CopyWrite

Doctor Who Vs Star Trek – The Answer!

(This post originally appeared on the CopyWrite blog. Join the April subscription marathon or subscribe here.)

Well, if that title got you reading, you probably already have an opinion on the winner. I know I’m inviting a ton of backslaps as well as twice as much hate mail for suggesting this.

But, as Series Four of Doctor Who premiered in the UK this weekend, I thought it only right to devote today’s post to…

The Final Undisputable Reason Why Doctor Who is Better Than Star Trek!
Writers Watch Doctor Who - Computer Programmers Watch Star Trek

Resorting to wild generalisations in the hope of generating a reaction? Moi? Well, let’s look at the evidence.

There are a number of writers that go giddy for the good Doctor. Neil Gaiman recently talked about his excitement at having dinner with Who writer Steven Moffatt. Stephen Fry was almost writing for the show, such is his enthusiasm, until his work schedule prevented it. And let’s not forget that some of the most highly awarded television writers in the UK flocked to the new series when it was relaunched. (Russell T Davies and the aforementioned Steven Moffatt to name but two).

If I trawl the net looking for famous Star Trek fans, you come up with a list of people like Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates. I have yet to find a single writer who claims to be a fan of Star Trek. What I did find was quite a few Star Trek forums desperately trying to put together lists of famous Trekkies as ammunition should they ever be criticised. Most of these lists were people they ‘suspect’ as Trekkies but were more wishful thinking than anything else. (The Dalai Lhama – I ask you! I laughed too at the cheek of it. I mean, can you see him getting excited and putting on his Starfleet pin when a new episode comes on?)

So the people who value strong storylines and creative ideas watch Doctor Who and those that get excited about the physics of black holes watch Star Trek. I think my point is made and made well. But I can push it still further.

The Ellison / Rodenberry Feud

The popular science fiction writer Harlan Ellison admitted his deep rooted affection for Doctor Who when he championed the America syndication of the show back in the 1970s. He went so far as to write the foreword for the US Pinnacle reprints of the Target Doctor Who novels. Yes, this is the one and the same Harlan Ellison who wrote the episode most often claimed to be the best Star Trek script ever, ‘The City on the Edge of Forever’, and is therefore revered by Star Trek fans. But Harlan was very vocal about his distaste for Roddenberry’s treatment of his script. This dispute cuts to the heart of the difference between the two shows.

One of the script changes Ellison objected to most strongly was the removal of a subplot involving drug dealing on board the Enterprise. The Star Trek crew were always presented as paragons of virtue, with even their personality flaws having a noble quality to them. Cut to Doctor Who. Drug dealing on a spaceship? In ‘Nightmare on Eden’, the ships crew are actively involved in the smuggling of a futuristic form of heroin.

Utopia Vs Dystopia

The idealistic form of writing championed by Roddenbery has no place for the seedier side of life. The Star Trek universe is a near utopia. World peace is a reality, even if there are a few alien races challenging Earth’s right to go wherever they want to boldy go! (And about that! Let’s face it, the aliens bear a distinct likeness to America’s greatest enemies from their most recent wars at that time. The Klingons are quite obviously the Vietnamese whilst the Romulans may as well come from Japan with those haircuts and facial features. I think that’s called battering your audience with a subtext.) Star Trek characters are almost universally supermen of morals and intelligence. They represent everything that is best about us and… blah, blah, blah until I’m sick.

The future as presented in Doctor Who is almost a dystopic vision of corruption, poverty, Bladerunner-esque hopelessness, dirt and grime. People are flawed and not in a charming way. People make mistakes. People die even. I’m willing to bet that if you put the death tolls of Doctor Who and Star Trek side by side, you’d soon have a different idea about which was the kids show and which presented a less sugar-coated vision of the world.
.

To finish off, the last word has to go to Harlan Ellison.

“Star Wars is adolescent nonsense; Close Encounters is obscurantist drivel; Star Trek can turn your brains to puree of bat guano; and the greatest science fiction series of all time is Doctor Who! And I'll take you all on, one-by-one or all in a bunch to back it up! “

From his introduction to the Pinnacle series of Doctor Who books

I'll be the one standing behind Harlan with the bat.

April 6, 2008 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | Add Comment

The Professional Writer: Part 1 - Self Promotion

(This post originally appeared on the CopyWrite blog. Join the April subscription drive today or subscribe here!)

Introduction

I love writing for a living. From 9 to 5 every day, I get to tap keys and receive money in the bank for my trouble. It is a concept I thought would never happen. And it never would have happened if I didn’t work hard at things other than my writing.

Many amateur writers fail in their bid for a paycheck by not considering what factors separate the professional from the dreamer. There is a great deal more to professional writing than harnessing creative inspiration and spending hours crafting a work of beauty.

This series on ‘The Professional Writer’ aims to discuss some of the aspects often overlooked by amateurs. Rather than covering grammar and stylistic issues, the series assumes you already have these skills and the appropriate talent and creativity. These five articles aim to fill in the gaps between writing skill and professional success.

How do you present yourself? What is your time worth? How do people become exposed to your talent? There are many issues a professional writer has to consider and address every day.

Getting the Message Out

There is no doubt that I made the leap from amateur to professional writer through self promotion. Getting noticed was immensely important in attracting the attention I needed to jump-start my career.

When shopping, you are less likely to buy the box of cereal you’ve never heard of with nothing on the box and hidden in a dark corner of the supermarket. A potential employer behaves in much the same way. If they are choosing between two writers for a job – one an unknown quantity and the other a familiar name with a large and impressive online profile – it’s not hard to guess which one gets the paycheck.

There are many ways to turn heads in your direction and not all of them involve going naked. With the advent of the internet, it has never been easier to publicise your own work and the qualities you have on offer to the guys with cheque books.

1. Your Own Website

This is a no-brainer but it is surprising how many writers screaming for attention have yet to take this step. Your own website can hold script samples, list your achievements, provide contact details and generally serve as an easy portfolio or online resume that anyone in the world can be pointed to. It doesn’t matter whether you live in darkest Peru or the middle of Manhattan, a website exposes you to the world.

By adding the address of your website on your business cards (more on those another day), at the bottom of all your emails, or whenever you are networking, you present a professional approach that says you are serious about your product. That product is you. My current role as a copywriter was achieved partly because of my website. Although my boss sifted through a number of resumes, my application stood out because he was able to read my writing and learn more about me than a simple resume could ever manage. It showcased my talent and demonstrated my professionalism.

2. Blogging

A writer without a blog is like a fish without water. If you really have writing in your bones, there will be times every day when you are itching to pour your ideas, opinions and thoughts into words. A blog fulfils that need, whilst providing an avenue for you to share these bite-sized hunks of literary skill with your readers.

But more than a receptacle for your over-spilling brain, a blog is one of the best publicity and networking tools on the internet. You will have noticed the blog you are currently reading is themed around various writing issues. These posts attract visitors from other like-minded writers who then link to my website or leave comments. This additional traffic may also experience the script samples and other treats I have within my website. The blog serves as the honey to attract the eyes of people who can help my career. This blog now attracts hundreds of visitors every day, where a simple, unchanging five page website will have a great deal of difficult attracting a fraction of that amount without some expensive marketing techniques.

For proof of how blogging can launch a professional writing career, consider the Oscar winning success of Diablo Cody, or visit the following writer’s blogs.

* Warren Ellis
* Paul Cornell
* Neil Gaiman

3. Networking

There are many online writers networks. You may already be a member of one or two. What they do is provide a massive support network of writers from all backgrounds and skill sets. The ability to have so many people critique my writing and provide constructive feedback has been brilliant for me. Also, by swapping advice, passing each other leads and generally helping each other along, we maintain and energy and positive attitude which is so important in keeping a productive writing schedule.

The more you participate in these communities, the more recognizable you become. And the right people do go to some of these places. Some of the world’s top writers are very active on the internet and enjoy participating in forums.

Writer’s networks you should be a part of include;

* Storylink (well, you're here, aren't you?)
* Scribomatic
* Joblo
* Webwriting

4. Competitions

There are hundreds of writing competitions every year. Participating can be hugely valuable for your development as a writer and for networking with others. I was heavily involved in both years of the Project Greenlight Australia competition, attending every event, chatting online to as many other contestants as possible, and savouring every new piece of feedback on my script. Many of us are still in contact, swapping advice and success stories as we help drive each other to the top.

But let’s not forget the prizes. Even if you don’t win, being shortlisted or gaining a placing gives further validation for your writing and can be used to introduce you to new contacts.

Shout It From the Rooftops

Self promotion takes time. I devote half an hour a day to publicising myself on the internet, even before I’ve started reading the blogs and posting on forums.

Self promotion works. You may think your writing is the product you are trying to sell, but that is only half the story. A potential employer is interested in what it is going to be like to work with you. Therefore, you need to become comfortable in marketing yourself as a great person to work with as well as selling your wonderful script or great first novel.

Don't forget to subscribe today so you don't miss any of the five articles in this series. Return next week for Part Two in this series - 'The Customer'.

April 5, 2008 6:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | Add Comment

Coping With Criticism

(This post originally appeared on the CopyWrite blog. Join the April subscription drive today or subscribe here!)

I love it when a new set of eyeballs reads my script. But, like anyone, when that person offers criticism the ego takes a knock. After all, what do they know? They didn’t stay up all hours writing the damn thing!

Criticism is an essential part of any writing process, but more important is the ability to deal with this criticism effectively. Many times I’ve come across an amateur writer who dismisses criticism as a misunderstanding on the part of the reader. If the reader wasn’t completely won over by the script, they simply didn’t get it.

The amateur wants to debate the criticism, hopelessly attempting to turn the reader’s opinion around. “Don’t you see? In Act 2 Fred does this, so that’s why Jemima leaves home. It’s obvious. I’m not changing a thing!”

It may be obvious to you, but if the reader misses it, it isn’t the readers fault – it’s yours. No one knows the story in your head better than you. But the script is the tool by which you convey that story inside you to someone else. If they don’t experience what you hoped they would, your script hasn’t done the job.

The Reader Is Your Audience

When writing a script, a novel or an advertising slogan, you cannot dismiss any criticism. If your film were to be shown in a cinema, you won’t be able to address the audience afterwards and enlighten them to the bits they didn’t like. Similarly, attempting to persuade a reader that your script works, simply highlights that it doesn’t. If your script needs explanation to be understood or a pep talk to grasp the tone, or a lesson in script format to decipher, it has problems that you, not the reader, needs to address.

Recently, I received some criticism of my film script, Nightfall. The person offering the criticism was very tentative, wondering nervously whether I would be offended. Of course I wasn’t. The point he raised was that the script didn’t contain enough scares and wasn’t ‘street’ enough for a vampire film.

My first reaction was the urge to scream “It’s not a vampire horror movie!” But it’s not up to me to say. It’s up to the audience to decide what a film is or isn’t, after experiencing it. I can’t email every audience member after seeing the film to outline my real reasons for writing the film and what they should have experienced.

What is the Criticism Really Telling You?

Sometimes, the criticism may hint at the true problem without saying it outright. In this case, a little thought showed me what the criticism was really telling me.

The logline mentions that the script contains vampires. Therefore, some readers will have a clear genre or expectation in mind when they turn to page one. The problem is that my script is not a typical vampire slash and horror. The premise is actually a tragic love story where the vampires merely serve as a narrative device to create the dilemma.

In comparing the different reader feedbacks I’ve received over the years, those that didn’t know vampires were in the script read it for what it is – a tragic love story. And they provided feedback and appreciated it on that level. Others who were primed with the knowledge that vampires featured in some capacity sometimes felt caught out by a script that failed to offer the usual “Lost Boys” type theatrics.

Act on All Criticism

We will all receive a number of different and sometimes conflicting criticisms throughout the life of a script. How do you act on them all?

The important thing is to never dismiss a criticism, no matter how trivial or ridiculous it seems. Remember, the person making the criticism is still a typical audience member. You will never be able to please every audience member all the time, but by carefully considering every criticism you receive, you can build a picture of which issues should be a priority to you and which you may need to live with. Take into account your target audience. If readers from a similar demographic show a pattern in their criticism but you see them as a key audience for your film, you have a problem that needs to be addressed. If the demographic of the reader is less likely to be your target audience, you may decide to downplay the reaction if other readers are favourable.

By treating all criticism with this level of analysis and importance, you continue to write for your audience and not for yourself. After all, that is your goal.

After my criticism analysis, I have crucial information to help with my next draft. I need to recraft the logline to set up a more accurate tonal pitch for the film. I then need to look very carefully at the first Act to see how the tone is set and assess whether it is the right tone for what is to follow. It will never be “From Dusk Til Dawn”, but there is more than one way to create horror-film style tension without turning the love story into a slasher pic full of gothed up, leather coat wearing, long-haired vampires.

Whether the new draft can carefully straddle both genres is the challenge, but it is a challenge worth facing.

March 28, 2008 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Add Comment

The Death of Narrative Cinema

(This post originally appeared on the CopyWrite blog)

We can all name the worst films currently in distribution, but why do we keep rewarding them with box office success?

“Meet the Spartans” topped the box office around the world, despite every review decrying it as a serious misuse of celluloid. British film critic Mark Kermode blasted the film with one of his most vitriolic rants after summing up his feelings by banging his head repeatedly against the desk. (Listen to the podcast. Everyone should subscribe. Now.) Although he didn’t apply to the film his famous catchcry that forms the title of this post, his inability to comprehend how it entered the UK box office at #1 deeply pained him.

Empire magazine gave it a woeful one star. IGN awarded the film only half the Empire score, continuing to say how they were “flabbergasted that a studio probably passed on making so many other more worthy projects instead”.

If a film is so universally reviled, so barren of creativity, so lacking in any redeeming features, how does it top the box office in most international territories and make a profit that guarantees we’ll see more of the same?

Flash in the Pan Distribution

The studios know which films are terrible and which will continue to be revered years from now. “Meet the Spartans” is unlikely to get a tenth anniversary special edition DVD in 2018. Records show that in most territories, it plummeted from the #1 spot after the first week. Within a month it had left the top ten in many territories, demonstrating the poor word of mouth.

But the damage has already been done.

Because the studios recognised “Meet the Spartans” as a poor, disposable, mayfly of a film, the entire marketing strategy was geared to generating a return on investment on the opening weekend. This meant saturating as many screens as possible, coupled with a huge marketing push for the opening weekend. It is a strategy designed to reap the majority of the financial return in three days. Once the studio has recouped the budget, the reviews, word of mouth and DVD sales no longer matter.

This is a major difference to how more ‘worthy’ films are marketed. In Australia, “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” was shown on only 35 screens nationwide. Word of mouth would keep the film on those screens for longer and would allow for the film to move around the country in a staggered release, unafraid of critics and public feedback. “Jesse James” will also do well on DVD, especially after Oscar nominations have given the film a second burst of life.

Studios know which films can benefit from a soft release with a smaller marketing budget and fewer prints produced, and which need to be hammered through the multiplexes as quickly as possible.

The Unfunny Comedy

Another criticism levelled at “Meet the Spartans” was that it just wasn’t funny. Tired old jokes, predictable yet drawn out set-ups and clichéd, uninspired parody often characterise these cheap grabs for money by the Hollywood studios. After all, “Meet the Spartans” is just the latest in a line of spoof comedies that merely trade on the success of other film properties. The “Scary Movie” series, “Date Movie”, “Epic Movie”, the forthcoming “Superhero Movie” (you beginning to see a pattern here?); all of them use cultural familiarity as their core conceit.

It might be harsh and elitist to criticise the audiences that support such films as ignorant of true comedy or unwilling to be challenged. But the attractiveness to some people is that films like these clearly signpost their humour by using familiar situations. A viewer laughs at a scene because they recognise the reference, comforted that they are ‘in’ on the joke.

There is no challenge in this form of humour. In fact, this type of film attempts to tell the audience what they should find funny, forcing the joke, rather than playing with creativity in search of something fresh. Some audience members are comforted by this method, not needing to think too hard about what they are watching.

Don’t Encourage Them!

The studios know these films are not works of art. They understand the critics will pan them and most of the audience will be disappointed by the experience. But there is no satisfaction guarantee with film. We’ve all shelled out money for turkeys in our time. But certain films play on this money up front relationship.

“Norbit” may have pushed Eddie Murphy’s career back ten years and cost him an Oscar, but the studio got the money it needed to justify producing whatever horrible bit of fat suit inanity Murphy comes up with next.

The only way to stop this cycle is not to go. Fight your curiosity. Refuse to take your girlfriend. Punish the kids for even suggesting it. Stand in your box office queue and promise to nipple-cripple anyone who checks the screening times for these films.

The box office drives Hollywood and as long as these films can recoup their budget in an opening weekend surge, we will be plagued with films that offend our movie-going sensibilities.

Say no to spoofs!

March 25, 2008 3:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | Add Comment

The Deadline : Friend or Foe

(This post was originally published on the CopyWrite blog.)

Douglas Adams once said “I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.”

This week is crunch week on my monthly deadlines for Nett Magazine. Every month, no matter how much planning and scheduling I put in place, I always seem to find myself two days before deadline panicking and frantically trying to piece together articles.

Seeing as the deadline is the same every month, you’d think I would have found the right rhythm now. Yet many writers admit to procrastinating for much of the time and scribbling their work in a frantic panic as the deadline looms. Whether this procrastination can be justified as creative thought or whether writers are inherently lazy is up for debate, but it seems to work.

There is something about the deadline that is incredibly important in getting the job done. Without a deadline, I rarely produce work I am happy with. The pressure of a deadline and the belt of adrenalin that comes with it often forces some intense creative moments that turn a lifeless and pedestrian piece of writing into something vaguely readable.

With my amateur projects, such as screenwriting, I have to fix deadlines for myself to avoid constant procrastination and uninspiring writing. At the moment, I am identifying the competitions I want to use this year as motivation to complete my rewrites. Knowing that I have to complete a rewrite to a particular standard by a certain date galvanizes me into action.

So as much as writers hate deadlines and complain how they shouldn’t be forced to write to order, I find I can’t write without them. They push me to be a better as I have produced my best work when under extreme pressure.

I have one day before the deadline to produce my major article for Nett. But I know the article will be completed on time and I know it will be good.

I might start it in an hour. We’ll see.

March 20, 2008 2:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | Add Comment

When I Grow Up, I Want to Be Toby Ziegler!

(This post was originally published on the CopyWrite blog.)

Let’s just get one thing straight – Aaron Sorkin is a god amongst scriptwriters.

If you disagree, then this post isn’t for you, ‘cause you obviously lack taste and I don’t think I want to be seen with you any more in case it rubs off…

To me, The West Wing is a masterclass in scriptwriting. I’m not saying it’s the best show on telly – that honour has to go to the stupendous Doctor Who – but watching an episode of The West Wing is like mainlining scene structure and dialogue.

Sorkin knows how to craft a scene with clear motivations and immense momentum that carries you through the hectic, embolism-inducing speed of the complex political dialogue. Even when the dialogue zooms past you at a rate that makes you plead for the poor actors to be given a comma for Christmas, the political thrust is less important than the impact the dialogue has in creating motivation, emotion and narrative flow.

Half the time I have absolutely no idea what the characters are discussing - after all, the intricate workings of the US political system are impenetrable to most Americans, never mind viewers overseas. Yet the characters are so well anchored that the drama always shines through.

But I have to admit, I always perk up when Toby Ziegler comes on screen.

Beautifully characterised by Richard Schiff, Toby is the wordsmith I would aspire to but could never hope to be. To see him verbally spar is to watch words being used as weapons, each carefully selected for maximum effect.

Dry wit, acerbic sarcasm, uplifting hyperbole; Toby displays an understanding of the English language probably beyond 99% of us.

I have always been fascinated with language in all its forms. The ability to construct and convey ideas and the subtleties that the right choice of words or praising can achieve have always enthralled me.

Part of me wants to adopt the gruff, arrogant superiority Toby displays. Maybe I should grow a beard and adopt grumpiness as my default setting. After all, Toby always seems to have a certain air of satisfaction as he deftly carves up an opponent with well-honed and obscenely intelligent debate.

If anything else, it would be fun.

March 18, 2008 6:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Add Comment

Inspiration for the Screenplay Rewrite

(This post originally appeared on the 'CopyWrite' blog)

I’m currently in the planning stages of launching into another draft of my vampire script, ‘Nightfall’. With a strong performance in both years of the Project Greenlight Australia competition, and plenty of positive and constructive feedback, I continue to work with this script in the hope of finally getting it to a salable condition.

The good thing is that every time I read the script, I identify improvements to be made. And I’m not talking about changing a line here or there either. This latest rewrite (draft #8) promises to be one of the biggest and most radical overhauls as I am returning to the basic scene structures, characters and story arcs to recraft the script from the bottom up.

Steal From the Masters

A wise man once said “Good writers copy, great writers steal.”

When looking at how I could improve the basic structure of the screenplay, I looked at the classic story archetypes that best approximated what I was hoping to achieve. After all, why reinvent the wheel if someone had already defined the best structure for a romantic tragedy?

Most literary critics agree that there are only seven basic plots throughout all literature and that every piece of fiction is a permutation of one or more of these. If you would like to read more about the classic plots and the archetypes behind them, you could do worse than read Christopher Booker’s superb “The Seven Basic Plots”.

It was this idea that someone will have written my plot before me, and probably done a better job, that set me to thinking about exactly what the optimum structure would be for my screenplay. The realisation that ‘Nightfall’ was in fact a modern twist on Romeo and Juliet inspired me to look closer at the elements of the Shakespeare play to find inspiration for this latest rewrite.

A Shakespearean Screenplay

I started this preparation by mapping out Baz Luhrmann’s “Romeo + Juliet”, with Blake Snyder’s beat sheet approach to movies. Although I could just as easily sat down with the original text, by analysing the screenplay, I could check the timings and page numbers to monitor where key scenes fell. I’m sure it won’t surprise many of you to find that “Romeo and Juliet” falls quite neatly into the same screenwriting structure we’ve all come to know.

The three acts are clearly delineated with a major midpoint that dramatically changes the narrative direction in a way most of us could only wish for. The distinct separation between the hope of the first half and the tragedy of the second half, coupled with how the major events easily fall in exactly the spots every scriptwriting book would suggest, tells me that Shakespeare was the Elizabethan equivalent of Sid Field!

Applying the Lessons

Taking this “Romeo and Juliet” beat sheet, I began moving my scene structure around to match. This was scary, as key scenes that I had placed towards the end of Act 2 were now being shifted to just after the Act 1 catalyst. The scene I had pinned to my midpoint through all previous seven drafts suddenly found itself shoved back later into Act 2 with a whole new sequence becoming necessary to take its place. One poor character that originally had been a loose end in the structure suddenly found new life in death, as he inherited the midpoint position.

Scary as all this was, tearing the old structure apart and reassembling it with scenes now butting up against completely different neighbours has caused some fantastic creativity. Linking these scenes together in a new order created a lot of creative challenges, and they in turn have fed further character refinements, dialogue changes and so on.

Whether the final draft will still match the “Romeo and Juliet” structure so closely I can’t say. The script will eventually dictate how it wants to flow and I have to mould it into its new form, not restrict it in a structural straight-jacket. But the process of analysing classic story structure in this way has helped the creative process immeasurably and has jump-started this draft in a way that has me very excited.

Everyone has different approaches to rewriting their screenplays. Let me know how you manage rewrites.

March 18, 2008 1:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Add Comment

Ambiguity in Script Writing - 25 Years of Blade Runner

(This is post was originally published on the CopyWrite blog.)

Considering how much of a box-office flop it was in 1982, it is incredible to see the buzz of excitement surrounding the 25th Anniversary special release of Blade Runner on DVD in a brand new 'Final Cut'.

Blade Runner is not the first flop to gain cult status on home video, yet the film is notable for many other reasons. Firstly, as an ongoing work-in-progress, the film has now reached its fifth version. George Lucas may have revisited his Star Wars films more than once, but even he would balk at the number of times an editor has started from scratch with Ridley Scott's piles of dystopian celluloid.

The Blade Runner Exposition Masterclass

What is interesting about Blade Runner is that the different versions achieve different goals and therefore can help to illustrate the effectiveness of ambiguity over exposition in scriptwriting.

The troubled original film shoot and the production fights have been well-documented elsewhere and there can't be many fans of the film that aren't aware of the controversial voice-over and alternate ending that featured on the first commercial release. But the infamous voice-over of the 1982 cut did more than turn Scott's vision into a poorly written Sam Spade knock-off. Blade Runner is a film about ambiguity, about questions that can't be answered. What the voice-over did was to remove the ambiguity and avoid asking the questions.

And Blade Runner is all about subtext and alternate meaning.

I can still remember forcing my father to watch the film on television back in 1987. Afterwards, although he was impressed with the sets and design, the script left him flat and convinced that it was an ordinary and predictable detective film in a wasted futuristic setting. No amount of lecturing from me would convince him of the multiple layers beneath. At that point, as the 1992 Director's Cut was still five years away, my reading of the film was based on script books and magazine articles. The 1982 edit turned a multi-layered film into a cheap pulp-noir disposable entertainment through the simple device of explaining too much whilst avoiding the underlying themes.

Most famously, the 1982 version clearly avoids the question of whether Deckard is a replicant himself. Because the tone of the film was transformed so that the audience was led by the hand through clunky exposition, you are never challenged to think about the subtexts and alternate meanings that layer the script.

"They're Just Questions. Designed to Provoke an Emotional Response"

What Blade Runner tells us about scriptwriting is that exposition can sometimes be counter-productive. Why should every question be answered? Reality doesn't work that way, so why should our films? Of course, that doesn't mean we can fudge our plot-points by avoiding sticky exposition, we still need to show how our character got their hands on the gun he uses in the last scene or why our villain does what he does. The choices of what to leave ambiguous and what to explain to the audience are among the most vital a script writer will make. Too much exposition and an audience will feel spoon-fed. Too little and the audience can be confused. But the viewer is conditioned to not look under the surface if the script doesn't require them to.

So when can ambiguity actually serve a script?

"I've Seen Things You People wouldn't Believe."

Phillip K Dick was obsessed with the notion of artificial reality. His written works constantly return to the paranoia that no one can truly know whether the reality we experience is true or is somehow artificially pumped into our brains. The concept was most recently popularised in the Matrix trilogy, which owes a huge debt to Dick.

With Blade Runner, based on Dick's novel 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?', Dick explored the notion of artificial memories and the concept of whether we truly know who we are.

Dick doesn't want to answer the philosophical questions these concepts invite, and the novel doesn't claim to reveal Deckard as a replicant, but in adapting Dick's theme for the big screen, Fancher and Peoples knew the central theme needed to be a paranoid foreboding of questioning one's own reality.

Hampton Fancher dealt with this idea by exploring Rachel's revelation of her artificial origins. But it was when People's misinterpreted a line Hampton had written for Deckard contemplating his maker (meaning God) that he became excited with the idea of Deckard confronting his own humanity.

Just as Rachel discovers that she is an artificial human with implanted memories, there are incredibly subtle hints that Deckard reaches the same conclusion himself. There is no concrete evidence provided, and the idea isn't even verbalised by Deckard or any of the characters, but the clues are there for the audience to read, even if you may miss them on your first few viewings.

Famously, Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott disagree on this point, with Ford adamant that Deckard is human whilst Scott insists he is artificial. Rather than confusing the issue, this dispute only heightens the point. We are not meant to know for certain, just as Deckard can never know absolutely. After all, any experience he may have that may suggest one or other answer could easily have been artificially implanted along with his memories.

This is the essence of Blade Runner - a Chinese puzzle without an answer - asking more questions of ourselves and the philosophy of identity than it answers within its own plot.

"All Those Moments Will Be Lost - Like Tears In Rain"

For those of you who may have only experienced the original voice-over version, you have not watched Blade Runner. For those of you who revere the 1992 Director's Cut version, you have not seen Blade Runner. For all of you who will be receiving the new 'Final Cut' in your stockings this Christmas, you will still not have seen Blade Runner. Blade Runner is a constantly transforming and evolving film that changes as each new facet is revealed. Whether the 'Final Cut' will be the last version to be made is not important. What is important is that, after twenty five years and five different edits, the film has gained more ambiguity and provoked more questions.

Blade Runner is unknowable, a continual work-in-progress that will always leave itself, and us, unanswered. And for that reason alone - it is glorious.

March 16, 2008 1:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | Add Comment

Confessing My Technology Addiction: The Curse of the Modern Writer

(This is a post originally published on the CopyWrite blog. If you like it, please share it with others by visiting the original and voting with the buttons provided. Comments always welcome. Thanks.)

The room is like any other church hall or community centre. Plastic chairs scrape across lino as the nervous and twitchy group members form a circle of desperate hope. As the strip light flickers with an annoying hum, a stressed and agitated figure rises slowly.

“My name is Jonathan Crossfield and I’m a techno-whore. It has been 48 hours since I last bought a gadget.”

Batman Syndrome

Yes, I’m addicted to technology. My daughter refers to my ‘utility belt’ as I walk around with an ipod, camera phone and pda strapped to my body in nice leather pouches.

Not that I use everything continually, you understand, but I like the comfort of knowing that wherever I am, I can fire up a Word document or listen to my entire CD collection or view a video; whether I actually do any of those things or not!
Technology to Free the Writer

Part of this obsession with portability came from my last job that required very long commutes. The time on the train could be better used working on a script instead of reading another magazine, and so I started becoming interested in portable technology.

I tried using a laptop for a while, but carrying around 2 kilos of extra weight didn’t fit my vision of true portability and because of the size and weight, the amount of use it was getting meant it also got more than its fair share of bangs, knocks and scrapes.

I knew that some writers had begun extolling the virtues of the Treo 650 as a solution to the ever-present need to push out pages whilst sat in the pub. Warren Ellis, a particular hero of mine, has trumpeted the wonders of portable writing technology for years and regularly updates his readers on the latest bit of kit that allows him to post his blogs and write his scripts while sitting in a bar impregnating his body with enough Red Bull and nicotine to have made Hunter S Thompson think twice!

Inspired by the new freedom given to me by technology, for a while I couldn’t leave the house without my Tungsten T5 Palm pda and Targus fold-out keyboard. Sitting in the pub, I could still rattle out pages and I could even fit these in my jacket pockets when done. Also, with the wonders of bluetooth, I could upload files to my blog through my mobile phone, so I could satisfy my writing urge pretty much anywhere.

But they were fiddly to operate on a train and the time required to set up the keyboard interface and clip together the pda into the holder meant this solution wasn’t very practical if I wanted to quickly write a note on the run. Spending a few minutes before I could type into Word meant I would have to get off the bus before I’d hit the first key.

I even took to walking around with a Belkin voice recorder for iPod in my pocket. But you soon realise how self-conscious you can become when you try to dictate notes on how vampires reproduce when you’re walking through a public place.

But now I have a new love. Elegant, small, light but infinitely flexible.

Feeding the Beast Inside for a Little while Longer

Yup, this weekend I bought an Asus Eee, and it’s already threatening to become ‘the other woman’ in my relationship as my fiancé has to put up with me skulking off into the other room for yet another little play.

The keyboard will probably be the first thing to stop working if I can't get the drolling under control.

This thing boots in seconds and runs very fast, due to using Linux as the OS. There is the option to install XP on here, which I am considering so I can install Final Draft, but for now, I’m happy to write in Word and convert the documents into Final Draft on the desktop PC.

Wireless, I can access the net from anywhere, but more importantly, I can access my home network when my daughter is insisting on spending the weekend hogging my desktop as she is convinced one of her Sims families is about to have a baby.

Of course, what this means is that I really have no excuse not to finish the script I’m working on, as I can always have a keyboard ready to go within seconds.

Modern technology has revolutionised the way we write. The thought that just twenty years ago I would have resorted to typewriter ribbons and tippex makes me go cold. Imagine carrying a portable typewriter to the pub and not annoying everyone around you.

The modern writer has embraced technology and the convenience of being able to "just add words" as the Final Draft slogan says. But what all this technology does is completely remove any excuse I have. Formatting isn't an issue ćause I have the software. Time or access aren't issues 'cause I have a PC in my pocket. Networking isn't an issue since the reaction of the internet and the wonders of blogging.

My failure or success now rests entirely with me.

Bugger.

March 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Add Comment

Logline Therapy: How to Make Your Screenplay Logline Razor Sharp!

(This is a post originally published on the CopyWrite blog. If you like it, please leave a comment, submit to StumbleUpon or vote for the original post by clicking on the buttons so that others may enjoy it. Thanks.)

Most screenwriters hate writing the logline. Sometimes, trying to sum up one hundred pages plus of your magnum opus into a few words is like squeezing an elephant into an eggcup. But the reality is that loglines are essential to cut through the swathe of slush piles and pitch meetings that make up a screenwriter’s life.

Recently, I was asked to provide feedback on a logline written by a fellow Storylink member. Benjamin Ray’s script ‘Marcus and Faith’ recently won the Thriller category of the 2007 Pacific Northwest Screenwriters Contest. Benjamin is passionate about the importance of competitions to amateur scriptwriters. "It's important to place in contests -- it gives you another reason to stay in the game and move up the ladder. But apply to all contests that are well-managed. Do your research."

Writing the Script - Marcus and Faith

"Marcus and Faith" was Benjamin's second script, and draws extensively on his personal experiences as a stand-up comedian. "We cannot write a screenplay in a vacuum. We have to live, taste and smell the subject we write about. Stand-up comedy is a complicated and unpredictable career, both emotionally and mentally, and this provided me with a rich source of character information and backstory."

Benjamin is doing everything he can to put his script in the best position while he enjoys twelve months of agency representation. "I'm currently approaching independent film directors and producers and attending film festivals. My goal is for "Marcus and Faith" to open up at the Cannes Film Festival." You can visit Benjamin's website to follow his progress, or you can read a sneak peak of the first thirty pages of "Marcus and Faith".

Refining the Logline

My professional role as a copywriter allows me a different viewpoint on how to write a strong logline. Most scriptwriters are used to writing for length, not brevity, so producing a logline can be counter-intuitive to many, but copywriting is about distilling a message down to its most economical form.

Benjamin’s logline suffers from verbosity and a tendency to include unnecessary information. A logline needs to boil the entire film down to a couple of base concepts – after all, it is this concept that sells the script, not a character’s back story.
Logline to "Marcus and Faith" by Benjamin Ray

"Marcus and Faith is a gritty love story about an afflicted stand-up comedian and a mysterious dancer. Marcus Anderson is addicted to painkillers. When he’s reunited with his high school crush, Faith, now aspiring for Broadway, a torrid romance ensues. He believes she’s going to be his savior. Just one problem -- she’s unknowingly embroiled in her father’s high-society known as Kama-Sin -- dealing in prostitution, human trafficking and murder. Marcus' love for Faith lures him blindly into the bowel of Kama-Sin and ultimately into an abyss of pure evil where they make a daring and passionate attempt to save each other."

Let’s look at the opening line.

“Marcus and Faith is a gritty love story about an afflicted stand-up comedian and a mysterious dancer.”

Firstly, we don’t need to mention the title of the script. The title is already emblazoned across your title page, the heading of your email, the appointment in their diary (if you are pitching directly). No doubt you’ve also placed the title as a heading above whatever document you’ve put this logline into. These are wasted words.

Ditto the next few words that merely tell us we’re reading a gritty love story. I have two issues with this. One; this script won in the thriller category, not romance, so by choosing to pin your script to a single genre mast, you could be limiting your scope. Second, the genre should be obvious from what follows. If the situation is funny, we’ll know it’s a comedy. If it involves zombies invading a small town, we’ll know it’s a horror. Benjamin’s logline makes it quite clear that love is at the centre of this story, so tagging it as a love story is irrelevant.

So now we are left with a sentence that merely says “An afflicted stand-up comedian and a mysterious dancer. What is the affliction? Why is she mysterious? If they are relevant to the logline, then we need to say what they are. If they aren’t, we cut them out. As this sentence is now little more than a fragment, we can fold it into the next line.

Ah, but the second line contains the affliction. Combining the two sentences gives us “Marcus, a painkiller addicted stand-up comedian and a mysterious dancer.” Still a fragment and we still don’t know why she’s mysterious, so let’s look at the third line and see if we can’t roll this into the mix as well.

“When he’s reunited with his high school crush, Faith, now aspiring for Broadway, a torrid romance ensues.”

Aha, our first glimpse of plot. Before merging this line with the previous fragment, let’s see if we can’t remove any irrelevancies first. Immediately, “now aspiring for Broadway” is screaming to be cut. Unless Broadway is central to the plot, it is just taking space here. Sure, it may say something about her character, but not a part of her character we need to know about, yet. In the script, sure. But here? No.

Next, do we need to know she’s a high school crush, or is it enough to say that they are reunited. That single word implies that they previously were together, so we can dispense with another five words. Yippee! So now we are left with “When he’s reunited with Faith, a torrid romance ensures.” Doesn’t this say exactly the same as the previous, longer line?

Now to combine this with the earlier fragment.

“When Marcus, a painkiller addicted stand-up comedian, is reunited with Faith, a mysterious dancer, a torrid romance ensues.”

Now we have both characters and the catalyst for the plot in the opening line – much stronger. Sure, the parenthetical descriptions dull the flow, but we’ll come back to that. At least we now have a strong opening sentence instead of three whole lines. On to sentence four.

“He believes she’s going to be his savior.”

Immediately I’m struck by the fact that we are wasting words getting to the point again. The point here is in the last few words, but we need the preamble through “He believe’s she…”in order to reintroduce the character from the previous line. I wonder whether we can remove these words and fold the sentence into the previous line? Of course we can.

“When Marcus, a painkiller addicted stand-up comedian, is reunited with Faith, a mysterious dancer, a torrid romance ensues that could save him.”

Wow, now we’ve distilled four lines down into one. On to the next line.

“Just one problem -- she’s unknowingly embroiled in her father’s high-society known as Kama-Sin -- dealing in prostitution, human trafficking and murder.”

This is a very important line, as it reveals the major obstacle to our protagonist. But the name of the underworld society is irrelevant to me. Isn’t it enough to say her father was into some shady stuff?

“Just one problem -- she’s unknowingly embroiled in her father’s dealings in prostitution, human trafficking and murder.”

Next, the point of the sentence is the father, not Faith, so let’s make it about him.

“Just one problem -- her father deals in prostitution, human trafficking and murder.”

To me, following on from the previous line, we get the implication without having to state how it relates to our heroes.

You may be expecting me to cut out the three words “Just one problem…” But you’d be wrong. Those words provide a nice buffer between this line and the previous one, preparing the reader for a change in direction. Take the three words out and read the two lines back to yourself. I’m sure you’ll agree, the lines flow much better and the point is made much harder by leaving those three words in.

Now we’re up to the last line.

“Marcus' love for Faith lures him blindly into the bowel of Kama-Sin and ultimately into an abyss of pure evil where they make a daring and passionate attempt to save each other.”

Plenty we can cull here. As we removed Kama-Sin from the previous line, we can do the same here. Also, we’re repeating the character names again, wasting words every time we reintroduce them. Let’s find a more economical way of indicating this line refers to our protagonists. Finally, the theme of the film is stated here, but also the twist – instead of Faith saving him, he needs to save her. Let’s bring that out more.

“Their love draws them into an abyss of pure evil where their only salvation is each other.”

So now we have a new, shorter logline.

“When Marcus, a painkiller addicted stand-up comedian, is reunited with Faith, a mysterious dancer, a torrid romance ensues that could save him. Just one problem -- her father deals in prostitution, human trafficking and murder. Their love draws them into an abyss of pure evil where their only salvation is each other.”

From 102 words down to 52, while stating the theme stronger and staying focused on the essential plot details.

Yet, I want to cut more. There is still some fat on these bones and I want to see the leanest, sharpest logline possible. Are there other words we can cut without impacting on the overall message? You bet your sweet, shiny brads!

“When a drug addicted comedian is reunited with a mysterious dancer, a torrid romance ensues that could save him. Just one problem -- her father deals in prostitution, human trafficking and murder. Their love draws them into an abyss of pure evil where their only salvation is each other.”

After all, do we need to know the character names? In ‘Die Hard’, was it more important to mention that he was stuck in a hijacked skyscraper or that his name was John McCain?

Finally, we are left with the mystery of the mysterious dancer – it still annoys me. I’ve decided to switch this with the description we previously edited out.

“When a drug addicted comedian is reunited with his high school crush, a torrid romance ensues that could save him. Just one problem -- her father deals in prostitution, human trafficking and murder. Their love draws them into an abyss of pure evil where their only salvation is each other.”

A round 50 words! With punch, theme, protagonists, an antagonist, obstacles and a tease to the direction it will move in.

By looking at your loglines in this way, you can hone a sharp, persuasive piece that cuts through the distracted and bored mind of the movie exec or industry reader and gets your message into their brain with the least amount of interference.

If you are interested in this article and would like me to write about, analyse and tune your own logline in a future post, please send your loglines to me at jonathan@jonathancrossfield.com.

March 11, 2008 5:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Add Comment