Archive for Structure
Martin Scorsese on taking risks
Posted by: | CommentsThe other day I saw Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo,” which I think is a stunning achievement–shamelessly old-fashioned, lush, with superb performances from the two kids, and yes, a tad self-indulgent if you’re not into the history of film. Fortunately, I am.
Anyway, it made me more interested to read (and watch) Fast Company’s interview with him about some of the outstanding fictional and real characters in the cinema’s past. Here is what he says about Orson Welles and risk-taking:
By the way, a while back I spoke with a high school student who had recently seen “Citizen Kane.” He said, “I don’t get it. There’s nothing in there I haven’t seen in a dozen other movies.” I had to point out to him that they’d all been made after “Citizen Kane”. He pondered this for a split-second, then his face lit up. “Hey, I guess it’s pretty good after all.” Yep, pretty good.
(If you’d like 60 days of support for writing your screenplay or getting your other creative project going, you might want to enrol in the Writing Breakthrough Strategy Program that starts on Jan. 16, 2012 (and quarterly after that). Check out the details at : http://www.writingbreakthroughstrategy.com .)
Why simplicity is crucial in writing a screenplay
Posted by: | CommentsIn the previous post I shared Robert Ringer’s first (of three) rules of writing. Here’s his rule number two, which I think is even more important for screenwriters than for novelists.
Simplicity is crucial. Can the reader quickly understand what you are trying to say? Eliminate verbal furniture.
Ringer says he learned this from the classic book, The Elements of Style. I think it’s more important than ever because these days there are even more distractions for the reader and because overly ornate or long-winded descriptions can slow a screenplay down to a crawl.
That doesn’t mean your writing can’t have a style. Elmore Leonard has a great sparse style. So does Raymond Carver but I don’t think you’d ever mistake his writing for Leonard’s. In screenwriting, William Goldman is a good example–his scripts have personality but it doesn’t overwhelm the story.
In doing the research for my new book, Your Creative Writing Masterclass, which includes writing advice from classic authors, the notion of simplicity comes up again and again. Anton Chekhov and Mark Twain were among the proponents. (Plug: that book comes out in January—you can pre-order it now from Amazon.)
One way to simplify is to hunt for unnecessary adjectives. Newer writers sometimes go for the rule of three on this: three adjectives per noun. Too much.
Adverbs also are great candidates for pruning, especially when they apply to how dialogue is expressed: “Give me that right now!” he said angrily–or in screenplays, the parenthetical (angrily) between the character’s name and his dialogue. Given the words themselves and possibly your description of the person, it should be obvious that he’s angry.
Ringer quotes from Elements of Style: “the power of understatement is enormous.”
Next post: Ringer’s third rule of writing.
One of my rules of writing is, if you need support and guidance, get it! One way to do that is to join my online Writing Breakthrough Strategy program. You can find out more and sign up at http://www.WritingBreakthroughStrategy.com.
The screenwriter who hates “little gems,” buddies and arcs
Posted by: | Comments
I love good black comedies so I’m looking forward to seeing “The Guard.” In the meantime I’m making do with an interview with writer-director John Michael Donagh on the Den of Geek website.
His first refreshing statement is about indie films that often are described as “little gems.” He says “I didn’t want the film to feel like a small, low-budget Irish film, where they go, “Oh, it’s a little gem.” I hate little gems. I never go to see little gems. They’re just shit movies, basically. [Laughs]”
His goal was to make the movie feel much bigger than the budget and not be constrained by having a character that fits the stereotypes. Of his protagonist, Sgt. Gerry Boyle, he says, “And it’s funny, in a film where you’d think that a character’s so outrageous, and so obnoxious sometimes, that was the one that people connected with. Whereas, in all these screenwriting workshops, would that character ever be created?”
Next to be shot down: the character arc: “Gerry’s just the same at the end – he hasn’t learned anything. He’s going to say the same shit at the end as he did at the beginning.”
Well, surely the two characters who go through the difficult events of the movie end up good friends? “Not necessarily…Just because you’ve been through the wars with someone, it doesn’t mean you like them. You respect them. That’s what we were getting at in the film.”
Hmm, it sounds like there’s a TINY arc.
Finally, one more quote, this one about what he learned in the process of editing the film and getting other people’s reactions to the rough cut: “as a writer director, I was too much in love with all the lines. Scenes go on too long because you’re trying to get five gags in, whereas three gags would be better for the pace. It’s a basic thing of starting a scene later, and ending it quicker.”
So even if the film is lesson-free, the process wasn’t. In fact this last point represents one of the most common errors in screenplays including mine–but I do cut the fat as part of writing the second draft.
(For some friendly guidance in creating characters for movies or novels see my book, “Your Writing Coach,” published by Nicholas Brealey and available from Amazon ad other online and offline booksellers. You can find out more at http://www.YourWritingCoach.com.)
