Sorry, been awhile.
This weekend, a student of mine won the Set In Philadelphia Screenwriting Competition and the Greater Philadelphia Regional Award (for a local writer), not a prestigious contest but one of the better paying ones out there and a nice honor all the same. I feel like such a proud coach, got soaked with Gatorade and everything. I had two students make it to the finals this year. Last year one of my guys won the Parisi Award for a Writer Under 25, which is handed out by "Nixon" screenwriter Steven Riviele. The year before that, another student came in third place.
So, I am busy. At this point, "Aftermath", the 98 page screenplay that I sold in January, has gotten over 60 pages of notes from the producer over the course of, now countless, re-writes. It's cool, her notes are great, the screenplay is better than it was when she first started pursuing it three years ago and it is only getting better.
In the meantime, I just got to work on a new screenplay that I was hired to write. A writer friend in L.A. asked me how I got the gig and it wasn't until I started to answer that I realized how wild the story is. I review films for IndieTalk.com, got a movie by this guy, trashed it, really tore it up, heard from him, started a nice back and forth via e-mail, hit it off and he asked me to write his next film. Maybe honesty is the best policy.
Back to work!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
movie reviewer/screenwriter: odd combo, strange bedfellows
QUICK UPDATE: "Aftermath" progresses. I turned in a full re-write last week and am eagerly awaiting notes from the producer but the early word is pretty good. I suspect that I will need to do another pass on it, maybe just a polish but, one way or another, it is closer and closer to being finished.... for now.
That said....
Maybe it was bound to happen.
I have been reviewing films for years now and every now and then I hear from a filmmaker I have written about.
Around five years ago, I reviewed a film called "Monster Man" about a killer in a monster truck. I loved the film, wrote a glowing review and, before too long, the writer-director Michael Davis got in touch with me to let me know how much he enjoyed my review and that he felt that I was the only reviewer who really "got" what he was trying to do in the film. He went on to say that he felt my review would really boost interest and in the film. I hear that it did well in a European theatrical run.
Davis and I corresponded for awhile. He went on to write and direct "Shoot 'Em Up", the Clive Owen - Paul Giamatti....uh, shoot 'em up, a few years ago and I really "got" that one too.
Likewise, Benny Matthews, director of "Santeria" which I gave a good review to, got in touch with me and we are still in touch.
All of this is made just slightly more curious by the events of this week. I have just been hired to write a screenplay for a director whose film I did not like, did not give a good review to -- in fact, I was pretty hard on it. Nevertheless, the director and I formed a lengthy correspondence, cordial, respectful and eye-to-eye on almost everything.
I am really looking forward to writing his screenplay.
Now, if Michael Davis wants to get back in touch....
That said....
Maybe it was bound to happen.
I have been reviewing films for years now and every now and then I hear from a filmmaker I have written about.
Around five years ago, I reviewed a film called "Monster Man" about a killer in a monster truck. I loved the film, wrote a glowing review and, before too long, the writer-director Michael Davis got in touch with me to let me know how much he enjoyed my review and that he felt that I was the only reviewer who really "got" what he was trying to do in the film. He went on to say that he felt my review would really boost interest and in the film. I hear that it did well in a European theatrical run.
Davis and I corresponded for awhile. He went on to write and direct "Shoot 'Em Up", the Clive Owen - Paul Giamatti....uh, shoot 'em up, a few years ago and I really "got" that one too.
Likewise, Benny Matthews, director of "Santeria" which I gave a good review to, got in touch with me and we are still in touch.
All of this is made just slightly more curious by the events of this week. I have just been hired to write a screenplay for a director whose film I did not like, did not give a good review to -- in fact, I was pretty hard on it. Nevertheless, the director and I formed a lengthy correspondence, cordial, respectful and eye-to-eye on almost everything.
I am really looking forward to writing his screenplay.
Now, if Michael Davis wants to get back in touch....
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Feng Sui: Be Careful What You Wish For
Okay, so I don't feel exactly like Lindsay Lohan in "Freaky Friday" or Eddie Murphy in "Flubber" --- or was that Robin Williams, it's getting harder and harder to distinguish one from another.
Nearly three years ago, April 2006, on the brink of sudden and unexpected under-employment, my wife took my still-born "career" by the horns and whipped up some serious chi inspiring, energy friendly home re-decorating. What was it that I really wanted? To be a screenwriter, I guess.
About a month after the Feng Sui express roared through the house, I got hired to write a screenplay. Granted, Feng Sui is not a passive thing, you do have to work for it/with it. I had been religiously scanning the online screenwriting classified ads for two or three years at that point, sending out, by my estimation 5000 - 6000 e-mails.
So, May 2006, I got a gig, barely any pay and the script had to be delivered two weeks later. Done!
Less than a month after that job, I got another and soon another, more and more and more.
So, at this point, Winter 2009, I have been hired to write and/or doctor somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 feature films ---- one of them, the May '06 screenplay, was produced and is hitting the festival circuit, minus my name after a dramatic and I fear, fatal, re-write by the director.
After three years of asking me to sell, I decided my original screenplay, "Aftermath", to a producer in L.A., made the deal in August more or less, got the first check in January and I am still working on the paid re-writes. I have had to put off a job working on a pilot for some guys with solid ties to the TV world. One of the guys who hired me two years ago wants me to do a re-write. Another guy who has hired me to write two screenplays for him, wants me to write a third even though I told him I was too busy, my brother-in-law/editor wants me to adapt a musical that he wrote the songs for and last, but certainly not least, the producer of the first film, the May '06 job, wants me to write something for him and might even let me direct it.
Now, that's some Feng Sui. Not that I am complaining, I'm just wondering how I am going to get through it all.
Nearly three years ago, April 2006, on the brink of sudden and unexpected under-employment, my wife took my still-born "career" by the horns and whipped up some serious chi inspiring, energy friendly home re-decorating. What was it that I really wanted? To be a screenwriter, I guess.
About a month after the Feng Sui express roared through the house, I got hired to write a screenplay. Granted, Feng Sui is not a passive thing, you do have to work for it/with it. I had been religiously scanning the online screenwriting classified ads for two or three years at that point, sending out, by my estimation 5000 - 6000 e-mails.
So, May 2006, I got a gig, barely any pay and the script had to be delivered two weeks later. Done!
Less than a month after that job, I got another and soon another, more and more and more.
So, at this point, Winter 2009, I have been hired to write and/or doctor somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 feature films ---- one of them, the May '06 screenplay, was produced and is hitting the festival circuit, minus my name after a dramatic and I fear, fatal, re-write by the director.
After three years of asking me to sell, I decided my original screenplay, "Aftermath", to a producer in L.A., made the deal in August more or less, got the first check in January and I am still working on the paid re-writes. I have had to put off a job working on a pilot for some guys with solid ties to the TV world. One of the guys who hired me two years ago wants me to do a re-write. Another guy who has hired me to write two screenplays for him, wants me to write a third even though I told him I was too busy, my brother-in-law/editor wants me to adapt a musical that he wrote the songs for and last, but certainly not least, the producer of the first film, the May '06 job, wants me to write something for him and might even let me direct it.
Now, that's some Feng Sui. Not that I am complaining, I'm just wondering how I am going to get through it all.
Monday, January 26, 2009
My RANT
Hi, I review films for IndieTalk.com but I am also a screenwriter, a director and a screenwriting/film history teacher.In one of my recent reviews, I really bashed the filmmakers for having a terrible screenplay but I wrote that I didn't mean to single them out, that bad screenplays are a real issue in many of the films that I review for this site.
I know that the technology at our hands is amazing, cool etc, that the possibilities are virtually endless these days. There are so many great cameras out there now --I have seen the RED up close and it is all that it is cracked up to be --- and there are plenty of really decent, moderately priced cameras out there that do perfectly acceptable work. High quality post-production seems to be at everyone's fingertips.
So, what is the problem? Too many of "us" in the the indie world seem to be too focused on the technology, so much so that the foundation of a film is being ignored. I implore you, the indie film community, to put your camera down, stop tapping your keyboard and invest in what I consider essential filmmaking equipment: a good book on screenwriting.
For $20 or less, you can buy a book that will open your eyes to the magic of plotting out a story, usually in accordance with three-act structure. I know that a lot of technical, creative people are intimidated by screenwriting, that they find it mysterious and daunting to have to learn "the formula" and the formatting but it really helps.
Even if you just learn the basics, it can make your films and your approach to filmmaking so much better and I will not have to sit through films where the inciting incident comes 45 minutes into the story. Learn the basic concepts of structure, conflicts, what makes a strong main character etc. and it might be revolutionary to you.
The classic book on the subject is "Screenplay" by Syd Field but even I find it a little dry. Blake Snyder's incredibly amusing and readable "Save The Cat" will not teach you how to format a screenplay but it is an amazing study in how to conceive of a film ---- in about 200 pages. Even "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Screenwriting" is pretty good.
So, I hate to sound cranky but I am seeing a lot of low-budget indie films made by people who know how to shoot well, light well, edit well, do special effects well but cannot tell an interesting, compelling story and that should not be the case. It is really not that hard to come up with a story for a film. Yes, it is hard to come up with an original, intelligent story for a film but so many of you are just aiming to make basic, ordinary films anyway and there is nothing wrong with that IF the story is strong, the structure is sound and the characters are compelling.
So, by all means, while you are waiting for your RED Epic model to come arrive, pick up a good book on screenwriting, learn the basics and apply them to your next film, please.
I know that the technology at our hands is amazing, cool etc, that the possibilities are virtually endless these days. There are so many great cameras out there now --I have seen the RED up close and it is all that it is cracked up to be --- and there are plenty of really decent, moderately priced cameras out there that do perfectly acceptable work. High quality post-production seems to be at everyone's fingertips.
So, what is the problem? Too many of "us" in the the indie world seem to be too focused on the technology, so much so that the foundation of a film is being ignored. I implore you, the indie film community, to put your camera down, stop tapping your keyboard and invest in what I consider essential filmmaking equipment: a good book on screenwriting.
For $20 or less, you can buy a book that will open your eyes to the magic of plotting out a story, usually in accordance with three-act structure. I know that a lot of technical, creative people are intimidated by screenwriting, that they find it mysterious and daunting to have to learn "the formula" and the formatting but it really helps.
Even if you just learn the basics, it can make your films and your approach to filmmaking so much better and I will not have to sit through films where the inciting incident comes 45 minutes into the story. Learn the basic concepts of structure, conflicts, what makes a strong main character etc. and it might be revolutionary to you.
The classic book on the subject is "Screenplay" by Syd Field but even I find it a little dry. Blake Snyder's incredibly amusing and readable "Save The Cat" will not teach you how to format a screenplay but it is an amazing study in how to conceive of a film ---- in about 200 pages. Even "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Screenwriting" is pretty good.
So, I hate to sound cranky but I am seeing a lot of low-budget indie films made by people who know how to shoot well, light well, edit well, do special effects well but cannot tell an interesting, compelling story and that should not be the case. It is really not that hard to come up with a story for a film. Yes, it is hard to come up with an original, intelligent story for a film but so many of you are just aiming to make basic, ordinary films anyway and there is nothing wrong with that IF the story is strong, the structure is sound and the characters are compelling.
So, by all means, while you are waiting for your RED Epic model to come arrive, pick up a good book on screenwriting, learn the basics and apply them to your next film, please.
Monday, January 12, 2009
This Is For Real
Wow, after months of discussions and negotiations following a three year campaign by a producer to get me to sell my screenplay, I got the first checks today --- one for the option and another for the first half of a paid re-write.
Now, I have been getting paid to write screenplays for over ten years -- okay, I had one job in 1996 and didn't get another until 2006 but, since then, I have been paid to write or doctor around 15 feature film screenplays.
No bones about it, I am small-time, minor-league -- for now anyway -- getting and taking whatever anyone could offer me and sometimes not getting anything at all, either taking the odd deferred gig because I believed in the project or simply getting screwed by the producer who hired me.
Of course, I have long had dreams of selling an original screenplay to Hollywood -- I have been pursuing this kind of thing for over 20 years. Yes, I hoped for buckets of money from this deal and wound up getting a shot glass but, hey, there are so many people out there who have this dream of becoming a screenwriting and it is actually sort of happening for me.
Getting the checks today really made it feel real. To that end, reality has sunk in. I got the checks, now I have to do the work. I have a re-write due by the end of month.
I can't say I didn't know what I was getting myself into and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Now, I have been getting paid to write screenplays for over ten years -- okay, I had one job in 1996 and didn't get another until 2006 but, since then, I have been paid to write or doctor around 15 feature film screenplays.
No bones about it, I am small-time, minor-league -- for now anyway -- getting and taking whatever anyone could offer me and sometimes not getting anything at all, either taking the odd deferred gig because I believed in the project or simply getting screwed by the producer who hired me.
Of course, I have long had dreams of selling an original screenplay to Hollywood -- I have been pursuing this kind of thing for over 20 years. Yes, I hoped for buckets of money from this deal and wound up getting a shot glass but, hey, there are so many people out there who have this dream of becoming a screenwriting and it is actually sort of happening for me.
Getting the checks today really made it feel real. To that end, reality has sunk in. I got the checks, now I have to do the work. I have a re-write due by the end of month.
I can't say I didn't know what I was getting myself into and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Distribution: First In An Endless Series Of Notes
There are so many different approaches to distribution out there now that the conventional theatrical or home video release are only a couple of the options.
A former screenwriting student of mine, and some of his fellow Drexel film school grads, formed the filmmaking collective Sweat Robot and just released their first film, "Happy Birthday Harris Malden" straight to iTunes and Amazon for download after making some festival appearances to get the word out. It seems to be working out okay -- plus it's a really good film.
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?p=80404
There are something like 4000 indie films made in the U.S, each year, of which 100-200 might get distributed and, even then, what distribution means is relative because some companies will promote the hell out of a film, full page ads in the trades and others just manage to do what they can.
From our perspective, the actors and the filmmakers, we should just keep trying to make the best films possible and hope that it matches the needs of a distributor who can, in return do it justice.
A former screenwriting student of mine, and some of his fellow Drexel film school grads, formed the filmmaking collective Sweat Robot and just released their first film, "Happy Birthday Harris Malden" straight to iTunes and Amazon for download after making some festival appearances to get the word out. It seems to be working out okay -- plus it's a really good film.
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?p=80404
There are something like 4000 indie films made in the U.S, each year, of which 100-200 might get distributed and, even then, what distribution means is relative because some companies will promote the hell out of a film, full page ads in the trades and others just manage to do what they can.
From our perspective, the actors and the filmmakers, we should just keep trying to make the best films possible and hope that it matches the needs of a distributor who can, in return do it justice.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Structure, My Premiere and My Option
The film that I was hired to write in 2006 premiered at The Beverly Hills Hi-Def Film Festival on Saturday. I haven't heard any reactions to it, seen any reviews etc. Hmmmm.
I have heard that it might screen at TriBeCa in the spring.
I still haven't seen it.
A former student, a fine, fine writer, e-mailed me over the weekend and asked:
"Can't I just turn in a series of biting, poignant gut-punchingly visceral moments that made you want to laugh or cry?"
I don't think so.
Conveniently, I can speak on this subject having just seen "Burn After Reading" last night, a collection of great characters and some cool scenes that, strung together, add up to nothing.
What a waste of a movie! A film needs a narrative spine, it has to have an overall unity to make all the pieces mean something when slapped together.
A great example, one of the major artistic experiences of my life:
In 1980 I went to see Bill Cosby at the York State Fair. He came out and told one funny story, went off on a related tangent, came back to the story, went off on a related tangent, came back to the story and repeated the process for an hour.
It was one of the most brilliant, unified, cohesive pieces of stagecraft I have ever seen, so carefully plotted and conceived that I was truly left in awe.
The act had a narrative spine and everything else grew out of it organically, nothing was random and it all served to support the whole piece, the overall idea. A film should be about something and all the scenes should serve to make your overall point.
My formula:
Screenplay = Idea + Story + Plot
Idea - The overall themes and thoughts that inform the film.
Story - Everything that happens either onscreen or off even before the movie starts.
Plot - Everything that happens onscreen.
A simplified example:
Spielberg says, "I know, I have an Idea that I would like to express - 'War is bad'"
So there is this Story about the four Ryan brothers who go off to fight in World War II. Three of them are killed and the Army decides to find the other one and bring him back alive to avoid a public relations nightmare.
The Plot then follows Tom Hanks and a band of stereotypical caricatures as they hunt for Private Ryan, many of them getting killed along the way and leading the audience to realize how Bad War Is and how brutal WWII was. The three dead Ryan brothers are part of the story but not part of the plot because, for the most part, their deaths occur offscreen before the start of the movie.
You can be structurally sound and accessible without falling into cliche. I was really disappointed with "Slumdog Millionaire" because in the end, it really wound up relying on a seriously old school melodramatic cliche among other things.
My roots are in theater, offbeat, avant garde or absurdist theater. I have been influenced by more playwrights (Pinter, Albee, Stoppard, Ionesco) and stand-up comedians (Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, Steve Martin) than I have been by screenwriters.
I have had to work to fight against my resistance to conventional three-act structure. When I read Syd Field's classic "Screenplay" back in the 80's I couldn't get through it, I was so disgusted by the idea that the art of cinema could be boiled down to a simple formula, X, Y and Z by page 10, An Act Break on or around page 30, Act 2A, mid-point, Act 2B, another Act Break on page 60 or 90 depending on how long the film is etc.
So my early screenplays were, in fact "a series of biting, poignant, gut-punchingly visceral moments that make you want to laugh or cry" as an almost defiant stance against the industry standard. There are filmmakers who can get away with doing this but, for the most part, I am not one of them or, I should say, I was not one of them.
As a screenwriting teacher and a writer-for-hire I have found that I have to utilize three-act structure and I have come to recognize it as a beautiful thing, a convention to work within and to push the boundaries of and I can appreciate when a film hits its marks like a precision instrument as much as I can appreciate the rare film that defies convention and still succeeds.
The film that opened this past weekend, adhered to three act-structure for the most part when I wrote it. The director's re-write did not. "Aftermath" the screenplay that I am selling, does not adhere to three-act structure in the conventional sense. A colleague of mine, screenwriter Joe Stinson, who wrote four screenplays for Clint Eastwood (including the line, yes, "Go ahead, make my day") read "Aftermath" and told me You managed to break all of the rules of screenwriting and still come up with a piece that works." Yay for me.
I have heard that it might screen at TriBeCa in the spring.
I still haven't seen it.
A former student, a fine, fine writer, e-mailed me over the weekend and asked:
"Can't I just turn in a series of biting, poignant gut-punchingly visceral moments that made you want to laugh or cry?"
I don't think so.
Conveniently, I can speak on this subject having just seen "Burn After Reading" last night, a collection of great characters and some cool scenes that, strung together, add up to nothing.
What a waste of a movie! A film needs a narrative spine, it has to have an overall unity to make all the pieces mean something when slapped together.
A great example, one of the major artistic experiences of my life:
In 1980 I went to see Bill Cosby at the York State Fair. He came out and told one funny story, went off on a related tangent, came back to the story, went off on a related tangent, came back to the story and repeated the process for an hour.
It was one of the most brilliant, unified, cohesive pieces of stagecraft I have ever seen, so carefully plotted and conceived that I was truly left in awe.
The act had a narrative spine and everything else grew out of it organically, nothing was random and it all served to support the whole piece, the overall idea. A film should be about something and all the scenes should serve to make your overall point.
My formula:
Screenplay = Idea + Story + Plot
Idea - The overall themes and thoughts that inform the film.
Story - Everything that happens either onscreen or off even before the movie starts.
Plot - Everything that happens onscreen.
A simplified example:
Spielberg says, "I know, I have an Idea that I would like to express - 'War is bad'"
So there is this Story about the four Ryan brothers who go off to fight in World War II. Three of them are killed and the Army decides to find the other one and bring him back alive to avoid a public relations nightmare.
The Plot then follows Tom Hanks and a band of stereotypical caricatures as they hunt for Private Ryan, many of them getting killed along the way and leading the audience to realize how Bad War Is and how brutal WWII was. The three dead Ryan brothers are part of the story but not part of the plot because, for the most part, their deaths occur offscreen before the start of the movie.
You can be structurally sound and accessible without falling into cliche. I was really disappointed with "Slumdog Millionaire" because in the end, it really wound up relying on a seriously old school melodramatic cliche among other things.
My roots are in theater, offbeat, avant garde or absurdist theater. I have been influenced by more playwrights (Pinter, Albee, Stoppard, Ionesco) and stand-up comedians (Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, Steve Martin) than I have been by screenwriters.
I have had to work to fight against my resistance to conventional three-act structure. When I read Syd Field's classic "Screenplay" back in the 80's I couldn't get through it, I was so disgusted by the idea that the art of cinema could be boiled down to a simple formula, X, Y and Z by page 10, An Act Break on or around page 30, Act 2A, mid-point, Act 2B, another Act Break on page 60 or 90 depending on how long the film is etc.
So my early screenplays were, in fact "a series of biting, poignant, gut-punchingly visceral moments that make you want to laugh or cry" as an almost defiant stance against the industry standard. There are filmmakers who can get away with doing this but, for the most part, I am not one of them or, I should say, I was not one of them.
As a screenwriting teacher and a writer-for-hire I have found that I have to utilize three-act structure and I have come to recognize it as a beautiful thing, a convention to work within and to push the boundaries of and I can appreciate when a film hits its marks like a precision instrument as much as I can appreciate the rare film that defies convention and still succeeds.
The film that opened this past weekend, adhered to three act-structure for the most part when I wrote it. The director's re-write did not. "Aftermath" the screenplay that I am selling, does not adhere to three-act structure in the conventional sense. A colleague of mine, screenwriter Joe Stinson, who wrote four screenplays for Clint Eastwood (including the line, yes, "Go ahead, make my day") read "Aftermath" and told me You managed to break all of the rules of screenwriting and still come up with a piece that works." Yay for me.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
