Sandy Eiges is a working Hollywood screenwriter and "script doctor," and was the winner of the 1998 K.A.S.A. Screenwriting Award for her screenplay SAVING FAITH, subsequently purchased by Kingman Films International. Her adaptation of the young adult novel BOW DOWN SHADRACH is being co-produced by Kiwi Films and Irish Dreamtime, Pierce Brosnan's company.

Sandy has provided script assessment services and development notes to studios and production companies worldwide, and has assessed projects submitted for film financing for the New Zealand Film Commission. Other clients include: Twentieth Century Fox, Turner Original Movies, Samuel Goldwyn Films, and Lifetime, among others. She has also served as judge of dramatic writing of movies and mini-series, and writing for children, for the CableAce Awards.

How did you get your start in the film industry?

I didn’t have to claw my way to the top – script consulting is something that more or less fell into my lap. I had been working thanklessly (as in, on my own spec scripts) as a screenwriter for some time, when one of my screenplays, MISERY LOVES COMPANY, attracted a lot of attention, getting me a major agent and meetings all over town. My own script consultant on that project, and screenwriting mentor (and now close personal friend), Chris Vogler (author of "The Writers Journey") asked if I would be willing to take referrals for script consulting. This was back in 1994; and, although I still see myself primarily as a screenwriter, I have been consulting with writers, directors, producers, and studios ever since. This has included working as a story analyst and script consultant for such companies as Twentieth Century Fox, TNT, Samuel Goldwyn Films, and Lifetime, among others; acting as a judge for the now-defunct CableAce Awards, for dramatic writing for movies, mini-series and children’s programming; and assessing projects for financing for, of all things, the New Zealand Film Commission. Don’t ask, but I’m big in New Zealand.

What is a script consultant?

All writers fall in love with their story, their characters, their dialogue, their premise – if they didn’t, they had no business writing the script in the first place! But this relationship between the writer and his or her work is like the beginning of a romance, where all is glorious and one tends not to see the beloved’s flaws. New writers, especially, have no idea whether they’ve written a script that not only looks professional, but reads like a movie – and a pretty compelling movie at that. They absolutely need feedback from someone who isn’t their best friend. This is where a script consultant comes in. In fact, most writers, even those who have already sold material, get feedback from someone after they’ve finished the first or second draft. It doesn’t have to be a script consultant – even a class, or a writer’s group, can be a great thing. But a script consultant gives your script far more time and attention than you get in a class setting.

Essentially, a script consultant takes a long, hard look at your script – the plot, structure, story logic, narrative drive, character development and characterization, theme, dialogue, and format – to determine if your screenplay works. It's not good enough for your friends and family to love your writing, unless they're in a position to buy it. People often come to me for approval – they want to hear that their script is pretty great, and they only have to make a couple of tiny changes to make a million-dollar sale. All writers will tell you what they think their weakness is; I listen to what they say, and try to respond to those issues within the context of the consultation. But I take a more "holistic" approach – what a client thinks is the problem may be the problem, but it might just be a symptom of the problem. I evaluate the script for problem areas – and then I tell you how to fix them (hence the alternate title of "script doctor").

Do you actually write new dialogue? Or do your recommendations mostly concern plot and structure, leaving it to your client to create any new dialogue necessary?

My recommendations focus on improving the overall storytelling quality of the script, its readability and "understandability," including premise, plot, structure, theme, narrative drive, format, genre-related issues, character development, and dialogue. And unless I’ve been hired by a company or a producer to rewrite the script, I would never rewrite the dialogue for the writer!

In short, a script consultant analyzes and evaluates your screenplay, identifies and solves story problems, provides suggestions for re-structuring, and hopefully, helps you develop more compelling characters. How was that for a sound bite?

How is your function different when you're hired by a production company for a project in development versus when you're hired by an unproduced writer?

Taking a script from first to final draft is, in fact, very similar to the development process. In both cases, ultimately it’s the writer who is the recipient of the notes, even if they are filtered through the producers. One thing I have noticed, though, is that the producer will want to spend a lot of time with me, either on the phone or in person, discussing the script and my notes; whereas the writer tends to rely more on my written notes (surprise, surprise), and has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into an actual conversation, the intent of which is to get them to change some of their deathless prose.

In both cases, once I’ve finished the script notes I will schedule a story conference, whether by phone or in person, so that we can review the notes, and perhaps come up with some new ideas as to how to approach problem issues. This process, of notes, rewriting, and review, can continue for as long as it takes to get what I, or the producer, would consider a decent submission draft. When I’m hired by a production company, this process tends to go on for longer than with the writer alone, who usually wants one, or at the most two, sets of notes.

Let's say a writer comes to you with a script that lacks a decent premise. You know by page 5 that there's no way this script will ever sell, no matter how much rewriting is done. Would you still work on the project?

That’s a really good question, because, I’m sorry to say, most scripts that come to me do not yet have a decent (as in a defined) premise. Ultimately, the premise must relate to the main character and the journey he or she will have to take in this story. But in fact most scripts by new writers (as in unsold) suffer from what I call the "and then this happens and then that happens" premise, where the general story is the premise. I go into detail on this issue of defining the premise in my book Hollywood Script Writing: How To Birth Your Idea Into A Bankable Screenplay.

But most writers have a sincere desire to tell their story, and I see it as part of my job to help the writer work on their project in whatever way seems necessary. This includes helping them tighten the premise, and turn it into something that could be marketable; or even suggesting that they might approach their story in a form more suited to it, either as a play or a novel. Even if ultimately the script is not going to sell, however, I always hope that the writer will learn something from the process, and will do better the next time around.

Since September 11th, are there any changes screenwriters should take into consideration? For example, are producers looking for more lighthearted work, or are they avoiding war scripts?

While there was definitely some hesitation in Hollywood about war and terrorism-related scripts directly after September 11, it’s pretty much business as usual these days. War movies are everywhere on screen. Of course, if your movie is about "the good terrorist," I don’t think you’ll find much of an audience right now. And as for more lighthearted fare, comedies and romantic comedies remain, together with thrillers, the perennial favorite in terms of overall script sales.

Let's say a script goes to a major production company and gets lousy coverage. Can you tell us about the prevalence of tracking boards, and whether or not this means a script is dead in the water?

Most scripts get lousy, or at least marginal, coverage from someone at some time, believe it or not. I sold a script (for six figures, may I point out) that a Warner Brothers reader thought indicated my incredible talent for dialogue and character; while an ICM reader thought, of all the things he hated about my script (and he really hated it), I had absolutely no talent with either dialogue or character. So I can honestly say that lousy coverage has absolutely no effect on the salability of your script – although it will affect the possibility of getting an agent at that reader’s agency. But readers don’t generally participate in tracking boards. Tracking boards are really for those scripts that have great "buzz," since executives (and even assistants) will buzz everyone they know about an amazing script. No one wants to waste any more time on a bad script, unless it’s been written by someone famous.

Now if all you’re getting is lousy coverage, and you have a chance to actually read that coverage, you should consider taking some of what they’re saying into consideration, and rewrite the script.

Many producers and agents have the stated policy that they will not accept unsolicited material. For writers without agents, is there any way around this?

If your heart is set on getting a CAA agent, if only they would read your script, forget about it – without a recommendation from someone they work with, they won’t. But many producers, and some of the smaller and mid-size agencies, will look at a query letter. So the trick is to write a great query letter that describes your premise and story line in a succinct paragraph or two, and makes a compelling case for your script. Creative executives and directors of development at production companies, in particular, are always trolling for material. Make your case with them, not with the president of the company, in a well-written query letter, and ask if you can submit your script. You can get all the relevant details for Hollywood production companies in the Hollywood Creative Directory.

The query letter is essentially your "pitch," for why anyone should read your script. It should not tell the reader that they will make millions of dollars from your screenplay, or that this is a perfect role for Julia Roberts, whether it is or not. It should not tell the reader that you’re broke and need the money, or how much work you did on this, or whether they will find it amusing or scary. For example, it is not effective to say: "My uncle was a fascinating character, and I am sure you will enjoy this script;" or "There hasn’t been a flying elephant story since Dumbo, and I think you’ll find this hilarious." Only the reader gets to determine what they think of your screenplay, and they’ll only know that after they read the script.

Think of the query letter as being like a trailer – your only job in writing the letter is to get the agent or executive to read the script, just like the only point to a trailer is to get you to want to see the movie. This means that you need to tantalize them, giving just enough information to make it sound like something they might want to read, without telling them the whole story. If you do tell them the whole story, then they will feel like they’ve already read the script. And unless the story, and your writing, is so remarkably unique and riveting, they will pass on the project before they’ve even had a chance to read it. For a more complete list of the dos and don’ts of query letters, with samples, check out my book, Hollywood Script Writing: How To Birth Your Idea Into A Bankable Screenplay.

One can argue that screenwriters today satisfy society's deep need for stories, continuing in part the tradition of oral storytelling and the development of myth. What are your thoughts on the connection between modern film and ancient  mythology?

Archetypes and mythic structures are based upon the belief that some qualities of storytelling transcend time and culture. I am definitely of the camp that believes that there can be a profound connection between modern film and ancient mythology. All good storytelling draws upon the deeper knowledge that makes us conscious to ourselves, that is, that takes us through a process by which we step out from our selves into the world, confront our deepest fears, and overcome them, or die trying. This is the general configuration of a mythic structure that could be used to good effect in the telling of a modern film story.

But not all film stories, and not all stories, are mythic stories, and there's a difference between mythic stories and mythic structure. Mythic stories are profoundly transformational, taking a hero on a journey that will, in some way, restore balance and integration to his fractured psyche, and bring real healing, not only to himself, but to the world he inhabits. Myths are about the relationship between the human and the divine, and almost always are ultimately about union with the divine, and with the divine in ourselves. 

So, for example, in a myth, a man may be challenged by a god he has ignored, that god being the representation of a certain universal quality. In the myth, his journey will be to overcome whatever obstacles stand in the way of his integrating that quality in himself. The gods all represent some profoundly human quality, essential to a psychologically healthy and balanced life. Some of the greatest film stories move us because they are about facing that which we are reluctant to face, overcoming great odds to achieve that kind of union, usually depicted as human love, but with aspects that transcend the human and approach the divine. Great love stories, of profound sacrifice leading to death or a kind of "rebirth," are in this realm of mythic stories; films like Casablanca, or The English Patient, come to mind here.

In a story that is not a mythic story, a man may set out on a hunt, and come back to the campfire to describe how he stalked the beast, attacked the beast, fought the beast, and ultimately killed the beast, bringing meat home to the tribe. While this may have the structure of a mythic story - the tribe is hungry, and a man sets out to find food, encounters obstacles, eventually succeeds in his quest, and brings home the bacon (so to speak) - this is not a mythic story. 

Many film stories are on this level - there's a problem, the hero attempts to solve the problem, encounters obstacles, finally succeeding and achieving his goal. This can still be a satisfying and entertaining story, although it will not necessarily have great significance or emotional resonance. The mythic structure, however, is what makes the story work at all. If this had been told as a "and then this happens and then that happens" kind of story, without structure, the audience would have nodded off to sleep. After all, there must be a point, and some emotional payoff, to the story.

This same story, however, could have ore emotional, even mythic, resonance, if  this encounter with the beast made the hero delve deeply into his own psyche to find the resources to conquer the beast. In the end, the hero would not just bring home the bacon, he would have encountered "the gods" in his quest, and brought home some transformative wisdom that makes him a better man, and a leader, who restores that missing quality to his people.

But what if a screenwriter follows a specific mythic structure too closely? Would this make the script too formulaic?

There is a difference between working with a template, which essentially provides a structure for your story, and working with a formula. Genre films are often formulaic, so that we know where we're going from the opening scene, and everything that happens subsequently comes as no great surprise. Using mythic structure as a template gives you a loose structure with signposts along the way, suggesting what needs to happen, without writing each event in stone. Each event that occurs in this kind of story is fresh and new, taking us in surprising, and hopefully unexpected new directions, while still fulfilling our deeper need for seeing problems solved on screen. 

One of the most familiar mythic structures is the "hero's journey." Most often, filmmakers limit this tantalizing form to action figures with relatively static characters. What are your thoughts on developing hero characters capable of transcending the action genre?

As I said earlier, I think the hero's journey approach does transcend all genres. A real hero should not be an "action figure," or a GI Joe doll, but a character who is deeply flawed, or who has to embark on a major quest, in order to bring healing both to himself and to the world he lives in. A hero can be the young queen Elizabeth, for example, in the film of the same name - hardly an action film. Some of the best action films have well-developed heroes who must tap resources they didn't realize they had, in order to succeed at their goal.

Some of the action "franchises," like the Die Hard and Lethal Weapon films, have characters who are clearly deeply flawed human beings, who, in solving whatever problem they're presented with, must also confront their deepest fears and issues. Jon McClane, for example, may be an action hero, but his real goal in the first Die Hard was to save his marriage - recognizing that he was missing some part of himself, his inner goal was union, not getting the terrorists. Getting the bad guys is just the means to an end, taking the path he could take, given who he is as a character. Of course this isn't true of many, minor action films, with action for its own sake. And even in the above-mentioned franchises, this is truer of the first films in these series, than the sequels, where producers tend to go for formula.

But until producers get their hands on the material, the first person to write a truly heroic character is the screenwriter. I would encourage all writers out there to think more deeply about their characters, what the characters think they want, and what they really want. This will help the writer shape convincing, multi-dimensional characters, and delineate a more authentic transformational arc for that character.

What are the best resources available for screenwriters interested in exploring myth and mythic structure?

I believe in going to the source, in terms of understanding myth. While most people are not going to explore the myths of all peoples and cultures, at the very least, writers should familiarize themselves with Greek mythology; and no writer would go wrong in reading Aeschylus or Euripides.  In my opinion, almost every kind of story that exists can be found in Homer's The Iliad and The Odyssey.

Learning the shape of mythological stories will help any writer in terms of understanding the structure and rhythms of storytelling. Screenwriters would do well to explore Greek, Hebrew, Indian, Norse, African, Native American and Celtic myth and legend, among others, if for no other reason than to discover a rich mine of profound stories, which can be adapted to the modern day.

In terms of mythic structure for screenwriters, I recommend reading Chris Vogler's "The Writer's Journey," which applies Joseph Campbell's theories about mythical structure to the art of storytelling for film. Also useful here would be any material dealing with archetypes and archetypal material, particularly that written by Carl Jung. Of course there is a lot more out there, particularly in the academic realm; but the sources mentioned above would be a good place to start.

And remember, all of this reading is meant to inspire you to create your own specific and compelling stories and characters, characters who will leap off the page and into our hearts, as we watch them bring resolution to those patterns and life issues they struggle with on our behalf - as we sit in the dark, watching their stories as they flicker across the modern campfire of the movie screen.

If a script has gotten heat in the past-- say, an option-- is it a good idea to mention this to other production companies, or does this make the script "used goods?"

There are different points of view on this, but I don’t think it can hurt to mention that your script was under option. Why? Because everyone wants verification that they made a good choice – if someone else liked your script, well, then it might actually be worth reading, and if they liked it, well, they wouldn’t be the only ones. I wouldn’t give too many details ("my script was optioned for a pittance in 1978"), but I would say that "my script, FROM THE FRYING PAN INTO THE FIRE, a romantic comedy about a housewife who becomes a flame jumper for the National Forest Service in pursuit of her errant firefighter husband, previously optioned by Incendiary Films, has become available." I would follow this by that same succinct paragraph about your script that you used in your query letter. This could be followed by a sentence or two about your glorious career, or about your unique qualifications that pertain to this particular script (i.e. "I have spent the past five years traveling the world as the only female flame jumper"). You get the drift.

In any case, most scripts that are optioned never make it to the screen, for one reason or another. This may have more to do with the company’s ability to secure financing or attach talent than it does with the script itself; and many of these scripts get optioned over and over again. And the fact that people have optioned your work means that you’re a real writer, as opposed to a wannabe. This is a good thing. Of course, this is just my opinion, and someone else might think otherwise. But I think the moral of the story here is not to give up, and not to take all that rejection to heart. Just keep doing what you do, getting better at it, and keep writing.

Visit Sandy's site at www.storyandscriptdevelopment.com, or contact her at sandy@storyandscriptdevelopment.com. 

Sponsored links

Ring binders

 

Make a Real Living as a Freelance Writer!

How to find a book publisher

Home

Text on this site Copyright © 1998-2007 Absolute Write, all rights reserved.
Please contact the authors if you'd like to reprint articles on this site.  All copyrights are retained by original authors.  And plagiarizers will be rounded up, handcuffed, and stuck into a very small and humid room wherein they must listen to Barney sing the "I Love You, You Love Me" song over and over again.

writers writing software