January 23, 2021

I'm in week 2 of the Feature Film Pro-Series class at UCLA Extension. It's 9 months long, all online and asynchronous. I hope it's going to be great. The textbook for the class is Cut to the Chase, an anthology of essays/guides on screenwriting compiled by UCLA Extension professors. I'm in Chapter 2. 

It's not the first I've hear it, but... I'll quote: 

"Be true to your own originality. What makes you laugh when you are alone? Did you move a lot when you were younger? Do you have a close relationship with your grandfather? Are you obsessed with the Elizabethan era? Do you love ballroom dancing? Are you a gifted ventriloquist? Do you run a dachshund rescue? These could be clues to the type of screenplay that you, and only you, are perfectly suited to write. Be true to your singular vision and tell a story that is uniquely your own. Write a screenplay that no one else could write besides you." 

I'm on board with most of that -- how could you not agree that it's best to be true to your own originality? -- but the "write what only you could write" advice seems unnecessarily limiting. Sure, if you have a once-in-a-generation experience, I mean yes, write about that. But then what? Do you have to stop writing until something equally as singular happens to you again? 

For new writers, it makes good sense from a business angle. Why would someone pay you to write a story that one of their established and experienced writers could easily write? But surely, at some point, the advice is just to write what you're interested in writing. If it's a story idea that you like enough that it'll keep your interest for the year it takes to write a script, then it's probably your story, right? 

1. "Be true to your own originality." Put yourself in the story. 

2. "Write a screenplay that no one else could write besides you." Write about yourself. 

I'm not knocking the second one. I just don't think that every script has to be semi-autobiographical. Of course it doesn't. It feels like Hollywood is more comfortable with judging people -- do you have an interesting life? -- over literary material -- is this an interesting script? 

This is starting to sound defensive. And really what they're asking for is newness in the script, and they want a dazzly person behind the script to help the newness make sense. So that they can make art that costs a massive amount of money and employs as many people as a small corporation. And we can all collect our checks and go home and turn on the television and watch ourselves reflected back at us in a way that's surprising but also achingly familiar.