Is Your Film Treatment Ready?
In the run-up to Writer’s Digest’s Annual Conference at the Manhattan Hilton in New York (August 10-12), it’s been interesting to note the presence of some screenwriting sessions on the schedule. On the Thursday pre-show day of standalone events, for example, there’s a daylong seminar on “Screenwriting for Newbies and Novelists” with Jacob Krueger–who runs a studio series of training programs year-’round.
And on the Saturday of the conference, Jeanne Bowerman, longtime editor of Script Magazine (and a vivacious personality whose energy may be running half of Los Angeles’ power grid), is giving a session called “Introduction to Screenwriting,” one of the types of sessions she has frequently offered in California iterations of Writers Digest’s conferences.
While elements of screenwriting programming aren’t entirely new to writers’ conferences, they tend to stand out a bit more in “the age of Netflix.” A new emphasis on storytelling in fine television work and cinema has been part of many discussions recently, something I touched on in April here at Writer Unboxed.
One of the most compelling exercises arrived about 10 days ago, when the Publishers Association–the UK counterpart to the Association of American Publishers in the States–released a major study (PDF) it had commissioned, the big message being that film, TV, and stage productions likely to do best on the market are the ones that start with a book.
As we’ve reported at Publishing Perspectives, when compared to original scripts and screenplays, the Publishers Association is announcing that book adaptations attract, on average:
- 44 percent more in UK film box office revenue (and 53 percent more globally)
- 58 percent higher viewership of “high-end” television productions
- Nearly three times more ticket sales for theater productions
A point of interest to those following the Brexit saga in the UK: the Publishers Association’s report is both clever and important to the British publishing industry, which is working very hard this year to display its importance among the “creative industries” (entertainment) in the country’s economy as the break with Europe approaches. Those industries are going to need robust support in the development of trade treaties for export and other arrangements that for decades have been covered by European Union rules.
So the impetus for the association is a wise one, but it also gives us a chance to look at a rarely quantified view of the industry.
Whether you subscribe to the idea that the “storytelling imprimatur” may be shifting somewhat from books to screen (meaning not as many film and TV works are based on them), we’re clearly in a “golden age,” as some are calling it, with film and television gaining traction in the attention economy. Production is booming at Amazon Studios, HBO, Hulu, Showtime, and the ubiquitous Netflix, which now originates many of its finest shows in non-English markets first before bringing them into the US system.
I can recommend, for example, the system’s first French-produced outing, Dan Franck’s political thriller Marseille with Gerard Depardieu, an impeccable production from a French company called Federation Entertainment.) I’ll give you a break from my palaver: check out the trailer here.
Parlez-vous Screenplay?
Here’s a little secret: When I was on a three-city tour of German publishing houses in June with 15 publishers and editors from the UK and the US, some of us got into what might be called a “guilty” discussion. Several of the group admitted–to lots of sympathetic nods–that they’re not reading as much as they used to, because, as one put it, “TV is getting so good.”
This is unnerving to many in the group. They’re worried because they’re the pros in the business and they expect themselves to be utterly dedicated reader. And yet they, too, feel the siren call of the Roku box, right?
So here’s my provocation for you, and I’m sure I’ll need Don Maass’ help on one factor I’m going to toss in. I’d seriously like to have your responses, when you can tear yourself away from Jill Soloway’s I Love Dick:
- Do you do film treatments of your books?
- If not, are you learning screenwriting?
- Do you think it would make sense? The rationale here would be that you know best what your book needs in terms of at least initial film development and making it shoppable in Century City can’t hurt.
- Is it unthinkable because it would only distract you from your usual writing?
- Don, this is where I need your input, and James Scott Bell, are you here? Is it possible that working on a screenplay of, let’s say, your third draft of that latest novel could open up new ways of seeing and understanding your book? If, for example, you bring the filmmaker’s eye to your story, does it give you a better look at where to cut, tighten, refine, and hone the impact of your story?
- So could it be a good move for your craft as a novelist to learn some elements of screenwriting and apply them to your work in progress (or regress, as the case may be)?
- Or does this whole line of questioning just make you fat on popcorn?
Here’s looking at you, kid. Tell me what you think. At the very least, isn’t this a good excuse to take a vacation this summer to Rome? You can tell everybody you were studying at Cinecittà. My secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions, Federico. See you in comments, ciao.
Wish you could buy Porter a glass of Campari?
Now, thanks to tinyCoffee and PayPal, you can!
About Porter Anderson
@Porter_Anderson is Editor-in-Chief of Publishing Perspectives, the international news medium of Frankfurt Book Fair New York. He and Jane Friedman co-own and produce @The Hot Sheet, the essential industry newsletter for authors. Anderson previously was The Bookseller's Associate Editor for The FutureBook in London. Formerly with CNN, CNN.com and CNN International–as well as the Village Voice, the Dallas Times Herald, and other media–he has also been a featured writer with Thought Catalog in New York, creating as a longtime arts critic the #MusicForWriters series. More on his consultancy: PorterAndersonMedia.com | Google+
Actually, in writing my eternally in progress novel, I visualize the scenes before I write them. Thinking of them in terms of visual seems to help. At least, I hope it does.
Hi, Judith.
I salute your eternally in progress novel! (Which is to say, your eternally progressive effort on it.)
It’s great that you’re using visualization, too. You might want to read up on screenwriting. You never know what your experience in visualization might lead to.
Cheers,
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Hey Porter,
Provocative post.
I think that post publication (or at least completion) it’s not a bad idea at all to prepare a treatment for your novel. I’ve been recently reading about IP licensing, etc. – so yes, I think it makes sense and will at least at some future point, put more money on the table for writers if they do this.
In terms of doing it as you are writing the book, I’d say no. The mediums are very different and I think you could end up with too long a screenplay and too short a novel.
Also, a screenplay is a blueprint for a cooperative endeavor. If you hope to make a film from a story then that story has to be written in such a way that it allows others to come in and add their create to it. And lacks the specificity of a novel. No internal thoughts, dialogue, getting into character’s heads or hearts.
I just think if you tried to write a novel and it’s counterpart screenplay at the same time you’d end up with a hot mess and end up with neither a viable book nor screenplay.
But then, maybe my writer brain isn’t as big and smart as others. Probably so. LOL.
Hey, Anita,
Sorry for the delay. I think you’re very smart on this — it may indeed be internally conflictive to try to work in both media at once, I’m not sure I’d recommend that, either.
I love your line, “I think you could end up with too long a screenplay and too short a novel,” lol. Exactly.
On the other hand, I do think that letting another medium’s needs and format throw a new light on your work isn’t a bad idea. In my next post at WU, I’m talking about “adjacencies,” in terms of how I learn things about my own work by choosing material that has pertinent elements to it in my reading and viewing. https://writerunboxed.com/2018/08/17/creative-adjacencies/
All are good, of course, and at times I think I wish I could be more open to the lessons and nuances of other forms like film.
Thanks again, hope your work is going well!
-p.’
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Hello Porter.
As you say, video is ubiquitous and unavoidable. I once read a book or two on screenwriting, and then took one of my novels and wrote a screenplay for it. The experience revealed to me that screenwriting–and especially teleplay-writing– are wildly different from novel writing. Duh, Barry.
But as an older writer, I decided to keep doing what I’ve tried hard to get good at–writing extended narratives, novels. I’ve come to think that chasing after video in its many varieties would be pointless, a chimera–for someone like me. If someone writes a book, floating up from which movie/TV people smell the scent of money, they will seek out the writer. Otherwise, go to screenwriting school.
Thanks for another–as usual–clear treatment of a subject of interest and importance to writers.
Thanks, Barry, and I must say, you’re completely on the money — if you find that working in even a mild cinematic direction is a distraction rather than a help, then it’s not the way to go.
Good thoughts, and thanks for them.
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Porter, great article. I’ve purchased a couple of screenwriting books and have been reading scripts of favorite new movies: Gointothestory.com has wonderful resources.
We love watching movies and when I write, I see pictures in my head (I am a picture book writer after all) but studying screenwriting is helping the novel writing as well. It’s fun to imagine my stories on the big screen! Have a great weekend.
Hey, Vijaya,
Very cool! I’m glad to know that you, too, have this effect from the world of screenplays. I actually was glad to find that the Alex Garland Ex Machina “book” is the screenplay. Seeing how he structures that story as the guide that a screenplay is (so unlike a book in which it’s the whole artwork) is really informative and I find it can open my mind to ways to see — as you say — characters and scenes in another context that feeds what you’re doing.
Super comments, and thanks!
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Buggles! This is nothing new. How long ago did that song VIDEO KILLED THE RADIO STAR come out?
The only thing new is perhaps some of the out-of-touch publishers and literary agents waking up to the rest of the world.
PS Not all great stories are by English-as-a-first-language-white- men.
Thanks, Porter, for bringing up this up. I’m a screenwriter as well as a novelist, and the two forms are so very different–although a reader of one of my novels said that it read like a movie. That, perhaps, had to do with an ability to craft strongly visual scenes.
I was a staff writer and story editor at a major Hollywood animation production company and learned that the vast majority of what you see on the screen in an animated film comes from the writer, who details all of the visuals. In live-action film and television scripts, though, visuals are just sketched in, leaving execution to the director and cinematographer.
The visual descriptions in a screenplay would play poorly in a novel, and an ability to sketch in a scene versus an ability to make it live on the page are quite different. Talent for one does not equate to talent for the other. A novelist could have a tough time limiting a script description to the bare bones called for in a script.
Will learning screenwriting help you as a novelist? Depends on whose teachings you follow. Some experts lay out mechanical plot patterns that must be followed, and it doesn’t seem helpful to me to write with handcuffs on (I’m a pantser). I like the more flexible approach in Robert McKee’s Story. As for spending the time to create a treatment, I don’t see the profit in doing so until asked for it.
Real interesting input, Ray, thanks for it.
I think that in parallel to what you’re saying about strong characterization, where I see cinematic parallels in my work (and my fondness for learning from screenplays) is in action — I tend to find that I can do a lot more with action in prose if I’ve paid a lot of attention to how it communicated something to us in a film.
For example, if there’s a scene in which getting out of a bad refugee situation is crucial for a character — who runs back to grab a child who’s wandered off the dock — all we need to see is the rescue boat pull away with out them to know that a devastating new conflict as arived for the protagonist (who is left behind, unrescued, child in hand but without escape).
This we learn more easily from film, I think, how cleanly an economical approach to story complication can be introduced. One shot and it’s there.
Thanks again,
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Thanks for the insights about the current film/tv/book climate. As a heavy consumer of those novel-driven, high quality Netflix-et-al series, it was interesting to hear your take on the potential demand this creates for book to film. It has especially opened a wider opportunity for production of more diverse authors/subjects than in the past.
As for applying it to work in progress: The biggest overlap I have seen — where it benefits novelists to understand the structure of screen narrative — is in understanding concepts of acts, tension, microtension, etc. Evaluating the structure of your novel to see if it has an opening situation, an inciting incident, if there are points of no return, the dark night of the soul… Each of these helps a novelist to achieve tighter pacing (especially for saggy middles). Screenwriting also has more of a tendency to put people in action and face to face, and that has been a reminder to me, on occasion, to swap out a thinking/reflecting scene (in novel) and instead put characters face to face. So generally, I agree that there is lots novelists can take away from an understanding of screenwriting — without it being a distraction or muddying of their goals for the book form. And, by the way, in absence of Don Maass chiming in yet, I’d say that much of what I just said is covered or alluded to in his advice for 21st c fiction. Another good one on the subject has been Ben Percy (his book Thrill Me; he set an early draft of my novel to task in a workshop over issues that screen-strategies would fix).
Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
I agree, Elissa. Studying screenwriting helped me better understand story structure and also helped me get over a propensity for including too much thinking and reflecting in my stories.
Novelists can learn from script writers. I interviewed several for a WD article some years back and adapted that for some blog posts: http://chriseboch.blogspot.com/search/label/script%20writing
I especially liked the advice I got on strong starts – that helped me with my novels. And reading The Hollywood Pitching Bible was great for thinking about a book’s hook. But novelists can learn from screenwriting techniques without necessarily writing a screenplay.
Porter! Sorry to be a day late, I’m on the road with my family, but I think Ray above hit the main point: while there are story similarities between screen and book, they are written in fundamentally different ways.
It’s a long topic but one difference is that screenplays are written in part for actors to perform. Dialogue is drastically shorter and subtext greatly larger.
Another difference is the visual nature of storytelling on the screen, which is antithetical to the immersive and interior POV writing in novels.
Novelists frequently write dull screenplays, as developmental execs know, just as screenwriters often write flat fiction, as this literary agent can attest. That is because the modes of narration are so different, even if story is story.
That said, it’s a fertile time of crossover between book and screen, and an opportunity to learn a different language of storytelling. As to whether novelists will learn more about their novels by writing treatments, I’d say no, but they will learn more about the craft of screenwriting.
Hey, Don!
Ridiculously late getting back to you, my apology — and no such good excuse as having the family on tour, either, lol. Just another preposterous week getting away from me.
But thanks for this good input (and hope the travels have gone well).
I do know what you’re saying about the divergent storytelling contexts of film and literature, of course. You’re right about that and I’m happy to bow to your far deeper experience in what you’re seeing than mine.
I’ll say, though, that in my own experience, writing for live theater has been quite useful when then turning to novel work. The former informs the latter with a kind of cleanliness of purpose — a scene in a good stage play has no confusions about what must be communicated as a top-line for that segment of the show, how much attendant detail and elaboration of character, setting, and story can be tolerated (before that top-line mandate is blurred), and what rhythm can mean to good prose.
Film, television, and stage are different, of course, but I don’t think that distance of another medium’s needs is a bad thing to bring to bear on the near-medium’s (literature) development.
My own bias here, of course, lies in having been an Equity actor in the 18th century, and a peculiar transference of writing intent from one medium to the other, I’ve discovered, has to do with thinking of one’s characters in a book as the actors you’re writing for, instead. The idea of serving one’s characters–as any selfish actor will tell you that the playwright is there to serve the actors, lol–is sometimes not a bad place to start in thinking of characterization and its writerly dynamics.
“Service to your characters” … Hm. Now, you see, you’ve set me off on another line of thinking, so I’ll stop and spare you! :)
Thanks again for getting back with a cogent, helpful comment.
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
I do not do film treatments of my in progress (or finished) works for a couple of reasons: first, while the idea of movie/TV series based on any of my stories is intriguing (and certainly is part of my fantasy world), writing screenplays is not in my wheelhouse. While it’s important to learn and grow throughout life, I’m still learning about this whole writing thing, and I’m just not there yet.
Two, writing a film treatment while writing (or while a draft is in the “resting stage”) is a bit of the cart before the horse for me.
Three, while it’s theoretically true that I know my story best, I do not know how it would best translate to Hollywood. As it is, I have a hard enough time figuring out which scenes, characters, etc., need to get the axe from my bloated first drafts–how could I then go and combine two critical side characters into one, drop that enlightening subplot, etc?
I do think there’s a lot novelists could learn from dipping into screenwriting for sure, but for now, I’m going to concentrate on one thing.