John August

QandA

The Good Boy Syndrome, and whether film school is worth it

Episode - 8

Go to Archive

Education, Psych 101, Scriptnotes, Transcribed

John and Craig discuss why screenwriters want to please people — and how it often hurts them and the movies they write — before a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of going to film school.

We frame our film school discussion around John’s generic list of why people choose to go to college or graduate school:

1. The information
2. Certificate/degree
3. Access to special equipment
4. Structure
5. Professors/instructors/experts
6. Peers
7. Alumni
8. Enjoyment

That last point led to our alternate title for this podcast: *Film school: An expensive way to get laid.*

Craig got a new microphone, which seems like cause for celebration, but it picked up a tremendous amount of room noise. We’ll be working on that for next time.

Thank you to all the listeners who lavished [stars and praise](http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/scriptnotes-podcast/id462495496) upon us in iTunes. Being classic Good Boys, that kind of validation is like mana to us.

LINKS:

* [Cruft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruft) definition
* The [human back is a compromise](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_02.html)
* The [fourth trimester](http://www.parentmap.com/article/babys-fourth-trimester-helping-your-baby-make-a-peaceful-transition-from-womb-to-world)
* [Out of This World/Another World](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/another-world-20th-anniversary/id460076328?mt=8) for iOS
* [Life and Death](http://www.d4.dion.ne.jp/~motohiko/puppylove.htm#LIFE%20and%20DEATH), the Mac operating game
* Intro: [Atom, Filmation intro](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZXHVqrBpHw)
* Outro: [Swiss Top Secret Drum Corps](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJVdnMAGIt8) at the Edinburgh Military Tattoo 2009

You can download the episode here: [AAC](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_08.m4a).

UPDATE 10-25-11: The transcript of this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2011/scriptnotes-ep-8-the-good-boy-syndrome-and-whether-film-school-is-worth-it-transcript).

Dear Cindy in Blue Valentine

Random Advice, Story and Plot

blue valentine

So, hey, you’re pregnant. And it’s not welcome news, because you’re in college and hope to go to medical school.

You’re not sure if the champion sperm belongs to the scruffy-cute ukelele player or the asshole college wrestler. (But you kind of know it’s the wrestler.) Neither is exactly well-positioned for fatherhood.

You live with your parents. Let’s be frank; your family is not great. Your dad is an asshole. Your mom is a doormat. I doubt they’re much help right now.

We don’t see a lot of your deliberation process, but you decide to get an abortion. Then, just as the procedure is starting, you call it off. And that’s fine. Choice means choice. The doctor, nurse and everything about that clinic seemed appropriately sober and professional.

You decide to marry ukelele guy. I won’t offer any spoilers about how that turns out.

I’m actually writing to call your attention to one other undramatized choice: adoption.

Yes: it would have messed up the plot of your movie. But in terms of the plot of your life, I think it could have worked out pretty well.

Many young women in your situation would be wise to keep adoption in the mix. But I can’t blame them if they don’t strongly consider it. **Movies and TV shows generally do a crappy job portraying adoption,** either ignoring it as a choice or getting the details wrong.

For instance, maybe you watch Glee.

Quinn’s first-season pregnancy seemed fairly well-handled — given that it’s a show in which characters break into song without practice or provocation. But Glee whiffs it in the last minutes, sending the infant off to live with a troubled diva for thematic convenience rather than logical sense. That’s not how it works.

So, Cindy, I want to talk you through what would actually happen if you or another woman in your situation considered adoption.

And since this happens to be a site aimed at film and television writers, it might be a handy guide to how to portray such scenarios.

How it actually works
—-

First, you’d probably Google “adoption” (or “private adoption”) and quickly realize that there are a bunch of agencies that try to match up pregnant women with people hoping to adopt children. A lot of them are essentially attorneys who specialize in adoption.

They’re not attorneys in the scary sense. They’re attorneys in the getting-things-done-legally sense.

Clicking through the websites, you’d read the FAQs. You’d realize that a pregnant woman has her pick of families, each of which has written a letter to potential birth mothers explaining who they are and why they’re hoping to adopt a child. They’re not strangers. There’s no mystery. And in order to adopt, they all had to go through state screening.

If you called the number on the site, you’d speak to a case worker who would talk you through the process and answer your questions.

And you should ask a lot of questions. Let’s be clear: the agency and the case workers are getting paid by the prospective parents. Strictly speaking, that’s who they’re working for. But you hold all the cards. The agency’s job is to match pregnant women with prospective parents so that everyone has a good experience.

If you get a bad vibe from an agency, keep looking. You have your choice of places.

If you decided to go ahead with the process, you’d read a big pack of letters from prospective parents (all addressed “Dear Birth Mother”) and pick one who seemed like a good fit. Depending on the situation, you might hang out with them for a while before giving birth. Or not. There are a lot of ways it can work, and it mostly depends on how you want it to work.

Adoptions in the U.S. are increasingly open adoptions, which means that there’s no mystery about who the birth parents are. (That’s another thing TV and movies tend to get wrong.)

In addition to private agencies, there are public agencies, plus adoptions arranged through clergy, doctors and other groups. Basically, there are a ton of people who will find a family for this kid if you decide to continue the pregnancy.

I don’t want to sound Pollyanna here, Cindy. Nine months of pregnancy is a big fucking deal. But all the choices in front of you are big choices, so I want to make sure you give them all a fair shake.

Screenwriters: same advice.

Motion picture film cameras, 1888-2011

Film Industry, Tools

Matt Zoller Seitz looks at the [end of an era](http://www.salon.com/2011/10/13/r_i_p_the_movie_camera_1888_2011/singleton/):

> [T]he three major manufacturers of motion picture film cameras — Aaton, ARRI and Panavision — have all ceased production of new cameras within the last year, and will only make digital movie cameras from now on. […]

> What this means is that, even though purists may continue to shoot movies on film, film itself will may become increasingly hard to come by, use, develop and preserve. It also means that the film camera — invented in 1888 by Louis Augustin Le Prince — will become to cinema what typewriters are to literature. Anybody who still uses a Smith-Corona or IBM Selectric typewriter knows what that means: if your beloved machine breaks, you can’t just take it to the local repair shop, you have to track down some old hermit in another town who advertises on Craigslist and stockpiles spare parts in his basement.

Typewriters are a tempting but imperfect analogy. Motion picture cameras have traditionally been a rental rather than a retail business, which means Panavision will have the parts and expertise to repair its cameras for quite a long time.

And film isn’t going away tomorrow. It’s still a better choice than video in many situations, for both technical and artistic reasons. A few weeks ago, I visited the set of R.I.P.D in Boston, where they were happily shooting digitally. But director Robert Schwentke told me there were still film cameras on set for high-speed work.

Other filmmakers will choose film for its look or its ruggedness. And they’ll keep having that choice. Film cameras last a long time. Part of the reason Aaton, ARRI and Panavision can stop making new ones is that they already have plenty, and can keep them running.

Still, it’s a moment worth noting. In an [article at Creative Cow](http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/film-fading-to-black), Debra Kaufman observes that we’re not talking about something that *will* happen; it’s already done:

> “Someone, somewhere in the world is now holding the last film camera ever to roll off the line.”

Getting ahead of copyright battles

Rights and Copyright

Copyright claims are nothing new in Hollywood, but I don’t remember anything quite like this. Eriq Gardner looks at two lawsuits filed by producers of an upcoming Emma Thompson film trying to establish that her screenplay doesn’t [infringe on existing works](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/a-19th-century-threesome-becomes-247440):

> In February, Effie Film LLC, the production company behind the coming new film, sued playwright Gregory Murphy. The company hoped to get a declaration that Thompson’s script didn’t infringe Murphy’s play entitled The Countess, which also covered the Effie affair.

> Last Friday, Effie Film brought a second lawsuit –- this time against another writer, Eve Pomerance, who in 1995, copyrighted a screenplay entitled The Secret Trials of Effie Gray.

> Both Murphy and Pomerance are alleged to have threatened Thompson if she went ahead with plans to make her Effie. In the latest lawsuit, it’s alleged that Pomerance’s lawyers asserted that Thompson’s screenplay is substantially similar to the 1995 registered screenplay.

> Thompson, who is represented by Andrew Deutch at DLA Piper, wishes to rest all controversy lest she complete the film and then be hit with legal action from other writers. Her concern is understandable in light of the fact that Hollywood studios get hit all the time with claims from writers alleging copyright theft.

> Can potential copyright claims be cleared pre-production?

It’s not a question of *can*; in general, copyright claims *must* get cleared before production, because insurance bond companies insist upon a clear chain-of-title. When adapting a book, that’s pretty clear-cut — either you have the rights or you don’t.

Here, it’s more problematic. Copyright doesn’t protect ideas (such as the Effie affair), but rather the unique expression of ideas: story, characterization, scenes and whatnot. Copyright lawsuits almost always occur after production — in the [case of In Time](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/harlan-ellison-sues-claiming-foxs-235987), shortly before release, to create the greatest impact.

A preemptive lawsuit is an interesting strategy. I’m fascinated to watch how it plays out.