One Storyteller's Process

Writing is tough. We all have our own styles; and it can be daunting when we read interviews with writers or listen to podcasts with gurus, because they often have very specific rules, entirely different to our own. 

So it's good to get different perspectives. There is no right way to write -- all that matters is that you get the work done, and you write well. Zoje Stage has written a guest post about her process, which I find very fascinating because it is quite similar to my own. So many 'experts' tell you to get up at 9am and begin writing immediately, in a structured way. Zoje Stage has a different approach, which she eloquently explains in the following guest blog. 

A guest post by Zoje Stage.

Whenever I hear a writer discuss their writing process I am intrigued. Intrigued in a similar way as when I see someone with a really interesting tattoo: I recognize the beauty of the tattoo, yet I have never once coveted another's tattoo as my own. Both of these things are singularly personal. Though I'm sure no one out there really covets my writing style (or my tattoos), here's how I work:

I do not write every day. Or even every month. Yet I consider myself to be a fairly prolific writer. I average three or four new screenplays a year, plus rewrites and polishes. I know it is common for writers to have a set schedule, squeezing in writing time before and after work. And many writers outline first, or create a synopsis or treatment to serve as a guide. These methods don't work for me. I need uninterrupted time, and the only instances when I have not finished a script are when I attempted too much initial research or planning. Because, you see, I am a stream-of-consciousness writer.

I have written this way since I wrote my first screenplay twenty-three years ago. My process requires a certain amount of "down time" - which is when the things I've been influenced by settle into my brain and soul. I keep a notebook of story ideas and I jot things down. But what really gets the process going is, no kidding, a moment of inspiration. Sometimes it comes while I am watching a movie or staring into space. Sometimes - again, no kidding - it comes to me in a dream.

For me, the "moment of inspiration" means that something suddenly gels: a couple of characters, a couple of scenes - and the initial story idea. The next step is to look at my calendar and see when I can fit in some extended writing time - preferably where I can write for five or six days in a row, several hours each day. Then, in the days leading up to my designated start time, I let my mind wander around my story and characters. I jot down notes for scene ideas; I pick character names and occupations.

I write a first draft in an average of seven days, writing for as long as I possibly can on each day. As a stream-of-consciousness writer, I need to be in the story - in the moment - to generate the momentum needed to finish a first draft. Writing has always been a magical process for me, because I don't know on Page One exactly where things are going to go, or how we will get there. As I get into the process, I start to see different paths, and I continually jot down scene ideas as part of each writing day.

My goal for a first draft is simply to finish it as quickly as possible. There are certain tricks I employ to make the process easier, such as: I end each day in the middle of a sentence (usually dialogue) right smack in the middle of a scene. The idea is to "set up" the next writing day so the hard part - starting - won't be so daunting. Sometimes I still find myself avoiding the start of the writing day, inspired instead to empty the dishwasher or scrub a spot of toothpaste off of the floor (yes, I wander as I brush my teeth). 

On a full writing day I'll write fifteen pages or more. On a half day, I shoot for five to ten. My style requires inertia... keep going! I am a hunt-and-peck typist, but I do it incredibly quickly. My stories are primarily character driven - and I can see that my style might not work as well with plot-driven material. But I have written a fair share of horror, science fiction and even action, though I think it is the depth of character that sets my work apart even then. 

After I get the first draft, I usually set the script aside for awhile. My first drafts tend to be pretty good - but clearly subsequent drafts are better. But after the initial flurry of activity, I again require "down time" to gain perspective on the story and generate new ideas. Sometimes it helps to have someone read the script and point out holes, missed opportunities, or confusing moments. But, as most writers know, it's very hard to find the reader who responds to the needs of your story without altering it toward their own sensibilities. As a rule, if one person has criticism (or praise) for a certain element, I ignore it. If two or more people criticize (or praise) the same thing, then I take it seriously.

Screenwriting in particular is an art form where people want to stick their fingers in your pie. I am not here to feed everyone. I consider myself to be a conceptual artist, and as such it is imperative that I defend my work. And it is equally imperative that I understand how my work will function (or not) in the real world. I am always open to suggestions that make my initial idea better. I am rarely open to ideas that spin my story in a totally new direction. 

I am somewhat schizophrenic in my writing, as I write both independent films that I want to direct, and also higher concept scripts that I want to sell. But my process is the same. Especially when one is engaged in a precarious occupation that may or may not pay off financially, I think it is vital that the effort feel meaningful and fulfilling. I love what I write. I love the stories that emerge during the writing process; I love my characters; I love how I feel after creating something that didn't exist a week before.

I have believed since I was a teenager that everyone is given a talent, and that it behooves us to recognize our talent and try to make the most of it. Some might look at my twenty-three years of effort as an exercise in masochistic tendencies: a constant cycle of victorious out-put tempered by nearly non-stop rejection. But, in the immortal words of Popeye, "I am what I am." I can't be another kind of writer or another kind of person. I could wish that more people see the magic that I try to produce, but I have no illusions about the reality of marketing or the nature of competition. 

Your style of writing probably won't change for having read this; you may even feel more validated that your writing style is right for you. (And it is.) We are each the accumulation of our own experiences and unique imagination. My stories have been set in motion by being a highly sensitive person living with an imperfect body, influenced by the strange and sometimes dark permutations of human behavior. I think I am a stream-of-consciousness writer because I process the world physically - and I have to spew all that I've absorbed back out into a more coherent form. Being a storyteller lets me breathe - in, out, in, out...  

For whatever it's worth, this is my process.

Care to share?

Tweet

Women In The World, Women In Film - GUEST WRITER Zoje Stage.

Women, Men & The Film Industry and The Missing Voice Of Women In Film are two articles that I recently wrote, where I am slowly and gradually opening my eyes to the issue of gender; specifically, gender inequality in the film industry. I must admit that until about two weeks ago, I was unknowingly extremely ignorant of this problem. Whilst I have always been quite sensitive to issues around the subject, i.e., writing things like this; they have generally been mild thoughts that cross my mind and then disappear again. Luckily, that's no longer the case.

ZOJE STAGE is a 2008 Fellow in Screenwriting from the New York Foundation for the Arts. She is writer/director/producer of the upcoming feature film "The Machine Who Loved." Her knowledge of, and passion for, the issue of gender equality in film is amazing. It became very clear to me that rather than have me stumbling forth with little revelations as I learn more; it's a good idea to have Zoje guest write an article-- because what she has to say is informative, fascinating, and important -- and a million miles more eloquent than I could possibly manage.


Women In The World, Women In Film
By Zoje Stage
The subject of women's opportunities in the film industry is of great interest to me, and it is something I have spent a lot of time thinking about. I have a personal mission to help make people aware of gender inequality in general - as an extension of how it relates to the film industry.

There is a huge underlying problem as to why women do not have equal opportunities:

The history of humanity is based on gender inequality and the intentional suppression of women. As time has gone on, things have changed in many parts of the world - creating the illusion that, for the most part, men and women live in an equal-opportunity world. But in reality, this just isn’t the case.

The structures that define human civilization were designed by men, to better, praise, or entertain other men. Do we have any clue how a government would be run if the world had evolved with true gender equality? Do we know what a building might look like? Do we even know how a story might be told?

Everything about how we - men and women - live is dependent upon us all accepting that the male-created models are what we can and should strive for. In addition, there has been a systemic injustice done to women across the centuries in that, even when women were able to accomplish significant things in fields not truly open to them, the historians of the day dismissed their efforts - and subsequently, much of the history of women and their contributions have been erased or forgotten.

Literally, the contributions of women have been ERASED from the collective consciousness of human history!

I encourage you to visit the Brooklyn Museum in Brooklyn, New York. Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party is permanently installed there. Go look at the hundreds of names of important women from throughout the ages and ponder why you have never heard of most of them.

Our collective vision of the world has been seen - and recorded - through men's eyes.

Are you familiar with Alice Guy Blaché?

She was the second person in the history of cinema to make a narrative film. She was a contemporary of the Lumiere brothers. In the early 1900's Alice Guy Blaché - though French born - was one of the highest paid women in America --- as a director and producer!!! As one of the world's first filmmakers she accomplished truly groundbreaking things. Why has everyone heard of D.W. Griffith but not her?

When contemporary filmmakers engage in discussions about why women filmmakers - writers, directors, producers - are not better represented in the film industry, someone (usually male) attempts to explain it away by stating that women simply aren't interested in making the kinds of high concept, blockbuster films that their male counterparts like to make. There is an assumption that women prefer softer stories, girly stories, comedies. In short, there is an assumption that women would prefer to make crap.

In reality, if women filmmakers existed in the EXACT same numbers as male filmmakers you would see proportionally more blockbusters - and proportionally more of everything else. From good films to bad films. You would see women making horror films, thrillers, adventure films, etc. And another thing would happen if women filmmakers existed entirely proportional to male filmmakers:

You would see a broader interpretation of human experience.

People would become familiar with "other" types of stories - the stories of the silenced half of human history. I believe, over time, these stories would be embraced. These stories would become just as ubiquitous as male buddy films and little boy coming-of-age films. Just as toddlers are trained what to eat by their parents, an audience is trained what to like based on what is fed to them. Give them a broader diet and they will embrace a more well-balanced offering!

When murmurings began about the lack of a single woman director in the running for this year's Palme d'Or at Cannes, as usual people failed to really understand the significance. People snarkily suggested that some of us would prefer to see good films by men go unaccepted, or lesser films by women be included. That was not the issue at all. One does not achieve equality by suppressing others, or accepting a lower standard. But when such things happen it gives us all a chance to examine the world we live in.

Here is an example of how people in a decision making position will pick material that is familiar to them - a reverse gender scenario:

In 2009 I won the first Screenplay Live! Screenwriting Competition, and then got to direct my winning script as a staged reading at the 360/365 George Eastman House Film Festival. My script was about a past-middle aged woman and, obviously, it was written by a woman. The presiding judge was a past-middle aged woman. A few weeks ago I attended the reading of the 2010 winning script from the same contest. It was written by a woman, and was about two adult sisters and their aging mother. The presiding judge was the same past-middle aged woman as last year.

The lesson here? Of course we all, if given the choice, will pick material that is familiar to us, that resonates with us.

The tragedy is that women have been so silenced throughout history that there is little recognition or appreciation of our voices. And not enough women in power to truly influence the selection, development, and programming process.

There had been an argument on an online board last year concerning the Pixar film "Up" - and how some people lamented that Pixar had yet to make a true adventure film with a girl in the leading role. Pixar has had girls in supporting roles, and we've all seen gender-stereotyped lead girls in tons of animated films. But this was an argument about the specific lack of ADVENTURE stories where girls are the leaders. One particular comment really struck me:

A man wrote that his young son - who has been around girls and women his whole life - would be fully able to relate to a story about a girl. He wondered why it seemed more likely to the powers-that-be that his young son could better relate to a character portrayed as a truck, or a fish.

Eventually, consensus on the Pixar debate seemed to conclude that the directors, animators, and writers at Pixar are predominantly men, and that they aren't trying to be sexist, they are merely creating stories that they personally can relate to.

On an individual basis I do not believe that I am often discriminated against. I know a lot of men who dig my work and respect what I do. But there is still a collective, insidious perception that if I am a woman then my work is only going to be understood by other women. Never mind that I have been utterly transformed by the work of men! We can, if given the opportunity, relate to each other, learn from each other, embrace each other - we live in this world together. Men have made extraordinary contributions to the world, there is no question about that - and we women have embraced your vision. But, again, the perception exists that the female perspective is somehow not interesting to men. A producer even suggested trying to market my sci-fi/drama feature as a "chick flick" to tap into that ready market! (I explained in no uncertain terms that "chick flick" is synonymous with "crap only women like" and that I never wanted to hear the words uttered again.)

One obvious thing that needs to happen is we need to have more women in decision-making positions - as selection panelists at film festivals, as development executives, as directors. Very, very slowly this is starting to happen - but too slowly. When Kathryn Bigelow picked up the Academy's Best Director Oscar I wept - but only partly because I was happy. I was also really pissed that it took the Academy 80+ years to see exceptional directing talent in someone without a penis. Since the beginning of film, women have been an integral part of this industry. But we happen to live in a world that refuses to document our existence, or value our work as much as that of men.

There was an op-ed piece in The New York Times this year during awards season that suggested, with dark humor, to end the practice of recognizing Best Actor and Best Actress. After all, talent is NOT gender specific. I got into an argument about this with a male actor (and friend) who was adamantly opposed to the idea, on the grounds that there would be half as many acting awards given out! It seems ludicrous to counter that argument by suggesting they add MORE categories - like Best Woman Editor, Best Woman Composer, Best Woman Screenwriter, etc. That would be offensive! And where would it lead? Best Asian Director? Best Black Costume Designer?

But the point is... Talent is not gender specific. Or ethnicity specific. Or anything else. Talent is talent. And we still live in a world that can't quite fully embrace that. Women ARE already equal in terms of what we are capable of doing. But there is an underlying perception that has not caught up to that.

The men of the world still tend to make higher salaries than women. So men have more money to spend on movies. So more movies are made to attract the male audience. One might conclude that this cycle will not change until there is gender equality EVERYWHERE -- where women earn an equal salary, and are represented and respected in all of the fields where they wish to have influence.

So the solution to gender inequality in the film business is, not so simply, to reach a global state of gender equality. It is a world worth striving for.

Care to share?

Tweet