Wednesday, June 25, 2003
WRITING THE ROMANTIC COMEDY
So, happily -- since the damn thing costs $23 Cdn -- there's tons of cogent, useable information in Writing the Romantic Comedy, by Billy Mernit (who, as it turns out, is a musician and songwriter, as well as screenwriter and script analyst, which gives him good credentials for writing sexy because as we all know, anyone who's ever written a song has written a love song and grappled with the balance of steamy and icky.)
For today, let's just gnaw on this one very simple concept from early in the book: when you set up two characters as romantic leads, better give them a first meeting which is charged with significance. In this case, "cute meet" doesn't mean saccharine, just original and interesting. As Mernit points out, all real life couples who have something special going on usually have an interesting story about what they were doing and how they met when the penny dropped.
This moment is really the first beat of extended foreplay, it seems to me, and the most charged sexual foreplay occurs where one least expects it. So set the "cute meet" scene in a place that's meant for other things, where the characters clearly have other concerns on their minds, or should.
A good test of where not to set it, is cited in Mernit's book. He talks about why the clay-pot scene in Ghost is so ridiculous when it's meant to be knee-weakening sexy. It's because the scene is such a blatant gambit for sexual symbolism. The characters aren't doing what they're doing for any other credible reason except to set-up the sexual metaphors. It's way too obvious from the get-go.
Ask around. Collect stories. Where did the fun couples you know first feel the spark?
So, happily -- since the damn thing costs $23 Cdn -- there's tons of cogent, useable information in Writing the Romantic Comedy, by Billy Mernit (who, as it turns out, is a musician and songwriter, as well as screenwriter and script analyst, which gives him good credentials for writing sexy because as we all know, anyone who's ever written a song has written a love song and grappled with the balance of steamy and icky.)
For today, let's just gnaw on this one very simple concept from early in the book: when you set up two characters as romantic leads, better give them a first meeting which is charged with significance. In this case, "cute meet" doesn't mean saccharine, just original and interesting. As Mernit points out, all real life couples who have something special going on usually have an interesting story about what they were doing and how they met when the penny dropped.
This moment is really the first beat of extended foreplay, it seems to me, and the most charged sexual foreplay occurs where one least expects it. So set the "cute meet" scene in a place that's meant for other things, where the characters clearly have other concerns on their minds, or should.
A good test of where not to set it, is cited in Mernit's book. He talks about why the clay-pot scene in Ghost is so ridiculous when it's meant to be knee-weakening sexy. It's because the scene is such a blatant gambit for sexual symbolism. The characters aren't doing what they're doing for any other credible reason except to set-up the sexual metaphors. It's way too obvious from the get-go.
Ask around. Collect stories. Where did the fun couples you know first feel the spark?
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
REAL LIFE SEX ENCOUNTERS
GAWD! Everybody good and sick of this blog already???? Certain that I've no more useful or even halfway interesting things to say about writing sexy movie scenes?
Now, that my fellow scribes, is why so many movies utterly pulverise their credibility by slacking off on these scenes. Too many writers just don't invest enough effort. They throw in something that kind of works and walk away, cause it's just too darn goofy to think about this subject more studiously.
Yesterday, I read a blog written by a young girl of 14 who has dedicated her site to the existential question of love and what it really is. She had this sage observation on movies and love, and I'm paraphrasing here, because I've lost her link. But essentially it was, "How many films have you seen where the characters end up in the sack on the first date?"
'Cause it happens like that in real life, all the time? 'Cause that's the basis for fascinating characters you want to spend more time with? 'Cause it makes the plot more suspenseful? No, no and no. So why the hell do we write it like that? Cut to the chase is fine advice, but really, it's the chase that's interesting when it comes to romance.
This young woman sees how true that is and she can't even vote yet.
GAWD! Everybody good and sick of this blog already???? Certain that I've no more useful or even halfway interesting things to say about writing sexy movie scenes?
Now, that my fellow scribes, is why so many movies utterly pulverise their credibility by slacking off on these scenes. Too many writers just don't invest enough effort. They throw in something that kind of works and walk away, cause it's just too darn goofy to think about this subject more studiously.
Yesterday, I read a blog written by a young girl of 14 who has dedicated her site to the existential question of love and what it really is. She had this sage observation on movies and love, and I'm paraphrasing here, because I've lost her link. But essentially it was, "How many films have you seen where the characters end up in the sack on the first date?"
'Cause it happens like that in real life, all the time? 'Cause that's the basis for fascinating characters you want to spend more time with? 'Cause it makes the plot more suspenseful? No, no and no. So why the hell do we write it like that? Cut to the chase is fine advice, but really, it's the chase that's interesting when it comes to romance.
This young woman sees how true that is and she can't even vote yet.
Monday, June 23, 2003
SUBLIMATE, SUBLIMATE
Here's another book that looks good and will be digested and yakked about in further posts. It's called Writing the Romantic Comedy by Billy Mernit.Mernit was a Hollywood story analyst for 10 years and teaches a UCLA writing workshop called rom-com.
He has a few key rules. Among them:
1) In a romantic comedy, the audience must believe that the characters "absolutely must end up together."
2)"He can't be in it only for the sex" and "She can't be in it only for the money";
3) "Have at least one scene or sequence that is laugh-out-loud funny."
4) "There's nothing sexier than sublimated sex."
5) When you feel stuck, "think of one of the most painful, humiliating, embarrassing things that ever happened to you with someone of the opposite sex," and start writing.
Back at you, once I've tracked down these books.
Here's another book that looks good and will be digested and yakked about in further posts. It's called Writing the Romantic Comedy by Billy Mernit.Mernit was a Hollywood story analyst for 10 years and teaches a UCLA writing workshop called rom-com.
He has a few key rules. Among them:
1) In a romantic comedy, the audience must believe that the characters "absolutely must end up together."
2)"He can't be in it only for the sex" and "She can't be in it only for the money";
3) "Have at least one scene or sequence that is laugh-out-loud funny."
4) "There's nothing sexier than sublimated sex."
5) When you feel stuck, "think of one of the most painful, humiliating, embarrassing things that ever happened to you with someone of the opposite sex," and start writing.
Back at you, once I've tracked down these books.
Sunday, June 22, 2003
THE JOY OF WRITING SEX
It's Sunday and I've been out of town, so this post is one that I'll comment upon more, later. However, I wanted everyone to know that there is actually a recently published book for writers about writing sex scenes for different kinds of characters (first dates, unfaithful lovers, married couples, etc.)
How cool is that?
It's called The Joy of Writing Sex, by Elizabeth Benedict.
The review is available at writersservices.com
But here's an excerpt of what the reviewer thought:
"Benedict is not offering formulae or rules, though she does offer some general principles about writing sex scenes, not the least of which is that you need to care about the characters involved in order to care about their sex lives as well. You need to know to write that scene from within the characters’ skins as much as you would any other scene in the novel, and that includes consideration of dialogue and surroundings.
This is an issue-led book, and without doubt, the biggest issue is ‘safe sex’, especially in the post-AIDS world. Benedict shows how this one fact shapes every sexual encounter, how it affects conversation and action, and also draws a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sex scenes, examining the differences in attitude within and without the specific communities. Benedict also looks at other specific sexual encounters – the first sexual encounter, the honeymoon, husband-wife relationships, the adulterous affair, solo sex, and even sex on the phone – and considers the intellectual and emotional factors in play, all the while drawing heavily on examples from modern and classic novels to illustrate the points she’s making."
It's Sunday and I've been out of town, so this post is one that I'll comment upon more, later. However, I wanted everyone to know that there is actually a recently published book for writers about writing sex scenes for different kinds of characters (first dates, unfaithful lovers, married couples, etc.)
How cool is that?
It's called The Joy of Writing Sex, by Elizabeth Benedict.
The review is available at writersservices.com
But here's an excerpt of what the reviewer thought:
"Benedict is not offering formulae or rules, though she does offer some general principles about writing sex scenes, not the least of which is that you need to care about the characters involved in order to care about their sex lives as well. You need to know to write that scene from within the characters’ skins as much as you would any other scene in the novel, and that includes consideration of dialogue and surroundings.
This is an issue-led book, and without doubt, the biggest issue is ‘safe sex’, especially in the post-AIDS world. Benedict shows how this one fact shapes every sexual encounter, how it affects conversation and action, and also draws a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sex scenes, examining the differences in attitude within and without the specific communities. Benedict also looks at other specific sexual encounters – the first sexual encounter, the honeymoon, husband-wife relationships, the adulterous affair, solo sex, and even sex on the phone – and considers the intellectual and emotional factors in play, all the while drawing heavily on examples from modern and classic novels to illustrate the points she’s making."
Saturday, June 21, 2003
MAKE IT HONEST
Erin Cressida Wilson is the screenwriter of the 2002 film Secretary, which starred James Spader and Maggie Gillenhaal as a couple who could only relate to each other through sadomasochistic sex.
Wilson is a Brown University prof, a playwright and a sex columnist for Razor magazine. This is what she said recently, to the online site Movie Maker, about fictional writing about sex:
"I think that sex is an exposure and a revealing of our wounds, our underbellies and our frailties. I think of sex as a very honest form of communication. And through it, we can see the core of a person."
Which leads me to today's very short thought about writing sex and sexy in the movies. The scenes that don't work are the ones that forget that the two participants on screen are actually communicating with each other, not just having a workout because they missed going to the gym.
Even if the characters are shallow, or manipulative or unfeeling, they are communicating something about themselves. Keep that in mind when writing sex or sexy scenes. The whole damn thing is subtext.
Erin Cressida Wilson is the screenwriter of the 2002 film Secretary, which starred James Spader and Maggie Gillenhaal as a couple who could only relate to each other through sadomasochistic sex.
Wilson is a Brown University prof, a playwright and a sex columnist for Razor magazine. This is what she said recently, to the online site Movie Maker, about fictional writing about sex:
"I think that sex is an exposure and a revealing of our wounds, our underbellies and our frailties. I think of sex as a very honest form of communication. And through it, we can see the core of a person."
Which leads me to today's very short thought about writing sex and sexy in the movies. The scenes that don't work are the ones that forget that the two participants on screen are actually communicating with each other, not just having a workout because they missed going to the gym.
Even if the characters are shallow, or manipulative or unfeeling, they are communicating something about themselves. Keep that in mind when writing sex or sexy scenes. The whole damn thing is subtext.
Friday, June 20, 2003
ROMANCE AND BUTTONS
There's an L.A. screenwriter named Daniel Knauf who put together a comprehensive and helpful website about movie writing called unmovies.com as a promotional tool. On the site he has an essay in which he disccuses The Button line, the one that sums up a scene snappily, is a bullshit device.
This interests me, because it seems to me that most really sizzling romantic scenes have a button. Sure real people don't talk like that, usually. But every once in a while, especially in highly charged situations, we get to depart with a zinger, and feeling like there's been a spark -- hence, a "chemistry" moment. Knauf says that real people aren't that self aware in their dialogue. He makes the argument against The Button with a hilarious example of how people never talk to each other:
JOHN
You're empty inside, Debra. You're incapable of love.
DEBRA
That's not true, John. I do love you. I do! But you're too blind to see it. It's not easy to open up to a man after you've been repeatedly sodomized by a satanic cult of outlaw bikers.
(sobs)
But I'm trying, John. You must know that!
Etc. etc. Then he goes on to make this argument:
A close corollary to this brand of bullshit is "THE BUTTON."
"The Button is a BIG LINE that one character says at the close of a scene that is so powerful-- so absolutely right--that it leaves the other character(s) speechless.
DEBRA
Tearing you apart. You, John. That's what this relationship is all about, isn't it? That's what it's always been about! YOU!!!
John stares at her, the bitter truth of her words sinking in. She coolly regards him, then turns and exits.
When's the last time an argument ever ended that way for you?
As for me, I've dropped some absolute atom-bombs on my wife in the course of arguments, yet none of them have ever rendered her speechless. Why? Because she has her own thermonuclear arsenal. Everyone does. The truth is, in real life, John would look at Debra and say:
JOHN
Really? You really think so? Well, you know what I think? I think you liked being sodomized by those outlaw bikers!
It's called Mutual Assured Destruction.
If you really want to see how people behave in a toxic relationship, check out WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? Burton and Taylor are like a binary star system, each locked in orbit, feeding on each other in this beautiful, ghastly, absolutely brilliant death-dance. You can't take your eyes off it.
Of course, we can't all be Edward Albee. But we don't have to be hacks, either. And believe me, using "THE BUTTON" is a hallmark of hack-writing. In real life, human beings simply do not relate to each other this way.
Ever.
And they shouldn't in your scripts, either. "
Well, I'm not entirely convinced. I think it's more a choice of which words and how many you use, leading up to the button. I took a look at The Fabulous Baker Boys for some confirmation. That movie seethes with sexual tension, and has a number of snappy buttons.
There's the scene where Susie Diamond and Jack sleep with each other for the first time, after some covert verbal circling. He gives her a massage, she lets him pull off her dress. He kisses her neck and her button to the scene is "Shit." The next scene has Jack washing his face in the bathroom and looking into the mirror. All he says is "Shit." I make that for a button. Just a really short one.
There is an example in that film that does illustrate Knauf's point. When Susie decides to leave the band because things are getting too steamy and because she doesn't want to end up like him, sad and unfulfilled, Jack says "I didn't know whores were so philosophical," and she retorts, "At least my brother's not my pimp."
It's a little too trite and too unbelievable. Yet I'd say it works because the button is not just referring to the business at hand -- leaving the band -- it's also referring to the complicated attraction/repulsion they have for each other.
So, I'm going to go with Knauf halfway -- be very judicious in your use of buttons, especially in romantic scenes. And just like the rest of your dialogue, try your damndest to make sure they do double or triple duty.
There's an L.A. screenwriter named Daniel Knauf who put together a comprehensive and helpful website about movie writing called unmovies.com as a promotional tool. On the site he has an essay in which he disccuses The Button line, the one that sums up a scene snappily, is a bullshit device.
This interests me, because it seems to me that most really sizzling romantic scenes have a button. Sure real people don't talk like that, usually. But every once in a while, especially in highly charged situations, we get to depart with a zinger, and feeling like there's been a spark -- hence, a "chemistry" moment. Knauf says that real people aren't that self aware in their dialogue. He makes the argument against The Button with a hilarious example of how people never talk to each other:
JOHN
You're empty inside, Debra. You're incapable of love.
DEBRA
That's not true, John. I do love you. I do! But you're too blind to see it. It's not easy to open up to a man after you've been repeatedly sodomized by a satanic cult of outlaw bikers.
(sobs)
But I'm trying, John. You must know that!
Etc. etc. Then he goes on to make this argument:
A close corollary to this brand of bullshit is "THE BUTTON."
"The Button is a BIG LINE that one character says at the close of a scene that is so powerful-- so absolutely right--that it leaves the other character(s) speechless.
DEBRA
Tearing you apart. You, John. That's what this relationship is all about, isn't it? That's what it's always been about! YOU!!!
John stares at her, the bitter truth of her words sinking in. She coolly regards him, then turns and exits.
When's the last time an argument ever ended that way for you?
As for me, I've dropped some absolute atom-bombs on my wife in the course of arguments, yet none of them have ever rendered her speechless. Why? Because she has her own thermonuclear arsenal. Everyone does. The truth is, in real life, John would look at Debra and say:
JOHN
Really? You really think so? Well, you know what I think? I think you liked being sodomized by those outlaw bikers!
It's called Mutual Assured Destruction.
If you really want to see how people behave in a toxic relationship, check out WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? Burton and Taylor are like a binary star system, each locked in orbit, feeding on each other in this beautiful, ghastly, absolutely brilliant death-dance. You can't take your eyes off it.
Of course, we can't all be Edward Albee. But we don't have to be hacks, either. And believe me, using "THE BUTTON" is a hallmark of hack-writing. In real life, human beings simply do not relate to each other this way.
Ever.
And they shouldn't in your scripts, either. "
Well, I'm not entirely convinced. I think it's more a choice of which words and how many you use, leading up to the button. I took a look at The Fabulous Baker Boys for some confirmation. That movie seethes with sexual tension, and has a number of snappy buttons.
There's the scene where Susie Diamond and Jack sleep with each other for the first time, after some covert verbal circling. He gives her a massage, she lets him pull off her dress. He kisses her neck and her button to the scene is "Shit." The next scene has Jack washing his face in the bathroom and looking into the mirror. All he says is "Shit." I make that for a button. Just a really short one.
There is an example in that film that does illustrate Knauf's point. When Susie decides to leave the band because things are getting too steamy and because she doesn't want to end up like him, sad and unfulfilled, Jack says "I didn't know whores were so philosophical," and she retorts, "At least my brother's not my pimp."
It's a little too trite and too unbelievable. Yet I'd say it works because the button is not just referring to the business at hand -- leaving the band -- it's also referring to the complicated attraction/repulsion they have for each other.
So, I'm going to go with Knauf halfway -- be very judicious in your use of buttons, especially in romantic scenes. And just like the rest of your dialogue, try your damndest to make sure they do double or triple duty.
Thursday, June 19, 2003
ONE FINE DAY
Some things I learned by paying close attention to the "chemistry" scenes in the romantic comedy One Fine Day, in which Michelle Pfeiffer and George Clooney's characters do the repel-attract-repel-attract dance.
1) It's way sexier, and way more believable, when a character speaks freely about their attraction to a third party. It's handled very nicely here when Pfeiffer's character Melanie expresses her disgust over Jack while on the phone to her sister as the cad Jack sits next to her in a taxi.
It's even more natural when Jack speaks in jest to his daughter about not growing up to be gorgeous and sweet and then making men's lives hell just because she can.
And it's very funny when Jack talks in code to his psychiatrist about his attraction to this strangely appealing woman he met that morning, the code made necessary because his young daugter is in the room.
So, moral of this story? Make sure to dream up several novel conversations a character can have with third parties, in which some of their real feelings seep out just a teeny bit.
2) Phones are a great vehicle for allowiong characters to say things they aren't ready to say in person. When Melanie mentions in an offhand way on the phone, that her son can get into trouble faster than Jack can make most women smile, it's definitely flirtatious and risky territory for someone so determined to resist his charms. Yet it's somehow safe because she doesn't have to be looking at him while she's saying it.
Ditto for Jack's come-back "Are you flirting with me?" It comes across as funny and slightly dangerous over the phone, but would be too syrupy cute and too difficult to brush off if said in person. Both comments quickly and efficiently ramp up the romantic stakes in this movie without it becoming cringe-making mushy.
3) The hands down sexiest moment in the movie is when Melanie thinks Jack has forgotten her name and chatters mindlessly to cover her embarrassment. He simply bends towards her very quietly and says, "I know your name, Mel," then just walks out of the scene. No snappy reaction from her, just surprise all around.
Less is always more. Especially in come-on moments. Leaves the characters, and by extension, the audience wanting more.
Some things I learned by paying close attention to the "chemistry" scenes in the romantic comedy One Fine Day, in which Michelle Pfeiffer and George Clooney's characters do the repel-attract-repel-attract dance.
1) It's way sexier, and way more believable, when a character speaks freely about their attraction to a third party. It's handled very nicely here when Pfeiffer's character Melanie expresses her disgust over Jack while on the phone to her sister as the cad Jack sits next to her in a taxi.
It's even more natural when Jack speaks in jest to his daughter about not growing up to be gorgeous and sweet and then making men's lives hell just because she can.
And it's very funny when Jack talks in code to his psychiatrist about his attraction to this strangely appealing woman he met that morning, the code made necessary because his young daugter is in the room.
So, moral of this story? Make sure to dream up several novel conversations a character can have with third parties, in which some of their real feelings seep out just a teeny bit.
2) Phones are a great vehicle for allowiong characters to say things they aren't ready to say in person. When Melanie mentions in an offhand way on the phone, that her son can get into trouble faster than Jack can make most women smile, it's definitely flirtatious and risky territory for someone so determined to resist his charms. Yet it's somehow safe because she doesn't have to be looking at him while she's saying it.
Ditto for Jack's come-back "Are you flirting with me?" It comes across as funny and slightly dangerous over the phone, but would be too syrupy cute and too difficult to brush off if said in person. Both comments quickly and efficiently ramp up the romantic stakes in this movie without it becoming cringe-making mushy.
3) The hands down sexiest moment in the movie is when Melanie thinks Jack has forgotten her name and chatters mindlessly to cover her embarrassment. He simply bends towards her very quietly and says, "I know your name, Mel," then just walks out of the scene. No snappy reaction from her, just surprise all around.
Less is always more. Especially in come-on moments. Leaves the characters, and by extension, the audience wanting more.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
WHY THIS BLOG, NOW
Some of the hardest scenes to write and get right in a screenplay are the sexy ones. In order to work well, they have to be original yet familiar, funny yet smart.
When they do work, they're so magical audiences quote them for decades. They can turn so-so plots into sleeper hits, previously unmemorable actors into sex symbols, unknown writers into stars.
When they don't work, they create a thud as painful as falling out of bed.
To improve the writing of these crucial scenes, I've started this blog. It's for the celebration, discovery and study of all those courting and cavorting scenes.
Some of the hardest scenes to write and get right in a screenplay are the sexy ones. In order to work well, they have to be original yet familiar, funny yet smart.
When they do work, they're so magical audiences quote them for decades. They can turn so-so plots into sleeper hits, previously unmemorable actors into sex symbols, unknown writers into stars.
When they don't work, they create a thud as painful as falling out of bed.
To improve the writing of these crucial scenes, I've started this blog. It's for the celebration, discovery and study of all those courting and cavorting scenes.
