Tuesday Talkback: Collaborative writing project

I got a recent request to update everyone on the Collaborative Writing Project. There aren't too many details, but I'll oblige.

Right now I have three teams going, with each person advancing the story ten pages from where it is when they get it. My original goal was only to put eight people on each team, as once you add in my original ten pages, that would put the script's length at 90 pages. However, I had so many people interested, I decided on 9-person teams, which would give us some leeway in the event anyone dropped out.

As it turned out, that was smart. One of the teams had a person drop out due to unforeseen circumstances. Unfortunately this didn't happen until their deadline, so they fell a week behind the other two teams. This same team experienced another delay when one participant's server problems resulted in a several-day delay in delivering the pages.

At the moment, one team has 50 pages completed, one team has 60 pages done and the third team has 30 pages done. I also have four alternates standing by in the event that any of the teams drop below eight members.

At this point it's been very interesting to see how my early threads have been taken in completely different directions by the subsequent writers. When the project is done, I'll write up a post going page-by-page through my contribution and explain my thinking for the plot strands I was setting up. My goal was to open a lot of doors for people as well as imply connections between seemingly unrelated threads. That ambiguity has given the writers a lot of room to play.

As we're more or less at the midpoint, it's time to start thinking about what to do with these three scripts once they're done. I need a way to make them available for download, so that any interested parties can read and contrast them.

Also, what would make the best use of these as they relate to screenwriting lessons? I thought about trying to stimulate discussion here, but it also occurs to me that it might be a good idea to see if anyone over at the GITS Club was interested in any discussion on the three VERY different scripts that are resulting from the same initial ten pages.

There's also a very wicked side of me that is considering putting one or more of these up on Triggerstreet just to see what sort of reviews we'd get.

So sound off - what do you think we should do with these scripts once they're done?

"We see" - to use or not to use

Last week on Twitter, I expressed my incredulity that a Done Deal Pro thread on whether or not to use "we see" in your screenplay had grown to 8 pages in only about a day or so. I know in the past that both Scott Myers and I have been surprised at just how drawn out and contentious these arguments over formatting minutiae can become. It's almost as if people are more passionate about how they write than they are about writing good material, and that's just sad.

Naturally, this only provoked a dozen or so people to ask me on Twitter what I thought about the use of "we see."

As with a lot of these nuances, the answer tends to be "It's okay if you use it in moderation, preferably sparingly."

When I write, I try not to use it unless absolutely necessary. I know there are a few pros who took such exception to the "NEVER use this" advice that they actually counted how many times they used it in their writing and then noted that such usage surely didn't prohibit the script from being sold.

My feeling is that 90% of the time it's redundant. Your action descriptions are supposed to be all visual, so if you're writing it, the assumption is we're seeing it. After all, you don't write "We hear" before every line of dialogue, do we?

The one clear exception has already been pointed out somewhere in that thread - that "we see" is valuable when we're trying to limit what the audience sees and then replicate that limitation for the viewer. Someone noted that in an Indiana Jones script, there's a "we see" that introduces a character wearing a fedora and leather jacket, though he's only shown from behind. Obviously, the "we see" is used to offer that description and give the impression that the character is Indiana Jones when that is not in fact the case.

So it's definitely useful when limiting the information the reader has. I wouldn't dispute that at all.

However, as with capitalizing and underlining, this "rule" exists because there are always a healthy sampling of newbies who overindulge. I once read a script that started nearly every paragraph with "we see" and after a while it just got to be annoying. It was a pretty clear PASS. However, I hasten to add that the Pass wasn't because of the "we sees," just that the "we sees" were merely symptoms of this writer's lack of skill.

If all the dialogue in a script sucks, the answer is not "Never write dialogue," it's, "learn to write better dialogue." And if all the uses of "we see" in a script reach such an epidemic proportion that it becomes cluttered and annoying to follow, the answer is "learn to use the tool properly."

Just my take. Bring on the pitchforks!

Thursday Talkback: your favorite emotional scenes

I've chimed in a lot these last few days with examples of how it can be more effective to use restraint when dealing with charged emotional scenes rather than simply writing a two-page crying breakdown for your main character. What are your favorite scenes?

What scenes made you cry and what can you learn from how the writer and director evoked that response in you? What techniques do you use when you need to show a character going through a very emotional moment?

Buffy The Vampire Slayer's "The Body" - how to write a crying scene, part II

How to write a crying scene - part I

Picking up from where we left off yesterday, Act II of Buffy the Vampire Slayer's "The Body" picks up with Buffy's sister Dawn crying in the girls room at school, saying she can't believe it. In characteristic Whedon misdirection, we quickly discern that Dawn is actually crying about some petty teenage crisis and still hasn't learned of her mother's death.

Hitchcock used to say that it was much more effective to show an audience that there was a ticking bomb under the table that the lead characters were seated at, rather than merely shock the audience by setting the bomb off without any warning. Basically, his reasoning was that the anticipation of the bang was worse than the bang itself. In the case of this script, that "bang" is the moment where 15 year-old Dawn learns that her mother is dead. It hangs over every single beat in this act, which is filled with a mix of typical teenage drama and a few nods to how Dawn is regarded by her peers.

It takes nearly four minutes until Buffy walks into Dawn's class and says she needs to speak to her. Buffy is wearing a face that really tells the whole story. If your sister interrupted your class looking like this - especially if your mother had been recently treated for a brain tumor - you'd know what was up. And on some level, it's pretty clear that Dawn intuits what Buffy is there to tell her.

Dawn says she's in the middle of class and asks if it can wait. They walk into the hall and Dawn demands to know what's going on. Buffy will only say, "It's bad" and tries to usher Dawn away. Students in the halls stare at them and the classroom Dawn just left has a large glass window that's looking right out on the two of them in the hallway. The whole class watches as Dawn's voice breaks and she asks, "Where's Mom?"

Buffy tries to explain that something happened while Dawn keeps insisting, "But she's okay, right? It's serious, but she's okay?" Buffy interrupts, "Dawn...."

And at this point our perspective shifts to inside the classroom looking out on Buffy and Dawn. Buffy's back is to us, but Dawn is facing in our direction. We don't hear what's said, but we see Dawn's face crumble, then sob. After screaming "No!" a few times (which we only faintly hear through the glass) she falls to her knees, and this act ends.

So here we don't actually hear the moment, or even much of Dawn's anguish, but we see it. We're a witness too it much as we would be if we were there in real life, voyeurs to their private grief. Somehow that makes it more real and more agonizing.

To be fair, this isn't the first time this technique has been done. Heck, it's not even the first time Whedon used it. A similar staging was used in Season Two's "Passion" with Angelus watching through an outside window while Buffy and Willow got a call informing them Angelus killed their teacher and friend Ms. Calendar.

The first time I saw this sort of direction was in a season one episode of ER called "Love's Labor Lost." Dr. Greene spends the entire episode dealing with a pregnant woman whose labor has gone horribly awry. At one point he delivers the child and then sends the father to go be with the baby, promising he'll take care of the mother.

He doesn't. She dies on the table and Dr. Greene has to go upstairs to a nursery room to inform the now-widowed husband that the baby will grow up without a mother. The camera stops outside the room as Greene enters. Through the glass pane of the door, we see the father rocking his new son while sitting in a rocking chair. Green enters and takes a seat across from him. Like Buffy, his back is to us. We don't see his mouth move or hear the dialogue. We just sit and wait. When the moment comes, Bradley Whitford - playing the father - doesn't over do it. He reels back, casting his head up, eyes to the sky.

Restraint can be a lot more powerful for the audience. And as much as writers are told not to direct in the script - this is the sort of staging that a writer can get away with.

Buffy The Vampire Slayer's "The Body" - how to write a crying scene, part I

After yesterday's post, I decided it would be a good idea to pick another scene featuring a character dealing with high emotions. Because I like punishing myself, I chose one of the most depressing and intense episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "The Body." This is the season five episode that deals with the death of Buffy's mother, Joyce. I picked it in part because it's available via Netflix Instant Viewing, so many of you should be able to get it. It's on Disc 5 of season 5 and was written and directed by Joss Whedon.

The episode opens as Buffy comes home and finds her mother dead on the couch. Her first reaction is to become very agitated, bordering on hysterical as she shakes her mother, saying "Mom? Mom!" A call to 911 offers little help beyond walking her through CPR and when it has no effect other than the Slayer's strength breaking her mother's breastbone, the dispatcher advises Buffy that the paramedics are on their way. Clearly in shock at this point, she calls Giles and asks him to come immediately.

And again, Buffy's still not crying at this point. Just numb shock.

Then, despite a truly evil tease showing a fantasy where Joyce Summers is miraculously revived (Screw you, Joss), the paramedics can't do anything for her. "I'm sorry," the paramedic says, "But I have to tell you that your mother's dead." (Yes, I know this is completely not the way it would go in real life. Paramedics don't stop until an MD takes over for them.) Worse, they get a call that pulls them away, leaving Buffy alone with her mother. Their last words to her are "Try not to disturb the body."

Through all of this, Buffy doesn't yet cry. This actually has the effect of making the scene even more agonizing for the audience because they - and Buffy - are denied that emotional release. Gellar's portrayal of Buffy in shock is truly unsettling to watch. Buffy wanders down the hall, then drops to her knees and vomits. The ambient sound of wind chimes outside is disturbingly loud, making the whole scene feel eerie.

And still she doesn't cry.

Giles comes in and finds Buffy in shock, muttering about how she should go to school to tell Dawn - her sister - what happened. Unable to make sense of this, Giles casts an eye to the living room and spots Buffy's mother, "Oh my god, Joyce!" He moves to help her as Buffy says, "No, it's too late.... We're not supposed to move the body!" Her voice at last breaks with emotion, and Gellar again proves that she was robbed of at least one Emmy as we see Buffy process how she just referred to her mother.

Now it hits her, and just as it hits us, Giles is across the room in a shot, taking the Slayer in a hug. Eyes wide, Buffy sobs - no tears - and we go into commercial.

That is how you construct an emotional release. That's how you handle a crying scene. Show the character fighting the emotion, denying the emotion, unable to feel the emotion - then really kick them in the gut and go out on that release.

Don't make a scene of someone crying - make a scene of someone about to cry, or trying not to cry.

Tomorrow - another act of "The Body" features a different technique.

Hold the tears, trust the audience

I've talked before about how crying scenes in scripts can often come off as overwrought and melodramatic. It's something that crops up a lot in screenplays and I can understand how it happens. Writers are told to show, not tell - so when it comes to someone's emotional state - why wouldn't you have them break down in a crying fit to demonstrate that they're sad?

One reason not to do so is that with film, the audience can be manipulated into a position where they'll project their own emotions onto the character. Thus, the character doesn't need to oversell the emotion - all they have to do is provoke the emotion in the audience.

In re-reading The Making of Star Wars by J.W. Rinzler, I came across an excellent example of this theory. On p. 149, the scene where Luke returns to his uncle's farm to find his aunt and uncle killed by stormtroopers is discussed. It's noted that Mark Hamil wanted to play the scene with him falling on his knees sobbing in despair upon discovering the corpses. Director George Lucas insisted on a more neutral performance. "Lucas knew that later he would edit the sequence in keeping with the art of montage as explained by early Russian filmmakers such as Sergei Eisenstein and Lev Kuleshov, in which the juxtaposition of shots would arouse emotion rather than just the actor's performance."

You can find more about the Soviet montage theory here.

Now, as writers we're not supposed to call out each shot, doing the directors job for them. However, in writing the description you can subtly suggest the imagery and editing. For example, the description for the scene in question might read:

Luke's speeder arrives at the Lars farm. Luke gets out, rushing towards the homestead.

Smoke rises from the enclosure.

Luke runs closer than stops, frozen with surprise.

Two corpses lay sprawled amid the carnage, their skin burned completely off.

As the smoke continues to rise in the sky, Luke casts his gaze downward, processing his loss.

It's easy not to overwrite dialogue, but not overwriting emotion takes a defter touch.

Off topic - Everything mosque go

I'm going to venture off-topic a bit here in this Saturday post. This post has nothing to do with screenwriting, filmmaking or any of the reasons you usually come to this blog. I wonder if a political topic will be anywhere near as volatile as my stand on secondary headings or capitalizing and underlining too many words in your script, but I've go something to say about this whole Mosque mess that's been going on for the past week.

The controversy boils down to the proposal that a mosque be built within a few blocks of Ground Zero. Several voices from the Right, including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, have argued that that area amounts to hallowed ground and other voices like Dick Morris have raised paranoia that to do so would essentially put a terrorist training facility in the shadow of Ground Zero.

A lot of ink has been spilt on this issue, and I urge everyone to go to Peter David's excellent blog on the subject where he takes Palin to task and essentially calls her position unconstitutional (because it is.) Sleezeball/Republican Newt Gingrich has been making the rounds arguing that no one's saying that they can't build a mosque, just that they can't do it there.

Oh, is that all? Thanks, Newt. I didn't realize that you're actually being pretty reasonab.... HEY! You can't do that, any more than the Jews of the Fairfax district in LA could petition to get all the damn churches out of their sight.

It's really disgusting to see these positions taken by those who are among the first to complain about Christian rights being trampled when the separation of church and state is enforced. It's disgusting to see them equate the entire Muslim religion with Al Queada as if they are the one and the same. That's like saying that there's zero distinction between practicing Christians and active members of the KKK, and if we were to deny Christians their freedom to practice under the defense that rogue elements like the KKK would take advantage, we would be in the wrong.

Worse, we would have destroyed our principles and become the very enemy we claim to fight.

The depths to which the Republican party exploits 9/11 never fails to sicken me. They don't believe in the principles of the Constitution, for if they did, this would not be a debate. They have beliefs that happen to coincide with the Framers, and they hold the Framers words sacred when it comes to things like the Second Amendment. Yet somehow when it comes to Amendments like the First and the Fourteenth Amendment, they manage to find massive amounts of grey areas in the words of the Framers and those who followed in their footsteps.

Those on the right arguing against the establishment of a mosque - be it in the shadow of the former Twin Towers or anywhere else - have no principles. They use fear and rhetoric to inflame the passions of those scared of the terrorist bogeymen and the sad truth is that a lot of people fall for it.

Worse, they're uninformed about the very issues of which they speak - as many pointed out that there has already been a mosque in that very area long before 9/11.

But those pounding on the table are only interested in making more noise and in being more divisive. They're just out to win an argument, even if they don't know what that argument is about. Newt, Sarah, it's not about being right. It's about doing right.

But the real reason I'm writing this is that I want to share this Daily Show segment with all of you. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but for me it was most notable because Jon Stewart draws a comparison between the current cries for sensitivity and the way that many reacted when the NRA was going to hold a rally near Columbine soon after the school shooting there in 1999. He runs clips from a Charlton Heston speech decrying those protests.

In the clip below, the Heston material starts at about 7:20, so if you don't want to sit through all of it, just skip there and watch the rest.

"America must stop this terrible pattern of reaction," Heston says. "When a terrible tragedy occurs, our phones ring, demanding the NRA explain the inexplicable. Why us? Because this story needs a villain. That is not our role in American society and we will not be forced to play it. If you disagree, that's your right. I respect that, but we will not relinquish it, or be silenced about it, or be told 'Do not come here. You are unwelcome in your own land.'"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Here's the remarkable thing. Jon Stewart admits that in 1999 he probably would have been one of those voices calling for sensitivity. Yet unlike those whom he often demonstrates have changed their positions via old clip demonstrations, he confesses he would have been in the wrong. You never see that from sub-human vermin like Sean Hannity.

"I was wrong and Heston was right!" Stewart mea culpas, "And if you replace 'NRA' with 'Muslim community' and 'Second Amendment' with 'First Amendment,' he's still right."

I too would have been with those shouting at the NRA for sensitivity. And I too would have been wrong. It's a scary thing to realize, but I'm glad that the mirror has been held up this way because I don't to be Sarah Palin, I don't want to be Newt Gingrich and I certainly don't want to be Dick Morris.

The time has come to stop the fear-mongering, and the time has come to stop rewarding those who depend on our worst instincts and prejudices to remain in power.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled blog.