THE STORY SO FAR: PART 232

TO CUT OR NOT TO CUT IS RARELY A QUESTION WHEN EDITING A SCREENPLAY IS CONCERNED

YOU USE THE KNIFE

Having been on the receiving end all too often where books are concerned, I truly hate the automatic tendency of editors to cut.

Many seem to feel editing is cutting—and it isn’t. Editing is helping the writer to be as good as he can be—and that is a very complex process which has, arguably, more to do with empathy than anything else.

Where a screenplay is involved, the ground rules are different. Here length is critical with a page of screenplay per minute of screen-time being the industry standard. Maximum normal length is 120 minutes so your screenplay has to come in at close to that. It can overshoot a little, but not by much.

Why so? Well, apart from anything else, the kind of people you want to attract to what is a collaborative process tend not to read overly long screenplays. They are regarded as the mark of an amateur.

Unfair? Quite possibly—but competition is intense and the winnowing process is not subtle.

The screenplay I am working on started off at 200 pages. I have no choice but to cut.

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 231

HOW DO YOU DEVELOP CHARACTERS?

PERSONALLY, I LIVE WITH THEM

The whole question of character development is vastly important. If people act out of character, that tends to strain credibility.

On the other hand, they cannot be allowed to become boringly predictable—and, where the main protagonists are concerned, they must evolve.

Balancing all that is no easy task—but it is something a screenwriter must do in very limited screenplay and screen time. Let me emphasize the word “limited.’ In a book, a character can agonize for pages. In a movie, you are dependent on the visual and very limited dialog.

There are also casting limits. You may well not know who is likely to be cast when writing the screenplay, but if the stars have been decided, your flexibility is decidedly limited. The audience has expectations of stars and rarely like to see them acting against type.

Mind you, some actors are so talented they defy the conventions, but most stay within one (albeit flexible) screen image—even if they are capable of more. Where Meryl Streep is concerned, all bets are off. This is one phenomenally versatile actress.

Writers have all kinds of techniques for dealing with their characters. A classic one is to write up their background in great detail and get to know them that way. It works for many.

Where I am concerned, my mind tends—after a short period of time—to think of my characters as real people. In that context, I tend to think about my characters a great deal and often wonder what they would do in a given situation—and frequently an ordinary one at that.

Do this day after day, month after month, and your characters—as far as your mind is concerned—become as familiar as close friends.

Start worrying when you can’t tell the difference.

 

 

 

 

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 230

THE SEARCH FOR A FULFILLING OCCUPATION—BECAUSE IT IS A HELL OF A THING TO WASTE A LIFE

There is a marvelous piece in  BrainPickings on the importance of finding a fulfilling occupation.

The article made me think about what life must be like if what you do doesn’t fulfill you. It seems a pretty terrible way to spend one’s life.

I have never been entirely sure whether I picked writing or it picked me—I suspect the latter. What I can say is that I made a conscious decision to leave a job that was secure and well paid for an occupation I knew would be financially hazardous in the extreme—and I have never regretted that decision (despite the very real financial insecurities, and more than a little disapproval).

Enough of me. Let me list a few quotes from the BrainPickings article. Best to read the full thing if you can.

The desire for fulfilling work – a job that provides a deep sense of purpose, and reflects our values, passions and personality – is a modern invention. … For centuries, most inhabitants of the Western world were too busy struggling to meet their subsistence needs to worry about whether they had an exciting career that used their talents and nurtured their wellbeing. But today, the spread of material prosperity has freed our minds to expect much more from the adventure of life.

"Without work, all life goes rotten, but when work is soulless, life stifles and dies," wrote Albert Camus. Finding work with a soul has become one of the great aspirations of our age. … We have to realize that a vocation is not something we find, it's something we grow – and grow into.

It is common to think of a vocation as a career that you somehow feel you were "meant to do." I prefer a different definition, one closer to the historical origins of the concept: a vocation is a career that not only gives you fulfillment – meaning, flow, freedom – but that also has a definitive goal or a clear purpose to strive for attached to it, which drives your life and motivates you to get up in the morning.

Never have so many people felt so unfulfilled in their career roles, and been so unsure what to do about it. Most surveys in the West reveal that at least half the workforce are unhappy in their jobs. One cross-European study showed that 60 per cent of workers would choose a different career if they could start again. In the United States, job satisfaction is at its lowest level – 45 per cent – since record-keeping began over two decades ago.

A master in the art of living draws no sharp distinction between his work and his play; his labor and his leisure; his mind and his body; his education and his recreation. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence through whatever he is doing, and leaves others to determine whether he is working or playing. To himself, he always appears to be doing both.

Well, there is much more, but the above should give you a flavor. But let close with a quote I particularly like.

What man actually needs is not some tension-less state but rather the striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him.

From Viktor Frankl's famous treatise on the meaning of life:

Regarding that last quote, I agree completely. As for the illustration, it is, of course, of Albert Camus—one of my literary heroes.

 

 

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 229

WHERE ON EARTH DID HE (OR SHE) COME FROM?

The screenplay I’m working on was adapted from a fairly long book. That meant some fairly drastic cutting was required. But cutting—particularly on that scale—has consequences.

The consequences tend to include the introduction of characters. In a book, introducing a character is relatively easy because you are not constrained by space and can include people’s thoughts.

Where a screenplay is concerned, the problem is much more difficult—and yet characters cannot just pop out of nowhere (though they often do—especially in bad movies). There has to be, or should be, some rationale, some context.

The best conversion of a book into a movie—that I can recall offhand—concerned turning Leo Tolstoy’s WAR & PEACE into a movie. That meant turning about 1,200 pages of book (depending upon the edition) into about 140 pages of screenplay—and a pretty good movie. Actually I saw the movie before I read the book, and fell in love with Audrey Hepburn then and there. I was eleven or twelve at the time.

Currently, I’m encountering linkage issues in the screenplay, and one character has been eliminated completely. What to do?

Right at this moment, I have absolutely no ideas—but the great thing about writing is that the impossible is normally solvable after a good night’s sleep or a long walk.

Or I can run screaming into the darkness…

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 228

THERE IS FAIR, UNFAIR—AND ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS

AND THEN THERE IS AMERICAN CAPITALISM

What this graphic shows is the fact that during the period of the recovery (debatable in itself) in question—2009-2011—the worth of Americans increased by $5 trillion.

That would seem reasonable—even encouraging—unless you examine the data. It shows that the bottom 93 percent of the population (which means most of us) actually lost $0.6 trillion.

Meanwhile, the top 7 percent of the population gained $5.56 trillion.

The economic structure of the U.S. is stacked against the mass of the population in a myriad of ways—most of which started in the early Seventies. Most of us are getting poorer. Many are getting much poorer. 47 million plus are now on food stamps. Poverty is rife.

The Big Banks are thriving. Corporate profits are at record levels. Labor’s share of GDP—the National Cake—is steadily being forced down.

Quite why there is no popular outcry about all this is  matter of some wonder. It is not a sustainable situation.

And now I’ll get back to my screenplay.

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 227

MAY I COMMEND YOU TO THE WORKS OF JON TALTON—ECONOMIC JOURNALIST &WRITER OF DETECTIVE STORIES

As you may know by now—if you read the blog fairly regularly—one of my deep interests, apart from writing thrillers, is economics. Thriller writing and economics strikes many people as an odd mix—but, in fact, Economics was my major at university and, if anything, my interest in it has increased over the years.

Relax! It’s a relatively harmless addiction though I will admit it soaks up a fair amount of my time. But I don’t play golf, so what the hell!

I had thought I was alone in my eccentricity but recently I have learned that the economics columnist of the Seattle Times, John Talton, is a well regarded writer of detective stories.

I first ran across John Talton on the radio talking more sense on the economy than most. That piqued my interest, but it took a number of snatches of interviews before I caught his name—and decided to investigate. What I can say is that he is a thoroughly entertaining interviewee with a appealing sense of humor who has no less than ten books to his credit.

Yes, I did say ten published books—while keeping up his day job. The man puts me to shame.

No, I haven’t read any of his books yet—largely because  I didn’t even know his name—but if he writes as well as he talks and blogs, I do not expect to be disappointed.

He blogs at http://www.roguecolumnist.typepad.com

Now to get back to my screenplay. You have heard the expression: “The fog of war”—of course you have. Well, these is also a stage in assessing a manuscript which one might describe as: “The fog of words.” Then the fog begins to clear and suddenly you know where you are going.

I’m beginning to reach that stage. Exciting!

THE STORY SO FAR: PART 226

THE TRICKS OF THE TRADE WHEN IT COMES TO BINDING A SCREENPLAY

DEVIATE FROM THEM AT YOUR PERIL

Most people call the CIA “THE” CIA. Those who work for that famously warm-hearted institution, or who otherwise are associated with it, refer to it merely as “CIA.” Along with the secret handshake, it is a sign that you are an insider—one of the guys or gals.

Every specialized area has its routines and rituals (and some are extremely weird). The military excel at such arcane behavior, but the computer industry may come a close second. “Boot up” a computer? Ridiculous—but there it is.

One of the subtlest secret signals concerns binding a screenplay. Here you are submitting a work of genius—your genius, needless to say—and it is ignored!

Why so? Well, that will teach you to not to know that even though you are binding three-hole paper, the cognoscenti know you only use two brads—one at the top and 0ne at the bottom.

Alex Epstein’s book (see graphic) will guide you through all this. The following is an example of his excellent work:

Screenplays should be on 3-hole 20 lb. plain white paper, bound with two 1 1/4" brass brads (ideally Acco #5 Brass Fasteners), with brass washers in back, and card stock covers. You should be able to get brads (aka "brass fasteners") at larger office supply stores such as Office Depot, or from Amazon. You can also get brass washers from them.

Why two brads and not three? Because you only need two to bind a script, one each in the top and bottom holes, and when you're making thousands of script copies a week, as the studios and agencies do, the cost and time of putting in an unnecessary middle brad adds up.

Don't use 3" brads (too long) or those skimpy #7 brads (they don't hold the script together). A few people use aluminum screw brads ("Chicago screws"), but it's not normal, and they tend to be slightly too long for 120 pages. Please never use those funny folding metal strips with sliders to bind the script. Personally, I like to take the bottom brad out when reading so I can flop the pages over. That's impossible with metal strips. Don't spiral-bind your script either. If we like your script we're going to run it through a copy machine so multiple people can read it. Ever tried to re-bind a spiral-bound script by hand?

Flatten the points of the brads back against the back of the script so they won't catch on people's clothes. Bashing the brads with a hammer will accomplish this nicely if you have brass washers; otherwise, fold each brad point backwards on itself, and then flatten them with a hammer.

Covers should be card stock, i.e. 80 lb paper. Any copy shop should have card stock. They can probably punch the top and bottom holes in them for you, too. Don't use clear plastic covers. For extra credit, use pre-creased 9 1/2 x 11" covers that fold over and cover the points of the brads. My printer (L.A. Print & Copy, (310) 445 3200), made fold-over covers for me out of my chosen card stock. Maybe they'd make some for you?