For those who don’t recall, I joined a group of nine American screenwriters on a program organized by Film France to explore Paris and Marseilles. The trip was exhausting in just the right ways, with too many people to meet and too much to see. Over eight days, I rode in several vans, a helicopter, a high-speed train, a very slow-speed train, and far more boats than I would have imagined. I even took a Vélib bike for a spin around Paris.

The purpose of the trip was to inspire American screenwriters to write more movies set in — and ideally, shot in — France. Going in, I thought of it like a location scout: a bunch of interesting backdrops, including things a tourist wouldn’t get to see. But as we got more into it, I found myself more drawn to people than places. I would ask a shipping yard exec about daycare, and an heiresses about divorce.

Of our group, I spoke the second-best French (or more precisely, eighth-worst), so I occasionally found myself shoved at the growing pool of journalists who accompanied us. And while my comprehension was surprisingly good, I found no quantum of eloquence when trying to answer questions in French. I sounded like a drunken third-grader. So I learned to nod thoughtfully, then plow ahead in English unabashed.

The trip was full of strange moments that I’d love to string together in a Sedaris-like monologue. The most meta-cinematic was when we found ourselves on a private island owned by the Ricard foundation. A tram tour took us past experimental lagoons, an old Nazi watchtower and the grave of founder Paul Ricard. It was already feeling a little Lost-ish when we got to the Institut, where we watched a self-produced film which could have come directly from the Dharma Initiative.

There was even a scale model of the island:

Later, we had a lunch in which every course featured truffles. That was on the other Ricard island.

On our last day, we toured Marseilles’ port in a pilot’s boat, brushing up against giant tankers. It provided good reference for my latest obsession, African piracy. Somehow, I don’t think the Somalian film industry will be getting a program together for us to visit.

What do I tell my agents if I can’t crack it?

– Stef

Your agents probably got excited by the idea because they think they can sell it — and you, as the writer.

Six weeks is a long time. I say this not to panic you, but to make sure you understand that employable screenwriters need to be able to produce on demand. You promised them something and didn’t deliver — that makes them nervous. How can they convince producers to hire you when you can’t hand them the script you yourself pitched?

Yes, sometimes seemingly-good ideas collapse upon further scrutiny, and it’s ultimately better to bail. If you truly can’t make your idea work, you need to move quickly on writing something else that is similarly marketable, even if it’s not the same genre. And you need to do it now.

When your agents ask, “What are you working on?” you should be able to answer immediately and passionately. So if it’s not the project you pitched them, make sure it’s something they’re going to be excited to read.

Is it appropriate to include an illustration or figure of the symbol at the end of the screenplay? I’ve seen some scripts that have pronunciation guides at the back, so how is this any different?

– Sean Wolfson

You can probably get away with it.

My advice: think about it like a book. In the best-selling novel version of your script, would the author have included the drawing? If so, do it. But only once, and only if it’s really that important.

– Kenneth Dunlap

Yes, it’s okay to send out your script to multiple agents (or producers) at once. Advised, in fact. You don’t know which, if any, of these people will work out. And waiting around for magic to happen isn’t a viable strategy.

If multiple agents are interested, you’ll meet with each and decide which one best represents your interests and ambitions. Sure, you’ll leave one or more agents disappointed.

They’re grown-ups. They’ll get over it.

Day One

We arrived at 5:30 in the morning, and after meeting our hosts, promptly got on police boats to see the city from the Seine, including a trip under La Bastille and a welcome lunch on a barge.

The afternoon included a visit with the deputy mayor of Paris and the Paris film commission.

Day One photos on Flickr

Day Two

We started at 5 a.m., meeting up with chefs from the Ducasse restaurants to visit Rungis, the largest food market in the world.

A sprawling campus of related businesses, it’s where all the restaurants in Paris buy their food every morning.

I don’t eat mammals, but visiting the meat warehouse was fascinating. With blood, fat and bone, everything still resembled the original animal. Our meat guide talked about veal very calmly, explaining his qualms while showing the differences.

After a breakfast with oysters, wine and foul-smelling but apparently delicious charcutterie, we headed back into the city for lunch with SACD, the equivalent of the Writers Guild. And more wine.

Then it was off to visit the control tower of the French railway system at Gare St.-Lazard, learning how the TGV trains are managed, and asking a bunch of questions that would seem well, unsettling if we weren’t action writers. (”So, if someone got stabbed on a train…”, “If you were to bomb three different lines…”)

For dinner, we ate at Beniot, where the chef cooked up the food we picked out in the morning. We were joined by American journalists and executives from Film France.

Day Two photos on Flickr

In California, my obvious interest is seeing Proposition 8 defeated. It’s an attack on fundamental rights and my family’s future. But there are several other issues — transportation, taxes and privacy — that are worth every California voter’s time.

I’m headed to Paris first thing on Wednesday, so there’s every likelihood I won’t know the outcome of some measures when I get on the flight. But here’s hoping for good news when I land.

I haven’t seen the movie, but it got a nice review today in Variety, and awards at Screamfest.

We were able to do it to a small degree with the trailer competition, but I’d ultimately love for an editor to load in all of the assets and go crazy. ¹

This spring, we’re going to do a test run. In USC’s Advanced Editing class, students will get every frame of dailies for The Nines on their Avids, so they can work through the process of making a real feature with the real footage. Editor Doug Crise and I will visit to help explain some of our choices, but it will be up to the student editors to figure out what movie they want to make and how.

Given its relationship with filmmakers, USC’s School of Cinematic Arts has done this with many features over the years. But my hope is to find a way to make it possible without the infrastructure of a film school, so that any aspiring editor could get her hands on the real footage. There are legal and technical obstacles, to be sure, but I’m looking forward to seeing how this dry run goes.

1. Yes, an ambitious cutter could rip apart the footage from the DVD — that’s how most parody trailers are made — but it’s not the same as having the real footage. It’s like rewriting a sentence with only ten words and two pieces of punctuation.

The competition begins at 9:00 a.m. on November 15th, so you have just two weeks to get your team together.

Last year, I wrote up ten suggestions for participants, which is certainly worth a re-link.

It will shock exactly no one that I voted for Obama. Twenty months ago, I attended an early fundraiser for his campaign, and left with guarded optimism. “Wouldn’t it be great if..?” was how I spoke of his candidacy, trying to imagine a president who would inspire rather than infuriate. At every step, I tried to temper my hopes and brace for disappointment. But I was constantly surprised by the intelligence behind the eloquence, and the consistency of message and tone he maintained over a ridiculously long trial. It was a great pleasure to ink the dot beside his name.

While the presidential campaign has been going on since the Pleistocene, the more recent and urgent issue in California is Proposition 8, a ballot measure that would take away my marriage by amending the California constitution. I’ve written about it before, particularly in Off-Topic, and have had a virtual yard sign on the sidebar for months.

On Saturday, I sent a long email to friends and colleagues making sure they understood how urgent it was that this ballot issue be defeated. While only Californians can vote on this proposition, the impact will no doubt be felt nationally and beyond. So in that spirit, I’m reprinting my letter here. I know that a huge portion of the readership lives outside the state — and nearly a quarter of readers are overseas — but if it helps a few voters understand what’s at stake, that’s something.

We’re ten days away from the election.

Which seems as impossible as it is welcome. Can you even remember a time when the news wasn’t dominated by election coverage? What did we talk about? What did we do? I look forward to rediscovering it all on November 5th.

In all the non-stop coverage of the candidates and their foibles, a tremendously dangerous ballot initiative has gotten much less attention than it deserves:

Proposition 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

Mike and I got married on June 28th. We want to remain married on November 5th. And without your help, we won’t.

Obviously, the fact that you’re a friend and/or colleague means that I think you’re a genius superstar with the heart of a paladin. You know Proposition 8 is wrong. But in daily life, you’re encountering dozens of people who might not get it, and worse, might not have a genius superstar to help them see why they need to Vote No on 8.

So consider this a cheat sheet for those conversations. And an appeal from me to please, please have these conversations, as awkward as they may be. Both sides are expecting this to be extremely close, so it really may come down to how your brother’s girlfriend votes. Yes, this is a long email, but it’s meant to be as much as reference as a rant. Feel free to copy-and-paste, rewrite-and-repurpose anything you see in it if it helps persuade the people in your life to Vote No on 8.

First off: Vote No on 8.

I shudder to think that some well-meaning voters will say to themselves, “Hey, I support gay marriage!” and mark “Yes.” It will happen. That’s why you have train yourself to think “No.” It can help to rephrase the proposition thusly: “Should religious conservatives rewrite the California constitution?” No. They should not.

You have to Vote No on 8. You have to ink that dot.

Many voters only vote the top of the ticket — for president. In a normal election, I wouldn’t care. But for the ballot initiative to pass, they only need to cross the 50% margin of votes cast on that issue. It’s not 50% of ballots — it’s 50% of the votes on that topic. So unless you actually mark the dot or punch the chad for No on 8, it’s as if you didn’t vote at all.

For people who’ve seen the other side’s ads

Vote No on 8, because it has nothing to do with education

Did you see that ad with the little girl talking to her mom about what they taught her about marriage in school? Total fabrication and fear-mongering. Do you remember being taught anything about marriage in school? I remember eating paste and learning my multiplication tables. But that’s the story they’re trying to sell. Fortunately, the state superintendent of schools and every teacher’s group you can think of came out very strongly against this inflammatory untruth.

If the backers of this proposition were worried about education, they should have sponsored a ballot initiative about education, rather than trying to strip away rights from thousands of California families.

Vote No on 8, which has nothing to do with taxes or religious freedom

One of their early ads implied that churches would lose their tax-exempt status if they refused to perform same-sex marriages. Think about that for a moment. Are Catholic churches required to perform Jewish weddings? Would you go to a Mormon temple for a Indian wedding? No. You would not. Churches have always and will always be do choose who they wish to marry, thanks to the First Amendment. (You know, that one before the awesome “right to bear arms” one.)

Believe it or not, this seems to be the major force behind Mormon involvement in Proposition 8. This afternoon, we encountered some Yes on 8 supporters waving signs near the Americana at Brand shopping megaplex. (And let me tell you, it’s weird to encounter people actively protesting your existence.) With Amy on my arm, I went up and spoke with them, asking what would happen if Prop 8 passed. “We wouldn’t be forced to marry gay people in our temple.” I asked them what would happen to me if Prop 8 passed, and they were stumped. “We’re not against two guys getting married,” one explained. “We just want to be able to keep our temple sacred.” They really, truly believe that without Prop 8, a lawsuit will force them to violate their religious tenets. They don’t trust the separation of church and state, so, ironically, they are undermining it even further.

From yesterday’s Salt Lake Tribune: “This time, LDS leaders have tapped every resource, including the church’s built-in phone trees, e-mail lists and members’ willingness to volunteer and donate money. Many California members consider it a directive from God and have pressured others to participate. Some leaders and members see it as a test of faith and loyalty.” It explains the zeal, at least.

Don’t take this as Mormon-bashing; research shows that the majority of the money supporting Proposition 8 comes from members. I grew up with a lot of Mormon friends, and found them singularly terrific. Even the people I spoke with today were nice as could be, considering the signs they were holding. But they clearly put themselves and their church first. When asked whether what they were doing was fair to me and my family, they could only shrug.

“Activist judges” are the new “terrorists.” Vote No on 8.

You’ve seen ads arguing that the Supreme Court ignored the will of the people by ignoring Prop 22, which was passed in 2000 with the exact same wording. But consider that nearly every major civil rights issue in our history has come as a court decision. In fact, it was the California Supreme Court that overturned the ban on inter-racial marriage, almost twenty years before Loving v. Virginia. Few reasonable Americans would argue that blacks, Latinos and women should have waited patiently until the majority of voters felt comfortable giving them rights.

Also, expect an ad about “small businesses.”

That’s one of their “Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails” that I haven’t seen in ad form yet. Same-sex marriage is supposed to hurt Joe the Plumber somehow. Wait for it.

For people who like endorsements

Obama says Vote No on 8.

“I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution.” Same with Biden: “If I lived in California, I’d clearly vote against Prop. 8.”

The Democratic Party says Vote No on 8.

In fact, the Democratic-led California legislature twice voted for equality in marriage rights.

Even Governor Schwarzenegger says Vote No on 8.

And this is the guy who wouldn’t sign those marriage bills when they landed on his desk. Twice.

A lot of Republicans also say Vote No on 8.

In fact, the guy in charge of No on 8 is a Republican. Fairness is a family value. Dude, even Dick Cheney gets it: “Freedom in this country ought to mean freedom for everyone.” (He has a lesbian daughter, who is supporting No on 8.) The judges who ruled that same-sex couples need to be allowed to marry. Mostly Republicans, appointed by Republicans.

Almost every major California newspaper says Vote No on 8.

The L.A. Times says it is “a drastic step to strip people of rights.” La Opinión calls Prop 8 “an unnecessary initiative.” The San Diego Union Tribune writes that Prop 8 “offends many Californians’ sense of fairness.”

Apple, AT&T and Google say Vote No on 8.

Sergey Brin of Google: “However, while there are many objections to this proposition — further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text — it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.”

For logical people

Vote No on 8, or you’ll be seeing a lot more of these ridiculous initiatives

The exact process that got this on the ballot could be used to do anything. Anything. You could ban green kites. You could tax Irish people. You could name a cat as Emperor. Because of California’s unfortunate tradition of voter initiatives, any ridiculous thing you can imagine can and will show up on the ballot unless we Vote No on 8.

Vote No on 8, because a majority shouldn’t be able to deny minority rights

A constitution is designed to protect citizens from their mob instincts by setting the rules for how government is going to work. Fundamental to that idea is that the rules should apply equally to everyone. Except in California, where you can permanently change the constitution with just 50% of the vote. This shouldn’t even be up for a vote. So Vote No on 8.

Vote No on 8, because “domestic partnership” is not the same thing

You’ll hear, “Couldn’t they just settle for civil unions?” Or, “California already has domestic partnership.” So let me set you straight on these terms. They’re meant to be comfortable replacements for the word “marriage.” But they’re not the same thing. If they were, Bristol Palin would be getting civil unioned. The word marriage matters. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t have spent $40 million putting this ballot issue together.

The other fundamental problem is that separate-but-equal has never worked out that well, historically or now. For example, before we got married, Mike and I were domestic partners. It’s supposed to give us all the same rights as marriage, but in practice, it’s basically roommates with hospital visitation privileges. Companies can happily ignore our joint status. Mike and I get challenged on the paternity of our daughter. It sucks. So what’s meant to be a parallel system inevitably becomes a second-class system.

For emotional people

What would you do if the government tried to take your marriage away?

The Yes side seems to cheerfully ignore that we’re not talking about a hypothetical right to get married. Eleven thousand couples have gotten legally married in California since the court’s decision come down. What happens to those people? What happens to John and Mike? There’s no clear answer. If that sounds scary, it is. So Vote No on 8.

When have Americans ever taken a right away?

Could you have voted to keep inter-racial couples from getting married? Probably not. The history of America, and California in particular, is towards personal freedom and responsibility. Indeed, if you ask most people, even most religious conservatives, they think same-sex couples will be free to marry in the future. So why not now? Vote No on 8.

Other things to consider

The polls are kind of useless…

The pollsters honestly admit they have no way of getting an accurate fix on how people are going to vote on this issue. Every day, you see a new one, and the numbers vary by 20% based on how the question is asked. So in some polls, No on 8 is up by double digits. In others, we’re down by the same amount.

…but their fear-based ads are working

Since you can’t measure an exact figure, it’s more helpful to look at trends in the polling. And the supporters of Prop 8 made a lot of headway when they started airing their TV and radio ads. No on 8 has new ads that have leveled it out, but it’s clear that there’s a big pool of swayable voters who could go either way.

Young women and church-going minorities especially important audiences

There are people who will absolutely vote for Prop 8, and folks who will absolutely Vote No on Prop 8. But there’s a squishy middle ground which includes a lot of voters who are traditionally Democratic but may be uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. Rather than challenge their feelings and beliefs, make sure to appeal to their sense of fairness and justice. Help them understand it as a form of discrimination, and listen to hear any talking points from the Yes side, which are pretty easy to address.

The ask

• Obviously, please Vote No on 8.

• This week, please talk to at least eight California friends about the election. Even if they are planning to Vote No on 8, please double-check that they actually understand how urgent it is. One of Mike’s friends has refused to vote in California for 20 years, but registered six weeks ago specifically to Vote No on 8.

• Email this — or better, your version of it — to folks you think will find it helpful.

As friends, a lot of you have already donated to the cause at NoOnProp8.com. But if any part of this email has made you nervous or angry, please donate more. Unfortunately, this has come down to a money race for TV ads, and they keep pulling ahead.

Thanks,

– John