For those people interested in getting their screenplays past readers and gatekeepers, I've just reposted a Stage 32 article that addresses the overwhelmingly common, number one reason why I "pass" on screenplays as often as I do.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-passed-your-screenplay-tennyson-stead-hjwcc/ #film #filmmaking #screenwriter #filmmaker #Hollywood #indie #screenwriting #breakingin #acting #directing #finance #fakeittillyoumakeit
@tennyson 93% have passive protagonists? Holly shit!
@blenderdumbass That's probably a conservative number, but it's also true that most writers don't think of active versus passive character on a structural level. Instead, they think of it in terms of how the character FEELS. Is there momentum? Is the character moving across the screen?
That's not the point. We want the character actually driving their narrative, instead of the narrative driving the character.
@blenderdumbass Almost every writer will tell you that their protagonist is active. The rest will tell you that the passive structure is the point of their story.
@blenderdumbass My point is that everyone's got a really, really good reason for denying their actors the tools to create a good performance.
In the end, it's all a rationalization for making the movie about the writing, instead of making it about the relationship between the actor and the audience.
@tennyson It reminds me those student films or youtube short films which start the same exact way. A character wakes up, brushes teeth, goes to work, or school. And then maybe something interesting happens and the character reacts to it. This is so boring. At least start with this something interesting happening immediately. OMG.
@blenderdumbass Most writers "get into the action." They'll start with a car chase, or a character falling off a building, or something visually kinetic - and they'll build a reactive story around that. But it's the reaction that's the issue. It's not about the effort of a character to achieve a goal, it's about the chemical reaction the character is experiencing - which works in literature, so I get where it's coming from. It's also why the book is always better than the film.
@blenderdumbass They're thinking like novelists and journalists, which is where most of them come from. It makes perfect sense, and many of them are good writers, but the screenplays don't work as films. This is why so many writers get rewritten in pre-production.
@blenderdumbass They'll start with "something interesting happening," but it's something that's happening, that forces the characters to respond. It's a plot, trying to show us something about the characters. It's not a character pursuing a goal. There's a big difference between an audience that's WATCHING, and an audience that's waiting to see what happens. In literature and journalism, it's the wanting to see what happens that keeps people reading - so they don't make that distinction.
@tennyson I have a film ( that is already produced ) where a little girls wants badly to win a race, but it's illegal so it is a heist. They have to steal a car first. I spend the first scene in conversation basically setting up what she wants to do and how it should be done. And then it's a heist, chase, stunt, a bit of tension and then the race itself. Non-stop checkpoint progression. It feels to me natural to write like this. Is this a good strategy?
@blenderdumbass The one thing I will say is that I don't think it's necessary to set these things up. It will become apparent how and why they're winning the race. You don't need to establish these things, and it only makes that information redundant when these characters need to explain or justify themselves to achieve their goal if you've already explained everything beforehand. You don't need to teach the audience how to watch your movie. Just give them something to watch.
@tennyson By establishing I mean: She tells her brother that she is about to try it. And he is like: you are stupid and here are the reasons why. ( In which he is listing the challenges that they will face along the way ) And she is like: so what. And then it starts.
@tennyson I guess I just need to show you the finished movie. LOL.
@blenderdumbass It doesn't seem to me like she needs to tell her brother. Maybe she needs something from him, like money or permission, but otherwise it seems to me like this scene exists to explain things to the audience. If she steals a car, tunes it for racing, and drives it in a race, that will be pretty self-explanatory. They won't need the explanation.
@tennyson Well she kind of needs him because she otherwise can't reach the pedals. And I believe that we need to know that she is about to do something dangerous ( given that is a little girl ) because this is where I find tension. And so later we are not surprised that she has stolen the car, but rather excited about it. Because we were in the heist with her knowing what is the goal.
@blenderdumbass See? You've rationalized it for tone.
Watching a little girl steal a car, immediately, is full of tension - if you take the action and the risk seriously. She's doing something dangerous. She doesn't have the tools, or even the life experience. Throwing an audience into that will make them feel more than easing them into that reality, because they'll feel like something is wrong.
It's not your job to make it right beforehand. What she's doing IS wrong. She's doing it anway.
@tennyson I see. Well I guess it doesn't really matter in the long run. I'm not selling my scripts to studios I make them into movies immediately. So I guess I could make a film about a passive character. That could be interesting to do.
@blenderdumbass All I'm suggesting is that you host a table read before you do that. Passive actors always feel fake.
Fake performances can be a tonal choice, but they usually just wind up feeling less competent than honest ones.
@tennyson Well given the fact that I have no money, I can't actually choose who to cast anyway. It's me doing the voices. And for the last film I found a woman who agreed to voice the kids. Everything else is on the computer. And what comes out, comes out.
@blenderdumbass My point is that you can set yourself up for success as a performer by keeping the scenework active on the page.
@tennyson I just though about Lars Von Trier for example. His films are full of good performances. But his character don't often have like a clearly established goal. They might small different goals in every scene.
@blenderdumbass In his better films, the goals and the effort are there - they're just intimate. In his lesser films, his actors are finding goals for themselves.
@blenderdumbass That said, passive movies do get made. They're just never as strong as they could have been, and that shows both in their enduring value and in their business.
@tennyson Isn't that rationalizing, but the other way around? I can say that there is a goal in the first scene of my movie. The girl picks an arguments fight with her brother and her goal is to win it. It is a goal. She wants to prove that what she said is right. And I was aware of it being there while making the scene and while we recorded the voices for it. While watching the movie the scene feels right. It is just that it's a different goal than the main goal, so to speak.
@blenderdumbass You asked me a question, and I've answered it. I don't need to be right, or to win an argument. In fact, I hope I'm wrong! Good luck with the film!
@tennyson Just rewatched "The Breakfast Club" thinking very strongly about this whole thread of ours. This movie makes no sense. It should not work. But it's so good. What the hell?
@blenderdumbass Intimate goals. Every character is trying to achieve something, and they get in one another's way. They all want to make the high school experience into the thing they think it should be, and they're all trying to do that. The themes of the movie are subtext to those efforts - and I would argue that it's not a GREAT film, besides. People see it through a very nostalgic lens.
Anyway, I'm glad you were engaged by the article! Good luck in your writing!
@tennyson I think I know. E.T. Also... The whole Spielberg idea of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstance doesn't work. Because it's the definition of passive characters. Elliot is just a kid. E.T. Happened to him. But to make E.T. happen to him, he had a micro mission to get the pizza. And then since E.T. happened he had various little missions. The same is also kind of true about "The Breakfast Club". Hm...
@tennyson To be honest. I think there could be some kind of system for people to produce their scripts without a studio, to test those ideas and to see if it makes any sense to write the movies like that.
@blenderdumbass A simple table read will show them how the actors always wind up feeling like they're selling the text. That's what I usually recommend.
@tennyson I hate, for example, when characters stay on screen in the same spot during the scene. The have their markers placed and they don't move. It's so boring, visually. Good directors move characters around but that requires intent in the movement. So to avoid making films boring for myself I write characters that are active without realizing it? And so I am at the 7%?
Wouldn’t these same principles apply to some genres of fiction writing, such as SFF? @ElisesWritings
@Susan60 @ElisesWritings Somewhat. Writing literature is all about observation - and we can observe a character reacting to a situation. In a movie theater, audiences don't want our observations. They want to watch - so in the most literal sense, they want to make their own observations. It's a different structural beast.
Mmm. So the point about screen writers getting acting lessons is well made.
@Susan60 @ElisesWritings Actors perform actions, in the end. What people watch, reliably, is another person doing something they have no business doing - and that's the language screenwriters need to learn to write in. How much we understand that idea is less important, really, than the amount of practice we get in actually doing that. Whether we communicate through action consciously or unconsciously, doing that is what makes our work strong in the hands of our actors - so yes! Acting is good!
@tennyson I've found that "proactive" and "reactive" tend to be clearer words for what you're discussing than "active" and "passive".
I've definitely been frustrated at a fandom-based RP community for not merely favoring but tending to *enforce* reactivity, and not really knowing how to accommodate characters proactively pursuing goals more significant than founding a restaurant in the place everyone was trapped in. One of many things that drove me nuts about that community.
1/2
@tennyson It ultimately stems from the "games" in that community really just being excuses, framing devices for letting characters from different media interact. Instead of these players being interested in having the characters they love actually *do* things in new circumstances, they just want the character to *be* in new relationships. Being too proactive is seen as a threat, because if someone addressed the reason why the characters have been kidnapped, the game would be over!
2/2
@tennyson Great article. It's not just writers that need to take acting classes, but directors too (and vice-versa). Break down those barriers, people. Learn what the other side feels like.
@tennyson Damn, I'm not even writing a screenplay (yet), but I got so tired of copying paragraphs of this essay into my notes on writing that I just printed the whole article instead.
Thanks for stating these principles so clearly.
@alan That's quite a compliment, Alan! You are most welcome. Very glad to be of service.
-T
@alan Also, let it be said that these principles apply when we're working with ACTORS. Literature and journalism are all about observation. Audiences don't want our observations, because they come to WATCH - they want to make their own observations. The reason the book is always better than the movie is that we're dealing with very different structural needs, there.
Don't assume I'm right about this stuff, when it comes to your other writing! There's more of a gap there than people realize.
@tennyson Absolutely. However there is a thriller aspect to my WIP novel, so the main character's drive to achieve their goal is paramount. Unlike a screenplay this won't always be through action, but the weaker parts of my first draft are the parts where there's too much exposition without coupling it to the primary goal. All fixable in the second draft... not to mention making a screenplay adaptation a little easier too.