2009: The Directors and Writers Thread

[Khan]

OTOH, you could follow Alan Ball's example: by day, write crap you don't believe in for some TV sitcom diva with an over-inflated ego; and at night, work out your frustrations w/ your day-job on some spec script that becomes an award-winning classic and probably the movie of the '00's.

...Just sayin'.

[MarkH]

NOW you are talking! That smacks of so much common sense!

[Khan]

No, that's not common sense. That's Khan being an ass. Don't you know the difference yet? ;-D

[MarkH]

Khan, as an ass, speaks some truth.There can be wisdom in every beast.

[Khan]

Spoken like someone who doesn't know me.

[YRBB]

LMFAO

[Toups]

B&B:

- Martha Byrne first listed as Script Writer on April 14

[bellcurve]

No, I am not saying that at all. I'm not saying "change the direction of the story" or "tell the boss what to do." I'm saying, if someone edited your dialogue and essentially, made the characters say things or react in a way they normally wouldn't in an episode you wrote, wouldn't you do or say something? Maybe they are? Maybe we don't know what's going on? But at the same time, the scriptwriter is essentially the person we look for to write dialogue, to make sense of every wonderful and shitty story the Head-Writers give them. If they can't deliver on that promise, then yes, we do blame the Head Writer, but we also look for the person who wrote said dialogue. And who knows who writes anything anymore? Hell, actors may even chuck out the script and wing it, ala Gloria Monty/GH/1981.

In terms of the whole "happy with your boss" thing, what I meant to say is, to most, scriptwriting is a soulless job that they bank their $3000+ from and never look back at. For others, it's clearly an art for which they have the utmost respect. Maybe there is a happy medium between the two?

And yes, I am aware that I'm trying to make "sell out" happen at SON, but I suppose I wanted to use my own voice as opposed to changing it up and saying "compromise one's artistic integrity." I am SURE others in this thread seem to have the ten dollar Webster word(s) to describe the art of selling out.

[MarkH]

If soaps were on PBS, I think I'd agree more.

But this is COMMERCIAL television. One hopes for glimmers of art, but the raison d'etre of soaps has always been to sell Ivory and Vaseline and ... lately ... macys.com So, because the commercial motive is PRE-EMINENT, any writer who stands excessively by "artistic integrity" actually GETS IN THE WAY of the point of these soaps.

That's why I take Khan's point seriously. Soaps are places to do bread-and-butter work and hopefully have moments of genius thrown in. Then, to get the artistic needs fulfilled, side projects fit that bill just fine. Indeed, any script that is too challenging or clever or innovative is just as likely to turn off those soap-buying women...and then we've killed the goose.

[Sylph]

Memo to myself: I have to get into this way of thinking! Or else I'll explode!

[YRBB]

Her first script wasn't bad at all, especially in light of having to show SICK and pimp Macys.com... Loved the work she did with Pamela.

[Khan]

And hold up production? After the script has been written, edited, and is considered ready for taping? I'm not quite sure I understand.

Unless your name is William Goldman or John Patrick Shanley, and you have clout and cache enough to have it in writing that not one letter of your script(s) can be changed without your approval (or, you're someone like John Sayles, who often directs and produces movies based on his own scripts), I'm afraid most screenwriters do approach it as a commercial, collaborative business (meaning, they know going in that it does no one any good to become overly attached to a script, when you know at least 50% of it will be changed). Yes, screenwriting should be considered an art, but it hardly ever is. That's why many screenwriters often have side projects - novels, stage plays, short stories and poetry - where they can exert more control over the process.

[bellcurve]

Well then why are we even judging Amanda Beall, Melissa Salmons, Shannon Bradley, The "Women With Words," etc. on their strengths and weaknesses as scriptwriters? What's the point of this thread if what we have been lead to believe in the credits(which is that {insert name here} wrote the dialogue) isn't true? I don't understand it? Why are they even credited in that order anyway if some stuff is network mandated?

I understand brimike and everyone else here saying "Well maybe we shouldn't blame the scriptwriter for shitty script after shitty script...." Well then who DO we blame? I mean, we dog these Head-Writers for poor plotting and major oversight. We dog script editors for not looking for these mistakes or rewriting stuff.

Oh no. No one's advocating a halt to production and last minute rewrites. But what I meant to say is, why wouldn't a scriptwriter go to his/her editor or head-writer and say, "Hey, that line you changed in my script to make Laura say "bitchcakes" is out of character for her because she seems to be more prim and proper. Why was this or that changed? Was it necessary? Can we avoid it?

Or maybe I live in a world filled with cotton candy and balloons, thinking that if we all constructively criticized one another's work(even commercial scripts) with respect, maybe we could all become better artists and people.

[Khan]

Honestly? I don't know.

*shrugs*

Because, by the time they notice the change, they're watching the show right along with the rest of us. ;-)

Frankly, bellcurve, I think you'd want to give the scriptwriters more autonomy than they actually have. As I told a friend of mine not too long ago, the scriptwriter's just another cog in this enormous wheel. They take the work seriously, of course; at the end of the day, though, they just put words in other people's mouths, and that's all they do.

[MarkH]

It's more than that. Beyond network mandates to, for example, "youthanize" (oh, how I love the words you all teach me), you're writing dialogue for a character you did not create, with a history you did not write, and a long arc that is not under your control. A bunch of other people write the same person.

So, as a script writer, you have GOT to take yourself out of the equation. You've GOT to, or you destroy the show.

I know I keep harping on this, but Kay Alden -- who learned from the master -- had these utterly pefect quotes. "The show must sound like the show". Yes. Many have complained about Y&R's stilted dialogue, but it was a SIGNATURE dialogue. I knew how Jack would sound or Kay would sound. When the character sounded the same way from script to script, that was a sign of either a well-oiled machine, or excellent editing (or both) to get things harmonized.

So, instead of feeling like I was watching a patchwork or collage, I felt like I was watching a coherent creative product with an identity that transcended the writers.

It is actually a remarkable feat of ego (by which I mean, self-displacement in the service of a larger product) when writers are able to pick up the sound of their show, and seamlessly continue it.

What it means, though, for a writer who defines his/her success by putting his/her voice or his/her stories out there...they don't want to work for the "community production approach" of a daytime soap.

The "auteur", in daytime, is -- at most -- the HW. And it seems unlikely that most HWs are auteurs these days.

How does this relate to this thread? If "sitcom-y" language SOLELY appeared in Beall's AMC scripts, then that is the fault of the writer. On that show, she somehow didn't get into the groove. If "sitcom-y" language appeared, for certain characters, every time they were on the show, then that is actually a triumph of the ovearching creative agenda that drives the show (or more precisely, the ability to implement a cohesive vision)-- whether we as viewers like it or not.