At this point it's become a staple and almost a cliche but one of my favorite scenes in movies is the monologue in which a character tells a seemingly non related story to the situation he is in. Usually about a friend or some tale he heard but it seems like a pure tangent and a good writer will craft it so that you're wondering what is the relevancy for as long as possible. And then it hits you. This story, as unrelated and detailed as it is, sums up a universal emotion that most all of us can relate with.

That's what I think a good movie is. A tale that captures our imagination, has us going "these characters are so foriegn to me and this situation is so unique" but you leave thinking, if only on a subconscious level, that I know exactly how they felt. If you feel as a writer that creating empathy from your audience is not part of your job, then, like it was offered before, you are just whack, whack, whacking.

Quoted from Souter Fell If you feel as a writer that creating empathy from your audience is not part of your job, then, like it was offered before, you are just whack, whack, whacking.

I don't think anybody's saying that at all.

Going back to Sandra's parable about the cook in the restaurant. A good cook has an audience because his food attracts them. He will have special courses that comprise the menu, and people will choose from these what they want to eat.
However, he does not poll the customers what they want to eat and then adjusts his menu. He trusts that his expert taste will sooth an audience.

And so must writers. The question is, who is the "audience"? There huge discrepancies between what critics like and what Joe and Martha from Iowa like. And if we for the sake of argument say there are a thousand Joe and Martha's for every critic or film geek, does that mean Joe and Martha are more important to solicit empathy from?

I don't think so. I might be elitist, but I'd much rather have people who know and love cinema to appreciate what I write than those who merely see movies as a social backdrop, a quick bang for the buck.

I mean Big Momma's House 2 grossed $138,000,000 worldwide...

I'd rather enjoy the respect of one person I respect than a hundred I don't.

Of course if I was offered six figures I would write Big momma's House 3 in a heart-beat. And it'd be three times as awful as the other two combined.

But I'd only do that if I would be making money. My integrity can be bought, but it's expensive.

Quoted from Death Monkey My integrity can be bought, but it's expensive.

Mine's not. It's for sale to any one who would care to pay, and cheap, too.

The audience is who ever is going to pay you.

Being a commercial artist for the past 15 years, any artistic integrity I had went out the door along time ago.

I could care less about art for art's sake.

They want Big Momma 4? I'm on it, and I'd work my butt off to make Big Momma 4 the best, funniest and roll on the floor hysterical comedy I can.

Is that my genre or forte? Nope, but it is now. I'd become a Tyler Perry expert-Look at reviews, see what worked before, what didn't, what people liked, what they didn't, and write to that end.

Is it selling out? Maybe, but in the end, it's just business.

Is it going to be crap because it's not written from the inspiration of the soul? If it is, then I'd not be a very good writer.

You have to adopt a project, like a relationship. At first, you just get to know it, then as you dig deeper into the story, the characters, you get to know them, how they think, feel, and act, and by the end, it's your baby.

However, it is a shared baby that will be brutally disected, tweaked and adjusted by the rest of the family, the directors, the actress, the guy in the boardroom who just wants to put a thumbprint on it by making that guy, well make him a girl instead so his niece can play the part.

You got it, chief.

The client's problem is my problem. That's the deal.

Is that a hack? I'd rather be a hack making some money and getting some laughs writing Big Momma's House 4 than doing anything else.

To me, that's a professional, and that's where I want to get to.

Yes. Yes, that's being a hack.

But you sound like you've got it down and aren't ashamed of it, so good luck with it.

You'll probably see more money than I ever will.

Quoted from Death Monkey Yes. Yes, that's being a hack. But you sound like you've got it down and aren't ashamed of it, so good luck with it. You'll probably see more money than I ever will.

Hopefully one day I'll get the opportunity to hack full-time.

Although just because a project is commisioned does not make the art any less vaiid...Almost any work in the Classical Era was paid for by someone else.

Mozart, Michealangelo, Da Vinci, all those guys did it for the cash and or financial support...Mona Lisa wasn't painted cause Leonardo felt the artistic urge...She was painted cuz Francesco Del Giacondo wanted a portrait done...The Arts Council in Florence wanted some Old Testament statues...So Michealangelo made David...

Heck, they wanted a movie done of a Mario Puzo book, so we got the Godfather...

Warner Bros. wanted a movie based on the Hong Kong film Internal Affiars, so William Monahan took it, added his touch, and we got The Departed....

The goal is to take a clients sow's ear and give them back the silk purse...

Quoted from Blakkwolfe Mine's not. It's for sale to any one who would care to pay, and cheap, too. The audience is who ever is going to pay you. Being a commercial artist for the past 15 years, any artistic integrity I had went out the door along time ago. I could care less about art for art's sake.            ... Is it selling out? Maybe, but in the end, it's just business. Is it going to be cr** because it's not written from the inspiration of the soul? If it is, then I'd not be a very good writer.        ... The client's problem is my problem. That's the deal. Is that a hack? I'd rather be a hack making some money and getting some laughs writing Big Momma's House 4 than doing anything else. To me, that's a professional, and that's where I want to get to.

Here, here!

Wow, I found that almost inspiring, courageous, and I can respect that. Thats some nice insight Blakkwolfe.

sheepwalker

Blakkwolffe, you're obviously an intelligent soul who understands the concept of business and professionalism which means that people supply what's in demand: sometimes it just so happens that we luck out and our niche fits perfectly with that demand and when that happens, it's just icing on the cake... and yes, we can influence that demand by our own creative ideas; that's what happens when things creep into the market and they get noticed because they're unique, not because of hype or bandwagon.  (which still follows after the creeping)

I really appreciate your stand up tall and proud attitude--not being afraid to work--even if it's low end work.  Work is work.  And opening oneself up to various challenges even if we think it's not "our bag" can be an awesome opportunity for growth.

So here's another "Here-here!"

Sandra

Quoted from Blakkwolfe Hopefully one day I'll get the opportunity to hack full-time. Although just because a project is commisioned does not make the art any less vaiid...Almost any work in the Classical Era was paid for by someone else. Mozart, Michealangelo, Da Vinci, all those guys did it for the cash and or financial support...Mona Lisa wasn't painted cause Leonardo felt the artistic urge...She was painted cuz Francesco Del Giacondo wanted a portrait done...The Arts Council in Florence wanted some Old Testament statues...So Michealangelo made David... Heck, they wanted a movie done of a Mario Puzo book, so we got the Godfather... Warner Bros. wanted a movie based on the Hong Kong film Internal Affiars, so William Monahan took it, added his touch, and we got The Departed.... The goal is to take a clients sow's ear and give them back the silk purse...

Though you must admit it's funny how that analogy doesn't fit with classical literature, which is what we're dealing with. Sculptures and paitings were often commissioned simply because they cost a lot of money and you would HAVE to be rich have them made.

Books that were commissioned seldom turned out that well. Actually most of them were propaganda and artistically worthless.

You reduce screenwriting, or filmmaking, to nothing but business. I respectfully disagree, But then I'm European.

Fact is most films that try to capture the broadest audience possible are utter crap. By reducing filmmaking to what you have, you eliminate the good and the bad movie. All there is are profitable films and non-profitable films. And that's fine if you're a businessman. But let me remind you Uwe Boll's movies make money.

If profit is the bottomline for you, if integrity is useless to you, it would seem your medium (screenwriting) is coincidental at best.

I'm not saying it's not necessary to do crappy projects that pay well. I'm saying that it's  not art. I'm saying it's not interesting. I'm saying it's empty.

Though it might be a necessary evil.

ButI wouldn't be able to live with myself if that's all I did. And most actors can't either, which is why you see they do one big crappy film and then afford 3 indies.


P.S.

This is rather quickly turning into a congratulatory circle-jerk in the camp of those who are wrong

There was another conversation along the lines of artistic integrity vs making money not too long ago, where I had cited an article by Bill Martell (I think) about John Sayles.

John had been given the task of writing Piranha, and even though he thought the idea was crap, he put everything he could into it and in turn ended up getting other work when people saw how good the script was.

A good writer can find that balance.  Take pride in your work, and enjoy the ride to the bank.

Here's a note from some guy who used to be a writer back in the day;

TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE HENRY WRIOTHESLEY, EARL OF SOUTHAMPTON, AND BARON OF TICHFIELD.
RIGHT HONORABLE,

I KNOW not how I shall offend in dedicating my
unpolished lines to your lordship, nor how the world will
censure me for choosing so strong a prop to support so weak a
burden only, if your honour seem but pleased, I account
myself highly praised, and vow to take advantage of all idle
hours, till I have honoured you with some graver labour. But if
the first heir of my invention prove deformed, I shall be
sorry it had so noble a god-father, and never after ear so
barren a land, for fear it yield me still so bad a harvest.
I leave it to your honourable survey, and your honour to your
heart's content; which I wish may always answer your own wish
and the world's hopeful expectation.

Your honour's in all duty,
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE.

Jeez, Will...Kiss up much?

I'm just jokin with you, DM...Me, I'd just rather see Bruce Willis blow-up a supertanker than watch Emma Thompson discuss 18th century courtship rituals. Granted, it may be slightly more interesting if she were naked or otherwise scantily clad, but not that much. Cast Megan Fox, well, now you got my attention...

Fortunatly, there is room for both the art and the crap, the sacred and the obscene and hopefully the higher powers will grant us both great success in whatever path we choose to follow...

Quoted Text If profit is the bottomline for you, if integrity is useless to you, it would seem your medium (screenwriting) is coincidental at best.

I couldn't agree more. People with this attitude, and I don't mean this nastily, would be far better off spending their time doing a Law Degree or becoming a Stockbroker and playing the futures market, investing in mining or whatever.

The world is already full of hacks. There is nothing good about being paid a pittance to knock out a script that deep down you know isn't very good. It can even be soul destroying.

The "Industry" aren't the only people who make films. In this day and age one can reach wide audiences through the internet and such and with broadband, streaming and downloading are possibilities.

The attitude that it is just about money is killing Cinema around the world, because it is making it a throwaway purchase, rather than a cultural one and people will simply move on to new fads.

As regards John Sayles, John used the industry money to fund his own independent projects. That was his reason for writing them. That point seems to have been omitted from Mike's testament.

Quoted Text Sayles's radicalism has never been in doubt. Since cutting his teeth as a screenwriter for Roger Corman, he has carved himself a unique position in American film-making, funding small-scale, personal projects with lucrative stints as a Hollywood hack-for-hire. It has earned him a reputation as a kind of contemporary Robin Hood, taking the cash earned from writing trash exploiters (Alligator, Piranha) and blockbusters (Apollo 13, The Sixth Day) and ploughing it into high-toned political dramas like Matewan, Lone Star or City of Hope. For many years it seemed that Sayles had found an ideal balance. But the times they are a-changing. He explains that the writer has lost ground in Hollywood over recent years and that his position is shakier as a result. Sayles is now forced to "audition" for rewrite work (which can mean that the studio can use his ideas free of charge), and is sometimes forced to write three drafts while only being paid for one. Moreover, he and Renzi appear disillusioned with the state of independent cinema and the ambitions of the generation coming up. "It's very sweet to meet all these young film-makers who admire John," Renzi says. "But at a certain point I realise that what they admire is his career, not his work. These kids are not going to make Matewan or City of Hope. They have no interest in going to those places."

From this article:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,1533071,00.html


Hollywood chews up and spits out hacks every day. They don't care about you. They especially don't care about you if you have no integrity, why would they? You've already accepted your place in the great scheme of things.

How have writers who haven't even made it got to a point that they are willing to sell their souls for money?

With all the issues in the world, all the incredible stories that need telling; With all the hope that seems to have drifted out of peoples lives, is the best thing a writer can hope for, a small cheque for some hack brief?

I think not...

Quoted from Blakkwolfe Here's a note from some guy who used to be a writer back in the day; TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE HENRY WRIOTHESLEY, EARL OF SOUTHAMPTON, AND BARON OF TICHFIELD. RIGHT HONORABLE, I KNOW not how I shall offend in dedicating my unpolished lines to your lordship, nor how the world will censure me for choosing so strong a prop to support so weak a burden only, if your honour seem but pleased, I account myself highly praised, and vow to take advantage of all idle hours, till I have honoured you with some graver labour. But if the first heir of my invention prove deformed, I shall be sorry it had so noble a god-father, and never after ear so barren a land, for fear it yield me still so bad a harvest. I leave it to your honourable survey, and your honour to your heart's content; which I wish may always answer your own wish and the world's hopeful expectation. Your honour's in all duty, WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE. Jeez, Will...Kiss up much? I'm just jokin with you, DM...Me, I'd just rather see Bruce Willis blow-up a supertanker than watch Emma Thompson discuss 18th century courtship rituals. Granted, it may be slightly more interesting if she were naked or otherwise scantily clad, but not that much. Cast Megan Fox, well, now you got my attention... Fortunatly, there is room for both the art and the crap, the sacred and the obscene and hopefully the higher powers will grant us both great success in whatever path we choose to follow...

I hope we don't have to choose between Bruce Willis and Emma Thompson, 'cause I'd take Die Hard over Sense and Sensibility any day.

I'm talking more along the lines of guys like Tom Tykwer, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Michael Haneke, Wim Wenders, Roman Polanski, Darren Aronofsky, Hal Hartley, Spike Jonze, Jim Jarmusch, David Cronenberg, PT Anderson, Robert Altman, Richard Linklater, Todd Field, Todd Solondz.

All who obviously manage to find work and do what they love, and have done so for several decades (many of them).

Obviously you can make great commercial films as well, it'd be inane to argue otherwise. David Fincher is one of my favorite directors, and I love exploitationist monster b-movies. But look what happens when you add vision and integrity to what would otherwise be generic horror. You get The Descent, which in my opinion was one of the greatest horrorfilms in recent years.

My point was simply that to do projects that you know are utter crap, and nothing else, is pernicious to cinema. I, like many others, complain about how many bad movies get made all the time, so if I get in a position where I can change that, well I'm gonna try.

But I have nothing against the Make-one-crap-film/Make-one-good-film strategy. I don't think it's selling out if you look at it as a necessary evil and do it to finance the films you really want to do. It's like how people work at 7-11 to finance going to school. You have to do this boring, terrible job to get money to do what you really want to.

But I agree with you about nudity. We need more of it. Unfortunately nudity doesn't sell tickets. In Hollywood at least. All the more reason to go art-house!

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films From this article: http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,1533071,00.html Hollywood chews up and spits out hacks every day. They don't care about you. They especially don't care about you if you have no integrity, why would they? You've already accepted your place in the great scheme of things. How have writers who haven't even made it got to a point that they are willing to sell their souls for money? With all the issues in the world, all the incredible stories that need telling; With all the hope that seems to have drifted out of peoples lives, is the best thing a writer can hope for, a small cheque for some hack brief? I think not...

Thank god, a kindred spirit!

John Sayles also suggested for Jurassic Park IV that it should feature "hybrid" soldiers, half dinosaur and half-human. Haha! That's just beyond terrible. but I bet some studio fat-cat somewhere is going "Of course! Humasaurs! Brilliant!!!"

Maybe I'm still just not cynical enough. I'd definitely be willing to do what John Sayles does (or has done) but I like you say, with all the incredible stories to tell, is this really all there is?

In Hollywood, maybe it is. I don't know. But the fact that the directors in my post above still get work gives me hope.

Even if Peter Greenaway pronounced cinema dead in 1983.

Dear Lord,

Thank you for the world so sweet,
Thank you for my bread and sweets,

Thank you for movies like Grease and Ghost,
Thank you for butter I spread on my toast.

My thanks for the humble like Brady Bunch Shows,
My thanks for the depth of our Bette Midler's "Rose"

But most of all,
Thanks for the people that be,
The whole group and those that should fight to agree.

From Screenwriting for Dummies:

(Yes, I bought that book too.)

Page 274: Highlighting the Universal

"Agents and studios want the same thing--a writer with universal appeal.  You need to convince them that you're just such a writer.  What does that mean?  It means that your work will sell to a mass audience.  It entices the 20 year old college student as well as her 50 year old parents.  It speaks to the human condition."

When I saw the last Harry Potter, I was astounded by the craft in this movie, because I've read all the books, and I can understand how some people might question the way it was made.

Despite some people's arguments that Harry's emotional turmoil wasn't captured in the movie, the Doloris Umbridge character was played to the hilt and successfully so.  It was "Disneyish" where little kids could enjoy it and watch as she got her dues and the funny pranks of Fred and George were mastered wonderfully on screen.  But yes, there's sacrifice, and Harry's brooding didn't show up.

However, the scene at the very beginning encapsulated all of Harry's turmoil and his "growing up" experience.  When the clouds darken on the playground and he leaves the swingset, we know that he's truly leaving his childhood behind.  This was highly crafted, though some people might just easily be negative and call it cr**.

Really, I believe that even what might seem to be the most banal, has golden nuggets; it just depends upon your perspective.  Also, we need to consider age as a huge factor.

Teen movies, family movies, kiddie movies, movies that push the edge and are definitely restricted, comedies like "License to Wed" (I loved that by the way) -- they've all got their place.

Not just for writers, but for the executives working on the film at the marketing level: they have to have an idea where they are going to slot the film.

It's and important subject and it all has to do with packaging.

I know it's hard.  I write comedy and also dark fiction.  How the heck do I package that?  Pseudonyms come to mind.

I was joking recently with one of the writers here about a collaborative effort--that if some elements make it into the rewrites, I can blame it on them.  In a way, I'm serious: when we write, sometimes, we bring some dark things to the surface, skeletons, fantasies...  If you're writing as a team, you can hide behind the other writers and blame it on them.  Isn't that awful?

Really though, I do think that we bring each other up when we work together on projects because we are all so different.  And especially because we try and work deadlines which is hard.

Once you are working deadlines, you start and feel things in your bones.  If your at page 10, you know what page 10 should feel like.  You also know if you're not using the idea of "movie" to its fullest advantage by having characters sitting in one spot too long.

It's getting late.  Goodnight all.

Sandra