Screenwriting - The Basics

I'm not a screenwriter, nor am I a "writer." I spend a lot of time writing and I have spent a lot of time editing screenplays and reading screenplays. I have studied one book on screenwriting quite a bit which I credit in helping me form 2 finished feature length screenplays which I've gotten a lot of feedback on from Triggerstreet and American Zoetrope forums.

The Tools of Screenwriting is an amazing book that presents the nuts and bolts of screenwriting and also then compares all those elements to actual movies you've probably seen in an attempt to drive an understanding of it all home.

In my years as a filmmaker I've pored over many drafts of many different screenplays in an attempt to make them better. One thing I would say to anyone writing or who wants to write screenplays is - read "professionally written" screenplays.

There is SO much to be learned from reading actual screenplays that got made into successful movies. Especially with regard to formatting and the manner of writing that is most accepted for screenplays.

As for my meager contribution to the craft of screen writing, please take these items to heart:

What a screenplay is and is not

A screenplay is not a series of events in which characters do stuff.

I've had film stories explained to me in those terms multiple times by wannabe filmmakers, and each time I had to inform them that they in fact had NO story.

A screenplay in simplest terms is a A) Protagonist struggling against opposition in the form of a B) Antagonist in order to C) achieve something and during the course of this struggle, the Protagonist experiences "growth," better known as a "character arc."

That, in a nutshell is what you need to do with your film story. All the gun fights and carnage in the world will not mean much if you don't have these elements firmly established in a written script and depicted in your film story.

Save the drama for your mama

Beginner or untrained or inexperienced screenwriters tend to write stories that involve primarily arguments and similar conflict between characters. This in itself is fine, but when it's essentially all you have in a script, it can get very tiring for an audience.

Many of the feature length films I worked on as DP early in my career featured primarily characters bickering and arguing, with little else of interest. Constant melodrama in a film can work IF the script is crafted by a skilled writer. If you're a neophyte writer, do yourself a favor and steer clear of melodrama.

Start with an outline and an ending

It makes very little sense to just start writing, believing that it's somehow going to all work out by the time you reach page 90. Nobody ever sets out on a journey without a map unless they don't mind a high probability of failure. Without a guide, your script (especially if it's a first script) will more than likely end up a meandering mess or you'll spend far too much time re-writing.

Half the battle is a good outline. Think about that. Having all the major points of the story laid out in order will alleviate a lot of frustration during the crafting of scenes in the screenplay. Do it.

Don't ever start writing without an ending already determined. Again, nobody sets out on a journey without a destination in mind, unless it's only the journey that's important. To you, the screen writer, if you want something to show for your work - have the ending in mind.

Consider the names of characters

Use character names that are easy to remember and that don't sound or look similar. Even if your story is very well told, confusion can creep in (for a reader) when lapses in scene descriptions occur or non-linear story telling technique is employed. Confusion will ruin your screenplay especially if added to those shortcomings - you also have a high number of characters in the story. Pick names thoughtfully, as you would for your own child so that they're not distracting and not adding to the potential confusion a reader might experience.

Don't leave out scene intros

Consider this scene & character intro:

INT. WAREHOUSE - EVENING

COLIN is wild eyed.  He stands with a gun aimed at man tied to a chair.

OK... so as we're reading this, we're trying to form a mental image of the setting where the scene is taking place rather than just concentrating on the story, most likely based on the action(s) of the characters depicted.

The scene intro should set the stage for the scene with just enough words. Adding descriptive words that characterize the space is helpful. What size is the warehouse? What condition is it in? Is it dry? Wet? Clean? Dirty? What else is in it? Cars? Boxes? Nothing? Is moonlight streaming in through the skylights or is it completely dark except for a single nearby light bulb?

You don't want to write a book here, but a lot could be said in one sentence about the setting your characters are in and it helps to frame the scenes so a more complete picture unfolds in a readers mind.

Don't leave out character descriptions

As in the above scene and character intro, COLIN is not described at all. So this leaves the reader to forced into using their intellect to uncover who this person might be. THAT is not what you want a reader to be doing while reading your screenplay.

COLIN is holding a gun, so we know he's probably a male with at least one functional arm and hand, and two legs...

We don't know if this is in fact a male just because COLIN is a males name. We don't know the age of this character, the race, and nothing about them except that this person is "wild eyed."

"Wild eyed" is not nearly enough of a character description. Not even close, and again ONE sentence of carefully worded writing can provide a suitable mental image of this character so the reader doesn't have to waste brain power putting clues together to do it themselves.

Proof read - please

Nothing says "I don't care" to a reader more than poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, and diction. It's very hard to have a 100% correct screenplay, but if you have typos, misspellings, and odd phrases throughout a screenplay, you'll lose the reader and chances are you'll be asking for feedback on your work so don't make it harder for readers to get through your screenplay.

Take the time to proof read because not only will you look like a dumbass if you have more than a few dozen instances of the above shortcomings, but the reader's interest will wain if they sense you rushed through the writing.

The writing happens in the rewriting 

Don't ever think you'll write a script and then take your first draft and produce a film from it unless you don't care about anyone ever liking your film. Rewriting is what separates the men from the boys and it's where the story and dialog are made to really work for an audience.

If you're so enamored of your own writing that you don't feel rewriting is necessary, please stop writing. Screnwriting is not like playing the lottery, it's a process of arduous work that often yields no reward.

If you're unable to improve a script through rewriting and aren't willing to pound away at the writing until it's perfect, please stop writing.

The writing really happens in the rewriting.





©2013 Chris Santucci

Case study in independent film failure

Many years back I sold an Eclair Super 16 film camera to some guy from the New England area who told me at the time that he was planning on shooting a feature film with it.

As it turned out - he did.

His film went nowhere and he ended up posting it online for people to watch for free, which is really the only thing left to do when you discover nobody will buy, rent, or distribute your film. You're better off having people see your film than not ever see it, even if you give it away.

What good is a film if nobody can see it?

Anyway, this guy kept a pretty detailed and amusing journal of his entire filmmaking journey and it shows how all the good intentions in the world won't result in a film that will find an audience:

alt.sex, an independent film



©2013 Chris Santucci

The New Style

The internet obviously has supplanted television and now even movie theaters to some extent. Is the internet the new television? I'd say it is - and more. If the way I use the computer is any indication, I'd guess that people watch onscreen entertainment in conjunction with doing other business online on a regular basis.

I generally have one window playing a movie while I email and/or research, and anything else I might have going on (ordering gear, paying bills, etc.) I rarely ever watch a movie or web series while not doing anything else, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I often also have a 2nd computer working for me as well.

The computer is a multi-tasking machine. Other devices are less so, obviously, due to small screen size. And people are more than adept at multi-tasking and are expected by employers to have the ability to multi-task, so it's more than a personal preference - it's a necessity for survival in the work place.

People have become accustomed to watching onscreen entertainment in smaller and smaller sizes and in  smaller increments of time.  Viral videos are generally never longer than a few minutes and more and more filmmakers are turning to the "web series" format to tell stories, which in essence is a feature length film broken into smaller pieces or basically an episodic television series.

Asking a potential audience to sit still for 90 minutes and watch your movie is asking a lot, which is why films with no "name" actors get such little response.

Viewing tastes have changed as well as delivery methods. People are used to watching short video clips  all day long that deliver brief moments of entertainment and inspiration. People are well used to watching episodic television shows. And people, I believe enjoy the added dimension of being able to comment on what they are watching, which is almost always a feature of online video.

People spend most of their time facing the screen of a computer or a tablet or a smart phone. These machines are ubiquitous in our lives and will become the primary delivery methods for onscreen entertainment. And I fully expect interfaces to come about that display multiple streams of various kinds of information concurrently with entertainment.

As such, I'd say it's well past the time to start thinking about delivering films for viewing on small devices to people who'd rather watch in parts, especially when you consider the fact that the 2nd largest movie audience is the 18-24 year old Caucasian demographic who spend every waking hour staring into the screen of their smart phones and tablets and not concentrating on any one thing for very long.

Another aspect of delivery that I find important to think about is the fact that more and more are not watching films and small screen entertainment in darkened rooms anymore. It's becoming crucial to deliver a final piece in such a way that it will be viewable in open windowed rooms during daytime. When once a filmmaker might create dark scenes in a film which would normally be viewable in a dark theater, details would become lost when viewed in the more normal surroundings of todays viewing public.

Whether they watch while on planes, in cars, on trains, in school, at sports events, or at home, the key things to keep in mind are movie theatre attendance as well as DVD sales are declining. MOD streaming is the new delivery method du jour and YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc. are growing exponentially.

Consider the audience above all else or you will not have one.


©2013 Chris Santucci

Film is Dead

It's almost impossible to get a distribution deal for an independently produced film anymore. These days, filmmakers are giving their films away to the public by posting them to torrent sites or putting them up on YouTube - just to get people to watch them. It's not even about getting into a mid level festival anymore which is nearly impossible, it's merely about just getting people to watch your film.

There are slews of bottom end festivals that you can get your film into, which not only gets your film seen by dozens of people, allows you to schmooze with other unknown filmmakers, and allows for the coveted laurel leaves to display on your website but the sad truth is, any distribution deal to be had through acquisition people attending those lesser festivals will generally not result in an advance, nor any real profit sharing potential.

I was party to a feature length film production where we secured a "distribution deal" that specified that once the distributor recouped their "marketing costs," (which were grossly inflated without a doubt) we would start sharing in profit from sales, rentals, etc.

Of course, that never happened.

These days, not only are there shady film "distributors" who are more than happy to try and wring a few bucks from your film while giving you a big donut hole in return (actually, deliverables are generally on you, so less than zero).

The dozens of low end "distributors" who handle no budget films do manage to get them into the rental realm and even into certain retail outlets for sale (until they get pulled for lack of interest from consumers), but the danger there is you are opening yourself up to the rage of hundreds of critics who will take the time to rip you and your film apart on any number of the online forums, especially IMDb, where the danger is - you end up on the Bottom 100.

There are also plenty of shady film festivals that similarly take advantage of filmmakers. And each festival you submit to generally means 35-50 bucks out of your pocket for the submission fee.

I once submitted a feature film to the New Mexico International Film Festival (now defunct of course) and found out they only accepted about 7 feature films, two of which were made by a buddy and working associate of the douchebag running the festival. Seems fair, right? Accept hundreds of submissions at 50 bucks a pop and only program 7 films, 2 of which were made by a guy you have a working relationship with?

I was DP on a feature film that managed to get into the Queens International Film Festival (now defunct of course) which as it turns out - was also a scam.

At the lower end of festivals, this is what filmmakers have to deal with. Withoutabox does not screen any festivals for the poor schmucks getting their email alerts every day about which of the 10 million festivals have a call for entries coming up. Why should they? The more festivals they can hawk to filmmakers, the more money they make. Plus, it's festival submission (not inclusion) that guarantees your film gets listed on the internet movie database (IMDb) which somehow legitimizes your film and seems to have become the booby prize for filmmakers everywhere who don't get into festivals of note.

There's even a "festival" that will charge you for an award!!! Want "Best New Director?" It's yours - for a fee. And, there's a "distributor" that offers "international distribution" for 2500 bucks (the last I checked - it's probably more now).

And when Sundance, the holy grail of film festivals, gets over 10,000 films submitted each year, you can expect that any of the top 10 domestic festivals are getting nearly as many submitted and those kinds of numbers do not make for good odds of ever having a film accepted, I'd say.

Kevin Smith said recently that if he produced Clerks today, it'd never get into a film festival and that, my friends means - it's over, because the odds are better that you'll get struck by lightning.

("Get you coffee?!?! I'm a director, man.")

So now the struggle has become to just get people to watch your film. That's what it's come down to. If you're OK with getting into a low end festival, and there's nothing wrong with that, and hanging out with a small number of folks who like independent films and with other filmmakers - there are an infinity amount of these festivals.

But it appears the recent explosion of cheap high quality cameras has resulted in an explosion of filmmakers which has resulted in an explosion of film festivals which more often than not are money making schemes which exploit the lofty aspirations of filmmakers who want to find an audience for their film. And desperate filmmakers are further exploited by bottom feeding "distributors" who offer that coveted film distribution, sometimes for a fee, and sometimes for the promise of actual distribution which generally means they make some DVD's and put your trailer on their website.

And so NOW, we've essentially come (back?) to - filmmaking for the sake of filmmaking, and that sounds kind of comforting and liberating in a way I suppose.



©2013 Chris Santucci

Timesavers on Shoot Days

Whether you're trying to make up time, or just want to maximize what time you do have, there are some tricks you can employ that won't detract from your scenes while allowing you more of that precious time you can never have enough of:

Coverage

One thing that always seems to be lacking in low budget films is *coverage*. Generally, you shoot your masters and then your medium shots, and then of course you run out of time for closeups. This happens more often than not, but the smart thing to do is allow time for closeups and cutaways for only select scenes and not every scene. Then you can plan on not shooting closeups and cutaways for certain scenes and allowing for this ahead of time.

For example, say you're shooting dirty single closeups each of two characters talking and if they have any business out of frame, like if one hands something to the other - you need to see that object. You can tell something was exchanged, but it's out of frame and since you're planning on not shooting any cutaways - you have the actor work the object into the frame like this.

A good actor should be able to pull this off so it doesn't look unnatural and if you plan on not devoting time for cutaways for every setup you shoot, you can shoot them when they're really important to have (and you'll have the time to execute them properly).

Adapt your formula for shooting scenes to the time you have available

Instead of using the standard technique of shooting scenes as master shot then medium shots then coverage, plan on shooting only the framings that you know you'll need. Yes, this cuts down on options in post, but when time is limited, this can be a lifesaver. The age-old practice of shooting master/medium/coverage is somewhat ideal when you have the luxury of time, but a more contemporary approach is to know exactly what you'll need prior to shoot days.

Many directors come to the table and ask for everything they can get their hands on when it comes to shots and takes, but when you know you'll be limited on time and possibly takes of exhausting scenes, then you have to be smart and think ahead.

Shoot with Multiple Cameras

Action scenes are generally shot with multiple cameras placed at different angles to the action, but it has become more the norm to shoot non-action scenes with multiple cameras especially on certain episodic TV shows which have horrendous shoot schedules each day not to mention TV shows shot in studios where there are generally 3 cameras on rolling pedestals working concurrently. 

Shooting dialogue scenes with (for example) two cameras means you can capture more in less time and it especially means your actors won't become drained after acting out the same scene 20 times (or more) for all your camera shots. 

Once a scene is lit, it's lit, and placing a second camera somewhere out of the frame of the first camera is relatively painless. It could be a camera with a long lens for shooting those hard to get cutaways, or it could just be a medium shot while the first camera is shooting a wide master. 

Another aspect of rolling on scenes with 2 cameras is - continuity. If you can absolutely guarantee more takes that have continuity, it'll mean less time in post-production editing around continuity errors (like an actor using their right hand in some takes and left hand in others - it happens).

Record Wild Sound Dialog

When you have actors giving dialog in wide shots, or in shots where their faces or mouths are not visible and these setups also present issues with micing, just forego micing for anything but reference audio and record their lines wild.

Say you have an actor running through the woods in the distance, or an actor with dialog but their face offscreen, or an actor in a car shot as an exterior - skip the hassle of micing them, because it's going to save you a lot of time and you'll get better audio quality anyway by recording their lines wild in a controlled environment.

Another example would be - you're shooting a scene in a practical location and there's some obtrusive noise that you can't control, but you have to shoot the scene then and there. What do you do? You can get creative with how the scene is show so that recording wild dialog later can work, OR...

Looping Dialog

This technique of recording pristine dialogue after scenes are shot, in a studio environment, is a standard practice in "Hollywood." It's called "ADR" which means "Automated Dialog Replacement." 

Generally, good location audio is recorded as scenes are shot, and then after the scenes are edited together, the actors (or completely different voice talent) are brought in to "loop" or re-record the dialog. What they do is watch the scene played on a large screen and they vocalize the dialog which is then recorded for insertion into the edit. 

But isn't this time consuming? Yes it is. But when you weigh the time and expense involved with shoot days as time X crew + gear + recording acceptable audio, it very well can be far less time (and money) consuming. 

If you just cannot record acceptable audio on location (for whatever reason), consider looping and if you need to plan on it, plan on it well ahead of time if you can (because your actors need to be available for it).

©2012 Chris Santucci

Content is King

If you haven't heard it yet, a hundred times, it's a good thing you're hearing it now - because it's SO true and it's important to heed this oft repeated phrase.

Too many lo/no budget filmmakers get WAY too tied up obsessing over gear, especially camera gear that they just don't produce much. The more you produce, the better, because you'll just get better at it and you'll have more opportunities to succeed.

A reasonable level of quality I'd suggest is sufficient and agonizing over one camera over another that might offer a 3% better level of quality is just a complete waste of time in my opinion.

Most lo/no budget filmmakers shoot their films with cameras they own and with cameras these days coming out like every year and a half, it's easy to understand how those of us who own what we shoot with would want to maybe step up to the newest, latest camera.

Don't wait - just shoot.

That's how I would respond to the trepidation of filmmakers who wonder if they should wait for the latest camera gear because as I mentioned, you're not exactly going to realize a major difference in quality with the next generation of camera. If you're looking into a much higher caliber of camera however, that's a different deal.

That said, I'd recommend not getting tied up too much with camera choices since there are many other aspects of a potential film that will result in a higher quality film. There are bloggers who over-analyze cameras to the point of distraction when in the end, as I mentioned, you might be comparing 2 cameras that are nearly identical in what they can deliver.

There are slews of posts in online forums from wannabe filmmakers asking which camera they should use when really, it's nearly irrelevant unless you're talking about a comparison between a recent camera model and one from 5 years ago.

In the end, an audience only cares about the story and a seamless viewing experience, so I'd recommend delivering that, because nobody and I mean NO-body will care about how sharp and saturated your 4K footage is, if the story doesn't grab them, or if the actors are flat, or if your sound design is distracting, or if etc.

The goal with what gear you use should be to provide a functional level of usability and quality to allow for a seamless movie experience for an audience. The film is not so much dependent upon which $3,000. camera you use as it is about the gear and the techniques you use not distracting from the story. I've seen quite a few no/lo budget films that I felt were wholly compelling which employed no special techniques or equipment and so their success depended much less on gear choices as on the aspects I mentioned, like story, performances, and production design.

Start with a great story, cast the best actors you can, understand directing them, find the best locations you can, and just ensure good sound and picture. The simplest thing you'll have to do is shoot scenes, or it should be.


©2012 Chris Santucci

Ideas that are worth developing into stories.

If you have an idea for a film story and it takes you longer than say, 2 or 3 sentences to sum up on paper, consider doing something different. In my experience, a convoluted narrative is best left to those with the ability to pull it off.

The term "high concept" means an idea that is very simple and can be summed up in very few words. This is what you should consider when on a limited budget.

Don't think of it as formulaic, but rather - "focused."

Having a basic premise does not mean your story has to be "basic." You can have a distinct premise with which to base your story on and all it means is, you have a sun for your planetary story elements to revolve around.

Here are some examples of successful "high concept" Indie films that were possible on small budgets:

The Man From Earth
Primer
Another Earth
Buffalo '66
The Blair Witch Project
Lost in Translation
Sideways
Reservoir Dogs  

Your characters can be complicated and have depth, sure, but try and keep your story well-defined, interesting, and entertaining and you just might have something.


©2012 Chris Santucci