I love teaching, I adore my students, and I’m fortunate enough to see some good results, as some of my students go on to build a writing career.

Yet, I am growing increasingly frustrated.

There is a missing component in the learning of these young people. Some take the initiative to fill in the blanks, but others aren’t even aware of what is missing.

By just taking courses, there is little chance you will survive the real world.

So what else do you need?

Let’s first look at the positive aspects of books, courses and gurus.

Book, Courses And Gurus

I have written about the merits of film school. You can learn a lot from the experts through books, courses and videos. I have the best memories of binge reading screenwriting books, and then attending lectures by the authors.

In some instances, you can speed up the process of understanding how screenplays work, what has worked in the past and what hasn’t.

You’ll also learn the systems and terminology used in our industry.

Courses give you a general overview, based on more material than you can process in a lifetime. You learn about genres and styles outside your taste, which will help you communicate with professionals.

Books and courses give you different perspectives. No matter how long you study a subject, you’ll still only see it through the lens of your own eyes.

Screenwriting courses may give you a wholly new, valuable point of view.

However, one of the biggest problems with courses, is that only little of what you learn specifically relates to the work that you (will) write.

Therefore it is essential that you get feedback to your own work. It will help improve your performance, and level up to the requirements of the market.

Talk, Don’t Write

One of the local film schools offers their students industry feedback. Professional script consultants come in to help the students improve their scripts from first to final draft. It’s great. Students love it.

Not only is this an introduction to how the industry works; it is an invaluable addition to the lectures. Lecturing is a transfer of knowledge in bulk. The consults provide bespoke feedback, different for each student. Even if two students struggle with the same issue, they may need different solutions.

Consults outclass written reports. In the studio system, notes are a standard form of communication with writers. But without produced credits, you will benefit far more from a direct two-way conversation.

In a live consultation, you are able to ask questions, and so can the consultant. This helps define your objectives, as well as the issues standing in the way of achieving them.

The Consult Is Your Inmost Cave

Most of us work better and faster when we can verbally discuss our work, rather than write or read about it in a snapshot report.

Many aspiring writers are not familiar with the lingo, and consultants should not have to explain or define every concept in a report.

A good script consultation is a mini-workshop, where client and consultant work together to determine the priorities for future work, and the way they could be addressed by the writer. The best consult is an intense, inspiring and rewarding experience for both sides.

A welcome side-effect of some consultations is that writers discover what they are actually writing about.

Often new writers are not aware of the themes they infuse their stories with.

As a consultant, you are in the privileged position of discovering these themes with the writer. What is their world view? What bugs them, and how do their stories comment on society?

A great consult creates an Inmost Cave, for writers to discover their own voice.

It allows them to develop their voice, and articulate their ideas in ways that the industry and the audience will understand. Sometimes it allows them to clarify, sharpen and refine their ideas.

Often these young writers are yet to find their path in life, and their writing provides a valuable introspection into their values, hopes and dreams. As a consultant, it is a humbling experience to be there, and witness this fascinating process.

And yet, no matter how inspiring, poetic and even mythical these experiences may be, they are no substitute for learning from the source.

Back To The Screenwriting Source

A few years back, a member of a screenwriting forum was eaten alive when he dared to ask for a method to learn screenwriting for free. Many of the readers had paid good money for their education, and they came down on the boy to annihilate him.

It turned out the boy didn’t know any better. He was new to screenwriting, and with a mental health disorder he didn’t know how to be diplomatic when asking his question.

It set me thinking.

Screenwriting books and gurus have only been around since the 1970’s, while some of the very best movies were written long before.

How did screenwriters learn the craft before there were any gurus around?

My guess? From reading great screenplays, stage plays, and novels.

It seems that we have collectively forgotten that the best learning lies in the best scripts. Yet, students these days seem to believe they can educate themselves without opening a single screenplay.

From reading lots of great scripts, you can learn style, structure and dialogue, virtually by osmosis.

One of my most dedicated students used to read a full-length feature screenplay every day, for months. This experience helped him so much, that he skyrocketed to the top of the best screenwriting contests, and was introduced to Hollywood agents. You can do this, too.

To be perfectly honest, though…

Just reading scripts is not going to cut it, either.

Enter Immersion

Thousands of screenplays are available online at any given time. They’re only a download away. So why don’t we all get to work, like, now?

It turns out to be a massive challenge to tell the wheat from the chaff.

Many are mere dialogue transcripts, which is utterly useless for the screenwriter who wants to learn how to use proper formatting and descriptive style.

Others are butchered versions, converted from one format to another, and ending up in a crappy TXT or – even worse – HTML format.

And only a few dozen scripts are available freely from their rights holders.

Fortunately, some sites publish a curated offering of these scripts, so you don’t have to make the selection for yourself.

In my view, once you are reading a rock solid selection of the best scripts, the only other mandatory daily action you need to take, is: write.

This is why after teaching screenwriting courses for nearly ten years, I decided to completely overhaul the philosophy behind my teaching.

I made a thorough review of what had worked in the past, and what didn’t.

I looked at which students had been successful, and who failed. Then I looked at the practices of working screenwriters, and built a system that helps writers build better habits, and prepare them for the writing of a professional screenplay draft. All without a tutor.

I named the course Immersion Screenwriting.

The results have been phenomenal.

The writing exercises I designed for this course emulate some of the brain processes of the seasoned screenwriter. Others are meant to create a steady writing habit, while building some sort of format muscle memory.

By performing these exercises on a daily basis, you adopt the practices of the professional screenwriter effortlessly. The basic version of the course runs for seven weeks (50 days), enough to change or create a new habit.

Take Action

If this all sounds like something you’d like to try, head over here.

If you have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on screenwriting courses and consults, rest assured that none of that was a waste. You will have acquired a top level understanding of the screenwriting trade.

But to get in the successful habit of writing effective screenplays, you need to not only know but feel what a great script looks like. This takes some time, and a fair amount of reading.

You need to know your genre inside out, you need to know its flagship movies and writing conventions. In addition, you need to be able to apply a contemporary writing style.

Readers want to enjoy your screenplay not only for its story, but also for its reading experience.

So, what script are you reading next?

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Despite McConaughey’s fantastic performance, the ratings turned out to be mostly right. As a screenwriter, I’m glad I still went, though. I always say we can learn as much, if not more, from films that aren’t perfect than from those that are. ‘Gold’ reinforced for me a very important lesson: heroes that don’t learn anything leave an audience unfulfilled.

First, a quick summary of the movie (skip to the next paragraph if you want to avoid these spoilers):

The hero in Gold, Kenny Wells (Matthew McConaughey) has inherited his family’s mining company, only to run it into the ground (pun intended). In a last ditch effort to save it, he teams up with a discredited gold prospector, Michael Acosta (Edgar Ramirez) to hunt for gold in the jungles of Indonesia. When they strike it rich, the company goes public and they all make a fortune. It’s peaches and cream for Kenny and his loving wife Kay (Bryce Dallas Howard) until the inevitable lure of women and money creates a rift between the money hungry husband and the salt-of-the-earth wife. But Kenny seems to get on just fine without her, until his biggest competitor convinces Indonesia’s president to nationalise Kenny’s company. Penniless, Kenny returns to his ex-wife only to discover she’s dating someone else. Bummer. In another desperate effort to save his company, Kenny and Michael agree to give Indonesia’s president’s son 85%. Everyone’s happy! That is until it’s discovered Acosta faked the gold results. There is no gold! The company fails, Acosta goes missing and Kenny is left with nothing again. Poor Kenny goes back to his ex-wife, AGAIN, tail between his legs, hoping for consolation. What he gets is a check in the mail from the AWOL Acosta for $84 million. Role credits.

First of all, kudos to Patrick Massett, John Zinman for even getting the story on the screen. Writing a screenplay is a heck of a lot of work, and out of the thousands that are written every year, very few get made. Forgive me for a little Monday-morning quarterbacking. My goal is to learn and improve as a screenwriter.

Ok, disclaimer out of the way.

On the surface, this ‘inspired by true events’ story is fascinating. I can see why the producers were sold on the idea. It embodies the American dream of the scrappy underdog who works his ass off, and builds a fortune from nothing. He gets knocked down, not once, but twice, and still ends up on his feet. The problem is, Kenny doesn’t come out of the storm having learned a valuable lesson that the audience can take away with them. He doesn’t change; he doesn’t arc — so I don’t care.

Now, not all heroes have to change. Matt Damon in The Martian didn’t change and people loved that. James Bond (traditionally) and most superheroes don’t change during a film and we know how much money those movies make. But this isn’t that kind of a movie.

This guy was a hard-drinking, chain-smoking man who was loved by a sweet wife and just wanted to save his daddy’s company. He gave his loyalty to a man he hardly knew and was betrayed. When he was rich, it was fun and he deserved it, but he went too far and lost the love of his life. These are all the ingredients you need to deliver an emotionally satisfying film – if only they’re properly arced – but they never are.

Had he confessed to the woman he loved that money wasn’t everything (hopefully in a non-cliché way), maybe then he would have deserved his reward. Had he unwaveringly believed in the partner they say betrayed him and NOT given him up to the feds, then maybe he would have earned that money.

Instead, we have a hero in the beginning of the film that believed in not giving up, but in the end does give up, and yet he gets rewarded anyway.  The money just falls in his lap.

And we’re kinda led to believe that his boomerang relationship with his wife will kick off again into happily ever after.

That’s not the kind of arc audiences want to see.

So my screenwriting lesson from watching ‘Gold’ was this: make sure your hero learns their lesson (unless they’re a tragic hero).

When they do, their reward will feel well deserved.

-Phil Parker

Phil Parker

Screenwriter Phil Parker has written screenplays for directors and producers around the world. His highly awarded spec script ‘The Third Bomb’ is currently under option with BAFTA-winning producer Sias Wilson. Phil also has many years of experience writing scripts for original content and promos at the BBC, where he won a coveted Global Excellence Promax BDA Award for ‘Frontline War’.

www.storiesbyphil.com

Tony Morphett has written or co-written seven feature films. Among his TV writing are ten telemovies, twelve miniseries, and some hundreds of episodes of TV series drama. He devised or co-devised seven TV series. He has won 14 industry awards for TV writing.

TV Writing in Australia

Q: Vince Gilligan sent in his episodes of X-files. He then started writing and co-producing X-files. That’s how he broke into TV writing.  How do writers typically break into TV writing in Australia?

A: Vince Gilligan followed a route a lot of aspiring screenwriters in LA try.  Write a spec script for a successful series and hope to get a gig. For him it turned up trumps. It’s a case of “many are called but few are chosen”.  But what the hell, it’s one way of getting past the gatekeepers.

Shane Brennan, now showrunning both NCIS series, was a successful screenwriter here. But he had an urge to work in LA. Every year he’d go over and pitch and finally pulled it off in a sensational way.  David Williamson came into screenwriting from stage.  He segued into movies and his first TV writing was on my 1970’s series Certain Women.  I’d seen The Removalist and was blown away and recommended him to our script editor Glyn Davies. 

Laura Jones also got her first TV writing gig on Certain Women after doing a screenwriting course. If memory serves, that was in Canberra. Debra Oswald, known for her TV writing on Offspring, I think, started as a stage playwright. Peter Gawler – Underbelly and lot of other credits – got a job at Crawford Productions. I think he was a 3^rd Assistant, segued into the script department, became a script editor, then the great writer he is today. 

Crawford’s was an amazing hot-house for TV writing talent.  A lot of people got their start there but there’s nothing quite like it today.  The film schools are turning out writers, some better than others.  The problem with some of the film schools, is that they encourage their students to follow the auteur filmmaker myth.

Directing and screenwriting are two very different disciplines. Each can take years to master. There are some who can do it, but not many.  Daniel Krige went to AFTRS to do screenwriting and segued into writing/directing.  His West is I think a good film, and he may be an exception to my rule.  He came to me when he was about 16, had left school, with a big lever arch file with the first handwritten draft of West inside. 

I agreed to read it and found to my horror that it was a good script. It needed work, but don’t they all? With a lot of nagging some friends, I got him into AFTRS when he was only 19. 

The problem with some of the film schools, it seems to me,
is that they encourage their students to follow the auteur film maker myth.

Me?  I’d written a novel called Dynasty about a media company owning family.  I’d spent 10 years in TV as an interviewer/documentary man and thought it’d make good television.  I pitched it to David Goddard, then head of ABC-TV drama, he commissioned a pilot. 

Then he went back to England and his place was taken by John Cameron, one of the best heads of drama I’ve known.  He commissioned a further 10 eps, then a further 13. I really learned TV writing on those series, primarily from Glyn Davies. He was my script editor, who had worked in the UK on No Hiding Place and The Rat Catchers.  I owe Glyn much, he was a mentor and friend.

I suppose the lesson in all this is to get noticed somehow. And … to have the work to back it up when the chance comes. The one characteristic that all writers possess is that they write.  It’s not “one day when I get time I’ll sit down and write my novel/stage play/screenplay.”

It’s “sit on your arse and do it now.”

Writing for TV: The Showrunners

Q: Do show creators generally come from the ranks of staff writers?  What sort of staff writers generally rise up to create and run their own TV shows?

Reg Watson was on Grundy’s staff.  More recently Bevan Lee on staff at Seven has developed  great shows – A Place To Call Home, Winners and Losers, Packed to the Rafters.  Crawford’s shows were all, I think, developed in-house.

I’ve created or co-created seven series.  Debra Oswald won a NSW Premier’s award for the telemovie pilot of Offspring.  The pattern these days is for shows to be created in-house or by indy poducers. Blue Heelers was by me and Hal McElroy, Water Rats by me and John Hugginson, both freelancers but done for Hal McElroy.

Q: Does TV writing require a particular personality type?

A: Creating a show needs a writer’s brain. Running one needs a producer’s brain.  Some people like Shane Brennan and Bevan Lee  have both and can switch from one to the other. It’s a hard trick, and I’ve never been tempted to do it because running a show would take away from my TV writing time, which is my first love.  

Q: As you mentioned, the audience is more segmented than ever. How is the rise of social media/YouTube/VOD impacting on how TV shows are funded?

A: Yes, the audience is now segmented but TV goes on. I’m not up the business end, but my understanding is that advertising revenue remains strong.  Screen Australia will invest in telemovies and in miniseries but not episodics.  This policy can distort the nature of the show.  A natural episodic idea will now usually need a spine running through 13 episodes turning it into a miniseries. You can do this only 5 times (=65 eps) before ScreenOz cuts off investment funding. 

Sea Patrol and Underbelly both did this which is a factor in why both series ended at 65 eps apiece.  Generally speaking new technology doesn’t kill old.  Radio didn’t kill books, TV didn’t kill radio, the internet and smartphones and X Boxes have not killed TV.    

Q: Are Australian TV shows profitable in general?  What is being done to increase the profitability?

A: That depends on the ratings. If a show on commercial TV rates well it will attract advertising.  If a show doesn’t rate well, you’ll see it moved to a later time slot, and usually a different night and it won’t be picked up for another series.  No one promised us a rose garden and life in the jungle is tough.

 Q: Are there any Australian TV shows that do a great job of integrating social media and the internet to reach a greater audience?  How is this impacting the advertising model?

A: Like everyone in media, I’m watching social media/internet.  With downloads and YouTube and so on the way, ratings are counted has changed.  These days you get the Overnights and then the Consolidated Rating which gives you a better idea or how many people are watching but it doesn’t and never has tell you if anyone’s in the room or paying attention.  Kids multitask – they watch TV and their X Boxes simultaneously.  No system’s perfect.  

Q: How is TV writing changing in the age of digital media?

A: It’s perhaps got crisper and faster moving but the fundamentals haven’t changed since we sat around in caves telling stories to each other about the last Mastodon hunt.  Humans want to be told stories.  Why we do is a two bottle argument. My own view is that fiction is a training ground for real life.  You learn strategies for living from stories and live many other people’s lives.  

Q: What in your view, as a long-time successful practitioner, are some of the upsides and downsides of the change in the landscape of TV writing in Australia?

A: In many ways  we’ve become a coarser society.  In my youth, men generally didn’t use profanity in front of women, they kept it to the public bar.  Men were in that sense functionally bi-lingual, and women didn’t use language that would make a sailor blush. That age is now gone. 

The trap for younger writers in this is to  take the easy route when it comes to expressing, say, anger.  There’s also what I call the Fucking and Killing Sub-Genre which can get boring.  Think of the American studio films of the 40’s and 50’s. They didn’t need it to get their effects.  Deadwood, the most profane miniseries I have ever seen, was both beautifully made and suffered poverty in its dialogue.  Fuckety-fuckety-fuckety.  Noel Coward it is not. 

Q: Do you have an idea in the works that you’d like to see as a series.

A: Half a dozen which I won’t tell you about because they’re not yet as finished as I’d like.  If you want to see some of my orphan ideas, which have never seen light of day, go to www.tonymorphett.com and click Bottom Drawer then Miniseries and/or Episodic. 

It’s a heart-breaking old town, is it not?

Q: What is a project you’re working on currently?

A: Several, with several producers.  Also a science fiction novel which is a sequel to my Starship Home, now available as an Amazon Kindle eBook if I may for a moment indulge in blatant self-advertisement.

Q: As a female, I’m curious to find out whether the actresses in Australia have the same problems as in Hollywood.  That is, there are too many actresses (more women than men study drama) and not enough leading roles.

A: I think it’s the same here.  What may change it is the trend for more and more women becoming heads of drama and/or development.  This has come about, I think, because for several decades women have become producers, script producers and script editors for TV writing.  Sue Masters, Caroline Stanton, Susan Bower, sister of the late great Lynn Bayonas. She was also distinguished in this field. Kim Wilson, the list goes on and on. Having said that there are some women who bring audiences with then. To name a few,  Lisa McCune, Asher Keddie, Rebecca Gibney, Claudia Karvan and Essie Davis, currently tearing up the set as Phryne Fisher.  She’s had an Olivier Award for Best Supporting Actress, and a Tony nomination.  She was the stand-out actor in The Slap, and I’d happily watch her read the phone book.  These are genuine stars in television

 Q: You’re an author of science fiction novels too.  What do you think will be some of the things we’ll see in the future?

Technology changes but human nature remains the same.  In the 50’s, it was a convention in SF that computers would get bigger and bigger – sometimes planet sized.  The chairman of IBM once said that there was maybe a market for 5 computers to service the world. These would be 30 ton Godzillas.Then Jobs and Wozniak put together the  personal computer and couldn’t get Atari and Hewlett Packard to come aboard.  Then Facebook came along and I thought it was a campus fad. Kid stuff. 

Then Twitter and I thought “what can you say in 140 letters or less?”  1984 and Brave New World were once thought of as either/or visions of the future but it turns out that both Orwell and Huxley were right.  For me, the best SF tells speculative stories in exotic, imagined  locations.  It’s like historical fiction played out in imaginary worlds.

But I wouldn’t bet the house on any of it coming true.  

Thank you Tony for agreeing to this interview, and providing such insightful answers about your experience in TV writing.

-Eda Utku

This is what I’m getting myself into. I spotted this constructive feedback on a music video I wrote and directed last month. Having given this a fair amount of thought, I still haven’t quite figured out what the person who posted this was thinking when they wrote it.

by Ben Cox

“Probably the gayest clip ever made.” Really? The gayest ever? I dunno, perhaps it was meant as a compliment? I mean, the gayest clip ever would be a hell of an achievement. I just wish they hadn’t prefixed it with probably, keeping me in a perpetual cloud of doubt. What do they even mean by “gayest”? I’m so confused, annoyed and hurt.

Ok, that’s not true. I did give this some thought but not because it bothered me. I gave it thought because my reaction was to smile, and I began thinking about how I came to a place where it became such a positive relationship in my life. I think criticism is an essential part of writing, not just because of what can be gained from it, but also because it’s so unavoidable.

criticism is an essential part of writing,
not just because of what can be gained from it,
but also because it’s so unavoidable

You see, my relationship with criticism is an important one, not just with YouTube hate mongers or bloggers, critics or reviewers. It’s also a huge part of being a writer. Meeting with script editors, producers, directors are a part of everyday life, and they all have an opinion. Actually, everyone has an opinion don’t they? Just about every friend or family member with a suggestion on how they would have done it. It’s something that’s unique to writers I think because you’re essentially trading in ideas, and everyone has ideas.

I’m currently a freelance writer/director with 7 short films and 4 music videos in my credits. I specialize in ‘outside the box’ thinking and have yet to meet an idea I didn’t think I could turn into something entertaining. Despite this I’m quite sensitive by nature, so criticism has never been easy for me to deal with. It mixes interestingly with my hypercompetitive nature as well.

It’s easy to take criticism personally. To sulk and dwell on it no matter how many people also tell you they really like something you’ve created. We’ve all been there, and yet so many of us spend our time worrying about the negative feedback whilst brushing off the positive. The whole process can be debilitating. So why do I like it so much? My personality type certainly shouldn’t lead to me being good with criticism, and years of coping with it very badly as a teenager don’t suggest I should enjoy it.

So many of us spend our time worrying about the negative feedback
whilst brushing off the positive

However.

Although criticism can be crippling, it can also be liberating. When I’m sat in front of a notepad or laptop and debating whether I should write that thing which might really annoy/upset someone or their friend might think it’s rubbish, why am I doing that to myself? I have no control over how other people choose to consume something I did, so why worry about it? It’s the same as when I’m on a plane, why worry if something might go wrong? It’s out of my hands. That’s such a great feeling to have. As a writer I spend so much of my life trying to control things, my characters, my plot, my turning point two, that it’s nice to know there are things I can’t control, and don’t have to, so I don’t try to.

If you’re no longer worried about the response from your audience,
what you’re left with is whatever your imagination can come up with

Freedom from criticism is also freedom from expectation. If you’re no longer worried about the response from your audience, what you’re left with is whatever your imagination can come up with. That’s about as exciting a place as you can hope to be in. For me, this is what allows me to write from the heart about whatever I want to.

And as for that comment. It’s quite funny in an ironic way isn’t it?

You can decide for yourself here:

– Ben

After gaining his B.A in English Literature at Loughborough University, Ben Cox spent 4 years as a musician, playing bass in the band Kyte, touring internationally and releasing a top 5 selling album in Japan.

He left the group to pursue a career as a director and writer.

Since graduating from the International Film School Sydney in 2012, he has written and directed three music videos.

Photo Credits: Ben Cox

by Marie Setiawan

Let me introduce myself – I am an aspiring writer wanting to make her way into the industry and make stories come to life, whether they are others’ or my own. There is something about creating life through the words you sculpt into a story – the characters, the plot, the journey they embark on, and the obstacles they must face. It’s an intricate craft – one that I need to hone my skills into before I can take a step through a producer’s door. If at any point in time such a thing turns into reality, you’ll be the first to know here. But for now, these are early times.

After graduating from film school, things have crawled to a slower pace over the past month or two. Perhaps maybe too slow for my liking. I had gotten used to the film school regimen that structure in my untimely schedule has been thrown out the window. It’s difficult to know what to do with myself nowadays. Frankly it’s been an extended holiday, but my mind needs constant stimulation or else creativity would grow stagnant and stale. I’m sure most writers have “one of those days” where nothing comes to you, where you stare at your computer screen (or your empty notebook page, whichever your method may be) for what feels like an eternity and nothing springs out at you. Call it a lack of inspiration, but I’ve learned that it’s also a lack of discipline.

I had initially set a goal (or a number of goals) to achieve within a six month period – which is now less than six months at this rate – but it’s given me an objective to strive towards, much like how one’s protagonist chases after their dreams relentlessly. I’ve felt unsure at times as to where I’m going to take myself from here. After all, I am fairly new to this strange world that is the film industry. So I’m caught at a crossroads of sorts – the inevitable next step after graduation: “What now?”

For any aspiring screenwriter, it all comes down to utilising time to your advantage (though I’m one to talk). We can easily come up with excuses to postpone any goals we want to achieve just for another day. It could be a lack of inspiration or the sense that all you’ll write would be meaningless trite at the end of the day. Honestly, I’ve caught myself doing other things to avoid writing in general – even washing the dishes was a productive substitute. My time has been spent reorganising all of my things – a few script ideas and a film treatment in the works – all of it a part of my plans to complete within six months (now less). Regardless, it’s good to get your mind away from it all once in a while, but only enough for another fresh start on your work. Procrastination is creativity’s double-edged sword – not the enemy.

Now it’s 2013… it’s all about starting from rock bottom after having a taste of what it’s like to be on top of things. Now that film school is over for me, I’m now trying the waters. I apologise for such a late post, (one that I’m writing in the wee hours of the morning), but I had been keeping it off for your average number of reasons: “I’ve been busy.” “I haven’t had time to sit down.” “I wasn’t inspired.” When really, all I needed was to jot down my initial thoughts. It’s all about completing one step at a time instead of having to constantly focus on the super objective, which for anyone would be a significant weight on their shoulders (much like how New Year Resolutions don’t always work out).

From here on, it’s one foot in front of the other. Let’s see what the next month will bring.

– Marie

Marie Setiawan is a film graduate from the International Film School Sydney, as well as a UNSW Alumni with a BA degree in Media and Communications with Honours. Writing is her passion, but she also enjoys many things on the side such as reading, watching films, and indulging herself in social media whenever she can. She is interested in the future of storytelling and how it is constantly changing in our tech-rich world, where narrative can be transformed into any medium.

Photo Credits: The Graduate (1967)

For years, I blindly followed this dogma, as it seemed to make a lot of sense. Learn from good and bad examples. Don’t we all do that in other fields? With hundreds of screenplays readily available for download from www.script-o-rama.com, www.imsdb.com and other sources, it appeared to be a quick and easy way to study the craft of scriptwriting.

But does it?

On average, I try to watch a movie a day, either in the cinema or on DVD. With the birth of my son late 2004, that became a bit more of a challenge. I found myself falling asleep in the second act. To remedy the ‘early fatherhood syndrome’, I would make notes, forcing myself to stay awake. As long as I had the discipline, I would even type them up into structural diagrams.

Suddenly, I had a revelation: the more I liked the film, the easier it was to find the Aristotelian three act structure and the principles of dramatic tension.

Revelation? Hardly.

What was truly phenomenal was that to crack the key to the film’s story structure, it had taken me only the duration of the film plus a few minutes. If I had read the screenplay instead, I’d have spent hours reading and taking notes – and only then would I be able to start work on piecing together the structure. A finished film underscores the drama in ways that help you identify the importance of the beat, scene or sequence: through music, fades or the use of light and colour (Soderbergh’s TRAFFIC is an extreme example).

At the time of writing I was developing a story with Wojciech – “Aerosol” – Wawrzyniak, whose structure is vaguely similar to Kenneth Brannagh’s MARY SHELLEY’S FRANKENSTEIN (thank you, Chris) so we decided to read the screenplay and watch the movie.

That’s when the true value in reading screenplays became apparent: it allows you to compare script and finished film. It shows the areas where filmmakers struggled, where what was on the page didn’t translate into what was onscreen.

Comparing script and film also reveals where directors made last minute decisions because they didn’t believe the script worked (or more often, the money ran out). A great example is the Chicago Train Station climax in THE UNTOUCHABLES. Mamet’s original Third Act had Capone’s accountant going on the train, with a chase and shootout following. However, De Palma had blown the budget and was forced to improvise.

For years, De Palma had been dreaming of shooting a homage to Eisenstein ‘Odessa Steps’ sequence from THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN. A budget issue in THE UNTOUCHABLES finally threw the opportunity into his lap. In my view, reading lots of screenplays is the hard way to learning how to write good stories. However, analyzing a few classic scripts in terms of language, style and formatting may help you find the right balance to turn your final draft into a better read.

– Karel

Aspiring screenwriter Terrence ponders over a question that has bugged all of us at some point: “Is screenwriting for me?”

Post: Terrence
Editor: Cleo Mees

The bustling streets of lower Manhattan. Ubiquitous blue planks of wood, held up by rusty bars of steel. A pedestrian crowd waves in and out of the shade falling from the skyscrapers.

CU of LUANNE, emerging from the crowd.

PULL BACK to reveal her blue sunflower-print dress. With a big smile, she waves from across the street.

Luanne walks against the crowd and crosses the street to meet ME. We hug for a long time. She gives me a warm grab of the arms. I relax into her and hold on tight. But she breaks off contact and I slouch, rejected.

She walks off and disappears back into the crowd.

LONG SHOT of me, standing still as the crowd floods around me. I become indiscernible. CUT TO BLACK.

Fade in.

This is me waking up from a dream. For the longest time, I have dreamed in a cinematic format. From framing to camera angles to cuts and fades, even sound mixing, my dreams were the stuff of film.

I only started becoming cognizant of these little quirks when I stumbled across the special features on some DVD that I can no longer recall.  It talked about framing shots, creating movement, and a lot more.  I had no idea what a lot of these cinematic principals were at the time, but it certainly opened up my eyes to the true art of motion picture.  After watching those special features I understood that every frame of that movie was by design.  Every shot, every cut, every dolly in and every close up, they were put there for a reason.

When Netflix blessed me with a service center that was not 5 miles away from me, I became obsessed with movies.  I loved rating the movies that I watched.  After all, Netflix did provide viewing suggestions based on your ratings.  By the end of a couple of months, I had rated over 800 movies, and within a year I had watched and rated more than a thousand movies.  At first, they merely served as entertainment, sometimes a distraction from the hustle and bustle and pain of daily life.  But then I started to become more of a discerning consumer.  I started to take an active interest in films.  I started noticing how there would often be shots of actors only from the chest up.  Sometimes one actor’s face would fill nearly the entire frame.  And then sometimes their presence on the screen was a small one, a small dot in the center of an aerial shot.

IS SCREENWRITING FOR ME?

Not having a formal education in film as an art form, I was a self-proclaimed student of film by way of self-study.  My education consisted of my own observations and notes about the hundreds of movies I had watched…Until the day came when I had to register for classes at my college.  It wasn’t a liberal arts college, so I was rather excited to see that there was a new class being offered.  It was Drama 106: Introduction to Film Appreciation.  Boy was I ecstatic!

Throughout the semester, we watched and studied films like The Cabinet of Dr. Galligari, Citizen Kane, Nosferatu, and surprisingly even The Graduate.  As we progressed through the syllabus, I gained a new appreciation for film.  I came to learn the lingo used in film and why we see two-shots, close-ups, how high angles and low angles are used.  I learned about mise en scene, lighting, the use of sound.  I absorbed all of this new knowledge with a great enthusiasm and appreciation.

Shortly after the semester’s end, I began penning a screenplay.  I noticed that the format felt incredibly natural to me.  Scenes started with a time and a place, new characters were introduced, dialogue was written.  The flow of it came easily – everything just seemed to make sense in a movie.  In fact, I saw my life as fitting into little scenes.  Before entering a classroom, I thought to myself, INT. CLASSROOM – DAY.  People became characters to me, and I studied them as such. I remembered bits and pieces of people I saw, be they bums on the street corner or a pretty lady in the New York City subway.

The question this leads us to is, how do you know if screenwriting is for you?  It may not come as naturally to you as it did for me.  I feel that the only way to see if the format is a good fit for you is to go and try to write one.  Just write out a story that you’d like to tell and put it into a screenplay format.  Also, find something that interests you, something that you’re passionate about.  Authenticity comes from real experience and expertise.

-Terry Ip
Self-styled perennial student of film working towards a career with a pension.

Cleo Mees

Cleo Mees is a Sydney-based writer, filmmaker and dancer. With a background across several disciplines, her interest is in finding out how these different disciplines can intersect and inform each other.

Our guest this week is Eric McDonald, CEO of Zhura.com.

While screenwriting is rarely credited as a driver of new technology, it certainly benefits from technical innovation.  Screenwriters have enjoyed continuous improvement in the tools that allow them to work more efficiently, from the typewriter to personal computers to niche word processors.

A new wave of technology is improving things again, fueled by distributed computing and ubiquitous Internet connectivity.

With the rapid proliferation and accessibility of the Internet, software providers are changing the paradigm in terms of how they develop and offer their products.  Rather than sell (or rather: license) you a piece of software that you install on one or two computers, they create software that runs completely online, which you access on an as-needed bases.

Think of software as gym equipment. As a health enthusiast, you could go out and purchase the best equipment available for use in your home.  If you are disciplined, you will use it for an hour or so every day.  Contrast that with getting a gym membership:  no lump sum payment, no equipment maintenance, cost of equipment is spread among users, and an opportunity to meet people with similar interests.    Success for a gym relies on providing a quality service to a motivated group who has the ability to get to their facility.

All of the elements are in place for software companies to provide their software on an as-needed basis.  It’s called Software as a Service (SaaS), and you are already using it.

If you access your messages through Gmail or Yahoo, or you use Facebook, Bebo, Flickr, or eBay, you are using SaaS.  Ever thought about the fact that you have never needed to  “upgrade” Wikipedia?  It’s just out there, always up-to-date and available when you need it.

Software manufacturers are well aware of the benefits that a SaaS platform provides their business:

While none of the traditional screenwriting software providers currently offer products that run online, several new companies provide solutions that are just a mouse click away.  Each of these sport slightly different features and interfaces, so that the consumer can select the one that best meets their needs and goals. Early to market were Plotbot.com and Scriptbuddy.com, which provide basic industry-standard formatting.

More recent alternatives include Scripped.com and Zhura.com, both released in 2007.  Both provide the familiar “tab” and “enter” keystroke shortcuts, and  import/export from popular off-the-shelf software.  Zhura has also added community features and the ability to collaborate in real time.

Security is always a concern when working online.  Zhura, as well as other SaaS companies, believe that the overall security of an online solution is unmatched by desktop solutions.

Statistics show that one out of five hard drives will crash in their lifetime.  We’ve heard horror stories of people who have lost everything on their hard drive, only salvaging files that they had at some point sent through email, since they could log on to re-download.  Guess what, that email program is SaaS, with online storage.

Statistics on stolen laptops are staggering – 2000 are stolen daily in the United States.  It takes far less sophistication to grab someone’s laptop from a coffee shop than it does to crack into your online bank account (SaaS) service.  Online security, even more so than convenience and features, may be the most compelling reason for a transition to SaaS.

Internet data solutions are so plentiful and cheap, companies now routinely run their data centers on multiple, redundant servers, and perform daily backups.

There is an exciting new generation of software being deployed over the Internet.  It requires no installation, no upfront cost, no maintenance, and enables features that were unheard of as little as three years ago.  As these solutions find their way into specific areas such as screenwriting, they offer compelling and exciting new opportunities for consumers.

Unfortunately, they only make your screenwriting experience simpler, you still have to write the story!

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

by Karel Segers

I still believe it is a wonderful independent film, well-structured and beautifully written. Usually I am not a fan of mannered dialogue but here, this stylistic trademark is delivered really well by Juno’s strong cast.

Update 1 May 2012: Following some good suggestions from readers, I have changed the Inciting Incident from Bleeker’s line “Do whatever you think is right” to what it is now. Thank you all for the comments and suggestions!

ACT ONE

Sequence A: One doodle that can’t be undid.

00.30 “AUTUM” Juno drinks juice. “It started with a chair.”
01.00 Flashback to the conception.
01.30 Opening Titles.
04.00 Third urine pregnancy test, Juno still won’t accept result.
05.00 There’s that pink “+” sign again.
05.30 Juno hangs a a candy noose off a tree, then eats it.
06.30 Juno calls best friend Leah to tell her. Disbelief. “Lunch baby?”
07.30 Juno with Leah, trying to figure out what to do.
08.30 FlashBack to how it started: Spanish Class
09.00 Bleeker getting ready to run.
09.30 Juno with Bleeker: Do whatever you think is right.
11.00 At school with Bleeker: they seem a pretty good match.
13.30 Juno calls for abortion info.
14.30 Juno VO about her past, mother and stepmum Bren.
16.00 Su-Chin: “All babies want to get borned”.

Sequence B: Crisis of conscience.

17.00 At WOMEN NOW: form to complete, free condom offered.
18.30 Juno waits, gets an anxiety attack and leaves.
19.00 With Leah: considering to adopt it out.
20.00 Reading adoption ads in the park: Mark & Vanessa sound good.
21.00 Bleeker at home, his mother doesn’t like Juno.
22.00 Juno tells her parents about the problem and her adoption plan.

25.00 Dad: Not ready to be a Pop-Pop. Mum: You know it wasn’t his idea.

ACT TWO

Sequence C: Mark and Vanessa Lohring.

26.00 Driving there with dad.
27.00 Meeting Mark, who is cool & Vanessa who is highly strung.
28.00 Decision for a closed adoption. Mark isn’t too excited.
31.00 Juno, on the way to the toilet, checks out the house.
32.00 Juno bumps into Mark, they bond over a Les Paul guitar & music.
33.30 Vanessa goes upstairs when she hears Mark singing: reprimands him.
34.30 Vanessa is insecure but Juno is 104% sure she will go ahead.

Sequence D: Will Vanessa be a good mum?

36.00 WINTER – Bleek is running & questioned about stuff by classmate.
36.30 Bleek offers Juno to skip his movie party and join for the ultrasound.
37.30 Ultrasound nurse insults Juno, Bren retorts fiercely.
40.00 Juno visits Mark to show scans, they bond.
43.00 J. & M. listen to Sonic Youth, watch horror, talk about baby’s name.
46.30 Vanessa shows lots of baby stuff, mentions a ‘cold feet’ experience.
48.00 Bren thinks Juno has crossed a boundary by dropping by at M. & V.’s.
49.30 Visiting Bleeker; he plans for the future, wants to get back together.
52.30 POV: Mark & Vanessa have different views about preparations.

54.00 At the mall: Juno & Leah see Vanessa, who seems a good future mum.
55.00 They meet Vanessa, who feels the baby kick.

Sequence E: Will Mark be a (good) father?

57.00 “SPRING” Bleeker is running, Bren is sewing stretch pants for Juno.
58.00 Calling Mark, they chat and bond over music and learning.
58.30 Leah tells about Bleeker & Katrina for prom. Juno doesn’t believe it.
60.00 Juno argues with Bleeker over Katrina.
63.00 Putting on lipstick, to Mark: he shows pregnant superhero cartoon.
63.30 Mark & Juno dance. M. says he’s leaving V. Juno is in shock.
67.00 Vanessa arrives, asks what’s wrong; Mark admits he has cold feet.

70.00 Juno drives off, pulls over, cries.
72.00 Bleekers plays the guitar // Juno writes a note.
72.30 Mark & Vanessa talk about divorce and lawyers.
73.30 Juno delivers her note to Mark & Vanessa.

74.30 Juno asks her dad about true love and happiness. He gives advice.

ACT THREE

Sequence F: I’m still in.

77.30 “Tic-tac-o-holic”. Mysterious delivery at night.
78.00 Bleeker finds tictacs. Juno visits him on the running track. Kisses him.
80.30 Water brakes.
81.00 Contractions, Juno begs for ‘spinal tap’.
81.30 Birth.
82.00 Bleeker running.
82.30 Juno with dad in hospital: You’ll be back – on your terms!
83.00 Bleeker visits, lies with Juno.
84.00 Vanessa visits to see the baby.
85.00 The note to Vanessa: “If you’re still in, I’m still in”.

Sequence G: Bleeker and Juno

85.30 SUMMER – Juno on bike, VO about Bleeker as a top boyfriend.
86.30 Playing the guitar together.

INCITING INCIDENT

Juno’s realisation of her pregnancy seems a very early Inciting Incident. Because of the repeated urine tests, it almost passes as a ‘normal life’ situation for this story. Why then IS it the Inciting Incident? Because Juno MUST act. Her life has changed irreversibly and she’s got to do something about it.

Twenty minutes of screen time pass between Juno’s realisation and the end of Act One. Why does this work? Possibly because of the sequential structure.

The first sequence is much less about the realisation of being pregnant than it is about the question ‘who is going to help me’? Until Bleeker says “Do whatever you think is right”, she is still trying to get the solution from others. After this, she knows she will have to come up with the answer.

What follows is still a 15mins long ‘think-think’ sequence. This works fabulously, because it leaves us all with the nagging moral question “what would I do?”. Because of the depth of the dilemma, it takes a certain amount of time for our heroine to properly consider these options.

Once she has decided, she puts her plan to her parents and with their blessing, Juno has an objective for Act Two.

MID POINT

While Juno’s Outer Objective is about responsibly carrying the baby, the strongest Inner Journeys are really Vanessa and Mark’s. Their behaviours display flaws that may impact on their parenthood: Vanessa acts highly strung and Mark appears strangely blasé about it all. Act IIa asks “is Vanessa a suitable mother?” and Act IIb gradually shows Mark to be unfit as a father.

Although Mark and Vanessa’s journeys are gradual and they evolve throughout Act Two, the shopping mall sequence / mid point is a powerful connection point for two reasons: 1) for Juno it answers the question whether Vanessa is really suitable to raise her child and 2) it will give Juno the strength to proceed once Mark bails out.

CRISIS/REWARD

The end of Act Two usually consists of two parts: the down part (Mark bailing out) and an up part (Dad offering hope). In this film it is executed in an extraordinary way as we will learn that Juno had made up her mind before getting her dad’s advice. While we are watching the film it seems as if she finds the strength from this conversation. When we finally get to see Juno’s note to Vanessa “If you’re still in, I’m still in”, we learn that the Act Two of her Inner Journey had completed before we saw it. This is consistent with the principle that the hero usually only gets ahead of the audience towards the second half of the movie.

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Last year she worked with Michael Hauge as part of Inscription.

Last month Tracy traveled South to attend the NSC in Adelaide.
As a guest blogger on The Story Department, she gives us a de-brief.

“As an unproduced writer it was a huge outlay to attend the National Screenwriter’s Conference in Adelaide in February. Did I get my $1,000 worth? You bet.

I didn’t know a single person before I arrived. I departed clutching handfuls of business cards and felt like I’d found a new family.

The main thing that impressed me was how generous everyone was with their time. You could walk up to anyone, introduce yourself and have a chat. Tell me where else in the world you would find such diverse and interesting characters as Rolf de Heer (Ten Canoes) and Darren Star (Sex in the City). Clayton Jacobson (Kenny) and David Weiss (Shrek). Mike Bullen (Cold Feet) and Jan Sardi (Shine).

The Micro-Mentorships (30 mins) were also useful if feverishly short. Tim Ferguson gave me some great advice about Romantic Comedies and followed it up with some interesting articles.

Here are some tips I picked up from the speakers that will stay with me.

• Detail drives a character (Clayton Jacobson, Kenny).

Remember the scene when Kenny visits his Dad with the boy and has napkins placed on the floor, under his feet? The shot is very brief, and Clayton knew some people would miss it, but this tiny moment reveals so much of the Dad’s character.

• A script is a document in seduction.

So says Rolf de Heer. He doesn’t write a word until his plot and story are fully thought through. And he does this by using cards that he sticks up on a wall. The cards give him the flexibility to play around with structure and content, and to feel happy with the story before he commits a single word to paper.

• If you’re stuck, make a Vomit Pass. David Weiss (Shrek).

If you’re having trouble writing a scene, just get some thoughts down. Don’t worry if they’re bad. When you come back to it later, it’s much easier to evaluate something and make it work better than having a blank space in front of you.

• Choose crispy dialogue. David Weiss.

Avoid letting a character say exactly what she is feeling. For example, don’t say in dialogue ‘I’m afraid.’ Say it differently. What about ‘Would you mind if I slept with the light on?’

• Network or attach yourself to someone who can.

I found a friend in Helen who is a network demon. Watching enviously as she deftly worked the room, I started to try by myself. All it takes for the more shy amongst us is a deep breath, a smile and an outstretched hand.

Gripes? Not many. I wish it could have gone on for another morning. I wish that I had spoken to Jan Sardi. I wish I could have done an Hermione Granger and used the Time Turner to attend all the sessions. But most of all, I wish everyone the very best with their projects and can’t wait to see how far they’ve progressed when the conference happens again in 2011.”

-Tracy Richardson