FREE E-BOOK: Top 10 Reasons Why It's a Great Time to be a Filmmaker Vol 1

My publisher for The Moral Premise, Michael Wiese, came up with a promotion idea for a free e-book. It came out today: Top 10 Reasons Why It's a Great Time to be a Filmmaker Vol 1.

Sure, it's a great promotion for his filmmaking books, but it's more than that. A lot more. Fifty of his authors, including myself, responded. We wrote fifty short chapters that promise to inspired storytellers and filmmakers for years to come.

You can get it for FREE by going to Michael Wiese Productions.com. On the front page you'll see the promotion. All you have to do is give them your email address or confirm it, or buy a product from their website, and you'll get an email to download the e-pub free of charge.

My contribution, THE INSPIRING PROVIDENCE OF FILMMAKING, you'll find near the front on page 11.

Dr. Henry Russell On the Role of Cinema in The Great Conversation

An Interview with Henry Russell, Ph.D.
by Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D.

Henry Russell

Henry Russell, Ph.D. is a classics educator, headmaster of St. Augustine’s Homeschool Enrichment Program (founded with his wife Crystal), and president of the SS Peter and Paul Educational Foundation. He is known particularly for The Catholic Shakespeare Audio Series. His writings have been published in various journals.

=========

STAN WILLIAMS: What do you make of this idea that narrative cinema can participate in The Great Conversation.

HENRY RUSSELL: Well, film is primarily a visual and auditory medium. It can’t easily handle the complexity of philosophical ideas that words allow. So, film demands that the director and producers spend enough time with the ideas to understand them, and then pick which ideas to make the movie around. Filmmakers have to know which 10% of a book to make into a movie. The selection process probably needs to be more collaborative. Because what will happen is that one person, who knows the ideas really well, selects the book’s topic, and the director in exasperation says, “Good, God! How am I going to visualize that?” Consequently, directors default to the ideas that are easiest to visualize. And, as a result society experiences this discontinuity between a good book and an important film.

STAN WILLIAMS: Is there an example in modern cinema?

HENRY RUSSELL: Sure. Peter Jackson in THE LORD OF THE RINGS (TLOTR) had generally no idea what major ideas Tolkien was getting at, such as the patient certainty of Aragorn and his complete confidence in his destiny. The film’s portrayal of Aragorn is one of a man with an identity crisis. Another thing Jackson misses is the power of words. When said relatively slowly and cumulatively, words can change the human heart, and define eventually what is true.  Literature, unlike philosophy and theology, functions by the accumulation of words. Like chipping away at a stone, a little bit at a time. But a film functions by large scale visual declarations. In the TLOTR books the telling of tales to each other is a big deal. But that doesn’t communicate easily to film. When characters talk all the time you lose the line of action that drives the film.

STAN WILLIAMS: Because you’re telling not showing.

HENRY RUSSELL: Yes, but it’s the telling that is how people function.

The Kite Runner and VALUES TABLES

Dir: MARC FORSTER
Writers: DAVID BENIOFF (SP), and
Khaled Hosseini (N)

AMIR: Khalid Abdalla (adult), Zekeria Ebrahimi (young)
HASSAN: Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada
BABA: Homayoun Ershadi
SORAYA: Atossa Leoni
RAHIM KHAN: Shaun Toub
ASSEF: Abdul Salam Yusoufzai (adult), Elham Ehsas (young)
GENERAL TAHERI: Abdul Qadir Farookh
SOHRAB: Ali Danish Bakhtyari (Hassan's son)
ZAMAN: Mohamad Amin Rahimi (Orphanage Director)


IMBD's KITE RUNNER

(It was late when I posted this, so please advise of typos.)

Synopsis 

Amir, Baba and winning kite.

It's 1978 in Kabul, Afghanistan. A crazy place with humans trying to find dignity in the midst of hell. A puppet Communist government thinks it's in power. But the Islamic Mullah's really control the the people through intimidation. At the same time the Afghan guerrilla Mujahideen movement is born. The Russians invade the next year. When the Afghans defeat Russia in 1989 killing 40,000-50,000 Soviets, with help from U.S. shoulder fired rockets,  there is more fighting.

In 1992 there are elections under a tenuous run Mujahideen Islamic State. More fighting. In 1994 the Taliban with their version of extreme Islamic fundamentalism (believe or die, or die because we don't like you -- tyranny) they make rubble out of Kabul. There is Pakistani and Iranian interference. More fighting. Mass killings by the Taliban, and the Hazaras sect is massacred.

God tries to slow the Taliban down by bringing Earthquakes to the country that kill tens of thousands. But the Taliban tries to out-do God. Osama bin Laden makes plans from within Afghanistan, attacks the U.S. (NY and Washington), setting up the U.S. attack in 2001. This is a very crazy place, and the irrationality of it all is the reason many didn't want the U.S. to get involved, even to stop the Taliban -- who seem to have been infected with the same demons that possessed the Nazis.

Not Without My Daughter

Director: Brian Gilbert
Writers: Betty Mahmoody (book), William Hoffer (book), David W. Rintels

Sally Field as Betty Mahmoody
Alfred Molina as Moody
Sheila Rosenthal as Mahtob

STORY SUMMARY
(This summary includes political observations mostly from the book. The movie leaves out many dramatic beats that help to understand the story's meaning and moral premise.)

NOT WITHOUT MY DAUGHTER is the true story of Betty, an the American-Christian wife of the Americanized and trained Iranian doctor, Sayyed Bozorg Mahmoody, D.O. (Moody), who was born-in-and raised in a strict Islamic family in Iran.  Betty and Moody lived in Corpus Christi, TX and later Alpena, MI, where Moody was an anesthesiologist. They met when he treated her for back pain. When the American backed Shah of Iran (the last of 2,500  years of Persian monarchs) was deposed, allowing the Iranian Revolution on 11 February 1979 (and the rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran), many Iranians longed to go back to Iran. The idea of a strict Islamic state (where men ruled with impunity -- a family level terrorism) is very attractive, in a demonic way, to the male ego.  Moody was one of them, and in the process of re-embracing his Islamic heritage, also embraced the Islamic revolution's anti-American ideology.

Virgins waiting in paradise for Islamic fundamentalist men.

[There is a fundamental anti-conscience aspect to radical Islam where rote ideology supports a culture where suppression of another person's conscience (the inner sense of what is right or wrong) is allowed and encouraged. This is done in order to bring about the outward observance of Islam, if not by free-will, by fear and oppression. It is a culture where the disposition of the heart is meaningless, i.e. the individual's right to determine moral right and wrong is suppressed.  It is a form of tyranny where a few control the lives of many through fear. In Nazi Germany the central figure was a man backed by a political machine. In radical Islam the central figure is a perversion of God's character and a religious machine.  Islam's version of paradise (for a man) promises the attention of virgins when he gets to heaven. This is hilariously parodied in the picture above.]

MOODY by Alfred  Molina

Thus, Moody manipulates Betty to take their daughter back for a 2-week visit to Iran to visit his family, but secretly he has no intention of leaving, or letting them leave the deeply misogynistic culture.  Betty realizes this, in part, because of Moody's involvement in pro-Iranian/anti-American student activism here in the U.S.. She knows Iran is not a pleasant place, especially if you are American and female. But she loves her husband and wants to please him. Upon arrival in Iran, it appears that her worst fears are realized: Moody declares that they will be living there from now on.

Why would Moody (an American trained doctor) stay in a culture that seems to have jumped backwards 1,000 years in terms of hygiene, medicine, science, human rights, freedoms, and basic knowledge about the human condition? Several reasons. (1) It's revealed that his political activities in the U.S. have resulted in his termination from two jobs, in two states, and two different hospital systems -- further resulting in the loss of his Green Card.

[Some may see this as racism here in the U.S. or cultural prejudice. But prejudice is an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand without knowledge, thought, or reason. And there is reason to not trust an overtly active, anti-American doctor, treating American patients, in the American Hospital system, like Moody.]

BETTY by Sally Fields

(2) The second reason Moody relapses to his upbringing is that (as Betty surmises in the book) there is an basic inability of the Islamic culture to think independently -- a trait ingrained by the educational system upon her daughter, where all learning is by rote repetition. There is no opportunity in the system for reasoning or independent thinking, or creativity. In other words the conscience is improperly formed. You are taught only to say and think what is spoon fed to you. This becomes evident in Moody's refusal to do anything his ego does not want him to do, and Moody's cousin who, when in America, refuses to take a entry level position in a bank as a teller. The only job the cousin is willing to consider is an offer to be president of a company. Being the CEO sounds like a creative, take-initiative position, until you realized that the cousin's demand is the product of a rote ideology ingrained culturally into the male ego. The culture, thus, only survives through severe autocracy of various kinds and at various levels.

Betty conscience tells her to return to America. When he finally allows her return he refuses to led their daughter, Mahtob, go back with Betty, insisting that Betty (under the pretense of attending her Father's funeral),  sell their extended American assets (homes and checking accounts) and send the money to Moody in Iran. Moody is desperate for money because his license to practice medicine in Iran has not been approved due to his American training. Nothing from America has any value to the government. And so, with some-half-efforts on the part of her female Iranian friends (who love intrigue, which is brought on by their suppression), Betty is determined to escape from Iran. But the obstacles to taking her daughter with her seem insurmountable.

BOOK vs MOVIE

MAHTOB by Sheila Rosenthal

I often think the book and movie are both good, although movie versions always show less. But in this case, the movie is sub-standard in terms of story telling and production value. Some of it is the director's decision (or budget requirement) to minimize the visuals-on-screen because the Iranian culture is visually minimal. (Shot in Israel.)  Everything is stark, gray, black, and sensual. In the book, even the food is bland and apparently unappetizing.  But the camera angles chosen, framing, lighting, and the "god-awful" music (more German classical than anything Persian or Iranian) was distracting and seemed like a cheap library afterthought. Indeed, some of  the scenes could have used music but were barren. "Barren" does depict the production values. But the acting was very good, especially little Rosenthal as Mahtob. How little kids get their timing and emotional arcs amazes me. Good direction, helps. The screenplays choiceof scenes seemed right, but left out major plot points that would have confused me had I not read the book. Being from Michigan, I was disappointing that Atlanta stood in for it.

THE MORAL PREMISE
Throughout the book, Betty reiterates that her father brought her up to believe: Where there's a will, there's a way. This engenders in Betty, a perseverance in the midst of persecution, that allows her achievement of the goal -- getting out of Iran with her daughter. And the odds and obstacles for the unlikely, common hero are immense -- natural structure for a successful movie.

Now, consider "Where there's a will, there's a way" in light of the cultural artifacts that I've discussed above, namely the autocratic Islamic culture of rote learning and behavior, -- or the training that dislodges a properly formed conscience from what it means to be fully human. In this story, Betty retains or embodies the practice of listening to her (properly formed) conscience (or will) while her antagonists (the autocratic Islamic culture, represented by Moody) embody a rote-mentality (or suppression of the will) and a willingness to live under tyranny.

Thus, this becomes the story's moral-physical premise statement (where "conscience" is understood as the natural, organic, true-to-natural law sense of right and wrong):

Suppression of the conscience leads to tyranny; but

Preservation of the conscience leads to freedom. 

or stated with words from Betty's father:

Suppression of an individuals will leads to tyranny; but

Preservation of an individual's will leads to freedom.

The paradox of all this occurs when one individual's will has the goal of suppressing another person's individual will.

Book Jacket: Mahtob and Betty

Reading the book (and watching the movie) was at the same time a fearful and hopeful experience, that reminded me of my own failings as a man, and the promise of being fully human. It was revealing, satisfying, and even a sacred time of reflection on our world and much redemption is needed.

It reinforces what I write at the end of The Moral Premise: 

Vanquish Fear, Bestow Hope

 

The Pillars of the Earth

The Pillars of the Earth is a emotional book-movie combination of Metaphors and Premises. It is one of those rare marriages of novel and motion picture (i.e. TV mini series with big budgets) that define the concept of epic literature and the motion picture arts. I would classify this with the Lord of the Rings, but without the fantasy. While some historians of 12th Century Western Europe would no doubt whine about it's accuracy, my joy is seeing a story told well, in both mediums. It also reinforces my observation that the best stories are not short, nor limited to 120-page screenplays, or is it 90-110 pages, now?

The MOTION PICTURE (IMBD link)

Eight, 60-min episodes on STARZ or DVD

High production value, fabulous casting, directing and acting and seamless special effects.

Accuracy: Fictional based on real events, but structured for story with a true moral premise.

Directed by: Sergio Mimica-Gezzan

Written by: Ken Follett and John Pielmeier

Starring (L-R, above)

Ian McShane - Bishop Waleran

Rufus Swell – Tom Builder

Matthew Macfadyen – Monk Fr. Philip

Eddie Redmayne – Jack Jackson

Hayley Atwell – Aliena

Donald Sutherland - Bartholomew

It was a year or so ago Pam and I watched the Episodes 1-8 on our Apple Box and big screen display with our nearly voice-of-the-theater speakers. What a great experience. We tried to spread it out over 8 nights, but the production was so well done in every respect, we watched 2 or 3 episodes a night... and then were disappointed when it was over.

Episode Titles:

1. Anarchy

2. Master Builder

3. Redemption

4. Battlefield

5. Legacy

6. Witchcraft

7. New Beginnings

8. The Work of Angels

 The NOVEL (Amazon link)

I'm reading the novel now. I bought a used Library binding, Morrow edition. (I still like paper books, that I can mark up and hold in my hand without running on reserve power half way through a transcontinental flight and then using even more energy off the power grid. Yes, I'm into killing trees...they're a renewable resource and have proven to benefit humankind over the millennium.) Nice smooth, off-white paper, clear serifed font.  I've estimated the word count, for what some say is Follett's most popular novel, at  405,000 words. Bring it on. I love epic stuff that takes a long time to read. Problem is I read before bed, in a nice leather chair in our bedroom. I keeps me up. But, Pam is always asleep across the room when I do this under LED glasses or a focused reading light. In spite of the drama in what I'm reading (last month is was the Padre Pio and Vatican corruption, now it's Medieval rivalries and hypocrisy) , my wife sleeps soundly, safety within eye-sight. I enjoy those times immensely. Deep joy. 

The MORAL PREMISE

But it wasn't until this morning during prayers that I came across (by "accident") what I'm sure was the moral premise or thematic basis for the story. For the first time I happened to read the Canticle of Anna (1 Sam 2:1-10). There, toward the end are these words written thousands of years ago:

The pillars of the earth belong to the Lord; on them he has set the world. He guards the feet of his holy ones, but the wicked perish in the darkness; he grants the wish of him who asks and blesses the years of the just. For it is not by force that a man prevails: the Lord it is who shatters his enemies.

Reading that on my iPhone's iBreviary sent chills up my spine. I played back (in my head) the entire series, and re-read the first sentence of the novel:

The small boys came early to the hanging.

Classic first sentences, like the first image of a movie, can show us a lot. 

Here's stab at the moral premise statement for the story

Wickedness leads to years of darkness; but

Holiness leads to years of blessing

(after generations of hardship and testing, I might add)

The moral-physical premise statement of course, is embedded organically into the 1 Samuel 2 passage, and properly imbued into every one of many chapters of the book, and 8 television movie episodes.  When done right, you can read the statement, and connect it to all the events and actions, heroes and villains, settings, and (especially) motivations. Exciting, focusing stuff about what the story is REALLY about.

The METAPHORS (SHOWING not TELLING)

In all story telling metaphors (showing) always work better than didactic (plain telling). and when you do both, organically, all the better.  Follett's first sentence "The small boys came early to the hanging" paints a picture of evil in high places and its consequence. At first it seems that the evil is whatever the man being hung had done. But it doesn't take long to come to the telling moment in that Prologue -- and how the curse will be passed down to successive generations through the values of the "fathers." Follett doesn't use that word "fathers" but the implication and layered meaning of the term is there.  Here's the passage, faithful reproduced in the movie version. This happens at the base of the gallows as the man is being executed.

    There was a scream, and everyone looked at the girl...

    The girl turned her hypnotic golden eyes on the three strangers, the knight, the monk and the priest, and then she pronounced her curse, calling out the terrible words in ringing tones: "I curse you with sickness and sorry, with hunger and pain; your house shall be consumed by fire, and your children shall die on the gallows; your enemies shall prosper, and you shall grow old in sadness and regret, and die in foulness and agony. . . ." As she spoke the last words the girl reached into a sack on the ground beside her and pulled out alive cockerel. a knife appeared in her hand from nowhere, and with one slice she cut off the head of the cock.

    While the blood was still spurting form the severed neck  she threw the beheaded cock at the priest with the black hair. It fell short, but the blood sprayed over him, and over the monk and the knight on either  side of him.  The three men twisted away in loathing, but blood landed on each of them, spattering their faces and staining their garments.

Enough said. Do you see the showing, both in her telling curse, and the metaphor of her actions. She is not telling us her "feelings" but is painting a visual picture of them.

AND THE PILLARS? The title says a lot. Mankind (especially the male variety) think of themselves as the pillars upon which everything, of any "good," gets done. I know the feeling. I'm a man recovering from rotor cuff surgery in my right shoulder, and something similar but less sever to my right knee. Both sailing injuries. I want and think I should and can do it all. It's humbling when your wife has to dress you. Hopefully, I'll heal... physically, but in the meantime healing of the spiritual kind is working on me -- the consequence of suffering. And that is what The Pillars of the Earth is significantly about -- male, patriarchal egos. The image at the top of this blog (from STARZ TV) is constructed like six vertical pillars (these are the characters about which the story is about). Then there are the pillars of the cathedrals that Tom and others are building... not all successfully (when not properly designed, resulting in death). And then there are the Angels that build the Church. And to make sure you really, really get the connection between the moral decisions, the natural physical consequences of attention to natural law, and the story's metaphors, the final scene (in the movie at least) SHOWS us the corrupt, egomaniac bishop as he takes a suicidal plunge from the properly designed and built pillars of the cathedral.

The pillars of the earth belong to the Lord; on them he has set the world. He guards the feet of his holy ones, but the wicked perish in the darkness; he grants the wish of him who asks and blesses the years of the just. For it is not by force that a man prevails: the Lord it is who shatters his enemies.

ACFW Workshop Slides and Q&A (9-22-11)

I presented a five-hour version of The Moral Premise workshop at the American Christian Fiction Writer's Conference Sept 22, 2011 from 8 AM to 1 PM. In the days following I met with a number of authors and hope-to-be authors helping them beat out their stories.

I was also privileged to sit in on several other workshops, have dinner with super-agent Natasha Kern, and talk with numerous multi-published authors, with 20, 30, and even 50 books to their credit. It was a great few days in St. Louis. Between the questions and answers below I'll post some pictures taken during the trip.

Looking East from our conference meeting rooms

All of the photos in this blog were taken with my iPhone. the conference was held at the Hyatt Regency at the Arch. Thus the pictures of the full arch (like the one at the right) are actually taken through windows in the hallway next to the meeting rooms.

Here are the questions I was handed, some of which I answered in the session, and my answers.

1. On the Emotion Plotting Slide, how do you decide numeric values on each action line, that are used for the graph. (Judy Christie)

Judy, the numbers assigned are subjective and objectively determined. Subjectively, they are based on my sense of how emotionally UP or DOWN the scene will come across to the reader/audience when I'm done editing it. In some scenes/lines the number is my INTENT. In others, it's what it is already. For instance when my protag's husband dies, it's a major DOWNER, when she is able to board the ship safely with her girls to go home, its a minor UPPER. Objectively, the "emotion" I hope my audience will feel is the degree to which they perceive my protag making progress toward the physical goal (positive numbers), or being set up from achieving the goal (negative numbers). I assign a number from -10 to +10 to each scene, and then accumulate a balance, like a checking account balance. It's the balance that is plotted, not the individual scene values.

Inside the Mind of a Hollywood Director: Bitterness, Love, Verisimilitude

An interview with Gavin O’Connor director of WARRIOR

Gavin O'Connor

WARRIOR is a motion picture story about two bitterly estranged brothers who end up fighting in a cage for the mixed martial arts world championship. It is also about their relationship with their father, whom neither can forgive. The violence we see in the cage is visceral. Brothers fight. But more impactful in this story is the spiritual warfare that pits the brothers and their father in a three-way psychological cage. All three are warriors. Yet the movie dares to be about how each of us is called to fight the good fight and be a warrior for love.

Why do Hollywood directors make movies that contain intense violence, offensive language and questionable thematic material, which are the elements that earned WARRIOR its PG-13 rating from the MPAA? Some will object to the film’s realism, calling it gratuitous. But O’Conner would disagree. Why? Because he’s intent on telling the truth about the spiritual warfare that exists in every man. And that includes you.

So, offered below is a different kind of interview with a top Hollywood director. It offers a spiritual and psychological glimpse into a director’s motivation for the kind of tough but true films that someday be may be dubbed the “Gavin O’Connor genre.”

While I have edited out the spoilers from the interview, it will nonetheless make more sense if you’ve first seen the film, or have read a thorough review or synopsis of the story. You can do so HERE.

Gavin O’Connor is truly one of the best director’s in Hollywood, although his filmography is not that long. He’s known for three major films: MIRACLE (2004, starring Kurt Russell) about the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team’s victory over the seemingly invincible Russian squad; PRIDE AND GLORY (2008, starring Collin Farrell, Edward Norton, and Jon Voight) the saga of a multi-generational family of New York cops and moral corruption; and now WARRIOR (2011, starring Joel Edgerton, Tom Hardy, and Nick Nolte).

Stan Williams: We hear about actors asking a director: “What’s my motivation?” Let me turn the tables. What motivated you to make WARRIOR?

Gavin O’Connor: That’s a very difficult question to answer. There were things going on in my life that I knew I wanted to deal with or gain some type of insight or understanding of them. I was really struggling with forgiveness. There were also things that happened in my childhood that I think I was trying to explore through my art. I also have a love of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), and I had never seen it dynamic portrayed in cinema before. So, I thought that was an interesting kind of possibility. Then it started to culminate with this idea, which I called “intervention in cage.”

Stan Williams: Which is a metaphor for what the film is really about…

Gavin O’Connor: Yes. What started to emerge, as I was thinking about the characters, was the idea of one man living in his higher self and someone living in his lower self and a third someone living in his spirituality. Then there is the idea of spiritual warfare. All these things were matriculating in a weird way, and they all started to come out.

Stan Williams: WARRIOR successfully engages audiences with several impossibilities: (a) it’s about two underdog brothers, who have been estranged for years, and (b) and yet they end up fighting each other in the final match for the mixed martial arts world championship. Ironically, it’s (c) their estrangement out of the cage that entangles and embraces them in the cage. While that’s intriguing, what do you do as a writer and director to help the audience embrace such improbabilities and make it seem so real? (1)

Gavin O’Connor: When I walked my co-writer, Anthony Tambakis, through the idea for the movie, he said, “You can’t have these two guys fight each other in the end. How are you going to pull that off?” Well, the way we approached all of this is to only tell the truth. We don’t write it and then shoot what we wrote. What we write becomes the blueprint for months of work-shopping the film with the actors.

Stan Williams: What do you do when you workshop a movie?

Gavin O’Connor: You meet extensively with the actors and you start connecting emotional lines. You start going so deep and dissecting the verisimilitude [the quality of realism in a work of art (3)] of every scene, that if anything seems false you address it. Like, how do we capture the essence of a marriage? How do we do that in the most truthful way? We always try to put everything under a microscope. We call it “non-acting.” For me, the word “acting” has a certain falseness to it. When I hear the word “acting” I always go for “non-acting.” We’re always trying to get to the truth of the scene. If we can keep doing that systematically and consistently throughout the whole film, hopefully, by the time we get to the impossibility [of the story’s plot] we’re so immersed in the emotionality of the piece and the characters, that the audience will want it, desire it, and be convinced of its reality.

Stan Williams: It seems that what you’re talking about is the psychological or moral motivation of the characters — because if you don’t tell the truth about their psychological motivations with respect to natural law, then the audience is going to pick up on that, and they’re not going to identify with the characters.

Gavin O’Connor: Absolutely. That’s exactly it. The characters must be rooted in their true psychological motivations. We’re always putting the microscope on the “want.” What do you want in this scene? And how are you going to get it?

Stan Williams: The Physical Wants and the Psychological Needs.

Gavin O’Connor: Yes. And they have to come from a truthful place. You really have to challenge it and poke it and prod it, because if it’s flimsy at all, it’ll fall like a house of cards.

Stan Williams: I’ll tell you, what you did in both PRIDE AND GLORY and WARRIOR translates incredibly to the screen. How long did you workshop?

Gavin O’Connor: I call it making the movie before you make the movie. With Nick Nolte [Paddy], the dad, we spent months together working on the character. Everyone has to do a biography on their own character. I give them a questionnaire with 100 questions to answer. And I want detailed answers. Because that’s what will inform everything, such as the emotional story lines. Then we start doing backstories on the [characters’] histories because since we’re making a movie about a family, there are things that everyone [among the actors and characters] has their own perspective on about what is true. We spent months doing it.
 
Stan Williams: What inner values are motivating Tommy to fight? Is he really trying to make things right with the Marines? Or is there a deeper motivation? Is he looking for an excuse to find forgiveness with his father?

Gavin O’Connor: The intention is that Tommy’s making a statement against God. He’s rejecting everything good. He’s rejecting love. He’s rejecting beauty. He’s rejecting all that is good in his life. There’s an expression, “Hurt people hurt people.” He’s a man who’s living in a lot of pain. And when you live in pain, it’s easy to inflict pain on others because that’s what you’re feeling yourself. I used to say to Tommy [the actor was Tom Hardy], think about Tommy as a guy who’s hitting a crack pipe.

Stan Williams: What’s that like?

Gavin O’Connor: It’s one of the most godless acts you can do. People who smoke crack experience an immediate high. But it’s a false high that goes away very quickly. It happens very quickly and then it goes away quickly. You’re always chasing it; and it’s so destructive. So, I’d say to Tommy, “When you get into the cage, you need to get high. You need to hit the crack pipe so you can actually experience this godless act that makes you feel good in the moment.”  But once it’s over Tommy has to deal with himself again and ask himself, “Who is this guy who’s living in all this pain?” That’s what I was going for with Tommy.

Stan Williams: By the end of the movie Tommy changes, in a surprising way. I promise not to give away the ending. But where does Tommy begin to change? Where does he start to turn and start to embrace the good like he uncharacteristically embraces his father?

Gavin O’Connor: That’s very perceptive. That’s exactly what’s going on. At the top of the movie Tommy’s waiting on the doorstep and he offers his father a bottle of the brand that his father used to love. His father says, “No, thank you.” And we come to learn that Paddy is a thousand days sober. Tommy in essence is becoming his father. And he’s come home to get drunk with him.

Stan Williams: Ah!

Gavin O’Connor: Tommy’s expecting the man he knew as a boy growing up [drunk and abusive]. But it all gets turned upside down. Now his father’s not the man he knew at all. He’s an entirely different human being. And Tommy’s becoming like his father was. So, when Tommy finally gets his father [Paddy] to take a drink and become drunk once again, even while Paddy is listening to Moby Dick on tape as he does throughout whole movie, Paddy [the white whale] gets in Ahab’s face [Tommy] and yells: “Ahab! You godless son-of-a-bitch.” At that point, Tommy sees himself reflected back in his father’s face. It’s an Jungian archetype thing. And that’s the beginning of the surrender. It’s the first time you see Tommy become compassionate toward his father. To be healed, Tommy has to die to self. (2)

Stan Williams: We’re rooting for Brendon, Tommy, and their father, throughout the film. But it’s like Brendon and his Dad are both trying to pull Tommy along.

Gavin O’Connor: Tommy is on this godless path, this warpath of personal destruction of anything in his way — but his father and his brother force him to change.

Stan Williams: In PRIDE AND GLORY there are crucifixes on the wall in everyone’s house, even the bad guy’s. But you don’t bring the spirituality forward as you do at the beginning of WARRIOR. In Tommy’s absence, Paddy has dramatically returned to his Catholic faith and Tommy tears him to shreds over it, as if what Paddy is doing is hypocritical. Why is that? Why the shift from one film to the other? Why did you bring the spirituality forward in WARRIOR?

Gavin O’Connor: I think it was something that was a little more prevalent in my life, and also more prevalent in the characters’ lives. In short, the story demanded it. And I always intended the title, WARRIOR, to be about spiritual warfare, and warrior lives outside of the cage. The intention of the title was never about guys fighting inside [the cage].

Stan Williams: A strong metaphor to be sure. I see that the movie is really about love, but there’s a lot of bitterness, hatred, and violent fighting in the cage. Isn’t love about being kind and gentle?

Gavin O’Connor: If you want to dramatize love you need to see the flip side of it. I think visualizing love is a hard thing to do without seeing the opposite because you want something organic to emerge from it. (4) Then, there’s the balancing act as a filmmaker trying to capture the verisimilitude of this sport, which is violent. But what I was going for, and maybe it doesn’t come through, is to at least root the violence in the characters and never make it gratuitous. It is also mixed martial arts and I also have to shoot the sport in the truthfulness of its intensity, although I tempered it a bit. Once again, that all served the intent of the movie because I was driving toward [the metaphor of a spiritual] intervention in a cage. So, the spirituality in the film and the love in the film and the message of the film were all driving toward those five rounds [at the end] in that cage with the two brothers.

Stan Williams: What I think makes the film unique is that neither are fighting for selfish reasons, not pride, not ego, not to be rich, but for other things. They are both sacrificing themselves, in the cage, for something greater than themselves.

Gavin O’Connor: I think there’s nobility to both of their causes and quests. There’s something beautiful within Tommy’s pain — his loyalty towards what he calls his [Marine] brother, whom he calls Manny, whom he lost. There’s a nobility to what he’s doing – to try to save somebody else. He can’t save himself, but he can honor a promise and save Manny’s wife and children, and give them a life — that sacrifice is really important to him.

Stan Williams: What about Brendon?

Gavin O’Connor: In regard to Brendon, there’s the nobility of fighting for your home, to save your family. But I didn’t just capture it in the movie. As a nation were in the midst of the housing crisis [when we shot the film] and it hasn’t changed three years later [now, during its release]. You have this man being in debt, and because of his mixed martial arts background he literally is able to fight his way out of debt. I thought that was, in a way, wish fulfillment. There are so many men in this country that are on the doorstep of losing their homes and have wives and children and are trying to put food on the table – they’re working several jobs. They’re just trying to keep a roof over their head. So, they’re [figuratively] fighting their way out of debt. But Brendon literally fights his way out of debt. I just thought it was a perfect metaphor to explore.

-------------------
Footnotes

1 When O’Connor and Tambakis were writing WARRIOR, on their door they placed an Aristotle quote: “A convincing impossibility is better than an unconvincing possibility.” That’s good advice for all storytellers.

2 For my Moral Premise readers, this is Tommy’s Moment of Grace. While it does seem that both Brendon and Tommy are co-protagonists, and that is Gavin’s intent, Brendon changes little, and Paddy changes not a bit, although for one scene he slips off the wagon. But Tommy changes a lot. It is Tommy’s arc, not Brendon’s or Paddy’s, that creates the catharsis for the audience at film’s end. For that reason Tommy is the real protagonist, with Brendon and Paddy as the co-protagonists. The antagonist in this film is the bitterness, hatred, and inability to forgive, which is so prevalent in our culture. All of that is metaphorically represented by the hatred we see in the MMA cage and the tournament’s opportunistic promoters. Another way to analyze the characters is that this is a buddy road trip film, with three buddies. Each is the antagonist to the others who are their own protagonists. Remember, antagonists exist to change protagonists. But, however you analyze the film, O’Connor has created a masterful work drawing us in and helping us understanding a bit more about what sacrificial love is all about.

3. For more on the importance of verisimilitude (the quality of realism in film), and how it’s absence can kill the most nobly intended of film projects, see Life As It Is vs. How It Ought To Be.)

4. This is an important point that needs some explanation. When O’Connor says you want something “organic to emerge” from the juxtaposition of hatred and love, he means this: Just saying it, or TELLING it (as in a didactic sermon, homily or teaching) will not connect emotionally or memorably with the audience. Audiences learn through experience (or simulation of the experience which a well produced movie is). It’s the adrenalin rush that creates memories. So, you have to SHOW something with such verisimilitude that it’s ingrained in the audience’s mind, and not just a passing intellectual thought. This explains the power of stories, and why the Bible is 75% narrative.

The Importance of Screenplay Formats

When I posted Judging Script Contests - New Criteria (a.k.a. Laughing Nun with a Ruler) I realized I was stepping on some sacred ground without taking off my shoes. The catalyst was some well-meaning criticism over a script draft I had submitted to a contest. (Something I rarely do.) What were my violations: (a) I used the word "we" in dialogue, and (b) later a few lines, where a character is yelling, were capitalized. The script was also criticized (c) because the opening dialogue didn't give any clear indication of the relationship between characters. [Duh! It was VO of the co-protagonist, from the end of the movie -- foreshadowing the end.]

The emphasis of the previous post was a call-out for contests to do what many studio and agency heads do... they don't ask to see the script first, but rather ask for hooks, log lines, and a one page snyopsis. THEN, if the STORY has some merit at that level, they'll take a look at the script. In addition to those two or three standard items I suggest that those "reading" or looking for stories, add two other very short items to their submission request list: a Conflict of Values and/or the Moral Premise Statement. In other words: what the movie is REALLY about. The log line and often the synopsis will only tell you what's going on physically or visibly. But what REALLY connects with audiences are the character's value motivations that drive the action. (Do I need to say it again, read The Moral Premise.) THEN, if all that seems like there's potential to the story, ASK FOR THE SCRIPT.

FORMAT RULES AND TOOLS

And when the script arrives in a reader's hands, standard formatting rules are really, very important. (See my P.S. as there is really, no standard.) As a writer (and reader) I need them desperately. Over the deacades the standards have developed to the point where anyone with some experience can understand a great deal about a script at a glance, or a scan. And when reading, the various margins, capitalization, and white space, helps us "see" the story, at least in terms of pacing, length, and budget. There's more below from two of my friends.

What tools do I use? In order of importance they are:

1. FINAL DRAFT software (I'm on a Mac). While you can change the format and use different templates for the type of media you're writing (or for whom), the program does come pretty well set up and ready to go. I think I've made only slight adjustments.

2. THE HOLLYWOOD STANDARD (book by Christopher Riley, Michael Wise Books). Chris's book is sandwiched between my Random House dictionary and well-worn Rodale Synonym Finder, just above my computer. I have the pages edge indexed with ink tabs, and I refer to it often. I still find things I want to do that Chris doesn't discuss, so that's when I go to No. 3.

3. Screenplay and script drafts from studio projects I've working on. 

There are half-a-dozen other format reference guides on my shelves, but I essentially ignore them.

Now, for some choice quotes from two friends who wanted to make sure I wrote THIS post; Douglas Lloyd Mcintosh, and Barbara Nicolosi (both credited WGA writers).

From Doug:

Purchase and use Final Draft, the least expensive and most intuitive screenwriting program available. Simply by using the default settings the writer can create a professionally formatted script that will be acceptable almost anywhere. Another thing I like about Final Draft is that it includes a PDF creator so you can turn your formatted script into a file that anyone can read or print out.

As someone who has read literally hundreds of scripts, I can feel a little more sympathy toward judges, readers or producers who don't want to struggle through a script in a format not considered professional by current standards.

I can also sympathize with Mickey Rooney, who has probably read far, far more scripts than you and I put together over his busy professional lifetime. You're absolutely right that three pages is not enough to reach any meaningful story point, but I tell you, on a certain level I have to agree with him. I want a story that grabs you right from the first moment. If a screenwriter has any skill, professionalism, talent and/or the absolutely crucial ability to get you interested in a story and concerned about the fate of the characters, you probably are going to be able to see it within three pages. My experience is that if I'm bored on the first three pages the rest of the script is almost certainly going to be drudgery to read as well. If a reader wants to keep reading after the first three pages, chances are the audience will want to keep watching the film or TV show.

Story structure is extremely important as you well know, but the first test of any film is whether the reader or later the audience wants to find out what's going to happen next. And they should want to find out what's going to happen next every step of the way. It's vital to tell the story in such a way as to keep people turning those pages.

From Barbara:

I wanted to express a brief defense on behalf of those of us who are sticklers about screenwriting grammar, aka formatting.  Considered under a professional lens, formatting is not irrelevant.  In the vast majority of projects, a correctly formatted page equals one minute of time on the screen.  The margins for dialogue are shorter and allow for the actors to add expression.  The longer margins allow the audience to get a good enough look at whatever is being described.  Beyond timing, capitalizations are signposts to casting agents, line producers, directors and DP's for all their respective tasks. 

The best way to consider a screenplay is like unto an architectural drawing.  People outside the profession do not appreciate all the industry standard norms for drawing, and would probably dismiss them.  But they have their uses.  Essential uses from a professional standpoint. 

People who haven't learned the industry standard for formatting are better off writing their story in a straight narrative fashion, as in a treatment.  There are some expectations for a treatment, but few people in the business will quibble over them. 

Thank you both.

I hope this post makes my suggestion in the previous post more clear. I agree with everything you've said. Great feedback.

And now for my

P.S. 

I think the differences between these two posts on script format comes down to this: "Get it close, avoid the gross." Be consistent and follow some sort of logic.  In other words, the general rules apply and the script needs to be close in terms of spacing, font size, and appearance on the page. But, I continue to get scripts from credited filmmakers and A listers that would be rejected at a moments notice by the so call "contests." And people I work with in L.A. say EVERY studio or group has their own format that is different from everyone else in some way that is obvious.

For instance there is no "precise" and "absolute" standard regarding:

SLUG LINES (SCENE HEADINGS)
-- The Order. General to specific, or specific to general.
-- Separators: hypens, spaces, or periods. I've seen them all.
-- FLASHBACK at front or rear or on line by itself.
-- Scene numbers. Yes or No, depending on your preference. Scripts are easier to critique WITH scene numbers.
-- Never put action description in the slug line. I've seen it, but it's stupid.

MARGIN WIDTHS
-- I've seen everything from 3.5 in wide dialogue to 4.75 inches.
-- Page margins are consistent from 1" on top, bottom, and right, and 1.5 on left, with 1/4" variations

ACTION DESCRIPTION
-- I see many gerunds and adverbs. MANY of them.
-- I see many paragraphs that are 8 to 12 lines or more in length.
-- I see descriptions that when broken down will take pages to describe accurately, but in a screenplay they read fine and make sense. They tell the story.

In the end, the script must be formatted exactly, shot for shot, to give the studio an idea of the budget. An independent filmmaker sent me a script recently that she intends to shoot. No one else is involve. Not sure she has the budget, but in such cases a proper format will tell her and her production manager what it will cost to shoot and how many days. But there were scene descriptions of action that rather than taking up the 1/8 of a page that was written, would take 3 pages to shoot.

So, in the end format matters. But the standard is in the reader's head.

Sequel Post: The Importance of Screenplay Formats - Part 2

Judging Script Contests - New Criteria

If you won't believe me in this matter, read Christopher Lockhart's post Screenwriting Contests.



NUN WITH A RULER

I rarely submit to script contests or (minor) film festivals because I think the contest and festival sub-industry needs a new set of rules.

Too often the evaluation criteria focuses on visual format and appearance and not on what's important to the audience—story structure.

The obsession with format and appearance rules (margins, fonts, capitalization, etc -- things which the audience never sees or hears), reminds me of nun running around with a ruler pretending that skirt lengths are an objective measure of spiritual integrity. Then there's the lady in the graduate office with her ruler measuring margins on thesis and dissertation submissions, as if correct margins were a measure of critical thinking. While there COULD be a correlation, there is a better way to evaluate the guts of a good story. And I intend to share that with you below.

I will admit that submitting a script with gross format violations does show a level of disrespect for the industry. But too often it appears that contests are being run by nuns with rulers rather than by judges who understand the rules of story structure.  Let's start with the end in mind: the audience. It's easy to hire a script doctor to correct format issues. It's much more difficult to find a good story.

Recently one of our rare submissions was rejected for the oddest reasons. The rejection rationale, claimed that our script had signs of ameraturism, and a few specifics were mentioned. (We work hard to follow formatting bibles, e.g. Riley's The Hollywood Standard.) But the accusation prompted me to go further and open up a number of scripts I have been sent by A-listers in L.A. for review. I get paid now and then to do such things. Every one of the claimed "amateurisms" in our submitted script could be found in the the scripts of produced films or films in development from major studios on my shelf. Hmmm?

Recently one of my produced writer-director clients in L.A. has been trying to please the head producer of another firm with a story and script to the producer's liking. It seems the producer, like some contest judges, are enamored with a set of easy to understand "rules" or "adages" that (if you put equivocation aside) are clear signs of a good or bad script. It can be frustrating for the writer to convince some folks that what they're asking for are distractions and not essentials. Although this is a subjective industry perhaps there's a way to make it a tad more objective and constructive. 

THE COMMAS AND SHIT

Issac Asimov, it is said about his early days as an author, was an illiterate grammarian, and his editors labored over his work to make them publishable.  Why? Because they were great stories. Had his work been judged under the auspices that grammar and comma placement were sure signs of a good story, the world would have missed the most prolific author the 20th century.

Another case in point is Elmore "Dutch" Leonard. Although I've never read any of his raw manuscripts, this line from GET SHORTY is attributed to his attitude:

You have an idea, you write down what you wanna say. Then you get somebody to add in the commas and shit where they belong...I've seen scripts where I know words weren't spelled right and there was hardly any commas in it at all. So I don't think it's too important.

And it's not unimportant to point out that many of Asimov's and Leonard's stories were successfully made into movies. The question becomes, were their stories accepted because the margins and the commas were in the right place?  Obviously not, because Asimov never was a screenwriter and of Leonard's 31 films  based on his stories, he is credited with screenwriting only nine. So, obviously, a good story for making into a movie is based on something other than the format, grammar, and comma placement.

ME AND MICKEY ROONEY

Why then all the rules about judging screenplays based on format, and easy visual cues? Because it's easy. There are too many crappy stories out there, in the form of screenplays, and so readers take the easy way out.

But even taking a little longer and reading the first ten pages can not tell you if there's a good story present or not.  Ten pages does not even get to the first turning point of a classic beat sheet, which for a 110-140 page script would be between page 13-18.

I once cornered Mickey Rooney in a Canadian Golf Course's Pro Shop. Really. I handed him a script...saying there was a part in it for him. He took it and said, "Okay, I'll give you three pages. That's all I'll need." How could he possibly do that? Of course he couldn't.

So, here are the rules that I wish such festivals and contests of scripts, (and stars et al) would follow. They make more sense than looking at commas, margins and capitalization. Using these rules might just result in some better stories coming out of Hollywood that would better connect with audiences. The industry needs it.

THE CRITERIA - SCRIPTS OF VALUE

Let's strive for stories (and scripts) of value, not success. In that spirit I offer the contribution below.

All script submissions should include:

A. Title (plus, if based on another IP who owns it)
B. Genre and estimated MPAA rating
C. Target Audience (demo or psycho-graphics)
D. Estimated budget
E. Hook
F. Log Line
G. Inner (psychological) Conflict of Values 
H. Moral Premise Statement
I. One page synopsis (450 words) or Beat Sheet Outline
J. Script/Screenplay

Note: Items A through D cannot be judged, but do help evaluate later criteria. The evaluation begins with E through J, and the generic question for each is, "Is it good? "

That is, am I intrigued by:
E. The hook?
F. The log line?
G. The values in conflict? (the core conflict)
H. The Moral Premise? (what the movie is really about)
I. The One Page Synopsis or beat outline?

Notice, we haven't cracked the script yet.

If the answer to any two of those questions (of items E-I) is a firm "no," then judges should reject the submission for the reasons noted.  If they get all "yeses" for E through I and get to J, then they might want to crack the script.

Opinion and taste are always present, and a judge should readily admit it. But to confuse "opinion" with "amateur" is disingenuous. I have a shelf full of scripts that have been produced by A-listers that contain so called  "amateurisms".

Here's my evaluation recommendations:

Item E: HOOK
Question: Does the hook suggest an impossibility or improbability that is viscerally engaging?
Answer: Yes - Maybe - No.
Rejection Reason: Hook is not viscerally engaging to reader. "A convincing impossibility is better than a unconvincing possibility." (Aristotle)


Item F: LOG LINE
Question: Does the log line describe or imply the following elements:

• F1: The protagonist
• F2: The type of "struggle"
• F3: The antagonist
• F4: The protagonist's physical goal
• F5: The stakes of the goal is not reached?
• F6: (optional) Is it visceral?
• Not Evaluated: Cleverness of words.

Answer: Yes - May - No.
Rejection Reason: The log line is missing an element. The story's essence requires clear physical conflict and goals.

Item G: INNER CONFLICT OF VALUE
[This item may only be clear to those who have read my book, The Moral Premise. The Conflict of Values is something that is at the motivational core of every successful story, whether or not a writer understands it or can articulate it. If the protagonist's and the antagonist's motivational values are not naturally opposing, there is not going to be a cogent story. But a story may be cogent and reflect organic conflict even if the writer is clueless about the conflict of values. ]

Question: Are the stated conflict of values natural opposite and generally accepted as universal values by the target audience?
Answer: Yes - Maybe - No.
Rejection Reason: The conflict of values are not naturally opposing and would not organically cause a conflict between the protagonist and the antagonist elements.
 (or) The values in conflict are not universally (or subliminally) understood or held to by the target audience.

Item H: THE MORAL PREMISE STATEMENT (MPS)
[I have also referred to this (perhaps more accurately) as the Moral-Physical Premise Statement (MPPS). Again, without reading The Moral Premise or having knowledge about this through another source such as my blog or essays, this may need some explaining that I will not do here. I will, however, explain this much: The MPPS ties together the moral motivation of both sides of the story's characters and their resulting physical consequences in a way that is understood by the audience to be natural, organic, and universally true.]
Question: Will the moral premise statement SUBLIMINALLY be understood by the target audience to be natural, organic, and universally true?
Answer: Yes - Maybe - No
Rejection Reason: The MPPS will not be subliminally understood by the target audience to be naturally, organic and universally true.

Item I: SYNOPSIS (OR BEAT SHEET OUTLINE)
Question: Does the synopsis (or beat sheet outline) clearly describe the main turning points of a story in the chosen genre? For instance: Does the protagonist have a clear psychological need and a physical goal that at first are rejected? Is there an inciting incident? Is there a mid-point (a Moment of Grace) where the protagonist either rejects or accepts the underlying psychological truth about which the movie is really about? Is there a near death (or faux ending) as a result of the protagonist's efforts to achieve his or her goal? Is there a final incident where the antagonist attacks, threatens the stakes and ends the movie early? And is there a resolved ending, redemptive or tragic?  (Yes, a European movie would have a different structure?)
Answer: Yes - Some - No
Rejection Reason: There is no cogent structure that the reader can understand. (or) One or more critical story structural elements are missing.


Item J: THE SCRIPT/SCREENPLAY
[My bias here is that successful stories are not dependent on strict rules of format, but on the structural elements above. So, while the following are important, a script doctor can fix most of them if the story is otherwise sound.]
Question: To what degree are the following elements engaging, understood, and easily read:
a. Action descriptions
b. Interior motivations
b. Dialogue
c. Characterization
d. Scene structure (timing, beginning, middle, end, conflict)
e. Page format (is it close? does it cheat and lie about the film's length)
f. Page count (80-140).  I have received scripts that were over 300 pages in length. I did not read them.
g. Spelling and Typos. (Allow 1 per page but don't count them if you can understand easily what's being said.)
i. Dramatic execution of the turning points.
j. Other....
Answers: For each: Yes - Maybe - No.
Rejection Reason: List and comment.