Intonation or Timbre

Today in TV class we had the midterm. Last week Pam had gone over all the questions and answers with us -- she gives the midterm only because she's required to have some objective measure by which to grade us. (Oh please. This is a writing program.)

We got out of that really early, and Carolann, Erica, and Angie disappeared. Usually the 5 of us scatter after class -- mostly to avoid Bernice -- and then meet up at the cafeteria. Linda and I decided to go and have lunch. Having lunch at 11 is great -- the place is empty. We were able to find a table (always dicey) and talk without shouting.

At 12 we headed out, not knowing what to do with ourselves, and decided just to head to Thesis room and do some work. On the way we ran into Carolann and Angie and headed back to the cafeteria with them. Erica turned out to already be there -- she'd seen us there and came to sit with us, just as Linda and I got up to leave.

Thesis class, as always, was great, although it went until 7 again. By the end of a class like that (1pm until 7pm) my brain is mush. I don't know how Len keeps focused on the story he's working on. I sound like an idiot.

At the end of class we were working on James's story and there was something wrong, something none of us could put our finger on about his Act II. There's lots of action, and it's got building tension, so what's the problem? Finally I blurted out, "It's not building towards anything! They've got to get to the point where they thought they had problems before, but that was nothing compared to what's happened now!"

It didn't make any more sense at the time. I also completely reinterpreted (read: misunderstood) who the villain was in his story, a suggestion James hadn't thought about. I'm not sure he'll do anything with it, but he said he'd think about it.

One of the best things Len did for us in class was tell us that every writer finds story to be the hardest thing.

Linda had gone through her pitch sessions with her thesis committee members and been told to make her piece more "character-driven." This is one of the great buzzwords of screenwriting -- character is what separates the chaff from the wheat. They told her that her screenplay was too heavy on action and needed more character-based stuff.

Linda told me this and I said, "If you spend 15 minutes on [deleted] (the way the committee wanted her to), I am out buying popcorn. I don't care."

I am not going to argue that great characters are the backbone of great stories. Of course they are. If you have an action-packed story with lots of stuff happening for no reason and no character any more motivated to do something than anyone else, you get Eraser. But something has to happen -- the character has to show us why he or she is such a great character: how does he react to a situation? how does she get what she wants?

If you have two hours of great character stuff, you get a movie that everyone has "heard" is great but no one wants to go see. I really enjoyed A Family Thing...but I haven't the slightest idea how to describe it to you. And I didn't race out to see it in the theatres.

Characters doing something, not characters sitting around giving us great character stuff, 'kay? Or as Len put it: the kind of character development the thesis committee wants is more appropriate in a 50s film than in today's film. Get down to it already.

One of the comments a committee member made was that Linda's ending was "taking the easy way out." Now, in fact, Linda's ending struck her (and us) as being really difficult -- she would have to do a lot of research and figure out a way to show this realistically -- but a great ending for everything that had come before. But no, for the committee, this was too action-y.

Len laughed at this and proceeded to talk about how story is the most difficult thing any writer has to do. Every writer can write good characters, great dialogue, flowing description...but if there's no story who cares?

If you find a story, any story, a story anywhere, STEAL IT. And hold on.

Of course, I loved every second of his saying this, because this is my big personal fear: that I'm the only person who can't find the story. I'm not. Move on.

I passed around my pages in class and we read them. Everyone laughed uproariously. Len said that it was really good stuff and said he could see people like Goldie Hawn in it.

Problem.

This is not a wacky comedy.

Now, have I made it too funny because, dammit, despite all my protestations to the contrary, I can only write funny? (I've always said I don't do comedy.) Or, am I writing it funny because I'm scared of the material?

I'm going to call Len and ask him if I should write the first draft, making it as wacky as possible, just to get it out of the system, and then write the second draft seriously...or stop now and try to make it more serious as I go along?

While all of this hilarity has been going on, I have been once again wondering why the hell I ended up doing all of this. No, not because I'm depressed about my writing or anything, but because I've been reading Killer Instinct by Jane Hamsher, the producer of Natural Born Killers. It's about the making of the movie and the complete chaos that ruled on every front.

Part of the rap I heard on this book was that she trashes Oliver Stone. Well, she does, but not any more than she trashes everyone else. And nowhere near as much as she trashes Quentin Tarantino, who seems to be burning bridges as fast as he can.

It's a fun book.