Ask @ IMDb.com

Welcome to "Ask a Filmmaker," a weekly IMDb column devoted to your questions and concerns about the filmmaking process. Submit your questions to Ask a Writer, Ask a Director, or Ask a Cinematographer, then tune in each week to see what the pros have to say.

July 11, 2005

prev. column | archive | next column

Ask a Screenwriter	Ask a Director	Ask a Cinematographer
by John August	by Penelope Spheeris	by Oliver Stapleton
I was perusing your site, and it occurred to me that you might be a good person to ask a question I’ve been struggling with. I’ve been a working screenwriter for about five years. I’ve never had anything produced, but some things are looking promising. I’ve worked at most of the major studios, and my career thus far has been steadily getting better. No spectacular ups and downs. Over the years, I’ve pitched on quite a few rewrites, passed on a few, and done a few. Most rewrite opportunities that come my way are pretty bad. A lot of times, people are looking to breathe new life into their stalled projects. When you read them, it’s clear those projects have stalled for a reason. Here’s my question. I mostly get rewrite opportunities on scripts that are based on mediocre ideas that are also badly executed. I’m generally interested in making money, but I’m not desperate. I don’t HAVE to do everything that comes my way. Often I get scripts that I know can make much, much better. Here’s the catch: they’re based on mediocre ideas. It’s never going to be GREAT. If I bust ass and do what the producers want, it might be solid, professional, entertaining and generally well-written, but it’ll still be kind of derivative and unoriginal. In this (very common) case, should I: Take the job and just make it the best it can be, without making fundamental changes to the idea. I’ve done this. The problem, it seems, is that people are really happy with you initially because you’ve fixed the problems. But, when they go out to get it made, the fact that the idea was never that great becomes a problem. And inevitably, their enthusiasm for you as a writer cools. Since you were the last writer on the project, it becomes kind of your fault that the project is stalled again. Is that okay? Does it matter? Take the job and try to re-work the premise, making fundamental changes to try to make the project actually good. I tried this, as well. I’m proud of the work I did, and everyone I gave it to who had nothing to do with the project thought it was a HUGE improvement. But it was a horrible move politically, since I was changing ideas that had originated with the producers. I had been careful to make it clear what I was doing, but they weren’t listening - they just wanted it rewritten. Then I turned it in, and was burned alive. Pass on rewrites that aren’t based on good ideas. I’ve certainly done this, but I worry that it just takes you out of the rewrite pool. My agents aren’t going to endlessly send me rewrite gigs if I pass all the time. Rewrites are a big part of the business. I know this is a long-winded question, but it’s a thorny dilemma. Oh, by the way, I’d appreciate it if you could make me anonymous if you post this. God forbid someone should find out I think they have a mediocre idea for a movie. --Matt Obviously, many readers would kill to be in Matt’s position: a working screenwriter with the luxury to turn down jobs. But I think his question is helpful because it points out the tough choices you end up making as a screenwriter. Deep down, a screenwriter wants many things: money, artistic satisfaction, the respect of his peers. But if you were to really ask… STUDIO EXEC: What kinds of movies do you want to write? SCREENWRITER: Movies that get made. Unlike the novelist, whose work is finished the minute she hits “Print…", the screenwriter is beholden to countless external forces who will determine whether or not his screenplay becomes a film. Matt’s been working five years, and hasn’t had a movie made. Still, he has a career, because the people who hire screenwriters recognize his talent. What should Matt do when rewrites come knocking? I think all three of his options have their merits, given the right circumstances. Here’s what I’d do: Pass on fundamentally bad ideas. Note the difference between “bad idea” and “not based on a good idea.” Lots of good movies are based on ideas that, on their surface, don’t seem especially promising. Keep those in the mix. You’re just trying to weed out the concepts that, even if perfectly executed, would be lackluster. ("He’s a clown who solves grizzly murders!") Pass on perma-development projects. Watch out for the project that one mid-level studio executive is championing, particularly if he says something to the effect of: “I think if we could just crack this one thing, then the Studio Bosses will get it.” Nope. That project is going to be sitting on the development list for years. You have plenty of unmade projects. You need a produced movie. If you’re planning major changes, say so before you take the job. And if they’re squeamish about what you’re planning to do, walk away. You may still piss off certain personalities involved with the project, but at least they were warned. Accept that sometimes, you’re shining shit. Or to put it more optimistically, you’re making a bad movie better. Think of yourself as an interior designer. True, new paint and curtains won’t fix the hole in the living room ceiling, but they might make you notice it less. In the end, remember that you’re a screenwriter, not a screen-rewriter. You don’t want to make a career of it. But sometimes, rewriting a bad movie can be liberating, because you know that almost anything you do will improve it.	The term "Independent" has various meanings. Usually, this term is applied to any film-project that is not directly affiliated with a major film corporation. Independent can also be used to define a small studio or an individual producer why tries to raise some money for a film. This is all about business model, but probably not without purpose. Wouldn't that be more precise to tell that "independent", first of all, does mean a non-conformist film, a film which tries to break stereotypes and bring diversity to the screen. That's exactly why major studios don't take a risk to finance it. And, very often "independent" means an amateur's film. So, this is a chicken and egg question. What do you personally think? (chicken-money// egg-nonconformist or just amateur?) --Daria Throughout the history of filmmaking the term 'independent' has had different meanings. Obviously in the very beginning they were all independent. Once the studio system was formed, there were few, if any independently-made films. Then, in the Fifties there were a slew of B-movies and horror movies, etc. that were made outside the established studio system. However, my perception is that the true independent movie was a child of the Sixties. Producer/directors like Roger Corman and John Cassavetes, etc. totally snubbed the studio system and went out to do their own thing and change movie history. And for a couple decades the definition of independent movie was pretty clear: a low-budget movie that was made outside the studio system. The definition started to get cloudy when companies like Miramax were formed. These companies were operating with studio-sized budgets and their movies were being distributed by studios like Disney. Technically, Miramax was making independent movies but because they were funded by and distributed by Disney, were they really independent? For a while, you are correct, the term 'independent' referred simply to how a movie was financed because filmmakers were using privately-raised corporate money, or family money or their own credit cards. Then, the dawn of the digital age made independent movies even more independent and the definition even more complicated. Today a movie can be independent because of the way it was conceived, because of its subject matter, the way it was financed, the way it was distributed, etc. The term has been watered down and severely abused, but I must say that these days I would personally rather watch an independent movie than a studio movie. Sshhh..don't tell anyone.	Assuming a fairly well-planned indie shoot on 35mm with an experienced crew (of say 3 and 3 plus a swing) what do you think is an achievable number of set-ups to plan for? I realize that using daylight vs. exteriors at night affects what we are talking about in terms of time for lighting so let's also assume that there is a fair amount of lighting. What would be a reasonable number of set-ups? I think I heard the UPM on one of the episodes of "Project Greenlight" say that Thomas Ackerman was shooting 30 set-ups a day which seems amazing. Also, do you think it makes sense to try and shoot two cameras in an effort to boost the amount of coverage you are shooting or does it lead to too many compromises in the lighting? Lastly, is it reasonable for a director to expect that a set is lit in such a way that most of the tighter shots (other than the reverse) can be shot with minimal tweaks to the lighting on the master? I feel like I would rather spend some extra time on lighting the master if it means we can rock and roll once the actors are on set and ready to start shooting. Thanks for the advice. --Henry “I shoot 40 setups a day” is not a measure of quality nor an achievement in itself, TV shoots average between 15 and 30 setups a day (I think). Movies are usually under 20, and some are under 10. I think screentime is a more interesting measure, as it takes into account how much of the movie you have shot, rather than how many shots. I guess The Shining wouldn’t have rated very high on the daily set-up scale…. Two cameras can be useful in some situations, but when every set-up is 2 or 3 cameras, it can compromise the lighting (and the sound), and actually takes longer when you are in a confined space tripping all over each other. Occasional second camera is a good way to shoot I think, but then I mostly shoot straight drama and not action. I like precision and controlled framing, so multiple cameras CAN (but not always) lead to “found” framing. This can be a style in itself (like the dynamics of a Tony Scott film), so there is no real answer to this question, without reference to the intended shooting style of the picture. I would say that most close-ups in the same lighting direction should not take longer than 10 to 15 minutes to “tweak”. Some you can shoot straight away. Some will take longer. Altman likes to just zoom in from the master position and “just shoot it!”. That’s what makes the acting in his films “fizz”, whilst the framing is loose and “human”. So you adapt to the circumstance.
John August's screenwriting credits include Go, Big Fish, Titan A.E. and both Charlie's Angels movies. His current projects include Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Tarzan, and Corpse Bride. He also maintains a screenwriting-oriented website at johnaugust.com. Born and raised in Boulder, Colorado, John earned a degree in journalism from Drake University in Iowa, and an MFA in film production from the Peter Stark program at the University of Southern California. He lives in Los Angeles. Got a question about screenwriting? Send it to Ask a Writer.	Penelope Spheeris made her feature film debut with The Decline of Western Civilization, an energetic documentary about the L.A. punk scene in the early 1980's. She has since directed a number of diverse projects, including Wayne's World , Suburbia , and The Boys Next Door , as well as completing two more films in the Decline series (The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years in 1988 and The Decline of Western Civilization Part III in 1998). We Sold Our Souls for Rock 'n' Roll, debuted at the 2001 Sundance Film Festival. In 2004, she produced and directed The Kid and I, based on a true story about a young man with cerebral palsy, who wants to be an actor. Got a question about directing? Send it to Ask a Director.	Oliver Stapleton, B.S.C. has photographed dozens of critically acclaimed films, including My Beautiful Laundrette, The Grifters, The Hi-Lo Country , and The Cider House Rules . He received an Independent Spirit Award nomination for his work on Earth Girls Are Easy . He is currently filming Casanova with director Lasse Hallström in Venice. If you are considering working in the movie industry, Oliver Stapleton has written a brief guide available at www.cineman.co.uk. Got a question about cinematography? Send it to Ask a Cinematographer.