THE SPEC THAT GOT YOU STAFFED

Q. The one thing I would love to see more than anything is a first time staff writer's spec/specs that got them staffed. I know personality and all is a big part too...but always curious how good/original their spec's actually are in order for them to rise above all the rest.

That's a challenging idea. What immediately comes to mind is "no way I'm letting anyone see how bad a writer I was five years ago!" Another issue is that television has changed and grown, and whatever Ken Levine's specs were when he was first staffed, for example, might seem hackneyed simply because television was hackneyed. If you read a Gilligan's Island now, whether spec or produced, you'd see the flip cut coming a mile off --

          GILLIGAN
     There's no way I'm putting on a red dress
     and dancing the samba!

                                  CUT TO:

GILLIGAN

in a red dress, dancing the samba.

But then, another name for the flip cut is "the Gilligan."

It's that old remark about Shakespeare: he's that guy who writes in clichés!

Television has changed. You could look at a perfect Miami Vice spec, for example, and fall asleep at the pace the plot develops. But the same is true for the produced scripts from the show. One plotline? One plotline???

Another problem is that until you're good enough to get staffed, you may not realize just why Ken Levine's spec was so brilliant at the time. You just wouldn't see it. Part of learning your craft is seeing other people's craft. The more I know about writing, the more I can appreciate other people's writing.

And then, of course, there's personality. You do get staffed for personality. You get staffed for quick wit and likability and being easy to be around.

I guess my question is: what would you get out of reading Josh Schwartz's no-doubt-kickass Original Spec? Would you feel daunted, and quit? Or figure you just have a lot to learn? What would you get out of reading my not-so-kickass ancient Buffy spec? Would you figure "Heh. If Epstein could get staffed with this junk, I'm not so far off"? Or would you figure that no one in show business can appreciate a good script and it's all a crap shoot?

I feel that if you need to be a TV writer, you probably will. And if you don't need to be, you probably won't. Like any other endeavor, the laurels go to the ones who devote themselves to their calling. I find that tracking other people's genius is too wearing. There are people whose scripts I think suck who luck into stuff. There are people like Denis McGrath who I hope will throw me some scripts when they get their own shows. I just try to worry about making my own scripts as good as they can be while still finishing them, and praying now and then that I continue to be able to support myself in this crazy business.

Technorati tags: screenwriting; TV; film

DER UNTERGANG

We watched Downfall, about the last days of the Reich. It's a profoundly strange picture, that recreates with deep empathy and humanity the last days of Adolf Hitler and the people who most believed in him. I say empathy because, of course, it has no sympathy for them. They have perpetrated the most heinous crimes upon the world and destroyed their own country. And yet here are real flesh and blood people who have put their faith in the wrong place -- in a raving, homicidal lunatic, a misplaced devotion to duty and honor, and a sick ideology of superiority. And in that faith there is no evil they are not willing to do.

It's the other side of Schindler's List. You watch Schindler's List to learn that yes, these horrors really happened. And you watch Downfall to see that the people that created these horrors devoutly believed that they were fighting the good fight against all kind of evils -- communism, and Western decadence, and the poisonous Jewish race. They held onto their belief that they were superior even after all the evidence was obviously against it; after all, they were getting their asses kicked. They simply retreated into faith.

It is a good reminder not to trust leaders past the point of your own common sense and your own humanity. When an entire nation puts its faith blindly in a leader, that leader can lead them into Hell.

I hope you rent it, as a powerful movie, or as a deep investigation of sympathy versus empathy. Not one of the characters in this movie is "likable" -- the only blameless creature in it is Hitler's dog. Every single human being in the movie has it coming big time. And yet you want to see what happens to them, what it's like to be them.

And you pray: God save us all from idealism run out of control.

Technorati tags: film

SCOOPED, DAMMIT

Some clever Australian has come out with a book called How to Buy and Sell Art, damn him, scooping Lisa's title, How to Buy Art. So now we need a new title.

Her book, in case you're wondering, is about how to buy art: contemporary paintings, prints, photos, 19th Century works, sculpture, ethnic art, and Oriental carpets. It's for the intelligent layman who just wants beautiful things in his or her place and doesn't have a museum's budget. Small enough for your jacket pocket. Warns about all the major pitfalls in buying fakes and smuggled works. Tells you what to look for and what to look out for.

So... here's another title contest. Can you guys come up with a title to replace How to Buy Art? Anyone who pitches a title close to one Lisa eventually uses, gets a free signed copy of the book.

Technorati tags: art; connoisseurship

JARGON WATCH

My ex-friend Anne Rubinstein, the painter, once said, "I love paint! I'd eat it if I could." I'm the same with words. I love them so much, I don't mind when I have to eat them.

Heh. Sorry.

The American Dialect Society voted "truthiness" the word best describing 2005, while "podcast" was voted the most useful word of 2005. "Whale tail" describes a thong riding up over a girl's (hopefully) pants, while "muffin top" describes what happens when someone's overoptimistic about their waist measurement.

And, of course, there's "jump the couch."

Here's the press release, rewritten as an AP article; here's the full download. It never hurts to be hep to the jive.

Technorati tags: screenwriting; TV; film

MY QUESTION FOR KEN

Ken Levine posts a reassuring list of prior credits for the Sopranos writing staff. Great stuff, like the new Flipper and The Secret Squirrel Show.

So my question for Ken is, what went right?

I meant, obviously these writers didn't suddenly become good writers. They were either good writers writing crap on those other shows, or they were crap writers and David Chase taught them all how to write. Or, he has a Magic Bird that sings him the scripts at night.

What went right in the Sopranos writing room that makes the show so good. Is it all David Chase? Or was it chemistry? Was it a lucky shot at a great template? Was it HBO letting them alone to do their work? Etc.

Moreover, is a question of shows being good until they go wrong? Can you blame bad shows on network interference, coke and divorces? Or are shows bad until the showrunner makes them good? Do you need to create a certain environment -- visionary showrunner, passionate network exec, strong, well-funded writing room -- and do many other things in order for shows to go right?

I have my own ideas, but I wanna hear Ken's, 'cause he's a couple dozen writing rooms ahead of me, by my count.

Technorati tags: screenwriting; TV

READING FOR AWARDS

I'm reading scripts in the Comedy/Variety division for the Canadian Screenwriting Awards. It's an interesting exercise because I haven't necessarily seen every show that's submitting; and the scripts, of course, don't stop to explain who the characters are.

Is it true that in a well-crafted script you get who the characters are from their distinctive style of speaking, even if you don't know the show? Or do you need to have seen the show -- or be reading the pilot -- to get who they are?

In a few cases where I felt there might be something I really wasn't getting, I went back and checked out the show. And what wasn't funny when I didn't know the show, still wasn't funny. If the show's well written, you get who the characters are, even if you haven't seen it. Funny is funny.

I remember reading my friend Heidi's Roseanne spec and laughing out loud, even though I hadn't seen the show in years, and I couldn't remember who Jackie was.

So that's the standard, then. Someone should be able to read your script even if they don't know the show, and get (at least by the end of the read) what that character's about.

I don't know how you do that for a CSI, but that's one reason I'm not speccing a CSI.

Technorati tags: screenwriting; TV

OH CANADA

Just got a call from someone asking about emigrating here -- not a screenwriter. I am all for people moving here -- I think Montreal is the undiscovered secret of North America. But I also got an email a while ago asking:

Q. Would you recommend Canada to spec-monkey screen/TV writers? Nurturing and snow sound pretty good to me.

Canada is a good place to start if you're Canadian. If you're not, it may not be that easy to get in. In order to apply to immigrate to Canada, you have to show you can make a living. Graduate degrees help. Fluency in French helps. Large chunks of money in the bank help. But ultimately they want to know that you can make a living doing what you do. If you don't have credits as a screenwriter, you're going to have to find another rubric under which to apply to immigrate. I applied as a producer, based on my development experience, though I've been working as a writer since.

The process seems to take about 18 months these days. When I applied in 2000 it took 6 months. Hmmm. I wonder what would have caused the number of applications to soar?

If you can get into Canada as a permanent resident, then yes, it is easier to break into TV. The same amount of effort will get you further in Canada than in LA, because it's a more nurturing environment. Also, if you've spent any time in LA, that will give you some cachet here. A lot of people took meetings with me when I got here because I'd spent 14 years in LA. They probably figured I must know something.

On the other hand, if you do break in, you haven't broken into US TV, you've broken into Canadian TV, which is a small and relatively limited world. You would then need to break into US TV from Canada, which isn't easy, either, even with credits. Not only is it hard to break in from far away, your Canadian credits will be on shows no one has heard of, and agents in LA look down their noses on anything that doesn't originate in LA or New York.

If you are Canadian, therefore, I would suggest staying here and making your bones before heading South. Take advantage of what you've got. But if you are not, then you might want to try to make it in LA. Save up a bit of money, go to work at an agency, learn what people are looking for, and teach yourself how to write.

Technorati tags: screenwriting; TV

UNPACKING

No, not that kind. I've been going through the Exposure pilot while we wait for everyone to get back to their desks. It's a good story with good charactrs, but it feels a little hard to follow. I think I went overboard being terse -- I tried to keep it under 55 pages so as not to scary anyone, though the dialog style should be fairly quick and quippy. So now I'm adding maybe just a couple pages worth of lines. Sort of the opposite of nips and tucks and trims -- just a word or a line here and there that gives us a better mental picture what we're watching, or gives us a little more of the feeling each character has in the scene. I've made a few lines of dialog more distinctive here and there, added a small background joke or two. Making the script a tad more user friendly.

So there I am, opposite-of-nipping-and-tucking (whatever that word is) until I get bigger notes... Meanwhile a few people have read Gone to Soldiers and it is not incomprehensible in spite of its 5 time lines, thank the Goddess; and the people who read Medieval got a kick out of it. A quiet day of minor good news...

Technorati tags: screenwriting; TV