Loved these two the first time I saw them and have watched them repeatedly. As the years pass, I meet more and more people who haven't seen them or even heard of them, so I'm giving them a shout out here. Both are from 1980:
"The Stunt Man" starring Peter O'Toole, directed by Richard Rush, written by Lawrence Marcus and Richard Rush.
"Breaker Morant" starring Edward Woodward, directed by Bruce Beresford, written by Kenneth Ross and Jonathan Hardy.
The latter is a military courtroom drama set during the Boer War (look it up in Wikipedia if you've never heard of that particular conflict...the movie is based on a true story), the former a story of an arrogant director doing everything in his power, including covering up the death of a stunt man and replacing him with an escaped convict, to finish his film.
"Morant" is a great example of how to open up a stage play for a film. "Stunt Man" has wonderful theme music.
Check 'em out.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Dog Days of Summer
There are a few times during the year when the work slows down. The most obvious one is the end of year holidays. Whether celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or some other religious or secular holiday, mid-December, when office parties are in full swing, to the first week of January is a time of little work. Late July and early August are also a few weeks of lull, then there is Cannes (depending on the company, either during the festival or just after) and Spring Break week. It all adds up to about six weeks a year when little or no work comes in. Such requires expert budgeting of moneys to cover expenses during the lean times.
Like many, I have no patience for budgeting of money. When things are slow, I simply don't eat.
As for filling the time. Working on those scripts that just about any Reader worth his/her salt has stashed in a drawer is always a good idea. Or, if you're really ambitious, continuing work on your version of the Great American Novel. (Note: Philip Roth already wrote a book with that title. If you like baseball, it's a hoot. Can't say there is much potential as a film in it, though.)
But what we live for, like many Writers, is procrastination. Should be rewriting that sitcom spec? Gotta shop for groceries first. Get new batteries for your watches. Mow the lawn. Edge the lawn. Consider buying lawn seed for the bare patches. Hey, there's a "Law and Order" on A&E I haven't seen before.
I'd start writing now, but it's almost lunch time and I want to have a clear three or four hours with no interruptions.
Lunch is over. Gotta watch "NFL Live" on ESPN.
Damn, the rug looks dirty, better vacuum it. Forgot milk at the store, better go before it's too crowded.
Wow, I just got a great idea for a topic for my blog! Better write it before I forget.
A bit hot today. Think I'll wait 'til things cool down before starting on any real work.
You know, "Full House" is a really funny show. And they show four episodes back-to-back on Nickelodeon.
I should check iTunes to see if they have any new music for my iPod. Wow, it's getting near dinner time. The kids come home, the wife comes home. Gotta relax with the family.
But, first thing tomorrow, chapter four of my novel.
Like many, I have no patience for budgeting of money. When things are slow, I simply don't eat.
As for filling the time. Working on those scripts that just about any Reader worth his/her salt has stashed in a drawer is always a good idea. Or, if you're really ambitious, continuing work on your version of the Great American Novel. (Note: Philip Roth already wrote a book with that title. If you like baseball, it's a hoot. Can't say there is much potential as a film in it, though.)
But what we live for, like many Writers, is procrastination. Should be rewriting that sitcom spec? Gotta shop for groceries first. Get new batteries for your watches. Mow the lawn. Edge the lawn. Consider buying lawn seed for the bare patches. Hey, there's a "Law and Order" on A&E I haven't seen before.
I'd start writing now, but it's almost lunch time and I want to have a clear three or four hours with no interruptions.
Lunch is over. Gotta watch "NFL Live" on ESPN.
Damn, the rug looks dirty, better vacuum it. Forgot milk at the store, better go before it's too crowded.
Wow, I just got a great idea for a topic for my blog! Better write it before I forget.
A bit hot today. Think I'll wait 'til things cool down before starting on any real work.
You know, "Full House" is a really funny show. And they show four episodes back-to-back on Nickelodeon.
I should check iTunes to see if they have any new music for my iPod. Wow, it's getting near dinner time. The kids come home, the wife comes home. Gotta relax with the family.
But, first thing tomorrow, chapter four of my novel.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Working With a Writer
Just had the experience of working with a couple of Writers on their scripts. This is the most involving and satisfying part of what I do and I wish I could do more of it. (Whatever happened to the old-time "Story Editor" position, where a person could just work on developing scripts rather than trying to bring the material to the company?)
I always approach working with a Writer from the angle that it's their vision, I'm just here to help them refine it. If I point out that certain speeches seem a little preachy and find they've been left in on the next draft, I have to go with the notion that the Writer wants to make the point in that manner. Obsessing over something like that in draft after draft only wastes time. It's their script and should reflect their point-of-view. If I take the stance of "do what I tell you, regardless of what you feel is best," I'm taking away their creativity. The script should be their voice in telling the story, so I focus on trying to make sure the story's basic foundations are in place. That the plot and characters are set up well, that it offers complications and solutions that serve the story and that things are wrapped up in a manner befitting the story. Whether or not it's a "happy ending" is up to the Writer. After all, it's up to them to sell the story. The most I can do is try to point out ways to tell their story in the best possible manner.
I always approach working with a Writer from the angle that it's their vision, I'm just here to help them refine it. If I point out that certain speeches seem a little preachy and find they've been left in on the next draft, I have to go with the notion that the Writer wants to make the point in that manner. Obsessing over something like that in draft after draft only wastes time. It's their script and should reflect their point-of-view. If I take the stance of "do what I tell you, regardless of what you feel is best," I'm taking away their creativity. The script should be their voice in telling the story, so I focus on trying to make sure the story's basic foundations are in place. That the plot and characters are set up well, that it offers complications and solutions that serve the story and that things are wrapped up in a manner befitting the story. Whether or not it's a "happy ending" is up to the Writer. After all, it's up to them to sell the story. The most I can do is try to point out ways to tell their story in the best possible manner.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Annoying Things in Scripts (Part One)
If you read enough stories of any type, certain cliches, genre conventions and repetitions of ideas begin to stand out. Since popular entertainment can sometimes be simply finding an interesting new way of telling an old story, it's not necessary for a Reader to point out every time a Writer is merely recycling old ideas. With a couple creative elements, "everything old is new again."
But that doesn't mean everything needs to be joyously embraced by a Reader. In my little part of the world, there can be many things that stand out as being repeated so many times by so many Writers that I just want to say "enough." I realize I'm screaming into the abyss (particularly with one of them, for it's too popular a situation in its genre to trash can), but I'm bringing them up anyhow.
First is the horror film set up of (basically, with only minor deviations), "six college-age people travel to a remote location where their cell phones don't work and they're attacked by..." Fill in the last part yourself. It can be one of their own party, a monster, an alien, a serial killer, an animal...you know, you've all seen this story, probably more than a dozen times. Obviously, this is a pretty standard set up for a horror story and many more films will be made from it, but why not a little variation at times? Find a creative way to put the characters in a location teeming with people, but no one can help. Have their cell phones work, but help can't come. Something to make it more than just the basic set up.
Then there are certain situations that pop up in way too many romantic comedies. First of all, I'd like say that I generally like romantic comedies. As long as they make me laugh a few times and I feel that the two folks belong together, I find them a satisfying experience. That said, can we get past using "the big lie" as a plot point? You know, one character tells a lie to the other for some reason in the beginning of the story, doesn't come clean when they could in the middle and the other person gets really angry as things just seem to be heating up and breaks off the relationship. Of course, this monumental disruption to the relationship is typically smoothed over about twenty pages later, so I just never buy into the whole "you've destroyed my trust in you" speech when it's delivered. Walking hand-in-hand with this is the fact that the "wronged" party never allows the liar to explain. Usually, there is an understandable reason why the person lied, usually having to do with the fact that the circumstances of their relationship have changed over time, but the wronged person won't listen. This is basically just false conflict. A Writer who can't think of anything else to do, so they fall back on having one person storm off. Be creative. Try harder.
That and having one character see the other in an embrace of some sort, jump to the wrong conclusion but not try to find out the truth. That's just another lame, too-easy-to-do plot turning point that makes my eyes roll into the back of my head. It's especially disappointing if the script has me hooked up until then.
Basically, don't fall back on overused cliches if you can possibly avoid them. There's always the chance someone out there has avoided them and your script is being passed over because they've captured my imagination with something new, not something overused.
But that doesn't mean everything needs to be joyously embraced by a Reader. In my little part of the world, there can be many things that stand out as being repeated so many times by so many Writers that I just want to say "enough." I realize I'm screaming into the abyss (particularly with one of them, for it's too popular a situation in its genre to trash can), but I'm bringing them up anyhow.
First is the horror film set up of (basically, with only minor deviations), "six college-age people travel to a remote location where their cell phones don't work and they're attacked by..." Fill in the last part yourself. It can be one of their own party, a monster, an alien, a serial killer, an animal...you know, you've all seen this story, probably more than a dozen times. Obviously, this is a pretty standard set up for a horror story and many more films will be made from it, but why not a little variation at times? Find a creative way to put the characters in a location teeming with people, but no one can help. Have their cell phones work, but help can't come. Something to make it more than just the basic set up.
Then there are certain situations that pop up in way too many romantic comedies. First of all, I'd like say that I generally like romantic comedies. As long as they make me laugh a few times and I feel that the two folks belong together, I find them a satisfying experience. That said, can we get past using "the big lie" as a plot point? You know, one character tells a lie to the other for some reason in the beginning of the story, doesn't come clean when they could in the middle and the other person gets really angry as things just seem to be heating up and breaks off the relationship. Of course, this monumental disruption to the relationship is typically smoothed over about twenty pages later, so I just never buy into the whole "you've destroyed my trust in you" speech when it's delivered. Walking hand-in-hand with this is the fact that the "wronged" party never allows the liar to explain. Usually, there is an understandable reason why the person lied, usually having to do with the fact that the circumstances of their relationship have changed over time, but the wronged person won't listen. This is basically just false conflict. A Writer who can't think of anything else to do, so they fall back on having one person storm off. Be creative. Try harder.
That and having one character see the other in an embrace of some sort, jump to the wrong conclusion but not try to find out the truth. That's just another lame, too-easy-to-do plot turning point that makes my eyes roll into the back of my head. It's especially disappointing if the script has me hooked up until then.
Basically, don't fall back on overused cliches if you can possibly avoid them. There's always the chance someone out there has avoided them and your script is being passed over because they've captured my imagination with something new, not something overused.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Decision time -- Harry Potter
I wrote earlier about having trouble settling down with a book to read for pleasure when all I do all day is read. Well, this weekend created a dilemma.
You see, I've read every Harry Potter book published and now the new one is out. For the first time, I won't be reading it to my oldest son, he's going to tackle the book on his own. Now, I have to find time to read the book on my own, rather than every morning at breakfast for my son.
(Sigh) Maybe I'll just flip to the back and find out how it all ends....
You see, I've read every Harry Potter book published and now the new one is out. For the first time, I won't be reading it to my oldest son, he's going to tackle the book on his own. Now, I have to find time to read the book on my own, rather than every morning at breakfast for my son.
(Sigh) Maybe I'll just flip to the back and find out how it all ends....
Friday, July 20, 2007
Best Advice I Ever Got (at least as a Reader)
Back to a Reader/Analyst topic.
Possibly the most common question I get from someone who wants to know more about what I do is, "Where do you start when writing a comment?"
The perception is that there could be so much good, bad or indifferent that choosing what to focus on first might be a problem. However, advice I got from my first story editor has proved invaluable and is so simple, you slap your head if you didn't think of it first.
What is the Writer trying to do and do they accomplish it?
From there, you take the first basic step. Identify the genre. Then, what are the basic elements of the genre. Just keep it simple. If it's an action film, did it have exciting action? Were the reasons for the action plausible? Is the story that holds the action together interesting without the action? If not, why?
A romantic comedy? Do you buy into the romance and is it funny? If not, why?
See, simple. Since most comments are typically a page long, you should probably be able to fill a page just answering the simplest questions, from characterization to dialogue to originality.
Possibly the most common question I get from someone who wants to know more about what I do is, "Where do you start when writing a comment?"
The perception is that there could be so much good, bad or indifferent that choosing what to focus on first might be a problem. However, advice I got from my first story editor has proved invaluable and is so simple, you slap your head if you didn't think of it first.
What is the Writer trying to do and do they accomplish it?
From there, you take the first basic step. Identify the genre. Then, what are the basic elements of the genre. Just keep it simple. If it's an action film, did it have exciting action? Were the reasons for the action plausible? Is the story that holds the action together interesting without the action? If not, why?
A romantic comedy? Do you buy into the romance and is it funny? If not, why?
See, simple. Since most comments are typically a page long, you should probably be able to fill a page just answering the simplest questions, from characterization to dialogue to originality.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
TV Emmy Award Nominations
These were just announced today and columnists around the country are declaring their picks for "snubs" and "well-chosen" nominations.
As I've stated before, I enjoy a lot of TV and agree that there are a lot of worthy shows and performers who are passed over in the nominations. But, there are only five nominations per category, so everyone can't be chosen.
I also feel that we all have our personal favorites and those who criticize the nominations are usually sticking up for their favorites, wishing to see them singled out. That being said, I'm not going to belittle anyone's nomination (there are some nominations that I just don't "get," but I'll just accept that mine is a minority view), but would like to give a pat on the back for a few actors that I feel were truly worthy and I hope will walk away with an award:
Hugh Laurie in "House." I just started watching this show this spring and am always entertained by this actor and the character he plays.
Kevin Dillon in "Entourage." Jeremy Piven is wonderful as Ari, biting deeply into his role and reveling in how he delivers the lines, but Dillon plays a much wider range with Johnny Drama. I really find him to be the heart of the show.
Neil Patrick Harris in "How I Met Your Mother." Not to knock the other actors on this show, but Harris' Barney commands center stage whenever he's in a scene. Maybe the writers just give him the best lines, but I'm almost guaranteed a laugh when he speaks.
T. R. Knight in "Grey's Anatomy." Am bored with his storyline, but still like his character. Gotta be the actor, right?
Otherwise, I think the Emmys basically get it right. Sometimes, shows seem to just get a nomination through past reputation (like All-Star teams in sports?), but fresh blood is also rewarded quite often ("Heroes" is this year's best example).
The toughest category for me are the writing categories. I'm always on the fence about it when one show dominates these. Certainly, "The Sopranos" has great writing and it wouldn't be fair to limit each show to only one nomination when there are so many good writers on the staff, but I always think there must be some way to "spread the wealth" rather than just see one show take three or more of the five. But, I will admit, every strategy I can think of to remedy this has problems. I'll keep working on it and get back to you.
As I've stated before, I enjoy a lot of TV and agree that there are a lot of worthy shows and performers who are passed over in the nominations. But, there are only five nominations per category, so everyone can't be chosen.
I also feel that we all have our personal favorites and those who criticize the nominations are usually sticking up for their favorites, wishing to see them singled out. That being said, I'm not going to belittle anyone's nomination (there are some nominations that I just don't "get," but I'll just accept that mine is a minority view), but would like to give a pat on the back for a few actors that I feel were truly worthy and I hope will walk away with an award:
Hugh Laurie in "House." I just started watching this show this spring and am always entertained by this actor and the character he plays.
Kevin Dillon in "Entourage." Jeremy Piven is wonderful as Ari, biting deeply into his role and reveling in how he delivers the lines, but Dillon plays a much wider range with Johnny Drama. I really find him to be the heart of the show.
Neil Patrick Harris in "How I Met Your Mother." Not to knock the other actors on this show, but Harris' Barney commands center stage whenever he's in a scene. Maybe the writers just give him the best lines, but I'm almost guaranteed a laugh when he speaks.
T. R. Knight in "Grey's Anatomy." Am bored with his storyline, but still like his character. Gotta be the actor, right?
Otherwise, I think the Emmys basically get it right. Sometimes, shows seem to just get a nomination through past reputation (like All-Star teams in sports?), but fresh blood is also rewarded quite often ("Heroes" is this year's best example).
The toughest category for me are the writing categories. I'm always on the fence about it when one show dominates these. Certainly, "The Sopranos" has great writing and it wouldn't be fair to limit each show to only one nomination when there are so many good writers on the staff, but I always think there must be some way to "spread the wealth" rather than just see one show take three or more of the five. But, I will admit, every strategy I can think of to remedy this has problems. I'll keep working on it and get back to you.
Do I Write Scripts?
This is the most common question I get when people engage me in conversation about my job.
Obviously, no one expects to make a career out of just reading scripts, right? Pretty much correct. It's seen as a way to make a living while you're writing your own things or as a starting point to a career as an executive.
So, I write. About a dozen film scripts, two TV spec sitcom pilots and a handful of TV spec sitcom episodes. It may be a little easier for me to get someone to read my scripts, but I also want to make sure I don't abuse the access to them. I have to be fully confident they might like what they read or they'll be less likely to say "sure, give me a copy of your script" next time I ask. However, even for me, it's all about getting the right script to the right person at the right time.
Here's a tale of frustration:
One of my TV specs had to do with a young man marrying into a family from a different cultural background who ran a restaurant. The clashes of culture played an important part in the comedy, as did gender and family issues, along with the work issues. The pilot had to do with the couple returning from their honeymoon and becoming involved with the bride's family.
I could never get much interest in this.
Then, along came "My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding." The success of this begat "My Big, Fat, Greek Life" on TV, the pilot of which had to do with the couple returning from their honeymoon and becoming involved with the bride's family.
Now, get this...both my script and "MBFGL" opened with a scene of one member of the newly married couple being involved in physical comedy regarding their luggage (theirs at the airport, mine in the hall of their apartment building).
(Sigh.)
"MBFGL" may not have been a complete success, and its being put on the air was obviously linked to the success of the movie, but, boy, did I feel like I was close to something with my own script.
More adventures of my screenwriting efforts late.
Obviously, no one expects to make a career out of just reading scripts, right? Pretty much correct. It's seen as a way to make a living while you're writing your own things or as a starting point to a career as an executive.
So, I write. About a dozen film scripts, two TV spec sitcom pilots and a handful of TV spec sitcom episodes. It may be a little easier for me to get someone to read my scripts, but I also want to make sure I don't abuse the access to them. I have to be fully confident they might like what they read or they'll be less likely to say "sure, give me a copy of your script" next time I ask. However, even for me, it's all about getting the right script to the right person at the right time.
Here's a tale of frustration:
One of my TV specs had to do with a young man marrying into a family from a different cultural background who ran a restaurant. The clashes of culture played an important part in the comedy, as did gender and family issues, along with the work issues. The pilot had to do with the couple returning from their honeymoon and becoming involved with the bride's family.
I could never get much interest in this.
Then, along came "My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding." The success of this begat "My Big, Fat, Greek Life" on TV, the pilot of which had to do with the couple returning from their honeymoon and becoming involved with the bride's family.
Now, get this...both my script and "MBFGL" opened with a scene of one member of the newly married couple being involved in physical comedy regarding their luggage (theirs at the airport, mine in the hall of their apartment building).
(Sigh.)
"MBFGL" may not have been a complete success, and its being put on the air was obviously linked to the success of the movie, but, boy, did I feel like I was close to something with my own script.
More adventures of my screenwriting efforts late.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Watching TV
Discussions of TV shows come up all the time at gatherings of "industryites" and, invariably, there are those who insist they don't watch TV. That is usually followed by them mentioning a few minutes later some TV show they watch. The most amusing of these folks are the ones who "hate reality TV," only to confess that they do like one or more reality TV shows. Some people insist they don't even own a TV.
Instead of watching TV, they read, listen to music, exercise, go to plays, etc. I do most of those things, too. (Well, I don't go to many plays.) However, when it comes to reading...would you suggest that a farmer plant a garden in his non-working hours? I do read for pleasure, but I think you understand why I don't usually curl up with a good book after having just spent eight hours reading a book for work.
Thus, I watch TV. The most common complaint about Mr. Farnsworth's* invention is that the shows are awful. Remember my mention of "industryites"? I find it amusing that they're basically saying that the product of their own industry is awful. I wonder if car company employees think the same thing. That being said, some of the shows are pretty lame, but which shows are lame is always a matter of opinion. I never was amused by "Scrubs" in anything other than a "well, that was weird" way, yet "Two And A Half Men" usually has me laughing out loud. Critical opinion doesn't agree with me; ratings do. Go figure.
Trust me, I'm not advocating that everyone spend every free hour watching TV. But to say there is "nothing good on" is a broad, untrue generalization. No matter your interests, you can find something worthwhile to watch. There are definitely educational programs (Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, The History Channel and more). If you want to laugh, sitcoms aren't the only choice. Rather than belabor the point, this moment in TV history has a range of choices. If your choice is just not to watch, you won't find me trying to convince you to watch. But if your argument against TV is that there is nothing good or worthwhile on it, you're just wrong. If your argument is that you don't want to pay for all those channels, why pay for a gym when you can exercise on your own outside? Why buy books when there is a library nearby? Sometimes, if you want the best, most convenient or most diversity, you have to pay for it.
Since I at times read for TV companies, I try to familiarize myself with most anything that's been on the air for more than a few weeks (figuring they've past the "quick cancellation" point and will last at least a season). With cable channels coming up with more and more new series, it can be a daunting task. Once I've seen a show, they will fall into one of several general categories. First are shows I watch when they're on or by recording them on my DVR because I don't want to miss them. ("The Sopranos," "Big Love," "Entourage"...is this looking like a promo for HBO?...come to mind, along with "Ugly Betty.") Shows I will look forward to and watch unless distracted by other things, but won't DVR. ("Project Runway," "Two And A Half Men," "CSI: Miami," many others, typically sitcoms and a few dramas. I do watch some other reality shows, but find the repetition of conflicts after a season or two become boring. Of the dating shows, only "Joe Millionaire" held me for a season, basically to see if they could pull off the stunt.) There are shows I watch a number of times wishing I liked them more than I do and keep hoping they engage me, but haven't yet ("Dirt," "The Closer"). Then, the ones that, if the subject is good enough, I'll check them out if I'm sitting down with an hour to spare. (Typically, "true life" stories like "Biography," "City Confidential" and the like or informational shows like "Unwrapped." )
That being said, there are innumerable shows that I bypass without a second thought. (I won't begin to list them, but suffice to say I'm not a fan of shows where the goal is to embarrass people.)
Pretty much, I ask TV to entertain me for an hour or so and to see the end result of things I've read about. Also, to keep up on the "hottest" actors, writers and directors, for their names are sure to pass over my desk at some time.
Instead of watching TV, they read, listen to music, exercise, go to plays, etc. I do most of those things, too. (Well, I don't go to many plays.) However, when it comes to reading...would you suggest that a farmer plant a garden in his non-working hours? I do read for pleasure, but I think you understand why I don't usually curl up with a good book after having just spent eight hours reading a book for work.
Thus, I watch TV. The most common complaint about Mr. Farnsworth's* invention is that the shows are awful. Remember my mention of "industryites"? I find it amusing that they're basically saying that the product of their own industry is awful. I wonder if car company employees think the same thing. That being said, some of the shows are pretty lame, but which shows are lame is always a matter of opinion. I never was amused by "Scrubs" in anything other than a "well, that was weird" way, yet "Two And A Half Men" usually has me laughing out loud. Critical opinion doesn't agree with me; ratings do. Go figure.
Trust me, I'm not advocating that everyone spend every free hour watching TV. But to say there is "nothing good on" is a broad, untrue generalization. No matter your interests, you can find something worthwhile to watch. There are definitely educational programs (Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, The History Channel and more). If you want to laugh, sitcoms aren't the only choice. Rather than belabor the point, this moment in TV history has a range of choices. If your choice is just not to watch, you won't find me trying to convince you to watch. But if your argument against TV is that there is nothing good or worthwhile on it, you're just wrong. If your argument is that you don't want to pay for all those channels, why pay for a gym when you can exercise on your own outside? Why buy books when there is a library nearby? Sometimes, if you want the best, most convenient or most diversity, you have to pay for it.
Since I at times read for TV companies, I try to familiarize myself with most anything that's been on the air for more than a few weeks (figuring they've past the "quick cancellation" point and will last at least a season). With cable channels coming up with more and more new series, it can be a daunting task. Once I've seen a show, they will fall into one of several general categories. First are shows I watch when they're on or by recording them on my DVR because I don't want to miss them. ("The Sopranos," "Big Love," "Entourage"...is this looking like a promo for HBO?...come to mind, along with "Ugly Betty.") Shows I will look forward to and watch unless distracted by other things, but won't DVR. ("Project Runway," "Two And A Half Men," "CSI: Miami," many others, typically sitcoms and a few dramas. I do watch some other reality shows, but find the repetition of conflicts after a season or two become boring. Of the dating shows, only "Joe Millionaire" held me for a season, basically to see if they could pull off the stunt.) There are shows I watch a number of times wishing I liked them more than I do and keep hoping they engage me, but haven't yet ("Dirt," "The Closer"). Then, the ones that, if the subject is good enough, I'll check them out if I'm sitting down with an hour to spare. (Typically, "true life" stories like "Biography," "City Confidential" and the like or informational shows like "Unwrapped." )
That being said, there are innumerable shows that I bypass without a second thought. (I won't begin to list them, but suffice to say I'm not a fan of shows where the goal is to embarrass people.)
Pretty much, I ask TV to entertain me for an hour or so and to see the end result of things I've read about. Also, to keep up on the "hottest" actors, writers and directors, for their names are sure to pass over my desk at some time.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Ms. Spelling
No, not an entry on the film and TV career of Tori.
Instead, that supposedly dreaded terror of all writers...that Script Readers turn up their noses at any script containing a misspelling.
First of all, we are hardly immune from misspellings in our coverages. (Come on. 'Fess up, any of my fellow Analysts reading this. You've read an old coverage of your own and found some embarrassing errors.) I myself usually find missing words (that my mind somehow assumed existed when I proof-read my work the first time) or stray words that I missed on proof-reading.
As for the the usual suspects, its and it's and their and they're and there, they really just provide a moment to sigh and move on.
However, writers should also be aware that 90% or more of the scripts I read don't have such errors. When more than one is found, there can be an inkling that, if you didn't pay that much attention to your proof-reading, it's probable that you also missed things like your poor story development and weak characterization.
That being said, the errors that stand out to me are the ones of complete disregard for spell check or facts. A misspelling like "desert" for "dessert" can be missed because spell check won't catch it and it is easy to whiz by as you read. But "dinning room"? Unless you're being creative and have a location where people go to make a lot of noise, you really should catch this. Add to that "nods his head 'no'." A "nod" is an up-and-down motion signifying an affirmative response. "Shake" your head "no." Please.
Though in the end, the truly egregious error is the one of including a specific title or name in your script and misspelling it. This happens a lot with music. Most scripts won't specify the music being played over a scene, so when one does, I have to figure that the Writer feels this is really important and wouldn't be picking this song or artist unless he/she had an important reason to include it in the script. Thus, when I read "Jimmy Hendricks' 'Excuse Me While I Kiss The Sky'" noted, all I can do is cringe and think, "this person really doesn't know what they're talking about."
Remember my assertion that 90% of all scripts don't have errors? Well, 90% of all scripts that have errors like the Hendrix one are usually pretty sloppy creatively.
Repeat after me: Jimi Hendrix, "Purple Haze."
Instead, that supposedly dreaded terror of all writers...that Script Readers turn up their noses at any script containing a misspelling.
First of all, we are hardly immune from misspellings in our coverages. (Come on. 'Fess up, any of my fellow Analysts reading this. You've read an old coverage of your own and found some embarrassing errors.) I myself usually find missing words (that my mind somehow assumed existed when I proof-read my work the first time) or stray words that I missed on proof-reading.
As for the the usual suspects, its and it's and their and they're and there, they really just provide a moment to sigh and move on.
However, writers should also be aware that 90% or more of the scripts I read don't have such errors. When more than one is found, there can be an inkling that, if you didn't pay that much attention to your proof-reading, it's probable that you also missed things like your poor story development and weak characterization.
That being said, the errors that stand out to me are the ones of complete disregard for spell check or facts. A misspelling like "desert" for "dessert" can be missed because spell check won't catch it and it is easy to whiz by as you read. But "dinning room"? Unless you're being creative and have a location where people go to make a lot of noise, you really should catch this. Add to that "nods his head 'no'." A "nod" is an up-and-down motion signifying an affirmative response. "Shake" your head "no." Please.
Though in the end, the truly egregious error is the one of including a specific title or name in your script and misspelling it. This happens a lot with music. Most scripts won't specify the music being played over a scene, so when one does, I have to figure that the Writer feels this is really important and wouldn't be picking this song or artist unless he/she had an important reason to include it in the script. Thus, when I read "Jimmy Hendricks' 'Excuse Me While I Kiss The Sky'" noted, all I can do is cringe and think, "this person really doesn't know what they're talking about."
Remember my assertion that 90% of all scripts don't have errors? Well, 90% of all scripts that have errors like the Hendrix one are usually pretty sloppy creatively.
Repeat after me: Jimi Hendrix, "Purple Haze."
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Meeting Writers
Most Writers I meet are delightful, as we have a common bond in what we do and can discuss the art of screenwriting and relate our feelings of examples of both good and bad scripts or movies.
There are some, however, who feel that I am slightly below the Anti-Christ on the list that ranks individuals on the merits of their existence. Usually, I'm amused by this reaction, but over the years there have been two who stood out for their comments to me.
The first was a successful TV Writer, the comedy variety. We met at a Christmas party and when he was informed of how I make my living, his response was, "What qualifies you to do that?" Now, I have to admit my reaction was little more than shock and don't remember my response. On reflection, it seems to me that "what qualifies me" is the same thing that "qualifies" a Writer to do what he or she does. You set out to do it and if people like your work, you can make a living at it. One might argue that writers are creative individuals who study and work at their craft, but there are thousands of people who believe themselves to be creative individuals and take the same classes or read the same books and work just as hard at writing who never create anything anyone wants to buy. Not everyone who thinks they can do something can do it. I studied Ted Williams' "The Science of Hitting" and played baseball for five years, yet I was never any good at it. No one wants to hire a bad Writer and no bad Reader is around for very long. You work at it and, if you're any good, you get to continue doing it. Just like a Writer.
Then there was the successful film Writer who asked me if I had ever written a script. I have, around a dozen of them. When he asked if I thought there was any reason why I hadn't sold any of them, I replied that the common comment on my work is that it lacks "edge." Now, this is a common Hollywood term, one with which anyone in the business should be familiar. However, this Writer claimed that he had no idea what "edge" or "edgy" meant and had just been in a meeting with a Studio Executive who agreed with him. I must say, I find this very hard to believe. There might be some debate over what "edgy" means exactly, but the ideas that situations in the script should have elements that aren't completely mainstream and that the characters should have odd or even unlikable qualities are probably on most anyone's list. I still puzzle over the purpose of his statement, as it just made him look kinda...dumb. And most writers are far from dumb. Intense, focused, repositories of obscure knowledge on the subjects that interest them the most and very opinionated. But rarely dumb.
There are some, however, who feel that I am slightly below the Anti-Christ on the list that ranks individuals on the merits of their existence. Usually, I'm amused by this reaction, but over the years there have been two who stood out for their comments to me.
The first was a successful TV Writer, the comedy variety. We met at a Christmas party and when he was informed of how I make my living, his response was, "What qualifies you to do that?" Now, I have to admit my reaction was little more than shock and don't remember my response. On reflection, it seems to me that "what qualifies me" is the same thing that "qualifies" a Writer to do what he or she does. You set out to do it and if people like your work, you can make a living at it. One might argue that writers are creative individuals who study and work at their craft, but there are thousands of people who believe themselves to be creative individuals and take the same classes or read the same books and work just as hard at writing who never create anything anyone wants to buy. Not everyone who thinks they can do something can do it. I studied Ted Williams' "The Science of Hitting" and played baseball for five years, yet I was never any good at it. No one wants to hire a bad Writer and no bad Reader is around for very long. You work at it and, if you're any good, you get to continue doing it. Just like a Writer.
Then there was the successful film Writer who asked me if I had ever written a script. I have, around a dozen of them. When he asked if I thought there was any reason why I hadn't sold any of them, I replied that the common comment on my work is that it lacks "edge." Now, this is a common Hollywood term, one with which anyone in the business should be familiar. However, this Writer claimed that he had no idea what "edge" or "edgy" meant and had just been in a meeting with a Studio Executive who agreed with him. I must say, I find this very hard to believe. There might be some debate over what "edgy" means exactly, but the ideas that situations in the script should have elements that aren't completely mainstream and that the characters should have odd or even unlikable qualities are probably on most anyone's list. I still puzzle over the purpose of his statement, as it just made him look kinda...dumb. And most writers are far from dumb. Intense, focused, repositories of obscure knowledge on the subjects that interest them the most and very opinionated. But rarely dumb.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Barry Bonds
Baseball's All-star game was yesterday and Mr. Barry Bonds was a big story, just as he's been for the past year or so on sports shows and in the sports section of your local paper.
What does the soon-to-be, all-time American major league home run leader have to do with Hollywood? Any tale of Bonds will usually include two terms, steroids and ego. Betcha can guess which one interests me today.
Ego isn't necessarily a bad word in Hollywood, mainly because you have to have some sort of ego to even consider trying to make it in this business. In terms of being a writer, no one comes to L.A. thinking, "I really don't know if I can write, but I'd really like to take a chance and see if I can become successful." Replace "write" with "act," "direct," "choose projects that will be successful..." Well, you get it. The simple thought of "I can do this" is ego-based and if you don't believe in yourself, it's hard to convince others to believe in you.
Ego drives an agents'"I know this will be a winner" mantra when they're trying to sell their clients' work to a buyer. The writer has the ego that what they've written is better than anything out there and I have the ego to believe I can differentiate between those who actually have written something better from those who have to work at their script a bit more. The producer/executive has the ego that they know what will be successful and the director has the ego that they take the promise on the page and translate it magnificently to the screen. And I know you haven't forgotten the actors...
It comes down to what I've said before and I'll say it again, if you think your script is "as good as anything out there," you haven't accomplished your task yet. To paraphrase Gordon Gekko, "Ego is good."
That's not to say it can't get out of control. But, if you're successful, no one will tell you to calm down, as it just might be part of the mojo that makes you succeed.
What does the soon-to-be, all-time American major league home run leader have to do with Hollywood? Any tale of Bonds will usually include two terms, steroids and ego. Betcha can guess which one interests me today.
Ego isn't necessarily a bad word in Hollywood, mainly because you have to have some sort of ego to even consider trying to make it in this business. In terms of being a writer, no one comes to L.A. thinking, "I really don't know if I can write, but I'd really like to take a chance and see if I can become successful." Replace "write" with "act," "direct," "choose projects that will be successful..." Well, you get it. The simple thought of "I can do this" is ego-based and if you don't believe in yourself, it's hard to convince others to believe in you.
Ego drives an agents'"I know this will be a winner" mantra when they're trying to sell their clients' work to a buyer. The writer has the ego that what they've written is better than anything out there and I have the ego to believe I can differentiate between those who actually have written something better from those who have to work at their script a bit more. The producer/executive has the ego that they know what will be successful and the director has the ego that they take the promise on the page and translate it magnificently to the screen. And I know you haven't forgotten the actors...
It comes down to what I've said before and I'll say it again, if you think your script is "as good as anything out there," you haven't accomplished your task yet. To paraphrase Gordon Gekko, "Ego is good."
That's not to say it can't get out of control. But, if you're successful, no one will tell you to calm down, as it just might be part of the mojo that makes you succeed.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Confidentiality
Just about every company for whom I've worked has made some mention of how the work I do for them is "confidential." Basically, they don't want other companies to know what material they're looking at and what degree of interest they have in it. Letting out that information could drive up the cost of a project ("Hey, Disney is interested, too, so how about $500,000 more for the script?") or lead to copycat projects that beat theirs to the theatres.
To a certain extent, this means "don't talk about what you've read," but since scripts do go out to more than one company, most are hardly secret. This, of course, doesn't apply to sequels (which will be generated completely in-house, thus no one should know much about them other than that one is being worked on) or drafts of projects in general (for though others will know of the original screenplay, the twists and turns of development could begin to take the story in an original and interesting direction, something the company doesn't want leaked).
I've never known of a reader being sued or fired over talking about their work, but knowing when to keep your mouth shut about something (especially when it comes to identifying the company interested in a script) should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
I've had some interesting adventures dealing with producers' quests to keep things confidential. One time, a producer of a film informed the distribution company I was reading for (the project was about to go into production and my company was interested in buying the rights to various territories) that he didn't want any copies of the script to get out of his hands, so I was dispatched to his home to read the script in his dining room. As I sat down and looked at the title page, I recognized a script I had just read a couple weeks before for a different company. Same draft. So much for secrecy.
Another time, a different producer was working on a sequel to a classic film and didn't want any details leaked, so I was sent a confidentiality agreement to sign that promised expensive punishment should I say anything at all about the project, even any mention of its very existence. I signed it and got the script messengered to me. As with the previously mentioned script, I had just read the same script for a different company. So, if I did talk about the script, could I just claim to have been talking about the other company's draft and not the one I signed the confidentiality agreement for?
The first film was made and became a modest hit (they did change the title from the time I read it and I'm too lazy to check IMDB right now to find the correct title...but it really doesn't matter for my story). The second film still hasn't been made and I don't really want to challenge someone's interpretation of the confidentiality agreement by mentioning it.
There are no secrets in Hollywood, but that doesn't mean you can't assure your employers that their poorly kept secrets aren't safe with you.
To a certain extent, this means "don't talk about what you've read," but since scripts do go out to more than one company, most are hardly secret. This, of course, doesn't apply to sequels (which will be generated completely in-house, thus no one should know much about them other than that one is being worked on) or drafts of projects in general (for though others will know of the original screenplay, the twists and turns of development could begin to take the story in an original and interesting direction, something the company doesn't want leaked).
I've never known of a reader being sued or fired over talking about their work, but knowing when to keep your mouth shut about something (especially when it comes to identifying the company interested in a script) should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
I've had some interesting adventures dealing with producers' quests to keep things confidential. One time, a producer of a film informed the distribution company I was reading for (the project was about to go into production and my company was interested in buying the rights to various territories) that he didn't want any copies of the script to get out of his hands, so I was dispatched to his home to read the script in his dining room. As I sat down and looked at the title page, I recognized a script I had just read a couple weeks before for a different company. Same draft. So much for secrecy.
Another time, a different producer was working on a sequel to a classic film and didn't want any details leaked, so I was sent a confidentiality agreement to sign that promised expensive punishment should I say anything at all about the project, even any mention of its very existence. I signed it and got the script messengered to me. As with the previously mentioned script, I had just read the same script for a different company. So, if I did talk about the script, could I just claim to have been talking about the other company's draft and not the one I signed the confidentiality agreement for?
The first film was made and became a modest hit (they did change the title from the time I read it and I'm too lazy to check IMDB right now to find the correct title...but it really doesn't matter for my story). The second film still hasn't been made and I don't really want to challenge someone's interpretation of the confidentiality agreement by mentioning it.
There are no secrets in Hollywood, but that doesn't mean you can't assure your employers that their poorly kept secrets aren't safe with you.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Pay the Piper
When it comes to paying for script reading, some companies act like it's the biggest waste of money on the accounting spread sheets.
Let's see, if you have a good reading staff, your executives are freed up to focus more on creating the relationships that bring in the material, development of the material you buy and all phases of production, including pre- and post-, once the ball starts rolling on a project. However, rather than treat reading staffs with any respect, prices are low-balled and kept at one level for years.
I once read at a company for seven years, during which the rate they paid never went up. Sure, keep it low for new Readers (why pay a lot for unproven talent), but if you get yourself some good ones (defined as those who understand what your company is looking for), reward them. Sometimes a reward can just be a Christmas gift (hey, I love Best Buy cards). Even a little acknowledgement can go a long way. A $5 per script bump every two years is probably little more than a cost-of-living increase. You keep a good Reader, they're happy that someone is noticing their work and the world is a better place. Or at least your part of the world.
Besides, you give the receptionist a raise, right? Isn't a good reading staff at least as important as that position?
Let's see, if you have a good reading staff, your executives are freed up to focus more on creating the relationships that bring in the material, development of the material you buy and all phases of production, including pre- and post-, once the ball starts rolling on a project. However, rather than treat reading staffs with any respect, prices are low-balled and kept at one level for years.
I once read at a company for seven years, during which the rate they paid never went up. Sure, keep it low for new Readers (why pay a lot for unproven talent), but if you get yourself some good ones (defined as those who understand what your company is looking for), reward them. Sometimes a reward can just be a Christmas gift (hey, I love Best Buy cards). Even a little acknowledgement can go a long way. A $5 per script bump every two years is probably little more than a cost-of-living increase. You keep a good Reader, they're happy that someone is noticing their work and the world is a better place. Or at least your part of the world.
Besides, you give the receptionist a raise, right? Isn't a good reading staff at least as important as that position?
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Lazy Sunday
Nothing to do on Sunday after a lost week of work because of the holiday sitting in the middle of it. Kept missing chances to get something to do, as I wasn't spending my days tied to the computer, waiting for an e-mail asking, "who can do two scripts and a book by Monday."
So, what to do other than try to catch up on some of the movies on the DVR.
Finally saw "Rashomon." Yeah, I know, I know, that's a movie that, considering what I do, I should have seen long ago. Knowing the basics of the plot, which have made the film a reference point much like "Hitchcockian," I've even referred to it in comments at times. Yet, I'd never seen it. So, it shows up on the Sundance Channel a few months ago, I DVR it and now settle in to watch.
By the end, I'm profoundly disappointed. Yes, the structure of the plot, of a story told from multiple points of view, is clever, but there seemed to be a few gaps in the logic. What I expected was different interpretations of the same events. What the movie offers are radically different events in some instances. Just didn't quite make sense to me. The sometimes over-the-top acting was to be expected, both for the time period of the film and because it actually fit the story, so I didn't mind that.
I don't mean this to be a review of "Rashomon." Rather, the film brought to mind how filmmaking has evolved and how there is a disparity of viewpoints on various "classic" movies. Some hold up remarkably well, others are almost laughable in the overacting, the poor visual effects or the clumsy storytelling. Of course, personal opinion will always play into this. My wife isn't as enraptured with "Casablanca" as me. She likes it, but finds it very soap opera-ish. I love the dialogue so much, I'll excuse the melodrama elements and that really bad rear-screen projection in the Paris driving scenes.
On the other hand, while I love the Marx Brothers, I find their movies painful to watch. Why? Because of the romantic elements and (some, but not all) songs. I couldn't imagine life without "Hooray for Captain Spaulding." But the songs of two bit players (Hey, was that Kitty Carlisle?!) mooning over each other could disappear and I'd not mind a bit.
I know people who worship at the altar of Preston Sturges and others who can't quite understand what anyone finds funny in his films. I love "Sunset Boulevard," but have a couple of friends who think Gloria Swanson is hamming it up. (I point out that this is part of the point of the character, but they just won't listen.)
And who is the most divisive filmmaker I've run across? Stanley Kubrick. There seems to be little middle ground on him. You either love him or hate him. Even those who are divided on him, it's never because they are lukewarm on his films. They hate some ("2001" is typically cited as a "pretentious bore") and love others ("Full Metal Jacket" and "Dr. Strangelove" are usually the two most singled out for praise). As for me...don't get me started on "Eyes Wide Shut." Hated it.
At the very least, older films, even the classics, can lead to some spirited discussions.
Now, genre films and cult classics are for another post all together.
So, what to do other than try to catch up on some of the movies on the DVR.
Finally saw "Rashomon." Yeah, I know, I know, that's a movie that, considering what I do, I should have seen long ago. Knowing the basics of the plot, which have made the film a reference point much like "Hitchcockian," I've even referred to it in comments at times. Yet, I'd never seen it. So, it shows up on the Sundance Channel a few months ago, I DVR it and now settle in to watch.
By the end, I'm profoundly disappointed. Yes, the structure of the plot, of a story told from multiple points of view, is clever, but there seemed to be a few gaps in the logic. What I expected was different interpretations of the same events. What the movie offers are radically different events in some instances. Just didn't quite make sense to me. The sometimes over-the-top acting was to be expected, both for the time period of the film and because it actually fit the story, so I didn't mind that.
I don't mean this to be a review of "Rashomon." Rather, the film brought to mind how filmmaking has evolved and how there is a disparity of viewpoints on various "classic" movies. Some hold up remarkably well, others are almost laughable in the overacting, the poor visual effects or the clumsy storytelling. Of course, personal opinion will always play into this. My wife isn't as enraptured with "Casablanca" as me. She likes it, but finds it very soap opera-ish. I love the dialogue so much, I'll excuse the melodrama elements and that really bad rear-screen projection in the Paris driving scenes.
On the other hand, while I love the Marx Brothers, I find their movies painful to watch. Why? Because of the romantic elements and (some, but not all) songs. I couldn't imagine life without "Hooray for Captain Spaulding." But the songs of two bit players (Hey, was that Kitty Carlisle?!) mooning over each other could disappear and I'd not mind a bit.
I know people who worship at the altar of Preston Sturges and others who can't quite understand what anyone finds funny in his films. I love "Sunset Boulevard," but have a couple of friends who think Gloria Swanson is hamming it up. (I point out that this is part of the point of the character, but they just won't listen.)
And who is the most divisive filmmaker I've run across? Stanley Kubrick. There seems to be little middle ground on him. You either love him or hate him. Even those who are divided on him, it's never because they are lukewarm on his films. They hate some ("2001" is typically cited as a "pretentious bore") and love others ("Full Metal Jacket" and "Dr. Strangelove" are usually the two most singled out for praise). As for me...don't get me started on "Eyes Wide Shut." Hated it.
At the very least, older films, even the classics, can lead to some spirited discussions.
Now, genre films and cult classics are for another post all together.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Remakes
Whether or not an old movie should be remade is an issue debated by critics and fans. Some will say updating a film from the past is a good idea. After all, a good story is always a good story. Others will say, "leave it alone, think of something new."
Obviously, some tales are pretty much untouchable. No one could imagine remaking "Gone With the Wind" or "Casablanca." (Well, maybe some could imagine it, but the backlash would be huge.) Horror films are always fit to be remade, as there will always be an audience for a good scary movie. However, as the remake of "Psycho" proved, you really should look to bring something new other than just new actors. Some complained that remaking the "classic" "Ocean's Eleven" was a desecration. Others argue the only thing that made the first a "classic" was the cast and there's no reason why the film itself couldn't be improved upon. Whether they did improve upon it is your own opinion.
I always think that there should be more attention to finding films that were good ideas, but flawed in some way. Fix the flaw and you will end up with a better film, one that no one can complain about. Another good angle would be to take a film that reflected the time period it was made and update it.
Three films always come to mind that fit this criteria. "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," "The Mouse That Roared" and "They Might Be Giants."
Imagine "Liberty Valance" as an inner city gang story, where a young man has acquired a reputation for something he didn't do, then must face the aftermath.
The initial turning point of "The Mouse That Roared" could be NYC conducting a "terrorist drill" that coincides with the small country's "invasion." Then have New Yorkers think that being a part of another country might just take care of any future terrorist threat because the terrorists wouldn't have any bone to pick with the new rulers, who would find that ruling New Yorkers is a daunting task.
"They Might Be Giants" is a little-seen film about a wealthy man who believes he's Sherlock Holmes. His family wants to gain control of his fortune, so they hire a doctor, whose name happens to be Watson, to spend time with him and declare him mentally incapacitated. However, the more time Watson spends with the man, the more she comes to believe that, while he might not be Holmes, his suspicions about a criminal enterprise run by a man named Moriarty just might have some foundation. The ending of the original film is a bit weak and someone could have a lot of fun with the particulars of the plot while also improving the end.
To me, remakes can be a good thing. You just have to find the right films to remake.
Obviously, some tales are pretty much untouchable. No one could imagine remaking "Gone With the Wind" or "Casablanca." (Well, maybe some could imagine it, but the backlash would be huge.) Horror films are always fit to be remade, as there will always be an audience for a good scary movie. However, as the remake of "Psycho" proved, you really should look to bring something new other than just new actors. Some complained that remaking the "classic" "Ocean's Eleven" was a desecration. Others argue the only thing that made the first a "classic" was the cast and there's no reason why the film itself couldn't be improved upon. Whether they did improve upon it is your own opinion.
I always think that there should be more attention to finding films that were good ideas, but flawed in some way. Fix the flaw and you will end up with a better film, one that no one can complain about. Another good angle would be to take a film that reflected the time period it was made and update it.
Three films always come to mind that fit this criteria. "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," "The Mouse That Roared" and "They Might Be Giants."
Imagine "Liberty Valance" as an inner city gang story, where a young man has acquired a reputation for something he didn't do, then must face the aftermath.
The initial turning point of "The Mouse That Roared" could be NYC conducting a "terrorist drill" that coincides with the small country's "invasion." Then have New Yorkers think that being a part of another country might just take care of any future terrorist threat because the terrorists wouldn't have any bone to pick with the new rulers, who would find that ruling New Yorkers is a daunting task.
"They Might Be Giants" is a little-seen film about a wealthy man who believes he's Sherlock Holmes. His family wants to gain control of his fortune, so they hire a doctor, whose name happens to be Watson, to spend time with him and declare him mentally incapacitated. However, the more time Watson spends with the man, the more she comes to believe that, while he might not be Holmes, his suspicions about a criminal enterprise run by a man named Moriarty just might have some foundation. The ending of the original film is a bit weak and someone could have a lot of fun with the particulars of the plot while also improving the end.
To me, remakes can be a good thing. You just have to find the right films to remake.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Script Reader? Story Analyst?
The two most common titles for the position I fill are Script Reader and Story Analyst. If you ask most any executive who deals with the likes of me, they'll typically refer to "the Reader." It's a quick, familiar term that everyone understands.
But don't say that to some Readers. The argument being that "Script Reader" doesn't quite cover the true nature of the job. After all, we do more than just read scripts. We read books, manuscripts, comic books, magazine articles...pretty much anything that might have a story of interest. I know of one Reader who read a series of dinosaur trading cards to see what type of story could be culled from them. In addition, we don't just "read." We write a form known as "coverage," which is a synopsis of the material, along with a comment on the general strengths and weakness of the material. While the comment will typically refer to the plot, characters, dialogue, structure and basic idea, companies will at times specify items. Some companies want an idea of the expected budget mentioned, as the company won't want to spend time considering a potentially expensive picture that doesn't fit with their company's resources. Others won't want any consideration of the budget in the coverage, figuring a budgetary issue is for the next step of the development process. I've worked at a company that asked for mention of any "inspirational" angle to the material. So the job is more than just "reading a script."
However, "Story Analyst" is also a bit limiting. This is usually the title that experienced Readers want, as it conveys that a company is getting analysis of the material, rather than just a read with an opinion. Of course, "Project Analyst" or "Material Analyst" would be more appropriate, but also have the vagueness that makes those titles fitting for a construction position, too. Maybe "Script Development Consultant" would be best.
The problem with creating a hierarchy with titles is that there has to be criteria. In the present world, anyone can label themselves "Story Analyst" whether they have any experience beyond doing coverage or not. I've seen two books on script reading and the author notes on one boasted that the writer had read "hundreds" of scripts. To me, that confirmed that the author was an inexperienced Reader and probably had nothing of worth for me. The other one was more insulting, with just the vague statement that the writer had (and this is a paraphrase, but is close to the spirit of the note) "read enough scripts to know what he is talking about." I imagine a guy who did an internship at a company, read a couple dozen scripts, decided the job was easy and knew someone in publishing who would publish a quickie book for him.
Or maybe the guy was a genius with tons of experience. I didn't read the book, his author's note put me off.
Then there is the Reader who was running a writer's club whose monthly meeting I attended once to see if I might want to join. I introduced myself at the end of the meeting, mentioning that she and I were in the same profession, that we were both "Readers." "No, I'm a Story Analyst," was her reply. In the brief conversation that ensued about what we do, it turned out that I had years more experience than her, so I told her I must be a "Senior Story Analyst."
She didn't speak to me after that.
My choice is always to take the simple road. In Hollywood, everyone knows what a "Reader" does and I can always expand on my abilities in conversation. To me, it's preferable to explaining what a "Story Analyst" is and getting the inevitable response, "Oh, you're a Reader" anyhow.
But don't say that to some Readers. The argument being that "Script Reader" doesn't quite cover the true nature of the job. After all, we do more than just read scripts. We read books, manuscripts, comic books, magazine articles...pretty much anything that might have a story of interest. I know of one Reader who read a series of dinosaur trading cards to see what type of story could be culled from them. In addition, we don't just "read." We write a form known as "coverage," which is a synopsis of the material, along with a comment on the general strengths and weakness of the material. While the comment will typically refer to the plot, characters, dialogue, structure and basic idea, companies will at times specify items. Some companies want an idea of the expected budget mentioned, as the company won't want to spend time considering a potentially expensive picture that doesn't fit with their company's resources. Others won't want any consideration of the budget in the coverage, figuring a budgetary issue is for the next step of the development process. I've worked at a company that asked for mention of any "inspirational" angle to the material. So the job is more than just "reading a script."
However, "Story Analyst" is also a bit limiting. This is usually the title that experienced Readers want, as it conveys that a company is getting analysis of the material, rather than just a read with an opinion. Of course, "Project Analyst" or "Material Analyst" would be more appropriate, but also have the vagueness that makes those titles fitting for a construction position, too. Maybe "Script Development Consultant" would be best.
The problem with creating a hierarchy with titles is that there has to be criteria. In the present world, anyone can label themselves "Story Analyst" whether they have any experience beyond doing coverage or not. I've seen two books on script reading and the author notes on one boasted that the writer had read "hundreds" of scripts. To me, that confirmed that the author was an inexperienced Reader and probably had nothing of worth for me. The other one was more insulting, with just the vague statement that the writer had (and this is a paraphrase, but is close to the spirit of the note) "read enough scripts to know what he is talking about." I imagine a guy who did an internship at a company, read a couple dozen scripts, decided the job was easy and knew someone in publishing who would publish a quickie book for him.
Or maybe the guy was a genius with tons of experience. I didn't read the book, his author's note put me off.
Then there is the Reader who was running a writer's club whose monthly meeting I attended once to see if I might want to join. I introduced myself at the end of the meeting, mentioning that she and I were in the same profession, that we were both "Readers." "No, I'm a Story Analyst," was her reply. In the brief conversation that ensued about what we do, it turned out that I had years more experience than her, so I told her I must be a "Senior Story Analyst."
She didn't speak to me after that.
My choice is always to take the simple road. In Hollywood, everyone knows what a "Reader" does and I can always expand on my abilities in conversation. To me, it's preferable to explaining what a "Story Analyst" is and getting the inevitable response, "Oh, you're a Reader" anyhow.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Please allow me to introduce myself
A few years back, I was reading scripts for a production company run by a very well-known producer, a man whose name graced the titles of many hit films. As happens a lot, I didn't meet this man until I had read at his company for a few months. It all depends on the company. This was one where the "top guy" depended on his staff to handle the details, as he had reached the level of success where he felt he could count on them and just deal with the broader vision of his company.
One day, while with the Executive to whom I reported, we happened to encounter the Producer in the hall. When the Executive introduced me , the Producer got a sly smile on his face and said, "Ah, the man who hates everything."
I read for the company for three more years and those were the only words the Producer ever said to me.
Such is the life of a Hollywood Script Reader/Story Analyst (more on the difference between those two titles in a later entry). The job is to review the material sent to the Executives and highlight the truly exceptional scripts for the company, whether it be a major studio looking for a broad range of material or a single producer looking for one project striking enough to attract investors and talent.
The job is to look for the best the scripts, the exceptional ones, the ones that make the person reading them want to turn the page.
Are you a Writer? Have you written something that is "just as good as the films out there now?" If so, you haven't aimed high enough. Look to exceed the level of those films, for we've already seen those films. If you're writing a genre film, expand on the ideas of the genre, do not merely regurgitate what you've already seen. Give someone too much and they know you're creative and they can help you pull back a bit. Give them not enough and you just seem lacking.
Do I "hate everything"? No, that's just a distinctive label, not a true indication of what I do. The entries to follow will be a chronicle of my adventures in the development process of Hollywood. I already know many writers can't stand to think the likes of me hold some sway over their work. All I can really say is "too bad." It's a fact of the business. Men and women like the producer I mentioned above need gatekeepers, that's where I come in. Write a great script and your vision will be championed. But also remember, even the great ones don't always get bought or made.
As for my background, let's leave it at years on the job and thousands of pieces of material. This is Hollywood, after all. Age is more a state of mind than a counting of your years.
If you press me, I'll claim to have been a child prodigy. Yeah, that sounds good.
One day, while with the Executive to whom I reported, we happened to encounter the Producer in the hall. When the Executive introduced me , the Producer got a sly smile on his face and said, "Ah, the man who hates everything."
I read for the company for three more years and those were the only words the Producer ever said to me.
Such is the life of a Hollywood Script Reader/Story Analyst (more on the difference between those two titles in a later entry). The job is to review the material sent to the Executives and highlight the truly exceptional scripts for the company, whether it be a major studio looking for a broad range of material or a single producer looking for one project striking enough to attract investors and talent.
The job is to look for the best the scripts, the exceptional ones, the ones that make the person reading them want to turn the page.
Are you a Writer? Have you written something that is "just as good as the films out there now?" If so, you haven't aimed high enough. Look to exceed the level of those films, for we've already seen those films. If you're writing a genre film, expand on the ideas of the genre, do not merely regurgitate what you've already seen. Give someone too much and they know you're creative and they can help you pull back a bit. Give them not enough and you just seem lacking.
Do I "hate everything"? No, that's just a distinctive label, not a true indication of what I do. The entries to follow will be a chronicle of my adventures in the development process of Hollywood. I already know many writers can't stand to think the likes of me hold some sway over their work. All I can really say is "too bad." It's a fact of the business. Men and women like the producer I mentioned above need gatekeepers, that's where I come in. Write a great script and your vision will be championed. But also remember, even the great ones don't always get bought or made.
As for my background, let's leave it at years on the job and thousands of pieces of material. This is Hollywood, after all. Age is more a state of mind than a counting of your years.
If you press me, I'll claim to have been a child prodigy. Yeah, that sounds good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)