Why This is Good

Many of us find ourselves pursuing a writing career because we feel we have a story to tell. We think that our lives are so special and unique, our insights so interesting, that by just writing our lives in screenplay format, audiences will flock to the theaters and the awards will come pouring in.

Sometimes this is true. A few people have experienced something so compelling and intriguing that they merely have to change the names of their friends and family and they have the perfect screenplay. For the rest of us, it’s not that simple. Our lives are interesting, to us, but in reality, what we’ve experienced and found so profound, is something very average and boring. Worse than that, our lives are episodic and meandering, and simply telling our life story as it occurred will result in a long, boring, all-over-the-place mess that lands in the reject pile.

Despite this, “write what you know” remains an ever-present piece of writing advice. It sounds incredibly limiting, and I blame this advice for leading writers to think that they should write about their lives, in their town, in their time period, because that is all they really know. But that’s simply not true. If you can only write what you know, that means audiences could only relate to exactly what they have experienced. You should absolutely write what you know, but you need to write it in a way that works as a screenplay, and only if you are comfortable changing the details and facts of your story enough to make them work as a screenplay. As a screenwriter, you must be open to accept criticism of your work. This can be incredibly difficult if you are writing your life story and feel so close to characters (because one is you, one is your mom, and the other is the love of your life) and the events and the way in which they occurred. If the story is an exact, faithful retelling of your life, it most likely won’t work as a screenplay, and you’ll be too sensitive and attached to it to allow yourself to change it in a way that will work. If you truly feel your life story will work as a screenplay, write it, but put it away for now, until you have several years of perspective and distance from it, at which point you should be able to look at it more objectively and not feel you are lying or wrong when you make alterations to the true events that you experienced.

Most of us go through things that are poignant and meaningful to us, but that happen to everyone and aren’t all that unique. This is bad if you think that the story of your breakup was so awesome and the pain you felt so incredible that your story must be told because it was so emotional and meaningful. That won’t work because your story is common and boring. What will work about an experience you had that millions of others also had, is that you experienced a universal emotional experience that all those others can relate to. Take what you learned and felt during your experience and use that to inject depth, emotion, and meaning into every story you write. You can use the emotion and real feelings you experienced in any and every situation, that way you can write about anything while still using what you know-your emotional experiences-to reach an audience full of people who went through the same thing, all without being limited to only telling exactly what happened to you that one time.  That is the part of the story that people relate to, not the setting, the exact plot, and the dialogue spoken. In The Wizard of Oz, we relate to Dorothy’s feelings of boredom and yearning for a more adventurous life, not her magical adventure in a strange land. Though it was an adaptation, the writers were able to create a realistic emotional experience by writing what they knew-the feeling of being trapped and longing for excitement-even though they had never been through exactly what she had.  None of us have lived as Toys, but we have felt rejected, by a friend, a lover or at work, when a newer, smarter, or more exciting person has replaced us. We have felt the jealousy that Woody had toward Buzz, and because of that, we are able to enjoy the movie. Because the writers have gone through that they were able to write what they knew about those emotions even though they’ve never actually been toys themselves.  Most people today didn’t live through life in a concentration camp, but writers are able to tell stories of the holocaust with depth and truth by drawing on their experiences of fear, of unfairness, of grief and loss and powerlessness, in order to write such films as Schindler’s List, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, The Counterfeiters, Sophie’s Choice, and so many others. Most people haven’t been in a mental institution but nonetheless were able to feel the same doubt and frustration and fear that the characters in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest felt, the same anxiety and confusion that was experienced in Shutter Island.

Writers put the emotional truth of what they know into a world and a situation they may not, and in doing so create a story that audiences will embrace and understand even if they have never been through the exact situation being depicted. Movies transport us to worlds and experiences we have never had and never will have, but reach us nonetheless through the emotions and universal human experiences they portray. It is this part of your own experiences that you should bring to your screenplay. Inject the truth of your emotional experience into your story and audiences will relate and enjoy your film, no matter what it is about.

All discouraged, no-name screenwriters should be rejoicing and taking heart today, after the results of the Academy Awards last night. It was a triumph of story, of great filmmaking, and not big budgets or big actors. These awards showed that you don’t have to be an established, big-name producer with a million-dollar budget and a bunch of blockbusters under your belt to be a contender (I’m talking to you James Cameron). Sure Avatar won where it should win-for Art Direction and Visual Effects, but in every single area where budget shouldn’t matter, the smaller, story-driven, emotionally powerful films prevailed. I’m pleasantly surprised and enormously proud of the Academy for allowing a film like The Hurt Locker to win Best Picture, Best Director, Best Editing, Best Sound Editing and Mixing, and Best Original Screenplay. In the other important areas the exemplify creativity and what movie making should be about, it was other small, story and character driven films that prevailed- for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress, Precious, Crazy Heart for Best Actor, The Blind Side for Best Actress and Inglorious Basterds for Best Supporting Actor.

Let this be a lesson to you, my fellow underpaid, underappreciated and  undiscovered writers- audiences, critics and even the Academy will respond to good storytelling, good acting and quality filmmaking over glitz, glamour and special effects. Precious had a budget of only $10 million dollars, The Hurt Locker around $15 million, (including all those pyrotechnics), while modest estimates put Avatar at over $300 million dollars (and only if you exclude it’s marketing budget) and all that only bought James Cameron two Oscars in categories where the quality of the outcome is dependent upon the amount of money spent. The results of this awards show have restored my faith in American filmmaking, and in the Academy for valuing what is truly important about this industry and about America films. Congratulations to all of the winners, your awards are well-deserved!

The most common problems I see when consulting screenwriters have to do with their hero’s goal-sometimes it is unclear, undefined, vague, impossible to achieve or nonexistent. Often, the hero has a negative goal-their goal is to not do something.

Negative goals are common because not doing something or maintaining the status quo is a goal many people perceive in real life, and they wrongly assume this will translate into film. Real people might try not to get fired, rather than trying to get a promotion. Trying not to get fired is a negative goal because it doesn’t require a person to do anything, they just have to fly under the radar and not get in trouble. Trying to get a promotion requires real, active work and would translate well into a hero’s goal for a film. After actively working to win the love of another, many people become passive and complacent in a relationship, secure that as long as they don’t upset their lover, everything will be fine. No longer actively courting and just trying to keep things steady and safe, they do the bare minimum and stop trying to keep their partner happy or interested. Other examples of negative goals would be: not being recognized; trying to live a quiet, peaceful life alone; keep a secret; to recover from an injury-when it requires nothing but taking it easy and resting.

The reason negative goals do not work in a screenplay is that the hero must be passive in order to achieve them. They cannot do anything or their negative goal will not be realized, and the status quo will be disrupted. A movie where a character stays home, watches TV and avoids hard work will not be successful. It doesn’t work when the only goal is to not do something or avoid life.

“But,” you’re probably thinking, “what about my favorite comedy of all time, Office Space?”

There are 3 answers to this argument:

1)      This is an exception that proves the rule.

2)     Office Space, while it has developed a cult following, was a box office flop that barely recouped its production costs.

3)      The negative goal that Peter started with led to and changed into a normal goal eventually, giving Peter something to do besides sit around.

Once he decides to stop working, Peter states his negative goal over and over-to not work. In his date with Joanna, he tells her he is not going to go in anymore, not going to pay his bills, basically just do nothing-a negative, anti-goal. However, what Peter actually does is not passive, and he does develop a concrete, active goal as the story progresses. [Spoiler Alert]

He could, in an attempt to do absolutely nothing, just sit at home and watch TV, and while he does this a little, he also goes out, asks Joanna to lunch, goes into work and causes trouble, goes fishing, and eventually convinces his friends to help him develop software that will get them a lot of money. Here he is being active, and you can see that despite his statements about having a negative goal of doing nothing, he really is pursuing goals of courting Joanna, subverting Initech, and earning money for himself, Samir, and Michael.  After their plan goes haywire, his goal changes into an entirely active, redemptive one-to stop Samir and Michael from getting in trouble, return the money to Initech, and take all the blame for the stolen money. So while Peter starts out with a negative, anti-goal, he eventually develops visible, concrete goals that allow him to actively pursue a goal with a finish line in the traditional sense that works for screenwriting.

If you’ve worked with me on a consultation or read my blogs, you’ll notice that I frequently use the term hero to describe the protagonist, or main character of a script. Many of the people I learned from and have studied choose hero as their preferred term-Michael Hauge, Eric Edson, Chris Vogler, still others choose to say protagonist. It’s important to note that those of us who say hero in reference to the protagonist have chosen this term not because the hero always acts heroically, but because the word represents the hero of any given story-whether that hero is really a heroine, a tragic hero, or never really is heroic or admirable at all.

There is a difference between acting heroically when the need arises and being the hero of a screenplay. The hero of the script is the person who moves the story forward and causes the events in the story to take place as a result of their attempt to achieve a goal. The hero, in this sense, is not necessarily the most heroic or admirable character in the story. The hero may have no special powers or traits that make him or her special. The hero may be a jerk that only has a few minor redeeming qualities. The hero may turn the other way and act cowardly when an opportunity to save someone comes along. The hero of your script is not necessarily a superhero or someone who would save a kitten from a burning building. They are simply, the main character who moves the story forward and causes the action of the story to occur. The hero of your screenplay cannot be reactionary or passive, and cannot wait for others to prompt him or her to action at every turn.

Conversely, the antagonist may also be called the nemesis or villain, when in reality they may be a pretty nice guy. As long as they are opposing the hero, they are playing the role of the villain in the story. Just as Wicked twisted the story of The Wizard of Oz to make the traditional villain the hero, your story may be about a bad guy working to achieve a goal against the forces of the good guys. Your hero in screenplay terms might not be a hero at all, while his or her nemesis might be a true hero outside of the definitions of screenwriting and the context of your story.

As long as you’ve made your hero likable and sympathetic enough that the audience is rooting for their success, the goal they are pursuing does not have to be an honorable one. The so-called hero of many gangster, crime, or teen comedies is often someone we would not admire or wish to win in real life, and not someone we would normally call a hero in the same way that we would call a soldier, police officer, or teacher a hero.

The character leading the action of the story is the hero, no matter how nefarious that action may be.  The Godfather movies get the audience to root for people who we would not want to see succeed in real life. We get behind ruthless killers who perpetrate crime and corruption. In Gone in 60 Seconds we like the “heroes” who are car thieves and want them to win, even though they are committing a crime that in real life we would not admire. In Ocean’s Eleven we want the group of con artist swindlers to rob the casino, despite the fact that it is morally and ethically wrong. Like the kids at school, we love Ferris Bueller and want him to get away with ditching school and fooling all the adults around him, but Ferris is no hero, and if he were your son or brother in real life, you’d be outraged at his disrespect for authority and concerned about his attitude and morals.

In A Fish Called Wanda, we root for the team of thieves to succeed in their robbery even killing dogs is okay because we’re so on their side and want them to win, but imagine hearing this story on the news-a band of criminals who steal diamonds, betray each other, try to seduce a lawyer to help win their case, and attempt to murder a key witness, and in the process kill her innocent dogs instead-we would be outraged and horrified at the depravity, and no one would call them heroes . A charismatic, charming hero doesn’t have to be heroic or noble at all, as long as we like them and want them to win.

When talking to writers I consult with, or writing these blog posts, I am always using readers, agents, producers and contest judges as the target audience who will be reading and judging your script. When I tell writers what to do or not to do, it is always with the reader, and eventual audience in mind. While it is vital for new screenwriters to focus on the reader and appealing to them to get their script optioned and produced, it is also important to think about actors and how they perceive a script.

Since actors will be the ones eventually bringing your characters to life and reading your written dialogue on screen, focusing on what appeals to them is a good idea. Having an A-list actor attached to your script is one of the many avenues writers can take to getting their story produced. If you happen to be Will Smith’s nephew or Brad Pitt’s housekeeper, and you can get them to read and love your script and want to star in it, you’re better off than someone who won a contest or got a reader to recommend their script.

I asked one of my actor friends to answer some questions for me about character descriptions and the type of characters that appeal to her as an actress.

Q: When reading a script, do you pay attention to the character description or do you get a sense of the character from reading the whole story? Do you consult with the director to determine how to play a certain role or do you go by the writing and your own instincts?

A: When reading a script- a character’s description or character “breakdown” is often used to inform the rest of the script.  Mainly though, an actor will infer as much as they can from the actual text, when the actor has the opportunity to read the whole script.

Character breakdowns are very important outside of that because they are what is passed along to big name agents or posted on the casting websites to get submissions from agents of their actors- so if it doesn’t speak to them in some way- they may not get submitted

I don’t really know how much of that goes on though when you become a larger name- though my guess is that a script and character breakdown would be passed along to said big name actor and the description of the character could completely turn them off to reading the rest of the script if it is something that would be completely out of left field for them to play.

A lot of times the actor does the initial decision making of how they are going to play the scene/character in the scene and then the director will change up their performance accordingly to ensure it matches the rest of the movie.  Though there can be a rehearsal process initially where this type of stuff is hashed out- but mainly it is up to the actor to bring their concept of the character/their essence to the role and then the director helps to inform their decisions.

Let me offer a disclaimer… all productions/directors work differently, this is just stuff that I have gleaned from my daily life as an actor and the seminars/classes/workshops I attend.

Q:  What type of adjectives can writers use to help you understand how to play a character? Are there certain words that make you understand the essence of the character and how to portray them? Are there certain words that make it difficult or don’t help you at all?

A: This is a tough one because I don’t know specifically a word or words that would be confusing.  I can say the more specific about the character the description could be the better. The more generic and overarching a description the more generic and esoteric the character will be played OR the more the actor will have to base their character on their own thoughts about the script.

Q: What type of character gets you excited about a role? What type of character is cliched and/or boring?

A: This one is going to be different based on the actor. There are “cliched” character types that some people really excel at and enjoy playing whereas others may have been there done that and choose to do something meatier.  I think every actor has a different idea of what their dream roles are and that they probably run the gamut of types.

Q: What can a writer do in describing a minor character that gives you something to go on and enough description to inject personality into the role, even if it’s only a few words of description in the script?

A: In my opinion, the minor characters shouldn’t have to purposely inject personality into the role.  The minor characters are there to support the major characters agenda.  They will generally be cast pretty close to type- so they will be pretty in line with a particular actors essence.

Q: Any other thoughts you have on characters and roles, specifically the words writers use to describe the character and anything the writer can do at the script stage of the filmmaking process to make a role more or less appealing, or more or less clear to the actor.

A:  I would have to say- especially now at the beginning of my career… the roles that speak to me most are the ones that are the most like me but in a different context/situation.   Mainly because I know that those are the types of roles that I would get… it’s not until much further into one’s career will they hire you and train you to be a kung fu artist because they want you to be in their movie. (Right now, they would just hire a kung-fu artist- they wouldn’t bother hiring me to teach me)- does that make sense?

New screenwriters, particularly those who have studied English, creative writing or literature, tend to get too verbose and wordy in the scripts in an attempt to use proper grammar and the flowery, poetic language favored in prose writing.

Screenwriting should be as terse, concise, and brief as possible while still using vivid details to convey images, tone and emotion clearly. One of the reasons screenwriters get overly wordy is in their attempt to write properly structured sentences. Grammar and spelling are important, but sentence fragments are your friend here. Don’t worry about what your English teacher would say about your screenwriting, this is an entirely different medium, and the best screenwriting often uses incomplete fragmented sentences to not only quickly convey an image, but to keep up the pace and tone of an exciting, quickly moving story.

The more professional scripts you read, the more you’ll see that each screenwriter has their own unique style and voice. Shane Black will be different than Charlie Kauffman, who is different than Kevin Smith who is different than William Goldman. None of them will sound like any writing you’d read in a novel or stage play. Here are some examples of fragments that work well to vividly convey an image while remaining short and concise:

From The Princess Bride, by William Goldman

THIS KID (which he uses here as its own slugline/shot)

Lying in bed, coughing. Pale, one sick cookie.

Or the grandfather:

Kind of rumpled. But the eyes are bright.

From Adaptation, by Charlie Kaufman:

Endless barren landscape. No sign of life.

Describing Susan Orlean’s apartment:

Late night street. The click-click of typing.

The images they have chosen are visual and clear, but not long and drawn out. You can even use metaphors and similes, as long as they are brief and clearly the best way to describe the person, place or action. Some grammar rules should be followed-you won’t impress anyone by misusing homonyms, idioms or improperly using their, they’re and there or your and you’re, but when it comes to fragments, go nuts as long as the sentence is still clear and the reader will know what you are talking about. If it isn’t your style or seems to clash with the tone of the story, you don’t have to use fragments. And if you’re uncomfortable using them don’t.

Read as many scripts as you can get your hands on, and note how the writers use words to convey their story. Complete sentences aren’t necessary and aren’t always the most effective way to convey an image or the tone your story requires. Don’t be afraid of breaking the rules you learned in your English classes, this is screenwriting, not English.

As a screenwriter, heck as a human being, I’m constantly asked what my favorite movie is. I’ve never been able to narrow it down to one, though there are several that I would mention as my favorites. I’m listing my top 15 here, in alphabetical order, so no other preference will be implied, because I like each for different reasons, and they are from such different genres that I don’t think comparison is fair, and I cannot commit to one favorite, even of these 15.

This is a completely subjective list (you’ll see, especially in the honorable mention list that I’m unfairly biased by my love of Nicole Kidman) based on my opinion and is in no way meant to represent a list of the most significant or best films ever made, though some here are, while some are fun fluff. At their core, these are all movies that successfully entertained and moved me, which is what films are made to do.

The Age of Innocence (1993) – One of my favorite books and favorite movies. This story is such a poignant and raw telling of unrequited love and the depth of emotion teeming beneath the surface of a tightly wound society obsessed with custom and tradition. There is more passion and emotion in the chaste, slight touch of a hand in this story than there is in all the explicit, graphic sex scenes in some less compelling films.

Casablanca (1942)-This film is touted as one of the greatest of all time for a reason. It’s excellent in every way, and the unrequited, agonizing love story at the heart of the film is what makes it so powerful and so much more than just another movie about the war.

Elf (2003)-This movie is so fun, cute and infectiously sugary (or more appropriately, syrupy) sweet there’s nothing not to like unless you’re a serious cynic. I like my Christmas movies sappy and romantic, the rest of the year can be reserved for cynicism. Will Ferrell was born to play Buddy the Elf, he is absolutely adorable as an innocent, warm and loving man-child.

The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)-Excellent, modern non-romanticized love story that, like It’s a Wonderful Life, adeptly explores the ramifications of someone no longer existing, and in this case, what that means for love and how strong feelings can help you hold onto something or someone that you are inexplicably drawn to.

Grease (1978)-I detest the message in Grease-in order to get the guy and fit in with the cool kids, you should give up who you are and dress and act trashy so everyone will like you. But, it’s not meant to be a morality play, and I can’t deny that the movie is amazingly fun to watch, and the songs always get me to sing along.

It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)-I love Christmas and adore sweet happy-ending Christmas movies. This classic is one of the best movies ever made, Christmas or not.

Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003)-I know that’s really three movies but I am counting them as one. The books stand alone as amazing stories and truly great works of fiction. The way that they were adapted this successfully is a testament to the filmmakers, actors, writers and everyone else involved in producing these epic and amazing films.

Love Actually-One of the sweetest, funniest romantic comedies ever made, it’s skillfully done, interweaving several different stories without losing the overall message, and managing to spend enough time with each character to get the audience fully involved in their small part of the story. I am a fan of warm fuzzy love stories, andthis film explores several different versions of love-focusing on not only romantic love but unrequited love, sisterly love, lust, friendship, and familial love.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)-I love Nicole Kidman, and the amazing visuals, music and costumes in this movie make it one of my all-time favorites. I love this movie so much that I chose Come What May for our first dance at my wedding. As a screenwriter, however, I have to admit that the story is not the most complex or compelling one out there, but it is good, and it definitely works, even if it is a little derivative and cliché. This film is a great example of how so many things come together to make a film successful-while the story is the foundation the rest of the parts are also vital to a film’s success.

The Princess Bride (1987)-Classic, amazing fairy tale with a modern twist. The story is traditional yet interesting, the characters are lovely, charming and engaging. It’s funny, romantic but not too sentimental, and always fun to watch.

Sense and Sensibility (1995)-Jane Austen was a master at romantic comedy well before Hollywood existed, and this adaptation is one of my favorites. The cast is excellent, the story works just as well on screen as it does in the novel.

Sleeping Beauty (1959) -I’m a huge Disney fan, a regular Disneyland goer, and way back before I decided on screenwriting seriously considered pursuing a career as an animator. My other great love in life, after writing, is art, so I have a special place in my heart for animation. The story of Sleeping Beauty has always appealed to me since I was a child, and I adore the stylized animation used in this Disney classic. It’s beautiful to look at and interesting to watch, with more suspense, drama, and real action than some of the other older classic Disney princess films.

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)-An amazing film, so poignant and dramatic, with a superb cast, engaging story, and wonderful acting. There is something immensely compelling and emotionally raw in how Blanche suffers her mental breakdown, and the sexual tension and dysfunction between Blanche and Stanley is an interesting study of men and women and restraint and passion. Marlon Brando and Vivien Leigh are legends for a reason, and here you’ll see why (you’ll also see proof that Marlon Brando was drop dead gorgeous in his younger days).

Toy Story (1995)-I’ve written about this movie before, but I need to mention again what a great example of good filmaking it is. The animation was groundbreaking and helped establish computer animation as its own wildly successful sub-genre, for that alone Toy Story deserves respect. But whether it had been animated or not, the story is what makes this film a classic. The characters, though toys, have real problems, complex personalities and face enormous obstacles in pursuit of a goal. The structure of this film is perfect, and the hero is constantly challengedand made to work for his success. It’s also ridiculously entertaining and fun, as all good Disney animated movies are.

When Harry Met Sally (1989)-The dialogue and easy rapport between Harry and Sally help make it a great film. The chemistry between Harry and Sally builds gradually, but it is always there. Their witty banter and gentle teasing, the way the two get along so well and the amount of time it takes them to realize they are in love with each other in addition to being best friends reminds me of my own personal life.

Honorable Mention:

Australia (2008)

Batman (1989)

Batman Forever (1995)

Batman Returns (1992)

Chinatown (1974)

Far and Away (1992)

Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Little Shop of Horrors (1986)

The Notebook (2004)

Now and Then (1995)

The Others (2001)

Pleasantville (1998)

Return to Me (2000)

Return to Oz (1985)

Roxanne (1987)

Schindler’s List (1993)

The Shop Around the Corner (1940)

Shopgirl (2005)

Sideways (2004)

Top Gun (1986)

Twelve Monkeys (1995)

Shutter Island was not just good, it was phenomenal. Watching such a truly great film, a film reminiscent of some of the greatest films made during the Golden Age of Hollywood was a truly exciting experience. It feels noir, it feels like Hitchcock, it feels like every truly great movie you’ve ever watched wondering “Why don’t they make films like this anymore?” all wrapped around an unexpected but perfectly logical twist ending every bit as exciting and intriguing as M. Night Shyamalan’s first (and in my opinion only) successful twist ending. Scorsese does everything right, and Shutter Island lives up to and exceedes the hype and anticipation surrounding this newest project with Leonardo DiCaprio.

Everything comes together to make this film the immense success that it is. The direction, as to be expected, is superb. The musical score perfectly complements the direction to create an eerie sense of foreboding and mystery that leave you feeling as confused and anxious as Leonardo DiCaprio, who is, as usual, excellent. Even the weather is used to help build the emotional suspense and intensity the audience feels along with the characters while watching the story unfold.

Of course, at the heart of all this greatness is the story. All of the amazing direction, acting, lighting and music wouldn’t work at all if there were significant flaws in the story. And thankfully, there are none. The story is perfectly structured to create an intense sense of anticipation, suspense, and emotional involvement in the characters and their plight. Our hero is immediately identifiable, and reveals an emotional trauma from his past in a way that at first feels formulaic in how common a device it has become, but later comes into play in a very surprising and unique way that works to enhance the story. There are clichés, there are screenwriting and filmmaking  devices we’ve seen hundreds of time, but here, used so skillfully in such talented hands in such an interesting story, they feel more like an homage to filmmaking than a lazy attempt to copy what everyone else has done. You’ll be entertained, moved, and have your faith in America cinema restored.

This may sound like a rather boring topic, but I think learning the history and origins of formatting will help you understand the reasons why proper formatting is so important.

Unlike books, screenplays have only been around since the age of the typewriter. While typewriters may seem like extremely archaic devices to those of us who have grown up with computers, compared to ancient books being written by hand, screenplays are relatively modern literary works. The most basic elements of contemporary screenplay format are holdovers from the early days when scripts were typed on typewriters. The font-Courier, is not just used because it makes the script look as if it were written on a typewriter. Filmmakers are not that nostalgic. Courier is used because it is a monospace font. A monospaced, or fixed-width font is one whose letters each take up the same amount of space on the page. Some fonts are proportional, a w will take up more room than an i. With Courier, each letter takes up the same amount of room, which means that the spacing is consistent and uniform. This is important because of timing. All of the formatting, along with the writing style contribute to a uniform style that keeps the words on the page as close as possible to one minute per page standard. If your formatting varies from these standards, it throws off this ratio. Your 120 page script in Times New Roman 14-point font with three inch margins will not translate into two hours of screen time. A 120 page script in Courier 12-point with the correct margins will, or will come very close.

Margins are also in place to provide consistency in both look and pacing. The origins of margins were to give readers, producers and directors ample room to write notes, and to make a clear distinction between dialogue and action description. Incorrect margins are one of the first things that will jump out to a trained reader and mark your script as amateur work, so make sure you understand and use the proper margins.

There are other picky, odd screenwriting format guidelines that may seem odd, but they are there for a reason. The binding with only two brads is to facilitate the easy unbinding of scripts so that multiple copes may be made. As we move towards a more electronic, paperless age, this may change, but for now, stick to the rules and go with brads-only two brads! Do not ever dream of binding your script in any way other than with brads. Your story will have to be the best thing they’ve ever read to pacify the intern or reader who has to unbind it from some fancy spiral binding, any script bound that way is likely to end up in the trash, unless your uncle is James Cameron, and even then you’re starting out on the wrong foot.

Fancy covers in anything but neutral colors, or, even worse, with illustrations or logos are a red flag of epic newbieness to readers. Your story should be strong enough to stand on its own. Don’t try to show off your graphic design talents or your ideas for casting or marketing your movie. You’re just the writer, and all they want from you is a properly formatted, emotionally engaging, marketable story.

For more on formatting and beginner mistakes to avoid, check out the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences guidelines here.

If you read my post on New Year’s Resolutions for Screenwriters,  you know how important I think reading screenplays can be.  We’re now halfway through the second month of the year, so I wanted to nag you about those resolutions and reiterate why reading screenplays is so essential to your writing career. It is equally important to read produced, professional scripts as it is to read amateur spec scripts. The first will help teach you formatting, style and language, the second will help motivate and inspire you as you see how good or bad your competition is. It’s easy to find professional scripts online, and it’s easy to get your hands on amateur scripts by joining a writer’s group or taking a screenwriting class.

When I’m working on a consultation, it is always clear from page one whether or not the writer has ever read another screenplay. Most of us read books, magazines and newspapers regularly, and probably have throughout most of our lives. People aspiring to be journalists will have read thousands of articles by the time they set out to write their own, and those wishing to become authors of novels will have already spent their lives reading and studying other novels and authors. But screenwriters don’t always see the importance of reading scripts, and often think that watching lots of movies qualifies them to know how to write a screenplay. Watching movies is very important, but reading screenplays in their original form is equally, if not more important. If you don’t have time to do both, read scripts instead of watching films, you’ve probably already watched enough movies and may have never read a screenplay.

We all watch movies, and we have all become experts at understanding and analyzing them. The movie, however, is a drastically different thing than the screenplay that created it. The movie is the finished project, a collaborative work that involves hundreds of different people. The way the movie works is not based only on the script, but the work of the director, the lighting and camera angles chosen, the actors, the clothes they wear, their makeup and hair, the sound effects and score, the special effects. The way a movie makes you feel might be influenced by who you watch it with. If you go to a theater on a first date, you may be too nervous or self-conscious or excited by the person you’re with to fully focus on the movie and feel the emotions you would have if you had been alone. If you have an aversion to or a love for an actor in the film, you might judge it based on that person, and not fairly critique the story and the acting because of your bias. You might be such a fan of the director that you think anything they do is utter perfection, and not bother paying attention to the story because you’re so enamored of their use of angles and shots and lighting that nothing else matters.

Reading a script, like reading a novel, is generally a solitary activity that allows you to fully focus on the story and the words the writer uses. There are no actors to bring awful dialogue to life. The dialogue stands alone, black and white on the page, good or bad based on how it is written and nothing else. The story will either intrigue or bore you, it is what it is and has nothing but white paper and black typeface to make it interesting. No lighting or music will enhance it, and you are free to judge it on its own merit. You can easily put down the script if it bores you or read it all in one sitting if it fascinates you. Reading a script will help you realize what you like about a story and what you don’t without being influenced by the myriad effects a finished film has to enhance and intensify the experience.

Reading screenplays will also teach you what is appropriate and what is not. Formatting rules are important and there for a reason, and you can learn them and use a screenwriting software program, but until you’ve read so many scripts that your eyes become accustomed to the correct margins, font size and spacing, you won’t catch mistakes or realize what works and what doesn’t. No story analyst has to whip out a ruler to check margins. We have seen so many screenplays that we immediately know if something is off. Readers recognize these mistakes instantly and reject amateurish formatting goofs. When you read screenplays you’ll also become so familiar with formatting that you’ll pick out mistakes in your own work and know what to avoid.

Screenwriting style is distinct and separate from other forms of writing. As with formatting, there are rules to learn, but until you’ve read enough screenplays, you won’t fully understand the rules to the point that they become instinctive and natural. Books and teachers can tell you the rules-write in the present tense, use short declarative sentences, be concise, use an active voice- but until you have read enough screenplays, it will be difficult to find your own voice and truly expand your style because you’ll be so hampered by trying to remember all the rules, and so afraid of breaking them, that your creativity will be stifled.

Check out these great sites for finding scripts to read:

Simply Scripts

Drew’s Script-o-Rama

Awesome Film

Daily Script

Internet Movie Script Database

Join a writer’s group or take a screenwriting class to get your hands on some amateur work, you’ll not only get great practice reading, you’ll get feedback on your own work in exchange for your critiques.

Write On! Online

Keep Writing

Storylink