LAND OF THE DEAD Review

Okay, I read this review for CREATIVE SCREENWRITER WEEKLY -- an email I get every Friday that sort of covers the territory that the bi-monthly magazine misses -- and it pissed me off so much I had to email a response to the author.

It was a review for George A. Romero's LAND OF THE DEAD.

Okay, the movie didn't make a ton of money, so I'm obviously one of a surprisingly small number who have seen the movie yet. But I suspect that, like DAWN OF THE DEAD and DAY OF THE DEAD, this movie will eventually become a horror standard in secondary release. Hell, it took NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD forever to become the legend that it is.

And it took EVEN LONGER for people to realize it was more than just a pop culture phenomenon! It wasn't until the 70s or 80s that academics started to give the film its artistic props!

So I'm not that surprised that not many people have seen it yet.

But I AM surprised that someone in the employ of CREATIVE SCREENWRITING magazine is so shallow and unsophisticated as to judge a book by it's genre!

My email response was stressing the point that if you have a personal aversion to a genre, DON'T REVIEW IT! There are other ways to make a buck.

This guy's review was so short, and so dismissive. He hit many the reviewer cliches, like Romero can't seem to find anything new to do with zombies even though it's been 20 years since his last zombie movie, and Romero sets up the possibility to comment on society and class and gated communities but never develops these themes in favor of unnecessary graphic violence.

The guy ACTUALLY accused Romero of "unnecessary" graphic violence!!!

First of all, does he know what genre he's reviewing?!!

Most people GO TO -- or, more often than not apparently, RENT -- a George Romero "DEAD" movie FOR the graphic violence!

And since the late-80s/early-90s sociologists and psychologists have slowly been catching onto the psychological usefulness of the horror genre: A safe way to deal with human fear in an increasingly fear-inducing society. (America, anyway. I don't know the stats on other nations and cultures.)

I mean, every commercial warns us that we're coming down with some disease or other, and that we HAVE to buy this or that perscription or OTC medicine to fight impending doom. Every local and nation news promos threatens "startling new evidence" of some horrible catastrophe that threatens the wellfare of us "and those you love; tune in at six to find out more," or assaults us unsolicited images of burning buildings or road fatalities "tune in at six for more footage". And that's all going on even when our own government isn't constantly warning us that "credible evidence" points to another fatal terrorist attack somewhere on our own soil!

This is a fear-based society we live in. Is it REALLY a mystery to ANYONE why so many people are paying $8-$12 bucks to get their wits scared out of them for 90 minutes before returning to the omnipresent media and it's threats of unavoidable disaster?

Seriously?

So anyway, my point is that the graphic violence is an element of the genre, one of the reasons people go to see these movies. Particularly George Romero movies and PARTICULARLY if they have "of", "the", and "dead" in the title.

But here's what really got me reved-up.

Oh, and SPOILER ALERT!!! IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN LAND OF THE DEAD DO NOT READ FURTHER! If for no other reason, you won't have any basis to judge the validity (or invalidity, for that matter) of my take on the movie without having seen it yourself.

What really got me reved-up -- the reason I'm spending what is left of my Friday night writing this, rather than watching LAND OF THE DEAD or BATMAN BEGINS again, or even the new episode of SUPERNATURAL -- is that this movie is, in my opinion, a brilliant combination of all the things Romero does so sublimely as a storyteller!

Whereas this reviewer saw the unfulfilled setup of potential commentary on society and social class structure, I saw a movie that commented very acurately on our tendancy to hold on to out-dated, out-moded class structure that we're simpled used to, even to our own peril.

Romero has set up a city that is boxed in by 2 rivers and an electrified fence (a triagle-shaped area), and the majority of the city is abandoned wasteland. Only one high-rise operates: It has its own power supply. The other buildings are empty.

The very, very rich live in the sole operational high-rise, which was set up by a Mr. Kaufman, played by Dennis Hopper. All other classes live near the perimiters, making do with whatever they can find. Only the social elite are allowed to live in "The Green" -- the name of the building is Forest Green and the property is informally refered to as "The Green" -- Kaufman and his underlings see to it that only the richest (a) can afford to rent housing there and (b) find a spot on the "waiting list".

Of the working class that inhabits this world, we are introduced to 2 characters in particular: Riley and Cholo. They both work for Kaufman (though, in truth, everyone works for Kaufman) collecting necessary suplies from abandoned towns and townships surrounding the city. (It's been a while since the events of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, too; they're forced to go further and further out to find a town that hasn't yet been scavanged.)

Of these2 characters, Riley is the hero, and all he wants is to get out of the city; he wants to go to Canada, where there are no people and no "stenches" (the common nickname for zombies). He's invested the money he's made from Kaufman in a car, and he just wants to GO.

Cholo (played by Jon Leguizamo), on the otherhand, has been saving his money to move into The Green. He wants to become part of the elite.

Riley realizes, though Cholo refuses to, that Kaufman and his ilke will never allow people like Riley or Cholo in. It's like Royalty: If you're not born in, you're NOT IN.

But that's not even the biggest problem with this world...

The zombies...

Some of them ARE LEARNING!

From the first scene of the movie, we see the very disturbing sight of zombies trying to utilize tools from their past lives: Muscicians (when they were alive) trying to play instruments, a former gas station owner trying to find something to fill up with gas.

More than that, THEY'RE COMMUNICATING!

Maybe Romero's being too subtle for that CS reviewer who is trained in English literature and edutcation, but imagine this: You're in a field with a lot of birds scattered around, and one bird chirps to the other birds and they all start to move TOWARD YOU.

How creepy would THAT be?

What if the birds are vultures who prefer FRESH meat?

So a particular batch of zombies seems to be developing greater mental functions than the ones we've seen in the previous movies (with the acception of Bub in DAY OF THE DEAD), making them MUCH MORE DANGEROUS to humans!

And this is ALL Act One stuff here!

We don't know how much time has passed between NIGHT OF THE LIVING and LAND OF THE, but it's enough that, by now, zombies FAR out-number living humans. And unlike Romero wannabes, you don't have to get bitten to become an animated corpse; you just have to DIE. EVERYONE who dies turns into a zombie! (The transformation is just FASTER if you're bitten.)

Add to their sheer numbers their relative durability compared to our relative fragility, and even the most rudamentary organization and tool usage greatly reduces our chances for survival. Their tendancy to eat us is really the only thing keeping their numbers down. But like I said, in this movie we really don't know how much of a comfort that actually is.

So here's the crux of the story...

After the action of the second and third acts -- in which Cholo tries to bribe Kaufman and Riley tries to get to Cholo to talk sense into him so they can all head north for probable safety, and during which the zombies (unbeknownst to anyone but the audience) have made their way to the city -- the Lower Class guy who greedily wants to join the Upper Class dies, the non-evolving zombies feast on the Upper AND Lower Classes of the city, and Riley and the evolving zombies keep moving, going their separate ways.

See, in the world Romero has created in this movie, living humans are like wild deer or cows. The zombies are actually at the top of the food chain. But far too many humans are clinging to a system that didn't work "before the change" and many of them end up dying because of it. INCLUDING the social elite, the most insulated people!

Our 2 heroes, Riley and -- believe it or not -- the "leader" or the clan of evolving zombies, embrace or accept the changes happening in the world. Everyone else -- EVERYONE else -- is JUST GETTING BY.

So it seems to me -- despite the fact I'm not trained in English literature or education -- that Romero is very clearly warning us against complacancy in life. He's wanring us to pay attention to what is REALLY going on around us -- be it social tyrany and cruel exploitation or natural desaster or BOTH -- and act upon what we observe. If something isn't working for us LEAVE IT BEHIND.

English-Literature-Boy might have recognized the message had it been dramatized by Dickens or Shakespeare, but as dramatized by Romero he saw it as "fallow". (That's his word, proof of his superiority to Romero. Romero used "the F word" a couple of times in the movie, but he never used the word "fallow".)

Oh yeah, and Romero included some subplots explorIing what it TRULY inhuman behaviour, and how people who appear to be useless to society may ACTUALLY BE USEFUL, and your "cliched" examinations of what is truly right and wrong, monsterous and humane, but since it's encompassed in a movie about zombies it must not be that significant...

...His Dead Wife Was Watching!

"Oh no! A pimple on the day before the dance!"

Someone got paid to write this!!!

Edward D. Wood, Jr. was a master of these. Observe:

Narrator: "At the funeral of the old man, unknown to his mourners, his dead wife was watching!"

- PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE (1959)

See, the first line is obviously the result of a copywriter trying desperately to wedge atmosphere, character and the specific problem of the story into the first 3 seconds of a 30-second commercial so that the last 27 seconds can deal with the solution (the zit-cream we're meant to buy to feel better about ourselves during high-profile social engagements).

The second line is just an over-zealous writer/director unwilling to take a second pass at the script he knows the director will approve.

Whatever the reason, we sometimes get lazy AND ambitious simultaneously. We try to do too much in too little time and produce some really funny dialogue.

Literary types have this game based on this line:

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

-Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, Paul Clifford (1830)

The object of the game is to flex the creative and gramatical muscles by coming up with an opening sentence that breaks rules of good taste and good sense. (By good taste, I'm talking about a refined taste; I'm not talking about trying to come up with your own version of "The Aristocrats" joke here!)

So my proposed game:

Try to fit as much exposition -- story and character -- into the shortest line you can manage. If you write a line that might actually work in a movie or play, then you haven't packed enough exposition in there.

Don't be overly obvious. You want to be as subtle as possible. The line that inspired this game almost works. I've heard much worse in local comercials. But you're not looking for a good line.

The usefulness of the game is learning about balance. You want to cram just a little too much information. Use your own taste and judgement.

Just be bad.

But not too bad...

Here are my attempts, to get you started. Post your own in the comments (so everyone who reads this can enjoy your near-genius).

"Just because you're the most popular employee in this department doesn't mean you'll always be able to get by taking credit for the work that I do!"

"I know that I've always tried to pretend I wasn't in love with you, but the truth is I was protecting you from the dark secrets in my family's past."

"Do you mean to tell me that the irreplaceable hyper-cortex coil that is the sole source of power for this military spacecraft is broken, stranding us in the atmosphere with no way to get back to Earth?"

"What do you mean you're going to defeat me before I get a chance to avenge my father's accidental death?"

(I think the third one is my personal favorite.)

The Scene

Before I started Reading Iglesias, I had figured out that the key to good writing was intimately knowing and embracing structure, and then focusing on the individual scenes.

Mr. Iglesias confirmed for me that I was more or less correct.

My initial thinking about scenes, though was a little skimpy. I had deduced that a scene was about Setting/Atmosphere, Off-screen Movie - The World Outside the Scene, and the Character Relationships. And since each scene performs a specific function of the structure, as well as revealing character information, I thought I had pretty much nailed it.

However, Iglesias has a more thorough approach for me. Screenwriter Ron Bass (SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS, WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, RAIN MAN) always blocks out the elements that go into a scene before he writes it. Here's what Iglesias suggests I consider going into each of my scenes:

First, I am to remember that a scene is a mini-story, which means the core of EVERY scene is: Somebody wants something and is having difficulty getting it. That's where I start with each and every scene.

Next, I consider the following aspects of the scene:

1. Type of Scene
I have had no end of frustration recently, because I didn't realize that not every scene was meant to be a dramatic scene! But apparently, there are 2 other legitimate types of scenes:

Exposition - Sometimes you just gotta make sure the audience knows what's what.
Spectacle - Sometimes the point of a scene is to blow their socks off!
Dramatic - And sometimes the point of a scene is to make an audience FEEL something (besides awe or wonder).

2. Purpose
If I'm going to write the scene, I need it to exist for a reason. Even if I'm inspired to write the scene because it's a cool idea that I want people to read, I can still find a structural use for it. (Or I can make it a character moment as well, but character scenes are the first to go when a film is being edited for running time, so if I really like the scene I need to make sure it serves a structural purpose... And involves the star of the movie, too. If I really like it.)

3. Location
Think about the emotional impact of where the scene takes place. What do I want my audience to feel? What is the emotional thrust of the scene? Is there a location that can heighten that?

4. Time
Day, night, dusk, dawn all have emotional connotations, particularly when used in conjunction with or juxtaposed against what is playing in the scene.

We can also use details about the time of day we're setting the scene in to help heighten the emotional impact of the scene. (Shadows falling across a character's face, partially obscuring their features, for example.)

5. Weather
Seems cliche, but weather should not be discounted by us beginners as a means of emotionally heightening a scene. It's true. It's better to play with ideas and discard them than to simply fail to utilize this obviously effective tool! (It wouldn't be cliche to use weather to suggest subtext if unless it had be used -- effectively, mostly -- many times before.)

6. Who's Scene Is It?
One character usually drives the scene and the other character(s) usually reacts. Who drives this scene?

7. Previous Moment
This is useful in 2 ways:

What took place in the scene just before this one? In other words, in order to help the audience along their emotional ride, what emotions did they just experience, and what should this scene do to them emotionally? Should this be an up scene? A down scene? Tense? Light?

ALSO, what happened offscreen that we didn't see, just before this scene started? If my character feels a little dull I can spice up the scene by figuring out what happened to him/her just 5 or 10 minutes before he/she entered the scene.

8. Feelings and Attitudes
Knowing the previous moment allows you to know how your characters enter a scene.

9. Objectives
Everybody in a scene wants something, and they're having trouble getting it. Otehrwise, the scene just lies there.

10. Character Actions
The driving character wants something; now what action is he/she taking to to obtain the objective?

11. The Main Conflict
An arguement isn't dramatic. The main conflict needs to be internal, external, or interpersonal for a dramatic scene. If this is an expository scene, dramatic conflict isn't necessary.

12. Stakes
What happens if the driving character in the scene fails/succeeds to achieve his/her goal? (Keep in mind that a scene is a portion of the story, so failure is definitely an option, even for the Protagonist, in a scene.)

13. Beats
Straight-up quoting Mr. Iglesias now: "Every beat in a scene should be a dance between action and reaction, with bonus points if the reaction is unpredictable." Every new action -- that solicits a reaction -- is a beat that makes up the scene.

THIS is what I've been looking for; the perspective in scene-writing that I've been missing: I need to think about the actions and reactions of characters. My emotional responses to, say, Whedon live in the beats of what he writes. My stuff has been superficial arguements and exposition; I need to live in THE BEATS!

14. Exposition
Even if this is a dramatic scene or a spectacle scene, every scene in a story exposes a little more of the story to the audience. How much of the story am I revealing in this particular scene?

15. Scene Structure
Scenes -- being mini-stories -- need a beginning, middle and end. What's the flow of this scene?

16. Scene Polarity
This one's too easy to forget about! Part of Robert McKee's definition of a scene is that the Value Charge of the scene swicthes from the positive to the negative, or vice versa. According to McKee, the scene doesn't end until the emotional value charge is reversed. So, for instance, if you have 3 scenes in which they begin on a positive note and end on a positive note until the last scene, which then turns negative, then you don't functionally have 3 scenes, you've got one really, really long scene.

McKee does allow for a scene to go from bad to worse, or from good to better. Iglesias helps to clarify that for this to work, the gap between the emotional value charges needs to be of a significant range. Like something that's kind of good/bad to something that's deffinitely good/bad.

17. Chase-and-Escape vs. Chase-and-Capture
This seems to me -- at this point -- maybe a little insignificant in the big picture of scene-writing. But I'm including it because Iglesias includes it as one of the questions we should answer when considering our scenes. Plus, it kind of seems like one of those things that, once I am professional, I may come up in jargon with the other pros. So I don't want to forget it.

The "chase" is when one character wants something from another character. If he/she gets it, one way or another, it's a "capture". If he/she doesn't get it, that's an "escape".

Like I said, it seems awefully specific, but who knows. Maybe once I start writing my next project I'll discover that almost every scene is in one way or another a Chase & Capture/Escape scene.

--

And that's that. The next several scenes I write, I will be refering back to this blog entry to make sure I'm hitting all the bases, until it becomes habbit.

And just maybe this infor is helpful for you, too...

UFTS: Step 3

3. Protagonist

I'm pretty sure that after I get my Concept and Thematic Arguement, the next absolutely essential step will be this one.

And according the Karl Iglesias -- who interviewed A BUNCH of successful screenwriters for his first book THE 101 HABITS OF HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL SCREENWRITERS -- discovered that many of those highly successful screenwriters ask themselves 5 questions to get to the essence of their Protagonist.

1. Who is my main character?
Now, this question is much more complex than it seems. Iglesias breaks it down to the following 4 sub-questions:

a. Type - Is my Protagonist a Hero type, an Average Joe, an Underdog or a Lost Soul?

b. Traits - Iglesias emphasizes the fact that all-good or all-bad is boring, as is a character with only a few traits. I'm thinking the key may be to come up with maybe 5 traits each in the following catagories: Emotional, Psychological, Intellectual. And of those traits I want to make sure that those traits are a mix between positive, nuetral, and negative traits. [I'm not trying to be lazy with the traits; in the past I've bogged characters down so much with traits that I didn't really have a sense of who they were. But I may up the number in the future if this guestimation turns out to be stingy.]

c. Values - Here I want to make sure that my Protagonist has a strong point of view and real beliefs. And I want to keep Joss Whedon's characters in mind, as well: Whedon characters can be sociopathic without being inhuman, or even immoral. Deep emotional wounds don't have to immobilize a person, and can give them a depth that makes them interesting to be around.

d. Flaws - This goes along with the above. Iglesias reminds us that we love flawed family members and friends, so there's no reason my Protagonist has to be perfect. In fact sometimes the flaws accentuate the strengths, or at least make them more interesting.

2. What does she want?
Keep in mind this needs to be visual.

Robert McKee defines story as the gap in between a character wanting something and taking action to get it, and the character either definitively and irreversably getting it or not getting it. So my Protagonist needs to really, really want this visual thing in order for the story to be exciting.

3. Why does she want it?
McKee also points out that we, humans, tend to excert the LEAST amount of energy to attain a goal. So to get my Protagonist to jump from rooftop to rooftop or dodge whizzing bullets or whatever I'm going to be putting her through, that character has to believe that attaining this goal will make her life better in some way.

In what way is the Goal going to make my Protagonist's life better? Or at least, in what way does she THINK attaining the Goal will make her life better?

Several screenwriting gurus point out that in the best stories, the Goal isn't going to better the Protagonist's life the way she thinks it will! And as she's out questing after her own personal Holy grail, she stumbles across what she REALLY needs to fix her life.

So what does she REALLY need?

And is there any way to put what she needs in conflict with what she wants? 'Cause that produceses a really, really good Act III!!! McKee says that a choice between a positive outcome and a negative outcome is no choice. But a choice between two equally positive outcomes, or two equally negative outcomes IS a COMPELLING choice!

So if I can make my Protagonist choose between what she WANTS and what she NEEDS, I have a compelling and hard-to-predict story!

4. What happens if she fails?
One method I've heard or read about to help this process is to make a list of everything it truly important to my Protagonist. Then figure out (a) how much of it is jeopardized by her not attaining the Goal, and (b) how I can put the rest of it at risk.

The stakes have to be raised at the story progresses, and one way to raise those stakes is to take more and more away from my protagonist as the story prgresses, meaning that she HAS TO succeed or else she looses EVERYTHING.

Also, I should keep in mind my stakes as I'm actually writing the story. If my audience isn't clear about or forgets about what's at stake, the story just isn't that exciting for them.

5. How does she change?
John Truby suggests that Protagonists begin the movie with a moral flaw. At the beginning og the movie, my Protagonist IS hurting someone else in some way. Maybe they don't realize it, they most likely aren't doing it intentionally. But when the movie begins they are in the process of hurting someone else in some way, and it's part of their Need -- the think they need to learn in order to live a more fulfilling life.

A good Protagonist deals with life -- as we, real people do -- on several levels. What does my Protagonist WANT TO change about her home life? Her personal life? Her work life? Her place in society in general? And what does she NEED to change about her home life? Her personal life? Her work life? Her place in society in general?

Finally, what are the best ways to SHOW (NOT tell) this change taking place?
___

There it is. Step 3. I figure out all this information and (theoretically) I've got a character that's interesting enough to have her own story.

Plus, I feel comfortable with the probability that this is the inevitable next step, because any futre steps are going to deal with structure stuff, and I won't be able to answer them until I know all this stuff.

Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs

I've heard other writers talk about "the basic human needs", and it occured to me that this was a BRILLIANT tool for writing!

Because writing -- particularly screenwriting -- is about emotions: the emotions that the characters feel (because they motivate the characters' actions) and the emotions the audience feels.

And the best way to evoke emotional response is to jeopardize the basic human needs. You tell a story about a woman who is starving and unable to buy food and something primal stirs inside the person who hears the story. We've all experienced a lack of food. We've all experienced a lack of money. So we can relate comprehend what it might be like to be broke and hungry.

It seems to me that having a prioritized list of human needs would be EXTREMELY useful for a writer.

A Note: I'm not a Psyche student, so I'm not going to attempt in-depth explainations of this. A Google search can give you more info if you're interested. (I got this info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.)

So here's Abarham Maslow's hierarchy of human needs.

Deficiency Needs:
If we don't have this stuff our quality of life is deficient.

Physiological - food, drink, air, sleep, comfy temperature. This is the First Level of human Necessity. If we lack one of these, THAT'S our priority. When our physiological needs are met we seek to fulfill the needs of the next level.

Safety - We need to feel safe and secure. If we don't, THIS becomes our priority. Once we're well-fed and well rested and feel safe and secure, we move up to the next level.

Love/Belonging - family, platonic companionship, sexual companionship, acceptence by others. When we're safe and healthy, emotion-based relationships becomes our priority. When we're good there, we feel the need for the next level of fulfillment.

Esteem - respect of others, recognition by others, self-respect.

Being Needs:
Maslow describes the above needs as "basic" and sees the following needs as motivators of growth.

self-actualization - "The instinctual need of a human to make the most of their unique abilities."

self-transcendence - "Connecting to something beyond the ego or to help others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential."

Sounds right to me. And this guy came up with this theory in 1943!

It's interesting to note that starting in 1976 some bozos argued that the Being Needs were just psycho babble and that humans don't "need" to make the most of their unique abilities or to transcend beyond themeselves.

I think that's interesting because in this country people regularly deny themselves sleep and nutritious food, we watch news media and comercials that are constantly telling us the sky is falling and that we should buy this or that to make ourselves better, and with all this stuff we have to buy we constantly feel like we don't have enough money, and we're encouraged to be "humble" so we don't respect or love ourselves, so naturally we don't have any respect or meaningful love for anyone else.

Generally, we live in a deficite society, most of us, and so NATURALLY there aren't many of us who
who CAN begin to feel the needs -- yes, I said NEEDS -- to self-actualize and self-transcend!

Hmm. Actually, this fact alone could probably drive a whole career of screenplays...

However, one way this list could be really useful in a screenplay is figuring out how to raise the stakes of a character's situation. Let's say the character has been striving to get another character to help him out (Level 3, Esteem). The way to dramatically raise the stakes would be to take away a Level 2 (Safety) or Level 1 (Physiology) need! If he just acquired an ally, then take his oxygen away, or drop a safe on his leg.

You know?

Anyway, here's the list! May it help you to make the most out of your unique abilities!

UFTS: Step 2

2. Thematic Arguement

This is simple: What's my point? What do I want to say? What is my suggestion to people for how to live a better life, or get more joy out of their life?

a. Point
This is what I believe is a successful way no live life, and why.

b. Counterpoint
This is the opposite perspective. The more articulately and passionately I argue this point of view, the more convincing my Thematic Conclusion will be.

Also, the better the arguement for BOTH sides, the better the drama, and the less predictable the outcome of the story.

c. Thematic Conclusion
I'm stealing this term from the StoryWeaver program. This is where the arguement lands at the end of the movie. This is the resolution of the Thematic Arguement.

NOTE: Many authors will save the clarification of their Theme until after their first draft. But knowing my underlying "message" is part of what excites me about a story. PLUS, if I know what my Thematic Arguement is I can include it into my character design, all-but-guarenteeing dramatic conflict -- or at least the potential for dramatic conflict -- with any character combination.

UFTS: Step 1

Okay, I think I have the beginnings of an approach now, thanks to Karl Iglesias.

1. Concept

Duh. This is actually a no-brainer. OF COURSE you have to know what you're story's generally about before you start writing it.

But since I usually don't have the desire to start writing before I have a Concept, I sort of overlook this as the first step in my writing process.

However, for purposes of clarifying for myself the process, I'll go ahead and call this Step 1.

Now, I know that the concept has to be both original and yet somehow familiar.

Well Mr. Iglesias has an approach to help make it so.

a. Hook - What's the wierd, new, exciting aspect of my story? What makes people want to stand in line and pay $8-$12 to see it opening weekend?

Write a sentence (ONE sentence, if it is AT ALL possible; if it's not, rewrite until it IS possible) that describes the story concept and particularly emphasizes the Hook.

b. Human Emotion - Iglesias goes into great detail in his book WRITING FOR EMOTIONAL IMPACT to explain and illustrate how movies ARE the business of providing emotional experiences for the audience. What emotions does my story PROMISE TO THE AUDIENCE? Whatever this is/these are, that's also the emotional journey of my main character.

Write a sentence that describes what emotional experience I am promising to provide my main character/audience.

Now, rewrite this one/two sentence description of my story's Concept until the description EXCITES ME. If Im not absolutely excited about seeing how this story plays out, I have NO HOPE of exciting anyone else.

If it's just not working out, try to make the emotion more extreme and the hook more specific -- "specific" DOES NOT mean "complicated".

Think about my Inciting Incident or my Climax -- what kicks my story off or what am I building toward? Either of these might help give my Concept description the "umph" that makes it exciting.

Unified Field Theory of Screenwriting

Since the early 1940s physicists have been searching for a "unified field" theory that -- without going into detail that I barely comprehend and therefore cannot articulate in any meaningful way -- took what they knew about partical physics and gravity and electromagnetic fields (and later "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces) and combine all that into a cohesive image of what the universe is made of and how/why it works the way it does.

Einstein spent 30 or so years of his life looking for it.

Since 1999, physicists believe they may have found it in "string theory" or the "theory of everything" -- a theory that seems to provide a bridge between quantum physics and classical physics.

Ever since I read Syd Field's THE SCREENWRITER'S WORKBOOK, after having read HOW TO WRITE A MOVIE IN 21 DAYS: THE INNER MOVIE METHOD and SCREENWRITING FROM THE SOUL, I have been searching for my own UFT of sorts.

Actually, what I'm looking for is my "process". When I want to write a story, where do I begin?

Back in the heyday of pulp fiction, it's writers had their own "plotters". This was some list or system or book of story elements that they were able to draw from so they could crank out their thousand-word stories in the 2 or 7 days their deadlines allowed. Not in an this happens and then this happens and then this happens fashion, but more in a mix-and-match manner. Broke private dick + Mysterious package from dead associate + Femme fatalle client... what happens when all these elements are thrown together and stirred up?

But I'm not looking for a plotter. Or a formula. I mean, I've got this big huge toolbox packed to capacity with useful writing tools; but which tool do I pull out first? Then which one? Then which after that?

I'm not looking to "paint by numbers", natch, 'cause that always comes out garbage. But I would like to know where to turn first when a story idea strikes me!!! What's the first step?

I've tried the newbie sit-down-and-just-write-it-and-hope-it-turns-out-brilliant method.

Didn't work for me.

I HAVE NOT tried the sit-down-and-just-write-it-and-then-rewrite-it-10-more-times-until-it-gets-good method. I hear that's worked gangbusters for M. Night Shymalan and Joss Whedon and many other geniuses, but I don't have the patience for it.

I'm a techy. I know that if I flip these swicthes and push those buttons, the machine will do what I want it to do. And I know that because an indicator light appears as I flip each swicth and press each button. If the indicator light doesn't illuminate, I know something's wrong and I need to fix the machine.

I'm an editor. I cut one shot together with another shot and watch them play out. Then I add another shot and watch how this plays out. If it doesn't have the impact I want, I go back and add or subtrack frames to get the pacing right, or I scrap what I've done and rework the scene from a new angle.

I like progress reports. I want to know what grades I make as I turn my work in, I DO NOT want to wait until the end of the semester to know if I passed or failed. Yeah, I could re-take the course (like many better writers than I suggest I do, effectively, by rewriting my screenplay 10 times until it's good), but that's just a lot of time and money that I don't feel like I can afford.

So every time I discovered a new method -- from, say, 1996 through 2002 -- I would get all excited and leap into this new process...

...and seldom actually FINISH the damn thing because halfway through I discovered that there was just SO MUCH not working I would be best going back to the drawing board.

And then, of course, I never would. I'd move on to some sexy new idea.

...and not know where to start with it...

The point is this: A large part of this blog is my search for my own sort of Unified Field Theory for Screenwriting.

And I think maybe -- possibly -- I'm getting the shape of this UFToS.

Maybe. Possibly.

The first thing that seems to strike me is that in screenwriting, STRCUTURE IS EVERYTHING. If the story isn't structured masterfully, it trips itself up somewhere in the middle, or toward the end, and looses the audience.

However, structure is easy. It's technical. A chimp can master structure. AND the specific type or method of screenplay structure -- Krevolin, Truby, Field, Hauge, Viki King, etc. -- doesn't seem to be important. So long as we know the structure and understand the structure and don't deviate from that structure -- unless we make an informed decision to do so.

The next thing that seems to be important in this UFTS is that once we know structure, we discover that STRUCTURE IS ONLY HALF OF IT. ("What? You just said...")

ALL the aspiring screenwriters I've know, talked to, worked with and/or read have had this aversion to structure. They just wanted to write what they wrote and not worry about learning stuff! They already, they felt, knew everything they wanted to know to be ridiculously rich and famous film writers. (We were all in our 20s... That's just kind of the way you are in your 20s. I think it's a hangover from being in our Teens.)

And the result of their disdain for structure was that 120 pages of interesting characters doing interesting things didn't pay-off like a feature. It read like a 120-page short. (That is to say a VERY LONG short.)

So it seems like the first lesson we have to learn -- and it seems to take a very long time for us to finally learn it -- is that screenwriting is STRUCTURE.

Okay, so then we learn what a Plot Point is and what a Mid-point is, we learn aboue Inciting Incidents and Central Questions and The Point of No Return.

We might even write a treatment or an outline!

Then, with all of this structure swirling around in our head, we bang out our next screenplay.

And it feels formulic and flat.

"WHAT?!!! WHY?! I DID EVERYTHING I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO!!! My structure is FLAWLESS!!! How could THIS screenplay suck?!!!"

Okay, that's about where I am now. I'ver written 2 features with really good structure in the past 3 or 4 years, and wouldn't show ANY of them to ANYONE!

So structure, in itself, is not my UFTS.

But what's missing?

According to Karl Iglesias -- I'm on page 147 of his book WRITING FOR EMOTIONAL IMPACT -- what's missing is EMOTION.

And this makes sense to me!

See, I'm of a spiritual/mystic mindset, and experience has shown me that we are given what we need when we're ready to receive it. And in the past couple of years I've noticed that the core of a lot of the storytelling I really get off on is Emotional Warfare. Writers like Joss Whedon, Aaron Sorkin and Rod Serling, who just really wreak havoc with my emotions, just DO IT for me!

Joss, for instance, knows that if he puts Willow (from BUFFY) or Kaylee (from FIREFLY) in danger, I'll go nuts! I'll squirm, I'll yell at the TV screen. On the show SMALLVILLE, all they have to do is make Lana Lang cry and I'm decimated!

It's a bit more complex than that, of course, but the point is that I SEEM TO LOVE TO BE TORTURED. And judging from theintense devotion that other Whedon fans and I seem to share, I'm not an oddity.

Thing about "Reality" TV. I hate it, I DO NOT watch it (and I'm literal when I say that, unlike most people who have uttered those same words to me), and I agree with Sorkin who sites Reality TV as the downfall of quality television. But the audience identifies with or is repulsed by those dumbasses who let themselves get filmed at their most stupid moments, and voyeuristically squirms as their on-screen counterparts' craftily-edited fates unfold.

So why does my stuff suck? Why doesn't my audience squirm and yell at the pages?

I'm not leading up to an answer here, I'm honestly voicing the question.

I have recently come to believe it's because I've been focusing too much on the structure -- the Big Picture of the story -- and not enough on the INDIVIDUAL SCENES.

See, I'm starting to think that we're meant to spend a great deal of time and effort learning structure so that it becomes subconscious. Then when we write, we write SCENES. And those scenes -- with careful pre-planning before we sit down to write, as well as occasional attention to the Big Picture all throughout the writing process -- fall together into a satisfying structure that, with a little tweaking afterward (NOT 10 more drafts), flows smothly for 120 pages.

...and blissfully TORTURES the reader!

Before you start thinking I'm some sort of emotional sadist, go see SERENITY to experience exactly what I'm talking about. There's tons Happy and laughs and fun in there, and I'd call the ending an uplifting and inspiring one! (I've seen the movie twice opening weekend and read the screenplay once so far.) But Joss does not have a problem with torturing us with a degree of gleeful cruelty that we just CAN NOT anticipate! (In the 9th episode of the series ANGEL he killed off a character that was (a) in the opening credits and (b) just about the most loveable and funny character ever to grace TV! This guys loves us enough to rough us up real good!)

This still doesn't give me the answer to which tool do I pull out of my toolbox first, and then which one. But this new picture of the process is helpful! And the new perspective it provides me on the process seems to lead to a few long sought-after answers.

And maybe as I search, you will also benifit from my discoveries.

Classic Horror Moment Beats

There are 2 reasons this fascinates me so. The first is that I'm finding that my first scare scene in Ezekiel Hollow fell a little flat. It wasn't really a "classic" moment, the type of moment you tell your friends about after the story's over. And when Michael Keaton (on the filmmakers' commentary for WHITE NOISE) mentioned THOSE moments, the ones that let you know you're watching -- or, in his case, acting in -- a horror movie, I decided to see if I could spot what comprised those moments.

Also, I've seen tons of flat-out BAD horror movies. And I've always wondered just why those moments didn't work. There are the Big Picture reasons, like the story sucks so you don't really CARE if these 2-dimensional characters die. Or the directing is so bad you just don't believe the world of the movie exists for real on ANY level. But the specific moments -- that in some of the "better" bad horror movies ARE scary, despite the film's other shortcomings -- that you rented this movie to see just don't work.

Why?

And I think I figured it out.

Okay, so the 6 story beats that play out in a classic horror scene/sequence:

1. Reveal that there is Danger.
2. What is the Danger?
3. Reveal the Danger.
4. Try to prevent/escape the Danger.
5. The Danger strikes.
6. Reveal the aftermath.

First off, to clarify some terminology.

When I say "Danger" in this context, I'm not talking about mere danger to the character. Those classic horror moments don't come from just ANY danger, they come from THE Danger, the very specific "monster" that the central story of the movie revolves around. If you're watching a horror movie and jump out of your seat because a cat jumps out of a garbage can, the fact that it's not the Monster makes you forget that scare immediately. It's a fake-out. A cheap scare. Those don't count in our memory because that's just the filmmaker filling time until the REAL scare, or trying to get us to let our guard down so we jump higher when the real scare pops out.

So when I refer to the Danger, I'm refering ONLY to the central threat of the movie.

Next is the term "Reveal". I attach very specific significance to the word "reveal" here. One of the great joys of watching movies is when a character, situation or story point is Revealed.

In screenwritng jargon a Reveal is that moment when the audience experiences a revelation. An important piece of the puzzle is placed before them and they suddenly -- and often shockingly -- understand a great deal more about what's going on in the story than they did just 30 frames ago.

Directors often "Reveal" their important actors. An unimportant character will simply walk into a scene, but the camera and editing usually Reveals the star to the audience.

The Reveal clues the audience into something important, and makes it FEEL important. It subconsciously tells the audience "Pay attention to THIS".

So to make horror moments really HAPPEN for the audience, 3 beats in the horror moment are Revealed. They create a sensation of surprise.

More about Reveals in a moment.

Okay, so, the beats:

1. Reveal that there is Danger.

The the Danger just appears and attacks, the audience doesn't have time to build up a sense of dread, which is very important to getting the most out of a scare. If the Monster just pops out and kills, that's merely "shock" and sensation is gone a quickly as it came. And the audience doesn't have time to fear what is going to happen. It's over as soon as it does.

Not to say that shock doesn't have it's place, but it doesn't usually create a really memorable, "classic" horror moment. And it NEVER does if the movie doesn't have some TRULY classic movie moments! That's why straight-to-video horror movies are so forgettable. Plus, shock is like a punch in the face; it's so unpleasant that the human memory tends to let it slip away at the first opportunity. You might remember that you WERE shcked, but you won't remember the sensation itself.

So the first beat is to Reveal that Danger exists. Once the audience knows the character is about to face the Monster, fear rears it's ungly head, and quickly becomes dread.

2. What is the Danger?

This is where you start working the audience. It's clearly a manipulation, but when it's done well the audience forgives you. The point where the character starts trying to figure out from which direction the attack will come from is the point that the horror moment gets suspenseful! Every moment that the character doesn't see the Danger is another moment of fearful agony. And every frame of film creates more and more dread -- being a sense of impending disaster -- builds up within the audience (and within the character, if the actor's good enough) exponentially!

Here's where bad filmmakers make their first mistake. They have a character walking down a long, dark hallway or something and they just expect the audience to experience an instantaneous sense of dread. But they haven't Revealed the Danger, so the audience has no reason to believe that this long, drawn-out moment is any different from all the other long, drawn-out moments they've been watching in this boring piece of technical masterbation.

But by promising the audience "THIS is IT" (Step 1), this moment becomes excruciating!

(I'm not a sadist, I swear! But I do enjoy a bit of creative psychological warfare if there is no danger of REAL people being hurt.)

3. Reveal the Danger.

Again with the Reveal. You don't just have the Half-Naked-Hotty walk through a line of trees and bump into the Masked Killer. The audience already KNOWS that when she gets to where she's going she's going to be mangled horribly.

You play with your audience a bit. Tease them.

You let them think that the end of the tree line is where the killer is, then show them something inexplicable, the Reveal the Danger, allowing them to put together the pieces of the puzzle themselves so that they experience that surprise when they see what they already knew they were going to see.

[At the end of the illustrations I'll improve a horror scene and you judge the effectiveness of my theory yourself.]

4. Try to prevent/escape the Danger.

If the character has no chance of escape, then the audience's sense of dread dies with the character's death.

But if you show them an escape route that actually has a shot at saving the character, then the audience genuinely isn't sure what the outcome of the scene/sequence will be!

Another beniffit from utilizing these steps is that fact that the Primary Character might not be the one in danger, during which times the audience KNOWS that the Secondary Character -- assuming that the Secondary Character is the one the Danger is poised to strike -- will die!

But once the Primary Character takes action to try to prevent the attack on the Secondary Character, the audience suddenly experiences a rush of empathy for the Primary Character ("What if that were MY friend about to die?!") and the audience also intuitively knows that the Primary Character has a chance of succeeding! (it's HIS/HER movie, right?)

So this step raises questions in the audience's mind about whether a death is about to occur.

5. The Danger strikes.

Now if this is a death scene -- and for the purposes of creating the classic horror moment here, it is -- then this is where the Monster shows resourcefulness or sheer power and attacks the character. This is what the audience expects to be the "payoff" of the scene. But in a GOOD horror movies...

6. Reveal the aftermath.

THIS is the actual payoff, and this is potentially where you hit the audience the hardest.

You're not just revealing the character to be dead, but you're including some unexpected detail that makes the death (a) more real and human, and (b) surprising in some way.

A common mistake is in splatter flicks: The filmmaker doesn't "reveal" the aftermath, he simply shows it, trusting that the expensive and elaborate special makeup effects will provide the emotional impact. The ax-wielding maniac swings his weapon and it imbeds itself into the dummy head and the body falls to the ground.

But if this same filmmaker Revealed the aftermath, we might not see the hit, and the effect of the hit might turn out to be something we didn't expect (for instance, when the ax is revealed to be imbedded in the victims head, maybe we discover that the victim died with a look of curiosity on his face, rather than stock or terror).

So, putting my own principals of horror storytelling to practice, I will improvise 2 different scenes to illustrate my point.

BAD HORROR MOMENT
1. A HALF-NAKED-HOTTIE climbs out of the lake. She hears a twig snap!

2. The Half-Naked Hotty scans the wilderness around, but doesn't see anything. She nervously looks around for the rest of her clothes.

3. Another twig snaps, and the Half-Naked-Hotty sees THE AX-WIELDING MANIAC a yard or so away from her.

4. The Half-Naked-Hottie runs away from the Ax-Wielding-Maniac.

5. She looks back behind her and doesn't see the Ax-Wielding-Maniac. Where did he go? Then the Ax-Wielding-Maniac pops out from a tree (a Reveal, granted, but not a believable one) and brings his ax down into her head, splitting it in half with a bloody, juidy THUD...

6. ...and her half-naked hottie body falls to the ground. Then the Ax-Wielding-Maniac stomps off, searching for his next victim.

Sucks, right? Ask me how many times I've seen the equivalent scene in a movie. Ask me how much money I've wasted on video rentals that turned out to be merely a collection of such scenes.

BETTER HORROR MOMENT
1. A HALF-NAKED-HOTTIE climbs out of the lake. She starts looking for her clothes, then hears a dripping sound. It's not her!

[The fact that it's a dripping sound, rather that the cliche snapping of a twig is part of the reveal. You weren't expecting that. You now have a puzzle to solve, PLUS you suddenly realize that there's more to this world that what you expected.]

2. The Half-Naked Hottie scans the wilderness around her. She nervously looks around for the rest of her clothes. She finds them. But then she hears the dripping sound again. Quickly, clumsily, she puts her clothes on, always darting glances to her left and right, to see that nothing -- and no one -- is coming. Fully dressed, though the the lake water is soaking through her blouse, the Hottie hears the dripping sound again. She follows the direction it seems to be coming from, wandering cautiously farther away from the lake and into a darker, denser clump of trees. She hears the sound again, looks through the trees, careful not to make a sound.

[I had her put her clothes on simply to prolong the sense of dread -- the Ax-Wielding-Maniac could attack her at ANY POINT during the process -- and to thumb my nose at the "conventional wisdom" of lazy-ass filmmakers who believe a naked (or half-naked) hottie in jeopardy is necessarily more vulnerable than a clothed hottie. However, taking distributors -- who simply like to see naked female breasts -- into account, I'm not veering too far away from the genere I'm writing for.]

3. The Hottie spies HANDS holding the bi-sected back-end of the carcass of a possum, blood dripping out of it! Then she spies the AX-WIELDING-MANIAC, squeazing the boold into his mouth, some of the blood bouncing off his boddy and onto the rocks at his feet! The Hottie gasps and the Ax-Wielding-Maniac's head immediately swivels toward her! Simultaneously, he drops the carcass and snatches up his ax, making for the direction from which the sound of the gasp came!

[This Reveal (theoretically) credibly answer the question you asked about the first Reveal, and also shocks you, and also tells you just a little bit more about the Ax-Weilding-Maniac than you expected to learn. It might also humanize him, in an apalling way.]

4. The Hottie runs away! She threads her way through the trees, cutting herself from time to time on stubby branches. She allows herself to glance back, and sees that the Ax-Wielding-Maniac is after her, but still a safe enough distance -- if ANY distance can be considered safe ENOUGH -- ahead of him! Finally, ahead of her she sees the Ranger's Shack! If she can just make it to the Ranger's shack before the Ax-Wielding-Maniac catches up with her, she can be safe inside a cabin that contains a gun and ammo and a man who is trained to use them! But another glance back reveals that the Ax-Wielding-Maniac is faster than he looks! He's only ten feet away from her! So she screeams "Help me! He's behind me!" She runs with all her might, and the shack door opens! The RANGER steps outside and see the Hottie running toward him. THEN he sees the Ax-Wielding-Maniac close on her heels! He draws his gund and FIRES, but the bullet pierces a tree RIGHT BESIDE the Ax-Wielding-Maniac's left eye! He missed! He cocks the hammer of his revolver again...

[Now, it could be argued that I'm simnply adding more words to describe the running part, and words means a bigger budget for the filmmaker. But in the end, what is significantly different about this scene is that the Hotty now has more then a reasonable chance of surviving this scene than she did in the previous incarnation. What's more, YOU'RE just a little bit more interested in how this might turn out than you were in the Bad version! The Ranger and the Ranger's Shack can be budgetes for if they are re-used in the movie, particularly if the Ranger is one of the Primary Characters -- which would help prove the point I was making above. And another very significant eliment of this point is that REAL writing is REWRITING -- going back over the story that the author told, and MAXIMIXZING the EFFECT of it on his audience!!!]

5. ...but just as the second round FIRES, the Ax-Wielding-Maniac HURLS his weapon at the Hottie, and when it hits the back of her head, she crumples to the ground!

[This is really obvious, here. Since this is a horror movie, you know that the Hottie is dead,, but in the confusion of action, maybe the Ax-Wielding-Maniac is dead, or at least wounded. Never the less, you're not entirely sure what the Aftermath will be.]

6. The Ranger scans the trees, but he sees no sign of the Ax-Wielding-Maniac. Did he escape unharmed? Is he lying dead in the grass? The Ranger appraoches where the Hottie fell, and he quickly turns around and vomits! Then we see the face of the Hottie, the ax sticking out of the back of her skull, and a look of annoyance on her face -- she died wondering what that pestering stinging was on the back of her scalp.

[Now, that last discription would play better as a visual, but it gets across my main idea that the Aftermath should be something unexpectedly human Plus, the fact that we see the Ranger's reaction BEFORE we see for ceratin that the Hottie is dead makes this, at least technically, a Reveal.]

Now, do YOU understand the point I am trying to make?

I have certainly proved it to myself. The first scene I wrote, following my own rules, as a scene I've seen hundreds of times. The second scene I wrote UTILIZING my own rules and altering the scene where necessary. Which scene would you rather see in a horror movie?

So I feel comfortable, in my own writing, adhering to the steps I've outlined above. There is not guarentee that they will work for another writer -- just as the multitude of books/seminars I've paid for haven't 100% worked for me -- but I'm THRILLED to have cracked the code for myself!!!

--

A final note about this writing tool:

("YOU'RE a 'writing tool'!")

The sequence of beats can be used to create a scene in ANY GENRE.

Simply think of "Danger" as "Dramatic/Comedic Crisis" and then follow the steps to create a truly cinematic story moment. If you're doing a drama or melodrama, the Danger is some piece of backstory, a secret ora conflict between characters that's about to be revealed. If you're doing a mystery or a psychological thriller, the Danger is an essential piece of information. If you're doing a comedy the Danger is the comedic problem that's going to get your main character into big trouble.

I was very surprised when, after writing the innitial blog entry that this was taken from, I discovered that this scene/sequence structure fit into every genre I can think of with MINIMAL alteration!

:)

Coda

It occured to me that it might be useful for me to clearly state my take on writing before I waste your time with the rest of the entries in this blog...

I write to entertain. Period.

If you believe your art is above "genres" and classification, or even comprehension of your readers, go the hell away! I've got nothing for you here.

I write in the hopes that people will enjoy themselves! I LIKE genre movies, and I tend to enjoy summer movies, and if I don't understand what you're writing I assume the fault lies in your abilities, NOT in my comprehension!

I also believe that entertainment is -- SHOULD be -- ART! Those big blockbuster movies that come out and fall flat on their faces, you know what their problem is 99 times out of 100? There's no art! No relevance! The filmmakers are following the story beats of previously successful blockbusters, but without the story. (Oh and just to be clear, it's not always the screenwriter's fault. A director/producer who doesn't understand and/or appreciate the importance of story can kill a good -- or great -- script just as easily as they can fail to elevate a bad one. Check out "Building the Bomb" by Terry Rossio for an detailed illustration.)

I don't believe Reality TV, for example, is any more entertainment than watching Christians get mauled by lions. But I will argue the artistic merits of, say, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN until we both pass out from exhaustion.

Joss Whedon is god.

Here's why: He's got enough art and hard-won talent to hang in the most exclusive "artistic" circles, but he writes stories that kick-ass, that excite. He's got something deeply personal to say in everything he writes -- something that will speak to each of us on a deeply personal level -- but he understands that if he wants us to listen to his "message" he has to hold our attention while he delivers it.

If you are not of like mind, look elsewhere!

If you believe that people who don't enjoy your work simply aren't as smart as you are, and want to bitch about the fact that Michael Bay still has a job, get outta here. There are PLENTY of forums for you to join, many, MANY more like you out there.

But if you believe that George A. Romero's zombie flicks have MUCH MORE "social relevance"/"artistic importance" than Oliver Stone's Viet Nam flicks, for example, then we can talk.

Or, more acturately, if you can at least understand why I might make such an assertian, then you can get where I'm coming from.

It doesn't matter how important what you have to say is if no one's listening. Besides, all things being equal, why be That-Whiny-Artist-Guy when you CAN have a fanbase that supports your efforts and forgives your missteps?

More to the point: Why preach at people when you can take them on a thrill-ride that conveys the same information? George Lucas conveyed more useful truths about politics and spirituality with the STAR WARS flicks than Stone did with JFK or Scorcese did with THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST put together. And I'm not dissing either of those flicks; I loved them both!!!

My point is the cliched analogy of using vinegar or honey to catch flies. "A spoonful of sugar" and all that.

(Am I betraying my age here? I suspect I am.)

So there it is.

These entries, and the perspective contained therein, comes from a dude who would rather the audience have a good time while they're gathering what Robert McKee calls the "tools for living" than win an Oscar for Most Obscure And Off-putting-ly Pretensious Yawn-fest of the year.

Getting Started

Here are the resources I believe any beginning writer -- particularly screenwriters -- should study in order to quickly and efficiently educate yourself on what you need to know.

If you've already studied a few of these, round out your knowlege with the rest of them. If you've studied other resources that you feel have educated you sufficiently that you don't need to look into these other avenues... then what are you doing here?

If you're here, you're looking for something. Here's what I suggest:

- www.wordplayer.com

Ted Elliot & Terry Rossio have, as of this writing, 45 articles/essays about what it is to be a professional screenwriter. These guys have worked with the current BEST (and worst) in the industry. Plus, I believe these guys are at the very top of their game right now, and these articles describe how they got there.

- Stephen King's On Writing

King is astoundingly candid about the writing process, and very no-nonsense about what it takes to be a writer. This book is focused on prose writing, but any screenwriter will benifit from most, if not ALL, of what King has to say.

The only point I believe he drastically differs from a screenwriter is his stance on plotting. Novelists have a tendency to sit down day after day and just write the story as it presents itself to them, then they rewrite. Screenwriters -- well, professional screenwriters -- have to deal with prohibitive deadlines. Though many beginning writers seem to enjoy the process of sitting down and just writing, allowing the story to unflod for them as it does for their characters, this is a practice that will get in their way once they begin writing for studios and production companies and the like.

But that's about it. Everything else is not only amazingly informative, the book is an enjoyable read!

-Steven Pressfield's The War of Art

Having difficulty actually sitting down and getting the words onto the page/screen? Pressfield not only offers his reasoning for why, he also offers the INSPIRATION to do it! You'll never see Writer's Block the same way you do now. More than that, you'll never perceive WRITING the same way, either.

-Robert McKee's Story

This is the first half of the Bible for writers! McKee has discected, bisected, trisected storytelling and figured out what all those gooey parts do and how they fit together. More than that, he's figured out why WE do what we do and why there will ALWAYS be a place for storytellers (the good ones, anyway) in society.

-Melanie Anne Phillips's StoryWeaver program, which can be found at www.storymind.com/storyweaver.

I toyed with the free demo version for a couple of years before finally buying it at the 2004 Creative Screenwriting Expo. This is a great utility for creating and organizing story elements. When you're feeling insecure about what you're up to as a writer, this program sort of takes you by the hand and helps you feel more secure about the fact that the hours you're putting in WILL yeild results.

Then, when you feel pretty comfortable with the structure and function of storytelling -- but BEFORE you sit down to your first draft -- you MUST, MUST, MUST read...

- Karl Iglesias's Writing For Emotional Impact: Advanced Dramatic Techniques to Attract, Engage, and Fascinate the Reader from Beginning to End

Iglesias wrote this as a sort od Masters class. It relies on you already understanding structure -- which is 50% of screenwriting -- provides the remaining 50% of your education.

The reason I am so adamant about your reading this before you attempt your first screenplay is that you are likely to be discouraged by your efforts without the knowlege Iglesias provides. For 12 years (this book only JUST came out as of this writing) I have been pounding out structurally good scripts, but they just didn't seem to "work" the way I wanted them to. The reason, I discovered, is that I wasn't producing the emotional response in the reader that I wanted to, and I didn't understand that dynamic well enough to fix the problems.

I wanted to write like Joss Whedon and Aaron Sorkin, but instead what came out was flat and ametuerish. And I've been a reader for a Hollywood agent and for a couple of screenwriting contests; I'm very familiar with what "ameteurish" reads like.

I would save you such frustration.

And although I recommend you hunker down and read all the material I've suggested -- because the current attitude of aspiring screenwriters (for the past decade, at the least) is a distinct laziness that you will ultimately BE FORCED to lose, and commiting to the very few resources I've recommended is NOTHING compaired to the work you're actually getting youself into as a writer -- if finances are restrictive, here's the short list:

First, read Story by McKee. (To learn structure and function.)

Second, read Writing For Emotional Impact by Iglesias. (So that people actually ENJOY reading what you write.)

Third, visit www.wordplayer.com. This is free. No excuses. Read each article at least once, then return as needed.

I also recommend that you get a copy of On Writing eventually. King offers invaluable information about gramar and writing style that EVREY screenwriter should commit to heart!

If you are already schooled in the fundamentals of writing but haven't read Story and/or Writing For Emotional Impact, I highly recommend you do that. It's entirely possible that one of these two brilliant men have the answers that lead you here.

From here out my entries will be less thorough and will cover whatever specific territory I am currently trudging through. Expect seemingly random epiphanies and theories.

And maybe some straight-up ranting.

Welcome to FILM FLUNKY PRODUCTIONS!!!

If you've visited the site a few times over the last couple of years, you may have noticed a distinct lack of activity in my office.

This is due to a number of reasons, many of which relate to the fact that my job as scribe prevent me from spending a lot of time with Flash Animation -- a time-consuming pursuit, despite how much fun it is.

So I decided to reinvent my office and it's function: It's now a blog about writing/filmmaking.

I'll continue with my journal-style blog at http://rayjaysblog.blogspot.com. But when I'm specifically essaying the process of writing or making movies (or a related endevour) I will use this space.

In fact, I plan to rewrite an earlier essay/article/whatever laying out the Classic Horror Movie Beats here, just so that is readily available to anyone who might find my observations interesting, or even instructive.

My goal here to to discover and refine my writing "process". And, hopefully, point you in the direction of yours. The entries to follow will be a journal of my progress. I will use this as a place I can come to try to sort stuff out.

BE AWARE:

I am by no means -- as of this writing, October 20, 2005 -- a professional or formally trained writer. I am in year 13 of my quest to master the crafts of writing and filmmaking and obtain employment in those fields. My advice is not guaranteed in any way.

In most instances, you get what you paid for.

That said, some extremely smart folk, whose opinions I trust, trust my opinions and observations. Plus, I got a 135 on an Internet IQ test... :) And I've been diligently studying for over 12 years now.

If you're just starting out, I've read twice or three times as many texts as you have, tried out more shortcuts and "formulas" than you've had the time to explore yet.

If you're not just starting out and you're here, you're stuck. Maybe my perspective will help nudge your creative treads out of the mire.

In any case, Ted Elliot & Terry Rossio's (PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, SHREK, THE MASK OF ZORRO, to name a very few) website www.wordplayer.com is free, and I have amassed much invaluable information from them!!!

A further warning: This is not intended to be in any way comprehensive. This is primarily for my use and the use of my Core of collaborators -- the WhitelightEnt guys. But it is my hope that the information contained herein will bennifit others -- assuming anyone else finds it.

However, if you do have specific questions that you think I may be able to help you with, please feel free to email info@whitelightent.com and address "Ray Jay" at the beginning of the email. It may take me a while, but I will most likely get back to you before too long.

Or you can simply leave a comment on any of these entries. I'll try to check for comments regularly.

As far as the value of what I share with you, let your "gut instinct" be the final judge as to whether or not I'm telling you something worth heeding. Your brain will intellectualize away valuable nuggets of knowlege, but if it's true you will experience the sensation that you already knew the information, it will seem strangely familiar to you, like maybe you heard or read it before or you simply somehow alread knew it.

In other words, don't trust me, trust your own judgement. Internalize what "feels" useful and ignore the rest.

Oh, and a final note:

I'll focus on screenwriting primarily because that's my main area of focus. But the thing is, if you know what it takes to make a great screenplay, then you're WELL on your way to being able to write great novels and short stories. Screenwriting doesn't allow for "wasteful" storytelling, though novels and short stories sometimes do. You can't cover up a weak screenplay with spectacular prose.

So learn what it takes to write a great screenplay and then add some books on writing style (On Writing should provide just about all you need to start finding your voice as a writer; The War of Art should provide the inspiration to sit your butt in your seat and DO it, every day) and there's no reason you can't be published author.

Next, I'll give you some reference material that should provide you the strongest foundation in the shortest amount of time.

Meanwhile, shouldn't you be writing?