SHOOTING PEOPLE - UK SCREENWRITERS NETWORK
Supported by The Script Factory

-----------------------------------------------

From: Pete Scott
Subject: Getting Your Screenplay or Teleplay Read

The best way I know for young writers to get their material read is by entering and winning writing competitions. Many writing competitions have industry judges who read screenplays through that channel. Moreover, winning a competition gives writers the opportunity to put that information into query letters that can be sent to agents, managers, and production companies.

For writers interested in this pathway, I recommend http://www.AmericanAccolades.com (email:info@AmericanAccolades.com), but there are many contests out there. American Accolades is open to writers from all countries, and offers two competitions, one for television, the other for feature films. Or, a simple search using keywords "screenwriting competition" should pull up a handful of contests on the web. For those serious about entering, there is a book called "How To Enter Screenplay Contests and Win."

-----------------------------------------------

From: Charles Shell
Subject: Moviebytes

As an addendum to Paul Abramson's posting anyone interested in the US market might find the Moviebytes (http://www.moviebytes.com) site useful. It lists upcoming competitions for screenplays and teleplays (with links to entry forms etc.). It also has an online service called 'who's buying what' which costs $20 for 6 months or $30 for a year and could be useful in tracking down which agents/studios (and there are a lot of them) are buying the type of material you're writing.

-----------------------------------------------

^TOP 

-----------------------------------------------

Cinematic Writing

From: Mark Grant
Subject: TV vs Cinema

"The problem is, what makes a script 'cinematic' instead of TV? Does anyone else have my problem of getting halfway through a script and then just thinking to themselves 'Why is this story anything more than a TV film/serial?"

As a general rule, I'd say TV shows have dialog, good movies have action; and by that I don't just mean shootouts and exploding cars, but things which are done visually rather than by two people talking to each other. Indeed, it's not unknown for feature-length movies to have only a couple of dozen lines of dialog (or less); a TV show would probably have more than that in five minutes.

There's a reason for this, other than the obvious one that it's cheaper and faster to shoot dialog scenes with two shots than do a proper cinematic treatment of a scene with a dozen or more. When you watch a movie in a cinema you're there to watch the movie, and it usually has most of your attention; when you watch a TV show odds are you're talking to other people, nipping out to the kitchen to make a cup of tea, playing with the cat, or whatever... or that you've come in half-way through and are trying to work out what's going on.

So if something is done visually on a cinema screen you'll probably understand it, but if it's done on TV you're likely to miss it, lose the plot, and change channels; this is one reason why great movies don't necessarily work well on TV, and why TV shows often contain lots of seemingly pointless expositional dialog.

-----------------------------------------------

From: Nick Hill
Subject: What makes a script cinematic?

I don't know any books or web pages, but from personal experience (I have the same problem as JD, in that my scripts never seem BIG enough) I would offer the view that cinema scripts should give birth to films that really "fill the screen". I know it sounds somewhat banal, but I think one reason that the UK keeps turning out such crap films is (and you may think this is a good thing or not) that we don't have the Hollywood "More!" mentality. In other words, most Brit films would work just as well on an average 14" telly as in a cinema, because nothing much extra has been added. This, I think, sets them out as TV films. It's not just a question of filming enormous sets, in 70mm widescreen, with large explosions going off everywhere. I reckon there's something more nebulous here: that the best films, in any genre, really make use of the fact that they'll be seen on a vast screen. Whether this "bigness" element is obvious (as with action movies) or not (rom-coms, or thrillers, or psychological dramas, or period pieces or whatever), doesn't matter. Try watching Crouching Tiger, or Taxi, or Reservoir Dogs, or even Forces of Nature on a normal TV, and there's going to be something missing. Effective films take advantage of the whole screen and tell a story which is, in some way, too big to fit on TV - even something with as few special effects as The Usual Suspects or Sexy Beast would look wrong as a TV movie, because the central characterisations are so strong.

There are probably many other reasons why, though. Anyone else got any thoughts?

-----------------------------------------------

From: Mark Grant
Subject: Re: cinema vs tv debate

"I really don't think writers should go taking camera angles in mind when they write stuff. One director will usually do a different thing than another anyhow."

Sure, I wouldn't even suggest doing that; scripts where every third sentence is a camera direction really turn me off. If you think a scene should be shot a certain way, it's easy to prod a director into shooting it that way simply by the way you write the scene; there's rarely a need to mention anything to do with the camera.

What I meant was, if you have Secret Agent X turning up to meet her boss, on TV first we'd see her steal the plans, then she'd say 'Hi boss, here are those secret plans that you asked me to steal' just in case half the audience came in late, whereas on a good movie she'd merely hand them over (or not even show that at all).

My general attitude with my own scripts is to write a crap version first, then go back and try to work out how to get rid of every line of dialog; some have to stay, but most can be replaced with action without harming the movie. I also tend to rip out at least half the dialog when I'm editing for other people; I'm surprised no director has wanted to lynch me yet, after seeing how much of their work ended up on the cutting room floor.

"what this country needs are seriously good 'cinematic' scripts of all budget types."

Entirely agree!

-----------------------------------------------

From: Jonny Kurzman

Following on from Nick Hill's comments...

The following is an extract written by Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian back in November 1998. It has been on my noticeboard ever since and has been trotted out at numerous meetings and pitches ever since (as my long suffering partner will testify).

Earlier in the article Freedland has talked about the films Antz, Pleasantville and The Truman Show, saying he would would be rooting for them in the Best Picture category because they "...add some something else: they are all movies of ideas."

"These are big themes, handled adroitly. On the eve of the 21st century, Hollywood seems to be taking its power and responsibility seriously, daring to address the largest questions. Between them this trio of movies serve as latter day fables, taking on a task previously left to myth or scripture: opening up the most most enduring human dilemmas in a form accessible to everyone."

"Unfortunately our own film-makers cannot say the same. The likes of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels or Divorcing Jack may be skilfully made, but their focus is narrow. They are attempting only to tell small stories well."

I would argue the difference between cinema and television goes beyond their respective physical limitations. A small film can deal with 'ideas' just as effectively as a big film. I'm not suggesting for a minute that this is a definitive answer, but I think it is one way of looking at it.

Freedland has summed up my personal frustration with British films. Now before anyone has a go at me for wanting to make bland Hollywood movies, I'm not, it is simply a desire to see a genuinely diverse British cinema. We make some fine costume dramas, romantic comedies and gangster films but where are the films of the imagination?

-----------------------------------------------

From: Suzette Coon
Subject: what makes it a movie?

As they say, 'a picture tells a thousand words'. And that's what a good 'filmy' film does. Think about how powerful your dreams are. Mental images from the unconscious often tell you far more about your inner life than real life. Film - i.e. visual information - can express our subconscious thoughts and emotions far more succinctly and powerfully because it speaks the symbolic language of our unconscious. This rarely happens in tele.

-----------------------------------------------

From: Andrew Niven
Subject: Film Vs Television

I agree with Mike Ogden; it's good to see an interesting and relevant debate on the list. Here's my tuppence worth to keep it going.

The contributors who have argued that cinema films are structured more around action than dialogue are correct. I think also that they're right to point out that confusing spectacle with action, as many Hollywood blockbusters seem to do, is a big problem.

Putting up a sign outside your new chocolate shop is not much of a spectacle, even if you're Juliette Binoche and you're wearing red shoes. The ramifications of this action, however, reach out and touch virtually everyone in the town. It is the context of the action which gives impetus to the story.

Why doesn't this seem to apply so much to television? I believe this may have something to do with the time element and the nature of structure.

For an hour-long drama (fifty minutes on a commercial channel) there is little time to set up the context. It's much quicker just to tell the audience what the situation is. For commercial broadcasters the problems are magnified; keeping audiences interested enough to tune back in after the first ad break. I think this why there are so many TV detectives; if a body falls out of a cupboard just before the break you want to find out why.

Filmmakers have the luxury of knowing that the vast majority of cinema goers are not going to walk out in the first fifteen minutes. This gives them the time to set up the story so that a seemingly unimportant spectacle can be a highly significant action.

Like it or loathe it traditional three act story structure does seem to have resonance. Both artistic and commercial reasons dictate alternative structures to this for television. BBC adaptations of novels are spread across several weeks whilst commercial channel two hour dramas are chopped into fifteen minute 'acts'. Understanding how we experience and react to the different formats and structures will make us better writers. I hope.

-----------------------------------------------

From: Bunnyboy
Subject: hmm

The Last Seduction was a great cinematic film but was originally a TV movie which was only released theatrically in Europe....

So, the answer (and the reason there has been so much debate) is there really is no answer.

And does it really matter? a good script is a good script. If you can get something made and shown on TV or the in the cinema then well done!

-----------------------------------------------

^TOP 

-----------------------------------------------