What the hell is the problem here?

But artists come in all shapes and sizes. Some have never heard of Dreyer. Doesn’t mean they have less to say as a writer. And an artist can choose a multitude of avenues to “express” his intents. I’ve written for some pretty cheesy projects (produced, mind you), and I can say that it was fun, creative, and I got some of my “art” into there too. I said something about the world and how I see it. And some sixteen year old in Idaho actually watched and maybe was affected just a little bit, consciously or not. If you want to make your “high art” for almost no one to see, that’s cool too. Some filmmakers only show their work in museums. Although, I wouldn’t pay to sit through a two-hour video installation, myself, and would much rather watch the new Dawn of the Dead, which thoroughly rocks. (Land of the Dead sucks. George is a hack.)

Some very smart, talented people work in Hollywood. They’re well-read, informed, artistic souls who have chosen to speak to the masses in the most powerful medium the world has yet devised: film and television. Heck, even Shakespeare was ultimately just trying to entertain the common folk, too.

I think what’s upsetting both sides here is that you’re mistaking “amatuer” for “naive”. While there’s a few beginners, I think most people around here have a pretty good graps as to the realities of the business. You’re not wrong in your experiences, but I think we prefer to keep our own hopes and dreams alive and for better or worse keep the faith.

Here I go trying to be friendly to you and then you go off on me again. I find your pity for me extremely condescending, and it reminds me why I usually avoid screenwriters’ chat rooms: because some people just can’t resist spreading around their oppressive bitterness.

My outlook on work, life and writing is so different than yours that nothing you or anybody else says will deter me, whether I succeed in the end or whether I fail. I am what I am, and I don’t require your approval or good wishes.

I agree with RDane. If you truly love writing and are truly inspired, it is its own reward. If I can make somebody else care, great. If I can’t, does that make all the writing meaningless? Of course not. Nothing that makes a person happy is meaningless.

By the way, this is John August’s chat room, not yours. If you want to spew despair, get your own freakin’ blog.

Thanks for stopping by, “Walter.”

I’m not sure (in all truthfulness) what the purpose of this site is, or what a “safe haven” might mean, but it seems to me that some measure of discouragement can only be healthy, whether or not I’m not the appropriate carrier of doom.

I don’t know how closely you’re involved in the business, but if you’re familiar with it, you’ll know that there are legions of 55 year-old “actors” who have never done any real work on stage or screen, armies of unproduced writers who are as gray as their Dells, and “directors” whose life-time output is a third-place short at the Hoboken Film Festival, 20 years ago. This very thread cites an agency submission tally not in the thousands or ten thousands, but millions, and I believe the WGA now registers hundreds of thousands of scripts a year.

Even more discouraging than these numbers is the nature of the business itself: is there any produced screenwriter working today who could reasonably be described as a “great” and indispensable writer, even by the diminished standards of the movies? Someone like Jacques Prevert in France, or Powell/Pressburger in England, or the days when novelists and playwrites worked in Hollywood and sometimes managed to sneak some quality and intelligence in?

No less than Stanley Kubrick observed that he never commissioned professional screenwriters for a script, because highly talented writers rarely go into the medium in the first place.

I suppose what I’m trying to say is, this work is not a sacred mission. As a statistical venture it’s worse than hopeless, and actual success is nothing to crow about either, given the nature of the stuff which gets produced today.

You probably won’t believe me, but I feel terrible about Susan, even if she doesn’t want my advice or sympathy. The thought of someone with her interests trying to succeed in this business makes my heart bleed – not because I claim to be smarter or more worldly, but because I’ve been through it, and it’s grief, choler and uselessness, and everything you do is subject to the judgment and indulgence of knaves and fools, people who don’t know the difference between Dickens and Sophocles, or between Carl Dreyer and Ridley Scott. Most of these dolts don’t even have a record of financial success they can point to. They’re professionals by virtue of the positions they hold. Period. And they’re your judge and jury.

If that picture of reality isn’t sufficiently upbeat, time for me to bow out. The NY Times got me here, and the participates got me out. Fair enough, I should be working anyway, useless as the work may be.

http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4122&o=2

(Don’t write angry.)

And Walter: I thought this site was about writers helping writers — not cutting each other off at the knees. Please leave that for the rest of Hollywood and allow this site remain a safe haven.

I know your name isn’t Walter Neff. I love “Double Indemnity,” too. I love hearing Fred MacMurry call Barbara Stanwyck “baby.” It’s so not “My Three Sons.”

Shaw is a hoot. But if he came to Hollywood today, they’d probably tell him to go back to England and open a shoe store. His stuff is too meaningful be summarized on a one-sheet.

If I succeed, I succeed. If I fail, I fail. I have faith in the stuff I do. It’s hard to have faith that I will ever find anyone in the American film industry who will care, but I can still have hope. (That’s one thing Dreyer taught me, that all writers should know: People with pure intentions always get treated maliciously by people in dubious positions of authority.)

But I’m not putting my life on hold, because I like my life and I’ve heard too many sad stories.