The “rules” of developing story

Since Line by Line began, I think what I have found most refreshing are our speakers’ consistent approach to story: there is no right way to do it. But (and isn’t there always a “but”?) just because there are not rule does not mean that are no principles that could be applied.

This was one of the many tips shared generously with Line by Line by Charlie Carman, Manager of Script Development at Film Victoria.

The fact that this was the best attended Line by Line session we’ve ever had stands testament to the desire of emerging Aussie screenwriters to know exactly how Film Victoria fits into the development and production of their screenplays.

What do funding bodies in Australia do?

For our overseas readers, Film Victoria is the government agency that distributes government funding to local films, TV and digital media in Victoria. Each Australian State has its own funding body in addition to the Federal Government film funding agency.

Australian films rarely make money. I am not going to use this blog to air my feelings as to why this may be the case, but it is a fact. In stark contrast to the US or Indian film industries, we generally do not have the population or the box office returns that encourages private investment in films. Therefore, the generation of Australian film and television content is often the result of government support.

A challenge of the Australian government funding system is - due to  dealing with taxpayer money – access to these funds is restricted through strict eligibility criteria. Sadly, there is a difference between how public money can be administered (here and in other countries with public funding like the UK and Canada) and private investment, which can afford to have no rules and regulations attached to it.

One distinction Charlie made clear had never occurred to me before. She said that Film Victoria’s primary mandate is to distribute funds to support Victoria’s existing, established film industry. Not to train aspiring or emerging filmmakers. That role is funded by the government through educational institutions, such as AFTRS and locally Open Channel, and by supporting bigger film production companies who can then provide internships and other training opportunities.

As an aspiring screenwriter myself, I had felt for a long time that Australian funding agencies were not providing people in my position (namely, uncredited) with many opportunities. I now understand that their core role is support the already existing industry, and the best way to do that is to distribute funds to people for whom this is their career and have a proven track record.

While this was a slightly bitter pill to swallow, Charlie did note that Film Victoria have been able to support the New Feature Writer’s program again (and the workshop designed to assist emerging screenwriters), but are sadly now the only agency in the country to do so.

What should we be writing?

But all is not lost! Charlie gave plenty of great advice to both “established” and “non-established” writers, particularly from a developer’s perspective.

One bright side to having a government-funded model is that all types of films can get funding, as making money is not necessarily the primary objective. Apparently, Americans find it hilarious that we can simply fill out a whole lot of forms and be given money for a movie (although you and I both know there is a lot more to those forms than just the filling-out). Charlie stated clearly that Film Victoria do not have genre quotas to fill (although comedy is the most successful genre in Australia), and that Film Victoria is happy to support a good arthouse festival-friendly film as much as what you can find in the local multiplex.

What she was looking for (and what we need to write) are scripts that are good at what they do, and preferably excellent. A great idea, well executed. It doesn’t matter what genre it is, as long as it understands the audience’s expectations for horror/rom com/drama/whatever might be and delivers on those whilst also bringing something original to the mix. Sounds easy maybe, but very hard in practice.

Charlie also recommended looking at your script as an actor would. Having actors attached is so important to attracting investors (both public and private), and actors look at screenplays in a similar way to the way screenwriters do. Where is the conflict? What are the motivations? What are the self-realisations of the character? Does your script have 3 great scenes for a character and (just as importantly) no bad ones?

In light of a post-GFC era and shrinking funding for development, she did recommend the micro-budget, DIY approach as a practical way for writers to help the chances of their script actually being made and breaking into the industry. Either that or…

Writing for TV

In contrast to the Australian film industry, our local TV content is not only increasing but it is also starting to take risks. Development and production turnaround for TV is dramatically less than for film.

During Charlie’s time at Film Victoria, they approached the Australian broadcasters (as the gatekeepers to television funding – you need a broadcaster on board to get made) and asked them what they wanted from writers. The feedback was that they were being approached with ideas that were too developed. They were too set in stone, too far down the development track. There was not enough room for the broadcasters to have their input, to create a team, to massage an idea into a demographic or programming slot.

The moral of the story being: if you have a TV pitch, get it to the broadcasters sooner rather than later!

Writing in general: feedback and development

Given her background in publishing, Charlie happily accepted that screenwriting is almost unique in the amount of re-writing and collaboration that is required to reach a finished product. Part of that process is development.

Charlie was happy to report that the face of the Australian development industry is changing. Previously, writers, directors and producers would put a developer hats on. This did not always lead to strong outcomes as developers need their own set of skills to lead a writer to the best possible result.

In terms of feedback (an essential element of development) Charlie personally favoured a more interrogative approach rather than a prescriptive one. Ask the right questions, so as to lead the writer to where they need to get (rather than tell them what you believe to be the right approach).  For example, where you believe there is a passive protagonist you can ask “Can you think of three scenes where the protagonist drives the story?” rather than simply blurt out “You have a passive protagonist”.

But she clearly did not discount the prescriptive approach entirely. If you only ever ask questions without challenging, people can avoid getting pinned down or put on the spot that they need to address.

Developers are blessed with objectivity which the writer can never have. Charlie found it reassuring that writer/developers cannot apply their development skills to their own work. Most scripts require development and require feedback to achieve their potential. Commissioning readers reports are a cheap and invaluable way of obtaining that objective viewpoint, as is collaborating in communities such as Line by Line.

A last word

Finally, Charlie left me with the simple truth that screenwriting is a craft. It needs to be practised. Write a short story every day for a month. Get off the internet. Don’t hide in research. 

KEEP WRITING!

Chas Fisher 

The Line by Line Team:

Matt Downey

Khrob Edmonds

Chas Fisher

Fiona Leally

Marie Maroun

Airing a screenwriting argument

Sharing scenes last night spaked off an interesting argument. I had written: "She was happy to be surprised." The debate that followed is the ye old "only write what you can see". There were, as always, two sides.

In one corner: the only-write-what-you-can-see, only write actions or dialogue. This discipline will force you to create meaning through subtext, so that the reader imposes only the meaning that the writer wants. This is something I aspire to.

In the other corner: those who believe that you can write certain emotions into a text because (a) an actor can play those emotions and (b) it provides the reader with a tone and feeling in as little as one word that could otherwise be missed.

For example, it would be alright to say "He held out his hands reluctantly" because no matter what subtext has been created by the actions, the way a character holds out their hands could be in contrast (signally a beat change or turning point) to the existing flow of the scene.

However, we were all agreed that "She looks out the window praying to all deities that this Sunday would end" is not playable and not appropriate.

The example I used that sparked the debate was:

Joshua, unmoved, waits for the point.

What do you think? Unplayable? Possibly. But is it acceptable in a script to use lines such as this to create feeling in the reader? I personally prefer it to:

Joshua does nothing.

Addressing nagging doubts...

One thing was clear: Thus far, the incredible speakers kindly donating their time had inspired us all to write and participate in the crazy industry of filmmaking. We at Line by Line could see we were being of service by putting writers together in a room with individuals experienced in the art of story-telling.

However, as much as we would love to pat ourselves on the back, a suspicion was beginning to nag: Was anyone actually writing?

Exploring the nagging doubt...

Each session, we were spending more and more time listening to these incredible people and not actually working on writing or collaborating on ideas. Each session, we would set proposed development goals that could assist people in moving their story or script along and yet we could not see or hear any results...

One of the commitments we made when we started Line by Line was that we would provide a structure and support for participants to reach a treatment or a first draft of a feature by the end of the eight session program. To this end, we had set up an online forum so that people could upload their work and share it with the community, get feedback and keep moving on the story.

However, no one was sharing.

Addressing the nagging doubt...

So, we decided that the following two LxL sessions were going to be about us; we were going to be the speakers and we were going to inspire each other to write. The task: bring a key scene from your project and have it read out loud and work on it.

Before we started on that though, we conducted an inquiry as to why people were not sharing and what Line by Line could provide to support and inspire each other in writing. What was interesting was that people felt very comfortable sharing within a room in person but not uploading their work and receiving a barrage of email feedback. So it became clear that the community in the room was working for everyone but the online community was not.

Solution: Community

When asked what we could do to support each other, the proposed solutions turned out to be pretty simple:

1. That everyone post in the online community each week what goals they were setting for themselves in the coming week and whether they had met their goals from the previous week;
2. That we provide chocolate as a reward for people meeting their goals.
   

The barrage of online sharing that came the following days was wonderful. The following week presented a steep fall as no one had made their goals and everyone was too scared to share that fact. Ironic, when it would only have made everyone feel better to know that we were all human and that some writing, some movement, some progress was inspiring.

Solution: Collaboration

Needless to say, the reading of the scenes out loud in a room was a wonderful exercise. The writers got to clearly see - objectively - what worked and did not work in the scene. The feedback was generous and considered and constructive.

And, best of all, everyone who had not written a scene left the room committed to going home and churning one out for the next session.

Lesson learnt: all that is needed to inspire writers is sharing, collaboration and chocolate!

Chas

No passive verbs!

Another session, another incredible wealth of knowledge shared by an amazing speaker. David Rapsey (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0710951/) very kindly gave us an evening of his time and wisdom, some nuggets of which I have chronicled below. Much of the discussion centred around the Australian Feature Film landscape and some of the challenges faced at all levels of it.

A veteran screen developer, David has helped many scripts through various drafts and into production. He warned feature developers against spending too much time writing for television, as film requires a very different craft to TV. The biggest problem with scripts that cross his path is that people don't know how to write SCENES - two or more characters with conflicting goals, and a shift of status are the bare minimum for a good scene.

The structure of a feature film is very different to TV as well - David pointed out that while TV must grab the audience within seconds, film-goers can't take remotes to the cinema, so we have some breathing space, which is an excellent time to get the audience to invest in characters before some of the more 'out there' concepts are introduced. He gave the example of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which starts with big emotional sequence (~20 mins) to hook audience in before any mention of the science fiction concept that underpins the journey the characters go on.

Related to this was a warning to not spend your good stuff early. Early drafts of American Beauty had a sequence of Lester flying over his suburb. The sequence was even shot, but eventually cut so as not to detract from the BIG fantasy sequence with Mena Suvari and the rose petals. If the flying sequence had been our introduction to Lester's imagination, it would have lessened the impact of the petal sequence.

American Beauty was also a good example for another key point of David's - Questions.

Most of a film is focused on getting the audience to focus on and ask the right questions. Questions the film has the answers for. American Beauty went from courtroom drama, where the main question in the audience's mind is "Who's guilty?" to "Is Lester allowed desire in his dull middle American life?" If this were not the main focus of the way the story is structured and told, Lester would come across as a 40 something sleazebag!

Another piece of good writing advice was to Never Let the Audience Catch Up - get out of a scene right before the audience gets their head around where they are - give them the information they need, and get out of there - they'll put it together. The Social Network is a fine example of this principle in practice. Very fast paced keeps moving the audience to ask the question "Is Mark Zuckerberg a decent person?"

David then challenged those present to the following exercise: Take a film you love, and find every version of the script that you can (I recommend www.simplyscripts.com or www.script-o-rama.com as a good starting point) then arrange them in chronological order and look at the differences between drafts. Everything starts out in a non-optimal* form, and it's only through successive drafts that the important elements of the 'engine' that drives the story are found.

Analyse the drafts in as much detail as you can - at the macro structural level, to the scene level, down to the Line by Line level (Do you see what I did there?). All the time be on the lookout for how they hone in on the underlying themes and elements that are crucial to the story.

David also echoed a sentiment those familiar with Stephen Cleary's lectures will be aware of - you should often change the 'perspective' of what the audience knows, relative to the characters. At any given time, the audience will either know more than the characters, the same as them, or less than them. Changing this moves the audience through different emotional states relative to your characters and keeps the experience alive.

There were so many other wonderful anecdotes and suggestions - how Rabbit Proof Fence took four drafts before five tracker characters were combined into one before the story really started to work; how the public went from seeing 20-25% Australian cinema in the 70's and 80's to whatever single-digit figure it currently languishes at and for writers not to worry too much about loglines…

It is the Distributor's and Marketer's jobs to come up with loglines. They are an Appealing Summation** to help sell the movie.

It's their job to get the audience into the cinema. It's our job to make sure they leave satisfied.

From all at Line by Line, we'd like to extend a massive thank you to David for his time and openness for us all to learn from his extensive experience. It was a most inspiring night. And remember folks - keep those passive verbs out of your scripts!

Khrob Edmonds

* Shit
** 'Lie'

A Call to Pens and Keyboards

Let me paint you a picture: I am a recent film school graduate who is committed to writing his first feature film script. And so, I put lots of time aside, sit at my computer and… play lots of sudoku and Scrabble on the internet.

Let me paint you another picture: on March 21, 2011 Jim Schembri wrote a strong article about how 3 Aussie films (representing over $9million of investment) all opened on the same weekend and all, financially speaking, died on their arses. That is the industry we are in.

So what is an answer?

Stephen Cleary (former Head of Development of British Screen and founder of the famous ARISTA workshops) has suggested that technology has reached a stage where traditional screenplay development (draft/feedback/redraft/feedback/etc ad nauseum) can change. That producers, directors and even cinematographers can be a part of a screenwriter’s development process. Such a collaboration could present a marked difference from the current model of a debut screenwriter working on that script for years and years only for the resulting film to find no audience.

Along a similar line, Duncan Jones (director of Moon and Source Code) was recently asked what should emerging or aspiring filmmakers do in order to move their projects and careers along. He replied:

Gather a group of like-minded people around you, find people who want to be producers, cinematographers, actors and composers, because you're always going to have far more ability to get things made if you have the momentum of a group of people working together. It's hard work trying to do it on your own, and you'll be taken more seriously if there's a group of you.

Which, in a round-about fashion, brings me to Line by Line. I needed a community of filmmakers (not just writers) to bounce my ideas off, to provide invaluable feedback, to remind me that I am using a visual medium, to encourage me to meet the deadlines I have set for myself and, above all, to never forget that I am writing for an audience.

When talking about it, it appears that others wanted such a community as well – to develop their own projects or simply to develop their story-telling skills. Among these filmmakers, Pony, Khrobberini and Marie in particular have decided to make sure this community happens. Here is why:

Pony: Ambitions can't be achieved without the work. With Line By Line we can be accountable to our dreams by setting goals with like-minded collaborators and jointly chip away at the obstacles between us and great possibilities. So, let the work begin!

Khrobberini: For me it's about the survival of the fittest ideas. Line by Line seems to be the perfect place to practice a little Darwinian 'natural selection.' Following the repetitive process of Selection -> Mutation, (pitching/discussuin -> alcohol) I hope Line by Line will evolve my scripts into efficient killers. Stories! Efficient STORIES. About sharks. Maybe a shark terrorising a seaside community... hmmm...

Marie: As a Producer, I'm interested in good stories and want to help provide opportunities for writers to develop those stories. I know that working in isolation can be uninspiring, and sometimes the best work can come from trusted collaborations or simply by knowing the guy next to you is writing too. That's the environment we're trying to create here. You decide how you want to tap into it!

Line by line is now happening and I am so excited to think that in 4 months I will have a treatment or a first draft that is stronger than a document I could have taken 18 months to write when left to my own devices (such as the aforementioned sudoku)!

And so… it begins!