Some decent advice from Mamet

Randall_Oelerich said:
"If the original message is to be quoted in full, for any reason, top-posting is usually the most appropriate format — because the reader sees the reply right away, without having to scroll past quoted text." ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Choosing_the_proper_posting_style
Top or Bottom Posting are both widely accepted and accepted as proper posting etiquette.
Click to expand...

Randall, I don't mean to seem as if I'm picking on you--that's not the point--but you didn't quote my response in full, hence your Wikipedia quote doesn't really apply to what Cranky's being cranky about. I agree that if it's quoting in full, put it below. But if you're responding to a specific part of a post, I think it's more helpful to place that at the top so other readers understand the particular part to which you're responding. For what that's worth.
 
okay Randal I'll bite. Non heroes journey b.o. winners.
1.Deep Throat
(Debbie does Dallas actually does follow the heroes journey)
2.Texas chainsaw massacre
3.Fritz the cat
4.That damn penguin movie (march of penguins)
5.Media goes to prison
6.jackass
7.Jackass 2
8. texas chainsaw massacre 2
9.Animal house
10.Ernest goes to camp
11. The chicks in the bikins firing machine guns video.

This list is just pathetic. Randall you've won I bough to your craftiness.
 
LOL, I thought you were serious at first as I read the list, thinking OMG you have got to be kidding, then saw your closing remark . Nice attempt though! But even if we looked at your list I think we would see HJ structure in some of those films.

lambert said:
okay Randal I'll bite. Non heroes journey b.o. winners.
1.Deep Throat
(Debbie does Dallas actually does follow the heroes journey)
2.Texas chainsaw massacre
3.Fritz the cat
4.That damn penguin movie (march of penguins)
5.Media goes to prison
6.jackass
7.Jackass 2
8. texas chainsaw massacre 2
9.Animal house
10.Ernest goes to camp
11. The chicks in the bikins firing machine guns video.
​
This list is just pathetic. Randall you've won I bough to your craftiness.
Click to expand...
 
All good.

texvanwinkle said:
Randall, I don't mean to seem as if I'm picking on you--that's not the point--but you didn't quote my response in full, hence your Wikipedia quote doesn't really apply to what Cranky's being cranky about. I agree that if it's quoting in full, put it below. But if you're responding to a specific part of a post, I think it's more helpful to place that at the top so other readers understand the particular part to which you're responding. For what that's worth.
Click to expand...
 
"LOL, I thought you were serious at first as I read the list, thinking OMG you have got to be kidding, then saw your closing remark ."
My lame attempt at humor.
 
I'll chime in again...hard when so much has transpired since I last logged in but I believe that, just like with many professions, there are many ways to get there...I know many musicians that are self taught that have never read a book, same for script writers, sportsmen...you name it...but I feel we shouldn't encourage what may appear the easy way out...just keep practicing or read some good articles shouldn't be the standard for a preparation in a career in writing...it is lowering the expectation...again, not to say that it can't be done this way, but I think that the craft of writing deserves far more respect than the industry is giving it. Movies started with stories, great stories...there were no structure books then..Studios looked to Broadway and to the great novelists to find the best stories and story tellers. Even at the advent of television, I watched Sidney Lumet being interviewed on TCM and he stated that the head of a network found him when they went to Broadway to seek out the best writers and directors...they believed that they could teach them the technical stuff later.

The story is the foundation of any film and we as writers are drifting from studying the great storytellers and seeking out refined basic get-to-the-end quickest and easiest methods of learning. It's a craft and it takes time...YES in practical terms to keep writing, but also in studying great novels and plays and writers...only then can we appreciate great monlogues, sub-text, character development, theme...Structure is fine when added to this...and practice what you study...but lets not look for the fastest way out...Hollywood doesn't know a good story...they are just banking on stars and special effects...the proof is in the pudding...to wind up I'll give an example...one of my scripts, a western, is at one of the top three agencies...they say Westerns don't sell...oh well, who ever thought a gay western would win an academy award? And how about Dances with wolves? True Grit is being re=made by the Coen Bros, and a friend of mine was offered HIGH NOON...they don't know...stick to the tried and true methods of education...I was told to write something commercial like TAKEN to put together with my western...Well, anyone here that knows the story of Taken knows that no one would touch it here...It was passed off for years and finally made overseas...then it couldn't get distribution here...now they say it's a standard...Go figure. I am generalizing a lot here to try to make a point...

Best to all,
Stan the Man
 
I agree with you Stan for the most part. I hope I wasn't discouraging anyone from a well thought out education. I certainly studied with some great playwrights/actors/film directors over the years. I would rather see someone use acting/ playwriting as a solid foundation before moving on to screenwriting. Come to a fundamental understanding of the actors process before learning the craft of screenwriting. I think most 17-18 y.o. are doing themselves a disservice by jumping in to early to screenwriting (I'm sure we can find exceptions). Most of the great self educated writers of the modern era were self educated by necessity (prison, poverty). I just have a strong aversion to circus barker style screenwriting gurus who promise the impossible like Write a screenplay in nine days and other ridiculous notions.
 
"I watched Sidney Lumet being interviewed on TCM and he stated that the head of a network found him when they went to Broadway to seek out the best writers and directors...they believed that they could teach them the technical stuff later."
I do believe that if you get a great playwright early enough or even late you can teach them the technical stuff. Neal Labutte is a modern example of this. David Mamet also. I think we are in a modern era where by the time one is 18 you've probably seen tens of thousands of hours of narrative films/t.v. So its not like your taking Eugene Oneal and introducing him to his first film and expecting him to effectively write a script. You are taking a talented writer who has grown up on cinema and showing him a more complicated structure than he's used to writing. Teaching him to show more, say less. Pair him with an old hand and let him figure it out. Incredible oversimplification. Its very difficult to develop a great ear late in life. The longer one putzs around with screenplay structure instead of dialogue/character work the worst off one will be when they realise the dialogue is lousy but they have an amazing structure. Imho. I am a big fan of yours Stan.
 
Thank you Lambert...like everyone else, I'm just doing the best I can. I really want writers to be as awesome as some of the other artists on this site, as I had mentioned earlier...like some of the guys on the camera threads...man, some of them really know every pixel of every frame and the science of the entire process down to the atom...I hope the writers threads can aim at such specificity so we can make DVX USER one of those sites that other great established writers will hear about, join in and help build this into a great forum...

Stucture is crucial...but not difficult to learn...great storytelling is a product of great character development, strong univerasal themes and those elements I discussed earlier...A great Story teller, Gary Ross, once told me and I thoroghly agree, "Character Is Plot". His mom was my speech teacher. God bless her.

Cheers,
Stan The Man
 
I'm really glad to see you write Westerns Stan. They are such a blast to write. I spent many many months working on one with a great writer in Montana in the late 90's. Really fun time. I hope they come back.
 
Batutta said:
Because there's money to be had. The big studios want to minimize their risk by copying a template. Writers who copy that template get paid. Those that don't, don't, and their work is never seen. That's sort of the difference between screenwriting and writing a novel. A novel that goes against the grain can still get published and fulfill its potential. A screenplay that goes against the grain, most likely won't even get a chance, especially if it requires the kind of budget only a studio could pull off. Corporate financed art generally re-inforces the values of mainstream culture. Independently financed art usually questions and criticizes the values of mainstream culture. There's a lot more money to be made doing one versus the other, which is why more people pursue that path.
Click to expand...

Hm. But to what end? I've been relatively successful in business so I'm not desperate to become rich writing a screenplay or novel, but even if I were destitute, to what end does a writer write so that they can make money? That, to me, doesn't seem the point of writing. Entertain, educate, inform, question, etc -- the reasons to write are plenty, but money, I think, shouldn't be qualifier.

If you're saying, though, that the only script you (or others here) can write are scripts that require studio-level budgets, then you (or them) are disregarding reality for the sake of their fiction. Unless you've already established yourself and have scripted several multi-million dollar pictures, it seems way more logical to write something that can be filmed on a micro-budget (e.g. something that you can actually afford to produce).

It's funny that this thread is about Mamet, because if anyone here actually wrote Glengary as a screenplay it would be the perfect example of a micro-budget film. Glengary could easily have been shot on a DSLR, and if you're in a large city you might even be able to get some decent talent to do it at scale.

Same with Big Kahuna or pretty much anything that can manage itself as a stageplay.

Maybe that could be a good exercise. Take whatever script you have that simply cannot be done without some massive studio budget and make its elements work on a stage. If it can't be done, chances are the script was more spectacle than story.

More off topicness!

:D
 
"the reasons to write are plenty, but money, I think, shouldn't be qualifier."
Chamber005, 100% agree with you about money. Look at "In the company of Men", Neal would have made that today as a first film for five grande with the same level of quality cast on a dslr. Stan (Harrington) is able to make the movies he wants to make with quality casts because he didn't think he had to write a spectacle (at least out of the gate). He knew (I assume) that if he wrote a quality script that was limited in scope (size/cost wise) but with rich characters he could make something he was proud of.
" Take whatever script you have that simply cannot be done without some massive studio budget and make its elements work on a stage. If it can't be done, chances are the script was more spectacle than story."
Absolutely agree.
Most of these forum questions tend to focus on, getting an agent and getting a big paycheck, instead of how can I become a better writer so I have the skills that someone would want to pay for or at least pay to see or at the very least want to see. Shouldn't we be asking "How can I continue to grow as an artist on stage or screen?
 
Chamber005 said:
Hm. But to what end? I've been relatively successful in business so I'm not desperate to become rich writing a screenplay or novel, but even if I were destitute, to what end does a writer write so that they can make money? That, to me, doesn't seem the point of writing. Entertain, educate, inform, question, etc -- the reasons to write are plenty, but money, I think, shouldn't be qualifier.

If you're saying, though, that the only script you (or others here) can write are scripts that require studio-level budgets, then you (or them) are disregarding reality for the sake of their fiction. Unless you've already established yourself and have scripted several multi-million dollar pictures, it seems way more logical to write something that can be filmed on a micro-budget (e.g. something that you can actually afford to produce).

:D
Click to expand...

I wasn't making any value judgements, just explaining why. It's economics. People respond to incentives. One incentive for many screenwriters is to get paid for what they do. Most of the money goes to screenwriters who write what the people holding the pursestrings want. Those screenwriters succeed financially and are encouraged to produce more. Those that don't toil away in obscurity or find a way to produce their art themselves. Having the respect of their peers and themselves may be incentive enough for these artists, but because things are made much more difficult for them to survive, it explains why there are far fewer successful independent artists than mainstream Hollywood hacks. Unfortunately everybody sees the work made by the Hollywood hacks, while generally only the cream of the crop in the independent world gets seen by the public.
 
Last edited:
I think some of my responses early on in this thread may have come off as anti-education, anti-intellectual which is not my feelings at all. What I was trying to express is that you don't have to spend a huge amount of cash to become a better writer. I was able to find mentors early on who were willing to spend time reading my work. Actors/writers who had studied with Sandy Meisner or written with Tony award winning playwrights and never once charged me a dime (they usually spent money to feed me which was a good thing at the time). I still believe that the best and cheapest education is a library card, pencil and paper and finding some way to work with good actors (at least actors working hard to become good actors).
Mamet worked as a busboy at second city.
 
lambert said:
I still believe that the best and cheapest education is a library card, pencil and paper and finding some way to work with good actors (at least actors working hard to become good actors). Mamet worked as a busboy at second city.
Click to expand...

That's right...you'll find most of the advice to read books or take courses that are explicitly about screenwriting are usually proffered by people who have a dime to make by you taking that course or buying that book, not by people who are professionals.
 
The other thing to consider guys is that you could write Raging Bull or The Godfather and if no one sees it, or you can't get it to anyone, it will remain unseen and unproduced...does this make it less worthy...This is one reason I say to be true to the art. Sometimes we just haven't found our audience. Live to work...don't work to live. Van Gogh was poor his entire life and only became famous after death. Only then did his audience find him. Throughout time, Artists have been the canaries in the coal mines. Be artists. Aim for quality. Success is relative and often belated.

Cheers,
Stan The Man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top