Many people have read the books by Thomas Harris that introduced the serial killer, Dr Hannibal Lecter, to an unsuspecting world. Who can forget Anthony Hopkin’s performance in Silence of the Lambs when that story was transferred to the silver screen.

However, his first appearance was several years earlier in a small but pivotal cameo role in the first adaptation of Red Dragon called Manhunter. It was directed by a little known director at the time who was famous for creating the US cop series Miami Vice - Michael Mann. Many years later, after the success of the Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal, a big budget remake of Red Dragon was made starring Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes and Anthony Hopkins reprising his role as Dr Lecter.

But which was the better film?

Manhunter was a low key but stylish film on a relatively low budget. So no famous movie stars only good actors propelling along a spare and tense script. The audience is a key member of the film crew here as they are required to use their imagination throughout the film to fill in the gaps as you are told but not shown the grisly goings on. All the audience sees is the aftermath in all its gory detail. It is also a puzzle which engages the audience. How can they find the Tooth Fairy in time before he kills another innocent? The film is ground breaking as it introduces us to the techniques of forensic criminal investigation used by the FBI. I would go so far as to say that it is the forerunner of the CSI TV series. Heck, you’ve even got the actor who played Will Graham in Manhunter - William Petersen - as the head of the original CSI unit!

Manhunter is stylish too. Many film conventions are broken here. The scenes with Lecter are shown in his brilliant white prison cell. Glaring light and white backgrounds. Most monsters emerge from the dark. This one is shown in the light. Lecter himself is an educated, manipulative man who would not be out of place in a board room or a university. The architecture of the prison/ secure facility where Lecter is held is interesting again all white but labyrinthine. You see Graham trying to get out but seemingly going round and round. Is it a representation of Graham’s mind, is he going insane? There are lots of glossy Miami Vice-like touches in the beach house scenes as well.

But the key to this film is the script. It is maybe not the most faithful adaptation of the book out but concentrates on the key storyline to produce a gripping film. There is no scene that does not have a function, no dialogue that does not propel the story onward. A masterpiece of conciseness. The audience are willing participants in filling in the gaps. The technical forensic stuff is real and not presented for dummies. It is restless and sparks into life at the appropriate moments. The story works and the climaxes are satisfying.

So is it better than the big budget remake? My view is a resounding yes. Red Dragon boasts actors with a high pedigree and another performance by Anthony Hopkins as Lecter. But we tend to see in our mind the Lecter from the Silence of the Lambs. If you compare the performances by Hopkins and Brian Cox (Lecter in Manhunter) they are different but equally chilling in their own way. Cox is almost brash and arrogant and not very menacing until you see what he can do in the scene where he finds out Graham’s home address. Hopkins is charming and menacing but we know already what despicable things he can do from the previous films and this detracts a little from the menace. It’s almost like meeting an old friend again. We’re not frightened merely eager to see what he’s been up to! Red Dragon is possibly a film too far for Dr Hannibal Lecter.

For all its production values and good acting Red Dragon is a bit of a yawn. Red Dragon may be a a more faithful adaptation of the book but it’s too long and loses its tension several times. We are after all working in a different medium. We see the moment when Graham discovers Lecter as the serial killer and the reason why he left the FBI. The grisly scene is shown it all its technicolour glory as Graham is sliced up by Lecter but is it any scarier or better than the few terse references in Manhunter. In my view, less is more and the Red Dragon scene seems gratuitous.

In trying to spend more time looking at the Tooth Fairy’s character it drains the story of its lifeblood. Our monsters need to be unknown to make them scary. This also knocks the point of view out of whack. Which character is driving the film? Graham or the Tooth Fairy or Lecter? The script and story meander along looking for the directions to the end. For those of us who have seen Manhunter we know the story, we know the ending, we have the route map. We just shout at Red Dragon to get on with it.

At the end of the day I find Red Dragon a bit redundant. Why was it made anyway? Hollywood bosses trying to build a franchise from the Thomas Harris books? For those of you who have not seen Manhunter and or Red Dragon get them from your local DVD rental and check it out for yourself.

£8.00 End Date: Wednesday Sep-17-2008 18:04:17 BST Buy It Now for only: £8.00 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£6.30 (0 Bid) End Date: Monday Sep-08-2008 18:26:00 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£5.99 End Date: Monday Sep-15-2008 13:59:27 BST Buy It Now for only: £5.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£5.62 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 23:29:46 BST Buy It Now for only: £5.62 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£8.16 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 21:51:58 BST Buy It Now for only: £8.16 Buy it now | Add to watch list

In a previous post, I did a brief survey of screen writing software and made some recommendations. Well, I have just come across a new piece of software that purports to be the complete pre-production package taking your work through story development, screen play, shooting schedules etc. Even more important - it’s free and comes in different flavours (Windows, Linux, Mac)

It’s called Celtx. You can download it from www.celtx.com. It looks very useful from the screenshots and features described on the site. Has anyone used it? What did you think? Was it helpful? I will be downloading it and giving it a test drive shortly but I just thought it would be good to get other feedback as well.

That’s it for now.

£10.98 End Date: Tuesday Sep-16-2008 15:19:35 BST Buy It Now for only: £10.98 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£8.36 End Date: Monday Sep-15-2008 4:32:54 BST Buy It Now for only: £8.36 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£8.44 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 23:31:21 BST Buy It Now for only: £8.44 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£9.98 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 19:11:50 BST Buy It Now for only: £9.98 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£4.99 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 8:40:06 BST Buy It Now for only: £4.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

We all know a great film when we see one don’t we? Well not always. What is a great film to someone may be awful to someone else. Films are very subjective. Citizen Kane leaves film critics in raptures but today’s teenager will wonder what all the fuss is about (and probably hate it to boot).

We all have our own ideas about what makes a great film. Are popular films great? You would think that something that draws in audiences in their thousands and millions must be great. Not so. Look at Rush Hour 2 and Pearl Harbour. It could be just that the latest hot film star is appearing in their next movie. Bankable stars in mediocre movies. What about Harrison Ford in Sabrina and Six Days, Seven Nights. Your favourite auteur film director’s latest offering should be great based on past performance. Not necessarily. Even Spielberg slips up occasionally – look at 1942 and Amistad. Conversely, some great films have inauspicious beginnings. What film did little business at the box office but became one of the most successful DVDs of all time and in the process became re-evaluated as a great film? The Shawshank Redemption.

All I’ve tried to do is to show that there is no simple way to forecast what will make a great film. As usual it is a combination of factors that, mixed together and cooked at the right temperature with loving care, produce a great film. I believe that no one factor on its own can produce greatness. Not just the director, not just the star, not just the subject. Not just the story or script.

However, two or usually three or more factors working together can do it. Here is my list of ingredients for greatness.

• Story/ Script – This is the most important ingredient for me. You need a story that grabs the audience and takes them with it on a journey. It must affect the audience’s emotions. You need a script that does justice to the story and provides colour and originality to the action. If you don’t have a good story or script you rely too heavily on other factors and the probability of producing a great film plummets. Watch The Godfather I and II. Great stories from an average book but even better scripts. You are drawn into another world with very different codes of conduct and behaviour and morals. The Shawshank Redemption’s story is gripping even though the script came out of a short story by Steven King. Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven provides an unusual raw and downbeat view of the old west with no heroes riding off into the sunset.
• Acting – good actors telling a good story gives the basis for greatness. One example of greatness that involves just a good story and great acting is Salvador. James Woods gives a career high performance as the thoroughly unlikeable war photographer who goes to El Salvador to make money and retrieve his reputation and in the process gets caught up in the civil war. Good supporting cast performances particularly by James Belushi as his unwitting sidekick drive the film with a nervous energy that has you wincing and squirming. It could be the film that disproves my previous hypothesis where the acting alone could make this film great. A more recent example might be Forest Whittaker’s portrayal of Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland.
• Cinematography – By this I mean that what you see on the screen makes you go wow. Not just the CGI although that has to be taken into consideration e.g. The Lord of The Rings. But just consider David Lean’s epic Lawrence of Arabia. Beautiful sweeping cinematography conveys the epic feel of the film, the vastness of the desert, the scale of the battles. However, you can equally be impressed by the edgy quality of the cinematography in something like Traffic or Heat. You can also marvel at the beauty, colour and technical artistry in some of the recent Chinese films such as The House of Flying Daggers and In the Mood for Love. 
• Editing – Editing conveys the pace of the film and splices the narrative together. Poor editing can leave an audience confused or bored. A well edited film will enhance the story telling and adjust the pace of the story to the action. Well edited films will have an internal rhythm to them.
• Direction – You may wonder why I’ve taken so long to get to direction. The director is the ringmaster and as such needs to juggle all the above (and more such as art direction, sound, costume etc.) to come up with a great film. The great ones can coax new meanings and nuances out of formulaic stories and scripts. Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket could have been just another Vietnam war movie but he turned it into a psychological study that showed the dehumanisation of young recruits to help them face the horrors of war. They provoke exciting performances from average actors. Just watch the incredible performance of Sharon Stone coaxed out by Martin Scorcese in Casino. They can inject beauty, originality and controversy into what could have been mundane films.  Terence Malick’s Days of Heaven uses beautiful photography of the American mid west plains to reflect the ebb and flow of the story. They can tap into the issues in society today and make films relevant to the audience. Spielberg does a great job of raising discussion of crime detection and the legal system by projecting a future where crimes can be detected before they happen in Minority Report. Even historical films can touch a nerve by reflecting issues that are important in today’s society. Kurosawa’s medieval Japanese masterpiece – Rashomon – is all about deception and the search for truth played out as a whodunit in the case of an alleged rape in the woods. And directors can put their own individual stamp on films which has lead to the cult of auteurism or authorship.

There you are. Only five factors but great films will have at least two and usually more of these factors present. Just think of films you believe are great films and assess them against these factors. It is fairly simple to do. Do they stand up?

In conclusion. Why is Citizen Kane a great film? Well, it has at least three of the above factors. The story is good although a little dated now as it is about the rise of a press baron (loosely based on the life of Randolph Hearst) and shows the arc of his life and the effect on people around him. However, it does not engage the emotions of the audience and is quite cold. Where it scores highly is in the cinematography, the editing and the direction. The cinematography and editing are ground-breaking and extremely well executed and were way ahead of their time. They actually helped to form a new grammar for films. The direction was excellent in that the telling of the story and the use of new cinematography techniques add nuances and layers to the film beyond the story and script. One could argue that the acting was first rate as well from Orson Welles as the eponymous lead and Joseph Cotton. So, 3or 4 out of 5 is pretty good. Whether it is the best film of all time………

£29.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:19:39 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£29.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:05:35 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£45.00 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 19:48:13 BST Buy It Now for only: £45.00 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:19:46 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£17.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:19:46 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

In the last couple of weeks I have been musing again about maybe starting some screenplays. Being the person I am, I do like to prepare everything beforehand and have everything I need before I start. (This is also a convenient excuse when I don’t start or finish something - “I haven’t got the right tools for the job”. My problem)

Anyway, before I engage in too much limiting and negative self talk, I did do some interesting research on screenwriting software to ease the production of a marvelous screenplay. Word processors are all very well but they are not designed for the specific job of producing a screenplay to industry standards. And whilst outliners are useful they do not give you the tools to develop interesting and coherent stories and plots.

So I trawled the net for software that would do the job. Free software preferably. What I did find is that there is an industry (small though it may be) in software packages that purport to make it easy for you to create the next blockbuster screenplay. All slightly different with different strengths and weaknesses.

I suppose the first question to ask is why can’t a word processing package do the job for you. Packages like Microsoft Word or the open source word processing component of Open Office (free) have so many facilities inside them that surely these would be adequate? Well, yes and no. No doubt, if you are very familiar with these packages and have a good level of expertise in these packages you could design the industry standard formats and program macros that imitated some of the better screenplay software packages. But it is all a bit like hard work for a writer who is more bothered about getting on with the writing and having some help in making it easy.

Here are some of the better packages that I have come across in my research:

• Cinergy -  this is provided free and as such deserves an immense amount of respect as it makes writing and editing a draft screen play in industry standard form relatively easy. Creating scenes, dialogue, description, rearranging, editing is all made simple though the use of a few intuitive key depressions. Great for most purposes
• Final Draft - This is the package that most professionals use nowadays for developing and submitting their work to the industry. Slick and easy to use, it also goes that bit further with organization and production tools as part of the package. Costs around $230 at present or £115.
• Sophocles - worth a look at nearly half the price of Final Draft with similar features. You can try before you buy which is always good. Its PR says that it lets you concentrate on the story creation rather than on the format. $120 or £60 at the moment.
• Writer’s Cafe - This is more of a story development package rather than a screenwriting package. By that I mean that it has a number of useful features built into it that help you to research your story, save and bookmark information, to plot your storylines in an easy graphical manner and to inspire you when the going gets tough or the words dry up. A very useful complement to a screenwriting package. This software can be used for writing other than screenwriting and help you organize your work, your drafts, your rough ideas. The really neat part of this package is StoryLines - “The heart of Writer’s Café is StoryLines, a powerful but simple to use story development tool that dramatically accelerates the creation and structuring of your novel or screenplay” - a lovely visual way of plotting your stories from whatever point of view you like. At $66 or £33, it looks to be a worthwhile investment.
• There are other more expensive packages, both screenwriting and story development, that provide similar functions and features but the above list in my opinion are the ones that seem to be most writer-friendly and are understandable.

I have included links to the appropriate sites for these packages to help you assess them for yourself. Before you ask, “no” I am not promoting any of them or getting money for recommending them (what a shame - I could do with the money). I am thinking of buying Writer’s Cafe for my research and story development -  I am checking out the free trial download at the moment. And I think Cinergy will be adequate for my purposes for the time being unless I decide to market a script in Hollywood!

£70.00 (12 Bids) End Date: Monday Sep-08-2008 14:59:34 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

I have recently been working on a free toolbar specifically designed for film enthusiasts. And now I have one to launch to the world! It’s fairly basic at the moment but I will continue developing it and adding whatever features I can to it, hopefully, with your help.

As I said it is designed with film enthusiasts in mind and has a number of features that will make their (and my) life easier, such as:

• A direct link to the Films @ Dave’s Info Cafe web site! (I am developing it after all)
• Google search functionality
• Links to specialist film-related web sites and resources
• RSS feeds from film-related web sites and blogs
• Direct messaging facility
• Ticker box with access to reviews of the latest DVD releases
• Chat room restricted to other toolbar members ie film enthusiasts!
• Windows Media Player - easy access button

I addition there are several other useful features on the toolbar, such as:

• Pop Up blocker
• Email notifier - customise it so that you can access any or all of your email accounts and be notified of incoming mail
• Weather - customise this to find out what the weather is like in your part of the world (or any part of the world for that matter)
• Radio player - listen to a selection of online radio stations while you are surfing

If you are interested you can download it from the link below:

http://filmsdavesinfocafe.OurToolbar.com

I have loaded it on to my computer and have been using it for a few days. I have run the full Yahoo Spyware scan on my hard disk after I installed it and found no problems. However, I regularly scan my hard disk for spyware and suggest you do the same as a matter of routine.

This is only the start. I will be developing the toolbar over the course of the next few months. If you download it you will see any improvements that I make AUTOMATICALLY. It will change before your eyes! You will not have to uninstall and then install the latest version. Please let me have you feedback on the toolbar, particularly any more film-related links and RSS feeds. I can then add them and everyone can share the improvement. If you have any ideas for more film-related functionality I will try to take them on board (within the limitations of the software that I am using).

I bought a boxed set of the recent Clint Eastwood movies about the battle for Iwo Jima earlier this week from the local supermarket. I had wanted to see them at the cinema but missed them because there was such a short theatrical release for them particularly in the North East of England.

First and foremost, I must say that the sentiment, to try and view the same event from both sides, is highly commendable. It is easier to do it when there is a substantial time elapsed afterwards. It could not be done even handedly nearer the event because of emotions running high on both sides. I can still remember the old John Wayne war film - “The Sands of Iwo Jima” which was basically US propaganda determined to show the Japanese as evil enemies and fuel up support at home for the War. “Flags of Our Fathers” shows the US propaganda machine at work trying to extract money from the American public for the war by using the the remaining soldiers from the iconic photograph of raising the flag on Iwo Jima and parading them as heroes. “Letters from Iwo Jima” traces the last days of the doomed Japanese defenders of the island and the internal conflicts between them as well as the battle raging about them. Both films have a black and gray look taking their cue from the photograph and the barren volcanic rock that is Iwo Jima but the similarities end there. There is no real intermingling of the films.

These films act more as historical documents with the benefit of hindsight, more so “Flags of Our Fathers” which concentrates on what happens to the three remaining soldiers when they are paraded back home to help the war effort. While it is extremely interesting to see ordinary guys being branded as heroes and used by the government and the armed forces, the lack of a strong central performance causes the film to lose its way a little bit. The battle scenes are bloody and harrowing but the lack of character development at the beginning means that the emotional pull is not as strong as it should be. In the heat of battle it is difficult to know who is getting shot or blown up. The use of flashbacks rather than clarifying the story adds to the confusion in my opinion. The later attempts to take you into the later lives of these men are poorly realised.

“Letter from Iwo Jima” on the other hand is the better of the two films simply because the script (by Iris Yamashita)  is better, the characters are better developed in the first half of the film and the use of flashbacks is limited but telling in the overall feel of the film. The internal conflict between the old guard loyal to the Emperor and an honourable death and those just trying to survive is brought out clearly. There is irony and pathos in abundance. Not even the presence of sub titles could detract from the telling of the story.

It is helped by two strong central performances, one by Ken Watanabe as the commander-in-chief of the Japanese defensive force and one by Kazunari Ninomiya as one of the less than willing conscripts. The story is told through their eyes. You cannot help but get emotionally involved with the characters and as one by one they die you are left with the feeling of an awful tragedy. A strong and affecting film which deservedly received an Oscar nomination for best picture.

The two films are nevertheless an outstanding achievement by Clint Eastwood (and Steven Spielberg as producer) and together have added depth and complexity to the war film genre.

£15.49 End Date: Friday Sep-12-2008 18:18:47 BST Buy It Now for only: £15.49 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£39.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Monday Sep-08-2008 13:40:27 BST Buy It Now for only: £80.00 Bid now | Buy it now | Add to watch list

£19.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Tuesday Sep-09-2008 21:40:25 BST Buy It Now for only: £21.99 Bid now | Buy it now | Add to watch list

£15.49 End Date: Thursday Sep-11-2008 20:25:35 BST Buy It Now for only: £15.49 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 End Date: Saturday Sep-13-2008 20:00:00 BST Buy It Now for only: £29.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

There are many books on screenwriting that give you a formula or set of rules to build (and sell) your script. Having read a number of them over the years, the one I go back to for a little inspiration from time to time is a “How to Write a Movie in 21 Days” by Viki King. It was originally written in 1988 by Ms King who is a writer, script consultant and lecturer who lives in Los Angeles. A small book in comparison to others but easy to read and packed with good information.

The Inner Movie Method that it explains is based upon the premise “Write from your heart. Re-write from your head”. Let your creative side have space to write what comes to your heart. Then let the analytic side of your head decide whether it is good or bad and which parts need tweaking. Along side this there is a lot of solid advice on planning, organisation and writing techniques that show you how to produce a script in 21 days.

The thing that stands out for me is the fact that it talks about all those little obstacles that are put in our way (or we put in our own way) and how to overcome them. The psychological traps.

I always come away thinking “Yeah. I can do that!” I find re-reading it quite motivational and good for demolishing writer’s block.

How do you write a 120 page script? Easy, break it down into chunks. Where should the characters  be (psychologically, philosophically and geographically) at various points in the script? Write in short quick bursts. Picture it in your head. Actions speak louder than words. Think cinematically. Re-write with your more critical head on. Produce a final script you are proud of.

This book is a great but inexpensive resource to dip into to provide you with a slightly different perspective on how to write scripts. A must for every budding screenwriter.

Ever since cinema began Hollywood executives and screenwriters have been looking for the holy grail - a story structure that will work over and over again in different environments, across different genres and with different characters to lay the foundations for a successful screenplay. If you had this formula it would be like pure gold or cash in the bank.

As film-making is a business no one wants to lose money. No studio wants a flop. Every screen writer wants to increase their chance of their script acceptance. Imagine having a story model that would hook the audience every time and draw them into the film and tap into universal human emotions.

Over the years there have been a couple of main contenders which have been used by screenwriters. Surprisingly, the first was of Russian origin.

Vladimir Propp (1928) made an analysis of Russian folk tales and discovered that they shared certain common structural features regardless of the individual differences in terms of plot, setting or characters. He proposed that there were certain roles that were present in the characters - the hero, the villain, the false hero, the donor, the helper etc. - that were always present in the characters despite the different setting and plot. He also defined 31 narrative units that described action in the story. These units were enough to describe all the stories but not all the units are present although the units that are there follow a prescribed order.

The Proppian analysis or structure does have its limitations. It is difficult to apply such an analysis to non linear story structures where there are several storylines intermingling. Examples include Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction and several of Robert Altman’s movies eg. Nashville, Short Cuts.

The second major contender is based on the work of Joseph Campbell whose book “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” is about storytelling and mythology. This was interpreted by Christopher Vogler, a story evaluator for many motion picture studios, and morphed into “The Writer’s Journey” (1992).

“The Writer’s Journey” shows how a mythic story structure can be used to invest films with a powerful story. There are analyses of many different popular and successful films using the Writer’s Journey structure. And this book has had such an influence on the way Hollywood films are written. George Lucas admitted to using mythic story structures in writing the Star Wars films.

Again, there are more character roles (the hero, the mentor, threshold guardian, trickster etc.) and action narrative units ( ordinary world, call to adventure, refusal of the call, meeting with the mentor etc.) It is probably more sophisticated than the Propp model and can be more flexible in analyzing non linear stories. As the book points out, the model is not a recipe or cook book.

In the epilogue to the book, Vogler says:

the ultimate measure of a story’s success or excellence is not its compliance with any established patterns, but its lasting popularity and effect on the audience.To force a story to conform to a structural model is putting the the cart before the horse.It’s possible to write good stories that don’t exhibit every feature of the Hero’s (Writer’s) journey; in fact, it’s better if they don’t. people love to see familiar conventions and expectations defied creatively. A story can break all the “rules” and still touch universal human emotions.

Whilst there is no perfect story, these models provide genuine insights into what works well and what doesn’t.

£50.00 (0 Bid) End Date: Saturday Sep-13-2008 15:45:09 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

I have been interested in screen writing for some time. I found this article which I thought would be worthwhile sharing. It is very concise and lean but manages to give a real sense of experience and knowledge

Screenwriting - How to Write A Copper Bottom Real Life Work of Shattering Genius in Ten Easy Steps
By John Smithery

I once got really angry with my agent. Real, bile seeping, coffee cup flinging, head pounding on wall angry. He had dared to suggest some rewrites for a screenplay that had sold twice, but hadn’t got made either time. Feet on desk, hands behind his head, beatific smile across his smarmy agent’s face, he had dared to utter one highly loaded phrase. He had dared to say: ‘it’s not rocket science, is it?’

Bombshell. Things between us crash landed. I shed him, like a hand grenade sheds its shell, there and then. How dare he…?!?

But, now I’ve several years perspective on the row, I am big enough, I have the heart enough, to be able to admit: He was right. Reworking a script isn’t rocket science. If you know what you are doing.

That’s a very important If.

“If you know what you are doing…”

If you’ve spent any time trying to write, and you’ve got any kind of internet connection at all, you will have realised there are a million other guys out there hacking away at screenplays, all apparently convinced they know what they are up to, and shouting like wild animals at anyone who dares disagree. They sound so authoritative, so compelling, so right - and yet so few of their screenplays ever get past the first hurdle of the initial slushpile reader, let alone to the desk of anyone with any commissioning power.

Meanwhile the people who do sell scripts seem to go on selling, and selling. Common sense would tell you they are obviously doing something different. Common sense would tell you that what they are submitting to the production companies is quantitatively different to what you are submitting.

How hard can it be to work out what the differences are?

As you are probably aware, its very, very hard.

In fact it’s so hard it took me about ten years before I cracked it.

Here’s the ten headlines. Ten rules of thumb. Ten stepping stones I follow religiously. Follow them conscientiously in order and you WILL see results. I promise.

1. Make your audience care. Get a person at the heart of your story who is deeply loved. Make terrible, awful things happen to them.

2. Make sure you are writing in a genre.

3. Happy Ending. You need one.

4. Love your hero, and force them to choose between two equally powerful alternatives at the end.

5. Design your villain so they can attack your hero in the most personal, damaging, agonising way. Love your villain as much as your hero.

6. Get your story right before you write a word of dialogue. Write a ten page treatment of this story, describing what happens to your beloved lead character.

7. Get a gang of your friends to read the treatment. If three or more of them pick up on a point independently, you might have a problem there. If enough people say something it is probably true.

8. Pick the first paragraph in your treatment. Think about it over and over again, visualise it in the bath, when you wake up, when you are walking along the street. Visualise what happens until you can run it through like a little movie in your mind, seeing what happens, almost hearing the dialogue. This will be your first sequence.

9. Get out your word processor, or your script writing software, whatever, doesn’t matter. You can format it later. Get that sequence down now. Write the scenes. Make the characters move, and talk, and feel.

10. Repeat steps 8 and 9 over and over again, until you have got to the end of your treatment.

You have just finished your first draft.

Format it. Print it. Weigh it in your hand. Admire it. You should be proud. Few people get this far. And if you followed these steps, it’s going to be far more readable than anything else you have written.

I hope you are intrigued by my stepping stones. Most writers take years and years of trial and error before they discover how to write in a way that people want to read. Many of them never ever get there, and give up, having wasted years of their life. Click here if you want a shortcut. (Oh, and John Smithery is a pen name. I’m still in the business, and there’s no way I want the producers I work for so see how easy it is. I like the way they pay for my time…)

Nicely written!