BBC New Music Shorts

We have the music, now you make the film.

"BBC New Talent, BBC Film Network and BBC Electric Proms are challenging filmmakers to make new films inspired by new music tracks. You'll get the chance to work with Warp Films and up to £5,000 to make your film, which will be premiered at the BBC's new music festival, the Electric Proms in October, and showcased online at BBC Film Network.

Leading independent record labels have provided tracks from their latest releases. We want you to submit creative ideas for films that either use or are inspired by these tracks. This could be anything from a music promo, moving visual images, a short drama or even a documentary.

To find out more about the scheme and get details on how to enter, visit the BBC New Talent Website. But hurry, the closing date for entries is Friday 11th August."

Thanks to Suki for the link.

Deal or No Deal

When does a script stop being purely yours? By this I mean, does someone's feedback incorporated into the script give them part ownership?

On a basic level, if you get feedback from an agent/reader/best friend, and you incorporate their notes into your script, then all they get is your grateful appreciation (bar the agent’s 10% of course). On a more professional level, if a director or producer or another writer has significantly made a contribution to the development of the script, then they may make legal claims to have their name tagged along side yours in the credits.

It all depends on the development stage of the project, and if you’ve signed a contract that specifies such instances taking place. If your script hasn’t been optioned but a director/producer or writer has been helping you, then it’s open for discussion and/or your discretion whether they should get credited with your work. If your script has been optioned, and the director/producer/writer has meddled with the script (with or without your consent) then it is natural for them to want recognition for their effort. And so begins credit arbitration with the Writers’ Guild (yes the UK office), or amenable agreements between the agents.

Someone’s feedback into your script does not allow them part ownership. Ownership is claimed by the big production company or studio who make you sign a contract that reverts the property to them once the deal is done. There are fancy terms like percentage points and minimum guarantees through the back end (ooh matron!), and this is what you’re likely to receive for all your hard work of actually inventing and writing the story after the basic option/buy out has been completed.


How much should you ask for if a producer wants to option your script? And does 'optioning' a script give someone the right to change it?

In the UK, option fees vary from ‘Free’ to £10k. Options that want to offer you the latter fee are rare. Unsurprisingly, free or very low paid options are the norm. If you’re a new writer and the producer is reputable then it’s not unreasonable to ask for an option between £2-3k. That would be great! However, expect to negotiate an option anywhere between ‘Free’ and £1k. £500 being a common sum. £300 being just as regular. It’s a tough one. They have the power. You want the option. They don’t want to give you the cash.

A typical script fee is £15k where it breaks down something like this: £5k for the option. £5k on delivery of rewrite (first draft), £5k on delivery of second draft. This is a good deal for new writers (i.e. a writer without any credits to their name) in the UK.

As for how much power the person has to change the script once they’ve optioned it is down to the terms of the contract. A common agreement is that the writer gets a first crack at the rewrite that incorporates the producer’s notes, after that, they usually can take it away from you (but also bring it back).


Basically, what's the 'process' once people start getting interested in a script? And how can needy writers maintain their integrity without pissing everyone off?

You’ve slaved for months alone at your computer. You’ve finished your latest script. And it rocks! Or so you think. You send it to your agent and he/she/it makes some positive noises. He wants to send it out straight away, and targets those that she thinks will like it. The producer/exec who receives the script also sits up and pays attention, especially when the coverage comes back with a “Project: Consider” “Writer: Consider” stamped on the report (who knows, maybe ‘Recommend’!).

They get back to the agent. Want to set up a meeting. You get excited. Wear some trendy clothes. Have a shave. You meet the producer/exec. They’d like to option the script. Terrific! You celebrate with your mates. The offer comes in…£150! Boo. The agent goes nuts and negotiates on your behalf. Finally, you agree to an option fee of £500. You celebrate with your mates.

Alternatively, if you don’t have an agent: you finish your script. It rocks! Or you’re not so sure. But hey, it’s got potential, and a producer will see that potential, that’s what “development” is for, right? You flick through the Writers’ and Artists’ Year Book and pick out potential candidates for your epic. The script gets sent out. You wait an age for anyone to reply.

Finally a response. Liked the writing, come in for a chat. Wear some trendy clothes. Have a shave. You meet the producer/exec. They think it needs some work but they’d like to option the script. Terrific! You celebrate with your mates. The offer comes in… £150! Boo. You sign the deal. You celebrate with your mates. And you contact agents to say you’re a hot new talent with one optioned work to your belt already, would they like to represent you? Or better still, approach them once the option offer comes in, ask them to negotiate the deal for you and then somewhere down the line, when you’ve written more stuff or have other offers on the table, then maybe they could represent you full-time…

There’s no doubt that new writers are in a compromising position when it comes to the inevitable changes that the producer/director will want to make to the script. But don’t be too alarmed. The stories of misinformed notes and risible changes are much maligned. There’ll be some clunkers in there but there’ll also be some sound suggestions too. This is where you need to put your ego aside and listen to what they’re saying. Separate the good from the bad, and implement what you think is the good into the rewrite.

And if there’s something that you staunchly believe to be wrong, and you won’t do it, then don’t blow your top: make your case. Convince them otherwise. Explain how their suggestion to have Johnny die in the second act couldn’t possibly work. If all you have to your defence is a petulant sulk because they want to change it, then you’re a needy insecure writer. But if you have a valid argument why it should stay the same, then you’re a passionate professional capable of convincing argument. It’s a fine line but the key is to ‘explain why’ rather than ‘sulk and shout’.

Episodic Scripts

Is there any chance of a posting about how to avoid an 'episodic' script?


There is no reason to actively avoid an episodic narrative. It’s a valid and useful storytelling technique. Like passive protagonists, the use of an episodic narrative from a new or inexperienced writer might be left alone until a more confident grasp of style and craft has been achieved.

An episodic script is often frowned upon because it doesn’t develop the characters or story to the same satisfying level as a typical, traditional mainstream film. But that doesn’t mean that stories cannot be driven with an episodic narrative. It just means that the episodic nature has to be valid and entertaining to the style and structure of the story you’re trying to tell.

In general, an episodic narrative is a story that relates a single episode or event which in turn relates a series of events that may not be closely connected. Episodic narrative could also tell a story of someone’s search for an important goal but it goes unresolved.

Examining and understanding the style and craft of episodic narrative is dandy but perhaps the question is to do with avoiding an episodic feel to a script when you’re trying to establish a more coherent story arc. This is where assessing and implementing a rigid story process can help rid a script of its episodic blues.

If a script has an episodic narrative when you’re trying to avoid it, it’s probably best to assess the specific structure (and nature) of the story to see how the plot can flow with a more causal and natural ease. Having an episodic plot could mean that you have basic ideas and intentions with regards to characters and scenes but the story is not gelling them in a consistent fashion to make for an engaging narrative.

Assessing the specific structure of the episodic narrative means breaking it down to its key components through index cards, outline, whatever. The story’s skeleton will probably tell you that it’s chopping and changing from one idea/scene to the next but you’ve lost sight of the character’s desire, and/or significant subplots, along the way. By focusing on what’s important to the character and the story, you should be able to build a better framework for a more coherent emotional arc.

The most important matter is this. Don’t panic. Perhaps an episodic narrative is ideal for the story that’s trying to emerge. There are many successful episodic films. Pulp Fiction. Mulholland Drive (debatable, hell, the whole thing’s debatable). Memento. Twisty psychodramas/thrillers use the technique quite a lot to maintain their mystery. And a lot of romcoms have started using ‘titles’ or ‘segments’ to break down the various stages of the relationship/story. (Any more examples?)

Style and structure. That’s what it’s all about. If it’s got an episodic narrative, so be it. But be consistent and true to the form rather than incoherent and insecure with the technique.

Passive Protagonists

“[In my latest script] I intentionally created a passive main character, but the feedback I received said all main characters should be active. Do you find that many readers share this particular bias towards the standard active protagonist cliche?”


It’s true that you generally want to avoid using a passive protagonist in your screenplay. It’s something a reader will easily identify in the script and will offer it as the first point of critique for your story. Most of the time, it’s an accurate reflection of how the hero is not driving the story but occasionally, the use of a passive protagonist is a perfectly acceptable way to characterise the main player.

A lot of films successfully use passive protagonists. It just takes a specific skill to put this approach into practice. The main hurdle that new or inexperienced writers fail to jump over is that they let the story happen around the protagonist, thus making him passive to everything that’s going on in the plot. He/she makes no active choices or decisions for herself and the plot feels contrived rather than organic to the character’s main desire.

The main difference between a passive protagonist and an acceptable passive protagonist is that the former lets the story happen around him while the latter makes decisions that affect the story based on his passive characterisation. Still with me? Let’s run with the paradox. What’s important is that a passive protagonist is forced to act, or that he makes choices to maintain his ‘passivity’ but they completely backfire on him, making his situation (the story) worse.

Look at The Dude in The Big Lebowski. Throughout the film, he just wants to chill out, do nothing. The ultimate slacker. Lazy. Unmotivated. Completely passive. But once the mistaken identity kicks in, The Dude is very active in trying to restore the balance of his life and as a result he gets himself into all sorts of mess. And take a look at Griffin Dunne’s character in After Hours. He's just the helpless passenger to the wild night of events but he does have a narrative drive, to find Rosanna Arquette, and that keeps the story more interesting.

So yes, passive protags are fine. Inexperienced readers will jump on a passive protagonist as it's an easy comment to make but someone with a more insightful or appreciative knowledge of story will accept a passive protagonist. But beware. A passive protagonist can't do 'nothing'.

Take the most famous passive protagonist of all, Hamlet. Although he dithered about murdering his Uncle, he made very active choices in his procrastination that only made his story worse for him... From Hamlet to Neo. It’s been argued that Neo in The Matrix is a passive protagonist: “he doesn't even want play the role of the protagonist, and so doesn't make an active decision that drives the plot until page 92 of the shooting script.” But I disagree with that particular notion. It’s an interesting argument but Neo’s story seems like a strong Hero’s Journey template that was extremely effective and entertaining (just don’t mention the sequels).

Musical References

Is it okay to refer to a particular song within a spec script? For example, a scene where a character is performing a hammy impersonation of a famous singer/popular song. The tune is relevant to the mood of the scene and a few lines of the lyrics are ideal. Is it acceptable to mention the song and have the character sing a line or two of the lyrics as part of the dialogue?

Is music selection generally considered someone else's department or is it okay for the scriptwriter to make suggestions? What if a scene involves driving in a vehicle with the stereo blasting or the radio on - is that how it should be written? Or could a certain artist/song also be mentioned if it is relevant to the story?


Some would say that it’s best to avoid having musical references in a spec script. This is because of clearance issues (from the music publisher and the author) and whether or not they’ll allow their song or clip to be used. This is more to do with the film’s actual soundtrack than it is about using songs for a specific scene. A lot of scripts will try to impose their own soundtrack into the narrative where they will namecheck and reference twelve to fifteen songs throughout the story. Some writers/producers even go as far as to submit a CD with the accompanying songs with a ‘note to the reader’ to press ‘play’ at certain points in the story. Hate that. Hate it. The CD is never played, I can assure you.

However, it’s perfectly acceptable to reference a song for a particular scene, as long as it’s relevant to the character or the story. The above scenario of someone hamming up a karoke song is an ideal example. By all means, have the character sing whatever you feel is necessary to highlight the mood and subtext, and feel free to quote a couple of lines. Don’t go mad. [Surely] we don’t need to sit through the entire song so just a snippet should be enough. If the film goes into production but you can’t get clearance to use the song, then you have to use a different number.

Occasionally, writers will ‘set the mood’ by referring to a certain type of music, usually in a bar scene, something like: “John Smith enters the bar. It’s a dingy place. Metallica, or someone similar, pounds out from the jukebox.” It gives the reader a general vibe about the scene without giving the production manager and music supervisor a headache about what track to lay down.

Music selection is generally someone else’s department (especially for TV) but it’s fine for scenes to mention which song is blasting from the car stereo, but remember only if the lyrics/mood are important to the character/story. If you don’t need to be specific about a song or band, then just mention what type of music is blasting from the stereo: “Cheesy pop music blares from the radio”. “The deep bass of a cool R&B number pulses through the car”. Whatever.

In my latest script, I have a soundtrack lined up but purely for my own motivation and inspiration. Only one of the songs gets namechecked in the script, and that’s when a character starts singing along to the (pertinent) lyrics from the car radio, and the music plays over the next scene as a neat transition for some visual exposition (at least that’s the intention). Some readers may dislike this approach but it works fine for me because it’s a filmmaking technique you see all the time, so why shouldn’t it be in a script? It’s not telling the director or actor what to do, it’s just describing how you see the action and music combining in the story.

So, yes, it’s okay to reference songs and lyrics, but don’t go overboard. Once or twice is usually enough and/or acceptable. Anything more and you’re suggesting a soundtrack, which may not be appropriate or feasible for the film’s production.

Character Description

When a writer introduces a character to a screenplay, he faces a difficult decision in ‘reader exposition’ (information necessary for the script reader, not the audience at the cinema). Usually it comes down to the basic characterisation or leading traits that the character possesses and the writer wants the reader to know. But how to do this successfully without pissing the reader off?

The standard advice is to be clever and evocative, mixing a sense of their visual vibe with something from their past or a neat visual metaphor of what they’re like. What you don’t want to read is this:

“JOHN SMITH enters the bar. He’s a humble accountant, way out of his depth, but he looks like he can hold his own because of his big frame and rugged good looks.”

This kind of stuff appears in screenplays all the time but this is the bad version of reader exposition. What’s generally preferred is this:

“JOHN SMITH enters the bar. If this was a western, the joint would come to an immediate standstill. But the women certainly notice his presence and the disgruntled barflies observe him with a jealous scowl. As John heads for the counter, his big frame stumbles on a chair, a moment of embarrassment. He dusts himself off and sheepishly avoids everyone’s stare as he reaches the bar.”

This is better because it’s more visual and let’s the reader subconsciously grasp the basic characterisation of what John is like. The fact that he’s a humble accountant isn’t part of the scene, so it shouldn’t be part of his introductory description. If it is important that we know that he’s an accountant, then maybe he’s at the bar to sort out the barman’s taxes, but that too should be visualised and dramatised, not just spoon-fed to us in the description.

For the novice screenwriter, this is a small but important part of screenwriting craft that requires immediate usage. And you know what, people seem to be quite good at it. Neat, visual, clever and evocative description is everywhere these days when a new character is introduced into a screenplay. But there’s a problem. The style of description is becoming ‘samey’.

This might seem like confusing or contradictory advice but the best introduction of a new character comes with no visual description at all. Maybe just his age to help the reader when he starts to make his own mental image of what the character is like:

“JOHN SMITH (38) enters the bar.”

The neat and evocative description is all very well but the clever, creative and often amusing descriptions are becoming a distraction for two reasons.

One: they are not consistent with the character in the story. John Smith may well be a man whose eyes suggest a dark past but what’s that got to do with the romantic comedy he’s in? His tattoo that’s just visible on his right shoulder may be a cruel reminder of his time spent in juvenile prison but is it really necessary information to the road movie he’s just started?

Two: they are just clever descriptions and have no bearing on what the character is like at all because he behaves in a wholly different manner to the style in which he was introduced: “John Smith enters the bar. Here’s a guy you want for any party, always first to buy a round and even faster with a joke or witty aside.”

And then during the course of the story, John never buys a drink or makes a joke. Not once. Despite many screenwriting advice reporting this phenomenon It. Still. Happens. All. The. Time.

Another regular intro: “John Smith enters the bar. What you need to know about John is that he’s an alcoholic so he’s either here as part of his step programme, or he’s about to hit a bottle of tequila”. The ‘what you need to know’ phrase was probably used in somebody’s successful screenplay once but it’s been copied ever since. It now seems tired and lazy.

Personally, as a script reader, I don’t pay much attention to the character descriptions, whether they’re clever or not. I’m going to make up my own mind on what the character looks like, and how they behave, simply from their actions in the story. Sometimes I’ll be told beforehand what they’re going to look like - “this one stars Nic Cage” - but that just helps to associate his particular acting style to a character that may have been a bit flat or two-dimensional on the spec pile.

As a spec writer, it’s up to you whether you give the reader the basic characterisation of a new character but an introduction that includes a visual representation of the character’s main traits works better than a bland or clever quip about who they are and what they’re like.

This isn’t to say that everyone should stop writing character descriptions. This post is more a personal observation on how the spec pile seems to have embraced the accepted uniform way of introducing a character. It’s fine, it works, but if the character behaves differently or the writer has an erratic command over his creation, then all that clever description becomes redundant. Readers, just like the audience, make up their own minds about things. Show them what your characters are like. Don’t tell them.

Voice-Over

Although much derided and maligned, the use of voice-over in film is often a necessary and justified technique that can compliment and heighten the on-screen drama. The worst voice-overs are when the narrator uses plain and drab dialogue to tell us exactly what we can see on the screen anyway. Or it may cross the line of foul exposition to tell us exactly who people are, what they are doing and why they are doing it.

The best voice-overs are when the narrator is either reacting to the on-screen drama, or filling in interesting parts of the narrative that the audience wants to know. Ray Liotta in Goodfellas. Kevin Costner in Dances With Wolves. William Holden in Sunset Boulevard: “Well, this is where you came in, back at that pool again, the one I always wanted. It's dawn now and they must have photographed me a thousand times. Then they got a couple of pruning hooks from the garden and fished me out... ever so gently. Funny, how gentle people get with you once you're dead.”

Here’s a generic example of how narration can carry the story but also add to the action to create humour:

John looks into Sarah’s eyes. The perfect romantic moment.

JOHN (V/O)
I wasn’t going to say it.
I was going to stand firm.
She had to be the one to say it first.

JOHN
(blurting out)
I love you Sarah!

JOHN (V/O)
But I couldn’t stop myself.


Some films overuse voice-over so that the narrator/protagonist is practically telling you the story every inch of the way. This is not ideal as it denies the audience from making their own emotional and visual attachment to the story. The narrator is telling them everything they need to know. It’s not good.

Ideally, the use of voice-over needs to be consistent. A lot of films will start off with a voice-over set up but then forget that they used the technique and the script will end without another voice-over in sight. This usually highlights the fact that the opening voice-over was for set up and exposition only, and didn’t have a valid dramatic presence. Some films get away with it but generally, especially for a spec script, you want to be consistent with a voice-over once you introduce the device to a story.

Structurally, the voice-over technique seems to work best when it’s used at the beginning, then at the transition at the end of act-one, then the midpoint of act two or the end of act two, and then during the last sequence of the final act. While this may seem like craft-by-numbers, it does work extremely well when the narration and story are properly in place. It usually strengthens or alludes to a theme or emotional resonance for the story, and the voice-over can be seen as a complimentary companion rather than an intrusive inclusion. Some scripts will start a voice-over half way through the film, or right at the end. The half way through technique rarely works while the end of the film approach can be pulled off, just about.

In scripts, voice-over is usually referred to in brackets:

DANNY (V/O)
It was a summer I’d never forget.


Not to be confused with Off-Screen (O/S).

DANNY (O/S)
I can’t hear you!

Danny comes into the room.

DANNY
I said I can’t hear you.


Generally, voice-over shouldn’t be overlong or explanatory. It should play a vital role in the audience’s understanding and engagement in any given scene, and the consequent story that follows. It can be clever, witty, confessional, dark, wry, detached, whatever, but it shouldn’t be there just to plug the gaps of character or story. It should have a genuine and valid presence in relation to the style and structure of the script.

Sweeping dramas/epics are a natural home for the voice-over, as are romantic comedies. Other genres have tried with varied success, and some break all the rules but still pull off an engaging voice-over. John Dunbar’s voice-over in Dances With Wolves is long and explanatory in places but its charming simplicity and Kevin Costner's delivery makes it engaging and interesting, and the visuals are never flat or lazy during the discourse.

Voice-over does have a place and when done well, it’s terrific. It’s lazy voice-over exposition that gives the technique a bad rap, and unfortunately this is what we see/hear more and more, hence voice-over’s maligned reputation. Use it, by all means, but use it wisely.

Necessary Swearing

This post uses some swear words. This blog does not usually contain such expletives. I thank you.

I am attempting a Romantic Comedy and wonder what (and if) swearing is acceptable in this genre? My main character is very bitter about life initially, and swears a lot. How far can I push the swearing?


In general, a light smattering of cursing is more than acceptable in romantic comedies. However, you don’t want to do anything to upset the genial tone of what’s going on. So, you wouldn’t have a lot of harsh cussing like motherf***er, the dreaded ‘c’ word, or indeed even mild cursing that comes from a cynical or mean spirited point-of-view.

The opening lines of Four Weddings of a Funeral revolve around the repeated use of the work f***. It’s comic and endearing because the stuffy middle-class characters bumble around as they try to get to a wedding on time. And that’s the key to swearing in romcoms, to make it comic and endearing rather than harsh and bitter. Richard Curtis likes to use a lot of swear words in his films but he does so in a disarming fashion: “fuckity-fuck-fuck” etc.

If your main character is very bitter about life and swears a lot, I would imagine you don’t want to make her a disagreeable or loathsome personality. So for example, she could spill some coffee over her shirt and shout: “Shitting shit it!” as this is funny and generates empathy. Of course, it’s perfectly fine for her to be thought disagreeable or loathsome by the other characters in the film but it’s preferable for the audience to see beyond this characterisation so that they can identify her as a human being who’s just trying to get on with her life.

Jack Nicholson’s character in As Good as it Gets (a romcom) has a loathsome and disagreeable personality but we still root for him to get together with Helen Hunt because the writers have successfully established him as a multi-dimensional, emotional character. He swears a lot too, in my recollection. Well, maybe not a lot but he has a lot of cutting remarks to deliver.

And that’s where swearing can be used most effectively. For comedic and dramatic impact. Too many screenplays litter their dialogue with unnecessary cussing and it doesn’t do much for general characterisation or the reader’s enjoyment. It’s about getting the balance and tone right in terms of who the characters are and what kind of story they’re in. If it’s a comedy crime/action/thriller/cop movie, then you’d expect to hear a lot of swearing. But it can still be used wisely and effectively. Tarantino’s swearing plays well alongside the lively and original content of the character’s dialogue, making the expletives funny and relevant to the story.

I was channel surfing the other night and came across the opening sequence of Lethal Weapon 2, and my god, the swearing. Coming into the film ‘cold’, it was like: whoa, too much, stop it! Cussing and swearing has become so normal, throwaway and acceptable, it’s completely desensitised us to how to use the language effectively. If you want to see cursing done at its astonishing best, check out Al Pacino’s devastating speech to Jonathan Pryce during Glengarry Glen Ross. Even my mother was impressed.

Hold the Front Page

A particular pet hate amongst readers and execs is when they receive a script that has a photograph or image on the front cover. The title of the script and who it’s by will be underneath or amongst a picture that relates to the tone or the content of the script. Presumably, the writer (or possibly producer/director) thinks that this is an important inclusion on the front cover; a helpful image to ease the reader into the style and mood of the story. Here’s a tip: don’t do it.

You’d think that all the regular screenwriting advice would have rubbed off by now. Y’know, the basics: format, typos, short paragraphs and never put an image on your front cover. And yet scripts stream in with some or all of the typical bugbears being dutifully adhered to.

Personally, I’m not too bothered by a small misuse of format or typos or whatever, and even a front image on the cover won’t put me off too much. It’s difficult to say why an image on the cover gets people’s hackles up so much. Maybe it’s because they feel the script is trying to persuade them about mood and imagery when they’d like to make up their own mind. The one thing that is for certain is that readers and execs don’t like it, and will immediately jump on your script with a savage distaste just because of an opening image on the title page.

The credo is this: “Scripts with images on their title page are indicative of a poorly written screenplay”. And you know, by and large, this is true. This is why readers sigh with disappointment when they pick up a script that’s got a fictional photo of a rock star and the script is called: “Pop Stars R Us”. They just know the script is going to suck ass.

Because the credo is generally accurate, there must be some psychological link between poor writing and putting an image on the front cover. It suggests that the writer (usually an amateur) isn’t fully convinced of his material and wants to plonk a “striking” photo on the front to impress the reader before he’s picked up the script. Or maybe the writer is so sure of his work that he feels it necessary to heighten the flavour of the piece by showing you a glimpse of the wonderful imagery that’s in store. It really is hard to guess.

I have read scripts from a few professional writers that have had images on the front cover but I think the producer or director may be to blame here because the professional scribes deliver a more satisfying story. 90% of scripts with pictures/photos or drawings on their front cover usually indicate that the writer is trying too hard, or has an ego beyond belief, and the script will usually go on to tell a story that will fail to impress.

So, second thoughts all round about putting an image on the front cover. It’s tempting I know but unless you’re absolutely sure that your script is singing on every level, it’s best left avoided. Why not put those images and cool drawings into a separate document and submit that, along with the script, instead? The reader won’t be given the visual stuff to assess, just the script, while the exec gets the benefit of the writer’s “vision” without thinking that he’s a foolish amateur.

*** UPDATE ***
Another general no-no, although not as bad, is putting a clever tag line under the script's title. This isn't advisable because while the tag line can be clever, smart, amusing and intriging, the rest of the screenplay will usually fail to live up to its billing. So one strap line on the front cover becomes the most effective piece of writing in a 120 page screenplay. It can be cute and clever to have a tag line there, lots of people do it, but leave it to the marketing people, or better still, use it in your one page outline/pitching document which has room for that kind of stuff.

Slow, slow, quick quick, slow

Holiday /hólliday, -di/n. & v. n. 1 esp. Brit (often in pl.) An extended period of recreation, esp. away from home or in travelling; a break from work (cf. vacation).

Glad I looked that up. Forgot what it meant and seeing as everyone seems to be enjoying a summer break from work at the moment, it helps to explain why there seems to be an eerie silence from people who are meant to be signing cheques or doling out commissions.

In truth, the long wait for people to get back to you is a mixture of holiday, a busy work schedule and them basically ignorning you, or possibly all three. It can be intensely frustrating for the poor freelancer as he wonders how he’s going to pay the mortgage and the phone bill for next month.

As you may have noticed, I’ve put up a PayPal donate button on the blog. Someone enquired if they could make an overseas payment for my reading services and Lucy pointed me in the direction of PayPal of which I already have an account. So I upgraded it to receive payment with an easy click of the button. I did this for script reading/script editing purposes but if anyone wants to throw a fiver my way then you know, I’m not proud. Lucy’s already bought me a pint through PayPal. Genius.

I’ve been doing a bit more script editing recently, mainly thanks to the Irish Film Board, and quite coincidentally an Irish director (who has the Board’s support) found me through a random internet search and I’ve been going through his script this week. It’s been an interesting exercise because of the particular Irish subject matter.

In addition, a rewrite of a script that I gave notes to a few months ago has also landed on my desk so it was enjoyable going through that to see how my thoughts and suggestions were implemented in the new draft.

As it’s a slow summer time and cashflow has ground to a halt, I am available for more script reading, script editing work. Basic coverage starts at £60, going up to £250 and £350 depending on how much depth and detail you’d like the notes to cover. Email for more details. And for those overseas, you can pay easily through the PayPal button. Enjoy the sun everyone.

Oh yes, a couple of new blogs to check out: The Writing Lounge is where you'll find the adventures of a UK writer/producer who lives in Europe but ducks and dives in Hollywood and Soho with equal aplomb. And Was it Something I Wrote? is tales from a UK TV writer as he continues to dig away in the commissioning trenches. Well worth a look.

Spoof Comedies

Last week, I was given a comedy script to read but instead of writing a normal report, I was asked to suggest potential areas where the story could be improved in terms of gags and humour because the script was a comedy spoof. The producer didn’t feel satisfied that the script had enough gags. It was an interesting and enjoyable reading assignment (I had to think hard whether or not it was a very cheap writing gig) and it led to some thoughts on how the best comedy/spoof films are made.

The best parodies present us with characters and a story that we actually care for despite the film’s tongue-in-cheek tone. The fact that a spoof has all the leeway in the world to take the piss and be as silly as it wants isn’t enough. Take the piss narrative and throwaway gags are amusing gimmicks but the effect will soon wear off if the comedy and story isn’t properly being served.

Everything from Airplane! to Naked Gun, to Hot Shots and Team America have all got a great sense of what they are, and what they want to achieve. The humour may well be crass and low-brow at times but what’s important to realize is that the comedy is largely driven from the comic characterization and motivation of the characters.

Throwaway visual and dialogue gags are all very fine and well but they are usually generated from a familiar aspect of culture, or knowledge that the audience can understand. This technique can range from highlighting the absurd situation a character finds himself in, to referencing other films, or playfully caricaturizing a well-known personality.

Team America does this extremely well. What it effectively does is present us with a Hero’s Journey style-structure where an ordinary joe is presented with a challenge that he first rejects but then embraces as he is forced to become a hero. In essence, it’s a story that could work even without the parody intention or tongue-in-cheek style.

Interestingly, Trey Parker and Matt Stone initially wanted to do a Thunderbird version of Bruce Willis’s blockbuster Armageddon as they felt the script was hilarious as it was. And this is what any comedy spoof ideally wants to achieve. It should have a basic sense of story and structure in order for the gags and comedy to fully get their service.

Think of a story first, then put in the gags. It’s cinema. A basic sense of character and narrative is required. Charlie Sheen in Hot Shots. Robert Hays in Airplane! Frank Drebin in Naked Gun. The puppet Gary in Team America (“with your acting skills and world languages, you’re the perfect weapon”). The silly gags work a treat while the characters try to go through the ‘reality’ of their situation. There may be an arched eyebrow in the audience’s direction at times but the most successful and enjoyable spoofs send up their subject matter with love and care, not derision and sloppy storytelling at the expense of a few well-intentioned gags.

Page Count the Ways

Does it matter if a feature comes in around 81 pages? I have got it at 97 pages at one point but it felt forced and worse for it. As this is a spec script would a reader take one look at it and think the writer knows nothing because it's not even met the standard page length and automatically pass on it? Or would this page length be acceptable? OR... is this a blatant sign that I haven't enough story and I'm in denial and need to totally rethink? Is 90 pages the very minimum?


This is a great question. The standard accepted length of a screenplay is usually between 100-120 pages. Some scripts come in between 90-100 and some tip over into 120-130 (and beyond). If you’re a reputable writer with a significant award gleaming on your shelf (Bafta, Oscar etc) then submitting an overlong draft (120+) would be acceptable, especially as most of the time the script will be enjoyable enough to warrant such a duration.

For most new writers however, it seems that the shorter the script, the better. But that doesn’t mean too short either. From a reader’s point-of-view, you want to get through a script fairly easily and hope that the story will be a neat and entertaining experience anywhere between 90-110 pages. If a script comes in between 90-100 pages but is an enjoyable well-written affair, it usually demonstrates that the writer has natural talent with craft and structure, and has made the reader’s job easier that day by giving them a good, and short, script to get through.

However, if a script comes in between 90-100 pages and is lacking in some key areas of plot and character development, then the reader will bemoan the absence of those extra pages that would have helped to fulfil the story into a more satisfactory experience.

Basically, you shouldn’t panic if your script comes in short. It’s all about whether the story works and if you, the writer, are happy that the script is in its best presentable condition to be reviewed and considered. I have read scripts that have come in under 80 pages long but such a page count has yet to yield a good story. It is fairly common to receive scripts between 80-90 pages long, and this is okay but not recommended if you really want to get a stamp of ‘Consider’ on your report.

With a 80-90 page count you’re giving a reader immediate ammunition to dismiss your script with its underserved structure and character development. I wouldn’t recommend submitting scripts that run under 85 pages. It almost guarantees that there’s something not quite right about the timeline, structure or emotional development of the story. If it’s between 85-90, you might just pull of a deft and neat story, but it really has to deliver rather than just making the reader think: “well, the writing’s okay but the story’s too short.”

Personally, I like receiving scripts that run between 90-100. I think this is a good page count to have because the spec pile is more and more about whether a writer can write rather than “let’s make this script”. So, with a page count between 90-100, I’d be looking for a lean but well-crafted structure, unexpected plot twists and satisfying character development that all leads to an enjoyable ending.

When I’m writing, I’m pleased when a first draft comes in between 90-100. It’s always easier to add the necessary material to improve the script’s page count (and the story’s entertainment value naturally) than it is to remove scenes and amend the structure of an overlong screenplay.

In specific response to the question, I would say that 81 pages is likely to be too short. The fact that the script felt forced at 97 pages is probably a good indication that the story does need to be told around a short duration but take a closer look at the characters and story and try to honestly appraise whether the story’s working to its full effect. If you can’t decide, have the script assessed by an independent reader (don’t submit it to a studio yet) and see what they think.

Lucy and the Optimistic Reader have competitive rates, check them out. I charge £60 per report (3/4 pages comments) just in case anyone’s interested. Alternatively, there’s the Script Factory (link to the right). Whatever you decide, you have to feel confident and secure that your story is justified in its style and presentation, no matter how long or short it’s playing. Good luck. And more questions welcome, it really helps to generate blog posts.