The Beating Heart
The beating heart of any film is its script. That is something I believe as firmly as... well, as firmly as any of my other convictions. Of which there are few.
Films change from script to screen of course. Sometimes the changes are cosmetic, sometimes dramatic. Some directors favour improvisation, believing the script is little more than a framework. In this instance, the script will often change considerably. Often, disintigrating schedules or production problems force changes, not always for the bad of course, I'm not coming at this from the point of view that change is necessarily bad. Simply that for a variety of reasons change occurs. But even if the script is just a framework, it needs to be a strong framework. Good directors will allow for that within their directorial approach. Lesser directors can weaken or dismantle the framework altogether. The point is that I as a writer am not responsible for what the director does during the shoot. I am responsible for providing the framework. And that is the last time I'm going to use the word "framework" in this post.
As an aside, at the risk of stating the obvious, film is the director's medium. In alot of cases it's also the producer's and the actor's. Rarely is it ever the writer's. And usually when it is the writer's, it's because he or she is also the director. Alot of people get bent out of shape by that. Maybe if I ever have the experience of having my beautifully crafted words pissed on by a director, I'll feel differently, but for now, the way I feel is quite pragmatic. There is nothing you can do to change the situation so either get behind the camera to take charge of your script as you see fit, or stop whining. If you're Akiva Goldsman the Oscar winning writer behind Batman and Robin, Lost in Space and Practical Magic (Is it just me or should that CV be rewarded with an Oscar?) then you also produce. The point of this post is to think about the script as the core of the film and from there to think about what it is as a writer you're supposed to provide.
So many writers at the stage I'm at (ie, unknown and unproduced) seem to think that by reading Robert McKee, watching alot of films and devoting some time to writing that the scripts they produce should be made into films. I don't know if this will of any use to anyone but one thing I always do is to ask myself this question. I'm standing outside the Odeon Leicester Square and a film I wrote is playing inside. A man with his last £10 of the month wanders past with a view to spending it on some entertainment for himself. He can go for a few pints, go for a chinese, rent a DVD and have a few cans, go see a different film. Can you in all honesty look that person in the eye and say that he should spend his last tenner on seeing your film? Can you say to him why out of all his options, that one is the best? Don't ask the question flippantly. If you always come to the conclusion that, yes that man should see your film, then you're either unbelieveably talented or (possibly more likely) slightly deluded. What is in this story that NEEDS to be told? Who is going to get what from it? Why will I be invested in it? What's different from what I've seen before? Is this going to appeal to anyone beyond you and your twelve mates? I've made that mistake and so many people seem to aswell. If your script is about a "cop on the edge" or a "juror under pressure" or a "gangster retiring after one last job" well maybe you've come up with an interesting variation on an old cliche or maybe you've just come up with a cliche. Why should we care? Why should our friend give his hard earned to you?
The other point to consider is that long before our friend has the chance of parting with his cash, you will have another audience to face. Directors routinely devote a year of their lives to the making of a film, often it's much more. What have you given them that's going to make them want to do that? Would you give up a year of your life to something you thought was a load of shite? Your job, in the first instance, is to ignite passion in the director and the actors and the producers. Is this story you're telling us making us turn the page in excitement? Are you giving a director great scenes he can sink his teeth into? Are you giving him visual opportunities aswell as dialogue scenes? Do those dialogue scenes crackle along, loaded with subtext and energy? Will actors think, "Wow what a character to play"? And not just your main character. If the script is the beating heart then it must be healthy and have plenty of work to do. Otherwise, from day one of pre-production through to the very last day of post, it's an uphill struggle for everyone concerned. Damage control rather than bringing to life something that's already pretty bloody good.
I've been falling short on all of the above. Reason number one I haven't made it yet. But they are the things I think every writer should be demanding of himself and his work. Because if you don't then what's the point? This world is full of mediocrity, we don't need any more. On that point, I usually go to the cinema a couple of times a week and I don't know about you, but for me the majority of films are neither exceptionally good nor exceptionally bad. Actually most aren't even pretty good or pretty bad. Most are okay. All right, but forgettable. Serviceable, bland and a host of other words you never want to be associated with. At least if something is absolutely dreadful it has produced an emotional response. The worst thing in the world is to have an audience sitting in apathy, neither caring nor uncaring. And given how many films fall into that bracket, it seems like the easiest thing in the world too. And you must avoid it at all costs. Be harsh with your work. Fair of course, don't give in to the bad thoughts telling you you're crap. But if you really censor your ideas, then the ones that get through will really start to excite you. And maybe, just maybe, they'll excite the people that can bring them to life.
Films change from script to screen of course. Sometimes the changes are cosmetic, sometimes dramatic. Some directors favour improvisation, believing the script is little more than a framework. In this instance, the script will often change considerably. Often, disintigrating schedules or production problems force changes, not always for the bad of course, I'm not coming at this from the point of view that change is necessarily bad. Simply that for a variety of reasons change occurs. But even if the script is just a framework, it needs to be a strong framework. Good directors will allow for that within their directorial approach. Lesser directors can weaken or dismantle the framework altogether. The point is that I as a writer am not responsible for what the director does during the shoot. I am responsible for providing the framework. And that is the last time I'm going to use the word "framework" in this post.
As an aside, at the risk of stating the obvious, film is the director's medium. In alot of cases it's also the producer's and the actor's. Rarely is it ever the writer's. And usually when it is the writer's, it's because he or she is also the director. Alot of people get bent out of shape by that. Maybe if I ever have the experience of having my beautifully crafted words pissed on by a director, I'll feel differently, but for now, the way I feel is quite pragmatic. There is nothing you can do to change the situation so either get behind the camera to take charge of your script as you see fit, or stop whining. If you're Akiva Goldsman the Oscar winning writer behind Batman and Robin, Lost in Space and Practical Magic (Is it just me or should that CV be rewarded with an Oscar?) then you also produce. The point of this post is to think about the script as the core of the film and from there to think about what it is as a writer you're supposed to provide.
So many writers at the stage I'm at (ie, unknown and unproduced) seem to think that by reading Robert McKee, watching alot of films and devoting some time to writing that the scripts they produce should be made into films. I don't know if this will of any use to anyone but one thing I always do is to ask myself this question. I'm standing outside the Odeon Leicester Square and a film I wrote is playing inside. A man with his last £10 of the month wanders past with a view to spending it on some entertainment for himself. He can go for a few pints, go for a chinese, rent a DVD and have a few cans, go see a different film. Can you in all honesty look that person in the eye and say that he should spend his last tenner on seeing your film? Can you say to him why out of all his options, that one is the best? Don't ask the question flippantly. If you always come to the conclusion that, yes that man should see your film, then you're either unbelieveably talented or (possibly more likely) slightly deluded. What is in this story that NEEDS to be told? Who is going to get what from it? Why will I be invested in it? What's different from what I've seen before? Is this going to appeal to anyone beyond you and your twelve mates? I've made that mistake and so many people seem to aswell. If your script is about a "cop on the edge" or a "juror under pressure" or a "gangster retiring after one last job" well maybe you've come up with an interesting variation on an old cliche or maybe you've just come up with a cliche. Why should we care? Why should our friend give his hard earned to you?
The other point to consider is that long before our friend has the chance of parting with his cash, you will have another audience to face. Directors routinely devote a year of their lives to the making of a film, often it's much more. What have you given them that's going to make them want to do that? Would you give up a year of your life to something you thought was a load of shite? Your job, in the first instance, is to ignite passion in the director and the actors and the producers. Is this story you're telling us making us turn the page in excitement? Are you giving a director great scenes he can sink his teeth into? Are you giving him visual opportunities aswell as dialogue scenes? Do those dialogue scenes crackle along, loaded with subtext and energy? Will actors think, "Wow what a character to play"? And not just your main character. If the script is the beating heart then it must be healthy and have plenty of work to do. Otherwise, from day one of pre-production through to the very last day of post, it's an uphill struggle for everyone concerned. Damage control rather than bringing to life something that's already pretty bloody good.
I've been falling short on all of the above. Reason number one I haven't made it yet. But they are the things I think every writer should be demanding of himself and his work. Because if you don't then what's the point? This world is full of mediocrity, we don't need any more. On that point, I usually go to the cinema a couple of times a week and I don't know about you, but for me the majority of films are neither exceptionally good nor exceptionally bad. Actually most aren't even pretty good or pretty bad. Most are okay. All right, but forgettable. Serviceable, bland and a host of other words you never want to be associated with. At least if something is absolutely dreadful it has produced an emotional response. The worst thing in the world is to have an audience sitting in apathy, neither caring nor uncaring. And given how many films fall into that bracket, it seems like the easiest thing in the world too. And you must avoid it at all costs. Be harsh with your work. Fair of course, don't give in to the bad thoughts telling you you're crap. But if you really censor your ideas, then the ones that get through will really start to excite you. And maybe, just maybe, they'll excite the people that can bring them to life.
posted by Garreth at 9:03 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home