Show your work
For math and science exams, we were often required to “show our work” — not merely to prove we weren’t cheating, but to demonstrate we understood the underlying principles involved.
I’ve been thinking about this in relation to screenwriting. When it comes to making a film, the screenwriter’s craft is probably the most direct and transparent. What did you do? You wrote the script, the 120-or-so pages of Courier around which everything else revolves. Your work is front-and-center.
Cinematographers, production designers and editors can’t point to a product which is “theirs.” In the finished film, the light is lovely; the world is stunning; the pacing is tight. All wonderful accomplishments, but inextricably bound to the work of others. That wonderful light would go unnoticed if it didn’t highlight the sets, and the sets would be meaningless if the editor favored close-ups. And the contribution of directors, who marshall all these forces in addition to actors’ performances, is probably the most difficult to judge.
As a concise, pre-existing document, the screenplay is probably the only thing that can be judged independently of the finished film. Put another way, the screenwriter shows his work.
But the irony is, after the film is made, no one asks to see his work.
Indeed, we award “best screenplay” based on a viewing of the finished film. If the movie was good, we figure the screenplay was probably pretty good. We guess. Even though we don’t need to guess, because the screenplays for “award contender” movies are commonly available. But frankly, it would be a lot of work to read all those screenplays, so we don’t make that a requirement, even for the WGA Awards. The more honest award would be titled, “Best Film based on a Screenplay which was Probably Good, and Presumably Didn’t Get Messed Up by the Director or Others.”
Worse, we also presume that a bad movie came from a bad screenplay. At some point, I’ll fund a comprehensive study of film reviews from the past 10 years, tracking exactly how many times the film’s screenwriter’s name is mentioned. My gut tells me that the writer’s name is three-to-four times more likely to be mentioned in a negative review than a positive one. But I’d love to see data.
In the meantime, screenwriting will continue to be the most transparent and opaque part of moviemaking.
Articles
March 15th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
You made a number of points there and I agree wholeheartedly with them all.
Speaking of reading more scripts… I would, but most of the scripts I find online are in a shooting format, not in a typical spec format (they have production cues, camera angles, etc.) I don’t want to get bad habits in my head by reading those (& I’m always more curious to see what the writer’s original intentions were, not a word-for-word rewrite of the finished movie)…
… so does anyone know how to find those earlier script drafts online?
March 15th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
corollary to the “writers get mentioned more when the movie is bad than good” hypothesis: Critics love to point out when a bad film has, gasp… multiple writers!
as if a) that’s rare and b) none of the writers had the brain power to fix the problems of the movie. Right. Uh-huh.
I’ll gladly chip in to fund the study, but with so many film students reading this blog, surely someone out there is in a class where such an area would be appropriate for a paper…
March 15th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Outside the academic community, most people aren’t interested in examining the process unless the solution is correct. There’s only so much time in the day.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:18 am
John,
When I first started studying screenwriting, I was always taught that if you have a bad script, you’ll have a bad movie. Now, that’s not completely true, but it often led to students asking if a bad movie has ever been made from a good script, and being completely shocked whenever the instructor named scripts he’s read that made movies none of us would admit to liking.
Now that I’m writing films and know other writers who are getting their scripts put onto celluloid, I almost never find this shocking. It’s clearly common sense, like the fact that a dangerous building could be made from a quality blueprint.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:01 am
When it comes to official awards for best script, don’t judges read the actuall script?! Or do they nominate scripts based only on if the actuall film is good?
March 16th, 2009 at 2:11 am
My observation has been that the screenplay only ever gets a mention if the dialogue’s in some way noticeable. A couple of good one-liners and it’s a ‘witty screenplay’; one chunk of producer-inserted bald exposition and it’s a ‘clunky script’. Concept, structure, coherence and narrative pacing are invariably credited to the director, even if s/he only took over the project halfway through shooting.
March 16th, 2009 at 3:59 am
I think I have a good theory on the unfair flak writers get:
What are critics? well… writers, yes?
Now, what do they love: well… movies
Okay. So, perhaps critics love to point out poor writing because it makes them feel better about the fact that even through they are writers they will never see their film made (unless they are Jean Luc Goddard or Peter Bogdanovich) – ie. they are covering for their own failed dreams of being screenwriters by taking it out on those who have screen credit and the heart break of seeing their scripts mangled.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:28 am
Seconded Eric’s comment about multiple writers.
Additionally, noticed a small error in the BLOG today:
“But frankly, it would be a lot of work to read all those screenplays, so we don’t [make] that a requirement”
March 16th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Shouldn’t the award-winning screenplay’s award read:
“Best Film based on a Screenplay which was Probably Good to Start With, and Presumably Didn’t Get FIXED by the Director or Others”?
I mean, if someone messed it up it probably wouldn’t win!
;-)
March 16th, 2009 at 5:45 am
A few weeks ago I was collecting my fellow students’ in which I’d been involved as either a DOP or gaffer and eventually I came to the same conclusion (as stated in your third paragraph). Of course, I could easily create a short show reel, but what different does it make? I guess my part of the work wouldn’t be filtered out precisely :(
In two weeks I’m going to have my final “show your work” exams in the fine arts, which includes all technical stuff including camera work + lighting, editing, compositing and 3d animation within only 2 hours. Unfortunately, we were never trained to pitch a screenplay – just a way to develope the continuation of a CSI:Miami episode including the principles of screenwriting. I guess our college has simply forgotten about every foundation of a movie… putting the screenplay into the right light first and everything technical will follow – if (then) at all!
March 16th, 2009 at 5:57 am
I’ve heard several times that a screenwriter takes less of a hit professionally when a movie bombs than the director, actors, producer. The industry basically works under the assumption that the original script was solid, and got screwed up somewhere along the way.
Is this true? If so it might be an okay trade-off for getting blamed more than praised in reviews.
March 16th, 2009 at 5:58 am
It is odd that no one would read the screenplay for a film when offering an award.
After reading the screenplay for Brokeback Mountain — a lot of the written “action” of the script wasn’t action at all, couldn’t be acted by the actor, but was prose lifted word for word from the novella — I was confused as to why it won an Oscar. And then I thought, maybe I’m just an ass, because if a good film was made from it then the screenplay itself did its job. But still, imo it wasn’t a good example of craft… and it won an Oscar… and then, again, I thought, maybe I’m just an ass…
March 16th, 2009 at 6:18 am
One of the reasons I think the “Black List” is so appealing is that it gives laurels based on the screenplay itself. While it’s not an award, it does offer enthusiastic recognition of straight up screenwriting.
Oh… I’m referring to the contemporary list of “best unproduced screenplays” that circulates every year, not the, uh, post-WW2 one. Obviously.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:43 am
@Shaun McKinnon:
Yup, just caught that. Thanks.
@Grant:
I think that’s true: a bomb is more damaging to a director than a writer. But a hit doesn’t help a writer nearly as much as it does a director.
@Elan:
And it should be pointed out that “best unproduced screenplay” pretty much proves my point. Once (or if) those scripts become movies, the quality of the writing will be judged solely based on how the movie turns out.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:52 am
I think a blueprint is an apt analogy. They don’t give out architectural awards for best blueprint. It’s all about the finished product. I wonder how much a literal blueprint (are they even blue anymore?) differs from the finished product.
Screenplays, like blueprints, are not the finished product. And while they can be works of art in and of themselves, they really are mostly a means to an end. An unproduced screenplay is just pure potential, not a finished thing, in my opinion.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:06 am
I used to blame the screenwriter for the bad movies I saw. Then I became a professional screenwriter. Now, I never pass judgment on the writer. If anyone knew the concessions a professional writer has to make: the horrible notes, the bad demands, and my personal favorite the ever present bad suggestions, “Hey, wouldn’t it be funny if….” NO! Your suggestions are NEVER funny!
Imagine taking your script and then picking someone out of a supermarket (at random)….and then have them give you notes. Not only that,– but give them the power to MAKE you implement those notes. See how your screenplay comes out. Because these execs aren’t any more qualified that that guy/girl you picked out of the market.
These execs have never written anything, they’ve never had any formal training. The only things they know come from other execs who have been trained by other execs, etc, etc, etc.
They have no practical knowledge – at all. Hence, they don’t know what they don’t know. I mean, I read a lot of car magazines; I don’t storm into my mechanics shop and demand he fix it the way I think he should. Why? Because I don’t know what the F I’m talking about.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:09 am
So many stars have to align to bring a screenplay to life.
The director has to come in without an agenda.
The star has to agree to that pivotal moment where their character looks like an asshole.
The studio has to go with capable actors instead of “stars” who can open a movie.
The producer has to give notes based on the current screenplay and not try to shoehorn in ideas that they’ve always wanted to see.
It’s enough to make a writer head for more solid ground. Something like accounting. Or florist.
But those rare moments when everything comes together? I imagine that’s what keeps us all pecking away.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:47 am
I’m reminded of William Goldman’s anecdote in one of his autobiographies: when Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid came out, he read reviews in three top papers. Two were positive and one was a pan. The two positive ones never mentioned him, but in the pan, his name was in the first paragraph.
Roger Ebert is a big culprit in this regard. As much as I love him (and I really do), he always praises the director over the writer and often makes comments about how plots don’t matter to him.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I see this a lot in the design field too (my day job). We say, “OMG the new Pepsi can is SO ugly! What was that design firm thinking?!” But let me tell you from firsthand experience that the design firm is probably thinking the same thing, with a little extra: “Stupid interfering clients making us look bad. $&^!&#.”
As I said to my dad last night, it’s easy to judge — good or bad — but not as easy to assign credit/blame.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Can we stop calling scripts blue prints already? Unless you are referring to Frank Gehry drawings, it just ain’t apt. Screenplays are literature and should be treated as such. They’re not pragmatic documents, they’re fluid. Films are solid. They’re the pragmatic interpretation of a fluid source. Blueprints are solid too. They’re pragmatic interpretation of math and physics into shapes. They are literal representations of the end product.
Math and physics are pragmatic forms. When used, they have a realistic, measurable, objective result. Words on the other hand, in their essence, have no pragmatic purpose except that which we give them. Aristotle realized this. An arrow to one tribe can be a weapon and to the other a chocolate bar. Scripts are not reliable because they are built on words, they are not solid, they can change from one reading to the next, and that’s what makes them art.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:47 am
I would, but most of the scripts I find online are in a shooting format, not in a typical spec format (they have production cues, camera angles, etc.) I don’t want to get bad habits in my head by reading those (& I’m always more curious to see what the writer’s original intentions were, not a word-for-word rewrite of the finished movie)…
A word for word rewrite of the finished film is a continuity script. A continuity script is usually not worth reading, unless there’s no other script available.
Shooting scripts, on the other hand, are fine for reading and learning. In fact, these are what everyone in the business reads, all the time. Especially on the TV side. A few scene numbers and the occasional camera angle shouldn’t throw you off.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:55 am
The Writer’s Guild of Canada’s annual Screenwriting Awards are actually based on the scripts, not the finished films or episodes. Does the WGA ever do anything like this? Or are their awards solely based on the films and episodes?
March 16th, 2009 at 9:19 am
“My gut tells me that the writer’s name is three-to-four times more likely to be mentioned in a negative review than a positive one.”
Really? My impression is that critics tend not to mention writers, partly because they regard the director as being the person who is ultimately responsible for how the film turns out, and partly because they’re never entirely sure who is responsible for the final version of the script, the one that ends up on the screen. For instance, I think everyone is aware of the fact that in major American productions several writers are commonly hired and many or most of them don’t get credit, owing to WGA rules.
But I think a comprehensive study of film reviews from the past 10 years is a brilliant idea (and I think other screenwriters should chip in to make this a reality and even the WGA). Discussions are pretty fruitless when there are no hard facts at hand, no statistics to refer to.
My two cents:
I think you’d have to establish compartments or categories in a study like this for it to be meaningful. Because there are vastly different kinds of reviews/film criticism on offer. Every critic tailors his or her review to fit the (perceived) readership.
This is my classification (a rough draft, please feel free to correct me):
1) The very short reviews you see in tabloids, most often just a handful of bold statements. Usually they only bother with the most commercial films and/or films that feature major stars / major celebrities.
2) The much longer and more thoughtful criticism you see in ’serious’ newspapers. They’re written for educated people, for the more discerning public.
3) The criticism that appears in film magazines (like Empire, Premiere, Sight and Sound and countless others). My impression is that reviews in such magazines tend to run very long. This type of criticism is aimed at the people who buy film magazines (obviously), avid film fans.
4) The reviews you see in trade papers such as Variety and Screen Daily. They are really meant for industry peope (including exhibitors and distributors and film festival folk).
I don’t know about film criticism on the internet ( and I mean internet-only, like Rotten Tomatoes). The internet is just so vast and so fragmented that it consistently defies classification.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:41 am
@ Anonymous (and echoing Art Smitty), Think of the shooting script as the final draft that the write created and not some special production document that was created after the writer was done. Not only should you not worry about the occasional camera angle or what have you in a shooting script, you should know that writers use them (notwithstanding what you may have learned about how this is never done). Of course, they use them when needed to tell the story and not to get their two cents in about how to direct the film. And when done well, it enables the reader to better visualize the finished film.
@ Carol, I haven’t read the Brokeback script, but you’d be surprised at what you can act. You can act a feeling, a state of mind, all kinds of things that don’t seem like action.
@ Mac-man, hear hear on your blueprint point. Never thought of it that way, but you’re right. After all, no one ever calls a playwrite’s work a blueprint. So seems like it happens in film simply because it is part of the culture to not give full value to the writer’s work. In the theatre, the playwrite is afforded a great deal of respect and no one thinks for a minute that his/her work is just a blueprint, even though it may be altered in subsequent productions just as the screenwriter’s work may be altered by the work of the actors or director.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Yeah, I’ve never gotten the blueprint thing either. While I’m sure an architect’s client can request changes, the changes have to make practical sense or the structure can’t be built. In film, just about any whim can make it to the screen, regardless of how inane, especially if money is no object. So if Jon Peters wants a giant mechanical spider stalking the wild (wild) west, he gets it.
If only screenplays WERE like blueprints! “Sorry Jon, here’s objective proof that a giant mechanical spider will compromise the integrity of the film and cause it to come crashing down around us. It will also result in 1.5 million fewer paid admissions than if we stick to the current draft. Eh, whaddaya gonna do? Numbers is numbers!”
March 16th, 2009 at 11:34 am
The difference between plays and movies is that in a play, the writer has absolute control. You can’t change a word without asking permission. In a screenplay, you can change turn a nine year old girl trying to save her teddy bear into a 55 year old hooker-nun-ninja who has to save the world from the evils of a swashbuckling pirate who rides around downtown Manhattan on a tank.
I think it’s funny how many reviews will say:
Director X valiantly tries to elevate the piece of crap screenplay written by Screenwriter Y — even though the screenplay is only a piece of crap because Director X made Screenwriter Y change it.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
There are some great points in this post and in the comments.
There’s nothing like the sinking feeling of watching something you’ve written performed in a way contrary to the plot and characters.
Who knew the choices of directors and actors could change the entire meaning behind a line? You’re right John, not the critics, apparently…
March 16th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Awesome. I really appreciate this site. I thought I knew a lot about screenwriting, but this is from a true professional. I’ll be back to read for sure!
Introducing a character is an oft-overlooked aspect of screenwriting and it’s definitely important. Besides, how are you going to live up to it as a screenwriter if the introduction is nondescript?
best, chi http://www.mystorytoscreen.com
March 16th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Same offense hits me ALL the time:
Yes… Slumdog was a BRILLIANT movie.
Yes… Transformers was a movie where Jon Voight’s character pretty clearly yells: “Not here at the military base! We better take this battle downtown and use the buildings for cover!” — (Not to say Roberto Orci can’t write. – He can. – He’s a very cool guy, and you all would have done the same thing in 8 weeks – if you managed to keep up and turn in a draft at all.)
But the mere SUGGESTION that Slumdog Millionaire had better sound design, audio mixing, or advancements in psycho-acoustics makes me want to throw up at the speed of light.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
These are great observations. I’ve never really thought about it in those terms, but you’re right. Thanks for the post.