In my profession, the work is either feast or famine. There are weeks on end where I put in 60 to 80 hours and develop amusing little facial tics, and there are weeks where I show up for 32 to 35 hours and act as a security blanket for my managers.
The last couple of weeks were a time of feast and now we are hitting a week-to-two time of famine. This is my opportunity to catch up on sleep and maybe write something on the ol' blog.
The first thing I feel compelled to do is follow up on all of the shameless self promotion I did here last week.
The scene reading went even better than expected. The actors really sank teeth into their parts and knocked it out of the park (how's that for a mixed metaphor?). It is one thing to have voices in your head to tell you what to write; it is quite another to hear people lend their voices to the ones in your head, and do a better job than your brain does.
Afterwards, I had several people tell me that I needed to bring the next ten pages to the July 8th scene reading because everyone wants to know what happens next. It made me feel all warm and gooey inside. Expect me at the scene readings for the next nine months (approx) so I can finish this screenplay.
I attended two sessions of the writer's workshop at the Trinity Arts Conference and presented two films (which you can read about here and here). I did not realize that there was a three-page limit for the writer's workshop and brought an eight-page short film screenplay for the workshop attendees to scrutinize. Fortunately, this blog entry from a few months ago counted as less than three pages. The other workshop attendees seemed to get a kick out of it and for the rest of the conference people kindly reminded me that meat is murder.
The film presentations went well, too. I wound up giving out this blog's URL to someone so he could read my introduction for one of the films, which was a little surprising and humbling. (I had to write it out, because, let's be honest, the blog's URL is an alphabet soup that is hard to remember.) PLUS someone was kind enough to ask me if I would be willing to speak to his screenwriting class in Houston sometime. That blew me away because most of my life people have been trying to keep me AWAY from impressionable young minds.
We had interesting discussions after the films, too. Some people were taken aback by the 1940sness of Sullivan's Travels - let's just say there is some racial humor in that film that is way uncool. (I forgive it because I believe the film it a relic of its time and we should accept it as such. Some people didn't share my opinion and that is perfectly fine.)
Afterwards I spoke to someone about how people from our grandparents' generation had no problems with cruel racial stereotypes but had issues with an occasional f-bomb, and how now the situation is reversed. "I wonder what people will hate about our generation years from now?" the person asked.
"Bet you anything it will involve Jim Carrey."
Showing posts with label good feedback. Show all posts
Showing posts with label good feedback. Show all posts
Monday, June 16, 2008
Monday, May 14, 2007
Surprisingly Good Criticism from Slamdance
Several months ago, I wrote a short film screenplay, that I happened to like. I entered it in a few contests and got bummed out because it didn't even place.
So I submitted the almost very same short film screenplay (except I changed the "Working" in the title to the folksier "Workin'") to the Slamdance Film Festival and paid the extra few dollars for some feedback. I consider it money well spent. The reviewer even quoted Thoreau, which is always a plus.
I like this feedback so much, I don't mind so much if the script doesn't win, place or show. There are always more scripts and more contests.
So... here is the screenplay.
And here is the feedback:
Slamdance Screenplay Competition
Coverage for Workin' Girl (Reader #55031)
Evaluation:
Melissa is a struggling actress who works as a waitress to pay the bills. The first act (pages 1 - 5) essentially works at developing her character and does so efficiently. The first conflict arrises when her boss gives her a double shift and she must A) convince him to let her out B) make the audition with the time given her. It's a race against the clock and because of the earlier character build up showing just how much she wants to act, the tension is palpable. Act two is the audition. Melissa sees a coworker there - a young ditz with little passion or respect for the craft. That she has no talent as an actress will, ironically, be dependant on the performance of the young woman who plays the character. Following the audition, Shannon gives Melissa a ride back to work. Act three is the reveal: Melissa got a role! But not the one she wanted. That went to Shannon and so stamps the film with the old addage: "Nobody said life is fair." It's not, clearly. Here lies the largest conflict for the main character: give in or keep trying? Thankfully Melissa keeps trying, but in such a way that we are never told explicitly that things will be okay, but rather a message is hinted that the true value contained in life is not the achievement but the trying. Ultimately, this provides a beautiful end to an deftly handled but otherwise traditional story.
What works:
The writer is to be congratulated in the way by which they reveal the character of Melissa in the opening act. Little things like the different accent for each table and the "campaign" for more hours are good ways of illustrating her as hard working, creative, and in need of money. She say a lot without saying a lot, which is one of the primary rules of good writing and the author does that exceptionally well here. The End: This isn't the first script written about a struggling actor, nor will it be the last. What sets this one apart from the bunch is not just the lack of happy ending / resolution, but the characters heartwarming desire to push on. It's a banner for hardwork and optimism which can come across as sentimental and "light" if done poorly, but can also come across as inspirational and real, when done well, as it is done here.
What doesn't work:
Something abstract and something simple. Your biggest issue lies with originality. That isn't to say that this is not a unique piece of writing. It is. But it retains the frame work of the traditional "struggling actor story." Luckily your characters excede this limitation, but the confines of a 10 page script still hold them back. Consider a wider scope in a future draft. There are a few instances where the author allows potential plot twists and turns to go unrealized. It's not something that is done wrong per se, just something which could be done better. The piece is extremely tight, but in some instances that actually works against you. As an experiment, consider everything that could possibly go wrong in Melissa's day and write that in. The boss says No. The scooter gets a flat, runs out of gas. She leaves her makeup behind. Arrives late. Wrong building etc. Etc. You provide plenty of internal hurdles for the character, now provide a few more external ones.
How it can be improved:
The most basic element is originality. Of course, every story has been told before so you're not likely to write something entirely new. However, the script as it is has enough going for it that it could stand to benefit from a longer draft with a deeper more personal exploration of the characters. Not to get too academic here, but Henry David Thoreau said something once that I (if I may use the singular) always liked: "...for if he has lived sincerely, it must have been in a distant land to me." In other words, the author in encouraged to allow themselves the time and leeway to make a fully personal realization of the character which have up until now been sketched in compelling but still broad outlines. You may perhaps do a rewrite of it in a pilot format (roughly 30 pages). As it is and with the ending you've allowed, it may make for an interesting TV show. Also, a small thing: you may consider using the second shift as a more dynamic hurdle to be overcome. Some maneuvering and scheming might add to the sense of urgency and keep the audience on their seat for just those extra few minutes.
Next step:
This reader's reccomendation: do a rewrite as a thirty page pilot. This is much more likely to be noticed as a TV show than as a short.
So I submitted the almost very same short film screenplay (except I changed the "Working" in the title to the folksier "Workin'") to the Slamdance Film Festival and paid the extra few dollars for some feedback. I consider it money well spent. The reviewer even quoted Thoreau, which is always a plus.
I like this feedback so much, I don't mind so much if the script doesn't win, place or show. There are always more scripts and more contests.
So... here is the screenplay.
And here is the feedback:
Slamdance Screenplay Competition
Coverage for Workin' Girl (Reader #55031)
Evaluation:
Melissa is a struggling actress who works as a waitress to pay the bills. The first act (pages 1 - 5) essentially works at developing her character and does so efficiently. The first conflict arrises when her boss gives her a double shift and she must A) convince him to let her out B) make the audition with the time given her. It's a race against the clock and because of the earlier character build up showing just how much she wants to act, the tension is palpable. Act two is the audition. Melissa sees a coworker there - a young ditz with little passion or respect for the craft. That she has no talent as an actress will, ironically, be dependant on the performance of the young woman who plays the character. Following the audition, Shannon gives Melissa a ride back to work. Act three is the reveal: Melissa got a role! But not the one she wanted. That went to Shannon and so stamps the film with the old addage: "Nobody said life is fair." It's not, clearly. Here lies the largest conflict for the main character: give in or keep trying? Thankfully Melissa keeps trying, but in such a way that we are never told explicitly that things will be okay, but rather a message is hinted that the true value contained in life is not the achievement but the trying. Ultimately, this provides a beautiful end to an deftly handled but otherwise traditional story.
What works:
The writer is to be congratulated in the way by which they reveal the character of Melissa in the opening act. Little things like the different accent for each table and the "campaign" for more hours are good ways of illustrating her as hard working, creative, and in need of money. She say a lot without saying a lot, which is one of the primary rules of good writing and the author does that exceptionally well here. The End: This isn't the first script written about a struggling actor, nor will it be the last. What sets this one apart from the bunch is not just the lack of happy ending / resolution, but the characters heartwarming desire to push on. It's a banner for hardwork and optimism which can come across as sentimental and "light" if done poorly, but can also come across as inspirational and real, when done well, as it is done here.
What doesn't work:
Something abstract and something simple. Your biggest issue lies with originality. That isn't to say that this is not a unique piece of writing. It is. But it retains the frame work of the traditional "struggling actor story." Luckily your characters excede this limitation, but the confines of a 10 page script still hold them back. Consider a wider scope in a future draft. There are a few instances where the author allows potential plot twists and turns to go unrealized. It's not something that is done wrong per se, just something which could be done better. The piece is extremely tight, but in some instances that actually works against you. As an experiment, consider everything that could possibly go wrong in Melissa's day and write that in. The boss says No. The scooter gets a flat, runs out of gas. She leaves her makeup behind. Arrives late. Wrong building etc. Etc. You provide plenty of internal hurdles for the character, now provide a few more external ones.
How it can be improved:
The most basic element is originality. Of course, every story has been told before so you're not likely to write something entirely new. However, the script as it is has enough going for it that it could stand to benefit from a longer draft with a deeper more personal exploration of the characters. Not to get too academic here, but Henry David Thoreau said something once that I (if I may use the singular) always liked: "...for if he has lived sincerely, it must have been in a distant land to me." In other words, the author in encouraged to allow themselves the time and leeway to make a fully personal realization of the character which have up until now been sketched in compelling but still broad outlines. You may perhaps do a rewrite of it in a pilot format (roughly 30 pages). As it is and with the ending you've allowed, it may make for an interesting TV show. Also, a small thing: you may consider using the second shift as a more dynamic hurdle to be overcome. Some maneuvering and scheming might add to the sense of urgency and keep the audience on their seat for just those extra few minutes.
Next step:
This reader's reccomendation: do a rewrite as a thirty page pilot. This is much more likely to be noticed as a TV show than as a short.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
