Sling Baby

I worked on the team for two commercials for the "Doritos Crash the Superbowl" contest. Pretty proud of them, especially the first (I was more involved with Sling Baby).

Enjoy.

Sling Baby

Kitty Heist

Pangs of Moralizing

As one who has his feet in both the world of writing and the world of the church, I am often asked to create a piece of writing (play, screenplay, story) for faith based organizations.

I like doing so, as it gives me a chance to blatantly blend two important areas of my life – faith and art. (These two areas are blended in everything I do, just not always so blatantly.)

But there are times when my producers try to push me to lean away from story and focus solely on getting a message across – less art, more propaganda.

It is tricky to try and explain why that is counterproductive. Coming from a world where sermons can lead audiences in droves to the altar, the people from the church business can’t help but to think of story as just another way to preach.

But story is a lousy preaching platform; and if you get those same folk to honestly talk about the stories that impacted their lives, you’ll likely find them sermon-free.  Preaching just isn’t a strength of the medium.

A story works emotionally first; if there is a message, it comes through the experience, not by stating a moral.

My pastor last week talked about the difference between exposing people to truth, and experiencing truth. Unless someone experiences truth, it doesn’t quite stick.

Storytelling is a way to get people to experience; at least that is what it does best.

Take a look at Jesus’ parables – while there may be preaching and teaching around the stories, there isn’t much within the stories.

Even stories that contain great speeches – think On the Waterfront, or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, or Some More Recent Movie That I Just Can’t Think of Right Now, the monologues are earned by the speaker through experience, and are almost commentaries on the story rather than sermons.

So what does one do when they want to tackle a big issue within a story?  The Bitter Script Reader has a nice write up on the topic, examining a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode written by Jane Espenson.

A captive audience...

Well worth the look, as an experienced script reader digs into a work by one of the better writers in television.

The summary: serve the story first, and give all sides their due.

Favorite line from the blog post: 

“Even if Jane Espenson had a point she wanted to make, she seems to be smart enough to know that simply preaching an idea that goes unchallenged isn't the way to win converts to your side.”

So, if you want to hire me to write a piece that includes a message, expect me to fight for the story first – only because I really care about the message.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Critical Positives

From the desk of "people smarter than me" comes an artist's look at critique.

"5 Positive Things Critiques Can Do For You" is a good read for anyone who puts their work into the world. Take a gander.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Author's Journey 2

Terry Pitts has posted part two of his interview with me.

So I am posting it as well.

Enjoy.

Interview...

While up in Canada teaching last month, I was interviewed by new friend Terry Pitts for his blog, Author's Journey.

Part one of that interview is now up.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Script Cops

Found this over at Go Into Story.

This is my life.

Money and Goofy Religion Part 2

For Part One, go here.

But even the guys that aren’t in love with money get goofy – like this guy.  

So goofy, that his main point is one that he doesn’t believe to be true.  (Or at least I don’t think he does…)

For those that don’t like to read links: Tim Smith’s church doesn’t pay writers for the material they use in church services; and he wants stuff his church develops to be free for others to use in their churches.

But then again, if his pastor writes a book, he wants his pastor to get paid for it.

So they’ve got a system – if it is used in worship, they don’t get paid; if it ends up in a book or cd, they do get paid.

Cool by me; pretty nifty, in fact.  There's a lot of really good stuff in that blog entry.

Where Tim gets goofy is when he tries to reverse engineer a theology to codify this method.

To do this, he puts creative endeavors into two categories.  First, things created for G-d’s glory:  “When we write songs for gathered worship, our primary purpose should be to glorify God and build his church.”  Those things should be free.

The rest of the stuff, like making music cd’s or writing books, by default should be stuff we primarily intend NOT to bring glory to G-d, and that stuff we should charge for.

I should point out that Tim gets paid to work at his church, and therefore acknowledges that nothing he does all day long builds Christ’s church.  And his pastor does write books, but since those books intentionally do not glorify the Lord, it’s cool that he gets paid to write them.

Of course I’m having a bit of fun at Tim’s expense: I don’t know for sure, but it seems from all I do know of him and his church, they wouldn’t dream of advising that 1 Peter 4:11 or 1 Corinthians 10:31 be ignored – especially when making a studio recording of praise songs or writing about, say, the New Testament.**

And there are a number of artists out there that don’t fit into Tim’s paradigm.  

Like my friend Chuck, who writes material for the church (and performs it for churches); he does this full time.  If he didn’t get paid for it, he would not be able to feed his wife and children.  So he often charges for the services he provides.

I think Tim would be fine with that; Tim might even encourage Chuck with a quote from Timothy or Nehemiah.

On the other hand, my friend Cory also writes for the church.  He doesn’t charge a tuppence; but then again he also has a full time job elsewhere.  I think Tim would also be fine with Cory, and might use words like “tentmaker” or cite from Thessalonians to encourage Cory.

Here’s the thing: both write to bring Glory to God, and both deliver material meant to build up the church.

So, this whole split in “make some things for G-d’s glory, and other things not so much” is not what Tim means, it’s just what he says.  So why get discombobulated and say such a thing?

Money and the need for legalism.  More on that later...

Just my thoughts,

Sean
 
**Let me reiterate that I don’t know this – maybe Tim does believe that anything that doesn’t happen on Sunday between 9 am and 11 am should be intentionally anti-glorious. I’m just assuming not.

Money and Goofy Religion

Money makes people goofy – especially when money butts up against religion.

Which should come as no surprise, as love of the stuff is the root of all kinds of evil.  

I remember listening to a radio interview with a prosperity gospel preacher, as he was making the argument that Jesus was independently wealthy.

After all, the Lord wandered around without a job for three years.  Explain that if the good shepherd wasn't loaded?

You see, in this guy’s world, Jesus would have responsibly invested the gold, frankincense and myrhh that he got for his zeroeth birthday (you agree that Jesus would be responsible, right?). 

And he used that wealth to fund his travels with the disciples (you agree that Jesus wouldn’t want to be a burden, right?). 


The water into wine and the fishes and loaves – not miracles so much as Jesus buying food and drink for friends. He had enough cash to throw down a party for a multitude!
 
Oh, and the whole perfume on his feet thing – another sign that Jesus wants us to be wealthy.  He was telling Judas to stop bugging him about appreciating those extravagances in life to which Jesus had grown accustomed.  

(Just like the speaker’s car and jewelry – you wouldn’t do a Judas on him about those things, would you?)

Sheesh.  The lengths one goes to in justifying a love for money.

But even the guys that aren’t in love with money get goofy – but I'll get into that next time.

Just my thoughts,

Sean
 

Beautiful Conspiracy

Over at Letters of Note, you can see Kurt Vonnegut's witty and insightful response to a theater company's request for support.

Favorite bit is his wrap up:  "Guard yourself at all times. A lot of people believe that beauty is some kind of conspiracy -- along with friendly laughter and peace."

Head on over and check it out.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Yo Comments Are Wack!

A bit of on line schoolin', by way of Sister Salad.

Thanks to Roller Coaster Teacher.

How Then Shall We Tell Stories?

Jeffrey Overstreet spoke recently at International Arts Movement; his talk, "How Then Shall We Tell Stories?"  So good, I stole it from his site and embedded it below.

Many of the ideas he presents can also be found in his book, "Through a Screen Darkly."

This is a video that I'll be watching multiple times. 



Encounter 10: Jeffrey Overstreet on the how of storytelling from International Arts Movement on Vimeo.

Words

I write screenplays.

Which means I work in the medium of words within a visual medium. 

So of course when someone uses visuals to discuss words, me likes it, me does.

Thanks to Jeffrey for the find.




Just my thoughts,

Sean

History One Word at a Time

Inky Fool honors Bastille day by giving a history of the French Revolution. 

Those of you who aren't into heavy reading, this is for you: The entire history is given in 13 words -- words introduced from the French into the English language by year of appearance.

I want more history like this!

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Mute Point and Even Stev(ph)en

 It might be a mute point to show the error of one's whey's when it comes to grammar and sin tax and the like, but How to Write Badly Well does it with phony results.  Head over and Chex it out.

In the meantime, enjoy the delightful re-union of two guys that can insult with compliments like nobody else:

Just my thoughts,

Sean

From Around the Interweb

First, something for the industry insiders:  Over at Hollywood Roaster, a screenwriter stands up for himself.

A few pickups from Tyler Stanton's weekly six:

The OK Go guys are at it again:



VW is showing us how to have a little fun:



I can think of a few staircases that should have such a fast lane.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

I Could Care Less

No, really.  I could.

It's a Passenger Plane of Some Sort...

"How to Writer Badly Well" continues to educate.  Today's theme: Describe the wrong things.

I think I can do that.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Call of the Artist

So you wanna go into the arts?

I mean as a way of life – not just a dabbling.

I think we’re all meant to dabble – in fact, built to dabble.

To sing in the shower. To paint pictures for funsies. To make up stories for our kids at night.

But some feel a need to make more of it – to make art their profession, their vocation.

In other words, some not only feel the need to create, but feel led to the combination of devoting themselves to creating AND seeking to find an audience for that creation.

At times, a paying audience even.

So how does one know that they should make the jump from the shower to the stage? (Please, dry off and get dressed first.)

Over at Resurgence, they did a little article on how to tell if you are called into the ministry, and there were a few points that seemed to fit the bill of “artist” as much as “pastor.”

Mostly from John Newton. He has three indicators that one is meant to be in ministry. I’ll think of these as three indicators that one is meant to devote their life energy to writing things like “Amazing Grace.”

One: “a warm and earnest desire to be employed in this service.”

‘Cuz it is a service folks. Those cats at the American Idol audition who want to be famous – yeah, they aren’t called to be artists.

Two: “some competent sufficiency as to gifts, knowledge, and utterance.”

If you weren’t given the gift, you weren’t given the call.

Okay, that’s only sort of true. Let me modify: if you weren’t given the gift, then you are likely misinterpreting the call.

Can’t tell you how many people meant to be working behind the scenes thought they were meant to be on the stage. Most happily get it eventually, and find the place where their gifts meet their passion.

Others still struggle to be in the costume, when they were gifted to make the costume.

Third: an “opening in Providence, by a gradual train of circumstances pointing out the means, the time, the place, of actually entering upon the work.”

Are the doors opening?

Or the windows?

Or the transom?

If not, again, maybe the interpretation of the calling needs another look see.

You feel like you passed the test? Well, not done yet.

Martin Luther also had a few criteria for the calling to ministry; and two seem oh-so designed for the fool wanting to go into the arts:

“Willing to venture body and blood, wealth and honor in the work”

And

“Suffers himself to be mocked and jeered by everyone.”

For anyone delusional enough to think their work will be above derision, just remember that Sandra Bullock won the Best Actress Oscar and the Razzie in the same year.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Good Script Gone Bad

A common question that comes up in my line of work:  after watching a movie, someone will ask, "How in the world did that script get made into a movie?"

There are many answers, in many colorful varieties.  Sometimes it is the writer, or the re-writers, or the development process.

Sometimes it's hiring a bad director, or a bad cast.

And sometimes, sadly, it's because a good director or good actor got hired.

Here's a case study of how the script Nottingham went from being the hottest script in town to the drab movie called Robin Hood:

A summary.

The long version.

A lot can happen after a production starts moving.  Puts me in mind of another recent movie.

Script got greenlit -- everyone very excited.

Big star hired to play the lead (a very good actor), everyone more excited.

Big star decides he wants to play a side character instead of lead.  Been done - think Arnold turning down the lead in Terminator so he could play the villain.  Everyone still excited.

Big star decides the side character's part is too small.  Rewrites commence, making the side character into a co-lead character.  Everyone starts to worry a little bit.

Big star's part overshadows the original lead part, everyone starts to wonder what the movie is about.

Movie is made, as is the decision to put all emphasis on big star, making original lead more or less a subplot. Sorta.  Everyone wondering why they were so excited at the start of the project.

Movie comes out, critics bash it in part because the main story was kinda boring compared to the subplot (the original main plot) which, according to the critics, should have been its own movie.  Everyone blames the writer.

And the circle of life goes on...

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Wanna Know From Funny?

Couple of helps towards humor.

First off, Jane Espenson's blog -- specifically Sunday, May 16th: The Dangling Kitten (how Glee correctly told a joke);  Monday, May 3rd, Not Loving It (how McDonald's ruined a joke); and Sunday April18th, Go With the Flow (how Progressive saved an old joke).

Smart lady, smart advice on humor.  (She also worked on Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Buffy, Angel and Gilmore Girls -- I think I may have seen one of those shows...)

Then wander over to Jon Acuff's article at Relevant, where he talks about the difference between satire and mockery.  (As a side benefit that Relevant may never have imagined, you get insight as to why the Daily Show really works when it works, and why when it doesn't, it really doesn't.)

Just my "I'll get you a kitty" type thoughts,

Sean