I'd take a picture of the letter, because I take pictures of just about everything else, lately, but I'm not going to. I think they filled up all their slots already. I hope that's what happened, because they don't actually yet have my full application; I don't take the GRE Lit until next weekend, and I'd thought they were waiting on that score.

Apparently not. Ah, well.

Alma's comment yesterday, though, brought up a good point that I've been thinking about a lot the past couple days (actually, which I've been wondering about for a while now); it's Creative Writing--does one really need a PhD in it? Do I really want to pursue a doctorate in making shit up? I'd had a couple of ideas for what to do for a 'creative dissertation,' but I actually have a couple of ideas for real dissertations (in both literature and theology, in fact), and I think that might be more fruitful.

I think I got what I needed from my Master's degree. I studied with one of the two people who made me want to come to this program, but ultimately I feel I came away with more from other classes. It's great to be able to say I studied film with the guy who directed The Empire Strikes Back, but both Coleman Hough and Syd Field challenged me in better, different ways, and I learned more from them.

Yesterday, I officially handed in my thesis. I've got two more days of class next weekend, and then it's all in the bag.

I've been asked a few times what I'm going to do next. Which surprises me, because everyone already knows:

I'm going to Denver.

I'm not sure why people thought it might be contingent on getting into their program. Coming out to LA wasn't; I paid for my apartment several weeks before I got word of any decision on anyone's part. I'd already decided I was going to do it regardless of whether or not I got into USC.

And I did. I would've. I didn't leave myself any other option.

Same here. I'm not staying in LA, and I'm not moving back to Jersey. Denver has felt, for a long time, like the next logical step. There's something about it that calls to me, which seems kind of a silly thing to say, looking at it, but there it is.

Vonnegut is known for having said that very often it's best to jump off the cliff and grow your wings on the way down. Somebody (I want to say Emerson or Thoreau) once said that, in seeking new land, one must occasionally force one's self to lose sight of familiar shore.

I don't believe anything in life is certain (not even death, mainly because: who knows? I'm smart enough to know that nobody knows what occurs after the body stops breathing, and also enough to know that I am not my body), and so I'm looking forward to this coming summer. I think it's going to be awesome. I have no idea what's going to happen, but I'm taking the leap now, and heck, even if I don't grow my wings on the way down, I've never gone wrong by the seat of my pants.

“My psychological state when I start a screenplay is always the same. It's a mix of fear, anxiety and insecurity."  

                                              Akiva Goldsman, Oscar winner (A Beautiful Mind)
 

"Who is your hero, what does he want, and what stands in his way?” 

                     Paddy Chayefsky  (Network)

Three-time Oscar winner

How do you start your story? Something must happen to set your story in motion. Some call this an inciting incident, a hook, or a catalyst.  When this event or situation happens it disrupts the life of your protagonist. It sets them on a quest.

It must be a dynamic event. An event that rocks their world and one in which they must fight to correct. And most of the times the inciting incidents are easy to spot.

Juno finds out she’s pregnant (Juno)

E.T. misses his ride (E.T.)

The Italian Stallion is chosen to fight for the championship (Rocky)

A shark eats a girl on a late night swim in the ocean (Jaws)

A sports agent writes a controversial mission statement  (Jerry Maguire)

Zack Mayo signs up for officer training (An Officer and a Gentleman)

Dr. Richard Kimble’s wife is killed (The Fugitive)

Miss Daisy wrecks her car (Driving Miss Daisy)

Charlie Kane dies just after saying “Rosebud"  (Citizen Kane)

Jack wins a ticket on the Titanic boat (Titanic)

Thinking she’s getting engaged her boyfriend break-ups with her (Legally Blond)

Charlie Babbit’s gets news that his dad is dead (Rain Man)

Nemo is captured by fishermen (Finding Nemo)

The war happens (The Pianist)

A Helicopter is shot down (Black Hawk Down)

Ferris takes the day off (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off) 

Will solves a difficult mathematical equation (Good Will Hunting)

The oven breaks on Thanksgiving day (Pieces of April)

A large family goes on vacation leaving a child behind (Home Alone)

A law grad takes an offer for what looks like the perfect job (The Firm)

The movie opens with a man face down in water (Sunset Blvd.)

The movie opens with a man face down in water (Bourne Identity)

Boy wishes that he was bigger and wakes up a grown-up (Big)

A farmer hears a voice telling him “If you build it he will come” (Field of Dreams)
 

“As long as the protagonist wants something, the audience will want something.”

                     David Mamet (The Verdict)

Two Oscar nominations

Often inciting incidents boil down to the worst things that can happen in your life:

Divorce (Kramer vs. Kramer)

Murder (Witness)

Illness (The Doctor)

Shooing victim (Regarding Henry)

Plane crash (Castaway)

Financial Crisis (The Perfect Storm)

Quitting a job (Lost in America)

Taking the perfect job (The Firm)

Aging (City Slickers)

Dying (The Bucket List)

Kidnapping (Ransom)

Natural Disaster (Wizard of Oz)

Recession (Indecent Proposal)

Things that make newspaper headlines on a regular basis. They are headlines because they get our attention.

These all set the story in motion. Like a boxer's one-two punch they often have a set-up & payoff:

Jerry Maguire writes mission statement—gets fired.

Dr. Richard Kimble’s wife is killed—he’s charged with murder—he decides to flee bus wreck and track down killer.

Miss Daisy wrecks car—Hoke is hired to be her driver

The shark attacks the girl—the sheriff finds her body, well, an arm.

Charlie Babbit’s dad dies in Rain Man—he learns he’s out of the will, well, he gets the car and the award winning rose bushes, but not the millions he hoped for.

Ferris takes the day off—Principle wants to catch him skipping school

Someone has to hear Charlie Kane say "Rosebud" or there can't be the quest to find out what it means. (Never mind that nobody is around to hear the words actually being said.)

You could argue that if the girl dies in the ocean without being discovered then the case is written off as a drunk girl drowning, so which is the inciting incident? But let’s not get hung up on technical things or we’ll say the beer is the inciting incident…or the moment the beer was bought. Chalk it up to a cause and effect. Find your inciting incident and get on with writing your story.

If the inciting incidents doesn’t happen then the movies doesn’t happen. Writer Skip Press asks, “Will this event put my main character on a path to his ultimate goal from which there is no turning back?”

Sometimes this event happens in the first scene, but usually within the first ten pages, and always within the first act. Syd Field notes that in studying Joe Eszterhas scripts he noticed, “In most cases…the inciting incident was a cinematic tool he used to set up the story from page one, word one.”

If you’ve ever found yourself watching a movie and wondering when it’s going to start the cause is usually too much time was spent setting up the inciting incident. The moment needs to come when it will have the most impact, but in our ADD culture it’s hard for viewers (and studio readers) to wait too long for the inciting incident. Over and over again that’s why you will hear about the importance of the first 10 pages of your script. It sets the tone of your story, and gives us an indication of who the characters are and what they want.

The inciting incident must happen on screen and it must be dynamic. It gets our attention and the attention of our protagonist. If our protagonist doesn’t react to this then you have no movie.

The climax of the film will be tied into this inciting incident. Think of them like bookends that hold your story in place. Rocky is picked to fight Apollo Creed and the climax is occurs after the fight is over and he's still on his feet.  

And inciting incident arouses a desire in the protagonist that he or she is willing to go to the end of the line to get. Rocky can't say, "I don't even have a locker. I'm a bum. Maybe if I can get into shape." Well, he could but it's a different movie.

Your audience wants to know what your story is about. They have paid money to be entertained. And they want to watch your characters wrestle with life issues. Because that's really why we go to movies. To watch human drama be lived out in a way that helps us with our own human dramas.   

So your inciting incident is what sets your protagonist in motion.

“The overwhelming majority of stories are based on a need, a problem, or an unusual situation.”

              Edward Dmytryk (The Caine Mutiny)

Oscar & DGA nominations 

“Find a character who’s obsessed and you have a real driving line.”

Ron Bass (Rain Man)

Oscar winner 

Syd Field's book is great because it talks about common roadblocks that writers come across and how they begin to doubt themselves like crazy. Before I read this book, I had a reading of my screenplay and my script was simply awful. I had no concept of structure or plot or anything. It was a bunch of half baked ideas randomly thrown together. I felt that I definitely could never write a feature because I was not qualified. Field's sentiment is that everyone goes through that feeling. And that's usually when people have strong feelings of self doubt (check) and feel they must bring on a writing partner because they are stuck (double check).

His theory is that if you are stuck, don't continue to plow through the writing without addressing the nagging feeling that something doesn't work. Rather, examine what doesn't flow and work with it. Go back and examine what the character wants, why they are there, how they feel, what happened in the past and explore the specific details.

I went to Starbucks, had a tall soy creamer and wrote for two hours straight. I have 20 pages so far, and it's very exciting. Instead of frantic scenes thrown together, it flows and makes sense.

Also, other story lines and relationships that I hadn't even thought of are really coming along nicely as well. For the first time in a long time I like what's going on.

]]> http://forgewrite.wordpress.com/?p=5 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:54:28 +0000 forgewrite http://forgewrite.wordpress.com/?p=5 Syd Field utilizes a structure when guiding his students through the beginnings of script witting. It is called the "Basic Film Paradigm".

The basic premise of the Basic Film Paradigm is simple. You have a line that represents the time span of the movie and you divide that line into three parts. The first part is act I and represents the set up of the movie. The second part is Act II (the confrontation) and represents the conflicts, obstacles and "pinches" that the main character must go through to complete his journey. This act is larger than the others about the same size as both Act I and Act III collectively. This act is by far the most important but is useless if the first and third act are not functional in their supporting rolls. Finally, the third part is of course Act III and is represented by the conclusion.

This is basically what the Film Paradigm looks like. This is not new, it has been a foundation of storytelling for hundreds of years. With that said, some people refuse to use it even though it is time tested. In all actuality it is in every part of life. There is a beginning, middle, and end to all things. So, it does not seem to intelligent to go against the grain of nature.

Homework:
Take your story and see if it applies to the film paradigm model. If it does, you are ahead of the game. If it does not, go through your story and pick out your plot points and move them around so that they do fit the model. Then, utilize the structure to fill in the blanks of your story.

1. Introduce your character
2. Have a major event that dramatically alters the way your character must act
3. Give your characters obstacles to overcome
4. have another event that signifies the coming of the end
5. resolve the major purpose of the story

It is just that simple (hahaha)

GOOD LUCK!

"Structure is the most important element in the screenplay. It is the force that holds everything together."   Syd Field 

Today is the first day of spring and that signals a change. (Not so much here in Iowa, because the forecast is we'll get 2-6 inches of snow tomorrow.) 

If you've been thinking about writing a screenplay why not begin today?  This blog is on structure and is a fitting place to begin.

The more scripts you write and the more movies you see the more you’ll understand structure and why it’s a vital part of screenwriting. I'm going to limit this blog on good old western culture traditional structure. You don't get more basic than this:

Act 1 - Beginning 

Act 2 - Middle 

Act 3 - End

Syd Field became the modern day screenwriting pioneer when he wrote Screenplay back in the 1974. Field had been a reader and development executive at various studios and after reading 10,000 scripts he felt he really knew what made a good script.

He even broke it down into page counts.

        Act 1     1-30  (setup)

        Act 2     30-90 (confrontation)

        Act 3     90-120 (resolution)

There's nothing wrong with a script coming in between 90 and 100 pages either. He's how a 100 pages script might look like:

Act 1       1-25

Act 2      26-80

Act 3      81-100 

Now if this were the sixties I could hear someone saying, “Hey, man, that’s just not my scene.” But these things aren't written in stone either.

Sure we can look at many films like Memento which turned structure upside down, and Pulp Fiction and Magnolia that mixed structure up. And let's not forget about the famous quote by Goddard “I believe in a beginning, a middle, and an end -- just not in that order.”

How do I answer those? Let me start with the Goddard quote. According to Lew Hunter who later asked Goddard about his famous quote it was simply an off-hand comment at a cocktail party.

As for the film exceptions? It is hard enough to write a solid screenplay, get an agent, and get the film made. The concept of a beginning, middle and end are universal because that is the way most of us of our lives;

We wake up

We eat

We go about our work or school

We eat dinner

We recreate

We go to bed

We’re born, we live, and we die.

Throughout history that is the cycle civilization has lived. Humans around the world have also made sure that life is not predictable. Love, war, new inventions and discoveries help insure that within the human tradition there are millions of variations.

Traditional structure is the most understood form of storytelling which is one of the reasons it is the most commercial as well.

It's as basic as one writer said; Get your hero up a try, throw rocks and him and get him down. That’s structure 101.

Many screenwriting books have different ways of breaking down structure but here's a common one that Robert Mckee's has landed on based on the people that went before him:

1) Inciting Incident

2) Progressive Complication (Rising Conflict)

3) Crisis

4) Climax

5) Resolution

If you can understand those five areas of structure (one for every finger one hand) it will save you some frustration. We'll look at these in detail at another blog, but for now it's enough for you to understand that this structure fits most successful films. (Even if you want to flip structure inside out it's best to understand structure. Check out Picasso's early paintings to see what I mean.)

There is always that rebel in us that says. “I don’t want to do it the way it’s always been done. I want to do my own thing man. I want freedom!”

But keep in mind what poet Robert Frost said, “Writing free verse is like playing tennis without a net.”  

There is freedom in structure. Embrace it. When the limits are set, great things can happen. Performing within certain boundaries helps us understand the greatness Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, and LeBron James.

Think of all the structure that goes into:

Making Movies. The script is written and then budgeted. Actors are hired who you want to show up on time. Sets are built and props are found. Cameras are rented and crews are hired. Caterers cook food. Drivers drive trucks. People work, people get paid. There is a lot of structure in place to make a film.

Making Music. Before a concert becomes a reality many logistics have to have taken place. Travel arrangements, tickets sold, money transacted, bathrooms working, electricity flowing, stages constructed, lights hung, usher in place, security in place, green M&Ms in place. There’s a lot of structure there. So you can smile the next time a lead singer screams for anarchy because that's the last thing he wants at his concert.

There really is freedom in structure.

“I’m a structuralist myself. We believe in discipline, hard work, and architecture. Writing is like carpentry.” Dan O'Bannon, screenwriter (Alien)

Playwright/screenwriter David Mamet compares ignoring structure to the countercultural design movement in the 60's: 

“I was a student in the turbulent sixties in Vermont at a countercultural college. In that time in place, there flourished something called the Countercultural Architecture.  Some people back then thought that the traditional architecture had been too stifling. And so they designed and built countercultural buildings. These buildings proved unlivable. Their design didn’t begin with the idea of the building’s purpose; it began with the idea of how the architect “felt.”"As those architects looked at their countercultural buildings over the years, they may have reflected that there is a reason for traditional design.  There’s a reason that doors are placed in a certain way.

"All those countercultural buildings may have expressed the intention of the architect, but they didn’t serve the purpose of the inhabitants. They all either fell down or are falling down or should be torn down. They’re a blot on the landscape and they don’t age gracefully and every passing year underscores the jejune folly of those countercultural architects.”

David Mamet

Because I want to hammer this point home take a look at the cars you see today. Cars could be made with three wheels or five wheels but most cars are still made with four wheels because engineers and car builders have decided that is what works best.

Scott W. Smith 

In these two books you will find all you need to know about developing interesting characters as well as structuring your screenplay.

De hecho, la palabra maestro referida a un pensador o a un guía intelectual ("master") tiene una connotación casi tan ridícula como gurú.

McLuhan, que era canadiense, fue el gran gurú de la modernidad en Estados Unidos, de lo que él llamaba la Galaxia Marconi, que venía a sustituir a la Galaxia Gutenberg; Syd Field y Robert McKee eran o son gurús de la teoría del guión; Negroponte y Esther Dyson fueron o son gurús del mundo digital; Jakob Nielsen es el gurú de la usanbilidad.

Conseguir el título de gurú en Estados Unidos, a pesar de la connotación burlona, es el camino más corto al éxito y al dinero, pues junto a esa irreverencia legendaria, que tanto ha influido en el mundo moderno, en Estados Unidos muchísimas personas están dispuestas a comprar las fórmulas de los gurús como quien compra un coche o una casa.

Un gurú de este estilo comparte ciertas características con los gurús tradicionales de la India: son gente que aparenta saber mucho, pero su conocimiento no procede directamente de lo que llamamos saber académico, sino más bien de su propia experiencia; en el caso de Nielsen, de la observación cuidadosa e inteligente. Un gurú suele señalar algo que estaba a la vista de todos, pero que nadie ha mirado con atención.

Otra característica que comparten los gurús de Estados Unidos y los de la india es que en ambos casos están muy seguros de lo que dicen, suelen hacer listas orales o escritas acerca de lo que se puede hacer o no hacer y hablan de manera extremada pero a mismo tiempo parece estar más allá de lo que dicen.

[Tomado de Usabilidad]

(Dwarf guy from Lang's SIEGFRIED)

Longterm Shadowplayer Elver Loho emailed me some while ago with a query for the blog, which I've been meaning to get around to. But it's a toughie:

'I come from a background of computer science and we had plenty of
great academic journals in the field. A lot of research was happening
all the time and academic journals are a great way to keep up with it.
Now that I'm making the switch to screenwriting, I find that there are
a couple of guru-written books on the subject that everyone likes
and... that's pretty much it.

'Hell, the biggest works about on one of the most important aspects of
screenwriting -- story structure -- were written more than 50 years
ago by Propp and Campbell and don't even mention movies. I haven't
come across anything that would even begin to rival the research that
those two guys did.

(Vladimir Propp & his magic lamp)

'This is depressing. Surely, there's academic research going on in the
field, right? Because I was browsing the online database of academic
journals that my local university library has and there's a ton of
journals on literature. I even found an issue that was wholly
dedicated to the phenomenon of text in Ancient Roman wall paintings.
Surely if there are people who care enough about text in Ancient Roman
wall paintings to write research papers on the topic, there must be
people who care enough about film to write research papers on the
topic. But where are they? Where do they publish their research? And
is there even research going on in the field or are we trapped in a
New Age type of guru worship?'

Elver's right, firstly, in that practically everything to do with screenwriting is depressing! Most good scripts don't get filmed, many lousy ones do, and even the good ones that make it through often get mangled in the process. (I've been part of this process as both re-writer -- for my sins -- and re-written.) The research situation being depressing is consistent and unsurprising.

Magazine-wise, these are probably the best shows in town:

http://www.creativescreenwriting.com/index.html

http://www.scriptmag.com/

Expensive, but pretty good as I recall.

But they're clearly industry rags rather than academic journals. I must admit I have a hard time picturing an academic journal on screenwriting -- I think it would end up containing historical research rather than scientific principles because I don't entirely believe there ARE any scientific principles in screenwriting. The Robert McKee / Syd Field approach is about as "scientific" as it gets, and much of the time those guys are just passing off opinion as fact or industry norms as universal principles. (Also, Field is a horrible writer, who apparently thinks "sets up" is one word: "setsup", which sounds like a SAUCE.) Most of the gurubooks contain some insights I find useful, so I do read them, but I think it's wise to take what resonates for you and discard the rest.

(For instance, I think knowledge of mythic structure is fantastic to have at the back of your mind as you're shaping a story, but it's a terrible point to start from, and no guarantee of anything, as George Lucas' extremely variable storywork on his STAR WARS saga shows. I think Umberto Eco's essay on CASABLANCA maybe gives a better clue to the success of STAR WARS than Joseph Campbell -- think of it as a mass restyling of clichés rather than a New Myth for Our Age. Mythic structure starts from the point of universally recognisable archetypes, which is really the same as stereotypes. Whereas I'd rather start with real human qualities and then maybe connect them to myth as I go.)

I just don't think there's a science to study, so what we're left with is criticism, which isn't something you can pilot a spaceship on, as this blog probably proves. Writers work on a combination of craft and instinct: a competent beginner can learn craft, but you can't make it work for you worth a damn without the right instincts -- which you can develop by writing a lot, if they're there in the first place.

It's very good that there are so many screenplays available online now, and many many books on screenwriting to pick and choose pearls of wisdom from (while hopefully discarding all the plastic beads of received wisdom).

Incidentally, the book that sparked Preston Sturges' glorious writing career was A Study of the Drama by Brander Matthews. The differences between stage and screen-writing are so obvious as to scarcely need enumeration, so I'm wondering what gems it contains... it seems to be a little expensive to pick up secondhand though.

I picked up each for different reasons. I mean, I enjoy reading in general. I read as many screenplays as I can get my hands on. But, to really appreciate something you need to educate yourself on how it's made. That's sort of how I view these books. Learning about the screenwriting process, and film making process in general, just makes me appreciate film as a medium all that much more.

At any rate, I picked up "Screenplay" because it's one of the de facto books "all screenwriters must own." And honestly, I had a 15 dollar Borders gift card and the book was only 16 bucks. So I figured what the hey. Also, it doesn't dwell on how to sell a screenplay. I'm not interested in that. One day maybe, but at this point I'm writing because I enjoy writing. Not because I think I have anything I can sell. A lot of books out there waste 1/3 to 1/2 the book on how to sell yourself and your screenplay. I'm not there yet, and I don't want to read about that yet. Plus, I have a few friends in the industry, and if I need advice, I'l go to them on tips on how to start educating myself. Plus, I like how Syd Field writes, it's easy to read and he doesn't bloat his prose with extra words.

I picked up "Screenplay: Writing the Picture" because I needed a book written by someone other than Syd. Syd's great, but to truly learn you have to get input from all the masters, not just one. It's just healthy to get your education from multiple sources. I'd also heard some good things about this book. Sure, it has some stuff about the selling and pitching of your work, but it deals significantly more with writing theory, and that's what I'm interested in.

I want to learn how to write. I want to learn how to structure my stories more efficiently. I want to learn how to do things "better." Sales pitches aren't going to help me with that. I need to learn writing theory, and that's really what these books, and the others in my collection, deal with. Reading a book isn't going to get your screenplay produced, but if your not going to enroll in writing workshops and classes, it's the next best thing you can do.

As I said, I'm not a professional, but I've "gone pro." I've written screenplays. I'm over that first hump. I know I can do it. I'm now working on doing it better. And hopefully, with enough work, I'll do it better than everyone else. Realistically, just getting my work up to my own personal standards will be enough for me. Since I don't have any delusions of grandure that my stuff is going to get me famous, it's really a win win for me.  I'm not a starving artist. I'm not worried about paying the bills. I didn't up and move to L.A. hoping to make it. I've estabished my life doing something else and now I'm safely chasing my dream in whatever way I can.

It may not be the way everyone does it, but it's the way I'm doing it. Not everyone gets to live in L.A. Not everyone gets to be famous. But, everyone gets to write. At least that's my take.

I'll let you know how I enjoy the books when I finish them.

Enjoy.

-Steve

LIBROS Y PUBLICACIONES

Acaba de salir un libro sobre la escritura del guión cinematográfico que ojalá puedan conseguir. Se trata de "LAS PARADOJAS DEL GUIONISTA Reglas y excepciones en la práctica del guión” a cargo de Daniel Tubau, escritor y guionista (Alba Editorial. 390 págs).

Daniel Tubau ha extraído de su libro “38 paradojas” que cuestionan otras tantas afirmaciones de su propio libro, y por extensión, de la mayoría de libros que pretenden enseñar a escribir guiones cinematográficos. Asimismo, nos presenta una original forma de afirmar, y a la vez cuestionar los métodos más conocidos de redacción de guión (McKee, Field, Vogler).

A continuación, les doy una probadita para que se les antoje leerlo:

LAS PARADOJAS DEL GUIONISTA

Daniel Tubau

1. Decir que no se deben seguir las normas es dar una norma
2. El medio es y no es el mensaje
3. Causas sin efecto y efectos sin causa
4. Un buen guionista debe trabajar para que su trabajo no se note
5. Se debe proporcionar información sin que parezca información
6. La mejor manera de mostrar algo es no mostrarlo nunca del todo
7. Lo mismo puede ser distinto
8. Al guionista no le preocupan los problemas de sus personajes (el macguffin)
9. La meta del viaje es lo de menos, lo que importa es el camino
10. Promete pero no cumplas
11. En la dicotomía suspense o sorpresa lo mejor es elegir el suspense sorprendente
12. Incluso en la obras que tienen diez actos hay tres actos
13. Antes del principio siempre hay algo
14. Después del final siempre hay algo
15. El extraordinario mundo ordinario
16. Quien mejor nos conoce es quien no nos conoce
17. Lo perfecto es imperfecto
18. El malo ha de ser bueno
19. El desenlace debe ser a la vez sorprendente e inevitable
20. Debemos hacer que el espectador crea ser libre, pero no debe serlo
21. Hay que escribir hacia atrás
22. Nosotros creamos las leyes, pero estamos sometidos a ellas
23. Cómo hacer el qué
24. La forma es fondo en el fondo
25. Mucha teoría y pocos resultados
26. Saber menos a veces es mejor que saber más
27. Todos los métodos son buenos, incluso los malos
28. La mejor manera de aprender a escribir guiones es mirar fuera del mundo de los guiones
29. Recibir ayuda no siempre es bueno
30. La inspiración y el plagio son sinónimos
31. Se ha de contar lo de siempre y al mismo tiempo ser original
32. Mientras más copias, menos copias
33. El mejor conflicto es el que no tiene solución
34. Para corregir algo hay que corregir otra cosa
35. La realidad no es verosímil
36. El cine es a la vez más y menos ambiguo e indeterminado que la novela
37. El objetivo final del guión es desaparecer
38. La última paradoja: Da igual que todo esté mal, porque puede funcionar (porque si funciona, estará bien)

Escrito por Sara Alarcón Juárez el 9 de abril de 2007

La noticia en la página del Gremio de Cineastas y videoastas de Puebla

Las paradojas del guionista.

Quedaros con este título. Es el libro de Daniel Tubau, un profesional del guión que cuenta ya con más de veinte años de experiencia. Estos últimos días estoy estudiando detenidamente el manual y creo que su estilo directo y la continua apelación a la práctica del lector van a conseguir que lo termine antes de lo que quisiera.

Me ha llamado la atención una nota que escribe sobre la diferencia entre principios y normas en la práctica de la escritura cinematográfica: "Las normas dicen: Se debe hacer de esta manera. Sin embargo, los principios se limitan a decir: Esto funciona... y ha funcionado desde que se recuerda"

Amigo guionista, te animo a pensar sobre estos conceptos que acabo de citar. Y, a la vez, quiero remitirte a un artículo que se acaba de publicar en la página web abcguionistas.com.

Espero que lo disfrutes.

Periodista audiovisual (Iñigo Sota Heras)

Por lo regular cuando uno busca libros sobre guión cinematográfico, se encuentra con volúmenes que proponen fórmulas establecidas o incansablemente vistas en pantalla, como si escribir una película se tratara precisamente de una justa culinaria o peor aún, de una serie de pasos para redactar una historia “sin complicaciones”. Algunos más aberrantes te ofrecen, retan o invitan a ser un guionista profesional en X cantidad de meses o semanas. Lo que nos queda claro es que, hasta cierto punto, estos textos lo que proponen es involucrarnos en el proceso creativo que incluye el listado de los cuatro elementos básicos de cualquier estructura narrativa o dramática: personajes y sus acciones que ocurren en espacio y tiempo determinados. No obstante, estas guías (porque gran parte se constituye como tal) rayan en la vehemente necesidad de citar ejemplos que coartan la creatividad y enmarcan los proyectos cinematográficos a meras imitaciones malogradas.

El problema de estos libros, tipo manual de instrucciones, no recae necesariamente en que objetiven sus esfuerzos en enseñarte a ser guionista fast-track o proporcionarte trucos y tips que le han funcionado a innumerables cintas o guionistas, sino en adentrar insuficientemente en la naturaleza del relato y sus personajes, o peor aún, sin proporcionar las tablas indispensables para comprender la naturaleza del medio cinematográfico y la vinculación estrecha entre una historia que pueda ser atractiva y libre de procedimientos gastados. Está claro que no hay nada nuevo bajo el sol y que no existe ningún libro que suministre al lector o guionista, técnicas innovadoras o fórmulas secretas que garanticen el éxito de un buen relato cinematográfico (como hacen algunos best-sellers de superación personal en otro ámbito), sin embargo, lo que sí es notorio es que los problemas que se derivan del quehacer de quienes escriben historias son muy poco abordados con seriedad o puestos en una mesa de reflexión. Esto último es el objetivo que Daniel Tubau se ha propuesto dilucidar en Las Paradojas del Guionista -Reglas y Excepciones en la Práctica del Guión- (Alba Editorial, Barcelona 2006, 390 pp), que sin intenciones dogmáticas instruye sí sobre la importancia de las técnicas y el conocimiento de corrientes teóricas pero focaliza su atención sobre la importancia de la práctica y los retos que esta implica al sentarse una persona frente a su narración.

Acercarse al libro de Tubau es un verdadero placer que nos invita a descubrir que la responsabilidad de la escritura de guiones depende del rigor con el cual trabajemos día con día para ella, librando infinidad de obstáculos y sin dar concesiones o recurrir a referentes exitosos que limiten su impacto. Desde el primer apartado, El medio audiovisual, esta obra se aleja del dogmatismo que encierra este oficio y con ejemplos curiosos y muy divertidos, reflexionamos sobre las artes audiovisuales y su hábitat natural en lo referente a la ciencia del guión. En la siguiente parte, La estructura del guión, el autor cita a teóricos relevantes que cualquier guionista o aspirante a él debe conocer (Syd Field, Linda Seger, Elliot Grove, Irvin Blaker o Robert McKee) pero enfatizando que su obra busca alejarse de esas teorías magistrales y prefiere ahondar en la excepción de las normas. En el tercer apartado, como todo buen relato de tres tiempos (inicio, desarrollo y fin) Las Paradojas del Guionista profundiza en la práctica del guión y sus tropiezos habituales, como el cómo empezar a escribir, bloqueos y métodos de trabajo, la corrección del guión y una curiosa sección donde, con agudeza e inteligencia, explica el por qué el guionista es su propio enemigo. Para cerrar con broche de oro, el autor incluye un epílogo paradójico que explica la naturaleza del título y sin menoscabar su postura antidogmática, propone una serie de 38 consejos que se sirven como plato fuerte para probar la exquisita labor de escribir para cine y televisión. Devoren pues este vademécum que dicta que Decir que no se deben seguir normas es dar una y que en el cine hay que prometer pero no cumplir.

Texto publicado el domingo 11 de Noviembre de 2007, en la columna semanal de cine Butaca Sinestésica RKO 281, del suplemento de cultura Letras de Cambio, del periódico Cambio de Michoacán.

Obtenido a través de la página La guarida de Betursus

That book is basically a methodical framework for working out your first draft of the film; so for example it will give you a chapter on developing your initial idea and then give you an exercise to do to develop that, then it will explain the importance of plot points and then give you an exercise to do on that. So by the end of the book you have systematically planned all the plot, the characters and so on, written the first, second and third act, and then done a rewrite of it all. The book isn't particularly theory heavy so I don't think you could get away with reading this one book while you write your screenplay and nothing else, but it does keep you on track and gives you a framework to develop within and for that I think its a pretty useful book regardless what level you are at.

As I say, the DVD is essentially exactly the same course, although there are slight variations in the way its taught, it's not like a word for word recount of the book and it uses different example movies ;but at the end of the day its the same basic ideas presented in the same order.

So with this in mind is there really any advantage to getting the DVD over the book? It's hard to say that there is really.

The DVD has this effect of making everything seem more complicated than it is. There's just something about people speaking with lots of jargon words in quick succession that makes it harder to digest than the written form. Even though I'm very familiar with Syd Field's theories I found myself going "huh?" just because he was speaking the theory rather than it being written down.

The DVD also comes across kinda stilted as well since its basically a static shot of Field talking straight to the camera and nothing much else. It cuts away to some really lame graphics and has bullet points appear up on the screen to highlight things he says, but you can't help but think it would be better if he was drawing stuff on a whiteboard or pointing at something. The lack of dynamics really hurts it I think.

Also, I dunno if this is rife in his books as well and I just never picked up on it, but this guy seems to love using really lame metaphors . Like apparently structure is like a game of chess and a screenplay is like a table. And just in general, I was surprised at how badly he explained things. Maybe I just needed some more coffee before I sat down to listen to him?

So in conclusion;

I knew going into this that it would basically be a rehash of one of his other books so I don't know exactly why I am feeling disappointed, but I am feeling disappointed by this. I think it's because not only is this a rehash of a book but it's actually making the information found in that book a lot worse by virtue of the stilted delivery and the fact that DVD ain't the natural format for teaching about writing anyways.

I'm pretty sure no one I know was planning on rushing out to buy this any-time soon, but I know fair number of people will find this review via Google and for those people I recommend you just buy the book instead.

PS. As I learnt in the video Syd Field's number plate is "Plot Pnt". Is that just naff or so naff it's cool?

Update: You can currently get the old version of the book on Amazon MarketPlace for 3p plus P+P! (Though that still doesn't beat me getting What Lie did I tell for 1p last year!)

 Em meio de uma suposta crise de criatividade em Holywood comentada por Syd Field, o YouTube divulgou nesta quarta-feira (03) a criação do primeiro concurso internacional de curtas-metragens, o nome escolhido foi Project Direct. Segundo o site a intenção é descobrir entre os usuários um futuro "Diretor de Cinema".

O objetivo é construir uma narrativa que os elementos básicos descritos na webpage do concurso um roteiro; os curtas deverão ter entre dois e sete minutos de duração, falados em inglês ou legendados.

Internautas do Brasil, Canadá, Espanha, Estados Unidos, França, Itália e Reino Unido poderão enviar seus vídeos de 7 de outubro a 9 de novembro. Os participantes devem ser maiores de idade e morar legalmente em algum destes países.

Referências:

G1 

Hay muchos teóricos de la usabilidad. Desde hace ya varios años, como suele suceder gracias al legendario sentido práctico y al gusto por los negocios de los norteamericanos (EEUU), la usabilidad es una fuente de dinero, gracias a la cual muchos teóricos se han hecho millonarios.

Hacer dinero gracias a la usabilidad no significa que esta disciplina sea mejor o peor, y mi intención no es caer en el habitual argumento demagógico acerca del mercantilismo norteamericano. Lo menciono tan sólo porque considero que este aspecto influye de manera en las teorías de los expertos en usabilidad. Espero mostrarlo más adelante.

El más conocido de los gurús de la usabilidad es Jacob Nielsen. Advierto de nuevo que tampoco utilizo el término gurú con una intención despectiva: en Estados Unidos, ser un gurú es algo equivalente a ser un super experto en algo. Es un calificativo elogioso, aunque tenga un claro matiz irónico, pues, como dice George Steiner, en Estados Unidos, "donde la irreverencia es tan tradicional como la tarta de cerezas" apenas se encuentran "maestros" a la manera de los de la tradición europea, asiática, africana o del resto de América.

De hecho, la palabra maestro referida a un pensador o a un guía intelectual ("master") tiene una connotación casi tan ridícula como gurú.

McLuhan, que era canadiense, fue el gran gurú de la modernidad en Estados Unidos, de lo que él llamaba la Galaxia Marconi, que venía a sustituir a la Galaxia Gutenberg; Syd Field y Robert McKee eran o son gurús de la teoría del guión; Negroponte y Esther Dyson fueron o son gurús del mundo digital.

Conseguir el título de gurú en Estados Unidos, a pesar de la connotación burlona, es el camino más corto al éxito y al dinero, pues junto a esa irreverencia legendaria, que tanto ha influido en el mundo moderno, en Estados Unidos muchísimas personas están dispuestas a comprar las fórmulas de los gurús como quien compra un coche o una casa.

Jacob Nielsen nació en Dinamarca, pero desarrolló su carrera en Estados Unidos, y fue allí donde se convirtió en gurú.

Nielsen fue muy influido por el legendario libro doble de Ted Nelson Computer Lib/Thinking Machines.

Puedes leer un artículo acerca del fascinante Ted Nelson, creador del hiperenlace, que alguien, tal vez yo mismo, publicará en nuestroS antepasadoS.

Los descubrimientos de Nielsen

Así que Nielsen es el gurú de la usabilidad. Un gurú de este estilo comparte ciertas características con los gurús tradicionales de la India: son gente que aparenta saber mucho, pero su conocimiento no procede directamente de lo que llamamos saber académico, sino más bien de su propia experiencia; en el caso de Nielsen, de la observación cuidadosa e inteligente. Un gurú suele señalar algo que estaba a la vista de todos, pero que nadie ha mirado con atención.

Nielsen, por ejemplo, observó que en la impresionante página de venta de la empresa de ordenadores Apple faltaba un pequeño detalle: un botón para comprar aquellos maravillosos productos. Ese es uno de sus grandes descubrimientos.

Puede parecer que se trata de un detalle trivial, pero lo cierto es que los detalles triviales a menudo son muy importantes, como intenté demostrar en mi ensayo: Lo único que importa es lo superfluo.

(Por cierto, da la impresión de que el acento en supérfluo no sería superfluo, sino conveniente, ya que la tendencia natural nos lleva a pronunciar "superfluo" como "superflúo".)

Nielsen no se limitó a descubrir que a Apple le faltaba un botón para vender sus productos. Esa y otras muchas cosas las descubrió mediante uno de los mejores métodos que puede emplear un investigador: la observación.

Nielsen, en efecto, se dedicó a observar no lo que hacían los creadores de páginas web, sino lo que hacían los usuarios que visitaban esas páginas.

De este modo, descubrió que los que querían comprar un producto Apple se volvían locos intentando encontrar una manera de acceder al servicio de ventas, y que quienes entraban en la página por simple curiosidad no veían, como es obvio, un botón de venta que les incitase a plantearse la posibilidad de comprar algo. Pero también descubrió otras cosas, por ejemplo, lo fastidiosas que eran las animaciones realizadas con el programa Flash en una página web. Su conclusión fue que poner contenidos Flash en una página web era en un 99% malo. Eso hizo que la empresa creadora de Flash le contratase como consejero para la próxima versión del producto. Si no puedes vencer a tu enemigo, cómpralo.

Y, en efecto, una semana después de ser contratado por Macromedia, Nielsen escribió un artículo titulado: "Flash, 99% bueno".

¿Quién descubre qué dónde?

Aquí es obligado un nuevo inciso: he leído en una página web que a menudo se dan normas de usabilidad sin mencionar a su creador, Jacob Nielsen. Sin duda es cierto, pero también se da la situación inversa: a menudo se atribuyen a Nielsen descubrimientos que no hizo él.

Puesto que es bueno evitar repetir tópicos, y con ello contribuir a su difusión, advierto desde este momento que las ideas acerca de la usabilidad que voy a mencionar no pertenecen necesariamente a Nielsen.

Sería demasiado arduo, y sin duda excedería mis fuerzas, averiguar en este momento quién fue el primero que dijo tal o cual cosa acerca de la usabilidad. Entre otras razones, porque muchas de estas ideas son de puro sentido común y, en consecuencia, pudieron ser muchos quienes las formularon. Como ya se ha insinuado antes, el mérito del descubrimiento científico casi nunca corresponde a la primera persona que lo pensó, sino a la primera que se detuvo en ello y examino a fondo esa idea, dándose cuenta de lo importante que era (la anterior es una observación que suelo atribuir a Henri Poincaré, pero tal vez me equivoco): así, por ejemplo, el descubridor de la actual teoría de la evolución se apellidaba Darwin, pero no se llama Erasmus, sino Charles. Erasmus pensó en la evolución, pero fue su nieto quien se planteó la idea con seriedad.

Otra característica que comparten los gurús de Estados Unidos y los de la india es que en ambos casos están muy seguros de lo que dicen, suelen hacer listas orales o escritas acerca de lo que se puede hacer o no hacer y hablan de manera extremada pero a mismo tiempo parece estar más allá de lo que dicen.

Los descubrimientos de Nielsen (y de otros expertos en usabilidad)

El método de Nielsen es sencillo. Consiste en sentar a un usuario frente a una página web y observar lo que hace. No hay que indicarle nada, está prohibido cualquier consejo. Que se las apañe como pueda.

Al observar a muchos usuarios dejados a su suerte en Internet, descubrimos varias cosas:

1. Que cuando en una página tienen que hacer más de tres clicks para encontrar lo que buscan, suelen desistir de seguir buscando. O al menos sienten cierta antipatía hacia esa página y la visitan menos.

2. Que si una página tarda más de 30 segundos en cargarse, la abandonan y buscan otra.

3. Con gran rotundidad Nielsen expone que lo habitual es que un usuario no lea con detalle ni siquiera una mínima parte de los textos de una página web. En su lugar, y por economía de tiempo, el usuario se limita a hojear la página por encima. Es decir, el usuario realiza un rápido barrido visual de cada página buscando elementos que llamen su atención.

4. Convienen resaltar palabras mediante negrita y cambios de color o de

tamaño.

En este sentido los hipervínculos actúan como elementos de atracción visual pues se destacan del resto del texto.

5. Listas de elementos con viñetas o numeradas.

6. Estilo de pirámide invertida
La idea principal o conclusión del texto debe escribirse al principio del mismo para lograr interesar al usuario en la lectura del mismo. Después se debe continuar con los razonamientos generales que sustentan el argumento. Para terminar se pueden ofrecer enlaces a otras páginas donde se ofrecen más detalles como tablas de datos, resultados concretos o informaciones previas.

Este tipo de redacción se conoce como el 'estilo de pirámide invertida'. Se trata de una secuenciación completamente opuesta a la utilizada tradicionalmente en los artículos científicos y académicos. De esta manera se asegura que el lector retiene lo más importante de la argumentación aunque no llegue a leer hasta el final del artículo o de la página

7. Brevedad y sencillez
Nielsen recomienda usar menos del 50% del texto usado habitualmente en una publicación escrita. Los usuarios se aburren con los textos largos. Los párrafos deben ser cortos, de dos o tres frases únicamente y muy directos en su estilo.

8. Títulos de sección y titulares breves intercalados (también llamados 'ladillos').

Refutación de Nielsen

El método de Nielsen de la observación es bueno. El lo llama método heurístico, es decir empírico, es decir observacional, y ya lo he descrito antes. Es el mismo método que utilizaba Aristóteles: si queremos saber qué es la valentía, observemos cómo son esas personas a las que llamamos valientes, por ejemplo Alcíbiades de Atenas.

Ahora bien, aunque el método es bueno, es tan sólo un primer paso para otra cosa. Si nos limitamos simplemente a enumerar lo que hace Alcíbiades, tendremos un gran conocimiento de la vida de Alcíbiades y tal vez de su carácter, pero no habremos avanzado demasiado en nuestro conocimiento de qué es la valentía. Tendremos también que comparar el comportamiento de Alcíbiades con el de otras personas consideradas valientes hasta que podamos aislar las características comunes a esos actos llamados "valientes" e intentar averiguar por qué son valientes, y no temerarios o cobardes. Es muy posible que la conclusión que alcancemos sea que la gente se equivoca al llamar valiente a Alcíbiades y que este dirigente griego no era tan valiente, o que no siempre lo era.

Si aplicamos el método de la observación pura a otros terrenos, descubriremos que si entregamos a niños de cinco años los juguetes que hemos fabricado para ellos lo más probable es que los destrocen en poco tiempo. Eso nos llevará a una conclusión correcta: hay ciertos juguetes que no son adecuados para niños de cinco años, por ejemplo aquellos que tienen piezas pequeñas, porque se las pueden tragar. Pero no nos obliga a adoptar la conclusión: "Hay que hacer que todos los juguetes sean adecuados para niños de cinco años".

En efecto, también podemos hacer juguetes para niños de ocho, diez o catorce años. Incluso podemos hacer juguetes para adultos.

Lo mismo se puede decir de la usabilidad.

Descubrir que la mayoría de los usuarios navega la mayor parte del tiempo haciendo tres clics y cambiando de página; que la abandona si tarda más de 20 segundos en cargarse; que sólo se lee las dos primeras líneas de cada cosa, etcétera, no quiere decir que debamos hacer que todos los contenidos de nuestras páginas sean accesibles mediante sólo tres clics; tampoco debe impedirnos hacer una página en la que la espera de 20 segundos o un minuto valga la pena; y, por supuesto, no nos obliga a escribir dos primeras líneas fascinantes y rellenar el resto con texto sobrante (el llamado lorem ipsum).

Como dice un experto web cuyo nombre lamentablemente no recuerdo, aunque todos queremos comer, preferimos hacerlo en un restaurante en vez de en una clínica. La comida de la clínica es perfectamente nutritiva. De hecho, ha sido preparada teniendo en cuenta las necesidades del enfermo, pero, a no ser que estemos enfermos, siempre preferiremos la comida casera o la de un buen restaurante.

Naturalmente, es un incentivo intentar que todo resulte lo más intuitivo y sencillo posible para el visitante. A todos nos gustaría que todo sucediese en un instante, y lo cierto es que el avance técnico dentro de poco permitirá que así sea.

En consecuencia, observar qué hacen los usuarios con las páginas web muchas veces se parece a observar qué hace un niño de tres años con la Crítica de la razón pura de Kant.

Con el agravante, como señala marcóticos en algún lugar de su página web de que el mundo de las páginas webs y los blogs sólo lleva unos cuantos años.

Imaginemos que habría pasado si en el desarrollo de cualquier medio o herramienta nos hubiésemos limitado a observar qué hacían con ella los usuarios: tal vez habríamos descubierto que muchos usaban un libro para equilibrar las patas de una mesa, así que podríamos llegar a la conclusión de que lo mejor era editar los libros completamente en blanco, porque para equilibrar una mesa las letras que contiene un libro no sirven para nada.

Naturalmente todo esto son exageraciones. No pretendo afirmar que los usuarios de páginas web son todos como niños de tres años, o como aquellos que consideran que la mayor utilidad del libro es equilibrar mesas. Pero sí que hay muchas maneras de usar la web y no todas consisten en vender y comprar, ni siquiera en conseguir más navegantes que las páginas rivales. Tampoco el modelo de los blogs es la única manera posible de publicar textos personales en una web.

¿De qué van las webs?

Ahora bien, resulta que los consejos de Nielsen y de los gurús de la usabilidad no se limitan a los aspectos más o menos técnicos, más o menos relacionados con el diseño casi formal o técnico de la página. También se ocupan del contenido. Y también en este aspecto nos piden que hagamos todas nuestras páginas para niños de cinco años.

Nos piden, por ejemplo, que pongamos la conclusión al principio y luego la demostración. Esta es la manera habitual del periodismo: el titular primero, después un breve lid en el que se resume la noticia o se señala el punto considerado más importante y, finalmente, el cuerpo de la noticia. De este modo, nos dicen los periodistas y los expertos en usabilidad, nos aseguramos de que el usuario, aunque no se lea el texto entero, sí se entere de la noticia o conozca al instante la idea que queremos trasmitir.

Javier Sampedro contaba en una entrevista que cuando se convirtió en periodista de temas científicos, lo primero que le enseñaron fue escribir "al revés", es decir, poner al principio la conclusión.

Es un buen consejo, pero ¿es necesario que todas las páginas web sean como periódicos o como almacenes comerciales?

Un titular, el título de una entrada es generalmente informativo, y todos lo utilizamos, a no ser que contemos ya con lectores interesados en lo que contemos sea lo que sea. Esos titulares y lids sirven para que alguien sepa de qué trata el asunto y pueda sentirse interesado en leer el texto, pero se convierte en una pérdida de tiempo, sobre todo para quien lo escribe, si se convierte en lo único que lee el navegante. Se produce de este modo una especie de impaciencia en el lector y una necesidad de ser un brillante resumidor en el creador de la página.

Si observamos a un lector leyendo un libro de filosofía, descubriremos que, por ejemplo, se suele saltar las citas. Si deberíamos hacer caso del lector tipo, los libros de filosofía, de historia, de mitología, sólo serían colecciones de trivialidades, papilla intelectual para mentes perezosas. Afortunadamente existen lectores a los que les interesa seguir con atención las argumentaciones de los autores.

Es obvio que los titulares y los lids sirven para informar rápidamente al visitante o lector de si está allí lo que está buscando, o de si se trata de un tema que le interese. Es un reclamo y un sistema de ordenación del que no podemos prescindir. Pero no es un sustituto de la cosa entera. Quien quiera información rápida o comprar algo, agradecerá estas breves señales, pero quien busque algo más, por ejemplo verdadera información, deberá aprender a no juzgar el todo por la parte, es decir, el texto completo por su resumen.
Lo cierto es que todos nos vamos acostumbrando a leer sólo los titulares, los lids, los resúmenes o las conclusiones, y nos evitamos las demostraciones, las argumentaciones, los desarrollos. Eso hace que la mayoría de la gente hable con una seguridad pasmosa de lo evidente que es esto o lo otro, pero que en realidad no sepan por qué esas cosas son tan evidentes.De todo para todos

Ahora bien, si llevamos la comparación con los periódicos más lejos, descubrimos que en los periódicos no sólo hay noticias. También hay artículos y columnas de opinión, reportajes, e incluso artículos científicos. Un lector puede leer ciertos titulares y no interesarse por lo que viene después, pero también puede detenerse para leer dos páginas de un reportaje.

Por otra parte, los periódicos no son lo único que se imprime en papel. También hay revistas. Algunas revistas se dedican al cotilleo o choluleo, otras a la política, algunas dedican de manera monográfica más de cien páginas a un único tema (recuerdo ahora el excelente monográfico de La Vanguardia dedicado a Irán); incluso hay rigurosas revistas de ciencia, como Scientific American y Nature, y otras dedicadas a la literatura, desde las que se limitan a ser una especie de cotilleo literario, como Qué leer, a otras que examinan a fondo unos cuantos libros, como Libros.

Además, no sólo se imprimen periódicos y revistas en papel. También se imprimen libros.

Los libros a veces contienen cuentos o ensayos breves. Otras veces se trata de novelas, que pueden tener cien páginas o 1500. A veces son tratados científicos o manuales para estudiantes.

En el otro extremo, también, existen otras cosas escritas en papel, como las hojas de publicidad o los fliers de las discotecas.

Todas estas cosas se imprimen en papel. El medio es el mismo y, por ello, quien quiera imprimir algo en papel, ha de adaptarse a las condiciones de ese medio: si imprime letras negras sobre fondo negro, será imposible leer nada; si publica un libro con un tamaño de letra diminuto, los lectores se lo pensarán dos veces antes de comprarlo. Si anuncia una revista de literatura y acaba siendo de cotilleo, algunos lectores se sentirán decepcionados y dejarán de comprarla.

Del mismo modo que hay periódicos, pero también revistas, libros, hojas de publicidad, y de la misma manera que en papel podemos encontrar desde cotilleo a información política, novelas, ensayos y tratados científicos, en una página web puede suceder lo mismo. No todo tiene por qué ser páginas de venta o propaganda, ni blogs en los que uno cuenta cronológicamente sus pequeños accidentes domésticos o sus opiniones tal como se le van ocurriendo sobre la marcha.

Ahora bien, como sucede con el papel, quien escriba para Internet debe tener en cuenta ciertas consideraciones, algunas obligadas, como la de no escribir blanco sobre blanco o negro sobre negro (en una de mis páginas hay, sin embargo, una excepción a esta norma); otras tan sólo recomendables, como respetar los estándares de navegación, por ejemplo, o que los vínculos aparezcan en azul. Precisamente los vínculos son una característica del medio de internet de la que carece el medio impreso y es bueno aprovecharse de ello.

En las Paradojas del guionista dediqué un capítulo a esta cuestión: "El medio es y no es el mensaje". Un conocido lo leyó y me dijo: "Estoy completamente de acuerdo en lo que dices, el medio determina el mensaje". Otro lector me dijo: "Estoy completamente de acuerdo, el medio es lo de menos, lo que importa es el mensaje."

Mi intención no era ni una ni otra; mi intención era que el lector llegase a la conclusión que ya se anticipaba, como en un buen titular periodístico, en el título del capítulo: "El medio es y no es el mensaje".

Si nos quedamos sólo con la primera parte o sólo con la segunda es que no hemos entendido nada.

Por eso, aunque pueda parecer que desprecio las opiniones del gurú de la usabilidad Jakob Nielsen, he de decir, que muy al contrario, las respeto y las estudio con atención. Después decido si quiero aplicarlas o no. En algunos casos me ayudan, pero en otros son inadecuadas para mis intenciones.

Lo cierto es que el propio Jakob Nielsen no aplica algunas de sus propias ideas en su página web, que es, por otra parte, una de las más antipáticas y poco apetecibles que existen desde el punto de vista del diseño y la usabilidad:

"Sitio no todo lo usable que se desearía del que se supone que es el mayor experto en usabilidad. En primer lugar, el excesivo número de enlaces en la página principal, sin ningún índice que ayude a localizar los distintos grupos de enlaces. También se aprecia la excesiva longitud de la página, de unas tres pantallas siendo vista a una resolución de 1024x768. Y cuando se llega al final de la página, sorprendentemente no existe un enlace para volver a la parte superior. Por si esto fuera poco, en los datos de contacto que aparecen en la zona inferior ni siquiera se ha molestado en convertir su dirección de correo electrónico en un enlace que abra directamente nuestro programa de correo. Si accedemos a la sección que recoge los artículos escritos durante los últimos siete años en la columna conocida como Alertbox, podremos observar que aparecen todos amontonados. Realmente están ordenados por fecha, pero esto no queda lo suficientemente claro al aparecer en primer lugar el título del artículo." (David Moner Cano y Jordi Sabaté Alsina, Usabilidad)

Update: The formatting is being weird on this entry. Sorry if it looks weird for you. Blame Wordpress!

Despite appearances, the title of each book is a hyper link.

I've finally pulled myself away from the Christmas junk food long enough to write a new blog entry. Today I want to talk about books. Books are a great thing because for a really small investment of money you can become seriously knowledgeable on a given subject. Don't stump up hundreds to go on a film making course, instead invest that money into shit loads of books. That's what I did and I'm a genius ;-)
Before getting specifically onto screen writing books I first want to talk about two books that I have found helpful during my short lived career as a director which I believe would be of a big help to anyone involved in that side of the industry.

Understanding Movies by Louis D. Giannetti

I consider this book my secret weapon for allowing me to become as knowledgeable about films as quickly as I did, and for a time I wouldn't mention this book to other people for fear that they might also get a copy and know what I know. So what is so special about this book? Well firstly its a film studies book, but a good one! I find most film studies books deal with wishy washy intellectual analysis; or to put it another way, they look for meanings in films that was never consciously put in by the director, only subconsciously. I'm only interested in learning about what a great director does consciously, and in this regard Understanding Movies is a breath of fresh air. I cant recommend this book enough for those wanting an overview of all the tools available to a director to create menaing, everything is covered in this text, from the differences between expressionistic and naturalistic cinema right through to editing styles. The downside of being such an in-depth text like this is it don't come cheap. The book costs about £45 new, but that's not a problem because you can get it for around a fiver second hand if you shop around and at that price its the bargain of the century. Also worth noting is that you don't need the most recent edition. So long as you have a copy that is under 10 years old then it should cover all the modern aspects of film making like CGI and digital work flows.

Grammar of the Film Language by Daniel Arijon

Essentially this text book is a technical break down of camera positioning and blocking. It is the bible on the subject. It goes through just about every possible camera move you could think of, as well as detailing how these different shots would edit together. Everyone knows about not crossing the line, but if you are serious about learning how shots are composed and then cut together then this book is essential reading. Its quite a dry text, and its very hard going at times because of the complex diagrams that you have to visualise as being different shots, but its well worth investing your time in reading it.

OK so now onto the real meat of this blog entry. Screenwriting books!

I am not going to waste my time talking about Screenplay, Story, and The Writers Journey by Field, McKee and Vogler respectively, as these are the 3 basic texts that just about everyone should read. If you haven't then go order a copy of each straight away. You cant say that you are a serious writer until you have read these books. That's not to say that they are the best books in the world, but they are the ones everyone reads and you will be expected to have read them as well!

I instead want to take the time to talk about a few books that are outside of the big hitters but which I have found very helpful in one way or another. Which brings me to another point I wish to make. There is no one book that will tell you everything, I find that each book deals with one aspect of the writing process better than all the others, and its by reading multiple texts that you get insight into writing as a whole. I find that one book might be really good at structure while another one is good with character, while another one again is good at the specific thing of how sub plots should work. Every book has its strengths and its by combining them all that you become a genius.

So what books do I recommend?

Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach by Paul Gulino

I would consider this book one of the lynch pin texts that I use. The sequence approach that the title refers to is basically the idea that a regular film is split into 8 approx 15 minute sequences. Cynics might say that it is basically Syd Field's approach but with each of the 4 chunks split in half, but since I don't have any problems with Fields formula most of the time I don't think its necessarily a bad thing that this text uses a theory that seems similar. In fact it is my experience that whenever you get any other structure guides like the 22 step method for example it is essentially Fields model repacked under a different name so it can be sold by someone else as being an original thing. That said the Sequence Approach does have flexibility that Field's model doesn't, and strangely it has more rigidity at the same time of being more flexible as well, it is just better ok!

Save the Cat!: The Only Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need by Blake Snyder

Snyder's claim to fame is that he is one of the few writers of screenwriting books who has made a living from writing rather than teaching other people how to write, but just how good is he? Well he has sold a few million dollar scripts back in a period of Hollywood history when stupid amounts of money went into bidding wars on scripts. Ironically only one of the bunch of million dollar scripts he sold ever got made and it sucks. That said his book is good or else I wouldn't be talking about it now. Where I think this book has its strong point is in talking about writing with commercial considerations in mind, in fact its too good at it. I was shaking my head at some points in the book about just how cynical he could be in terms of stripping out all the 'art' to make it commercially successful, but don't let this previous statement scare you off, the information is book is essential even if you are writing an art house film. Why? Because it doesn't matter if you writing a blockbuster or a tiny indie movie, in both cases you need to have an idea that will interest people enough that they pay money to see it.

How Not to Write a Screenplay: 101 Common Mistakes Most Screenwriters Make by Denny Martin Flinn

This is a great book on what I call “the technical side of writing”, how to format the page, how to introduce new characters, how to do montages. What makes this a great book though is that its not just a dry formatting book, it goes into everything you might wanna know about the form of screenwriting, like how much description is needed, what are good ways to get vivid descriptions economically and how to avoid ambiguity in your descriptions. There's some really inept examples of what not to do which make this an entertainingly little book. Essentially this book will take care of everything that your screenwriting software wont. Your software will format everything right, but if you dunno how to describe your action in a way that isn't confusing and boring then it doesn't matter how great anything else about about writing is.

Screenwriting: Teach Yourself by Raymond Frensham

Most screenwriting books have naff titles and this is book is no different. To me it makes me think of a “for dummies” style book, but actually this is a great little book which gave me so much information. This book is probably best in terms of structuring your screenplays; how to keep the second act engaging, what's the difference between the second and third acts, stuff like that. Its all laid out really clearly and its full of short chapters. I LOVE short chapters. I love to read on the bus and places like that and some big ass 30 page chapter with no breaks is no help to me when I know I'm gunna be hoping off the bus in 5 minutes. But anyways, the information in this book is great, and this is one of these books that seems to be on ebay on a daily basis for 50p.

Tools of Screenwriting by David Howard

This book is interesting in that it doesn't really talk about big over arching structure as the lynch pin in the way that Field might do but instead spends much of the time talking about the smaller dramatic building blocks that go into creating that larger structure. In particular this book was great in drumming it into me that dramatic irony is the number one tool a writer must understand in order to keep the audience wanting to know what happens next.

Art and Science of Screenwriting by Philip Parker

Phil Parker is great. He devised the course that I learnt much of my knowledge on, and I find his methodologies incredibly helpful. The problem with me recommending this book is that I know that it cant possibly compare to his courses (the MA at the NFTS was devised by him also) but since his methodologies are so helpful I would recommend everyone get what little piece of him that they can. Essentially the centre of his theory is the relationship between the films theme; its genre; and the character's individual stories, especially for the protagonists and antagonists; and how learning how they interact will allow you to maximise your films potential. Its pretty hard going to fully appreciate, but the more I understand it the more confident I am that my scripts “work” and work well.

Writing from the Inside Out: Transforming Your Psychological Blocks to Release the Writer Within by Dennis Palumbo

Want to know how to deal with writing block, procrastination? Want to know how to take rejection in a positive way? Want to learn how to kill your favourite ideas when you know its for the best? Want to learn how to deal with writing terrible drafts and not feeling bad about it? This book has it all and more. I actually bought this book by mistake when I meant to purchase Creative Filmmaking from the Inside Out but man, I'm glad I made the mistake, this book was so helpful in dealing with the mental problems associated with writing. The guy is an ex writer turned shrink and he is full of helpful advice!

I don't pretend to have read everything, but of the bunch of books I have read these are the ones in no particular order, which I found most helpful. If anyone has any recommendation for books of their own, be it writing or other aspects of the film making process then feel free to leave them in the comments section.

Screenwriting theory is a big topic to cover, so where to start?

Firstly I wanna say that I do think that the more theory you learn the better your writing will be, and the quicker you will improve as a writer. Having had the privilege to go on several very informative writing courses I can say without hesitation that I simply could not write or edit scripts to any where approaching the standard I do today had I not learnt the basic of what makes a story work and what doesn't. I was lucky to learn the basics of writing on a course devised by Phil Parker who also did the screenwriting course at the National Film and TV school, and I cant recommend him enough as someone to listen to and learn from. His particular methodologies for assessing what works and what doesn't are some of the best tools a screenwriter can employ in my opinion. But regardless who is teaching you, and who's methodologies you are learning, theory should help you write better stuff and isn't that what everyone wants to do?

I would agree with what McKee writes in his book 'Story'; that people who shun theory by saying it is just a way of creating by-the-numbers, dull works, are doing so in the same way an every teenager shuns to the rules of society around them. They do so, not because these rules are wrong, or need changing, but because they are unsure about their identity as a newly fledged adult (or writer), and trying to move away from the established way of doing things is the easiest way for them to identify themselves as an individual worthy of attention. And just like becoming a mature adult, becoming a mature writer is accepting that things are generally done a certain way because that is the best way to do them.

I do NOT however believe that theory alone will make a good writer, and I think a lot of these people who stump up their £250 to go on a weekend seminar are mostly wasting their money because this is what they secretly hope their money will buy them. They hope to learn the magic formula to turn their crap script into a good one.

(I for one believe that screenwriting seminars, while undeniably helpful just don't represent value for money when you are a struggling writer. You can buy the same guys exact lecture in the form on a book for less than £10 on Amazon, and in many respects a book is better anyways as you can go back to it time and time again.)

I think people should realise that theory above all else is an editing tool. It wont make you come up with ideas that don't stink all of a sudden, but what it will do is tell you when your idea does stink, and tell you specifically why it stinks so that you can do something about it. Once you realise this then theory becomes a wonderful tool, its the thing that keeps you sane.

I have recently written a first draft of a feature film which at the moment sucks. But I'm not worrying that it sucks because I know why it sucks, and exactly what needs to happen to remove the suckyness. The theory wont tell me specifically what I need to write in the second draft, it wont do the work for me; but what it has given me is a map of where I need to make changes. Now its just up to me to use my skill as a creative person to fill in these changes with wonderfully entertaining original stuff, that's the hard part of being a writer, but not nearly as hard as it is stumbling in the dark with no idea what needs changes, while also trying to write the “majestic stuff”.

OK, so now I have gotten what I think of theory out of the way I can talk a little about what the main theory mistake is that I come across.

Firstly I am going to say that I used to make this very same mistake when I first started writing, so I can very much identify with this mistake. But through learning as much as I can I have been able to combat this problem.

What is it?

Basically its the problem of writing a whole bunch of stuff happening rather than a story.

What I mean by this is that a story has story beats - we are introduced to a hero who's life is either perfect or its terrible, but either way something happens to disrupt this world and the character has to go on a journey, either emotionally or physically, and the problems which the hero faces on this journey results in the hero learning something about himself.

The problem comes when inexperienced writers fail to implement these story beats and instead just have a bunch of things happening one after the other. I''ll often read scripts where are the equivalent of this.

1. A character is seen to be bored.
2. For no reason what so ever the character decides to walk to the shops.
3. The character buys a mar bar and then bumps into a friend.
4. The two of them talk about the weather.
5. The protagonist comes home again and eats his Mars bar.

Essentially this is just a bunch of stuff happening. And bunches of stuff do not make for engaging and interesting stories. It could be that instead of talking to a friend about the weather the hero instead talks to a lollipop lady about the football, it wouldn't make any difference because it was just a bunch of stuff happening.

I am forever telling the writers I edit that the problem with their script is that there is no outside force to motivate the character to go on the journey in the first act, or that there isn't any obstacles to them achieving the goal, or that the character has zero growth and learns nothing from his experience, or that the ending is in no way a resolution to the events that came before it. Essentially they have a bunch of stuff happening rather than specific, calculated story beats that work together to create an engaging story.

In the example above with the Mars bar is a really banal situation, but I have read script with really far out there concepts that fall in the same trap. They maybe have a really outlandish journey across outerspace fighting aliens, but the whole first act sets up that they like to go on outlandish journeys every weekend fighting aliens, and as a result they come home again having learned nothing about themselves. That's just not a story, its a bunch of stuff! The stuff happening might be interesting in and of itself, but there needs to be more than that.

I attribute this problem as a failure to understand the basic principles of what makes a story engaging. Namely conflict, and character growth. The sooner a writer can realise that a bunch of stuff happening doesn't make a story the sooner they can write really interesting, engaging scripts.

A note to writers: Even short films need some sort of character growth, even if it is just going from being constipated to not being constipated. You gotta have some change in there!

So how does a writer go about really getting it down and making sense of what is a story rather than a bunch of stuff? Like I have mentioned above, its a case of reading books. Its really that simple; become well read in screenwriting.

I am always really surprised at just how many aspiring writers I meet who have read 1 or 2 books at most. Im even more shocked when they say that all the books are the same so once you have read 1 you have read them all.

I find that that every new book I read I am learning something new, or at very least, I am gaining a better understanding of something I already knew through further examples and a new perspective on the same things. I find some books are great for characters, others are great for plot, some will hit you over the head with one specific point like the use of dramatic irony, or the use of sub plots, but either way I am learning all the time.

I am planning to compile a list of some of the books I have found helpful, not only as a writer, but in other film disciplines as well, in the next few days. So keep an eye on that for some suggestions of which books to look out for.

Then get yourself on Amazon and order a bunch of them and get reading! The sooner you apply what you have read to your work the sooner it will improve. Like I say, knowing theory wont write the script for you, but it will help you identify what works and what doesn't, and since writing IS rewriting, knowing these things are going to help you no end.

But what ever you do, don't write a bunch of stuff, write a story!