Test Scene for 'Niecy'

Greetings, everyone! The following video is a test scene from my most recent screenplay Niecy. Niecy was most recently named a drama finalist at The Script-a-Thon. Hope everyone likes it! I did it as a project for the Richard Lawson Studios.

Happy Filmmaking!

Script-a-Thon Winners!

So, I didn't win. But it was a great ride while it lasted. Just remember, we all get better with each mile.

http://www.thescriptathon.com/finalists.html

Happy Filmmaking!

The Science of Filmmaking

I came across an interesting article in the LA-based free street periodical Brand X today. Under the title “Quantum Filmmaking,” there was a woman filmmaker named Valerie Weiss. Weiss transitioned from a biophysicist with a Harvard PhD to a filmmaker, currently in pre-production for her first film.

Many filmmakers have a “day job,” but this article demonstrates how one can use aspects and experiences in that day job in order to shape their creative streak. Weiss explains how scientists use creativity in order to form theories and hypotheses and take risks. She believes science and filmmaking should coincide, based on their career similarities. In that sense, Weiss used her background to her advantage.

When it comes to science, however, most filmmakers wing it. There are plenty of websites dedicated to so-called “movie physics.” Everything from warp speed, to flashing bullets, to window glass that shatters on impact, to mid-90s era Macbooks taking down alien motherships, to living blobs with a taste for human flesh. Even recently, Cracked readers played homage to film science. One cannot really blame filmmakers for the misconception since most audience members will suspend their disbelief for a good story.

Because of the overwhelming stereotypes of science and scientists in cinema, many foundations issue grants and awards to filmmakers who portray the field in a positive and groundbreaking light. The two career fields benefit from such a marriage because the filmmaker will receive the support needed for a project, and the scientific industry will receive a renewed interest from aspiring scholars. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Grant, for example, grants current film students production and screenwriting funds in exchange for a non-stereotypical depiction of a scientist or engineer:

The one condition of all submissions is that they portray science and/or scientists in realistic, non-stereotypical ways. They do not necessarily have to be sympathetic characters, and the story does not have to be strictly about science. Sloan is interested in reading about scientists as human beings whether they’re fallible or heroic. The stories can be totally fiction or based on an actual event or person.

For accuracy, the scripts have to be approved by an actual scientist, such as a faculty member of the awarding university. Weiss joined a program called the Catalyst Workshop, sponsored by AFI. The program only takes professional scientists interested in filmmaking and is partially funded by the US Department of Defense.

One thing is for certain, real or not, you can always count on cinema to make science cool. Think about all the times CSI must have blown your mind.

Happy Filmmaking!

Why I rejected your script

When I read scripts, there are certain elements I look for that will tell me whether or not a particular spec script should be optioned. I hate to say it, but 90% of the scripts I read are recycled junk. Nothing personal, just business. I usually know if I would pass on a script within the first ten pages, and any serious script reader knows the same. Why would I reject your labor of love?

The fastest PASS would have:

• Grammatical errors. I overlook one or two, but when becomes obvious you did not proofread your script before submitting it to production companies and agents, why should I care as well? NEVER turn in your first draft as a spec.
• A copy of a story recently released. Audiences do not need another copy of an already popular movie. Let the studios fight among themselves.
• Complicated, hard-to-follow plot. Plot holes, new characters not introduced earlier, unanswered questions, and illogical obstacles all scream pass. If I, a cinephile with a degree in film studies, cannot follow your plot, a lay audience sure as hell won’t.
• One-dimensional and boring characters. No one wants to see a blasé character on screen for 90 minutes. Your main characters should follow some type of character arc. See my earlier blog on characterization for examples of boring characters.
• The director’s job done for him/her. One of my largest pet peeves. Do not expect to direct your spec script. If you want to direct, produce it yourself. When writers write in long montages, camera angles, and invisible actor motivations (eg, “he doesn’t know how attracted he is to her”), you are doing the director’s job. Stick to the bare storytelling bones.
• Flowery and overly-descriptive actions. A script is not a novel. A screenwriter should not go into too much detail about a scene or what a character is wearing, but rather the action itself. Too much description clogs the script, stops the story, and does the job of the director, the cinematographer, and the art director.
• A story that goes nowhere. A script has to progress to some climax and conclusion. Open conclusions are in vogue, but they are still conclusions to a story. Nothing is worse than a story that runs out of steam halfway through the script.

Things that would stop a RECOMMEND but not necessarily grant a PASS:

• An unoriginal story. Why should I care about this particular story? What is unique about it? If you believe everything has been done, I can accept this philosophy as well. Some formulas just work. However, what do you have to bring to the table?
• Clichéd characters. This is dangerous ground. We all are comfortable with the hard-drinking, crusty detective and the love-sick, 30-something career woman, but a writer starts treading on thin ice when stereotypes form. For example, I read a script that took place in 19th-century New Orleans that had every stereotype imaginable. The story took place during Mardi Gras and involved an out-of-touch Northerner, Afro-Creole dock workers eating hot sauce, a morally ambiguous Cajun man, prostitutes in Storyville, zombies, a trip to Jackson Square and Bourbon Street, and a Creole voodoo priestess who lives a bohemian lifestyle. As a native of the Creole Gulf Coast, I was offended to say the least.
• Elements in the script that would unnecessarily inflate the budget. Do you have to have one of your characters meet Will Smith? Can’t you just make-up an A-list celebrity in the universe you create for your character? Also, having a character bungee off of Victoria Falls may look cool, but may not add anything to the story. Neither would blowing up a Ferrari Enzo.
• Script does not follow genre rules. I am more flexible on this than others I know, but the audiences expect certain rules when it comes to genres. For example, you expect a thriller to be fast-paced, action-driven, and full of twists and obstacles. But there is a thin line between being original and poking fun at your audience for following the formula.

I want your script to do well; you will up the odds for the rest of us. Please only use my advice as a guide. Some script readers will have different standards. It may sound like a crapshoot, but I know that—at least in my case—I try to be as objective as possible.

Happy Filmmaking!

“Smokey the Bear must be a pyromaniac”…and other crazy things people blurt out.

Originally published on my myspace page.

Today's blog is about developing good and natural sounding dialogue. Writers tend to want to be witty through their characters' dialogue and try too hard, resulting in stale, unnatural lines. The best way to learn natural dialogue is through people-watching or engaging into a conversation with someone close.

Think of these questions when writing dialogue:

• What does your character like to talk about?
• What events are happening in a character's life?
• What is your character's personality?
• Is your character cynical, witty, monotone?
• What is your character's age, gender, creed, and race?
• What is your character's political background?
• What is your character's socioeconomic status?
• What is your character's daily routine?
• Who hangs around your character?

A popular trend nowadays is to have a character blurt out witty, but disturbing one-liners, especially in comedies. Films and television shows that follow this trend with positive results include Little Miss Sunshine, Superbad, Juno, Ugly Betty, South Park, Wedding Crashers, and Mean Girls. This trend works because people do indeed say awkward things to their friends and family members. However, it is important not to overdo this in an attempt to cover up a lack of good dialogue. Your characters must be saying something relevant to the storyline.

Dialogue follows trends of the decade. In the 1930s and 40s, when film noir and screwball comedies were popular, characters were smart, cynical, fast-talking, and pessimistic. In the late 50s to early 60s, film dialogue softened tremendously towards a melodramatic side. If you are writing about a particular period of time, especially within the last century, take note on how films portrayed their contemporaries. Because the studio system used to hire scores of writers on one project, dialogue was usually done well.

English-language Films known for their excellent dialogue:
Casablanca (1942)
It Happened One Night (1934)
Sunset Blvd (1950)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Network (1975)
Toy Story (1995)
Godfather (1972)
The Player (1992)
Office Space (1999)

English-language "classics" with cheesy, over-the-top dialogue:
Showgirls (1995)
Top Gun (1986)
Catwoman (2004)
Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)
Gigli (2003)

Check this out, too: http://www.filmsite.org/greatfilmquotes.html

Happy Filmmaking!

Story structure in about ten minutes

I originally posted this on my myspace page.

Every film, creative writing, and theatre student at some point has groaned their way through Aristotle’s Poetics, usually in their first year of study. Like it or not, Poetics has been the storytelling model in the Western World for centuries. In a nutshell, Aristotle says this:

1. Poetry (or for our purposes, cinema) is divided into three main genres: tragedy, comedy, and epic.
2. Every poem has a beginning, middle, and end.
3. Tragedy (the genre Poetics focuses on) has six main components: ethos (character), mythos (plot), lexis (language), dianoia (thought or theme), melos (melody), and opsis (spectacle).
4. The most important component is mythos.
5. A successful tragedy has a pathos or emotional appeal that the main character should endure, either successfully or unsuccessfully.

So, what can we learn from this little lesson on classic rhetoric? We can apply Aristotle’s methods of storytelling to modern language:

1. All stories are made of characters, plot, and settings. All stories also have a purpose, whether it is to teach or entertain.
2. Stories by nature have audiences.
3. The most important element of ANY script or film is the PLOT. Without a plot, there is no story.
4. The next most important element is character.
5. For a story to be successful, something has to happen to our character, a conflict.
6. Stories have an introduction, build-up, a climax, and a resolution, as well as smaller plot points. This is usually called the Three-Act Structure. A diagram is below.


The largest portion of your story will be the build-up to the climax. Usually the character will face more obstacles, making his/her ultimate goal less obtainable. Other subtexts may occur (which would be the thought and theme part).

Many screenwriters and filmmakers focus too much on character, usually believing that their interesting characters will make up for their lack of plot. Usually this concept is false. While there is a thing such as a “character-driven story,” we are reminded that Aristotle says something has to happen to that character in order to hold the audience’s interest. It is more successful to have a thrilling plot and almost no characters, than vise versa.

The best examples I can give are the films of one of the great cinema masters: Sergei Eisenstein. Soviet films are usually devoid of individual characters (kind of a Communist aesthetic). My favorite Eisenstein film is Strike!

Strike! has an excellent plot and almost no individual characters. The “characters” are the striking factory workers and the proletariat (as a unit) and the bourgeois ruling class (as a unit). The factory workers meet in secret about forming unions and striking for better working conditions. They are move to strike when one of their own is accused of stealing factory equipment. He is told the missing equipment will come out of his salary—which he cannot afford—and he hangs himself in grief. Check it out when you can.

Happy filmmaking!