A letter to the herald I never sent

[Cause I asked my pinko Producer to read it and he raised some very interesting questions. Sigh. Ironic given that he used to work in TVCs and is now Produces VFX for big budget movies. Ah well, a job is a job, eh?]

I do not blame the Government for not taking stronger measures to combat terrorism (Terry Davis, 8 November); I already blame them for not taking the right measures.

Terrorism is not Dad's Army because it is not an army at all -- it is a strategy. A strategy deployed throughout history and the world: from Caligula to Joan of Arc, from the Bombing of Tokyo to the Londing Bombings. You can not defeat a strategy, but you can limit the conditions which make it viable.

In the modern context, terrorism has evolved into decentralised warfare. We no longer fight national armies, but loosely connected webs of non-state actors. The Coalition of the Willing by their inept handling of the Iraqi Occupation has inadvertently created the most advanced terrorist training ground of them all. The Iraq Insurgents spread their battle-evolved methods of unconventional, improvised warfare to other similarly-minded groups, like the London Bombers or the accused Australian terrorist cell. Yet, these terrorist groups do not seek to destroy us from without - rather they use terror to corrode the enemy states from within. Unfortunately, manipulating your enemy so suffer at their own hands is considered to be far more righteous.

This fourth generation of warfare is not won in the conventional military sphere. It is won in the political, social, and moral spheres. In the immediate term we do need to contain the physical threat of terrorism within our borders. But if we are serious about protecting ourselves, then in the long term we must errode the political, social and moral support for terrorism. This is done by proactively promoting ;justice' (for the lack of a better word). Without such a long strategy e there will be always be groups who will turn to terrorism as a effective weapon of war. I see no indication that our Government has any intention to do this. Instead, they use the threat of terrorism as a potent political tool to further their own agenda.

---

As a complete aside, I'm really digging Soilwork at the moment. They're like in Flames meets, I dunno, Bon Jovi. They have like super catchy choruses that are SO rocky but so freaking heavy too. Awesome!

Movies are too violent and they need sex

Movies are too violent because violence in movies is easy to do and boring to watch. And by easy to do I don't mean easy to commit to film--the people who coordinate fights and car chases and plane crashes and alien attacks are absolute stone cold geniuses at what they do.

The people who are fucking lazy are the writers. Honestly, what does an action scene do to move a story ahead? Nothing. What does it do for a characters' journey? Nothing. What does it do for the movie itself? Take up a chunk of time that now doesn't need to be filled with character and story.

And you know why? Because character and story are hard things to write. And it's easy to write an action scene.

[snip]

Action sequences are the junk food in any writer's kitchen. That's not to say there aren't good action sequences--ones that literally take your breath away--but those are few and far between.

[snip]

And shouldn't the point of action sequences be excitement? No one wants to admit that--but violence in film is supposed to be EXCITING. It rarely is. But that doesn't stop people from jamming a movie full of it for no reason other than lazy writing.

And thus boring the shit out of us.

Which brings me to part number two: sex.

It's fascinating, really...In real life, very few of us want to be in a car chase or be shot at by alien invaders, and yet our movies are full of this stuff. On the other hand, all of us want to have sex--but you can't find it on film*. Not good sex, anyway.

-- Josh Friedman on The Toilet of Mickey Rourke

Great stuff. Read it. Now. Cause I'm too busy at work drinking scotch [from a glass now, but for a while it was straight for the bottle on my desk] and writing my weeklies to write my second entry on Screencoding. But I will... soon.

Personally, I find this kind of vindicating because the science-fiction script I've been writing for like, er, 2 years nowish has zero alien invaders, or car chases, or action sequences or even that much science. While there is war but we only see it in a disconnected, fragmented way - its about how the characters *react* to that war, rather than the war per se. There is sex though. A surprising amount, really. But not sex like its normally see in science-fiction movies, which functions as an act of defiance. Rather, its sex between people who love each other or, at the very least, love each other. Y'know, what normal people (or so I hear). If it ever gets into prodution, the characters won't be artificially 'hiding' themselves under the bed covers. No sirree. Its got to be real - saggy asses, love handles, boobs, pubic hair - you know, FRENCH. Anyway, there you go...

* In American Films, which is what Josh is talking about.

Screenwriting as Screencoding: Part 1

[This is really written for me as it kind of summarises my thoughts recently due to my immersion in codingland and writingland... and I'm coming to some personal conclusions on things[

I've been meaning to write this for a while, as I've been doing a bit of tcsh scripting for work. Not because I have to code, I'm not a programmer, but because (a) scripting solutions makes my life easier and (b) for some reason I'm finding coding satisfying. Until this year, I really haven't coded since around 1994. There were a few Applescripts I bashed together in the past to make my life easier, one to build directory structures for my video projects, and the other to fix an early Protools 6 "feature" which disabled sleep on machines with ProTools installed.

The reason I'm enjoying coding is twofold.

The first is simply the whole 'codeland' bubble. Those who do any kind of creative act know about the semi-autistic state that you get sucked into. Your vision narrows, your focus increases inexorably, and you lose time. When you get pulled out of that bubble, you wander around in a daze as your brain starts multi-tasking again. Its a feeling that can only be described as awesome... and its an experience I also get even moreso* in Musicland, Writingland, and Directingland. (*Because I'm not a coder which leads me to get frustrated)

The second is that programming, at its heart, is language as function. Think about it. Most software applications you use in your life, from Final Cut Pro to Logic Pro to Final Draft to the humble calculator, are built using words. Yet, while there is only a limited set of words and highly strict grammar, the almost infinite combinations of these words is able to build entirely different sets of experiences for the end user. Gifted coders are able to build beautiful strings of words that make beautiful programs. They harnass the power of words to build beautiful structures. (I personally consider programming to be an artform). But we, the end user, never see the words themselves. Just the results.

I think words are powerful. They build and define our realities. Language is fundamental to consciousness, possibly even a prerequisite for consciousness. I'm attracted to the power of words, but I'm especially attracted to words which have a structural superpower. Law, for example, is a system which builds incredibly large social structures, yet is made entirely from words. Sometimes those words are badly written, and we get bad shoddy law. Sometimes those words are incredibly eloquent, and we elegant law.

Then there's screenwriting...

Screenwriting is a lot like code (and a lot like law). Its functional. The 'end-users' of screenwriting, ie the audience, never see the actual words on the page, however they see the form that those words have built: the story. And those forms, for better or worse, reflect the construction of the words. Just like in programming circles, in screenwriting only a small, albeit growing, group of people are ever able to appreciate the purity of the words themselves *apart* from the result.

Good coding isn't just about producing good results, its often about the form itself. e.g. in tcsh

if (!(condition == condition)) then
do this
endif

produces exactly the same result as:

if (condition != condition) dothis

(assuming, of course, you only have one 'dothis'. but this isn't meant to be a treatise on good coding practices)

Undoubtedly, the second example is far easier to follow (for those who code). Being 'easy to follow' is an important part of coding. If anyone, including yourself, has to pick up your code after a break... you need to know what is going on. I've picked up some of my recent (ie two months old) code and been totally lost! I'm 'evolving' good programming habits because of this. e.g. Avoiding unnecessary gotos, commenting everything, avoiding embedded loop after embedded loop, and choosing human readable variable names.

The need to pick up code this is exacerbated when you are dealing with thousands upon thousands of lines of code. Do you think any single one programmer groks the architecture of a modern OS completely? Possibly, but those people are genii... and its why software architecture (an outline for programming) is so important. Having a picture, from the top, of where you are going helps everyone tie together.

This is exactly like a screenplay. Badly written scripts produce badly written movies; beautifully written scripts produce beautifully written movies. Why? Because a well written script will guide the filmmakers (the director, producer, dop, production designer etc etc). If the script helps them grok what the hell is going on in the story, then they'll make better decisions.

Even for writers, this is important. Have you ever read an old script and been lost? Not known what your characters motivation are? What they're feeling?

(Warning: Simplistic examples to follow)

Why is:

She stares at him

better than

She looks at him

Because the word choice of 'stares' communicates more meaning and intent than 'looks'.

How about:

She walks away.

vs.

She skulks away.

vs.

Away she skulked.

Good screenwriting tells the reader what is going on, all the time. This doesn't mean you tell your reader literally what is going on, rather you use language which has shades of meaning and imparts emotion. I use to think I should try and tell my stories with impartial language descriptions tied together to impart meaning. It doesn't work. I try to be a 'literalist' in that I try to write with a sense to what can be represented audiovisually, but there's no reason that such language can't be coloured. She skulks away is just as visual as she walks away, yet you get a greater sense of, well, meaning from the first line. This is where I'm trying to lead my writing.

I've even begun thinking about building 'language lists' for characters. Groups of verbs that I can use to describe a character's action in order to build a sense of how a character holds themselves... e.g, I might use words with connotation of grace, like piourettes or twirl, or glide. and so on. Its not enough to merely describe a character as being graceful unless you reinforce that with every verb, every noun, every adjective. Character comes from what people do, not what we tell the audience these people are. How many movies have simply called the Villain 'bad' rather than show us the Villain being bad? Showing your reader how a character behaviours by using the appropriate words. Does your Villain flick his cigarette away? Throw it away? Discard it? Drop it and then grind it until its extinguished? All these are more or less the same action yet characterised in entirely different ways.

In short, every word matters. Never think otherwise. A forest is made from trees.

I guess you could make comparisons, saying each script its its own 'language' in programming speak. In programming worlds there are MASSIVE debates about the advantages and disadvantages of certain languages... because the way those languages are designed inevitably reflects the way a program behaves and how easy or difficult it is to produce adequate results. This discussions are interesting but a little esoteric for me.

Though, it makes me wonder if the standard screenwriting format is actually the best 'language' for a screenplay. Are there alternative ways we can structure and write our scripts which will better suits our needs? Or have we evolved the best container for our ideas? [Just playing with ideas there, not intending to start some discussion]

Anyway. Enough from me now. Buffy is calling... I'll write a part two at some stage where I'll try to make comparisons between the larger structural issues in good coding and the larger structural issues in good screenwriting.

Words are power.

[Even now, I'm thinking of how I can reconstruct this blog entry to be better written - so it achieves its purpose better using less words.]

After 1st ADing (and clappering, heh) on a short for the last three weekends, I've got the production itch back. While I am writing (and will continue writing) stuff that will hopefully go into production at some point, I am eager to scratch this itch sooner rather than later.

So, if you are in a band - or know of anyone in a band - on the East Coast of Australia that's interested in getting a kickass music video drop me a line at thestuwillis AT gmail.com. We won't pay for your project but consider approaching us even if you have a minimal budget. We can work something out, even if its us sadly declining the offer.

As part of this I'll probably start cutting me reel again... which I haven't done for like two or three years.... which I'll put online so you know I'm not completely full of shit.

Hi.