Artist trying hand at screenwriting

[KP83]

Hello all,

I'm a professional artist (traditional oil painter) and am thinking of trying out filmmaking. I have an idea for a 10-15 minute short film that I recently wrote.

The idea is a faith-based one. If you're not interested in that topic then you can just ignore this.

I'm curious for some feedback. I have no objective way of judging whether my writing is good or bad. If I'm terrible then I'll just stick with painting! I already make a living at that and am quite fine with it. I've just had a lot of ideas recently that I thought I could best express as films rather than paintings.

Let me know your honest opinions. Thanks

Link: https://www.celtx.com/auth/public/resource/y3b0uly9

 

[Cracker Funk]

The idea is a faith-based one. If you're not interested in that topic then you can just ignore this.

FYI - there's a HUGE market for that. If my heathen films don't go anywhere, I'll likely eventually make Christian Films.

I'm curious for some feedback. I have no objective way of judging whether my writing is good or bad. If I'm terrible then I'll just stick with painting! I already make a living at that and am quite fine with it. I've just had a lot of ideas recently that I thought I could best express as films rather than paintings.

Were you a good painter the very first time you picked up a brush? No, of course not. Any art/craft takes a huge time commitment and filmmaking is no different. You should expect to be dissatisfied with your films for years to come. But keep working at it, and you'll improve.

So, is this script one that you plan to produce and/or direct? I wouldn't recommend that. The amount of work and time that goes into making a film of this length is astounding, and this script you wrote would require a lot of personnel and resources - things that most first-time filmmakers don't have access to.

I think you should learn to walk before you run. Go out THIS weekend, with the resources that you've got, and make a one-minute film. You'll likely be disappointed, but don't let that discourage you. That's normal, and you're just going to have to put in lots of time researching methods of filmmaking, and practicing how to do them.

As for this script, I appreciate what you're going for. But yeah, there are a number of problems. I'd say the biggest is that it's LOADED with exposition. I think this particular story might work better as a short story, and then maybe circulate it via FB.

In addition to the exposition, it felt to me like every character was a caricature of societal stereotypes. Just didn't really ring true to me.

And lastly, I think I'd shy away from the imagery of the blood squirting out the side of the mouth. I personally wouldn't want that image in my head next time I took the Eucharist. The connection between Jesus' crucifixion and Passover has already been made quite clear, there's no need to spoil it by grossing out the audience.

Best of luck moving forward! This is a very fun art, I'd encourage you to continue.

 

[maz]

To be honest, I stopped reading as soon as first century Jerusalem was located in "Israel".

 

[KP83]

To be honest, I stopped reading as soon as first century Jerusalem was located in "Israel".

Here's a coin from Israel, located in Jerusalem, from 68 AD. It has the Hebrew inscription of "Israel" on it.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Half_Shekel.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

Anyways, Cracker Funk, I really appreciate your critique! No, I wasn't great at painting my first time, but probably showed promise. I've been listening to interviews on places like Film Courage and reading screenwriting books like McKee and Truby. The mental process behind building a script seems very similar to a painting, so I thought one craft could help me understand the other. Same thing with directing and lighting.... though I don't know how to direct actors. But you're probably right to start off with short simple films, even if I don't have advanced equipment.

I was planning on passing this by my church and trying to make it. I figured the only big cost would be feeding the crowd of people who would fill up the pews. But perhaps you're right that I should start smaller.

 

[sfoster]

i only read the first couple of pages.
you have characters talking, explaining things to a child about the holiday

Essentially this is you treating the audience like a child, explaining the holiday to your audience.
Treating your audience like a child is not a good thing, IMO, unless you're specifically making a childrens film. perhaps you are.

but heres the thing, if you're just going to explain something to someone then you can write a book. filming is about SHOWING it to them. You can't take a campfire story, film someone telling the story and call it a film.

 

[KP83]

i only read the first couple of pages.
you have characters talking, explaining things to a child about the holiday

Essentially this is you treating the audience like a child, explaining the holiday to your audience.
Treating your audience like a child is not a good thing, IMO, unless you're specifically making a childrens film. perhaps you are.

but heres the thing, if you're just going to explain something to someone then you can write a book. filming is about SHOWING it to them. You can't take a campfire story, film someone telling the story and call it a film.

Excellent point, thank you. I think I show rather than tell during the Mass in the second half of the script, but I see what you mean about the on-the-nose explanation in the opening scene.

(FYI, since you didnt finish reading it: the point of the script is to explain the Catholic Mass as the fulfillment of the earlier Jewish Passover. It also visually shows transubstantiation in a way that I've never seen done before.)

I should rewrite the opening scene so that he's observing the events as they unfold (i.e. watches the father taking the lamb to the temple, watches it being sacrificed, then taken home to be eaten. No explanation to him, just visual representation of what happens). That would be the most ideal non-verbal way to do it, but would be incredibly expensive to film though. I can make a single room, but not a whole temple and street scene!

I could do the opening sequence as a minute or so animation; but transitioning from an animated dream to reality might be weird. I think I could do it myself, but would take a lot of time.

The other alternative would be to have it happen between the adults more naturally, no one "explaining" it. I'm guessing that if you can't visually show it due to expenses, and can't just come out and "explain it," then you have to have it come across naturally through dialogue, no one explaining it but just stating it naturally through conversation? That still seems "on the nose" to me though?

 

[Sweetie]

The other alternative would be to have it happen between the adults more naturally, no one "explaining" it. I'm guessing that if you can't visually show it due to expenses, and can't just come out and "explain it," then you have to have it come across naturally through dialogue, no one explaining it but just stating it naturally through conversation? That still seems "on the nose" to me though?

Look, you can do it. There really aren't as many rules as people preach. Know your audience. Deliver what they will enjoy. That's about it. Sometimes it's just a matter of taste. What one considers a masterpiece, another will call a disaster.

Choose a style. Documentary or narrative entertainment are probably your two best choices. Within the confines of those choices, make the best decisions you can.

Keep your audience engaged and if appropriate entertained.

Occasionally sticking to those hard and fast rules can get you in trouble, specifically the show, don't tell rule. Sometimes you end up with a dilemma. Do you risk losing your audience through an excruciatingly slow, boring "showing" part, where a few simple seconds of explanation can gloss over some important information so you can get to the interesting bits faster.

You just have to find the best way to tell your story that will keep your audience engaged. It's a skill you'll develop over time.

If you need to use it, if at all possible, make the exposition interesting and entertaining.

 

[sfoster]

Excellent point, thank you. I think I show rather than tell during the Mass in the second half of the script, but I see what you mean about the on-the-nose explanation in the opening scene.

(FYI, since you didnt finish reading it: the point of the script is to explain the Catholic Mass as the fulfillment of the earlier Jewish Passover. It also visually shows transubstantiation in a way that I've never seen done before.)

I should rewrite the opening scene so that he's observing the events as they unfold (i.e. watches the father taking the lamb to the temple, watches it being sacrificed, then taken home to be eaten. No explanation to him, just visual representation of what happens). That would be the most ideal non-verbal way to do it, but would be incredibly expensive to film though. I can make a single room, but not a whole temple and street scene!

I could do the opening sequence as a minute or so animation; but transitioning from an animated dream to reality might be weird. I think I could do it myself, but would take a lot of time.

The other alternative would be to have it happen between the adults more naturally, no one "explaining" it. I'm guessing that if you can't visually show it due to expenses, and can't just come out and "explain it," then you have to have it come across naturally through dialogue, no one explaining it but just stating it naturally through conversation? That still seems "on the nose" to me though?

It can be a tough dilemma to get what you want on the screen, sometimes you have to compromise. Other times you can innovate. If it's a dream sequence you have a lot more elbow room when it comes to innovation. Your scene could even take place in a living room sacrifice if he wakes up afterward.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Look, you can do it. There really aren't as many rules as people preach. Know your audience. Deliver what they will enjoy. That's about it. Sometimes it's just a matter of taste. What one considers a masterpiece, another will call a disaster.

Choose a style. Documentary or narrative entertainment are probably your two best choices. Within the confines of those choices, make the best decisions you can.

Keep your audience engaged and if appropriate entertained.

Occasionally sticking to those hard and fast rules can get you in trouble, specifically the show, don't tell rule. Sometimes you end up with a dilemma. Do you risk losing your audience through an excruciatingly slow, boring "showing" part, where a few simple seconds of explanation can gloss over some important information so you can get to the interesting bits faster.

You just have to find the best way to tell your story that will keep your audience engaged. It's a skill you'll develop over time.

If you need to use it, if at all possible, make the exposition interesting and entertaining.

But did you read the script? It's not a few seconds of exposition, it's the majority of dialog.

KP, I think you might be confusing the term "on the nose" with "exposition". When you use dialog between characters to give the audience information, that's exposition. And you've got A LOT of it. Look, I don't want to discourage you from becoming a filmmaker, quite the opposite. But I do think it's a very bad idea to make your very first film a 15-pager.

Maybe you take the time to further develop this script, while spending a whole bunch of time making shorter films. I really don't think you have any idea how much goes into the endeavor that your interested in. Do it! But take the time to learn the skills necessary and to network with the people you're going to need so that when you walk away from this 15-pager you won't feel like a complete and utter failure.

You thought the biggest expense would be feeding your cast? How do you plan to show a realistic-looking Jesus on the cross, all bloody and wounded? You can't just throw ketchup on a dude and call it a day. How are you going to make the costumes necessary for the flash-back/dream sequences? Costumes ain't free. How are you going to build not one, but four realistic-looking crucifixes? You can't just pick up 4x4s from Home Depot. How are you going to make a realistic-looking home for a family in 1AD Jerusalem? Think of all the props you'll need, the set construction. How are you going to light the church scene? It's so much more difficult than you can currently fathom.

In order to make it good enough to not induce unintentional laughs from the audience, the production requirements for this story are HUGE. I wouldn't even think of trying to film something like this. Definitely not by a first-time filmmaker.

We ALL have story ideas that we want to make but have to put on the back-burner until some unforeseeable date in the future when we can actually make it happen. Don't forget this story. Just put it off. Find something smaller, more intimate. Build yourself up and the people around you.

By the way, you don't need 15 pages to show the link between The Eucharist and Passover. You need maybe one or two. Sincere offer -- you want me to write something for you?

 

[Cracker Funk]

I forgot to completely clarify the difference between on the nose and exposition. On the nose is when something is stated that should be really obvious to the audience. "I can't believe you cheated on me! That makes me so angry!", when a simple "How could you?!" would suffice.

My favorite example of anything on the nose is the music in the original Karate Kid. The lyrics of every song basically state exactly what is happening in the scene, it's hilarious.

 

[Sweetie]

But did you read the script? It's not a few seconds of exposition, it's the majority of dialog.

Not a single word. It's general thoughts, nothing more. I'm a bad one to ask for feedback on faith based films. They're not my cup of tea. As for the length of exposition, it's not really that important. If you're getting the intended reaction from the audience, you'll get away with it all the way through.

You thought the biggest expense would be feeding your cast?

There are many ways to make the story work with what resources you have available. My wife is working on a faith based film where they're taking the angle of a modern interpretation of bible stories.

 

[KP83]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone!

Cracker funk, if you'd like to show me a page or two of how you'd show the link between the Passover and Eucharist, that'd be fine. I don't want to take up too much of your time though.

I don't think I'm fully aware of the difference between on-the-nose and exposition. My understanding was that the following would be bad examples of both:

Bob approaches Suzy sitting coyly on a park bench, the wind gently blowing through her red hair, which is cut shoulder length. She fingers through a large book about building dollhouses, ignoring Bob's approach.

Bob
I think you're very beautiful. We should go out this weekend.

I thought exposition was over explaining insignificant details of the scene, and on-the-nose was the character saying what they're feeling (i.e. in my story, if the child would have come out and said "I am so confused!") I wasn't aware that dialogue itself would actually be exposition.

I think my friends and I could pull off the props and settings, but it would take a lot of time and effort. And they probably won't work for free for too long, actually.

I have another short film idea set in modern times where a drug dealing mobster gets elected Pope. It's a dark comedy meant to explain the dogma of papal infallibility. That could be a more realistic project: no need for extravagant settings, crazy props, etc.

 

[Sweetie]

I thought exposition was over explaining insignificant details of the scene, and on-the-nose was the character saying what they're feeling (i.e. in my story, if the child would have come out and said "I am so confused!") I wasn't aware that dialogue itself would actually be exposition.

For now, don't worry too much about getting caught up on the terms. To the audience, they're very close to the same thing. If done poorly, they're both words that have the potential to pull the audience out of their suspension of disbelief.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I have another short film idea set in modern times where a drug dealing mobster gets elected Pope. It's a dark comedy meant to explain the dogma of papal infallibility. That could be a more realistic project: no need for extravagant settings, crazy props, etc.

Sounds great! Let's see the script! And keep it tight! As short as possible!

Sounds like you've got the definition of on-the-nose down pretty well. Exposition is almost always done via dialog. Now, sometimes there's no way to avoid it. But the key to exposition is that while the characters are talking to each other, they're actually talking to the audience.

Check out the following short. It was made for my friend's Forensics class. And for the record, yes, we intentionally made it bad.

Anyway, this dialog is the definition of exposition. They aren't saying things because those characters would ever say those things to each other. All of the dialog is for the "benefit" of the audience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxhJxo30VEI

Oh, and I'll type something up when I get a moment. I ain't trying to show you up, but just trying to offer guidance.

 

[KP83]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I thought about this over Sunday and rewrote the first scene yesterday (with a little note about location!), this time trying to use less dialogue exposition and more visuals to get across the same idea. I don't think I rewrote any later scenes, but don't remember.


https://www.celtx.com/auth/public/resource/lryoakxi

Cracker funk, that video is hilarious. I think the point that you're making though is to keep your dialogue as least didactic as possible, and if you can show it rather than tell it, do that instead.