Time to Write

The original pitch for "Monsters Inc" revealed

I’m always interested in how projects change from the original idea to the final version. Here, courtesy of worstpreviews.com, is an excerpt from an article in which director Pete Doctor reveals the original story of what became “Monsters Inc.”:

 "My idea was that it was about a 30 year old man who is an accountant or something. He hates his job. And one day he gets a book with some drawings, that he did when he was a kid, from his mom. He doesn't think anything of it, he puts it on the shelf and that night, monsters show up. And nobody else can see them."
"He thinks he's starting to go crazy. They follow him to his job, and on his dates, and it turns out that these monsters are fears that he never dealt with as a kid. And each one of them represents a different kind of fear. As he conquers those fears, the guys who he slowly becomes friends with, they disappear as he conquers those fears. It's this bittersweet ending where they go away."

 Sounds like a good idea, but I can see that the final version has a lot more appeal to kids.

 If you want to work in Hollywood for TV or film, this kind of change between the original idea and the finished product is typical, and being flexible is mandatory. If you are not open to having your ideas changed, stick to books, you’ll be a lot happier! Not that book authors don’t have to deal with input, too, but the changes usually are far less radical.

(if you want to be more creative and productive, get my free monthly Brainstorm e-bulletin. Just send an email request now to BstormUK@aol.com)

Here's why movies are bad (don't blame the writers)

Writing in Screen International, scriptwriting teacher and consultant Phil Parker notes that the percentage of original stories (vs. adaptations) in the UK film industry has gone down. Is the problem that there aren’t enough good scriptwriters turning out original material? Parker thinks not. Here’s his take on the problem:

 “This generation has created a culture based on simplistic notions of screenwriting and development theory learnt on script-guru weekends and driven by producers, and directors who know that cast and/or budget, sometimes just a saleable idea, are the key to getting a film funded, not the quality of the screenplay. Writers were frozen out, writer-directors (more than 300) were ultimately treated as expendable talent, and too many poor films were, and are, made.”

 I’ll second that! Not long ago I was asked to rewrite a script scheduled to start production soon and discovered that it was one of the worst scripts I’ve ever read. Yet the director had charmed an impressive cast into signing on, with the promise that the script would be fixed later. The company first asked the original writer to try again—which yielded a script only a little better. Then the director and another writer tried to rewrite it in the director’s native language and asked me to “punch up” their script—but there wasn’t time to get it translated so I’d have to work from the foreign-language version (which was a language I don’t read or speak, so that was a non-starter).

 At last word the production was going ahead. A disaster in the making? We’ll see. I suspect that if I described this process in a novel (hmm….) people would consider it unbelievable.

(Want to write a screenplay but not sure where to start? Check out my book, "Your Writing Coach," and used copies of "Successful Scriptwriting" from Amazon or your other favorite oneline or offline retailer.)

Do you have to write 'big' movies or books?

In Venice magazine, Terry Keefe points out that Norwegian film-maker Bent Hamer “has managed to develop a worldwide audience with largely character-driven films such as O’Horton and Kitchen Stories, which have visuals and elements that feel very specific to Norwegian, or at least Scandinavian, culture…There is a lesson here for filmmakers [and I’d include novelists] that all you need to find a large audience might already be in your own backyard.

 Hamer agrees, saying, “People talk about ‘big’ films. What is a ‘big’ film? There is some connotation there I don’t understand. What it’s all about is if you can recognize something which is universal and specific in a film. Of course you can talk about pure entertainment, but hopefully there’s something more than that.”

(There's useful information on how to construct your story in my book, "Your Writing Coach," published by Nicholas Brealey, and available from Amazon and other online and offline retailers.)

The Egoyan anti-formula for writing movies

I haven't yet seen Atom Egoyan's new film, "Adoration," yet but in an interview with Mark Olsen in the Los Angeles Times, he described his anti-formulaic approach to films:

"There's something essentially erotic about that feeling, that feeling that something is promising a possibility, and that can be quite charged and dynamic, as opposed to something which affirms a formula you already anticipate."

"I love the feeling of having the viewer's mind racing with possibility as to what something might mean, and that feeling that they might be missing something, that their entire system of understanding something might be subverted at some point. I find it actually quite thrilling."

Here is a video that starts with some clips from the film and then a brief interview with Egoyan (total time is about six minutes):

$5 Cover--the shape of new media to come?

A new mix of formats is coming in the form of the MTV series “$5 Cover,” described this way in the L. A. Times’ “Big Picture” blog by Patrick Goldstein:

 “...a new MTV series that captures the funky groove of the local Memphis music scene but with real musicians in virtually all the acting roles, all orchestrated by filmmaker Craig Brewer, writer-director of "Hustle & Flow," the 2005 indie hit set in the colorful gumbo-like environs of Memphis.

The show, which launches Friday night [May 1, 2009] at midnight on MTV's cable channel and on its website, fivedollarcover.com, is a fascinating experiment in new media storytelling, combining the unabashed narcissism of reality TV with the raw, rough edges of indie cinema. Until now, Web series have largely been drawn to comedy and thriller storytelling genres.”

Goldstein says the series has “many separate but complementary components. The main Web component of the series offers 15 digital episodes, each six or seven minutes long, only loosely chronological, that follow the romantic entanglements and career ups and downs of a group of Memphis musicians as they haunt bars, clubs and cafes. MTV will air a half-hour packaged version of three episodes each week during a five-week run on the network.” 

But that’s not all: “The series is accompanied by music videos from the songs performed by the local artists featured in the series' digital episodes. And in what might be the most unusual twist of all, Brewer teamed up with Memphis Commercial Appeal photographer Alan Spearman to put together an assortment of mini-documentaries about each of the major artists in the series.”

If it’s successful, MTV will continue the series featuring other American and foreign cities. For now, if you’re interested in new media, it sounds worth a look.

(to stimulate your creativity, sign up now for my free monthly Brainstorm e-bulletin--just send an email request to BstormUK@aol.com)

Why the writer should disappear (Juno's didn't)

Writing on justpressplay.com, Neil Pedley made a great point about writing and especially about Juno, the independent film that was the media darling before Slumdog Millionaire:

"...Juno as a whole is a film that succeeds in spite of Cody’s screenplay, not because of it.

 Great screenplays are a lot like sports officials in that the good ones stand back and orchestrate events, facilitating the flow of the action while doing their best to draw as little attention to themselves as possible. You know the referee has had a good game when you simply didn’t notice he was there and the same is true of a good screenwriter.

 But if there was ever a case of the writer speaking directly out of the mouth of the characters then Juno is it. The impossibly named Juno MacGuff comes across as a great many things: brave, smart and compassionate. But one thing she spectacularly fails to come across as is a 16-year-old high school girl and it is a testament to Page’s great ability that she could carry the film off while weighed down by a screenplay littered with distractions and attention seeking dialogue. Diablo Cody seems so desperate for some sort of validation from her audience that she is completely unable to detach herself from the story she is telling and ends up sounding like the worst kind of writer - one whose material so insists on itself that she not only tries to tell the adults what all the kids are into these days, she tries to tell the kids, too."

Amen! To me, the best writer leaves you amazed or surprised or delighted or shocked by what you know, think or feel--not what he or she knows, thinks or feels.

(For help in writing your project, from idea through to publication or production, see my book, "Your Writing Coach," published by Nicholas Brealey Publishing.)

What's motivating your protagonist? (Should it be two things?)

What’s motivating your protagonist?

Several people who have seen advance screenings of the film, “Slumdog Millionaire” have raved about it. In a roundup of movies being released this time of year, John Horn of the Los Angeles Times, noted:

“When screenwriter Simon Beaufoy sat down to adapt the novel "Q & A" to the screenplay for " Slumdog Millionaire," there was no love story between the game show's contestant, Jamal, and his long-lost childhood crush, Latika. But Beaufoy couldn't get excited about a story in which a cash prize was the protagonist's reward.

 ‘I just didn't think money was a great motivator,’ Beaufoy says. ‘You don't leave a theater singing about someone who gets a Rolex watch. But Jamal is not on the show to win 20 million rupees. He's there to find the woman he loves.’”

 It’s a good reminder that if you want your audience (or reader) to get emotionally involved with your protagonist, it helps if the character’s quest is appealing. Of course in many stories, the protagonist starts out wanting the wrong (or less worthy) thing and along the way discovers that he or she actually need something else—this is often called the wants/needs plot. In other words, the journey from what you want to what you actually need. It gives an extra dimension of depth and interest--maybe because we've all experienced it at some stage!

You’ve probably heard of the “Write a novel in a month” event that takes place every November, but did you know there’s a scriptwriting equivalent? It’s “Scriptfrenzy” and it happens in April. You can find out more at scriptfrenzy.org. One of the fun features on the site is the plot machine. You click on a button and up pop three plot elements (a bit like spinning a slot machine). They’re silly…but then again, considering some of the movies that have actually been produced… Here are three examples that came up when I tried it:

“In a world ruled by earthworms…a ballerina with a gun…sets out to shave a sasquatch.”

 “In a secret city beneath the Potomac…a narcoleptic bear…wreaks Godzilla-style havoc.”

 “After reading a co-worker’s email…a band of intergalactic spice traders…tracks down a renegade leprechaun.”

 Excuse me, I have to go call Steven Spielberg.

(If you need some inspiration for that screenplay you're writing, get a monthly dose of tips on how to be more creative and productive--just sign up for my free Brainstorm ebulletin by sending an email request now to BstormUK@aol.com.)

Good films, not-so-good films--all are educational

I’ve been going to a lot of Academy Award qualification film screenings in the last few weeks—a great way to see films, as nobody talks, nobody checks their mobile phones during the film, and (almost) nobody noisily unpacks candy wrappers. There’s also the tradition that you stay in your seat until all the credits have rolled, which gives you some quiet time to let the film sink in.

 It’s fun to just let a movie wash over you, but if you’re a writer it can also be very instructive to return to the film in your thoughts later and figure out why it worked—or didn’t. Here are a few thoughts on the films I’ve seen recently (if they’ve not been released in your area yet, they will be soon):

 “Tale of Despereaux” featured delightful animation but a very muddled storyline. It seems that because it’s a fairy tale the writers decided anything could happen anytime without worrying too much about logic or connections. It may be that kids won’t care and the quality of the animation will make it a hit, but if Pixar had done it the story would have been as good as the animation.

 “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” based on an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story, is about a man who is born old and gets younger as time goes on. The effects used to create this illusion (with Brad Pitt as Benjamin) are fantastic. The core of the story works fine but it’s a sprawling tale (almost three hours long) and it may require patience movie audiences don’t have any more. As with a lot of films, taking out about 15 minutes wouldn’t have hurt.

 One of my favourites so far was “Gran Torino,” starring and directed by Clint Eastwood. Very funny and full of politically-incorrect lines coming from the mouth of the Eastwood character, a troubled curmugeon out of synch with the modern world. It’s as though Dirty Harry had retired and moved to the declining suburbs. Some of the dialogue is a bit clunky, but the story is tightly constructed with enough twists to keep it from feeling predictable.

 Feel free to add your own recommendations!

And a 'rule' of screenwriting I don't agree with (plot)

In the previous post I quoted an observation that screenwriter Frank Cottrell Boyce made about characterization (as part of a longer article he wrote for the Guardian on how to write successful films). Today, here’s one I disagree with:

 “Do a favourite bit - No one leaves the cinema saying: I loved that character arc. They come out saying: I loved the swordfight, or the bit with the bloated cow, or whatever. The manuals emphasise the flow of a narrative, but it's better to think of a film as a suite of sequences. That's where the pleasure is. 

"I'm working on an animated feature at the moment. Traditionally, these films had no script at all. Teams built up a series of set-pieces and sequences around the story and characters. This is a great way to think. 

"If you look at the first Godfather film, it's really an accumulation of anecdotes held together by the moral decline of Michael. Kes also works like this: the football match, the taming of the hawk, the careers officer and so on. Try breaking your script down into a series of chapters and giving them headings. If you want to see this not quite working, look at the Mission: Impossible films. Terrific action sequences marooned in quagmires of soggy exposition.”

Well—up to a point. Yes, it’s important to have some great sequences, but far too many films have been ruined because somebody insisted on a great sequence or two that have no relationship to the story, or made a movie with a weak story because they'd thought of a few strong sequences. I think the first Godfather film is a masterpiece because it has great sequences and superb plotting that is far from just an accumulation of anecdotes. 

What do you think?

(If you've been thinking about writing a screenplay, get a copy of my book, "Your Writing Coach," published by Nicholas Brealey. It'll give you guidance on plotting, characters, and much more.)