When you were first getting started as a writer, did you meet other hopeful screenwriters? And, if so, did you grow, over time, to absolutely despise them?

Because I’m feeling this. When I first moved to LA a few years ago, I met a whole bunch of disreputable screenwriter wannabes. I made friends with them. We helped and encouraged each other. But in the last year or so, I began to grow weary of their company and their lame-ass superficial ideas. I wrote a script that landed me a fairly prestigious agent and have since gone on to have meet and greets and do all the things that other screenwriters do who haven’t yet sold a break-through script. I’ve pitched for assignments. I’ve duly submitted new scripts that haven’t yet tweaked the fancy of some mid-level studio exec. I’ve met with producers. I’ve played the whole game. I feel like I’m on the cusp.

But I’m still sort of in that netherworld between WGA-sanctioned writer and struggling wannabe. The thing is, all the struggling screenwriters I’ve grown to know in the last few years… well, truth be told, they irritate the fuck out of me now. I have no patience for them anymore. And they seem to have no patience for me. They’ve grown really demanding. It seems like for every new door that opens for me, they feel like I owe them the passcode. The secret handshake. The “in.”

What I want to know is, did you go through this? Did you, at some point, have to sort of leave your fellow strugglers behind? I don’t want to lose my friends, but at the same time, I feel like it’s really important for me to separate myself from them right now. I also feel like, if the shoe were on the other foot, they wouldn’t think twice about blowing me (and all my scripts) off. I mean, they’re calling me and asking me if I’ll send their latest script to my agents… who have only hip-pocketed me and who I can barely get on the phone as it is.

Hollywood is such a weird place. I feel like I’m still learning all the ins and outs of the politics that go with it. How have you dealt with fellow screenwriter friends who haven’t yet crossed that line, but who still count you as a friend, with all the benefits that come with that friendship? Does that make sense?

I’d really appreciate some advice.

--Jay

Your letter pretty well encapsulates a lot of what I have felt, and to some degree continue to feel, about Los Angeles and the film industry.

To a surprising degree, screenwriting can be a meritocracy, where good writing (and savvy) leads to a fulfilling career. Talent and hard work are rewarded; laziness is punished. The lag between cause and effect can be frustratingly long, but there’s reason to have faith.

From your letter, it really does sound like you’re off to a good start. Congratulations. Work your ass off, land an assignment, and write the hell out of it. Then do it again, and again, and again. You’ll know you’re doing well if you’re too tired to go out drinking with your old screenwriting buddies.

Yes, I’m saying to let ‘em go. Not all of them, necessarily. But it’s time to thin the herd.

I think there’s an important distinction between friends and colleagues. Here’s the single most important question to ask yourself: Who is happy for you? A true friend is glad you’re finding success, without any ulterior motive for himself. Be smart: hold onto your friends. I have honest-to-goodness friends who I met the second day I arrived in Los Angeles, who will be my friends until I die.

But I also have colleagues, mostly other screenwriters, who are important to me even though they’re not really friends. With colleagues, it’s okay to feel some jealousy. Even small twinges of schadenfreude. Particularly at the beginning of my career, I was constantly comparing my success to their success, and it made me work that much harder. Yes, we helped each other out when we could, but the biggest help by far was by continually raising the bar, not just in the quality of our writing, but what we were able to achieve career-wise.

Most of your so-called screenwriter friends are probably fall into the “colleague” category. Some of them are definitely worth keeping in your life. Ask yourself which ones you think are actually good writers. Here’s the test: whose scripts are you genuinely excited to read? If you dread cracking open Jim’s scripts, and dread giving him notes, then you really don’t believe in him as a writer. You’re not doing him or yourself any favors keeping up the charade.

You don’t have to tell him, “Jim, buddy, I think your writing sucks.” Just be too busy to read the next draft. Say it’s too much like something you’re working on. (And remember that trading scripts works both ways. It’s not fair to ask for his notes if you’re not willing to do the same.)

Jim may think you’re an asshole. That’s his right. But the process of adding and dropping friends and colleagues isn’t unique to this business. I’m guessing you’re in your 20’s. With certainty, I could say you’d be going through the same thing no matter where you lived, or what you were doing. Things change. People move on.

What’s different about this business is the musical chairs aspect. Hollywood only “needs” a very small number of screenwriters. Maybe it’s a hundred. Maybe it’s three hundred. Whatever the figure, it’s a very small number compared to the vast legion of wannabe screenwriters in Los Angeles.

The cliche is that every waiter in LA is an actor. The truth is that every non-waiter is probably working on a screenplay. So when these aspiring screenwriters see you climbing those first few rungs of the ladder, it’s no surprise there’s some jealousy and resentment. After all, just a few months ago, you were exactly where they were.

In some ways, it’s easier to begrudge a person a little success than a lot of success. There’s a relatability, a why-not-me factor. It sucks for them. It sucks for you. Accept that and move on.

If it’s any consolation, look around at all the aspiring actors in your midst. They’re going through the exact same winnowing process, but at least you’re being judged on your words. Imagine how much more frustrating it would be to succeed or fail based on the whims of a casting director who liked your look, or felt you could stand to lose 10 pounds.

How would you rank the importantance of film school as opposed to just getting a Netflix account, listening to the director's commentaries and start making shorts?

--Henrique

Ohmygosh. I can’t even believe you asked that. On a normal day, I would chose to politely ignore it, but having recently participated in some panels where young filmmakers were asking the same kind of questions (although not so blatantly), I will try to address it.

I have noticed on my many occasions with public speaking at festivals, schools and panels that instead of this attitude diminishing, it is increasing. The attitude to which I refer includes assumptions along these lines: “Anybody can be a director; it’s easy and requires no special innate abilities, education or technical know-how. A director’s life is really glamorous and the ‘power’ she or he has is incredible. There is some quick, easy way to become a world-class director.” I could go on. These myths/assumptions are sending masses of young people down a path that is entirely unsuited for them. Mind you, not all of them are unsuited for the job, but more are than are not.

Please, stack up your queue at Netflix and watch lots of movies. Maybe one of the directors on the commentaries will tell you what the difference between depth of field and depth of focus is. Maybe one will tell you how to deal with the film conversion facility to make sure the timing you did on your hi-def master will transfer on a one light. Maybe if the print is too green the director will tell you which color to add to off-set it. Maybe another director will tell you how to construct your post-production budget so you don’t run out of money for music, special effects and E + O insurance. Guess what? I don’t think so. The commentaries are meant to sell DVD’s, not educate wannabe directors. Go to school if you want to be a director. Genetics could play a part in your potential to become a director. For example, a closely related first cousin of mine is the brilliant Greek/French director Costa-Gavras. However, more important is the technical knowledge and experience that you will garnish from diligently studying the art and craft of filmmaking in a good film school.

For the past several years I've noticed what I call the "MTVization" of movies. This includes odd camera angles, fast (micro second) editing, and my least favorite the "360" pan used to the point of making one dizzy. The use of these techniques is distracting and interfeares with the flow of the story. Am I alone? I feel that the artists in Hollywood spend too much time pleasing one another and failing to create a product that should entertaining instead of stressful.

--Gary

The “MTVization” of movies began happening very shortly after MTV was launched in 1981, and the impact has been steady and relentless. Some enjoy the cross-pollinization, although others, like you apparently, find it distracting and even offensive. If we were to try and name a factor that is most responsible, it might be that the studios started hiring music video directors and commercial directors to direct narrative pictures. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. An obvious example of success with the turn toward these directors is the work of music video director David Fincher. I won’t mention the failures, but they are quite obvious and quite numerous. Certain genres are more suited to the nano-second editing and the whacky pans and angles, and obviously some are not.

An unfortunate circumstance is when style tries to replace content. Someone once said that every story has been told (which I personally don’t believe). However, given that premise, I think some filmmakers might try to use innovative visual styles to tell the same old story and then fool themselves into thinking that they came up with something original. I don’t mean to put down innovative film techniques, but I do mean to stress the importance of storytelling and our obligation as filmmakers to actually say something.

Life changes every day, every minute, therefore there are always new stories. We are evolving (some would say de-volving) and so there must be new, fresh, insightful stories about the human condition to be told. I always say, you have to find the right Christmas tree before you hang the decorations on it. Same for filmmaking: find a substantial subject matter and then put the decorations on it, or MTV-ize it. A prime example of doing it all right is Tarnation, a wonderful, incredibly low-budget movie with profoundly important and personal subject matter that is executed in a visual way that you’ve never seen before. The goal to is make movies that tell a fresh, original story in a fresh, original visual style. Easier said than done.

It has been years now since the first iteration of "So You Wanna Work in the Movies" was written and posted for all to read. Then, you seemed to have a stigma in regards to digital "film." Since, more and more folks are recording in digital (Lucas being the most well known to do so) and fully digital movies (Sky Captain and Sin City) have been made where living, breathing actors were the only real piece to the entire film. While many young (some respected) filmmakers are embracing digital filmmaking as a way to ease production, (seemingly) the old guard (some respected as well) still staunchly supports traditional film. Most notable (see: vocal) among the proponents of film-over-digital is Quentin Tarantino, who quipped "Mission Accomplished" when asked how he felt digitally filming a scene for Sin City. On the set of King Kong, Peter Jackson said part of the beauty of digital filmmaking is to fix the inevitable mistake which is made on set, yet he adores film as well.

With the foresight to have seen it [purely digital filmmaking] coming and the experience in the industry that you have, how do you feel about digital filmmaking nowadays? As someone who wants nothing more than to pay his dues to the system, be abused by the production staff, and one day (after many long days) hopefully be a DP myself, is the job I want doomed?

It seems that some directors (Lucas) feel that digital filmmaking is the wave of the future (and then turn around and predict doom for cinema because of it). Others(Tarantino) feel that a vivid film can only come from true reels of film. Still, some (Jackson, Spielberg, Fincher) seem to believe that a happy medium can exist. All of this talk comes from directors. Where do the people who actually film the movie, who get the shots, who control the initial look and feel of the film, where do they stand?

To the untrained eye, the pro-digital-everything camp might seem to have a total control of their movie obsession going on, and with millions of dollars bankrolling a film, who cares about the cost? On the other hand, if the shot can be done with a smaller, less expensive, still high quality digital camera, what is the film-over-digital proponent's argument aside from personal preference? Thank you. Your articles have always fascinated me and are a wealth of knowledge.

-Bryce

Thanks for your thoughts – very apposite. It probably is time for a revision of SYWWITM, especially the digital section. As you say time has moved on, and also little has changed.

My own theory is that when the first digital Star Wars came out it looked so terrible that the industry was really shocked – especially after all the hype. The irony is that the next one looked OK (not great but OK), but it was too late – the damage was done by the first one.

I am not sure there is a single top DP who prefers digital over film, although it may be that we just don’t hear from them as the journalists think Directors make the photography and we are just assistants. When was the last time you saw a DP interviewed in the National Press? The “talk” comes from Directors because they get quoted. The move to Digital will not damage the job of Directing and some would argue that it will make it easier, freeing them from the “tyranny” of the DP. I sympathize with this as I have heard that a number of members of my profession are power-hungry noisy bastards who get their rocks off by mistreating those not as powerful as themselves. A director might get put off the profession after just one film with such a person: go to Digital and the DP suddenly looses power as the picture is right in front of you for all to see (and comment on!).

Although I think the job as it has existed in my lifetime is doomed there is another job slowly emerging. This job is kind of the same but has not been defined yet. At the moment you have the DP and then the “colourist” who is slowly becoming a co-maker of the image. And then there is the Visual FX supervisor who is slowly becoming a Designer as more and more images are composite. This affects the world of the Production Designer as the images are shot by the Cinematographer but in a sense are designed by the Production Designer. The Director may or may not have a key roll in all this: some pay great attention to the visual landscape of a film and others do not.

As directors become more aware of the post-production possibilities, some are embracing it and making the most of it, and others get lazy with a fix-it-afterwards mentality. The challenge for me is to stay current with what is possible and what it costs so that I can make intelligent decisions on a daily basis as to what I should spend time on and what I shouldn’t.

As an example, there is a location in Casanova (Xmas release) which is Heath Ledger running down a very very long hall which was impossible to light. Instead of rejecting the location (which a number of other DP’s had done for other movies!), I was able to place the lights in shot on one side of the hall, and then remove them with a relatively simple digital split screen shot where the one side was joined to the other – also halving the cost of the extras!

Being aware of CGI and what it can do is now a very important part of the DP’s work, and a part that will become increasingly important. In effect, on a smaller film, you become the Visual FX supervisor as the production doesn’t employ one because they are so expensive.

So I guess my rather dour thoughts about digital 5 years ago have been a little elevated by the thought that the DP may become the “image maker” which of course he or she always was: but this time it embraces the post processes also. It is vital that DP’s today take control of the DI and CGI processes otherwise the job really will slip into the hands of editors, producers and VFX supervisors.

So the challenge for the younger generation is to train in both film and digital and be very aware of all the possibilities of the post house. In the old days many DP’s would do time at a lab to learn about the chemistry. Today’s equivalent would be to do time at E-film or one of the other post houses to get to grips with the post processes. In a sense exposing film is not the arduous task it once was as film is now so forgiving and with such extraordinary latitude that some DP’s are just putting their meters away and shooting it by eye, knowing that all the controls are post controls. I don’t see much wrong with this: as was the case 20 years ago, every time Digital thinks it is catching up with film Kodak and Fuji produce another amazing film stock which re-writes what film can do.

I think Digital will eventually take over, just as it has in the stills market. The timescale is not the one that Sony and Lucas envisaged and things like the tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the earthquake in Pakistan reminds people that we don’t control the world. The studios spend $50M on a film and they are very interested in archive and the effects of time on their $50M investment. The first thing they do when a Digital Film is shot is transfer it to film: strange huh?

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.

Got a question about directing? Send it to Ask a Director.

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.