or "post year", "Contemporary," or even a Keanu Reeves character. That's it. I'm sick of reading and hearing about this stupid term being used incorrectly when its latter genre works just fine by itself. When you say something is neo and follow it up with something that certainly isn't, you make yourself look like an ass, so you're better off not using it at all. It’s a western. It’s a crime-drama. That’s good enough. Save all that sub-genre crap for bad music.

#genre bullshit #screenwriting

[indie-struggle]

August 2nd, 2020

I'm sorry for not posting for a while, and I appreciate the concerning emails. I've been wrapped up in this novel that I'm putting the final touches on and it's been... well, it's been hell. My mind is scrambled eggs. You would think it would be a natural transition: going from present/active tense, which is what I usually write my screenplays in, to past tense, but it's a bit more complicated than that. In writing a novel I've discovered quite a few things. First, there are too many writers out there. Second, writing screenplays is fucking easy in comparison--there is no contest. You would think it's the other way around, but the amount of concision compared to the amount of comprehensible prose you have to use are incredibly broad in difference, not to mention a boat load of other things. To fill eights of a page with short choppy action and dialogue isn't shit compared to line by line of narration, action, dialogue, and all the conflicts the reside within them. In screenwriting and filmmaking, most, if not all conflict is externalized, the idea is for it to be viewed and not left to your imagination. Sometimes conflict is personal, it is almost never internal (without being external VO/Narration), and your words are not written to be read only. A novel is. That’s all you get. A novel isn't a recipe for the chef for the ultimate goal to be food, like a screenplay through the mill, out through the director, the editor, and then finally viewed. In a novel you can jump between all three conflicts: Inside the mind (internal), personal relationships/feelings (personal), and aliens destroying the planet (external) at any time. Also, the exterior narration and action, while trying to keep a damn story straight and comprehensible has to be present like an approval stamp. This is especially trying if your narrator is not a character in your story, I just want to say that. My narrator is not me and is not a character or a character in the story. So at no point does it say I, unlike what I'm doing right now--this would be considered first person narration because I'm talking about myself. I, I, I, I... As of now my memory is fogged, it doesn't want to work, let alone think of new story ideas, and it's out of gas. I'm fucking drained. My head hurts, and I don't know how novelists do it. The stamina required just for my novella (190 pages) took the equivalent of 3 screenplays and 8 months of writing and rewriting only to just now be with a TR, that will return my work, pointing out all the typos I became snow blind to prior to final publication. I don't expect any money from this, that wasn't the point. I did it to see if I could. So, it's a victory for me either way, and whether or not it makes money is of no consequence. I finished a novel in my life and it was published. The end. Between you and me, if something comes out of it more so than my filmmaking career, then I'm going to kick myself in the ass for the 25 years of studying, and working myself to death, to climb the wrong fucking hill no one can see but me. One worry that has been simmering in the back of my mind is whether I'll be able to adapt back to screenwriting. I do dabble and write scenes in a grotesquely large and ever growing 400 page script of nonsense, just for repetitive memory, y’know, but it will be interesting to see if it's changed me at all. Looking at screenplays now makes me see how much is over written even more so than before, and I don't want to fall into that trap of being too prosy about a guy who comes in the door:

John delicately turns the handle and opens the door, the light shining behind him with the horrendously beautiful glow of autumn. He’s thinking something but we don’t know what, perhaps lunch, Dinner? Something is in the air and on the tip of his nose...

Kill me.

John enters and looks around a moment, sniffs, and then walks over to the table.

On a positive note, I was complimented for my use of similes, which I attribute to writing scripts. A fast way to convey what someone feels like is a simile, or analogy (you pick), and it's something I've always been able to do. If you were good at talking shit about people when you were young, analogies come to you like ants to spilt sugar. Eh... Eh? We'll see what the future holds. Right now is a weird, gray time, and everything is basically at a stand still unless you can afford the production costs of keeping people tested, separate and safe. This could very well be the sad end of my sad career for all I sadly know. It really is up in the air and deflating more than people realize, and I’m worried--not gonna lie.

Thanks again for the emails.

#screenwriting #filmmaking #writing

[indie-struggle]

One thing you can write about during the pandemic...

1) Not the pandemic. Instead, you could take this time to revisit something that you've written in the past and rewrite it (and if that was about a pandemic, ignore the former). Fresh eyes are a gift almost never given, so take advantage of them. Or, possibly, you can start something new that you've never attempted before: a genre or style of storytelling you’re unfamiliar with, like anything that isn’t American. Those of you who are out of work at this moment, like myself, can take this time to work on that great novel you're going to sell for $1.99 on amazon. I know I will be.

It’s about a post apocalyptic world of ice and trees, where people have no mouths and communicate by a series of complicated slaps, taps, and flicks to their skin, and their currency is clean underwear.

There has never been a better time for you to read or write than right now, especially if you're a busy person. So, my only advice is to take advantage of that if you can and be vigilant.

#screenwriting

[indie-struggle]

Emotion

I read a script the other day and it was flat. It hit all those famous plot points you hear about, but it was dull. It had nothing of interest, and I wondered why. The more I thought about it the more I realized that it was void of any authentic feeling, and it only had plot. I unconsciously rejected it based on that - being that I am an emotional animal that has experienced a broad range of emotions - and not just sunshine and farts.

This lead me to a thought: no wonder why I keep returning to those films I love.

One of which is Ordinary People. Since I first watched it some years ago, looking back, I'm unsure of how I came about that... maybe it was Alvin Sargent (the screenwriter), who I admire a lot. Anyhow, I keep coming back to it. I watch it maybe 10-20 times a year along with all this other stuff you wouldn't like. I've read the script, though, who knows what draft it was or what level of production it was in, but it still held the core of the story and its moral.

It really is a fantastic film - and made in 1980 to boot - which puts it in this strange place where I'm not sure how it was made. At that time, the action-adventure blockbuster came storming in with Jaws and Star Wars, and a lot of films flew under the radar due to that. But this wasn't ignored and, ironically, probably couldn't be made today. Who knows, maybe it's because Robert Redford's sexy ass could do whatever he wanted then...

The performances, though in certain areas are lacking (mostly from z-list bit actors), don't keep the story from being solid. There isn't one hole in it. Its - and sorry for spoiling 40 years later - structure isn’t melodramatic. The plot isn't pulling the characters along like movies you're used to, the characters are pulling the plot - extremely important difference. You never know where you're going except for the moment, and yet as we go further down the rabbit hole we become more gripped with this family and don't even realize it. Film wise, this is difficult to make on any level. This is also besides the point I wanted to talk about, which is much greater than just structure and planning, or production values and cinematography... I really need to stop drifting.

(the infamous exploding car)

I want to talk about relatability (is that a word?) of emotion. Because I think that's why I keep coming back to it. First off, this type of film is something you're more inclined to see from outside of the US post '70s. It's a piece of Americana but, almost, almost a slice of life film. Something the French, Italian and Russians specialize in: the inner lives of people and how it effects life around them, ultimately resulting in natural conditions, or an ending that has no place else to go, because that's life. Its only alternative is to have a glimpse of hope. Ordinary People ends with that alternative, because this is fucking America.

(I've written about slice-of-life before: https://indie-struggle.tumblr.com/post/172373896232/so-whats-the-slice-of-life-genre-anyway - but since tumblr blocks this blog from being found outside of tumblr, you probably never saw it.)

This family is nothing like what my family was: they're well off, they're complete, they have things I couldn't fathom or even dream of in terms of benefits in life. This isn't a poor family with gritty living conditions making due and living pay-check to pay-check, which I would immediately identify. So, try to understand the bias here. This family is the polar opposite of all that. So, why in the hell can I relate with it so much? The answer, in the end, is the same damn reason I relate with Sean Nelson's character in Fresh.

Emotion.

The interactions that the family go through are relatable and realistic enough that they transcend any sort of status symbol, race or class. They're universal to those who've had the same emotions, even if it's just coping. You have a father who is simple and confused, but he’s caring and present. You have a son with PTSD, unwelcome in his own skin, his old haunts, at school, at home, and with authority. And then, you have the mother: a torn, stand-offish, determined battle axe, who at every turn is trying to unhear or trying to change the subject to keep herself in balance - the egoshell™. She, strangely enough, is the most unstable of the three. Not only to the characters, but to the audience. I have to be honest, I didn't get this until about my 5th viewing. I was so busy hating her, I didn't realize that she in fact is the one torn inside the most. She doesn't know what to do, and of course loses it all by trying to keep it all. Ultimately, the story is about a father though, trying to hold this family together, as shown through the son.

(moments before the great Uzi on the bus scene)

Now, the biggest complaint I've ever heard about this story is about the psychologist. I understand that. The reason is due to a perception of over compensation. At that time, and even today, it's seen as being detestable to see a shrink, or something to be looked down upon by some people - mostly cowards. So, the film paints it in a bright light, not a savior but a brighter light than most can accept. I, myself, who have been to many psychologists (you can tell), can say that the light isn't that bright. It's more of a case of: "Look, psychology is a story in itself, and we don't have 6 years to spend on the son getting help for this story. So, let's round out the edges." And that in turn creates quicker results and this idea of painting the shrink as a saint. But, his character is true to psychology - take my word for it - that's how they are. Granted, they're not all nice, but when you get a good one, they really hit the mark on what that’s like. And the film isn't about him anyhow, he's just the handle along the steps the son is climbing - something I felt Good Will Hunting borrowed heavily from.

So we have a traumatized, coping family. The reason they're traumatized really isn't important. Though it's shown with brevity, you soon start to realize that this family is being pulled apart by strings that were on a bad foundation beforehand (which, in my opinion, is the reason the story merely shows glimpses of the tragedy throughout - which was a good decision). It has zero sentimentality. There's no guy playing a harmonica in the corner while an old man runs off about the troubles of life. There's no music cue as two buddies realize their futility while sitting on a dock, boozing.

Everything is shown, it's right there, naked, bald, shivering, and with no place to go.

Every character's behavior is perfect for the story. They're realistic, they're believable. All their choices and actions are accurate to how people react to trauma. No two people act the same in reality, and how they do in the film is something you should focus on. Their behavior and actions are what reveals their emotions. The believability of the emotions they're having and the actions they take are what transfers the emotions to me. If you think in terms of action-reaction, it's accurate. And that’s a good thing to note. No doubt an external conflict has created a personal conflict story here, but it didn't need the external conflict to work. It didn’t need to be shown. Why? Because this cloud every character is in is the aftermath of it. It’s a rippling wave through each of them, and that’s what’s interesting, not the tragic event itself.

I'm rambling now... fuck. But what I want you to take away from this, besides that it will make you cry unless you have no goddamn soul, is that you don't need a hook. You don't need explosions. You don't need a good planet vs. bad aliens all the time, or a talking fucking animal... you don't need any of that, it isn't what matters. All you need is emotion out of something interesting and you've got something.

No matter the class, the race, or any social or political beliefs you hold close to your chest, emotion matters the most. And it has to be from some place genuine. It's what editors cut for. Emotions triumph, and this film is a good example of the proper writing and execution of them. Behavior and action are always a side effect of an emotion, whether they're holding on too tight, don't know what it even is, or know what it is and are trying hard not to lose it. Realistic emotions are paramount. They are what's relatable. In stories, it's what you have to tap into, it's what holds you, even more so than spectacle.

(killers photograph their victims prior to dragging them into the murder basement)

Now, if you've never lived and done things to experience a broad range of emotions, how are you going to hold someone's interest who has? You're not, and your story is going to be flat. It doesn't matter if you hit every plot device out there. Unless you're Chris Nolan and can get away with just plot and sentimentality, your script will drown. As Tom DiCillo once said: "If it ain't got heart, it ain't worth shit." I don't know if he coined that, I just remember him saying it. In fact, I'm pretty sure I heard my grandfather say that once thirty years ago, but you get the point. I hope.

If I had the chance to talk to that writer, I’d tell him to go live. Go get rejected by a woman, try to survive on nothing, get beat up, go get dirty and come back. Do something to get life experience. And if you can’t for some reason, at least read about those who have and try to fully understand it. And for the love of John-Boy, be interesting and make me feel something beside a bit of thrill or fright. It's tired. There are many more powerful colors of emotion out there besides pink and gamboge... so find ‘em.

#emotion #screenwriting

[indie-struggle]

Subtext

You've heard about it before. You've probably heard the famous line repeated over and over and over until you want to stab yourself in the ears with a spork:

"People don't often say to each other what they really mean.”

Bullshit.

I believe in action. Not boom-boom-explosion action, but actions taken by a character to get, or do, or not do, or get something from someone or something else, such as: ignoring them, being vague, lying, hiding, a type of look. If that is subtext, then I'm a strong believer in subtext, but that isn't subtext. Writers seems to confuse the two, and I never keep what I mean from someone else.

Writers put too much subtext emphasis into the mush pot, they think all the great novelist use it, therefore somehow in a magical way, if they use it in a scene or every scene, that that scene will burst alive with color, flavor and more power. Horseshit. I watch and read films from around the world and older than 1901, and I cannot tell you how little subtext plays a part in the visual medium of film compared to character actions.

I.e. What's the subtext in a silent film?

Can subtext bring a scene to a greater level? Possibly. But a point has to be made at some time, the point has to be given to the viewer, to the reader, to the audience, and most importantly, to the other character - otherwise, who are they talking to and what are they doing? You can confuse the very person you're trying to impress using subtext, and that is death.

You want to know how important subtext is and how well it works? Try to order a cup of coffee using subtext.

I've found that most people, writers particularly, when they talk about subtext they speak in terms of what's not being said, but when they analyze what's not being said and how, you realize that the character is just taking an action. Very rarely does the character or dialogue say yes when they mean no without later crumbling and confessing their lie (an action).

Real conversations, those that writers say you should emulate, the ones you have with other people... the only time you're saying things you don’t mean is when? When you don't want to hurt their feelings, or feel it's not any of their business, etc. But to not let them know you feel that way - you're hiding, avoiding, which are actions. You misdirect, you lie. Sometimes you'll even change the subject completely. That again, is not subtext, that is an action.

Subtext is also not the undercurrent of a scene: something brewing underneath and it's never talked about. That is evasion, which is an action. "They're not talking about the elephant in the room - what subtext." No, no. Fredo is not telling Michael anything because he has to keep the lie or he's dead, he's continuing to lie (action), and there is no subtext. You know he's a liar, and he's showing regret with simple, plain words that aren't subtext: "Why didn't we ever talk like this before?" That entire powerful scene is avoidance, and it’s all Fredo's.

Hemingway was the master of subtext: what the character is really saying by saying something else. No greater writer of it. But he wasn't working in a visual medium, either. He was a genius that knew sometimes his characters had to say something, anything to each other, therefore he'd have them say something they don’t want to say, and letting you, the reader, inject your tone and context of what the words meant. No two people will agree that a certain line of subtext means the same thing as the other. Often times his subtext was in the banter of nothing, which is where I believe that stupid quote at the beginning I gave you came from, and is said over and over again by people like a broken parrot. And ironically, there is no subtext in the quote.

Frankly, in my opinion, subtext is not as strong as action or even as powerful at conveying what's happening. Or, most importantly, showing what that character is feeling or doing to someone else. Subtext is in text, action is like inner conflict but in conscience, pragmatic movement.

I also think we as writers over estimate the power of subtext with the reader. Even with, scoff, "cliches" (which is another conversation). If the audience is interested, they don't give a shit about any of those things. The people who give a shit about those things are other writers. And no one cares what they think. How do I know? I am one. Bring me in on the 11th draft to rewrite, or as Ken Lonergan would say: "Bring me in to redestroy someone else's draft so they can fire me and then bring in someone else to destroy my draft." and the only people who give a shit about what I do, or even understand, are the other sad writers working on the material. The same goes for my own work. Only I care about it and I hope it’s interesting enough to resonate with someone.

Look, if subtext is important for your scene, by all means use it. But remember, that very same thing you're using to try and impress can confuse. Also, for every 1 movie you can name that has a scene with subtext, I can give you 50 that are just as good, if not better that do not have it and are all character actions - which show its importance overall and that you shouldn’t get hung up on it. If you want to read more into a line than is there, that's fine too. You can actually have any dialogue you want as long as the scene is clear, and everyone will go along. Subtext or pure silence (action) would work if your direction of the story is clear anyway - say whatever the hell you want.

As long as you simply think of subtext the same way a DP thinks of a prime 18mm, you're okay. It's another tool that shouldn't be over used and has its place. But no one is going to notice if you don't use it, and no one is going to think to themselves, "This scene needs more subtext to work" if it already works. Subtext is like garnishing prose, you can use those big adverbs, but do you really need to?

#subtext #film #screenwriting

[indie-struggle]

The Brass Tacks: 9 Billion Thoughts and Counting...

It looks long, but if you're a writer you should have no problem reading this. There are a lot of writers out there. A lot of writers out there. A lot. Think about how many writers you know and aspiring writers you come across and writers who are working on a script or even a novel, and then think about the fact you're only thinking in terms of your own country... maybe even just your state. Does the world need another fucking screenwriting book? No. There are both sides of the paradigm: McKee's Story, and O'Bannon's Guide to Screenplay structure. The only book on screenwriting that doesn't exist is the one that takes you from point A: as a complete amateur, and then helps you turn your script into a produced film for little to no budget at all, and finally to point B: a festival and distribution. Why doesn't this book exist? Because either they don't know how to do this or they're selfish and want to keep it to themselves. You think John Sayles or Jim Jarmusch wants everyone knowing point A-Z on how to go about doing what they do and get away with it? Actually, they'd probably be okay with it, but they'd never write a book. All the books out there are by hacks who never had anything produced, which is why they have the time and stamina to write them. Now back to the point. There are a fuck ton of writers out there. There are a fuck ton of filmmakers out there. Now I don't know if this is getting through yet, and I don't know if it all got more popular due to consumer product advancement and the internet, or it's always been this popular and I didn't know about it until the internet. Either way, there are way too many hacks. There is too much crap. Self-titled Youtube star: You've written 3 short scripts - not enough. You haven't put in the time it takes to understand wholly and completely the fantastically dreadful and agonizing world that writing is. You don't know shit yet. You need to put in your hours, your dues. You're not going to know enough by reading 5 screenplays and watching comic book movies over and over and over again. You're not - come to terms with that. What the hell do you have to draw from? It would be like a singer thinking they're ready to cut an album after 3 lessons, a show party, and an invite to a backstage orgy a of couple times. Here are my tips from a working, produced writer and director that has tried to help as many people as possible, but still can't seem to get it all through their thick fucking heads. And if you think I'm base or coarse, try working with James Cameron and you'll realize I'm the nicest fucking guy in the state of California - so here's 10 things: #1. Put in your hours. Like anything else, filmmaking: writing, directing, producing, budgeting, electric, gripping, etc, etc - even craft services must know how to cook the food you eat, they don't just flop the first thing they make onto a plate and say, "Well that looks edible. Good luck, everybody." But what does hours mean? It means writing, writing again, again and again and again. Taking breaks here and there, sure, thinking about story, figuring things out, reading, watching, being uncertain, and having zero to fall back on. I want to stress that last part. If you have something to fall back on you'll never get anywhere - you've already set your hindsight on a safety net so you'll never put your whole life and passion into your work. Put in the hours. Put in the years. Get film history and not just American films either - I've said this until I was blue in the face: every writer or filmmaker you idolize film history is soaked in foreign and American films dating to 1920 and possibly before. You’re not going to be like them without doing that. Period. Get to work. #2. You're going to be rejected. Say that to yourself. You... are going... to be... rejected. It is a fact of life. If there is one thing that Stephen King got right in his book to himself. It's that no matter where or who you are, or what you want to do, there will always be somebody who doesn't want you to do it. It's just a fact. Get over it, fuck them. Because if all it takes is someone to say, "I don't like it." to get you to fall to pieces, you never stood a chance to begin with. This is the only rule I know that's 100% true. You have to say fuck what anyone thinks, but still know where you lie, know your skill set, and know your place in the chain of command. #3. There is no how to do it book. If these motherfuckers like [removed] and [removed], [removed], [removed], [removed], and [removed], knew what they were talking about, they wouldn't be writing books or critiquing to make ends meet, they'd be working on the exact thing they're trying to give you advice on. Look at me for example. I've had over 5 feature films made - have I any desire to write a book about it? Do I want to write a book? Fucking no - why? It takes a staggering amount of arrogance to write a "Here’s the rules." book. Perhaps I'll do a seminar if I make it to 80, though. #4. Get offline. Leave, take a break from it. Disconnect. You need something to stimulate your mind. The internet does not stimulate your mind. This is why I hardly post, because I'm outside, doing shit, and stimulating my subconscious through conscious activities. Example: surfing, building puzzles, painting (poorly), walking around town and people watching, taking a class to learn something new, reading a novel and not falling asleep, trying to meet nice people, failing, etc. I was - and I'm going brag now - hugged by a woman who I told to get the fuck off facebook. Why? Because it's a poisonous environment. When you first wanted to do the things you did as a child - that great feeling and anticipation of doing it - did you check first to see what others might think? No, you just did it. People who spend their life on the internet, that's all they got, and it's all they'll ever have. Like assholes at the gym everyday. That's their life. And much like a book, there is no secrets that will plant you in the door to where you want to be out there that’s on the internet. You need to do the work that doesn't require anyone's opinion - especially not from a poisonous swamp. Disconnect. Trust me on this. No TV, no internet. No reading this. #5. No, you don't have a great idea for a TV show. Day after day after day I'm pitched TV show ideas, and they're all fucking terrible. "Well maybe Netflix will--" No, they won't. And if they do, great, fantastic, but what does that mean in the end? Netflix has an agenda. There are reasons you can't see things on there. Even 30 year comedians can't get specials released on there because they're too "risky" or "Dangerous" for this "climate" blah-blah-blah (Nick Di Paolo comes to mind). In the end you'll just be a stenographer pandering to smiling execs under a different logo, is that what you want? To be a tool for money? A whore? God, if my parents could only see me now. If you want to do that, then fine, have at it - but get out of my sandbox - because I bet you dollars to donuts, at the end of the day, you'll feel cheap, hollow, and empty inside if you have any insides left. Just because some random show got picked up, doesn't mean it has the weight or resilience to continue. You must know this. Even pros like David Milch have had shows ripped from his grasp by idiot studio executives that went to Brown and think they know what you want to see. It's bullshit. Netflix is even more brutal in cutting throats - they'll just stop the show, period. At least studios and production companies will say no beforehand, that's the only difference. What makes me so certain? I wrote for one of the shows on there, and I’ve worked with these people (if you can call it that). #6. You must realize that not every story is aimed at a Hollywood studio's idea of a universal audience. Just like not all music is aimed for Tower Records or EMI. Ambitions do not have to be at studio level production budgets. They don't. If that's what you like - making big action packed sci-fi what have you - then by all means have at it. But never (which is something I try never to say) judge someone else's work under a shallow pretense that it's written for the Hollywood studio system. Always keep an objective mind. And if you're not experienced enough to know what a certain story is aimed at, what budget it's written for, what audience it will appeal to (as if that's important), than ask or say nothing at all. Do not assume Sally's cute story about women and their troubles with men was aimed for a studio production, because it wasn't. And you pretending it was makes you look like an inexperienced ass. Avoid that. #7. Yes, no one owes you a read. But, just because someone read your work also doesn't entitle them to be a piece of shit for the sake of being a piece of shit. You're allowed to ignore. Personal preference is not the same as criticism. It's not - never has been. Didn’t I do an article on this? You must know how to dicern between the two. I'm on both sides of this. I've read a lot of crap, but I've read a lot of decent work as well. A lot of the crap was of stuff I liked and disliked, and same with the decent reads. It did not, however, effect my criticism - I set my personal preferences aside - and judged for what didn't work as a story. And you need to do this as well. Judge it for what it is, not what you want it to be, what you would like better, or what you think would sell to an audience - the writer doesn't give a shit anyway - so don't waste your breath on that, they want useful facts about what doesn’t work and why. You need to be explaining what you found that worked, and what you found that didn't work, or was confusing to you. This sets off light bulbs in the writer's head (one hopes), and your criticism becomes constructive. Think of it from another, power-structure perspective: you have little experience in cooking, you're an intern for a famous chef. You eat one of his meals and it's not so great, not your "cup of tea". So you decide to tell him what you would have done and what you think would be better. But, you're the intern - why should the chef give a shit? In fact, you're probably just seen as a fool giving advice to someone who knows what they're doing and instead of being helpful you’re a moron following a set of rules you picked up somewhere. Why? Because you’re not a chef yet. #8. No one is going to hold your hand through this. It's a tough, masochistic art, that sometimes isn't even art. Sometimes it's a slot machine with the idea of praying for a big winner. Fuck, I wish I could tell you it's not. I wish I could tell you that all your dreams are horrifically beautiful and fantastic and lovely and everyone cares about everyone else. But they don't. It's cold out here. You die at the end. You're going to get trampled on, spit at, kicked around, beaten and pushed until the only thing left of the person you used to be is ash with bad knees, a migraine, and a sore ego. That's the way it is. Have you ever wondered why people in the entertainment industry have astoundingly fragile egos? Why they constantly suck each other off? This is why. Things have always been separated between two things: good ones and bad ones. "I thought you were a good one.", "I was worried you were one of the bad ones." There is not enough space here to go into detail on what this means, and how it has effected and affected people just trying to live and make art since 1890, but it's awful and it's a disgrace (read Sidney Lumet’s book). In short, it's the business side. Frigid. Unless you can let things go, unless you have a great bullshit detector or can let it roll off your back. My advice to you is to be as solitary as possible, and work on what you want to work on. It may not pay, but damn it at least you'll be doing what you want to do, and you'll have no regrets in the end because it’s from the heart. #9. Everyone is different. Not everyone is into the same things as you. And not everyone sees orange as the same color you do. Only kids think this way. Doesn't matter what social media says, the media in general, or politically correct congregations. We're not all the same. The "fucks" in your dialogue will be taken by one person as anger or threatening, and another person as just normal speaking. Backgrounds are different, environments are different. Hair styles are different. White houses, or broken fences. Different. We are not homogeneous. Film is also not a soapbox, or podium for political causes and social agendas. If you want to push an agenda, make a documentary. Cinema is also not (regardless of what undeserving rich directors think) about money. Its lively hood and quality doesn't exist on whether or not a certain number of people bought a ticket. You have any idea how many geniuses over time died flat broke and are only now recognized for their feats? Anyone can feed peanuts to a hungry idiot if given the chance. They’ll gobble that shit up. But peanuts never stand the test of time.

“Nobody knows what the hell they’re doing“ - William Goldman

What cinema is about is simple: broadening minds, culturing people about things they've never seen through places they've never been, and reflecting human emotions. Real human emotions, not sentimentality. Fantasy is fun, and has its place, but nothing but fantasy is disillusionment. Ultimately, if you have nothing to say in the former regard, who or what are you doing it for? The money? The pain? Why? Cinema is not just about entertainment. That's what the circus is for - not film. If you're not trying to make an objective moral point, or reflect human nature as how it's seen in a way most can't see it, then what are you doing? What part of this is you? The money? These are the things that you will be asked by a producer or executive. #10. You're struggling, you don't know if you have it, you don't know if you've lost it. You're confused, puzzled, irritated, aggravated, disappointed, hate filled, self-loathing but polite to strangers for some reason... there is no path you can see through the forest. That’s because there isn’t one. But every creative person goes through this, you are not alone. You are not alone. I know it doesn’t help with the pain, but at least there’s that. Whether or not you keep going separates you from those who quit - as cliche as that sounds - it's goddamn true. Find your pace, and just keep going. You’ll know sooner or later if it’s in your blood. If that wasn't enough to motivate you, let me tell you a brief story: When I was a boy, I had one parent, I was emotionally abused on a daily basis by her because I looked like the man who left. My father was somewhere. I was abused by my classmates. Betrayed by so called friends. Chased by the police. Oppressed by my teachers. Sought after by gang members, beaten up daily, fought back daily. I wasn't liked. No idea why, confused. And this was all while dealing with just the growing up part, and puberty to boot. But, I escaped into a world that thankfully wasn't drugs, yet every analyst I've ever seen has told me that it normally should have been. But it wasn't. A lot of bad shit has happened to me, and I've met a lot of people. This is my personal well I draw from. If you don't have one, you usually make one just by living: being a player and not a spectator. I've lived a lot - too much, too soon. But the point I'm trying to make is that somehow I'm still alive. I am alive. I never thought I'd make it to 20. You hear that a lot, but I really didn't. I had 3 close friends, and 2 of them did not. The 3rd moved away, or ran, it doesn't matter - he forgot me, so I try hard to forget him. I had no college education, I had no picket sign with any anti-something on it. I had, and still have, whatever my pocket gives me. That's it. That’s all. And I'm damn happy to have it. Now, I'm long, long past 20. I can’t even remember it. And if someone like me who has been through the things that he's been through can heal from bruises, try to sew up wounds... then you can sit your fucking ass down and finish your goddamn script. I've finished plenty of mine. So knock off the bullshit and just do it. What are you worried about, failing? So what, get back on the bike.

#screenwriting #writing #film

[indie-struggle]

The place where nobody ever dies

Let me tell a story...

Once there was a young man who said to himself, "This story about everybody having to die, that's not for me. I'm going to find a place where nobody ever dies." And so he said goodbye to his parents and family, and he set off on a journey. And after several months, he met an old man with a beard down to the middle of his chest, wheeling rocks in a wheelbarrow off a mountain. And he says to the old man, "Do you know that place where nobody ever dies?"

The old man says, "Stay with me, and you won't die until I've carted away in my wheelbarrow all the rocks from this mountain." "How long will that take?" "Oh, at least a hundred years." "No." Said the young man, "I'm going to find that place where nobody ever dies."

And he travels on. And he meets a second old man, with a beard down to his waist. This old man is on the edge of a forest that seems to go on for ever and ever, and he's cutting branches off of a tree. The young man says, "I'm looking for that place where nobody ever dies."

"Stay with me, and you won't die until I've cut off the branches of every tree in this forest." "How long will that take?" "At least two hundred years." "No. I'm looking for that place where nobody ever dies." And he goes on until he meets a third old man with a beard down to his knees. And this old man is watching a duck drinking sea water from an ocean. "Do you know that place where nobody ever dies?" And the old man says, "Stay with me, and you won't die until the duck has drunk the whole ocean." "How long will that take?" "Oh, at least three hundred years, and who wants to live longer than that." But the young man went on. And he came to a castle, a palace. The doors opened and there was an old man with a beard reaching right down to his toes. "I'm looking for that place where nobody ever dies." The old man said, "You've found it." "Can I come in?" "Yes, I would be glad, very glad for some company." And time passes, and one day the young man says to the old man in the castle, "You know, I'd like to go back. Just for a moment, I won't stay. I just want to go back to see my parents and my family." The old man says, "But centuries have past, they're all dead." "Yes, but still... I'd like to go back if only to see the town where I was born." And the old man says, "All right. But follow my instructions very carefully: you go to the stable, you take my white horse, who is as fast as the wind, but you never get off that horse. If you get off that horse, you'll die." The young man gets on the horse, and he comes to where the sea was, where the duck was drinking the sea water. And now it is as dry as a prairie, with a little heap of white bones. The old man. And the young man says, "How right I was not to stop there." And he goes on, and he comes to where the forest was. The forest is now pasture land, no trees left. So he goes on, and he comes to where the mountain was, and the mountain is now as flat as a plain. Each time he says to himself, "How right I was not to have stopped there." He arrives at the town where he was born. And he recognizes nothing. So the only thing for him to do is return to the castle. He begins to ride off, and half way, towards nightfall and on the road, he sees a cart drawn by an ox. And the cart is full of used pairs of boots and shoes. As he passes the cart, the carter says to him, "Stop! Stop! Please. Get down and help me. The wheel of my cart is stuck in the mud." And the young man says, "No, I'm in a hurry and I can't stop, and I can't get off my horse." And the carter says, "Look, it'll be night in a moment. Nights falling. Please, help me."  And out of pity, the young man gets off his horse. And before his second foot is out of the stirrup, the carter grasps him by the arm and says, "Do you know who I am? I am death. And you see all those shoes in the cart? Those are all the shoes I have worn out chasing you. But, now I have found you... because nobody can escape me."

- John Berger's retelling of a famous tale from Verona Italy in the 2nd century.

#The place where nobody ever dies #john berger

[indie-struggle]

The LBGT, Female, and Race issue in Hollywoodland.

Warning: opinion article - oh, no! First, not all of you will agree with me, which is fine. It's what makes this country great: the fact you can have your own opinions and analyze things without interjection by someone else. This is much different than bigotry: the unwillingness to take someone else opinion into consideration is if differs from your own. We come across this everyday, and some of you may be experiencing it right now - so hear me out. "I feel there needs to be less white men calling the shots." - He said. "There isn't enough diversity in movies today." - She said. "Why aren't gays more visible in movies." - They said. This is tough. To give you a general idea of the problem you can simply listen to what comedians tell women about that constant question, "Why aren't there more female comedians?" and the answer is always the same: do the work, and if you're any good you'll be noticed, regardless of what's between your legs. Fantastic. True, to the point. Work hard and shut the fuck up. The same goes for cinema. Let's get one thing fucking clear: no one is keeping any specific group out while giving special treatment to other groups based on gender or skin color. We're all equally stupid in their eyes: “How the fuck did you get into my office?” If that weren't the case, I'd be on a mountain of money. It isn't the case - look around. Well... you can't see what I can, but take my fucking word for it. Maybe in the golden age of Hollywood (20s-50s), sure, that obvious segregation happened. Big studios, big power. McCarthyism bullshit. But not now, no way. You can write a story and make it on your phone with some buddies. It'll suck, but you can do it. I don't want to give a history lesson in film, but frankly, when it was first looked at past the point of "A poorman's cheap entertainment to watch a woman and man kiss for 15 seconds for 2 pennies", people eventually took to it - they saw its potential. In America, these people were primarily white. And the era that they lived in, other races weren't involved, nor cared to be. All the non-white races that were involved were in different countries: Japan, China, Morocco, South Africa, Turkey, Iran, etc, etc. But we're talking about America here. Fun fact: the majority of people who were writers of these first movies of the era, up to about 1940 - were women. Yep. Women used to have a stranglehold on screenwriting. This faded out due to reason why all things fade out: money and power. But today, you cannot walk into a post-house without the owner being female. I dare you to find a place. And in post is where the movie is made. I will be the first to admit that yes, there is a lack of diversity in studio movies in America, in  major areas: writing, directing, and producing. I stress America, because anyone who loves film doesn't just watch American blockbuster movies, and is well aware of the filmmakers around the world who are making astounding films. Our world isn't the black and white franchises that die on a weekend. And whether or not the filmmakers around the world are gay, black, or missing an arm has absolutely zero to do with it. And, it really doesn't have anything to do with it in America, either. The reason there are less gay people in stories is usually because what the story calls for isn't about sexual preference, it isn't about gay life, and it isn't about race. Think about the most recent movie you watched, was it about race or sex? I have a black friend that hates Will Smith and Denzel Washington. Fucking hates their guts. "I'll punch those two niggas in the face," I laugh, but he's dead serious. Why? Because they don't represent actual black people. They represent bringing in black peoples’ money. John Singleton represents black people, but he's been sucked into the Hollywood void. Here's an example of what he means: If the character Billy is a hick, lives in the sticks of Indiana in a trailer, drives a pickup, and drinks Coors with his buddies while shooting fish in the creek - why in the hell would you cast Don Cheadle? Imagine Malcolm X being played by Tom Cruise. Same thing. To cast appropriately is rational thinking - it's keeping realness in film real, or trying to. The part is specific, regardless if the director is a woman, gay, white, black, or arab - they know that anything artificial is immediately rejected by people who know those types of characters. Execs don't think this way. Anything less than truth to character makes that character a token [enter race/sex here] in which is not only dishonest, but it's more than likely there to bring in a certain group for their money (from the studio exec stand point) -- and that's where the real issues lie. Money. Not just making film less real, but money. I've worked in lots of production companies, some teeny-tiny, some quite large. And a widely unknown, yet sad secret is: White heroes bring in more money, especially internationally. Money! In the end that's what they want. It's how they have their jobs and keep them. This isn’t a new tale. And I know, it's fucked up, it's terrible, and it's damn stupid. But, you know, it's two things... their thing: a factory that needs to stay in business. The other thing: it is the people paying the money to watch it. Simple supply versus demand policy of what Hollywood makes: products. It's not a new cycle. You ever wonder why the Adult (30-65) audience is ignored? Think about it. It's always about money and a whole lot of underestimating what the audience wants, where it is, what the artists want, and what people need. Now, let's forget all this sad shit for a moment and pretend we live in a new homogeneous world of America (like Canada), were all races and sex are side by side, "we-are-the-world" perfect society or utopia, or what ever you want to call it. What type of movies will be made? What type of creative interests from a different point of view will be produced? Will those gangster films you love be made? Will they be believable? Is it possible to be creative with cinematic narrative without artists who are scarred? Where will the interests lie or come from? How many happy endings will it take to bore? ... And will drugs still work... Outside of all the bad things Hollywood executives are, they are not stupid when it comes to business. They spend millions on research. Lots and lots of money. They would never in a billion years (not that we'll live past 100) let go of their grip, so that other countries can take over "their" market. And that is exactly what would happen if this type of America existed. This idea of utopian cinema would kill their money, and just as a bonus - interesting, creative cinema would die. That's that, whether you believe it or not. Take that train of thought down the rabbit hole and see what's at the end of it. They know. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars to know. The alternative to it all is a collapse, which is a good thing. But back to that lack of diversity problem which seems a bit more understandable now, doesn't it? There are less gay, bi, trans, lesbian, black, spanish, asian, robot filmmakers in the "bigtime" because of talent, that's the only reason. Talent brings in money, plus, everyone in there has paid their dues. You do not get a free pass or open door simply because you don't have a penis, or you're gay, or you're not white... That isn't how it works - it is not 1940's America. If you want sub-par work, you let the interns run the shop. They know this. You let those who haven't put in the time take over, and you get what you pay for, 100 out of 100. No good. The bottom line is you have to put in your time, take yourself to the edge of your brain, want to die for it, work, and work, and work and work and work and work, and then, maybe, fuck I hope so, just maybe at the end of it all - you've made some progress and are getting better - hell, even get some recognition if possible. Until then, all you'll have is token characters, token movies to exploit people for their money, either because it's a hot "social topic", or because all the ingredients have been thrown in the pot by the non-creatives to make people gravitate towards it (Bohemian Rhapsody comes to mind). It's sad, and people are being used. And until we let loose of this idea that people without experience can give those with experience, a telling, compassionate, thoughtful - shit, even a story with something to say (imagine that) - all that's ever going to happen is more fuel being poured into this big fire of shit. Is that what you want? Because I don't. I love film. I can't wait for the Hollywood franchise comic-book era to collapse - and it will, believe me. But think of the possibilities then - a new 60's revolution of cinema - where that freedom of expression and important things needing to be said are shown that the studios can't ignore. Gay, female, black, whatever. That is the area in which real cinema thrives, not this. And pandering to the system how it is now, is not only a waste of time, but will not end with the results that the people need... and that you want.

#not-about-screenwriting #opinion column #film

[indie-struggle]

The Separation of Critique and Preference

I'd like to talk about the separation of good storytelling and personal preference critique. I will keep it as brief as possible... with this huge wall of text. You can hate a story and still recognize it is a story told well. Amateurs don't know this little secret. They tend to let their personal tastes get in the way of understanding whether or not the structure/plot of a story is good, or whether it works. In some cases, this can effect the writer's judgement - the one whose script is receiving feedback - in a damaging way. As an example, I'll let you in on something: Star Wars. I can't stand Star Wars. I dislike everything Star Wars. What it did to the art in cinema, to the substance of cinema, the future, its whole franchise culture and the people and man-childs who spawned from it, who are obsessed with it, and its entire existence on this planet, etc, etc, etc. Same with Jaws. But, these scripts, whether I like the story or not (and I can go on and on and on about the thousands of scripts that fit that archetype) are well written and well told stories. There is no denying this - they are well written stories even though I'd like to burn them under some marshmallows and laugh as I choke down a smores. I know someone who can't stand Chinatown, but she loves the script, the story. Why does she hate it? She doesn't like Gittes, she doesn't think a woman who was in the position Mulwray was in, would do the things she does - she's unrealistic in her eyes - she hates how the Chinese are potrayed, she doesn't get this, she doesn't get that. These are her personal preferences, contemporary perspectives I might add, which have nothing to do with the quality of the script or the necessities for the story. She knows it works as a story, and understands why it's good - which is the important part of this... and is also why I married the fuck out of her.

I took part in a group critique about a story. It had albinos, gore, murders, blood sucking, and all those other things executives do. All the writers were conflicted on different things: what one person liked another hated, what someone hated another person liked. What was overdone was underdone for someone else, and so on and so on... So, where does this leave the writer?

Stumped. Completely stumped, and with nothing he could do. Still at square one. These people were coming at him with reasons why they liked or disliked certain things about the characters, actions, scene endings, cliches, hairstyles, and this and that. But, they missed the main point: does this story work as a story? It did. But they were more concerned with how they would of liked to see it, or make it themselves. Two people just flat out hated it, which completely nullified their criticism. Christ, one even stated he "skimmed" through it. The ultimate insult. If this were a company, he'd be fired on the spot. Who knows what they were thinking, and who cares? They were of no help to him.

We all know the adage: "You can't please everyone." So, my advice to him was to go with his gut. What is important (to me) is that the characters and story are true to the characters and story. That's all. If it's interesting, that's all you need. Your characters don't need to be liked. You don't have to hit this plot point on page thirty or you'll die. Just be interesting and someone out there will be interested in it - as long as it's written with the truth as stated above. To clarify: don't have a character or the story do something that is out of character or contrived happenstance and you'll be fine. Unless, of course, your entire story is supposed to be those things, then have at it. Now, if you hate something, then the writer doesn't have to listen to your feedback, unless it's constructive, unless you're giving that person a reason why it doesn't work for the story, or breaks something. Not why you don't like it. Who gives a shit if you don't like it? I wouldn't. If it's well written, someone else out there would like it, so where does that leave the credibility? Why waste your breath trying to convince or destroy something someone else has written, when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about? That's all it comes down to: I like Coke, you like Pepsi. But to say that Coke is a broken drink because you like Pepsi, is opinionated absurdity. Hector's Brown Soda is a broken drink. Why? Because it isn't a soda at all: it doesn't meet soda standard labels, doesn't follow any coherent structure of soda to qualify it as a soda, you can't tell it's a soda, and plus, it tastes like gravy because it is gravy. Unless the script is gravy, when it's supposed to be a soda, no one has any right to say the soda is broken because they don't like the taste of it (I really, really should stop looking at that can on my desk). The sooner you realize this, the sooner you'll be able to make the distinctions between the story and your own personal preferences. You'll be able to detach. And the better reader and writer you'll become. Trust me on this. Detach yourself from your personal hangups, look at it like an anthropologist looks at a new discovery, and you'll soon be able to look at your own material with new eyes as well. Hell, you might even help someone else get over their hurdles which is something to be proud about, and you'll be thanked! Otherwise... you're just another in a long line of useless critics with nothing to say. And that factory is already pumping out plenty of shit which doesn't need any more employees - so rip up that resume.

#screenwriting writing filmmaking screenwriting actions screenwriter blog screenwriting writing filmmaking writing dialogue screenwriting act #screenwriting

[indie-struggle]

Dialogue

It's been awhile since my last post because I've really lost whatever engine was silently running and helping me produce topics worth talking about that hasn't been echoed a million times. I mean, there's so many fucking blog things out there, and with all these studios throwing money at me, who has the time? (posh throat cackle) - Really though, I've just been working and I'm dead beat up. I don't like to talk about just anything here, either. There's over five people that read this and I have to maintain a certain level of quality. Usually, there's a topic that bubbles up and I think, "Y'know, I have a worked up opinion on this, maybe I should annoy the shit out of someone else with it." And then I post. I also lie to myself, in case you haven't noticed. I was asked about dialogue by an aspiring writer, but I have very little to say about dialogue: either it pushes the story forward (in many ways this works), or it sits there and becomes a part of you. Or, it's just bad. That's really it. That's all dialogue is: the interchange between person, place or thing, and information. The only thing I can think of that would be helpful in terms of dialogue is not so much dialogue as actions in dialogue. What is action? Action in theatrical terms (theater/film/The Circus), is what one person takes or does in order to get what they want from someone or something - through dialogue. It is not the same as physical action - unless you count use of an object that is there to compliment the action (such as that damn glove in On The Waterfront that Terry uses to keep her there talking). Basically: how does this character get that character to give them what they want now? No matter how simple. A perfect example of this that pops to mind, is in Paper Moon. For those who haven't seen it, whom I pity, I will briefly set up the scene for you: At the end of act 2, Moze picks up Mrs. Trixie Delight (what a name), a busty, loose, hell of a woman. She's charming, complimentary, sweet, and all around good looking (Madeline Kahn) bombshell. Addie, an extremely wise, street smart child (Tatum O'Neal) knows Trixie's game, knows what she's been doing since she hopped on board, and knows Trixie is full of shit. Trixie has gotten in the way of Addie and Moze's hustling. Simply put: Addie does not like Trixie one good goddamn bit. They're eating outside and cut the lunch short because Trixie wants to winky-tinky (piss). Addie decides she ain't moving, she's had it. Everyone is getting in the car but her, and they want her to get in - nuh-uh. The want here is obvious now, and the block/obstacle is equally obvious: getting Addie to change her mind. It's there: want + block = conflict. Here is what follows:

Alvin Sargent is an amazing writer. Page 1 (7/8 of 2): It's quickly established that Addie is going nowhere. The conflict is in place. Moze wants her in the car, she ain't goin' until that cow gives up her seat, etc. Page 1/8 of 2 - 4: Trixie comes up... #1 - Sweet, feigning concern: "Your Daddy says you're wearin' a sad face. Ain't good t'have a sad face." ... "See me smile? Let's see ya smile like your Aunt Trixie." Doesn't work. #2 - Flattery: "One day you'll be just as pretty as Madamazelle." ... "You'll have up there, too." Not budging. #3/4 - Bribery, to Threatening: "Tell y'what. You want me to show you how to use cosmetics?" ... "And I’ll show ya how t’make up your eyes and your lips, ‘n I’ll see to it you get a little bra or somethin’, but right now you’re gonna pick your little ass up and you’re gonna drop it in the back seat and you’re gonna cut out the crap, you understand?" You wish, bitch. #5 - She finally levels with her - Honesty: "You’re gonna ruin it, ain’t ya?" ... And Addie comes off the hill.

See the actions Trixie took? This type of dialogue pushes a scene forward because it all serves the purpose of over coming the conflict: getting Addie the fuck off the hill. No matter how simple your actions are, if they're there, they will raise the quality of your story and possibly lead you in new directions. Because of the actions Trixie took, the scene turns. Granted, I'm not telling you that you must have actions in your dialogue, in fact, I prefer little dialogue at all, and believe multiple parts create the whole, not just dialogue. But by all means, this is practically a canon in American storytelling (if used believably), and as a filmmaker you should recognize its uses. The better you get at using actions, the more you can see their proportionality to what it is you're writing, and in turn become a better writer of dialogue. No matter what, unless you're Raúl Ruiz or Maurice Pialat, the dialogue will move the story forward if there is a story there... with or without these actions. So there it is, one example of good dialogue, and the bonus example of how a scene pushes a story forward. Now if you watch the scene before you read it, you're only hurting yourself - as you will be reading the dialogue in the actor's voices and not your own. Don't do that. Always read the script first, you'll learn so much more about execution.

If there is any advice I could give, it'd be to not over do it. On the nose dialogue is terrible, distancing dialogue is boring, and niche dialogue - pretending as though everyone is into the same things as you, or your characters, so they randomly say things like, "those kelpenary pipers, l.m.a.o. let's netflix and chill" or what ever is "hip" in the writer's sphere at the moment - is like forcing someone to swallow cough syrup, and it's exhausting and drab. Try not to do it.

screenwriting, writing, filmmaking, writing dialogue, screenwriting actions, screenwriter blog, #screenwriting, #writing, #filmmaking, #writing dialogue, #screenwriting actions, #screenwriter blog

#screenwriting #filmmaking #screenwriting actions #writing dialogue

[indie-struggle]

What do those character extensions mean?

After character names within scripts, often there is an extension / abbreviation for the location of the character's dialogue. They are: (V.O.), (O.S.), (O.C.), and rarely (SUBTITLE).

Here is what they mean.

(V.O.) stands for Voice Over - This is when a character is speaking over the scene as it is playing out, a description provider that can lengthen and shorten time, describe internal conflict/feelings, or give exposition you will not see. Example: The Princess Bride, The Shawshank Redemption, etc.

The only difference between VO and a narrator is that you never see a narrator, like in The Killing by Stanley Kubrick.

(O.S.) stands for Off Screen - This is when the character speaking is... off screen. Meaning completely out of frame. You do not see the character speaking but they're in the scene while you hear their dialogue.

(O.C.) stands for Off Camera - This is when the character is in frame but not their face. For instance, in an over the shoulder shot, a nurse who we only see the waist of, talks to the main character. The Nurse is Off Camera. This is only used (sparingly) for good reason, usually to emphasize the importance of who we're seeing the reaction of. Example:

What a bitch nurse, right? Not seeing her face helps that impression.

(SUBTITLE) is self explanatory - It isn't used much anymore unless its absolutely necessary. In fact, most scripts, if the writer doesn't know the language fluently they will put (native language) or (native) as a parenthetical under the character name, and then write in English. Subs may or may not come later.

It can also be used intentionally for a made up language, such as Pig-Latin, Jive, etc but even then it can be written with exposition before / after the dialogue (i.e. SUBTITLES APPEAR ON SCREEN:).

Using extensions can be vital in telling your story the way it's supposed to be envisioned, and using them the correct way will have a great effect. But, be damn mindful of how you use them. If you want to play it safe, don't use them at all.

(And yeah... I know you already knew all this.)

screenwriting, screenplay, writing, filmmaking, screenplay, what does V.O. mean? #screenwriting, #screenplay, #writing, #filmmaking

#screenwriting #screenplay #writing #filmmaking #film #character extensions #movie script

[indie-struggle]

Pourquoi?

This is and isn't about screenwriting, more of a issue I have with film, and the French. There's a problem I have with the French. First, I am a huge fan of French cinema. Especially pre-2000's. If you name it, chances are I have seen it. I love French film more than German, Italian (especially Italian), Austrian, Polish, English (UK), Russian, and Asian films. And I watch them all. Let me get that out of the way. Yes, I know they're losing their identity because their younger generations are being more Americanized whether they like it or not, with action romp movies and mindless television, that follows American formulaic bullshit. I understand that. I've read that, and I understand the older generation's anger. I completely side with them on that. This isn't the issue, though, but in a way it is. Truffaut and Bresson are turning in their graves. Here's the thing. I was brought up understanding and under a corollary that the French appreciate, love and respect art. Even the (in)famous Erich Von Stroheim once said: "In Hollywood you're as good as your last picture. If you didn't have one within production in the last three months, you're forgotten. No matter what you have achieved. If you live in France and you have written one good book, or painted one good picture, or directed one outstanding film fifty years ago and nothing ever since. You're still recognized as an artist, and honored accordingly. They do not forget." Their appreciation has always been for painting, writing, theatre, photography, fashion, film, and the list goes on and on... But, why is it that the French refuse to read subtitles? Why is it that when it comes to subtitles, the only country that seems to actually care about the original performance of the actors --on set, in front of the camera-- regardless of its origin, is America? Even more so by American cinema lovers. Certainly the French understand that it is disrespectful to the performance of an actor, and by dubbing over an actor it is in no way that actor's performance but just their face, body, movement, etc. It is the equivalent of studying a painting through a fun-house mirror (This is why I cannot stand most Italian and Russian films but I'm not going to get into that). How can you claim you love art while disingenuously engaging in it? Why is this? Pourquoi? Is it the same laziness that Americans, who don't know how to read, have? Is it the inability to multitask? Or, is it a for profit thing? My gut tells me all three. But why would you claim the love of art, idolize it, yet insult it prior to actually observing it the way it was meant to be observed? This is troubling me. This is the reason for this post, this is cognitive dissonance I have on this issue. And when you think about it, if you actually give a shit, it is unreasonable and therefore unjustifiable. It's a total dick move no matter where you're from. Don't believe me? Imagine every one of your favorite foreign films dubbed by Tom Hanks. The main character, always, every single film. Tom Hanks. Is it still the same film? This isn't just about the French, either. Most countries are guilty of this horseshit. And it is horseshit, maybe a uh... hybrid donkey breed of some kind, but it's still horseshit. I'm attacking them on this issue because they're supposed to be the prime, the ultimate, the pinnacle, the epitome of what it is to respect and understand and fucking appreciate art. Yet, they refuse to watch the original performance of an actor, and are in fact watching something entirely different: unspoken words and tones through a French voice actor filter. That goes against writing, that goes against the director's direction, all the hard work, and it definitely goes against what the actors had to go through to get to where they were in their performance. It is an insult, a mockery to the artform. And above all, a goddamn contradiction. I don't give a shit how long they've been doing it, it needs to end, or you're no different than Johnny-joe from Scrotumstraw, South Carolina who just loves Top Gun... That's it, that's all this was about. I don't care if they just won the world cup. This eats at my soul. google translated C'est et ce n'est pas à propos de l'écriture de scénario, plus d'un problème que j'ai avec le film, et les Français. Il y a un problème avec les Français. D'abord, je suis un grand fan du cinéma français. Surtout avant 2000. Si vous le nommez, il y a des chances que je l'ai vu. J'aime le cinéma français plus que l'allemand, l'italien (en particulier l'italien), l'autrichien, le polonais, l'anglais (UK), le russe et l'asiatique. Et je les regarde tous. Laissez-moi faire ça. Oui, je sais qu'ils perdent leur identité parce que leurs jeunes générations sont plus américanisées, qu'ils le veuillent ou non, avec des films d'action et une télévision aveugle, qui suivent les conneries américaines. Je comprends que. J'ai lu ça, et je comprends la colère de la génération précédente. Je suis complètement d'accord avec eux là-dessus. Ce n'est pas le problème, cependant, mais d'une certaine manière c'est le cas. Truffaut et Bresson tournent dans leurs tombes. Voici la chose. J'ai été élevé dans la compréhension et sous un corollaire que les Français apprécient, aiment et respectent l' art . Même le (in) célèbre Erich Von Stroheim a dit: "A Hollywood, tu es aussi bon que ta dernière photo. Si vous n'en avez pas eu dans la production au cours des trois derniers mois, vous êtes oublié. Peu importe ce que vous avez accompli. Si vous habitez en France et vous avez écrit un bon livre, ou peint une bonne image, ou réalisé un film exceptionnel il ya cinquante ans et rien depuis. Vous êtes toujours reconnu en tant qu'artiste et honoré en conséquence. Ils n'oublient pas. " Leur appréciation a toujours été pour la peinture, l'écriture, le théâtre, la photographie, la mode, le cinéma, et la liste continue encore et encore ... Mais, pourquoi les Français refusent-ils de lire les sous-titres? Pourquoi est-ce que quand il s'agit de sous-titres, le seul pays qui semble vraiment se soucier de la performance originale des acteurs - sur le plateau, devant la caméra - quelle que soit son origine, c'est l'Amérique? Encore plus par les cinéphiles américains. Certes, les Français comprennent qu'il est irrespectueux envers la performance d'un acteur, et en doublant un acteur, ce n'est en aucun cas la performance de l'acteur mais seulement son visage, son corps, son mouvement, etc. C'est l'équivalent d'étudier une peinture à travers un Fun-house mirror (C'est pourquoi je ne supporte pas la plupart des films italiens et russes, mais je ne vais pas me lancer dans ça). Comment pouvez-vous prétendre que vous aimez l'art alors que vous vous y engagez avec insouciance? Pourquoi est-ce? Pourquoi? Est-ce la même paresse que les Américains qui ne savent pas lire? Est-ce l'incapacité à effectuer plusieurs tâches? Ou, est-ce une chose à but lucratif? Mon instinct me dit tous les trois. Mais pourquoi revendiqueriez-vous l'amour de l'art, l'idolâtriez-vous, et l'insulteriez-vous avant de l'observer tel qu'il était censé être observé? Cela me dérange. C'est la raison de ce post, c'est la dissonance cognitive que j'ai sur ce sujet. Et quand on y pense, si on s'en fout, c'est déraisonnable et donc injustifiable. C'est un mouvement de bite totale, peu importe d'où vous venez. Ne me crois pas? Imaginez chacun de vos films étrangers préférés doublés par Tom Hanks. Le personnage principal, toujours, chaque film. Tom Hanks. Même film? Cela ne concerne pas seulement les Français. La plupart des pays sont coupables de ce horseshit. Et c'est du cheval de fer, peut-être un euh ... une race hybride d'ânes, mais c'est encore horseshit. Je les attaque sur cette question parce qu'ils sont censés être le premier, l'ultime, le summum, le summum de ce que c'est de respecter et de comprendre et d'apprécier l' art . Pourtant, ils refusent de regarder la performance originale d'un acteur, et regardent en fait quelque chose de complètement différent: des mots et des sons non-dits à travers un filtre d'acteur vocal français. Cela va à l'encontre de l'écriture, cela va à l'encontre de la direction du réalisateur, et cela va certainement à l'encontre de tout ce que les acteurs devaient traverser pour arriver là où ils étaient dans leur performance. C'est une insulte, une dérision à l'art. Et surtout, une putain de contradiction. Et je m'en fous de savoir depuis combien de temps ils le font, ça doit s'arrêter. Ou, vous n'êtes pas différent de Joe-joe de Scrotumstraw, en Caroline du Sud, qui adore Top Gun. Voilà, c'est tout. Je me fiche de savoir si la Coupe du monde vient de gagner. Cela mange à mon âme.

#french #this isn't about screenwriting