// ' * , ` ' . __________ almost PARADISE

Friday, July 30, 2010

david mamet on screenwriting

http://www.metafilter.com/90382/TO-THE-WRITERS-OF-THE-UNIT-GREETINGS

To the writers of the unit:

Greetings.
As we learn how to write this show, a recurring problem becomes clear.
The problem is this: to differentiate between drama and non-drama. Let me break-it-down-now.
Everyone in creation is screaming at us to make the show clear. We are tasked with, it seems, cramming a shitload of information into a little bit of time.
Our friends. The penguins, think that we, therefore, are employed to communicate information — and, so, at times, it seems to us.
But note:the audience will not tune in to watch information. You wouldn’t, i wouldn’t. No one would or will. The audience will only tune in and stay tuned to watch drama.
Question:what is drama? Drama, again, is the quest of the hero to overcome those things which prevent him from achieving a specific, acute goal.
So: we, the writers, must ask ourselves of every scene these three questions.
1) who wants what?
2) what happens if her don’t get it?
3) why now?
The answers to these questions are litmus paper. Apply them, and their answer will tell you if the scene is dramatic or not.
If the scene is not dramatically written, it will not be dramatically acted.
There is no magic fairy dust which will make a boring, useless, redundant, or merely informative scene after it leaves your typewriter. You the writers, are in charge of making sure every scene is dramatic.
This means all the “little” expositional scenes of two people talking about a third. This bushwah (and we all tend to write it on the first draft) is less than useless, should it finally, god forbid, get filmed.
If the scene bores you when you read it, rest assured it will bore the actors, and will, then, bore the audience, and we’re all going to be back in the breadline.
Someone has to make the scene dramatic. It is not the actors job (the actors job is to be truthful). It is not the directors job. His or her job is to film it straightforwardly and remind the actors to talk fast. It is your job.
Every scene must be dramatic. That means: the main character must have a simple, straightforward, pressing need which impels him or her to show up in the scene.
This need is why they came. It is what the scene is about. Their attempt to get this need met will lead, at the end of the scene,to failure - this is how the scene is over. It, this failure, will, then, of necessity, propel us into the next scene.
All these attempts, taken together, will, over the course of the episode, constitute the plot.
Any scene, thus, which does not both advance the plot, and standalone (that is, dramatically, by itself, on its own merits) is either superfluous, or incorrectly written.
Yes but yes but yes but, you say: what about the necessity of writing in all that “information?”
And i respond “figure it out” any dickhead with a bluesuit can be (and is) taught to say “make it clearer”, and “i want to know more about him”.
When you’ve made it so clear that even this bluesuited penguin is happy, both you and he or she will be out of a job.
The job of the dramatist is to make the audience wonder what happens next. Not to explain to them what just happened, or to*suggest* to them what happens next.
Any dickhead, as above, can write, “but, jim, if we don’t assassinate the prime minister in the next scene, all europe will be engulfed in flame”
We are not getting paid to realize that the audience needs this information to understand the next scene, but to figure out how to write the scene before us such that the audience will be interested in what happens next.
Yes but, yes but yes but you reiterate.
And i respond figure it out.
How does one strike the balance between withholding and vouchsafing information? That is the essential task of the dramatist. And the ability to do that is what separates you from the lesser species in their blue suits.
Figure it out.
Start, every time, with this inviolable rule: the scene must be dramatic. It must start because the hero has a problem, and it must culminate with the hero finding him or herself either thwarted or educated that another way exists.
Look at your log lines. Any logline reading “bob and sue discuss…” is not describing a dramatic scene.
Please note that our outlines are, generally, spectacular. The drama flows out between the outline and the first draft.
Think like a filmmaker rather than a functionary, because, in truth, you are making the film. What you write, they will shoot.
Here are the danger signals. Any time two characters are talking about a third, the scene is a crock of shit.
Any time any character is saying to another “as you know”, that is, telling another character what you, the writer, need the audience to know, the scene is a crock of shit.
Do not write a crock of shit. Write a ripping three, four, seven minute scene which moves the story along, and you can, very soon, buy a house in bel air and hire someone to live there for you.
Remember you are writing for a visual medium. Most television writing, ours included, sounds like radio. The camera can do the explaining for you. Let it. What are the characters doing -*literally*. What are they handling, what are they reading. What are they watching on television, what are they seeing.
If you pretend the characters cant speak, and write a silent movie, you will be writing great drama.
If you deprive yourself of the crutch of narration, exposition,indeed, of speech. You will be forged to work in a new medium - telling the story in pictures (also known as screenwriting)
This is a new skill. No one does it naturally. You can train yourselves to do it, but you need to start.
I close with the one thought: look at the scene and ask yourself “is it dramatic? Is it essential? Does it advance the plot?
Answer truthfully.
If the answer is “no” write it again or throw it out. If you’ve got any questions, call me up.
Love, dave mamet
santa monica 19 octo 05
(it is not your responsibility to know the answers, but it is your, and my, responsibility to know and to ask the right questions over and over. Until it becomes second nature. I believe they are listed above.)

furtick on condemnation

wow.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

still need to read a lot more of him :)

"And the more I considered Christianity, the more I found that while it had established a rule and order, the chief aim of that order was to give room for good things to run wild." G.K. Chesterton

thinking...

http://steverankin.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/the-problem-of-mixed-motives/
http://www.paulgraham.com/top.html
http://bechdeltest.com/

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

good reminders for this time

http://sashadichter.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/medium-is-the-message/
http://sashadichter.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/abundance/

Monday, July 12, 2010

metafilter: if you make contact with aliens :)

hee.

also: sandwiches!! http://www.metafilter.com/90841/Steampunk-Takeaway
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-sandwich-makes-you-its-bitch-in-11.html


older brotherness: "Those of us who are the firstborn always dream of that imaginary brother or sister who will be their protector, the buffer, the one to take the blows. I'm a firstborn, and Bob was the answer to my dreams. He was the big brother that all of us wish for." ~ Bill Cosby on his I-Spy co-star Robert Culp (79),

http://www.metafilter.com/90423/Veteran-character-actor-Robert-Culp-has-passed-away

tru calling s02e02

33:15: i have that green desk lamp! :)

Friday, July 09, 2010

chuck vs the wookie

The sentence Carina speaks in a foreign language is "Om jag slänger nycklarna till dig, kommer du tappa dem då?" which is Swedish for "If I throw you the keys, will you drop them?"

Sarah answered in Polish: "Tylko jak rzucisz jak twoja mamusia", which means "Only if you throw it like your mommy". [edit]

Thursday, July 08, 2010

metafilter: video games as art

If you spend years and years watching movies (this could also apply to reading books, looking at sculptures, etc.), you learn patterns in terms of what moves you and what doesn't.

Eventually, a very clear system of aesthetics naturally develops for you. And you're able to accurately predict whether you'll be moved by a film just by knowing that it contains -- or doesn't contain -- specific elements. You'll also be able to spot "errors" -- things that, if fixed, would make you enjoy a work you currently don't enjoy (or don't enjoy as much as you could). Being able to predict things so accurately is VERY seductive. It feels deeply meaningful. So it's tempting to feel that you've stumbled upon some universal principles.

And it's sometimes possible to move beyond yourself. You can notice larger trends. Ah, I see that when filmmakers do X, Y and Z, their movies affect people more than when they don't. But what do you mean by "people." Presumably, you mean "many people." You don't mean "all people." There has never been a movie that has been universally liked (or hated).

But when you've worked out a very clear aesthetic that never fails for you personally, and when you notice that this same aesthetic seems to work for many other people, it REALLY feels profound. And it may BE profound. But it's not universal. And that's odd, because we think of profound things as being universal. So, at this point, when we meet that guy who doesn't like "Citizen Kane" or Shakespeare or "The Wire" or whatever, he tend to decide "he's wrong."

Wrong about what? Wrong that he doesn't like "The Wire"? No, he really doesn't like it. It doesn't move him. It does nothing for him. So how is he wrong? At worst, he's eccentric. When we find a drug that cures cancer in 90% of patients, will the 10% it doesn't cure be "wrong"? No, it means that our drug -- which we think of as universally effective -- isn't. Which isn't to say it's not useful. It just means we're on shaky grounds if we make universal statements about it.

I think 99% of discussion about art are not literally about art -- at least not to everyone in the conversation (the talker may intend it to be about art; the receiver may not be interpreting it that way.)


///

This story with Ebert going off on games, getting offered an introduction to the best and reject it, is dismaying to me. There were two young neighborhood children playing in my yard this weekend. The girl picked some raspberries, the other, a boy, was sitting on a motorcycle. The girl went over to the boy and said "I've picked the most perfect berries, here try them." The boy was distracted by the motorcycle and I thought, "this is an opportunity like a moment in a poem about childhood and it is about to be missed."
posted by bdc34 at 9:51 AM on July 1
http://www.metafilter.com/93344/I-was-a-fool-for-mentioning-video-games-in-the-first-place#3163481


However, he hasn't really pinned down the nature of the aesthetic. I know what it is, and I know it when it's present (and when it's not), but I'm not sure how to describe it. And Ebert definitely hasn't described it.

If you take that aesthetic to extremes, you should be able to enjoy novels, but you shouldn't be able to enjoy any movies or staged plays (or paintings, sculptures.) Unless you skip around in a novel, it truly is linear and one-dimensional. One sentence after another, after another. There are no alternate paths (outside of choose-you-own-adventure books and the like).

A movie seems like that, but it's not. Not completely. True, it unfolds in time, but at any given moment, you have a choice of many things to look at. No shot is ever of just one thing. If you see Kong on the Empire State Building, you can focus exclusively on him, on the planes, on Fay Wray, etc. You can focus on all of these things, but starting with Kong. Or you can start with the planes and then move to Kong. These "choices" are probably not conscious in most cases, but there's no guarantee that I make the same choices as the guy sitting next to me in the theatre. The filmmaker is NOT in total control. I am not being completely guided.

Of course filmmakers can and do use all kinds of tricks to influence my focus, but the best they can do is influence. They can't absolutely control it. The cleanest example of this is watching a stage conjurer. Many of his tricks work by misdirection, e.g. waving a wand to distract you while he surreptitiously pulls a handkerchief out of his pocket. Sometimes he gets away with it; sometimes he doesn't. Contrast this with a novel in which misdirection is easy and foolproof. If you don't want the reader to know something until Chapter Five, just don't tell him about it until then.

So it must be a matter of degree. Like Ebert, I like being controlled rather than being in control. But clearly I don't mind having SOME control, or I wouldn't like watching movies. And I LOVE watching movies.

What I want is the FEELING of being guided. Clearly, I can have that feeling without being completely guided. But in order to turn this into a rigorous aesthetic theory, I would need to be able to say more exactly how much self-control is too much, what forms of self-control are okay, and what mediums will allow me to have some control but not too much.
posted by grumblebee at 11:09 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
http://www.metafilter.com/93344/I-was-a-fool-for-mentioning-video-games-in-the-first-place#3163761

metafilter: "just another day in the salt mines"

nice.

also, starting up: http://ask.metafilter.com/158880/Tacit-golden-rules-for-work

winding down :) http://ask.metafilter.com/158922/Help-me-make-the-perfect-cocktail

or a dissertation: http://ask.metafilter.com/158878/How-to-get-excited-about-picking-a-dissertation-topic

whew.

JohnEM said...
So, re Alan's commentary on Yvonne Strahovski in his "Save Chuck" column (http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2009/04/chuck_an_open_letter_to_nbc_to.html)

"..but a superb dramatic actress as well. She's the one who makes the show feel real..."

There's a moment in Chuck vs. the Colonel that absolutely validates that observation. Immediately after the 1st makeout session, the camera moves to Sarah flopping back onto the bed, then cuts to an aerial view of her face, staring up, as her hands move to cradle her own head. And with just that move, her eyes, and her expression, Strahovski precisely communicates: joy; surprise; fear; 'oh-cr*p-what-did-I-just-let-happen' quickly resolving to a bemused 'I-don't-care-he's-my-guy'anticipation.

That, or those two are really secretly dating....

6:10 PM, APRIL 21, 2009

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

can i sail through the changing ocean tides
can i handle the seasons of my life
mm mm i don't know

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

interesting? via mefi

life on purpose seems common.

colossians 1:6 (niv)

all over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth



@pastortullian: "the deepest slavery is self-dependence. when you live believing that everything depends primarily on you, you're enslaved to your strengths and weaknesses... God comes after us not to angrily strip away our freedom but to affectionately strip away our slavery so we might become truly free."

Monday, July 05, 2010

gabriel garcia marquez, "a very old man with enormous wings"

The most unfortunate invalids on earth came in search of health: a poor woman who since childhood has been counting her heartbeats and had run out of numbers; a Portuguese man who couldn't sleep because the noise of the stars disturbed him; a sleepwalker who got up at night to undo the things he had done while awake; and many others with less serious ailments.

...

Besides, the few miracles attributed to the angel showed a certain mental disorder, like the blind man who didn't recover his sight but grew three new teeth, or the paralytic who didn't get to walk but almost won the lottery, and the leper whose sores sprouted sunflowers. Those consolation miracles, which were more like mocking fun, had already ruined the angel's reputation when the woman who had been changed into a spider finally crushed him completely. That was how Father Gonzaga was cured forever of his insomnia and Pelayo's courtyard went back to being as empty as during the time it had rained for three days and crabs walked through the bedrooms.

          The owners of the house had no reason to lament. With the money they saved they built a two-story mansion with balconies and gardens and high netting so that crabs wouldn't get in during the winter, and with iron bars on the windows so that angels wouldn't get in. Pelayo also set up a rabbit warren close to town and have up his job as a bailiff for good, and Elisenda bought some satin pumps with high heels and many dresses of iridescent silk, the kind worn on Sunday by the most desirable women in those times. The chicken coop was the only thing that didn't receive any attention. If they washed it down with creolin and burned tears of myrrh inside it every so often, it was not in homage to the angel but to drive away the dungheap stench that still hung everywhere like a ghost and was turning the new house into an old one. At first, when the child learned to walk, they were careful that he not get too close to the chicken coop. But then they began to lose their fears and got used to the smell, and before they child got his second teeth he'd gone inside the chicken coop to play, where the wires were falling apart. The angel was no less standoffish with him than with the other mortals, but he tolerated the most ingenious infamies with the patience of a dog who had no illusions. They both came down with the chicken pox at the same time. The doctor who took care of the child couldn't resist the temptation to listen to the angel's heart, and he found so much whistling in the heart and so many sounds in his kidneys that it seemed impossible for him to be alive. What surprised him most, however, was the logic of his wings. They seemed so natural on that completely human organism that he couldn't understand why other men didn't have them too.

Friday, July 02, 2010

"theology tells us that god can.
faith tells us that god will." -matt moore 04.11.10, "a desperate faith"
cornerstonesimi.com

biblical faith: a firm confidence in the ability and willingness of god to keep his promises.

Thursday, July 01, 2010

"so teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom." how do i be fully here and not consumed.