Essay: Good On Paper
I second the frustration William at [this savage art…] feels when a movie doesn't live up to it's concept. I get a lot of flack for saying adored movies like Panic Room and Little Miss Sunshine fail on that level.
My main interest has always been in storytelling, and when it comes down to it, that goes to the screenplay. There are a lot of decisions a director can make that can harm or enhance the story. But unless they are completely re-writing the script, the basic plot and conception of the movie is the work of the screenwriter.
I wish movie reviewers would take that into account. Often a screenwriter will get praised for dialogue. That's fine, but -- as being on set for Bunker Hill has confirmed -- dialogue is more susceptible to the tweakings of the actors and directors. The motivations of the characters -- why they take the actions they take -- and the rules of the world around them -- what is possible and not possible -- go right back to the script. When you see a movie that has inconsistencies in this regard, you have to wonder: did no one read the script closely? These are problems that should be fixed before a movie is greenlit.
Part of the problem with Hollywood movies is that the decision to make them rests too much on commercial factors -- a certain actor's availability at a certain time, the need to exploit a story before the option runs out -- rather than on the story. While you'd be insane as a producer to ignore commercial considerations; I think it's also insane to rush a sucky script into production. But then there's movies like Fantastic Four and Red Eye laughing in my face.
Still, if you are an indie filmmaker, I implore you to take that advantage over Hollywood. They have money, but we have time. We can wait until the story is good and ready. And then, like snakes upon an aircraft, we shall strike at their nether regions.
posted by J. Ott @ 9/16/2006 01:19:00 PM
Permalink |
2 comment(s)
| 
2 Comments:
While I agree with your basic conclusion - that one of the advantages of the independent film is the amount of care the script can receive - I think any perusal of the various screenwriting websites will demonstrate the degree to which the screenwriter has no control over what ends up on the screen.
Even in the absense of "rewriting" the script, one can edit away the story, chopping up in favor of photography over the sanity of the throughline. You can rewrite scenes on the fly - often done, especially when the director doesn't understand the story, and thus can't answer the actors questions. Even if you don't ad lib around the director's ignorance, that ignorance can lead to stuff that is BRILLIANT on paper, falling flat on it's ass when shot - because the director can't meet up to the challenges or risks that the script took to be brilliant.
A screenplay is a template for a film - it potentially has nothing to do with what winds up on screen. Even if no other draft is done.
Critics jump on scripts all the time. While everyone involved wants to redirect responsibility for failings, screenwriters are so little respected in Hollywood that they tend to tell the truth more than others
I think all of what is being said here is true. Screenwriters get rewritten and yes, trampled on in Hollywood but the truth is some don't. John August is a prime example of that, albeit a singular one but there are many. If you don't like getting rewritten then go out and raise the money yourself and be your own producer. The writing is on the wall, the floor, on the bathroom stalls. If you are selling a screenplay yes, it will get rewritten, maybe by you, maybe not. A screenwriter's work and reputation is rewarded by getting more work not by getting praise.
The key here is the screenplay is a blueprint. There are so many variables when making a film it is never the same thing every time that makes a film fail and I'm not talking about taste here. Taste is left to the critics even though they claim to be objective. I'm talking about truth in the motivation of the characters and what would ultimately make a story not only better but true.
Endings are notorious patch up areas on films. It's like the producer's saying, "I agree with the screenwriter on that area and with the director on that area but I'll be damn to hell if I don't have my say in how this thing ends". Wanna see an example? Rent Marathon Man. Watch it, then listen to the William Goldman commentary and see how happy he was about how they changed his ending. You can see it was amped up and it feels out of synch with the rest of what I think is an very good film.
J. makes a point about time. Make the screenplay strong. Start with that before even a phone call is made because when you are trying to bring talent to your film that is all you have, a strong screenplay. That speaks volumes to the right people.
Post a Comment