A question on voice

[darkestbeforedawn]

The original post by dino was talking about 'his voice', only. This is why the entire comparison to singing voice and writing doens't work.

Antics on the stage are different from 'singing voice'. Elvis and Mc and ozzie all have unique singing voices. They also have a unique style.

Writing is about a combination of the two in a much more detailed way, it's more complicated. A voice is all you need behind the mic, but other people craft your style into something. Each of these guys mentioned became something that showed off their voice.

But all these guys where born with that unique singing voice that won't lie behind the mic. Now writers have to craft a world around their pov which takes into account a lot more than just 'born with it'. Being born with it is still a pre-requisite in my opinion, but not a deal breaker.

Image isn't voice in the vocal world. Image is something created around the voice.
DD

[TheConnorNoden]

Originally Posted by sarajb

I think you're taking "voice" too literally.

Really? With all this Jagger talk I thought singing all of Let It Bleed might help me when I'm writing, I hope my voice comes through on the page now.

[sarajb]

Originally Posted by darkestbeforedawn

The original post by dino was talking about 'his voice', only. This is why the entire comparison to singing voice and writing doens't work.

Who's dino?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNR1G7Knz_w

[sc111]

Originally Posted by nojustice

... voice isn't about what you're writing, it's about what you're saying.

Agree.

[reddery]

Originally Posted by F.Scott.Frazier

What about Aaron Sorkin? Charlie Kaufman. William Monahan. Christopher Nolan. Andrew Dominik. Michael Mann. Shane Black. Edgar Wright. Quentin Tarantino.

Just off the top of my head...

Say what you will about the quality of their movies. I don't think you'd ever confuse any one of their scripts (let alone movies) for one or another.

most of these people are what you call the "hollywood writer", which hasn't changed in about seventy-five years. They're adapting material and what you perceive as voice is actually their style.

BTW, you're focusing one sentance of what I wrote, basically taking something out of context.

[reddery]

Originally Posted by darkestbeforedawn

Wow, I couldn't agree less with you reddery. First off you compared two completely different mediums. If you don't read screenplays how do you know who does or doesn't have a voice?

DD

1st off I don't know how you're DD, post ing on Done Deal pro, figure you might see the redundancy of those initials'.

My basic point was that I approach, screenplays, as a writer... not that I don't or haven't read screenplays.

"Don't be concerned with how someone else sold a script, but how you're going to sell your next script."

Am I going to find material and adapt an amazing novel? Keep a journel during my tour of duty in Iraq? Interview...

[F.Scott.Frazier]

I don't know... Not sure I was taking anything out of context. It was the thesis to your argument.

And if someone like Charlie Kaufman spends his entire formative years as a self-loathing, self-hating, sad sack of a human being, and then brings those experiences into his movies, informing his characters and their journeys, I'm not quite sure how that's different than Conrad spending years on the river and bringing that experience into Heart of Darkness.

One writer brought an external journey to the page, the other brought an internal journey to the page. Neither one could have written the other.

To me, that's voice.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Originally Posted by 1mper1um

... That studios, execs and readers are driven to despair by the cloning and lack of originality. Yet this script, awesome as it is, is welcomed with open arms despite it screaming "I'm a Shane Black imposter!"

How? What? Why? Any ideas?

I think your key word is "awesome". So many scripts are far far less than awesome and the Shaneisms don't quite hit the mark.

To me voice isn't so much about recognizing the writer and being able to compare one script to another.

Voice is about getting a sense of how the writer really feels. It's the beliefs of the writer coming though in the writing. The writer taking a stand.

edited to add:
Take the movie Hotel for Dogs. It really gives you the sense of how Jeff feels about family. I don't think that anyone who felt differently could have written that story.

[FADE IN]

Originally Posted by TwoBrad Bradley

I think your key word is "awesome". So many scripts are far far less than awesome and the Shaneisms don't quite hit the mark.

To me voice isn't so much about recognizing the writer and being able to compare one script to another.

Voice is about getting a sense of how the writer really feels. It's the beliefs of the writer coming though in the writing. The writer taking a stand.

edited to add:
Take the movie Hotel for Dogs. It really gives you the sense of how Jeff feels about family. I don't think that anyone who felt differently could have written that story.

There is a range or spectrum aross which a writer's voice operates, from the macro "It's the beliefs of the writer coming though in the writing. The writer taking a stand," to the manner in which the writer describes things and the nature and quality of their dialogue. A writer's voice shows up in these various parts ... in ways that are appropos the part.

I'd agree that the single biggest aspect of voice in a screenplay is as you say, the writer coming through, with their value system, their commitment to justice, their resolve about fairness and equity and equality. The great writers tell us stories that inspire us to be better people, 'cause we wanna be like their heroes, who in the end conquer all, and do so while remaining nice guys, the kind of guy you want in your corner. Guys like Rocky or Captain Jack Sparrow or Captain John Miller.

Now, let me tell you a story ...

[BattleDolphinZero]

irony