[…] Brad has also taught screenwriting at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts for six years, SUNY Oswego for one year, and …read more […]

As someone who went and did multiple degrees for a specific reason, I can say that, from my personal experience as both someone giving and receiving coverage, the biggest weakness I see for students coming out of film school is poor analytical skills and a lack of "worldview". By worldview I mean "life experiences". This is the part where one often hears "write what you know" - yet many a writer will have all this knowledge and how to skill set, but lack anything meaningful to actually say. It's not surprising then to read scripts where characters and situations don't ring true - and I read this constantly on web boards: "how much detail should I go into to make it real?" The answer is, if you want it to feel real to someone else, you better do your homework and not take shortcuts. This sort of ties into the bit about having a strong, analytical mind. Stories are, at their basic level, problems - and as authors, we're creating them to demonstrate our particular view to best tackle them (or show the ramifications of how not to). As such, authors are "creating" problems, but then end up not knowing how to solve them (which is somewhat ironic). This is often reflected in the inability to grasp what's actually happening in a story sometimes. Case in point: a discussion I had with someone with a Masters in Screenwriting who believed The Exorcist's protagonist didn't have a goal for over half of the movie until it became evident that an exorcism needed to be performed. To believe this is to miss the protagonist's complete journey, from his lack of faith and his resulting attempt to understand Regan's malady from a psychological perspective, to dealing with issues regarding his mother, to regaining his faith (and taking a literal leap of faith at the climax). As with many instances, a protagonist's methodology - the way he chooses to resolve a problem - is often mistaken for the actual goal. The goal here, as believed this particular person, was to perform an exorcism. It seems like a valid point at first, but really it's ultimately the only way to save Regan, which is the actual goal - otherwise, we'd have a very short film and call in the exorcist and get it over with, right? Yet, this is the type of analysis I see all the time - even by notable bloggers. I recently saw a tweet regarding the inciting incident for Beautiful Minds and was dismayed that from the three sources I checked, all three were different. How does this actually happen unless these three entities themselves have conflicting definitions about what an inciting incident is? (And for the record, Robert McKee got it right - but I won't mention the other two sources, though I will say it irks me to see such bad analysis proliferated to, and subsequently influencing, potentially thousands of other writers.)

TBBB, here is a response from Brad: "I completely agree about life experience. Success in this business really comes down to having a unique, original take and a clear point of view. I've had the good fortune to teach incredible writers from across the country. Some were graduate students, some were undergrads. I began my own screenwriting MFA program at 28. Typically, and there are always exceptions, older graduate students develop better material faster because they have had life experience. Lost loves, lost loved ones, failure, fear, hunger, desperation, the arrival of true self awareness -- that's stuff that usually only happens when you are forced to live and survive on your own. And it's that stuff that makes for writing with a soul. With a take. With a worldview. Frankly, I've often wondered if my daughter or son came to me at age 18 and wanted to enroll in film school, what I'd say. I'd be torn. Not because I'd fear for them finding work or building a career, but because I believe in the value of a liberal arts education -- or at least learning about something other than just film and TV. History, art, theater, literature and science are what should inform writing, and I'd hate for them to miss out on that. So, I think we're on the same page, Bark. I work hard to develop maturity of thought in my undergrads. I urge them to read and think and see and write something beyond what happened in their dorm yesterday, or their miserable high school experience. Some of them can, and many of them can't. Not yet. They graduate with the ability to work the tools, but it will be a while before they actually know what to make with them."

Could not agree more with the TBBB. It's frustrating to see so many writers think that as long as they study up on the craft, that's all they need to succeed, and they can just sit inside every day post endlessly on message boards. One of my dearest personal philosophies about becoming a better writers is to live! Travel, fall in love, fail miserably, flirt with every emotion you can possibly find, learn about history and oddities, work a plethora of different jobs -- whatever it is that makes you a more well-rounded person. It's life experiences that will teach you the most about people, which is exactly what you need to know if you plan on writing for a living.

Yes! Let's call it the "Good Will Hunting" syndrome! A bit of (invaluable) corporate training I had was based on the bestselling book "Crucial Conversations". I've preached this to writers as something they should pick up, not because it's about how to communicate when our emotions and stakes are high, but because they give so many examples of what people tend to do: tell stories to themselves to justify and rationalize behaviors. It's a gold-mine for writers to learn this stuff to build better characters. That being said, one of their principles is "Start from the heart", meaning: if you start your communication with somebody in an emotionally charged atmosphere by speaking from the heart first, your chances of staying focused and getting what you REALLY want are much higher. Writing is communication and it's really no different. Having something to say, a point of view, usually comes from experiences and something you feel strongly about - yet so many screenplays are void of this. People end up writing stories they think are cool or interesting, but really don't resonate because there's no heart to them. In short, it's why I stopped reading books about writing (I've read more than enough, lol) and started reading more about neuroscience and why we tell stories to begin with - much of which goes back to "experience" and transference of knowledge.