New Mission of the Screenwriter
01/05/11 10:18 Filed in: Theory
Tweet
The primary mission of the screenwriter has changed. It is no longer to create a blueprint for production. Sure, some A-list writers have that luxury, and TV staff writers certainly do. But those of us who make our living writing on spec or convincing the people that hired us (or actors or directors, for that matter) that this script will make a great film have an entirely different job description. Our job is this: to create the emotional experience of watching the movie on the screen. This is not an issue of semantics. It is an entirely different philosophy of what you choose to put on the page.
The New Job of the Screenwriter: To create the emotional experience of watching the movie on the screen.
If I was forced to choose I would probably pick Billy Wilder as my favorite screenwriter (the fact that he always worked with a partner is not important here!) Wilder would not let anyone read a script who did not need to read it. "It is not meant to be read," he explained, "it is meant to be seen!"
He wasn't kidding. A Billy Wilder script is not a fun read. But he did not write the script to convince people it would be a good movie. He wrote it so everyone would know what their job was when they filmed the damn thing! Wilder didn't have a long line of less-than-competent readers to wade through before getting to the head of the studio. He wrote the script and then he went off and he made it.
This sort of thing is true for only a handful of people but even an A-list screenwriter being paid 2 million for the first draft hands that script off to maybe one person before it's pushed up to the person who actually greenlights it. Now, they still have to convince a director and some actors to jump on board, but that deal is sweetened quite a bit because the studio, along with sending the script, is also offering that director and actor their $5 million and $15 million quote, respectively. There is a lot of money changing hands, and the screenwriter has a great reputation and you can bet he or she is going to get the benefit of the doubt. Do you see what's happening here? The money, and the reputation and the desire to make a movie is doing a lot of the selling for that script.
This is not true for the new writer. At all. The unproven writer is probably going to have some college intern read their script. Maybe they'll get lucky and have a professional reader write the coverage. But what kind of culture is this reader working under? What are the punishments and rewards for recommending scripts? What kind of mood is the reader even in when they read it? Are they thankful they even have the job, or do they resent it because they would really rather be doing something else? Do they even know how to read a script? (Most actually don't)
Let's say they like it. Great. Now we have all those same questions and more about the entry-level development executive who was just promoted from assistant. And this goes on and on until maybe it gets to someone who can actually make a decision. It's a mess. This is why anything that helps people form an opinion while requiring less effort (writer's reputation, The Black List, produced credits) is embraced like a kid's first new bicycle.
If the new screenwriter is entering a script into this system with some antiquated notion like "you can only write what is actually on the screen" they're going to be dead in the water. If they've convinced themselves they can write long, dense paragraphs because they saw someone else do it, they're not moving up that chain. That first reader is looking for a reason to start skimming pages. Not because they don't want it to be good, but because they can usually correctly assume it's not and they have a whole pile of scripts to finish. Time is a wastin'!
This is the main reason why I am not such a fan of students reading the scripts of long-established writers. Not until they accept the fact that those writers work under different conditions than the up-and-coming writer. They simply have different burdens of proof. I would rather students watch the movies written by the masters. See how the story structure, the scene construction and the characterization worked in the final product. I remember working with my first producer and I turned in a draft inspired by the writing style of William Goldman! The producer told me to take all those affectations out. I complained, "But that's what William Goldman does."
"Great." He said, "When you're William Goldman you can put them back in."
Established writers tend to overwrite - an indulgence not allowed by the aspiring writer trying to break in. This is not to say they're not great writers, they're obviously wonderful writers, but making the script a phenomenal "read" is just not the best use of their time. I usually refer to the Blaise Pascal quote made famous by Mark Twain, "I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn't have time."
Obviously, I am not recommending that aspiring writers avoid reading. On the contrary! They should read as many scripts as they can! But they should read spec scripts that sold by less established writers and combine that learning with the final product of great writers. This will show them a combination of what makes movies great, and what makes movies sell. When they do read the scripts from the A-listers they must keep in mind that the A-lister can get away with things that the new writer cannot. "But that's that what Aaron Sorkin does" is not a good explanation for why your script is 164 pages.
When you're Aaron Sorkin you've earned the right to write a script over 110 pages with obscenely thick paragraphs connected by 9 pages of dialogue in one scene. When you're not Aaron Sorkin, they throw that shit away. And that's even if you're writing just as well as Aaron Sorkin! (Which you're not.)
So our burden is much tougher. Considerably tougher. Is this fair? Yeah, it is. Those writers had the same burden when they were coming up and now they get to concentrate less on the quality of the read and more on the content. They've proven themselves. They earned it. And it's not like they don't care about the quality of the read, it's just not the priority for them that it once was. They have a different audience now.
We, on the other hand, have to spend our time on both. I am now to the point where I spend 80% of my actual time cutting and trimming and perfecting the rhythm of the action lines. 80%. The dialogue is the easy part. The benefit I get for my years in the industry is I usually get to skip over coverage. Usually. The execs will either know my work or I will be introduced to them by someone they trust. It's a small gesture for my years of service but coverage at this point in my career is an insult. If they pass a script of mine down for coverage, I sure as hell don't want to hear about it!
I spend 80% of my actual writing time cutting and trimming and perfecting the rhythm of the actions lines...
So what does it mean to "To create the emotional experience of watching the movie on the screen"?
It means we want to create the atmosphere, mood, and pacing of watching the film in a dark theatre. We don't want them reading details. We want them seeing the film. Anything that reminds the reader they're reading a script is taboo. We don't mention any detail that they don't consciously experience when they watch the film. We need to engage them, suck them in. We want them to enjoy the script for the pleasure of the script itself.
Most of all, we want to evoke emotion. Cinema is an emotional experience and want to make reading the script an emotional experience as well. We do not want it to feel like a business proposal! Or instructions to the production designer. We want an emotional reaction, not an intellectual one.
How do we go about this? How do we get this done? Well, that's part two. And that's for another time...
type="text/javascript">
Tweet
You can also find this entry, with comments, on the Facebook Page.