I realised today that my major goals for 2006 could be summarised into three words:
Write
Hydrate
Exercise
The first aim is subdivided into a series of obtainable goals, but I don’t plan to bore the scribosphere with the details.
This morning I noticed that the latest edition of Film Ireland (our nation’s industry magazine) has hit the stores. It contains a book review (The Story of Irish Film, by Arthur Flynn) written by me, which is my first piece (hopefully not my last) for the publication.
Onwards and upwards for 2006!
Tags:
Paul Guyot, aka the Ink Slinger, has an excellent post on the importance of the discipline of writing. He’s right, you’ve got to have a routine, and above all the goal is words on a page.
Tom Schulman (Dead Poets’ Society) said, in The 101 Habits of Highly Successful Screenwriters:
A teacher once said to me, “You have to go to work just like a grocer. You unlock the doors at whatever hour, turn the sign over, walk in, and start working.”
Treat it with the professionalism and dedication of a paying job, and it will become a career (if it isn’t already). Well, that’s my theory. I’ll find out if it works eventually.
I followed up on my post in September and wrote a Credo recently. I allowed ideas and thoughts to flow without any bollocking from the internal sergeant censor. 3,000 words later I was a bit wiser. It’s interesting the patterns that emerge when you try this exercise. I suppose one could view it as self-indulgence, but for me it was instructive, and useful.
The major realisation I came to was that I would never motivate another person the way I motivate myself.
I understand the importance of pointing out the positive and highlighting strengths. With friends I underscore achievements, and stress how they can be built upon. Weaknesses are discussed as opportunities for advancement – once you’re aware of them you can transform them.
When I motivate myself it is often in a negative fashion. I look at what I’m not doing, I berate myself for missing goals, and I flog myself over my writing. I only see what I’m lacking, my weaknesses, and the level of craft I haven’t achieved yet.
I’m amazed I get anything done.
So, that’s going to change. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of mental ass-kicking – I need that sometimes – but you catch more words with honey than vinegar.
Not that I’m going to go easy on myself (I am goal-oriented and ambitious), but I will change the way I encourage myself.
This is one of the benefits of having a routine. You sit down, and you have to write. The quality can always be improved upon. It’s not a hobby, it’s a job.
Write.
Tags:
Last night a friend of mine asked me what was my favourite Christmas movie.
Before I continue, however, I have to explain something about my taste preferences.
I’m not a Christmas person.
I know plenty of people who adore the holidays, and get a real kick out of decking their house in lights and decorations, dressing a Christmas tree, wrapping presents and writing cards.
I’m not going to splutter “Bah, humbug,” at that attitude, but I don’t share the same level of enthusiasm.
When I was asked about my favourite Christmas movie I did have an answer because it was a question I had contemplated that very day.
My response was Trading Places.
This is a film that I’ve watched many, many times, and will watch it anytime I happen upon it on TV. In some ways it’s not a “Christmas Movie”, but the holidays play an important backdrop to the film’s plot and subtext. Also, it’s a comedy, and a classic comedy can reveal serious, painful, and wonderful aspects about its subject, and make you laugh–everyone’s a winner. I do enjoy National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation too, and this season I plan to watch, finally, both Elf and Bad Santa as my nod to the time of the year
If I was to ponder on the more traditional Christmas flick, then I think I would turn to one of the various adaptations of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. There have too many to mention. There are the ’straight’ versions that concentrate on the journey of Scrooge from an isolated money-grubber and loveless man to a joyful person who embraces the importance of love and generosity. Then there are the variations on the story: Mickey Mouse has one, as have the Muppets, Mr. Magoo, and even Blackadder.
I will admit to having a nostalgic fondness for Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women, which has been adapted to the silver screen numerous times with varying degrees of success. I do bow to sentimentality on occasion.
I re-watched It’s a Wonderful Life a few days ago, and I was reminded of my original impression of the film as being a dark rumination on the sacrifices that life requires, and how the holidays can be both the best, and the worst, time of the year. It’s a well-crafted, and acted film, but despite the wave of feel-good emotion at the end it always leaves me vaguely unsettled.
Perhaps it’s the hysterical edge in George Bailey’s (James Stewart) voice as he wishes everyone a Happy Christmas, or it’s the fact that Mr. Potter’s (Lionel Barrymore) evil silence about the loss of money is never revealed (which is realistic). The town’s act of collective good will is indeed wonderful, but to my mind that never overshadows that George has never achieved any of his dreams. Of course I get that Capra is trying to show a difference between wants and needs in the film. George wants travel and education, but needs a family and friends more. But there is something nullifying to George’s personality in his self-sacrificing choices. The excellent sequence that shows George’s importance in the world, and the difference his life has made to the town of Bedford Falls is illuminating, but I would love to have seen the more realistic version in which George chooses differently.
Life requires compromise, but we don’t always have to sacrifice our dreams on the anvil of responsibility. I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. But, of course, that would be an entirely different film!
Christmas is a time of year for over-dosing on films. When I was growing up, when there were less channels and choice, I loved pouring over the bumper edition of the TV guide, and marking everything I wanted to see. I enjoyed children’s films like The Wizard of Oz, or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory at the time, but for some reason they don’t hold a lingering appeal on my imagination.
The movies I remember being available, that weren’t always on TV otherwise, were the epics, the musicals, and the visual spectaculars.
In particular I loved the mythological stories that SFX legend Ray Harryhausen brought to life: Clash of the Titans (gods and monsters!), Jason and the Argonauts (cool battling skeletons!), and the Sinbad series (flying carpets; wizards; the deadly clockwork Kali!). I developed a love for swashbuckling flicks: if it features acrobatic heroes, breathtaking extended sword fights, and goateed villains then it’s usually my kind of movie (which is why I was so delighted with Pirates of the Caribbean).
This overview has prompted me to scan the upcoming schedule for TCM, which is airing a fantastic smorgasbord of holiday treats. Those of you who want to catch up on old favourites, or watch a classic you’ve missed would be well advised to keep a track of its Christmas timetable.
Christmas: it’s movie heaven (Hip hip hip hip hip hooray!).
Tags:
The lovely Emon Hassan contacted me today to inform me that the previous entry in this blog was listed in today’s Screenwriters Network bulletin, a daily email bulletin that Emon edits and distributes for the American version of the subscription-based online service, Shooting People. (Emon informs me that you can sign up just for the bulletin for free.) I’m delighted the entry was considered worthy of inclusion.
On Wednesday night I wrote an entire short story. I’ve been so focused on screenwriting of late that it was a wonderful change to return to prose. It was like being reunited with an old and dear friend.
The fancy struck me to write it in longhand. I know some writers prefer this method, but generally I use longhand when I want to brainstorm ideas, take notes, or doodle fabulous beasties. Otherwise I write directly onto the computer, and have done so ever since I learned to touch-type in college.
I had no concrete idea when I began writing, but I did have a style and a genre in mind. I sat down and started thus:
In the woods
Love will perish
With the frost.
And from that the story, now dubbed “In the Woods”, flowed.
It’s a short piece, under 1,000 words, but it’s complete and I’m happy with it. I typed it up the following day, and modified it in places. I’m no genius; everything requires a re-write.
I have a market in mind. I’ll kiss the dice, roll them fast, and hope I score well in the submission crap shoot.
I’m plugging away at my current script as well. I was creatively floored by a head cold in early December, but I’ve recovered and am back crafting scenes and making life difficult for my characters.
Irish screenwriters might be interested to know that Screen Training Ireland is offering a course in Script Analysis during late January, which a number of mutual friends have recommended. On first sight the 500 euro price tag might look steep, but that’s for six days, which makes it damn fine value.
My only concern is with the following requirements for application: “Irish professionals involved in writing, development and directing in the film industry. Participants must be involved in current development projects.”
Which means that I probably can’t apply. Sure, I’m in the development process (what writer isn’t?), but I’m not being paid to develop my work (although in the Irish industry that’s often the case too!).
However, for those of you who can apply it looks like an excellent opportunity to develop and hone your skills.
Tonight, I’m off to my screenwriters’ booze-up. I expect robust conversations about cinema, the industry, and writing, all lubricated by liberal doses of alcohol, and fuelled by different varieties of potato dishes (yes, we Irish do adore the spud – to hell with the carbs!).
Tags:
In another burst of catching up with entries that have been written in my mind, but not on paper… I saw a short interview with author Charles de Lint on the Horror Channel around Halloween.
There were a couple of things he said that I thought merited repeating.
When asked about tips for writing, he offered two:
1) At the end of a writing session always finish in the middle of a scene, or even a sentence, in order to kick-start the flow of words the following day.
2) Create a playlist of music that your major characters like, and play it while you’re writing.
The first point is advice I’ve heard several times, but the second one is an angle on the music playlist idea that I hadn’t thought of before. Composing a music playlist for a character would be a nice bit of background research, and playing it while you write would be a simple way to evoke that personality in your mind.
Like a lot of writers I listen to music while I write, but often I pick a particular style to create a rhythm to my writing, not necessarily to evoke a mood. For instance, I mentioned some time ago that I found listening to fast dance music invigorating while I was writing–especially with a strong cup of coffee fuelling the creative engine. Other times it’s too invasive, and I switch to something more atmospheric.
I have over 110GB of music on a computer hard drive, which is categorized in different ways. I can either queue specific music to play over the speakers in my office, kitchen, or living room, or select a genre and allow it to play random tracks from that selection. If I don’t want to disturb anyone I can always plug my headphones into my laptop and access the musical library from there, or use my MP3 player.
The advances in technology unnerve people at times (myself included), but I tend to embrace the changes where they make our lives easier, or fulfil it in unexpected ways. Music has always been an important part of my life, and it definitely feeds my creativity. There are many things I could forgo, but music is not one of them.
One other opinion that Charles de Lint expressed was interesting to me: he stated that he was completely against the teaching of writing. He felt that the best advice he could give a writer was to read as much as possible.
Charles is not alone in his attitude of course. My opinion is less hardline.
There is no right (write) way to learn to write. Some people cannot bear instruction in the craft of writing. They prefer to learn in their own fashion. That is correct for them. Others respond very well to a structured approach, and can advance their understanding from a course, or university programme. This is the right way for them to progress.
I’m not prone to making didactic statements. The only thing I know for sure is that the more you write, the better you get. Maybe you could benefit from a course (if so, choose wisely and get a recommendation), or perhaps that’s the worst thing you could do, but I don’t think it hurts to try and learn from as many different sources as possible.
Personally, I’ve learned a great deal from the interaction of fellow writers. Reading other people’s work, and listening to their thoughts on my efforts, has elevated my understanding of the practicalities of writing. So my only other piece of advice would be to try and find a community of writers (either physical–the best option if possible–or online) to join so you can share your work and interact with them. The social aspect alone will be a huge benefit.
Writing is a solitary business, and it’s fantastic to find physical company other than the thoughts in your own mind. Two highlights of every month for me are the meetings with my screenwriting group. On Friday we’re having a Christmas party. As a freelancer, who spends too much time in my own company, this is a wonderful event. (I bore me at times.) I’ve been looking forward to it since I heard it was happening.
I hope all of you have similar social outlets planned for this festive season. The holidays can be a trying period, and we all need to cut loose every now and again.
Hug a writer this holiday season. We need it.
Tags:
I see from Business Week Online that yesterday Parmount Pictures agreed to buy independent film studio DreamWorks SKG Inc, which was founded by Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen 11 years ago.
Moreover, the DreamWorks acquisition is seen as a critical gambit for Paramount, which has been under orders from parent company Viacom Inc. to improve the quality of both its movies and earnings.
Paramount will pay $775 million in cash and assume $825 million in debt and other obligations, the company said.
“We see this at Paramount as a transforming event for the studio,” said Brad Grey, Paramount’s chairman and CEO.
The studio will finance the deal by immediately selling the DreamWorks film library, which Paramount values at between $850 million and $1 billion. The company said it is in advanced talks with several parties and expects to have a deal within weeks.
This deal doesn’t include DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., which went public last year, and is the most profitable department of the company. It will be seven years before Paramount gets the right to distribute some of the studio’s best known films, such as the Shrek series. However, Paramount will have the right to develop television shows for DreamWorks Animation characters. Paramount already produces films with Viacom’s Nickelodeon and MTV cable channels.
Upon completion of the deal, expected to close early next year, Paramount would sign new employment agreements with Spielberg as a producer and director, and Geffen, who will become chairman of DreamWorks.
Spielberg and Geffen will be responsible for producing four to six live action films a year, Paramount said. The move will increase its overall annual production to between 14 and 16 titles annually.
While at Screenwriting Expo in L.A. last month an ex-studio exec noted that when she entered the industry 9 years earlier there had been approximately 20 buyers (i.e. studios), but in the intervening period it had shrunk to 8/9 buyers.
I feel bad for anyone who had a film in development with DreamWorks. It’s going to be some time before those kinds of issues are resolved.
Tags:
Often, there are subjects that I want to tackle on this journal, but the press of time doesn’t allow me the opportunity. Over the coming weeks I hope to tackle a few items that have been on the mental back-burner for some time.
For instance, I’d want to mention a horror flick I saw at the end of October, when TV channels were dripping with slasher pics and creature features. On TCM late one night I caught the beginning of a film called Eye of the Devil (1967), and made a snap decision to watch its entirety despite the fact it was going to cost me the next day. The film was directed by J. Lee Thompson (responsible for The Guns of Navarone and the original Cape Fear), and was written by Robin Estridge and Dennis Murphy. Much to my surprise this black and white film, despite flatness of characters and poorly-explained plot, is a little-known occult classic in the style of one of my favourite films, The Wicker Man.
It showcases an incredible line-up of talent: David Niven as Philippe de Montfaucon, a French aristocrat (with a British accent!) who is reluctant to discuss his family’s past, and Deborah Kerr as his wife, Catherine, who refuses to stay away from the Montfaucon homestead, and despite her husband’s protests moves into the massive mansion with her two children. The family business, and the locals, are invested in the grape harvest, and it has been failing. Philippe is drawn back into the rural secretive community, and Deborah is left to figure out what’s going on among an assortment of odd characters. Such as the beautiful and icy siblings, Christian de Caray (David Hemmings) and Odile De Caray (Sharon Tate), and the strange priest, Pere Dominic (Donald Pleasence).
The film looks sumptuous, and is a clear reminder that horror films are fantastic in this colour palette–if you have a fine director and a cinematographer (Erwin Hillier in this case) who know what they are doing. There are startling scenes, such as Niven wielding a whip on Sharon Tate as punishment for her nearly killing his wife. In the day it must have been quite thrilling. Tate and Hemmings are particularly attractive in this light–the hard planes of black and white accentuate their bone structure and add haughtiness to their mysterious characters. Niven is somewhat half-hearted in his role, but his character is somewhat wishy-washy in his adherence to the family’s particular allegiance to the community’s prosperity. Kerr bounces from shocked to horrified at the discovery of the cabal of robed figures that run the pre-Christian traditions of the village.
I’m a big fan of occult horror films. There aren’t many made any more–the most recent that springs to mind is Roman Polanski’s The Ninth Gate (1999)–a film that I’ve grown to appreciate more and more over repeated viewings.
Unfortunately, Eye of the Devil is not available on DVD–but I’m sure it will get a release eventually. I’ll certainly snap it up as soon as I can, and I recommend that horror aficionados keep an eye out for it on TV. Despite its incoherent moments I would rate this as a horror classic.
Tags:
The Hollywood Reporter has published its annual list of the 100 most powerful Women in Entertainment.
There may be a dearth of women screenwriters getting work in feature films (I’m aware there’s a better balance in TV writing), but there are plenty of women in key positions in the entertainment business.
Tags:
In a nice moment of synchronicity Scott Adams, over at the Dilbert Blog, has written a piece today about the humour formula. His post is in reference to cartoons, but it’s worth reading in regards to writing comedy.
One of his sentences leaped out at me: “Execution is everything.”
This is so true, and something I’ve noted on many occasions. It’s particularly the case in comedy, but can be applied to any type of drama (on screen or on paper).
The Machinist, written by Scott Kosar and directed by Brad Anderson, is a perfect example.
The concept and story isn’t very original (although it is well written), but the execution of the story elevates the film into a memorable experience.
This is why it’s so important to have everyone pulling together on a film. Everyone–the writer, the director, the production team, the cinematographer, the editor, the assorted crew members–can contribute to making a film better.
The execution of a film is everything. A great script will not translate into a great film without the right level of helpful and innovative collaboration.
It’s the frustration, and joy, of film-making.
I’d imagine that there is nothing as wonderful as creating a film in a supportive environment where everyone is trying to achieve the same thing: a fantastic story. Which is why the reverse situation is so horrendous.
The writer can only do so much. At some point s/he is at the mercy of the collaborative process. In the right environment it can benefit the film, and in the wrong circumstances it can be the death of a project.
So, yeah, execution is everything.
Tags:
While perusing the USA Box Office for this weekend, at the wonderful Box Office Mojo, and noting that the boy wizard was still number one, and the science fiction flick Aeon Flux opened with $13 million, I continued down the list and realised that the summer comedy, The Wedding Crashers, is still on release (21 weeks!) and continues to pull in money.
It was made for a budget of $40 million, and so far has cashed in $209,107,000 in the USA (if you include overseas markets that jumps to $282,794,600). The film is now available on DVD, and yet it still has an audience in the cinema.
I’ve got to write a comedy script.
I did enjoy The Wedding Crashers, but it’s far from a perfect–it becomes quite disjointed in the last third of the film. I like The 40-year-old Virgin more. Incidentally, that made $166,119,641 worldwide, was on release in the USA for 15 weeks, and was made for a budget of $26 million.
I think the success of both of the films, in particular The Wedding Crashers, was boosted because of the overall woeful content of the summer releases. Both films are fresh funny stories, and didn’t harbour any illusions about their content.
As I’ve said before, this is the way Hollywood needs to go: original lower-budget films, with smart scripts, and an interesting cast.
Tags:
