Screenwriting 101 — The Treatment
Okay. So:
*You have a cool idea for a movie
*You know who the protagonist is and what the protagonist wants and who is in the protagonist’s way
*You’ve sketched out a basic act structure
*You’ve expanded upon that sketch and written your outline.
Now the work begins: it is time to write a treatment.
In my experience, this is the point where screenplays are won or lost. Almost anyone can have, and has had, a cool idea for a movie. A dog accidentally gets issued a credit card — there, I just had one myself!
And a similar number of people could sketch out a basic three act structure for that movie: Act I, the dog gets the credit card and goes hog-wild, buying all kinds of things, Act II, the dog’s bills come due, and he finds he must get a job in order to pay for all the things he bought, Act III, the dog, through his experience, learns that he was happier not having a credit card after all.
Putting together an outline starts to get a little more difficult, but the treatment is where the rubber hits the road.
Basically, a treatment is a prose version of your screenplay, your screenplay, in a way, told as a short story.
You may ask, hey wait, if I was any damn good at prose, what the hell would I be doing writing a screenplay? If I could freakin’ write prose, I’d be freakin’ Raymond Carver, I wouldn’t be scraping around trying to write a screenplay! And I understand your pain, for I have felt it myself.
Okay then, let’s not think of it as prose, let’s think of it this way: you’ve just seen a really cool movie, and you can’t wait to tell me about it.
The movie’s just let out and you’re totally buzzed about it and you meet up with me at a good restaurant afterward and you have to tell me about the movie and get it all out before the food comes. Go!
“There’s this guy, Rob, and he lives in New York, and he’s got a job working for some big-deal corporate thing, and he’s all psyched because he just got transferred to Japan, and he can’t wait to go, but guess what? There’s this girl, Beth, and she’s got this totally awesome apartment on Columbus Circle that belongs to her dad, and Rob has been friends with her off and on for a long time but now he’s, like, totally fallen in love with her, but he decides he can’t really tell her that, because, right, he’s about to leave for Japan forever. So he’s conflicted about that, and then the night before he leaves, all his cool friends get together and throw him a surprise party, and Beth is there, but she’s with some other guy, some douche we don’t know, and all his other friends are there, and his best friend is, like, shooting the whole party with Rob’s video camera, so Rob can’t, like, say anything to Beth, even though he really wants to, because he’s leaving the next day and everyone wants to say goodbye and his dorky best friend Hud is shooting everything with this video camera. And get this — the whole movie? is shown from the point-of-view of Hud, through Rob’s video camera. So it’s this really cool cinema-verite kind of thing, we pick up random pieces of behavior, and we see Hud is trying to put the make on this girl Marlene, and he’s really not doing his job very well, and it’s totally funny and awesome and everything, because Hud’s, like, taping over this tape that Rob made about his one date with Beth, so like he unknowingly is, like, being a total dick. And anyway, Beth leaves the party with the douche and Rob gets really upset and everyone’s concerned and Rob’s brother Jason or somebody tells him he absolutely has to go after Beth, and then you know what happens? A GIANT MONSTER SHOWS UP AND STARTS BLOWING STUFF UP!!”
There. The above paragraph is, in essence, a treatment for the first 20 minutes of Cloverfield. I, personally, would not hand this in to a producer for consideration, but BELIEVE ME, I’VE READ WORSE.
Now, look at that paragraph again. It’s not great prose, it’s barely prose at all, but it describes the plot with a kind of propulsive energy and sense of movement, and what’s more, it does it in a language that gets across the 21st-century, internet-generation sensibility (or at least my 46-year-old’s interpretation of same). And that’s all a treatment really has to do. It has to tell the story, the whole story, and get across the general feeling of the movie. If you were writing the treatment for There Will Be Blood, it would probably be more like this:
“There’s a landscape. A harsh, unforgiving landscape. Rocks. Dirt. Punishing sun. Texas. Or Hell. And there’s a hole in that landscape. A wound. And deep in that wound, silent but for the steady pound of his pick, there is a man. Filthy, strong, mustachioed. Deep in a wound in the Earth, the man slams his pick, a tool of destiny, against the flinty walls of this hole, this grave he has prematurely dug in order to bury his soul. Sparks fly from the rocks, each one a symbol of the life of man, which flares only for an instant before being forever snuffed out.”
And so on.
Again, while the treatment should be readable, the most important thing about it is that it gets across your story points in a voice that gets across the feeling of the movie. The hard part is that it has to get across all the story, scene by scene, all the way through, with no “and then there’s this cool action set-piece I’ll figure out later” thrown in.
Now, what’s the point of this exercise? Why not just write the goddamn screenplay? Wouldn’t that just take less time?
Well, perhaps. But if you’re anything like me, what you will have at the end of your process is a screenplay no one will want to read. Because you haven’t worked out the story ahead of time as a treatment.
The point of all this pre-work work is to iron out all your plot points, character arcs and whatnot so that, when you sit down to write your screenplay, you’ve already done all the work and you can enjoy the process of writing.
Some people, I guess, can just sit down at their computer and open up Final Draft and just go ahead and start in writing their screenplay, and “feel” where it should go next, and those people can allow themselves to wander and surprise themselves and come up with something new and startling and original and amazing, something they wouldn’t have come up with if they had sat down ahead of time to think things out.
Two things:
1. I am not one of those writers.
If I start a screenplay working like that, what happens is I have a great idea for an opening sequence, then I get to page 25 or so and I realize that the great opening sequence isn’t going to work because it contradicts something that happens later in the act, but I’m loath to go back and kill my great opening sequence because I loved it so dearly when I was writing it and it turned out so nice and, well, what if I just typed up some brilliant bullshit to cover up the fact that I started without knowing where I was going?
2. I find that if I have done the difficult work of ironing out my story before I write my screenplay, I am able, once I sit down to do that, to do that creative thing, where I take chances and just “let ideas come” and “fool around” with the ideas and so forth. Once I have the tracks laid and nailed in place, I find that I can make the train engine fancy or plain or asymetrical or goofy and know that it will still get to the station on time.
There is no set length. I’ve read treatments as short as two pages and as long as 42. The ones that are two pages long, I’ve found, favor sensation over logic and leave out a lot of crucial stuff. (My favorite sentence in a treatment ever, written by a very successful writer/director, for a project that didn’t happen, was “And did I mention the radioactive sharks?” I guess you had to be there.)
Yay Oscars!
Best Motion Picture of the Year
Nominees:
Well, close readers of this journal know what my favorite is. But these are five pretty strong movies. Well I’m guessing in the case of Atonement — has anyone out there seen it? It looks too much like The English Patient to me. Which may mean, of course, that it will win. Because let’s face it, not only are three of the nominees about the murderous roots of capitalism, none of them were runaway hits. They may split the “I dislike the evils of capitalism” vote in Hollywood. And then there’s the fact that Juno is the only movie here that resembles anything like a popular hit. There Will Be Blood seems to have the critical momentum, and it is a fine, fine movie, but in my heart of hearts I hope it’s the Coens’ year.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Nominees:
I hate bowing to conventional wisdom, but this really seems like Daniel Day-Lewis in a walk. No one saw In the Valley of Elah (and frankly I preferred TLJ in No Country), and if Viggo Mortensen wins an Oscar, I don’t think it’s going to be for playing a Russian Gangster. Johnny Depp was great in Sweeney Todd, but Clooney just won recently and Day-Lewis has all the momentum.
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Nominees:
Julie Christie in a walk. No one saw Elizabeth (and besides, Blanchett will probably win for I’m Not There), Laura Linney will one day have a part equal to her stature as an actress but her role in The Savages isn’t it, Ellen Page is great in Juno but, well, it’s a comedy, and I didn’t see the French movie.
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Nominees:
Obviously, Javier Bardem will crush the competition. Given his performance in No Country, who would dare vote against him?
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Nominees:
Five more wonderful performances from great actors (again, I’m giving Atonement-girl the benefit of the doubt) but I think Blanchett’s only real competition is from Ruby Dee. And given American Gangster’s otherwise stunning lack of nominations, I don’t see it happening.
Best Achievement in Directing
Nominees:
I’ve heard weird buzzes around town that Schnabel stands a real shot at winning this thing. And his direction for Diving Bell is original, daring and innovative. But come on, so is PTA’s work on Blood. My heart is on the Coens, but I’m always wrong about these things.
Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Nominees:
Of these movies, I liked the screenplay for Michael Clayton best, and Ratatouille a close second, but I’m going to guess that Juno will win this one (and not its other nominations).
Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
Nominees:
Hey, there are four women nominated for writing awards this year! What the hell am I paying dues for in my Boys’ Club moviemaking guild if we’re going to keep encouraging these people?!
Again, my heart is with the Coens here, but these are all swell screenplays. Looking at this list, I get the feeling that Blood may win Picture and Director, but the Academy will give the Coens the writing award just to show, you know, no hard feelings.
Best Achievement in Cinematography
Nominees:
These are all handsome movies, but Jesse James has the best cinematography I’ve seen in a decade.
Best Achievement in Editing
Nominees:
Again, good work here by everyone. I’m a big fan of Roderick Jaynes’s work, but Bourne was surprisingly well-reviewed this year and they might just go ahead and acknowledge that, especially if Blood or No Country sweeps other awards.
Best Achievement in Art Direction
Nominees:
I think the best work here is in Blood, but American Gangster, like all of Ridley Scott’s movies, has stunning art direction. Sweeney Todd may win for having the most obvious art direction.
Best Achievement in Costume Design
Nominees:
I think Sweeney has this category, er, all sewn up.
Best Achievement in Makeup
Nominees:
How odd that Sweeney wasn’t nominated for its extraordinary hair and makeup. I have no idea about this category.
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
Nominees:
Having no memory of the score in Michael Clayton, having disliked the score in 3:10, and not having seen the others, I’m going to say Ratatouille.
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
Nominees:
Best Achievement in Sound
Nominees:
Again, good work here by everyone, but boy the sound in No Country is so subtle and so crucial to the success of the picture.
Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Nominees:
I think it’s about time to expand this category to five nominees. Since everyone hated Compass and Transformers, I’m going to say Pirates.
Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
Nominees:
I have a hard time imagining Ratatouille not winning this.
Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
Nominees:
Best Documentary, Features
Nominees:
Best Documentary, Short Subjects
Nominees:
Best Short Film, Animated
Best Short Film, Live Action
Nominees:
No freakin’ clue.
Good luck to everyone! And remember, I’m always wrong!
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Well I have to admit, this was a pleasant surprise. I mean, as pleasant as a movie about people getting their throats cut could be.
I sat down to watch this movie, knowing only that it was a musical, composed by Stephen Sondheim, an artist whom I rarely think about, some sort of black-comedic Victorian revenge drama, directed by Tim Burton and featuring a cast that promised a Pirates of the Caribbean/Harry Potter smackdown, with a guest appearance by Borat.
First I was surprised by Johnny Depp, who gives his most sincere, honest performance ever in a Burton movie. Whatever he’s doing in Sleepy Hollow and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory I’m sure is amusing to someone, but I’ve never quite understood it myself. But here he’s just smashing, committed and balanced and strong. Then I was surprised to learn that I like his singing, which in this movie reminds me of a record I have of David Bowie singing Brecht.
I also like Helena Bonham Carter in this movie, although I have a lingering question with regards to her choices as an actress. She made her name playing period roles in Merchant-Ivory movies (and their imitators), and then about ten years ago, around the time of The Wings of the Dove, suddenly seemed to make the decision that she wasn’t ever going to play another high-buttoned collar part again in her life. No, she decided, she was going to spend the next decade playing slatterns, psychos and witches. Which, more power to her, but there’s something about a beautiful, refined, obviously strong woman like her playing a character as bizarre, needy, manipulative and amoral as Mrs. Lovett. It’s my understanding that Angela Lansbury played the part on Broadway a million years ago, when she was merely “old” and not “as old as dirt.” Which seems to make a lot more sense to me — Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett shouldn’t be young, robust, good-looking people who could attract anyone in London, they should be broken, over-the-hill, ruined, bitter people who’ve been around the block more than a few times (Sweeney, in fact, arrives from having traveled around the world). We’re supposed to believe that Mrs. Lovett has loved Todd since before his wife and child were taken from him, which has to be at least fifteen years, but Mrs. Lovett in this movie doesn’t seem to be that much older than Todd’s daughter.
Alan Rickman, however, blew me away, as did Sacha Baron Cohen, who managed to get all kinds of levels of play into his few scenes.
I have no idea what, if anything, has been changed to get the play onto the screen, but they did a terrific job. The plotting keeps the story engrossing, suspenseful and surprising, the production design is extraordinary (as it generally is for a Burton movie) and the hairdos alone should make it a lock for the makeup Oscar. And not just because they are clever (although they are), but because of the way they are actually integrated into the scenery around them — they look as though they were not meant to merely reveal character, but to be shown as a symptom and product of their environment.
And then there’s Burton’s direction, which, well, it seems strange to say it, but I think this is the best work he’s done. I’ve enjoyed plenty of Tim Burton movies in the past, but there was always some weird distancing thing going on, some kind of glibness or archness or lack of depth that always made them seem a little hollow. This movie, like Depp’s performance, seems honest and deeply felt in a way that a “deeply felt” movie like, say, Big Fish did not. To put it another way, I always knew that Tim Burton was a great artist, but this was the first time I felt like he had actually gotten in touch with the human side of his art as well as the technical side.
Which I guess sounds weird, because it’s hard to think of a less human, less organic construct than an almost-sung-through musical about an insane barber and how he slaughters people to feed a grudge. And yet, as my wife said about half-way through the movie, “It’s really good that these people all got together to make this,” because it’s hard to imagine another group of people understanding the material as well as this bunch.
Todd and Lovett, of course, make two more wonderful addition to this year’s unrivaled crop of movieland’s murderous capitalists, in addition to There Will Be Blood‘s Daniel Plainview, No Country For Old Men‘s Chigurh, Eastern Promises‘s Russian ganglord and Michael Clayton‘s homicidal corporate climber. The fact that all these roles have not only appeared in the same year but have been nominated for Oscars has got to say something about the state of our Union.