p.22
There is always the typical way, and usually it’s adequate.
You can get by on it. But how many of us want to be just “adequate”?
How many of us would rather elevate the quality of our work
from adequate to excellent?
In This Chapter
Beware the Influence of Ego and Status
Dialogue/Monologue: Contractions
Saved by a Single Point of Contact
I once hired a writer to develop a script for an important program on employee benefits. When she brought me her first draft, I told her I’d like to read it over at a convenient time, and meet with her later in the week to discuss any revisions. During that time, I read and reread the script, saw places where I felt improvements could be made, and wrote in what I felt were improved lines and screen directions.
p.23
The key words here are “wrote in.” Being young, inexperienced and, I must admit, a person with a healthy ego, rather than bringing the writer back in to discuss my opinions and leave the revisions to her, I called her back in, presented her with a copy of her original script including my revisions, specific to the word, written in. In essence, rather than ask her to revise the script, I was asking her to create a new copy including what I had written.
When she looked at the script she turned pale and at first looked confused, then perplexed, and finally angry. “You re-wrote it!” she said. “You actually re-wrote it!”
Realizing she was ticked off, but feeling that I had done the right thing, I smiled and agreed. “Right, so if you can get that new draft to me by Friday, that would be great. I think we’ll be good to go!” She did what I asked, of course, collected her check, then left the project, I’m sure feeling patronized and belittled.
In order to get exactly what I had wanted, I had delivered a slap in the face that she would not forget. She was a talented writer, but I didn’t trust or allow her to exercise that talent. I chose to let my ego and opinions take over. We didn’t work together again. Sensing her anger, I was hesitant to call her, and I’m sure that had I done so, she would have been “too busy” to take on a new project.
There is a back story to this incident that, at least to some degree, justifies my actions, but we don’t have time for whining or excuses. The bottom line was simple—justified or not, it cost me a relationship with a talented writer and who knows how that might have affected my career from that point on.
So what is the lesson in this little tale?
p.24
BEWARE THE INFLUENCE OF EGO AND STATUS
Your ego and sense of status can have a powerful influence on your words and actions. Don’t let them affect your relationships with creative people—especially writers and actors.
If, as I said, a good script is one of the primary keys to your success (and believe me, it is), you need to have solid relationships with good writers, and in order to create those relationships you must allow them to flex their creative muscles and gain respect for their work. If their work is not up to your standards, fire them and hire new writers. But don’t patronize them by doing their work and then patting them on the back. And when you come across those really talented ones—treat them well, both personally and financially. They are invaluable!
So it stands to reason, a good writer will write a good script, right? Most of the time, that’s true. But what exactly is a good script? And what are the subtleties and nuances that make it better than just adequate? We don’t have the time or space needed to cover every aspect of what constitutes a good script, but here are a few of the more important subtleties you should keep in mind when writing, assessing or shooting a script.
Dialogue/Monologue: Contractions
One subtlety that makes for a good script is dialogue or host monologues which include natural contractions and pacing. Now let’s face it, including contractions—“they’re” instead of “they are,” “it’s” instead of “it is,” “it’ll” instead of “it will”—would seem like a no-brainer, right? I can’t tell you how many scripts I’ve read that contained few if any contractions!
I have to qualify this by saying that some scripts should be more formal than others and as a result have fewer contractions. A script about company policies or procedures, for instance, would probably be written a bit more formally than one about, say, customer handling or sales techniques. But in general, the use of contractions gives a script a natural ring that will make a host or actors in a role-play situation appear comfortable and credible.
p.25
In addition to the use of contractions, most people converse in short verbal exchanges. Their interactions have a natural sense of pace and flow. And these qualities of pacing and flow, though often overlooked by writers and directors, are also critical qualities of effective dialogue.
Several years ago I wrote a short, tongue-in-cheek script for a class I was teaching. The idea was to highlight how convoluted executive “corporate speak” could be. Although you will find Version #1 (immediately following) difficult if not impossible to understand, remember that was the intent. Just read through it and then check out Version #2.
VERSION #1
THE MEETING
FADE IN:
INT. EXECUTIVE BOARDROOM: DAY
Two high-level corporate executives are seated in a large, plush office.
One is the CEO, the other is an Executive VP. They are engaged in
a serious, very important strategic meeting. The Executive VP stays
seated during most of the conversation. The CEO gets to his feet soon
after the conversation begins and paces, thinking over each point made
in the discussion.
CEO
Are they aware of our strategy? The vertical integration
plan? You know, the revised version sanctioned by the Board?
EXEC. VP
Sure. The efficiency numbers alluding to our market
posture are a part of the first section. Hell, it is obvious.
Post-quarter numbers? Exactly. Annualized to include
the relative shares of each capital driven element ... by
weighted percentages, of course.
CEO
Those outlined in the general plan, endorsed section on
diverse investment in human resources as opposed to
technical micro-elements. So that is section five of the
appended output of our quality caliber V-Code input data.
The centralized input of invested members versus attending
elements held at account level. Which means we will have it
p.26
both ways! The ramification listings inserted in vertically
integrating the relative weightings will contrast the calculated
indices based on consortium-level derivatives brought
forward from other applications!
EXEC. VP
Which ... if projected three fiscal quarters into the future
and factored in with running M-load indices from 09 through
12 respectively, suggest that the deregulation strategy put forth
centralized consortium level—even with non-elemental infusion
runs—can bolster vertical enticement, subject of course to a series of policies ...
(a sudden, depressing realization)
... deemed ... functionally ... essential! Damn! So what do we do? ...
CEO
(also depressed)
The catch! ... Of course! We will go over it again—this time in detail ...
FADE OUT:
As I said, convoluted! But remember, the point of the script was to show how silly and convoluted executive conversations can be. Now, keeping that description in mind, read a second version of the script.
VERSION #2
THE MEETING
FADE IN:
INT. EXECUTIVE BOARDROOM: DAY
Two high-level corporate executives are seated in a large, plush office.
One is the CEO, the other is an Executive VP. They are engaged in
a serious, very important strategic meeting. The Executive VP stays
seated during most of the conversation. The CEO gets to his feet soon
after the conversation begins and paces, thinking over each point made in the discussion.
p.27
CEO
Are they aware of our strategy?
EXEC. VP
You mean the vertical integration plan?
CEO
Right. The revised version sanctioned by the Board.
EXEC. VP
Sure. The efficiency numbers alluding to our market
posture are a part of the first section. Hell, it’s obvious.
CEO
Post-quarter numbers?
EXEC. VP
Exactly. Annualized to include the relative shares of
each capital driven element ...
CEO
By weighted percentages?
EXEC. VP
Of course!
CEO
So it covers those outlined in the general plan, endorsed
section on diverse investment in human resources as
opposed to technical micro-elements?
EXEC. VP
Right on. Section five of the appended output of our
quality caliber V-Code input data.
p.28
CEO
And that would mean the centralized input of
invested members versus attending elements held at
account level.
CEO
Excellent! So we’ll have it both ways!
EXEC VP
You got it!
CEO
The ramification listings inserted in vertically integrating
the relative weightings will contrast the calculated
indices based on consortium-level derivatives brought
forward from other applications!
EXEC. VP
Which ... if projected three fiscal quarters into the future,
and factored in with running M-load indices from 09 through
12 respectively, suggest ...
CEO
... that the deregulation strategy put forth centralized consortium
level—even with non-elemental infusion runs—can bolster
vertical enticement, subject of course to a series of policies!
EXEC VP
Exactly!
(a sudden, depressing realization)
Policies deemed ... functionally ... non-essential!
CEO
(also depressed)
Ah! The catch! ... Of course!
EXEC. VP
Damn! So what’ll we do? ...
CEO
We’ll go over it again—this time in detail ...
FADE OUT:
p.29
Which version of this script would you say has the more natural pace and flow? Hopefully you said the second one. If you did, it’s because the dialogue is paced quickly and naturally between these characters, versus the sluggish, chunky, unnatural style in the first version. And does the quicker pace, along with the focus on contractions, make it a better script? You know my opinion, what’s yours?
One of the best ways to get that natural feel for good dialogue and host monologues is to use contractions, pace the words in what seems like natural rhythms and then read and record the lines either with a fellow producer, director or writer—or with your wife or a family member. When you play it back, listen for the natural, believable qualities that come with real conversation. Another way is to stealthily record real live conversations as they happen, and when you play them back, listen for the types of things we’ve been discussing.
BREAKOUT 4.1 “A FORMAL FAILURE”
I was hired to write a series of half-hour documentary-style scripts for a local college television station. The programs were part of a series of television courses on various sciences, which in my case was biology. The productions included an on-camera host and hostess—two college professors—and mostly stock footage.
Because the series was on such a break-neck schedule, the producer asked me if I knew of any other writers who would like to work on the project. I knew of an excellent writer, who himself was a college professor and who was eager to work on the project, so I made the recommendation and the producer assigned him a script.
We met the following week for coffee and I knew immediately there was trouble. The producer had essentially rejected my friend’s first draft, saying it was too formal and “stiff.” My friend was a bit offended and very perplexed. He was an established writer who had published articles, literary criticism and even books. Though he had been a mentor of mine, he asked if I would read over his script and give him some input.
p.30
When I read the script it was obvious to me that although the writing was articulate and well crafted, it was also, just as the producer had said, overly formal and “stiff.” One reason (you may have guessed) was a lack of contractions. When read aloud, the lines my friend had written sounded like content from a textbook rather than the conversational delivery of an on-camera host. In addition to a lack of contractions, his script contained words like “splendid” and “quite” and “wonderfully.” In a book or print piece, especially one in his areas of literary analysis and criticism, the words would have worked perfectly. In the script this producer was after, they did not.
I met with him and, as tactfully as possible, told him that. I also added, “Try to write it very simply, just like a conversation.”
“But that’s what I’ve done,” he said.
I explained the need for simple, everyday words instead of those with an “academic” ring.
“You mean dumb it down?” He asked, with a mix of bewilderment and alarm.
“Call it what you will,” I said, “but it has to be ‘real’—clear, simple words meant to be spoken aloud, not read in print.”
The end result was disappointing for him, me and the producer. He either couldn’t or didn’t want to adjust to the conversational style, and as it turned out that was his first and last attempt at industrial scriptwriting.
p.31
Structure and transitions are critical in corporate media programs because they can have a profound impact on the script you may be writing or working with.
I once used this analogy of structure and transitions:
Imagine your script is made up of content islands linked by transition bridges. The reader of the script, or ultimately the viewer of the program, is taken to these islands, one by one, in a logical order, by means of the transition bridges linking them.
If the structure is logical and the transitions subtle but effective, the result will be a clear, comfortable journey of enlightenment from which the viewer or reader will walk away knowing exactly what the writer had hoped to communicate. On the other hand, if the script is poorly structured and the transitions were weak, or even absent (which is sometimes the case, by the way), the viewer will end up getting some of the information, but often in a choppy or disjointed way.
Another analogy we could use (I love analogies) might be to imagine a well-structured script with effective transitions as being similar to a kayaker who is sliding along on smooth, clear water, having to read and understand a series of important signs (the content) on the river banks along the way. With a smooth, comfortable passage, the information is made perfectly clear and the kayaker has ample time to read and absorb them.
A poorly written script might include the same kayaker, but in this case, speeding along in rough, choppy whitewater. Both kayakers reach the same destination, and they’re both exposed to the same content, but under much different circumstances. Unlike his counterpart, the kayaker in the choppy whitewater, will probably be much too busy steering and staying afloat to pay much attention to the content signs.
So, if we know what we want—solid structure and smooth transitions—the question is how do we get them? Again, the answer is not rocket science, but in at least one case a simple, well-known communication technique is a powerful solution. The legendary “Tell ’em” technique.
p.32
Ever heard the phrase:
“Tell ’em you’re goanna Tell ’em.”
“Tell ’em.”
“Tell ’em you told ’em.”?
It’s a traditional three-step training and marketing structure that originated many years ago. It’s also a time-proven winner when it comes to conveying information clearly. It’s very basic, admittedly simplistic, and certainly not new or exciting, but it is extremely effective. I include it here, for that reason. Well-known and simplistic or not, it is worth a review. I’m not saying this structure should be applied to all scripts, but I am saying that many informational or instructional programs can benefit from this type of structure, or a version of it.
Here’s how it works:
1. “Tell ’em you’re gonna tell ’em” means you should first give your listeners a brief, general introduction containing the main topics you plan to cover.
2. “Tell ’em” means you then deliver the main body of your message by elaborating on those same topics in the same order—but, of course, in full detail. And finally
3. “Tell ’em you told ’em” means you should close with a simple summary that briefly reiterates what you’d like people to leave with in their minds.
Consider a very much abbreviated example.
You are writing a script about an administrator chairing a meeting to achieve three important objectives: (1) create a focus on costs, (2) review your staff’s specific cost-cutting measures and (3) develop a plan to communicate those measures to your employee. Using the “Tell ‘em” structure, here’s an abbreviated version of what you might write.
INT. CONFERENCE ROOM: DAY
AN ADMINISTRATOR is seated at the head of a conference table. A group of about six SUBORDINATES are seated around the table.
(“Tell ’em you’re gonna tell ’em”)
ADMINISTRATOR
p.33
Thanks for coming today. We’ve got some very important topics to cover. I first want to go over our expenses for the last quarter, then I’d like to cover the cost-cutting measures you’ve each come up with and, finally, I want to talk about how we plan to communicate these measures to our employees.
(“Tell ’em”)
So let’s start with expenses. Bill, you can take us through each
cost category on the P&L statement for the quarter. And as we
go, I’d like to discuss each one in detail ...
(Bill covers P&L info)
Okay, so we all have a clear picture of what our costs have been this quarter, now let’s move on to cost-cutting measures. We’ll start with Jim and move around the table. I’d like all of you to take your time and be very specific about the plans you’ve come up with.
All plans are discussed)
Good, now let’s cover what we plan to do to make our actions clear to our employees. And I hope to also focus here on telling them why these measures are important.
(When all the content has been covered, we would end up with the summary or ... )
(“Tell ’em you told ’em”)
Well, I’d say this has been very productive. We’ve gotten a clear focus on our costs, we’ve specific plans on how to trim them significantly and we have a plan to tell our employees exactly what we’re doing and why. The next step is action.
I’m very clear on all this, but I want to be sure you all are as well. Any questions or concerns on what we’ve covered?
So what this administrator has just said was very simple, but extremely clear and effective. Through him you told your audience what you were going to say, you then discussed those issues in the same order but in much greater detail and, finally, you summarized and asked for confirmation that everyone understood.
Simple, direct, crystal clear!
p.34
As I mentioned, this solid structural technique can also be achieved by using a portion of the “Tell ’em” structure. As an example, a script might not need an introduction, depending on its use or intended audience. As mentioned earlier, I once wrote and directed a series of short, instructional vignettes that were part of a presentation followed by handout information and discussion. Since the discussion and handouts summarized the video, the vignettes I wrote had to cover only the Introduction and “body” or middle part of the structure—the “Tell ‘em you’re gonna tell ’em” and the “Tell ’em.”
BREAKOUT 4.2 “MAKING ‘TELL ’EM’ CREATIVE”
I worked with a very talented writer on a project for the training department in a large construction company. We had been brought on to produce a video about how to dig properly. The video was being made for two reasons. First, the company had been experiencing an increased number of back injuries that appeared related to shovel work. Second, the company decided to provide employees with some instructional material in an effort to help lower insurance costs.
The problem we faced was how to produce a safety video on digging for construction workers who could think of about a hundred things they’d rather be doing than watching an instructional video.
The writer had decided on a humorous grave digging script to get the information out and keep the audience engaged. The interesting part was that although the script would be considered non-traditional, the structure the writer chose was the standard “tell ’em.”
The story opened with a scene of two gravediggers in a cemetery. One was the grumpy “boss man” in charge, and the other was a dummy carrying out his orders (not the most original storyline but, as it turned out, very effective). It became clear immediately that the dummy did not know how to dig properly. As he started on a section of a grave, he leaned in and bent the wrong way, gripped the shovel close to the spade and twisted his back in ways that would certainly be very damaging.
p.35
The “boss” called attention to this and at the same time set up the introductory “tell ’em” part of the script:
EXT. GRAVE SITE: NIGHT
The BOSS watches BILLY, his clueless cohort, trying to dig, but doing it all wrong.
BOSS
No, Billy. No! Listen. If you are going to open this casket—and believe me you ARE going to open it—you must first dig it up in a way that doesn’t make you worthless to me!
As the boss takes the shovel from Billy and prepares to demonstrate, he says ...
NOTE: SUPER TITLES PER DIALOGUE: 1. Hold the shovel correctly. 2. Position your body to limit back strain. 3. Use foot to help. 4. Bend at the knees when lifting dirt.
BOSS (CONT.)
First, you must hold the shovel correctly. Second, you must position your body correctly to take the strain off your back. Third, you must use one foot to help dig and, finally, you must remove the dirt bending at the knees—not your back.
He hands the shovel back to Billy.
BOSS (CONT.)
Now, show me.
The pair then went through the digging process step by step. Because it was a humorous vignette, the “Tell ’em” structure was not apparent at all. It was there, however, as a subtly reinforcing structure that made the show flow smoothly and logically from point to point. In this case, we felt that a summary was not necessary so this was a partial, but very effective, use of the “Tell ’em” structure.
p.36
Can you look back at the script segment we just covered and find the transitions? Here are three:
• “So let’s start with expenses.”
• “Let’s move on to cost-cutting measures.”
• “Good, now let’s cover what we plan to do to make our actions clear.”
You can see that in each case these transition lines move the reader or viewer from one topic to the next—just as a bridge would move a traveler from one island to another.
Taken together, structure and transitions are a critical, but often overlooked, nuance that can greatly improve a script in a subtle but very effective way.
As a young scriptwriter, I remember sitting in a conference room meeting at a college in southern California. I had been hired to write a script for a production that would deal with maintaining a healthy diet for children, and this was a script review meeting.
I was seated at a U-shaped table arrangement surrounded by eight professors. One was my client on the project and the other seven made up the “committee.” My client thanked everyone for attending and introduced me. Next, she read the objectives we had established for the project and then said something like:
“As you all know, we’re here today to offer Mr. DiZazzo some suggestions on the first draft of his script. I know you’ve all had a chance to read it, so I’d say, let’s just go around the table . . .”
It was then that the nightmare began.
In short order I heard that we should: Change the setting to the inside of a supermarket in the fruit and vegetable section; we should include children in the cast (and, by the way, the person who suggested this added that she had a daughter just about the perfect age); we should restructure the middle section to present carbohydrates first; we should section the program into five, 10-minute modules; we should create fruit and vegetable graphic signs with happy faces; we should . . .
p.37
In case you haven’t gotten the point yet, here it is in a nutshell: Any time you go into a meeting in which a group of people—a “committee”—will offer suggestions on your script, you are very likely to leave the meeting with a mountain of notes, a splitting headache and, at best, a cloudy understanding of what to do next.
You can understand why this “approval by committee” process is the nightmare that keeps many of us writers up at night. It comes about for several reasons, but here are what may be the two most prevalent—and irritating:
• People love to give creative input on things like scripts, at least partly because even though it’s an informational, non-theatrical script, it’s just a bit like “Hollywood,” and who doesn’t want to have a say in the creative process! It feels kind of ‘important.’
• Everyone has their own ideas when it comes to creative elements, they’re all different and everyone is convinced their ideas are the best!
Which often leaves the writer in a daze and wondering why in the world he would take on a project from these people.
SAVED BY A SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT
You can’t always escape the dreaded “approval by committee” meetings, but there are things you can do to avoid it most times. First and foremost, remember to tell your client when the script process is just beginning, something like:
The script is a kind of framework or guide book for the producer and the director. It’s a critical element and, of course, we hope you can help us with constructive comments and ultimately a quick approval. And speaking of comments and approvals, it’s very important that you be our single point of contact in the soon-to-come script meetings. We’ve found that when groups are involved in projects like this, the result can be confusing and they often slow things to a crawl. It would be great if you could get input from whatever sources you feel are appropriate, decide which ideas you feel are essential changes, and then be the tip of the spear, so to speak. We want to be accurate and deliver a great script—and, of course, we want to be sure to make your deadline. Working this way makes that process easier, more accurate and definitely faster.
p.38
It never hurts to reinforce this idea as the production moves forward. This, of course, applies not only to the script but also the screenings in postproduction. In fact it’s even more important in the latter phases of the process—for financial and logistical reasons. It’s a pain in the rear and sometimes costly to rewrite a script, but it can be a budgetary and logistical disaster to have to reshoot scenes or create new ones following a viewing of the initial cut of the program. If you can get that “single point of contact” commitment from your client at the outset, you can be assured your immediate future will be much less convoluted, frustrating . . . and just plain angry!
As a producer or director you may not write scripts yourself, but you will be involved with them directly and you will be held accountable for how well they work on the screen. As we’ve said, “adequate” is fairly easy to achieve. But adequate productions are also easy to forget, and quick to be criticized. Keeping the ideas we’ve just explored in mind will help you write or fine-tune scripts, and allow you to offer solid input to the writers you collaborate with.