Write, Shoot, Repeat. (A Cautionary Tale)
Nicole Greevy and Todd Faulkner
Our gratitude to the team of Nicole Greevy and Todd Faulkner for this lesson-and-laugh-filled blog. Nicole is a writer, actor, and producer who co-created and appears in the supernatural comedy and web series, Exorcists Local 667, an Official Selection of the International Television Festival. Her play Lights! Camera! Arctic! is currently in performances at Kohl’s Wild Theater (Zoological Society of Milwaukee). She is also the co-creator of the independent television pilot Living in Captivity (Official Selection, ITVFest and NYTVFest). Todd co-created and directed Exorcists Local 667 and co-produced and directed Living in Captivity.
We read the list of selections over and over, sure we must have missed seeing our submission. The festival had accepted 70 out of 100 webseries, and our show had a great premise, was irreverent, with great acting and killer special effects.
But it wasn’t on the list. Exorcists Local 667 had been rejected.
Self-Defense Mode kicked in:
“They didn’t get it.”
“We don’t have any name actors.”
“It’s all who you know.”
Silence. And then, quietly-
“It’s Episode One.”
“Yeah.”
Exorcists Local 667 is a supernatural comedy about a Libertarian exorcist, cursed by his ex-girlfriend to be president of a new labor union for exorcists, necromancers, and others “who walk in the netherworlds on a professional basis.” We were very proud of it. Well, except for Episode One. Episode One was… well, it was fine. Really, it was okay. Tolerable. I mean, you need to get a lot of information out quickly, so there has to be a certain amount of exposition… you’re establishing the world, so the pilot episode is usually one of the weakest in any series… if people will just stay with it until Episode Two…
If we’d spent half as much time writing that first episode as we did rationalizing why the finished product didn’t work, we wouldn’t have been sitting glumly on the sofa, while those twin siblings, Depression and Disappointment, set up camp in our stomachs and toasted s’mores.
Episode One starts strong -
So, in our Opening Image, we establish the tone (supernatural comedy) and give our hero, a guy who outwits opponents he can’t outfight, a Save the Cat! moment, with the playful waving and fake throw of the tennis ball (beautifully done by our very talented lead, Shyaporn Theerakulstit).
But then:
Wait. What was that last thing the demon said?
FLAMMI: “All right, now tell me exactly how it went down -”
There’s our problem.
That (and the rest of the episode) was supposed to be a classic hero/informer scene, a push and pull, full of conflict as our hero fights to pull out the information he is seeking, in a race to our Catalyst: “Edwin discovers he’s been cursed to lead a supernatural union.”
But what we wrote (and worse, what we shot!) was a scene where NOTHING HAPPENS. Instead, two people talk about something that ALREADY happened. And the audience is left to decipher that (a) Edwin set up the werewolf so he could collect its saliva off the tennis ball because (b) werewolf saliva is valuable and good for bribing a demon (?) so that he will (c) help Edwin identify a curse cast before the show even begins and (d) someone may have been sent to hell and (e) what the hell is a dram, anyway?
Second minute of a five-minute webisode, and the audience is doing all the work.
To summarize the rest of the episode (because we won’t torture you with any more of it):
FLASHBACK to: a supernatural battle between Edwin and an unnamed woman (we know she cursed him because he TELLS us).
More dialogue, explaining that the woman is Edwin’s ex-girlfriend whom Edwin then sent to hell in pre-emptive self-defense.
Flammi identifies the curse, but doesn’t know how it manifested.
Then, as they say goodbye, Flammi, says, “See you at the meeting?” Edwin says “What meeting?” and they both realize the new union that has been in existence for a week must be the curse, because… Flammi opens Edwin’s wallet to reveal a card identifying him as union president.
That’s right, we took the clever guy who fake-throws a tennis ball to outwit a werewolf and turned him into a Hero so utterly Inactive that he can’t even open up his own wallet. (What the hell does he even do, anyway? We never say.)
What happened? How did we botch it? How come everyone talks instead of doing?
We misplaced the Catalyst.
In a serial format like a web series, with each episode being about five minutes, we’re not going to play out the entire beat sheet in the first episode, else we’d have no long-term story to tell. But the basic storytelling principles are the same — we still have to get to the Catalyst to launch the story (”Self-satisfied loner is put in charge of a union, which is anathema to everything he stands for”).
And the episode leads to the Catalyst we identified: “Edwin discovers he’s been cursed to lead a supernatural union.”
Only we were wrong. The Catalyst is the casting of the curse itself.
Since Edwin was cursed IN THE PAST, the entire episode was just a spoon-fed recap of the Set-Up, which doesn’t even happen onscreen.
(And we wondered why we were rejected from the festival.)
Well, the best way to force Depression and Disappointment to pack up camp and move on is to get back to work. So, we got to work on the rewrite we should have done before we started shooting — a rewrite that was much more difficult, since it not only had to fix the problems of the original, but also still mesh with the other five episodes we had already shot. And we wanted to keep the werewolf chase scene.
Seven days and eleven rewrites of six pages later… after our hero “fake throws” to the werewolf we CUT TO:
In half the time, we learn what Edwin does, what Flammi thinks of what he does, why Edwin faked out the werewolf with the tennis ball, and who Marguerite (oh, that’s her name?) is to Edwin.
Most important, in this version, Edwin HASN’T BEEN CURSED… YET. Episode One becomes the Set-Up — and when the Catalyst occurs at the episode’s climax, it’s Edwin’s fault it happens (Active Hero), due to the Six Things that Need Fixing (which we establish this time). We’re now ready to go into the Debate, which is where Episode Two begins.
If we’d taken the time to fill out the BS2 before we started writing (and not just assumed we’d done it right in our heads), we would have saved ourselves about 40 hours of filming and editing, and maybe avoided a night of feeling like The Festival Rejects (though that would be a GREAT name for a band). So, lesson learned by these sadder (but wiser) filmmakers is: fill out the BS2. Take the time. And if we find ourselves hoping an audience will just “stay with us” through the any part of our script — that is the part that needs our attention. Before we start filming.
Happily, the new and improved Episode One helped to make Exorcists Local 667 an Official Selection of the International Television Festival. If you’re in West Hollywood on Thursday, August 11th, we’re screening Episodes 1-4 at 8PM at the Laemmle Sunset Five, with three other wonderful shows. Look for us — we’ll be the duo with the baby (who was born during post-production).
Here’s the trailer!
on July 29th, 2011 at 10:19 am
Thank you for the practical nature of this posting. It is difficult to receive negative feedback on a project and not just fall into thinking “others don’t get my celluloid brilliance.” It’s highly respectable that you chose to identify the problem, rewrite, refilm, and reedit. Hats off for the twin siblings - Persistence and Perspiration!
on July 29th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Hi….
Yes, that’s a bitter fact that its always difficult to take criticism with patience and as a source of reforming.
on July 30th, 2011 at 4:55 am
Nicole and Todd:
Thank you for such a candid and informative post.
It’s very difficult, as the creators of your project, to don the cloak of objectivity, and release your baby to the very subjective scrutiny of others; and yet, you did just that. Then, you listened, told the twins to take a hike, rolled up your sleeves and went to work. I know that Exorcists will be better-faster-stronger for this.
At the end of the day, it is your ability to weather and apply the observations of others, that sets you apart from the pack. You listened to your audience - and responded. That’s the mark of the professional! Huzzah!
Can’t wait to see you and the l’il debbil. We loved “Living In Captivity” and sniff great things on the horizon for Exorcists… or is that a whiff of a zombie?
Welcome to the family of Cats!!! Meow!
on July 30th, 2011 at 5:45 am
Nicole and Todd:
Thanks so much for sharing your work and work ethic! “Seven days and eleven rewrites of six pages…” the best description I’ve read of keeping the “if only” voices out of your head. Looking forward to seeing you and Exorcists Local 667 in LA!
on July 30th, 2011 at 7:32 am
Thanks for the nice comments! I think, as writers, it’s important to make our writing personal, but never take it personally. A weak part in a screenplay is not a personal failure; it’s just a puzzle the writer hasn’t solved yet. I think all screenwriters must, on some level, love puzzles, because it’s what we devote our lives to doing- creating and solving logic puzzles. We just call them stories.
on July 30th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Great description of the problem and solution. It’s like walking a tightrope to balance between telling a story personally but remaining objective. And… you can’t look down!
on July 31st, 2011 at 6:36 pm
This article really spells out the pitfalls of “scene one” “episode one” “act one” … whatever the genre happens to be. And it’s got a happy ending, because those pitfalls can be dealt with.
The beginning is always the hardest part. How do you know what has to be spoon-fed to the audience and what can’t be spoon-fed so that they stick with the story? This article really helps navigate that murky territory. Thanks for posting.
on July 31st, 2011 at 7:45 pm
This is great. So cool to read about writers/filmmakers who think of it all as a puzzle yet to be finished. As a writer/editor (and puzzle solver!), I can truly appreciate the sentiment! A solved puzzle is a beautiful thing, but that doesn’t mean it was easy to get there.
on August 9th, 2011 at 5:32 am
I’m hesitant to comment/criticize because (a) I’m not a professional screenwriter (yet), and (b) we have a mutual friend whom I respect, and don’t want to tarnish our relationship. I would prefer you don’t publsih my observations. But, I feel moved to comment and what you already know in your heart:
This movie is a non-starter. The dialogue is sophomoric. The premise is way too complicated and, again, too sophomoric, and uninteresting. As Blake would say, if you have to explain anything, you’ve already lost. The tennis ball is (basically) stupid and childish, as is the dialogue. My recommendation — abandon this project. It’s NOT YOU! It’s the concept that sucks. This preoject is unsavable. Get off on a new one — you’re throwing good money after bad.
If you are interested in developing a subject, I have one for you. Just write to me and let’s collaborate.
Bill