Hollywood Story
I usually leave the comments where they belong, in the comment section. But an actual Hollywood screenwriter (I won't embarrass him by listing his stellar credits) had a great reply to my Best Screenplays post, so let me reproduce it here:
Prepare yourself.
The best screenplay I ever read...
was "HOOK."
WAIT! WAIT! Don't scroll away just yet, let me explain.
This was an early draft, way before the actual movie came out. The credits read:
"HOOK"
The Return of The Captain!
Story by: Jim Hart and Nick Castle (who was originally set to direct, but that's another story)
Screenplay by: Jim Hart (apparently before he became "James V. Hart")
In a nutshell, I thought this was a brilliant idea for a movie, an "adult" version of "Peter Pan" wherein the grownup Peter is lured back to a Neverland he no longer believes in, when his own children are kidnapped by Captain Hook. Moreover:
It was nearly as brilliantly executed.
This was a VERY well written script (and, like LAGuy, I had read a lot of them by that time) and I was actually dazzled.
Which brings us to:
ACT TWO
We all know what the movie became: Bloated and Lifeless. And I knew it would be that way, even before I saw it. How?
Because I knew someone who was working for Spielberg at the time, and I was able to get a hold of a copy of the Production Draft of "HOOK". Of course, you can guess what it had become:
Bloated and Lifeless.
Astonishingly so. The script had literally ballooned to more than twice its original page length, and stretched to almost 3" between brads.
How could this be? Wouldn't the movie have been three hours long? Well, the best (and most tragic) example I can give is that the dialogue for PETER often included two, three - or more - "choices," presumably to better serve the riffing talents of Robin Williams.
Now, I'm no expert in screenplay writing (oh, wait a minute - yes, I am) but this seems like a pretty piss poor way to write a tight script.
Or even a shootable script.
But rather than go into any more painful details, let's move on to:
ACT THREE
When I read the original draft of "HOOK," I honestly thought this could be Spielberg's greatest movie ever, topping even his own favorite, "E.T." Which is why it was so disappointing that he himself ended up gutting what could have been one of his all time greatest works.
Or maybe I should've given 3 choices above:
1. Disappointing
2. Disturbing
3. Disheartening
I mean, hiring a re-writer to rework just one character's dialogue (Carrie Fisher for Tinkerbell)? Are you kidding me?
I had absolutely nothing to do with this project, but even now I can feel the pain of Nick Castle and Jim Hart.
But there's one final note to play:
CODA
The year that "HOOK" pancaked into the tarmac, Spielberg was tapped to present an Oscar at the Academy Awards. It must have had something to do with writing, because I remember him going on and on and on about the importance of - nay, the sanctity of - the script and the screenwriter.
It was one of the most audacious acts of hypocrisy I've ever witnessed in my entire life.
Thank god Hollywood learned its lesson.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:56 AM
2 Comments:
To LAGuy:
I'm sincerely tickled to have been re-posted like this. Thanks, Steve, you made my day.
I thought I'd reply to your comment post (and one other) from your original "Best Screenplays" article in this new thread. The text of your comment is copied in italics below:
That's a great story, Todd. And the sad thing is, I bet almost every working writer in LA can say something similar. You read a script and you're enthralled, and then it gets made and you wonder what happened.
People often ask why Hollywood turns out so much dreck. The answer is complicated, but it's not because writers can't write. Sure, most scripts out there aren't much, but at the top there's more than enough great stuff for all the studios.
By the way, I remember Spielberg's tribute to the written word. Let's just say it was ironic. Nevertheless, I still think he's one of Hollywood's greatest talents.
I agree with your comment about great material. Like just about everything else in life, it's a bell curve: Lots of mediocrity, a certain amount of godawful dreck - and a corresponding amount of "great stuff" at the opposite end of the curve. This will be true in just about any era of screenwriting.
The difference, perhaps, in the present era is that the far right axis of the screenwriting bell curve - the "great stuff" - is undervalued, by both buyer and seller alike.
Screenwriting is now pretty much a dead end job. Nobody aspires to be "just" a screenwriter anymore. At least, not if they're paying attention. Hell, if I had even an inkling of performing talent, I know what I'd be aspiring to. That's where the "value" is right now. A "B" actor easily outearns an "A" screenwriter.
As for Spielberg being one of "Hollywood's greatest talents"...
Surprise!
...I agree with you again.
In fact, for a long time, I often championed Speilberg as being arguably the greatest movie director ever.
[Of course, this was before the one-two (limp-wristed) punch of "A.I." and "Minority Report" (which contributed to me skipping altogether "War Of The Worlds" and "Munich").]
In fact, I suppose the argument can probably still be made (although maybe not by me anymore). You can't take away what he's done as a director and producer.
However, I stand by my use of the word "hypocrite" when it comes to his relationship with screenwriters and the written word, which brings us to:
To ColumbusGuy:
You wrote:
To Todd, is it hypocrisy if the hypocrite is clueless? Or do you think Spielberg knew he had ruined Hook (and if that's the case, why would he do that in the first place, and why pump up writing at the Oscars)?
I don't believe Steven Spielberg is clueless when it comes to scripts, and especially not the screenplay for "HOOK". What I do believe is hardly more flattering, in that it involves words like "insecurity" and "ego".
However, to stick to the word at hand - "hypocrite" - I'll just say this: There's no way Steven Spielberg is ever going to tell the studio: "You know what? We've got a female character in this story being played by a prominant actress. Let's get a prominant female cinematographer to come in and shoot just her scenes for us." He'd never treat a DP that way.
Hmm, which gives me an idea:
Maybe screenwriters should start calling themselves the "Director of Script"?
Just a thought,
Todd
"Director of Script" -- that's brilliant. I bet it would lead to a 20 percent increase in pay all by itself, and maybe more than 100 percent.
Post a Comment
<< Home