Influential text

Collaboration

Jamie and Sam: a twisted love story

I declare that in submitting all work for this assessment I have read, understood and agree to the content and expectations of the assessment declaration.

I’ve always loved stories. I love reading stories, writing stories and watching stories unfold on the screen. I love when I get so absorbed into the world of a book, that after taking a break, when I’m looking to return to that world again, I have to pause and think. Because I genuinely don’t know if I had been reading a book or watching a movie. It was so surreal, I could see every detail as if I was watching it on a screen. I have always believed the highest form of escapism can only be found in the written word, and I think that’s where my new found fascination with scripts came from.

Like Bridge to Terabithia (2007) Dir. Gábor Csupó, (where Jess builds an imaginary bridge across the river connecting his mundane world to the fantastical one of Terabithia.) Scripts are these mythical objects that connect the world of the written word to the magical world of film.
Its probably a incorrect view, but I had always viewed scripts as a sort of bastardisation of a novel; not so much faithful to the telling of the story, as to doubling as an instruction manual to translate the story to film. Stanley Kubrick, co-writer and director of The Shining (1980) agreed with this school of thought. He said: “A screen play isn’t meant to be read, it’s to be realized on film.” This reinforced my misconception that scripts were purposely dry and not descriptive; they’re meant to be used to just make films, right? The details and description of setting and character must lie at feet of the director, right? Scripts are just for dialog right? Right!?

I discovered this wasn’t the case.
(so so so far from it. Basically I’m an idiot.)
The screenplay of Frozen River, (2008), written and directed by Courtney Hunt, was amazing. I really enjoyed reading it. It was a bit of a game changer.
Frozen River was super descriptive, effectively established the world, and consequently, the tone and logic of the world quite early on with no/limited dialog. Additionally, the screenplay, as evident by the film, was also a highly effective ‘instruction manual’.

It certainly schooled me for forming seemingly airtight options on scripts without reading any examples. Oops.

Side note: I didn’t like the film. I thought it didn’t do the script justice, admittedly, probably due to budget. None the less, the Frozen River screenplay deserved better. Maybe one day pal.

From here came the question of application:
All the scripts I’ve ever written (grand total: 1) were for myself. I already knew what I wanted. If I were to write a script now and release it out into the world, I would want to equipment it best I could to ensure if someone else picked it up, it would be made as close to my image as possible.

How I was to go about this troubled me, I don’t really know how. But since Frozen River could, I felt a little reassured. After rereading and rereading the script, and really thinking about what aspects helped best create the ‘World’ of North Country, Upstate New York, I realised the answer lies structurally, in the big text.

Using just the big text from the screenplay, Courtney Hunt was able to communicate a heck load.
For example:

From here we can answer questions such as:

1. How does the world affect the tone of what we see?
Caravan park, rusted playing set, set in winter > low socio-economic standing, serious, survival mode > bleak tone.

2. Internal logic: how does the world operate?
Lack of money> got to hustle> do illegal shit
Discovering new rules and logics > take shoes away to keep them from running, how much it costs to smuggle people

I plan on referring back to this script as a structural example of scriptwriting for my own final project, for sure.

Side note: I know we quickly touched on in class the danger of over description, and going forward I would be conscience of that, but the realisation that script can be more then ‘he said, she said’ well… Is really exciting.

I can’t wait to try this out with my final project!

Collaboration.
Being a kid with a couple or so sisters, I’m pretty comfortable with ‘collaboration’. All be it that sometimes just meant yelling over each other, the final idea often being the loudest. However, those days are (not so) long gone.
Working with our peers at uni, and in the future, our colleagues, is really important in our media-based line of work. For, as John Cleese best said: “I always find that if two (or more) of us throw ideas backwards and forwards I get to more interesting and original places than I could have ever have gotten to on my own.” A lot of truth rings true in this statement.
Drawing from a recent, and perhaps not so typical example of collaboration from this studio: defining difficult terminology. A couple of abstract, and at least for me, pretty difficult terms have come up over the past couple of weeks in class. One such example includes: tone. What is tone when put in the context of a world? During class our table got to task, bouncing around definitions and associative words. I defined it as “the attitude a piece takes”. Someone took that, and bounced back “feeling” and then “colour” and “temperature” and “mood”. Next, as a collective class we thawed out the idea of tone further, finally coming up with some impressive and really comprehensive ideas.

Such included:
– “Tone is the culmination of sensory stimuli employed to extract a general feeling, attitude or emotion from an audience/consumer”
Ed.

– “The degree and nature by which aesthetic and narrative elements formulate an intended emotional and psychological affect in a viewer or reader in construction of a world.”
Michael.

Collaboration was key in arriving at these definitions. As a collective whole, we were able to arrive at an understanding of the term tone. One I know I would have had zero chance of arriving at individually.

However collaboration is present, if you’re open to it, in many forms in life. Including the more traditional form we attempted in class during week 2. After watching a short film titled J’Attendrai Le Suivant (I’ll Wait for the Next One) we discussed as group how this short film could continue if it was a feature length film. A fun activity that our group really engaged with and got a little silly with- which was great! After settling on a few core things such as who was the protagonist (the female train commuter) we let our imaginations run wild. Towards the end seemingly trying to one up each other with the sheer preposterous nature of the next idea.

“she’s got brain caner!”
“she’s a ghost!”

I thought this lack of boundary was wonderful. It lent very well to a creative freedom that the group tapped into together to produce some actually pretty cool ideas.
I think collaboration is a great tool to utilize to further develop a well thought out story in a script, novel or film form, as well as acting as a really useful tool for the brainstorming stage as well. In this case, collaboration also acted as a welcomed reminder to not take yourself too seriously.

Jamie and Sam rounded a corner and strolled into another of RMITs seemingly endless hidden city laneways. The bitumen was still damp from the morning’s brief shower, making the unusually warm autumn day feel muggy, as well as hot.
Loosely holding hands, Jamie broached a subject that had been laughed off and discarded without a serious response, for months now.
“Soo” Jamie began, drawing out the vowel. “When I am going to meet your mum?”
Sam, as if he had been shocked, with Jamie’s hand the conductor, let go of her hand.
“Jamie” He whinged “you’ve already spoken to her on the phone, what more do you want?”
“What more do I want?!” Jamie fired back, her face turning red with emotion.
“I…” she began, “I..” she stuttered again. Her mind racing, unable to articulate fast enough all the more things she wanted.

I like how descriptive this piece was, I could envision the scene as if I was a voyeur on the day, which, personally, is the measure by which I judge how good any piece is.

Side note: I’m finding critiquing my own work really difficult and awkward, I feel like a tosser saying I thought I had some strong elements. However, feeling this way in of itself is interesting, probably meaning I need practice in being introspective and articulating what I like and don’t like about my work. I certainly don’t do this often. Anyway, continuing…

I liked how this description gives depth to the characters without much dialog. For example we knew from Sam letting go of Jamie’s hand so aggressively, the subject of her meeting his mum is an unwanted one. Similarly, I like the use of limited/broken dialog to illustrate the choked, constricted nature of Jamie’s feelings regarding not having yet met Sam’s mum. Like her “racing mind” grappling with the possible reasons he wouldn’t want to let her into his life fully, Jamie cant articulate herself very well. This is frustrating for Jamie as she wants to have this conversation, but her emotion, like an unwanted third character, is siding with Sam in shutting it down. This demonstration of the traffic Jam of emotion Jamie is experiencing adds explanation as to why Jamie would run away from Sam into oncoming traffic: she felt confused, frustrated and most fiercely; she felt unwanted.

The most useful feedback I received was to write in the present text. It seems so obvious now, but all scripts are written in the present text, therefore, for this activity at least I should too. I think this would definably improve my piece and make it easier to translate into script form.
So I did so:
Jamie and Sam round a corner and stroll into another of RMITs seemingly endless hidden city laneways. The bitumen, still damp from the morning’s brief shower, made the unusually warm autumn day feel muggy, as well as hot.
Loosely holding hands, Jamie broaches a subject that had been laughed off and discarded without a serious response, for months now.
“Soo” Jamie began, drawing out the vowel. “When I am going to meet your mum?”
Sam, as if shocked with electricity, with Jamie’s hand the conductor, let go of her hand.
“Jamie” He whines “you’ve already spoken to her on the phone, what more do you want?”
“What more do I want?!” Jamie fires back, her face now red with emotion.
“I…” she began, “I..” she stuttered again. Her mind racing, unable to articulate fast enough all the more things she wanted.

I also think it would be interesting/ an improvement to remove the narrative ‘voice’ of the piece and place it in first person. For example instead of “Her mind racing, unable to articulate fast enough all the more things she wanted.” It would be “my mind racing, flooded with all the more things I wanted, yet couldn’t articulate”.

While I did find writing this piece easy and enjoyable, my biggest angst is then trying to translate the except into script form, as was the next class activity. I think I’m nervous because I don’t have much practise with it, however I think this is a pretty good base to go off.

“I learned something in the studio that highlighted my previous experience/lack of previous experience with screenwriting…”

As we ventured into week 2 we began to further tease out some of factors that are involved in developing the character’s world. Some of the points of discussion included:
Using the character’s backstory as tool for exploring limitations and responses to the world and exploring the boundaries of the world.
For example, this is evident in The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, 2012 Dir. Stephen Chbosky. The abuse Charlie was a victim of as a child, resulted in a deep guilt that impacted his ability to form friendships, and how he reacted to current situations of conflict.

I found this train of thought really interesting, so, I followed it for a while until it morphed into something different, and down the rabbit hole I fell.

I began as follows…

Which came first? The chicken, or the egg?

I wondered, in constructing a world, which comes first- the character, (including their backstory) or, constructing the setting and the physicality of the world?

Did the writers of Sex and the City (TV Series 1998–2004) begin by creating their version of New York City, and THEN inhabited it with 4 woman, and followed their exploration of that world for 6 seasons? Or…. did they begin with Carrie Bradshaw as a polished character, and THEN realised that someone whose favoured mode of transport included walking freakishly fast in stylish stilettoes, and catching yellow cabs in the rain, could only exist in NYC?

These are the questions that keep me up at night…watching sex in the city… all 6 seasons.

I finally settled on the idea that there are probably no hard and fast rules, right? Which is kinda a bummer because I love rules and guidelines; I think they’re great.

However, in reviewing my class notes, I realised maybe there was!

“It is the characteristic of the vast majority of cities in the movies that they focus not on architecture per se, but on architecture as it affects, and is interpreted, by citizens.”
– Thomas
(Forgot about that bad boy)
I really agree with this, I think it makes a lot of sense. I am totally adopting it as a guideline for future attempts at screenwriting.

Cheers Tom from 2003
xoxo

I declare that in submitting all work for this assessment I have read, understood and agree to the content and expectations of the assessment declaration.