The Coming Age of Story

Just read this really interesting article on "story", and how Hollywood still struggles with that very concept as it applies to film. Enjoy!

http://www.writersstore.com/article.php?articles_id=1004&discount=ezine&source=ezine
-----------------------------------------

The Coming Age of Story
by James Bonnet

The interest in story is greater now than it has ever been, and – putting aside for a moment the movie business, television, book publishing, other major producers of story and their consumers – that interest now extends to every facet of our society.

Heavily funded, major research projects now exist throughout government, the sciences, and the corporate world. And everywhere that interest is growing. Everyone – from stock brokers selling derivatives, lawyers trying to convince a jury, preachers trying to save our souls, and neophytes looking for employment – wants to be able to effectively tell their story – who they are, what they do, how they (or their products) fit into the scheme, and why they (or their products) are destined for great things.

In short, people everywhere have begun to realize just how important story is
and the key role it was meant to play in our lives. We are, in fact, entering the age of story and the time is not far off when knowing what stories actually are and how to create them may well be the most valuable knowledge a person can possess. In such a world, unbounded opportunities will exist for skilled storymakers and others with a profound knowledge of the art.

There is, however, a fly in the ointment. Along with this new interest, and considerable research, has come the realization that the inner workings of a great story are more elusive and profound than previously assumed – and what great stories actually are, the real purpose they serve, and the mechanics of their creation remains, for the most part, an intriguing mystery.

The three act structure, which is the most popular storymaking tool being used in Hollywood these days, it turns out, isn’t really a story structure at all. It’s a holdover from the theatre and the arbitrary division of an action into three parts, and you can’t find it in the great stories and literary masterpieces of the past. Other popular structures like those that hinge on conflict and turning points are derived from Aristotle’s classical story structure – which is important because it’s a structure of action and will appear naturally in any problem solving action that encounters resistance. But there’s much more to a story than the action. Then there’s Joseph Campbell’s The Hero’s Journey which is also important and even more sophisticated because it is grounded in the initiation rites of primitive societies and has a lot to say about our psychological development. But taken together, the Classical Structure and The Hero’s Journey still add up to just a small part of what writers and filmmakers will need to know to actually master the art form. There are huge missing pieces to the puzzle.

This, of course, is not hard to prove – when you consider that out of the hundreds of feature films that are produced each year in Hollywood, fewer than ten or fifteen are worth seeing. That’s a pretty sorry statistic. And in television it’s even worse. Mozart, Beethoven and Van Gogh (artists who understood their art forms) could do what they did every time. That’s not happening in Hollywood. If you study the credits of our top writers and directors, you’ll discover a few outstanding hits and a long list of things you never heard of. Why? Because the principles of the art form have not really been established so it’s still a hit and miss process. Which leaves us, in effect, with an entire industry manufacturing something which it doesn’t understand. Story. That leaves about six and a half billion people in this world with a desperate need for real stories which isn’t being met. So despite the nine billion dollar yearly grosses, there is a vast, untapped potential market out there – and if we can actually crack the story code, there will be, to paraphrase a line from Shakespeare in Love, “rubies in our saddlebags.”

Be that as it may, there’s a new, higher level of understanding emerging in the world of story concerning deep, hidden story structures which all great stories have in common. These hidden structures are intimately linked to our evolutionary journey and are extremely powerful. They are the reason some of these great stories defy time and remain active and relevant for thousands of years and why others became so charismatic that religions were formed around them – religions that attract millions of followers who have worshipped the revealed truths in these stories for an equally long time. These new deeper structures make clear where these extraordinary stories got their enormous power and why these hidden structures are the missing pieces of the puzzle.

In this new series of articles, I will attempt to reveal the significance of these
new deep structures and why it is critical for every writer and storymaker to know. This is what’s coming in the age of story, and this is what we will need to know, if we are going to become masters of the craft.

By far the most important revelation contained in these new deeper structures has to do with the source of our creativity. And this is absolutely where the search for the truth about story must begin.

When we work with the creative process, the creative decisions we make are governed by positive and negative intuitive feelings. That’s how we know what works - by how we feel about our ideas.

Well, what’s behind those feelings? Where do those feelings come from? Carl Jung called the source of those feelings the collective unconscious. Others call it the muse, the psyche, the holy spirit, or the God within. George Lucas called the positive aspect The Force and the negative aspect The Dark Side. I call it the creative unconscious, the hidden truth or the self. You can call it anything you like.

My own take on it is this. We traveled an evolutionary path. A record of this path has been kept and is buried deep in the unconscious like a treasure. This treasure is probably stored in the DNA. It may be a manifestation of the DNA itself. Whatever it is, or whatever you call it doesn’t matter, it is the source of all of the higher intelligence and hidden wisdom we possess. It plays a major role in our lives and it plays a major role in storymaking. And when we’re creating stories, it helps to be aware of it.

Great stories, especially those created in oral traditions, bring this creative unconscious wisdom to consciousness. The information contained in great stories
is all about this hidden wisdom and how we can use it to achieve higher states of being and awareness.

And how do great stories do this? With the use of metaphors.

Metaphors are the symbolic language of great stories. This hidden, creative unconscious energy is translated into the visual images and intricate structures of story. These metaphors are made of real things that have been taken apart and artistically rearranged to represent these hidden truths. The unique combination of these real things when brought together creates the characters, gods, Shangri-las, haunted houses, and real people, etc. which expresses different attributes and dimensions of the hidden energies. The natural world is taken apart and rearranged to reveal the supernatural, unconscious, hidden world. And this is what makes a psychological connection. When these visual images correspond to this hidden energy, you get a story of extraordinary power.

In any event, if you analyze hundreds of great stories, the patterns hidden in these deeper structures begin to emerge. These patterns are called archetypes, and you can use these archetypal patterns to create models of this hidden truth. These models reveal some amazing secrets, not the least of which is a dynamic model of the human psyche, all of the life cycles we experience from birth to death, and all of the archetypes and passages that can lead us to higher states of being and success. You can use these models not only to analyze and create great stories, you can use them to fathom your own psychology and analyze important events in the real world. In fact, you can use them in every aspect of your life.

And why is all of this important to writers and filmmakers? Because the patterns hidden in the deep structures of these great stories have enormous power, and if you utilize these patterns in your stories, you can create super powerful stories that have a significant impact on the world. And, if that isn’t enough, there are enormous psychological benefits to be gained from a creative storymaking process that engages and collaborates with the creative unconscious self (the source of our creativity) using our intuitive feelings.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

I love it when the theme of a movie or book is posed in the form of a question. Aside from its brilliance, it's a great alternative to pitching a concept as "Star Wars meets Showgirls", or "a cross between Sisterhood of the Travelling Panties and Godzilla, with a dash of Daddy Day Camp thrown in for good measure." That's no good. 'Who Watches the Watchmen?' MUCH better!

I've gotten into the habit lately of reading certain books before their film adaptations are released. I've done it with No Country for Old Men, The Road and now Watchmen. Sure, it can ruin the element of surprise (depending on the faithfulness of the adaptation), but it can also save the story in case the movie is dreck. Who would want to read a great novel right after a shitty movie adaptation has plagued theatres? I'd much rather read the book first and THEN sit in a theatre, knuckles cracking in anticipation. Another upside is having a cast already assigned to their roles, so while reading I could easily tack Jackie Earl Haley's gravelly, Marlboro-fucked voice onto Rorschach, Jeffrey Dean Morgan's onto The Comedian, etc.

The comic itself is excellent. Filled to the brim with noirish twists, turns and clues. Jam-packed with exposition. Everything you'd want from a proper whodunit. I'll spare the details so as not to spoil the fun. And yes, I'm probably the last geek on the surface of the planet to have read it. But I'm glad I have. I can now say, I'm VERY eager to see what Zach Snyder does with Watchmen. The look of the film in the trailers thus far is arresting, painterly. It looks like he's captured the essense and tone of the comic book, and cooked up a visual feast that will teleport the characters from paper panels to silver screen. As long as they include the flashback scene where a young Rorschach chews the face off of a pesky bully, I'll be happy.

Wrestle This!

The Wrestler is a reminder that there are still great actors in our midst that have gone forgotten for too long. Fallen heroes of our youth who slipped between the cracks of time only to resurface at the most unexpected of moments. When we truly need them. And are richer for having bared witness to their gifts. Mickey Rourke's turn in this film easily rivals John Travolta's comeback in Pulp Fiction. What he's done to himself physically in life...his face...now a mask...is somehow very appropriate for this role. I was lucky enough to catch a screening at the New York Film Festival last month, and although I was saddled with arguably the worst seat in the house, even that couldn't damper my enjoyment of the film. Mickey Rourke's bravura performance is one for the books - he was born to play this role. It's sad. Iconic. Real. Awesome. A simple story told simply. But with a cast that breaks your heart. I'm so thankful that Nicolas Cage, once up for the title role, was ceremonially dumped. Darren Aronofsky has scored another classic. Feast your eyes on the trailer goodness above.

Sometimes Nothin' Can Be A Real Cool Hand

What's a hero?

To some it's a stranger who dives selflessly in front of a speeding Ford and cradles a newborn baby to safety. To others it's a guy who puts out fires. To me, it was a guy who could swallow fifty hardboiled eggs in one sitting and still walk away with his gut in tact. It wasn't the ocean blue eyes or dashing good looks. It was the everyman. The quiet rebellion. The absense of fear in nonconformity. That guy was Paul Newman.

It's funny how you can feel genuine loss for someone you've never met. How you can feel like you've lost a good friend. A loyal friend who's always there, ready and waiting to talk or listen whenever you pop in a DVD to dillute the day's frustrations. A friend who always says the right things. Always says the same things. The things that comfort you. The things that make you smile. The things that make you cry. The things that shape you. The things that can even make you a better person. Paul Newman was many things to many people. I'm sure he was a caring father to his children. A loving husband to his wife. A real friend away from the silver screen. But I'll never know that Paul Newman. I'll only know the guy who never took no for an answer on my T.V. screen. The guy who wasn't afraid to hustle. And I'm cool with that. Because to me, Paul Newman will never be gone. He'll always be tucked away in several spots throughout my movie collection.

A friend of mine once had an encounter with Paul Newman during a Nascar event in Ohio. He scrambled awkwardly up to the cigar-chomping icon and asked in a squeaky voice if he could steal an autograph. Paul looked down at the kid, his mashed cigar temporarily held to the corner of his mouth, and said, "no." My friend and I spoke about why Paul refused to grant his request, even after he'd poured a bleeding heart's worth of praise upon him. He either said, "no" because he didn't buy into his own celebrity. Or he said it because he was being a dick. Whatever he really meant, it probably meant nothing. Some people pull teeth for a living and some people pull favors. Paul Newman pulled the heart strings of millions of moviegoers around the world. Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand.

L.A. by Way of Mosley

Walter Mosley is a cool cat, ya know? My favorite genre is crime/detective fiction. I've read a lot of Chandler and Hammet, who are no doubt masters in their own right, but Mosley just makes it all so cool. So real. So surreal. When I picture a Walter Mosley story, I immediately think of Los Angeles at night. I think of palm trees and Tim Burton-sculpted pine trees backlit by pale track lights. I think of large billboards with the devil's red, thin, mustached face carved into them. I think of Smokey the Bear. I think of Los Feliz. Griffith Park. The Greek Theatre. Glendale. Silverlake. Big Foot Lodge. Red Lion. I think of old Disney Cartoons with rich, moody technicolors and characters with exaggerated proportions. I think of vampiric suburbs where day-sleeping evil awakens to Tom Waits-narrated nights.

I'd read DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS (our first introduction to Easy Rawlins) for a class in college called "Kiss Me Deadly", and was really taken by the moody, bluesy atmosphere Mosley created in his depiction of 1950's Los Angeles. I decided to re-read the book again earlier this summer, as I wanted to use Mosley's unique atmospheric style as an influence in a new crime script I'm writing.

I'd forgotten how great and how fresh a character Easy Rawlins is. He is flawed. He is human. He's relatable. He's an African American man trying to solve crimes for wealthy, seedy white men in an era where African Americans weren't considered equal. He's a guy like us who needed some fast money to pay his mortgage after being fired from a job. We can relate to him. Hammet's Continental Op or Chandler's Philip Marlowe are both hard-nosed, no-nonsense detectives, never refusing to crack wise or dish out a witty retort. They're larger than life. They don't always feel like they exist in our world. They don't encounter problems like we encounter. Easy Rawlins does. He's one of us. He represents the working class. He's a guy you'd easily find in your local neighborhood bar. He has a real reason to take make a bargain with the devil. He either makes it, or he loses his house: the one constant in his life and his mark of stability. He exists in a real world with real problems. It may seem like a slightly heightened world. But that's L.A. at night.

What I like about Easy is that he uses his common sense and street smarts to solve crimes. He wasn't trained to track down criminals or find clues. He just does it. He uses his inside knowledge of his community and its inhabitants to get the job done.

More to come...

This Must Be The Place

It's almost September again - and you know what that means: time for the fall film festival (c'mon - a little alliteration never hurt anyone) season to commence! Most people know it's fall when the leaves begin to change, the thermo drops a few degrees, and the smell of burning fills the thinning evening air. Others know it's fall when they lay their eyes on the warmer dreads littering their local fashion hole. I know it's fall when the serious, gritty, award-worthy films begin to roll out and the talk of the town consists of cries, not whispers, of "Toronto" and "NYFF"! To me, fall in NY is spending the majority of my evenings and weekends in front of the silver screen.

I recently became a member of the Film Society of Lincoln Center, which means getting advance tickets to New York Film Festival screenings. For seventy-five bucks, it ain't a bad deal. Order forms are mailed out tomorrow, so hopefully I'll get to snag tickets for the films I'm burning to see. Sure, there are dozens of brooding domestic and international releases on the newly-revealed line-up. But I'm most looking forward to Darren Aronofsky's THE WRESTLER and Clint Eastwood's CHANGELING. First of all - it's Darren Aronofky directing Mickey Rourke. I personally think Mr. Rourke does not hail from planet Earth and these days he looks something like a mix between Michael Bolton and Joan Rivers, but that's half his charm. He doesn't get enough work, and Aronofsky's never made a bad film. Shame on you if you didn't like THE FOUNTAIN.

Clint...Clint...Clint...I'm so relieved he got his WW2 rocks off and returned those overdue books to the library. Where Clint reigns king is in the slow-boiled social crime and semi-melodramatic realms. He hit it with MYSTIC RIVER and MILLION DOLLAR BABY, and, well into his seventies, he shows no signs of tire. Angelina Jolie is hit or miss with me - but hopefully The Man with No Name will make better use of her acting chops in a period drama than Deniro did in THE GOOD SHEPHERD.

That's it for now - I need to bulldoze my way through a recent bout of writer's lag - I won't call it block because it's not that - I'm halfway through a new script, but getting used to a new professional job and the adjustments that come with it, I need to refine my writing schedule. I'd vote for continuing to write in the evenings - but I think I may have to start waking up with the rooster.

"Why So Serious?" The Dark Knight Reviewed!

I think this is a really cool review of THE DARK KNIGHT from a screenwriter's perspective, rather than from a traditional film critic's. It's one of those films that casts a pretty big shadow over the world of Hollywood genre screenwriters and doesn't just raise the bar - it breaks it. I've seen the film twice, and both times I just sat there in awe and thought, "I wish I wrote that!" Anyway - enjoy!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Truby reviews The Dark Knight
John Truby's profile
By John Truby

August 12, 2008

Spoiler alert: this breakdown divulges information about the plot of the film.

For anyone who wants to look beneath its action surface, The Dark Knight proves that a movie can be a huge hit because of theme, not in spite of it. The Dark Knight is the closest thing to a fictional exploration of moral philosophy to come out of Hollywood in a long time, and that includes No Country for Old Men. Amazingly, writers Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan, and David Goyer create this complex moral expression on the foundation of superhero action crime genre.

The writers begin their elegant construction with the depiction of the main character, Batman, and here they had a tremendous advantage going in. Of all superhero characters, Batman highlights and consistently questions the very concept of the hero and the savior. He is truly a dark knight, concerned with justice but also willing to use illegal and immoral means to achieve it.
He is also deeply aware of the negative effects a savior can have on the general populace. He knows, and probably believes in, the great moral principle of “If you see the Buddha, kill the Buddha.” But he is unable to live the principle when faced with so much injustice. And when, in The Dark Knight, the bad guys escalate their evil acts, Batman is dragged into a war of tit for tat that soils everyone. Interestingly, Batman’s garbled voice has a strange resemblance to Clint Eastwood’s, especially in his Dirty Harry films.

In the Blockbuster story development software, we place a lot of emphasis on the “character web,” and The Dark Knight uses this crucial technique to perfection. The first character to be compared to Batman is the main opponent, The Joker. A lot has been written about Heath Ledger’s terrific performance. But we need to look at what he built his performance on, and that is found in the script. Non-writers might think I’m referring to the dialogue, but I’m not. The writers constructed this character to drive two major story elements, the moral argument (theme) and the plot.

The classic crime story is based on a master criminal who believes he is above the law and society itself. The Joker is just such a character, a genius psychopath whose massive intellect is shown not so much in dialogue as in his ability to plot. He accuses Dent and Batman of being schemers. But in fact he is the master schemer, a modern Moriarty, who acts not out of greed or revenge, but for the game. And he is better at the game than anyone else, so much so that we have the rare example of a story with too much plot.

The Joker is literally the author of Gotham City, constructing criminal plots that will remake the city to express his moral vision. Many have called The Joker a nihilist, a man in love with chaos. But this is a serious misreading. If Batman is The Dark Knight, The Joker is the Dark Philosopher. The entire plot of The Dark Knight is a series of moral conundrums The Joker creates to expose what he believes is the true animal nature of mankind. Tracking the beats of the crime story that goes all the way back to its originator, Crime and Punishment, The Joker creates ever more difficult versions of the genre’s central question: What would you do if you had to choose between two bad options?

First, does Batman expose his true identity or let the Joker kill someone every day? Then does he let Dent take the risk of getting killed to pull The Joker out of hiding? Does he save Rachel, his true love, or Dent, the righteous hope of the city? Does he listen in on the entire city in order to save a few?

For the film’s final choice, the writers use the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma, central to game theory and moral philosophy. In Prisoner’s Dilemma, two prisoners suspected of a crime are placed in separate cells. Each is given the following choice: If you both remain silent, you both get only six months in jail. If you both confess, you both get 5 years. If you remain silent but your partner confesses, he goes free and you get 10 years in jail. As you can see, the only real choice each person can make is to confess, since neither can risk the harsh 10-year sentence trusting that his partner will remain silent.

In The Dark Knight, two ships filled with passengers are given the choice of pushing a button to blow up the other ship before a time deadline, at which point both ships will be destroyed. This sets up a unique battle in which not only two forces but also two entire moral systems are brought into opposition. The battle is marred only by the fact that the writers don’t play true to the reality about human beings they have carefully crafted throughout the film. In other words, the people on the boats don’t make the believable choice.

Though The Dark Knight has too much plot, resulting in a movie that is at least 20 minutes too long, its plot is worth studying to see masters at work. These writers use a vast array of plot techniques, and a lot of professional writers I know, while bemoaning so many false endings, have said the plotting is what they studied the most. Ironically, one of the main techniques these writers use is character web, proving again that at the deepest level of good storytelling, plot and character are the same. I’ve already mentioned the plotting power the main opponent brings to the story. But plot also comes from the second lead, Harvey Dent, as well as a number of other characters who appear to be friends but are really enemies, or appear to be enemies but are really friends.

Screenwriters and storytellers can learn all kinds of lessons from The Dark Knight. Perhaps the most important is placing all story elements at the service of the larger moral argument, and expressing that argument primarily through the story structure. Using the crime genre as its foundation, The Dark Knight focuses on whether someone can remain a hero when the opposition becomes increasingly ruthless, a question that is central to our world. But as the cop in Orson Welles’s Touch of Evil says about how hard it is being a cop, “It's supposed to be (tough)... A policeman's job is only easy in a police state.”

Interestingly, the writers go all the way back to the classic Western, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, for their ending. When it turns out the hero of a gunfight didn’t actually kill the bad guy, the newspaperman refuses to print the truth. “When the legend becomes fact,” he says, “print the legend.” Batman decides to let Harvey Dent die a hero, so the people will have hope in justice, while he accepts his role as the scapegoat. With a subtle flip on the ending of Shane, Lieutenant Gordon’s little boy doesn’t say, “Batman, come back.”

The Dark Knight is a writer’s genre movie, even a transcendent one, and screenwriters would do well to study it closely.

How will my great idea stay great? (I hope.)

I read this article today, written by Gordy Hoffman who runs the Bluecat Screenplay Competition. What he says echoes several of my own thoughts about writing - wanted to share!
Without further ado:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How will my great idea stay great? (I hope.)
by Gordy Hoffman

It’s always the same. The feeling I get when I think of something and see a movie idea. It’s a wonderful warm pull inside that probably is very similar to prospectors spotting gold in a stream. Sometimes, in an instant, upon momentary review, it collapses, measured against my own quick sense of whether I’m willing to live with it for the lifespan of a feature length screenplay. If I pass that filter, then I grab something and write it down, later transferring the new gem to my running list of jackpot movie ideas.

What stays with me from that list? Why are there ideas I save for years, never to be started? Usually I maintain a belief in their value, their promise, and more than likely they will stay on that list when I die. I have so many ideas now as it is. But I don’t run them off simply because I’m not compelled to start. I have no idea what leads to another, and now that I’ve written for almost two decades, I see old ideas finally coming to life in a beautiful new light in another idea altogether. Keep your ideas, the ones you have a fight for, and you’ll see why.

But what makes for the great idea that will light the way through all the drafts, production, editing and release to audience? For me, film ideas can never be only solid to my practical eye or rational brain. I see this in writers all the time, writing scripts over and over like term papers or Sudoku puzzles. They follow patterns, refine habits and crank many a page, deriving their satisfaction from completing drafts and successfully executing their outlines, beat sheets or treatments.

But is the heart involved? This is the difference between a great idea and a great idea that turns into a motion picture: falling in love. On more than one occasion, I have started off on something with great excitement, knowing I have a very commercial and/or original idea in my hands, and I get going. But there are questions, and the initial pieces of the writing might be boring or borrowed. I have started the marathon and I’m on mile seven.

What has to happen? For me, I have to find myself in the writing. I have to fall in love with my story. I have to share a common emotion with my characters. I become intimate with what I’m trying to say, and my story becomes honest.

My idea has become truly great. I have taken a personal ownership of my story, as it now has started to become a reflection of me.

Now this might sound very arty or independent, but this happens when I’m writing commercial specs of high concept. Why? Because it has to.

It has been said before that we are in the feelings business. So when I invest my own generously, I support and sustain an idea to fruition in a produced movie. Until this emotional ownership of a concept takes place, it might as well stay in a file on my hard drive, as a very interesting list.


***************************
http://robinkellyuk.blogspot.com/2008/07/guest-post-gordy-hoffman-on-ideas.html

I AM Clean!

Here we are: Another month, another book review. I can't believe it's already July!! I was just getting used to June before July had to rear its ugly head and wring all of June's pleasantries from the summer wash cloth. I'm going to pretend that it's still June 15th, and that I'll have a job for the next two months. Much better!

I just flew back to Ohio for the 4th of July weekend (so much for pretending it's still June...), and of course its raining! Still, I'm very much looking forward to relaxing, spending time with the fam, and continuing work on my new script. A little note that pertains to the previous post: My next project isn't going to be the sci-fi story I'd written about. I've put that one on the back burner to officially begin work on a project that's been baking in the womb of my mind for nearly a year like a fetus ready to claw its way to the light. These things just happen. I got side-tracked. While I was putting the finishing touches on WARLAND, I desperately needed to start on something new because I was about to go blood simple and jam the whole thing into a paper shredder. While thankfully that feeling has subsided, the sci-fi project has shifted to numero dos in my script queue. It's on deck. Still alive and baking in the womb.

So, while I'm here at home in the motherland, I also have a bit more time to reflect on some of the books I've read since my last review. I know you've missed it dearly, so I won't keep you waiting any longer. You've been patient. The least I can do is reward you with a heaping helping of Flannery O'Connor.

Flannery O'Connor's WISE BLOOD is a fantastical examination of religion, nearly separating its characters into two categories: Those who need a god and those who claim they don't. Lines are blurred, people not who they seem - everything is askew in O'Connor's universe - but isn't this what you'd want from a summer jaunt through the gothic south? This is the first piece of O'Connor's work I've been lucky enough to sample. While I hear her novels don't hold a candle to her short stories (most notably A GOOD MAN IS HARD TO FIND), WISE BLOOD still manages to make one think about his/her own beliefs.

Hazel Motes, the title character, is a boy en route to a small Southern town following a recent tour of duty for the army. He is determined to prove to everyone that god does not exist. Little does he know, he'll happen upon a blind preacher and his degenerate daughter, who will both mold Haze's destiny. Haze also meets Enoch Emery, a boy a few years his junior, and who in many ways is Hazel's complete religious opposite. I'll keep it brief and won't etch out a super-detailed synopsis, but suffice to say - Flannery is one sneaky writer. The first 150 pages of the book are always interesting, albeit slow-moving, deliberately paced - but what keeps it fresh is her composition - her description is raw and cuts right to the bone. Then, just when you think the story isn't going to really take off or go anywhere, everything gets fucked up. Characters begin to show their true colors, do heinous, morbid things all in the name of religion. Enoch is a very reactive character. While he is driven by an unseen, internal force that wills him to commit crimes, Hazel is more proactive, and believes that he guides his own destiny.

WISE BLOOD is a really intriguing book, and I highly recommend it to anyone who values character studies and seeks novels that inspire thought. You may not LOVE it, but you'll walk away with a full head ready for digestion.
Until next time...

We Come In Peace

Sadly, it's not the title of a new script (I should use it though, huh?). But I did just start work on my first science-fiction project. It's a blast so far. My last two scripts were heavy character studies, and with this new story, I'm taking a character-driven approach to the classic sci-fi thriller mold. It's been fun spending some time in (hopefully) the same sandbox as Clark, Lovecraft, King...I'm really digging it. Oh - and take my word: There definately, absolutely, positively are NOT any aliens. Seriously. I mean it. This isn't me saying there aren't aliens and meaning there really are. There aren't. It's not that I don't like aliens. I do. It's just that there aren't any. In this story. Now that we've settled that...

Drafted

I'm still trying to figure out how many drafts work best for me, but it's really specific to each project I work on. In Creative Screenwriting Magazine, the last question a writer is asked during an interview usually involves their writing processes and how many drafts they employ. Their answers vary from ten drafts to one hundred. Always different.

I think character sketches, step outlines and treatments help cut down the amount of drafts considerably. On PAPER AIRPLANES, I didn't use any of these techniques, even though in school you're taught to wield them in your utility belt like a finely-tuned arsenal of tools. I sort of flew by the seat of my pants, and it took me two years to finish. That's a lifetime. Story elements, characters and motivations shifted like little pawns across a chess board. It was really tough, and I ended up with something like five drafts.

I don't think I could tell you how many drafts it takes to complete a screenplay. Because a "draft" could be anything. The difference between Draft Two and Draft Three could be something as simple as a tweaked line of dialogue, or something major like an added scene. Using this theory, I can see how people end up with hundreds of drafts. I just finished WARLAND, and it took me three solid, concrete drafts. Almost a year of finessing to get something I'm happy with. A draft is a draft after it's polished and ready to show someone. When you get a healthy portion of feedback, THEN it's time to start Draft Two.

Screenwriting Competitions

I don't know where I stand. Are they rigged? Are they legit? I took my first foray into the wonderful world of screenwriting competitions last summer after completing my first feature-length spec script, PAPER AIRPLANES, and then submitting it into a generous cocktail of about twenty competitions and festivals. From renowned competitions such as the Sundance Institute's Screenwriters Lab, to obscurities like The Page Awards, there never seems to be a shortage of places to send your work. For a price. Seasoned vets always say you should never submit your scripts to anyone requiring you to pay a fee. Are they right? Are screenwriting competitions nothing more than juicy blood clots for the vampiric organizers to slice, drain, and feed on naive, working-class writers worldwide?

I'd like to think that screenwriting contests exist as a rare portal into the otherwise impenetrable walls of the screenwriting business. Really, who wants to sit at home for six thousand years writing query letters to every management company or agency who, when they receive your pleas, will most likely file your hard work directly into the metal Ikea trashcans underneath their balsa wood Ikea desks (no knock to Ikea - I actually own a thing or two of theirs - artistic license, baby!).

After racking up a pretty expensive credit card bill last summer for enlisting PAPER AIRPLANES into every screenwriting haven I could find, I was sorta bummed to find out that I only placed in the finals and semi-finals of about eight of them. It SEEMED pretty rad, but then I thought: maybe they let everyone into the finals or semi-finals just to keep encouraging them to submit their work year after year, until one day, you're fuckin seventy-eight years old, and you get that golden ticket of an e-mail: You've finally won, you old cock! And it only took you fifty-two years and ten failed careers to do it!

This year, I righteously vowed to ONLY submit my new script, WARLAND, to the most prestigious of competitions: The Sundance Institute and the Don & G Nicholl Fellowship. Drafts improved, characters strengthened. I became more confident in my story, and two competitions that aren't really even competitions, but fellowships (I call them contests because they still require an entry fee) turned into SIX new ones that I whole-heartedly justified. Well, my final draft of WARLAND is still being pollished, so I missed out on Nicholl. I made the deadline for Sundance (easy since they only require the first five pages, an essay or two, and a biography - until August). Now, I have four more competitions to submit to. I'm not going in blind as I did last year. I've carefully narrowed my selection. I've chosen the right competitions. Will I get that golden ticket of an e-mail? Or will I come back fighting next year with the gripping tale of an escaped, female convict who secretly undergoes genital reconstructive surgery at a back-alley clinic so she can screw her abusive husband and then tell him that he's officially slept with a man - and submit this story to THREE justifiable competitions? If you'd read that story, go to hell.

Stephen King: On Writing

Holy two-book-reviews-in-a-row, Batman! I know, I know...I promise, I haven't already switched gears on my newly-minted blog to writing star-filled pop fiction book reviews. AND, I'm not doing this to procrastinate from actually writing about my own projects (maybe the latter was a wee fib). This will all make sense as you read on. If anyone’s actually reading, then Lucky You will soon find said sense (which I guess you came here to do anyway…or maybe your motivation was born of nothing more than routine, 9-5 boredom). Anyway this is my blog and I can do whatever the hell I want. I can write book reviews if I so desire. I can even write poetry about happy clowns serving ice-cream sandwiches to soiled senior citizens at a Cinco de Mayo parade. But I won't. I'm too nice for that. I will refrain from bestowing that punishment upon you.

Occasionally, after reading a book that influences my writing and provokes thought, I’ll feel an obligation to write about it. Such was the case with KAVALIER & CLAY, and such is the case with Stephen King's ON WRITING. The latter begins with the assumption that, "If you don't read a lot, you don't have the necessary tools to write." I've found this to be quite accurate. I've always been an avid reader of comic books, genre and craft magazines, short stories. But until recently, I've always found it difficult to crack open a lengthy novel and tear through it. Reading long form had sort of been my kryptonite. I would much rather have popped a DVD into my player or caught a movie at a local cinema than devote days, neh, weeks! to devouring an entire novel. How much time do ya think I have, Steve?? I felt like I'd always been able to write, but my vocabulary maybe wasn't as sharp as it could've or should've been.

ON WRITING begins as a campfire tale. Mr. King's, "here's the story of my life so far." That's the first half of the book, where we learn everything about his life, from childhood until the then present (2001), and the events that influenced some of his most popular works of fiction. The second half of the book is an intricate tutorial on the craft. How to write. What tools a developing writer needs to sharpen and wield in his utility belt. This is the first Stephen King book I'd ever read. And you know what? It's damn good. No matter what alleys he chooses to meander down, he always comes back to the book's main message: "If you don't read a lot, you don't have the necessary tools to write." And, while this book often seems like it's mainly aimed at writers of novels or short stories, it's very easy to apply Mr. King's advice to screenwriting, too. It's all about the writing aesthetics. The use and power of the written word to tell a story, no matter the medium.

So, to Mr. King's credit, I've been more apt to pick up and purchase a book at a local Barnes & Noble than to pop in a DVD, or to catch a movie at a local cinema. Thanks, Steve. Keep playin' till I shoot through, Blue...play your digeree, do.

The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay

I just finished reading this book by Michael Chabon, and...wow. It's pretty great. Collossal. The closest I can come to describing it is like eating a triple Whopper with three slices of cheese, bacon and the rest of the works. You take the first bite, read the first few chapters, and think, damn...this is really good. There's so much information in here, how can I possibly remember and savor it all without getting too full? I went in expecting the book to be about comic books and the history of the "funny book" business. And it is, to an extant. I knew it dealt with Jewish immigration during the years before WW2, but I was surprised to see that the book isn't really about comic books or the Jewish experience at all. Comic books and Germany-occupied Prague are one of several backdrops for larger worldly themes. Love, forgiveness, identity, the power of escapism, both metaphorically and physically - and the profound need to belong. Joe Kavalier and Sam Clay are both struggling with very different identity crises, and fitting into new worlds unknown to them is a powerful and engaging aspect of Chabon's novel. Naturally they get sucked into the comic book world, vastly populated by costumed crime-fighting superheroes and their glasses and tie-wearing alter egos. These themes and metephores are probably my favorite parts of the book. They enhance the already complex narratives of our main characters. Excellent novel!

ON A COLD NIGHT - The Shake Down

Tonight was the big evening of one-act plays in Massillon, Ohio, paying homage to Jack London. I was able to attend the show and see the interpretation of my play, ON A COLD NIGHT. It's loosely based on "To Build A Fire", "The Call of the Wild", and a few other Jack London short stories. I wrote the play in January, and it's been out of my mind since I finished it, my focus having moved on to other projects. My impression? I was very happy with the final result. The director had to orchestrate four plays, all featuring high-school drama students, in the span of just a few months - and I applaud him for all his hard work in pulling every piece of it together. The best way I can describe mine...it was like a high school play directed by Max Fischer from RUSHMORE. Four young students portraying Klondike characters twice their age (one teen a frostbitten, wiley old-timer), skinning wolves, swearing, bullet hole ridden and busting caps in the asses of claim jumpers hungry for gold. I think Max was in the very last row in the theatre with an approving smirk on his mug. Semper Fi, Soldier. Semper Fi.

WARLAND

My new script, WARLAND, probably creates a lot more problems for me than it solves. It's a childhood/coming-of-age story about the loss of innocense. It's a period film set during the decline of the small town that mixes folky midwestern values with aspects of a thriller. Sure, coming-of-age films about childhood were cool and worked in the late seventies/early eighties. But can you honestly remember the last serious American film you saw that focused solely on kids and the coming-of-age experience? Films that weren't adapted from a famous (or moderately well-known) novel? The Outsiders? S.E. Hinton. Stand By Me? Stephen King. October Sky? Homer H. Hickham, Jr. The Kite Runner (even though it's not an American film)? Khaled Hosseini.

Most industry people will tell you that they won't develop serious movies about kids, because you lose your whole target audience right off the bat. Kids don't want to go see dramas about kids their own age. They get enough of that at home when their moms slap their bare asses for spilling globs of Campbell's tomato soup on her new white carpet. Kids want to see Indiana Jones. Batman. Iron Man. Transformers. So who's left to see your potential movie? Adults? If adults ages 25-49 are your only target audience, that automatically qualifies your movie for art-house status. Your movie won't be seen by very many people, unless it's really fucking good. So knowing this, how do I get someone to buy my script?

Beats the hell out of me. I have no clue. That's the next step. My problem once I put the final polish on the project. A few months ago, an acquaintance of mine who produced some of Robert Altman's final films, asked me what I was working on. I told her: a coming-of-age drama about kids. Nobody farts. Nobody pukes after smoking for the first time or eating too much cherry pie before hopping on the ferris wheel at their favorite amusement park. No whitty punchlines or catch phrases spat from the mouths of pudgy adolescents. Her immediate response? "It's about kids?? Are you're insane?!" Maybe. I wrote it because I wanted to tell a story about childhood. A story about kids. A serious one. One where a ten year old boy wouldn't give second thought to pressing a Winchester rifle to the temple of another boy two years his junior. One that doesn't rely on dick-and-fart jokes to create a kind of false friendship. We'll see where this all goes, and how it turns out. I could submit the final script to various screenwriting competitions, film festivals and fellowships. There's one route. I could also seek independent financing. I really hope I'm not insane because this script took a long time to write, and I put a lot of myself into it. Maybe that part makes me insane. If the story clicks, and resonates with people, maybe I'll prove that it was all time worth spending. And that I'm sane.

Rewriting

When I first started writing, I HATED the rewriting processes. After you've spent close to a year on a script (that probably shouldn't have taken that long in the first place), the very first thing you're hot for is showing it to someone - get some validation on your amazing skills as a writing prestige. You send it to your trusted circle of readers, itching to hear their thoughts on your forthcoming opus. You wait days, weeks...until finally you get that coveted call: "Hey, let's meet up to talk about your script." What was once a feeling boling with anticipation, has somehow instantly turned into one of dread deep in the pit of your stomach: "Shit...maybe the script was NOT so good..."

I think it all has to do with handing over your baby...your darling...into the hands of criticism, albeit constructive criticism. You've made a choice: I want someone to read this to tell me how good it is, not to point out every little thing I did wrong. At first, I hated being held under the microscope, every last detail of my heart and soul put to scrutiny - picked apart like a day old honey baked ham. It takes awhile to get comfortable with the criticism. You begin to welcome it. And sometimes, you even start to write for other people - the very people who read your work. So-and-So will LOVE this scene. It's the best thing I've ever written. I can't wait to show it to them!

Now, I've grown to like the rewriting process. I look forward to hearing all things - good or bad - about the scripts I've written. I think it has everything to do with getting used to the critiquing. You never know how you're going to react to it. Even though I seek out the opinions of others, it still takes me a day or two to get over the intial beating, the bruising of my ego. THEY'RE wrong, I'M right. That's not the case, usually. Once the black and blue marks begin to heal, something strange happens. I start to think of every little comment or piece of advice that's been given to me. They play through my head like a great playlist of songs on repeat that I try to memorize and analyze all the lyrics to - try to find some way to incorporate them into a larger, preestablished playlist. Once the bruise heals, I start to see clearly and begin to put the feedback to use in my story. If the feedback's coming from the mouths of those I've entrusted with my baby - those people who will be honest with me know matter what - who aren't afraid of bruising my ego, telling me how it is - then I trust their words; their comments; their critiques. I'm thankful for those people - because honestly, it's hard as fuck to get anyone that's not your friend to read your work. And the people who know you best can sometimes offer the most valuable insight into your work - because they know you. You don't always have to agree with them, but damn if it's not fun to have a friendly argument with a reader and end up proving them wrong.

I'm in the evening of my latest feature-length script, WARLAND, and I've had four members of my inner circle read it - and all have offered a very distinct point of view. I've taken them all comments into consideration - and truthfully - they've all made WARLAND a better project - a better story. I'll talk more about the development of that script in future posts - I'm putting the finishing touches on it now.

So, when you hand over a script for critiquing - don't forget to let your guard down. Don't be afraid to take a punch or two. Welcome constructive criticism. After all, that's why we write. We write for an audience - no matter how small, or how big. We write for ourselves too, of course - but it's the collaborative process that takes us from interesting concept - to great script.

The Big Read: Ohio Writers Pay Tribute to Jack London!

My awesome sister hooked me up with a writing gig, fascilitated through the Massilon Museum in Ohio. There are several one-act plays that pay homage to Jack's Klondike Years spent in Alaska. If anyone in the area wants to check them out - it's free. Feast your eyes on the news release below for the deets:

--------------------------------------------------------------

News Release: The Big Read Night of One-Acts to Star Local Thespians

On Thursday, April 24, the Massillon Museum, with the collaboration of the Massillon Public Library, Washington High School, and the Lions Lincoln Theatre, will present “An Evening with Jack London,” a program of dramas by and about Jack London. All events that are part of The Big Read are free an open to the public. No reservations are necessary.

The evening will open at the Lions Lincoln Theatre (156 Lincoln Way East in downtown Massillon) at 7:00 p.m. with “Lullaby” by George Gershwin, performed by the Canton Symphony String Quartet: Nathan Olson and Emily Cornelius, violins; Jonathan Kim, viola; and Gabrielle Athayde, cello. They will play throughout the evening between the one-act plays, presenting music by Antonin Dvorak, Leroy Anderson, and Scott Joplin--all selected to enhance the dramas.

John Kiste, Executive Director of the Canton/Stark County Convention and Visitors’ Bureau, will take the stage first to perform his original one-act play, “Traces,” based on Jack London’s dogsled experiences in Alaska. Three additional one-acts will be presented, including “The Birth Mark” by London himself; “On a Cold Night,” by George Nicholis, a play based on London’s short story, “To Build a Fire;” and “Flora’s Fortune,” a monologue by Margy Vogt depicting the Massillon native who became the mother of adventure author Jack London. Washington High School students--Daerek Condo, Doug Remley, Joey Morales, Dan Condo, Erin Leffler, Luther Copeland and Samantha Jobe--under the direction of Eric Myers, Drama Advisor, will fill all roles in the London, Nicholis, and Vogt plays.

The Lions Lincoln Theatre concession stand will be open; proceeds will benefit Massillon’s historic theatre.

The Big Read is an initiative of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) designed to restore reading to the center of American culture. The NEA presents the Big Read in partnership with the Institute of Museum and Library Services and in cooperation with Arts Midwest. The Big Read brings together partners across the country to encourage reading for pleasure and enlightenment. The Massillon Museum’s project for all of Western Stark County is one of 127 communities nationwide participating in the Big Read from January through June 2008.

Local organizations and individuals collaborating with the Massillon Museum include: the Massillon Public Library; the Lions Lincoln Theatre; Mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli; John Kiste; Massillon Parks and Recreation Department; Rotary Club of Massillon; the Massillon Area Chamber of Commerce; The Independent; the Fairless, Tuslaw and Massillon school systems; State Representative Scott Oelslager; Massillon Cable TV; the Chit Chat Coffee Shoppe, Canal Fulton Public Library; the Canal Fulton Senior Center; Ashland University; George Nicholis; Eric Myers; Margy Vogt; Richard Gercken; The Canton Symphony Orchestra; The Wilderness Center; Bocca Grande Restaurant; Massillon Commission to Advance Literacy; Kozmo’s Grille; Boy Scout Troop 913; and many community volunteers.

Copies of The Call of the Wild may be checked out at the Massillon Public Library, which has bolstered its Jack London collection for The Big Read. Books may be purchased at the Massillon Museum (121 Lincoln Way East in downtown Massillon), the Massillon Public Library (208 Lincoln Way East in downtown Massillon), and The Village Bookshelf (746 Amherst Road Northeast in Massillon). Free readers' guides are available at the Museum, the Library, and at offices and businesses throughout the area. Everyone who reads the book will be encouraged to sign a “dog tag” to be displayed at the Museum or the Library.

For more information about western Stark County’s Big Read project, call the Massillon Museum at 330-833-4061 or visit http://www.massillonmuseum.org/
or http://www.neabigread.org/.

The Trenches

So here we are. This blog is bare as shit. Still trying to figure out how to mold it. My first thought...screenwriting! I'll answer any and everyone's questions on the trials and tribulations on the struggling writer, 'cause, well, hey - I'm in the trenches with you! Then I remembered...this is a big fucking trench...and I'm still trying to navigate my way through it. I'm a grunt fresh out of boot camp - I deliver steaming coffee in rusted tin cups to Second Class officers who've been here since year zero point five. If you're looking for the answer's to a screenwriter's bleeding heart, check out John August's fantastic blog (http://johnaugust.com/)

My next thought was: how about dedicating this beast to filmmaking IN GENERAL! Then I realized...shit...I haven't made a film of any sort since 2005...I'm way the hell out of practice. So...what should I do?

Here's a solution: If you're interested in what I have to say through my burgeoning journey as a screenwriter - this is the place to do it. This is my trench - my learning curve - you're welcome to witness as this grunt serves hot coffee to men in uniforms who could give a shit. Let's hope they do!