A MUSICAL PITCH

This goes back at least five or six years when Jack and I would meet with writers in the backroom of the Take-One Bookstore (long defunct) in Westwood. These were informal, free gatherings where we heard all sorts of stories, met all kinds of people and made some good friends.

In this particular clip, an endearing young woman pitches a rather cryptic musical. It's one of my favorite memories from these sessions. I never saw this woman again and don't know what happened to her screenplay - though I can guess.

THE COLLECTOR

While I was away, I had a baby, shot a documentary and co-produced THE COLLECTOR. The project was developed under the title THE MIDNIGHT MAN. It sold to Dimension and was produced under its auspicies. It was shot in Louisiana in 2008. Later, Mickey Liddell bought the completed film from the Weinsteins. THE COLLECTOR is being distributed on 7/31 via Freestyle Releasing. I blogged about this project in 2006. It's taken four years to see this small movie through to completion. Read about its origins here: http://twoadverbs.blogspot.com/2006/05/midnight-man.html

See the trailer for:

THE COLLECTOR

FADE OUT

It’s been a year since I started blogging.

I don’t get many opportunities to write – which, oddly, creates some guilt. I recently started tracking the amount of “hits” I get a month and was quite surprised to learn that people really do visit this site. Suddenly, a responsibility washed over me, and blogging wasn’t as much fun anymore. It was something I had to do. It became a child I needed to nurture.

But this is Hollywood, where we abandon our children – who grow into self-centered, drug-addicted whores (or, at the very least, "thoughtless little pigs").

And so it is in this spirit that I have decided to abandon THE INSIDE PITCH.

As my professional life heats up, it gets harder and harder to find time to blog, and I need to focus my energies on other projects and prioritize a paltry twenty-four hour day. My journey is offering me new experiences and I want to take advantage of them and – perhaps – return one day with much more to blog about.

Also, I would like to spend a few hours on a Sunday with my wife instead of struggling in front of a computer writing text and downloading pictures. (She's fourteen years my junior and I’d like to take advantage of her youth before we divorce.)

Thanks to this blog, I have connected (and re-connected) with all sorts of people in the most unexpected and gratifying ways. This really is a business of relationships, and this blog has been a sort of matchmaker. Ironically, this past week so many people have come up to me with: “I ddn’t know you had a blog.” “I love your blog.” “My client loves your blog.” It's a bittersweet decision.

I’ll leave the blog up for those who might want to revisit or for newcomers to read. The e-mail address will stay active, and I’ll try to answer some questions as they come in. However, I will be limiting my on-line activity.

Special thanks to Jacinthe of www.twoadverbs.com.

And thank you all for your support and e-mails. Good luck in all your endeavors. Stay on the path, write 2 – 3 scripts a year, reach out, give back, and when your work is rejected or no one will answer your letters or calls, remember - it’s supposed to be hard.

As Ganz & Mandel wrote in A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN (recited by Tom Hanks), “It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great.”

Respectfully,

CL



theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

SACRAMENTO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL

Last Saturday, after my LAVC class, I took a flight out of Burbank to spend the rest of the weekend at the Sacramento International Film Festival.

I’m not a very good traveler and even the shortest trip feels like I’ve been away for years. I’m never very comfortable on a plane; my legs don’t appreciate the cramped quarters and my ears despise the change in altitude. I don’t have a fear of flying, but the various airports seem to exploit the minimal dangers involved.

At Burbank, there is an exhibit dedicated to Amelia Earhart – an odd homage when more successful fliers could be profiled. (This is tantamount to a Charles Lindbergh exhibit in a daycare center.) The fact that Earhart’s ill-fated flight is prominently featured in the airport “terminal” has an ironic sense of foreboding while boarding an aircraft.

The Sacramento Airport is adorned with big posters featuring “The Faces of Global Terrorism,” which provide a rogues gallery of swarthy desperados and potential suicide bombers.

My paranoid eyes were compelled to seek out the possible suspects who might be flying with me. I spied a shifty looking character who resembled El Shukrijumah (on the right side of the collage, sixth photo down under Bin Laden). I was prepared to notify the authorities, but he ended up being a Sicilian from the University of Palermo.

To make travel matters worse, I hate hotels. After seeing a 20/20 episode where some sort of ultraviolet light was used to show hotel bedspreads soaked with saliva, blood, mucus, semen, urine and fecal matter, the first thing I do in any hotel room (even at the Bellagio) is carefully remove everything from the bed that doesn’t reek of bleach. (And I won’t go anywhere without my travel size Luminol.)

The festival put me up at the DELTA KING – an authentic paddleboat converted into a hotel. It’s located at the dock of Old Sacramento – a tourist attraction that pays homage to the California Gold Rush. Since I’m not a big fan of hotels, I prefer new ones. (I’m a fucking nightmare in Europe.) New hotels appear more hygienic and unsullied. Old world charm is atmospheric and beautiful but guarantees all sorts of salacious and unsanitary history. However, I didn’t travel to Sacramento to spend any time in the hotel room; there was lots to see and do.

Film festivals are always fun – especially if you avoid the films. Recently, at ICM, I brought in Geoff Gilmore, Co-director of the Sundance Film Festival, to speak to the trainees, and it was a very interesting glimpse into how the world of a film festival operates year round. Although Geoff was nowhere near Sacramento last weekend, Martin Anaya, founder of the Sacramento International Film Festival, takes on similar duties.

Resembling a hybrid of Larry Flynt and Peter Lorre, the passionate but plegmatic Anaya champions up-and-coming writers/filmmakers in the NorCal area, providing all sorts of educational and professional opportunities to those in the cinema arts.

The festival is a not-for-profit arts organization with year round activities, culminating in the weekend event each spring. Anaya’s hands-on approach is to bridge the gap between Northern and Southern California and provide more filmmaking experiences for artists north of San Francisco. This year, the fest was home to over 80 films, and although it's relatively small and lacks the clout of Sundance or even the bacchanalia of Austin, it's only in its third year, and Anaya is determined to make it a contender – especially since its home is the state’s capital.

The 2007 big attraction was SPECIAL, a film directed by Hal Haberman and Jeremy Passmore and starring Michael Rapaport as a man whose medication leads him to believe he has super powers. The film won the Special Jury Award. The Outstanding Film Award went to THE ELEPHANT KING directed by Seth Grossman and produced by Emmanual Michael.

The festival also devotes screenings to non-fiction films discussing environmental issues via its VISIONS program. Films this year included DISCOVER HETCH HETCHY, narrated by Harrison Ford, that tells the tragic story of Yosemite Valley's “lost twin” - a magnificent valley that was dammed and flooded under 300 feet of water for use as a reservoir, and HOW CUBA SURVIVED PEAK OIL, which won the festival’s award for Best Documentary.

However, it was probably the 48 HOUR FILM FESTIVAL which drew the largest crowd. This sort of event is popping up all over festivals now. It is a competition where groups of filmmakers make a short film in two days.

Sixteen ten-minute films were entered in this competition – all of which were screened at the CREST - Sacramento’s last picture palace, an art deco theater which opened in 1948 after completely remodeling its predecessor, the Hippodrome.

I judged the 48 HOUR FILM FESTIVAL (which only took about three hours) along with two lovely ladies. I was joined by local casting director Sally Forcier and story editor Donie A. Nelson. While some of the films suffered from the lack of production time, a few rose to the challenge. To even out the competition, each group chose a genre from a hat, and each film had to feature a Sacramento location, a flag, the name “Stella Starlight” and the line of dialogue, “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy,” which was lifted from STAR WARS.

The winning short was MERCY, a story about a terminally ill woman and her husband who torture a man to motivate him into killing them both. Filmmakers Erik Espera and Ryan Todd chose the genre “romance” out of the hat and thought it presented all sorts of possibilities. Leaning toward the darker side of the genre (like ROMEO AND JULIET), the group started brainstorming immediately. However, with too many Indians (and not enough chiefs), Ryan took over the writing duties and completed the script at 4am Saturday morning, only to lose it all in a computer mishap. Having to rewrite it from memory, the team hastened the filmmaking process by using two directors and two cinematographers. The film was edited while the movie was still in production.

The team incorporated the campy line from STAR WARS in a clever, unobtrusive way. They went to the local CW affiliate and shot the popular anchor reading a phony news story, using the Obi-Wan Kenobi quote. The footage was shown on a TV set in the background of a convenience store.

The cast features Jason Bortz, Christina Marie, Brian Rife and Gary Amato. Bortz gave the best performance of all entries, which helped bolster the good production values and contribute to the win.

Other entries included HELL MARY, BLACK WIDOW and BLACKOUT, which was directed by Brandon Slazas and would have taken second place had there been a prize.

All those involved agreed that making a movie within a weekend is an amazing challenge and a great learning experience. Interested filmmakers should be on the lookout for local fests that might have similar competitions or even consider organizing one.

As always, I met with a group of writers to hear pitches and give feedback at the 24th Street Theater. It was a two-and-a-half hour session that included talking about concepts, story construction, marketability and the business in general.

Donie Nelson, former head of the legendary MGM Story Department, helped out and it was fun to hear her take. Afterwards, a group remained and we chatted for over an hour. One ardent filmmaker pitched a story of Cyrus the Great. In the vein of BRAVEHEART, it had some potential. Of course, I told him those sorts of stories are often developed within the studio and are usually a very tough spec sell. But he noted the difference between his epic and its predecessors: His story is a musical. To prove this, he presented a “sizzle reel,” which cost $20,000 to produce and featured a fully orchestrated musical score with singing and dancing. Think more in the tradition of Tazieh, not Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Despite my overall discomfort with traveling, I enjoy meeting new people and chatting about filmmaking and the creative process, and film festivals are a great place to discover and inspire new talent. I always have a wonderful time in Sacramento thanks to Marty and all the hospitable filmmakers. For those in the NorCal area, who don't get a chance to visit Los Angeles, perhaps we can rendezvous at the Crest next spring.

_______________________________________________

For more information visit: http://www.ncwfonline.org/

AN OUTSIDER COMES INSIDE

Continuing to play hooky from my blogging duties, I offer up an entry by Terrence Loose.

Terry is an MFA student in screenwriting at UCLA, who served as an intern in our Story Department doing clerical work and reading screenplays. Terry was recommended to me by my previous intern.

When I first met him, I was rather shocked. He looks more like a surfer dude than a pasty faced screenwriter who rarely ventures outdoors. He has a quiet demeanor - almost genteel (a rare trait in Hollywood) - and took his assignment seriously. He was a great help during the turbulent time of our move from Beverly Hills to Century City.

As part of the Film/TV 498 Professional Intern Class at UCLA, Terry was asked to write up an overview of his experience at the agency.

He has kindly allowed me to publish it here. I think it's interesting to see the learning curve of a writing student who takes that real life plunge from the staus quo of act one (school) into the dangerous and turbulent journey of act two (a talent agency).

This is his story.

_______________________________________________


I went to International Creative Management (ICM), one of the three biggest and busiest agencies for talent in Hollywood, to cover, or read and evaluate, scripts as an intern – a lower position than the guy who pushes the mop in the men’s room.

As such, I fully expected to be dropped into a scene from Swimming With Sharks. I pictured a Kevin Spacey-like character throwing volume 10 tirades – and coffee cups – at cowering, confused assistants. And me.

But that’s not what I encountered. In fact, while everyone at ICM is buzzing with energy, drinks much too much coffee, sees much too little sunlight and, except for the mail boy and janitor, wears a telephone headset, they are also very nice.

Now, you may be asking, “Why is this guy talking about manners in a graduate paper supposedly focused on his learning experience?” Here’s why. Because it represents the one thing that I learned week after week at the agency: Sure, some of the stereotypes about agents might be dead-on, but on a whole, they are pretty much just like the rest of us. They’re doing a stressful job, actually do care if people like and accept them, and generally want to help other people achieve their goals. And if there’s a buck in it for them, all the better.

My direct supervisor, Christopher Lockhart, Executive Story Editor, who oversees the Story Department, is a prime example. The Story Department at ICM is where all scripts and books go to be “covered.” Coverage is done by one of a dozen freelance readers, who read the submitted script or book, write a one-page synopsis of the plot, followed by a one-page commentary on its strengths and flaws. Their coverage also includes a brief logline – what the story’s about in two or three sentences (and as I would discover first-hand, on poorly written scripts this is often the hardest three sentences to write) – brief character breakdowns and the completion of the “idiot chart,” as it is known by people who will remain nameless. The idiot chart is another very difficult section to fill out, mostly because when covering an average or below average piece of work, the reader feels that he or she is putting an end to the script’s chances at development and/or the writer’s career, at least for the time being. At least, that’s how I felt: as though I was in an un-deserved God-like position of judgment.

As I mentioned, coverage is done on lots of literature that comes through the mailroom at ICM. It could be submitted by writers who are seeking representation (but have been recommended), by production companies hoping to interest talent and even by studios. The Story Department legitimately seeks a way to judge whether a project or its writer has potential to earn the agency 10% of significant dollars. And like throughout the entire industry, most of the time, the results are disappointing.

This is because of one of the few clichés that holds true: Everyone in Hollywood is predisposed to say no, even readers. As one writer quipped, “The job description for a studio development executive reads, ‘Just say no today.’” This is because saying yes is a risk and no one in Hollywood, no matter what they tell you over your double decaf soy latte, likes risk, because deep down they know that every aspect of their industry is based on risk. There are simply no certainties in a business that deals in subjective art.

In reader terms, a no is a “Pass” on the idiot grid, which sports a section where a project or writer can receive a “Recommend” (rarer than a flying pig), a “Consider” (think white rhino… in L.A.), or “Pass” (commonality equal to waiter/screenwriter).

As an illustration of just how genuinely frightened people in the industry are to say yes, and also why I expected to be profoundly condescended to, if not physically and psychologically abused, I relay a story from a fellow intern reader, also a UCLA MFA student in Screenwriting (we’ll call him Ross).

Ross went to one of the three top agencies, not ICM, for the same purposes as I: to read and cover scripts. In his initial interview, the interviewer (we’ll call him John) approached him with a deadly serious air. “Welcome to the kingdom, where all great things happen,” John said, gesturing to the Story Department. “But there are risks, always risks. This is why you are here. You are my official food taster. You are here so I don’t get poisoned and die.” He went on to explain that there are two kinds of scripts: steaming piles of feces that need to be shown the working end of a toilet, and cherry pies. They were looking for that one cherry pie in the mountains of feces that come through the agency every day.

But there was a catch: The reader could not be trusted to detect a cherry pie from a steaming pile of feces. And worse, the ramifications of being wrong were worse than dire. “Let’s say you come to me and say, ‘I found a cherry pie!’” John explained. “I will then run down the hall to my boss with my hair on fire yelling that I have a cherry pie. He will then run down the hall with his hair on fire to his boss. Soon, everyone is running around with their hair on fire about this wonderful cherry pie that I discovered. Then, in a flash of putrid realization, we see that it is not a cherry pie, but in fact, a steaming pile of feces. And do you know what happens then?” Ross just shook his head, no. “I get fired, that’s what. So don’t find any cherry pies.” John then gave Ross a script to take home and cover, as a test. Ross agonized over the coverage. He really liked the script and the writing but was petrified to tell John that he had found a cherry pie, even though this was just a test. So he wrote bad coverage, giving the script and the writer a pass, and sent it to John.

A few days later John called. “That’s Will Ferrell’s next movie. You fail.” Click.

The script was Stranger Than Fiction by Zach Helm, one of the most respected spec scripts and new voices in the last few years.

Ross had relayed this story to me before my first day at ICM, so when Christopher gave me a script to cover as a sample before I even began my internship, I was understandably worried. The script was a comedy, and I didn’t think much of it or the writing. It was not terrible, but wasn’t anything I could honestly recommend. So I tried to offer balanced, constructive criticism, basically mirroring what we do in Screenwriting 434 classes for fellow students. I complimented the things that worked – building tension, simple structure, clarity of plot – and respectfully took issue with the things that didn’t – lack of humor, stilted dialog, confusing stakes. But, in all honesty, I did write one un-called for line, the final thought in my coverage, which was a stab at sarcastic humor using the script’s own concept to take a potshot at it.

I emailed my coverage to Christopher and went to ICM the next morning at 10:30 a.m. He was not there, but I was greeted by his second-in-command, Ana. She explained that Christopher wouldn’t be in till noon. Then she told me the news that had me quaking for the next hour. The script I had unfavorably reviewed and even poked fun at in my final line of coverage was actually Christopher’s pet project. Ironically, the script had placed very high in a screenwriting contest – a contest in which I had failed to get past the first round. Christopher had passed the script to Julie Richardson, the producer of Collateral, a movie I love – and she optioned it. They were actively developing the script.

When Christopher arrived at noon, he called me into his office. He held my coverage and asked me to sit down. I contemplated running instead. “So I read your coverage,” he said. I steeled myself for a stapler or paperweight assault. But none came. “It was well done,” he said. “I really appreciated how fair you were and how, while you obviously didn’t care for the script, your comments weren’t condescending or mean-spirited.” I almost asked if he had read the entire document, then figured it really wasn’t a great career move to point out that sarcastic final line.

For the next 30 minutes, Christopher went through my coverage line by line, pointing out things I had done well and respectfully criticizing areas in which I could have done better. He even commented on that final line. “I think it’s great to get a little creative, to put a little of your writing style in,” he said. Overall, he was more than generous and ultimately very helpful.

And it was Christopher’s generosity that led to my greatest learning experience during the ten-week internship. He invited me to sit in on the “Trainee Lunch,” a once-a-week luncheon in which the dozens of participants in ICM’s Agent Trainee Program – a three-year stint designed to find and groom aspiring agents – study various aspects of the business, listen to speakers or participate in all kinds of mock sessions from negotiating to development. As further evidence of his altruistic nature, Christopher oversees this program despite it not being part of his job description.

This week’s meeting was special however, as Ms. Richardson herself was coming, not as a speaker, but as a potential client. Weeks before, the agent trainees had divided into six groups of three to five, each group consisting of people from different aspects of the agency– literary, finance, talent, and so on. Their assignment was to read the very script I passed on and offer casting suggestions (using clients) and a plan for bringing the project to market, everything from acquiring production money to product tie-ins and target-audience suggestions.

This was a pretty big deal and on my first day Christopher invited me to the lunch and sat me up front next to himself and Ms. Richardson. “Don’t say anything and look important,” he said as we entered. “Everybody’ll think your some big producer.” Not exactly what I want everyone to think about me, but hey, it was a free lunch and a chance at some “reality theater.”

And at the start, that's what I thought about it. I had a front row seat at the theater. But the next hour would prove me wrong and naïve in so many ways about everything from the value of a commercial idea and its relationship – or lack there of – to a well-written script; the value of a well-written script and its relationship – or lack thereof – to its marketability; and to how an agent goes about attracting various elements to a project so that it has even the slightest chance of going forward.

First, every team commented on the need for major rewriting. A common remark was the script, in its current form, “would never attract an A-list director or A-list cast.” But rather than send it back to the original writer – whose name never even came up – each team had ideas of who could do the job. It was a true wake-up call for a student to hear what goes on behind closed doors. But I got the distinct impression that for these Agent Trainees, it was a sincere and serious process.

I saw that while most people feel comfortable talking about business and “high-concept” and star roles, writing is a mysterious subject, one that is so subjective it’s safe ground: There is no logical debate and therefore the critical party has no vulnerability to defeat (see “saying no” paragraph above).

Though the writing was not up to anyone’s standards, the idea appealed across the board – or at least they said it did. All agreed that this had the potential to reach a wide market. Groups from the tie-in angle had big plans for brands (although Ms. Richardson had her doubts since much of the script is subversive and unflattering to industry it portrays). One group mentioned the probable and very lucrative interest MTV would have for the project, and used it to form its presentation. Others commented on the various states’ tax breaks for shooting in their towns – the project was very attractive due to the fact it could be shot virtually anywhere and on a low budget. Still others posited the different foreign distribution deals that could garner money even before production began (though again Ms. Richardson was doubtful since she saw it as a very American movie).

By the end of the lunch, I saw why a movie is truly a collaborative effort – even before shooting begins. In the case of this script, the story and characters were but a fraction of the discussion. It was the concept everyone was forming, selling, marketing, and when the script was mentioned, re-writes and other writers were the suggestions. Suddenly, I felt very guilty about my sarcastic remark in the coverage.

This was a great day that summed up the rest of my time at ICM. My internship goals were to see first-hand what I was up against in the professional industry by reading scripts that were being considered by Hollywood’s professional community. I chose ICM specifically because I would never be able to get a script past the security guard without first gaining representation, which is why I wanted to get a script past the security guard.

After reading a number of scripts, I was both hopeful and defeated. I was hopeful because I found many of scripts that made it past the ICM threshold were really not very good. They were boring, convoluted, wooden and shallow. Average was truly the norm. I have read much better scripts written by fellow classmates.

I had, of course, heard the stories about how bad the majority of scripts out there were, but something in me – maybe a writer’s defense mechanism – wouldn’t allow me to believe it. Now I did. And that gave me hope. “I can compete with these guys,” I thought. But at the same time it was fairly defeating. Sure, I may be able to write as well as these guys, and their scripts and careers will likely go nowhere, but how does that help me? In other words, I still can’t get past security. And, judging from the material, it takes some mysterious combination of knowing people, luck, tequila… whatever... to merely get a pass from a reader blazing through your work to make $50.

And it wasn’t that I loathed the readers either. Their “lack of respect for the writer” was another Hollywood cliché that turned out true – at least partially. Many readers are writers, and they simply have no patience for other screenwriters who do not follow the “rules” of Hollywood scriptwriting.

And I found myself doing the same things when I did coverage. First, I would check the length and instantly become wary of anything longer than 110 pages. Next, I’d check the amount of white space. A lot of ink spelled trouble – statistics showed that it was probably overwritten. I also became accustomed to regularly skipping narrative. If the writer was good, I either wanted to or had to read all the stage direction, but poor writers or writers who overwrote lost my patience fast and I would merely read the dialogue. Finally, if the writer didn’t hook me by page 10, trouble was nigh. (This one, by the way, I have believed in for a long time. Consider a novel, which is normally 300 pages. Ten percent of 300 is 30 pages (equal to 10 pages of a 100 page script). When is the last time you read the first 30 pages of a novel, said to yourself, “I don’t know who the main character is or what the story’s about, but I’m going to give this guy 30 more pages”?)

I should mention that it did not take days and piles of bad scripts for this change to come about. I morphed into the classic Hollywood reader within hours. And to be fair, it was only logical. In addition to graduate school, I have a job as a magazine writer, a four-year-old daughter and wife, commute from Orange County, and my own bad scripts to overwrite.

So I just didn’t have time to indulge the whims of a writer who didn’t respect my time. Again, it was a true education on how to write scripts that have any chance of moving “upstairs.”

Overall, I really enjoyed my time at ICM, so much so that I am probably going to continue reading for them on a semi-regular basis. I found that it is a cutthroat industry and not always – or almost never – perfect or a refuge for higher art. But I also found the agency's people to be dedicated, passionate, and truly helpful to those they respect.

Yes, the Hollywood clichés are true, but there are enough exceptions to keep the dream alive.

_______________________________________________

Visit Terry's website at www.tloose.com

WET T-SHIRT CONTEST

The following has nothing to do with wet t-shirts. This entry is actually about screenwriting contests - a subject with little marquee value.

One of the most popular category of questions that I find in my e-mail box is about screenwriting contests.

As I say over and over, I believe that most are a waste of energy and entry fee. Some - like the Nicholl and Disney Fellowships - are very reputable and have launched a few Hollywood careers.

Regardless of how reputable any contest might be, the screening process for most seems tenuous. Low fees for contest readers and a bulk of scripts guarantees a sloppy vetting system.

Recently, Scriptapolooza sent me a nice letter asking if I would read for their contest. Late last year, I judged the BIG BREAK! FINAL DRAFT SCREENWRITING CONTEST and found it to be a painless (even rewarding) experience.

Of course, I was only reading the ten finalists.

Scriptapolooza was prepared to send me a pile that could have weighed in at eighty scripts! I promptly declined.

The contest was targeting executives, agents and managers to read big piles of scripts - with permission to snatch up any great screenplay they discovered in the process. To the inexperienced, that is a Siren song, since it seems credible that most of those scripts will be wretched.

This leads me to believe that a busy executive isn't going to read scores of bad contests scripts from beginning to end. As a result, most will be tossed aside quickly. Now, in the real world of Hollywood, that's common practice.

But a writer isn't shelling out fifty bucks to William Morris or a studio to judge his work. Is it fair that a writer pay a contest entry fee and have his script tossed aside by page ten?

Of the ten finalist scripts from the BIG BREAK! CONTEST, I thought only about half were good enough to be there. Were all the other entries so bad that these mediocre scripts slipped through into finalist slots? Or is the reading process for screenwriting contests flawed?

We've all heard the countless stories of scripts that couldn't even place in some big contest yet went on to sell for six figures.

And then there's the bad buzz that often surrounds a contest winning screenplay. After all, the competition in a contest doesn't come close to the competition the same script faces in the real contest of everyday Hollywood. As a result, the industry doesn't greet the winner with the same sort of fanfare it received at the award's banquet a month earlier.

I have a friend who reads scripts for most of the big contests in town. A while back he wrote an article for twoadverbs.com, and I recently asked him to update it so I might dodge my blogging duties thanks to the class I'm teaching at L.A. Valley College.

Below is Johnny Rude's methods of reading scripts for screenwriting contests. He might be a dick, but it's an honest look at how - at least - one reader does it.

_____________________________________________________


How does anyone win a screenwriting contest? How does the system work in a city where rules are meant to be broken? Follow these Nine Simple Rules and you’ll be well on your way to attaining your own brand of star power. It honestly isn’t all that hard.

I am a script reader who has digested thousands of screenplays. In that time, less than forty of those stories have made a positive, lasting impression. Depending on what contest you’re entering, I am your judge and jury. I am the gatekeeper that stands between you and the prize. I decide if your script is worthy, if your name will be smattered across a full-page ad in Variety. Bring your A-Game, dazzle me, and give me better than your best.

I’m not a steroid enhanced doorman donning expensive sunglasses and a strange haircut at an exclusive night club. I want to unclip the velvet rope and let you in. I am on your side.

But never, ever, ever waste my time. The consequences for your inability to follow a few simple guidelines are deafening silence. You could fail, and never know why your work was thrown into an insatiable garbage pail. Actually, that’s not true. I recycle.

My wrath will be unleashed if you fail to ignore my Nine Simple Rules. The rules are here for a few simple reasons – they work because they are a foundation to successful storytelling.

Reading for Talent Agencies:

This is where I started. The process is different from contests. Creating reports or “coverage” of a script is a one-on-one deal. I’m paid to write a critique of the script at hand.

The dirty reality: Most agents don’t read scripts themselves, they only read the coverage. Would you rather have your agent spending eighty hours a week reading scripts, or working the phones trying to get you a deal? Right or wrong, your opinion doesn’t matter. This is how the system works.

Reading for Contests:

In many ways, this method is more brutal on the writer.

I am comparing your work against other scripts.

How does the reading system work?

Do I soak in a hot bath and eat chocolates while I gaze in wonderment at the script cradled in my hands? Do I relish every word, paying attention to the meticulous detail hand crafted into each page? Do I re-read the script to make sure that I comprehended every nuance, every arc, and every setback?

No.

You’ve got fifteen pages to grab me, before your work is dumped.

It’s not all that bad. Remember what I said: I recycle.

I’ve heard all the curses and moans before. “I paid a fifty dollar entrance fee; you’re being paid to read the entire screenplay.”

False.

Look to what I said above, it was even italicized for your convenience.

I am comparing your work against other scripts.

I am being paid to find the top three scripts out of one hundred.

RULE NUMBER 1: Understand what you are submitting your script for.

This is a contest, not coverage. You are competing, not seeking feedback.

This is a big deal. Once you get it, you’re well on your way to understanding what is expected of you. More importantly, you recognize the reader’s mindset.

I never know the writer’s name. Sometimes I don’t even have a title for the script. There’s only a code number to reference. My job is to give a cold, logical appraisal of your work.

THE PROCESS: PHASE I

I pick up each script and before I really start reading it, this is what I look for. It’s like perusing a novel at a book store; this is my initial test drive.

RULE NUMBER 2: Know and obey the formatting rules.

Any font other than 12-point courier will usually get your script thrown out of the first round. Use oversized paper, a binding method other than two brads in three-hole punch paper, or some sort of clear plastic covers and you will be ousted.

Why so rigid on formatting rules?

After reading countless scripts, a reader’s eyes are used to seeing Courier 12-point, just as your eyes get used to a certain font style when reading a book. Plastic bindings don’t allow us to flip to the next page easily. Plastic covers just get in the way and serve no purpose. Oversized pages make the script big and too bulky to handle.

Ask yourself this question, do you want to make my job easy or hard? Work with me, not against me.

While we’re on the subject, no cast lists of potential actors to play the roles and no suggested movie poster designs on the cover page.

RULE NUMBER 3: Watch your page count.

I flip to the very last page. Is it over ninety pages, but fewer than one hundred and twenty? Any less than that, you have a treatment. If you run over that amount, your scenes are too long, your story too complex for your writing skills and you have more characters running around than you need.

RULE NUMBER 4: Keep your description appropriate.

As I’m skimming through the pages, I’m looking at random words under the description. I don’t want to read about azure skies and limpid pools of pure water. Do you have a fifteen-line paragraph of wordy redundancy? I’ve read my share of scripts with five pages of dense text. It’s great for a novel, death for a screenplay.

Why am I so firm with these rules?

To get an understanding of how big my pile of scripts is, let’s say the average screenplay is one hundred pages long. That equals ten thousand sheets, which is twenty reams of paper.

Pretend each script is one used car on a big parking lot. From a distance everything looks fine. Up close there are dings in the hood, another car has a flat tire, and several of them have smashed windshields. Right from the beginning, I’m not even going to give them another look, because there are so many more intact vehicles for me to choose from.

All is not lost. No matter how you performed during the first set of rules, I will now proceed to read your script. But if you already have a few demerits, I’ll be looking for any reason to toss your script.

I always read the first ten pages. Here’s what I’m looking for:

RULE NUMBER 5: Have a universal story.

There needs to be something in your message that everyone can lose themselves in. One reason why “Star Wars” was so successful is it's the classic good versus evil journey.

Simple done well is better than complex done poorly.

RULE NUMBER 6: Who is the main character?

Sounds basic, doesn’t it? But what does your protagonist stand for? I’ve read entire scripts where the main character reacts to events around them. They stand for nothing, nor do they have any purpose to their journey. In reference to “Star Wars”, everyone has been Luke Skywalker who wants to run off and make something of their lives, instead of working on the farm.

How can anyone decide all of that in ten pages? That translates into ten minutes of screen time. Who doesn’t make up their mind in that short period of time? If you’re not engaged in ten minutes, you pop out the DVD or switch to another channel.

I’m not expecting all my questions to have answers. I want there to be something engaging in what I’ve seen. A character I want to know more about, good dialogue exchange, and an interesting setting.

Sampling

Assume those ten pages has been a smooth ride, and I’m engaged in your story. That’s good for you. I then flip through the script and read one or two scenes at random.

I want to be sure that your opening wasn’t all that you have in your writing abilities. I’m sampling the rest of your script and asking myself:

Do the scenes appear complete?
Does something happen or is the writing just filler?
Is the description crisp and to the point?
Does the dialogue flow, creating an engaging exchange?

At this point, I don’t care as much about the story as I do about your knowledge of writing. Do you understand the craft?

First Cut

I may go through ten scripts that don’t meet these minimum standards. Then the eleventh may have all the elements which grabs my attention.

These are the writers that trust I know how to read a script. Nothing is rammed down my throat, nor do I feel they are wasting my time.

These are the scripts that make it to the next round.

I go through each of these one hundred scripts using this process. By the end of the first cut, I usually have between fifteen and twenty scripts left. For the others, t here’s no final reprieve from the governor, nothing can save them from their fate. Four out of the original five scripts are hauled out to the blue recycling bin. All because they didn’t follow Six out of the Nine Rules to Win a Screenwriting Contest.

THE PROCESS: PHASE II

If your script made it this far, you’ve done well. But there are still quite a few scripts left, and only one can be the winner.

I really delve into the scripts in front of me, taking one at random and reading it from page one.

Do you have what it takes to close the deal?

RULE NUMBER 7: Develop your character.

It’s one thing to have a good character, but can you successfully send them on a hero’s journey? Do you have a believable conflict? Does the story ebb and flow from success to setback?

Far too many stories take an interesting character and have them do almost nothing throughout the entire script. It’s not enough that the protagonist react to the events around him. His reactions need to shape his journey and achieving his goals.

I need to empathize with the character; weep when they are injured and throw my fist in the air when they succeed.

If any of this seems foreign to you, then buy a good book on story structure so you can understand and implement these features.

I stop reading, and dog ear the page at the end of the First Act break. This is usually around page thirty.

Three Questions I ask myself.

Do I want to keep reading?
Do I care about the character?
Is the dialogue engaging?

If I answer “yes” to all three, you could very well be in the top three scripts.

If I answer “no” to one or more, the script isn’t necessarily out of the running. But this is where the cruel game begins.

Like Olympic Downhill Skiing, the first person to finish the race is – by default – the Gold Medal Winner. That is, until the other racers finish their runs.

As I read the other scripts to the end of the First Act, I continue my culling process. By the time I’m done, I have five to seven scripts remaining.

A common complaint is, “If you just keep reading, it’ll get better.” This brings me to:

RULE NUMBER 8: Make it better from the beginning.

If the other scripts have kept me engaged from page one through page thirty, why hasn’t your screenplay? There is a one hundred and twenty page ceiling on your story, there’s not one scene, nor a single line of dialogue that can be wasted.

My job is to find the diamond in the rough. This is the process I’ve created from reading many scripts.

I’m not out to make anyone’s life miserable. I want to read a great story. I want to be moved, entertained and dazzled. I’m giving you my full attention, and you’ve gotten me this far. Don’t ruin your chance to win it all.

THE PROCESS: PHASE III

This is it, the final read through. I’m out to see if your mastery of the twenty-six letters of the alphabet, melded into a collection of seemingly random words, is entertainment. It doesn’t have to be art, just a fun ride.

I pick up a script at random and begin from where I last left off. If I put the script down more than twice out of boredom, it’s usually finished.

How can your script make it to the winner’s circle?

That brings us to the final rule.

RULE NUMBER 9: Be precise and concise.

Each scene has to move the protagonist forward or backward. Don’t let the scenes start too early, and cut them off before they go on for too long. If our character is meeting someone at a restaurant, we probably don’t need to see them dropping off their car at the valet, and we don’t need to see them ordering food.

Figure out what you are trying to accomplish in each scene. Once your information is presented, go onto another scene. Make them tight, bright and to the point.

Do not ram a point home. If a murder weapon is an eight-inch knife, tell us once. We don’t need to be reminded again and again.

The best scripts are the one’s I’ve read the quickest. I’ve slogged through a few ninety-page scripts in three hours. I’ve joyfully cruised through one hundred and twenty page scripts in less than an hour.

A well written script will have the reader flipping through the pages at a breakneck pace. The description is enough to give a loose framework of the scene without going into camera angles and poetic prose.

A good writer allows the dialogue to propel the story forward in a manner that allows the reader to lose themselves in the exchanges. There are no rambling monologues or useless introductions between characters that slow the pace.

The good scripts have the reader arriving at the back cover far too quickly.

With the best screenplays, I always say, "It was so good, I could see the movie poster."

____________________________________________________


Send questions and comments to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

MAILROOM #12

Recently, you were discussing Sherwood Oaks College as a path for honest industry access to agents, etc.... How about the Concept to Sale Conference and Pitchfest in February at The Hyatt by Fade In? They already have my $300, but now that they sent the actual list of attendees for the pitching this weekend -- there are not as many agencies as advertised on their website, only 4 if you count one that's a law firm too, and for the big agencies... nada. (This is out of the listed 62, mainly production co's). Fade In's guy told me over the phone today that more (possibly bigger?) parties might commit at the last minute with definite names. In your experience, do the major and even medium agencies attend? And do they send decision-makers/seasoned pros with savvy, or the assistant's intern to listen to pitches for college credit?

I myself heard writers gripe about seeing listed "buyers" lining up to collect some small paycheck after they were done hearing their pitches at The Screenwriters Expo downtown a couple years ago. In a sense, writers are paying for pitching when they pay $300 for these things, but should the industry rep get paid? I wish their company would pay them because it is their weekend (or a nice love candle or box of pears anyone?), but I'm hoping they don't look for checks at Fade In and just good ideas from motivated writers, who yes... have to pay for such access before showing their goods. I'd be more optimistic about posing queries by mail except for one blunt, quite honest agent telling her audience that the ripping sound she hears every morning in her office is that of her assistants destroying unsolicited query letters.

Oh yes, Fade In's phone guy pointed out that big agencies --- ICM, Endeavor, UTA, and William Morris -- will be in the Q&A panel Saturday. Sounds great, I don't know if that means you from ICM, but do you know if it means each agency will absolutely send reps to hear writers at Sunday's pitches? Would they be highly motivated to look for new writers to represent at this free-for-all? (At least free for the pedestrian crasher who sneaks in, grabs lunch, and squeezes out with his weekend and wallet unmarred.)

If there are only a handful of agencies (4 and counting) and with 174 other writers there vying for the limited number of slots, with 8 arranged pitches each, doesn't sound like I have this part nailed down as well as I thought for my $300.

Appreciate any thoughts.


This response arrives after the scheduled FADE IN event in February. I apologize for the late reply, but I hope you write back to fill me in on your experience.

There isn’t much I can say here that I haven’t said in the past. These types of events are useful in allowing the writer to practice her pitching and social skills. Also, the writer can make friends within the industry that he wouldn’t have made had he stayed home. However, it’s doubtful that great talent will be unearthed at a pitch fest.

Generally, these local events are not attended by bigwigs. (Higher ups are more likely to attend out-of-town events, where a free vacation is the swag in exchange for listening to pitches.) Instead, the minions are sent to the local fests, many of whom go simply to get practice in taking pitches.

Most of these events do NOT compensate. It’s slave labor – a racket that involves not paying your work force. If travel is involved, expenses will often be covered. The very first pitch event I attended was in Las Vegas. Although payment was promised, I got shafted on the full amount. (I took it as a sign.) I think the EXPO (which I’ve never attended) pays their guests $100, which covers gas, parking and lunch. This is a paltry fee for what the agent must endure.

In my opinion, it is unethical to accept remuneration in exchange for hearing pitches. But this is the heart of the problem. What’s in it for the agent?

The idea that he might find a diamond in the rough is ludicrous. There are a million more time efficient ways in which to mine for (better) material.

And let’s get something straight. Listening to pitches at a fest is hard, exhausting work. I attended the FADE IN event last year when Ana (who’s now coordinating our Story Department) wanted to go. It was a fucking zoo. We were only there for about two hours – but heard the maximum amount of pitches. It’s a tough environment because there’s so much happening at once. (And I listen to the conversations all around me while I’m engaged in one of my own.) Then an earnest writer sits before you with the worst fucking idea ever spoken. Two minutes later a bell rings and another writer takes his place – with an idea that’s even worse. All the while, you must stay alert, polite and focused. Each writer has shelled out hard earned money – many traveling great distances – and is determined to have you leave with his script – which is stressful for anyone with an iota of humanity. Each “no” results in a disappointed writer – which takes its toll on the agent. A “yes” makes the writer smile and eases the agent’s stress at the scene. But in the aftermath, the script stares longingly at him from a huge pile of unimportant material. Time goes by and e-mails from the writer along with the dread of having to put aside a Saturday afternoon to read (if the agent or exec doesn’t have access to readers) are different sources of stress. After the read (which is probably painful), the agent will have to contact the writer with – most likely - the bad news, which can induce more anxiety. Multiply this by the amount of times the agent said “yes” at the fest, and it becomes time consuming and draining.

So, again, why should an agent from William Morris subject himself to this kind of unhappiness? He can simply call his buddy at BenderSpink and ask, “Any good writers?”

I had thought at one time these events would slowly eat themselves up. I assumed that as agents, producers and execs discovered the cruel and unusual punishment for little – if any – return on their investment, fewer would attend and, subsequently, the fests would dry up. However, the Hollywood dream can successfully reconstitute the dehydration, and as long as someone will listen, writers will gather and pay to pitch.

If these fests didn’t exploit the “Hollywood dream” and, instead, simply promoted themselves as educational events (which is what they really are), it would all be easier to digest.

If you pay close attention to the guests invited to “screenwriting conferences,” the list is often comprised of the “gurus” and very few agents/executives. That’s because the gurus have more motivation to mingle with bad writers. It’s their bread-and-butter. They write books and attend conferences in order to solicit consultations, offering all sorts of high priced analysis on bad scripts that will never be movies. Agents and executives have a different sort of business, which is why they seldom attend any of these events.

My familiar advice is to pitch managers at these festivals. Your $300 will be put to better use and your odds of success are greater than signing with an agent from CAA – who isn’t going to show up anyway.
_____________________________________________________

Where do I start in finding a career as a pitch man for products seen on T.V. - like the amazing gadgets we see every day - please help if you can I am at a loss.


I don’t have a fucking clue. This is a Q&A forum for writers. I suggest you direct your question to Ron Popeil or Nancy Nelson (both of whom have websites).

“Career” doesn’t quite seem like the right choice of word – since being a “pitchman” is probably just a job within a career that covers other areas. Many of the pitchmen you see on TV are the actual entrepreneurs. In other cases, they are celebrities or “host” personalities, who started in voice-over or broadcasting. (Did you study broadcasting in college?) Quite a few have evolved into producing those TV spots themselves and, as a result, have created lucrative businesses. You could do an Internet search for the various companies that produce infomercials and make cold calls.

If your pitch doesn’t cut it, you probably shouldn't be a “pitchman.”
_____________________________________________________

I worked for Jerry Bruckheimer and have sold several stories through deals represented by Warren Dern.

I came up with a high concept pitch that seems like a no-brainer, yet can't seem to get traction with it. Any idea why? It's cheap to shoot. It has sequels, and it's a perfect starring vehicle for any comedy actor. It also nicely poaches off The Sopranos audience.

The idea is to get the two Sopranos writers at Paramount to write a draft and then go after Francis Coppola to direct so Paramount can claim the mother of all Mafia movies that brings together The Sopranos with the Godfather audiences, with cameos by cast members from both.

CAMP FUHGEDDABOUTIT

A 9th grade swimming coach, busted for embezzling money from his team’s training fund, is sentenced to community service as a counselor at a summer camp in Maine...for mobster kids. Vehicle for Jack Black, Will Ferrell, Adam Sandler, or Jim Carrey.


I think Hollywood is tired of the Mafia angle, which might explain the tepid response.

The idea is cute but not wholly original. I’ve read many similar projects over the years. One that comes to mind involves a Mafia kingpin - on the lam from a federal indictment - who poses as a camp counselor, turning all of his little campers into wiseguys (In one scene, he uses “cement shoes” to enable a hydrophobic kid to swim.) It’s called CAMP COSA NOSTRA.

My point is your idea isn’t particularly original and, it’s possible, that every studio already has a facsimile on a shelf somewhere.

To make matters worse, you propose the loopiest packaging idea. I’m not sure if the TV audience of THE SOPRANOS would be interested in seeing a feature family comedy. I suspect it would be a hard sell exciting a studio over the notion of TV stars, and it would be an even greater uphill climb to entice Coppola into a project that seems more appropriate for the DISNEY CHANNEL.

Your enthusiasm is admirable but not contagious. Fuhgeddaboutit!
____________________________________________________

We have been toiling away on a would-be TV series and need to formalize it for pitching. I am wondering if you know of any examples or could point me to any examples of how best to outline a show, what the show bible should look like and include, etc..


Although it’s not unprecedented, new writers are unlikely to sell a TV pilot. That aside, having an original TV pilot along with a spec from an existing TV show helps to create a good portfolio when looking for representation. Regardless, there are no standardized outlines.

A “bible” at this stage seems completely unnecessary.

In addition to the pilot script, provide the show’s concept (logline).

Then offer up a more detailed synopsis (a page in length) of the series, suggesting its scope and trajectory.

Also include a breakdown of the recurring characters (about half a page for each) – which should give the reader an idea of backstory, how they interface with the concept and the interrelationships. TV is character based. Even shows that seem to lack a dimensional dramatis personae were all sold based on the strength of the characters.

Finally, include six to eight loglines for potential episodes.

The subtext of the presentation must allow the reader to understand the architecture of the show, see the movement from episode to episode and season to season and even provide an idea of the "producibility" of the project.
____________________________________________________

I was shocked to see your coverage of The Black List. Now, a regular kid from Vancouver wouldn't usually be shocked by such a document, unless that regular kid from Vancouver was on it and not only on it, but yes, in the top ten. And then I read your blog site, got more and more excited, reading down until, "Here are the top ten...." And then I cried and cursed Caleb Kane to hell (I didn't really cry or curse... maybe just a little). My name and my script were nowhere to be seen. Why? Because I was not in the top ten, I was in the top 11 and you bluntly slapped me across the face waking me up from my haze.

Thank you Mr. Lockhart, thank you very much.


I certainly didn’t create this blog to cause any more angst or woe on writers than I normally do in the course of my work day.

Although I understand your acrimony toward Caleb Kane for selfishly taking up two spots in the top ten, I must accept full blame. I guess I could have included more of the list but stuck with ten – since it hearkened back to the “Hollywood Ten.”

If I accommodate you, I might get e-mails from writers who only had one mention requesting that I include their names on my blog.

However, I’ll take the chance and mention that the eleventh title on the 2006 “Black List” is HANNA by Seth Lochhead (a surname similar to mine that “locks” a different body part). The script received ten mentions.

Congratulations.

I forget most scripts after “fade out,” so it’s a coup to get ten busy executives to recall your script after everything they’ve read throughout the year.

Seth isn’t the first “Black Listed” writer to contact me. After Christmas, I received a very nice call from Grant Nieporte (thirteen mentions with his script SEVEN POUNDS) asking me to tweak the logline I provided in the blog, which I happily did.

I hope to hear from Caleb Kane soon.
____________________________________________________

I am a stand-up comic from Vancouver, Canada and I am preparing to send out query letters about my latest completed script. Could you offer any suggestions on how to improve the following pitch?

The Ice Cream Man.

The Ice Cream Man is a fast-paced live-action comedy written in the spirit of the Chuck Jones Warner Bros. Cartoons.

It is the story of a brilliant but bumbling Ice Cream Man named Fred Frost, who creates a delicious new ice cream – Fred’s Frosted Fudgie-budgie bar.

His increasing sales get noticed by Roger Rogers (owner of the evil Ice Cream Empire), who gets angry and releases a new competing product - the Roger’s Red Rocket bar.

The Roger's Red Rocket bar, however, has a (not-so-secret) ingredient – an ADDICTIVE compound that makes it irresistible to children.

Unfortunately, when children eat too much of it – they get “Brain Freeze” and begin to de-evolve - acting first like drooling, farting buffoons, then like various apes, chimpanzees, and monkeys, and finally – reverting into brainless Zombie-like creatures.

The Ice Cream Man has to avoid Roger’s hired goon ‘Guido’, a crazed Meter-maid, and an angst-ridden teenage gang of hooligans if he hopes to survive.

But first, he’s going to have to stop arguing with his new ten-year old assistant, Paul, long enough to figure out how to create an antidote and save his small business… and the world.


I’ll bet the other writer from Vancouver, Seth Lochhead, is experiencing great shame after that pitch.

I appreciate the tone of the project and I love ice cream. (My wife makes it homemade, but chocolate chip mint from Breyers is my favorite.)

The pitch is an assault. There’s a lot of wacky information being thrown at me, causing me to act like a drooling, farting buffoon (prerequisite behavior for a Hollywood exec).

This is way over the top and seems downright silly – which I guess is the point. But it seems too silly. It doesn’t feel rooted in any sort of reality (and no emotional reality).

Look at ELF. It’s a silly premise but manages to root itself in a world we can understand. And it made big money. This reminds me of the film version of JOSIE AND THE PUSSYCATS – a movie that only I seemed to enjoy.

I suspect you’ll have a difficult time marketing this – since it seems like a tough story to place. However, if it’s well written – it might show off your comic writing skills and serve its purpose by launching your writing career in some other unexpected manner – which is often the case.
_____________________________________________________

I am finishing a second re-write of a screenplay with a deep, but not in-your-face religious theme. It has action, romance and a plot line that I've never seen in the movie s- and I've seen most of them. I am a realistic person. I became realistic when my first screenplay basically got a D- after I paid the $395.00. But, what an awesome learning experience.

Since “The Last Temptation,” who's buying? Who's representing? Do I have to walk on water to get someone to read it? AND, is there a religious/secular cross over market? Will a religious movie sell with an R-rating for violence? Will I get an agent to look at script where a semi-religious theme is involved? Your thoughts and suggestions would mean the world to me.


I would avoid using the word “religious.” I prefer the term “spiritual,” which is more digestible. I don’t mean to alienate the religious readers. (I write this as I look out my home office window, which sits in the shadow of a Catholic Church with a bell tower that rings out two hymns every day at noon.)

I think some of the most successful films of all time have strong spiritual content: the HARRY POTTER series and STAR WARS franchise clearly come to mind. The unproduced STEINBECK’S POINT OF VIEW - a spec script with a purported deal worth over five million dollars (the highest ever) – also has a heavy spiritual theme.

In my opinion, the key is to tell a story with religion in its subtext. Clearly, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST was an overtly religious tale, but that was a box-office anomaly. (At least that’s the way Hollywood views it.) THE PASSION… had an ingenious marketing campaign and appealed to a crossover crowd. Not only did the faith-based crowd attend, but young people with a predilection for violence also bought tickets. (The film was more violent than anything in HOSTEL.)

But for a new writer trying to break through the spec market, it makes more sense to write some sadistic slaughterhouse movie with sinful teenagers dying torturous deaths - which is actually a metaphor for the Immaculate Conception.

I think big budgeted Cecil B. DeMille religious spectacles are a thing of the past. THE NATIVITY – the other greatest story ever told – was released around Christmas but instead of box-office gold, it found coal in its stocking. Conversely, Charles Randolph has written a remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS for Paramount and Mark Gordon called EXODUS. However, his take is a solid and gritty examination of the story – lacking the silly Technicolor pageantry of previous efforts. (But I love the Charlton Heston version. It’s my all-time favorite guilty pleasure.) It remains to be seen if EXODUS will get off the ground.

There are others out there struggling to peddle religious content in the west coast city of Sodom and Gomorrah (which is Biblical). I’m loosely involved with the Damah Film Festival – which celebrates spiritual experiences in film. You can check them out at http://www.damah.com/.

Also, Biola University, a private Christian college, will hold a conference on April 21st in La Mirada, California to discuss the opportunities for faith based filmmakers. You can visit their website at http://www.biolamedia.com/.

And, of course, there is www.hollywoodprayernetwork.com.

Hallelujah!
____________________________________________________

I have a script completed that is adapted from a novel.

Before the script was ever started, I found the author (no easy task - he self publishes), got in touch with him, and got him interested in the idea of his book becoming a movie. I also sold him on the idea of an unproduced, still unpaid screenwriter taking the lead on this project and raising the funds independently and producing the movie. He was very intrigued.

Yet, as the option rights were discussed, he kept balking. Kept pushing them off, making semi-ridiculous demands, and cooling on the idea when paperwork came his way. His first novel was made into a TV movie by Kirk Douglas, and apparently they butchered it. I asked him to give me a chance to write the script. If he read it and liked it, then we could move forward. He agreed.

Fast forward three months. Script is in its fourth draft. Very polished, and by several accounts, very well done. Legitimate interest from two different production companies, one without a screen credit yet, the other from a company with both studio and indie work. Yet he continues to balk.

I also have a lot of independent financing interested, so much that the 5 million or so needed to complete this movie, shouldn't be that difficult to tie up. Only the option.

My question - finally - is this: Should I take this script out to people that HE finds acceptable. Big name actors, directors, producers, all of whom could completely cut me out, as I have no legal recourse, or attachment to this project. I'm, quite simply put, a middle man. Do I risk sending the project to someone like Tom Hanks? The author said he'd like to make the movie, and like to have me involved. He just wants someone that this isn't "their first rodeo." (His words...)

What would you do?


I wouldn’t have put myself in this situation to begin with.

You should not have started writing until you had the option. Thankfully, it doesn’t seem like you’ve wasted much time – four drafts in three months is very fast writing.

I’m confused by this scenario. You have the written script but didn’t say what the novelist thought of it. You tell us that others thought it was “very well done” but not the author’s reaction. It couldn’t have given him much confidence if he’s still hemming and hawing. If he loved the script, it seems unlikely he would drag his feet.

It’s not in your best interest to share the script with buyers if you do not have an option in place. With an option, you have secured some sort of spot in the project. But without it, an interested party can bypass you, get an option for the project from the author and bring in their own screenwriter to do the adaptation.

You can certainly agree to his demands in exchange for the option. Otherwise, let him go and use the script as a writing sample (which in theory is some sort of copyright infringement).

It is understandable that the author wants to protect his work and wants someone with experience leading the way. (You should want the same thing.) However, once he sells the rights, it isn’t his project anymore.

Unless he’s Clive Cussler.
____________________________________________________

Although I've written extensively, I now mainly produce and direct my own material. Once in a while, I will shoot someone else's script. I've made mainly shorts and a few spec TV pilots.

I will be making my first feature this summer. Obviously, it's low budget (about $750K). I need one of Ed's clients (a fairly well known actor, but certainly not an A-lister), and would pay the actor.

The question is this: What are the odds Ed would even take my call?


If you have to ask that question, I would expect the odds are low.

However, if you are the real deal who has a real offer with real finances (and not a figment of your imagination), any agent should take your call.

Of course, the priority of your call is based on the offer compared to the actor’s quote.

Many agents work on teams. Since this is a client who’s not an “A” lister, it seems likely that he has another agent who handles his day-to-day business. Targeting the actor’s other agent might be the first step.
____________________________________________________

Does the title really matter (when it comes to a spec)? I opted for (the provisory title) “4 and ½” to perfectly support the insanely smart hook in my logline (that can be seen at www.nu4m.com). If the logline is as important as you say (and I decided it is before I opened your twoadverbs.com site) I guess it worth the risk. And I’m saying that cuz I have better titles up my sleeves.


Yes. I think a title really matters. Producers think about how they are going to sell the movie to audiences, and that process begins with the title. Yes, studios change titles all the time, but you want to consider the perfect title for your screenplay.

THE FAMILY STONE, which was released late in 2005, was originally titled THEY F**KING HATE HER and then retitled HATING HER before ending up with the final result. But the original title helped to increase an awareness of the script and prodded people to read it. Of course, the title SNAKES ON A PLANE gave that project a massive amount of attention.

I’m not a fan of your title, because it doesn’t give me a hint as to what the script might be about.

Is 4 and ½ a comedy about an ugly woman?

Or a tragedy about a man with a small penis?

Or a heartwarming MR. HOLLAND’S OPUS with math instead of music?

I have journeyed to your website to check out the “insanely smart hook” in your logline – which is more insane than smart.

The notion of a script that is a “fast-paced fantasy comedy with horror and parody elements set against a background of high adventure” doesn’t help me – in the slightest – to nail down the tone.

Furthermore, you chose a group of protagonists made up of screenwriters, which is an automatic “pass.”
____________________________________________________

I see a lot of what not to do which is awesome, but it would be great if you could provide some examples of what is good writing from your expertise. I saw your list of log lines that received a pass (which I believe means "next" as in voted off the show) but I did not catch any log lines or other material that you deem good. Or perhaps you can recommend some "must reads." I am currently reading "Story" by Robert McKee, life altering from a writer's stand point.


Robert McKee? Didn't he portray Brian Cox in ADAPTATION?

When the Los Angeles Times did an article on my free writing workshop, the journalist told me she tried to get a comment from McKee in regards to my efforts. All his camp would say was something like, "If it's free, it can't be very good."

Your bestseller list should consist of unproduced screenplays that have recently sold. You should strive to get your hands on them somehow. They will be the best teachers. You can determine from the read if you can see the movie in your head. You can decide if the script works or not and why. And you can try to figure out why the project might have just sold.

Better than any class, teacher or book – reading recently sold scripts can give you an idea of where the marketplace is at.

In the http://www.twoadverbs.com/ forum, I have kept a list over the years of scripts that I deemed to be very effective (in a thread called GREAT SCRIPTS YOU PROBABLY HAVEN’T READ).

Coincidentally, James Vanderbilt’s ZODIAC opened this weekend. In future weeks, Scott Frank’s THE LOOKOUT and William Wheeler’s HOAX will be hitting theaters. These are just three scripts that were talked about in that thread.

It is difficult for me to discuss “good.” It’s easier to talk about “bad.” Great scripts appeal to me on an emotional level, which can be difficult to communicate.

There is a ghost in great screenplays that continues to haunt long after the read.

The ghost stays with you, follows you and forces you to contemplate the script over and over.

Most scripts lack this invisible and intangible ghost. Even if the writer gets it textbook perfect – hitting all the plot points with precision – the script might still lack the ghost.

The ghost cannot be taught. It cannot be diagrammed. The ghost cannot be discussed over three days for $575.00, because it exists between the pages and not on them.

Even great writers fail to capture the ghost in every script they write. And, of course, some believe in ghosts and some don’t. I may see a ghost in one script while others cannot. It is an individual experience.

A script like THE BRIGANDS OF RATTLEBORGE (which was #1 on the “Black List”) seemed to possess a ghost, since many who read it were moved by it. This would be a script worth reading.

Go capture the ghost.

Robert McKee @ www.mckeestory.com is giving his seminar this month in Los Angeles and New York.
____________________________________________________

Was THE INSIDE PITCH ever made available on DVD? If so, where can I purchase it? I've searched Amazon and the usual outlets - but to no avail. I'd love to attend one of your seminars, but I'm up in Vancouver, Canada.


This blog seems to have a big following in Vancouver.

Why should McKee get all the glory?

Yes, THE INSIDE PITCH is on DVD and can be purchased at http://www.theinsidepitch.info/, where you can also view the trailer.

It'll run you about $25.00, but if it were free, it wouldn't be very good.
_____________________________________________________

I have your THE PLAYER poster next to my signed HAROLD & KUMAR one-sheet. Come and get it next time you're in Melbourne....mate.

Alternatively, I'll return it if you get Mr. Mel Gibson to consider DUST & GLORY, which is the hottest Aussie/US script and perfect for him to direct and star and work back in Oz for awhile. No better action/romance/adventure story around. Full stop. The 'Romancing the Stone' of this era if someone doesn't fuck it up.


I’ll fuck it up for you right now.



The one-sheet was discovered and returned to its new home. Though dazed and confused, it was in good condition.
______________________________________________________



Let’s not forget those writers who recently passed away. Their contributions to the creative community and our lives are greatly appreciated.

Gian Carlo Menotti (95)
Lothar-Guenther Buchheim (89)
Fons Rademakers (89)
Joe Edwards (85)
Fred Mustard Stewart (74)
Phil Lucas (65)

_____________________________________________________

My LA Valley College class begins next Saturday, so the blog might be a bit neglected. Meanwhile, register at www.twoadverbs.com and visit the forum for lots of interactive advice and information.


Please send comments and questions to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net.

QUICK NOTES

We survived our move from Beverly Hills to Century City, and the new digs are quite nice. The design is modern and "open," hoping to create more of a camaraderie amongst co-workers. (I will report all assaults and murders here.)

There's still a lot of clutter everywhere but as boxes get broken down and the contents get put away, the place will appear much more organized.

I'm adopting a "paperless" office and will no longer accept scripts in hardcopy format (unless it's necessary). This will make my life much easier.

I've been shifted from the Motion Picture Talent Department to the MP Lit Department. My new office (which is twice the size of the old) is across from Ava Jamshidi and next to Brian Levy, an up-and-comer who just crossed over from Dimension to ICM. It's fun to hear them talk to clients and execs, dishing out story notes and opinions on scripts. I feel more at home in this enclave.

A tragic casualty of the move seems to be my framed one-sheet of THE PLAYER, the 1992 film directed by Robert Altman. (The artwork features a noose made of celluloid film strip.) It has mysteriously disappeared.

It was packed in the "pre-move," and sent on ahead (from the old building to the new) a week before we left. I've been assured it will turn up somewhere, but I have a sneaking suspicion that some unscrupulous fuck has it hanging over his bed in a one-room apartment in Westwood. Or even worse, my movie poster was torn out of the valuable frame to make way for something far less prestigious - like a HAROLD AND KUMAR one-sheet.

More on this story as it develops.

I recently did a brief interview for an e-zine that discusses all sorts of business methodologies - like the B2B complex sale. I can't make heads or tails out of any of the jargon on the site, but I enjoy seeing my name in print and Steve Kayser, who authored the interview, did a good job.

It's marked at the top of the page as the "Featured Story." (I guess it's a slow news week in the business world.) Here's the link:

http://www.internetviz-newsletters.com/cincom/

On the egocentric topic of my name in print, THE INSIDE PITCH blog was recently mentioned on http://www.trackingb.com

I do next to nothing to promote my ramblings and was quite surprised to see a flattering blurb on "trackingb.com," which moved me enough to mention the site here, especially since some might find it interesting.

The site announces when spec scripts are hitting the circuit and follows the process (a bit), hopefully, to a successful conclusion.

The site provides writers with a sense of what material is making the rounds and which scripts are finding buyers. It's an early glimpse at what - eventually - ends up on the "script sales" pages of other websites that are the quotidian reading rituals for many.

It also presents other inside information - like shuffling within the ranks of prodcos and agencies. If you sign up (it's free), you get automatic updates.

It's just another way to stay informed. And to stay on top of things, you've got to stay informed.

_____________________________________________________

Send questions and comments to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

MOVING ON

Today was my last day at ICM.

I started at the talent agency in June of 1998, and after almost nine years, I had to say good-bye.

I should clarify a small point. Today was my last day at ICM in Beverly Hills. As of next week, I will be starting at the new ICM.

For the last 15 years, ICM has occupied the building at 8942 Wilshire Blvd. at the corners of Almont on the west and Lapeer to the east – directly across the street from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

A uniquely designed building (that often served as host to architectural students), 8942 is rumored to have been constructed as a bank by Michael Milken. After our expansion with “Broder-Webb-Chervin-Silberman” last year, a larger base of operation seemed necessary. At the end of this five-day weekend, we will return to work on Tuesday February 20th to the 7th, 8th and 9th floors of the MGM TOWER in Century City.

Century City was constructed in the 1960s in an attempt to give the west side of Los Angeles a “downtown” feel. The land was originally owned by 20th Century Fox, which sold 176 acres of their northern parcel to make up for the loss they suffered on CLEOPATRA. The MGM TOWER was completed in 2003 at the cost of $150 million. The Tower offers 35 floors and approximately 775,000 square feet of which ICM will reportedly occupy 125,000 square feet, which includes two state-of-the-art screening rooms.

When I was a kid, my father took me to see CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (1972), which is set in the future of 1991 after all dogs and cats in the world have died, and apes have taken their place as “man’s best friend." Eventually, the apes get pissed off at humans, revolt and kick ass. The riot sequence scared the hell out of me, and I thought the sleek stone and angular buildings of the futuristic city added great resonance to the mise en scene. That futuristic location was none other than Century City.

For the last few weeks, many of us walked around ICM in denial about the shift. The big joke was, “Has anyone told the agents that we’re moving?” There just wasn’t any time to pack up, and the work seemed like a Sisyphean task because after successfully unloading one script – two more appeared on your desk. Despite the angst, confusion and lack of time, our administration should be commended for their organization; this part of the move has been surprisingly smooth. (I suspect those employees overseeing the move have been delving deep into their volumes of Sylvia Plath.)

My plan of attack was to throw away everything. I had eight-plus-years worth of scripts, notes, coverage, memos and an assortment of things buried under and behind furniture and shoved into every nook and cranny. My office was like an archeological dig; the deeper I excavated, the older the find. And there were some treasures. I felt a bit like Howard Carter discovering the tomb of King Tut. For instance, I unearthed a four-year-old un-cashed check (for $113.73) from Adelphia, the cable TV company. They were recently bought out by Time-Warner, but I’m going to try to cash it anyway. Buried under a pile of dust behind my desk was a script from 2000 that, I suspect, had fallen back there. The cover letter was still attached, and the author was “anticipating a quick reply.” My office was usually a mess – cluttered with hundreds of scripts piled with no system. My boss Ed Limato once suggested I clean it. “You might find the Lindbergh baby,” he said. I unloaded one and half huge bins of scripts and paper, consolidating my tenure at 8942 Wilshire to just three boxes. Since the Century City offices will be gifting us new furniture, I left everything behind except a lamp, TV and DVD player.

We know very little about the new office space. We were not given tours or shown floor plans, so the general suspense has led to all sorts of rumors and speculation. We have learned that the MGM TOWER has a wide assortment of amenities, offering a library, oil changes and “umbrella service” to name a few. The best thing about the move will be a greater selection of restaurants. Our Beverly Hills district has little to offer within walking distance. The LAZY DAISY is a staple for those who don’t want to venture more than a few steps from ICM, but it’s hardly renowned for its cuisine. Furthermore, there’s only a few tables handled by a lackadaisical waitress for whom the restaurant seems to have been named. KATE MANTILINI’S is two blocks west but it’s loud and overrated (though the sourdough bread is great). The underrated IL BUCO is a few blocks east on Robertson; it’s reasonably priced, recently expanded, and easy to get a table. But across from the MGM TOWER is the Century City Mall (a/k/a Westfield Shoppingtown) – which has recently been revamped. Rumor has it the food court there uses china plates and silverware. The mall will certainly add some convenience, offering more of a selection than the SAV-ON DRUGS we all frequent across from KATE’S. Of course, Century City is also home to the new CAA building, “another” top tier talent agency.

While I am definitely looking forward to new surroundings, I can’t help but feel a loss - leaving behind the building that served as my second home for almost nine years.

During my stay there, I was located on the “upper Westside” as it was often referred – the third floor, west wing – in suite number 362.

Although my office was an unimpressive space to be sure, it was prime real estate. Situated at the gateway to the west end of the floor, anyone who is anyone would have to walk passed my door to visit the agency’s heavy duty power brokers. Julia Roberts once made a cell phone call right outside my office. I wanted to give her privacy but didn’t dare close my door in fear that she’d misinterpret the gesture as my trying to shut out the noise. TV producer David Milch accidentally barged into my office, mistaking it for the men’s room – a common error since I was in the same vicinity as the bathroom and probably emitted a similar odor. We had a brief chat and he considered using my potted palm tree to take care of business. (Somehow, I inherited the tree from Jim Wyatt, former ICM co-CEO, who left in 1999 to serve as the CEO at William Morris. The tree is also making the move with me.)

I spent many long hours at that building. One of the first projects I rallied behind was THE PATRIOT, which went on to star client Mel Gibson. I desperately wanted to go to the premiere, but seats were in short supply. Thankfully, someone took pity on me and managed to get my name on the list; I was happier than Charlie Bucket with his golden ticket. But at the last minute, I was given the screenplay for SIMONE. Sharon Stone was meeting with the producers early the next morning to discuss the script, and she wanted my feedback. Always putting the client’s needs before my own, I bravely sacrificed the premiere and remained at work, reading and scribbling. The next morning, I helped Sharon prepare for her meeting. She eventually passed on the project. I have given up many joyous hours of life to lock myself up in suite 362 – for a different kind of joy.

As I was leaving the building for the last time today, it dawned on me that 8942 Wilshire Blvd. was the setting for several plot points in my life.

When I first started at ICM, Carol Bodie (now heading the ICM Motion Picture Talent Department) had her own management company. She managed Winona Ryder while my boss, Ed Limato, served as Winona’s agent. Since our offices worked closely together, I met Carol’s assistant, Jack d’Annibale, one evening for drinks at the Polo Lounge (in the Beverly Hills Hotel) along with Winona’s personal assistant, Sandra. We all hit it off. When Jack’s gig with Carol dried up (he was the worst assistant in Hollywood), I got him a job as a full-time story analyst at ICM. (Sandra later moved on from Winona, turning over the reigns to pal Sibi, who eventually married Christian Bale.)

Jack and I became best friends – roaming ICM like two school kids on a hall pass. We argued endlessly about story, debating the merits of scripts and talking about story problems and possible solutions. A mutual friend once called Jack and me “professionals,” but we couldn’t understand how it related to us. We were just doing what came naturally. I remember working on Saturdays – often until midnight. Jack would drop in and I’d take a break. We’d go into the third floor conference room and look out the windows, staring into the dark southwest sky lit up by the distant glitter of Century City. It was my favorite view from the building – even though our north vista featured the Hollywood Sign. Perhaps I liked it more because it was a safe perch to keep watch for any civil disobedience amongst apes.

It was during one of those respites that I first pitched Jack the idea of “Story Conference,” a series of free writing workshops I was planning. Those workshops eventually led to our collaboration on “The Inside Pitch” TV show and our Emmy nominations.

When Jack left ICM to work for Jerry Bruckheimer, it was a dark day for me. He has since ventured out on his own (is engaged to be married) and is currently working as a screenwriter (repped by ICM), adapting a book for Fox. He still visits me at work regularly.

While meeting Jack was certainly a landmark of this past decade, I also met another very influential person at ICM.

My wife.

This happy-go-lucky pro beach volleyball player was also a licensed masseuse. "HOLLYWOOD STORY EDITOR FINDS 'HAPPY ENDING.'" Sarah visited ICM once a week to ease Mr. Limato’s stress and muscle pain. On her very first day, we met at the third floor credenza (eastside).



There was a cake celebration and sugar addicts hovered around hoping to be one of the lucky few to snag a piece. (ICM was constantly serving cake – honoring a birthday, a departure, a facelift. Recently, we’ve limited it to “Cake Day”, the third Friday of the month where we celebrate everything at once with several big cakes.) While "Sweet Lady Jane" was being doled out, Sarah wandered over and we were introduced. She was dressed all in white and had her long blonde hair wrapped up in braids. She looked like the Swiss Miss. I struggled to be charming and witty and when I was done flirting (having missed out on cake – hopefully sacrificing one kind of piece for another), I went down to the Story Department to visit Jack and told him I had just met the girl I was going to marry. (I was being facetious at the time. “Marry” was probably a code word for some salacious sort of business I was imagining.) Anyway, we eventually started dating.

The times were not always good at 8942 Wilshire.

I remember once giving someone a tour of the building and took him into the Voice Over Department – a unique feature of ICM. The ironic thing about “Voice Over” was that if you had an eye for obscure faces, you might recognize a lot of people. Over the years, I had chats with voice over talent like Danny Bonaduce, Eddie Deezen and Patti Deutch. The Voice Over Department was run with an iron fist by Jeff Danis - an odd little man who guarded his halls like the bridge troll in the “Three Billy Goats Gruff.” As my guest and I walked through the area, Danis pounced like Robocop with a blown fuse, demanding to know why I was trespassing. He shouted at us and ordered that we leave. The unprovoked attack was frightening - but all in a day’s work. Like any agent worth his weight in Hollywood, his balls were big enough to expect an apology from me – for which he has yet to receive. To his credit, SHOWTIME did a moving documentary called HE’S HAVING A BABY, which chronicles the efforts of Danis and his partner to adopt a Vietnamese baby. He recently formed his own agency and took the Voice Over Department with him.

Time, confidentiality and human decency prevent me from sharing too much information about life at 8942 Wilshire. Although I threw away an unimaginable amount of detritus (all of which a few days before had precious meaning), I'm taking with me great memories, great friends, a great wife and thousands of stories that revealed themselves to me in that very building.

With two of the industry’s biggest talent agencies having relocated to Century City, it seems the apes have arrived and the conquest has begun.


Please direct all future coorespondence to:

CHRISTOPHER LOCKHART
c/o ICM
10250 CONSTELLATION BLVD.
CENTURY CITY CA 90067

______________________________________________________


Send all questions and comments to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

JUST A THOUGHT

I had a quick thought and decided to jot it down here. I guess it's less of a thought and more of an experience I thought I'd share - not that I expect anyone to really care.

Normally, I feel compelled to post some ponderous entry and would never consider typing up some random musings that probably have very little significance. But I suspect that’s the real purpose of a blog anyway.

This is sort of twofold, since I did get a question wondering about the SHERWOOD OAKS EXPERIMENTAL COLLEGE. It asked: Have you ever heard of Sherwood Oaks Experimental College? I visited their website, and must admit, I was quite seduced. They proclaim that they'll give writers inside access to heavies such as Paul Haggis and William Monahan and Guillermo Arriaga. They have a two-day affair in June in which writers can schmooze with agents from ICM, CAA and Endeavor, among others. Is this a legit way to further myself?

Gary Shusett founded and has operated the “college” for a zillion years, and it is very respectable. Gary is a producer (MOON OVER PARADOR) and the brother of ALIEN screenwriter Ron. The sincere and ubiquitous Gary works endlessly to bring in guests to meet with writers. As one person put it, “Gary is like Chinese water torture. He keeps coming and coming until you have to say ‘yes.’” I was once on a panel he organized at the same place and time as the Oscar nominee lunch. And when unsuspecting nominees walked by his conference room en route to their celebration, Gary pounced like a trapdoor spider, pulling in his hapless victims and sucking their blood until they agreed to meet the writers. Overall, he provides plenty of bang for the buck.

But, in general, these events are rarely about career advancement, because they are packed with clawing writers fighting for the attention of just a few. It can be overwhelming for Haggis and Arriaga – like being the only fat guy with an invite to the Donner Party. It’s best to attend these events as an educational opportunity and a chance to meet other writers, which, by the way, is a very legit way to advance yourself. Keep your expectations realistic about making significant industry contacts at any of these gatherings. Of course, if you have the ability to sink your teeth into some producer or agent, by all means, dig in.

Earlier today, I arranged for a half-dozen of our Agent Trainees to meet with budding filmmakers at an event staged by the Sherwood Oaks Experimental College at the Crowne Plaza Hotel. These trainees had never been to such an event, and I thought it was a good opportunity, so I took Gary up on his invitation for a Q&A between the hopeful filmmakers and the hopeful agents. (I didn’t partake in the festivities, since there's no hope left for me; I chaperoned and offered silent support from the back of the room.) This was a rare occasion for these up-and-coming agents to get a look at the faces behind those faceless query letters.

Gary is a good host, and I thought the agents-to-be did a great job, but they may have been a bit overwhelmed by the crowds of people. From where I was sitting, the trainees’ dais looked an awful lot like a banquet table, and the filmmakers resembled the hungry line waiting to enter the Panorama City HOMETOWN BUFFET on a Saturday night.

Anyway, after the event, quite a few writers came up to me and spoke about their various projects, going into all sorts of details. In a crowded room with lots of ambient noise, it was hard to concentrate. But one man came up to me and said, “I hear your wife is a chiropractor.” Suddenly, all the noise around me vanished. I could really hear this guy. Finally, someone wanted to talk about something other than just Hollywood! And I was listening. I thought it was a good approach – a way to break the ice and stand apart from all the other writers vying for my attention. After all, I hear the same sort of stuff twenty-four hours a day. “I won the ABC screenwriting contest…My script is currently with…I’ve got a high concept comedy… This would be perfect for Mel Gibson….” In this town, no one takes any personal interest in anyone. It’s all about, “What the fuck can you do for me?”

But this man asked about my wife.

It was surprising and quite thoughtful. I wanted to engage this man in a conversation. He handed me his card and I asked, “Are you a chiropractor too?” He said, “No, I’m a writer…And I have a high concept….” And I looked around the room, as the noise rushed back into my head and I thought to myself, “Of course you are…Of course you do.”

MAILROOM #11

I have two questions for you. First, there are several services out there that offer coverage from Hollywood readers. Would it make any difference to you or someone in the know, if you received a query from a writer who had received a “consider” or “recommend” from one of these services? Or is it just another waste of time/money?

And secondly, I've also read that for unknown writers it's important to get your work "in the door" anyway possible. Some have even suggested contacting people who work in the mailroom, because these are future agents and someday they are going to need clients and they would be more open to reading a script from an unknown. What are your thoughts on this avenue? And if you do think it may be viable, can I get a direct number to ICM's mailroom?

Personally, I would have no interest in learning that a script received favorable marks from someone else – especially if that reader is unknown to me. Some writers have sent coverage from these services or from studios or other agencies. How do I know if they haven’t been doctored? A writer once took a rejection letter sent to him from me and doctored it to read most favorably. This is a small town and it got back to my office. (A friend had read the script based on this “favorable” letter and called me to say, “Dude, this script sucks ass. Why the fuck did you glow about it in this letter?) Needless to say, the next piece of mail the writer received was a “cease and desist” letter.

I have mixed feelings about these coverage services. A friend has paid in excess of five hundred dollars (per coverage/notes) to “experts” whose names are unknown to most anyone in the industry, so he suggested that I start up a service myself. My wife - picture a sun-kissed Lady MacBeth - overheard this and immediately formulated my business plan. But I rejected the idea. I’d be too truthful and probably wouldn’t have much of a business. “Dude, this script sucks ass” is not the way to achieve client satisfaction. And I’d feel dishonest taking money from and giving notes to some aspiring writer that will never ever make a dime in this business.

To pay for coverage, I think, defeats the purpose unless the reader is being dead honest. When a script goes into a studio or agency, the coverage is completely impartial – which can lead to some painfully candid comments. Can a reader who is paid directly by the writer be as frank? Or does he risk future business? That’s not to say these services do not provide a purpose. However, to use the coverage as a means of entrée into a company may not be all that effective.

As for the mailroom, it is, indeed, the place where many future agents start their odyssey. However, it’s pretty busy down there, and there may not be much time for that sort of phone call. But if you decide to stroll down this avenue, let me know how the call turns out. By the way, not everyone in the mailroom wants to be an agent, so make sure you don’t end up pitching to the Fed Ex man. (And the phone number you request is listed somewhere.)
___________________________________________________

How can I get a job as a script reader for a studio or agency? Can I do it living outside of California?

With the excessive influx of scripts into studios and agencies, busy executives and producers cannot read everything. So, material is vetted through a screening process, where “readers” (a.k.a. story analysts) review the projects and write a report. The “reader’s report” or “coverage” includes a logline and synopsis. Most importantly, perhaps, is the section devoted to comments, where, generally, the reader opines on the material’s strengths and weaknesses, the overall effectiveness of the narrative and its viability as a film or TV project. The reader gives the script a grade of RECOMMEND, CONSIDER or PASS.

This is a much maligned process, because some writers believe the reader is not qualified to judge his material. Ultimately, I think it’s less an issue of qualifications and more about ego. No writer wants to think his hard work could be rejected by an underling (perhaps even a failed or bitter scribe himself). “This guy is a loser. Probably a wannabe who couldn’t write a fucking e-mail. If my script had landed on Spielberg’s desk, I'd have a deal by now.’” (But don’t forget, moviegoers – comprised of people who’ve never heard of Robert McKee or attempted to write a script or make a movie – issue the "recommend, consider or pass" on a regular basis.)

It just isn’t realistic to expect the exec to read every script sent his way. When bringing in your taxes to H&R Block, do you expect either “H” or “R” to prepare them? It would be presumptuous to assume that Moe, Manny or Jack would change the oil if you took your car to Pep Boys.

Whether it’s revered or reviled is immaterial. This is the standard operating procedure of Hollywood. Readers vet most of the material. This system was conceived at the birth of the film industry. It is a tradition.

In the early days of filmmaking, the studios employed “story editors” who were not only “readers” (scripts were also referred to as “scenarios” and “photoplays” back then), but they also determined which scripts to buy. They did the rewriting and wrote their own original material too. They even edited films. Scenarios were bought outright in the beginning. A 1915 article in Photoplay Magazine, written by Captain Leslie T. Peacocke, tells us that “Twenty-five dollars per reel was, up to a year ago, the usual price for the average scenario. Few of the higher class companies now pay less than $35 for scripts from unknown writers, and most of the well known scenario authors were demanding and getting from $100 to $200 per reel for original stories and from $75 to $250 per reel for adaptations from stage plays and books.”

With the promise of that kind of paycheck, people wanted to write scripts. The modern deluge of screenplays into town is not a recent phenomenon. In those pioneer days, there wasn’t enough material to keep up with the output of product. (In 1915, one studio could produce almost the same amount of films that all of Hollywood turned out last year.) So, for better or worse, studios advertised for scenarios in national magazines! This eventually led to a phenomenon known as “scenario fever.” In Budd Schulberg’s memoir “Moving Pictures,” he writes about his father, B.P. Schulberg, the Story Editor for narrative filmmaking pioneer Edwin S. Porter. Shulberg recollects on his father’s experiences: “There was a stampede to ‘get into the move game,’ and if you couldn’t get a job in front of the camera as a featured player or as a five-dollar-a-day extra, or behind it as a director, cameraman or technician, you could always try your hand at scribbling. When my father and mother wheeled my fancy carriage through Mt. Morris Park, they would be intercepted by passersby who had heard that young Shulberg was Edwin S. Porter’s Scenario Editor and would press on him their latest inspirations for Mary Pickford…’They came pouring in, mostly in illegible scrawls,” BP would tell me, ‘written on everything from postcards to butcher paper. Everybody who paid his nickel to see one of our shows thought it was easy money to dash off a movie. Most of them were illiterate. Nearly all of them were godawful.’”

Eventually, Thomas Ince compartmentalized the process of filmmaking, dividing the tasks and assigning them to individuals. As a result, the story editor just mined for new material, while a writer was assigned to write and so on. Despite the changes, almost a hundred years later, a similar line of defense forages through piles of screenplays hoping to divine potential movies to send up the chain of command until a handful are greenlit for production.

Although readers come from all walks of life, at the agency, most of our dozen freelance readers have graduate degrees in writing and all sorts of Hollywood experience. However, as an industry standard, this is not a pre-requisite.

Most reading jobs in the business are freelance. Readers pick up scripts, read them at home, turn in their coverage and pick up their next batch. Freelance readers are outside contractors and do not receive employment benefits. However, reading scripts is a great education and many writers, producers and executives have started life as readers. ICM CEO Jeff Berg started his career as a reader. ICM boasts an impressive list of reader alumni – most recently Patrick Melton, who has had his first flurry of success with selling three scripts and a TV pilot, landing several assignments, and seeing his first film produced. The idea that readers are unqualified or ill-equipped to review material is – in most cases – not true. Many must demonstrate their aptitude during the hiring process. The job competition (like everything in this business) is fierce. We get hundreds of unsolicited applications in a year and have the ability to choose the best. Most readers are professionals. In fact, I would make the case that the likelihood of a reader getting a bad script far outweighs (think morbidly obese) the script getting a bad reader.

To land a freelance reading job, find examples of coverage on line. Study them. (Somewhere in this blog, I included a list of story elements I look for when reading a script.) Then, create a portfolio of coverage by reading unproduced scripts and writing up reports. Have an example of a RECOMMEND and/or CONSIDER and a PASS.

Get the “Hollywood Creative Directory” and cold call every Story Department, CE, Story Editor, and Director of Development at every agency and production company. Ask to send résumé and samples. If they are not hiring, ask them to keep the résumé and samples on file.

Most studios use union readers. There is a Story Analysts Union (IATSE Local 700S) – which operates under the auspices of the Motion Picture Editors Guild. The Story Analyst Guild keeps a roster of readers that signatories must exhaust first before hiring a non-roster reader. This means it is much harder to get a job with the signatories.

Union readers start at $27.08 an hour. This is considerably higher than the starting salary for a freelance reader, which can range from $40-$60 per script. Often, books demand a higher fee. (It can take up to four hours to read a screenplay and write coverage.) Union readers hold on to their jobs until the very end when the mortician has to pry the scripts from their cold, dead hands. All reading jobs fill very quickly.

Since the demand for these jobs is great and there are hundreds of applicants within a mile radius of any prodco, agency or studio, it’s not realistic to expect companies to hire readers from outside of town. Beware of those that do.
____________________________________________________

I am an Entertainment and Arts Management major at Drexel University out in Philadelphia. It has been my goal for awhile now to become a talent agent at one of the big 5 (WM, ICM CAA etc.) or maybe a boutique agency that is on the larger side (Paradigm, APA etc.) I have read countless accounts of how agents started off in the mailroom and muscled their way to the top. My question is this: how do you get into the mailroom? From what I understand, the application process is extremely fierce and typically a resume sent through H.R. is incinerated upon arrival. I still have a few years of school left (I'm in my first year) so what advice do you have in terms of breaking in to such a difficult industry? Should I try to bolster my resume or concentrate more on making contacts? Do any of these agents have a legitimate internship program for current college students? I should mention that the program of studies for my major includes two "co-ops" (which are basically internships) for the summers after my sophomore and junior years. Any idea on what type of internship during these time periods would round out my industry experience? Any advice you can give me to help me along the path to becoming an agent is greatly appreciated.

You are referring to a Hollywood agent? Not a travel agent? Or even a secret agent? Because the life of a Hollywood agent is really tough. Just a quick glance at Ari Gold from HBO’s ENTOURAGE provides a taste of the stressful and demanding work required to achieve any sort of success.

First and foremost, agents are salesmen. Few have backgrounds in the arts. Most have business or law degrees. If “sales” is not your thing, consider another aspect of the entertainment business. The prime responsibility of an agent is to get work for their clients. It’s a hard night’s sleep when the phone sheet is covered with the names of client’s who haven’t worked and cannot afford to pay the rent or the kid’s school tuition. While the agent frets and toils over that, he also worries that competing agents are trying to steal clients. If he has an up-and-comer on his roster, for example, he often needs to accompany him everywhere – to mark his territory and ward off the poachers.

Agenting is not a job, it's a lifestyle.

The first few years for most agents (which would include a training period) are not lucrative. They might make the salary equivalent to a New York City school teacher – only the kids in Hollywood are bigger, not as cute and much more unruly. Often, burn-out sets in before the big bucks ever arrive. Agents at big agencies don’t get 10% of what the client earns; the agency gets that. The amount of commission an agent brings in to the agency allows him to negotiate a bigger contract (and get a commensurate bonus), but if his overhead (cost of doing business) exceeds his contribution to the agency, he's scrambling for another job. Show business isn’t known for its civility either, so be prepared for a barrage of invective and cruelty not seen since the days before the Emancipation Proclamation. (Observe Kevin Spacey’s dead-on performance of a studio executive in SWIMMING WITH SHARKS.) One must not only endure pain but take some pleasure in it to survive on this side of the business. But for those who belong here, this is a great business.

And why should we have all the fun?

The smartest move for you to make would be to enter an internship program. Many interns have come back to our agency after graduation to take jobs as assistants. Some have gone on to become agents. An internship is a great way to get frontline experience and make necessary connections. Furthermore, agency experience is real capital in this business. Interning at one of the top five agencies looks great on a résumé and can help move you to the top of any job applicant list. However, these internships are very competitive. We get interns from all around the country. The crop is often very impressive and they come from some of the very best schools. Summer internships are the most popular. (And a summer in L.A. is awesome.) If you plan on applying for a summer internship, you need to do it now.

Contact Human Resources at any of the desired agencies to learn about the requirements. Phone contact is important. Put a personality to the application. And be persistent. Since most internships are not paid, college credit is almost always required.

To insure that return trip after graduation, take the internship seriously, make sure everyone will remember your name and, in the words of Purlie Victorious, “Do what you can for the white folks.”
____________________________________________________

Everyone who reads my script really likes it but no one wants to buy it or sign me. Is it really this hard to get a break?

Yes, it is that hard. But, most often, the writer makes it harder.

I suspect no one really likes the script, which is why you haven’t gotten that break. It’s important to understand that rarely will someone tell you the script isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

Screenplays are like baby pictures. No one will look at a mother's photo of her baby and say anything negative. Most can, at least, sympathize with the amount of time and effort that goes into writing a screenplay (the writer's "baby"), so decorum is often used. Because the writer thinks he has written a great script, he believes the false praise. (Just like a mother believes her ugly runt is adorable when someone tells her.)

Always observe the actions behind the words. At the least, if someone is willing to pass the script on or refer you to others, he probably believes in the material. As I’ve stated over and over again, I do not believe one has to write a “great” script. One merely has to write the “right” script – which means getting it to the right person at the right time. Perhaps this isn't the right script. You need to distance yourself from the material and then come back to it with a fresh perspective. At a later date, you might have a better understanding as to why no one is embracing the script. Use this fresh POV to tackle a rewrite and then strategize a new marketing plan.

In the meantime, start your next script.
____________________________________________________

I'm having a tough go generating requests to read a script of mine with this query letter. Any ideas how to better my results?

...It's 1942, World War II is raging, when a mysterious German scientist contacts the Allies wishing to defect with breakthrough technology for developing an atomic bomb. Now it's up to a war-weary American colonel and his crack team of Allied agents to infiltrate a top-secret Nazi research facility and bring the scientist out before the Germans learn of the breakthrough and develop the weapon themselves.

This is the premise for THE BEST MAN an Alistair MacLean style high-adventure for today's video game generation.

My first script, a horror story called Taboo, was recently optioned by Film Factory New Zealand (Ike: Countdown to D-Day, Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America) with Stuart Orme (The Puppet Masters) attached to direct. Currently, I reside outside of Los Angeles, but I am just a one hour flight away and I can travel there for meetings without restriction. May I send you the script for your consideration?

New writers trying to break in with a spec script set outside of present day have an uphill climb (steeper than the usual climb). Period pieces are often a tough sell, and WWII movies haven’t set the box-office on fire lately.

Also, you would probably get more mileage referencing the likes of Ludlum. The last feature adaptation of a MacLean novel starred Michael Dudikoff almost twenty years ago. A young CE might not have ever heard of Maclean. At least they (probably) know that Ludlum is responsible for the Jason Bourne character

You chose a subject matter that's a tough sell. Ultimately, it sounds like an idea from which both agents and producers would shy away. This is probably the best explanation for the lack of enthusiasm. And you should have known better.

New writers must do some advance work. This is not to discourage you from writing what you want. However, a scribe should have a list of a few stories he’d like to tell. Let’s say he has ideas for a comedy, a WWII adventure and a biography of Renoir. The writer needs to do some investigating to understand the current state of the marketplace and then choose the concept that motivates him - but will also excite both buyers and sellers. Granted, the climate can change rapidly by the time the script is complete, but it still makes sense to work on an idea that has set some recent, successful precedent.

Hollywood’s most successful scribes have the gift of writing material that inspires both themselves and their audience.
____________________________________________________

Like a lot of aspiring writers, I have people at different agencies who will read my stuff. They've liked something I've written in the past, (though not enough to sign me) or at the very least don't want to miss out on what could be a next great script, so are always happy to read the next spec. Fine. Great. However, due to recent agency mergers and buyouts, some of my contacts are now working together (or at least under the same roof). So my question is: What is the etiquette on this? Do I let each agent know when the next spec is ready? Do I pick the one I like more and hope the other doesn't find out? Do I contact them both, but not inform them about the other one, and worry about it later? Should I go with the one who contacted me first between the two while their agencies are separate? Obviously I want my work to get read; but also don't want to burn any bridges before even getting started by stepping on the wrong toes.

Let me answers these one by one.

Do I let each agent know when the next spec is ready? Yes.

Do I pick the one I like more and hope the other doesn't find out? You're not asking her to the fucking prom.

Do I contact them both, but not inform them about the other one, and worry about it later? Yes. Contact them both. Different agents have different tastes, so send it to everyone. One agent will read the script and say, “I can’t sell this.” And the other agent will read the script and believe he can sell it. Why should you reduce your odds of finding the right person? If they both love it (and they’re at the same agency) they can co-rep you. If they are at different agencies, you can decide the best home for you. A writer wants to be careful in sharing his scripts with both sellers and buyers simultaneously. If you send the script to every production company in town and it’s a unanimous rejection, a rep may not want the script afterwards. (It’s damaged goods.) I suggest tackling the search for representation first. If that fails, then market the script to buyers.

Should I go with the one who contacted me first between the two while their agencies are separate? See above.

By the way, there is no etiquette in Hollywood.
____________________________________________________

In “Mailroom #10,” I responded to this question: "I think you focus too much on loglines and pitches and not enough on screenplays. Don't you understand the importance of the screenplay over the logline? I think all this pitch and logline preaching is doing writers a disservice. Don't you?" A reader wanted to respond based on his own experiences. This is what he has to say:

I am going to create a Breathalyzer Test for sending emails: The email sender will have to go through a series of brain/reflex tests to prove they are not intoxicated. Only after which, will they be allowed to "send" the email.

My questions for the person who sent the email:

When you decide to go to the movies or order a movie through Netflix, do you watch EVERY movie offered in hopes of finding one that suits your fancy or do you base your decision to watch a movie on the SNAPSHOT given that indicates what the movie is about? Then why should it be that much different for the professional producer, agent, actor, story editor, reader, etc.?

We, as moviegoers are so accustomed to using a visual logline (trailer, etc.) to determine our level of interest in a movie that it should not be a surprise or shock that Hollywood has something similar in place to determine their interest in spec screenplays.

What Chris' focus on loglines has done to my writing: It has saved me from a lot of false starts, unnecessary drafts, etc., because I will only start a screenplay after I have written a logline for the script. If the logline works, I proceed to write the script. If the logline sucks, then it's off to writing the next one... in search of the “Halle Berry” logline that can be turned into a “Halle Berry” script.

And I no longer tell anyone how "good" or "great" my logline or script is: I'm the writer... not the audience. It's my job to write and their job to tell me what their reaction to the script... not the other way around.

With all the bad scripts floating around Hollywood, I personally don't think there is enough focus on loglines. When a writer says, "I'm going to write about such and such...," he's talking about the logline/concept of the screenplay.

So why gloss over such an important aspect of the process in favor of rushing to FADE OUT, tell ourselves (and that stripper at the club) how great it is, and waste the $$$ on copyrights, contests and script stalking?
____________________________________________________

Bob Carroll Jr. died on January 27th at the age of 88. Mr. Carroll was the co-creator and prolific writer of the seminal TV sit-com I LOVE LUCY.

I LOVE LUCY followed the exploits of a wacky housewife (Lucille Ball) and her husband, a Cuban entertainer (played by real life husband and Cuban entertainer Desi Arnaz). It was a monster hit for CBS when it premiered in 1951 as the #3 highest rated show of the year. It found its way to the #1 slot where it remained for most of its life – even in its final season as a weekly series.

Carroll had helped create the “Lucy” character, with his writing partner Madelyn Pugh Davis, on a radio show called MY FAVORITE HUSBAND that also starred Ball. Carroll co-wrote all 180 episodes of I LOVE LUCY along with Davis and producer Jess Oppenheimer. In the fourth season, Bob Schiller and Bob Weiskopf joined the staff. Only Davis and Schiller survive.

Carroll & Davis remained with Lucille Ball for most of her career, penning many of her post I LOVE LUCY TV series and co-writing the story for her 1968 feature YOURS, MINE AND OURS. Carroll also co-created shows and wrote episodes for many other series during his career, which ended in retirement in the 80s.

The I LOVE LUCY writing was meticulous. Lucille Ball was an actress not a comedian, so the gags (like candy wrapping and grape stomping) were written out in detail (which Lucy referred to as “the black stuff”) and even given a test run by the writers before the star ever got hold of the script.

Using “Laughs, Luck…and Lucy,” by Jess and Gregg Oppenheimer, as a reference, here is an excerpt from “LUCY DOES A TV COMMERICIAL, which features the redhead pitching a vitamin syrup called “Vitameatavegimin.” (“Do you poop out at parties? Are you unpopular? ) After endless rehearsals in preparation for a live commercial, Lucy unwittingly discovers the health tonic is loaded with alcohol:


LUCY: Well – I’m your Vita-veeda-vigg-vatgirl. Are you tired, run down, listless? Do you pop out at parties? Are you unpoopular? Well, are you? The answer to ALLLLL your problems in this li’l ole bottle. Vita-meeta-vegamin. (She looks real pleased with herself for getting it right.) Contains vitamins, meat, metagable and vinerals. With – (She looks at the bottle.) Vitametavegamin you can spoon your way to health. All you do it take one of these full-vita meedy mega meenie moe a mis (She holds up the spoon.) … after every meal. (She has a lot of difficulty getting the spoon under the neck of the bottle. Keeps pouring so that it doesn’t hit the spoon but goes on the table. Finally, she puts the spoon down on the table, takes the bottle with both hands and pours it on the spoon. She puts the bottle down, looks at the spoon to see that it’s full, beams back to the audience, turns back to the table, picks up the bottle and drinks out of it. As she puts the bottle down, she notices the spoon again, picks it up and puts it in her mouth. She forgets to take it out. With the spoon in her mouth.) Taste just like candy. (She takes the spoon out of her mouth. By now, she is leaning, practically sitting on the table.) So why don’t you join the thousands of happy, peppy people and get a great big bottle. (She opens her mouth but realizes that she’d better not try it again. Holds up the bottle.) This stuff.


Over fifty-years later, Mr. Carroll’s creation remains as “poopular” as ever. I LOVE LUCY is one of the few 50s sitcoms that airs regularly on TV stations around the world. It can be seen over a dozen times a week on FOX here in Los Angeles.

____________________________________________________


Send questions and comments to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

MAILROOM # 10

Happy New Year!

After a brief hiatus, I have returned to the mailroom to answer a few questions.

Please feel free to send questions and comments to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net.

All mail could be used for this blog.

_______________________________________________

I was reading your piece on twoadverbs.com about constructing loglines ("The Construction of a Logline"), and I was surprised that you advise not to include a self-addressed, stamped yes/no postcard. A couple years ago I did this and received about twenty back. Granted they didn't have a "no" option-- just "please send me the screenplay." But I thought it also added some marketing value to my idea. I had them professionally printed with some imagery that dealt with the humorous nature of my screenplay. Why do you recommend not sending one? Is it amateurish or something? I'm planning to begin querying again for my latest screenplay and I'm wondering if I should approach it differently. What other options do I have?

Yes, I do think they look amateurish since studios and professional writers don’t use them – only amateurs. If your query provides an e-mail, I can just as easily reply yay or nay. However, I know many assistants who appreciate postcards and SASEs because they peel off the stamps to use for their own mail. But what do I really know? If you had success with postcards then continue to use them.
____________________________________________________


What do you think about Internet sites where producers request screenplays (I mean Hollywoodlitsales.com, The Screenwriters Market, etc.)? Have you ever heard about someone that sold a screenplay by that way?

I’ve blogged about this in the past (IN MEMORY OF MRS. MARY C. BROCKWAY). These sorts of sites have been responsible for a sale or two. But none can truly offer up statistics that make their services anything more than a shot in the dark. For instance, Hollywoodlitsales.com – which offers a referral service - tells us that “the Joel Zwick produced movie FOREVER TOGETHER, was found through us.” If that seven-year-old direct-to-video effort is the website’s only claim to fame, it’s hardly an endorsement. (And whatever happened to the screenwriter?) However, the problem doesn't rest solely on the shoulders of these websites. Although it's true that few reputable producers prowl the likes of these domains, the real culprit for their lack of success is due to the poor material that's offered up.

Last week, the Big Apple complained of a bad smell that emanated from New Jersey. New Yorkers, despite their tough reputations, walked around the city holding their noses to ward off the miasma.

On a daily basis, Hollywood suffers from a similar stench.

We have our own New Jersey: The putrified pile of bad scripts.

And nowhere is the proliferation more offensive than the toxic dumps of these websites. So, the lack of success is due to both website & writer - the apotheosis of Wonder Twin power.

Interestingly, these websites have a built in safety net. If writers complain about the lack of bang for their buck, it can always be blamed on their bad writing - which will usually exonerate a tenuous service. This might be why there are very few complaints against the websites.

Ultimately, if the Internet service is affordable and provides one shot in a large cache of ammunition, I suspect it won't hurt. However, it seems doubtful it will help either.
____________________________________________________


I am sure you get this question quite often, but I'll ask anyway... How do I get read? Let me rephrase that -- what I mean is, Holy crap, in the name of all that is good and pure, how in the heck can I get anyone who knows anything or has any sort of decent reputation in the business to read a script? I am a published author -- my novel comes out in June, 2007. I got to the quarterfinals of the Nicholl Fellowship in 2002, and through to the second round twice (with two different scripts) at the Austin Film Festival Screenwriting Contest, so it's not like I am a complete hack. But I'd like to be more proactive than simply entering screenwriting competitions. I live in Colorado -- please don't tell me to move to LA – if someone bought a script I'd be more than happy to, but I don't have that kind of money right now. I met a great executive from ICM at a Writers' Conference in Colorado in April. She actually ripped a piece of paper from her purse and gave me her email address (she was out of business cards) and told me to send my Nicholls' script to her. I did. And never heard back. I don't hold that against her, she was lovely, and supportive, and probably had three hundred calls waiting for her by the time she got back to Hollywood. The process just seems so random. Help!

Your cries for help mingle with the cacophonus wallows of thousands and thousands of other struggling writers. You are not alone. Your assertion that the process is "random" is the whole truth. And each writer must sum up his own situation and devise his own individual game plan. Assuming that you have a product that is even saleable within the halls of Hollywood (a very big assumption here), it is imperative that you take advantage of every little situation that comes your way. For instance, did you try to contact the ICM exec? You must follow-up.

It's very thoughtful that you didn't want to pester the exec by adding another name to her phone sheet. But fuck her three hundred calls. You're trying to get this woman to read your script.

Being persistent is one of Hollywood's Ten Commandments; it's how things get done. Although the concept might be alien to a writer from Colorado, it's part of the language of Hollywood. If you're not speaking our language, it seems unlikely we'll ever communicate.

The easiest way to get read is simply to ask. It's easy because it doesn't take much time or cost anything. You can ask by letter, e-mail, phone or in person. If you ask 100 executives, most will say "no." But some will say "yes." And that's a perfectly good place to start. The fear of rejection and embarassment plays a big part in causing writers to shy away from such tactics. I suggest to take a pill or something and get over it.

As I've mentioned in the past, try to contact reputable managers who are open to new writers. A scribe who lives in Colorado needs a mouthpiece here in town who can work on her behalf. But never exclude anyone who might be willing to read your script.

Of course, you need to keep writing. Turn out 2-3 new scripts a year. The more scripts you have, the more likely you are to find the right match for one of them - which in many cases is all it takes to launch a career. Set a quota for yourself: Contact X amount of execs, producers, managers and agents a month in an attempt to get your script read. The more queries, the more likely someone will say yes to a read.

The competition to get your script read is fierce, so your game plan calls for a bit of ferocity. If you're not getting read, either your material is weak (I'm not impressed with your contest placements, by the way) or your marketing skills are neglible. Try something new and different this year. If no one is reading your scripts now, it can't get any worse.
____________________________________________________


I’m hoping to get a little logline help if possible. I’m not getting any responses to read my screenplay based on the following logline, and I’m wondering if it is too confusing, or just too expensive a concept for a beginning writer to try and pitch?
“When a group of misfit teenagers find themselves magically transported into their favorite fantasy role-playing game, they must overcome their social anxieties by working together with their game characters to defeat the villain and find a way back home.”

This logline is mostly competent. Perhaps, it could focus on the main character instead of clumping him in with the group. You could probably offer up a smoother way to present the idea of “social anxieties.” The logline doesn’t give us an understanding of the world in which this takes place. So we don’t have a sense of the sort of budgetary “expense” to which your question refers. Is this an animated project combining it with live action – like ARTHUR AND THE INVISIBLES? As you might already know, animated projects are a difficult sell within the marketplace and many agents and managers won’t touch them – especially from a new writer. Since few studios deal with animation, your pool of potentially interested parties evaporates quickly. The fact that I’m not sure as to the delivery method of your story (animated or not) doesn’t bode well for the logline. I can only hope that in any correspondence, you make that clear.

Sometimes material just doesn’t click with the people you’re trying to solicit, and you may want to cast a wider net.

It should be taken into consideration that this is not the most original idea ever. I’ve read several versions of this concept. The season premiere of SOUTH PARK offered a similar version – but with a much better hook than you have here.

About a week before your question arrived in my mailbox, another writer sent me an e-mail with a query that was also getting the cold shoulder. He suspected his lack of response was because he included info about a finalist placement in a screenwriting contest and the potentiality of a live stage version. He feared that, perhaps, others (based on some of my comments here) might not find those achievements to be impressive. He wanted to know whether or not he should remove them. (In a brief diversion to answer that writer's question: I don’t think those credits are turning off prospective readers.)

Here is the logline from that other e-mail:

It’s a story about a trio of nerdy twelve year olds whose role playing game characters appear in the real world. When the game’s reality-altering villain follows, the kids team up with their alter egos and find it within themselves to save the universe.

Sound familiar?

This second logline is a variation of the first. Two very similar concepts in my mailbox within a week. I suspect the town is being flooded with this concept. (This concept could be for 2007 what vampires were for 2006.)

I suspect this may have something to do with the lack of enthusiam rather than the loglines themselves.
____________________________________________________


CAKE WALK: A disgraced athlete must claw his way back to the top in order to win an endorsement deal that will save his marriage, his town, and his dignity. His sport: The rough-and-tumble world of professional cakewalking. Of course, I have no script. Probably the cardinal sin when pitching a logline.

Pitching an idea before it is written can save the writer a lot of time. Many agents and managers like to know what the client plans to work on to prevent him from wasting energy if the concept would seem problematic for the marketplace.

I suspect the first reaction from many would be, “What the fuck is cakewalking?” I think that would be your biggest hurdle. If an executive cannot picture it – then he cannot see the movie. Maybe Southerners would have a better understanding. It’s an obscure reference, hearkening back to the days of minstrel shows - not necessarily another plus. I’m aware that in the “old days” there were cakewalk competitions, but does the “sport” exist today? Is there really a modern precedent for “cakewalking” or is it a figment of your imagination? If the sport does exist (like dodge ball or eating competitions or Lambada: the Forbidden Dance) then some literature to support the absurdity would work in your favor. If it doesn’t exist, I think this would be a tough sell.
____________________________________________________


I think you focus too much on loglines and pitches and not enough on screenplays. Don't you understand the importance of the screenplay over the logline? I think all this pitch and logline preaching is doing writers a disservice. Don't you?

Are you kidding?

It's true I do focus on those elements more than the screenplay, per se. But it's purely practical and not philosophical. Throughout my career, I've read over 25,000 scripts, and deal with them on a daily basis, so it would be a bit cretinous - to put it politely - to ask whether or not I understand the importance of the screenplay over the logline.

I can't read every script of every writer who asks a question, but I've learned that I can diagnose a story via the logline. I can gather the information to ask the right questions to make an assessment on the story and offer the writer some guidance. In this extracurricular world of websites and blogs, the logline & pitch is the easiest way for me to get some bearing on the material. A logline review takes a couple of minutes while a screenplay read takes a couple of hours.

Last year, I received 739 queries (separate of my agency work or any pitches I may have heard at various events). To read those scripts at two hours each (I'm not a fast reader), I would have to invest 1,478 hours. There are 168 hours in a week. Subtracting 4 hours a day for sleep leaves 140 possible hours a week to read scripts. If my math works out, I would need over ten weeks to read those scripts. (At the end, I would have about four hours left over, which I could divvy up over time to shit and shower.) Of course, I haven't factored in the time invested to follow-up on all those scripts, offering rejections and story notes.

The logline and the pitch are ways to filter through the requests to avoid spending that much time reading scripts. When a new writer with no track record asks someone to read his script, how will the exec determine if it's something he wants to see?

"Believe me, this is a good script. You won't be disappointed," says the writer.

That mantra has become as creepy and ill-fated as a schoolyard pedophile offering a child some candy.

"I've written a script, I'd like for you to read. It's about (insert logline here) blah, blah, blah...."

A few minutes later (hopefully it's that quick), an exec can determine if the story idea is worth an investment of time. It's his preogative to decide which scripts he will and won't read. (Regardless, he almost always ends up molested. )

But the logline is an effective way to help the exec make that decision, so don't underestimate its importance or power.
_____________________________________________________

Let’s not forget those writers who recently passed away. Their contributions to the creative community and our lives are greatly appreciated.

A.I. Bezzerides (98)
Joseph Barbera (95)
Orin Borsten (94)
Martin Nodell (91)
Anne Howard Bailey (82)
Iwao Takamoto (81)
Chris Hayward (81)
Jeremy Slate (80)
Joan Worth (72)
Mike Evans (57)
And two of my NYU writing teachers:
John Bishop (77)
Jan Hartman (66)

LOGLINES REVISITED REVISITED

I received lots of positive e-mails in response to the Logline Lottery blog entry. So, feeling akin to Stan Freberg, I dug into the trunk to present another blast from the past. Like the previous entry, I invited some industry friends to comment on the loglines too.

Here are the results from the Logline Lottery dated December 15, 2005.

__________________________________________________________



PURITY - Action/Supernatural

A faithless bounty hunter with a death wish is, unbeknownst to him, hired by God and Satan to travel the world and stop a modern-day version of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse from getting their hands on a pure element that would turn them into living gods.

There are some interesting elements here. However, as a whole, this doesn’t quite intrigue. The notion of God and Satan conferring on this mission is good. (How would this be dramatized?) And I like the idea of the bounty hunter (a touch of CONSTANTINE). But it gets a bit murky with the “stakes.” The notion of a “pure element” is unclear – as is “living gods.”

OVERALL OPINION

Maybe this would have been more effective, overall, if it were rooted in something more specific (even iconic) – like let’s say (as an example) a WESTERN. So, using all the archetypes of a western, a bounty hunter – hired by God & Satan – struggles to apprehend the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse…. As presented in the logline, we don’t get a sense of the world, the stakes or the whole picture. And it feels a bit generic. PASS



WIRED - Comedy

A bright teenage loser moves into the world's first "smart" suburbia -- an all-American town where every whim is met through computers. After bonding with a misfit genius who hacks the technology to manipulate residents' lives, the lonely teen uses the system to achieve more than just fun and games: He sets out to win the girl of his dreams, and soon learns that you can never substitute genuine humanity with technology.

Seems a little “busy.” There is a bit of a disconnect here in regards to the relation between computers and the characters. Are the resident’s connected to computers? Is there some sort of wireless service? How are the denizens manipulated by computer technology? (Is this literal or figurative?) In order for this logline to work, we need to understand this. But the explanation would have to be concise. Because we don’t understand the “technology” here, it’s difficult to understand the actions of the protagonist. Does he sit behind a computer for the whole movie and manipulate the girl?

OVERALL OPINION

There could be an interesting idea here, but it doesn’t come to the surface. The writer isn’t able to allow the reader to visual/conceptualize his story. That’s an important element that needs to be worked out. Wasn’t the titled used by the John Belushi biography? PASS.



LOTTO FEVER - Comedy

In order to pay for the expenses to cure his ailing son's disease, a grandfather recruits members of his retirement community to pull a sting on a national lottery.

First thought here is why the “grandfather?” How old are we talking? And how many grandfatherly actors can open a movie? (I doubt Jack Nicholson, Sean Connery or Clint Eastwood would want to play grandfathers.) As presented here, the logline doesn’t pop. That mechanism may be in the nature of the “sting” itself, which we hope is amusing and clever. Perhaps the logline needs to offer some insight into the nature of the crime.

OVERALL OPINION

If the nature of the “sting” isn’t all that interesting then this could be a tough sell. The concept is cute but could lack a feature film quality. The concept has some precedent in films like GOING IN STYLE with George Burns, Art Carney and Lee Strasberg about elderly bank robbers and the more recent THE CREW, which didn’t fare well at the box-office. WEAK CONSIDER.



MR. BOOGS - Animated/Family/Adventure

After an eight year old girl accidentally switches bodies and worlds with a disobedient boogeyman she has 24 hours to make it home or be trapped in his world forever. But first she must overcome her fear of the dark and masquerade as the little monster, pass a frightening boogeyman exam and outwit two boogeyland bullies while the boogeyman must survive a "nightmare" of his own...an all-girl slumber party.

This logline could have stopped after “…in his world forever,” if it had been a bit more precise. It should be perfectly clear from the get-go that the girl and the boogeyman swap lives. We don’t get that info until we learn about the slumber party. The word “boogeyman” makes the character sound like an adult. But the logline suggests he’s actually a boy. (I guess a “boogeyboy.”) Is that the case? (A little confused here.) The concept that a human child switches bodies and worlds with a boogey-child stirs up more intrigue than switching places with a boogeyman. However, the idea of a boogeyman (or boy) attending an all-girl slumber party doesn’t work for me because we don’t know anything about boogey-people. For instance, are little girls part of their diet? It seems like you’d get the same response if a human boy attended an all-girl slumber party.

OVERALL OPINION

I think there is some potential here. I don’t know if it’s a good idea to split the story between girl as boogeyman and boogeyman as girl. In order for these scripts to work – regardless if the characters are humans or monsters – we must know the worlds and status quo of each character before the flip. Then when it’s flipped around, we understand the misadventures that ensue. But audiences will be familiar with the girl’s world and not the boogeyman’s world – and may find the latter far more interesting. The juggling act here must be done with a lot of skill. In its current state: PASS.



THE JUDITH SHIFT - Sci-Fi/Thriller

On the run in a futuristic totalitarian society, a rebel talk show diva struggles to escape with her brainwashed daughter to a better world, while fighting increasing dangers at every turn as both the state - and her vigilante daughter - try to kill her.

This lacks the fun irony of something like LOGAN’S RUN (where the cop who kills people over thirty – turns thirty). There is some confusion as to the daughter character. The diva escapes with her daughter – yet her daughter is trying to kill her? (Not sure how this works or why the diva puts up with it – daughter or not.) The world is too generic. It isn’t interesting. Think about how interesting and SPECIFIC the worlds are in stories like FAHRENHEIT 451 (books); MINORITY REPORT (pre-crime); ROBOCOP (urban crime); I, ROBOT (robots); BLADE RUNNER (replicants) ; LOGAN’S RUN (aging), TOTAL RECALL (memory) and so on. The intrigue of the world could be boiled down to one thing for each of these examples. If your character is a talk show host, does the “world” revolve around media?

OVERALL OPINION

Although this offers some of the right elements, there’s no hook here. In order for this to leap off the page, there needs to be something more compelling within the concept itself. Without understanding the specifics of the world and an intriguing hook, this is a PASS.



RAT PACK - Animated Comedy

In the vein of CHICKEN RUN meets COOL HAND LUKE.

A cool street rat is captured for use in cruel experiments and struggles to lead the institutionalized lab mice in a daring escape past the scientist's diabolical cat.

Very cute! Tight logline. The script would need to duplicate stories like ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ or THE GREAT ESCAPE to carry the singular concept for 90-pages.

OVERALL OPINION

Very one-note but with potentially interesting characters (other than just rats and cats, I hope) and narrative modulation, this could be good. Traditionally, animation is not spec script material. Regardless, it earns a CONSIDER.



PASTE - Comedy

An ailing jeweler is about to realize his dream when his favorite actress agrees to wear his most famous gems to the Oscars. But when she claims the gems as a gift, it's up to his would-be son-in-law to steal them back -- on Oscar night -- before the real owner realizes they're missing.

This could be streamlined. The story is potentially amusing, but it’s unclear as to what the obstacles may be. Why will it be tough to steal them? And why do they have to be stolen? Can’t the misunderstanding be cleared up? Why is the old man giving the actress the real owner’s gems? Wouldn’t the real owner know? And how do you keep that a secret when it’s the old man’s most famous gems and the actress would have to answer a zillion questions about the gems on the red carpet from the likes of Joan Rivers? Too many characters: ailing jeweler, actress, son-in-law, real owner. It should be one piece of stunning jewelry – instead of “gems.”

OVERALL OPINION

The logline definitely suggests a movie but there are some logic issues for me (as suggested above). It’s not clear what the obstacles are to stealing the gems. And the logline would have been better served setting up the main character instead of spreading it thin amongst four characters. WEAK CONSIDER.



ROCK HARD - Comedy

When the washed-up singer of an 80's heavy metal hair band is ordered to make his child support payments or go to jail, he struggles to reconcile with his estranged band mates and relaunch their career - as a children's musical group (ala' The Wiggles).

Good logline. Good concept. Note the unity within the logline. We have a metal head, who isn’t connecting with his kid and finds himself on the kiddy music circuit. This works better than if he were, let’s say, struggling to patch up a relationship with his girlfriend, which wouldn’t offer the most effective “connection.” Since an important factor in setting up projects today is having talent attached, this seems like it would be ripe for attracting a good comedic actor.

OVERALL OPINION

Not particularly original, but THE PACIFIER did quiet well recently, and this could tap into a similar audience. On the flip side, there are several projects with a similar slant in development – most notably ROCK AND ROLL NANNY, which is a hybrid of this idea and THE PACIFIER. On a side note: a few days before I received these loglines, I read another called “Rocking the Cradle.” It went like this: “In order to get their music label to produce their next CD, a veteran Rocker and his band mates must first record a CD of kid’s music and take it on the road.” In my reply, I said, “Kids music, a la THE WIGGLES, is ripe for spoofing.” So, when I saw the logline for ROCK HARD, I assumed it was a re-tooled version of “Rocking the Cradle.” After all, the similarities were way too coincidental. According to our rules, any logline previously commented on by me is not eligible for the lottery. I was prepared to disqualify it, but after some investigating, I discovered that the two were developed separate of one another by two different writers who did not know each other. Just another case of simultaneous development. If your idea is mainstream/commercial, the odds are someone somewhere else is already working on it. CONSIDER.



DISCO SKATE KING - A comedy on wheels

Unable to escape eighteen years of humiliation and on the verge of divorce, a miserable man has a chance to prove to everyone he's not the loser he thinks he is when he gets to re-challenge a skater and high school nemesis in a disco roller tournament.

There is a bit of a disconnect between the set-up (verge of divorce) and the pay-off (disco roller tournament). That could be worked out. The ROCK HARD logline has a stronger unifying connection between set-up (child support) and pay-off (kids’ music). It’s not clear why a divorce makes him a loser or how winning a disco roller tournament can change any of that.

OVERALL OPINION

This is clearly going for a kitchy, Ben Stiller sensibility. This project wants to exploit a piece of the 70’s, but it was an obscure piece to begin with. Disco dancing – which was much more of a phenomenon – has a universal quality to it. But the appeal of disco skating was limited. (Did anyone see ROLLER BOOGIE?) On the other hand, DODGEBALL was a game played by everyone (until many schools banned it), so it has a nostalgic and universal quality to it. Can this attract the crucial younger audience (who may not relate to disco skating) or will it appeal mostly to the baby boomers of the disco period? WEAK CONSIDER.



BROTHER EDDIE - Comedy

When a lovable lug unwittingly joins a dangerous cult, he converts the other members to his optimistic way of life and makes enemies with the evil powers that be.

Doesn’t quite feel like the writer has found his concept yet. More so than converting others to his optimistic way of life, he needs to have unwittingly started a cult himself. If this is the intention, then the logline should clearly state it. That would be funnier. It’s not clear what the protagonist does here. After the others convert to his optimistic way of life, he does what? We understand he makes enemies but what sort of action does that trigger? Is he trying to actively accomplish anything through the story? Without a sense of what the protagonist needs to do, we get a tarnished concept instead of a polished logline.

OVERALL OPINION

There’s plenty of comic fodder with this character in the world of a dangerous cult, but we need to know the character’s goal, which will enable us to envision a second act and get a sense of the script’s tension and climax. PASS.


------------


I recently gathered some industry friends around my fireplace to roast chestnuts and drink eggnog while discussing the loglines.

Having already made my decision, I was interested in hearing different perspectives from folks that make a living dealing with story and concepts.

The guest list:

ICM’s Senior Story Analyst JASON PATTI.

Industry readers RYAN and JOHN.

ICM talent agent BJ FORD.

ICM lit agent BRIAN SHER.

BOB SOBHANI, lit manager and co-founder of Magnet Management.

Screenwriter (the upcoming PRIDE starring Terrence Howard) MICHAEL GOZZARD.

FEAST screenwriters PATRICK MELTON and MARCUS DUNSTON.

SEAN HINCHEY, the author of the upcoming, "39 Ways to Win a Screenwriting Contest and the Nine Mistakes New Writer's Make.”


With Nat King Cole’s Christmas CD playing in the background, the Hollywood

boys’ club was prepared to rattle off their opinions.

PGL winners PATRICK MELTON & MARCUS DUNSTON have a lot going on lately (and recently appeared in our chatroom - look for the transcript here in the forum) and were too busy to stay.

But they managed to sit long enough to suck down some free booze and confirm their winner: ROCK HARD.

They said, “As a comedy, the big concept is important. And this has that. Additionally, including the personal journey that the protagonist must achieve provides the emotional arc (the real meat). '80s metal hair is always good. And putting someone from that world into the world of children music is ripe for comedy. Sounds fun. Off this logline, I'm sure several people looking for comedy or comedy writers would want to take a look.”

Ryan agreed with P&M but didn’t place ROCK HARD in the winner’s circle.

“ROCK HARD is third for me,” Ryan said. “While the premise is not particularly original (father needs to reconnect with kid by humiliating himself and ultimately changing), this logline has legs that could carry it through a full ninety pages, and provide enough laughs in its fish-outta-water story to make it worthwhile. Its subject matter might limit its audience.”

Although ROCK HARD wasn’t top on Ryan’s list, it was even lower on Jason’s list.

“SCHOOL OF ROCK meets 'anything' seems to be a popular launching point for scripts these days,“ he said. “This one will need to set itself apart a bit more. Specifically, I like the humor of a rock star being forced to join a children's music group -- but I don't see where the story goes from there. Does the washed up singer have anything to lose? After all, his popularity has long since faded. It might be more interesting to see a successful rock star in this position. For example, what if Marilyn Manson was ordered by the court to join THE WIGGLES...?”

Ryan’s second place pick is MR. BOOGS. He said, “While a little reminiscent of MONSTERS INC., it still has more than enough of an original and funny concept to escape comparison, something that parents and kids alike could enjoy. However, according to the logline, it is difficult to see how her tasks will help her out of the boogeyman world - it seems more unnecessarily like HARRY POTTER than ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ. The idea of the boogeyman surviving the slumber party is hilarious.”

Again, Jason disagreed, “It’s cute -- but I don't see a strong A-story here. The list of incidents at the tail end of this logline makes me believe that the script will be supported by a series of episodic moments. The narrative spine is missing from this one.”

Bob Sobhani liked MR. BOOGS enough to make it his clear winner. “It's imaginative and original. It feels like it will have all of the right elements (heart, central conflict, never before seen setting, etc.) you look for in a kid's movie. In contrast, most of other loglines are a mixture of storylines and themes we’ve seen a hundred times, some of them without a central narrative.”

As his first place winner, Ryan picked WIRED.

“WIRED is a great logline that illustrates a great ‘hyper-reality’ setting that allows for a lot of physical and domestic comedy. The artificiality of suburbia is prime territory for both comedy and commentary, and the logline has a built in rom-com structure that can easily be subverted for a fresh story. The only drawback is that the central character's young age might limit the audience, but playing up the parents roles could easily solve this problem.”

Jason saw WIRED as a suburban MATRIX.

“There is something here,” he commented, “but the concept doesn't stand out. The idea doesn't give me a clear picture of the movie. I feel this one will run out of steam by the midpoint - and a lot depends on how much the lives of these residents can be manipulated.”

But Mike Gozzard also sang the praises of WIRED, “I love this logline. It is a cool new world I haven’t seen before. Feels contained, easy to understand and also produce. Lots of ways to have real companies pay for production by donating their products to these smart homes (i.e. Sony) could find money that way. The main character could be cast with a name young actor, which is key. Great, easy concept I can pitch and sell in a room. Seems fun. Touches on issues of technology, privacy. I get the whole story here, know where the drama and conflict will come from. This could sell."

Although Jason and Ryan couldn’t agree on a winner, they did agree on THE JUDITH SHIFT.

Ryan complained, “NO WAY. While certainly different than most, this logline is, frankly, confusing. It’s difficult to imagine a totalitarian world where there is a talk show diva, a job in our current culture that promotes mainstream culture and image that would be considered a 'rebel.' Do they really have enough power to be given this label? Furthermore, where is this better world - another country, or another planet?”

Jason was a bit kinder and more pedagogical in his opinion. “It’s LOGAN'S RUN meets OPRAH. The logline is a bit vague for me. Why does it matter that the protagonist is a talk show host? Does this somehow play into the story? For example, in the screenplay adaptation of Philip K. Dick's FLOW MY TEARS, THE POLICEMAN SAID, protagonist Jason Taverner is a famous talk show host. But it plays into concept because he wakes up and discovers that he is suddenly an unknown. I don't see the same type of concept-to-character connection in THE JUDITH SHIFT. Also, the description of the action suggests that this might become a long series of repetitive run-and-chase sequences without enough variation - "the increasing dangers" - to keep an audience engaged.”

Sean Hinchey reads scripts for several major contests and was busy pitching his book "39 Ways to Win a Screenwriting Contest and the Nine Mistakes New Writer's Make." With his fixation on odd numbers, his number one choice was RAT PACK.

“Best title with the best pitch,” he said matter-of-factly. “Alas, trying to actually sell it is something else. Kinda has that feel of the WB GOOD FEATHERS - about a bunch of pigeons based on the characters from a similar sounding Martin Scorcese film.”

Jason shares in the kudos, “RAT PACK is the winner - simple, clean - I can see the movie from start to finish."

Not wanting to sound like Scrooge, Brian Sher (who reps big writers like Kevin Bisch) agreed but was cautious, “To be honest, I couldn’t do anything with any of these loglines. None of these concepts grab me. I like RAT PACK the most too but I can’t sell it. Animation doesn’t sell on spec; it’s developed within the studio. Anyway, animation projects take a long time to get made – any agent’s worst nightmare. I have to look at these from my own perspective. I’m just being realistic. New writers shouldn’t be writing animation to break into the business, because those who want to help won’t be able to.”

Like Brian, John gives RAT PACK the lead but with only a “mild consider.”

He explained, “I literally got a smile as I reminisced about TOM & JERRY, SYLVESTER and TWEETY and countless other toons from my youth. The logline is very lean and easy to understand. I can visualize the story from what the writer has given me. I get a strong sense of action, thrills, and laughs. The writer appears to have constructed a solid throughline, giving me the impression that reading this script would not be a waste of my time.”

But John repeated Brian’s concern. “The only real drawback is that it’s animated. While I wouldn’t mind reading this screenplay, I would be wary of the fact that positioning it would be difficult. A request from me would depend highly on whom I happen to be working for.”

Ryan thought RAT PACK was cute but ultimately a “pass.” He said, “It’s far too similar to CHICKEN RUN, which already has enough of a COOL HAND LUKE feel to it as to not merit another spin. It also has strands of THE SECRET OF NIHM" which is all right, but not wholly original enough. More needs to be shown in the logline to separate RAT PACK from its predecessors.”

BJ felt like the odd man out but soothed his woes with some Christmas cookies. His vote went to PASTE.

“I liked PASTE," he said confidentally. "I feel it’s the most original and commercial, funny idea. It sounds like people would go to the movies to see it.”

Jason grabbed the last cookie and countered, “On the surface, the concept doesn't appear to be strong enough to sustain a feature length film. There’s also an issue of focus here. The first sentence leads me to believe that the ailing jeweler is the protagonist - but the second sentence changes gears by throwing the son-in-law in the driver's seat. However, the stakes remain secondary to the son-in-law character. He's only involved as a result of his looming marriage. Is there a way to make the connection between the protagonist and "the stakes" more direct?"

Ryan questions the plausibility of the story, “If the jewels are really famous - which in itself is hard to believe considering the jeweler's apparent anonymity - then there are legal outlets to take other than stealing the jewels, on Oscar night, to boot.”

Jason wanted to give “honorable mention” to BROTHER EDDIE.

He said, “This is a funny, oddball idea, but if it gets too dark it won't work. However, as I can easily see this falling into the Vaughn/Stiller/Ferrell mode - I'm seeing Ferrell as the lug and Vaughn as the cult leader - I'd be willing to take a look.”

He also thought LOTTO FEVER has promise. “It has a nice hook. I'd be interested to see how it's carried through the second act. I'm also wondering if this is a more commercial idea in reverse: ‘In order to save his ailing grandfather, a boy gathers his pals and….’ Either way, I'd be interested enough to take a peek.”

John agreed and gave LOTTO FEVER 'honorable mention' along with ROCK HARD. He explained, “While the loglines didn’t work for me the way RAT PACK’s did; they do have some potential in that they deal with concepts that could - if exploited properly - lead to very entertaining stories. But, sadly they get a PASS.”

So as the informal gathering waned and the ten different voices faded off into the December night, I was left with dirty dishes and glasses and a final score that settles down like this:

RAT PACK: 4
WIRED : 2
ROCK HARD: 2
MR. BOOGS: 1
PASTE: 1

Would my decision follow the party line here? Do all execs thing alike?

The winner: RAT PACK.

____________________________________________________

For those interested, my Inside Hollywood Screenwriting class runs for six consecutive Saturdays at Los Angeles Valley College (Coldwater & Fulton).

March 10 - April 21 from 10AM - 1PM.

Tuition: $93.00.

Registration starts on January 3, 2007 at 8AM.

Call 818 947 2577, Extension 4172.

________________________________________________

Send comments and questions to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

THE BLACK LIST

The Hollywood Blacklist of 1947 began with ten names of writers and directors who were found by the House Committee on Un-American Activities to have ties to the Communist party.

The Blacklist meant shame and led to the professional and personal ruin of many artists.

Sixty years later, the "blacklist" has taken on new meaning, a more positive one, a list on which writers want to see their names.

Each year, ninety Hollywood executives are polled and asked to mention their favorite scripts of the past twelve months. Although the organizers make it clear that the list does not represent the best only favorites, it is difficult to separate the two in a town where subjectivity rules.

Below are the ten scripts which received the most “mentions.” I’ve included the loglines (when applicable). All told, THE BLACK LIST contains 87 titles, the majority receiving two mentions.

On a side note, most of the scripts come from six major agencies, CAA, WILLIAM MORRIS, ICM, UTA, ENDEAVOR and PARADIGM. Of the 87 titles, 9 come from other agenices.

These titles provide execs with some holiday reading and should be on the "wish list" of aspiring writers.





WITH 30 MENTIONS:

THE BRIGANDS OF RATTLEBORGE by Craig Zahler

After the siege of a small town by outlaws leaves over sixty dead, a sheriff teams with a mysterious doctor to find the responsible villains.



WITH 23 MENTIONS:

STATE OF PLAY by Matt Carnahan

A tabloid reporter struggles to uncover the truth behind the suicide of a Washington intern who was the lover of a popular, married senator.



WITH 19 MENTIONS:

RENDITION by Kelley Sane

After an Egyptian expat/Canadian citizen, wrongly suspected of terrorist ties, is captured and rendered by the US to Egypt for questioning, his American wife, a congressional aide, and a CIA man try to gain his release.



WITH 17 MENTIONS:

VILLIAN by Josh Zetumer

Two slightly deranged brothers stalk each other in the wilderness of Alaska until their angry rivalry starts claiming innocent lives.



WITH 16 MENTIONS:

THE GRACKLE by Mike Arnold & Chris Poole

A thug, who beats up bad guys for a living, struggles to overcome the revenge plot of a victim - an ex-con with plans to takeover the French Quarter.

THE CITY WALLS by Caleb Kane

A young man feels remorse after he delivers a teenage girl to his pimp benefactor and attempts to rescue her and himself from the mean streets of Eighties New York



WITH 15 MENTIONS:

LAST MAN HOME by Jamie Moss

An AWOL Marine battles a Special Forces team and a crew of CIA hitmen as he struggles to locate his missing Air Force pilot brother - smack dab in the middle of the shock and awe of Uncle Sam’s assault on Baghdad, circa 2003.



WITH 14 MENTIONS:

UNTITLED RICHARD PRYOR by Caleb Kane



WITH 13 MENTIONS:

SEVEN POUNDS by Grant Nieporte

An IRS agent tracks down good people whose lives have been ruined by tragedy and arranges to help them all before killing himself.



WITH 11 MENTIONS:

HIMELFARB by Andrew Mogel & Harrod Paul

After one bad blind date, a hopeless geek becomes obsessed with a small-town girl and crashes her family Thanksgiving to try to make it work between them.



______________________________________________________


For those interested, my Inside Hollywood Screenwriting class runs for six consecutive Saturdays at Los Angeles Valley College (Coldwater & Fulton).

March 10 - April 21 from 10AM - 1PM.

Tuition: $93.00.

Registration starts on January 3, 2007 at 8AM.

Call 818 947 2577, Extension 4172.


Send comments and questions to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

LOGLINES REVISITED

With the holidays approaching, things have been busy, so I thought I'd offer up some reading material without having to do too much work.

What follows are results from the former Logline Lottery at twoadverbs.com.

For two years, we randomly selected ten loglines a month to be critiqued. The most effective logline - as judged by me - would win a prize of script coverage (for the logline's screenplay) by a professional story analyst.

The point of the lottery was to examine both the presentation and effectiveness of loglines.

The lottery lasted two years and left a library of material in the twoadverbs forum.

This is from the December 2004 lottery.
_____________________________________________________

FOR BETTY OR WORSE - Comedy

To get back into his fiancée's good graces after an argument, a compulsively punctual corporate raider agrees to drive his flight-phobic future mother-in-law cross country to attend the wedding. But when he loses his license and is relegated to the passenger seat, her dawdling, doting ways jeopardize not only the upcoming nuptials, but the deal of a lifetime as well.

Sort of MONSTER-IN-LAW meets PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES. Road movies certainly conjure up momentum and visual resonance. However, they can also be one-note. Although this logline could be a little wordy (maybe a few too many adjectives), there is enough information here to assuage that "one-note" fear a bit. (For instance, we get a hint of a "deal of a lifetime," which lets us know that there is another level to the story which may open it up.) Casting could be a mixed blessing; the script puts a potentially "older" actress in the driver's seat here - which may not be a benefit from a "spec" perspective. On the other hand, the male lead could go to anyone from Ashton Kutcher to Ben Stiller to Will Ferrell (which could excite producers). If the "mother" role were well-written (and this needs to be a funny, memorable character), it could attract the likes of Meryl Streep, Kathy Bates, Susan Sarandon, and etcetera.

OVERALL OPINION

A perfectly competent comic concept that enables us to see various scenes - like groom and mother-in-law being put in embarrassing and compromising situations. (A good logline is one that allows the reader to see a swirl of story possibilities.) The most important aspect of this kind of comedy is the interrelationship between these two characters. The logline doesn't offer up a strong sense of conflict between groom and mother-in-law (other than the fact that she dawdles). Think of DeNiro's character in MEET THE PARENTS - a much stronger offering than simply a "dawdler." (Of course, this mother could have all sorts of great idiosyncrasies.) Most importantly, the logline suggests two very "castable" comic characters - which is a big plus. This is a CONSIDER.

"SCIENCE" OF LOVE - Family Comedy

Disgusted by the thought of becoming stepbrother and stepsister, two rival grade school science wizards grudgingly team up to break up their single parents' re-kindled passionate college romance.

A workable twist on THE PARENT TRAP. The "science" angle seems prominent in the logline but doesn't work much into the story (as presented here). Are the kids using their knowledge of science to break-up their parents? Also, is there some sort of science fair/competition to add an extra level of conflict? Like the logline above, this could fall into the "one-note" category, so it's important that there be an additional narrative element to add an extra level of story dimension.

OVERALL OPINION

This is frustrating, because the "grade school" leads are a bit of a turn-off. After all, there aren't many kids that can open a movie. (Dakota Fanning is great, but box-office receipts haven't been put on her shoulders yet). It would be much smarter to age these kiddies from grade schoolers to high school seniors, which would make it much more appropriate for a spec script. Plus, the script could deal with a burgeoning attraction between the future step siblings. As a writer hoping to sell a script, it is almost irresponsible that this concept would be developed with little kids instead of teens - the very audience that pays to see movies over and over again. This is a serious note, which could make the difference between the script being used as a martini coaster or earning six figures. As presented here, it's more of a Disney Channel movie - but there's nothing wrong with that. CONSIDER.

DEADLINE - Horror

After a young journalist invents a story about a nursery rhyme that unleashes a supernatural killer on those who say it, his friends who recite the verse are brutally slain. Accused of the murders, the journalist struggles to evade a relentless detective and destroy the killer before the NY Times prints his article containing the rhyme.

Inspired a bit by CANDYMAN. When one reads a logline, it needs to appeal on two levels. 1) The logline itself needs to be well constructed to convey the major throughline of the story. 2) The story itself must appeal to the reader, if he is to solicit a synopsis or script. For the most part, this logline works. However, the story being offered up here is questionable. Although the dramatic plot points hold up, this story could work better if it flushed out its motif. The most interesting part of the story is the "nursery rhyme". When one thinks of nursery rhymes, children come to mind. But the log line is filled with adult images. If a nursery rhyme serves as some evil incantation, it would seem to make more sense if children were at stake. (Maybe the adults who are slain are parents of children.) To further this idea, it would also make more sense if the nursery rhyme were to be published in a magazine/paper (or released in a book) to which children had access. As presented, the story doesn't support the reasoning behind using a nursery rhyme. It could be a poem. It could be a song lyric. It could be a limerick. ("There once was a man from Nantucket....") Look at how A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET exploited its motif of "dream" or how CANDYMAN exploited its "urban" motif. Since horror movies rely heavily on imagery and motifs, it is important to think this through. Also, we don't get a sense of the killer - which may or may not be important to the story. (It probably should be important in the story.)

OVERALL OPINION

The concept definitely offers up some momentum and suspense (not an easy task in a few lines). This is a tricky situation, because the writer wants to present an accurate and effective logline. While this presents all the drama inherent in the story, it downplays the elements that a producer or agent may think are most important: the nursery rhyme and the killer. To play it smart, this sort of logline should suggest FRANCHISE, since horror movies can often spawn several sequels. But the sequels would revolve around the incantation and the killer - not the newspaper man. (Horror sequels bring back the KILLERS for the encore and not usually the scream queen who survives the onslaught.) We're also getting mixed motifs here - a point that may or may not bother a reader. We're dealing with a nursery rhyme that conjures up certain motifs, and dealing with the world of newspaper publication, which conjures up a completely different set of motifs. It is perfectly acceptable to do this, provided there is a stronger bridge that effectively connects these seemingly disparate pieces. MILD CONSIDER.



SMALL TOWN SLICKER - Romantic Comedy

A big city oil exec secretly discovers a massive oil reserve under southern swampland and struggles to swindle the property from redneck owners of a local tourist trap by romancing their prodigal daughter who wants to keep it as a nature preserve.

This is a perfectly solid concept for a romantic comedy. It has a folksy, old fashioned quality to it. The log line hits upon all the key elements: the protagonist, the mission, the antagonistic force (the redneck family), the stakes are inferred, and we can see some story momentum with the inferred romance between the exec and the comely daughter. There is a straightforward nature to the storyline here that seems to detract from the concept. Perhaps this needs more of a hook. (For instance, maybe a "creative lie" scenario - like the big city oil exec posing as someone he isn't.) There are several tacks the writer could take to dress this up a bit more. However, as presented the story can certainly play.

OVERALL OPINION

Although this is a perfectly good presentation, the story doesn’t quite jump out. Perhaps the straightforward nature of the dilemma (no real hook) is part of the culprit. Of course, we know that the oil exec will face the real dilemma when he falls in love with the girl and must choose between her and his mission (but that won't happen until later in the script). The logline does allow us to see some comic characters - namely the redneck family. And the "tourist trap" (whatever that may be) also allows the mind to drum up comic possibilities. Overall, there is more than enough here to warrant a CONSIDER.



THE ARROWHEAD INCIDENT - Military Thriller

An undercover investigation turns deadly, when a former Army officer looking into "friendly fire" incidents discovers the Arrowhead missile's fatal flaw was known but squelched by high-level insiders. After his cover is blown, he must dodge assassins to stay alive while securing the evidence that will expose the conspirators and derail a multi-billion dollar procurement deal.

This provides all the information we need to see the overall arc of the storyline. Although it doesn't have an easy flow (this logline needs to be read twice), it provides all the important plot points that enable us to understand the dilemma and see the action. Like the concept above, this is pretty straightforward and lacks a really intriguing hook. Think of the hook in THE BOURNE IDENTITY, as an example. Since spec scripts are more concept driven today than they have ever been, it is crucial to amp up a story idea to make it something more exciting.

OVERALL OPINION

The logline definitely suggests its chosen genre: thriller. Of course the subtext here is topical - as the United States engages in an unpopular war in Iraq. The tension is palpable within the logline but this feels like it's more of a direct-to-video sort-of-concept rather than one for the big screen - because it lacks a compelling hook. Its lack of hook also gives it a 1980's action quality, which is problematic in today's market. VERY WEAK CONSIDER.



WHISPER - Supernatural Thriller

After a car accident leaves a despondent lawyer with the ability to see phantom men controlling people's minds, he struggles on a dangerous mission to find and destroy a portal to the phantom world that is guarded by a powerful secret society.

Supernatural thrillers - like THE OTHERS and THE RING - are still in vogue. However, this takes the genre a few steps beyond. The overall logline is well crafted, but my objections here are with the story. This starts off well. The car accident and subsequent supernatural symptoms are intriguing. There is something inherently creepy about "phantom men" (whatever they may be). However, the concept of these phantoms controlling people's minds is a bit murky. It is also difficult to visualize, which is a red flag. (This could simply be my limited scope and vision, but the writer must face all sorts of prejudices when trying to sell a story.) The logline deflates from this point on. The notion of a "dangerous mission" is too vague here. Have the phantom men always been at work - prior to his ability to see them? Why is it so important that this portal be destroyed now versus six months ago? What is at stake? Is the secret society a group of mortals?

OVERALL OPINION

Delving into a world that the reader is unfamiliar with means the logline will be under greater scrutiny. For example, we can understand the world of an oil exec trying to woo rednecks into selling their land or even a soldier trying to uncover a conspiracy. (This identifiable quality comes from two majors factors. 1) These stories take place within a world we live and understand. 2) These stories are facsimiles of stories we have seen before. Pitching STAR WARS might have been a bitch since the world was something we had never seen before - but the writer wisely used archetypes to make it all more digestible. THE MATRIX writers actually pitched with story boards.) Because WHISPERS deals with an unfamiliar world and images, the log line needs to be less vague and more specific. Great title, by the way, but this is a PASS.



SIDE EFFECT - Horror

After an experimental drug gives a suicidal woman the ability to see a murderous demon, she enlists the help of an ex-priest to destroy it--before she becomes its next victim.

This has a similar ring to the logline above. This sets-up (most of) the information we need to know, but the concept feels a little hollow. The first half is more interesting than the latter part. The ex-priest feels a little too familiar and that part of the story doesn't resonate with much excitement. Perhaps the most interesting part of the story is how they set about to destroy the demon and maybe that piece of information could be included (if it were an intriguing plot development). Of course, as we say over and over in this lottery, choosing what information to include is always the hardest part.

OVERALL OPINION

Although the idea of an experimental drug causing this vision is interesting, there isn't enough of a hook here, and the priestly sidekick feels too clichéd. This could be effective with some skilled execution, but the logline doesn't whet the appetite enough. PASS.



WELL TOLD LIES - Drama

A distraught mother fights biased evidence, vigilante neighbors, and a nervous breakdown to prove her innocent son didn't molest a child before he's sent to jail for life. Based on a true story.

Sounds more like a LIFETIME TELEVISION movie rather than a feature film. The material has some inherent drama - especially since it deals with the hot button issue of child molestation. And the fact that it is a true story helps a lot. This could be more interesting if the son's innocence was in question; the logline makes it quite clear that the boy is wrongfully accused. The "black and white" take may be too static. Conversely, the juxtaposition of her son battling molestation charges while being "molested" by the system is interesting and ironic. Strong female roles are sparse in feature films (which could be why this feels like TV). Regardless, this does have the potential to offer a beefy role for an actress.

OVERALL OPINION

Its movie-of-the-week quality is a strike against this (as a feature) but the (potentially) juicy female role is a plus. WEAK CONSIDER.



NOT SPARKS, BULLETS - Romantic Comedy

Determined to keep her mobster father out of prison for a murder he didn't commit, an engineer disguises her high-tech expertise and uses the DA's low ditz-tolerance to counter every surveillance move, until the DA, her former HS crush, puts the moves on her.

This is a little confusing. The first part makes perfect sense, but the "low ditz tolerance" is baffling. Does this mean that the DA has a low tolerance for dumb women? And is the smart engineer going to pose as a dumb woman? (Is this a "creative lie" scenario?) The surveillance stuff is also murky, and the "high school crush" conflict doesn't flow smoothly from what comes before it.

OVERALL OPINION

Not clear as to what this is about. PASS.



GENIE IN A COKE BOTTLE - Comedy

A comedy about a pampered heiress who is tricked by a mischievous Genie into trading identities. Trapped in Genieland to a life of poverty and servitude, the heiress fights to escape before the greedy Genie bags her fiancé and blows her trust fund.

Like the log line for WHISPER (above), this entry is weighed down by its vague world. Furthermore, the central conflict isn't particularly compelling, and the stakes don't feel dire. It isn't clear why a genie has to trick the heiress. Can't she just "blink" her into oblivion or something? And what does the genie need with a trust fund or the boyfriend? One assumes that a genie could have all the money in the world and access to any man on the planet.

OVERALL OPINION

There is probably a good GENIE idea out there. But this "hook" feels a little forced and doesn't generate much intrigue. Other than our heiress being trapped in GENIELAND, the genie concept doesn't feel maxed out here. After all, anyone could try to spend the heiress's trust fund and woo her boyfriend - not just a genie. This diabolical plan doesn't seem genie specific. As stated in past lotteries (and on this board), the trick to this genre (unless the movie is animated) is to set the fantasy in our real world. In other words - NO Genieland! (HEAVEN CAN WAIT and BIG are excellent examples of this.) PASS.



LOS MATADORES (The Killers) - Supernatural Thriller

When an adolescent girl's burgeoning supernatural powers destroy her seemingly normal life in the suburbs, she and her estranged family struggle to unite and battle to exorcise the evil spirit inside her by embarking on a dangerous journey to its mysterious origin deep in the perilous jungles of Central America.

Although the idea of a jungle adventure is interesting, the two halves lack a strong connective tissue. The "embarking on the dangerous journey" doesn't follow smoothly with the girl's dilemma, and the estranged family also feels like an incongruous detail. As a result, the logline feels a little scattered. Also, the nature of her supernatural powers is unclear. Is she possessed by the devil or are her powers and the devil two separate entities?

OVERALL OPINION

Cool title (though I don't know if it fits). The "thriller" elements are absent here, as this feels more like a "supernatural adventure." Although, as presented, this seems a little spread out, there could be potential here if the concept were focused. In its present condition, however, this is a PASS.

____________________________________________________

The members of twoadverbs picked their winner: SMALL TOWN SLICKER.

However, I wanted to get some additional opinions.

____________________________________________________


Firstly, I recruited my newest partner-in-crime, JULIE RICHARDSON. Julie recently produced COLLATERAL (voted one of the ten best films of the year by the National Board of Review). She has a slate of projects currently in development and met writers here in the chat room this past summer. Julie has a great story sense, and, more importantly, she has a lot of integrity - something sorely absent in this business. She is also extremely passionate about storytelling.

She scrutinized the loglines and said, "I decided to respond as a producer - as if I were considering new material for the company. Hence my results are based not on the construction of the loglines, but the perceived quality of the material which they describe."

"Of all the loglines, the comedies worked best. I was really torn between two. My first pick goes to FOR BETTY OR WORSE. It struck me as funny. SMALL TOWN SLICKER could also be very funny if executed well. It's my runner-up." Julie concluded.

I couldn't ask for opinions without soliciting a response from my original partner-in-crime, JACK D'ANNIBALE, who left ICM to find and develop projects for Jerry Bruckheimer Films.

His pick is "SCIENCE" OF LOVE.

"Why? I understand what's at stake," he said. "Although I wonder what happens after 50 minutes of break-up hi-jinks. It feels very castable. But grade school kids is off - it needs to be like Wilmer Valderramma and Lindsay Lohan and Mel Gibson and Michelle Pfeiffer. At the end of the day, this needs to be about the kids falling in love. There's potential here, however," Jack said.

His co-worker, CHARLIE BANKS, a story god in the business, says it's a toss up. "A tie between FOR BETTY OR WORSE and "SCIENCE" OF LOVE - with Lindsey Lohan and Ashton Kutcher as leads."

MATTHEW ESKANDER is an ICM talent agent (a young turk) working in the MP (motion picture) department. He trained under the legendary Ed Limato and wunderkind Jim Osborne. Matt "covers" projects - meaning he finds potential roles for clients and submits his suggestions to casting directors, using his "agenting" skills to give our clients the edge up on the part. He reads a lot of material.

Matt said, "It's a tie for me. "SCIENCE" OF LOVE is a simple premise and could be a fun family movie. However, the kids could be tough to cast. As a talent agent, who's always looking for good parts for clients, WELL TOLD LIES sounds like a meaty role for an actress, if the script is well written. Those two hold equal interest for me."

DJ TALBOT is an ICM lit agent. Despite his very busy schedule, DJ gave the list a perusal and said, "I like DEADLINE first. It sounds like a commercial thriller, and I like serial killers. But those scripts have had a hard time getting set up in the last few months. As a second choice, I'd pick SIDE EFFECT."

JASON PATTI has a law degree, writes scripts, and has been a freelance story analyst for many years. He recently filled Jack d'Annibale's job at ICM as the new SENIOR STORY ANALYST.

Jason's choice is "SCIENCE" OF LOVE. He seemed pretty enthusiastic about it. "I can already hear the agents pitching this one: 'It's Spy Kids meets The Parent Trap - in reverse!!' A good logline is one that allows the reader to "see" the movie before reading the script. Based on this sentence, I have a clear image of the protagonists, the set-up and the major conflict that will drive the story into the second act. I worry a bit about act two, as the writer will need some strong story threads to avoid a repetitive, episodic second act [specifically: the same situation over and over with the only difference being a new 'gadget']. Nevertheless, the idea has a good hook. I'd bite and pray for a strong plotting anchor at the midpoint."

In a round table discussion, I gathered the opinions of an eclectic group, all story pros dealing with dramaturgy on a daily basis.

GIDEON started as my intern, then assistant, and bloomed into an excellent (and tough) story analyst. He now reads scripts part-time at ICM and MBST and is finishing up his MFA in screenwriting at LMU.

GARTH FRIEDRICH is an ICM lit agent, who is on the team representing recent Nicholl winner Doug Atchison (AKKELAH AND THE BEE). Garth also oversees the Story Department, which is the portal for all literary material into the agency.

ROB is a freelance story analyst and an award winning teacher (recognized by the White House). He's read everything from "Gilgamesh" to Patricia Cornwell and lots and lots of scripts in between.

PATRICK MELTON & MARCUS DUNSTON recently wrapped shooting on their first feature film, the gory, five million dollar FEAST - which won PROJECT GREENLIGHT. They have since penned another entry in a popular Dimension franchise and look forward to starring in their own TV series, PROJECT GREENLIGHT, the documentary which chronicles the making of the movie. It airs on Bravo in March. PATRICK has an MFA in screenwriting and worked as my intern before being hired as a freelance story analyst. MARCUS is a horror movie aficionado and is delighted that his first movie could be in the genre he loves most.

Here's what each had to say on the ten loglines:


FOR BETTY OR WORSE

GARTH: PASS

GIDEON: The idea of the mother-in-law having to drive is a mildly funny set-up, but this presentation doesn't explain how she jeopardizes "the deal of a lifetime" and generally fails to show enough of a throughline.

ROB: What deal? Also, what else does the hero need to do but speed up?

PATRICK & MARCUS: For whatever reason, comedies, such as this, tend to pop better as log lines. It's an interesting visual of a groom going on a road trip with, in essence, an older version of his wife. Seems like fun. This is our WINNER.



"SCIENCE" OF LOVE

GARTH: Pass. A tad confusing with the "passionate college romance" line. Did the parents date in college and just all of a sudden meet again? What happened to the other spouses?

GIDEON: Nice logline construction, but the concept feels a little antiquated and is definitely not original. This idea also presents an entirely predictable throughline, we know the kids are doomed to fail and ultimately be happy they did so. Why the quotes around "science" in the title?

ROB: Cute but feels limited; what happens after the break-up?

PATRICK & MARCUS: Not bad. Kind of cute. Very Disney PARENT TRAP-ish. For those looking for this type of thing, it would probably be effective.



DEADLINE

GARTH: Interesting. I think it's a combination of elements from movies I've seen. but it effectively conveys the story.

GIDEON: This sounds like half an idea, since there's no explanation given as to why the rhyme kills people. Without this key element, the script could end up like THE FORGOTTEN - an interesting set-up ruined by the lack of a valid explanation.

ROB: Confusing. If the demon says the rhyme, won't he have to vanquish himself?

PATRICK & MARCUS: Too big. And also vague. For us, these types of things are better in smaller circles. The set-up could work, but the threat of the NY Times article is a bit over the top.



SMALL TOWN SLICKER

GARTH: It sounds cute and you can see where it's headed just from the logline. This is my choice as the WINNER.

GIDEON: Logline could be a better read, but the idea may have some potential. Questions left unanswered: why are the swampland owners "rednecks" (this word has strong negative connotations) and why is swampland a local "tourist trap?" I'd pick this as the WINNER.

ROB: A nice Beverly Hillbillies/Doc Hollywood/ Local Hero (the wisdom of the locals trumps the arrogance of the city slicker) ethos here which should figure in the romance as well. Could be a very charming flick and a cute title, too. This is my WINNER.

PATRICK & MARCUS: We think this one is kind of cute. Very clear setup of very different people being forced to be together. However, it feels like it's just a different setting for a familiar story.



THE ARROWHEAD INCIDENT

GARTH: The idea feels dated. Pass.

GIDEON: The idea of the protag discovering a government/military conspiracy, then having to go on the run as he looks for evidence, is hardly a new concept, and the friendly fire element isn't enough of a twist to make this stand out.

ROB: Don't all arms deals eventually turn deadly? Old hat. Sounds like DEAL OF THE CENTURY (with Chevy Chase and Gregory Hines) minus both of its jokes.

PATRICK & MARCUS: A routine, but possibly good thriller. A type of story that hasn't been out in a while (says Marcus). It seems somewhat familiar and overly earnest (says Patrick).



WHISPER

GARTH: Pass.

GIDEON: Way too many questions here. How does a car accident do this? Why does it matter that protag is a despondent lawyer? What are phantom men? Why/how do they control people's minds?

ROB: Way, way too complicated. Also, "I see mind-controlling people" doesn't cut it as a filmic mantra, especially coming from a lawyer.

PATRICK & MARCUS: A tad vague. Not sure how this happens or what or why he has to shut these "portals."


SIDE EFFECT

GARTH: Pass.

GIDEON: Too vague. The manner in which the plot elements are presented - the woman seeing the demon, then enlisting the help of the ex-priest to stop it before it kills her - comes off as almost random.

ROB: Why an "ex" priest? Did THE EXORICIST retire? (Blatty should.) Old hat again.

PATRICK & MARCUS: Good up to the "murderous demon" aspect. Why is the woman really needed if it's ultimately the priest taking care of the demon? Could be good, but not in great shape right now.


WELL TOLD LIES

GARTH: I don't know how many people would see it, but I'd be intrigued.

GIDEON: Like the TV movie based on the MCMARTIN TRIAL, but without the scope (and without being first in the medium to tackle the subject matter). This sort of concept, even if written brilliantly, hardly seems as if it would draw big audiences, considering its unpleasant nature.

ROB: Sounds good but is too limited. If the mother doesn't exonerate the kid, will she commit suicide?

PATRICK & MARCUS: Nice title. Very straightforward and realistically disturbing. For those looking for this type of thing, very good.



NOT SPARKS, BULLETS

GARTH: PASS.

GIDEON: Presentation sounds disjointed, as if the script starts off as a straight drama (or possibly comedy) then turns into an - almost - slapstick romcom. And the protag's actions aren't specific enough. What does it mean that she uses "the DA's low ditz tolerance?"

ROB: How about the old fashioned way, getting a lawyer? The throughline seems gratuitous.

PATRICK & MARCUS: Rather cutesy and inconsistent.



GENIE IN A COKE BOTTLE

GARTH: Pass.

GIDEON: A wacky idea that suggests the potential for some funny moments. Still, the logline fails because it implies that most of the script will consist of the protag fighting to escape from genieland (which simply isn't defined enough).

ROB: "Bags?" "Blows?" What's the rating on this one? Do the girl and the genie exchange identities or just places?

PATRICK & MARCUS: At best, this sounds like a cute Nickelodeon cartoon. However, it's not very appealing as a feature. The "Genieland" thing is a tad much. Setting it in reality, a la SPLASH, would make it more attractive.



LOS MATADORES (The Killers)

GARTH: Sounds overly complicated. Pass.

GIDEON: Way too vague. Also, the presentation makes it sound like the script is about the journey to Central America - so why not just take a plane to Honduras or wherever and get the exorcism done?

ROB: What powers? Can't she use them against the demon? Also, how does an "estranged family" unite while trying to help one of its members?

PATRICK & MARCUS: Vague. She has supernatural powers? And they have to go to Central America? Second best title - if it only had a plot that lived up to it.

____________________________________________________

The official winner was "SCIENCE" OF LOVE, but the various opinions here demonstrate that much of this business is about love connections: Matching the right script with the right person.

Flash foward to the present:

Julie Richardson recently set up THE MIDNIGHT MAN at Dimension and a TV pitch at ABC.

Jack d'Annibale left Bruckheimer Films and is currently adapting "A Nation of Lords: The Autobiography of the Vice Lords" for Reason Pictures. Bob Goldhirsch and Bob Teitel will produce. George Tillman is attached to direct. He has an article in the December 06/January 07 issue of Audrey Magazine about USC running back Emmanuel Moody.

Charlie Banks remains a force at Bruckheimer.

Matt Eskander and DJ Talbot continue to make deals for clients at ICM.

Garth Friedrich left ICM and is an executive at Davis Entertainment.

Jason Patti runs a not-for-profit organization benefiting the homeless in Los Angeles.

Gideon graduated from LMU and is currently producing a film based on his screenplay.

Rob is pursuing a Ph.D in comparative literature and has no time to read scripts.

Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan saw the release of their first film FEAST and have since sold three more projects (with Marcus attached to direct two - including THE MIDNIGHT MAN) and a TV pilot for Fox. In November, Patrick became a father.

"SCIENCE" OF LOVE never collected its prize.

________________________________________________

For those interested, my Inside Hollywood Screenwriting class runs for six consecutive Saturdays at Los Angeles Valley College (Coldwater & Fulton).

March 10 - April 21 from 10AM - 1PM.

Tuition: $93.00.

Registration starts on January 3, 2007 at 8AM.

Call 818 947 2577, Extension 4172.

MAILROOM #9

Some people say thesis or dissertation ideas will be copied by some professors and that screenplay pitches, themes, synopses or treatments will be emulated by people (professionals) who may judge them for official competitions. I may be sounding too amateurish, but... any comment?


Yes, I think you’re sounding amateurish and even paranoid.

The majority of material floating around town isn’t worthy of theft. And the projects that are good enough to steal are worth some sort of legitimate investment to avoid potential lawsuits.

Contests attract an even lower quality of screenplay, since any writer in the world can submit (with an entry fee) his BUFFY VS. BATMAN opus.

Statistically speaking, with the amount of screenplays vying for a payday throughout town, I think the theft rate is very, very low.

As a writer, you must let others read your scripts, and there is a certain amount of trust that goes along with that. Just be sure to copyright your work and keep a record of where and to whom you’re sending the material.

“Return receipts” are a good way to give the paranoid some peace of mind. (A Haldol prescription might also help.)

If professional screenplay readers contemplate any felony, it's probably murder.

____________________________________________________

I'm interested in the point you make about screenwriting contests.

"The fundamental flaw in screenwriting contests remains that the winning scripts are often projects Hollywood would never produce. Furthermore, as I’ve said in the past, contests do not necessarily reflect the quality of work on par with professional scripts circulating the town. The winners are often the best amateur scripts (the best of the worst) and cannot compete with the screenplays of Hollywood’s top scribes."

That being said why enter screenwriting contests at all? The fees are quite pricy at 45 to 70 dollars an entry, and the promises of great exposure seem to be faint besides a press blurb. I agree with your points about the Disney and Nicholl contests being the top, but chances are pretty slim with the amount of scripts submitted. I've found far greater success researching and targeting a specific producer with one of my screenplays, but the allure of being able to say your screenplay was a finalist in such and such contests seems like it would give you some added clout.


As I’ve said in the past, only two or three contests (out of hundreds) will provide any sort of clout. And if the script doesn’t subscribe to the sort of movie Hollywood makes, the win will do little good.

This is why I continue to stress that writers enter contests with big cash rewards. Other contests are useless. It’s better to have cold hard cash in the bank instead of the heaven that gets blown up the winner’s ass and does nothing to truly advance his career.

If you enter a contest, enter to win.

"Finalist" is another word for "loser."

Executives will always be more interested in reading the winning script. And even winners have a brief window of opportunity. After a while, the sheen fades and soon a new winner is announced – eclipsing the previous victor.

It definitely behooves the writer to make contacts throughout the industry – along with entering contests. Those who solely enter contests hoping to break into the business are wasting time.

James Simpson – who wrote the previous blog entry – played his hand wisely.

He queried all around town and eventually found two development executives who read his script ARMORED. They liked the project and introduced him to several reps. Signing with a manager, he now had someone here in town (with contacts) to represent him.

When his Nicholl finalist status was announced, James had all his ducks lined up in a row.

His manager took advantage of his status and eventually sparked interest in the script, which sold before the five Nicholl winners were even announced.

This is a living example of the aphorism, “Success is when preparation meets opportunity.”

Although James didn’t win a top slot, his professional career has been launched. It is safe to assume that his goal was not to win screenwriting contests but to earn a living as a screenwriter.
Winning a contest could be pointless if you don’t have a network in place to turn that windfall into meaningful momentum. Keep in mind that even the big contests don’t necessarily have a strong track record of launching careers.

But contests can be a useful tool, providing the writer has wisely done the advance work by setting up a strong foundation.
____________________________________________________


I have a character-driven story that I'm not sure how to pitch.

SMALL TOWN NEWS is the story of a 20-year-old reporter who struggles with a decision -- accept his dream job at a big-city newspaper or stay and take care of his difficult, cancer-stricken father.

As you can tell, the story isn't high concept. However, it is a story I feel passionate about because it is borrowed from my own life experience.

How do I effectively communicate the appeal of the two main characters and the dynamics of their relationship in the short amount of time of a pitch?

Granted I'm biased, but I feel the story is poetic and would be an excellent dramatic vehicle for an actor like Christopher Walken (and a departure from his recent spate of wacky roles).

Would it be too off-the-wall to lead the pitch with a poem that is integral to the story? Would it be annoying to elaborate in depth about a particular scene that pulls at the heart strings? Does anybody care that I can see a particular actor playing a leading role?I know you get a lot of inquiries, but I'd appreciate it if you had time for some thoughts....


The conflict at the heart of your story is intriguing and one with which many adults can identify. (Did you see the play/movie I NEVER SANG FOR MY FATHER?)

I would find a better word choice than “decision.” It’s too internal. Find an equivalent that exudes a cinematic quality.

These sorts of stories don’t necessarily work well as pitches. Concept driven stories – not character driven – pitch better. But that’s the struggle you chose to endure when you picked your subject matter.

Starting off the pitch with a poem could be interesting – but the poem would have to be short and truly effective. (“There once was a man from Hong Kong….”) However, it might be best to use your time wisely and stick solely to the subject matter at hand: Your story.

I think beginning the pitch with the logline above is a good start. (I like pitches that begin with the genre and logline because it immediately orients me to the story. It's sort of a roadmap.)

Since your story is character driven, it seems wise to pitch – at least – the main character.

Using the name of an actor (that excites people) is a good way to enable the listener to envision the project. Avoid suggesting the little known actor who played COP #3 in the second DIE HARD movie. Geeky film fans who pose as screenwriters have the bad habit of doing exactly this sort of thing.

Talk about what makes the character interesting and how he propels the story forward.

Margaret Edson’s Pulitzer Prize winning play WIT (adapted into an HBO movie) is the study of a university professor dying from cancer.

Pitching the character could start like this:

The professor is Vivian Bearing, a scholar of John Donne, who finds herself undergoing experimental cancer treatment. Having avoided human contact and compassion while buried in books and intellectualism, she now - at the end of her short life - struggles to find the sort of humanity she has always shunned.

Pitch the character elements that create the conflict/drama within the story.

Leave other details out. "This character loves to drink Yoo-hoo in glass bottles only" is a detail that's probably unneccessary in the pitch. Give us the character information that provides the momentum for the narrative.

A writer only has to offer up enough information (whether it is about the character or the story) that will invite the listener to ask questions and involve himself in the drama.

Pitching a scene out of context can be dangerous. What seems moving to you – because you know the machinery of the script that enables that beat to work (drama is cause and effect) – could fall very flat to an uninformed listener. And to take the time to tell the backstory could be excruciating.

It’s all about instinct and your ability to read and feel out the audience. If it feels right – go for it.

You use the word "passion" in your question to me. This could be one of the most important elements in a pitch.

When I was in Austin, a man pitched a story about a wrongfully imprisoned relative. It is a “small story” and not the kind that would probably sell on spec. His chances of getting anyone to read the script seemed slim. However, he had an exorbitant amount of passion for the project. He pitched it to eight executives/producers and all agreed to read the material.

Although you may not sell SMALL TOWN DREAMS, you could find a producer with your sort of passion to option it and try to find financing. I read lots of projects for"small" movies with funding.
____________________________________________________

I noticed that you've just been judging a pitching competition, and thought you might have some interesting feedback.

In summary - I have the rights to a true story - and I think I'm pitching it OK ... but I'm getting no response.

I'd understand that they'd simply want the rights to the story and toss me (as a writer) off the project ... but I don't understand why I'm simply getting silence in response. Here is a partial example of how I've been pitching it:


I happen to have the film rights to a true story that you may be interested in. It is still breaking news at the moment, so this is still very early stages of the project. It's basically the story of Julie - a young university student.

Having recently moved to a new country, she realizes she isn't as safe as she thought. There have been three girls from her neighbourhood who looked just like her. Same thin figure. Same blond hair. Same age. And they've all been murdered. There is a serial killer out there, looking for victims just like Julie.

So she does the only thing a helpless young girl can do. She decides to hunt down the killer. She has no experience, no insider info, no special skills - but she's not going to let that stop her.

So we go on the journey with her, collecting the clues, getting closer at each step to figuring out the identity of the murderer. It's an incredible story - even the mayor is involved with the main suspect. But her obsession with finding the killer is destroying her – it's pulling her away from her family and friends - even her poor boyfriend – a guy who's totally devoted to her but has no social skills – even he's finally driven away by her mania.

This story is about one girl's passion to solve a mystery. But there is one part that I haven't mentioned yet. Remember, this is a true story.

Even this bit: Her boyfriend was the serial killer.

As you can imagine, there are some legal issues with this story - but they are being solved.

(1) I've already obtained the exclusive film rights to Julie's story

(2) Julie's ex-boyfriend has now been charged on DNA evidence with the murder of a 4th girl in England (yet another victim who looks just like Julie!) Anyway, this project is still at a very early stage - it was only about a month ago that Julie's boyfriend was charged with any of the murders!

There are plenty of uncertainties with the project. However EVERYTHING that I've mentioned in the story above is 100% true.

If you are interested at all, just drop me an email, or give me a call.


Now I could understand some level of disinterest. But 100% disinterest? Not even a: “Sounds interesting. Do you have more details on the case so we can verify that you aren't full of @$#!'?”

The film can even be done on a low budget!

I was just hoping for some insight into what I'm doing wrong.


When there's 100% disinterest, it's safe to assume that you’re doing everything wrong.

I'm a firm believer that regardless of how well organized and rehearsed a pitch might be, ultimately, the listener can only respond to the material itself.

Is this a story to which he wants to devote two hours? Does the story sound like it's worthy of being a movie?

Let’s break down this pitch, and I’ll offer my interior monologue – what I’m thinking - while reading this letter:


I happen to have the film rights to a true story that you may be interested in. It is still breaking news at the moment, so this is still very early stages of the project.

Topical is good but an unfolding story may not be as interesting as one that has a definitive conclusion. As a new writer of a true story, having the film rights is important but so is having the screenplay. Why hasn't the script been written?

It's basically the story of Julie - a young university student.

Rachel McAdams. That's good. But what does "basically" imply?

Having recently moved to a new country, she realizes she isn't as safe as she thought. There have been three girls from her neighborhood who looked just like her. Same thin figure. Same blond hair. Same age. And they've all been murdered.

“Who looked just like her” says it all. The rest is superfluous. This paragraph might work better if it read like this: “Having recently moved to a new country, Julie realizes she isn't as safe as she thought. Three girls from her neighborhood have been murdered, and all the victims resemble her.”

There is a serial killer out there, looking for victims just like Julie.

Serial killer? So disappointing. So 1990s.

So she does the only thing a helpless young girl can do. She decides to hunt down the killer. She has no experience, no insider info, no special skills - but she's not going to let that stop her.

Yes, this is the ONLY thing a helpless girl would do…hunt down a serial killer. This sentence is too campy. You need to have a better barometer (common sense) for stuff like this. Being blind to this sort of unintentional humor doesn’t speak well for the writer. (Query letters are FULL of this kind of dopiness.) These goofy sentences get highlighted and passed around the office to brighten up the doldrums.

So we go on the journey with her, collecting the clues, getting closer at each step to figuring out the identity of the murderer.

You mean like every other serial killer movie?

It's an incredible story - even the mayor is involved with the main suspect.

Big deal. Former mayor Marion Berry smoked crack. Nothing remotely “incredible” here.

But her obsession with finding the killer is destroying her – it's pulling her away from her family and friends - even her poor boyfriend – a guy who's totally devoted to her but has no social skills – even he's finally driven away by her mania.

Speaking of being driven away…. Where’s the hook to this story? Haven’t I seen this a million times before?

This story is about one girl's passion to solve a mystery.

Like Nancy Drew?

But there is one part that I haven't mentioned yet.

I hope it's the big twist.

Remember, this is a true story.

Although the query is long enough to have caused me to forget, I do remember. Could you mercifully just cut to the chase!

Even this bit: Her boyfriend was the serial killer.

That’s the twist?

As you can imagine, there are some legal issues with this story - but they are being solved.

I couldn't imagine. I would assume as a professional querying me that you'd have those issues worked out ahead of time.

(1) I've already obtained the exclusive film rights to Julie's story

You're repeating yourself.

(2) Julie's ex-boyfriend has now been charged on DNA evidence with the murder of a 4th girl in England (yet another victim who looks just like Julie!) Anyway, this project is still at a very early stage - it was only about a month ago that Julie's boyfriend was charged with any of the murders!

Did Julie's investigation lead to his capture? This letter gets sidetracked and loses focus of the most important element of the pitch: THE STORY.

There are plenty of uncertainties with the project.

With the exception that it will never be a movie.

However EVERYTHING that I've mentioned in the story above is 100% true.

Too bad it's 100% uninspired. The fact that it's based on a true story doesn't automatically make it a movie.

If you are interested at all, just drop me an email, or give me a call.

No interest. The letter itself smacks of unprofessionalism. It's too chatty, repetitious and unwittingly amusing.

Most of all, the story itself sounds like a run-of-the-mill serial killer movie.

That's not to relegate Julie's true life experience, but we've seen this too many times before, and the writer's bringing nothing new to the table.

It's a PASS.
_______________________________________________

I'm not a wealthy man. But I have saved enough to make you this offer. If you agree, I will send you my script and a cashier's check for $10,000. Read the first 10 pages only. If you think it average, just keep the check and NEVER WRITE ME BACK. No need to tell me what you disliked. Our relationship severs there. Immediately. If you enjoy the first 10 pages, I'd ask that you continue on a bit. If at ANY TIME you come to the (inevitable?) conclusion that I don't have the goods, cash the check and my deepest apologies. You will never hear from me again. Novices who ask powerful people to read their scripts make a selfish request. You value your time, and others pay you handsomely for it. I' m not sure if I have talent. But I do have appreciation, and for your having read this far, please know that I am deeply grateful.


Some scripts can be so bad that even such generous remuneration would still seem like minimum wage.

In the grand scale of things, I have about as much power as a Christmas tree bulb and, although I appreciate your understanding of the occasional painful situation I find myself in, I cannot accept your offer.

I might regret this decision at the beginning of the New Year when the credit card bills arrive, but you can find better ways to spend that money. (Consider: Kid’s college fund, stock market, hookers.)

Executives and producers looking for material - who are sincere about a Hollywood career - are not expecting money upfront but, instead, hope to see plenty of it on the other end. (Okay, in this specific case, I might only be speaking for myself.)

Thanks for thinking of me. This is certainly a memorable pitch. I suspect if things don’t go your way in Hollywood, you can always get a job writing infomercials.

____________________________________________________

Let’s not forget those writers who recently passed away. Their contributions to the creative community and our lives are greatly appreciated.

Sid Davis, 90
Betty Comden, 89
Robert Altman, 81

Send comments and questions to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

___________________________________________________

For those in the L.A. area, I'll be hearing pitches at the Alameda Writers' Group at the Glendale Library on Saturday, December 2. Their monthly meeting begins at 9:45.

The event runs until noon. The auditorium is on the second floor, and the Glendale Library is located at 222 East Harvard Street (at Maryland).

For more info visit: http://www.alamedawritersgroup.org/index.html

MY FIRST TIME

What can I expect after selling my first script?
________________________________________________

A book called "The First Time I Got Paid For It...," edited by Peter Lefcourt and Laura J. Shapiro, shares almost sixty different stories from TV and film writers.

Since no story is exactly the same, it's impossible for me to answer this question with any sort of accuracy.

It is safe to say that after selling your first script, there'll be a long wait for the paycheck.

But that aside, I thought I'd ask screenwriter James V. Simpson to answer this question.

He recently sold his first screenplay - ARMORED - after landing a finalist position in the Nicholl Fellowship. What follows is James' response.
____________________________________________________



First, let me apologize to the loyal INSIDE PITCH readers who are expecting Chris Lockhart's usual erudite bons mots. Unfortunately, you are stuck with me. Chris invited me to write a guest blog, which is like asking Gabby Hayes to fill in for John Wayne.

"What can I expect after selling my first script?"

This is the question that drives every pre-professional screenwriter. Visions of quiting your day job, working with talented stars and powerful studio execs dance in your head. Maybe the occasional fantasy of buying a house in the Hills and winning awards pops up.

I know because until recently I was a pre-pro.

I don't think it's possible to definitively answer this question because there are so many variables to consider.

The results of a sale will be a function of the deal, the people involved and the writer's situation. The only thing that is certain to happen after your first sale is that you will now be a "professional writer" who is earning money for doing what you love to do.

No matter what else may or may not happen because of your first sale, it doesn't get any better than being paid to do what you love.

Since the results of each sale are different, rather than offer some broad generic advice we have all heard a million times before, I will share my own experiences in the hopes that it will inspire you to keep writing and prepare you for the day when you make your first sale.

After the calls from my manager and lawyer congratulating me were finished, I told my wife. She cried and laughed and I told her to start looking for a car because it had been my promise to her that I would buy her a car with the money from my first sale to thank her for her support and tolerating me all these years.

Then I called my mother. She wept when I told her about the sale. For the first time in my life, my mother was proud of me. I don't care how much money you get, there is nothing more important than your family and sharing this moment with them.

Since my deal had been done without an agent, I immediately had a lot of requests for meetings from agents as well as producers.

This is the victory lap and you have to take it if you want to start a career, so be prepared to be in LA for at least a week to begin with and for longer periods as your career develops.

Let me pause here to say, there are many different kinds of writers with different situations and goals. It is my opinion that anyone can sell a script from anywhere, but to accomplish that and build a career you need a team in L.A. that will be working every day on your behalf. If you can join your team in L.A., on a part or full time basis, all the better.

Selling a script is trench warfare. You need boots on the ground to do it.

Back to my story.

The sale gave me street cred. I was no longer some schmuck from Canada with a script and a dream. I was Mr. Professional Writer with a studio deal. That sort of upward momentum attracts a lot of people who want to go along for the ride. I had dozens of meetings set up with Agents, some of them had passed on the script before the sale. Most came at me with a hard sell and cute little lines like, "We are in the phone call making business, not the phone call taking business".

It was tempting to sign with some of them, but I had to stick to my strategy and go with the agent I felt would best position me for my next sale and my long term career goals. They all wanted to know what my career plan was. Figure out your plan if you don't have one. If you don't know what you want, how can you know who to align yourself with or what steps you need to take at this very critical juncture in your career?

Some minor silly things to expect: Expect to be taken out for lunch, dinner and drinks. Expect to be offered water when you go into a meeting. Always take the water. You never know when your throat is going to get dry. Expect to get lost if you are not from the area. Expect to be late. Expect to need to make calls to ask for directions and to reschedule meetings.

You can also expect to be amazed and humbled. Expect to be stunned by a plaque on the Sony lot for the David Lean building.

I had a flurry of meetings with producers, many of whom wanted the script for themselves and others were just fans of the writing. All of them wanted to get to know me and learn what made me tick. These are meetings where people will ask what ideas you have. My advice is to not tell them until you and your team are 100% sure your pitch is solid and appropriate for these people.

You are in the show. Now it's time to act like a pro and be selective about what ideas you share and who you share them with. The producers will often discuss projects they think you might be right for and hope that it will spark with you and possibly lead to an assignment. But in reality, since this is your first sale, expect them to be looking for you to spec out a script or proposal.

The people at Screen Gems and Sony who bought my script are terrific. The meetings with them were not about stroking my ego. They had notes the first meeting and wanted to discuss the project in detail. They had lots of questions. Questions about backstory, deep backstory, plot, research.

It was unexpected for me. It had me off balance for a few minutes. Luckily, I had answers for them all. We also talked about talent and directors I thought would be right for the project. Know your names and know who is hot because they will want to know your vision for the project.

They wanted more meetings and ultimately paid for me to stay in town longer so I could meet with the studio execs again. I had to be accommodating and available. Expect to be flexible.

Now my life is about rewrites and making the studio's notes work. Everything else is pushed aside because this is a business and in order to remain a professional I have to act like one and do the job I am being paid to do.

At the same time, there is pressure to follow up my first sale with a second.

The second sale is what will prove my ability to stay in this business and build a career. Fortunately for me, I have a new spec that is nearly finished.

Expect to be under pressure to produce, not only for the people who bought the script but also for your career with new material. Expect to write, write, write.

Now I am preparing to fly back to LA in a few days for another week of meetings with the studio and some follow-up meetings with producers I met during my victory lap.

I'm also in the process of setting up a loan out company and finalizing my contracts. Expect to travel. Expect to need a lawyer and expect to do a lot of paper work.

That's been my post-first sale experiences.

As I said above, every writer's experience will be different depending on their deal and situation. I hope this has answered your question and prepared you for what to expect after your own sale.

Good luck.

P.S. My mother now carries the copy of Variety with the sale in it so she can show it to everyone in my small home town so if you are in Stratford and a woman comes up to you and shoves a copy of Variety in your face, you have my sincere apologies.
_____________________________________________________


Let’s not forget those writers who recently passed away. Their contributions to the creative community and our lives are greatly appreciated.

Gillo Pontecorvo, 86
Theodore Taylor, 85
William Styron, 81
Jerry Belson, 68
Leonard Schrader, 62


Send questions and comments to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

OCTOBERFEST

October has been an extraordinarily busy month. Work, extracurricular activities and some personal business made this a taxing few weeks. I haven’t had much time to go through all the e-mails, but I’ll get back to answering questions once I settle in to normality.

Earlier this month, I visited the SCREENPLAY LAB at the Raleigh Studios in Hollywood. I listened to pitches and offered feedback for three hours in front of a large audience of writers.

I sort of fell into this at the Beverly Hills Library a few years ago with the creation of “Story Conference” – a workshop where I critiqued scripts and answered questions. The Q&A often revolved around writers bouncing their ideas off me. This evolved and I took the show on the road (with former co-worker-turned-screenwriter Jack d’Annibale) to the defunct TAKE ONE! BOOKSTORE and downtown at the CALIFORNIA CITY STUDIOS. One of the workshops was filmed for local television and titled THE INSIDE PITCH – which is what I call these events when I listen to pitches around town.

These events are usually fun and, hopefully, educational. I never try to pull punches when offering my opinion and strive to temper it all with some humor. However, it doesn’t always go down easy. Some people have a difficult time understanding the spirit of the message, which is understandable when their beloved idea is eviscerated. But there is always something to learn – even by simply observing others fail and succeed at pitching their concepts.

As always, the pitches were hit and miss. Sometimes the writer can give a great performance, but, in the end, it all comes down to the story itself. If the story isn’t there, even the most entertaining pitch will fail in its objective. It’s always interesting to test an idea in front of an audience. It’s a rare opportunity to experience a gasp or laugh from the crowd – which is all the feedback an idea may need.

On the other hand, unexpected silence says a lot too. When I hear an idea that simply doesn’t click with me, I ask the audience if it clicks with them. When 200 people fail to respond to the idea, it seems probable that the writer will have a tough time marketing it in the real world.

I was not a fan of the proposed adaptation (from a bestselling book) about a young girl who turns into a chimpanzee and finds herself the romantic interest of a janitor. The unintentional notion of pedophilia and bestiality left a lot to be desired. I told the writer I thought the idea was dopey. Most of the crowd felt the same way. But she handled the bad news well. Who knows? It could sell and become a smash hit with zoologists and sex fiends worldwide.

Writers must have the ability to see the dramatic/cinematic worthiness of their story. Many lack that sort of insight and fall in love with inane concepts that have an improbable chance of ever becoming movies. The gift of this insight is the difference between success and failure.

One man in a nice suit (looking a lot like an accountant) pitched the true story of a black teen who risked his life to get a message to General Grant – that helped win the Civil War. The story has definite intrigue but the writer was more interesting, as it was difficult to tell if he was a defender of the African American race or an Imperial Wizard in the Ku Klux Klan.

A raucous comedian got up and offered an extemporaneous pitch about an asshole creative executive who got off on ripping writers apart. It was funny at first – but like any pitch that goes on too long, it started to nosedive. “Quit while you’re ahead” is a mantra worth remembering when pitching story ideas. It wasn’t clear why he would attend only to improvise a story. Perhaps it was a diversion – avoiding the fact that an imminent evisceration awaited his real pitch.

The best pitch of the night (according to the majority of the audience) came from the writing team of Jeph and Brian. The story deals with a former rock-n-roller who reunites his old band to create a children’s musical group – a la “The Wiggles” – called LITTLE ROCK.

The writing team was entertaining and delivered their concept quickly. One of the scribes even brought along his guitar to sing. (Below: Jeph and Brian are second and third from right flanked by me and the runners-up.)

I’ll be meeting with the ALAMEDA WRITERS’ GROUP in early December to listen to pitches once again.

I was one of six judges to select the winner of the BIG BREAK! SCREENWRITING CONTEST sponsored by Final Draft. The top prize is $15,000 and swag that includes a laptop computer. Some of the other judges were Oscar winner Bobby “Crash” Moresco, Simon “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” Kinberg, and Stuart “Collateral” Beattie. We were all given ten of the same scripts (the finalists) and asked to judge using a scoring system of 0 – 100 and five basic criteria that included story, dialogue, and structure. The highest possible score was 500.

While none of the scripts were dramatic perfection, a few were very good – as good as any “professional” script that crosses my desk.

My top three picks were BUFFALO SPEEDWAY by Yehudi Mercado (which I scored with a 450), ATOMIC EYE by Bret Ootes (which earned a 440) and ANAIAS by Stinson Carter (which took third place with 430).

BUFFALO SPEEDWAY is a sort of slacker comedy involving a group of pizza delivery drivers who struggle to make deliveries on the busiest night of the year. The writing here is as crisp as any good New York pizza crust, and the writer nailed the world and characters. I gave this one the edge because – out of all ten – it has the best chance of selling.

ATOMIC EYE tells a familiar crime story but presents it in a way we haven’t quite seen. It is an edgy screenplay that demonstrates a unique voice and some real imagination.

ANAIAS (the worst title since ZATHURA) is a well-written account of a young teen who learns his father is gay and sets out on a journey to lose his virginity to insure he won’t suffer the same fate. Kind of MY GIRL meets STAND BY ME, the writing here is very good, and the script is thoroughly charming and likeable.

As an addendum to my judging experience, Final Draft announced the top three winners of the BIG BREAK! CONTEST on October 26th. I had hoped to attend the awards ceremony at Hollywood & Highland but had to change my plans.

The winner of the $15,000 top prize is THE SEA DEVILS by Tom Cosgrove of Ireland.

Clearly, I was out of step with the other judges, since this script didn't make my top three. However, the deftly written screenplay is a very atmospheric monster movie that's heavy on character.

I must admit that the point spread between my #1 choice and my score for THE SEA DEVILS was considerable. I still stand behind my winner.

Regardless, congratulations, Tom!

BUFFALO SPEEDWAY and ANAIAS took second and third place, respectively.

On Thursday the 19^th, I flew into Texas for the AUSTIN FILM FESTIVAL – a week long event that showcases up-and-coming talent as well as a very lively, film-friendly city. Within the film festival, there is a writers’ conference, which offers all sorts of panels for aspiring screenwriters.

My commitments to the festival didn’t begin until Friday morning. I wasn’t in the mood to sit through any screenings that night, so I made a few phone calls to square away some business. Having recently completed my Final Draft judging duties, a friend reminded me that the author of BUFFALO SPEEDWAY lived in Austin. Since it was my favorite script of the ten finalists, I thought I’d give writer Yehudi Mercado a call to see if he was in town.

Not only was he in town but he was attending the Film Festival. There was a party he was en route to and he asked if I’d meet him there.

I threw on my ICM baseball cap - as a way for him to recognize me – and set off for the soiree. The Austin Film Festival is well known for its relaxed environment. It is a writer-friendly event, where there are plenty of opportunities to make all sorts of new friends.

Most of the events were sponsored by BOMBAY GIN or DOS EQUIS BEER, so the free booze came in plentiful supply (provided you arrived within the hours it was served). I walked to the party and stood around waiting for my ICM cap to be spotted.

Quite a few people thought the hat was some sort of swag, and there were some monetary offers for it. ICM baseball caps are rare – even within the halls of ICM – so I certainly wouldn’t part with it under any circumstances. Although some thought I was probably a pretentious filmmaker touting the name of the agency that represented me, the plan worked.

Yehudi approached and introduced himself. We had a good chat. Some of his other friends were there too – director and producer Scott Rice and his creative partner Austin. These two were responsible for creating a series of festival trailers called SCRIPT COPS – which spoofed the longevity of Fox’s show COPS – by arresting writers with bad scripts. Naturally that sentiment was right up my alley, and we all got along like old friends.

The three of them were going out to eat. I think they felt sorry for me. I was, after all, an orphan who planned on returning to my hotel room for an early night’s sleep. But the hometown triumvirate took me under its wing and fed me some Tex Mex as we chatted about film and filmmakers.

Later, we went to an opening night party, where I had the opportunity to meet many writers who were competing for top slot in the festival’s screenwriting contest. Everyone I spoke to was extremely nice and we all had a great time. Yehudi, Scott and Austin remained my buddies through the duration of the festival – always checking up on me to insure I was being entertained. Our trip down 6^TH STREET at 3AM in search of pizza was memorable – to say the least.


I heard many pitches in Austin. As always, most of the writers were friendly and earnest, but their ideas lacked that “spark.” The same question always enters my mind. “Does this writer go to the movies? Is he aware of recent films that have been successful with audiences?” Although I‘m often told that good ideas are a dime a dozen, I hardly ever hear them. There might be a sliver of something interesting within a pitch – but rarely is there a moment that screams, “This is a movie!”

There was a team from Washington – two screenwriting professors – who proved that teachers CAN do. They pitched a handful of ideas – all of which were concise, lucid and sounded like moves.

There was a father who took his teenage daughter to Austin instead of Disneyworld. Although it seems certain that this would border on child abuse, she attested to having a good time and even managed to bail her pop out of trouble during his pitch.

My favorite writer of all was a woman originally from Wisconsin (with a thick, fabulous accent) who pitched the biography of her dead Siberian husky. (She used a keychain photo as a visual aid, and the dog was beautiful.) The wide-eyed, straight-faced author told me she had entered her script in the “drama category” of a contest but the organizers suggested she re-submit it as a comedy. This was an unforgettable and endearing lady – a real character – and I wish her all the best.

Many agents, managers and creative executives prowled the film festival. MAGNET MANAGEMENT, KAPLAN/PERRONE, CIRCLE OF CONFUSION, APA and RED WAGON were just a few companies in attendance.

I met Heather Zicko from GUY WALKS INTO A BAR (a NY based prodco). Heather is smart, friendly and approachable – the kind of exec I wish were on the west coast. (She may never talk to me again, but she’s looking for fantasy comedies – in the vein of LIAR, LIAR.)

While staggering through the streets looking for a shuttle to take me to a barbeque, I met Chris Vogler and his wife Alice. They too were looking for this mysterious shuttle – which we eventually found.

Chris is the author of THE WRITER’S JOURNEY, his well-known filmic interpretation of Joseph Campbell’s seminal work on mythology. After the barbeque, we went back to the Driskill Hotel (where I was staying) and hung out in the bar for a few hours discussing movies, scripts and story structure. I had never met Chris Vogler before, and he seemed more like an earthy blue collar worker rather than a worldly dramaturg. His wife is a gregarious and successful realtor on the Westside.

Work took a backseat to family (which it so rarely does in Hollywood) when I learned my ninety-four year old Grandmother was dying. Although it’s hard to feel much sadness for the death of a woman who has lived a happy life for almost one hundred years, my Grandmother was a great supporter of mine and helped ease some of the hard years in California with phone calls, letters, and a few bucks.

Since it was believed she would slip fast, I never considered returning to the New York area. I had always told my Grandmother how I felt and didn’t think it was necessary to be there after she died.

But when my Mother explained she was still hanging on, I thought I should fly in to see her. Although she was unconscious by the time I arrived, I held her hand the entire night before she passed a little after noon the following day.

Before I moved to California in 1988, my Grandfather gave me a thick piece of blue woolen yarn. He tied it to my suitcase handle explaining that it would serve as a “beacon,” making it easier to spot my luggage on the airport carousel. Since my Grandparents were world travellers, I yielded to his expertise.

I’ve used that piece of yarn year after year, tying it to any piece of baggage I would take on my travels. After all this time, I’ve come to regard it as a good luck charm.

Arriving at the hospice directly from the airport, I brought my luggage with me. After the initial shock of my Grandmother’s deterioration and her struggle for breath, I removed that old piece of blue yarn from my suitcase and tied it to her frail wrist – a sort of good luck charm for her travels.

I also thought it might serve as a sort of beacon, making it easier for my Grandfather to spot her as she crossed over.

She died wearing it.

I’ve never witnessed death. My grandmother didn’t just close her eyes and slip into an eternal sleep (like in the old movies). The body put up a valiant last-chance struggle. And it was a little frightening to see at first.

But for a 94-year old woman, it all seemed organic and natural.

I liken it to birth – which is hardly a pretty thing to watch. The beauty is in the essence of the event – not the screaming, blood and placenta.

For my Grandmother, death seemed as natural as birth. And while it may not have been particularly pretty, the essence of the event was beautiful. And there was an epiphanious understanding – even a new appreciation - for the process of living and life itself. Her death didn’t create fear; it managed to strip it away.

A final gift from my Grandmother.

_____________________________________________________

Send questions and comments to: theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

This month would have been impossible to navigate without all the help from the rest of my professional team: A special thanks to Ana and Gina.

INTERMISSION

Things have been hectic - not leaving enough time to blog.

I'll return at the end of the month with reports from the ScreenplayLab Pitch Contest, the Austin Film Festival and the "Big Break!" (Final Draft) Screenwriting Awards.

Special congratulations to James (Jay) V. Simpson, a long time friend and contributor of twoadverbs.com, who landed a finalist slot in the prestigious Nicholl Screenwriting Fellowship with his script ARMORED - which he subsequently sold to Sam Raimi and Josh Donen.


Send questions and comments to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

THE ARMLESS MAN

On Sunday October 1, Turner Classic Movies is airing two Lon Chaney films, LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT and THE UNKNOWN.

Chaney was one of America’s first movie stars, who ruled the horror genre in its silent heyday. Known as the “Man of a Thousand Faces,” his most famous roles were the title characters in THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA and THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. The protean actor created his own make-up designs, many of which included painful and even torturous devices to create his illusions.

LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT is legendary to horror buffs because it has long been considered a “lost film.” The version airing Sunday evening has been restored (recreated from production stills).

Theatrical films produced prior to 1951 were made on nitrate stock – a highly volatile substance prone to fire and decay. Almost 90% of all silent films have been lost. Occasionally, a rare print turns up somewhere - like in an attic (usually far from Hollywood). In the case of Carl Dreyer’s THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, a print was found in the closet of a mental institution.

Sunday night’s screening of LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT (which was never purported to be a particularly good movie) will be the first time some fans have ever seen even a likeness of the film – 79 years after its initial release. Tod Browning - a collaborator of Chaney’s – directed the movie.

The double feature opens with THE UNKNOWN.

It’s a movie to which I often refer when discussing the idea of “brainstorming” and the concept of "unity."

The notion of “unity” often eludes writers, and their stories feel oddly disconnected from themselves.

I’ll often hear a pitch where the second part doesn’t flow organically from the first.

As an example, here is logline and my response from an earlier blog entry:

LOGLINE: After intercepting a ransom demand, a barber--masquerading as a private eye, reluctantly joins forces with an angst ridden teen in attempt to rescue the daughter of a stuffy millionaire at a fraction of the cost.

RESPONSE: Although the idea of “intercepting a ransom demand” has some sort of potential, there is little “cause and effect” within this concept. Everything feels slapped together. It isn’t clear why a barber is involved in any of this or why he poses as a private eye. Then an angst ridden teen enters the mix and has no obvious relation to the barber or the kidnapping.This might make a tiny bit more sense, for instance, if the angst ridden teen were the shampoo girl, and the kidnap victim the daughter of “Fantastic Sam.” At least there would be some connective tissue to the various parts instead of the disparate nature of the logline as presented.

This concept lacks a sense of “unity.”

When trying to define “unity” to students, I often refer to "THE ARMLESS MAN."

This is a reference to the character Chaney plays in THE UNKNOWN.

THE UNKNOWN (1927) is one of eleven films that star Chaney and macabre director Browning made together from 1919-1928.

In this film, Chaney plays an armless circus performer who falls in love with a beautiful trapeze artist (played by Joan Crawford).

In this excerpt from “Chronicles of Terror: Silent Screams,” author Steven Haberman writes about how Tod Browning and Lon Chaney would brainstorm story ideas.

“Browning stated that when he was working on a story for a Chaney film, the character would come first, and the plot would grow from that character. “When we’re getting ready to discuss a new story,” Browning told the press, Chaney would “amble into my office and say, ‘Well, what’s it going to be boss?’ I’ll say, ‘This time a leg comes off, or an arm, or a nose– whatever it may be.’ In the case of THE UNKNOWN, Browning said that he merely came up with the idea of an armless man and then created startling dilemmas for a person with such a problem. The character of the beautiful girl repulsed by men’s hands was a brilliant inspiration as a romantic goal for Browning’s armless man. As an added turn of the screw, Browning then decided that the man secretly would have arms. Why would he want to hide his arms? Because he is a criminal and could be identified by his peculiar hands. And what would this character do when faced with such a condition for the love of the woman he desires? He would have his arms amputated, of course. This type of insane logic seems to follow naturally in the story, so relentless is its construction around one single idea. Every subsequent plot twist puts another pressure on the man with no arms. What is the worst thing that could happen to him upon having his arms removed for the girls he loves? She overcomes her fear of arms and falls for the strongman, of course.”

Clearly, this is an example of "unity" taken to an extreme. But it makes a lucid illustration of how to brainstorm an idea with conflict, creating a "cause and effect" narrative that feels organic, connected and, of course, dramatic.

When brainstorming - remember THE ARMLESS MAN.

The great Lon Chaney died August 26, 1930 but lives again for a few hours on Sunday night.

Send questions and comments to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

MAILROOM #8

Which contests /fellowships do you reckon to be the most respected /watched by story pickers?

In terms of notoriety, I would think story pickers keep a close eye on the Nicholl Fellowship first and foremost. The Disney Fellowship follows close behind.

But in my opinion, the Disney Fellowship gets the highest grades as a "contest" overall.

Disney offers fellowships in both screenwriting and television. The fellows relocate to Los Angeles and earn a 50K salary for the year with benefits (which increase the overall pecuniary worth). Aside from becoming chummy with staffers at Disney, the opportunity allows for a greater network expansion.

My second choice would be the Nicholl Fellowship. Sponsored by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, this pays fellows 30K for the year. The Nicholl, however, isn’t a program that allows much interaction within the industry. But the contest is so prestigious that the industry often reaches out to the winners.

Just like the business itself, if the winning script isn’t marketable, it may not advance the career of the victor. Regardless, these two contests are the most high profile of the lot.

I’m currently judging the ten finalists of the Big Break Screenwriting Contest (sponsored by “Final Draft”) – which awards a top prize of 15K.

I’m an advocate of entering contests with big cash prizes. Since the odds are against a contest win launching your career, taking home the cash is a joyous consolation prize. The Screenwriting Expo has an annual contest that also gives away a generous amount of cash and prizes.

The fundamental flaw in screenwriting contests remains that the winning scripts are often projects Hollywood would never produce. Furthermore, as I’ve said in the past, contests do not necessarily reflect the quality of work on par with professional scripts circulating the town. The winners are often the best amateur scripts (the best of the worst) and cannot compete with the screenplays of Hollywood’s top scribes.

The irony here is that selling a script and winning a contest may not be all that different.


_________________________________________________

I recently finalized my travel plans for Screenwriting Expo. Will you be speaking there? What do you think of the conference? Anything I shouldn't miss?

The Screenwriting Expo is a great event for writers. It’s a place to meet with other scribes and hear some interesting writers and executives lecture – all at a very reasonable price. Furthermore, it features a screenwriters’ Wal-Mart (minus the “always low prices”) in which to buy all sorts of paraphernalia.

I have never attended the Expo, but I’ve yet to hear a negative review of the event overall. The Expo seems to lack the sort of “intimacy” that I prefer, so I have purposefully chosen to stay away.

I would avoid pointless lectures about how to format your script and gravitate toward speakers that rarely make public appearances. Many of the lecturers are authors (screenwriting books) who play the seminar circuit, making it easier to catch their act anytime of the year at a hotel near you or via their book. At these sorts of events, speakers are often using the platform as a way to sell their snake oil.

Allow your own inspiration to guide you to the right lectures – instead of the bells and whistles of empty promises.

Send me a full report on your experiences, so I can publish it here and offer a more educated answer to the question the next time it’s asked.


________________________________________________

I thought this would be a fun question, but I'm also genuinely interested in your answer. I see that you'll be a guest at the Take-A-Meeting portion of the Austin Film Festival. So, in your words: Is it worth it? Is someone from outta town going to gain more from that, or would it just make sense to submit a logline, query, or phone call to the company you work for?

It certainly behooves the scribe to write queries and make calls. However, a captured audience is always the best opportunity for sharing an idea. An executive can still reject it, but it’s a little bit harder in person than over the phone. Conversely, I do believe that executives and producers who attend these events are actively looking for talent and material, which means they are, most likely, open-minded to any sort of correspondence that can put them in contact with writers and scripts.

It must be understood that these events can be brutal for the executive. The hours are long, they are not paid, the pitches are often terrible, and the task at hand is tantamount to bashing the skulls of baby seals. Since the majority of the ideas are not movie-worthy, it is stressful having to batter the dreams of clueless hopefuls that may have invested a substantial amount of time and money to attend the event. Furthermore, from the executives’ point-of-view, there are simply easier and more efficient ways of finding material.

Is it worth pitching your story at an event like this? It is if you’re pitching it to me. I don’t mean to be cavalier with that answer, but the truth is that I’ll provide valuable feedback on your pitch – especially in a one-on-one session that lasts fifteen minutes. My first intention at these events is always to educate. This is a rare opportunity for a writer to pitch her idea and get advice on the story and the performance too. The egotistical “showman” in me takes these events seriously (even the free events that I’ve sponsored), and my goal is that the writer exit with something worth her time and money.

However, I cannot speak for all who sit on my side of the table. The key to attending these events (for the writer) is to meet with a familiar name. I recently attended a pitching event (stepping in at the last minute for a co-worker who had to bail). I was quite horrified at the quality level of “executives” and “producers” present. Many of those listening to pitches had more important motives than finding material. For example, a well-respected production company sent an assistant (or the assistant merely chose to go without much support or blessings from the powers-that-be) – an aspiring writer himself – who attended the event merely to pitch his story to the other producers and executives in attendance. (By the way, this is quite clever, but it isn’t fair to the writers that have paid three hundred dollars to pitch for the weekend.)

There were several instances where I was being pitched a story by someone I thought was a writer but turned out to be an “executive.” Others attend because they have some sort of service that they’re trying to introduce to fellow execs and producers – using this forum as a good way to network.

Sadly, too often, writers are paying to pitch to “insiders” that have no clout, no acumen, and little interest in their story. It makes more sense to pitch to a name you recognize – rather than being seduced solely by the company name. The dilemma here is that rarely will these events offer names, because the lists are subject to change and attendance might diminish if it’s learned the “executive” is actually the agency valet.

It should be noted that many of these events are not picky about who listens to the pitch – as long as they can advertise the company name. A respectable event will advertise the names of the executives and producers who will attend and even have them sign a contract to insure their attendance.

In the end, the thought of a writer launching his career from one of these events is slim-to-none. However, it is a rare opportunity (if the setting is genuine) to allow a writer a face-to-face meeting with someone who has the ability to impart valuable information.

If the session is judged more as a learning opportunity (like a mini-class) – rather than a chance at stardom – then the time and money are well spent.


________________________________________________

You mentioned in your most recent post (Mailroom #7) that you often get requests from out of town writers to meet with them while they're in town. You didn't mention if, or how often, you actually take them up on that request. I'm just curious since it's a tactic I've seen mentioned elsewhere, and it makes me wonder how successful a tactic it might actually be.

Two factors go into meeting out-of-town writers. 1) My schedule. 2) Is the writer paying for my lunch?

I suspect my percentage is at about 60%. Interestingly, I don’t get as many requests as you might believe. Firstly, I’m not all that interesting – and most writers would rather spend their valuable time elsewhere. Secondly, most writers are shy and would never attempt to make that sort of contact. Actors, on the other hand, are fucking nightmares. They’re all extroverts and have no problem with calling and haranguing until they achieve their objective.

I met a writer at the Damah Film Festival who has been stalking me ever since. I’ve finally capitulated to his constant e-mails and we’re having lunch in two weeks.

One of my favorite stories belongs to TV and screenwriter Jeff Lowell.

When he was breaking into the industry, he wrote a rather obsequious letter to every TV producer in town – praising their work and asking if he could have a moment of their time. Many responded in the affirmative and several asked to read his work. (He had a funny SEINFELD spec.) One of these meetings landed him a staff writing job on THE GEORGE CARLIN SHOW. This led to other staff jobs on BLESS THIS HOUSE, THE DREW CAREY SHOW, CYBILL and SPIN CITY. He recently penned the feature JOHN TUCKER MUST DIE.

I think this sort of tactic can be effective, but many factors go into having the sort of luck and success that Mr. Lowell experienced. However, it’s certainly worth the effort.


_________________________________________________

Could you address the "rule" that writers shouldn't even bother querying agents until they have at least three exceptional scripts? I'm pretty sure I know where you stand--that the concept/logline of the script on the table is all that matters. But what about agents? Obviously you can't speak for all agents, but do you have any insights/anecdotes on how some of them feel about this?

I think it depends upon the type of script you’ve written.

Most agents usually sell one writer’s script at a time. So, one script is more than enough. But it has to be the right script. A high concept story with solid execution may be more advantageous than ten brilliantly written scripts about an Iowa earthworm farm.

It certainly behooves the scribe to have more than one script in his portfolio which can serve as writing samples. Each individual agent has his own standard operating procedures. The best way for a new writer to be prepared is to have several scripts under his arm. If an agent only requires one, the writer is ready. And if he requires more than one, the writer is also ready.


________________________________________________

For the last year I have been developing a 30 minute 'serialized film' for Internet distribution. It is high concept and big budget. I strongly believe that the Internet is going to be the next big thing for Hollywood, once someone figures out how to take advantage of it. I have. My idea incorporates a framework with a hook that makes it necessary to be presented online. It fully exploits the opportunities that the Internet provides. My problem, and it's the same problem that everybody has, is getting it to the right person. I am at an even greater disadvantage than a feature spec writer since my market is totally unexplored. Warner setup Studio 2.0 recently to make short form content, so there is movement in this realm, but my idea is big. No one seems to be thinking about original dramatic content that is 30 minutes long that cost as much as a high concept TV show (I.E. Lost). Cold calling the major Internet players gets me the standard "We do not accept unsolicited material". Calling the major agencies is even worse. The few industry people I know love the idea but do not know what to do with it, except wait for someone else to pave the way. I cannot do that. This project needs to go into development soon (as in now) so that it will be ready in about year. At that time an Internet viewing audience will be firmly established and the unveiling of the show will be right on time. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions? I need to clear my corkboards of this idea, and I can't until it is made.

Impatience is both a blessing and a curse in this business. I’m in the same boat as most everyone; I know very little about the Internet.

At this point in time, I cannot see anyone spending a similar budget as LOST to produce a serialized program for the Internet. There’s no infrastructure set-up yet to insure that investors could earn back their (big budget) money. Agencies are still standoffish because no one is sure how to commission these sorts of deals. And although I think “Google” (and others) could be the movie studios of the future, I don’t think audiences will rush to their computer screens anytime soon to watch feature-length films. (That is sure to change when the Internet is fully integrated into our televisions sets.)

Although the name of the game is always about CONTENT, the Internet is only beginning to experiment with a system that allows viewers to watch current TV shows (and old favorites) on line – a service that will eventually carry a fee. Perhaps, if audiences demonstrate an affinity for that sort of distribution then more aggressive type programming will be born.

I’m at a loss as to how to help you here. If you have found possible interested parties (like Studio 2.0) that are requesting you submit through representation – then simply hire an entertainment attorney. He can officially submit your project. If your idea is as fully realized for the Internet as you believe, those in that business will recognize it.

Congratulations on your idea – which may be ahead of its time. You’re a pioneer – and like many pioneers, you’re basically on your own to forge new territory and will probably meet a horrific fate.


_________________________________________________

I've never had an agent, so I don't get it. Recently I've heard a story about a guy who turned his freshly polished (and 6 looong months nourished) script to his agent and she hated it. Not just some bits but everything from the page 1. I read about it all the time. Nope, I just don't get it. Don't clients discuss scripts with their agents? I mean, not just scripts, but concepts, synops, everything? Don't agents warn clients not to waste months of writing on something they can't possibly sell?

Agent/writer relationships vary. Some agents want to be involved in that process – helping a writer choose what concept would be best suited for the marketplace. Some writers aren’t interested in that sort of feedback – believing that writers should write and agents should sell.

When scribes spend six months writing a script, they expect their agent to perform. Working writers who have clout within an agency often demand their representation be successful. This can be very difficult if the script is not good. Of course, the difficulty quotient rises and falls based on the writer’s level of success within the industry. It isn’t easy to tell a working writer - whose salary contributes to the agency - that his script sucks. An agent might distribute the script to a select few to get some feedback, which he can then take to the writer. He might say, “The script isn’t getting good feedback and it might be smarter to put this project on hold for the time being. We don’t want to stall your momentum right now.”

But writers leave agencies all the time (in search of new reps) because agents will not go out with scripts (to try and preserve the writer’s image). Scripts not selling and projects failing to be realized (after being set-up) are other reasons that motivate writers to look for new representation. A script is a writer’s livelihood, so she has plenty of reason to have high demands. Conversely, the quality of the work an agent markets sets the standard for his business. Often, the writer’s needs clash with the agent’s – especially when the writer’s demands exceed the limitations of the screenplay.

Ultimately, the representation works for the talent. It isn’t the other way around. But it is often a complicated and emotional relationship which goes beyond the barriers of an agent simply telling his client to write a different script.


________________________________________________


For the past several years now, you've made your presence known to new writers in a variety of ways....the college course you teach...The Inside Pitch TV show.....a growing presence on the Internet culminating in your heavy involvement in http://www.twoadverbs.com/ ....and now this groovy blog. You leave a bread crumb trail of e-mail addresses for newbies to pick up and you make no secret about who you are. Why do you think you do what you do for new writers, Christopher? Nobody else really even comes close to matching the energy you put into new writers. ALL your e-mail inboxes must be INUNDATED with queries...cries from the coal mine...pleas for help...and more queries....Do you ever regret putting yourself out there the way you have?

The one thing that might surprise you is that writers have always been respectful – which has fueled my continual efforts. There is very little sacrifice made by shedding anonymity and reaching out. My wife might disagree a bit, since I do spend a lot of time answering e-mails, but it’s a “hobby” of sorts. It’s something I do outside of work but within the parameters of my knowledge base.

If I were a plumber, I might use up my free time with “Habitat for Humanity.” Or if I were athletic, I might play golf. Instead, I choose to offer my opinions and feedback about scripts and the business. It’s no big deal. (In fact, it’s rather self-serving and maybe even a little sad.) But I enjoy it and have met a lot of talented people (from all around the world) over the years.

Furthermore, there has been a constant and happy kismet from my extra-curricular activities – which has kept my life interesting.

As for the hyperbolic notion of “putting myself out there,” I’m just sitting at a computer answering a few questions.


________________________________________________

Could you give your thoughts on including character direction in action lines? There seem to be two schools of thought on this. For example, let’s say we have a scene where a man enters a room, reads a ransom note, and becomes upset. One way to describe this character is to list his actions: “He bites his fingernails, checks his watch, looks in the mirror and cries.” The other approach is to simply say “he reads the note with growing concern.” I understand that it isn’t the screenwriter’s job to interfere with an actor’s take on what their character would do, but I can’t tell which approach is less intrusive to that process. Any thoughts?

In my opinion, you’re not writing the script for the actor, you’re writing the script for the reader.

Your objective is to simulate the experience of a movie using the written word. Not an easy task. (The WGA had that great ad campaign featuring various scenes from the scripts of famous movies – reminding us that a writer was responsible for it.) There is no right or wrong way here. I’ve seen all sorts of methods used – including writers telling us the thoughts of the character.

The best method is the one that communicates the emotion of the beat to the reader.

It’s always fun to read screenplays of your favorite movies (after you’ve seen the film) to see how a particular scene or beat was written on the page. You’ll learn quickly that all writers have their specific techniques.

I have no opinion either way. Ultimately, I never judge these sorts of things until I see them in print and understand the way they work within the context of the script as a whole. These sorts of matters are often discussed ad infinitum by screenwriting teachers in an attempt to engender some objective rhyme and reason out of the very subjective craft of screenwriting. Your success depends on making the right decisions that communicate the movie in your head - via the page - to the reader.

There is no blanket answer – which is what makes the craft so unpredictable and wily.


________________________________________________

I might have a chance to pitch to a production company, I would appreciate knowing your opinion of my logline: A TRUE STORY. In 1913, a friendship between a St. Louis housewife and a 17th century spirit from England becomes an international sensation.

The idea of a “true story” creates some genuine intrigue because of the supernatural element here. However, the logline itself is too vague.

A challenge the writer often faces is the amount of information she should include in the logline. In this case, there simply isn’t enough. This pitch fails to stimulate any interest because it isn’t clear as to what the story is about.

When I read a logline, I expect to find the dramatic “mission statement.”

The “mission” is focused on the protagonist and his pursuit of a specific goal – either physical or psychological. It is this goal – the mission – that creates the throughline, the conflict, the tension, and the “hope and fear” of the narrative.

In this case, “a housewife and a ghost become pals and create a sensation” doesn’t allow us to understand the conflict in the story. There is no dramatic "mission statement" here.

It isn’t clear who the protagonist is and what s/he strives for throughout the story (the mission). The logline doesn’t open a window to your story, allowing me to peek inside and envision the cinematic possibilities.

If a logline does not allow the reader to “see the movie” then it hasn't achieved its objective.


_________________________________________________


Send questions and comments to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

MAILROOM #7

I have been studying screenwriting for almost six years now, and am starting to think that my knowledge and love of film and storytelling would be better suited more to the business side of the industry. Rather than writing and directing, my interests are drifting more toward the jobs of creative and developmental executives. My questions for you: How does one become executive story editor of ICM? Aside from film-related areas of study, will an English degree suffice, or are backgrounds in business and law preferred? What should a resume of someone hoping to land an executive job entail?

Like most jobs in Hollywood, one usually starts at the bottom to work his way up. As the business of making movies seems to be shrinking, so are the opportunities for creative positions - which are very competitive. Many creative executives begin life as assistants (or even interns) at production companies, studios and agencies.

Agency experience looks good on a résumé and many prodcos look for it (some even insist on it). If a creative executive (CE) position opens up, word of mouth spreads through the industry. Jobs are often filled internally. However, if a suitable candidate doesn't materialize, the interview process begins (résumés vetted first). When the applicants are thinned out, the lobbying begins. This is a process where the candidate has the most influential people he knows (who hopefully know the prospective employer) make calls on his behalf.

On my side of the business, it behooves a talent agency to place one of its exiting employees in a CE position. It means a direct pipeline from the agency to the prodco. This is a very strategic process. Conversely, the prodco is not just looking for a clever story mind but also hopes to find a candidate with an impressive address book.

Having an English or law degree is meaningless in most cases; some key elements to a landing a creative position are previous experience in the business, an opinion about story, contacts and a gregarious manner. In spite of my exemplary traits and winning personality, I weaseled my way into ICM thanks to the help of a friend and timing.

Ultimately, landing a job in Hollywood isn't as hard as keeping it.

____________________________________________________

Consider two identical query letters, one naming the writer as a member of the Independent Writers Association of Southern California and the Alameda Writers Group, and the other not. Would you be more likely to read the script with the professional affiliations or are they unimportant unless they're extremely exclusive and/or prestigious?

The only element of the query letter that will tantalize me is the logline. Although I wholly endorse writers' groups because they are a great way to meet with other scribes and industry personnel, exchange scripts and contacts, and commiserate, it doesn't mean the script is worth two-hours of my time.

The same is true of a writer who includes his MFA in screenwriting from USC (let's say). Although I might be more likely to cut an MFA writer a bit more slack (he has shown some dedication to the craft), my job only allows time for soliciting scripts based on whether or not the concept intrigues me.

___________________________________________________

Have I got a question for you. I'm a 23-year-old chick who's starting grad school at Tisch for Playwriting this fall. While I'm super psyched, there's a big part of me that has always loved screenwriting. I've done it for a few years, teaching myself from books and whatnot, have taken a few classes (one at Tisch's summer sessions...) and have got positive feedback and placed in a national contest or two (but who hasn't, right?). My question is...I've got a script that I'd like to push around, but obviously I'm not going to be inundated with time. Do you have any advice for me? I've worked in some literary offices in the big city so I know how much of an uphill battle it is, especially being young and female, and alone.

Being young, female and alone can only help you in this business.

I graduated from the same program you're entering. It was a very valuable experience for me, and one of the few smart decisions I've ever made. Although you probably won't appreciate my advice, I suggest you be patient.

A common flaw in the strategies of new writers is: Too much, too soon. Use the next two years to improve your craft, set-up a network, and take lots of screenwriting classes. Exit the university with several marketable scripts. This time will not come again. Marketing a script is almost full-time work and you'll have the rest of your life to devote to it. For now, your energies need to be focused on 721 Broadway.

Good luck to you and give my regards to Gary Garrison.

____________________________________________________

What does Hollywood really think of InkTip?

It would be rather bold of me to speak for all of Hollywood, but I'll offer up my opinion.

For those who don't know, INKTIP is an online business that charges a fee for writers to post their screenplays in a safe environment where producers and executives in the market for material can shop using an organized search system.

Jerrol LeBaron is the President of INKTIP, and he is a very sincere individual who works very hard at marketing his service - not just to writers - but to producers and executives. (Only writers pay. The service is gratis for those in the industry looking for material.) He even publishes a colorful magazine that features loglines for easy perusal.

INKTIP boasts a lot of success stories. In the April 2006 periodical, INKTIP states that 13 projects were produced in the last 13 months. (The odds changed drastically sixty-days later when the magazine's cover boasted "Two films produced every month.") However, the majority of the production companies are relatively unknown and it seems unlikely that these projects get theatrical distribution. However, that doesn't always seem to be the case.

Here is a quote from its "Recent Successes" section: "Haxan Films has finished production on the horror picture 'Altered,' which was penned by InkTip writer Jamie Nash from a story he created with 'The Blair Witch Project' co-creator and Haxan Films' Eduardo Sanchez. Sanchez discovered Nash on InkTip. Rogue Pictures, the genre arm of Universal speciality unit Focus Features, has picked up worldwide rights to 'Altered....' "

I think it's fair to say that INKTIP could be a way to help a writer break into the business, but it seems unlikely that it will help him pay off the mortgage, since, I suspect, many of these options are free or low dollar and salaries are deferred or negligible.

The biggest downside to INKTIP is the quality of projects it hocks - which is not a reflection of its business practices . Most of the featured loglines are badly written or pitch inane concepts.

I think that INKTIP has remained rather elusive to mainstream Hollywood. However, those outside of the system - who do make movies (even if we've never heard of them) could snatch up your script. Overall, I think it's the individuals who operate INKTIP that instill it with most of its credibility.

___________________________________________________

A producer recently looked over a novel that I have written and asked me if I have ever written a spec. I said no. He said go for it. So I did. OK here's the question: Do I use card stock covers on both sides? Title only on the title page? I got the brads down and the format of the page down, but the proper aspect of the "cover" has me confused.

If you've just completed your first spec and the biggest challenge you're facing involves card stock, I think you'll be a great success.

There are no guidelines here. It is personal preference.

Most agencies and prodcos make their own copies of the original and bind them with their own protective covers. Regardless, if you'd like to adorn the script with card stock covers (to prevent the title page and/or back page from being torn off), no one will hold it against you. The title on the title page alone will suffice.

________________________________________________

I have an idea for a script to enter in the Disney Fellowship Program. I did this for my kids, what do you think of this story line I came up with? It's about Socks that come to life after a father makes them into hand puppets and uses them on a blue moon. In the end the Silk Princess gives up her life to save the house from robbers.

SHREK began life as a bedtime story.

But then again so did LADY IN THE WATER.

As a logline, this is a little scattered. There is no connective tissue between the father's sock puppet and the Silk Princess. (Does the dad wear silk stockings?) Plus, I don't have a clue as to what the story's about. You've left out the entire mid-section (your second act).

I think you certainly have your heart in the right place. It's very sweet that you've written this story for your children (who might seek retribution as adults). If it's something you must commit to the screenplay format, then do it and see how you fare with Disney.

However, in my opinion, this could be the kind of story better off kept between father and child.

___________________________________________________

I'm wondering if there's any possibility you can accept a treatment for one of my works that can lead to getting me hired or the screenplay getting produced in some way. The story I'm talking about is unfinished, though I have written several screenplays in the past without really trying to get them out there; written them more for learning-purposes. But what I want to "pitch" or send a short treatment on is something I've been outlining during the last year. Almost everything is set up, every scene, character, even some of the dialogue, but since I'm done writing for fun I want this great idea on the market. I want to know if there's any serious interest. After all, there are so many great ideas out there, I want to choose my time carefully. So, to get to the point again, can you take and make anything out of a treatment? If there's any serious interest, I'm willing to write it in no-time.

No interest from me.

I'm not a fan of treatments as a tool to sell a screenplay - not from an unestablished writer anyway.

Treatments are helpful to a writer while plotting out his story. Treatments are often a "step" in the studio development process. However, at that point, the writer has already been hired based on writing samples. The challenge with an unknown writer landing a job via a treatment is that it doesn't prove his ability to write dramatically. All of the story points can look more than effective in narrative form, but when the writer translates it into a dramatic format, many things can go awry (like exposition, dialogue and character development, to name a few).

In my opinion, a dramatist using a treatment to sell a script is tantamount to a songwriter tap dancing his ditty instead of singing it (presenting it in the true form in which it is meant to be expressed). If you believe it is a great idea and a good story, I suggest you write the script.

Now that your days of writing for fun are done, you must begin the next step on your journey to writing professionally: Work for free.

___________________________________________________

I truly appreciated the "A" List of questions to ask when a screenplay is finished. The most intriguing, to me, is the last: "Does it avoid conversation?" I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "conversation." Are you referring to pages of inane chatter, a la Kevin Smith, or pages of sparkling dialogue one finds from Billy Wilder or Aaron Sorkin?

Yes, I'm referring to pages of inane chatter.

The function of dialogue is to forward the plot, reveal character and exposition - amongst other things. It is not designed to be purposeless - unless there is a purpose to it. Leave conversation for conversation sake to the auteurs. As a scribe writing a spec script to turn heads - it is not advised.

____________________________________________________

The A LIST is a great tool for the drama in a story but it doesn't delve into the thematic aspects of the story beyond: "Is the story about something? Is there a "theme?". I think you should consider adding a THEME category to your list. Here are a few suggestions:

THEME
Does your theme have a structure?
ACT I Presentation of the Theme
ACT II Argument of the theme,
ACT III Conclusion of the theme)
Is there a relationship between your character's internal struggle and your theme?
Does your character's actions argue and communicate your theme?
Is your theme clearly connected to your plot points and climax?
Is there an image that communicates theme?
Is your theme articulated in dialogue?

I think this is a great addition to the list.

In the A LIST blog, I stated that the list included items that I look for when reading scripts. To be frank, I don't consider the particulars of theme.

I only pay attention to theme in the most basic sense. It only seems to rumble around in my head if the script seems devoid of one. (I often ask myself, "What the fuck is this script about?")

In my experience, I have not seen script notes (from execs, let's say) that contemplate theme. It's often too personal and esoteric. I certainly think theme is important for the writer. It is the soul of his screenplay.

But Hollywood is souless - which explains the limited involvement of "theme" on my list.

___________________________________________________

I get the idea of the Halle concept. I love big movies. I know what makes me want to see a commercial movie. I get it. I come up with these great concepts (really, I do). Two of them are on your list. One of them I actually wrote the script. And that's the problem, the time between getting the idea and the time it takes to write the script. More time than not, I read on "Done Deal" that the idea was just sold. Now, I know this is an age-old problem and you just gotta deal with it. I get that too. My situation is that I have a great idea (forgive the lack of humility for a moment). I think the title role is something that actors will be clamoring for. It's based on existing material with a new angle. The few people I've told about it come back and tell me they can't stop thinking about it. So I wrote the script and it's good. It's really good. It's all there...but it's not perfect. Should I send out a good, but not perfect, script with a concept that's Halle quality or take a few months to re-write it and risk reading it was sold? I mean it's a great concept, I could tell you the title and you would get it. What do you think?

Your question left out the "Halle" concept. I could have judged a bit better with more information and less hype.

I suspect that your definition of "good" varies greatly from my definition of "good." I have a fairly high set of standards, since I'm reading scripts from the town's very best writers. And so are most of the people to whom you'll send the script. So, you better be damn sure that your definition of "good" is as "good" as mine.

If you really are working with a "Halle" concept, you're off to a better start than most writers. However, often, by page ten, the "Halle" mask is removed to reveal a "Jocelyn."

It's like that commercial where guys on the beach are checking out this hot chick sunbathing face down and topless. When one of the horny guys tries to pick up on her, "she" rolls over only to reveal a skinny dude with long hair, Speedo, and a hairy chest.

Bait-and-switch is commonplace in Hollywood. Take a month to rewrite the script. (For a script this good, a month seems like plenty of time.) During the process, commence with marketing. By the time you've gotten any bites, you'll be finished with the rewrite. A week or two delay in sending out the script to those interested will not crush your chances.

Don't worry about other writers and their (similar) projects. You have no control over the competition.

Screenwriting is not an interactive sport. It's more like golf. You're competing against yourself.

At this stage in your career, you owe it to yourself to make the script the very best it can be. Because even your best may not be good enough.

____________________________________________________

Is there any hope for a writer who dislikes Halle movies -- i.e. finds almost any movie that can be pitched in a crisp logline to be fairly uninspiring, forgettable, and usually even downright awful? What if you've tried to write a couple Halle movies but find yourself drawn again and again back to Jocelyns because those are the types of movies that you love and therefore have the passion to write? Are you screwed? And what if you actually happen to write a brilliant Jocelyn? Will anyone give a shit? Wasn't "American Beauty" a Jocelyn? My understanding is that this script created a lot of buzz when it got shopped around.

Let's not confuse "Jocelyn" with "Mona." "Jocelyn" refers to an unattractive concept made worse by poor execution. A "Jocelyn" is bad all around.

A writer does not want to aspire to create a "Jocelyn," though most unwittingly do.

"Mona" refers to an unattractive concept that hides a great work beneath the surface.

Based on my silly illustrations, if you desire to write "Jocelyn," it would be difficult to get your career off the ground. AMERICAN BEAUTY is definitely not a "Jocelyn." It's more of a "Mona." (The concept is rather provocative and intriguing, however.)

Is there hope for a "Mona" writer? Of course. "Halle" isn't for everyone. But "Mona" is all about the quality of writing - which means the script has greater chances of failing; the odds of a new writer having a script as well-written as AMERICAN BEAUTY are slim to none. In my opinion, it's a lot easier to come up with a high concept and less-than-middling execution - like BRUCE ALMIGHTY - than it is to write a sophisticated and provoctative screenplay like AB.

But that shouldn't discourage you. However, a new writer has to work much harder to get a "Mona" project off the ground, because "Halle" has an easier time finding dance partners.

Although Alan Ball was introduced to features via AMERICAN BEAUTY, he was not a new kid on the block. He cut his teeth on more mainstream fare like TV's CYBIL and then segued into AB. (Most recently Paul Haggis made a similar metamorphosis. )

Alan Ball didn't have to peddle AB through a series of query letters. Many working writers who find the likes of "Mona" attractive have strong connections in the business, enabling them to bring their projects to fruition.

___________________________________________________

I've been developing a thriller spec script with a manager not affiliated with a major firm. Had him 'checked out' and he has a few legit clients, but (like myself) he's just getting starting. Up until recently, he's given constructive notes that have really moved the script forward. In our recent meeting, though, not only did he have very little positive to say, but (more importantly) was also very patronizing and distracted. As a gut check, I had an agent and another manager review the script and they were very enthusiastic about it. What's the right way to give this manager his proper due for helping developing the script (which he did), but continue to work on the script without him for the spec market?

That depends on the contract you might have signed. Some managers can lock up a screenplay for a period of time. However, if you didn't sign a contract, you owe him nothing but a "thank you." (Even if you did sign a contract, a "thank you" might be sufficient.)

Being a manager is similar to being a realtor. A realtor can invest months of time and money in trying to sell a house (or find one). However, if the seller decides to pull the house off the market or the buyer chooses to give up his search, the realtor is out of luck and a commission. That's the risk of the business.

Any development notes the manager might have given to you were provided gratis. If you're not happy with his performance, take yourself and script elsewhere.

____________________________________________________

What strategy would you advise, if you were a newbie writer, with no rep nor contacts, and wanted to make a sale within the next year? What would be the building blocks - and how would we go about building them - to get to that industry sale?

This is a facsimile of the most popular question asked. And, of course, there is no answer.

The two most important things you must do is 1) Write and 2) Network.

And you should be doing them simultaneously.

Assuming you have a viable project (a "Halle," let's say), it is important to have a network of connected people who can read the script. This business operates on relationships. A day doesn't pass at work without an e-mail going out asking, "Does anyone here have a relationship with...?" The more connected you are, the better your situation.

Writers who live out of town are at a disadvantage when it comes to networking, but there are industry events (with limited access), telephones and e-mail. I often get letters from writers - total strangers - who visit town for various reasons and ask to meet with me for a short time. Each writer must devise his own plan of networking with people in the industry.

Your goal should be to eventually bypass the process of the query letter and simply call your network and distribute your screenplay. And, hopefully, half of those people will pass it on to others they know. Even writers with strong roots in the community struggle to earn a paycheck, so being a complete stranger to the town only makes the journey longer and more arduous.

Setting time limits (sell a script within the year) might work for some, but, realistically, Hollywood has its own internal clock which ticks like no other time zone on earth. You might be better off setting goals within your control.

For instance, set the goal to complete two polished screenplays within the year, and/or enter two or three important contests/fellowships, and/or set out to make contact with four new industry people a month - which will offer an expansive network by the year's end. (Also, remain committed to staying in contact with those you meet.)

Work hard at both writing and networking. And be patient. The journey through Hollywood is neither a sprint nor a marathon - it's a death march.

_________________________________________________


Let’s not forget those writers who recently passed away. Their contributions to the creative community and our lives are greatly appreciated.

Ed Benedict, 94
Naguib Mahfouz, 94
Sig Shore, 87
Gerald Green, 84
Joseph Stefano, 84
Ralph Schoenstein, 73
Robert K. Hoffman, 59


Send questions and comments to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

Any mail received to this account - including query letters and solicitations from Nigerian barristers - may be used for publication on this blog.

THE "A" LIST

Can you offer a list of story points that I should consider after finishing my first draft?
___________________________________________________

Each story is its own fingerprint. Since each script has its own set of goals, it can be difficult to offer up a checklist to which all screenplays should subscribe. I think each screenplay has its very own unique checklist. However, there are certainly general points that can be considered. The problem with a checklist is that a clueless scribe will review it and mistakenly believe he has all points covered. By no means is a checklist any sort of cureall. Ultimately, the checklist must come from within - not without. Regardless, these are some general points that I look for when reading scripts.


CONCEPT

Is it a concept that immediately conveys a sense of conflict?
Is it a cinematic/visual concept?
Is it an intriguing concept?
Is it a concept with commercial appeal?
Is it a concept that could attract talent?
Does the script “write to its concept?” (Does it fully EXPLOIT the concept?)
Is it HIGH CONCEPT – story driven by concept?
Is it CHARACTER DRIVEN (slice-of-life) – story driven by character?
Is the concept true to its genre (conventions)?

PROTAGONIST

Does the hero have a memorable introductory scene?
Do we identify with the hero?
Do we empathize?
Sympathy? Jeopardy? Likeability? Humor? Power?
Does the hero have a GOAL?
External? Internal?
Both?
Is there HOPE & FEAR? (“Hope” the character will win, “fear” that he’ll lose?)
Is the hero actively pursing his goal?
Are there strong motives for the protagonist?
Is there a backstory? Is it woven skillfully (smoothly) into the unfolding storyline?
Is the hero challenged? (Challenge your character with his greatest fear?)
Is the protagonist’s internal life explored visually and dramatically?
Does the character change from the beginning of the story to the end? (Character arc?)
Does the character have “texture?” (Quirks, nuances and details.)

STORY

Is mood and tone successfully established?
Is concept explored through compelling conflict?
Are we hooked into the story by the end of the first act?
Is it fleshed out and explored through characters (behavior/moral choices) and conflict?
Is the character’s goal (the engine of the story) clearly expressed?
Is it introduced too early in the script? (Causing the story to run out of gas early?)
Is it introduced too late in the script? (Causing boredom early on in the story?)
Is there enough conflict? Is it compelling? Suspenseful? Credible?
Are there stakes/jeopardy? Are the stakes high enough?
Is there a sense of urgency?
Is the story well paced? Is there sufficient modulation? (Both highs and lows?)
Comic relief/ humor?
Does it avoid forced, artificial beats? Do the beats feel organic to the story?
Does it avoid contrivance and coincidence?
Does the story plant and pay-off?
Is there plenty of tension? Momentum? (Are you compelled to turn the page?)
Does it avoid repetition? (Tightly edited?)
Does it avoid cliché?
Is there an antagonist? Is his force equal to that of the hero?
Does antagonist have a goal? Is he three-dimensional? Does he have an arc?
Does the story hold its course (following the hero’s journey) or does it wander?
Is the world in which the story set believable, logical, and sensible?
Does it establish the “rules” of the world?
Does the story have a “cause and effect” flow? Each scene proceed logically to the next?
Does it raise questions? Anticipation? Superior position? Curiosity? Surprise?
Is EXPOSITION handled well? Evenly spread out through script?
Are the story’s key moments “earned?”
Is there a “romance?”
Do the sub-plots enhance the major storyline? Does sub-plot reveal theme?
Do the secondary characters support the hero? Add depth?
Do the major secondary characters have arcs?
Are there an efficient number of characters? (Too few, too many?)
Voice-over used effectively? (Does the story make sense without it?)
Does it build to the climax?
Are conflicts resolved?
Does the ending satisfy? Is it logical?
Does the antagonist receive a comeuppance commensurate with his actions?
Does it avoid a “deus ex machina?”
Do scenes start and end at the most effective points?
Does the story have “texture?” (Quirks, nuances and details.)
Is the overall experience "emotional? (Funny, scary, disturbing, powerful, sad, etc.?)
Is the story about something? Is there a "theme?"

STRUCTURE

Is the set-up well utilized? (Preparing audience for imminent dilemma?)
Important characters introduced early enough?
Is the first act efficient and effective?
Is the MAJOR DRAMATIC QUESTION clear?
Does the narrative maintain tension?
Is the hero responsible for pushing the story forward?
Are the plots points effective in providing the story with momentum?
Are “flashbacks” used to advance the story and/or raise questions?

DIALOGUE

Is it character specific? (Henry Higgins versus Eliza Doolittle)
Does it reveal character? Does it advance the story?
Does it set tone?
Does it avoid clunky exposition? Soliloquy? Monologue? Asides? Outright explanations?
Does it employ sub-text? (Not on-the-nose?)
Use visuals to enhance dialogue? Break up dialogue with pertinent action?
Does each line flow from previous line?
Does it avoid conversation?



Send questions and comments to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net


Any mail received to this account - including query letters and solicitations from Nigerian barristers - may be used for publication on this blog.

MAILROOM #6

Three weeks ago Joe Dante's Renfield Productions requested my script without representation. After I pissed my pants, I sent it in with a very professional and short "thank you". If you were in my shoes, how would you proceed? Would you follow up after a period of time or just be patient for a response? I've heard all the customary suggestions, but I'm curious, with your savvy and knowledge, how you would handle the situation?

Follow-up is imperative. It’s important to give you peace of mind, but it’s also important to let those to whom you submitted the script know you’re serious and expect some sort of response. With all the submissions agencies and prodcos receive, scripts will fall by the wayside, get lost or discarded, so it’s reasonable to call or drop an e-mail to check on the status of the script. After (about) a month and a half of waiting, a polite follow-up is perfectly acceptable, then follow-up at two-three week intervals. It’s the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Personally speaking, follow-up calls and e-mails help to keep me organized and remind me what I need to respond to. Following up is especially important when you’re a gnat on the producer's radar and your project is at the very bottom of the pile.

______________________________________________________

I realize that Hollywood is a youth driven culture. But does this apply to writers as well? Will agents/managers be willing to work with someone over 45 or 50 if they are trying to break in as writers?

Hollywood is definitely youth-oriented for those trying to break into the business. Agents and managers will make their own decisions on who they want to represent and why. Ultimately, they are looking for talent that understands the marketplace and can sustain a career. I suspect if a fifty-year-old pitched SNAKES ON A PLANE, he might have landed a deal regardless of his age. But how many fifty-year-olds want to write SNAKES ON A PLANE? I think it comes down to “voice” rather than appearance. If the writer’s voice is one that resonates with what agents and managers think they can sell, age is not much of an obstacle.

_______________________________________________________

My writing partner and I (both Canadians living up in British Columbia) have had a small agent in LA for the past several years. The last script we wrote was a comedy/fantasy called "Honeymoon Falls". In it, the protaganist uses a certain device (I don't know how specific you want me to get, but it was a magic remote-control) to transport her into the "real" world of her favourite soap opera which is just about the be cancelled. My partner and I just saw Adam Sandlar's "Click" the other night - in it, he uses a magic remote-control to control time. When our agent shopped "Honeymoon Falls" around a year or so ago, we got some very positive comments (even creating a little bit of a buzz on some of the tracking boards), but alas, no option/sale. My question is - based on the success of "Click", should we try (for lack of a better word) "re-pitching" Honeymoon Falls, this time focusing on the similarities to "Click" - even though the similarities begin and end with the "plot device" of the magic remote control. I'm familiar with the Hollywood mantra of "Give me the same thing, but different!" In this case, we DO have the "same thing", and it IS different!

If you read the last blog entry, you’ll note a list of loglines all revolving around a similar concept, so the obstacle may not be the gimmick of a remote control – especially since CLICK earned over 130 million at the domestic box-office. However, the real obstacle to marketing the script could be the fact that it’s already made the rounds and ended up homeless. However, you and your rep can discuss new strategies to send out the script and try to use the success of CLICK to your advantage. “HONEYMOON FALLS is like CLICK meets SOAPDISH” (or whatever). You may need to do a rewrite or polish and even consider changing the title to give it a whole new look.

______________________________________________________

I'm hoping you can help with advice/referral. I've got a very solid thriller screenplay that Andre Royo (an actor on HBO's 'The Wire') wants to produce. He's taking it to his contacts like Andrew Lauren, Carl Franklin, Peter Medak and others. I'm wondering what I can do to capitalize on these connections and this whole process. Even if the script doesn't sell, how can leverage this exposure? Also, with this script and the short film I recently wrote/directed, I think I'm a viable candidate for assignment work. Is there anyone you know of looking for new talent? I'm finishing up a really strong script about an FBI agent who goes undercover in a corrupt prison to hunt a serial killer.

Almost every writer at any given time has his script somewhere with someone who’s “interested.” I never hear a writer say, “No one is interested in my script.” Even though that’s more than likely the realistic scenario for most writers in town. The business is about buzz and hype. (I love the likes of, ‘Ron Howard has my script,’ which really means it’s in the readers' pool. There’s nothing wrong with the reader’s pool, by the way. I just appreciate the spin.) Recently, I spoke to a writer who told me his script was with so-and-so producer and how he loved it and was taking it to the studio. I ended up having lunch with that producer and in small talk I mentioned the writer and the script. The producer didn’t read the script but did review the coverage, which gave the project a lukewarm reception. It seemed unlikely he would be taking it to the studio. Whether the producer was blowing heaven up the writer’s ass or the writer was blowing it up my ass remains to be seen, but the point is that there’s all sorts of fairy tales being spun in town. (The successful players in show biz detect bullshit - while their own bullshit goes undetected.) With everyone knee-high in “spin,” it takes some very serious buzz to excite an agent, manager or executive. Is your news enough to create interest and excitement in your talent? Probably not. The best way to leverage this opportunity is through the people that read the script (the Carl Franklins and Peter Medaks). Hopefully, the script will open some doors, which will lead to other doors. Writing UTA a query letter informing them that Carl Franklin is reading your script means nothing, but getting Carl Franklin to make a call to UTA on your behalf means a lot. And the truth is if the material is that good, he very well may. If it isn’t as good as you believe it to be, then you’ll know soon enough. Everyone is looking for new talent. But there are more people looking for talent than there is talent. The fact that you’ve written a screenplay or directed a (short) movie doesn’t mean you’ve written a screenplay or directed a movie – which is why most cannot get much farther than the query letter stage. Use the opportunities available to you first. Learn to exploit those and then allow that momentum to carry you onward.

______________________________________________________

Your recent post of Halle's and Mona's got me thinking some more about something that continuously gets thrown my way. In the meetings I've managed to garner (living in Vancouver...yet to break South down the I-5), I have done decently well at gaining some working relationships, some interest and a job or two. But this is what is so often said to me: "We really like your style and think your dialogue is great, but we'd like you to work on some different projects with us." And then we move along to either them pitching me a comedy, family movie, etc., while the majority of my samples are psychological thrillers and/or sci-fi. I realize the task is to be able to apply myself to any form I can manage and do it to the best of my abilities, but to take a selfish tone for a minute I can't help but wish to be asked to continue work on a sci-fi or something more “me.” Without pitching my specs your way, would you think this was a result of throwing them a Jocelyn? Is it a genre thing? I noticed in your post (and countless others that report sales) that my preferred genres aren't in the highest of demand, so is it the concepts aren't high concept enough or is it that (assuming a script is written well) one can struggle trying to show off a Mona, and not a Halle?

Most writers earn a living on work-for-hires, so the fact that producers want to hire you to write a project for them instead of buying your script is status quo. It is a bit odd that they want to hire you for genres that you’ve shown no interest or proficiency. It’s impossible for me to guess what they’re thinking. It is entirely possible that you written a Mona and not a Halle, which would turn them on to your writing – but not necessarily the script (which could be a tough sell for them). I find it hard to believe that a producer would want to hire you based on a bad script – though it certainly happens. But I don’t think it really matters. If a producer wants to pay you to write a screenplay, you have succeeded (even if it’s in a small way). I think the “Halle/Jocelyn/Mona” philosophy needs to be carefully considered if there is a profound lack of interest in your projects. That hardly seems to be your situation. If what they pitch fails to interest you, you have the power to “pass” on the project.

___________________________________________________

In your blog title "Hallewood" you say, "My wife, on occasion, will ask the dreaded question, 'Honey, am I as good looking as Halle Berry.' My reply is, 'If you were, we wouldn't be on opposite ends of the couch.'" I don't know what your wife looks like but she might be better off at the other end of the couch since you're no George Clooney!

George Goony would be more appropriate. I've always likened myself to the "Scarecrow" in THE WIZARD OF OZ - only he's a better dresser. You'll be happy to know that I ran the quote by my wife before publishing it. She has an excellent sense of humor (a must to exchange vows with me) and gave me her blessings.

Send questions to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

Any mail received to this account - including query letters and solicitations from Nigerian barristers - may be used for publication on this blog.

THINK "HALLEWOOD"

On Saturday, I spent two hours listening to writers pitch their screenplays. The writers were all earnest and some energetic and entertaining, but none offered a slamdunk movie concept. Some managed to pique a little interest, but none were going to smash down the doors to Hollywood.

The greatest challenge for any writer is finding a concept that will spark interest within the Hollywood community.

New writers have the unenviable task to find engaging concepts because it’s the only way to capture the interest of busy buyers and/or sellers. While established scribes could (though not recommended) write about their lazy summer on a Northern Ohio earthworm farm, new writers must find a concept that screams, “This is a movie.”

This is not a new revelation and is rudimentary to most.

Then why do most concepts suck?

Travel to any screenwriting message board and most are testing out terrible concepts. I wonder if any of these writers have ever been to the movies. Do they read the trades to see what sorts of scripts are selling? Although new writers claim they understand the notion of finding a concept that has universal movie potential – empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

If there hasn’t been a movie made about a lazy summer on an earthworm farm, there could be a good reason for it. That’s not to say the story shouldn’t be told. Just let someone else tell it. Or write it after selling a high concept comedy or two.

“High concept” is a term bandied about and most can agree upon its definition. High concept is a story idea that evokes a movie with just a sentence or two. Even with this definition, high concept can be hard to nail down. One has to hear it to know whether or not it's high concept. It’s like pornography: difficult to define but obvious to spot.

I think the best way to demonstrate a good concept is via visual aids.

I'm going to break down concepts into THREE visual categories.

Let's begin with Halle Berry.



For all intents and purposes, she is a GOOD CONCEPT.

Most who see her will find her attractive and want to get their hands on her.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so there are some who will not be attracted to her. However, the percentages are low.

Writers want to strive to find that Halle Berry.

So not to be sexist, George Clooney also represents a good concept.



Like Halle, if George were at a bar, most women would glance his way.

Maybe not all. But most.

A concept needs to do the same thing. It may not be able to attract all, but it should attract the majority.

If you're going to a party, you want to have Halle (or George) on your arm.

Trouble arises because most people have a distorted self-image.

This means that they believe they resemble Halle or George. My wife, on occasion, will ask the dreaded question, "Honey, am I as good looking as Halle Berry." My reply is, "If you were, we wouldn't be on opposite ends of the couch."

This distorted self-image plays a role in the way a writer might envision her concept. In other words, most writers think they have a good concept, when, in actuality, they aren't even close. That's why they often pitch terrible ideas with such passion and zeal.

And writers can rationalize almost any concept, trying to spin straw into gold.

"So this is a true story about a boy's coming-of-age on an earthworm farm. It's a story that will attract all sorts of people. Those who live in the city will be fascinated with life on the farm, and those who live on the farm will love to see their lives on the big screen. With characters ranging from a young boy to a grandfather, it'll attract a wide demographic. Plus entomologists will want to see the movie, and since it deals with the earth, so will everyone on the planet."

98% of all writers do not have a Halle or a George.

Instead, they have:



The Jocelyn Wildenstein concept is less likely to attract as many people as Halle. That's not to say it will not attract some.

But if both Halle and Jocelyn are sidelined at the prom, Halle will probably be asked to dance more frequently than Jocelyn.

In Hollywood, a concept needs to attract as many suitors as possible. Ultimately, the odds of Jocelyn being asked to dance - compared to Halle - crashes at catastrophic proportions.

It should be noted that Jocelyn has worked very hard and continues to try and tweak her appearance, but it simply never turns out right.

Most concepts in town are Jocelyn Wildenstein.

The final concept is:



Can an ugly woman make a beautiful painting?

This concept is the kind that isn't all that attractive and forces one to look below the surface - where a treasure of substance and art exists.

For example, there are certain scripts that do quite well on the contest circuit, but at the end of the night don't go home with a partner. Likewise with films that receive excellent reviews but fail to attract audiences.

While some might opine that she has a degree of rustic beauty, it seems certain that the Mona Lisa will be one of the last chicks to get laid at the MTV Beach House.

While Mona ranks higher than Jocelyn, it's clearly Halle for whom one should strive -if one wants to turn heads.

Here is a list of a few Halle concepts (maybe a Mona or two) currently in pre-production.

Comedy. A low rent lounge singer becomes stranded on a remote island with a group of supermodels. (Title: DON’T SEND HELP.)

Action/Comedy. A spoiled housewife, in desperate need of cash, teams with a cat burglar and robs the homes of local snobs. (Title: LOWLIFES.)

Comedy. After being laid off, a nebbish seeks revenge by becoming a pirate and robbing his former boss’s yacht. (Title: MIDLIFE PIRATES.)

Dramedy. True story of an 18-year-old from New Jersey who becomes a successful train robber. (Title: CONRAIL.)

Comedy. An ad exec, embarrassed about introducing his fiancée to his family, hires actors to portray them. (Title: WE ARE FAMILY.)

Comedy. An unscrupulous real estate developer finds himself under attack by forest animals when he prepares to plow down the land for new homes. (Title: FURRY VEGEANCE.)

Action/Thriller. The son of the governor teams with a hardened criminal to stop a group of inmates, who have taken over the prison using a “Scared Straight” program as their cover. (Title: SCARED STRAIGHT.)

A romantic comedy between two heterosexual men. (Title: MANCRUSH.)

Dramedy. After quitting his mundane job to follow his bliss, a man is slapped with a lawsuit by his disappointed father who sues him for all the money he invested in his upbringing. (Title: THE BILL FROM MY FATHER.)

Comedy. After a bizarre accident magnetizes a man and he unwittingly erases all the videotapes at the local video store, he and his friend set out to replace the films by recreating them using the townspeople as actors. (Title: BE KIND, REWIND.)

Thriller. An unscrupulous divorce attorney struggles to find his kidnapped wife before he pays the ransom: he must commit suicide. (Title: TWO SECONDS TO MIDNIGHT.)

Romcom. A woman finally meets the man of her dreams – only to discover she recently had a one-night stand with his father. (Title: A FAMILY AFFAIR.)

Action. When the USA is attacked by an electromagnetic pulse, which disables modern living, the Secretary of the Interior must wage war with antiquated combat methods. (Title: LIBERTY.)

Comedy. Two straight men pose as a married gay couple in order to receive employee health benefits. (Title: I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY.)

Dramedy. A simple man is thrust into the spotlight when his single vote will determine who is elected the next President of the United States. (Title: SWING VOTE.)

Comedy. Three high school boys hire a solider of fortune to protect them from bullies. (Title: DRILLBIT TAYLOR.)

Drama. A college student investigates the identity of her grandfather’s best friend – a 20-year-old who thinks he’s elderly. (Title: OLD MAN JOHNSON.)

Thriller. After his daughter is kidnapped by sex-slavers, a neurotic dad reveals his black ops past and sets out to save her life. (Title: TAKEN.)

Being mindful, once again, that beauty is an individual experience, some might feel there is a Jocelyn or two in the pack. However, most would agree that these are Halle concepts.

They are simple, easy to pitch and convey a movie.

I know I'm in trouble when it takes the writer twenty minutes just to relate his concept and then he says, "It sounds bad only because I had to leave out the good stuff."

Writers don't even have to work that hard to come up with "Hallewood" concepts.

For instance, there are tried-and-true concepts that are recycled over and over again. Look at movies like BIG DADDY or THE PACIFIER that create that fish-out-of-water scenario dramatizing an independent adult who must suddenly deal with children.

Here are a few currently in pre-production.

TRUCKER, a drama about an independent female truck driver who must care for her estranged 10-year-old son after his father is diagnosed with cancer.

BREAKFAST WITH SCOT, a dramedy about a gay former hockey player who is forced (with his partner) to care for an 11-year-old boy after the death of his mother.

ROCK AND ROLL NANNY is a comedy about a down-and-out rock star who takes a job as a nanny.

FATHER KNOWS LESS is a dramedy about a legendary music producer whose wife leaves town forcing him to care for his two kids in the middle of a career crisis.

SUMMER MOON is a drama about a selfish celebrity chef who struggles to connect with his estranged daughter upon her return.

SAY UNCLE is a family comedy about a kid-phobic bachelor who must take care of his brother’s children for a few days.

FOOD FIGHT is a family comedy about a fastidious celebrity chef who volunteers to teach children how to cook.

GREAT WITH KIDS is a comedy about a man who can only marry the woman of his dreams if he wins over her obstreperous children.

While writers might have a difficult time discerning whether or not they have a good concept, it isn't so difficult to see the difference between Halle, Jocelyn and Mona.

Start judging concepts that way.

And if a screenwriter can't tell the difference between Halle and Jocelyn - he's in the wrong business.

Coming up with a concept that resembles Halle Berry is not easy - for the same reason the beautiful Oscar winner is one-of-a-kind.

But work endlessly to find it. Never give up!

After all, Halle Berry came in second place in the 1986 Miss USA Contest.


Send questions to: theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

"HEAT"

"Heat” is a buzz term referring to the excitement and hype one might find with a particular Hollywood commodity that makes it more attractive in the marketplace.

There was plenty of heat in a particular screenwriting class this past month in the San Fernando Valley. However, with tongue-in-cheek, I’m using the term here metaphorically.

I’ll get to that in a moment.

I should begin by saying it is my belief that screenwriting cannot be taught.

So it is with a great deal of irony that I set out twice a year to teach
a screenwriting class at Los Angeles Valley College.

  

When I was an undergraduate, I studied to be a teacher and, afterwards, taught for
the (former) New York City Board of Education. I also taught basic writing skills to incarcerated men in the New York State penal system, along with developing and spearheading other sorts of various educational programs. Upon receiving my master’s degree, I was awarded NYU’s Public Service Prize (for my “dedication to public education”). Teaching has always been in my blood – which works at cross-purposes with my belief that screenwriting can’t be taught.

Then, of course, there’s the small detail that I’m not a screenwriter.

But my experience of working with scripts and writers and a bird’s eye view of how the business operates, along with a need to teach, motivates me to journey to the city college campus and attempt to help students learn what makes a screenplay work and how to navigate the minefield of Hollywood.

My objective is to present a realistic view of the industry. There is a glamourization of screenwriting and Hollywood which is perpetuated by those who sell books and seminars and services – often the only link that outsiders have to the business. For instance, it would be counterproductive for the Screenwriting Expo to hold a seminar called “YOU’LL NEVER SELL A SCRIPT, ASSHOLE.” Since my income doesn’t rely on this class, I make it perfectly clear that most struggling writers are merely spinning their wheels. However, with talent and a lot of savvy perseverance, there is a shot, and the class attempts to identify certain variables that could make the road easier (though no less unpredictable).

Aside from discussing the basics of story structure and character development, the class focuses on reading recently sold spec scripts and banging out story concepts, amongst other things. I like to bring in guests too – agents, managers and writers. This time around I brought in screenwriters Cindy McCreery and Mike Gozzard.

While their names are not as well known as the likes of William Goldman or Shane Black, they are working screenwriters who still have to pound the pavement for their next job. Their experiences are far more relatable to new screenwriters hoping to earn a living; their experiences are more akin to the majority of writers who eek out a paycheck in the WGA. (Mike, for instance, just had his first movie produced starring Terrence Howard and Bernie Mac and is still searching for an agent!)

In spite of my instructional objectives, the class eventually evolves into more of a social scene – less classroom instruction and more discussion of scripts and the business. Someone often brings in a few boxes of bakery goods for breakfast. It’s sort of a dramaturgical coffee klatch where writers can gather to learn the craft, discuss ideas, have a few laughs and even make new friends.

Los Angeles Valley College is located in Valley Glen (a euphemism for Van Nuys) at Coldwater and Burbank. The classroom is in BUGALOW 31, which looks something like a single-wide in an Oklahoma trailer park.

  

This July has been the hottest that I can recall, and the classroom was
sweltering.




This is the "heat" I was referring to earlier.

Located right off a parking lot, the blacktop generated heat, turning B31 into a microwave oven. The class met for six consecutive Saturdays starting June 17th, and each Saturday was the hottest day of the week. (Thursday would be 90 degrees; Friday would be 90 degrees but Saturday was always 103 degrees). With triple digits outside, the room felt hotter inside. The wall mounted air conditioner was powerless against the Valley sun. (My “Honeywell” oscillating fan did manage to circulate the hot air through the room, providing a tropical breeze.)

Despite the suffocating conditions, the students arrived each week (having paid $90.00 to do so) with scripts and ideas in tow. The student body was an eclectic bunch – with ages ranging from college students to senior citizens. Although they come from different walks of life, their goals are the same: Write a script that could open doors to a career.

I've read so many scripts and rarely meet the writers behind any of them, so facilitating this class is a way to put a face to the anonymous. It’s a way to learn a little bit about the people who write scripts for no remuneration - with the hopes of tasting a piece of the Hollywood pie.

Robert, for instance, works for myspace.com (and had the best pitch of the class); Brenda is a chipper mother of four, three of them triplets; Mike is a chiropractor in Simi Valley; Vanessa was visiting from Harvard and documented the class for a film project.

Teaching this class helps me to humanize the inhuman (and often inhumane) process of sifting through thousands of screenplays.

Bryan and Marge are recidivists – having taken the class before. Bryan is a writer/director who produced his own film (with Marge) called ALONG FOR THE RIDE. He developed another script in class called CROOKED CREEK, which is in pre-production. However, inspired by the discussion of loglines in class, they developed a board game called MOVIE MIX-UP.   


The game creates trivia questions by combining loglines from two movies starring the same actor. “A slow witted Southern man who runs very fast struggles to return to Earth in a crippled spacecraft” would be an example of a logline from their game. In order to advance around the board, players need to guess the titles (using the vernacular “meets”): FORREST GUMP meets APOLLO 13, or guess the actor (Tom Hanks) or guess the directors (R. Zemeckis and R. Howard, respectively) or guess the release dates (1994 & 1995). The couple has even created a TV version of the game and is pitching it around town. I recently brought Bryan in to meet the agent trainees - all forty of them - who read and critiqued his script in a story conference setting.

I met Kat and JD several years ago at the Las Vegas Screenwriting Conference (where the heat rivaled that of LAVC). Kat is a former Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy who raises horses and writes. Her writing partner JD recently penned a children’s book called “The Gingerbread Cowboy.” They pitched a promising idea that lacked a good hook, until fellow student Heather chimed in with a facile yet clever fix that flipped the concept around. Moments like that cannot be taught. But it’s those sorts of sparks that make the class worthwhile and, I think, enable students to understand and learn the craft.

Sheila H. Forman, a psychologist and lawyer, has penned two self-help books. She met Piper Moretti in class. Piper produces (the unfortunately titled but very important) YOUR CANCER TODAY in Orange Country and asked Sheila to appear as a guest. Networking is the lifeblood of this business and one never knows where a relationship can possibly lead.

  


  


  


























Savannah is originally from the South – a sweet, Elysian creature who really got a kick out of reading the spec scripts. One day while someone was floundering in a pitch, she had an epiphany about the pitching process and immediately shared it with the class. It was like the Helen Keller moment in THE MIRACLE WORKER (“wah-wah”) and a highlight of the six-weeks. Savannah is an actress who recently starred in the title role of NURSIE opposite C. Thomas Howell.

Class alumni have formed a writers’ group that meets once a month at the Marie Callender’s in Sherman Oaks. (One of the waiters, an aspiring screenwriter himself, joined the group.) Aside from script talk, there is plenty of food and air conditioning.

This summer’s heat was sort of a metaphor, representing the pervasive obstacles of carving out and sustaining a career in Hollywood.

But, I think, in the end, the students beat the heat.

I hope that victory is a metaphor too.

Our final class was Saturday July 22 and while we baked, Pierce College - the sister school to LAVC located ten miles away in Woodland Hills - reported the highest temperature ever recorded in the history of Los Angeles County: 119 degrees!


  

 

  

  

  



























































PHOTOS:

1) LOS ANGELES VALLEY COLLEGE, FULTON ENTRANCE
2) SOPHISTICATED ROOM NUMBERING SYSTEM
3) MOVIE MIX UP BOARD GAME
4) DR. SHEILA
5) PIPER
6) SAVANNAH
7) THE CLASS KIBBITZING
8) ROBERT TALKS TO JD & KAT
9) BRENDA
10) VANESSA
11) A CLASS WITH HEAT



A special thanks to all the LAVC Summer of '06 students, and an immense amount of gratitute to Jacinthe (of twoadverbs), who is a genuine lifesaver.


Send questions to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

MAILROOM #5

Okay, this is probably more of a continuation of an old thread, but might be an add-on to the subject of "goals" to which you blogged about. The inciting incident sets the overall goal, which drives the protag to be active. However I've been involved with a number of discussions pertaining to 1) sub-goals and 2) story structure around a protag who either assumes the wrong goal/sub-goal or his goal changes. For example: A sub-goal would be to get the typical "unique-and-ancient, somewhat difficult but not impossible to obtain" artifact that is used to kill the "pretty much omnipotent but for weakness to said artifact" antagonist monster/creature/manifestation of evil. In this case the sub-goal is clearly defined and is part of the overall goal. Would you suggest the sub-goal take up the second act and is best to have it as a mid-point? In the case of a protag not knowing/seeing their true goal, or with a goal being changed, does this happen at the mid-point (reversal) or start of the third act? The example I was thinking of was the classic cover-up/set-up story where protag is to take the fall. The protag typically doesn't know who the antag is: it may be a character familiar to them, an unknown or someone they've assumed wrong. The goal shifts from "Why and Who?" to making "Who" pay (not always, but speaking in general terms).
_________________________________________________

Each script is its own living breathing entity and without specific examples from your story, it’s difficult (and negligent) to make suggestions. A “sub-goal” that is part of the overall quest can add depth to the story – provided it is well integrated with the “A” plot.

In writing for a broad audience, it’s best that the goal (the character’s big problem) is introduced at the end of the first act and resolved at the climax.

It is often unsatisfying for the audience to invest in a problem (that the writer takes time to set-up) only to abandon it half way through for another.

I read a script recently where a detective sets out to catch a murderer (at the end of the first act). By midpoint, he finds the culprit and kills him. Now he takes on the responsibility to care for the culprit’s family. As a result, the character’s goal changes, and so does the tone of the piece – going from thriller to domestic drama, giving the script a bifurcated quality that makes it feel like two different movies. If the script wants to be a domestic drama, it might be better served for the detective to kill the culprit in the first act – putting him on the path to his bizarre domesticity at the start of act two. A “plot point” should add new energy to the protagonist’s quest (established at the end of the first act) – but not create a brand new movie. (It’s like Sheriff Brody killing JAWS at midpoint and then starting a mob-related investigation after that.)

FROM DUSK TIL DAWN does something similar, but the goal of Clooney and Tarantino is to get to a Mexican town called El Rey.

At midpoint, this crime thriller does a 180, becoming a vampire movie. But the vampires are merely an obstacle (a “sub-goal”) to the overall goal of C&T getting to El Rey contacts – which serves as a bridge between the first half and second half of the movie. The goal (the major dramatic question: Will they get to El Rey?) never changes. Furthermore, FROM DUSK TILL DAWN isn’t to be taken seriously (combining two popular drive-in genres), where the DOMESTIC DETECTIVE is an earnest drama – which is why it doesn’t work. Also, if it’s a story worth telling, why not tell it using the full canvas of the screenplay – instead of only half?

The inciting incident does not “set the overall goal,” it is merely an introduction to the potential problem. In THE VERDICT, Jack Warden presents a case to Paul Newman at the inciting incident – one that can help to financially revive him since all he needs to do is settle out of court. But by the end of the first act, Paul decides to try the case instead of accepting a settlement. His goal (to win the case) is set at the end of the first act – not the inciting incident.

In THE WIZARD OF OZ, the inciting incident sets up the fact that Dorothy is unhappy in Kansas, but this doesn’t establish her goal – which isn’t solidified until the end of the first act when she ends up on the other side of the rainbow and wants to go home.

In pursuit of the goal, there are many missions (sub-goals) a character might take. In THE VERDICT, for instance, Paul flies to New York to convince Lindsay Crouse to testify. This could be considered a “sub-goal,” but it is part of his larger pursuit to win the case.

In THE WIZARD OF OZ, Dorothy’s goal is to go back to Kansas. However, she takes a side trip when the Wizard orders her to fetch the broomstick of the Wicked Witch – which is part of her struggle to get home.

BACK TO THE FUTURE is a great example of a character with a strong “sub-goal.” Michael J. Fox’s goal is to get back to the future. However, his presence in the past has prevented his parents from meeting. As a result, much of the script revolves around his efforts to unite them – and not his specific efforts to get back to the future. (The final act involves that struggle.) But the sub-plot with his mom & dad is part and parcel of his overall goal to get back to the future, because if he doesn’t unite his parents, there is no future for him.

Although the preponderance of the storyline revolves around this effort (this “sub-goal”), we know the protagonist’s quest is to get back to the future, because the script’s climax revolves around it.

In the “classic cover-up/set-up” story (you mention), the protagonist’s goal is usually to clear his name. The other plot elements often evolve from that. In THE FUGITIVE, Harrison Ford struggles to elude Tommy Lee Jones while investigating his wife’s murdered – all in an attempt to clear his name. That goal doesn’t change throughout the story – despite the various hoops he must jump through during his journey.

I have been working on a project with a writing partner for over a year. I recently ended this collaboration relationship due to our incompatible levels of commitment to the project. My ex-partner is a New York stage actor and his acting career commitments were constantly putting our project on the back burner. I also recently moved to L.A. and the distance made it even harder to work in this partnership.

During the time we collaborated, we came up with a detailed story outline with scene breakdowns and were able to begin working on a rough draft in screenplay format. At the time I ended the partnership, the rough draft was about 30 pages long.

This will probably sound laughable, but when we began our collaboration, my then partner and I didn't employ the services of an entertainment lawyer to prepare a contract for our partnership. We simply drafted a Writing Partnership Contract/Agreement on our own and dated and signed it.

My ex-partner's additional goals were to act and produce. Mine were to direct and also be on the producers' team. Something not out of the realm of possibilities if the project is on a low-budget, indie level. So we implemented these goals as clauses in our Partnership Contract/Agreement.

This is a quote from our business end agreements in our Contract:

Split 50/50 writing credit ("written by [My Name] and [My Ex-Partner]"), copyright and pay.

In the event of a dissolution of the creative partnership prior to completion of the screenplay, the two parties will remain mutual owners of the material (characters and story) that has been created until this point. If the rights are to be sold, the profits will be shared 50/50, or one of the parties will agree to buy off the rights from the other.

Our Goals with this project after the writing process (Each of us will have the option to turn down a future production deal if any of the following individual goals are not met contractually):

[My] goals: To Write & Direct & (Produce). [I] will have the option to direct the finished script and/or be involved as producer. [My Ex-partner's] goals: To Write & Act & (Produce). [My Ex-partner] will have the option to select a major role in the film to act in and/or be involved as producer.)

Having the benefit of hindsight, I would not do this again if I ever go into another writing partnership. The story we developed grew beyond our initial projections for a low to moderate budget level and became much more of a big budget mainstream type of project. It's an action/adventure comedy and a thriller with fantasy elements. Rather effects laden. Obviously, even in the unlikely event that we came up with something extraordinary on the screenplay level and got people interested in making the movie, it is unrealistic for a couple of unknowns with no track record to expect anyone to even consider such high demands for further involvement on a huge budget scale production.

I believe the project has potential and would not like to see it go to waste. My ex-partner feels the same. We both intend to continue working on the screenplay separately. I wrote my ex-partner that I see the future possibilities for this script existing solely in the "screenplay-for-sale" domain. And that we should agree not to harbor any future claims and concede any such previous claims to act in, to direct or to produce the project. And that we would still have the joint right to decide together whether or not to pursue a potential offer and a sale of the script. My ex-partner, however, feels that he should still be able to pursue his option to act in any future production based on our material. According to our initial agreement this would mean that if one of us comes up with a script that a potential buyer is interested in, my ex-partner would have the option to turn down any potential deal if his demands to act in the film are not met.

Since we are no longer in a partnership, I am only interested in possibly getting the material sold and moving on. It would be unacceptable to me to further invest any creative energy in this project knowing that my ex-partner may be in a position to pursue that option and hamper any potential deal. My ex-partner also feels that we should agree with regards to the percentage that each of us will get from a hypothetical sale. To quote him, this is what he has suggested to me: "If we assign equal weight/significance to the two basic elements of a script - (i.e. a script is 50% story and 50% screenplay) - and we assume that, at this point we essentially have a relatively complete story and, perhaps, somewhere between 10-20% of a screenplay, would it seem reasonable to say that we have, at this point, 60-70% of a script (i.e. 50%+(10-20%))? If that seems reasonable, should we agree that if either of us gets an offer on a completed version of said script, that say 65% of that offer would be split equally between the two of us and the remaining, say, 35% would go to the author of the completed script in question?")

At this stage I have not consulted an entertainment lawyer and I have no representation. I would very much appreciate any advice you might have with regards to my situation and possible options.

My head is spinning.

You lost me after the first paragraph.

I hope the script (causing the trouble) is better constructed than all this.

Regardless, I’m not a lawyer and have never had a head for math, so I’m pretty useless to you here.

I decided to publish your diatribe as a sort of cautionary tale.

I’m not warning against partnerships, which can be rewarding and fruitful (especially in such a lonely game like “writing”). But this is a portrait of two naïve men who put a very large cart before a very small horse. It isn’t clear why you just didn’t write a script without all the silly egotism and dick-swinging.

Most writing teams enter their partnership on a verbal agreement. I doubt most seek legal counsel so early in the game. Most enter with a 50/50 understanding and worry about the rest when it’s time to make a deal. To even decide “credits” is ridiculous because, in the end, writing credit could go to another scribe altogether.

If you enter into a partnership (which should be on a project to project basis) be prepared to split 50/50 – money and credit. There is always one partner who will probably take on the bulk of the work, but that’s the nature of this particular beast. If your ego cannot handle that sort of philanthropy – write alone.

It certainly makes sense to understand the grounds of any partnership, but it also behooves each person to enter an agreement with the “red flag meter” turned all the way up. For instance, I’d head for the hills the moment a writing partner listed demands that would surely encumber any possible sale.

Since you have only written the first act, I’d suggest you cut your losses and move on.

If the ex-partner wants to finish the script, let him. It’s a sacrifice you will most likely never regret.

The ridiculous mathematical acrobatics you’re trying to work out will only lead to more frustration and probable disaster. It seems far more sagacious to start a new script without all the useless parameters and attachments. Furthermore, it seems downright ridiculous to enter into a sort of “script race” to see who can finish their version first.

Good luck!

Send questions to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

MAILROOM #4

In some of your responses, you've advised one writer to stop being "a pussy," and another "to start making funeral arrangements" if he thinks he's going to die if he doesn't sell a script soon. Could you expound on the expected mind-set of the professional writer? It seems that talent without the proper mind-set or attitude will not take a writer very far. It also seems that the profession of screenwriting may not suit the timid, introverted, overly sensitive type. Or maybe there's a place for anyone who can write as well as Mamet?
_____________________________________________________________

Save the drama for the screenplay. All the histrionics and egotism is draining and counterproductive – hence, my occasional glib comment. I can only refer to my observation of another’s mindset, but for most who collect a paycheck writing, it’s simply a job. So the “dream” factor wanes quickly as one struggles with the ups and downs of the profession – like any occupation. As writers progress professionally, there are always new hurdles. For instance, many writers spend long frustrating years struggling to get their first paid gig. The excitement wanes as the realities of deadlines, endless rewrites and hard-to-please producers/executives rise up. Then years of hard work selling a spec or two and landing assignments (collecting paychecks) can still lead to frustration if nothing is produced. And if something is produced, it can frustrate if it doesn’t represent the writer’s intent (or has been severely rewritten by others). Since writers (hopefully) put a lot of thought, heart and soul into their work, ego is always involved, but it should be tempered with common sense. A “sensitive” writer may have a difficult time surviving the process. Most may never get through that first job. (Randall “Braveheart” Wallace has the soul of a poet yet survives and thrives.) The business is filled with all different sorts of writers. Some are introverted and some extroverted. Some are as good as Mamet and many are not. It’s a caucus of diversity, where the only common denominator in mindset should be the ability to tell a story. (Both on paper and in a room.) Two important tools a writer must carry in his survival kit are the need to tell stories and a business acumen (since a writer is his own business). The rest he’ll just have to learn along the way.



I recently responded to a call for material by a Mid-Sized Management & Production Company. The Story Editor there liked my writing sample - but it wasn't the genre they rep. So I sent across a new piece (genre friendly) and am waiting for a response from it...The question is, as this person I'm dealing with is a Story Editor, who "wants to get people excited about my work" - just how much of a serious position am I in to land a Manager? Is this typical of how a Management Company works? Do they have Story Editors field material - then send it onto their bosses once they are happy?

Every management company works differently. Based on the business model you’ve described, it seems like you’re not quite in a serious position to land a manager – yet. The management/production company is a clever hybrid because it can develop material under its management banner and not pay the writer (in this case the dangling carrot is possible representation), and can then shop the script around under the prodco letterhead. If the company is reputable and the managers and staff sincere (like the many I know) then the work you do is not in vain. I cannot second guess the motives of this Story Editor. I would suspect if he spends time helping you develop a project, he has something planned. He must feel you have some ability since developing a script with an untalented writer is a fruitless and futile process. Having an insider help you to develop a screenplay (provided he knows what he’s talking about) isn’t necessarily a bad thing – regardless of the outcome. Communicate your expectations of this writing process with the Story Editor and ask him about his goals. Ultimately, the person in the best position to answer your questions here is the Story Editor himself.



I was wondering if you had any insight for those of us seeking work as television writers. Would it be effective for us to send query letters pitching our specs to production companies, showrunners and agents? I’m aware of submitting to the ABC/Disney Fellowship, Warner Bros. Workshop, et al, but I’d like to know if using the same techniques as feature writers for getting work can be helpful, since I haven’t come across much advice beyond going the contest route.

The routine for peddling a TV script isn’t much different than the process in general. I don’t think there are many shows looking for specs to prime their primetime pumps. Your goal should be to get on staff of a show, so send queries to anyone and everyone you can. Just expect a lot of rejection/”no solicitation” letters. (Remember that most shows will not read specs for their own shows.) TV queries are no different from feature queries. Query a TV lit agent like you would a feature agent. Let him know what script you’re peddling (like a spec for MY NAME IS EARL) and, additionally, let him know what else you've written (without details that could detract from your “EARL” spec) – like a pilot, a feature, a stage play. TV agents often like to look at more than one piece of writing. But remember, there are many ways to the wheel. One writer I know queried a group of TV producers telling them how much he admired their work and wanted to meet with them. He met with several – which led to him passing off a spec and eventually landing on staff. His career took off and he has had great success in both TV and film. A good friend of mine got his first staff writing job (on THE X FILES) based solely on a LAW AND ORDER script that his wife passed on to a friend of a friend who worked on the show. (There was no agent involved.) Coincidentally, I met a woman yesterday who is now on staff with that same friend for the new Kevin Williamson show, and she got her start in the Warner Brothers Workshop with one spec and landed her first job on THE WEST WING.


Things have been hectic, so blog entries will trickle out over the next month. Thanks for your patience. Send questions to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net.

TO SIR, WITH LOVE

My dilemma is that after 2 straight months of querying managers, (not onto agents yet) 10 letters every Monday like clockwork, I must say the results have been rather dismal (2 passes and no word whatsoever from the other what...78?).

Now I've studied your logline construction post and I guess my question is--is this normal practice for managers? One would think in order to foster the career of an emerging writer, a manager would at least read said writer's script (or the first ten pages at least), no?
__________________________________________________

No.

A manager (or anyone looking for writers) cannot waste time simply soliciting scripts for the sake of it. And most in the business who consider new writers are inundated with opportunities to read scripts. The supply far far outweighs the demand. Never expect anyone to respond to your query other than favorably. A manager could get hundreds of queries a month, and it would be a full-time job to respond to them all. Some writers take great offense and deem it rude if their letter is left unanswered one way or another.

Get over it.

We are inundated with letters via the U.S. Postal Service, fax machines and e-mails. There are even services that will write the letter for you and “blast” it to hundreds of e-mail addresses.

Since many writers do not have connections or access within the industry, they write letters to agents, producers and managers, hoping to stir up interest in their work. These missives are referred to as “query letters.”

Although there are those who feel query letters don't work, they do work. If the letter has the right stuff.

In an earlier blog entry (“Foreign Correspondence”), there is a simple, clean example of a query letter and some things to avoid when querying.

For instance, avoid casting the movie or offering up marketing ideas (leave that to the pros). Only pitch one script per letter. (Don’t let anyone know about your thirteen scripts that haven’t sold.) Don’t overstep the boundaries of common sense.

In one letter, a bold, neophyte said, “I am asking 1.2 million (negotiable) for this script. $500 grand down, and the balance on the first day of filming the movie. (This movie has a gross potential of 80 million dollars.) Contact me after 2:00pm. I take college classes during the day.”

Because of lawsuits, many companies will not even look at query letters - which are considered “unsolicited”. (However, I’m not sure how anyone knows it’s a query unless they look at it.) I have, on occasion, actually received query letters for the query letter – asking permission to query.

There are all sorts of query letters. Some try to be cute. Some try to be memorable. Some try to be hilarious. Some strike a theme like being written on papyrus – if it’s pitching an Egyptian epic. Others come with bribes – like food or toys or some interrelated piece of paraphernalia.

There is a website that publishes goofy query letters from hapless writers. The demographics for the site can’t be geared for those in the industry, since we’ve seen all sorts of postage-stamped tragedies. (Do paramedics visit rotten.com?) Ironically, many writers visit the site for hours of entertainment – never realizing that their own letters are probably just as goofy.

You cannot go wrong with a short letter that features one brief paragraph indicating your intent, one brief paragraph to convey the concept (via a logline), and a final, brief paragraph to introduce yourself. No particular order necessary.

Some might want to lead off with the logline or some sort of question to pique the reader's interest. In a query for MINORITY REPORT, an opening question to pique interest might go: Would the world be a better place if we had the ability to capture criminals before crimes were comitted?

If the letter goes over a half page (including letterhead and addresses) you’ve entered the Yucca Flat of 8 ½ x 11.

There is no real science to writing a query letter because the truth is that regardless of how beautifully written or clever the letter might be, if the concept (logline) doesn’t grab the reader, it’s a pass. (On the bright side, a well-written letter could land you a job as the manager’s assistant.)

On a rare occasion, an exec might be inspired by the letter itself - in spite of the lackluster concept. But I’d rather find a serviceable letter surrounding an amazing movie concept.

Let’s dissect the body of your letter:

I am a screenwriter currently seeking representation for myself and my new comedy spec, A LITTLE OFF THE TOP.

After intercepting a ransom demand, a barber--masquerading as a private eye, reluctantly joins forces with an angst ridden teen in attempt to rescue the daughter of a stuffy millionaire at a fraction of the cost.

I studied screenwriting at AFI where I completed several high-concept screenplays and at LACC where I developed and directed several short films.

May I send you a copy?

At quick glance, it looks good. Short and simple. No misspellings.

First sentence: “I am a screenwriter….”

Duh.

Not the best way to start the letter. Since it’s an easy assumption that you’re a screenwriter, you don’t need to say it. 99% of all queries are from screenwriters. If you were the producer (and not the writer), you could include that because it’s out of the ordinary.

“…currently seeking representation for myself and my new comedy spec, A LITTLE OFF THE TOP.”

This feels redundant – especially the “for myself and my new comedy spec….” Why not condense it with something like: “I am currently seeking representation for my new comedy….” Leave out the word “spec.” Its usage here feels superfluous.

So, your first sentence is pretty much a disaster.

But since screenwriting is more about constructing a story rather than syntax, per se, we can let this slide. After all, the heart of the query is the logline:

After intercepting a ransom demand, a barber—masquerading as a private eye, reluctantly joins forces with an angst ridden teen in attempt to rescue the daughter of a stuffy millionaire at a fraction of the cost.

The logline itself is competently written. (You’ve clearly had good tutelage.)

The misfire here is the concept itself. I'm going to assume this is an accurate representation of your script. It would be retarded for you to offer up anything else.

In a nutshell, this concept is unlikely to entice anyone into soliciting the script (and you’ve got the empirical evidence to back that up).

Although the idea of “intercepting a ransom demand” has some sort of potential, there is little “cause and effect” within this concept. Everything feels slapped together. It isn’t clear why a barber is involved in any of this or why he poses as a private eye. Then an angst ridden teen enters the mix and has no obvious relation to the barber or the kidnapping.

This might make a tiny bit more sense, for instance, if the angst ridden teen were the shampoo girl, and the kidnap victim the daughter of “Fantastic Sam.” At least there would be some connective tissue to the various parts instead of the disparate nature of the logline as presented.

At this point, no one will read further. It isn’t necessary.

I’ll continue.

“I studied screenwriting at AFI where I completed several high-concept screenplays….”

Why didn’t you pitch one of those?

“…and at LACC where I developed and directed several short films.”

Whatever.

“May I send you a copy?”

This last part will only be noticed as the bottom half of the paper is eaten up by the shredder.

I understand why your letter has not been received favorably. Do you?

If you're not getting any responses, it's most likely your concept and no fault of the manager.

You could get all sorts of advice and assistance on how to write a query letter. But, the fact is a letter is only as good as the concept it's pitching.



Send your questions to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net

MAILROOM #3

I keep hearing different things about what types of spec scripts are more likely to sell these days, especially if the writer is a novice screenwriter.

On one hand, I hear that the only type of screenplay that a novice screenwriter can hope to sell is "high-concept" - which appears to mean an action movie or some type of fantasy movie. A family drama, like "Ordinary People," would not sell today without some type of fantasy twist (e.g, like "Freaky Friday").

What type of spec should a novice screenwriter try writing?

In general, the spec business is “concept” based. However, low concept specs have sold too.

Part of sustaining a career in this business is having that uncanny sense of what buyers want. It’s a natural (or supernatural) ability to have an affinity toward concepts and ideas that happen to sell. If you’re cut out for this business, you’ll write what you want and sell it.

Luckily, you’ll only have to do that once or twice. After that, you can make a living off assignments.

A high concept comedy is a good place to start.

Do some research and read the concepts of scripts that have recently sold on spec – especially from new writers.

Here are the loglines for three spec scripts sold in the recent past written by new writers:

JUNO (dramedy): After having sex for the first time, a savvy high school sophomore becomes pregnant and rearranges her life in preparation to put the baby up for adoption.

KILLING ON CARNIVAL ROW (Thriller/Fantasy): In a noirish city where humans and fairies cohabitate, a detective is accused in a series of murders targeting the mythical creatures and he sets out to catch the killer.

THE ART OF COOL (comedy): As the homecoming dance approaches, the biggest loser in high school gets help from the cool transfer student in a battle for domination over the hip kids.

The needs of buyers vary and shift with the wind. It may be easier to tell a writer what not to write – rather than tell him what to write. (But I’d only be comfortable doing that on a project to project basis – after hearing the pitch.)

However, I like your idea of ORDINARY PEOPLE meets FREAKY FRIDAY. Timothy Hutton and Mary Tyler Moore switching places leaves room for all sorts of comic high jinks.




I asked a script reader here in the UK if male and female writers tend to write different kinds of scripts?

His response was a) on the basis of the scripts he receives there are many more males than females trying to break into scriptwriting, and b) when he does read a script by a female writer it's far more likely to be a romcom or a relationship drama than say a thriller or an action piece.

If that's true in Hollywood as well, is it because those are the sorts of stories that women want to tell, or is there an industry frame of mind that automatically pushes them into those genres?

There is some truth to the concept that “men are from Mars and women are from Venus.” Many married couples would attest to that.

I think most writers create work that fits in with their sensibilities.

I don’t believe that Hollywood stereotypes writers based on their gender. I think writers brand themselves based on the genres they write and write well.

Susannah Grant has proven proficiency in writing stories about women. A studio is not likely to approach her about writing an action movie. However, the same could be said for Mark Andrus – who tends to slant toward character based work. Writer/director Kathryn Bigelow, on the other hand, has shown interest in writing (and directing) genres other than chick flicks.

I think Hollywood finds comfort in hiring a writer with genre precedence. If a woman has written successful action movies, a studio would hire her.

There may be something more inherently “masculine” about writing for the screen. My experience has also been that more solicitations come from males than females. (Maybe female execs get more solicitations from female scribes). Maybe more women are writing novels. After all, if young men drive the box-office, perhaps women, on a whole, aren’t connecting with that demographic.

But let’s not forget that women helped build this business: Francis Marion, Anita Loos, Gene Gauntier, Mabel Normand and Mary Pickford, to name a few. And there is a wonderful organization called WOMEN IN FILM that was founded almost 70 years ago. Its mission is “empowering, mentoring and promoting women in the entertainment and media industries.”




What is the difference between a manager and an agent? What do they each do for me? I'm an aspiring writer, so at this point it doesn't really matter, but I assume in the future I'll have to know.

...With lots of hard work and luck.

In a perfect world, an agent gets you work and a manager manages your career.

However, there are no strict guidelines on managers (like there are for agents), so the lines are blurred.

Many writers only have an agent. And many writers only have managers, who must use lawyers to broker the deal. Remember, managers cannot negotiate deals, but agents can.

Bigger agencies have the ability to package your screenplay – giving it a better chance in the market. (“Packaging” means putting together talent and funds to make it a more attractive package to potential buyers.)

For new writers, a manager is a good choice. He’ll help launch your career. He’ll help you choose the right projects to spec, he’ll critique and help develop your work, and set you up with meetings. He’ll even help you land the best agent when the time is right.

Some managers attach as producers (agents cannot). This often gives them additional interest in your script, because it could mean a greater source of revenue if your script is set-up/produced. (Managers will return the 10% commission in lieu of a producer’s fee).

Since many management companies work like production companies, it can be easier to get your work to them.

Some respected companies like BenderSpink (HISTORY OF VIOLENCE) allow writers to pitch their ideas online. You’ll be hard-pressed to find any respectable agency doing that. So, access to managers might be easier.




In your blog 'Screenwriting 101,' you say that goals should be active rather than reactive. If a protagonist's goal arises from the inciting incident, which is a result of the antagonists action, then is this not reactive? Or are you talking about actively pursuing the goal once the inciting incident takes place?

Yes. I am referring (for the most part) to pursing the goal once the inciting incident takes place.

In an archetypal structure, the goal isn’t established until the end of the first act. The inciting incident (which the protagonist often does not initiate) can occur twenty-pages earlier.

Once the goal is established, the character actively pursues that goal. There is a cause and effect relationship in drama, so one action will cause a reaction that will spur another action and so on. But the protagonist must keep his eye on the prize and actively push for it.

The protagonist’s active pursuit of his goal moves the story forward toward its climax.

Harrison Ford is reactive in THE FUGITIVE, running from Tommy Lee Jones. However, the script also gives him a goal to clear his name – which keeps him active.

Keep in mind, the very definition of the word "goal" implies an end toward which effort is directed. And "effort" could be defined as conscientious activity.

The very idea of "goal" is active.




I am an aspiring screenwriter and had a chance to view "Bright Star" after reading your May 11 comment. For me, the film showed a good possible outcome if the story of Jesus Christ occurred today and it worked for me. The hard luck of Joseph and Mary was especially indicated (particularly the arrest for solicitation). I thought the film tied everything together at the end (moving to Cairo Illinois). I agree that the setting could have easily been another urban environment, but I liked how the film subtly set up the Chicago atmosphere with the Chicago Theater billboard, etc. Mary's character seemed to be almost smirking when she whispered the circumstances in the Doctors ear. I may have opted for a slightly different vibe there, but overall, I thought the movie was a nice Christmas short.

I’m glad you enjoyed it – as I’m sure the writer/director is as well. (Are you related?) However, his original question to me asked how to get a paid directing job from a short film.

In my opinion, a “nice Christmas short” isn’t going to kick open Hollywood’s doors.

_________________________________________________________


Let’s not forget those writers who passed away this last month. Their contributions to our industry and our lives are greatly appreciated.

MIGUEL ZACARIAS, 101
VAL GUEST, 94
TED BERKMAN, 92
JAY PRESSON ALLEN, 84
DAVID E. PECKINPAH, 54


Send your questions to theinsidepitch@sbcglobal.net