Reading Between Lines of the Script

First, David Mamet categorizes script reading as something akin to a summer job at McDonald’s--something way beneath anyone with any intellect but that must be done on the way up that big ladder of success (“That’s Entertainment. That’s Too Bad,” Los Angeles Times Magazine, Aug. 6). Then, screenwriter Scott Morgan insinuates that those of us reading scripts around town aren’t sophisticated enough to spot true talent like his (“Script Readers See Blueprints,” Calendar, Aug. 28). According to him, we’re not far from trained seals who clap our flippers when we find projects filled with nothing but formula.

Well, allow me to respond from the world of the ignored, long-suffering script reader. . . .

Granted, I agree with Morgan when it comes to the style of Mamet’s whiny, self-indulgent commentary on how the art of script writing has turned into literary pandering. I also agree with Mamet, in theory, about the annoying recent trend of scripts that rely on smart-alecky screen description rather than solid storytelling skills. Sure, those of us in the rank and file like a good read, but clever screen description isn’t what Mamet is complaining about.

Anyone who’s ever tried to slog through some of the recent “high-profile” scripts knows what I’m talking about--those with barely conceived plot lines peppered with expletives, misogynistic attitude and screen description that goes way off the self-satisfying, self-promoting scale. Those writers aren’t writing for the reader; they’re writing for themselves. They come from the “Aren’t I clever, aren’t I hip, aren’t I just the most amusing person you’ve ever met” school of screenplay writing. They aren’t writing to tell a story; they’re writing to show you how clever they are.

That’s what Mamet is talking about, or at least that’s what I think he’s talking about. A writer inserting humor into a screenplay isn’t the issue; a writer inserting himself into the screenplay is, and there’s a huge difference. This is storytelling, folks, this isn’t some junior high talent show where you get to act really stupid and make your friends laugh.

*

On second thought, that’s exactly what the film world has become, and that’s the biggest crime of all. It’s not about good storytelling, it’s about showing off.

I’m a free-lance script reader, and have been for going on eight years now. I don’t read around 300 scripts a year, the number Morgan quoted as the average reader workload. I read closer to 750 scripts, plays and novels a year, getting paid about a quarter of what development executives who depend on these coverages make. That’s not a complaint, and those of us who read for a living have chosen this low-paying lifestyle because it gives us the freedom to pursue dreams of our own, such as writing something that goes beyond Morgan’s “blueprint” theory.

He’s right--the job is often misery, and without a doubt the biggest floor-mat gig in town. But he suggests we merely scan the script in search of nothing more than formula; he couldn’t be more wrong.

Many writers may tell themselves that when some studio passes on their script, the reader is to blame--some stupid hack who simply didn’t “understand” their magnificent story. Well, I’ve got news for you--we understood it, and it stunk.

Good writers tell good stories, weak writers rely on smoke and mirrors to cover up their inability, and that’s the reality of the problem. Morgan and Mamet might want to remember that next time they sit down for their next screenplay. And when you’re done, give me a call--I’ll be happy to read it.