[Today we're reading Ch. 25 How to Cheat If You Can't Hire a Whole Chorus, by Michael Tierno (2002).]
Greek chorus was used to "make[] moral comments on what is happening by raising questions." A modern chorus could be a secondary character.
I've never really looked at minor characters this way, but it's a good thing to have in your back pocket.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: If you need to debate the morality of a situation, let your minor character speak up.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
Sunday, January 31, 2010
BOOK CLUB: Tone Dense (Ch. 24)
[Today we're reading Ch. 24 It's the Thought Behind the Action That Counts: Creating the Tone of Your Screenplay, by Michael Tierno (2002).]
According to the author, tone is "the unified emotional quality" & is the reasoning behind the actions. p. 117-118.
(Maybe I'm dense, but this doesn't really clarify tone for me.)
But let's go with the "thought behind the action" theory. What does that look like?
ex. Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes often acts in erratic ways. Sometimes he is grandiose & jovial. Sometimes he's sullen & a recluse. The actions stem from Holmes' deductions and moods. He's dressed as an old man because he knows he needs to fool his observers.
His thought jump around, and so his actions also jump around. Thus, we get a definite tone of surprise and mystery.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: I still think tone is hard to pinpoint. To me, it's how the story is told - cheeky, solemn, funny, sad.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
According to the author, tone is "the unified emotional quality" & is the reasoning behind the actions. p. 117-118.
(Maybe I'm dense, but this doesn't really clarify tone for me.)
But let's go with the "thought behind the action" theory. What does that look like?
ex. Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes often acts in erratic ways. Sometimes he is grandiose & jovial. Sometimes he's sullen & a recluse. The actions stem from Holmes' deductions and moods. He's dressed as an old man because he knows he needs to fool his observers.
His thought jump around, and so his actions also jump around. Thus, we get a definite tone of surprise and mystery.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: I still think tone is hard to pinpoint. To me, it's how the story is told - cheeky, solemn, funny, sad.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
QUESTION: Comedies Not For the 18-25s
Deb S., a smart cookie who reads my blog, asks, "Do you think writers should aim totally for the crucial 18-25 year old movie-tickets-purchasing-male demographic when pitching a comedic script?"
Answer: No.
But beware of these facts:
1. You must understand WHY the 18-25 y.o. male demo is such a lure for studios:
a) They have more disposable income;
b) They have more time, are willing to go to the theaters to support films they like;
c) They are repeat customers for the same film.
2. If you're going to write comedies for another audience, then you must be smart about crafting your script.
a) Your comedy must appeal to at least two quadrants.
ex. The Blind Side (though not a comedy) drew in two unusual audiences: older women and football loving males. These are not the the usual quadrants, but it worked liked gangbusters. This $29M film has grossed $237M+ in 10 weeks. Not many films get 10 weeks in the theaters these days, so this shows this film's popularity & staying power.
b) Your comedy must stir a "feel good feeling" to get people excited to see it in theaters.
OK, I know this sounds obvious, you'd be surprised how many writers forget people go to the movies to ESCAPE, i.e., they DEMAND a happy ending.
ex. Mamma Mia! got some bad reviews, but the one thing that everyone agreed on was that it was joyful & fun...& translated into a huge success.
c) Your comedy must make money (so you can write more comedies).
I don't think writers quite understand what a flop does. It drives the risk adverse money men back to something that's safe, i.e., movies for the 18-25 y.o. demo. It also makes it harder for them to take a risk on your NEXT comedy.
To NOT flop, your script has got to have that I've-got-to-take-work-off-to-see-this-film buzz.
ex. Whether you love or hate Sex in the City, it got women of all ages into the theaters. Remember that a movie is a luxury for women with families. They have to get time away, pay for babysitters, have to pay for parking.
Your film has to inspire them to make that effort. Otherwise, why shouldn't they just wait for the DVD?
d) Your comedy must find the right home (studio, marketing, director, etc.)
I can't emphasize this strongly enough.
ex. I covered a fantastic comedy spec about a working mother. I was skeptical if the (mostly) male higher ups would "get it," but amazingly, they jumped on it! I think they got that this was going to be a seriously awesome breakout role for some actress wanting to showcase a singing, dancing, comedic side.
Because your comedy may not be the easy no-brainer, look for that prod. co. that specializes in your brand of comedy. Yes, you'll have to do more research, but trust me, your chances also rise
WHAT I KNOW: You have more to prove if you're going to color outside the lines. I encourage you to do so b/c I do believe there is a market...you just gotta be prepared to work harder!
Answer: No.
But beware of these facts:
1. You must understand WHY the 18-25 y.o. male demo is such a lure for studios:
a) They have more disposable income;
b) They have more time, are willing to go to the theaters to support films they like;
c) They are repeat customers for the same film.
2. If you're going to write comedies for another audience, then you must be smart about crafting your script.
a) Your comedy must appeal to at least two quadrants.
ex. The Blind Side (though not a comedy) drew in two unusual audiences: older women and football loving males. These are not the the usual quadrants, but it worked liked gangbusters. This $29M film has grossed $237M+ in 10 weeks. Not many films get 10 weeks in the theaters these days, so this shows this film's popularity & staying power.
b) Your comedy must stir a "feel good feeling" to get people excited to see it in theaters.
OK, I know this sounds obvious, you'd be surprised how many writers forget people go to the movies to ESCAPE, i.e., they DEMAND a happy ending.
ex. Mamma Mia! got some bad reviews, but the one thing that everyone agreed on was that it was joyful & fun...& translated into a huge success.
c) Your comedy must make money (so you can write more comedies).
I don't think writers quite understand what a flop does. It drives the risk adverse money men back to something that's safe, i.e., movies for the 18-25 y.o. demo. It also makes it harder for them to take a risk on your NEXT comedy.
To NOT flop, your script has got to have that I've-got-to-take-work-off-to-see-this-film buzz.
ex. Whether you love or hate Sex in the City, it got women of all ages into the theaters. Remember that a movie is a luxury for women with families. They have to get time away, pay for babysitters, have to pay for parking.
Your film has to inspire them to make that effort. Otherwise, why shouldn't they just wait for the DVD?
d) Your comedy must find the right home (studio, marketing, director, etc.)
I can't emphasize this strongly enough.
ex. I covered a fantastic comedy spec about a working mother. I was skeptical if the (mostly) male higher ups would "get it," but amazingly, they jumped on it! I think they got that this was going to be a seriously awesome breakout role for some actress wanting to showcase a singing, dancing, comedic side.
Because your comedy may not be the easy no-brainer, look for that prod. co. that specializes in your brand of comedy. Yes, you'll have to do more research, but trust me, your chances also rise
WHAT I KNOW: You have more to prove if you're going to color outside the lines. I encourage you to do so b/c I do believe there is a market...you just gotta be prepared to work harder!
Friday, January 29, 2010
TODAY'S NUGGET: Plausibility is the Key to Thrillers
One of the coolest thriller specs I read recently dropped just enough bread crumbs that I couldn't stop turning the pages.
I scratched my head & asked, "How'd he do that?"
Roger Ebert explains how one new release did it in today's review today of a S. Korean thriller, The Chaser:
"The story is an exercise in audience manipulation, especially with the corruption and incompetence of the police. The director, Na Hong-jin, knows exactly what he's doing. Like Hitchcock, he gives the audience precisely enough information to be frustrated. It is obvious to us what the characters should be doing, but there are excellent reasons why it isn't obvious to them. If you can contrive that in a screenplay, you have already surpassed the level of the usual modern thriller."
Get that? There's an "EXCELLENT reason why it isn't obvious" to the characters.
It must be plausible why they pick the wrong fork in the road.
It must be plausible why he narrowly misses catching the good guy.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Aristotle says that the choices must be plausible. Need I say more?
The review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100127/REVIEWS/100129976/-1/email_headlines
I scratched my head & asked, "How'd he do that?"
Roger Ebert explains how one new release did it in today's review today of a S. Korean thriller, The Chaser:
"The story is an exercise in audience manipulation, especially with the corruption and incompetence of the police. The director, Na Hong-jin, knows exactly what he's doing. Like Hitchcock, he gives the audience precisely enough information to be frustrated. It is obvious to us what the characters should be doing, but there are excellent reasons why it isn't obvious to them. If you can contrive that in a screenplay, you have already surpassed the level of the usual modern thriller."
Get that? There's an "EXCELLENT reason why it isn't obvious" to the characters.
It must be plausible why they pick the wrong fork in the road.
It must be plausible why he narrowly misses catching the good guy.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Aristotle says that the choices must be plausible. Need I say more?
The review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100127/REVIEWS/100129976/-1/email_headlines
BOOK CLUB: Good vs. Evil (Ch. 23)
[Today we're reading Ch. 23 The Good, The Bad & The Intermediate Hero, from Aristotle's Poetics for Screenwriters, by Michael Tierno (2002).]
Today's chapter is about how good characters have a mix of good & bad traits. I like this quote from the Poetics:
"...[T]he line between virtue & vice is one dividing the whole of mankind." p. 114.
What makes people interesting are how they're tempted with virtue and vice.
Tempted by virtue? Why yes, indeed. I think people are drawn to elevate themselves, but the road is tough, so sometimes it's easier to fall into vice.
How does your character deal with the tug-of-war? Some do it well, some terribly. That's why we go to the movies.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: Good vs. Evil. Yup, it's that simple.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
Today's chapter is about how good characters have a mix of good & bad traits. I like this quote from the Poetics:
"...[T]he line between virtue & vice is one dividing the whole of mankind." p. 114.
What makes people interesting are how they're tempted with virtue and vice.
Tempted by virtue? Why yes, indeed. I think people are drawn to elevate themselves, but the road is tough, so sometimes it's easier to fall into vice.
How does your character deal with the tug-of-war? Some do it well, some terribly. That's why we go to the movies.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: Good vs. Evil. Yup, it's that simple.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
Thursday, January 28, 2010
BOOK CLUB: Villains & Universality (Ch. 22)
[Today we're reading Ch. 22 Move Your Audience by Teaching Them What They Already Know, from Aristotle's Poetics for Screenwriters, by Michael Tierno (2002).]
The author writes, "Pity, fear, and catharsis come not from learning new esoteric facts but from a
RE-cognition of what one ALREADY thinks and feels. P.109.
I re-learned this lesson yesterday when I covered a graphic novel with a horror story. Interestingly, it wasn't being submitted for the story itself, but to perhaps be made into another movie using one of the villains.
I recognized this villain as the familiar & evil bad guy. However, I didn't feel fear or pity for him, nor did I want to follow his story.
What could the writer have done to pique my interest? I've thought long & hard about this (mostly b/c I'm struggling with the same thing in my own script).
I think the scariest thing about good villains are that they're usually normal people with warped agendas. They have kids, they have bills, they bleed, they're kind to old ladies and dogs. That's why they're scary - they could be us on a really, really bad day.
But in this story, the villain is so obviously bad all the time that there's not even a glimmer of hope for redemption. I don't even want to identify with him or rescue him. He's someone I can too easily give up on.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: I need a villain that pushes me to agree his side of the story could actually be the better one.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
The author writes, "Pity, fear, and catharsis come not from learning new esoteric facts but from a
RE-cognition of what one ALREADY thinks and feels. P.109.
I re-learned this lesson yesterday when I covered a graphic novel with a horror story. Interestingly, it wasn't being submitted for the story itself, but to perhaps be made into another movie using one of the villains.
I recognized this villain as the familiar & evil bad guy. However, I didn't feel fear or pity for him, nor did I want to follow his story.
What could the writer have done to pique my interest? I've thought long & hard about this (mostly b/c I'm struggling with the same thing in my own script).
I think the scariest thing about good villains are that they're usually normal people with warped agendas. They have kids, they have bills, they bleed, they're kind to old ladies and dogs. That's why they're scary - they could be us on a really, really bad day.
But in this story, the villain is so obviously bad all the time that there's not even a glimmer of hope for redemption. I don't even want to identify with him or rescue him. He's someone I can too easily give up on.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: I need a villain that pushes me to agree his side of the story could actually be the better one.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
BOOK CLUB: A Plot to Avoid (Ch. 21)
[Today we're reading Ch. 21 The Perfect Hollywood Sad/Happy Plot vs. the Perfect Poetics Sad Plot, from Aristotle's Poetics for Screenwriters, by Michael Tierno (2002).]
The author writes about “happy/sad” Hollywood endings where “dramas of tragic stature succeed despite ending on an upbeat note.” P. 106.
Ex. He cites the sad death at the end of Gladiator, which is a happy ending b/c Maximus is reunited with his family in heaven.
He also writes about 3 plots to avoid. The one that caught my eye is “a bad man passing from misery to happiness…it does not appeal either to the human feeling in us, or to our pity, or to our fears.” P. 106.
I’ve seen this “loose ends” kind of script recently. In that script, the good guy died a useless death in the end, & the bad guy triumphed.
Though it was a perfect setup for a sequel, I really didn’t like the ending. It left me feeling unsettled, as if everything the good guy fought for was futile. I was left feeling numb – not fearful or sad...just numb. Not a good sign.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: If the bad guy wins in the end, give us a solid reason why.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
The author writes about “happy/sad” Hollywood endings where “dramas of tragic stature succeed despite ending on an upbeat note.” P. 106.
Ex. He cites the sad death at the end of Gladiator, which is a happy ending b/c Maximus is reunited with his family in heaven.
He also writes about 3 plots to avoid. The one that caught my eye is “a bad man passing from misery to happiness…it does not appeal either to the human feeling in us, or to our pity, or to our fears.” P. 106.
I’ve seen this “loose ends” kind of script recently. In that script, the good guy died a useless death in the end, & the bad guy triumphed.
Though it was a perfect setup for a sequel, I really didn’t like the ending. It left me feeling unsettled, as if everything the good guy fought for was futile. I was left feeling numb – not fearful or sad...just numb. Not a good sign.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: If the bad guy wins in the end, give us a solid reason why.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
BOOK CLUB: You Don’t Need To Know the Message, Right? (Ch. 20)
[Today we're reading Ch. 20 Actions Speak Louder Than Words, But Together They Can Speak Volumes, from Aristotle's Poetics for Screenwriters, by Michael Tierno (2002).]
The author writes that "all action is geared to the expression of the message." p. 102.
Most writers get that action should push the story/message forward.
However, sometimes they fail to remember that it must be there for EVERY single scene.
What I hate seeing:
- A setup without any foreshadowing or hint it’s relevant. Ex. Man is on vacation in Hawaii, and he buys a snowsuit. The entire script is in Hawaii. What was the point of the snowsuit?
- An action that creates a good set piece, but doesn’t tell me anything about the story. Ex. Woman races for the helicopter, but ninjas get in the way & there’s a big battle with swords. What is the point of the fight? Is there a ticking clock? Does she have to save Scruffy before he’s dognapped for good?
- A writer who doesn’t know what the message is.
ME: “What is this about?”
Writer: “Uh…..?”
Ergo, you have an non-cohesive script.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: Although you may not know what your message is at first, make sure you do by the time it gets to me.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
The author writes that "all action is geared to the expression of the message." p. 102.
Most writers get that action should push the story/message forward.
However, sometimes they fail to remember that it must be there for EVERY single scene.
What I hate seeing:
- A setup without any foreshadowing or hint it’s relevant. Ex. Man is on vacation in Hawaii, and he buys a snowsuit. The entire script is in Hawaii. What was the point of the snowsuit?
- An action that creates a good set piece, but doesn’t tell me anything about the story. Ex. Woman races for the helicopter, but ninjas get in the way & there’s a big battle with swords. What is the point of the fight? Is there a ticking clock? Does she have to save Scruffy before he’s dognapped for good?
- A writer who doesn’t know what the message is.
ME: “What is this about?”
Writer: “Uh…..?”
Ergo, you have an non-cohesive script.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: Although you may not know what your message is at first, make sure you do by the time it gets to me.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
Monday, January 25, 2010
BOOK CLUB: Release! (Ch. 19)
[Today we're reading Ch. 19 A Movie Gave You a Bad Case of Pity & Fear? The Doctor Recommends a Catharsis, from Aristotle's Poetics for Screenwriters, by Michael Tierno (2002).]
I read a script last week that built and built and built pity, fear, suspense, of 90 pages, but then addressed the catharsis in a few paragraphs.
I scritched my head. (Yes, scritched. Scratched would mean I was looking at something logical.)
What the heck happened?
I think that we as writers are often afraid to let our characters suffer...but are also afraid of letting them reach success, because that means the arc is complete.
A catharsis must be carefully planned out so the audience can see the consequences of the actions. What has the character has learned, or not learned? What are the aftershocks of the decisions?
This is the moment of release, the moment we'll pinpoint as the moment the character realizes what he/she has to live with forever. Make sure you've channel that feeling of remorse or happiness or satisfaction into their actions so we have no doubt what the journey has done for them.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: Catharsis is a moment where we sigh in relief or weep in sadness with the main character. We finally know what the journey is all about.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
I read a script last week that built and built and built pity, fear, suspense, of 90 pages, but then addressed the catharsis in a few paragraphs.
I scritched my head. (Yes, scritched. Scratched would mean I was looking at something logical.)
What the heck happened?
I think that we as writers are often afraid to let our characters suffer...but are also afraid of letting them reach success, because that means the arc is complete.
A catharsis must be carefully planned out so the audience can see the consequences of the actions. What has the character has learned, or not learned? What are the aftershocks of the decisions?
This is the moment of release, the moment we'll pinpoint as the moment the character realizes what he/she has to live with forever. Make sure you've channel that feeling of remorse or happiness or satisfaction into their actions so we have no doubt what the journey has done for them.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: Catharsis is a moment where we sigh in relief or weep in sadness with the main character. We finally know what the journey is all about.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
Sunday, January 24, 2010
BOOK CLUB: Beyond SHOW & TELL (Ch. 18)
[Today we're reading Ch. 18 Whatever Causes the Action Better Be Up There On the Screen, from Aristotle's Poetics for Screenwriters, by Michael Tierno (2002).]
The phrase "SHOW, not TELL" often means that the writer is telling you what is happening rather than showing it.
ex. MAN: "I'm going to open a red wine. Then I will toss it in your face."
Most of us avoid this, so let's look at the next most frequent problem: What if you're SHOWING, but there's no story? What does that look like?
I saw a script that described the situation, but it was like reading a map.
ex. John turned to Judy. He shouted. She cowered.
The characters are obviously in conflict. We show that John is loud, and Judy is scared. But is this a story?
NO.
It is static scene & a story is a series of moving, connected scenes. If it does not push forward, it's dead weight.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: SHOW, not TELL, & PUSH FORWARD.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
The phrase "SHOW, not TELL" often means that the writer is telling you what is happening rather than showing it.
ex. MAN: "I'm going to open a red wine. Then I will toss it in your face."
Most of us avoid this, so let's look at the next most frequent problem: What if you're SHOWING, but there's no story? What does that look like?
I saw a script that described the situation, but it was like reading a map.
ex. John turned to Judy. He shouted. She cowered.
The characters are obviously in conflict. We show that John is loud, and Judy is scared. But is this a story?
NO.
It is static scene & a story is a series of moving, connected scenes. If it does not push forward, it's dead weight.
WHAT I’VE LEARNED: SHOW, not TELL, & PUSH FORWARD.
[DISCLAIMER: I have not been asked, nor paid, to read or comment on this book.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)