tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63285932436470721762024-03-08T10:04:58.482-08:00On ScreenwritingThoughts on the craft of the screenwriter and film director.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-91248868004870771442008-12-24T17:05:00.000-08:002008-12-24T17:08:36.765-08:00On FeedbackThis one is from fellow screenwriting instructor Michael Barlow:<br /><br />The best notes are the ones that make you feel stupid for not having thought of them first.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-80123564741540546962008-05-29T16:29:00.000-07:002008-05-29T16:56:08.037-07:00On The Director-Writer RelationshipIt's noteworthy that you often hear of filmmakers being described as an "actor's director" but you never hear the term "writer's director."<br /><br />There are some directors that don't want the writer on set. Each director may have their own reasoning as to why, but for some of them, it is just plain insecurity. Primarily, this is because the writer has a level of authority over the text that the director can never have.<br /><br />If an actor asks the director and the writer, "why does my character say this?" and they give two different answers, which one is the actor more apt to trust? Probably, the one who wrote the line in the first place.<br /><br />Now, the normal chain of command precludes something like this from happening. Actors would only direct such a question to the director (unless, as has been my experience on one film, the actors feel that the director doesn't know what he's doing).<br /><br />But, the point that should be drawn from this is that a director that's working from someone else's script should set the bar extremely high for himself. He should strive to know the characters and the world of the screenplay as good as, if not better, than the writer himself.<br /><br />Then, he either won't need the writer there or will be able to use him effectively without fear of having his authority come into question.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-43802581774183190002008-05-20T22:39:00.000-07:002008-05-20T22:42:25.510-07:00On HumorAlways give the audience at least one thing to laugh at (even if you're writing a tragic drama). Because if you don't, they'll pick something to laugh at. And it might not be a moment where you want them laughing.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-85443639507082608232008-04-08T14:37:00.000-07:002008-04-08T14:39:36.946-07:00On FeedbackWhen receiving notes on your script, you should never allow yourself to use the phrase, "well, what I was going for was..." If whatever that is was coming across, then you wouldn't need to explain it.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-70201818882562744152008-04-08T14:26:00.000-07:002008-04-08T14:37:32.099-07:00On Scene DirectionTwo words you should never use in scene direction are <em>typical</em> and <em>clearly</em>. Both are the result of laziness. Examples:<br /><br /><strong>"A typical Midwestern home."</strong><br /><br />Is there such a thing as a typical Midwestern home? And if there is, shouldn't the place where your characters live say something about them other than that they are typical? And if they are typical, why do we want to spend two hours watching them?<br /><br /><strong>"clearly Frank has never been laid."</strong><br /><br />How is it clear? Is there something the camera can photograph that makes it clear? If there is, then write that. If there isn't, then it's not clear to begin with.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-57687415393761329322008-03-19T11:18:00.001-07:002008-03-19T11:20:54.343-07:00On FeedbackGetting notes from people on your script is like a socially acceptable way of taking other people's ideas. What's even better is that they're actually happy that you're taking them. And you get all the credit in the end. So don't be afraid to let people critique your work.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-55818579868224115272008-03-18T11:07:00.000-07:002008-03-19T11:16:55.812-07:00On Cutting DialogueI may have imagined this but I recall an interview with Steven Soderbergh where he was being complimented for the wonderful silences in his film "Sex, Lies and Videotape." He attributed that to his inability to write dialogue.<br /><br />That little anecdote guides my approach to dialogue. There are some writers that have a natural gift for it (Richard Price, Quentin Tarantino, David Mamet, all great comedy writers, etc.) and can allow their dialogue to do a lot of the heavy lifting in a scene. I don't have that luxury, so I'm maniacal about cutting dialogue. That way, at the very least, my dialogue will be simple and efficient.<br /><br />There's three ways I do this:<br /><br /><strong>1. Give the characters something to do.</strong><br /><br />I always make sure the actors have something physical to do in the scene. For one thing, I think being physically active grounds them so their performance is less self-conscious. But more importantly, I can use the behavior of the characters, as they are doing these bits of business, to tell some of the story.<br /><br />A simple example: Let's say a character is doing something mundane like wiping down a table. Another character says to her, "I saw Frank yesterday." Hearing this, the first character slows down noticeably before continuing to wipe the table. That behavior says something about how this character feels about Frank. And it does it much better than any dialogue that I could write.<br /><br />Having the characters doing something also allows the scene to serve more than one purpose. For example, the action can help move along the plot while the dialogue explores the relationship between the characters. Or the action could explore the relationship between the characters while the dialogue delivers mundane exposition. An example of the latter: I wrote one scene where a Sikh man explains his religion to a white woman while tying a turban on her. The dialogue was very dry ("What do Sikhs believe? Sikh believe..."), but the action of the scene played up the growing attraction between the characters.<br /><br />I can always tell if a scene is working by clicking on print preview. I'm not sure what it is but I can tell just from the layout of the page (dialogue interspersed with bits of action), if I'm on the right track. But, if I only see a column of dialogue running down the page, I know something's wrong. I'm relying on dialogue. And that can't be good because I'm no Billy Wilder.<br /><br /><strong>2. Take the emotion out.</strong><br /><br />"On the nose" is a common phrase used to describe dialogue where the characters are saying exactly what they're thinking. This is a problem because there's no subtext. The writer is, in essence, making the subtext the text.<br /><br />As a general rule, I try to look for any lines of dialogue that state what a character is feeling and take it out. "Where were you? We were worried." Well, if the actor is conveying worry than you don't really need the second part of the line.<br /><br />The only time I keep lines that indicate emotion is when there's a contrast between the emotion a character is feeling and the one in the dialogue (a character saying "I'm sad," but saying it as if they were saying "I'm mad").<br /><br /><strong>3. Use the least amount of syllables to say something.</strong><br /><br />"Could you bring two glasses of wine please?" can become "Two glasses of wine please" (one could even cut the "please"). I just think this makes dialogue easier to deliver. And there's that whole "less is more" thing too.<br /><br />My exception to this is when the characters are making a point (or a joke) by using more (and bigger) words. For example, a character walks into a someone's dingy studio apartment and says something like, "Quite a palatial estate you have here."<br /><br />These are all simple ideas but you'll be amazed at how many lines you'll be able to cut and how much better the scenes will play as a result.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-76038783503279914322008-03-10T20:58:00.000-07:002008-03-10T20:59:36.199-07:00On Film SchoolsFilm School is the one place where no one wants to admit they're learning anything.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-65469421651679634422008-02-03T17:29:00.000-08:002008-03-10T21:00:37.952-07:00On Learning How To DirectI've written a number of scripts that have been directed by others. Most of those directors were good, one was simply awful. That being said, I learned far more from watching the bad director work than from all of the others combined.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-70041488600812922522008-01-25T15:41:00.000-08:002008-03-07T10:44:31.835-08:00On Watching The MonitorIt's generally considered bad form for the director to watch the monitor during takes instead of watching the actors directly. Yet most directors I've seen working do it. What's more, it seems perfectly logical to do so. Isn't that the best way to see exactly what you're getting?<br /><br />Spending time on a film set as a writer, I came to see why it's so important to watch the actors with your own eyes.<br /><br />A professional film crew covers all bases. The camera department is watching the focus, framing and movement. The grip/electric is in charge of the lighting. Sound. Set dressing. Props. Hair and makeup. Continuity from setup to setup. Everyone has a job. And every single aspect of what goes on screen is accounted for. Except one thing. The actors.<br /><br /><strong>The director is the only one responsible for watching the actors.</strong><br /><br />There will be enough eyes to watch the monitor and make sure the framing is correct, the glasses are filled to the same level as the last setup, the boom doesn't dip into the shot, etc. Why risk being distracted by these concerns when someone is already being paid to do that? Better to watch the actors directly and give them all your focus.<br /><br />As a writer on set, I had the benefit of not having anything to do but observe. I could see the deflating look on an actor's face when the director yelled cut and immediately asked someone about a technical issue. The director was basically admitting that he's not giving the actors his full attention.<br /><br />Another reason to watch the actors and not the monitor is that, often, you can see better. Unless you have a huge budget, the monitor will tend to be small and portable. I remember one time, I was standing near the monitor and then turned to look at the actor. The size of the head on the screen was smaller than the size of his head in real life seen from where I was standing. Getting up close to him, allowed me to watch his performance like it was meant to be seen. As if it was on a big screen in a movie theater.<br /><br />So, if at all possible, watch the actors, not the monitor.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-69152686229358948112008-01-23T12:13:00.000-08:002008-01-23T12:14:27.282-08:00On Creating CharactersI create characters in my own image. And then I punish them for my sins.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-92029860550747165892007-12-17T16:11:00.000-08:002008-12-24T17:08:02.830-08:00On Endings<p>Storylines in dramatic screenplays are driven by a PROTAGONIST in pursuit of a GOAL. Every scene directly or indirectly relates to this pursuit and the CLIMAX of the storyline is where the audience learns, once and for all, the result of this pursuit. With that in mind, there are only four ways a movie can end:<br /><br />1. The protagonist SUCCEEDS. (In "Erin Brockovich," Erin triumphs over PG&E.)<br />2. The protagonist FAILS. (In "Chinatown," Jake Gittes fails to protect Evelyn Mulwray.)<br />3. The protagonist FAILS or GIVES UP the goal to GAIN something better. (In "The Apartment," C.C. Baxter gives up his high-paying job, but gets his love, Ms Kubelik, in the process.)<br />4. The protagonist SUCCEEDS but LOSES something important. (In "Capote," Capote writes the non-fiction book of the century, but loses his humanity.)<br /><br />I've found that when I'm outlining a new script I have an intuitive sense of which one of these endings I'm going to have, even when I'm not clear on the details of how and why. The first is a happy ending. The second is a downer. The third is a happy ending where a character is initially on the wrong path, but by the end, sees the light. The fourth shows the consequences if the character doesn't see the light. He gets what he was after, but loses something more important.</p><p>Knowing which one of these stories you're telling makes it easier to figure out the rest of your story structure. If you are using the Three-Act structure (with a MIDPOINT breaking up Act Two), then the end of your Act Two will be the opposite of the end of your story (CLIMAX):</p><p>So, if you have a happy ending, then the end of Act Two will be a low point, a "false defeat." If you have a sad ending, then the end of Act Two will be a high point, a "false hope." If you have an ending where your character fails or gives up his goal at the end for something better, then, at the end of Act Two, he'll be well on his way to acheiving his goal but also on his way to losing something more important. And so on.</p><p>The reason for this is because, just as a movie begins in one place and ends in another, each Act does the same (and so does each sequence and scene within each Act).</p><p>Taking this idea further, the MIDPOINT has the opposite feeling of the end of Act Two. For example, if you have a happy ending, the PROTAGONIST faces obstacles in Act Two, but he/she makes progress and by the MIDPOINT of the story things are looking good. But, then things start to turn and by the end of Act Two, he/she is at a low point, or a "false defeat."</p><p>Knowing the feeling you want to evoke at the end of your story makes it easier for you to work backwards and create the ebb and flow that's necessary for a satisfying moviegoing experience.</p>V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-87382156179025651422007-12-13T20:54:00.000-08:002007-12-13T21:11:30.882-08:00On Six Day ShootsEvery script I've written has been told from the point of view of one character, where the audience doesn't see or hear anything that the character doesn't see or hear. This creates a strong bond between the audience and the character but it, of course, requires that the lead actor be there for every scene.<br /><br />Many independent films shoot six day weeks in order to save money by taking full advantage of weekly equipment rental rates. It's important to understand how draining this can be on your lead actor (not to mention the crew) when they are in every scene. It might be better for the movie to spend the extra money and shoot five day weeks.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-76294633515087728382007-12-11T17:03:00.000-08:002007-12-11T17:04:28.923-08:00On ExpositionWhen I'm listening to the actors play my scenes, the lines that always make me cringe are the ones that are only there to sneak in exposition. They are there to establish something I (at the time I wrote them) thought the audience needed to know. As a result, they feel forced and unnatural.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-33960902941528588312007-12-10T13:55:00.000-08:002007-12-10T13:59:01.529-08:00On Television ActorsTelevision actors are particularly suited to handling the rigors of independent filmmaking. As veteran TV actor Ron Canada once pointed out to me, you don't work long in television if you can't handle anything thrown at you and still get it in the first or second take. An actor that can do that is a godsend when you are low on film, low on sunlight, racing to finish up in a location before you're forced to leave, or simply have to get through eight pages in a day.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-40807317424989443812007-12-09T17:38:00.000-08:002007-12-09T18:02:35.556-08:00On Mamet's Three QuestionsIn his book <em>Bambi vs. Godzilla</em>, David Mamet claims that all one needs to know about dramatic writing is contained in three questions:<br /><br />Who wants what from whom?<br />What happens if they don't get it?<br />Why now?<br /><br />The first two questions point to the four basic elements of drama: PROTAGONIST, ANTAGONIST, GOAL, and STAKES. These four elements are inextricably linked:<br /><br />The PROTAGONIST pursues the GOAL. The ANTAGONIST tries to prevent the GOAL from being acheived. The STAKES are the negative consequences if the PROTAGONIST fails and the ANTAGONIST succeeds.<br /><br />For your story (and every act, sequence and scene within said story), you need to know these four things.<br /><br />The third question points to the causal progression between scenes that predominates dramatic writing. Each scene (following the Inciting Incident that starts the story proper) has its seeds in a previous scene, most often the one that directly precedes it. Moreover, the Inciting Incident itself, often has its seeds in the backstory of the PROTAGONIST.<br /><br />This cause and effect relationship provides the momentum and tension that keep an audience enthralled in a story.<br /><br />Three simple questions. But, as Mamet points out, these dramatic principles are easy to understand but can take a lifetime to master.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-41491419415775261522007-12-08T20:25:00.000-08:002007-12-08T20:29:29.703-08:00On Directing ActorsNever ask an actor to dial it down if they are emoting too much. Instead, have them HIDE their emotions. You don't want them to feel less. Just show less.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-91127467564730142562007-12-08T01:15:00.000-08:002007-12-09T18:02:53.830-08:00On ImaginationPeople seem to think that reading exercises the imagination more than watching a film. True, with novels you are given the character's thoughts and get to come up with your own images. With film, you are given the images, but it's up to you to imagine what the character's are thinking. Films should play into this idea to make viewers more active.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6328593243647072176.post-44770191620672134952007-12-08T01:09:00.000-08:002007-12-09T18:03:10.823-08:00On ScreenwritingScreenwriting is filmmaking on paper.V. Prasadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02593675245507269767noreply@blogger.com0