Adding a Filmmaking topic?

[David Mullen ASC]

The complaint that most people just want to talk about tech is common to all cinematography forums.

 

[a whitmer]

The complaint that most people just want to talk about tech is common to all cinematography forums.

Are there more?


I may be way off base here, but it seems the whole pardigm of narrative film has changed in recent years. At least as it concerns small Indie dudes and dudettes that have their own equipment. Used to be fairly easy to have short screenplays produced. Competitions were abundant, and everyone was an overnight filmmaker. Some were actually pretty damn good.

Cameras were all of a sudden readily available, and classes/workshops/majors popped up like weeds. The film fests were on every corner - then someone got the idea to consolidate some of these fests, and make it a one-stop payment plan. With 'corporate' influence, of course, things get sanitized and ideas begin to narrow. Pretty soon, oddball filmmakers are relegated to showing their work on sheets stretched across the wall in a friend's garage. Creative types that put the shows together in the first place were suddenly part A of cog B. And the process goes full circle. Again.

Anyways, the euphoria wore off, and the idea of instant fame and riches quickly vanished. Folks were now looking for paid work in weddings, music vids, PSAs and commercials, and narrative film took a back seat. Or so it seems, and maybe rightly so.

Newb screenwriters are often certain that just a few classes and an original idea is enough to get their spec script sold and produced. Not so. Not even close. So the tree shakes out all the dead leaves, and those that remain realize there is little if any money in spec writing, so they put all their best work forward as calling cards to get assignment work, which may lead to some interest, eventually, to original works being produced. Maybe.

I think the same is true for the filmmakers, who realized there really is no money in producing short narratives, or even feature narratives, so they limit their involvemnt to producing just a few best-of-the-best as calling cards to getting future work as directors, cinematographers, sound and editing work, and so on. If all goes well, they will be writing and directing and producing their own material, and actually making money at it. This is probably how things will stay until the next euphoria comes along.

I am about 70% finished with a two volume, 800 page book on screenwritng. This is writen not only for screenwriters, but also for the filmmakers that would like to write their own material, or would like a better understanding of screenplays so they can choose narrative works with more confidence, and have the skills needed to make changes, interpretations and so on. Maybe five years ago I put up some pages here for feedback, and got better-than-expected comments, including 'Where was this material when I was starting out?' I put some pages up in another forum recently and didn't get one response. Zilch.

My point? I should have finished and published this life-long work five years ago. Its time appears to have passed. Interest in this stuff is waning, and folks are getting info from other sources. So now what, finish it and put it up for free? Seems to be the only option.

Narrative film certainy IS NOT where it was five years ago. We need to make adjustments and find ways to stay in the game.

Including sharing ideas in cinematography forums !!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think one problem is that even artists find it easier to talk about their tools than their art, particularly when the art is non-verbal.

 

[a whitmer]

I think one problem is that even artists find it easier to talk about their tools than their art, particularly when the art is non-verbal.

Very true.

 

[Elsie N]

I think one problem is that even artists find it easier to talk about their tools than their art, particularly when the art is non-verbal.

This and the worry that when we are talking about a pet project, we are afraid we will reveal something that is unique to our project that someone may use before we do it first(ish)... I say (ish) because someone has probably done it already and we mistakenly think we came up with it first. '-)

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I think one problem is that even artists find it easier to talk about their tools than their art, particularly when the art is non-verbal.

I feel that this forum has steered into much more tech these past years, there's not a lot of creativity being talked about. For a profession that is mostly creative, I think it's counter productive to have so many sub-forums that are just focused on tech. Come to think of it, one of the only parts of this forum that isn't really about the tech is your own, the Ask David Mullen anything. That's why I'm calling out for a part of the forum to be just focusing on the art, no tech, no politics, no bullshit, just focus on the art of making movies and motion pictures. This part of the forum, the "off topics" should have worked like it, but it's just cluttered with random things there's really nothing focused on what we actually do with our cameras.

I miss having a place to discuss craft and art, to analyze movies seen, to share tips about storytelling etc. Right now I've gone through the Aaron Sorkin masterclass which I found very well produced and helpful, were do I share that? In "off topics" where it gets lost in discussions about cats or requests for star maps? It's almost impossible to find a place for real philosophical subjects about what we actually do.

And if it has to be a forum section rather than just a part of the forum, then put "Shot on Red" and "Cinematography" into that section. Bottom line is that I feel we need to have some part of the forum focused on the art since almost everything else is focused on the either tech, Red purchase questions or random rants of "I know my profession better than you" kind of talk. Having a creative/art section would I think greatly add value to the forum outside of discussing Red order packages and pure tech talk.

In essence, I'm not sure why just adding such a section would be bad? What bad could actually come of it?

 

[Marc Thorpe]

I liken REDUser to Formula one, and this thread / topic fits the bill. Drivers craft their art on the track but come to the pits to sort out the mechanics and possible engine issues. Treat this forum as the Pits (for want of a better word) of the Monte Carlo Grand Prix, the track (production land) is where the magic happens, the engineers come here when something goes wrong or they are looking to expand their knowledge. To discuss the art of filmmaking? Is this the right location? From both the POV as to whether people actually feel a need for it here and secondly, maybe more importantly, do you feel that people will even think of REDUSer as a place to discuss the art and bother engaging??

 

[a whitmer]

I liken REDUser to Formula one, and this thread / topic fits the bill. Drivers craft their art on the track but come to the pits to sort out the mechanics and possible engine issues. Treat this forum as the Pits (for want of a better word) of the Monte Carlo Grand Prix, the track (production land) is where the magic happens, the engineers come here when something goes wrong or they are looking to expand their knowledge. To discuss the art of filmmaking? Is this the right location? From both the POV as to whether people actually feel a need for it here and secondly, maybe more importantly, do you feel that people will even think of REDUSer as a place to discuss the art and bother engaging??

I guess that about sums it up, Christoffer, and I am not at all surprised. Not one iota. You see, the guys in the pit don't talk about what the driver is doing, how he or she just pulled off that risky turn or overtake, avoided distater, or how they are 'one with the engine'. Nope, it's 'Wow, see how the tires held that turn?'


I have been hanging around various 'film' forums for about twelve years now - short time compared to some, a long time compared to others - but either way enough time to see shifts in the overall industry (I hate that word). Most recently, the shift has moved away from true creative thinking and experimentation to just the safe exchange of information, with an end goal of producing technically-perfect works.

Perfect lighting, perfect sound, focus, color, depth of field, and perfectly void of a pulse. No signs of life.

I will liken it to the funeral home: a body has been perfectly prepared for viewing - hair, skin color, clothes and accessories, expression. So perfect, in fact, that the mourners focus on the mortician's achievements, and forget that they are looking at a loved one. They forget the achievements and near-achievements of the soul that used to occupy that body. 'Wow, she looks alive!'

That is the current affair in film - or whatever it is one does with all that gear. There is no new thinking, new appraoches, trial and error, or the taking of risks.

In the screenwriting forums, all that anyone really has to talk about is how much they can't stand the other forum members, each holding the other to some imaginary bar based on whichever ass the prevailing PC wind is blowing from. No new thinking, no new approaches to screenwriting, no risk taking. Terrified to speak their minds, or to offer radical ideas. Creativity has been pummeled into silence and atrophy.

The reason nobody wants to discuss creativity is because is it risks exposing the human being behind the camera or pen. The entire industry is now populated by cowards and clones. Want to talk about lenses? This is the place. Want to talk about the reasons those lenses exist in the first place? You need to go find another tree to bark up.

Creativity has died before, and certainly on any given continent on any given day creativity is quashed and burned at the stake. But it always blooms again to move humanity forward.

Always.





Live better. Stop reading the news.

 

[Elsie N]

I guess that about sums it up, Christoffer, and I am not at all surprised. Not one iota. I guess the guys in the pit don't talk about what the driver is doing, how he or she just pulled off that risky turn or overtake, avoided distater, or how they are 'one with the engine'. Nope, it's 'Wow, see how the tires held that turn?'


I have been hanging around various 'film' forums for about twelve years now - short time compared to some, a long time compared to others - but either way enough time to see shifts in the overall industry (I hate that word). Most recently, the shift has moved away from true creative thinking and experimentation to just the safe exchange of information, with an end goal of producing technically-perfect works.

Perfet lighting, perfect sound, focus, color, depth of field, and perfectly void of a pulse. No signs of life.

I will liken it to the funeral home: a body has been perfectly prepared for viewing - hair, skin color, clothes and accessories, expression. So perfect, in fact, that the mourners focus on the mortician's achievements, and forget that they are looking at a loved one. They forget the achievements and near-achievements of the soul that used to occupy that body. 'Wow, she looks alive!'

That is the current affair in film - or whatever it is one does with all that gear. There is no new thinking, new appraoches, trial and error, or taking risks.

In the screenwriting forums, all that anyone really has to talk about is how much they can't stand the other forum members, each holding the other to some imaginary bar based on whichever ass the prevailing PC wind is blowing from. No new thinking, no new approaches to screenwriting, no risk taking. Terrified to speak their minds, or to offer radical ideas. Creativity has been pummeled into silence and atrophy.

The reason nobody wants to discuss creativity is because is it risks exposing the human being behind the camera or pen. The entire industry is now populated by cowards and clones. Want to talk about lenses? This is the place. Want to talk about the reasons those lenses exist in the first place? You need to go find another tree to bark up.

Creativity has died before, and. Certainly on any given continent on any given day cretivity is quashed and burned at the stake. But it always blooms again to move humanity forward.

Always.





Live better. Stop reading the news.

Alex, I get what you are saying and both agree and disagree with your comment about no risk takers, avante garde ideas. I suppose there is a place for that among the younger set in that they want some sort of "wow" factor in their content.

My hope is we get back to the tried and true practice of storytelling. Maybe experiment a little with how we present the story, but not to the point where it takes away from the story. I guess that puts me in the camp of discussing equipment since that is the way I will try to subtly set my story apart.

 

[a whitmer]

Alex, I get what you are saying and both agree and disagree with your comment about no risk takers, avante garde ideas. I suppose there is a place for that among the younger set in that they want some sort of "wow" factor in their content.

My hope is we get back to the tried and true practice of storytelling. Maybe experiment a little with how we present the story, but not to the point where it takes away from the story. I guess that puts me in the camp of discussing equipment since that is the way I will try to subtly set my story apart.

I don't know about you, but I'm living out my 6th decade (but look like my 4th !).

There is nothing wrong with tried and true. Film - just past its 100th birthday - is, after all, an offshoot of millenia of theater, itself an offshoot of millenia of oral traditions. Maybe cave paintings before that. All utilize tried-and-true storytelling techniques that somehow resonate with the way in which the human brain processes and retains information neccessary to be entertained.

The creativity - and the risks taken - are evident in the vast multitude of stories and variations on the themes, and in the technical inovations and cultural upheavels that got us to where we are at this moment. Edison, Lillian Gish, Aristotle, Hypatia, Murasaki Shikibu, Red camera and porn included.

What I am saying, is that creativity beyond just aiming a camera at something moving or not, is in a slump. We are not talking about it because we have nothing new to add. Or as some like to say 'It's all been done.'

Not.


Here's a 'creative' topic: matching story to producer and/or director.

To borrow again from the racing pit scenario ... The car may be a technical marvel, and the team (and bucks) are all in sync in keeping it race fit and then some. Then you toss in the driver. But not just any driver. There needs to be a perfect match - a driver that will find all the nuances that that machine is really capable of - the stuff the techies couldn't predict with certainty if at all (Scotty in Star Trek - 'I'm giving her all she's got, Captain'). Change drivers, and you change the possibilities. Same machine, different outcomes.

This is why it is essential to include creative exchange.

 

[Elsie N]

I don't know about you, but I'm living out my 6th decade (but look like my 4th !).

There is nothing wrong with tried and true. Film - just past its 100th birthday - is, after all, an offshoot of millenia of theater, itself an offshoot of millenia of oral traditions. Maybe cave paintings before that. All utilize tried-and-true storytelling techniques that somehow resonate with the way in which the human brain processes and retains information neccessary to be entertained.

The creativity - and the risks taken - are evident in the vast multitude of stories and variations on the themes, and in the technical inovations and cultural upheavels that got us to where we are at this moment. Edison, Lillian Gish, Aristotle, Hypatia, Murasaki Shikibu, Red camera and porn included.

What I am saying, is that creativity beyond just aiming a camera at something moving or not, is in a slump. We are not talking about it because we have nothing new to add. Or as some like to say 'It's all been done.'

Not.


Here's a 'creative' topic: matching story to producer and/or director.

To borrow again from the racing pit scenario ... The car may be a technical marvel, and the team (and bucks) are all in sync in keeping it race fit and then some. Then you toss in the driver. But not just any driver. There needs to be a perfect match - a driver that will find all the nuances that that machine is really capable of - the stuff the techies couldn't predict with certainty if at all (Scotty in Star Trek - 'I'm giving her all she's got, Captain'). Change drivers, and you change the possibilities. Same machine, different outcomes.

This is why it is essential to include creative exchange.

Starting my 7th... acting like it's my fourth. '-)

I'm all good to join in on a creative exchange... AFTER my work has been released. Happy to talk about it then.

 

[a whitmer]

I myself have never been behind a camera, or on a set for that matter. And I want to keep it that way. It sounds weird, but the less interaction with people (ugh) the easier it is for me to create them on the page. I prefer the casual observer approach - that weirdo on the park bench might actually be a screenwriter

The closest I have come to being a 'camera person' is to do my own storyboards, and again, I don't need breathing, talking, pooping humans to do that. But it is interesting, and I can certainly see the attraction for creatives to get behind a camera, and spend all the time and footage setting up the perfect shot, then the editing to ensure its overall effect on screen.

https://alexmwhitmer.wordpress.com/storyboards/


Again I argue that narrative film is in a creative doldrum, and it is likely to stay there a bit longer (not unike the US auto industry in the 70s). Screenwriting needs to catch up with the rest of film's new and wonderful innovations, but 99% of the screenwriters have been irreversably poisoned by the available material out there, and work within its debilitating confines with their own free will. If there is one dicipline in film that needs an enema, it's screenwriting. Maybe just burn it to the ground and start over.


Here is a nice blurb on Screenwriting's humble beginnings and metamorphoses.

http://www.screenplayology.com/content-sections/screenplay-style-use/1-1/


There are two problems not likely to find a solution anytime soon, if ever: screenwritng is the bastard child of the industry that came before it, and will never be held in the same esteem as behind-the-camera diciplines such as directing, cinematography, editng, scoring, etc., and front-of-camera diciplines such as set design, costume and - the glory position - acting.

The second problem, and on the flipside of the same coin, is the arrogance of writers and the shit-don't-stink twist on their primary importance in the whole. 'No script, no film.' Well, that can be said for all of the creatives involved in moving a story from page to film. No camera, no film. No director, no film. For the most part I really can't stomach the vast majority of other writers for that very reason. That and many suck at what they do - but don't tell them.

'But dude, I read all the books and have the latest ABC writng software!' Screw writers! Cry babies.


Here are two short excerpts from my someday book ... written for filmmakers, not just screenwriters. Unedited or finished, but you get the gyst. I'd love any feedback !!!

https://alexmwhitmer.wordpress.com/zz-excerpt/


Film has come a long ways in just a short 100+ years. To keep it dynamic, one must imagine what it will be like in another 100.

aw

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

My hope is we get back to the tried and true practice of storytelling. Maybe experiment a little with how we present the story, but not to the point where it takes away from the story. I guess that puts me in the camp of discussing equipment since that is the way I will try to subtly set my story apart.

If that is your hope, no it doesn't put you in that camp.
That is just inertia in a current society's OS, which has developed a fixation on the wrapper and has atrofied the subtle faculties which reach deeper.

So there is this awesome designed box of stuff which looks and tastes like food but is crap, existing because someone doesn't care what your organism will assimilate.
And what you assimilate you become.

What you are referring to is just initial tendency of the rational part of mind, to focus on the analitical part first. You can consider what young or inexperienced are first fascinated with and focus on.
The gear, the pixels, how does A refer to B, how much of what for what, compared to what, the stuff you can see and immediately assimilate, measure, categorize and draw relations to. Specs, techniques, tutorials where to put what and what does each button do. We've all been there. When the initial fascination with obvious dissolves, one can see further.

The foundation of creative part is based on developing sensibility, feeling, vision and ultimately - inspiration. All the technical knowledge serves to, and is only as usable as the part which drives it all.

Christoffer has a good suggestion.
I'd put that into "storytelling". Without the underlying philosophy and venturing deeper, creativity just leads to fiddling with desires and techniques, empty of its essence.

 

[a whitmer]

a fixation on the wrapper

Doesn't get more poignant than that.




This from the book ...

NOTE: This is a masterful shot, or composition if you will. Note the individual Van Gogh paintings, and how the costume of each actress relates to their respective works and the works of others, and how they are arranged in the group. If you are a filmmaker, strive for this kind of attention to detail when turning screenplay words into moving images. You can be certain the screenplay did not specify who was wearing what, or next to whom they were placed, or how many takes and discussions were needed to nail it. If you are a screenwriter, this is the beauty of having a screenplay that allows all others to interpret and bring their very best to the table.

It is, in my humble opinion, a masterful shot, but even more important to consider is that it is also a fleeting moment of moving images amongst thousands of fleeting moving images. Here it is captured, or grabbed, as they say. When watching the film, however, it goes by in a matter of whole seconds, split seconds and nanoseconds.

Kudos to the collaborative work in the film, Mona Lisa Smile.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I like your idea, Christoffer. It would be nice to have a place to discuss the collaborative & creative side of the business. I have an idea for a TV series which I will post shortly. It would probably be more suited the proposed forum than the off-topic forum.

Look at how great Citizen Kane is. It's a cinematic masterpiece that is more engaging than many contemporary films. It will outlast almost every single superhero movie (which are not that super), and pretty much every Pixar movie, and every Star Wars movie with the exception of the original trilogy. It's the product of vision and talent, and it's brilliant storytelling. They had many more technical limitations back then, and yet that did not hold anyone back.

I suggest that A Whitmer is right. The same thing is occurring right now in comic books (not that I care much about them). Being PC is more important than storytelling. Comics aren't selling, partly because of the enforced political ideology, and partly because publishers pulled their products from newsstands and supermarkets. But publishers don't care, because Hollywood money keeps them profitable. But... for how long?

 

[a whitmer]

Citizen Kane is brilliant, yes. So very few films will stand the test of time like that.


Add this to the greats - a masterpeice of the silent era.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGgon2YeISw&nohtml5=False

 

[a whitmer]

More from the book ... a short excerpt on perception

Painting a picture yet? The story behind this staircase, this room and chair is one of the most fascinating in our collective human history. Point? What might seem like a random staircase may be anything but, and could very well be the impetus for you next grand screenplay. Hint: I have used it once. So far.

The point of all this is to challenge writers and filmmakers to see things in a different light than we are used to, or comfortable with. How we learned – or were taught - to interpret them. We understand that stairs serve a function of convenience above all other considerations of style, materials, age, and so on. But they can also be used to create tension, relieve tension, and indulge our curiosities. They are a metaphor for the unknown. Rising from the ashes and descending into darkness. We do, after all, associate upward movement as good. Success and salvation. Moving toward the light. We associate downward movement as bad. Failure. Moving toward evil. Hell.

You must coddle all the details in your writing – your stories – with the same multi-dimensional abstract and non-abstract possibilities, be they right side up, upside down, looped or linear. Stairs are not just stairs. Rocks are not just rocks. All things have a purpose beyond their understood function. This really is not so recondite as we make it out to be.


More ...

Plenty of films have utilized stairs, even if they were there for a fleeting moment. A nanosecond. Did they serve a purpose beyond moving someone or something from one floor to another? In the film ‘The Untouchables’, 1987, with the all-star cast of Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Robert De Niro, Andy Garcia, and Charles Martin Smith, there is a scene where Costner’s character, government agent Eliiot Ness, confronts gangster Al Capone, played flawlessly by Robert De Niro. The scene has the high-and-mighty Capone coming down a grand staircase to the hotel lobby, where the lowly government agent waits with gnashing teeth. (see also Rose coming down the stairs to Jack’s level in the ‘Titanic, 1997’), Would this have been equally effective the other way around, with the lowly agent coming down to Capone’s level? Not a chance. Capone is king here. Kings in lowly places are defeated kings. All this is inferred visually through the clever use of stairs, and in just a brief minute of screen time. A fleeting David and Goliath moment.

NOTE: The stairs’ overall impact was enhanced by the addition of red, the color of passion, but also anger and blood. Pretty befitting for Capone’s legacy. Also note that De Niro is dressed in a calming beige (confidence), while his thugs are dressed in neutral grays (background, dime-a-dozen thugs). This is not an accident! I have not read the screenplay, so I can’t say how much of this was or was not written in. As a writer, however, I would certainly have placed Capone at the top of stairs. Costume and dressing up the location would more likely come about through the beauty and brilliance of film’s collaborative efforts, including location scouting, set design, and costume design. This is why they are recognized with awards.

This is a grand staircase. Would creaky old porch steps have worked just as effectively? Unlikely. Do not dismiss for a second that your locations are as much a part of your cast as are the actors, and they are as important to telling a convincing story as are the lights and cameras and editing equipment.

Down to the last dead bug on a windowsill.

A second use of stairs, in the train station with a runaway baby buggy, takes what might otherwise have been a been-there-seen-that gangster shootout and adds a delicious, tense layer of human emotions. I can’t imagine the film without that scene.

A second round of kudos.


No two of us may use any one sense the same. Two people, for example, might be looking at a store window mannequin, and one will focus on the style of the clothes, while another may focus on the colors of the clothes, or how the mannequin relates to other objects around it: proportions, distances, weights of color, and so on. The information they think is important based on sight alone – since they cannot touch what they see, or smell it. Taste and sound are likely out as well.

Some studies suggest that smell is directly wired into the brain with no middle-man to process it, and this is why a smell can spark an immediate reaction or memory. A chrysanthemum, for example, might trigger memories of autumn leaves to anyone who lived or grew up where trees change colors – and scent.

Some folks find vital the information they get through eyes and ears. Or at least more satisfying and complete. But the sense of smell is also quite powerful, and I encourage writers to exercise it regularly. Take your nose for a walk.


''Many autistic children like to smell things, and smell may provide more reliable information about their surroundings than either vision or hearing.”

― Temple Grandin



The seven senses are Smell, Sight, Touch, Sound, Taste, Perception, and Intuition. So, armed with these senses, hopefully running on high octane, a writer is more than prepared to venture out into the pretty and dirty world, now knowing full well that stairs are not just stairs. They are stories, and they are stories within stories. Mannequins in a window are stories. People are stories.

Exercise: Take an old mannequin to an abandoned building, and push it down the stairs. Then write about it.

 

[a whitmer]

One more for today ... from the chapter on ELEMENTS



SIGNS OF LIFE


Signs of life is movement. Any movement. It is wind, waves, shooting stars, creatures and bugs on the move. This element can also reflect the mood of the film, from tranquil to frantic to near static.

Let's take the rocky road mentioned in Metaphor. If there is a glimmering beach in the distance, the waves or a tide surge can give you movement. A lush garden can have a breeze move through the flowers and leaves, or you could have the flowers motionless, and add some tumultuous clouds moving through the frame.

Like this ...



EXT. BARREN FIELDS – DAY

A rocky and dusty road winds through parched brush, vanishes over a small rise. In the far distance red and gold wildflowers blanket a hill.

A brisk wind blows anvil clouds over the landscape.


Okay, so we have a little metaphor to set up this rocky relationship. Parched plants add a little extra punch. Our movement comes from the clouds. It is here is where writing visually really kicks in.

Let’s bring our main character/s in.



EXT. BARREN FIELDS – DAY

A rocky and dusty road winds through parched brush, vanishes over a small rise. In the far distance red and gold wildflowers blanket a hill.

A brisk wind blows anvil clouds over the landscape.

A car radio is heard, switching back and forth between stations. Road dust kicks up from behind the rise.
Moments pass, then an older model car comes up over the rise, swerving as the radio changes channel again.

INT. CAR - MOVING – DAY

STELLA GREEN, late 20s, small-town girl trying to look Hollywood, fumbles with the radio.

HARPER SHORT, early 30s, rugged man with some good looks under his anger, slaps Stella's hand away and changes the radio to another station.


Without these two even saying a word, we have a pretty solid idea things are not going well. Maybe add in the wild flowers slowly disappearing behind them, and the imagery alone has introduced a good glimpse at the obstacle.


NOTE: Time and again I have heard screenwriterS argue that things like ‘Small-town girl’ are not filmable, and therefore should not be in the screenplay. Bullshit. Small-town girl most certainly is filmable. Just as big-city girl is filmable. There are behaviours and experiences and world views that go with being either small town or big city. These are filmable nuances an actor will bring to the table to make a character 3-dimensional. Compare it to ...



STELLA GREEN, late 20s, fumbles with the radio.



There, you’ve just created a flat, two dimensional paper doll that a reader will likely find uninteresting at first glance. Or second, third and forth glance. Completely forgettable. You may defend that you will show small-town later, but why not create that image, at least in part, right at the first introduction?

Earlier we had this ...



Detective Harrison follows TRADER, 30s, a slippery man who lives and breathes arrest warrant, loves polyester.



We can probably see the polyester, but can we see a slippery man who lives and breathes arrest warrant? Of course we can.

And this?



EVA TOTH, Late 20s, petite, blessed with a natural beauty and poise poets strive to capture, enters barefoot and draped in a red evening gown.



We can see the age, petite, barefoot and the red gown. But can we see the poets striving to capture her natural beauty. Maybe. Can we see a natural beauty that poets strive to capture? One-thousand percent yes.

Don’t introduce static characters. When in doubt, refer back to Melvin Udall.



Don’t expect the puppets of your mind to become the people of your story. If they are not realities in your own mind, there is no mysterious alchemy in ink and paper that will turn wooden figures into flesh and blood.

- Leslie Gordon Barnard



Back to story ...

Take away the metaphor and the movement, and this feels pretty lifeless. Not dead, just unconscious.

Maybe let’s develop the characters a little. Really find out who they are. Back story! Let's make Stella somewhat plain. She tries too hard to do the Marilyn Monroe thing. She loves old jazz. She's a bit of princess.

Harper still clings to the Father knows best mentality, has a thing for James Dean, and likes hip hop music.

Old jazz and hip hop. Never the twain shall meet. Well. Maybe someday. They said the same thing about country and rock. And maybe jazz and hip hop have already met. Have they? Did I miss it?

This music choice also re-enforces the great divide we want to show in our characters. Let’s see if we can add all of this without dialogue (we’ll talk about dialogue, or the lack of it, in a later chapter).



EXT. BARREN FIELDS – DAY

A rocky and dusty road winds through parched brush, vanishes over a small rise. In the far distance red and gold wildflowers blanket a hill.

A brisk wind blows anvil clouds over the landscape.

A car radio is heard, switching back and forth between jazz and hip-hop stations. Road dust kicks up from behind the rise.

Moments pass, then an older model car comes up over the rise, swerving as the radio changes channel again.

INT. CAR - MOVING – DAY

STELLA GREEN, late 20s, a plain, small-town girl trying to look like Marilyn Monroe, fumbles with the radio until she finds old jazz.

HARPER SHORT, early 30s, a rugged man with some good looks under his anger, a pack of cigarettes rolled up in his tee shirt sleeve, slaps Stella's hand away and changes the radio to hip hop.



Okay, so now let's reveal their names to the viewing audience. The viewing audience will not have the script to rely on for this kind of information, and you want to avoid nametags. You may not feel names are important at this point, but I think having a face with a name is somewhat intrinsic to bonding more fully with a character, and there is lot in a name. Do you conjure up the same image with the names John, Wilbur or Boris? Of course not. Or how about Jane as opposed to a woman named Johnny or Firuzeh?.

Names matter.




INT. CAR - MOVING – DAY

STELLA GREEN, late 20s, a plain, small-town girl trying to look like Marilyn Monroe, fumbles with the radio until she finds old jazz.

HARPER, early 30s, a rugged man with some good looks under his anger, a pack of cigarettes rolled up in his tee shirt sleeve, slaps Stella's hand away and changes the radio to hip hop.

HARPER
Dammit, Stella! Why you gotta be messing with me like that?

Harper's cell rings. He checks caller I.D and answers.

HARPER (INTO PHONE)
What's up?

MAN (THROUGH PHONE)
Harper! Where you at?

Stella changes the station.



Or something like that. Introduce your character or characters with some kind of idiosyncracy – as was so flawlessly done in As Good as it Gets, and try to slip in a name for the reader / viewer (Melvin Udall says a lot), and maybe a hint of why we just met them right there, in this moment.

 

[a whitmer]

Book excerpt from the chapter on FINDING YOUR STORIES, sub-heading LOVE AND WAR. sub-sub-heading FINDING STORIES THROUGH COMMONALITY ...

We pick up in a story written on the fly (to demonstrate writing on the fly!) for the book ...



Begin excerpt ...

Remember our old broken chair? When people see one, they know it wasn’t made that way. It was complete at some time in its life. Do we see people like Sari in the same light, admitting to ourselves that she was not made that way? Or do we only see what they have become? Usually that is the case. But that’s like saying ‘What idiot made a chair like that? Who’s going to buy it?’

Here we will add finding commonality in the seemingly unrelated. It is a powerful approach to finding stories.


At this point we will stop referring to Sari as Crack Whore, and call what she is. A human being named Sari. She has a family. Somewhere. Let’s get her home. Eventually.

By now you should be loving her as well, and getting her home paramount – after we rough her up a little more. That’s our filler. Blame the cosmos, but triumph comes from grief and hopelessness, and that’s what our unfortunate brains consider entertaining. And probably why reality shows are so popular. Use said cosmos with caution and responsibility, though. We are not in this to glorify shittiness. We are in it to explore shittiness, understand it, then shoo it away. And don’t hate your crack whores. Hate the people and the circumstance that put them there and keep them there.


“Happiness is a garden walled with glass: there's no way in or out. In Paradise there are no stories, because there are no journeys. It's loss and regret and misery and yearning that drive the story forward, along its twisted road.”

- Margaret Atwood, The Blind Assassin


There are a number of ways you can run with Sari’s plight from here. She could be a prostitute, or she could be Nagel’s girlfriend. A relationship of convenience with no love in sight. And you might have Aubrey getting into some sketchy situations trying to find her baby sister. Mugged or nearly mugged. Her pussy will become her own worst enemy, and being out on the streets makes her a target. Traffickers would love to get her bar-coded and sold. And she knows it.

Do you want to somehow include Sari’s parents? They must be feeling something. Some loss. Some fears, compounded when Aubrey heads out into the unknown to find her. What about her fiancè’s family? Any anger there? What if the accident occurred while her fiancé – we’ll call him Joshua - was running an errand for Sari? Does Joshua’s family blame Sari? Or should you just keep this simple and focus on sibling love as the means to get Sari home again? You have 90 to 120 pages to fill, more or less required if you are writing a feature, so you need relevant ideas that can convincingly tell Sari’s story, and Aubrey’s vow to find her, no matter the risks.

Let’s keep it simple and go with just Sari and Aubrey, for now.

How do we find and convey just how Aubrey is feeling? What’s stronger, her fear of what might have happened, her fear of never finding Sari, or her wrenching sense of loneliness at not having Sari around?

Would something like this help ...


Gazing across the fields,
at Taketa I hear the cranes
ceaselessly crying:
not a space not a moment
of pause in my longing.

- Lady Otomo-no-Sakanoue (728-750s)


Ceaselessly. Not a moment of pause. That’s pretty heavy. The Cranes can be that gut feeling Aubrey has that Sari is out there. Somewhere. Wanting to come home. But something’s really wrong. Aubrey must find her, and fast. Inspiration can come from lyrics, poetry, graffiti, or something you overheard in a micro brewery. Listen for it.

And what will getting home do for Sari? Make everything whole again? Or just have a safer place to slowly die from sorrow and loneliness? At what point do you end this story? Resolved? Unresolved? Unexpected consequences?

What else have we looked at that might work its way into the story? Albrecht? The Dancing House? Maddie? Anything there we can use? Any good threads to weave in?

My point is, as you begin your story, be it by 3x5 or just winging it or somewhere in between, you should have collected all kinds of images and scratched out all kinds of thoughts, names of songs, limericks, and oodles of things that appear unrelated. What if we were to eventually have Sari arrested and a mug shot taken? Is there some relation to how mug shots are taken to Albrecht’s bold dare to paint himself full frontal? Does our dancing building have any relevance? Or Maddie? Or dance? Don’t discard things willy-nilly because they don’t appear to have any common threads, or threads that can somehow be joined and woven and knotted and then yanked apart.

What do a broken chair and a crack whore have in common? On the surface maybe nothing. You are a writer. This is what writers do. Find commonality in the seemingly unrelated. Let’s bring in our three game-changers: Albrecht, Dancing House, and Maddie, and add them to the broken chair. That makes four.

See a commonality in any of them?

How about movement and energy? Can that somehow work its way into your story, directly or indirectly? Can one object or character mimic the energy of another, no matter their difference in mass? Kind of like bugs pretending to be something else to either attract or ward off prey. Can a building pretend to be a chair, or visa-versa? We’ll answer that shortly.

Things can and do mimic each other, be they characters, elements, plots, energy, or mockingbirds. It is these kinds of threads you must be constantly gathering together with your sense of perception and sense of intuition.

I think the commonality in Albrecht and Maddie should be quite obvious. Screamin’ obvious. Up in your face.

As mentioned earlier in our example of Mona Lisa Smile, images can fly by in seconds or less. The chair and building are static images, and won’t likely move on their own, ghost stories aside, and the movement they imbue as sculptural objects aside. But what about Maddie (image change), if you somehow saw a reason to bring these three threads together. Do the chair, the building and Maddie have any commonality? Movement? How would this movement differ between them? Maddie’s would be in constant shift, but if you freeze the frames – as in our Mona Lisa Smile sample - you could get this ...

The chair’s vertical line follows a back leg we can only partially see, but we believe it is complete. We cannot see it, but we know it’s there. Perception and intuition. Maddie’s lines will be gone in the blink of an eye. Kinetic images. Dancing House’ lines are intrinsic to the surroundings that it cannot change. Static images.

We forgot one. Static or kinetic?

How all this matters is coming up. Promise.


With those 4 props in mind, maybe you decide to make Sari a dancer. Or she once was. And maybe Aubrey’s ‘Bring Sari Home’ site has some photos as a memory keeper for others to see that this woman has a beautiful history, and she needs to be found. She was a dancer as a child. She was studying architecture when the accident happened. She liked to buy old master prints in garage sales and arrange them in fun ways – sideways and upside down in collages. It’s a hobby bordering on art bordering on income.

Will it make or break the story if these threads are not there? No. Does it add authenticity? Absolutely, and that’s why authenticity is included in part two. Your stories and the characters in them remain disastrously one dimensional until they feel authentic. That’s why we have threads.

We’ll leave Sari for a few moments and focus on another story or two drawn from the same theme of love, different premise, and using the same 4 props (sorry Broken Chair, Albrecht, Dancing House and Maddie. Don’t mean to refer to you as props).


We need a new story. What if we work out some thoughts on the elder couple mentioned earlier?

Alright, I like that. Here we go. The first crack at a new back story. We’ll call them Madison and Webster. They met, or became friends, or at least started talking because they both had unusual names, at least for the times in which they were growing up. Being over sentimental, Madison has an old chair she just won’t throw away. It was her mother’s. Webster is a renowned architect, now retired. They have a granddaughter, Onyx, that is a prodigy in the world of dance.

There.

No, wait. One’s missing.

They both share a passion (love) for old masters’ works. They scrimped and saved and scrimped some more until they could afford a small engraving by Albrecht Dürer at an auction. It was authenticated, and now holds a special place in their house. Their granddaughter always goes to see it when she visits. Madison and Webster have already promised it to her.

Her parents, or maybe a brother, are not thrilled with the news, and have already laid plans to get their hands on the artwork. Its current value is 250,000.00. They will put the value of the art over the value of love for their daughter, or sister.

There are your first seeds of conflict, also covered here in part two. This could even escalate to war between family members. Greed will do it. And this could become a faith-based story fairly easily, by the way. If that is what you would like to write.


MORE ...

 

[a whitmer]

CONTINUED ...


You can expand on any one of the threads to add weight to their significance and the theme of love. Let’s say Madison’s mother once confided in her that she would sit at her vanity each night to put her hair up before bed. On one of these nights her husband walked in and was mesmerized by the beautiful feminine moment, and Madison was conceived that very night. Over the years the vanity was lost and the chair damaged by careless movers, but Madison refuses to let it go. It even occupies a spot just below the engraving, and their granddaughter stands on this chair to see the work. Maybe the granddaughter once asked why they have a broken chair, and Madison replied ‘It isn’t broken, my dear child. It is in transition (Wabi Sabi).


When these kinds of ideas and loose thread come to you, try a few lines to see if they have any potential to bring the story alive and 3D. Pick a point, any point, and start writing ...



INT. GREEN’S HOUSE – HALL – DAY

Onyx stands on the chair, gazes at the engraving. She moves closer, then back, then closer. Webster and Madison watch.

MADISON
I wonder what she sees.

WEBSTER
All the good stuff that doesn’t meet the eye first glance. Like you.

A wink and a smile. Onyx faces them, just keeping her balance. Eyes sad.

ONYX
Are you really going to sell it?

MADISON
Of course not. Who told you that?

ONYX
I heard mom on the phone, asking about a price. Value, I think she said.

Madison and Webster exchange a worried glance.

INT. GREEN’S HOUSE – LIBRARY – DAY

Madison sits, Webster paces.

WEBSTER
Perhaps we should give it to the museum, and avoid all this hatred sure to come.

MADISON
No. We promised it to her, and she will have it. What about a living trust? She’ll be 18 in seven years ...

WEBSTER
... I fear either way it will end up with her choosing between the engraving and her mother.

Madison stands, a deep breath.

MADISON
Her mother already made that decision.

Onyx dashes in.

ONYX
There you are!

Madison gives her a big embrace. A bitter sweet embrace.

INT. GREEN’S HOUSE - HALL – DAY

Webster gazes at the engraving.

WEBSTER
Bastard. You were supposed to bring joy into this family.

He sits in the chair, it creaks and groans under his weight.



Any one thread has lots of potential to become a whole ball of yarn. Keep alert. And if your character is well educated, make them sound like it. I mean, Webster could say this ...



WEBSTER
Maybe we should just give it to the museum and avoid all this frickin’ crap.



Instead of ...



WEBSTER
Perhaps we should give it to the museum, and avoid all this hatred sure to come.


These two short dialogues carry a very different tone and sense of emotion and/or education. It could be that Webster usually speaks in a polished manner – until he’s upset, where the word difficult would be traded out for bullshit. Happens, and one more reason that dialogue is not just conversation. It’s everything the audience needs to know about your character, their changes in mood, and their real colors. Their angry colors. Their blissful colors.


Another story scenario, and here is where we will bring all that chatter about a shared sense of movement into play.

Screenplay Abstract #3

Chair + Maddie = Dancing House, designed by Albrecht


No, seriously, that’s your next screenplay, and those are the threads that will bind it all together! The first panel, by the way, is reserved for a new central character or object we have yet to weave in. If we need to. I’m guessing we will.

If you are going to write for film, or film other people’s work, you must be able to think in pictures, even if they are simple abstracts.


AW