Confessions of a genius script reader
LC (whose email handle ThrobbingSocks is much more provocative) tipped me off to this Film Threat article by Allan Heifetz which explains some of the more significant pet peeves of professional (and unprofessional) script readers.
Newbies also love to break the fourth wall. These fools must think they have super strength. “Hulk smash fourth wall! Aaargh! Hulk need to address audience for lighthearted and wacky fun! Hulk’s rom-com is effervescent and delightful! Aargh!” Unfortunately, once you have a character address the camera you are essentially saying that your movie takes place in a magical fantasy land where anyone can talk to a theatre full of people from another dimension whenever one feels the need to vent.
The full article is here.
Articles
November 14th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Great article! I was doing okay until I got to rule number six, which had me nearly peeing in my pants…as Night Ranger’s “Sister Christian” soothed my chortling soul.
Thanks for sharing that John.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:03 am
I was kind of with him for the most part (and I fully agree with the section on writing women characters, which I always seem to do anyway, and NONE of them are ever there to get screwed by the hero) but will cheerfully disregard most of the advice when making my next film. No voiceover - PAH! Don’t get me wrong, I know there are many sucky ones out there, but there are also many good ones. I intend mine to be one of those. There will be no audio description of what just happened on screen, only descriptions of feelings that cannot possibly be shown (at least on my budget, which is zero.)
And Grosse Pointe Blank is an awesome movie, I care not what anyone says.
He was right on the women thing though.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:31 am
I bet if The Incredible Hulk wrote a rom-com it would be effervescent and delightful.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
To be honest, I’m sick of the anti-voiceover and anti-flashback nonsense shown in the article. This is actually something I ask potential readers when I’m hiring for my production company. I won’t hire anyone who blindly believes that voiceovers and flashbacks are a bad thing. There are far too many great scripts and films that use these narrative devices.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Kudos to Keith! For I agrees.
Voice-overs and flashbacks—are fine storytelling tools if used right. ‘american beauty’ anybody? I hate making a point by naming one of the exceptions to the rule, but if an oscar winning screenplay can use these dramatic devices, why shouldn’t you?
Swearing—watch “the departed”. And no, that’s not an exception to the rule, it’s a sample of a script that drops a lot of f-bombs because that’s how people talk in that/this world.
Thesaurus—‘pneumatic’ is a fine word. Cameron uses it a lot.
Names—tolkien must be a hack. And why didn’t ted and terry name their minor characters in ‘potc2:dmc’ just Billy, Peter and Quint instead of Barbossa, Palifico and Quittance? hacks!
Titles—why is he ranting about silly titles of produced films in an article on unproduced scripts?
Soundtracks—mentioning a song is kind of amateur, I agree. But if it helps communicate the mood, why not.
The tone of the article says a lot about the attitude of pro. readers… And the text demonstrates only one valid – and scary – point, that is how readers’ main objective is to find a reason to bury a script. And they have 90-145 pages to find something! Ah, 145 pages… into the bin.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
What an arrogant little snot. I think I’d rather take advice from Uwe Boll.
I suggest Terry Rossio’s article on WordPlay on this. It doesn’t get any better.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Yeah, like that newbie Woody Allen in Annie Hall.
Rules can be a start, but they’re for limited people. Probably why script readers aren’t script writers.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Well, I would hope that any script reader was willing to go with whatever worked rather than automatically dinging a script for using a particular stylistic device.
But it does make me wonder why the breaking the 4th wall thing is apparently so common in screenplays. I don’t really see it that often in actual movies. Do beginning screenwriters just watch too much Ferris Bueller?
November 14th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Hey, Genuis Script Reader.
Ever see Shawshank Redemption?
What ever works is the best rule a reader could possibly follow.
But the problem with something as ‘vague’ as that would imply a reader should maybe have some talent also. (Talent and college degree are not equivelents.)
I thought your job was to find great stories to put on the screen? Throw away your blinders and you might really find something interesting.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:52 am
Another V.O. hater. I really don’t get it. Just because some guy called McKee thinks V.O. is a bad thing, it becomes a “rule”. There’s nothing wrong with V.O. as long as it [u]complements[/u] what is shown, instead of repeating or explaining it.
Anyway, pretty funny article and I think it’s written with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
BTW I think the reason why breaking the 4th wall is so popular in noob specs is because they think/hope/assume it’ll give a nice and subtle “post-modern” and “self-conscious” touch. Which, let’s be honest, it does not. It’s one of those things newbie writers (which I am too) think that’ll look “cool”, but unfortunately only scream out “AMATEUR”.
November 15th, 2006 at 6:01 am
I think the best advice I’ve read on voice overs is that if the screenplay works without it, leave it in. If it’s a crutch without which the screenplay falls, take it out and rewrite it until it doesn’t need it. I think that’s badly paraphrased McKee.
November 15th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Wow, John, I didn’t really like the article by this fellow - not only do I disagree with several of his “rules” (I can think of many great movies with voice-overs and flashbacks, why shouldn’t writers try to emulate great films they love and admire?) I have to say that I don’t believe this article is well-written, from a prose POV, and the tone is absolutely antagonistic.
I get that there are many bad writers out there writing bad screenplays, I get that, but instead of imposing his prejudices upon the writer, why not just refer writers to great books on writing (there are many, including King’s ON WRITING) or a writing class rather than say, don’t do this one thing or that one thing, mayhap he could recommend reading Vogler or something to that effect.
And I believe The Unknown Screenwriter has much better things to say on story choices for writing screenplays.
I have to say that many directors I know have the same position regarding studio and agency readers as Tarantino’s, who see their job as just to keep scripts away from whomever they work for . . . I will say that I’ve met a couple readers I respect (and I acknowledge you were once a reader as well) but I am beginning to wonder if the good readers are more the exception rather than the rule . . . If I recall, didn’t Terry Rossio write something about how Casablanca was sent out to readers and not only was it not recognized by most of them, it was given a pass -
If this gentleman was trying to convince me of the importance of readers, this article wasn’t it. I thought it wasn’t well thought out and didn’t make reasonable points, nor was there any good writing advice within
November 15th, 2006 at 10:43 am
If I’m not mistaken, the majority of John’s opus is in direct violation of those guy’s rules.
Flashbacks -> Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
V.O. -> Ditto.
Thesaurus -> I don’t remember any “pneumatic”, but I will give you one word: unshittable.
Names -> Ok, I can’t really remember any unusual names from John’s work except for Norther Winslow, but that name is from the book, I presume?
Writing Women -> Well, Charlie’s Angels, duh.
And before someone gets it the wrong way, let me just say I believe John is one of the best screenwriters of today.
My personal #1 movie of all times, The Big Lebowski, violates every single one of those rules, from fourth-wall-breaking to musical cues.
I have personally brutally violated most of those rules. Of course, I don’t deem myself a great writer. But it is interesting to note that my earlier screenplays were fairly by-the-book according to those rules. It was only later that I started using stuff like voice-over and flashbacks.
Not to mention the guy sounds like he’s some ten miles up his own arse.
P.S. What Oli said - that voice-over should only be used if it’s necessary - is essentially what should be used for anything in the script. If it’s not needed, chuck it. No question about it.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:43 am
eh, except ollie said the opposite.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Uh. Such criticism.
Here’s how I understood the article. The author was writing about common mistakes that doom an amateur’s script.
He was not saying that “if you use X, I will rip your script into little pieces and feed it to my cat.”
He was saying that “a lot of newbie authors use X and they use it so badly, it usually dooms the entire script.” He was saying that “it takes great talent, great experience or great luck to use X in such a way that it does not doom your script. Most people can’t pull it off.”
Here’s how I understood the article:
And that was probably the best use of a flashback I’ve seen on that show so far.
Empty, purposeless swearing, however, is bollocks.
Character-building done through Thesaurus abuse. It’s good, because it has a purpose.
If you need a quirky name, explain it in a fashion that adds to the story or characters. Indiana Jones is actually a pretty good example of a name that adds to the character.
Actually, I don’t know why he listed “Lucky Number Slevin” there. He probably hasn’t seen it (”…future inductee…”), because the name is explained away very nicely at the end. (Excellent movie. Everyone go see it.)
Soundtrack advice in the script is bad because of possible licensing fees and because more suitable music can probably be found or composed. That should go without saying. However, sure, it’s okay to name some music to give an idea for the mood of the scene, but don’t go overboard.
Men writing women. If you need an example of how bad this can get, go see “Serenity”. (I will probably be lynched for spouting such heresy.)
P.S: “Pneumatic” is a cool word. Aldous Huxley gets the award for its best usage so far. But that last point probably applies here, too
P.P.S: I second Joshua’s request. John, list some useful screenwriting books!
November 15th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Yeah, on one hand, the guy’s article is just smug. Unfortunately, that’s the voice of the web these days. Too cool for school is in. However, as someone who has been doing development for the last five years, I understand the thing with pet peeves. Many of the things that he mentions DO pop up in poorly written amateur scripts. But, they also pop up in well written scripts by professionals. The problem is that they simply stand out like a sore thumb in a poorly written script because often times the writer is relying on these devices to make their script “pop”, when it should be story and character carrying that load. A good writer knows when and where to use the devices, and I’ve read scripts that do a fine job incorporating them. If someone’s a bad writer, it’s not going to matter whether or not they incorporate VO’s and flashbacks — a bad screenplay is a bad screenplay. The writer that has a shitty script with 50 specific music cues generally won’t change the quality of their writing by removing them.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
This article should have been titled “Alas, Confessions of a genius script reader.”
AM I RIGHT, GUYS?
I loved that Morfblotter unzips his pants in the kitchen.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
He doesn’t make those distinct points, Brandon, not the two times I read it (I cannot read it anymore) he just says “Never do this” and leaves no grey area for the writer to decide. It’s one reason his article is poorly written and another reason, seeing as that he’s speaking about all screenplays he has to cover, not just the amateurs but everyone, is simply wrong on many counts.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
“Like in “Lost” it was revealed to us that Sun has killed before and therefore her shooting one of the Others seemed logical after that. The flashback added to her character and explained her actions in the present.”
Not for nothing, but the flashback didn’t definitively show that Sun had killed before. It’s a reasonable interpretation based on what was shown, but it may or may not be the case.
November 16th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
I’m sorry but “Genuis Script Reader” is an oxymoron.
I’ve been a reader, off and on between writing jobs, for more than 10 years I’ve read thousands of scripts (and books, etc.) without exaggeration. You just let it speak to you, look at the movie being described in your head. Do you like it - why or why not. Write that down. Send it in, shoot ‘em an invoice and pay the Con Ed bill.
That is being a script reader. No genius required.
November 16th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
I think the title was meant to be funny.
November 16th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
It wasn’t.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:59 am
Not even in a tongue-in-cheek fashion?
November 17th, 2006 at 6:55 am
You said, “I think the title was meant to be funny”, right?
If it was funny, you wouldn’t even have to think about it.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
This was truly hysterical reading! I enjoyed it immensely, eventhough I dont agree with his cut-and-dry descriptions of Do’s and Dont’s. To quote a young Ben Kenobi: “only a sith speaks in absolutes.”
This guy is bitter and it shows. But bitter makes for fun reading. And it also shows why it’s so hard to get past this horrible level of red tape in Hollywood.
I used VO’s and Flashbacks to very good effect in my first screenplay. And no one got confused. So…