The Film Thugs Movie Show

In case you missed it, there is a new Batman movie out! So, in honor of Chris Nolan's last Caped Crusader film we decided to take a look at the character's film history. From West to Keaton to Kilmer to Clooney to Bale/Nolan we take them all on and let you know what we think. WARNING: THIS IS A VERY SPOILER HEAVY EPISODE!!!

New episodes

I recently read and watched "The Fountainhead." I liked the book. I found Howard Rourke to be an interesting protagonist with some fascinating ideas. I didn't necessarily agree with him all the time, but I did find myself nodding in agreement more than not. What it boils down to with me is that I am more of a teach a man to fish than a give a man a fish type of guy. Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism can best be understood as an extreme response to the communism she escaped when she fled her native Russia for the United States—or more specifically, Hollywood, where she toiled as an extra, script-doctor, screenwriter, and costumer for folks like Cecil B. De Mille. Communism promised a utopian, egalitarian society, yet created only misery. It promised to replace the tyranny of the dictator with the benevolent reign of the common man, then elevated figures like Lenin and Stalin to the status of gods. Objectivism angrily defied the tenets of both communism and common morality. It was through-the-looking-glass time. Down was up. Up was down. In Rand’s newfangled way of thinking, selfishness, or at least rational self-interest, was no longer a terrible moral failing, but rather a great moral good. It was the mighty engine that powered the world. Government as a necessary evil instead of an engine for good.

Gone With The Wind

Margaret Mitchell (novel) Sidney Howard (screenplay)

To Kill A Mockingbird

Harper Lee

Horton Foote

The Godfather

Mario Puzo

KING

Stand by Me

Stephen King (novella "The Body") Raynold Gideon (screenplay) & Bruce A. Evans (screenplay)

Shawshand Redemption

Stephen King (short story "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption") Frank Darabont (screenplay)

The Stand

Bood and Teleplay

Sleepwalkers

Screenplay

Pet Semetary

Novel and Screenplay

Misery

Stephen King (novel) William Goldman (screenplay)

The Green Mile

Stephen King (novel) Frank Darabont (screenplay)

Maximum Overdrive

Written and Directed

The Princess Bride

William Goldman is the ultimate exception, but so is Stienbeck

Both worked as screenwriters not just one offs.

James Ellroy

Many bad films but LA Confidential vs- whatever his original is

John Irving 1999 last oscar

Dances with Wolves 1990

Driving Miss Daisy (Play)

Dangerous Liaisons (play)

Amadeus (Play)

Ernest Thompson (Play)

1976-The Exorcist

1975- Mario Puzo

The Lion in Winter (Play)

A Man for All Seasons (play)

Marty (Teleplay)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Writing_%28Adapted_Screenplay%29

Nominees

I don’t really think that The Oscars are a barometer of quality, occasionally they get things right, but when a pattern like this arises it’s hard to ignore.

12 Suggestions for the Screenplay You Are About To Submit To A Contest

By Jim Dirkes

I am currently nearing the end of my second year as a first round script reader for the Austin Film Festival's Screenplay competition. There are a huge number of entries each year and in order to make the number a little more manageable a group of qualified people read around 100 each, judge them on a few criteria, and decide which, if any, are good enough to advance to the second round and possibly win the competition. Of this massive number a few are good, even fewer are excellent. There are many that are outright awful, but the vast majority fall into the middle area of being just plain bad.

As I near my 220th script some patterns have become startlingly clear. While there isn't much I can do for the awful ones there are some issues that keep popping up in the mid range, bad almost good ones that I would like to point out in an effort to help.

There are a few things I should tell you up front. I am not a self proclaimed (or in any other way proclaimed) screenwriting guru. Actually, I find "script gurus" in general to be an equal mix of common sense and bullshit. Of course there are basic structural rules to which most stories conform. Even writers who swear against these formulas write scripts that fit these formulas most of the time. Most, not all. These are not 100%, and in many cases the stories that break these rules are the best. I do find some of these ideas and techniques to be helpful and they will by no means make your story bad. In many cases they will help solve most of the problems I outline below.

What, then, does make me qualified? I have studied film extensively in both academic (I have a BS in Radio, Television, and Film from The University of Texas), and practical (I have spent more hours watching movies than I have in the sunlight, it was close, then TBS showed "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly," and the balance was tipped) settings. Between these two avenues, I have gained a decent knowledge of what makes movies and screenplays work.

Let me clarify, those are very different things. Reading a screenplay is different from watching a movie. It's even different from reading a book. There are some similarities, but there are a number of specific things that you have to be aware of to be able to spot a screenplay that is outstanding. It is a combination of economy of words, solid style, airtight pacing, and looseness that is impossible to describe. As much as a copout as this sounds, you have to do it for a while to understand.

Last year I read 92 scripts and approved 8 of them to the second round. This is fairly typical, but I am also a fairly hard judge. Of those 8, 4 made it to the finals, so I feel justified in my harshness.

This year I am currently 115 scripts in and have approved 8. So far, I am finding myself face to face with several of the exact same problems I came across last year.

To preserve my own sanity, I have decided to address these issues.

That being said, here are a few pieces of advice I offer to anyone looking to enter a competition. Take it or leave it, I am just someone who has read a metric shit ton of bad screenplays and have a few words of advice to offer.

DISCLAMER- Before I start, at no point will I be referencing specific, identifiable things from scripts I have read. That would be both a violation of my agreement with The Austin Film Festival, and a total dick move. The only specifics I will give are from existing films that illustrate the points I am trying to make. That being said, I will be speaking in general about trends that I have noticed that shouldn't need to be mentioned to someone who has spent the time and effort to write and rewrite (hopefully rewrite, this will be addressed later) a 90+ page script. I shouldn't have to point them out, but...

Format and Spelling.

This is not something that is a conscious judging criterion, but it can hurt you. Screenplays have a VERY strict and rigid format and that format exists for a reason. The format exists so that you can organize and communicate the visual aspects of the movie as well as the dialogue in a simple and universal way that can be easily understood by anyone who knows what a screenplay is. If you cannot write in that format it makes it appear as though you do not know how to write very well. This may not be the case, but it does take some of the benefit of the doubt away.

Simply put, anything that makes it harder for the reader to understand your story, or confuses the reader when they need to double check something hurts you. Did this character enter before, after, or with the other person, or were they there the whole time. Oh, you haven't separated your stage directions so I have to dig to find it. Even simpler, unless it is a story device, I should know if "Chris" is male or female IMMEDIATELY! This should not be a surprise. Do yourself a favor here.

Oh, and on this point, movies are a visual art form. If you do not see or hear it, it doesn't exist. Chris the boygirl doesn't "Look at the bus driver and wonder if he is same guy heshe went to high school with."

What happens is:

There is a significant difference here. One clearly communicates a visual sequence, the other does not.

Oh, and since we’re talking technical shit: spelling, spelling, and spelling. I know that this article is most likely going to be riddled with spelling and grammar errors, but I am not submitting it for a contest. By entering a writing contest you are asking for your writing to be judged, so don't be surprised when someone judges your writing. Spell check, read it, have someone else read it. Then fix it.

Now, I have read the original script for Inglourious Basterds and that shit reads like it was spelled by a second grader. But when you are Quentin Tarantino you can spell things however the fuck you want.

I have never rejected a script for these reasons, but they are things you should keep in mind. I have, however, rejected a few scripts for all of the following.

Have some form of "purpose" or "theme"

you want to explore with your script.

No shit? Really!? Wow, thank you so much for the advice. Wherever would I be without your cutting insight? Well, you would be among the 30 or so scripts I reject for this very reason. What is the story really about? What are you trying to say with this? What do I want my audience to take away from this film? If you cannot answer these questions, then ask this one, "WHY THE FUCK AM I WRITING THIS?"

That last question comes into play because if you cannot answer the first three questions you really need to consider stopping. If you cannot answer those three questions you are wasting your, my, and everyone else's time by putting a group of people on screen and moving them around from one place to another, having them do shit that doesn't matter. Let me be clear, without purpose there is no meaning, without meaning there is no tension, without tension there is no reason to care about anything that is happening on screen at all.

Think of it from this point of view, imagine watching a movie where nothing that happened mattered, you didn't care what happened to any of the characters, and there was no real growth or resolution at the end. Is this a movie you want to watch again? Any good movie, even the most seemingly brainless comedy, has this center. Look at Happy Gilmore. Yes, it is stupid, but you see the growth of Happy and come to really, truly care if he is able to save his grandmother's house. The, "no, you're a golfer" scene is cathartic because it brings a character you care about to a realization that will make him a better person. Without that, it is just a bunch of jokes about abusing the elderly. As it stands, it is a bunch of jokes about abusing the elderly WITH A HEART.

Know your characters.

Another "no shit" moment you say?

If I had a dollar for every script that seemed perfect, the dialogue was tight, the scenes flowed, the theme was solid and all of a sudden the characters start acting... weird, I could afford to purchase something moderately priced.

Suddenly a formerly intelligent character becomes rather stupid, independent characters suddenly become codependent, a cautious character becomes reckless and begins trusting characters they never would. These aren't character arc changes, they are plot driven necessities. I am not saying that characters shouldn't change. Every protagonist needs an arc. That arc is what makes the hero a hero.

I am not talking about Han Solo coming back to help Luke destroy the Death Star in Star Wars (spoiler). That is a character motivated decision. What I am talking about is Han not leaving. Had they been mounting the offensive and Han had said, "Leah, I don't need this money. Forget Jabba. My place is here, helping the rebels because you NEED ME." Both of these paths would lead to Han being there at the battle in the end. But him not leaving would not fit or make sense with his character at all.

You need Han flying off, you need to picture him talking to himself, beating himself up until he finally gets to that place where he realizes the right thing to do. That is a definite arc that allows him to be true to himself while still choosing to become the hero. His character drives the plot forward, plot necessities don't drive his character.

Otherwise it isn't a person doing what they would do, it is a puppet doing what you want them to do. You can allow the change, but you have to let the change come naturally. If it does come naturally, then it is a motivated character decision, if it doesn't, it is bad writing.

Don't try to be funny or force the humor.

Ok, so now I'm just fucking with you, right? Well...

You know all those lines you have in your head that you think are so funny? Well, they aren't. Sure, some of them are humorous and witty, but not as much as you think.

Real humor is natural and tied to something more than the words. A characters reaction, a situation, the interplay between two characters creates humor. Cramming "witty" and "hilarious" dialogue into scenes might work at first but it wears thin very, very fast. I dislike the film Juno for this very reason. The dialogue is interchangeable because it is nothing but quips and bullshit hipster slang masquerading as funny dialogue.

Movies like Harold and Maude, and Little Miss Sunshine create brilliant humor with relationships. If those character dynamics shifted at all the humor dies. El Matador and Fletch create their humor with character. Those people are funny without being forced. The way they react to situations creates the humor. Change your characters or shift the dialogue and the humor dies I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Also, you know all those really funny inside jokes you and your friends share? Well, they aren't funny to anyone else. So, while you might be getting a laugh from your buddy, your script evaluator is going to be wondering what the hell is going on.

Good comedy, on a scale as large as a feature film, is a delicate balance, like making a really good gin and tonic. Too much of any one thing and it just tastes strange or fails to get you drunk.

Would a human being actually say this?

Dialogue is tricky. Making multiple people talk in a realistic, believable, and unique way is not something you do by accident. It takes a good ear and a lot of practice. That being said, its inherent difficult is not permission to write bad dialogue. The fact that it is difficult simply means that you, the writer, will have to work twice as hard at it.

Many of these scripts have dialogue that feels as if the writer has never spoken it or even imagined it being spoken. That or it is clumsy and overwritten to the point of painful contrivance. My old theatre teacher called it "table written." That meaning written seated at a desk without ever hearing it out loud.

Take a second and at least mutter the dialogue to yourself out loud, then ask that question, "Would a human being actually say this?" If you have to qualify it then you need to rewrite it.

Do I mean that all characters should sound the same, they should all say the right thing at the right time and have everything come out perfect? No, I am not saying that. After you decide if a human being would say this, you have to figure out if that particular human being would say it. You're creating a character that should feel like an actual real person. So, take what you want them to say and make it sound like they said it.

This is difficult, but it means the difference between a real character and a puppet reciting words.

Show me, don't tell me.

Movies are a visual art. I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating. MOVIES ARE VISUAL! Yes there is dialogue, but it is a visual medium.

Long, unbroken dialogue scenes are normally fairly dull. Just because it works for Kevin Smith does not mean it will work for you. Remember, long talky scenes are very hard to write if you don't want them to be booring.

If you had to choose between a movie where someone talks about a bunch of cool shit that happened and one where you see the cool shit that happened, which would you choose?

If you have ever read "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe," the climactic scene where Edmund breaks the White Witch's wand is presented rather anticlimactically. You get it in dialogue, after the fact. "Oh, shit! You should have been here! Edmund snuck up on her and before she knew it, he smashed the shit out of her wand (I'm paraphrasing here.)." Had the movie handled it that way, would you have been interested? Seeing is better.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of telling things, do not use voice over unless there is an actual purpose to it. I do not need five pages of expository voice over that is essentially describing what is happening on screen to understand what is going on. If you cannot communicate a person walking down the road hitchhiking without a voice over telling me, "I walked down the road with my thumb out, trying to get a ride," then perhaps screenwriting isn't for you.

God resides in the details, so be sure you chose the right ones to give.

There is a difference between "important" and "unimportant" details. Example, if we enter a diner do not tell me that "a song is playing," and then give details like the color the vinyl seats and Formica table are, the fact that I know what material they are made of seems extraneous. Tell me what song, or type of music, is playing. Is it on a jukebox, or will there be a DJ breaking in at some point. Think of it this way, how important are things like table color and material to you when you enter a restauraunt. When was the last time you went to eat and thought, "my, what a charming Formica table!" However, if you enter that restaurant and death metal is playing, you might take notice. Unless the appearance of the room plays some thematic function (this diner represents the fifth circle of Hell) it isn't important.

I also don't need to know what color the waitress' uniform is. What I do need to know is what the waitress looks like. Is she young, is she old? Does she look tired, like she is just finishing her shift, or is she more awake, like she's just starting. Is she smiley and friendly, or distracted and going through the motions. Her appearance and demeanor are "important," her uniform color is not. You don't care what your waitress is wearing when you go out to eat, do you? No, you do not. However, you might notice if she is old and tired, or young and hot. Think of it this way, if it matters in every day life then it matters on screen.

If you are writing a TV spec script, make sure you know the show.

A lot of people who are trying to get jobs writing for TV start by writing spec scripts for existing TV shows. This is a tricky proposition. If you do a really good job it could help you get a foot in the door, if you don't do a really good job you get to look like a damned idiot.

The key here is to realize that the people judging your script, at least at the first round, will be very familiar with the show you are writing. If you area not equally familiar it will show and you script is dead in the water.

Normally characters are what screw these scripts up because they are the easiest thing to screw up. A show like The Office has been on the air for years and fans of the show have spent hours watching those characters, so screwing up Michael or Dwight stands out. The number of 30 Rock scripts that think Jack acts like Tracy, or that Tracy acts like Jenna, or Liz acts like a character who is not, and has never been on the show are staggering. Sometimes it's not doing something totally out of character, but just having them go too far with something the character does and making a caricature out of them. Yes, Michael Scott is an idiot and having him quote a movie at an inappropriate time works and is funny. Having every line he says be a quote from the same movie doesn't work, it isn't funny, and it shows a lack of understanding of the character. One significant character mistake can turn a sure thing into a no in the span of one page.

There are other things. People repeat plotlines, introduce major character changes and details that have been contradicted by earlier episodes, and alter existing storyline. This doesn't necessarily disqualify the script, but it does show a lack of understanding of what you are writing that makes the writing seem lacking.

Don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic TV spec scripts out there, but they are by people who know those shows cold. Just remember, if you think there is no way the reader knows the one fact that kills your entire story, there is a way, and it is more likely than you think.

Make it shorter.

I am going to butcher my favorite quote about writing as sadly I neither know it verbatim nor know who said it. "You are not finished writing when you can no longer add anything to your piece; you are finished writing when you can no longer take anything out." Or, to put it more succinctly, as Elmore Leonard said, "I try to leave out the parts that people skip." Both of these are sound and logical pieces of advice that are consistently ignored.

As scripts average about a minute per page you want to aim for 90-100 pages. If you need more than 100 pages you had damned well better be David Lean. It's not that scripts have to be short. It's that most don't have to be that long.

I have read so many scripts that would be fantastic if they were shorter. Last year I read a 162 page script that I would have all but guaranteed winning the contest, or at the very least making the finals... if it had been 100 pages.

Let me be clear, it was not the fact that it was 162 pages; it's the fact that it was a 100 page story told in 162 pages. This tight, gripping narrative suddenly began to wander, then it wandered some more, then it wandered some more. In the end, I had to write the one rejection critique that pissed me off to write. I wanted to give it a yes to the second round, but I could not.

Normally, I advise people to write a draft of the script that is half as long as their first draft. This is not meant to be a final draft at all, it is meant to force you to focus on what is necessary for your story. This gives you the freedom to explore themes and scenes and ideas inside that essential framework and strengthen your story.

The worst, and at times best, thing we do as writers is to fall in love with our own words and characters, and there is nothing harder than having to eliminate something you really love from a script, no matter how unnecessary it is.

Is this scene necessary?

Does every scene in a movie have to be absolutely vital to the plot? No. Does every scene in a movie need to be vital to the development of a character? No. Does every scene in a movie have to move the plot or advance the characters in some way? No. Does every scene need to do at least one of these things? Absolutely.

Many writers will throw scenes in for no discernable reason. It's as if they think a single joke, a cool conversation, or an awesome chase scene is enough reason to have the characters do something. For the most part those are what you would call "bad" reasons for putting a scene in your script.

As David Mamet, who is a better writer than you are, said in his letter to the writing staff of "The Unit,"

Someone has to make the scene dramatic. It is not the actors job (the actors job is to be truthful). It is not the director's job. His or her job is to film it straightforwardly and remind the actors to talk fast. It is *YOUR* job.

Every scene must be dramatic. That means: the main character must have a simple, straightforward, pressing need which impels him or her to show up in the scene.

This need is why they *CAME*. It is what the scene is about. Their attempt to get this need met *WILL* lead, at the end of the scene, to *FAILURE* – This is how the scene is *OVER*. It, this failure, will, then, of necessity, propel us into the *NEXT* scene.

All these attempts, taken together, will, over the course of the episode, constitute the *PLOT*.

Any scene, thus, which does not both advance the plot, and standalone (That is, dramatically, by itself, on its own merits) is either superfluous, or incorrectly written.

So, there you have it. If the scene seems unnecessary, then it is. If it isn't moving the story or developing a character it is boring the audience and needs to be gone.

Have an actual reason for every character.

Sound familiar, it should.

What do I mean by "actual reason?" Well... You know all those hilarious lines that you just need a place for? Some people think, "Hey, I'll just throw in a 'wacky' best friend and let him/her say all of these awesome things!" There are people who think this is a good idea, and those people are idiots.

I am not saying there is no place for a comic relief character, or a "wacky" best friend or neighbor saying brilliantly funny things. Those characters are often some of the best and most memorable ones. What I am saying is they have to serve a purpose beyond being funny. They need to have a reason to be there. If the character isn't assisting, challenging, sabotaging, guiding, blocking, hunting, or running from something or someone then they shouldn't be there. Unnecessary characters feel unnecessary, and in turn make their scenes feel unnecessary, which can be problematic if the scene actually is necessary.

Characters that exist to give information, or just say funny things are annoying. They have to serve a purpose. Randall in "Clerks," is the "wacky" friend who says all the funny, shocking, and interesting things, but he is also, in an odd way, the moral center of the film. He knows who, and what, he is and accepts it and shows how fully Dante doesn't know these things. In a very profound way Randall is the main force pushing Dante towards growing up. Not "growing up" and going to college and getting married, but growing up by accepting who he is and deciding if he wants to do anything about it.

A better example of the nonsense character that has a major purpose is "Johnny" in "Airplane!" "Who's Johnny?" you say (I am not going to make a fucking De Barge reference here)? " And Leon is getting laaaaarrrrrger." " Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol." Remember him?

That character seems unnecessary, and in some ways he is, but he does serve a purpose. "Airplane!" draws its humor from the absurdity of the situation, and how deathly serious every character is. Johnny exists as a hurricane of chaos in a calm ocean of earnestness (that's right, extended metaphor!) who highlights just how serious everyone is else, and how ridiculous that seriousness is. He is the only character who realizes that the move is a comedy. Everyone else is in a heavy drama, and everything they do has dire consequences. Throw in a character who is the embodiment of chaos, who is in on the joke, and whose behavior is not just tolerated, but somehow accepted, because the only person who realizes Johnny is funny is Johnny, and suddenly that character becomes more than a wacky diversion and this life or death situation is made totally absurd. As ridiculous as he is his character serves a purpose. He is comic relief IN A COMEDY! He is the movie. He embodies the chaos the film is trying to create and removing him weakens the film.

Put simply, every character does not have to be vital, but they have to be necessary.

Outline.

How long does it take to realize that a script was written without the writer outlining it first? On average, it takes about 40-50 pages. How can you tell this? It's quite simple.

The first 40 or so pages of a script are the exposition and rising action. This is the easiest part to write because all you need is a situation. A guy does X it causes problems with Y. Spend some time setting up the guy, give me some lead up to X, and show how Y is effected and you are good.

Now it becomes a problem. What happens next? There is a difference between a situation and a story. A story needs some things. It needs a theme, it needs character arc, it needs a climax, it needs some form of resolution, and it has to happen in a clearly thought out and balanced way. I use "The Karate Kid," as an example of what not to do. That is a long, long, movie. It is over two hours long and of those two hours, less than 40 seconds are spent on falling action and dénouement. He wins the tournament and that is it. Does this fit the theme of the film? No, it does not. The central idea of the film is that winning the tournament is not as important as finding balance in life. However, once he wins, it's over.

People tend to do this a lot. They front load their script with a lot of information early on and then rush at the end.

If only there was some way to, I don't know, organize your ideas before hand and then flesh those ideas out during the writing process. Oh, wait...

James Ellroy the novelist regularly writes 80+ page outlines for his books. He says he doesn't believe in improvisation in writing. These outlines allow him to manage multiple first person story lines and a massive amount of characters (the book "LA Confidential has over 100 named characters in it) and still balance the narrative.

Outlining allows you to see how your pacing, characters, action, arcs, and themes fit together, so you know if you are rushing something important, or spending too much time on something that is ultimately pointless.

So....

Now, after all of this, are my suggestions a fool proof way to write a winning screenplay? No. Not in the slightest. Sadly, there is no formula. Oh, there are formulas and guides and strategies that work more often than most people want to admit, but in the end there is nothing that guarantees a good script.

No matter what anyone says, it comes down to one rule and one rule only.

Have a good story that you really want to tell

and tell it well.

That's easy, right? You can totally do that in an afternoon.

Sadly, this is where shit gets complicated. There are so many stories out there and so many ways to tell them that ultimately it is up to you to have the love, the dedication, and to do the work. Because people forget that writing is work. It is hard, solitary, often thankless work. If you don't love doing it, I mean absolutely LOVE doing it, you aren't going to get very far. Every script I approved shared this trait. I could see the love and excitement of the writer on every page. Right now it is almost 3 am and I should be finishing up and going to bed, but I love what I am writing enough to sit here and do it as best I can, and even then I realize I am going to rewrite this a few times before you lay eyes on it. That is the beauty of writing. I love it enough that if nobody else ever reads this, I am ok with that and that is what you have to do to be able to write well.

Find the story that makes you want to stay up all night writing, then write it. Then rewrite that. Then cut it in half and write it again. Then rewrite that. Michael Arndt had over 100 drafts of "Little Miss Sunshine" on his computer. That does not mean 100 page one rewrites, but he did go back and change, tweak, add, remove, and tighten it 100 times. If you are like me and the idea of doing this excites you, then you have your story. If the idea of doing that scares or turns you off, maybe you need to rethink what you are writing.

What it really boils down to is if you love what you are doing and are excited about your story that love and excitement will come across. So find your love, and then get to writing. Maybe I'll be judging your work soon.

The Austin Film Festival is a little bit different than most. Its focus is more on writing than on business.

This is my second year attending The Austin Film Festival. I’ve normally avoided festivals because they are either very expensive, if you go the badge route which will allow you to see and do everything, or kind of a crap shoot if you don’t. Basically, I’m not a fan of lines or waiting in line so when I do I want to make absolutely certain that I will be able to see or do the thing I am waiting in line to see or do.

I’ve never been big on festivals. Music festivals hold little appeal to me because I’m not really outdoorsy, so the idea of standing in an open field for three days, surrounded by a teeming horde of people for the chance to see a few bands do abbreviated sets has never really been big on my list.

I love living in Austin. We’re kind of like the cool new kid in school. People don’t know much, but what they do know is kind of sexy. Everyone who lives here knows how amazing it is and

Living in Austin, Texas has become a

Everyone who lives here knows, and has known for a long time, that we live in one of the coolest cities in the world. Over the past 15 years word started getting out and people, looking for the coolness that is Austin began to move here and slowly that cool began to change. It’s not gone, but it has definitely become something else, and many of us are not too happy about it.

But this is nothing new. Austin’s motto might as well be, “Yeah, it’s great, but you should have been here before…” and you can fill in the rest. For new people I can say things like, “Yeah, it’s great, but you should have been here before all the tech companies moved in. It was so much cheaper and more laid back,” while my sister can say to me, “Yeah, it’s great, but you should have been here before Liberty Lunch closed down. So many great bands played there.” And the old timers have the refrain, “Yeah, it’s great, but you should have been here before they closed The Armadillo. You know that Frank Zappa recorded a live album there.” To live in Austin is to live in a place that was always just a little bit cooler last year.

However, over the past several years Austin has seen a renaissance of sorts. Austin has always been a music town, even going so far as to dub ourselves, “The Live Music Capital of the World.” But for over a decade now live music has faced some stiff competition from the world of film.

In the early 90’s names like Richard Linklater, Robert Rodriguez, Matthew McConaughey, Renée Zellweger, Wes Anderson, and Owen Wilson started to emerge and out of nowhere Austin was a force in the film world. South By Southwest, Austin’s renowned music festival, suddenly added a film component. Quentin Tarantino started his own film festival at The Alamo Drafthosue Cinema. Harry Knowles “Ain’t it Cool News” started gaining momentum. And in the middle of it all, The Austin Film Festival was born.

AFF was different. This wasn’t a festival about selling your movie and making millions of dollars, but rather a place for aspiring and established writers to come together and make connections. It was an avenue for young writers to get support, advice, and inspiration. You could meet and discuss writing and filmmaking with the likes of Shane Black, Bryan Singer, Lawrence Kasdan, Robert Altman, and many, many more. It was as much a celebration of writing and film as it was a film festival.

I became involved with the festival two years ago as a first round reader for the screenplay competition. By reading around 100 scripts I was able to earn a badge that would almost guarantee me admittance to everything the festival had to offer. I was hooked off the bat.

What makes this fest so incredible isn’t the festival part of it. It’s the conference. The first four days is a series of panels, presentations, and roundtables with professional writers and filmmakers who offer you a unique look inside the world of professional creativity.