There are three groups of people in Hollywood:
Group 1: People who know nothing or next to nothing about story.
Group 2: People who can tell you what’s wrong with a story, but don’t know how to solve its problems.
Group 3: People who not only can determine what’s wrong with a story, they can fix it.
Guess which group a writer wants to be in.
A few caveats:
* Virtually no one in the acquisition, development, production or marketing side of the movie business would ever admit to being a member of Group 1. But they’re there. A tip to figure their identity: If you ask someone, “What’s the story about,” and they respond by actually telling you the story beat for beat, there’s an awfully good chance they don’t have a very good grasp of the concept of story.
* Most people in Hollywood fall into Group 2. They know enough about story to be dangerous. That is they can tell you at least some of the things that are wrong with a script, but often their solutions are way wide of the mark. The worst is when they suggest something that would force you to radically reinvent the story, but they can’t see how or why that doesn’t make the problems worse. “I know it’s called ‘Nuns With Guns,’ but why does it have to be nuns?”
* If you’re a writer, you hope you qualify for Group 3. A studio exec may be involved in shepherding a dozen projects or more through the development process, so they are looking at writers to be problem-solvers. Your ability to identify a story’s underlying issues and suggest solid, tangible ways to resolve those concerns will serve you in good stead in Hollywood.
However if you are a member of Group 3, you can not speak to people who are in Group 2 and certainly not Group 1 as if they understand story the way you do. You have to be able to break down your analysis and ideas into a series of graspable talking points. If you try to impress them with your deep understanding of the nuances of story theory, you will not only likely lose them, they will probably feel a great deal of discomfort sitting in a room with you.
Instead you must try to meet them on their level and shape your suggestions into digestible, bite-sized talking points. This is not to demean them in any way. You may know story, but you probably don’t know squat about business or the subtleties of networking. You have your talent. They have theirs.
And by the way, this is not only about Group 3 trying to communicate with Group 2 or Group 1 people, it’s also understanding the fact that studio executives have insanely busy lives, so being concise and on point is at a premium when dealing with them.
Bottom line: They don’t really need to know the ins-and-outs of story theory. All they want is for you to fix the damn script!
[Note: Are there producers and studio execs who are members of Group 3? Absolutely. And that can be both a blessing and a curse, the former because you benefit from their great ideas, the latter because they will want to explore every conceivable plot possibility, hopefully a beneficial process, but an exhausting one].
Now I can hear you asking this question: How do I go about becoming a member of Group 3? Apart from those of you who are preternaturally wise about story, movies, and screenwriting, there is really only one answer to that question: Immerse yourself in cinema.
Not just screenwriting, but the entirety of movies.
See every film.
Read every book.
Analyze every script.
Study the business.
Think like a writer.
Think like a director
Think like a producer.
You should envelope yourself in everything related to filmmaking and the movie business. In other words, you have to love cinema and follow that passion into the world of cinema.
That is until some pharmaceutical company comes out with a little blue pill called MovieAgra: The one pill to take to magically arouse your cinematic sensibilities!
Otherwise if you want to join Group 3, see every movie, read every book, analyze every script…
Next week: Who do I have to **** to get off this project?
The Business of Screenwriting is a weekly series of GITS posts based upon my experiences as a complete Hollywood outsider who sold a spec script for a lot of money, parlayed that into a screenwriting career during which time I’ve made some good choices, some okay decisions, and some really stupid ones. Hopefully you’ll be the wiser for what you learn here.
Question: When does a newly arrived member of Group 3 display their awesomeness? Is it expected that you will have articulate a fix right there, in the room, when the problem or note is first voiced? Or does it typically work like this: you, the writer, sit and listen and take notes and nod, make good eye contact, and upon hearing the problem, say, "I see what you're saying. Let me dig into that." And you go off to your writer's garret with your raft of notes and fix the problem there, in the next draft?
Put more concisely, just how often and to what extent should a writer suggest fixes in the room during a notes meeting, as problems and issues are raised?
Down the rabbit hole we go! What's the side effects of the blue pill?
@John – tell 'em enough to hire you but no so much they don't have to pay you! I like to get the script e-mailed to me before any face to face meeeting, read it very quickly, then phone them to tell them I'm just ABOUT to read it and at that point try to winkle out what their issues are (they won't ask you question 'cos you haven't read it, right?). Then at the first meeting you tell them what they want to hear – at the next one you tell them whay they NEED to hear.
John, that's a good question. I don't think there's one right or wrong answer to it. Each story and each meeting is different, you have to feel your way through it. I know there have been times in an exploratory session where I blurted out what I thought was a good idea and the response was favorable, but then once I tried to work that idea into the story, it became problematic. That's difficult because you've already set them up to like the initial suggestion. Now you have to backtrack.
In general, it's probably good to remember the adage I've mentioned before: "God gave you one mouth and two ears… for a reason." Plus the more you probe, ask questions, and listen, the more likely you are to learn something important to influence your process — predispositions on their part, things they hate, things they love, the current mood of the development team, and so on.
There are times when they are in a hurry or under significant pressure on a project where the expectations from an initial meeting are higher in terms of what you bring to the table with your analysis and suggestions, so it's always best to be as prepared as possible. Read the material. Break it down. Learn from your reps what they hear the major issues with the story are. And do some brainstorming in advance, coming up with some key talking points for discussion.
But unless that first meeting is acknowledged as your opportunity to pitch an overall story solution, more of a meet and greet / exploratory thing, it's probably best not to think you have to solve the problems right then and there, as you will be better served to have time to really dig into the material and come up with a comprehensive, coherent take.
Let me add this point: Even if you feel like you understand story quite well, sometimes your sensibilities just don't mesh with this or that project. Other times you simply may not be able to break a story and solve the problems. You can't expect to be perfect and to know everything. Story is not an inert thing, it is organic and by its very nature rather mysterious. So it's always good to carry with you a healthy level of humility. Even if you don't, the process of working and writing in Hollywood will provide you plenty of reasons to be humble.
Thanks, Lazzard and Scott. Differentiating the type meeting and its set of expectations really helps me put my arms around this question. Much obliged!
As for the requisite humility, again Scott your advice is plucked of the sage varietals. I've got enough mileage on me now to have a more than a few regrets from younger years, when I talked too much out of nervousness, or being too quick to feel I had to prove I was smart enough to be in the room in the first place.
As for the "newly arrived member of Group 3" remark…that's a bit of tongue-in-cheek, aspirational visualization, not misbehaving hubris. Working to elevate my current spec to professional standards is a whole heapin' helping of humble pie.
Damn, it's high bar…
Thanks again, Scott, for the boatloads of help as we all try to get there!
@John: "Aspirational visualization." Dude, that goes into my glossary!
In terms of what each of us bring to the table with our respective understanding of story: On any project, I'm thinking we should aim for a balance of confidence– we believe we understand the story and can nail the script — and humility — we know the process is going to kick our ass a few times along the way.