SCREENPLAY TIPS

A selection of blog posts by script reader Lucy V

Hay on various craft & feedback issues that
may affect your draft screenplay

www.lucyvee.blogspot.com/
www.facebook.com/Bang2writers
 1

CONTENTS

SCRIPTWRITING DEVICES

Reversals - every good script needs a few surprises, yet so few specs
actually have any. A look at what a reversal is and how to use them.

Montages - montages have a bad name - for good reason. How to use
montage without boring the reader.

Non-Linearity - why a lot of non-linear specs in the pile don't work

Voiceover - why scripts don't have to die a death via this much
maligned screenwriting device

SCENES, DIALOGUE & DESCRIPTION

Static Scenes - what they are, why the read can be slowed down by
static scenes and what to do about them.

Scene Description - a short post on making every single word count.

Dialogue - a look at the usual points *for* lots of dialogue in scripts -

especially TV vs. Film - and why we should all be writing LESS.

CHARACTER

Character & Plot - why a good character is only the sum of the plot
they are in

Advanced Characterisation - Beyond "Goodies & Baddies", in TV

and Film

REDRAFTING & BEYOND

Titles - how choosing a title that REFLECTS your story and genre
helps the reader get a "sense" of your script from the offset

Rewriting And Feedback - why getting feedback doesn't necessarily

mean it will help your script and how rewriting lots is actually a good
thing

Submissions, Rejections & Relationships - some Do's and Don'ts

about submitting stuff, dealing with rejection and making things
happen.
 2

Reversals
One thing I hardly ever see in spec screenplays - TV or features - is a
reversal. Some writers believe reversals only have a place in horrors or
thrillers; other writers sometimes confess they're not really sure what a
reversal is, suggesting instead they must be an "American thing"... Yet neither
of these assertions are true.

Here is a good definition of a reversal:

A place in the plot where a character achieves the opposite of his aim,
resulting in a change from good fortune to bad fortune.

From Screenwriting Info's Glossary of Screenwriting Terms

The operative words there? "The opposite of his (or HER, ahem) aim". In
other words, take the reader (or audience) into a scene thinking something is
going to happen (usually via the protagonist, but not always) and then
CHANGE THAT EXPECTATION - or reverse it!

Obviously thrillers and horrors have the most *obvious* reversals, because
this idea of going from "good fortune to bad fortune" is often literally LIFE OR
DEATH. In Die Hard, John McClane comes across Hans in the top floors of
the building - and Hans doesn't have his gun (reversal #1). We THINK John
McClane will bust Hans right away, but instead he accepts Hans' claim he is a
renegade hostage too and EVEN GIVES HIM A GUN (reversal # 2). That's it
now... Hans is going to shoot McClane. Shit! But oh no -- McClane had
already busted him previously because he HASN'T LOADED THE GUN... A
TRIPLE whammy of reversals. Nice!

But all other genres can have reversals too, even dramas -- in fact, they
SHOULD, it keeps readers/audiences on their toes. The more you can
SURPRISE a reader or viewer, the more they will think of your story
FAVOURABLY. Consider all your favourite movies and TV -- have they used
reversals? And if so, how?
 3

Montages
Fact: most montages in spec screenplays are dull, predictable and/or
unnecessary. That's why they get a bad name as a storytelling device.
End of.

Montages I see most often are changing rooms, characters cooking some
kind of sumptuous meal or changing seasons (usually through a window) or
urban development across a city on the horizon. In other words, the spec
writer is simply trying to hammer home a mood or passing of time, without
actually fitting it into the context of the overarching story. Yes of course
sometimes it *can* work, but like so many things in this screenwriting
malarkey, sooooooo often it doesn't. With so many montages, you could
literally highlight them, cut them and the next reader would never even know it
had been there! Scary thought, because this basically means there's a chunk
of your screenplay that is COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE.

A good montage PUSHES THE STORY FORWARD and contributes to the

story as a whole. The "let's prepare to fight" montage is a staple of horror and
thriller: after a panicking and fleeing in the first half, the protagonist and
friends will take stock and gather their resolve/weapons for the second half
where they kick ass. In comedy, a character (usually the protagonist, but not
always) may go through a number of trials and tribulations somewhere in the
narrative (usually the first half) that marks them out as a loser or in need of
help in some way. Detectives and investigative reporters may follow a
montage of leads that go nowhere in other stories/genres and so it goes on.

In other words then, MAKE YOUR MONTAGE COUNT. If you find yourself
saying, "there needs to be a montage here because I need to signify the
passing of time [for whatever reason]" ask yourself if it's because you're
obsessing over timeframe too much:

Yes, in reality certain things take a certain amount of time... Even a

mega whirlwind romance takes several weeks before marriage is
considered without being WEIRD, but do you really need to have a
montage about said couple having a wonderful time together when
drama is about conflict?
 4

Then there are the obvious things that cannot be changed: pregnancy
takes nine months, that's a fact. But do you REALLY need to have a
montage at the midpoint for no other reason than to ensure your
pregnant protagonist goes from her first to third trimester? Really?!

It is important to remember a screenplay is NOT reality, but a representation

of it. I've seen many great films in which passing of time is signified without
the use of boring montage that does nothing but pass time. Think of American
Psycho: it jumps from Christmas to Easter - three whole months at least - *just
like that*. Did you even notice?

I bet you didn't.

So think of montages less about PASSING TIME and more about ADDING
TO STORY.

Non-Linearity
Non-Linearity is big news in the spec pile -- I'd venture for every ten specs I
read, at least three will be non-linear. When I say "non-linear", I mean the
"beginning, middle, end" will not necessarily be in *that* order. Famous non-
linear movies include Pulp Fiction, Memento, Twelve Monkeys, The Bourne
Supremacy, Slumdog Millionaire and Premonition. Non-linearity sometimes
finds its way into TV specs - particularly of the supernatural genre - usually in
the form of flashback.

I love non-linearity. Done well, it can really add a new dimension to a story.
But unfortunately the majority of specs in the pile do not do non-linearity well.
Instead, the structure of the story becomes very confused, even hopelessly
disjointed. The reasons for this are four-fold:

1) Scribes are attempting to run before they can walk. Traditional three
act or sequence structure (or its variations) may seem deceptively
straightforward, but if they were, then there would NOT be literally thousands
of specs out there that make no sense. Add non-linearity as well and a scribe
just totally blows a reader's mind.
 5

2) There is no throughline. A reader needs to know WHAT is "present" and

WHAT is "past" and WHY we're travelling between them, else the different
time threads have no impact and everything that goes on just seems very
muddled. A very good example of a recent throughline is Slumdog Millionaire:
Jamal is asked a question in the game and then he remembers the answer
and HOW he knows it - the game acts as an "anchor". In Memento, the main
plot goes BACKWARDS, but the sub plot -- "Sammy Jankis" -- goes
FORWARDS. In Premonition, every time Linda wakes up, she has something
new to go through regarding her ordeal of the week from Hell -- a bit like
Groundhog Day, only NOT funny. In short, there needs to be something -
anything - to ANCHOR people in the story, a REASON why it's not in the
"right" order.

3) Flashbacks need their own structure. If you watch The Crow or The
Bourne Supremacy, you will notice the flashbacks all ADD UP together to
form their OWN story. Flashbacks don't always have to do this, but it really
helps otherwise we just don't know why we're seeing these fragments of the
past. Other times, flashbacks need to "answer" something that is seen in the
PRESENT, ie. the "oldy but goody" flashback of someone REMEMBERING
something that happened because they see something similar in the present,
a staple of crime drama, though this is not to be mistaken for the "version".
CSI made the "version" popular -- ie. detectives rewrite what they THINK
happened and we actually see a character do something crime-related, even
if they didn't.

4) The story in question does not need to be non-linear. Whilst a scribe

should always do whatever they want, I'm of the opinion there is a LOT of
non-linear specs in the pile that do not essentially NEED to be non-linear and
could work FAR BETTER in a traditional method of structure. If we consider
all those uber-famous non-linear movies, they all have a specific reason
STORY-WISE for using non-linearity; in comparison then, when I ask a scribe
if their spec NEEDS to be, they frequently can't answer why other than saying
it "would look cool". Yet we all *know* story is king/queen, not looking cool.
 6

Voiceover
Once upon a time, if a reader were to look in the spec pile, s/he'd find scripts
BURSTING with voiceovers. Most of these voiceovers would, indeed, be
rubbish. But then a huge proportion of the spec pile was rubbish, so really it
was no big deal.

Then voiceovers started disappearing from spec scripts. I'm not sure exactly
when this started. perhaps three or four years ago. I think I've perhaps seen
five scripts this year with VO. Last year, I saw maybe ten, max. Of course we
all know why - his initials are R M - but I think it's a great shame.

Voiceover can be a FANTASTIC tool for revealing character and pushing the
story forward. Consider these movies that all feature voiceover:

Stand By Me
The Shawshank Redemption
American Psycho
The Brave One
American Beauty
Adaptation
Casino
Sunset Boulevard
The Piano
Badlands
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Taxi Driver
The Princess Bride
The Royal Tenenbaums
Raising Arizona
Goodfellas
Days of Heaven

... Need I go on?!?!?

Voiceover is NOT automatically "lazy writing" -- that's dross. If you want to use
voiceover, YOU ABSOLUTELY SHOULD -- as long as it a) reveals character
b) pushes the story forward. Oh -- like any other screenwriting device!
 7

The only caveat to the above? There are readers out there who have
swallowed RM's assertions whole and will write on your reports, "use of
voiceover = no good". TAKE A DEEP BREATH when this happens, move on.
End of the day, there will always be elements of your script that won't appeal
to everyone regardless.

Recognise voiceover for what it is - a calculated risk. But then, most things
are in this scriptwriting malarkey, right down to the story you choose.

Static Scenes
Scripts in the spec pile often suffer from static scenes. Very often this is due
to exchange after exchange of dialogue, going on and on for pages ad pages.
In cases like this, it's always wise to not let dialogue run away with you: just
because it feels good to write lots of dialogue, doesn't mean it should ALL be
there. As I always say -- ALL scripts have too much dialogue. Think of
dialogue as a scriptwriting device like any other: HOW does it SERVE the
scene? How does it contribute to the OVERALL STORY? If it doesn't do
either, the answer is simple: CUT CUT CUT (no matter how much you like the
lines themselves).

Other times, these static scenes are created because the writer is putting
some kind of constraint on themselves, real or imagined. New writers often
labour under the notion a "low budget film" is made up entirely of people
within the same location, speaking (or that television is simply page after page
of dialogue exchange with no movement). Sometimes short film directors will
limit everything to a single location - a park bench, a lift, a basement etc - and
not allow characters to move away from that place because they don't want to
have to set up the camera and the equipment again. But limited locations do
not mean static scenes - it just means you have to get CREATIVE within
those specified place/s. This is something continuing drama does especially
well, so even if you don't like soap it's worth having a good look for that in
terms of craft.

Lastly, sometimes static scenes are created because the only "movement"
 8

within the scene relates to very specific body/placing movements, ie:

NICK puts his head in his hands. Sighs.

NICK: I don't think I can do it.

RACHEL approaches, hands on hips. Annoyed, she walks to

the window, stares outside.

RACHEL: You always do this.

Nick erupts from his chair, turns her around - grabs

Rachel by the arms.

NICK: Don't... talk to me like that.

Rachel shakes her head. She throws her head back, laughs.

RACHEL: I'll talk to you however I want.

This usually happens when a writer realises there needs to be more *to* a
scene, but believes the only way they can do this is through ACTUAL
PHYSICAL HAPPENINGS. Newsflash - it doesn't have to. What's more, as
the writer strives to account for every action to "paint a picture" of that
movement, it actually creates the opposite effect -- making the scene turgid.
What about:

NICK: I don't think I can do it.

RACHEL: You always do this.

Suddenly, Nick grabs Rachel. She stiffens, threatened.

NICK: Don't... talk to me like that.

The threat evaporates: Rachel sneers - Little Big Man.

RACHEL: I'll talk to you however I want.

 9

Scene Description
It all comes down to this:

I have never seen a screenplay that has benefited from MORE scene
description.

Good scene description pushes the story forward and/or reveals character - in
as few words as possible. Scene description is not just about DESCRIBING,
it's about doing - because scene description is scene action.

That's just the way it is.

So remember the whole "less is more" thing? However you write it in the first
draft, cut it by HALF in the second draft. At least. And make sure every word
of scene description in subsequent drafts is performing a proper function, or
cut it. And for God's sake, check your spelling and grammar. Oh - and kill
those widows. (If youre not sure what a widow is, check out Bill Martells 16
Steps To Better Scene Description in www.tinyurl.com/reqdreading).

Make every single word count.

Dialogue
There's always too much dialogue in spec scripts. If characters are not what
they say, but what they do - then guess what, the average character in the
average spec simply isn't doing enough.

Of course, many writers attempt to give themselves "get out of jail free" cards
when it comes to dialogue. The classics I hear most often are:

1) "This script is for television."

2) "Sitcoms are dialogue-led."

 10

3) "This script is for children."

4) "This script needs a lot of exposition because it's a police

procedural/medical series."

5) "This feature is a drama."

So let's take a look at each of them.

1) Television has more dialogue than film, sure. But there aren't many of you
out there writing spec soaps -- I get roughly 2 or 3 of those a year at most.
Most writers wanting to write for television have spec returning drama series
as a sample instead and have exchange after exchange of dialogue, paying
TOO MUCH off within it, as if this is the *norm*. It's not. Check out the likes of
Spooks, Torchwood, Dr Who, Hustle -- all are known for strong visuals AS
WELL AS dialogue. Oh, and enigmatic front men who "do" plenty - more than
they "say", I would argue.

2) Sitcoms are very much about dialogue, but they're not just about *funny
lines*. The sitcoms I read most often could be just gag after gag,
concentrating so much on the comedy aspect, the actual situation part is
forgotten. What's more, if you watch any of the *great* sitcoms you'll see it's
not just about spoken jokes either, but other devices such as reported
character, visual gags, farce, structural set ups and pay offs and even a dose
of pathos in some of them. So yet again, whilst sitcom MIGHT be "dialogue-
led", it's not quite as dialogue-led as you might think... Which is why it's so
hard to write.

3) No, no, no... The idea that children need more dialogue than an adult is
WRONG. Children growing up now are more media literate than any child of
any generation before. They don't need extended chunks of explanation, in
fact they're more likely to find THAT confusing! Because to the average kid -
especially those under approx 12 - "what you see is what you get", but
crucially they're instinctively decoding the layers as well, they *know* there
are secret messages. The next generation is all about the visual, don't
underestimate that for one second.

4) Police procedurals and medical dramas do need a lot of exposition, sure.

 11

But if that exposition is STANDING IN for the actual drama - the *doing*, if you
like - then you have a problem, end of.

5) Drama features indulge in the "ordinary" and/or "plausible" and can not only
be forgiven for having more dialogue than the genre film, it's ENCOURAGED.
But to do this, the dialogue has got to ROCK. Too many writers believe writing
a drama means they can write the kind of dialogue THEY might say in REAL
LIFE, the type that doesn't really go anywhere or add anything. Actually, in the
drama features, its dialogue has to perform the same function as in ALL
OTHER scripts: push the story forward, reveal character. Or CUT IT.

Character & Plot

We all know *that* saying: characters are what they DO, not what they SAY.
But what does it mean?

Characters all need to have a REASON to physically be in your script. It's no

good writing someone in who is witty, vibrant or whatever, yet has no
purpose. No matter how great a character is *is*, if they have no motivation or
role function, they're going to stick out like a sore thumb - and not for a good
reason.

As unfashionable as it is to say this, plot CAN exist without good characters,

as long as they all have a purpose and your protagonist has a definable
need/goal. Check out any 80s/90s action film with the likes of Jean Claude
Van Damme or Steven Seagal in. Do we care about his emotional journey? Of
course we don't! We want him to open a can of whup-ass and karate kick a
few incredibly 2D bad guys to death, thank you very much.

Most Hollywood films these days appear to pay lip service to the *idea* of
character, giving us the barest minimum, investing heavily in plot. Anyone
who has watched Predators knows the characterisation of the NEW
characters makes the Arnie version seem like Tolstoy. Television is known to
make use of stereotype to make its point quickly, too: women in professional
 12

positions? They're all ball-breakers/bitches. Male cops are bent or saviours.

Young mothers live in tower blocks and all have tattoos and piercings. Young
black and hispanic men are all gang members but turn their lives around
somehow and become youth workers or even the chief of police. You get my
drift.

So no matter HOW GREAT your character is, if they have no specific

motivation or role function, then the plot meanders and doesn't go very far.
And guess what: the reader gets bored/confused. Yes, there have been films
that are more like plays and nothing much happens and it's all very cerebral,
blah-de-blah. Occasionally a completely BONKERS film like The Fifth
Element turns up - I don't think Besson even TRIED to *really* hang that
together - but the characters of Corbin Dallas and LeeLou pretty much carried
it off. But these films are the exceptions, not the rule.

9/10? Your spec needs character + plot = to get read all the way through.
That's just the way it is.

And yes, it's the same with television as it is with films. We NEED plot. It's
what audiences want -- they do not go to the cinema, crack open the DVD box
or turn on the telly to watch something "about a guy/woman"... They want to
see a film or drama:

"About a guy/woman WHO [does something and this happens]"

This means:

You need a goodie and a baddie

We need a clear, obvious situation they find themselves in

The goodie needs to want or do something - and the baddie wants to

stop them

THOSE are the very basics. Anything else can be built on top of that. Yet too
often these basics are what's missing.

Very often scribes want to keep us guessing in some way - and mystery is
 13

good. But we need to know WHO and WHAT we're dealing with FIRST in
order to appreciate it is a mystery... Don't make us wait all the through to
know that and put all the exposition at the BACK of your script. Mystery only
works if we know who the protagonist is, what they're up against first and
WHY. This doesn't mean you put all the exposition in the FRONT of the script
either, but mete it out, dose by dose over the course of the narrative.

Check out any police procedural or crime feature and how they do it. The
protagonist or team investigating starts off knowing NOTHING and throughout
the course of the narrative goal posts are changed, red herrings introduced
and blind alleys presented. Yet still, by the end of the piece, we usually know
exactly who did it and why -- and it's hardly ever someone we've not seen
before the bit they get arrested in the resolution.

So:

Goodie

Baddie

Goal/Counter goal

Yes, yes... We all KNOW this. Yet it's so often NOT on the page.

So... What are you going to do about it?

.

Advanced Characterisation
As mentioned in the previous article, those are the VERY basics - but all too
often missing in the spec pile. If a reader hasn't a clue who to root for, their
interest isn't going to be hooked; if their interest isn't hooked -- well, you know
what happens. Applying the very basics then helps a writer understand where
they could be potentially going wrong, especially with clarity issues when it
comes to plot.

But as with anything in this scriptwriting malarkey, the notion of goodies vs.
baddies is not just *it*. As appealing as it is to have two characters blatantly
 14

up against each other and slugging it out (literally or metaphorically),

sometimes the type of story you're telling or the format (especially in TV) does
not always warrant it. Here are my thoughts on what makes advanced
character.

The protagonist is their own antagonist. The character who is their own
worst enemy is always a treat to see, but inevitably an extremely hard sell.
Miles in Sideways sabotages himself constantly, whether it's (not) kissing
Maya or ringing up his ex drunk; he's a liar too -- lying even to himself: he tells
his friend on the phone he's stuck in traffic, when the reality is he's
HUNGOVER, he wasn't just "wine tasting", he was getting PISSED the night
before. However, it's important to remember Miles can't *just* be on his own...
He will feel self-indulgent and annoying. Contrasted against the carefree,
irresponsible and downright cad Jack however, Miles suddenly seems a lot
more reasonable. Also, having to "sort Jack out" (or at least get him back to
his fiancee) gives Miles a sense of purpose - so whilst Jack is not the
antagonist per se, he offers a force Miles must go up against, making Miles a
more active character himself, whom we can empathise with more instead of
reckoning he's a plain sad loser.

The protagonist is their own antagonist # 2. This bubble seems to have

burst a little in recent years, but the idea of the protagonist BEING the
antagonist, especially a murderer (what I call, "The Killer Is Me" stories -- if
any of you are Alice in Chains fans?) is really a bit of a ruse. After all, in order
to present the protagonist AS the antagonist, the scribe must create an
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT character, otherwise we will SEE the protagonist
performing both roles in the produced movie and thus the intrigue is lost --
what would the point have been in seeing Ed Norton as his character in Fight
Club and Tyler Durden?? No point, really - which is why Brad Pitt was cast.
So really, we're back in almost "goodie vs. baddie" territory and away from the
slick characterisation of Miles IMHO.

Theme as antagonist. Sometimes there is no "actual" physcial antagonist in

a piece - instead, its theme is the antagonistic force the protagonist must
reckon with. An excellent example of this is Charlie and The Chocolate
Factory (old version starring Gene Wilder), where the children must overcome
GREED in order to get Willy Wonka's Factory. The children are constantly
invited to BE greedy throughout and those that fall, are despatched. Even
 15

Charlie *almost* succumbs when faced with the uber-cool fizzy pop and
Wonka's disappointment and hurt is obvious, so Charlie must redeem himself.
In the John August version, I found Wonka much more creepy and less child-
like; as a result I found him more of a traditional antagonist that Charlie is
*made* to impress in order to "get" the factory.

Dual protagonists. A character device that seems to turn up once in a blue

moon in movies - and when it does, it's inevitably done well, making us
perhaps believe it's easier than it really is. When I first watched Independence
Day I was approximately fifteen years old and immediately struck by the fact
Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith share almost the same amount of screen-time.
In the 90s the "lone hero" in the likes of Keanu and Arnie was big news and I
felt very confused, until I realised something: whilst the two characters had
different journeys to get to the underground government safe place, they had
the same GOAL: getting to to their loved ones. Once they had found their
loved ones, their goal switched: DEFEAT THE ALIENS (and arguably, save
their loved ones from them) -- and they did this together, too. Whilst
Independence Day might be full of uber-American norms and values with
some horrendous stereotypes (The British troops - "I say, the Americans have
only gone and bloody done it!"), the dual protagonists were written well for the
most part - and certainly provided the plot with some interesting manoevres
that kept the masses happy, without a musclebound "lone hero". Quite a feat
in retrospect. Dual protagonists should not be confused with Partners, seen
mostly in crime drama on TV - Dempsey and Makepeace; Rosemary &
Thyme; Miami Vice; Starsky & Hutch; Dalziell & Pacoe etc etc, where I would
argue one character always eclipses the other, even when they appear on
screen together, even if only slightly. If we consider a drama series like Ashes
to Ashes for example here, though Alex Drake was supposed to be our
protagonist, it was always *really* the Gene Hunt show, even to the point the
resolution was HIS, not Alex's at the end of the series. When it comes to
television, I think the viewing public always vote their preferences early on
and this ends up getting written in, if only subconsciously by the showrunners
- television seems more participatory like that.

The Late Protagonist (in film). Generally speaking, these days we START
with the protagonist, literally on page 1, usually even the first LINE of scene
description. After all, Witness was donkey's years' ago now. In contrast, in
Predators, we literally start, falling through the sky with our protagonist. It's
 16

what modern audiences want: we have decided in recent years, like

crocodiles and ducklings, to imprint on the first character we see as our
protagonist - and can get very narked if it isn't that person, ie. "Why start with
him, if we're supposed to be following this other guy???" I'd venture that most
of the time, it is a good idea to start with the protagonist, especially in spec
writing - it's the "norm" at the moment and writing follows fashion like anything
else. However, if you have a good reason NOT to start with the protagonist,
then make it a really COMPELLING reason, make us not care it's not the
protagonist, divert our attentions well.

The Late Protagonist (in TV). There's a certain amount of leverage when it
comes to television, usually in the form of the prologue. Cops n' Docs do it
best: we START with a victim or patient dying/collapsing... Then the team
come and investigate. The protagonist - or more crucially, the LEADER -
doesn't always have to come out right away and TV audiences seem able to
accept this pretty well. Having said that, I would always counsel caution to
those spec writers who DON'T have their protagonist/leader of the team arrive
within the first 5 pages at least. Rarely have I seen a REALLY late
protagonist/leader arrive (eg. after page 6), as it feels as if we're "waiting" for
the story to kick off.

The Ensemble Cast. When it comes to television OR film, the ensemble cast
is never as big as the average spec writer seems to think. I'm often treated to
what I call a Mer De Noms or "sea of names" - characters are introduced...
and introduced... and introduced! I usually end up looking at approximately
13-15 names, though I have read scripts with even more. End of the day, the
average story in a spec, whether 60 OR 90 pages, simply can't support this
many *important* characters. Don't believe me? Let's look at the evidence:

A) Films Ensemble Casts. The usual fare has a protagonist and antagonist
with up to three *important* secondaries each that HELP or HINDER their
respective causes, right? Well it's pretty much the same in ensemble cast
films - there is still a protagonist and antagonist, it's just the "gap" between the
secondaries and those "first" two is much smaller or tighter than in a more
"traditional" film. This might be because of the mission itself or because there
is a designated leader, it doesn't really matter: *someone* is always in charge.
Consider Slumdog Millionaire, which won The Screen Actors' Guild award
for "best ensemble cast". Surprised? After all, it's really Jamal's story, right?
 17

Except loads of other characters - and versions of Jamal at various ages -

lead the action too, especially the brother Said. But that's just it: there's
always one character who is *top*.

B) Television ensemble casts. Consider UK TV favourites Torchwood and

Hustle (when they first came out):

Torchwood: Captain Jack, Gwen, Ianto, Owen, Tosh. Not part of the direct
team, but often part of episodes - Rhys (Gwen's boyfriend) and Martha Jones
("visiting ally")

Hustle: Mickey Briggs, Danny Blue, Albert, Stacey, Ash. Not part of team
directly, but often part of episodes - Eddie The Bartender ("friend")

These are the CORE ELEMENTS of the episodes if you like - though not all
characters will appear in every episode, there is a good chance most of them
will.

On top of these core elements is the ANTAGONIST OF THE WEEK - which

more often than not refers to the "story of the week", the part of the show
that needs to be resolved within the hour. In Torchwood that antagonist
will be an alien, ghost or supernatural force of some kind - once it was even
one of its own old team members back from the dead, Susie. In Hustle it will
more often than not be the "mark" - whoever it is they are grifting that week,
though occasionally there are ructions within the team itself, like the constant
challenging for the top spot by Danny Blue against Mickey Briggs.

The Large Cast. OF COURSE it's possible to have a large cast; not all films
feature ONLY 6-8 important characters. But 9/10 I think the idea of LOADS
OF CHARACTERS is essentially an illusion. One example I hear again and
again is the idea Aliens has "loads and loads of characters". to some degree,
scribes are right; before the characters go into the alien nest, there are indeed
lots of marines. But nearly all of them die/get cocooned by the end of that
sequence, leaving - guess what: a protagonist (Ripley); an antagonist (Burke);
plus the important secondaries Gorman, Hudson, Hicks, Vasquez, Newt.
Then there's the android Bishop and the pilot and her crewman still alive
(though those latter two are despatched almost immediately). So in real
terms, there are just EIGHT characters once the conflict really kicks in. It
 18

seems eight is the magic number in film.

IN CONCLUSION: the main issues then with both the TV specs and feature
scripts I see? They not only have TOO MANY characters, the scribes in
question spend so long introducing them, the reader ends up "waiting" for the
story to BEGIN. Character and story - the situation they find themselves in -
should be introduced hand-in-hand.

Titles
Titles are a reader's and audience's first port of call. Your title needs to be
catchy and it needs to say *something* about the film and/or character at the
heart of it. Pick a crap title and you put people off. Sorry to be blunt - actually
I'm not sorry at all, it's true. We all make assumptions based on title!

1) What is it? Yes might seem obvious, but there's a lot of genre scripts that
sound like dramas and vice versa in that spec pile!

a) **General** rule of thumb - a first name as a title screams DRAMA, ie.

Juno. Obvious exception to the rule? Crime scripts titled with the surname of
the protagonist who is usually a policeman (esp TV): ie. Luther, Taggart.
Other general drama refs would be first person in the title, ie. My Summer of
Love, My House in Umbria or place/country names: Munich, Australia.
Sometimes dramas will have a lengthy title like Alice Doesn't Live Here
Anymore, but this seems less now and I certainly can't remember the last time
I saw such a long title for a drama in the spec pile.

b) Genre features in particular need to be catchy but NOT TOO CLEVER.

Think of all the best horror titles: they do exactly what they say on the tin, ie.
Alien (originally called Starbeast!! 100% true), Predator, Jaws. Same with
thrillers: Se7en (about the seven sins); Panic Room (they're trapped in a
panic room); Red Eye (it's on the red eye flight to Miami), etc etc. Action-
Adventures often describe exactly what's in them: The Running Man, The
Core, Under Siege, Deep Impact. Comedies and Rom-Coms often describe
the people in them (Ghostbusters, The Wedding Crashers, The Yes Man) or
 19

the situation (Just Friends, The Proposal, Meet The Parents etc.) You catch
my drift. One or two words should do usually do it - personally I'm a big fan of
the one word title for genre movies.

2) Naming it after the setting/job is good for TV, not so great for film.
Titles like Eastenders, Coronation Street, Doctors, Casualty, etc works really
well in TV and you'd do well to take a leaf out of TV Bosses' books if you're
writing a soap or precinct drama. But for film? Doesn't really feel *vital*
enough, Arlington Road strikes me as a bad title for a film about terrorism, for
example - I recall getting it out on video way back and being really surprised.
Better to go for 1a) or b) I'd say (dependant on what it is). Sometimes movies
are named after job titles like TV scripts, but I'm struggling to think of one.

3. Don't use a song lyric/title. Please, please stop. Over the years I've had
all kinds of lyrics from songs and they rarely work, usually because the scribe
involved has picked something really obscure. Worst of all are the scripts that
keep going back to said lyrics as if they reveal something about the plot, but
being so obscure, they just can't. Better to write your OWN song that fits in
with your plot -- a Ruth Rendell mystery did this really well with Some Lie And
Some Die. Sure, sometimes song TITLES work - Sweet Home Alabama leaps
out at me - but 9/10, if you haven't used an OBSCURE one, it just means
there's YET ANOTHER script doing the rounds with the same title. YAWN.
Biggest offenders? Teenage Kicks by a country mile, but also In The Name Of
Love, Karma Chameleon and just recently I've had a rash of As My Guitar
Gently Weeps. I even got a I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)!!!

4. If using a well-known phrase/specific word, Google it. I wrote a script

called WISH, but no one liked that title so I changed it to CRY WOLF. Then I
discovered not only was that a song by A-Ha (hardly the audience I was going
for), there was a movie by the same title starring JON BON JOVI! So I
changed it to Eclipse. Oh, alas, the Twilight movies come out a couple of
years later. Le Sigh. That script is destined to be title-less, I swear. Hey ho.
For those still interested in this section, the title ALONE seems to be one I see
most regularly and anything containing the word "blood" -- ie. BLOOD TIES,
BLOOD RIGHT, BLOODLINE, etc. Other titles that crop up lots randomly are
NEW YEAR, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DADDY, FATHER'S DAY, DEAR MUM.

5. Obscure Titles Need A Good Source. Sometimes a good title can stand a
 20

certain amount of intrigue, but you need to choose really wisely. The one that
sticks out at me here is Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind. I think this is
a brilliant title, because it's obscure enough to give us a flavour of the film, but
intriguing enough without being up its own arse. The title comes from
Alexander Pope's poem, Eloisa to Abelard. Note: songs are not a good
source, everyone is doing it. Also, here there's always the chance you WILL
come off as a pompous ass, far better to go for 6).

6. If you want a fancy title, be prepared to really go for it. Things To Do In

Denver When You're Dead and To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie
Newmar immediately spring to mind. One script I saw floating about one year
- I don't recall if I read it or merely saw it on a website, mind - had the title
EVERY TIME I GO TO STATEN ISLAND SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS. That
type of mad title would make me want to read the script, but beware: I'd be
expecting at least a black comedy. NOTE: Don't make it a song lyric, as
above.

Most importantly of all, don't get hung up on your title. 9/10 you will have to
change it as the piece evolves - and sticking with it *no matter what* can hurt
your ability to do this. For instance, I had a conversation about my woman-in-
peril script, originally called RUN that actually went like this:

AGENT: Does she have to run? Couldn't she just stay...

couldn't the action in the resolution be contained?

ME: (Brain exploding) But it's called "Run". She has to

run away??
AGENT: Well, couldn't you change the title as well?

ME: Um... yes.

Once he actually said that, I suddenly realised I'd been letting my title - a
pretty crap one at that - get in the way of fixing the issue in the resolution. It
was like a million light bulbs turned on in my head.

And guess what - if you go through all that and are lucky enough to get
optioned AND your piece produced? I bet **they** change your title anyway.
 21

Rewriting & Feedback

So a writer hires Bang2write to do some notes on their screenplay. I send
their notes off and about thirty seconds later I get one of the following
messages:

OMG! These notes are AMAZING, I'm going to put ALL OF THEM in the new
draft!! You're AWESOME, I LOVE YOU, can you read the new version for me
next week, gonna spend ALL WEEKEND rewriting it!!!!!!!

Or:

Really, really upset. I thought this new draft was the one I could send off/film
but now I realise I have to REWRITE EVERYTHING, my brain is
EXPLODING, maybe I shouldn't even BE a writer - I think I will go and live in
Tibet IN SHAME scratching a living off the Earth. But before that, can you
read it again if I rewrite it next week?

Or:

WTF is wrong with you, YOU DIDN'T GET IT AT ALL. I'm going to go through
EVERY SINGLE POINT of your notes, one by one, just to re-explain why
YOU'RE SO WRONG -- and then I'm gonna rewrite it and send to ANOTHER
READER next week because you're so wrong!!! And btw, you're wrong. I
HATE YOU.

OK, so I've exaggerated a little... on each one of them (though scarily not that
much, sometimes).

But which response is the *right* response... Answer? When it comes to

rewriting, NONE OF THEM.

That's right -- not even the first one. Much as I like being told how great I am
or how fab my notes are, a good rewrite NEEDS TIME. Too many writers
believe getting feedback means that WHAMMO -- they have their answer,
their draft is good OR bad and they have to do *whatever* to fix it and hey
presto! It's done.
 22

Just ten years ago, there were a lot more first-first drafts in the pile and by
jiminy it showed!! So it's good that these days, writers realise the power of
feedback -- whether it's paying for reads or sharing drafts amongst their
friends and colleagues.

However, this *new* way of working has its own problems. Writers are too
often completely reliant on others' opinions, they don't PROCESS the
feedback they get correctly, instead they ACCEPT or REJECT it *like that*,
working on this basis:

"I've had feedback. My script is not a first-first draft. Therefore it must be

good/okay/better than most of them out there."

If only it worked this way! Much as I believe ALL writers should get feedback
from *wherever*, just because you've had feedback does not mean your script
is great or that you will finish "quicker". Sometimes, by getting feedback from
the RIGHT place, it will mean EVEN MORE rewrites -- as that reader/script
editor encourages said writer NOT to take the quick route (ie. "FINISH THE
DRAFT NO MATTER WHAT") and to really invest in the issues they have with
actual STORYTELLING before looking at the actual story on the page.

I've encouraged many writers to do this, myself; those that have taken my
advice, I've seen thrive and make considerable progress in what I consider a
relatively short amount of time (usually roughly a year). They've done this by
taking a single script to learn their craft and really practice on. "Practice"
usually means getting reports and notes from a number of paid-for readers
and making a proper comparison between each set; watching movies and TV,
working out what they WANT to do and what they HAVEN'T got in their own
scripts; paying for short weekend courses; reading books, blogs, articles;
talking to other writers; paying for page-by-page consultations with script
doctors. In short, they spend their hard earned cash and time on what I call
their "foundation script", the one that unlocks their potential as a writer. That
script will be rewritten over and over again, maybe twenty or even thirty times
in the course of that year. It's their sole purpose and their sole goal -- and it's
only over when it's over.

I learnt this way. I might have done a BA (Hons) in Scriptwriting, but a year or
so after the degree, though I had been paid for my work, I was not making the
 23

kind of progress I wanted. So I did what I just described above and really
invested in my craft. And it worked. Everything I did that year impacts on my
writing on a daily basis.

In contrast, others who have declined my advice and said they DO want to
"finish the draft no matter what" have come back to me time and time again
with the same issues with storytelling -- they've quite literally held themselves
back and ironically slowed themselves down by trying to be quick... In short,
they don't know how to process good feedback -- and perhaps more
crucially, they don't know how to recognise BAD feedback.

Yes, rewrites in the professional world that are being produced need to be
quick. That's just the way it is.

But your spec? It takes as long as it takes -- to make it as good as it possibly

can be, to stand its best possible chance.

Rewriting a spec is not quick -- whether you're a newbie, a seasoned writer or

a pro. You do get quicker at rewriting however -- what once took me thirty
drafts, now takes about ten to get a script in reasonable shape to show
people.

That's right -- TEN DRAFTS. My recent thriller was on its tenth or eleventh
before someone expressed an interest in it. Since that moment, I've rewritten
it a further four times. If it gets produced and I'm lucky enough to stay on it,
I'm willing to bet I'll have to rewrite it at least another four.

I started this spec when I was seven months' pregnant with my daughter...
She starts school this September.

Don't rely on others' opinions to tell you what you're doing wrong OR right.
Really KNOW yourself where you're going with a spec - process the feedback
you get and give yourself plenty of time for the rewrite. Don't knee-jerk in your
bid to finish.

It might not feel like it, but you have all the time in the world to make this the
best you can. Don't blow it.
 24

Submissions, Rejections &

Relationships
In the last of these articles, here are my thoughts on sending stuff out, dealing
with rejection and making things happen:

DO: Plan ahead. With such a wealth of information at your fingertips, there is
no excuse to NOT know what is going on in the writing world, especially
things like The Red Planet Prize or The BBC Writers' Academy. Knowing how
your "writing year" works against your "real life year" helps you make
decisions on what you CAN and CANNOT do, realistically.

DON'T: Panic or tell yourself it can't be done. I'm a big believer in the old
adage, "if you want something done, ask a busy person". If I looked too
closely at my mega schedule, I'd probably die of fear, so I don't look too far
ahead and take each day as it comes. Do whatever works for you to make
sure you don't succumb to THE FEAR.

DO: Set goals. It doesn't matter how big or small these goals are. Some of
them will work out; others will not; others still will change as you grow. But as
long as you're working towards them, that's all that counts.

DON'T: Tell yourself you're a failure if you do not achieve that goal.
Sometimes things will happen that are not your fault and prevent you from
getting that goal; other times, in working towards that goal you may realise it's
not the be-all and end-all you thought it was at the beginning and you may
SWITCH voluntarily to something else.

DO: Enter competitions and schemes. Even if you don't place, they are good
practice -- particularly if you won't have deadlines/specific briefs to write to
otherwise, but even if you are a professional or semi-pro, contests can give
you a good idea of whether your latest spec has "legs".

DON'T: Get hung up on competitions and schemes. There is a strong

element of chance to them -- think of the sometimes thousands of entries, all
pouring in at once! Sometimes putting too much on such contests and
 25

schemes can destroy new writers' confidence and for the semi-pros and pros,
contests and schemes can be a distraction from their paid or collaborative
work.

DO: Research a company or agent -- don't bombard them with material that is
not suitable for them. Most websites are quite specific about what they will or
will not read, so make sure you know.

DON'T: Complain. I often read scribes on forums and message boards

lamenting their scripts have been returned unread from various
companies/schemes or that they've heard nothing. Get used to it: it might not
be right, but it's the way of the writing world.

DO: Build up a dialogue with producers, agents, other writers, etc. Social
networking, especially Twitter, means access to the kind of people who
seemed so far off before, so don't waste your chance to get to *know* these
people online.

DON'T: Complain to these agents, producers, writers etc how hard writing/
getting an option/ getting an agent/ getting something made, etc is! It's the
one thing industry people seem unable to forgive because it's hard for
EVERYONE.

DO: Stay away from the negative people. They are always there and just
ready to suck you in.

DON'T: Try and justify yourself to the negative people. Sometimes we get
caught out by people who offer help, then put us down; other times people
who were previously our friends/colleagues get jealous or point fingers.
Recognise that things change, don't get down about it -- but block them out
your life, literally if necessary. There's absolutely no reason you HAVE to
converse with them anymore.

DO: Get all the help you can. The obvious choice would be to get an agent,
but if you can't -- make your circle of friends and colleagues your agents by
TELLING EVERYONE what you're working on. That way, next time a
producer says to someone else, "I need a horror script...", your
friend/colleague can recommend YOU (and you would, vice versa, natch).
 26

DON'T: Rely on everyone else to do your work for you, even your agent if you
have one. The one who is going to make things happen is YOU.

DO: Have many irons in the fire. I find it really helps to have lots of things
going on, it takes the bite off rejection, ie. "Well [they] rejected me, but I still
have [this] and [this] going on."

DON'T: Put all your eggs in one basket. As above, really.

DO: Be realistic. You can only do what you can do -- there is an element of
Lady Luck in all this. Our specs might be FABULOUS, but they also have to
hit the right zeitgeist and be in the right place, at the right time, in front of the
right person. Lining up those ducks is no mean feat and anyone who says it is
a either a nutter or has been EXTREMELY lucky.

DON'T: Give up. You never know how close you came.

OTHER BANG2WRITE RESOURCES

The Required Reading List a free e-library of articles

on writing by various authors:
www.tinyurl.com/reqdreading

The Feedback Exchange a list of writers interested in

swapping work for peer review, add your name!
www.tinyurl.com/fdbkxchng

The Format 1 Stop Shop a massive run-down of the

format issues Bang2write sees most often in the spec
pile: www.tinyurl.com/format1stop

Film Shorts Club a directory of writers, filmmakers,

actors & crew interested in collaborating on short films:
http://lucyvee.blogspot.com/2010/11/shorts-club.html

Good luck with your writing & making!