HOW TO ADAPT A BOOK

In her lovely comments about my Deathly Hallows "fan fiction" screenplay," Beth asked a couple of interesting questions about writing process.

She wanted to know more about how I work my way backwards through a book to find the script, and asked if there are any articles or books about that process. As to the second part of that question: Not much. There are a few books out there, I believe, but the only one I'm personally familiar with is Linda Seger's The Art of Adaptation, which I read when it came out about 15 years ago. And John August has written a few articles about adaptation, mostly in response to reader questions, on his website.

But for the most part, I've developed my own process. It works for me, but might be too anal for someone else. Here's what I do:

I re-read the book with a note pad on my lap, and as I read, I create a detailed beat sheet for the book. What this means is that I write down every single thing that happens in the book. This takes a long time. It forces me to read every single line of the book (I'm a big skimmer by nature), and making my beat sheet by hand slows me down to book speed instead of computer speed. To keep track of where I am, I use the margin to track chapters by number, and to list locations where things are happening.

Every now and then I'll get an idea while reading for how to express something visually, or how to combine a couple of scenes. When this happens, I grab a pencil (I write the beat sheet in pen), and jot myself a note in the margin. If the note still makes sense when I get back to it, I know it was a worthwhile idea.

When the beat sheet's done, the size of it lets me know where I stand. My beat sheet for Deathly Hallows was 27 pages. Given that I use tight-lined paper, that's about 1300 to 1400 beats. That's a lot. Way too many for a movie.

It doesn't always work out that way. We once adapted a novel aimed at the Christian market whose beat sheet was all of 2 pages. Not much happened in that story. It was a problem.

Next, if my beat sheet is beyond movie length, I start to think about the storylines. The easiest way to cut down a book to movie size is to find entire storylines to cut out. In DH, as I've said, I pretty much cut out the Dumbledore storyline. When we were adapting Tom Clancy's The Cardinal of the Kremlin, we cut out the entire Afghanistan storyline (almost half the book).

How do you know which storylines to cut? If you have a storyline that doesn't involve your progagonist/hero/star, that's a good place to start. (True for both the Dumbledore and Afghanistan examples above.) Another way is to take a look at the verbs on the beat sheet: If a lot of verbs involving internal thought processes ("think," "consider," "remember," etc.) are showing up predominantly in one storyline, that's a good hint that it may not be movie material.

Next, I think about the theme. What do I think the theme of the book is? What should the theme of the movie be? For DH, I thought a lot about the themes that pervade the entire Harry Potter series, themes of death and choice, themes that of course come to a head in the final book. I decided my movie themes would focus on choices that are made in the face of death or danger.

Now it's time to go to the end of the beat sheet and start working backwards. I look at the climax of the movie: Here, the death of Voldemort. And I work backwards, pencil in hand, marking off every single beat that's needed to get us to that moment. This sounds like a massive task, but really, by the time I get to it, I've done so much thinking that there are surprisingly few beats where I have a tough time deciding whether it's in or out.

Sometimes there are beats that don't really fit within the must-have-to-reach-the-conclusion metric, but I include them anyway. These beats fall into three categories:

(1) Beats that express the theme. For instance, the whole "Tonks is pregnant" storyline isn't needed to get to the conclusion in DH. But in it, we see Remus making bad (and yet interesting) choices: He looks as if he's choosing to face death with the trio, yet really he's running away from his own fears, even as Harry prepares to look his own fears in the face and keeping walking toward them. That's thematically interesting, and it's in my screenplay.

(2) Beats that have an emotional impact. And here we can make another case for keeping in the Remus/Tonks storyline: When we see them dead at the end of the movie, it's going to pack a greater emotional wallop to know that they leave behind an orphaned baby... just as Harry was orphaned in the fight against Voldemort. Also in this category would be anything that made me cry in the book. It doesn't matter whether Harry burying Dobby advances the plot. I sobbed when I first read it, I cried when I read it aloud to my family, and I teared up even when creating my beat sheet. It's in the movie.

(3) Beats that have a visceral or visual impact... or that are just plain funny or cool. Movies are a visual medium, and that means lots of minor beats from, say, the escape from 4 Privet Drive are going to be included (while later conversation about what happened during the escape is going to be cut out). And it means things like the Half-Blood Prince visit to Weasley's Wizard Wheezes would be given ample screen time just for the enjoyment. It also dictates little moments of conversation that stay in -- Ron's sarcastic lines, moments between the twins.

Now, any of these non-plot-driving beats can be cut later if it turns out the screenplay is still running long. And this method works best when you have a long book that needs cutting. If you have underlying material that isn't going to fill two hours, you're going to have to use an entirely different process to get where you need to go.

...Beth also asked, "When you adapt from a book, do you find yourself looking for dialogue that already works particularly well as is and then streamlining it only as necessary?"

Yes. If dialogue works well in the book, I feel no need to "put my own stamp" on the movie by rewriting it just for the sake of rewriting it. And I know how much pleasure I felt when watching, say, Star Trek last summer to hear lines like "I'm a doctor, Jim!" and "Fascinating," and to find myself in the middle of the Kobayashi Maru scenario. When working with much-loved source material, I feel an obligation to give that same pleasure to my audience.

Thanks again to Beth for letting me spin off her comments. More to come....

DEATHLY HALLOWS "FANFIC" COMMENTS

I'm gratified at the number of people who have asked to read my little "fan fiction" screenplay for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (many of them from The Hogshead), and even happier that folks seems to be enjoying it.

Here are some extended thoughts from reader Beth that she is allowing me to share.

I told my husband that I don't understand why it isn't a pre-requisite that any screenwriter adapting a book both know it and love it well. :-) I would love to see your version of this movie (and your version of all the HP books, for that matter!). I love that you really "get" what's most important about Harry...I think I would appreciated the most was not just the clean, crisp story-telling (and wow, that thing is packed with action, isn't it, even just for half a book!) but the many visual images that you made sure got in there. The golden essence of Harry when his friends polyjuice themselves to look like him. The moment with Mad-Eye Moody's eye (Harry taking it off the door, then later burying it...) The wreath of roses that Hermione conjures in the graveyard, and the lights of the stained glass windows spilling across the gravestones. So many other moments that I felt were key to the story, and you seemed to hit them all.

I was curious how I'd feel about the cutting of so much of Dumbledore's back story, but I think you're right. Within the confines/ possibilities of a movie you don't really seem to need it (and it would clutter what already feels like a pretty crowded canvas). Within the world of the novel, I think it's necessary and brilliant...part of what makes DH brilliant is Harry's internalized struggle and his faith journey. You did a judicious job of cutting to the bone here. I also think you broke the film at just the right place. Do you plan to do part 2? Sign me up as an eager reader if you do!

I find myself really interested in the writing process you briefly detailed on your blog, particularly identifying the story "beats" and then working backwards....is there an article, book chapter, or other resource you could point me to that would help me understand better how that's done? I find myself wanting to try my hand especially at the identifying beats of the story as it sounds like a very helpful exercise for any writer. There's one book in particular (a YA novel I read and loved a few years ago) that I've seen "play out" in my mind so many times. I've always thought it would make a really fun movie. I'd like to try to my hand at writing at least a scene or two, but screenwriting is just not a part of my writing training at all!

Another thing I'm curious to hear your take on is how you feel adapting an existing book differs (in the creative process) from writing a script "from scratch." One thing I loved about your script is how true it felt to Rowling's language...the way the characters in the book "really talk." There were some key lines that were taken from the book or re-written very closely. When you adapt from a book, do you find yourself looking for dialogue that already works particularly well as is and then streamlining it only as necessary? I suspect there is a whole spectrum of opinion regarding how faithful/creative one should be with existing dialogue from source materials. I tend to think the more faithful one can be the better, if the source material is already strong, though I also appreciate the changes/tweaks that are unique to your script but still feel true to the characters. Again, it seems to really *matter* that a writer understands the characters...so
often when I see a movie adaptation of a book, I'm left feeling like the writer didn't "get" certain characters at all.

Beth raises some interesting questions, and I respond to them soon. In the meantime, if you want to read the screenplay, just contact me privately and I'll get it to you. Thanks!

THE GOLDEN GLOBES 2010: A FEW THOUGHTS

Of course, the Golden Globes don't "matter." They are awards voted on by 87 or so foreign journalists who mostly, as I understand it, write for publications you've never heard of. And certainly when contrasted with the other in-the-news big story, the devastation in Haiti, not only do they not matter, but it's rather embarrassing to take time on them at all.

And yet they do matter. How often on TV do you see a room filled with people you recognize, people you gladly spend money (or set your TiVo) to see? They matter to those of us in the biz because they turn our focus to the Oscars (which do matter, as much as, say, the Olympics matter). And though the opinions of these never-named foreign journalists shouldn't, in a perfect world, affect the Oscars, they end up doing so. They matter enough to command 3 hours (or, yesterday on the west coast, 6 hours) of live (or "live") TV time.

I think the Golden Globes is important in the same way that the prophecy regarding Harry Potter is important: It matters only because Voldemort thinks it does. In the same way, we invest the Golden Globes with an importance that they really shouldn't have.

Nevertheless, I watched. And I have a few thoughts. (You'll note that few of my thoughts have to do with the actual winners. That's because the Golden Globes aren't really about the actual winners.)

•AVATAR as best picture. (Technically, "best drama" -- Sabrina looked at me, puzzled, when this was announced, and asked, "Avatar is a drama?").... No, not the best writing. No, not the best acting. (Though the kind of acting we see onscreen is arguably some of the most technically difficult acting we saw onscreen all year.)

But AVATAR showed us a world we'd never seen, gave us an experience we'd never had, and advanced filmmaking technically in some phenomenal ways. So I cannot disagree with its best picture (excuse me, "Drama") win.

Does its Golden Globe mean it wins Best Picture at the Oscars? I doubt it. The largest voting branch in the Academy is the actors' branch, and actors have traditionally shown themselves adverse to voting for movies where actors don't appear in their own form onscreen. (Think of Andy Serkis as Gollum.)

•I thought Ricky Gervais was weak. Not snarky enough, not outrageous enough, and not particularly funny when he was trying to be outrageous (recycled penis jokes? really?). He wasn't bad, but he wasn't what he promised to be. No, he won't be invited back, but it won't be because he was such a naughty boy.

•However, any remarks Ricky made that might have been in bad taste were completely overshadowed by Robert DeNiro's "Scorsese-has-sex-with-film-canisters" comments. If that was a private joke, it should have stayed private. And if it wasn't.... just tasteless and unfunny in every way.

•Best acceptance speech? Robert Downey, Jr., in a landslide. Honorable mentions to Meryl Streep, Jeff Bridges, and Christoph Waltz.

•Win that made me the happiest? GLEE for best TV comedy/musical. I just wish Matthew Morrison had won as well.

•Best dress? Zoe Saldana, closely followed by Helen Mirren and Felicity Huffman. Wow, hasn't Zoe Saldana had an amazing year?!

•Worst dress? Chloe Sevigny would have won it hands down (how could anyone look at that in a mirror and think it worked? Maybe she was stoned at the time?). But she had the honor snatched away from her by the producer of GREY GARDENS, who, I'm sorry to say, looked atrocious in every way. She should immediately unfriend anyone who told her she looked good. Those people aren't your friends, my dear. Trust me. They're your enemies.

•Best dressed guy? Kevin Bacon, looking quite hott, thank you very much, in a skinny tux. Runner-up: Robert Downey, Jr. And though I'm not in general a fan of the bulked-up look, Taylor Lautner certainly proved he can wear a suit.

•Worst dressed guy? It would be too easy to give it to Mickey

Rourke, who perhaps we can say was just being iconoclastic. No, Michael C. Hall wins this one for that ridiculous and stupid-looking beanie.

•Greatest discomfort displayed by a presenter onstage? A close call between Jennifer Aniston's inability to hide her pissed-off-ness when introduced as "Rachel from FRIENDS" and everyone who had to make a remark about Haiti, thus pointing out how over-the-top ridiculous the evening's festivities were in the grander scheme of things. (But props to Mel Gibson for being able to roll with the punches at *his* introduction, which was certainly Ricky Gervais's funniest and most outrageous line of the night -- and a much more serious putdown than the one Aniston so overreacted to.)

And finally....

•Best performance in a supporting role by a dermatologist: Nicole Kidman. Joan Allen. Tom Hanks. Sophia Loren. Sandra Bullock. Cameron Diaz. Neil Patrick Harris. Seriously, was there anyone in that room (other than Meryl Streep and George Clooney) who could lift their eyebrows? L.A. must be suffering a severe Botox shortage this morning.

•And... Worst performance in a supporting role by a plastic surgeon: Cher. I expected a snake to come out of her neck at any moment. She looks like Morticia. I couldn't watch.

Okay. The Golden Globes are behind us. 48 days to the Oscars.

HAITI, PAT ROBERTSON, AND COMPASSION

I have spent a lot of time living inside natural disasters, watching as thousands of people die before my eyes... Not in person, where my closest touch with natural disaster was the Northridge earthquake of 1994 (and I was actually in Las Vegas when it hit). But in my mind's eye.

I joke from time to time that it's always a good day as a writer when you get to kill 18,000 people in one shot, as of course we did the day we wrote the final explosion of Vesuvius in our script POMPEII. But sometimes those days aren't so great. Writing some of the deaths of the characters I had loved (characters I had, for a short time, been) in GALVESTON, our story of the Galveston hurricane of 1900, was excruciating. I can still see the rabbi trying to hold on to his wife's hand as the giant wave hits and she's pulled away from him into the flood...

But that's all in my mind. Yes, it really happened, but so long ago that only fiction can remind us how devastating nature can be. Until it happens again.

As it turns out, I can imagine 10,000 people dying (Galveston, the greatest natural or manmade disaster in U.S. history). I can imagine 18,000 people dying (Pompeii). But I can't quite grasp a possible 100,000 dead. The panic. The denial. The screams. The pleading. The smell.

By now you all know how to donate to help the people of Haiti. Stuff Christians Like is, today, asking people to post all those ways to donate here.

Just watching the footage is painful when you realize what it actually means in terms of loss and grief and pain. But the pain is magnified when people make stupid comments about it.

I'm talking, of course, about the always reliable Pat Robertson's much-repeated statement that Haiti, in effect, had it coming because of their "pact with the devil" which has caused the country to be "cursed," and that the earthquake may have been a "blessing in disguise."

Wow. The heartlessness of such comments is unbelievable. And of course, thousands of people will hear them and think that this is just the way Christians are. The news will pounce on those comments, because controversy drives ratings, and they will not, for the most part, follow up with stories on the millions of dollars and hours that Christians are likely to donate to help Haiti recover.

I don't want to get into a discussion of the douchery of Pat Robertson, because I just don't want to be that angry today. So instead, here are a couple of thoughts. First, here's the Time Magazine statement on the historicity of the "pact with the devil."

And here's a lovely, well-reasoned and compassionate response to Robertson from Don Miller. Highly recommended.

Here's hoping compassion and reason wins out over embarrassing, ratings-grabbing behavior.

AN ODD BIT OF FAN FICTION

Since I set down Prisoner of Azkaban back in 1999, I've wanted to write a Harry Potter movie. But, the world being what it is, I pretty much knew that would never happen.

So I wrote one anyway.

Think of it as a rather unusual piece of fan fiction, I guess. I started making notes and outlining many months ago, then set it aside. What a silly idea.

But in December I had a few months free, and I'd already done the outline (the hardest part), and I was making my list of things-I'd-like-to-do-before-I-die, and if I was honest, writing a Harry Potter movie would be on that list... So I started writing a script for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

I finished Movie #1 over New Year's. (Hey, if the real Deathly Hallows adaptation can come in two movies, so can my fan fiction one.) I let it run long, since the HP movies always run over two hours... about 2 hours and 15 minutes, in my case.

It was a great exercise, and lots of fun. I had to decide what to keep in and what to cut. Here's how I did it: I made a massive beat sheet of the entire book (that's part of what I did months ago), listing every single thing that happens in the book. 29 pages, single spaced.

Then I started at the end and did what I often tell my students to do: I created what I call a "Because chain." I started highlighting only the beats that cause something else to happen. (Harry blows up Hedwig's cage becauseHedwig is dead. Hedwig is dead because she was hit by a Death Eater's spell. The Death Eater shot a spell because..... you get the idea.)

(And in doing this, by the way, I made no attempt to reconcile my "movie" with any of the previous movies. I assumed that all the needed exposition and events -- including the discussion of what the missing Horcruxes were, the discussion that didn't happen in the Half-Blood Prince movie -- had in fact happened. It's silly enough to write two fan fiction scripts -- I really didn't want to back myself into the corner of writing eight.)

From there, I started to build a screenplay structure: 3 acts. 12 sequences. I started to jot down notes about what exposition was necessary from scenes I was planning to cut from the book. I started visualizing, figuring out how to get from one scene to the next. And then I started writing.

What did I cut out? Pretty much everything that wasn't going to get Harry to his goal of destroying the Horcruxes and Voldemort.

I was surprised to realize that you could almost tell Deathly Hallows without the story of the Hallows themselves. Think about it: The Invisibility Cloak we've always had, and it didn't need to be a Hallow to work. Nothing really comes from the Resurrection Stone. The only Hallow whose story matters is the Elder Wand.

And even the Elder Wand doesn't matter all that much. It only matters because Voldemort believes this particular wand will lead him to defeat Harry. The history of the wand itself, the way in which it seduced the young Dumbledore? Really, none of that matters in getting the Horcruxes destroyed.

Which leads me to the biggest cut I made (one which will not be pleasing to many HP fans): I cut pretty much the entire Dumbledore backstory. That's right: No Grindlewald. No Ariana. None of it. Why? Because none of it makes any difference in the choices Harry makes in his pursuit of the Horcruxes. He can easily feel betrayed by Dumbledore without learning of the headmaster's mysterious past -- This is the guy who asks him to risk his life over and over and never gives him enough information, after all, right?

In addition, Harry's internal dilemma about Dumbledore -- what's the real truth, did he love me, why did he lie, etc. -- is just that: Internal. And "internal" is exactly what doesn't work in the movies. We simply don't have access to Harry's memories, his musings, his thought life, unless he chooses to express them openly. Ultimately, putting the Dumbledore's past storyline into a movie would involve lots and lots and lots of talking (including reading newspaper articles out loud -- oh, that's exciting!), and not much would change as a result.

I have no idea what the real movies will do. Given past movies, my guess is that they will attempt to pay some sort of lip service to the Dumbledore storyline, at the expense of cutting other moments from the movie. I chose to spend a little more time on other elements of the story. (And I had to make other cuts as well, to bring it in under 2 1/2 hours... Scrimgeour is gone, for instance...)

I can't imagine that many people out there would be interested in seeing such an odd bit of fan fiction (and, really, such an inaccessible one, since screenplays aren't really meant for reading in the normal sense). But if you are, let me know and I'll send you a copy. (This is a work of fan fiction, and all fan fiction disclaimers apply: Warner Bros. and Scholastic hold the copyright, no copying or distribution, etc. Full disclaimers on the title page.)

Anyway, for what it's worth, that's what I did on my Christmas vacation.

20,000? REALLY?

I'm sort of astonished to realize that the little church history video I made for Mark Brewer has now garnered over 20,000 hits on YouTube. Given that I have friends who are thrilled when the videos the post hit 1000 views, I guess I'm really astonished.

Want to give it a few more hits? Here's the link again...

NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS 2010

I wrapped up the old year a few days ago... So now let's take a look at 2010.

I do believe in New Year's Resolutions, as I've said. This blog, as you probably already know, was the result of a New Year's Resolution that's lasted through six New Years so far.

But I don't believe in the normal resolutions, the ones everyone hates. The standard diet-quit smoking-start exercising resolutions are not only boring, they're doomed to fail. Bad habits can't be fought with a once-a-year resolution, and good habits can't be started that way. They need once-a-day resolutions -- at least.

I think the power of good New Year's Resolutions comes in resolving to do something you want to do. Over the years, I've done more reading, more cooking, more forgiving and letting go, all because of New Year's Resolutions....

So what does 2010 look like?

My big one is more a matter of focus than anything else. I have spent so much of my life devoted to various organizations. I've had years where I put in 40-hour weeks in volunteer work for months at a time. I did a lot of good things, helped a lot of people. I'm not going to say that what I did was wrong...

But I think I'm through with that part of my life. I'm tired of spending time trying to promote organizations. I want to just hang out with people. To focus on community rather than agendas.

How will this play out during the year? I'm not entirely sure yet. I've got my organizational/volunteer commitments winnowed way down -- one committee co-chairship, and one board of directors. And I don't intend to quit those at the moment. But I hope to spend more time having coffee, playing board games, hanging out with those I love, rather than racing off to meetings.

Resolution #2: Lee and I started talking last spring about starting what we are calling "Living Room Musicals." It came from going to Cory's spring musical and wondering afterward why kids get to have fun doing musicals, but adults don't. So here's the plan: Once a quarter (or so), we'll do read and sing through a musical in our living room. We'll invite people who love musicals, we'll cast the show, we'll send out the music and libretto ahead of time so people can rehearse... and we'll enjoy the show together!

Why does this need a resolution to make it happen? Mainly because we've been talking about it for over six months and haven't done anything with it yet. And given that my first free weekend may very well be in March, I think this needs the power of the resolution to kick-start it. (If you're in L.A. and you love musicals, pop me an email...)

Resolution #3: To do more writing. This one is perilously close to one of those swallow-your-medicine resolutions, although I am refraining from saying I want to write every day. I think it's just that so much of the writing I've done in the past year or two has been of the "solve-someone-else's-story-problem" variety, and I'd like to recapture the concept of writing something I feel like writing.

Obviously, there's a balance. I am a professional writer, and that means waiting for the "muse" is a luxury I can't dally with. When I have work to do, I have to go to work. But I'd like to do a little writing, a little creating, that isn't about earning a living. I had so much fun last year making my video responding to Mark Brewer's sermon series on church history, and I had fun just a week ago writing a silly poem. I've been writing what can only be blushingly described as fan fiction over the past couple weeks (more on that soon)...

When work calls, I will write for work. That's my job. But just a little "not for work" writing (or the like)... that's my resolution.

Resolution # 4. Maybe this is a New Decade's resolution. But I sat down a few weeks and made a list of things I want to do before I die... (I will not use the phrase "Bucket List," which I consider rather repulsive; I don't know why.) I want to go to Disney World with my family. I want to go to the London Olympics in 2012. I'd like to learn to play golf. I'd like to write a novel (which of course would feed into resolution #3 above). I'd like to take ballroom dancing lessons. I'd like to spend Christmas week in New York....

That's just a starter. But I've spent way too much time talking about the things we haven't done over the years... and watching my kids grow up so that some of them are now not doable (we're fast running out of time on that Disney World vacation, for one!). Hence the list. If I can put things into a nice written-out list, chances are, they get done. If I can get one or two crossed off the list a year, that'll be great (and I'm sure the list will grow over time).

I don't know what 2012 holds. I'll know more in a very short time (as we are waiting for what we hope will be very good news... but could be disastrous news... in a week or so). But at least I know what I can do now to make it better!

Happy New Year, everyone! May you Resolve to make it a wonderful year indeed...