John August

QandA

The essentials of adaptation

Adaptation, QandA

From the perspective of a screenwriter, what is essential in creating an adapted
script? Is it possible to keep the true essence and theme of a piece of literature
when translated to film? Can literary techniques be directly transformed into
cinematic terms? Should the two even be compared?

–Jeremy Vandiver

Sure. Books and movies should be compared, if only to understand what each
does well.

Using words alone, a good book manages to evoke images and emotions in the
reader that add up to a coherent story. The best writing makes a reader feel
like he’s seeing, hearing and touching what the character experiences, putting
you "in his shoes." Of all the literary tools available to the writer,
the most valuable may be insight. The novelist can choose to tell the reader
what the character is thinking, or fill in extra details, or sketch out relationships,
that have nothing to do with the current scene. In fact, the novel doesn’t
need to have "scenes" at all. Moments and observations can float
freely in space and time, arranged in whatever order best suits the story.

A movie — and by movie I mean what’s actually projected on the big screen
— has basically the same goals as a novel. It wants to transport the viewer
into a different place and time, making him feel like what he’s seeing and
hearing is real. A movie has many advantages over a novel. Not only are there
concrete visuals, but you hear the characters speak and watch them fight.
It’s an exaggeration to say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but it
would be very hard to capture the essence of THE MATRIX’s bullet-time on paper
without having seen if first, or the feeling of a John Williams soundtrack.
But this efficiency comes at a cost. With rare, art-house exceptions, movies
have scenes. The viewer is seeing and
hearing something that is taking place at a specific time and location. Movies
move relentlessly forward at 32-frames
per second, and the viewer cannot choose to stop and think about something,
or flip back a few pages to catch something he missed.

Most importantly, movies lack insight. Aside from an occasional voice-over
or narrator intrusion (done recently, and effectively, by AMELIE and Y TU MAMA
TAMBIEN), a movie can’t communicate anything to the viewer beyond what is seen
and heard. Since a movie can’t flat-out tell you what the hero is thinking,
it has to be very specific with its images and sounds to let you know what’s
going on inside a character’s head.

Now for the terrifying truth: a screenplay is the worst of both worlds. It’s
a work of literature that has to conform to all the limitations of a movie,
yet without any of cinema’s special abilities. That above all else is why screenwriting
is so hard.

In terms of adaptation, the screenwriter has to look for ways to take ideas
that "float" in a novel and tie them down to specific moments, locations
and times. Sometimes this means simply repurposing internal thoughts as dialogue,
but more often it involves a fundamental rethinking of the structure, storyline
and characters to achieve the goal.

I think one reason that many adaptations rely on voice-over is that the filmmakers
never found a way to externalize the essence of the novel they were adapting.
Instead of making a movie that could stand on its own, they created the cinematic
equivalent of a book-on-tape. To me, these movies always "feel" written,
a huge limitation.

Was Go written on-the-fly?

Go, QandA

While listening to Doug Liman and Steven Mirrione’s
commentary track on the GO DVD,
they went through numerous scenes that weren’t in your original screenplay,
but rather scenes they had you write in production.
I was wondering what percentage of a film would you say is original material,
and what percentage is threaded during the filming process? Have you ever had
to rewrite a scene you loved with something you felt was lesser for the purpose?

–Brian

This is yet another example of why writers should always be on the commentary
track.

What’s unusual about GO is how little did change from the first script to
the final movie. It’s pretty easy to see what scenes were
new and old by looking at the deleted scenes on the DVD. We went back and reshot
several parts, including
the "branching-off" scene at the supermarket and the finale in Gaines’
apartment. On paper, I much prefer the Gaines’ apartment sequence as
originally scripted. I thought it was smarter and much more in keeping with
the spirit of the movie.
Unfortunately, it just didn’t turn out very well when we filmed it, which is
why we went back and did the simpler version that’s in the movie now.

The other
changes made during filming mostly involved production issues, such as
the names of the hotels we were using, or legal clearance problems. (For
example, Confederated Products was originally American Products, but we
couldn’t get permission to use that name.)

Writer/director disagreements

Directors, QandA

What happens when you disagree with what a director does with your script?
Has that ever happened to you? Is there anything you can do about it?

–Jane

Disagreements can and do occur between writers and directors, and at least
in terms of feature films, the director almost always wins. After all, it’s
the director who is responsible for getting the film up on the screen, and
every department needs to support this effort.

However, it’s important to distinguish between bad disagreements and good
disagreements. Bad disagreements are easy to spot, because they often involve
shouting and name-calling and vows never to work together again. While there
may be genuine issues at hand, more often the battle is over ego, turf, money
and fear. These kinds of situations are movie poison, and usually hurt the
film.

Fortunately, most disagreements between writers and directors are good disagreements,
where they may have different opinions on characters, scenes or plotlines,
but argue only with the intention of making the best film possible. Remembering
the first rule of disagreements (the director almost always wins), a smart
writer will try to figure out not only what the director wants, but why he
wants it, and how to best achieve the outcome without hurting the script as
a whole.

In my experience, many directors use their writer conversations during development
and pre-production to answer their own questions about the project: What will
the movie feel like? Why is this moment important? How will I direct that actor?
The more confident and secure a director feels about the material going in,
the better the movie will hopefully turn out. So it’s generally worth it to
set aside your defensive tendencies and let the director explore the material.
Hopefully, you’ll find yourselves trying to make the same movie.

Disagreements during production are more treacherous, because exhaustion breeds
paranoia, and every hour of filming is literally costing thousands of dollars.
Often writers aren’t very involved during production, but if they are, the
most important thing they can do is make sure the story is still being told,
despite the obstacles and changes that arise.

In post-production, the director’s primary collaborator is the editor, and
the two of them will have the same kinds of disagreements as the writer and
director had during pre-production. The writer’s involvement during editing
is unfortunately rare, but can be extremely helpful. The writer generally has
the best sense of how the story was originally constructed, and can help nudge
it back into shape.

Adapting a videogame into a movie

Adaptation, QandA

This question is going to suck. I have an idea to turn a computer game (I
feel so cheap) into a screenplay. Just as a side-note, it’s more of the atmosphere
of the game that’s appealing, not the quick buck mentality. Obviously I can’t
afford to buy the rights, but where do I lie submitting it to agencies? Would
they even look at it?

–Chris

Your question doesn’t suck. I adapted a computer game into
a movie ("American McGee’s Alice"), and I didn’t feel a wee bit cheap.

But then, it was a damn cool game, and I got paid. So there you have it.

Since you don’t think you can get the rights to the game, ask yourself if
you’re still willing to write a script that can never get made (or even sold).
If the answer is yes, go for it.

Some agents will avoid reading your script, simply because they know they
can never sell it. But some agents will read it as a writing sample, and if
the atmosphere of the game world is as cool as you say, maybe they’ll like
it and see you have potential.
Make sure you identify your source material on the cover page, which would
read:

TITLE

written by Chris Somebody

 

based on the videogame "Underpants Wars"

published by Powerful Software Company

Considering you’re probably broke, and the fact you won’t be able to sell this anyway, there’s
very little danger
Powerful Software Company would bother coming after you. But you’re
morally and karmically better off giving credit where it’s due.