From just an idea to reality…

Tags

Films, Ideas, Scripts, Sreenplays, Writing

One of the biggest misconceptions about doing anything creative is that it relies only on inspiration. The truth is, if that really was the case, then very few people would come up with anything good, or at least, they wouldn’t do very often.

While we need inspiration, it isn’t the only thing required. For that, we’re going to need that h-word: hard work. If it sounds like a cliché, it’s because it happens to be true. Except, there are probably times when we’d like to think that isn’t the case. That all it takes to make anything creative, whether it’s writing a script or a novel, making a film or composing music, is that flash of inspiration and then – boom – the idea arrives in our brain, fully formed. No more work or effort needed, 100% complete. Finished before it’s even started, and absolutely no rewrites needed.

If you’ve ever attempted to create anything, you’ll know how far removed from reality that is. As enjoyable as writing a screenplay is (and that’s not to say it isn’t difficult) you can’t just write when you feel inspired to, or just simply when you ‘feel’ like it. To put it another way, imagine in any other line of work, going to your boss/manager and saying something like, “I’m sorry, I can’t work today. I don’t feel like it.” What sort of a response would you get? If you are serious about making a living writing (in fact, doing anything at all creative) then that means treating it like a job, whether you’re actually getting paid or not.

If you are getting paid, and especially if it’s your sole source of income, it must be treated like it. If you don’t write, you won’t pay the bills. Basically, if you don’t act like a professional writer and take it seriously, regardless of whether you are yet, your chances of becoming one are reduced.

We’re back to hard work, again. An idea may have lots of potential, but as long as it stays an idea, that’s all it has – potential. Before it can become a finished product, it has to be worked on. Ideas are unruly things. They need taming. For example, that idea for a screenplay might sound original at first, but with a bit of research, it could be that it isn’t as ground-breaking as you first thought, and in order for it stand out, it will require more development.

Another reason to work on an idea is to get the most out of it that you can. There is nothing more frustrating than seeing a film or TV show where the concept sounds amazing on paper, but the execution falls short of what it could be. It can leave the audience with the impression that the writer(s) have played it safe, when they could have challenged audiences in some way, maybe even pushed a few boundaries.

So how can we make sure we get the most out of our ideas? How do we get past the dreaded the dreaded ‘writers block’? Below are a list of tips that I’ve found useful, and continue to do so, when writing:

* Ask yourself why you’re writing the story in the first place – what are you trying to say? what is your motivation? This can be especially helpful in keeping the narrative on track.

* Document the research process, especially how you came up with the idea. This will help keep the story grounded, especially if you get lost during the writing/re-writing.

* Give your characters backstories. Chances are you won’t use most of this, but it will help audiences feel they’re watching real people, with emotions and histories. It will also determine your characters goals, and how they will react to the events of the plot.

* Make writing a discipline. Write when you can, but not just when you feel like it. Even if most of what you write on those days is never used, write something. It can be edited later.

* Always remember why you started writing in the first place, what/who it was that inspired you. So on those occasions when you’d rather do anything other than write, this will hopefully remind you why you’ve chosen this career ahead of anything else.

Many thanks for reading. Please feel free to add a comment : )

The Little Details

Tags

Characters, Screenwriting tips

If I was asked to name some of the most important parts of a screenplay, one of them would be the characters. It might sound obvious, but solid, well-drawn and believable characters are not always a priority for studios (or so it seems.) In fact, I’m sure you can think of some examples of films that are stuffed with expensive sets, effects, costumes and make-up, but populated with wafer-thin characters.

It doesn’t matter how fantastical your story is, or even what it’s about, if your characters aren’t interesting enough, then it will be much harder to get audiences to care about what happens to them. Even if you’re creating a fantasy world, it’s still important for your audience to connect with your characters. 

One of the key tools to creating good characters is to give them depth. You need to remember that these are supposed to be real people, and real people are complicated and often contradictory. It’s this emotional depth that will help to drive the drama of your story, as your characters conflict with each other, and, occasionally, themselves.

When adding depth to the protagonists of your screenplay, even the smallest details can help. What kind of jobs do they have? Family? Are they married or single? Divorced? Widowed? What are their hobbies and interests? Are they well off or poor, maybe somewhere in between? What are their politics?

Don’t worry about trying to fit all of this into your screenplay. Some of it will be present in a very obvious way, whilst some will only be implied. The rest of it will be background. It’s not at all wasted, however. It will help you to create real, flesh and blood characters that are credible.

So it’s also important to take time to think about who your characters are, and what drives them. What are their hopes and fears? Are they carrying any personal baggage? Guilt? A desire for revenge, perhaps? Or maybe some other dark secret from their past?

It will add extra drama if you can create a character with a personal issue that is at odds with some other part of their life. For example, imagine a police officer with criminal ties, possibly from their past. Or an assassin who had a deeply religious upbringing. As long as this can be kept within the realms of plausibility, then you can create some really interesting character drama that will help to propel your plot.

Of course, it has to be relevant to your story, otherwise it will look like unnecessary padding, details that have no bearing on the story. It’s about giving depth to your story and the people who inhabit it, and showing why these people are doing what they’re doing.

It’s also important that, once you’ve established what your characters are like, then their actions must flow from that and be consistent. Again, I’m sure that you can think of examples of films and TV shows where a character has done something that is, to use the well-worn phrase, out of character. It’s not always a bad thing to insert a twist like this, but it must be the result of that character going on an arc that explains this about-face.

It’s a fine balance, and it might take multiple drafts of your script to get it right. That’s perfectly acceptable. Rewrites are about getting the details right, and one of those things is making sure that you’ve created believable characters, in whom viewers can invest. This is true even if they’re an unsympathetic, villainous character. Whatever their function in the story, if they’re not interesting, then people won’t want to spend their time (and money) watching what they’re doing.

The details, large and small, will help to fill in the backgrounds of the characters taking part in your story. They will add light and shade, and make them convincing as real people. If it’s done well, this process will help you create memorable characters who will drive the events of your screenplay. It will also produce characters that your audience will care about, long after the end credits have rolled, and who they’ll want to meet again and again.

As always, please feel free to leave your comments below : )

Making time versus Finding time…

Tags

screenwriting advice, time management

In the past few weeks I’ve been thinking a lot about managing my time, and how I could do it more effectively. This is because I’ve recently started a second job, in addition to being self employed with 9am Films. The reason I took another job was, first and foremost, financial, as filmmaking at the independent, low-micro budget level is difficult, and this will help to provide additional financial security, as well creating capital for 9am Films.

It’s not about lessening my commitment to making a career in filmmaking, and it’s certainly not a sign that I’m abandoning it, either. It’s about recognising the challenges that come with working in low (or no) budget films, and getting myself in to the best position to meet those challenges.

Finding the balance between 9am Films and my other job hasn’t always been easy. There are days when I feel like I’ve not done enough work on my screenplay, and I get a sense of regret at the time that’s passed by. My thoughts then drift towards thinking of how my script might suffer as a result, and of how I might never get it finished.

However, I’ve come to learn two important things: firstly, you have to make time, and secondly, you have to be realistic. If this sounds like a contradiction, I can promise you that it’s not. It’s about being purposeful and deliberate in working on your script or your film, but also being logical, in  that, with other commitments (work, family, etc), you’re not going to be able to devote all the time that you want to your film work.

Of course, the gold standard is getting to the point when your love of films, and all those projects you’ve been developing, then becomes your job. It might seem a long way off, particularly when you’re doing another job just to pay the bills, but the hard truth is this is a competitive industry, and you need to develop that work ethic. Working another job is a good way of doing that, as well as helping you to develop other skills and traits that will be useful in your dream career.

The distinction between making time and finding time might be small, but it’s an important one. It’s about intention. I’ve heard it said that if you try and find time to do something, then you never will. You have to be purposeful, even if that means sacrificing some socialising in favour of working on a few scenes of your screenplay, or editing that short film.

You have to treat it like another job, even if it’s not currently bringing in any money. And even if no one else seems to be taking it especially seriously. I’m not saying you should never listen to wise career advice, what I am saying is if you don’t take it seriously and treat it like a job when it’s not yet your job, then how will it ever be?

It will be hard, especially if you’ve had a busy or difficult day at work. It’s also difficult to go from a very practical role to something creative. On the other hand, being adaptable isn’t a bad trait to possess for someone working in filmmaking, so see it as a chance to develop something that will become a real asset.

The chances are that, at this level, you’ll be working with people who are having to balance their filmmaking aspirations with another, (perhaps more regular) job. You may be doing the exact same thing. If not, be understanding of those who are. It might mean that you have to reschedule filming at the last minute because someone has to work, or you could be forced to shoot your film over a longer period in order to accommodate the busy lives of those around you. It doesn’t matter – we’re all striving towards that goal of working full time in filmmaking, and for some of us this journey includes having a second job.

This brings me on to being realistic. Ideally, you’d be able to devote all the time to pursuing your filmmaking activities. Hopefully, you’ll be in a position to do that one day. The more that becomes profitable, the more time it will take up, and therefore that need for a second job will be less pressing.

Until that happens, you’re going to have to make use of the time that you have. Be creative, but be reasonable. If you can’t always make time to write lots of scenes, or edit large sections of your film, break it down into something more manageable. If you set yourself targets that are too ambitious, it will only make you feel frustrated if you fail to meet them. 

Also, be sensible. If you’ve had or are about to have a particularly busy day, it’s perhaps not the best idea to then spend long hours in front of a computer screen. Not only do you need to consider your health, (as well as your other commitments), if you’re tired, what you produce in that time probably won’t be up to scratch anyway. I’ve found that it’s not just the quantity of time that counts, it’s the quality as well. So make it count, and use it wisely.

There are also other ways to stay ‘in the flow’ of your film or screenplay. If you can’t devote lots of time on a certain day (or in a week) to adding something new, how about reading/watching what you’ve got so far? Or maybe make notes on your story, your characters, the world you’ve created? Look back over any notes/research you have. Go back to your mood board (if you have one), or if you don’t have one, you could consider creating one. Anything that will help focus your mind on your project is useful.

Ultimately, even though making time to do something creative like filmmaking, when you’ve got other demands on your attention, is hard, it’s also necessary. No time, constructively spent, is ever a waste when it comes to developing your project. Think of it like a journey, where every step, even the smallest, counts towards taking you to your destination.

Solving the puzzle…

Tags

Screenwriting, Scriptwriting, Writing

In some of my previous blog posts, I’ve talked about the process I use in writing a screenplay, sharing some of my experiences of finding out what works – and what doesn’t work – for me. Of course, writing is a very personal thing to do, as it should be about expressing ideas – and ideals – that mean something to you personally. The method, the how of your writing, should be no different.

One thing that I’m finding works for me, at the moment at least, is to write out of order, then build up the rest of the screenplay. Now I must stress that doesn’t mean that I write with no plan or strategy. I always aim to have a guideline, however rough, of where I’m going to end up, and how I’m going to get there.

But what has been helping me to get to that place is to write in a non-linear way. I prioritise those scenes that have to be there, those important story beats upon which the plot turns. I also focus on troublesome scenes, those parts of the story that I know might be a challenge, or could become that way. Lastly, I make sure that if I have an idea for a scene, a line of dialogue, etc, then I type it up. Even if I end up moving it, changing it or even cutting it entirely.

The key thing is, for the first draft at least, I try not to put too much pressure on myself. I once read that the first draft is your story idea in its most raw form. So I see it as being primarily about getting everything connected to the idea that’s in my head into a rough screenplay structure. The shaping, fine-tuning and editing will come later.

All of this obviously doesn’t eliminate the need for research. But with this approach, I’ve found getting an early, rough framework of a first draft helps shape not just the story, so that I know what to do with future revisions, but it helps to guide any additional research that I might need to do. It’s also useful in highlighting any weak points in the script itself.

The basic, underlying rule I apply is to go where the story leads me. Writing those early scenes down helps me to craft the story. It gives me something from which to work, not least because these rough scenes will inspire other scenes that have to fit around them. Again, none of what I write in this early stage may make it through to the final draft. Or, it may be changed significantly.

As an example, I’ve just finished the first draft of a spec screenplay that I’ve been working on since October 2018. For a while, I knew that I wanted to insert a fight scene that would be important in the development of the final act, so I wrote a bare outline of the scene early on. It was actually one of the first scenes I wrote. The scene is still there in the completed first draft, although it’s been altered slightly and moved around, to a point where I believe it works best for the story.

This meant that, in order for this scene to be present and to work at all, certain events and certain scenes had to come before and after it. Think of it like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. I know where I have to end up (even if it’s only a rough idea), but how I might get there is more fluid. I might discover a better way to get there, but I won’t know until I start to write something.

For me, that involves getting something down as a basic template, a prototype that I can then refine. It may be a matter of personal taste, but I find I work better when I’ve got something to work from, even if it’s basic, rather than staring at a blank screen.

Often that means writing out of chronological order, and then filling in the spaces around what I’ve already got. I see it as setting waypoints that, I hope, will help me to reach my destination. Or, going back to the jigsaw metaphor again, I put down some ‘pieces.’ They might not be next to each other chronologically, but they’ll at least give me momentum in shaping the rest of the screenplay.

It’s obviously not without its challenges. For one, you need to be aware that if you’re zipping about along the timeframe of your story, you have to keep a handle on where you are in plot terms, and consequently where the characters are in their respective arcs.

It’s also not an approach that will work for everyone, for every project. However, I’ve found that it’s given me more freedom in my writing, and means that I avoid the procrastinating that I’m occasionally guilty of before starting projects.

The thing with writing, as with solving a puzzle like a jigsaw, is that the method will vary with each person. Just find the approach that works best for you, and allows you to end up where your story needs to be. 

Watch Your Words

Tags

Ashley Roberts, Faye Tozer, Strictly Come Dancing, Trolls

If anyone is in any doubt that we’re living in- how shall I put it? – interesting times, they only need to take a brief glance at social media. For if it can be said that social media is a window into human nature, then what it’s revealing at the moment is rather worrying.

Proof of that isn’t even in the most obvious subjects, like Trump or Brexit (although both generate a lot of online debate), but it’s over things that are, in comparison, trivial. My theory is that when you see a celebrity dance competition prompting such a heated reaction online, then you know emotions are running high. It’s as if when the cloak of civility is thrown off in the most serious matters, this hostility transfers over to things that really aren’t that important.

One such example is that celebrity dance show I referred to just now, Strictly Come Dancing, and the reaction of some viewers to one of this year’s contestants, Ashley Roberts. The ex-Pussycat Doll has being criticised for having some dance experience, an accusation that probably explains why Ashley and her professional dance partner, Pasha Kovalev, were in the dance-off for three consecutive weeks.

Although there have been tweets and messages of support for the pair, with many pointing out the abusive nature of some of the critical comments, in the main, trawling through any Strictly related hashtag has been a pretty unpleasant experience, especially following the Sunday night results shows.

Many of the worst tweets focused not on Ashley’s dance background, but on her personally, alleging that she’s arrogant, for example, or making remarks about her appearance. Some even revelled in her having to compete in the dance-off. It was noticeable that this got worse over the course of the season, morphing from annoyance at her dance background to those attacks on her character and appearance.

It’s all highly reminiscent of the treatment that one contestant on last year’s Strictly, Alexandra Burke, received from some quarters online. Burke, winner of the UK version of The X Factor in 2008, also faced accusations of being a ‘professional’ dancer. As with Ashley Roberts, this soon became very personal. Depressingly, some of it came with a racial undertone.

What was striking about the tweets directed at both Ashley Roberts and Alexandra Burke, apart from the nastiness, was their self-righteousness. These individuals gave the impression that, believing they were in the right, it’s therefore acceptable to descend into what many right thinking people would call bullying.

This is a very dangerous road down which to travel, where we imply that more or less anything goes, just as long as we think we’re right. Everything else, like respect and decency, is left behind, sacrificed on the altar of self-righteous indignation.

There are a few things at work here. The first is the anger that people are feeling. In this case, that concerned the dance experience of a former member of The Pussycat Dolls. Some felt it was unfair for Ashley Roberts to even be on the show, that it was against the ‘spirit of Strictly’, and somehow a betrayal of what the programme is about (even though it’s not against the rules.)

At this point it’s worth remembering that Ashley isn’t the first celebrity with dance or performance experience to take part in Strictly Come Dancing. Some, like the actor Joe McFadden or ex-The Wanted singer Jay McGuiness, have even won their respective seasons. She wasn’t even the only one this year, with fellow finalist Faye Tozer (from the band Steps) also having some dance experience. Although Faye did bear the brunt of some online criticism for this, it was a lot less bitter than what was directed at Ashley Roberts.

This anger is then exacerbated by the echo chamber that social media, especially Twitter, can unfortunately become. Like minds meet, fuelled by a mutual sense of anger, frustration and moral outrage that invariably also blows the issue out of all proportion. In this increasingly toxic atmosphere, comments can become increasingly extreme.

The treatment of Ashley Roberts is one example, but there are others. The actress Amandla Stenberg was the victim of a social media backlash after she was cast in the adaptation of The Hate U Give. Ruby Rose experienced a similarly hostile response when she was given the role of Batwoman in The CW’s Arrowverse.

Sport has also seen its fair share of internet-based hostility. Tottenham Hotspur and France midfielder Moussa Sissoko has been subject to online abuse that, in some cases, arguably carried racist connotations, comments that cross the line from criticising a player’s form to something more sinister. Manchester City’s Raheem Sterling recently suggested that the media can fuel the racist abuse that non-white players face. It’s not hard to see how social media can also become a contributor to such vile discourse.

We can ask the question about whether the people behind all of this online vitriol are like this offline. It’s certainly an interesting question: to what extent does social media make us like this, or is it perhaps true that it reflects who we really are?

Then there’s the issue of the role of social media companies like Facebook and Twitter. Of course, there is a case that they could be doing more to tackle online abuse, especially when it comes to the speed with which such material is identified and removed. As regards Ashley Roberts and Faye Tozer, could the BBC have done more to protect them from the trolls?

However, what about the responsibility of the people making these comments, to not make them in the first place? Even if you feel strongly about a subject, surely it’s possible to air your views without descending into abuse?

That some people evidently can’t is an indication as to what’s really motivating their anger. Whilst some of those critical of Ashley Roberts or Faye Tozer concerning their dance experience, or Amandla Stenberg over her casting, for example, were genuine, I don’t think the same can be said for all. I believe the moral indignation is a cover for something far less noble, like bigotry, jealousy and envy.

Take the hatred directed at Kristen Stewart. Some may blame it on rabid Robert Pattinson fans, angry that she cheated on him with the director Rupert Sanders, as if that in any way excuses it. That ignores the fact that much of this vitriol started as soon as Stewart and Pattinson began their relationship, and so the affair with Sanders can’t be the reason.

That the same backlash greeted the singer FKA Twigs when she was in a relationship with Pattinson exposes the reason behind both hostile reactions: jealousy. In the case of the hatred directed at Kristen Stewart post the Sanders story, it merely disguised itself as anger at her for the ending of the relationship with Pattinson. 

It’s also as if some think that if the target of their anger is a celebrity, then it somehow doesn’t really count as bullying. In this line of thinking, being famous, wealthy and attractive means they’re fair game for vitriol. For certain people, those things are enough of a justification in themselves to target a person in the public eye, and that person should take it as part of their job. The ‘rough’ with the ‘smooth’, as it were.

Maybe the fact it’s online adds to the air of unreality. Perhaps some of those making these comments would never dream of doing it to someone in ‘real life’, yet think nothing of unleashing the most bitter, hate-filled bile at famous people over the internet.  And therein lies the problem: the tendency to see what happens online as being different to ‘real life’, so another set of rules apply.

If we’re ever to recover a sense of decorum in our online discourse, this attitude must change. Alongside this, we must also see people as human beings. That might sound obvious, but it’s so obvious I think we forget it from time to time. No matter if they’re famous, earn lots of money, live in nice, big houses, etc. No one deserves abuse, either face to face or via the internet.

Ultimately, we have to rediscover what it means to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. To that end, if you’re ever tempted to vent your spleen at someone online, consider this: How would you feel if you switched places with the target of your words?

Batwoman, Ruby Rose and casting controversies…

Tags

Arrowverse, Batwoman, CW, DC, Ruby Rose

This week saw the release of the first image of Ruby Rose as DC’s Batwoman. The picture was concept art of the Australian actress/model, and was released ahead of the forthcoming Arrowverse crossover event, ‘Elseworlds.’

For the uninitiated, the Arrowverse is The CW’s Arrow, The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow and Supergirl. It will be the character’s first live action appearance, and naturally fans have strong opinions about how Kate Kane and her alter ego of Batwoman should be portrayed.

Fans have already being weighing in on the subject, with debate still ongoing about Rose’s casting. Even the suit itself was generating some controversy. In fact, Rose’s casting has provoked such a backlash amongst certain fans that the star was forced to close her Twitter account. Some of that backlash centred on her abilities as an actress, with one view being that she has neither the talent or the range to carry of the role.

The fact that a live action adaptation of a comic book character should provoke such heated reactions should come as no surprise. Of course, it’s sad that the response in some quarters was such that Ruby Rose felt she had to leave Twitter. There have been a number of examples of celebrities withdrawing from certain social media sites because of negative comments from members of the public. It should go without saying that, no matter how strongly you might feel about a subject, personal abuse is never justified.

Aside from the predictable hysteria, one of the things that stuck out to me about this whole situation is how some fans are pleased with Rose’s casting as Batwoman because of her sexuality. Batwoman is a lesbian, and therefore some felt that a lesbian actress should play her, rather than Rose, who identifies as being gender fluid.

Whilst I can understand that diversity and representation is important, and casting a lesbian actress in the role of such a prominent lesbian comic book character means a lot to certain fans, I still find the insistence interesting.

It cuts to the heart of what acting is about: an actor or an actress pretending to be something that they’re not. Yes, they will find ‘ways in’ to connect with their character that will help with the performance, but ultimately we’re watching people being something, and someone, that they’re not.

The sexuality of the actress playing Batwoman shouldn’t be an issue. What matters is whether she can convince as both Kate Kane and her costumed alter ego. That’s really the most basic box for any actor or actress to tick: do you, as the audience, believe they are who they’re pretending to be? Does their performance convince you or not?

The CW has also cast gay actors to play heterosexual characters in its Arrowverse shows. For example, John Barrowman, Colton Haynes and Wentworth Miller are (or were) respectively Malcolm Merlyn/The Dark Archer, Roy Harper/Arsenal and Leonard Snart/Captain Cold. All three are openly gay, but their characters are heterosexual.

The reverse is also true, as Caity Lotz plays the bi-sexual Sara Lance/White Canary, despite not being bi-sexual. The same goes for Katrina Law as Nyssa al Ghul. In other words, Barrowman, Haynes, Miller, Lotz and Law are all acting.

So Ruby Rose’s sexuality shouldn’t be an issue. It obviously shouldn’t disqualify her from the part, but it shouldn’t be what qualifies her either. If Rose is to be a good Batwoman or not will rest on her ability to portray a vengeful, highly trained vigilante, who’s also a member of one of Gotham’s richest families, as well as being a former soldier. That, and not Kate Kane/Batwoman’s sexuality, is the part of the role that will be the biggest stretch, and achieving it (or not) will probably determine whether her casting will be seen as a success.

Obviously, there will be occasions where only certain actors or actresses are appropriate for a particular role. However, my fear is that we’re expanding that to cover an increasing number of roles, and in the process limiting the potential pool of talent available. As well as also forgetting the point of acting in the first place.

I’ve seen some comments online to the effect that, even if Ruby Rose lacks the acting skills for Batwoman, she can be saved by good writing and directing. I disagree. Writing and directing are vital roles in film and TV production, but they’re only part of the jigsaw puzzle. Every role and every aspect of the production matters.

I remember once hearing or reading that a large percentage of the success of a film (or TV show) is casting, casting, casting. Although that’s an oversimplification, it nevertheless speaks to the importance of getting your casting decisions right. Put simply, there’s not much you can do to disguise a miscast role.

You could have a multi award winning director, and a similarly award laden screenwriter (or screenwriters), but even they won’t be able to compensate for an actor or an actress that does’t have the talent and/or range to play the part. That’s not something that you can direct or write your way out of as a filmmaker or screenwriter.

None of this is to say that Ruby Rose won’t be a success as Batwoman. I’m a huge DC fan, so I hope very much that she will be, and that we get the potential Batwoman series as a result. And as with every comic book adaptation, I also hope they do justice to the character and the source material. As to whether Rose is the right fit for the part will depend not on her sexuality or gender label, but on her talent as an actress.

As ever, if you have any thoughts or opinions, please feel free to comment : )

Keeping It Brief

Tags

Runner

If anyone reading this is following me on social media, then you might be aware that the main project I’m working on right now is a short film entitled ‘Runner.’ It’s a thriller, and is currently at the pre-production stage.

It’s also under five minutes long, and as such it represents a strategy that I’m actively pursuing to develop short films that are truly ‘bite size’ in length. Part of it is pragmatism, in that a shorter running time is more accommodating for a smaller (or no) budget. The thinking is that if you only have restricted funds, then it makes sense to scale as much back as possible, including the number of characters, the locations, and, of course, the running time.

However, if I ever thought that a shorter script would mean it’s either easier to get the project off the ground, or even to come up with the idea in the first place, then I was wrong! Filmmaking is a challenging business, especially when you’re at the micro-to-no-budget end of the scale, and that’s true even when your screenplay is only a few pages long.

One of the biggest challenges I’ve faced is sticking to the scaled down approach that I’ve set myself. What often happens is that I come up with an idea, I start jotting down a few notes, and before long the potential of the concept has grown, with more possibilities, more characters, locations, etc.

This is why discipline is an important skill for a low budget filmmaker. You have to set the boundaries in terms of the scale of your project, and stick to them. Be realistic. I find it helps to remember that it’s far better to do a less ambitious idea well, than do a more ambitious idea badly. The latter means you don’t do your idea justice. Worse still, it means your work, and that of your cast and crew, is wasted.

Another effective strategy is to look at what you’re trying to say, and see if you can distill your idea down to the bare essentials, but without losing any of the strengths of the material. That’s a common problem that all low budget filmmakers face: how to truly do justice to the material, but be pragmatic when it comes to knowing not just what you want to do, but what you can do.

I once read that the best scenes are like parties: arrive late and leave early. I try and remember this when I’m writing, and on a smaller scale project like ‘Runner’, I apply it to the whole screenplay.

This means I approach the project as I would a longer short or a feature, except I then try and tell the story in far fewer scenes. Of course, there are some elements that might have to be sacrificed along the way, and it’s hard when you’re emotionally attached to a project to make those cuts, but they’re necessary if your project is to ever get to the production stage. You have to be realistic, and appreciate that even in the realm of big budget Hollywood blockbusters, there are challenges and limitations. It’s part and parcel of filmmaking.

Being adaptable is a useful skill for anyone involved in filmmaking, and doing shorts is a good way to develop that attribute. Even more so when you add in a low budget. As hard as it is to make these tough calls about what to leave out, it doesn’t have to mean your short film project is any less ambitious. There are feature length films that have very little ambition despite their running time, so a small running time need not mean a film is low on ambition.

There is even the chance that you may be able to gain enough funding to allow you to ‘scale up’ the project to match your most vivid imaginations of where the story could go. As with every creative decision though, don’t do it just because you can. Everything must serve the story.

As well as this, a really short film could be expanded to a longer short, or even a feature film. Another possibility is that your short film could form part of a larger, connected story. I’m actually at the very early stages of another project that does just that. I’m still having to reign in my imagination at times in order to match the means that will likely be available to me, but that’s not dampening my enthusiasm for telling these stories.

That’s because the most important thing, regardless of the money you’ve got to spend, or the equipment you have, or the flashy effects you add in post production, is your story and your characters. A brief running time doesn’t have to mean a diluted story, because a good story is a good story, whether it’s told over three hours or three minutes.

Henry Cavill is still Superman. Or not…

Tags

Dany Garcia, DCEU, Henry Cavill, Superman

So, Henry Cavill as Superman – is he in or out? That’s been the big DC-related question doing the rounds this week. The answers – yes, no or maybe (or variations thereof) – depend on which sources you believe. Some are saying the British actor has hung up the red cape, others (including his manager, Dany Garcia) are saying no, he’s still very much in the role.

At the time of writing, nothing has been confirmed either way. Warner Brothers released a statement, saying “While no decisions have been made regarding any upcoming Superman films, we’ve always had great respect for and a great relationship with Henry Cavill, and that remains unchanged.” Make of that what you will.

It all comes amidst stories of a protracted contract negotiation between, on the one side, Cavill and Garcia, and on the other, Warner Brothers. Cavill is said to have been demanding significant money to extend his Superman contract, a sum that would put him in the A list price range.

WB is also said to have been less than pleased that Cavill was unavailable to film an expected cameo in the forthcoming Shazam! film. This, supposedly, was the final straw for the studio.

This could all just be gossip and rumour, but, if it’s to be believed, then it appears Cavill and Garcia played hardball with WB, and lost. They made their demands, the studio wouldn’t budge, and now, potentially at least, Cavill is no longer the DCEU’s Superman.

Losing a role (arguably his biggest to date) like Superman would be a blow, not just for Henry Cavill and his career, but also for Dany Garcia and her reputation as an manager. Does she really want to be known as an manager who helped to negotiate her client out of his biggest role?

I’m not laying all of the blame on Dany Garcia, however. If both Cavill and Garcia tried to get a bigger and better deal, but it backfired, then they’re both potentially guilty of overplaying their hand.

That’s not to say I’d be glad to see Henry Cavill leave the DCEU. I enjoyed Man Of Steel, and I think Cavill has given us an interesting, modern take on Superman. I want to see where this interpretation of the character will go, especially as Justice League allowed Cavill to bring a lighter side to his take on Kal-El. Replacing him now could damage that development. I also think Cavill, as well as Amy Adams as Lois Lane, deserve, at the very least, one more sequel to Man Of Steel.

Whilst it’s possible to have enjoyed Henry Cavill as Superman and want him to continue, it’s also equally possible to be pragmatic about the whole thing. If Cavill and Garcia want to press for a better deal, but the studio won’t give them that deal, then it looks highly likely that, without a compromise, we’re going to be seeing a Cavill-free DCEU in the future.

Now with the utmost respect to Cavill, it would be stretching things to say that he’s an A-list actor at present. That’s not saying he’s a bad actor, as there are plenty of talented actors who wouldn’t be classed as A list names. It’s just a realistic assessment of where Henry Cavill ranks alongside his fellow actors right now.

There’s also a strong case to be made that Cavill’s DC universe co-star, Gal Gadot, might be in a better negotiating position, should she ever want to agree a contract extension with WB. The warm response to her portrayal of Wonder Woman, especially in the character’s solo film that was released in 2017, should guarantee her a lot of goodwill from WB executives. Unfortunately for him, Cavill’s not in as stronger a position.

Even then, Gadot, much like Cavill, doesn’t have a great track record at the box office outside of the DC films. Yes, there’s more to a good film than mere cold, hard cash, but box office appeal can be quite important in deciding how much an actor or actress gets paid for a role.

But wait, didn’t Cavill just co-star in Mission Impossible: Fallout, the most successful entry in the series so far? Indeed he did. Except, Cavill joined an already commercially and critically lauded franchise, so for anyone to claim that MI: Fallout’s box office is down to Cavill alone is stretching it.

Put simply, at this stage in his career, Cavill probably needs Superman more than WB needs him to continue playing Superman. No matter who’s playing the part, no actor is bigger than the role of Superman, one of the most popular comic book characters of all time. The truth is, if Cavill can’t or won’t pull on the cape anymore, there won’t be a shortage of actors who can.

I wonder of this was part of the thinking behind the announcement of a Supergirl film, to be set in the DCEU. It could be an attempt by the studio to show Cavill (as well as Garcia) that the DCEU will always need a Kryptonian in a blue and red costume, it just doesn’t have to be Superman. In other words, the Last Daughter of Krypton, rather than its Last Son.

So what should Henry Cavill and his manager do? What, for that matter, should WB do? Well, despite the deadlock so far, I believe there’s still room to reach an agreement. Cavill and Garcia need to remember the great opportunity he’s been given in the form of playing Superman. It has boosted Cavill’s profile, and provided him with guaranteed work.

Cavill should make time to do the Superman cameo in Shazam! It could further whet the appetites of the many fans who’re desperate for another Superman film. This could easily convince the studio to move ahead with a Man Of Steel 2, if not further sequels.

They also need to be realistic regarding Cavill’s wage demands. If he wants to strengthen his hand in the negotiations, there are better ways to go about it. Build up your CV. The Netflix The Witcher series is a start, but try experimenting with different genres. Do some indie projects. Show your range. Work with an auteur. Do something like this, and WB may be convinced that they’ve got a talent on their hands who’s worthy of big money.

For their part, WB should be willing to accommodate Cavill’s schedule when it comes to filming his Shazam! cameo. Find a time that works for both parties. Maybe even consider having Superman appear for an extended cameo in the Supergirl film.

And above all, drop the ridiculous idea that you can have a DCEU without Superman. You can’t have a shared DC universe without one of its biggest and most loved characters. You also can’t replace Superman with Supergirl. That’s an insult to both characters, as it implies that they’re interchangeable.

This whole situation, as frustrating as it is, is actually quite useful. It serves as a lesson for everyone involved in the film industry, from A list stars to those just starting out on their filmmaking careers: Never think you’re bigger, better or more famous than you are. And, should you ever find yourself reaching those lofty heights, then make sure you keep your feet planted firmly on the ground. Even if the day job occasionally involves putting on a cape and pretending you can fly.

Crossing The Line?

Tags

Guardians of the Galaxy, James Gunn, Marvel, Tweets, Twitter

When James Gunn, the co-writer and director of the first two Guardians of the Galaxy films, was fired in July by Disney (owners of Marvel and its Cinematic Universe), the news prompted a strong reaction on all sides.

Gunn’s dismissal came after some decade-old tweets of his were uncovered, tweets that contained jokes about rape and pedophilia. Some felt that the director had crossed the line into poor taste, and that the right decision had been made. Others felt that Gunn had been treated harshly, even suggesting that he’d been made a scapegoat because of his political views. But more on that later…

The tweets were offensive, and Gunn apologised for them, saying that he’s changed since making those comments.

Even now, the effects of Gunn’s firing are still causing the rumour mill to churn, with talk of Dave Bautista (Drax in Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 1 and 2) wanting to leave the franchise in protest at Disney’s treatment of Gunn. The main Guardians cast actually released a statement in support of their director, although without defending the content of the tweets themselves. There are even reports that Gun will defect to DC, and join their cinematic universe. He’s been touted as a possible director of the Green Lantern Corps, or the Flash solo outing.

My biggest concern though, isn’t what Gunn’s next project will be, or how his departure will affect the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise or the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole. What worries me is that this sets a precedent, where the social media histories of those in the industry can be used against them, even many years down the line.

Critics of Gunn may say that if something is offensive, then it doesn’t matter how long ago it was said. On that point, I’d agree. Gunn’s tweets were crude and inappropriate, and for many, in making jokes about serious subjects like rape and pedophilia, he went too far.

Gunn himself would agree with this, seeing as said sorry for his comments. He didn’t attempt to defend the jokes, make excuses or engage in “whataboutery.” He held his hands up, admitted he was wrong and apologised.

It should also be pointed out that these tweets date back to before he directed Volume 1 of the Guardians franchise, which was released in 2014. I would argue that this makes it highly questionable tot claim that his ill judged tweets were having a negative impact on his work for Marvel.

Some also tried to claim that, if you supported the firing of Roseanne Barr following her racist tweets, yet defended James Gunn, then this makes you guilty of hypocrisy. I disagree. It would only truly be hypocrisy if their tweets concerned the same subject matter, and you supported ABC’s decision to fire Barr and drop her sitcom, but were defending Gunn.

This brings me on to another important difference between the Barr and Gunn situations. Barr’s tweets were unquestionably racist, in comparing Valerie Jarrett, an African American former Obama adviser, to an ape. Making jokes, even tasteless ones, about rape and pedophilia doesn’t make a person a rapist or a pedophile. However, making a racist comment does make a person racist.

Barr’s tweets were also current, whereas Gunn’s were not. That’s an important difference. It’s far harder to claim that something isn’t representative of who you are anymore when it’s contemporaneous. Just as crucially, whilst Gunn apologised, Barr offered nothing except excuses, and even then her explanations changed.

It’s really a question of where we’re happy to draw the line. Should a person be punished for offensive social media posts made many years in the past, perhaps at a time when they were less mature? If the answer is yes, then I think that’s a dangerous road down which to travel.

What happens if those past comments were political in nature, and when they come to light, those of the opposing political view demand that person be fired. Wouldn’t that be an example of wanting to punish someone, just because they hold views with which you don’t agree?

This brings me back to Gunn’s political views. He’s made no secret of his dislike for America’s current Commander-in-Chief, and there are some that hold to the view that this is actually what got him fired. They can point to the fact that the Chairman of Marvel, Ike Perlmutter, is a close friend of Donald Trump. Obviously, firing someone for their political views would be hugely controversial, but those old tweets may have given the Marvel/Disney bosses the perfect excuse to get rid of James Gunn.

We’re also forgetting that people are allowed to change. I’m sure we can all look back at our past behaviour – on and off line – and we’ll find things that we shouldn’t have said and done. I know I would.

People will make mistakes, and will continue to make errors of judgment. If those mistakes are criminal in nature, then of course, they should be dealt with according to the law. But we should always leave room, where appropriate, for rehabilitation.

It’s also interesting, and more than a little sad, to note how some people seem more offended by the misguided tweets of a filmmaker than they are by some of the things that come out of the mouth of the current occupant of the Oval Office.

These days, I think it’s less about what’s being said or done that’s offensive, and more about who it is that’s saying it. This is a classic example of situational ethics, and can help explain why Trump supporters were mortified by Michelle Wolf’s act at the White House Correspondents Dinner, yet jump through hoops to defend Trump when he says or does something outrageous.

It looks as if James Gunn is being held to a higher moral standard than the President of the United States. It truly is a strange time we’re living in where offensive jokes made over Twitter a decade ago will cost you a role directing a film, but offensive tweets (or comments caught on tape, to give just one more example) aren’t seen as indicative of personal traits that should make you unfit for political office.

Offensive material can say much about those responsible for it, even if they do go on to change their ways. However, offence is taken as well as given, and what we choose to get offended over, as well as what we tolerate, says a lot about us, and about the world we’ve become.

As always, please feel to leave your comments below : )

Titans Versus The Internet…

Tags

DC, DC Universe, Social Media, Television, Titans

I had been planning to write a couple of (so called) DC Extended Universe themed entries recently, being both an aspiring filmmaker and a DC fan.

However, there’s been a slew of DC-related news lately, as well as other industry news worthy of comment, so I was forced to change my plans. Then, just as I was ready to return to the subject of DC on screen, low and behold, Warner Brothers released a trailer for Titans, the first new series from DC Universe, the company’s just-launched streaming service. Cue another change of plans.

So what interested me about the trailer is less what was in the trailer itself, and more the reaction to it. If you wanted to be charitable, you might say it was a mixed response. A less charitable examination of the various tweets, Youtube reaction videos and comments, as well as other message boards, will show that the reaction was overwhelmingly negative.

For Warner Brothers/DC, it must have been groundhog day. A similarly cool response greeted the leaked set photographs that merged earlier this year. The pictures showed the Titans characters Starfire, Raven and Beast Boy. Fan ire was directed at their costumes, with Starfire in particular coming in for some heavy criticism.

The main cast tried to reassure fans, saying that they weren’t representative of their characters or their costumes. Some fans even generously speculated that the photographs could be a scene where the Titans were going undercover, or even on a night out.

Well the trailer proved that’s not the case. In fact, that could be a major reason for much of the disquiet amongst fans. Although the rather steep subscription price for DC Universe ($74.99 a year) might also be a factor.

Of course, you might say that disgruntled comic book fans are nothing new. And you’d be right. There is seemingly always some amongst the fanbase of various characters that are unhappy with some element/s of an adaptation. Are some of those reactions over the top? Absolutely. Do some cross the line, embracing things like racism and sexism? Sadly, yes, and those reactions should be condemned by all right thinking and rational people.

All that being said, we shouldn’t dismiss the impact that a negative reaction from genuine fans can have, particularly in this era of social media. As we’ve seen with Titans, thanks to the internet, negative feedback travels.

I’m not saying that the growth of social media platforms like Twitter, as well as sites like Youtube, are what cause fan anger. Rather, I believe they make it easier for those fans to share their views, both positive and negative, to a much wider audience. In the manner that a megaphone amplifies the sound of a voice, social media has expanded the potential reach for online content.

Before the advent of social media, we’d be limited in how widely and quickly we could share our opinions. Nowadays, these thoughts can be shared with people we’ve never met, thousands of miles away. The immediacy that such platforms afford means that a committed Youtuber or a dedicated tweeter can have his or her thoughts on a leaked set photo, casting choice or new trailer online within minutes.

This is both good and bad news for film studios. If the reactions are positive, then a film or a TV show will trend for the right reasons. If it’s not, you can be sure that the negative reactions will be shared online, meaning that a film or TV show might start trending for all the wrong reasons.

There is the old adage that no publicity is bad publicity. To that received ‘wisdom’, I’d direct you to some of the comments that the Titans trailer generated. A trailer is a film or TV show’s opportunity to attract potential audiences and viewers. To do that, you need to show your project off at its best. I fail to see how a “well at least they’re talking about it” approach, as a result of an unenthusiastic reaction, is a good strategy.

The negative feedback to the Titans trailer reminded many of the similarly tepid response that greeted the first official photograph released to promote Marvel’s Inhumans TV series. On this occasion, fans were also unimpressed with the main characters’ costumes, and weren’t shy in venting their views online. The show never really managed to shake off the negativity, and it was cancelled after one season.

It’s not hard to conclude that the poor reception afforded to the Titans trailer might also act like a millstone around the show’s neck. Having the costume of one of your main characters (Starfire) compared to a prostitute and someone going to a disco in the 1970’s isn’t what you want for your new show, especially when said show is being used to sell your fledging streaming service.

It’s said that the thing about first impressions is that you don’t get another chance to make them. Negativity can stick, and the first impression that this Titans series left wasn’t a good one. Beloved characters misrepresented, poor costumes, cliched dialogue and bad lighting were just a few of the things highlighted. It’s going to take a lot to bring those fans back around.

The worrying thing for Warner Brothers is that the chilly response to Titans isn’t happening in a vacuum. It’s yet more lukewarm feedback to a live action DC project. Only Wonder Woman has been seen as both a critical and a commercial success, and it makes you question if all of the bad publicity is putting off potential audiences.

There is some good news for WB/DC, though. Both the first trailers for Shazam! and Aquaman met with a warm response, especially from fans. Of course, in order to capitalise on this, both films will need to actually deliver on the early promise. Because you can spend millions on a flashy advertising campaign, but if the product behind it all isn’t up to scratch, none of it will matter.

So a studio can try and seize the narrative, controlling the release of information about a project in the hopes of countering any negativity, but sooner or later a trailer will have to drop, and official stills will be published. And that’s when the internet will have its say, for better or worse.

It can’t have been easy for those involved with Titans to see the reaction the trailer created amongst some people. However, if you take risks with fan favourite characters like Dick Grayson, you perhaps shouldn’t be surprised when those fans aren’t too pleased.

This isn’t an argument for fan-driven content that takes no risks. What I’m saying is that all of these tweets, comments and reaction videos tell us something. Amidst all of the breathless hysteria and over-the-top outrage, there are thoughtful fans who care about their favourite characters, and these reactions are a red flag, a sure sign that the diehard fans aren’t happy. And when the fans turn away, who else is left?

All About The Profit?

Tags

Avengers: Infinity War, Blockbusters

At the time of writing, the latest entry into the MCU (or Marvel Cinematic Universe), Avengers: Infinity War, is smashing box office records like the Hulk smashes through…well, pretty much anything in his path.

None of this is especially surprising, given both the MCU’s box office and critical reception thus far, as well as all of the hype surrounding the third Avengers film.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that we’re well and truly in the era of the tent pole blockbuster, big budget movies racking up big numbers at the box office, and breaking numerous records in the process.

However, the reverse is, sadly, also true, with some recent high profile ‘failures’: where films performed below their predicted box office takings. This is enough, it seems, to be regarded as having failed in the age of the billion dollar gross.

Amidst all of the talk about which films will make however much money, and which records will or won’t be broken, there is a danger that we’re missing an important question: is this a good thing for the film industry, and for its audiences?

Of course, at this point we have to acknowledge that the film industry is just that: a business, and businesses need to make a profit to survive. Some might say that if studios earn millions from their blockbuster franchises, it allows them to channel these profits (at least in part) into smaller, less commercial fare.

Now, I’m not one of these people that thinks blockbuster automatically equals lowbrow entertainment. Not only am I a fan (especially of comic book adaptations), I think these films are subject to unfair and elitist criticism from some quarters. A great film is a great film, no matter the genre.

There have been a number of intelligent, thought provoking blockbusters in recent years, films that combine action thrills with weight themes. The Dark Knight trilogy, Captain America: Civil War and The Planet of the Apes reboot are just a few examples.

What does concern me is how, more than ever, what makes a film a success, is how much money it makes, rather than its creative and artistic value. Even whether it’s actually any good.

My fear is that we’re in danger of treating films like commodities. Yes, films need money, both in order to get made and in order to justify that budget. Surely though, that can’t be the primary goal of any film?

A film isn’t a product in the manner of a chocolate bar, a soft drink or a mobile phone. Good art should carry messages, and be made with a sense of creative vision, even if it is intended for a mass audience.

To aim for the bottom line at the expense of creativity is to run the risk of producing cookie-cutter films, made according to a template, designed to minimise risk and maximise profit.

Whether any multi million dollar film can ever be described as risk free is debatable, when even seemingly sure fire hits don’t do well. Situations like that, though, only increase the likelihood of films that look like they’ve been assembled on a production line, made to tick boxes by risk averse studios.

The problem isn’t blockbuster films, or big, crowd-pleasing franchises. The problem is when these films are made primarily with profit in mind, resulting in features that will very likely make their budgets back – and then some. Films that will break box offices, but won’t stretch the mind.

The price will be things like diversity of content, artistic merit and daring, creative voices that defy mainstream classifications. When that happens, we’ll all be counting the cost.