If you're based in Dorset or the South West, or heck, even beyond, then why not come along to the networking party that's happening next week? It's organised and hosted by the wonderful Rosie Jones. I'll let her blurb do the talking:
---
Sequel to Cannes is a networking party for industry film professionals and associates which provides opportunities to meet with other independent film professionals and film support agencies in an easy, relaxed atmosphere.
The event takes place on 30 July 2009 at The RNLI Training College in Poole from 7pm – 11pm. Sequel to Cannes will feature:
* Launch of The Sequel to Cannes Screenwriting competition (1st prize £500 sponsored by Creative Dorset)
* Launch and Live demonstration of the new Internationally accessed ‘Location Poole’ Film talent database
* High energy speed networking session; Giving YOU the opportunity to meet with Producers, Writers, Film Support Agencies and Film Industry Artists
* Trailers and screenings of films, made by local award-winning filmmakers
* Live demonstration of the RNLI Sea Survival Tank (Available for hire to film production companies)
* Bar available until late!
The events sponsors, UnLtd, Creative Dorset and the Poole Arts Development Unit will be available during the evening along with organisations such as Location Poole, South West Screen, UK Trade and Investment, The Writers' Guild of Great Britain, The Production Guild, and a member of the Skillset Board. They are all able to offer advice and support on funding, bursaries and training for individual artists or projects.
Tickets are on sale on a pre-booked basis for £16.50 through Lighthouse 08700 668 701 or £25 on the door (cash only).
Full information can be found here.
---
It's been running for three years now, and it's a great night out. Fun, friendly and, um, filmy. See you there!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Good Dialogue
What is good dialogue? What does it sound like? How do you know when you've written it? Why do some readers identify good dialogue when others wouldn't know what it was if it slapped them across their face?
Back in November 2005, I did this post, where I said dialogue carries four main functions: exposition, characterisation, subtext and humour. Yes, yes, all very well, but that's the basic functions. Again I ask, what is good dialogue?
Unfortunately, there isn't a straightforward answer. What comes across as good dialogue to some can be regarded as annoying cack to others. EVERY reader/exec/teacher will say subtext is the most important but that can often go unnoticed or ignored. Instead, you may hear that the dialogue was too flat or, the worst insult, too 'on-the-nose', even if the dialogue plays to a neat subtext. This could be your fault, i.e. bad writing, but it's not all the time.
When people say the dialogue is good in a script (or a film), they probably mean it's sharp and witty. It's something that can be clearly identified and it gives people an external reaction: they can laugh. Subtext and internal emotion is generally more subjective. It can be thoughtful or reflective, and the impact of the dialogue can be easily missed.
What writers are known for their great dialogue? Sorkin, Mamet, Tarantino? Sorkin's famed for his witty and intelligent lines, while Mamet is celebrated for his cerebral repartee. Tarantino's dialogue is now vilified as pop culture geek but you can't deny that it can be funny and surprising. Check out the opening sequence of Reservoir Dogs for the 'tipping waitress' scene. A lot of cross-talk and characters but it also gets across the necessary exposition, characterisation, subtext and humour.
So, what is good dialogue? For me, it's neat, focused exchanges on the dramatic issue of the scene. Rhythm and reaction. The particular syntax of a character's voice. Broken sentences or grammar misuse (because no-one speaks perfectly!). Humour, when relevant. A man who nervously stutters a marriage proposal won't necessarily read as good dialogue but his fumbling actions could be the perfect compliment to what he's saying, giving the scene subtext and humour. Therefore, good dialogue.
Tony Jordan gives a nice example. People say as little as they can, whenever they can. Especially to the people who will understand them with only a nod or a gesture. Most of us trade on a visual or verbal shorthand so that we don't have to say more than we need to.
So, someone is saying goodbye to a mate: "I'll see you later. I've got to buy some smokes before I head home." If these two are good mates, you could remove the unnecessary words so that the dialogue becomes more sharp and realistic. "See you later. Got to buy some smokes." But you can reduce it more. [HOLDS UP EMPTY FAG PACKET] "See you later." And even further. [HOLDS UP EMPTY FAG PACKET] "Later." It's a very ordinary line but it's the most effective use of dialogue for the character and the scene.
There's a great line of dialogue in Men in Black. Neat, sharp and very effective. ** SPOILERS ABOUT TOMMY LEE JONES'S CHARACTER ** Will Smith has been recruited into MIB and is teasing Tommy Lee Jones about his stiff nature. He then discovers that Tommy Lee had a wife, and Tommy Lee brings her up on computer to take a mournful look at her. He can't be with her anymore because his life is devoted to MIB. Will Smith says: "Better to have loved and lost than to never loved at all, right?" Tommy Lee says: "Try it." Shoving the cliché back in his face with two words that say so much: the man's heart is broken because he can't be with his wife. Subtext, characterisation, exposition.
Other good use of dialogue: imaginative swearing/insults (In The Loop, Glengarry Glen Ross), cute/sweet but not sickly (Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist, Juno), a different use of slang or language (Brick, Heathers) or realistic/humorous (You Can Count On Me, Lonesome Jim) where the story may not be a comedy but the very nature of the characters' dialogue and behaviour gives it amusing qualities.
How about you? Any particular dialogue that delights or makes you cringe? Not specific lines per se but the actual style, or the writer...?
Back in November 2005, I did this post, where I said dialogue carries four main functions: exposition, characterisation, subtext and humour. Yes, yes, all very well, but that's the basic functions. Again I ask, what is good dialogue?
Unfortunately, there isn't a straightforward answer. What comes across as good dialogue to some can be regarded as annoying cack to others. EVERY reader/exec/teacher will say subtext is the most important but that can often go unnoticed or ignored. Instead, you may hear that the dialogue was too flat or, the worst insult, too 'on-the-nose', even if the dialogue plays to a neat subtext. This could be your fault, i.e. bad writing, but it's not all the time.
When people say the dialogue is good in a script (or a film), they probably mean it's sharp and witty. It's something that can be clearly identified and it gives people an external reaction: they can laugh. Subtext and internal emotion is generally more subjective. It can be thoughtful or reflective, and the impact of the dialogue can be easily missed.
What writers are known for their great dialogue? Sorkin, Mamet, Tarantino? Sorkin's famed for his witty and intelligent lines, while Mamet is celebrated for his cerebral repartee. Tarantino's dialogue is now vilified as pop culture geek but you can't deny that it can be funny and surprising. Check out the opening sequence of Reservoir Dogs for the 'tipping waitress' scene. A lot of cross-talk and characters but it also gets across the necessary exposition, characterisation, subtext and humour.
So, what is good dialogue? For me, it's neat, focused exchanges on the dramatic issue of the scene. Rhythm and reaction. The particular syntax of a character's voice. Broken sentences or grammar misuse (because no-one speaks perfectly!). Humour, when relevant. A man who nervously stutters a marriage proposal won't necessarily read as good dialogue but his fumbling actions could be the perfect compliment to what he's saying, giving the scene subtext and humour. Therefore, good dialogue.
Tony Jordan gives a nice example. People say as little as they can, whenever they can. Especially to the people who will understand them with only a nod or a gesture. Most of us trade on a visual or verbal shorthand so that we don't have to say more than we need to.
So, someone is saying goodbye to a mate: "I'll see you later. I've got to buy some smokes before I head home." If these two are good mates, you could remove the unnecessary words so that the dialogue becomes more sharp and realistic. "See you later. Got to buy some smokes." But you can reduce it more. [HOLDS UP EMPTY FAG PACKET] "See you later." And even further. [HOLDS UP EMPTY FAG PACKET] "Later." It's a very ordinary line but it's the most effective use of dialogue for the character and the scene.
There's a great line of dialogue in Men in Black. Neat, sharp and very effective. ** SPOILERS ABOUT TOMMY LEE JONES'S CHARACTER ** Will Smith has been recruited into MIB and is teasing Tommy Lee Jones about his stiff nature. He then discovers that Tommy Lee had a wife, and Tommy Lee brings her up on computer to take a mournful look at her. He can't be with her anymore because his life is devoted to MIB. Will Smith says: "Better to have loved and lost than to never loved at all, right?" Tommy Lee says: "Try it." Shoving the cliché back in his face with two words that say so much: the man's heart is broken because he can't be with his wife. Subtext, characterisation, exposition.
Other good use of dialogue: imaginative swearing/insults (In The Loop, Glengarry Glen Ross), cute/sweet but not sickly (Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist, Juno), a different use of slang or language (Brick, Heathers) or realistic/humorous (You Can Count On Me, Lonesome Jim) where the story may not be a comedy but the very nature of the characters' dialogue and behaviour gives it amusing qualities.
How about you? Any particular dialogue that delights or makes you cringe? Not specific lines per se but the actual style, or the writer...?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Story Vault: Radio
Whatever you do, DO NOT MISS Michelle Lipton's indispensable breakdown of the Radio 4 commissioning process. Also, check out BBC Radio 4's website for their commissioning guide. You may want to think about writing radio plays, especially as the screenwriting opportunities dry up during the recession. To tie in with Michelle's excellent link, here's a post I did about radio from September 2005.
---
Many UK writers and comedians make their name on radio before they make that all-important transition to television, the theatre or even the big screen. It’s a route that it not often considered by new writers but should be given some serious thought because of the many opportunities and dramatic possibilities that exist within the format.
In the UK, BBC radio drama is the place to go if you want to get one of your plays on-air. BBC Radio 4 has the majority of slots: the afternoon play, the Friday play, the Saturday play, classic serial, woman’s hour drama, afternoon reading, book at bedtime, book of the week and of course, The Archers (long running soap). And on Radio 3, there’s the Sunday play at 8pm as well as The Wire (every first Thursday of the month, 10.15pm) which aims to push the boundaries of drama using first-time writers. Then there’s BBC7 and the BBC World Service.
That’s a lot of slots. A lot of plays. A lot of writers. A lot of opportunities. So how do you get your idea commissioned? Basically, the BBC split the year into two commissioning rounds, one in September/October, the other in March/April. They accept and develop ideas during these periods to give themselves enough plays to cover their demanding schedule throughout the year. However, it is extremely unlikely to get an idea approved as a writer alone. It is preferable, nay essential, that you attach yourself to either an in-house producer or an independent production company that specialises in radio plays. That way your idea has more clout and more chance of actually getting commissioned.
I am reliably informed that the radio process is similar to the stage in that it completely respects the writer during the development and production of the play. Not a word changes without the writer’s say so. Great, isn’t it? Last year, I attempted my first radio play but while I got the structure and format correct, the story was basically a bad soap opera because of my misguided preconceptions of the limitations of radio drama.
In truth, there are no limitations to radio drama. While obviously an audio format, it is also very much a visual medium where the audience’s imagination can fill in the blank canvas left between the words and sounds of the drama. After listening to a handful of radio plays, I also realised you can be quite bold, distinctive and adventurous in your style and choice of story. And after reading a few radio scripts, I was reassured that the art of screenwriting is very much in tandem with the demands of the radio play.
With this newfound sense of knowledge and enthusiasm, I am going to try to see if I can get a few radio commissions under my belt. I met a BBC in-house radio producer the other day (at Bafta, woooooh) who’s willing to help me bring my ideas to fruition. It’s new territory for me because I’ve been focusing so much on screenplays but it’s also an exciting opportunity because it offers a writer the chance to be truly creative, original and distinctive with what they have to say. So maybe now’s the time to switch off the TV for a while and turn on the radio instead.
---
---
Many UK writers and comedians make their name on radio before they make that all-important transition to television, the theatre or even the big screen. It’s a route that it not often considered by new writers but should be given some serious thought because of the many opportunities and dramatic possibilities that exist within the format.
In the UK, BBC radio drama is the place to go if you want to get one of your plays on-air. BBC Radio 4 has the majority of slots: the afternoon play, the Friday play, the Saturday play, classic serial, woman’s hour drama, afternoon reading, book at bedtime, book of the week and of course, The Archers (long running soap). And on Radio 3, there’s the Sunday play at 8pm as well as The Wire (every first Thursday of the month, 10.15pm) which aims to push the boundaries of drama using first-time writers. Then there’s BBC7 and the BBC World Service.
That’s a lot of slots. A lot of plays. A lot of writers. A lot of opportunities. So how do you get your idea commissioned? Basically, the BBC split the year into two commissioning rounds, one in September/October, the other in March/April. They accept and develop ideas during these periods to give themselves enough plays to cover their demanding schedule throughout the year. However, it is extremely unlikely to get an idea approved as a writer alone. It is preferable, nay essential, that you attach yourself to either an in-house producer or an independent production company that specialises in radio plays. That way your idea has more clout and more chance of actually getting commissioned.
I am reliably informed that the radio process is similar to the stage in that it completely respects the writer during the development and production of the play. Not a word changes without the writer’s say so. Great, isn’t it? Last year, I attempted my first radio play but while I got the structure and format correct, the story was basically a bad soap opera because of my misguided preconceptions of the limitations of radio drama.
In truth, there are no limitations to radio drama. While obviously an audio format, it is also very much a visual medium where the audience’s imagination can fill in the blank canvas left between the words and sounds of the drama. After listening to a handful of radio plays, I also realised you can be quite bold, distinctive and adventurous in your style and choice of story. And after reading a few radio scripts, I was reassured that the art of screenwriting is very much in tandem with the demands of the radio play.
With this newfound sense of knowledge and enthusiasm, I am going to try to see if I can get a few radio commissions under my belt. I met a BBC in-house radio producer the other day (at Bafta, woooooh) who’s willing to help me bring my ideas to fruition. It’s new territory for me because I’ve been focusing so much on screenplays but it’s also an exciting opportunity because it offers a writer the chance to be truly creative, original and distinctive with what they have to say. So maybe now’s the time to switch off the TV for a while and turn on the radio instead.
---
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Origin on IMDb
Well, will you look at that? Origin, the short film I wrote & directed this year (for those of you new to the blog), has got its own page on IMDb. The film is a supernatural drama/mystery about a woman who tries to keep her family together when her son falls ill after he's bitten by a mysterious creature. It stars Katy Carmichael, Lee Ross and Jack Blumenau.
And hey, if IMDb says I'm a producer and director now, then who am I to argue? I think the page has been created because of IMDb's links with Withoutabox, the film festival submission site, which I've recently joined. I'm doing my best to update all the credits and have sent IMDb a full list of the Associate Producers. A few names have started to appear so everyone should get their credit in due course.
I'm currently in the final stages of post-production. Sound/music mix next week, then the grade/DI the week after. Then it should be done! Good times. If you haven't checked out the website and trailer, then what are you waiting for?
Meanwhile, I'm in the middle of writing my second episode of EastEnders, which won't go out until Friday 13th November, 2009. It's an exciting episode, with lots of juicy story lines going on, so I'm getting stuck in as much as I can. I should get notes on my first draft this week (always a nervous wait) and then we'll see how everything is shaping up.
Have you been watching Torchwood this week? It's been great, hasn't it? And TV's James Moran continues to demonstrate his rising excellence by penning last night's humdinger. Viewing figures actually went up from the previous night, and they only do that when the story engages the audience to stick around until the end. Fantastic stuff from the blogging/Twitter legend. He's setting the bar high for us to follow. Let's hope we can keep up.
And hey, if IMDb says I'm a producer and director now, then who am I to argue? I think the page has been created because of IMDb's links with Withoutabox, the film festival submission site, which I've recently joined. I'm doing my best to update all the credits and have sent IMDb a full list of the Associate Producers. A few names have started to appear so everyone should get their credit in due course.
I'm currently in the final stages of post-production. Sound/music mix next week, then the grade/DI the week after. Then it should be done! Good times. If you haven't checked out the website and trailer, then what are you waiting for?
Meanwhile, I'm in the middle of writing my second episode of EastEnders, which won't go out until Friday 13th November, 2009. It's an exciting episode, with lots of juicy story lines going on, so I'm getting stuck in as much as I can. I should get notes on my first draft this week (always a nervous wait) and then we'll see how everything is shaping up.
Have you been watching Torchwood this week? It's been great, hasn't it? And TV's James Moran continues to demonstrate his rising excellence by penning last night's humdinger. Viewing figures actually went up from the previous night, and they only do that when the story engages the audience to stick around until the end. Fantastic stuff from the blogging/Twitter legend. He's setting the bar high for us to follow. Let's hope we can keep up.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
William Akers: Notes
Daniel Gritten won the ticket to attend the William Akers' talk on screenwriting last week. Daniel has written for radio, theatre and film. He currently has a screenplay in development with Milkwood Pictures.
I asked him to jot a few notes on the Aker's talk. Here's his report:-
---
William Akers Talk: Fatal Errors Beginning (and Experienced) Writers Make
William Akers has one ambition for your screenplay: to make it so good that the bored, busy, impatient, frazzled Script Reader finishes reading it. Too modest an ambition? Any one who has ever critiqued scripts will tell you not. During his recent London seminar, Akers described how beginning writers might achieve this.
Based on his book, Your Screenplay Sucks! 100 Ways to Make it Great, Akers provided a checklist for the screenwriter to improve their own work. The aim is not to beat the Reader, but to help the Reader. Help them visualise your scene, help them hear your characters, help them avoid distraction. In focussing on the mechanics of the industry and the importance of holding the Reader’s interest beyond page 10, Akers’ advice is more applicable to those polishing their screenplay than those staring at a blank sheet of paper. There are no dogmatic principles of story structure or mythic archetypes. Rather, in his cool Southern drawl, Akers relayed practical screenwriting nuggets gleaned from 20+ years of making a living in the ‘Entertainment Business’.
Here’s a couple of insights that chimed with me:
Names
Names are a common cause of grief for all writers. Akers was hot on names. A common mistake writers make is giving characters names that rhyme:
Donny
Sonny
Lonny
The audience laughed, but go back and look at your screenplay. Apparently, it is a common pitfall. As indeed are alliterative names:
Jim
John
Jane
Avoid these mistakes, and use names of differing length. Thinking of the harried Reader, it must be easier to keep distinctions clear when reading “Hieronymus” and “Mike” than when reading “Tom” and “Tim”. Akers directs writers to IMDb, find a cast list which you then mix up, and combine first and last names. Simple, effective advice.
Scene Description
Akers notes that writers tend to ignore scene description. It’s not fun. It’s not sexy. But it is important. Your aim is to make sure the Reader understands what you want them to understand. As an example:
Bob picks up the body.
Akers assumed that ‘body’ meant the character was dead. But the writer just wanted the character unconscious. As the reader, Akers had to go back and re-read to understand what was going on. The words that go on the page are important. Just as important are the words that don’t make it. He advises the use of active verbs only; go through your screenplay cutting ‘to be’ and ‘is’. Also falling to the red pen are all ‘stands/walks/begins’, all adverbs and ‘seems/appears’.
Akers also drew attention to what he described as ‘Image Order’.
Andrew Jackson was captured and wounded by British soldiers.
Was Jackson handcuffed, then shot? No, the other way around. So help the Reader create the mental pictures in the right order.
Perhaps all this seems obvious, but groaning slush piles suggest otherwise. Akers’ advice (available via his website, where his book is also available) is an immensely practical tool for those difficult rewriting days. Take his advice, if not for your own sake, then for the sake of the poor Reader.
---
Thanks, Daniel!
I asked him to jot a few notes on the Aker's talk. Here's his report:-
---
William Akers Talk: Fatal Errors Beginning (and Experienced) Writers Make
William Akers has one ambition for your screenplay: to make it so good that the bored, busy, impatient, frazzled Script Reader finishes reading it. Too modest an ambition? Any one who has ever critiqued scripts will tell you not. During his recent London seminar, Akers described how beginning writers might achieve this.
Based on his book, Your Screenplay Sucks! 100 Ways to Make it Great, Akers provided a checklist for the screenwriter to improve their own work. The aim is not to beat the Reader, but to help the Reader. Help them visualise your scene, help them hear your characters, help them avoid distraction. In focussing on the mechanics of the industry and the importance of holding the Reader’s interest beyond page 10, Akers’ advice is more applicable to those polishing their screenplay than those staring at a blank sheet of paper. There are no dogmatic principles of story structure or mythic archetypes. Rather, in his cool Southern drawl, Akers relayed practical screenwriting nuggets gleaned from 20+ years of making a living in the ‘Entertainment Business’.
Here’s a couple of insights that chimed with me:
Names
Names are a common cause of grief for all writers. Akers was hot on names. A common mistake writers make is giving characters names that rhyme:
Donny
Sonny
Lonny
The audience laughed, but go back and look at your screenplay. Apparently, it is a common pitfall. As indeed are alliterative names:
Jim
John
Jane
Avoid these mistakes, and use names of differing length. Thinking of the harried Reader, it must be easier to keep distinctions clear when reading “Hieronymus” and “Mike” than when reading “Tom” and “Tim”. Akers directs writers to IMDb, find a cast list which you then mix up, and combine first and last names. Simple, effective advice.
Scene Description
Akers notes that writers tend to ignore scene description. It’s not fun. It’s not sexy. But it is important. Your aim is to make sure the Reader understands what you want them to understand. As an example:
Bob picks up the body.
Akers assumed that ‘body’ meant the character was dead. But the writer just wanted the character unconscious. As the reader, Akers had to go back and re-read to understand what was going on. The words that go on the page are important. Just as important are the words that don’t make it. He advises the use of active verbs only; go through your screenplay cutting ‘to be’ and ‘is’. Also falling to the red pen are all ‘stands/walks/begins’, all adverbs and ‘seems/appears’.
Akers also drew attention to what he described as ‘Image Order’.
Andrew Jackson was captured and wounded by British soldiers.
Was Jackson handcuffed, then shot? No, the other way around. So help the Reader create the mental pictures in the right order.
Perhaps all this seems obvious, but groaning slush piles suggest otherwise. Akers’ advice (available via his website, where his book is also available) is an immensely practical tool for those difficult rewriting days. Take his advice, if not for your own sake, then for the sake of the poor Reader.
---
Thanks, Daniel!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)