Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can now be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August. And this is Episode 468 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig is gone today, but luckily we get to welcome back our favorite north of the border screenwriter, Ryan Knighton. Ryan, welcome back to the show.

Ryan Knighton: I love that I’m your favorite north of the border. I think Vancouver is basically the northern suburb of Los Angeles at this point.

John: I didn’t want to get too narrow, because I could say like our favorite blind Canadian screenwriter. But really that just becomes insulting at some point.

Ryan: Then they’d be like well which one are you talking about.

John: Yeah. But you proposed – I’m so happy you’re here – because you proposed our main topic for today. So tell us what the question is that you asked that we will try to answer today.

Ryan: Well, the simplest way to put it was my question to you was what goes into the strategy between choosing whether you pitch a project or spec a project. And I know like there’s different conversations probably for whether we’re talking about television or feature, we can get into that. But it kind of came up recently for me, and I think it has for a lot of people, because of the pandemic. You know, the industry has really hit a kind of parenthesis since March and we’re waiting for the other end of that parenthesis.

But it’s made me rethink sort of my assumptions about how to take out a project and how best to put food on the table really in this time. So that’s what I was thinking about, because I don’t want to take anything for granted anymore. I mean, I’ve always assumed I had a certain approach to selling projects and now I don’t know if that’s sort of the right way.

John: Well let’s stay into that today. So that’s going to be our main topic. And so I reached out to a bunch of our Premium subscribers and asked for their questions about this. And so we will talk through your projects, my projects, and their projects to figure out what makes sense to pitch, what makes sense to write yourself, and hopefully figure out for 2020 what is the best approach.

I also want to talk today about the Academy put out new requirements for Best Picture. And there’s also questions about options and lawyers, so we’ll see if we can answer those questions. And then in our bonus segment for Premium members I want to talk to you about how you plan to spend this year training to become an amazing surfer and how you’re going to become a competitive surfer apparently. That’s what you–

Ryan: Critical screenwriting information for everybody.

John: Absolutely. It’s all about Canadian surfing. That’s really what this podcast is about. Hey, so let’s get started with some news. You saw this piece that the Academy is changing the rules for eligibility for Best Picture starting I think in 2023. Did you have an initial take on this? What was your read on these changes?

Ryan: Long overdue. It’s interesting, sort of the criteria that they’re using that there are sort of four categories I believe it is and sort of two of them must be met to be eligible for Best Picture, I looked at it and I thought, well, when you have a logjam sometimes you need a blunt tool. And I don’t necessarily think it’s the most elegant solution to a cultural problem. But sometimes you’ve got to kind of kick at the logjam in a very blunt way to get things moving. And obviously the status quo hasn’t been working. And meritocracy is not an argument when we haven’t seen a lot of change happening.

So, I welcome it. I don’t know what sort of the long view of this is. Because maybe this is what we needed all along. Maybe this is a great solution. But I don’t know, what do you think? Where is your mind at?

John: Let’s try to describe what it is, because it’s actually complicated. So we’ll put a link in the show notes to what the actual criteria are and how you can meet your eligibility requirements. And this is only for Best Picture, not for any other category. But essentially there’s four basic ways in. There’s four tiers that you need to hit. And within those there are specific requirements of things you can do.

So the first one is about the representation onscreen. So these are actors in roles that are being portrayed by historically underrepresented groups, so including different ethnic groups, people with disabilities, LGBTQ people. So that’s one way in.

Ryan: Canadian surfers.

John: Canadian surfers. I was thinking you and me together, you’ve got the gay screenwriter, you’ve got the blind writer. There’s some way to packet us together and we can make a Best Picture.

The second way in is the talent behind the lens. And so these are like you and me writers, directors, casting directors, costumers. So all the people who are not in front of the lens. And so representation among those groups. And that first category is also about the subject matter of the picture itself, and so that can be a fact that pushes you across the line.

Beyond that, you can look at sort of the studio or financier behind it. And so if they have programs that bolster inclusion that is a way to meet that requirement. Or the marketing and publicity engine behind the release of the film, if they have representation that meets certain requirements that can do it.

And so one of the natural first things you think about is like, OK, well there’s certain movies that it’s going to be hard to hit those requirements if it’s just about representation onscreen. So classically like a WWII war movie, it may not be possible to have a lot of different representation onscreen. That’s part of the reason why there’s other ways to sort of hit those requirements.

So, will it work? I don’t know. I think the reality that everyone is frustrated by this announcement probably means that it was pitched just about right in that people feel it doesn’t go far enough or it goes too far. So, in that way it may be sort of that sweet spot of actually making some changes. I think I could imagine that a studio looking at making a picture is going to have to be thoughtful about how they’re going to achieve these requirements and in thinking about how they’re going to achieve these requirements they may make some decisions that will bolster inclusion within the industry. I guess that’s the best case scenario for me of what’s happening here.

Ryan: It seems to me too like it’s a way of encouraging better behavior. Again, it’s sort of a blunt tool, but I think it’s a way of also just creating better habits in the way we think about how we both work behind the camera and in front of the camera and the stories we tell.

I think it’s also, you know, the other thing that kind of gets muted by this is what are we afraid of here by putting something like this in place? It’s not like they’ve put it in place rules that say you can’t make a movie if you don’t have these things. It’s just for the Best Picture nominations. And it’s interesting because I think your movies will change by virtue of the people that you include in all those aspects. I mean, it helps inform story. It helps inform sort of the point of view of the way that story is told. I don’t see a reason to be afraid of that.

John: I don’t really either. And especially in terms of looking at the behind the scenes talent, you might say like, OK, well it’s hard for us to find people that meet these requirements. It’s like well that is actually the problem and actually by incentivizing you to find those people you actually are increasing the supply of those people who you want to see more of in this industry.

Naturally I think everyone looks back at the work they’ve done before and figure out like, oh, which of the movies I’ve worked on would meet these requirements? And so I can’t say exhaustively sort of all the movies I’ve worked on. Some of them would, some of them would not. And you always have to, when you look back, be thinking about, OK, yes, but I was making that movie in 2003 and this is 2020. So I would be making different choices regardless.

So a movie like Big Fish it doesn’t meet some of the requirements in terms of onscreen representation, but I think probably would make different choices that would hit some of those things. Behind the scenes you had me, a gay screenwriter, and a bunch of gay producers. And that would help achieve some of those behind the scenes things. But it also would have come out of Columbia Pictures which would have by its nature had had better representation within those category three and category four requirements.

So I feel like it’s easy to think, oh, well a bunch of those old movies would not qualify. Yes, but if those movies were made today you would be making different choices anyway, so therefore they’re more likely to be qualifying.

Ryan: It’s interesting, too, you know, in terms of my TV experience going back to one of the first writer’s rooms I was in I learned later that even though I’m disabled I didn’t qualify as a diversity hire within that room. So it’s interesting to think like even between TV and film sort of the definitions of diversity are quite different.

John: Yeah. That feels like a big oversight. I hope that is something that everyone is looking at correcting. And we should stipulate that in terms of TV writer’s rooms the studio might have standards for diversity, the Writers Guild might have standards for diversity. There’s not sort of one governing body the way that the Academy is trying to look at diversity in terms of this Best Picture requirement.

So that TV writer’s room you were talking about was for In the Dark, the CW show, right?

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

John: So tell me about that. That was the first TV show writer’s room you were in and we’ll put a link in the show notes to the episode where you talk about your experience being in that room. And you just went through that room again, right? Because you just finished writing a new season.

Ryan: We just finished season – I just stepped off season three. Yeah. We did one week in the room and then we went remote to Zoom. And I completed my time in the room off Zoom, which was kind of fascinating.

John: Because I know you were in town briefly and then you departed, so I had hoped to see you while you were here in Los Angeles. But what was your experience finishing that season on Zoom? And as a blind writer are there additional challenges being on Zoom, or in a weird way are you used to just sort of being in audio format and just talking it out? What was the experience like for you writing the rest of that season on Zoom?

Ryan: You just hit the nail on the head. You must be a good writer. You immediately imagined my point of view. Yes, it was a lot like my life experience insofar as siting in the room I might as well be on a conference call because I don’t see anything anyway. So, Zoom was sort of – I’ve talked to other people who have done Zoom rooms so far and one of the things I found most people say is they were surprised by the efficiency of it. That it seemed to get rid of a lot of the – you know, nobody wants to stay on Zoom for very long. So, there’s a kind of push to get the work done and there’s a kind of push to be decisive. And I found that part of it kind of fascinating how it really leaned out the way people creatively work together.

And we started back at the beginning of March and to sort of see the tools evolve of finding like, you know, we went for the first while without any sort of shared idea of a whiteboard working in the Zoom environment. And then eventually they came on, I think it was with Miro. We tried Google Docs for a while but it didn’t quite work efficiently with people being on the call.

But I found it was fascinating because my ability to work was not changed very much by it. I still had sort of a shifting sandcastle in my head of what would have been on the board. And I was still just listening to voices in an environment. I’ve heard other people say they find it visually exhausting to be on Zoom when the cameras are on. And I sort of question whether or not you actually need the cameras on in a writer’s room.

By the end I know other writers were telling me from other rooms that they were turning off their cameras. That they were actually turning it into more of a conference call. And they found that that was less exhausting. I don’t know. Not being a sighted person, I don’t know what the experience of that is like. Have you found that?

John: Yeah. Craig and I actually had a discussion about getting notes on Zoom and that we felt like weirdly it was better than being in a room or better than a conference call because it split the difference in terms of being able to be present and make clear that you’re paying attention and also to read people’s reactions and see what else is happening. Because on a conference call it’s never clear whose time it is to speak. It’s just challenging that way. And so having the visual information was helpful for us.

But I also suspect that for you having navigated as a non-sighted person for so many years you have a better sense of these cues. You can keep people’s voices straight a little better than other people could. And so that may be an advantage you have when it’s just an audio environment.

Ryan: Well, one thing I did notice is that the shift away from the central power of the whiteboard for a while was kind of fascinating. Because everybody was working more in a verbal environment. We still would have things like Google Docs and stuff to refer to, but I found when everybody had to move into sort of storytelling mode basically you couldn’t just look at the board and be comforted by all the writing on the board telling you that you’ve done lots of work and there was an episode in there somewhere. Because we had to keep telling acts or beats I found that the diagnostic of whether story was working was a lot different. Because when it comes out of your mouths you can tell when a story flags in a way that you don’t necessarily feel by just looking at a whiteboard and seeing a list of beats.

So, I think the empowerment of just verbal storytelling by the Zoom environment has been kind of an interesting change in the way a room is calibrated and sort of how we process the story that we’re working on.

John: Now in a previous episode where we talked about your experience in the room you said how important it was to be able to read the notes of the room, to read what the writers’ assistants were typing up so you could keep up to speed with stuff. And so sometimes during breaks you’d have them send you the document so you could read it on your phone and catch up on where stuff was at. How did that change and how did your experience of working with the text change when it became a Zoom situation?

Ryan: It pretty much stayed the same. We still had assistants on there taking notes. And at the end of the day we’d get the notes and you could read them at night and be prepared for what you were going to pitch the next day. So I didn’t find it changed very much.

I think the one thing I found really missing was there’s sort of less of a sense in a room, I don’t know if you know what I mean, but if you have 12 people in a room not everybody is looking at you at the same time. And so that sense that you could look away and sort of disappear into your mind for a while was a little different because in the Zoom environment there’d be a sense of like is that person even paying attention. Are they here? Because you’re looking at all 12 faces apparently and not everybody looks as engaged in that moment.

So there’s something about a peculiar anonymity in a room that gets lost once and a while by being in a gallery view. And I found that kind of fascinating.

John: In a writer’s room classically you are – attention is focused on the board at the front of the room and that is the source of everything. So without having a single source of focus and sort of a source of truth it is just that conversation. And it is just about you’re only looking at faces. And in real life you can’t look at 12 people’s faces all at the same time. That’s just not possible. And in the gallery view you can. So, it does – yeah, it definitely changes things.

You wrote this season, has any of it started shooting yet?

Ryan: No. I believe right now it looks like production will begin in October in Toronto. You know, all things hopefully going forward. But, you know, the west is on fire. So, who knows what’s going to happen in the interim.

John: Yeah. I realize we haven’t actually described to the listeners where you are right now. So tell us where do we find you as we record this episode?

Ryan: I am up in a place called Ucluelet which is a small fishing village on the west coast of Vancouver Island. So we’ve been here for the last six months and we decided to stay here. So my daughter just enrolled at the high school here for her first day of grade eight. And we are just on a little cedar forest on the edge of the ocean here. There’s only about 1,500 people in the village.

It’s funny because right now looking at the world, I mean there’s smoke up here coming up from the coast, too. I kind of feel like we hid up in the corner and there’s nowhere left to move everybody. We’ve retreated as far as there is left without stepping into the ocean and swimming to Japan. So that’s where it finds me right now. We’re out of the city.

John: So my perception of it is that it’s romantic and isolated. How accurate is that? And to what degree do you feel like this is the zombie pandemic that you have found the place of safety or that you are trapped up there and vulnerable?

Ryan: A place of safety. Ucluelet actually translates into a place of safe harbor. That’s what it means.

John: Oh wow.

Ryan: So, it definitely feels that way. And I’m very fortunate that way. But I think like other pp – I don’t know if you’ve heard this from others, but I know a lot of people now that are rethinking the necessity of living in the urban centers right now because everything has gone remote and proving to be done remote. And that change of cost is a huge factor for people. The expense of living in a city. When a city is a technology for me insofar as a city is what allows me to be a very functional, independent blind person. It’s a soft technology.

And everything is built at the school of a human foot. I can walk around. Public transit. All those things. And it’s fascinating right now how the pandemic has basically shutdown what a city is for me. I can’t safely move around it. I can’t socially distance from anybody without them doing it for me. I don’t know you’re coming. And so even just taking out the trash in my city place, I walk to the alley and bumped into two people. And I’m like did I get COVID? No.

So it just didn’t feel like a viable place for me to live right now. But I think other writers I know are kind of rethinking the city right now because it’s not on tap what it normally is. And I do find being away there is an anxiety that you feel the industry is carrying on without you. There isn’t that sense of where everybody is and everybody moving around and seeing each other and going to those general meetings and going to the studio lots. All that has really stopped and there’s a sense like is there even work going on out there? Have I just dropped off the radar? I think that anxiety is prevalent.

John: I think that anxiety is understandable and real. I will tell you that you’re not missing anything. The work is still happening. And the meetings are still happening, but they’re all happening on Zoom. And so many of the meetings that I’ve had over the last six months people would have no idea where I am. I could have been anywhere and it really wouldn’t matter.

And some of the projects I’m working on have teams that are in Argentina and France and other places because you might as well. Some things have become possible that would have been much more challenging in a pre-pandemic world. So that is definitely a thing.

Ryan: Do you think Zoom will persist after this historical moment as a really substantial part of our job?

John: Yes. I do think it will. I think there’s kind of no going back on some of it. I think there will still be in person meetings. I think writer’s rooms will split their time probably between Zoom and being in person. I hear enough from other TV writers who miss the experience of being together that they want some together time. There’s some things that are easier to do. But other stuff which was always done in person people are recognizing oh you know what I didn’t actually have to drive across town to do it.

I was talking with a friend who is producing a movie and she’s going through the edit right now. And you have to have fast Internet but she’s basically sitting “next” to her editor and supervising these cuts but she’s doing it from her house. And so that kind of stuff which was almost possible became possible during the pandemic and people realized like oh maybe we didn’t actually physically need to be there for certain things.

The inevitable question though which actually is a pretty good segue into our main topic is to what degree do you need to be going to somebody to pitch them an idea, or is it all going to happen on Zoom? What is the nature of work in the sense of like this is a thing that I need to write entirely by myself and then send to somebody, or can I just get on Zoom and pitch them the idea and convince them that this is the thing that they should hire me to do?

Ryan: Yeah. Or is there a sense that everything is really on a pause button, so spec your brains out? You might as well.

John: That’s an absolutely 100 percent valid way of thinking about it as well. As writers it doesn’t feel like we’re quite on a pause yet. But that may be coming. And there’s I think a natural question about all this writing happened while production was shut down. Once production starts again will we still do all the writing, or will we just pause the writing and shoot everything that we’ve written?

If this was ten years ago before streamers, before there was such a demand for so many shows, definitely writing would stop. Now I’m not so sure it’s going to stop. I think there’s a good chance it just keeps going at this rate because there’s so much stuff that these streamers want and need.

We used to think about time needed to be filled, but there’s vast servers that have to be filled with content. And I wonder if we’re just going to need to keep writing that stuff.

Ryan: And having said that, though, are the studios and the networks and the streamers, both feature and TV, are they spending money on writing like they were before? Even though there is that need. Or are they looking around and saying, “You know what? We don’t need to do as much development as we did before.”

John: What I sense is that they’re doing less development in the sense of like the classic thing where we’re going to shoot 30 pilots and pick five things up for series. I think they’re just making the choice about, OK, we’re going to hire someone to write a pilot. Off that pilot we’re going to write eight episodes and shoot eight episodes. I feel like there’s a lot more direct to series kind of orders happening than the classic shoot the pilots. But we’ll see if that’s the right choice or if that really holds up.

All right, let’s get to our main topic here. So this was your initial dilemma and question about pitching versus speccing. We should start by even defining our terms. So, Ryan Knighton, help us understand the difference between pitching a project and speccing it, or writing it yourself. What do you mean?

Ryan: Well, by pitching I mean the idea that you develop a take on something and you set up those meetings maybe through your team and you go out and you try and persuade either a studio or a network, depending if it’s TV or features, to pay you to write that idea out. So, pitching for me has always been the idea of you’re investing time in trying to persuade someone to pay you for writing what you would like to do. And there’s advantages to doing that, both financially and for the business side. And creatively there’s some advantages, too.

And then as far as speccing, speccing is the reverse order where you put in the time and you do the writing yourself. You write the project, then you take it out and try and persuade a studio or a network to pay you for the work you have done already. And there’s advantages to that, too. But the difference, you take on more risk, but then you might get rewarded more for the risk that you’ve taken on.

So, they are two different approaches really to the business of selling the work that you do. But also to how you creatively actually do the work. They’re quite different.

John: Now, when I was first entering the film industry in the ‘90s there were spec sales. And so people would write these spec scripts, these spec feature scripts, and sell them for $1 million. Friends of mine sold a script while they were in film school with me for a big chunk of change and it was really exciting. And that stuff did happen. It felt like sort of lottery tickets. People would write spec scripts with the intention of selling them. And that was very much a feature thing for a while, but then people started writing spec TV scripts which is confusing. So we need to separate our terms here.

There’s what’s called a spec where you’re writing an episode of an existing show just as a writing sample. But there’s also writing something that you intend to sell. You’ve written the finished script and you’re intending to sell that. So when we say speccing we’re really talking now about writing a script all by yourself that you then intend to take out and show people and they say, “This is phenomenal. We want to buy that.”

Every writer is making a choice of do I write the whole thing myself and see what happens, or do I develop the idea and then go and take a bunch of meetings with people and try and convince them to pay me to write this project.

Ryan: Exactly.

John: So, let’s talk about the advantages of speccing a project. What are some things you see as an advantage to you have this idea. It’s like, you know what, I’m just going to write it myself. What would make you decide to do that?

Ryan: Well I think there’s a few reasons that I can imagine. And I’m sure you can fill out more. But I mean the first one is creative control. There’s sort of an idea here that it’s difficult in words in a meeting to get them to see the picture that’s in your head. And sometimes a pitch lives or dies on your ability to do that. And sometimes it feels like, you know what, the best way to do this is for me to just write it so you can see for yourself what this thing is. The tone of it, for example, is often a hard thing to communicate in a pitch.

John: Yeah.

Ryan: And so if you just do it it does a lot of that heavy lifting for you. The other thing being that you get that first run at a story without any interference. It’s you alone sitting beside the washing machine in your house writing this thing out with nobody else telling you, “I don’t know if we can cast that, or I don’t know those locations would work.” You just get the pure experience of getting this story out nose to tail.

And there’s a lot to be said for breaking the back of a story that way. So that’s speccing for me. What about you?

John: I would say the other big advantage you have is that you end up – at the end of the process you have a script. You actually have a thing. You’ve written this thing and it’s a thing you can use as a writing sample even if you don’t sell it. People can read this and say, “Oh, this is a really good writer.” So you end up with a finished product. And there’s a lot to be said for that. And there’s a reason why as writers are starting they’re just going to write specs because they actually have to prove that they can write. You’re not going to be able to sort of be a person who has never written anything and sell an idea. That’s just not going to happen. So you get to show what you can do. And so speccing is a chance to do that.

It’s 100 percent you yourself working through this thing and it’s completely your vision and you end up with a finished product when you’re done with this that you can actually take out in the world or decide not to take out in the world. You have total control over everything.

Ryan: Correct. You know, and I think what’s interesting in that, too, is you’re pointing out that your relationship to speccing may change over your career. You know, in many respects to start a career in this industry you have to spec. You have to show you can do this work before anybody will pay you to make the next thing necessarily. So, it might be more incumbent on you at the beginning, but as you develop your career you might do less and less of that. Unless what you try to take back is more control over your material by having that time beside your washing machine, right.

John: So, let’s talk through the advantages of pitching a project rather than writing it yourself.

Ryan: Well, for me one of the advantages of it, and I’ll be honest, I specced my first script and that was 10 years ago and I have never specced anything since. I’ve only ever pitched. And in part that’s just been a choice I’ve made in terms of what I feel is the best way to earn a living for me. And, you know, sometimes for pitching the advantages are particularly if you feel you’ve got the skillset to persuade people in a room to see something with you and to get excited about it and want to buy into it at the ground floor. And that’s one thing. I mean, it’s a different skillset to pitch something than to spec something in many respects because you are trying to bring people onboard to something you haven’t done yet.

John: Yeah.

Ryan: And one of the things I find is an advantage of it though is that if people do get excited with you they bought it very early at the DNA and it helps see it through, I think, further. Because everybody was there from the green light. What do you think?

John: One of the other big advantages is potentially it’s a lot less time. So, the 12, 20 weeks you would spend writing that script is compressed down to the three or four weeks it took to figure out the take and actually go out and pitch the project. And so if you don’t find a buyer for it you’ve not wasted half your year writing this script. And so if no one wants this idea it becomes clear like, OK, you writing that script probably would not have been a good choice. And so you can come out with multiple pitches at the same time, too.

So, there’s good reasons to consider pitching. A lot of what I would say, you talk about buy in, and it’s also just the fact that they are paying you money. It’s much more sustainable. Like you, I’ve not written a ton of specs over the years and we’ll get into which of my projects have been specs versus pitches, but mostly if I have a good idea I will pitch it to someone who I feel is the right person to become a partner on this project and we’ll move forward, rather than writing a whole thing myself.

Ryan: One of the things I’ve thought about, too, is just that when you spec something, and this is one of the reasons I’ve shied from it, you’re also giving people more reasons to say no ironically. That is you’ve cut this thing from whole cloth. They read it. They either love it or hate it because they don’t want to spend a lot of time making a choice about something they didn’t ask for.

And so the danger is you can have somebody read and say, “No, just not for me.” But maybe if they’d heard it as a pitch and helped develop the idea with you and felt some ownership of what’s in it they would have a different relationship to the material. So, whereas on the other hand you can spec something and just knock people’s socks off and then you get rewarded handsomely like they did in the ‘90s and it put you in a time machine and you get to go back to the Sundance heyday.

John: Yeah. Back then. So, I want to talk through projects I’ve worked on, which have been specs and which ones have been pitches. And I think the decision of what I chose to spec versus pitching may be informative as we get to some listener questions. So the first specs I wrote, my very first script was called Here and Now. It was a romantic tragedy in Boulder, Colorado. It was just the first thing I ever wrote. And so it became a writing sample. It was not a pitchable idea. It really wasn’t a very good story in many ways. But it showed that I could actually write scenes and dialogue and characters.

Ryan: Can I ask what do you mean it’s not a pitchable idea?

John: It was very low concept. I think we should actually focus on this for a second. It’s like which ideas are pitchable and which are not pitchable. A pitchable idea has a concept that you can grasp that you can see like I can understand what that movie is even if it weren’t executed perfectly. And so we talk about something being execution-dependent, like OK it has to be done exactly right for it to make any sense. You really have to read it to understand how it’s going to work. Versus an idea that you can sort of quickly summarize.

The things I sold as pitches, DC was a pitch, and so it was the first TV show I ever did. It was seven young people living in a house in DC, sort of their first year after college. It’s kind of a post-Felicity show. That was pretty easy for me to sell as a pitch because people understand it’s like Felicity but after college. It’s about Washington, DC. People could read my samples and know that he can write those kind of characters. That’s a thing I sell as a pitch.

Something like Go would have been impossible to pitch because there’s not a clear – I had to write that as a spec because it wasn’t clear how this was all going to work, or that I could even do it. And so the same reason why it was hard to write a log line for Go, it would be very hard to pitch Go as a movie.

Ryan: I think that’s key to this. I mean, pitching you know you’ve got pitchable material when part of what persuades people is just the potential that they can see in it. A lot of it is about the gesture. As soon as you say it’s a kind of Felicity version of DC, the post-college grads in Washington, immediately I can feel 20 stories brewing in my head around that sandbox. And that’s part of what makes something very pitchable is that part of the persuasion is just the potential that the people across the table from you immediately see in what you’re saying.

John: Now, so I’ve mostly been working on assignments which are kind of like pitches but you’re pitching to get the job, but the things I have written as specs were because they were so execution-dependent that it would have been very difficult to convince somebody like, oh, this is something you should take a flier on and pay me to write. So the way that you and I met was my script for The Shadows which I wrote as a spec has a blind teenage protagonist and is very challenging in lots of ways. That needed to be a spec. I don’t think it would have made sense as a pitch. Would you agree with that?

Ryan: I agree. Because again the high concept element of it is just not there. And you’re right, I can feel as soon as you pitch it there’s a blind protagonist who goes through the – I don’t want to give away your story – but what she goes through is not necessarily going to compress into a logline that easily.

And I think the other challenge you can hit with something that doesn’t necessarily – or the other challenge you hit with something that feels pitchable is sometimes the challenge is that you are pitching something that there are other things in the marketplace right now or that just came out onscreen in the last few years that didn’t do well but they immediately see as a comparison.

So you might have a really high concept pitchable thing, but they will say things like, “Oh, nobody wants a western right now.” And it kills it right there on the spot.

And then that becomes now an execution-dependent high concept pitch, right?

John: All right, so in order to talk through what ideas are good for pitching and what ideas are better for speccing, we wanted some actual real examples, so I emailed out to all of our Premium listeners to say, hey, if you have a project you’re thinking about writing and you’re trying to decide whether to spec it or to pitch it send in a description of it and we will talk through and try to give you our advice for whether that’s an idea you should pitch or an idea you should spec.

Now, one thing to stipulate at the top of this is that in many cases our listeners are aspiring writers who don’t have credits or don’t have other things that they can sort of show how good their work is. And so in many of these cases you have to spec it just because there’s no one for you to pitch to. But we’ll also take a look at these ideas if Ryan or Craig or I were trying to write them what our decision process would be with that kind of idea.

Ryan: By the way, if any network is listening to this and they hear a game show in this, Pitch or Spec, we’ve got it. We’ve got this thing down now.

John: All right. Let’s take a listen to our first person who is Heidi.

Heidi Lauren: This is Heidi Lauren from Vermont. I’m working on a limited series adaptation of an historical fiction novel that was a book club darling back in 2006. I’ve already optioned it with the author and written the outline and treatment. Should I keep writing or try and find it a home first?

John: All right, so Ryan, historical fiction and it’s a book that she now has the option on. In her situation it sounds like she doesn’t have other credits, what do you think her next step is?

Ryan: That’s a hard one for me because the key word in there for me was that it was a book club success book. Like it actually has some heft to its audience already built into it. That makes me feel like it’s pitchable right there. However, as soon as you say historical fiction blah-blah-blah I am like, oh, that feels speccy to me. So I’m on the fence. Because there’s sort of two elements that are in contradiction there for me.

John: Yeah. The other contradiction for me is that she has an option on it. So, let’s say she writes this spec script and she’s not able to sell it right away, she kind of loses control over things. At some point the underlying rights are going to go away, so she’ll have this script that she can’t sell. And then there’s the book which someone else could buy. So she could have this orphaned script that she can’t do anything with. Still, a writing sample, but it’s frustrating on that level.

If Heidi were to pitch it to somebody I would say she would need to approach producers and financiers who are the right kind of people to make this movie who have made things like this who might be interested in doing this. And try to set it up that way where they’re basically buying both your option and they’re hiring you to write the script. Because that’s going to be the right home for it.

Whether it makes sense to spend months chasing down those people or just writing the script that’s ultimately going to be your choice. It sounds like you really want to write this thing, so I don’t want to stop you from writing this thing by scaring you that at some point you could lose control over the underlying source material.

Ryan: I guess now that I’m thinking about it and hearing you I would say if Heidi has a really good sample and then she has the option on this and she’s got – it sounds like she’s got the material to pitch it ready to go. I would lean towards pitching then. But I think the key element for me would be whether or not the sample that she has could really push it over the line for other people and say, oh yeah, this is the right writer for this material.

John: Yeah. All right, let’s listen to – here’s Niko.

Niko: Hi John and Craig. My name is Niko. And I’m a beginning writer who just moved out to Los Angeles about a month and a half ago. You’ve inspired me to take a big risk and take a jump in my life. And so far it’s been paying off. I got a question in particular about this idea I’ve had in my head about a Weezer miniseries. The story revolves around singer-songwriter Rivers Cuomo who already achieved international fame but returned to college at Harvard after he wanted to finish his education. I thought he premise would be interesting where you’d have the two worlds of being a rock star and still being confined to a 100-square-foot dorm room. Just wondering if that would work better as a pitch or a spec script. Thank you very much.

John: Ryan, so what’s the right choice for a Weezer miniseries?

Ryan: Spec.

John: I think it’s totally a spec. Spec, spec, spec, spec, spec. So, a couple things for Niko here. As Craig has made clear on the show you are allowed to write about real life and real life is up for grabs, but Rivers Cuomo is going to have some control over his life story. There’s going to be complications in making this thing. And so you might say like, oh, then you should pitch it so you don’t run into that. No, you should spec this because I think it’s actually a really interesting idea. It’s the kind of thing that if it gets traction, it gets on the Black List, people dig it. If it’s a fun idea it’s a sample.

I think you have to approach this as you are writing this as a sample that will get you hired onto work on a TV show or do other things. I think it’s a good idea, but I think it’s essentially a spec. You’re writing this as a writing sample with the minimal hope that it could become a real series if it catches fire.

Ryan: Correct. I totally agree. And also because really the selling point of this in a pitch is the name Weezer. It’s the band. It’s Rivers Cuomo. And that like you say is going to become complicated with life rights and other things.

If you take that element out of it and you made it a fictional story it actually becomes less compelling because it’s a rock star goes back to school, which could work. But you see sort of the sharp edge of the sell there has been blunted.

John: So, let’s imagine that Niko has some good samples, maybe even something that’s – maybe he’s been hired to do some stuff. And he actually has a relationship with Rivers Cuomo. That’s a situation which I think you could actually pitch. And so I can see you going into Seth Rogan’s production company saying like, hey, I have this idea for a thing and Rivers is signed off on it. Isn’t this a cool idea? Then, yeah, that’s a totally pitchable idea. But without those elements I think it is a much better thing for you to be speccing.

Ryan: Exactly. And if he had Rivers Cuomo sitting beside him I would say do not spec this. I would say pitch, pitch, pitch.

John: Yeah. 100 percent. Next up.

Adam Kanter: Hey John and Craig. My name is Adam S. Kanter. I’m a new screenwriter originally from Eastern Massachusetts and have lived in Los Angeles for about 2.5 years now. I would love to get your pitch it vs. write it take on a drama feature I’ve been developing that is a modern take on the idiom “don’t meet your heroes.” The movie is about a troubled teen whose longtime childhood idol is publically outed as a complete monster for to be determined reasons. The main plot of the film would show this teen’s struggle to fill their role model void at a critical moment in their pre-adult development while they themselves inadvertently begin filling that very role for the at risk youth that they work with. Really excited to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you both so, so much.

John: All right, so Adam, you introduce yourself as Adam S. Kanter. You’re going to need that S throughout your whole career because there’s already an agent named Adam Kanter. So that’s challenging. There’s also an actor named Adam Kantor, so that S is going to be part of your life.

To me this feels like it has to be a spec because it’s incredibly execution-dependent. Based on what you described and like, oh OK, so he works with troubled at risk youth. There’s this teen idol. There’s so many very specific things that have to work just right. I don’t envision this being a good pitch. Ryan, what are you hearing?

Ryan: I agree. I agree. I mean, even when you heard Adam describing the story the logline extended and extended which is an indication that it’s execution-dependent right there. And also some of the details were still a little fudgy. And it doesn’t feel like it’s in a state where Adam actually knows the story well enough to pitch it yet in any case. And sometimes speccing is a way to actually do that thinking for yourself and figure it out with some trial and error.

But I agree. I agree. It feels very execution-dependent even in the way it was described.

John: Great. Next up.

Tiffany: Hi John and Craig. My name is Tiffany and my idea is a series called The Unknowables. It’s graduation day at a tiny liberal arts college. And five kids who no one has ever seen before show up in their caps and gowns. This is the story of their college experience. As for me, I’m just starting out. I live in the suburbs about a half an hour out of LA, but I have no credits and I know pretty much nobody. Looking forward to your advice. Thanks.

Ryan: Ooh.

John: What you thinking?

Ryan: I’m thinking it’s close to a pitch.

John: Yeah. I’m not clear on the tone. So from that title The Unknowables is there a magical thing happening here? Is there some sort of sci-fi twist to this? Or are they just people who flew under the radar? So if it’s just they flew under the radar and that it’s kind of like a Freaks and Geeks situation it’s tough. I feel like that’s really execution-dependent. Unless you had samples that I read that people were breaking down the door to work with you, I think that that’s tough.

But there’s a high enough concept, like that first line of people show up and no one at graduation has any idea who are they or who they were. That’s compelling. That’s a good hook. And that’s the kind of thing that feels like you could pitch a story that gets us there.

Ryan: I totally agree. And I think it just depends on what the next sentence is. Which is because they are – who are they? Why were they unknown? How did they fly under the radar and just show up? The answer to that question is going to decide if this is pitchable or specable. Because it almost feels like it has, like you say, like tonally it feels like it’s leaning towards something that has the J.J. Abrams black box.

If it goes that way I would say it’s pitchable. If it’s more just, you know, I teach at a university. And if these are the five students that show up on the last day and they just never showed up during the semester and it’s about these sort of, you know, the Freaks and Geeks like you say, then yeah, it’s probably a spec.

John: All right. Next up.

John from London: Hey John and Craig. John here from London. So I have a book. I don’t own the rights. A freelance producer brought it to me and introduced me to the author. She was trying to set the project up with production companies here in the UK. She left the project as another show of hers took off. The rights are still available and I kept in touch with the author. It’s a limited series, black dramedy set in an urban UK city about a central character, an artist, on the brink of madness who meets his dead hero on the streets of said city. It’s a story about mental illness, but I guess that’s it.

It’s a difficult one to pitch, especially as a new writer. I’ve got work in development with various UK production companies. I’ve worked in a room on the fifth season of a big UK-US show this year, my first room. But that’s it so far.

I love this book. It would make an amazing limited series. Do I spec it at risk? My inclination is yes [unintelligible] a sale on it. I don’t think anyone else is [pinching] the rights any time soon. It’s not a well-known book. Anyways, thanks. Love, love the podcast. It’s been so much help over the years. Oh, PS, no, I’m not telling you guys the name of the book. Obviously I’m worried you’ll pinch it for yourselves.

John: Oh well, John, come on. I mean, Ryan Knighton might steal. He’s a notorious larcenist.

Ryan: I have to say right away though, you know, outside my window apparently are a bunch of cedar trees that my wife looks at. I would like John to be outside the other window for me. And I would just like him to narrate my life as I’m doing it. Ryan is currently making coffee. He just chilled me right out. John, keep talking.

John: My advice for John from London is to not write this or pitch this. I think he needs to find a different project. Because I just see this ending in tears, to me. And I can’t even quite articulate why I feel this way. But I just remember having projects that were kind of like this early in my career where I kept trying to sort of set up this un-setup-able book, or work on this thing that I didn’t really own. And I should have been focused on writing my own stuff.

Ryan, I’m curious what your instincts are.

Ryan: That’s fascinating you say that. My take is just slightly different. I know what you mean. I’m a little worried because even in telling us about the book you could feel John sort of just crumple at the end like I just – I love this book so much and I know it would be so great. And already feeling like he’s having trouble telling me why. And in that case that means it’s not really pitchable. The hook there was not necessarily a high concept one. The book clearly means a lot to him and I think that’s worth something. And maybe that is something you want to put your time into to spec because you love it so much. And it might be the kind of project where you just have to write it out to show somebody why you love it so much. That would be the perfect of speccing it. I’m going to write this out and you will see why I love it so much when you read my pages.

Having said that I agree with you. To be honest my worry is that speccing in TV also just feels like a different risk than speccing in feature. Because when you write a spec script in TV it’s a very simple choice. Are we going to make this pilot or not? There’s not a lot of appetite I think to go in and redevelop a specced TV pilot. Do you agree John?

John: I do. And so one of my previous spec examples, which I didn’t get to, was I wrote a project for Legendary TV. And it was sort of a semi-original idea and they wanted me to write it. So I wrote it and I wrote it for them kind of as a spec, and then we were going to – so they were paying me, but we didn’t have a network or a studio for it. And that was a giant mistake because we talk about buy-in on TV and they want to be part of the process right from the very start. And so since they weren’t part of the process everyone looked at this thing like, “Uh, yeah, we like it but we don’t necessarily really want to make it. It’s not ours.” And it didn’t have their fingerprints all over it. And so classically that’s the reason why you don’t see a lot of spec TV because the development executives and the culture of the home that this project is going to end up at becomes so important.

So, that would be my worry for him speccing this thing. He could come out of this with a terrific sample. And it could be great writing that gets him other work. So that’s definitely a possibility if he were to pursue this. But there’s no guarantees.

Ryan: I think, you know, another thing to remember is that when a producer brings you a book like that you also have to wonder like, OK, so why is this coming to me. Is it because they’ve tried bringing this to a bunch of other places and nobody has cracked it yet? Did anybody sort of look at this and say, “You know, there’s just something here. Hopefully somebody can figure it out for us.” The momentum may not actually be behind the book, even though you feel somebody brought it to you and that feels like momentum.

Sometimes it’s a bit of fishing. We think there’s something here. Do you know what it is? So, I get a little hesitant around that, too.

John: Yeah.

Ryan: But what you were saying John about pitching versus speccing with television really cuts to the heart of it for me right now. Which is I keep wondering right now if there is going to be more speccing for TV because there’s less development money being spent at the moment. And are we going to change that TV practice a little bit?

John: I think we might. And the way that features and TV are kind of converging because of streamers I think some of the practices we see of these writers going off and writing their own things will become more common. And people will set up limited series that are based on the spec pilot they wrote and that will become the basis of someone doing something.

So I can envision over these next few years a lot more sales happening along that line. Where there is a real crunch, which is worth talking about maybe on a future episode, is if you are a new writer who has written that thing that the sells they’re going to want to marry you with an experienced showrunner who can actually make sure the thing gets shot properly and that the whole thing can come together. There’s a real shortage of those experienced showrunners who people want to hire. And that relationship is difficult. The resource constraints there are real. And in a weird way it’s only exacerbated by the fact that we keep making these short series where no one has enough time to actually learn how to do the job of showrunning. So that’s a real sort of crisis we’re running into.

Ryan: Duly noted.

John: Duly noted. Let’s take a listen to Brendan here.

Branden: Hey Riddler and Robot. I have written for the game industry for nine years and for the past two years have started writing features and TV pilots. The advice I keep getting is flip-flopping on whether to write a spec or not because I’m told I won’t get the chance to pitch ever because I’m “new” to the business. I’ve written three features and three comedy pilots this year and have been told unless I know someone I can’t get a job as a screenwriter. Here are my pitches.

So the feature is a king who falls in love with a male baker during a time of war in this fairy tale romance. And the pilot is two inept local DJs shoot for the stars while bringing everything else down around them.

Since I was told I won’t get the chance to pitch I have written them out completely. Now what? Thank you. I love you guys.

John: All right. So Brendan is hitting the nail on the head here as we said at the start which is that as a new writer who has sort of no connection to anybody it’s tough to find a person you would even pitch to. So you are going to just write these things yourself. But to me both of those concepts are pretty much execution-dependent. The feature idea, which was the king falls in love with a baker, is pretty execution-dependent. It’s high concept enough, but you’re going to want to show that you actually can write this thing. The DJ idea to me, if you had good samples that sort of backed you up and had the right place for it I could see you being able to pitch that as a pilot.

What’s your instinct there?

Ryan: Mine are the same. And I feel for him. I mean, there is that hard thing at the beginning of your career. And I remember going through this where getting in those rooms felt like the difference between the choice in speccing and pitching because it is the difference. And without a team that can get you into a meeting to even try pitching something for the first time. I mean, that’s the other thing. You can pitch something and then it gets shot down. You still have the choice to spec it on the other side.

John: Mm-hmm.

Ryan: You can still do that. And you can learn a lot from pitching something and have it shot down. It can convince you there’s something there that they’re just not seeing.

John: Yeah.

Ryan: But without that team putting you in those rooms it’s going to be speccing. And I agree that neither of those quite had the juice for a pitch I think.

John: I want to hear from a college student. So let’s hear from Steffi.

Steffi: Dear John and Craig. Hello. This is Steffi from Houston. I’m a senior in college and only recently distilled my love for screenwriting over the elongated summer. I wrote my first full length. Again, a huge thank you for all of your guidance. And I’m on to my second one which happens to be my senior honors thesis. So, in other words, A, I’m not in a position to be pitching to producers. And, B, I’m writing this thing regardless for a grade, even though in my mind it’s definitely not just for the grade.

So here it is. It’s a feature following the career of an award-winning Panamanian dermatologist and her fraught relationship with her daughter up until the revolution of 1989. Would love to hear your input. Also, feel free to cut out all the above blurb. I wasn’t entirely sure how you were going to use it in the exercise. But regardless thank you and goodbye.

John: All right. I’m excited for Steffi to be writing her script. So obviously she’s going to write it herself because she’s in college. She doesn’t know anybody. There’s no one for her to pitch to. But let’s imagine that you are Aline Brosh McKenna and this is the idea that you have. So Aline could pitch to anybody. Let’s imagine what Aline might do in this situation. Would she spec this or would she pitch it? Ryan, help me figure out what are the deciding factors for an established writer with this idea.

Ryan: Wow. I’m still stuck on the phrase award-winning Panamanian dermatologist.

John: It’s so good.

Ryan: That was the most specific character I think I’ve encountered in a while. I mean, I guess again it depends on the tone. If it’s Aline doing this I would assume it is going to be that amazing Aline tone. And when you paint that over that concept, boy, I’m pretty intrigued. I don’t know. What do you think, John?

John: If this were based on something I feel like the concept is fun enough – I’m assuming this is a comedy. The world is bright enough that I think it’s pitchable, but I think it’s much more pitchable if there were some source material. If there was like a short story or a real life story. Something you could point to underneath that sort of lies underneath this. But as just a pure pitch I think it’s actually pretty challenging even for an Aline to go out and set up. You want to have something – weirdly some base underneath that is why I think writing it as a spec would probably make the most sense.

Ryan: Yeah. I mean, there is something to be said for when you have some kind of IP, even if it’s an article or whatever, it provides a lot of comfort in the room when you’re pitching. Because it’s based on something. It’s already out in the world and people wanted to read about some way. And it sort of gestures to something that’s a little bit more robust than just something that’s inside your head and has been lingering around for a few months.

I can’t stress it enough. It provides a lot of comfort in a room when you’re pitching. Even if it’s a very small piece of IP.

John: Yeah. All right, let’s wrap up with the last one and this is a guy who actually has some credits and is in a little bit different situation than some of our other listeners.

Ryan Roope: Hello John and Craig. So my idea that I’ve toyed with for a couple years now is where an asteroid was set to destroy the earth. Many people quit their jobs. Spend their life savings. Basically get ready for the end of days. But at the last minute the world is saved and now everyone must somehow find a way to get to a sense of normalcy. My current idea has it sent through the perspective of a 20-something couple who got together when the world was supposed to end and must now figure out what continuing on with life not only means for their relationship but what it means in terms of their place in this now rebuilding world.

My credits include the Tom and Jerry Show, the revamp of the classic cartoon. And I’m currently working on a television Christmas feature set to air in France, which happened as randomly as it sounds. Lastly I want to thank you both for the work you do on this podcast. It has helped me immensely. And I only wish there was some way I could return the favor. All the best and many thanks. Ryan.

John: All right. Ryan, what is your advice to Ryan?

Ryan: So we had a John pitching to you. And we’ve had a Ryan pitch to me now. I am sold. I’m sold on it right away. And I think it is a great hook. There was a film in the mid-90s that a friend of mine named Don McKellar had made that was called Last Night. And it was an apocalyptic premise. It’s the end of the world but everybody has known it has been coming for years and years and there’s nothing you can do about it. So it’s just how is everybody going to spend that last night on earth when it’s not new news.

And it opens with this amazing sequence of a family having the last Christmas dinner even though it’s not Christmas and still having the same family fights they always do, even though it’s the last night on earth. And there’s something in that shift of the apocalyptic story to that kind of dark comedy tone that just worked so well. It was such a clean premise. And I hear that in this as well. I love the idea that the world is about to end and then it nimbly pivots. That would be my name if I was a Harry Potter character. I’d be Nimbly Pivots. It nimbly pivots to suddenly it’s not over and then how do we recover when we’ve made all these choices thinking we were in the middle of an ending. I think it’s a great hook. It’s a very high concept hook and I can see the comedy in it.

It’s pitchable because I can feel the potential in it right away and I want to write it.

John: Absolutely. 100 percent a pitchable idea. You have reps apparently because of the work you’ve been doing. They get you in rooms where you pitch this. I think it also feels like an idea that you pitch to an actor’s production company because you can imagine this selling with comedy actor production company – someone who is on board with this from the start.

A thing I should stress is, like you’ve referenced – what was it called Last Night, the Don McKellar movie – but there’s 50 at least scripts out there that have essentially the same basic premise in terms of like the apocalypse didn’t happen and then sort of what happens next. That’s not an original idea. But your ability to pitch the specifics about it are what sets it apart. And that is a thing that makes it sellable. And so your ability to go into a room and sell the characters, sell the world, sell what’s going to happen in the course of yours. It’s not even clear from your thing whether you see this as a feature or an ongoing series about what happens after that. Both work. And so this is a very pitchable idea.

Yes, you could spec it but I don’t think there’s necessarily a reason to spec it. In some ways I think getting it out there as a pitch so that people can have buy-in and have their fingerprints on it from the start makes it more likely to get made. So I think this is a pitch.

Ryan: I think the other thing that’s worth noting, just listening to Ryan pitch that little snippet of what he’s working on and what he’s thinking about, he delivered with a kind of confidence and a control that he knew exactly what this thing was about and what makes it work.

John: Yeah.

Ryan: And that’s part of what makes it pitchable. And when you compare that to some of the other pitches that we heard, people are still sort of working out what their relationship is to the material and how it might be executed and where it might go. You can still feel that sense that there’s some work to be done in there. But Ryan’s confidence there tells me it’s also pitchable. He knows exactly what this thing is.

John: Totally.

Ryan: Would you go TV or feature with it? Which would you go?

John: You can definitely do either. I think if it’s a TV show then it’s a Netflix eight-episode season after season thing. Sort of like a more Dear White People kind of scenario. If it is a feature then it’s just a high concept feature and I think you can do it low fi and sort of low budget-ish, or you can sort of do it slightly bigger, sort of a, again, sort of a Seth Rogan model kind of budget of this and do it as a romantic comedy or a relationship comedy of what happens after that thing. Or a Judd Apatow for that matter.

So, there’s many ways you could do. I think you’d probably try to sell it as a feature first. I think you go feature first. If you can’t find a home for it then you look at a streamer.

Ryan: Oh, see, I’m still your student because I’ve been leaning TV on it. I think there’s a great TV series in it. Because it’s particularly about these ongoing relationships on the other side of this new piece of information and how these relationships evolve and change and have to rethink themselves and so on and so forth. And that feels like the world of television. It’s not building towards a hard ending necessarily like a feature wants.

John: Yeah. The other possibility is that you’re intercutting between post-apocalypse and post-post-apocalypse and the lead up to it, so you sort of contrast expectation and how bad things were going to get and then what the actual reality is. And that is a TV way of doing it. You have the flashbacks to where everyone assumed things were going to get to.

Ryan: This feels like what you and I are doing right now is the feeling you want in a room when you pitch something.

John: That’s exactly right. That’s why it’s a pitchable idea rather than just a spec idea.

Ryan: Yeah.

John: We in talking through all this stuff we burned through all our time where we would talk about the other questions that came in, which is fine. It’s me and Ryan Knighton talking through pitching and speccing. Let’s wrap this up. What are your takeaways from this and was this illuminating to you at all in terms of your central dilemma about pitching and speccing in this time?

Ryan: It was because it puts me back in touch with the fundamentals. I’ve said over the years that one of the reasons I continue to teach at a university is I like to go in once a year and just teach writing and sort of revisit the things that I think I know. And just to see if they’re still true. And I feel like that’s kind of what I got from this. The principles of pitching and speccing, even in the pandemic, haven’t really changed because it’s still about how to persuade people to get on board with you and what is the right approach for the material in hand.

It might change a little bit I think like we raised that pitching with TV might not become so sacrosanct down the road. Like we might see more speccing in television coming out which is I’m sort of feeling is happening, too.

I think the feature landscape is still pretty consistent in its attitude towards what is pitchable and what is specable.

John: One thing we didn’t bring up in terms of like a decision to spec even if you have credits is that sometimes if you want to really change your perception, how people perceive you, the kinds of things people consider you for, writing a spec is a great way to do that. And so I have friends who have written on procedurals for years and they can hop from another procedural to another procedural, but they will deliberately write an original that is a different tone that gets them considered for different kinds of shows. And the same thing can work for features. So, if you are a person who is only known for writing certain things that can be useful.

Earlier in my career just based on what I had sold, what I’d been hired to write, I was only being offered projects that involved gnomes, elves, dwarves, and Christmas. Family movies were the things people would send me. And so I wrote Go as sort of a, oh by the way, I can also write other things. And so Go was incredibly useful for me to have written as a spec even though it didn’t initially sell because people could see whatever they wanted to see in it. And it got me into rooms where I could pitch on other things. And so one of the reasons why Ryan Knighton might choose to write a spec in this time is if there’s things that he’s not being considered for that he wants to be considered for. It’s a chance to write that different thing that is outside of what is considered his normal wheelhouse.

Ryan: I think that’s a really good point. That even though speccing might be something you do more at the beginning of your career, there’s still a really important function for it in a developing career over the years that you work in the industry. A spec allows you to present yourself differently to people who’ve made a certain opinion of you or out of efficiency think of you a certain way and think of you for certain projects.

I tend to be the person that people think of – if they ever think of me – but they might think of me like I have sort of a disease story, can you make it a bit funnier. You know, the disabled story. That kind of stuff.

But to be honest, the majority of my career over the last ten years has not been that material ironically. But it did take a little bit of convincing that I could write about things other than disability and so on and so forth.

John: I did not give you warning about One Cool Things. Do you have a One Cool Thing that you can share with our listeners?

Ryan: I do. Because I was looking back and the first time I was on the show I recommended Lovage which is an herb basically. I think it’s an herb. And then the second time I recommended an app. So this time I thought well I’m on a podcast. I’m going to recommend a podcast. And the podcast I want to recommend is a podcast called Crackdown. And it is created by Garth Mullins. I know Garth. He lives around the corner from me in Vancouver.

I think it is one of the bravest podcasts I’ve listened to. And I say that with all bias on the table that I admire Garth very much. But it is a podcast about the opioid crisis as told by the frontline drug users in the drug war. So it’s told from the point of view who are being affected. The point of view of people who are being affected by policy decisions. It is told at the street level with people, activists, who are trying to set up safe injection sites for harm reduction. The fights they’re facing with the pharmaceutical industry around the shift from Methadone to Methadose which is a fascinating episode.

The politics. The science. And the just human compassion that is in this podcast is incredible. And it exposes a subculture. I don’t think we should think of it even as a subculture. But it exposes the culture of the lives of people that I just don’t think we’ve heard them tell in their own words before. And it’s just so powerful.

John: That’s awesome. That’s great. So Crackdown is the podcast. Fantastic. My One Cool Thing is an evergreen One Cool Thing. I think every year I’ve used it as one, which is to get your Flu Shot. So the flu shot is now widely available in the US and presumably Canada as well. The flu shot is the vaccine we already have for a disease that is unlikely to kill most of us, but can definitely suck if you get it. Craig got it last year and it was bad. Luckily Tamiflu worked for that, but you know, getting your flu shot is a better choice than having to take Tamiflu.

So, the flu shot. It’s out there. It’s cheap. I got mine at CVS a couple weeks ago. So just get your flu shot. It’s not clear what’s going to happen with the flu this year. And so in Australia which would have had the flu season earlier they basically had no flu, but they were in really tight lockdowns. With us wearing masks and stuff like that it could be a mild flu season anyway, but a flu shot is just an extra little bit of insurance that don’t get the flu which just is terrible to get in any normal year. So, get your flu shot everyone.

Ryan: Yeah. I mean, it’s particularly helpful right now I think because it helps the entire healthcare system not get overloaded by people wondering if they have COVID but they have the flu.

John: Exactly.

Ryan: So it’s sort of like allowing people to spot COVID in the wild much more clearly if we’re all getting the flu shot.

John: Cool. That’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. Edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Lachlan Marks. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust. Remind me, Ryan, what your Twitter handle is.

Ryan: I’m @ryanknighton.com. Oh, not dot.com. That’s so ‘90s. I’m @ryanknighton.

John: So @ryanknighton. We have t-shirts. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts.

You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. And advance warning on things like this segment we did today which we talked through things that our Premium listeners had sent in.

Ryan Knighton, thank you so very much for joining us on the show. Thank you for filling in for Craig who is unexpectedly detained. You are going to stick around and you’re going to tell us about surfing, because I want to know about surfing.

Ryan: I was so happy to do it. I’m sad Sexy Craig wasn’t here. I wanted to have a rivalry with my character, Curiously Appealing Ryan.

John: Yes.

Ryan: But that was a very pitchable idea just to hear Craig Mazin was detained. I want to watch that show.

John: That’s what it is. All right. Thanks Ryan.

Ryan: Thank you.

[Bonus segment]

John: Ryan Knighton, so you are going to be spending this year apparently training to become an amazing surfer. Tell us how this starts. Tell us about surfing. Tell us about this whole idea.

Ryan: It’s a ludicrous idea. I know it’s a ludicrous idea. The story is I ended up out here on the coast in this little fishing village, Ucluelet, where my wife and I built a house, and the reason I’m out here is COVID pushed me out here. The city became too dangerous for me to be around. I couldn’t get around without – I don’t want to use public transit right now. I can’t take Ubers and taxis safely. I’m bumping into people.

So we pulled up stakes and moved out here by the ocean. And this place, I discovered it 10 years ago though a friend of mine who is deft surfer. And this is the surfing spot in Canada out here. And we’d gone to university together. His name is Colin Ruloff. He was a pro skateboarder. And we were in university together sharing notes in a philosophy class because I couldn’t see what was on the board and he couldn’t hear what the guy was saying.

So, we shared a brain. We got accused of plagiarism because we were making equal mistakes because were half [unintelligible]. But he kept saying to me you’ve got to try surfing. You’ve got to come out and try surfing. And I kept thinking I can never do that.

Then 10 years ago I decided to do it. I decided to try it with him. And so the deaf guy taught the blind guy how to surf for a day and it worked about as well as you would imagine. It was a lot of me saying where are you and him saying what and me saying where are you.

John: Marco Polo basically.

Ryan: Yeah, Marco Polo. I got it for a couple seconds. And I remember in that few seconds I stood up having this feeling that this was going to be a problem. That it was just going to be a problem. That I felt something I haven’t felt in years which was I was moving quickly without a cane and without anybody guiding me. And it was safe. I mean, when I wipe out I hit water.

So, I started surfing 10 years ago sort of loosely. And then my daughter and I would come out here in the summers and it was like a week a summer, and then it was two weeks, and then it was three weeks. And then I would be pacing in November because it’s going to be a long time until I get to go again. And then this year we ended up here on the coast. I decided I’m going to be here for a year. So I’m just going to throw myself into this completely. And I started doing research. And there is an open adaptive surfing competition every year in San Diego. So I’m going to train for the next year to go into it at the age of 48. And I’m really thinking about middle age and COVID and disability and I’m trying to understand my relationship to all of these things through the lens of surfing over the next year.

And I’m going to write an article about it. I’m talking to an editor friend of mine who used to be at Esquire. I think I’m going to go back to doing that as a feature article for them. If not for Esquire for another magazine. Because again it’s like I want to find something to write right now that’s a little more about self-care. This is about self-care.

So, unless I get killed in a wave. Then it won’t be about self-care. [laughs]

John: So, Ryan, one of the things I like so much about this is that it feels like you’re treating yourself as the protagonist in your own life story. There’s a way in which you are both being internal and external in terms of you’re thinking about Ryan Knighton. And the challenges that you’re encountering in terms of like how your world has changed. So basically the COVID pushing you to the coast, but giving you an opportunity to do this thing that you haven’t done before and really looking at being deliberate in your choices the way we hope that our heroes in our stories are being deliberate in their choices. And recognizing that there are some sacrifices you’re making for that.

And so leaving your home in Vancouver, but also recognizing that your work is going to change. And that it’s going to change some of your family dynamics. And that that’s all OK. But I’m just saying you made a very compelling pitch for this idea. And I think it’s a pitchable idea. I don’t think you necessarily – well, you are essentially speccing it because you are speccing your own life. But I would also buy it as a pitch.

Ryan: You know, it is one of the most generous things that anybody has said to me, the way you just framed that.

John: Well thank you.

Ryan: You know, coming out – like I wrote memoirs and my other career is as a travel writer and as you can imagine that has stopped right now for the past six months. I usually am on a plane every two or three weeks and I haven’t gone anywhere for six months. And it’s put me in a very interesting disorientation.

And I still think about how years ago an editor that I was working with, because I would do all these sort of first person travel stories, and starting to do them of like going around the world. Like if I had to go just smell something what I would go smell. That was sort of my travel angle. Trying to educate my other senses by going and finding those sensory experiences.

And this editor had said to me, “You know, one of the things that’s really important is to live an anecdotally rich life.” And I’ve always used that as the measure for a lot of the projects I do. Like is this going to be anecdotally rich? Am I going to come out of this with a lot of stories? And so treating yourself as a protagonist is a way of doing that. What is the uncomfortable thing to do right now? What is the thing that’s most surprising? What’s the thing I’m afraid of?

Coming out here I am so into the surfing thing right now, but I am so terrified about trying to just get around. I’m living somewhere I’ve never lived before and I haven’t done that in a long, long time.

John: Well I remember as we were first talking about The Shadows you described how important cities were for you and the ability to sort of find edges of things. And so being out in the forest by yourself is incredibly – it’s a scary thing for a blind person because you have no bearings. You have no way to orient yourself. And so that’s why I was surprised to find that you are in the middle of nowhere right now where you kind of can’t help but be more dependent upon other people to do some things that you could have done – you had self-reliance in the city just because you had routines and habits and the way of finding your own way around.

Ryan: Yeah. I mean, you know very well because there’s actually a sequence in your script that very much describes the experience of a blind person in the woods. It’s a very accurate experience. You know, I will be honest I took a page from your playbook. You and Mike and Amy moved to Paris for a year. You uprooted your lives and changed everything for a year. And that was really inspiring to me. Sometimes these moments come and you realize you can, again, it’s my Harry Potter name, you can Nimbly Pivot. And I tried to nimbly pivot because I want stories. And if I find I’m living a life that fills me with stories to tell I find it makes me a better writer.

I find it doesn’t make me as complacent in my thinking about things. And it’s good to be upset in that sense and feeling disoriented. So, I don’t do it lightly. I’m still afraid of the ocean. It’s not a forgiving thing. But I know I’m going to have an interesting year and I know I’m going to walk out of it with a difference sense of myself. And I think that’s important to me right now at this age.

And to be honest I think a lot of people are going through something like this right now. I don’t think I’m alone in looking at the moment historically and saying maybe we could just sort of check in and question the assumptions I’ve made about the way I live and where I live and what I’m doing. Because it can all change so quickly.

John: There’s obviously a big third act set piece here which is the actual competition itself. So you said that’s in San Diego?

Ryan: It is. And I’ve been doing my research and it’s fascinating. There’s a couple guys I read about who were in this competition that are blind. One of them he uses a crash helmet, I believe from like a motorcycle, because it’s got an ear piece. His coach walkie-talkies him from the beach while he’s out on the board. But he’s got a rash guard like mine, completely made separately, that says Caution Blind Surfer. And he’s got bumps on his board which I also have on mine now which help me feel like braille where I am on the board when I’m paddling, so I can position myself.

There’s another guy who actually uses an iPhone. He straps it to his bicep and has the VoiceOver on load. And his coach texts him from the beach so he can hear where to position himself. It’s been fascinating just this, you know, I’m going to do this. I’m going to figure out a way to do this. And then independently people are coming at their own sort of makeshift solutions to adapt. And that’s what this is. It’s called Open Adaptive Surfing. I find it fascinating.

John: I can’t wait to see you do it and to read the article that you write at the end of this, because it’s going to be great. I’m excited for you.

Ryan: I’m excited to do it. And I hope I’m still around in a year to tell you how it went. [laughs]

John: We’ll have you back on the podcast to pitch it.

Ryan: OK, great. Great.

John: Ryan, thank you so much.

Ryan: Thanks. Thanks for having me.

 

Links:

• Academy Awards Inclusions Standards for Best Picture
• Film Academy Inclusion Standards Diversity
• Ryan Knighton
• Crackdown Podcast
• Get a Flu Shot!
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Ryan Knighton on Twitter
• John August on Twitter
• Craig Mazin on Twitter
• John on Instagram
• Outro by Lachlan Marks (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 467 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we’re going to talk about the words we use when referring to people or groups of people and why those words keep changing. We’ll also discuss single use characters and the WGA elections, plus some listener questions.

Craig: And in our bonus segment for Premium members we will tackle one more question – if the standards for breaking into the screenwriting industry are so high why are so many bad movies made? Provocative.

John: Provocative question. I think the answer is Chris McQuarrie, but you’ll only know why I say that–

Craig: Oh my god. What a shot against Chris.

John: If you listen to the bonus segment. Oh, a shocking twist. But first some follow up. Last week on the program we talked about the new management company in town. We were calling it Moxie, but the name is apparently Range Media, so that was all announced officially this week.

Craig: OK.

John: So, the initial focus as we expected was going to be on film and television talent, which means actors, but the company said Wednesday that they’re also going to have a music division at some point, so that will be another thing. There really aren’t names to be announced yet. Apparently Taron Egerton, Keira Knightly, and Michael Fassbender are some of the folks who left CAA are going to be hanging over there. We’ll see how that works. But it seems like a lot of our assumptions about the kinds of things this management company were going to be doing were accurate and that it’s really – it sounds like they’re going to be focused on the kinds of things we were talking about which is basically A-list talent and getting value out of A-list talent beyond just their ability to act in projects.

Craig: Yeah. They’re going to try and milk them for all their worth. It is interesting to see that they’re framing this as some of these people are leaving CAA to head to Range Management, when in fact they don’t have to leave an agency to join a management company, but it is clear that for a lot of these folks who do make quite a bit of money they don’t want to pay more than 10 percent. And in certain circumstances a lot of them are used to – particularly with television actors – are used to paying zero percent. So one of the interesting things about the agency campaign is as it puts pressure on the elimination of talent agency packaging, which was one of the ways that high earning actors paid no commission, now some of those high earning actors are going, “Well where do I go now to pay no commission? Because I don’t like paying commission.”

And so Range Media sprouts up like a mushroom. And I get it. It is strategically a brilliant move. Hats off to them.

John: Some of this is the reporting I read, but also just conversations I’ve had with other people this last week. It seems like the vision for what this company, it changed a bit from where it initially started. That the initial conversations were much more about an agency that was like a CAA or a WME, and it became this management company sort of over the course of discussions and time.

And one of the reasons that might be behind that is some of the folks who are going to be joining this company were agents who were leaving these other big agencies and contractually or for other reasons it was problematic for them to join another agency or to start a new agency. But the same stipulations weren’t in place if they were going to be transitioning to becoming managers. And so it sounds like there’s kind of a Jerry Maguire kind of mission statement that sort of got the movement happening. But the actual form of it came a little bit down the road.

Craig: I get, I mean, if you have a choice between being handcuffed by regulations and restrictions, or doing whatever the hell you want, probably you’re going to want to do whatever the hell you want. And that’s what management is. It essentially is an unregulated side business where people are “representing” talent, but not allowed to actually procure or negotiate employment for them by law. So, if the agencies aren’t going to put pressure on these management companies to stop negotiating and procuring employment for their clients and I don’t know how they’re going to do that, then I don’t see why you would want to just hang out with the agency versus going to one of these enormous – if the management company can be as large and as octopus like as a CAA or a WME then, yeah, I mean unregulated wild west versus regulated–

John: Yeah.

Craig: That’s an easy one.

John: Well, and coming along with unregulated is also flexible or the ability to pivot, which sounds like the idea behind this kind of change and pivoted over the course of its inception, but also the money that’s coming into this is kind of more like what we associate with Silicon Valley money. And the thing about these startup companies is they might begin with one goal, but they recognize that, oh, that’s not working so we’re going to pivot towards this. And a management company is probably a little bit more flexible and able to roll with it in ways that a company that was based on we’re going to get X percentage of the money coming into our clients might not be.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, the people who are represented by a firm like this are that firm’s products. They are not that firm’s clients. They may be called the clients, but they’re the products. If you’re represented at a talent agency you are a client and the talent agency is supposed to make money off of your work. So you’re not the product, you’re the client. That’s where we really had a huge problem with packaging because it short-circuited that.

But these management companies, they’re not even making a secret of it. They’re saying, “Yeah, they’re going to be products and they’re going to make products and we’re going to own the products that are products they’re making.”

John: Well, they’re products/partners. Like we are going to be investing in them.

Well, let’s talk about, it’s a natural segue into talking about the agency campaign, because also this last week WGA East and West members got an update email saying that the guild has had “cordial discussions with the two remaining unsigned agencies,” which are WME and CAA. But that a deal was not imminent. Or to frame it differently you might say that the deal reached with UTA and ICM over this last month was kind of “the deal.”

And so there wasn’t a lot of ground to give. Specifically the email said there’s no plan to push back the sunset on packaging. And they don’t want to go above 20 percent ownership of affiliated production companies.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Drawing a line in the sand may be a little too strong to say, but basically saying this is where we’re at and don’t expect next week suddenly one of these two agencies is going to sign.

Craig: Yeah. Which, I mean, I would assume that that would be the case. I mean, once you have those two agencies locked in and thus those terms locked in for them because those terms would only lock in if there were one other one, OK, well you got the other one. So now there’s UTA and ICM. That’s locked in. That’s it. End of story. I don’t see where there is more wiggle room. And this is a dangerous time for everybody to playing chicken like this, particularly because I think if the Writers Guild has showed one thing it’s that it apparently has a kind of endless tolerance for pain when it comes to this particular area because there are a lot of writers that were represented by CAA and WME who would like to be represented once again by the agents, the specific personal agents they have relationships with and who are waiting, still.

And so as one of them all I can say is I don’t see why the WGA would change anything at this point. And CAA and WME should stop. That’s my opinion. They should just stop. If they want to keep the lawsuits – I guess the lawsuits have to get dropped as part of the deal, right? You can’t sign this deal and also keep the lawsuits going I would imagine.

John: I would imagine it would be a challenging thing to do. So definitely we saw UTA stop its lawsuit when it signed the deal. So, that seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Let’s talk about on the individual writers’ perspective, because you said that as a person who had been represented at CAA you’d like this to end. I guess if you are any person in that situation and you’re waiting for them to sign this email is telling you don’t assume that’s happening tomorrow.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And don’t assume that they’re on the one yard line and it’s about to get done. We’re saying it’s not done.

Craig: Yeah. It was a little bit more. I mean, the letter basically said think about going to somewhere else, because we don’t think it’s going to happen with these guys, or at least that’s a strong possibility that it will never happen with them.

John: So a person in this situation would need to make a decision like, OK, am I going to go without an agent? Am I going to just use a manager? Or am I going to go to one of the signed agencies? And if you were at CAA or WME and you wanted to stay at a big agency there’s UTA or there’s ICM, or there’s the possibility that some of these other agents – if you wanted that personal relationship with your former agent there it’s a question of like are those agents going to stay put at CAA or WME if they’re not representing writers? And that’s a big open question.

Craig: It is. I don’t know what’s going to happen. The value of my relationship with my agent is more – that is the value. It’s not so much the value between myself and an agency. It’s different for everybody. But when you build a career alongside somebody and they’re in partnership with you and you can look back and point to specific areas and go that was where he made a huge difference for me. That is where he made a huge difference for me, and so on and so on and so on. Then, I mean, look, I’m that kind of a person. If I have a functioning productive relationship with somebody I, you know, I don’t walk away from that easily. I’m a committing kind of person.

How many episodes of this show have we done so far? [laughs]

John: [laughs] 476. So yeah.

Craig: Yeah. So you called and you’re like, “Do you want to do a podcast?” And I was like OK. 476 episodes later. I mean, I’ve been married for almost 25 years. We’ve been doing this podcast for a long time. And I had my agent for a long time. And so I would like to continue that. And so I’m waiting. But don’t think I haven’t sent emails saying, “Uh, hello. Let’s just wrap this up.”

John: As we talk about agency stuff obviously being on the agency negotiating committee I have sort of that perspective. But if you’ll humor me I want to think about this from CAA and WME’s perspective. Because this is harder for me to sort of get into their mindset and maybe you can help me out thinking about this.

Craig: Sure.

John: So, they’ve got to be thinking what is the cost benefit analysis on their side. Basically what is packaging worth to them this year, next year, five years from now? What is ownership of affiliated production companies worth to us now, two years from now, ten years from now? And basically is it worth it for us to not be able to represent writers because of the upside we think we’re going to get from the way stuff is currently structured?

Craig: I don’t that they’re – what you’re asking is what is the rational explanation for their position at this point and I’m not sure there is one. I don’t know if this is a rational position or if this is just at this point about saving face. When you are the first guy to go in there, if you’re UTA or ICM and you can improve the numbers slightly then you can say, “There. That was my ration. I wanted the numbers to be better. I got them to be better. I agreed.”

But if the numbers aren’t going to move, if the needle never moves, then you have a face-saving problem. Now, do I respect face-saving problems? Not particularly. Are they real? Absolutely. Do face-saving problems literally cause wars? Yes. So, one thing, if I were on the committee over there at the WGA I would be sort of sitting there going what can we do to give them a slight face-saving exit without actually giving them anything. Because I agree. At this point there’s no reason to improve the dates on packaging sunsets or the percentage on ownership. Is there some kind of window, is there something that we can do so that there is some sense of face-saving that they can feel like they improved it somewhat and now they can agree to do this?

Come together. Figure out what that is. Let them have some minor victory so that you can climb the rail of victory and end this. That’s what I would be kind of thinking about. But, in order to get there you have to be dealing with somebody that you think you can actually get there with. And I don’t know how that relationship is going. It doesn’t sound like it’s going well.

John: Yeah. The other thing I feel like I don’t have real transparency is about the structure of WME and CAA in terms of they are different from the other agencies in the sense of the degree to which there’s outside investment, outside ownership. And so the degree that they may not be able to make some of the decisions themselves the way that closer held agencies could. And so the same investors who are behind the production entity of WME and Endeavor Content, part of their value statement was that they do have this – that they are combined as one thing. And so the people who own them may not be eager to make that deal, too.

So, I would just say I understand that their corporate structure is complicated, but I also don’t know that the WGA is going to be able to solve that problem for them. So, acknowledging it, but not necessarily being able to address it directly.

Craig: That may be the thing that we don’t know about. That there’s this hidden thing. And so they will complain and come up with all sorts of reasons when the real reason is they are not able to. And if that’s the case then they should just say so, because if they really aren’t able to ever then at that point a lot of writers do need to make a decision. Right now CAA and WME’s position as far as I can tell is hang on, we’ll get this figured out.

If I were over there in the boardroom of CAA I would be saying to any of them figure it out quickly, and before the end of the year. Because I think if we roll over into another year, into 2021, and this has not been resolved people are going to make moves. I just don’t think anybody – it’s like, OK, you’ve had time. Nothing is changing. If you can’t figure it out between now and the end of the year then people are going to vote with their feet, because it won’t seem realistic anymore.

So, maybe me saying that and then Deadline republishing it as their own exclusive will have some influence on what they do.

John: Everything will change because of that.

Craig: Of course.

John: This season is also WGA election season. So, members in the West and the East are picking new members for their board. Traditionally Craig and I at this segment in our podcast would walk through all the candidates and talk about our favorites and people that we have picks and people who we endorse. You can look at the people we’ve endorsed in the last election cycle. We had completely divergent lists. We absolutely agreed on sort of none of the people who should have been running.

This year it’s actually – I don’t think we actually have those great differences. I think one of the points of agreement we definitely have is that representation of feature writers is so important and there’s only one person who is running who is primarily a feature writer, so I want to just call him out. Daniel Kunka is running. He’s a person you should look at if you’re going to vote.

I have worked with all the incumbents. I think they’re terrific. I also think it’s really important to get new people in there and new voices and new perspectives. So, I don’t want to endorse the incumbents to the degree that we miss out on some other great new people coming into it.

I think every WGA election is important, but in this one I don’t have as strongly held opinions as I usually would. Craig?

Craig: Yeah. The only opinion I have is that Daniel Kunka absolutely needs to be elected because we are suffering as a union because of the strange bifurcation of our membership, and particularly the gulf between leadership and membership. There are so many feature writers who essentially are nearly unrepresented in that room. That is ridiculous. And it has to change. And we can see it directly reflected in the way our negotiations are conducted. Our last negotiation got for screenwriters nothing. And before, nothing. And before that, nothing. And so it will continue to go unless there are very strong and insistent screenwriting voices on that board.

So, Daniel is the only one running here and we need him there. A big fan of Travis Donnelly who has been there for a while. Travis is a very rational guy. And don’t vote for Patric Verrone. [laughs] Because it’s enough already.

John: I was going to say, it was actually in my outline that Craig would say, “Don’t vote for Patric Verrone,” because it wouldn’t be a podcast if Craig wasn’t saying not to vote for him.

Craig: It’s enough already. It’s enough. New blood is the least of it. I mean, come on.

John: One thing I want to stress is that I’ve had conversations separately with some of the new folks who are running and obviously many incumbents and while underlining the importance of actually having screenwriter representation on the board, every single person I’ve spoken to has demonstrated a desire to understand the issues facing screenwriters and a desire to create the kinds of changes that Craig and I both feel need to happen. So, it’s not for lack of information about sort of why the screenwriter issues are so important.

We also have Michele Mulroney who is on the exec council there who is pushing those issues as much as possible. So it’s important to have another screenwriter on there, but I don’t want to say no one else on the board cares, because they deeply do.

Craig: I’m not going to say that, but I do think there’s a difference between not being in a group but caring about that group, and being in a group and caring about that group. There is a difference. And we need people who not only are willing to understand and listen and talk about these things. We need people who feel them. And who live and breathe them. It is a real significant difference.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: And that rolls for obviously if you’re a screenwriter, but also that applies to women, that applies to writers of color, that applies to LGBT writers. It applies to every category of underrepresented writer and god knows almost every category has been underrepresented on our board for a long time.

John: But I want to make sure we’re also taking this moment to acknowledge comedy variety writers are super underrepresented in the West. And so they have good representation in the East. They don’t have strong representation here in the West just because they’re rarely getting elected for the board. They have it worse than feature writers do. And so we need to make sure–

Craig: Is anybody currently running?

John: None of the people who are currently running are I believe primarily comedy variety writers. So we need to get those people. Those people were represented well on the negotiating committee which is how I got to know so many of their issues. So just I really appreciate the work that people are putting in to try to understand feature issues. We all need to put the work in to understand comedy variety issues because many of those writers are really struggling and suffering in ways that other TV writers aren’t.

Craig: Agreed.

John: Agreed. All right, let’s get to our marquee topic. So 2020 was a big year for many, many things, but it was also a big year for words.

Craig: I love words.

John: So this year we’ve seen a pretty abrupt change in the use of the word Black in place of African American. I did some panels this past year on the criminal justice system and addiction and we were definitely using terms like incarcerated people rather than prisoners. People with substance abuse disorders rather than addicts. But it’s not just about avoiding negative terms for things, or negative connotations.

I saw a lot of new specificity in how people talked about their gender identity. So, Craig, I felt like I’ve just been much more mindful over the last 12 months about trying to use appropriate words for things. But also cautious at times. A little paranoid that I was going to misstep. Do you feel this ever?

Craig: Yeah. I mean, it’s understandable. Because the language is evolving rapidly and things that were corrective words have now been sort of pushed aside. There was a time in the ‘90s where African American was, it seemed to me, a preferred term, particularly in academic settings, as opposed to Black. And now it has been pushed aside and Black has returned.

And of course one of the classic examples is people of color were once called colored people. Colored people is considered a very offensive term. People of color is considered a fairly woke and progressive term. Are they linguistically that different? No. Who uses those words? Very different. How they were used? Very different.

So, it’s about kind of keeping up with this quickly morphing language and being, well, I would say I’m not paranoid as much as I am careful. And what sort of predicates that care is just a general concern that I don’t hurt someone’s feelings.

John: Yeah.

Craig: I mean, really it’s just as simple as that. I know some people think it’s like, “Oh, PC, blah-blah-blah.” Well, I just don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. I mean, like if you said to me, “Listen, man, I know my name is John but I really like to go by Jack, so please call me Jack,” and I kept calling you John I would be a jerk. Just like, you know, just be nice. That’s basically what I’m trying to do.

John: Yeah. So let’s learn about how not to be jerks and how to sort of use terms that are appropriate for the people that we’re talking about. And let’s focus on one part of that today. Let’s talk about people living with disabilities. And to help us out with this we are so happy to welcome Nic Novicki. He is a writer, actor, and comedian. He’s also the founder and director of the Easterseals Disability Film Challenge. Nic, welcome to the show.

Nic Novicki: Hey, thanks so much for having me.

John: It is a pleasure to have you on the show. And we catch you while you’re on vacation. You’re apparently in Colorado. So thank you for Skyping in.

Nic: Oh, yes, thank you. That’s the beauty of the new world we’re in. Just do it from anywhere.

John: So, I first interacted with you because this movie I wrote, The Shadows, which has a blind protagonist, you were helping me do outreach for that. So thank you for that. But even as I say that the word blind is complicated because there’s a range of conditions and abilities in different communities and I had to be mindful of that as we were sort of talking about that.

And so as a person who works with these communities a lot, just get us started. Can you talk about some general advice about how we refer to and talk about characters in our scripts or people we’re referring to as groups. What are some general best practices we need to keep in mind referring to people who are living with disabilities?

Nic: Yeah. Well, thanks so much. And first of all as this is a podcast many of you don’t know, but I’m also a little person. So, as somebody who is 38 years old and I’ve grown up around little people my whole life. My wife is a little person. I’m very comfortable in that and being a little person. But really I started this Easterseals Disability Film Challenge to create opportunities for other people with disabilities. And so now I interact with hundreds of different people with disabilities.

I will say first and foremost that there is a lot of pride in the disability community. There’s a really smart guy named Lawrence Carter-Long who had a whole campaign about say the word, disability. So let’s not hide it. Let’s be proud of it. And really with the film challenge that’s really what we’re embracing. It’s about bringing our own content together.

So a lot of times we’ve seen that many different people with disabilities, I interact with as I said hundreds, and all different types of disabilities. And you hit the nail on the head. With the blind community there’s low vision, there’s legally blind, there’s fully blind. So, when we’re talking about say wheelchair user, we like to say wheelchair user because that person is not bound to their wheelchair. But there was a time when it was wheelchair-bound was the preferred terminology. And even within little people, Little People of America was started as Midgets of America, which at the time was the word that was just known and now it’s highly offensive to people in the little people community.

John: Well, let’s go back to even that word disability because I felt like you’re using that word and I see the Easterseals site uses it, so it talks about Americans living with disability, so I’m feeling good saying that in this podcast. But I also remember a time not so long ago where I felt like differently abled was a thing. There was a whole range of other terms I felt like we were supposed to be using around things. Do you feel like right now in 2020 a person with a disability is the right way to talk about a general grouping of people who might have special needs, special requirements?

Nic: Yeah, I think that really, I mean, for me I started the disability film challenge in 2013, partnering with Easterseals, Southern California, which is the nation’s largest disability services organization in 2017. And ultimately for me I was like, look, let’s just say the word disability. And this is even before Lawrence Carter-Long I had heard that. You know, for me it was about pride. It’s about pride in disability. And also just for myself I like to not focus so much on the terminology but let’s just get past it. I’m a little person. I have a disability. And I’m a comedian. I’m an actor. I’m a jerk. I’m a whatever. You know?

Just not spending too much time on the label but really getting to it. You know, that’s what I think is the most important.

Craig: It does seem like one of the places where people sometimes stumble and fall is that they think of these words as the way we refer to people as some kind of blanket permission. Like, OK, good, I figured out this is what I call these people. I’m safe now. And in a sense they sort of are just – they are engaging with people as a label and not individuals. And when I’m listening to you talk and you say, OK, I’m somebody who has a disability and I’m proud of it, it reminds me of how we are emotional creatures. All of us.

And whether we are being emotional about some advantage or some disadvantage we may have, it’s personal and there is pride, or in some cases there is a shame or guilt. And so these words are not just random labels. They have meaning for people. And sometimes I think when people learn that they have mislabeled someone they get annoyed because they just think it’s like, ugh, well who cares. It’s a package. What did I say, it was a carton but it’s really a box? Who cares?

Well, I think these words do have emotional value for everyone, not just people who are disabled, but everyone.

Nic: I agree. I agree. And I will say the one thing is that I know if you were to come to me and say, “Nic, what do I call you?” I’m willing to join the conversation and say, hey, I like being called a little person. So I think that there’s so much within in the community. You know, as I said, it’s really going to pride about the disability community. Because when you talk about the disability community there’s 61 million Americans with some form of disability, whether that’s [unintelligible], that’s cognitive. So that intersects amongst a different race, gender, ethnicity, religion, you know, you name it.

So, really as a little person we have a bond with just being little. But I also feel that same bond from a wheelchair user, or somebody with spina bifida or CP or autism and vice versa. So I think that there’s really kind of a movement of pride and I think, you know, really I’m blessed that that’s been partially happening through the Easterseals Disability Film Challenge of people creating their own content.

But we’re seeing that a lot. People with disabilities creating their own content and kind of telling their story from their point of view. A lot of times, you know, for me I’ve been very blessed and I’ve been in over 40 TV shows and movies. And I’ve gotten the chance to work with Martin Scorsese and the Farrelly brothers. But a lot of it has been work leading to work. And people knowing me and being like, ah, he’s good at negotiating to get us a discount at the bill. And so it’s like that becomes my character versus somebody struggling to reach something.

Craig: Right.

Nic: So I think it’s about exposure is a big thing, too. To where it doesn’t turn into an issue with people really spending so much time about the labels, but then getting to like well what’s the second layer of this character.

Craig: You mean like the human being part. [laughs] Which people really seem to struggle with, which is remarkable. But I wonder since you are so directly involved in trying to improve participation and representation onscreen, how do you think it’s going? Are things getting better, the same, or worse?

Nic: Well, I think they’re getting better in a big way. And I’m very optimistic that it’s going to continue to get better. But if you look at the percentages, as I said 61 million Americans have some form of disability. There’s less than two percent of characters portrayed as having disabilities. And out of that 95 percent of those characters are portrayed by non-disabled actors.

So, really there’s nowhere to go but up. And having seen so many people with disabilities, so talented, telling their own story. Writing their own projects. Now with DSLR cameras. The ability to create your own project from your house. And I’m honored that that’s really happened a lot through the film challenge. And really I’ve made my whole career out of that. Just doing it myself. And writing it. And kind of putting it out there in the world. So, I’m seeing a lot of those percentages changing.

And even I’ve been blessed to get certain roles. I was on The Good Doctor where I played a character this year that had almost nothing to do with me being a little person. I had two girlfriends. So, again it was a flaw and I was a flawed character, but it really wasn’t about me being a little person.

Craig: Right. It was about you being a cad.

Nic: Yeah. And I think that there’s – so a lot of the focus is about actors with disabilities, which is important. But there’s so many roles behind the camera in terms of you could be working as an editor, as a writer, as a producer. So, that I feel like we do need much more of a focus on as an industry. And we’ve seen the industry reaching out to us. And I think that there’s a lot of ambition from studios and networks saying we better get a little better about this.

So, I think if you’re a person with a disability out there and especially if you have an invisible disability, please put it out there in the world. Because I think that networks and studios and writers and producers want to have a fully inclusive in front of but behind the camera as well.

John: Question for you, Nic. Have you noticed any differences between our perception and exposure to people with disabilities in the United States versus how things are internationally? Because when I was living in Paris I noticed that not just accommodations for blind people but sort of like how blind people moved through the city was very different. How busses worked for different – do you find that you can assume that how things work in the US are the same overseas?

And maybe coming back down to terms for things as well.

Nic: Yeah, well that’s a great question. And I uniquely have had the opportunity to travel the world a lot. I traveled with a play called Doll House where it was all little people portraying the role. And I’ve done USO tours for the troops as a comedian. So I’ve gotten a chance to see, you know, perform in six continents. And I will say that although the US is not perfect, the accommodations are so much better here as a whole.

Craig: Interesting.

Nic: And I will say that people are very open to a lot of areas. Now, overseas people are very open, but I think disability there’s still a bit of a stigma depending on where you are on disability. And so I think in some senses they’re not as progressive as they are here. I feel like England though there’s so much amazing TV that is portraying people with disabilities. And they’re ahead of us in some senses and other countries they are as a whole. But I feel like in terms of accessibility with the Americans with Disabilities Act, you know, in many ways we’re leading the world in this movement for a fully accessible society.

Craig: Well, you know, in the UK one of the writers who has been at the forefront of advocating for the representation of disabled people onscreen and also the inclusion of disabled people behind the screen is Jack Thorne. My beloved Jack Thorne. One of the greatest writers in the world, who himself has an invisible disability. And who has been such a great advocate. So I’m not surprised to hear that that is that way in London or in the UK. I think that’s wonderful. But I’m also – I’ve got to tell you, Nic, it’s been a long time since someone said something about the United States where it wasn’t like, “We’re way behind.” [laughs]

Nic: Yeah. Well, we are. I mean, we still are in some senses. There’s definitely a fight going. Certain places do not abide by the Americans with Disabilities Act. I feel like we could still have a more inclusive entertainment industry, which ultimately destigmatizes disability. But I feel like we’re going in the right direction. And I think that also as a little person there are other countries around the world where you’re almost living in fear going outside as a little person.

Craig: Wow. Yeah.

Nic: So I do feel privileged in a sense to be living in a society where we do not have to worry about certain things.

Craig: Right on.

John: Yeah. Shoshannah Stern who was a guest on Scriptnotes—

Nic: She’s great.

John: Who is a deaf writer and actress who is phenomenal.

Nic: I love Shoshannah.

Craig: She’s our beloved Shoshannah Stern. She also gets beloved. She’s beloved.

John: You have to have the adjective in front of her name.

Craig: Yes.

John: I saw her tweeting about sort of the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act and that was a groundbreaking piece of legislation. While imperfect, it did formally acknowledge that our systems have to be set up so that people have the ability to succeed. And that people aren’t kept out of places they need to go. So, a small success.

Nic: Yeah. No, it’s been a huge success, honestly, in many ways. And I’ve seen firsthand so many people that have benefited from it. And it’s really important legislation that needs to continue to be in the forefront, and especially as we move into a new presidential cycle I’m hoping that continues to be brought up and in people’s minds. Because it’s really important and it makes people live a fully inclusive life. And I’m proud that we have it.

John: So, let’s get back to the words. And so the words we’re using for things. We got a question in from a listener and I thought you’d be the perfect person to help us talk through this. Craig, do you want to read what Anita wrote?

Craig: I absolutely do. Anita from Sydney writes, “On a recent episode in the One Cool Thing section I heard you talking about a D&D game and you mentioned dwarves in the same breath as elves and gnomes. My daughter has dwarfism and it’s always bothered me that onscreen dwarves get lumped in with mythical creatures. Dwarves are real people who have a very tough time living in the real world. They are constantly stared out, shouted out from cars, and are often subjected to the very worst human behaviors.

“Probably as a result, unfortunately people with dwarfism have one of the highest suicide rates of all conditions. I would love this group of people to receive the empathy they truly deserve. Imagine how weird it would be if people with spina bifida or MS sufferers were associated with elves and gnomes. Please consider shining a light on this topic as screenwriters can begin to change people’s perception about dwarves, firstly ceasing with the magical character attributes.”

So, Nic, where do you come down on this one? Because Wizards of the Coast which runs D&D has been sort of engaging across the board with a lot of these things, including the fact that there is an entire category in D&D called race, and there are racial attributes. And they seem to be kind of thinking through how they’re using words. What do you feel about this?

Nic: Well, I mean, I feel like this is definitely a really interesting point that she brings up. There’s a couple things here. One, in terms of suicide, you know, mental illness, there’s more people with invisible disabilities than physical disabilities by percentage. So, I mean, I feel like that’s an issue that needs to not be taken lightly. But I will say if that parent is listening there’s so many successful little people and happy little people that grow up, myself being married to another amazing little person who works in development, working for Mattel.

So, I feel like there are a lot of role models to look to. But in terms of identifying in different categories, one, I am a real life dwarf. So I am not an elf. I am not, you know, so I feel like that is an interesting thing in terms of categorizing. Going a step further to that, though, it’s really about authentic representation. So it’s about having more little people on TV and I think really of all disabilities little people are probably the most represented. I mean, with Peter Dinklage in Game of Thrones around the world, I mean, that’s one of the most successful shows kind of of all time.

So, there’s so much amazing powerful representation. You know, as I said earlier I was able to be on The Good Doctor in a guest-starring role this year. And it was such a cool role. And something to add to that is that the writer of that episode, David Renaud, is a wheelchair user. So you’re really getting full inclusion when you’re bringing people in with disabilities, to not just consult but also be involved in the writing. And I think a step further is you’re talking about other disabilities, you know, really we need more representation of other disabilities. Spina bifida, cerebral palsy, autism. Having more authentic representation of having actors with that disability portray these roles and also to have, you know, people with those disabilities involved in the consulting.

But my last thing to say on this is, you know, it’s important to have the visibility. And in three dimensional characters. So I feel like as little people we shouldn’t not be able to be in a fantasy role if there’s a three-dimensional character. I think the difference is sometimes if it’s just a troll just pops up and is the joke rather than involved in the joke and is now kind of – that’s where we get the difference.

Craig: Got it.

Nic: You know, the history of dwarfism is very complex, too, though. We were jesters and a lot of real things in the past. We were never elves. Even though if you look at my IMDb you could find the work in there somewhere.

John: The North Pole version.

Nic: But I think for me I’m all about what more can I be doing for the situation. So I think it’s mostly how this changes and how this parent and this child of dwarfism in Australia becomes more comfortable with their dwarfism and their community becomes more comfortable is when they’re able to see characters authentically portrayed and cool or interesting or just three-dimensional characters in general. So, I feel like more authentic representation is where this changes. And, yeah, society changes, too.

I mean, Australia, I’ve been there but for a week. You know, so I don’t have enough of a say of what the society is like there. But there may be more bullying going on. And that may not just be for little people. That may be for all kinds of different people aside from disabilities. I don’t know.

Craig: I mean, it does seem like we have various levers to try and influence people’s behavior and how they look at each other and look at people who are different than them. And empathizing with another human being who has a condition that you don’t have is probably a more effective lever than just sort of blanket saying we have decided to no longer call this thing this thing. There’s a lexica graphic solution to things, but what I love about what you’re saying in particular as it ties into what all three of us do as artists is that we use the power of portrayal to create empathy. And in that regard what Peter Dinklage was able to do on Game of Thrones I suspect was a larger lever push on behalf of people with dwarfism than just about anything else short of massive legislation like the ADA.

Nic: Yeah, absolutely. And I think that that’s – you also get pride in that.

Craig: Right.

Nic: That little girl when she’s in school and they’re talking about it, it’s like yeah, well he just won the Golden Globe last week.

Craig: Right.

Nic: Not to name drop, but you know, we’re doing OK as little people.

Craig: That’s right. Great.

John: This conversation is getting me to think back to times when I’ve used words that now looking back it’s like I would not use that word now. But it is recognizing that things do change and things move on. So I’m thinking back to my script for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. There’s a hateful little kid named Mike TV who said like, “It’s so easy, a retarded person could use it.” Basically he uses the word retard. And I would absolutely not use that word now. But at the time I was using it for a hateful little kid to say it was believable. It was common. And it wasn’t considered unempathetic for it to be included in the script.

And it gets me thinking about there’s a term that Steven Pinker coined called the Euphemism Treadmill, which is that sometimes you’ll pick a term that is neutral or meant to be kind of positive and that it just wears down, it sort of morphs into becoming the bad version of it. So mental retardation was meant to be a kind, gentle word to describe people with certain conditions. And as it got made into an epithet anything associated with it became negative and bad.

And it’s such a natural cycle that does sort of happen. And so as we look back to things that were written five years, ten years, 20 years ago, things do – I can’t believe people said “colored people” rather than “people of color.” It’s a very natural process that happens. And so we should be mindful that even the choices we make right now may seem weird five years, ten years, 20 years down the road.

Nic: Yeah.

John: They may seem unempathetic.

Nic: Yeah. You hit the nail on the head. I mean, with little people, as I said, we were Midgets of America. And the word midget actually derived from the word midge which was an insect. And it was created during the PT Barnum circus time to separate little people and categorizations of dwarfism.

But even as little people of the ‘50s and ‘40s we were like, “I’m a midget.” And they wouldn’t say that like I’m less. That was the term. So, it evolved as, hey, wait a minute, we should be little people. And I think that that’s happening for all different disabilities. There’s so many different, from as I said earlier wheelchair-bound versus wheelchair user. Autism, neuro-diverse, person with autism. There’s person-first language. I mean, for me I’m always all about let’s focus less on the terminology and more about the person, the job, the work. Forget what to call me. Just call me Nic.

But it is important because this is something that I think even beyond the entertainment world I think for big companies and, you know, they get so nervous of saying things wrong that they think they’re like, oh, wait a minute, I don’t want to bring that person in. And I think it’s like the more we can just normalize and use terms, and be OK with the fact that we may be using a term that in five years is going to be not the right term anymore.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Yeah. And the same way that companies may be nervous to hire that employee because they’re worried about those issues, my concern is that sometimes writers are afraid to include that character, that specific character, because they’re worried about doing something wrong. And so I think we’re all urging people to be brave, be smart, and this might be a great way to wrap up by saying like if people want to find out more about what you do with Easterseals or issues of representation and talking about the community of people with disabilities, where should they start? Where would you recommend people go first?

Nic: Well, one, you can go to disabilityfilmchallenge.com. We have seven years of hundreds of films that were created by people with disabilities. Each film has to have somebody with a disability in front of or behind the camera. This year we had to do documentary film. So these are all people with disabilities telling their story. But I feel like even beyond the film challenge if you go to YouTube you can search a certain person with a disability. Cerebral palsy. And you can see somebody with cerebral palsy talking about themselves. Or a little person. And you can kind of see how they want to be labeled. And a lot of times they’re self-labeling themselves either in the video or in the speech.

But also, you know, people reach out to us, networks, writers, executives, all the time. Hey, I’m looking to talk to somebody with cerebral palsy, a wheelchair user. I think the community as a whole, you know, this is the most important thing. The disability community is a community. And we’re there to be partners in making the world more inclusive. So I would say don’t be afraid to reach out to us. And then on the flip side as writers, especially in TV, in many senses you guys are also the producers. So in some senses just write a cool character and don’t even worry so much about the description of the character. Just bring that into casting and being like, hey, let’s make this an African American wheelchair user. And then having that same three-dimensional character that’s a jerk, or funny, or cool, or smart. But I think that there are so many people with disabilities that are willing to join the conversation and be there. And we want a seat at the table.

And I know myself included I’m willing to do whatever I can to help.

Craig: I think that’s fantastic. I’m working on a movie script and there’s a character in it who is a wheelchair user. So the director and I reached out to somebody who is a wheelchair user who specifically works in the theater community and had made herself available to have these discussions. And it’s the homework we need to do with each other. All of us. It’s really important. Just talk to each other. And to listen.

And if you are just being selfish, if all you care about is being a better artist, it will make you a better artist. You will do a better job. For that reason alone. Even if you have no concern for your fellow human being, and you just want to be a better writer, better actor, better director, this is a great thing to do. And so I’m so pleased that we got a chance to talk to you. And I’m also just super impressed with the work that you’ve already done. It’s pretty amazing. So awesome job, Nic.

Nic: Well thank you. I’m a huge fan of this podcast and both of you guys as artists. So this was an honor. Thank you.

Craig: Awesome. Thank you.

John: Nic, thank you so much for coming on.

Nic: Thank you.

John: OK, so Craig, this last week I was writing on a scene and I recognized that this was a scene where I created a character who is essentially single use. This character only appears in this scene. He’s very memorable and distinctive and hopefully very funny within this scene, but story wise this character is never going to reappear again. And not only is there not a natural reason for them to reappear again, they really can’t reappear again.

Craig: Right.

John: And it got me thinking about the situations in which I do have a single use character and times when I want to make sure the characters can come back. And what our expectation is as writers and as readers and audiences when there’s a character who appears in only one scene.

Craig: And generally we’re going to try and avoid this. Meaning when we do engage a single use character we’re doing so very carefully and very intentionally. Because every actor that we bring on board that’s an expense to the production and somebody to get wardrobed and costumed. And it also demands the audience’s attention. They are just going to presume that when they meet people those people are in the movie. And the more people they meet who show up once and leave the more frustrated they get.

You keep throwing new people at them, they’re just going to stop paying attention because they’re like, ah, none of these people are going to stay around, so why am I bothering.

John: Yeah. I think people create a mental placeholder for them. And I find as I read scripts often I’ll circle the first time a character shows up just so I can keep track of like, OK, this is that person. And if I find myself circling a bunch of characters I’m like, oh wait, how many people are in this movie? I think you’re saying that expectation is that this person might come back so I need to remember something about them.

In some cases, especially if the scene is very dramatic or very funny, there’s kind of a misleading vividness where it feels like, oh, this person must be important because look how much screen time or look at what a big moment they had. And that can be a trap in and of itself. So, looking back at the scene that I wrote, I know it was the right choice to do it, and this was a scene which in its initial conception was going to have a group of people speaking, and then it became more clear that like, oh no, it should just be one person driving it because it was going to get too diffuse if I had a bunch of people speaking in the scene.

But what I was able to do is because this scene takes place in a specific set that the hero is going to and there’s not an expectation that they’re going to come back to it, I think I was able to make it pretty clear we don’t have an expectation that that character is ever going to be seen again. So by having it be a destination and not part of the regular home set in a way I don’t think we’re going to plan on seeing that thing again.

Craig: Yeah. One of the ways you can inoculate the audience against thinking that they’re going to keep seeing this person is – well very common use of single use characters is they die. So, we’re not worried about them. They’re not coming back. I’m thinking of the very opening scene of the first episode of Game of Thrones. There are a bunch of guys we don’t see again. They all die. It doesn’t matter who they are. They die. That’s the point.

Another way we can inoculate the audience is by making sure that our single use character is rooted by circumstance into a position. So, we have a main character moving through a space, whether it’s an airport, or it is a department store.

John: A DMV.

Craig: A DMV. Somebody is stuck in their job. They’re not going anywhere. Your character moves in and then leaves. And we understand that character can’t go anywhere else except where they are. I mean, one of the greatest single use characters of all time is Edie McClurg playing a rental car saleswoman in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. And she’s perfect.

John: We wouldn’t want any more.

Craig: You couldn’t ask for a better foil for Steve Martin losing his mind. And we know we’re not going to see her again because she lives and works behind that counter and does not exist anywhere else.

John: Another thing I think you need to keep in mind with these single use characters is always ask yourself is my hero still driving this scene. Because so often you have this funny idea for a character, this funny situation, but if my hero can only react to that situation they’re not actually in charge of it. So what you describe of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, it’s like the scene is not really about her. It’s about his frustration and what he does in response to her. It’s not about her. And so making sure that if you are going to use a single use character they’re not just going to take over the scene and just leave your hero, your star, just facing them as an obstacle and not doing anything themselves.

Craig: Yeah. There may be a tendency among new writers to try and jazz up a scene by having a waiter come over and be wacky. Nobody wants it. Nobody.

John: No.

Craig: Every now and then, for instance, here’s a for instance. Bronson Pinchot created a career for himself with a single use character in Beverly Hills Cop.

John: Beverly Hills Cop, yeah.

Craig: And it was so good. It was so fascinating and so weird that you kind of wanted more of him. And you didn’t get more of him because he was single use. And you wanted more of him and you got more of him eventually. Bronson Pinchot went on to do other things. Because I think that was before he did Perfect Strangers, I think. I think it was. I’m sure somebody will write in and tell me I’m an idiot, which I often am.

But the point is every now and then you will get something like that. But don’t aim for it. Because it almost never happens. And you really do want to design these single use characters as functions for your main character. They are obstacles. They are information. They are omens. They are distractions. But they are rarely the person who is supposed to be drawing the audience’s attention.

John: Yeah. So in certain circumstances, your waiter example is exactly right. Because you would say like, oh, you want every character to pop. And it’s like, yeah, but you don’t necessarily want that waiter character to pop. If the waiter needs to be there but it’s not actually the point of the scene you kind of want that character to be a little bit background. You want that character to be helping inform the setting, but they are kind of scene setting. They’re not actually the point of it.

And they should be a little bit more like set decoration than the marquee star because they’re going to probably pull focus away from what you actually want to be focusing on which is probably your hero and what your hero is doing in those moments.

Craig: That’s exactly right.

John: So as you look at your script, if you have a lot of single use characters there may be something wrong. It’s not a guarantee that something is wrong, but there might be something wrong. So if there’s four scenes in your script that have major single use characters who have multiple lines and are really doing a lot ask yourself why. And not necessarily there’s a problem, but there could be a reason why. Maybe these characters should be combined or there’s some way in which they can come back. And you may not be spending your script time properly.

Craig: I agree. It’s worth policing through. And every now and then you might find a way to maybe collapse them into one. If you have two scenes, you may be able to get away with just combining those two characters into one character. But, yeah, be aware of it and try to avoid.

And, by the way, when possible ask yourself does this person need to talk at all.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: Because the difference between a person who says one word on camera and a person who says nothing is a lot of money and also a lot of attention.

John: A lot of time actually shooting to come around to film their lines is hours on the day.

Craig: It’s a lot.

John: I think we have time for one question. And I’m going to read a question from Brooklyn Writer. And they write, “I recently wrote a pilot and after my team circulated it a production company of some repute reached out asking me to pitch it to them. Do you have any specific advice for pitching a TV show to folks who have already read the pilot? Should I talk about the pilot still?”

Craig, what would you do in this situation?

Craig: I mean, I think Brooklyn Writer that they know the pilot. That’s why you’re there. So I think what they’re saying is can you tell us what this show will be. Give us the season. Let us know how this would blossom from this episode. No sense in going in there and pretending like they haven’t read it and pitching them the story of a thing they already have. Unless what you’re saying is, yeah, no you say clearly that they already have read the pilot. So I would say, yeah, you can certainly talk about some of the choices you made in the pilot and why. But I would contextualize that in – and why I did these things is because here’s where it all goes.

John: Yeah. Contextualizing is the name of the game here. Because let’s say that your managers have set this meeting. Well, maybe that meeting is two weeks from now. By the time you go in to actually talk with them they may have reread it or they may have skimmed it again, but they may not be super familiar with it. So what your job going into that is to kind of remind them what they liked about it and in reminding them what they liked about it you probably are going to talk about the characters, you’re going to talk about the world, you’re going to talk about what’s exciting. And then you’re going to be saying things like, “So in the pilot we follow this plot line through,” and you’re basically going to summarize the big things.

But then always be tying those into this is what’s going to be happening over the course of the season. This is what the show does. This is the engine of how things work from then on. So, you’re kind of in a good situation, because they’ve already read the thing and they’re inclined to like the thing. Now it’s about getting to that next step of thinking about not just a pilot that we might shoot but really what is the show going to be like. And you’re always in a better situation if they’ve already read something that they’re inclined to like.

Craig: Absolutely. Yeah. Go in there not having to start from nothing. You have a little bit of inertia has been overcome.

John: Yeah. All right. Some last bits of housekeeping before we get to our One Cool Things. This week we have some sort of back to school sales, post-Labor Day. We have our September sales on some things. So, Highland, the app I make for writing. The upgrade to Pro is half-price this week. So, if you want to upgrade you should upgrade this week. Writer Emergency Pack is also on sale. Two or three years ago, god, maybe it was five years ago we made a game. We Kickstarted a game called One Hit Kill, which people liked a lot, which was great. We have in a warehouse in Pennsylvania, we’re moving from that warehouse to a different warehouse.

This is supply chain economics, a short lesson on this. The actual cost of moving the One Hit Kills we have left at this one warehouse to the other warehouse is going to be more than if we just actually kind of sold these away for a dollar a piece. So we’re going to sell our remaining stock of this one black of One Hit Kills for a dollar a piece. So if you want to check out a fun game that you can play with your kids, it’s called One Hit Kill. Go to onehitkillgame.com and you can see this game. It’s $1 plus shipping. And you can help us clear the shelves and move us to our new warehouse.

So that’s cheap.

And you and I, Craig, we did something fun this last weekend. We did a series of videos talking through Roll 20 and you talked me through how to be a DM in Roll 20. It’s complicated. And, man, you are a really good teacher.

Craig: Thank you.

John: So it’s five videos up online. They’re up on my YouTube channel. I’ll put a link in the show notes. But if you are curious about DMing a game in Roll 20 which is how we have been doing our D&D games since the pandemic started Craig talks you through from beginning to end how to set up Roll 20 to do it. So I learned a tremendous amount and I will probably be going back to these videos often as I try to set up my own campaign.

Craig: Well, yeah, and I will say again that there are many people who are vastly better at Roll 20 than I, so I’m not putting myself out there as a super expert. But if you watch those you will have enough information to be able to DM a game. I do believe that.

John: Yeah. So definitely check those out if you’re curious about Roll 20. Craig, do you have a One Cool Thing?

Craig: I do. I do. This was something that I got for Melissa. She likes a sparkling wine, like a Champagne or whatever you call. I guess sparkling wine is champagne that’s not from Champagne. I don’t drink it, but she does. And one of the bummers about it is you pop the cork and it goes pretty flat. You can’t get that cork back in. And neither one of us are like finish a bottle type of people.

So at one point we talked about the Coravin which is a great solution for bottles of red wine, for instance. But what do you do about this sort of thing? Good news, super cheap, very effective solution. There is Champagne Bottle Stopper, and there’s a bunch of different brands, but this one that we bought is from Winco. You get a set of two for $9.52. And they just basically are little stoppers that fit over the top and then you put these little two clamps down. And it works. It legitimately works. And super cheap.

So, if you are somebody that finds yourself not finishing bottles of sparkling wine well here’s a $10 solution to that.

John: Like you, I’m not a big champagne person. I’ll have it if it’s the thing that people are drinking. But I’m never thirsty for champagne.

Craig: Neither am I. I don’t – in general white wine is just sort of a meh. It’s not my–

John: Sweet alcohol is just not a good combination for me. Like even a margarita at this point, no, I really can’t.

Craig: No Bartles & Jaymes for you?

John: [laughs]

Craig: Does that even exist anymore? That doesn’t exist.

John: I wonder if Bartles & Jaymes still exists. It’s worth Googling. I remember that.

Craig: I’m actually almost vomiting thinking about it.

John: Yeah, it’s not good. Not good.

Craig: Bad memories.

John: It’s the Peach Schnapps of its time.

Craig: Oh god. Blech.

John: My One Cool Thing is two related One Cool Things. So I was reading this piece by Alex Yablon in Slate about the NRA. And he describes sort of the possible end of the NRA being – basically it would get separated up into little pieces and it would be a really complicated feeding frenzy. And he describes it as a Whale Fall. And I did not know what a whale fall was. And so I clicked through the link and the Wikipedia article on a whale fall. Do you know what a whale fall is, Craig?

Craig: It’s when whales fall. It’s like when whales come out of the sky, like the squid in Watchmen.

John: Hmm. Yeah. It’s not that.

Craig: Oh.

John: So when whales die they fall to the bottom of the ocean and they can fall in really, really deep waters. And they end up creating an entire ecosystem around the creatures that scavenge that body and basically a whole bunch of biological activity happens around a whale fall that is like really important. Because it’s just so much meat and concentrated energy happening in a place that generally wouldn’t have anything to eat, that just a bunch of stuff happens.

So, I love it as a visual. I love it as a metaphor. I just think whale fall is a cool idea. So, I’ll link to the Wikipedia page on whale fall. But you can go down a deep rabbit hole on whale falls.

Craig: That sounds – whale fall. There’s going to be a movie now. How Would This Be a Movie? Whale fall.

John: That’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Michael Karman. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. But for short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust.

We have t-shirts. And they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can also find them in the show notes for this episode and all episodes which are available at johnaugust.com. That’s where you also find the transcripts. You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments including the one we’re just about to record. Craig, thank you for a fun show.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus segment]

John: All right. Our bonus segment. This is from a tweet by Clint Ford. He writes, “A question on Reddit garnered a great deal of screenwriting discussion, so I thought I’d post it here to try to provoke similar discussion. ‘If the standards for breaking into the screenwriting industry are so high why are so many bad movies made?’” Craig Mazin?

Craig: Yeah, well, if you think these movies are bad, imagine how bad they would be if the standards were lower.

John: [laughs] Oh. So so many ways to approach this question. So we can deny the premise, which is an obvious easy one. Or then we can try to really tackle process. So I’m going to start with process. To me, this question if you rephrase it in terms of baking would be like this. You’re looking at a loaf of bread and saying if your flour is so good why is this bread so terrible. Basically you’re confusing the ingredients going into the finished product, not acknowledging that there’s a whole process. There’s many, many steps that go from flour to the final thing.

So, you can’t make good bread from rotten flour. But you can make rotten bread from perfectly good flour. And I think that so often is the case with screenplays is that sometimes the writing is really good and the process is really bad. And so the end result is a bad movie that really has very little to do with the quality of the screenwriting.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, there’s all sorts of ways this happens. And, again, we’re sort of talking about movies that let’s just say everybody kind of agrees are terrible. But there are very few movies like that. I mean, somebody likes every movie.

But you have to remember that the people that are deciding what gets made are not screenwriters. Now, the standards for breaking into the industry are high. But then what happens is they take people who have a lot of talent, who have shown it, and then they put them to work on something that’s bad. There’s the real answer to your question. It’s really hard to get noticed. You have to do your own writing. You have to do your own work. That’s what John did. That’s what I did. And then you get noticed, and then you get attention, and then they say, “Work on this.” And this is probably not something that that writer would have wanted to do. But they need to work. They need to pay bills, support a family.

And so a lot of times the reason that you think movies aren’t that great is because the screenwriter didn’t come up with that movie thought in the first place. Remember our discussion the other week, what were we talking about, UNO: The Movie. So, you know.

John: That’s a great example for this.

Craig: It’s going to be a bad movie. What are you going to do? I mean, I don’t care, Steven Zaillian can write Uno: The Movie, it’s not going to be a good movie because it’s UNO: The Movie.

So, right off the bat the entire industry has a corrosive impact on the quality of writing. The other major point I want to say, and I always point this out, is if you can discern a noticeable, repeatable, robust difference in quality between television right now and movies right now it’s partly because of this. Writers in features, in movies, are not only not in charge of the work that is made from their writing, but they are actively abused. They are actively shunted aside, disrespected, shifted around, and replaced. When writers are not in charge, generally speaking, the output will be damaged.

John: Yeah. I think that’s 100 percent true and fair. So, let me go back to the challenge and the premise of the question a little bit. So, why are so many bad movies made? I feel like the person asking this theoretical question is choosing to only look at the movies that they want to look at. And so they’re saying look at all these bad movies. It’s like, OK, but are you ignoring all the really good movies that are made? What is your cohort or movies that you’re saying that there are more bad movies? And are you saying that it’s increasing? Are you saying it’s the same percentage over time?

Yes, bad movies are going to be made. But also bad tennis shoes are going to be produced. Bad stuff is going to happen. If your expectation is that everything is going to be an A then something is really wrong with your expectations or the system, because if all you’re doing is creating one universally good thing that doesn’t feel plausible either.

Craig: Yeah. And what you’re used to is the range of movies that Hollywood produces. And you’ve come to think of those as somewhat inevitable, the way that we watch the Olympics and we just presume that if we’re watching 20 people in a marathon that one or two of them are going to be awesome, three will get medals, and then there’s going to be some that did OK, and then there’s going to be that idiot that runs in last. Well that idiot is one of the best runners in the world, it’s just now you think that person is “bad.”

I’m not saying that the person that initially asked this question is infantile, however there is an infantile aspect to the question. “Which is well if these movies are so bad then why aren’t they making my script?” I would love to see that script. [laughs] We will tell you. John and I will explain to you patiently why you have not broken into the screenwriting industry. Because you’ve been fooled by the level of quality that’s coming out. Believe it or not, it’s that hard to make even a bad movie.

John: Lastly, if the standards for breaking into the screenwriting industry are so high. I don’t know that the standards are that high. I mean, I would say that over the course of these 467 episodes we’ve tried to talk about quality in screenwriting and sort of as a craft what you’re looking for. But I hope that we’re not overstating that it’s all about the most brilliant writer always succeeds. In some cases it’s not because of their writing quality that they’re succeeding. It’s because they’re good at doing the other stuff that screenwriters have to do.

And we talk about this a lot on the show which is being a screenwriter is a lot about being a therapist and a counselor and understanding how to sort of play the game. And so a career is not about just your ability to sling words together in a useful way. It’s an incredibly important part of it, but it’s also about how to be hired for a job. How to communicate with actors and directors and sort of get stuff made and get stuff to happen. And that is a large part of it.

So, standards, well, it’s not just about your writing standards. It’s your ability to sort of interact with people and interface with people and get things to happen.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Sometimes those people who are really good at those other parts of the job are not especially good at the writing part of the job, but that may not be the reason why these bad movies happen.

Craig: Yeah. And Hollywood is not a meritocracy. There are people that get these because they have a friend. There are people who get these jobs because their dad is in the business. Generally speaking those people don’t last. And you and I have talked a lot about how the phrase “breaking in” is already a trap. Nobody really breaks in. You get a shot and then you either fail or you get another shot. You continue to get shots. Basically all you ever get is a chance to break in repeatedly.

John: Yeah. Again and again. Craig, thank you.

Craig: Thank you, John.

John: Bye.

Craig: Bye.

 

Links:

• Range Media
• WGA Elections
• Easterseals Disability Film Challenge
• Euphemisms are like underwear: best changed frequently
• One Hit Kill Game
• DM’s Guide to Roll 20
• Get Ready for a Feeding Frenzy Over the NRA’s Corpse
• Whale Fall
• Champagne Bottle Stopper
• Clint Ford Twitter Thread
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Nic Novicki on Twitter
• John August on Twitter
• Craig Mazin on Twitter
• John on Instagram
• Outro by Michael Karman (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can now be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 466 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show it’s not just the US Postal Service that’s straining under the volume of mail. Craig and I have to tackle our overflowing mailbag and answer some long delayed listener questions on subtext, divorce, set decoration, and more. More, more.

And in our bonus segment for Premium members we will talk about head shots and our experience getting our photos taken.

Craig: Overflowing mailbag sounds dirty.

John: It does sound a little dirty.

Craig: I’m not saying that Sexy Craig is going to show up or anything, but he almost showed up. Just because, I don’t know.

John: Thank you for keeping him at bay.

Craig: No problem. I mean, listen, I’ve been taking meds.

John: I mean, we’re already in the middle of a pandemic. We don’t need Sexy Craig.

Craig: He is a super spreader if there ever was one.

John: I don’t think he respects social distance. I’m just saying. [laughs]

Craig: At all.

John: All right, before we get to our mailbag questions, there’s actually some news this week. So this week it came out that a bunch of high profile agents and former agents had banded together to form a new management company which frustratingly doesn’t seem to have an official name yet, but their slide deck says Moxie, so we’re going to call them Moxie for the rest of this episode.

Craig: Yeah.

John: There’s also a different management company that formed. So I want to talk about management companies. I want to talk about this company. I want to talk about what they’re trying to do and how it fits in and how writers should pay attention. We’re going to link to two articles about Borys Kit in the Hollywood Reporter. But to sort of summarize the agents who are part of this venture are from WME, CAA, UTA, so big agencies. Some are lit agents. Some are talent agents. But if you look at the client list of who they were representing there’s a lot of overlap. So like SNL writer-performers, or Danny McBride. There’s that kind of people.

The sort of ring leader behind this Moxie thing is Peter Micelli who went from CAA to E1, which was a studio of a type that is owned or co-owned by Hasbro which owns D&D, so of course Craig and I care a lot about this.

And complicating all of this is that one of the people behind this company is Steve Cohen who is a billionaire and hedge fund trader who is also a big Trump donor, so there’s also issues of sort of who you’re getting into business with. So, Craig, there’s just a bunch of stuff related to this news.

Craig: Yeah. So this is not surprising. For early on in the agency campaign there was this suspicion that a bunch of agents would say, “Well screw this. I don’t want to be stuck at an agency that can’t represent writers. And I don’t care about packaging. Let’s all peel off and form a new agency.” But I think the more likely scenario was always let’s just peel off and form a management company. Why? Because management is essentially an end run around the restrictions on agents. Just as packaging, by the way, was an end run around the restrictions on agents.

So the law says that agents can’t really own the stuff that their clients are in. Packaging was a nifty way to kind of skirt around it without getting into legal trouble. But why skirt around something when you can just kick right through it? And that’s what management is.

So, managers are representing artists. They can absolutely own everything, by the way, that the artists do. They can own it 100%. They can employ them completely if they want. They can produce. The one thing that they can’t do by law is essentially procure employment. But they can always use a lawyer as a fig leaf for that. Or, frankly, an agent.

So what’s happened here is through basically 80% just the way the business has been going and 20% nudged along by the WGA’s action the ground was remarkably fertile for something like this to happen. It’s not great.

Well, look, it is great for certain people I suppose. And these are very legitimate agents. I mean, these are big shots. This is not a little thing. This is a big deal. And for writers I’m not sure how relevant it’s going to be because it seems like their eye is on something much bigger than what writers do.

John: Absolutely. So let’s put a pin in sort of the writer of it all. But I would say the other thing as we’re looking at the changes in the agency landscape is that we have the WGA action. We have other structural things that were happening. But then we also have the pandemic. And so you have a situation where the town is completely shut down and so the normal source of income to these WME, to CAA has dried up, especially WME when you look at sort of how much they were reliant on their other businesses being live entertainment.

Craig: Well, and CAA too. I mean, sports got killed, you know.

John: Sports. These companies which had grown big by doing other things, suddenly the other sources of income were not there. We’ve talked on the show previously how they were not taking salaries and they were cutting staff and cutting support staff. So all that stuff was already happening.

So if you were a person, an ambitious young agent at one of these places, you’re looking around saying like, “Hey, do I want to stay here in this company that may not really rebound or become the same thing, or do I want to try something new?” And this really does look like a new thing. And as the slide deck came out, which the article was linking to today, it’s clear that they really are pitching this not like even a traditional management company. It really feels more like a startup venture capital, sort of like investing in a brand.

Craig: Yeah.

John: They’re not looking at Reese Witherspoon as an actress. They’re looking at Reese Witherspoon as a flagship marketer. Sort of a center focus of a whole new company.

Craig: Yes. And this is the bigger thing that I think they’re staring out. Very clever. Very smart of them. Every now and again someone comes along in that area and says, “Oh, everybody has become way too comfortable in the status quo and if you just kick over a whole bunch of things and start fresh with a clean slate and a different idea you can actually do very well.” And it has happened again, I think, and this is going to set the stage for a lot of this sort of thing.

We live in a time where very famous people have enormous value because of social media. They can impact things far beyond what they used to be able to impact. Even in the old days when actors – famous actors – could make a lot of money endorsing things, they had to be careful about what they endorsed. And even then they were just being paid by somebody else. Like I’m Nike, here’s some money, but I’m in charge.

Now you have actors who create their own brands and using their own influence. I mean, Kim Kardashian, who is not even an actor, is a billionaire specifically because of this. She created a brand and then there’s a billion things that go along with it. And these guys they want a third of it. As far as I can tell what they want to do is get a third of those things. And they’re going to I assume promise these people to grow them in such a way that they will have these large businesses based around them and this company will take a third of it. So, goodbye 10 percent. And that’s a third of ownership. That’s not commission. Ownership.

I’m looking around at the world. I see people like Jessica Alba starting her own company and it’s worth a billion dollars and she did it. And she didn’t need anyone’s help doing it. I mean, yes, she did, of course, but she didn’t need one of these companies. It’s hers.

John: Yeah. Look at Gwyneth Paltrow. You look at George Clooney.

Craig: Right. Right.

John: And so I want to stipulate that, yes, I’m sure there are agents and other people involved in their careers were helpful in getting some stuff going. But they are essentially entrepreneurs who are also actors. And they are unicorns. They are remarkably talented people at acting and remarkably talented at doing this thing which is to be a presence in social media and be able to make an end run around traditional gatekeepers in terms of buying ads. They’re sort of their own ad agencies. They are marketers fundamentally.

And this last week Ryan Reynolds sold his gin company for hundreds of millions of dollars. You know, Ryan has been on the show, he’s a friend. But you look at sort of what he’s done and he deserves some sort of Academy Award for just best presentation of a brand in a public sphere. I mean, he was so good at being able to market that company. He also did Mint Mobile. So, he’s really good at that. But it’s hard to say exactly how this new management company will find those people who are uniquely good at that and be able to provide value to them. Like, I don’t know what this company is actually going to be able to give them that will help them become these giant flagship brands.

Craig: Well, what they do is convince you otherwise. I’m not sure you’re wrong. In fact, I’m pretty sure you’re right. But the skill has always been to convince you that they are necessary. That’s their talent. That’s different than – and when I say their I mean when I’m talking about these people that come along and say we will go into business with you, I think really good agents and also really good managers – there are some – are about advancing individual artist’s careers and getting them the most money they can get.

I mean, there are still people that do it right. But then there’s a different kind of, look, we’re going to take you to the moon. And obviously at that point it’s just about, you know, ambition and greed. But it’s always been about ambition and greed. And it will work. I think it’s going to work. I have no doubt it’s going to work.

Now, this wrinkle of Steve Cohen is interesting. So, one of the agents that went over is Dave Bugliari. Dave Bugliari, big agent from CAA, very big agent from CAA, very well respected, that’s the one I think – well, and Jack Whigham both. I mean, they were the co-heads of Motion Picture Talent, which is what the agency is called, the actor wing. Those guys were columns holding up that business. And CAA will survive, but that’s a shot, right? That hurts.

And they’re not direct competitors, right? So the management company can coexist, so Dave Bugliari has a certain client as an agent, he can keep that client as a manager and that client can still stay at CAA with a different agent if they so choose.

But, these guys, Dave Bugliari for instance, is married to Alyssa Milano. Alyssa Milano is one of the most vocal anti-Trump people in Hollywood which is saying something, because so many of us are including you and me. Pretty much everybody. Well, OK, well he’s now working – he’s a partner I should say in a company that is partly funded by a Trump guy. Did they know that? I bet they didn’t. [laughs] Honestly, I bet they didn’t. And the reason I say that is because I think that sometimes these things are a bit sloppy. Like somebody comes along and says, “I got a bunch of money and it’s from a guy. He’s great.” And nobody stops and thinks, gee, I wonder if he is a Trump supporter.

John: Well, also, none of these people got together in a room to talk this over. This has all happened on Zoom and emails.

Craig: That’s kind of fun.

John: And kudos to them for keeping it quiet for as long as they kept it quiet. So, good on them for that. But, yes, I do think it’s problematic. Actually we’ll get to our first listener question. This came in from Florian. Here you see the CEO of an agency being a big Trump donor, but you can also imagine calling out Jeff Bezos or Amazon social practices or Disney’s blocking access to some 20th Century Fox movies for example. “As an actor-writer I’ve been told by some friends not to tweet about Amazon because I could lose a job over it. Should A-list talent leave an agency because it has ties to Trump? Or should up and coming talent refuse to sign with a big agency because of it? Where to draw the line?”

And so that’s the question you’re raising with this manager who is coming over there, but also with all the clients who might decide to sign there they have to decide to sign there they have to decide do I want to be in business with some of these types of people.

Craig: I’m glad that Florian asked this question, because the truth is there is no line. It is impossible to be pure. There are no clean hands, ever, because every corporation engages in practices that are questionable. Capitalism in general is going to engender some iffy things on the borders, if not outright awful things. And we live in a global market. The entertainment industry is particularly global. So, it’s impossible to not work with people that are also working with people that you might not respect.

So, the question is where do you draw the line? Well, if you’re an employee and writers are it’s a little different and difficult. You make your choices as you go. If something feels particularly bad you don’t do it. But you evaluate and you do the best you can, I think.

If you are talking about going into business and partnering with somebody that’s different. So, I was approached by somebody who had started a new business partnering with – oh, let’s just say a nation that is of ill repute when it comes to civil liberties and freedom.

John: Yeah, there’s a couple of those I can think of.

Craig: Yeah. There’s a few of those. And I just said, no, no, I’m not going to get into bed with that. I don’t want to. And because of this.

When you start a business, when you make some large partnership, I think that that has to be something that you evaluate and think about. But also to remember that these businesses which are enormous are divided up in so many ways and employ so many people and so it’s not always as simple as this or this.

I mean, look, I just got rid of my payroll company because they advertised on Tucker Carlson. Right? I mean, that’s not going to bring them down. They’re not going to come crashing down. By the way, my favorite thing on Twitter is like Trumpy people are like, “You’re lying. You don’t use a payroll company.” And I’m like you mean for $40 a month, yeah, I do. I do. [laughs] It’s not a boast.

But you do the things you can do. You try your best but you don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good. It is impossible to have clean hands. Just try and make them as clean as you can make them while moving through the world.

John: There’s a project which we are largely set up but we’re figuring out some of the financing. And so the producers called and said like, “Hey, I just want to make sure that you’re not going to have any problem with X company.” And I’m like, oh, I have a big problem with X company. That absolutely cannot happen. And they were so frustrated with me, but also I’m the creator/showrunner. I’m not going to do it. If you’re going to do that, I’m gone. And so they have to find other money. And there is other money to find.

And you’re right in that if you look deep enough in some of the money there are going to be problematic things. Like Amazon is a remarkable company but it is also problematic in a lot of ways.

Craig: Sure.

John: A lot of international financing is so helpful, especially for independent film, but you look at really the sources of it it’s not great. And so you have to make those choices. And I think trying to distinguish between being what is a partnership versus what is I’m an employee is helpful to some degree, but at a certain point the difference between being a partner and being an employee becomes a little bit blurry, which I think is a good segue to how this impacts writers and showrunners.

Because I think something like a Moxie or whatever the final name of this is, while it’s focused largely on actors and sort of big name faces, some of the big name writers we’ve talked about on the show, sort of the writer pluses would be candidates for this. I could imagine like a Shonda Rhimes being the kind of person who is both a public face and is a brand in and of herself that is super appropriate for this kind of company.

Craig: Yes. There are some, fewer than there are in the world of acting, of course. There is nothing like having your face on TV or on screen to make you known. I mean, the difference between how many people know Shonda versus how many people know – pick an actor on SNL, you know, it’s shocking. It’s legitimately shocking. Because everybody should know who she is.

So, that is part of it. I mean, the big value for showrunners is always going to be the amount of money they earn, right, and getting some of it. And will that fit into this model? I don’t know. What I continue to be nervous about is the forced evolution of television where the people who are, we’ll call them the commission class, even though they often aren’t working on commission, but rather they’re just taking fees from the network or streamers themselves, that space will continue to move toward packaging around directors and actors, particularly actors, because that’s how this new company, Moxie, or whatever they end up being called, will make money.

Moxie is going to make – there was something buried in one of these things that was shocking to me. And it was in one of the articles the people that were talking about this new venture were saying basically one of the reasons we’re doing this is because the agencies they don’t have the time or energy to concentrate on their top earners. Their attention is too divided. And I’m like, wow.

John: Here’s the quote that I think you want. This is a quote from the slide deck. “The current representation system is broken. Lack of transparency has eroded trust. Big agencies do not spend most of their time on the largest earners. Agents are distracted by bloated client lists.”

Craig: Wow. Right?

John: So basically if you’re not focused on those tip top people, because you’re spending too much time on the riffraff, but we care about the riffraff and we want those riffraff to have good representation.

Craig: Well, not only that but we’re over here saying the problem with the agencies is that they’re on fire. And these guys are like the problem with that building is it’s not warm enough. Right? There has never, never been a problem at the agencies where they are not paying enough attention to the people who earn the most money. That has literally never been a problem, not for one second. It has always been the opposite. And of course it’s always been the opposite.

When you have a client that you’re making $40 million off of over the course of 12 years, or one that you’re making $80,000 off of, it’s not rocket science. Everybody knows how this functions. What these guys are saying is there are entire groups of people that we want to separate out from that. What we call a large earner are these people who can generate a billion dollars. At this point I will continue to be concerned that the television landscape is going to be warped by these people. They are going to come in and artificially twist things in favor of the people that make them the most money. And writers will lose creative influence and authority in the space and in doing so the end is threatened of what is the single best creative run of any medium ever in our business, which is television right now.

John: Very, very possible. I’ll be curious to follow up on this a year from now, five years from now, to see if this company, if Moxie and companies like this are really all that focused on creating narrative content, or if they are creating products, like things that people can directly buy. Because if they are more sort of the Aviation gin, Mint Mobile, you know, Jessica Alba’s lines, Jennifer Lopez’s cosmetics, if they are more that then it’s not a direct impact to sort of what we do as writers.

But if they are more sort of the Hello Sunshine let’s build out a brand that is making a lot of entertainment, then that’s going to have a huge impact on us.

Craig: It is. And what you will see, I suspect, from this company is that when writers touch them it’s going to be because they’re brought in to pitch as if talking to a studio. So let’s say they represent – I don’t think they do represent somebody like Brad Pitt, but let’s say they did. And Brad Pitt is a huge fan of something like let’s say Dungeons & Dragons, OK? Starting to sound great. Well, it’s Brad Pitt’s Dungeons & Dragons now. And now you come in and you are competing with 12 other people to part of this massive thing that is going to generate new sets from Wizards of the Coast, all branded with Brad Pitt’s new angle on Dungeons & Dragons. Again, this is all hypothetical, please don’t report this Deadline. It’s not true.

But the point is you’re a widget. You are no longer in charge of a goddamn thing. You are just an employee. And I know that people on the television side will say, “That’s never going to happen. That’s not how TV works.” And all I can just do is point to features and say I refute you thus. Because that’s exactly how features work. And the only difference is its culture. There’s nothing else stopping it.

It’s not like writers are less important in features. We’re frankly more important, I would think, because it’s all one shot. That’s it. You get one episode of a film. And yet still this is how film works. And this is what they’re going to do to television if we aren’t – well, if we and the networks and streamers aren’t careful. Because these guys are coming, you know, they’re coming.

John: Yeah. My last observation would be that the real risk about building companies around the brands of individuals is that that individual does something bad and you’ve completely destroyed that company. And so like Reese Witherspoon is not going to do something terrible, but some of these other people they could do something terrible. And suddenly all that value just goes away. And that is I think a real risk and a real danger. Everyone is sort of like one bad paparazzi shot away from these things evaporating. And so that is a real risk that I hope people who are investing in this company are keeping in mind.

Because we’ve seen that happen in features and TV all this–

Craig: But the guy investing in it backs Donald Trump. I just don’t think he cares. [laughs]

John: Yeah, no.

Craig: Yeah. I don’t think he cares. I mean, it’ll be interesting to see. I mean, I don’t mean to sound like just an endlessly negative nelly about a new thing, because there is a risk that you just sound like a reactionary who is afraid of anything new. And to repeat this is something that will ideally ride alongside agents. But the thing I’m interested about, John, just looking ahead to the future is what are the agencies going to do about this? Because there is this one lever that they haven’t ever really thrown against management companies because management companies have essentially agreed to a kind of truce. The big ones at least. And that is if you’re going to compete with us then we’re going to go to the state because there’s law involved. And you are essentially violating the law, because you are procuring employment.

It’s probably not going to work, because there’s so many ways around it. From the writer’s point of view I don’t necessarily think empowering management companies like this is remotely good for us, because it’s just taking what we just fought against and making it so much worse. So we were fighting against people that were throwing grenades at us, and so the grenade throwers went, OK, we’re out of the grenade business. We are now in the rocket-launching business. OK. Well, let’s see how it goes.

John: All right. We will follow up on this probably for the next five years.

Craig: Yeah, fun.

John: See how long this podcast goes.

Craig: Yeah.

John: But let’s get to some questions, because man this virtual mailbag is very, very full.

Craig: Swollen.

John: We’ll start with Andy from Brooklyn. Do you want to take Andy from Brooklyn?

Craig: Hey, Andy, what’s up, buddy? That used to be how people would talk from Brooklyn. I was born in Brooklyn.

John: Were you playing stickball?

Craig: My dad played stickball. The late Leonard Mazin played stickball. He was actually in Lower Manhattan. He was in the Lower East Side, which is no good. But, yeah, they came from that generation. People singing Doo-wop on the steps and all of that. Plus, don’t forget, deeply entrenched racism.

Andy from Brooklyn asks, “How do you decide what to write next? Obviously you write what someone is willing to pay you for, but you’re both at a place where you have a serious say in what you get to turn to after you put a finished project behind you. So setting aside financial pressures, once you clear the decks and the sky is the limit how do you choose the next project to dive into?”

John, how do you do it?

John: For me there’s always a bunch of things that are appealing. They’re shiny bobbles that like, oh, when I get the time I want to do that thing. And it’s generally those projects that have stuck around the longest in my brain that say like, oh OK, this is the time do that.

But, whenever the decks do get a little bit clearer, they’re never like fully clear, but they get a little bit clearer, I would say that it has to be something that is an area that I wanted to do for a while and I have a new way into it. So there has to be something new about the idea. Something like, oh, that’s really appealing about it. And it has to marry with something that I’ve been itching to do for a long time. So this is not a true thing at all, but let’s say I always wanted to do a western. And for years I always wanted to do a western. And if I had some new way into doing a western, like OK that’s what is appealing to me. That’s probably the thing I’m going to write next.

So it’s really a chance to marry something old and something new is what gets me over that hump. A thing I’ve said before on the podcast, actually the first time I said it was in Episode 100, is that as I’m sorting through which things I’m going to actually sit down and write, I will try to prioritize the thing that has the best ending. Because beginnings are really easy. It’s the good ending that will actually finish that project.

Craig: The ending is everything. It’s a good question. And I think if people ask this question every 100 episodes they’ll get slightly different answers from me. And possibly from you as well, because our careers do change. Part of this process is actually a kind of therapy. You need to examine your own sense of self-worth and you need to interrogate whether you’re being precious because you’re afraid, or whether you’re being selective because of just a general healthy self-regard. It’s tricky. Right?

And we do not decide things rationally. This we know. As human beings we are not rational. So I think about it a lot. I tend to torture myself a little bit over it. Some writers are more tortured about these things than others. But there is a general phrase that I have in my mind these days, and it’s something that Casey Bloys who is the Head of Programming at HBO and now HBO Max, and I suppose once HBO expands to HBO Galactic he will be in charge of that as well. When we were talking about, OK, well what am I going to do after Chernobyl I said, “Well what do you guys want?” Which is a very me thing to ask. I’m very people-pleasing. What do you guys want?

And he said, “What I want is for you to work on something that makes you levitate.” And I was like that’s such a great way of thinking about it. The thing that just thrills you. If you are lucky enough, you’ve gotten to a place in your career through hard work, talent, or just dumb luck – I don’t care – either way you’re there where you do have a chance to be selective and pick, pick the thing that just makes you levitate, that gets you excited, that you love. And that will carry you through.

And for me part of the trick is forcing myself to be patient because every time you say yes you are eliminating a thousand other yeses you could say for that amount of time. So, I was just forcing patience on myself and I’m happy I did, because then along came the possibility of doing The Last of Us which makes me levitate.

So, hooray.

John: I’ve been meaning to ask you, with The Last of Us, it’s always hard to do this kind of introspection after the fact, but was The Last of Us a chance to say that’s a series I would love to watch, or was it back when you played the game you said like I really want to adapt this but I will never have the opportunity to.

Craig: The latter. In fact, I always describe myself like virtually in my mind as a kid outside of a candy store, or maybe the Little Matchstick Girl. Hans Christian Andersen, by the way, if you’re ever in the mood for something dark, flip through those stories. Little Matchstick Girl, all she wants is to be warm and eat food. And there’s a family inside eating food in a warm place and she’s freezing outside, slowly lighting her matches so that she doesn’t die immediately. But then she freezes to death. Thanks Hans Christian Andersen.

Well that was me in my head. You know, I played that game. I thought it was absolutely gorgeous. I was just enthralled by it. I knew it should be adapted. And I also knew that I would never be able to get within a hundred yards of Neil Druckmann without a restraining order. So, it just wasn’t where I was in my career. I knew that I could. I just didn’t have the evidence that I could. And I’m a realistic person enough to know that that matters.

So, many years later when it became something that could be, it just – well I suppose part of the levitation was that it had been many years in the dreaming. And so that was a nice thing.

John: Yeah. There’s a project I’m working on which is not announced but it is a similar situation where I watched this thing and said like, oh, someone is going to make that, I wish I could be that someone. But I have no idea how I would even start that conversation. And then 20 years later they called.

Craig: Aw.

John: And so that is a fantasy when that happens. And recognizing that I’m probably a really good person to do that thing is always great when that can happen.

Craig: And I hope people hear the word “years” in there, because–

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: I mean, we’re talking 20 years. The amount of patience required is, mmm, it’s a lot.

John: I do want to get a little back to Andy’s framing of it, though, because we’re talking about like we have these remarkable opportunities which other people may not have. But you always have the choice of what you’re going to write. And in underlying our decisions about all this stuff is what Craig says about the thing that makes him levitate, to me it’s like what movie do I wish I could see that I can’t see. And that is always the framing behind the choices I make.

So, right when I was starting off as a writer I wrote something like Go because I really wanted to see Go and Go didn’t exist. And that is the kind of question you should be asking yourself as you’re thinking about the next thing to write.

Craig: Yeah. Just be patient but don’t be afraid. Think of that as you’re bowling in a bowling alley and you’ve got two gutters on either side. On the left side is I’m just rushing into things because I’m impatient. And the right gutter is I’m afraid of doing anything so I’m going to be pointlessly picky. You’ve got to figure out how to be somewhere in the middle to make that healthy decision. And if you have somebody that you can talk about it with who isn’t going to be endlessly bored by your obnoxious Hamlet-like dithering that can help, too.

So, you know, I’ve often Hamlet-like dithered to Scott Frank and vice versa. I find that he and I share a lot of the same just, oh you know, “Should I do it?” It’s like, oh, for the love of god. So we slap each other in the face and say, yes, or no. And it’s quite nice. [laughs]

John: I’ve gotten much better at saying no quickly, also. Someone will come to me with something and it’s like do I want to do that? And it’s like the answer is – I try to go for the hell yes or absolutely no.

Craig: Yeah. Yeah.

John: Let’s take a listener question that comes in audio form. We love when people attach their question in audio form. Here’s David from London.

David: Hey guys. I’ve got a question about writing the same material more than once. As I’m writing spec scripts and you hit that stage where you suddenly realize what stories you’re telling, I keep finding I’m writing the same story in different ways. They’re like different genres, different characters, different kinds of scenes, but the underlying heart of the piece turns out to be the same. So I discover I’m writing two stories about a child’s desire for respect from a parent. Or two explorations of toxic romance. It doesn’t repeat, so I’m not kind of endlessly writing the same story, but it’s kind of weird that it keeps happening without my meaning it to. And I just wondered if this was something that you recognized, something you’ve experienced, or if you fancy talking about it?

And just as a final comment, thanks so much for taking the time each week to do this. It’s so very much appreciated. Cheers guys.

John: Well, so first off, David from London, you are clearly the guy on Head Space, because that’s exactly the Head Space voice that you use there. So, thank you for talking me through my anxiety on a nightly basis.

I completely recognize what David is talking about. And I think what he’s describing is realizing that just like stories have themes, writers have themes that you come back to again, and again, and again. And if you look at any creative person’s work you’re going to find common things that sort of unite them no matter what genre they’re working in. There’s ideas that seem to be stuck in certain people’s heads. And for me almost every story I’ve told, every movie I’ve written, tends to be a character who is stuck between two worlds. And they have to find their way back to their original world or change that second world. But they’re all kind of exactly that. And you can chart them.

So it’s very natural. It’s also just sort of how a person’s brain works is that they’re going to gravitate towards certain grooves that are just there. And I say it’s good to be aware of it, but you don’t necessarily need to fight it.

Craig: Yeah. I actually think this is weirdly good news, David. Because this is an indication that there is an author. And John is right. There are themes that are going to emerge over and over. By the way, we forgive the artists that we appreciate on that are already working. We forgive this of them all the time. In fact, we kind of praise them for it. And then when we’re doing it ourselves we somehow start to doubt that this is a good thing. But it’s not. I mean, the important thing that you said is that the stories are not the same. They’re not repeating. It’s simply what they’re ultimately about that’s repeating.

So, many years ago, not before I was working on Chernobyl but before we ever shot Chernobyl, Marc Webb, the director who I was working with on another project, a script that I wrote for a feature, he said, “You know, it’s interesting when I look at the things you’re writing now they all turn on the difficulty that people have facing hard truths.” And I cannot explain how different this feature was from Chernobyl. I mean, on the surface 180 degrees different. But underneath, this kernel of the same thing.

And I feel it coming up over and over in everything I write. The way that you maybe feel this like caught between two worlds thing coming up over and over, I keep feeling this kind of difficulty we have dealing with hard truth. This is good. I think it’s good. So, the answer specifically, to answer your question, it is something I recognize. It is something I experience. And I don’t think it’s a problem. And, yes, if it changes over time that also is a sign that you are actually here as a human being and a simulation, although we all are simulations. I mean, to say you’re not a simulation within the simulation.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: You are no more of a simulation than I am.

John: To tie this back into our previous question, I think it also speaks to the project you write next is going to probably be the one that actually fits those grooves, just fits your brain properly. And so sometimes you’ll have ideas and you’ll say like, yeah, that’s a movie, but it’s not one of my movies. It’s just not a thing that I feel right writing. It’s not going to actually work correctly underneath my fingers. But I would totally see that movie. But it’s not a movie that I would actually make myself.

And that’s a crucial part of the decision-making process.

Craig: 100 percent. Let’s hear from Minnie. Minnie asks, “I’m writing a character who is an aspiring artist. Consequently, she decorates her room in posters of some of her favorite artists, not all of whom are famous or immediately recognizable but share a thematic connection to our protagonist. There is a poster that hangs in a prominent position in her bedroom and although I named the artist and title I wonder what I should do should the reader not immediately know the reference. If you were in my position would you describe the painting, or rely on the reader to be curious enough to look it up before or after the read?”

This is an excellent – I love this question, John. What do you think Minnie should be doing here?

John: So, what I think Minnie should be doing here in 2020 is describing the image in a way that is helpful to the reader, also making it clear if possible sort of how that ties into your aspiring artist’s goals/ambitions. Why it’s meaningful for her to have it there on the wall. That’s my answer for 2020.

I would say my answer for 2021/2022 is that you will probably a link in that script that links out to an image of that poster so people can see it. You can do that now, but it would be a little bit unusual to have that just in your PDF. But it’s doable. And it probably isn’t going to throw people for it to be there. But I think it’s increasingly going to be more common to see those kind of references there for things that are actually story important. Craig, what do you think?

Craig: Yeah. I feel like we’re almost done with 2020. Please, can we be done with 2020? So I’m going to go ahead and just jump to 2021. I think you can put it in the script. I mean, yes, you can absolutely put a link in now if you wanted and hope that somebody would click on it, but you can also just take a page of your script – so you make your PDF from the text and then you grab an image of that painting and any normal PDF program, even Preview you can do this, you just slot it into that PDF in the spot it belongs. So as they’re reading the script they get to page 89, or sorry in your case I’m sure it would be page 9, and it describes this painting. And you can even say see next page on it if you like, or they just turn the page and there’s the painting with a little bit of text underneath that says what the painting is. I think that would be enormously helpful actually.

Because the painting is important.

John: Yeah.

Craig: It makes total sense to me. It’s the kind of thing that you should treat like very powerful spice. When a dish calls for it add it carefully. When it doesn’t, leave it out.

John: Yeah, for sure. I think it’s a thing right now you’re doing once, maybe twice in a script, and it really has to be for a very good reason. Rian Johnson does this in his script for Looper where there’s a very specific image that he needs you to be able to understand and see. Here’s the counter argument is that for the nearly 100 years of cinematic history somehow we’ve gotten by without sticking images in our scripts and it’s been OK. And somehow we’ve been able to make really good movies without doing it. So, it’s not essential, but if you feel like the ability for the reader to understand what’s happening there is super important that they see this image, I think we’re now at a place where we’re saying like just include the image.

Craig: Yeah. I think so. I think we’re there.

John: Cool. Another audio question. Let’s take a listen to Leigh.

Leigh: Hi Craig and John. My name is Leigh and I’m calling from Tallinn, Estonia, though I’m obviously British. First of all, thank you for the inspiring screenwriting education you’ve given me for free from Craig and for the small tiny payment for the Premium feed and t-shirts from John. You’ve started me on a journey that I hope to one day payback to other screenwriters.

My question may be difficult to answer, but that’s kind of why I’m asking you. I’m writing a feature set against a backdrop of real world historical events. It dramatizes the story of post-WWII resistance movement in the Baltics. I’m creating two fictional characters that will endure the real story from that time. So real events, fictional characters. Events are just insane and cinematic, but they just didn’t all happen to the same people, so I’m doing that bit.

My question is about how characters change in stories based within real events. So, Craig used a composite character in Chernobyl played by Emily Watson. Did you reverse engineer the events and then find the most appropriate character to endure them? How would you approach that for a leading character? I do know that in many stories, but not all, The King’s Speech being an outstanding example, but many real stories the characters don’t change much. And I think this is especially true of war movies. The world around them changes more than they do as they win or lose their battles.

So many thanks for any help you can offer in this and thanks for all you do.

Craig: Well that’s a very good question.

John: Craig, start us out, did you reverse engineer any stuff, especially this composite character based on the real events? How did you approach her since she wasn’t based on anybody real?

Craig: Well, she obviously, I created her to satisfy a narrative need, or else I wouldn’t have done it. What I understood from my research was that there were a lot of functions that various scientists were fulfilling. And all of them were important to represent. But it was not going to be narratively realistic to have them be so fragmented among eight, nine, 10 different people, some of whom come and then leave and never come back again. And I also wanted to be able to point out something about Soviet society that a lot of people aren’t familiar with which is that women actually did have a more progressive role in the science and medicine spaces in the Soviet Union than they did in the United States at the same time.

So, that created a need. And a solution became apparent. So I wasn’t reverse engineering anything because I wanted her to be there. She made sense to help me tell the story of things that happened. But her character, the way she is, that is my invention, obviously. And that exists that way because it serves a dramatic function vis-à-vis the character of Legasov that’s played by Jared Harris. She represents something to him. They have a relationship that is about conflict and then ultimately consensus and challenge and so forth. But she doesn’t change much. She’s not the protagonist. So, Leigh is asking a really interesting question about how – I mean, of course you can create fictional characters. Most historical drama uses fictional characters. Especially something like the story that he’s contemplating which is a terrific story but doesn’t necessarily feature – it’s not like you’re telling a story about London in WWII and you’re proposing that the Prime Minister is a guy named Cowell or something. We know it was Churchill, right? So that’s not like this.

They can change as much as you want them to, but your protagonist should change. That’s one of the aspects of drama. But they change in small ways. I mean, in The King’s Speech he does change. And he changes in part through friendship. And in his belief in what his role is. And so, you know, for you I would argue that you may be – I don’t want to say you’re overthinking things, but your main character has to change in some small way.

Yes, the world changes dramatically around them, but they are changed by it and also who they are in the beginning. There’s something that must be overcome. King’s Speech is actually a great example because the King was not supposed to be the King. His brother was supposed to be the King. But his brother abdicates the thrown and now the one with the stutter is King. And on some level he doesn’t think he should be. And then he does. And he triumphs and he does a great job in a moment where the nation needs a King. Very simple.

But that’s the kind of stuff that you need to at least consider when you’re looking at comparative dramas like The King’s Speech.

John: I want to say first off, Leigh, it’s so brave of you to say that you’re thinking about making this story against the backdrop of the WWII resistance movement in the Baltics because anyone listening to the show could steal your idea.

Craig: [laughs]

John: [laughs] And obviously rush off and make that. So, I mean, brave on that front. But as I was listening to your question all I could think about were counter examples. Because you talk about how in war films characters don’t change that much, and I think but they do. So you’re a Premium member, so I know you have access to the back catalog. Take a listen to the episode I did with Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns about 1917. There you have set against the backdrop of the First World War, but it’s very much a character protagonist story going through it. And it works like an adventure story, a thriller, but it’s set against this backdrop. And it is entirely doable.

So, if the story that you’re proposing to tell is really a broad spectrum, like let’s talk about the Baltics, then yeah maybe it’s harder to get your characters to be driving that story. But within that framework I just say pick the story that actually has characters who do fascinating things and let that be the world in which your story is happening rather than the story itself.

Craig: Yea. You’re going to do fine. The fact that you’re even asking the question is a good sign. People are asking good questions today. I like these questions. Wait, surely there will be a bad one. Let’s see if the next one is.

John: This one is great. I actually texted you about this. So, Anonymous writes, “I’m wondering if you two know anything about the rights to works written while married and how they are handled in divorce. I am an amateur writer and have not yet made any money off my work, but if the wife and I were to split could she make a community property claim since they were written during the marriage? I know you’re not lawyers and this is probably state specific, but I was just wondering if you had any experience or knowledge of this issue.”

And so Craig I texted you and you did not have any firsthand knowledge.

Craig: No. No. All I know is that this dude is getting divorced. [laughs]

John: There’s a reason he’s anonymous.

Craig: Yeah.

John: So, I asked a divorce lawyer and she wrote back and this is what she said. She said, “This is very common these days. The actual script is community property. The control though goes to the writer. Any potential proceeds could be a mix of community property and separated property depending on the labor, skill, and effort required to monetize the IP. He may need to rewrite or spend many hours selling this script. A script most times is worthless as is.” So basically saying it is community property to the degree to which you wrote it during the time you were married, but obviously there’s a lot of work that’s probably happening after that.

She goes on to say, “Many times we agree in the dissolution judgment to just reserve jurisdiction over how the IP asset is handled and determine that later. Most times nothing comes of it. It is preferable though to address and confirm the script is his separated property in the judgment to avoid later having to address this. The Amadeus movie is a perfect example. The wife came back later.”

And so had you heard about the Amadeus divorce and what that whole situation was?

Craig: I have not. Tell me about it. Dish.

John: So I didn’t either, so I had to follow up on it. So Saul Zaentz is the producer of Amadeus. He’s a big producer. Did a lot of other things. But he owned Amadeus during the marriage and then it got produced afterwards and the wife in the divorce came back later and said, “Oh, the value of that happened during our marriage so therefore I’m entitled to more money.” So post-divorce she was able to come back and claim that. And actually did get some money from that.

So, we’ll put a link in the show notes to the actual case findings of it which is interesting. But what I love most about the case was footnote number five in this finding said, “The Hollywood film industry is seemingly hesitant to make what is known as ‘costume dramas.’” And so this is back from like 1982 or whenever this was.

Craig: Well, it’s true.

John: It’s true.

Craig: No, it’s true. I also like this line, I’m just looking through it now. Under the heading “The Project Financing.” Because I mean part of it was that essentially she was saying, look, I think it was worth this. And he’s like it’s not worth that. “Project Financing. It is no hyperbole to describe the relevant financial history as a circuitous journey through a labyrinth of interlocking and interrelated corporate entities, family trusts, and closely owned holding companies.” That sure does sound like the entertainment business. Oh, god, what a swamp.

John: All right, so let’s get back to Anonymous and sort of our advice to Anonymous I think would be, yeah, you should anticipate that certainly based in California which is the lawyer I was talking to it will be considered community property. If you are going to get divorced it’s worth thinking about the stuff, but it’s not going to be unprecedented to sort of just push that aside.

In most cases it really won’t matter.

Craig: Yeah, sorry.

John: But it could.

Craig: Yeah, I mean–

John: I’m also sorry about your marriage.

Craig: Yeah, what she’s saying is she’s saying nothing is going to happen with that script. That’s what she’s literally saying. But it could. But it could. And so that makes sense. They’re like, yeah, OK, this is so speculative we’ll just boot it down the line. Good luck. We’re all counting on you.

John: Let’s do two more. These are actually good, quick answers. So let’s try this.

Craig: All right. Well we have formatting a misdirect. David writes, “I’m writing a boy meets girl two-hander. I have both characters on a bus talking with their sidekick friend. I want to set it up to feel like it’s the same bus but it’s not. Does each scene/bus need its own header? That would ruin the experience of mystery for the reader, but combining it into one scene feels like sloppy writing.” John, what do you think about this formatting question?

John: I think David is asking exactly the right question and what he’s anticipating is that you want the experience for the reader to be as close as possible to the experience of the viewer. And so my instinct for this would be don’t necessarily make it a whole separate scene header. But I would say Right Side of Bus, and then we have the conversation with these two friends. And then Left Side of Bus. So as a viewer we’re going to anticipate like, oh, they must be on the same bus because he’s saying right side/left side. And then when it is revealed that they’re on two separate buses that may be a situation where you do want to bold face or underline, make it clear that they really were on separate buses, because as a viewer we’ll understand that.

But you’re asking the right question. And the best solution is to do something that feels like what the movie is going to feel like and don’t worry about separate scene headers.

Craig: Yeah, just generally good advice. Formatting misdirect, misdirect. That’s what the advice is. Right? So you can do what John said. You can even just say that this one is talking to this one and then in a different seat this one is talking to this one. The important thing is that when you do reveal you say, oh, these are not – we thought these were the same buses but in fact they are not. Just say, da-da, magic trick. So that the reader who ideally is someone who understands how movies are made and is not just an audience member goes, OK, I see the trick you’re doing. We are all magicians. We understand you were palming that. Got it. Thank you.

So just, yeah, just misdirect. That’s it. Simple as that.

John: So, when it comes time for the line producer, first AD to do the schedule they’ll grumble a little bit because they’ll have to figure out how many pages to assign to each setup situation.

Craig: They’ll fix it. They’ll fix it.

John: They’ll figure it out.

Craig: What they’ll do is they’ll just go through and they’ll give those things, because at that point the misdirect doesn’t matter anymore. You win. You convinced people to make the movie. At that point they’ll put in new things and they’ll make scene numbers as they desire. That’s up to them.

John: Great. A question from Adam who writes, “I’m writing a story that is set in another galaxy, or a distant future. But what is the best way to describe the character? Do I want to keep the reader in the same story and try to be poetic? For example, Wood, 40, looks like the Samoans of old earth. Or should I simply write it for casting? Wood, 40, Samoan. Even though he’s from a made up planet that is nowhere near Samoa.”

So really he’s talking about the idea of race and identity based on current expectations when it doesn’t really make sense for the situation.

Craig: I’ll tell you what I did for the script I wrote for Borderlands. I had a little opening page after the title page, before the movie began, that basically said here’s what you need to know. People can be any race that we know of. It doesn’t matter, so I’m not going to tell you what they are. Just presume a wide variety. And in fact in this place race is not relevant.

You can also just say I’m going to refer to people in terms people might understand for casting purposes, even though of course no one in this movie has heard of Samoa or Earth or our galaxy at all. You can just sort of get it out of the way in the front if you want.

Because I actually agree that if you say Wood, 40, Samoan, it is going to kind of make me go, “Huh?” Is there a planet Samo in this movie? Or does he mean Samoa like Samoan here on Earth? So, yeah, I think make a statement. And then–

John: And then he’s good. There’s a project I’m working on where I have a very similar kind of statement. It’s a fantasy world. And I basically just say at the start people’s races don’t match up the way we expect and we deliberately we should not even try to make sure that brothers and sisters don’t need to match our expectation of race. And that we are distinguishing these cultures by clothing but not by perceived race.

Craig: In that thing I wrote just to try and make it entertaining in and of itself I just said, “In this galaxy people just don’t give a damn about your skin color at all. Except there is one planet where the people have this beautiful constantly changing iridescent skin and everybody thinks they’re the most amazing things in the world. And everybody just worships them, except for those privileged people. No one cares what your skin looks like.” And when they were talking about making the movie and they’re like budgeting they’re like, well, we’ve got to figure out how we’re doing those people from the planet. And I’m like they’re not in the movie. [laughs] Argh. That happens more often than you think.

John: Everything that’s on the page has to be there somewhere. They’re like theater people. They’re just taking it far too literally.

Craig: Yes. Yes.

John: It was kind of fun. We ran out of time for our subtext question, or did we? We’ll never know.

Craig: Oh, hmm.

John: Maybe the subtext was that we never needed to answer the question.

Craig: Whoa.

John: Quickly I want to go through two little bits of follow up. Zach wrote in to say, “After listening to Episode 463 on action and seeing how Near Dark was formatted it made me think about this spec script that CAA is currently taking out and was subbed to us at our production company. I believe Craig has talked about this before, but the formatting is original and being a buyer I actually enjoyed how they changed it up from the normal formatting, especially because it was clean and clear. It’s super kooky. It has pictures and drawings throughout. The action is written like Near Dark. And scene headings are done in green like a Dan Gilroy script.”

So, Craig, I threw it in the folder so you could take a look at it. It is goofy, but it has sort of like a kid’s book, like a picture book feel to it which is appropriate for sort of the genre. So if you’re doing that script maybe it’s fine. I guess it offers me some vision for sort of what the movie feels like. I don’t know that it makes me more likely to make the movie. But it does stick out.

Craig: If you try interesting, kooky things in a script that people like, they will like your kooky things. They will give you credit for being interesting and innovative. And if they don’t like the script you’re just breaking rules and you stink. It is literally just–

John: It’ll feel like a gimmick. Yeah.

Craig: Yeah. It’s just the quality of the story. And if it is a good story then things like pictures and drawings and stuff like that will enhance it. They will. Because people will want more, as in they will want the movie. And if it’s not and they’re bored then you’re just putting something that they didn’t want on food they don’t like. So, who wants that? Nobody.

John: Funny how that happens.

Craig: Nobody.

John: Benjamin, he wrote in to say that one of John’s One Cool Things was the new Mythic Odysseys of Theros source book for D&D. And he says Theros is actually the setting for the Match of the Gathering universe that was adapted to fit the rules of fifth edition D&D, which I kind of knew but kind of forgot to say when I was giving that as my One Cool Thing.

He goes on to say, “What’s even better is that Wizards put out a new series of articles called Plane Shift where you can bring your D&D game to a number of Magic the Gathering worlds.” So I’ll put links in the show notes to these. But, Craig, those are all clickable links. They’re so cool. And so there’s an Ancient Egypt one. There’s a sort of standard medieval fantasy. Gothic horror. This one looks great, so it’s 17th Century exploration. There’s these vampire conquistadores. There’s pirates. There’s mer folk. There’s dinosaurs.

So, anyway I love sort of the variety of worlds that they are trying to lay out for you and getting away from the very classic Tolkien-ish medieval fantasy stuff. Anyway, I just want to put those out there as examples of world-building for the sake of world-building.

Craig: You can tell that they are widening their palette as it were. And becoming aware, in a good way, of the breadth of the kinds of people that are starting to play D&D. And so why not? I mean, the more the merrier.

John: I love it. Our last bit of follow up today is a correction. Back in our episode on writing action we talked about Black Panther, but I forgot to include its co-writer J.R. Cole in the outline. That’s my mistake. I emailed Joe to apologize. We’ve also updated the PDF and the transcript. Now, onto our One Cool Things.

Craig, my One Cool Thing feels like it should be a you One Cool Thing because it’s the Batman teaser trailer which has–

Craig: I know.

John: –a puzzle in it which was quickly solved. And it feels so up your alley.

Craig: It is. So Mike Selinker is somebody that I’ve known for a bit through Twitter. He wrote a former One Cool Thing of mine called the Maze of Games. Do you remember Maze of Games?

John: I do. Yeah.

Craig: So that was Mike. He’s great. And he cracked this. And I believe that my retweet of it was what popularized it. I’m going to take credit for this because–

John: You absolutely should. Because you have a giant Twitter following now, which is great.

Craig: You know, listen. I’m a Selinker booster. He’s great. And it was a really good walkthrough of how you crack a simple–

John: Yeah, I really enjoyed his thread.

Craig: It’s a cryptogram. It’s pretty standard puzzle thing. And there are basically standard ways of doing it. And what I liked about what he did was he did it by hand. It’s incredibly easy to take that cipher, put it in a crypto quote breaker online and it just brute forces it. And it will give it to you within seconds. But he walked you through the logic behind it. And the logic was great. And it was also hats off to the Batman people. It was good, punny answer to the little riddle.

John: Yeah. We won’t spoil it, but I thought it was nicely done.

Craig: Yes. You can tell they’re working with puzzle people. You can tell. They’re working with puzzle people. So that was fun.

John: That felt like a you One Cool Thing. My other One Cool Thing is these swim goggles that I got that I actually really like a lot. So most swimming goggles they just don’t fit my face right. They leak or they put a big groove in my nose. But Mike got me these swim goggles that are actually really good and they’re cheap and they’re on Amazon. So, it’s a company called Zionor. I don’t know what that company actually is. The reviews were good on Amazon.

Craig: Zionor.

John: And they were inexpensive. And when you have good goggles you can just see so well under water. It’s amazing. So, if you’re looking for goggles that seem good and don’t scratch and are polarized so you can really see everything well, I’d recommend this brand of swim goggles.

Craig: Zionor sounds like the planet that you’re from.

John: It does sound like my home planet. Or perhaps it is the – are there Samoan people on Zionor? That’s really the question.

Craig: There are not. There are no people on it. There’s just inorganic life forms who are like, “Goggles help you see under water.” That’s how I know that you don’t really have eyes. I’m onto you man. I’m onto you.

My One Cool Thing is also D&D related. Dungeons & Dragons has announced another rules expansion book called Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything.

John: I’m so excited.

Craig: Yes! So in D&D there are some spells that are named after famous wizards. They are probably no longer with us, although I suppose some of them maybe are wandering around on some demi plane above us, like Mordenkainen or Otiluke.

John: Or [unintelligible].

Craig: Or Big B. Yes. And then there’s Tasha. Tasha who is most famous for Tasha’s hideous laughter. And she has inspired some of the great spells of all time. And anyway Tasha apparently has a Cauldron of Everything, which is a great name, and in it – so D&D keeps sort of expanding subclasses, character options, new spells, new rules. It’s so much. And it’s a little daunting, especially if you’re a DM because it wasn’t like there was a fairly limited range of things that your players could do. So as a DM you kind of need to learn everybody’s character and everybody’s stuff. And you’re like, oh boy, here we go again.

But, you know, some of that stuff is great. I find that a lot of the new stuff that they’re putting out tends in my mind, tends to be a little bit overpowered, which is interesting. So we’ll see how it works with Tasha’s. But I’m going to get it. I’m going to read it.

John: Of course.

Craig: It’s got magical tattoos in it, man.

John: Come on. Who would not want a magical tattoo?

Craig: Come on. I want one.

John: Yeah. That is our show for this week. Stick around after the credits if you’re a Premium member because we will talk about headshots and getting our photos taken. But in general that is the show. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Rajesh Naroth. Welcome back Rajesh.

If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust. We have t-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. We just put up a new t-shirt which was based on a quote of mine from Frankenweenie about science. So, we’ll put a link in the show notes to the new science shirt that we have up there.

You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We try to get them up about four days after the episode airs.

You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. And, Craig, thanks for a fun show.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus segment]

John: Westworld. OK. Let’s talk about headshots. And this came to me as a topic because this last week it was announced that I’m writing this movie with Ryan Reynolds.

Craig: Congratulations, by the way.

John: Thank you. I’m excited to be doing that. And so we decided to actually place the story and put it in Deadline because we didn’t want it kind of coming out accidentally and we wanted to control it a little bit more about making sure that the log line wasn’t out or wasn’t billed as something that we didn’t want it to be. And so doing it this way I could actually say like which photo I wanted to use because in general whenever I show up in the trades I hate the photos that they pick. And there’s some decent photos of me out there, but there’s some really terrible ones. And the one that they default to is always this thing from when I got this DGA award. And I’m wearing this tux and my hands are really big. It feels super goofy. And so I wanted to control which photo they used.

Craig: Now I’m looking for that one right now.

John: Oh, you’ve got to look for that one.

Craig: Yeah. I want to see it. Let’s see. Images. Oh, yeah, there it is. You’re so happy in it.

John: Yeah, it’s natural to be happy.

Craig: Your hands don’t look enormous. They look proportionate.

John: Well, there’s a couple ones there. So there’s the ones where I’m sort of touching myself.

Craig: Oh?

John: And there’s one where my hands are out.

Craig: Oh my.

John: I’m touching my chest.

Craig: Oh. Well I’m less interested. I have to turn my filter off I suppose to find that other one. [laughs]

John: [laughs] If you search “John August tuxedo.” But if you look for “John August headshot” let’s see which ones are there. Some decent ones here. So the fourth one across, the one I ended up picking, basically I liked that one, which is me in front of greenery. My friend Dustin Box took that. It’s actually my author photo for the Arlo Finch books and it feels fully appropriate for those situations.

Craig: You’re slightly smizing there. Right?

John: Yeah. Slightly smizing is the goal there.

Craig: Yeah. A slight smize.

John: Like I think many people I have a hard time, when you tell me to smile I will smile in a really strange way. And so then I default to a way of sort of deliberately not smiling and then I look way too serious.

Craig: Right. No, of course.

John: So, finding that balance is tough.

Craig: I mean, that is a direct challenge to whether or not you’re a human. I think that legitimately is like that’s the – what is it, the Voight-Kampff test from Blade Runner? Smile. [laughs]

John: Smile. You have to smile. I also love that if I google “John August headshot” the sixth photo across is actually John Logan.

Craig: Right. That’s kind of a slap in the face.

John: It is a slap in the face.

Craig: It’s like, you know what, you probably meant John Logan. John Logan, one of the best screenwriters working today for sure. And so, yeah, you don’t want John Logan popping up. It’s like, come on, they wanted me, for sure. For sure.

John: So, now I’m googling “Craig Mazin headshot” and let’s see what we get.

Craig: All right.

John: So I feel like this first shot is a new shot that you put out there. Is that correct? Because you have a beard.

Craig: That one was taken right around when I guess for the publicity, in advance of the publicity of Chernobyl.

John: Great. And the one next to it is the WGA awards one as well. Tuxedo. Looks good and handsome. The fourth one over is from many, many years ago. You’re younger but a much heavier person as well.

Craig: Yes.

John: So that’s not one they should be using.

Craig: Well, I mean, they can if they want. It’s stupid. It’s like 12, 13 years old. 12 years old? I don’t know how long ago that was. But I admire my tent-like shirt, you know. That’s nice. [laughs]

John: It is a tent-like shirt. But the sixth photo across is from our 100th Anniversary and that was a fun night and it’s the happiest I’ve seen you in many of these photos.

Craig: Yeah. Well, it’s interesting. The one just to the left of it, which is also from the Writers Guild Award does seem like a very similar, it’s like the same face but with beard.

John: Yeah.

Craig: But I like – let’s see, the seventh picture if you search for my headshot is you.

John: Yeah.

Craig: But not John Logan.

John: There’s no one else sort of quite like that. So, let’s segue from talking about ourselves to maybe some practical advice on this. People ask like, oh, as a writer do I need to get a headshot? And here’s the argument for it. At some point hopefully you will sell something and there will be a good reason to actually use that headshot. If you were to go and spend the $200 to actually get a good-looking headshot it could serve you well. And it’s nice when a story is run about you to actually have a good-looking photo so you don’t just hate the story. So that’s an argument for it. That’s great.

Does it need to be a professional headshot? Not necessarily. But it also just shouldn’t be some random selfie that you took. There’s a certain way that headshots in the trades look and you want it to fit generally that. So either it’s a head-on shot that is professionally taken, or it’s something like these WGA shots where you’re at an event and it’s on the red carpet or it’s some official situation.

Craig: Yeah. And those shots are the ones that the trades will default to if you don’t have something that you’re publicity person is sending in. When they are writing articles about you, so your thing was a press release. So when they get a press release they get the photo and they get the copy. Obviously they do what they want with the copy. But they generally will take that photo and use it. But when they’re writing an article about you that you are not putting out there they’ll grab whatever photo they want, because they don’t own your photo. They can’t use it without your permission. So you will end up usually with something from a red carpet or something like that.

If you don’t have anything like that then you may end up with one of those just rando photos. It’s a nice thing to have. We live in a time now where everyone has a headshot. I mean, I feel almost – because when you and I started in the business it was like a thing. You hire a photographer. And now with the cameras we have built into our phones and filtering and all the rest, I mean, my daughter could – I think my daughter has self-made a hundred headshots with her $23 ring light and all the rest of it. Everybody has become a headshot expert. Except for me. I still have no idea how to do it. None Zero.

John: General advice I’ve just learned from red carpets. And while there are some terrible photos of me on red carpets there are some that are actually not so bad. And what I’ve learned is that you actually have to look into the camera. You have to look down the barrel of the lens. And so you would think that like, oh, looking generally in that direction. But, no, your actual eye placement matters a lot.

Imagine you’re looking at the censor inside the camera. That’s actually connection. And that’s a thing you should aim for. And try to be natural and thinking about where your face is in relation to the lens helps some. But there’s going to be some bad shots and hopefully there will be some better shots. There’s a couple shots that are on the wire image or Getty images that are actually pretty good and I’ve actually considered buying and taking because they’re like better shots of me than I have from any other purpose. Maybe I should just do that.

Craig: I don’t know. Just feels like I’m buying myself?

John: You know, actually, what kills me is the best shot I’ve gotten in the last five years has been for this special feature that Apple did on Weekend Read and Highland. And so they came to the house. They had a photographer who flew down from San Francisco. It was like an hour’s worth of shooting in the garage here. And the photos were fantastic, but I cannot find those photos anywhere online. They were basically only in the App Store for the thing. And I want to be able – I can’t even find a credit for that photographer. Because I want to be able to just buy those photos and have them be my headshot. But I can’t.

Craig: It’s odd that Apple would have some sort of control over what you see or don’t see on the Internet.

John: Funny how that all works. And so Craig next time you announce a major project what photo would you like them to use of you? Which is your favorite? The new one?

Craig: Yeah. We did it so that I would have a headshot.

John: The headshot that you’re using now, so this is a headshot where you’re looking straight at us. Green soft background. I think you probably are outside.

Craig: Yes.

John: It’s not a fake backdrop.

Craig: That’s right.

John: And you look a little serious. You look a little Rob Reiner-ish if that’s not offensive. You look like a person who–

Craig: Chubby Jew? [laughs] I mean, you can just say Chubby Jew. You’re allowed to. I’ll let you say it.

John: But I would say this also looks like a writer, but it also looks like a person who can be cast as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. So, I think it does both of those things.

Craig: I mean, come on. I’m obviously the right choice. I’m obviously the right choice.

John: So I’m clicking it to make it bigger and I also say that you look like your age, but it also looks like a slightly optimized version of your age. It’s just slightly softened in ways that are flattering, which is appropriate.

Craig: I think that’s probably right. I mean, I don’t know exactly what they do. It doesn’t look particularly Photoshopped to me in the sense that I can still see some stubble and stuff and I have wrinkles, which I do in fact have. Somebody did a deep dive on this photo. Went into the eyeballs and like there are white things in your eyeballs. What is happening in there? And the answer is that that is the white bounce card that the photographer–

John: Yeah, it’s the bounce card. So it’s below and it’s pushing light up. And because the way your eyes work is, if I look at all these other photos, we can barely ever see your eyes because they’re set pretty deep in there and they’re little dark slits. So in order to see your eyes at all.

Craig: I’m pretty squinty. Yeah, I’m a squinty guy. When I smile – my daughter does this same exact thing. When I smile my eyes tend to just disappear. But there’s a couple photos of me where my eyes are wide open. That usually means I’m horrified. So just so you know if you see my eyes wide opened.

John: What has happened?

Craig: That means that I’m absolutely horrified by something.

John: Ah, good stuff.

Craig: Yeah.

John: All right, Craig. Thanks for talking through this.

Craig: Thanks, John.

 

Links:

• Pete Micelli/Steve Cohen Management Launch Adds WME’s Rich Cook, UTA’s Roussos, Fox, Mckinnies, Moorhead To CAA’s Whigham, Sullivan, Bugliari, Cooper
• The Great Agency Exodus: Top Reps Flee the Majors As Management Civil War Looms
• After Agency Exodus, New Firm Pitches Investors On Star-Driven Production “Cash Cow” (Exclusive)
• Batman Teaser
• Mike Selinker on Twitter
• Zionor Swim Goggles
• Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• John August on Twitter
• Craig Mazin on Twitter
• John on Instagram
• Outro by Rajesh Naroth (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. So today’s episode was recorded way back in January, pre-pandemic. I sat down with writer-director Lorene Scafaria and costume designer Mitchell Travers to talk about their collaboration on Hustlers and how to think visually about story. In this conversation we discuss locations, production design, cinematography, choreography, and some major focus on preproduction and the role of the writer.

We had a great audience with great questions. And I am suddenly so nostalgic for being in a room with strangers. So, listen to this conversation. I think you’ll really enjoy it and you’ll get a lot out of it. Craig would get a lot out of it because he’s always such a big fan of visual description of characters and really thinking visually about what you’re writing.

Now, Premium members stick around after the credits because I Skype with Mitchell seven months after the fact to answer a few more question that didn’t get answered that night, really about how screenwriters should be thinking about what their characters are wearing and the things he notices in scripts as a costume designer that drive him crazy. Just what research you need to do, what stuff you should not include. So I thought it’s a really good addendum to the conversation we had with Mitchell and Lorene.

So, that’s our show. I hope you enjoy it. It was a great conversation. Lorene is fantastic. Mitchell was a great find. And we’ll be back next week with a normal episode. Enjoy.

Hi everyone and welcome. It’s so exciting to be here. Lorene, I saw you right before the holidays because we talked about your amazing movie Hustlers on Scriptnotes, the holiday show. So we talked about the origin of the movie. We talked about how you got it all made. Let’s do the quickest recap for folks who didn’t listen to that episode. The quick recap of how Hustlers came to be as a movie.

Lorene Scafaria: It was a writing assignment. So I was sent the article the summer of 2016. Went in and gave my spiel for how I would adapt it to the screen. I was told to stop talking about wanting to direct it so I could get the writing job, so I tried. And then worked on a few drafts of the script. Then kind of waited patiently while they sent the script to a lot of other people. And I think it took 10 months to just get the meeting to put myself out there to direct it.

Got that. Then worked to get Jennifer Lopez on board. The movie kind of fell apart a number of times. We had a home, we lost a home. We brought it around town the week of the Kavanaugh hearings. And that was hard. And then STX, they were kind of the only place that got it, and stepped up and kind of saved the day. And then I still worked on a few more drafts of the script, kind of page one rewrites.

And then they green lit in mid-January 2019. And I had to move to New York and that was it.

John: You’re off to the races. So, you are a phenomenal screenwriter and people can read the screenplay that you wrote and they should read the screenplay you wrote because you wrote a phenomenal screenplay. We’re not going to talk anymore about that really tonight. This is not a night about talking about you as a screenwriter. This is a night about talking about you as a director. Because in our previous conversations we’ve talked about sort of origin and story and character and these points – and these are all things that a director would care about. But I really want to talk about the visual language of this movie and sort of how you marshalled all these talents together to create the movie that we’re watching, the movie that we’re seeing.

And I want to start with Mitchell and sort of how you came on board in this process. How did you find him? What was the connection here?

Lorene: Eighth Grade. Mitchell was working on that. I know the guy who made it. And so I sort of just told Mitchell I’m so sorry you’re doing this movie that I’m going to someday actually see made, Hustlers, so you had no choice. I’m so sorry.

Mitchell Travers: I never did.

Lorene: And that was it. I just loved his work. I thought he made these pieces in that film so iconic, that green bathing suit, and so many little moments of like girl culture. And, yeah, that was the origin really.

Mitchell: I remember we were on the set of Eighth Grade and I had had a wonderful conversation with Lorene. And moments later Bo came up and he was like, “So you’re doing Lorene’s movie?” And I was like, what? No one had ever talked to me about a movie and he was like, “Oh, it’s a stripper movie. She said you’re doing it.” And I just went along with it and I figured why not. I’ve never seen a stripper movie like this, so yeah, let’s go.

John: So what are the initial conversations? Did you send him the script? How do you start a conversation with a costume designer about sort of what the wardrobe look of a movie is going to be?

Lorene: Yeah, I sent him the script. And I mean it really is a movie told through wardrobe. It really is kind of the essential partner in storytelling honestly with this film. So, there were a lot of lines in the script about Destiny’s jewelry making noise in order to show her anxiety or nervousness or how uncomfortable she is during a scene. So, there were things in there that I think Mitchell picked up on right away. And, yeah, the sort of fun of this very recent period piece. I think that was a lot of what we talked about.

Mitchell: We share a love for or a nostalgia for this time and it can be looked down upon and it can be sort of trashy and unglamorous. But there was something about it that we just kept loving. And I would send her pictures of like Kim Kardashian with the ugliest handbag in the world, with just like heart emojis. And she would get it instantly.

And we sort of always had that shared joy about these amazing mistakes that we all made as a culture. You all did it. So, it was just a love letter to that time in our lives and these women’s lives.

John: So, both of you had to do a tremendous amount of research obviously to figure out time wise, because your memory fails you. You have to be able to do the research to figure out what was the look, what was happening in culture at this time. Lorene, what was your research process for figuring out what those specific time periods were like? Because there’s really two time frames we’re looking at. There’s a forward in time from when Destiny starts working at the club, but then we’re jumping forward to when she’s talking to the journalist. So, how do you approach those timelines?

Lorene: Well, my eyebrows never grew back from this era. So it started with making sure that Constance Wu was comfortable with tweezing her eyebrows into oblivion. Yeah, I mean, the research is certainly looking at old photographs. I think we forget what we were wearing in that time period. I think the style icons who were around during that time period. That’s part of the fun of having Jennifer Lopez even in this movie is taking like that–

John: She was probably taking cues – that character was taking cues from what Jennifer Lopez was wearing in the real world.

Lorene: That was her style icon for sure was Jennifer Lopez. But we had others in the mix. Miley Cyrus.

Mitchell: Miley Cyrus. Nicole Richie is like a goddess to me. And there were just really embarrassing things that happened between Paris and Nicole that I found a kinship to that relationship pretty early on. And then once you start it’s like a black hole that you can’t get out of because there’s Tila Tequila. There’s Flavor of Love. There’s early Beyoncé. And it’s just like this wealth of imagery.

John: So you have this imagery. What is the process of sharing this imagery? We’re trying to be really concrete in these things. Is it a Dropbox folder that you’re sharing? How are you getting this information back and forth between the two of you?

Mitchell: I use a website and it’s password protected and I have it for anybody that I’m collaborating with. And I also use it for my team as well, so that if you can’t get me or if somebody remembers an image that I showed them they can access it. I find that the idea of having boards is lovely, but the way we make movies, and especially the way we made this movie it was happening at such a pace that it had to be in your pocket at all times.

So I would put different boards together for each character. And update them – I would start to include the fitting photos in the research so that they sort of meld and you keep the ideas consistent.

John: Make sure we all know what fitting photos are of the actual actor in that wardrobe?

Mitchell: Correct. I outfitted out fitting room with Girls Girls Girls signs and these neon lights to try to create an atmosphere, to get the girls comfortable. So all of our fitting photos were done in that romantic light that we ended up using. But all of the fitting photos are just no hair, no makeup, just costumes, and trying to get people into the bones of these characters.

Lorene: And that’s a lot of it is making sure that obviously they feel comfortable in what they’re wearing, but also I mean these outfits are anything but comfortable. So much of the costume is the skin itself. But he’s right about the pace. It really was crazy. You certainly had some people there to fit them ahead of time and others not necessarily. A lot of lead up to it.

But it was one of those things where in order to control the color palette even a little bit, I said to Mitchell early on it might be good to have an obstruction, like what if there’s no green in this movie other than money. And I think we stuck to that.

Mitchell: We did.

Lorene: There’s some jade in there. I don’t know how you got it in there.

Mitchell: It’s the one dress. It’s the one dress.

John: So talk to me about obstructions. Because this is a conversation – this is a thing you’ll see in many movies, now that we’ve put this in your head you’re going to watch them and you realize a color is missing, or there’s this specific color palette for this past time period or this present time period. How early did you make some of those decisions? And was it just you? Is there a production designer who is involved? Who else is involved in those decisions?

Lorene: Yeah, it’s all of us. It’s the production designer, DP, Mitchell, costume designer, certainly that’s the main group who is deciding the look of it. I think early on I kind of had said to everybody it felt like the production design needed to be as grounded as possible. And the wardrobe felt like an opportunity to be a little more heightened. And that the camera felt like depending on a moment could dip between the two.

So we kind of started there. Color palette, again it’s kind of difficult. The truth is the richer you get the more color drains from your body.

John: Tell me more about that. What do you mean by that?

Lorene: I mean, I think if you go into those spaces, I mean, there’s certainly a contrast with Wall Street and the men and what they’re wearing. You got your blues and, you know. And I think that we have a progression of wealth for the women as well.

John: When we see Constance Wu in the future timeline she’s drained and she’s white and she’s in a white suit.

Lorene: She’s presenting herself as good as she can in this very clean environment.

Mitchell: That actually comes from Lindsay Lohan at court.

John: Nice.

Mitchell: And it’s true. And another day we fell down the rabbit hole and we started looking at what these women were wearing to their court appearances, because they were frequent at this time. And it was, you know, we found that there was this projection of innocence all the time where it was the days of Just Jared and Perez Hilton. So you could track the timestamps. The night before you would see a mesh top with the bra sticking out and the next morning you would see an all-white ensemble. And we just loved this idea that you can project the idea that you’ve done absolutely nothing wrong, even though those photos of the night before.

Lorene: The sobering reality of it, too. I mean, the contrast obviously throughout the film, but then it kind of catches up to itself. And by the end of the film I think the women, too, are in much more subdued colors.

John: You have Mitchell on board. How are you assembling the rest of your team? So I’m talking sort of your DP, your production designer, your art director. How are you putting these people together and what are the conversations you’re having with them and are they having with each other? How do you foster that teamwork?

Lorene: I met with so many DPs and talent and this position just kind of didn’t necessarily line up. And I remember I was about to pull the trigger on hiring someone, the nicest, most talented person that I had come across. Because the shorthand is so important and the relationship is so important. And it’s often contentious. And it doesn’t have to be.

And so I remember I was on the phone with Mitchell. It was actually our first like official conversation. So we probably should have been diving into a lot of things. I think we did a little bit. But that day after I had thought I was going to pull the trigger on someone I saw that Janelle Monáe video Make Me Feel and I was like who the hell shot this. And who is she? And her name was Todd Banhazl. But I was–

John: Why did you assume she was a woman?

Lorene: I don’t know. Just the aesthetic of it. The way that he shot women and their relationships and their bodies. I don’t know. I mean, that’s limited of me. Men can make great things. So sorry.

So I was on the phone with Mitchell and he said who is going to shoot this and I was like, ehhh, and then you said you have to meet Todd. He just happened to say it.

Mitchell: I had done a film with Todd. It was a very small film. But it was shot so romantically, even though the subject didn’t ask that of it. And frankly I hadn’t even really seen him since, but his work stayed with me from that film. And as I read Hustlers I just kept thinking like this is Todd. This is Todd’s movie. We were trying to figure out what was going to happen with this and I just felt that she didn’t feel like she had it yet. I was like this is my shot. It’s got to be Todd. Maybe he’s working. Maybe he doesn’t remember me. But this is his movie.

Lorene: You don’t understand. I had already called to say tell blah-blah-blah, you know, he’s hired. And so Mitchell said Todd and then I realized it was the same person whose music video I was like fawning over earlier that day. And I was like I’ve got to go. I have to hang up the phone—

Mitchell: She literally did.

Lorene: Stop the presses.

Mitchell: I was like she did Janelle Monáe’s video. And she was like, “I’ll call you back.”

John: So we’re going to talk first off about the DP relationship and what shooting and camera and all that stuff. So Todd couldn’t come tonight, but we’re going to talk through as if Todd were here and really look at that. But this idea of this being a romance is something I want to get into tonight and talk about. Because in many ways this does feel like a romance. It feels like Destiny and Ramona and their complicated relationship and yearning for approval and affection. In the writing and in how you were shooting it was that informing your choices?

Lorene: Yeah. It’s a love story. I think it informed so many drafts along the way. It was something that I think was discovered. I think the article paints the relationship between the women much more of like a business type relationship, more like partners. The minute I met Constance I thought there was going to be a really interesting dynamic between her and Jennifer, this sort of mentor/mentee relationship, but also mother/daughter, but also falling in love.

Yeah. I think as the process went along there was a point where I sort of felt like I needed to smash the script on the ground and so I opened up the title page and wrote Destiny and Ramona in its place. And kind of went from there. And that draft wasn’t what we ended up with, but so many scenes, the training sequences, little things that happen between them, how much of their relationship unfolded in that love story came from that.

So, yeah, and through the editing process it just became more and more clear that everything – certainly if it wasn’t about money and all the other things, the capitalism, everything else that it’s about, it really was grounded so much by this relationship and that longing and that want and that thing, that intimacy that women have. And how you lose one of those relationships it’s kind of worse than a divorce.

John: All right. We’re going to take our first clip and we’re actually going to go out of order. We’re going to look at clip two. This is where Destiny first sees Ramona at the club and sort of first sparks – this is how they begin. This is about page eight I think on your screenplay. But before we actually play it, let me read you what you actually wrote in the screenplay.

So if you were to read her screenplay–

Lorene: Yikes. What draft is this?

John: “Destiny turns to see Ramona, ten years older than Destiny, take the main stage like a boxer entering the ring. Ramona dances, commanding the room. The crowd is wild, throwing money until the stage is covered. Destiny is mesmerized.

“Ramona finishes her routine with one final flourish, smacks an armful of money to her chest, then steps offstage. Destiny watches in awe as Ramona crosses the room. All different guys reaching out. Ramona looks them in the eyes, whispers in their ears, and glides away with cash in hand.

“Destiny can’t look away as Ramona walks by and turns to her. ‘Doesn’t money make you horny?’ Destiny goes to respond, but Ramona is already gone. Off Destiny’s face we cut to the rooftop.

“Ramona sits against a skylight in her fur coat smoking. The club noise is drowned out by the silence of the city.”

Film is a visual medium. And I love doing a podcast, but I can’t talk about – that scene is not a podcast scene. That is a visual scene. Just remarkable. And that was the moment where I watched this movie and I was so happy and excited that I was watching this movie. Because it’s so terrific. And then we cut to the rooftop and she’s wearing the fur coat and it’s just amazing. An iconic moment.

But talk to me about the decisions that lead up to what we just watched. And so I want to start with just the design of the club. Because she’s backlit by the lights. How do you design that club? Is it a set? Is it a practical? What are we watching there when we’re inside the club?

Lorene: It’s a real strip club. It’s a real strip club in Long Island City. We could never have gotten the scope of that. We could never have afforded to build anything even close to that.

So we found a real place that had a layout that helped for an earlier scene, the first scene in the film where we’re following Destiny from the locker room out onto the floor.

John: That long Steadicam-ish shot.

Lorene: Yes. A one-take. Much like 1917, if you’ve seen that.

John: [laughs] It is basically 1917.

Lorene: It’s basically that. Very similar. War like. We actually did talk about it as a war film. I’m not kidding. So that’s how we chose this club. It had that incredible wall of that panel of LED lights behind it.

John: Oh, so you didn’t build that?

Lorene: No, no. That we didn’t build. But we did extend the stage. We turned that into that sort of big round. It was kind of just a little square at the end there. I’m trying to remember.

John: When is the conversation about you doing this? Is it a production designer?

Lorene: Mm-hmm. It’s all of us.

John: It’s everyone together.

Lorene: It’s mostly production design and our DP. I’m trying to figure out what we need. How can we best light her body to highlight the athleticism of it, to show the fantasy of it? For me there’s a theme of control that runs through the movie. So we just supplied that to the camera as well. And so a scene like that was one where Ramona is in control of where the camera is.

John: So you’re not watching Ramona. She is making you see her.

Lorene: Yes. That’s right.

John: It’s very much an active control of this. And so what is your conversation with Todd about lenses on her and sort of what it’s all like? Because the coverage of Destiny is pretty straightforward. We’re doing the push-ins and we’re seeing her point of view. But what is the conversation about how you’re focusing on Ramona?

Lorene: Well, so I have to back up. The thing that you read was probably even a later draft, like our shooting script once we knew that we were stepping out that scene. Because I really did write it like she sees Ramona up on stage doing one final flourish, and then it was more about watching her walk across the room like Goodfellas when Henry Hill is watching De Niro’s character for the first time, sort of tipping everybody out as he’s walking through the room. And instead Ramona is taking money as she walks through.

And so I thought it was much more about Destiny seeing those interactions. And I wasn’t relying on oh god the actor we get is going to be a dancer for three decades and she’s going to pole train for six weeks and do this incredible routine. So that was not the plan. This was not the plan at all. And then Jennifer said, you know, “I want to do it. I think it’s a really important thing to see this moment.” And she was not wrong.

And so Todd and I didn’t see that dance until two weeks before we had to shoot it, which was like the last week of our shoot. So we were at midpoint, right when you’re just sweating and like are we going to finish this on time. And so we saw that routine. She had worked with our pole choreographer, Johanna Sapakie. The song was one of those things that was–

John: I’ve actually watched the YouTube video where they talk through the training of it all and it’s remarkable. So she starts from kind of not being able to do the movements and puts it together, but she is an athlete. And so she’s able to do it.

Lorene: Well, she’s Jennifer Lopez. So, I don’t know, she’s in better shape than any human person. And she throws herself fully into this and really felt committed to what this scene was. But, still, you know, you don’t know how important is this? Are we really going to watch a two-minute dance? I was actually a little bit worried about the narrative and are we losing the narrative at this point.

And so that was one of those things that then once we saw it and we got our jaws off the ground we were like oh my god how we do pull this off and shoot it like the stunt that it is, but also like the live even that it was. Because that’s Jennifer Lopez stripping in front of 300 extras who we had to vet and make sure they’re good guys and everyone has got their phones in their pockets and stuff.

But no one even spoke about it. It was actually the most respectful group of people ever.

John: So we say strip, but she’s wearing an outfit. She’s wearing the outfit that you designed for her. So this is the first time that we’re going to see her do this thing. What is the conversation you have with Lorene, with the actor about what this moment is going to look like?

Mitchell: It was always like the costume that we’re all like what is that going to be. You know, how do we match what she’s doing with a costume? The beginning of the film sets up the locker room to be this place that is sort of a cacophony of costumes and the answer as it usually is is just less. And so when we got to the Ramona of it all it was like what can be no color, very few straps. How can I take this thing to be almost nonexistent?

There is an amazing photo of Jennifer in 2007 and she has about 1,500 silver bangles on her body and earrings the size of her face and I love it. And I found that one image as we were looking for Ramona influences and I was like it’s silver. It has to be this silver. And I tried a million different shapes on her, different things. Where are we going to cut the body? Where is it most appealing? What makes you feel best? What makes you feel safe? All things like that you have to ask of this costume.

And I couldn’t find it. It didn’t really exist. I had ideas of other costumes, where I would take the fringe of something or the neckline of something else and I was like, OK, we’re going to build this thing. And so I drew on a piece of people on my tailor’s table. We got it together. It fits in my hand. I showed it to Jennifer at the one fitting. We had sort of saved the club wear fitting until the end until we were really good with one another. And so she walked in and I’m holding this string. And I said I really believe in this. I really think that this is the answer.

And so she said, “OK, baby, let’s see.” And she put it on, she turned to me, and she just kind of looked at me like “let’s go.” And there was a boldness to it. There was a confidence to it. There was a movement to it. And it kind of just answered a lot of the questions I had been asking myself for weeks. I had this amazing fitting photo that I mentioned. And I just sent it to Lorene and I was like I just have to let her know. Because she’s either going to be obsessed with it or hate it instantly. And I got a pretty quick reaction out of Lorene, so I was like, OK, it works. That’s it.

Lorene: Yeah, I died. I don’t know. I couldn’t believe it. And I thought the coat and the hat, it was a really great little throwback to—

Mitchell: The Pussycat Dolls.

Lorene: Yes, exactly.

John: So a choice in a movie that is about stripping, a natural instinct would be sort of like take clothes off as the movie goes along, and you sort of do the opposite. She appears onscreen in sort of the least we’re ever going to see her in, and that is the height of her power. And the rest of the movie more things are being added as the relationship becomes deeper. Did you know that from the start or how do you get to those?

Lorene: Yeah, I mean, we certainly had so many approaches to it. It was the kind of thing where I thought we should see the most – I mean, this is a topless club in theory. We should see the most nudity back in the locker room where it’s really mundane frankly. I feel like we don’t see that kind of regular old nudity very often and so I was really interested in that and seeing how the girls interact with each other and their comfort levels with their bodies. And then the show of it and then the spectacle of it. What amount of it is out on the floor? What amount of it is out on the stage? What amount of it is back in the champagne rooms?

And so, yeah, again the theme of control. How much is someone in their bodies and the interaction – there’s other scenes where Ramona and Destiny are working in a champagne room together and–

John: That’s the most sexualized moment between the two of them.

Lorene: Yeah. And you see that they’re using it against him, really. So, a lot of that, we talked about the weaponization of it. What you wear for other people. What you wear for yourself. What you wear for each other. And how you influence each other.

Mitchell: We actively worked at something which I hope registers for some audience members, but sometimes when you see women wearing the least is when they’re putting on their clothes to go home. So we would work at someone putting on a pair of sweatpants, and then their bra, their jacket, their coat. And then living. So it wasn’t about revealing for somebody else. It was about finishing your job and going home.

John: So let’s take a look at another clip. And in this one I want to talk about the relationship between the two of them, as it goes from this initial sort of flush of the love story to a second level. We talk about weaponizing what they’re doing. This is literally creating a weapon, creating a drug, and a whole new plan for how they’re going to make money off of this. The hustle takes a new turn.

So, first, let’s take a look at this, and then I really want to dive deep into what we’re seeing onscreen. I want to start with the scene in the bar, the restaurant there. And your conversations with your DP, Todd, about this moment and sort of what you’re looking for. And I want to get really concrete and detail in terms of your setups.

So you’re in this place. It’s a practical location. It’s not a set.

Lorene: Yeah.

John: And so why did you choose to cover it the way you did and let’s talk through what the actual shots and angles are that you used to get that scene.

Lorene: I talked to Todd how I felt like this is actually the tightest we are on them, at least up until this point in the film. This sounds very strange. We referenced First Man. I would talk about being inside the ship. And this is one of those inside the ship moments where I felt like it was very important that we were inside the table with them. We were on kind of long lenses.

John: So there’s very shallow backgrounds there. You’re shooting into glass so you have to make sure that you’re not getting reflections and other weird stuff that you could see the outside and see the inside.

Lorene: We’re controlling the foot traffic outside but nothing else really. It was tough in a way because I just think this was the acting – this was the way to showcase their–

John: There’s nothing to hide there.

Lorene: That’s it.

John: A question for you, Mitchell. We’re so tight here. Do you save a great outfit because you know you’re not going to see all of it in a shot like this?

Mitchell: I actually had something completely different planned for this. And I will always go and just check the shot before as I start to get people dressed. And when I realized this is really a jewelry shot and it’s a shoulder shot. And Todd, like most DPs, loves wet pavement. Loves it. There was a conversation once where we were going to be able to see that out the window and Todd was really excited about that and just getting in there that day it was not going to happen. And so I was like I have that coat which does that which Todd wants in the scene, and I love it.

And if I can just get even the glint of that. The imagery that he was trying to use, I can do that for him with just a coat.

Lorene: Costume wet down.

John: So earrings are you. So you are responsible for earrings. I always get confused sort of the breakdown of hair and makeup.

Lorene: So did we.

John: So Jennifer Lopez’s stud here is makeup.

Mitchell: Correct.

John: So it’s complicated. Where the piercing is depends on whose department it is.

Mitchell: Correct.

John: So you know you’re in tight. And are you telling the actors at the start of the day how you’re planning to shoot it? What is your approach?

Lorene: I would always for the most part text if there’s not time for me to go to a trailer and talk to anybody in person. I would often text and say what the plan was for the day and what the sequence of events would be. So there were no surprises.

The truth is we shot this whole movie in 29 days so there just really wasn’t any time. Todd and I shot-listed everything, but still wanted to be spontaneous and leave room for things. And we certainly would adjust things. So that is what this scene really is. There’s something very human about how we’re seeing them. We’re seeing them close up. We’re seeing the makeup from earlier.

John: Yeah. The goal is really to see makeup. Because so often in films you’re not supposed to be able to notice the makeup. You’re so close here that you can’t help but see–

Lorene: You want to. I mean, I was desperate to see that. And, I mean, Jennifer looks 30 years old so it’s really hard to even make her look her age. And this was that kind of gritty moment for her. A very real moment for this character. But sort of wild-eyed. She needs to make a lot of sense even when she’s not making a lot of sense. So, yeah, we tried to keep it really grounded like that moment with the waitress coming in. Obviously there’s no reason to see this waitress–

John: So you’re dirty singles so that people can move into shots so you get a sense that they really are across from each other.

Lorene: That’s right.

John: Now, the contrast between that and we’re suddenly in the bar and it’s all happy and kind of a fantasy thing and you’re going for sort of the joke of the whip pan to reveal the other women that is such a contrast of tone deliberately. You know that you’re starting a whole kind of heist adventure when you move there.

Lorene: That bar, that was a big fight with Todd and Jane Muskey, the production designer. I think they fell in love with this other bar for other reasons and this place for me was just all of it. It was all about the blocking. It was all about that runway, that sort of tarmac for the women to land in from the front door. This corner of this bar where this man can sit in the corner and be surrounded by them. Then we used a dance floor instead of a track. You know, we’re on a dolly but we were able to kind of float around and kind of – even though we’re not going all the way around them it was still giving that kind of boozy quality and letting Gary kind of feel surrounded by these women and distracted enough while Ramona is doing her thing.

So, yeah.

John: Great. So without sound we’re able to follow what this conversation kind of is. We see that this woman is bullying and trying to convince her into something. The other woman is – if I were watching this on a plane and didn’t have my headphones in I could figure out kind of what was happening here and what the pressure was. And that’s because of the shots you picked and you how you shot this.

Lorene: Yeah. And I think moments like that, the waitress breaking it up, allowing for this intimacy, to see two characters interacting with someone differently. It’s all about their proximity. At this point, again, earlier in the movie we saw the diner itself. So we knew the lay of the land. And at this point it just doesn’t matter. Nothing matters but being in there with them, with this private conversation.

John: Mitchell, great work on the earrings and on the jacket shoulder. We’re noticing the wet pavement aspect.

Mitchell: One is formed under intense pressure and the other wants to take off.

John: Mitchell, you talked before about wardrobe having a heightened sort of fantasy quality. So, the clothes that they’re wearing is a little beyond what they might be able to afford. And so we’re seeing the women walk into the bar, is that an example of that? Where they’re dressed up a little bit more than they might be able to afford? What was your decision there?

Mitchell: In conversations with Lorene it was important to remember that this is the way that someone is telling a story versus the way that things happened. So, in moment like this where we knew that any man that they’re taking on would kind of be looking all over and trying to suss up what’s happening to them. I tried to use dresses that had metal hardware all over them and odd straps and things that would just catch your eye so you’re distracted. You’re a little disoriented. It feels gorgeous, but you’re not really sure of what you’re seeing.

And the same thing works with the nails on the face. All of the trappings of feminine dress that can be distracting and can also be used as tools in this scene.

Lorene: I feel like her snake earrings at the beginning is very Garden of Eden. I don’t know. Maybe.

Mitchell: Yes.

John: Yes. Deliberate choice. I’ll always say like, yes, that was the exact thinking behind those earrings.

Lorene: [laughs] That was exactly it.

Mitchell: Honestly the snake earrings came from a photo of Ashanti that I just always treasure.

Lorene: Garden of Eden.

Mitchell: And, again, that’s one of those moments, I always wear a coat on set. It’s like my lab coat basically. And I’ll have rings, earrings, clear bra straps, things like that on this movie. And so I’ll go in and I’ll dress to the shot because I know that that’s the way that Lorene makes a movie.

John: Can you talk to me about your team. Because this movie is shot in New York. You work in New York and Los Angeles. You work wherever. How do you assemble the team who is going to be able to help you do this? Because you may have a vision but you have to have a lot of people there to help you do things. What does your team look like?

Mitchell: Definitely. No costume designer can do what they do on their own. And a lot of times we get the credit for a group of like 35 people’s work, so it’s important to say things like this. On this movie I had three assistant designers who worked with me. I had a wardrobe supervisor who handles the continuity and the maintenance of the clothes. We don’t see everything, but you feel everything. And Lorene and I really fought to dress every single person in the club so that you felt – just you caught little pops of Ed Hardy. You caught little pops of terrible jeans with rhinestones on the back pockets and things like that.

So while you may not remember every part of it, you’ll feel like you were there and you remember all of those bad things. So, on this movie one of my assistants was completely in charge of background. You know, dress shoes had square toes. All those little things that add up. And the way that Lorene and Todd shoot a movie you then have shoes the size of a billboard, which we’re all dissecting here at this conversation.

So it all matters and I need to rely heavily on my team to make sure that if I can’t look at every toe on every dress shoe somebody is, because it all counts.

John: How much of this movie are you shopping and how much of the movie are you sewing?

Mitchell: I always start with what’s out there. And the weird thing about this movie is you can’t go to a rental house in LA. There’s no 2007 aisle. It’s not in a thrift store because it’s at this weird moment that no one really cared about at the time that I was making it. Now Zara is doing this. But at the time that we were doing it it was really difficult to find. And so I found it in the extremes. I found things at Burlington Coat Factory. I found things in people’s closets. Or I found things from vintage dealers who were prepping their stock for a few years from now.

And so I was going to them like I need the multi-color Louis Vuitton speedy that’s this size. And they were like, “Why? Who has that?” And I’m like please ask. I need it. I really do need it. So it came from all over the place, all of the shop stuff.

And there are only so many clothes in the world. There is a different costume in every scene of this movie. I did my first breakdown on a plane and I texted Lorene when I landed and I was like, Jesus, Lorene, there’s like thousands of costumes in this movie. And she was like, I know, it’s part of it. And at some point I ran out of clothes and I would have to say, OK, then we’re going to dye this dress. We’re going to add straps to this. We’re going to add hardware. This is now a skirt. You know, you just have to make enough clothing to dress Lorene’s women.

John: So let’s talk about Lorene’s women in the locker room. So this club you picked had a locker room which you could actually do a continuous shot from. Early on and later on in the show we’re seeing the women backstage. And so it’s the moment where we have the most sort of casual nudity, but also just so many women together. And as I watched it you’re shooting into mirrors. There’s a bunch of women, there’s a lot of stuff happening.

Lorene, how many women are in that locker room?

Lorene: I don’t know. I feel like it’s 15 speaking roles, but maybe I’m exaggerating.

John: It’s a lot of people in a small space. And no one is wearing green. So you kept the green out of there. Thank you very much for that.

Lorene: Thank you.

John: Talk to me about your motivation going into that and also the blocking and the planning for that because you have so many moving bodies. You want it to feel natural. But you’re also shooting into mirrors. There’s a lot happening there. So talk to me about–

Lorene: Yeah, it was chaos. And, I mean, we were four days in the club. So this was I think our last day in the club. Our Cardi day. Our Lizzo day.

Mitchell: This was the most insane day of my life to this date. We shot – like the biggest chunk of the movie. The Usher sequence. We shot this that day. We shot that long shot where she goes from the locker room all the way through the club. So we had like a few hundred extras. We had all of this talent on set. And the call sheet was like terrifying. And we all just took it one step at a time.

Lorene: This was one of those scenes, too, where we knew we wanted to capture something alive and real and let the women talk over each other. When I watch it it’s miraculous how much of that is scripted to be totally honest. I mean, I want to give them full credit for lines they made their own and there’s certainly some improvisations in there. But actually to their credit, to people’s credit, like Cardi and Lizzo, they’re also really delivering scripted lines.

But, yes, making it their own. We had two cameras going. It was sheer chaos. When I say that part of – like some of the things are the only time we got that line on camera. Some of those moments are like that was it. And I’m glad that it feels the way that it does and I was certainly checking things off as I was going and knowing, OK, we got that, we got that.

But in a way it was like how do we capture this thing. So we had the cameras rolling before anyone started to deliver the lines, before Jennifer entered. And we had two boom guys, because we didn’t have lavs on anyone.

John: Well, where are you going to hide a lav?

Mitchell: Exactly. I met the sound guy once.

Lorene: They were running around like crazy trying to hide. Everyone is trying to hide themselves.

John: And you must have blocked some – like some people are standing in front of mirrors deliberately so we can’t see the camera.

Lorene: There’s a rack or two that are used because they sell the clothes, the house moms often sell clothes backstage. So we were able to use some racks and there’s some piled up clothes and different things like that. Bodies positioned in certain places. But also we painted out our camera guys.

John: In post?

Lorene: Yeah.

John: After you went through the cut you realized like, OK, this is the shot I need and we have to get rid of–

Lorene: Yeah. We had to get rid of some bodies. Well, you know, some guys in black clothes. [laughs] Yeah. And there would be like a mic on the counter that now it looks like a makeup brush. So, visual effects, it’s wonderful. I learned a lot. I learned that you can do that. I mean, we couldn’t afford much of that obviously, so had to be careful, but it was the kind of thing where, oh, if we just – I just wish we got even more of it and weren’t trying to jump out of our own way.

And so, yeah, the chaos of wrangling all that. The blocking that I did was sort of the position of where everybody is and how she enters and who says hello and who they pass and where Diamond is in the room and where Ramona ends up and who sits and who stands. And so we wanted to keep that fluorescent vibe. That really like almost ugly mist of it. Again, a real strip club.

They had painted in there. It was Tiffany Blue. The manager said so that the girls felt expensive. So there was a big written thing on there that said, “Smile and look expensive.” But we painted that, you know, we got rid of that. And still added a lot of, I mean, there’s a lot of markings and writing on the mirror and everything.

John: On a day like that which was so busy and so technical and so challenging, how did you remind yourself about what was important in a scene? Because in that scene what is actually crucially important, much more so than even the jokes, is the role of the house mother and Jennifer Lopez telling them like “No, you have to eat some cake” because she made the cake. How do you remind yourself of what’s important?

Lorene: By the way, that cake was like 50 pounds.

Mitchell: It was crazy.

Lorene: It was one of the hardest things to do. I was like I’m so sorry Mercedes Ruehl to make you carry this gigantic cake. I don’t know. I mean, I think we just knew that it was an opportunity to capture the most camaraderie, the most – at this point in the movie we’ve seen Destiny be alone and stripping life can be a solo sport or a team sport. And so Destiny was living the solo sport version of it. And this is the locker room and this is the team and this is that sports movie.

So, we talked about it that way and talked about it League of their Own to The Wrestler. Various movies that kind of capture that spirit between people. And it’s also about girls getting ready. It reminds of my friends and I hanging out in the bathroom, putting on makeup, trying to psyche each other up to go out for the night. I haven’t done that in 20 years, but someday, at some point I remember that.

John: But are those conversations you’re having with your principal actors and the other actresses before the cameras start shooting to sort of get that vibe in there? How are you talking through that?

Lorene: Yeah. I mean, every time I met an actor to cast them we spoke about all the themes of the movie and why it felt important and what these scenes were trying to represent. So, yes, I’d speak to them about that.

But it was also about capturing that electricity and a lot of it is casting. A lot of it is Jennifer Lopez is Ramona and is like the sun just walked into the room. And how people interact and meet with her. And how sweet Trace Lysette is. And there are real strippers in that scene. Not just background, you know, principals. And standup comedians. And obviously singers, musicians who I think just have that natural timing.

And, you know, Cardi was nervous, obviously. And so it was just about warming everybody up and making sure everybody felt like let’s keep it loose. And so there’s plenty that didn’t make it in there obviously. I wish I could have made an 18-minute version of that scene. But, yeah, there’s plenty that didn’t make it in there.

John: This is the time of the evening where we open it up to questions. So, repeating the question, Lorene, do you feel that being a female director changed your ability to get the amazing performances you got out of these women? And did they ever bring that up to you?

Lorene: I mean, we had a really balanced set. It was a really wonderful mix of women and men who made this film. We have men and women department heads and lots of men and women on set creating this vibe. Incredibly respectful, wonderful New York crew.

We had things that maybe were added as a result of just me being aware of certain things. Things like a comfort consultant. She was our stripper consultant and also our comfort consultant. She played Jackie. So, I mean, she was invaluable. She was always there for the women to call on to say, you know, what would I do, how would I react to some bad behavior in a club. How would I react if Usher came in the club?

And so Jack was just an incredible source for what to do with your body, what to say, how to slink away from someone maybe or how to use something against someone.

And so things like that maybe were different as a result. I was just highly aware of everyone’s comfort level. But so was our first AD, Colin, who we had so many strippers as background and he was always telling them to put their clothes back and because they were fine and completely comfortable and he was just such a lovely, just respectful person who really like led this incredible team.

To be honest, there’s some fear going into it in a way. An all-female cast. You have so much hair and makeup and wardrobe to contend with. I think people maybe heard bad things about what that environment could be like. And we ended up having just such a lovely group of people.

John: You’re also a very experienced director. You probably would have had a very different experience had this been your first movie to direct. You have movies under your belt and you sort of know – you can go into it sort of anticipating what some of the challenges were. This is also a much bigger movie than the other ones you made. We were talking backstage just the size of the cast, the size of all the departments was bigger. What were your conversations with department heads and producers about how to wrangle? Did you get advice from folks who had done bigger movies as well?

Lorene: No. No. Honestly, I don’t know, that part of it wasn’t that daunting. It wasn’t as daunting as the hours in the day. As big a budget as it was, it still felt like we were scraping the floor for what was possible in New York City and for a movie that covers this much time and just needs this much stuff. So it was really nice to have toys. I mean, my last movie I was told what day would you like Steadicam. So, you know, this was different than that.

So, you know, toys are nice. And, yeah, and getting to capture New York City the way that we did and getting into these incredible locations and this wardrobe. But my first film was I think maybe $9 million. My second one was like two point something. And this one was like $20 million. So it was different but, you know, all the same.

John: You’re still scraping to make that thing happen.

Lorene: Yeah. I mean, in a way the whole movie is just an out of control train, you know, and it’s moving, it’s been moving for thousands of years before this one girl’s story begins. And so in a way it was the entire movie was a sequence to us. And so as much as we were able to break it up and think about each scene and, again, that theme of control like you said which we could apply to Ramona in one moment and Destiny’s lack of control in another moment.

So, yeah, it was sort of like a bullet. And we wanted to treat it like that. So we shot-listed everything from beginning to end.

John: Well in advance of production you and Todd went through these are our dream shots that we would try to get on the day to tell the story.

Lorene: Yes.

John: What percentage of those shots did you actually end up making most days?

Lorene: Almost all of them.

John: All of them, great.

Lorene: We just knew we didn’t want to hose down TV coverage constantly. We knew there wasn’t any reason to see it in a way that wasn’t what our protagonists were feeling. So, you know, a scene like that diner scene it wasn’t like we had so many different sizes of those shots. It wasn’t like we had a million different, you know, yes we had a wide that is in the earlier scene in the diner. But then like a nice 50/50 with them. But that was it. We just knew we needed to be precise. We knew that there’s a driving scene where Ramona is driving and it doesn’t feel comfortable. Ramona has her hands on the wheel and it does feel out of control.

And so it was a scene where we had minutes to shoot it before the sun came up. And it was like all that really matters is Destiny’s POV of Ramona really not looking at her in the passenger seat. And us in the back of the car looking at Destiny in the passenger seat. And so we did like two runs, one where the camera is where Destiny is and one where we have a stunt driver driving and so they weren’t even in that scene together.

So there were so many moments where it was like we just have to get exactly what we need. And other moments like the locker room where we were like let’s be a little more loose. We’re handheld. We’ve got two cameras. We’re just trying to capture what we can and move off of people and really feel the fluidity of it. And other moments where the rigidity of it is what we want to express.

John: You had a question. So the question is the amazing J-Lo scene that we saw. So what was the coverage on J-Lo’s major dance number?

Lorene: We had three cameras. We had a wide right in front of the stage. And then two cameras that were kind of like roving on either side. That was just for the perspective of really looking at her up on the stage. Then we did let’s say two or three takes of that. And I would say two and change basically. If she missed a move we would get it again. You know, if the heel clack was something we’d do it again.

But otherwise then it was about jumping up on stage and being with her. And, again, two cameras I think at that point dancing around each other in order to capture her movement and the spirit of the club. And then setups on Constance.

Yeah, maybe five times? Maybe five times? I did a really cool walkthrough of it to show the guys when they were going to be throwing their money, because it really – I mean, when I say like live event, it really was about when she gets there this room is ready because obviously it was an incredibly vulnerable thing that she was doing. And she also needed to feel the energy coming back to her. I mean, she’s obviously a performer and she needed that. So it wasn’t about just keeping everything quiet so she could do her moves. It was very different from that.

So I did a walkthrough and then was like you’re throwing money, now you’re throwing money. And then our pole choreographer ran through it a couple of times so that our cameras were set up and ready. I think on that first run, was that when that outfit almost snapped off?

Mitchell: Sure was.

Lorene: I was looking across the room and I was like this is time of death. [laughs]

Mitchell: I left my body. I had my team ready with needles and thread because there was a possibility of that happening. There’s only so many points that you can anchor. But, yeah, the first time two strings went flying across the stage and she had to hold on.

Lorene: It was a trip. It was my birthday.

Mitchell: Sure was.

John: Happy Birthday, Lorene.

Lorene: Thank you. And the movie fell apart a year earlier on my birthday, so that was nice.

John: I saw you shortly after that, yeah.

Lorene: You saw me then. Not pretty.

John: Back right there. Yes, you. So the question is about obstructions and do you look for obstructions? Are they a helpful thing that you’re seeking out?

Lorene: I think for something like this that we knew, I mean, control is the theme of my life as well. So I think for something like this where there was only so much control we could have an actor could try on something and absolutely hate it in that moment and reach for the next thing. And maybe the color palette could have been thrown in that moment. So, and I’m taking it from that movie Five Obstructions, you know, so I’m just using words. Hopefully that means what I think it means.

But, yeah, I think for this it was a way to try to control something that felt almost like it could be out of our control if, again, so many characters in very tiny clothing, you know, wanting to look good but it’s a period piece but it’s all of the above. So, yeah.

John: Mitchell, is that a thing you commonly encounter with other directors where they will have a specific mandate of like we’re not going to see this thing, or it has to be this or there’s a structure to how they want things to happen?

Mitchell: I feel like every director that I work with is just so different and their process comes from such a different place. The thing I can say about Lorene is that there is a trust with the people that she surrounds herself with, both cast and crew. And so there’s a security in that when you have a director who says like, “We have it,” and all of us feel like then we have it. No one feels like they have one more take or we don’t want to change anything because we believe in her because she believes in us.

John: Did you have any rules with Todd in terms of lenses or things the camera was going to be able to do or not be able to do? Did you put any boundaries on what was permissible with the camera or how you were shooting it?

Lorene: I don’t think we did. I think, you know, when you’re picking the color palette of a club like this it’s easy to think that pinks and blues are so cliché, but they’re just there. And so there were things like well let’s make that pink like cotton candy pink. And let’s make that blue like aquarium blue. So there are scenes in the private area which are so well designed by Jane Muskey, I can’t even take it. Because we shot in that real club but the champagne room and the private area we built on a stage. So we had a lot of control there and they just frankly didn’t have that at that club.

Yeah, the private area we said this space, I want to see men like fish in an aquarium. And that’s what we did to the lights and what we did to the color in the space. There were obviously moments that are more about realism and more about walking in someone’s shoes. And then there are other moments where it’s about we’re soldiers and we’re dialed in.

So it was always different. It was always different. When we picked these lenses and how we manipulated them, I think that did a lot to establishing that look. And then, yeah, then we just tried to lean into what was Scores [unintelligible]. What was Scores like in that era and without actually taking cues from Scores, you know, what’s the vibe of this scope like.

And so, yeah, there were those kinds of rules where it’s like we’re going to do a lot of things that are true to the environment but we want to shoot them differently. We want to cover them differently. I never wanted a scene to be about an actor’s body unless the character wanted it to be. I felt like it was very easy to just tell a story from this person’s point of view and automatically see this space in a way that we hadn’t seen in other movies, just by focusing on the people who are usually in the periphery.

John: There, you right there. Yes, you. Two hands up. So the question is how did each of you talk with your actors about making themselves feel safe as they were not wearing a lot of clothes? What were the conversations like? You talked about Jennifer Lopez, you waited – or actually all your actors you waited late for the club wear. But what was your conversation with actors about what they’d be wearing and their bodies?

Lorene: I certainly asked everyone and so did you what anyone is comfortable revealing. I mean, the truth is some girls would be like the left one but not the right. And I get it. And others would say under is cool. Or I like my butt and I’m fine with that. It really was as crass as that where it’s just asking people what they’re OK showing and moving in a lot of them.

What we did with background actors as well as everyone else was we said the women were in charge. And as they are. But in our club the girls picked out the guys and then we kind of did some musical chairs. So all the women were comfortable with who they were having physical contact with and we certainly vetted all of these guys that our actors had physical contact with. So I know on set, again, our comfort consultant did a lot of that, too.

But, yeah, how’d you do it?

Mitchell: For me, something that I do with all projects, this one most significantly, is I start to understand what somebody is seeing in a mirror that I’m not. Because everybody sees something in the mirror that – I always track someone’s eye movement, right? Because the first thing that they’re going to look for in a mirror is what they don’t like. Because they’re either going to tell me about that or they’re going to feel like it’s solved.

So I always try to watch that and watch body language. And I’m just really into that. I kind of treat my fittings a little bit like therapy. I’ll get to know somebody’s history, what they’re excited about that’s not this movie, and just try to understand them as an human being so that I can dress that human being who is playing a part. Because if that human being is not comfortable that character is not comfortable and this movie certainly demanded that.

Lorene: But it’s also not about revealing clothing either, because someone like G-Eazy who is in the movie was surprised at how much we were going to lean into the 2007 fashion and then came fully onboard, thank you Mitchell.

Mitchell: I would have to warn them. There is a celebration going on with this movie about this time period. Because it is in such recent memory it feels horrible. But you need to eliminate that and recognize that everyone here is playing the same game. So your earrings couldn’t be big enough. This is the game. Let’s win.

John: Let’s all win. Another question, there in the middle. Yes, I see you. So the question is about the casting process and how much pressure did you feel to cast star names. What was the casting process like? I don’t know who cast your film, so talk to me about this.

Lorene: Oh, Gail Keller was our casting director who had her hands full. I can’t believe what she pulled off with this with so many speaking roles. I began with chasing Jennifer. I mean, I didn’t write the script with her in mind, but as soon as I reopened the script to try to think of who it was it was so obvious that it was Jennifer Lopez. So I bee-lined toward her and sent the script to her producing partner who fortunately loved it and sent it to her, fortunately loved it, and then we met at her house. And, you know, it’s Jennifer Lopez and I thought of what to wear for 72 hours. But, yeah, we were really excited about all the same themes and what the movie was speaking to and capitalism and this time in very recent history.

And so once she was onboard it certainly made it a lot easier to get other people. I had been chasing Lizzo for a year, Cardi for two years on Instagram. And I would DM Cardi and then get like a cellphone number back and then text that number and then get another number. So I have two numbers in my phone that are Cardi that I don’t think either are Cardi. And Lizzo, same, I just thought they were so exciting for this, so I wrote those roles for them.

There’s an opera singing burlesque dancer who I wrote that part for. Jack the stripper, I wrote that part for Trace Lysette. She reached out to me on Twitter because she had worked at this club in 2006 and we met maybe a year before the movie and just hit it off, so I wrote her the role. And it was a lot like that. You know, Keke Palmer was someone I was just obsessed with. Just her whole personality, her whole way. I want to see that onscreen so bad. And I think Mercedes is the character who makes Ramona laugh, so who is that person. Lili Reinhart was someone who I watched some indie movies that she was in and thought my god this girl is so good. And I thought about the four of them. I thought about the locker room.

I made so many collages of sort of my dream team and then they happened. It was crazy. Constance was someone who it was so hard to figure out who Destiny was. That was really the toughest journey, but the second thing we needed to do was find our Destiny once we found Ramona. So I met with over 100 actors and met with Constance and just thought she was so deep and was equally interested in a story about loneliness. That’s something I talk about a lot in my work and I was really excited about her bringing that into this character, that vulnerability, the sensitivity, that intelligence, and that dynamic that the two of them might have.

So I didn’t get to see them together until the camera test when Jennifer was in the fur coat for the first time and they were in full hair and makeup. And she put her arm around Constance and I was like, yeah.

John: Done.

Lorene: That’s it. That was what we were hoping for. So, yeah.

John: Lorene, what was the audition scenes you used for Destiny? Were they things that are in the movie or were they different things you wrote just for auditions?

Lorene: Oh, well definitely scenes from the movie. But they’re probably like things that aren’t in the movie anymore if I think about it. There was a lot of voiceover in the movie, more so than there is. And so I think they had a very awkward scene to audition with to be honest.

For the most part I met with girls. Gail had so many girls come in and audition. So, I had great tapes to watch. But then–

John: You were also in the room in many cases?

Lorene: Then I could be there. Yeah.

John: That’s where you discovered.

Lorene: Exactly.

John: We have time for two more questions. Let’s try, yes, you. So the question is how did you get the job of directing this movie? What was the process to get there?

Lorene: I wanted it from the beginning. But I really did feel like I had to tell the story, even if I didn’t get to direct it. So once I handed in two drafts of the script and it became that time for them to decide who was going to direct it, they sent it to Scorsese first. He passed. I don’t think he read it. You know, I don’t think it reached him. So, they sent it to him first. And then sent it to everyone, people I knew.

I just had my hand raised that whole time. It was a very weird timeline in America also, you know, from the Summer of 2016, in which I thought I was making like a subversive Spring Breakers type movie that it kind of became a little bit more real as time went on. So, I would say how I got the job during that ten month stretch where it was being sent to kind of everyone in town I was editing a lot of footage of strippers and stripteases to Chopin which is sort of the score of the film. And different sequences in the movie. There’s a car crash. Different things as a proof of concept really.

And then my editor, Kayla Emter, who had edited my last film, we/she put together this sizzle reel that really became the piece that I was able to show as sort of, you know, it makes sense from the director of The Meddler. Maybe people wouldn’t necessarily understand the leap that it might take. So I was OK trying to really audition for it, obviously.

But that sizzle reel I think was really what got me the job, got Kayla the job ultimately. I put up collages of different movies of kind of female friendship type movies. Mean Girls and Bridesmaids and then pictures of strippers in locker rooms just to say like, you know, what’s the difference and why can’t there be a movie about that dynamic but in this space.

John: Our last question. So the question is she loves the ending, but were there ever choices to do a different ending or a reconciliation or some other – what were the other thoughts about the ending of the film as you were writing it or working on it?

Lorene: Not for me. You know, I mean, I never saw it that way. I’m sure I had to do a draft or two in which I delivered some kind of happy ending that I probably tried to make bad on paper on purpose. Yeah. I think I always saw it as this bittersweet ending.

But even when we were testing the movie and trying to figure it out it really was – it’s hard. It’s one of those things where you want that hope that maybe they will call each other without seeing it really happen. So, I think that that was always the hope.

How it ends, though, there were so many different versions of that speech that Ramona gives in the office. I was never sure about that. I really wasn’t. I really was like I don’t know, this feels on the nose and stuff. So there were like things that kind of got massaged into place. I realized like, oh, we had this incredible B-roll from our club where all those images at the end of the movie where you’re sort of seeing the men and women interacting with each other. That felt very real because they just were interacting with each other. And our camera was just catching them.

And so I think once Kayla and I landed on that, that that imagery was really important to bring back. That life goes on. That everything is up and running and maybe some stuff has changed but not a lot. And so we discovered how important that was. And then, you know, Ramona and all of that. But the friendship, yeah, no, you know, love doesn’t, I don’t know. [laughs]

I’ll end on love doesn’t, I don’t know.

John: Love doesn’t…Lorene Scafaria. Lorene, congratulations on your film. Mitchell, congratulations on what you were able to bring to the film. Thank you all very much. Thank you guys for coming.

Lorene: Thank you. Thank you so much.

John: Have a great night.

And that’s our show. Thanks to Paul Cowling and everybody at Film Independent for putting on the panel and letting us use the audio from it. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Caden Brown. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions.

Short questions on Twitter, I am @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin.

Premium members, stick around after the credits because I Skype with Mitchell to see what he’s doing now and answer some more questions about screenwriting and costume design. You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net. Thanks and we’ll see you next week.

[Bonus segment]

John: Hey Mitchell, how are you?

Mitchell: Good. It’s nice to hear from you.

John: It’s good to hear from you. I’ve wanted to talk with more because I just felt like we got through so much in that panel but I was curious what’s happened since that time and also I had follow up questions. So thanks for getting on the blur with me.

Mitchell: Absolutely.

John: So question, a lot of what we talked about in that discussion was how you work with the director to figure out the visual language for the movie, how you work with the actors to figure out what clothes make sense for the character. But I wanted to wind back and ask what should screenwriters be thinking about in terms of the clothes that characters are wearing. What’s useful for screenwriters to come into a script with? As you’re flipping through pages what are signs that are like, oh, this writer knows what he or she is talking about when it comes to characters and clothes? What are you looking for?

Mitchell: You know, I’ve never been asked that question and I think it’s such an interesting topic because it’s funny there are certain scripts that you read that you can the person who is writing is very much thinking about the character from a visual point. They’ll mention the color or that it’s a sweater or they’ll put in even brands. I’ve read some scripts where it’s like brands are listed by the screenwriter. And I’m always so fascinated by that because I feel like it is so premature because, you know, a costume designer hasn’t weighed in, and actor hasn’t weighed in. And of course those are going to be the loudest voices when it comes to the clothes.

But I don’t mind it because I think it’s a really nice way of getting into the headspace of the character from the writer’s point of view. When it gets really frequent and you feel like almost every outfit is described it can be a little bit – it’s kind of a little bit of a turnoff because it feels like some of the work is being done for you. And then of course the rebel in both the actor and the costume designer wants to do like, well, you wrote sweater so we’re not doing a sweater.

You know, like we all want to put our own spin on everything. But ultimately I do find it helps me know where we’re starting from. And of course we’re going to take it further and we’re going to find different meaning in things in the fitting room that wouldn’t really come up in the writing process. But I do enjoy it. And I think for me it’s like as soon as I can meet the writer I feel like I have a kindred spirit in that person because they’ve obviously done the work to think about the clothes. So then I think it fleshes out the conversation.

But for me it’s just a jumping point. It’s definitely not, you know, the truth.

John: I’m trying to think back about the times I’ve used specific clothing descriptions in scripts, and it’s mostly just to give a sense of the general direction of a character and not sort of what they’re wearing in that moment. Or try to prescribe what they have to be wearing. I was thinking back to my script for Go we meet Melissa McCarthy about two-thirds of the way through the movie and she only has one scene. And they’ve knocked on the door, she opens the door, she has a big bowl of popcorn, and she’s described as wearing sweats.

And ultimately she was not wearing sweats. She was wearing stuff that was more comfortable for her. But she was wearing her version of what sweats would be. And it started a whole conversation. But I only described her outfit because it was important for us to understand that she was not expecting to be going out that night. She was sort of dressed down for the evening. She was in her retiring clothes.

Or in Aladdin, you know, the only kind of dress that I mention in Aladdin are the stunning first reveal of Jasmine when she’s coming down the steps to meet the suitor. I’m not going to describe every dress along the way.

Mitchell: I designed In the Heights. There was in that script, which was written by Quiara, she wrote one description of clothing which I actually loved and I was like this totally helps. For one of the characters she talked about how the shoes had been worn down in the back heel like they’re so beloved that they have that permanent crease in the heel. That was one of those little details where I was like that helps me so much, because I understand – you know, I can see this person’s apartment. I bet there are other shoes that look like that piled on top of each other. And I can sort of understand how this person gets dressed.

So I do enjoy when it’s a description that helps me understand the totality of a person, rather than just “she walks in in Armani.” It’s like why? You know, is there a promo deal? What is the reason behind that?

John: So it sounds like what you’re describing is that over specificity can be a problem if it sort of feels like it’s locking you in to something. But something like that metaphorical description of how her shoes were being worn down, that gives you a pathway for figuring out like, OK, if her shoes are that way then I can think about the rest of her outfit in ways that is going to speak to the same character. So trying to–

Mitchell: Exactly.

John: Put everybody on the right path rather than sort of say it has to be exactly this one thing that I’m describing.

Mitchell: There’s something funny with some actors, too. They treat the script like the bible. So if something is written they want to adhere to that. And I find there are certain, like the Julliard actor, like they are really text-based and they really adhere to the script and it’s part of their process. I’ve worked with some before where it’s like, “Well in the script it says that I’m wearing a turtleneck.” And it’s like would the character wear a turtleneck? Let’s start there and then we might not have to use the turtleneck. But for some people it can really lock them into this idea which, you know, it depends. Sometimes that’s limiting and sometimes that’s where you start.

John: Yeah. And so that’s an example of like “he’s the kind of guy who seems like he’s in a turtleneck even when he’s not.” I mean, in that description you describe the type of outfit that he’s wearing, not necessarily limiting to exactly the thing he has to be wearing unless there’s a reason why the turtleneck becomes a big joke point. There’s a reason why it has to be a turtleneck. Instead just give a sense of the class of outfit that you’re looking for.

Mitchell: Yes. Do you know I truly hope I never read a script again where it is written that the girl takes off her shoes, breaks off the heel, and is running in flats. I have read that in a script like nine times. And it is such an impossibility for any shoe ever. But it seems to be this thing that is in every script. Oh, she’s running, she breaks off her heels and now she’s in flats. I’m like, no, now she’s running on a metal spike on the bottom of her foot. It’s incredibly dangerous and painful.

John: Yeah. And I’m sure that is one of the situations where that came up because somebody saw it in a movie and they assumed it must be real and so therefore they just put it in other scripts. And no one has actually tried to do it in real life. Because I don’t know anyone who has ever done that in actual life. I know people who have broken heels, but not like that.

Mitchell: Right. And then you limp home with dirty feet. That’s how that happens.

John: Great. Any other red flags? Things you see in scripts about clothing that maybe we should be more mindful of?

Mitchell: There are certain times where I will go to the writer and if they are mentioning specific changes and things like that where, you know, my job is to break this down into reasonable costumes. And I’m personally as a designer I find that you can reach a fatigue point with too many costume changes in a movie where you kind of stop remembering what the person is wearing because they’re wearing them so frequently.

So sometimes I’ll have to say to a writer or director, sometimes it’s the same person, OK, in this scene it’s written that she’s in a dress, but then in this scene it’s written that she’s now in a pair of skinny jeans, or whatever. And from a storytelling perspective it would just all make sense in one day. So, is the change motivated because this character wants to be perceived differently? Is the change motivated by something else? And oftentimes it’s that scripts go through so many drafts that that’s one of those things that’s just kind of layers.

But that’s another thing that can sometimes happen when clothing gets described in a script is you’re like, OK, you know she’s now changed four times before lunch. Let’s think about this a little bit.

John: Now, Mitchell, I don’t know how much you’ve worked on periods, so obviously Hustlers was period, but it wasn’t super deep period. If we’re working on something that is a costume drama from turn of the century or you’re working on Hulu’s show The Great, how important is it for the writer to know what all those pieces of clothing are called and how much is it helpful to call that stuff out versus just giving a general description of the type of clothing or sort of what time of day clothing this is? How helpful is it for period stories like that?

Mitchell: I think it’s very important. And it should be part of the research process for a writer in the same way you would make sure that a character wasn’t using something that hadn’t been invented. I think the same should be true for clothes. It can be in a script where she removes her bra and it’s like, well, no one was wearing those yet. So she doesn’t.

I think it should be as important to the process as every other part that’s researched.

John: I think you make a very good case for that. So yes. Mitchell, thank you so much for this follow up. This is really helpful.

Mitchell: Absolutely.

John: It was a great conversation before and you’ve gotten me thinking more about sort of how I’m describing clothes in my scripts and how I’ll be talking about them as a director. So, thank you for that. Congratulations on the move.

Mitchell: Thanks.

John: Thanks Mitchell.

Mitchell: Be well.

John: All right. Bye.

 

Links:

• Directors Close-Up: Tacky Fashion and the Visual Language of ‘Hustlers’ – Film Independent
• Hustlers
• Lorene Scafaria and on Twitter
• Mitchell Travers and on Instagram
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• John August on Twitter
• Craig Mazin on Twitter
• John on Instagram
• Outro by Caden Brown (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.