This was originally broadcast December 17, 2014. Vicki Peterson and Barbara Nicolosi's brand new book Notes To Screenwriters from Michael Wiese Productions can be ordered here.
Dave Watson: You state early in the book that it’s for both writers and producers. How so?
Barbara Nicolosi: We’ve been on both sides of the table. We have compassion and sympathy for both sides -which is not common. People want to make powerful stories and yet each side has a different vocabulary for expressing that. Our hope is for a common vocabulary, to take out the adversarial relationship between writers and producers. So many times they look at each other as a necessary evil instead of a partner. Things can get so screwed up by a producer and writer that what they need is a translator.
Vicki Peterson: The bulk of our consulting business is explaining what a producer means to writers and what writers are trying to do to producers. They’re all trying to decipher what each brings to the table.
BN: The bulk of the problem is on the producer’s side. Too many are trying to find things they can sell instead of getting after a good story, and crafting a story is an act of sharing communication. We’re hoping to give producers an almost messianic sense of vocation and bring the two sides together. Aristotle said we need good stories, not just sausage from a factory.
VP: A producer called me a while back saying he wants to make movies with the Pixar model.
DW: And Pixar has a particular way of making movies.
VP: Yes. The writer thought that meant a salaried job in a collaborative setting. The writer also thought it meant for a profound respect for story, but in the end, when the producer really just wanted to make a lot of money, and have a writer to bounce his ideas off of for under the table pay. Both sides have to be on board for the final outcome, and there’s a huge need to restore a sense of respect for both parties.
DW: Is flexibility key to being a writer?
VP: Yes, and the story has to matter. It’s not about what you’re working on. The writer’s initial vision has to sustain input from several, sometimes dozens of people in the course of production. We want the writers to take their fundamental worldview and put under a microscope, yet you can’t be too rigid; writers have to know when to stick to their guns and when to be open to ideas.
DW: William Goldman said screenwriting is structure. Would you agree?
BN: I think that’s too cute, but structure is certainly a huge part. The first thing we have to know in a story is what happens. The second is who it happens to, and the third is how we are told what happens, and that’s the structure. Structure is especially important with a plot we’ve seen before. I wrote a Christmas film that had all its surprise in that way. People already knew the details of the plot, so the entertainment value of the piece was in how we told that story.
DW: Sometimes, though, a structure feels solid but the story not so strong. The trailers are put together better than the finished film.
VP: The Trailer editors can be better storytellers. I just saw Interstellar and it could’ve been cut down to two hours. I see and respect what Christopher Nolan is trying to do, but he has to make tough choices. He is ambitious but he meanders all over the place.
BN: His first Batman movie had three endings. The same thing happened with Inception. You get an hour into these movies and you ask, “What is this really about?” Nolan doesn’t seem to have the discipline to make hard choices to protect his main story.
DW: Interstellar is a film I’d say is solid, yet is not one I would say to a friend or colleague, “You have to see it!” I say that more with cable TV these days, thinking of True Detective and House of Cards. Is word of mouth still golden?
BN: Absolutely, and that is best when a film or story exceeds what the audience expected. The last film I walked out and told people they had to see was Gravity.
DW: That was a strong story start to finish. You get the feeling the storytellers knew what it was about.
VP: Our book hopes to give writers reasons to philosophically stick with their guns. So often they’re worried about who has the power and who’s afraid when they enter a meeting or walk into a room. Both parties are trying to understand each other and there are indeed some moments where writers have to stick to their principles. Stark, clean story choices in that film.
DW: What are keys for writers working with producers?
BN: Everybody should manage expectations throughout the development process. At the meet and greet, the producer wants this, the writer wants that. At the deal stage, the producer wants that, the writer wants this. We’re all trying to understand each other.
VP: To a degree: you also want to get off the table legitimate questions. For example, “Is this person who wants to hire me a real producer?” Often the proof is in the pudding with what the producer has done, and those who have produced things before are your best bets. You have to have a producer with the chutzpah to get things done.
DW: You discuss story currency in your book. What’s that about?
BN: (Laughs) It’s actually a term we made up. It assigns a monetary value to the different stages of developing a concept. An idea is not really worth anything; an idea has no currency. It can’t go anywhere because there just isn’t enough to work with. But once you have developed a concept into a treatment, or a synopsis, or a fleshed out story proposal the concept accrues more value.
DW: Would you say it is better to write stories that are particularly geared to the current cultural moment, or should writers gear their efforts to something that will?
BN: There have always been both kinds of stories. Sometimes, it happens accidentaly because the cultural moment is so pervasive and over-powering. I would say lots of movies made in the ‘70s were like that. Regardless of what the movie is about thematically, the story is over-whelmed by what it was like to live in the ‘70s.
DW: There were also some classics of the time. I remember watching Taxi Driver as a teenager in the late ‘70s and connecting with it.
BN: Sure, some people think the ‘70s was the greatest overall decade for cinema. But what we are looking for in our book is projects that have a strong enough universal theme that they will resonate regardless of what is going on in the culture. Casablanca works likes this. But show Mean Girls in fifty years, and it probably won’t hold up. People will say, “Weird, that’s what teenagers did back then?”
DW: What are your favorite cinematic moments?
BN: I would have to say Casablanca, the moment when Victor and Rick spar over the letter and the Nazis are downstairs singing the national anthem. When Victor hears the Nazis, he charges down and directs the band toplay the French national anthem to drown out the Nazis. But Victor isn’t even French. He’s just a leader. The bandleader looks to Rick and he nods to go ahead and play even though he knows it is going to cost him with the Nazis. That moment to me exemplifies leadership: a leader is someone who reminds people who they are. Identity is a central theme in that film.
VP: For me (laughing) I’m going to choose a completely different movie, with a similar theme of identity, and that’s The Muppet Movie! It’s at the very end, when they’ve gotten to Hollywood. Halfway through their big production, the rainbow breaks in half, the studio roof breaks, and the real rainbow shines. All the muppets start singing. That moment has resonated with so many. I remember watching it as a kid. I felt like Kermit: I wanted to make millions of people happy. As an adult, I’ve found that bringing my loved ones along in the journey is equally important as the dream itself.
BN: (teasing) So, Vicki’s most memorable moment in the theater was The Muppet Movie and mine was Bergman’s The Seventh Seal.
VP: Well, that’s what makes our book great, isn’t it?
BN: I was just kidding. Not sure I ever saw The Seventh Seal all the way through.
VP: I know.
Clips: Casablanca
The Muppet Movie
Dave Watson: You state early in the book that it’s for both writers and producers. How so?
Barbara Nicolosi: We’ve been on both sides of the table. We have compassion and sympathy for both sides -which is not common. People want to make powerful stories and yet each side has a different vocabulary for expressing that. Our hope is for a common vocabulary, to take out the adversarial relationship between writers and producers. So many times they look at each other as a necessary evil instead of a partner. Things can get so screwed up by a producer and writer that what they need is a translator.
Vicki Peterson: The bulk of our consulting business is explaining what a producer means to writers and what writers are trying to do to producers. They’re all trying to decipher what each brings to the table.
BN: The bulk of the problem is on the producer’s side. Too many are trying to find things they can sell instead of getting after a good story, and crafting a story is an act of sharing communication. We’re hoping to give producers an almost messianic sense of vocation and bring the two sides together. Aristotle said we need good stories, not just sausage from a factory.
VP: A producer called me a while back saying he wants to make movies with the Pixar model.
DW: And Pixar has a particular way of making movies.
VP: Yes. The writer thought that meant a salaried job in a collaborative setting. The writer also thought it meant for a profound respect for story, but in the end, when the producer really just wanted to make a lot of money, and have a writer to bounce his ideas off of for under the table pay. Both sides have to be on board for the final outcome, and there’s a huge need to restore a sense of respect for both parties.
DW: Is flexibility key to being a writer?
VP: Yes, and the story has to matter. It’s not about what you’re working on. The writer’s initial vision has to sustain input from several, sometimes dozens of people in the course of production. We want the writers to take their fundamental worldview and put under a microscope, yet you can’t be too rigid; writers have to know when to stick to their guns and when to be open to ideas.
DW: William Goldman said screenwriting is structure. Would you agree?
BN: I think that’s too cute, but structure is certainly a huge part. The first thing we have to know in a story is what happens. The second is who it happens to, and the third is how we are told what happens, and that’s the structure. Structure is especially important with a plot we’ve seen before. I wrote a Christmas film that had all its surprise in that way. People already knew the details of the plot, so the entertainment value of the piece was in how we told that story.
DW: Sometimes, though, a structure feels solid but the story not so strong. The trailers are put together better than the finished film.
VP: The Trailer editors can be better storytellers. I just saw Interstellar and it could’ve been cut down to two hours. I see and respect what Christopher Nolan is trying to do, but he has to make tough choices. He is ambitious but he meanders all over the place.
BN: His first Batman movie had three endings. The same thing happened with Inception. You get an hour into these movies and you ask, “What is this really about?” Nolan doesn’t seem to have the discipline to make hard choices to protect his main story.
DW: Interstellar is a film I’d say is solid, yet is not one I would say to a friend or colleague, “You have to see it!” I say that more with cable TV these days, thinking of True Detective and House of Cards. Is word of mouth still golden?
BN: Absolutely, and that is best when a film or story exceeds what the audience expected. The last film I walked out and told people they had to see was Gravity.
DW: That was a strong story start to finish. You get the feeling the storytellers knew what it was about.
VP: Our book hopes to give writers reasons to philosophically stick with their guns. So often they’re worried about who has the power and who’s afraid when they enter a meeting or walk into a room. Both parties are trying to understand each other and there are indeed some moments where writers have to stick to their principles. Stark, clean story choices in that film.
DW: What are keys for writers working with producers?
BN: Everybody should manage expectations throughout the development process. At the meet and greet, the producer wants this, the writer wants that. At the deal stage, the producer wants that, the writer wants this. We’re all trying to understand each other.
VP: To a degree: you also want to get off the table legitimate questions. For example, “Is this person who wants to hire me a real producer?” Often the proof is in the pudding with what the producer has done, and those who have produced things before are your best bets. You have to have a producer with the chutzpah to get things done.
DW: You discuss story currency in your book. What’s that about?
BN: (Laughs) It’s actually a term we made up. It assigns a monetary value to the different stages of developing a concept. An idea is not really worth anything; an idea has no currency. It can’t go anywhere because there just isn’t enough to work with. But once you have developed a concept into a treatment, or a synopsis, or a fleshed out story proposal the concept accrues more value.
DW: Would you say it is better to write stories that are particularly geared to the current cultural moment, or should writers gear their efforts to something that will?
BN: There have always been both kinds of stories. Sometimes, it happens accidentaly because the cultural moment is so pervasive and over-powering. I would say lots of movies made in the ‘70s were like that. Regardless of what the movie is about thematically, the story is over-whelmed by what it was like to live in the ‘70s.
DW: There were also some classics of the time. I remember watching Taxi Driver as a teenager in the late ‘70s and connecting with it.
BN: Sure, some people think the ‘70s was the greatest overall decade for cinema. But what we are looking for in our book is projects that have a strong enough universal theme that they will resonate regardless of what is going on in the culture. Casablanca works likes this. But show Mean Girls in fifty years, and it probably won’t hold up. People will say, “Weird, that’s what teenagers did back then?”
DW: What are your favorite cinematic moments?
BN: I would have to say Casablanca, the moment when Victor and Rick spar over the letter and the Nazis are downstairs singing the national anthem. When Victor hears the Nazis, he charges down and directs the band toplay the French national anthem to drown out the Nazis. But Victor isn’t even French. He’s just a leader. The bandleader looks to Rick and he nods to go ahead and play even though he knows it is going to cost him with the Nazis. That moment to me exemplifies leadership: a leader is someone who reminds people who they are. Identity is a central theme in that film.
VP: For me (laughing) I’m going to choose a completely different movie, with a similar theme of identity, and that’s The Muppet Movie! It’s at the very end, when they’ve gotten to Hollywood. Halfway through their big production, the rainbow breaks in half, the studio roof breaks, and the real rainbow shines. All the muppets start singing. That moment has resonated with so many. I remember watching it as a kid. I felt like Kermit: I wanted to make millions of people happy. As an adult, I’ve found that bringing my loved ones along in the journey is equally important as the dream itself.
BN: (teasing) So, Vicki’s most memorable moment in the theater was The Muppet Movie and mine was Bergman’s The Seventh Seal.
VP: Well, that’s what makes our book great, isn’t it?
BN: I was just kidding. Not sure I ever saw The Seventh Seal all the way through.
VP: I know.
Clips: Casablanca
The Muppet Movie