Are all women in their 20's who write about life in their 20's doomed to be Lena Dunham clones?

No? Lena Dunham has a particular style. Media about the 20somethings existed before 2010 and Dunham, while talented, is not in any way revolutionary. I wrote a feature about that age group and I felt trying too hard to avoid being Dunham-esque was inhibiting.

No I mean from a young woman's perspective?

That rawness that she brings to her characters. Especially about women. I guess I don't like GIRLS looming over everything and I love GIRLS!!

It seems anytime someone shows a women as raw people..it goes...oh yeah like girls....you know what I mean,

Or is this an unavoidable?

Sex and the City loomed over pretty much any show that was similar in subject matter for about a decade (then the movies came along and ruined any credibility the show had). Seinfeld still gets compared to comedian-driven comedy shows and it ended like 20 years ago.

I'm just saying, it's not a big deal for influences to be obvious. It's not an accusation of plagiarism. And there's a lot worse shows to be compared to.

Your central hero in a script will always, ALWAYS be you. It's basic psychology. That doesn't mean they will necessarily look like you, or do what do you...but the core moral/psychological need that they have in a fully developed story will be an issue that you yourself are wrestling with.

It's hard to write something truthfully that you are not going through yourself.

You are also going to write from your age group. Viki King said this best in "How to write a screenplay in 21 days".

A 17 year old will write about first love, how love can be good and hurt.
A 19 year old from a detached point of view...usually a strong main character with very concrete opinions.
Early twenties: "I'm Ok, but the world's shit".
Late twenties "I'm Ok and the world is what it is, how do we get along?"
Early Thirties: Relationships with Parents.


Yadda yadda till you get to the later years when it's "What the hell was that all about? And memory. Then you die.

That being said, everyone has a unique viewpoint. There's always a new angle. Just pick a new point of view...one that's NOT Lena Dunham.

Ok, well that is very true. Thank you guys for that. I have been going through some weirdness lately but I'm better now.

Thanks

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Your central hero in a script will always, ALWAYS be you. It's basic psychology. That doesn't mean they will necessarily look like you, or do what do you...but the core moral/psychological need that they have in a fully developed story will be an issue that you yourself are wrestling with.

A feature script that I wrote last year had a pedophile for a central character who didn't want to be a pedophile but couldn't stop himself from doing the horrible things he did.

I have a lot of soul-searching to do. I don't think I'll post here for a while, not until my shrink says it's okay.

"Your central hero in a script will always, ALWAYS be you. It's basic psychology."

This idea...and to a certain extent problem...has intrigued me for some time. I noticed that the characters around my protagonist were often more distinctive, unique, or certainly colorful than the hero. I think part of the reason is that we do indeed insert ourselves into the shoes of the protagonist, even if the character is completely different from our real selves. And we tend to see ourselves in life as normal(whether that's true or not doesn't matter). And normal can be less interesting.

So I have tried this a few times: write the beginning of a story as one normally does. Paint a dramatic sequence where we see multiple characters in action. And here's the thing...this scene or scene sequence should not be something you intend for your actual story!! When you are done, look at the characters around the hero. Which one is the most interesting? Now pluck that character off the page and insert him into your real story. He/she is your new protagonist. You might end up with someone pretty screwed up or colorful.

Of course, now you still have to get deeper into that character's head. And some of you will end up in that character. But that character should have a more independent and hopefully interesting existence now.

Also, the history of the novel is a history of growing consciousness. The really talented writers ARE able to get into the heads of their characters and make them come to life. It's really hard to do, and I fear it's more a matter of talent than learning...so I'm probably shyte out of luck. But it's worth the attempt.

I've had the same problem. The main character becomes the Everyman type. I'm not even sure it actually matters that much in a film (if a good actor is given screen time, they don't even need to say much for you to empathise with them, you just go with it), but it definitely doesn't read great on the page.

I like your remedy. They use a similar suggestion in the program Storyweaver. I think in that they have you write a paragraph for each character as though he is the main character, and then choose the most interesting one...the usual...his goal, his moral/psychological need.

Seems like you might often end up telling the story from the villain's point of view, however.

Sometimes your Luke Skywalker is enough and the more interesting Darth Vader should stay the more minor character.

It doesn't always work...or maybe even often...because usually our story concepts are situational.

But another way is to just take your protagonist before he/she is more than a ghost in your mind...and just throw him into a scene that has nothing to do with your story. Put him in a bar by himself and a fight breaks out, or put him in the hospital and his high school friend, who he hasn't seen in 20 years, is dying. Does your character use humor to deal with these things? Is he dark, cynical, optimistic? If you can end up with a more dimensional character, and find some more interesting traits that will be useful later in the real story, you've gained something.

Many gurus say that if your protagonist is not the most interesting character you've done something wrong. I think that's crazy. In fact, the main character is probably usually not the most interesting character. It's much easier to make two dimensional characters colorful. As is the csse with Luke vs Hans Solo. However, in my own work it has still been a problem coming up with more "alive" protagonists, so sometimes these exercises pay off.

Oh, one more thing: voice over.

It gets a bad rep. It shouldn't. Yes, bad VO is a problem. But VO helps bring your character's voice alive...which makes him dimensional, alive, conscious. I suppose it could be useful to play around with VO for a character even when you don;t intend to use it. Just to get the voice down. Maybe interview the character.

I often think about VO for certain things like the very beginning because sometimes it helps to show what the main character really thinks of everyone is in the story. Their perception is usually very askew and narrow. And that makes every other characters choices and behaviors more interesting in  a way. They shock the protag. and the audience

Obviously it's usually preferred to try to find ways to show your character's character through action. But the simple fact is that it's difficult to do. And VO allows you to give your character a voice in a way that dialog usually does not. People think things they wouldn't say.

And yes, as far as the narrative, I think VO is way of getting read of exposition scenes, sometimes.

Quoted Text So I have tried this a few times: write the beginning of a story as one normally does. Paint a dramatic sequence where we see multiple characters in action. And here's the thing...this scene or scene sequence should not be something you intend for your actual story!! When you are done, look at the characters around the hero. Which one is the most interesting? Now pluck that character off the page and insert him into your real story. He/she is your new protagonist. You might end up with someone pretty screwed up or colorful.

Fascinating theory. Going to go through some old scripts and give it a litmus test.

Quoted from Female Gaze I often think about VO for certain things like the very beginning because sometimes it helps to show what the main character really thinks of everyone is in the story. Their perception is usually very askew and narrow. And that makes every other characters choices and behaviors more interesting in  a way. They shock the protag. and the audience

VO can be useful, but don't overdo it.  Which appeals more to you as an actor: Waiting blankly during that scene or exchange where you know the VO is going to be, or performing, visibly, what your character is thinking at that moment?  Which is  more effective -- having a VO point out "I can't stand this guy," or having the actor grimace, blanch or shift at the sight of them?

It's the writer's job to give the actor a character to perform; it's the actor's job to take that character and make them believable.  Unfortunately, not all writers understand this and they don't give the actor enough on the page, hence situations where actors are left having to ask what their motivation is.

There's that rule in screenwriting that states you should only write what can be seen or heard on-screen.  But there are certain unfilmables that aren't actually unfilmables.  I'll write something like "Mary can't help but wonder if she's doing the right thing."  On paper, that's could be considered an unfilmable.  But in the hands of an actor, "Mary can't help but wonder if she's doing the right thing" is something that can be visibly represented by, say, a doubting look aside, a chew of the lip, a concerned look, etc.

VOs are often counterproductive to this.  It tells us what the character is thinking instead of showing us what the character is thinking.  In some instances, as said, they can be quite useful.  In others, it's just lazy writing.

My two cents.

Quoted from Female Gaze ... I have been going through some weirdness lately but I'm better now.Thanks

'Girls' is just the now thing. Lena Dunham wrote young women honestly, warts and all, but in the way she knows women i.e., her girls.

Your frame of reference could be entirely different. There'll always be something new on the horizon, and hopefully something honest and fresh.

Hollywood has a way of sanitizing everything (sometimes) and soaking it in happily ever after sentimentality. LD turned that on its head imh.

Btw, we're writers, so there's always some level of weirdness going on in our heads.  ;D

Out of curiosity, why the question, Ashlie, what are you working on?

If you get time check out Simpatico in the 'shorts' - in my sig. I don't need a review btw, just interested in what you think, seeing as we're talking about female characters. Mind you, there are two male characters in it as well. And it's Aussie.

I'm a big fan of topping and tailing with V.O., and sometimes more.

Great to have another girl on SS too! We are slightly outnumbered. :D

Libby

Quoted Text Great to have another girl on SS too! We are slightly outnumbered. Libby

Yes, but never out manned.

Quoted from eldave1 Yes, but never out manned.

Goes without saying it wouldn't be good if the men were in short supply. You know, for fixing things, and heavy lifting etc.  ;D

Who is Lena Dunham?

Wouldn't it be so much easier to google something on the computer or device you're using? Like if you just type "lena" into google it autosuggests her wikipedia page.

Ah, you just cracked me up big time there Henry. You and Dave should be a double act. Now Ben's running a close second.  :D

One would think a writer would be interested enough in a pretty groundbreaking screenwriter's voice to do some research, idk.

Quoted from AlsoBen Wouldn't it be so much easier to google something on the computer or device you're using? Like if you just type "lena" into google it autosuggests her wikipedia page.

Yes, Ben, I could've googled it on my device.
But it was more fun to do it this way.

Quoted from LC Ah, you just cracked me up big time there Henry. You and Dave should be a double act. Now Ben's running a close second.  :D

Thank you, Libby.