Sunday, 31 July 2016

Why aren't movies' writers given more prominence?

Because only writers have an overinflated opinion of their contribution.
If you think writing is so wonderful, don't ever bother to go to see a film, just read the screenplay. That's all you need, right?
It's true that there's no movie is useless without a story. But the prescence or absence of story has little to do with the writing for the following reasons:
1. Writing is writing, it isn't storytelling.
Stringing words into sentences doesn't automatically make a story. This is the problem whenever a book is adapted for movies - sometimes, there's not much of a story underneath all of the ramblings. Take "Interview With A Vampire". Some self-obsessed loser becomes a vampire and then wanders around for centuries never ageing or getting ill but spends the entire time moaning about the loss of the colour blue. Now in the book, that doesn't matter because you have the pleasure of the words. But on the screen, it becomes a real problem. Take "Nanny McPhee". According to Emma Thompson, it took 7 years of development to get a film script out of it because, as she says at 30:03, there's no story.

2. Any storytelling in the writing is put there by the reader.
I know many people who like Stephen King. Personally, he leaves me cold and I'm sure that he doesn't lose any sleep over my opinion nor should he. I feel the same way about JK Rowling (although I thought her description of the Riddle's gardener was wonderfully touching). Now I'm not alone. So what does that tell us? Are they great storytellers or aren't they? The answer is that they are only great story tellers insofar as they spark the imagination of their readers.
3. Writing isn't the best way of telling a story (part 1).
Writing, as in the emphasis on words, is only as old as the Gutenberg Press. Prior to that, words were only ways of getting to the older and more authentic arts like performance, painting and sculpture. The idea that there is nothing between the unadorned, standardised word and you has only been around for 600 years or thereabout. So, how did writers get the pretension that their skill is so bloody marvellous and that all other art forms are somehow subservient to them? Yes, good writers are artists in exactly the same way that good pop songs are art. But in both cases, the vast majority of it is rubbish that is quickly forgotten. Recently, I read a claim from a screenwriter that the written words of a play will last long after the performance is forgotten. Bullshine. How many plays could an average person recall from the last 50 years let alone the last 200? Written plays fade unless they're performed. It's true, one or two scholars may remember it in 100 years time but so what? And even if it were to survive, would the words mean anything? There is much discussion over whether the true meaning of Shakespeare has been severely eroded because we don't see it performed in the Original Pronunciation.
3. Writing isn't the best way of telling a story (part 2).
You've no doubt heard that a picture is worth a thousand words. This is wrong. A picture is worth 10 million words and if it moves, its worth 10 billion words. So where is the word in the story telling mix? Emma Thompson at 24:02 talks of an occasion where a pivotal end scene in the screenplay was cut because it was actually no use in the movie.
4. Because screenwriting isn't writing.
Screenwriting is a much older form of writing. It is the form whereby most of the actual words on the page will be lost in the translation process to another art form. The only things that will survive are the dialogue and any words that might appear on the screen like a location title. The rest is there to guide someone to do something else other than speak. This has led to much heated discussion over whether a screenplay is complete in and of itself. To those who say it is, I say that it is about as complete as a recipe for a cake or a blueprint for a bridge - they are complete in the word forms but if they remain in their word forms, they are incomplete in their purpose. The screenwriter doesn't write their masterpiece for it to sit in a drawer in word form. They write it to inspire action - to get people onto their feet and creating art in their chosen disciplines. It is either a cry to battle or it is nothing.
5. Because 99.99% of the English language is non verbal.
That is both the strength and weakness of English. it means that English is easy to learn but takes a lifetime to master. Take a simple this simple sentence:
"Good morning and what a beautiful morning it is"
What's the meaning? In English, it depends utterly and totally on the context:
  • If the sun is shining, it is likely to be honestly meant
  • If it's raining cats and dogs, it could be sarcastic or an indication that the person is in a horribly good mood and the weather isn't going to change that
  • If the receiver has just been through a bad break up, it may mean that life goes on
  • If the person saying it has just won a massive bet at the expense of the listener, he may be rubbing that in
Yes, it's true that you can convey some of that by description.
"Good morning and what a beautiful morning it is" sarcasm dripped off every word along with the rain.
Don't believe me. Just listen to a conversation by a group of girls on whether the way some guy said "Hi" means he likes one of them or not.
5.Because writing isn't performing.
Take this sequence in Hellboy:
In the screenplay, it would have been
"She took his picture. She took his picture. She took his picture. She took his picture."
Like that, it isn't very inspiring because it gives no clue about how it will be said. So, perhaps the author may have to deign to move into the world of typography (shudder) and use italics (eek). Then you might get something like this
"She took his picture. She took his picture. She took his picture. She took his picture."
Even then, it still doesn't get close to how it was performed.
6. Because sometimes the words get in the way.
My favourite scenes in film are where people don't speak. The classic is "Zulu" where Stanley Baxter and Michael Caine just stand there trying to work out why they can hear a train until it slowly dawns on them that it is the war cries of the approaching Zulu army. Or the grand entrance of Omar Sharif in "Lawrence of Arabia" Or the opening of "Up" where an entire life is told without a single word.


Having torn apart the need for a screenwriter, I shall tell you why they're valuable. For the great dialogue and the line that defines the movie.
"You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"
"You can't handle the truth"
"You're going to need a bigger boat" (unscripted, sorry)
"All of these things will be lost like tears in rain. Time to die" (also unscripted, sorry)
Yes, sorry, it's true: sometimes even the actors come up with great material (shock! horror!)

No comments:

Post a Comment