screenplays where nothing really happens

My two cents.

I believe in story. Strong characters. Great arcs and plot points. Strong dialogue. Take the viewer someplace where they have never been before with as much going on around them as possible. Put the protagonist through HELL. And add as much action to that HELL as possible with twists and turns while being true to the audience and story. What I try to do anyway... but different strokes for different folks.

While I do like movies like THE STATION AGENT, JUNO & THE SUNSHINE CLEANING, and yes, do watch them, though rarely and do not repeat often. 'ART' films do have a market but it appears to be a small one. And, in many cases getting smaller. Yes, they do win awards and have a following.

So. Strong characters. Great arcs and at least 'interesting' plot points. Take the viewer someplace where they 'might not' have been before. Strong dialogue. Give your readers (viewers) a lot to see and hear and EXPERIENCE.

BUT REMEMBER, the movie business is a business -- and projects that get greenlighted tend to be those that draw large numbers of paying customers... Think PROMETHEUS or The AVENGERS will make money this summer?

Good luck. Have fun with your writing and production, learn and keep leaning forward. Make something good.

To put things simply, at any moment in your script, there needs to be a conflit involving the protagonist. It can be emotionnal, physical, intellectual but there needs to be one. Else it's just boring.

I haven't watch "Wendy and Lucy" but I read a novel that "nothing really happens", called "The Catcher in The Rye". What makes it good/exciting is because the character is exciting. He has this ill wish for everyone. He is insecure. He loves a girl but he can't tell what he feels. He blames everyone for his wrong doings. He addresses "You" instead of "I", since it's to hurtful to admit it. In the novel, they aren't really an obvious conflict. The novel only shows the chronicle of a teenager, who has been kicked out from the school, for the nth time.

What I'm trying to say is as long as your character has a personality, and the events, neither few or many, small or big, leads to the bit by bit revelation of his personality, you'll be fine.

I fall on the extreme side, with regards to character vs. plot. If the character is solid, it doesn't matter if anything happens. Or if anything that happens is real or not. But for that to work, the character has to change. The character doesn't need to wrap up everything in their life. But whatever the experience, it needs to make the character grow in some way. For reference, check out Ingmar Bergman..."Cries and Whispers" is a standout in terms of not much happening, but being absolutely engaging.

...and now the downside. Your film will not be popular. It'll be a hard sell; most people actively do not like that sort of film. Do not go into it thinking you will be the next Bergman...he had done a LOT of more conventional films before getting to the point of character studies. Even I might not have watched a lot of his films, had they not been Bergman (his films sound terrible on paper). I'm not saying don't make the film, and I'm not saying you won't do a great job with it. But it is going to be very tough to find your market with it when you're done. So long as you are prepared for that, go for it!

moonshieldmedia said:

I've read screenwriting books and they all seem to say that every script needs these very specific elements to be successful, but does that only apply to studio films and/or when you're selling a script?

Part of me is worried my feature screenplay (which I plan to shoot myself) doesn't have enough "going on" to keep people interested, but at the same time the feel I want for the film is a more realistic slice-of-life piece that focuses on my main character....

Click to expand...

There's a fair difference between a story a major or mini-major studio will finance and one which often independent filmmakers will finance, the difference often being profit related.

A business is in business to exchange a product or service for a profitable return on their capital investment.
You don't goto work because you're being punished.
You goto work to exchange labor for a profitable return on your time and effort.
Apple doesn't make products just for fun.
Apple makes products to exchange labor + materials for a profitable return on their capital investment.
Even the government invests in the nation, other nations, the states, counties, cities, and certain businesses for an anticipated return on their revenue (taxes) spent.
Hospitals. Universities. Charities and other "non-profit" organizations are actually in the profit making business.
A film studio is no different.
Film studios are not making films JUST because they're fun to spend money on.

Now,... art films are a whole other kettle of fish.

Art films are being made just like Billy Bob spends $25,000 on a fishing boat + motor + dock fees + gas + gear + license just to go fishing.
There's zero profit motive even though he's spending some serious coin.
Billy Bob's brother Zeke spent $30,000 for ATVs for his entire trailer park family. They have a great time making donuts on the mudflats on the far side of the local forest.
No profit motive on some serious money.
Billy Bob and Zeke's diabetic mom with macular degeneration loves to spend her disability money on 20x30 canvases which she paints with gobs of acrylic paints applied with a biscuit.
She makes two "paintings" a week.
It makes her happy.
Runs them out to the shed on her Little Rascal scooter.
Billy Bob and Zeke take the oldest "paintings" at the back of the shed to burn on Saturday evenings while they sip beer and reflect upon their week of fishing and muddin'.
They don't really think much about the cost of two canvases, six pints of acrylic paint, their mother's happiness when she paints, or their own expenditures for their recreation.
They don't invest.
They spend.

There are stories out there that no one to thousand people gives a d@mn about.
If a story is so boring people don't givadam then you've got yourself a good candidate for a independent film.

Recently I've been watching some 2011 Sundance Festival feature films that have received distribution.
OMG.
They're mostly boring as sh!t.
I know darn good and well why studios didn't pick 'em up.
They aren't entertainment. Not by a large factor. Some. But not much.
They're art.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdGlCeDRmWTFCYXJRWjJ3SUphZDNzMGc#gid=0
(note columns X and Y on the first page, and then cell Y76.)
- HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN Dumb schlock but fun if your like ridiculous splatter fliks, Director's use of colored lighting is especially notable.
- I SAW THE DEVIL Fairly decent crazy man horror show
- MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE **textbook indie film** Well acted. Martha's sister and husband are complete idiots. The story drags along something dull. I'm not even sure if it's worth watching.
- MEEK'S CUTOFF **textbook indie film** Starts after they're already lost, plods along excruciatingly slow, ends before their before their dilemma is resolved or just barely suggested.
- RED STATE **textbook indie film** Interesting, odd, campfire story. Kinda like three or four stories, really. In fact, in the otherwise poor DVD extras Kevin Smith actually states the story deliberately zig-zags to keep the audience off balance. He did well, but I understand the wishy-washy reviews. My first KS non-studio film.
- TAKE SHELTER **textbook indie film** Slow. Self-naveling. I have no idea WTH they spent $5m on. Although the reviews are great, and while adequately well shot/acted/edited, I don't understand what the hub-bub is on this. Sorta disappointed. Thank God I could FFx2 with subtitles through much of it.
- THE GUARD This is a very nice story. There's a couple of rough shots in there, but otherwise it's all very good. I wonder if the Irish think us Yanks are as curious as we them. Writer did a good job of creating one goofy character with Boyle. There were plenty of other interesting blokes, too.
- WIN WIN **textbook indie film** What a nice, quirky little movie. The kid does a great job of being odd. A lovely story how sometimes 'deceiving' turns out to be for the better while being 'honest' can just make things get worse.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_and_Lucy LOL. Same director as MEEK'S CUTOFF, also starring Michelle Williams.

I have the DVD for THE LEDGE waiting for me to watch maybe tomorrow.
I suspect it'll be more dysfunctional melodrama that no profit motivated studio wanted to pick up so the writer just done it himself, like his four previous features despite having been writing plenty of other screenplays for other directors to shoot.
This one he couldn't unload, I bet.


If you're writing a spec script to sell to a studio it had better be pretty darn interesting.
Interesting enough for them to INVEST tens of millions of dollars just to produce and more tens of millions to print and promote to generate 2.5 to 3 times their production budget in revenue just to break even, typically.

FWIW, unofficially "micro-budget films" BEGIN at around $4million in production costs.
Below that and the film's considered a "no-budget film."

If the premise isn't interesting enough then they have literally forty-thousand other feature length screenplays EACH YEAR to consider. Most of which will also be sh!t - I mean "non marketable great stories."

If you're writing "a great story" that no studio believes they can provide a return on their stakeholder's investment then you've probably a good candidate for a self financed writer/director indie film.

Odds are you'll be SPENDING money on art, not INVESTING money in art.
And you know what? That's okay.



PS, +1 to what Josh just said in the post above!!
Word.


PPS, just checked your "About Me" page and see BLUE VALENTINE as one of your favorite films.
Yep, that's another textbook indie film. Dysfunction as entertainment. A well executed "great story". Not very entertaining, as in enjoyable.
I think you're in the right forest, Josh!
You might wanna check out some of 2010s indie films, as well: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdHh6cHJBMW5aQkZSMzZYR2V3VUxQVUE#gid=0
I'd recommend for you GET LOW, I AM LOVE, THE KILLER INSIDE ME, and surely you've seen WINTER'S BONE but I'll just lump it out there anyways. I bet you'd like CYRUS, too.

@rayw

You have really a comprehensive reply. BTW, can I ask what makes Winter's Bone so good? I particularly don't like it.
(1) It's not really compelling. I mean they are too silent. And the actions are really exemplified. I mean have you seen "A Girl With A Pearl Earring"? I was comparing this film to this one. Also an almost silent film but their eyes speaks the difference. You know what they feel and what they're up to.
(2) They do have good actors but I've seen better. Why did they earned many awards?
(3) I know it's somewhat a documentary on the people living there, drugs and all that stuff maybe that's why I don't appreciate it. I
(4) It's quite really boring. Nothing exciting happens. Except maybe the part where she pulled his father's bone.
(5) I think it would have been better as a novel.

What do you think?

I think we should discuss the purpose of nothing happening rather than if it is good for a studi script or an independent film script.

Nothing happening can work, if it leads up to something. And, that something better happen not to upset viewers like in a suspense film.

moonshieldmedia said:

One recent example I can think of is the film Wendy & Lucy -- Nothing really happens in that film but it held my interest and I watched it all the way through. What makes those kinds of films work?

Click to expand...

There is a lot happening in "Wendy and Lucy" - conflict, obstacles,
characters with goals and a wonderfully written commentary on
current times, feelings and values. If by "nothing really happens"
that's what you mean and your script reaches that level, then
you'll be fine.

Perhaps the problem here is just word usage. "Wendy and Lucy"
is slowly paced but much happens. "Wendy and Lucy" is simple
but there is a lot going on. But it's strong story and interesting
characters with very real, relatable conflicts make it a story where
a lot is going on. Maybe you mean a story without a lot of physical
action - not one where nothing really happens. I've never seen a
movie where nothing really happens - not "Wendy and Lucy" where
a lot happens.

moonshieldmedia said:

but does that only apply to studio films and/or when you're selling a script?

Click to expand...

No. When selling a script the producer buying it wants to make a
movie that people will pay to see. Not on the level of a Hollywood
Blockbuster where you need 30,000,000 people to pay $10 to see
it - but certainly to the point of making a return on their investment.
But you are planning to shoot this yourself - so you will not be selling
the script. If returning a profit to investors isn't part of your plan
then this isn't something you need to think about. Make the movie
you want to make - make it as a learning experience knowing all
money spent will be a financial loss but not a creative loss.

Who knows? If it's really good it will play at all the major festivals
(as "Wendy and Lucy" did) and get picked up for limited distribution
and maybe even make some money.

butterbescotch said:

@rayw
You have really a comprehensive reply. BTW, can I ask what makes Winter's Bone so good? I particularly don't like it.
(1) It's not really compelling. I mean they are too silent. And the actions are really exemplified. I mean have you seen "A Girl With A Pearl Earring"? I was comparing this film to this one. Also an almost silent film but their eyes speaks the difference. You know what they feel and what they're up to.
(2) They do have good actors but I've seen better. Why did they earned many awards?
(3) I know it's somewhat a documentary on the people living there, drugs and all that stuff maybe that's why I don't appreciate it. I
(4) It's quite really boring. Nothing exciting happens. Except maybe the part where she pulled his father's bone.
(5) I think it would have been better as a novel.
What do you think?

Click to expand...

1) Agree. Being a father myself to small kids, the first time I watched it I spent the entire miserable time terrified about the fate of the Ree's younger siblings while she was out traipsing around poking her nose into some ugly business. Once I finished the story, knew they would be okay that tension was gone. The story isn't worth watching a second time as entertainment, only for technical deconstruction.
2) Agree. I dunno. Good acting, maybe?
3) Yep. Crazy stuff anyone out in the meth sticks can see. Yay. Been there. Done that. Don't care myself.
4) OMG, yes, once you've seen it and know the little kids are okay. "Except maybe the part where she pulled his father's bone." What??? She sawed his hands off with a chainsaw. What movie were you watching?
5) I don't spend six hours to read what I can watch in two hours. Gopherit!

In most good scripts, events are there to reveal the characters through the way the characters react to them.

moonshieldmedia said:

I've read screenwriting books and they all seem to say that every script needs these very specific elements to be successful, but does that only apply to studio films and/or when you're selling a script?
Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

Ya know.... Midsomer Murders a Brit series on PBS hardly have any 'action' or anything remotely resembles a movie demanded by the US viewers and Studios. Yet they are a success with intelligent adults.
Many Brit movies on PBS is like that. Sometime, you can't tell between the characters who is who and goes on a snail pace. I saw the last episode of two Hrs to solve a murder (Midsomer Murders) that a US version could jam into 30 minutes tops

So back to your question. By all means do your movie as YOU see it. There are audience for all kinds of movies, including yours. I shoot my movies to MY taste and what I like. It's an art. If you're interested to follow trends, by all means do so. Kubrick, Hitchcock, Fellini and hundreds of others didn't became known because they followed a 'formula', it was because they shot what they thought to be true to themselves.
When you're done with your project, let us know were we can see it

Here's a movie that I liked and it has almost NO dialog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_in_the_Pacific
It was a powerfull movie, where we learned about the two characters as what they did in the movie without a word of dialog.
I haven't seen the script, but this two hour movie must be like... what... 50 pages at most? Heheh It's all action description single spaced. Anyone knows how many pages?
Just curious.

Not al art movies are boring.....and not al sureal movies are boring...some of them are....

I believe the director for you to study closely is Thomas McCarthy; The Station Agent, The Visitor, Win Win.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0565336/#Director
His films are highly engrossing yet there's little cinematic "action" or "events" the closest he comes to action scenes are High School Wrestling matches in Win Win
I believe watching his films will answer your question.
best of luck

moonshieldmedia said:

I've read screenwriting books and they all seem to say that every script needs these very specific elements to be successful, but does that only apply to studio films and/or when you're selling a script?

Part of me is worried my feature screenplay (which I plan to shoot myself) doesn't have enough "going on" to keep people interested, but at the same time the feel I want for the film is a more realistic slice-of-life piece that focuses on my main character. I have faith that in the end it will be a good film, but I imagine it will be hard to get other on board with me, especially if I decide to look for outside funding.

One recent example I can think of is the film Wendy & Lucy -- Nothing really happens in that film but it held my interest and I watched it all the way through. What makes those kinds of films work?

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

Great responses from all of you, very encouraging and inspiring, thank you.

moonshieldmedia said:

slice-of-life piece

Click to expand...

Whatever you do, DON'T ever utter those words when promoting your film -- its a HUGE buzzkill!

-----

"Wendy and Lucy" -- Boring.
"The Guard" -- I liked it, especially the parts when they made American references.

Just my 2 cents.

rayw said:

I have the DVD for THE LEDGE waiting for me to watch maybe tomorrow.
I suspect it'll be more dysfunctional melodrama that no profit motivated studio wanted to pick up so the writer just done it himself, like his four previous features despite having been writing plenty of other screenplays for other directors to shoot.
This one he couldn't unload, I bet.

Click to expand...

As predicted.
Thank God for fast forward. WTH did they spend $10m on? And again I'm surprised by what movies actress' choose to get naked for. What a miserable story. 2 theaters for a 1 week run. No kidding.

Have you seen Adaptation?

Remember the McKee seminar?

moonshieldmedia said:

I've read screenwriting books and they all seem to say that every script needs these very specific elements to be successful, but does that only apply to studio films and/or when you're selling a script?

Part of me is worried my feature screenplay (which I plan to shoot myself) doesn't have enough "going on" to keep people interested, but at the same time the feel I want for the film is a more realistic slice-of-life piece that focuses on my main character. I have faith that in the end it will be a good film, but I imagine it will be hard to get other on board with me, especially if I decide to look for outside funding.

One recent example I can think of is the film Wendy & Lucy -- Nothing really happens in that film but it held my interest and I watched it all the way through. What makes those kinds of films work?

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

Some stories make poor movies. I love Ray Bradbury as a writer but to see the movies in his "Ray Bradbury Theater" hurts. Overly talky, very little action, sometimes pedantic moralizing. Unless someone has an extraordinary life, slice-of-life is deadly to watch. Even 'reality shows' need to be beefed up for viewers with scripted fights and conflict.

Personally, I'd have an outside reader read the script and give you feedback before seeking outside funding. A ten-minute slice of life will probably be tolerable for the art film / festival scene. Most of the screenplay advice is aimed at feature length films. If you followed six 6-minute slices-of-life that then came crashing together in a disaster and followed them through the crisis, that's a relevant movie. There needs to be some heightened level of conflict or tension to drive the scene dynamics and characters. The passage of time, by itself, is not enough unless the protagonist is really out there. A ten minute slice-of-life of a homeless person serving in a tough neighborhood. Even then, there's some conflict or obstacle to be overcome. To end with "... and the same the next day" message may be socially relevant but also completely discouraging to the viewer. That's not necessarily bad but it may be hard to get funding.

I find it interesting to see how average people review movies they've seen on Netflix and Yahoo Movies. "Wendy and Lucy" received 1 star by many reviewers with one word standing out- "Boring." The 3 stars reviews indicated "affably dull". Overall, people expect movies to entertain and enlighten. Slice-of-life needs a brisk pace and interesting characters. It sometimes crosses over into comedy "Parenthood" and sometimes into drama "Ordinary People". And like I said, even are "reality shows" are scripted.

I'm not sure how you are defining successful and that's really the key to your answer. If you want "studio movie successful at the box office", no you can't do slice of life. If you want "art movie at a festival" you can be successful if you keep the time to less than 10 minutes and make your protagonist interesting. If you want "I can make this script into a movie", then every film is a personal success.

Some "rules" are guidelines that apply to both shorts and features. Others are more appropriate for one or the other. Conflict doesn't mean edge-of-the-seat action and drama. It means changes in the characters to achieve some goal. Most slice-of-life sequences have no definable goal, so the story drifts aimlessly. The characters seem acted upon. Since the characters don't grow or change demonstrably, the audience feels unfulfilled. Slice-of-life needs character arcs and obstacles to overcome just like any other feature. So in the sense of a movie being perceived as fulfilling (successful?) by the audience, those elements need to be present. Otherwise, there is no story just a random sequence of scenes that cardboard figures wander through. Good luck.

Watch Running on Empty. Nothing really exciting happens, but still one of my favorite movies.