The Lifespan of a Television Show

My dear friend and mentor Jeff Lyons, and independent writer, producer and bon vivant has been deep in the trenches lately, developing a TV series with producers foreign and domestic. And it's been one helluva ride. Today he shares a particular frustration with us: the natural lifespan of a television show:

***

Forgive me for letting off steam, but I’m pissed. I’m working on developing a TV series with a company, and it is a grand, fun, fulfilling, and educational experience. I’m really having a great time. Yes, you hear the “but” coming a mile away, don’t you?

But--the mindset that rules how TV series operate is crazy making. First, let me make clear, my middle name is not Pollyanna. I have been trying to produce film and TV content for a long time and have been around the block, swum with the sharks, danced with the devil, and shoveled my own share of s@#it to get projects down the road to development. TV exists to sell soap; it is not an instrument of entertainment, it is a sales tool. TV shows are aired by networks to create a reason for people to watch commercials, not because they are pursuing high-art. This is not true for the Internet (yet), but it is the nature of TV. In short, I have no illusions. I really do get it.

But--with that said, why can’t we just let a TV show have it’s natural life span? Why do we have to drag out a series for nine seasons because economically it makes “sense”? My beef with this comes up now because I’m currently beating my head against this wall with my colleagues. I’m telling them that the show we're trying to put up is a one season killer-diller, any more than that and it will be diluted. They insist it has to “have legs” past one season, otherwise there will be no incentive for the suits and executives to do the show. They simply won’t spend the money if they can’t get it back eight billion fold; meaning the show has to have a multi-season potential.

But--what if it doesn’t? What if it’s just a perfect one-season show? Why can’t it just live its lifespan naturally and die with dignity? Why does it have to go on life support with cranked up subplots, dumb-ass new characters, and forced plot lines? Whatever happened to a dignified death? Well, the answer, of course, is what I’ve just been describing. The damn show is making money! And, actors, directors, writers, etc., are making residuals! Now, certainly this is not a black and white situation. There are mini-series, limited series, etc. And these work fine. They make money and the trend for limited series is actually increasing (in cable anyway).

But--The problem I’m describing is still the prevailing zeitgeist. I’m a bonehead for suggesting this, but aren’t we all just drinking the network/advertiser Kool Aid? Isn’t there an alternative? Yes--Virginia, there is.

But--It will take guts, courage (the two aren’t the same), business savvy, and creative moxie. The solution is to let a show end naturally. Don’t push it, don’t extend it, and don’t put it on life support. If you limit shows to 13 or 26 weeks max, then two things can occur: first, viewers have a truly satisfying experience with the show, because it doesn’t fizzle out and “die” from being forced past it’s natural lifespan. Rather, the show follows its natural course and, like a good book, ends right on time. Viewer is happy, happy, happy. But, advertiser is pissed, pissed, pissed. They’ve just lost a cash cow. Right? Not necessarily.

With shorter series, networks have more space for more shows. With shorter series, more producers get their shows up, more writers are working, more revenue flows, more dollars are out there to buy more soap, and there are more and varied shows on the air to show advertising. Shorter shows don’t have to mean lost revenue. More shows means more creative work is available to be shown. How many great shows never see the light of day simply because networks won’t pull their cash cows from the airwaves to make room for new blood, simply because they are afraid of losing ad dollars? If they are smart (and they are) new product can be put up each season, with more in the pipeline. It can be win-win! If, if, if the creative will is there and the business savvy is in place to make it work. And I believe both those things are out there … somewhere.

But--I hear the wail of despair, “How can we pull performing shows from the air, when they are performing! Are you nuts?” Yes, I am. But that’s beside the point. What I’m suggesting is that even though these shows are performing economically, they probably stopped performing creatively a long time ago. I think that artificially sustaining shows that have died creatively by grasping for new story lines to keep viewer interest only shows that a show has stopped being its intended form and is not being “forced” to keep going despite the fact that it has really ended. Viewers watch anyway, because they’re hooked. That’s a good thing, but why not just hook them on something new, maybe something even better? And in the hooking, more work is generated, more revenue spent, etc., etc., and the great wheel of life in Hollywood continues profitably.

But--I’m not totally pig-headed about this. Seinfeld was the kind of show that could have gone on forever. It’s just the nature of the beast. It wasn’t about anything anyway, so there was not storyline to blow up or mutilate. But, how about Lost, which has been lost for seasons. It was done after its first season. What a perfect example of a show that had nowhere to go after thirteen shows. And then there is Battlestar Galactica, one of the best reborn series in TV history. Three seasons and the producers had the sense to end it. BRAVO! But, it’s spinoff , Caprica, is in the works, so we’ll see. We’ll see.

Be clear that I am not lumping all shows together here. Some shows naturally extend, most don't. What I'm railing against is something like the following:

Cheers, popular 1980s sitcom. Great show, great audience, but as with all great things it started to come to it's natural end. But, not wanting to lose the demographic and the time-slot that was generating lots of cash, the producers and network decided to "give the show legs." The decision was made to make a change so they could come up with new story lines to keep their audience. So--what did they do? They had Sam, the womanizing bar-keep fall in love with Daine, the snobbish intellectual waitress. That their mutual antagonism and oil-water banter was the heart of the show and it's success was of no consequence. Some brilliant exec probably thought, "Hey, if they get on each other's nerves as co-workers, how much more fun will it be if they're boyfriend and girlfriend?" Nice idea, lousy reality. The change altered the shows dynamic and it died faster than the first round Bush bailout bill in Congress today. They killed the show to save it, rather than just letting it go out with dignity. This is what I'm talking about ... stupid changes in a show to try to keep it alive. This is the norm, not the exception. This is the problem.

So--To summarize: Shows are like life forms. Some are meant to be Galapagos tortoises (daytime soaps) and live forever, while others are more like a Gastrotrich (multi-cellular bug that lives 3 days). Most shows are more like the Gastrotrich. We can still have profitable shows if we are smart enough to know when a show REALLY needs to die. Viewers can have a better experience, more work will be generated with more slots to fill, more work means more advertising and soap selling, and residuals continue to flow. And creatively things can grow exponentially. It’s a Win Win Win.

But--all the pragmatists and my grounded-in-the-real-world contemporaries out there will, without doubt, come back on all this with, “You’re dreaming! Good luck selling that argument. If they buy this, I’ve got a bridge in Alaska!”

A boy can only dream.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

James Wolcott on Indie Films - Ouch!

I have a love/hate relationship with Vanity Fair, the iconic cultural-society-literary-celebrity publication now in its famed second incarnation, having been revived 25 years ago and helmed by some guy then Tina Brown and now Graydon Carter (my two cents: don't change the hair).

I have been a subscriber for lo these 25 years. Love it because receiving my Vanity Fair each month is a happy-mail-box ritual and I love, in this order, the Proust Questionnaire, the letters to the editor (in which I was once anonymously soft quoted as complaining about the number of ads that appear before the table of contents unless some other chick said the same thing in the same way which is possible but let me dream) Dominic Dunne, Christopher Hitchens and James Wolcott. Hate because the copious, upscale ad content clashes mightily with my values and makes it A NIGHTMARE to find the table of freaking contents.

But yes, I do like reading about the lives of various Princess Von Furstenburg-Hapsburg-McFabulous's because it's a guilty pleasure of mine even though at the end of aforementioned guilty-pleasure bio-article, I am usually in touch with my inner angry Communist self. These people are so vain and so shallow! And so rich! LOOK at that spread of their palace-compound-castle! But ohhhhh to have a peek into such a rarefied world...

In the latest issue, the one with Marilyn Monroe on the cover, James Wolcott, erudite cultural critic, tells us of his new discovery - television. It's a really great article, actually - slightly behind the curve for Wolcott, says I - but well worth a read.

But tucked into the middle of this great article, Wolcott gets ensnared in two things: generalized, "the good old days" snobbery when it comes to indie films and witty, elliptical turns of phrase that make grasping his point an annoying exercise in parsing, well - witty, elliptical turns of phrase. To wit:

Most of these loosely-hung-together slow-metabolism vignettes remain nestled on the naturalistic surface, with mumblecore films caterpillaring into unmade beds.

Despite their supposed deviance from Hollywood formula, indie films are sometimes no better and often worse in their time-released didacticism and midafternoon droop, the characters so depleted by anomie, shrunken-head defeatism, dead-end prospects, deadbeat friends, bed-head hair, and a wardrobe of carefully selected from the dirty-clothes hamper that they can barely drag themselves to the diner to watch the new waitress tie her apron.

and

There's an overdetermined depressiveness to so many indies - noble in intent, conscientious in execution, they tell you tonally from the opening shot or the first scratchy musical note that there'll be no Shawshank Redemption at the end of this bus ride....[whereas] Television spares us the faint twitchings of twig life.

Now mind you: I have seen indie films that Wolcott is describing here, I really have. But Wolcott seems to (and it's hard to say since his writing here is quite definitely a mumblecore article caterpillaring into an unmade bed) be indicting all indie film except those of Paul Mazursky. To which I say - dude? Jim? You're making yourself sound really, really old here. There have been indie films caterpillaring into all sorts of disheveled messes as long as there have been indie films. Wake up and smell the JUNO.

We all know the power of words to persuade, romance, inflame and provoke. Anonymous internet jackasses know it (albeit unwittingly), screenwriters know it, novelists and journalists know it. And certainly Wolcott, a writer I greatly admire precisely for his rich, rambling, old-school voice knows it.

But in this article, Wolcott, like Ziggy Stardust, got sucked up into his own mind and the result is a mildly entertaining, thoroughly prejudiced, somewhat inaccurate musing on indie film. The main gist of the article is the delivery, speed and ascendance of good television, which in my view is inarguable. But -

...[whereas in indie film] there's a slumpy sameness to the dialogue delivery and body language, as if everyone were making withdrawals from the the same tired bloodbank.

Really, Jim? The majority of the time? Of course, the more movies you see, the more clear it becomes that just because a film has "indie" or "foreign" in front of it, does not automatically mean that greatness or intellectual, hipster or existential heights have been reached. But I do think Wolcott is rather letting his age show and is overlooking some of the best movies ever put to celluloid - or digital video, as it were, and as a lover of such, I take offense at the lumping together of all indie films as pretentious exercises in nothingness. Yes, yes, we all know that "indie" films aren't generally as "indie" as they used to be. But on the whole, they are one of the few outlets for filmmakers to unleash characters and dialogue that are anything but anemic blood bank withdrawals suffering from slumpy sameness and navel-gazing.

And while the ascendance of great television is inarguably a threat to the box office, great television is hardly new - there's just more of it now.

In my view, television still offers, on the whole, a vast acreage of vapid nothingness compared to indie film. Reality programs, teeny bopper musings on Vanity Fair inspired rich-life pipe dreams (a guilty pleasure but not mine) and stultifyngly dull, outdated sitcoms the success of which mystify me. Everybody Loves Raymond. Really? Did they?

For every great television show there are 10 awful shows. So let's keep our wits about us here. Wolcott's rather sweeping take on indie film as a head-up-its-own-arse exercise in nothing-muchness is too sweeping for this girl's taste.

Despite having taken exception to the midsection of this particular Wolcott piece - I recommend reading it. Because I may be complaining here, but damn I love a good writer, even if Wolcott writes the equivalent of indie-mumblecore-caterpillar-slouching-into-intellectual pretension while protesting it at the same time. Love ya, mean it Jim. Have your people call my people.

To read James Wolcott's blog, click HERE.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Short Scene Competition Winner!

Congratulations to Gerry Hayes, of Dublin, Ireland, for his short scene win here on the Rouge Wave. All three finalists were superb and Gerry's is a well deserved win. Gerry, contact the front desk to collect your prize.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Mini-W Reviews: Burn After Reading

For those of you who are new to the Rouge Wave, and there are always newcomers, the Mini-W is my 15 year old daughter. She's smart, she's savvy and she loves movies. And once in awhile when her homework is done, she reviews movies here on the Rouge Wave. Enjoy:

****
I was dragged to see Burn After Reading, starring Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, John Malkovich, and George Clooney with my dad and step mom and stepbrother. I was far from excited, but afterwards, I was SO glad they made me go. Although like most Coen Brothers productions, Burn After Reading was quite morbid, the extraordinary comedic performances by the entire cast held the sub-par plot together.

The movie starts out with John Malkovich as Osborn Cox, a washed up CIA operative being fired from his position. He then goes home to his coldhearted wife, Tilda Swinton, who is having an affair with George Clooney, a bodyguard and exercise obsessed womanizer. George Clooney links to Linda Litske (Frances McDormand), through Internet dating. Linda is an image obsessed gym worker who happens to find some files from Osborn Cox’s financial documents. Brad Pitt is a personal trainer at the gym where Linda works, and together they try and get money for the disk that they found, thinking it is CIA information.

In the end, many of the cast end up dying in rather violent and shocking ways, but the way they handle it just makes what would have been a mediocre script into a hilarious experience. Not only were the performances good, but also you could just tell that the actors had fun with this movie, and that fun jumps off the screen into you. DO NOT take the younguns to see this movie (I felt like covering my little step brother’s eyes half the time) but definitely take a couple hours to go out and see it. It will keep you laughing for a long time afterwards.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Reminder: Networking Dinner TONIGHT

This evening at 7pm, a few of my friends, some Rouge Wavers and others will be joining Derek Rydall, author of There's No Business Like Soul Business, for a networking dinner to discuss how to stay encouraged in what can be a very discouraging line of work. We will discuss how to feel more empowered and more optimistic and get unstuck from being blocked or otherwise bummed out about your writing career. We're gonna turn that frown upside down.

WHERE: Kung Pao Bistro
7853 Santa Monica Blvd
West Hollywood, CA 90046-5344
Phone: (323) 848-9888

WHEN: Sunday, Sept. 28, 7pm

PLEASE RSVP if you are interested in attending. I have already made reservations for those who will be attending but I'm sure we can squeeze a few more in.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Rain Drops Keep Fallin' On My Head...

So it was pretty sad to wake up today to the news of Paul Newman's death. But I try not to allow myself to get too sad about the passing of a writer, actor or notable personage; rather, I shoot for appreciation and gratitude. Paul Newman lived a good long life and left behind a cinematic legacy.

When I was growing up, Paul Newman and Robert Redford were the George Clooney and Brad Pitt of their time. They were the epitome of handsome, sexy, movie-stars. I am sure that I have not seen every Paul Newman performance - there are some notable absences that I plan to rectify. I have not seen HUD, for one.

The performances that spring to mind that I really loved were :

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Cool Hand Luke
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The Sting
The Color of Money

Probably my favorite was Butch Cassidy. Which, incidentally, I rewatched not long ago and while the great moments were as great as I recall, was also rather dated in a number of ways. But that movie still has one of the best movie endings ever. Who can forget that scene as Butch and Sundance talk about their next heist opportunity in Australia, knowing full well it will never happen and then rush out to a hail of bullets?

Mr. and Mrs. Bridge was a disappointment to me - I had read the books and absolutely LOVED them - (the movie collapsed two books into one movie). The performances were good but the movie just didn't deliver the same experience as the books by far.

What's your favorite Paul Newman performance?

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Managers and Writers - Group Hug

I talk to managers fairly frequently, in my ongoing networking and effort to connect writers to rep. And I obviously talk to writers about their scripts, concerns, careers and would-be careers just about every day. And when I put the two side-by-side, some interesting gaps in communication arise.

This is what I hear from writers:

Why is it SO hard to get a manager?

Why have I not heard back about my query and it's been two weeks?

My query got accepted, I sent the script and I never heard back.

My query got accepted, I sent the script, I got an email or call saying it's good but not for them; should I be excited that they took the time to call or bummed because it was a pass? The manager said to send them another one of my scripts in the future. Do they mean it?

Why does my manager not communicate with me more often?

My manager was SO excited about my script, he/she took it out but now he/she isn't really calling me back.

My manager took my script out and says he/she got positive responses, but we need to "package" the script and lately, my manager hasn't been calling me back.

My manager works for ME, right? So why isn't he/she more responsive to my calls and emails?

My manager seems a little mysterious about the actual plan for me and my script(s).

I just got my first manager. My whole life is about to change. I am already looking at new cars.

This is what I hear from managers:

I'm looking for a commercial, salable script with a HOOK

I'm looking for a script that is castable and unique and exciting

I have a number of clients who are working writers and taking care of them and their careers takes up most of my time

I get hundreds of emails on a daily basis

I'm always looking for something new but time management is a challenge

I spent a fair bit of time networking with buyers and agents for current and future clients

If I get excited about a script and take it out and don't get a fairly immediate positive reaction, to be honest, my ardor for the script cools a bit. What seemed like a sure thing just got harder and more complicated.

I wish my clients would trust that I'm doing my thing and not be too needy with emails and phone calls

My game plan changes unexpectedly sometimes; I get pulled in another direction for another, more "hot" client and that's not something I can necessarily control

I'm not interested in repping a client with ONE good script; I will look like an idiot if this writer has written a fluke script. I need to know a writer has legs.

If a script doesn't get an immediate positive response, I have to put my attention toward those clients who are generating heat; I can't make a living on writers who don't sell.

I like to develop writers with potential but there's only so many hours in a day and selling clients have to come first.

Developing a writer is very, very time-consuming. It's taking a risk. I'd rather work with writers who are self-directed, empowered and who are creative machines.

So going back to what I hear from writers:

Why is it SO hard to get a manager?
Because it's really hard to make a living as a manager. So managers are extremely selective. They can only deal with so many clients and those clients have to generate salable work. Managers cannot afford to take a risk on a script or a writer that does not smell like MONEY.

Why have I not heard back about my query and it's been two weeks?
Because the manager is inundated with other stuff and because the manager probably saw your query and didn't have an immediate positive reaction.

My query got accepted, I sent the script and I never heard back.
Because the manager is inundated with other stuff and/or the script didn't live up to the promise of the query. If it's been more than a month, chances are, the manager moved on and has long since forgotten about you.

My query got accepted, I sent the script, I got an email or call saying it's good but not for them; should I be excited that they took the time to call or bummed because it was a pass? The manager said to send them another one of my scripts in the future. Do they mean it?
You should be excited that the manager requested the script based on the query and that the manager liked something about your writing. If this manager liked you enough to call or contact you, that's quite a compliment. Keep querying other managers; you may have better luck next time.

If the manager said to hit them up with another script in the future because they liked your writing, they do mean it. But only mildly so. This is often used as a pleasant brush-off. But I would stay in touch and query your next script once it's ready because you never know; maybe this next script WILL rock the manager's world. In a lottery-like business, even if the manager was making a polite gesture only, why not take a chance on that?

Why does my manager not communicate with me more often?
Because he/she is busy. And possibly because he/she is not feeling the electric-love-excitement about your script anymore. The red-hot crush is waning. As in the dating world, if you call MORE to find out what's going on, the ardor will cool faster and faster.

My manager was SO excited about my script, he/she took it out but now he/she isn't really calling me back.
Because the script went out and the manager didn't get an excited response and now his or her attention has been taken up by another, more promising script and writer.

My manager took my script out and says he/she got positive responses, but we need to "package" the script and lately, my manager hasn't been calling me back.
Because when buyers say the writing is good but they'd need to package it to get it off the ground, that's not exactly the response the manager would have hoped for. He or she may be strategizing some packaging reads through relationships with talent or directors but this script sale just got more challenging. This is a true test of the manager's passion and faith for the project; if he or she is SURE this script is going to make a great movie, he or she will put a lot of effort in at this juncture. But if there's any doubt...the ardor will cool. Quickly.

My manager works for ME, right? So why isn't he/she more responsive to my calls and emails?
Well, not exactly. Think of this as a partnership. It's a symbiotic relationship; your manager is your champion until or unless you aren't going to be an earner. It's hard to say, definitively, whether your script is or is not going to be received well on the market. If you think the market and what sells is confusing, try being a manager. They have a stronger sense but imagine that your mortgage payment is riding on your judgment.

Your manager cannot make a living unless clients are selling projects and getting assignments. Think about that: no income coming in - unless there is a deal that goes through. So it's time versus money versus faith. How much time would YOU put into a writer who is not generating income? Will the writer generate income in six months? A year? How long are you willing to work for free?

My manager seems a little mysterious about the actual plan for me and my script(s).
Because the manager is busy with several clients. Because the plan may shift from day to day or week to week. Because the manager is using a finely calibrated sense of judgment and experience and has to follow up on strong leads and relationships first and then go to softer relationships second. But they never really know where that opening will be found. Asking your manager for a clear sense of the plan is great but once the plan starts shifting and responding to the realities of the market, bugging your manager is a little like being the kid in the backseat, constantly bugging mom or dad, upfront, driving the car, trying to navigate a complicated freeway interchange. Are we there yet? Are we going to take that offramp? Look at THAT shiny building! I gotta pee! And the manager is the parent, upfront, trying to focus on getting from point A to point B and grows increasingly distracted and annoyed by the backseat passenger.

I just got my first manager. My whole life is about to change. I am already looking at new cars.
Be excited. Be motivated. Use this feeling to keep writing and to feel validated. But also be realistic. This may change everything - and it may end in a few short months with a frustrated fizzle. Don't put the cart ahead of the horse. Take this in stride. A whole lot of mysterious things have to align - primarily quick and strong reactions by buyers to your work - in order for this to change your life. See this as the first major step forward in terms of validation but never rest on the laurels of this accomplishment. The overwhelming odds say that your life will not change completely and immediately but you have definitely proven that your script has passed a minimal litmus test in Hollywood - it got someone other than your granny excited. Be circumspect about this new development. Tread the fine line between going NUTS with the coolness of this but also knowing that this is absolutely not license to slow down generating great ideas and great scripts and that yes, this could also end at any moment. If this answer seems a bit contradictory - it is. Hollywood is contradictory. It just is. This is what makes it among the most confusing, frustrating businesses in the world. A writer isn't sure how to feel from one day to the next. The only advice I can give you is to feel excited about your love of writing. That's the only thing that will carry you through.

Being aware of the realities of getting and keeping representation is key for an aspiring writer. The main thing you can do is to see how it feels to be repped by whomever has chosen to enter into that relationship with you. Does your manager make you feel like an annoying hanger-on? Or does he or she make you feel respected and heard? Do you have chemistry? Are you simpatico?

At the end of the day, aspiring writers are the only ones really in charge of themselves. Knowing the realities of the life and times of a manager is a huge advantage. Managers love a writer who can go with the flow and who use the down time to keep generating great scripts. If you spent the same time writing that you are tempted to spend calling and whining, imagine the work you'd get done. And there are writers - your competition - who are doing exactly that.

Managers love clients who aren't needy and whiny. So given that ideal, that you are not needy or whiny, how does your manager make you feel? Valued and heard? Or as if you are an annoying pain in the rear? Writers lucky enough to get rep may go through many managers over time. It's a close relationship but from a manager's point of view, only as close as you are productive, unique and successful. It's not personal. They don't call it show friends.

If you don't hear back from a manager you queried - keep querying others. If this is a pattern, take stock of your queries and of your material. Maybe it's not as unique and salable as you thought. In fact, odds are, I'm sorry to say, that it is definitely not as salable as you thought. How do I know this? How do I know anything I write about on the Rouge Wave? From painful and bitter experience.

If you don't hear back from a manager who is repping you, don't waste a lot of energy moaning about that and wondering why. Empower yourself by taking stock of your inventory and continuing to grow it. Once you have not just one not just two but several scripts that are really strong, managers will clamor to rep you because you are a meal ticket. It's pretty Darwinian at the end of the day.

Definitely avoid managers who:

Charge you any kind of fee. Ever. For copying - for anything. This is a huge red flag.

Do not do business in Los Angeles or New York. They simply cannot be tuned in or plugged in from afar.

Do not judge a manager who:

Has not had a client who made a sale yet - how long as the manager been in business? Sometimes a very new manager with great connections is twice as hungry as one who has been doing this for awhile. A new writer and a new rep could be a match made in heaven.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Dialogue or Less Dialogue - That is the Question

There is quite an interesting conversation going on in the comments section beginning with the noting of dialogue-heavy short scene finalists and traveling all the way to whether dialogue or visuals are more memorable, ergo, important in the cinematic experience.

Here's where I stand:

the dingo got the baby
it's definitely time for Judge Wapner
fasten your seatbelts, it's gonna be a bumpy night
you have no idea
I can't quit you
I'm ready for my close up, Mr. Demille*
I have the feeling I'm not in Kansas anymore
of all the gin joints in all the world...
I want to be alone
you talkin' to me?
you're gonna need a bigger boat
yippy-kiy-yay, motherf*cker
I see dead people
I read the Feminine Mystique! I'm in charge of my own orgasm!
Everybody knows, you never go full retard

...and that's just literally off the top of my head. Yes, cinematic scenes are also memorable, but it's the dialogue that moves the story forward and it's the dialogue that makes us laugh, cringe and identify with the character who said it.

I think that the Rouge Waver who began this discussion in comments is referring to the old trope that ideally, a screenwriter should be able to write a scene with no dialogue so well that dialogue is unnecessary to get the point of the scene across. I think this is of course a great skill and a great exercise, but as another poster said - welcome to the talkies.

Movies are about the human experience. And the importance of dialogue in conveying the truth, the terror, the contradiction and the joy of that is inestimable. Let's turn to the predecessor of movies - drama. Theater predates movies by hundreds of years. Movies are, relatively speaking, still in their infancy as a form of expression and entertainment.

In its earliest form, there were no visuals and certainly no action sequences in theater. Theater was just people on a primitive stage, speaking the truth about pain, joy, loss and what it means to be a human. Sophocles did not write action scenes. Either did Euripides or Aristophanes. Or Arthur Miller for that matter but that's pressing the fast-forward button.

And of course we come to the master playwright - Shakespeare.

Four hundred years later, how often is his dialogue quoted? How many people have heard "out damn spot" without even really knowing which play that came from (MacBeth) or necessarily remembering the dark, stormy, creepy castle that line of dialogue is uttered in? Because the castle is frosting - the sentiment - that guilt cannot be washed away - is powerful and that is memorable. 400 years powerful and memorable.

I think it inarguable that dialogue is the single most compelling and memorable part of most any movie. Because dialogue is spoken by memorable and compelling characters. The supposition that a great scene should or can be written without dialogue (or with minimal dialogue) is, in my opinion, Film School pretention.

I also think that the idea that dialogue is not entirely necessary is also born of the fact that there's so much BAD dialogue out there. Newbie screenwriters tend to write on the nose, expositional dialogue which is blunt, workman-like and uninteresting.

To be fair, let's also point out that movies are not exactly like theater. The cinema is a relatively new human artistic expression which is an extraordinarily powerful marriage of theater, music and visuals. Movies are an artform unlike any other and yet deeply, inextricably indebted to theater.

Really good writers know how to use dialogue sharp as a scalpel, light as a feather and as layered as a rich, creamy Trifle. And they do it so well that dialogue becomes part of our culture. Sometimes for literally hundreds of years to come. Not that "never go full retard" falls under that category. She says with a wink and a tug of her ear.

Now get back to work.



*This quote, from SUNSET BOULEVARD is often misquoted. In fact, the line of dialogue is this: All right Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close up.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Short Scene Finalists

Okay here we go, Wavers. You know how this works. Vote for your favorite and bear in mind our Rouge Wave Voting Rules & Guidelines: Each short scene had to include the key words: September, President and Orange. Vote for the short scene that was clever and that effing entertained you and of course no ballot stuffing. This is not about how your friend or your brother, uncle or co-worker is so nice, this is about recognizing clever writing.

Edited to add: Yes! The Wave-inatrix's virus has apparently resulted in some sort of brain aneurysm which resulted in my thinking that the deadline was LAST night at midnight. So this is early. Apologies to those who might have still been working on a short scene. Go with it for this time and again, sorry about that.

Naked Comes the President
by Curious George

INT. DARK OFFICE -- NIGHT
A WOMAN, half naked, paces back and forth. She sips from a
tall glass of orange juice and stares at the computer on her
desk. She mutters under her breath,"C'mon, you bastard."

A QUIET KNOCK at the door.

It opens and BRIAN COWDEN, 31, walks in. He looks sharp in Marine dress blues.

BRIAN
Madam President?

Brian, curious, walks over to the President's desk and peers
at the computer. He's stunned at what he sees...

PRESIDENT
Shhhhhhh! I got this SOB right where
I want him.

BRIAN
Madam President? Marilyn? You need
to quit for the night. You're meeting
with the Joint Chiefs in a few hours.
The September Project--

Brian looks at the screen again.

PRESIDENT
Hush! If I don't win this hand I
gotta give up Hawaii.

BRIAN
(gasps)
Jesus, Marilyn. How much have you've
lost?

PRESIDENT
I've already had to give up Guam and
American Samoa.

BRIAN
What?!

Brian shakes his head, reaches over and shuts down the
computer.

BRIAN
Let's go. That's enough poker for
tonight. Back to bed Madam President.

He grasps her by the arm and gently guides her to the door. They exit and walk softly down the hall.

Oranged
by Gerry Hayes

INT. OVAL OFFICE - MORNING
Gathered around the PRESIDENT, a group of smartly-suited,
high-ranking staff. Chief of Staff, STEVE PANELL speaks.

STEVE
Don't worry about a thing, Mr.
President, it's all been oranged.

The president frowns and tilts his head slightly.

PRESIDENT
Steve? Did you say 'oranged'?

STEVE
Erm. No sir. I said 'arranged'.

PRESIDENT
You did. Why would you say 'oranged'?

Steve looks flustered. His colleagues on either side are
looking at the floor. Most are smirking.

STEVE
I... it's... I.

Steve cracks. It all comes blurting out.

STEVE
I'm sorry sir. It's a game. Each
day, we try to work a particular
word into the meeting. Whoever has
the highest score at the end of
September gets a prize.

The president folds his arms.

PRESIDENT
So last week when Mike told me that
Chancellor Nerdlinger was waiting in
reception?

Steve nods. MIKE is no longer smirking.

PRESIDENT
I waited there for two hours, Mike.

MIKE
I'm sorry sir. I hope you can over look this.
Perhaps we can let cylons be bygones?

STEVE
Yes sir. I'm cherry flurry too.

The President hangs his head and sighs.

Todd Explains
by Seth Fortin

EXT. STREET - DAY
Todd and Barnes sit in an old beater watching the driveway
across the street. Todd presses the can of frozen orange
juice against his bruised and swollen face.

TODD
The meaning is simple. He doesn't
want to be the President, because
the President is beholden to the
Congress or whatever. "The President
can't get nothing passed." But the
Pope has a universal power. He's
got authority over everybody, and
he's got the word straight from God.
He's not trapped by the political
process.

BARNES
What about the line, "He might have
better luck if he was drummin' with
his dick"?

TODD
It's a metaphor.

BARNES
Does Jesus know that you listen to
songs with dirty lyrics?

TODD
Jesus and I don't talk morality.

BARNES
All right.

They pass a few moments in silence.

BARNES
So when did Jesus start telling you
to fuck with drug dealers?

TODD
I don't know... middle of September.

BARNES
And this is His plan, huh?

TODD
(sheepishly)
Yeah.

BARNES
Why did He want me along?

(beat)

BARNES
I mean, why am I on the inside and
Burger's on the outside?

TODD
I don't know, man. I don't ask those
kinds of questions.

They fall silent again. Suddenly Todd sees something across
the street.

TODD
Shit. There he is.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Assistant Files

You've heard the horror stories, the things we assistants have to do for our bosses. Assistant abuse is so rampant in Hollywood, we should have our own colored-bracelet campaign.

There's the story of the assistant who had soup thrown at him by a big-time female producer (fortunately the soup wasn't hot, but I think that may actually have been the root of the problem). And the one about another producer's assistant who, in an attempt to ensure time off for Thanksgiving with his family, invited the producer to accompany him. Assuming, of course, the producer would feel so bad about declining that he would insist the assistant take the needed time off. No dice; the producer accepted, and our poor assistant friend had to spend his holiday catering to his boss in front of the entire family.

Have you ever thought about how far YOU would go, if you thought it was all leading up to the big payoff? Would you babysit your boss's kids in a pinch so he could go to a meeting? Spend your Sunday choosing, wrapping, and delivering his wife's birthday gift, because it had slipped his mind until that morning? Transport his fresh stool sample to the lab? All true stories from yours truly, my friends. Yes, assistants get asked to do lots of un-fun things. But we do it, because we're paying our dues.

Hey, I don't make the rules, I'm just playing the game. And unfortunately, there's a lot of unsportsmanlike behavior. There are schmucks who will take advantage of their assistants just because they can, and there are plenty of shmate salesmen who will take advantage of baby writers, just because they can.

You've seen the postings on Craigslist, right?

When you're trying to make it as a writer, it's very tempting to take any and every opportunity that comes your way. But are you weighing the benefit of the opportunity against its cost to you? How much of your time, sanity, and sunny disposition are you willing to give away?

Figure these things out now, before you lose all perspective when, from where you're standing, this opportunity is obviously your one and only Big Break. (That's not true, by the way, I'm just saying that's how it might feel at the time.) Write a memo to yourself if you have to. Remember to go back to it when some "producer" is asking you for a free two-year option on your material.

'But Andy,' you say. 'What if this guy is the key to my success and I walk away just because he's not offering any money up front? I don't want to be difficult!'

To that I say— I don't know. What, I don't have all the answers either! If you think that's the way to go, then by all means, best of luck to you. My advice is simply this: right now, decide your limits. This IS Hollywood after all, where limit-testing is our favorite sport.

xxoo, Andy Sachs

DISCLAIMER: The Wave-inatrix is not yet high enough on the food chain to throw cupcakes at Chaia so in lieu of that we have been practicing Cupcake Relay Racing and hope to make it to the World Championship '09, held annually at the Betty Crocker factory in Dubuque.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Devil Wears Rouge

Hello, all!

My name is Chaia and I am thrilled to let you know that I am Julie's new assistant for all things involving The Rouge Wave and The Script Department. I will be doing things like moderating comments, answering inquiries, and planning how to steal her adorable dog JUST KIDDING I MEAN BRINGING HER ADORABLE DOG LOTS OF TREATS. Julie is of course still reachable as well, and I will be notifying her of anything and everything she needs to know.

If you have questions for me, you can email me HERE.

In case you are wondering about me:

Chaia Milstein grew up in New Jersey. Her highly marketable undergraduate thesis on contemporary Jewish lesbian poetry won Bryn Mawr College's M. Carey Thomas Prize for Best Essay and initially propelled her into a stellar retail career. Since then, she has worked as a writer/editor for various high tech, GLBT, and general interest publications, both print and online. She maintains website copy for several local small businesses and writes the occasional corporate manual. One time, she actually got paid to write poetry.

She is also a writer of big-budget feature comedies along the lines of Wedding Crashers and The 40 Year Old Virgin.

She is stuck in the third person but assures you that she is very much looking forward to working with you all!



P.s. This is me.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Out Damn Virus, Out!

The seasons are changing from summer to fall here in Los Angeles, which means that evenings have grown 3 or 5 degrees cooler, the palm trees are slightly less dusty, the new year of television programming has kicked off and the kids are getting ready for Rosh Hashana by singing cute little apple and honey songs as they skip by my house on the way to schul.

It also means that a cold virus is making the rounds and yours truly has been chosen out of a lottery to be a temporary guest host for said virus. So that's pretty fun. Zicam is all the rage out here in Hollywood so I've purchased my supply and wait to be another happy success story. So I haven't got much to say on the Rouge Wave today and I apologize for that. Nature is having her way with me.

Please keep those short scene competition scripts rolling in - the deadline is tomorrow, September 24th at midnight my time.

Also, if you haven't visited already, there are several interesting discussions happening over at the Rouge Wave II, so be sure to weigh in.

And two events reminders:

Sunday, September 28th at 7pm in West Hollywood, we are having our first ever Rouge Wave networking and motivational dinner with special guest, Derek Rydall. Please RSVP HERE if you plan to attend.

Also, on Wednesday, October 15th, The Script Department is hosting a table read of Vining Wolff's play Sentinel Hill Sniper at 7:30pm at the Attic Theater in Culver City. Please RSVP HERE if you'd like to attend.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Emmy Recap

I don't usually watch the Emmys. I know - shame on me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Luddite, I watch some tv; probably more in the past couple of years than in earlier times in my life. But I watched this particular Emmys initially because my best friend works on Grey's Anatomy and had a little something to do with the Michael Phelps bit that Jimmy Kimmel did. Which I though was HILARIOUS. So I tuned in for that only to get sucked into the show afterward. Here are my observations:


Not nice things I thought and felt bad about and yet….
Wow Oprah has (re)gained a lot of weight!
Candace Bergen – she’s aged well but that blouse – ew!
Mary Tyler Moore – one of my idols but BLEEP! The plastic surgery overkill is disturbing and disappointing. Especially side by side with Betty White who has not gone down that road.

Awards that made me really happy:
Alec Baldwin
Betty White
Tina Fey

Best moments:
Jimmy Kimmel’s lead in show
Tommy Smothers speech
Glen Close’s speech: …we’re proving that complicated, powerful, mature women are sexy and…can carry a show.
Josh Groban’s medley of television theme songs
When Kathy Griffin commanded the audience to Get. Uuuup for Don Rickles.

Most cringe-worthy moments:
The lame Heidi Klum joke about ripping off her tuxedo; that landed with a horrible thud.
The lame reality host time killer at the top of the show
Howie Mandel. Every time.
The Laugh-in presentation

Best sly jibe at a dumb move:
Conan O’Brien’s reference to Katherine Heigl’s assertion that the material given her character in the last season of Grey’s was not worthy of an Emmy nomination.

Most telling quote:
Barry Sonnenfeld, Director, Pushing Daisies: Love TV and fear the internet.

Funniest quote, attributed to Lorne Michaels by Tina Fey:
Don’t ever follow a hippy to a second location.

Most disturbing and annoying commercial slogan:
ABC’s National Stay at Home Week

Most egregious music-off:
Kirk Ellis, writer, John Adams:
…a period when articulate men articulated complex thoughts in complete sentences. They used words….music. ARGHGH!

Most boring sweep:
John Adams. Full disclosure: I haven't seen it. And I'm a history buff.

Most egregious waste of a comedy actress who should be more famous:
Sarah Chalke shilling underpants with the slogan: Be wedgie free!
Close runner up: Jamie Lee Curtis and that yogurt that makes you more regular ad.

In Memoriam’s that made me really feel sad:
George Carlin
Suzanne Pleshette
Sydney Pollack
Dick Martin
Bernie Mac
Deborah Kerr
Harvey Korman
Jim McKay

And – Bozo the Clown died?

Random thoughts:
Until CSI I had never heard of William Peterson. I mean, he’s good but I have literally never noticed him in anything before. So. You know. I guess I’m a dope.

Laurence Fishburn’s red jacket: not so much.

Was Craig Ferguson drunk?

Why does Brooke Shields increasing look like a man?

Sally Field still sounds like Gidget and it is vaguely discomfiting.

Is Entourage a comedy? Why was it in that category?

Tom Selleck – holy BLEEP is he still handsome. Man.

Tina Fey’s multiple wins made me really happy – really happy – but she didn’t need to shill her show when she won the best comedy award. Don’t worry, Tina, we’re watching your show. And we know where to find it, thanks.

Complete list of winners.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Movie of the Week Club

I have moved the Movie of the Week Club discussion to the Rouge Wave II but for those of you who may not yet have joined the RWII, here is the posting. We will be discussing IN BRUGES on September 25th. Check it out - I love this movie.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery

....but it's not going to sell your script.

Last week, I read a really good script. It was so well executed. Compelling, masterful, entertaining. But completely unoriginal. Because it was a carbon copy of a movie which has already been made.

So this tells me the writer is a quick study, a fan of the genre, and a competent writer. But it also tells me this writer has not done his or her homework thoroughly enough when it comes to understanding the marketplace.

How do you know whether what you've written is truly original or whether it is a carbon copy of something else? Well - what movie would you compare your script to? Have you written DISTURBIA which bears a close resemblance to REAR WINDOW (Ah, a little too close, according to the news of the day.) and yet turned some key points inside out? Is this a riff on another movie or a rip off of another movie?

Now - each genre has expectations. Take a sub-genre that for some reason has shown up in several movies and scripts within my world lately - the crazy-person-stalker-movie. LAKEVIEW TERRACE is related to FATAL ATTRACTION which is related to SWIM FAN which is related to SINGLE WHITE FEMALE. All good movies - well, mea culpa, haven't seen LAKEVIEW quite yet but it's Sam Jackson so my hopes are high. But here we have the seemingly friendly person that you get mixed up with who turns out to be someone you cannot get rid of. It's a great sub-genre because it has an everyman-resonance. We can all relate to it, either because it's happened to us or because we fear that it could. We build our lives so carefully and hold so many things to be so dear and then someone can come along and destroy our lives from the inside out. That's a nightmare we can all relate to.

You'll notice that in each of the movies I mentioned above, the basic story type is the same while the specifics are different. Different enough to make each movie unique. And yet familiar enough to make each movie appealing to audiences.

In each genre there are conventions and expectations. Some of the expectations of psychological thriller are that the main character has made an error in judgment and now must pay for it. But it gets out of control and the antagonist is generally insane. There will be blood in a psychological thriller - meaning there is often an escalation of the conflict until the antagonist must die a spectacular, deserved death. The main character should go to the police but cannot because of that initial error in judgment - the battle must be fought alone. Another genre expectation of the antagonist in this sub-genre of crazy-person-stalker is that the antagonist inextricably insinuates him or herself into the intimate life of the main character by way of that initial judgment error. And they make this initial incursion by identifying the weakness of that main character. Which is a great jumping off point for identifying the flaw of your main character.

Each genre has expectations - a template, if you will. Would a truly great horror movie entertain you quite as much if there weren't at least ONE good pop-out moment? In THE ORPHANAGE, as one great example, there is certainly the good ol' pop-out moment but done with such originality and with a stamp of uniqueness on it, that it satisfies over and above the expectation. If you haven't seen THE ORPHANAGE, by the way, you should treat yourself. Here is the trailer.

So here's how you can check in with yourself to see if you've written an imitation of a movie you loved or whether you've taken it to a new level of uniqueness:

*Ask yourself: do you truly understand the conventions and expectations of the genre? I mean - do you TRULY understand them? Watch this genre over and over until you can identify the conventions. This is a great way to take a break while writing, if you feel stuck. Go to the video store and rent 2 or 3 movies that are in any way similar to your own. This is probably one of the healthiest, most productive ways you can procrastinate. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

*List the ways in which your script has met the conventions of the genre. Go ahead. List 'em. As one example: If you're writing a romcom have you got the "cute meet"? Have you got the "bellamy"?

*Now: having identified that you have indeed included the expected conventions and beats, ask yourself, yes, but how have I taken that convention and gone one step beyond it? Is it a run-of-the-mill horror pop-out moment or have I made this pop-out something that has not been done in this particular way before? This is where YOUR particular voice and point of view comes into play. There are cute meets and there are CUTE MEETS which we have not yet seen before. Hint: a cute meet in which the two romantic leads bump into each other and stoop to pick up their books? Not original.

Writing a script which is a carbon copy of a previously made movie save for the location and the names of the characters is a good exercise. I suppose. But it is also a waste of your time. But do not fear if this is what you have done. Go back and look at your script and look for those conventional moments - now think outside the box. How can you take this whole script a giant step beyond what has already been done?

You might ask how your script speaks to the zeitgeist two years from now. Ghosts have been and will always be good, scary stuff for viewers. Ghosts of little orphaned children? Good, stock stuff. But THE ORPHANAGE took that a step beyond and if you've seen it, you'll know that there is a particularly powerful call-back moment - a game that the children play - that is one of the several things that makes this movie stand out.

In fact, THE ORPHANAGE could be grouped together with THE OTHERS. This would be a good homework viewing double-feature, in fact, which would handily sum up my point here. They are the same - but quite different.

And that's what you want to shoot for - familiarity but uniqueness. A seemingly difficult combination. The best piece of advice I can give Rouge Wavers who are aspiring writers is:
Know your genre inside out. Then do it differently. The same. But different.

Remember - when your audience member goes out to the movies, they like to have some idea of what they're getting. They paid the sitter, parked the car, went out to dinner and are now shelling out upwards of $12 to see your movie. And they happened to have felt like seeing a romantic comedy this Friday evening. So you damn well better give them a romantic comedy. But not one they've seen before.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Thrill the World '08

This just in from my wonderful, goofy, lovable game-night-fiend friend Mahdroo:

Hello to friends old and new!

Mahdroo here. This Fall I'm up to something really BIG and I want your help. We're approaching Halloween and of course you remember Michael Jackson's Thriller video, right? I want to train you to do the Thriller Dance. Fo rizzle.

I'm leading practices ever Saturday, between 11am-3pm. The location rotates each week between South Bay, Santa Monica, The Valley, Hollywood, and Glendale/Pasadena. The dates are listed below, and at my website.

We are going to do the dance Oct 25th at 11am as part of a world-wide attempt to break the world record, called Thrill the World '08. Last year 1,722 people in 50+ cities on 5 continents simultaneously did the dance. LA didn't represent last year and I had to go to San Diego. This year I'm making it happen in LA.

So, would you like to learn the dance? It is fairly simple to learn, & really exciting. A totally unique opportunity to do something fun and memorable. Also, I want to reach as many people in LA as possible. Can you think of anyone you know who might be interested in learning this dance? Would you forward this on to them? I am so excited about as many people learning this dance as possible!

Thrillingly yours,
Mahdroo
323.217.8184

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Short Scene Competition

All right, Wavers - time for another short scene competition! Here are the key words:

Orange
President
September

Guidelines:
Write a one page short scene which includes the keywords, above. Put the words in context, and make it creative and clever. This time, the words should be key in the scenes, not just a passing inclusion. You can have a "School Board President" or a "Corn Huskers Union President", as one example. And you can have an "orange trans am" or an "orange orchard". You get it. But make the words key, don't just slot them in there somewhere. Genre doesn't matter, just keep it to one page.

Deadline:
Please turn your short scenes in by Wednesday, September 24th at 12am Pacific Time. I will select the top three and post them here for voting on Friday September 26th.

Prizes:
As always, a $25 gift certificate to a vendor of your choice: Starbucks, Amazon, etc.

Entry Fee:
Don't be silly.

Submit your scene HERE.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Webisodes, Mobisodes, Podiobooks - oh my!

This from the blog of my dear friend and mentor, Jeff Lyons:

****

My head is spinning!

I’m currently involved in producing a movie for DVD release. No, I’m not bragging. It’s still in the financing phase, so it could all just go bye-bye any moment … kind of like Bear Sterns or Lehman Brothers … anyway, my point is that this movie I’m doing is also going to be put up as a webseries. I’m telling you all this because the education I am getting and the slap-upside-my-head experience of researching how webseries need to be “put up” and the wild west nature of this whole process has my head spinning.

In all the spinning, however, I’ve gotten glimpses of a wave of change that is sweeping over the Internet effecting writers of every stripe. This blog entry cannot possibly address all that could or should be said about this. But, hopefully this will generate some dialogue about the topics I’m going to discuss and through this discussion perhaps we will all get a better grasp of what is quickly turning from wave into a tsunami.

First off, who is at risk? Yes, I use the word “risk” intentionally. Everyone who writes in formats considered “old media” are at risk. This list includes: novelists, poets, short story writers, playwrights, screenwriters, journalists, academicians, and anyone else who has something to say in the written word (bloggers excluded). Now don’t panic, books are not going anywhere, or films/TV, or short story collections, etc. The risk part has to do with missing out on all the new formats and distribution channels developing to get your work into the “hands” of potential readers. What are these new and risky avenues? Here is a short list, and I’m excluding all the “old,” boring platforms like e-books (soooo 20th Century!):

(Blurbs courtesy of Wikipedia)

Webisodes: A webisode is an episode of a television show that airs initially as an Internet download or stream as opposed to first airing on broadcast or cable television. A webisode is simply a web episode —collectively it is part of a web series, which features a dramatic, serial storyline, where the primary method of viewership is streaming online over the Internet.

Mobisodes: Mobisode is a term for a broadcast television episode specially made for viewing on a mobile telephone screen and usually of short duration (from one to three minutes).

Cell Phone Novels: Cell phone or mobile phone novels are meant to be read in 1,000 to 2,000-word (in China) or 70-word (in Japan) chapters via text message on mobile phones. They are downloaded in short installments and run on handsets as Java-based applications on a mobile phone. Cell phone novels often appear in three different formats: WMLD, JAVA and TXT.

Podcasts: A podcast is a series of audio or video digital-media files which is distributed over the Internet by syndicated download, through Web feeds, to portable media players and personal computers.

Mashups: A digital mashup is a digital media file containing any or all of text, graphics, audio, video and animation drawn from pre-existing sources, to create a new derivative work.

Podiobooks: A specific form of mashup. These are serialized novels or short stories in podcast format, which mix mixed media, narrative, audio, and anything else the writer can squeeze into it. These are very akin to the old radio dramas of the 1930s. (Amazingly there is no Wiki entry on this yet)

Net-Native Narratives: Also, no Wiki entry for this yet. This is very new stuff. This is a form of storytelling that marries traditional narratives with gaming ARG (Alternate Reality Game) environments to create an interactive, immersive narrative experience. Imagine Moby Dick as an interactive, ARG experience. Ok, maybe not the best choice, but how about Dracula?

A writer can certainly choose to ignore all of these tempting tidbits and simply churn out traditional hard copy. This does not make you a Luddite (look it up if you don’t know the term). The John Updikes and the Amy Tans of the literary world will still wow us with their prose and enchant us with great storytelling. But, the Stephen Kings, Dean Koontzes, and Robin Cooks of the world will write their books AND are putting up webisodes and podiobooks and expanding their readership exponentially, attracting readers/viewers they would have missed entirely if they had just relied on pure hard copy and the marketing might of their publishers.

The other empowering aspect of all these tempting tidbits is that authors are now becoming more empowered to take control of how their work is disseminated and this can only be a good thing. For a writer to remain solely at the beck-and-call of their publisher for exposure and distribution is completely unnecessary with all these new technologies. Publishers are pulling back on support for their authors anyway, so now writers are much more capable of taking the reigns of their promotion and distribution into their own hands. Missing this opportunity is one of the main things writers risk by ignoring all these new developments.

Now, it doesn’t mean you have to go back to school and get a degree in Artificial Intelligence for M.I.T. There are lots of companies, services, and consultants out there now to help you develop your work into these new formats—yes, for a price. But, freedom doesn’t come cheap. Nor should it.

Okay. If your head is spinning, join the club. I’m going to leave it at this. Potential, possibility, and opportunity: these are the watchwords for the future. Welcome to a brave new world. Big Brother is watching, but the good news is he’s paying for the privilege through service fees, website memberships, and pay-per-click advertising dollars. Spin, spin, spin.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Assistant Files

Do you guys read the trades? Do you even know what I'm talking about? You know, the showbiz trade publications, mostly The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. They come out every day, and are pored over and debated in every office, phone call, and lunch meeting all over town. I've worked with people for whom the Reading of the Trades was a ritual that Could. Not. Be. Interrupted. Serious business, I tell you.


(There was also the story of that intern who forgot to place the trades on the exec's desk one morning and was never heard from again, but I'm sure the rumors of his disappearance have been greatly exaggerated.)

For execs and agents – and assistants, too – keeping up on industry news is vital. But I was pondering today whether or not it's a good idea for writers to read the trades. How much information about the industry do you need? How much is too much?

PRO:
* Collecting conversational tidbits about your chosen field. You can throw them around and sound like an insider at your local coffee shop or cocktail party. If you happen to talk to someone you've recently read about, you'll be primed to compliment them on their latest project.

CON:
* Keeping up with industry news is basically a full-time job (they're called execs, agents, and assistants), and you could easily procrastinate your writing time away.

PRO:
* Getting an idea of who's doing the kinds of projects you want to be doing. You can then seek them out, attend their speaking engagements, read the books and scripts they've written, maybe even make a friend or mentor of them.
.
CON:
* Getting arrested for stalking;

PRO:
* Keeping up on script sales and project announcements could keep you from wasting untold amounts of time working on a script that's too similar to one already in the pipeline.

CON:
* Finding out Big Famous Movie Star just got a greenlight on a project that's identical to that spec you finally finished last night, after months of blood, sweat, and tears.

PRO:
* Reading industry news excites and inspires you to keep working and striving toward your goal. You know you love it, this crazy industry of ours, otherwise you'd be endeavoring toward something more attainable. Like, say, curing cancer, or mediating a resolution to that pesky East Coast – West Coast issue.

CON:
* Hearing about other people's success can be surprisingly discouraging. You'll wonder if it will happen for you, why you didn't think of that brilliant-but-obvious idea, when will your big paycheck arrive.

Ultimately it's your call, but I think the Pros outweigh the Cons. It's important to be informed. And so long as you take everything with a grain of salt, keep your positive attitude, and stay focused on your own personal goals, having a working knowledge of who's who and what's what might give you an edge over writers who don't, and help you get to that point in your career when we're all reading your name in the trades.

xxoo,
Andy Sachs

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Thanks For Asking

There have been a flurry of outraged emails directed at myself and at the Silver Screenwriting Competition from, as far as I can tell, about two people, who have questioned the legitimacy of the Grand Prize winner, Hilary Graham due to her past experience and bio. The Outraged Emailers have asked that the Script Department Advisory Board chime in on our decision to award Hilary the Grand Prize. They have accused me of bias, of not vetting our top finalists carefully enough and of leaving my Sunday paper on the lawn for three and a half days last week until the sprinkler turned it to mulch. Mea culpa!

I am here to admit, red-faced that we have been caught out. There was bias in our decision-making. You got us. We admit all. We chose the best script.

Let me put this to bed with finality:

All submissions were read blind. Meaning we had no idea who the writers were and it didn't matter. We made our decisions based on the strength of the scripts only. Gender, location, juggling ability or pet preferences were not taken into consideration.

As part of the judging process when we got to the very top, top scripts, we of course used the same Google technology that the Outraged Emailers apparently have access to as well. And we were aware that Hilary has a pretty accomplished bio when it comes to producing and directing. So we had a decision to make.

FREEBIRD was, by far, unanimously recognized by our judges as the best script and yet Hilary has had more experience and accomplishments in producing and directing than others in the same consideration pile. We scoured the rules. We discussed it. We talked to a couple of our Advisory Board members. And we collectively decided that Hilary should not be disqualified or discriminated against because she's produced and directed in the past. The letter of the law states that she cannot have earned $8,000 for her writing. We have verified that she has not.

Our objective this year and in ensuing years is to find great scripts and reward the writer(s) with experiences and connections that can help take their writing to the next level. If we discriminate against anyone who has made a short film, produced or directed anything ever, we would then set in motion that this competition is ONLY for people at the very early stages of their writing careers.

There are always writers more connected, more experienced and more talented than you. What are you going to do about that? Be outraged and claim unfairness? Or take that as your cue to motivate and kick some serious behind on your way to success? We leave that up to you. But we do not discriminate at the Silver Screenwriting Competition, based on where you are on the curve. Don't get me wrong - we are biased. Biased toward good scripts.

End transmission.

Now get back to work.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Networking, Forums and Chat

The Rouge Wave is read by a wide variety of people; writers, assistants, actors, industry execs, directors and producers on every level. Only a few Wavers consistently chime in and share their experiences and opinions.

One of the single most important contributing factors in receiving support, inspiration and education when it comes to show biz is networking. Not all of us live in LA or NYC where networking comes with the territory. But. There is the online world.

The RWII is the place to do that in such a way that you can truly network with one another without my having to necessarily catch a comment on time, reply or facilitate. Just this morning, an actor friend of mine said she's excited to set up her page on the RWII because she is looking to get to know more writers because she is looking to produce and direct a short film. If you have a film screening you can post it under "events" on the RWII. If you have a question, you can post it in the forum. If you are looking to kill some time and get to know other writers, you can chat.

Please take advantage of this satellite Rouge Wave social networking site to widen your networking, uh, net - and join up if you haven't. Set up your own page so that you can get to know other Wavers,possibly meet in person, attend some events or just share what's on your mind. Who knows, you might catch me in the chat section.

Check it out HERE. Make it work for you.

Thank you. Now get back to work.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Aftermath

It has been fun sharing the experience, good and bad, of running the Silver Screenwriting competition with Rouge Wavers. I hope it has also been informative and interesting to read about.

I'm so happy it's over. It has taken hours and weeks out of my life for the past several months. And it's not quite over. Now I need to get the prizes to every one, and in particular, arrange for Hilary Graham's fabulous trip to LA. There are a lot of individuals whose schedules I have to now coordinate. And all of this is in addition to all the other stuff I do; table reads, reader classes, private consulting, administrating my readers, paying my readers, making all of our clients happy. And posting on the Rouge Wave daily. Calgon, take me away.

I am interviewing two assistants this week and glory hallelujah, not a moment too soon. And these are former studio assistants so wow, I will be the nicest boss ever by comparison. I will be a cupcake walk.

But I digress. The competition. It was like giving birth - right now I am so drained, I feel like I WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN. But I know that come next spring, I will forget the tough parts and remember the cool parts and do it again with the same enthusiasm.

The best part: calling the semi-finalists and then calling the winners. To hear their joy and excitement made me smile all over. What a great feeling.

The worst part: getting a handful of emails from disgruntled entrants asking WHY THE HELL they didn't place and accusing me of a variety of sins ranging from stupidity to unfairness to not taking risks.

What I did not expect: how tough it was to learn to administrate the electronic script submission system we used which was prone to glitches and hiccups.

Gut instinct that proved true: when we finally just had all the scripts printed on paper so we could stack them up, flip through them one by one and sort of feel the weight of them in our hands. We wanted to be a totally paperless competition, and initially we were, but in the end game, I really liked having the physical scripts in front of me.

Weird Fact: I still have dozens and dozens of the scripts stacked up in my house. It's like Grey Gardens over here. I kind of like it. I feel like a librarian.

Genre Breakdown Fact Sheet:

Freebird (teen coming-of-age comedy)
De-Haunters (comedy/horror)
Orchard (horror)
Blood Snow (drama)
Influence (horror)
Snilderholden’s Jungle (family)
Sleeping with the Lutefisk (black comedy)
Unsigned: The Feature (comedy)

The myth: That we or any competition rewarded certain genres more than others. If message board regulars want to run statistics and create some kind of mystique around the genres selected, they can, I guess.

The truth: Only bottom-line for the winning scripts: effing entertaining, chock full o' voice and in the case of the top 3 winners - a lot of commercial potential. Meaning, quite competitive on the market as is, right now.

Number of fun, funny, companionable discussions we had about scripts: A LOT. Very fun to discuss a script's merits in a round-table setting. And very cool to see the points upon which we agreed.

Number of discussions that got a little intense because we disagreed about a particular script: More than I would have imagined. But ultimately, majority rules. None of us were ego-invested and we learned that at a certain point, subjectivity comes into it. There was one script in particular that I really loved that did not make the top round. My peers did not feel the same way I did about the script. Oh. Well.

What we ate when we judged together: Stella Artois and home cooked food. No candy, no Red Bull, no take-out. I like to cook, what can I say. And it was a good and fun excuse to do so.

How satisfying it is to toss a script into a cardboard box (good or bad) with finality: VERY.

What I am very proud of: That with the exception of the qf announcement, we met our announcement deadlines more than on time - we were early. I keep my ear to the rail of what writers are talking about and I noticed several other competitions that pushed their announcement dates again and again. I put myself and my judges and readers through the WRINGER so that didn't happen to us. I figure that you paid to be in the competition and we owe you our best. Maybe I am naive, maybe when we get thousands of scripts I'll see that it's not so easy. But I like to imagine the best possible outcome in everything I do.

What I would do differently next year: We still haven't done our post mortem but I would rather have fewer deadline dates. I'm not sure if I liked the initial paperless thing. I have to weigh the pleasure I take in the actual, physical weight of a script against environmental concerns. I would like to announce a little earlier in the year so that our winner comes out to LA smack dab in the middle of spec season. This time of year is fine but a little earlier is better.

If any Wavers have any suggestions or a wish list for the perfect competition, please email me HERE. This is a competition BY readers FOR writers and while we can't take every suggestion, I'd be interested in knowing how we can serve you better.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Speaking of Competition Winners....

Congratulations to the winners of the Silver Screenwriting Competition!!

We received so many wonderful scripts, it was really hard to narrow it down to the top winners. Really hard. Super hard. New wrinkle hard. I want to thank Jim Mercurio, my friend, my mentor and my partner in this. I also want to thank my business partners Margaux Froley and Andrew Zinnes for their hard work, wisdom, cajoling and much needed hard-nosed-judging. I want to thank the readers who worked hard, day and night, really giving their all to each script. What a wonderful group of talented readers.

And - before they cue the music and get me off stage - I want to take a moment to thank every single writer who gave it a shot. We found script after script with great ideas, interesting writing styles, hilarious moments of comedy and terrifying moments of horror. I was and continue to be completely lit up by the creativity out there. Just because you didn't place in the competition doesn't mean you aren't deserving of recognition for all the hard work, heart and soul you put into your script.

This has been a great experience with very few glitches and only that one bar brawl but, you know, that was totally not our fault. So without further adieu:

Grand Prize Winner: FREEBIRD by Hilary Graham
2nd place: THE De-HAUNTERS by Calvin Field and Brian Bagby
3rd place: THE ORCHARD by Diane Stredicke

TOP FIVE FINALISTS

BLOOD SNOW by Adam Hong
INFLUENCE by Dov Engelberg
SNILDERHOLDEN’S JUNGLE by Jennifer Thomas
SLEEPING WITH THE LUTEFISK by Wenonah Wilms
UNSIGNED: THE FEATURE by Christopher Wasmer and Danny Musengo

Our grand prize winner, Hilary Graham will be trekking out to Los Angeles on a tba date in October and will be reaping the rewards from her win, including drinks with Blake Snyder, a day of meetings, lunch with David Arata, one of the Academy Award nominated writers of CHILDREN OF MEN and much, much more. Hilary will be guest-blogging about her experiences right here on the Rouge Wave.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Great Competition Results - Now What?

The other day we talked about what to do next if this competition season yielded zero results for you. How do you handle that disappointment and put it in perspective?

On the other hand, what if a script you've written placed in a competition? What if people start calling you? It's a great problem to have, right? I have already had three managers email me and ask to see the top five scripts in the Silver Screenwriting Competition. And we haven't even announced the winner(s) yet. That's tomorrow.

First of all, a quarterfinalist placement is not likely to garner any phone calls or interest. You'll need to have placed as at least a semi-finalist. And it depends on the industry relationships going on with the competition you entered.

If your script did well in a competition, first of all, congratulations. That means your script was more original and better executed than the majority of other scripts in the same competition. This puts you in the top percentages. And that's something to be very proud of. But what happens next? Is your phone going to start to ring? And if it does - what can you expect? Does this mean success is knocking at your door? It might. But proceed with caution.

Two things to think about:

One: Please be measured and thoughtful in your response to those who may contact you asking to see the script. Don't freak out with joy and promise them exclusive rights to your script, all future scripts or your first born child. Don't make a $1 option agreement with the first joker who calls. Don't be overly flattered; be cool, man. Be cool and do a little research. Look up the person on IMDB Pro. What are his or her credits and professional credentials? Where is their office located? This may be a new company which has no credits, but click on the names of the principals; at a different company they probably do have credits of some kind. One would hope. Be careful. In fact, if you are in doubt, contact me and I might be able to shed some light on the reputation and track record of the rep in question.

Two: You do have an arsenal, right? More than the one or two scripts you entered this year? Are you writing within the same genre? I hope so. You want to establish yourself as an expert in one genre. Many writers feel (and I used to too until it got me nowhere) that they should write in many genres to prove that they have flexible chops. Don't do this. It won't prove anything, it just makes you less marketable. Line up your arsenal and have a look. Do you have another sample ready to send out if requested? Is it in great shape? Now is the time to get some feedback and assurance on your other scripts. A rep who calls and asks for more samples will be greatly turned off if it turns out the competition winning (or placing) script was your best work and that, in other words, you do not have "legs" as a writer. Nobody wants to rep a one-off.

So let's say it's the worst case scenario. You placed well in a competition, the phone rings and you really don't have any other samples ready to go. While it's not the ideal, it's not the end of the world, necessarily, either. A stop-gap would be to have a list of what you're working on handy, and where each project is in it's completion. Have a list of premise lines, in other words, and be able to say: this one is in outline form, this one is halfway written, this one is just an idea. You should have this anyway, Wavers - at all times - your Inventory List.

Whether you placed this year or not, now is the time to review your inventory of scripts and take stock. Do you have an offering of several scripts in the same genre? Scripts which showcase your voice, your particular point of view and your strengths? Scripts that are read-ready right now, sans structural, thematic and pacing problems?

If the answer is uh - not really then it is possible that your placement this year will not yield you the results you'd hoped for. And there's always next competition season to work on that. Wavers, I cannot stress enough how important having an arsenal of scripts stacked up is. I had one client who placed well at a very big deal competition call me in a bit of a panic. She doesn't have anything else ready to go. Not a terrific situation to be in. I know that every time I talk to a potential rep about one of my clients, the FIRST thing they ask is what else the writer has. Again - one-off = no good. Reps want to know that you have more where that great script came from. That you can consistently write salable material, in other words.

REMINDER:
Become a member of new The Rouge Wave II. Create your own page. Network. Socialize. Discuss stuff. It's free and it's fun. Find out how other Wavers fared in competitions. Discuss your experiences with various reps. Share. Be friends.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Elmer Gantry and the RWII

The Movie of the Week Club will be discussing movies we have recently watched on the RWII forum.

RWII? What in the heck? Well, I figured since Wavers are a comment-y, chatty sort, I'd create a site related to the Rouge Wave - the cleverly named Rouge Wave II, where events, discussions, networking and various bulletin board items can be found.

For a discussion on ELMER GANTRY, cruise on over to the RWII and chime in.

So make a note - going forward, events, movie discussions and a new forum are all available on the Rouge Wave II. I shall link to it as needed but I encourage Wavers interested in networking to click on over now. Go ahead, go add your footprint. Be courteous, be interesting and be excellent to each other.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Rating the Project

Happy Monday, Wavers! Here is an excerpt from the ongoing Reader E-Course that I am offering. The more I think about it, the more I think that taking this course would be GREAT for aspiring writers who have absolutely no plans for becoming a reader. Why? Because you are going to learn all the inside tips, tricks and tenets of covering a script. So you'll have a good sense of what is going to happen to your script when it's covered. You'll learn about the standards to which your script will be held. So without further adieu, for your edu-tainment:

Rating the Project

It’s a well-known axiom in Hollywood that readers are the gatekeepers. Our “pass” recommendation on a project means that at that particular company, the script is done. Finito. Kaput. It’s a big responsibility. Readers are pulled in a lot of directions; we are usually writers ourselves and we feel for the writer of the script we are reading. Because we get it. We get how hard they worked on the script. Other times, the fact that we are writers ourselves makes our judgment harsher – gimme a break! HOW did this script get to this level of consideration?! Add to that the feeling of being a bit unsure if this script is really a pass – like – maybe it could be better, right? And if we “pass” and the script gets picked up at another company, will we get in trouble? Did we blow it? What if we give a script a “consider” and the executive who then has to read it disagrees with us? Will we get fired?


The fact is that being a reader means you must take your job seriously; you are considered an expert. The production company is paying for your judgment. If you say the script is a “pass”, it’s a “pass”. The production company is relying on you. The key is to make absolutely sure that you back up your “pass” or “consider” with well-reasoned perspective and an understanding of the market and of the tenets of good storytelling. The greener you are as a reader, the harder it is, initially, to know whether a script really is that original. Once you’ve read a few hundred, you’ll start noticing the trends and patterns and yes, you become a bit jaded.

Err on the side of being tough on scripts. It is a thousand times more likely you will get called on the carpet by an exec for giving a “consider” that wasn’t really a “consider” than giving something a pass. Here’s why: if you give a script a “pass” the executive will still briefly review your coverage. He or she will skim the logline, the grid and your brief summary (a mini-condensed paragraph summarizing your decision that you cull from the coverage itself and put on the first page of your report). Now the executive is going to make their own decision and decide that the logline or your notes are interesting enough to warrant a look at the script. Or not. But if you give a script a “consider”, the exec is going to read your coverage quite carefully and if your coverage sounds really enthusiastic and wonderful, the exec just got homework for that weekend. They are going to take that script home for the weekend and read it themselves. And an exec who has taken time away from a party, from relaxing, from his or her family only to read a script that is in fact NOT a “consider” is not a happy exec. Err on the side of being tough.

A script you give a “consider” to has to be absolutely PERFECT in your view. So perfect it could be cast and produced right now. That great. A “recommend” means that times a thousand. It means that the executive should immediately cancel all plans and read the script. Right now. One production company I read for, with a first look at Sony had the executive’s cell phone number on the coverage template. If a script got a “recommend” you were to immediately call the exec.

So that’s a pretty big responsibility. Are you prepared to tell the exec, at 10pm or while they were lunching at the Ivy, that this is a script they should reschedule their entire day for? Can you back it up? What if they don’t agree with you? You better be damn sure before you give a recommend.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Screenwriting Gurus

Apply that term to me or anybody else and I get really uncomfortable. One definition of guru is "a person who is regarded as having great knowledge, wisdom and authority in a certain area, and uses it to guide others." but I can't help but associate the word with its other definition: "a teacher or guide in the religious sense." I always picture a prophet of some kind, with supplicants gathered round, listening to every word as if it were inspired by god. The shoe! The gourd! As if screenwriting "gurus" are in some way magical or holy. Gimme a break.

Interestingly, whenever I see screenwriting gurus referred to, it's usually in the negative, as if they themselves have chosen that label and see themselves as above the screenwriters they serve.

Serve is the operative word for me, personally. I have something I'm good at and I serve others by bringing those insights to bear when it is asked of me.

Like my script consultant peers, I’m a professional – meaning I analyze stories for a living. Just like a mom who is professional and an expert at making four lunches, waking everybody up and getting them to school on time is really good at that because she does it every freaking day. You want some advice from her? She’ll tell you how she does it. If that works for you too, terrific. If not, ask another mom or figure it out your own way. Either way, the kids have to get to school on time, dressed and prepared for the day.

Some people are fans of McKee, Blake Snyder or Christopher Vogler. Whatever speaks to YOU. At the end of the day, let’s be honest, nobody really has anything particularly new to add to the topic of how to write a great script. It’s just HOW it’s taught. Some writers really like to go in for a very academic approach. Others like Blake’s lighter, more playful tone.

Personally, I like to keep it real and simple. And Wavers know that I strongly feel that a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. You have to be able to laugh and not take this so deadly seriously. It’s not rocket science – but it is an art, this screenwriting thing.

I don't think script consultant "gurus" should be put on a pedestal but rather, like any professional - a good mechanic, a doctor, a web designer - be respected for their knowledge and put to work by you only if it's a good fit for you. In fact, I vote that we dispense with that stupid "guru" term altogether and replace it with Friendly Script Helper Person. I'm all for it.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Script Copier

Just a little plug for my friend Maziar, who runs the best script copy shop in LA. Mazi copies all scripts submitted to The Script Department and the scripts for the Silver Screenwriting Competition as well. I couldn't operate my business without him. In fact, at least two to three times a week you'll find me down at Mazi's picking scripts and shooting the sh*t.

Even before I opened The Script Department, I used Mazi's service to copy single scripts and get them sent overnight to various reps and producers. It was SO much easier on my printer and I never had the leave the house. He is an amazing person, much beloved by everyone who knows him and his service is affordable and expert.

****

Hi friends!
Now that summer is almost over, the strikes are finished, Obama & McCain have chosen their vice presidential candidates, the recession is happening, gas prices have fallen (well, a few pennies at least) & we all need to save as much as we can, I wanted to remind everyone that we’re still here and need your support to continue providing the following services, with highest quality, lowest prices, best service & always a smile.

Maz
Digital Express ETC. & ScriptCopier.com
323.655.2639
Email
May the Force be with You!

· Script Submissions – Print, Bind & Ship with Tracking Number – Only $15!!!!!

· Digital Script/Manuscript/Fliers/Brochures – Black & White on 20lb White Paper – 2cents per page – No Minimum

· Booklets/Manuals

· 2500 Business Cards, Full Color Double Sided on 16pt Gloss with UV Coating - $130.00

· 500 Magnet Business Cards on 12pt with UV Coating - $119.00

· 5000 Postcards, 4x6, Full Color Double Sided on 16pt Gloss with UV Coating or Matte Stock - $222.00

· Digital Color Output – 49cents – No Minimum

· Mailboxes with Suite Numbers on Wilshire Blvd., 24/7 Secure Access – 4 months free with One Year Pre-Paid contract!

· FedEx Services, Domestic & International, Express & Ground

· Scanning & converting paper originals to editable Word/Final Draft or PDF.

· And many more services and products – just ask & if we can’t do it, we’ll refer you to someone who can!

For all your printing needs, check out Script Copier.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Bummed About Competition Season Results?

Dear Wave-inatrix: I entered three scripts into several competitions this year and I didn't get past quarter finalist on any of them. I'm discouraged and depressed. What should I do? Maybe I just suck.
-Depressed in Detroit

Dear Depressed:

It's natural to feel the sting of disappointment after having given competition season your best shot - three shots in your case. A couple of things to remember: competitions are subjective, they really are. I know plenty of good writers who didn't place this year and to me, this is no reflection of the material. I know writers who didn't place in one year, entered the self-same script the following year and did place. But I do think it's a good opportunity to take inventory of the situation and see where your writing is and where these scripts fit into the scheme of things. I would take each script in question here and ask the following questions of the material:

Why do you feel this is an important story to be told?

Name 3 movies like your script – when did they come out and how did they do at the box office?

Why is this a better, more unique, more powerfully told story than others like it – because there have been others like it.

What is the centrally entertaining theme?

Why should an actor choose these roles?

What is the approximate cost of making this script into a film?

Is this a Friday night opener or a Sunday matinee?

How will this story do overseas? DVD sales?

How does this story speak to the zeitgeist – two years from now?

What is the unique hook in this script? Is it in fact unique?

Are you willing to put the time into this script, knowing that there are writers in Hollywood half your age* with twice the connections? Is your faith in the story that strong?

You need not one good script but several. Every one better than the last. For every script you write, you should do this homework and research. You need to know why you're writing the script and why it's got, as far as you can tell, a realistic shot at the market.

Don't get mad. Get even. Take stock of your material and yourself as a writer.

*Or twice your age.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Assistant Files

Not to be a jerk, but someone on one of my email groups just asked if "anyone had any information on how to roll calls", she thought it might have something to do with getting several people on the phone at once, but she wasn't really sure.

WHAT.

I say again: WHAT.

"Rolling calls" is an assistant skill so basic it's about on the same level as "Hey guys! Here's how you send a fax." It's pretty surprising that someone on a group for industry assistants wouldn't know what rolling calls IS, let alone how you do it.

So, here's a crash course:

Rolling calls is what you do when your boss is in his car, calling in on his cell, and you're setting up calls for him, functioning as a kind of telephonic bridge between him and the person he wants to talk to. (Some people also use "rolling calls" to describe what happens when your boss is in his office and you're returning calls with him, something other people call "let's do some calls" or just "get me so and so on the phone" - I know, confusing!)

So your boss calls in:

YOUR BOSS
Hey, it's me.

YOU
Hi.

YOUR BOSS
Any calls?

YOU
No.

YOUR BOSS
(disbelieving)
Really.

YOU
(inexplicably guilty-feeling, even though there really were no calls.)
...really.
(making something up to make him feel important.)
But Carol came by to ask you where you get your pants, because she thinks they're awesome.

YOUR BOSS
...really?

YOU
Well, no. I mean, she did come by and mention that her husband was having a hard time buying happening trousers, so-

YOUR BOSS
...

YOU
Want to do some calls?

YOUR BOSS
Yeah.

Here, you look at his phone sheet and tell him who he owes a call to.

YOU
Evan called again--

YOUR BOSS
No.

YOU
And you owe Ian F. a call from last Thursday--

YOUR BOSS
Ugh, I hate that guy. Who else?

YOU
How about Danni at [redacted]?

YOUR BOSS
Okay.

Here - and this depends a little bit on your phone system, but the gist is the same - you put your boss' call on hold, call Danni at [redacted], and conference the two of them together. Here's the key: do not get off the call. You stay on the call muted out so you can eavesdrop/take notes/pretend not to care that your boss likes to talk about his bowel issues/start a new call when he's done with this one.

So, let's say that you've dialed the number for Danni at [redacted]:

DANNI'S ASSISTANT
Danni's office.

YOU
Hi, I have Bossman calling for her.

DANNI'S ASSISTANT
("Let me see if he's important enough to talk to".)
One moment.

Hold music plays. Now one of several things will happen, and here's the easiest:

Danni herself picks up.

DANNI
Hey, Bossman!

At this point, you are the only one on the call. Your boss is still on the 405, listening to something embarrassing like Fall Out Boy, holding impatiently. This moment is always a little awkward.

YOU
Hi Danni, still me, hang on--
(you conference in your boss)
Bossman, you're on with Danni.

Mute out the call, wait for them to finish, unmute, start a new call as needed.

The second option is that Danni isn't there/is on a call/hates your boss:

DANNI'S ASSISTANT
Hi, Danni's in a meeting, can we return?

YOU
Thanks.

You then make a note of the fact that Danni owes your boss a call, tell Bossman that you left word, and start a new call as needed.

A thing that happens sometimes is that some bosses are very weird about picking up before the other executive has picked up. That is, if they have to suffer through that "Hey, John!" "Sorry, still me. John, you're on with David." moment, they'll get pissed at you for not being a better psychic operator. The only thing to be done about this is to maintain a mental org chart of how important other people are relative to your boss. The big dog gets to get on the line last. This is easier if you're working for someone important; if you're working for someone less important who has an attitude issue, ENJOY.

Something else that can happen is that you'll get incoming calls while you're rolling on the other line. Don't panic! You're already muted out, so just put your boss' call on hold, switch to the incoming line, tell them that your boss is unavailable, add that person to the phone sheet, and switch back to your boss' call (hopefully before your boss ends his call and is all "Hello? HELLO? WHAT IS HAPPENING? HOW DO I WORK MY PHONE?!?" - that's why you need to get off the other line as quickly as you can.) Some bosses are pretty intense about not ever letting calls go to voicemail, so do what you need to do to get through moments of every line on your phone lighting up at once. I personally like to pretend that I'm a 1940s switchboard operator, or one of the girls on Mad Men.

Next week, frauxling, good excuses, and the top five guys nobody wants to get on the phone!

xx0,

Andy Sachs

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Decor - Does it Matter?

You can tell TONS about a person by what's in their home, right? Just tons. Next time you go over to someone's house, use your writer's eye and sweep the room. A lot of books? Is it super dusty and messy? Or clean as a whistle? Is there a prominent flat-screen TV and lots of movies lying around? How about the color scheme? Bright? Neutral? How about tchochkes? (Knick-knacks for you non-Yiddish speakers.) How about awards or artwork? Anything embroidered? Anything at all?

In my neighborhood, many people have their windows flung wide open at night, owing to the heat. And a stroll up and down the block will reveal an apartment with a huge, wide-screen tv with a lawn chair pulled up in front of it. And a living room painted bright red, strung with tiny Christmas lights. And a living room window peppered with children's drawings. Messy apartments, with stereo systems up on cinder blocks. Apartments with a lot of Hollywood posters of yesteryear. There are apartments that look very lived in. And apartments that look just moved in to.

What is important to us is revealed in our homes. This is our womb-like lair. Where we go home, after a long day, to relax and find safety and peace. It's where we can walk around in boxer shorts and ripped up tee shirts. It is our private space.

So I was reading a script recently which indicated that the main character's apartment was nice. That's all. No other details. Just"nice". While you don't want to take up an inordinate amount of space on your pages with design details, taking a second to describe your main character's domicile is a very good idea. Or, to state it in the reverse, not doing it is a missed opportunity. A big missed opportunity.

Sometimes writers will say that the place is "bare bones" or indicate that the main character is rich or has "good taste". But - neither one of those things really gives me a visual.

Take "bare bones" as an example. Okay, all right - but are the dishes stacked neatly near the sink or is the sink overflowing with dishes? Is the character a slob or a neatnik? Is this place bare bones because the character is broke or because they have no life? In other words, what does bare bones say about the psyche of the character?

You don't have to go into a lot of detail (which is another, very common mistake I see) but just sketch it out some. When you say they are rich and the apartment is nice, do you mean they have expensive antiques? Or so you mean they catalogue shop at Pottery Barn? Is the apartment or house stuffed with things or pretty minimalistic? Is it an overstuffed couch or leather? Is the decor feminine in nature or very masculine? Gloomy or bright?

Does your character care for plants? Or not even? How about pets? Anything slithering around or rubbing up against your leg? Could the place use a good cleaning or health inspector? Or does your character use a maid? Is your character's home a welcoming space or a cold, unwelcoming one?

Again, I cannot stress enough that in the big sweepstakes of significantly important qualities in your script: original premise, character arc, theme - decor is a detail that is not up there as one of the most important details. But not taking a few words to set the scene is a missed opportunity to tell us more about your character. Saying "nice" or "expensive" or "bare bones" is a cop out.

But nor should you catalogue everything in the room. No - broad strokes - but when you say the character is "rich, with expensive tastes" what does that mean, exactly? That tells me absolutely nothing. Is it gilded, Colombian drug lord "good taste" or is it eclectic, upscale-flea-market-collectors-finds "good taste"?

Do some research this week and look around at the home decor of your friends and neighbors. What stands out? How does this define your friend or neighbor? Our chosen decor does offer a glimpse into us, no doubt about that. Whether that decor is cardboard boxes and lawn chairs or priceless art and antiques.

Describing decor is ultimately a small detail of your script but don't miss an important opportunity to give is a glimpse into your character's soul.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

StoryLink Ezine

So I have recently begun writing a monthly column in the StoryLink Ezine under the "Insider's Corner". That's the category not my pen name. Although a pen name, something like Liberty Van Readsalot is something I have toyed with.

I thought I'd reprint the article which just came out today, here on the Rouge Wave, even thought this is stuff we've talked about many a time:

Question:
"I'm considering having my screenplay read by a script consultant, but I'm not sure how the rating system works. How will I know if my script is good enough to get passed along to agents and production companies?"

Production company script coverages use a fairly standard ratings grid with about four main categories: storyline, characterization, dialogue, and premise. Storyline refers to the execution and style of your narrative. In other words: Is your structure in good shape? Is the pacing brisk and compelling? etc. Characterization refers to whether your characters are unique, organic, and believable. The Dialogue category rates original, organic, and effective dialogue writing. Premise rates whether the central idea itself is fresh, unique, and compelling. Each category is given a rating, either “excellent”, “good”, “fair,” or “poor.” There are other categories the reader will also be looking for, such as theme, logic, world, tone, etc., but those are examined within the coverage rather than on the grid and only on a need-to basis.

Some private script consultants use variations of the standard grid. Other consultants may not use a grid at all, favoring giving notes by category in a looser, more free-form way. At The Script Department we not only use a grid, we have two additional categories: “Professional appearance” and “Readiness for market.” The grid is for the writer’s use and we want to provide a bit more detail than a production company grid, since we work for the writer not the production company.

Most production companies will rarely, rarely give an “excellent” or “poor” rating to any category since extremes are avoided in either direction. But a “fair” rating is the new “poor” in the sense that it’s not a rating you want to get. Most private script consultants also avoid those extremes since “excellent” cannot guarantee your success with the script and nobody wants to get an irate, confused client who doesn’t understand why an “excellent” rating did not translate to a sale or option. The truth is, because this is Hollywood and nobody knows anything, an “excellent” may not make things happen for you anyway. But it’s a pretty good jumping off point and indicator. At The Script Department, we use “rethink” instead of “poor”; it’s just a little nicer on the ol’ ego. A spoonful of sugar and all that.

It’s tricky to know, when using a private consultant, where you really stand. If you receive low ratings on your grid, and copious notes pointing out what is not working, you can pretty much rest assured that you and your script are not quite there yet. By there yet, I mean truly on a competitive level with scripts out there being given serious consideration. If, on the other hand, you receive high ratings and an enthusiastic response from your consultant about the originality of your script, about your unique voice and compelling premise, you can be pretty sure you’ve got something good on your hands because consultants have seen it all.

A consultant has zero to gain by being disingenuous about your script. Most consultants, myself included, tread the fine line between being encouraging but realistic. But when we love a script – we just about fly out of our seats with joy. So gauge the enthusiasm of your response as well as the marks on your grid knowing that nobody would like you to succeed more than that consultant. Why? Because if your script really does rock and you make a sale, win a competition or otherwise gain accolades with the script, the consultant will wear that success like a badge of honor. If the consultant loves your script and thinks it’s ready for agents, managers, or producers, you’ll not only know it quickly, you’ve probably just found yourself a mentor, cheerleader, and enthusiastic coach in the process. Consultants and competitive writers have a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship, in other words.

If your consultant does not go nuts over your script, take that as your clue that they do not feel you are quite ready for prime time. Some consultants will bluntly tell you what they think, others will be far more flattering than the script deserves as a way of making the writer happy. Most consultants, even when they have bad news, couch it in subtext and/or tread lightly on the fact that the script is not so hot. It is a coping mechanism; not only is it quite unpleasant to have to tell a writer their script is not good, there are writers out there who fly off the handle in a huge way when they do not like what they hear. It’s an unpleasant reality of being a script consultant, as awful as it is rare. So seasoned consultants make sure their notes are professional, honest and plainly stated.

If you choose to use a script consultant, caveat emptor – buyer beware. Make sure your consultant has great testimonials and experience. Ask if you can talk to a couple past clients. Good word of mouth is crucial. Make sure the costs are what you can reasonably afford. And be certain you are ready to hear the truth about your script.

Being a script consultant is a business. But being a great script consultant is an art — a great consultant is a teacher, a cheerleader, and an honest big brother or sister. You want someone who will tell you the truth in a way that you can digest. A good consultant will be honest with you because to allow you to labor under an illusion is irresponsible. But there are ways to be honest that are more genteel than others. If your consultant is complete sunshine and roses about your script, ask them to put their money where their mouth is – do they know someone who might be interested in reading your script? If your consultant is bluntly rude in the name of “that’s what it’s really like out there in Hollywood” - you’re working with the wrong consultant.

No, Hollywood is not really a place where people will tell you that you stink to your face. The loudest condemnation is an unreturned phone call. So do not fall for a consultant who claims he or she will tell you the “brutal truth” for your own good, when in fact this is a person who is probably burnt out and not enamored with writers anymore. Again, you will get no more good out of a consultant who is Mary Sunshine and who overstates where you and your script are. Go for someone right in the middle; honest but kind. Consultants are always on the look out for writers who just might be another feather in the cap. The most important element here is: Are YOU ready to hear the truth about your script?

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Repeated Words and Alliteration

Clearly, the Wave-inatrix reads a lot of scripts. A lot. At least one full feature on a daily basis, and very often, two. When I read your script, I have a huge advantage over you - I've never seen it before. When you've spent that much time with your pages, it's hard to see the forest for the trees after awhile. That's where I come in.

If you use the word "angry" or any version of it on your pages more than once, I see it. It's like that scene in A BEAUTIFUL MIND when Russell Crowe sees all the patterns in the numbers. It's like I put 3-D glasses on and suddenly everything that is not working comes into full view. If a writer needs to work on the flaw of their main character, or has a typo here or there - I have no judgment about that. My job is point it out and help fix it. But, as Wavers know very well by now, when I catch something that the writer overlooked, I get a little nuts. Like typos, malaprops and just plain laziness.

Here's a quick, made-up but scarily accurate example:

INT. BEDROOM - DAY

Quietly, Jim pulls back the covers and goes to the window. All is quiet outside.

SHERRY: Jim, what are you doing?
JIM: Shhhh, be quiet.

Okay so here we have "quiet" used three times in short order. Hello? Make like an Eskimo and come up with other words to describe that it's quiet.

I might be reading a page and notice the word "she" used maybe ten times in one page. Or "they", or "damn" - doesn't matter what the words are but it's lazy writing to repeat the same words over and over. Words on your script pages are like pointillist paintings; you are going for this larger image of beauty, but that image is made up of tiny dots. And when the tiny dots are spelled wrong, repetitive or my personal favorite - malaprops, the larger image has a hard time arising from them.

Now. Is this something that falls under the screenwriting priority list of theme, character arc or the originality of your premise? No. Your words won't be seen onscreen at all, so in the end, using "quiet" six times on a page doesn't matter. Or does it?

Alliterative words are defined technically, as words with the same consonant sound: She sold seashells at the seashore, or Peter Piper Picked a Peck of Pickled Peppers. But in the sense I use it here, it simply means words that sound an awful lot alike and therefore make the read slightly clumsy.

Think twice before naming your female ensemble characters Sharon, Susan, Cindy, Sookie and Sally. Because I am going to get them all confused. They sound too much alike. I recently read this: a stray ray of sunshine blah blah blah. Stray and ray. Back to back.

Much has been made of the multitudinous and egregious spelling errors in Tarrantino's INGLORIOUS BASTARDS. Spelled Inglourious Basterds on the copy that I have. Must we really pause here to point out that this is an established, and some would say, very gifted director and so he gets a free pass where you don't? Okay. I said it.

When someone reads your script, you are not only not preceded by a reputation for greatness, coolness, celebrity-ness or artistry - you are actually preceded by loads and loads of really bad scripts. So the assumption is, on page one, that this script probably won't be very good. Because you're one of the hoi polloi. Guilty by association.

So this is your shot. Don't blow it. Don't give them the satisfaction. Scan your pages for alliterative words and names, for typos (god knows) and vis a vis today's lesson - repeated words. Use a highlighter and go through your pages - have you unwittingly used a word over and over again? Get rid of those repetitive words. Stand out from the crowd with stellar pages which represent a stellar script.

As we duke it out over the final, final, top scripts in the Silver Screenwriting Competition (and there's been some um, lively duking-it-out, trust me) not one of the scripts in question has typos, repeated words or malaprops. Not a one. Otherwise they would have been knocked out in an earlier round. We want the best of the best. You need to do anything and everything to be sure you fall under that category and what may feel like a silly chore - making sure you don't use "they" ten times on one page is actually not silly at all.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Spotlight on Derek Rydall

Wavers know that The Wave-inatrix is a fan of the book There's No Business Like Soul Business, by Derek Rydall. Yesterday I got inspired, picked up the phone and called him. Derek was nice enough to have a great conversation with me and here is some of what he had to say:

*****

First things first - your head shot on your website is great. Are you single?

Not at the present moment. In fact, not for the last 15 years. But, hey, you never know.

What inspired you to write There’s No Business Like Soul Business? Great title, by the way.

Lots of pain and suffering, plenty of producers who didn't see my genius, and a good dose of heartbreaking, gut-wrenching failure and disappointment. In other words, a day in the life of the 'biz'.

Then I had a sort of near-death experience, decided to become a monk, then a minister, then told my girlfriend I had to be celebate. Yeah, that went over real well (Lasted, oh, about a day or so). And finally I realized that I was supposed to bring this new awareness to the 'biz'. That led to a group of a couple dozen other miserable artists and entertainment professionals looking for a way to sell themselves without selling their souls...and eventually the book.

You travel literally all over the world doing workshops based on your book. I know you are also researching two projects; can you tell us a little about them or is it all top secret?

One is an untitled project about a bunch of college-age pilots flying in the jungles during the 80's. And the other is about Mona Lisa and DaVinci.

Did you like the movie Top Secret?

I actually loved it!

I understand you went through WGA arbitration recently, about a script at Universal. How long did the process take, what got you there and who won? Does the arbitration system work, in other words?

It took a couple months. It happened because there was a writer who did a story before I came on board, then a director came on after and brought someone in to rewrite it. I won and received sole credit...so I think the arbitration system works incredibly well!

You didn’t know this until now but recently I subscribed to your email-newsletter about how to get the most out of a script consultant and loved it. Being that I am a script consultant, I wanted to make sure I am delivering as much value as possible to my clientele. Can you give my readership the top five things to look for in a script consultant in a nutshell?

(1) Credibility. Check their references, past testimonials, samples, to see if they have a proven track record and are a fit for your sensibilities. This doesn't mean you shouldn't work with a consultant who doesn't yet have a long resume -- there are many very talented people out there who haven't yet proven themselves -- but then their price should reflect that lack of experience and lower some of your risk for trying them out.

(2) Honesty. You don't want someone who only pats you on the back, you want someone who will tell you the absolute truth, otherwise they're not helping you create the best script possible. On the other hand, you want someone who is always constructive and supportive; someone who feels like they're in your corner.

(3) Passion. You want a consultant who truly loves film and story, who's passion and enthusiasm is infectious and inspiring. You also want someone who you feel is sincerely interested in your success -- not just your check -- and invested in helping you make your script as good as it can be.

(4) Service. You want a consultant who isn't watching the clock or making you feel like you're a burden. You want to feel like you can ask questions and get real answers and solutions, and you want to feel like there is some follow-up after you've received your notes and/or story meeting.

(5) Value. You want a consultant who offers real value for your hard-earned dollar. That can come in a lot of ways. If it's coverage, you want more than just the standard 2-page studio-type coverage that doesn't really give you any significant feedback. And with the bigger analysis packages, it's always great to have the choice of a personal one-on-one story meeting to brainstorm over the notes. Also, look for consultants who offer other benefits -- like more in-depth follow-up, faster turnaround, a money-back guarantee or a free sample analysis of the first page or so of your script, etc.

As I’m sure you’re aware, there are aspiring screenwriters who feel that paying a consultant is a huge rip-off. What say you to that point of view?

I understand this feeling. Most of us have been bombarded with so much marketing and some not-so-ethical people trying to prey on unsuspecting artists and creative types. But the truth is, most consultants are good, honest people who have some knowledge to share and want to help. It's up to the writer to do their due dilligence and make sure they're making a good choice.

Also, it's important for writers to realize what this craft really takes, and what other successful writers have done to get where they are. Many writers vet their scripts through multiple sources of feedback and multiple rewrites. If we want to achieve lasting success, we need to model some of these same practices.

If you look in other industries, you see successful pros using consultants all the time. Entrepreneurs have consultants go over their business plans before pitching a new multi-million dollar enterprise. Architects have other professionals go over their blueprints before trying to get a multi-million dollar building built. Well, what is a script but a 'blueprint' or a 'business plan' for a multi-million dollar venture called a movie.

So it seems we have a mutual acquaintance with Marc Zicree! Is he the nicest guy ever or what?

Absolutely. What a cool guy!

It’s sometimes very tough to stay encouraged in this business we call show. What do you advise aspiring writers to hang onto or think about when they are feeling down about it?

Just as the oak tree is already in the acorn in potential, there is a mighty being inside each of us waiting to emerge. And, like the acorn, we already possess everything we need to achieve our greatness...but the conditions must be cultivated for us to grow. These are primarily 'inner conditions' such as a connection to our 'source', grattitude, passion, peace, generosity, and a vision that is bigger than our personal life.

There is no quick fix, per se, although sometimes just taking our attention off ourselves and trying to help someone else can do wonders. There are many other things we can do to cultivate a sense of faith and empowerment regardless of outer conditions, but this is a good start (you can check out the book, "There's No Business Like Soul Business" for more).

Are there some writers who should quit trying? How can they tell if enough is enough and nothing is moving forward and so this may not be the path for them?

That's a tough question, and one many of us grapple with from time to time. The only thing I can really say is that if it's something you truly want, then you should never quit. You can't determine whether or not you'll move forward based on how you 'feel'. That's a big mistake. It's called 'emotional reasoning'.

Feelings don't necessarily tell us the truth, they just tell us what we 'believe' or 'think' about something. We need to examine our beliefs more deeply to see if they're true or not. Often, our struggles are calling us to grow in ways that will make us the people and the creators that we need to become in order to fulfill our higher purpose. Look at all the examples of people who had everything against them, who were rejected over and over, for years, but didn't give up. Thomas Edison failed at creating the lightbulb like 10,000 times. Where would we be if he gave up after the 100th failure...or the 5,000th failure? We'd be in the dark and we wouldn't have movies! How many of us are willing to fail 10,000 times?

Okay I know this is a really annoying question but what are your top 3 favorite movies of all time?

That IS a really annoying question. Mostly because I have so many movies I love. A few that come to mind...the original Star Wars, Groundhog Day, Bruce Almighty, Little Miss Sunshine, The Matrix, and about a 1000 more, including a lot of older ones.

Do you read in bed? What are you reading right now?

You sounded so sexy when you asked that. Yes, I read in bed. I'm not reading anything right now, I'm doing this interview. Oh, you mean in general? About 12 books, on politics, spirituality, world service, psychology, etc.

If we were to host a Rouge Wave dinner here in LA, to talk about staying encouraged and inspired would you come if I buy dinner?

Oh, yeah.

******

Well, whaddya say to that, Wavers? How about Sunday, September 28th at the Kung Pao Bistro in West Hollywood. A get-together for writers feeling down in the mouth and who'd like some inspiration and encouragement. Contact me HERE if you'd like to attend. Admission is the cost of dinner and a willingness to participate in a conversation about how we can stay motivated and encouraged in a very tough business. That Derek will be joining us is pretty huge; he travels the world speaking and he's doing this just because he's a cool guy.

To learn more about Derek Rydall, his books and services, click HERE.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Sweet Smell of Success

All right. I admit it. I didn't watch the movie of the week this week because I was too busy judging scripts. But. I have of course seen it before and not all that long ago.

Burt Lancaster as J.J. Hunsecker (a version of Walter Winchell) is sheer genius. I hereby nominate Lancaster as one of the best actors EVER. In his later years, he took a lot of jobs that were no indication of his incredible versatility and acting chops. BIRDMAN OF ALCATRAZ, ELMER GANTRY, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY are just a few movies I have loved him in.

Tony Curtis - if you have heretofore thought of Curtis as an actor of limited chops, seeing him as Sidney Falco will forever put that to bed. He is amazing.

Ernie Lehman and Cliff Odets - we should aspire to such writing. Rarely are the names of the writers of a movie so quickly and closely associated with the movie but these two were writers writers and pulled no punches in this sharp-as-a-knife look at the dark side of the soul. Nobody else could have written this movie (based on a novella by Lehman).

Cinematography by James Wong Howe was just gorgeous; the slick black and white was a perfect match for the story which for me was filled with creeping dread. You can't watch THE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS without a feeling of vague anxiety.

The movie is a morality play which is totally relevant today - maybe even moreso. The allure of power and the power of media is explored here in an unforgettable way. THE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS is the perfect storm: great performances, amazing score and cinematography and writing that is pitch perfect.

For any Wavers who watched: what did you think? Should the movie be remade with Kevin Spacey or is it something that should never be spoiled by reinterpretation? Did you feel any empathy for Sidney Falco or was he as cold and reptilian as J.J. Hunsecker?

Next week:

Elmer Gantry

Because it's Burt Lancaster at his absolute, most entertaining best.

Because it combines both an illuminating look at a historical time and place but also is totally relevant today particularly at election time; the power of charismatic showmanship is just as persuasive during the time of snake oil salesmen and religious prophets as it is during the time of Obama and McCain.

Because not enough people have seen this movie and that's part of the point of the movie club; to expose Wavers to great movies that are down on the lower left shelf at the video store. You want to work in this industry, right? Don't be one of those people who looks down at your toes, embarrassed, while other people talk about great movies from yesteryear.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

2008 Hispanic Heritage Month

Apropos of and in addition to the interview with Bernadette Rivero posted earlier today, this is a reminder that Sept. 15-Oct. 15th is Hispanic Heritage Month. Events, screenings and fun events can be found nationwide.

Here in Los Angeles, LALIFF (the Los Angeles Latino International Film Festival) is Sept. 12-19th. Be sure to check it out.

If you live in the area and haven't been to Olvera Street, shame on you - go get some amazing food, see live dancing and take in the sights and sound of what is literally the birthplace of what is now the City of Los Angeles. You may even bump into the Wave-inatrix - I love Olvera Street and go there every year to get my sugar skulls for the Day of the Dead.

For film makers, if you aren't aware of NALIP (the National Association of Latino Independent Producers) now's the time to get acquainted with the resources available there.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Latin American Explosion

It began for me in 1992, with Robert Rodriguez's shoestring EL MARIACHI. Here was this tall, sexy, brash Mexican-American director from Texas, young and gifted as hell. And it was obvious that Rodriguez wasn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Then, in 1998, CENTRAL STATION, directed by Walter Salles blew my mind. Then the big three showed up: Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, Alfonso Cuaron and Guillermo del Toro, and I knew for sure that the floodgates were open for Latin American directors and writers. Will this trend continue? Can we look forward to more Latin American talent hitting theaters in the US or has this been a blip? One thing is for sure, the directors mentioned above aren't going anywhere; they've already crossed over into directing fare that is not necessarily "Latin" in it's focus and yet a unique sensibility shines through. Has the Latino population in the US finally established a political, social and economic foothold that will support more Latino writers, and directors in Hollywood?

The other day I met with my friend and colleague, the phenomenal Bernadette Rivero, co-owner of Los Angeles based production company, The Cortez Brothers, to discuss the world of screenwriting and film making relative to the Latin American explosion.

***

You told me something so fascinating the other day – that some of my favorite Latin directors like Walter Salles, came up through directing commercials in Latin America. Other directors like Fernando Meirelles and Alejandro González Iñárritu have too. Why is that path so common in Latin America?

You’ll find that commercial and film production in Latin America are deeply intertwined; someone like Walter Salles (Central Station) is known for his filmmaking, but the advertising world also knows that he helms VideoFilmes, a successful production company in Brazil. Meirelles (City of Men, The Contant Gardener) had a long, long career directing commercials before he made a name for himself as a film director. The production communities in Latin America seem much smaller and tighter than they are in the United States, and I think that’s why it’s easier for those directors to launch their careers. They’re already working with the best and brightest actors, crew and producers when they’re shooting commercials, so the transition into films is a natural one.

What do you think of Robert Rodriguez, Salma Hayek and other Latin producers and directors who live and work in the US? Have they opened doors for the Latin American creative community?

I feel that there are a lot of directors and talent originally based outside the U.S. that opened doors for the Latin creative community. González Iñárritu’s Amores Perros and Alfonso Cuarón’s Y tu Mamá También threw the doors open wide, creatively speaking,for quality Latin projects. For me, they created this watershed moment when Hollywood finally paused and thought, “Wow. Maybe there are some great Latin stories to be told…”

What do you see as the greatest challenge for Spanish-language projects in the US?

Funding. Hispanics are an enormous demographic within the U.S., but distributors don’t seem to see us as a viable marketplace yet. I think it’s going to follow the same pattern that Hispanic advertising did, though… Up until recently, advertisers never paid much attention to the U.S. Hispanic market. Then all of a sudden you realize we have nearly a billion dollars in buying power and are incredibly brand-loyal and suddenly people take note. When it comes to admissions-per-moviegoer, we buy almost 11 tickets for every 8 or so that the general market does. I think that eventually it will be easier to get funding and distribution for both Spanish- and English-language Latin projects when Hollywood learns how to specialize and target those markets like Hispanic advertising has done.

Do Latin American audiences in Latin America have different tastes and cultural touch points than Latin Americans living here in the US?

Slapstick comedy and action seems to do really well internationally. Personally, I think a lot of that has to do with subtitling. I’ve sat through a lot of subtitled movies in Latin American theaters. You’ll see those same movies on television much later dubbed into Spanish, but when you go out on a Friday night to your local cinema you have a lot of text to read. Physical comedy and action are easier to follow on a big screen than really, really wordy dramatic translations or culturally-specific, only-if-you-live-in-America-will-you-get it humor. I know my friends in Mexico City would pick Iron Man over fratpack humor if they were going out to the movies tomorrow night. They’d also put chili pepper and lime juice on their popcorn and eat it with a spoon though, so even the movie-going experience is different from country to country.

What producers and exhibitors operating in the US deliver really great, quality material for Latin audiences?

Overture has John Leguizamo in Nothing Like the Holidays coming up, an ensemble Latin family film that’s more about the horrors of holiday get-togethers than it is about Latinos per se, which I think is a great way of approaching things. I’m exceptionally biased because I really like the director, Alfredo de Villa, and have worked with him in the past, though. Lionsgate has Cheech Marin in The Perfect Game, inspired by a true story about a ragtag Mexican Little League team. But when it comes to finding quality Latin films, I generally make a beeline to Netflix. I know I’m not necessarily going to find great Latin films in the theater every weekend, but I can get some really great films (Crónicas, The Devil’s Backbone, Sex and Lucía are a few oldies but goodies I love)at home.

Where is the cross-over for Americans? In other words, can Latin produced material speak to Americans who are not Latin American?

Good stories are universal, as Y tu Mamá También and Amores Perros proved. And I think there’s something unique about the Latin worldview that makes its way into the works of our most well known directors. I see an awful lot of dark, rich tones and themes in Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men and even Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban that make me think of Mexico – even though neither of those films are particularly Mexican. I laughed out loud when I spotted a sugar Day of the Dead skull inside the Hogsmeade candy shop in Harry Potter. There are little touchstones, little ways of seeing things like that, that strike me as very Latin.

Does the Mexican community living here in the US, primarily in California, Arizona and Texas, have a different set of expectations or tastes from other Latin Americans or is it similar?

It seems like urban stories resonate a little more in parts of the U.S. that have Caribbean populations, but that’s not always the case. Across the board, all segments of the Hispanic population seemed to tune into “American Idol,” regardless of their country of origin – even though, traditionally, reggaeton plays better on the East Coast and norteño music on the West. It’s true that there are certain differences in the populations,but seeing ourselves on screen (TV or film) in genuine ways seems to cut through the divisions.

Telenovelas are quite popular in Mexico but your average American might not find them as entertaining – are telenovelas a cultural touch-point which do not translate? Or can they?

Telenovelas run much, much shorter than American soap operas. They wrap up after a few months instead of airing for decades. So when one fairytale storyline wraps up, you’re ready for the next one to begin from scratch. You can mix and match stars, locations, eras, storylines – it’s really quite fun, like the ultimate Rubik’s Cube of bodice-ripping fiction. I think modern Americans are increasingly disinterested in daytime soaps, because after several decades of the same stories you’re beating a dead horse past the point of exhaustion, so we’re either going to see more talk shows or short-run soaps on American TV in the future. I can’t directly attribute that to the success of Latin American filmmaking, but in the wake of “Ugly Betty” at least a few creative minds are open to the concept of telenovelas.

Has Ugly Betty had a positive impact on the Latin American community or perceptions thereof? Has it opened doors for Latin American writers, directors or producers?

It has definitely turned eyes southward. I find a lot of producers looking abroad and asking me what’s popular on television in Latin America lately. It seems to be a two-way street, too. I’ve bumped into producers and crew on Latin American versions of “Desperate Housewives,” for instance, that were meant to be shot and aired in South America. Multiple versions. So Latin television and audiences are now seen as a potential resource and not as inconsequential gnats on the wall, which is a huge difference from five or six years ago.

What advice would you give to Spanish-language writers trying to break into Hollywood?

Write good – or better yet, great – stories in Spanish. It’s much easier to find a phenomenal Spanish‐to‐English translator after you’ve knocked out a killer script than it is to write in OK‐but‐only‐passably‐so English. I can’t tell you the number of Latin scripts written in mangled English I’ve reviewed or covered in the last few years, and 100% of them get a “pass” from the production companies and directors they’ve been sent to because they’re wrong in every way imaginable. Wrong format, wrong grammar, wrong everything. Yet there are really phenomenal Spanish language scripts floating around that could reach a huge number of readers in Hollywood if they just came in with a brilliant English translation attached. If you write a good story, and write it well, it will eventually find its mark.http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

If you have questions for Bernadette, email her HERE and tell her the Rouge Wave sentcha. Learn more about Bernadette and her translation services at The Script Department.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

This is Your Brain on Script

I read an article in the New Yorker a couple of years ago - could have been five - time compresses when you get older, oddly - about cab drivers and brain scans. These scientists performed brain scans of cab drivers and found that a certain part of the brain - we'll call it the navigation-a-thalamus -is larger than those in normal people. And they found that when they measured the navigation-a-thalamus in new cab drivers, it was smaller than that of experienced ones. So in doing the same thing over and over, a certain part of the brain grew and became more powerful.

It's the same when you're a reader of scripts. A part of your brain gets really muscular. Which explains the odd head shapes you see so much of here in LA.

So who here saw RATATOUILLE? There's a scene in the movie in which our hero, Remy, looks at several letters and documents and certain key phrases float into focus, blurring out other, less important phrases and words. And in this way, little Remy is able to put together and understand an important plot point.

In the class I taught at the Great American Pitch Fest which was essentially an inside view of how readers do their jobs, I gave the class participants ten pages to read and timed the read for four minutes. That's 40 seconds per page. And that's a little generous. In reality, an experienced reader will spend about 30 seconds on each of your pages. And that RATATOUILLE thing happens; sluglines, action lines and lines of dialogue come into focus while others fade to the background. Because the reader's brain is trying to quickly line up information to get a grasp of what's important so that the information can later coalesce into a cohesive whole - your story. We all have a vast, information-gathering and interpreting super-computer atop our shoulders.

That's why dense action lines do you no good. You can write as little or as much as you want on the page but when it's read, about 30 seconds will be spent on that page. If your action lines are dense, my brain is scanning for the key words or phrases that help me understand what's going on. It's not conscious. There is an urban myth that readers consciously skim because we just don't give a damn. Untrue. It's the way the brain works.

Great example: we had a script in the Silver Screenwriting Competition which was written beautifully and was setting up, on page one, a small mid-western town that was past it's prime. The writer did an almost Malick-like description of ruts in the road and waving rows of corn and oil rainbows in the puddles. And it was gorgeous. But the reader was simply scanning for: small town. Midwest. Seen better days. She paused in her judging and said you know, this is great but not necessary.

In some ways it's like reading a book - you imagine the scene based on the words and that's part of the fun. But when you dictate every single aspect of the scene, I not only get bogged down in your details, you disallow me from just flowing along with the story and letting my own imagination fill in the details like the mud puddles after the rain.

Now dialogue - dialogue our brains can't skim; we need to read every line because that's where the plot is happening.

Everybody reads and evaluates information: directions, recipes, letters, instructions. When you're reading a script you're doing the same thing but what your brain is doing is actually pretty complicated: You're information gathering so you can follow the narrative, you're mentally bookmarking significant moments or details and then on another sub-level, you are analyzing theme, character arc and general entertainment levels of everything working together. A reader's brain on a CAT scan is probably a complicated field of fireworks.

Now - one of my mentors, Stephanie Palmer, teaches that the human brain can really only process three pieces of important information in sixty seconds. In this case, she talks about that in the context of pitching. I'm listening to you and my brain is trying very hard to HEAR those key points that coalesce into your story making sense.

Your brain is always working hard to gather and interpret information. A friend is telling you about his or her day. And your brain is working on so many levels in the moment of hearing the story. WHAT happened? HOW should I respond? What does this MEAN? HOW can I relate?

So your brain is actually hearing: blah blah blah MY BOSS blah blah DID THIS BAD THING blah blah blah I WENT TO A GUN STORE blah blah blah. Now, your friend might prattle on quickly, with a lot of dense thoughts but those three things are the ones you plucked out and ordered as being important.

Similarly, reader's brains are gathering, ordering and interpreting information very quickly.

On your page you should have about THREE things for me to absorb in order to not only follow your narrative but interpret your story:

Plot development
Character development
The dna of the premise and the theme

A great exercise is to take a page out of your script, get a highlighter and highlight those significant pieces of information. Highlight where your plot moves forward, highlight an example of character development and highlight what signifies the dna of your premise on the page. All of these components can show up in action or dialogue.

If your premise is: A man searches for his long lost sister in Peru only to find that she's been kidnapped by an eco-terrorist group bent on taking over the government, then the dna of that plot: man searching for sister - Peru - kidnapped by eco-terrorists - taking over the government - should show up, some way, some how on every page. Everything, every creative decision you make, should evidence your premise on every page. I should never read a page in which this dna is not present.

Because, to put it in more work-a-day terms, that is what the reader's brain is doing. It's scanning your pages trying to recognize and interpret what your premise is and then how, on every page, that is falling into a pattern that can be later interpreted. You know how the brain works - like a computer. So it sees "eco-terrorist" and instantly images and meaning flood into the brain. It sees "frat party" and the same thing happens.

So don't fear the reader (which needs more cowbell, honestly) but rather understand that setting aside their preferences, how their day has gone so far today, whether this is a competition script or a regular coverage - readers have a highly developed sense of ordering information and analyzing it for logic, resolution, complication, character development and overall entertainment. It's not personal - it's a brain activity. So when a reader reviews a script and by page 18 the brain is unable to coalesce this information into a shape which is in some way recognizable and satisfying - you're failing in your job as a writer.

Some say that scripts are like blueprints - true enough. If anyone knows anything about technical writing, even there, as I write the instructions for putting together your new Ikea cabinet, I need to write the instructions in such a way that you can follow easily and connect the dots. It has to be in some kind of order that your brain can interpret. Same with stories.

Turn your eyes away from the Rouge Wave right now. And write down the three words or phrases that float to the surface of your awareness. Do it.

I'll wait.

Now. What did you jot down?

The way brains work.
30 seconds a page.
Three things on every page.

Or maybe you jotted down a slightly different list, subject to your interpretation. Pretend that readers are students cramming for a test the night before. They are information gathering. What stands out? What seems important? If you had to put the script down right now, this minute, and pitch it, what would you say? What would you be ABLE to say? That's what happened during the judging process the other night.

Put yourself in a reader's shoes. It will help your own writing in a huge way. Inestimably, in fact.

Wavers know I am teaching a how-to reader correspondence course (sidebar). If you can do this, I think it has the potential to move your writing chops into a whole new realm. If you can't or don't want to do the homework necessary, get hold of some scripts and do the 30-second test. Then go back and highlight the pertinent information. Do it to your own scripts. Become familiar with the idea that every page should contain, ideally:

Plot development
Character development
The dna of the premise and the theme

For you argumentative types, yes, you can have a page with two of those three qualities but why be stingy? The best scripts have all three. Think about it.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Silver Screenwriting Semi-Finalists!

Phew. Here they are guys - the top 18 scripts of 500 submissions. I've been the phone all afternoon, calling each one. There are some damn good scripts on this list. Good luck to everyone on the next round!!

Blood Snow – Adam Hong
Freebird – Hilary Graham
Influence – Dov Engleberg
Jam the Flow - Galen Young
Lucifer’s Bounty – R.D. Wright
Mr. Unlucky – Tony Nichols
Shooting Bambi – William Goins
Sleeping with the Lutefisk – Wenonah Wilms
Snilderholden’s Jungle – Jennifer Thomas
The De-Haunters – Calvin Field and Bryan Bagby
The Friendliest Evil Clown Around – Michael C. Pauly
The Lam of God – Drew Langer
The Orchard – Diane Stredicke
The Terminals – Matt Umbarger
The Warrior Within – Nicholas Wright
Through the Night – Edward Martin III
Unsigned: The Feature – Danny Musengo and Christopher Wasmer
Wrocklage – Steve Daniels

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Transparency in Judging Scripts

Last evening the Wave-inatrix hunkered down with 3 readers, some delicious food and a very large, very heavy box of scripts to judge. It was a lively debate. I wish we could have filmed it for aspiring writers because it's really interesting, when a script is being discussed, what the readers said as we paused from reading to round table our "yes" and "no" decisions.

Stuff like:

*I read to page 23 and I don't get what the genre is.

*I read to page 18 and there hasn't been a really impactful inciting incident.

*It's really funny and cool but I'm a bit confused.

*I'm not sure where this is going but it's a "yes" (i.e., continue to consider) because I can't put it down even though I know I need to move on to another script.

*I hate to say "no" because the writer has an interesting voice but I can't pinpoint the genre and I'm not positive I know where this story is going.

As we read quietly, the sound of turning pages the only sound, occasionally someone would burst into laughter and say You guys! Listen to this! And read a really funny line of dialogue or even a really funny whole page or sequence.

Or - You guys - whoa! Listen to THIS and read a really scary or compelling page or moment aloud for us all to enjoy.

There was a script that had me at the first line of description under the very first slugline (and writer, if you're a Waver, you know who you are) which was (to paraphrase the slug):

INT. A bar - NIGHT

A smoke filled shit hole.

And that just got me because I so often read descriptions that while maybe even nicely written, are so much longer than that. But this writer got straight to the point and those five words: a smoke filled shit hole painted a picture for me very, very efficiently.

It was at times an excruciating experience; there were scripts that really had something special about them but side-by-side with another script that nailed genre, character and the direction of the story more quickly - in fairness had to go in the "no" pile.

I want to find a way to communicate to the writers who made it to the semifinal round that while they may not have advanced, it was a very difficult choice not to advance them. The competition is intense.

But over and over again, as a trend, the writer who most quickly, efficiently and stylishly established world, character and set up is the writer whose script consistently moved up to the top of the list.

Now mind you, all of these scripts have been vetted and re-vetted again and again. If one reader LOVED a script in an earlier round, now the sifting becomes more intense and if the majority of us in the room last night didn't agree - well - unfortunately, that's a "no" at this point.

The next and final round of judging will dig deeper - yes, you made it out of the gate quickly, efficiently and stylishly BUT did you also establish a resonant theme, execute your story structure perfectly and write a great character arc and satisfying ending? The higher your script moves into the various rounds of consideration, the higher the bar is raised.

So the quarter finalist writers know this: your script was definitely more original and better executed than the average submission.

Semi-final writers know this: your script was not only more original and better executed than the average submission, your voice is great, your premise is interesting and your pages are compelling.

The top, top eight writers who win the prizes know this: your script was not only more original and better executed than the average submission, your voice is great, your premise is interesting and your pages are compelling AND we believe you can get representation and maybe even a sale or option with this material.

So truly everybody is winner. But the criteria narrows and narrows until we find something that in our opinion is seriously competitive material meaning you should be taking meetings on this material and we're going to try to make that happen for you.

What delightful stuff we read last night. Really FUNNY moments. Readers reading quietly would suddenly burst into laughter. Or gasp because something was so scary. Or tear up a little because something was so poignant. Or read something aloud to the group because it was just so well executed. I read an opening sequence aloud because it was sheer, cinematic poetry and we were all in awe of such writing. I have to say, overall, I am pretty impressed by the quality of submissions this year. Which is why putting anyone in the "no" pile for me is very difficult.

I try to remember this: The grand prize winner is going to not only do fun stuff like meet Blake Snyder for a cocktail at the Chateau Marmont, win cash, a flight to LA and all that other cool stuff but MY reputation is on the line because they are going to sit with Stephanie Palmer and learn to pitch and then go meet with three managers who will have read the winning script. And those managers will think: Julie sent THIS writer?? Yes, I did. And even if those managers choose not to rep this writer, I want to be certain that I absolutely stand behind the writer and the material and that the writer's story will not end there. I never take it personally if a rep I approach winds up turning down a writer or a script I recommended. Because I never make a recommendation that I don't support 100%. It just wasn't the right fit.

On an ongoing basis, when I do recommend a script to a rep or production company, it's never something I kind of like and I never make a recommendation of just a logline, like some kind of slightly glorified query. I pick up the phone and discuss the script with the rep at length. I throw myself behind the writer. Why, just yesterday I got a script of a client directly into the hands of a major, major successful working screenwriter who is looking for projects to executive produce. He may love the script as much as I do or he may not. But I don't mess around when I make recommendations. Because again, selfishly, that's MY reputation on the line. Someone may pass but they won't pass plus say geez, Julie, why did you even bother talking to me about this material?? That's why I don't recommend stuff very often.

So next year, when the Silver Screenwriting Competition is in its second year and will have grown much more well known by then, I may not be able to be as candid as I have been about the judging process. But I like to think that writers appreciate having a greater understanding of exactly what goes on behind closed doors and what judging a competition really looks like from where I sit. I'm certain that other, bigger competitions have similar processes but by dint of sheer volume, they are mysterious about the process.

I hope that my sharing about the process has been illuminating for Rouge Wavers. I look across my living room and now see a stack of 18 scripts that are contending for the top prizes. One of those scripts is the grand prize winner. I'm excited to get to the next round and figure out who that writer is. Listen, this is not the cure for cancer or the Nobel Peace Prize or the Nicholl Competition (ha) - but this really could be a major turning point for the winner. He or she will make of this win what they will. Will they get sold and produced? Maybe not immediately but possibly. Repped and be taking meetings? I hope. He or she will be charged with leveraging this experience up into more inspiration, more writing and more connections than they had before. They will know one thing for sure - they have a fan in me. For whatever that's worth. I'll try to make that worth a lot.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Power of Buzz

The Wave-inatrix has had a recent experience with the power of buzz. This weekend the Silver Screenwriting Competition is moving into the final phase of judging the very top scripts from the hundreds we received at the beginning of this whole endeavor. And we're doing it the old-fashioned way; as a group.

There are two specific scripts that some of my reader/judges have read that they are crazy about. Of course, I can't give away the titles or writers here but I keep hearing look for THIS one and look for THAT one - it's great! And it generates a feeling of excitement - where is that script? Somebody show me that script! If my readers love a script - it has to be good because, with all due respect, they are a bunch of hard-asses. I say that with love. So I'm very excited to read all of this top contenders but particularly ones that have got the readers excited.

We're literally gathering at my cozy house with the scripts in a giant pile with boxes for categories like: WOW! and SEMI-FINALIST ONLY and LET'S DISCUSS FURTHER. This process will be going on all weekend. One room, six readers, 43 scripts. It's like script camp. I should have tee-shirts made: I Survived Script Camp Weekend! What I am looking forward to about this weekend is that I know there are a few absolute GEMS in this pile of 43 scripts. It's going to be exciting finding those gems. And I look forward to the organic discussions of the merits of every script in consideration. Live. In person. If a reader loves a script - that reader has to then back up their recommendation in real time, before a jury of his or her peers.

Maybe it's because it's our first year, maybe it's because I love my job, maybe in future years this won't be realistic given the huge numbers of scripts that come in, but in my mind, this is the way a script should be judged. Not by committee - don't get me wrong - individually and then discussed in a round table. Each script will be carefully considered. If a reader loves your script - they're going to fight hard to see it advance. This is Just Effing Entertain Me writ large.

Don't get me wrong - we're not so special. In the final rounds of any competition, the judging is personal and careful. I guess. I mean, it must be. But what we're doing that is really fun for us is that when heretofore all judging had been electronic and individual and in this case, should continue to be so for another 20 scripts, we decided to toss that methodology out the window in favor of really rolling up our sleeves now to find those great scripts. This year might have been anomalous but we received quite a number of entertaining and compelling scripts. Things could get ugly with all of us fighting for this or that script to pull ahead.

Tell you one thing - two scripts are getting buzz within our group. I have seen neither one but believe me, I'm going to dig through the boxes and pull them out first thing. Then we'll set them aside and see if any other scripts can compete with them for the Grand Prize. This won't be easy.

Wish us luck. Now. Off to the grocery store to stock up on Red Bull and candy. No, wait, we shouldn't be hyped up. Brown rice and tofu? Pizza and beer? Hmmmmm... what do you serve six readers in one room arguing about whose script is the best?

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

The Assistant Files

Every year the passing of Labor Day is like a starter pistol for the race to the end of the year. September flies by with the activity of spec season. Then come the High Holy Days and Thanksgiving, and all of a sudden you're into hardcore holiday season with Hanukkah, Christmas, Golden Globe nominations, New Year's Eve, and then where are you? Oh yeah, NEXT YEAR.

But let's back up. That hardcore holiday season that I mentioned brings with it something that assistants all over town cherish. A little period of time I like to call THE REAPING OF THE WANTON HOLLYWOOD GIFTING EXCESSES.

That's right. People in Hollywood loooooooove a reason to give gifts. It's the perfect opportunity to redeem oneself for past offenses or sneak in a little buttering-up, without seeming too weak or desperate. When a gift-giving opportunity arises, the giver gets to come off as benevolent, and the givee gets free stuff. Everybody wins.

Everybody, including assistants. Oh, yes. It sends a tingle up my spine just thinking about it. The most common sources of our loot:

1) From the agencies: Because the big agencies inundate the assistant community with gifts. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes not so much. CAA in particular has had a good reputation for gift-giving, which I've heard credited back to Mike Ovitz. Apparently he understands the power of free stuff. It makes people like you (or your company). And everybody knows how fast information spreads through the Assistant Underground, both good and bad. Now I'm not one to gossip, but Defamer is fond of reviewing the worst agency gifts. I'm just happy to be remembered. And, hey-- I can always re-gift it to my little brother. It's the thought that counts, right?

2) Cast-offs from our bosses: Because we work for people who have little need for yet another rabbit wine bottle opener or zip-up fleece travel blanket. But assistants? We'll take what we can get. Who cares if it bears a corporate logo; my whole apartment and half my luggage is branded.

3) From clients, if you work for a manager or agent: Because some clients like to recognize the person putting their calls through and scheduling their lunches. Smart people, those. Whether it's conscious or not, when an assistant likes you, you do get a little better treatment.

Do we have time for a little reminiscing? In the past I've received things like: a trendy designer sweatsuit, bottles of wine, an iPod mini, a spa gift certificate, money, and – always appreciated – food. Maybe it's just me, but I ALWAYS get excited about food-related gifts. It doesn't have to be expensive, as long as it's delicious.

Even if there aren't currently any assistants in your life, I think this is a lesson you can take with you into the future, when you are a player in the Hollywood game. Just putting it out there: assistants like gifts.

xxoo,
Andy Sachs

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Is the Movie Business in Trouble?

Yes. It is. Let's have a reality check, Wavers.

As The Wave-inatrix is often wont to say, they don't call it show FRIENDS. Movie making is obviously a business. A huge business. A business which amounts to a significant percentage of California's economy. But business ain't so good lately.

Excerpted from The Wall Street Journal:

Last year, more than 600 feature films -- mostly independent movies not produced at a major studio -- were released theatrically in the U.S., up from 466 in 2002, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. That's an average of 2.6 more movies every weekend that are battling for the public's attention.

But those figures are just for the films that make it to the silver screen. Many more films, such as "Boyfriend," with big-name actors or directors never make it to theaters. More than 3,600 feature films were submitted for consideration at Sundance Film Festival this year, and while many of those are tiny digital flicks that never have a chance of commercial release, the number is up from about 2,000 feature submissions just five years ago.

The frothy marketplace means more choices for movie fans, and more headaches for a struggling industry. In 2007, domestic box-office revenue totaled $9.68 billion, up from $9.3 billion in 2006, according to box-office tracker Media by Numbers. Box-office revenue has grown since 2005 because of higher ticket prices, but attendance started dropping last year. This year, attendance is down 4.74% from the same time a year ago. Lower attendance should trim box-office revenues for 2008 to around $9.6 billion, Media by Numbers projects.

Today, the credit crunch is putting the brakes on outside film financing.

To read the entire article, click HERE.

If you are anything like The Wave-inatrix, being a creative, you might get through that article with a slight blah-blah-blah-Ginger* thing going on. But the upshot is pretty clear. The movie business is in trouble. Big trouble.

Living in Los Angeles, with premieres happening seemingly constantly, with billboards looming over every city block advertising the newest movie, with EW magazine arriving weekly with weeky movie reviews, fall movie previews, spring movie previews, Oscar movie predictions, etc., it's hard to tell. But the article excerpted above makes no bones about a hard, cold financial reality.

There's trouble. Trouble in Tinsel Town City.

So how does this reality mesh with my Unified Unicorn Theory of positive thinking? How does a writer maintain optimism in the face of hard, cold facts?

Read carefully, now, this is historic; it's a rare day when the Wave-inatrix has a negative point to make. Over time, I have had a handful of clients who are optimistic to a fault about the chances of their project getting made. And no matter what I say about the realities of the market, they absolutely INSIST that studios will clamor to make their project. Despite my warnings about the market and the commercial realities of the project. Part of me loves such determination and enthusiasm. And another part of me grows annoyed - you aren't HEARING me. I love that you love your project. I love your enthusiasm. But you need to get real about the perceived merits of the project and you need to get real about the fact that many, many superior projects are lined up in front of you and THEY aren't getting sold much less produced. I don't see this attitude as optimism, I see it as Willful & Foolish Wrong-Headedness. Or WFWH for short.

There's optimism and positive thinking and living in the Unified Unicorn Field and then there's WFWH; a stubborn refusal to accept that there are larger forces at work here.

As the director of The Script Department, it would be foolish, irresponsible and unethical for me to mislead my clientele into thinking that the market is wide open and that they have a greater chance, by far, then they really do of making a living as a screenwriter. It's Hollywood - in the best of times, for truly gifted writers, the odds are terrible. And right now it's not the best of times.

So how on earth can we, as writers, understand and acknowledge the reality of the marketplace:

...Hollywood executives fear the glut created by the recent spate of overproduction is going to be felt for at least a couple more years. Some people say the worst of the oversupply problem is still about a year away.

"We're at the top of the curve heading down," says Hal Sadoff, head of international and independent film at ICM, one of the major talent agencies in Hollywood. "We've seen many of these financial institutions, private-equity firms and hedge funds pull away from the industry. But the films that they have advanced are still in production, and it will take another six to 12 months for the market to regularize again."

- and also know that humans need stories and that we need to tell them? Why bother, right?

Well, here's some stuff to think about:

Venues for storytelling are shifting rapidly. Online mediums abound. Read this article from Variety about digital novels.

This glut is predicted to have repercussions for almost two years. And nobody knows what the market will look like after that. See above: venues. shifting. rapidly. And god knows what other unpredictable factors lie ahead of us. The price of fuel, the larger economy, the discovery of life on Mars, a meteor strike, the cure for cancer - we cannot know what the future holds.

It takes the average screenwriter, anecdotally, ten years or ten scripts (whichever comes first) to make a sale. So for those of you rearing to go (often pronounced RARING but this is a pronunciation issue; the horse REARS up at the bit or chomps at the bit, eager to go. Or bummed there's a sharp piece of metal strapped into its mouth.) you may have to cool your jets some and rethink the various mediums and venues for your writing. For Willful-Wrong-Headers, it's time to emerge from the Land of Nod and wake up to some realities.

There are many better writers than you. The market is very tough right now. It can take years to write a script with a great concept, executed well, that will be sold, produced and consumed by movie-goers. Still want to keep working on your writing?

On the other hand:

There are more outlets for writing today than ever before. For better or worse, a huge democratization has occurred. Frustrated you can't get your articles published in a periodical? Start your own blog. Lay waste to the competition with no pesky editors with stupid comments and late checks. Have a great idea for an SNL skit? Produce it yourself for the cost of a week's groceries and put it on You Tube. Want to write a novel but don't have five years? Write it line by line on your cell phone and publish instantaneously!

But here's the thing: if your blog My Brilliance Daily doesn't have good, entertaining content, nobody is going to stick around and read it. The more visitors you get, the more fun you have writing your blog. The fewer visitors you get and....you deflate like a balloon.

If nobody clicks on your brilliant You Tube skit, Failed, Bitter Medieval Entrepreneurs, suddenly the joy is sucked out of the project. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Not really. We writers seek not only to express but to entertain. We enjoy our validation. We like to know that you responded to our writing. Right? Right.

So despite the proliferation of writing opportunities, the cream will continue to rise to the top. Audiences gravitate to that which entertains them. And despite the economic realities of the movie business, people will always want to be entertained. It's as old as time. HOW that entertainment is presented has run the gamut from throwing Christians to the lions to CASABLANCA to improv comedy to Twitter.

There's big trouble in the movie business right now. What are you going to do about that? If you're in it for MONEY and FAME you should walk away right now. If you're in it because you have to tell stories and you can be flexible about the outlets for those stories, keep writing.

*Gary Larson Far Side cartoon:
The first panel is titled "What we say to dogs." A man is scolding his
dog. The man's word-balloon says this: "Okay, Ginger! I've had it! You
stay out of the garbage! Understand, Ginger? Stay out of the garbage,
or else!?"

The second panel is titled "What they hear." The drawing is exactly
like the first panel, but this time the man's word-balloon says "Blah
blah GINGER blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah GINGER blah blah
blah blah blah."

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

PACHEW! Sounds in Your Script

Is it okay to write sounds into your script? You know - stuff like BANG! RRRIPP! POW!

Yes, please. It makes the read a lot more fun. And it's fun to do. Your character might throw a rock into a lake with SPLASH or a soft plunk. The faucet might drrrip. DRIP DRIP DRIP. The door can open with a creak. And yeah, italics are okay once in awhile.

I have a client right now who is just the king of great sound effects. The genre of his script is such that sound effects are an important part of this story and man, does he do it well. On page one, our hero arrives in a cloud of dust in the middle ofa crowd with a BAWOOMPH! Later, bullets fly by with a SCHWIZZ! Laser guns fire PACHEW PACHEW! The ring of a phone breaks the silence with a BAAAA RING! This is not all on page or even on every page. Just here and there when the moment calls for it.

Recently, I read a script in which a rock flies through a glass window with a SPLAT! And I thought - splat? Wouldn't that go CRASH! or SHATTER! or CRACK ? And it really bothered me because I had to backtrack to see if I had read the action line wrong, if perhaps an egg had hit the window, or spit or bird poop. No - it was a rock. Rocks don't make glass go SPLAT, they just don't.

So be careful that indicating the sound gets you the cinematic effect you want, not confusion.

Experienced screenwriters know that a successful read of your script should immerse the reader in the simulated experience of seeing the movie. Choosing to write a sound effect here and there adds to the effing entertainingness of your pages.

Like anything, don't overdo sounds to the point that it's annoying. Don't use it as a crutch, use it for effect. Judiciously used, it's actually very fun and adds a lot of ZIP! to your script.

Remember, your script is essentially a seduction. You want the reader to become totally immersed in your story. Use absolutely everything at your disposal - use every one of your wiles. And if a well-placed FWAP! or BOOOOSH! adds to the experience of the moment in a scene, by all means go for it.

There are a lot of qualities that equal a PASS writer, but being boring is probably number one. Don't tempt the reader to hurl your script across the room with a THUD.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Spotlight on Marc S. Zicree

Last week, I had the pleasure of lunching with one of the most delightful, gracious and wise working writers I have ever had the privilege to meet. There's no way I have room here on the Rouge Wave to jot down Marc Zicree's whole resume but I will tell you that with over 100 script sales to his name, including credits on STAR TREK – THE NEXT GENERATION, SLIDERS, DEEP SPACE NINE and BABYLON 5, plus multiple pilots for NBC, ABC and Showtime, Marc has written for virtually every major studio and network, and his work has been nominated for the Humanitas Prize, Diane Thomas Award, American Book Award and this year’s Nebula and Hugo awards – the top prizes in science fiction. He has also won the prestigious Hamptons Prize and this year’s TV GUIDE Award.

Marc was a commentator for three years on NPR’s MORNING EDITION and is well-known as the author of THE TWILIGHT ZONE COMPANION (named in 2006 by the New York Times as one of ten “science fiction books for the ages”). He has appeared on hundreds of radio and TV shows, including AMERICAN MASTERS, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, WEEKEND EDITION, BIOGRAPHY, ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT, the BBC, THE TODAY SHOW and COAST TO COAST. Phew.

Above and beyond his resume and packed IMDB, Marc is peaceful, wise and kind beyond belief. Plus, he's friends with Ray Bradbury. Wow, right? Marc was kind enough to submit himself to an exclusive Rouge Wave interview - thank you Marc!

****

So – I heard you actually know a writer I am in awe of - Ray Bradbury.

Yes, in fact, I just visited him yesterday at his home, which was quite wonderful, as always. I gave him a present for his 88th birthday, a book on comic strips from the early part of the 20th Century and the toys and products they spawned. We hung out and laughed and traded stories; he signed copies of his books for me and told me about writing THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES and meeting Marlene Dietrich and Al Jolson and Laurel and Hardy when he was a teenager and young man.

He told me about sign he has on the wall of his office where he writes: "Don't think -- DO!" I think that's great. He asked about the book I just finished and what I'm writing now. I told him my goal in the next year is to create and run my own TV series, write and direct a feature and keep writing books. I related the plot of the new screenplay I'm writing and he loved it to such a degree that he gave me a blurb to put on the cover of the screenplay: "This is it!" signed Ray Bradbury.

What a great friend, amazing writer and inspiration.

You just returned from WorldCon in Denver – was Obama there?

He hadn't arrived yet, so he really missed a good time.

You were nominated for a Hugo Award – that’s huge! Tell us about the experience!

I've gotta tell you, being nominated for the Hugo Award -- science fiction's top prize -- for the STAR TREK episode I co-wrote, directed and executive produced was an incredible thrill. As a kid I remember seeing that award on the mantle of my first writing mentor, Theodore Sturgeon. And of course Rod Serling had three of them in his trophy room, for TWILIGHT ZONE.

So clearly, you’re a big Star Trek fan – have you ever met the original cast?

When I was a kid, I was given a Christmas present of a trip to the STAR TREK set, where they were filming the last episode of the original series, "Turnabout Intruder." It was an incredible thrill for me, to see Shatner and Deforest Kelly and those amazing sets. I actually sat in the Captain's chair.

In later years, I met most of the STAR TREK stars, from the original show and later incarnations. Armin Shimerman (Quark) is a very close friend, and spoke at the class we taught this past weekend. And George Takei was a dream to work with, brilliant and professional and patient and remarkable in every way. I'd work with him in a second.

George said something I treasure about me when we were both interviewed on COAST TO COAST: "Marc Zicree is a tsunami of enthusiasm who just sweeps you up and carries you away."

You have been a working writer in Hollywood for a number of years. What advice do you have for those starting out?

Go for it and don't stop until you get to the finish line. Don't let anyone rob you of your dream. Make a list of those who are doing the work you most admire and find ways to get them to mentor you. Make work you're proud of, that really stands for who you are as a human being. Any time you're stopped, find ways around it. Get help, ask for suggestions, find what you can apply that works. Be happy, be kind, be brave.

Which do you prefer writing, tv or feature film?

I prefer TV, because the write has the power (if he's a producer, too) and can make sure what he writes gets shot the way he envisioned it. But now that I'm a director, too, I intend to do features and make sure I have creative control.

It seems that more and more lately, genres in film and television are smooshing together into hybrids. How do you define the difference between sci-fi and fantasy?

It's science fiction if the fantasy element in the story is given a scientific or pseudo-scientific rationale; it's fantasy, if not.

So what does Ray Bradbury have for lunch?

When I mentioned we teach our class at a Chinese restaurant, Ray mentioned he loves Kung Pao chicken. He also said he'd love to come talk to the class sometime soon, which I'm sure we'll make happen.

What are your favorite shows on TV right now – well, I mean, when the season starts up in September? Which new shows are you looking forward to?

FRINGE looks kind of interesting. And I'm looking forward to the final season of GALACTICA. Everyone's raving about MAD MEN, so I suppose I'll have to get around to watching it. I just saw all five seasons of THE WIRE and thought it was brilliant.

Mainly, though, I don't relax by watching TV series -- it's work for me. I'll watch movies instead, or go out to a nice dinner with Elaine and friends. I think it's important to have a life.

What did you think of one of my favorite movies ever – GALAXY QUEST?

I always say GALAXY QUEST and FORBIDDEN PLANET are my two favorite STAR TREK movies.

I'm so glad you said that. By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, I totally own that movie.

Me too.

You are the author of The Twilight Zone Companion. What got you motivated to write the book?

I grew up watching and loving the show, along with STAR TREK and THE OUTER LIMITS. When I got out of college, having sold one short story and gained an art degree from UCLA, I knew I wanted to be a writer-producer in TV but there were no courses. I wrote THE TWILIGHT ZONE COMPANION to learn from the best, and it worked. I've sold over 100 scripts, and the COMPANION has sold over half a million copies.

Did you meet Rod Serling and more importantly, did his voice sound the way it did on the show for real?

I never met him, he died two years before I began the book, but I uncovered videotapes of him teaching classes on writing. And yes, he did talk like that.

I heard there’s something exciting going on with The Twilight Zone involving a little someone named Leo DiCaprio – spill the goods!!

Leonardo's going to be producing a TWILIGHT ZONE movie. I'm in discussions with his office now to see if we can arrange a meeting with him. I think he's terrifically talented and has great taste in material, so I have high hopes for it being a quality film.

How do you pronounce your last name and where does it come from? I’m going with Hungarian.

It's pronounced ZIK-ree, and it's Moroccan. I didn't know this until a distant relative spotted my name on THE TWILIGHT ZONE COMPANION and showed up with a family tree going back to the 17th Century.

Moroccan, right. That was my next guess. But really – you know Ray Bradbury? For real?!

Yeah, and it's every bit as wonderful as you'd think it would be.

***

Marc leads a Supermentors class each week in West Hollywood from 7-10pm for writers, actors, directors and producers. Classes are limited to ten students each and fill up fast.

I will be attending a class probably next week to soak up more of that great energy and do some networking over Kung Pao Chicken. To learn more about the class and about Marc, click HERE or call Marc at (323) 363-1259 with any questions.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Project Accessible Hollywood

So check this out, Wavers - veddy interesting. It's a site by Christopher Coppola called P.A.H. (project accessible Hollywood) Nation.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Movie Discussion: Fitzcarraldo

It's Movie of the Week discussion day! All right, first of all The Wave-inatrix sucks because I didn't get a chance to see Burden of Dreams. So. I suck. BUT if any Wavers did see either film, I'd love some discussion here on La Onda Roja as we kick off our experimental Movie of the week club.

Regarding Fitzcarraldo:

What, in your view, was the theme of the movie?

What was your favorite part?

Was Fitzcarraldo an admirable character, was he redeemed in the end, or was he single-minded and obsessed in a negative way?

Did you feel that WHY he wanted opera brought to the village was explained or was a backstory missing on that? Did it matter?

Was Kinski's hair completely fantastic or what??

Did the movie feel overlong or was the pacing fine?

Do you feel this is a movie that movie-lovers should make an effort to see or can you read a brief synopsis and Bob's your uncle?

Did Fitzcarraldo's character complete an arc? If so, what was it?

Overall, did you enjoy this movie? Would you recommend it?

******

Rouge Waver Debby Vega suggested THE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS for our next selection. Here are her compelling reasons:

THE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, because:

- People not familiar with older Hollywood films really should know that, yes, they DID make dark and edgy films back then.

- The subject matter--the power of the media and how some people abuse that power--is as relevant today as it was 50 years ago.

- It's so rare to hear dialogue that smart, that sharp, that memorable.

- It's a great example of effective use of setting. New York City is practically another character in the film.

- You won't quickly forget these characters. JJ is possibly one of the greatest film villains of all time. And the acting's not shabby, either.

So queue up THE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS and be ready to discuss it next week, on September 9th.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Rating the Writer

As many Wavers are aware, I am teaching a Reader Correspondence Course. Quite a number of people have already signed up and are diligently doing their homework. I thought it might be fun to excerpt a section on how readers rate writers:

Rating the Writer

Many production companies want a rating for the writer as well as the project. In this way, they can keep on file “consider” or “recommend” writers when they are looking for assignment writers. How is it possible to have a “consider” writer but a “pass” project? Easy. A “consider” writer has chops. Voice. Style. It’s just that this particular project is not a fit for the company at this time. Making a decision between a “pass” or “consider” writer isn’t too tough. “Pass” writers are those with dull, pedantic writing. “Pass” writers don’t get structure. They didn’t entertain you on the page. They didn’t even have a very exciting idea in the first place.

Now: just because a writer has some typos here and there is absolutely no reason to “pass” the writer. You have to use your judgment; if the story is really compelling (even if it’s a “pass” for this company) but here and there you found some typos, ignore that in favor of the story telling. If, however, typos and language usage is a mess all over the place, you’ll find that the story is affected because of it. The two are linked at a certain point. A writer who cannot use the language well is not given to being able to tell a story well either.

When rating the writer, the main question you are answering is: should a project come up, should this writer be considered for the work? Can this guy or gal write well? If you give the writer a "consider" are you willing to back that up if asked to explain that rating? Be prepared to back up every rating you give on a script or on a writer. Your hiney = in a sling. Rate the writer accordingly.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Musings on Romance Writing

If you're just jumping in, I'll save you a mouse-click - we're having a discussion about romance writing. Catch up HERE.

Meg made a comment that I began to respond to, about not wanting to judge romance writing. My comment was so long I thought I'd just post it here. This is an interesting conversation, no?

***

I feel the same way, Meg. I don't have a high opinion of the genre but then I feel bad about that. How can I possibly judge? If someone likes it, they like it. Just because you write it, doesn't mean you aren't smart and literary, either. It is what it is. For me personally, it doesn't satisfy because I get hung up on what feels like cheesiness. I like romance to be a lot more complicated and sophisticated and EARNED. In a romance novel, the romance doesn't feel earned; the terrain is too predicable for me personally.

But on the other hand, I will boldly contradict myself and lay down a more honest opinion of romance writing:

Something that bugs the hell out of me in society today is this dichotomy between a proliferation of absolute online RAGE and, on the other hand, a politically correct hesitance to really state your opinion on anything. We soft shoe and tippy-toe in case we could possibly offend anybody.

Here's what I really think. I think that romance novels are a simple type of entertainment with a place and a purpose but that they are in no way, shape or form on par with really great, transformative writing and by that I don't mean dead white men literature but writers like Sherman Alexie, Russell Banks, Anne Lammott, Joyce Carol Oates, Lorrie Moore, Denis Johnson and I could go on for weeks.

But then, I'm not sure romance writers would equate themselves with writers like that, either. I really don't know. They might read and enjoy great writing too. Romance writers might write other stuff that IS on par with truly great writing. But romance novels are romance novels.

Maybe it is the mark of a great writer that you could put on that hat and write romance but be equally adept at writing something much more sophisticated. Maybe there is a preconception that romance writers just aren't good writers. How can we know that based only on romance novels? We don't know what else they write. But this sells. So they are making money writing what would appear to be "low-brow". Maybe some judgment or prejudice comes from professinal jealousy. These writers are making money hand-over-fist. They sell to the masses. How can anything populist have actual merit?

Well - waitta gol darn minute - aren't movies populist? Are screenwriters not good writers? Well, they surely don't make money hand-over-fist, by dint of statistics alone, but who's to say what good writing is or isn't? None of the writers I mentioned above are making two million dollars a book. Is making less money the mark of a great writer? That seems to be an elitist conclusion, to say the least.

I guess the question for me is this: to write anything well, you have to have some kind of passion for the subject and for the act of writing itself. So it follows, then, that romance writers really feel a passion for the contrived, simplistic, cheesy, over-the-top stuff they write. Or do they? Maybe the joke's on us.

The bottom line is that in the world of writing, there is a great spectrum, from serial, boilerplate romance and detective stories (three words:Mary Higgins Clark) to intellectual and sometimes inaccessible literature (two words: Don DeLillo). Who among us has not been on a plane or on vacation and read something we got at the airport and enjoyed it but later threw it away with some embarrassment? And the bar may be different for each of us: for me, M.H. Clark is a no-fly zone. I just can't read her writing, it's too awful for me. Steven King used to be considered about one notch above Clark but over time, has risen to a much more respectable position. He ain't no literary writer but damn can that man tell a story. And I like him because he doesn't take himself too seriously.

But who am I to say? For some, that itch-scratching is exactly what they wanted and needed in that moment or during that time in their life. When I was a kid, I consumed Nancy Drew books. Total serial writing by a number of writers. I was ten, I liked it, it worked for me. Who am I or anybody else to judge what scratches an itch for a reader? Isn't it all bread and circus?

Here's what for me is the entertaining question: Do romance writers take themselves seriously? Or do they know full well that they are scratching an itch and laughing all the way to the bank?

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

Romance Writing - Is it For You?

I found this article online at SFgate - which is, inexplicably, my home page. Because I lived in San Francisco for 12 years and it still feels like home, I guess. Anywho, interesting article by Chris Colin.

****

Drea Rousseau was contemplating her creamy white silk lounge outfit while Rafael Salinas conducted business with the assassin he'd hired. She should have gone with shell pink, she thought. The assassin made an indecent proposal and looked at her with that cold, unblinking gaze. Icy fingers of sheer panic laced around her spine and -

At this point I closed the book and shook hands with its author, the sweet and unfathomably bestselling romance novelist Linda Howard One feels dirty immediately reducing an author to numbers, but Howard's are remarkable. Her books, which she spends eight weeks writing, bring her as much as $2 million apiece, according to other authors I spoke with. By my count, that's about $35,000 a day, if she worked continuously during those eight weeks. I wanted to know what being a romance writer in America was like.

I was in luck. Howard was one of a great many women -- plus a handful of men -- who'd descended on San Francisco for the annual Romance Writers of America conference. Like, say, NASCAR, the industry is roundly dismissed as low-brow, and like NASCAR, the romance industry cries its way to a very large bank. Last year its 8,000 or so new titles constituted the largest share of the consumer book market, with revenue estimated to be $1.375 billion. By comparison, classic literary fiction brought in $466 million. If you read a book in 2007, there's a 20 percent chance it was a romance novel.

"I speak Southern," Howard warned me as we sat down. "I like" was "ah lahk." She's lived in the same Alabama county all her life, in a town of 4,000 people and one traffic light. She raises cattle and llamas when she's not typing.

How do you get to be Linda Howard, a legend up there with Danielle Steel and Nora Roberts? Step one, apparently, is to drop out of community college and start working for a trucking company at 18. Howard controlled 100 truck drivers and married one of them. Her husband is now a professional bass-tournament fisherman. They dote on their two golden retrievers and are in the midst of building a new vacation home in the Smoky Mountains. The last vacation home kept filling up with relatives.

I wanted Howard to talk to me about the romance genre in big-picture terms. How flexible are its rules? In what direction was the form heading? Are its messages good or bad for women? But she says she doesn't think about it in that way -- "I just write my stories," as she put it. So I asked how she did that.

"There's the thinking process, and that's the longest part," she explained. With her most recent book, "Death Angel," the idea began with the vision of a plane crashing into water, and a woman drowning -- then coming back to life. It morphed over time, and soon the woman was involved with a drug lord -- Rafael Salinas.

"Usually something about one of the characters becomes clear to me: an expression, a line of dialogue," she says. "I get to know them for a few weeks or months. Every time I meet them I learn more. Then it reaches critical mass and I realize they know me well enough to tell me their story."

Next, she starts researching "the peripheral stuff." For her time-travel book, she had to learn physics. Howard has no use for outlines, synopses, or rules for how many words she writes each day. Here we get into more of those remarkable numbers. She might produce 30 drafts of the first chapter. The last two weeks of writing, she works 20 hours a day. The last couple days, she doesn't sleep at all. "I've topped out at 96 cups of coffee in a day." Her husband receives strict instructions not to bother her "unless blood or death is involved."

Somewhere in there, she reads, too -- 30 to 50 romance titles a month. She reads while she cooks, she reads at that stoplight, when it's red. Let me type that again: She reads 30 to 50 books a month. I was beginning to suspect Linda Howard was actually the android creation of the publishing industry until I ran the numbers by another writer.

"No, that sounds about right," said Allison Lane. The former computer programmer and classical piano teacher has been writing romance novels -- hers the traditional Regency subgenre, mostly -- for 14 years. Like Howard, she writes fast, sometimes as many as three books a year. Unlike Howard, and far more representative of the field, she does not support herself on these books, even after more than two dozen of them. Her husband, she says, has a good job.

I was glad to have stumbled across Lane. The RWA group was a cheerful bunch, friendly, too -- unlike, say, all other writers in the world, the ones I met here enjoyed a genuine-seeming camaraderie. Authors heaped praise on one another at every turn, and it was the pure kind, unpickled with envy or resentment. Still, I knew that not everyone here had it as good as Howard. I wanted to hear what it was like to be a more typical romance novelist.

"Many of these writers barely make anything at all, year after year. You do it because you enjoy it," Lane said. You have to, she added, because the number of publishers is shrinking fast. Popularity aside, the publishing industry as a whole is in decline.

At this point you'll notice that I haven't once used the words "bodice ripper." If that phrase is scrolling through your head now, take a moment to frantically delete it. As Lane and others hastened to explain, this was a dismissive and offensive term used to describe a small and short-lived type of novel from the '70s. The enormous variety of books today, from historical to suspense to paranormal, should put that phrase to rest -- and yet it persists.

"We are writing for the masses. Each book is looking for hundreds of thousands of readers. Literary fiction doesn't have to do that. They often consider themselves too elite," Lane said, explaining what she perceives as routine condescension. "They like big words and long, flowing sentences. They look down their noses at us. If I'm reading anywhere near San Francisco, they'll see me and literally sniff, and say, 'I would never read that trash.'"

"Literally?" I asked. I'd never seen someone actually sniff.

"Literally. That's exactly what they do."

What a strange predicament for these writers -- as disparaged as they are beloved. I decided to sit in on the convention's annual general meeting, perhaps glean something about their way of being in the world. Or at least see what a huge room full of romance writers is like.

The meeting consisted of 21 women at a long table with microphones, facing a sea of golden chairs under florescent lights. To generalize about the crowd: White, glasses, highlights, a few Southern accents, one leopard blouse. No heaving bosoms, though one woman sneezed a lot.

The proceedings were just slightly more official than a meeting of the UN General Assembly:

"Madam president...quorum...discretionary proxies," I scribbled in my pad. "If there is no objection...adoption of the standing rules...your president is pleased to report verbally to you at this time..."

One British writer went to the front of the room and asked the board to consider adding an erotic romance category to one of its contests. A current ran through the room: Some don't like that dirty stuff, others feel that good writing is good writing. Another writer, from Virginia, took exception to the amount of space left for answers on a recent survey of RWA members. Another found the website to be user-unfriendly. The writers seemed happy to be together for their annual gathering. But there was also low-level stress. When we filed out, I heard a good number murmuring about the consolidation of publishing houses, and the difficulty of finding a good agent.

I phoned Lane some time after the convention. She'd explained to me why readers like romance: "It's an escape," she said. But slaving away on the author's end for years, only to see advances shrink and markets whither -- what was the pleasure, exactly?

"It allows you to play God," Lane laughed. "You can pretty much write what you want. If you develop an interest in something, you can slip it in, and suddenly skydiving's a business expense!"

Being free to write what you want -- doesn't that gloss over a central component of genre fiction? The romance genre means there are rules, most centrally that the book must be a love story with a happy ending.

"If you ask me, everything's a genre," Lane replied. "Literary fiction is a genre just as much as romance -- it has its rules. It likes to take a problem and explore it from all angles. It often likes to have a complicated, unsatisfying ending. I find that genre depressing ... Human nature likes to see something good happen. That's just how we are."

***

So what do you think, Wavers? How do you feel about romance writing? Do you hold it in contempt or secretly read it? Did you know that romance novels are consistently the best-selling genre in the US? Can anyone here confirm my suspicion that Danielle Steele has a Jeff Koons thing going on and actually hires ghost-writing Oompa Loompas to churn out her books? Why is it that everytime I open the NY Times Book Review I see an ad for yet another Steele book? How is this possible?

My personal two-cents - I would write this genre and reap the rewards if it didn't make me a little ill. I just - can't - get - into it. It's goofy. It's not that I don't like romance - I love, love, love romance and love in life and in the movies. But to me romantic is when that Sikh character in THE ENGLISH PATIENT unraveled his turban and invited what's-her-bucket into his candle lit tent. Or when Richard Gere picks up Debra Winger at the end of AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN or, or, a million examples. It's great. I love it. I'm no jaded person. Love is great. Love is all you need. But - Drea Rousseau was contemplating her creamy white silk lounge outfit while Rafael Salinas conducted business with the assassin he'd hired - arghghg I just can't go there. What do you think, Wavers?

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.