1. Are you saying you have a story that's BOYS IN THE BOAT crossed with GOOD WILL HUNTING? Forget the script and write the book. Or I'll set you up with my friend Neal Bascomb and you can write it together. It's exactly what he does.
2. Stephen Pressfield has a term for what I think you're talking about: the Understory (https://stevenpressfield.com/2022/09/story-and-understory/). Or as I think of it, the story you want to tell that's enabled by the story you have to tell. For instance, Jenji Kohan made ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK, the story of a rich white lady in prison, so she could tell the stories she really wanted to tell, those of the non-rich, non-white ladies in prison. I also think of it as sort of a guiding principle, the tide the fish swim in and which informs their movements. My first novel, THE DRAGON ROUND, was about the first guy to ride a dragon, but for me it was a novel about faith in a world without gods. The understory doesn't have to be expressed, in my opinion, but it's an inescapable part of the mood.
So in terms of your Hee Haw (a show I watched at my grandparents so I didn't have to watch what ran against it, Lawrence Welk), maybe you open with CBS cancelling it and end with the show finding new life in syndication, which makes a certain national/local commentary, I think. Or you could just do the Tarantino thing and have someone rail about Mary Tyler Moore and saying it was no Hee Haw and she was no Honey.
Or you could go totally nuts. Wikipedia notes: "Hee Haw's appeal, however, was not limited to a rural audience. It was successful in all of the major markets, including network-based Los Angeles and New York City, as well as Boston and Chicago. Other niche programs such as The Lawrence Welk Show and Soul Train, which targeted older and black audiences, respectively, also rose to prominence in syndication during the era." So I think it all comes to a musical battle between the fans of Hee Haw, Welk and Soul Train.
Good one. I've always incorporated this approach into the things I've worked on except maybe my terminology is different. For me, it's been: what the film is about (this is usually an accessible story probably rooted in genre) and what it's REALLY about (a more personal, stealthy underlying conflict) that both run parallel to one and other. It's not just what your more successful scripts have in common it's what a lot of successful, well-written scripts have in common.
Thank you great insights I hear you when you talk about some thing that you obsess about writing you and you have to do it whether it gets great feedback from people around you or not and the double concept it’s one I’m gonna think about it, just like when you said some thing about dialogue and writing it in reaction to something that’s happened was useful
Did you know Hee Haw was produced by the Parallax Corporation?
Hee Haw was a major staple of my youth. This is a brilliant idea.
1. Are you saying you have a story that's BOYS IN THE BOAT crossed with GOOD WILL HUNTING? Forget the script and write the book. Or I'll set you up with my friend Neal Bascomb and you can write it together. It's exactly what he does.
2. Stephen Pressfield has a term for what I think you're talking about: the Understory (https://stevenpressfield.com/2022/09/story-and-understory/). Or as I think of it, the story you want to tell that's enabled by the story you have to tell. For instance, Jenji Kohan made ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK, the story of a rich white lady in prison, so she could tell the stories she really wanted to tell, those of the non-rich, non-white ladies in prison. I also think of it as sort of a guiding principle, the tide the fish swim in and which informs their movements. My first novel, THE DRAGON ROUND, was about the first guy to ride a dragon, but for me it was a novel about faith in a world without gods. The understory doesn't have to be expressed, in my opinion, but it's an inescapable part of the mood.
So in terms of your Hee Haw (a show I watched at my grandparents so I didn't have to watch what ran against it, Lawrence Welk), maybe you open with CBS cancelling it and end with the show finding new life in syndication, which makes a certain national/local commentary, I think. Or you could just do the Tarantino thing and have someone rail about Mary Tyler Moore and saying it was no Hee Haw and she was no Honey.
Or you could go totally nuts. Wikipedia notes: "Hee Haw's appeal, however, was not limited to a rural audience. It was successful in all of the major markets, including network-based Los Angeles and New York City, as well as Boston and Chicago. Other niche programs such as The Lawrence Welk Show and Soul Train, which targeted older and black audiences, respectively, also rose to prominence in syndication during the era." So I think it all comes to a musical battle between the fans of Hee Haw, Welk and Soul Train.
Good one. I've always incorporated this approach into the things I've worked on except maybe my terminology is different. For me, it's been: what the film is about (this is usually an accessible story probably rooted in genre) and what it's REALLY about (a more personal, stealthy underlying conflict) that both run parallel to one and other. It's not just what your more successful scripts have in common it's what a lot of successful, well-written scripts have in common.
Thank you great insights I hear you when you talk about some thing that you obsess about writing you and you have to do it whether it gets great feedback from people around you or not and the double concept it’s one I’m gonna think about it, just like when you said some thing about dialogue and writing it in reaction to something that’s happened was useful