Handling "NO" Like a Pro
Screenwriters.com
Hollywood Screenwriters Network
http://screenwriters.com/scriptindex.html
Handling "No" Like A Pro
by Donie A. Nelson
http://screenwriters.com/Nelson/columns/list.html
No one likes rejection. Perhaps the show biz professionals most stung by
rejection (besides actors) are writers. It helps to view it like a job
search: you'll hear nothing but "no" until someone says "yes". Your only
response to
rejection or criticism from agents, producers, contest officials, or other
industry types should be polite professionalism. If you disagree, it
serves no purpose to argue or attempt to change the verdict. Remember your
prime objective? To establish yourself as a professional writer. This is a
collaborative business, populated by people with long memories. Be sure
their memory of you is a positive one.
Preparing for rejection is not just figuring out what to do or say when
you hear "no." It begins before you ask someone to read your script. Be
confident that this is your best effort. Your presentation and format
should be within
industry standards. In addition to family, friends and peers, have several
professionals read your script. Yes, it will cost money, but this is part
of your education. None of us obtained a college diploma without paying
tuition. Hiring a script or marketing consultant offers you the
opportunity to gain new information and ask questions, the type of
questions you shouldn't ask or probably can't ask the agent who doesn't
return your calls, the producer who rejects you, or the contest official
who reports your script didn't make it into the finals. Armed with the
notes from your consultant, you can re-write, improve, and expand your
knowledge.
Handling rejection requires that you take the long view. It's like
standing on a hill. The "dark valley of rejection" is below, but in the
distance is a high spot, perhaps a rainbow and the pot of gold (a sale!),
but if you stay in the valley all you can see is "no." To get out of the
"valley," it helps to remember that the worst rejection a writer should
receive is: "We're passing on your script, but we would like to see
anything else you write." That may not be what
you want to hear, but I call it "the best of the worst." The best is, "I
would like to buy your script" or "I would like to option your script."
What is the worst of the worst? Any polite 3-4 sentence rejection which
does not mention
admiration for your writing and/or an offer to read additional scripts.
If your scripts are being rejected, but not your writing, then you should
be gaining fans for your writing. Sometimes writers are temporarily out of
step with the market or so in step that several films are already in
development which deal with the identical topic. In the same way that you
hone your writing skills, you need to stay abreast of what is selling,
what is in development, what is in production, and what is being released.
Read the trades and be aware.
Keep writing. If you are good and persistent, recognition will come.
Š 1996 Donie A. Nelson
Hollywood Screenwriters Network
Carlos de Abreu
433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 600
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
andrea bachrach
to fling myself off my word-processor ( which is 2 inches high) to an
unseemly death by broken nail in a manipulative ( but empty ) suicide
attempt would be considered declasse??? Well, next time I'll threaten to
eat french-fries til I explode.
BadSportGirl
atlas
while-preparing-next-submission method. But now
I worry that that is not "Pro."
atlas
to...@mediaone.net
Two containers - pro. Three containers - wannabe.
I prefer pizza myself, but of course that reeks of pedestrianism.
Eric
Imflugel
When I become a pro (making money at it), I will behave like a pro. Until
then, I believe any bad behavior short of a producer having to call security is
not only warranted, but expected.
They know that being a struggling writer is an enriching experience -- in terms
of the constant suffering and rejection through which we must persevere. To
that end, I've been enriched beyond anything I could ever hope for.
There just better be a payoff to all this enrichment...
One Signature Shy of a Competency Hearing
Patgmason
May I recommend instead of the frosting route: piggish behavior at the
Shoney's Breakfast Bar, accompanied by so much coffee you go home wired to
revise three scripts? It's self-destructive yet satisfying and inspiring.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
--
Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
"Slogans are Nice"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
atlas
> May I recommend instead of the frosting route: piggish behavior at the
> Shoney's Breakfast Bar, accompanied by so much coffee you go home wired to
> revise three scripts? It's self-destructive yet satisfying and inspiring.
I'm more or less floating in the middle of the Pacific on a _real_ small
island. I have to work with what I have, and I'm lucky to have frosting.
atlas
atlas
> I prefer to wallow in an existential vacuum, thanks.
>
> --
> Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
So my frosting-eating pose of lying on my sofa looking at all the little
"faces" in my yellow pine ceiling is acceptable?
atlas
Martin Kunert
>May I recommend instead of the frosting route: piggish behavior at the
>Shoney's Breakfast Bar, accompanied by so much coffee you go home wired to
>revise three scripts? It's self-destructive yet satisfying and inspiring.
Don't waste your time moaning. If you here no, say "Okay, next". Move
on.... fast. Either to another company or another project. At least 9 out
of 10 projects will fail - even for the big boys of Hollywood. In Lynda
Obst's excellent book on working in Hollywood, "Hello, He Lied"; saying
"Next" is the first and best lesson she teaches. It's also the most
professional.
NewFilmkrs
Warning: A minor rant on a subject matter that gets a lot of FmF folks hot
under the collar: The "On to the Next" Denial Mechanism and how destructive it
can be to a screenwriter's career potential.
>"Martin Kunert" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>Don't waste your time moaning. If you here no, say "Okay, next". Move
>on.... fast. Either to another company or another project. At least 9 out
>of 10 projects will fail - even for the big boys of Hollywood. In Lynda
>Obst's excellent book on working in Hollywood, "Hello, He Lied"; saying
>"Next" is the first and best lesson she teaches. It's also the most
>professional.
It may come as no surprise that, once again, at FmF the view is different from
Martin's.
While he does espouse the popular, more common, and readily available in stores
career advice, this "on to the next" approach is (IOHO) one of the most career
potential destroying mindsets to get into.
Especially for a screenwriter.
Granted, it may make some sense for agents, studio execs and producers to use
that mindset when "shopping" material. Often they can't do much about the
script, so they can only keep fishing till someone bites. That's a situation in
which Lynda Obst's advice makes sense. As a seasoned Hollywood producer, she
knows of what she speaks--when it comes to producing. If you're in a situation
where you cannot have the script rewritten until someone else gets behind the
project (for example a producer who needs a studio's backing for development
funds, or a studio exec who needs a director or star to agree to come onboard
before any additional development money will be authorized), then it makes some
sense to ignore all naysayers and keep pushing.
For a screenwriter, it's a *very* different situation. If they are saying "no"
and not at least calling you in for a meeting, there is, generally speaking,
only *one* reason: your craft is not up to professional standards.
There is such a major scarcity of screenwriters whose craft is at a high enough
level for them to be perceived as hirable, they will knock your doors down if
you even come close. Even if they have no interest in buying/making that
particular project. See, it has nothing to do with the salability of the
project (although that can help). If the craft is there, they call you in. No
calls, you definitely need work on your craft. (Assuming you're getting your
script out to more than one or two places, so that you're getting a good market
cross section)
This is not a joke, nor an exaggeration, nor flame bait (but go ahead knock
yourself out).
It doesn't matter whether they are interested in that particular story or not.
If the craft is there, they will make it their business to meet with you. Face
to face.
If your craft is there, they will not send you encouraging rejection letters.
They will meet with you.
The writer who thinks "ok, well they just didn't get it, or it's just not their
cup of tea, or not quite what they were looking for right now...ON TO THE NEXT"
is in major denial. They are kidding themselves that their craft is sufficient
for the job. Most major studios, networks and production companies have far too
many projects that they are already involved in that need writers, to not
pursue you if you demonstrate a professional level of craft.
The saddest part is that, like The Emperor's New Clothes, no one tells the
writer the truth about their craft level and the writer goes on thinking that
they're fine in that department, they just need a lucky break. Or a producer
that "gets their story". They think that's all it takes to make a sale. And
they're right!
But, unless they're calling you in for meetings--at the very least-- then your
craft is not there regardless of whether they buy the script or not. Studios
routinely pay huge dollars for spec scripts from writers the studio does not
consider to be writing at a professional craft level. They are just buying the
premise and fully plan to bring in one or other of the really scarce
professional writers who have demonstrated the craft or at least they did, or
near did, once or twice on prior scripts (which is a whole other rant).
This is why the continual study and development of craft is so stressed at FmF.
The good news is that a smart screenwriter learns to read the tea leaves, knows
that no meetings means the craft was perceived as not being professional
enough, and they go to work on their craft. A *really* smart writer works daily
on their craft even when they are getting meetings.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Filmmakers Foundation is an all-volunteer organization of filmmaking
professionals dedicated to promoting cinematic storytelling craft and the
collaborative creative process in the motion picture and television industries.
More information is available at our temporary/beta (still under
construction, but we'd love your feedback) web site at:
http://members.aol.com/newfilmkrs
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sakar
>The good news is that a smart screenwriter learns to read the tea leaves, knows
>that no meetings means the craft was perceived as not being professional
>enough, and they go to work on their craft. A *really* smart writer works daily
>on their craft even when they are getting meetings.
Which is assuming that the writer in question has any interest in
writing or rewriting others' stories...
Sakar
When the dogs bark, you know you're travelling.
WriteTV
FmF wrote:
<< For a screenwriter, it's a *very* different situation. If they are saying
"no" and not at least calling you in for a meeting, there is, generally
speaking, only *one* reason: your craft is not up to professional standards. >>
Wow. A FmF post I actually *agree* with.
As a writer, if you're continually getting a "pass," you have to look at the
WORK as the reason for all those passes -- because as a writer, your work
speaks for you.
Prodcos, agents, pros who don't know you won't usually tell you *why* it's a
pass -- you have to try and figure that out on your own. That's where your
writer friends and/or writers groups can help -- giving you an objective
evaluation of your work (or as objective as one can get in this business).
If the script has problems, fix them. If your writing overall is lacking in
some area, work on that. Don't ignore the advice or notes you get, especially
if the same problems keep popping up -- it's like my mama always said...
If ten people tell you you're dead, lay down.
Genia
-----------------------------------------------
"Have you still got your thumbs?"
- THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, "It May Look Like a Walnut," written by Carl Reiner
Deckard
Now with all that said how should one go about working on their craft?
WriteTV
<< Now with all that said how should one go about working on their craft? >>
On the off chance that you're an incredibly new writer who's totally serious...
Read scripts.
Read books.
Get feedback on your work.
Rewrite your work.
Watch movies and/or TV, whatever applies.
Read more scripts.
Rewrite some more.
Write something new.
Find or start a writers group.
Read this newsgroup.
Read everything posted at Wordplay (www.wordplayer.com).
Post more specific questions.
dogg...@my-dejanews.com
> Post more specific questions.
>
You don't need to suppose I am a bright green novice at screenwriting, I am.
Your post was very encouraging however, because once I admitted I wanted to
pursue this as a career my, first actions were exzactly what you listed (in
addition to purchasing a word processor. Afterall, my spelling is atrocious)
Except I have not been posting any questions for fear of sounding as unskilled
as I am. So at your prompt, here I go.
After I have finished the screenplay I am writing, if I would like to get
feedback from this group, how should I go about doing that? I get the
feeling it may not be a safe thing to do. Also, is it 'okay'. What I mean
is, does it frustrate you all when someone posts a screenplay?
I have no problem with paying for an informed consultant. I do however have
a problem with paying for bad advice. It seems to me it is very much like
therapists. You could get an unbiased well informed counsel, but you could
not. Am I being paranoid? How do you choose a qualified reader?
I have trouble making my screenplays fit into a 'formula' and retain their
voice. The advice in this area seems very torn. What do you have to say.
Thats all for now.
WriteTV
<< I have not been posting any questions for fear of sounding as unskilled as I
am. So at your prompt, here I go. >>
Good for you! Remember -- there are no stupid questions. Occasionally newbies
might get flamed a bit for asking something really basic, but mostly we'll just
send you to the FAQ or a book or something.
<< After I have finished the screenplay I am writing, if I would like to get
feedback from this group, how should I go about doing that? I get the feeling
it may not be a safe thing to do. Also, is it 'okay'. What I mean is, does it
frustrate you all when someone posts a screenplay? >>
There are a couple ways to get feedback from this group. The most effective
way is to post something like "would anyone like to read my script and give me
feedback?" If people are willing, they'll contact you directly. The *least*
effective way is to post it here. Don't do that. Really pisses people off,
and isn't exactly safe (as in, somebody could appropriate it).
<< I have no problem with paying for an informed consultant. I do however have
a problem with paying for bad advice. It seems to me it is very much like
therapists. You could get an unbiased well informed counsel, but you could
not. Am I being paranoid? How do you choose a qualified reader? >>
Try not to pay for coverage if you can help it. There are too many other
avenues.
Honestly, the absolute best way to get feedback on your work is to find or
start a writers group. In your other post (which I'll respond to later) you
mention you're in college. Does your school have a screenwriting program, or
film program? If it does, ask some of the professors to recommend people for a
writers group, or ask if there's an existing group you could join.
Another alternative -- Jeff Miholer, a sometime poster here (used to be more
frequent -- Jeff? Where you been, hon?), started what he calls the
"Screenwriters Internetwork." This is a framework where writers form online or
e-mail writers groups and exchange their work for feedback. I don't have the
URL for his website handy -- anyone?
<< I have trouble making my screenplays fit into a 'formula' and retain their
voice. The advice in this area seems very torn. What do you have to say. >>
I'm a firm believer in not following formulas. (Odd that I would say that,
being a TV writer and all.) I'm also a firm believer that whatever you write
on spec (i.e., not something someone hires you to write) should be written with
passion -- it should be something you care about, and it should reflect you and
your voice as much as possible. That's what "They" look for in a writer -- an
original, unique voice. So I say, screw formula and write it the way you want.
Hope this helps...
Steven William
> Another alternative -- Jeff Miholer, a sometime poster here (used to be more
> frequent -- Jeff? Where you been, hon?), started what he calls the
> "Screenwriters Internetwork." This is a framework where writers form online or
> e-mail writers groups and exchange their work for feedback. I don't have the
> URL for his website handy -- anyone?
Right here -- http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~miholer/network.html
Steve
Rich Wilson
[snip]
> Another alternative -- Jeff Miholer, a sometime poster here
> (used to be more frequent -- Jeff? Where you been, hon?),
> started what he calls the "Screenwriters Internetwork."
> This is a framework where writers form online or
> e-mail writers groups and exchange their work for feedback.
> I don't have the URL for his website handy -- anyone?
Hi,
Part of his site is linked from the mini-FAQ, posted here just a day
or two ago. The Internetwork itself is linked somewhere on my site,
from the Film Writing page I believe.
However, Jeff recently told me that he's running low on time to
continue the work of coordinating groups and getting people hooked up.
That's why I didn't suggest this process to the "doggsbite" person in
my reply elsewhere. Didn't want to add to Jeff's burden.
He may notice this and weigh in with an answer, but in case he
doesn't, there's the story on that subject. Hope it helps.
--
Rich Wilson
http://www.communicator.com
Rich Wilson
dogg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Post more specific questions.
> >
[snip]
> After I have finished the screenplay I am writing, if I would
> like to get feedback from this group, how should I go about doing
> that?
Not. You don't do it in the newsgroup per se.
Instead, people sometimes post screenplays *on their own websites*,
and ask m.w.s. users to come visit, read, and comment. Or they
exchange e-mail, using the group to make the general invitation. But
in my opinion (fairly widely shared, I think) it is *not*
advisable/acceptable to post feature scripts, or any file as large as
that, to the newsgroup. This has to do with how this resource is best
used. It's simply too much bandwidth expended for things that only a
very few people are likely to read that closely, if at all.
Again, critiques should take place in small, local, in-person writing
groups; in seminars or college courses; or in professional
consultations. As noted, you may also find people willing to do it via
e-mail by posting requests in m.w.s. or elsewhere.
> I have no problem with paying for an informed consultant. I do
> however have a problem with paying for bad advice. It seems to
> me it is very much like therapists. You could get an unbiased
> well informed counsel, but you could not. Am I being paranoid?
> How do you choose a qualified reader?
Ask yourself: how does one define "qualified reader?" William Goldman
is famous, or infamous, for describing Hollywood as a place where
"Nobody knows anything." Translation: even smart, experienced people
in Hollywood can misjudge scripts or mangle a movie production. Nobody
is ever right 100% of the time.
This means that a writer must develop his/her own "wisdom" about
the craft; a tough hide; and a lot of patience. With that combination,
you will know just how many grains of salt to take with any advice you
hear. And a lot depends on who you know, and whether you know them
well enough to ask favors from them (like free consultation, which can
be a very large favor in some cases.)
If you elect to go with a professional analyst, writing credits may or
may not mean a thing. I'd suggest instead just asking around about
people's reputations -- their sincerity and reliability. Then, if you
can afford it, get opinions from two reputable analysts. Their input,
and your own instincts, should work together into a conclusion you can
learn from.
> I have trouble making my screenplays fit into a 'formula' and
> retain their voice.
"Formula" is a bugaboo that gets in people's heads excessively. I
think there really is no "formula" -- there's just bad writing that
gets purchased because it falls into categories that have previously
made money for somebody. It strikes me that perhaps you are saying is
that you have not developed a "voice" that applies to all the elements
in a script (story, character, dialogue, theme, whatever). That simply
comes from experience.
Another angle is that many beginning writers make the mistaken
assumption that their departures from good writing practices are part
of their "voice," for example: writing lengthy character descriptions
that include excessive internal elements that can't be visualized on a
screen. MANY first-time screenplays read like novels, with excessive
description, excessive dialogue. Perhaps they do too much exposition
via dialogue or other clumsy devices, when there are better, more
cinematic alternatives being overlooked.
In any case, it takes most writers more than one screenplay to even
develop something like a "voice" and to master all the craft issues.
So I'd worry about the formula issues later on, and concentrate now on
learning and practice. Meanwhile, Genia's advice is good: follow your
heart and your instincts.
This issue has been overworked within m.w.s. too many times. There
is no final, blanket answer. So, if you read enough messages, and
enough website articles, and enough magazines, and enough
screenwriting books, and if you meet writers and talk to them...
somewhere in that process you'll develop an instinct for it. And at
that point, you will understand just how hard it is to convey to
others, as I am trying to do here. :-)
Hope this helps.
Jacob Weinstein
> I have trouble making my screenplays fit into a 'formula' and retain their
> voice. The advice in this area seems very torn. What do you have to say.
I would say that it depends on what you mean by "formula."
If you mean hookers with hearts of gold, rule-breaking cops who get in
trouble with their bosses, or anything that appeared in the "15 Phrases I
Promise Never To Use" thread, then by all means, throw formula out the
window.
But if you mean the basic rules of dramatic structure--formulas like "Your
character should be faced with a series of obstacles of increasing
intensity," or "Avoid overly expository dialogue"-- then I would strongly
recommend that you stick with formula. At least, stick with it until
you've mastered it.
If you look at the early works of pretty much every great groundbreaking
artist--the folks who broke every rule in the book--you'll find that they
spent the early years of their careers mastering those rules. Then, when
they got around to breaking them, they knew exactly what the point of each
rule was, and what was gained and lost by breaking it.
Of course, the hard part is knowing whether a particular rule is a
dramatic structure rule or a cliche rule. One way of telling is to ask
yourself, "Does following this formula prevent me from having to think
deeply?" Structure rules generally require more careful thought, because
they force you to come up with new ideas; cliche rules generally let you
get away with minimal effort, because they substitute for your own
creativity.
Best,
Jacob Weinstein
--
To reply to me by personal e-mail, spell "edu" correctly in my e-mail address.
wcma...@compuserve.com
Rich Wilson <in...@communicator.com> wrote:
Rich (how you doing?),
A really good post.
> I think) it is *not*
> advisable/acceptable to post feature scripts, or any file as large as
> that, to the newsgroup. This has to do with how this resource is best
> used. It's simply too much bandwidth expended for things that only a
> very few people are likely to read that closely, if at all.
Over there on that Compuserve place, we often post the first five pages of a
script for public ridicule. The idea being that craft problems will often
show up in a sample that small (like your overly internal/detailed character
intro example) and can be discussed and 'work shopped' online. You get a
fair number of people with enough time to read 5 pages and respond.
This doesn't help with story/plot/structure/character arc/concept/etc. For
that you need a full read. But it's nice to know the sentences work, that
your writing is understandable and effective... before you take up someone's
time reading the whole 110 pages.
I posted 6 pages from one of my scripts here as an example to a writer who
took 40 pages to intro their characters. It was easier for me to SHOW a way
to quickly introduce character/theme/inner conflict (plus hook the reader).
If we can help one writer improve their craft before they write something
like "Hit Me", it will be a better world.
- Bill
--
The Secrets Of Action Screenwriting
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/wcmartell
Rich Wilson
>
> In article <36277B6E...@communicator.com>,
> Rich Wilson <in...@communicator.com> wrote:
>
> Rich (how you doing?),
>
> A really good post.
Why, thank you sir. I am doing well. :-)
> > I think) it is *not*
> > advisable/acceptable to post feature scripts, or any file as large as
> > that, to the newsgroup. This has to do with how this resource is best
> > used. It's simply too much bandwidth expended for things that only a
> > very few people are likely to read that closely, if at all.
>
> Over there on that Compuserve place, we often post the first five
> pages of a script for public ridicule. The idea being that craft
> problems will often show up in a sample that small (like your overly
> internal/detailed character intro example) and can be discussed and
> 'work shopped' online. You get a fair number of people with enough
> time to read 5 pages and respond.
>
> This doesn't help with story/plot/structure/character arc/concept/etc.
> For that you need a full read. But it's nice to know the sentences
> work, that your writing is understandable and effective... before you
> take up someone's time reading the whole 110 pages.
>
> I posted 6 pages from one of my scripts here as an example to a writer
> who took 40 pages to intro their characters. It was easier for me to
> SHOW a way to quickly introduce character/theme/inner conflict (plus
> hook the reader).
>
> If we can help one writer improve their craft before they write
> something like "Hit Me", it will be a better world.
>
> - Bill
That's a very good example of when some brief postings, in SP format,
are viable in the newsgroup setting. "Show, don't tell!" And
Compuserve is indeed a great place for this kind of thing, as you say.
The other good example in the newsgroup here is Skip Press's
periodic thrashing of m.w.s. users (and of all storytelling
conventions) in those short scripts lately. Hell, in the last one he
was paraphrasing Sartre from "No Exit." Wow! ;-)
But seriously... I wish I had time to hang at the forum on Compuserve
more, but I fear that the combination with this group might result in
a complete loss of control over my work schedule, which I have been
bringing back to earth lately. I'll try to come by now and then. In
the meantime, say hi to John Hill for me. :-)
JJones2348
<<Over there on that Compuserve place, we often post the first five pages of a
script for public ridicule. >>
Sounds interesting. Can you tell us *where* on that Compuserve place?
Thanks.
Lou Grantt
>Bill Martell wrote:
Allow me.
It's in the Showbiz Forum (GO SHOWBIZ) in sections 15 and 16, the
screenwriting sections.
Lou
*********************************************************************
Lou Grantt, Editor, HOLLYWOOD SCRIPTWRITER
http://hollywoodscriptwriter.com
*********************************************************************
Screenplay Consultations
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lgrantt
*********************************************************************
wcma...@compuserve.com
jjone...@aol.com (JJones2348) wrote:
> Bill Martell wrote:
>
> <<Over there on that Compuserve place, we often post the first five pages of a
> script for public ridicule. >>
>
> Sounds interesting. Can you tell us *where* on that Compuserve place?
Showbiz Forum. Two screenwriting sections, no waiting. Regulars include out
leader John "Quigley Down Under" Hill, Mark "Time Cop"/"The Mask" Verheiden,
Pat "Homer And Eddie" Cirillo, Greg Thompson who used to write for "Fired
Up", Bill Jones who just sold a script to Warners called "Smuggler's Moon",
and a bunch of other talented folks.
Richard Milton
Jacob Weinstein wrote:
>If you look at the early works of pretty much every great groundbreaking
>artist--the folks who broke every rule in the book--you'll find that they
>spent the early years of their careers mastering those rules. Then, when
>they got around to breaking them, they knew exactly what the point of each
>rule was, and what was gained and lost by breaking it.
Hi Jacob,
Your advice seems like very sound common sense and I'm not
in any way challenging you, but I'm very intrigued by this
statement. It's one you often find made here and in other
newsgroups relating to anything creative.
At first glance it sounds perfectly good advice -- walk
before you can run. And we all know that, as beginners,
we wanted to run before we were ready.
But I can't seem to find any real life concrete examples
to back it up. Can you (or anyone here) provide a
specific concrete example of a groundbreaking film maker
making early films that abide by all or many of the rules?
I haven't been able to find one.
Or can anyone provide an example of any groundbreaking
artist in any field starting out by conforming? Again I
haven't been able to find any.
Most of the people that I'm familiar with and whose work
I admire seem to have gone straight in with
rule-breaking, people like Orson Welles, John Cassavettes,
Truffaut, Scorsese.
On the other hand people who've made a great success out
of films that obey the rules (like Speilberg) seem
always to have been conformists ("Duel" and his TV stuff
being classic 3-act conflict-based heroic drama.)
Just intrigued by the dissonance between received wisdom
and the empirical evidence I've seen.
Richard
Steven Weller
>>But I can't seem to find any real life concrete examples
to back it up. Can you (or anyone here) provide a
specific concrete example of a groundbreaking film maker
making early films that abide by all or many of the rules?
I haven't been able to find one.<<
Try Alfred Hitchcock. His early work, while very good, was also
very traditional. is work as a studio director in Great Britian
(Elstree?) was very much "by the rules." But look at his later
work, Vertigo esp. He had, in large part, freed himself of the
conventions of realistic narrative filmmaking. But even with the
level of surrealism and the experiments with form, the individual
scenes are still constructed the way the Swiss make watches. He
not only learned, but mastered his craft, before he really started
breaking the rules.
>>Or can anyone provide an example of any groundbreaking
artist in any field starting out by conforming? Again I
haven't been able to find any.<<
Try Pablo Piccaso. He started out as a represenational artist and
a very good one. His work as such was shown and sold, long before
he made the leap into cubism and other abstractions. In later life,
he was asked in an interview why his early work seemed more like what
one would expect from an older, more conservative artist while his
later output had an exuberance that seemed to be the hallmark of
youth. His reply was, it takes a long time to learn to be young.
You ight also look at Frank Lloyd Wright, I. M. Pei, Vincent Van Gogh,
and many others. It is actually a fairly typical progression in fine
art, and in film it is by no means unheard-of. There will always be
geniuses like Welles and Truffaut (one an accomplished dramatist on
stage and in radio before he tried his hand at movies, the other a
critic and film scholar who had forgotten more about traditional film
technique than most directors will ever know, befor he ever picked up
a camera himself) but they are the exception rather than the rule.
ost people coming into the art form tend to think that they're the next
great artist, but simple numbers suggest that most of them are wrong.
As you work, you'll find out if those numbers are working for you or
against you.
Casseveties' films were groundbreaking more for their frank handeling
on subject matter, and while well written were often technically inept,
or perhaps rudementary. Scorcese keeps remaking the same two films, over
and over again, with higher budgets and prettier women.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
Dstrbd042
>a very good one. His work as such was shown and sold, long before
>he made the leap into cubism and other abstractions. In later life,
>he was asked in an interview why his early work seemed more like what
>one would expect from an older, more conservative artist while his
>later output had an exuberance that seemed to be the hallmark of
>youth. His reply was, it takes a long time to learn to be young.
"When I was a child, I used to draw like Raphael, but it took me a lifetime to
learn to draw like a child" --Pablo Picasso
-Di§turbed
Dstr...@aol.com
MorganUK
>Or can anyone provide an example of any groundbreaking
>artist in any field starting out by conforming? Again I
>haven't been able to find any.
>I admire seem to have gone straight in with
>rule-breaking, people like
Orson Welles - good career in traditional radio broadcast
John Cassavetes - I don't know enough about his early work
Scorsese - Alice doesn't live here any more
The example I keep coming back to is Picasso or Van Gogh's early drawings.
These guys knew how to draw and paint like the best portraiture. Then they went
their own way.
I guess with film, the process is so long and a master is lucky to make five
films of note that you have to start breaking the rules early.
>On the other hand people who've made a great success out
>of films that obey the rules (like Speilberg) seem
>always to have been conformists ("Duel" and his TV stuff
>being classic 3-act conflict-based heroic drama.)
Spielberg is only now breaking the rules - Schindler's Ralph Fiennes bing a
(briefly) empathetic character. I think we may see some truly clever
experimentation from this guy soon.
Or maybe that's just hopeful.
--
Morgan Holt
"I'm as honest as the day is long. That longer the daylight, the less I do
wrong."
Rich Wilson
>
> Jacob Weinstein wrote:
>
> > If you look at the early works of pretty much every great
> > groundbreaking artist--the folks who broke every rule in the
> > book--you'll find that they spent the early years of their
> > careers mastering those rules. Then, when they got around to
> > breaking them, they knew exactly what the point of each
> > rule was, and what was gained and lost by breaking it.
>
> Hi Jacob,
>
> Your advice seems like very sound common sense and I'm not
> in any way challenging you, but I'm very intrigued by this
> statement. It's one you often find made here and in other
> newsgroups relating to anything creative.
>
> At first glance it sounds perfectly good advice -- walk
> before you can run. And we all know that, as beginners,
> we wanted to run before we were ready.
>
> to back it up. Can you (or anyone here) provide a
> specific concrete example of a groundbreaking film maker
> making early films that abide by all or many of the rules?
One problem is the assumption of "groundbreaking" or "breaking every
rule in the book." I'd like to hear about ANY filmmaker who breaks
EVERY rule and finds screen space in the U.S. When was the last Godard
festival you saw at a neighborhood multiplex?
I think Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" was a very bold
film, BUT "The Age of Innocence" was *very* "conventional" in most
respects. "Raging Bull" used a pretty loose narrative style and some
distinctive camera work, but "GoodFellas" was, again, relatively
accessible and straightforward.
As a director, Scorsese is very expressive, but also often very
controlled. And he usually works with strong-voiced screenwriters, as
opposed to doing both the writing and directing. The foundation of
"Last Temptation" had as much to do with Nikos Kazantzakis and Paul
Schrader as it did with Scorsese himself; and the look of the film
owed a lot to DP Michael Ballhaus and Production Designer John Beard.
I mean, I still think of it as "a Scorsese film" -- but the
consistency of his collaborations over the years (DeNiro, Keitel,
Ballhaus, many others) shows the extent to which his work is a joint
effort.
Anyway, if you're looking for somebody in film who started
"conventional" and went "more unconventional" later on, you should be
looking at Coppola. Co-wrote the script for "Patton," among other
things. Later ended up bombing with the very unconventional "One From
the Heart" and in between, made what I consider a rather
groundbreaking film in "Apocalypse Now."
Then there's John Sayles, author of both "Piranha" AND "Matewan." The
first is a Roger Corman standard, Joe Dante directing. But check the
latter -- Sayles as writer *and* director -- for very unconventional
use of narrative structure (narrator wraparound), character arc (who
is the protagonist?), theme, and so on.
There are many others, but I do have work to do today!
> Or can anyone provide an example of any groundbreaking
> artist in any field starting out by conforming? Again I
> haven't been able to find any.
Picasso has been cited already. Van Gogh might be a candidate.
Leonardo da Vinci did a lot of very "conventional" work in his career,
along with some great innovations. I'm not equipped to draw you a
before/after timeline for him, though.
Jimi Hendrix stands out as an example in the music field. Played a lot
of traditional blues, jazz, and R&B stuff before going solo and
setting new standards in acid-rock guitar. Duke Ellington, George
Gershwin...
Sitting at one's PC, it is hard to pull numerous examples from memory,
but they most assuredly abound.
> Most of the people that I'm familiar with and whose work
> I admire seem to have gone straight in with
> rule-breaking, people like Orson Welles, John Cassavettes,
> Truffaut, Scorsese.
What "rules" are you claiming that Truffaut broke? To me, his work
speaks about sensitivity and observation -- not stylistic innovation.
When talking to beginning screenwriters, of whom this group has many,
I think we should be avoiding the mythology that any of them will,
single-handedly, turn Hollywood on its ear with a screenplay that
ignores "every rule" of conventional story-telling. Ain't gonna
happen, unless they produce it themselves. And on that path, you still
have to deal with distributors to reach an audience.
This is not meant to be discouraging. It's simple reality. It's hard
enough to sell a script of any kind. I keep reading messages from
young writers who, with little evidence to support them, believe that
they have vision beyond that of anybody in the business. By remaining
in this fantasy world, they feel comfortable blaming other people's
"conformism" for their own failure to sell a script.
I think, instead, we should be encouraging newbies to view these
"conventions" as a challenge. Personally, I see "restrictions" as
being extremely inspiring to one's creativity. By contrast, this theme
I see here -- consumed by an obsession with an indefinable "formula"
that supposedly rules every corner of the film industry -- *hinders*
the growth of new writers, and dampens their ability to learn from
others' work (or their own mistakes).
Jacob Weinstein
> But I can't seem to find any real life concrete examples
> to back it up. Can you (or anyone here) provide a
> specific concrete example of a groundbreaking film maker
> making early films that abide by all or many of the rules?
In addition to the other examples folks have given: D.W. Griffith directed
more the 500 (!) movies before making Birth of a Nation. (Most of the 500
were short movies.)
> Or can anyone provide an example of any groundbreaking
> artist in any field starting out by conforming?
Well, I think just about every groundbreaking classical composer started
out by imitating (or very closely studying) their predecessors. Mozart did
a lot of Bach transcriptions, and Beethoven started off sounding a lot
like Mozart.
George Gershwin produced some of the best examples of traditional popular
songs before writing the revolutionary "Rhapsody in Blue."
Before writing avante-gard works like "Finnegans Wake" and "Ulysess,"
James Joyce wrote a bunch of straightforward (but beautiful) short
stories. Gabriel Garcia Marquez's early fiction is traditionally
realistic; it's only later in his career that the brilliant
magical-realist stuff creeps in.
> Most of the people that I'm familiar with and whose work
> I admire seem to have gone straight in with
> rule-breaking, people like Orson Welles, John Cassavettes,
> Truffaut, Scorsese.
Welles is definitely a rare exception to this rule. Yeah, he had lots of
experience with stage and radio drama, but those are very different
fields.
On the other hand, Truffaut and Scorsese were both devoted students of
film long before their first full-length film was ever shot.
On top of that, Truffaut made several short films before "The 400 Blows,"
and Scorsese made several student works before "Boxcar Bertha." I haven't
seen the early stuff of either of these men, but I'd guess it wasn't as
ambitious as their later stuff. Can anybody who has seen Truffaut's first
shorts, or Scorsese' "Vesuvius VI" or "What's A Nice Girl Like You Doing
In A Place Like This?" tell us about them?
B.J. West
> Or can anyone provide an example of any groundbreaking
> artist in any field starting out by conforming? Again I
> haven't been able to find any.
I know one!!! Andy Warhol spent many years as a commercial illustrator before
becoming a cornerstone of the avant garde. A friend of mine even has a cookbook
from the early 60's, filled with those kooky, stylized spot illustrations of
chickens and fish that were all but mandatory at the time. Art credit: Andrew
Warhol.
Beej
--
----------
B.J. West - Art Direction, Design, Animation
http://www.strafe.com/bj
----------
Strafe's Guide to Streetspeak!
http://www.strafe.com
----------
"Writing is easy. All you do is sit staring at a blank sheet
of paper until the drops of blood form on your forehead."
- Gene Fowler
Douglas Newman
True story, with relevance, I think.
Many moons ago I was studying music theory at Berkeley School of
Music in Boston. Orchestration, arrangement, harmonization,
instrumentation, Italian 5ths, appogiaturras, German 6ths, trills,
arpeggios, etc. You name it, we learned it.
And at the end of all of this learning, and cramming and stuffing
I got this...
"Ok. There you go! Now you can throw any amount of notes on any
particular time signature you want. You'll not only know what you
are throwing but you'll also know *why* you are throwing it."
I think that was the best lesson I got from there...
Cool story, huh?
Doug
D C Harris
ric...@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton) wrote:
Or can anyone provide an example of any groundbreaking
artist in any field starting out by conforming? Again I
haven't been able to find any.
D C Harris writes:-
Orsen Welles - straight from the Victorian
novel. The difficulty is not original finding artists
noted for originality in their early their work - thousands
of them - but in finding an artist who was a groundbreaker
from the start. Picked from thin air, D H Lawrence possibly,
James Joyce if you like that type of thing, Harold
Pinter. Also there is the question of format versus
substance.
Very original art can have a standard package - Tennessee
Williams. *Duel* I thought a very daring little movie -
how many times can you watch a film were you know
the damn story from start to finish yet still get hooked?
Art house stuff you mention? Well, yes.
Bob Miller
>In article <19981016201041...@ng127.aol.com>,
> jjone...@aol.com (JJones2348) wrote:
>> Bill Martell wrote:
>>
>> <<Over there on that Compuserve place, we often post the first five pages of a
>> script for public ridicule. >>
>>
>> Sounds interesting. Can you tell us *where* on that Compuserve place?
>
>
>Showbiz Forum. Two screenwriting sections, no waiting. Regulars include out
>leader John "Quigley Down Under" Hill, Mark "Time Cop"/"The Mask" Verheiden,
>Pat "Homer And Eddie" Cirillo, Greg Thompson who used to write for "Fired
>Up", Bill Jones who just sold a script to Warners called "Smuggler's Moon",
>and a bunch of other talented folks.
>
>- Bill
Does one need to join CompuServe to get to the Showbiz Forum -- or is
it available to anybody who's on the web?
Bob
Brevity
You can get to it via the web, but in order to participate in the
messages, you have to be a Compuserve member. I find it easier to
participate there directly, with a third party off line reader.
Compuserve's Showbiz-Media forum is the best place, open to the
public, I have found online for scriptwriters. It doesn't get the
volume that you get here, but the quality is very high.
Bob Stone
Associate Editor
Hollywood Scriptwriter
http://www.hollywoodscriptwriter.com
(remove the x to reply via email)