You've been checking the countdown, haven't you? Staring at it, watching it tick, half-amused but semi-hypnotised by the relentless draw.
Just over two days to go at the time of writing. Not very long at all. So, if you have a submission ready to go but haven't sent it in yet, DON'T FORGET! Because you'll blink, and you'll get distracted, and you'll miss the deadline. Someone's reading this right now, after the deadline has passed, and thinking: "D'oh!" Well, it's one fewer entry to worry about...
To all of those who have entered - GOOD LUCK!
Selasa, 28 Agustus 2007
Minggu, 19 Agustus 2007
Kings
Just thought I'd squeeze this in.
In the Screenwriters' Festival's brochure, they had a section dedicated to the bios of all the guest speakers, including yours truly because I was there as part of the Red Planet Prize. However, in another section, I was surprised to see an extra snippet about myself: "Danny Stack, script editor of Kings". I was like: eh, what? Who? How?
Last year, as I was watching my bet on England to win the World Cup go down the plughole, I was contacted by director Tom Collins who was looking for someone to edit his adaptation of Kings, an Irish play by Jimmy Murphy. I helped Tom with a few drafts, he paid me, and that was that. Or so I thought. What I didn't know was that he was in the final stages of pre-production and that he was about to start shooting.
I wasn't expecting to get a script editor credit but, a year later, there it was in the brochure of the Screenwriters' Festival (and it's on IMDB, too), so I was wondering how this had happened, not that I was complaining. And then I got an email from the director last week, telling me he put in a script editor credit for me, which was nice of him.
Kings stars Colm Meaney (great Irish actor, rumoured to be Gene Hunt in the American version of Life on Mars) and it's about six young men who leave Ireland in the mid 1970s in the hope of making their fortunes in England. Thirty years later, only one makes it home - but in a coffin. The five remaining friends reunite at his wake and face up to the reality of their alienation as long term emigrants who no longer have any real place to call home.
It's an emotionally charged character-driven piece and the Screen Directors Guild of Ireland, in association with the Directors Guild of America, have chosen it as the winner of their Directors Finders Series 2007.
As the winner of the Directors Finders Series, the film will be showcased in the Director's Guild of America Theatre in LA on 28th September 2007 to an audience of American distributors, with a view to securing a US distribution deal for the film.
So, huge congratulations to Tom, and best of luck for the film's ongoing success - very exciting!
---
UPDATE: Also, my regular co-writer Sam Morrison has his latest animation short, Rocket Science, up on the BBC Film Network. So, click on over, watch the flick (and give it a vote if you're a member). Lovely.
In the Screenwriters' Festival's brochure, they had a section dedicated to the bios of all the guest speakers, including yours truly because I was there as part of the Red Planet Prize. However, in another section, I was surprised to see an extra snippet about myself: "Danny Stack, script editor of Kings". I was like: eh, what? Who? How?
Last year, as I was watching my bet on England to win the World Cup go down the plughole, I was contacted by director Tom Collins who was looking for someone to edit his adaptation of Kings, an Irish play by Jimmy Murphy. I helped Tom with a few drafts, he paid me, and that was that. Or so I thought. What I didn't know was that he was in the final stages of pre-production and that he was about to start shooting.
I wasn't expecting to get a script editor credit but, a year later, there it was in the brochure of the Screenwriters' Festival (and it's on IMDB, too), so I was wondering how this had happened, not that I was complaining. And then I got an email from the director last week, telling me he put in a script editor credit for me, which was nice of him.
Kings stars Colm Meaney (great Irish actor, rumoured to be Gene Hunt in the American version of Life on Mars) and it's about six young men who leave Ireland in the mid 1970s in the hope of making their fortunes in England. Thirty years later, only one makes it home - but in a coffin. The five remaining friends reunite at his wake and face up to the reality of their alienation as long term emigrants who no longer have any real place to call home.
It's an emotionally charged character-driven piece and the Screen Directors Guild of Ireland, in association with the Directors Guild of America, have chosen it as the winner of their Directors Finders Series 2007.
As the winner of the Directors Finders Series, the film will be showcased in the Director's Guild of America Theatre in LA on 28th September 2007 to an audience of American distributors, with a view to securing a US distribution deal for the film.
So, huge congratulations to Tom, and best of luck for the film's ongoing success - very exciting!
---
UPDATE: Also, my regular co-writer Sam Morrison has his latest animation short, Rocket Science, up on the BBC Film Network. So, click on over, watch the flick (and give it a vote if you're a member). Lovely.
Kamis, 16 Agustus 2007
Re-Direct
This blog started around this time two years ago, and the intention was to share screenwriting news, opportunities, insights into the spec pile (through my work as a reader) and bits and pieces on how my own writing career was shaping up. Basically, I wanted to focus on what I thought other bloggers and websites weren't talking about, and offer a fresh and honest view of what it's really like trying to get ahead.
Nowadays, there's a wealth of scriboblogs who cover all of the above, and do it with great style, insight and entertainment. A while ago, I stopped sharing any opportunities that cropped up because Lianne and a few others started to do it far more efficiently. I subscribe to a lot of screenwriting blogs, and we share the same information and insight, which is great, but also makes me think: geez, how much advice on the same subject do we have to go over and over and over, and people still don't get it? And I begin to wonder if I should re-shape and re-direct this blog into something else. Keep on topic with screenwriting, obviously (hey, I don't have a life), but try to jazz it up a little so that it's a bit more interesting and original.
As writing gigs pick up with more regularity, my script reading status is practically down to zero, so maybe I should ditch that angle on the blog, and leave that to others to cover (whilst still touching base on certain subjects as I go). Lucy, Robin, Jason, James, Piers and a good handful of other bloggers have been doing great stuff recently, so there's no need to double up on the same info. (Robin's recent series on how to approach the Red Planet Prize is brilliant; you should really check it out if you plan to enter the comp, although not long to go now!). Another cool blog has hit the screens, this time from me good chum Philip Palmer and his Debatable Spaces. He's got a good post about why he loves Buffy so much so check it out if you're interested.
So, perhaps some changes ahead. A new name for the blog? Maybe. Fewer posts? Probably. But I'll still be here. For me, this blog has been a great source of networking and meeting cool new writers, despite one or two weirdos (yeah, you), so I'm not gonna give it up, just take a bit of a sidestep as other blogs lead the way.
The Red Planet Prize and other work is going to keep me busy for a while but I'll stick my head up from my bunker when I get a moment to breathe. Right then. Let's keep the magic flowing...
Nowadays, there's a wealth of scriboblogs who cover all of the above, and do it with great style, insight and entertainment. A while ago, I stopped sharing any opportunities that cropped up because Lianne and a few others started to do it far more efficiently. I subscribe to a lot of screenwriting blogs, and we share the same information and insight, which is great, but also makes me think: geez, how much advice on the same subject do we have to go over and over and over, and people still don't get it? And I begin to wonder if I should re-shape and re-direct this blog into something else. Keep on topic with screenwriting, obviously (hey, I don't have a life), but try to jazz it up a little so that it's a bit more interesting and original.
As writing gigs pick up with more regularity, my script reading status is practically down to zero, so maybe I should ditch that angle on the blog, and leave that to others to cover (whilst still touching base on certain subjects as I go). Lucy, Robin, Jason, James, Piers and a good handful of other bloggers have been doing great stuff recently, so there's no need to double up on the same info. (Robin's recent series on how to approach the Red Planet Prize is brilliant; you should really check it out if you plan to enter the comp, although not long to go now!). Another cool blog has hit the screens, this time from me good chum Philip Palmer and his Debatable Spaces. He's got a good post about why he loves Buffy so much so check it out if you're interested.
So, perhaps some changes ahead. A new name for the blog? Maybe. Fewer posts? Probably. But I'll still be here. For me, this blog has been a great source of networking and meeting cool new writers, despite one or two weirdos (yeah, you), so I'm not gonna give it up, just take a bit of a sidestep as other blogs lead the way.
The Red Planet Prize and other work is going to keep me busy for a while but I'll stick my head up from my bunker when I get a moment to breathe. Right then. Let's keep the magic flowing...
Senin, 06 Agustus 2007
Story Vault: Step Into Another Dimension
Well, that was weird. Blogger had identified this site as a spam blog, and had blocked me from updating it, so I had to wait until they could verify I was an actual human bean. Yes, bean. And I am. Baked in tomato sauce. What? Anyway, I'm all excited to get my clearance, only, ironies of ironies, I don't have anything to post. Or I'm posting to say I don't have anything to post.
Might be a bit slow and quiet around here for a while. August is typically dusty as many people are on holiday or at the Edinburgh Festival, or both, so it can feel like everyone's ignoring you as you wait for that vital response to your latest script. So, it's a good time to write a new one or explore other ideas. I'll try to chip in with a post or a Q&A to keep the blog flowing but until then, here's a post from August last year, about characters, and how to make them multi-dimensional.
---
The quality of the spec pile is improving. Despite contrary belief, aspiring screenwriters aren’t stupid. They’re attending the seminars, reading the books, analysing the films. They’re getting better. Screenplay craft and its application has become common knowledge, even for those with just a passing interest in the medium.
Of course, there is still a lot of stuff out there that ranges from bad to mediocre, and this will continue to give the spec pile a bad name. There are many scripts that vary from good to excellent (although the latter category is subjectively rare) and these screenplays are often on a par with films that are already in production or enjoying current release.
The overall improvement in the spec pile is both reassuring and disappointing. The general advance in quality comes from a good appreciation of craft. Writers know their three-act structure and how to execute it with pinpoint precision. They’re aware of set-ups and pay-offs. A great opening sequence. A good ending. Style, tone, structure. Check. At the very least, scripts are better written than they ever were before. What’s disappointing about this progress is that the characters in the scripts fail to emotionally engage, and this leads to the regular rejection on the script’s coverage.
It seems that new writers have developed a knack for writing serviceable screenplays but they’re not writing interesting characters to fulfil their respective stories. And this, above all else, is what matters in a script. Forget about the long list of disposable films that would offer a sound argument against the statement. They’re nothing to do with you or me. In the spec pile, you’re judged by the quality of your craft but also by how well your story engages the reader on an emotional level. This is achieved through the script’s cast of characters, and how well they are defined and developed.
Characters fulfil a certain role or duty in a story. The protagonist. Chirpy sidekick. Love interest. Villain. Best friend. Boss. Parent. Whatever. A script reader’s seen them all, just as much as a cinema audience. What we’re looking for is something new, fresh and distinctive. We don’t want to see characters behave in the same stereotypical way based on their role in the story. But that’s what happens all the time. The hero is the hero, flawless and brave. The sidekick is comic and supportive, and might even die for his trouble. The love interest’s romance is assured from the outset. The boss is unfair. The parent doesn’t understand. And so it goes…
Superior screenplay craft will ensure an easy read and an appreciative response from a reader but a story with only one or two dimensions of character will leave the reader dissatisfied and unimpressed with the script’s emotional range. Three-dimensional characters are considered favourable but this isn’t entirely true anymore because we can usually predict a character’s behaviour or response from his general characterisation in the story.
What’s desirable now, but more difficult to achieve, is the multi-dimensional character: complex emotional people where their behaviour can’t be easily categorised or predicted. This isn’t meant to encourage erratic or uneven conduct. Quit the opposite. It’s meant to establish a range of conflicting emotions and challenges for the characters to experience. This extra dimension of character is usually borne out of the writer’s particular insight into the situation. It will probably avoid cliché and predictability, and enrich the character’s emotional development with the difficult choice that he/she has to make. ‘Enrich’ doesn’t necessarily mean a positive outcome for the character; it could be a detrimental action that increases the story’s emotional or dramatic appeal.
Due to the particular demand of screenplay craft, getting a multi-dimensional character down on the page is tough. A well-written script with effective emotional characters mightn’t be as obvious or appealing because of what the writer hasn’t written, and what’s left to the subtext. You just have to trust the reader’s instincts and awareness, something that may not be in evidence if it’s an inexperienced intern.
And then there’s what an actor can bring to the part. What really wasn’t on the page is suddenly lifted into a whole new emotional character dimension because of the actor’s particular talents. But for the moment let’s just assume we’re lazing in the spec pile, a million miles away from actors and directors on set. It’s our job to give the characters a chance to breathe and develop; to react and respond to the story on an emotional and practical level.
Whether it’s a genre movie or a more personal piece, the characters have to ring true and be consistent. Think of the best and most lauded genre movies: they all have great characters. And, more importantly, they all have interesting personal stuff going on that had to be dealt with in the course of the film’s plot. Star Wars, Back to the Future, Jaws, Raiders, Shaun of the Dead, Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Full Monty, Billy Elliot.
Well-defined characters. Multi-dimensional. Emotional. Human. Real. That’s the secret to screenwriting success. Craft has a lot to do with it but if the characters don’t engage, excite, inspire or amuse, then they’re probably serving the plot in a two-dimensional fashion rather than driving the narrative with their multi-dimensional needs.
Treat characters with care and respect. Explore other decisions or reactions that they might make: more complex and emotional rather than easy and predictable. It will help to defy a reader’s expectation but also increase the emotional attachment to the story because of the characters’ interesting and unexpected behaviour.
---
Check out UNK's Transformational Character Arc post, too.
Might be a bit slow and quiet around here for a while. August is typically dusty as many people are on holiday or at the Edinburgh Festival, or both, so it can feel like everyone's ignoring you as you wait for that vital response to your latest script. So, it's a good time to write a new one or explore other ideas. I'll try to chip in with a post or a Q&A to keep the blog flowing but until then, here's a post from August last year, about characters, and how to make them multi-dimensional.
---
The quality of the spec pile is improving. Despite contrary belief, aspiring screenwriters aren’t stupid. They’re attending the seminars, reading the books, analysing the films. They’re getting better. Screenplay craft and its application has become common knowledge, even for those with just a passing interest in the medium.
Of course, there is still a lot of stuff out there that ranges from bad to mediocre, and this will continue to give the spec pile a bad name. There are many scripts that vary from good to excellent (although the latter category is subjectively rare) and these screenplays are often on a par with films that are already in production or enjoying current release.
The overall improvement in the spec pile is both reassuring and disappointing. The general advance in quality comes from a good appreciation of craft. Writers know their three-act structure and how to execute it with pinpoint precision. They’re aware of set-ups and pay-offs. A great opening sequence. A good ending. Style, tone, structure. Check. At the very least, scripts are better written than they ever were before. What’s disappointing about this progress is that the characters in the scripts fail to emotionally engage, and this leads to the regular rejection on the script’s coverage.
It seems that new writers have developed a knack for writing serviceable screenplays but they’re not writing interesting characters to fulfil their respective stories. And this, above all else, is what matters in a script. Forget about the long list of disposable films that would offer a sound argument against the statement. They’re nothing to do with you or me. In the spec pile, you’re judged by the quality of your craft but also by how well your story engages the reader on an emotional level. This is achieved through the script’s cast of characters, and how well they are defined and developed.
Characters fulfil a certain role or duty in a story. The protagonist. Chirpy sidekick. Love interest. Villain. Best friend. Boss. Parent. Whatever. A script reader’s seen them all, just as much as a cinema audience. What we’re looking for is something new, fresh and distinctive. We don’t want to see characters behave in the same stereotypical way based on their role in the story. But that’s what happens all the time. The hero is the hero, flawless and brave. The sidekick is comic and supportive, and might even die for his trouble. The love interest’s romance is assured from the outset. The boss is unfair. The parent doesn’t understand. And so it goes…
Superior screenplay craft will ensure an easy read and an appreciative response from a reader but a story with only one or two dimensions of character will leave the reader dissatisfied and unimpressed with the script’s emotional range. Three-dimensional characters are considered favourable but this isn’t entirely true anymore because we can usually predict a character’s behaviour or response from his general characterisation in the story.
What’s desirable now, but more difficult to achieve, is the multi-dimensional character: complex emotional people where their behaviour can’t be easily categorised or predicted. This isn’t meant to encourage erratic or uneven conduct. Quit the opposite. It’s meant to establish a range of conflicting emotions and challenges for the characters to experience. This extra dimension of character is usually borne out of the writer’s particular insight into the situation. It will probably avoid cliché and predictability, and enrich the character’s emotional development with the difficult choice that he/she has to make. ‘Enrich’ doesn’t necessarily mean a positive outcome for the character; it could be a detrimental action that increases the story’s emotional or dramatic appeal.
Due to the particular demand of screenplay craft, getting a multi-dimensional character down on the page is tough. A well-written script with effective emotional characters mightn’t be as obvious or appealing because of what the writer hasn’t written, and what’s left to the subtext. You just have to trust the reader’s instincts and awareness, something that may not be in evidence if it’s an inexperienced intern.
And then there’s what an actor can bring to the part. What really wasn’t on the page is suddenly lifted into a whole new emotional character dimension because of the actor’s particular talents. But for the moment let’s just assume we’re lazing in the spec pile, a million miles away from actors and directors on set. It’s our job to give the characters a chance to breathe and develop; to react and respond to the story on an emotional and practical level.
Whether it’s a genre movie or a more personal piece, the characters have to ring true and be consistent. Think of the best and most lauded genre movies: they all have great characters. And, more importantly, they all have interesting personal stuff going on that had to be dealt with in the course of the film’s plot. Star Wars, Back to the Future, Jaws, Raiders, Shaun of the Dead, Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Full Monty, Billy Elliot.
Well-defined characters. Multi-dimensional. Emotional. Human. Real. That’s the secret to screenwriting success. Craft has a lot to do with it but if the characters don’t engage, excite, inspire or amuse, then they’re probably serving the plot in a two-dimensional fashion rather than driving the narrative with their multi-dimensional needs.
Treat characters with care and respect. Explore other decisions or reactions that they might make: more complex and emotional rather than easy and predictable. It will help to defy a reader’s expectation but also increase the emotional attachment to the story because of the characters’ interesting and unexpected behaviour.
---
Check out UNK's Transformational Character Arc post, too.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)