Friday, February 27, 2009

Refining the Idea

Having examined your idea and decided that it can best be realized in screenplay form, your next task it to reduce it to its simplest statement. You must be able to answer the question: What is this script about? And you must be able to answer it in no more than two sentences. One sentence is preferable, and if you can reduce that sentence to one word, all the better. If you cannot do this, then you do not understand your idea correctly, and you will never be able to focus your screenplay on it. Your script will lack an ideational spine, a through-line, an integrity that only an underlying vision can give it. And when we talk about the central idea of the script – about its meaning – that is what we understand: What is the vision behind this work, and how best can we convey it through the medium of film?

For at every turn, at every scene change, with the introduction of every new character, this single, simply stated idea will be your guide. It will determine who and what you will write, and what value they will have in the script, because your choice of scene or character must serve the expression of your core idea. I have always found this to be true. Whenever I was unsure of what to cut to, or where the story should go, or which character I should focus on, I reverted to my single-sentence expression of the central idea and asked: Does this scene or character or dialogue serve to advance and elucidate the meaning I am trying to convey?

This is where many young screenwriters lose their way. If they have read the standard texts on writing the screenplay, they probably know that it must contain events, and even, that these events ought to occur at specific points in the text. And while, as I have said, I think this is utter nonsense, it is true that film scripts should be a framework of events – of things that happen and that can be seen – but that is only half the battle. Screenplays must also have meaning. As all art, they must convey a truth from the author to the audience. And herein lies the essence of screenwriting, or of any writing, from my point of view: Screenplays are not essentially about events; they are about Truth.

Not truths, with a small ‘t’ and a plural, but about Truth with a capital ‘T.’ If you do not believe that you are in possession of some form, some portion, of eternal, immutable Truth, and that you alone can bring that Truth to strangers in a unique voice with a unique vision, then please find some other line of work. And this is where your ability to voice your idea in a simple sentence, or even one word, comes into play. Your idea must be able to be expressed, in your mind at least, as a simple statement of truth. And this truth must reflect fixed, transcendent Truth, not changing, situational truth. Another, simpler way to put this is: Don’t tell people something they already know or could have figured out by themselves. Instead, tell them something you know to be true and that you believe they need to hear. That is what makes you a writer, and makes you worthy to be thought of in the same company as Sophocles and Shakespeare, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Beckett and Chekhov.

For you do want to be in their company, and you must remember that, as a writer, you stand in a tradition for which many people have suffered and been persecuted, imprisoned and even killed, because they dared to put the truth as they understood it into words and onto paper. And I am not just thinking of the great dramatic writers of our tradition – there were great comedic writers who also suffered and died for the integrity of their art. As a writer, your duty is to the Truth, first and above all. Not to make money or to please some studio boss, or to win a prize, but to use the medium of film to enlighten and improve humanity. And as the ancient masks of dramatic art depict – you can do this by making your audience laugh or weep or both.

2 comments:

  1. First, a capital "T" from Copying Beethoven:

    “The vibrations on the air are the breath of God, speaking to man’s soul. Music is the language of God. We musicians are as close to God as man can be. We hear His voice. We read His lips. We give birth to the children of God, who sing His praise. That’s what musicians are. And if we are not that, we are nothing.”

    I'm certain this powerful passage will outlast anything else I've gained from the movie. My thanks go out to the screenwriter.

    There's a question, though, concerning how faithfully it represents the real mind of Beethoven. And if the answer is "sort of," then the screenwriter would seem to be inhabiting this historical character for his own, somewhat incongruent purposes.

    What's the standard for ensuring a non-fictional character would (or does) align with the screenwriter's truth?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, but I had not thought to check to see whether I had any comments on this blog.

    Thank you for your kind words about Copying Beethoven. I have lived with Beethoven since I was thirteen. Together with Tolstoy, he is my hero, and I feel I know him as well as I have known certain people in my life. I have listened to his music, read biographies and analyses of his work, thought about him, leaned on him in times of distress, and dreamed for years of writing something about him.

    The lines you quote do reflect Beethoven's consciousness as I understand it. He said enough things along similar lines to have persuaded me of that. But it is also true that I do 'inhabit' my characters, Beethoven included. That is part of the joy of writing historical characters - you get to see the world through their eyes. I did this with Kleopatra, Miles David, Muhammad Ali, and even Richard Nixon. It is absolutely essential to inhabit your character, but that does not mean your purposes and his or hers are incongruent. Part of the challenge of writing historical drama is to bring your consciousness in line with the character's. But drama is not documentary or biography - it is a way of looking at and depicting the character that cannot help but also reflect the consciousness of the writer. I am not a computer or a dictaphone - I have my own point of view and thoughts and imaginings about history and historical figures, and I take it as my job to bring that consciousness to the character in a way that helps to elucidate and illuminate him or her in such a way that the audience feels that it has achieved a kind of truth. It is often said that non-fiction gives us the facts and fiction gives us the truth. I subscribe to this view. I only hope I attain to it.

    ReplyDelete