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!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
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
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...
From Crackle:
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.
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
