Development, no guarantee for success

I too have been wondering why it is, with so many different ways available to
screenwriters to improve their scripts, that Australian screenplays don’t seem to get any better – with a few delightful exceptions. In theory we should be drowning in great screenplays! The reason seems pretty clear to me. You can learn the craft of screenwriting but you can’t, in a masterclass or from a guru, learn the art of
screenwriting – any more than you can learn to be a great musician by learning your scales and being adept at musical theory. It is arguable that an obsession with craft in an obstacle to true creativity – without which you wind up with well crafted sceenplays that look and feel like all the other well crafted screenplay written by screenwriters who have read the same books or studied at the feet of the same gurus.

Workshops can be inspirational as well as practical. I just wish there was less emphasis on the formulaic aspects of writing–adhering to a tight three act structure, the hero’s journey, etc–and more on developing your story and letting it determine the structure, rather than the other way around.

I run a workshop for community college. It puts emphasis on character and structure and the latter involves teaching some formula. But only so the writer can then subvert and explode it. Both Jurgen and Jeff are right. All the books and lectures and workshops guarantee nothing. They might give the odd novice a nudge but there’s no better way to learn writing than to write and make your own mistakes. Film-making’s a risky business and a gamble. Much of the talk and analysis and advice from gurus is to give a security blanket to nervous executives.

I did a high profile intensive workshop (probably best not to mention it by name) and thought I was getting a lot out of it until two of the ‘gurus’ totally disagreed with each other and got very hot under the collar about it. I couldn’t figure out which one was right and which one was wrong. It drove me crazy and I thought these two guys were going to come to blows. It wasn’t until I was out of the hothouse that I realized that while both of them made some good observations I didn’t agree with either of them. My point is that I lost what it was I wanted to do, overwhelmed as Iwas for a while by the expections of ‘gurus’ with opposing views. Another writer in the same workshop had the same experience with the same ‘gurus’.

Script gurus’ inevitably use successful films as examples of the various points they wish to make about what constitutes a good screenplay and how screenwriters should emulate these examples. The problem is that for every successful film (in terms of structure, themes, characterization, the three act structure etc.) that is a perfect example of a good screenplay, there are many films that obey the same ‘rules’ but which fail both at the box office and in artistic terms. Hollywood is awash with script gurus as we are now in Australia but it still manages to turn out well structured films with the acts all in the right places that audiences do not wish to see. Could it be that the magic that lies at the heart of a good screenplay is only tangentially related to the craft of scriptwriting – which is all that ‘script gurus’ can really ever teach? Yes, an architect must understand his or her craft, must be expert in it, but it is not Joern Utzon’s craftsmanship that is on display in the Sydney Opera House. He will not be remembered in 100 years as a master craftsman but for his artistry – only possible because he was prepared to bend or break what were considered to be the architectural ‘rules’ of the day. I am sure that script ‘gurus’ will find a way of demonstrating that THE SOCIAL NETWORK has three clearly defined acts, its plot and turning points in the right places etc. but is it these craft elements that have led to the film taking $8 million at the box office in Australia in three weeks? What would have happened to the screenplay had it been subjected to any form of intensive workshop run by ‘gurus’? “Where is Mark Zuckerberg’s transformational arc?” I can hear a ‘guru’ ask. “He’s not a sympathetic character. He starts out as an arsehole and ends up as an arsehole! Why would an audience want to see such a film?” Could it be that our current obsession with script ‘gurus’ drains the life, the originality, from what might otherwise be very good screenplays?

I really don’t see what the problem is! Participants in screen worshops like Aurora are under no obligation to take on board everything that a script guru advises. They should be able to filter out that which they feel does not apply or will not be useful to the screenplay they are writing. You can’t blame workshops for the lack of discernment on the part of screenwriters.

Claire,

On the question of discernment you may be right when it comes to experienced screenwriters. However…

A year or so ago I had a conversation with a young and (in my opinion) talented screenwriter who asked, “What sort of scripts is Screen Australia looking for?” (it could just have easily been Screen NSW) I suggested to him that this was not the right way of looking at it. “Write what you feel passionate about,” I said.

It was clear that in the back of this young filmmaker’s mind, however, was the notion that the best way to get funding was to give Screen Australia what it wanted, what Screen Australia thought it wanted or what a young filmmaker thought that Screen Australia wanted – as opposed to what the filmmaker (screenwriter) would write if he had the economic freedom to do so.

Other than for screenwriters on independent means, funding is important. There is rent to pay, a mortgage to be kept up with, kids in school and so on. From a purely economic point of view it makes sense to modify your screenwriting to please those (script experts and film bureaucrats) upon whom your income depends – resulting often, I think, in screenwriters writing to agendas that work against the interests of their own screenplay.

Remove the notion that there are ‘gurus’ and ‘experts’ and see these practitioners as merely mortal (after all most of them have no screenwriting successes of their own) and the playing field is levelled – no-one involved in the process of screenwriting (screenwriters, ‘gurus’, bureaucrats) claiming to know with any certainty what audiences will want to see next year, let alone in three years time. In short, a little humility on the part of everyone involved in script development.

What a sorry confused notion ….

The question should always be:
“What kind of stories do audiences want to see?”

1. Decide WHO your audience is,
2. Determine the SIZE of their demographic,
3. Write as story that can be made for a realistic BUDGET to suit the size of the demographic (ie break even, including the costs of prints and advertising).

If you arent doing that – then a writer is not writing professionally,
they are just a hobbist.

If a writer is a hobbyist – then they should fund their own films for their own viewing.

Ah, if only it were as easy as that! Does the audience always know what it wants to see or is is dying to be surprised by something new that it had no idea ift wanted to see until it saw it? If it were as easy as following your three step plan, LfO, our industry would be in a very healthy state. Alas, making good films that audiences want to see is not like mixing the right proportions to bake a tasty cake!

The story itself is clearly fair game.

I wasnt advocating “what” story you should tell – just to know “who” you believe will come and see it.

If a writer doesnt know who should come and see their film, who will ?

Distributors are generally dedicated to specific demographics – and are skilled at distributing to them.

If you try and fit a round peg in a square hole …
I’m sure you get my drift.
They wont have a clue what to do with it (or simply not the budget or skill set within their team to achieve what they very well may desire to achieve, but can’t).

For a lone screenwriter the difficulty is having to find a director/producer partner before you are able to submit a screenplay for development to Aurora or submit to Screen NSW. Finding the right partner seems to be almost impossible. After the – months or years, building the characters living on the pages that make up their world, to venturing into the wider world for a suitable partner to give life to the story on the big screen is almost impossible..
It would help to be able to publicize a page synopsis so that the directors and producers could then make an approach to the writers whose work enthuses them to a further investigation

Pat

A terrific idea. And one that could so easily be achieved by Screen Australia – a kind of meeting place for writers, directors and producers where relationships could be developed at the appropriate pace. It would save screenwriters from having to send their unsolicited drafts to producers and directors (this can be an expensive business) and it would save producers and directors from being deluged with unsolicited screenplays. There is the danger, of course, that your terrific one page synopsis may be pinched but this danger is ever-present anyway!