Thank you, Blake for pointing out the fact that I may not always
give enough gravitas to this wonderful art, that of screenwriting. It
definitely deserves a right to be seen as a serious and meaningful mode of
expression and creativity. We're all too glib these days. Then
days, if you're too solemn, people are likely to tell you to snap out of your
depression, to lighten up, to go with the flow (wherever that takes you) and not
be so serious. Then you hear: "It takes more energy to frown
than to smile." (Personally, I think it takes more energy to say,
"It takes more energy to frown than to smile" than to not say anything
at all.) And let's not forget the inimitable, "Come on, let's see
that smile." And the Polly Anna-ish...
(I think there should be an expression, "cheer
down." That would confuse those "happy people" for a
while. Not that I have anything against being happy.
"Happy" is good. "Good" is "happy." I
could go on but I might become so happy that I'll fall out a window from sheer
giddiness. Although, I have been known to throw darts at T-shirts
emblazoned with happy faces. Even with people in them.)
Maybe I could be less whimsical in my approach to celebrating
screenwriting. It's possible that I could choose to stop looking at this
fascinating and often odd world of writing for film through a humorous eye (or two
humorous eyes. Or three if you count my third eye, which is quite
spiritual, but not very becoming. Just ask Cyclops about that.) I
could become ponderous, dull, laborious, tedious... Wait, I already am. So
I might as well enjoy the Lighter Side of Ponderous, Dull, Laborious, Tedious
Now, how would I write if I decided to only be
serious about screenwriting? Let's try this:
... And therefore
and heretofore and thereby... said play of screening, after defining the
protagonist's world, affords an incident of incitement, wherein he or she must
be taken to task by a destiny that demands payment for an imbalance in the
psyche, character, persona, and life, a payment that comes in many forms, often
an antagonist that is a negative reflection of the protagonist, an antagonist
that must be faced and conquered within the stipulated rules and confines of the
established world, which blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
Exciting, huh? Reminds me of how Thomas
Jefferson or Ben Franklin might have written if he were a script consultant or consultant
of scripts, hear ye, hear ye... So, which one do you
really want, Blake? (Were you named after William Blake the humorist
who always talked about the end of the world and other uplifting
subjects?) Whimsical or "Thomas Jeffersonian"? (or Ben
I'm an adherent of the concept that much can be
expressed through the medium of wit. What did Shakespeare say so very long
ago, but which still holds true?
my mother's wit."
And my mother wasn't even that witty.
But my dad was.
(and an affectionate and grateful nod to my
father... who would say, "That's fine, son. You just keep writing to
yourself, never knowing if anybody ever reads what you write on your
website. And I paid all that money to put you through college for four
years to do this?)