Well, the sun is shining here and it's a beautiful day by the seaside. No tremors or after shocks this far south of the country. The taste of spring is in the air, and the year is moving into gear nicely as work picks up with a commission and ting. Seen, bruv. So, a post from the archives, circa this time last year, about 'writing for free' and whether you should do it or not...
---
Much as it angers and frustrates writers, agents and the Writers’ Guild, there simply is no getting around the fact that, at some stage, you’re going to have to work for free. This especially applies if you’re starting out as a screenwriter but even if you’re a seasoned scribe, sometimes you just have to pucker up and do some pro bono work to help get a project off the ground.
It’s not ideal, it’s not fair, it’s not perfect…but it’s a fact. It’s the reality of the business. And you know what, sometimes it’s okay. Sometimes it’s just simply necessary. Even in television, you’ll be asked to do a free outline before they agree to commission your ass. This is usually two/three pages, but sometimes it’s a treatment between 6-10 pages. A treatment is a lot of work, especially for free, but if you want the commissioned gig, you’re not going to walk away, right?
I can hear the indignant howls of writers and agents echo throughout the land as I type but most agents know that this is the norm, and sometimes projects get off the ground on the accepted notion of ‘good faith’ between the writer and producer. This post is not for one second endorsing the idea that an eager writers agrees to a wily producer’s demands to write for free but there is a way to agreeing to do this unpaid work without feeling manipulated, used or taken for granted.
First ask yourself: do I like this project? This is the most important. Forget money. Forget fame. Forget your Oscar speech. Do I dig the story? Does it grab my attention and get me excited? Or, perhaps, simply, can I make it work and enjoy myself in the process even though it’s not something that overtly thrills or moves me? If you like the story, if the subject matter can generate sufficient passion and interest, then it might be worthwhile taking on the work because it’s something you believe in, and something that you think could eventually pay off.
Next, do I like this producer? Can I work with this guy/gal? Do I know his/her credits? What’s her experience? If he’s new and ambitious, do I believe in his zeal and conviction? Does the game plan for funding and development sound reasonable and promising? Agreeing to do unpaid work for a producer is enticing when you’re an unknown screenwriter (hey, gotta get the CV going, right?) but if you’re just doing it for the sake of it, then it’s probably not going to work out.
Now, what’s the deal? I’m doing this work for free now, so what do I get later when it gets funding? Can we agree a basic contract before I proceed because otherwise the producer gets what he wants, the writer works hard but if it falls through, the writer gets nothing at all. This is the tricky part. Producers won’t want to involve your agent or get into contract talks until they get funding in place. Until then, you’re acting on ‘good faith’ and a verbal agreement, which may or may not be binding, depending on who witnessed the conversation. Still, some producers will agree to a basic one-letter contract which can protects your and her rights, and keep everything kosher. This is peace of mind but can be difficult to obtain.
If you’re feeling uncertain, ask yourself: do I trust this person? If I don’t know her at all, and have no prior relationship with him, then do I believe all the puffed up talk about agreements once funding is in place? If you don’t feel right, then it’s best not to get involved in the project. When starting a new script, every producer, every producer, will tell you there’s no money; that they can’t pay you now but they’ll pay you later. Yet, if they are a reputable producer with some credit or clout, then they should be able to pay you something, even if it’s just a token few hundred. Don’t be afraid to ask.
It’s a tough situation. They need you, the writer, but if you don’t want to play ball, then they can easily find someone else to fill your shoes. They’re in the powerful position of negotiation, to bend you into doing some unpaid writing, but while it’s not the ideal situation for any writer, it is a common feature of every day business. Don’t say ‘yes’ because you're desperate for any kind of break or exposure. Say ‘yes’ when you feel happy that the project is interesting or could lead to something down the line or if the producer is genuine and professional, and it could be the start of a good relationship. Take it into consideration. Try to understand their situation. It’s tough for them, too. Then do the work, and polish that Oscar speech.
---
Rabu, 27 Februari 2008
Senin, 25 Februari 2008
Monday Linkery
Well, a few Brits were up for Oscars, so apart from the obvious ones that have taken a huge gulp of well-deserved publicity already, here's a big shout out to Suzie Templeton for winning the Best Animated Short Film for her lovely adaptation of Peter & The Wolf. And commiserations (but well done on the nod) to Daniel Barber & Matthew Brown for their live action short, The Tonto Woman. Great news for my Irish homeboy Glen Hansard who won Best Song, along with Marketa Irglova, for Falling Slowly (from Once, written/directed by John Carney).
And, on a slightly different note, have you seen this? Mike Le's addictive webcomic called "Don't Forget to Validate Your Parking", about a writer's struggle with Hollywood, all from the point-of-view of him sitting at his laptop.
And, on a slightly different note, have you seen this? Mike Le's addictive webcomic called "Don't Forget to Validate Your Parking", about a writer's struggle with Hollywood, all from the point-of-view of him sitting at his laptop.
Rabu, 20 Februari 2008
Critics
Professional critics. What are they for? What do they do? Seriously, I’m asking, because I’m getting a little bit fed up with them. As far as I can see, most criticism nowadays isn’t about the actual creative content that the writer is supposedly assessing. No. It seems it’s more to do with making the journalist look good with his smug and witty remarks, and being scathing or dismissive of whatever material it may be (TV show/film). They offer no insight or valid argument, and instead simply pass breezy judgement (or biting remarks about the leading celebrity) as they get on to the next preview. More worryingly, a lot of these so-called critics show no core understanding of the medium they’re reviewing, which leads to ill-informed remarks and maligned opinion.
What’s the difference between a TV/film reviewer and a TV/film critic anyway? I started out writing film reviews, and even appeared on Irish telly (must try to upload a clip - embarrassing! - ah, so young) dishing out the dirt. But I never thought of myself as a “critic”. I think those who justifiably call themselves “critic” are journalists who review their specialised subject across a wide-range of media: print, radio, TV. However, for this kind of workload, these journalists (Mark Lawson, Mark Kermode for example) get to call themselves “broadcasters”, an even further lofty title (I once heard James King, Radio 1 film reviewer/critic, being called a ‘broadcaster’, which I thought was a bit generous. He’s perfectly fine by the way, he has a more enthused point-of-view than most jaded critics but you or I could share the same thoughts).
And don’t get me wrong here. We, the audience, are just as bad, especially once we sign up to Blogger and start sharing our opinions or want to bash someone on an internet forum (witness the recent media storm over poor Max Gogarty and the reaction to his ill-advised travel blog). Anonymous bloggers are worse than the laziest of TV/film critics. They get to savagely attack someone’s work, safe that their identity will never be revealed or protecting themselves from harsh judgement should their character be known for whatever scripts they’re trying to ‘get out there’. But really, who cares about a blogger’s review, anonymous or otherwise?
Naturally, there are a few exceptions here but if you’re an aspiring writer and you offer a review on your blog that’s dry, bland or relaying just what the other 10,000 blog critcs are saying, then why even bother? There’s a certain irony to my frustration (having a screenwriting blog in an over-crowded market) but I’m not bashing other people’s work just for the sake of a quick sound byte or a handy Google reference. That’s what mainstream TV/film critics seem to be doing. Grabbing attention to themselves, and to their publication/network, building a reputation, helping them to look good.
The good critics share the same key qualities: they write with a clear voice, they have a strong point-of-view, they have a passion for their chosen medium, they are willing to champion quality content and when they have to get nasty, they’re able to qualify their opinion with sound and decent argument. Critics/broadcasters like Charlie Brooker, Mark Lawson, Mark Kermode and Andrew Collins. Basically, I dislike one-sided reviews where it’s all bile and criticism. If you can’t say anything nice, or find the smallest of merit in someone’s work (or understand why it was developed/produced) then something is seriously wrong. As a script reader, I grew tired of bashing other people’s scripts and taking a superior position, so I tried to balance my reports into the good and the bad, and be as constructive as possible, so that my heart didn’t freeze over.
Perhaps someone should start a blog/column that reviews the critics, and comments on their style and whether the review was useful or just more evidence of an ego out of control. I detect a certain envy in some reviews, as if the journalist would dearly love to be in the writer/director's position themselves or maybe they think that they could do better and so get on their high horse to moan about the system instead. Bah, boo. No more I tell you. I'm done. Critics, I don't care what you think. Don't lose sleep now.
What’s the difference between a TV/film reviewer and a TV/film critic anyway? I started out writing film reviews, and even appeared on Irish telly (must try to upload a clip - embarrassing! - ah, so young) dishing out the dirt. But I never thought of myself as a “critic”. I think those who justifiably call themselves “critic” are journalists who review their specialised subject across a wide-range of media: print, radio, TV. However, for this kind of workload, these journalists (Mark Lawson, Mark Kermode for example) get to call themselves “broadcasters”, an even further lofty title (I once heard James King, Radio 1 film reviewer/critic, being called a ‘broadcaster’, which I thought was a bit generous. He’s perfectly fine by the way, he has a more enthused point-of-view than most jaded critics but you or I could share the same thoughts).
And don’t get me wrong here. We, the audience, are just as bad, especially once we sign up to Blogger and start sharing our opinions or want to bash someone on an internet forum (witness the recent media storm over poor Max Gogarty and the reaction to his ill-advised travel blog). Anonymous bloggers are worse than the laziest of TV/film critics. They get to savagely attack someone’s work, safe that their identity will never be revealed or protecting themselves from harsh judgement should their character be known for whatever scripts they’re trying to ‘get out there’. But really, who cares about a blogger’s review, anonymous or otherwise?
Naturally, there are a few exceptions here but if you’re an aspiring writer and you offer a review on your blog that’s dry, bland or relaying just what the other 10,000 blog critcs are saying, then why even bother? There’s a certain irony to my frustration (having a screenwriting blog in an over-crowded market) but I’m not bashing other people’s work just for the sake of a quick sound byte or a handy Google reference. That’s what mainstream TV/film critics seem to be doing. Grabbing attention to themselves, and to their publication/network, building a reputation, helping them to look good.
The good critics share the same key qualities: they write with a clear voice, they have a strong point-of-view, they have a passion for their chosen medium, they are willing to champion quality content and when they have to get nasty, they’re able to qualify their opinion with sound and decent argument. Critics/broadcasters like Charlie Brooker, Mark Lawson, Mark Kermode and Andrew Collins. Basically, I dislike one-sided reviews where it’s all bile and criticism. If you can’t say anything nice, or find the smallest of merit in someone’s work (or understand why it was developed/produced) then something is seriously wrong. As a script reader, I grew tired of bashing other people’s scripts and taking a superior position, so I tried to balance my reports into the good and the bad, and be as constructive as possible, so that my heart didn’t freeze over.
Perhaps someone should start a blog/column that reviews the critics, and comments on their style and whether the review was useful or just more evidence of an ego out of control. I detect a certain envy in some reviews, as if the journalist would dearly love to be in the writer/director's position themselves or maybe they think that they could do better and so get on their high horse to moan about the system instead. Bah, boo. No more I tell you. I'm done. Critics, I don't care what you think. Don't lose sleep now.
Kamis, 14 Februari 2008
Workshops
This April, I'll be running not one, but two workshops about screenwriting at the Lighthouse Arts Centre in Poole. The lovely Rosie Jones, networker extraordinaire, who coordinates the Prequel to Cannes event, asked me if I was interested in leading a workshop or two, and has set them up with help/support from White Lantern Films.
The first workshop is called 'Getting Ahead in Scriptwriting'. Less a 'How to Write' class (although we will look at certain craft issues) but more 'How to Cope' (!) with the ups and downs of trying to become a professional screenwriter: what's expected of you, what the system is really like, how to improve your chances etc. Here's a bigger run down:
---
Day 1: Film
“Don’t Give Up the Day Job”: the financial and practical (and even emotional!) issues of trying to become a screenwriter. Writing a spec screenplay.
“Read Me!”: Submitting your work to agents/producers/production companies. How to get an agent. Getting work. How much you’ll get paid.
“Feeding the Monster”: learning to love rejection.
“Pitching”: What the hell’s a logline? The fear of pitching face-to-face. Tips/techniques. How to write an effective synopsis/treatment.
Guest talk from writer/director Tim Clague.
“Short Films” - the pros and cons of writing a short, and possibly making it yourself.
“Script Techniques”: the truth about voice-over, flashback, split-screen and other screenwriting devices.
“The Hollywood Game”: breaking into the American market.
“Writing for Free”: choosing the projects that don’t pay upfront.
“Script reading/editing”: useful side-work, or getting other necessary part-time work to cover basic income.
Day 2: TV/Multimedia & Radio
Attendees pitch their loglines/ideas that they’ve prepared overnight.
“The Working Writer”: writing for soaps (Doctors, EastEnders, etc) or TV series. How to get these opportunities. What the process is like.
“Treatments/Series Bibles”: creating your own ideas and packaging them for the market.
“Writing a Pilot Script”: writing the pilot script of your original idea.
“Multimedia”: What is interactive drama? The growing opportunities and platforms of the market. Computer games, online ‘webisodes’, mobile phones etc.
“Radio Plays”: what opportunities are out there, how and when to apply/submit.
“The 5 Year Plan”: how do you know if you’re making it? When should you give up? How do you stay on track?
---
The workshop will be held over the weekend of April 5th and 6th. Full pricing and booking details will be available through the Lighthouse centre or through Rosie/White Lantern. If you live outside of Bournemouth/Poole and fancy the course, then why not come down to the coast for the weekend? The weather's good, the beach is amazing and the accommodation won't cost as much as London.
A couple of weeks later, on Saturday 19th April, I'll be doing a one-day course called the "Basics of Screenwriting", which will do exactly as it says on the tin.
I'll confirm all the details/links closer the time but just thought I'd put a shout out now, in case any of you are interested.
The first workshop is called 'Getting Ahead in Scriptwriting'. Less a 'How to Write' class (although we will look at certain craft issues) but more 'How to Cope' (!) with the ups and downs of trying to become a professional screenwriter: what's expected of you, what the system is really like, how to improve your chances etc. Here's a bigger run down:
---
Day 1: Film
“Don’t Give Up the Day Job”: the financial and practical (and even emotional!) issues of trying to become a screenwriter. Writing a spec screenplay.
“Read Me!”: Submitting your work to agents/producers/production companies. How to get an agent. Getting work. How much you’ll get paid.
“Feeding the Monster”: learning to love rejection.
“Pitching”: What the hell’s a logline? The fear of pitching face-to-face. Tips/techniques. How to write an effective synopsis/treatment.
Guest talk from writer/director Tim Clague.
“Short Films” - the pros and cons of writing a short, and possibly making it yourself.
“Script Techniques”: the truth about voice-over, flashback, split-screen and other screenwriting devices.
“The Hollywood Game”: breaking into the American market.
“Writing for Free”: choosing the projects that don’t pay upfront.
“Script reading/editing”: useful side-work, or getting other necessary part-time work to cover basic income.
Day 2: TV/Multimedia & Radio
Attendees pitch their loglines/ideas that they’ve prepared overnight.
“The Working Writer”: writing for soaps (Doctors, EastEnders, etc) or TV series. How to get these opportunities. What the process is like.
“Treatments/Series Bibles”: creating your own ideas and packaging them for the market.
“Writing a Pilot Script”: writing the pilot script of your original idea.
“Multimedia”: What is interactive drama? The growing opportunities and platforms of the market. Computer games, online ‘webisodes’, mobile phones etc.
“Radio Plays”: what opportunities are out there, how and when to apply/submit.
“The 5 Year Plan”: how do you know if you’re making it? When should you give up? How do you stay on track?
---
The workshop will be held over the weekend of April 5th and 6th. Full pricing and booking details will be available through the Lighthouse centre or through Rosie/White Lantern. If you live outside of Bournemouth/Poole and fancy the course, then why not come down to the coast for the weekend? The weather's good, the beach is amazing and the accommodation won't cost as much as London.
A couple of weeks later, on Saturday 19th April, I'll be doing a one-day course called the "Basics of Screenwriting", which will do exactly as it says on the tin.
I'll confirm all the details/links closer the time but just thought I'd put a shout out now, in case any of you are interested.
Selasa, 12 Februari 2008
Wot to Read
Martin has asked if there are any film books that I like or would recommend. A few spring to mind. Joe Eszterhas’s “Devil’s Guide to Hollywood” is the screenwriting equivalent of a snack you can’t stop eating. Once you’re done with that, you’ll want to gorge yourself on Eszterhas’s screenwriting memoir, “Hollywood Animal”. It’s a lengthy tome but doesn’t feel like it, and is full of surprising insights into Mr Eszterhas’s personal life as well as exposing the cruder underbelly of the business of show. I got the hardback version on eBay for £2.50. Two words: bar-gain.
One of the first film books I bought was Mamet: On Directing Film. Simple, straightforward and illuminating advice. My sister looked after it when I went on my travels. That was thirteen years ago: Oi, I want it back! Hawks on Hawks by Joseph McBride is an entertaining and informative read, in which the book is made up of various interviews of Howard Hawks throughout his career. Down & Dirty Pictures by Peter Biskind is the modern update/sequel to Easy Riders Raging Bulls, and as a busy script reader at the time of publication, I felt more keenly attached to the names and faces it mentions (a bit of self-delusion there, script readers are the anonymous amoebas in the filmmaking food chain).
I’ve got the usual screenwriting books. Writing Screenplays That Sell (Michael Hauge): easy going, accessible, enjoyable. Story (Robert McKee): a bit dry and smug but useful stuff, no question. Screenplay (Syd Field): simple analysis of the 3-act paradigm. The Writer’s Journey (Christopher Vogler): an attractive take on style and structure. Zen and the Art of Screenwriting (William Froug): basic interviews with screenwriters, fine. Poetics (Aristotle): The Daddy - blame him, not Syd Field. The 101 Habits of Highly Successful Screenwriters (Karl Iglesias): nice to pass the time. 500 Ways to Beat the Hollywood Script Reader (Jennifer Lerch): it does what it says on the tin. Making a Good Script Great (Linda Seger): helpful. A few more from Syd Field: The Screenwriter’s Problem Solver, Four Screenplays, Selling a Screenplay: handy references. The Horror Genre (Paul Wells): an academic breakdown of the genre. Basics Animation: Scriptwriting (Paul Wells again, and I’m even interviewed in this one!). The Art of Dramatic Writing (Lajos Egri): a theatre bias but its writing insights are great. On Writing (Stephen King): a literary bias but its writing insights are great. And, of course, Adventures in the Screen Trade & Which Lie Did I Tell? (William Goldman): the former being more enjoyable and useful than the latter.
I’ve heard that Blake Snyder’s Save the Cat is quite good but as you can see, I’ve maxed myself out on screenwriting books over the years so I don’t think I’ll be buying any more (handy gifts to receive, though). I do get suspicious of people taking an over-defensive or dismissive stance on the so-called gurus. Some folk get very stroppy about McKee or Field or whoever but I suspect they’re objecting to the way their advice has become screenwriting mantras or how they’ve been adopted into by-the-numbers storytelling. If you actually read the books, none of them encourage this kind of mentality at all. It’s fine to disagree and to have an opinion (and easy to diss advice once it becomes popular or widely embraced) but I really don’t understand the need to be so sensitive or angry about what they have to say. Go write your masterpiece. Break all the rules. No-one’s stopping you.
(If any of the books mentioned above catch your eye, check out Amazon or eBay and most, if not all, will come up on a quick search.)
One of the first film books I bought was Mamet: On Directing Film. Simple, straightforward and illuminating advice. My sister looked after it when I went on my travels. That was thirteen years ago: Oi, I want it back! Hawks on Hawks by Joseph McBride is an entertaining and informative read, in which the book is made up of various interviews of Howard Hawks throughout his career. Down & Dirty Pictures by Peter Biskind is the modern update/sequel to Easy Riders Raging Bulls, and as a busy script reader at the time of publication, I felt more keenly attached to the names and faces it mentions (a bit of self-delusion there, script readers are the anonymous amoebas in the filmmaking food chain).
I’ve got the usual screenwriting books. Writing Screenplays That Sell (Michael Hauge): easy going, accessible, enjoyable. Story (Robert McKee): a bit dry and smug but useful stuff, no question. Screenplay (Syd Field): simple analysis of the 3-act paradigm. The Writer’s Journey (Christopher Vogler): an attractive take on style and structure. Zen and the Art of Screenwriting (William Froug): basic interviews with screenwriters, fine. Poetics (Aristotle): The Daddy - blame him, not Syd Field. The 101 Habits of Highly Successful Screenwriters (Karl Iglesias): nice to pass the time. 500 Ways to Beat the Hollywood Script Reader (Jennifer Lerch): it does what it says on the tin. Making a Good Script Great (Linda Seger): helpful. A few more from Syd Field: The Screenwriter’s Problem Solver, Four Screenplays, Selling a Screenplay: handy references. The Horror Genre (Paul Wells): an academic breakdown of the genre. Basics Animation: Scriptwriting (Paul Wells again, and I’m even interviewed in this one!). The Art of Dramatic Writing (Lajos Egri): a theatre bias but its writing insights are great. On Writing (Stephen King): a literary bias but its writing insights are great. And, of course, Adventures in the Screen Trade & Which Lie Did I Tell? (William Goldman): the former being more enjoyable and useful than the latter.
I’ve heard that Blake Snyder’s Save the Cat is quite good but as you can see, I’ve maxed myself out on screenwriting books over the years so I don’t think I’ll be buying any more (handy gifts to receive, though). I do get suspicious of people taking an over-defensive or dismissive stance on the so-called gurus. Some folk get very stroppy about McKee or Field or whoever but I suspect they’re objecting to the way their advice has become screenwriting mantras or how they’ve been adopted into by-the-numbers storytelling. If you actually read the books, none of them encourage this kind of mentality at all. It’s fine to disagree and to have an opinion (and easy to diss advice once it becomes popular or widely embraced) but I really don’t understand the need to be so sensitive or angry about what they have to say. Go write your masterpiece. Break all the rules. No-one’s stopping you.
(If any of the books mentioned above catch your eye, check out Amazon or eBay and most, if not all, will come up on a quick search.)
Kamis, 07 Februari 2008
Story Vault: Spec Notes
Tax. Eugh. To paraphrase The Royal Tenenbaums: "Tax isn't a word. It's a sentence." Maybe that should be Adam Hart-Davies new slogan, rather than: "Tax doesn't have to be taxing", which is just nonsense. Anyway, despite the typical stress that the end of January usually brings, I haven't done too bad, mainly thanks to having a sooper-doooper accountant who can point out what a doofus I am when it comes to crunching the numbers. So yes, glad that's all taken care of, sweet.
Got a lot on at the moment so while I get bizzy with the jizzy, let's hark back to this time last year, and a post about 'Spec Notes' (a version of which also appeared in Scriptwriter Magazine, ooh). I thought it might be interesting to revisit this particular post, as the type of scripts I talk about usually end up winning script competitions, as witnessed recently with the announcement of the Red Planet Prize. Hmm, interesting...
---
The general consensus about spec scripts seems to be that if you engage the reader on an emotional level, then your talents as a writer are going to be noticed above your genre ambitions to blow up cars or kill aliens. Character-driven stories are what grab the attention of readers, script editors and execs. This isn’t to say that genre scripts are excluded or frowned upon but a lot of these wannabe scripts are vacuous and empty; a shameful rip off or hotchpotch of a hundred genre films before it. If you’ve got a genre script that tells a ‘new’ story and shows off your talents for craft and character, then you’ve really got a spec hit on your hands.
For the most part, however, readers, editors and execs are looking for something fresh and original. They’re tired with the cops, serial killers, bounty hunters, gangsters, guy ‘n girl love affairs or plain stories about nothing in particular.
Everyone is writing these scripts, so the spec pile can get a bit boring and predictable. The common perception of readers is that when they pick up a script, ‘they really want to like it, that they really hope that this is the one’. This isn’t entirely true. More often than not, when a reader picks up a script, he just wants to get through it. He hopes that it won’t make him work too hard in figuring out who the characters are and what the story is about. And that it won’t take too long to read so he can get on to the next script.
The consistent humdrum nature of spec scripts generates this ambivalent approach. However, after the first few pages of the script, the reader gets a sense of the writer’s style and talent, and if it’s good, then the reading chore can become an enjoyable and effortless passing of time. The reader zones out of his responsibilities and awareness of the writer, and instead simply gets engrossed in the ‘story’. This is achieved when a spec script provides the reader with something ‘fresh’ and ‘original’, often combining character-driven stories with some required familiar elements to create a new take on the genre.
But are there any specific areas or subject matters that make a good spec script? A lot of new writers ‘write what they know’, which can be hit and miss, so if they took a step outside their own experience and researched some unfamiliar territory of psychology, history or society, then this can provide a spec script with that added spark and interest. Here are a few topics/areas that are worth considering but rarely seen as spec scripts:
Biopics. Recount the life, or significant period, of a famous figure (that preferably hasn’t been done before) or tell the story of a historic character that shows what impact and significance his/her life had for his time, or for us in the present.
Political Backdrop stories. Look at an interesting period in any nation’s history, and create a story within that context, using the backdrop to provide subtext, drama and theme.
Period Drama. See biopics/political backdrop stories, or simply create a new romance/comedy/whatever set around a defining or visual period.
Modern Adaptations. A modern and clever take on well known stories, such as Shakespeare etc, can be effective, and you don’t need to pay for the privilege too because many of the stories are out of copyright.
Unfamiliar Locations. A lot of specs are set in anonymous modern cities. Setting can play a large part in a story, especially with regard to the above areas, so think about a story set in Ontario, or Cape Town, or Cairns, or Wellington, or Berlin, or Moscow, or whatever, and bring it to life on screen.
Specific Area of Research. Get to know an unfamiliar topic or subject better than anyone else on this Earth. And then write a script about it. Not it per se, but a story around that world.
Quirky Premise/Offbeat Story. A quirky premise will always be fun, but the offbeat story that follows should be carefully crafted in terms of character and story. Don’t try to be funny for the sake of it; tell a story that’s funny. A lot of comedy specs in America are sold because of their offbeat and quirky charms, and consequently attract interest from actors and directors.
Most of these areas require research. However, research should inform the story not overwhelm the reader. A lot of scripts with a particular area of research try to show off how much time the writer has spent getting to know every last bit of detail they’ve gleaned from their study. Research helps credibility and authenticity with regard to premise, plot and characters, when the story requires it, so no need to hit us over the hammer with a lot of inconsequential detail, no matter how interesting it may seem.
So, go on. Be different than the rest. Write an original script that doesn’t follow the typical route of most specs. It will get you noticed, get your recommended, help you nab that meeting, win that commission and before you know it, you’re in the trades with news that you’re about to start principal photography. Getting a spec script optioned, sold and made is difficult, no question, but it’s not impossible and if you’re telling the right story, then a lot of people will want to take notice, especially readers.
---
Got a lot on at the moment so while I get bizzy with the jizzy, let's hark back to this time last year, and a post about 'Spec Notes' (a version of which also appeared in Scriptwriter Magazine, ooh). I thought it might be interesting to revisit this particular post, as the type of scripts I talk about usually end up winning script competitions, as witnessed recently with the announcement of the Red Planet Prize. Hmm, interesting...
---
The general consensus about spec scripts seems to be that if you engage the reader on an emotional level, then your talents as a writer are going to be noticed above your genre ambitions to blow up cars or kill aliens. Character-driven stories are what grab the attention of readers, script editors and execs. This isn’t to say that genre scripts are excluded or frowned upon but a lot of these wannabe scripts are vacuous and empty; a shameful rip off or hotchpotch of a hundred genre films before it. If you’ve got a genre script that tells a ‘new’ story and shows off your talents for craft and character, then you’ve really got a spec hit on your hands.
For the most part, however, readers, editors and execs are looking for something fresh and original. They’re tired with the cops, serial killers, bounty hunters, gangsters, guy ‘n girl love affairs or plain stories about nothing in particular.
Everyone is writing these scripts, so the spec pile can get a bit boring and predictable. The common perception of readers is that when they pick up a script, ‘they really want to like it, that they really hope that this is the one’. This isn’t entirely true. More often than not, when a reader picks up a script, he just wants to get through it. He hopes that it won’t make him work too hard in figuring out who the characters are and what the story is about. And that it won’t take too long to read so he can get on to the next script.
The consistent humdrum nature of spec scripts generates this ambivalent approach. However, after the first few pages of the script, the reader gets a sense of the writer’s style and talent, and if it’s good, then the reading chore can become an enjoyable and effortless passing of time. The reader zones out of his responsibilities and awareness of the writer, and instead simply gets engrossed in the ‘story’. This is achieved when a spec script provides the reader with something ‘fresh’ and ‘original’, often combining character-driven stories with some required familiar elements to create a new take on the genre.
But are there any specific areas or subject matters that make a good spec script? A lot of new writers ‘write what they know’, which can be hit and miss, so if they took a step outside their own experience and researched some unfamiliar territory of psychology, history or society, then this can provide a spec script with that added spark and interest. Here are a few topics/areas that are worth considering but rarely seen as spec scripts:
Biopics. Recount the life, or significant period, of a famous figure (that preferably hasn’t been done before) or tell the story of a historic character that shows what impact and significance his/her life had for his time, or for us in the present.
Political Backdrop stories. Look at an interesting period in any nation’s history, and create a story within that context, using the backdrop to provide subtext, drama and theme.
Period Drama. See biopics/political backdrop stories, or simply create a new romance/comedy/whatever set around a defining or visual period.
Modern Adaptations. A modern and clever take on well known stories, such as Shakespeare etc, can be effective, and you don’t need to pay for the privilege too because many of the stories are out of copyright.
Unfamiliar Locations. A lot of specs are set in anonymous modern cities. Setting can play a large part in a story, especially with regard to the above areas, so think about a story set in Ontario, or Cape Town, or Cairns, or Wellington, or Berlin, or Moscow, or whatever, and bring it to life on screen.
Specific Area of Research. Get to know an unfamiliar topic or subject better than anyone else on this Earth. And then write a script about it. Not it per se, but a story around that world.
Quirky Premise/Offbeat Story. A quirky premise will always be fun, but the offbeat story that follows should be carefully crafted in terms of character and story. Don’t try to be funny for the sake of it; tell a story that’s funny. A lot of comedy specs in America are sold because of their offbeat and quirky charms, and consequently attract interest from actors and directors.
Most of these areas require research. However, research should inform the story not overwhelm the reader. A lot of scripts with a particular area of research try to show off how much time the writer has spent getting to know every last bit of detail they’ve gleaned from their study. Research helps credibility and authenticity with regard to premise, plot and characters, when the story requires it, so no need to hit us over the hammer with a lot of inconsequential detail, no matter how interesting it may seem.
So, go on. Be different than the rest. Write an original script that doesn’t follow the typical route of most specs. It will get you noticed, get your recommended, help you nab that meeting, win that commission and before you know it, you’re in the trades with news that you’re about to start principal photography. Getting a spec script optioned, sold and made is difficult, no question, but it’s not impossible and if you’re telling the right story, then a lot of people will want to take notice, especially readers.
---
Senin, 04 Februari 2008
Job Opportunity
My agent at PFD has moved to United Agents, so I've followed her to the new set up. Anyway, on their new website, I noticed this, and thought it a great opportunity for anyone who's young, mean and keen, well maybe not so mean...
---
Assistant to Film/TV Dept
The ideal candidate should have excellent communication skills and have a keen interest in the industry. You should also be able to use initiative and have experience as an Assistant.
Applications in writing should be sent to:
HR Manager
United Agents
130 Shaftesbury Avenue
London
W1D 5EU
Applications by email should go to:
employment (at) unitedagents.co.uk
United Agents Ltd do not accept applications by telephone. Due to the often large response to our advertised positions, United Agents Ltd are not always in a position to respond to all applications. All successful applicants will be contacted within two weeks. Please accept our apologies if we do not respond in this time and thank you for thinking of United Agents Ltd.
---
Oh, they're also looking for a 'Runner'.
"The ideal candidate should be a self starter, keen to help and willing to do a variety of tasks. Ideally you should have some knowledge of I.T. and working with phones, but this is not essential."
Same contact details as above.
---
Assistant to Film/TV Dept
The ideal candidate should have excellent communication skills and have a keen interest in the industry. You should also be able to use initiative and have experience as an Assistant.
Applications in writing should be sent to:
HR Manager
United Agents
130 Shaftesbury Avenue
London
W1D 5EU
Applications by email should go to:
employment (at) unitedagents.co.uk
United Agents Ltd do not accept applications by telephone. Due to the often large response to our advertised positions, United Agents Ltd are not always in a position to respond to all applications. All successful applicants will be contacted within two weeks. Please accept our apologies if we do not respond in this time and thank you for thinking of United Agents Ltd.
---
Oh, they're also looking for a 'Runner'.
"The ideal candidate should be a self starter, keen to help and willing to do a variety of tasks. Ideally you should have some knowledge of I.T. and working with phones, but this is not essential."
Same contact details as above.
Jumat, 01 Februari 2008
Red Planet: Winner!
We have a winner folks! Simon Winstone (Head of Drama, Red Planet) and Tony Jordan have just made the announcement on the Red Planet website:
"Joanna Leigh is the inaugural winner of the Red Planet Prize for her vivid story behind the creation of the first English dictionary 'Sam J'.
Tony Jordan says, "Joanna's script had everything the competition was trying to find, a unique voice, great characters and a remarkable story well told."
Though Joanna is the Prize winner, all the finalists set a very high standard, and over the next few days we will be offering some the chance for workshops and mentoring. We will also try to offer feedback to all finalists if required. The Red Planet Prize will return this summer, so get writing!"
Huge congratulations to Joanna, a really big achievement. Along with the feedback, I think there's going to be a couple of workshops (initially thought to be just one with the final shortlist), which is amazing: the prize really has outreached my expectations, and the generosity and passion of Tony Jordan and Red Planet has been truly inspiring.
This is also my 400th post so it comes with a small amount of pride as, essentially, there would be no Red Planet Prize if it weren't for the blog or the blogging community. To quote a certain Fat Boy Slim: "We've come a long way, baby". And lots of busy and exciting things spinning away, so currently pretty pleased with the way things are going (and yesterday, I found out that I, along with co-writer Sam, have been shortlisted for the Times/Chicken House Children's Book Prize: down to the last 5 out of 2,000! Oh my God! I mean... oh my God!)
I'm beginning to like the sound of 2008...
"Joanna Leigh is the inaugural winner of the Red Planet Prize for her vivid story behind the creation of the first English dictionary 'Sam J'.
Tony Jordan says, "Joanna's script had everything the competition was trying to find, a unique voice, great characters and a remarkable story well told."
Though Joanna is the Prize winner, all the finalists set a very high standard, and over the next few days we will be offering some the chance for workshops and mentoring. We will also try to offer feedback to all finalists if required. The Red Planet Prize will return this summer, so get writing!"
Huge congratulations to Joanna, a really big achievement. Along with the feedback, I think there's going to be a couple of workshops (initially thought to be just one with the final shortlist), which is amazing: the prize really has outreached my expectations, and the generosity and passion of Tony Jordan and Red Planet has been truly inspiring.
This is also my 400th post so it comes with a small amount of pride as, essentially, there would be no Red Planet Prize if it weren't for the blog or the blogging community. To quote a certain Fat Boy Slim: "We've come a long way, baby". And lots of busy and exciting things spinning away, so currently pretty pleased with the way things are going (and yesterday, I found out that I, along with co-writer Sam, have been shortlisted for the Times/Chicken House Children's Book Prize: down to the last 5 out of 2,000! Oh my God! I mean... oh my God!)
I'm beginning to like the sound of 2008...
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)