Saturday, January 28, 2012

Converting Your Script To A Novel

So what does one do with a brilliant screenplay that never sold? For many screenwriters, from amateurs to Academy Award winners, the answer is put it in a drawer and let it gather dust. Unsold scripts have some value as a "writing sample," something to send to producers and studio executives when going out for open writing assignments. However, even a popular unproduced screenplay will never get more than a few hundred readers. Considering the years of work that might go into a single script, that's a depressing reality. I'm liable to get more readers in a single day on my blog than I've had readers for my best unproduced screenplays.


Sometimes screenwriters consider converting a screenplay into a novel, but traditionally, this process has been difficult. Mastering one medium is hard enough. Mastering two is superhuman. Unlike screenplays, novels give far more weight to characters' history and inner life. Unlike screenplays, the quality of a novel is often determined by the writer's stylistic and inventive use of language. Novels tend to be vastly more complex, and often require ten or more hours of reading, while a screenplay can be read in under two. Furthermore, the publishing world has historically been difficult to break into. Getting a book published was not necessarily any easier than getting a movie made. 


However, with the advent of micro-publishers and e-readers, this may all change. What if, by spending a week or two changing formats, a screenwriter could "direct the movie in his/her head" and put it in novel form? Would movie fans like zipping through a book in two hours that gave them the experience of being in a theater watching the finished film? Would movie executives and producers prefer to read spec scripts in novel format? Could screenwriters use the medium to build a fan base online, making their story more attractive to studios?


I had a chance to interview Ed Gray, owner of Aisle Seat Books, who is doggedly pursuing this very idea of publishing scripts in the format of novels.


What is Aisle Seatt Books, and why did you decide to start the company?

 EG: Aisle Seat Books is a new trade imprint of the publishing Graybooks LLC, which publishes in four fields: food, fiction, memoir, and history.

I’ve been an editor and writer all of my career, and like many print people I’ve written a few screenplays, none of which ever sold. When I heard about the Amazon Studios contests, I submitted a script, DANCASTER’S PARDON, which has been a finalist three times. So I became recognizable in that new community of writers and filmmakers and got active in the AS forums where the question arose as to whether or not a writer could publish a submitted screenplay in book or novelization form.

 The legal answer -- it’s directly addressed in the AS Development Agreement -- is an unequivocal “yes.” Once I saw that possibility, I set about figuring out how best to do that using my own DANCASTER’S PARDON as a guinea pig. It worked beautifully, so I then got in touch with the other semifinalists, finalists and winners at AS and invited them to consider letting me publish theirs as well.

About half got back to me to express interest and Aisle Seat Books was launched. Right now we’ve got a dozen titles under contract and bunch more in the pipeline.



What is it like to read an Aisle Seat Book? How is it different than reading a screenplay?

EG: Reading an ASB book is like watching the movie it wants to become except that it plays in your head, not on a screen. It unfolds in the same amount of time --you can read one in 90 minutes to 2 hours. Like a movie or a screenplay, it unfolds in the present tense and includes no “unfilmables.” It’s beat for beat and dialogue line for dialogue line exactly the same as the underlying screenplay. No backstory, digressions, or internal monologue. No omniscient narrator telling the reader what a character is thinking.

What you see is what you get, or, more accurately, what you would see on the screen is all you’re going to get here. The biggest difference from a screenplay is the format -- ASB books look like books, not scripts. Dialogue is inside quotes with “he said” and “she gasped” instead of character slugs and tight indents. Action is described in normal paragraph form. Scene breaks are indicated by simple typographic arrows and the slug lines become descriptive sentences. It flows the way we’re all used to reading light fiction.

The other big difference from a screenplay is that in an Aisle Seat Book, the writer gets to direct with an unlimited production budget and full casting discretion. All those no-no’s in a spec script (physical character description, stage direction, dialogue coaching, beats and pauses, expensive locations, etc.) are all yes-yes’s here. If this little book is going to play like a movie in a reader’s head, it better look and sound like one there, too.

Who is the audience for Aisle Seat Books?

EG: Movie-goers. These are meant to be easy alternatives for movie lovers who find themselves in an aisle seat of a commuter train, bus, or airplane instead of an aisle seat in a theater. They’re also for people who want to have a vote on whether or not this unproduced movie they just enjoyed might actually get made. At the back of every one there’s a link to a web page where each reader can rate the tale and suggest a cast.



What screenwriters should consider publishing a book this way?

EG: How could it help them get a movie made? How could it help them reach an audience? Every good screenwriter should. But not necessarily with every script they’ve got. An Aisle Seat Book would be best for any script with real potential that has not yet caught traction. Aisle Seat Books are commercial products -- they’ll get widespread promotion, will be purchased, read, and discussed by paying customers, and the writer will earn some money, possibly a lot of money. And any ASB title that gets attention in the marketplace will certainly get attention from film rights acquisition folks.

Why should producers or studio executives read an Aisle Seat Book instead of a screenplay?

EG: Because it’s the same story, beat for beat, as the screenplay, but light years easier. Easier to read and much easier to get a copy. It’ll be seconds away from their iPad, Kindle, or phone, synced to each and always available where the exec left off reading. Plus there will be no releases to obtain or potential defenses to mount. They’ll just be buying a book, and a really cheap one at that. Right now an ASB ebook is $4.99 or less.

What does a screenwriter have to do to publish a book through Aisle Seat.

EG: Convince me it’s good. We’re an old-school, traditional book publisher in that regard. Writers don’t choose us, we choose writers. We pay very high royalties. If I decide to take on a title, we do all the work and front all the expenses.



What has been your most popular book so far?

EG: Some are selling better than others, but it’s way too soon to highlight them at the expense of the others. We’re still at a very early stage, building out awareness, so measuring popularity at this stage would be a bit like talking about audience metrics from a movie’s early film festival appearances rather than from its eventual box office. We’re barely past the focus group testing stage. But so far it really looks good across the board.

What is your relationship with Amazon Studios?

EG: Aisle Seat Books has none. As an individual I’m a contest entrant with three uploaded scripts. AS has been fully aware of Aisle Seat Books since I first proposed it and after hearing my pitch has unofficially indicated its general support of the concept, but beyond that we’re entirely separate and independent with no business affiliation, formal or informal. Of course the books are sold by Amazon, so in that sense I guess we’re semi-related. Second cousins by marriage or something like that.

What is the future of Aisle Seat Books?

EG: We’ll see. Right now it looks unlimited. But there are some near-term logistical barriers to beat down or evade, especially with our trade paperback versions. The old line large book publishers all got big not by carefully curating good books but by getting very good at manufacturing, warehousing, distributing, and controlling unsold returns of vast quantities of printed books. Ebooks and print-on-demand are now severing that money tree at the roots. It’s dying but not dead, and those with a lifeblood stake in its continuance defend its branches staunchly. Newcomers wanting to climb aboard and snack on a bit of that fruit don’t find many helping hands offering a boost. The answer, of course, is to find some fertile soil and plant some new trees. That’s what we’ll be doing in 2012.



What is the process of turning a screenplay into a book? What must the screenwriter keep in mind?

EG: The process is almost purely mechanical, since the hard part -- the structure, dialogue and action -- are already in place in a polished sequence that works. It’s a finished story. All that has to be done is to get rid of the screenplay-specific elements like slug lines and varying indentations. It takes a couple of working days.

The best way I've found to attack the mechanics of it is to make a new copy of the script in whatever software you use, then select all and change it all to "action" or whatever your software calls a simple paragraph describing action. Now you've got the whole thing set in prose margins. Export to Word as plain text or RTF. In Word, you then go through and (1) change all your slug lines to simple descriptive sentences preceded by ">>" as a standalone line indicating a scene change (the arrows in the paperback), and (2) delete all the dialogue character name slugs and enclose the dialogue inside quotation marks, adding "he said" or "she said" or "said Glenn" as appropriate for clarity.

The art form is in figuring out when to name a character. In a script you have to on character introduction, but that's for casting and dialogue ID. In a normal novel you can name a character any time because in a novel you can do anything you want. But an ASB book is a written movie that unfolds as if the reader is watching instead of reading -- only "filmables" are allowed. So when the blonde with the broken nose walks into the room, she's "a blonde with a broken nose," but not yet "Nancy" because that's all the audience can know at that point. Only after she's named onscreen can you call her "Nancy" in the book. BUT there are exceptions: Because your leads will be played by recognizable actors, you can name them right away, as you'll see I did with John Dancaster. There is wiggle room, but you'll find that using descriptions rather than names for minor characters is one of the real beauties of this format: Readers don't lose track of who's who the way a script reader sometimes does -- the blonde with a broken nose is the blonde with a broken nose, not "Wait, who is Nancy again?"

That, by the way, is another reason studio execs would do well to read the ASB version of a spec.

Sean Hood's take:

Having read several of the titles available at Aisle Seat Books, I can honestly report that Ed may be on to something. The novel format is much easier and more enjoyable to read than the screenplay format, and an Aisle Street Book actually gives the reader a BETTER sense of what it would be like to watch the movie.


The key is that the screenwriters aren't trying to compete with J.K. Rowling or Cormac McCarthy. The book is still a prose form of a movie; it just mimics a novel instead of a stage play. Since most movies rely on "underlying material" such as a graphic novel, a magazine article, or traditional novel, it actually may make more sense to read and evaluate potential movies this way.


My only criticism of the process is that I think that writers need to spend more that a few days switching formats. I think about two weeks would be necessary to "direct the movie in your head," adding all those nuances of image, sound, and performance that are key to the experience of watching a film, but are traditionally left out of movie scripts. I also am not a fan of the arrows used as transitions. It "takes me out" so to speak.


But the takeaway has to be that this is an exciting new option for frustrated scribes, and that a good story, well told, will always shine...regardless of format.


P.S. I apologize for the simplified format of this blog. Blogger is giving me terrible trouble, so I'm in the process of moving to wordpress.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Contagion 2: Sundance

Pitch: All the major executives, producers, agents, writers, and filmmakers descend on Park City where they are are packed into tiny theaters, crowded parties, and taxis. Everyone hugs, talks and shakes hands spreading a deadly virus, which starts as a "terrible cold" but ends with sudden brain fever and death. Within the ten days of the festival, all of Hollywood is dead, and there are no more movies produced in America. The public goes back to reading books.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Why do so many movies fail the Bechdel Test?

For a movie to pass The Bechdel Test, it must:

1. include at least two women...
2. who have at least one conversation...
3. about something other than a man or men.

This seems like a rather low bar and yet about half of all movies fail this test (http://bechdeltest.com/statistics/).

This question was orriginally posted on Quora; here is my answer to it:
Interestingly enough, most Horror movies (for which the primary target audience is young women) pass the Bechdel Test. Also, the movie Conan The Barbarian 3D passes the Bechdel Test, barely, because I changed one of the villains to a woman (Marique, played by Rose McGowan) and gave her a scene with the leading lady in which they talk about resurrecting a dead witch. Go figure.

I would argue that the Bechdel Test reflects what movies get greenlit and what audiences have traditionally shown up to see, not a flaw in the screenwriting or even the development/rewrite process.

In my own crreer, I've written several unproduced screenplays in which the lead character, the main supporting characters and the villain, are women. An example is Blackwell, a thriller based on a real event in the life of Nellie Bly, one of the first female investigative journalists. The movie, set in 1888, follows Nellie as she fakes insanity in order to go undercover as an inmate at Blackwell's Island, an impenetrable women's asylum. However, once inside she discovers that it is nearly impossible to get out.

Although A-list actresses such as Ellen Page and Charlize Theron have shown interest in the script, the fact that it has a "female lead" makes it difficult for my producers to set up at a studio.

The factors that make a large number of films that make it to the screen fail the Bechdel Test are:
1. Most Hollywood films have a male lead character. Statistically speaking (and Hollywood loves statistics) movies with female leads open significantly worse at the box office than movies with male leads.

2. Most (primary) villains are male. Although fabulous female villains to appear in movies, the majority of villains (people who are powerful, sadistic, violent, and otherwise bad) tend to be male. Perhaps men are generally thought to be more threatening.

3. "Character actors" tend to be male. The quirky supporting character with a funny nose, strange voice, or flabby belly, are typically dudes. Audiences (again, statistically speaking) like their actresses young and pretty. There isn't a "Steve Buscemi" among female character actors.
4. "Best Friend" or sidekick characters are usually men. Female leads sometimes have male "best friend" characters (often gay,) but Male Leads almost always have male "best friend" characters.

5. The most popular "hot female stars" (i.e. the one's on the cover of magazines) are in their twenties to thirties and most often play the "love interest." The most popular "hot male stars" (the ones on the cover of magazines) tend to be in their thirties and forties, and play lead characters.

6. Items 1 through 5 mean that most scenes between two characters in a movie will have at least one man.

7. Since protagonists and antagonists in movies are usually men, and a scene between two women is likely to be "about" the protagonist or antagonist, as they are the major characters in the story, conversations between two women are likely to be about a man or men.

8. Movies made for women tend to be Romantic Comedies or Romantic Dramas. Thus, the subject of conversations is most often tend to be about romance and relationships, i.e. men.

So it nothing to do with the screenwriting process, and everything to do with which screenplays are chosen to get made.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

How To Make a Better Science Video

Originally posted by Liz Kalaugher on environmentalresearchweb.org:

The S Factor: how to grab attention with your science videos

 And no, that doesn’t mean including footage of people attending exercise classes. The S Factor under scrutiny in this blog is the S Factor Workshop on how to make successful science videos, held at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in December. The event saw a panel of Hollywood professionals critique ten entries, picked from a total of 42 submissions by hopeful researchers.

 On the panel were marine biologist-turned film-maker Randy Olson, author of Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style, and his former film-school classmates Sean Hood, now a screenwriter with credits such as horror movie Halloween: Resurrection and Conan the Barbarian to his name, and Jason Ensler, co-producer and director of Franklin & Bash, and director of episodes of Gossip Girl, Chuck and Psych.

 The trio were cheerfully disparaging of scientists’ storytelling skills, saying that many of the videos took the approach “here’s our lab, here’s our kit, come see us some day”. But story is key - “think of it as making a trailer for science”.

 One exception was San Jose State University’s Green Ninja. The panel felt this video showed good storytelling, with a character who clearly has a problem - his oversized and ever-growing feet - that he needs to solve.



A useful technique, as detailed by Nicholas Kristof, is to follow the story of one individual and, ideally, to reach an uplifting conclusion. According to Olson, Kristof argues that an article on death is depressing but an article on people fighting a disease engages. In the same way, a story about coral deterioration could be depressing or dull, but a story about a man interested in coral can catch people’s attention.

Since film is good for conveying emotion and humour but not for transmitting information, it can be useful to break your complex content down to a simple story. According to Ensler, it takes time to develop stories but they can be overdeveloped and lose some of their original spark. Hood stressed the need “to keep hold of that nugget of awe”, and that scientists should “inspire the eleven-year-old in all of us”.

It’s also worth considering changing the order of events from a “that happened, then that happened, then this happened” type of narrative. Replacing “ands” in the storyline with “buts” and “therefores” can change the direction of the story and add tension, the film experts explained. For example, in Volcano from Space, the storyline could have been “We monitor volcanoes but they’re hard to see so we need new techniques.” Arguing two sides of an issue can also create a good story.



Ensler recommended that researchers set up cameras whenever they are in the field so that they have plenty of interesting footage to use in their videos. But interesting is not enough; if somebody says interesting after Hood’s latest film pitch, he knows “I’ve failed, because I haven’t grabbed them emotionally”. People are most engaged by people talking, not things, he said, so it’s useful to show a person alongside a piece of scientific kit. Because watching a person speak in real-life is different to seeing them onscreen, if you’re filming a talking head you need multiple cameras and different angles, as per the TED talks, to stop it from being boring.

That said, many of the films submitted began with somebody speaking to camera - the panel felt there was no need for this. According to Olson, it’s good to arouse and fulfill - grab the audience’s attention, make them want, then fulfil their need. For example the Mata Eruption video from JISAO (Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean) could have put its amazing video footage of an undersea volcanic eruption right at the start of the film before answering the questions the footage raises. Alternatively, Ensler said the team could have made the audience want by promising them they were going to see some great footage but first explaining why it’s hard to obtain.



As film is a visual medium it can be helpful to see if you can get the gist of a short film without listening to the soundtrack, the professionals explained. Indeed, one of the most well-received videos - Perspective, which used animated graphics to indicate the relative energy release of large earthquakes throughout history - contained no sound at all, and was praised for its Hitchcockian withholding of information from the audience. In summary?

Every picture (should) tell a story…

Sunday, December 4, 2011

A Filmmaker's Life: Digital Hollywood NYC 2011 - Part 2


Reprinted from Ted Hope's Blog: Hope For Film

TED HOPE: Jacques Thelemaque returns today to complete the download of his lessons learned from Digi Hwood knowledge fest. What's the future? Does anyone know? This much I DO know: I would love to have one person cover for our HopeForFilm community all the film related seminars over the course of the year, be they in NYC or LA, and compare what can be gained from these conferences and how they vary. I wonder if we can find a sponsor... I wonder more if we could find one person who can endure -- even with the enticement of tasty sandwiches!

Digital Hollywood NYC 2011 - Part 2
by Jacques Thelemaque

The second day of Digital Hollywood started earlier, but I was there on time, excited by the film-specific panels and those bagels, croissants, muffins and pastries with my name on them....READ MORE

A Filmmaker's Life: Digital Hollywood NYC 2011 - Part 1


Reprinted from Ted Hope's Blog: Hope For Film

TED HOPE: Conferences abound in the US Film Biz and sometimes seems like another example of industries that still financially prosper in a field that has regularly been headed downwards (18% drop in theatrical attendance this year anyone?). Yet, as corporate focused as they often are, they do point to a tendency to continued education. Perhaps most hopefully they point to a willingness for our industry to evolve and embrace some aspect of change. We sent Filmmakers Alliance (link) founder and past HopeForFilm contributor (link) Jacques Thelemaque to Digital Hollywood NYC to get the perspective for the truly free film community.

Digital Hollywood NYC 2011 - Part 1
by Jacques Thelemaque

I don't go to seminars and conferences as often as I used to. Mostly because getting anything beyond a sales pitch out of them is like panning for gold. I've lost patience with sitting through hours of presentations to get a single nugget of new/good information. There are exceptions, however (such as Ted and Christine Vachon's excellent master class which I will post a blog about soon), so I was genuinely excited for the opportunity to attend Digital Hollywood NYC last week. READ MORE.


Friday, December 2, 2011