As I said a few days ago, I'm working on developing a set whose existence is apparently already
official media.
We have also taken steps to move the film with which Caesar
and I will try to disturb.
mention these two cases because both drag me to one thought. Something that every writer is raised while working on the rundown of such series, or when looking into the possible rewrites of such length.
And the writer who has a definitive and convincing answer, cast the first stone.
I refer to the eternal dilemma of what things are needed in your script and what not needed.
If we listen to people like Aristotle or
Robert McKee, one must respect sacred rule: If you remove anything from your script and yet the story still works, that means plenty of that element. It is not necessary in your plot. All it does is ensuciártela and hinder.
lash do not think that standard. I consider it very useful in most cases. But when one becomes obsessed with this maxim, the thing begins to have some fear. You go into a quasi-religious dynamics, as if you wrote with secateurs rather muses.
I do not feel entitled to theorize about these issues, so I'll just have a couple of stories. The stories seem less arrogant than theories. Talk about concrete things, with no pretensions to universality. That, on the other hand, maybe the foxes become dangerous.
The first story is from when working on the script for Zombie Western
. We were on the fourth version and we were still trying to clean it of expendable items. Not only a matter of effective narrative. Also we should have lightened by duration and budget issues.
advantage that we would spend a few days Copenhagen, our "partners" Danes insisted that we had a chat with a very reputable script analyst living in Copenhagen. The guy called Lars, like almost all Danes. I do not remember his name.
I was a bit wary. I've met really cenutrios script analysts. There is a great lack of professionalism in that sub-guild. In Spain do not take that job seriously is configured so that anyone can play. And they wanted a Danish analyst metiese their claws into our script!
nosequé We met Lars and I had to eat my misgivings with potatoes (tuber, on the other hand, constitutes 80% of gastronomy Danish). For the analyst, in my opinion, got it right in almost everything we proposed. We made recommendations extremely helpful and very intelligently exposed.
Now there was a sequence in the script that did not contribute much to the time of advancing the plot. From a narrative point of view was expendable, but I was very sorry to lose it. Call it "the scene of a whore" so to speak.
As I listened to the analyst, was intrigued about what the hell was going to say about "the scene of a bitch." But that guy did not even mention that scene in the changes that we proposed. When finished them advice, I had to be me who asked directly:
- Did not take away the "scene whore"?
- No. I would keep it in the script - he replied.
- Why?
-
Because it is funny.
Those three words (maybe four, because the conversation was in English) was a blow that catapulted me back into the real world and I took off a lot of nonsense.
"Because it's funny!"
We were writing a comedy, dammit! That was fine cleaning seeking narrative, but the priority was to make people riese.
Sometimes, if your script offal apparently dispensable certain things, you end up hospital food cooking. You know what I mean. This tray with boiled chicken that has no juice and slices of carrot aseptic, without dressing. And a soup without salt. This very healthy, very clean, nutritious intentionally. A meal to be more effective, has been deprived of all the leftovers: The aceitito, golden skin of the chicken, french fries.
That, in turn, reminds me of the second story:
In college I had to professor Jordi Grau
script. Those were the strangest classes and poetic script I received. Grau One day, when we talked about Aristotelian whole thing, we gave an example:
"Imagine a sequence in which a boy meets a girl in a park. They fall in love, kiss, go together. But instead of moving to the next sequence, half a minute we were watching the empty park, but nothing special happens in it. Only the chirping of birds, a falling leaf ... Is that right according to Aristotle's Poetics? "
Grau himself gave us his opinion: "Well according to what the intentions of the author, it may be correct. Because if not add anything from a narrative point of view, does yield a flavor, a score that allows us read that history in the proper key in the right tone. "
I have had to invent some words. Jordi Grau sure what would have explained a lot better (and would have taken half an hour to do so)
And that comes back to connecting with my approach: Perhaps some of those things that seem too many are there for the food not as a hospital.
Those things are salsa, cheese, olive martini.
Have you noticed the amount expendable material that is in this post? If you've read this blog in the past, you already know I usually leave the bush without realizing it, but this time I did it on purpose.
might have told the same information in half the time, so much more agile and probably more effective. I have included comments that come to mind, I have delayed counting irrelevant things instead of going straight to the point. I even told two anecdotes redundant to each other! With one of the two would have sufficed to explain my conclusions.
Perhaps because it has left me a post harder to read. Perhaps the spread of scare and deter entry by half of the readers. But I assure you I felt a sinful pleasure, almost erotic in doing so deliberately wrong.
( The image crown comes from the blog entry http://demadamex.blogspot.com)
0 comments:
Post a Comment