Are you Picasso or Tarantino?

One of the most common reactions I get when I write anything about screen writing technique is anger. Some people just get furious about high-concept, livid about formal screen play structure and rabid about any suggestion that there maybe a methodology to creating a successful screen play and therefore a successful film.

The arguments against are pretty much always the same… “there are no rules; formula is bad because it creates mediocrity and stifles originality; real artists strive to be true to their vision and therefore have to actively avoid even looking at “the rules;” and finally, there is no such thing as a workable formula.”

As a screen writer who believes in method and technique, but also sees himself as an artist, it would be easy to just ignore those who challenge that world view; but, because I’m a screen writer, I’m fascinated by two things, people and screen writing… it’s therefore no surprise that I’d spend some time thinking about these issues.

And, I’ve come to some conclusions…

Basically I’ve decided there are three different kinds of film makers: the iconoclast, the artist and the craftsman.

The iconoclast is the kind of savant film maker, whose approach defies analysis. Quentin Tarantino, Woody Allen and David Lynch leap to mind. In each case you’ve got a unique vision that works on screen, but springs from their own fierce (and in my opinion quite geeky) individuality.

These kind of film makers often turn out hugely original visions and become the heroes of indie film makers. These are the kind of film makers who achieve a cult status, the kind of film makers it’s fun to parody, but insane to emulate… simply because any attempt to copy their style immediately shouts “fan film.” (A concept I’ve never understood or been attracted to)

The artist is the kind of film maker who has a unique perspective on film making, but whose roots can be seen in traditional film making technique. I’m thinking of film makers like the Coen Brothers, Luc Besson or Julie Delphy. These are the kind of film makers who have a unique style of production, but whose work can be understood and reverse engineered, if you have an understanding of story telling technique.

Finally, you have the craftsmen. The kind of film makers who make great films, but whose films could have just as easily been made by any other craftsman. I tend to think of Tony Scott, Spielberg and Michael Bay as craftsmen… along with Ron Howard.

Now, there is nothing wrong with any of these film makers. I’m as likely to enjoy a Ron Howard movie as I am a Julie Delphy or a David Lynch. However, as indie film makers and as screen writers I think it’s worth a little bit of soul searching to figure out what kind of film maker you are.

I happen to believe that iconoclasts are born… and once hatched there is an inevitability that they’ll turn out the kind of stuff they turn out. I also believe that iconoclast are beyond training. It’s counter productive. I also happen to think they’re extremely rare.

At the other extreme, I think craftsmen pretty much always know they’re craftsmen. They never have any problems with embracing technique… and ironically, they often tend to achieve the most successful careers (if you’re measuring by box office and cash earned).

The problem group, tends to be the artists. It’s the group I most naturally fall into. And, the problem is… most artists want to be, or believe they are iconoclasts.

Or, in other words, artist film makers who should be embracing technique to make great films, end up making bad films because they see themselves as iconoclasts and therefore beyond technique.

I think this is a shame and it also flies in the face of art history. Picasso is without doubt one of the most innovative artists of modern times, his work was both ground breaking and changed the course of art history. Yet, Picasso’s work all originates from a foundation of flawless technique. He spent his childhood perfecting his figurative drawings… and from that foundation developed cubism. The same is true of Salvidor Dali and my favorite “bad girl” of modern art Tracy Emin’s drawings are exquisite. In fact, most of the artists perceived as iconoclasts, developed their individualistic styles from their understanding of the past, not by ignoring it.

Few weeks ago we were looking for good portal to download movies, I recommend to use it for movie downloads.

Somewhere in the 21st Century the idea has arisen that you can only be a true artist if you flout convention… and by extension, the easiest way to do that is to ignore any suggestion that technique even exists.

However, I’m convinced there is a better way to be an artist film maker. Learn the conventions, study the techniques, work with them until you know you can make movies that way… and only then decide what you want to keep, because it works, and what you want to reject, because there is a better or more interesting way to do it.

I know my argument will probably fall on deaf ears… because deciding you’re an iconoclast is easier in the short run and more pleasing to the ego… but, if like me you try it for seven years and discover you’re actually not the natural genius you always assumed you were… well, don’t hang yourself or quit film making, there is another way… the way of the artist.

[film making] [indie] [artist] [screen writing] [Tarantino] [iconoclast]

The Hollywood Script Checklist

I don’t normally reproduce stuff I find lying around the net, simply because you can never be to sure whose copyright got violated in the process of it getting there.

(since first posting I’ve been informed that the post originated from Ted Elliiot and Terry Rossio’s Wordplayer site)

However, the Hollywood Script Checklist which someone had posted in a Myspace forum, is just too useful to ignore.

It’s a superbly comprehensive list of questions to ask yourself about your current feature script. And, although there isn’t anything radical in there, it’s the first time I’ve seen all these points covered in one sheet of paper.

Hope you find it useful too:

CHECKLIST A: CONCEPT & PLOT
1. Imagine the trailer. Is the concept marketable?
2. Is the premise naturally intriguing - or just average?
3. Who is the target audience? Would your parents go to see it? Would your children?
4. Does your story deal with the most important events in the lives of your characters?
5. If the story is a fantasy-come-true, does it quickly turn into a nightmare-that-wont-end?
6. Has a strong ‘need to know’ hook been built into the story early on?
7. Is the concept original?
8. Is there a goal? Is there pacing? Does it build?
9. Begin with a punch; end with a flurry.
10. It is funny, scary, or thrilling? All three?
11. What does the story have that the audience can’t get from real life?
12. What is at stake? Life and death situations are the most dramatic. Does the concept create the potential for the characters’ lives to be changed dramatically?
13. What are the obstacles? Is there a sufficient challenge for our heroes’ weaknesses?
14. What is the screenplay trying to say and is it worth trying to say it? In other words, does it have a theme?
15. Does the story transport the audience?
16. Is the screenplay predictable? There should be surprises and reversals within the major plot and also within individual scenes and subplots.
17. Once the parameters (otherwise known as a story bubble) of the film’s reality are established, they must not be violated (burst). Limitations call for interesting solutions.
18. Is there a decisive, inevitable ending that nonetheless turns out unexpectedly? (This is not easy to do and is vital to generate interest!)
19. Is it believable (even if not realistic)?
20. Is there strong emotion - heart - at the centre of the story? Avoid mean-spirited storylines.
21. Does the second act drag? This may mean a lack of a well thought-out central character and how his/her flaws relate to the antagonist.

CHECKLIST B: TECHNICAL EXECUTION
22. Is it properly formatted?
23. Proper spelling and punctuation? Phrases instead of sentences are okay.
24. Is there a discernible three-act structure?
25. Are all scenes needed? no scenes off the spine, they will die on screen.
26. Do screenplay descriptions direct the reader’s mind’s eye rather than the director’s camera?
27. Begin the screenplay as far into the story as possible.
28. Begin each scene as late a possible; end it as early as possible. A screenplay is like a piece of string that you can cut up and tie together - the trick is to tell the entire story using as little string as possible.
29. In other words: use cuts.
30. Visual, Aural, verbal - in that order. The expression of someone who has just been shot is best; the sound of the bullet slamming into him is second best; the person saying ‘I’ve been shot’ is the least effective.
31. What is the hook, the inciting incident? You have ten pages (or ten minutes) to grab an audience. With some people in the business, even less.
32. Does the screenplay allude to the essential points in the story two or even three times and hit the key point very hard? it shouldn’t be obtuse.
33. Repetition of locale. It helps to establish the atmosphere of the film and allows audiences to ‘get comfortable’. Saves money during the production.
34. Repetition and echoes can be used to tag secondary characters. Dangerous technique to use with leads.
35. Not all scenes have to run to five pages of dialogue and/or action. In a good screenplay, there are many two-inch scenes. Sequences build pace.
36. Small details add credibility. has the subject matter been thoroughly researched?
37. Every line in the script must either advance the plot, get a laugh, reveal a trait, or do a combination of two - or in the best case, all three - at once.
38. No false plot points; no backtracking. it’s dangerous to mislead an audience; they will feel cheated if important actions are taken based on information that has not been provided or turns out to be false.
39. Silent solution; tell your story with pictures.
40. No more than 125 pages, no less than 110… or the first impression will be of a script that ‘needs to be cut’ or ‘needs to be 0fleshed out’.
41. Don’t number the scenes of a selling script. MOREs and CONTINUEDs are optional.

CHECKLIST C: CHARACTERS
42. Are the parts castable? Does the film have roles that stars will want to play?
43. Action and humour should emanate from the characters and not just be thrown in for the sake of a laugh. Comedy that violates the integrity of the characters or oversteps the reality-world of the film may get a laugh, but it will ultimately unravel the picture. Very rarely used, for good reason.
44. Are the characters people who care deeply about something - especially other characters?
45. Is there one scene where the emotional conflict of the main character comes to a crisis point? This is especially important and should relate to both their inner and outer conflict. In other words, the hero has an internal problem that is hidden from him. Then the second act brings it out and then in the third the hero has to act (resolve the plot) to resolve both the inner and outer conflicts.
46. A character’s entrance should be indicative of that character’s traits.First impression of a character is most important.
47. Lead characters must be sympathetic - people we care about and want to root for.
48. What are the characters’ wants and needs? What is the lead character’s dramatic need? Needs should be strong, definite and clearly communicated to the audience. Read 45 again.
49. What does the audience want for the characters? It’s all right to be either for or against a particular character - the only unacceptable emotion is indifference.
50. Concerning characters and action: a person is what he does, not necessarily what he says.
51. On character faults: characters should be ‘this but also that’, i.e. complex. Characters with doubts and faults are more believable and more interesting. Heroes who have done wrong and villains with noble motives are better than characters who are straight black and white.
52. Characters can be easily understood by audiences in terms of ‘what is their greatest fear?’ Gittes, in Chinatown is afraid of being played for the fool. In Splash the Tom Hanks character is afraid he can never fall in love. In Body Heat Racine is afraid he’ll never make his big score.
53. Character traits should be independent of the character’s role. A banker who fiddles with his gold watch is memorable, but cliched; a banker who breeds dogs is somehow a more acceptable detail.
54. All character conflicts should be both internal and external. Characters should struggle with themselves and with others.
55. Character ‘points of view’ need to be distinctive within an individual screenplay. Characters should not all think the same. Each character needs to have a definite point of view in order to act 00and not just react.
56. Distinguish characters by their speech patterns, vocabulary, sentence structure, revealed backgrou0nd, level of intelligence.
57. ‘Character superior’ sequences (where the character acts on information the audience does not have) usually don’t work for very long - the audience gets lost. On the other hand, when the audience is in a ‘superior’ position - the audience knows something the characters do not - it almost always works. (NOTE: This does not mean the audience should be able to predict the plot!)
58. Run each character through as many emotions as possible - love, hatred, laughter, despair, grief, revenge…
59. Characters must change. What is the character’s arc? read 45 AGAIN!
60. The credibility of the screenplay world is defined by what the reader knows of it, and the reader gains that knowledge from the characters. Unbelievable character actions imply an unrealistic world; fully-designed characters convey the sense of a believable world.
61. Is the lead involved with the story throughout? Does he/she control the outcome of the story?

Micro-Budget Movie Workflows

The ability to turn a screen play into a viable movie for pocket change is only possible if you understand the whole process; or if you can find someone to work with who understands the whole process. For those of you who already have some knowledge of film production today’s piece is about why planning post is so important; but, for any screenwriters who are thinking about making their own films, I hope this short rant will help you realize why you need, in the first place, to work with someone with professional production experience.

This week I’ve been immersed in DV Rebel by Stu Maschwitz. A book I’d recommend to any micro-budget film maker, whether you’re interested in action movies or not.

The reason I recommend it, is because Stu has a pretty unique view on post production workflows and how they relate to both production and budgets.

Where Stu nails it, is by recognizing that you need to know how you’re going to complete your post production process, before you even start thinking about shooting.

Over the years, I’ve seen poverty driven film makers take a step by step approach to micro-budget film making, where the entire project becomes trouble shooting the problems caused by previous decisions; decisions often taken in ignorance.

Basically, if a film-maker writes a script, then works out how to shoot it, then works out how to edit it, then figures out how they’ll do their online and then figures out how they’re going to sell the movie… well, three things will happen: firstly, they’ll get to the end of the process and discover they should have used a different camera, secondly, they’ll go 300% over budget and thirdly, they’ll probably never sell the movie.

One of the difficulties for the micro-budget film maker is the incredible pace of change in this industry. The digital revolution is evolving at such an incredible rate, it’s almost impossible to keep pace with the changes… and, every time there is a new development the potential workflow changes with it. I mean, I’ve been at this pretty much full time for eleven years now and I still learn something new, nearly every day.

There are two things I would suggest to any film maker attempting to make a great movie on a lo/no budget.

The first thing I would suggest is to use hardware technology that is at least a year or two behind the cutting edge, but at the same time use the very latest software you can put your hands on.

One of the myriad mistakes we made on “No Place” was filming on the first generation of a particular camera. As the project progressed, that one decision cost us more in time and money than any other. This was partly caused by a glitch in the camera’s construction, which we effectively beta tested for the manufacturer… and then by the fact that in this industry software tends to lag behind hardware. I’ve seen any number of projects where the post production workflow was devastated because the “new” camera in question, was running a codec that the editing software couldn’t cope with.

What this means is, when making a camera decision, it’s best to go with a camera whose technology is at least a year old. By which point all the work flow issues of getting it into your NLE and out in decent shape, have all been hammered out by other people. People with budgets.

If any one thing will destroy your budget, in my experience, post production workflow problems will be the one.

By going with an older camera and the latest software, chances are that all the nasty glitches and potential foul ups will already have been discovered and dealt with. Plus, by waiting, there will be a whole army of people out there, whose experience you can draw on to get you out of a jam. Mainly because they had to figure out for themselves how to get out of that particular mess.

The other thing I’d recommend is this: once you’ve made a decision about how you’re going to make your film, which camera, which editing system, how you are going to online and master… at that point make a short film which tests out any procedures you’ll need for your film and physically test your workflow.

The truth is, nothing ever teaches you as much or flags up potential problems as making something.

For the $1000 movie, James and I still haven’t settled on a workflow. This is mainly because we’re still digesting the full ramifications of Stu’s book. My current guess is we’ll be shooting on some form of HD, that we’ll edit in FCP and online in After Effects. But, as I said before, things in the digital revolution change on a daily basis… in truth, goodness knows how we’ll end up doing things.

Next Page »