Where does it come from within you?

" But where does it come from within you? What questions does it ask, that come from within you, that you are trying to explore? "

(Paul Haggis, speaking of questions asked of him by Ed Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz)

I enjoy the Creative Screenwriting Podcast, where Jeff Goldsmith records the interviews and public Q and A sessions that he does with Screenwriters after the showing of the movie that they write. He askes a series of questions about the writer's approach and habits.

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Paul Haggis, Academy Award winner, and writer of the sublime Crash, and Million Dollar Baby:

[Goldsmith] Is there any piece of advice that was given to you that has always stayed with you?

[Haggis] Yes it was from Ed Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz I turned in my first script, I was the supervising producer on the show, and they came into my office and said

"Really really good script Paul. What is it about?"

And I said,
"well, It's about this concept, this clever plot turn and this great dialogue."

And they said "yes that's really good but where does it come from within you, what questions does it ask, that come from within you, that you are trying to explore? "

And I said "It's supposed to do that?"

It's like, I only ....., I thought I was just supposed to write clever stuff. I thought the writer's job was just to entertain, to write clever stuff and the looking inward, I didn't even..... I didn't even consider this. So from that point on, I started doing that.

I started looking at things that made me uncomfortable, questions I couldn't answer and when I find a question that troubles me so much that it keeps me up at nights then I write a movie about it.

[Jeff Goldsmith]: That's the best way to write.

Gather talented people around you first, get the best people you can. go for the top, go for the best, go for people whose work you really, really admire and then go for your money.

The Lorax was a failure

Why the Lorax was wrong

The children's book the Lorax has always been a favourite of mine. I read it over and over to my young sister, so much so that I could (and still can, by and large) recite the book from memory.

The story is an allegory, a story about an industrialist who cuts down all the Truffula trees, pollutes the environment leaving it bleak and desolate.

What is the moral of the story? Sustainability? That we need to care for the environment? That capitalists unrestrained are greedy? For a long time I assumed that it was that the Lorax was right - the Once-ler was wrong.

It has just struck me that in fact, the Lorax - shortish, oldish, brownish and mossy as he was, failed just as much as the Once-ler did. Yes he was right - the once-ler's activities did result in the destruction of the environment, being right in the end was, as it is so often, a pyrrhic victory.

The Lorax saw it coming, and did nothing effective to stop it.

From the beginning he "spoke with a voice that was sharpish and bossy" and without listening to the Once-ler, or seeking to understand him, he got "very upset as he shouted and puffed " He was condescending, labelled the Once-ler as "crazy with greed".

Faced with this, the Once-ler ignored him as a crackpot and went on ignoring him, carried away by his enthusiasm.

There are so many modern parallels. Whether it be any environmental campaign, or antipathy to hoodie-wearers, demonising doesn't work - it just polarises people and has within it the seeds of failure.

Direct opposition often fails. Labelling and demonising people makes solving a problem much less likely. Sure, it gives a feeling of righteousness to those doing the demonising, but it is doomed to failure.

You have to see the good in others to be able to work with them and change their behaviour. If you demonise them, they will demonise you back. You have to find common ground, a common humanity. Otherwise, like the Lorax, you get to be right, but lose what it is you were fighting for.

Tackling a problem head on often fails too.

I recently read a paper by Tabai Matson about the physics of tackling in rugby. I'm not sure I grasped all of it, but the gist seemed to be that if you have two bodies colliding head on the bigger one will win. But smaller guys can tackle large ones by coming at things side on.

So what's the moral of the story? Maybe it's demonising or labelling the opposition can be the beginning of failure. Tackling a problem head on is less likely to work than approaching it alongside. Seek first to understand and see the good in your enemy if you want to change behaviour.