reach for the stars

Stephen Dorff persuading Melanie Griffith to be in his movie from Cecil B. Demented

The story goes that in 1985, young up and coming director Anthony Waller met acting legend Alec Guinness by chance in Hamburg. Waller asked Guinness if he was interested in doing a one-scene part for his first feature film, Mute Witness. To Waller’s surprise, Guinness said he would, the only problem was that he was unavailable for 18 months. Waller suggested they shoot the scene the next morning before Alec Guinness had to catch his flight.

This all took place nine years before the rest of the film was made and used a scene from an early draft of the screenplay. When Waller later wanted to add a second scene with Guinness, he simply reversed the footage he’d already shot to make it look different.

Mute Witness is an entertaining, atmospheric film, but when it came out in ’94 all the talk was about Alec Guinness. STAR POWER!! If it hadn’t been for him the film might have been a straight to DVD release.

On all of the projects I’ve helped developed, the first question asked (after deciding that the script is good enough and could make a good feature), is invariably “who can we get to direct this?” or “who can we get to star in this?”

In a time where it is difficult to get films made, having a bona fide star or at least a recognisable face on your project is a distinct advantage. It helps with foreign pre-sales, which can be a large percentage of your budget, and it will also entice private investors who are becoming increasingly important in independent film production. The ‘glamour’ of the movies is one element that can be attractive to private investors, and a ‘name’ can be a big help with that.

So, how to get a ‘name’ actor attached to your project? As in all matters of writing, this is a two-part question – one-part artistic, one-part business.

To start with, look at the reasons why big names have done small movies.

If you look at it from a slightly cynical angle, the first word that might spring to mind is ‘Oscar’. Powerful roles in smaller, worthy movies can be a good route to one of those gold statuettes. For example –

Charlize Theron – Monster

Forest Whitaker – The Last King of Scotland

Kate Winslet – The Reader

Would any of those films have ever come up for Oscar consideration if these actors hadn’t been involved? Maybe, but that these fine and well regarded actors were on board meant that these movies got more attention than they would have otherwise.

Another reason, and one which I suspect is far more important to the vast majority of actors, is that a role is just too good to say ‘no’ to. This might well have been the case for the actors I mentioned above, and when you combine great actors in a smaller movie that you wouldn’t expect them to appear in (unless it’s a misguided passion project or they are appearing as a favour to a friend), this is when you can get performances that are often extraordinary.

Simply put, actors will kill for a great role regardless of how big or small a budget might be.

And this is the artistic answer on how to get a ‘name’ attached to your project – write a part that is so good and so challenging that an actor will be unable to say ‘no’ and will have the passionate drive to take a pay cut and persuade their (20% commission-earning) agent that it is the right thing to do.

That’s easier said than done, of course, and there is a great chapter on ‘stars’ in William Goldman’s book Adventures in the Screen Trade and how you must always give them the best lines!

Of course, if you do write the right role as well as a strong script, then it is possible to end up in a situation like Quentin Tarantino found himself in after the Sundance Lab in 1991. His script for Reservoir Dogs found its way to Harvey Keitel, who liked it so much that he attached himself as executive producer and later as one of the main characters. Keitel’s involvement lead to the bringing together of a great ensemble cast and eventually one of the most highly praised film debuts in recent memory.

In an interview I have just listened to with top international actor Stellan Skarsgard, he talked about making big Hollywood movies to be able to earn enough money so he can make the more interesting independent movies that he also appears in. He even said that he has put his own money into certain projects that he desperately wanted to be a part of – literally paying to be in someone’s film!

So artistically – Write a great role.

Moving on to the business side of attaching a name actor, the major problem is that of time constraints. These people tend to be extremely busy, but there is a way to counter this.

If when writing your script you feel that one of the roles, either lead or supporting, would be great for a name actor, then you have an opportunity to tailor that role in a practical sense.

By having the character appear in as few locations as possible and in scenes that are fairly simple to shoot, it will really cut down on the number of shooting days that your name actor would need to be around for. Can the four scenes involving a particular character in four different locations actually be shot in one location? Any professional actor, in particular one who has worked on large scale productions and all the hanging around that involves, will generally prefer one day of solid shooting than four days of some shooting, but more waiting around. Give your producer the chance of attaching a name by writing great roles that require as few shooting days as possible.

So regarding the business side – Condense your shooting schedule.

Which leaves us with a neat little equation –

A great role + short shooting schedule = more chance of attaching a name.

Needless to say that you should never do this to the detriment of the story!!

So take the group of actors that you really admire and would want in your movie, write your characters well enough that these actors would seriously consider them, attempt to condense the amount of shooting days for which they would be required and then get the script to their respective agents. Even if they say ‘no’, you will still have a script with great characters.

And then again, if they say ‘yes’……

Happy writing

Phil

scriptguyphil.com

write what you don’t know

Ken Kesey

One of the most prominent pieces of advice given by writing lecturers and writing gurus is to “write what you know”. This is solid advice, particularly for writers in the early stages of their careers as it generally gives a writer confidence in their knowledge of a given subject and the thought that they might be able to do their story justice.

Confidence for a writer is a fleeting thing, so any time that you have it is a comforting time.

However, Ken Kesey, author of amongst other things the novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest – used to tell young writers “Don’t write what you know, but write what you don’t know. Don’t look for the answer, the answer will be dull. Look for the mystery instead.”

This is equally good advice. By not understanding all the elements and details of your script’s world or the characters that inhabit it, it will free your imagination and let your creativity run rampant enabling you to concentrate on emotion.

Any logistical and practical problems that occur can be overcome when you eventually get round to researching the elements of the script that you have just written.

It is intimidating to think in this way, make no mistake, but by not clouding your judgment in attempts to achieve the realistic and getting the details spot on, it opens up the potential to dig deep within yourself and get at the emotion and heart of your story.

The power struggle between patient (McMurphy) and nurse (Ratched) that is at the centre of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest could quite easily be any type of situation where an authority figure and a subservient lock horns. I’m certain that you would be able to follow the dynamic of Kesey’s plot and adapt it to another story where a power struggle is the main focus, just substituting in appropriate events.

Now, there’s a lot more to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest than this power struggle, but the struggle is the emotional driving force and I suspect this is where Kesey started on his journey writing his novel. The research into the daily life of the patients at the hospital will have been done later and any changes implemented after the emotional story was in place.

Just because a writer knows a lot about a specific subject, it doesn’t mean that they will necessarily be able to create an interesting story out of it. By moving into an area where you have little, or no, expertise means that your imagination is employed automatically as it won’t have any constraints and will leave you free to tackle the emotions that you want to get across.

So, by all means, write what you know – that process has created a great many superb stories throughout film history – but if you’re feeling adventurous and are finding that the emotional side of your story isn’t gelling with your ‘real’ world, then take the plunge into unexplored territories and let your imagination do the thinking!

Happy writing

Phil

scriptguyphil.com

reading between the lines

One of the constants in the scripts that I read is that writers of the good ones have a much better grasp of subtext and will use it often and with meaning. Subtext is one of the elements usually missing from the scripts that aren’t as good.

Subtext gives your characters and your dialogue additional depth, and the more meaning you can give the subtext, the richer your script will be.

It is especially important in scripts that are more character driven. When you spend a lot of time with characters that drive the story through conversation and relationships, then it is imperative that the dialogue you give those characters invokes as much emotional resonance with the audience as possible. If the dialogue is continually matching precisely what the characters are thinking, then the script will soon become tedious.

As an example of a strong use of subtext, here is one single speech from Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation.

It comes exactly 31 minutes into the film and is the moment when Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) and Bob (Bill Murray) speak to each other for the first time. We have seen Charlotte acknowledge and show interest in Bob in the bar in an earlier scene, but otherwise there has been no real interaction until now.

The scene plays out like this:-

                               CHARLOTTE

                       So what are you doing here?

                               BOB

                       A couple of things. Taking a break

                       from my wife. Forgetting my son’s

                       birthday. And getting paid $2 million

                       to endorse a whiskey, when I could be

                       doing a play somewhere.

Now, bearing in mind that the interpretation of art is subjective and that there is no right and wrong, here is the subtext that I read into this dialogue:-

Taking a break from my wife                       =  I’m available

Forgetting my son’s birthday                      =  I can admit my mistakes

Getting paid $2 mill to endorse a whiskey  =  I’m mega-rich

When I could be doing a play somewhere  =  I still have artistic integrity

When I see this scene play out, it’s like a double punch. The first and third lines convey his status and pave the way to impress others (the ‘public’ Bob Harris), but the second and fourth lines indicate how Bob is or at least wants to be (the ‘real’ Bob Harris).

All in all, it shows Bob in a good light and we can understand why Charlotte becomes fascinated by him. It also feels very practiced from Bob’s perspective and it is easy to imagine that this is a skill that Bob has cultivated over the years to get on the right side of his ‘public’. He is showing off, but also showing his human side.

However you read the subtext in this scene, it goes to show that the more information you can put behind the words, the richer it can be.

An example of how a lack of subtext makes dialogue feel a bit flat is the exact same speech in the shooting script!                              

                                   BOB

                         My wife needs space, I don’t know my

                         kids’ birthdays.  Everyone wants

                         Tiger Woods, but they could get me,

                         so I’m here doing a whiskey

                         commercial.

There’s something about this piece of dialogue that doesn’t give much information other than what is being said – except for a minor inferiority complex over Tiger Woods!

The little subtext there is paints a rather negative picture and would be a shaky foundation for the relationship that then grows throughout the rest of the film.

“My wife needs space” is very passive and makes it seem that he has been kicked out of the house, and Bob is shown to be second best when it comes to who gets hired for whiskey commercials. Not knowing his kids’ birthdays makes him neither fascinating nor endearing.

The subtext in the finished film is not only more layered, but it also makes Bob a more attractive and charismatic figure meaning that the audience is as fascinated by Bob as Charlotte is, which in turn makes the relationship between them start in more truthful way.

Regardless of what happened between the shooting script and the finished film, the speech we get to see, which comes at one of the story’s key moments (the first meeting of main characters Charlotte and Bob), is a much richer piece of writing and gives the relationship that will become the driving force of the film a certain amount of weight at just the right time.

Happy writing!

Phil

scriptguyphil.com

bullhead goes to berlin!

Matthias Schoenaerts, Michaël R. Roskam, Nicolas Karakatsanis (Photo: M. Vanden Abeele)

In February of 2008 I read a script by Belgian writer Michaël Roskam called The Fields. I liked it a lot, and Michaël thought the feedback I gave him was useful enough that the production company, Savage Film, took me on as a script consultant.

The following two years proved challenging and enjoyable, and last year the film was shot.

Now called Rundskop (Bullhead) it was released in Belgium on February 2^nd, almost three years after my first involvement.

However, a couple of days ago, Michaël called to tell me that the film has been accepted onto the World Cinema section Panorama at the Berlin Film Festival.

Apart from being very happy for Michaël, I felt a sense of pride that the hard work that we did on the script is paying dividends.

And we needed to work very hard…

Rundskop (Bullhead) is a complex crime story set in the world of illegal growth hormones for cattle, but it is also a moving story about how a traumatic incident in their childhood has put two friends on opposite sides of the law.

The script contains a parallel structure as we follow the present day crime story intercutting with flashbacks from the boys’ childhood. Where and when to make those cuts was discussed, debated and argued about throughout the development process. These cuts were, of course, refined and adjusted in the cutting room, but if Michaël and I hadn’t spent many hours on this challenging problem at the script stage, the editing would have taken much longer and been a much tougher task that it already was. It is also more cost effective to do it at the script stage, which is something I wish more producers would take into consideration more often.

Despite having a clear main character, the script also has more than a dozen large supporting roles. As the film needed to be brought in at around the 2 hour mark, it was essential that all the supporting characters were clearly defined and multilayered as economically as possible – especially considering that some very important characters had such a limited screen time. We brainstormed them all working out how best to make these characters real and avoid cliché and stereotype.

All of the development work we did was via e-mail and most importantly Skype. There was many an evening where we would both sit in the dark in our respective houses in our respective countries talking about how to make the script better. In this digital age it means that people from all over the world can work together, whenever. I think this really helped in this case as Michaël and I worked well together and plan to do so again on Michaël’s next film.

What I am looking forward to now is, finally, at long last, meeting Michaël face to face in Berlin, and getting to see Rundskop on the big screen.

For the international trailer, go to:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZnPqAHd1_4

and for more information on the film, visit the production company’s website.

http://www.savagefilm.be/home/

Happy writing.

Phil

scriptguyphil.com

variety is the spice of life

LOVEFilm is European for Netflix and up until now I have seen 60 films.

One of the things you can do is to rate each film with 1 – 5 stars. Now this is a bit arbitrary and not something that I like to do – for me, enjoyment and analysis of a film is more complex than 1 – 5 stars!

However, late one evening when I wasn’t quite ready to go to bed, I was browsing the site and decided on a whim to rate those films that I’d seen.

The vast majority got between 2 and 4 stars, but there were three films that reached the Phil-Rutter-rating-nirvana that is 5 stars!

Those films were:-

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

The Prestige

and

[REC]

A slow-burning, exquisitely shot and detailed Western, a mystical drama thriller full of twists and turns, and a visceral, shoot-from-the-hip Spanish horror film.

Apart from being pleased that there was a certain amount of variety in these three films showing that I don’t gravitate to a particular genre or film type, I soon realized why these films had reached the heights of the top of my DVD rental list –

I had a strong emotional reaction to everything about them.

That emotional reaction is the main thing I look for in every film I see and what I look for in every script that I read.

I never know where the emotional connection I have with a story is going to come from, which is why it is important that I remain as open as possible to all genres and storytelling styles.

Keeping an open mind will add variety to your life, as well as to your movie watching and movie making, so take each film as it comes and try not to pre-judge based on genre or what has come before.

You never know, you may find a new experience waiting to ambush you.

Happy writing!

Phil

scriptguyphil.com

the invisible influence

Matthias Schoenaerts, Michaël R. Roskam, Nicolas Karakatsanis (Photo: M. Vanden Abeele)

Recently I had the pleasure of watching a film from Belgium called Rundskop (Bullhead). Apart from really enjoying the film, written and directed by Michaël Roskam, I was lucky enough to work as a script consultant on the project.

One of the things that I liked most about the film from a script perspective is that my influence on the final film is impossible to spot. The film is Michaël’s vision, it is his story – and that is exactly the way it should be.

The motto I try to follow is “helping you make your story better”.

My job as a script consultant is to help the writer find out what they want to say and then to make sure that they have all the options and ammunition to tell a story that helps them achieve their goal in the best possible way.

I ask questions rather than give answers. Naturally, I will always come up with suggestions and ideas about how to solve specific problems if that is what the writer wants, but in an ideal world I will use questions to prompt and probe the writer in a way that will get them to find the solutions based on what they want to say with the script. This is the most satisfactory outcome for all concerned and in my opinion it nearly always creates a better end result.

If I put my fingerprints all over the script, then the writer’s vision is being diluted, which defeats the whole objective of film as an art form. I know that I had some influence in the way that the script of Rundskop was formed, Michaël has said as much and the differences in the drafts from when I began on the project to the finished film are clear. However, it is Michaël that has done the hard work creatively, I have just been his guide – an invisible influence.

For a teaser trailer, go to:-

http://www.rundskop.be/

and for more information on the film, visit the production company’s website.

http://www.savagefilm.be/home/

Happy writing.

Phil

scriptguyphil.com

the long drive

–    Or how much mileage does this relationship have?

When I’m assessing when to take on a new project or not, there are a number of things to consider. The majority, naturally, concern the script. Is it any good? Can the writer write? Does the writer have the necessary skills to take the project all the way to production? How’s the structure, characters, etc, etc. The list is long.

One of the other things to consider concerns that of the writer as a person. Regardless of whether the development process takes months or even years, the writer is someone that I will be spending a lot of time with.

I have to ask myself a key question – am I going to be able to work with this person?

After the first couple of ‘getting to know you’ meetings I pose myself a simple scenario.

“How would I cope if I was alone in a car with this person on a 500 mile drive? Would the relationship flourish or crumble?”

I’m not saying that I try to be best friends with every writer that I work with, but there has to be some sort of personal connection for me to realize that the development process will be a collaborative and productive one. If a writer is simply not a nice person and refuses to respect those that they are working with, then it means that the level of collaboration necessary to turn a script into a film just won’t be there.

There have been 2 occasions in the last 10 years where the development process stalled simply because a writer was not pleasant to be around. Cantankerous and being argumentative about absolutely every little detail are not good qualities when it comes to teamwork.

The majority of producers and production companies have several projects in development and if the writer/producer relationship isn’t working and there is a certain amount of animosity, then 9 times out of 10 the producer will call time on the project if it is becoming too much of an issue, regardless of how good the project is.

I love working with good writers, but when push comes to shove and they are people that aren’t enjoyable to work with, I get the feeling that life is too short, and I will look for good writer who is nice instead.

It is, after all, a long road.

Happy writing!

Phil

scriptguyphil.com

a new perspective

Still taken from “Field of Dreams” – Kevin Costner & Dwier Brown

Or how a change in your life affects your movie watching – and making

(Warning – this blog post contains spoilers for Field of Dreams including the very end of the film!)

I first saw Field of Dreams, written and directed by Phil Alden Robinson, in the cinema when it opened in 1989. It was a film that I liked a lot – the first hour absolutely flies by in a very hypnotic way. I bought the film when it came out on video and must have watched it a few times in the following years.

Cut to 2010 and my wife finds a DVD of the film in a bargain bucket and buys it – she’s never seen it and knows that I like the film. A few days later we settle down on the sofa, pop the film in the player and start watching. The first hour or so moves along in its usual hypnotic fashion and it is actually better than I remembered. Then the strangest thing happened,…

–   I began to cry – a lot.

About 20 minutes from the end, tears formed in my eyes and my stomach tightened. Then, for the last ten minutes it is very hard to focus – I’ve reached the point when there’s no chance of hiding or controlling the emotions I’m feeling.

Now, I remember it being a moving ending, but it had never hit me this hard before. Until I remembered what the approaching final scene was – Ray (Kevin Costner) finally got to meet and play catch with his estranged father who had actually died a number of years before. To play catch with each other was the remedy for the emotional pain the men had been through.

In 2002, my own father died, and the reason the film hit me so hard is because this was the first time I had seen it since that major event in my life.

The simple act of a game of catch helped remind me of the good times we had, but also awoke certain longings in me, making me yearn for the opportunity to kick a football with him again.

Our daily lives and the people around us affect the way we watch movies, but they will also have a deep effect on how we make them.

An actor has to delve deep into a character to be able to mine and use all the emotion in order to help their performance.

As a writer, you need to delve deeply into ALL of your characters to mould them and shape them in a way that helps you say what you want to say and tell the story you want to tell. I’d suggest that this is practically impossible to do without utilizing your surroundings and the things that affect your day-to-day existence.

It is important to look at the little things and the life-changing moments in life and how they offer a new perspective on your work. Try and recall the moments from your past that have provoked the strongest or most unusual response – an actor calls this ‘emotional recall’. An ability to access the variety of emotions that you have experienced in life is strong tool to have in your toolbox.

How does your daily life influence your work? Or has there been a major event in your past that has helped you take your writing in an unusual direction?

There’s a little piece of you in all your characters after all, right?

Happy writing.

Phil

what i hope this blog will do

my aim in this blog is to give a little insight in the script development process and the day-to-day workings of how a script moves through the various stages from idea to production.

i’m very much a nuts-and-bolts kind of guy who sees each and every script as a new, inviting challenge. that means that i’m going to tackle specific issues with these posts and look as often as possible at the aspects of script writing not as readily discussed.

i will also attempt, as often as possible, to write updates on my own personal working week to enable you to get as deeply into how a script develop process can work.

so stay tuned and hopefully they will be something on this blog that you like and can use. if not, then please let me know and i’ll happily turn your suggestions into blog posts.

happy writing

phil