Saturday, October 10, 2009

An Oldie But A Goodie

Gazing out at the landscape of script sales this fall things do appear bleak. Unless you have a thriller with a unique hook or a horror script you might be looking at a marketplace that has no interest in you.

What to do? Do you write away from what interests you with an eye on a sale only? If you can pull off such a move without appearing inauthentic, by all means go for it. But what if horror/thriller is not in your wheelhouse? What do you do then?

After spending a year working on a period piece that has limited prospects in the current marketplace, Joe and I were determined to not go back in time--to make a pun out of it. Since horror/thriller is not generally what we do, we took a look at some of our other scripts and dusted off a true crime screenplay we had written a few years back titled "Perspective."

"Perspective" (we know we need to change the title) is an account of the infamous theft of paintings from Boston's Isabella Stewart Gardner museum. Unsolved to date, the crime was the biggest score of art, in terms of dollars, in US History, and our take on this story is about as close as we can get to thriller.

Art theft stories are also traditionally hard sells, but we sent it to a reputable Hollywood production company who liked the concept very much. The catch...? They think it needs work, but don't have the capacity to take it on formally. However, they told us, they would surely look at a rewrite.

It's the old conundrum of do you do rewrite work for one source in the hopes something will come of it. Given that it's hard to sell anything these days and this is a script we have great fondness for --and we do believe it needs work-- we might be willing to take that risk.

As the old saying goes, follow your bliss. Well, we have passion for this oldie and we are determined to make it even more of a goodie than it already was.

We'll provide updates on our progress and look forward to hearing your thoughts on this as well as your fall projects.

-Randy

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Of 'Genius' Phones and Cecil B. DeMille

In the waning days of summer as I gear up for teaching next semester at Northeastern, I find myself with a lot of time on my hands. So much so that today, I watched Cecil B. DeMille's THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Cecil B. DeMille is one of the most successful filmmakers of all time and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is thought to be his piece de resistance. The first glimmer that I was in for a rare treat was when the director, in a rare on-screen appearance, comes out at the beginning of the movie and tells us, the viewers, just how long and epic a movie it will be - 3 hours and 39 minutes long to be exact. "You will be walking in Moses' footsteps from some 3,000 years ago," he says without a hint of modesty.

But, if for the pageantry and spectacle if nothing else, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS - the 1956 remake of his 1923 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS...this time in technicolor - is spellbinding. Filmed in Egypt and Sinai on some of the biggest movie sets ever, the likes of Charlton Heston, as Moses, and Yul Brynner, as Pharoaoh's once-favored son, light up the screen. Even on my modestly sized television set, they were larger-than-life. It also amazed me how, in the CGI era, the scenes thought to be ahead of their times in terms of special effects seemed positively cartoonish: the burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea. Don't get me wrong: the scope and grandeur of those scenes were awesome, but the special effects were laughable by today's standards.

I read that a 73-yr-old Cecil DeMille had a near fatal heart attack during the filming of the 1956 remake because he was trying to scale the top of the massive Per Rameses set. The completion of the film was his life's crowning glory and it certainly is a pleasure to watch it unfold on the screen. In a funny way, it got me to thinking about how much easier filmmaking has become in some ways. Francis Ford Coppola's apt comment about how today even "a fat farm girl from Iowa" can get her hands on a digital camera and start directing films. And now with smart phones, I'd take it a step further and say that today's smart phones should more properly be called genius phones: On a recent vacation to Niagara Falls, I was simply stunned by the quality of the videos of the majestic falls streaming out of my phone! It was a far cry from the parting of the Red Sea, but that little thing takes a great video...

Indeed, Randy tells me that people are now making cell phone movies and that there was a course offered on it last year at BU. Ah, so we writers are going to have to adapt as well, I thought. There again Randy had me: he pointed out that he'd attended a conference last year where a paper was given on "writing for the postage stamp screen." So maybe my Blackberry video of Niagara Falls is not so far from DeMille's parting of the Red Sea after all!

Monday, August 3, 2009

Practicing What I Preach...

Today, I sat on a panel at the Rhode Island International Film Festival's sidebar "Scriptbiz." Scriptbiz is a workshop that helps aspiring writers learn to perfect their craft as well as to navigate the minefield that is marketing completed screenplays to the industry.

The final question put to the panel was "what is the biggest mistake new screenwriters make when marketing their material?" What I told the audience was something I had not been doing as vigorously lately, and I wanted them to learn from my (The Script Sages) complacency.

The Sages have chronicled our on-going work with a management company about an epic, period screenplay concerning Irish revolutionary Thomas Meagher. The managers felt that, even with a solid screenplay, there was not much they could do with it. Joe and I had spent a year working the script, honing it, and counting on the management team to go wild with it when complete. We got a little lax in contacting other agents, managers, and producers. We counted too heavily on the management team taking out the script that we forgot to continue to market ourselves to other folks and outlets.

It's not the fault of the managers. They have to eat too, and if it's too hard a sell then what can they do. But what could The Sages have done better? The answer is the teachable moment: don't ever relax in the script game. What seems promising one week, can fall apart the next. It is so very difficult to get a script optioned, bought, and/or made that one should never think something is a done deal until the check is in the bank or the end credits roll.

So even if you have a manager, agent, or producer interested in your material or reading something of yours, don't sit back and wait on him or her to take your script to the next level. Always be cultivating new contacts. Always have a new project going. If you have to, juggle three, four, or five projects at a time. Odds are one or all of them will fall through, and if you have no back up plan then your a** is in the breeze.

As the advice flowed forth from me, I realized I had not been practicing what I was preaching (at least to a certain extent) and that it's easy to go soft when you think someone is going to swoop in and do the work for you. I hope it was a lesson taken to heart by the audience at Scriptbiz because it was lesson for me and The Sages on getting too comfortable in the script game.

-Randy

Saturday, July 25, 2009

The Ultimate Love Letter to Boston

I've seen FEVER PITCH three times now since it came out in 2005, the year after the Red Sox won their first World Championship in 86 years. As a Bostonian, it is the one movie that I feel is absolutely and quintessentially Boston. There would have to be a movie made about clam chowder to come closer to the Bostonian's real lived experience. Every time I see it, I am more certain in my belief that it is the ultimate love letter to Boston. While many movies have captured the feel of Boston - think THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE or MYSTIC RIVER or GOOD WILL HUNTING - everyone knows that Boston follows its beloved baseball team more passionately than just about anything else: the Farrelly brothers captured a piece of our soul in their depiction of Ben Wreitman's love affair with the Red Sox.

From the opening narration when Al Waterman - he of Waterman Sponge fame - tells about the first time Ben's Uncle Carl took him to Fenway, we know we are in for a special treat. I can remember, in vivid technicolors, my first trip to Fenway with my late grandfather, Joe Murray. Pop was an executive at the American Tobacco Company and, as part of his sales territory, would sometimes hand out cigarette samples out on Landsdowne Street outside of Fenway (my own son was conceived during the 2004 World Series and born nine months later in a spike of "Red Sox babies" reported at local hospitals). In the film, the loyalty goes beyond the team to the almost mystical attachment to the ballpark itself and the ethos of the team. "Careful kid," Waterman tells Ben (Jimmy Fallon) at that first game, "they'll break your heart."

When Ben meets Lindsey Weeks (Drew Barrymore), it's clear that his obsession with the Sox is not something immediately understandable to those outside of "the Tribe"... She falls in love with him in wintertime, but when summer rolls around...well, he's a different animal. He lives and breathes Sox, agonizes over the team's every move, whips himself into a frenzy when they're playing the Yankees. "Ben," Lindsey says at about this point in the season, "I didn't realize how big the Red Sox thing was for you..."

Well, they are that big a deal. And, when Ben mans up enough to sell his season tickets to keep his relationship alive, it suddenly dawns on Lindsey how much he loves her (ah, happy endings!).

The Sox are in 2nd place now -- two games behind the dreaded Yanks. Since 2004, the new generation of Sox fans coming up only knows a championship team. For those of us whose formative years were spent following a Greek tragedy called the Boston Red Sox, we will always have FEVER PITCH, the ultimate love letter to the team and its fans.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Handling Dissapointment

The title of this post may seem a little strange. After all, screenwriting is a rejection-oriented business. Writers will get turned down 99% of the time. Even if an option on a script is secured, the odds of the film getting produced are low. So how does one handle the constant disappointment of projects that don't work out? There's no easy answer, but one must keep one's head up and keep going.

The Sages have written about our period, epic screenplay about the 19th century Irish revolutionary Thomas Francis Meagher. We have been working with an LA-based management company on the script for the past year. We were introduced to these managers about two years ago after a trip to LA. Over the the first year, they read some of our material and concluded that a large, epic script with commercial appeal would be something we should pursue. The story of Meagher is akin to "Braveheart" and something we had long had interest in so off we went to do research and write a treatment. Over the last year, The Sages, working with the managers, wrote three drafts of the script--each one getting better and tighter. The managers were consistent in that they told us it would be a tough sell and hooking a big name actor would be the key to getting the project sold.

The climate for spec scripts is very tough right now. And even tougher for period pieces. So our eyes were wide open going into this, but after a year working with the managers on this script we thought they'd be a little more game to get it out there. Alas, a call with them last week revealed they were not willing to take it out to studios and actors. Too tough a climate they said.

It was difficult to hear. A year's worth of work and an unenthusiastic response. There are disappoinments and then there are blows to the stomach. This was perhaps in between. How do we handle it? How do we move on?

The small silver lining was that the management team said we should do legwork and feel free to use them if we need submissions to high level producers or studios. This may come in handy, and it has been great working with these managers. We got what we believe is a strong script and a great contact in this management team. Still, it feels like small solace.

But we can't feel sorry for ourselves. We must do what we've always done, aggressively market ourselves, make new contacts, expand our network, and keep writing. Five years ago, we would not have had the opportunity to work with a management team such as this. The screenwriting game is, more often than not, a long slow climb up a steep hill.

Where are we on the hill? Always climbing and always hoping to reach the top. If there's one thing a screenwriter must learn --and learn well-- it's how to handle disappoinment and keep going despite it...

Monday, July 6, 2009

Ode to the Capitol Theatre

When I moved to Arlington, MA, in early 2001, my wife and I chose the neighborhood based on our sense of it being a vibrant residential area close to the city of Boston. For me, personally, there was another draw: Arlington's Capitol Theatre was a short walk from my new condo in a converted two-family home. Over the next seven years, the Capitol Theater would be my secret get-away spot on a night when my wife and I had a fight or during a sweltering summer evening when I just had to escape the heat. I would use the theatre as therapy on those occasions and I came to love the place.

Since moving to the other side of Arlington, I no longer have the old theatre located conveniently across the street from my home. But, tonight I brought my son to the theatre to see SUGAR, a wonderful art house film about a Dominican ballplayer's struggle to make it pro in America. It was a spectacular independent film that broke your heart even as it entertained you. And it's the kind of film that makes its way sooner or later to the screens of the Capitol.

It's hard to explain what makes the Capitol so special. Part of it is the history that breathes in every crevice of the building. Opened in November of 1925, the Capitol Theatre's evolution parallels that of the entertainment industry of the last century. Like the Somerville Theatre just down the rode in Davis Square and owned and operated by the same family - the Locatelli family - the Capitol hosted all kinds of vaudeville shows and other live entertainment. Enormous pipe organs played on both sides of the cavernous main auditorium. It was the crown jewel of the neighborhood theatres and entertained area residents with prize nights and other attractions during the bleak days of the Depression.

In time the classic theatre had to be 'multi-plexed', but it was done in a way that completely honored the original look and feel of the single-screen theatre. It debuted in 1989 and Theatre 1, still houses the main stage and the grates where the pipe organs were located.

There are times when I miss my old neighborhood, and, in particular, I miss being able to run out and see movies like SUGAR across the street!

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Peering Into Our Crystal Ball

The Sages had a nice meeting the other day with Irene Wachsler of Tobolsky & Wachsler CPAs. This firm is an independent auditor for individuals and companies seeking to expedite tax credits on qualifying film and television productions in Massachusetts.

The Sages were seeking to gain a greater understanding about the use and applications of film tax credits in the State, but a funny thing happened on the way to that forum: we realized what kind of creative economy we now have in Mass. Ten years ago, could the Sages have met with an accountant seeking to expand her business in supporting film and television productions in the Bay State?

The simple answer is no. But where do things go from here? And how far?

Will writers, actors, crew, and others be able to earn a steady living in Massachusetts and New England from working in the movies?

This area will likely never be Los Angeles, but can it be Vancouver or Toronto? That is, a medium-sized city with a strong and consistent homegrown entertainment community? Much of that probably depends on the proposed studios for Massachusetts. At last count there are five: Plymouth, Weymouth, South Boston, Lowell, and Western Massachusetts. If one or several of these entities can flourish here, the ripple effects for everyone will be visible and tangible.

Peering into our crystal ball, what do the Sages see for the future of New England and the entertainment industry? Perhaps that's the wrong question. Perhaps it should be, what do we see now? Returning to our meeting from the other day, we see men and women with jobs and aspirations long ago thought impossible in this sector of the economy in this State.

We like what we see, and we hope to see more of it going forward. We invite others to peer into their crystal balls and tell us what they see...

-Randy

Friday, June 12, 2009

Great Interview on Screenwriting...

http://simborgpeanutgallery.blogspot.com/2009/05/awesome.html

See the above link for a great interview on the craft and business of screenwriting with Terry Rossio, one of the most successful writers in Hollywood today. It's a little long, but there are a lot of great nuggets in this. Enjoy...

-Randy

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Is It the Writer's Fault When...

A big budget film's script is lacking? This question came to mind recently after seeing the newest chapter in the "Star Trek" opus. The movie was certainly a spectacle, with great visuals and exciting action sequences. However, I found the story and the script lacking. A friend of mine in Los Angeles who works in the biz was more partial to it, and we exchanged a few emails about the merits and shortcomings of the movie.

I won't go into what I found lacking in Star Trek. Perhaps I was expecting something more in line with the old films and the TV series. Whatever it was that did not strike me right got me to pondering the question: can we say the writer executed poorly when a big budget film does not work story wise? It's one thing on a spec script or in an indy setting if the script is not up to snuff, but when hundreds of millions are going into a movie and the writer is being directed by producers, studio executives, a director, and so on to make many changes and go in different directions, can it be said that the writer is to blame if the script does not turn out to be gangbusters?

I guess part of it might stem from how one views the film in question, but I don't think (and maybe this is being generous) I'm an old curmudgeon who does not like blockbuster or big action films. On the contrary, I do. I was quite fond of the first X-Men movie, and I thought WALL-E was one of the best films of 2008. These movies were high budget and worked in my opinion. So when other big budget films don't turn out as well as those, can we fault the writer?

We might not be able to fault anyone in reality. There are so many competing forces in big budget films, and so much is at stake. From the producers to the distributors to the advertisers, perfect storms can become perfect disasters, and it can be hard to tell which link in the chain was the weakest.

Joe and I were working on an action script last year. It was not our strongest genre, but we liked the idea and the producer with whom we were working so we gave it a go. We were pretty much following orders and trying to please the producer most of the time, but we were not mindlessly regurgitating everything the producer asked for. We tried to bring our own voice and style to the script, but in the end it was the producer's idea, and he was the one taking it to the marketplace so why not try to get it the way he wanted it? Looking back on it, I don't think it was that great of a script, so was it our fault?

Sometimes I find a useful way to judge a film by asking: would I use the film in one of my screenwriting classes to instruct beginners in the art of story telling? So maybe 'fault' is the wrong word to use when any film's script doesn't work, and I'm hesistant to say that Star Trek doesn't work (it's box office receipts alone might contradict this assessment). Nevertheless, it's an intriguing topic to explore, and we invite others' opinions and comments.

-Randy

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Life Is a Dream, Anime, and Animation

"La vida es sueno" the great Lope de Vega of Spanish Golden Era fame titled his most famous play: Life is a dream. His words were reverberating in my head yesterday as I stumbled upon the Anime Convention at the Hynes Convention Center in Boston: GI Joe and Little BoPeep... Vamps and Vixens... Maids and Mistresses of the night... They were out in force for the Anime Convention. Most were around high school age.

At first, as I appraised the Thor figure, and the Purple horse lady, and the Japanese school girl dressed as a Japanese school girl, I couldn't honestly figure out what sub-group from high school I was observing. They all wore passes around their necks and I was able to ascertain from their credentials that they were aficionadoes of Anime, the extremely eccentric, often violent cartoons originally originating out of Japan, but now - apparently - popular with fans the world over.

The Anime conventioneers had literally taken over the Copley Plaza mall where the Hynes Convention Center is located. At the mall food court, there were Wood Nymphs queuing for Cashew Chicken and Musclemen ordering pizza. In the restrooms, Sci-Fi geeks applied mascara and racy, transgendered Anime figures adjusted their thongs. In the plaza courtyard, all and sundry posed for pictures. The folks at the mall who were not of the convention had the best day of voyeurism ever. One staid couple with a child approached a group of conventioneers outside of the Copley Post Office in the mall and asked what it was all about. "Oh, we came in from New York," a pastoral African-American BoPeep replied. "We come here and dress up. There's a ball tonight. It's a lot of fun."

A friend of mine from high school who is visiting me from New York gave me the first whiff that something odd was in town. When he arrived off the bus from New York, he noticed in the Back Bay station two Asian guys dressed as Warrior Bugs with plastic shields and bug-like armor. We talked about whether in high school any of us could have possibly been part of that subgroup. My friend assured me that I had not been a wannabe Anime aficionado (Anime really only caught on in the States in the nineties and we graduated from high school in '87).

In reflecting on Anime, my friend and I realized that the Bible has epic stories and Anime does too: both are essentially a fight between good and evil. Both are about people who are struggling for the better angels of their souls to prevail... My friend reminded me of an epic story that he wrote that is ripe to be animation...if not Anime. His epic story penned in 1986 - long before we'd even heard of anime - is about a high school graduate who marries his sweet heart and the next day observes from the balcony of his large Victorian home that someone is stealing his tandem bicycle. He confronts the thief who tells him that this is not really his bicycle because it's lacking the bell with his signature snail on it. Instead, the thief was taking Max off to the war.

Max's great adventure begins on a navy ship on Fourth of July. He believes he's under attack but it's really just a Fourth of July Celebration. He ends up in the waters off the South Pacific and about to embark on an endless series of adventures. My friend then drew a picture of Max with sharp teeth and cannibalistic proclivities. "He should be on the big screen," I mentioned to him. It was at that point that I was reminded of a producer the Sages recently stumbled on. This gentleman says he is associated with an investment group that has put up $100 million for new technology and animation. I thought of how perfect a fit Max would be.

Back in our day it was PeeWee Herman's Great Adventure. Maybe nowadays Max could be written for this producer as an animation project with anime overtones. Then, maybe, this time next year I will be seeing Max figures on the T on the way to the Anime Convention.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

The Disappearing Reappearing Producer or Trust But Verify

In "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" a character, Marvin Acme, writes with his famous disappearing, reappearing ink. Though perhaps a bit obscure, that little snatch of dialogue could be applied to a producer with whom the Sages have been acquainted since he first expressed interest in producing a project we were repping in the summer of '05. He was supposed to be working with a financier to produce a low-budget independent film. At the time, the screenplay we were repping seemed to be an ideal fit. Things were moving along nicely until the producer said his "financier" abruptly decided he no longer wanted to invest in films. That was the end of that...so it seemed.

Two years later, having just returned from LA, we remember getting a call from the same producer saying he had moved to the west coast and was now putting together a slate of films with an investment group that would total in the tens -if not hundreds- of millions of dollars. It seemed so wildly ridiculous a claim that we thought no one could make this stuff up. We decided to keep going and play along --not commiting ourselves in any way but not burning a bridge to something remarkable, in the unlikely event the windy talk was true-- but, alas, eventually the producer disappeared again...

Only to reappear this past month after another MIA period of about two years. The first on the big slate of films is ready to go so he says, and he wants to include a Sages script in the queue. Of course, very few details and no names or terms have been forthcoming, and when pressed for these or any kind of a paper trail...guess what? Disappears again.

In our view, in the end, things are never as good as they seem. There are many pied pipers in the script game who come calling with brassy talk but don't have the chops to back it up. Many writers put aside common sense and bite on big talk and bold claims. The lessons remain: always do your due diligence and always ask for a contract (if necessary, get an entertainment attorney involved). Get as much money as you can up front. Eschew working on spec, because, as we've detailed elsewhere, more often than not, nothing ever comes of back end payments for the small fish screenwriter. Be polite and lead with your enthusiasm, but also be skeptical and verify any claim.

We'd like to hear from you about any similar stories.

-Randy and Joe

Friday, May 8, 2009

Show Me the (Irish?) Money

As we've written in a few posts, the Sages are working on a period piece about Thomas Francis Meagher, the great 19th century revolutionary and orator. Our managers on this project recently suggested to us that the Irish Film Board might be in a position to kick a film about an Irish revolutionary figure into high gear. The Irish Film Board? Hmm... Being half-Irish myself I've often fantasized about how wonderful it would be to retire to a small cottage on the Irish coast for a period of time and pursue my art. Reading, writing, a dip in the sea...

But maybe there's more than a fantasy to that.

A few weeks back in this blog, Randy wrote about the tax credits that have recently lured a spate of Hollywood productions to Massachusetts. Truth be told, however, the tax credits (and their purchase and sale) strike me as more complicated than financial derivatives.

In Ireland, however, they take a different approach: they actually support their filmmakers directly and have been doing so since the Film Board Act of 1980. Operating under the aegis of the Department of Art, Sport, and Tourism, the Bord Scannán na hÉireann / the Irish Film Board (IFB) supports and promotes the Irish film industry and the use of Ireland as a location for international productions. The IFB is involved in major European co-productions and last year, with its support, Irish filmmakers picked up over 100 awards at key festivals including Cannes, Berlin, Venice, and Toronto. In addition, the IFB's website has a searchable database of Irish Co-Producers and acts as a clearinghouse for filmmakers wanting to partner with their Irish counterparts.

As Randy noted in his last post from LA, the economic woes have changed the landscape for film and television productions and the hard times are bringing people together in new ways. Just as the U.S. is not the Goliath it once was on the international stage, neither is Hollywood. The silver lining may be that we could look to models like the IFB for how we might spur the independent film community here. And, as it relates to our own project, rather than try to sell it as a splashy Hollywood period piece, perhaps our first call should be to the Irish Film Board's U.S. representative.

Erin Go Bragh!

Saturday, May 2, 2009

The Return of the Native

I'm at the Long Beach Airport (watching the Celts in Game 7), and the CA sun is setting majestically on the horizon. I've been in LA for a few days on business for the Boston University Film/TV Department. We had a screening of student films, at which alumini, industry professionals, and students turned out for a truly wonderful evening.

I also had a chance to have meetings with BU alumni working in the industry--some very successful ones. From Richard Gladstein (exec. producer of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction) to Maria Jacquemetton (writer-producer on the TV show Mad Men) to Jeff Graup a scrappy manager who exec. produced Lakeview Terrace and whose client, David Loughery, wrote the recently released Obsessed.

I talked to many others at all levels at the business, and, from top to bottom, everyone noted how tough things are right now. The economic woes have made an already skittish town positively neurotic. But one independent producer noted to me that it's also bringing people together in new ways. Those in the business are getting thrown out of their comfort zones and are taking chances they might have not when times were more secure. So there's a possible silver lining in the economic downturn.

As it relates to our project we've been posting about (the epic, historic script), I was able to meet with the managers who are guiding us on the screenplay. The meeting went very well, and things are progressing: as we noted in our last post, we need to do a character pass on the script, and that point was made very clear to me. But this meeting reminded me that the last time I met with these managers was exactly one year ago, on my last trip to LA for BU business. What we might be able to accomplish in LA in six months has taken almost two years--that is, to form a closer relationship with a strong management team. I love Boston, but sometimes I lament not having made a go of it in LA. One can write anywhere and be successful, but there's no replacing being able to sit down to coffee with an agent or manager on a regular basis, and that's very hard to do from good old Beantown.

So, as the sun sets on this day and this trip, I see new horizons. Times are changing. It's an internet-world now, and webisodes could be the wave of the future. Massachusetts could become a bona fide film and television development town. Nothing is for sure, but the models of the past are just as shaky.

As I return to Boston, all I can really do is keep working, keep making connections, and keep my fingers crossed.

-Randy

Friday, April 24, 2009

Character Pass for Our Script on Epic Irish Figure

Working with managers is a tricky business in general, but in this economy it is especially challenging. As writers, we're told, the spec market has disappeared. A script, to be sold, must be "packaged" with a name actor attached. Going to a studio with a naked spec script is not a recipe for success.

So, while it's a very cool feeling to nail a historical time period in your research, to nail the accent, rhythm, and cadences in your dialogue, to have some scenes that verily pop off the page...it's not enough. That "actor of the moment" has to take a shine to it to give it the luster it needs to pass through the necessary fiery hoops and land in development.

How do you do that? You need more than a solid structure and the illumination of a certain time period. You need a protagonist -a lead character- that grabs a name actor and pulls him or her in. So we face a choice with our epic, period script: do one more pass to improve the character (as requested by the managers) or hold the line and say we've done enough work.

We've been working on this script for close to one year, and we don't want to be spinning our wheels in another year after having done several more passes. But the "character pass" is a reasonable request, and we're inclined to agree with the managers. After spending our time, paring down the script from 140 pgs to 120 pgs and getting the structure and the dialogue right, we may have lost sight of the character and his motivations. What makes him tick is a question we need to get at.

There's still no guarantee we hook an actor with additional character work rendered on an already solid script, but we're deferring to the professionals and their expertise on what makes a solid script a sellable script.

Still, we're talking limited time because we naturally want this to move into the next phase--that is the selling phase. Check back with us for updates in the coming month.

Erin Go Bragh!

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Massachusetts Tax Credit Wars

Not too long ago, in a state very, very close...

The Masssachusetts Tax Credit Wars erupted. In about 2005, Massachusetts (along with many other states) implemented tax credits for film and television productions. If a production spent enough money in the state, it would qualify for tax credits. What followed was a boom in production in the the Bay State. Movies began to pour into Massachusetts like never before. From "The Departed" to "Mall Cop" to "21," for the past few years Massachusetts has felt like Hollywood East. Indeed, based on the tax incentives and the boom in production, several movie studios are in the planning stages of building permanent facilities in Massachusetts.

But then, the economy took a nose dive and the state began to run a huge budget deficit. Not, mind you, California proportions (but, huge nonetheless!). At last count, the debt was more than $2 billion. Some began to wonder whether offering tax credits to out-of-state productions -when the Bay State is in the hole- is wise policy. That growing chorus of opinion prompted this article in The Boston Herald: http://bh.heraldinteractive.com/news/regional/view/2009_03_28_Study:_Say_goodbye_to_Hollywood:_Report_claims_state_tax_credits_don_t_pay_off/srvc=home&position=0
The Herald article prompted an immediate response from the film community, including the state's own Mass Film Office (MFO). The MFO and others claimed the study was faulty, not to mention a conflict of interest for those who produced it. The tax credit wars were on!

Where do the Sages stand? As members of the local film community, we naturally want to see robust film production occurring in Massachusetts. Those who argue that tax credits drain the Treasury of revenue are perhaps missing the point of the credits. Credits, those who are for them will argue, are designed to lure productions to a given state and not to be a source of revenue for the Treasury (everyone knows how fierce the competition is for Tinseltown dollars especially from some of the right-to-work southern states). These mainly L.A.-based production companies will spend -and spend big- in the state on everything from equipment to labor to hotels and so on. It's an argument for supply side or trickle down economics, which, of course, is hard to measure because much of the spending a production generates is fungible. Those who argue against credits can easily point to a depleted Treasury as their proof positive of the credits' deleterious effects, while it's hard for the other side to provide metrics.

Whether a credit is exercised by the production or sold to a company in-state for use against its tax burden, it's clear someone's tax return is being eased--and thus the Treasury ends up with fewer funds. In the final analysis, it's political: Do you think money in the Treasury, where the state can spend it, is a greater good than in the hands of citizens? It's a debate that mirrors what's happening in Washington.

As for me, it seems pretty obvious: a decade ago there was next to no film production going on in the state. All that has changed now. You can't tax what isn't there, so if the tax credits are eliminated the productions won't come and no one will have revenue--not the state...not local businesses...not local workers. On balance, the State House might not have as much tax revenue for its coffers by providing generous credits, but it's local businesses that will flourish as they meet the demands these large out-of-state productions require. That impact may not show up on the balance sheet of the government, but ask anyone who has a grocery store near a production how they are doing: the response will be the only evidence one needs to come out in favor of retaining the tax credits.

-Randy

Monday, April 13, 2009

The Brave New World of the Internet

My late stepfather, Kirk Scharfenberg, was a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist with The Boston Globe. For years, as an Op-Ed columnist, then Metro Editor, he wrote opinion pieces and edited and mentored dozens of Globe journalists. Our home in Dorchester during Kirk's heyday with the paper was always full of journalists, politicos, and fellow travelers. It was a very stimulating environment for a young high school student like myself. So, it was with some sadness that I, along with many other fans of the paper, learned that The Globe may be shuttered by its parent company The New York Times. The Sunday paper has upwards of 350,000 subscribers so, we're told, it's not a subscription issue. It's a problem with the business model.

A problem with the business model?

I don't know about you, but there is something very special about the feel of the newspaper in your hands that cannot be replicated in Boston.com. Randy and I are both big Red Sox fans and there's nothing quite like reading the Globe sports page. The obits of The Globe are jokingly referred to as "the Irish sports pages" and, for a certain generation who don't even necessarily own a computer, they have long been considered required reading over the morning cup of joe. So, the threat to the Globe got me thinking about the ways - large and small - that I have had to adapt to the whims of technology as a teacher and writer.

The Script Sages have started to both "blog" and now "tweet" (we're up to 38 followers in under two weeks on Twitter!); we have embraced the technology in the hope of jumpstarting the business model of promoting our work as writers quickly and cheaply. Before that, perhaps like the (so it seems now) old fashioned Globe, we thought we could simply write and send out our scripts--and this was the business model. No longer, as we've learned that writing to succeed means more than just churning out scripts. God love the writer who writes the script that sells without having to do much self-promotion, but that is the extreme exception. It takes a lot of other writing (on blogs such as this) to make the "screen" writing pay off. And the internet is undeniably the medium to be embraced to help any writer win success.

But what of my morning paper?

In a similar vein, students who embrace technology so wholeheartedly that it crowds out the joy of hitting the stacks in the library or cracking the spine of a good book...worry me. These students worry me because part of what makes a good writer - be it journalist, or blogger, or screenwriter - is that they are diligent and voracious readers and researchers, are familiar with the canon of western literature, and can string a sentence together on the page. And there's a feel to the page that the internet can never replicate.

-Joe

Sunday, April 5, 2009

The Sages Now on "Twitter"

Yes, the Script Sages have begun to "tweet." Check us out on Twitter.com under the handle 'ScriptSages'.

In this day and age, you have to explore all the outlets you can, and Twitter is undeniably one of those avenues.

It also gives us a chance to post our thoughts more frequently. We'll still continue with our weekly blog posts here, but these posts are closer to essays on deeper topics. On Twitter, we'll be able to quickly offer our thoughts on a movie we've seen or a development in the local filmmaking industry. We'll even be able to give quick updates on projects we are writing or considering.

So look for us on Twitter and follow along. We'll be happy to link to anyone else who is on Twitter, so check us out and let's keep the conversation going.

-The Sages

Inktip

Inktip.com is one of the most widely known and used script services sites. Writers can post loglines, synopses, or even scripts themselves for producers, agents, and managers to browse. Those looking for scripts can search by genre, number of locations, budget, and so on to find material or new talent. Writers are charged a fee to list their loglines or scripts for features (posting a logline for a short script is free). Producers and agents, I believe, are charged to gain access to the site, and are thoroughly vetted.

Inktip offers other services such as a weekly newsletter, which, for a small fee, provides writers with leads from producers or agents looking for specific types of material. If a writer thinks he has a match, he can contact the producer to pitch his script. Inktip also offers a printed newsletter in which writers can list loglines. This newsletter is circulated periodically to many different sources in the industry. There are also links to script analysis services as well as screenwriting contests and other resources.

Inktip boasts weekly success stories: A script has been optioned, a writer hired-- even a script produced as a result of being listed on its website. Why would a writer not want to sign on, right?

First, let me say that I think Inktip is a great service. There are few websites out there like it and we've followed it from its very early days. Joe and I have listed scripts material of ours, as well as clients, and I continue to use it to list loglines on behalf of BU students for their short scripts.

But, as always, I would exercise caution. I think few of the "success" stories are paying success stories. A writer might be optioned or hired, but it's never listed for how much. Maybe this is to protect the privacy of the writer, but I often wonder how successful the success stories are. Joe and I have had scripts optioned, but that's for $1 and not much has come of those (see previous posts about spec writing) deals. So when I see a writer hired or a script optioned on Inktip I do wonder what the substance of the deal is.

Though I do like Inktip, I can't say Joe and I have had a success story of our own from it. We had interaction with more than a few producers based on a logline or script posted, but the producers, in the end, were either trying to get free work out of us or the interest just withered and died on the vine after a time.

I believe Inktip is more useful for certain kinds of scripts. If you have a sweeping epic or a high-budget drama, you might find less interest on Inktip. But if you have a limited location horror script or a thriller with no F/X then you might have better luck.

If you decide to list a logline or a feature-length script, it's $60 for a six month listing. Is it worth it? That averages out to $10 per month, and I think it's worth a try. Just be aware there is no easy way to success in screenwriting, and listing a script on Inktip will not instantly propel you to fame and fortune. It's may be a toe in the door, and, for its versatility, is something that didn't exist few short years ago (and we should be thankful for that), but it's really the beginning of the road and not the pot of gold (figuratively and literally) to which we all aspire.

We'd love to hear about your experiences with Inktip, so please post your thoughts on this topic.

-Randy

Friday, March 27, 2009

Letting the Game Come to You

I received an email today from the International Screenwriter's Association (ISA) asking me if I wanted the ad I put up weekly on Craigslist to spread the word about the Sages' blog to go out to 40,000 screenwriters. The site owner apparently culls ads such as ours on Craigslist and sends out mass email soliciting folks who might want to post to the ISA's exchange. It made me think about creating awareness and "buzz" around one's blog/website. In a similar vein, our webmaster approached Randy and me about the urgent need to starting "twittering" daily on our website in order to ramp up the traffic to the site/blog. We kind of had a senior moment about the whole thing. It was like deja vu all over again in that we had the same experience when deciding to start up this blog in the first place: Are we screenwriters or "tweeters?" Are we part of the literati or webheads? Are the two mutually exclusive? Complementary? Something in between?

A buddy from my high school days is crazy about potato chips. He's something of a gearhead and started a hobbyist website on all things related to chips and snacking. Someone at Yahoo really liked the website and promoted it on My Yahoo! It was recognized as an 'it' website and written up in industry publications. Long and the short of it is that in the heyday, my buddy's hobbyist website was so busy he needed to buy a dedicated server for his apartment because of bandwidth issues; most intriguing was the extra income the site created for him; he had so much traffic the Google ads on his site were working overtime generating revenue.

Make no mistake his "hobbyist" website was consuming his life and its "care and feeding" would easily take from 15-20 hours a week. This was above and beyond his day job in the tech industry.

Part of the initial strategy of the Script Sages in starting our blog was to let the game come to us. As screenwriters, you can be made to feel like a supplicant constantly knocking on doors to an entrenched, elitist film industry. The internet is the great leveler. By being an opinion leader with something worthwhile to say you can bypass the gatekeepers completely. The world is truly flat and we benefit from this with our a blog, in that we can directly dialogue with the everyday screenwriter and the media mogul alike.

The rub for me personally is that writing for a blog is not the same as writing creatively. Print journalists who are having to make the jump to digital and on-line platforms have much the same dilemma. If you signed on to be a journalist and suddenly find yourself writing the company's blog...is that going to be as fulfilling as what you originally bargained for? Change has come. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle. You can let the game come to you. But I, for one, still have to wonder what the hidden costs are.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

An Analysis of Script Analysis

You've finished that script, and now you're thinking of getting an analyst or a consultant to give you notes. Should you do it? The price tag can be lofty. On the low side, maybe it will cost you $80 or $100. On the high side, we're talking $300 or $400-- even up to $1,000 for some of the top consultants in the business. Perhaps given the economy these days, those rates have dropped, but shelling out even $200 for notes on a script is no small decision.

First, if you have friends or colleagues whose opinions you trust, go with them. There's no better judge than a friend whose voice you can depend on for solid feedback. However, the drawback here can be turnaround time. Friends are busy and doing you favors, so maybe they won't get to your script for three or four weeks. For some, that can be a long time to wait. And then, what your friend gives you can be not as much as you are looking for, namely detailed notes on holes and problems in the script. Friends may give you broad thoughts but no notes and specific suggestions.

So it's at this time you might consider turning to a professional who will give you five pages of detailed notes in less than a week's time and who can do phone consultations to boot. Most consultants are professional and competent, but it's always worth checking them out and getting recommendations prior to enlisting their services. Be careful that if they promise five pages of notes you actually get five pages of notes and not four pages of a summary (which you already knew) of your script and only one page of recommendations. You also have the right to bargain. Some of the tip top analysts might not be open to bargaining but others will be--and they are just as good as some of the big names (they just don't have as much notoriety).

One other thing to watch out for are script services that are attached to agencies or management companies. You may query an agency, and they'll tell you before they can look at it you must get professional notes (for a fee of course). Or the reverse happens, you send a script to a management company which likes it, but in order for them to pitch it to producers or studios it must first get professional analysis (for a fee of course). It's not illegal for companies to do this, but to a certain extent some are taking advantage of writers' naivete. A writer gets jazzed up because a company has some interest in his or her script. So paying $200 to improve it seems like a small price to pay to get that script in shape for the company. But more often than not the script won't go anywehere and the writer is out $200.

This should not discourage you to seek out good analysts. There are many out there. Just do your due diligence before you open up the wallet. Joe and I would be happy to recommend several consultants if anyone is looking for one.

-Randy

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Is There an "LA Style" in Screenwriting?

Joe and I have fared decently when entering contests, but we never broke through in the Nicholl or Disney Fellowships and could not seem to crack any of the top tiers when it came to some of the bigger, more well known screenwriting contests. In fact, the contests that we placed or advanced in were generally not ones that are LA-centered. We really don't enter too many contests anymore, but we always wondered --all scripts being equal-- do scripts with an "LA style" fare better in contests and the industry at large?

Someone could say our scripts just aren't up to snuff. Naturally, we don't think this is the case, and since our material has been well accepted by those in LA we're pretty sure --while trying to remain humble-- that we have quality material to offer.

But given that most big contests are centered in LA and have readers who are in the "biz" and live in Hollywood, it's not a stretch to imagine that two scripts, equally compelling in terms of character, story, and dialogue, might be looked at differently based on which achieves that slicker, more "LA style." As Boston denizens and writers, and having been schooled at Boston University, it's possible our writing has a more academic, Yankee look and feel to it.

This feeling may have been confirmed recently when we spoke with our manager friends in LA regarding the epic, spec project we are working on with them. These managers sent us a few sample scripts to read for pace, style, and general slickness. These scripts were written by pros with oodles of credits, and though we didn't think the minds who crafted these were somehow off-the-chart geniuses, the screenplays did have a certain look and feel that caused them to leap off the page. That certain look and feel was, in fact, the common denominator in the scripts we reviewed.

The descriptions were cute; the writers played with the words and took chances. They used CAPS and ... and small, quick, staccato paragraphs to push the story forward. The style was markedly different than ours: we dubbed this an "LA style," one which we needed to emulate to give our project a sheen that would attract buyers.

Wasn't that, after all, why they had sent them to us?

Writers in Boston and Hollywood are both using Final Draft or Screenwriter software so there's no real difference in the basic platform writers here and in LA are employing, and I'll be darned if those living in LA have a monopoly on talent and desire. But there may be a difference in how an LA writer puts spit and polish on his or her script, and it's something we in Boston and New England should take to heart when looking to compete in the marketplace

-Randy

Saturday, March 7, 2009

The First Ten Pages or Bust?

There's a great scene in the movie BOWFINGER where Jerry Renfro, the fictional agent played by Robert Downey Jr., is at a swank Hollywood restaurant taking a meeting about a script. He reads the first page of a script then flips to the last and says looks good, bring me so-and-so the actor and you have a movie! It takes him less than 30 seconds to assess the script as being a whiz-bang project.

I think the reason the scene is so funny is that it's so easy to recognize the kernel of truth to it. In a similar vein, Randy and I once had a producer heap high praise on our screenplay about Whitey Bulger saying, "Hey, I made it to page 50!"

The rule of thumb is that the first 10 pages make or break a screenplay: a screenplay must be popping within those first pages or else it won't hold the reader's attention. Unlike the more languorous medium of the novel, the screenplay is, for the most part, read by decidedly "non-literary" types with a specific eye toward translating it onto the silver screen.

Personally, I've gone to movies that get off to a slow start and enjoyed them and I've read screenplays that get off to a slow start and enjoyed them as well. As a literary sort myself, I'm inclined to give the writer more of the benefit of the doubt. However, if I'm honest, I have to admit that the great books, movies, plays, and screenplays I've experienced get off to a strong start. They come roaring out of the gate!

So, is it first 10 pages or bust? Not exactly... But, it behooves us as writers to get those first pages right because that's where the vast majority of folks make their decision on whether this is a movie that will have them on the edge of their seats or merely be an expensive outing.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

A Juggling Act

We all know that life is a juggling act: there's work, friends, family, and on. Throw into this grand mix the writing projects you have on the side and the juggling act can feel like a whirlwind.

What makes The Script Sages' juggling act feel like whirlwind at the moment is the types of projects we are working on. As we press forward on a rewrite of our sweeping, historic epic, we've also taken on a far different project. The Sages have recently been hired to work on a web series--or "webisodes" to use the correct jargon. We're not at liberty to disclose too many details about the project, but it's a fun concept set in Boston which would see five episodes a week, each lasting 4-5 minutes.

As to the juggling act, well, one can imagine the challenge of moving back and forth between the large canvas of a Civil War-era screenplay, a la "Glory," which would be bound for the big screen of a movie theater, and the very confined space of a story that would be seen entirely on a computer screen (or even an I-Phone or Blackberry).

Instead of juggling three tennis balls, this could be more like keeping aloft a basketball, a trash can lid, and a pineapple.

Many writers face these same situations, and if there's any advice we can impart it's to keep multiple projects going. You never know when one particular project will lose steam, and if all your eggs are in that basket then you can suddenly find yourself with quite an empty basket. So keep the juggling act going, even if it feels precarious at times.

-Randy

Saturday, February 21, 2009

The Waiting Game Becomes the Guessing Game

At the end of January on this blog, I wrote about our experience being in 'the waiting game' with a management company in Los Angeles around a brassy, historical epic the Sages wrote on the life and times of an Irish legend.

Four Sundays later and we've had "the Call" about the submission. There were some compliments offered, followed by a discussion of the history and a laundry list of appropriate actors who might fit the bill for the role. The call ended with a request for a revision.

So "the waiting game" of a month ago becomes "the guessing game" today. We know our guys read and liked the writing, but clearly they want to hook an actor with this project, though there weren't many details provided on exactly what would bait a thesp. Our task then is to come up with perfectly-executed je ne suis quoi that puts this script over with an actor who fancies himself at least with a drop of Irish blood.

So what do we do? They sent along some writing samples to help sharpen our thinking about what makes screenplays sellable. Some of the samples are already set up at major studios and come with brand-name actors attached. Of course, the moment you conjure up that actor, you read the script completely differently. A lackluster historical screenplay suddenly shines if Leonardo is the leading man! A not-that-cut-up comedy is suddenly cutting you up when can't help think of Will Ferrell in the lead!

How do you work that model in the reverse?

Can you base a screenplay revision on trying to imagine Mel Gibson as Jesus? How about Steve Martin as the Pink Panther? It's a guessing game as to where you might want to "write to the character" and where you might want to "write to the actor". So, are we now to turn our screenplay into a love letter to this or that son-of-Erin actor? Tough, tough call...

The waiting game becomes the guessing game until we finish this rewrite and turn it in and begin again to wait.

-Joe

Sunday, February 15, 2009

And the Oscar Goes to...

Some thoughts on next Sunday's (Feb. 22) Academy Awards...

Not having seen every movie nominated, I'll try to keep my remarks somewhat general. I think it's been a good year for the movies. The five films nominated for best feature are all thoughtful, interesting films. It won't be a "Titanic" or "Lord of the Rings" type of year, when two plainly, spectacle-style films won out over more penetrating material.

I noticed "WALL-E" was nominated for best animated film only, but I think it could be the best of the lot. It had everything, from an interesting visual style to a touching story with well developed characters and humor and drama.

In fact, "WALL-E" was nominated for best original screenplay. Since this is primarily a screenwriting blog, I'm happy to report that the screenplay categories are especially strong this year: "WALL-E" has some stiff competition. "Frozen River" hasn't received much publicity but it is a very nice film. Oftentimes, the Academy will offer a screenwriting nomination to something as a token nod in a film's direction. "Frozen River" is the kind of independent film that won't play at the multi-plex and won't earn much money but should be recognized. But since no one knows about it and there are no stars in it, it doesn't play well in terms of promoting the movie business's big night.

I'm sad to say that many times the screenplay category is used to fob off something with an award because it's not big enough or should get some recognition but won't in the glitzier categories. Not to diminish the writing awards, but sometimes they feel like a buy-off to something that should be recognized more widely.Still, I think all the nominees for original and adapted screenplay are decent efforts and am pleased to see them put forward.

In the big categories, I'd just about bank on Sean Penn winning for "Milk." He was good in the film -even great- but he'll win for the movie's politics. Although a dark horse could be Frank Langella in "Frost/Nixon." I intend to see "The Wrestler" soon, so don't count out (yes, a pun) Mickey Rourke. But my pick would be Penn.I'm less sure about the actress category and both supporting categories. None leap out at me as obvious. Perhaps Kate Winslett in "The Reader," but I think the other acting awards are anyone's guess.

As for the best picture, I'm leaning toward "Slumdog Millionaire." I liked it and have the sneaking suspicion it might just have the chops to win out overall. It should be a great night, regardless of what happens with my personal picks, and I, for one, am thrilled to see so many fine films in release this year.

We invite you to make your picks or leave your thoughts on this year's Academy Awards on our blog...

-Randy

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Adaptation: Ode to and Perils thereof

When Fox Pictures purchased The New Yorker writer Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief in 1997, a then little-known screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, got the nod to write the script. In the minds of the executives who hired him, it was a straight adaptation job. Except that Kaufman didn't write the adaptation. Why? Because he kind of lost his way. He claims he didn't understand the book and got a terrible case of writer's block. So, instead, he invented an alter ego - a brother named Donald - and wrote ADAPTATION, a movie about writing an adaptation of The Orchid Thief. He went so far as to dedicate the script to his non-existent brother, Donald.

He was sure he'd committed professional suicide. Instead, ADAPTATION was fast-tracked and went on to be a spectacular critical and commercial success - and made Charlie Kaufman a household name!

Randy and I each went through the process of adapting a famous author's work in our second year, as screenwriting students, at Boston University's Film School. It was the equivalent of our thesis project. Randy adapted Gore Vidal's Burr, a tour de force historical work about American legend and/or fiend Aaron Burr. I adapted Inshallah, a great, rambling novel about the war in Lebanon by the late Italian war correspondent and novelist Oriana Fallaci. After teaming up as the Script Sages in 2003, we were contacted by several minor authors about adapting their work and each time declined.

Adapting is a tricky business. The boundaries get blurred very quickly. That's what made ADAPTATION such a great movie. When I graduated from BU, I didn't want all the effort I'd put into adapting Inshallah to be for naught...so I took matters into my own hands. My ignorance of how the process works didn't prevent me from directly contacting Ms. Fallaci's publishers and making an impromptu - uninvited - visit at their New York offices. I remember taking the Chinese bus into Manhattan and marching into the publishers' office to have a word with Ms. Fallaci's gorgeous publicity assistant. I did my 30-second pitch with her right there. "I've written a great adaptation of Ms. Fallaci's novel. I think this could be a great movie. I just graduated film school and have some contacts. I think this is the moment for this to be made into a film."

She was very polite. Then, I was shown the door. I persisted. I sent the script to Ms. Fallaci's New York apartment. I continued to write letters and knock on doors.

Then, my new wife told me a FedEx package from Italy had arrived. I thought that I'd broken the sound barrier. Fallaci loved me. The Italians loved me. We were going to make a movie. Instead, it was a "cease and desist" letter from the office of Ms. Fallaci's attorney in Milan. It essentially told me that the option had been purchased, that my repeated overtures to Ms. Fallaci and her representatives were very troubling, and how the hell had I gotten her unlisted New York address anyway...

To make sure they got their point across, they faxed a copy of the "cease and decease" letter to my BU Film School professor and mentor who promptly called me on the phone. "Who the hell does she think she is Ernest F------ Hemingway?!" Steve Geller, who had himself lived in Italy and was familiar with the scene there, screeched into the phone.

Randy's experience adapating Burr was less contentious but also concluded in a similiar dead end. The aforementioned Steve Geller knew Gore Vidal from his Italy days (Vidal has and continues to reside in Italy). He gave Randy Vidal's address, and he wrote to him to see if he'd to look at the adaptation. Vidal agreed and liked what he read. He recommended Randy send it to his agent at CAA. For a fresh-out-of-school writer this seemed to be the dream shot. Alas, CAA quickly (though very politely) noted that the rights to Burr were owned by ABC/Disney, and they had no intention of doing anything with it. And so that was that.

The brushes with literary giants were exhilirating, but in the end it's pointless to adapt something if you don't have the rights. It's only an exercise, which can be a great learning tool, but, practically speaking, won't get you very far. So no matter how much you love the latest Dan Brown novel, forget it. And if one of those minor writers contacts you to adapt something, as with the post on spec writing, make sure you get paid to do the adaptation. Even if you love the project, you wouldn't be able to do much with a script that you wrote if the author of the original material backed away from the project. Of course, anything in the public domain is fair game, so if you think a Shakespeare play is dying to be updated you're on firmer ground there.

Still, even with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure I would do it all that differently. I don't believe I was acting like Donald, Kaufman's egomaniacal brother in ADAPTATION, though my ignorance should have caused me to be somewhat more humble in my approach. The point is adaptation is a tricky business. It's hard to get it right on paper. It's hard to get it right with executives at studios. It's hard not to offend the author at some point in the process. Even Charlie Kaufman didn't get it right...except that is in ADAPTATION.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

The MFO Can Put on A Show...

I attended the Mass Film Office's "Wrap Party" last night. Held in the Castle at Park Plaza, the MFO knows how to treat its constituents right. It was tough to tell the amount of guests, but I'd say it was over 500 and possibly 1,000. Everyone from actors to union members to educators to producers mingled and celebrated a great 2008 for the film community in Massachusetts. From "Mall Cop" to "Bride Wars" to "The Surrogates," Massachusetts saw thirteen major productions film here in 2008.

The "Wrap Party" was a wonderful way to celebrate the MFO's success over the last year in helping to bring these productions to Massachusetts, and even though tough economic times loom ahead many are looking forward to an even stronger 2009.

The Sages will report regularly on interesting developments in the local film production world.

-Randy

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The Waiting Game...

This Sunday will mark four weeks to the day the Sages submitted their most recent screenplay - a brassy, historical epic - to the management company to which we promised a "first look". Submissions are like legislation: just as there's always a dance between the President and the Congress, there's always a dance between the writer(s) and the company. As with a piece of legislation before it goes to committee, the final screenplay product is usually very different from what was originally written.

And, so, the waiting game after submitting a project is like a dance. Desperation doesn't sell and so you don't go pestering your agents and managers - neither, though, is "playing dead" the answer. You are in a relationship with the company and where there is no mutual obligation, there is no relationship.

So, we are left with the dance metaphor. And that alone. Anne Morrow Lindbergh wrote movingly of the dance and sometimes I draw comfort from her words as we play the waiting game. She wrote, "We have so little faith in the ebb and flow of life, of love, of relationships. We leap at the flow of the tide and resist in terror its ebb. We are afraid it will never return. We insist on permanency, on duration, on continuity; when the only continuity possible, in life as in love, is in growth, in fluidity - in freedom, in the sense that the dancers are free, barely touching as they pass, but partners in the same pattern."

I don't know if our would-be managers read Anne Morrow Lindbergh, but I am hopeful that they see themselves as partners in a dance. This has to be our hope going forward. Of course, tough economic times is a game-changer in terms of how each side plays "the waiting game." But, writers write. And managers sell screenplays (and if you live, well, you eat). So, perhaps this Script Sages project - this grand, sweeping historical epic - has found just the right dance partners!

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Jobs, Camera, Action...

This was the title of the Massachusetts Film Office's event held on January 24 at the Intercontinental Hotel in Boston. Boston University's Film School was a sponsor, and I attended on its behalf.

Over the course of the day, panelists spoke to some 700 attendees who were eager to participate in the state's filmmaking boom. Judging by the turnout, it was hard to tell we're in a recession and that the Massachusetts state budget is in the hole to the tune of a few billion dollars: the energy, enthusiasm, and determination the crowd generated seemed to prove the old adage true- the movie business really is recession proof.

The most interesting panel of the day was one given on the proposed studios in South Boston and Plymouth (as well as mention given to the third proposed studio in Weymouth). Each plan is ambitious and if they come to pass could truly turn Massachusetts into the "Hollywood East" of the nation.

What does this mean for screenwriters in Massachusetts and New England? It's hard to tell. In the short term, probably not much. While these studios are in their construction phase, the jobs generated will be for builders, crew, and production personnel. Even in the long term, my guess is that the creative material these studios produce -or have a hand in producing- will still be developed outside the area. So if you are a local screenwriter don't expect these studios will be accepting script submissions- though one of course never knows.

However, any time there is an increased level of filmmaking activity, the opportunities for anyone who wants to get involved in the business increases. The more filmmaking there is here, the better the chances for screenwriters and other creative talent. As another old saying goes, 100% of nothing is nothing. So even if there's just a 10% chance of increased opportunities for screenwriters because of the new studios in Massachusetts, it's better than what we've had before.

The Script Sages will keep an eye on the progress of all these projects and report back regularly.

-Randy

Thursday, January 22, 2009

On the Lighter Side...



You might enjoy these tremendously amusing episodes of "Script Cops." Having taught screenwriting at Boston University for many years now, episode five, which tells us "78% of all student films begin with an alarm clock going off and 83% involve a ninja" really made me laugh out loud. How true!

-Randy

http://crackle.com/c/Script_Cops/Script_Cops_Ep_1_Drop_The_Script_/1997675

Sunday, January 18, 2009

The One That Got Away

When the news hit that Jim Sheridan, the director of such Oscar nominated films as IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER and MY LEFT FOOT, was headed to the Boston to make a movie based on "Black Mass: The True Story of an Unholy Alliance Between the FBI and the Irish Mob," the best-selling book by former Globe reporter Dick Lehr and editor Gerard O'Neill, I personally had mixed feelings. I'm sure the same is true of my writing partner Randy.

Sheridan has finished the script with writing partner Nye Heron, and they intend to begin shooting in South Boston this spring. The whole thing is coming together, and yet, the story of WhiteyBulger was supposed to be our story. When Randy and I formed the Script Sages in 2001, the story of the Irish mob and how they got in bed with the FBI was one that we knew well from local Boston lore (it was also, incidentally, not all that well-known at that time outside of Boston). I'd spent part of my youth in Dorchester in the shadow of South Boston. We'd read all the press...absorbed all the stories. We'd read Lehr's and O'Neill's work on the pages of The Boston Globe and read "Black Mass".

At the time we wrote our spec script CASTLE ISLAND - which got its title from the famous landmark on the Atlantic coast where Whitey and his associates would conduct business - there was a good deal of interest in it. It placed in at least one contest. We discovered another writer who'd optioned a screenplay about Whitey's Jewish bookie, Chico Krantz, to Martin Scorcese. We worked with a very reputable producer who'd been having a heck of a run at HBO. We were getting a head of steam on the project. And then, it fizzled.

Since that time, a spate of films and TV shows have come out to steal any thunder the project once had: IRISH EYES, BROTHERHOOD, THE DEPARTED. Whitey Bulger has become a household name. In short, our project - while a wonderful writing sample - is dead in the water.

I still think it's the best thing we've written and would make the most compelling movie about Whitey ever. But, CASTLE ISLAND, it seems at this point is more likely to be the one that got away.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

To Spec or not to Spec...

At first, this title may seem misleading. Every screenwriter writes on spec: that is, he or she works on something without payment in the hopes it will sell down the road. This didn't used to be the fashion in Hollywood. I recently had breakfast with the screenwriter of the original THOMAS CROWNE AFFAIR. He was a top screenwriter in the 1960s and 1970s, and, when his career was on the wane, he was approached to do a writing assignment. He asked the producer who approached him, "What is a writing assignment?" In his day and in his experience, one wrote a script that got produced. There was very little of anything else.

O how times have changed! Today, many established Hollywood screenwriters are writing on spec, like the rest of us. They're writing material for free, 'speculating' that it will sell or that their agent/manager can sell it. The sad corollary to this is that more and more, producers, managers, and studios are asking writers of all stripes to write on spec; they expect writers to develop material with them or work on rewrites for free. It's one thing if a writer works on a script for him or herself without upfront payment for services and then takes it to the open market, but the disturbing trend is that writers are expected to gladly work with one source for free with oftentimes unclear guidelines on when and how the writer is to be paid.

Joe and I have been involved with these kinds of situations in many shapes and varieties. Sometimes - sadly - they have been of the unrealistic, manipulative sort. A producer or manager says that it will take many drafts and only when he or she is satisfied will they take it to a qualified buyer. Producers of this sort could have ten writers running around doing work for free and maybe they'll go with one of these projects...and only if and when it suits them. Many do have honorable intentions; however, since they are not paying the writer(s) they don't really have anything invested in the project, and any distraction or bump in the road can cause them to drop the project like a hot potato.

Most producers will say they are in the same boat as the writer: they don't have cash set aside to develop the project with you, and that's just how the town works. Everyone's doing it, so you should too! For new writers, it's tempting to go along with this: the thought is Someone wants to work with me on my writing! Many producers breezily mention the top talent in the industry to sweeten the non-existent deal on the table: George Clooney lead? Sure, kid. DiCaprio as his knight squire? Right again. But as I've said, Joe and I have worked with many producers and managers on these assumptions and assurances and nothing has ever come of it. Monetarily or agent-wise, nothing!

We might end up with a good writing sample and a few more contacts, but after a while the cost-benefit of a better script or another tab in the rolodex really plummets. In 07-08, we did four to five drafts of a project with a producer we liked and believed in. He had no money to pay us and - not even an IOU - and always wanted one more draft. We pushed back after a while and said it's now or never in terms of taking it to buyers. This producer was legit, and he took the script to very reputable companies. Even then he told us, if any of the companies liked the script they might want us to work on the script for free before pay was discussed. Some of the companies were big names, and we kept thinking the same thought: Why, if a company likes a piece of material and wants to work with us on the script (and is this high up the food chain in Hollywood!), can they not pay for our services?

But here's the dirtly little secret that I think producers simply don't understand: this way of doing things encourages and results in inferior work -- on both ends. On the producer's side, he or she is not really invested in the project (because no money has been shelled out), so why should he or she put real time and effort into making the project as feasible as possible? In our experience last year, the producer made four to five polite inquiries after we pushed back on more drafts; he got lukewarm responses so gave up. Had this producer paid us hard money for our work maybe he would have pounded the pavement more on his end. But no money out of his wallet meant less effort (and this was from a genuinely decent person). One can imagine the results with sketchier folks. On the writer's side, after a while distrust sets in, and since the writer is receiving no money the effort begins to flag, resulting in a poorer screenplay and a dispirited writer. It's a vicious circle that produces, a super majority of the time, a bad result.

And the larger problem for a writer is the project may not be free and clear of the producer, manager, or studios, so if the writer takes it somewhere else, the entity that put in little work on it could have a legal claim that would undermine the writer getting a deal elsewhere. If the writer had been paid for his or her work, this might be easier to swallow, but no hard money and the added bonus of an albatross around the writer's neck of a producer who claims credit for developing the script is a double whammy no scribe wants.

Will this model change any time soon? I highly doubt it and the economy being in a downturn will only make matters worse in this respect. So it seems the best way to proceed is to spec only for the general market and not one source and/or demand hard money for any work requested. This is easier said then done when a writer is itching to get in the game. It's tough to accept the idea that a producer may walk if you ask him or her for payment to develop something. But in our experience no amount of playing the cat and mouse spec game with producers and managers has led to an option or sale for real money.

We'd appreciate reading other views and hearing about other experiences on this topic...

-Randy

Friday, January 2, 2009

On Writing Partnerships: There's Strength in Numbers

When Randy and I graduated from the Boston University Film School a decade ago ('98), we did not receive much advice to take out into the wide world, "Go get a job as a barista and write, write, write!" we were told.

The first two or three years out of graduate school, I believe it was easy to kind of keep a head of steam going based on having had our heads crammed with inspired notions about writing and what it meant to be an 'auteur' in the film industry. We were set to make our mark...

In time, however, we were brought harshly to reality when we realized neither one of us was destined to be a "flash in the pan"; so we had to regroup - both individually and collectively. Part of this regrouping was the decision to form a writing partnership. Rather than take the world by storm individually, as a team, we could not only improve our writing, but we could also build a more sensible approach to the business side of things.

The ability to 'one, 'two' an agent or a producer is key. If a producer is not responding to one of us, the other can give him or her a try. Or if one of us is tired of making queries, the other can pick up the slack and give it a go.

Ours was an evolution (as many perhaps undergo) from wide-eyed students who thought success in screenwriting might be meteroic and sudden to a more sober-minded and steady approach. Between 1998-2001, as individuals, we flailed about. But after forming the partnership in 2001, we helped to steady one another and see progress in screenwriting as a long, slow climb.

Sure, there's the random rags to riches screenwriting story, but most people who have success in the screen trade get there after many painstaking and dues-paying years. Randy and I once had coffee with a highly successful writer/producer who told us he was able to score a big screenwriting assignment after a meeting because he had taken 1,000 meetings to get to that point.

This does not mean, one must form a writing partnership to climb the ladder, but in our case it helped considerably and it's something for folks starting out -or perhaps flailing themselves- to consider.

-Joe