Just watched this very interesting TED talk on Story and the prevalence it has in our lives. The speaker was warning against it - against simplistic stories, stories used to manipulate for advertising, politics, self-deception and so forth.
And in all that he has a point. However he failed to mention the positive side - how it teaches, socializes, binds our society and civilization together - and how it can be used for good as well as evil (HAHAHA).
So, I'm off to use my stories for evil, and then test them on human monkeys like in the below Channel 4 programme (it's actually quite an interesting look at how stories affect us neurologically, though it seems to focus more on images than story. Might only be available for UK peeps.)
Enjoy
What makes a masterpiece
Tuesday 10 January 2012
Friday 9 September 2011
The Uses of Enchantment - The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales
This is the old 1970's classic by Bruno Bettelheim, an exploration of the psychological meaning of Fairy Tales. It could be very out of date by now, but I found it extraordinary, so I thought I'd do a little review.
It's only taken me a year or so to read (amongst other books as well, honest) because it is very dense and heavy going but well worth it.
I think I was attracted to the book because I've always had a deep respect for Fairy Tales - always intuited they have a deeper meaning, in some cases guessed at them, but never to this level. What he touches on but doesn't explore to my satisfaction is one idea I'm fascinated with - the evolution of story. How generation after generation, the (fairy) story is moulded and evolves into something with deep meaning and important conscious and subconscious lessons. And then of course Disney get their hands on it, rob it of all meaning and indeed (as in the case of Cinderella) change the underlying meaning to something possibly harmful.
But to stay with the idea of evolution - my first attempt at storytelling was an invented fairytale where a man losses his voice to a seductive witch. I thought it had the potential to say a lot about power and expression, but without the help of generations of storytellers behind it wasn't actually that good. The process of refining a story for so long - with the result of a completely barmy tale that should make no sense but actually resonates so powerfully across cultures and generations is incredibally humbling. It inspires me to try somthing similar and reinforces what an essential part storytelling is of human nature - and a way of passing on wisdom - and indeed letting it grow - from generation to generation.
But to look at specifics. In Cinderella, Disney invented the fairy godmother (though that may also have been the guy who recorded lots of these tales - can't remember) - in any case it was changed. The original story had Cinderella ask her father to bring her back a stick from market, one that caught on his hat. Her sisters ask for expensive gown. She gets the twig, plant it, and it grows into a tree, from whence all the magic flows - getting her dolled up to go to the ball. This completely changes the story. In Disney's version she' s helped by a deus ex machina, the fairy godmother, in no way linked to her actions. But in the original, the tree represents her mother, and she nurtures and protects that motherly side while being bullied, so she grows internally as the tree grows. When it's ready to flower, with magic, she's ready to go out into the world and find a mate. In this version the magic is a result of all the time and effort she's put to nurturing her internal development /the tree. It teaches no to expect an external saviour, that prograess comes from within, while the Disney version teaches that one should wait until something/someone comes along to make it all better - through no effort from yourself. Pretty profound difference and with a couple little girls looks like I'll have to edit their Cinderella books as I read them from now on. And no Disney films. A couple of other random things stayed with me - and this is the corker - the glass shoe represents a vagina (yeah, the prince gives sit to her - I know. But apparently it works).
Moreover, different tales deal with different stages of life. Red Riding Hood is all about defying parental authority, Cinderella about sibling jealously and Beauty and the Beast about how to find a life partner - and all deal on some level with Oedipal issues.
The book is very Freudian, but also uses examples of little know tales, which again remind you how magical and yet important these tales can be. It examines the symbolic language we share across cultures and gives an insight into a child's development. It's a fantastic book, not only insightful but also inspring, one I would I highly recommend to any storyteller, especially those writing the Hollywood version of Fairy Tales we're getting at the moment - now I just have to find a way to employ something of this depth in my own writing.
So - go and read it. Here it is on Amazon
It's only taken me a year or so to read (amongst other books as well, honest) because it is very dense and heavy going but well worth it.
I think I was attracted to the book because I've always had a deep respect for Fairy Tales - always intuited they have a deeper meaning, in some cases guessed at them, but never to this level. What he touches on but doesn't explore to my satisfaction is one idea I'm fascinated with - the evolution of story. How generation after generation, the (fairy) story is moulded and evolves into something with deep meaning and important conscious and subconscious lessons. And then of course Disney get their hands on it, rob it of all meaning and indeed (as in the case of Cinderella) change the underlying meaning to something possibly harmful.
But to stay with the idea of evolution - my first attempt at storytelling was an invented fairytale where a man losses his voice to a seductive witch. I thought it had the potential to say a lot about power and expression, but without the help of generations of storytellers behind it wasn't actually that good. The process of refining a story for so long - with the result of a completely barmy tale that should make no sense but actually resonates so powerfully across cultures and generations is incredibally humbling. It inspires me to try somthing similar and reinforces what an essential part storytelling is of human nature - and a way of passing on wisdom - and indeed letting it grow - from generation to generation.
But to look at specifics. In Cinderella, Disney invented the fairy godmother (though that may also have been the guy who recorded lots of these tales - can't remember) - in any case it was changed. The original story had Cinderella ask her father to bring her back a stick from market, one that caught on his hat. Her sisters ask for expensive gown. She gets the twig, plant it, and it grows into a tree, from whence all the magic flows - getting her dolled up to go to the ball. This completely changes the story. In Disney's version she' s helped by a deus ex machina, the fairy godmother, in no way linked to her actions. But in the original, the tree represents her mother, and she nurtures and protects that motherly side while being bullied, so she grows internally as the tree grows. When it's ready to flower, with magic, she's ready to go out into the world and find a mate. In this version the magic is a result of all the time and effort she's put to nurturing her internal development /the tree. It teaches no to expect an external saviour, that prograess comes from within, while the Disney version teaches that one should wait until something/someone comes along to make it all better - through no effort from yourself. Pretty profound difference and with a couple little girls looks like I'll have to edit their Cinderella books as I read them from now on. And no Disney films. A couple of other random things stayed with me - and this is the corker - the glass shoe represents a vagina (yeah, the prince gives sit to her - I know. But apparently it works).
Moreover, different tales deal with different stages of life. Red Riding Hood is all about defying parental authority, Cinderella about sibling jealously and Beauty and the Beast about how to find a life partner - and all deal on some level with Oedipal issues.
The book is very Freudian, but also uses examples of little know tales, which again remind you how magical and yet important these tales can be. It examines the symbolic language we share across cultures and gives an insight into a child's development. It's a fantastic book, not only insightful but also inspring, one I would I highly recommend to any storyteller, especially those writing the Hollywood version of Fairy Tales we're getting at the moment - now I just have to find a way to employ something of this depth in my own writing.
So - go and read it. Here it is on Amazon
Sunday 10 July 2011
BBC Writersroom Writers festival
Last week I managed to blag my way (God knows how) onto the BBC Writersroom Writers festival - So I thought I'd blog my way through it for anyone who might find it useful.
It was a couple of days in Leeds, of intense lectures and meeting lots of grand folk, all of whom seemed way more progressed in their careers than me - so, the only way is up!
The festival started off with a round table with successful writers debating whether it was right for writers to try and change the world. Hugo Blick, writer and director of The Shadow Line recently on the BBC was very interesting about the writer's relationship with the audience and politics in general. His point was that without opposing political ideologies - i.e. that all parties accept the Neo-Liberal framework and only disagree within those confines - it is hard for a lone voice to offer an alterative. He then went to connect this with apathy being a self-fulfilling prophecy, but what I took from this was the relationship he saw between writers, politicians and the general public, one I hadn't really examined before.
Then I went to a great session on Holby City - how the process of writing for them works, where and how they find their writers. Basically they'll get you in for a chat if they've read your script (supplied by an agent) and liked it, and may try you out on their shadow scheme - or if you have experience, give you an episode. The other thing that came up was the 5 act structure - a new one to me, but apparently what most of the BBC hour long dramas adhere to. It's basically three acts, but act 2 is split into 3 separate acts making 5 - which means a big turning point or reversal every 8 or so minutes.
A couple of session after that were no great shakes and then off to the pub for a bit of boozing - grand.
Though not so grand when the master of BBC Drama, John Yorke, gave us a potted history of screenwriting craft from Aristotle to the present day. It was titled "The Curse of the Scriptwriting Guru", and while admitting he was setting himself up as one, he proceeded to trash all claims to guru dom.
His argument - one which I had come to in my own way, though not nearly to the same depth or development - were that there were many paths up the mountain of structure - that there was a Platonic ideal of structure that all these masters - Vogler, McKee, Field - were reaching toward, though each were forging their own path and understanding. It boils down to the basic idea that humans understand information by assigning patterns to it. And the most basic way of doing this, as one of them old Greeks says, is THESIS; ANTITHESIS; SYNTHESIS.
This breaks down into the three act structure. Humans then naturally think in this structure, and all these gurus have come up with ways of understanding this underlying truth. So they are all right, and are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, to be successful with structure, one needs to be inclusive - to know the different systems of thought and choose which one, or combination of more than one, suits you best.
A pale shadow of what the man said, but it was brilliant.
There were a couple of other sessions - notable "Starting a New Series", in which the round table stressed the need for fantastic characters matched with a great hook, and the orchestration of the piece - i.e. set it up so there's room for natural stories of the week and built in conflict between characters. Wit and humour is an essential that many writers often forget to put in.
It was a fantastic couple of days, and as ever, the chance to meet and talk to like-minded people was brilliant. If they do this again, get your self on it. Leeds is nice too.
It was a couple of days in Leeds, of intense lectures and meeting lots of grand folk, all of whom seemed way more progressed in their careers than me - so, the only way is up!
The festival started off with a round table with successful writers debating whether it was right for writers to try and change the world. Hugo Blick, writer and director of The Shadow Line recently on the BBC was very interesting about the writer's relationship with the audience and politics in general. His point was that without opposing political ideologies - i.e. that all parties accept the Neo-Liberal framework and only disagree within those confines - it is hard for a lone voice to offer an alterative. He then went to connect this with apathy being a self-fulfilling prophecy, but what I took from this was the relationship he saw between writers, politicians and the general public, one I hadn't really examined before.
Then I went to a great session on Holby City - how the process of writing for them works, where and how they find their writers. Basically they'll get you in for a chat if they've read your script (supplied by an agent) and liked it, and may try you out on their shadow scheme - or if you have experience, give you an episode. The other thing that came up was the 5 act structure - a new one to me, but apparently what most of the BBC hour long dramas adhere to. It's basically three acts, but act 2 is split into 3 separate acts making 5 - which means a big turning point or reversal every 8 or so minutes.
A couple of session after that were no great shakes and then off to the pub for a bit of boozing - grand.
Though not so grand when the master of BBC Drama, John Yorke, gave us a potted history of screenwriting craft from Aristotle to the present day. It was titled "The Curse of the Scriptwriting Guru", and while admitting he was setting himself up as one, he proceeded to trash all claims to guru dom.
His argument - one which I had come to in my own way, though not nearly to the same depth or development - were that there were many paths up the mountain of structure - that there was a Platonic ideal of structure that all these masters - Vogler, McKee, Field - were reaching toward, though each were forging their own path and understanding. It boils down to the basic idea that humans understand information by assigning patterns to it. And the most basic way of doing this, as one of them old Greeks says, is THESIS; ANTITHESIS; SYNTHESIS.
This breaks down into the three act structure. Humans then naturally think in this structure, and all these gurus have come up with ways of understanding this underlying truth. So they are all right, and are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, to be successful with structure, one needs to be inclusive - to know the different systems of thought and choose which one, or combination of more than one, suits you best.
A pale shadow of what the man said, but it was brilliant.
There were a couple of other sessions - notable "Starting a New Series", in which the round table stressed the need for fantastic characters matched with a great hook, and the orchestration of the piece - i.e. set it up so there's room for natural stories of the week and built in conflict between characters. Wit and humour is an essential that many writers often forget to put in.
It was a fantastic couple of days, and as ever, the chance to meet and talk to like-minded people was brilliant. If they do this again, get your self on it. Leeds is nice too.
Sunday 26 June 2011
Industrial Scripts' Script Reading Course for Film & TV
On Friday I went on Industrial script's Script Reading Course for Film & TV.
Highly recommend, not only for the no nonsense approach of Industiral's Script's main man Evan Leighton-Davis, but also for the extensive support and backup they give you. This includes a 50 page handout of the course, including a very extensive list of industry contacts - one that would (and probably has) taken years to build - and doing a sample script report after the course and getting feedback on it from the course tutor, Evan.
I'll give a few highlights from the course, but first a disclaimer. Yes, I won this course. And yes, I won it through the UK Scriptwriter's Podcast - again. Those of you who've paid attention will rember I won another of their competitions in January. Now before it starts to look too bad I must stress I've never met Danny or Tim - and besides, Evan (who I hadn't met till I did the course) chose the winner of this competition, not Danny or Tim. I felt a little guilty when I won this second prize, but hey, what ya gonna do? It did apparently come up in conversation between Evan and Danny after Evan announced the winner. ANyway, hope my roll keeps...rolling.
The course was great - here's a few highlights but if you've got the cash and are wanting to be a script reader this is the one to do. Gonna bullet point your arse:
In script reports:
But, where this course excelled was the time it devoted to actually finding a reading job. Evan went into depth with information, strategies, tips and personall anecdotes on how to get those in demand jobs - and all very good advice it was too. Ultimately what I took away from the course was the necessity of strategising one's career - building a brand and working with the best. This applies in any profession, but even more so in the media, where name recognition is everything.
So just make sure that whatever you do - be it writing scripts, writing script reports or riding a laser-beam to Jupiter, make it very, very good - just like Evan's course.
In a coupe weeks I'm off to the BBC Writersroom Writer's Festival in Leeds, so hope to be blogging some about that.
Keep writing!
Highly recommend, not only for the no nonsense approach of Industiral's Script's main man Evan Leighton-Davis, but also for the extensive support and backup they give you. This includes a 50 page handout of the course, including a very extensive list of industry contacts - one that would (and probably has) taken years to build - and doing a sample script report after the course and getting feedback on it from the course tutor, Evan.
I'll give a few highlights from the course, but first a disclaimer. Yes, I won this course. And yes, I won it through the UK Scriptwriter's Podcast - again. Those of you who've paid attention will rember I won another of their competitions in January. Now before it starts to look too bad I must stress I've never met Danny or Tim - and besides, Evan (who I hadn't met till I did the course) chose the winner of this competition, not Danny or Tim. I felt a little guilty when I won this second prize, but hey, what ya gonna do? It did apparently come up in conversation between Evan and Danny after Evan announced the winner. ANyway, hope my roll keeps...rolling.
The course was great - here's a few highlights but if you've got the cash and are wanting to be a script reader this is the one to do. Gonna bullet point your arse:
In script reports:
- don't fence sit
- do refer to recent movies
- even if it's a bad script, write a good logline.
- don't waffle.
- Synopsis - dot' do this: and then this happened, and then this, and then this - NO, Peter, NO (who's Peter? Peter is the bad script reader).
- Pace is the result of Structure (with a capital S).
- look at the big picture - how does the script sit in comparison to others? Is it designed correctly, with characters that complement each other and naturally create tension - indeed, are there enough or too few characters? Does the scripts world/arena work or is it unbelievable?
- is the story too simple or complex?
But, where this course excelled was the time it devoted to actually finding a reading job. Evan went into depth with information, strategies, tips and personall anecdotes on how to get those in demand jobs - and all very good advice it was too. Ultimately what I took away from the course was the necessity of strategising one's career - building a brand and working with the best. This applies in any profession, but even more so in the media, where name recognition is everything.
So just make sure that whatever you do - be it writing scripts, writing script reports or riding a laser-beam to Jupiter, make it very, very good - just like Evan's course.
In a coupe weeks I'm off to the BBC Writersroom Writer's Festival in Leeds, so hope to be blogging some about that.
Keep writing!
Tuesday 8 March 2011
Being Human creator Toby Whithouse Q&A
I know, this poor blog has been lost in the virtual wilderness of bleeting electrons and absent writings for a few weeks now. It just needs some love - mea culpa.
I was nicknamed lazy Blaisey, many years ago – entirely unjustly, I might add - what I’m trying to say is that I have been busy: I have just started script reading for a prod co, (am enjoying it and learning a lot), as well as desperately trying to finish my rewrite by end of April (Nichols competition is calling)
But I did manage to finagle my way into another BBC event last Friday, a question and answer with the creator and Exec Producer (Showrunner to your Americans) of the cult BBC series Being Human.
Thought I’d write it up while I had a chance. If you don’t watch this series, I highly recommend it – last week’s episode was on crack!
For some reason I’d thought Toby had appeared from nowhere to create this show. If only. Like most mere mortals he had to work his way up, starting from being a failed actor.
Out of work, he wrote a play which promptly got him TV writing gigs. After a few of those a Prod co gave him the bare outline of the idea for No Angles, a channel 4 series on nurses up north – which was quite good fun. And then Being Human. He admits he’s lucky, but I think he might have a smidgen of talent as well. He did stress the Being Human – becoming a showrunner – happened at the right time. Any earlier and he would have fucked it up. He also stressed that working up as a writer on other people’s shows taught a huge amount, enough to now run this – you can’t do it without this kind of experience – so don’t worry if you’re a little older…
So an old BBC contact approached him about creating a series based on the lives of twenty something housemates who bought a house together. This promptly launched him into development hell, months of trying to get blood from a stone – it’s hardly an inspiring premise. Then, in the last meeting on the possible programme, he flung in a few ideas from a short he was writing about an anal werewolf.
Why not make one of the flatmates – an anal compulsive control freak – a werewolf? And the recovering sex addict could be a vampire? The agoraphobic girl becomes a ghost? Sounds like on of those moments to me when everything clicks into place and you’re staring at genius.
And analysing it (just a little) the key is that the characters came first, and their characteristics – their supernatural elements were only added later, as a veneer to make them..more sexy? Give them a story? But is this working from the specific to the general? – from a real character to an archetype? I thought it was supposed to be the other way round, but just goes to show, rules are made to be broken.
So it worked, and worked brilliantly. Their supernatural elements perfectly complemented their characteristics, creating rounded supernatural characters with depth and a unique story. Go get ‘em!
Other than that, Toby was very interesting on budgets. Prosthetics, settings, number of characters, all kept down due to budget. That, and the limits it places on production brings a concentrated creativity to the piece – if you’ve sent the house bound episode with Herrick in the attic that just proves the point. Should give us all heart.
He was also quite wise on one’s attitude when writing. Starting out on Being Human, he was stuck – couldn’t find his way and wrote uninspiring stuff. Only the realisation that he should write it as though it’ll never get made actually allowed him to spread his imagination (within the budget confines) and explore this world he’d created.
One question came of how he mixed both tragedy and comedy in the series – which it does, mostly to good effect. Toby didn’t actually get the assumption of the question – that there were different genres. He said he just wrote life as he saw it and didn’t classify. I can see his point, but I think - especially if you are writing film – you really do need to be aware of genre. It’s one of the most basic tools when it comes to selling. He might be in a very nice place (the BBC) which can take occasional risks. That said, the tone of the series has varied widely from scene to scene let alone series to series, and that I think is one of its strengths. Genre has always been a marketing invention / demand, and he’s blessed to be free of it.
Then I went home and caught the penultimate episode of series 3 on Sunday. That was some of the best TV I have watched in a good long time – surprise, revelations, reversals, all the characters gong through the shit – it was beautiful TV. Thank you Toby Whitehouse.
Am just off to some networking drinks with general script development people now… so remember, mustn’t drink too much….
All best
Out
I was nicknamed lazy Blaisey, many years ago – entirely unjustly, I might add - what I’m trying to say is that I have been busy: I have just started script reading for a prod co, (am enjoying it and learning a lot), as well as desperately trying to finish my rewrite by end of April (Nichols competition is calling)
But I did manage to finagle my way into another BBC event last Friday, a question and answer with the creator and Exec Producer (Showrunner to your Americans) of the cult BBC series Being Human.
Thought I’d write it up while I had a chance. If you don’t watch this series, I highly recommend it – last week’s episode was on crack!
For some reason I’d thought Toby had appeared from nowhere to create this show. If only. Like most mere mortals he had to work his way up, starting from being a failed actor.
Out of work, he wrote a play which promptly got him TV writing gigs. After a few of those a Prod co gave him the bare outline of the idea for No Angles, a channel 4 series on nurses up north – which was quite good fun. And then Being Human. He admits he’s lucky, but I think he might have a smidgen of talent as well. He did stress the Being Human – becoming a showrunner – happened at the right time. Any earlier and he would have fucked it up. He also stressed that working up as a writer on other people’s shows taught a huge amount, enough to now run this – you can’t do it without this kind of experience – so don’t worry if you’re a little older…
So an old BBC contact approached him about creating a series based on the lives of twenty something housemates who bought a house together. This promptly launched him into development hell, months of trying to get blood from a stone – it’s hardly an inspiring premise. Then, in the last meeting on the possible programme, he flung in a few ideas from a short he was writing about an anal werewolf.
Why not make one of the flatmates – an anal compulsive control freak – a werewolf? And the recovering sex addict could be a vampire? The agoraphobic girl becomes a ghost? Sounds like on of those moments to me when everything clicks into place and you’re staring at genius.
And analysing it (just a little) the key is that the characters came first, and their characteristics – their supernatural elements were only added later, as a veneer to make them..more sexy? Give them a story? But is this working from the specific to the general? – from a real character to an archetype? I thought it was supposed to be the other way round, but just goes to show, rules are made to be broken.
So it worked, and worked brilliantly. Their supernatural elements perfectly complemented their characteristics, creating rounded supernatural characters with depth and a unique story. Go get ‘em!
Other than that, Toby was very interesting on budgets. Prosthetics, settings, number of characters, all kept down due to budget. That, and the limits it places on production brings a concentrated creativity to the piece – if you’ve sent the house bound episode with Herrick in the attic that just proves the point. Should give us all heart.
He was also quite wise on one’s attitude when writing. Starting out on Being Human, he was stuck – couldn’t find his way and wrote uninspiring stuff. Only the realisation that he should write it as though it’ll never get made actually allowed him to spread his imagination (within the budget confines) and explore this world he’d created.
One question came of how he mixed both tragedy and comedy in the series – which it does, mostly to good effect. Toby didn’t actually get the assumption of the question – that there were different genres. He said he just wrote life as he saw it and didn’t classify. I can see his point, but I think - especially if you are writing film – you really do need to be aware of genre. It’s one of the most basic tools when it comes to selling. He might be in a very nice place (the BBC) which can take occasional risks. That said, the tone of the series has varied widely from scene to scene let alone series to series, and that I think is one of its strengths. Genre has always been a marketing invention / demand, and he’s blessed to be free of it.
Then I went home and caught the penultimate episode of series 3 on Sunday. That was some of the best TV I have watched in a good long time – surprise, revelations, reversals, all the characters gong through the shit – it was beautiful TV. Thank you Toby Whitehouse.
Am just off to some networking drinks with general script development people now… so remember, mustn’t drink too much….
All best
Out
Monday 7 February 2011
How to approach a rewrite
So, I’m embarking on a massive rewrite, and in order to do a proper job this time I thought I’d layout a plan of action. And then I thought I might as well put it up here - it might help someone.
I’ve culled this from many sources – The 21st Century Screenplay by Linda Aronson (highly recommended), a Hal Croasmun newsletter, and an audio podcast from Just Effing Entertain Me, as well as a few random thoughts of my good self. Hope it’s useful!
There are I think two main tenants to a rewrite. Have a plan, and focus on specifics.
That said, a rewrite can encompass anything from a dialogue pass to a complete restructure with attendant new characters. I’m not on either extreme, but having a plan is essential so you know what you want to achieve, how you’ll do that, and by when. One also has to specify – it’s very easy to say Character X needs more depth, but unless you know how you’re going to develop his emotional arc, how will you achieve that? Almost impossible when you’re stuck in the middle of act 2, trying to find the way out through a dense wood. Much better to do this at planning stage, when you can see the shape of the forest.
So, in some easy to follow steps, here’s how I will proceed.
1. Collate all your feedback – from yourself and readers – that you think should be included. I’ve done this and have a word doc of 60 odd pages now (gulp). But fear not! Always break it down into bearable, pint size chunks.
2. The next step is to divide this huge mass of feedback (PS include good feedback so you don’t go and cut what people think works well) into separate docs. So, one for each main character, examining their arc and emotional development – and actually breaking this down specifically, so we know in what scene his outlook changes from pessimistic to optimistic, for example. Also a separate document for the main relationships between each character, how those relationships grow and develop. I’ll also create docs for tone, theme, dialogue, and structure – the last probably split into different sequences – a much more manageable way to view the entire piece.
3. The difficult part here is specifying. For example, the main character needs to be more enticing but how? I would figure this out through his arc and emotional development, and then specify how and when this occurs in the sequence docs – breaking it down into separate scenes. In effect, writing a large outline.
4. Once you’ve done that for characters, relationships, theme, dialogue, tone and anything else you can think of, and out it all into the sequences docs I would read through and check it all scans, all the set-ups and pay offs are there, that the plot is consistent and makes sense.
5. Only then will I start on the actual script. And this time I’m gonna be radical. I use Celtx (a great free screenwrting software programme) at the moment, so my full script is in that programme. But last week I was lucky enough to win Movie Magic Screenwriting software courtesy of the UK Screenwriter’s Podcast, so I’ve decided to retype it all out by hand (bigger gulp). I imagine (and may be wrong) that this will force me to re-evaluate every word I retype, and will hopefully improve it as a result.
6. Then a final read through check. For me, this entails mainly looking at dialogue and the shape of the scene – that it moves the story forward, reveals character, and builds to a climax with appropriate twist/cliff-hanger ending, fuelling the move into the next scene. And of course, wordsmithing – making the action lines and dialogue sing.
And then a fully finished screenplay! Give yourself a time limit and get cracking! Good luck!
Tuesday 1 February 2011
Lucky Day
Well I was wondering what to blog about this week, tearing out my overlong hair and generally winding myself up.
But then - and apologies in advance for dancing perilously close the circle the hell reserved exclusively for boasters - I go and win not one, but two competitions today! Both fairly small, but offering great prizes.
First off was the competition of podmasters Tim Clague and Danny Stack - check out their most noble, friendly and necessary podcast here, and for answering their question right I won a heap of goodies - Movie Magic Screenwriting software, a DVD of Screenwriters interviews and a subscription to Moviescope magazine. Yay!
Mr Stack also took up my challenge of comparing and contrasting True Blood and Being Human, which I shamelessly suggested after doing exactly the same thing on my blog, here (the secret is, re-use your content. But maybe don't boast about it.)
So, excitement all over, I can home to find an email from Circalit saying my review of the spec script Gilgamesh on their site had won Review of the Month, earning me a free full coverage report from Industrial Scripts, a service I had been eying up already because of their talent connector.
Just hoping this run lasts til tomorrow when I can grab a lottery ticket at the local newsagent.
Boast over,
and many thank and worshipfullnesses to the kind competition people and the luck Gods.
What will tomorrow bring?
But then - and apologies in advance for dancing perilously close the circle the hell reserved exclusively for boasters - I go and win not one, but two competitions today! Both fairly small, but offering great prizes.
First off was the competition of podmasters Tim Clague and Danny Stack - check out their most noble, friendly and necessary podcast here, and for answering their question right I won a heap of goodies - Movie Magic Screenwriting software, a DVD of Screenwriters interviews and a subscription to Moviescope magazine. Yay!
Mr Stack also took up my challenge of comparing and contrasting True Blood and Being Human, which I shamelessly suggested after doing exactly the same thing on my blog, here (the secret is, re-use your content. But maybe don't boast about it.)
So, excitement all over, I can home to find an email from Circalit saying my review of the spec script Gilgamesh on their site had won Review of the Month, earning me a free full coverage report from Industrial Scripts, a service I had been eying up already because of their talent connector.
Just hoping this run lasts til tomorrow when I can grab a lottery ticket at the local newsagent.
Boast over,
and many thank and worshipfullnesses to the kind competition people and the luck Gods.
What will tomorrow bring?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)