Surgeons are experts. They know what to do, but sometimes they forget to do it.
I wonder if we could come up with checklists for screenwriting. Items like these:
STORY PITCH
BEAT SHEET
STEP OUTLINE
SCRIPT
LOW BUDGET
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Checklists
Dr. Atul Gawande is one of the most compelling popular writers about medicine. He likes to examine how medicine works, as a system; to diagnose, if you will, the corpus of medicine. One of the most effective ways to reduce complications and deaths from surgery, he's found, is simple: checklists. Pilots have checklists. Why not surgeons? His team found that instituting checklists reduced complications by 33% and deaths by 47%.
Surgeons are experts. They know what to do, but sometimes they forget to do it.
I wonder if we could come up with checklists for screenwriting. Items like these:
STORY PITCH
Do you have a compelling hook?
Have you checked your hook with civilians to make sure it's really attractive?
Have you checked your hook with professionals to make sure it's viable in the marketplace?
Are the five elements of story all strong? (They are: a compelling main character; an opportunity, problem or goal; obstacles and / or an antagonist; jeopardy; stakes.)
Does the ending deliver the goods that the beginning promised?
Does the story deliver the right goods for the movie's genre?
BEAT SHEET
Do all the characters come from your background, or, where appropriate, have you made them diverse?
Does the story take place in a fresh/entertaining/cinematic/fun/spectacular place? Given the budget you're writing for, could you move it to one?
STEP OUTLINE
Does each scene take place in a fresh/entertaining/spectacular or character-revelatory location? Given the budget you're writing for, could you move it to one?
What is the conflict driving each scene?
How does each scene advance the story? (Note: story is not the same as plot. A scene can advance the story by revealing backstory that increases stakes or jeopardy.)
What does each scene (including action scenes) reveal about the characters?
Track the sequence of NIGHT and DAY scenes. Make sure they feel right.
SCRIPT
Is every line of dialog in the character's voice?
As much as possible, is every line of dialog distinctive to the character, so that only he or she could say it?
LOW BUDGET
Can you move any EXT. NIGHT scenes to indoors, or EXT. DAY?
For each scene, can you reduce the number of characters you'll need to cover (not just speaking but reacting parts)?
Surgeons are experts. They know what to do, but sometimes they forget to do it.
I wonder if we could come up with checklists for screenwriting. Items like these:
STORY PITCH
BEAT SHEET
STEP OUTLINE
SCRIPT
LOW BUDGET
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Pixar Rules for Storytelling
22 Pixar rules for breaking story. Including some new ones:
#1: You admire a character for trying more than for their successes.
#9: When you're stuck, make a list of what WOULDN'T happen next. Lots of times the material to get you unstuck will show up.
#12: Discount the 1st thing that comes to mind. And the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th – get the obvious out of the way. Surprise yourself.
Friday, June 08, 2012
Q. Have you ever tried crowdfunding?
A. No, I haven't.
Periodically I get emails from people who are crowdfunding their movie and want me to post about it. And I know Jane Espenson has been raising money for her web series via Kickstarter.
I haven't tried for a number of reasons. One, I don't like producing. I have produced or helped produce some of my shorts, but I much preferred the experience on YOU ARE SO UNDEAD, where I didn't have to worry my pretty little head about any of the details of the money. I'm the producer on the feature I want to direct, ALICE FOUND ALIVE, because the funding stream I'm trying to access requires that the director own the copyright; and because you don't make any real money producing a million dollar feature up here.
(My producer friend Avi told a crowd of us at the CFC Short Film Festival that he produces million dollar features as a passion; and he works as a line producer in order to cover the money he doesn't make as a producer. Since then he's gone into distributing; vertical integration should give him more of an upside.)
Two, I don't see that anyone's put together a serious amount of money via crowdfunding. Jane Espenson raised, I think, her goal of $60,000 through Kickstarter. A couple of observations.
One, Jane is a showrunner. A lot of people want to get on her good side. I bet she has a $250,000 crew working for free.
Two, Jane has a huge fan base thanks to her Buffy and Battlestar credits. I don't see anyone raising more than Jane, except Joss Himself.
Three, Jane can make $60,000 writing a free lance TV script, which probably takes her a week. I think Jane is doing it because it's interesting and experimental and fun. When Joss wanted to make Dr. Horrible, he just wrote a bunch of checks. Faster that way.
Four, I don't need $60,000 to make my film. I need a million bucks. That's just my appetite. I don't know anybody who knows how to produce a film for a hundred grand that looks and sounds good enough to get distribution.
(Ask Bill Cunningham. He knows.)
Everyone has an appetite. Michael Bay probably doesn't know how to make a film for under a hundred million, at least not one that he'd be willing to spend two years on.
I think there are going to be people who put together a brilliant viral campaign to crowdfund a film that they make for $100,000. But they are going to need luck. And they are going to have to do a tremendous amount of work to get their project out there; and for every successful crowdfunded movie there are going to be forty five that don't get their funding.
I'm fortunate to live in Quebec, where there is huge government support for the arts. So it makes more sense for me to government fund my stuff.
On the other hand, we'll see what happens when the agencies come back with their answers. If there's a substantial hole in the financing, I may come back to y'all with my hand out...
UPDATE: These guys are funding their $150,000 P&A through crowdfunding.
Periodically I get emails from people who are crowdfunding their movie and want me to post about it. And I know Jane Espenson has been raising money for her web series via Kickstarter.
I haven't tried for a number of reasons. One, I don't like producing. I have produced or helped produce some of my shorts, but I much preferred the experience on YOU ARE SO UNDEAD, where I didn't have to worry my pretty little head about any of the details of the money. I'm the producer on the feature I want to direct, ALICE FOUND ALIVE, because the funding stream I'm trying to access requires that the director own the copyright; and because you don't make any real money producing a million dollar feature up here.
(My producer friend Avi told a crowd of us at the CFC Short Film Festival that he produces million dollar features as a passion; and he works as a line producer in order to cover the money he doesn't make as a producer. Since then he's gone into distributing; vertical integration should give him more of an upside.)
Two, I don't see that anyone's put together a serious amount of money via crowdfunding. Jane Espenson raised, I think, her goal of $60,000 through Kickstarter. A couple of observations.
One, Jane is a showrunner. A lot of people want to get on her good side. I bet she has a $250,000 crew working for free.
Two, Jane has a huge fan base thanks to her Buffy and Battlestar credits. I don't see anyone raising more than Jane, except Joss Himself.
Three, Jane can make $60,000 writing a free lance TV script, which probably takes her a week. I think Jane is doing it because it's interesting and experimental and fun. When Joss wanted to make Dr. Horrible, he just wrote a bunch of checks. Faster that way.
Four, I don't need $60,000 to make my film. I need a million bucks. That's just my appetite. I don't know anybody who knows how to produce a film for a hundred grand that looks and sounds good enough to get distribution.
(Ask Bill Cunningham. He knows.)
Everyone has an appetite. Michael Bay probably doesn't know how to make a film for under a hundred million, at least not one that he'd be willing to spend two years on.
I think there are going to be people who put together a brilliant viral campaign to crowdfund a film that they make for $100,000. But they are going to need luck. And they are going to have to do a tremendous amount of work to get their project out there; and for every successful crowdfunded movie there are going to be forty five that don't get their funding.
I'm fortunate to live in Quebec, where there is huge government support for the arts. So it makes more sense for me to government fund my stuff.
On the other hand, we'll see what happens when the agencies come back with their answers. If there's a substantial hole in the financing, I may come back to y'all with my hand out...
UPDATE: These guys are funding their $150,000 P&A through crowdfunding.
Thursday, June 07, 2012
Preposterous
We watched the utterly preposterous and mostly adorable heist movie OCEAN'S TWELVE. The plot is borderline incoherent. Basically it's an excuse to watch big, big stars do their thing.
And they do, adorably. There are scenes between Brad Pitt and George Clooney that you just want to loop over and over because they're so much fun to watch, even when they're barely doing anything -- especially when they're barely doing anything, because any actor can do something and look interesting, but it takes a star to do nothing and make it interesting.
(I did a couple of seasons of Meisner Technique acting training in order to learn to direct and write better, and I got to watch some actors with star quality. There were actors who came in with the right interpretation of the scene. But two actors in particular, Mariska Hargitay and Clare Carey, could come in with completely the wrong interpretation of the scene and yet you couldn't take your eyes off them. They both went on to leads on TV shows)
OCEAN'S TWELVE made $125 million bucks domestic. Not huge, considering the cast, but they made another one, so I doubt they lost any money. I suspect it did bigger numbers overseas. It's a spectacle movie. You're not really watching for a story. The story is there to support set pieces -- dramatic or comic scenes where the stars are on fire, and action sequences that are just huge fun to watch.
I care a lot about story; I'm a writer after all. I have to remind myself from time to time that it's not just story that the audience is paying for. They will also gladly pay for spectacle. In fact, forced to choose between a great story and an amazing spectacle, a big chunk of the audience will choose spectacle. (See TRANSFORMERS and the STAR WARS prequels.)
The spectacle movies will date themselves really fast, as the tech improves. Movies with great stories will last. But if you get a chance to write the next Transformers movie, you can watch the next Martin Scorsese on the 3D screen in your giant Hollywood mansion.
Fortunately, you can write spectacle too. You don't have to wait for the director to add it. You can imagine the action sequences so they're spectacular. And I believe there is a way to write big parts for stars. I think it has something to do with letting the scenes breathe a little bit -- give the characters room to be stars.
And they do, adorably. There are scenes between Brad Pitt and George Clooney that you just want to loop over and over because they're so much fun to watch, even when they're barely doing anything -- especially when they're barely doing anything, because any actor can do something and look interesting, but it takes a star to do nothing and make it interesting.
(I did a couple of seasons of Meisner Technique acting training in order to learn to direct and write better, and I got to watch some actors with star quality. There were actors who came in with the right interpretation of the scene. But two actors in particular, Mariska Hargitay and Clare Carey, could come in with completely the wrong interpretation of the scene and yet you couldn't take your eyes off them. They both went on to leads on TV shows)
OCEAN'S TWELVE made $125 million bucks domestic. Not huge, considering the cast, but they made another one, so I doubt they lost any money. I suspect it did bigger numbers overseas. It's a spectacle movie. You're not really watching for a story. The story is there to support set pieces -- dramatic or comic scenes where the stars are on fire, and action sequences that are just huge fun to watch.
I care a lot about story; I'm a writer after all. I have to remind myself from time to time that it's not just story that the audience is paying for. They will also gladly pay for spectacle. In fact, forced to choose between a great story and an amazing spectacle, a big chunk of the audience will choose spectacle. (See TRANSFORMERS and the STAR WARS prequels.)
The spectacle movies will date themselves really fast, as the tech improves. Movies with great stories will last. But if you get a chance to write the next Transformers movie, you can watch the next Martin Scorsese on the 3D screen in your giant Hollywood mansion.
Fortunately, you can write spectacle too. You don't have to wait for the director to add it. You can imagine the action sequences so they're spectacular. And I believe there is a way to write big parts for stars. I think it has something to do with letting the scenes breathe a little bit -- give the characters room to be stars.
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
Grilled Cheese Title
I need to list my cheese trilogy on the IMDB. Which title most makes you (a) laugh and (b) want to check it out?
The one line synopsis is, "Pieces of cheese struggle with issues of politics, social class, and love."
Crafty Kindle
Just signed a deal that should be CRAFTY SCREENWRITING into the Kindle store shortly. Thanks for all your support -- I've been forwarding all your letters to my publisher. Seems to have worked!
Monday, June 04, 2012
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Rewatching Easy Rider
Lisa and I watched EASY RIDER, which I hadn't seen in, well, a long time.
I remembered the basic idea: a couple of longhairs on motorcycles ride through the South. They get a lot of flak from the inhabitants of Nixonland, who treat them like they're a couple of dope dealers out to corrupt America.
Oddly, I'd forgotten the very beginning of the movie, where they make a bunch of money smuggling cocaine into the US. So, I realize, they are a couple of dope dealers. Which puts a different spin on the reaction of all the buzz cuts to these bikers that I remember so well. Yes, the buzz cuts are leaping to assumptions, sometimes with inhumane violence and prejudice. On the other hand, their assumptions are correct.
I looked up Vincent Canby's review:
Is it that drugs don't seem quite as fluffy and adorable as they did when I grew up? Is it that I'm older and wiser, to the point where I can see the degree to which the bikers are being provocative wherever they go, even if the reaction they provoke is excessive?
I guess it's a mark of honor that the film can read so differently at any age, while still feeling emotionally truthful. I remember reading that a man should read Don Quixote three times in order to understand it: as a young man, as a middle aged man, and as an old man. A more polemical movie might not hold up so well.
I remembered the basic idea: a couple of longhairs on motorcycles ride through the South. They get a lot of flak from the inhabitants of Nixonland, who treat them like they're a couple of dope dealers out to corrupt America.
Oddly, I'd forgotten the very beginning of the movie, where they make a bunch of money smuggling cocaine into the US. So, I realize, they are a couple of dope dealers. Which puts a different spin on the reaction of all the buzz cuts to these bikers that I remember so well. Yes, the buzz cuts are leaping to assumptions, sometimes with inhumane violence and prejudice. On the other hand, their assumptions are correct.
I looked up Vincent Canby's review:
Nicholson is so good, in fact, that "Easy Rider" never quite recovers from his loss, even though he has had the rather thankless job of spelling out what I take to be the film's statement (upper case). This has to do with the threat that people like the nonconforming Wyatt and Billy represent to the ordinary, self-righteous, inhibited folk that are the Real America. Wyatt and Billy, says the lawyer, represent freedom; ergo, says the film, they must be destroyed.Yep. No mention of their being serious criminals. Nor in Gene Moskowitz's Variety review.
Is it that drugs don't seem quite as fluffy and adorable as they did when I grew up? Is it that I'm older and wiser, to the point where I can see the degree to which the bikers are being provocative wherever they go, even if the reaction they provoke is excessive?
I guess it's a mark of honor that the film can read so differently at any age, while still feeling emotionally truthful. I remember reading that a man should read Don Quixote three times in order to understand it: as a young man, as a middle aged man, and as an old man. A more polemical movie might not hold up so well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)